Antelope Valley Solar by Renewable Resources ... - County of Kern

PLANNING DEPARTMENT 

TED JAMES, AICP, Director 

2700 "M" STREET, SUITE 100 

BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301-2323 Phone: 

(661) 862-8600 

FAX: (661) 862-8601 TTY Relay 1-800-735-2929 

E-Mail: planning@co.kern.ca.us 

Web Address: www.co.kern.ca.us/planning 

DATE: March 8, 2010 

NOTICE OF PREPARATION 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

To: See Attached Mailing List FROM: Kern County Planning Department 

Attn: Sara Kopp 

2700 "M" Street, Suite 100 

Bakersfield, CA 93301 

(661) 862-8793 

Ted James, AICP, Interim, RMA DIRECTOR 

Community & Economic Development Department 

Engineering & Survey Services Department 

Planning Department 

Roads Department 

SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

REPORT 

The Kern County Planning Department as Lead Agency (per CEQA Guidelines Section 15052) has 

required that an Environmental Impact Report (per CEQA Guidelines Section 15161) be prepared for the 

project identified below. The Planning Department solicits the views of your agency as to the scope and 

content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in 

connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency 

when considering your permit or other approval of projects. 

Due to the limits mandated by State law, your response must be received by April 7, 2010 at 5 pm. In 

addition, comments can be submitted at a scoping meeting that will be held at the Kern County Planning 

Department on March 26, 2009 at 1:30 pm at the address shown above. 

PROJECT TITLE: Antelope Valley Solar by Renewable Resources Group; Specific Plan Amendment 

No. 17, Map 232; Zone Change No. 34, Map 232; Conditional Use Permit No. 28, Map 232; Specific 

Plan Amendment No. 3, Map 233; Zone Change No. 13, Map 233; Conditional Use Permit No. 8, Map 

233; (PP10242) 

PROJECT LOCATION: Generally bounded by 115th Street West to the east, 190th Street West to the 

west, Rosamond Boulevard to the north, and Avenue B to the south. 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project includes a Specific Plan Amendment, concurrent 

zone change, conditional use permit, and cancellation of a Williamson Act Land Use Contract to allow 

for the construction of a 650 megawatt photovoltaic solar facility. The project consists of 

approximately 5,400 acres. Water and sewer service is not required. 

Signature: 

Title: 

Planner II

Eirssk09-10.Nop Los Angeles County 

Department of Regional Planning 

320 West Temple Street, Room 1390 

Los Angeles, CA 90012 

China Lake Naval Weapons Center 

Commanding Officer Code 

Environmental Managment (O'Gara) 

Mail Stop 4014 

China Lake, CA 93555-6108 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Ashleigh Blackford 

2493 Portola Road, Suite B 

Ventura, CA 93003 

Edwards Air Force Base 

AFFTC/XRX Bldg 0001, Rm 110 

#1 South Rosamond Boulevard 

Edwards AFB, CA 93524-1936 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

5000 California Avenue, Suite 100 

Bakersfield, CA 93309-0711 

Bureau of Land Management 

Caliente/Bakersfield 

3801 Pegasus Drive 


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region IX Office / Attn: David Tomsovic 

75 Hawthorn Street /Mail CMD -2 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Antelope Valley Resource 

Conservation Dist. 

44811 Date Avenue, #G 

Lancaster, CA 93534-3136 

Kern County Agriculture Department Kern County Airports Kern County Air Pollution Control District 

Community Development Kern County Administrative Officer Kern County Engineering & Survey Svs/ 

Floodplain 

Kern County Engineering & Survey Svs/ 

Survey 

Kern County Env Health Services Department Kern County Fire Department 

Kern County Library/Diane Duquette Kern County Parks and Recreation Resource Management Agency 

Special Projects/Fiscal Analysis 

Kern County Sheriff's Department 

Administration 

Southern Kern Unified School Dist. 

P.O. Box CC 

Rosamond, CA 93560 

Local Agency Formation Commission 

5300 Lennox Avenue, Suite 303 


Kern County Roads Department Kern County Waste Management Department 

Kern County Superintendent of Schools 

Attention Mary Baker 

1300 - 17th Street 


Antelope Valley-East Kern 

Water Agency 

6500 West Avenue N 

Palmdale, CA 93551 

KernCOG 

Kern County Water Agency 

P.O. Box 58 

Bakersfield, CA 93302-0058

Native American Heritage Council 

of Kern County 

P.O. Box 1507 


California Farm Bureau Federation 

2300 River Plaza Drive, NRED 

Sacramento, CA 95833 

Caltrans/Dist. 9 


500 South Main Street 

Bishop, CA 93514 

State Dept. of Conservation 

Division of Oil & Gas 

4800 Stockdale Highway, Ste 417 


California Food and Agriculture 

1220 "N" Street 


Public Utilities Commission 

Energy Division 

505 Van Ness Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Tejon Indian Tribe 

Kathy Morgan, Chairperson 

2234 4th Street 

Wasco, CA 93280 

Santa Rosa Rancheria 

Clarence Atwell, Chairperson 

P.O. Box 8 

Lemoore, CA 93245 

U.S. Air Force 

Western Regional Environmental Office 

50 Fremont Street, Suite 2450 

San Francisco, CA 94105-2230 

U.S. Navy 

Sheila Donovan 

1220 Pacific Highway 

San Diego, CA 92132 

Sierra Club/Kern Keaweah Chapter 

Arthur Unger 

****PUT IN BUCKET *** 

Stationary Resource Division 

(California Air Resources Board) 

Attention Barbara Fry 

P.O. Box 2815 


State Mining and Geology Board 

801 "K" Street, MS 20-15 


California Energy Commission 

1516 Ninth Street, Room 200 


California Highway Patrol 

Planning and Analysis Division 

P.O. Box 942898 

Sacramento, CA 94298-0001 

California Regional Water Quality 

Control Board/Lahontan Region 

14440 Civic Drive, Suite 200 

Victorville, CA 92392-2306 

Kitanemuk & Yowlumne Tejon Indians 

Delia Dominguez 

981 North Virginia 

Covina, CA 91722 

Tule River Indian Tribe 

Neal Peyron, Chairperson 

P.O. Box 589 

Porterville, CA 93258 

U.S. Army 

Dir of Public Works/Master Plan Div 

P.O. Box 105097 

Fort Irwin, CA 92310-5097 

U.S. Marine Corps 

Patrick Christman 

Building 1164/Box 555246 

Camp Pendleton, CA 92055 

Smart Growth Coalition 

302 South Mojave Street 

Mojave, CA 93561 

Southern San Joaquin Valley 

Archaeological Information Center 

California State University 

9001 Stockdale Highway 


State Clearinghouse 

Office of Planning and Research 

P.O. Box 3044 

Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 - CERTIFIED 

MAIL 

State Dept. of Fish & Game 

1234 East Shaw Avenue 

Fresno, CA 93710 

Integrated Waste Management 

Attention Sue O'Leary, MS #15 

P.O. Box 4025 


Kern Valley Tribal Council 

P.O. Box 168 

Kernville, CA 93238 

Chumash Council of Bakersfield 

P.O. Box 902 


Tubatulabals of Kern County 

P.O. Box 226 

Lake Isabella, CA 93240 

U.S. Army 

Peter Rubin 

B790 5th Street 

Parks RFTA 

Dublin, CA 94568 

Calif. Dept ofToxic Substances Control 

1001 "I" Street 

P.O. Box 806 

Sacramento, CA 95812-0806

Center on Race, Poverty, & the Environment 

Attention: Executive Director 

47 Kearny Street, Suite 804 

San Francisco, CA 94108-5528 

Defenders of Wildlife 

P.O. Box 953 

Joshua Tree, CA 92252 

Rosamond Municipal Advisory Council 

P.O. Box 626 


Beth Boyst 

Pacific Crest Trail Program Manager 

1323 Club Drive 

Vallejo, CA 94592 

David Laughing Horse Robinson 

P.O. Box 1547 

Kernville, CA 93238 


Director's Office 

801 "K" Street, MS 24-01 


City of Bakersfield 


1715 Chester Avenue 


City of Maricopa 

P.O. Box 548 

Maricopa, CA 93252 

City of Shafter 

336 Pacific Avenue 

Shafter, CA 93263 

City of Wasco 

764 "E" Street 

Wasco, CA 93280-1930 

Center on Race, Poverty, & the Environment 

Attention Caroline Farrell 

1302 Jefferson Street, Suite 2 

Delano, CA 93215 

Eight Bar Ranch 

Jon and Helen Lantz 

11300 Cameron Canyon Road 

Mojave, CA 93501 

Kern County Library 

Wanda Kirk/Rosamond Branch 

3611 Rosamond Boulevard 


Eric Mason 

Pacific Crest Trail Association 

P.O. Box 3398 

Idyllwild, CA 92549 

State Dept. of Public Health 

Drinking Water Field Operations Branch 

265 W Bullard Avenue, Suite 101 

Fresno, CA 93704-1755 


Office of Land Conservation 

801 "K" Street, MS 18-01 


California City Planning 

21000 Hacienda Boulevard 

California City, CA 93515 

City of McFarland 

401 West Kern Avenue 

McFarland, CA 93250 

City of Taft 

Planning and Building 

209 East Kern Street 

Taft, CA 93268 

Inyo County Planning Department 

P.O. Drawer "L" 

Independence, CA 93526 

Cuddy Valley Statistical 

11667 Steinhoff Road 

Frazier Park, CA 93222 

Northcutt and Associates 

P.O. Box 2893 

Lake Isabella, CA 93240 

Kern County Fire Department/Brian Marshall 

Suzanne Wilson 

Pacific Crest Trail Association 

26121-A Hemstreet Place 

Idyllwild, CA 92549 

State Department of Health Services/Drinking 

Water 

Jesse Dhaliwal 

1200 Discovery Drive, Ste 100 


City of Arvin 

P.O. Box 548 

Arvin, CA 93203 

City of Delano 

P.O. Box 3010 

Delano, CA 93216 

City of Ridgecrest 

100 West California Avenue 

Ridgecrest, CA 93555 

City of Tehachapi 

115 South Robinson Street 

Tehachapi, CA 93561-1722 

Kings County Planning Agency 

Kings County Government Building #6 

1400 West Lacey Boulevard 

Hanford, CA 93230

Los Angeles County 

Department of Regional Planning 

320 West Temple Street, Room 1390 

Los Angeles, CA 90012 

Santa Barbara County 

Planning and Development 

123 East Anapamu Street 

Santa Barbara, CA 93101 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of NEPA 

Director Carol Borgstrom 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20585-0119 

San Diego Gas and Electric 

P.O. Box 129831 

San Diego, CA 92112-9831 

San Bernardino County 

Office of Planning 

385 North Arrowhead Avenue, 1st Floor 

San Bernardino, CA 92415-0182 

Tulare County 

Planning & Development Dept. 

Room 105-111 

County Civic Center 

Visalia, CA 93291-4503 

Office of Historical Preservation 

Susan Stratton 

P.O. Box 942896 


California Department of Fish and Game 

Dave Hacker 

Region 4 Renewable Energy Projects 

3196 South Higuera Street, Suite A 

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 

San Luis Obispo County 

Planning and Building Department 

County Government Center 

San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 

Ventura County RMA Planning Div. 

Attention Kim Rodriquez, Director 

800 South Victoria Avenue, L1740 

Ventura, CA 93009-1740 

Southern California Edison 

Attn: Cathy Hart 

42060 10 th Street, West 

Lanchester, CA 93534 

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. 

Shaw Office/Land Projects 

650 "O" Street, First Floor 

Fresno, CA 93760-0001

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 

 

Antelope 

Valley Solar by Renewable Resources Group 

Lead Agency: Kern County Planning Department Contact Person: Sara Kopp 

Mailing Address: 2700 "M" Street, Suite 100 Phone: 661-862-8793 

City: Bakersfield Zip: 93301 County: Kern 

County: Kern and Los Angeles City/Nearest Community: Rosamond 

Cross Streets: 110th Street West and 190th Street West Zip Code: 93560 

Longitude/Latitude (degrees, minutes and seconds): 34 52 0.7 N / 118 20 31.3 W Total Acres: 5,400 

Assessor's Parcel No.: See attached Section: See attached Twp.: Range: Base: 

Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: Waterways: California Aqueduct 

Airports: Railways: Schools: 

 

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 

Appendix C 

 

General Plan Update Specific Plan ✔ Rezone Annexation 

✔ Specific 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: Cancellation of 

Williamson Act Land 

 

Use Contract 

Residential: Units Acres 

Office: Sq.ft. Acres Employees Transportation: Type 

Commercial: Sq.ft. Acres Employees Mining: Mineral 

Industrial: Sq.ft. Acres Employees ✔ Power: Type Solar MW 650 

Educational: Waste Treatment:Type MGD 

Recreational: Hazardous Waste:Type 

Water Facilities:Type MGD Other: 

 

✔ 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 Growth Inducement 

Coastal Zone ✔ Noise Solid Waste Land Use 

Drainage/Absorption Population/Housing Balance Toxic/Hazardous ✔ Cumulative Effects 

Economic/Jobs ✔ Public Services/Facilities ✔ Traffic/Circulation Other: 

 

Vacant and Agricultural Production/A FPS, E (1) RS MH FPS, E (2 1/2), E (2 1/2) RS FPS, E (2 1/2) RS MH FPS, E (5) RS FPS, C-2 

PD/3.1, 

3.2, 5.3, 5.3/4.4, 5.3/4.4/2.6, 5.3, 4.4, 2.85, 5.6, 5.6/2.6, 5.6/2.6/2.8, 5.6/2.8, 5.6/2.85, 5.7/2.85, 6.2, 7.1/4.4, 8.1, 8.1/2.6, 

8.1/2.85, 

8.5/2.85; Los Angeles County: A-2-5/N1 

(please use a separate page if necessary) 

A Specific Plan Amendment to the Willow Springs Specific Plan, Zone Change, Conditional Use Permit for 5,400 acres, and 

cancellation of Williamson Act Land Use Contracts for portions of the site to allow for construction of a 650 MW photovoltaic 

solar facility. 

