eland 1 solar project by 68sf 8me llc - … · strategic plans, s3, ntc p.o. box 10172 fort irwin,...

Eland 1 Solar Project – NOP

bm 7/12/2018

I:\Planning\WORKGRPS\WP\LABELS\

Eland1SolarProject.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


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

Attn: John Schlosser

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


China Lake Naval Weapons Center

Tim Fox, RLA - Comm Plans & Liaison

429 E Bowen, Building 981

Mail Stop 4001

China Lake, CA 93555-6108

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

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

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Regulatory Division

1325 "J" Street, #1350

Sacramento, CA 95814-2920

U.S. Postal Service

Address Management Systems

28201 Franklin Parkway

Santa Clarita, CA 91383-9321

State Air Resources Board

Stationary Resource Division

P.O. Box 2815

Sacramento, CA 95812

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


State Dept of Conservation

Director's Office

801 "K" Street, MS 24-01



Division of Oil & Gas

4800 Stockdale Highway, Ste 417



Division of Oil & Gas

801 "K" Street, MS 18-01


California State University

Bakersfield - Library

9001 Stockdale Highway


California Energy Commission

James W. Reed, Jr.

1516 Ninth Street

Mail Stop 17


State Dept of Fish & Wildlife

1234 East Shaw Avenue

Fresno, CA 93710

California Highway Patrol

Planning & Analysis Division

P.O. Box 942898


Integrated Waste Management

P.O. Box 4025, MS #15


State Water Resources Control Board

Division of Drinking Water

Attn: Jesse Dhaliwal, Sr. Sanitary Eng

4925 Commerce Drive, Suite 120


Public Utilities Comm Energy Div

505 Van Ness Avenue


California Regional Water Quality

Control Board/Lahontan Region

15095 Amargosa Road - Bld 2, Suite 210

Victorville, CA 92392

State Lands Commission

100 Howe Avenue, Ste 100-South


State Dept of Toxic Substance Control

Environmental Protection Agency

1515 Tollhouse Road

Clovis, CA 93612

State Dept of Water Resources

San Joaquin Dist.

3374 East Shields Avenue, Room A-7

Fresno, CA 93726

CalRecycle

Dept of Resources, Recycling, and

Recovery

1001 "I" Street


Kern County

Agriculture Department Kern County Administrative Officer

Kern County Public Works Department/

Building & Development/Floodplain


Building & Development/Survey

Kern County

Env Health Services Department

Kern County Fire Dept

Cary WrightNick D, Fire Marshall

Kern County Library/Beale

Local History Room


Andie Apple Kern County Parks & Recreation

Kern County Sheriff's Dept

Administration


Building & Development/Development

Review

Kern County Public Works

Department/Operations &

Maintenance/Regulatory Monitoring &

Reporting

Mojave Town Council

Bill Deaver, President

P.O. Box 1113

Mojave, CA 93502-1113

Kern County Superintendent of Schools

Attention Mary Baker

1300 17th Street


KernCOG

1401 19th Street - Suite 300


Kern County Water Agency

P.O. Box 58


East Kern Air Pollution

Control District

Adams, Broadwell, Joseph & Cardozo

Attention: Janet M. Laurain

601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000

South San Francisco, CA 94080

U.S. Air Force

Attn: David Bell/AFCEC CZPW

Western Regional/Leg Branch

510 Hickam Avenue, Bld 250-A

Travis AFD, CA 94535-2729

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, Bldg 127

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


Kern Audubon Society

Attn: Harry Love, President

13500 Powder River Avenue


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



& the Environmental/

CA Rural Legal Assistance Foundation

1012 Jefferson Street

Delano, CA 93215

Defenders of Wildlife/

Kim Delfino, California Dir

980 - 9th Street, Suite 1730


Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee

4067 Mission Inn Avenue

Riverside, CA 92501

California Farm Bureau

2300 River Plaza Drive, NRED


Mojave Chamber of Commerce

P.O. Box 999

Mojave, CA 93502

Native American Heritage Council

of Kern County

Attn: Gene Albitre

3401 Aslin Street


Sierra Club/Kern Kaweah Chapter

P.O. Box 3357


Southern California Edison

P.O. Box 410

Long Beach, CA 90801


2244 Walnut Grove, Ave, GO-1 Quad 2C

Rosemead, CA 91770


Planning Dept.

510 S. China Lake Blvd.



2244 Walnut Grove, Ave, GO-1 Quad 2C

Rosemead, CA 91770 Verizon California, Inc.

Attention Engineering Department

520 South China Lake Boulevard


Chumash Council of Bakersfield

2421 "O" Street

O.O. Box 902


David Laughing Horse Robinson

P.O. Box 20849


Kern Valley Indian Council

Attn: Robert Robinson, Chairperson

P.O. Box 401

Weldon, CA 93283


Historic Preservation Office

P.O. Box 401

Weldon, CA 93283

Santa Rosa Rancheria

Clarence Atwell, Chairperson

P.O. Box 8

Lemoore, CA 93245

Tejon Indian Tribe

Kathy Morgan, Chairperson

1731 Hasti-acres Drive, Suite 108


Kitanemuk & Yowlumne Tejon Indians

Chairperson

115 Radio Street


Tubatulabals of Kern County

Attn: Robert Gomez, Chairperson

P.O. Box 226

Lake Isabella, CA 93240

Tule River Indian Tribe

Neal Peyron, Chairperson

P.O. Box 589

Porterville, CA 93258

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians

Attn: John Valenzuela, Chairperson

P.O. Box 221838

Newhall, CA 91322

Terra-Gen Power, LLC

Steve Yatsko

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


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


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


Marcus V. da Cunha

Vice President of Development

EcoPlexus, Inc.

650 Townsend Street, Suite 310


Wind Stream, LLC

Albert Davies

1275 - 4th Street, No. 107

Santa Rosa, CA 95404

Darren Kelly

Sr. Business Manager


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


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


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


Kelly Group

Kate Kelly

P.O. Box 868

Winters, CA 95694

Carol Lawhon

Association Executive, IOM

Tehachapi Area Assoc of Realtors

803 Tucker Road

Tehachapi, CA 93561

Matthew Gorman

The Gorman Law Firm

1346 E. Walnut Street, Suite 220

Pasadena, CA 91106

Janice Armstrong

24121 Rand Court

Tehachapi, CA 93561

Joyce LoBasso

P.O. Box 6003


LIUNA

Attn: Danny Zaragoza

2201 "H" Street


Mojave Foundation

Attn: Todd Quelet

16922 Airport Boulevard

Mojave, CA 93501

Northcutt and Associates

4220 Poplar Street

Lake Isabella, CA 93240-9536

Tehachapi Resource Cons Dist

321 West "C" Street


Nature Conservancy West Reg Office

201 Mission Street, 4th Floor


Vestas

1417 NW Everett Street

Portland, OR 97209

California City Community Dist

21000 Hacienda Blvd.


Antelope Valley-East Kern

Water Agency

6500 West Avenue N

Palmdale, CA 93551

Mojave Unified School Dist

3500 Douglas

Mojave, CA 93501

Darren Kelly



1095 Ave of the Americas – FL 25, Ste A

New York, NY 10036-6797

Lozeau Drury LLP

410 – 12th Street, Suite 250

Oakland, CA 94607

So. San Joaquin Valley Arch Info Ctr

California State University of Bkfd

9001 Stockdale Highway


Division of Occupational

Safety and Health

2550 Mariposa Mall, Ste. 4000

Fresno, CA 93721-2219

Edwards Air Force Base

AFFTC/XRX Bldg 0001, Room 110

#1 South Rosamond Blvd.

Edwards AFB, CA 93524-1936

Federal Communications Comm

18000 Studebaker Road, #550

Cerritos, CA 90701

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

2493 Portola Road, Suite B

Ventura, CA 93003

Eastern Kern Resource Cons Dist

300 South Richmond Road

Ridgecrest, CA 93555-4436

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

P.O. Box 997


State Clearinghouse

Office of Planning and Research

P.O. Box 3044


CERTIFIED MAIL

State Dept of Water Resources

Div. Land & Right-of-Way

P.O. Box 942836


Kern County Engineering, Surveying,

& Permit Svs/Floodplain

Kern County Engineering, Surveying,

& Permit Svs/Survey


Nick Dunn, Fire Chief


Brian Marshall


Dave Goodell


Diane Duquette

Kern County Library

California City Branch

9507 California City Boulevard


Kern County Library

Mojave Branch

16916 1/2 Highway 14, Space D2

Mojave, CA 93501

Kern County Roads Department Kern County

Waste Management Department

Local Agency Formation Comm/LAFCO

5300 Lennox Avenue, Suite 303


California City Airport

22636 Airport Way, #8


Mojave Airport

1434 Flightline

Mojave, CA 93501

East Kern Airport Dist

Attention Stuart Witt

1434 Flightline

Mojave, CA 93501

East Kern Airport Dist Engineer

3900 Ridgemoor Avenue


U.S. Air Force

Western Regional Environmental Officer

50 Fremont Street, Suite 2450

San Francisco, CA 94105-2230

U.S. Army

Dir of Public Works/Master Plan Div

P.O. Box 105097

Fort Irwin, CA 92310-5097

U.S. Army

Peter Rubin

B790 5th Street

Parks RFTA

Dublin, CA 94568

U.S. Marine Corps

Patrick Christman

Building 1164/Box 555246

Camp Pendleton, CA 92055

AT&T

5555 E. Olive Avenue, Cubicle 450F

Fresno, CA 93727

Kern Audubon Society

P.O. Box 3581



& the Environmental

47 Kearny Street, Suite 804

San Francisco, CA 94108-5528

Defenders of Wildlife/

Cynthia Wilkerson, M.S.

