Rosamond Solar Project Environmental Impact Report … · Environmental Impact Report ... lists the documents and individuals consulted during preparation of the ... • Onsite unpaved

Addendum to Rosamond Solar Project EIR October 2016 Rosamond Solar Modification Project (Sites 5 & 6) by SunPower Corporation, Systems

ADDENDUM to the

Environmental Impact Report for the Rosamond Solar Project

Original Final EIR (SCH# 2010031024) (by SGS Antelope Valley Development, LLC)

ROSAMOND SOLAR MODIFICATION PROJECT (Sites 5 & 6)

SunPower Corporation, Systems (PP17112)

Rosamond 5, (Willow Springs) Specific Plan Amendment No. 21, Map No. 232

Rosamond 5, Zone Change Case No. 38, Map No. 232 Rosamond 5, Conditional Use Permit No. 31, Map No. 232 Rosamond 6, Conditional Use Permit No. 32, Map No. 232

Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department

Bakersfield, California

October 2016

Addendum to Rosamond Solar Project EIR October 2016 Rosamond Solar Modification Project (Sites 5 & 6) by SunPower Corporation, Systems i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME 1 OF 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... I CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW .......................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Project Overview ....................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Addendum Organization ............................................................................................................ 1-4 1.4 Addendum Scope of Environmental Review ............................................................................. 1-4 1.5 Basis for an EIR Addendum ...................................................................................................... 1-6 1.6 Evaluation of Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 1-6 1.7 Adoption and Availability of Addendum ................................................................................... 1-7 1.8 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ......................................................................... 1-7

CHAPTER 2 MODIFIED PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Introduction and Background..................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Modified Project Characteristics ................................................................................................ 2-3 2.3 Entitlements Required ................................................................................................................ 2-8

CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................. 3-5 3.3 Biological Resources ................................................................................................................. 3-9 3.4 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................... 3-16 3.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................................................... 3-19 3.6 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................................. 3-21 3.7 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................ 3-24 3.8 Public Services ......................................................................................................................... 3-25 3.9 Transportation and Traffic ....................................................................................................... 3-27

CHAPTER 4 LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 Lead Agency .............................................................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Project Proponent ....................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.3 Technical Assistance .................................................................................................................. 4-1

CHAPTER 5 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 5-1 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1. Project Statistics ....................................................................................................................... 1-2 Table 2-1. Proposed Modified Site and Surrounding Land Uses, Designations, and Zoning .................... 2-2 Table 2-2. Proposed Specific Plan Amendments ....................................................................................... 2-9 Table 2-3. Proposed Zone Changes ......................................................................................................... 2-10 Table 3-1. Project Construction Emissions ................................................................................................ 3-6 Table 3-2. Project Regional Emissions ...................................................................................................... 3-6

Addendum to Rosamond Solar Project EIR October 2016 Rosamond Solar Modification Project (Sites 5 & 6) by SunPower Corporation, Systems ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Regional Location Map ...........................................................................................................1-3 Figure 2-1. Proposed Modified Project Site Boundary ..............................................................................2-5 Figure 2-2a. Proposed Modified Site Plan, Rosamond 5 ...........................................................................2-6 Figure 2-2b. Proposed Modified Site Plan, Rosamond 6 ...........................................................................2-7 Figure 2-3. Existing Specific Plan Land Use Designations .....................................................................2-11 Figure 2-4. Proposed Specific Plan Designations ....................................................................................2-12 Figure 2-5. Existing Zoning .....................................................................................................................2-13 Figure 2-6. Proposed Zoning ...................................................................................................................2-14 Figure 3-1. Recent Photographs of the Proposed Modified Project Site .................................................. 3-2

APPENDICES

Appendix A Phase I Environmental Site Assessments Appendix B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Studies Appendix C Biological Resources Report Appendix D Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the United States and Waters of the State of

California Appendix E Phase 1 Survey/Class III Cultural Resources Inventory Appendix F Preliminary Drainage Study Appendix G Water Demand Memo Appendix H Traffic Generation Estimates Memo

Addendum to Rosamond Solar Project EIR October 2016 Rosamond Solar Modification Project (Sites 5 & 6) by SunPower Corporation, Systems 1-1

Chapter 1 Introduction and Overview

1.1 Introduction

As Lead Agency, the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Rosamond Solar project, which evaluated 200 megawatts (MW) of solar development on a 960-acre site. The Kern County Board of Supervisors certified the Rosamond Solar Final EIR (referred to herein as the “certified EIR” or “EIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2010031024) and approved the Rosamond Solar project on November 9, 2010, which consisted of Specific Plan Amendment No. 16, Map No. 232; Zone Change Case No. 33, Map No. 232; and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 27, Map No. 232. On January 25, 2011, the Kern County Board of Supervisors approved the nonsummary vacation of public access easements and portions of public access easements located within the original project site (Streets and Highways – Nonsummary Vacation – Map No. 232; Resolution No. 2011-016); and the Advisory Agency approved the following parcel mergers located within, and adjacent to, the original project site: (a) Parcel Merger No. 11-001 (Document No. 0211044912; Recorded April 5, 2011); (b) Parcel Merger No. 12-009 (Document 000213019730; Recorded February 12, 2013); and (c) Parcel Merger No.12-011.

On June 13, 2013, the Kern County Board of Supervisors approved an Addendum to the EIR (referred to herein as the “2013 Addendum”). The 2013 Addendum contained the same general facilities identified in the certified EIR, with the addition of approximately 100 MW of solar development on 400 acres adjacent to the original, approved project. The 2013 Addendum also proposed new potential alternate locations for the solar project’s substation, generation-tie (gen-tie) power line, operations and maintenance building, and septic system, as it was uncertain whether the project would interconnect into the Southern California Edison or Los Angeles Department of Water and Power electrical systems. The 2013 Addendum’s modified project resulted in a 1,360-acre site capable of generating approximately 300 MW. The project analyzed and approved in the certified EIR and 2013 Addendum is referred to herein as the “approved project.”

Modifications are now being proposed to the approved project that require a new Specific Plan Amendment, Zone Changes, and new CUPs. On May 9, 2016, the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department received two CUP applications requesting to modify the approved project’s boundaries to include the Rosamond 5 and Rosamond 6 solar development areas, both of which will share infrastructure and link with the approved project. The Rosamond 5 and Rosamond 6 proposed changes to the approved project are referred to herein as the “proposed modified project” or “proposed project modifications.”

This Addendum has been prepared to determine whether the proposed modified project would result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts compared with the impacts disclosed in the certified EIR and 2013 Addendum.

Lead Agency Contact Information

Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department Ms. Janice Mayes, Planner, Advanced Planning Unit 2700 “M” Street, Suite 100 Bakersfield, California 93301 Phone: (661) 862-8793


Project Proponent

SunPower Corporation, Systems Ms. Renee Robin, Director, Permitting 1414 Harbour Way South, Suite 1901 Richmond, California 94804 Phone: (510) 260-8226

1.2 Project Overview

The certified EIR and 2013 Addendum analyzed the construction and operation of a 300 MW photovoltaic (PV) solar energy generation facility sited on 1,360 acres and located on the east side of 150th Street West, approximately 1/2 mile south of Rosamond Boulevard and 1/2 mile north of Avenue A in the Rosamond area, in eastern Kern County (Figure 1-1, Regional Location Map). The proposed modified project would add approximately 22 to 30 MW of solar development on approximately 165 adjacent acres to the approved project site along its southern and southeastern edges (“Rosamond 5”); and approximately 60 MW of solar development on approximately 321 acres immediately northwest of the approved project site (“Rosamond 6”).

Table 1-1. Project Statistics

Project Component Project Boundary Maximum Megawatts (MW) Physical Location

Rosamond 5 165 acres 30 MW Section 28, 32, and 33, T9N/R14W

Rosamond 6 321 acres 60 MW Section 21, T9N/R14W

TOTAL 486 acres 90 MW N/A

The proposed modified project would contain the same general facilities identified in the certified EIR and also proposes battery storage components.

The project proponent is requesting: (a) Amendments to the Land Use, Open Space and Conservation Element of the Willow Springs Specific Plan from the existing Map Code designations to Map Code 8.1 (Intensive Agriculture), 8.1/2.8 (Intensive Agriculture-Military Flight Operations), 8.1/2.85 (Intensive Agriculture-Noise Management Area), and 8.1/2.6/2.85 (Intensive Agriculture-Erosion Hazard-Noise Management Area); (b) changes in zone classification on 165 acres from the existing zone districts to the A FPS (Exclusive Agriculture-Floodplain Secondary Combining) District; and (c) CUPs to allow construction and operation of solar PV facilities not accessory to a permitted or conditionally permitted use on an additional 486 acres to add up to 90 MW of solar development in conjunction with the approved Rosamond Solar Project.

Throughout this document, the term “approved project site” refers to the approximately 1,360-acre site evaluated in the certified EIR and 2013 Addendum, and the term “proposed modified project site” refers to the 1,846 acres that would be developed with implementation of the proposed modified project analyzed in this Addendum. The term “proposed project addition” refers only to the approximately 486 contiguous acres proposed to be added to the approved project site.



1.3 Addendum Organization

This document is organized as follows pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines:

• Chapter 1, Introduction and Overview, describes the background of the proposed modified project; explains the rationale for preparing an Addendum to the EIR as the appropriate form of environmental review pursuant to CEQA; and explains the purpose, scope, and content of the Addendum.

• Chapter 2, Modified Project Description, describes the location and details of the proposed modified project.

• Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, evaluates whether the proposed modifications to the approved project would result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts compared with the impacts disclosed in the certified EIR.

• Chapter 4, List of Preparers, lists the individuals involved in preparing the Addendum. • Chapter 5, References, lists the documents and individuals consulted during preparation of the

Addendum.

1.4 Addendum Scope of Environmental Review

This Addendum evaluates whether the proposed modifications to the approved project would result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts compared to the impacts disclosed in the certified EIR.