Note: The State Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. If a SCH number already exists for a project (e.g. Notice of Preparation or 

previous draft document)please fill in. 

Revised 2008

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". 

S 

Air Resources Board Office of Emergency Services 

Boating & Waterways, Department of Office of Historic Preservation 

California Highway Patrol Office of Public School Construction 

Caltrans District # Parks & Recreation, Department of 

Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Pesticide Regulation, Department of 

Caltrans Planning S Public Utilities Commission 

Central Valley Flood Protection Board S Regional WQCB # 6 

Coachella Valley Mtns. Conservancy Resources Agency 

Coastal Commission S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Comm. 

Colorado River Board San Gabriel & Lower L.A. Rivers & Mtns. Conservancy 

Conservation, Department of San Joaquin River Conservancy 

Corrections, Department of Santa Monica Mtns. Conservancy 

Delta Protection Commission State Lands Commission 

Education, Department of SWRCB: Clean Water Grants 

Energy Commission SWRCB: Water Quality 

Fish & Game Region # SWRCB: Water Rights 

Food & Agriculture, Department of Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 

Forestry and Fire Protection, Department of S Toxic Substances Control, Department of 

General Services, Department of 

Health Services, Department of 

Water Resources, Department of 

Housing & Community Development Other: 

Integrated Waste Management Board 

Native American Heritage Commission 

Other: 

S 

S 9 

S 

S 

S 4 

S 

S 

 

Starting Date March 8, 2010 Ending Date April 7, 2010 

 

Consulting Firm: Applicant: 

Address: Address: 

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

Contact: Phone: 

Phone: 

 

 

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

Revised 2008

Section, Township, and Range 

Sec. 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 30, 31, 34 of T9N, R14W and Sec. 23, 24, 25, 27, 36 of T9N, R15W SBB&M. 

Kern County APNs 

261-120-05 359-011-01 359-011-11 359-041-05 359-174-02 359-175-05 

261-120-06 359-011-02 359-011-12 359-041-07 359-174-03 359-240-04 

261-193-01 359-011-03 359-011-13 359-041-08 359-174-04 359-321-01 

261-196-02 359-011-04 359-011-14 359-041-15 359-174-05 359-321-02 

261-196-03 359-011-05 359-011-15 359-041-17 359-174-06 359-324-20 

261-196-04 359-011-06 359-011-16 359-041-18 359-174-07 359-324-21 

261-196-09 359-011-07 359-011-17 359-041-24 359-174-08 359-331-24 

261-196-10 359-011-08 359-011-18 359-041-25 359-174-09 359-331-25 

261-196-11 359-011-09 359-011-19 359-041-26 359-174-10 359-331-26 

359-041-01 359-011-10 359-011-20 359-041-27 359-174-11 359-331-27 

359-041-11 359-041-22 359-011-21 359-041-29 359-174-12 

359-041-12 359-041-23 359-011-22 359-041-30 359-175-01 

359-041-13 359-331-19 359-011-23 359-041-31 359-175-02 

359-041-20 359-331-22 359-011-24 359-041-32 359-175-03 

359-041-21 359-100-05 359-020-50 359-174-01 359-175-04 

Los Angeles County APNs 

3258-001-001 3258-001-030 3258-001-041 

3258-001-024 3258-001-031 3261-001-002 

3258-001-028 3258-001-038 3261-001-003 

3258-001-029 3258-001-040 3261-001-004

INITIAL STUDY/NOTICE OF PREPARATION 

Antelope Valley Solar by 

Renewable Resources Group, Inc. 

SPA No. 17, ZCC No. 34, CUP No. 28, Map No. 232 

SPA No. 3, ZCC No. 13, CUP No. 8, Map No. 233 

Williamson Act Land Use Contract Cancellation 

LEAD AGENCY: 

Kern County Planning Department 

2700 M Street, Suite 100 


Contact: Sara Kopp 

(661) 862-8793 

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE BY: 

RGP PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 

8921 RESEARCH DRIVE 

IRVINE, CA 92618 

March 2010

1. Project Description 

KERN COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 

ANTELOPE VALLEY SOLAR BY RENEWABLE RESOURCES GROUP, INC. 

1.1 Location 

The Antelope Valley Solar project (proposed project) site is located within unincorporated Kern and 

Los Angeles Counties, approximately ten miles west of the unincorporated community of Rosamond 

within the jurisdiction of the Willow Springs Specific Plan in Kern County and the Antelope Valley 

Areawide General Plan in Los Angeles County. State Route (SR) 14 is approximately 9 miles east of the 

project site and Interstate 5 (I-5) is approximately 22 miles west. The project site is comprised of several 

non-contiguous areas totaling approximately 5,400 acres and is generally bounded by 110 th Street West 

on the east, 190 th Street West on the west, Avenue B on the south, and Rosamond Boulevard on the north. 

The proposed project site is located within portions of Sections 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 30, 31, 34 

of T9N, R14W and Sections 23, 24, 25, 27, 36 of T9N, R15W San Bernardino Base and Meridian 

(SBB&M). 

Please refer to Tables 1-1 and 1-2 for a listing of APNs included within the proposed project site. The 

project proposes to utilize portions of the Antelope Valley Water Bank site. 

Table 1-1 

Kern County APNs 

261-120-05 359-011-02 359-011-13 359-041-15 359-174-06 359-324-21 

261-120-06 359-011-03 359-011-14 359-041-17 359-174-07 359-331-24 

261-193-01 359-011-04 359-011-15 359-041-18 359-174-08 359-331-25 

261-196-02 359-011-05 359-011-16 359-041-24 359-174-09 359-331-26 

261-196-03 359-011-06 359-011-17 359-041-25 359-174-10 359-331-27 

261-196-04 359-011-07 359-011-18 359-041-26 359-174-11 

261-196-09 359-011-08 359-011-19 359-041-27 359-174-12 

261-196-10 359-011-09 359-011-20 359-041-29 359-175-01 

261-196-11 359-011-10 359-011-21 359-041-30 359-175-02 

359-041-01 359-041-22 359-011-22 359-041-31 359-175-03 

359-041-11 359-041-23 359-011-23 359-041-32 359-175-04 

359-041-12 359-331-19 359-011-24 359-174-01 359-175-05 

359-041-13 359-331-22 359-020-50 359-174-02 359-240-04 

359-041-20 359-100-05 359-041-05 359-174-03 359-321-01 

359-041-21 359-011-11 359-041-07 359-174-04 359-321-02 

359-011-01 359-011-12 359-041-08 359-174-05 359-324-20 

IS/NOP 1 March 2010



Table 1-2 

Los Angeles County APNs 

3258-001-001 3258-001-030 3258-001-041 

3258-001-024 3258-001-031 3261-001-002 

3258-001-028 3258-001-038 3261-001-003 

3258-001-029 3258-001-040 3261-001-004 

Approximately 18 percent of the project site, 990 acres (all within Kern County), is under active 

Williamson Act Land Use Contracts. Refer to Table 1-3 for a list of parcels under contract. 

Table 1-3 

Williamson Act Land Use Contracted Parcels 

261-196-02 261-196-04 359-041-15 

261-196-03 359-041-11 359-041-17 

359-041-12 

1.2 Environmental Setting 

The project site consists of undeveloped lands and areas used for farming and grazing. Three existing 

housing units are located on two project parcels. Portions of the site are currently designated as Prime 

Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance by the California Department of Conservation (CDC), 

Division of Land Resource Protection’s Kern County Important Farmland 2008 and Los Angeles County 

Important Farmland 2008 maps. 

This site is at the western edge of the Antelope Valley on the south side of the Tehachapi Mountains at 

elevation 2,650 feet. This area is desert vegetation. Topography across the project area is relatively flat as 

this site is located on the bajada of the Tehachapi Mountains which is an overlapping of alluvial fans with 

southern trending slope towards SR 138. Overall, the project area drains from the Tehachapi Mountains 

down the alluvial fans toward the southeast, with elevations decreasing approximately 200 feet over a 

distance of nearly six miles from the northwest portion of the project site to the southeast. Soils found on 

the project site include Cajon loamy sand; Cajon loamy sand, loamy substratum; Greenfield sandy loam; 

Hanford coarse sandy loam; Hanford sandy loam; Hesperia fine sandy loam; Hesperia loamy fine sand; 

Hesperia fine sandy loam, loamy substratum; Hesperia loam; Rosamond loamy fine sand; Rosamond 

loamy fine sand, hummocky; Rosamond fine sandy loam; Rosamond loam; Rosamond loam, sandy loam 

substratum; Rosamond silty clay loam; and Sunrise sandy loam. 

Fire suppression and emergency medical services would be provided to the project site by the Kern 

County Fire Department’s (KCFD) Station No. 15, located approximately nine miles east of the site in the 

community of Rosamond, and the Los Angeles County Fire Department’s (LACFD) Station No. 112, 

located approximately seven miles southeast of the site in the community of Antelope Acres. Police 

services would be provided to the project site by the Kern County Sheriff’s Office’s (KCSO) station in 

Rosamond and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LACSD) station in Lancaster, located 

IS/NOP 2 March 2010



16 miles southeast of the site. The nearest schools and parks to the project site are located in Rosamond. 

The project site is five miles northeast of the Arthur B. Ripley Desert Woodland State Park and four miles 

north of the Antelope Valley Poppy Preserve Park. 

According to the Willow Springs Specific Plan, the Kern County portion of the project site is designated 

as Map Codes 3.1 (Parks and Recreation), 3.2 (Educational Facilities), 3.3 (Other Facilities), 

3.3/2.8 (Other Facilities/Military Flight Operations), 3.3/2.6/2.8 (Other Facilities/Erosion Hazard/Military 

Flight Operations), 5.3 (Max. 10 Units per net acre), 5.3/4.4 (Max. 10 Units per net acre/Comprehensive 

Planning Area), 5.3/4.4/2.6 (Max. 10 Units per net acre/Comprehensive Planning Area/Erosion Hazard), 

5.3/4.4/2.85 (Max. 10 Units per net acre/Comprehensive Planning Area/Noise Management Area), 

5.5 (Max. 1 Unit per net acre), 5.6 (Min. 2.5 Gross Acres per unit), 5.6/2.6 (Min. 2.5 Gross Acres per 

unit/Erosion Hazard), 5.6/2.6/2.8 (Min. 2.5 Gross Acres per unit/Erosion Hazard/Military Flight 

Operations), 5.6/2.8 (Min. 2.5 Gross Acres per unit/Military Flight Operations), 5.6/2.85 (Min. 2.5 Gross 

Acres per unit/Noise Management Area), 5.7 (Min. 5 Gross Acres per unit), 5.7/2.85 (Min. 5 Gross Acres 

per unit/Noise Management Area), 6.2 (General Commercial), 7.1/4.4 (Light Industrial/Comprehensive 

Planning Area), 8.1 (Intensive Agriculture), 8.1/2.6 (Intensive Agriculture/Erosion Hazard), 

8.1/2.6/2.85 (Intensive Agriculture/Erosion Hazard/Noise Management Area), 8.1/2.8 (Intensive 

Agriculture/Military Flight Operations), 8.1/2.85 (Intensive Agriculture/Noise Management Area), 

8.5/2.85 (Resource Management/Noise Management Area). The Los Angeles County General Plan 

Antelope Valley Area Plan designates the Los Angeles County portion of the site as N1 Non-urban 1 

(0.5 du/ac). 

The Kern County portions of the proposed project have Kern County Zoning Ordinance classifications of 

A FPS (Exclusive Agriculture Floodplain Secondary Combining), E (1) RS MH FPS (Estate Residential 

One Acre Min. Residential Suburban Combining, Mobile Home Combining, Floodplain Secondary 

Combining), E (2 1/2) (Estate Residential 2 1/2 Acre Min.), E (2 1/2) RS FPS (Estate Residential 

2-½ Acre Min. Residential Suburban Combining, Floodplain Secondary Combining), E (2 1/2) RS MH 

FPS (Estate Residential 2 1/2 Acre Min. Residential Suburban Combining, Mobile Home Combining, 

Floodplain Secondary Combining), E (5) RS (Estate Residential 5 Acre Min. Residential Suburban 

Combining), E (5) RS FPS (Estate Residential 5 Acre Min. Residential Suburban Combining Floodplain 

Secondary Combining), C-2 PD (General Commercial Precise Development Combining). The 

Los Angeles County portions of the proposed project have a zoning classification of A-2-5 (Heavy 

Agriculture, 5 acres minimum required area). Land uses surrounding the project site consist primarily of 

undeveloped lands and agricultural and grazing areas, with scattered homes. Refer to Table 1-4. 

