Notice of Preparation - Community Recycling and … · 1501 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 California City Planning Dept 21000 Hacienda Blvd. California City, CA 93515 City

I:\WP\LABELS\Community Recycling.nop.docx jc (11/29/12)

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

Bakersfield City Planning Dept 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301

Bakersfield City Public Works Dept 1501 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301

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

City of Delano P.O. Box 939 Delano, CA 93216

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

City of McFarland 401 West Kern Avenue McFarland, CA 93250

City of Ridgecrest 100 West California Avenue Ridgecrest, CA 93555

City of Shafter 336 Pacific Avenue Shafter, CA 93263

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

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

City of Wasco 764 E Street Wasco, CA 93280

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Bureau of Land Management Caliente/Bakersfield 3801 Pegasus Drive Bakersfield, CA 93308-6837

U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service Division of Ecological Services 2800 Cottage Way #W-2605 Sacramento, CA 95825-1846

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2493 Portola Road, Suite B Ventura, CA 93003

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

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

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

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

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

State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 CERTIFIED MAIL

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

State Dept of Conservation Division of Oil & Gas 4800 Stockdale Highway, Ste 417 Bakersfield, CA 93309

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

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

State Dept of Fish & Wildlife 1234 East Shaw Avenue Fresno, CA 93710

State Dept of Food & Agriculture 1220 "N" Street Sacramento, CA 95814

Integrated Waste Management P.O. Box 4025, MS #15 Sacramento, CA 95812-4025

Calif. Dept of Health Services Drinking Water Field Operations 4925 Commerce Drive, Suite 120 Bakersfield, CA 93309

California Regional Water Quality Control Board/Central Valley Region 1685 E Street Fresno, CA 93706-2020

Kern County Agriculture Department

Kern County Administrative Officer Kern County Engineering, Surveying, & Permit Svs/Floodplain

Kern County Engineering, Surveying, & Permit Svs/Survey

Kern County Env Health Services Department

Kern County Fire Dept Benny Wofford

Kern County Fire Dept Dave Goodell

Kern County Library/Beale Local History Room

Kern County Library/Beale Sherry Gomez

Kern County Library Arvin Branch 201 Campus Drive Arvin, CA 93203

Kern County Library Lamont Branch 8304 Segrue Road Lamont, CA 93241

Kern County Sheriff's Dept Administration

Kern County Roads Department Kern County Waste Management Department

Kern County ESS Dept/ Code Compliance Div

Vineland School Dist. 8301 Sunset Blvd. Bakersfield, CA 93307

Kern High School Dist 5801 Sundale Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93309

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

Lamont Public Utility Dist 8624 Segrue Road Lamont, CA 93241

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

Bear Mountain Rec & Parks Dist P.O. Box 658 Lamont, CA 93241

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 1990 East Gettysburg Avenue Fresno, CA 93726

Adams, Broadwell, Joseph & Cardozo Attention: Janet M. Laurain 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000 South San Francisco, CA 94080

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

Kern Audubon Society P.O. Box 3581 Bakersfield, CA 93385

Center on Race, Poverty & the Environmental 47 Kearny Street, Suite 804 San Francisco, CA 94108-5528

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

Communities for a Better Environment 1904 Franklin Street, Suite 600 Oakland, CA 94612-2922

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

Native American Heritage Council of Kern County/Fay Van Horn P.O. Box 1507 Bakersfield, CA 93302

Pacific Gas & Electric Co Land Dept 1918 "H" Street Bakersfield, CA 93301

Pacific Gas & Electric Co Land Projects 650 "O" Street, First Floor Fresno, CA 93760-0001

Sierra Club/Kern Kaweah Chapter Arthur Unger ***PUT IN BUCKET***

Smart Growth - Tehachapi Valleys P.O. Box 1894 Tehachapi, CA 93581-1894

Southern California Edison P.O. Box 410 Long Beach, CA 90801

Southern California Gas Co 1510 North Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93308

Southern California Gas Co Transportation Dept 9400 Oakdale Avenue Chatsworth, CA 91313-6511

Verizon California, Inc. Attention Engineering Department 520 South China Lake Boulevard Ridgecrest, CA 93555

Chumash Council of Bakersfield P.O. Box 902 Bakersfield, CA 93302

David Laughing Horse Robinson P.O. Box 1547 Kernville, CA 93238

Kern Valley Indian Council Attn: Bob Robinson P.O. Box 1010 Lake Isabella, CA 93240

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

Santa Rosa Rancheria Clarence Atwell, Chairperson P.O. Box 8 Lemoore, CA 93245

Tejon Indian Tribe Kathy Morgan, Chairperson 2234 4th Street Wasco, CA 93280

Kitanemuk & Yowlumne Tejon Indians Chairperson 981 North Virginia Corvina CA 91722

Tubatulabals of Kern County Attn: Robert Gomez P.O. Box 226 Lake Isabella, CA 93240

Tule River Indian Tribe Neal Peyron, Chairperson P.O. Box 589 Porterville, CA 93258

Clifford, Jenkins & Brown 1430 Truxtun Avenue, Suite 900 Bakersfield, CA 93301

Cuddy Valley Statistical 11667 Steinhoff Road Frazier Park, CA 93222

Native American Heritage Council of Kern County/Fay Van Horn P.O. Box 1507 Bakersfield, CA 93302

Janice Armstrong 25101 Bear Valley Boulevard PMB 20 Tehachapi, CA 93561

Joyce LoBasso P.O. Box 6003 Bakersfield, CA 93386

Metrostudy 5001 California Avenue, Suite 210 Bakersfield, CA 93309

Northcutt and Associates 4220 Poplar Street Lake Isabella, CA 93240-9536

Thomas Roads Improvement Program PARSONS/Heather Ellison 900 Truxtun Avenue, Suite 201 Bakersfield, CA 93301

URS Corporation Planning Department 3500 Porsche Drive, Suite 300 Ontario, CA 91764

Oxy Resources CA, LLC Attn: Michael Gooding P.O. Box 1002 Tupman, CA 93276

Lamont Storm Water System Stuart Pyle P.O. Box 543 Lamont, CA 93241

Dominick Arburua 14530 S. Fairfax Bakersfield, CA 93307

Lunette Morrison 483 Azalea Street Thousand Oaks, CA 91360

California Highway Patrol Planning & Analysis Division P.O. Box 942898 Sacramento, CA 94298-0001

Kern Mosquito Abatement Dist 4705 Allen Road Bakersfield, CA 93312-3429

Wall Wall & Peake Attn: Larry Peake 1601 F Street Bakersfield, CA 93301

Arvin High School Attn: Donal Mills 900 Varsity Road Arvin, CA 93203

Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment Attn: Ingrid Brostrom 47 Kearny Street, Suite 804 San Francisco, CA 94108-5528

Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment Attn: Laura Baker 1012 Jefferson Street Delano, CA 93215

Committee for a Better Arvin 1401 Chico Ct. Arvin, CA 93203

Committee for a Better Arvin 1241 Bear Mountain Blvd. Suite C Arvin CA 93203

Dolores Huerta Foundation PO Box 9189 Bakersfield, CA 93389

City Manager’s Ofice Attn: Alan Christensen 200 Campus Drive Arvin, CA 93203

Stanton Lewis City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation Solid Resources Support Services Division 1149 S. Broadway, 5th Floor, MS 521 Los Angeles, CA 90015

Community Recycling Resource RecoveryAttention: John Richardson (VP) 9189 De Garmo Avenue Sun Valley, CA 91352

Community Recycling Resource Recovery Attention: Dave Baldwin (Site Manager) 1261 N. Wheeler Ridge Road P.O. Box 715 Lamont, CA 93241

WZI, Inc. Attention: Mary Jane Wilson 1717 28th Street Bakersfield, CA 93301

Clifford & Brown Attention: T. Mark Smith 1430 Truxtun Avenue, Suite 900 Bakersfield, CA 93301

Clifford & Brown Attention: Richard G. Zimmer 1430 Truxtun Avenue, Suite 900 Bakersfield, CA 93301

Lewitt, Hackman Attn: John B. Marshall 16633 Ventura Blvd, 11th Flood Encino, CA 91436-1865

Lamont Public Utility Dist P.O. Box 716 Lamont, CA 93241-0716

Lamont Public Utility Dist 1261 Wheeler Ridge Rd Arvin, CA 93307

Lamont Public Utilities Dist 1601 F St. Bakersfield, CA 93301-5018

Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal Mail to: State Clearinghouse, P. O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 (916) 445-0613 For Hand Delivery/Street Address: 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 Project Title: EIR JRK 03-12; Community Recycling & Resource Recovery, Inc. Project Lead Agency: Kern County Planning Department Contact Person: Jacquelyn R. Kitchen

Mailing Address: 2700 "M" Street Suite 100 Phone: (661) 862-8619

City: Bakersfield Zip: 93301-2323 County: Kern

Project Location: County: Kern City/Nearest Community: Lamont, City of Arvin, City of Bakersfield

Cross Streets: North Wheeler Ridge Road (SR 184) and Bear Mountain Blvd. (SR 223) Zip Code: 93307

Lat. / Long.: 35 12 2 N / 118 55’ 4 W Total Acres: 190 acres + 160 acres

Assessor's Parcel No.: 185-350-53, 54, 55 Section: 25 Twp.: 31S Range: 28E Base: MDB&M

Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: SR 223; SR 184 Waterways:

Airports: Railways: Schools: Sunset Elementary, Vineland Elementary

Document Type:

CEQA: NOP Draft EIR NEPA: NOI Other: Joint Document Early Cons Supplement/Subsequent EIR EA Final Document Neg Dec (Prior SCH No.) Draft EIS Other Mit Neg Dec Other FONSI

Local Action Type:

General Plan Update Specific Plan Rezone Annexation General Plan Amendment Master Plan Prezone Redevelopment General Plan Element Planned Unit Development Use Permit Coastal Permit Community Plan Site Plan Land Division (Subdivision, etc.) Other

Development Type:

Residential: Units Acres Water Facilities: Type MGD Office: Sq.ft. Acres Employees Transportation: Type Commercial: Sq.ft. Acres Employees Mining: Mineral Industrial: Sq.ft. Acres Employees Power: Type MW Educational Waste Treatment: Type MGD Recreational Hazardous Waste: Type

Other: Large Scale Composting Facility (Greenwaste, Foodwaste, etc.)

Project Issues Discussed in Document:

Aesthetic/Visual Fiscal Recreation/Parks Vegetation Agricultural Land Flood Plain/Flooding Schools/Universities Water Quality Air Quality Forest Land/Fire Hazard Septic Systems Water Supply/Groundwater Archeological/Historical Geologic/Seismic Sewer Capacity Wetland/Riparian Biological Resources Minerals Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading Wildlife Coastal Zone Noise Solid Waste Growth Inducing Drainage/Absorption Population/Housing Balance Toxic/Hazardous Land Use Economic/Jobs Public Services/Facilities Traffic/Circulation Cumulative Effects Other

Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Designation:

Present Land Use: Composting Facility. Present Zoning: A (Exclusive Agriculture); Present Kern County General Plan: 8.1 (Intensive Agriculture, Min. 20 Acre Parcel Size) and 8.3 (Extensive Agriculture, Min. 20 Acre Parcel Size)

Project Description: (please use a separate page if necessary) The proposed project includes amendments to operations at an existing large-scale composting facility. The project proponent is requesting amendments to the existing Conditional Use Permit (originally approved in 1993) to allow the following operational refinements at the existing facility: (1) Modify the existing CUP to authorize/acknowledge the following incoming material categories: (a) Digestates; (b) Gypsum Wallboard; (c) Food Material (including residential) and Green Material, mixed together; (d) Amendments/Additives (part of 1993 approval but not previously listed as a category); (e) Lamont PUD Biosolids (part of 1993 approval but not previously listed as a category); (2) Add the processing of gypsum wallboard and the use of a “Pseudo Bio-filter” to the project description; (3) Modify the project description of the existing Conditional Use Permit to more specifically define the contents of permitted composting feedstock categories in order to ensure clarity and consistency with CalRecycle’s Title 14 requirements. Definitions used in the project description will conform to the definitions in Title 14 Section 17225 and Title 14 Section 17852; (4) Add air pollution control measures as required by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District permits, rules, and regulations and as requested by the applicant.