The certified EIR and 2013 Addendum assessed the environmental impacts of the Rosamond Solar Project, a 300-MW solar PV energy generation facility located on approximately 1,360 acres. Components of the approved project assessed in the certified EIR and 2013 Addendum included:

• Solar field with arrays of PV panels that are generally 6 to 8 feet in height, arranged in rows with center-to-center spacing from 12 to 22 feet, and are either fixed tilt or mounted on single-axis trackers;

• Inverters, combiners, and transformers; • Overhead and buried conduits; • Onsite medium-voltage (34.5 kilovolt [kV]) collection lines; • Approximately 2.5 miles of 230-kV gen-tie lines and poles or lattice towers to interconnect with

Southern California Edison’s Whirlwind Substation, located approximately 2 miles west of the project site;

• Onsite unpaved access roads, consisting of 20-foot-wide interior fire and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) access roads, as well as 12-foot-wide access paths for temporary construction activities;

• Security fencing, up to 8 feet in height, located along the site perimeter; • Construction laydown areas, equipment, and structures; • Substation where the electrical output is combined and transformed to a voltage of 230 kV; and • O&M building located on an approximately 2-acre portion of the project site.

For complete descriptions of approved onsite facilities, please refer to the certified EIR and 2013 Addendum. The potential impacts of these facilities were assessed in the certified EIR and the 2013 Addendum and approved in the CUP. The proposed modified project contains the same general facilities


identified in the certified EIR but, along with solar fields with arrays of PV panels on approximately 486 adjacent acres, also includes battery storage components, discussed further in Section 2.2.

As discussed in the certified EIR and 2013 Addendum, the approved project was determined to have no impact with regard to the following impact thresholds. Since the proposed modified project would have generally the same facilities located in the same geographic area, the impacts of the proposed modified project would also have no impact with regard to these impact thresholds. Therefore, these impact thresholds are not further analyzed in this Addendum.

• Agricultural Resources • Geology and Soils • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Mineral Resources • Noise • Population and Housing • Recreation • Utilities and Service Systems

The certified EIR established that, with mitigation incorporated, the approved project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to the following environmental impact areas:

• Air Quality (Project) • Biological Resources (Project) • Cultural Resources (Project and Cumulative) • Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Project and Cumulative) • Hydrology and Water Quality (Project and Cumulative) • Land Use and Planning (Project and Cumulative) • Public Services (Project and Cumulative) • Transportation and Traffic (Project and Cumulative)

The certified EIR established that the approved project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts with regard to the following environmental impact areas:

• Aesthetics (Project and Cumulative) › Significant project-level and cumulative impacts as a result of changes to visual character

of the site and its surroundings. • Air Quality (Cumulative)

› Significant cumulative impacts as a result of construction-period air pollution. • Biological Resources (Cumulative)

› Significant cumulative impacts as a result of reduction or loss of habitat.

This Addendum will address changes resulting from implementation of the proposed modified project on each of the environmental resource areas previously analyzed in the certified EIR and 2013 Addendum.


1.5 Basis for an EIR Addendum

An agency may prepare an addendum to a certified EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 that states, in pertinent part that “if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” Section 15162 states that a subsequent EIR is required if any of the following conditions exist:

(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions to the previous EIR … due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects;

(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR … due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified … shows any of the following:

(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR;

(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;

(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or

(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

Based on the evaluation provided in this Addendum, no new significant impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modified project, nor would there be any substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant environmental impact. In addition, no new information of substantial importance shows that mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously found not to be feasible or that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment alternative. Therefore, none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines has occurred. For this reason, an addendum is the appropriate document to comply with CEQA requirements for the proposed modified project.

1.6 Evaluation of Alternatives

CEQA requires a comparative evaluation of a proposed project and alternatives to the project, including the “No Project” alternative. The certified EIR addressed a reasonable range of alternatives for the approved project. There is no new information indicating that an alternative that was previously rejected as infeasible is in fact feasible, or that a considerably different alternative than those previously studied would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment.


1.7 Adoption and Availability of Addendum

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(c), an addendum to an EIR need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the certified EIR. The decision-making body must consider the Addendum with the certified EIR prior to making a decision on the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(d)). Although not required, this Addendum is available for public review at the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department, 2700 “M” Street, Bakersfield, California 93301.

1.8 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, the County of Kern adopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) to ensure that the mitigation measures identified in the certified EIR are implemented. The MMRP was prepared and adopted by the County to ensure that all required mitigation measures are implemented and completed according to schedule and maintained in a satisfactory manner during construction and implementation activities of the solar project. The mitigation measures previously adopted for the certified EIR are applicable, binding, and enforceable in relation to the proposed Rosamond 5 and 6 projects.


Chapter 2 Modified Project Description

2.1 Introduction and Background

This chapter of the Addendum describes the modifications to the project that have been proposed by the project proponent. The proposed modified project would add approximately 486 acres of similar infill and adjacent property to the approved project site. The total size of the approved project would therefore increase from 1,360 acres to approximately 1,846 acres, and the project's energy generation capacity would increase from up to 300 MW to up to 390 MW. The proposed modified project would include the installation of battery storage components.

Modified Project Location

The regional setting for the proposed modified project would be unchanged. The proposed modified project site is located in the Antelope Valley region of an unincorporated area of Kern County (Figure 1-1, Regional Location Map), approximately 12 miles west of the unincorporated community of Rosamond and State Route (SR) 14. The proposed modified project site remains within the Willow Springs Specific Plan area.

The boundaries of the proposed modified project are depicted in Figure 2-1, Proposed Modified Project Site Boundary. Rosamond 5 is located on approximately 165 acres adjacent to the approved project’s southern and southeastern edges. Rosamond 5 is bounded by 130th Street West and lies south of Willow Avenue, east of 140th Street West, and north of Kingbird Avenue. Rosamond 6 is located on approximately 321 acres northeast of the approved project. Rosamond 6 is bounded by 130th Street West to the east, Astoria Avenue to the south, 140th Street West to the west, and Rosamond Boulevard to the north.

Rosamond 5 would be accessed from 140th Street to the north (via Holiday Avenue), 140th Street to the south, Gaskell Road to the east and west, 140th Street West to the south, and 132nd Street to the south. Rosamond 6 would be accessed from 140th Street to the west (via Holiday Avenue and Rosamond Boulevard), 130th Street to the east, and 135th Street West to the south (via Holiday Avenue).

Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses

Rosamond 5

Rosamond 5 is surrounded by vacant/undeveloped land (i.e., fallow agricultural, grazing, and desert shrub), commercial-scale solar development, and rural residences. Rosamond 5 is located within a Federal Emergency Management (FEMA) designated flood zone, Flood Zone “A,” indicating that it could be inundated during a 100-year flood event. The western parcel (Assessor Parcel Number [APN] 359-332-26) of Rosamond 5 is located within the boundaries of Agricultural Preserve No. 24 but is not under Williamson Act Land Use contracts. The remaining Rosamond 5 parcels are not within the boundaries of an Agricultural Preserve and are not under Williamson Act Land Use contracts. The site is not located within the administrative boundaries of an oilfield.

Rosamond 5 is located within the Southern Kern Unified School District; the closest schools are Tropico Middle School, approximately 8.0 miles to the east, and Westpark Elementary School, approximately 9.5 miles to the east. The closest Sheriff’s station is the Rosamond Substation at 1379 Sierra Highway,


Rosamond, approximately 11.5 miles to the east. The closest fire station is Station 15 at 3219 35th Street West, Rosamond, approximately 9.5 miles to the east.

Rosamond 5 is currently designated by the Kern County General Plan as Map Codes 5.6/2.8 (Minimum 2.5 Gross Acres per Unit/Military Flight Operations), 6.2 (General Commercial), 5.7/2.6/2.85 (Residential Maximum 5 Gross Acres per Unit/Erosion Hazard/Noise Management Area), 5.7/2.85 (Residential Maximum 5 Gross Acres per Unit/Noise Management Unit), and 7.1/4.4 (Light Industrial/Comprehensive Planning Area). The site is zoned E (2 1/2) RS FPS (Estate, 2 1/2-acre minimum, Residential Suburban Combining, Floodplain Secondary Combining), and E (5) RS FPS (Estate, 5-acre minimum, Residential Suburban Combining, Floodplain Secondary Combining). Specific Plan land use designations and zone classifications for the proposed modified project and surrounding areas are provided in Table 2-1, Proposed Modified Site and Surrounding Land Uses, Designations, and Zoning. Also see Appendix A, Phase I Environmental Site Assessments.

Rosamond 6

Rosamond 6 is surrounded by vacant/undeveloped land (i.e., fallow agricultural, grazing, and desert shrub), commercial-scale solar development, and rural residences. Rosamond 6 is located within a FEMA designated flood zone, Flood Zone “A,” indicating that it could be inundated during a 100-year flood event. Rosamond 6 is not within the boundaries of an Agricultural Preserve or under Williamson Act Land Use contracts. The site is not located within the administrative boundaries of an oilfield.

Rosamond 6 is located within the Southern Kern Unified School District; the closest schools are Tropico Middle School, approximately 7.5 miles to the east, and Westpark Elementary School, approximately 9.5 miles to the east. The closest Sheriff’s station is the Rosamond Substation at 1379 Sierra Highway, Rosamond, approximately 11.5 miles to the east. The closest fire station is Station 15 at 3219 35th Street West, Rosamond, approximately 9.5 miles to the east.

Rosamond 6 is currently designated by the Kern County General Plan as Map Code 5.3/4.4 (Residential Maximum 10 unites per net acre/Comprehensive Planning Area). The site is zoned A FPS (Exclusive Agriculture-Floodplain Secondary Combining). Specific Plan land use designations and zone classifications for the proposed modified project and surrounding areas are provided in Table 2-1, Proposed Modified Site and Surrounding Land Uses, Designations, and Zoning.