California Representative

1303 "J" Street, Suite 270


Beth Boyst

Pacific Crest Trail Program Manager

1323 Club Drive

Vallejo, CA 94592

Native American Heritage Council

of Kern County/Fay Van Horn

P.O. Box 1507


Anitra Kass

Pacific Crest Trail Association

P.O. Box 3398

Idyllwild, CA 92549

Sierra Club/Kern Kaweah Chapter

Arthur Unger

***PUT IN BUCKET***

Southern California Gas Co

1510 North Chester Avenue


Southern California Gas Co

Transportation Dept

9400 Oakdale Avenue

Chatsworth, CA 91313-6511

David Laughing Horse Robinson

P.O. Box 1547

Kernville, CA 93238


Attn: Bob Robinson

P.O. Box 1010


Tejon Indian Tribe

Kathy Morgan, Chairperson

2234 4th Street

Wasco, CA 93280

Kitanemuk & Yowlumne Tejon Indians

Chairperson

981 North Virginia

Corvina CA 91722

Renewal Resources Group

Holding Company

Rupal Patel

5700 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 330


Element Power Solar Dev, LLC

John Gaglioti

864 Portola Drive

Monterey, CA 93940

Jon VanDerZee

EDP Renewables Company

North America, LLC

53 SW Yamhill Street

Portland, OR 97204

Nautilus Solar

Paul Steinway

P.O. Box 188

Fort Lupton, CO 80621

First Solar

Rick Williams

18300 Von Karman Ave, Ste 930

Irvine, CA 92612

Gary Izing

enXco, Director of Land and Title

5000 Executive Parkway, Suite 140

San Ramon, CA 94583

Darren Kelly



565 - 5th Avenue, Floor 27

New York, NY 10017

Bill Barnes

Dir of Asset Mgmt AES Wind Gen

4542 Ruffner Street, Suite 200

San Diego, CA 92111

Cash Long

Mogul Energy

7201 Panorama Drive


Jeff Ciachurski, CEO

Western Wind Energy Corp/

Aero Energy

Box 1041

Vancouver, BC V6C 3E8

T. Alana Steele

General Counsel

Western Wind Energy Corporation

3500 Glenrose Avenue

Altadena, CA 91001

Cuddy Valley Statistical

11667 Steinhoff Road

Frazier Park, CA 93222

Metrostudy

5001 California Avenue, Suite 210


William Nelson

P.O. Box 308


Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal Mail to: State Clearinghouse, P. O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 (916) 445-0613

For Hand Delivery/Street Address: 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814

Project Title: Eland 1 Solar Project Solar by 68SF 8me LLC

Lead Agency: Kern County Planning Department Contact Person: Carlos E. Rojas

Mailing Address: 2700 "M" Street Suite 100 Phone: (661) 862-5015

City: Bakersfield Zip: 93301-2323 County: Kern

Project Location: County: Kern City/Nearest Community: California City

Cross Streets: South of Munsey Road, East and West of Neuralia Road, East of SR-14, North and South of Phillips Road Zip Code: 93560

Lat. / Long.: 35 18 39 N / 117 58’ 54 W Total Acres: 2,652.7

Assessor's Parcel No.: Multiple Section: Multiple Twp.: Multiple Range: Multiple Base: MDB&M

Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: SR-14 Waterways: N/A

Airports: N/A Railways: N/A Schools: N/A

Document Type:

CEQA: NOP Draft EIR NEPA: NOI Other: Joint Document

Early Cons Supplement/Subsequent EIR EA Final Document

Neg Dec (Prior SCH No.) Draft EIS Other

Mit Neg Dec Other FONSI

Local Action Type:

General Plan Update Specific Plan Rezone Annexation

General Plan Amendment Master Plan Prezone Redevelopment

General Plan Element Planned Unit Development Use Permit Coastal Permit

Community Plan Site Plan Land Division (Subdivision, etc.) Other

Development Type:

Residential: Units Acres Water Facilities: Type MGD

Office: Sq.ft. Acres Employees Transportation: Type

Commercial: Sq.ft. Acres Employees Mining: Mineral

Industrial: Sq.ft. Acres Employees Power: Type Solar PV MW 500

Educational Waste Treatment: Type MGD

Recreational Hazardous Waste: Type

Other:

Project Issues Discussed in Document:

Aesthetic/Visual Fiscal Recreation/Parks Vegetation

Agricultural Land Flood Plain/Flooding Schools/Universities Water Quality

Air Quality Forest Land/Fire Hazard Septic Systems Water Supply/Groundwater

Archeological/Historical Geologic/Seismic Sewer Capacity Wetland/Riparian

Biological Resources Minerals Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading Wildlife

Coastal Zone Noise Solid Waste Growth Inducing

Drainage/Absorption Population/Housing Balance Toxic/Hazardous Land Use

Economic/Jobs Public Services/Facilities Traffic/Circulation Cumulative Effects

Other

Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Designation:

Undeveloped Land. Zoning: A (Exclusive Agriculture); E (2.5) RS MH (Estate 2.5 acres, Residential Suburban, Mobile Home); Kern County General Plan: 4.3 (Specific Plan Required)

Project Description: (please use a separate page if necessary) The project proponent is requesting: (a) Amendment to the Circulation Element of the Kern County General Plan Circulation Element to Eliminate road reservations along section and mid-section lines in Section 23, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 45 T31S/R37E, in zone maps 152 and 152-28; (b) four changes in zone classification from the existing zone district A-1 (Limited Agriculture) to A (Exclusive Agriculture) on 265.3 acres of the project site within zoning Map 152, from the existing zone district A-1 MH (Mobilehome Combining) to A on 81.7 acres of the project site within zoning Map 152, from the existing zone district E (20) RS (Estate (20) Residential Suburban Combining) to A on 81.5 acres of the project site within Zoning Map 152-28, from the existing zone district PL RS MH (Platted Lands-Residential Suburban Combining-Mobilehome Combining) to A on 81.4 acres of the project site within Zoning Map 152; (e) five Conditional Use Permits to allow for the construction and operation of 500 megawatt solar photovoltaic electrical generating facility (Section 19.12.030.G) in an A District; (g) The project would be supported by a 230-kV gen-tie overhead and/or underground electrical transmission line(s) originating from one or more on-site substation(s)/switchyard(s) and terminating at the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power’s (LADWP) Barren Ridge Substation. The project’s permanent facilities would include, service roads, a power collection system, communication cables, overhead and underground transmission lines, electrical switchyards, project substations, and operations and maintenance facilities.

SCH #

Reviewing Agencies Checklist

Lead Agencies may recommend State Clearinghouse distribution by marking agencies below with and "X".

If you have already sent your document to the agency please denote that with an "S".

Air Resources Board Office of Emergency Services

Boating & Waterways, Department of Office of Historic Preservation

California Highway Patrol Office of Public School Construction

CalFire Parks & Recreation

S Caltrans District # 6 & 9 Pesticide Regulation, Department of

Caltrans Division of Aeronautics S Public Utilities Commission

Caltrans Planning (Headquarters) S Regional WQCB # Lahontan

Central Valley Flood Protection Board Resources Agency

Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission

Coastal Commission San Gabriel & Lower L.A. Rivers and Mtns Conservancy

Colorado River Board San Joaquin River Conservancy

Conservation, Department of Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy

Corrections, Department of State Lands Commission

Delta Protection Commission SWRCB: Clean Water Grants

Education, Department of SWRCB: Water Quality

Energy Commission SWRCB: Water Rights

S Fish & Game Region # Fresno Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Food & Agriculture, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Department of

General Services, Department of Water Resources, Department of

Health Services, Department of

Housing & Community Development Other

Integrated Waste Management Board Other

S Native American Heritage Commission

Local Public Review Period (to be filled in by lead agency)

Starting Date July 19, 2018 Ending Date August 20, 2018

Lead Agency (Complete if applicable):

Consulting Firm: Applicant:

Address: Address:

City/State/Zip: City/State/Zip:

Contact: Phone:

Phone:

Signature of Lead Agency Representative: /s/ Date: 7/19/18

Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 21161, Public Resources Code.

Initial Study/Notice of Preparation July 2018

INITIAL STUDY/NOTICE OF PREPARATION

Eland 1 Solar Project

by 68SF 8me LLC

General Plan Amendment 9, Map 152

Zone Change Case No. 11, Map 152


Zone Change Case No. 1, Map 152-28


Conditional Use Permit 23, Map 152




Conditional Use Permit 3, Map 152-28

(PP18211)

LEAD AGENCY:

Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department

2700 M Street, Suite 100


Contact: Carlos E. Rojas

(661) 862-5015

[email protected]

July 2018


1. Project Description ....................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Location .................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Environmental Setting .............................................................................................. 1

1.4 Project Description.................................................................................................. 11

1.5 Project Objectives ................................................................................................... 17

1.6 Proposed Discretionary Actions/Required Approvals ............................................ 18

2. Kern County Environmental Checklist Form .......................................................... 20

2.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................................................... 20

2.2 Determination (To Be Completed By the Lead Agency) ....................................... 20

3. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ...................................................................... 21

Aesthetics ...................................................................................................................... 22

Agriculture and Forest Resources ................................................................................. 24

Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 26

Biological Resources .................................................................................................... 29

Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 31

Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 33

Geology and Soils ......................................................................................................... 34

Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................... 37

Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................ 38

Hydrology and Water Quality ....................................................................................... 43

Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................. 46

Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................ 48

Noise ............................................................................................................................. 49

Population and Housing ................................................................................................ 51

Public Services .............................................................................................................. 53

Recreation ..................................................................................................................... 55

Transportation/Traffic ................................................................................................... 56

Utilities and Service Systems........................................................................................ 58

Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................. 60

Figures

Figure 1 Site Vicinity ................................................................................................. 3

Figure 2 Project Site Boundaries ............................................................................... 4

Figure 3 Existing General Plan Designation .............................................................. 7

Figure 4 Existing Zoning ........................................................................................... 8

Figure 5 Potential Gen-Tie Routed .......................................................................... 14

Tables

Table 1 Project Assessor Parcel Numbers and Corresponding Map Codes,

Existing and Proposed Zoning, and Acreage ................................................ 5

Table 2 Existing On-and-Off Site Land use, General Plan Map Code

Designations, and Zoning ............................................................................ 9

KERN COUNTY PLANNING AND NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT

ELAND 1 SOLAR PROJECT

Initial Study/Notice of Preparation 1 July 2018

1. Project Description

1.1 Background This Notice of Preparation (NOP) is being circulated pursuant to Section 15082 of the California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, and serves to notify responsible and trustee agencies of

the preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to the Beacon Photovoltaic Project

(State Clearinghouse No. 2012011029). The Supplemental EIR will modify the previously certified Beacon

Photovoltaic Project EIR pursuant to Section 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines.

The Beacon Photovoltaic Project (Beacon Project) included the construction and operation of a solar facility

capable of generating up to 250 megawatts (MW) of electricity on 2,298 acres. The Beacon Project also

included a three mile transmission line to connect the solar facility to the existing Barren Ridge Substation.

On October 30, 2012, the Kern County Board of Supervisors certified the Beacon Photovoltaic Final EIR

and approved the Beacon Project, which consisted of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (CUP 11, Map 152).

In 2013, subsequent applications for three individual CUPs were filed with the County to allow the

construction and operation of two additional solar facility sites in proximity to the original Beacon Project.

The CUPs were for the 345-acre Oryx Solar Farm and 951-acre Springbok Solar Farm. These two additional

solar facility sites were analyzed in the Addendum to the Beacon Photovoltaic Solar Project Final EIR

prepared in November 2013, which was approved by the Kern County Board of Supervisors in early 2014.

In 2018, 68SF 8me LLC (Applicant or project proponent) submitted applications for five individual CUPs

to allow the construction and operation of five additional solar facility sites in proximity to the Beacon

Project, Oryx Solar Farm Project, and Springbok Solar Farm Project boundaries (Figure 1). The Kern

County Planning and Natural Resources Department as Lead Agency is requiring that a Supplemental EIR

be prepared for the five additional solar facility sites.

