cup 17, map 197 nop - kern county, ca ♦ official … ca 93280 inyo county planning dept p.o....

CUP 17, MAP 197 NOP PP16101 DR 10/18/15 I:\WP\LABELS\EIR01-15-TCT.NOP.DOCX

City of Arvin P.O. Box 548 ARVIN, CA 93203

Bakersfield City Planning Dept 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301

Bakersfield City Public Works Dept 1501 Truxtun Avenue BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301

California City Planning Dept 21000 Hacienda Blvd. CALIFORNIA CITY, CA 93515

Delano City Planning Dept P.O. Box 3010 DELANO, CA 93216

City of Maricopa P.O. Box 548 MARICOPA, CA 93252

City of McFarland 401 West Kern Avenue McFarland, CA 93250

City of Ridgecrest 100 West California Avenue Ridgecrest, CA 93555

City of Shafter 336 Pacific Avenue Shafter, CA 93263

City of Taft Planning & Building 209 East Kern Street Taft, CA 93268

City of Tehachapi 115 South Robinson Street Tehachapi, CA 93561-1722

City of Wasco 764 E Street Wasco, CA 93280

Inyo County Planning Dept P.O. Drawer "L" Independence, CA 93526

Kings County Planning Agency 1400 West Lacey Blvd, Bldg 6 Hanford, CA 93230

Los Angeles Co Reg Planning Dept 320 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012

San Bernardino Co Planning Dept 385 North Arrowhead Avenue, 1st Floor San Bernardino, CA 92415-0182

San Luis Obispo Co Planning Dept Planning and Building 976 Osos Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93408

Santa Barbara Co Resource Mgt Dept 123 East Anapamu Street SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101

Tulare County Planning & Dev Dept 5961 South Mooney Boulevard VISALIA, CA 93291

Ventura County RMA Planning Div 800 South Victoria Avenue, L1740 Ventura, CA 93009-1740

U.S. Bureau of Land Management Ridgecrest Field Office 300 South Richmond Road RIDGECREST, CA 93555

China Lake Naval Weapons Center Tim Fox, RLA - Comm Plans & Liaison 429 E Bowen, Building 981 Mail Stop 4001 CHINA LAKE, CA 93555

Edwards AFB, Sustainability Office 412 TW/XPO, Bldg 2750, Rm 204-38 195 East Popson Avenue Edwards AFB, CA 93524

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 208 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262

Eastern Kern Resource Cons Dist 300 South Richmond Road Ridgecrest, CA 93555-4436

Environmental Protection Agency Region IX Office 75 Hawthorn Street San Francisco, CA 94105

U.S. Dept of Agriculture/NRCS 5000 California Avenue, Ste 100 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93309-0711

So. San Joaquin Valley Arch Info Ctr California State University of Bkfd 9001 Stockdale Highway BAKERSFIELD, CA 93311

Caltrans/Dist 6 Planning/Land Bank Bldg. P.O. Box 12616 Fresno, CA 93778

Caltrans/Dist 9 Planning Department 500 South Main Street BISHOP, CA 93514

State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research 1400 10th Street, Room 222 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814

State Dept of Conservation Director's Office 801 "K" Street, MS 24-01 Sacramento, CA 95814-3528

State Dept of Conservation Division of Oil & Gas 4800 Stockdale Highway, Ste 108 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93309

California State University Bakersfield - Library 9001 Stockdale Highway BAKERSFIELD, CA 93309

California Energy Commission James W. Reed, Jr. 1516 Ninth Street Mail Stop 17 Sacramento, CA 95814

California Fish & Wildlife 1234 East Shaw Avenue FRESNO, CA 93710

Public Utilities Comm Energy Div 505 Van Ness Avenue SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102

California Regional Water Quality Control Board/Lahontan Region 14440 Civic Drive, Suite 200 Victorville, CA 92392-2306

State Lands Commission 100 Howe Avenue, Ste 100-South SACRAMENTO, CA 95825-8202

KERN COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

Kern County Engineering, Surveying, & Permit Svs/Floodplain

Kern County Engineering, Surveying, & PERMIT SVS/SURVEY

Kern County ENV HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Kern County Fire Dept Benny Wofford

Kern County Fire Dept DAVE GOODELL

Kern County Library/Beale LOCAL HISTORY ROOM

Kern County Library/Beale Sherry Gomez

Kern County Library Mojave Branch 16916 1/2 Highway 14, Space D2 MOJAVE, CA 93501

KERN COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION

Kern County Sheriff's Dept Administration

Kern County Roads Department Kern County WASTE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT

Mojave Town Council Bill Deaver, President P.O. Box 1113 Mojave, CA 93502-1113

Mojave Unified School Dist 3500 Douglas MOJAVE, CA 93501

Kern County Superintendent of Schools Attention Mary Baker 1300 17th Street BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301

Golden Hills Community Serv Dist P.O. Box 637 Tehachapi, CA 93581

Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency 6500 West Avenue N Palmdale, CA 93551

Kern County Water Agency P.O. Box 58 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93302-0058

East Kern Air Pollution Control District

Adams, Broadwell, Joseph & Cardozo Attention: Cody Elliott 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080

U.S. Air Force Attn: Steve Arenson Western Regional Environmental Officer 50 Fremont Street, Suite 2450 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2230

U.S. Army Attn: Philip Crosbie, Chief Strategic Plans, S3, NTC P.O. Box 10172 Fort Irwin, CA 92310

U.S. Army Attn: Tim Kilgannon, Region 9 Coordinator Office of Strategic Integration 721 - 19th Street, Room 427 DENVER, CO 80202

U.S. Navy Attn: Steve Chung Regional Community Plans & Liaison Officer 1220 Pacific Highway SAN DIEGO, CA 92132-5190

U.S. Marine Corps Commanding General MCIWEST-MCB CamPen Attn: A/CS, G7 Box 555010 Camp Pendleton, CA 92055-5246

AT&T California OSP Engineering/Right-of-Way 4540 California Avenue, 4th Floor BAKERSFIELD, CA 93309

Los Angeles Audubon 926 Citrus Avenue LOS ANGELES, CA 90036-4929

Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment Attn: Marissa Alexander 1999 Harrison Street – Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94612

Center on Race, Poverty & the Environmental/ CA Rural Legal Assistance Foundation 1012 Jefferson Street DELANO, CA 93215

Defenders of Wildlife/ Cynthia Wilkerson, M.S. California Representative 1303 "J" Street, Suite 270 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814

Native American Heritage Council of Kern County Attn: Gene Albitre 3401 Aslin Street Bakersfield, CA 93312

Beth Boyst Pacific Crest Trail Program Manager 1323 Club Drive VALLEJO, CA 94592

Anitra Kass Pacific Crest Trail Association 41860 Saint Annes Bay Drive BERMUDA DUNES, CA 92203

Sierra Club/Kern Kaweah Chapter P.O. Box 3357 Bakersfield, CA 93385

Southern California Edison Planning Dept. 421 West "J" Street TEHACHAPI, CA 93561

David Laughing Horse Robinson P.O. Box 20849 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93390

Kern Valley Indian Council Attn: Robert Robinson, Chairperson P.O. Box 401 Weldon, CA 93283

Kern Valley Indian Council Historic Preservation Office P.O. Box 401 WELDON, CA 93283

Terra-Gen Power, LLC Randy Hoyle 11512 El Camino Real, Suite 370 SAN DIEGO, CA 92130-3025

Renewal Resources Group Holding Company Rupal Patel 113 South La Brea Avenue, 3rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90036

Sempra Generation Marilyn Burke 101 Ash Street HQ-14A SAN DIEGO, CA 92101

David Walsh 22941 Banducci Road TEHACHAPI, CA 93561

Congentrix Sunshine, LLC Rick Neff 9405 Arrowpoint Blvd Charlotte, NC 28273

Fotowatio Renewable Ventures Sean Kiernan 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2200 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104

Jon VanDerZee EDP Renewables Company North America, LLC 53 SW Yamhill Street PORTLAND, OR 97204

T.T. Case P.O. Box 2416 Tehachapi, CA 93581

Structure Cast Larry Turpin, Precast Sales Manager 8261 McCutchen Road BAKERSFIELD, CA 93311

Marcus V. da Cunha Vice President of Development EcoPlexus, Inc. 650 Townsend Street, Suite 310 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103

Wind Stream, LLC Albert Davies 1275 - 4th Street, No. 107 Santa Rosa, CA 95404

Darren Kelly Sr. Business Manager Terra-Gen Power, LLC 1095 Ave of the Americas – FL 25, Ste A NEW YORK, NY 10036-6797

Bill Barnes Dir of Asset Mgmt AES Midwest Wind Gen P.O. Box 2190 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-2190

Sarah K. Friedman Beyond Coal Campaign/Sierra Club 1417 Calumet Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90026

Robert Burgett 9261 - 60th Street, West MOJAVE, CA 93501

Lozeau Drury LLP 410 – 12th Street, Suite 250 OAKLAND, CA 94607

PG&E Steven Ng, Manager Renewal Dev, T&D Intercon 77 Beal Street, Room 5361 San Francisco, CA 94105

Wayne Mayes Iberdrola Renewables Dir Tech Serv 1125 NW Couch St, Ste 700, 7th Fl PORTLAND, OR 97209

Michael Strickler Iberdrola Renewables, Sr Proj Mgr 1125 NW Couch St, Ste 700, 7th Fl PORTLAND, OR 97209

Recurrent Energy Seth Israel 300 California Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 92109

Kate Kelly Kelly Group P.O. Box 868 WINTERS, CA 95694

Carol Lawhon Association Executive, IOM Tehachapi Area Assoc of Realtors 803 Tucker Road TEHACHAPI, CA 93561

LIUNA Attn: Arthur Izzo 4399 Santa Anita Avenue, Suite 204 El Monte, CA 91731

Northcutt and Associates 4220 Poplar Street LAKE ISABELLA, CA 93240-9536

INITIAL STUDY/NOTICE OF PREPARATION

Windhub Solar Project

by Windhub Solar A, LLC, and Windhub Solar B, LLC CUP 17, Map 197

(PP16101)

LEAD AGENCY:

Kern County Planning and Community Development Department 2700 M Street, Suite 100

Bakersfield, California 93301-2370

Contact: Todd Taylor, Planner II

(661) 862-5006; [email protected]

November 2015

KERN COUNTY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT


November 2015 i Initial Study/Notice of Preparation

Table of Contents

Page

1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Location .......................................................................................................1 1.2 Environmental Setting .............................................................................................2 1.3 Project Description ...................................................................................................3 1.4 Project Facilities and Operations .............................................................................4 1.5 Project Objectives ..................................................................................................10 1.6 Proposed Discretionary Actions/Required Approvals ...........................................10

2. KERN COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM .............................................. 20 2.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ..........................................................21 2.2 Determination ........................................................................................................21

3. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............................................................. 22 3.1 Aesthetics. ..............................................................................................................23 3.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources. .........................................................................25 3.3 Air Quality. ............................................................................................................27 3.4 Biological Resources. ............................................................................................30 3.5 Cultural Resources. ................................................................................................32 3.6 Geology and Soils. .................................................................................................33 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions. ...................................................................................36 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials. ........................................................................37 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality. ...............................................................................41 3.10 Land Use and Planning. .........................................................................................44 3.11 Mineral Resources. ................................................................................................46 3.12 Noise. .....................................................................................................................47 3.13 Population and Housing. ........................................................................................49 3.14 Public Services. ......................................................................................................50 3.15 Recreation. .............................................................................................................52 3.16 Transportation And Traffic. ...................................................................................53 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems.................................................................................55 3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance. .....................................................................58



November 2015 ii Initial Study/Notice of Preparation

Page Figures

1 Site Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................................ 12 2 Site Boundary ..................................................................................................................................... 13 3 General Plan Map Codes .................................................................................................................... 14 4 Existing Zoning .................................................................................................................................. 15 5 Proposed Site Plan Windhub Solar A ................................................................................................. 17 6 Proposed Site Plan Windhub Solar B ................................................................................................. 18 7 Proposed Site Plan Windhub Gen-Tie ................................................................................................ 19

Tables

1 Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses .............................................................................................. 1 2 Project Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) ............................................................................................ 2 3 Project Statistics .................................................................................................................................... 3

November 2015 1 Initial Study/Notice of Preparation

1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION

Windhub Solar A, LLC, and Windhub Solar B, LLC, are proposing to construct the Windhub Solar Project which will produce electric power using solar photovoltaic (PV) modules. Windhub Solar A is located on approximately 144 acres of privately owned land within the jurisdiction of Kern County. Windhub Solar B is located on approximately 160 acres of land owned by the California State Lands Commission.

