0% found this document useful (0 votes)

2K views547 pages

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project

The Kern County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the Raceway solar project in Rosamond Tuesday. The AES Corporation building the project says they expect it to be online and functional by the end of next year.

Uploaded by

Anthony Wright

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

2K views547 pages

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project

Uploaded by

Anthony Wright

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 547

MAPS

CORRESPONDENCES

Directors Rosamond Municipal Advisory Council
William Parkman, Chair P. O. Box 626
Brennan Riley, Vice-Chair 2500 20th Street West
Donna Morris, Secretary Rosamond, CA 93560
Lisa Sanchez Msg Phone 661-317-3674
Dennis Shoffner
Seaneen McArdle www.facebook.com/RosamondMunicipalAdvisoryCouncil
Timothy Blakeley

June 17, 2021

Terrance Smalls
Supervising Planner
Advanced Planning Division
Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department
2700 "M" Street
Suite 100
Bakersfield, CA 93301

Subj: RMAC RESPONSE TO RACEWAY 2.0 SOLAR DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

Dear Mr. Smalls,

This letter of position is provided relative to the Raceway 2.0 Solar Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) that
we discussed with you the afternoon of May 27, 2021, at the Kern County Administrative Center. This letter also
provides our comments on the DEIR that our Council committed to reviewing and commenting on as expeditiously
as possible.
The bottom line upfront is that, based on comments relayed to our council by residents in the areas surrounding the
proposed project, we are in general opposed to large scale solar energy projects east of 90 th Street West between
Avenue A and Rosamond Boulevard.
The RMAC’s primary goal is to do whatever we can to help make Rosamond a better place to live and work. These
projects don’t do that. How is the quality of life in Rosamond and Willow Springs better if:
 Property values decrease for residents who live near the project areas?
 Clouds of fugitive dust, probably containing Valley Fever spores, rise from the solar fields and negatively
impact air quality in Rosamond and Edwards AFB by increasing the levels of PM10?
 Growth of our community is hampered by a wall of solar panels a mile or more wide running from
Rosamond Boulevard to Avenue A?
 Road easements are vacated limiting access from one side of the community to the other?
We do not see any benefits for the homeowners near the solar fields, only negative consequences, for all except
those who want to lease their property to the company developing these fields.
The Council is very disappointed that the Draft EIR has not taken into consideration points raised by our community
during meetings in 2018 and 2019. Perhaps, this is because the year 2020 was lost due to the pandemic that afflicted
the country and in particular Kern County. The Council met with members of the community on September 20, 2018,
and November 15, 2018. On December 20, 2018, Lorelei Oviatt, the Director of the Kern County Planning and Natural
Resources Department met with the community. At that time, Director Oviatt advised the community that
comments regarding the Project must wait until the issuance of this Draft EIR.
Concerns of the community raised at these various meetings included permanent road vacations, devaluation of
property, Valley Fever, fugitive dust, erosion control and flooding. In addition, Directors Parkman and Shoffner met
RMAC RESPONSE TO RACEWAY 2.0 SOLAR DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT–PAGE 2

with Director Oviatt at the Planning Office in 2019 to discuss whether there was a map that illustrated the overall
planned solar development in Southeast Kern County. They were advised that the County did not have such a map
nor do they influence the location(s) chosen by the solar developers.
Accordingly, the Rosamond Municipal Advisory Council (RMAC) has issues with the Raceway 2.0 Solar Draft
Environmental Report (DEIR) for the following specific reasons:
1. CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, PARAGRAPH 1.1 - INTRODUCTION, PAGE 1-4, "VACATION OF
PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS". THIS REFERS THE READER TO TABLE 3-7, VACATIONS OF EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS
EASEMENTS, OF CHAPTER 3, PROJECT DESCRIPTION, PARAGRAPH 3.6, PROPOSED PROJECT - PAGE 3-28 VACATIONS
OF PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS, OF THIS DRAFT EIR. This table is structured by Parcel Number, Document (Number),
Description and Notes. Only by reviewing the site maps, can one understand the severe magnitude of this. RMAC
does not support the closure of any portion of Elder Avenue, 85th Street West, Gaskell Road, Holiday Avenue,
Willow Avenue, and any unidentified roads/easements referred to in Table 3-7. Previous solar projects north of
Rosamond Boulevard up to the foothills of the Tehachapi Mountains were given tacit approval of vacation of
numerous public access easements with severe impact to the residences located adjacent to these various solar
facilities. There are some properties that are surrounded on three sides with only one public access provided. The
community of Rosamond does not wish for this practice to continue without consideration of the long-term
impact to the area and the community's desire for growth and, ultimately, incorporation as a city.
2. CHAPTER 3 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION, PARAGRAPH 3.2 - PROJECT LOCATION. This Chapter speaks to the
location of the Raceway 2.0 Solar Project and its distance from two unincorporated communities (Mojave and
Rosamond) and the City of Tehachapi. It more tightly defines the boundaries of the proposed Project as "in the
western extent of the Mojave Desert near Rosamond, California between Rosamond Boulevard and Avenue A, and
between 70th Street West and 90th Street West. The description carries on to provide the land uses in the region
and seems to imply that it is a wasteland. Some of the many facilities and businesses near or adjacent to this project
include the "Willow Springs Raceway"; an existing electrical substation at 60th Street West (recently the site of
upgrade work by Southern California Edison and others); upscale properties on larger land sections and the winery
at 90th Street West. Conspicuously absent throughout the DEIR is the fact that the California High Speed Rail
(CAHSR) is currently targeted to cross Rosamond Boulevard and 60th Street West in the vicinity of 62nd Street
West and Gaskill Road. There is no mention of the potential impacts of the railway to the solar facilities.
3. CHAPTER 3 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION, PARAGRAPH 3.7.1 - CONSTRUCTION - SUBPARAGRAPH
"CONSTRUCTION WATER USE" PAGE 3-45 - This section of the DEIR advises that during construction of the proposed
project, water would be required for common construction related purposes, including but not limited to dust
suppression, soil compaction, and grading (for the sake of brevity, other sections are not quoted herein). Dust-
control water may be used for ingress and egress of onsite construction vehicle equipment traffic and for the
construction of the solar equipment. Smaller quantities would be required for preparation of the concrete required
for foundations and other minor uses. After the earthwork activities, water usage would be used for dust suppression
and normal construction water requirements that are associated with construction of the building, internal access
roads, re-vegetation, and periodic cleaning of solar arrays. A sanitary water supply would not be required during
construction, because restroom facilities would be provided as portable units to be serviced by licensed providers.
The overall construction water usage is anticipated to be approximately 500 acre-feet (AF) (162.9 million gallons of
water (calculation source: western-water.com)) during the 10 to 12 month construction period. During construction,
the water used is anticipated to be trucked from an offsite water purveyor. Water demand during construction is
expected to be the same if the project is constructed during a year with normal precipitation, a year with less-than-
average precipitation, or a multiyear period of less-than-average precipitation. However, the DEIR does not specify
the level of cleanliness of the water to be used by the Contractor (primary, secondary or tertiary level of
cleanliness). In addition, the Contractor should be prohibited from using Kern County water sources because of
the drought conditions in Kern County and the adjudication restrictions placed on water draws by the Rosamond
Community Service District (RCSD) and other community service districts in the Antelope Valley. Ultimately, the
purveyors/contractors should clearly certify the source of the water and its level of cleanliness.
4. SECTION 4.10 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. This section addresses the environmental setting,
the Antelope Valley Hydrologic Unit (No. 626.00-626.80) and speaks to erosion, flooding control and related matters.
Of concern to RMAC is flooding at Avenue A and 90th Street West (also referred to as "Ritter and Godde Ranch").
Project Sites 1 and 3 share a boundary with this area as follows:
RMAC RESPONSE TO RACEWAY 2.0 SOLAR DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT–PAGE 3

In Section 4.10, it states that “The entire project site is located within the Federal Emergency Management
Agency’s (FEMA’s) Flood Zone A which is defined as an area subject to the one percent annual chance for flooding.”
(100-year floodplain). Both Sites 1 and 3 that parallel 90th St West with the gradient in a southerly direction.
Historically, like many intersections in the Antelope Valley, the Intersection of Avenue A and 90th St. West has a great
deal of issues with flooding. Avenue A surface waters flow east while 90th St. West surface waters flow south. This
often causes an inundation of accumulated runoff water and mud in this intersection.
Cited in the DEIR, Chapter 17.28 of the Kern County Grading Code addresses “Slopes” under Erosion Control in
Section 17.28.140. It states, “The faces of cut and fill slopes shall be prepared and maintained to control against
erosion. This control may consist of effective planting. The protection for the slopes shall be installed as soon as
practicable and prior to calling for final approval. Where cut slopes are not subject to erosion due to the erosion-
resistant character of the materials, such protection may be omitted.
It is not clear precisely what form of mitigation will be used on Sites 1 and 3 to prevent soil erosion and surface
water runoff from adding to the rain and flood waters that can potentially accumulate in the intersection? If a
slope is the best option, would xeriscaping along 90th St. W. be considered if effective planting is not drought
resistant?
In conclusion, RMAC and the affected residents we represent are not in favor of this project. Please do not approve
it.
This letter was read aloud at the Rosamond Municipal Advisory Council (RMAC) Monthly Meeting on June 17, 2021.
By voice vote, the Directors of the Rosamond Municipal Advisory Council voted 5 ayes 0 nays 1 abstension with 1
absent to approve this letter and recommending the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the Raceway 2.0
Solar Project not be adopted.

cc: Lorelei H. Oviatt, AICP, Director

Zack Scrivner, Supervisor, District 2
Kathleen Krause, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
John Antonaros
Laura Wyatt, District 2 Representative to RMAC
Read Board
File
June 28, 2021

Chair Lauren Skidmore

Kern County Planning Commission
1115 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301

Dear Chair Skidmore,

On behalf of the Kern Economic Development Corporation (Kern EDC), I am pleased

to provide this letter of support of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for AES’s
Raceway 2.0 Solar Project.

Kern EDC is committed to stimulating a diversified and strong economic climate in

Kern County. We accomplish this through the recruitment of new business
opportunities and assisting in the retention and expansion of existing businesses.

Kern County is the top energy provider in the California. We are proud of the
growth in the region and encourage you to support AES’s proposed project near
Rosamond. The project would create approximately 200 well-paying and much-
needed construction jobs and an estimated $8 million in wage income for Kern
County.

We respectfully request that the Kern County Planning Commission approve AES’s
Raceway 2.0 Solar project.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this highly important matter.

Sincerely,

Richard D. Chapman
President & CEO

A Public-Private Partnership Helping Kern County Businesses Thrive Since 1988

2700 M Street, Suite 200 · Bakersfield, CA 93301 · Phone (661) 862-5150 · Fax (661) 862-5151 · www.kedc.com
California Program Office
980 Ninth Street, Suite 1730 | Sacramento, California 95814 | 916.313.5800
www.defenders.org

July 7, 2021

Kern County Planning Commission

Kern County Administrative Center
1115 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Via Email to: [email protected]

Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Raceway 2.0 Solar Project

Dear Planning Commissioners:

Defenders of Wildlife (Defenders) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments to the Planning
Commission on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Raceway 2.0
Solar Project (Project). Defenders submitted scoping comments and comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Project to the Kern County Planning and Natural
Resources Department (PNRD). The specific issues that remain unresolved in the DEIR were
identified in our scoping comments and DEIR comment letters.
Due to inadequate mitigation proposed in the DEIR for the loss of Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni)
foraging habitat that would occur due to the Project, we recommend the Planning Commission
return the DEIR for the Project to the PNRD with instructions rectify deficient impact mitigation
measures for this state-threatened species to conform with the recommendations of not only
Defenders, but also the National Audubon Society and, more importantly, the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW or Department). The deficient impact mitigation measure
and recommended corrective measure is as follows:
Loss of Foraging and Nesting Habitat: Proposed mitigation measure MM 4.4-8(e) proposes the
project proponent/operator shall provide Habitat Management (HM) lands within the Antelope
Valley for the loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging and nesting habitat at a minimum 1:1 ratio, based on
the total approved area of the project. Since there is one active Swainson’s hawk nest within the
project area, the entire habitat lost is that corresponding with the project footprint and associated
infrastructure that results in the loss of existing habitat.
Recommendation: Defenders recommends that MM 4.4-8(e) be revised to require the mitigation
ratio for lost Swainson’s hawk foraging and nesting habitat be a minimum of 2:1. This
recommendation is based on recommendations from the CDFW and California Energy
Commission in Swainson’s Hawk Survey Protocols, Impact Avoidance, and Minimization Measures for
Renewable Energy Projects in the Antelope Valley of Los Angeles and Kern Counties, California.1 In addition,
CDFW recommended that the mitigation ratio for HM lands for the project be a minimum of 2:1
ratio in its comment letter to the PNRD on the Project DEIR dated May 7, 2021.
The mitigation ratio needs to be increased to a minimum of 2:1 to be in compliance with Section
2081(b) of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), which requires adverse impacts to
threatened or endangered species to be fully mitigated, meaning that no net loss of a listed species or
its habitat may occur as the result of a proposed action. Loss of habitat for Swainson’s hawk, either
foraging or nesting, is considered an adverse impact to the species that falls within the definition of
“take” that must be avoided or fully mitigated.
Further justification for our recommendation is taken directly from the CDFW and California
Energy Commission report on Swainson’s Hawk Survey Protocols, Impact Avoidance, and Minimization
Measures for Renewable Energy Projects in the Antelope Valley of Los Angeles and Kern Counties, California,
which states: “...the Department considers conversion of foraging areas to renewable energy power
plant facility sites to be habitat loss. … Significant habitat loss may result from individual
projects and cumulatively, from multiple projects. Each project which contributes to a
significant cumulative effect must offset its contribution to that effect in order to determine
that the cumulative impacts have been avoided” (emphasis added).
Essentially, cumulative impacts to the Swainson’s hawk in the Antelope Valley from various
projects, including solar energy, have accrued over time and have incrementally increased each time
that impacts from individual projects are not fully mitigated or offset as required under CEQA.
Among the key purposes of CEQA is stated in Public Resources Code Section 21001(c): preventing the
elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man’s activities, insure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below
self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities.
The PNRD rejects the recommendation to increase compensatory mitigation for Swainson’s hawk
foraging and nesting habitat loss to a 2:1 ratio based on demonstrably faulty and unsupported
conclusions, which include:

• There is insufficient land available in the Antelope Valley to satisfy a mitigation ratio of 2:1
for the 1,311 acres of foraging habitat that would be lost due to the project, which would
require 2,622 acres plus sufficient water available to preserve the habitat.
• Over 47,000 acres of available foraging habitat with characteristics similar to those on the
project site are located within five-miles of the project.
• An additional 301,000 acres of desert scrub habitat is protected on Edwards Air Force Base
and which provides foraging habitat.
• Approximately 6,800 acres of agricultural lands are available within five-miles of the project
which is available for Swainson’s hawk foraging.
• Reductions in water use to support agriculture in the Antelope Valley will be mandated
under terms of a basin-wide adjudication of water which will impact agriculture. As a result,
approximately 10,000 acres of irrigated farmland will remain, and not all this acreage is

1 https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83991&inline

Defenders of Wildlife Comments on AVEP Solar Project DEIR 2

suitable crop or available to acquire as mitigation land for loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging
habitat.
The arguments made by PNRD against adopting the CDFW-recommended 2:1 mitigation ratio are
unsupported and contradictory. First the demonstrably false claim there is insufficient land available
within the Antelope Valley, which is then followed by the contradictory statement that within five
miles of the project are 47,000 acres of foraging habitat with characteristics similar to that on the
Project site. Then there is the false statement that water must be available to “preserve the habitat,”
which does not apply to natural desert habitats with Joshua trees, which exist regionally in the
absence of irrigation.
Swainson’s hawk are believed to have nested in Antelope Valley and elsewhere for at least decades
prior to the development of irrigated agricultural fields. The species prefers to nest in relatively
isolated trees, including Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia) within a grassland or shrubland matrix proximal
to foraging opportunities and can forage over 15 miles from a nest site for preferred prey, within
grassland, creosote and mixed shrubland, Joshua tree woodland and ornamental tree habitats.
There is no information provided indicating that the 301,000 acres within Edwards Air Force Base is
used by Swainson’s hawks and that it is within five miles of Swainson’s hawk nests, or that this land
will remain intact into the future.
Lastly, the PNRD states that irrigated agriculture land is essentially unavailable for consideration of
Swainson’s hawk mitigation lands. This falsely implies that this type of land is the only one deemed
appropriate for foraging by Swainson’s hawks, when biologically this species uses a variety of
habitats in which to forage.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Defenders recommends the Planning Commission 1) not recommend
that the Board of Supervisors certify the Project DEIR and 2) return the DEIR to the PNRD to
modify the HM lands mitigation ratio to a minimum of 2:1 as recommended by the CDFW, as the
trustee of our state’s wildlife resources.
Thank you for considering our comments and recommendations.
Sincerely,

Jeff Aardahl Tom Egan

Senior California Representative California Desert Representative
[email protected] [email protected]

Defenders of Wildlife Comments on AVEP Solar Project DEIR 2

From: Thomas Egan
To: Lorelei Oviatt
Cc: Katrina Slayton; Terrance Smalls; Craig Murphy; Brian Van Wyk; [email protected]; Pamela Flick; Jeff
Aardahl
Subject: Re: Race Way 2.0 by AES - Planning Commission Hearing 7:00 PM July 8, 2021
Date: Friday, July 09, 2021 11:01:19 AM
Attachments: Outlook-1460668592.png
Swainson"s Hawk Habitat Loss_2021_04262021.pdf

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links, open attachments, or
provide information unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Thank You Ms. Oviatt.

It's unfortunate Kern County could not do a better job of informing the public about how to
provide such information to the public about attending planning commission meetings after our
very hard pandemic year.

Many others and I have numerous questions about this project, and specifically the unsupported
and factually erroneous biological data the Kern Planning Department is basing their faulty
decision on in forwarding the Raceway Solar 2.0 Project DEIR to the Kern County Board of
Supervisors with a recommended approval prescription.

We understand the County's concern in fully implementing its water ramp-downs, but such has
nothing to do with sufficiently mitigating the impacts of this project upon Swainson's hawk
nesting at this locale. Our state reptile, Agassiz's desert tortoise, can actually thrive using irrigated
lands; but this certainly does not mean the species requires such irrigated land to survive or that it
is infeasible to acquire suitable tortoise habitat as compensatory mitigation, that is done quite
regularly within Kern County. California citizens fully expect our county officials to abide by the
California Endangered Species Act and fully, not partially or not at all, mitigate impacts associated
with permitting such massive surface disturbance.

The western Mojave Desert has become attractive for renewable energy development over the
past 30 years, with numerous wind and solar energy generation facilities permitted by Kern
County under the auspices of the California Environmental Quality and California Endangered
Species Acts. However, the lack of sufficiently applied compensatory mitigation to address
Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat loss has resulted in the loss of over 19,688 acres of foraging
habitat within Antelope Valley. Minimally, 8,178 acres of potential nesting habitat have
similarly been lost as a result of this permitting, estimated as a subset of affected suitable
vegetation loss.

Correspondingly, compensatory mitigation habitat in 2010 to 2021 for the loss of Swainson’s
hawk foraging habitat within five miles of active nests has been required for only 17%
(two out of 12) of Kern county-permitted solar projects, at an unsupported 1:1 ratio (one
replacement acre for every impacted acre), totaling 4,134 acres. Compensatory mitigation to
address Swainson’s hawk incidental “take” was then directed to California’s Central Valley for
application, rather than to Antelope Valley where species’ impacts were generated.

Per CDFW (2010), mitigation plans for permitted projects in Antelope Valley, California should
focus on replacing Swainson’s hawk habitat to be lost to renewable energy development with
suitable habitat within the Antelope Valley at a minimum 2:1 ratio for such habitat impacted
within a five-mile radius of active nests. This is particularly necessary considering the steadily
rising cumulative impacts accruing with renewable energy development in Antelope Valley.
Significant habitat loss may result from individual permitted projects as well as cumulatively from
multiple projects. Each project which contributes to a significant cumulative effect must offset
this contribution to avoid adding to cumulative impacts to Swainson's hawk in Antelope Valley.

Further, Swainson's hawk are not small passerine birds that forage only in a limited area beneath
their nests. The species can and will fly as much as 20 miles from a nest site to forage for
preferred prey. Lone Joshua trees in a creosote bush scrub-grassland-Joshua tree woodland matix
are used for foraging and nesting. When such trees are proximal to agricultural land they are
occasionally used by the species in Antelope Valley - a unique sub-population much akin to the
thousands of pronghorn antelope that were wiped out in Antelope Valley prior to the
development of agriculture here, because of poor county planning. However, the species is not
limited to only native wildland habitats, or isolated Joshua trees/cottonwood located adjacent to
active agricultural lands. Fremont cottonwood, ornamental vegetation and other trees located at a
distance from agricultural lands are used by the species for nesting. And while an urbanizing
environment poses challenges for all planners relative to adhering to California law, we expect it
as citizens of our great state.

While the insufficient foraging habitat loss mitigation prescribed by Kern County, rejecting the
State of California's recommended impact mitigation for , is a focal concern, we have numerous
other outstanding issues regarding this project we will address in a separate letter to the Kern
Board of Supervisors.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Tom Egan
California Desert Representative
Defenders of Wildlife

From: Lorelei Oviatt <[email protected]>

Sent: Friday, July 9, 2021 10:08 AM
To: Thomas Egan <[email protected]>
Cc: Katrina Slayton <[email protected]>; Terrance Smalls <[email protected]>; Craig
Murphy <[email protected]>; Brian Van Wyk <[email protected]>
Subject: Race Way 2.0 by AES - Planning Commission Hearing 7:00 PM July 8, 2021

Good morning Mr. Egan,
Thank you for your comments. We have now received your comment on the Raceway 2.0 by AES
Solar project. The email you used originally to send your comments :
[email protected] does not exist for Kern County. It does not
appear on any of our websites or our public notices.

You resent the comment at 7:45 PM Thursday night while the Planning Commission was in session to
the Planning general email account. Email comments can no longer be submitted after 5:00 on the
night the Commission meets. We are now no longer in virtual session and do not play voice mails
either and if you wanted to make a comment you needed to come in person to the hearing.

The public notice you received, clearly states that comments can be sent to Terrance Smalls prior to
the hearing.

We will include this comment in the staff report provided to the Board of Supervisors. That hearing
as well in open to the public. All comments by US Mail or Email need to be received by noon on
Tuesday July 27, 2021 or you may come in person to make testimony.

Comments for Defenders of Wildlife were received and included in the Response to Comments on
the DEIR and provided to the Planning Commissioners 10 days prior to the hearing. They have
received your objections to the project.

If you have questions regarding the Board hearing or the project please contact Terrance Smalls.
[email protected].

Sincerely,

Lorelei H Oviatt, AICP

Director
Kern County Planning and Natural Resources
2700 M Street Ste 100
Bakersfield, CA 93301
661-862-8866

From: Thomas Egan <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, July 8, 2021 7:45 PM
To: Department, Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Raceway Solar 2.0 Comments

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links, open attachments, or
provide information unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Planning Commission did not allow for Defenders comments at Thursday evening meeting or
acknowledge receipt of our comment letter.

1460668592442_PastedImage

Lorelei H Oviatt, AICP

Director
Kern County Planning and Natural Resources
2700 M Street Ste 100
Bakersfield, CA 93301
661-862-8866
Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) Habitat Loss and
Solar Energy Development (2010-2021) in
Antelope Valley, California

Thomas Egan, California Desert Representative, Defenders of Wildlife

Abstract: Once more common in California, Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) populations have
declined precipitously in the last century, with the species listed as threatened in 1983 under the
California Endangered Species Act. The mainstay of nesting occurs in California’s Central Valley,
but regular nesting also occurs in Antelope Valley, Owens Valley and Modoc County. Swainson’s
hawk will travel long distances from nests (up to 18 miles) in search of suitable foraging habitat that
provides abundant prey. The species has historically nested in lone juniper within the Great Basin
portion of their range, but in lone Joshua trees in Antelope Valley - the species’ southernmost
breeding locale in the western Mojave Desert, which currently supports 9-10 nesting hawk pairs.