1.2 Location The Eland 1 Solar Farm Project (project or proposed project) would develop a photovoltaic (PV) solar

facility and associated infrastructure necessary to generate up to 500 megawatts (MW) of renewable

electrical energy on 2,652.7 acres of privately-owned land. The project would include a new transmission

line to connect the solar facility to the existing Barren Ridge Substation. Multiple transmission routes are

under consideration and discussed further in Section 1.3.

The project site is located in unincorporated Kern County, southeast of the unincorporated community of

Cantil and immediately north of the California City limits (Figure 1). The project site is a relatively flat

desert landscape with the Sierra Nevada Mountains located approximately 0.5 miles to the west. The project

site is located south of Munsey Road, east and west of Neuralia Road, east of California State Route (SR)

14, and north and south of Phillips Road. SR 14, a four-lane divided highway, provides regional access to

the project site.

1.3 Environmental Setting The project site is located within the Fremont Valley, southwest of Koehn Dry Lake in the western portion

of the Mojave Desert. Cadastrally, the project site is located on the California City North and Mojave North

East 7.5 minute quadrangles with smaller sections located in the Cinco and Cantil Quadrangles.

The project site located is south of the existing Springbok 1 and 2 Solar Farms and the Beacon Solar facility,

north of California City and south of the unincorporated area of Cantil. The project site is transected by the




north-south traversing Neuralia Road, State Highway 14 and the Southern Pacific Railroad on its western

boundary, BLM trail “Jawbone Canyon” W-30 on its eastern boundary and Phillips Road near its southern

boundary.

Elevations within the project site range from roughly 2,420 feet above mean sea level at the southwest

corner of the project site, to roughly 2,120 feet at the northeast corner of the project site. The land slopes

gently from the southwest towards the northeast throughout. The project site is relatively flat and features

numerous ephemeral desert drainages trending to the northeast, which ultimately drain into Koehn Dry

Lake located to the northeast of the project site.

Landforms in the Fremont Valley include granite-derived alluvial fans and plains, low hills, washes, and

an alkaline basin. The entire area drains in a northeasterly direction to Koehn Lake. Native vegetation on-

site is typical of that found throughout the Mojave Desert, dominated by creosote bush and white bursage

on slopes and plains and saltbush scrub in the alkaline basin. Many of the project parcels have been

previously disturbed and/or cultivated. Currently, these areas include fallow agricultural fields and cleared

parcels that were never put into agricultural production.

Based on a review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps

(Panels 06029C2930E and 06029C2940E), Site 1 and Site 2 have small areas mapped as 100-year (Zone

A) floodplains. Zone A is defined as areas subject to inundation by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event

generally determined using approximate methodologies. The rest of the project site is mapped as Zone X,

which is defined as areas of minimal flood hazard that are outside of the Special Flood Hazard Area and

beyond the limits of the 0.2-percent-annual-chance (500-year) flood.




Figure 1: SITE VICINITY




Figure 2: PROJECT SITE BOUNDARIES




Table 1. Project Assessor Parcel Numbers and Corresponding Map Codes, Existing and Proposed

Zoning, and Acreage

CUP

Site

APN Kern County General Plan

Map Code Designation

Existing

Zoning

Proposed

Zoning

Acres

CUP 1 469-030-01 8.5 A, A FP A 647.8

Subtotal 647.8

CUP 2 330-010-01 8.5 A, A FP A 642.5

Subtotal 642.5

CUP 3 470-010-11 8.5 A

A

119.3

470-010-12 8.5 A 120.2

470-312-01 4.2/5.6 A-1 39.8

470-312-02 4.2/5.6 A-1 39.5

470-080-01 8.5 PL RS MH 5.2

470-080-02 8.5 PL RS MH 5.1

470-080-03 8.5 PL RS MH 10.1

470-080-04 8.5 PL RS MH 10.2

470-080-05 8.5 PL RS MH 10.3

470-080-06 8.5 PL RS MH 5.1

470-080-07 8.5 PL RS MH 5.1

470-080-08 8.5 PL RS MH 5.1

470-080-09 8.5 PL RS MH 5.1

470-080-10 8.5 PL RS MH 10.1

470-080-11 8.5 A 19.1

470-080-12 8.5 PL RS MH 10.0

470-080-13 8.5 A 20.2

470-080-14 8.5 A 20.3

Subtotal 459.8

CUP 4 470-020-08 8.5 A

A

153.7

470-321-18 4.2/5.6 A-1 61.4

470-321-19 4.2/5.6 A-1 60.8

470-322-14 4.2/5.6 A-1 10.5

470-330-05 8.5 A 20.2

470-330-09 4.2/5.6 A-1 9.5

470-330-11 4.2/5.6 A-1 MH 81.7

470-330-12 4.2/5.6 A-1 20.7

470-330-13 8.5 A 79.5

Subtotal 498.0

CUP 5 470-020-11 4.2/5.8 E(20) RS

A

81.5

470-020-12 4.2/5.6 A-1 162.5

470-020-13 4.2/5.6 A-1 160.6

Subtotal 404.6

TOTAL 2652.7

4.2 = Interim Rural Community Plan; 5.6 = Min. 2.5 Gross Acres/Unit; 5.8 = Min. 20 Gross Acres/Unit; 8.5 =

Resource Management (Min. 20 Acre Parcel Size)

A = Exclusive Agriculture; A-1 = Limited Agriculture; E(20) = Estate, 20 Acres; FP = Floodplain Combining ;

MH = Mobile Home Combining; PL = Platted Lands; RS = Residential Suburban Combining




The project would be served Kern County Sheriff’s Department for law enforcement and public safety,

Kern County Fire Department for fire protection, and Kern County Medical Emergency Services. The

nearest sheriff and fire stations are located in Mojave, located approximately 12 miles southwest of the

project site. The project site is not located within two miles of a public or public use airport or within an

area covered by the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), and is not located within

an airport sphere of influence identified in the ALUCP. The nearest public airport is the California City

Airport, which is located approximately 2.50 miles south of the project site (from southern boundary of Site

4).

Sites 1 and 2 are located entirely within the Kern County General Plan area. As shown in Figure 3, portions

of Sites 3, 4 and 5 are located within the Kern County General Plan area and the Fremont Interim Rural

Community Plan. As shown in Figure 3, the project site consists of 32 parcels designated by the Kern

County General Plan as Map Code 8.5 (Resource Management, minimum 20 acre parcel size) and by the

Fremont Interim Rural Community Plan as 4.2/5.6 (Interim Rural Community Plan/ Min. 2.5 Gross

Acres/Unit) and 4.2/5.8 (Interim Rural Community Plan/ Min. 20 Gross Acres/Unit). As shown in Figure

4, the project site has a zone classification of A (Exclusive Agriculture), A FP (Exclusive Agriculture,

Floodplain Combining), A-1 (Limited Agriculture), E (20) RS (Estate, 20 Acres, Residential Suburban

Combining), and PL RS MH (Platted Lands, Residential Suburban Combining, Mobile Home Combining).

Existing land uses in the surrounding area are primarily undeveloped. Table 2 identifies the project site and

surrounding land uses. The majority of the project site is zoned A (Exclusive Agriculture) or A-1 (Limited

Agriculture), which allows for the operation of a solar facility with approval of a Conditional Use Permit.




Figure 3: EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION




Figure 4: EXISTING ZONING




Table 2. Existing On- and Off-Site Land Use, General Plan Map Code Designations, and Zoning

Location Existing Land Use Existing General Plan

Map Code Designations Existing Zoning

Site 1 Undeveloped 8.5 (Resource Management, Min. 20 Acre

Parcel Size)

A (Exclusive Agriculture);

A FP (Exclusive

Agriculture, Floodplain

Combining)

North Undeveloped 8.5 (Resource Management, Min. 20 Acre

Parcel Size)

A (Exclusive Agriculture)

East Undeveloped 1.1 (State or Federal Land); 8.5 (Resource

Management, Min. 20 Acre Parcel Size);

8.5/2.5 (Resource Management, Min. 20

Acre Parcel Size/Flood Hazard)

PL RS (Platted Lands,

Residential Suburban

Combining); PL RS FPS

(Platted Lands, Residential

Suburban Combining,

Floodplain Secondary

Combining); RF

(Recreation Forestry)

South Undeveloped 8.5 (Resource Management, Min. 20 Acre

Parcel Size)


A FP (Exclusive


Combining); A FPS

(Exclusive Agriculture,

Floodplain Secondary

Combining)

West Undeveloped 8.5 (Resource Management, Min. 20 Acre

Parcel Size)


PL RS MH (Platted Lands,


Combining, Mobile Home

Combining)

Site 2 Undeveloped 8.5 (Resource Management (Min. 20 Acre

Parcel Size)


A FP (Exclusive


Combining)

North Undeveloped 8.5 (Resource Management (Min. 20 Acre

Parcel Size)


A GH (Exclusive

Agriculture, Geologic

Hazard)

East Undeveloped 8.5 (Resource Management (Min. 20 Acre

Parcel Size)

A FP (Exclusive


Combining)

South Undeveloped 1.2 (Incorporated Cities) N/A – California City






West Undeveloped 8.5/2.1 (Resource Management, Min. 20

Acre Parcel Size/Seismic Hazard)


A GH (Exclusive

Agriculture, Geologic

Hazard); PL RS MH

(Platted Lands, Residential

Suburban Combining,

Mobile Home Combining)


Parcel Size); 4.2/5.6 (Interim Rural

Community Plan/ Min. 2.5 Gross

Acres/Unit)


A-1 (Limited Agriculture);




Combining)

North Undeveloped, sparse

residential dwellings

8.5 (Resource Management (Min. 20 Acre

Parcel Size)

PL RS (Platted Lands,


Combining)

East Undeveloped 8.5 (Resource Management (Min. 20 Acre

Parcel Size)


South Undeveloped 8.5 (Resource Management (Min. 20 Acre

Parcel Size)




Combining)

West Undeveloped 4.2 (Interim Rural Community Plan) A-1 (Limited Agriculture);

A-1 MH (Limited

Agriculture, Mobile Home

Combining)


Parcel Size); 4.2/5.6 (Interim Rural

Community Plan/ Min. 2.5 Gross

Acres/Unit)



A-1 MH (Limited


Combining)

North Undeveloped 4.2 (Interim Rural Community Plan); 8.5

(Resource Management (Min. 20 Acre

Parcel Size);


A-1 MH (Limited


Combining); PL RS (Platted

Lands, Residential

Suburban Combining)

East Undeveloped 4.2 (Interim Rural Community Plan) A-1 (Limited Agriculture);

A-1 MH (Limited


Combining)

South Undeveloped 1.2 (Incorporated Cities) N/A – California City

West Undeveloped 8.5 (Resource Management (Min. 20 Acre

Parcel Size)







Site 5 Undeveloped, rural


4.2/5.6 (Interim Rural Community Plan/

Min. 2.5 Gross Acres/Unit); 4.2/5.8 (Interim

Rural Community Plan/ Min. 20 Gross

Acres/Unit)


E(20) RS (Estate 20 Acres,


Combining)

North Undeveloped 8.5 (Resource Management (Min. 20 Acre

Parcel Size)





Combining)

East Undeveloped, sparse

rural residential

dwellings

8.5 (Resource Management (Min. 20 Acre

Parcel Size)




Combining)

South Undeveloped, sparse

rural residential

dwellings

4.2 (Interim Rural Community Plan) A-1 (Limited Agriculture)

West Undeveloped, rural


(Fremont rural

community)

4.2 (Interim Rural Community Plan) A-1 (Limited Agriculture);

A-1 MH (Limited


Combining); E (1/4) RS

MH (Estate, 0.25 acres,



Combining)

1.4 Project Description The proposed project would develop a PV solar facility and associated infrastructure necessary to generate

up to 500 MW of renewable electrical energy on 2,652.7 acres of privately-owned land. Power generated

by the proposed project would be delivered from the project site via an up to 230 kilovolts (kV) overhead

and/or underground electrical transmission line(s) originating from one or more on-site

substation(s)/switchyard(s) and terminating at the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power’s

(LADWP) Barren Ridge Substation.