The project site is located generally west of the unincorporated community of Mojave in southeastern Kern County. Mojave is within the high desert area of the Antelope Valley, and is in the westernmost portion of the Mojave Desert (see Figure 1). The site is generally bordered by a Union Pacific railroad track to the north, an unimproved private dirt road to the south, open desert to the east, and 90th Street West to the west. The project is surrounded by wind energy facilities and undeveloped land. The project site is approximately 6 miles west of State Route 14 (SR-14). The major north-south route in the region is SR-14, a four-lane highway located adjacent to the east of the project site. The major east-west route near the project site is State Route 58 (SR-58), which is also a four-lane highway, and intersects with SR-14 6 miles northeast of the project area. Other roads serving the project site include Oak Creek Road to the north and 90th Street to the east (see Figure 1). The project site is within Section 29, Township 11 North, Range 13 West (Windhub Solar A) and Section 28, Township 11 North, Range 13 West (Windhub Solar B) (see Figure 2). Table 1 describes the existing land uses, map code designations, and zoning classifications on the project site. Table 2 identifies the Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) for the project.

Table 1: Project Site and Surrounding Land UsesDirection from Project Site

Existing Land Use Existing Map Code Designations Existing Zoning Classifications

Project Site

Windhub Solar A & B: Undeveloped Land

Windhub Solar A: 7.3 (Heavy Industrial); Windhub Solar B: 8.5 (Resource Management)

Windhub Solar A: M‐3 (Heavy Industrial) Windhub Solar B: A‐1 (Limited Agriculture)

North

Windhub Solar A & B: Undeveloped Land and Renewable Energy Facilities (Wind Farms)


Windhub Solar A: M‐3 (Heavy Industrial) Windhub Solar B: A‐1 (Limited Agriculture); A‐1 WE (Limited Agriculture ‐ Wind Energy Combining)

East

Windhub Solar A: Undeveloped Land and Renewable Energy Facilities (Wind Farms and SEPV Mojave West Solar Project) Windhub Solar B: Undeveloped Land and Renewable Energy Facilities (Wind Farms)



South





Table 1: Project Site and Surrounding Land UsesDirection from Project Site

Existing Land Use Existing Map Code Designations Existing Zoning Classifications

West


Windhub Solar A & B: 7.3 (Heavy Industrial)

Windhub Solar A: M‐3 (Heavy Industrial) Windhub Solar B: M‐3 (Heavy Industrial); M‐3 WE (Heavy Industrial ‐ Wind Energy Combining)

Table 2: Project Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) Site APNs

Windhub Solar A

237‐350‐02 237‐350‐09 237‐350‐15 237‐350‐21 237‐350‐28

237‐350‐04 237‐350‐10 237‐350‐16 237‐350‐22 237‐350‐29

237‐350‐05 237‐350‐11 237‐350‐17 237‐350‐23 237‐350‐31

237‐350‐06 237‐350‐12 237‐350‐18 237‐350‐25 237‐350‐32

237‐350‐07 237‐350‐13 237‐350‐19 237‐350‐26 237‐350‐33

237‐350‐08 237‐350‐14 237‐350‐20 237‐350‐27

Windhub Solar B 237‐055‐13

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The combined 304-acre project sites are currently vacant desert land. Topography across the project sites is relatively flat as the sites are located on the bajada of the Tehachapi Mountains, which is an overlapping of alluvial fans with southern trending slope. The elevation of the project area ranges between 3,273 and 3,426 feet above mean sea level (amsl).

Land uses in the general region include a mix of undeveloped land, renewable energy facilities, residential, recreational and public facilities, and nature preserves. Desert vegetation dominates the region. Surrounding land uses to the north, south, east, and west of the project site include recently constructed wind energy projects or vacant land. An approved PV solar project, SEPV Mojave West Solar Project (GPA No. 19, Map No. 197; ZCC No. 54, Map No. 197; CUP No. 14, Map No. 197), is currently in the process of construction between Windhub Solar A and Windhub Solar B. Additionally, Union Pacific Railroad tracks are located north of the project site, beyond which is land developed with wind turbines and the Windhub substation. To the east is land developed with wind turbines in addition to undeveloped land. Land uses to the south and west of the site include undeveloped land and wind turbine development. A cement quarry is located approximately 2 miles northwest of the project site. The nearest residence is located 4 miles from the site boundary. The Windhub Solar A project site is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Kern County General Plan and is designated as map code 7.3 (Heavy Industrial) by the General Plan. The Windhub Solar A project site is located within the M-3 (Heavy Industrial) zoning district. Although the County does not possess land use jurisdiction over state and federal lands, the Windhub Solar B project site is designated as map code 8.5 (Resource Management) by the General Plan and is located within the A-1 (Limited Agriculture) zoning district. See Figure 3 for Kern County General Plan map codes and Figure 4 for Existing Zoning.

The project site is designated as Zone “X” on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) as issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which indicates the majority of the site is in an area of


minimal flood hazard. The project site is not identified as a wetland area on the National Wetland Inventory. There are no identified state-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones on the site. The nearest active fault is the Garlock Fault, which is located approximately 4 miles north of the project site.

The property is designated as grazing land and nonagricultural and natural vegetation by the Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The project site is not encumbered by a Williamson Act land use contract.

The project is not located in the vicinity of lands designated as forest, parkland, or preserve areas. The project site is located within the boundaries of the West Mojave Plan (WMP) and the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) areas; however, the DRECP has not been adopted by any public agency. The DRECP is a proposed interagency habitat conservation plan prepared by the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in collaboration with the region's cities, counties, state, and federal agencies. The plan applies to the 3.2 million acres of public lands and 2.9 million acres of private lands. The WMP planning area covers 9.3 million acres in the western portion of the Mojave Desert in southern California covering parts of San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Kern, and Inyo Counties. The WMP is an interagency habitat conservation plan that provides management strategies for the desert tortoise, Mojave ground squirrel, and other sensitive plants and animals throughout the west Mojave Desert.

The proposed project would be served by the Kern County Sheriff’s Department for law enforcement and public safety. The closest sheriff station is located 6.3 miles east of the project site, at 1771 Highway 58, in Mojave. The Kern County Fire Department (KCFD) provides fire protection and emergency medical and rescue services for the project area. The closest KCFD fire station to the project site is Station No. 14, located 6.3 miles east of the project site, located at 1953 Highway 58, in Mojave.

The closest school to the project site is Joshua Middle School, which is located 5.2 miles to the east of the project site. The nearest hospital is the Tehachapi Hospital, located approximately 12 miles northwest of the project site.

The project site is located approximately 6.5 miles west of Mojave Air and Space Port, 10 miles southeast of Mountain Valley Airport, and 12 miles southeast of Tehachapi Municipal Airport. The proposed project is not located within an Airport Influence Area, per the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Windhub Solar A, LLC, and Windhub Solar B, LLC are proposing to construct the Windhub Solar Project which will produce electric power using solar photovoltaic (PV) modules. Windhub Solar A is located on approximately 144 acres of privately owned land within the jurisdiction of Kern County. Windhub Solar B is located on approximately 160 acres of land owned by the California State Lands Commission. The project proponent is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP No. 17, Map 197) to build a 20 MW solar-generating facility on 144 acres (Windhub Solar A), as well as CEQA review for both Windhub Solar A and Windhub Solar B. Windhub Solar B will require a lease agreement from the State Lands Commission (SLC), as this site does not fall under Kern County land use jurisdiction. Table 3 identifies the capacity and acreage of each site for the proposed project.

Table 3: Project Statistics Site Capacity Gross Acres County Approvals

Windhub Solar A 20 MW 144 CUP

Windhub Solar B 20 MW 160 N/A

MW = megawatts CUP = Conditional Use Permit N/A = not applicable


1.4 PROJECT FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS

Proposed Facilities

The proposed project includes the development of a two 20-MW PV solar energy-generating facilities and associated infrastructure. A proposed site plan for the facilities is shown in Figure 5 through Figure 7. The combined sites would ultimately cover about 304 acres and would include the following components, which are described in more detail below:

Two solar fields of PV panels mounted on fixed tilt or horizontal tracking structures, installed in up to 5 MW AC array blocks within the solar field, with associated interior access ways and perimeter roads;

Each array block will include up to 1500 vdc direct current (DC) collection system and a Power Conversion Station (PCS);

A combination underground and overhead 34.5 kV AC electrical collection system to convey electricity from the array blocks to the Project substation. The collection system will include crossings of existing transmission and distribution lines. Combining Switchgear (PVCS) or sectionalizing cabinets may be installed to combine collection lines from multiple PCS;

An approximately half-mile overhead or underground collection line connecting the two project sites;

A substation where the electrical output is combined and transformed to a voltage of 66 kilovolts (kV). The project substation will contain one or two 34.5 kV to 66 kV step-up transformers, breakers, buswork, protective relaying, meters, SCC building, backup power, associated substation equipment, and a dedicated perimeter fence. Windhub Solar A and Windhub Solar B will share a single project substation;

An Energy Storage System (ESS) at each facility that will provide up to four hours of electrical storage. The project would potentially seek a franchise agreement with Kern County to locate the 2-mile project generation-tie (gen-tie) line and accompanying buried fiber-optic communication in County-owned right of away from the northwest corner of the project site (near the Purdy Road alignment) then running north along 90th Street West for approximately one mile to Oak Creek Road, then running east for approximately one half mile to the SCE Windhub Substation;

In lieu of using the project substation and gen-tie line, and subject to the negotiation of acceptable business terms, the project may utilize the substation and gen-tie line from the approved SEPV Mojave West Solar Project on an adjacent property.

Up to 12 meteorological towers (steel lattice), approximately 20 feet high, mounted on concrete foundations installed around the perimeter of the solar field;

Telecommunications from local provider or a microwave/satellite communications tower, service power from SCE, and emergency generator for operations.