Correspondingly, compensatory mitigation habitat in 2010 to 2021 for the loss of Swainson’s
hawk foraging habitat within five miles of active nests has been required for only 17% (two
out of 12) of Kern county-permitted solar projects, at an unsupported 1:1 ratio (one
replacement acre for every impacted acre), totaling 4,134 acres. Compensatory mitigation to
address Swainson’s hawk incidental “take” was then directed to California’s Central Valley for
application, rather than to Antelope Valley where species’ impacts were generated.

Per CDFW (2010), mitigation plans for permitted projects in Antelope Valley, California should
focus on replacing Swainson’s hawk habitat to be lost to renewable energy development with
suitable habitat within the Antelope Valley at a minimum 2:1 ratio for such habitat impacted
within a five-mile radius of active nests. This is particularly necessary considering the steadily rising
cumulative impacts accruing with renewable energy development in Antelope Valley. Significant
habitat loss may result from individual permitted projects as well as cumulatively from multiple
projects. Each project which contributes to a significant cumulative effect must offset this
contribution to avoid adding to cumulative impacts to Swainson’s hawk in Antelope Valley.

Defenders of Wildlife National Headquarters | 1130 17th Street, NW | Washington, D.C. 20036-4604
Swainson’s Hawk Habitat Loss & Solar Energy Development (2010-2021) in Antelope Valley, California

Historically Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) were much more common in the California than they
are today. The species migrates annually with some birds travelling through California’s western
Mojave Desert to and from points as far south as Argentina, on their way to a limited number of
nesting locales. Historically, lone juniper trees (Juniperus communis) were used for nesting within the
Great Basin portion of their range, but lone Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia) were used in the south.
While the mainstay of Swainson’s hawk nesting occurs in California’s Central Valley, the Antelope
Valley, Owens Valley and Modoc-Great Basin nesting locales have also been recorded (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Depiction of known Swainson’s Hawk breeding distribution in

California at the initiation of a 2005-2006 survey effort. (Battistone et. al. 2019).

Antelope Valley supports an estimated ten nesting pairs (Bloom 2011) with 34 recent occurrences
recorded (CDFG 2012; Dudek ICF 2011). Nesting territories are commonly situated close to low-
growth agricultural areas supporting a sufficient prey base and edged with suitable-height nest trees,
including the native Joshua tree and Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), as well as non-native
ornamental trees and planted windrows. Bloom (unpub. data. 2021) found that within Antelope
Valley, 1997-2020 nest tree use was dominated by non-native trees (80%), including Arizona
cypress (Cupressus arizonica), Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), tamarisk
(Tamarix spp.), and elm (Ulmus spp.). Six Joshua trees, one California juniper (Juniperus californica), 5
Fremont cottonwoods and 2 willow (Salix spp.) were the only native trees found used for nesting.

Bloom (1980) previously estimated a decline of 95% in Swainson’s hawk abundance within
California compared to earlier 19th century numbers, due to population reductions and habitat loss
across the state. In response, the California Fish and Game Commission listed this species as
threatened under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) in 1983, in recognition of the
threats posed by human population growth, urbanization, and shifts in agricultural land use.

Current Swainson’s hawk nesting territories in Southern California may represent recolonizations
(Woodbridge 1998), as there are pre-1990 occurrence records in the western Mojave Desert. Three
nesting locales have been recorded east of Antelope Valley, including within: (1) in the eastern
Lanfair Valley portion of the Mojave National Preserve; (2) north of Fremont Wash; and (3) east of
U.S. Highway 395 (CDFG 2012; Dudek ICF 2011).
Defenders of Wildlife California Program Office|980 Ninth St., Ste. 1730|Sacramento, CA 95814 2
Swainson’s Hawk Habitat Loss & Solar Energy Development (2010-2021) in Antelope Valley, California

Relative to Swainson’s hawk and renewable energy development in Antelope Valley, the California
Energy Commission and California Department of Fish and Game (2010)1 have specifically stated:

“Antelope Valley Swainson’s hawks are known to have historically nested in Joshua tree woodlands
and foraged in grasslands and native desert scrub communities. Currently, they nest in Joshua tree
woodlands, ornamental roadside trees, and windrow or perimeter trees in active and historical
agricultural areas. Foraging habitat includes dry land and irrigated pasture, alfalfa, fallow fields, low-
growing row or field crops, new orchards, and cereal grain crops. Swainson’s hawks may also forage
in grasslands, Joshua tree woodlands, and other desert scrub habitats that support a suitable prey
base. Gophers dominate the prey base of agriculturally based pairs while Swainson’s hawks nesting
in natural desert habitats consume a wider variety of prey species.”

“The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Warren-Alquist Act and implementing
regulations, and CESA require consideration of direct, indirect, temporary, permanent, individual
project, and cumulative impacts. CEQA allows approval of projects with significant effects when
measures have been included to avoid or mitigate those effects, or specific considerations make
such measures infeasible and specific benefits outweigh the significant effects (CEQA Guidelines
§21081). CESA regulates the taking of State-listed species.”

“The small number of breeding Swainson’s hawks in the Antelope Valley and the potential isolation
from other Swainson’s hawk populations makes the Antelope Valley population particularly
susceptible to extirpation. Swainson’s hawks have high nest site fidelity, meaning they return to the
same site year after year (Estep 1989, Woodbridge et al. 1995) This may limit exchange of
individual birds between distant breeding groups (Hull et al. 2007). … Due to the geographical
isolation of the Antelope Valley Swainson’s hawk population from other breeding populations,
together with the species’ high site fidelity, it is reasonable to infer that rapid re-colonization of the
Antelope Valley would be unlikely if nesting pairs were lost;” and

“A substantial reduction in numbers or habitat of a rare, threatened, or endangered species would

be considered a significant impact under CEQA. Potentially significant impacts may result from
activities that cause nest abandonment, loss of nest trees, loss of foraging habitat that would reduce
nesting success (loss or reduced health or vigor of eggs or young), or direct mortality. Due to the
Swainson’s hawk’s known preference for areas of low vegetation that support abundant prey, such
as grasslands or alfalfa fields (Bechard 1982, Babcock 1995), the Department considers conversion
of foraging areas to renewable energy power plant facility sites to be habitat loss. … Significant
habitat loss may result from individual projects and cumulatively, from multiple projects. Each
project which contributes to a significant cumulative effect must offset its contribution to that
effect in order to determine that the cumulative impacts have been avoided.”

1 California Energy Commission and California Department of Fish and Game. 2010. Swainson’s Hawk
Survey Protocols, Impact Avoidance, and Minimization Measures for Renewable Energy Projects in the
Antelope Valley of Los Angeles and Kern Counties.

Defenders of Wildlife California Program Office|980 Ninth St., Ste. 1730|Sacramento, CA 95814 3
Swainson’s Hawk Habitat Loss & Solar Energy Development (2010-2021) in Antelope Valley, California

Clearly, Swainson’s hawk is to be afforded special protection from harassment under both the
CESA and CEQA processes. The CESA further requires "full mitigation" for any act that would
result in take of a state-listed species [CESA Section 2081 (b)]. Full mitigation means that no net
loss of listed species may occur as the result of a proposed action. Additionally, under CESA,
considered impacts must include direct, indirect and cumulative effects – with the latter extremely
pressing in Antelope Valley relative to Swainson’s hawk and renewable energy project growth.

CDFW (1994, 2010) has repeatedly recommended efforts to minimize further Swainson’s hawk
habitat destruction and generally seeks mitigation to offset unavoidable habitat losses by including
recommended mitigation measures in proposed action CEQA comment letters and/or as
management conditions in CESA Section 2081 Management Authorizations and CESA Section
2090 Biological Opinions. CEQA requires a mandatory finding of significance if a project's impacts
to threatened or endangered species are likely to occur. Impacts must be: (1) avoided; or (2)
appropriate mitigation must be provided to reduce impacts to less than significant levels; or (3) the
lead agency must make and support findings of overriding consideration.

Even with a legal foundation to protect the species, situations have arisen that illustrate significant
gaps in this protection. Most occur because of a lack of enforcement of CEQA conditions, some
rather dubious county applications of habitat loss compensatory mitigation requirements, and
insufficient, CEQA action-specific incorporation of California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW)-recommended mitigation measures (CDFG 1994, CEC and CDFG 2010).

The lack of sufficiently applied Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat loss compensatory mitigation in
the CEQA planning process over the last 11 years (2010 - 2021) has resulted in over 19,688 acres
of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat lost in the Antelope Valley - specifically as a result of
permitted solar energy generation projects. Potential nesting habitat for this small Swainson’s hawk
sub-population, estimated as a subset of affected suitable vegetation and totaling minimally 8,178
acres, has similarly been lost to solar renewable energy development in these 11 years.

Correspondingly, compensatory mitigation habitat in 2010 to 2021 for the loss of Swainson’s
hawk foraging habitat within five (5) miles of active nests has been required for only one
quarter (three out of 12) of Kern County-permitted solar projects, at an unsupported 1:1
ratio (i.e., one replacement acre for every impacted acre), totaling 4,134 acres (for two of the three
projects).as depicted in Table 1.

Figures 2-5 depict Swainson’s hawk nesting locale maps used for study years 2010-2021. Of specific
CESA note, compensatory mitigation to address Swainson’s hawk incidental “take” in two of the
three permitted projects involving habitat loss mitigation, was directed to California’s Central
Valley, rather than to Antelope Valley where species’ impacts were generated.

Per CDFW (2010), mitigation plans for projects in Antelope Valley, California should focus on
replacing Swainson’s hawk habitat lost to renewable energy development with suitable habitat
within the Antelope Valley at a minimum 2:1 ratio for such habitat impacted within a five-mile
radius of active nests; considering the pace of regional renewable energy development (Figure 6).
Defenders of Wildlife California Program Office|980 Ninth St., Ste. 1730|Sacramento, CA 95814 4
Swainson’s Hawk Habitat Loss & Solar Energy Development (2010-2021) in Antelope Valley, California

Table 1. Swainson’s hawk habitat loss in the western Mojave Desert associated with commercial solar
energy development and select environmental documentation excerpts. Habitat by plant community
(acres) within 5 miles of active Swainson’s hawk nests and nesting season observation areas (2011-
2021) that has been lost as a result of several authorized solar energy development projects and
compensatory mitigation, where required, is tabulated below.

Swainson’s Hawk
Foraging Habitat
Loss (acres) within Potential or Occupied
5 miles Active (2010-21) Swainson’s Hawk Swainson’s Hawk
Western Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Habitat Loss, Habitat
Mojave Desert Nest/Nesting Season Including Joshua Compensation
Solar Project/Year Observation Area Loss Trees (acres) Acres/Ratio
Antelope Valley
Solar Farm 2012 4,609 31 2,732/1:12
“4,247 acres active agricultural, 353 acres fallow agriculture, 7 acres shadscale scrub”
“With the exception of the [80 acre] peach orchard, all of these crops are of low enough stature and are characterized
by leaves and stalks that are permeable enough for hawks to see and access prey while hunting.”
“Swainson’s hawks will travel long distances (up to 18 miles) in search of suitable foraging habitat that provides
abundant prey (AECOM 2010a).”
“The project would remove approximately 31 acres of ornamental trees located in planted windbreaks around
developed areas that may provide nest sites for Swainson’s hawk.”
“Sensitive raptor species that are adapted to inhabiting agricultural landscapes such as burrowing owl and Swainson’s
hawk were not observed within the Study Area during the biological surveys on the proposed project site addition,
although they have a moderate potential to nest and forage within suitable habitats on site. One Swainson’s hawk was
observed in the vicinity (but not on the proposed project site addition itself) during the survey efforts.”
“It is assumed that the entire proposed project site addition (approximately 848 acres) of potential foraging habitat will
be removed.,. The area proposed for removal from the approved project site contains 988 acres of foraging habitat for
Swainson’s hawk; therefore, the proposed modified site reduces loss of foraging habitats for this species by 140 acres.”
“Additionally, MM 4.2-1KC requires that the project mitigate the loss of Important Farmland at 1:1 ratio; lands
qualifying for this mitigation measure must be located in the Antelope Valley and within the foraging habitat of the
Swainson’s hawk as defined by the CDFG. This will reduce impacts to Swainson’s hawk by replacing a portion of the
species’ foraging grounds lost as a result of implementation of the project.”
“Swainson’s hawks construct their nests in a variety of tree species in existing riparian forests, remnant riparian trees,
shade trees at residences and alongside roads, planted windbreaks, and solitary upland oaks. However, they typically do
not nest in large continuous patches of woodland other than along edges next to open habitats (AECOM 2010a).”
“Therefore, it is assumed that a total of 4,609 acres of potential foraging habitat would be removed with
implementation.”
“Project applicant will fund the research, in an amount not to exceed $100,000” on “determination of home-range size
and exact foraging habitat and acreage for each pair, food habits, natal dispersal, and breeding dispersal locations.”

2
Approximately 1,300 of 2,732 acres of agricultural lands proposed as mitigation in California’s Central Valley at a
far distance to where Antelope Valley impacts accrued, violate requirements that land be designated either Prime
Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance; and ~301.77 acres are demonstrably unsuitable as Swainson’s hawk
foraging habitat. Mitigation lands are also subject to agricultural use for 30 years, but easements do not limit
rodenticide/pesticide use, or require any specific Swainson’s hawk conservation, management, or monitoring
measures. A nearly $3 million balance remaining of Swainson’s hawk and farmland mitigation funds was absorbed into
Kern County’s general fund.
Defenders of Wildlife California Program Office|980 Ninth St., Ste. 1730|Sacramento, CA 95814 5
Swainson’s Hawk Habitat Loss & Solar Energy Development (2010-2021) in Antelope Valley, California

AVEP 2021
Creosote Bush Scrub
-Chaparral 183 < 183 0
-Rabbitbrush 392 < 392 0
“scattered Joshua trees in creosote bush scrub”
Other Scrub/Grassland
-Chaparral 585 0 0
-Rabbitbrush 224 0 0
Total 1,384 < 575 0

AV Apollo 2021 493 < 493 0

“The Joshua tree density is moderate but not at a density that would justify designation of a Joshua tree woodland.”

“MM 4.4- 2 would require avoidance of Joshua trees to the maximum extent practicable, and MM 4.4-3 would require
submittal of a Joshua Tree Preservation Plan to the County designed to provide compensation for Joshua trees that are
removed or damaged onsite.”
Table 1 Continued. Swainson’s hawk habitat loss in the western Mojave Desert associated with
commercial solar energy development and select environmental documentation excerpts. Habitat by
plant community (acres) within 5 miles of active Swainson’s hawk nests and nesting season
observation areas (2011-2021) that has been lost as a result of several authorized solar energy
development projects and compensatory mitigation, where required, is tabulated below.

Catalina RE (solar) 2011 1,223 < 1,223 0

“Mojave Creosote Bush Scrub is present in the eastern portion of the property and is dominated by regularly spaced
creosote bush and white bursage with occasional Joshua trees (Yucca brevifolia) scattered throughout.”
“The largest single flock of Swainson’s hawk was reported at 50 birds in spring 2004 and 12 birds were observed during
spring 2005 at the adjacent approved Manzana Wind Energy Project site, two miles north of the Catalina study area.
Swainson’s hawks were observed flying over the project site during the spring 2011 migration.”

Defenders of Wildlife California Program Office|980 Ninth St., Ste. 1730|Sacramento, CA 95814 6
Swainson’s Hawk Habitat Loss & Solar Energy Development (2010-2021) in Antelope Valley, California

Table 1 Continued. Swainson’s hawk habitat loss in the western Mojave Desert associated with
commercial solar energy development and select environmental documentation excerpts. Habitat by
plant community (acres) within 5 miles of active Swainson’s hawk nests and nesting season
observation areas (2011-2021) lost as a result of several authorized solar energy development projects
and compensatory mitigation, where required, is tabulated below.

RE Clearwater/RE Yakima 429 <429 0

RE Distributed Solar 2011

RE Columbia 160 + gen-ties 160 0

RE Columbia 2 160 +gen-ties 160 0

“More than 20 acres within the southern portion of the site, as well as intermittent portions of the gen-tie line and to
the south of the substation, contain a sufficient number and density of large, older Joshua trees that would be
potentially classified as Joshua tree woodland based on the plant community description in A Manual of California
Vegetation, Second Edition (Sawyer et al., 2009). During prior surveys, several very large trees within this area were
observed dead and on the ground.”
“During the 2013 gen-tie reconnaissance survey, one Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni; state threatened) was
observed perched on a 220-kv transmission line.”
“A CNDDB query identified one new observation of a Swainson’s hawk recorded approximately 9.5 miles to the
southwest (CNDDB Occurrence 1763 [2011]).”
“MM 4.4-2: requires an inventory of all Joshua trees on-site prior to ground disturbance and the development and
implementation of a Joshua Tree Impact and Mitigation Plan for any Joshua tree woodland removed by the project.”
“MM 4.4-10: requires funding for research on Swainson’s hawk ecology within the Antelope Valley.”

RE Columbia 3 80 +gen-ties 80 0

RE Rio Grande 46 46 0
“MM 4.4-2 was included which requires the proponent to conduct a full Joshua tree inventory and prepare a Joshua
tree Impact and Mitigation Plan. It shall detail the removal of Joshua trees/woodlands and outline a compensatory
mitigation approach considering either of relocation of trees to an approved preserve, payment of an in-lieu fee or
purchase of mitigation credit, or the purchase of preserved mitigation lands at a minimum 1:1 ratio of impacted Joshua
tree woodlands.”

Defenders of Wildlife California Program Office|980 Ninth St., Ste. 1730|Sacramento, CA 95814 7
Swainson’s Hawk Habitat Loss & Solar Energy Development (2010-2021) in Antelope Valley, California

Rosamond Solar Array 2014 80 0 0

“Between eight and 12 Swainson’s hawks were observed in 2010 on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site
(within 0.5 to 2.5 miles). Likewise, in 2011, six active Swainson’s hawk nests were observed within a five-mile radius
surrounding the project site and the generation-tie line routes. …habitats found within the project site and generation-
tie line routes can be considered suitable foraging habitat for nesting Swainson’s hawk.”
“If required, off-site habitat mitigation will be pursued in coordination, and may be “stacked,” with any required
farmland mitigation. … completion of the selected measure must be within the Antelope Valley (Kern or Los Angeles
County) or within the Central Valley. Any such mitigation shall be within ten miles of an active nest and within suitable
foraging habitat for Swainson's hawk …”

SEPV Mojave West Solar 2014 180 <180 0

“Within the Mojave Desert, Swainson’s hawks typically nest in Joshua trees; therefore, particular attention was paid to
investigating Joshua trees located on the project site during Swainson’s hawk surveys.”

Willow Springs 2016 1,402 0 1,402/1:13

Total 19,688 8,178 4,134

3
“MM 4.4-9. The project proponent shall mitigate for the loss of acres of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat by
providing high-quality offsite habitat management lands preferred by Swainson’s hawk such as native desert scrub,
agricultural areas, grasslands with scattered trees, juniper sage flats or riparian areas (as identified in consultation with
Kern County) at a 1:1 ratio, which may be stacked with any required farmland mitigation. Completion of the selected
measure must be within the Antelope Valley (Kern or Los Angeles County) or within the Central Valley. A priority
shall be placed on replacement habitat within the Antelope Valley (Kern or Los Angeles County) if feasible. If the
County finds that suitable replacement land is not available within the Antelope Valley at commercially reasonable
prices, replacement habitat may be located within the Central Valley. Any such mitigation shall be within at most ten
miles of an active nest and within suitable foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk as identified by a qualified biologist.

Defenders of Wildlife California Program Office|980 Ninth St., Ste. 1730|Sacramento, CA 95814 8
Swainson’s Hawk Habitat Loss & Solar Energy Development (2010-2021) in Antelope Valley, California

Figure 2., Swainson’s hawk nests and permitted solar renewable energy projects within
Antelope Valley, California in 2020.

Defenders of Wildlife California Program Office|980 Ninth St., Ste. 1730|Sacramento, CA 95814 9
Swainson’s Hawk Habitat Loss & Solar Energy Development (2010-2021) in Antelope Valley, California

Figure 3. Swainson’s hawk and farmland mitigation opportunities within Antelope Valley,
California in 2018.

Defenders of Wildlife California Program Office|980 Ninth St., Ste. 1730|Sacramento, CA 95814 10
Swainson’s Hawk Habitat Loss & Solar Energy Development (2010-2021) in Antelope Valley, California

Figure 4. Swainson’s hawk nests within Antelope Valley, California in 2017. In AVEP Solar
Project Environmental Impact Report (Kern County Planning and Natural Resources
Department 2021).
Defenders of Wildlife California Program Office|980 Ninth St., Ste. 1730|Sacramento, CA 95814 11
Swainson’s Hawk Habitat Loss & Solar Energy Development (2010-2021) in Antelope Valley, California

Figure 5. Active Swainson’s hawk nests and occupied territories within southern
California’s Antelope Valley in 2020. From Bloom 2021.

Defenders of Wildlife California Program Office|980 Ninth St., Ste. 1730|Sacramento, CA 95814 12
Swainson’s Hawk Habitat Loss & Solar Energy Development (2010-2021) in Antelope Valley, California

Figure 6. Cumulative surface disturbance projects as of 2021 authorized in Antelope

Valley Kern County, California, including the proposed Chaparral and Rabbitbrush
Solar Projects. From Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department 2021).
Defenders of Wildlife California Program Office|980 Ninth St., Ste. 1730|Sacramento, CA 95814 13
Swainson’s Hawk Habitat Loss & Solar Energy Development (2010-2021) in Antelope Valley, California

References
Airola, D., J. Estep, D. Krolick, R. Anderson, and J. Peters. 2019. Wintering areas and migration
characteristics of Swainson’s hawks that breed in the Central Valley of California. In: BioOne
Complete. Wintering Areas and Migration Characteristics of Swainson’s Hawks That Breed in the
Central Valley of California (bioone.org).

Babcock, K.W. 1995.Home range and habitat use of breeding Swainson’s hawks in the Sacramento
Valley of California. Raptor Res. 29(3):193-197. Babcock_1995_Home Range and Habitat Use of
SWHA in Sacramento Valley.pdf (sandiegocounty.gov).

Bakersfield Now. 2018. Conservation Groups Suing Over Swainson’s Hawk Habitat. Bakersfield,
California. News Edition April 24, 2018. Conservation group suing Kern County over Swainson
Hawk habitat | KBAK (bakersfieldnow.com).

Battistone CL., B.J. Furnas, R.L. Anderson J.L. Dinsdale, K.M. Cripe, J.A. Estep, C.S.Y. Chun and
S.G. Torres. 2019. Depiction of the study area in California (Great Valley) and the areas within the
known range but outside the study area. Figure 1 in “Population and Distribution of Swainson’s
Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in California’s Great Valley: A Framework for Long-term Monitoring.” J.
Raptor Res. 53 (3): 253-265.

Bloom, P. 2011. Conference call with Pete Bloom and Greg Green (ICF International). February
16, 2011.

Bloom, P. et al. 2021 (Unpublished data). Swainson’s hawk in the Antelope Valley of the West
Mojave Desert, California.

Bloom Biological Inc. 2018. Letter subject evaluation of land parcels in the Central Valley,
Bakersfield vicinity, which have been identified as potential mitigation lands for loss of Swainson’s
Hawk breeding and foraging habitat in the Antelope Valley.

_____. 2020. Bloom Biological Inc. Letter to Garry George Audubon Society. Status update on
2020 research to support management and conservation Of the Swainson’s hawk in the Antelope
Valley, Kern and Los Angeles Counties, California.

_____. 2021. Results of Southern California Swainson’s Hawk surveys March – July 2020. Research
progress update prepared for EDF Renewables, Defenders of Wildlife & National Audubon
Society. Presentation at Transition Habitat Conservancy Office, Pinon Hills, California.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1994. Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for
Impacts to Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California. Headquarters,
Sacramento, California. Staff report regarding mitigation for impacts to Swainson's hawks (Buteo
swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California.