SCH #

Reviewing Agencies Checklist

Lead Agencies may recommend State Clearinghouse distribution by marking agencies below with and "X". If you have already sent your document to the agency please denote that with an "S". x Air Resources Board Office of Emergency Services

Boating & Waterways, Department of Office of Historic Preservation

x California Highway Patrol Office of Public School Construction

CalFire Parks & Recreation

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

Caltrans Division of Aeronautics x Public Utilities Commission

Caltrans Planning (Headquarters) S Regional WQCB # Lahontan

Central Valley Flood Protection Board Resources Agency

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

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

Colorado River Board San Joaquin River Conservancy

Conservation, Department of Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy

Corrections, Department of State Lands Commission

Delta Protection Commission SWRCB: Clean Water Grants

Education, Department of SWRCB: Water Quality

x Energy Commission SWRCB: Water Rights

S Fish & Game Region # Fresno Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

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

General Services, Department of Water Resources, Department of

Health Services, Department of

Housing & Community Development Other

x Integrated Waste Management Board Other

S Native American Heritage Commission

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

Starting Date March 4, 2013 Ending Date April 3, 2013

Lead Agency (Complete if applicable):

Consulting Firm: Applicant: Address: Address: City/State/Zip: City/State/Zip: Contact: Phone: Phone:

Signature of Lead Agency Representative: /s/ Date: 03/04/13

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

INITIAL STUDY/NOTICE OF PREPARATION

Community Recycling and Resource Recovery Project By Community Recycling & Resource Recovery, Inc.

Modification of Conditional Use Permit No. 27, Map 143

(PP09210)

LEAD AGENCY:

Kern County Planning and Community Development Department

2700 M Street, Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93301-2370

Contact: Ms. Jacquelyn Kitchen

Supervising Planner, Advanced Planning Division (661) 862-8619 or [email protected]

March, 2013

KERN COUNTY PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Community Recycling and Resource Recovery Project

March, 2013 1 Initial Study/Notice of Preparation

Table of Contents

1. Project Description

1.1 Location ................................................................................................................................. 2 1.2 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................................ 2 1.3 Project Site History and Existing Operations ......................................................................... 8 1.4 Project Description ............................................................................................................... 15 1.5 Project Objectives ................................................................................................................ 21 1.6 Proposed Discretionary Actions/Required Approvals ......................................................... 22

2. Kern County Environmental Checklist Form (Environmental Determination)

2.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................................................................ 23 2.2 Determination ....................................................................................................................... 23

3. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................. 26 Agriculture and Forest Resources ........................................................................................ 28 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... 30 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................ 33 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................... 35 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................ 36 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................................. 38 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................ 39 Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................................. 43 Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................................ 46 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................ 47 Noise .................................................................................................................................... 48 Population and Housing ....................................................................................................... 50 Public Services ..................................................................................................................... 51 Recreation ............................................................................................................................ 52 Transportation/Traffic .......................................................................................................... 53 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................... 55 Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................................... 57



1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.1 LOCATION

The Community Recycling and Resource Recovery Project (project) includes amendments to operations at an existing composting facility located on several parcels of record on the south side of Bear Mountain Boulevard (State Route [SR] 223), half a mile west of North Wheeler Ridge Road. The existing facility is located on a 190-acre portion of assessor’s parcel numbers (APNs) 185-350-54 and 180-350-53 and also on the adjacent 160-acre parcel labeled as APN 185-350-55. The property is owned by the adjacent Lamont Public Utility District (LPUD) and is leased to the project proponent, Community Recycling & Resource Recovery, Inc. (CRRR). The LPUD operates a sewage treatment facility located immediately north and east of the project site which provides services to residents of the surrounding community. The address of the existing composting facility is 1261 North Wheeler Ridge Road, in the unincorporated area of central Kern County (County), California (Figure 1, Vicinity Map). The project site is bounded to the north and east by the LPUD’s wastewater treatment facility, to the west by a100-acre dairy (H & P Dairy), and to the south by irrigated row crops (wheat and grapes). The project is located in a relatively flat section of the County, where elevation ranges from approximately 387 feet above mean sea level (amsl) to approximately 449 feet amsl. Access to the project site is provided exclusively by a single entrance/exit on North Wheeler Ridge Road. The project site is located entirely within Section 25, Township 31 South, Range 28 East, in the Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (MDB&M). The project site is located within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute series, Weed Patch, California, topographic quadrangle.

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The project is located on a portion of approximately 350 acres of land owned by the LPUD. The project vicinity is generally characterized as a sparsely developed, rural, agricultural area. The project site is currently developed with a mixed waste collection and composting facility that has been in continuous operation since it was permitted via conditional use permit in 1993. Land use records indicate that, prior to development of the project site with the existing composting facility, the project site was historically used for irrigated crop farming and fallow farmland. Surrounding land uses include the LPUD’s wastewater treatment facility to the north and east, the H&P Dairy to the west (approximately 100-acres), and irrigated crops (cotton, alfalfa, wheat, and wine grapes) to the south. The Arvin Landfill (closed) is located to the southeast, across Wheeler Ridge Road. The closest residences are located approximately one-quarter mile west at the H&P Dairy and 2 miles south at the Paradise Lakes Estates and Airport Park community. The unincorporated community of Lamont is approximately 2 miles to the north. The city limits of the City of Arvin are located approximately 4 miles to the east. The City of Bakersfield has annexed properties at the northwest corner of the site and approximately 1 mile to the west of the site (Figure 2, Local Vicinity). Those annexed areas are currently developed with agricultural uses and are used, in part, for the disposal of sewage sludge.

The project is not within the sphere of influence of any airport as identified by the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The closest public airport is the Bakersfield Municipal Airport, located approximately 9 miles to the north. The closest private airstrip is



located at the Paradise Lakes Estates and Airport Park community, located approximately 2 miles to the south.

According to the Department of Conservation Kern County Important Farmland 2010 Map, the project site is identified as Farmland of Statewide Importance. No lands within the project boundary are subject to a Williamson Act Land Use contract and the project site is included within Agricultural Preserve No. 13.

The project lies within the boundaries of the Kern County General Plan (KCGP) (Figure 3, General Plan) and is also subject to the provisions of the Kern County Zoning Ordinance (Figure 4, Zoning Districts). The KCGP existing general plan designations and zoning classifications for the site and surrounding land uses are listed below in Table 1, Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses. The project proponent is not requesting to change any existing general plan designations or zone classifications as a part of the current project.

Table 1. Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses

Existing Land Use

Kern County General Plan Map Code Designation

Kern County Zoning Classification

Pro

ject

Existing composting

areas, and related facilities

8.1 (Intensive Agriculture, 20-acre minimum);

8.3 (Extensive Agriculture, 20-acre minimum)

A (Exclusive Agriculture)

Nor

th

Lamont PUD wastewater treatment

facility; Vacant Land;

Agricultural Uses

City of Bakersfield land; land within Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan: R-IA (Intensive Agriculture), and GC (General

Commercial)

A (Exclusive Agriculture); A FPS (Exclusive Agriculture,

Floodplain Secondary)

Sou

th Vacant Land;

Agricultural Uses 8.1 (Intensive Agriculture) A (Exclusive Agriculture)

Eas

t

Lamont PUD wastewater treatment

facility; Vacant Land;

Agricultural Uses

3.4 (Solid Waste Facilities); 8.1 (Intensive Agriculture); 8.3 (Extensive Agriculture);

A (Exclusive Agriculture); A-1 (Limited Agriculture);

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

Wes

t

Vacant Land; Dairy;

Agricultural Uses

8.1 (Intensive Agriculture); 8.3 (Extensive Agriculture)

A (Exclusive Agriculture); FPP (Floodplain Primary District)

Kern County

Los Angeles County

BAKERSFIELD

TEHACHAPI

Sequoia National

Forest

Angeles National Forest

Los Padres National Forest

§̈¦5

ÄÅ58

ÄÅ99

VenturaCounty

Sequoia National Forest

PROJECTSITE

ARVIN

LAMONT

UV58UV202

UV138

110th

Pine Canyon

Highline

Tehachapi

Elizabeth LakeLake Hughes

Banducci

Sand Canyon

Comanche Point

Johnson

Woodford Tehachapi

Dennison

Cumberland

202

Deert rai l

Curry

Old Ridge

Jacaranda

Sheeptrail

202

Lake

Hug

hes

D

Meadows Field

Figure 1Vicinity Map0 5 10 152.5 Miles

I

County of Kern

Community Recycling & Resource Recovery, Inc. December 2012

E. Bear Mountain Boulevard

Whe

eler R

idge R

oad

Lamont

Weedpatch

Greenfield

Bear Valley

Pumpkin Center

·|}þ99

·|}þ58

·|}þ99

·|}þ58

§̈¦5§̈¦5

7

6

98

52 43 1

36

11

3534

20

31

30

19

18 1516

22

27

21

28

33

29

32

10

17

2526

14

2423

13

12

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD

CITY OF ARVIN

ISLAND

S Edis

on R

d

Panama Rd

Adob

e Rd

Wible

Rd

Di Giorgio RdS U

nion A

v

Stine

Rd

Ashe

Rd

Buena Vista Blvd

E Panama Ln

Sunset Blvd

Tejon

Hwy

Copus Rd

Hermosa Rd

S H St

S Fair

fax R

d

Herring Rd

S Com

anch

e Dr

Sandrini Rd

Teale Rd

Panama Ln

Shafter Rd

Malag

a Rd

N Wh

eeler

Ridg

e Rd

Mountain View Rd

S Vine

land R

d

Cotto

nwoo

d Rd

Millux Rd

Comanche Point Rd

Rock

pile R

d

Towe

rline R

d

Neum

arkel

Rd

Towe

r Line

Rd

Engle Rd

CosterisanArvin Edison Canal

Kern

Islan

d Can

alKe

rn Is

land C

anal

Figure 2 - Local Vicinity

Kern County Planning & Community Development Department

F0 0.75 1.5 2.25 Miles

Modification of CUP 27, Map 143Community Recycling & Resource Recovery, Inc.

Existing CUP Boundary

Bear Mountain Blvd.

Additional CUP BoundaryRailroadHighwaysArterial RoadsSectionsUnincorporated TownsCity Limits

A

A

A

A A

A

A

AA

A A

A

AA

A

A

A

A

AA A

FPS

A FPS

A FPSA FP

S

A

A-1

A FPS

AA A

FPP

AA AMP FPS

E(2 1/2) CL FPSA FPS

C-2 PD

A FPS

R-1 MP

A FPS

CHE(1) RS

A-1C-2 PD FPS

C-2 PD

5 463 2 1

31

30

19

18

32

29

33

28

20 21

17 16

27

36

24

2526

23

35

14

22

34

1315

7 9810 11 12

CITY OF BAKERSFIELDFigure 4 - Zone Districts

Kern CountyPlanning & CommunityDevelopment Department

F0 0.25 0.5 0.75 Miles

Modification ofCUP 27, Map 143

Community Recycling & Resource Recovery, Inc.