Table 2-1. Proposed Modified Site and Surrounding Land Uses, Designations, and Zoning

Direction from Project Sites Existing Land Use Existing Land Use

Designations1 Existing Zoning Classifications2

Rosamond 5 – Contiguous Parcels North Vacant/undeveloped 5.7/2.6/2.85; 5.7/2.85; E (5) RS FPS East Vacant/undeveloped 5.6/2.8 E (2 1/2) RS FPS

West Vacant/undeveloped and approved project 5.7/2.85; 8.1/2.8 E (5) RS FPS; A FPS

South Vacant/undeveloped 5.6/2.8 E (2 1/2) RS FPS Rosamond 5 – 10 acre Parcel North Approved project 8.1 A FPS East Vacant/undeveloped 5.6/2.8 E (2 1/2) RS FPS


Table 2-1. Proposed Modified Site and Surrounding Land Uses, Designations, and Zoning

Direction from Project Sites Existing Land Use Existing Land Use

Designations1 Existing Zoning Classifications2

West Vacant/undeveloped 7.1/4.4 E (5) RS FPS South Vacant/undeveloped 7.1/4.4 E (5) RS FPS Rosamond 6 North Agricultural/undeveloped 5.3 A FPS East Sparse residence 5.3/4.4 E (2 1/2) RS FPS West Sparse residence 5.7 E (5) RS FPS South Vacant/undeveloped 5.3/4.4 A FPS 1Land Use Designations 2.6 – Erosion Hazard 2.8 – Military Flight Operations 2.85 – Military flight Operations Noise Management Area 4.4 – Comprehensive Planning Area 5.3 – Residential Maximum 10 units per net acre 5.6 – Residential Maximum 2.5 gross acres per unit 5.7 – Residential Maximum 5 gross acres per unit 7.1 – Light Industrial 8.1 – Intensive Agricultural, Minimum 20 acres

2Zoning Classifications E (2 1/2) RS – Estate, 2.5 acres; Residential Suburban

Combining E (5) RS – Estate, 5 acres; Residential Suburban Combining A – Exclusive Agriculture FPS – Floodplain Secondary Combining RS - Residential Suburban Combining

2.2 Modified Project Characteristics

The proposed modified project would change the approved project site’s boundary and site plan. The proposed modified project site plans are depicted in Figure 2-2a, Proposed Modified Site Plan, Rosamond 5 and Figure 2-2b, Proposed Modified Site Plan, Rosamond 6. The proposed project modifications would contain the same general facilities identified in the certified EIR, except the modifications would make use of the approved project site’s substation and high voltage transmission line to the Whirlwind Substation. Upon completion of construction, the proposed modified project site would include the following key components:

• Solar field with arrays of PV panels that are generally 6 to 8 feet in height, arranged in rows with center-to-center spacing from 22 to 38 feet, and either fixed-tilt or mounted on single-axis trackers;

• Spare parts storage building (Rosamond 5 only); • O&M Building (Rosamond 6 only); • Inverters, combiners, and transformers; • Overhead and buried conduits; • Onsite medium-voltage (34.5 kV) collection lines; • Existing conductor on approximately 2.75 miles of existing 230 kV gen-tie lines and poles or

lattice towers to interconnect with Southern California Edison’s Whirlwind Substation, located approximately 2 miles west of the project site, via the approved project;

• Onsite unpaved access roads, consisting of 20-foot-wide interior fire and O&M access roads, as well as 12-foot-wide access paths for temporary construction activities;

• Security fencing, up to 8 feet in height, located along the site perimeter; and • Temporary construction laydown areas, equipment, and structures.


Rosamond 5 and Rosamond 6 also would include the installation of battery storage components. These approximately 6 MW systems would consist of batteries housed in approximately 18 storage containers. The containers themselves would be approximately 8 feet wide by 4 feet long by 8.5 feet high (2.4 meters wide by 1.2 meters long by 2.6 meters high), with approximately 6.5 feet (2 meters) of clearance on all sides. The 6 MW battery storage components (one each at Rosamond 5 and Rosamond 6) would have footprints of approximately 14,620 square feet (1,358 square meters). Site preparation required for the battery storage containers would be no different and would not result in impacts different than those contemplated for storage buildings; the area for battery storage would need to be prepared so that the resulting pad is suitable for an installed flat cement or concrete foundation.

Construction activities for the proposed modified project would be the same as the activities described in the certified EIR and 2013 Addendum. Similar to the approved project site, the proposed project addition has nearly level to gently sloping topography. Civil work would primarily consist of minimized grading, new storm water and sedimentation basins, gravel roads around the perimeter of the sites, and interior dirt access roads to the electrical inverters. Grading would include general smoothing. Site preparation, construction activities, and the construction sequence and equipment would not change. To accommodate the additional acreage and capacity, construction activities would be extended by approximately 16 months total (eight months each for Rosamond 5 and Rosamond 6) if construction schedules for Rosamond 5 and Rosamond 6 do not overlap. Operation of the proposed modified project also would be the same as that described in the certified EIR. The operation and maintenance activities and decommissioning program would not change.





2.3 Entitlements Required

The required discretionary approvals needed for the proposed project include: a Specific Plan Amendment and CUPs (Rosamond 5 and Rosamond 6); and Zone Changes (Rosamond 5); described as follows:

Specific Plan Amendments

Land Use

A Specific Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element of the Willow Springs Specific Plan is proposed for the entire proposed modified project site to allow for consistency with the proposed zone changes. The modified project site has existing land use designations of Map Codes 5.3/4.4 (Residential Maximum 10 units per net acre/Comprehensive Planning Area), 5.6/2.8 (Minimum 2.5 Gross Acres per Unit/Military Flight Operations), 6.2 (General Commercial), 5.7/2.6/2.85 (Residential Maximum 5 Gross Acres per Unit/Erosion Hazard/Noise Management Area), 5.7/2.85 (Residential Maximum 5 Gross Acres per Unit/Noise Management Unit), and 7.1/4.4 (Light Industrial/Comprehensive Planning Area). The existing land use designations are proposed to change to Map Code 8.1 (Intensive Agriculture, Minimum 20 acres), 8.1/2.8 (Intensive Agriculture, Minimum 20 acres/Military Flight Operations), 8.1/2.85 (Intensive Agriculture, Minimum 20 acres/Noise Management Area), and 8.1/2.6/2.85 (Intensive Agriculture, Minimum 20 acres/Erosion Hazard/Noise Management Area), with all physical constraints to remain in place, and all 4.4 (Comprehensive Planning Area) designations shall be removed from affected parcels. The proposed Specific Plan Amendments to the Land Use Element of the Willow Springs Specific Plan are further described in Table 2-2, Proposed Specific Plan Amendments. Also see Figure 2-3, Existing Specific Plan Designation and Figure 2-4, Proposed Specific Plan Designations.


Table 2-2. Proposed Specific Plan Amendments

Assessor's Parcel Current Specific Plan Map Code1

Proposed Specific Plan Map Code1 Size (Acres)

Rosamond 5 359-332-37 6.2 8.1 18.6 359-121-06 5.6/2.8 8.1/2.8 28.5 359-121-07 5.6/2.8 8.1/2.8 2.5 359-121-08 5.6/2.8 8.1/2.8 2.5 359-121-09 5.6/2.8 8.1/2.8 2.5 359-121-10 5.6/2.8 8.1/2.8 2.5 359-121-25 5.6/2.8 8.1/2.8 19.4 359-332-26 5.7/2.6/2.85 8.1/2.6/2.85 39.2 359-332-28 5.7/2.85 8.1/2.85 19.5 359-332-32 5.7/2.85 8.1/2.85 4.7 359-332-33 5.7/2.85 8.1/2.85 4.7 359-332-36 5.7/2.85 8.1/2.85 10.1 359-162-11 7.1/4.4 8.1 10.2

Rosamond 6

359-020-05 5.3/4.4 8.1 321.2 Total Acreage (approximate) 486.0

1Land Use Designations 2.6 – Soil Erosion Hazard 2.8 – Military Flight Operations 2.85 –Military flight Operations - Noise Management Area 4.4 – Comprehensive Planning Area 5.3 – Residential Maximum 10 units per net acre 5.6 – Residential Maximum 2.5 gross acres per unit 5.7 – Residential Maximum 5 gross acres per unit 7.1 – Light Industrial 8.1 – Intensive Agricultural, Minimum 20 acres

Zone Changes

Zone changes are proposed for Rosamond 5 (165 acres) to allow for zoning consistency with the proposed land use designations (Table 2-2, Proposed Specific Plan Amendments). The proposed modified project site has base zones of E (2 1/2) RS FPS (Estate, 2 1/2 acre minimum, Residential Suburban Combining, Floodplain Secondary Combining), and E (5) RS FPS (Estate, 5 acre minimum, Residential Suburban Combining, Floodplain Secondary Combining). Zone changes are proposed to change all E (2 1/2) RS and E (5) RS zones to A zones with FPS combining zones remaining in place. Zone changes are not required for Rosamond 6. The proposed zone changes are further described in Table 2-3, Proposed Zone Changes. Also see Figure 2-5, Existing Zoning and Figure 2-6, Proposed Zoning.


Table 2-3. Proposed Zone Changes

Assessor's Parcel Current Zoning1 Proposed Zoning1 Size (Acres)

Rosamond 5 359-332-37 E (5) RS FPS A FPS 18.6 359-121-06 E (2 1/2) RS FPS A FPS 28.5 359-121-07 E (2 1/2) RS FPS A FPS 2.5 359-121-08 E (2 1/2) RS FPS A FPS 2.5 359-121-09 E (2 1/2) RS FPS A FPS 2.5 359-121-10 E (2 1/2) RS FPS A FPS 2.5 359-121-25 E (2 1/2) RS FPS A FPS 19.4 359-332-26 E (5) RS FPS A FPS 39.2 359-332-28 E (5) RS FPS A FPS 19.5 359-332-32 E (5) RS FPS A FPS 4.7 359-332-33 E (5) RS FPS A FPS 4.7 359-332-36 E (5) RS FPS A FPS 10.1 359-162-11 E (5) RS FPS A FPS 10.2

Rosamond 6 359-020-05 A FPS No Change 321.2

Total Acreage Subject to Zone Change 165.0 Total Acreage with No Requested Zone Change 321.1

Total Acreage of Proposed Project Addition (approximate) 486.0 1Zoning Classifications E (2 1/2) RS – Estate, 2.5 acres; Residential Suburban Combining E (5) RS – Estate, 5 acres; Residential Suburban Combining A – Exclusive Agriculture FPS – Floodplain Secondary Combining RS - Residential Suburban Combining

Modification to Conditional Use Permit

For the approved project, the Kern County Board of Supervisors approved CUP No. 27, Map No. 232 pursuant to Section 19.12.030.G of the Kern County Zoning Ordinance, which allows the conditional approval of solar energy electrical generators within the A (Exclusive Agriculture) zone district.