Defenders of Wildlife California Program Office|980 Ninth St., Ste. 1730|Sacramento, CA 95814 14
Swainson’s Hawk Habitat Loss & Solar Energy Development (2010-2021) in Antelope Valley, California

_____. 2011. “Buteo swainsoni.” Element Occurrence Query. California Natural Diversity Database
(CNDDB). RAREFIND Version 4.0 (Commercial Subscription). Headquarters. Sacramento,
California.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2016. Status Review: Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo
swainsoni) in California. Five-year Status Report. Headquarters. Sacramento, California.
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=133622&inline.

_____. 2021. Swainson's Hawks in California. Headquarters. Sacramento, California.

California Energy Commission and California Department of Fish and Game. 2010. Swainson’s
Hawk Survey Protocols, Impact Avoidance, and Minimization Measures for Renewable Energy
Projects in the Antelope Valley of Los Angeles and Kern Counties.
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83991&inline.

Center for Biological Diversity. 2018. Lawsuit Confronts Kern County Over Broken Promise to
Protect Imperiled Hawks, Important Farmland Nearly $3 Million Set Aside for Conservation
Instead Transferred to General Fund.
https://biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2018/swainsons-hawk-04-16-2018.php

Dudek ICF. 2011. “Species Occurrences–Buteo swainsoni.” DRECP Species Occurrence Database.
Updated November 2011.

_____. 2012. Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni). Species account in BLM’s 2016 Desert Renewable
Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) Environmental Impact Statement. Bureau of Land
Management, California Desert District. Moreno Valley, California.

England. A. Sydney. 1998. Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni. Species account prepared for the
West Mojave Plan. In Bureau of Land Management’s (2005) West Mojave Plan Environmental
Impact Statement and Plan Amendment. Moreno Valley, California.

Estep, J. 2009. Swainson’s hawk status report Year end 2009. An overview of the status of the
Swainson’s hawk in the Natomas Basin, California. NBC110111respaper1001estep.pdf
(natomasbasin.org).

Estep J.A., and S. Teresa. (1992) Regional Conservation Planning for the Swainson’s Hawk
(Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California. In: McCullough D.R., Barrett R.H. (eds)
Wildlife2001: Populations. Springer, Dordrecht. Regional Conservation Planning for the
Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo Swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California | SpringerLink.

Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk. 2009. Conservation Strategy for Swainson’s Hawks in California.
Sacramento, California. swainsonshawk.org/Images/Conservation Plan 09 final.pdf.

Defenders of Wildlife California Program Office|980 Ninth St., Ste. 1730|Sacramento, CA 95814 15
Swainson’s Hawk Habitat Loss & Solar Energy Development (2010-2021) in Antelope Valley, California

Woodbridge, B. 1998. California Partners in Flight Riparian Bird Conservation Plan for the Swainson’s
Hawk. Point Reyes Bird Observatory Website. 16 pp.

Defenders of Wildlife California Program Office|980 Ninth St., Ste. 1730|Sacramento, CA 95814 16
Swainson’s Hawk Habitat Loss & Solar Energy Development (2010-2021) in Antelope Valley, California

Environmental Documentation for Solar Project Sites in Antelope Valley 2010-2021

Antelope Valley Solar Farm

AECOM. 2010a. Biological Resources Assessment and Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination

for the Proposed Antelope Valley Solar Project, Kern County, California.

Kern County Planning and Community Development Department. 2011. Antelope Valley Solar
Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2010031022. Volume 1, Chapters 1 through 10.
Bakersfield, California.
https://psbweb.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/eirs/av_solar/av_solar_deir.pdf.

Kern County Planning and Community Development Department. 2011. Antelope Valley Solar
Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2010031022. Chapter 7, Volume 4. Responses to
comments. https://psbweb.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/eirs/av_solar/av_solar_FEIR.pdf.

Kern County Planning and Community Development Department. 2012. Addendum to the
Environmental Impact Report for the Antelope Valley Solar Project. Bakersfield, California.
https://psbweb.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/eirs/av_solar/AV_Solar_Addendum_EIR.pdf.

AV Apollo Solar

Kern County Planning and Community Development Department. 2019. AV Apollo Solar Draft
Environmental Impact Report. SCH#2017081038. Volume 1, Chapters 1 through 10. Bakersfield,
California.
https://psbweb.co.kern.ca.us/UtilityPages/Planning/EIRS/av_apollo_solar/DEIR/AV_Apollo_S
olar_Project_DEIR_Vol1_Chapters1-10.pdf.

Kern County Planning and Community Development Department. 2019. AV Apollo Solar Draft
Environmental Impact Report. SCH#2017081038. Volume 2 Appendices.
https://psbweb.co.kern.ca.us/UtilityPages/Planning/EIRS/av_apollo_solar/APP/AV_Apollo_So
lar_Project_DEIR_Vol2_AppendicesA-N.pdf.

AVEP Solar

Kern County Planning and Community Development Department. 2021. AVEP Solar Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2019090215 Volume 1. Bakersfield, California.
https://psbweb.co.kern.ca.us/UtilityPages/Planning/EIRS/avep_solar/DEIR/AVEP%20Solar%2
0Project%20DEIR%20Vol%201%20Chapters%201-11.pdf.

Defenders of Wildlife California Program Office|980 Ninth St., Ste. 1730|Sacramento, CA 95814 17
Swainson’s Hawk Habitat Loss & Solar Energy Development (2010-2021) in Antelope Valley, California

Big Beau Solar

Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department. 2020. Big Beau Solar Project Draft
Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2019071059. Volume 1. Chapters 1 through 10. Bakersfield,
California.
https://psbweb.co.kern.ca.us/UtilityPages/Planning/EIRS/Big_Beau_Solar_Project/DEIR/BigB
eau_Solar_Project_DEIR_Vol1_Chapters1-10.pdf.
Catalina Renewable Energy Project

Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department. 2011. Catalina Renewable Energy
Project. Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report. Volume 1, Chapters 1 through 11.
Bakersfield, California.
https://psbweb.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/eirs/catalina/catalina_deir_vol1.pdf.

Raceway 2.0 Solar (Including Gen-ties)

Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department. 2021. Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Draft
Environmental Impact Report. SCH#2020079007. Volume 1, Chapters 1 through 10. Bakersfield,
California. https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/263042-3/attachment/-
Ju78BQ6lt8BWy8iJuVorYjnRFp1XYCBn2VV7ZoReTYtN_pf-2dwK-99k7DE13XWu-
36cYlzhZsaOlCu0.

https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/263042-3/attachment/QUUzbJZZBzJ-
YlzfKVgTr_7FAcJEuUR70np9TDtrlzT-3C4zXRKO5-wSBMbzgTLo3QgZySIoSIcBuJoc0.

RE Clearwater/RE Yakima

Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department. 2013. RE Clearwater and RE Yakima
Solar Environmental Impact Report. Bakersfield, California.
https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2013061004/2.

RE Distributed Solar Projects

Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department. 2011. RE Distributed Solar Projects
Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments. Volume 3, Chapter 7. (1) RE Rosamond
One by RE Rosamond One LLC; (2) RE Rosamond Two by RE Rosamond Two LLC; (3) RE
Columbia by RE Columbia; (4) RE Columbia Two by RE Columbia Two; (5) RE Columbia 3 by
RE Columbia 3; (6) RE Rio Grande by RE Rio Grande. Bakersfield, California.
https://psbweb.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/eirs/recurrent_desert/recurrent_rtc_toc.pdf.

Defenders of Wildlife California Program Office|980 Ninth St., Ste. 1730|Sacramento, CA 95814 18
Swainson’s Hawk Habitat Loss & Solar Energy Development (2010-2021) in Antelope Valley, California

RE Columbia
Kern County Board of Supervisors Staff. 2013. Addendum Kern County Planning Commission.
Board of Supervisors Staff Report.
https://psbweb.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/eirs/recurrent_desert/re_columbia_bos_sr_072313.p
df.

RE Columbia
Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department. 2013. Addendum to the environmental
impact report for the RE Columbia and RE Columbia 2 projects. Bakersfield, California.
https://psbweb.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/eirs/recurrent_desert/columbia_eir_addendum.pdf.
RE Columbia 2
Rincon 2013. Supplemental Biological Resources Assessment for the RE Columbia Two Solar
Project Site and Generation Tie-Line near Mojave, Kern County, California.
https://psbweb.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/eirs/recurrent_desert/columbia_eir_addendum_bio.
pdf.

Rincon Consultants Inc. 2011. Supplemental Biological Results. RE Rosamond One and
Rosamond Two, RE Barren Ridge 1 - RE Distributed Solar Biological Resources Assessment.
https://psbweb.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/eirs/recurrent_desert/recurrent_rtc_att.pdf.

Rosamond Solar Array

Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department. 2014. Rosamond Solar Array Project
Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2010031030. Volume I, Chapters 1-10.
Bakersfield, California.
https://psbweb.co.kern.ca.us/UtilityPages/Planning/EIRS/RosamondSolarArray/DraftEIR/Rosa
mond%20Recirculated%20DEIR%20-%20Volume%201%20ext.pdf.

Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department. 2014. Rosamond Solar Array Project
Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report. Volume II, Chapter 7, Response to Comments.
Bakersfield, California.
https://psbweb.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/eirs/RosamondSGS/RosamondSGS_ch7_RTC.pdf.

SEPV Mojave West Solar Project

Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department. 2014. SEPV Mojave West Solar Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2014091028. Volume 1, Chapters 1 through 11.
Bakersfield, California.
https://psbweb.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/eirs/SEPV_mojave_solar/SEPV_mojave_solar_deir
_vol1.pdf.

Defenders of Wildlife California Program Office|980 Ninth St., Ste. 1730|Sacramento, CA 95814 19
Swainson’s Hawk Habitat Loss & Solar Energy Development (2010-2021) in Antelope Valley, California

Willow Springs Solar Array

Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department. 2016. Willow Springs Solar Array
Project Final Consolidated Environmental Impact Report. SCH#2010031023. Volume 1, Chapters
1 through 10. Bakersfield, California.
https://psbweb.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/eirs/willow_springs/willow_springs_solar_feir_cons
olidated_ch1-10.pdf.

Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department. 2016. Willow Springs Solar Array
Project Environmental Impact Report. Volume 3 Chapter 7.5. Response to Comments on Partially
Recirculated Draft EIR and Second Partially Recirculated Draft EIR. SCH@2010031023.
Bakersfield, California.
https://psbweb.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/eirs/willow_springs/willow_springs_solar_deir_rtc.p
df.

Windhub Solar

Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department. 2018. Windhub Solar Environmental
Impact Report. SCH# 2015111057. Volume 1, Chapters 1 through 10. Bakersfield California.
https://psbweb.co.kern.ca.us/UtilityPages/Planning/EIRS/windhub/DEIR/windhub_solar_deir_
vol1.pdf.

Defenders of Wildlife California Program Office|980 Ninth St., Ste. 1730|Sacramento, CA 95814 20

MOU

PC RESOLUTIONS

Exhibit A
15091 Findings of Facts

EXHIBIT A

FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS

RELATED TO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091
for
Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
By sPower Development Company

SPA 33, ZM 231; ZCC 154, ZM 231; CUP 116 ZM 231; SPA 35, ZM 231; ZCC 155, ZM 231; CUP 117, ZM 231; SPA
36, ZM 231; SPA 37, ZM 231; ZCC 156, ZM 231; CUP 118, ZM 231; SPA 38, ZM 231; CUP 119, ZM 231; CUP 4, ZM
231-20; SPA 39, ZM 231; SPA 3, ZM 231-20; SPA 5, ZM 231-21; SPA 5, ZM 231-28; ZCC 3, ZM 231-21; ZCC 3, ZM
231-28; CUP 3, ZM 231-21; CUP 7, ZM 231-28; SPA 6, ZM 231-21; SPA 6,
ZM 231-28;
Cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract 20-06;
Kern County Franchise Agreement

Final Environmental Impact Report

SCH# 2020079007

Lead Agency: Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 1 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

SECTION I. INTRODUCTION
The following findings of fact are based in part on the information contained in the Draft and Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Raceway 2.0 Solar Project (project or proposed project), as
well as additional facts found in the complete record of proceedings. The Final EIR is hereby incorporated
by reference and is available for review at the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department
(Planning Department), 2700 “M” Street, Suite 100, Bakersfield, California 93301, during normal business
hours, and is also available on the Planning and Natural Resources Department’s website.
SECTION II. FINDINGS REGARDING THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF
THE PROJECT
The Planning and Natural Resource Department issued a Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR for the
project. Based on the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation, a determination was made that the Final EIR
would contain a comprehensive analysis of environmental issues identified in Appendix G of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines except for those scoped out during the Notice of
Preparation and Initial Study. With respect to all impacts identified as “less than significant” or as having
“no impact” in the Final EIR, the Board of Supervisors finds that those impacts have been described
accurately and are less than significant or have no impact. Despite concluding that certain impacts would
be less than significant or would have no impact, the Final EIR nevertheless incorporates mitigation
measures in the form of complying with the goals, policies, and implementation measures of the Kern
County General Plan, applicable Specific Plans, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requirements, or other
adopted regulations. The Board of Supervisors finds that these effects are less than significant or have no
impact before and after implementation of these mitigation measures.
In addition, some impacts in the Draft EIR were found to be “significant” but were able to be mitigated to
less-than-significant levels, and others were found to be “significant and unavoidable.” The Board of
Supervisors finds that those impacts have been described accurately and are less than significant with the
implementation of mitigation or are significant and unavoidable.

AESTHETICS

A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the

Environment, or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista (Impact 4.1-1).
The project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway (Impact 4.1-2).

B. Environmental Effects of the Project that Are Potentially Significant, but that Can
Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.

Significant Effect

The project would create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect daytime
or nighttime views in the area (Impact 4.1-4).
Description of Significant Impact

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 2 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

As discussed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR, construction of the project would generally occur
during daytime hours; however, non-daylight hours may be necessary at times to make up for unanticipated
schedule delays or to complete critical construction activities. Lighting would be designed to provide the
minimum illumination needed to achieve safety and security objectives. Additionally, lighting would be
directed downward and shielded to focus illumination on the desired areas only and to minimize light
trespass in accordance with applicable County requirements, would be designed to provide the minimum
illumination needed to achieve safety and security objectives. Lighting would be directed downward,
shielded and limited so that light spillover on the adjacent properties would be minimal. However, under
particularly adverse conditions, spillover lighting causes annoyance, discomfort, or loss in visual
performance because of its intensity, direction, or source type and visibility. All lighting would be to focus
illumination on the desired areas, in compliance with Kern County Chapter 19.81 (Dark Skies Ordinance).
Impacts resulting from lighting would be minimized through compliance with all development standards,
the Kern County Zoning Ordinance, and the goals, policies, and implementation measures of the Kern
County General Plan. Compliance with the Dark Skies Ordinance would be required and implemented
through Mitigation Measure MM 4.1-5. Therefore, impacts related to lighting would be less than
significant.

With respect to glare impacts during operation, glare would be produced by sunlight reflecting off the glass
surfaces of the solar modules. Although the project may produce glare, it is not expected to cause extreme
visual discomfort or impairment of vision for residents because the panels are designed to absorb as much
sunlight as possible and, therefore, would have minimal reflectivity. Similarly, and also due to their low
reflectivity, the panels would not be expected to cause visual impairment for motorists on area roadways.
This is because local motorists would pass well under the angle of refraction (i.e., less than 30 degrees).
Effects on eastbound motorists would likely be greatest in the early evening hours, when the sun is at its
lowest arc in the western horizon. Glare would have its greatest impact on westbound travelers in the early
morning hours, when the sun is rising in the east. To reduce glare potential, the project would be required
to implement Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-5 through MM 4.1-7, which require the use of non-reflective
and glare-minimizing materials. With implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts would be less
than significant.

Finding
The project has the potential to create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in this area. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-5 through
MM 4.1-7, described below, would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

Level of Significance
With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-5 through MM 4.1-7, impacts would be less than
significant.

Brief Explanation of the Rational for Finding

CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-5 through MM 4.1-7, described below, would reduce
impacts to a less-than-significant level.

MM 4.1-5: Prior to commencement of project operations of the solar facility, the project proponent shall
demonstrate to Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Staff that the project site

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 3 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
complies with the applicable provisions of the Dark Skies Ordinance (Chapter 19.81 of the
Kern County Zoning Ordinance), and shall be designed to provide the minimum
illumination needed to achieve safety and security objectives. All lighting shall be directed
downward and shielded to focus illumination on the desired areas only and avoid light
trespass into adjacent areas. Lenses and bulbs shall not be exposed or extend below the
shields.
MM 4.1-6: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project proponent shall demonstrate the solar
panels and hardware are designed to minimize glare and spectral highlighting. Emerging
technologies shall be used, such as diffusion coatings and nanotechnological innovations,
to effectively reduce the refractive index of the solar cells and protective glass. These
technological advancements are intended to make the solar panels more efficient with
respect to converting incident sunlight into electrical power while also reducing the amount
of glare generated by the panels. Specifications of such designs shall be submitted to the
Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department.
MM 4.1-7: Prior to commencement of project operations of the solar facility, the project operator shall
demonstrate that all onsite buildings utilized non-reflective materials, as approved by the
Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department.

C. Environmental Effects of the Project that Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less Than

Significant Level.

Significant Effect
The project would, in nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
public views of the site and its surroundings (Impact 4.1-3).

Description of Significant Impact

Construction activities associated with the project would create temporary changes in views of the project
site. The influx of construction vehicles, equipment, and worker vehicles would create visible contrast
within the rural and primarily undeveloped (with the exception of two residences and residential accessory
structures) setting of the project site. The visual effects associated with the presence of construction
vehicles, equipment, and workers in the project area landscape would be limited in duration and would be
spatially limited at any given time to the active area of construction. Therefore, impacts to existing visual
character or quality of the project site and surrounding area during construction of the project would be less
than significant.

As analyzed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, in Tables 4.1-4 through 4.1-8, of the Draft EIR, implementation of
the project would result in potentially significant visual impacts to the existing visual quality or character
of the site and surrounding area. As shown in the visual simulations, the visual change associated with
project development would be somewhat muted when viewed from a distance of greater than 0.5 miles.
With distance, the effects associated with removal of vegetation from the project site would be masked by
dense groupings of solar arrays. Similarly, thousands of solar arrays viewed from distance would begin to
appear similar to other dark tones associated with distant terrain in the landscape. However, visual change
would be evident from Rosamond Boulevard.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 4 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

Even with distance and diminished visibility, the visual change associated with the introduction of
approximately 1,330 1,251 acres of solar development on currently undeveloped desert terrain would likely
attract attention. Further, the introduction of thousands of solar panels, the ESS facilities, and the collection
lines would increase the footprint of solar and electrical transmission development in the area. Solar and
other renewable energy developments are generally concentrated to the west of SR-14, and the project
would introduce additional manufactured elements where they do not currently dominate the landscape,
resulting in significant aesthetic impacts. (BOS 7/27/2021)

However, because there are no feasible mitigation measures that can be implemented to maintain the
existing open and undeveloped desert landscape character of the project site, impacts to visual resources
would remain significant and unavoidable. Therefore, impacts to visual character would remain significant
and unavoidable despite implementation of these mitigation measures.

Finding
The project has the potential to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings. However, even with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-1 through MM 4.1-
4, described below, impacts would not be reduced to less-than-significant levels.

Level of Significance
Impacts would be significant and unavoidable, even with implementation of Mitigations Measures MM
4.1-1 through MM 4.1-4.

Brief Explanation of the Rational for Finding

CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts. Even
with implementation of Mitigations Measures MM 4.1-1 through MM 4.1-4, impacts would remain
significant and unavoidable.

MM 4.1-1: Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, a Maintenance, Trash Abatement, and
Pest Management Program shall be submitted for review and approval to the Kern County
Planning and Natural Resources Department. The program shall include, but not be limited
to the following:
a. The project proponent/operator shall clear debris from the project area at least four
times per year; this can be done in conjunction with regular panel washing and site
maintenance activities.
b. The project proponent/operator shall erect signs with contact information for the
project proponent/operator’s maintenance staff at regular intervals along the site
boundary, as required by the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources
Department. Maintenance staff shall respond within two weeks to resident requests for

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 5 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
additional cleanup of debris. Correspondence with such requests and responses shall
be submitted to the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department.
c. The project proponent/operator shall implement a regular trash removal and recycling
program on an ongoing basis during construction and operation of the project. Barriers
to prevent pest/rodent access to food waste receptacles shall be implemented.
Locations of all trash receptacles during operation of the project shall be shown on
final plans.
d. Trash and food items shall be contained in closed secured containers at the end of the
day and removed at least once per week to reduce the attractiveness to opportunistic
predators such as common ravens, coyotes, and feral dogs.
MM 4.1-2: The project proponent shall install metal fence slats or similar view-screening materials, as
approved by the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department, in all on-site
perimeter fencing for any portion of the solar site that is adjacent to parcels zoned for
residential use, including E (Estate Residential), R-1 (Low-Density Residential), R-2
(Medium-Density Residential), R-3 (High-Density Residential), or PL (Platted Lands) zoning
unless the adjacent property is owned by the project proponent (to be verified by the Kern
County Planning and Natural Resources Department) or a public or private agency that has
submitted correspondence to the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department
requesting this requirement to be waived. Should the project proponent sell the adjacent
property, slat fencing or similar view-screening materials shall be installed prior to the sale.
MM 4.1-3: Prior to the issuance of the building permit for the solar facility, the project proponent/operator
shall submit a proposed color scheme and treatment plan, for review and approval by the Kern
County Panning and Natural Resources Department, that will ensure all project facilities
including operations and maintenance buildings, collection line poles, array facilities, etc.
blend in with the colors found in the natural landscape. All color treatments shall result in
matte or nonglossy finishes.
MM 4.1-4: Whenever possible, within the proposed project boundary the natural vegetation shall remain
undisturbed unless mowing is necessary for placement of the project components. All natural
vegetation adjacent to the proposed project boundary shall remain in place. Prior to the
commencement of project operations and decommissioning, the project proponent/operator
shall submit a Landscape Revegetation and Restoration Plan for the project site to the Kern
County Planning and Natural Resources Department for review and approval. The plan shall
include the measures detailed below.
a. In areas temporarily disturbed during construction and decommissioning (including
grading or removal of root balls resulting in loose soil), the ground surface shall be
revegetated with a native seed mix or native plants (including Mohave creosote scrub
habitat) and/or allowed to re-vegetate with the existing native seed bank in the top soil
where possible to establish revegetation. Areas that contain permanent features such
as perimeter roads, maintenance roads or under arrays do not require revegetation.
b. The plan must include but is not limited to: (1) the approved California native seed
mix that will be used onsite, (2) a timeline for seeding the site, (3) the details of which
areas are to be revegetated, and (4) a clear prohibition of the use of toxic rodenticides.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 6 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
c. Ground cover shall include native seed mix and shall be spread where earthmoving
activities have taken place, as needed to establish re-vegetation. The seed mix or
native plants shall be determined through consultation with professionals such as
landscape architect(s), horticulturist(s), botanist(s), etc. with local knowledge as
shown on submitted resume and shall be approved by the Kern County Planning and
Natural Resources Department prior to planting. Phased seeding may be used if a
phased construction approach is used (i.e., the entire site need not be seeded all at the
same time).
d. Vegetation/ground cover shall be continuously maintained on the site by the project
operator.
e. The re-vegetation and restoration of the site shall be monitored annually for a three-
year period following restoration activities that occur post-construction and post-
decommissioning. Based on annual monitoring visits during the three-year periods,
an annual evaluation report shall be submitted to the Kern County Planning and
Natural Resources Department for each of the three years. Should efforts to revegetate
with the existing native seed bank in the top soil prove in the second year to not be
successful by 75 percent cover rate, re-evaluation of revegetation methods shall be
made in consultation with the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources
Department and an additional year shall be added to the monitoring program to ensure
coverage is achieved. The three-year monitoring program is intended to ensure the
site naturally achieves native plant diversity, establishes perennials, and is consistent
with conditions prior to implementation of the proposed project, where feasible.

D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project that Would Have a Less-Than-

Significant Impact on the Environment.

Cumulative impacts related to scenic vistas and scenic resources would be less than significant.