Infrastructure including Conex storage enclosures installed on concrete pads, underground and/or overhead fiber optic cable, directional lighting, controlled access gates, on-site security patrols, electronic security systems and/or remote monitoring;

Aboveground water storage tank(s). Operational water will be trucked to the project site; Private access roads, perimeter roads, and interior access ways for construction and operation. Perimeter roads and interior access ways are proposed to be native compacted soil. Private access


driveway will be gravel and may be located at several points off of adjacent County roads;

Storm water retention ponds; and

Construction of the SCE Interconnection Facilities at the SCE Whirlwind Substation.

Solar PV Energy Generation Facility

Solar Modules

The project will install arrays of solar PV modules to convert solar energy directly to electrical power to supply the existing electrical grid. The solar PV modules will convert the sunlight striking the modules directly into low voltage direct current (DC) power, which is collected at high voltage DC and subsequently transformed to alternating current (AC) power via an inverter.

The project will be constructed using thin film or other PV solar modules (each approximately 25 inches wide by 50 inches long) mounted on fixed-tilt mounting systems, horizontal tracker structures, or a combination thereof. The mounting system for the modules is proposed to be supported by steel posts driven into the ground. Power generated by the project would be transformed to 66 kV at the project substation and then routed to a transmission line that would convey energy north to the Windhub Substation.

Fixed-tilt structures, should they be utilized, would be constructed in east-west rows with the PV modules mounted facing south via angle brackets. The fixed-tilt structures would be supported either by vertical steel posts driven up to nine feet in the ground, or other embedded foundation design. The fixed-tilt PV modules would be positioned to receive optimal solar energy over the course of a year, tilted between 15 to 30 degrees. As a fixed-tilt system, the modules would not track the path of the sun. Depending on the fixed-tilt mounting system selected, the height above grade would be no greater than 13 feet at the highest point.

If a horizontal tracking system is used the panels would track the sun from east to west. Preliminary design indicates the horizontal tracker PV module rows would be oriented in north-south rows. Module layout and spacing is typically optimized to balance energy production versus peak capacity and depends on the sun angles and shading due to the surrounding horizon of the site. The tracking units would be powered by drive motors to track the east-west path of the sun on a single axis. The tracked structures would be supported by vertical posts driven into the ground. The highest point of the panel/tracker system occurs in the early morning and evening hours, when they reach a height of up to 13 feet above the ground surface. The trackers would also require up to 12 meteorological towers, up to 20 feet in height, located near the perimeter of the solar arrays to monitor wind speed and communicate with the trackers. Additionally, each PCS would be equipped with communication equipment to detect anomalous conditions, and battery powered backup to rotate the trackers in the event of power loss.

Electrical Collector System, Inverters, and Transformers

The PV modules would be electrically connected via wire to combiner boxes that collect power from several rows of modules and feed into a PCS via underground DC cables. The inverter hardware that is located in each PCS converts DC electrical input to grid-quality AC electrical output. A transformer then steps up the voltage of the array output to an intermediate voltage of 34.5 kV for collection to the PVCS. The 34.5 kV output from the PVCS would be routed to the project substation where it would be transformed via high-voltage transformers to 66 kV to be exported to the transmission grid through a proposed two mile gen-tie line that interconnects to the Southern California Edison distribution system at the Windhub Substation.


Energy Storage System

The Project may have up to two onsite Energy Storage System (ESS) (one for each facility developed). Each ESS will be able to provide approximately four hours of energy storage capacity. Each ESS will occupy approximately one acre of land within the project site and will consist of battery storage modules placed in multiple prefabricated enclosures or containers near the on-site substation. The final ESS design will be completed after the completion of the facility. The construction will include moving the ESS enclosure with a crane or forklift to the appropriate location. The final location is dependent on final design and may require construction of a vault or other form of supporting foundation similar to other structures on site.

Generation‐Tie Line and Interconnection to the Statewide Grid

As mentioned above, the 34.5 kV output from the project would be connected to a project substation, which would be located on the northwest of the project site (see Figure 1). The project’s electrical output would pass through one or more step-up transformer(s) located in the project substation to convert it to the interconnection voltage, which is 66 kV where it would be transmitted along a new gen-tie line that is approximately two miles to interconnect at the Windhub substation. As an alternative to the project substation and gen-tie line, and subject to the negotiation of acceptable business terms, the project may utilize the substation and gen-tie line from the approved SEPV Mojave West Solar Project on an adjacent property. Additionally, the substation would host the grid intertie safety equipment and switches required to interconnect to the existing high voltage transmission system. Underground and/or overhead fiber optic cable would be installed from the project substation, to an existing fiber optic line.

Operation and Maintenance Facilities

The operation and maintenance (O&M) area will include Conex storage enclosures that would house administrative, operation, and maintenance equipment. Concrete foundations will be poured to support the storage enclosures, and an area adjacent to the building may be graveled or paved for parking. Conex storage enclosures will be installed on concrete pads for spare parts and materials for the day-to-day operation of the solar facility. The solar facility would have up to 8 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff. Maintenance during nighttime hours may be necessary. In this case, portable lighting would be used and would be directed or reduced using shielding, and/or reduced lumen intensity. Communications to the substation would be provided by the local utility.

Site Access and Security

The Windhub Solar A project site would be primarily accessed from 90th Street West via Oak Creek Road and State Route 14. The Windhub Solar B site will be accessed from 80th Street West. The sites will be connected via an existing unnamed road running along the south side of Windhub Solar A. Preliminary driveway locations are shown on the site plan, but may change during final design based on engineering considerations.

Permanent chain-link security fencing would be installed around the project site perimeter, substation, and other areas requiring controlled access, in order to restrict public access during construction and operations. Typical security fencing would be six feet tall and topped with three strands of barbed wire for a total of seven feet in height. The fence posts would be set in concrete. Additional security may be provided through the use of closed circuit video surveillance cameras and intrusion systems, or other available technology. On-site personnel include 24 hour site security.

Permanent night lighting would be installed for security and maintenance needs at the main access entrance, substation, and PCS enclosures. Each PCS enclosure would have a hooded motion sensor light


above the door. Substation lighting would be controlled by motion sensors, by a control switch accessible within the control house, or as required by code. Night lighting would be controlled and reduced by directing inwards, shielding, and/or reducing lumen intensity. Maintenance of the project may be necessary during nighttime hours. In this event, portable directional lighting would be utilized for the work areas.

Project Construction

Schedule and Workforce

The construction activities for the solar facility is estimated to take approximately 6 to 12 months, and would involve site preparation, solar array assembly, commissioning and clean-up work. The on-site construction workforce will consist of laborers, craftsmen, supervisory personnel, support personnel, and construction management personnel. Construction would occur during typical County-approved construction hours, Monday through Friday. Additional hours may be necessary to make up schedule deficiencies, or to complete critical construction activities. For instance, during hot weather, it may be necessary to start work earlier to avoid work during high ambient temperatures. Further, construction requirements would require some night-time activity for installation, service or electrical connection, inspection and testing activities. Nighttime activities will be performed with temporary lighting, which will be directed downward to minimize impacts to residents and wildlife in the Project vicinity.

Temporary Construction Facilities

Construction of the project will require the following temporary facilities. These facilities will be removed once construction is completed:

One or more construction logistics areas consisting of construction trailers, parking, portable toilets or septic system, aboveground water tanks, materials receiving, and materials / tools / trash / recycle storage;

Construction workforce parking area with adequate parking spaces for the workforce necessary for construction;

Construction utilities, including aboveground power and communication connection to the local distribution system adjacent to the project, power generator, microwave/satellite communication tower, septic system, and aboveground or underground water line(s) on private property; and

Construction of the 66 kV gen-tie line will require temporary construction areas at each tower location and at locations required for conductor stringing and pulling operations.

Site Preparation

Within the solar field areas, a combination of mowing, "disk and roll," and, where necessary, conventional grading may be used to prepare the site for post and PV modules installation. Existing vegetation removal and grading shall be minimized to the extent reasonably possible. In areas where mowing will not yield the satisfactory work surface, disk and roll may be utilized. Conventional grading techniques may be used for access roads, parking areas, substation, energy storage system, storage enclosures, buildings, or equipment foundations, detention ponds, and laydown areas.

PV Solar Equipment Installation

The construction of the solar field will proceed in array blocks and will include the following:

Installation of underground cable;

Installation of steel posts and table frames;


Installation of PV modules;

Installation of concrete pads or precast vaults for PCS, PVCS or other electrical equipment;

Installation of PCS, PVCS and other electrical equipment on skids or within shelters. PCS may contain the inverter, medium voltage transformer, communications, tracker control or other equipment possibly with back-up power source; PVCS will contain switchgear, communication and metering equipment possibly with back-up power; and

Installation of collection system poles and lines.

Substation Construction

The substation will be separately fenced to provide increased security around the medium-and high-voltage electrical equipment. The substation area will be excavated and a copper grounding grid will be installed, and the foundations for transformers and metal structures will be prepared. The area will be backfilled, compacted, and leveled, followed by the application of aggregate rock base. Equipment installation of the transformers, breakers, bus-work, and metal dead-end structures will follow. Transformers may be shipped filled or will be filled onsite. The substation will have Site Control Center (SCC) equipment building(s) which will house substation and plant control equipment, meters, battery or generator backup and other electrical equipment. It will be located in, or next to the substation. Communications from local provider or a microwave/satellite communications tower will be installed.

Generation-Tie Line Construction

The project will construct an overhead and underground 66 kV gen-tie line for interconnection to SCE's high-voltage electrical system at the Windhub Substation. The location of each pole will be surveyed and staked. Foundations for each pole will be constructed and then pole, arms, and insulators installed. After tower erection, conductor stringing and terminations will be performed. Construction will include appropriate environmental monitoring. The gen-tie line may also require underground communication lines. The gen-tie line may be shared with the nearby SEPV Mojave West Solar Project.

Construction of Operation and Maintenance Area

The O&M area will include Conex storage enclosures that would house administrative, operation, and maintenance equipment. Concrete foundations will be poured to support the storage enclosures, and an area adjacent to the building may be graveled or paved for parking.

Construction Water Requirements

Water requirements for construction activities are expected to be approximately 125 acre-feet over the project’s 6 to 12 month construction period, which will be provided via trucks. Aboveground water storage tanks may be used. Water storage tanks for domestic water may also be installed.

Operation and Maintenance Activities

The O&M of the project will require up to 8 full-time equivalent (FTE) personnel (or personnel hours totaling 8 FTE positions) consisting of plant operators, maintenance technicians, and site security. Maintenance and administrative staff typically work during regular business hours Monday through Friday. During periods when non-routine maintenance or major repairs are in progress, the maintenance force will typically work nights when the project is not generating power to the grid.


Operational Water Requirements

The project's annual water consumption for operation is expected to be approximately 2 acre-feet, and will be provided via trucks. A water storage tank may be installed at the O&M area to provide water supply needed for fire protection and operations as well. Additional potable water may be delivered for O&M staff consumption.

Project Decommissioning

Solar equipment has a lifespan of over 25 years. The project operator expects to sell the renewable energy produced by the solar facility under the terms of a long-term Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with a California utility. Upon completion of the PPA term, the project operator may, at its discretion, choose to enter into a subsequent PPA or decommission and remove the system and its components. Upon decommissioning, the solar site could be converted to other uses in accordance with applicable land use regulations in effect at that time.

It is anticipated that during project decommissioning, project structures would be removed from the ground on the project site. Above-ground and any underground equipment would be removed including module posts and support structures, on-site transmission poles that are not shared with third parties and the overhead collection system within the project site, inverters, transformers, electrical wiring, equipment on the inverter pads, and related equipment and concrete pads. The substation would be removed if it is owned by the project, however if a public or private utility assumes ownership of the substation, the substation may remain on-site to be used as part of the utility service to supply other applications.