The parcels that are considered in this Addendum for addition to the approved project are located immediately adjacent to parcels already included in CUP 27. As described above, the proposed modified project would necessitate the addition of 14 parcels of record (APNs: 359-121-06; 359-121-07; 359-121-08; 359-121-09; 359-121-10; 359-121-25; 359-162-11; 359-332-26; 359-332-28; 359-332-32; 359-332-33; 359-332-36; 359-332-37; and 359-020-05), totaling approximately 486 acres.





Addendum 2 to Rosamond Solar Project EIR 3-1 Rosamond 5 & 6 Solar Modification Project By SunPower Corporation, Systems October 2016

Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis

This Addendum evaluates the potential for the proposed modified project to result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts compared to the impacts disclosed in the certified EIR and 2013 Addendum. The environmental analyses provided in this section describe the information that was considered in evaluating the questions contained in the Kern County CEQA Checklist. The information used in this evaluation includes the certified EIR, the 2013 Addendum, the proposed modified project description, new technical studies, literature reviews, and field studies.

The proposed modified project would incorporate and implement all mitigation measures identified in the certified EIR. Specific mitigation measures relevant to a particular impact of the proposed modified project are cited in the same manner as in the EIR and the associated MMRP adopted in conjunction with the Rosamond Solar project approvals.

3.1 Aesthetics

3.1.1 Setting

The visual setting of the proposed modified project and its surrounding area is the same as that of the approved project site. The proposed project additions consist primarily of grazing and fallow farmland, with some areas undeveloped and covered with low-lying desert vegetation (Figure 3-1, Recent Photographs of the Proposed Modified Project Site). Power collection lines are visible along some roads adjacent to the site. With the exception of area solar projects developed after 2010, lands in the vicinity of the proposed modified project area are the same as those described in the certified EIR.

Three residences and one building structure are located within 0.25 miles of the proposed modified project site. Specifically, in the vicinity of Rosamond 5, rural residences are located on Buckhorn Avenue approximately 380 feet north, on Gaskell Road approximately 400 feet east, and on Gaskell Road approximately 1,000 feet east. In the vicinity of Rosamond 6, one building structure is located on Rosamond Avenue approximately 1,000 feet west. The Pacific Crest Trail is located approximately 4.8 miles northwest of Rosamond 5 and 3.8 miles northwest of Rosamond 6. There are no other sensitive receptors or aesthetic resources, such as scenic routes, trails, or parkland in the immediate project vicinity.



3.1.2 Impact Analysis

Project Level Impacts

As in the certified EIR analysis, this chapter evaluates the potential for the proposed modified project to result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to aesthetics in relation to the following questions as stated in the Kern County CEQA Checklist:

Would the project:

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

The certified EIR established that there are no designated state scenic highways in the vicinity of the project site. The California Scenic Highway Mapping System (Caltrans 2016) identifies three highway segments that are potentially eligible for future designation as scenic highways: 1) SR 41, in the far northwest corner of the county; 2) SR 58, from SR 14 east; and 3) SR 14/US 395, from SR 58 north. None of these highway segments are within the original project’s viewshed, nor within the viewshed of the modified project boundary. Since the project site is not in the vicinity of any roadway designated or eligible for designation as a state scenic highway, there would be no construction‐ or operational‐period impacts to scenic resources within a state scenic highway. The proposed modifications to the project do not change the finding in the certified EIR of no impact. Based on the foregoing, no new or revised mitigation measures are required.

Mitigation Measures

No new or revised mitigation measures are required beyond those included in the certified Final EIR.

Level of Significance after Mitigation

The proposed modifications to the project do not change the certified EIR’s finding of no impact.

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

The certified EIR established that the approved project would have potentially significant and unavoidable impacts resulting from substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. This determination was based on the evaluation of visual simulations from three Key Observation Points, which were located to represent the views from identified sensitive visual receptors of the project site before and after project implementation. The facilities planned for the proposed project modification—solar panels, inverters, combiners, transformers, battery storage, and gen-tie power lines—are identical in appearance and scale to those elements and structures associated with the approved project.

Although the proposed modified project area is within 1/4 mile of four residences, the location of the most visually imposing elements of the proposed modified project, including features such as substations and transmission lines, would remain unchanged from the approved project.

For these reasons, the proposed project modifications would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of the impact to visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings compared to that disclosed in the certified EIR. No new or revised mitigation measures are required.


Mitigation Measures

No new or revised mitigation measures are required beyond those included in the previously certified Final EIR.


The proposed modifications to the project do not change the finding in the certified Final EIR of significant and unavoidable.

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

The certified EIR determined that with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.1-3 and 4.1-4, the approved project will not create substantial light or glare that could affect views in the area. Lighting on the approved project site will be limited to small-scale security lighting, and the dominant feature of the project, the solar panels, were determined to result in less glare than typical residential or commercial glass. The proposed modified project increases the size of the solar field but would not introduce new equipment or facilities that would increase lighting or glare impacts. Additionally, project design will include visual screening along the perimeter to further reduce any potential glare to nearby residences. Mitigation Measures 4.1-3 and 4.1-4 would reduce impacts by requiring project facility lighting to use only the minimum illumination required, mandating the use of non-reflective building materials where appropriate, and requiring the use of solar panels and hardware that minimize glare and spectral highlighting, to the extent feasible. Implementation of these mitigation measures would also be obligatory for the proposed modified project.

The proposed modifications to the project do not change the finding in the certified EIR of less than significant. Based on the foregoing, no new or revised mitigation measures are required.

Mitigation Measures



The proposed modifications to the project do not change the finding in the certified Final EIR of less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts

The EIR concluded that the impacts of the approved project will combine with impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects to create a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetics of the project site and its surroundings and would, therefore, contribute to significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts. The proposed project modification would not generate substantially more adverse cumulative impacts to aesthetics and visual resources than those disclosed in the certified EIR and would be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable by the incorporation of all feasible and applicable mitigation measures.


Mitigation Measures




3.2 Air Quality

3.2.1 Setting

The environmental setting for air quality is the same as that described in the certified EIR. Like the approved project site, the proposed project addition is located in the Mojave Desert Air Basin and is governed by the regulations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), California Air Resources Board (CARB), and Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD).

The regulatory framework pertaining to air quality (including federal, State, and local regulations) has not changed since the preparation of the certified EIR. The USEPA, CARB, and EKAPCD classify an area as in attainment, unclassified, or in nonattainment, depending on whether or not the monitored ambient air quality data show compliance, insufficient data available, or noncompliance with the ambient air quality standards, respectively. Federal and California air quality standards relevant to the proposed project include the following criteria pollutants: ozone (O3), fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns in size or less (PM10), fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns in size or less (PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). These standards, along with regional thresholds of significance, are regulated and enforced by the EKAPCD in the proposed project area. The EKAPCD is currently classified as:

• In moderate non‐attainment for the 1‐hour state O3 standard, • In non‐attainment for the federal and state 8‐hour O3 standards, • In non‐attainment for the state 24‐hour PM10 standard, and • In attainment or unclassified for all other ambient air quality standards.


Project Impacts

As in the certified EIR analysis, this section evaluates the potential for the proposed project addition to result in new or substantially more adverse significant impacts to air quality in relation to the following questions as stated in the Kern County CEQA Checklist:

Would the project:

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

The certified EIR concluded that the approved project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan with implementation of mitigation measures. Construction-period air pollutant emissions were determined to not exceed EKAPCD standards. Operational-period emissions were determined to be consistent with the Air Quality Attainment Plan implemented for the area by the


EKAPCD. The proposed modified project site at 1,846 acres is 486 acres greater than the approved project site; therefore, a greater area would be developed for the proposed project. While this would result in a longer period in which emissions are produced during the proposed modified project’s construction phase, the emissions would not exceed the thresholds established by the EKAPCD, as shown in the air quality analysis (Table 3-1, Project Construction Emissions, Table 3-2, Project Regional Emissions, and Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Studies). Emissions associated with operation of the proposed modified project would be similar to those associated with operation of the approved project. The certified EIR applied Mitigation Measures 4.2-1 and 4.2-2 to further reduce impacts to air quality in the area. These mitigation measures provide various means by which dust generation and emissions from construction vehicles would be reduced. Implementation of these mitigation measures would also be obligatory for the proposed modified project.

The proposed modifications to the project do not change the finding in the certified EIR of less than significant. No new or revised mitigation measures are required.

Table 3-1. Project Construction Emissions

Source Categories Gas and Particulate Air Pollutant Measurements (tons per year)1 ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5

Site Preparation 0.10 1.04 0.79 0.33 0.15 Underground Work - - - - - System Installation 0.42 3.86 2.78 0.38 0.25 Testing - - - - - Clean Up/Restoration - - - - - Total Construction Emissions 0.52 4.90 3.57 0.71 0.40 Kern County Significance Criteria 25 25 - 10 -

Exceed (Yes/No) NO NO NO NO NO 1Pollutants CO – carbon monoxide NOx – oxides of nitrogen PM10 – fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns in size or less PM2.5 – fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns in size or less ROG – reactive organic gases Table 3-2. Project Regional Emissions

Source Categories Gas and Particulate Air Pollutant Measurements (tons per year)1 ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5

Vehicle Emissions 0.04 0.19 0.05 0.02 Total Emissions 0.04 0.19 0.05 0.02 Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District Significance Threshold 25 25 10 -

Exceed (Yes/No) No No No No 1Pollutants NOx – oxides of nitrogen PM10 – fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns in size or less PM2.5 -– fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns in size or less ROG – reactive organic gases


Mitigation Measures




(b) Violate any air quality standard as adopted in (c)i or (c)ii, or as established by EPA or air district or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

The certified EIR concluded that with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.2-1 and 4.2-2, the approved project would not violate an applicable air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Construction-period air pollutant emissions were determined to not exceed EKAPCD standards. Operational-period emissions were determined to be below the EKAPCD’s significance thresholds. The proposed modified project would not result in substantially increased emissions compared with the approved project, and such emissions would continue to be below EKAPCD’s standards.