Significant Effect
The project would result in a cumulatively considerable aesthetic impact to light and glare.

Description of Significant Impact

Cumulative projects in the area would be required to adhere to existing regulations pertinent to lighting and
would be required to implement various mitigation measures to reduce lighting and glare impacts to less
than significant. The project would result in less-than-significant impacts to related to light and glare with
the implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-5 through MM 4.1-7. Therefore, these impacts would
not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to lighting and glare impacts. Cumulative impacts would
be less than significant.

Finding
The project in combination with other projects has the potential to create a new source of substantial light
or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in this area. However, implementation of
Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-5 through MM 4.1-7, described above, would reduce this cumulative impact
to a less-than-significant level.

Level of Significance

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 7 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-5 through MM 4.1-7, cumulative impacts would be
less than significant.

Brief Explanation of the Rational for Finding

CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce cumulative
impacts related to creating a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the project area. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-5 through MM 4.1-7,
described above, would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project that Would Have a Significant and
Unavoidable Impact on the Environment.

Significant Effect
The project would result in a cumulatively considerable aesthetic impact to visual character.

Description of Significant Impact

As the discussion provided in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR indicates, the project would result
in significant and unavoidable impacts related to visual character despite implementation of mitigation and
will also result in a significant and unavoidable impact when considered together with other projects in the
area. These other projects have already created impacts on the sense of open areas generally associated with
the California desert areas as well as removing iconic types of vegetation, such as Joshua Trees, that attract
people to locate in desert communities and is contrary to various goals of the County to promote tourism in
the desert area. The size and scope of already existing development in eastern Kern County is over 30,000
acres of solar projects. This will be increased by 1,330 1,251acres with the proposed project which will
have the potential to result in cumulative impacts to aesthetics when considered together. While other
projects in the region would also be required to implement various mitigation measures to reduce impacts
associated with visual character, the conversion of thousands of acres in a presently rural area to solar and
wind energy production uses cannot be mitigated to a point where visual impacts are no longer significant.
Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-1 through MM 4.1-7, cumulative impacts
associated with visual character would be significant and unavoidable. (BOS 7/27/2021)

Finding
The project in combination with other projects would result in significant and unavoidable cumulative
aesthetics impacts. Even with the implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-1 through MM 4.1-7,
cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Level of Significance
Cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable for the project, even with implementation of
Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-1 through MM 4.1-7.

Brief Explanation of the Rational for Finding

CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-1 through MM 4.1-7, as described above, would reduce
impacts but not to less-than-significant levels. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 8 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the

Environment, or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.

The project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use (Impact 4.2-1).
The project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or Williamson Act Contract (Impact
4.2-2).

B. Environmental Effects of the Project that Are Potentially Significant, but that Can
Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.

Significant Effect

The project would involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use
(Impact 4.2-3).
Description of Significant Impact
As discussed in Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, of the Draft EIR, although there are
approximately 247 acres of the project site that are designated as “Grazing Land” and “Prime Farmland”
within Raceway 2.0 Solar sites 1, 2, and 3, the percentage only constitutes a small percentage (0.03 percent)
of the harvested agricultural land within Kern County. The proposed project would convert this area to
nonagricultural use. However, the project site has not been actively farmed for more than 10 years (ICF,
2020). Development associated with the project would only occur within the project boundaries and,
although the proposed project may cause changes to the existing environment, there is no evidence that the
proposed project would affect agricultural land in the vicinity during operational activities. The
development of a solar power and battery storage facility would not require additional restrictions and
limitations on pesticides, fungicides, or herbicides for surrounding agricultural land uses. In addition, the
proposed project would not place additional restrictions on noise, burning, or dust generation on
surrounding operations. No other changes would occur that would result in the conversion of farmland to a
non-agricultural use. Construction of the proposed project would not result in substantial long-term changes
in air quality, interfere with irrigation, or affect agricultural production on adjacent land.

Operation and maintenance activities associated with PV solar power plants and battery energy storage
facilities are minimal compared with those of conventional fossil-fuel power plants. The PV modules,
which would be non-reflective, would convert sunlight directly into electricity; therefore, they would
consume no fossil fuels and emit no air pollutants during operations. Furthermore, development of the
project would not result in any significant environmental impacts on adjacent properties as a result of the
release of fuels, solvents, pesticides, or herbicides. Potential impacts from construction and operation
activities that may result from the release of fuels, solvents, pesticides, or herbicides onto adjacent
properties would be reduced to less-than-significant levels through the development of a hazardous
materials business plan, as required by Mitigation Measure MM 4.9-1, and through regulation of the use of
herbicides, as required by Mitigation Measure 4.9-3. Therefore, the proposed project would not include
activities that would restrict or impair agricultural production on adjacent or nearby land. Because the
activities proposed on the sites are not anticipated to affect existing environmental conditions outside of the

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 9 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

project boundary, the proposed project is not expected to result in the conversion of farmland on adjacent
or nearby properties to non-farmland uses. Additionally, with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM
4.9-1 and MM 4.9-3, impacts would be less-than-significant.

Finding
The project has the potential to result in permanent changes in the existing environment that, due to location
or nature, would result in permanent conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use. However,
implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.9-1 and MM 4.9-3 described below, would reduce this impact
to a less-than-significant level (see Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, for full mitigation
measure text).

Level of Significance
With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.9-1 and MM 4.9-3, impacts would be less than
significant (see Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, for full mitigation measure text).

Brief Explanation of the Rational for Finding

CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts related
to permanent changes in the existing environment that, due to location or nature, would result in permanent
conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.9-1 and MM
4.9-3, described above, would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level (see Section 4.9, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, for full mitigation measure text).

C. Environmental Effects of the Project that Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less Than

Significant Level.

Significant Effect

As discussed in Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, of the Draft EIR, as the project site is
currently subject to a Williamson Act Contract, development of the project prior to expiration would
conflict with the contract, which, as noted above, was made to restrict the project site to agricultural and
compatible uses. Therefore, the proposed project would require the cancellation of an open space contract
made pursuant to the California Lands Conservation Act of 1965 for a parcel over 100 acres. No feasible
mitigation is available to reduce impacts related to the cancellation of Williamson Act Contracts, therefore,
impacts related to the cancellation of an open space contract would be significant and unavoidable.

Finding

The project would result in the cancellation of an open space contract made pursuant to the California Land
Conservation Act of 1965 or Farmland Security Zone Contract for any parcel of 100 or more acres (Section
15206(b)(3) Public Resources Code (Impact 4.2-4). No feasible mitigation is available to reduce impacts
related to the cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Level of Significance

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 10 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
Project impacts would be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of MM 4.9-11 and MM
4.9-3 as there are no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce impacts related to the cancellation
of a Williamson Act Contract.,. (BOS 7/27/2021)
Brief Explanation of the Rational for Finding

CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts. No
feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce impacts related to the cancellation of a Williamson Act
Contract, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project that Would Have a Less-Than-

Significant Impact on the Environment.

Significant Effect
The project would result in not have any cumulatively considerable environmental effects related to
agricultural and forest impacts that can be mitigated to a less than significant level. (BOS 7/27/2021)

Description of Significant Impact

As discussed in Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project
would convert approximately 247 acres of Prime Farmland to non-agricultural uses. While development of
the cumulative projects could result in conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), the proposed project’s contribution to the conversion of agricultural land
to non-agricultural uses would be cumulatively considerable. The project’s incremental effect is
cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of other closely related past projects,
the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects and thus cumulative impacts
would be significant and unavoidable. As explained above under Impact 4.2-4, no feasible mitigation is
available to reduce impacts related to the cancellation of Williamson Act Contracts. Therefore, the proposed
project’s contribution to cumulative impacts related to agriculture in Kern County would be less than
cumulatively considerable.
Finding
The project, in combination with other projects, could result in significant cumulative agricultural and forest
impacts. As there is no feasible mitigation available to reduce impacts related to the cancellation of a
Williamson Act Contract, cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Level of Significance
Cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable as no feasible mitigation is available.
Brief Explanation of the Rational for Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts. As
there is no feasible mitigation available to reduce impacts related to the cancellation of a Williamson Act
Contract, cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project that Would Have a Significant and
Unavoidable Impact on the Environment.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 11 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

The project would not have a significant and unavoidable cumulative environmental impact on agricultural
or forest resources.The project would not have any cumulatively considerable environmental effects related
to agricultural and forest impacts that can be mitigated to a less than significant level. (BOS 7/27/2021)

AIR QUALITY

A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the

Environment, or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
As detailed in the NOP and in Section 4.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, it is not expected that the
construction of the project would result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) that would
adversely affect a substantial number of people. As a result, no significant impact related to emissions (such
as those leading to odors) that would adversely affect a substantial number of people is anticipated to occur.
(Impact 4.3-3)

B. Environmental Effects of the Project that Are Potentially Significant, but that Can
Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.

Significant Effect
The project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan (Impact 4.3-
1).
Construction and operation of the project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the projects’ region is nonattainment under applicable federal or State ambient
air quality standards (Impact 4.3-4). (BOS 7/27/2021)
Description of Significant Impact
A project would not interfere with the applicable air quality plan if it is consistent with growth assumptions
used to form the applicable air quality plan and if the project implements all reasonably available and
feasible air quality control measures. The consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is
discussed below for construction and operation.

Air quality impacts are controlled through policies and provisions of the EKAPCD, the Kern County
General Plan, and the Kern County Code of Building Regulations. The CCAA requires air pollution control
districts with severe or extreme air quality problems to provide for a 5 percent reduction in nonattainment
emissions per year. The Attainment Plans prepared for the EKAPCD complies with this requirement.
CARB reviewers approve or amend the document and forward the plan to EPA for final review and
approval within the SIP.

Implementation of the project would generate both temporary (construction) and long-term (operational)
emissions, which could conflict with or obstruct with EKAPCD rules and regulations. Project impacts
would be potentially significant before mitigation.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 12 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

As noted in Table 4.3-4, Unmitigated Annual Construction Emissions, in Section 4.3, Air Quality, of the
Draft EIR, temporary unmitigated emissions during construction would exceed the thresholds adopted by
Kern County for NOX and PM10. With mitigation, the construction emissions would be reduced to levels
below EKAPCD thresholds. Furthermore, Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-1 and MM 4.3-2 would be
required to reduce fugitive dust emissions by implementing exhaust reduction measures and a Fugitive Dust
Control Plan, respectively, which would reduce temporary NOx and PM10 construction emissions to below
significance thresholds. However, as the project includes all reasonably available and feasible air quality
control measures to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants, the proposed project would not conflict with
implementation of the air quality management plan. Therefore, the project would not result in emissions of
a magnitude that would obstruct the air quality planning goals set forth by EKAPCD and would have less
than significant impacts.

The only source of long-term operational emissions associated with the project would be those generated
from mobile sources traveling to and from the project area. As no onsite maintenance and operations staff
are proposed, long-term emissions from the project would consist of sporadic vehicular emissions from
employees, which would be minimal and would not result in a substantial increase in emissions. As shown
in Table 4.3-6, Unmitigated Annual Construction Emissions, under Impact 4.3-24, of the Draft EIR, the
project’s long-term operational emissions would be well below EKAPCD’s applicable significance
thresholds. (BOS 7/27/2021)

Furthermore, the solar power generation system of the project would also function to reduce the air pollutant
emissions within the MDAB to the extent that the power generated is used to offset power production from
fossil fueled power plants within (or contributory to) the MDAB. This power production is not projected
within the existing air quality plans, and so the project would further aid in reducing air pollutant emissions
and increase the potential for attainment of the Ozone Attainment Plan. Therefore, the project would not
conflict with the EKAPCD’s Ozone Attainment Plan. As project operational emissions would also not exceed
the EKAPCD’s significance thresholds, implementation of the project would not obstruct implementation of
an air quality plan during operation. Therefore, operational impacts would be less than significant.

The project is anticipated to operate for 30 to 35 years, after which the land could be converted to other
uses in accordance with applicable land use regulations in effect at that time if its Power Purchase
Agreement (PPA) is not extended, or the project otherwise ceases operation. The project will be required
to develop a decommissioning plan and financial assurances for review and approval by the Kern County
Planning and Natural Resources Department. All decommissioning and restoration activities would adhere
to the requirements of the appropriate governing authorities and in accordance with all applicable federal,
State, and County regulations.

At such time as the facility is decommissioned, equipment operation and site restoration activities would
result in impacts to air quality. Given the fact that much of the construction equipment necessary to
construct the project would also be required to decommission the site, it is reasonable to assume that
decommissioning activities would be similar in nature to activities associated with construction of the
project. As discussed in in Section 4.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, the unmitigated decommissioning
emissions would be below the EKAPCD thresholds and would be further reduced by implementation of
Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-1 and MM 4.3-2, which are included as a requirement of this proposed
project.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 13 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

Therefore, operation of the project would not obstruct implementation of an air quality plan and
impacts would be less than significant.

As discussed in the DEIR, construction of the project would result in the temporary addition of pollutants
to the local airshed caused by on-site sources (i.e., off-road construction equipment, soil disturbance) and
offsite sources (i.e., onroad haul trucks, vendor trucks, and worker vehicle trips). Construction emissions
can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation,
and for dust, the prevailing weather conditions. Criteria air pollutant emissions associated with temporary
construction activity were quantified using a combination of emission factors and methodologies.
Construction schedule assumptions, including phase type, duration, and sequencing, were based on
information provided by the project applicant and is intended to represent a reasonable scenario based on
the best information available. The 2020 update noted a reduction in project area, but did not remodel air
quality emissions from the 2018 Report as those calculations were considered conservative.

As discussed previously, the project would implement mitigation for construction emissions. These
mitigation measures consist of watering three times daily (control efficiency of 61%), applying a soil
stabilizer material or soil weighting agent to unpaved main access roads for delivery in the project area and
implementing a 15-mph speed limit for off-road vehicles. As a result of these measures, mitigated PM10
emissions are projected to be less than the 15 tons per year (tpy) PM10 threshold in both years of
construction. No additional mitigation measures are needed. Mitigated emissions are illustrated in Table
4.3-7, Mitigated Annual Construction Emissions, under Impact 4.3-4, of the Draft EIR, the project’s long-
term operational emissions would be well below EKAPCD’s applicable significance thresholds.

Eastern Kern County is currently in nonattainment for the O3 CAAQS and NAAQS, and the PM10 CAAQS,
as detailed in Table 4.3-1, National and State Criteria Pollutant Standards and Eastern Kern Air Pollution
Control District Attainment Status, under Section 4.3.2 of the Draft EIR. Certain individuals residing in
areas that do not meet the CAAQS or NAAQS could be exposed to pollutant concentrations that cause or
aggregative acute and/or chronic health conditions (e.g., asthmas, lost work days, premature mortality).

While implementation of the project would contribute to existing and future air pollution, project-generated
operational emissions represent approximately 1.31 percent of Kern County’s NOX emissions in 2020 and
0.29 percent of Mojave Desert Air Basin’s NOx emissions in 2020. Given the small size of this contribution,
the specific magnitude and locations of any potential changes in regional O3 formation, and associated
health consequences, from these additional emissions cannot be quantified with any level of certainty due
to the dynamic and complex nature of regional pollutant formation and distribution.

Therefore, operation of the project would not obstruct implementation of an air quality plan and
impacts would be less than significant.construction and operation of the project would not result
in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the projects’ region
is nonattainment under applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards and impacts would
be less than significant. BOS (7/27/2021)
Finding
The project would result in conflict or obstruction of the implementation of applicable air quality plans.
Additionally, construction and operation of the project would result in a cumulatively considerable net

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 14 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the projects’ region is nonattainment under applicable federal
or State ambient air quality standard, however Wwith the implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-
1 and through MM 4.3-25, construction and decommissioning impacts would be less than significant. (BOS
7/27/2021)

Level of Significance
Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-1 and MM
4.3-25. (BOS 7/27/2021)
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts related
to the conflict or obstruction of the implementation of applicable air quality control plans. With
implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-1 and through MM 4.3-25 impacts would be less than
significant. (BOS 7/27/2021)
MM 4.3-1: Implement Diesel Emission Reduction Measures during Construction, Operation and
Decommissioning. To control NOX and PM emissions during construction, the project

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 15 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
proponent/operator and/or its contractor(s) shall implement the following measures during
construction of the project, subject to verification by the County:
a. Off-road equipment engines over 25 horsepower shall be equipped with EPA Tier 3 or
higher engines, unless Tier 3 construction equipment is not locally available.
b. All equipment shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s
specifications.
c. Construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and
portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than 5 minutes.
d. Notification shall be provided to trucks and vehicles in loading or unloading queues
that their engines shall be turned off when not in use for more than 5 minutes.
e. Electric equipment shall be used to the extent feasible in lieu of diesel or gasoline-
powered equipment.
f. All construction vehicles shall be equipped with proper emissions control equipment
and kept in good and proper running order to substantially reduce NOX emissions.
g. On-road and off-road diesel equipment shall use diesel particulate filters (or the
equivalent) if permitted under manufacturer’s guidelines.
h. Existing electric power sources shall be used to the extent feasible. This measure would
minimize the use of higher polluting gas or diesel generators.
i. The hours of operation of heavy-duty equipment and/or the quantity of equipment in
use shall be limited to the extent feasible
MM 4.3-2: Implement Fugitive Dust Control Plan during Construction, Operations and
Decommissioning. To control fugitive PM emissions during construction, prior to the
issuance of grading or building permits and any earthwork activities, the project proponent
shall prepare a comprehensive Fugitive Dust Control Plan for review by the Kern County
Planning and Natural Resources Department. The plan shall include all EKAPCD-
recommended measures, including but not limited to, the following:
a. All soil being actively excavated or graded shall be sufficiently water to prevent
excessive dust. Watering shall occur as needed with complete coverage of disturbed
soils areas. Watering shall take place a minimum of three times daily where soil is
being actively disturbed, unless dust is otherwise controlled by rainfall or use of a dust
suppressant.
b. Vehicle speed for all on site (i.e., within the project boundary) construction vehicles
shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. Signs
identifying construction vehicle speed limits shall be posted along onsite roadways, at
the site entrance/exit, and along unpaved site access roads.
c. Vehicle speeds on all offsite unpaved project-site access roads (i.e., outside the project
boundary) construction vehicles shall not exceed 25 mph. Signs identifying vehicle

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 16 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
speed limits shall be posted along unpaved site access roads and at the site
entrance/exit.
d. All onsite unpaved roads and offsite unpaved public project-site access road(s) shall
be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or EKAPCD-approved dust
suppressants/palliatives, sufficient to prevent wind-blown dust exceeding 20 percent
opacity at nearby residences or public roads. If water is used, watering shall occur a
minimum of three times daily, sufficient to keep soil moist along actively used
roadways. During the dry season, unpaved road surfaces and vehicle parking/staging
areas shall be watered immediately prior to periods of high use (e.g., worker commute
periods, truck convoys). Reclaimed (non-potable) water shall be used to the extent
available and feasible.
e. The amount of the disturbed area (e.g., grading, excavation) shall be reduced and/or
phased where possible.
f. All disturbed areas shall be sufficiently watered or stabilized by EKAPCD-approved
methods to prevent excessive dust. On dry days, watering shall occur a minimum of
three times daily on actively disturbed areas. Watering frequency shall be increased
whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph or, as necessary, to prevent wind-blown dust
exceeding 20 percent opacity at nearby residences or public roads. Reclaimed (non-
potable) water shall be used to the extent available and feasible.
g. All clearing, grading, earth moving, and excavation activities shall cease during
periods when dust plumes of 20 percent or greater opacity affect public roads or nearby
occupied structures.
h. All disturbed areas anticipated to be inactive for periods of 30 days or more shall be
treated to minimize wind-blown dust emissions. Treatment may include, but is not
limited to, the application of an EKAPCD-approved chemical dust suppressant, gravel,
hydro-mulch, revegetation/seeding, or wood chips.
i. All active and inactive disturbed surface areas shall be stabilized, where feasible.
j. Equipment and vehicle access to disturbed areas shall be limited to only those vehicles
necessary to complete the construction activities.
k. Where applicable, permanent dust control measures shall be implemented as soon as
possible following completion of any soil-disturbing activities.
l. Stockpiles of dirt or other fine loose material shall be stabilized by watering or other
appropriate methods sufficient to reduce visible dust emissions to a limit of 20 percent
opacity. If necessary and where feasible, three-sided barriers shall be constructed

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 17 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
around storage piles and/or piles shall be covered by use of tarps, hydro-mulch,
woodchips, or other materials sufficient to minimize wind-blown dust.
m. Water shall be applied prior to and during the demolition of onsite structures sufficient
to minimize wind-blown dust.
n. Where acceptable to the fire department and feasible, weed control shall be
accomplished by mowing instead of disking, thereby leaving the ground undisturbed
and with a mulch covering.
o. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials shall be covered or shall
maintain at least six inches of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of the
load and top of the trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114.
p. Gravel pads, grizzly strips, or other material track-out control methods approved for
use by EKAPCD shall be installed where vehicles enter or exit unpaved roads onto
paved roadways.
q. Haul trucks and off-road equipment leaving the site shall be washed with water or high-
pressure air, and/or rocks/grates at the project entry points shall be used, when
necessary, to remove soil deposits and minimize the track-out/deposition of soil onto
nearby paved roadways.
r. During construction paved road surfaces adjacent to the site access road(s), including
adjoining paved aprons, shall be cleaned, as necessary, to remove visible
accumulations of track-out material. If dry sweepers are used, the area shall be sprayed
with water prior to sweeping to minimize the entrainment of dust. Reclaimed water
shall be used to the extent available.
s. Portable equipment, 50 horsepower or greater, used during construction activities (e.g.,
portable generators) shall require California statewide portable equipment registration
(issued by CARB) or an EKAPCD permit.
t. The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall identify a designated person or persons to monitor
the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures, as
necessary, to minimize the transport of dust off site and to ensure compliance with
identified fugitive dust control measures. Contact information for a hotline shall be
posted on site should any complaints or concerns be received during working hours
and holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The names and
telephone numbers of such persons shall be provided to the EKAPCD Compliance
Division prior to the start of any grading or earthwork.
u. Signs shall be posted at the project site entrance and written notifications shall be
provided a minimum of 30 days prior to initiation of project construction to residential
land uses located within 1,000 feet of the project site. The signs and written
notifications shall include the following information: (a) Project Name; (b) Anticipated

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 18 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
Construction Schedule(s); and (c) Telephone Number(s) for designated construction
activity monitor(s) or, if established, a complaint hotline.
v. The designated construction monitor shall document and immediately notify EKAPCD
of any air quality complaints received. If necessary, the project operator and/or
contractor will coordinate with EKAPCD to identify any additional feasible measures
and/or strategies to be implemented to address public complaints.
MM 4.3-3: Minimize Exposure to Potential Airborne Valley Fever–Containing Dust. To minimize
personnel and public exposure to potential Valley Fever–containing dust on and off site,
the following control measures shall be implemented during project construction:

a. Equipment, vehicles, and other items shall be thoroughly cleaned of dust before they
are moved off site to other work locations.
b. Wherever possible, grading and trenching work shall be phased so that earth-moving
equipment is working well ahead or downwind of workers on the ground.
c. The area immediately behind grading or trenching equipment shall be sprayed with
water before ground workers move into the area.
d. In the event that a water truck runs out of water before dust is sufficiently dampened,
ground workers being exposed to dust shall leave the area until a truck can resume
water spraying.
e. To the greatest extent feasible, heavy-duty earth-moving vehicles shall be closed-cab
and equipped with a HEP-filtered air system
f. Workers shall receive training in procedures to minimize activities that may result in
the release of airborne Coccidioides immitis (CI) spores, to recognize the symptoms of
Valley Fever, and shall be instructed to promptly report suspected symptoms of work-
related Valley Fever to a supervisor. Evidence of training shall be provided to the Kern
County Planning and Natural Resources Department within 5 days of the training
session.
g. A Valley Fever informational handout shall be provided to all onsite construction
personnel. The handout shall, at a minimum, provide information regarding the
symptoms, health effects, preventative measures, and treatment. Additional
information and handouts can be obtained by contacting the Kern County Public Health
Services Department.
h. Onsite personnel shall be trained on the proper use of personal protective equipment,
including respiratory equipment. National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health–approved respirators shall be provided to onsite personal, upon request. When
exposure to dust is unavoidable, provide appropriate NIOSH-approved respiratory
protection to affected workers. If respiratory protection is deemed necessary,
employers must develop and implement a respiratory protection program in accordance
with Cal/OSHA's Respiratory Protection standard (8 CCR 5144).