PV Module Configuration

The proposed project would utilize PV panels or modules (including but not limited to concentrated PV

technology) on mounting frameworks to convert sunlight directly into electricity. Individual panels would

be installed on either fixed-tilt or tracker mount systems (single- or dual-axis, using galvanized steel or

aluminum). If the panels are configured for fixed tilt, the panels would be oriented toward the south. For

tracking configurations, the panels would rotate to follow the sun over the course of the day. The panels

would stand up to 20 feet high, depending on mounting system used.

The solar array fields would be arranged in groups called “blocks,” with inverter stations generally located

centrally within the blocks. Blocks would produce direct electrical current (DC), which is converted to

alternating electrical current (AC) at the inverter stations.

Each PV module would be placed on a fixed-tilt or tracker mounting structure. The foundations for the




mounting structures would extend up to eight feet below the prevailing ground surface, depending on the

structure, soil conditions, and wind loads. If required, the foundations may be encased in concrete or utilize

small concrete footings. Final solar panel layout and spacing would be optimized for project area

characteristics and the desired energy production profile.

Inverter Stations

Photovoltaic energy is delivered via cable to inverter stations, generally located near the center of each

block. Inverter stations are typically comprised of one or more inverter modules with a rated power of up

to two MW each, a unit transformer, and voltage switch gear. The unit transformer and voltage switch gear

are housed in steel enclosures, while the inverter module(s) are housed in cabinets. Depending on the vendor

selected, the inverter station may lie within an enclosed or canopied metal structure, typically on a skid or

concrete mounted pad.

Energy Storage System

The proposed project may include one or more Energy Storage Systems (ESSs), located at or near a

substation (onsite or shared) and/or at the inverter stations. Such large-scale ESSs would consist of modular

and scalable battery packs and battery control systems that conform to U.S. national safety standards. The

ESS modules, which may include commercially available flow batteries, typically consist of standard

International Organization for Standardization (ISO) containers (approximately 40 feet in length by 8 feet

in width by 8 feet in height) housed in pad- or post-mounted, stackable metal structures, but may also be

housed in a dedicated building in compliance with applicable regulations. The maximum height of a

dedicated structure is not expected to exceed 25 feet. The actual dimensions and number of energy storage

modules and structures vary depending on the application, supplier, and configuration chosen, as well as

on off-taker/power purchase agreement requirements and County building standards.

The proposed project may integrate with an existing ESS located at one or more nearby solar projects or

may operate one or more standalone ESS facilities within the project site.

Substation

Output from the inverter stations would be transferred via electrical conduits and electrical conductor wires

to one or more on-site substation(s). Each substation may contain several components, including auxiliary

power transformers, distribution cabinets, revenue metering systems, and voltage switch gear. Each

substation would occupy an area of approximately 200 feet by 200 feet, secured separately by an additional

chain-link fence, and located along the perimeter of the project site. The final location(s) will be determined

before issuance of building permits.

Substations typically include a small control building (roughly 500 square feet) standing approximately ten

feet tall. The building is either prefabricated concrete or steel housing with rooms for the voltage switch

gear and the metering equipment, a room for the station supply transformer, and a separate control

technology room in which the main computer, the intrusion detection system, and the main distribution

equipment are housed. Components of this building (e.g., control technology room and intrusion detection

system) may instead be located at an operations and maintenance (O&M) building.

Transmission Line

Power generated by the proposed project would be delivered from the project site via an up to 230 kilovolts

(kV) overhead and/or underground electrical transmission line(s) (gen-tie) originating from one or more

on-site substation(s)/switchyard(s) on the project site. The transmission line would extend up to 11.5 miles




and terminate at either the LADWP Beacon Substation or the LADWP Barren Ridge Substation. Potential

gen-tie routes are depicted on Figure 5.

Water Usage

Water demand for panel washing and O&M domestic use is not expected to exceed 50 acre-feet per year.

Water usage during construction, primarily for dust-suppression purposes, is not expected to exceed 400

acre-feet. Water is anticipated to be obtained from an existing on-site well within Site 5. According to the

landowner, the well is capable of producing 1,500 gallons per minute. Alternatively, water may be obtained

from one or more off-site source(s) and delivered to the project site via truck. If off-site water is used, it

will likely be obtained from one of the nearby Springbok projects or from a commercial source. If the

Applicant determines that off-site water will be used, the Applicant will submit a Will Serve Letter from

the proposed off-site water purveyor(s). A small water treatment system may be installed to provide

deionized water for panel washing.

Water Storage Tank(s)

One or more above-ground water storage tanks with a total capacity of up to 50,000 gallons may be placed

on-site near the O&M building. The storage tank(s) near the O&M building would have the appropriate fire

department connections to be used for fire suppression purposes.

Operations and Maintenance Building

The proposed project may include an O&M building of approximately 40 feet by 80 feet in size, with

associated on-site parking. The O&M building would be steel framed, with metal siding and roof panels.

The O&M building may include the following:

Office

Repair building/parts storage

Control room

Restroom

Septic tank and leach field

Roads, driveways and parking lot entrances would be constructed in accordance with Kern County

improvement standards. Parking spaces and walkways would be constructed in conformance with all

California Accessibility Regulations.

As previously mentioned, the proposed project may share O&M facilities and/or staff with one or more

nearby solar projects, and/or may be remotely operated. Any “unused” O&M areas on-site may be covered

by solar panels.




Figure 5: POTENTIAL GEN-TIE ROUTES




Project Site Security and Fencing

The project site would be enclosed within a chain link fence with barbed wire measuring up to eight feet in

height (from finished grade). The proposed project would include an intrusion alarm system comprised of

sensor cables integrated into the perimeter fence, intrusion detection cabinets placed approximately every

1,500 feet along the perimeter fence, and an intrusions control unit or similar technology. The intrusions

control unit would be located either in the substation control room or at the O&M building. Additionally,

the proposed project may include additional security measures including, but not limited to, barbed wire,

low voltage fencing with warning reflective signage, controlled access points, security alarms, security

camera systems, and security guard vehicle patrols to deter trespassing and/or unauthorized activities that

could interfere with operation of the proposed project.

Controlled access gates would be maintained at the main entrances to the project site. Project site access

would be provided to off-site emergency response teams that respond in the event of an “after-hours”

emergency. Enclosure gates would be manually operated with a key provided in an identified key box

location.

Project Site Lighting

All project site lighting would be directed away from any public rights-of-way. Lighting used on-site would

be minimal. Site lighting may include motion sensor lights for security purposes. Lighting used on-site

would be of the lowest intensity foot candle level, in compliance with any applicable regulations, measured

at the property line after dark.

Construction Activities

The construction period, from site preparation through construction, testing, and commercial operation, is

expected to commence in early 2019 and will extend for approximately 12 to 18 months. Construction of

the facility will include the following activities:

Site Preparation

Grading and earthwork

Concrete foundations

Structural steel work

Electrical/instrumentation work

Collector line installation

Architecture and landscaping

No roadways would be affected by the proposed project, except during the proposed project’s construction

period. Construction traffic would access the project site from Philips Road, Gantt Road, and Neuralia

Road. It is estimated that up to 1,000 workers per day (during peak construction periods) would be required

during the construction of the proposed project.

Heavy construction is expected to occur between 6:00 am and 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday. Additional

hours may be necessary to make up schedule deficiencies or to complete critical construction activities.

Nighttime activities could potentially include, but are not limited to, refueling equipment, staging material

for the following day’s construction activities, quality assurance/control, and commissioning.

Materials and supplies would be delivered to the project site by truck. Truck deliveries will normally occur

during daylight hours. However, there will be offloading and/or transporting to the project site on weekends

and during evening hours.




Earthmoving activities are expected to be limited to the construction of the access roads, any O&M building,

any substation, any ESSs, and any storm water protection or storage (detention) facilities. Final grading

may include revegetation with low lying grass or applying earth-binding materials to disturbed areas.

Work Force

Once the project is constructed, maintenance will generally be limited to the following:

Cleaning of PV panels

Monitoring electricity generation

Providing site security

Facility maintenance – replacing or repairing inverters, wiring, and PV modules

It is expected that the proposed project would require up to five full-time employees. As previously

mentioned, it is possible that the proposed project would share O&M, substation, and/or transmission

facilities with one or more nearby projects. In such a scenario, the projects would share personnel, thereby

potentially reducing the proposed project’s on-site staff.

The solar facility would operate seven days a week, 24 hours a day, generating electricity during normal

daylight hours when the solar energy is available. Maintenance activities may occur seven days a week, 24

hours a day to ensure PV panel output when solar energy is available.

Project Features and Best Management Practices

The following describes standard project features and best management practices (BMPs) that will be

applied during construction and long-term operation of the proposed project.

Waste and Hazardous Materials Management

The proposed project would have minimal levels of materials on-site that have been defined as hazardous

under 40 CFR, Part 261. The following materials are expected to be used during the construction,

operation, and long-term maintenance of the proposed project:

Insulating oil – used for electrical equipment

Lubricating oil – used for maintenance vehicles

Various solvents/detergents – equipment cleaning

Gasoline – used for maintenance vehicles

Hazardous materials and wastes will be managed, used, handled, stored, and transported in accordance with

applicable local and State regulations. All hazardous wastes will be maintained at quantities below the

threshold requiring a Hazardous Material Management Program (HMMP) (one 55 gallon drum). Though

not expected, should any on-site storage of hazardous materials exceed one 55-gallon drum, an HMMP

would be prepared and implemented.

Spill Prevention and Containment

Hazardous materials stored on-site will be in quantities of less than 55 gallons. Spill prevention and

containment for construction and operation of the proposed project will adhere to the U. S. Environmental

Protection Agency’s guidance on Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures.




Waste Water/Septic System

A standard on-site septic tank and leach field may be used at the O&M building to dispose sanitary

wastewater, designed to meet operation and maintenance guidelines required by Kern County laws,

ordinances, regulations, and standards.