For these reasons, the proposed modified project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts than those disclosed in the certified EIR and do not result in a change to the certified EIR's determination of less-than-significant impacts.

Mitigation Measures



The proposed modifications to the project do not change the finding related to emissions in the certified Final EIR of less than significant.

(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:

(ii) Kern County Air Pollution Control District

Operational and Area Sources Reactive organic gases – 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

The EIR concluded that the approved project could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants for which the project region is in nonattainment under federal or State standards if


projects within a 6-mile radius are constructed simultaneously with the proposed project. The proposed project modification would comply with EKAPCD Rule 402 and Kern County General Plan Element Policy 20. Once operational, the facility would result in substantial net reductions in regional pollution by allowing for reduced use of polluting fossil-fuel-based facilities (such as natural gas power plants). Since the facility’s total electrical production capacity would increase up to 390 MW, the proposed modified project would offset an increased amount of energy from non-renewable sources.

For these reasons, the proposed modified project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts than those disclosed in the certified EIR and does not result in a change to the EIR’s determination that the proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable net increases of any criteria pollutant for which the region is in nonattainment. Based on the foregoing, no new or revised mitigation measures are required.

Mitigation Measures




(d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

The EIR determined that due to the approved project site’s rural location and the lack of any significant air pollutant emissions, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. The proposed project addition is in the same rural area, and the facilities planned for the proposed modified project (i.e., solar panels, inverters, combiners, transformers, and gen-tie power lines) are identical in construction process and operating characteristics to those for the approved project.

For these reasons, the proposed modifications to the project do not change the finding in the certified EIR of less than significant. Based on the foregoing, no new or revised mitigation measures are required.

Mitigation Measures



The proposed modifications to the project do not change the certified EIR’s finding of less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts

The certified EIR concluded that the impacts of the approved project would combine with impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects to create a substantial adverse effect on air quality during the construction period and would, therefore, result in significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts. Although the construction period for the proposed modified project would be slightly longer, this would not create substantially more adverse cumulative impacts to air quality than those disclosed in the certified EIR and would be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable by the incorporation of


Mitigation Measures 4.2-1 and 4.2-2 and best management practices. Therefore, the proposed modifications to the project would not create new or substantially more adverse cumulative impacts to air quality than those disclosed in the certified EIR.

Mitigation Measures




3.3 Biological Resources

3.3.1 Setting

The environmental setting for biological resources is the same as that described in the certified EIR. The certified EIR and 2013 Addendum included a comprehensive analysis of special-status and sensitive species, local habitats and vegetation communities, and jurisdictional waters on the project site. In addition to two Biological Resources Assessments, focused surveys for desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), sensitive plants, and other special-status species were conducted on the approved project site and proposed modified project. Appendix C to this Addendum includes a Biological Resources Report prepared for the 486 acres (referred to as the “study area” in this section) of the proposed project addition. Preparation of the Biological Resources Report required an evaluation of existing information available from the California Department of Fish & Wildlife, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Native Plant Society, California Natural Diversity Database, and various environmental documents prepared for past projects in the region. The certified EIR’s conclusions were based on the results of the Biological Resources Reports’ characterization and evaluation of the study area.


Project Impacts

As in the certified EIR analysis, this Addendum evaluates the potential for the proposed project modifications to result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to biological resources in relation to the following questions in the Kern County CEQA Checklist:

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 [Now California Department of Fish and Wildlife] or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)?

The entire proposed modification area (486 acres) was analyzed for special‐status species by qualified biologists in 2016. The study area was surveyed for wildlife habitat and evidence of wildlife presence or activity. All wildlife species observed or detected by sign were recorded.


Based on the results of the initial reconnaissance surveys, species‐specific surveys were conducted as part of the field investigations within potentially suitable habitats. Specifically, focused surveys were conducted for rare plants, burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) (i.e., raptor nests), and desert tortoise.

No sensitive natural communities or natural aquatic habitats would be affected by the proposed modified project.

The following discussion of special-status plants and wildlife summarizes the results of the Biological Resource Report. Please refer to Appendix C, Biological Resources Report for a complete discussion of the methodology and results of the biological surveys.

Special‐Status Plants

Analysis of special-status plants in the certified EIR and 2013 Addendum included Biological Resource Assessments and reconnaissance-level surveys across the approved project site. Negative survey results and subsequent analysis established that implementation of the approved project would result in a less-than-significant impact to special-status plants.

For this Addendum, surveys were conducted across the proposed modified project site for the 25 special-status plant species identified as potentially occurring in the region of the study area (see Appendix C, Biological Resources Report for a list of all special-status species). Much of the 486-acre proposed project addition has been disturbed by agriculture.

One state-listed species, the alkali mariposa lily (Calochortus striatus) was documented in 2010 within desert saltbush scrub habitat at the Willow Springs Solar Array site, to the north of the study area.

During field surveys in April and May 2016, no special-status plants were observed within the study area. All plant species detected onsite during the surveys are listed in the Biological Resources Report. Thirteen Joshua trees (Yucca brevifolia) were present within Rosamond 5 and were generally distributed throughout the eastern parcels of the study area. The Joshua trees within the study area do not represent a Joshua tree woodland and are therefore not protected habitat. Based on the negative survey findings, it is not expected that a loss of special-status plant habitat would occur as a result of the proposed project modifications. The proposed modified project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts compared with the impacts disclosed in the certified EIR related to special-status plants and would not result in a change to the finding in the certified EIR of less-than-significant impacts relative to special‐status plants. No new or revised mitigation measures are required.

Special‐Status Wildlife

Analysis of special-status wildlife in the certified EIR included Biological Resource Reports and reconnaissance-level surveys across the approved project site. Due to negative survey results and the provision of mitigation measures (fully described in the certified EIR and summarized below), impacts to special-status wildlife were determined to be less than significant.

For this Addendum, surveys were conducted across the proposed modified project site for the 14 special-status wildlife species identified as potentially occurring in the area (Appendix C, Biological Resources Report for a list of all special-status species). Much of the 486-acre proposed project addition has been disturbed by agriculture.

The Biological Resource Report states that five special-status wildlife species, as well as nesting birds and raptors, are considered to have at least moderate potential to occur within the study area: burrowing owl,


loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), LeConte’s thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei), Swainson's hawk, and American badger (Taxidea taxus). Three other species have been recorded historically in the project region: desert tortoise, mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), and Mohave ground squirrel (Spermophilus mohavensis). These species are described in greater detail below.

Desert Tortoise

The study area is within the Western Mojave Recovery Unit but outside of designated desert tortoise Critical Habitat. Consultations with the USFWS for the approved project indicated that desert tortoises were absent from the site, and no desert tortoises were observed during focused field surveys. During 2016 surveys, large mammal burrows were observed within the study area, but none were characteristic of desert tortoise activity. Desert tortoises have not been reported within the approved project, Rosamond Solar Array, Solar Star, Willow Springs Solar Array, or Kingbird Solar Photovoltaic sites. Appropriate mitigation for this species was included in the certified EIR as Mitigation Measure 4.3-4 and would be obligatory for the proposed modified project as well. As a result, no new mitigation measures for desert tortoise need to be incorporated into project approval conditions.

Loggerhead Shrike

Loggerhead shrikes are known to nest in the region, and suitable nesting habitat exists within the study area. During field surveys within the study area, no nesting loggerhead shrikes were observed, but suitable nesting habitat occurs within the sites and adjacent lands.

Destruction of active nests of special-status birds and overt interference with nesting activities of special-status birds is prohibited. The certified EIR explains that if increased noise and activity resulting from construction activities were to exceed ambient levels, it could cause nest abandonment and death of the young or loss of reproductive potential at active nests located within the project site. In addition, grading and removal of vegetation could result in direct losses of nests, eggs, or nestlings. The loss of active nests of special-status bird species would be considered a significant impact. Construction activities occurring during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31) could induce the adults to abandon the nest when juveniles are present, resulting in death of the young. The mortality of juveniles is considered a “take” and would constitute a significant adverse impact of the proposed modified project without mitigation. Appropriate mitigation for nesting special-status birds, including loggerhead shrike, was included in the certified EIR as Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 and would be obligatory for the proposed modified project as well. No further mitigation is necessary for the proposed modified project.

LeConte’s Thrasher

Within the region, LeConte’s thrashers have been reported as absent or with low potential to occur because of lack of suitable habitat. However, adult LeConte’s thrashers were observed at the approved project site during pre-construction (i.e., pre-disturbance) surveys in the 2016 breeding season. While no active nests have been observed to date in the approved project or proposed modified project sites, there is potential for LeConte’s thrasher to occur in the study area. Impacts to LeConte’s thrasher are the same as those outlined in the loggerhead shrike section, above. Similarly, appropriate mitigation for nesting special-status birds was included in the EIR as Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 and would be obligatory for the proposed modified project as well. No further mitigation is necessary for the proposed modified project.