MM 4.3-4: At the time of project implementation, a COVID-19 Health and Safety Plan should be
prepared in accordance with the Kern County Public Health Services Department and Kern
County Health Officer mandates. A copy of the COVID-19 Health and Safety Plan shall
be submitted to the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department for review
and approval.

MM 4.3-5: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a one-time fee shall be paid to the Kern County
Public Health Services Department in the amount of $3,200 for Valley Fever public
awareness programs. (BOS 7/27/2021)

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 19 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
Significant Effect

The project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (Impact 4.3-2).
Description of Significant Impact
Sensitive receptors are particularly sensitive to air pollution because they are persons that are ill, elderly,
or have lungs that are not fully developed. Locations where such persons reside, spend considerable amount
of time, or engage in strenuous activities are also referred to as sensitive receptors. Typical sensitive
receptors include inhabitants of long-term healthcare facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers,
retirement homes, residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, and athletic facilities. As discussed
in Section 4.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, the closest sensitive receptors are approximately 120 feet from
the project borders. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-1 and MM 4.3-2 would ensure that all
readily available and feasible air quality control measures would be implemented to reduce emissions
associated with construction.

The primary toxic air contaminants (TAC) of concern for this project would be diesel particulate matter
(DPM) emitted within the project site from the construction, operational and decommissioning phases of
the proposed project. The proposed project is two photovoltaic solar generation facilities and is not
anticipated to generate any additional sources of toxic air contaminates with the exception of increased
DPM from construction, operational, and decommissioning activities. The solar facilities may have
emergency backup generators (diesel or battery powered) on site. These generators would follow strict
compliance with Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD) and California Air Resources
Board (CARB) rules and regulations. The anticipated emissions from these generators would be nominal
and would disperse quickly. Thus, as these generators would be approved and permitted with EKAPCD
and would follow strict compliance with EKAPCD and CARB rules and regulations, the operational DPM
emissions from these generators would be considered to have less than significant impacts and were not
calculated in the HRA.

As discussed in detail under Impact 4.3-2 of Section 4.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, in Sierra Club v.
County of Fresno (S219783) (Sierra Club) the Supreme Court held that CEQA requires environmental impact
reports to either (i) make a “reasonable effort” to substantively connect the estimated amount of a given air
pollutant a project will produce and the health effects associated with that pollutant, or (ii) explain why such
an analysis is infeasible (6 Cal.5th at 1165-66). However, the Court also clarified that that CEQA “does not
mandate” that EIRs include “an in-depth risk assessment” that provides “a detailed comprehensive analysis
… to evaluate and predict the dispersion of hazardous substances in the environment and the potential for
exposure of human populations and to assess and quantify both the individual and population wide health
risks associated with those levels of exposure.” Id. at 1665. However, correlating the project’s criteria air
pollutant to specific health impacts, particularly with respect to O3 is not possible because there is no feasible
or established scientific method to perform such analysis. This conclusion is supported by both the SJVAPCD
and the SCAQMD who have determined that this type of analysis is speculative and infeasible and there are
no unique issues for the SJVAPCD that would make this analysis invalid.

The SJVAPCD stated that even a project with criteria pollutant emissions above its CEQA thresholds does
not necessarily cause localized human health impacts as, even with relatively high levels of emissions, the
SJVAPCD cannot determine “whether and to what extent emissions from an individual project directly impact
human health in a particular area” (SJVAPCD, 2015). The SJVAPCD explained that this is particularly true

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 20 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

for development projects like the project, where most of the criteria pollutants derive from mobile and area
sources and not stationary sources. The SCAQMD also, as amicus curiae in Sierra Club, made similar points,
reiterating that “an agency should not be required to perform analyses that do not produce reliable or
meaningful results” (SCAQMD, 2015). SCAQMD agrees that it is very difficult to quantify health impacts
with regard to O3, opining that the only possible means of successfully doing so is for a project so large that
emissions would essentially amount to all regional increases (SCAQMD, 2015). With regard to particulate
matter, the SCAQMD noted that while the CARB has created a methodology to predict expected mortality
from large amount of PM2.5, the primary author of the methodology has reported that it “may yield unreliable
results due to various uncertainties” and CARB staff has been directed by its Governing Board to reassess and
improve it, which factor “also counsels against setting any hard-and-fast rule” about conducting this type of
analysis (SCAQMD, 2015). The amicus briefs filed by SJVAPCD and SCAQMD in Sierra Club are attached
as part of Appendix C-2 of the Draft EIR.

Regarding health effects of criteria air pollutants, the project’s potential to result in regional health effects
associated with ROG, NOX, PM10 and PM2.5 on specific vulnerable populations cannot be calculated given
existing scientific constraints. A scientific method to calculate the exact number of individuals in a
vulnerable population that will get sick has not been developed, and therefore, it is assumed localized health
effects associated with NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from project implementation could occur. The
project proposes the construction and operation of a large-scale utility solar project that would require dust-
generating construction activities such as pile-driving, mowing, and grading, over a large area. Due to the
open nature of the project site, blowing dust could occur and result in the dispersal of criteria air pollutants
such as PM2.5 and potentially contribute to the transmission of respiratory diseases like COVID-19. While
COVID-19 is thought to spread mainly through close contact from person-to-person, the CDC is still
learning how the virus spreads and the severity of the illness it causes (CDC, 2020b). COVID-19 research
and causality is still in the beginning stages. A nationwide study by Harvard University found a linkage
between long term exposure to PM2.5 as air pollution and statistically significant increased risk of COVID-
19 death in the United States (Harvard, 2020). While, construction dust suppression measures would be
implemented in Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-2, exposure to dust during construction could still occur which
could increase the health susceptibility and increase the severity of the disease. While there are vaccines
for COVID-19, they are currently only available to public meeting certain criteria and not readily available
to all public. In addition to implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-2, the project would implement
Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-3, which requires implementation of a COVID-19 Health and Safety Plan in
accordance with the Kern County Public Health Services Department and Kern County Health Officer
mandates.

Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-2 and MM 4.3-3 would be required to reduce
the project’s regional and localized health effects associated with criteria air pollutants and COVID-19;
however, the exact reduction from implementation of these mitigation measures cannot be quantified given
existing scientific constraints.

The project has the potential to generate fugitive dust and suspend Valley Fever spores with the dust that
could then reach nearby sensitive receptors. The project could disturb dust particles and, if present,
Coccidioides immitis (CI) spores, which could then be released into the air and potentially be inhaled by
on‐site workers and nearby sensitive receptors; exposure to these spores can cause an illness in some
individuals known as Valley Fever. Because dust can be an indicator that increased efforts are needed to

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 21 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

control other airborne particulates (including CI spores, if any), the project is required to control dust and
the potential for exposure to any CI spores as well as provide training and awareness of Valley Fever via
Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-2 through MM 4.3-5.

Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-2 requires the project to have comprehensive site construction controls in
place to proactively control the generation of fugitive dust as required and regulated by the EKAPCD Rule
402. This Rule also requires the site to have a designated dust monitor, as well as visible signage for nearby
residents with the phone number for the site construction management and the EKAPKD for nearby
residents use if they see blowing dust.

Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-3 requires the project to provide training to construction workers on measures
they must take to proactively control and reduce fugitive dust and the potential for the release of CI spores
during their ground disturbing activities, training on specific worker/task safety procedures, and general
information regarding symptoms testing and treatment options for Valley Fever. All workers are trained in
and are expected to use their “stop work” authority if their activities are deemed to be causing the release
of fugitive dust. This Mitigation Measure also requires the project to develop an educational Valley Fever
Training Handout for distribution to onsite workers and nearby residents. This handout contains general
information about the causes, symptoms, and treatment instructions regarding Valley Fever, including
contact information of local health departments and clinics knowledgeable about Valley Fever. MM 4.3-4
requires the implementation of a COVD-10 Health and Safety Plan. MM 4.3-5 is proposed to ensure
appropriate public awareness regarding Valley Fever. With the implementation of the mitigation measures,
dust from the construction of the proposed project would not add significantly to the existing exposure level
of people to this fungus, including construction workers, and impacts would be reduced to less-than-
significant levels.
Finding
The project would result in impacts related to criteria air pollutants. With the implementation of Mitigation
Measures MM 4.3-1 and MM 4.3-2, described above, and Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-3 through MM
4.3-5, below, impacts would be less than significant.

Level of Significance
With the implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-1 and MM 4.3-2 and Mitigation Measures MM
4.3-3 through MM 4.3-5, impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations would be less than significant. (BOS 7/27/2021)
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts related
to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. With implementation of
Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-1 and MM 4.3-2, described above, and Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-3
through MM 4.3-5 impacts would be less than significant.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 22 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
MM 4.3-3: Minimize Exposure to Potential Airborne Valley Fever–Containing Dust. To minimize
personnel and public exposure to potential Valley Fever–containing dust on and off site,
the following control measures shall be implemented during project construction:
a. Equipment, vehicles, and other items shall be thoroughly cleaned of dust before they
are moved off site to other work locations.
b. Wherever possible, grading and trenching work shall be phased so that earth-moving
equipment is working well ahead or downwind of workers on the ground.
c. The area immediately behind grading or trenching equipment shall be sprayed with
water before ground workers move into the area.
d. In the event that a water truck runs out of water before dust is sufficiently dampened,
ground workers being exposed to dust shall leave the area until a truck can resume
water spraying.
e. To the greatest extent feasible, heavy-duty earth-moving vehicles shall be closed-cab
and equipped with a HEP-filtered air system.
f. Workers shall receive training in procedures to minimize activities that may result in
the release of airborne Coccidioides immitis (CI) spores, to recognize the symptoms of
Valley Fever, and shall be instructed to promptly report suspected symptoms of work-
related Valley Fever to a supervisor. Evidence of training shall be provided to the Kern
County Planning and Natural Resources Department within 5 days of the training
session.
g. A Valley Fever informational handout shall be provided to all onsite construction
personnel. The handout shall, at a minimum, provide information regarding the
symptoms, health effects, preventative measures, and treatment. Additional
information and handouts can be obtained by contacting the Kern County Public Health
Services Department.
h. Onsite personnel shall be trained on the proper use of personal protective equipment,
including respiratory equipment. National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health–approved respirators shall be provided to onsite personal, upon request. When
exposure to dust is unavoidable, provide appropriate NIOSH-approved respiratory
protection to affected workers. If respiratory protection is deemed necessary,
employers must develop and implement a respiratory protection program in accordance
with Cal/OSHA's Respiratory Protection standard (8 CCR 5144).
MM 4.3-4: At the time of project implementation, a COVID-19 Health and Safety Plan should be
prepared in accordance with the Kern County Public Health Services Department and Kern
County Health Officer mandates. A copy of the COVID-19 Health and Safety Plan shall

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 23 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
be submitted to the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department for review
and approval.
MM 4.3-5: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a one-time fee shall be paid to the Kern County
Public Health Services Department in the amount of $3,200 for Valley Fever public
awareness programs.

C. Environmental Effects of the Project that Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less Than

Significant Level.
The project would not have any environmental effects related to air quality that cannot be mitigated to a
less-than-significant level. (7/27/2021)

D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project that Would Have a Less-Than-

Significant Impact on the Environment.
As detailed in the NOP and in Section 4.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, it is not expected that the
construction of the project would result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) that would
adversely affect a substantial number of people. As a result, no cumulatively considerable increase related
to emissions (such as those leading to odors) that would adversely affect a substantial number of people is
anticipated to occur. (Impact 4.3-3)

C. Environmental Effects of the Project that Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant
Level.

The project would not have any environmental effects related to air quality that cannot be
mitigated to a less-than-significant level. (BOS 7/27/2021) E. Cumulative
Environmental Effects of the Project that Would Have a Significant and
Unavoidable Impact on the Environment.

Significant Effect
Construction and operation of the project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria
pollutant for which the projects’ region is nonattainment under applicable federal or State ambient air
quality standards.

Operation of the project would result in an overall net reduction of emissions by providing electricity that
would displace energy produced from fossil fuels. Operation of the project does not exceed the project-
level regulatory thresholds and, therefore, would not contribute to a long-term cumulative increase in
criteria pollutants. The project’s incremental contribution to operational impacts would not be
cumulatively considerable.

Description of Significant Impact

The discussion provided in the Draft EIR evaluates localized impacts, including projects located within a
1- and 6-mile radius; evaluates consistency with existing air quality plans; and compares project emissions
to CARB emission projections for the region, consistent with the criterion provided in Kern County
Planning Department’s Guidelines for Preparing an Air Quality Assessment for Use in Environmental
Impact Reports.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 24 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

While the implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-1 through MM 4.3-5 would reduce impacts
related to NOx and PM10 from diesel emissions, reduce dust generation, and address potential Valley Fever
risk by implementing fugitive dust control measures, establishing a public complaint protocol for excessive
dust generation, and requiring Valley Fever-related training for construction workers. However, assuming
on a worst-case basis that the construction schedules for all cumulative projects would overlap with each
other and with the proposed project, cumulative impacts during construction emissions would be
cumulatively considerable.

The project would not be a significant source of TACs and is not expected to pose a significant cumulative
TAC impact. Additionally, the majority of the projects are also solar plants, TACs would not be considered
a significant impact for those projects either. Impacts with respect to health risk are less than significant
and no other health risk assessment is required. Therefore, TACs impacts would not be cumulatively
considerable and impacts would be less than significant.

As detailed in Section 4.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, Traffic increases and added congestion caused by
a project can combine to cause a CO “Hotspot.” As detailed in Section 4.3.2, the minimal traffic increases
from the construction and operation of the proposed project would not be significant enough to result in a
CO Hotspot. Therefore, cumulative CO “Hotspot” Modeling was not conducted for this project and no
concentrated excessive CO emissions are expected to be caused once the proposed project is completed.
Additionally, as the majority of the other projects are also solar plants, traffic would be minimal and would
not result in CO “Hotspots.” Therefore, CO impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and impacts
would be less than significant.

However, potential cumulative impacts to air quality could occur from construction and operation of the
proposed Project in combination with regional growth projections in the same air basin. It is speculative to
determine how exceeding the regional thresholds would affect the number of days the region is in
nonattainment since mass emissions are not correlated with concentrations of emissions or how many
additional individuals in the air basin would be affected by the health impacts mentioned. The Air District
is the primary agency responsible for ensuring the health and welfare of sensitive individuals to elevated
concentrations of air quality in the Mojave Desert Air Basin at the present time and it has not provided
methodology to assess the specific correlation between mass emissions generated and the effect on health.
Therefore, cumulative impacts for criteria pollutants are considered significant and unavoidable.

Finding
The project in combination with other projects would result in temporary significant and unavoidable
cumulative impact during construction and decommissioning of the project. Even with implementation of
Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-1 through MM 4.3-5, described above, cumulative impacts would be
significant and unavoidable.

Level of Significance
Cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable during construction and decommissioning of the
project, even with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-1 through MM 4.3-5. Cumulative
impacts related to operation of the project would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation
Measures MM 4.3-1 through MM 4.3-5.

Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 25 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-1 through MM 4.3-5 would reduce impacts during
construction and decommissioning, but not to a less-than-significant level. The uncertainty of the project’s
regional and localized health impacts associated with criteria air pollutants, such as NOx and PM10 along
with indirect linkages of criteria pollutants and COVID-19, on vulnerable populations would result in
significant and unavoidable cumulative level impacts. Cumulative impacts related to operation of the
project would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-1 through MM
4.3-5.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the

Environment, or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means (Impact 4.4-3).
The project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan (Impact
4.4-6).

B. Environmental Effects of the Project that Are Potentially Significant, but that Can
Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.

Significant Effect
The project would have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Impact
4.4-1).

Description of Significant Impact

The project has the potential to impact special-status plants and wildlife through the loss of habitat, as well
as direct and indirect impacts on species, such as mortality of individuals, interference with reproductive
success, introduction of invasive species, and habitat degradation. Potential impacts to special-status plants
and wildlife from construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning are discussed in detail in
Section 4.4, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR.

The project site contains marginally suitable habitat for a few special-status plants, all with a low to
moderate potential to occur on site. Although habitat is marginal for special-status plants, the following
regulated plant species were observed on the project site: alkali mariposa lily and western Joshua tree. Direct
impacts to these two regulated plants may occur during the construction phase of the project through
clearing of vegetation. Impacts would be mitigated to a level of less than significant through the
implementation of special-status plant avoidance and minimization measures described in Mitigation
Measures MM 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-5and MM 4.4-12 , and MM 4.9-3 would be implemented. With the
implementation of these mitigation measures, which include monitoring, worker environmental awareness
training, preconstruction clearance survey, general biological resources avoidance measures, preconstruction

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 26 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

special-status plant surveys, and creation of a Joshua Tree Preservation Plan, impacts would be less than
significant. (BOS 7/27/2021)

Special-status wildlife species confirmed present for the project site include burrowing owl, Swainson’s
hawk, northern harrier, American peregrine falcon, loggerhead shrike, American badger, and desert kit fox.
Additionally, the following four special-status species have a moderate potential to occur onsite: crotch
bumble bee, golden eagle, mountain plover, and LeConte’s thrasher. While northern harrier, American
peregrine falcon, golden eagle, and mountain plover may occur as migrates or foraging birds on the project
site, no suitable nesting habitat for these species are present on the project site, and thus no significant
impacts to these species would occur. Suitable habitat for several migratory birds and raptors protected
under the MBTA and the CFGC are also present. Construction of the project could result in the direct
impacts of these special-status species if any are present.

Direct impacts to crotch bumble bee include removal and loss of potential food sources and to individual
eggs, larvae, and pupal stages of the crotch bumble bee, if present. This species’ preferred substrates for
underground nest sites and preferred plants for nectaring are unknown (Koch et al 2012). The loss of habitat
is not expected to be significant because of the abundance of similar suitable habitat surrounding the project
site.

Direct impacts to the burrowing owl and its habitat could occur as a result of project construction through
the loss of available habitat and potential breeding burrows due to construction activities and increased
human presence. Based on focused surveys conducted in 2020, two active nests were adjacent to the project
site and one burrow with a single owl was observed on the project site. Additional, burrowing owl sign was
observed within the project site. Besides direct impacts to burrows and habitat, construction activities could
directly impact occupied burrows resulting in injury or mortality to individual owls. Birds flying away from
burrows could collide with machinery or vehicles and are more likely to be predated by other animals such
as red-tailed hawks and coyotes. Indirect impacts could also occur during construction if burrowing owls
are nesting in adjacent offsite areas within 500 feet of the project site, and noise from construction activities
harasses an owl to the point of abandoning an active burrow. Other indirect impacts include vehicle
emissions, dust, habitat degradation from introduction of non-native plants or other factors. Any adverse
direct or indirect impacts to burrowing owls as a result of construction would be considered significant
under CEQA. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-2 through 4.4-4, MM 4.4-6, and
MM 4.4-7 are proposed to be implemented which include monitoring, education awareness training,
preconstruction clearance survey, general biological resources avoidance measures, preconstruction
burrowing owl surveys, and nesting bird surveys, would reduce the potential impacts. Mitigation Measure
MM 4.9-3, as discussed in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, also requires applying non-toxic
herbicide if dens or nests are found. Implementing these mitigation measures would ensure that nesting or
foraging burrowing owls impacted during construction are mitigated for. With implementation of these
mitigation measures, impacts to burrowing owl would be less than significant.

Swainson’s hawks occur in the project vicinity and have a decreasing presence in this area, although,
Swainson’s hawk continue to nest around agricultural areas in the Antelope Valley. Swainson’s hawks
show nest site fidelity and typically forage in suitable habitat adjacent to their nest sites. The project site
provides both suitable foraging and nesting habitat. A Swainson’s hawk nest was observed on the project
site during 2020 burrowing owl surveys in an Aleppo pine. Site development would result in the permanent

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 27 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

loss of foraging habitat which would be considered a significant impact. The Aleppo pine will remain in
place, therefore, no direct impact to the nest will occur. Besides a direct loss of foraging habitat, should the
species happen to be present during construction activities, other direct impacts include death or injury to
eggs and chicks, nest destruction, displacement of hawks and loss of territory, and disruption of breeding
activities. Indirect impacts from construction and decommissioning activities include disturbance to nesting
individuals related to increase dust, noise, vibrations, and increase human presence. Potential impacts would
be avoided through implementation of minimization measures, including avian nesting surveys that would
detect any nesting Swainson’s hawk within the project vicinity and mitigate for loss of foraging habitat per
Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-7 and preparation and implementation of a Swainson’s Hawk Monitoring and
Mitigation Plan per Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-8. Potential impacts would be further reduced through
implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-2 through MM 4.4-4 which include worker training,
general avoidance and protection measures, and preconstruction surveys prior to initial grading activities.
With implementation of these mitigation measures, project level impacts to Swainson’s hawk would be less
than significant.

The project site contains suitable nesting and foraging habitat for loggerhead shrike and LeConte’s thrasher,
the latter species being documented during 2017 surveys. Direct impacts to loggerhead shrike and
LeConte’s thrasher and their habitat could occur as a result of project construction from removal of
vegetation that provides suitable habitat for this species during the nesting season which could include death
or injury to chicks. The act of removing habitat may additionally result in destruction of nests and vehicular
strikes to birds that are attempting to flee the disturbance, which could result in injuries or mortality.
Potential indirect effects on loggerhead shrike and LeConte’s thrasher from construction and
decommissioning activities include disturbance to nesting individuals related to increase dust, noise,
vibrations, and increase human presence. The loss of foraging and nesting habitat is not expected to be
significant because of the abundance of suitable habitat surrounding the project site. To reduce potential
significant impacts to loggerhead shrike and LeConte’s thrasher, Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1 through
MM 4.4-4 and MM 4.4-7 would be implemented. With the implementation of these mitigation measures
which include monitoring, education awareness training, preconstruction clearance survey, general
biological resources avoidance measures, and preconstruction nesting bird surveys, impacts would be less
than significant.

Direct impacts to American badger from project construction activities may include permanent and
temporary loss of habitat or injure or death could result from adults or young being crushed in dens or from
collisions with vehicles. This species is locally scarce but within a wide range. Indirect effects due to
displacement of this species could also occur as a result of construction activities associated with the project.
These types of potential impacts to this species would be considered significant without mitigation. To
reduce potential significant impacts to American badger, Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-
4 would be implemented. With the implementation of these mitigation measures which include monitoring,
education awareness training, preconstruction clearance survey, and general biological resources avoidance
measures, impacts would be less than significant.

Desert kit fox sign and burrows were observed within and in the vicinity of the project site during 2017 and
2020 surveys. Although this species is protected under Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section
460, it does not constitute as a special-status species; therefore, loss of suitable habitat for desert kit fox is
not considered significant. However, direct impacts to the species could include the loss of potential

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 28 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

burrows due to construction activities and increased human presence, and injury or death could result from
adults or young being crushed in dens or from collisions with vehicles. These types of potential impacts to
this species would be considered significant. To reduce potential significant impacts to desert kit fox,
Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-4 would be implemented. With the implementation of
these mitigation measures which include monitoring, education awareness training, preconstruction
clearance survey, and general biological resources avoidance measures, impacts would be less than
significant.

Project-related direct impacts on nesting birds during construction could include crushing of or vehicle
collisions with nesting birds and/or destruction of nests and eggs during vegetation clearing and grading
with heavy machinery. Potential indirect impacts include interference with reproductive success and nest
abandonment in adjacent areas from increased human presence and increased noise levels (and vibration)
from project construction. Reproductive and nest impact could occur if construction occurs during the
breeding season, which is generally considered to be February 1 through August 31 in the Mojave Desert.
Impacts to these species would be considered significant. To reduce potentially significant impacts to
nesting birds, Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-7 requires implementation of preconstruction nesting bird
surveys as well as avoidance and minimization measures if active nests are found. Mitigation Measure MM
4.9-3 also requires applying non-toxic herbicide if burrows, dens, or nests are found. Impacts to nesting or
foraging birds would be less than significant during construction with the implementation of these
mitigation measures.