Inert Solids

Inert solid wastes resulting from construction activities may include recyclable items such as paper,

cardboard, solid concrete and block, metals, wire, glass, type 1-4 plastics, drywall, wood, and lubricating

oils. Non-recyclable items include insulation, other plastics, food waste, vinyl flooring and base, carpeting,

paint containers, packing materials, and other construction wastes. A Construction Waste Management Plan

will be prepared for review by the County. Consistent with local regulations and the California Green

Building Code, the Plan would provide for diversion of a minimum of 50 percent of construction waste

from landfills.

Chemical storage tanks (if any) would be designed and installed to meet applicable local and state

regulations. Any wastes classified as hazardous such as solvents, degreasing agents, concrete curing

compounds, paints, adhesives, chemicals, or chemical containers will be stored (in an approved storage

facility/shed/structure) and disposed of as required by local and state regulations. Material quantities of

hazardous wastes are not expected.

Health and Safety

Safety precautions and emergency systems will be implemented as part of the design and construction of

the proposed project to ensure safe and reliable operation. Administrative controls will include classroom

and hands-on training in operating and maintenance procedures, general safety items, and a planned

maintenance program. These will work with the system design and monitoring features to enhance safety

and reliability.

The proposed project will have an Emergency Response Plan (ERP). The ERP will address potential

emergencies including chemical releases, fires, and injuries. All employees will be provided with

communication devices, cell phones, or walkie-talkies, to provide aid in the event of an emergency.

1.5 Project Objectives

The project proponent has defined the following objectives for the project: Construct and operate a

solar energy facility capable of producing up to 500 MW of electricity to assist the State of California

in achieving its 50 percent renewable portfolio standard by 2030;

To provide energy to the electric grid to meet increasing demand for in-state generation;

To facilitate enhanced grid operation by connecting the proposed project energy storage facilities to

directly to LADWP’s Barren Ridge substation;

Integrate operating facilities with other existing solar projects in the vicinity to maximize economies of

scale; and

To promote economic development and bring living-wage jobs to the region throughout the life of the

proposed project.




1.6 Proposed Discretionary Actions/Required Approvals Construction and operation of the proposed solar energy facility may require certain discretionary

actions and approvals including, but not limited to, the following:

Federal

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Section 10 Incidental Take Permit and

Habitat Conservation Plan, if required;

Bureau of Land Management Right of Way Agreement for Limited Improvements for Access

Roads and Gen-tie Line

United States Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit

State

California Public Utilities Commission

o Section 851 Permit

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)

o Section 1600 et seq. permits (Streambed Alteration Agreements)

o Section 2081 Permit (State-listed endangered species)

Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)

Waste Discharge Requirements

o Regional Water Quality Certification (401 Permit)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit

General Construction Stormwater Permit (Preparation of a SWPPP)

Regional Water Quality Certification (401 Permit)

California Department of Transportation

o Right-of-Way Encroachment Permit

o Oversized Loads Permit

Other additional permits or approvals from responsible agencies may be required for the project.

Local

Kern County Planning and Community Development Department

Land Use Approval (General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Conditional Use Permit)

Certification of Environmental Impact Report

Mitigation Monitoring Program

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

Rights-of-Way Crossing Permits

Eastern Kern County Air Pollution Control District

Fugitive Dust Control Plan

Authority to Construct

Permit to Operate

Kern County Engineering, Surveying and Permit Services Department

Plan for the Disposal of Drainage Waters

Grading and Building Plans

Kern County Environmental Health Services Division




Hazardous Materials Business Plan

Septic and Water System Permits

Kern County Fire Department

Fire Safety Plan

Kern County Board of Supervisors

Amendment to the Circulation Element of the Kern County General Plan

Amendment of Zone Maps

Conditional Use Permit for Construction of Batch Plants

Kern County Roads Department

Proposed Access Road Design and Encroachment Permit

Other additional permits or approvals from Kern County may be required for the project.




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 and Forestry

Resources

Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Tribal 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 (To be completed by the Lead Agency)

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.

Signature

Date

Printed Name

For




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

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 aesthetic features of the existing visual environmental in the project area are relatively uniform,

with broad, dry, flat landscapes leading to distant mountains. The project site is generally surrounded

by undeveloped and fallow agricultural land and other solar developments with low scenic qualities.

Scenic vistas in the region are evident from hiking trails in local hills. Trails crossing these hills

occasionally provide expansive views of the flatlands below. Therefore, potential 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, SR 14 is considered an eligible scenic highway from its junction with SR 58 to its

merge with SR 395. From the nearest project boundary, Site 2 is located approximately 1.5 miles

from SR 14.Thefore, the proposed project is unlikely to be visible from SR 14. However, further

analysis of this issue will be provided in the EIR.

(c) The aesthetic features of the existing visual environment in the project boundaries are relatively

uniform, with broad, dry, flat landscapes. Outside of the project boundaries include undeveloped land

and the Fremont rural community located immediately adjacent to Site 5. Due to the flat topography

of the project site and the height of proposed PV panels, visual impacts would most likely be limited

to the small number of persons traveling along nearby roads such as Philips Road and Neuralia Road.

Views of the proposed project would also be visible from the residences located in the Fremont rural

community. Placement of PV solar panels and associated structures on the project site would alter

the existing character of the area. Residents and travelers on adjacent roads would observe alterations

to the existing landscape. Changes to the visual quality and character of the project site may be

significant, and impacts will be further evaluated in the EIR.




(d) With the exception of various structures located along Barrel Cactus Street within Site 5, the project

site is generally undeveloped land and does not generate substantial source of nighttime light. The

Fremont rural community is located immediately adjacent to Site 5 and consists predominantly of

rural residential dwellings. The existing residences in the project vicinity generate a minimal to

moderate amount of light, primarily from building or outdoor lighting. The PV modules are designed

to absorb sunlight to maximize electrical output; therefore, they are not expected to create significant

reflective surfaces or the potential for glint/glare during the day. The proposed solar facility lighting

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. All lighting at the proposed solar facility would be designed to meet

Kern County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 19.81- Outdoor Lighting- Dark Skies requirements.

However, further analysis of the specific lighting and effects of nighttime light and glare from the

proposed project will be provided in the EIR.




Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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) According to the California Department of Conservation (CDC), Division of Land Resource

Protection’s Kern County Important Farmland Maps (DOC 2016), there are no agricultural lands

designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance located within

the project site. Sites 1 through 4 are designated as nonagricultural and natural vegetation, while Site

5 is designated as vacant or disturbed land. There are no important farmland located adjacent to or in

the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, construction and/or operation of the proposed project would

not result in the conversion of designated Farmland to a nonagricultural use. No further evaluation is

required in the EIR.

(b) According to the CDC, Division of Land Resource Protection’s Kern County Williamson Act FY

2013/2014 map, the project site does not contain lands that are subject to Williamson Act contracts,

either active or in nonrenewal. There are no lands under Williamson Act contracts adjacent to or in

the vicinity of the project site. The project site and surrounding area includes land that is zoned as A

(Exclusive Agriculture) and A-1 (Limited Agriculture); however, solar facilities are considered a

compatible use with this designation with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and no active agricultural

lands would be affected by the proposed project. As such, there would be no impacts to Williamson

Act lands and lands zoned for agricultural use. No further evaluation is required in the EIR.

(c)-(d) The project site if not situated on forest or timberland with areas that are currently under production.

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 related to the rezoning of

forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned for timberland production and no further analysis is

warranted in the EIR.

(e) As mentioned above, the project site is not classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or

Farmland of Statewide Importance, and there are no active farmlands located in the project vicinity.

The proposed project would not have indirect impacts to the existing environment that would affect

agricultural uses. The project site is not designated as forest land. As such, there would be no

conversion of forest land. No further evaluation is required 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, and no impacts are anticipated. No further evaluation is

required in the EIR.




Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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 Unified 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.




Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

Operational and Area Sources

Reactive organic gases (ROG)

25 tons per year.

Oxides of nitrogen (NOX)

25 tons per year.

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 as a

nonattainment area for both the State and federal ozone standards and the state particulate matter

(PM10) standard. Project construction would generate emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and

oxides of nitrogen (NOX), both of which are known as ozone precursors, and PM10 that could result

in significant impacts to air quality in the area. EKAPCD’s most recently adopted air quality

management plan is its Ozone Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP)(EKAPCD 2005). As the

proposed project would generate emissions of ozone precursors (along with PM10) during

construction, the proposed project could potentially conflict with EKAPCD’s Ozone AQAP. Thus,

further analysis of the project’s air quality impacts is warranted to determine whether the proposed

project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of EKAPCD’s applicable air quality plan for

attainment and, if so, to determine the reasonable and feasible mitigation measures that could be

imposed. These issues will be evaluated 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 within the EKAPCD and is not under the under the jurisdiction of the San

Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD); therefore, the SJVAPCD standards will

not be addressed further. EKAPCD 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 the proposed project.

This will include quantifying emissions for activities such as truck trips to deliver panels or

employees to the site. Cumulative contributions to this air basin could be potentially significant.

Construction and operational emissions will be evaluated in the EIR.




(d) Sensitive receptors located in the project area consist predominantly of rural residential dwellings

located at varying distances from the project site. The Fremont rural community is located

immediately adjacent to Site 5 and consists predominantly of rural residential dwellings. The nearest

sensitive receptors are adjacent to the project boundary for Sites 3 and 5. Nearby sensitive receptors

could be exposed to pollutant emissions during construction of the proposed project. The proposed

project’s construction-related activities would result in diesel exhaust emissions and dust that could

adversely affect air quality for the nearest sensitive receptors.

Exposure to Valley Fever from fugitive dust generated during construction is a potentially significant

impact. There is the potential that cocci spores could be stirred up during excavation, grading, and

earth-moving activities, exposing construction workers and nearby sensitive receptors to these spores

and thereby to the possibility of contracting Valley Fever. Thus, impact to sensitive receptors via

pollutant concentrations is potentially significant and will be evaluated further in the EIR.

(e) Land uses typically producing objectionable odors include dairies, agricultural uses, wastewater

treatment plants, chemical plants, food processing facilities, composting, refineries, and fiberglass

molding facilities. The project would not have any stationary sources or equipment located on-site

that would generate objectionable odors. During construction activities, only short-term, temporary

odors from vehicle exhaust and construction equipment engines would occur. However, these odors

would be temporary and would be dispersed rapidly. Therefore, it is anticipated that there would be

no impact and further analysis is not warranted in the EIR.




Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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 Game

or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any

riparian habitat or other sensitive natural

community identified in local or regional

plans, policies, regulations, or by the

California Department of Fish and Game or

U.S. 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. The project site is located within the Fremont Valley, in the western portion of the Mojave Desert.

The project site is generally comprised of disturbed habitat from previous agricultural uses.