Burrowing Owl

Nesting and wintering burrowing owls are known to occur in the region and within the approved project, Rosamond Solar Array, Solar Star, and Willow Springs Solar Array sites. Suitable habitat exists within


the study area; however, neither burrowing owls nor their burrows were confirmed during focused field surveys in April 2016. Burrows of suitable size (e.g., black-tailed jackrabbit [Lepus californicus], coyote [Canis latrans], and desert kit fox [Vulpes macrotis]) were documented within the study area and may result in the future occupancy of burrowing owls. In Rosamond 6, one burrow contained weathered (i.e., old) whitewash that was characteristic of burrowing owl, but there were no other observations suggesting recent activity.

It is assumed that all 486 acres of potential habitat on the proposed modified project site would be removed with construction. Loss of individual burrowing owls would be avoided through minimization measures, including pre-construction surveys. Appropriate mitigation for this species was included in the EIR as Mitigation Measure 4.3-1; implementation of this mitigation measure would be obligatory with the proposed modified project to reduce potential impacts to burrowing owl. No further mitigation is necessary for the proposed modified project.

Swainson’s Hawk

During field surveys in 2016, no Swainson’s hawk nests were observed within 0.5 miles of the study area. Within the Rosamond 5 study area and 0.5-mile buffer, five large stick nests were documented and were inactive or occupied by common raven (Corvus corax). Within the Rosamond 6 study area and 0.5-mile buffer, nine large stick nests were documented and were inactive or occupied by common raven and great-horned owl (Bubo virginianus).

Swainson’s hawks are known to occur within 5 miles of the study area during foraging, migration, and nesting. In 2011, the Rosamond Solar Array and Willow Springs Solar Array projects reported five Swainson’s hawk nests were active within 5 miles of the study area. The nests were located in the following areas: 110th Street West and Gaskell, 100th Street West and Gaskell, 105th Street West and Holiday Avenue, Avenue A and 100th Street West, and 90th Street West and Kingbird Avenue. In 2014, two Swainson’s hawk nests were active within 5 miles of the study area: 90th Street West and Elder Avenue, and 105th Street West and Avenue A.

The quality of foraging habitat for Swainson's hawk and other raptors on the proposed modified project will be reduced with implementation of the project. It is not expected that Swainson’s hawks’ use of the site for foraging would be substantial after project implementation. Appropriate mitigation for this species was included in the certified EIR as Mitigation Measures 4.3-2 and 4.3-6, which would be obligatory for the proposed modified project as well. No further mitigation is necessary for the proposed modified project.

Mountain Plover

Within the region of the study area, mountain plovers have been reported as having low potential to occur because of the lack of suitable habitat. During the field surveys within the study area, mountain plovers were not expected to be observed because this species only occurs in California during the non-breeding season. Mountain plovers were observed on one occasion in fall 2015 within the approved project site. While mountain plovers’ use of the study area was documented, it is probable that the observation was a migratory stop-over, and their potential to occur remains low. Suitability of habitat within the study area is marginal-to-low for wintering mountain plovers. Similar to the certified EIR, it was determined that there is low potential for mountain plovers to occur within the proposed modified project site and region. No further mitigation is necessary for the proposed modified project.


Nesting Migratory Birds and Raptors

Species of migratory birds that were observed within the study area and have the potential to nest include, but are not limited to, horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), lark sparrow (Chondestes grammacus), California quail (Callipepla californica), western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), lesser nighthawk (Chordeiles acutipennis), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), and western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta). The location of migratory bird nests can vary widely by year, and during nesting season (February 1 through August 31) it can be assumed that nesting migratory birds and raptors are likely to occur.

Destruction of active nests of special-status birds (including raptors), and overt interference with nesting activities of special-status birds, are prohibited. Impacts to nesting birds are the same as those outlined in the loggerhead shrike and LeConte’s thrasher sections, above. Similarly, appropriate mitigation for nesting birds and raptors was included in the certified EIR as Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 and would be obligatory for the proposed modified project as well. No further mitigation is necessary for the proposed modified project.

American Badger

During field surveys within the study area, suitable habitat for American badgers was documented, but no American badgers or their burrows were observed. Large mammal burrows (e.g., coyote and desert kit fox) were observed within the study area, but none were characteristic of the American badger. Foraging American badgers have been observed within the adjacent Solar Star site and the approved project site. Appropriate mitigation for this species was included in the certified EIR as Mitigation Measure 4.3-3; implementation of this mitigation measure would be obligatory on the proposed modified project site. Habitat loss is not considered a significant impact given the amount of available fallow agricultural land and scrub in the region for these relatively widespread species. No further mitigation is necessary for the proposed modified project.

Mohave Ground Squirrel

The study area is outside of the known range for the Mohave ground squirrel, and this species has not been detected within the approved project, Rosamond Solar Array, Kingbird Solar Photovoltaic, or Willow Springs Solar Array sites. No Mohave ground squirrels or characteristic signs (i.e., burrows) were observed during field surveys. White-tailed antelope squirrel (Ammospermophilus leucurus) and large mammal burrows were observed within the study area, but none were characteristic of Mohave ground squirrel.

Similar to the certified EIR, it was determined that there is low potential for Mohave ground squirrel to occur within the proposed modified project site and region. No further mitigation is necessary for the proposed modified project

Conclusion

As discussed above, various special-status wildlife species have the potential to occur on the proposed modified project addition site. The certified EIR identified the same suite of species on the approved project site and incorporates Mitigation Measures 4.3-1 through 4.3-6 to reduce all direct impacts to below a level of significance. These mitigation measures involve construction worker education, preconstruction surveys, avoidance, buffering, and other steps that would minimize harm to such species. Implementation of these mitigation measures would also be obligatory for the proposed modified project.


The proposed modifications to the project do not change the finding in the certified EIR of less than significant. No new or revised mitigation measures are required.

Mitigation Measures




(b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFG or USFWS?

Because there are no riparian habitats or sensitive natural communities on the proposed project addition, the proposed modifications to the project do not change the finding in the certified EIR of less than significant. No new or revised mitigation measures are required. Impacts will remain less than significant as stated in the certified EIR.

Mitigation Measures

No new or revised mitigation measures are required related to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities beyond those included in the previously certified Final EIR.


The proposed modifications to the project do not change the certified EIR’s finding of less than significant.

(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?

There are no aquatic features, wetlands, Waters of the United States, or Waters of the State of California that could be considered wetlands on the proposed modified project site, as detailed in Appendix D, Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the United States and Waters of the State of California. Because there are no aquatic features that could be considered wetlands on the proposed project addition, the proposed modifications to the project do not change the finding in the certified EIR of less than significant. No new or revised mitigation measures are required.


Mitigation Measures



The proposed modifications to the project do not change the finding related to federally protected wetlands in the certified Final EIR of less than significant.

(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?

The proposed project addition is located adjacent to and is contiguous with the approved project boundaries. The certified EIR determined that with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-2, the approved project would not result in significant impacts related to the movement of resident or migratory species or the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Mitigation Measure 4.3-5 requires conformance with Avian Power Line Interaction Committee standards to minimize collisions between birds and power lines. Implementation of this mitigation measure would also be obligatory for the proposed modified project. The proposed modifications to the project do not change the finding in the certified EIR of less than significant. No new or revised mitigation measures are required.

Mitigation Measures



The proposed modifications to the project do not change the certified EIR’s of less than significant impacts related to native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or 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?

Local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources are provided in Section 1.10.10 of the Kern County General Plan and Biological Resources section of the Willow Springs Specific Plan, which provide for the conservation of Joshua tree woodlands and the protection of sensitive vegetation and wildlife species. According to the Biological Resources Report, there are no Joshua tree woodlands within the proposed modified project site. Mitigation Measures 4.3-1 through 4.3-6 involve preconstruction surveys, avoidance, buffering, and other steps which would minimize harm to sensitive species. The proposed modified project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts compared with the impacts disclosed in the certified EIR. Based on the foregoing, no new or revised mitigation measures are required.


Mitigation Measures

No changes to mitigation measures adopted in previously certified Final EIR.


The proposed modifications to the project do not change the finding related to protection of biological resources in the certified Final EIR of less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts

The EIR concluded that the impacts of the approved project would combine with impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects to create a cumulatively significant loss of some biological resources in the region. This results in the approved project contributing to significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts. The proposed project modification would not create new or substantially more severe cumulative impacts to biological resources than those disclosed in the certified EIR and would be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable by the incorporation of all feasible and applicable mitigation measures.

Mitigation Measures



The proposed modifications to the project do not change the finding related to cumulative impacts to biological resources in the certified Final EIR of significant and unavoidable.

3.4 Cultural Resources

3.4.1 Setting

Appendix E, Phase 1 Survey/Class III Cultural Resources Inventory to this Addendum is an Archeological Survey Report prepared for the proposed project modification. The report provides information on the proposed project addition gathered from records searches through the California Historical Resources Information System and through fieldwork conducted in 2016. Pedestrian archaeological and historic architecture surveys were undertaken to identify cultural resources in the proposed project addition and to determine potential effects to these resources posed by the proposed modified project. Resources older than 45 years located in the proposed project addition were identified and documented. Project setting information for the proposed project addition, including information on the area’s natural environment, history, ethnography, and regulatory environment, is the same as that for the approved project and is provided in the certified EIR.


Project Impacts

As in the certified EIR analysis, this Addendum evaluates the potential for the proposed modified project to result in new or substantially more adverse significant impacts to cultural resources in relation to the following questions in the Kern County CEQA Checklist:


Would the project:

(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?

During pedestrian surveys of the proposed project addition in 2016, project archaeologists identified one historical archaeological site. This site did not meet the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), nor it did it have characteristics or qualities that could make it significant or unique under CEQA or eligible for the National Register of Historical Places. Development of the location of this site, therefore, will not result in significant adverse impacts to a historical resource, as defined under CEQA, and no additional archaeological work is recommended. Additionally, two prehistoric isolates were identified during the survey. However, isolates are not eligible for the CRHR. Further information on the pedestrian survey findings can be found in Appendix E, Phase 1 Survey/Class III Cultural Resources Inventory.