Direct impacts to special-status species are unlikely to result from project operation and maintenance
activities because project implementation would remove habitat for special-status species on the project
site, although wildlife movement through or around the project site (i.e., wildlife fencing) would still allow
limited movement. Additionally, Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-2 and MM 4.4-3 require methods designed
to reduce wildlife mortality and impacts, promote long-term project site suitability, and educate onsite
personnel. Project operation could result in indirect impacts to wildlife in proximity of the project if
nighttime lighting is used. However, the potential indirect impact from nighttime lighting during operation
and maintenance would be minimized through compliance with all development standards, the Kern County
Zoning Ordinance, and the goals, policies, and implementation measures of the Kern County General Plan.
The proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 4.1-4 which requires compliance
with the Kern County’s Dark Skies Ordinance to minimize nighttime lighting in unincorporated areas of
Kern County.
Potential direct impacts to raptor species from the operations and maintenance phase of the project may
occur through the collisions into and/or electrocution from power lines anticipated to be installed
throughout the project site but particularly along the proposed gen-tie interconnection routes. Operation
and maintenance activities could disturb nesting Swainson’s hawk given the known nest location. While
collision/electrocution impacts to the aforementioned raptors are potentially significant, impacts would be
reduce through the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-8 through MM 4.4-9. Specifically, the
Swainson’s Hawk Monitoring and Mitigation Plan would be implemented to ensure operation and
maintenance activities do not disturb nesting Swainson’s hawk. Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-9 requires
power lines to be installed per APLIC standards, reducing the likelihood of collision and/or electrocution
from power lines. Direct and indirect impacts to Swainson’s hawk and other raptors would be less than
significant with the implementation of the above mitigation measures.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 29 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
Direct and indirect impacts to avian species may occur during project operation and maintenance through
individual collisions with project facilities and equipment including transmission wires, fencing, array
structures, and heavy equipment. Factors that may determine the risk of avian collisions with man-made
structures include the size, height, and specific attributes of the structures (guy wires and lighting/light
attraction). Collisions with project facilities and equipment would be considered a potentially significant
impact under CEQA. Potential indirect impacts to migratory bird species from the operations and
maintenance phase of the project may occur through “lake effect” from utility-scale solar panel arrays. The
lake effect refers to the perception of solar panels as water by birds. To reduce potentially significant direct
and indirect impacts to migratory birds, Mitigation Measure MM 4.1-4 and MM 4.1-5 would be
implemented to ensure solar panels and hardware are designed to minimize glare and spectral highlighting
as described in Section 4.1, Aesthetics. Impacts to migratory birds would be less than significant during
operation and maintenance with the implementation of these mitigation measures.
Upon decommissioning of the proposed project, the project site would be disturbed and have some areas of
compacted soil (e.g., on roads, laydown yards, and structure foundations). The post-project condition of the
project site as a result of project construction and operation would be different than pre-project conditions.
If special-status species have recolonized the project site during operation, decommissioning could impact
these species. Decommissioning would only directly impact areas that were previously disturbed during
project construction; therefore, direct impacts to native habitats and special-status plants are expected to be
less than significant. If special-status wildlife re-occupy the project site during operations, these species
could be directly impacted by decommissioning, similar to the direct impacts described for construction.
Wildlife with the potential to utilize partially-developed habitats and man-made structures include
burrowing owls, kit fox, badger, bats, and nesting birds. Burrowing owls are known to use burrows under
concrete slabs and along active road berms.
Indirect impacts to biological resources would be similar to those that would occur during construction, but
would depend on the resources present adjacent to the project site at the time of decommissioning.
Additional indirect impacts could include degradation of adjacent habitat if the site is colonized by invasive
species or generates excessive runoff or dust due to a lack of vegetation. Depending on the species and
biological resources present within and adjacent to the project site at the time of decommissioning,
decommissioning activities could result in significant impacts to biological resources.
However, Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-4 require biological monitoring, worker
education training, measures for avoidance and protection of biological resources, and preconstruction
clearance surveys. Implementation of these mitigation measures during the decommissioning period would
reduce potentially significant impacts to special-status wildlife and plant species to less than significant.
Finding
The project has the potential to indirectly impact special-status plant species and the project has the potential
to directly and indirectly impact wildlife. These impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level
with the implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-9, described below, Mitigation
Measures MM 4.1-4 and MM 4.1-5 described above in Findings for Aesthetics, and Mitigation Measure
MM 4.9-3, described below in Findings for Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
Level of Significance
With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-9, Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-
1 and MM 4.1-5, and Mitigation Measure MM 4.9-3, impacts would be less than significant.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 30 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-9, described below, Mitigation
Measures MM 4.1-4 and MM 4.1-5, described above in Findings for Aesthetics, and Mitigation Measure
MM 4.9-3, described below in Findings for Hazards and Hazardous Materials, would reduce impacts to
less-than-significant levels.
MM 4.4-1: Biological Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits and prior to
decommissioning, the project operator shall retain a Lead Biologist who meets the
qualifications of an Authorized Biologist as defined by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
oversee compliance with protection measures for all listed and other special-status species.
The Lead Biologist shall be on the project site during construction of perimeter fencing
and grading activities throughout the construction phase, and as-needed during
decommissioning. The Lead Biologist shall have the right to halt all activities that are in
violation of the special-status species protection measures. Work shall proceed only after
hazards to special-status species are removed and the species is no longer at risk. The Lead
Biologist shall have in her/his possession a copy of all the compliance measures and
appropriate Plans while work is being conducted on the project site.
MM 4.4-2: Construction Worker Environmental Awareness Training and Education Program.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits and for the duration of construction and
decommissioning activities, within one week of employment all new construction workers
at the project site, laydown area and/or transmission routes shall attend an Environmental
Awareness Training and Education Program, developed and presented by the Lead
Biologist. Any employee responsible for the operations and maintenance or
decommissioning of the project facilities shall also attend the Environmental Awareness
Training and Education Program.
The program shall include information on the life history of the alkali mariposa lily,
burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk and other raptors, nesting birds, American badger, desert
kit fox, as well as other wildlife and plant species that may be encountered during
construction activities. The program shall also discuss the legal protection status of each
species, the definition of “take” under the federal Endangered Species Act and California
Endangered Species Act, measures the project operator is implementing to protect the
species, reporting requirements, specific measures that each worker shall employ to avoid
take of wildlife species, and penalties for violation of the federal Endangered Species Act
or California Endangered Species Act.
a. An acknowledgement form signed by each worker indicating that Environmental
Awareness Training and Education Program has been completed would be kept on
record;
b. A sticker shall be placed on hard hats indicating that the worker has completed the
Environmental Awareness Training and Education Program. Construction workers
shall not be permitted to operate equipment within the construction areas unless they
have attended the Environmental Awareness Training and Education Program and are
wearing hard hats with the required sticker;

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 31 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
c. A copy of the training transcript and/or training video, as well as a list of the names of
all personnel who attended the Environmental Awareness Training and Education
Program and copies of the signed acknowledgement forms shall be submitted to the
Kern County Planning and Community Development Department;
d. The construction crews and contractor(s) shall be responsible for unauthorized impacts
from construction activities to sensitive biological resources that are outside the areas
defined as subject to impacts by project permits; and
e. An Operation and Maintenance-phase version of the WEAP will be maintained within
the applicant’s centralized O&M headquarters for all AV projects, located in the City
of Lancaster, for review as may be necessary during the life of the project.
MM 4.4-3: Avoidance and Protection of Biological Resources. During construction, operations and
maintenance, and decommissioning the project operator shall implement the following
general avoidance and protective measures.
a. All proposed impact areas, including solar fields, staging areas, access routes, and
disposal or temporary placement of spoils, shall be delineated with stakes and/or
flagging prior to construction to avoid natural resources where possible. Construction-
related activities outside of the impact zone shall be avoided.
b. The project operator shall limit the areas of disturbance to the extent feasible. Parking
areas, new roads, staging, storage, excavation, and disposal site locations shall be
confined to the smallest areas possible. These areas shall be flagged and disturbance
activities, vehicles, and equipment shall be confined to these flagged areas.
c. Spoils shall be stockpiled in disturbed areas that lack native vegetation. Best
management practices shall be employed to prevent erosion in accordance with the
project’s approved stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). All detected
erosion shall be remedied within 2 days of discovery or as described in the SWPPP.
d. To prevent inadvertent entrapment of desert kit foxes, American badgers, or other
wildlife during construction, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than 2
feet deep shall be covered with plywood or similar materials at the close of each
working day, or provided with one or more escape ramps constructed of earth fill or
wooden planks. All holes and trenches, whether covered or not, shall be inspected for
trapped wildlife at the start and end of each workday. Before such holes or trenches are
filled, they shall be thoroughly inspected by the Lead Biologist or approved biological
monitor for trapped wildlife. If trapped animals are observed, escape ramps or
structures shall be installed immediately to allow escape. If a listed species is found
trapped, all work in the vicinity of the animal shall cease immediately. If the animal is
apparently uninjured, then the Lead Biologist shall directly supervise the provision of
escape structures and/or trench modification to allow the trapped animal to escape
safely. Work shall not resume in the vicinity of the animal, and it shall be allowed to
leave the work area and project site on its own. If the listed animal is injured, then the
Lead Biologist or approved biological monitor shall immediately contact the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife to identify an
individual with the appropriate permit or authorization to handle listed species, who

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 32 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
shall bring the animal to a pre-identified wildlife rehabilitation or veterinary facility
for care.
e. Burrowing owls, mammals, and nesting birds may use construction pipes, culverts, or
similar structures for refuge or nesting. All towers shall be of the monopole variety and
all hollow vertical structures, such as solar mount poles, or fencing poles, shall be
capped immediately after installation to prevent bird entrapment. Therefore, all
construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of 4 inches or more
that are stored at a construction site for one or more overnight periods shall be
thoroughly inspected for special-status wildlife or nesting birds before the pipe is
subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If an animal is
discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe shall not be moved until the Lead
Biologist has been consulted and the animal has either moved from the structure on its
own accord (for listed species) or until the animal has been captured and relocated (for
non-listed species) by the Lead Biologist. If the animal is a listed species, then work
shall immediately halt in the vicinity, and the animal shall be allowed to move from
the structure and the work area of its own accord. The Lead Biologist will direct work
stoppages near the animal to allow it to freely move out of the pipe and away from the
work area. Listed species shall not be handled or captured by anyone without the
appropriate permit or authorization.
f. No vehicle or equipment parked on the project site shall be moved prior to inspecting
the ground beneath the vehicle or equipment for the presence of wildlife. If present,
the animal shall be left to move on its own.
g. Vehicular traffic to and from the project site shall use existing routes of travel. Cross
country vehicle and equipment use outside designated work areas shall be prohibited.
h. A speed limit of 15 miles per hour shall be enforced within the limits of the proposed
project.
i. A long-term trash abatement program shall be established for construction, operations
and maintenance, and decommissioning. Trash and food items shall be contained in
closed containers and removed daily to reduce the attractiveness to opportunistic
predators such as common ravens, coyotes, and feral dogs.
j. Workers shall be prohibited from bringing pets and firearms to the project area and
from feeding wildlife.
k. Intentional killing or collection of any plant or wildlife species shall be prohibited.
l. To enable kit foxes and other wildlife (e.g., American badger) to pass through the
project site after construction, the security fence, and any permanent interior fencing
shall be a wildlife friendly design that meets the goals of allowing wildlife to move
freely through the project site during operation, leaving 4- to 7-inch openings or portals
in the fence or the fence shall be raised 7 inches above the ground leaving a gap
between the fence mesh and the ground. In the latter case the bottom of the fence fabric
shall be knuckled (wrapped back to form a smooth edge) to protect wildlife that passes
under the fence.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 33 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
MM 4.4-4: Preconstruction Clearance Surveys. During construction and decommissioning, the
Lead Biologist or approved biological monitor shall monitor all initial ground-disturbance
activities and remain on-call throughout construction/decommissioning in the event a
special-status species wanders into the project site.
Preconstruction surveys for special-status species shall be conducted within the project
boundaries by the Lead Biologist or approved biological monitor within 14 days of the start
of any vegetation clearing or grading activities. Methodology for preconstruction surveys
shall be appropriate for each potentially occurring species-status species and shall follow
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife
preconstruction survey guidelines where appropriate. Surveys need not be conducted for
all areas of suitable habitat at one time; they may be phased so that surveys occur within
14 days of the portion of the project site being disturbed. The Lead Biologist may use a
variety of approaches (including but not limited to monitoring, track plates, and direct
observation) and evidence (including burrow characteristics and presence of sign such as
scat and tracks) to determine burrow activity. If any evidence of occupation of the project
site special-status species is observed, a buffer shall be established by a qualified biologist
that results in sufficient avoidance, as described below.
If desert tortoises are found onsite during subsequent surveys or biological monitoring
activities, construction activities shall cease to avoid the potential for take and consultation
with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife shall
be initiated to obtain the necessary incidental take permit authorizations or provide
evidence such a permit is not required.
Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist for the presence of
American badger or desert kit fox dens within 14 days prior to commencement of
construction activities. The surveys shall be conducted in the project site for American
badger and desert kit fox. Surveys need not be conducted for all areas of suitable habitat at
one time; they may be phased so that surveys occur within 14 days prior to that portion of
the project site disturbed. If potential dens are observed and avoidance is feasible, the
following buffer distances shall be established prior to construction activities:
a. Desert kit fox or American badger potential den: 50 feet.
b. Desert kit fox or American badger active den: 100 feet.
c. Desert kit fox or American badger natal den: 500 feet.
If avoidance of the potential dens is not possible, the following measures are required to
avoid potential adverse effects to the American badger and desert kit fox:
a. If the qualified biologist determines that potential dens are inactive, the biologist shall
excavate these dens by hand with a shovel to prevent American badgers or desert kit
foxes from re-using them during construction.
b. If the qualified biologist determines that potential dens may be active, an onsite passive
relocation program shall be implemented. This program shall consist of excluding
American badgers or desert kit foxes from occupied burrows by installation of one-way
doors at burrow entrances, monitoring of the burrow for 7 days to confirm usage has

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 34 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
been discontinued, and excavation and collapse of the burrow to prevent reoccupation.
After the qualified biologist determines that American badgers or desert kit foxes have
stopped using the dens within the project boundary, the dens shall be hand-excavated
with a shovel to prevent re-use during construction.
During fencing and grading activities daily monitoring reports shall be prepared by the
monitoring biologists. The Lead Biologist shall prepare a summary monitoring report
documenting the effectiveness and practicality of the protection measures that are in place
and making recommendations for modifying the measures to enhance species protection,
as needed. The report shall also provide information on the overall activities conducted
related to biological resources, including the Environmental Awareness Training and
Education Program, clearance/pre-activity surveys, monitoring activities, and any
observed special-status species, including injuries and fatalities. These monitoring reports
shall be submitted to the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department
and relevant resource agencies, as applicable, on a monthly basis along with copies of all
survey reports
MM 4.4-5: Preconstruction Special-Status Plant Surveys. Within 14 days prior to the
commencement of any ground-disturbing activities, the project operator shall conduct
preconstruction surveys for special-status and protected plant species within the project
area, including but not limited to Joshua trees and alkali mariposa lily. After the
preconstruction survey determines the exact location of these species, if present, on the
project site and the number of individuals or populations present, the project
proponent/operator shall submit written documentation to the Kern County Planning and
Natural Resources Department confirming implementation of the measures described
below.
a. The project proponent/operator shall work with a qualified biologist to determine
presence of and identify all known locations of western Joshua tree and alkali mariposa
lily to establish “avoidance areas”. All special-status plants found within the project
site shall be avoided by a buffer of 25 feet through micro-siting activities, with the
exception of Joshua Trees, which will be avoided by a buffer of 290 feet per CDFW
recommendations. Sturdy, highly visible, orange plastic construction fencing (or
equivalent material verified by the authorized biologist) shall be installed around all
locations of detected special-status plants to protect from impacts during the
construction phase, until they can be relocated. The fence shall be securely staked and
installed in a durable manner that would be reasonably expected to withstand wind and
weather events and last at least through the construction period. Fencing shall be
removed upon completion of the project construction.
b. All alkali mariposa lilies that cannot feasibly be avoided in final project design shall
have bulbs collected prior to construction. Additionally, a transplantation plan for

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 35 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
alkali mariposa lily will be submitted and approved by the County prior to ground
disturbance and bulb collection. The plan will include the following:
1. Identify an area of occupied habitat to be preserved and removed;
2. Identify areas of onsite or offsite preservation, restoration, or enhancement
locations;
3. Methods for preservation, restoration, enhancement, and/or translocation;
4. Indicate a replacement ratio and success standard of 1:1 for impacted
individuals;
5. Establish a monitoring program to ensure mitigation success;
6. Create an adaptive management and remedial measures in the event that
performance standards are not achieved; and
7. Ensure financial assurances and a mechanism for conservation of any
mitigation lands required in perpetuity.
c. Temporary ground disturbance associated with the gen-tie lines or collector lines shall
be recontoured to natural grade (if the grade was modified during the temporary
disturbance activity), and revegetated with an application of a native seed mix prior to
or during seasonal rains to promote passive restoration of the area to pre-project
conditions. However, if invasive plant species were present, these species would not
be restored. An area subjected to temporary ground disturbance means any area that is
disturbed but will not be subjected to further disturbance as part of the project. This
does not include areas already designated as urban/developed. Prior to seeding
temporary ground disturbance areas, the qualified biologist will review the seeding
palette to ensure that no seeding of invasive plant species, as identified in the most
recent version of the California Invasive Plant Inventory for the region, will occur.
d. The project operator shall correspond with the County to determine what is needed for
project compliance with the Willow Springs Specific Plan. (BOS 7/27/2021)
MM 4.4-6: Preconstruction Burrowing Owl Surveys. A qualified wildlife biologist (i.e., a wildlife
biologist with previous burrowing owl survey experience) shall conduct preconstruction
surveys of the permanent and temporary impact areas to locate active breeding or wintering
burrowing owl burrows no fewer than 14 days prior to ground-disturbing activities (i.e.,
vegetation clearance, grading, tilling). The survey methodology shall be consistent with
the methods outlined in the 2012 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Staff
Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and shall consist of walking parallel transects 7 to
20 meters apart, adjusting for vegetation height and density as needed, and noting any
potential burrows with fresh burrowing owl sign or presence of burrowing owls. Surveys
may be conducted concurrently with the preconstruction clearance surveys. As each
burrow is investigated, surveying biologists shall also look for signs of American badger
and desert kit fox. Copies of the survey results shall be submitted to CDFW and the Kern
County Planning and Community Development Department.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 36 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
If burrowing owls are detected onsite, no ground-disturbing activities shall be permitted
within a buffer of no fewer than 100 meters (330 feet) from an active burrow during the
breeding season (i.e., February 1 to August 31), unless otherwise authorized by CDFW.
During the non-breeding (winter) season (i.e., September 1 to January 31), ground-
disturbing work can proceed as long as the work occurs no closer than 50 meters (165 feet)
from the burrow. Depending on the level of disturbance, a smaller buffer may be
established in consultation with CDFW.
If active burrowing owl burrows are detected onsite, they shall be protected in place
through the use of visual screens or through California Department of Fish and Wildlife-
identified restricted activity dates and setback distances (presented in Table 4.4-5,
Burrowing Owl Burrow Restricted Activity Dates and Setback Distances, below), or other
measures as described in the 2012 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Staff Report
to minimize disturbance impacts unless otherwise authorized by California Department of
Fish and Wildlife. Burrowing owls shall not be moved or excluded from burrows during
the breeding season.

TABLE 4.4-5: BURROWING OWL RESTRICTED ACTIVITY DATES AND

SETBACK DISTANCES
Level of Disturbance (m)
Time of Year Low Medium High
April 1–August 15 200 500 500
August 16–October 15 200 200 500
October 16–March 31 50 100 500
SOURCE: CDFW, 2012.

If burrow avoidance is infeasible during the non-breeding season or during the breeding
season (February 1 through August 31) where resident owls have not yet begun egg laying
or incubation, or where the juveniles are foraging independently and capable of
independent survival, a qualified biologist shall implement a passive relocation program in
accordance with Appendix E1 (i.e., Example Components for Burrowing Owl Artificial
Burrow and Exclusion Plans) of the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation.
If passive relocation is required, a qualified biologist shall prepare a Burrowing Owl
Exclusion and Mitigation Plan and a Mitigation Land Management Plan in accordance with
the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, for review by CDFW prior to
passive relocation activities. The Mitigation Land Management Plan shall include a
requirement for the permanent conservation of offsite Burrowing Owl Passive Relocation
Compensatory Mitigation. At a minimum, the following recommendations shall be
implemented:
a. Temporarily disturbed habitat shall be restored, if feasible, to pre-project
conditions including decompacting soil and revegetating.
b. Permanent impacts to nesting, occupied and satellite burrows and/or burrowing
owl habitat shall be mitigated such that the habitat acreage, number of burrows and
burrowing owl impacted are replaced based on a site-specific analysis and shall

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 37 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
include permanent conservation of similar vegetation communities (grassland,
scrublands, desert, urban, and agriculture) to provide for burrowing owl nesting,
foraging, wintering, and dispersal (i.e., during breeding and non-breeding seasons)
comparable to or better than that of the impact area, and with sufficiently large
acreage, and presence of fossorial mammals.
c. Permanently protect mitigation land through a conservation easement, deed
restriction, or similar mechanism deeded to a nonprofit conservation organization
or public agency with a conservation mission. If the project is located within the
service area of a CDFW-approved burrowing owl conservation bank, the project
operator may purchase available burrowing owl conservation bank credits. Land
identified to mitigate for passive relocation of burrowing owl may be combined
with other offsite mitigation requirements of the proposed project if the
compensatory habitat is deemed suitable to support the species.
MM 4.4-7: Nesting Birds and Raptors. If construction is scheduled to commence during the non-
nesting season (i.e., September 1 to January 31), no preconstruction surveys or additional
measures are required. To avoid impacts to nesting birds in the project area, a qualified
wildlife biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys of all potential nesting habitat
within the project site for construction activities that are initiated during the breeding
season (i.e., February 1 to August 31). The raptor survey shall focus on potential nest
sites (e.g., cliffs, large trees, windrows) within a 0.5-mile buffer around the project site.
Swainson’s hawk nest survey shall focus on potential nest sites (e.g., cliffs, large trees,
windrows) within a 5-mile buffer around the project site and follow the 2010 Swainson’s
hawk protocol surveys (CEC and CDFG 2010). Surveys shall be conducted no more than
14 10 days prior to construction activities. Surveys need not be conducted for the entire
project site at one time; they may be phased so that surveys occur shortly before a portion
of the project site is disturbed. The surveying biologist must be qualified to determine
the status and stage of nesting by migratory birds and all locally breeding raptor species
without causing intrusive disturbance. If active nests are found during the breeding
season, a suitable buffer (e.g., 200–300 feet for common raptors; 0.5 mile for Swainson’s
hawk; 30–50 feet for passerine species) of 250 feet around active nests of non-listed bird
species and a 500-foot-no-distrubance buffer around nests of non-listed raptor species
shall be established around active nests and no construction within the buffer allowed
until the breeding season has ended or a qualified biologist has determined that the nest
is no longer active (e.g., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest).
For non-listed species, encroachment into the avoidance buffer may occur at the
discretion of a qualified biologist; however, for State-listed species, consultation with
CDFW shall occur prior to encroachment into the aforementioned buffers. (BOS
7/27/2021)

MM 4.4-8: Swainson’s Hawk Monitoring and Mitigation Plan. The project proponent/operator
shall be required to prepare and implement a Swainson’s Hawk Monitoring and Mitigation
Plan in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Kern
County Planning and Community Development Department. The Plan shall be prepared
by a qualified wildlife biologist approved by CDFW and the County and shall include the