IS/NOP 3 March 2010

Direction 

from 

Project Site 

Project Site Vacant and 

Agriculture 



Table 1-4 

Proposed Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses 

Existing 

Land Use Existing Land Use Designation Existing Zoning 

Kern County 

3.1 (Parks and Recreation); 

3.2 (Educational Facilities); 

3.3 (Other Facilities); 

3.3/2.8 (Other Facilities/Military Flight Operations); 

3.3/2.6/2.8 (Other Facilities/Erosion Hazard/Military 

Flight Operations); 

5.3 (Max. 10 Units per net acre); 

5.3/4.4 (Max. 10 Units per net acre/Comprehensive 

Planning Area); 5.3/4.4/2.6 (Max. 10 Units per net 

acre/Comprehensive Planning Area/Erosion Hazard); 

5.3/4.4/2.85 (Max. 10 Units per net acre/Comprehensive 

Planning Area/Noise Management Area); 

5.5 (Max. 1 Unit per net acre); 

5.6 (Min. 2.5 Gross Acres per unit); 5.6/2.6 (Min. 2.5 

Gross Acres per unit/Erosion Hazard); 

5.6/2.6/2.8 (Min. 2.5 Gross Acres per unit/Erosion 

Hazard/Military Flight Operations); 

5.6/2.8 (Min. 2.5 Gross Acres per unit/Military Flight 

Operations), 

5.6/2.85 (Min. 2.5 Gross Acres per unit/Noise 

Management Area); 

5.7 (Min. 5 Gross Acres per unit); 

5.7/2.85 (Min. 5 Gross Acres per unit/Noise Management 

Area); 

6.2 (General Commercial); 

7.1/4.4 (Light Industrial/Comprehensive Planning Area); 

8.1 (Intensive Agriculture); 

8.1/2.6 (Intensive Agriculture/Erosion Hazard); 

8.1/2.6/2.85 (Intensive Agriculture/Erosion Hazard/Noise 

Management Area); 

8.1/2.8 (Intensive Agriculture/Military Flight Operations); 

8.1/2.85 (Intensive Agriculture/Noise Management Area); 

8.5/2.85 (Resource Management/Noise Management Area) 


N1 Non-urban 1 (0.5 du/ac) 


A FPS (Exclusive Agriculture 

Floodplain Secondary 

Combining); 

E (1) RS MH FPS (Estate 

Residential One Acre Min. 

Residential Suburban 

Combining, Mobile Home 

Combining, Floodplain 

Secondary Combining); 

E (2 1/2) (Estate Residential 2 1/2 

Acre Min.); 

E (2 1/2) RS FPS (Estate 

Residential 2 1/2 Acre Min. 




E (2 1/2) RS MH FPS (Estate 

Residential 2 1/2 Acre Min. 


Combining, Mobile Home 



E (5) RS (Estate Residential 5 

Acre Min. Residential Suburban 

Combining); 

E (5) RS FPS (Estate Residential 

5 Acre Min. Residential 

Suburban Combining Floodplain 


C-2 PD (General Commercial 

Precise Development 

Combining) 


A-2-5 (Heavy Agriculture, 5 acre 

minimum area) 

IS/NOP 4 March 2010

Direction 

from 

Project Site 

North Vacant and 

Agriculture 

East Vacant and 

Agriculture 

South Vacant and 

Agriculture 



Existing 




5.3/4.4 (Max 10 Units per Net Acre/Comprehensive 

Planning Area); 

5.6 (Min. 2.5 Gross Acres per unit); 

5.6/2.6 (Min. 2.5 Gross Acres Per Unit/Erosion Hazard); 


5.75 (Min 10 Gross Acres per unit) 


Not applicable 



5.3/4.4/2.8 (Max 10 Units per Net Acre/Comprehensive 

Planning Area/Military Flight Operations); 

5.5/4.4/2.8 (Max. 1 Dwelling Unit per 

acre/Comprehensive Planning Area/Military Flight 

Operations); 



5.75 (Min 10 Gross Acres per unit); 

6.2/2.8 (General Commercial/Military Flight Operations) 




Not applicable. 






Combining); 


Residential 2.5 Acre Min. 

Residential Suburban Combining 


Combining); 



Combining); 




Secondary Combining) 


Not applicable 




Combining); 





Combining); 

SP (Special Planning District) 



minimum area) 


Not applicable. 


A-1-2 (Light Agriculture, 2 acre 

minimum area) 


minimum area) 

IS/NOP 5 March 2010

Direction 

from 

Project Site 

West Vacant and 

Agriculture 



Existing 




5.6/2.8 (Min 2.5 Gross Acres per unit/Military Flight 

Operations); 


5.7/2.8 (Min. 5 Gross Acres per unit/Military Flight 

Operations); 

8.1/2.85 (Intensive Agriculture/Noise Management Area); 

8.5 (Resource Management); 

8.5/2.85 (Resource Management/Noise Management Area) 




A (Exclusive Agriculture); 



Combining); 

E (2 1/2) RS (Estate Residential 

2.5 Acre Min. Residential 

Suburban Combining); 





Combining); 



Combining) 




Secondary Combining) 


A-1-2 (Light Agriculture, 2 acre 

minimum) 

1.3 Proposed Project 

The applicant is proposing: (1) Specific Plan Amendment from 5.3/4.4, 5.3/4.4/2.6, 5.3/4.4/2.85, and 

7.1/4.4 to 5.3, 5.3/2.6, 5.3/2.85, and 7.1 or more restrictive designation; (2) an amendment to the 

Circulation Element of the Willow Springs Specific Plan to remove section and midsection line road 

reservations internal to the project site; (3) Zone Change from E (1) RS MH FPS, E (2 1/2), E (2 1/2) 

RS FPS, E (2 1/2) RS MH FPS, E (5) RS, E (5) RS FPS, and C-2 PD to A or more restrictive zone 

district; (4) Cancel Williamson Act Land Use Contracts; and (5) Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a 

solar electrical generating facility in the A zone. The proposed project would develop a 650-megawatt 

(MW) solar photovoltaic (PV) power generating facility and associated infrastructure on a total of 

approximately 5,400 acres of land within unincorporated Kern and Los Angeles Counties. The maximum 

net amount of land covered by PV panels and other project facilities would be approximately 2,000 to 

2,500 acres. The power produced by the proposed project would be conveyed to the local power grid via 

approximately five miles of a 230 kilovolt (kV) generation tie power line. The generation-tie line would 

be located within designated easement areas in the privately owned parcels, and would connect to the new 

Southern California Edison (SCE) Whirlwind substation on 170th Street West just south of Rosamond 

Boulevard. 

IS/NOP 6 March 2010



The proposed project is intended to operate year-round, and could produce up to 650 MW of solar power 

annually at full build-out. The proposed project would generate electricity during daylight hours when 

electricity demand is at its peak, and would provide for the annual electricity needs of approximately 

230,000 residences under optimal conditions. The proposed project would consist of the following project 

components, which are described in detail below: 

(1) A solar field of 2,600-2,900 solar PV trackers. 

(2) Five miles of 230 kV transmission lines and towers, 85-100 feet tall, located between substations 

and switchyard. 

(3) A system of interior collection power lines, 35-60 feet tall, located between inverters and 

substation. 

(4) Two switchgear pads (100,000 square feet combined). 

(5) Two substations (27,000 square feet each). 

(6) 650 equipment pads (one per MW; each 675 square feet, 15 feet tall). 

(7) Two Operations and Maintenance (O&M) buildings (22,500 square feet each, 16 feet tall). 

(8) One above-ground water tank (48 feet wide by 20 feet tall). 

(9) Infrastructure including driveways and fencing (six-foot-tall chain link or ranch-style fencing 

topped with two feet of barbed wire). 

1.4 Project Facilities and Operations 

Project Facilities 

The project would utilize 2,600-2,900 PV trackers mounted with crystalline silicon panels. All panels 

would be oriented in the same direction as they track the sun’s movement from east to west. By design, 

the PV panels absorb sunlight to maximize electrical output and use anti-reflective glass, resulting in 

about half the reflectance of standard residential and commercial glass. Due to the limited rotation angles, 

the solar tracker panels have no potential for reflecting the sun’s rays upon any ground-plane position. 

The tracker would be configured as an array of north-south oriented rows of PV panels that rotate from 

east to west to follow the daily motion of the sun. These trackers can lay flat, horizontal to the ground, or 

can be tilted towards the south to enable additional capture of sunlight. A small motor (0.5 horsepower) is 

typically mounted in the center of a tracker array. The metal structural elements are constructed of 

corrosion-resistant galvanized steel. Underground cabling would be used to transport electricity from the 

PV panels to the point of aggregation for the system. 

Individual PV panels are connected together in series to create a “string” to carry direct current (DC) 

electricity. Multiple DC strings are brought together into a combiner box to merge the strings into a single 

cable and provide overcurrent protection. From the combiner boxes, the cabling would run underground 

to inverters mounted on small concrete equipment pads distributed across the site. The inverters take the 

DC output from the combiner boxes and convert it to alternating current (AC) electricity. 

The AC electricity would then be increased to medium voltage with a standard “step-up” transformer. The 

medium voltage cabling would create a collection circuit that would carry the electricity to the proposed 

IS/NOP 7 March 2010

project substation via wires mounted on poles (35-60 feet tall). 



The two project substations (each about 27,000 square feet) and their accompanying switchgear pads 

(about 100,000 square feet combined) would collect all the medium voltage circuits and would contain 

metering equipment, switchgear, protective relays, and larger transformers to step-up the voltage to match 

the voltage of the transmission grid at the interconnection point. The interconnection point would be the 

Whirlwind Substation, previously approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and 

owned by Southern California Edison (SCE). The project substations and the interconnection point would 

be linked by a generation-tie line hung on wood or steel poles (85-100 feet tall). 

Two O&M buildings (each approximately 22,500 square feet and 16 feet tall) would provide temporary 

assembly and storage space during construction. The buildings would include bathroom facilities serviced 

by a private septic system. A covered outdoor assembly and storage area (80,000 square feet, 16 feet tall) 

would be directly adjacent to the O&M buildings. 

Interconnection with Statewide Grid 

Power produced by the project would be conveyed to the electricity grid via a new 230 kV generation-tie 

line from the project facilities to SCE’s approved new Whirlwind Substation along the western side of the 

project site, west of 170 th Street West The project has secured two interconnection queue positions 

sufficient for the size of the project at the Whirlwind substation and has made the necessary reservation 

deposits to the California Independent System Operator (CAISO). 

The Whirlwind Substation is a component of SCE’s Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP), 

which is the first major transmission project in California being constructed specifically to access multiple 

renewable generators in a remote renewable-rich resource area. TRTP Segments 4-11 would include new 

and upgraded electric transmission lines and substations between Kern County and San Bernardino 

County. The CPUC approved TRTP Segments 4-11, issued its Notice of Determination on December 21, 

2009 (State Clearinghouse #2007081156), and construction is now underway. 

Construction Activities 

Approximately 650 daily workers would be present on-site during construction over a three-year period. 

Workers would gain access to the site using existing county and farm roads. 

Temporary facilities for use during construction of the facility include: 

(1) Two covered assembly areas (80,000 square feet each, 16 feet tall) for tracker panel assembly. 

(2) Concrete batch plant for pouring equipment pads. 

While most of the site has nearly level to gently sloping topography, some of the parcels where facilities 

and tracker arrays are located would require light grubbing and minimal or no grading for leveling and 

trenching. After site preparation, construction of staging areas and related facilities (water treatment, 

water storage and assembly areas) would occur. On-site assembly of trackers would take place in the 

assembly area. Construction of the tracker panel arrays would be done in repetitive stages throughout the 

site. The construction activities would overlap one another, with grading and access road construction 

preceding the installation of tracker panels and associated equipment within each array area. 

IS/NOP 8 March 2010



As the tracker arrays are being assembled, construction of the substation, transmission line, switchyard, 

and O&M buildings would occur simultaneously. After the common facilities are completed in the earlier 

stages the workforce would be devoted more to array construction in the later stages. 

Initial construction of project components on the Antelope Valley Water Bank portion of the project site 

would differ slightly in that concrete foundations would elevate the facilities to accommodate water bank 

operations. The equipment pad and motors would also be raised two to three feet off the ground using 

earthwork or by a driven pier. 

Project Operation and Maintenance 

After the construction phase, the O&M buildings would serve as the project’s facilities for approximately 

15 permanent full-time employees, which would include a plant manager, engineers, technicians, and 

security staff. The project facilities would be monitored during operating (daylight) hours, even though 

the project facilities would be capable of automatic start up, shutdown, self-diagnosis, and fault detection. 

The panels may be cleaned up to two times per year, if necessary to optimize output. Each cleaning would 

require a total of 15 to 20 acre-feet of water. The project would contract with the Antelope Valley Water 

Bank for water services and supply during operation. Project fencing would consist of either standard 

chain-link fencing (six feet tall) topped with barbed wire (two feet tall), or ranch-style fencing topped by 

barbed wire, depending on agency requirements. Fencing would be placed along the perimeter of the 

project site to ensure safety of the public and security of the facility. 