Equipment would be de-energized prior to removal, salvaged (where possible), placed in appropriate shipping containers, and secured in a truck transport trailer for shipment off-site to be recycled or disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal facility. Removal of the solar modules would include removal of the racks on which the solar panels are attached, and their placement in secure transport crates and a trailer for storage, for ultimate transportation to another facility. Once the solar modules are removed, the racks would be disassembled, and the structures supporting the racks would be removed. Site infrastructure would be removed, including fences, and concrete pads that may support the inverters, transformers, and related equipment. The demolition debris and removed equipment may be cut or dismantled into pieces to be safely lifted or carried with the equipment being used. The fence and gates would be removed and all materials would be recycled to the extent feasible. Project roads would be restored to their pre-construction condition unless the landowner elects to retain the improved roads for access throughout that landowner's property. The area would be thoroughly cleaned and all debris removed. As discussed above, most materials would be recycled to the extent feasible, with minimal disposal to occur in landfills in compliance with all applicable laws.

1.4.1 Relationship of the Project to Other Solar Projects

The project is being developed independently of other approved or proposed solar projects in the County. If approved, the Windhub Solar A and Windhub Solar B facilities would be subject to their own use permits, conditions of approval, interconnection agreements, and power purchase agreements. The County understands that the Windhub Solar A and Windhub Solar B facilities would be built and operated independently of any other solar project and, if approved, would not depend on any other solar project for economic viability. To increase efficiency, reduce costs, and minimize visual and environmental impacts, the project may utilize the substation and gen-tie line from the approved SEPV Mojave West Solar Project. If the Windhub Solar A and Windhub Solar B facilities do not share this infrastructure, the project will involve constructing a new gen-tie line to deliver energy to the Whirlwind Substation.


1.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The project proponent has identified the following primary objectives for the proposed project:

Establish two solar photovoltaic power-generating facilities that are of a sufficient size and configuration to produce approximately 20 MW of electricity each in order to assist the State of California in achieving the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard targets by providing a significant new source of renewable energy;

Produce and transmit electricity at a competitive cost;

Locate a facility in the rural part of southeastern Kern County in proximity to an available connection to the existing electrical distribution infrastructure and customer loads;

Minimize environmental effects by:

o Using existing electrical distribution facilities, right-of-ways, roads, and other existing infrastructure where practicable;

o Minimizing impacts to threatened species and endangered species;

o Minimizing water use; and

o Reducing greenhouse gas emissions

Use technology that is available, proven, efficient, easily maintained, recyclable, and environmentally sound.

Assist the County in achieving the goal in the Energy Element of its General Plan to develop large scale solar energy development as a major energy source in the County.

Develop a commercially financeable renewable energy project.

Assist California utilities in meeting its obligations under California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program. In April 2011, Governor Brown signed into law Senate Bill X1-2, which establishes a new RPS for all electricity retailers in the state. Electricity retailers must adopt the new RPS goals of 20 percent of retails sales from renewables by the end of 2013, 25 percent by the end of 2016, with the 33 percent requirement being met by the end of 2020.

Assist California in meeting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction goal by 2020, as required by the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32).

1.6 PROPOSED DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS/REQUIRED APPROVALS

The Kern County Planning and Community Development Department, the lead agency for the project, has discretionary responsibility for Windhub Solar A. Windhub Solar B is owned by the California State Lands Commission, who will issue a separate lease for the installation and operation of this portion of the combined project. Kern County acknowledges that it does not retain land use regulatory authority for Windhub Solar B; however, the Environmental Impact Report’s (EIR) project description will address both Windhub Solar A and Windhub Solar B pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378(a). To implement this project, the project proponent may need to obtain the following discretionary and ministerial permits/approvals.

Kern County Conditional Use Permit

Kern County Grading Permits

Kern County Building Permits


Franchise Agreement

California State Lands Commission Lease

Other Responsible Agencies

Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD)

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)

Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

The preceding are potentially required and do not necessarily represent a comprehensive list of all possible discretionary permits/approvals required. Other additional permits or approvals from responsible agencies may be required for the proposed project.

ÃÃ58

ÃÃ14

ÃÃ14

ÃÃ138

Kern County

Los Angeles County

Mojave

§̈¦5

ÃÃ202

ÃÃ223

ÃÃ58

Lancaster

Tehachapi

CaliforniaCity

Arvin

I:\FTS1503\GIS\ProjLoc_USGS_BW.mxd (9/3/2015)

Figure 1: SITE VICINITY

KERN COUNTY AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

Kern County

Area of Detail

August 2015

WINDHUB SOLAR PROJECT

i0 3 6

Miles


IS

I:\FTS1503\GIS\ProjLoc_SiteBoundary_BW.mxd (9/3/2015)

Figure 2: SITE BOUNDARY

KERN COUNTY AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

Legend

Site Boundary

August 2015

WINDHUB SOLAR PROJECT

i0 1000 2000

Feet

IS

8.5

Purdy Ave

100t

h St

9 0th

St

Aque

duct

Rd

80th

St

Genera

l Petr

oleum

Rd7.3/2.5

7.3

7.3

8.4

8.3

8.3

8.5/2.58.5

8.5

I:\FTS1503\GIS\GenPlan_LU_BW.mxd (9/3/2015)

Figure 3: KERN COUNTY GENERAL PLAN

August 2015

KERN COUNTY AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTWINDHUB SOLAR PROJECT

0 1000 2000

FEET

Kern County General Plan

Heavy Industrial

Resource Management (Min. 20 Acre Parcel Size)

Flood Hazard7.3

8.5

2.5

8.4 Mineral/Petroleum

IS

Site Boundary

Purdy Ave

100t

h St

90th

St

Aque

duct

Rd

80th

St

Genera

l Petr

oleum

Rd

A

A-1

A-1

A

A-1 A-1

A

M-3

PLRS

A-1

M-3

Site Boundary

Kern County Zoning Classifications

Exclusive Agriculture

Limited Agriculture

Heavy Industrial

Plotted Land Residential Suburban

I:\FTS1503\GIS\ExZoning_BW.mxd (9/3/2015)

Figure 4: EXISTING ZONING

August 2015

KERN COUNTY AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTWINDHUB SOLAR PROJECT

0 1000 2000

FEET

i

(A)

(A-1)

(M-3)(PLRS)

IS


This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NORTH

11

WIN

DH

UB

A

S

OLA

R

C:\U

sers\F

S104849\W

indhub\R

AM

6 2015\P

D-100-S

P-A

.dw

g F

S104849 A

ug 10, 2015 - 10:35am

©

NORTH

11

WIN

DH

UB

B

S

OLA

R

C:\U

sers\F

S104849\W

indhub\R

AM

6 2015\P

D-100-S

P-B

.dw

g F

S104849 A

ug 10, 2015 - 10:36am

©

NORTH

11

WIN

DH

UB

S

OL

AR

C:\U

se

rs\F

S1

04

84

9\W

in

dh

ub

\P

D-1

01

-G

T.d

wg

F

S1

04

84

9 A

ug

2

1, 2

01

5 - 1

2:2

9p

m

©




This Page Intentionally Left Blank




2. KERN COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “potentially significant impact” as indicated by the Kern County Environmental Checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality

Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise

Population and Housing Public Services Recreation

Transportation and Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance

2.2 DETERMINATION

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (a) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (b) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENT 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 (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Todd Taylor, Planner II Printed Name November 18, 2015

Signature Date




3. 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 offsite as well as onsite, 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 measure and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross-referenced).

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

(a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.

(b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist where within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

(c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures that 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 a less-than–significant level.




Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant

With Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-Than-

Significant Impact

No Impact

3.1 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 outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

c. Substantially degrade the existing visual

character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare

that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Discussion:

a. The project site is located in a sparsely developed, rural area of Kern County. The existing visual environment in the project area includes several existing wind turbine projects to the north, south, east, and west, including overhead power lines and high voltage transmission lines associated with the surrounding renewable energy projects. A solar facility is proposed directly east of the Windhub Solar A project site. A cement quarry is located approximately 2 miles northwest of the project site. Additionally, the SCE Windhub Substation is located approximately 0.5 mile to the northwest of the project. Aside from the infrastructure associated with alternative energy that surrounds the project site, the area is relatively uniform, with broad, dry, flat landscapes with mountains to the west and northwest. The project site is located approximately 1 mile south of Oak Creek Road and due to the flat topography of the project site and height of the solar panels, visual impacts would most likely be limited to the small number of persons traveling the adjacent unimproved dirt roadways. In addition, the project site is not located within an area designated for or identified as having a scenic vista or scenic views. However, because the proposed project would substantially change views, potentially significant impacts to scenic vistas may occur and will be evaluated in the EIR.

b. According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California Scenic Highway Mapping System, the nearest eligible scenic highways are SR-14 and SR-58, which intersect approximately 6 miles northeast of the project site. Because of this distance, the proposed PV solar facilities would not be visible from either roadway. Therefore, no project impacts to scenic resources within a state scenic highway would occur, and it will not be evaluated in the EIR.




c. The project site is in a rural area with areas surrounding the project site supporting alternative energy projects and associated infrastructure, as well as undeveloped land. Placement of PV solar panels and associated structures on the project site would alter the character of the area. Changes to the visual quality and character of the project site may be significant, and impacts will be further evaluated in the EIR.

d. The project site is located in a rural, largely undeveloped area surrounded by alternative energy wind development, thus, limited lighting exists. Chapter 19.81 of the Kern County Municipal Code (Dark Skies Ordinance) addresses outdoor night lighting with the specific intent to minimize excessive illumination and glow that may obscure the night sky. Any requisite night lighting – primarily for security purposes - will need to be consistent with the County’s Municipal Code. The proposed PV modules are designed to absorb sunlight to maximize electrical output; therefore, they would not create significant reflective surfaces or the potential for glint/glare during the day. The nighttime lighting at the proposed solar facility would be designed to provide the minimum illumination needed to achieve safety and security objectives, and would be directed downward and shielded to focus illumination on the desired areas only and minimize light trespass. However, the specific lighting and effects of nighttime light and glare from the proposed project has the potential to be significant, and further analysis will occur in the EIR.





Impact

Less than Significant

with Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-than- Significant

Impact

No Impact

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST 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 Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in the Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. 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 nonagricultural 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)), 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 forest land or conversion of

forest land to non-forest use?

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?

f. Result in the cancellation of an open space

contract made pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 or Farmland Security Zone Contract for any parcel of 100 or more acres (Section 15205(b)(3) Public Resources Code)?