Existing CUP BoundaryAdditional CUP BoundarySectionsZoning BoundariesCity Limits

A

A

A

A

A

A

A - Exclusive AgricultureA-1 - Limited AgricultureC-1 - Neighborhood CommercialC-2 - General CommercialCH - Highway Commercial CO - Commercial OfficeDI - Drilling IslandE(x) - Estate (x acres)FPP - Floodplain PrimaryM-1 - Light ManufacturingM-2 - Medium IndustrialM-3 - Heavy IndustrialMP - Mobilehome ParkMS - Mobilehome Subdivision (6000 sq. ft.)MS(x) - Mobilehome Subdivision (x acres)NR(x) - Natural Resource (x acres)OS - Open SpaceP - InterimPL - Platted LandsR-1 - Low Density ResidentialR-2 - Medium Density ResidentialR-3 - High Density ResidentialRF - Recreation ForestrySP - Special PlanningCL - Cluster Combining D - Architectural Design CombiningFP - Floodplain CombiningFPS - Floodplain Secondary CombiningGH - Geologic Hazard CombiningH - Airport Approach Height CombiningKRC - Kern River Corridor CombiningMH - Mobilehome CombiningPD - Precise Development CombiningPE - Petroleum Extraction CombiningRS - Residential Suburban CombiningWE - Wind Energy Combining



1.3 PROJECT SITE HISTORY AND EXISTING OPERATIONS

The project site is currently developed with an existing composting facility that was initially approved in 1993 by Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 27, Map 143. As noted above, the project site is located on property that is owned by the adjacent Lamont Public Utility District (LPUD) and leased to the project proponent, Community Recycling & Resource Recovery, Inc. (CRRR). The LPUD operates a sewage treatment facility located immediately north and east of the project site which provides a public services to residents of the surrounding community. The composting process utilizes treated effluent waters from the adjacent LPUD together with bulking agents and feedstocks from off-site sources to create the compost material. This relationship allows the LPUD to effectively and efficiently dispose of treated effluent waters. Without the existing CRRR facility, the LPUD would need to identify another means for disposal of the treated effluent. The composting facility operates 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Composting is accomplished by utilizing the aerobic windrow process. Currently permitted feedstock materials are noted below in Table 2, Currently Permitted Operations. During daily operations, the facility does not accept sewage biosolids (sludge); however, sludge from the LPUD is utilized approximately once every ten years when the district’s oxidation ponds are cleaned. The current permit allows compost that is produced from LPUD sludge to be applied only to the CRRR facility’s perimeter landscaping area, and the compost cannot be sold for off-site use. A portion of the incoming bulking agents and feedstocks are transported to the facility by truck from the project proponent’s facility in Sun Valley and the remaining feedstocks are received from other generators throughout the State. Each truckload weighs approximately 20 to 25 tons. Finished compost is loaded into trucks for transport to end-users or is placed in the stockpiling area to await final disposition to end-users. The facility is presently authorized by the current CUP to receive deliveries of up to 150 trucks per day and up 3,750 tons of feedstock material per day. The existing composting facility that was initially approved in 1993 via a conditional use permit, which was then modified in 1999 and 2000 to result in the current site layout and configuration. Three Mitigated Negative Declarations (MNDs) have previously been prepared and adopted for the project site. As noted above, the current project includes a request to modify the existing CUP. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for this project will review and analyze the proposed modification to the existing CUP, the impacts from the existing operations and the project, and potential closure/decommissioning of the facility. The details of previous operational approvals and requests by the project proponent are as follows:

1.3.1 Previous Operational Approvals (Baseline Conditions) 1993 (Original CUP – Approved). The existing composting facility was originally authorized by the approval of CUP No. 27, Map No. 143 on July 8, 1993. An MND (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 93052020) was prepared in 1993 by the LPUD for the original composting facility and was adopted by the Kern County Board of Zoning Adjustment. Approval of the project was appealed to the Kern County Board of Supervisors by a local resident and the Board upheld the previous approval, thereby approving CUP No. 27, Map No. 143. The MND identified the composting facility as being located on a 70 acre area and described additional areas for related scales and the office/laboratory where loads would be checked for contents and weighed. The original CUP accounted for an intake of up to 2,500 tons of feedstock materials per day; the original CUP also contained a condition of approval (No. 18) which stated that no composting activities of any type shall occur on the easterly 160 acres denoted on the plot plan as “emergency effluent storage” (APN: 185-350-55).



1999 (1st Modification to CUP – Approved). A modification to the CUP was approved by the Kern County Planning Commission on March 11, 1999, to add an additional 50 acres to the facility. The modification also increased the permitted number of truck deliveries to the current maximum of 150 trucks (25-ton capacity) per day and authorized the current maximum intake of 3,750 tons of feedstock materials per day. A second MND (SCH No. 98121070) focusing on the environmental effects of the 1999 expansion was adopted in association with the request. 2000 (2nd Modification to CUP – Approved). A second modification to the CUP was approved by the Kern County Planning Commission on May 25, 2000 to precisely identify the facility boundaries. The existing development included approximately 83 acres of active composting area 9 windrows), 12 acres of berms and roadways, a 15-acre area for screening and stockpiling material, a 7-acre area for an office and shop, and a 3-acre storm water retention sump. There was also a 50-acre area representing the northwest corner of the facility that was proposed for additional windrows. A third Negative Declaration (ND; SCH No. 2000041058) was prepared and adopted in association with the project. The 2000 modification was deemed necessary to conform to the Solid Waste Facility Permit requirements of the California Integrated Waste Management Board.

1.3.2 Current Operational Approval (Not Part of Baseline) 2007 (3rd Modification to CUP – Pending). The project proponent submitted an application for a third modification to the CUP in 2007, after it was discovered that the facility was not in compliance with the conditions of approval for CUP No. 27, Map No. 143 (See Section 1.3.4, Past Violation and Enforcement History). At that time, the project proponent requested the following: (1) to add digestates and gypsum wallboard as new feedstock/additive categories, (2) to add the processing of gypsum wallboard and the use of a pseudo-biofilter to the project description, and (3) to modify the project description of the existing CUP to more specifically define the contents of permitted composting feedstock categories, including clarification of acceptable food-wastes and the designation of an additive/amendment category to name the specific materials that have been used as a part of the composting process since initial facility approval in 1993. A fourth MND was prepared in association with the initial 2007 request and the proposal was scheduled for consideration by the Kern County Board of Supervisors (BOS). At the July 13, 2010 hearing and again on the February 22, 2011 hearing, the Kern County BOS took the following actions: (a) referred the project proponent’s request to modify CUP No. 27, Map No. 143 back to Staff for the preparation of an EIR, (b) declined to revoke the CUP, and (c) allowed the project proponent to continue operating under the following clarified conditions: (1) Items not specifically listed in the July 13, 2010 staff report under Table 1, “Existing

Category Descriptions and Tonnage” (Table 2 of this NOP) shall no longer be taken after October 13, 2010.

(2) The facility shall operate according to the conditions of approval for Resolution 72-93 (as

most recently modified in 2000). Specifically, the receipt of City of Los Angeles residential food waste shall cease by October 13, 2010.

(3) Table 2 shall be amended to include the City of Arvin’s residential food waste diversion

program and any other Kern County residential food waste diversion program as a permitted feedstock, not to exceed the tonnage limitations already listed in the table.



(4) CRRR shall submit a project description which includes any proposed changes to the application and shall remit all necessary fees and EIR deposits as deemed necessary by the Planning and Community Development Department to start preparation of an EIR by October 13, 2010. The applicant/operator shall also participate in providing timely responses for the completion of the EIR for a public hearing before the Board of Supervisors within 18 Months.

The Kern County BOS also requested that the Planning and Community Development Department prepare status updates to report on the progress of the project for presentation to the BOS. The status reports were provided to the BOS on February 22, 2011; July 5, 2011; and August 9, 2011. Therefore, the CRRR facility is currently permitted to continue operations pursuant to the operational parameters listed in the 2000 Negative Declaration and as updated by the BOS on July 13, 2010 and February 22, 2011. The current operational parameters are listed in Table 2.



Table 2. Currently Permitted Operations*

Feedstock Category Description Daily Tons Green Materials (1993) Yard trimmings from residences & businesses that

include grass clippings, tree trimmings, wood. and wood fines, etc.

1,250

Produce Materials (1993)

Discarded trimmings & spoiled fruits/vegetables from retail & warehouse distribution centers

1,250

Soiled paper/sorted biomass (1993)

Soiled pre & post consumer paper products as generated at paper mills

500

Pre-Consumer Produce Products (2000)

Not defined 25

Packing Shed Materials (1993; 2000; 2011)

Trimmings & cull fruits/vegetables from local packing plants (1993); Liquid, semisolid, solid agricultural, wholesale/retail food process & food residuals to inlcude restaurant food-waste

25

Street Sweeping Organics (2000)

Not defined 250

Cow Manure (2000) Not defined 250 Lamont PUD Biosolids Lamont PUD cleans 3,500 tons of sludge out sewage

settling ponds once every 5-10 years; resulting compost for use on interal Community Recycling landscaping only

-

Residential Food-Waste (Limited to only the City of Arvin and other Kern Communities per Board action on July 13, 2010)

Materials from the residential food-waste diversion programs from only the City of Arvin and any other Kern County residential food-waste diversion programs.

To be counted under “Green Materials” or “Produce Materials” tonnage limit

Amendments/Additives to be used in the composting process and/or in soil (2010)

Utilized by the facility since 1993, but not previously listed; applicant may continue to utilize gypsum, dolomite, fertilizers, humates & sulfur but may not utilize biomass ash.

Not Listed

Total Maximum Daily Intake:

3,750

* As listed in 2000 Negative Declaration and as amended by Board of Supervisors on July 13, 2010 and Feburary 22, 2011.

1.3.3 Additional Operational Characteristics

As permitted, the facility operates 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Composting is accomplished by utilizing an aerobic windrow process. A majority of the incoming composting feedstock and bulking agents are transported to the facility by truck from the CRRR facility in Sun Valley, California, while the remaining feedstocks are directed from other generators throughout the State. Each truckload weighs approximately 20 to 25 tons. Finished compost is screened for oversized material and litter prior to being loaded into trucks for transport to customers or is placed in the stockpiling area to await final disposition to end-users. Oversize material includes large wood waste from incoming green waste feedstocks. The wood waste is separated and trucked to the Biomass Electric Generating Facilities in Dinuba, California and Madera, California. The separated litter is sent to landfills such as Bena, Avenal, Chiquita, or Sunshine, California depending on operational/shipping costs.



The windrow composting process uses reclaimed water from the LPUD together with feedstocks/bulking agents from off-site sources. Feedstock categories that are approved under the current CUP are listed previously in Table 2. Additives and amendments have consisted of commercially available materials such as gypsum, sulfur, dolomite, commercial fertilizers, humates, and biomass ash. Historically, additives consist of material mixed with feedstock or active compost. The facility has consistently used amendments, which are materials added to stabilized or cured compost, to provide attributes for certain compost products. Cow manure is composted in separate windrows. Once every 5 to 10 years, the wastewater oxidation ponds at the adjacent LPUD facility are cleaned and approximately 3,500 tons of residual wastewater treatment sludge has been processed into a separate compost product by the facility. The current CUP allows the compost that is produced utilizing the LPUD sludge to be applied only to the facility perimeter landscaping area on property that is leased from LPUD and it cannot be sold for off-site use.

As described above, the existing facility consists of approximately 190 acres including: 158 acres of active composting, berms and roadways, compost product screening, and stockpiling; a storm-water retention basin; and 32 acres of undeveloped land. There are also related facilities located on the adjacent 160-acre parcel, located directly to the east of the facility including an office, shop, truck tire wash areas, and the main site entrance gate and access road from Wheeler Ridge Road. This 160-acre parcel is not included within the boundaries of the current CUP. The facility operates equipment such as scarabs for windrow turning and screeners/conveyors, which, if necessary, have stationary source permits issued by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The existing operation also involves the use of loaders, dump trucks, and tractor/trailer trucks. As previously noted, the existing facility is currently authorized to receive up to 150 truck deliveries of feedstocks and bulking agents each day, which originate from various locations both within and outside of Kern County. The outgoing compost product is then delivered to various locations both within and outside Kern County. The facility currently employs approximately 122 people. Storm water is retained on site via collection in a catch basin and is used in the windrow composting process in addition to the reclaimed water from the LPUD. A water well is located adjacent to the site to supply non-potable water and any additional water required for the composting operation. A septic tank is used for sanitary wastes. Residual non-compostable solid wastes (trash) from the facility are transported to landfills. Electricity is supplied to the site by Pacific Gas and Electric. Security fencing with landscaping surrounds the site, including the LPUD wastewater treatment ponds located to the northeast of the facility.