1.5 Project Objectives 

Based upon these statewide goals and needs, the objectives for the proposed project are as follows: 

• Assist in achieving the State's Renewable Portfolio Standard and greenhouse gas (GHG) 

reduction objectives to the maximum extent possible based on anticipated transmission facility 

capacity and reserved queue position. 

• Locate solar power plant facilities as near as possible to electrical transmission facilities with 

anticipated capacity and reserved queue position. 

• Site the project in an area with excellent solar energy resource, in order to maximize productivity 

from the photovoltaic panels. 

• To the extent feasible, site the project on disturbed land. 

• Use a proven and available solar photovoltaic technology. 

• Ensure that the project can be constructed, and power provided at a competitive price. 

• Co-locate solar power plant facilities with underground water bank facilities in order to maximize 

use of water bank land and minimize the cost of providing solar renewable energy. 

1.6 Proposed Discretionary Actions/Required Approvals 

Construction and operation of the proposed project may require the following discretionary actions and 

approvals: 


• Consideration and Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report with appropriate 

Findings and Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program, if applicable, by the Kern County Board 

of Supervisors 

IS/NOP 9 March 2010



• Specific Plan Amendment 

• Kern County zoning change 

• Williamson Act land use contract cancellation 

• CUP 

• Lot Line Adjustment, Parcel Merger, or Reversion to Acreage to combine parcels 

• Grading Permit 

• Building Permit 

• Drainage Plan 

Other Responsible Agencies 

• State Water Resources Control Board – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) 

• Kern County Air Pollution Control District (KCAPCD) 

• California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

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

IS/NOP 10 March 2010

Source: ESRI; ESA, 2010. 

IS/NOP 

5 

0 6 

Miles 


Area of Detail 



Ripley State Park 

ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST 

138 

Pacific Crest Trail 

Avenue D 

11 



SPA 17, ZCC 34, CUP 28, Map 232 

SPA 3, ZCC 13, CUP 8, Map 233 

Willow Springs Rd 

90th St West 

MOJAVE 

Project Location 

14 

California Poppy Reserve 

ROSAMOND 

Rosamond Blvd 

LANCASTER 

PALMDALE 

CALIFORNIA CITY 

58 

Figure 1: SITE VICINITY MAP 

March 2010

Legend 0 1 



IS/NOP 

180TH ST WEST 



170TH ST WEST 

160TH ST WEST 

12 



SPA 17, ZCC 34, CUP 28, Map 232 


GASKELL RD 

KINGBIRD AVE 

AVE A 

ROSAMOND BLVD 

HOLIDAY AVE 

130TH ST WEST 

Figure 2: PROJECT SITE BOUNDARY AND ACCESS MAP 

120TH ST WEST 

Mile 

March 2010

A 

A GH 

A 

A 

E(5) RS 

A 

E(10) RS 

A 

E(2 1/2) RS FPS 

Legend 

A 

A - Exclusive Agriculture 

C-2 - General Commercial 

E(5) RS 

E(5) RS FPS 

E(1) - Estate 1 Acre 

E(2 1/2) - Estate 2.5 Acres 

E(5) - Estate 5 Acres 

E(10) - Estate 10 Acres 

E(20) A-1 - Estate 20 Acres 

OS - Open Space 

E(2 1/2) RS 

E(2 1/2) 

RS FPS 

SP - Special Planning 

A-1 

A-2 

FPS - Floodplain Secondary Combining 

A-2 

RS - Residential Suburban Combining 

PD - Precise Develpment Combining 

MH - Mobilehome Combining 

A-1 

A-1 

GH - Geologic Hazard 

A-1 

A-1 - Light Agriculture 

A-2 - Heavy Agriculture 

A-2 

A-1 


IS/NOP 

PL RS 

E(5) RS 

E(10) RS 

PL RS 

E(2 1/2) RS 

E(5) 

RS 

FPS 

E(5) RS 

E(5) RS 

E(2 1/2) RS 

E(5) RS 

A 

A FPS 

E(2 1/2) 

RS FPS 

A FPS 

170TH ST WEST 

OS 

E(2 1/2) RS FPS 

E(5) RS FPS 

HOLIDAY AVE 

A FPS 

160TH ST WEST 

E(20) RS FPS 

E(5) RS FPS 

E(5) RS FPS 

KINGBIRD AVE 

13 

A-2 



SPA 17, ZCC 34, CUP 28, Map 232 


A FPS 

E(5) 

RS 

FPS 

E(5) 

RS 

FPS 

E(5) RS MH FPS 

AVE A 

ROSAMOND BLVD 

A FPS 

A FPS 

A-2-5 

A-2-5 A-2 

A-2 

A-2 

A FPS 

E(5) RS FPS 

GASKELL RD 

A FPS 

E(2 1/2) RS FPS 

E(2 1/2) 

RS FPS 

E(2 1/2) RS FPS 

E(2 1/2) RS FPS 

130TH ST WEST 

E(2 1/2) 

RS 

MH 

FPS 

E(5) RS FPS 

E(2 1/2) 

RS 

FPS 

E(1) RS MH FPS 

C-2 PD 

E(2 1/2) RS 

MH FPS 

E(2 1/2) 

RS FPS 

120TH ST WEST 

E(5) RS FPS 

E(2 1/2) RS FPS 

E(2 1/2) 

RS FPS 

E(2 1/2) RS 

MH FPS 

SP 

A FPS 

E(2 1/2) RS FPS 

A FPS* 

A FPS 

A-2 0 A-2-5 A-1-2 A-2-2 1 

Mile 

Figure 3: EXISTING ZONING MAP 

March 2010

180TH ST WEST 

Legend 

Proposed Rezoning Area 


IS/NOP 



170TH ST WEST 

ROSAMOND BLVD 

160TH ST WEST 

14 



SPA 17, ZCC 34, CUP 28, Map 232 


GASKELL RD 

KINGBIRD AVE 

AVE A 

HOLIDAY AVE 

130TH ST WEST 

120TH ST WEST 

0 1 

Figure 4: AREA PROPOSED FOR REZONING WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE BOUNDARY 

Mile 

March 2010

8.5 

8.5/2.4 

8.5/2.1 

5.75 5.7 

8.5/2.85 

5.75 

5.7 

8.5/2.85 

Legend 

8.1/2.85 8.1/2.85 

8.1/2.6/2.85 

8.1/2.85 8.1/2.85 

2.1 - Seismic Hazard 

2.4 - Steep Slope 

8.1/2.6/2.85 

GASKELL RD 

2.6 - Erosion Hazard 

8.1/2.8 

2.8 - Military Flight Operations (60db) 5.7/2.8 

8.1/2.8 

2.85 - Military Flight Operations (65db) 

8.5/2.6/2.8 

3.1 - Public or Private Recreation Area 

3.2 - Educational Facilities 

3.3/2.8 

8.1 

8.5/2.8 

3.3 - Other Facilities 

4.4 - Comprehensive Plan 

5.3 - Maximum 10 Units / Net Acre 

5.5 - Maximum 1 Unit 

5.6 - Minimum 2.5 Gross Acres / Unit 

5.7 - Minimum 5 Gross Acres / Unit 

5.6/2.8 

3.3 

8.1 

6.2 - General Commercial 

6.2 - General Commercial 

7.1 - Light Industrial 

7.2 - Service Industrial 

8.1 - Intensive Agriculture (Min. 20 Acre Parcel Size) 

8.5 - Resource Management (Min. 20 Acre Parcel Size) 

N1 - Non-Urban 1 (0.5 du/ac) 

N1 


IS/NOP 

8.5/2.4 

180TH ST WEST 

3.3 

5.6 

5.6 

6.2 

5.5 

5.6 

8.1/2.85 

3.2 

3.1 

8.1/2.85 

5.6/2.6 

8.1 

2.6 

2.85 

8.1/2.85 

8.1/2.85 

5.8 

ROSAMOND BLVD 

6.2 

160TH ST WEST 

8.5/2.85 

7.1/4.4 

8.1 

8.1/2.85 

KINGBIRD AVE 

15 



SPA 17, ZCC 34, CUP 28, Map 232 


5.7 

5.3/4.4/2.85 

7.1/4.4 

N1 

5.7 

6.2 5.3/4.4/2.85 

5.7/2.6/2.85 

6.2 

5.6/2.85 

6.2 6.2/2.6 

7.1/4.4/2.6 

5.6/2.6 

5.75 

8.1/2.6 

5.3/4.4/2.6 

5.3/4.4/2.6 

5.3/4.4/2.6 

AVE A 

HOLIDAY AVE 

8.1/2.6/2.85 

5.6/2.6/2.8 

7.1/4.4 

5.7/2.85 

N1 

8.1/2.85 

5.3/4.4 

6.2 

130TH ST WEST 

6.2 

6.2 

8.5 

5.6 

3.2 

3.1 

5.6/2.6/2.8 

5.3/4.4/2.6 

5.6/2.85 

5.6/2.8 

6.2 

5.6 

6.2 

5.3 

5.7 

5.6/2.6 

120TH ST WEST 

6.2/2.8 

5.6 

5.6 

8.5 

5.3/4.4/2.8 

5.3/4.4/2.8 

5.3/4.4/2. 

3.3/2.8 

8.5/2.85 

5.5/4.4/2.8 

5.5/4.4/2.8 

0 1 

Figure 5: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS MAP 

Mile 

March 2010

322.3ac 

Legend 

Project Parcels 


IS/NOP 

180TH ST WEST 

20.3ac 

20.7ac 



170TH ST WEST 

157.8ac 

323ac 

197.1ac 

118.1ac 

ROSAMOND BLVD 

161ac 

155ac 

160TH ST WEST 

39.7 

ac 

9.8 

ac 

40.2 

ac 

9.9 

ac 9.8 

ac 

9.8 

ac 9.8 

ac 

10ac 

9.7 

ac 

79.4 

ac 

156.6ac 

154.7ac 

71.2 

ac 

10.2 

ac 

67.2 

ac 

10ac 

10.1ac 

162.4ac 

160.9ac 

39.6 

ac 

38.8 

ac 

39.8 

ac 

38.8 

ac 

81.3ac 

78.8 

ac 

16 

39.9 

ac 



SPA 17, ZCC 34, CUP 28, Map 232 


GASKELL RD 

KINGBIRD AVE 

157.4ac 

AVE A 

466.3ac 

79.8 

ac 

HOLIDAY AVE 

19.7 

ac 

19.9 

ac 

71.8 

ac 

20 

ac 

20.1 

ac 

79.4 

ac 

20.1 

ac 

160.6ac 

20.1 

ac 

157 

ac 

20.2 

ac 

130TH ST WEST 

160.7ac 

20 

ac 

20 

ac 

19.9 

ac 

19.9 

ac 

18.9 

ac 

19.4 

ac 

19.1 

ac 

20.1 

ac 

19.8 

ac 

20.3 

ac 

19.9 

ac 

19.2 

ac 

20.119.3 

ac ac 

19.2 

ac 

20 

ac 

78.6 

ac 

18.7 

ac 

82.1 

ac 

19.8 

ac 

20.3 

ac 

20 

ac 

20.1 

ac 

20 

ac 

19.8 

ac 

20.2 

ac 

20 

ac 

20 

ac 

20.1 20.1 

ac ac 

20.1 

ac 

71.6 

ac 

2.2ac 

19.4ac 

19.2ac 

82.5 

ac 

21.2 

ac 

21.6 

ac 

120TH ST WEST 

20.2 

ac 

20.6 

ac 

19.2 

ac 

19.3 

ac 

18.3 

ac 

18 

ac 

0 1 

Mile 

Figure 6: APN MAP 

March 2010

180TH ST WEST 

Legend 

Williamson Act Parcels 


IS/NOP 



170TH ST WEST 

ROSAMOND BLVD 

160TH ST WEST 

17 



SPA 17, ZCC 34, CUP 28, Map 232 


GASKELL RD 

KINGBIRD AVE 

AVE A 

HOLIDAY AVE 

130TH ST WEST 

120TH ST WEST 

0 1 

Mile 

Figure 7: WILLIAMSON ACT LAND USE CONTRACTS 

March 2010

180TH ST WEST 



Legend 


Antelope Valley Water Bank EIR Project Boundary 


IS/NOP 

170TH ST WEST 

ROSAMOND BLVD 

160TH ST WEST 

18 



SPA 17, ZCC 34, CUP 28, Map 232 


GASKELL RD 

KINGBIRD AVE 

HOLIDAY AVE 

AVE A 

130TH ST WEST 

120TH ST WEST 

0 1 

Figure 8: ANTELOPE VALLEY WATER BANK EIR OVERLAY 

Mile 

March 2010


IS/NOP 

Whirlwind Substation 

Legend 

Transmission 

Project Facilities 

Ingress and Egress 

I/E 

Whirlwind Substation 

I/E 

Gaskell SunTower Easement 

Transmission Cross 

Point #2 

I/E 

170TH ST WEST 

I/E 


Point #3 

AV Water Storage Easement 

Collector 

160TH ST WEST 

19 



SPA 17, ZCC 34, CUP 28, Map 232 


O&M Building #2, Assembly Area, 

Parking And Storage Yard 


Point #1 

Sempra Easement 

O&M Building #1, Assembly Area, 

Parking and Storage Yard 

KINGBIRD AVE 

AVE A 

HOLIDAY AVE 

I/E 

ROSAMOND BLVD 

I/E 

GASKELL RD 

130TH ST WEST 

I/E 

120TH ST WEST 

I/E 

0 1 

Mile 

Figure 9: SITE PLAN 

March 2010



Kern County Environmental Checklist Form 

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 in Chapter 3. 

Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality 

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality 

Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise 

Population and Housing Public Services Recreation 

Transportation and Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of 

Significance 

Determination 

On the basis of this initial evaluation: 

Signature 

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. 

Printed Name 

IS/NOP 20 March 2010 

Date 

For



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. 


Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): 

I. AESTHETICS. 

Would the project: 

a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic 

vista? 

b. Substantially damage scenic resources, 

including, but not limited to, trees, rock 

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: 



Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Less than 

Significant 

with 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Less-than- 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

a. The project site is in the western edge of the Antelope Valley, south of the Tehachapi Mountains. 

The site is in both Kern and Los Angeles Counties on both sides of Avenue A, between 110 th Street 

West and 190 th Street West. The western edge of the project site is within one mile of the Pacific 

Crest National Scenic Trial. The Arthur B. Ripley Desert Woodland State park is located about five 

miles to the southwest at Avenue E and 200 th Street West. The Antelope Valley Poppy Preserve 

Park is located about four miles south of the project at 160 th Street West and Avenue E-8. The 

northern edge of the Angeles National Forest is located approximately seven miles south of the site. 

The proposed project would be visible from many of these identified locations due to the location 

of the project at the bottom of the valley floor in this area. 

Placement of PV solar panels in this area would alter the views of the project area. Persons 

traveling in passenger vehicles on nearby roads would observe alterations. A number of residences 

are located within the vicinity of the project site and may have views of the project panels; 

however, views would be limited due to the level terrain and the limited height of the panels. 

Potential visual impacts of this project on sensitive receptors, national forests, state parks, Pacific 

Crest Trail, and other recreational areas will be further evaluated in the EIR. 

b. According to the California Scenic Highway Mapping System, there are no state scenic highways 

located in the vicinity of the project site. The nearest Eligible State Scenic Highways are SR 14 and 

SR 58, which are located approximately nine miles east and 16 miles north of the project site, 

respectively. There will be no impact to scenic resources within a state scenic highway, and no 

further analysis is warranted. 




c. The project lies on the floor of the Antelope Valley, a semi-arid region with gently sloping land that 

borders the Mojave Desert. Much of the Antelope Valley is currently under cultivation with various 

agricultural plant species with limited natural open space. Land uses on the site consist primarily of 

agriculture, grazing, and vacant land. The site includes three housing units located on two parcels. 

Because the solar panels would be installed on the majority of the site and other on-site 

improvements would be constructed, including, but not limited to, interior collection power lines, a 

generation-tie lines, and O&M buildings, the project would substantially alter the visual character 

of the site. This potential impact will be further evaluated in the EIR. 

d. Existing lighting in the area is largely limited to lights from area homes on- and off-site. The night 

lighting proposed for the project site is security lighting only. Night lighting for task-specific 

purposes during construction may also occur. This type of lighting, including screening and 

prevention of off-site spillage, is regulated by the Kern County Zoning Ordinance and the Los 

Angeles County Code. All permanent lighting would need to be shielded from surrounding property 

lines. Given that all panels could be oriented in the same direction and have a reflective aspect, 

there may be a potential for impacts associated with glare. The highest potential for glare would 

arise in the early morning and late evening when the sun is low, toward the west and east 

respectively. These impacts will be further evaluated in the EIR. 



II. 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 

nonagricultural use or forestland to non-forest 

use? 



Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Less than 

Significant 

with 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Less-than- 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 



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: 



Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Less than 

Significant 

with 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Less-than- 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

a. As shown on the CDC, Division of Land Resource Protection’s Kern County Important Farmland 

2008 map, portions of the Kern County area of project site are designated as Prime Farmland and 

Farmland of Statewide Significance. Portions of the project site are within the boundaries of Kern 

County Agricultural Preserve No. 24. The Los Angeles County Important Farmland 2008 map also 

shows Prime Farmland within the Los Angeles County portion of the site. The potential impact of 

converting vacant and agricultural lands to non-agricultural use will be further evaluated in the EIR. 

b. The Kern County zone classifications for the project area are: C-2 (General Commercial), E (1) 

(Estate, 1-acre minimum lot size), E (2 ½) (Estate, 2 ½-acre minimum lot size), E (5) (Estate, 5-acre 

minimum lot size). The project applicant is requesting that the Kern County portion of the project 

site be zoned as A (Exclusive Agriculture). The Los Angeles County zone classification for the 

project area is A-2-5 (Heavy Agriculture, 5 acre minimum area). Approximately 18 percent of the 

site, 990 acres (all within Kern County), is currently covered by Williamson Act Contracts, which 

will be canceled with implementation of the proposed project. (Please refer to Table 1-3 for a list of 

APNs currently under contract.) This impact will be further evaluated in the EIR. 

c. The project site does not include any land zoned as forest or timberland. There is no impact and no 


d. The project site does not contain any forest land. There is no impact and no further analysis is 

warranted. 

e. The property currently consists primarily of vacant land and agricultural areas. Areas currently used 

for agriculture would be converted to non-agricultural use. This impact will be further evaluated in 

the EIR. 

f. As stated above, implementation of the project would result in the cancellation of one or more 

Williamson Act Contracts. Impacts are considered potentially significant and will be further 

evaluated in the EIR. 



III. AIR QUALITY. 

Where available, the significance criteria established 

by the applicable air quality management or air 

pollution control district may be relied upon to make 

the following determinations. Would the project: 

a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 

applicable air quality plan? 

b. 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) 


Particulate matter (PM10) 


Stationary Sources - as Determined by 

District Rules 

Severe nonattainment 


Extreme nonattainment 




Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Less than 

Significant 

with 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Less-than- 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 



ii. Kern County Air Pollution Control District: 

Operational and Area Sources 

Reactive organic gases (ROG) 


Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) 


Particulate matter (PM10) 


Stationary Sources – as Determined by 

District Rules 


d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial 

pollutant concentrations? 

e. Create objectionable odors affecting a 

substantial number of people? 

Discussion: 



Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Less than 

Significant 

with 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Less-than- 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

a. The Kern County portion of the project would be located within the jurisdiction of the KCACPD, 

and the Los Angeles County portion within the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District. 

The entire site is within the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB). The KCAPCD is designated 

nonattainment for both the state and federal ozone standards and the state particulate matter (PM10) 

standard. Project construction would generate emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and PM10 that 

could result in significant impacts to air quality in the area. Equipment usage and activities during 

construction of the proposed project would result in emissions of PM10 and ozone precursors, 

including NOx and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which could result in significant impacts to 

air quality in the area. The sources of emission would include heavy equipment used to excavate 

and grade the array pads and access areas, cranes, and on-road motor vehicles for equipment and 

material deliveries and workers commuting to and from the site. Grading and activity on unpaved 

roads and lay-down areas would contribute to PM10 emissions. This impact is potentially 

significant. Further analysis of air quality impacts is warranted to determine whether the project 

would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable plans for attainment and, if so, to 

determine the reasonable and feasible mitigation measures that could be imposed. These issues will 

be evaluated 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. KCAPCD is a nonattainment area for the state and federal ozone standards and the state PM10 

standard. KCAPCD rules and regulations apply to all project activities. The air quality analysis will 

include a quantitative discussion of emissions created by this project regardless of the air basin. 

This will include activities such as truck trips to deliver panels or employees to the site. Cumulative 




contributions to this basin could be potentially significant. Construction and operational emissions 

will be analyzed in the EIR. 

d. Three residential buildings have been identified within the project site. A small number of homes 

have been identified in the vicinity of the project site. No schools or hospitals are also located 

within six miles of the project site. Construction-related activities would result in diesel exhaust 

emissions and dust that could adversely affect air quality for the nearest sensitive receptors. 

Mitigation measures for diesel equipment and dust control that are recommended by the KCAPCD 

will be evaluated as part of the EIR to avoid or reduce the impacts to construction workers and 

occupants of nearby residences. 

e. Aside from odors associated with vehicle exhaust and fueling of construction equipment, no odors 

would result from the proposed project. Because there are only a small number of residences in the 

vicinity, fueling odors during project construction would not result in impacts on a substantial 

number of people. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to result in significant air quality 

impacts related to objectionable odors, and no further analysis is warranted. 



IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. 


a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly 

or through habitat modifications, on any species 

identified as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus 

species in local or regional plans, policies, 

or regulations or by the California Department 

of Fish and Game (CDFG) or U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS)? 

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 CDFG or USFWS? 

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: 



Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Less than 

Significant 

with 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Less-than- 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

a. The project is located at the western edge of the Antelope Valley with desert vegetation. According 

to project applications, habitat types present in the project area include agricultural areas, annual 

grasslands, and rabbitbrush scrub. Based on site visits and applicant review of the National 

Wetlands Inventory Database and USGS maps, there are no waters of the U.S. and a small number 

of isolated Joshua trees on the site. Field surveys for special-status plant and animal species, and 

species listed as either threatened or endangered by either the state or federal government will be 




included in the EIR. Impacts to biological resources are potentially significant and will be analyzed 

in the EIR. 

b. As mentioned above, habitat types present in the project area include agricultural areas, annual 



of isolated Joshua trees on the site. Project-related access roads and transmission lines may cross 

streams and washes that require evaluation for riparian habitat and may also require streambed 

alteration permits from CDFG. Additionally, the project may impact sensitive natural communities, 

potentially including Joshua tree habitat. This impact is potentially significant and will be evaluated 

in the EIR. 

c. As mentioned above, habitat types present in the project area include agricultural areas, annual 



of isolated Joshua trees on the site. Wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 

may be present on the project site; therefore, the project’s impacts on potential wetlands will be 

evaluated in the EIR. 

d. As mentioned above, habitat types present in the project area include agricultural areas, annual 



of isolated Joshua trees on the site. The project site and surrounding area may be used for migration 

or dispersal by some avian species. Project construction and operation could potentially remove 

foraging habitat. This impact is potentially significant and will be evaluated in the EIR. 

e. As mentioned above, habitat types present in the project area include agricultural areas, annual 



of isolated Joshua trees on the site. The requirements of Kern County General Plan, Land Use, 

Open Space, and Conservation Element Section 1.10.10 (“Oak Tree Conservation”) apply to the 

project site. No oak trees are located on the project site. The Willow Springs Specific Plan EIR has 

a number of implementation measures (numbers 15, 16, and 23) protecting Joshua trees, the desert 

tortoise, rare bat species, and LeConte’s thrasher. There are no other ordinances or policies 

protecting biological resources within Kern County. 

Antelope Valley Areawide General Plan Policy No. 69 encourages the conservation of Joshua trees. 

The Los Angeles County General Plan has analyzed Joshua tree habitats throughout the Antelope 

Valley. Areas with significant concentrations of Joshua trees are placed in Significant Ecological 

Area (SEA) #60, “Joshua Tree Woodland Habitat.” An area approximately ½ mile south of the 

project site has been included within SEA #60. Los Angeles County’s analysis of biota in the region 

did not find significant Joshua tree habitat on the project site. However, because there is a 

possibility that the project would conflict with local policies protecting various species, this is a 

potentially significant impact and will be evaluated in the EIR. 

f. As mentioned above, habitat types present in the project area include agricultural areas, annual 



of isolated Joshua trees on the site. The project site is not located within the boundaries of an 

adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, 

regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Impacts are considered less than significant and no 




V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. 


a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the 

significance of a historical resource as defined in 

Section 15064.5? 

b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the 

significance of an archaeological resource 

pursuant to 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: 



Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Less than 

Significant 

with 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Less-than- 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

a. The project is located in the Antelope Valley region of southern Kern County and northern 

Los Angeles County, an area known for historical gold mining (Tropico Mine). This area was a 

traveler stop and vital water source in the desert for a stagecoach line. The stage line operated in the 

mid-to-late-1800s from the Los Angeles Basin to Tehachapi. This included the 20-mule-team borax 

loads that left from the Death Valley area and stopped here for water on the way to Los Angeles. 

The Willow Springs Specific Plan EIR identified a cultural site Native American village site (CA- 

KER-129) within the Plan area. Policies of the plan require archaeological investigations prior to 

development. 

The project site consists of undeveloped lands and areas used for farming and grazing. Three 

existing housing units are located on two project parcels. Development of the project would require 

some ground disturbance. A cultural resources survey is currently being conducted for the project 

site. Further evaluation is warranted to identify potential impacts and formulate avoidance or 

mitigation measures, if applicable. 

b. At stated above, the project site consists of undeveloped lands and areas used for farming and 

grazing. Three existing housing units are located on two project parcels. An archaeological survey 

of the site is being completed. Further evaluation is necessary to identify potential impacts and to 

formulate avoidance or mitigation measures, if applicable. 

c. At stated above, the project site consists of undeveloped lands and areas used for farming and 

grazing. Three existing housing units are located on two project parcels. A paleontological records 

search within the proposed project area has not yet been completed. Paleontological resources may 

be located on the project site. Therefore, potential impacts to paleontological resources and 

proposed mitigation measures will be evaluated in the EIR. 




d. At stated above, the project site consists of undeveloped lands and areas used for farming and 

grazing. Three existing housing units are located on two project parcels. Development of the project 

would require some ground disturbance. Given the sensitivity of the project area, the potential for 

locating human remains is reasonably foreseeable and, therefore, potentially significant. The EIR 

will evaluate this potential impact and identify measures to be implemented if any are unexpectedly 

uncovered during the course of development. 



VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. 


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: 



Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Less than 

Significant 

with 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Less-than- 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

a.i. The project site is located approximately ten miles southeast of the Garlock fault and ten miles 

northwest of the San Andreas fault. The site is not within a fault zone. In addition, all construction 

on the site would be subject to applicable ordinances of the Kern County Building Code (Chapter 

17.08) and Los Angeles County Building Code (Title 26). Both Kern and Los Angeles Counties 

have adopted the California Building Standards Code, 2007 Edition (CCR Title 24), which imposes 




substantially the same requirements as the International Building Code (IBC), 2006 Edition, with 

some modifications and amendments. The entire county is in Seismic Zone 4, a designation 

previously used in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) (the predecessor to the IBC) to denote the 

areas of highest risk to earthquake ground motion. Seismic provisions associated with Seismic Zone 

4 have been adopted in the Building Code. With the application of the UBC requirements, the 

impact of potential rupture of a known earthquake fault is less than significant and no further 

analysis is warranted. 

a.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 project site currently consists 

primarily of vacant and agricultural land, with few structures. The addition of 2,600 PV panels and 

several support structures could increase risks to people and structures due to strong seismic 

groundshaking. The project would potentially be subject to moderate to strong ground shaking from 

local and regional earthquakes. However, all construction on the project site would be subject to 

applicable building codes, which include seismic design standards. Therefore, this impact is less 

than significant and no further analysis is warranted. 

a.iii. The potential for substantial adverse effects due to seismic-related ground failure, including 

liquefaction, would be minimized through implementation of the requirements of the Kern County 

Building Code and Los Angeles County Building Code, as applicable. Further, the applicant would 

be required to undertake a design-level geotechnical investigation to verify soils and groundwater 

conditions beneath the site and implement UBC requirements that apply to specific site conditions. 

Therefore, this impact is less than significant and no further analysis is warranted. 

a.iv. The project site is largely flat and is considered to have little or no risk for landslides. This impact 

is less than significant and no further analysis is warranted. 

b. Construction activities could result in substantial soil erosion if the sites are not properly designed. 

The potential impacts of soil erosion would be minimized through implementation of Kern County 

Grading Code (Chapter 17.28) and Los Angeles County Building Code grading standards (Title 26, 

Appendix J) requirements, as applicable. Specifically, the applicant would prepare a Stormwater 

Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in compliance with the requirements of the NPDES General 

Construction Permit. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) would administer the 

SWPPP. The SWPPP would prescribe temporary best management practices (BMPs) to control 

wind and water erosion during and shortly after construction of the project and permanent BMPs to 

control erosion and sedimentation once construction is complete. The impact of soil erosion is less 

than significant and no further analysis is warranted. 

c. The implementation of Kern County Building Code and Grading Code, and Los Angeles County 

Building Code grading standards, as applicable, will minimize the potential impact of on- or off-site 

landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. The impact of geologic instability 

is therefore less than significant and no further analysis is warranted. 

d. The implementation of Kern County Building Code and Los Angeles County Building Code 

requirements, as applicable, would minimize the potential impact of expansive soils. The impact of 

expansive soils is therefore less than significant and no further analysis is warranted. 

e. The project includes two O&M structures. These buildings would include restroom facilities 

serviced by a private septic system. Approximately 15 full-time employees would use the on-site 

facilities. Wastewater generation during operation is not expected to be significant, as the proposed 

project would require a relatively small number of employees. All applicable local, state, and 

federal requirements and best management practices would be incorporated into construction of the 

project. This is considered a less than significant impact, and no further analysis is warranted. 



VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. 


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 of an agency adopted for the purpose 

of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 

Discussion: 



Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Less than 

Significant 

with 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Less-than- 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

a. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human activity are implicated in global climate change or 

global warming. The principal GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), NOx, ozone, water 

vapor, and fluorinated gases. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on-road motor 

vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, 

accounting for approximately one-half of GHG emissions globally. Construction activities 

associated with heavy equipment operation, truck deliveries, and construction worker commute 

trips would temporarily generate GHGs; however, operation of the project is intended to offset 

GHGs generated by traditional sources of electricity. Potential impacts will be further evaluated in 

the EIR. 

b. California has passed several bills and the governor has signed at least three executive orders 

regarding GHGs. Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (the Global Warming Solutions Act) was passed by the 

California legislature on August 31, 2006. It requires the state’s global warming emissions to be 

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

statewide cap on GHG emissions that will be phased in starting in 2012. 

In 2002, California established its Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program, with the goal of 

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

energy by 2010. In 2006, under Senate Bill (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 2010. On November 17, 2008, the governor signed Executive Order S-14-08, 

requiring California utilities to reach the 33 percent renewable goal by 2020. The proposed project 

is intended to: (1) reduce importation of power from fossil fuel power plants; and (2) contribute to a 

reduction in GHGs. Because the project would support state policies by providing a renewable 

energy source and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, this impact is less-than-significant, and no 




VIII. HAZARDS AND 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. 


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 0.25 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. Be located within an airport land use plan or, 

where such a plan has not been adopted, be 

within 2 miles of a public airport or public use 

airport, and result in a safety hazard for people 

residing or working in the project area? 

f. Be located within the vicinity of a private 

airstrip and result in a safety hazard for people 

residing or working in the project area? 

g. Impair implementation of, or physically 

interfere with, an adopted emergency response 

plan or emergency evacuation plan? 

h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk 

of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, 

including where wildlands are adjacent to 

urbanized areas or where residences are 

intermixed with wildlands? 

i. Generate vectors (flies, mosquitoes, rodents, 

etc.) or have a component that includes 

agricultural waste? 



Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Less than 

Significant 

with 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Less-than- 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 



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: 



Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Less than 

Significant 

with 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Less-than- 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

a. The proposed project is not expected to result in impacts from hazards and hazardous materials with 

respect to creating 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 

involve the transport of general construction materials (i.e., concrete, wood, metal, fuel, etc.) as 

well as the materials necessary to construct the proposed PV arrays. Construction activities would 

involve the use of hazardous materials such as fuels and greases for the fueling and servicing of 

construction equipment. Such substances may be stored in temporary storage tanks/sheds that 

would be located on the project site. Although these types of materials are not acutely hazardous, 

they are classified as hazardous materials and create the potential for accidental spillage, which 

could expose workers. The use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials used in 

construction of the facility would be carried out accordance with federal, state, and County 

regulations. No extremely hazardous substances (i.e., governed under Title 40, Part 335 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations) are anticipated to be produced, used, stored, transported, or disposed of as a 

result of project construction. As needed, Material Safety Data Sheets for all applicable materials 

present on-site would be made readily available to on-site personnel as required by the Kern County 

Environmental Health Services Department. During construction of the facility, non-hazardous 

construction debris would be generated and disposed of in local landfills. Sanitary waste would be 

managed using portable toilets, with waste being disposed of at approved sites. 

Each transformer would be filled with environmentally-friendly biodegradable seed oil. Oil 

disposal would be in accordance with all applicable regulations. The PV panels and inverters would 




produce no waste during operation. PV panels are in a solid and non-leachable state; broken PV 

panels would not be a source of pollution to stormwater. 

There are no designated routes for the transport of hazardous materials located on or immediately 

adjacent to the proposed project site; the closest route is SR 14, located approximately 9 miles east 

of the project site. Vehicles carrying hazardous materials would reach SR 14 via Avenue A and 

Rosamond Boulevard. 

With compliance with federal, state, and County laws, ordinances, and regulations, the project 

would result in less-than-significant impacts related to the creation of significant hazards through 

the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. No further analysis is warranted. 

b. Potential impacts that may result from construction and operation of the proposed project may 

include the accidental release of materials such as fuels and greases associated with the 

fueling/servicing of construction equipment. The toxicity and potential release of these materials 

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

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

leaks, and the reactivity of hazardous substances with other materials. Therefore, a complete list of 

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

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

worker exposure. Compliance with regulations and standard protocols during the storage, 

transportation, and usage of any hazardous materials will ensure no substantial impacts would 

occur. This is a less-than significant impact and no further analysis is warranted. 

Three homes on two project parcels are likely to be removed. If they are removed, the applicant 

would be required to comply with federal and state regulations pertaining to the demolition of 

structures with lead-based paint (LBP) and/or asbestos containing materials (ACM). KCAPCD 

would require the applicant to obtain a demolition permit to verify the absence or presence of 

ACM. Federal and state lead regulations (Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], title 29, section 

1926.62 and California Code of Regulations [CCR], title 8, section 1532.1) regulate disturbance of 

lead-containing materials during construction-, demolition-, and maintenance-related activities. In 

the event ACM or LBP were found, procedural requirements would facilitate the proper and safe 

removal of hazardous materials. No further analysis is warranted. 

c. The proposed project site is located in a rural area of Kern and Los Angeles Counties, and there are 

no existing or planned schools in the vicinity of the site. Additionally, the proposed project is a 

solar energy generation facility that involves using PV panels to generate electricity. Project-related 

infrastructure would not emit hazardous materials or involve handling hazardous or acutely 

hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. 

Therefore, no impacts would occur and further analysis is not warranted. 

d. Staff has reviewed the lists of sites containing hazardous materials or wastes pursuant to Section 

65962.5 of the California Government Code. One past hazardous materials site (a land disposal site 

for sludge) has been identified within project boundaries: Bio-Gro Systems - Lancaster 

(GeoTracker Case No. L10009721950). Cleanup of this site was overseen by the Lahontan 

RWQCB, and was certified complete on December 15, 2009. There are no other hazardous 

materials sites on the project site. As such, impacts related to hazardous materials sites are lessthan-significant 

and no further analysis is warranted. 

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

covered by the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans (ALUCP) of Kern or Los Angeles Counties. 

Therefore, there are no anticipated safety hazards for people residing or working in the project area 




with respect to the project’s proximity to a public or public use airport. No further analysis is 

warranted. 

f. The Skyotee Ranch private airstrip is located east of a portion of the site. This airstrip is oriented 

east-west and has been in operation since 1992. The proposed generation-tie line is over one mile 

north of the airstrip, and is oriented parallel to it, resulting in no adverse impacts to takeoff and 

landing patterns. SCE’s existing towers located west of the airstrip are approximately equal in 

height to the proposed generation-tie line. The airstrip is privately-owned and not available for 

public use or public access. It consists of a single 2,600-foot dirt runway. Because of its small size 

and as a result of access restrictions, the facility sees relatively few flights. The project’s O&M 

buildings, where a limited number of employees would be concentrated, are not in line with the 

flight path for the airstrip. One proposed building is located approximately ¾ mile from the dirt 

airstrip and one building is more than five miles from the airstrip. Areas below aircraft takeoff and 

landing would house PV panels. The project would comply with all applicable safety standards and 

guidelines for airports and airfields. As such, there would be a less-than-significant impact related 

to proximity to a private airstrip, and no further analysis is warranted. 

g. The proposed project development would not physically impede the existing emergency response 

plans, emergency vehicle access, or personnel access to the site. The site is located in a rural area 

with largely flat terrain, offering several alternative access roads allowing easy access to the site in 

the event of an emergency. Therefore, no impacts related to impairment of the implementation of or 

physical interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan is 

anticipated. This impact is less than significant, and no further analysis is warranted. 

h. Vegetation in the area consists of agricultural plantings, annual grasslands, rabbitbrush scrub, with 

isolated Joshua trees on some project parcels. The project site is not within an area of high or very 

high fire hazard, as determined by CAL FIRE. The Kern County portions of the project would 

conform to the requirements of the Safety Element of the Kern County General Plan and the 

Ordinance Code of Kern County’s Fire Code (Chapter 17.32) and Wildland-Urban Interface Code 

(Chapter 17.34). The Los Angeles County portions of the project would conform to the 

requirements of the Safety Element of the Los Angeles County General Plan and the Los Angeles 

County Code’s Fire Code (Title 32). Through compliance with these standards, the risks associated 

with wildfires on the project site are reduced to less-than-significant. No further analysis is 

warranted. 

i. The proposed project is a solar energy generation facility that would result in construction of 

photovoltaic parcels and operations and maintenance facilities. 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. Workers during both construction and operation would generate small 

quantities of solid waste (i.e., trash) that would be appropriately stored for permanent disposal. 

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no further analysis is warranted. 



IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. 


a. Violate any water quality standards or waste 

discharge requirements? 

b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 

interfere substantially with groundwater 

recharge such that there would be a net deficit 

in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local 

groundwater table level (e.g., the production 

rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to 

a level that would not support existing land 

uses or planned uses for which permits have 

been granted)? 

c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 

of the site or area, including through the 

alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a 

manner that would result in substantial erosion 

or siltation on site or off site? 

d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 

of the site or area, including through the 

alteration of the course of a stream or river, or 

substantially increase the rate or amount of 

surface runoff in a manner that would result in 

flooding on site or off site? 

e. Create or contribute runoff water that would 

exceed the capacity of existing or planned 

stormwater drainage systems or provide 

substantial additional sources of polluted 

runoff? 

f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 

g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard 

area as mapped on a federal flood hazard 

boundary or flood insurance rate map or other 

flood hazard delineation map? 

h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area 

structures that would impede or redirect flood 

flows? 



Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Less than 

Significant 

with 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Less-than- 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 



i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk 

of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, 

including flooding as a result of the failure of a 

levee or dam? 

j. Contribute to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 

mudflow? 

Discussion: 



Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Less than 

Significant 

with 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Less-than- 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

a. The project is located in the RWQCB Lahontan District jurisdiction. Waste Discharge 

Requirements are not required. It is anticipated that appropriate BMPs and compliance with 

applicable regulations would reduce potential water quality impacts to a less-than-significant level. 

However, this potential impact will be evaluated fully in the EIR. 

b. During construction, water use would be limited to domestic water use (drinking water), ground 

conditioning and dust suppression. Water may also be used to ensure that no large accumulations of 

soil accumulate on rights-of-way. Water use on-site during operations would consist of domestic 

water for approximately 15 employees and water for cleaning of solar panels. Cleaning of solar 

panels would occur up to two times per year and require 15 to 20 acre-feet of water for each 

cleaning. Water would be provided via contract with the Antelope Valley Water Bank. 

Implementation of the project would not substantially reduce the imperviousness of the project site. 

A portion of the site will be developed on the Antelope Water Bank area. Impacts to these facilities 

will be further analyzed in the EIR. 

c. The project site is generally flat, with some gradually sloping terrain. The project area drains 

toward the southeast, with elevations decreasing approximately 200 feet over a distance of nearly 

six miles from the northwest portion of the project site to the southeast. The panels would require 

the construction of concrete pads for each array and fencing around the entire site. The construction 

of the concrete pads for installation of the arrays would potentially alter the existing drainage 

pattern of the site or area. Although incorporation of standard engineering design techniques and 

best management practices would reduce potential erosion and/or siltation impacts to a less-thansignificant 

level, the full scope of drainage modifications is presently unknown. Therefore, 

evaluation of impacts to site drainage patterns will be evaluated in the EIR. 

d. Project site areas located east of 170 th Street West are within a 100-year flood hazard area (Federal 

Emergency Management Act (FEMA) Flood Zone “A”). Development of the project site would 

decrease the pervious surface area of the project site, and could result in an increase in sheet flow 

across the site. As a part of the project, the applicant would prepare a SWPPP that would 

incorporate BMPs to limit erosion during construction and operation of the project. However, the 

proposed project would alter drainage patterns at the site by developing a previously undeveloped 

site. Potentially significant impacts related to flooding will be evaluated in the EIR. 

e. During construction and following installation of the solar arrays, the vast majority of the site 

would remain as pervious soils. The design of the solar arrays is such that stormwater would 

receive full access to the pervious ground surface and infiltration would occur similar to existing 

conditions. No component of the project would concentrate runoff and exceed the capacity of 

existing or planned stormwater 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 (WQMP) would ensure the proper control and 

treatment, if necessary, of any stormwater 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. Impacts would be less than significant and no further 


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, turbine lubricant, and cement slurry could degrade 

the water quality of nearby streams. However, as discussed above, the proposed project would be 

required to develop a SWPPP and implement BMPs that would reduce the impact of project 

activities on surrounding water quality. With required adherence to all BMPs as identified in the 

project specific SWPPP, the proposed project would not have the ability to otherwise degrade water 

quality at the site or within the surrounding area. No further analysis is warranted. 

g. The proposed project does not include housing. Therefore, no housing-related impacts would occur 


h. Project site areas located east of 170 th Street West are within a 100-year flood hazard area (FEMA 

Flood Zone “A”). The proposed project would be reviewed by the Kern County Engineering and 

Survey Services Department and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, as 

applicable, for adherence to all floodplain management standards. To ensure that the project design 

would not be affected by potential flooding, however, this potential impact will be further evaluated 

in the EIR. 

i. The project is not located within an area that is subject to flooding due to failure of a levee or dam. 

Therefore, flooding as a result of levee or dam failure has no potential for occurrence, and no 

further analysis is required. 

j. The project is not located near an ocean or enclosed body of water and would not be subject to 

inundation by seiche or tsunami. A mudflow is a type of mass wasting or landslide where earth and 

surface materials are rapidly transported downhill under the force of gravity. The project site is 

largely flat, with some gradually sloping terrain. The possibility of mudflow on this type of type 

topography is remote. There is no impact, and no further analysis is warranted. 



X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. 


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: 



Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Less than 

Significant 

with 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Less-than- 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

a. The Kern County portion of the project is located within the Willow Springs Specific Plan, and the 

Los Angeles County portion within the Antelope Valley Areawide General Plan. Portions of the site 

are designated for future urban development. The project would be developed on lands that are 

currently vacant or occupied by agricultural and grazing uses. Similar uses dominate the 

surrounding area. The project would not divide an established community as no community 

surrounds the site or uses the site for circulation. This impact is less-than-significant and no further 


b. The Kern County portion of the project is located within the Willow Springs Specific Plan. Portions 

of the site are designated for future urban development. These areas also have corresponding 

zoning. The Kern County zone classifications for the project area are: C-2 (General Commercial), E 

(1) (Estate, 1-acre minimum lot size), E (2 ½) (Estate, 2 ½-acre minimum lot size), E (5) (Estate, 5acre 

minimum lot size). The applicant is requesting that the entire Kern County portion of the site 

be zoned as A (Exclusive Agriculture). In addition, the applicant is also requesting a CUP for solar 

energy facilities, a use allowed by CUP in the A zone district (Chapter 19.12.030 (G)). The project 

is requesting Specific Plan Amendments to remove section and midsection line road reservations as 

well as to amend the Specific Plan designations to remove Map Code 4.4. 

The Los Angeles County portion of the project is located within the Antelope Valley Areawide 

General Plan, which designates the site N1 Non-urban 1 (0.5 du/ac). The Los Angeles County 

zoning classification for the site is A-2-5 (Heavy Agriculture, 5 acre minimum area). 

Surrounding zoning classifications are primarily agricultural and estate residential. Goals and 

policies of the Willow Springs Specific Plan, Antelope Valley Areawide General Plan, as well as 

the Kern and Los Angeles County General Plans, will be evaluated based on the request. Though 

this impact is anticipated to be less than significant, further analysis will be provided in the EIR. 




c. The proposed project is not within the boundaries of any habitat conservation plan or natural 

community conservation plan; therefore, no impact would occur and no further analysis is 

warranted. 



XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. 


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: 



Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Less than 

Significant 

with 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Less–than- 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

a. The Willow Springs Specific Plan has areas designated for mining of resources and policies 

protecting these resources. This project is not located on any of these resource sites. Kern County 

contains numerous mining operations that extract a variety of materials, including sand and gravel, 

stone, gold, dimensional stone, limestone, clay, shale, gypsum, pumice, decorative rock, silica, and 

specialty sand. Neither the Antelope Valley Areawide General Plan nor the Los Angeles County 

General Plan state that there any valuable mineral resources in the Los Angeles County portion of 

the project area or its surroundings. 

There are no known mineral resources on the project site or in the project area. Because the project 

is not located near known mineral resources, it would not have a significant impact on future 

mineral development. The installation of PV panels on the site would not preclude future on-site 

mineral resource development, should the site be determined to contain mineral resources in the 

future. There would be no impact and no further analysis is warranted. 

b. The project site contains no locally important mineral resource recovery sites delineated in the Kern 

County General Plan, the Willow Springs Specific Plan, the Antelope Valley Areawide General 

Plan, or the Los Angeles County General Plan. The installation of PV panels on the site would not 

preclude future on-site mineral resource development, should the site be determined to contain 

mineral resources in the future. There would be no impact and no further analysis is warranted. 



XII. NOISE. 


a. Expose 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. Expose persons to or generate excessive 

groundborne vibration or groundborne noise 

levels? 

c. Result in a substantial permanent increase in 

ambient noise levels in the project vicinity 

above levels existing without the project? 

d. Result in a substantial temporary or periodic 

increase in ambient noise levels in the project 

vicinity above levels existing without the 

project? 

e. Be located within the Kern County Airport 

Land Use Compatibility Plan, and expose 

people residing or working in the project area 

to excessive noise levels? 

f. Be located in the vicinity of a private airstrip 

and expose people residing or working in the 

project area to excessive noise levels? 

Discussion: 



Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Less than 

Significant 

with 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Less-than- 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

a. This area is rural in nature and not close to any high traffic areas. However, Avenue A is used as a 

flight corridor for low level flyovers from Edwards Air Force Base (AFB). Policies to protect 

sensitive receptors in this area are provided in the Willow Springs Specific Plan and the Antelope 

Valley Areawide General Plan. 

The Specific Plan (which incorporates the Kern County Noise Element implementation measures) 

and the Kern County General Plan Noise Element sets a 65 dBA Leq (10 minute) limit on exterior noise 

levels for stationary sources (i.e., non-transportation) at sensitive receptors. 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. Los 

Angeles County standards are similar in scope. Most land in the vicinity of the project site is vacant 

or used for agricultural or grazing purposes, with a small number of scattered residential buildings 

located in the project vicinity. 

The proposed project’s PV modules would be mounted on single axis tracking arrays. The majority 

of the noise generated by the proposed use would be generated during construction, by the use of 




vehicles and equipment on the site. The Kern County Zoning Ordinance states that it is unlawful for 

any person to create noise from construction between the hours of 9:00 PM and 6:00 AM on 

weekdays and 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM on weekends, which is audible to a person at a distance of 

150 feet from the construction site. The County of Los Angeles maintains similar standards. 

Implementation of Kern County Zoning Ordinance and Los Angeles County Code requirements 

would minimize impacts from construction. Due to the type of motors used and the frequency of 

movement, the use of single axis tracking systems creates minimal noise that is indistinguishable 

from ambient noise levels. The impact of noise levels in excess of applicable standards is less-thansignificant 


b. Groundborne vibration and groundborne noise could originate from earth movement during the 

construction phase of the proposed project. However, significant vibration is typically associated 

with activities such as blasting or the use of pile drivers, neither of which would be required during 

project construction. The project would be expected to comply with all applicable requirements for 

long-term operation, as well as with measures to reduce excessive groundborne vibration and noise 

to ensure that the project would not expose persons or structures to excessive groundborne 

vibration. With adherence to all applicable standards for construction activities within Kern and Los 

Angeles Counties, impacts would be less than significant and no further analysis is warranted. 

c. As stated above, project operation would not generate substantial noise increases, and the solar 

facility would require limited staff during operations (approximately 15 personnel). Traffic on the 

solar facility access roads would be for routine access and maintenance activities and would 

primarily consist of personal vehicles. Therefore, the majority of operations would not produce any 

noise discernable above ambient conditions. Although general maintenance activities would be 

conducted, they would be subject to applicable Kern County Zoning Ordinance and Los Angeles 

County Code requirements, which would minimize impacts to receptors. This impact is less than 

significant and no further analysis is warranted. 

d. Heavy equipment use during construction would cause a temporary or periodic increase in ambient 

noise levels. Temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels caused by construction 

activities would be limited by applicable regulations in the Ordinance Code of Kern County and 

Los Angeles County Code, as applicable. The Kern County Zoning Ordinance states that it is 

unlawful for any person to create noise from construction between the hours of 9:00 PM and 6:00 

AM on weekdays and 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM on weekends, which is audible to a person at a 

distance of 150 feet from the construction site. The County of Los Angeles maintains similar 

standards. Construction would be limited to daytime hours to limit nighttime noise impacts. This 

impact is less than significant and no further analysis is warranted. 

e. The proposed project is not located within an area covered by the Kern or Los Angeles County 

ALUCPs. The nearest publically accessible airport are the General William J. Fox Airfield, 

approximately eight miles southeast of the project site, and Rosamond Skypark, approximately ten 

miles east of the site. Because of the distance to the nearest publicly accessible airport, there would 

be a less-than-significant impact related to aircraft noise. No further analysis is warranted. 

f. The nearest private airstrip is Skyotee Ranch, located adjacent to the project site. Skyotee Ranch is 

a private facility with a 2,600-foot dirt runway. The facility receives no regular, scheduled flights 

and is not publically accessible. Because of the relatively few aircraft using this facility, and the 

small number of employees on the proposed project site during operations, there would be no 

significant impact resulting from aircraft noise at the airstrip. This impact is less than significant 




XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. 