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 38 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
following in order to avoid and minimize impacts to Swainson’s hawks in and near the
project site:
a. If a nest site is found, design the project site to allow sufficient foraging and
fledgling area to maintain the nest site.
b. During the nesting season, ensure no new disturbances, habitat conversions, or
other project-related activities that may cause nest abandonment or forced
fledgling occur within 0.5 miles of an active nest between March 1 and September
15. Buffer zones may be adjusted in consultation with CDFW and the County.
c. Do not remove Swainson’s hawk nest trees unless avoidance measures are
determined to be infeasible. Removal of such trees should occur only during the
timeframe of October 1 and the last day in February.
d. If an injured Swainson’s hawk is found during project-related activities:
1. A plan should be in place to call for immediate relocation to a raptor
recovery center approved by CDFW.
2. A system should be set-up so that costs associated with the care or treatment
of such injured Swainson’s hawks will be borne by the project
proponent/operator.
3. Include appropriate contact information for immediate notification to
CDFW and the County if a hawk injury incident occurs. Have an approved
procedure in place to notify CDFW and the County outside of normal
business hours. Notify the appropriate personnel via telephone or email,
followed by a written incident report. Include the date, time, location, and
circumstances of the incident in reports.

a. The project proponent/operator shall mitigate the loss of Swainson’s Hawk

foraging habitat by providing Habitat Management (HM) lands within the
Antelope Valley Swainson’s hawk breeding range at a minimum 1:1 ratio, based
on the total approved area of the project, for foraging and nesting habitat impacted.
Project developers may consider delegating responsibilities for acquisition and
management of the HM lands to the CDFW or a third party, such as a
nongovernmental organization dedicated to Mojave Desert habitat conservation.
The project proponent/operator shall seek approval of such delegation from the
CDFW and the appropriate lead agency. Approaches for acquisition and
management of HM lands include the following:
1. HM Land Selection Criteria. Identify the region within which lands would
be acquired, and the type/quality of habitat to be acquired. Foraging habitat
should be moderate to good with a capacity to improve in quality and value

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 39 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
to Swainson’s hawks, and must be within the Antelope Valley Swainson’s
hawk breeding range. Foraging habitat with suitable nest trees is preferred.
2. Review and Approval of HM Lands Prior to Acquisition. Provide an
acquisition proposal to the Department and the appropriate lead agency for
their approval at least 3 months before acquiring the property. The
proposal should discuss the suitability of the property by comparing it to
the selection criteria.
3. Land Acquisition Schedule and Financial Assurances. Complete
acquisition of proposed HM lands before initiating ground-disturbing
project activities. If an irrevocable letter of credit or other form of security
is provided, complete land acquisition within 12 months prior to beginning
ground-disturbing project activities. Provide financial assurances for
dedicating adequate funding for impact avoidance, minimization and
compensation measures required for project approval.
4. HM Lands Acquisition. Be prepared to provide a preliminary title report,
initial hazardous materials survey report, biological analysis, at a
minimum to the Department and the appropriate lead agency. The
information will likely also be reviewed by the California Department of
General Services, Fish and Game Commission and/or Wildlife
Conservation Board. Fee title or conservation easement will likely be
transferred to a Department of Fish and Game-approved non-profit third
party and the Department, or solely to the Department. Be prepared to
support enhancement and endowment funds for protection and
enhancement of acquired lands. The Department will approve
establishment and management of the funds, ensuring that qualified non-
profit organizations or the Department will manage the funds in an
appropriate manner. Contributed funds and any related interest generated
from the initial capital endowment would support long-term operation,
management, and protection of the approved HM lands, including
reasonable administrative overhead, biological monitoring, improvements
to carrying capacity, law enforcement measures, and any other action
designed to protect or improve the habitat values of the HM lands. Be
prepared to reimburse the Department or other entities for all land
acquisition costs.
b. The project proponent/operator shall perform preconstruction surveys to verify
locations of Swainson’s Hawks and active nests.
1. The project proponent/operator shall design the project site to allow
sufficient foraging and fledging area to maintain active Swainson’s Hawk
nests located on the project site.
2. During the nesting season, ensure no new disturbances, habitat
conversions, or other project activities that may cause nest abandonment
or forced fledging within 0.5 miles of an active nest between March 1 and

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 40 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
September 15. Buffer zones may be adjusted in consultation with CDFW
and the County.
3. The project proponent/operator shall not remove Swainson’s hawk nest
trees.
c. If an injured Swainson’s hawk is found during project-related activities:
1. A plan should be in place to call for immediate relocation to a raptor
recovery center approved by CDFW.
2. A system should be set up so that costs associated with the care or
treatment of such injured Swainson’s hawks will be borne by the project
proponent/operator
3. Include appropriate contact information for immediate notification to
CDFW and the County if a hawk injury incident occurs. Have an approved
procedure in place to notify CDFW and the County inside of normal
business hours. Notify the appropriate personnel via telephone or email,
followed by a written incident report. Include the date, time, location, and
circumstance of the incident in reports.

MM 4.4-9: APLIC Compliance. The project proponent/operator shall install power lines in
conformance with Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) standards for
electrocution-reducing techniques as outlined in suggested Practices for Avian Protection
on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006 (APLIC 2006), and for collision-reducing
techniques as outlined in Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the
Art in 2012 (APLIC 2012), or any superseding document issued by APLIC.
Significant Effect
The project would have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community, or jurisdictional waters, identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish or Wildlife Service (Impact 4.4-2).

Description of Significant Impact

Sensitive habitats and vegetation communities are those that are considered rare in the region, support
special-status plant or animal species, or receive regulatory protection, including those that are of special
concern to resource agencies or are afforded specific consideration through CEQA. In addition, vegetation
communities listed on the CNDDB as having the highest inventory priorities are considered sensitive.

There is no riparian habitat on the project site. Within the gen-tie interconnection route, Joshua tree
woodland is present, however, this sensitive natural community will be avoided. Therefore, no impacts to
sensitive natural communities or riparian habitat would result from the implementation of the proposed
project. Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-1 requires the applicant to devise and submit a site-specific SWPPP
to minimize the discharge of wastewater during construction. The SWPPP would include steps for
implementation of best management practices (BMPs) aimed at sediment control and erosion control, and
could include soil stabilization, silt fencing, straw bale and temporary catch basins. These BMPs would be

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 41 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

implemented during construction of the proposed project as a condition of required permits, therefore
minimizing soil erosion in jurisdictional waters to the extent feasible.

One aquatic feature, an ephemeral wash, was identified and delineated adjacent to the gen-tie
interconnection. This feature is potentially subject to RWQCB and CDFW jurisdiction. USACE has
determined that isolated waters within the South Lahontan Hydrologic Region where this feature is located
are not considered “waters of the United States” and, therefore, are not be subject to regulation under the
federal CWA. Approximately 0.01 acres of CDFW jurisdiction and 0.01 acres of RWQCB jurisdiction
could be impacted if the feature is not avoided during construction activities. Construction activities from
the proposed project could permanently impact this potentially jurisdictional feature as a result of grading
and construction of the gen-tie interconnection. Impacts to jurisdictional areas would be considered
significant but mitigatable through implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-10 and MM 4.4-11.
With implementation of these mitigation measure, impacts would be considered less than significant.

Finding
The project has the potential to impact riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, or
jurisdictional waters, identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or
USFWS. However, these impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the implementation
of Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-10 and MM 4.4-11, described below, and Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-
21, described below in findings for Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality.
Level of Significance
With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-10, MM 4.4-11, and MM 4.10-21, impacts would
be less than significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.10-21 described below in Findings for Section 4.10,
Hydrology and Water Quality, and MM 4.4-10 and MM 4.4-11, described below, would reduce impacts to
less-than-significant levels. (BOS 7/27/2021)
MM 4.4-10: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, the project proponent/operator shall
submit a final Jurisdictional Delineation report. A copy of this report shall also be provided
to the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, CDFW, and the County. The report
shall include information as shown below as a plan if necessary and shall outline
compliance to the following:
a. Delineation of all jurisdictional features at the project site. Potential jurisdictional
features (ephemeral drainages) within the project boundary identified in the
jurisdictional delineation report that are not anticipated to be directly impacted by
project related activities shall be avoided. This may be shown in plan form.
b. Any material/spoils generated from project activities shall be located away from
jurisdictional areas or special-status habitat and protected from storm water run-off
using temporary perimeter sediment barriers such as berms, silt fences, fiber rolls,
covers, sand/gravel bags, and straw bale barriers, as appropriate.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 42 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
c. Materials shall be stored on impervious surfaces or plastic ground covers to prevent
any spills or leakage from contaminating the ground and generally at least 50 feet
from the top of bank.
d. Any spillage of material will be stopped if it can be done safely. The contaminated
area will be cleaned and any contaminated materials properly disposed. For all spills,
the project foreman or designated environmental representative will be notified.
MM 4.4-11: Prior to ground disturbance activities that would impact aquatic features, the project
proponent/operator shall be subject to provisions as identified below:
a. The project proponent/operator shall file a complete Report of Waste Discharge with
the RWQCB to obtain Waste Discharge Requirements and shall also consult with
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) on the need for a streambed
alteration agreement. Copies of reports shall be submitted to the County.
b. Based on consultation with RWQCB and CDFW, if permits are required for the project
site, appropriate permits shall be obtained prior to disturbance of jurisdictional
resources.
c. Compensatory mitigation for impacts to unvegetated streambeds/washes shall be
identified prior to disturbance of the features at a minimum 1:1 ratio, as approved by
the RWQCB or CDFW either through onsite or offsite mitigation, or purchasing credits
from an approved mitigation bank.
d. The project proponent/operator shall comply with the compensatory mitigation
required and proof of compliance, along with copies of permits obtained from RWQCB
and/or CDFW, which shall be provided to the County.
e. A Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) shall be prepared that outlines the
compensatory mitigation in coordination with the RWQCB and CDFW.
1. If onsite mitigation is proposed, the HMMP shall identify those portions of the site,
such as relocated drainage routes, that contain suitable characteristics (e.g.,
hydrology) for restoration. Determination of mitigation adequacy shall be based
on comparison of the restored habitat with similar, undisturbed habitat in the site
vicinity (such as upstream or downstream of the site).
2. The HMMP shall include remedial measures in the event that performance criteria
are not met.
3. If mitigation is implemented offsite, mitigation lands shall be comprised of similar
or higher quality and preferably located in Kern County. Offsite land shall be
preserved through a deed restriction or conservation easement and the HMMP shall
identify an approach for funding assurance for the long-term management of the
conserved land. Alternatively, the applicant may purchase credits from an
approved mitigation bank.
4. Copies of any coordination, permits, etc., with RWQCB and CDFW shall be
provided to the County.
Significant Effect

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 43 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

The project would interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites (Impact 4.4-4).

Description of Significant Impact

There are no perennial water features on the project site, and therefore, no potential corridors for aquatic
species. In addition, no wildlife nursery sites have been identified on or in the vicinity of the project site.
Project development, fencing, and activities associated with construction and operations have the potential
to interfere with local movement of wildlife within and adjacent to the project site; however, the project
site is not located within a known wildlife migratory corridor or a wildlife connectivity area connecting
large open space areas in the region or locally, as mapped by the California Essential Habitat Connectivity
Project. The project site contains areas of relatively undisturbed desert vegetation that are used by species
on a smaller scale; however, these habitats are fragmented by roads, fences, rural residences, agricultural
fields, and solar energy developments which likely limits the project site as a significant corridor for local
wildlife movement. Therefore, implementation of the project would not significantly impact local or
regional wildlife movement. Lighting from the project site could potentially affect local movement of
nocturnal wildlife by deterring them from illuminated areas around the project site. However, all lighting
installed as a part of the proposed project would comply with the Kern County Dark Skies Ordinance and
would be shielded and directed downward to minimize the potential for glare or spillover onto adjacent
properties as discussed in Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-14 through 4.1-76. This would reduce the
temporary impacts to wildlife movement through the area. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation
Measure MM 4.1-14 through 4.1-76 the proposed project would not adversely impact wildlife movement
and impacts would be less than significant. BOS (7/27/2021)
Finding
The project would interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-14 through MM
4.1-76 described above in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. BOS
(7/27/2021)
Level of Significance
With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-14 through 4.1-76, impacts would be less than
significant. BOS (7/27/2021)
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts. With
implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-14 through 4.1-76, described above in Section 4.1,
Aesthetics, impacts would be less than significant. BOS (7/27/2021)
Significant Effect
The project would conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance (Impact 4.4-5).

Description of Significant Impact

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 44 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
As currently designed, the proposed project is considered consistent with the Land Use, Open Space, and
Conservation Element of the Kern County General Plan. The project would implement mitigation measures
to reduce potential project-related impacts to sensitive biological resources including special-status species
and jurisdictional features. One local policy (Willow Springs Specific Plan) falls within the project site.
This plan requires avoidance of Joshua trees when possible and to create a Preservation and Transportation
Plan. Direct impacts to Joshua tree could occur due to project activities such as Joshua tree removal and
root damage due to construction activities. Indirect impacts include dust and soil compaction leading to
habitat degradation. Significant impacts could occur to Joshua trees on the project site. To reduce potential
significant impacts to Joshua trees, Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-5 and 4.4-12 are
proposed to be implemented. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, which include
monitoring, worker environmental awareness training, preconstruction clearance survey, general biological
resources avoidance measures, preconstruction special-status plant surveys, and creation of a Joshua Tree
Preservation Plan impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM
4.4-1 through MM 4.4-5 and 4.4-12, impacts to any local policies or ordinances would be less than
significant.

Finding
The project would conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-
1 through MM 4.4-5 and 4.4-12, impacts would be less than significant.
Level of Significance
With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-5 and 4.4-12, impacts would be
less than significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-5, above and 4.4-12, below, impacts
would be less than significant.
MM 4.4-12: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent/operator shall develop a
Joshua Tree Preservation Plan. The Plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist pre-
approved by Kern County and shall be approved by the appropriate agencies, including
Kern County, prior to implementation. At a minimum, the plan shall include the following:
a. The plan shall identify the methods utilized, as applicable, that the project is taking
to comply with any CDFW CESA take requirements and compensatory mitigation
related to the protection or mitigation of impacted Joshua Trees and documentation
of any such CDFW take authorization and mitigation shall be provided to the Kern
County Planning and Natural Resources Department.

C. Environmental Effects of the Project that Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less Than

Significant Level.
The project would not have any environmental effects on biological resources that cannot be mitigated to a
less-than-significant level.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 45 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project that Would Have a Less-Than-

Significant Impact on the Environment.
The project would have less than cumulatively considerable impacts related to a conflict with any other
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project that Would Have a Significant and
Unavoidable Impact on the Environment.

Significant Effect
The project would have a cumulative environmental impact on biological resources.
Description of Significant Impact
Cumulative impacts for a project would be significant if the incremental effects of the individual project
are considerable when combined with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future
projects. As described above, the project-specific impacts of the project would be less than significant with
implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-14 through MM 4.1-6, MM 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-12,
MM 4.9-3, and MM 4.10-1. (BOS 7/27/2021)
As large-scale energy projects and urbanization pressures increase within Kern County and Los Angeles
County, impacts to biological resources within the region are expanding on a cumulative level. As described
in Table 3-5, Cumulative Projects List, in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, other projects
with similar species effects have been completed within the Antelope Valley including Antelope Valley
Solar Project and North Rosamond Solar Project, and Willow Springs Solar Project, which abut the project
site; and Catalina Renewable Energy Project, Rosamond Solar Project, and Valentine Solar Project which
are all within 6 miles of the project site. In general, bioregions are defined through physical and
environmental features, including watershed boundaries and soil and terrain characteristics. Areas to the
north and west of the Tehachapi Mountains, and to the south of the San Gabriel Mountains, are within a
different bioregion and are separated from the project site by the natural geography that these ranges
present. SR 14, at the eastern end of the western Antelope Valley, also acts as a barrier to wildlife
movement.
As described above, there are a number of special-status species, both plants and wildlife, that currently
utilize the project site and surrounding vicinity. Implementation of the project, along with related projects,
has the potential to impact transient wildlife species, including burrowing owls, Swainson’s hawk,
loggerhead shrike, northern harrier, other raptors, migratory birds, American badger, and desert kit fox. The
project site contains habitat that support plants, insects, rodents, and small birds that provide a prey base
for raptors and terrestrial wildlife. In addition, based on the literature review and database search completed
for the project, the region is known to support a diversity of special-status species, most of which are not
expected to utilize the project site on a transient basis, if at all.
The Swainson’s Hawk foraging habitat mitigation suggested in comments for acquisition of habitat in the
Antelope Valley at a compensation rate of 2:1 was considered but rejected due to infeasibility. While land
uses in the Antelope Valley region are becoming urbanized with a population of 475,000 residents and the
incorporated cities of Lancaster and Palmdale occupying over 128,550 acres, over 47,000 acre available
foraging habitat with similar characteristics (desert shrub/scrub) exists within 5 miles of the project in Kern
alone. Of the 47,000 acres of available foraging habitat, approximately 6,800 acres is of the SWHA

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 46 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
preferred foraging agricultural lands. is available for Swainson’s hawk foraging within 5 miles of the project
in Kern County, which is known to be the Swainson’s Hawk preferred foraging, The continued agriculture
use of this acreage will be impacted due to the Antelope Valley adjudication mandates step downs for
agricultural water use over the next 5 years which will impact continued agriculture. The total remaining
irrigated farmland left within the Antelope Valley is only 10,000 acres, due to the adjudicated water basin
and not all of that is of suitable crop or available to acquire as mitigation land. (BOS 7/27/2021)
Further urban and renewable land uses in the Kern County portion of the Antelope Valley are primarily
unsuitable land for habitat acquisition and include the Boron Specific Plan area (929 acres), Rosamond
Specific Plan area (17,870 acres), and renewable energy (both wind and solar) covering more than 12,300
acres within the 50,675-acre Willow Springs Specific Plan area. An additional 301,100 acres of military
land, predominately desert scrub, is protected as Federal land on Edwards Air Force Base and not available
as mitigation land.
The Raceway 2.0 Solar Project includes 1,251 acres of potential foraging habitat that will be lost in the
Antelope Valley. At the suggested mitigation of a 2:1 compensation rate, 2,502 acres of land in the
Antelope Valley would be required to be conserved and water guaranteed to preserve the habitat. This is
infeasible considering the amount of land within the Antelope Valley that is available, and of that available
land, an extensive amount is fallow farmland not considered habitat due to water issues and, therefore,
provide no vegetation for SWA to either breed or forage. (BOS 7/27/2021)
Given the number of present and reasonably foreseeable future development projects in the Antelope
Valley, the proposed project, when combined with other projects, would contribute to cumulative loss of
foraging and nesting habitat for special-status species. Implementation of Mitigation Measures would
reduce impacts to foraging and nesting habitat to less-than-significant levels for the proposed project.
However, the proposed project, when combined with other related development projects proposed
throughout the County, the cumulative impact foraging and nesting for special-status species. Thus,
cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
In addition, common raven numbers have grown substantially in the past few decades in the western Mojave
Desert. Ravens are predators of the desert tortoise and burrowing owl, and compete with, as well as prey
on, many special-status raptors and birds. The common raven population growth is directly attributed to
human development and the subsidies it creates that support this adaptable species. When considered within
the cumulative context of related projects as described above, the project’s contribution to maintaining
artificially high common raven populations when combined with other related projects, which threatens
other desert wildlife, including special-status species, is potentially significant. However, the contribution
of the project with mitigation incorporated, would not be cumulatively considerable because project impacts
to specials-status wildlife would be reduced.
When considered in combination with other existing and reasonably foreseeable projects in the surrounding
flat, open portions of Antelope Valley from SR-14 to the Tehachapi foothills, the proposed project has the
potential to further reduce local wildlife movement. However, wildlife movement within the project site
and area is likely diffuse, and flat, undeveloped lands would remain available to facilitate wildlife
movement within the valley. Therefore, impacts concerning wildlife movement would be less than
significant.
Finding

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 47 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
The project in combination with other projects would be cumulatively considerable. Even with
implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-14 through MM 4.1-6, described above in Findings for
Aesthetics, MM 4.9-3, described below in Findings for Hazards and Hazardous Materials, MM 4.10-1,
described below in Findings for Hydrology and Water Quality, and Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1 through
MM 4.4-12, described above, cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable. (BOS 7/27/2021)
Level of Significance
Despite implementation of the above mitigation, cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable
to transient wildlife species, including burrowing owls, Swainson’s hawk, loggerhead shrike, northern
harrier, other raptors, migratory birds, American badger, and desert kit fox.

Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding

CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts. Even
with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-14 through MM 4.1-6, described above in Findings
for Aesthetics, MM 4.9-3, described below in Findings for Hazards and Hazardous Materials, MM 4.10-1,
described below in Findings for Hydrology and Water Quality, and Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1 through
MM 4.4-12, described above, cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable. (BOS 7/27/2021)

CULTURAL RESOURCES

A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the

Environment, or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
None of the project’s environmental effects on cultural resources have been found to result in no impacts
or only less-than-significant impacts.

B. Environmental Effects of the Project that Are Potentially Significant, but that Can
Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.

Significant Effect
The project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, as defined
in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (Impact 4.5-1).

Description of Significant Impact

Five cultural resources were identified within the project site as a result of the cultural resources study
prepared for the project. These resources include 4 built environment resources (P-15- 004414 [State Route
138], P-15-018681 [Owens Gorge 230 kV transmission line], Borgman Ranch, and 502 85th Street West)
and one historic-era archaeological site (SPO1704-H-3). None of these five resources have been found
eligible for listing in the CRHR and do not qualify as historical resources. Therefore, the project would not
result in a substantial adverse in the significance of a known historical resources.
As noted above, much of the project site is covered to an unknown depth by Holocene-age alluvium.
Although these Holocene-age were deposited during the course of human occupation of the region, and
would have the potential to contain buried archaeological deposits, the “water leveling” that occurred within
the project site during the historic era would have likely destroyed or obscured intact archaeological
deposits. As such, the project site has a low likelihood of containing intact subsurface archaeological
deposits. However, should project-related ground disturbance encounter unknown archaeological deposits

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 48 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
qualifying as historical resources, significant impacts to these resources could occur. Mitigation Measures
MM 4.5-1 through MM 4.5-3 would require the retention of a Lead Archaeologist, cultural resources
sensitivity training for construction workers, and appropriate treatment of unearthed archaeological
resources during construction. With implementation of mitigation, impacts to historical resources would be
less than significant.
Finding
The project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource. However, these impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the implementation
of Mitigation Measures MM 4.5-1 through MM 4.5-3. These would ensure that both known and unknown
resources that could be discovered during construction of the project are properly treated and that any
significant impacts are mitigated.
Level of Significance
With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.5-1 through MM 4.5-3, impacts would be less than
significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.5-1 through MM 4.5-3 would reduce impacts to less-than-
significant levels.
MM 4.5-1: The project proponent/operator shall retain a Lead Archaeologist, defined as an
archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for professional
archaeology (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2011), to carry out all mitigation measures
related to archaeological and historical resources. The contact information for this Lead
Archaeologist shall be provided to the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources
Department prior to the commencement of any construction activities on-site. Further, the
Lead Archaeologist shall be responsible for ensuring the following employee training
provisions are implemented during implementation of the project:
a. Prior to commencement of any ground disturbing activities, the Lead Archaeologist,
in consultation with the Native American monitor(s), shall prepare Cultural Resources
Sensitivity Training materials to be used in orientation program given to all personnel
working on the proposed project. A Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training Guide
approved by the Lead Archaeologist shall be provided to all personnel. A copy of the
Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training Guide shall be submitted to the Kern County
Planning and Natural Resources Department. The training guide may be presented in
video form. A copy of the proposed training materials shall be provided to the Planning
and Natural Resources Department prior to the issuance of any grading or building
permit.
b. A copy of the Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training Guide/Materials shall be kept
on-site and available for all personnel to review and be familiar with as necessary. It is
the responsibility of the Lead Archaeologist to ensure all employees receive
appropriate training before commencing work on-site.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 49 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
MM 4.5-2: Prior to this issuance of any grading or building permit, the project operator shall submit
to the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department a Cultural Resources
Treatment Plan. The plan shall:
a. Provide an overview of best management practices to be utilized during
construction activities to ensure protection of cultural resources.
b. Outline the process for evaluation of any unanticipated cultural discoveries during
project construction activities.
MM 4.5-3: During implementation of the project, in the event archaeological materials are
encountered during the course of grading or construction, the project contractor shall cease
any ground disturbing activities within 50 feet of the find. The area of the discovery shall
be marked off by temporary fencing that encloses a 50-foot radius from the location of
discovery. Signs shall be posted that establish it as an Environmentally Sensitive Area and
all entrance to the area shall be avoided until the discovery is assessed by the Lead
Archaeologist, as well as Native American representatives affiliated with the project site
vicinity. The Lead Archaeologist in consultation with Native American representatives,
shall evaluate the significance of the resources and recommend appropriate treatment
measures. If further treatment of the discovery is necessary, the Environmentally Sensitive
Area shall remain in place until all work is completed. Per California Environmental
Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA) Section 15126.4(b)(3), project redesign and preservation
in place shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to significant historical resources.
Consistent with CEQA Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that resources
cannot be avoided, the Lead Archaeologist in consultation with Native American
representatives shall develop additional treatment measures in consultation with the
County, which may include data recovery or other appropriate measures. The County shall
consult with appropriate Native American representatives in determining appropriate
treatment for unearthed cultural resources if the resources are prehistoric or Native
American in nature. Diagnostic archaeological materials with research potential recovered
during any investigation shall be curated at an accredited curation facility. The Lead
Archaeologist, in consultation with a designated Native American monitor, shall prepare a
report documenting evaluation and/or additional treatment of the resource. A copy of the
report shall be provided to the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department
and to the southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center at California State University,
Bakersfield.