While no aboveground CRHR-eligible sites have been identified within the proposed project addition, underground excavations in the proposed project addition could uncover finds requiring evaluation by a qualified professional. To minimize the potential for loss of undiscovered cultural resources, the certified EIR applied Mitigation Measures 4.4-1, 4.4-2, and 4.4-3 to the approved project; these measures would also be obligatory for the proposed modified project. These mitigation measures require that a qualified archaeologist be contacted if any cultural resources are encountered during construction, to minimize the potential for significant impacts on any significant historical-era deposits. Implementation of these mitigation measures would also be obligatory for the proposed modified project.

Because the proposed modified project does not include any identified significant historical resources, the proposed modifications to the project do not change the finding in the certified EIR of less than significant. No new or revised mitigation measures are required.

Mitigation Measures



The proposed modifications to the project do not change the finding related to historic resources in the certified Final EIR of less than significant.

(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

No archaeological resources eligible for CRHR listing were identified during pedestrian surveys of the proposed project addition. Therefore, the proposed modifications to the project would not result in new or substantially more adverse significant impacts than those disclosed in the certified EIR related to damage to a significant archaeological resource.

While no aboveground archaeological sites have been identified within the proposed project addition, underground excavations in the proposed project addition area could uncover finds requiring evaluation by a qualified professional. To minimize the potential for loss of undiscovered cultural resources, the certified EIR applied Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 to the approved project, which would also be obligatory


with respect to the proposed modified project. This mitigation measure requires that a qualified archaeologist be contacted if during construction, any cultural resources are encountered.

Because the proposed project addition does not include any identified significant archaeological resources, the proposed modifications to the project do not change the finding in the certified EIR of less than significant. No new or revised mitigation measures are required.

Mitigation Measures



The proposed modifications to the project do not change the finding related to archeological resources in the certified Final EIR of less than significant.

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

The proposed project addition is located immediately adjacent to the approved project site and contains similar geology and soil types. According to the EIR, no vertebrate fossil localities are present in the project vicinity. Localities from sedimentary deposits similar to those in the project area have been identified at sites between Jawbone Canyon and Kelso Valley, a significant distance from the project site (approximately 40 miles). Surficial sediments in the entire project area consist of younger Quaternary Alluvium, predominantly as fan deposits from the mountains immediately to the northwest and southwest. These younger Quaternary deposits typically do not contain significant vertebrate fossils, at least in the uppermost layers.

Grading or shallow excavations in the uppermost few feet of the younger Quaternary fan and fluvial deposits in the project area would probably not uncover significant fossil vertebrate remains. However, deeper excavations that extend down into older Quaternary deposits are more likely to encounter significant vertebrate fossils. Mitigation for this potential impact is provided in the certified EIR through Mitigation Measure 4.4-2, which requires that any substantial excavations in the project area be monitored by a paleontologist to quickly and professionally collect any specimens without impeding development. Implementation of this mitigation measure would also be obligatory for the proposed modified project.

The proposed modified project would not change the finding in the certified EIR of less than significant. No new or revised mitigation measures are required.

Mitigation Measures



The proposed modifications to the project do not change the finding related to unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features in the certified Final EIR of less than significant.

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


There is no indication, either from the archival research results or the archaeological survey, that any particular location in the project area has been used for human burial purposes in the recent or distant past. However, in the event that human remains are inadvertently discovered during project construction activities, the human remains could be inadvertently damaged, which would be a significant impact. The EIR included Mitigation Measure 4.4-3 to reduce this potential impact to below a level of significance by requiring limited work stoppages and proper handling of sites where human skeletal remains are discovered. Implementation of this mitigation measure would also be obligatory for the proposed modified project. The proposed modified project would not change the finding in the certified EIR of less than significant. No new or revised mitigation measures are required.

Mitigation Measures



The proposed modifications to the project do not change the finding related to the disturbance of any human remains in the certified Final EIR of less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts

The certified EIR concluded that the impacts of the approved project, when combined with the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not create a substantial adverse effect on cultural resources and would not, therefore, result in significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts. The proposed modified project does not contain any identified historic or prehistoric archaeological resources, and the mitigation measures included in the certified EIR to reduce potential impacts to currently unidentified resources would apply to the proposed modified project.

For these reasons, the proposed modifications to the project do not create new or substantially more severe cumulative impacts to cultural resources than those disclosed in the certified EIR and would be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable by the incorporation of all feasible and applicable mitigation measures.

Mitigation Measures



The proposed modifications to the project do not change the finding related to cultural, archeological, or paleontological resources in the certified Final EIR of less than significant.

3.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

3.5.1 Setting

Greenhouse gas emissions result in impacts that are global in nature. Therefore, the environmental and regulatory settings related to greenhouse gas emissions provided in the certified EIR adequately describe the setting for the proposed modified project. A supplemental report was prepared for this Addendum (Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Studies).



Project Impacts

As in the EIR analysis, this Addendum evaluates the potential for the modified project to result in new or substantially more adverse significant impacts to the environment from greenhouse gas emissions in relation to the following questions in the Kern County CEQA Checklist:

Would the project:

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

The certified EIR established that the approved project would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions by providing an emissions-free source of electricity, offsetting greenhouse gases that would be emitted from facilities producing electricity from nonrenewable resources (e.g., coal or natural gas). In addition, the approved project is helpful in achieving the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard goal of 33 percent of electricity generated from renewable sources by 2020 and Senate Bill 350’s goal of utilities procuring 50 percent of electricity generated from renewable sources by 2030.

The proposed modified project would not introduce different equipment or facilities that would increase greenhouse gas emissions compared to the approved project. The proposed modified project is larger than the approved project and would therefore require emissions-producing construction for a longer timeframe. However, the extension in construction period does not result in adverse air quality impacts, as discussed above in Section 3.2. In addition, the proposed modified project would produce a greater amount of emissions-free electricity than the approved project in the long term, and would thus have an even larger positive impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions compared to the approved project.

The proposed modifications to the project would not change the finding in the certified EIR of less than significant. No new or revised mitigation measures are required.

Mitigation Measures



The proposed modifications to the project do not change the finding related to greenhouse gas in the certified Final EIR of less than significant.

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

The certified EIR concluded that the approved project would be consistent with the County’s policy of encouraging solar development to conserve fossil fuels and improve air quality, and that compliance with the goals, policies, and implementation measures of the Kern County General Plan would be required. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures are proposed.



Mitigation Measures



The proposed project modifications do not change the finding related to applicable greenhouse gas plans or policies in the certified Final EIR of less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts

The certified EIR concluded that the impacts of the approved project would not combine with impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects to create a substantial adverse effect on greenhouse gas emissions. Like the approved project, the proposed modified project would have a positive impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the long term.

Therefore, the proposed project modifications do not create new or substantially more adverse cumulative impacts to greenhouse gas than those disclosed in the certified EIR. Mitigation measures would not be required for cumulative impacts.

Mitigation Measures

This Addendum includes no changes to mitigation measures adopted in previously certified Final EIR.


The proposed modifications to the project do not change the finding related to cumulative impacts of greenhouse gases in the certified Final EIR of less than significant.

3.6 Hydrology and Water Quality

3.6.1 Setting

The proposed modified project has the same setting as the approved project in relation to hydrology and water quality, including the same hydrologic and flooding history, climate, surface and groundwater background, and soils, as analyzed in the Drainage Study prepared by Burns and MacDonnell in 2010 and revised in 2013. The preliminary drainage study and water demand memo for the current modifications are included as Appendix F, Preliminary Drainage Study and Appendix G, Water Demand Memo. The setting is fully described in the certified EIR.


Project Impacts

As in the certified EIR analysis, this Addendum evaluates the potential for the proposed modified project to result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to hydrology in relation to the following questions in the Kern County CEQA Checklist:

Would the project:


(a) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on site or off site?

The proposed modified project would be subject to the same standard conditions as the approved project, including preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and adherence to the requirements of the Kern County Code of Building Regulations, as well as compliance with Kern County Development Standards, which establish guidelines for flood control requirements, erosion control, and onsite drainage flow requirements, among others. Stormwater and sediment retention basins proposed for the project would be of sufficient capacity to retain all runoff generated by a 10-year, five-day storm event in accordance with Policy #9 of the Kern County Hydrology Manual.


Mitigation Measures



The proposed modifications to the project do not change the finding related to substantial alteration of existing drainage that would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite in the certified Final EIR of less than significant.

(b) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on site or off site?

Although the approved project site is located within FEMA “Zone A,” which is defined by FEMA as a Special Flood Hazard Area, the certified EIR concluded that the approved project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner that would result in flooding on- or offsite. As noted elsewhere, the proposed project addition is located along the approved project’s southern and southeastern edges and also immediately northwest of the approved project site. There are no streams or rivers on or in the vicinity of the proposed project addition, so the proposed project modifications would not alter the courses of any such features. In addition, the proposed modified project would be subject to the same standard conditions as the approved project and adherence to the requirements of the Kern County Grading Code and Floodplain Management Ordinance, and like the approved project is relatively smooth and has been graded in the past.

The proposed modified project would not change the finding related to flooding in the certified EIR of less than significant. No new or revised mitigation measures are required.


Mitigation Measures




(c) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows?

The certified EIR concluded that the approved project footprint is situated within the 100‐year floodplain. However, the solar panels would be elevated above the ground such that at least 1 foot of freeboard is present between the bottom of the panel and the flood depths, as shown in Appendix F, Preliminary Drainage Study. All inverter and transformer pads would be constructed a minimum of 2 feet above grade or with a minimum of 1 foot of freeboard above the 100-year flow depth (whichever is greater). Less than 1 percent of the project site would be covered by structures that could impede or redirect flood flows. In addition, the proposed modified project would be subject to the same standard conditions as the approved project, including adherence to the requirements of the Kern County Floodplain Management Ordinance. The proposed modified project would not change the finding in the certified EIR of less than significant. No new or revised mitigation measures are required.