Discussion:

a. As shown on the California Department of Conservation (CDC), Division of Land Resource Protection’s Kern County Important Farmland 2012 map, no lands classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance were identified within the project site. The project site and the surrounding lands primarily consist of undeveloped land and land developed with alternative energy infrastructure. The site does not have a reliable source of irrigation. Because the proposed project would not convert lands designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use, there would be no impacts, and this issue does not warrant further discussion in the EIR.

b. The project site does not contain lands subject to Williamson Act contracts, either active or in nonrenewal. The Windhub Solar A project site is zoned M-3 (Heavy Industrial). The proposed project will be permitted upon approval of a CUP for the M-3 zoned property. The Windhub Solar B project site is zoned as A-1 (Limited Agriculture). However, Kern County does not retain any land use jurisdiction of this site because it is owned and administered by the California State Lands Commission (SLC). Windhub Solar B will require a lease agreement from the SLC. Because no lands on the project site are currently under a Williamson Act contract and the proposed project would not conflict with the zoning for which the County has jurisdiction, there would be a less than significant impact on existing zoning for agricultural use, and this issue will be further discussed in the EIR.

c., d. There is no land in the vicinity of the project site that is zoned as forest land, timberland, or lands zoned for timberland production. Therefore, there would be no impacts regarding the rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned for timberland production, and no further analysis is warranted.

e. The project site consists primarily of undeveloped desert land with undeveloped and alternative energy land uses in the proposed project vicinity. The project site does not contain agricultural uses, nor are agricultural uses adjacent to the project site. Development of the project site for solar uses would not result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, there would be no impacts and this issue will not be further evaluated in the EIR.

f. The project site is not subject to an open space contract made pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 or the Farmland Security Zone Contract. As stated above, the project site is not under a Williamson Act Contract. Therefore, there would be no impacts and further analysis of this issue is not warranted in the EIR.





Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

3.3 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. Violate any air quality standard as adopted in (c)

i or (c) ii, or as established by EPA or air district or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net

increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Specifically, would implementation of the project exceed any of the following adopted thresholds:

i. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control

District:

Operational and Area Sources

Reactive organic gases (ROG) 10 tons per year

Oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 10 tons per year

Particulate matter (PM10) 15 tons per year

Stationary Sources - as Determined by

District Rules

Severe nonattainment 25 tons per year

Extreme nonattainment 10 tons per year

ii. Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District: Operational and Area Sources Reactive organic gases (ROG)

25 tons per year

Oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 25 tons per year





Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

Particulate matter (PM10) 15 tons per year

Stationary Sources – as Determined by

District Rules

25 tons per year d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial

pollutant concentrations?

e. Create objectionable odors affecting a

substantial number of people?

Discussion:

a. The project site is located entirely within the jurisdiction of the Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD), in the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB). EKAPCD is designated nonattainment for both the state and federal ozone standards and the state particulate matter (particulate matter less than 10 microns in size [PM10]) standard. Project construction would generate emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and PM10 that could result in significant impacts to air quality in the area. Equipment usage and activities during construction of the proposed project would result in emissions of PM10 and ozone precursors, including NOX and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which could result in significant impacts to air quality in the area. The sources of emissions would include heavy equipment used to excavate and grade the array pads and access areas, cranes, and on-road motor vehicles for equipment and material deliveries and workers commuting to and from the site. Grading and activity on unpaved roads and lay-down areas would contribute to PM10 emissions. This impact is potentially significant. Further analysis of air quality impacts is warranted to determine whether the project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable plans for attainment and, if so, to determine the reasonable and feasible mitigation measures that could be imposed. These issues will be evaluated further in the EIR.

b. Short-term construction emissions could significantly contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation of PM10 or ozone standards, requiring the consideration of mitigation measures. This impact is potentially significant and will be evaluated further in the EIR.

c. The project site is located entirely within the jurisdiction of the EKAPCD which is a nonattainment area for the state and federal ozone standards and the state PM10 standard. EKAPCD rules and regulations apply to all project activities. The air quality analysis will include a quantitative discussion of emissions created by this project in the MDAB. This will include activities such as truck trips to deliver panels or employees to the site. Cumulative contributions to this basin could be potentially significant. Construction and operational emissions will be analyzed in the EIR.




d. The land uses surrounding the project site consist primarily of undeveloped and alternative energy land uses. Based on review of an aerial map, it appears that the nearest residential structures (sensitive receptors) to the project site are currently located four miles to the east. Therefore, due to the project site’s distance to the nearest sensitive receptor, the project’s construction-related activities are not anticipated to result in diesel exhaust emissions and dust that could adversely affect air quality for the nearest sensitive receptors. In addition, the EKAPCD implements Rule 402 (Fugitive Dust) which establishes a series of conditions addressing “man-made” dust sources from large operations, including earthmoving and other construction related activities. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. Nevertheless, this issue will be evaluated in the EIR.

e. Aside from odors associated with vehicle exhaust and fueling, no odors would result from the proposed project. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors near the project site. Therefore, it is anticipated that there would be no impact, and further analysis is not warranted in the EIR.





Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

3.4 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 United States 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 United States Fish and Wildlife Service?

c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally

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

d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any

native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with 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., b. The proposed project is located in the northern Antelope Valley, west of the community of Mojave. The project site is situated along the edge of the Tehachapi Mountains in the lower foothills. The habitat is considered creosote scrub, Joshua tree woodland, and Creosote bush-white burr sage scrub. A database query of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants revealed several special-status species including desert




tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), Mohave ground squirrel (Xerospermophilus mohavensis), Swainson’s hawk (Buteoswainsoni), Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), and several potential rare plant species, including Bakersfield cactus (Opuntia basilaris var. treleasei), as potentially present in the project region.

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) does not identify any critical habitats on or near the project site. The nearest critical habitat is located approximately 14.5 miles northwest of the project site, in the Tehachapi Mountains, for the California condor (Gymnogyps californianus). There are also no riparian habitats located on the site.

Therefore, impacts to special-status species and their habitats are potentially significant. Field surveys for special-status plant and animal species, riparian and sensitive natural communities, and species listed as either threatened or endangered by either the state or federal government will be completed. This impact is potentially significant and will be evaluated in the EIR.

c. The project site does not contain any federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; therefore, project implementation would result in less than significant impacts related to wetlands.

Although it is anticipated the project would not significantly affect any federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the EIR will include a jurisdictional analysis to confirm this finding.

d. The project site and surrounding area may be used for foraging by some migrating avian species. Project construction and operation could also remove foraging habitat. No known established wildlife corridor or native wildlife nursery sites are within the site boundaries. However, impacts are potentially significant and will be evaluated in the EIR.

e. Although there is no local policy or ordinance protecting biological resources, Joshua tree woodland is a CDFW sensitive plant community, and Joshua trees (Yucca brevifolia) are located on the project site. Many native desert plants are protected under the California Desert Native Plant Act, including yucca (i.e., Joshua tree) species. Potentially significant impacts to Joshua trees and other similar resources will be evaluated in the EIR.

f. The project site is located within the West Mojave Plan (WMP) Habitat Conservation Plan and the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) areas. The DRECP has not yet been adopted by any public agency, however, the Draft DRECP, dated August 2014, identifies the project site as being located within a Development Focus Area in the Interagency Preferred Alternative. The Development Focus Areas represent the areas where activities associated with solar, wind, and geothermal renewable energy development would be covered by the DRECP. This impact is considered less than significant; however, these conservation plans will be addressed and further evaluated in the EIR.





Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES.

Would the project:

a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?

b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074?

c. Cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?

d. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique

paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

e. Disturb any human remains, including those

interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Discussion:

a.–c. The site consists of undeveloped desert land. Development of the proposed project would require some ground disturbance for installation of the solar modules and gen-tie lines and placement of underground electrical and communication lines, which could impact archaeological resources. A cultural resources survey will be conducted for the proposed project. Therefore, further evaluation in the EIR is warranted to evaluate potentially significant impacts to historical, tribal, and archaeological resources.

d. If sensitive paleontological formations are located under the project site, ground disturbance could result in impacts to paleontological resources. A paleontological study for the proposed project will be conducted. Therefore, further evaluation in the EIR is warranted to identify potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources.

e. There is no evidence that the project site is located within an area likely to contain human remains, and discovery of human remains during earth-moving activities is not anticipated. However, impacts could be potentially significant if remains are found; therefore, the potential for human remains to be encountered will be further analyzed in the EIR.





Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS.

Would the project:

a. Expose people or structures to 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 offsite 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 risks to life or property?

e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting

the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems in areas where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

Discussion:

a.i. Primary ground rupture is ground deformation that occurs along the surface trace of the causative fault during an earthquake. The project site is not transected by known active or potentially active faults. The Garlock Fault Zone, located approximately 4 miles north of the project site, is the closest known fault to the proposed project. The project site is not located in an Alquist Priolo Fault




Zone. Due to the distance from the nearest active fault to the project site, the potential for surface fault rupture at the project site is considered negligible. During operations, up to eight full-time equivalent (FTE) personnel (or personnel hours totaling eight FTE positions) would be on site during regular business hours. There is the possibility that any potentially active faults could expose people or structures to adverse effects associated with fault rupture; however, it is anticipated to be less than significant. Further analysis of impacts related to fault rupture will be included in the EIR.

a.ii. Due to the location of active faults in the region, strong seismic ground shaking could occur at the project site, resulting in damage to structures that are not properly designed to withstand strong ground shaking. The proposed project would include the construction of a field of solar PV panels, electrical collector systems, a gen-tie line, storage enclosures, and other associated infrastructure. As described above, the proposed project would require up to eight FTE staff for operational activities. These staff could be affected by strong seismic ground shaking. Construction workers would be on-site temporarily. Construction of the proposed project would be subject to all applicable ordinances of the Kern County Building Code (Chapter 17.08). Kern County has adopted the California Building Code (CBC), 2010 Edition (CCR Title 24), which imposes substantially the same requirements as the International Building Code (IBC), 2009 Edition, with some modifications and amendments. Adherence to all applicable regulations would mitigate any potential impacts associated with seismic ground shaking at the project site. Impacts related to exposing people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury, or death from strong seismic ground shaking, are anticipated to be less than significant; however, the EIR will include an evaluation of potential impacts related to seismic ground shaking.

a.iii. Seismically induced liquefaction occurs when loose, water-saturated sediments of relatively low density are subjected to extreme shaking that causes soils to lose strength or stiffness because of increased pore water pressure. Liquefaction generally occurs when the depth of groundwater is less than approximately 50 feet. Based on review of available groundwater data in the site vicinity, the groundwater is reported to be deeper than 50 feet below the ground surface. Thus, the potential for liquefaction at the surface is low. Structures constructed as part of the project would be required by state law to be constructed in accordance with all applicable IBC and CBC earthquake construction standards, including those relating to soil characteristics. Adherence to all applicable regulations would avoid any potential impacts to structures resulting from liquefaction at the project site. Impacts resulting from liquefaction are anticipated to be less than significant; however, further analysis will be included in the EIR.

a.iv. The project site is located in a relatively flat-lying plain, does not contain any steep slopes, and the likelihood of landslides is very low. Therefore, impacts related to landslides are anticipated to be less than significant. Further analysis of this issue will be included in the EIR.

b. Removal of vegetation and excavation would be required for module foundations at the project site, and trenching would be required for the installation of underground cables and circuits. Project construction would have the potential to result in erosion, sedimentation, and discharge of construction debris from the site. Clearing of vegetation and grading activities could lead to exposed or stockpiled soils susceptible to peak stormwater runoff flows and wind forces. The compaction of soils by heavy equipment may minimally reduce the infiltration capacity of soils (exposed during construction) and increase runoff and erosion potential. The presence of large amounts of raw materials for construction, including aggregate base course material, may lead to stormwater runoff contamination. Where appropriate, the proposed project would employ disk-and-roll grading for soils compaction. This system allows for the majority of the topsoil remain on site and in place during the proposed project’s construction and operation. The project operator may be required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general




construction permit, including a drainage plan with best management practices (BMPs) for runoff control, or other means to contain water on the site during construction. In order to conform to the requirements of the NPDES general construction permit, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and/or a County-approved Erosion Control Plan would need to be prepared that specifies BMPs to prevent construction pollutants, including eroded soils (such as topsoil), from moving off the site. Although impacts are anticipated to be less than significant with implementation of the project proponent’s approach to site preparation and the County and state requirements, impacts related to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil will be evaluated further in the EIR.

c. As discussed above, the project site lies in a relatively flat-lying plain where landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, and collapse are not be expected to occur. Therefore, impacts related to geologic instability are not anticipated to occur or pose a hazard to the proposed project or surrounding area, and further analysis of these issues is not warranted in the EIR.