Nonetheless, there is a potential for special-status plants and wildlife species to be present onsite or

in the proposed project vicinity. Field surveys for special-status plant and animal species will be

included in the EIR. Impacts to biological resources and sensitive plant communities are potentially

significant and will be analyzed in the EIR.

b. The project site is generally disturbed habitat from previous agricultural uses. Field surveys for

sensitive natural communities will be completed for the proposed project, and the results will be

included in the EIR.

c. Potential jurisdictional features such as streams and washes could be present on the project site. A

determination as to whether the project site contains features considered under federal or state

jurisdiction will be conducted as part of the EIR. Impacts to protected wetlands would be considered

potentially significant, if required. Further analysis will be included in the EIR.

d. The project site and surrounding area may be used for migration or dispersal by some avian species.

Project construction and operation could also remove foraging habitat. This impact is potentially

significant and will be further evaluated in the EIR.

e. There is no local policy or ordinance protecting biological resources. Additionally, the site is devoid

of trees. There would be no impacts and no further analysis is warranted in the EIR.

f. The project site is not located within a local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan boundary.

There would be no impacts and no further analysis is required in the EIR.




Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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 an archaeological resource

pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section

15064.5?

c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique

paleontological resource or site or unique

geologic feature?

d. Disturb any human remains, including those

interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Discussion:

(a) The project site consists of undeveloped land. Development of the proposed project would require

ground disturbance for grading, installation of the solar arrays, gen-tie line, and placement of

underground electrical and communications lines. The proposed project could potentially impact

historical resources. A cultural resources survey will be conducted for the proposed project as part of

the EIR. Further evaluation in the EIR is warranted to identify potential impacts to historical resources

and to formulate avoidance or mitigation measures, if applicable.

(b) As discussed above, development of the proposed project would require ground disturbance for

grading, installation of the solar arrays, gen-tie line, and placement of underground electrical and

communications lines. The proposed project could potentially impact archaeological resources. A

cultural resources survey will be conducted for the proposed project as part of the EIR. Further

evaluation in the EIR is warranted to identify potential impacts to archaeological resources and to

formulate avoidance or mitigation measures, if applicable.

(c) Kern County is rich in paleontological resources. Of particular note are the Maricopa and Citric Brea

Tar Pits, the Bean Hills Petrified Forest, and Shark Tooth Hill at Round Mountain. The project site

is not located near any of these known paleontological resources and construction activities would

involve relatively shallow excavations and trenching; therefore, impacts to paleontological resources

are anticipated to be less than significant. However, the EIR will include an analysis of

paleontological resources to document the findings.




(d) There is no evidence that the project site is located within an area likely to contain human remains,

and discovery of human remains during earthmoving activities is not anticipated. Therefore, impacts

to human remains are anticipated to be less than significant. However, this issue will be further

evaluated in the EIR.




Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

Would the project:

a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of a tribal cultural resource,

defined in Public Resources Code section

21074 as either a site, feature, place,

cultural landscape that is geographically

defined in terms of the

size and scope of the landscape, sacred

place, or object with cultural value to a

California Native American tribe, and that

is:

i. Listed or eligible for listing in the

California Register of Historical

Resources, or in a local register or

historical resources as defined in

Public Resources Code section

5020.1(k), or

ii. A resource determined by the lead

agency in its discretion and

supported by substantial evidence, to

be significant pursuant to criteria set

forth in subdivision (c) of Public

Resources Code Section 5024.1. In

applying the criteria set forth in

subdivision (c) of Public Resources

Code Section 5024.1, the lead

agency shall consider the

significance of the resource to a

California Native American tribe.

Discussion: (a) The proposed project could potentially impact tribal cultural resources. All tribes with possible

cultural affiliation and interest within the project area will be notified, per Assembly Bill 52. Further

evaluation in the EIR is warranted to identify potential impacts to tribal cultural resources and to

formulate avoidance or mitigation measures, if applicable.




Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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) The project site is not located within a currently mapped Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Fault

Zone. The nearest active fault is the Garlock (Center) fault, located approximately 3 miles east

of the project site. The Garlock (Center) fault trace trends in a northeast – southwest direction.

The fault projects towards the project site. Based on the fault’s distance from the project site

and because the fault projects towards the project in the southeast portion of the site, the

potential for surface fault rupture to occur on the project site is moderate. This is considered a

potentially significant impact and will be further evaluated in the EIR.

(ii) 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 solar field of PV panels, transmission lines, an electrical collection

system, an O&M facility, and other associated infrastructure. Up to five employees would be

located onsite once operational. 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 Standards Code (CBC), which

imposes substantially the same requirements as the International Building Code (IBC). The

entire County is located in seismic Zone 4, a designation previously used in the Uniform

Building Code to denote the areas of the highest risk to earthquake ground motion. Adherence

to applicable regulations would minimize the potential impacts associated with the proposed

project. This issue will be analyzed further in the EIR.

(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. Groundwater in the site vicinity is expected to be

approximately 225 feet below the ground surface, and 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 in the EIR is warranted.

(iv) The project site is located in a relatively flat-lying plain, where landslides are not likely. Therefore, impacts related to landslides are not anticipated to occur or pose a hazard to the

proposed project or surrounding area. Further analysis of this issue is not warranted in the EIR.

b. Minimal grading and excavation would be required for foundations at the site, but some 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, for example, could lead to exposed or stockpiled

soils susceptible to peak storm water 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 storm water runoff

contamination. The Applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the National Pollution

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit (CGP), because the proposed

project would disturb greater than one acre of land. In order to conform to the requirements of the

CGP, a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) would need to be prepared that outlines




specific BMPs to prevent construction pollutants, including eroded soils (such as topsoil), from

moving off-site. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant with implementation of the above

requirements. However, this issue will be further evaluated in the EIR.

c. The proposed project lies in a relatively flat-lying plain where landslides, lateral spreading,

subsidence, liquefaction, and collapse are not 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 this issue is not warranted in the EIR.

Depth to groundwater at the project site is generally deep (approximately 225 feet below the ground

surface), and soil properties on-site do not exhibit liquefaction characteristics, therefore liquefaction

potential is low. 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. Impacts are anticipated to be

less than significant with implementation of the above requirements. However, these issues will be

further evaluated in 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 majority of the project site is located in areas with soil composed of sand, gravel,

and silt. Most of the soil at the project site is not considered expansive soils. The proposed project

would be designed to comply with applicable building codes and structural improvement

requirements to withstand the effects of expansive soils. Impacts are anticipated to be less than

significant; however, this issue will be further evaluated in the EIR.

e. The project may include an O&M facility to serve an estimated five employees. This facility may

include development of a septic tank and associated disposal field, the impacts of which are

potentially significant. This issue will be further evaluated in the EIR.




Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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) Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change

or global warming. The principal GHGs are CO2, methane (CH4), NOX, ozone, water vapor, and

fluorinated gases. The temporary construction activities associated with the proposed project, which

would involve operation of heavy off-road equipment, on-road trucks (for deliveries and hauling),

and construction worker commute trips, would generate 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. The potential impacts

associated with GHG emissions generated during construction of the project and the potential GHG

offsets resulting from operation of the 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 that require the State’s global warming emissions to be

reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. The reduction will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide

cap on GHG emissions that was phased in starting in 2012.

In 2002, California established its Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) Program, with the goal of

increasing the percentage of renewable energy in the State’s electricity mix to 20 percent renewable

energy by 2017. In 2006, under SB 107, the RPS Program codified the 20 percent goal. The RPS

Program requires electric utilities and providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable

energy resources by at least one percent of their retail sales annually until they reach 20 percent by

2017. On November 17, 2008, the governor signed Executive Order S-14-08, requiring California

utilities to reach the 33 percent renewable goal by 2020. In 2015, SB 350 was enacted to increase the

RPS to 50 percent and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by the year 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. Heavy equipment operation, truck deliveries, and

construction worker commute trips associated with construction of the proposed project would

temporarily generate GHGs; however, operation of the project would offset GHGs generated by




traditional sources of electricity. The project’s potential GHG impacts and the potential GHG offsets

resulting from operation of the project will be further evaluated in the EIR.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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?




Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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 resi-dences are intermixed with wildlands?

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 is not expected to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment

through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. This is because 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. During construction, the proposed

project would include the transport of general construction materials (i.e., concrete, wood, metal,

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, 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. In addition, hazardous fuels and lubricants used on field

equipment would be subject to a Construction Waste Management Plan and, if required, a Spill

Prevention, Containment and Countermeasure Plan. Impacts resulting from the transport, use or

disposal of hazardous materials during construction of the proposed project would be less than

significant; however, the EIR will include an evaluation of potential hazardous materials impacts.

The proposed project would be subject to all local, state, and federal laws pertaining to the use of

hazardous materials on-site and would be subject to review by the Kern County Environmental Health

Services Division. Through the review process, the project would be required to submit a complete

list of all materials used on-site, how the materials would be transported, and in what form they would

be used to maintain safety and prevent possible environmental contamination or worker exposure.

During construction of the proposed project, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for all applicable

materials present at the site would be made readily available to on-site personnel. During construction

of the facilities, non-hazardous construction debris would be generated and disposed of in approved

facilities. During construction of the facility, sanitary waste would be managed using portable toilets

located at reasonably accessible on-site locations. Therefore, project construction would not create a

significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of

hazardous materials.

The PV panels may include solid materials that are considered to be hazardous, such as cadmium

telluride. The project would use the manufacturer’s collection and recycling program to ensure the

proper collection and recycling of PV panels, as needed. Solar panels are in a solid and non-leachable

state; broken PV panels would not be a source of pollution to storm water. Dust palliative and

herbicides, if used, may be transported to and stored at the project site. These materials would be

stored in appropriate containers that would prevent their accidental release at the site.

There are no designated routes for the transport of hazardous materials located within or adjacent to

the project; however, SR 14 and SR 58 are designated routes for the transport of hazardous materials.

These roadways are equipped to handle the transport of hazardous materials and both SR 14 and SR

58 would provide regional access to the project. Impacts resulting from the transport, use or disposal

of hazardous materials during construction and operation of the proposed project will be evaluated

further in the EIR.

(b) 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 proposed project may include

various hazardous substances, including polychlorinated biphenyls. The toxicity and potential release

of these materials would depend on the quantity, type of storage container, safety protocols used on

the site, location and/or proximity to schools and residences, frequency and duration of spills or

storage leaks, and the reactivity of hazardous substances with other materials. The proposed project

would be subject to all local, state, and federal laws pertaining to the use of hazardous materials on-

site and would be subject to review by the Kern County Environmental Health Services Division.

Through the review process, the project proponent would be required to submit a complete list of all

materials used on-site, how the materials would be transported, and in what form they would be used.

This would be recorded to maintain safety and prevent possible environmental contamination or




worker exposure. This would include submission of MSDS for all applicable materials present at the

site, and the MSDS would be made readily available to on-site personnel. It is anticipated that

adherence to regulations and standard protocols during the storage, transportation, and usage of any

hazardous materials would avoid significant impacts. However, potential impacts will be evaluated

in the EIR.