1.3.4 Past Violation and Enforcement History (Including Revocation of Conditional Use Permit)

The project site has been the subject of several land use violations, notices of violation, status reports, and enforcement actions taken by the Kern County Public Health Services Department/Environmental Health Division (EHS); the Kern County Engineering, Surveying, and Permit Services Department/Code Compliance Division (ESPS); the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department (PCDD); and by the Kern County Board of Supervisors (BOS). An overview of those actions is as listed in Table 3, Past Violation and Enforcement History.



Table 3. Past Violation and Enforcement History

4/11/07: Code Compliance initiated a land use violation case for a change in land use without the benefit of land use approval and for failure to comply with the conditions of approval of the CUP. EHS also cited the applicant/operator for applying finished compost product containing excessive plastics, glasses, and other materials on surrounding farmlands owned by the applicant/operator. This application was not on the property considered in this CUP modification application. 6/21/07: EHS issued an order requiring the immediate cessation of the land application of solid waste residual material on five parcels. This application of material was not on the land within the CUP boundary. 7/12/07: The PCDD issued a letter to Code Compliance reaffirming that CRRR was not in compliance with the conditions of approval of their CUP.8/21/07: Code Compliance staff confirmed that multiple violations existed on property operated by the project proponent, including stockpiles of crushed concrete and gypsum wallboard, which were not permitted under the CUP. The concrete was not on the CUP site. Subsequent monthly site visits through December 2007, showed little change in the status of the site; however, the applicant/operator had initiated discussion with staff that led to the applicant/operator’s current request. 10/9/07: The BOS made a finding of Public Nuisance and directed full abatement of all crushed concrete and wallboard gypsum within 120 days (February 6, 2008); also assessed administrative penalties in the amount of $10,000.00.11/5/07: CRRR paid a $5,000.00 penalty fee to Code Compliance (Check No. 21045). 12/27/07: The PCDD issued a letter to Community Recycling that highlighted the remaining violations that were to be abated prior to February 6, 2008. A second letter, dated January 11, 2008, highlighted the additional submittal requirements necessary to process an amendment to the CUP to allow the retention and processing of the gypsum wallboard.1/4/08: A site inspection by Code Compliance revealed that residual plastic bags and wrapping material leftover from the composting process had blown around the site and onto adjacent sites and agricultural crops. Trash debris was also found in adjacent agricultural fields owned by the applicant/operator. The perimeter screening fence had also accumulated excessive amounts of trash and debris. Later, a crew of about a dozen people were out cleaning the debris. The site visit also revealed that the mound of crushed concrete had been reduced by half; however, the gypsum remained on site with little to no change. 1/7/2008: A site inspection by Code Compliance revealed the fence that was blown over was being repaired; crews had picked up all the litter around the site and in the fields.1/24/08: An additional site visit revealed the majority of the crushed concrete had been removed.The gypsum wallboard remained untouched while the project proponent attempts to obtain Planning Department approval to process and spread it.2/5/08: BOS considered a request by CRRR to amend the October 9, 2007 Abatement Order to allow the processing of the on-site gypsum wallboard by separating paper and retention of covered gypsum on farm property until EHS approved a remediation plan. BOS found that the previous Abatement Order had not been satisfied because the gypsum wallboard was still on site and, therefore, BOS assessed additional penalties in the amount of $35,000.00 and extended the abatement deadline for the gypsum wallboard to August 15, 2008, subject to an additional $500.00 per day fine, to be waived if abatement was complete prior to August 15, 2008. 2/25/08: Code Compliance performed a site inspection and found that perimeter fencing had blown over and trash was on adjacent fields as far as 4 miles away. Observed approximately eight crews cleaning adjacent properties. Inspector reports that CRRR had eight crews out cleaning up the different fields. 3/20/08: CRRR paid a $35,000.00 penalty fee to Code Compliance (Check No. 21246). 5/9/08: Planning, Engineering & Surveying Services and EHS approve crushing and use of gypsum wallboard on farming property. 6/3/08: CRRR issued a letter to the County stating that on May 16, 2008, all gypsum wallboard had been screened and that all processed materials would be used as a soil amendment per the approval issued by Planning, EHS, and ESPS on June 2, 2008.11/9/08: During the processing of an applicant/operator request to modfiy to the CUP, the staff became aware that the facility was accepting residential food waste from recycling/diversions programs piloted by the City of Arvin and other municipalities throughout California. In July 2010, the staff concluded that these types of post-consumer food wastes were outside the scope of materials permitted by the existing conditional use permit, as it was originally approved in 1993 and as it was amended in 1999 and 2000. The staff also became aware that CRRR was storing biomass




ash at the facility for use as an additive in the composting process. The biomass ash was an additive for the compost. Anaylsis of the ash had been provided to the LEA. 7/13/10: BOS took action to allow the facility to continue operating under several specific parameters, as described above and agreed to by CRRR, and to conduct an EIR with the CEQA environmental baseline. 7/21/10: The PCDD sent letter to Los Angeles Sanitation office re-capping the July 13, 2010, Board hearing and stating that CRRR is to cease acceptance of Los Angeles food waste materials. 9/23/10: The PCDD contacted the Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation to inquiry about the status of their contract with CRRR. On October 4, 2010, that Agency indicated that while they were still shipping residential food waste to the Kern County CRRR facility, the shipments were scheduled to cease on or before October 13, 2010, as mandated by the BOS. September 2010: During this time, the staff also discovered that the City of San Fernando was conducting a residential food waste program and sending the waste to CRRR. The staff confirmed this with the applicant/operator who then provided a written letter stating that they will no longer accept residential food waste materials from any generator outside of Kern County, including the City of Los Angeles and the City of San Fernando, after October 13, 2010. Staff contacted the Public Works Director, Ron Ruiz, for the City of San Fernando and notified Mr. Ruiz that CRRR does not have land use approval to accept residential food waste from that jurisdiction and that all deliveries to CRRR must cease by October 13, 2010. Mr. Ruiz then contacted the City’s contracted hauler, Crown Disposal, and stated that he verified with them that the operations will cease as of October 13, 2010. 10/19/11: BOS took action to receive and file the October 19, 2010 status report from PCDD; directed CRRR to immediately cease acceptance of the City of San Fernando residential food scrap; and directed CRRR to continue to participate in providing timely responses for the completion of the EIR for a public hearing before the BOS within 18 months.2/1/11: Code Compliance found that CRRR was storing plastic bales and irrignation pipe on the 160-acre parcel located immediatley to the east of the composting facility, which constituted a land use violation. Additionally, the 160-acre parcel was not included in the boundaries of the CUP, however, has been a historical part of the CRRR composting facility operation because it has housed office trailers, composting-related equipment and a truck wash/repair facility related to CRRR. Upon notification of this violation, the PCDD immediately contacted the manager of the facility, who indicated that all unauthorized materials (plastics) would be removed immediately.2/22/11: The PCDD delivered a status report to BOS which described the activities that had occurred to date. The staff recommended that BOS update Table 1 to note that food wastes which had previously been permitted under the “packing shed/produce/green materials” categories included institutional food diversion from public facilities such as schools and correctional institutions. The amendment was made to Table 1 and BOS took action to receive and file the February 22, 2011, status report; directed CRRR to remove all unauthorized waste streams from the site by April 17, 2011, submit a complete Project Description and applications by April 15, 2011, submit a Draft Specific Plan by July 8, 2011, and continue to participate in providing timely responses for completion of the EIR for a public hearing before the BOS within 18 months of receiving the draft Specific Plan.8/9/11: The PCDD delivered a status report to the BOS which described the activities that had occurred to date. BOS took action to: Receive and file and direct CRRR to (a) direct CRRR to do one of the following: (1) clarify the parameters of the current request and submit a revised application to modify the conditional use permit by August 29, 2011. The revised application shall include a final project description in response to the staff’s most recent communications with the applicant/operator (dated June 23, 2011 and July 7, 2011) or (2) provide a written request to withdraw the request to modify CUP No. 27, Map 143 and operate the CRRR facility pursuant to the parameters listed in Table 1 (attached) as approved by your Board on July 13, 2010 and as modified on February 22, 2011; (b) submit all required environmental studies or a written request that the studies be prepared by a third party consultant within 6 weeks of the date that the Planning and Community Development Department provides written acknowledgement deeming the project description adequate; and (c) continue to participate in providing timely responses for the completion of the EIR for a public hearing before the BOS by September 2012. 10/12/11: Accident occurred at CRRR facility; resulting in the fatality of two employees.Preliminary reports stated that fatalities were due to employees’ exposure to hydrogen sulfide gas during maintenance of below ground on-site drainage facilities.10/25/11: CRRR discussed under the “Public Presentation” portion of the AM and PM session of the BOS hearings. State of California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational




Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) Director, Ellen Widess, appeared to provide a status update and stated that the Cal/OSHA investigation was under way and that drainage facility portion of the facility was shut down by OSHA. BOS stated that the status of the facility will be discussed and considered at the November 15, 2011, BOS hearing. Several new violations were also identified at the October 25, 2011 hearing, including: (1) the setup of a plastic washing and shredding operation on the 160-acre parcel immediatley adjacent to the composting facility; (2) illegal concrete crushing activities at other nearby properties that were under the ownership of the Fry Family Trust, the same entity that owns CRRR; and (3) possible acceptance of additional gypsum wallboard on these same parcels. 11/15/11: Kern County BOS took action to revoke CUP No. 27, Map 143 and directed County staff to report back to BOS on alternatives for the Lamont PUD effluent materials. 11/29/12: Stay-Order issued by the Kern County Superior Court, allowing CRRR to continue operation while processing an EIR with Kern County.

1.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.4.1 Overview of Current Project Proposal

The project does not include any physical expansion of the facility, nor does it request an increase in the previously permitted level of operation, which allows 3,750 tons of incoming material (feedstocks, additives, and amendments) per day. In addition, there would be no increase in the currently permitted 150 incoming trucks (25-ton capacity) per day. The Site Plan is shown on Figure 5. The project is a modification to the existing CUP to allow the following operational refinements at the existing facility: Proposal Summary

1. Modify the existing CUP to authorize/acknowledge the following incoming material

categories: a. Digestates b. Gypsum Wallboard c. Food Material (including residental) and Green Material, mixed together d. Additives/Ammendments (part of 1993 approval but not previously listed as a

category) e. Lamont PUD Biosolids (part of 1993 approval but not previously listed as a category)

2. Add the processing of gypsum wallboard and the use of a “Psuedo Bio-filter” to the

project description.

3. Modify the project description of the existing Conditional Use Permit to more specifically define the contents of permitted composting feedstock categories in order to ensure clarity and consistenty with CalRecycle’s Title 14 requirements. Definitions used in the project description will conform to the definitions in Title 14 Section 17225 and Title 14 Section 17852.

4. Add air pollution control measures as required by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution

Control District permits, rules, and regulations and as requested by the applicant.



Proposal Detail The following is a detailed explanation of each aspect of the project: 1.a. Digestates would be added as a new feedstock category and these materials would be

utilized as a part of the composting process. Digestates would consist of the solid materials that remain after the anaerobic digestion of biodegradable feedstocks.