Mitigation Measures



The proposed modifications to the project do not change the finding related to the redirection of flows in the certified Final EIR of less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts

The certified EIR determined that impacts of the approved project, when combined with the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not create a substantial adverse effect related to hydrology and water quality. The proposed modified project would not introduce different or substantially more equipment or facilities and would include preparation of a SWPPP and adherence to the requirements of the Kern County Grading Code and Floodplain Management Ordinance, as well as best management practices.

For these reasons, the proposed modified project does not create new or substantially more severe cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality than those disclosed in the certified EIR and would be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable by the incorporation of all feasible and applicable mitigation measures.


Mitigation Measures

No changes to mitigation measures adopted in the previously certified Final EIR.


The proposed modifications to the project do not change the certified EIR’s of less than significant impacts related to hydrology and water resources.

3.7 Land Use and Planning

3.7.1 Setting

The proposed project modifications are located along the approved project’s southern and southeastern edges and also immediately northwest of the approved project site. Therefore, the regional and local land use and planning environmental and regulatory setting for the approved project, provided in detail in the certified EIR, also applies to the proposed modified project.

For specific information on proposed zone changes, please refer to Section 2.3of this Addendum.


Project Impacts

As in the certified EIR analysis, this Addendum evaluates the potential for the proposed modified project to result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to land use and planning in relation to the following questions in the Kern County CEQA Checklist:

Would the project:

(a) 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?

The certified EIR concluded that the approved project would be consistent with the A (Exclusive Agriculture) zoning classification, which allows solar panels as a conditional use. Similarly, upon approval of all requested land use changes, the proposed modified project would be consistent with the zoning for the project site, as well as for zoning in the surrounding area, and would be consistent with existing land use plans, policies, and regulations applicable to the site, including, but not limited to, the Kern County General Plan, the Kern County Zoning Ordinance, and the Willow Springs Specific Plan.

As discussed in Section 2.3, the applicant is requesting amendments to Map Code designations, a zone change, and new CUPs to add up to 90 MW of solar development and battery storage components in conjunction with the approved Rosamond Solar Project. With approval of all discretionary requests, the proposed project modifications would achieve consistency with the zoning for the project site, as well as with the policies and objectives of the Willow Springs Specific Plan.



Mitigation Measures



The proposed modifications to the project do not change the finding related to land use plans or policies in the certified Final EIR of less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts

The certified EIR concluded that the approved project would not physically divide an established community; conflict with local plans, policies, or regulations; or conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Planning program. The certified EIR found that, because solar sites, if abandoned, could be subject to vandalism and become a dangerous public nuisance that would require additional public services, a mitigation measure related to the decommissioning of solar facilities was included that establishes safeguards of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the County (Mitigation Measure 4-7.1). Additionally, the certified EIR found that the approved project, when combined with impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would potentially create cumulative impacts to users of the radio frequency spectrums located both on and off area military installations. Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 would require coordination of frequency and notification with the Department of Defense to avoid potential frequency conflicts with local military operations. Mitigation Measures 4.7-1 and 4.7-2 would also be obligatory for the proposed modified project.

For these reasons, the proposed modifications to the project do not create new or substantially more severe cumulative impacts than those disclosed in the certified EIR and would be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable by the incorporation of all feasible and applicable mitigation measures.

Mitigation Measures



The proposed modifications to the project do not change the finding related to community integrity in the certified Final EIR of less than significant.

3.8 Public Services

3.8.1 Setting

The proposed project modification is located immediately adjacent to the approved project site. Therefore, the regional and local public services environmental and regulatory setting for the approved project, provided in detail in the certified EIR, also applies to the proposed modified project. Like the approved project site, the proposed modified project is served by the Kern County Sheriff’s Office and Kern County Fire Department.



Project Impacts

As in the certified EIR analysis, this Addendum evaluates the potential for the proposed project to result in new or substantially more adverse significant impacts to public services in relation to the following questions as stated in the Kern County CEQA Checklist:

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 other performance objectives for any of the public services:

(i) Fire protection?

(ii) Police protection?

The certified EIR concluded that, with the compliance of Mitigation Measure 4.8-1, the approved project would not result in any substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or altered police or fire protection facilities. However, because of an increase in accident potential along haul routes by truck and employee traffic, implementation of mitigation would be required. Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 requires payment of impact fees for sheriff and fire protection services at a rate of $28.84 per 1,000 square feet of covered ground for the facility operation and related onsite structures for the proposed project. Additionally, Mitigation Measure 4.8-2 requires the development of a fire safety plan for use during construction and operation that would need to be submitted and approved by the Kern County Fire Department prior to issuance of building and grading permits. The proposed modifications to the project do not result in a change to the finding in the certified EIR of less-than-significant impacts relative to the provision of new or physically altered police and fire protection facilities required to maintain performance objectives.


Mitigation Measures



The proposed modifications to the project do not change the finding related to fire protection facilities in the certified Final EIR of less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts

The certified EIR concluded that the approved project would not combine with the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects to create a substantial adverse effect related to public services and, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 and 4.8-2, would not combine with cumulative projects to create a substantial adverse effect resulting in the need for new or altered fire and police protection facilities. The mitigation measures require the payment of impact fees for sheriff


services and development of a fire safety plan for construction and operation. Implementation of these mitigation measures would also be obligatory for the proposed modified project.

Thus, the proposed modifications to the project do not create new or substantially more adverse cumulative impacts to public services than those disclosed in the EIR and would be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable by the incorporation of all feasible and applicable mitigation measures.

Mitigation Measures



The proposed modifications to the project do not change the finding related to cumulative impacts to public services in the certified Final EIR of less than significant.

3.9 Transportation and Traffic

3.9.1 Setting

The proposed project addition is located immediately adjacent to the approved project site. The same local roadways that serve the approved project site would serve the proposed modified project, with interior roadways constructed to serve the entire project. Therefore, the discussion of the regional and local transportation and traffic environmental and regulatory setting, provided in detail in the certified EIR, also applies to the proposed modified project.


Project Impacts

As in the certified EIR analysis, this Addendum chapter evaluates the potential for the proposed modified project to result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to traffic in relation to the following questions in the Kern County CEQA Checklist:

Would the project:

(a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to-capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?

Construction

Appendix H, Traffic Generation Estimates Memo, estimated an average of 254 daily construction trips to Rosamond 5 during a 175-day construction period and 216 daily construction trips to Rosamond 6 during a 350-day construction period. These estimates are conservative in that they assumed Rosamond 5 and Rosamond 6 would be constructed separately, with no staff overlap and no economies of scale. They also assumed that 50 percent of workers would carpool. During operations, Rosamond 5 and Rosamond 6 would make use of existing resources at the approved project and would not result in the need for a dedicated workforce at either site. An average of one worker vehicle per day can staff the maintenance and operations needs for the proposed modified project.


The trip estimates for Rosamond 5 and Rosamond 6 are based on SunPower’s recent experience constructing the approved project (and other projects in Kern County) and are therefore in line with the temporary impacts described in the certified EIR. The proposed modified project would not change the finding in the certified EIR of less than significant. No new or revised mitigation measures are required.

Operations

The certified EIR concluded that, due to the small number of employees required by the project once operational, the approved project would not result in a significant decline in roadway levels of service in the region.


Mitigation Measures



The proposed modifications to the project do not change the finding related to transportation in the certified Final EIR of less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts

The certified EIR concluded that the approved project, when combined with the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not create a substantial adverse effect related to changes in the transportation system or traffic generation, even during construction. The proposed modified project would not result in a substantial increase in the number of employees required to construct or operate the facility.

Therefore, the proposed modified project would not create new or substantially more severe cumulative impacts to transportation and traffic than those disclosed in the certified EIR, and impacts would remain less than significant, as stated in the certified EIR.

Mitigation Measures



The proposed modifications to the project do not change the finding related to cumulative impacts from traffic or transportation in the certified Final EIR of less than significant.

Addendum to Rosamond Solar Project EIR 4-1 Rosamond Solar Modification Project (Sites 5 & 6) October 2016 By SunPower Corporation, Systems

Chapter 4 List of Preparers

4.1 Lead Agency

Kern County Planning & Natural Resources Department

Lorelei Oviatt, AICP – Director

Craig Murphy – Division Chief

Anjanette Simon – Supervising Planner

Janice Mayes – Planner

4.2 Project Proponent

SunPower Corporation, Systems Renee Robin, Director of Permitting Cynthia Leung, Utility Sales Analyst 1414 Harbour Way South, Suite 1901 Richmond, California 94804

4.3 Technical Assistance

Ecology & Environment, Inc. Jason Moretz, PhD, Project Manager 7440 Creek Road, Suite 400 Sandy, Utah 84093

Addendum to Rosamond Solar Project EIR 5-1 Rosamond Solar Modification Project (Sites 5 & 6) October 2016 By SunPower Corporation, Systems

Chapter 5 References

California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387, Appendix G. State CEQA Guidelines.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2016. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Accessed August 31, 2016 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm

County of Kern. April 1, 2008. Willow Springs Specific Plan. Bakersfield, CA.

http://www.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/SPs/WillowSprings_SP.pdf County of Kern. August 2016. Kern County Zoning Ordinance.

http://www.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/KCZOAug16.pdf County of Kern Planning and Community Development Department. September 22, 2009. Kern County

General Plan. Bakersfield, CA. http://www.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/kcgp/KCGP.pdf

County of Kern Planning and Community Development Department. November 2010. Rosamond Solar Project Final Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2010031024. Bakersfield, CA.

Addendum to Rosamond Solar Project EIR Rosamond Solar Modification Project (Sites 5 & 6) By SunPower Corporation, Systems October 2016

Appendix A

Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments


Appendix B

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Studies


Appendix C

Biological Resources Report


Appendix D

Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the United States and Waters of the State of California


Appendix E

Phase 1 Survey/Class III Cultural Resources Inventory


Appendix F

Preliminary Drainage Study


Appendix G

Water Demand Memo


Appendix H

Traffic Generation Estimates Memo

Documents

Rosamond Solar Project Environmental Impact Report … · Environmental Impact Report ... lists the documents and individuals consulted during preparation of the ... • Onsite unpaved