(c) There are no existing or proposed schools located within one-quarter mile of the project site. The

project will not emit hazardous materials or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous

materials, substances or waste within one-quarter miles of an existing or proposed school. No

significant impacts are anticipated, and further analysis of this issue is not warranted in the EIR.

(d) The project site is not identified in any of the California hazardous materials databases. Searches

were completed for the subject parcels in the following hazardous materials lists: California

Environmental Protection Agency’s (CalEPA) Cortese List including the California Department of

Toxic Substances and Control’s EnviroStor database of hazardous substances release sites; and

Geotracker, the California database of leaking underground storage tanks. Finally, as provided by

CalEPA, there are no active Cease and Desist Orders or Clean Up and Abatement Orders for

hazardous materials/facilities in the immediate project vicinity of the project site. Therefore,

significant impacts are not anticipated, and further analysis is not warranted in the EIR.

(e) The project site is not located within two miles of a public or public use airport or within an area

covered by the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), and is not located within

an airport sphere of influence identified in the ALUCP. The nearest public airport is the California

City Airport, which is located approximately 2.5 miles south of the project site (from southern

boundary of Site 4). Impacts are expected to be less than significant; however, this issue will be

further evaluated in the EIR.

(f) The project site is not located within two miles of a public or public use airport. Therefore, safety

hazards related to proximity to a private airstrip are not anticipated. Significant impacts are not

anticipated and further analysis of this issue is not warranted in the EIR.

(g) The project would not physically impede an existing emergency response plan, emergency vehicle

access, or personnel access to the project site. The project site is located in an area with several

alternative access roads allowing access 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 proposed project is located outside of areas identified by the California Department of Forestry

and Fire (CALFIRE) as having substantial or very high risk of fires (CAL FIRE 2007). The project

site consists of undeveloped and fallow agricultural land. This area was previously farmed but was

abandoned for several decades and or/ were previously used for unregulated sheep grazing. The

surrounding land is primarily disturbed agricultural land. The construction and operation of the

proposed project would not result in increased risk of wildfires in the project area. The proposed

project would comply with all applicable wildland fire management plans and policies established

by CAL FIRE and Kern County Fire Department. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to

expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No

further evaluation is required in the EIR.




(i) The proposed project would involve the construction of photovoltaic panels for use with solar energy

generation. Project-related infrastructure is not expected to result in features or conditions (such as

standing water, agricultural products, agricultural waste, or human waste) that would 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 would not occur and no further analysis is warranted.




Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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?




Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area

structures that would impede or redirect

flood flows?

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) 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, including the NPDES CGP, would reduce potential water quality impacts to a less than

significant level. Soil stabilization measures would be used to prevent soil erosion caused by storm

water runoff. The proposed project contractor(s) would apply for coverage under the state’s General

Construction Permit for stormwater discharges from construction activities and would prepare a

SWPPP that would include implementation of BMP erosion-control measures to control stormwater

runoff. Site-specific BMPs would be designed by the contractor in compliance with regulations and

permit conditions. A comprehensive hydrology and water quality impact analysis will be included in

the EIR. This issue will be further analyzed in the EIR.

(b) Water demand for panel washing and O&M domestic use is not expected to exceed 50 acre-feet per

year. Water usage during construction, primarily for dust-suppression purposes, is not expected to

exceed 400 acre-feet. Water is anticipated to be obtained from an existing on-site well within Site 5.

According to the landowner, the well is capable of producing 1,500 gallons per minute. Alternatively,

water may be obtained from one or more off-site source(s) and delivered to the project site via truck.

If off-site water is used, it will likely be obtained from one of the nearby Springbok projects or from

a commercial source. If the project proponent determines that off-site water will be used, the project

proponent will submit a Will Serve Letter from the proposed off-site water purveyor(s).

The project site is undeveloped, relatively flat, and covered with soils that allow for storm water

percolation. The impervious surfaces required for the inverters, transformers, and other infrastructure

would be minimized as much as possible. Impacts related to groundwater supplies and the drainage

patterns of the site, as well as the potential for increased erosion or siltation, will be evaluated in the

EIR.

(c) Construction of the concrete pads for the switchyard, inverters, transformers, O&M buildings, etc.,

as well as foundational supports for panel installation, soil compaction, and any grading may alter

the existing drainage pattern of the site. A hydrologic study will be prepared for the project in

accordance with Kern County requirements, and potentially significant impacts to existing drainage

patterns and flooding conditions on the project site will be analyzed in the EIR.




(d) Construction and operational activities associated with the proposed project could result in an

increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff. Portions of the project site are located within Flood

Zone A FP. A hydrologic study will be prepared for the project in accordance with Kern County

requirements, and potentially significant impacts will be analyzed 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 design of the solar arrays is such that storm water infiltration would

occur similar to existing conditions. No component of the project would concentrate runoff and

exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems. Similarly, 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 would ensure the proper control and

treatment, if necessary, of any storm water prior to discharge. With adherence to site-specific BMPs,

potential pollutants would be minimized to the extent practicable and would not exceed numeric

thresholds for water quality protection. Nevertheless, this impact 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. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed project has the potential to

substantially degrade water quality. This issue will be evaluated further in the EIR.

(g) The proposed project would not 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.

Therefore, no impact would occur and no further evaluation is required in the EIR.

(h) Based on a review of the FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FEMA 2008), Panels 06029C2930E

and 06029C2940E, Site 1 and Site 2 have small areas mapped as 100-year (Zone A) floodplains.

Zone A is defined as areas subject to inundation by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event generally

determined using approximate methodologies. The proposed project would be reviewed by the Kern

County Public Works Department- Floodplain for adherence to all floodplain management standards.

Further analysis is required to identify appropriate mitigation/design measures to reduce potentially

significant impacts from potential flooding and additional review will be provided in the EIR.

(i) The proposed project is not located near any levees or dam. Therefore, the proposed project would

not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death due to flooding. Impacts

would not be expected, 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. The topography surrounding the project area is relatively flat;

therefore, the potential to be inundated by mudflow is considered remote. Therefore, no impacts

would result and no further evaluation is required in the EIR.




Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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 project site is located on existing undeveloped land formerly used for agriculture and sheep

grazing. The Fremont rural community is located immediately adjacent to Site 5 and consists

predominantly of rural residential dwellings. The proposed project would not physically divide or

restrict access to the Fremont rural community, or its relationship other surrounding communities.

Therefore, impacts related to the physical division of an established community would not occur, and

no further evaluation is required in the EIR.

(b) Sites 1 and 2 are located entirely within the Kern County General Plan area. As shown in Figure 3,

portions of Sites 3, 4 and 5 are located within the Kern County General Plan area and the Fremont

Interim Rural Community Plan. As shown in Figure 3, the project site consists of 32 parcels

designated by the Kern County General Plan as Map Code 8.5 (Resource Management, minimum 20

acre parcel size) and by the Fremont Interim Rural Community Plan as 4.2/5.6 (Interim Rural

Community Plan/ Min. 2.5 Gross Acres/Unit) and 4.2/5.8 (Interim Rural Community Plan/ Min. 20

Gross Acres/Unit). As shown in Figure 4, the project site has a zone classification of A (Exclusive

Agriculture), A FP (Exclusive Agriculture, Floodplain Combining), A-1 (Limited Agriculture), E

(20) RS (Estate, 20 Acres, Residential Suburban Combining), and PL RS MH (Platted Lands,

Residential Suburban Combining, Mobile Home Combining).

The project proponent has requested a change in zone classifications from A FP, A-1, E (20) RS, and

PL RS MH to A. According to Kern County Zoning Ordinance 19.12.030, solar energy electrical

facilities are permitted within the A Zone District with the approval of a CUP. The project proponent

is requesting five CUPs to allow for the construction and operation of five solar facilities. With

approval of the zone change classifications and CUPs, the proposed solar project would be an

allowable use within the A Zone District. The project proponent is requesting a General Plan




Amendment to amend the Circulation Element of the Kern County General Plan. With approval of

the requested CUPs and the zone change classifications, the proposed project would not have the

potential to conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with

jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental

effect.

The Lead Agency notes that with the implementation of numerous renewable energy projects,

cumulative effects of utility-sized solar power generation facilities, there is the potential for outside

factors – such as the development of newer technology, changes in state or national policy that

encourages the construction of such facilities, or other economic factors – to result in the

abandonment of such facilities by project proponents. Discussion of potentially significant impacts

associated with the abandonment of solar facilities will be discussed in the EIR. Additionally, the

military has identified potential conflicts of users of the radio frequency spectrum located both on

and off military installations as an area to be reviewed for compatibility issues. Operations of

unmanned radio-controlled aircraft flights can have electronic interference from other sources of

radio signals from telemetry equipment associated with the solar facility. The consistency of the

proposed project with policies contained in the Kern County General Plan and ALUCP adopted for

the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect will be further discussed in the EIR.

(c) The project site is not located within the boundaries of any habitat conservation plan or natural

community conservation plan. Therefore, no impact would occur and no further evaluation is required

in the EIR.




Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less–than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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. The project site is not designated as a mineral recovery area by the Kern County General Plan, nor is

it identified as a mineral resource zone by the Department of Conservation’s State Mining and

Geology Board. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not interfere with mineral

extraction and processing, and would not have significant impacts on future mineral development.

Therefore, there would be no impact and no further analysis is warranted in the EIR.

b. As mentioned previously, the project site is not located within a designated mineral and petroleum

resource site within the Kern County General Plan. The project site is not located within the NR

(Natural Resources) or PE (Petroleum Extraction) zoned districts. Therefore, the installation of the

solar facilities would not preclude future mineral resource development nor would it result in the loss

of a locally important mineral resource recover site. There would be no impact and no further analysis

is warranted in the EIR.




Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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 ground borne vibration or ground

borne 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 dBA (A-weighted decibels) Day-

Night noise level (Ldn) limit on exterior noise levels for stationary sources (i.e., non-transportation)

at sensitive receptors. The closest off-site noise sensitive receptors to the project site are rural

residential dwellings located in the Fremont rural community, located immediately adjacent to Site 5

along Yucaipa Street. Noise generated by the proposed project would occur primarily during the

construction phase; whereas as the long-term operation of the solar facility would be relatively quiet.

No substantial noise-generating equipment would be located at the project site during operations. The

project proponent would be required to adhere to the provisions outlined in the Noise Control




Ordinance in the Kern County Ordinance Code Section 8.36.020 and the General Plan Noise Element.

This impact will be analyzed further in the EIR.

(b) Ground borne vibration and ground borne noise could originate from the operation of heavy off-road

equipment during the construction phase of the project. Erection of the solar arrays would include

support structures that may potentially need to be driven into the soil using pneumatic techniques. As

such, the installation of these support structures may cause localized vibration-related annoyance

and/or damage to structures in close proximity. This issue will be further analyzed in the EIR.