1.b. Gypsum Wallboard would be added as a new additive/amendment category and these

materials would be accepted at the facility for processing and for use as an additive (the recovered paper) and an amendment (the recovered gypsum) in the composting process. The gypsum wallboard accepted at the site would be unpainted/non-hazardous and would be source-separated to ensure that it does not contain demolition or other construction waste materials. After processing, the finished gypsum would be added to the compost as an amendment or sold to third parties. The processing of the gypsum wallboard would necessitate additional on-site equipment. This equipment would primarily include a feed hopper, conveyors, a vibrating screen, and a dust collection baghouse. All equipment would be permitted as required by the SJVAPCD.

1.c. Food Material and Green Material, when comingled (such as in a municipal green

waste/food waste diversion programs), are proposed to be added as a new feedstock category and these materials are proposed to be accepted at the facility for processing and for use in the composting process.

1.d. Additives and Amendments would be added as a new category. These materials,

including sulfur, dolomite, fertilizer, humates, and non-hazardous biomass ash, have been used on-site since the original project approval in 1993. Although additives and admendments were listed, the specific types of additives/amendments were not specifically identified by the existing CUP. Additives are materials that are added to the feedstock or the active compost in order to accomplish the proper carbon nitrogen ratio, density and moisture content to provide for proper composting and amendments are materials that are added to the finished compost to enhance the nutrient values and physical absorbtion properties of the final composting product.

1.e. LPUD biosolids would be listed in the feedstock category. Once every 5-10 years, the

LPUD cleans approximately 3,500 tons of sludge out of the sewage settling ponds that are located adjacent to the CRRR facility. This sludge is used by CRRR to create compost for use on internal landscaping only on property owned by LPUD and leased by CRRR. The composting of this material is separate from the remainder of the composting operation. This activity was permitted in the original 1993 CUP; however, it was not included in the list of permitted feedstock categories.

2. The processing of gypsum wallboard would be as described above in item 1.b.

The project would incorporate the use of a “pseudo-biofilter” in the project description. This is a pollution control technology that removes and oxidizes volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and ammonia through the action of bacteria and other microorganisms. The project proponent would cover “active” composting windrows with a layer of “finished composted” (pseudo-biofilter) during the first 2 weeks of each new composting batch. Additional finished compost would be applied to the windrow whenever it is turned, incorporating the finished compost into the composting material.



The project proponent has noted that the California Integrated Waste Management Board funded the “Modesto Study” (California Integrated Waste Management Board, Emissions Testing of Volatile Organic Compounds from Greenwaste Composting at the Modesto Compost Facility in the San Joaquin Valley, May 2008) indicates that covering active compost windrows with a layer of finished compost (pseudo-biofilter) lowers air emissions by as much as 75 percent for the initial 2 weeks of composting, compared to uncovered piles. The study also indicates that composting operations produce a majority of their VOC emissions during the first 2 weeks of the composting process.

3. As a part of the CUP modification, the project proponent would update the project

description of the existing CUP to more specifically conform with the definitions in Title 14. This includes clarification of acceptable Food Materials, Agricultural Materials, and the designation of an “Additive/Amendment” category to name the specific materials that have been used as a part of the composting process since initial facility approval in 1993. "Feedstock" means any compostable material used in the production of compost or chipped and ground material including, but not limited to, agricultural material, green material, food material, biosolids, and mixed solid waste. Feedstocks shall not be considered as either additives or amendments.

1.4.2 Proposed Operational Table

The requested modifications to the CUP, as noted above, would result in a new operational table, as follows:



Table 4. Proposed Project Operational Parameters Incoming Feedstocks1 Description2, 3 Tons/

Day Comingled Green Materials HSC 17852(21) and Food Materials HSC 17852(20) from Municipal Waste Diversion Programs. (Includes residential food-waste)

Green Material means any plant material that is separated at the point of generation, contains no greater than 1.0 percent of physical contaminants by weight, and meets the requirements of section 17868.5. Green material includes, but is not limited to, yard trimmings, untreated wood wastes, natural fiber products, and construction and demolition wood waste. Green material does not include food material, biosolids, mixed solid waste, material processed from commingled collection, wood containing lead-based paint or wood preservative, mixed construction or mixed demolition debris.

Food Material means any material that was acquired for animal or human consumption, is separated from the municipal solid waste stream, and that does not meet the definition of Agricultural Material. Food material may include material from food facilities as defined in Health and Safety Code section 113785, grocery stores, institutional cafeterias (such as, prisons, schools and hospitals) or residential food scrap collection.

CRRR facility to accept these materials, in comingled form, from communities including the materials from the CRRR grinding facility in Sun Valley, California. Green Waste Diversion Programs from municipalities can also include Green Materials that are comingled with Food Material that is received from residences that facilitate the recycling of Food Material via green waste container recycling programs. Feedstock containing these comingled materials are accepted from programs such as those in the City of Los Angeles and the City of Arvin. The diversion programs encourage residents to place discarded fruits, vegetables, breads, paper plates, paper milk cartons/towels into green waste containers. These enhanced waste programs are the direct result of the State of CA recycling policies.

Varies4

Comingled Agricultural Materials HSC 17852(5) and Food Materials HSC 17852(20)

Agricultural Material means material of plant or animal origin, which result from the production and processing of farm, ranch, agricultural, horticultural, aquacultural, silvicultural, floricultural, vermicultural, or viticultural products, including manures, orchard and vineyard prunings, and crop residues. May be mixed or separated and also consisting of spoiled fruits/vegetables and discarded fruit/vegetable trimmings from wholesale and retail market chains. These materials are collected at major warehouse/distribution centers by the supermarket chains and may also contain some Food Materials from supermarket operations (such as deli waste).

“Food Material” is defined above; and would include materials from restaurants and as such is not an “Agricultural Material.”

Varies4

Biomass No HSC Definition

Biomass generally includes soiled pre-and post-consumer paper products that are generated and source-separated at paper mills and material recovery facilities. The soiled post-consumer paper is a grade of paper which does not meet requirements for reuse in recycled paper product and would normally be transported to landfills for disposal. The soiled paper has high organic carbon levels making it an ideal compost bulking agent. A specific example is the Bakersfield area Nestle Ice Cream plant’s disposal of ice cream packaging products such as wrappers, sticks, small containers with residual amounts of ice cream, and toppings such as nuts, candies, and flavorings.

Varies4

Packing Plant Materials/Food Residuals No HSC Definition

Packing plant materials/food residuals means trimmings, cull fruits, and vegetables from packing plants. May include liquid, semisolid, and solid agricultural, wholesale/retail food process and residuals. Also may include Agricultural Materials and Food Materials resulting from a public emergency or vehicle accident. Liquids are unloaded directly into windrows and mixed with other bulking agents for moisture control. An example of this type of food residual would be the Bakersfield Association for Retarded Citizens waste beverage recycling program.

Varies4

Municipal Street Sweeping Organics No HSC Definition

Muncipal street sweeping organics means items such as leaves, lawn debris, sand, paper and small tree branches. All non compostible trash materials to be screened out and diposed of.means materials picked up by manual or mechanical sweeping of alleys, streets or sidewalks, litter from public litter receptacles and material removed from catch basins.

Varies4

Cow Manure HSC 17852(25)

Manure means is an agricultural material and means accumulated herbivore or avian excrement. This definition shall include feces and urine, and any bedding material, spilled feed, or soil that is mixed with feces or urine. This facility shall accept cow manure only. The manure will be composted spearately from other feedstocks.

Up to 250 tons



Table 4. Proposed Project Operational Parameters Incoming Feedstocks1 Description2, 3 Tons/

Day Digestates No HSC Definition

Digestates means liquid or solid organic material produced during an anaerobic digestion process (digesters) and used as a fertilizer. Examples include dairy digesters which use cow manure and off-farm waste as the feedstock. The facility will not accept digestates from wastewater treatment plants, with the exception of materials from the Lamont PUD as listed below.

Up to 500 tons

New Gypsum Wallboard No HSC Definition

New Gypsum Wallboard means materials that will be recieved from manufacturers and construction sites and adheres to the following: (1) unpainted and nonhazardous; (2) source-separated to ensure that it has not been mixed with other demolition or construction waste; and (3) source limited to new wallboard from manufacturers’ facilities and new wallboard trimmings from construction sites. Separated paper from the wallboard would be used in the composting process. The processed gypsum from the wallboard will be used in the on-site composting process or sold to third parties for direct soil use.

Up to 500 tons

Overall Maximum Daily Limit (OMDL) 3,750 tons

Additional Incoming Materials5 Additives and Amendments HSC 17852(2) and (7)

Additives means material mixed with feedstock or active compost in order to adjust the moisture level, carbon to nitrogen ratio, or porosity to create a favorable condition. Additives include, but are not limited to, fertilizers and urea. Additives do not include septage, biosolids, or compost feedstock.

Amendments means materials added to stabilized or cured compost to provide attributes for certain compost products, such as product bulk, product nutrient value, product pH, and soils blend. Amendments do not include septage, biosolids, or compost feedstock.

The specific materials that will be accepted at the facility include the following commercially available additives/amendments: - Gypsum, Dolomite, Fertilizers, Humates; - Sulfur (granular, high purity from oil refineries as a by-product of the refining process); and, - Biomass Ash; to constitute less than 1% of the total materials delivered to facility; received from Dinuba Engery Facility in Reedley, CA only and analyzied

prior to acceptance to ensure that ash does not contain hazardous concetrations of total/soluble metals and that the pH is below hazardous limit.

Up to 250 tons per day

Lamont PUD Biosolids HSC 17852(9)

Lamont PUD removes 3,500 tons of biosolids sludge from their wastewater treatement ponds every 5 to 7 years when the ponds are cleaned. Biosolids means solid, semi-solid, or liquid residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. Biosolids includes, but is not limited to, treated domestic septage and scum or solids removed in primary, secondary, or advanced wastewater treatment processes. Biosolids does not include ash generated during the firing of sewage sludge in a sewage sludge incinerator or grit and screenings generated during the preliminary treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works.

The Lamont PUD removes approximately 3,500 tons of biosolids sludge from their wastewater treatement ponds every 5 to 7 years when the ponds are cleaned and the facility will use those biosolids in the composting process at that time. The compost that is produced utilizing LPUD sludge will be processed in a separate area and may be applied to the Facility’s perimeter landscaping area only.

Approx. 3,500 tons; once every 5 years

Notes: 1 Per HSC 17852 (19), the term “feedstock” shall be defined as any compostable material used in the production of compost or chipped and ground material including, but not limited to, agricultural material HSC 17852(5),

green material HSC17852(21), food material HSC17852(20), biosolids HSC17852(9), and mixed solid waste HSC17852(26). Feedstocks shall not be considered as either additives or amendments. 2 All definitions listed in this table are consistent with the definitions listed in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), as pertinent to the California Department of Resoruces Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle).

Regulations specific to composting are listed in Title 14, Natural Resrouce – Division 7; Chapter 3.1, Compostable Materials Handling Operations and Facilities Regulatory Requirements; beginning with Article 1, Section 17850. Authority and Scope. Specific references within this section are listed above, adjacent to each feedstock category, as HSC 175xx., etc. HSC means Health and Safety Code.

3 Should the Title 14 definitions for the contents of the feedstock categories change, the project proponent shall follow the procedures as defined in the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 27, Map No. 143. 4 Total amount of this feedstock category accepted may vary; however, cannot exceed Overall Maximum Daily Limit (OMDL) when combined with other incoming feedstocks during that 24 hour period. 5 Materials received in these categories do not count toward OMDL.



1.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The project proponent has defined the following objectives for the project: To provide clarity of definitions of activities allowed under the Conditional Use Permit.

To remain economically viable as a compost facility in the state of California.

To recycle mixed residential food waste/green waste.

To recycle gypsum wallboard from new construction.

To recycle digestates from organic digesters.

To continue to protect the groundwater in the area through recycling of Lamont Public Utilities District’s waste water now and in the future as the Lamont area grows.

To continue to produce quality compost for the agricultural community.

To continue to provide employment within the communities of Lamont and Arvin.

To continue to comply with San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s rules and regulation and changes with those regulations in the future.