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: 



Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Less than 

Significant 

with 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Less- than 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

a. Although the proposed project would provide new employment consistent with adopted Willow 

Springs Specific Plan, Antelope Valley Areawide General Plan, Kern County General Plan, and 

Los Angeles County General Plan goals, plans, and policies, long-term employment opportunities 

would be minimal. This project is anticipated to required 650 temporary construction workers, 

which would be a minimal increase in employment over the projected three-year construction 

period, given the project area’s existing population. Construction workers are expected to travel to 

the site from various locations throughout Southern California (and in particular local communities 

such as Rosamond, Lancaster, and Palmdale, which have a combined population of over 270,000), 

and the number of workers expected 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 nearby communities. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly 

induce the development of any substantial number of new housing or businesses. Operation of the 

proposed project would also require approximately 15 permanent full-time staff. Given the scope of 

the existing population and available housing in the area, this increase is not considered significant. 

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. The effects of the proposed project in relation to these local thresholds are 

minimal. 

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

energy that is already projected based on growth in communities around California. 




The 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. This impact is 

less than significant and no further analysis is warranted. 

b,c. The project is proposed to be sited on lands that are primarily vacant or used for agriculture and 

grazing. The project site includes three existing residences, which would be removed with 

implementation of the project. The removal of these residences would not necessitate the 

construction of replacement housing, as there are a substantial number of housing units in nearby 

communities. This impact is less than significant and no further analysis is warranted. 



XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. 


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: 

Fire protection? 

Police protection? 

Schools? 

Parks? 

Discussion: 

Other public facilities? 



Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Less than 

Significant 

with 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Less-than- 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

a. Fire Protection. Fire suppression and emergency medical services would be provided by the 

KCFD in the Kern County portions of the project area, and the LACFD in the Los Angeles County 

portions of the project area. The primary stations serving the project site are KCFD Station No. 15, 

located approximately 11 miles east of the project site in Rosamond, and LACFD Station No. 112, 

located approximately seven miles southeast of the project site in Antelope Acres. The majority of 

the proposed project site is within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA). Although as stated in 

response to Question VIII(h) above, adherence to all applicable regulations would reduce wildfire 

ignitions and prevent the spread of wildfires, construction and operation activities may result in 

increased need for fire-fighting personnel and facilities area. The potential impact on fire services 

from construction in a local responsibility area and operation of the solar panels is therefore 

potentially significant and will be evaluated in the EIR. 

Police Protection. Police protection services in the proposed project area are provided by the 

KCSO in the Kern County portions of the project area, and the LACSD in the Los Angeles County 

portions of the project area. The nearest sheriff’s stations are located in Rosamond (KCSO), 

approximately 11 miles east of the project site, and in Lancaster (LACSD), approximately 16 miles 

southeast of the project site. Although the potential is low, the project may attract vandals or other 

security risks, and construction activities could result in increases in traffic volumes along Avenue 

A, Rosamond Boulevard, and 170 th Street West, which could increase demand on law enforcement 

services. 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 and response; however, the project’s impact on sheriff services is potentially 

significant and will be evaluated in the EIR. 

Schools. During project construction, approximately 650 construction workers would be required. 

However, it is expected that most of these workers would commute to the project site from 

surrounding communities, including Rosamond, Lancaster, and Palmdale. Therefore, substantial 

temporary increases in population that would adversely affect local school populations are not 

expected. The operational workforce of 15 permanent employees is also anticipated to reside in 

nearby communities, and would not generate a permanent increase in population that would impact 

school populations There would be no impact and no further analysis is warranted. 

Parks/Other Public Facilities. During project construction, approximately 650 construction 

workers would be required. However, it is expected that most of these workers would commute to 

the project site from surrounding communities, including Rosamond, Lancaster, and Palmdale. 

Therefore, substantial temporary increases in population that would adversely affect demand for 

parks are not anticipated. The operational workforce of 15 permanent employees is also anticipated 

to reside in nearby communities, and would not generate a permanent increase in population that 

would impact park demand. There would be no impact and no further analysis is warranted. 



XV. RECREATION. 


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: 



Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Less than 

Significant 

with 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Less–than- 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

a., b. The project does not include new recreational facilities. Most construction workers are anticipated 

to reside in nearby communities such as Rosamond, Lancaster, and Palmdale. The temporary 

increase of population during construction that might be caused by an influx of workers would be 

minimal. As a result, there would not be a substantial increase in the use of park facilities and the 

project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an 

adverse physical effect on the environment. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further 




XVI. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC. 


a. Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in 

relation to the existing traffic load and capacity 

of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial 

increase in the number of vehicle trips, the 

volume-to-capacity ratio on roads, or 

congestion at intersections)? 

b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a 

level of service (LOS) standard established by 

the county congestion management agency or 

adopted county threshold for designated roads 

or highways? 

Specifically, would implementation of the 

project cause the LOS for roadways and/or 

intersections to decline below the following 

thresholds or further degrade already degraded 

segment(s): 

i. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan 

LOS “C”? 

ii. Kern County General Plan LOS “D”? 

(Transportation Impact Fee Areas LOS “C”? 

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 supporting alternative transportation 

(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 

Discussion: 



Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Less than 

Significant 

with 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Less-than- 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

a. The Kern County portion of the project is located within the Willow Springs Specific Plan, which 

has a more restrictive level of service (LOS) C for traffic. Many of the roads in the area are dirt or 




have no public access easement. Project construction traffic would utilize nearby roadways, 

including east-west routes Avenue A and Rosamond Boulevard (providing access to SR 14, located 

14 miles east of the project site) and the north-south route 170 th Street West. In addition to vehicle 

trips generated by construction workers traveling to the site, construction of the project would add 

vehicle trips to the area roadway system during delivery of construction equipment and materials. 

Construction material delivery would require a number of trips for oversized vehicles that may 

travel at slower speeds than existing traffic and, due to their size, may intrude into adjacent travel 

lanes. These trips may decrease the existing LOS on area freeways, roadways, and intersections. 

Additionally, the total number of vehicle trips associated with all construction-related traffic 

(including construction worker trips) could temporarily increase daily traffic volumes on local 

roadways and intersections. Furthermore, stringing activities required for transmission line 

infrastructure may require temporary lane closures that may result in temporary traffic delays on 

affected roadways. These potential impacts on the local roadway system from construction-related 

vehicle trips will be evaluated in the EIR. 

b. Approximately 650 daily workers would be present on-site during construction over a three-year 

period. Workers would gain access to the site using existing county and farm roads. These impacts 

would be temporary and would not produce long-term traffic effects. Once constructed, the facility 

would require approximately 15 permanent, full-time employees. The small number of permanent 

employees on the project site would not result in significant traffic impacts. 

i. The proposed project site is located approximately 50 miles southeast of Bakersfield. 

Construction and operation of the project would result in increased vehicle trips on roadways 

in the project area; however, construction workers are expected to travel to the site from 

various locations throughout central and Southern California and a relatively small number of 

workers is expected. Therefore, the project would not be expected to result in a substantial 

number of trips on roadways in the metropolitan Bakersfield area. No further analysis of this 

impact is warranted. 

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

generate construction trips and may require roadway lane closures, which could temporarily 

increase the daily traffic volumes on local roadways and intersections. The 15 employees 

required for operation of the proposed project are expected to originate from the local area and 

would not result in a substantial number of trips on local roadways. The LOS of area roadways 

would not experience a decline in the long term. 

c. The project site is located approximately eight miles northwest of General William J. Fox Airfield, 

a general aviation airport, and ten miles west of Rosamond Skypark, a private airport with public 

access. The project site is not located within any ALUCP zones for either of these or any other 

airports. The proposed project is subject to Section 19.08.160 (Height of Structures) of the Kern 

County Zoning Ordinance and the Military Aviation section of the ALUCP. The project site is 

located outside of the R-2508 Complex Special Use Airspace and Military Operations Area. The 

project would not interfere with airspace because of the short height of the PV panels and their nonreflective 

surfaces, which have about half the reflectance of standard residential and commercial 

glass. The impact is less than significant and no further analysis is warranted. 

d. The project proposes access off of existing public access roads, including Avenue A, Rosamond 

Boulevard, and 170 th Street West. No new roadway construction is proposed. Vehicles associated 

with the project that would use local roadways would not significantly increase hazards, as similar 

vehicles already utilize area roads to service farmland. This impact is less than significant and no 





e. As described in the response to Question XVI(a) above, construction of the project would generate 

construction trips and potential roadway lane closures, which could temporarily increase the daily 

traffic volumes on local roadways and intersections. However, no full road closures are proposed 

and no significant impact to emergency access is likely to occur. This impact is less than significant 


f. As described in the response to Question XVI(a) above, construction of the project would generate 

construction trips and potential roadway lane closures, which could temporarily disrupt any bicycle 

traffic on local roadways. However, the project would comply with County policies, plans, and 

programs related to alternative transportation. This impact is less than significant and no further 




XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. 


a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of 

the applicable regional water quality control 

board? 

b. Require or result in the construction of new 

water or wastewater treatment facilities or 

expansion of existing facilities, the construction 

of which could cause significant environmental 

effects? 

c. Require or result in the construction of new 

stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of 

existing facilities, the construction of which 

could cause significant environmental effects? 

d. Have sufficient water supplies available to 

serve the project from existing entitlements and 

resources, or would new or expanded 

entitlements be needed? 

e. Result in a determination by the wastewater 

treatment provider that serves or may serve the 

project that it has adequate capacity to serve the 

project’s projected demand in addition to the 

provider’s existing commitments? 

f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient 

permitted capacity to accommodate the 

project’s solid waste disposal needs? 

g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes 

and regulations related to solid waste? 

Discussion: 



Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Less than 

Significant 

with 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Less-than- 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

a. The proposed project would generate a minimal volume of wastewater. During construction, 

wastewater would be contained within portable toilet facilities and disposed of at an approved site. 

During operation, the proposed project would not generate substantial volumes of wastewater, as 

there would only be up to 15 employees on-site. Furthermore, the proposed project would install 

two septic systems with leach lines, to be developed at the O&M buildings (both within Kern 

County). The system would be installed in conformance with the standard conditions and permit 

requirements of the Kern County Environmental Health Services Department. 




PV panels may be cleaned up to two times per year. Each cleaning would require approximately 

five acre-feet of water for the entire site. A WQMP would be prepared with BMPs to be 

implemented that would minimize the potential impacts of runoff water from the site. This impact 

is less than significant and no further analysis is warranted. 

b. The proposed project would require the construction of two septic systems and leach lines. 

Wastewater generation during operation is not expected to be significant, as the proposed project 

would require a relatively small number of employees. Water would be provided through a contract 

with the Antelope Valley Water Bank. The project’s low demand for water and limited production 

of wastewater would not require the construction or expansion of water or wastewater treatment 

facilities. This impact is less than significant and no further analysis is warranted. 

c. Although the project would create a small amount of additional impervious surface and would 

require imported water for dust suppression during construction and the washing of panels twice a 

year, these changes would not substantially increase the amount of stormwater runoff. The project 

area is drained by natural stream channels and does not rely on constructed stormwater drainage 

systems. As such, there would be a less-than-significant impact related to the construction or 

expansion of stormwater drainage facilities, and no further analysis is warranted. 

d. Water would be provided to the site through a contract with the Antelope Valley Water Bank. The 

project would use relatively little water: up to 30 to 40 acre-feet per year for the washing of panels 

(15 to 20 acre-feet per wash, up to two washes per year) and potable water for approximately 

15 employees. There would be a less-than-significant impact related to water supply availability, 


e. The project would require the construction of two septic systems. Consequently, there is no 

wastewater treatment provider and no impacts to existing wastewater treatment facilities. No further 


f. The proposed project is not expected to generate a significant amount of waste that would exceed 

the capacity of local landfills. Materials brought to the proposed project site would be used to 

construct facilities, and few residual materials are expected. Non-hazardous construction refuse and 

solid waste would be disposed of at a local landfill, while any hazardous waste generated during 

construction would be disposed of at an approved location. It is not anticipated that the amount of 

solid waste generated by the proposed project would exceed the capacity of local landfills needed to 

accommodate the waste. Because it is expected that little waste would be created, and any waste 

that would be created would be recycled to the maximum extent feasible, the project would comply 

with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. This impact is less than 

significant and no further analysis is warranted. 

g. The proposed project would generate solid waste during construction and operation, thus requiring 

the consideration of waste reduction and recycling measures. The 1989 California Integrated Waste 

Management Act (AB 939) requires Kern and Los Angeles Counties 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. Because it is expected that little waste would be 

created, and any waste that would be created would be recycled to the maximum extent feasible, the 

project would fully comply with federal, State and local statutes and regulations related to solid 

waste. This impact is less than significant and no further analysis is warranted. 



XVIII. 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? 

Discussion: 



Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Less than 

Significant 

with 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Less than 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

a. The EIR’s biological resources section will discuss specific project impacts on plants and wildlife, 

including avian species. The document will also evaluate the project’s contribution to cumulative 

impacts on biological resources, and it will propose mitigation intended to reduce the impacts, 

particularly on avian species, to less-than-significant levels. 

b. The project has the potential to contribute to cumulative impacts in the areas of aesthetics, 

agricultural resources, biological resources, and transportation and traffic. The EIR will evaluate the 

project’s contribution to cumulative impacts in these and other areas as further impacts are 

identified. 

c. Although there may be significant air quality impacts during construction, the long-term air quality 

impacts could be beneficial if fossil fuel use is reduced. The health impacts from the short-term 

cumulative contribution to air quality impacts will be evaluated in the EIR.

Antelope Valley Solar by Renewable Resources ... - County of Kern

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?