(c) Due to the quiet nature of solar facilities, it is unlikely that long-term noise generated by the proposed

project will exceed existing ambient noise levels. Traffic on the proposed project access roads would

be for routine maintenance activities and would primarily consist of personal vehicles, and would

only occur several times per year. Therefore, the majority of operations would not produce noise

discernible above ambient conditions. Although general maintenance activities would be conducted,

they would be subject to applicable Kern County Noise Control Ordinance requirements and comply

with the General Plan Noise Element, which would minimize impacts to receptors. This issue will be

evaluated further in the EIR.

(d) Heavy equipment used during construction would cause a temporary or periodic increase in ambient

noise levels and be considered a potentially significant impact. Therefore, the potential for the

project’s construction activities to result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient

noise levels at the nearest offsite sensitive receptors will be further evaluated in the EIR.

(e) The project site is not located within two miles of an airport or within an area covered by the ALUCP.

The proposed project would not introduce new residences and 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 project site is not located within two miles of a private airstrip. The proposed project would not

introduce new noise sensitive land uses that could otherwise be exposed to excessive noise levels

from private airports. No impacts are expected, and no further analysis is warranted in the EIR.




Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less- than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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 on-

site workforce is expected to peak at 1,000 individuals. 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. 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

California City, Rosamond, Mojave, Tehachapi, or Lancaster. Therefore, the proposed project would

not directly or indirectly induce the development of any new housing or businesses in the immediate

project area.

Operation of the proposed project would require up to five on-site staff and would use the available

housing stock in the area. Typical established local thresholds of significance for housing and

population growth pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.7, include effects that would

induce substantial growth or concentration of a population beyond county projections; alter the

location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the population beyond that projected in the Kern

County General Plan Housing Element; result in a substantial increase in demand for additional

housing; or create a development that significantly reduces the ability of the county to meet housing

objectives set forth in the housing element. Based on the proposed project’s low projected long-term

employment, it would be unlikely to require additional housing stock or impact Kern County’s

housing objectives in accordance with the housing element allocation plan. No impact would result.

Although the proposed project would produce additional electricity, it is intended to meet the demand

for renewable energy per the State RPS for electrical demands based on planned growth in

communities around California. As such, the generation of electricity by the proposed project would

be considered growth-accommodating, rather than growth-inducing. In addition, state law requires

utility companies to produce a certain renewable product and would help the utility companies meet




this new state law.

The proposed project’s electricity would replace electricity generated by fossil fuels, thereby

contributing to California’s renewable energy goals, and would not contribute to induced growth. No

significant impacts related to population growth are expected from the proposed project and further

analysis of this issue is not warranted in the EIR.

(b) The proposed project is located on former agricultural land with no existing housing; as such, the

proposed project would not displace any existing housing such that it would necessitate the

construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, displacement of existing housing would

not occur and no further evaluation is required in the EIR.

(c) The proposed project is located on former agricultural land with no existing housing. The proposed

project would not displace people such that it would necessitate the construction of replacement

housing in the project area. No further evaluation is required in the EIR.




Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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. The Kern County Fire Department (KCFD) provides fire suppression and

emergency medical services to the project area. The project site would be served by Station #14,

located at 4953 Hwy 58, which is 15 miles south of the project site. Adherence to all applicable

regulations would reduce wildfire ignitions and prevent the spread of wildfires. However,

construction and operation activities may result in increased need for firefighting personnel and

facilities in the area. Therefore, the potential impact on fire services from construction and operation

of the project is considered potentially significant and will be evaluated in the EIR.

ii. Police Protection. Police protection services in the project area are provided by the Kern County

Sheriff’s Department (KCSD). The project site would be served by the Mojave Substation at 1771

Highway 58, approximately 13 miles south of the project site. Although the potential is low, the

proposed 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 police surveillance. Nonetheless, the proposed project’s impacts on

sheriff services are potentially significant and will be evaluated in the EIR.

iii. Schools. During project construction, a relatively large number of construction workers would be

required. It is expected that most of these workers would live in the broader region and commute to




the project site from surrounding communities where their children are already enrolled in school

and where their contribution to local taxes, including funds for schools, is assessed locally. The

proposed project would not require employees or their children to relocate to the project area.

Therefore, substantial temporary increases in population that would adversely affect local school

populations are not expected. Likewise, the operational workforce is small and 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 is not warranted in the

EIR.

iv. Parks. The population increase that would be experienced during the construction phase of the

proposed project would be temporary and would not result in additional demand for park facilities.

Operational employees would be minimal (up to five). Therefore, no significant impacts to parks are

anticipated to occur, and further analysis of this issue is not warranted in the EIR.

v. Other Public Facilities. During project construction, a relatively small number of construction

workers 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 proposed 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 proposed project would only employ up to five full-time

employees who would monitor operations and conduct maintenance activities when needed. The need

for the project proponent to use other services in the future is speculative. The proposed project would

have a less than significant impact on other public services; however, further analysis of this issue is





Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less–than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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) The proposed project would not result in a temporary or permanent increase of population that could

result in a detectable increase in the use of existing parks. Additionally, no park facilities are located

adjacent to the project site which could otherwise be impacted during construction. No impact would

occur and no further analysis is warranted.

(b) The proposed project does not include the construction of new recreational facilities. No impact

would result and no further analysis is warranted.




Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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) Construction activities associated with the proposed project could potentially affect traffic volumes

on nearby roadways. It is estimated that up to 1,000 workers per day (during peak construction

periods) would be required during the construction of the proposed project. During the operational

phase, the proposed project would have up to five full-time staff. Trip generation during the

operational phase, which also includes occasional truck deliveries during maintenance activities,

would not likely result in a substantial increase in traffic in relation to the existing roadway capacity

nor congestion at intersections. Nonetheless, the proposed project’s temporary construction impacts

could be potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR.

(b) i. The proposed project site is located outside of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Area, and

the LOS standards are not applicable to the proposed project. Although trips generated by the

proposed project may be distributed throughout the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Area, the

anticipated minimal number of trips are unlikely to affect LOS standards. Further analysis of this

issue is not warranted in the EIR.

ii. As detailed in the response to (a) above, construction of the proposed project would generate

construction trips and may require roadway lane closures, 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 the metropolitan Bakersfield area or

in other parts of Kern County. Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts on Kern County’s

traffic/circulation system are anticipated to be less than significant, but this issue will be further

analyzed in the EIR.

(c) No public or private airports or airstrips are located within two miles of the project site. The project

is not located within the Kern County ALUCP. The project would not result in a change in air traffic

patterns. No further analysis is required in the EIR.

(d) The project proposes access from existing roads. Beyond driveway and related access improvements,

no new design or features would be introduced that would result in transportation-related hazards or

safety concerns. Although no significant impacts related to increased hazards are anticipated to occur,

further analysis of this issue is warranted in the EIR.

(e) Construction of the proposed project would generate construction trips and potential roadway lane

closures, which could temporarily increase the daily traffic volumes on local roadways and

intersections. However, emergency access would be maintained at all times, and appropriate detours

would be provided, as necessary. Although no significant impacts related to emergency access are

anticipated to occur, further analysis of this issue is warranted in the EIR.

(f) Construction of the proposed project would generate construction trips and potential roadway lane

closures, which could temporarily disrupt any bicycle traffic on local roadways. However, due to the

rural nature of the area, no bus stops or designated bicycle lanes exist on the roadways along the

project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable policies, plans,

or programs supporting alternative transportation. Further analysis of this issue is not warranted in

the EIR.




Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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

storm water 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. It is estimated that up to 1,000

workers per day (during peak construction periods) would be required during the construction of the

project. Wastewater would be contained within portable toilet facilities and disposed of at an

approved offsite location. The Kern County Environmental Health Services Division is responsible




for monitoring the use of portable toilet facilities, and a condition of approval would require the

Applicant to provide documentation of a portable toilet pumping contract. A standard on-site septic

tank and leach field may be used at the O&M building to dispose sanitary wastewater. With a

maximum of five employees, the proposed project is not anticipated to generate substantial volumes

of wastewater. Impacts would be less than significant; however, further analysis of this issue is


(b) Although the proposed project would create a small amount of additional impervious surface and

may require a small amount of imported water for dust suppression during construction and the

washing of panels, these changes would not substantially increase the amount of storm water runoff.

The project area does not rely on constructed storm water drainage systems. As previously stated, 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 NPDES CGP through preparation of a SWPPP and complying

with local drainage requirements. It is not anticipated that the amount of runoff across the project site

would be substantially altered. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to overwhelm existing

storm water drainage systems or create substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, and the

proposed project would comply with the NPDES requirements. However, further analysis of this

issue will be included in the EIR.

(c) Water demand for panel washing and O&M domestic use is not expected to exceed 50 acre-feet per

year. Water usage during construction, primarily for dust-suppression purposes, is not expected to

exceed 400 acre-feet. Water is anticipated to be obtained from an existing on-site well within Site 5,

which is capable of producing 1,500 gallons per minute. Alternatively, water may be obtained from

one or more off-site source(s) and delivered to the project site via truck. If off-site water is used, it

will likely be obtained from one of the nearby Springbok projects or from a commercial source. If

the project proponent determines that off-site water will be used, a Will Serve Letter from the

proposed off-site water purveyor(s) will be submitted. Impacts to water use may be potentially

significant and will be further evaluated in the EIR.

(d) The proposed project would include construction of a septic system and all wastewater would be

handled onsite. Therefore, no impacts to any existing wastewater treatment facilities would occur,

and further analysis of this issue is not warranted in the EIR.

(e) 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. Non-hazardous construction refuse and solid waste would

be either collected and recycled per the Construction Waste Management Plan or disposed of at a

local landfill, while any hazardous waste generated during construction would be disposed of at an

approved off-site 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.

(f) 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 proposed 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, per

the County’s conditions of approval. 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 resources section will discuss project specific and potential cumulatively

considerable impacts on plants and wildlife. The EIR will also evaluate the proposed project’s

contribution to cumulative habitat loss of sensitive biological resources and propose mitigation, if

required.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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 eliminate a plant or

animal community, substantially reduce the

number or restrict the range of a rare or

endangered plant or animal, or eliminate

important examples of the major periods of

California history or prehistory?

b. Does the project have impacts that are

individually limited, but cumulatively

considerable? (“Cumulatively

considerable” means that the incremental

effects of a project are 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?




b. The proposed project has the potential to contribute to cumulative impacts to aesthetics, air quality,

biological resources, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials,

hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, and utilities and service systems. The

project’s contribution to cumulative impacts on these and other resource areas will be evaluated in

the EIR.

c. The proposed project would not result in the long-term operation of any emission sources that would

adversely affect nearby sensitive receptors. However, short-term construction activities could result

in temporary increases in pollutant concentrations. Pollutants of primary concern commonly

associated with construction-related activities include toxic air contaminants (i.e., DPM), asbestos,

and fugitive dust. Within the project area, the potential for increased occurrences of Valley Fever is

also of concern. Human health impacts from the short-term cumulative contribution to air quality

impacts will be further evaluated in the EIR.

eland 1 solar project by 68sf 8me llc - … · strategic plans, s3, ntc p.o. box 10172 fort irwin,...

Documents