To modify the language in the Conditional Use Permit to conform with the CalRecycle’s language for clarity of conditions in all permits.

To continue to facilitate the accomplishment of CalRecycle’s goals of 75% landfill diversion by diverting compostables from landfills.

Kern County has also identified the following objectives for the project:

Ensure that the use of the site will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the public or to property and residents of the vicinity.

Establishment of an alternative plan and/or another viable option for the adjacent Lamont Public Utilities District for the appropriate transfer and/or disposal of sewer effluent/treated wastewater generated at the public facility.

Establishment of clear definitions of uses and activities permitted under the Conditional Use Permit.

Consolidation of previous facility conditions of approval and mitigation measures into one single environmental document for complete analysis and for use in streamlined compliance monitoring and implementation.



1.6 PROPOSED DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS/REQUIRED APPROVALS

The project may require certain discretionary actions and approvals including, but not limited to, the following: Local

Kern County Board of Supervisors Conditional Use Permit Certification of Environmental Impact Report Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring Program Adoption of 15091 and 15093 Findings of Overriding Consideration

Kern County Engineering, Surveying and Permit Services Department

Plan for the Disposal of Drainage Waters Grading and Building Plans

Kern County Environmental Health Services Department Solid Waste Facilities Permits Odor Impact Minimization Plan Report of Compost Facility (RCFI) Hazardous Materials Business Plan – Septic and Water System Permits – Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan – Safety Management Procedures

Kern County Roads Department

Access Road Design and Encroachment Permit Kern County Fire Department

Fire Safety Plan

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Fugitive Dust Control Plan Authority to Construct Permit to Operate Any other permits as required

State

Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB)

Odor Impact Minimization Plan Solid Waste Facility Permit

California Department of Toxic Substances California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and

Health (Cal/OSHA)



2.0 KERN COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “potentially significant impact" as indicated by the Kern County Environmental Checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils

Greenhouse Gas

Emissions Hazards and Hazardous

Materials Hydrology and Water Quality

Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise

Population and Housing Public Services Recreation

Transportation and Traffic Utilities and Service

Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance

2.2 DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) On the basis of this initial evaluation:

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

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there

will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

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

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,

because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

/s/ March 4, 2013 Signature Date Jacquelyn R. Kitchen

Printed Name For



3.0 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately

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

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,

cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur and 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

Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources

for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or

individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.



8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:

a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and

b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.



Discussion: (a) The project site is substantially developed with an existing composting facility and no additional

structures or composting areas are planned for the project. While the project site is not designated as a scenic vista, as defined by the County of Kern or any other local governing body, the incorporation of the gypsum wallboard processing equipment to the facility and the addition of the pseudo-biofilter on top of the existing composting windrows may result in significant alteration to the existing viewshed. The potential adverse effects will be assessed and the findings will be presented in the EIR.

(b) There are no Officially Designated State or County Scenic Highways as defined by Caltrans, the

County of Kern, or any other local governing body adjacent to or within the vicinity of the project site. Additionally, there are no rock outcroppings or known historic buildings in the vicinity of the project. However, the incorporation of the gypsum wallboard processing equipment to the facility and the addition of the pseudo-biofilter on top of the existing composting windrows may result in significant alteration to the existing viewshed and will be evaluated in the EIR.

(c) The existing visual character of the site is predominately rural agriculture industry and there are no

designated scenic vistas within the viewshed. The visual change between the existing composting process and the proposed addition of the gypsum wallboard operation to the existing operations is mainly color-related, as gypsum wallboard is a light color and may stand out against the existing operations and surrounding agricultural uses. This color change may present a curiosity or distraction to travelers along Bear Mountain Road and Wheeler Ridge Road. The addition of the pseudo-biofilter on top of the existing composting windrows may also alter the existing viewshed by increasing the height of the existing windrows. The potential impacts will be evaluated in the EIR.

(d) No new light sources are included as part of the project. The facility currently operates 24 hours a

day. The light sources required to serve the project are existing. The modification to the existing

Potentially Significant

Impact


Impact Unless

Mitigated

Less Than Significant

Impact No

Impact AESTHETICS. Would the project:

a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic

vista?

b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?



CUP to add additional operations and clarify feedstock definitions will not require additional lighting. The proposed gypsum wallboard processing will occur only during daylight hours. However, gypsum wallboard is a light color, which reflects light and may cause a distraction to travelers along Bear Mountain Road and Wheeler Ridge Road, workers, and local residences. The potential impacts will be evaluated in the EIR.




Impact


Impact Unless

Mitigated


Impact No

Impact AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project, and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in 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 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 Productions (as defined in Government Code section 51104[g])?

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

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




Impact


Impact Unless

Mitigated


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 15206[b][3] Public Resources Code)?

Discussion: (a) The California Department of Conservation’s Kern County Important Farmland 2010 map identifies

the project site as “Farmland of Statewide Importance.” Farmland in this category is similar to prime farmland but with greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. The site has been continually utilized as a composting facility since 1993. The project does not involve an increase to the size of the facility and is not likely to result in the conversion of designated Farmland to a nonagricultural use. However, surrounding properties are being actively farmed; therefore, potential impacts will be further evaluated in the EIR.

(b) The project site is within Agricultural Preserve No. 13 pursuant to Kern County’s policy to include

all agricultural zoned land within a preserve; however, the project site has not been farmed in more than a decade. The project site is bordered by the H&P Dairy to the west, the LPUD wastewater treatment facility to the north, irrigated row crops to the south, and the closed Arvin Landfill to the east. The project site is not under Williamson Act Land Use Contract; however, surrounding properties are under contract. Impacts will be further evaluated in the EIR.

(c)/(d) No lands within or immediately adjacent to the project are zoned forest land or timberland or contain

any forested areas. Due to a lack of forest land on the site, the project does not involve any changes to the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in impacts resulting in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No further analysis is warranted.

(e) As noted above, the project site and immediate surrounding properties do not contain any forest land

or active farming land. A majority of the project site is located within the Kern County Agricultural Preserve No. 13 boundaries, but no parcels within the project site are currently subject to a Williamson Act contract. Due to a lack of forest land or active farming on the site, the project would not involve any changes to the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. However, surrounding properties are being actively farmed and therefore this impact will be further evaluated in the EIR.

(f) No lands within the project site are subject to a Williamson Act Land Use contract made pursuant to

the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 or Farmland Security Zone contract. Therefore, the project would not 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 15206[b][3] Public Resources Code). However, surrounding properties are being actively farmed and therefore this impact will be further evaluated in the EIR.




Impact


Impact Unless

Mitigated


Impact No

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

a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the

applicable air quality plan?

b. Violate any air quality standards 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 nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Specifically, would implementation of the project exceed any of the following adopted thresholds:

i. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District:

Operational and Area Sources:

Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 10 tons per year.

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 10 tons per year.

Particulate Matter (PM10) 15 tons per year.

Stationary Sources as Determined by District Rules:

Severe Nonattainment 25 tons per year.

Extreme Nonattainment 10 tons per year.




Impact


Impact Unless

Mitigated


Impact No

Impact ii. Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control

District:

Operational and Area Sources:

Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 25 tons per year.

Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) 25 tons per year.

Particulate Matter (PM10) 15 tons per year.

Stationary Sources as Determined by District Rules:

25 tons per year.

d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial

pollutant concentrations?

e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

Discussion: (a–b) The project site is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, which is designated as

nonattainment (level of a criteria air pollutant is higher than the level allowed by the State standards) for Ozone 1 hour, Ozone 8 hour, and PM10 and PM2.5 pollutants under State ambient air quality standards. The air basin is also in non-attainment for Ozone 8 hour and PM2.5 pollutants under Federal ambient air quality standards. The project includes the addition of a gypsum wallboard processing function, the addition of gypsum wallboard and digestates as a feedstock, and the application of a pseudo-biofilter to the composting windrows. It is anticipated that the proposed pseudo-biofilter will reduce volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emissions from the existing composting windrows. However, operation of the facility, including the gypsum wallboard processing equipment usage and activities, and truck traffic would generate emissions of criteria pollutant such as PM10, PM2.5, Nitrogen Oxide (NOx), VOCs, carbon monoxide (CO), and sulfur oxides (SOx) that could result in exceedance of significance thresholds established by the SJVAPCD, Kern County, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and result in significant impacts to air quality in the area and violations of adopted air quality standards. 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. An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis is being prepared for the project and potential impacts will be evaluated in the EIR.

(c) The San Joaquin Valley (SJV) is a nonattainment area for the State and Federal ozone standards and

the State PM10 standard and the SJV rules and regulations apply to all project activities. The project



would occur within the SJVAPCD, but is not within Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District. Operational and cumulative contributions could be potentially significant in the San Joaquin Valley and will be analyzed in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis and in the EIR.

(d) Land uses determined to be “sensitive” to air quality include residential areas, schools, convalescent

and acute care hospitals, parks and recreational areas, and churches. The nearest sensitive receptors are residential uses located approximately one-quarter mile west and approximately 2 miles south of the project. Facility operation activities may result in exhaust emissions and dust created from grinding the gypsum wallboard that could adversely affect air quality for the workers at the facility and the nearest sensitive receptors. Impacts will be evaluated in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis and presented in the EIR.

(e) The SJVAPCD has odor thresholds based on the distance of the odor source within the facility to the

sensitive receptor and complaint records for a particular facility as compared to similar facilities. The odors associated with typical vehicle exhaust of trucks traveling to and from the facility and maintenance of vehicles on-site may result in substantial odors. The odors associated with facility operations and/or maintenance activities will be evaluated to assess the related impacts to sensitive receptors and this issue will be evaluated in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis and in the EIR.




Impact


Impact Unless

Mitigated


Impact No

Impact BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

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

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

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

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

Discussion: (a–d) Project-related impacts to biological resources (including but not limited to avian and bat species),

riparian habitat, and sensitive natural communities are potentially significant as a result of project operations. Field surveys for special-status plant and animal species; species listed as either threatened or endangered by either the State or Federal government; riparian habitats; and sensitive natural communities, streams and/or washes that require evaluation for riparian habitat, and may also



require Streambed Alteration permits from the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG); and any wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, are currently being conducted. In addition, a review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) will be utilized to determine if any special-status species are known to occur on the project site or in the vicinity. The results of the field surveys and database searches will be presented in the Biological Resources Technical Report (BRTR) and the potential project-related impacts will be evaluated in the EIR.

(e) The project site is substantially disturbed and was historically used for agricultural purposes prior to

its use as a composting facility. The project does not include any physical expansion beyond the existing facility boundaries; however, potential impacts to and conflicts with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources will be evaluated in the BRTR and the EIR.

(f) The BRTR will include a review of all relevant proposed and adopted conservation plans, including

the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and the Kern Valley Floor HCP to determine if the project will conflict with any such plans. The results will be presented in the EIR.




Impact


Impact Unless

Mitigated


Impact No

Impact CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the

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

b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?

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

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Discussion: (a–d) The existing composting facility has been in operation on the site since 1993 and the entire site is

extensively disturbed and considered completely developed. It is unlikely that any previously recorded cultural or paleontological resources will be identified at the site. However, cultural resources, paleontological resources, and archaeological resources records searches are being conducted at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Historical Resources Information Center at California State University, Bakersfield; the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County; and the San Bernardino County Museum to determine if any such resources have been recorded at the facility or in the vicinity. Further, a pedestrian site visit of the project site will be conducted.

The project is a modification of the existing CUP and does not include any planned excavations on

the site, and as such, the project is not subject to the requirement of Senate Bill 18, relative to Native American Tribal Consultation. However, impacts to historical resources from the project are potentially significant and will be analyzed in the Cultural Resources Technical Report and in the EIR. Mitigation measures will be identified if there are any unexpected resources uncovered during the development of the project.




Impact


Impact Unless

Mitigated


Impact No

Impact GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:

a. Expose people or structures to potential

substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

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

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

iv) Landslides?