Depth to groundwater in the project vicinity is over 50 feet; therefore, on-site soils do not appear to be susceptible to soil liquefaction. Thus liquefaction is not a potentially significant impact related to the proposed project. Seismic settlement, lateral spreading, and collapse are not expected to result in significant impacts. Furthermore, the structures would be subject to all applicable ordinances of the Kern County Building Code (Chapter 17.08), as well as all applicable IBC and CBC earthquake construction standards, including those relating to soil characteristics. Although impacts are anticipated to be less than significant, further analysis will occur within the EIR.

d. Expansive soils are fine-grained soils (generally high plasticity clays) that can undergo a significant increase in volume with an increase in water content and a significant decrease in volume with a decrease in water content. Changes in the water content of a highly expansive soil can result in severe distress to structures constructed on or against the soil. Preliminary geotechnical investigation has indicated that the expansion potential of on-site soils is very low (0-20), and special design is not necessary. Nevertheless, the proposed project would be designed to comply with applicable building codes and structural improvement requirements to withstand the effects of expansive soils. The implementation of Kern County Building Code requirements, as applicable, would minimize the potential impact of expansive soils. Although impacts related to expansive soils are anticipated to be less than significant, further analysis will occur within the EIR.

e. The project may involve the use of septic tanks for the disposal of wastewater during construction of the project. The septic system would be required to comply with applicable requirements of the Kern County Environmental Health Services Division. The project operator would obtain all required permits and approvals from Kern County Environmental Health Services Division, and would implement all required conditions regarding the design and siting of the septic system and leach field. Therefore, impacts as a result of soils incapable of adequately supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are anticipated to be less than significant with compliance with the Kern County Environmental Health Services Division’s “Standards for Land Development.” The impact is considered less than significant; however, the issue will be evaluated further in the EIR.





Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact 3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

Would the project:

a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either

directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or

regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Discussion:

a. Construction activities associated with heavy equipment operation, truck deliveries, and construction worker commute trips would temporarily generate greenhouse gases (GHGs). However, as a solar facility, the proposed project is expected to displace traditional sources of electricity production that involves combustion energy sources (e.g., burning coal, fuel oil, or natural gas). As such, the provision of solar energy by the proposed project would produce GHG-free electricity that is anticipated to offset GHGs that would otherwise be generated by traditional sources of electricity. Overall, given the long-term GHG offsets provided by operation of the proposed project, impacts associated with GHGs from implementation of the proposed project is anticipated to be less than significant. Nonetheless, the potential impacts associated with GHG emissions generated during construction of the proposed project and the potential GHG offsets resulting from operation of the proposed project will be further evaluated in the EIR.

b. California has passed several bills and the governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding GHGs. Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (the Global Warming Solutions Act) was passed by the California Legislature on August 31, 2006. It requires the state’s global warming emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. The reduction will be accomplished through an enforceable state-wide cap on GHG emissions that began being phased in in 2012.

In 2002, California established the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program, with the goal of increasing the state’s electricity mix to 20 percent renewable energy by 2017. In 2006, under Senate Bill (SB) 107, the RPS Program codified the 20 percent goal. The RPS goal was increased to 33 percent through Executive Order S-14-08 in November 2008. Executive Order S-14-08 was later superseded by Executive Order S-21-09 on September 15, 2009. Executive Order S-21-09 directed the CARB to adopt regulations requiring 33 percent of electricity sold in the state come from renewable energy by 2020. In April 2011, under SB 1X-2, the statutory RPS was increased to 33 percent and expanded to include customer-owned utilities. Finally, in 2015, under SB 350, the renewable energy goal was increased to 50 percent by 2030. The proposed project is intended to: (1) reduce importation of power from fossil fuel power plants; and (2) contribute to a reduction in GHGs. Nevertheless, potential impacts related to the potential impacts associated with GHG emissions generated during construction of the proposed project and the potential GHG offsets resulting from operation of the proposed project will be further evaluated in the EIR.





Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No

Impact 3.8 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 involve handling

hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of

hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

e. For a project located within the adopted Kern

County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

f. For a project within the vicinity of a private

airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

g. Impair implementation of, or physically

interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk

of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?





Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No

Impact i. Would implementation of the project generate

vectors (flies, mosquitoes, rodents, etc.) or have a component that includes agricultural waste? Specifically, would the project exceed the following qualitative threshold: The presence of domestic flies, mosquitoes, cockroaches, rodents, and/or any other vectors associated with the project is significant when the applicable enforcement agency determines that any of the vectors:

i. Occur as immature stages and adults in

numbers considerably in excess of those found in the surrounding environment; and

ii. Are associated with design, layout, and

management of project operations; and

iii. Disseminate widely from the property; and iv. Cause detrimental effects on the public health

or well-being of the majority of the surrounding population.

Discussion:

a. The proposed project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials as defined by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act and is not expected to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. During construction, the proposed project would include the transport of general construction materials (i.e., concrete, wood, metal, and fuel, etc.) as well as materials necessary to construct the proposed PV arrays. Project-related infrastructure would not emit hazardous materials, or be constructed of acutely hazardous materials or substances that could adversely impact the public or on-site workers. Wastes to be generated during construction of the proposed project would also be non-hazardous, and would consist of cardboard, wood pallets, copper wire, scrap steel, common trash, and wood wire spools. Although field equipment used during construction activities could contain various hazardous materials (i.e., hydraulic oil, diesel fuel, grease, lubricants, solvents, adhesives, and paints, etc.), these materials are not considered to be acutely hazardous and would be used in accordance with the manufacturers’ specifications and all applicable regulations.

The proposed project would be subject to all local, state, and federal laws pertaining to the use of hazardous materials on the site and would be subject to review by the Kern County Environmental Health Services Division.

The PV panels may include solid materials that are considered to be hazardous, such as cadmium telluride. Solar panels are in a solid and non-leachable state; broken PV panels would not be a source of pollution.




Dust palliative and herbicides, if used, may be transported to and stored at the project site. These materials would be stored in appropriate containers to prevent accidental release on site.

Nonetheless, the proposed project may have the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during either construction or operation. Therefore, the EIR will include an evaluation of potential hazardous material impacts.

b. The proposed project would be subject to all local, state, and federal laws pertaining to the use of hazardous materials on the site and would be subject to review by the Kern County Environmental Health Services Division. However, construction and operation of the proposed project may include the accidental release of storage materials, such as cleaning fluids and petroleum products including lubricants, fuels, and solvents. Electrical transformer equipment that would be installed as part of the project may include various hazardous substances, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). In addition, the proposed project would also include up to four Energy Storage Systems (ESS). The ESS will be composed of battery storage modules placed in multiple prefabricated enclosures or containers near the on-site substation. Potentials hazards associated with ESS include increased potential for electrical shock and chemical release associated with the batteries used. The ESS would be designed to be in compliance with Section 608 of the International Fire Code (IFC) which provides regulations for Stationary Storage Battery systems. Depending on the type of batteries used, IFC Section 608 provides standards such as the requirement of safety caps, thermal runaway management, spill control, neutralization, ventilation, signage, seismic protection, and smoke detection. Implementation of these IFC standards into the design of the onsite ESS would reduce the risk of exposure to operational personnel from hazards and hazardous material. Also, implementation of established construction controls and safety procedures would reduce the risk of hazardous materials spills and releases during project construction. Implementation of BMPs would ensure that hazardous materials used on site during operation will neither be released into the environment nor expose operational personnel to hazardous materials. The impacts have the potential to be significant and this issue will be further addressed in the EIR.

c. The project site is located in a predominantly rural and undeveloped part of Kern County. There are no existing or planned schools within 0.25 mile of the project site or within the general vicinity of the site. The closest schools to the project site are Mountain View High School and Joshua Middle School, which are located 5 miles northeast of the proposed project in the community of Mojave. The proposed project consists of solar energy generation facilities that involve using PV panels to generate electricity. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated, and further analysis of this issue is not warranted in the EIR.

d. No known hazardous materials/facilities are located on or within the project site. However, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) will be prepared pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 The Phase I ESA will include a search of the subject parcel in the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Cortese List as a California Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC) Hazardous Waste site; the Envirostor database of hazardous substances release sites; and Geotracker, the California database of leaking underground storage tanks. Although no significant impacts are anticipated, there is the potential for the discovery of unknown hazardous materials. Therefore, the impacts from hazardous material sites is considered less than significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.

e. The project area is not located within an area covered by the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Therefore, there would be no impacts related to proximity to a public or public use airport, and no further analysis is warranted in the EIR.




f. The nearest private airstrip is the Lloyd’s Landing airport, located 8 miles southwest of the project site. Therefore, there are no anticipated safety hazards related to proximity to a private airstrip. No impacts are anticipated, and no further analysis of this issue is warranted in the EIR.

g. The proposed project would not interfere with any known existing emergency response plans, emergency vehicle access, or personnel access to the project site. The project site is located in a remote area with several alternative access roads allowing access to the project site in the event of an emergency. Access would be maintained throughout construction, and appropriate detours would be provided in the event of potential road closures. Therefore, no significant impacts related to impairment of the implementation of or physical interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would occur. Further analysis of this issue is not warranted in the EIR.

h. The project site consists of undeveloped desert lands. The proposed project would not increase the potential for wildland fires or expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire), Kern County Fire Hazards Severity Zone Maps for the State Responsibility Areas (SRA), the project site is classified as SRA Moderate, which indicates a moderate potential.

The above referenced ESS will be composed of battery storage modules placed in multiple prefabricated enclosures or containers for energy storage as well as inverters to transfer the stored energy to the grid when needed. A Fire Prevention Plan, as part of the larger Health and Safety Plan, will be submitted to the County approval. The purpose of the Fire Prevention Plan would be to eliminate causes of fire, prevent loss of life and property by fire, to comply with County Fire Protection standards for solar facilities, and to comply with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) standard of fire prevention, 29 CFR 1910.39. The Fire Prevention Plan would address fire hazards of different components of the project and BMPs to reduce potential for fire and extinguishment techniques if fire were to occur. Through implementation of a standard Health and Safety Plan, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in increased risk of wildfires in the area. The proposed project would comply with all applicable wildland fire management plans and policies established by CalFire and the Kern County Fire Department (KCFD). Accordingly, the proposed project is not expected to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Although impacts are anticipated to be less than significant, further analysis of this issue will occur in the EIR.

i. Project-related infrastructure may result in features or conditions that could potentially provide habitat for vectors such as mosquitoes, flies, cockroaches, or rodents. During construction and operation, workers would generate small quantities of solid waste (i.e., trash) that would be appropriately stored for permanent disposal. Therefore, impacts that could potentially occur are anticipated to be less than significant; however, further analysis will be included in the EIR.





Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.

Would the project:

a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

b. 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 (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

c. 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 site or off site?

d. 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 site or off site?

e. Create or contribute runoff water that would

exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard

area as mapped on a federal flood hazard boundary or flood insurance rate map or other flood hazard delineation map?

h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area

structures that would impede or redirect flood flows?





Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

j. Contribute to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Discussion:

a. The project site is within the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Lahontan Region. Project construction activities have the potential to result in erosion, sedimentation, and the discharge of construction debris. It is anticipated that appropriate BMPs and compliance with applicable regulations would reduce potential water quality impacts. The proposed project would prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and/or Erosion Control Plan that would include implementation of BMP erosion-control measures to control stormwater runoff. Site-specific BMPs would be designed by the project proponent in compliance with regulations and permit conditions. However, impacts related to water quality during construction could potentially be significant. A comprehensive hydrology and water quality impact analysis will be included in the EIR to further analyze this issue.

b. Water would be used during construction and operation phases to support dust control, panel washing, and sanitary use. Water needed for construction is expected to be purchased from a local water purveyor. Water use on the site during operations would consist of domestic water for approximately eight part-time employees and water for cleaning of solar panels. Cleaning of solar panels may occur up to two times per year. Potential impacts to groundwater use, quality, and recharge could be significant and a comprehensive hydrology and water quality study assessing the impacts will be included in the EIR.

c. The elevation of the project site ranges from 3,273 to 3,426 feet above mean sea level (amsl). As with much of the surrounding valley, the project site is nearly flat. The solar panels and associated facilities would require limited site grading. The site will be minimally graded to ensure a consistent and level grade that would avoid water collection and ponding. The project is not expected to significantly affect the flow patterns of any of the existing drainage courses in the vicinity. Additionally, the selected solar panel technology leads to a design with minimal obstruction to the existing sheet flow pattern of storm flows on the site.

There would be a slight increase in imperviousness of the soil on the site due to minor grading and compaction activities.

A SWPPP and/or Erosion Control Plan would be prepared for the project. Although no known stream course will be altered as a result of the project, a hydrology study will be prepared for the project in accordance with Kern County requirements, and the potentially significant impacts for erosion and changes in the existing drainage patterns will be analyzed further in the EIR.




d. Development of the project site would slightly decrease the pervious surface area of the project site, and could result in an increase in sheet flow across the site. A SWPPP would be prepared that will incorporate BMPs to limit erosion during construction and operation of the project. The proposed project would alter drainage patterns at the site by developing a previously undeveloped site. However, it is anticipated that the post-project runoff volume will reflect the existing site’s potential runoff volume. The evaluation of impacts to drainage patterns of the site as they relate to potential flooding have the potential to be significant and will be evaluated further in the EIR.

e. During construction and following installation of the solar arrays, the vast majority of the site would remain as pervious surfaces. The project site is rural and remote, and there are no existing or planned storm drain facilities near the site. No component of the project is considered a substantial source of polluted runoff. The construction-period SWPPP and the operational-period Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) would ensure the proper control and treatment, if necessary, of any stormwater prior to discharge. However, the impacts have the potential to be significant and this issue will be discussed further in the EIR.

f. Project construction activities (such as grading) could potentially degrade water quality through erosion and subsequent sedimentation of streams. Additionally, accidental release of potentially harmful materials, such as engine oil, diesel fuel, and cement slurry could degrade the water quality of nearby streams. As mentioned above, implementation of a Spill Prevention, Containment and Countermeasure Plan would include BMPs during construction which would likely reduce the impact of project activities on surrounding water quality. Therefore, impacts related to the proposed project substantially degrading water quality have the potential to be significant. This impact will be discussed further in the EIR.

g. The proposed project does not include housing. Therefore no impact would occur, and no further analysis is warranted.

h. The project site is located within Flood Zone “X” as designated by the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) as issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Flood Zone “X” indicates an area subject to 500-year flood and has a 0.2 percent annual chance of flooding. The proposed project would be reviewed by the Kern County Engineering, Surveying, and Permit Services Department for adherence to all floodplain management standards if deemed necessary. Because the proposed project would not place any structures in a 100-year flood hazard area that would impede or redirect flood flows, there would be no impact, and no further analysis is required in the EIR.

i. The project is not located within an area that is subject to flooding due to failure of a levee or dam. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death due to flooding. There would be no impact, and no further analysis is warranted in the EIR.

j. The project site is not located near an ocean or enclosed body of water, and would not be subject to inundation by seiche or tsunami. Mudflows are a type of mass wasting or landslide, where earth and surface materials are rapidly transported downhill under the force of gravity. Due to the topographic nature of the project site and surrounding area, the potential to be inundated by mudflow is considered remote. Therefore, the potential of the project to contribute to a mudflow would be less than significant, and will be discussed further in the EIR.





Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-than-Significant

Impact

No Impact

3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING.

Would the project:

a. Physically divide an established community? b. 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?

c. Conflict with any applicable habitat

conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

Discussion:

a. The proposed project would be located on undeveloped desert lands and is surrounded by undeveloped land or land developed with alternative energy projects. The nearest residences to the project site are approximately 4 miles to the east of the project site, which is located 6 miles southwest of the community of Mojave and 10 miles southeast of the City of Tehachapi. The proposed project would not physically divide or restrict access to that, or any other community. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impacts related to the physical division of an established community, and further analysis is not warranted.

b. The Windhub Solar A project site is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Kern County General Plan and is designated as map code 7.3 (Heavy Industrial) by the General Plan. Solar energy-generating facilities are an allowable use under the Heavy Industrial map code designation. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the County’s General Plan designation. The Windhub Solar A project site is zoned M-3 (Heavy Industrial). The project site is undeveloped. Solar energy generating facilities are an allowable use under the M-3 zoning designations with approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The project proponent is requesting a CUP to allow for the construction and operation of a solar energy-generating facility on the site, and may in the future request approval of a franchise agreement from the County. With approval of the requested application, and potential franchise agreement, the proposed project would be consistent with the Kern County Zoning Ordinance, and the impact would be considered less than significant. This issue will be discussed further in the EIR.

The Kern County General Plan designates the Windhub Solar B site as map code 8.5 (Resource Management) and the site is zoned A-1 (Limited Agriculture). However, the County acknowledges that it does not have land use jurisdiction over state and federal lands. Therefore, the Windhub Solar B will require a lease agreement from the State Lands Commission (SLC).

c. Please refer to Biological Resources checklist response f). The project site is located within the WMP Habitat Conservation Plan and the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP)




areas. Although the DRECP has not yet been finalized, the Draft DRECP, dated August 2014, identifies the project site as being located within a Development Focus Area in the Interagency Preferred Alternative. The Development Focus Areas represent the areas where activities associated with solar, wind, and geothermal renewable energy development would be covered by the DRECP. These conservation plans will be addressed in the EIR. This impact is considered less than significant, but will be evaluated in the EIR.





Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated

Less–than- Significant

Impact

No Impact

3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES.

Would the project:

a. 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. 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. This project is not located on any designated resource area. Kern County contains numerous mining operations that extract a variety of materials, including sand and gravel, stone, gold, dimensional stone, limestone, clay, shale, gypsum, pumice, decorative rock, silica, and specialty sand. There are no known mineral resources on or in the project area; therefore, the project would not have a significant impact on future mineral development. The installation of PV panels on the site would not preclude future on-site mineral resource development should the site be determined to contain mineral resources in the future. However, the potential exists that mineral resources could exist on the site or in the area that would be impacted by the proposed project. Therefore it is anticipated that there would be less than significant impacts regarding the loss of a known mineral resource, and there will be further discussion in the EIR.

b. The project site does not contain locally important mineral resource recovery sites delineated in the Kern County General Plan. The installation of PV panels on the site would not preclude future on-site mineral resource development should the site be determined to contain mineral resources in the future. Although mineral resource impacts are expected to be less than significant, further analysis of this issue will occur in the EIR.





Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

3.12 NOISE.

Would the project result in:

a. Exposure of persons to, or generate, noise

levels in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies?

b. Exposure of persons to or generate excessive

groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient

noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in

ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

e. For a project located within the Kern County

Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

f. For a project located within the vicinity of a

private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Discussion:

a. Land uses determined to be “sensitive” to noise as defined by the Kern County General Plan include residential areas, schools, convalescent and acute care hospitals, parks and recreational areas, and churches. The Kern County General Plan Noise Element sets a 65 A-weighted decibels (dBA) day-night average noise level (Ldn) limit on exterior noise levels for sensitive receptors. Most of the land in the vicinity of the project site is either undeveloped land or land developed with alternative energy infrastructure. No sensitive receptors or sensitive land uses are in the vicinity of the proposed project. Noise generated by the proposed project would occur primarily during the construction phase, as the long-term operation of the solar facility would be relatively quiet during operation. There would not be any substantial noise-generating equipment located at the project site, and the solar facility would only require eight full-time equivalent (FTE) on-site employees.

Although noise impacts are expected to be less than significant, further analysis of this issue will occur in the EIR.

b. Ground-borne vibration and ground-borne noise could originate from earth movement and heavy off-road equipment during the construction phase of the proposed project. Significant vibration is




typically associated with activities such as blasting or the use of pile drivers; however, bulldozers and trucks used for construction would generate the highest ground-borne vibration levels for the proposed project. There are no sensitive receptors or sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the project site. Given the localized nature of vibration impacts and the rapid attenuation of vibration levels over short distances, the vibration impacts associated with the proposed project during construction are anticipated to be less than significant. Nevertheless, this issue will be further analyzed in the EIR.

c. The project operation would not generate substantial permanent noise increases above ambient conditions. The solar facility would require limited staff during operations (approximately eight FTE personnel). Traffic on the solar facility access roads would be utilized for routine access and maintenance activities and would primarily consist of personal vehicles. Therefore, the majority of operations would not produce noise discernable above ambient conditions. Although general maintenance activities would be conducted, they would be subject to applicable Kern County noise ordinance requirements, which would minimize noise-related impacts. Although this impact would be less than significant, this issue will be further evaluated in the EIR.

d. Heavy equipment used during construction would cause a temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels. Given the relatively quiet noise environment in the project area associated with the current undeveloped and alternative energy uses, temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels caused by construction activities could occur. Due to the quiet nature of the solar facilities, general operation of the proposed project would not generate temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels. The noise generated from general maintenance activities associated with operation of the proposed project includes traffic on the access roads that would primarily consist of personal vehicles. It is not expected that these noises would be perceptible given the lack of sensitive receptors and sensitive land uses in the project vicinity. Although this impact would be less than significant, this issue will be further evaluated in the EIR.

e. The proposed project is not located within an area covered by the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), and the proposed project would not introduce new residences. The nearest publicly accessible airport is the Mojave Air and Space Port, located approximately 6.5 miles northeast of the project site. Therefore, the project site would not result in people residing or working in the project area to be exposed to excessive noise levels. No impacts are expected, and no further analysis is warranted in the EIR.

f. The nearest private airstrip is Lloyd’s Landing Airport, located 8 miles southwest of the project site. Due to the relatively few aircraft that use this facility and its distance from the site, there would be no significant impact resulting from people residing or working in the vicinity of the private airport being exposed to excessive noise levels. This impact is less than significant, and will be further discussed in the EIR.





Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated

Less- than Significant

Impact

No Impact

3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING.