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

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

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

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

Discussion:

(a, i–iv) The project site, as well as all of Kern County, is considered to be seismically active. There are no

known or identified faults within or immediately adjacent to the project site. Further, the project site is not delineated as a Special Studies area as identified by the Kern Council of Government’s Alquist-Priolo Seismic Hazards Map. The closest known fault, as identified by the Kern Council of



Government’s Alquist-Priolo Seismic Hazards Atlas, is the White Wolf Fault, which is located approximately 10 miles east of the project site. The project would potentially be subject to moderate to strong ground shaking from local and regional earthquakes. The impacts to the project related to the rupture of a known fault will be evaluated in the geotechnical report being prepared for the project and presented in the EIR.

Liquefaction potential occurs when there is a combination of unconsolidated soil type and high groundwater combined with high potential seismic activity. The potential for substantial adverse effects to the project due to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, will be examined in the Geotechnical Report being prepared for the project site and presented in the EIR. The project site is not considered to be a high risk area for landslides, as it is relatively flat and is not subject to movement of rock, debris, or soil. However, the potential for substantial adverse effects to the project due to landslides will be examined in the Geotechnical Report being prepared for the project and presented in the EIR.

(b–c) The project site is located within an area that has been historically used as agricultural land and is developed with established composting operations. Small amounts of soil disturbances will occur with the project. The movement of vehicles and equipment necessary to conduct project activities could potentially result in the erosion and loss of topsoil. The Geotechnical Report currently being prepared will examine the composition and baseline stability of the soils that underlie the project site and the findings will be presented and evaluated in the EIR.

(d–e) Expansive soils generally result from specific clay minerals that expand when saturated and shrink

when dry. Clay or adobe-based soils are types of expansive soils. The project site is currently served by holding tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The Geotechnical Report currently being prepared for the project will confirm the presence or absence of expansive soils within the project area as well as the ability of those soils to support septic or alternative waste water disposal systems. The findings will be presented and evaluated in the EIR.




Impact


Impact Unless

Mitigated


Impact No

Impact GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:

a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either

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

b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Discussion: (a–b) In 2006, the California State legislature adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global

Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 describes how global climate change would affect the environment in California. The impacts described in AB 32 include changing sea levels, changes in snow pack and availability of potable water, changes in storm flows and flood inundation zones, and other impacts.

As required by AB 32, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) determined what the Statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions level was in 1990 and then approved a Statewide GHG emissions limit that is equivalent to that level, which is to be achieved by 2020. CARB approved the 2020 limit on December 6, 2007. CARB’s GHG inventory estimated the 1990 emissions level in California to be 427 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e). In 2004, the emissions were estimated to be 480 MMTCO2e. The process of composting helps keep organic materials out of landfills, subsequently helping reduce the anaerobic breakdown that results in the generation of methane, a GHG. Composting is an aerobic process that can reduce GHG emissions from organic material. As a fundamentally aerobic process, composting itself does not produce any methane. The project proposes the use of a pseudo-biofilter applied to the initial composting windrows. The pseudo-biofilter is a pollution control technology that removes and oxidizes VOCs and ammonia through the action of bacteria and other microorganisms, all of which will be evaluated in the EIR. The sources of GHG emissions from the project would be from the composting process itself and from mobile sources, such as trucks arriving and departing the facility, and from facility equipment. Facility equipment includes a diesel powered scarab to turn the compost windrow, a Caterpillar, a compost screening plant, a 3,000-gallon water distribution truck, an air classifier, a radial stacking conveyor, and a 20-yard dump truck. Impacts related to GHGs and climate stemming from the project, facility equipment, and the use of the pseudo-biofilter and potential conflicts with any applicable plan or policy relative to GHGs, will be evaluated in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis and presented in the EIR.




Impact


Impact Unless

Mitigated


Impact No

Impact HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:

a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the

environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?

b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

e. For a project located within the adopted Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

g. Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

i. Would implementation of the project generate vectors (flies, mosquitoes, rodents, etc.) or have a component that includes agricultural




Impact


Impact Unless

Mitigated


Impact No

Impact waste? Specifically, would the project exceed the following qualitative threshold: The presence of domestic flies, mosquitoes, cockroaches, rodents, and/or any other vectors associated with the project is significant when the applicable enforcement agency determines that any of the vectors:

i. Occur as immature stages and adults in

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

ii. Are associated with design, layout, and management of project operations; and

iii. Disseminate widely from the property; and

iv. Cause detrimental effects on the public health or well-being of the majority of the surrounding population.

Discussion: (a–b) Under the existing CUP, the facility is authorized to utilize approximately 3,500 tons of wastewater

treatment sludge that is removed from the LPUD’s adjacent wastewater treatment ponds once every 5–10 years, when the wastewater oxidation ponds are cleaned. The compost that is produced utilizing this sludge is applied only to the facility’s perimeter landscaping area and it cannot be sold for off-site use. This use has been a part of the project description since the facility was approved in 1993; however, it was not specified as a specific permitted use. Therefore, as noted in Section 1.4 above, the current project proposed to add a category for the acceptance of LPUD Biosolids.

Additionally, the facility will continue to utilize a variety of additives and amendments during the

composting process. While a separate additive/amendment feedstock category was not included in the previous CUP for the existing facility; gypsum, sulfur, dolomite, commercial fertilizers, humates, and non-hazardous biomass ash have been used as part of the composting process since the opening of the facility in1993. This use has been a part of the project description since the facility was approved in 1993; however, it was not specified as a specific permitted use. Therefore, as noted in Section 1.4 above, the current project proposed to add a category for the acceptance of additives/amendments.

Because heavy machinery and trucks associated with the composting process and feedstock transport

is used, maintained, and stored on-site, potential impacts may result from the accidental release of these materials. These materials include vehicle fuel; carburetor fluid; and various types and grades of lubricants, solvents and oils. In addition, gypsum wallboard panels may contain free crystalline



silica that may be released during the grinding and processing of the wallboard. Prolonged exposure to respirable-free crystalline silica may aggravate existing lung conditions and potentially contribute to lung disease. Although gypsum wallboard is not listed as a carcinogen by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), or the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), gypsum wallboard may contain trace amounts of substances listed as carcinogens by these organizations. Under California Proposition 65, crystalline silica (CAS#14808-60-7) is considered to be a carcinogen by the State. The toxicity and potential release of these materials would depend on the quantity, 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, potential impacts related to the transport, handling, use, and disposal of hazardous

materials, and the accidental release of hazardous materials will be evaluated in the EIR. (c) The nearest schools to the project site are Vineland Elementary School and Sunset Middle School

located within the Vineland School Districts, located approximately 2.4 miles and 1.6 miles to the east and northeast, respectively, of the project site. The project would not emit hazardous materials or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; however, this impact will be further evaluated in the EIR.

(d) A review of the California EPA, Department of Toxic Substances Control’s latest list of parcels

relating to hazardous wastes pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code will be conducted to determine if the project site is listed. The results will be presented in the EIR and any potential impacts will be evaluated.

(e) The project site is not within the sphere of influence of any airport as identified by the Kern County

Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). No further analysis is warranted. (f) The closest private airstrip is located at the Paradise Lakes Estates and Airport Park community,

approximately 2 miles south of the site. Potential impacts related to safety hazards for people residing or working in the project area with respect to the project’s proximity to a private airstrip will be evaluated in the EIR.

(g) The project is not anticipated to physically impede the existing emergency response plans,

emergency vehicle access, or personnel access to the site. The site is located in a rural, sparsely developed area with limited population. The project site is not located along an identified emergency evacuation route and is not identified in any adopted emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, no impacts related to impairment of the implementation of, or physical interference with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan are anticipated. No further analysis is warranted.

(h) The project site is within an agricultural area, with row crops, pastures, and municipal facilities in the

immediate vicinity. The project site is not within a California Department of Forestry State Fire Severity Zone and is not located in an area highly susceptible to wildfires. The facility has a 10,000-gallon above-ground well water storage tank on the property. The tank is equipped with a 4 1/2-inch fire hose threaded fitting to comply with Kern County Fire Department requirements. In addition, the facility maintains equipment such as loaders and water tanks that can be used in case of fire. No impacts related to wildland fires are anticipated. No further analysis is warranted.

(i)(i–iv) The facility has been in operation since 1993 and currently accepts feedstocks that have the potential

to generate vectors; such as flies, mosquitoes, and rodents. However, the pre-grinding process; high



turnover shipment of materials; immediate placement of the organic materials into the windrows; and the high temperature and frequent turnings of the windrows are natural deterrents to flies, and destroys fly larvae, pupae, and eggs. In addition, the aerobic windrow process generally does not attract birds or rodents. However, the proposed addition of digestates, gypsum wallboard, and the use of pseudo-biofilters in the composting process will be evaluated for the potential to generate vectors in the EIR.




Impact


Impact Unless

Mitigated


Impact No

Impact HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:

a. Violate any water quality standards or waste

discharge requirements?

b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which 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 which 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 which would result in flooding on-site or off-site?

e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water 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 which would impede or redirect flood flows?




Impact


Impact Unless

Mitigated


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. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Discussion: (a) The currently approved Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR; Permit 5-01-091) reflects the existing

facility operations. The WDR will be amended to reflect the proposed amendments to the CUP. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQB) will review the project and adjust conditions in the WDR as required to protect water quality. A Hydrology Report is being prepared for the project to evaluate potential impacts to water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and the results will be presented in the EIR.

(b) The project will not substantially alter the site from its present condition. The existing facility

utilizes reclaimed water from the LPUD and drainage retention waters for the composting operation. Groundwater from an on-site well is used to supplement the reclaimed water. The use of gypsum wallboard in the composting process will be evaluated in the Hydrology Report and Water Supply Assessment being prepared to assess the potential of increased water use and the potential depletion of a water supply. These findings will be evaluated in the EIR.

(c-d) The project will not involve activities that would alter the course of a stream or river resulting in on

or off-site erosion, siltation, or substantially increasing the rate or amount of surface runoff. However, the Hydrology Report currently being prepared will examine all potential impacts to existing drainage patterns. These findings will be evaluated in the EIR.

(e-f) The project would not result in an overall increase in impervious surfaces on site, which could

substantially increase storm water runoff. It is anticipated that existing berms and catch basins will remain in place. The Hydrology Report currently being prepared will examine the potential impacts relating to modification of the previous CUP in relation to a substantial increase in storm water runoff. These findings will be evaluated in the EIR.

(f) Construction of the gypsum wallboard processing facility and on-going maintenance activities (such

as grading of access roads) 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. A Hydrology Report is being prepared for the project to evaluate potential impacts related to water quality degradation, and the results will be presented in the EIR.

(g–h) Kern County Flood Plain and Dam Inundation Areas Map indicates that the project site has the

potential to be result in impacts due to inundation and a 100-year flood. The project does not propose development of any housing, however, a Flood Hazard Study is being prepared and the potential impacts related to inundation will be evaluated in the EIR.



(i–j) The nearest dam to the project site, Isabella Dam, is located approximately 40 miles northeast of Bakersfield. Isabella Dam has a maximum capacity of 570,000 acre-feet of water. There are no water bodies in the immediate vicinity of the project and it is unlikely that the project site would be subject to impacts by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. However, a Flood Hazard Study is being prepared and potential impacts related to exposing people or structures to risk from flooding, or inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow will be evaluated in the EIR.