Would the project:

a. Induce substantial 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

housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

c. Displace substantial numbers of people,

necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

Discussion:

a. The proposed project would result in temporary employment during construction activity. The average peak daily workforce is expected to be 350 construction, supervisory, support, and construction management personnel. Construction workers are expected to travel to the site from various locations throughout Southern California; however, the majority would likely come from the existing labor pool in the general vicinity of the proposed project. The number of workers anticipated to relocate to the surrounding area is not expected to be substantial. If temporary housing should be necessary, it is expected that accommodations would be available in the nearby communities of Mojave, Tehachapi, or other local cities. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce the development of any new housing or businesses. Operation of the proposed project would require up to eight on-site part-time staff. Existing housing stock would accommodate operations personnel should they relocate to the area. Impacts associated with population growth would not occur, and no further analysis is warranted.

b., c. The project would be sited on lands currently undeveloped. No residences would be condemned, nor would people be displaced by this project. No impacts are expected by this project, and no further analysis is warranted.





Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES.

Would the project:

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 to 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.i. Fire Protection. Fire suppression and emergency medical services would be provided by the Kern County Fire Department (KCFD). The project site is served by Fire Station No. 14, located at 1953 Highway 58, in Mojave, which is approximately 6.3 miles east of the project site. Adherence to all applicable regulations would reduce wildfire ignitions and prevent the spread of wildfires. In addition, the project proponent employs a Comprehensive Health and Safety Plan including fire prevention and protection measures. However, fire protection will be evaluated in the EIR.

a.ii. Police Protection. Police protection services in the project area are provided by the Kern County Sheriff’s Department. The primary sheriff substation that would serve the project site is the Mojave Substation, located approximately 6.3 miles east of the project site at 1771 Highway 59 in Mojave. Although the potential is low, the project may attract vandals or other security risks, and construction activities could result in increases in traffic volumes along surrounding roads. On-site security would be provided and access would be limited to the areas surrounding the project site during construction and operation, thereby minimizing the need for County Sheriff services. Nonetheless, the project’s impacts on Sheriff’s Department services will be evaluated in the EIR.

a.iii. Schools. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to have a maximum duration of 12 months. During this 12-month construction period, a peak workforce of 350 individuals is expected. It is anticipated that most of these workers would live in the region, and would commute to the project site from where their children are currently enrolled in school. Even if these workers came from out of the area, they would likely return to their out-of-town residences once the facilities were built and would not take their children out of their current schooling situation.




Therefore, substantial temporary increases in population that would adversely affect local school populations are not expected. Additionally, the operation workforce of eight FTE employees is not expected to generate a permanent increase in population that would impact school populations. Therefore, no significant impacts to schools are anticipated to occur, and further analysis of this issue is not warranted in the EIR.

a.iv. Parks. The proposed project would require a peak workforce of 350 individuals during the maximum 12-month construction period. It is expected that most of these workers would live in the region and would commute to the project site. The temporary workers during construction would not result in a substantial additional demand for park facilities. Operation of the proposed project would require eight FTE on-site employees, which are not anticipated to result in additional demand for park facilities. Therefore, no significant impacts to parks are anticipated to occur, and further analysis of this issue is not warranted in the EIR.

a.v. Other Public Facilities. During the maximum 12-month construction period for the proposed project, a peak workforce of 350 individuals would be required. However, it is expected that most of these workers would commute to the project site from surrounding communities. Therefore, substantial temporary increases in population that would adversely affect local public facilities, such as post office, courthouse, and library services, are not expected. The project would not require the appreciable use of other public facilities—such as libraries, courts, and Kern County services—that would result in a significant impact. Once constructed, the project would only employ up to eight FTE employees. Impacts are considered less than significant, and further analysis of this issue will be included in the EIR.





Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated

Less–than- Significant

Impact

No Impact

3.15 RECREATION.

Would the project:

a. 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. Include recreational facilities or require the

construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Discussion:

a., b. The project does not include new recreational facilities. The temporary increase of population during construction that might be caused by an influx of workers would be minimal. As a result, there would not be a detectable increase in the use of parks or other recreational facilities. No impacts would occur and no further analysis is warranted.





Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

3.16 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC.

Would the project:

a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance,, or

policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

b. 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?

i. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan LOS “C”?

ii. Kern County General Plan LOS “D”? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns,

including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design

feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

e. Result in inadequate emergency access? f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or

programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?




Discussion:

a. The surrounding roadway system is characterized by two lane rural streets with minimal traffic. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would temporarily contribute to traffic volumes on these nearby roadways. Worker commute vehicles would account for the majority of traffic trips to the site. It is estimated there would be a peak of approximately 350 passenger vehicle trips per day for workers commuting to and from the project site. Construction is also estimated to generate an average of 36 one-way truck trips per day (72 daily trips) for delivery of construction equipment and materials. Operation of the project would require up to eight full-time equivalent (FTE) employees, who would commute to the site. This trip generation is not expected to generate significant impacts to traffic on the local roadway system. Nonetheless, the impact will be evaluated further in the EIR.

b. Construction workers would gain access to the site using existing County roads. These impacts would be temporary and would not produce long-term traffic effects. Once constructed, the facility would require up to eight FTE employees. The small number of permanent employees on the project site would not result in significant traffic impacts.

i. The project site is located outside of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Area, and its LOS standards are not applicable to this project. Further analysis of this issue is not warranted in the EIR.

ii. As detailed in the response to (a) above, construction of the project would generate construction trips which could temporarily increase the daily traffic volumes on local roadways and intersections in Kern County. The employees required for operation and maintenance of the proposed project are expected to originate from the local area and would not result in a substantial number of trips on roadways in other parts of Kern County. Therefore, the project’s impacts on Kern County’s traffic/circulation system are anticipated to be less than significant; however, this issue will be further analyzed in the EIR.

c. No public or private airports are located within 2 miles of the project site. The nearest airport to the project site is the Mojave Air and Space Port, the largest aviation airport in Kern County, located approximately 6.5 miles northeast of the project site. The project site is not in line with the approach and take-off patterns. The proposed project would not interfere with airspace at this airport, due to the relatively large distances between the proposed project and this airport and because the non-reflective surfaces used for the solar modules would have about half the reflectance of standard residential and commercial glass. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to a change in air traffic patterns, and no further analysis of this issue is warranted in the EIR.

d. The project proposes access from existing roads. No new design or features would be introduced that would result in transportation-related hazards or safety concerns. Vehicles associated with the project that would use local roadways would not significantly increase hazards, as similar vehicles already utilize area roads to service adjacent alternative energy projects. Impacts are considered less than significant, but will be discussed in the EIR.

e. Emergency access would be maintained at all times, and appropriate detours would be provided, as necessary. Impacts are considered less than significant, but will be discussed in the EIR.

f. Due to the rural nature of the area, no bus stops or designated bicycle lanes exist on the roadways along the project site. Therefore there would be no impacts and further analysis of this issue is not warranted in the EIR.





Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.

Would the project:

a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of

the applicable regional water quality control board?

b. Require or result in the construction of new

water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

c. Require or result in the construction of new

stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

d. Have sufficient water supplies available to

serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or would new or expanded entitlements be needed?

e. Result in a determination by the wastewater

treatment provider that 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?

f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient

permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes

and regulations related to solid waste?

Discussion:

a. The proposed project would generate a minimal volume of wastewater because the peak on-site workforce during construction is anticipated to be 350 individuals. During operation, a maximum of eight full-time equivalent (FTE) employees would be present on the project site. The proposed project is not anticipated to generate substantial volumes of wastewater. Wastewater generated during construction and operation would be contained within either an on-site septic system or other appropriate means of wastewater containment. The Kern County Environmental Health Services Division is responsible for approving and monitoring the use of septic systems, and a condition of approval would require the project operator to obtain permits and approvals from the




County. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Impacts would be less than significant, and will be further considered in the EIR.

b. Water for the proposed project would be trucked to the project site. Potable water would be brought to the project site for drinking, periodic panel washing, and other domestic needs. As noted above, the proposed project may include the construction of a septic system. Wastewater generation during operation is not expected to be significant, as the proposed project would require a relatively small number of employees. The project’s low demand for water and limited production of wastewater would not require the construction or expansion of water or wastewater treatment facilities. This impact would be less than significant; however, further analysis will be included in the EIR.

c. The proposed project is located in a rural, undeveloped area without any stormwater facilities in the vicinity of the project site. Although the project would create a small amount of additional impervious surface and may require a small amount of water for dust suppression during construction and the washing of panels, these changes would not substantially increase the amount of stormwater runoff. The pattern and concentration of runoff could be altered by project activities, such as grading of the site and roads, and must comply with the Lahontan RWQCB and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) through a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and/or an Erosion Control Plan (County requirement) submittal, including a drainage plan with BMPs for runoff control, or other means to contain water on the site during construction. It is not anticipated that the amount of runoff across the project site would be substantially altered. Therefore, the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Although impacts would be less than significant, this issue will be further considered in the EIR.

d. Water for the proposed project would be trucked to the project site. Potable water would be needed for a maximum of 350 construction workers and for up to eight FTE employees during operations. In addition, water would be needed for construction and operation activities. Impacts related to water supply could be potentially significant, and further analysis of this issue will be included in the EIR.

e. The proposed project is not expected to generate a significant amount of wastewater. The project may include construction of a septic system and all wastewater would be handled on the site. Therefore, wastewater generated would be negligible and would not exceed the wastewater treatment capacity of the treatment provider. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and will be further considered in the EIR.

f. The proposed project is not expected to generate a significant amount of waste that would exceed the capacity of local landfills. Materials brought to the project site would be used to construct facilities, and few residual materials are expected. The project proponent would recycle as much potential waste material as feasible. Non-hazardous construction refuse and solid waste would be either collected and recycled or disposed of at a local landfill, while any hazardous waste generated during construction would be disposed of at an approved location. It is not anticipated that the amount of solid waste generated by the proposed project would exceed the capacity of local landfills needed to accommodate the waste. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant; however, further analysis of this issue will be included in the EIR.

g. The proposed project would generate solid waste during construction and operation, thus requiring the consideration of waste reduction and recycling measures. The 1989 California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) requires Kern County to attain specific waste-diversion goals.




In addition, the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, as amended, requires expanded or new development projects to incorporate storage areas for recycling bins into the proposed project design. The project would comply with the 1989 California Integrated Waste Management Act and the 1991 California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, as amended. Therefore, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant; however, further analysis of this issue will be included in the EIR.




Discussion:

a. The EIR’s biological and cultural resources sections will discuss specific project impacts on plants and wildlife, and historical resources. The document will also evaluate the projects’ contribution to cumulative resource impacts and propose mitigation that is designed to reduce the impacts to less-than-significant levels, where feasible.

b. The proposed project has the potential to cumulatively contribute to aesthetics, air quality, and biological resources impacts. The EIR will evaluate the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts in these and other resource areas.

c. Although there may be significant air quality impacts during construction, the long-term air quality impacts could be beneficial if fossil fuel use is reduced. The proposed project’s short-term cumulative contribution to air quality impacts will be evaluated in the EIR.


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

3.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.

a. Does the project 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 elimi-nate 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 individ-

ually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a 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.)

c. Does the project have environmental effects

that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

cup 17, map 197 nop - kern county, ca ♦ official … ca 93280 inyo county planning dept p.o....

Documents