Impact


Impact Unless

Mitigated


Impact No

Impact LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:

a. Physically divide an established community?

b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

Discussion: (a) The KCGP land use designation for the project site is Extensive Agriculture. The surrounding land

uses are designated by the KCGP as predominately agriculture, with some commercial uses. The LPUD wastewater treatment plant is adjacent to the facility to the north and east, agricultural land is located to the south, and the H&P Dairy is adjacent to the facility to the west. The City of Bakersfield has annexed land located near the facility on Bear Mountain Boulevard, which is zoned A (Agriculture) by the City of Bakersfield. The Kern County Zoning designation for the project site is Exclusive Agriculture (A). Surrounding land is zoned Exclusive Agriculture, Limited Agriculture, Floodplain Primary, and General Commercial. The nearest communities are the unincorporated community of Lamont located approximately 2 miles to the north and the City of Arvin located approximately 4 miles to the east. The closest residential community is located approximately 2 miles south, at the Paradise Lakes Estates and Airport Park. The facility has been in continuous operations since 1993 and physical expansion of the facility is not part of the project. The project will not physically divide an established community. No further analysis is warranted.

(b) The project is subject to the policies and provisions of the KCGP and the Kern County Zoning

Ordinance, as described above in Table 1. The most recently adopted version of the KCGP and the Kern County Zoning Ordinance will be reviewed to determine if the processing of additional materials at the facility, as detailed in the project description, is consistent with the existing KCGP designation and Zoning Ordinance classification. The evaluation will be presented in the EIR.

(c) As previously described in Biological Resources, a review of the relevant adopted and planned

habitat conservation plans (HCP) and natural community conservation plans for Kern County will be reviewed to assess whether or not the project will conflict with an adopted or planned HCP or natural community conservation plan. These findings will be analyzed in the EIR.




Impact


Impact Unless

Mitigated


Impact No

Impact MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

a. Result in the loss of availability of a known

mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

Discussion: (a) According to the Department of Conservation / Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources

(DOGGR), the existing facility is located outside the boundaries of a designated oil or gas field. The closest oil field to the facility is the Mountain View Field, located approximately 4 miles to the east of the project site. According to the DOGGR, no known oil, gas, or injection wells are located within the boundaries of the existing facility. The closest well is located less than a mile from the facility; however, this was an exploratory well and was abandoned without establishing any oil or gas production. The facility is not located within the boundary of any other non-fuel, mineral resources identified by the California Department of Conservation. There are no known mineral resources of value to the region or the state on the project site. The project does not propose structures that would impair the recovery of any mineral resources if they are discovered. No further analysis is warranted.

(b) Based on a review of California Geological Survey publications, portions of Kern County are rich in

mineral deposits with numerous mining operations that extract a variety of minerals. However, the project has not been identified as a local important mineral resource recovery site and is not delineated on a local General Plan, Specific Plan, or other land use plan as such. No further analysis is warranted.




Impact


Impact Unless

Mitigated


Impact No

Impact NOISE. Would the project result in:

a. Exposure of persons to, or generate, noise

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

b. Exposure of persons to, or generate, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

e. For a project located within the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Discussion: (a) Land uses determined to be “sensitive” to noise as defined by the KCGP include residential areas,

schools, convalescent and acute care hospitals, parks and recreational areas, and churches. The nearest sensitive receptors are located approximately one-quarter mile west of the facility, at the H&P Dairy, which is also a private residence. Additional residences are located more than 2 miles south of the facility at the Paradise Lakes Estates and Airport Park community. A noise analysis is being undertaken to determine if the new equipment required for the gypsum wallboard processing, including screeners, feed hopper, conveyors, and a baghouse, and the associated noise will be similar to the noise associated with existing operations at the facility. A Noise Technical Report is currently being prepared to assess the potential for excessive noise levels on sensitive receptors. These findings will be evaluated in the EIR.

(b) Groundborne vibration and groundborne noise could originate from the additional new equipment

necessary for the gypsum wallboard processing. 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. Analysis of groundborne vibration and groundborne noise will be included in the Noise Technical Report and its findings evaluated in the EIR.

(c) The project would introduce new permanent noise sources resulting from the gypsum wallboard

processing. Analysis of ambient noise levels and the project’s potential impact on those levels will be included in the Noise Technical Report and these issues will be evaluated in the EIR.

(d) The equipment used during construction of the gypsum wallboard processing may cause a temporary

or periodic increase in ambient noise levels. Project-related ambient noise levels will be evaluated in the Noise Technical Report and these issues will be evaluated in the EIR.

(e) The project is not located within the sphere of influence of an airport, as identified in the Kern

County ALUCP. No further analysis is warranted. (f) The closest private airstrip is located approximately 2 miles south of the site, at the Paradise Lakes

Estates and Airport Park community. The Noise Technical Report will evaluate exposure related impacts and these impacts will be evaluated in the EIR.



PotentiallySignificant

Impact


Impact Unless

Mitigated


Impact No

Impact POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:

a. Induce substantial population growth in an

area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

Discussion: (a–c) The project comprises an agricultural-related industry. The project may result in a slight increase in

employment opportunities in the area, however, these opportunities would not induce substantial population growth beyond County projections, alter the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the population beyond that projected in the KCGP 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 KCGP Housing Element. No construction of housing is proposed as part of the project and no people would be displaced. The project will have no direct or indirect impacts on population or housing. No further analysis is warranted.




Impact


Impact Unless

Mitigated


Impact No

Impact PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:

a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts

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

i) Fire protection?

ii) Police protection?

iii) Schools?

iv) Parks?

v) Other public facilities? Discussion: (a)(i–ii) The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts to governmental facilities such

as fire and police protection. The project would not lead to an increase in population that would impact fire and police protection performance objectives. However, the addition of the gypsum wallboard processing to the existing facility may potentially create an additional fire hazard either due to the actual processing or storage of the wallboard, which may impact service ratios, response times, or performance objectives for fire and police services. These impacts will be evaluated in the EIR.

(a)(iii–v)The project is a modification to an existing CUP and does not involve changes leading to substantial

increases in population that would result in substantial adverse physical impacts to public services and governmental facilities, such as schools, parks, or other public facilities. The project would not lead to an increase in population that would result in the need for additional housing and would not necessitate the construction of parks, schools, or other public facilities, or present a burden on existing parks, schools, or other public facilities. No further analysis is warranted.




Impact


Impact Unless

Mitigated


Impact No

Impact RECREATION. Would the project:

a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and

regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

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

Discussion: (a–b) The project may result in a slight increase in employment opportunities in the area; however, these

opportunities would not induce substantial population growth that would increase the need, or use of, or lead to the substantial physical deterioration of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. No further analysis is warranted.




Impact


Impact Unless

Mitigated


Impact No

Impact TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:

a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or

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

b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service (LOS) standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

i. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan LOS "C"

ii. Kern County General Plan LOS "D"

c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design

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

e. Result in inadequate emergency access?

f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or

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

Discussion: (a) The facility can only be accessed off of Wheeler Ridge Road. Existing truck traffic heading to the

facility generally exits SR 99 at Bear Mountain Boulevard, proceeds east to Wheeler Ridge Road, and turns south on Wheeler Ridge Road to the facility access road and entrance. The facility is currently authorized to receive up to 150 truck deliveries each day. The project does not propose an increase to the number of daily truck deliveries to the facility. However, the potential impact of



project operation traffic on the area roadway system is being evaluated in the Traffic Technical Report and the results will be presented in the EIR.

(b)(i) The project is not located within the metropolitan Bakersfield area. However, trucks arriving and

departing the facility may travel through portions of metropolitan Bakersfield. It is not anticipated that the project will exceed any LOS standard established by the City of Bakersfield General Plan Circulation Element for designated roads or highways. However, the potential project-related impacts to LOS on metropolitan Bakersfield roadways will be evaluated in the Traffic Technical Report and the results will be presented in the EIR.

(b)(ii) The project is located in unincorporated Kern County. It is not anticipated that the project will

exceed any LOS standard established by the County Congestion Management Plan for designated roads or highways. Bear Mountain Boulevard and Wheeler Ridge Road currently operate above LOS “C”. However, the potential project-related impacts to LOS on area roadways will be evaluated in the Traffic Technical Report and the results will be presented in the EIR.

(c) The project is not located in the vicinity of a public airport. The nearest private airstrip is located

approximately 2 miles south at the Paradise Lakes Estates and Airport Park community. The project does not incorporate any design features that would result in safety risks due to changes in air traffic patterns. No further analysis is warranted.

(d) The project will be evaluated for the potential impacts due to design features and incompatible uses, such as the gypsum wallboard processing equipment, as related to transportation and traffic in the Traffic Technical Report. These findings will be presented in the EIR.

(e) The facility currently has adequate emergency access. The Traffic Technical Report will evaluate the

potential impact of the project on emergency access and the results will be presented in the EIR. (f) It is not anticipated that the project will conflict with any adopted policies or programs supporting

alternative transportation, and the facility does not currently have a bus route in its vicinity. No further analysis is warranted.




Impact


Impact Unless

Mitigated


Impact No

Impact UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:

a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of

the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

c. Require or result in the construction of new

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

d. Have sufficient water supplies available to

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

e. Result in a determination by the wastewater

treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient

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

g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes

and regulations related to solid waste?

Discussion: (a) An existing water supply well supplies water to the facility and storm water is retained on site and

reused at the facility. Reclaimed water from the adjacent LPUD wastewater treatment facility is used in the windrow composting process. This water is supplemented with storm water collected on site and groundwater supplied by the on-site well. A Hydrology Report and Water Supply Assessment are being prepared and impacts related to wastewater treatment requirements will be evaluated in the EIR.



(b) The facility currently provides its own water source. However, the Hydrology Report and Water Supply Assessment currently being prepared for the project will evaluate the potential of the project to require new water or wastewater facilities including the construction of septic systems or leach lines. All applicable local, State, and Federal requirements would be incorporated into construction of the project. The EIR will further evaluate such proposed measures and their overall effectiveness.

(c) The project will be evaluated for the potential to require new storm water drainage facilities or

require the expansion of existing facilities, which would create substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The Hydrology Report and Water Supply Assessment being prepared for the project will assess the potential for project-related runoff determine the need for any appropriate storm water mitigation/design measures. Further analysis will be provided in the EIR.

(d) The project will be evaluated in the Hydrology Report and the Water Supply Assessment to

determine if sufficient water supplies from existing entitlements and resources are available or if new or expanded entitlements are needed to support the project. The potential impacts will be presented in the EIR.

(e) The project will be evaluated in the Water Supply Assessment to determine if additional septic

systems or leach lines to accommodate on-site operations facility will be required and the issue will be evaluated in the EIR.

(f) The project will be evaluated to assess if the amount of solid waste generated by the proposed

activities would exceed the capacity of local landfills needed to accommodate the waste. Although solid waste generation is not anticipated to exceed existing landfill capacity, this issue will be further analyzed in the EIR.

(g) The project will be evaluated for conformance with the Non-Disposal Facility Element (NDFE) of

the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. The facility is currently identified in the NDFE, but the description requires revision if the modification to the CUP is approved. To ensure compliance with the NDFE, mitigation measures and conditions of approval will be incorporated to require the applicable description be revised prior to commencement of gypsum wallboard processing. This issue will be evaluated in the EIR.




Impact


Impact Unless

Mitigated


Impact No

Impact MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

a. Does the project have the potential to degrade

the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

b. Does the project have impacts that are

individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

c. Does the project have environmental effects

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

Discussion: (a) Biological and cultural resources studies for the project are currently being conducted. The EIR’s

biological resources section will discuss specific project impacts on plants and wildlife including avian and bat species. The EIR’s cultural resources section will discuss specific project impacts to cultural and historical resources. The document will also evaluate the project’s contribution to cumulative biological and cultural resources impacts and propose mitigation, if necessary, that will reduce the impacts.

(b) The project has the potential to contribute to cumulative impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological

resources, and hazards and hazardous materials. The EIR will evaluate the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts in these and other areas as further impacts are identified.

(c) The project has the potential to result in environmental effects that would cause substantial direct or

indirect adverse impacts on human beings. These issues will be evaluated in the EIR.

Documents

Notice of Preparation - Community Recycling and … · 1501 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 California City Planning Dept 21000 Hacienda Blvd. California City, CA 93515 City