Significant Effect
The project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (Impact 4.5-2).

Description of Significant Impact

As discussed above, only one archaeological site (SPO1704-H-3) was identified within the project site.
This resource does not qualify as a unique archaeological resource and, therefore, the project would not
result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource. Also, as
discussed above, the likelihood of encountering intact subsurface archaeological deposits within the project
site is low given the degree of historic-era disturbances to the project site associated with “water leveling”

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 50 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

for the purposes of agricultural operations. However, should project-related ground disturbance encounter
unknown archaeological deposits qualifying as unique archaeological resources, significant impacts to
these resources could occur. Mitigation Measures MM 4.5 1 through MM 4.5 3 would reduce impacts to
unknown unique archaeological resources would be less than significant.

Finding
The project has the potential to impact an archaeological resource. However, these impacts would be
reduced to a less-than-significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.5-1 through
MM 4.5-3, above.
Level of Significance
With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.5-1 through MM 4.5-3, impacts would be less than
significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.5-1 through MM 4.5-3, described above, would reduce
impacts to less-than-significant levels.

Significant Effect
The project would disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. (Impact
4.5-3).
Description of Significant Impact

There is no indication, either from the archival research results or the archaeological survey, that any
particular location within the project site 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 damaged or disturbed, which would be a significant impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.5-4 would ensure that any human remains encountered
during Project implementation are properly treated, thus reducing impacts to a less than significant level.
Finding
The project has the potential to disturb human remains. However, these impacts would be reduced to a less-
than-significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.5-4.
Level of Significance
With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.5-4, impacts would be less than significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.5-4, described below, would reduce impacts to less-than-
significant levels.
MM 4.5-4: If human remains are uncovered during project construction, the project contractor shall
immediately halt work within 100 feet of the find, contact the Kern County Coroner to

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 51 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
evaluate the remains, and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in of the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15064.4(e)(1). If the County Coroner
determines that the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native
American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5, subdivision (c), and Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98 (as amended
by Assembly Bill 2641). The Native American Heritage Commission shall designate a
Most Likely Descendent for the remains per PRC Section 5097.98. Per PRC Section
5097.98, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally
accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American
human remains are located, is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity
until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendent regarding
their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human
remains. If the remains are determined to be neither of forensic value to the Coroner, nor
of Native American origin, provisions of the California Health and Safety Code (Section
7100 et. seq.) directing identification of the next-of-kin will apply.

C. Environmental Effects of the Project that Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less Than

Significant Level.

The project would not have any environmental effects on cultural resources that cannot be mitigated to a
less-than-significant level.

D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project that Would Have a Less-Than-

Significant Impact on the Environment.

Significant Effect

The project would have a cumulative environmental impact on cultural resources.

Description of Significant Impact
The geographic area of analysis of cumulative impacts for cultural resources includes the western Antelope
Valley. The western Antelope Valley includes portions of the southeast corner of Kern County and portions
of northern Los Angeles County. This geographic scope of analysis is appropriate because the archaeological
and historical resources within this area are expected to be similar to those that occur on the project site
because of their proximity, and because the similar environments, landforms, and hydrology would result in
similar land-use—and thus, site types. Similar geology within this vicinity would likely yield fossils of similar
sensitivity and quantity. This is a large enough area to encompass any effects of the project on cultural
resources that may combine with similar effects caused by other past, current, and reasonably foreseeable
future projects, and provides a reasonable context wherein cumulative actions could affect cultural resources.
Multiple projects, including solar energy production facilities, are proposed throughout the western Antelope
Valley. Cumulative impacts to cultural resources in the western Antelope Valley could occur if other related
projects, in conjunction with the proposed project, had or would have impacts on cultural resources that, when
considered together, would be significant.

Development of the proposed project, in combination with other projects in the area, has the potential to
contribute to a cumulatively significant cultural resources impact due to the potential loss of historical and
archaeological resources unique to the region. However, no significant historic or prehistoric resources

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 52 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
were identified within the project site, and mitigation measures are included in this EIR to reduce potentially
significant impacts to unknown archaeological resources that could be encountered during construction of
the proposed project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.5-1 requires cultural resources
sensitivity training for construction workers Mitigation Measure MM 4.5-3 requires appropriate treatment
of uncovered archaeological resources, including those that qualify as historical resources. Implementation
of these mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to historical and unique archaeological
resources to a less than significant level, and ensure that project impacts to cultural resources are not
cumulatively considerable. Although project construction has the potential to disturb human remains, as do
other projects in the cumulative study area, the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.5-4 would
ensure that appropriate protocols are followed with regard to identifying and handling remains, and ensure
that cumulative impacts are not significant.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.5-1 through MM 4.5-4 as described above, the project
would not result in significant impacts to cultural resources. Given this minimal impact, as well as similar
mitigation requirements for other projects in the western Antelope Valley, cumulative impacts to cultural
resources would be less than significant.

Finding

The project has the potential to result in cumulative impacts with regard to cultural resources. The
implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.5-1 through MM 4.5-4, described above, would reduce this
impact to less-than-significant levels.
Level of Significance

Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.5-1 through MM
4.5-4.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding

CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.5-1 through MM 4.5-4, described above, would reduce
impacts to less-than-significant levels.

E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project that Would Have a Significant and
Unavoidable Impact on the Environment.

The project would not have a significant and unavoidable cumulative environmental impact on cultural
resources.

ENERGY

A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the

Environment, or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.

The project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient,
or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation (Impact 4.6-1).

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 53 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
The project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency (Impact 4.6-2).

B. Environmental Effects of the Project that Are Potentially Significant, but that Can
Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.

The project would not have any environmental effects related to energy that are potentially significant and
no mitigation is required.

C. Environmental Effects of the Project that Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less Than

Significant Level.

The project would not have any environmental effects related to energy that cannot be mitigated to a less-
than-significant level.

D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project that Would Have a Less-Than-

Significant Impact on the Environment.

The project would not have any cumulative environmental effects related to greenhouse gas emissions that
cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project that Would Have a Significant and
Unavoidable Impact on the Environment.

The project would not have a significant and unavoidable cumulative environmental impact on energy.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the

Environment, or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
The project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zoning map issued by the state geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault (Impact 4.7-1).
The project would directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death, involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction (Impact 4.7-3).
The project would have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems in areas where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater (Impact
4.7-7).

B. Environmental Effects of the Project that Are Potentially Significant, but that Can
Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.

Significant Effect
The project would directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking (Impact 4.7-2).

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 54 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
Description of Significant Impacts
The project site is in a highly seismic region that could experience one or more substantive seismic events
in the future. Depending on the magnitude, distance to the source, and duration of shaking, damage to the
PV modules, or other ancillary facilities and injury to workers or visitors could result.

However, prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent would be required to design project
infrastructure to withstand substantial ground shaking in accordance with all applicable ordinances of the
Kern County Building Code (Chapter 17.08) and the current CBC. The CBC contains seismic safety
provisions with the aim of preventing building collapse and structural damage during an earthquake. In
addition, as described below, Mitigation Measure MM 4.7-1 requires that a final design level geotechnical
study evaluating soil conditions and geologic hazards be performed by a qualified geotechnical engineer
on the project site. Mitigation Measure MM 4.7-2 requires that a California geotechnical engineer be hired
by the proponent to design the project facilities to withstand probable seismically induced ground shaking.
All grading and construction onsite would adhere to the specifications, procedures, and site conditions
contained in the final design plans, which would be fully compliant with the seismic recommendations
provided by the California-registered professional engineer in accordance with California and Kern County
Building Code requirements. The required measures would encompass site preparation, foundation
specifications, and protection measures for buried metal. The final structural designs would be subject to
approval and follow-up inspection by the Kern County Building Inspection Department. Final design
requirements would be provided to the onsite construction supervisor and the Kern County Building
Inspector to ensure compliance. A copy of the approved design would be submitted to the Kern County
Planning and Natural Resources Department. Further, the facilities would be constructed in accordance
with all applicable codes, which require property line and public roadway setbacks that would protect the
general public and onsite staff from potential hazards associated with the facilities that could result from an
earthquake. Required compliance with the Kern County Building Code, the CBC, and implementation of
Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-1 and MM 4.7-2 would ensure that seismic hazards would be minimized;
impacts related to ground shaking would be less than significant.

Finding
The project has the potential to be impacted by ground shaking. Adherence to the requirements of the Kern
County Building Code, the CBC, and implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.7-1 and MM 4.7-2
would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Level of Significance
With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.7-1 and MM 4.7-2, impacts would be less than
significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.7-1 and 4.7-2, described below would reduce impacts to less-
than-significant levels.
MM 4.7-1: Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits for the project, the project proponent shall
conduct a final engineering design specific geotechnical study to evaluate soil conditions and

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 55 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
geologic hazards on the project site and submit it to the Kern County Public Works Department
for review and approval.
a. The final geotechnical study must be signed by a California-registered and licensed
professional geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist and must include, but not
be limited to, the following:
i. Location of fault traces and potential for surface rupture and groundshaking potential;
ii. Maximum considered earthquake and associated ground acceleration for design;
iii. Potential for seismically induced liquefaction, landslides, differential settlement,
and unstable soils;
iv. Stability of any existing or proposed cut-and-fill slopes;
v. Collapsible or expansive soils;
vi. Foundation material type;
vii. Potential for wind erosion, water erosion, sedimentation, and flooding;
viii. Location and description of unprotected drainage that could be impacted by the
proposed development; and,
ix. Recommendations for placement and design of facilities, foundations, and
remediation of unstable ground.
b. The project proponent shall determine the final siting of project facilities based on the
results of the geotechnical study and implement recommended measures to minimize
geologic hazards.
c. The Kern County Public Works Department shall evaluate any final facility siting
design developed prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits to verify that
geological constraints have been avoided or mitigated.
MM 4.7-2: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall retain a California
registered and licensed geotechnical engineer to design the project facilities to withstand
probable seismically induced ground shaking at the site. All grading and construction onsite
shall adhere to the specifications, procedures, and site conditions contained in the final design
plans, which shall be fully compliant with the seismic recommendations of the California-
registered professional engineer.

Significant Effect
The project would directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving: substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil (Impact 4.7-4).

Description of Significant Impact

Construction of the project and associated improvements would involve earth-disturbing activities that
could expose soils to the effects of wind or water erosion. Although the project site and surrounding study
area consists of relatively flat topography and would not involve substantive cut and fill operations,
earthmoving and construction activities could loosen soil, and the removal of existing minimal vegetation
could contribute to soil loss and erosion. Since the project would not contain all stormwater runoff onsite,

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 56 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
a SWPPP would be prepared and implemented per the requirements of the NPDES General Construction
Permit Program. The SWPPP would detail that existing vegetation and topography are to be preserved to
the maximum extent possible. The SWPPP would also specify various types of BMPs including erosion
control BMPs to prevent soil from moving offsite; all temporary erosion control measures required by the
Kern County Grading Code (Chapter 17.28.140) would be incorporated into the SWPPP, as required by
Mitigation Measure MM 4.7-3. In addition, per Mitigation Measure MM 4.7-4, the project would be
required to submit grading plans accompanied by a soils engineering report, engineering geology report,
and drainage calculations pursuant to the Kern County Grading Code (Section 17.28.070) to the Kern
County Engineering and Survey Services Department in order to obtain required grading permits.
Compliance with MM 4.7-4 would ensure that excessive grading does not occur. As a result, project
construction would have less-than-significant impacts related to erosion with implementation of Mitigation
Measures MM 4.7-3 and MM 4.7-4.

Project operations would include the periodic cleaning of the panels with water. However, this is not
expected to result in soil erosion because of the infrequency of these activities and the limited volumes of
water involved; water is expected to infiltrate into the ground and not generate substantial erosion or soil
loss. Project operations would not require ground disturbance. As a result, project operation would have a
less than significant impact as it relates to soil erosion.
Finding
During construction, the project has the potential to be impacted by substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil. The implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-3 and MM 4.7-4, described below, would
reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Level of Significance
With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-3 and MM 4.7-4 impacts would be less than
significant.

Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding

CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-3 and MM 4.7-3, described below, would reduce impacts
to a less-than-significant level.
MM 4.7-3: The construction contractor shall incorporate Best Management Practices consistent with the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Construction Permit Program for all
construction projects that would not retain all stormwater onsite and the Kern County Grading
Code. The project proponent shall prepare an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan as well
as a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan shall be
prepared by a Qualified Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Developer and submitted for
review and approval by the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Stormwater

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 57 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
Pollution Prevention Plan Best Management Practices shall include, but not be limited to, the
following:
a. Scheduling to avoid ground disturbance during rain events to the maximum extent possible
b. Preservation of existing vegetation and topography to the maximum extent practicable
c. Stabilized construction entrances and exits
d. Erosion control (including all pertinent temporary erosion control practices as specified in
Chapter 17.28.140 of the Kern County Grading Code), such as mulching, temporary drains
and cullies, sandbag barrier, geotextiles and mats, silt fences, brush or rock filters, earth
dikes, straw bale barriers, and sediment traps
e. Sediment control
f. Waste management
g. Good housekeeping
h. Post-construction site stabilization
i. Prior to initial construction mobilization, preconstruction surveys shall be performed and
sediment and erosion controls shall be installed in accordance with the approved
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. A copy of the approved Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan shall be submitted to the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources
Department.
MM 4.7-4: The project proponent shall limit grading to the minimum area necessary for construction. Prior
to the initiation of construction, the project proponent shall retain a California registered and
licensed professional engineer to submit final grading earthwork and foundation plans to the
Kern County Public Works for approval.

Significant Effect
The project would be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse (Impact 4.7-5).
Description of Significant Impact
As stated in Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in no impact
related to landslides. As discussed above, the liquefaction potential on the project site is low, largely based
on the groundwater depth in the area which is reportedly greater than 100 feet below ground surface
(Ecology and Environment 2020). As a result, combined with the relatively flat topography the low
liquefaction potential indicates a low potential for lateral spreading. While the soils memo does not discuss
the collapse potential at the site, it does describe the surface soils as loose to very dense sand. Therefore,
any substantive areas containing loose sands could potentially be susceptible to collapse. Further pre-
construction subsurface exploration to confirm the subsurface conditions was recommended in the soils
memo (Ecology and Environment 2020). This site specific exploration would be included as part of the
design level geotechnical investigation required by Mitigation Measure MM 4.7-1. The subsurface data
would be used to complete the final design of the Project and associated structures in consultation with the

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 58 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
County in a manner that meets applicable State and County building, grading and construction codes,
ordinances and standards.
Therefore, since the project site itself has not been identified by the County as being prone to subsidence
and the full geotechnical study required by Mitigation Measure MM 4.7-1 would be prepared for the
proposed project to identify and remedy any soil conditions considered to be geologic hazards, including
liquefaction, collapse and subsidence. Based on the conclusions of the report, recommended mitigation
measures would be implemented to minimize geologic hazard-related impacts. With implementation of
Mitigation Measure MM 4.7-1, impacts would be less than significant.
Finding
The project has the potential to result in liquefaction, collapse, and subsidence. The implementation of
Mitigation Measure MM 4.7-1 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Level of Significance
With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.7-1, impacts would be less than significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.7-1, as included above, would reduce impacts to less-than-
significant levels.

Significant Effect
The project would be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property (Impact 4.7-6).
Description of Significant Impact
As stated in Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, of the Draft EIR, expansive soils (i.e., those with high-plasticity
clay content) can cause structural failure of foundations such as those associated with project components
that involve permanent structures, including collector substations, energy storage system, and solar arrays.
According to information reviewed in the soil memorandum, the shrink-swell potential of Adelanto, Cajon,
Greenfield, Hanford, Hesperia, Ramona and Tray series soils is low. The shrink-swell potential of
Rosamond and Sunrise series soils is moderate or moderately high (Ecology and Environment 2020).
According to the Willow Springs Specific Plan, the lateral and vertical extent of expansive soils of the
Rosamond and Sunrise series are not well known (KCDPDS 1992). Soils of the Rosamond and Sunrise
series occur in the project area. If the project is not properly engineered to account for soil characteristics,
impacts resulting in ground failure from soil expansion or contraction could occur, and impacts would be
significant. To reduce the impact associated with expansive soil, which may be encountered at various
locations in the project area, Mitigation Measure MM 4.7-1, which includes the preparation of a final design
level geotechnical study (as required by the Kern County Code of Building Regulations) would confirm
site suitability and provide final design and construction recommendations consistent with the Kern County
Building Code (Chapter 17.08) and the most recent version of the CBC. Therefore, based on preliminary
information on existing site characteristics, adherence to current building code requirements, and inclusion
of (applicable) recommendations contained in the design level geotechnical study, the potential for
placement of project elements on expansive soils would be less than significant with implementation of
Mitigation Measure MM 4.7-1.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 59 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
Finding
The project has the potential to result in expansive soil. The implementation of Mitigation Measure MM
4.7-1 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Level of Significance
With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.7-1, impacts would be less than significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.7-1, as included above, would reduce impacts to less-than-
significant levels.
Significant Effect
The project would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource (Impact 4.7-8).
Description of Significant Impact
Most of the surficial deposits within the project site consist of Younger Quaternary alluvium aging in range
from the modern to late Pleistocene. Younger Quaternary alluvium is typically not paleontologically
sensitive; however, it may be underlain by older Quaternary alluvium, which has moderate potential to
contain paleontological resources. If significant vertebrate fossils are encountered during project
implementation, disturbance of such resources would result in a potentially significant impact to
paleontological resources. Therefore, although surface grading and very shallow excavation within the
younger Quaternary alluvium is unlikely to impact sensitive paleontological resources, excavations deeper
than 12 feet could extend into the older Quaternary alluvium and impact significant vertebrate fossil
resources. This would result in a potentially significant impact to paleontological resources. However, with
implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-5 through MM 4.7-7, which would require Paleontological
Resources Awareness Training for construction workers, use of a qualified paleontological monitor during
construction activities, and appropriate treatment of accidentally uncovered paleontological resources,
impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to less than significant.
Finding
The project has the potential to result in impacts to paleontological resources. The implementation of
Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-5 through MM 4.7-7 would reduce impacts to paleontological resources to a
less-than-significant level.
Level of Significance
With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-5 through MM 4.7-7, impacts would be less than
significant.
Brief Explanation of Rationale of the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-5 through MM 4.7-7, described below, would reduce
impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 60 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
MM 4.7-5: The project proponent shall retain a qualified paleontologist, defined as a paleontologist
meeting the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology’s Professional Standards (SVP, 2010), to
carry out all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources.
a. Prior to the start of any ground disturbing activities, the qualified paleontologist
shall conduct a Paleontological Resources Awareness Training program for all
construction personnel working on the project. A Paleontological Resources
Awareness Training Guide approved by the qualified paleontologist shall be
provided to all personnel. A copy of the Paleontological Resources Awareness
Training Guide shall be submitted to the Kern County Planning and Natural
Resources Department. The training guide may be presented in video form.
b. Paleontological Resources Awareness Training may be conducted in conjunction
with other awareness training requirements.
c. The training shall include an overview of potential paleontological resources that
could be encountered during ground disturbing activities to facilitate worker
recognition, avoidance, and subsequent immediate notification to the qualified
paleontologist for further evaluation and action, as appropriate; and penalties for
unauthorized artifact collecting or intentional disturbance of paleontological
resources.
d. The Paleontological Resources Awareness Training Guides shall be kept onsite
and available for all personnel to review and be familiar with as necessary.
MM 4.7-6: A qualified paleontologist or designated monitor shall monitor all ground-disturbing
activity (with the exception of vibratory or hydraulic installation of tracking or mounting
structures and foundations or supports) that occurs at a depth of 12 feet or deeper below
ground surface in areas mapped as younger Quaternary alluvium and for all ground
disturbance within the mapped older Quaternary Alluvium.
a. The duration and timing of monitoring shall be determined by the qualified
paleontologist in consultation with the Kern County Planning and Natural
Resources Department, and shall be based on a review of geologic maps and
grading plans.
1. During the course of monitoring, if the paleontologist can demonstrate
based on observations of subsurface conditions that the level of monitoring
should be reduced, the paleontologist, in consultation with the Kern
County Planning and Natural Resources Department, may adjust the level
of monitoring to circumstances, as warranted.
b. Paleontological monitoring shall include inspection of exposed rock units during
active excavations within sensitive geologic sediments. The qualified
paleontologist shall have authority to temporarily divert excavation operations
away from exposed fossils to collect associated data and recover the fossil
specimens if deemed necessary.
c. Following the completion of construction, the paleontologist shall prepare a report
documenting the absence or discovery of fossil resources onsite. If fossils are

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 61 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
found, the report shall summarize the results of the inspection program, identify
those fossils encountered, recovery and curation efforts, and the methods used in
these efforts, as well as describe the fossils collected and their significance. A copy
of the report shall be provided to the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources
Department and to an appropriate repository such as the Natural History Museum
of Los Angeles County.
MM 4.7-7: If a paleontological resource is found, the project contractor shall cease ground-disturbing
activities within 50 feet of the find. The qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the
significance of the resources and recommend appropriate treatment measures. At each
fossil locality, field data forms shall be used to record pertinent geologic data, stratigraphic
sections shall be measured, and appropriate sediment samples shall be collected and
submitted for analysis. Any fossils encountered and recovered shall be catalogued and
donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials.
Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the repository.

C. Environmental Effects of the Project that Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less Than

Significant Level.

The project would not have any environmental effects related to geology and soils that cannot be mitigated
to a less-than-significant level.

D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project that Would Have a Less-Than-

Significant Impact on the Environment.
The project would have less than significant cumulative environmental impacts related to the rupture of a
known earthquake fault. The project would have less than significant cumulative environmental impacts
related to seismic-related ground failure related to liquefaction and landslides.

Significant Effect

The project would have a cumulative environmental impact on geology and soils.
Description of Significant Impact
Impacts of the project would be considered cumulatively considerable if they would have the potential to
combine with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects to become significant. Cumulative
projects listed in Chapter 3, Project Description, Table 3-9, Cumulative Projects List, would be subject to
relatively similar seismic hazards as that of the proposed project. However, the effects of these projects are
not of a nature to cause cumulatively significant effects from geologic impacts or on soils because such
impacts are site specific and would only have the potential to combine with impacts of the project if they
occurred in the same location as the project.

The cumulative setting for soil erosion consists of existing, planned, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable
land use conditions in the region. However, construction constraints are primarily based on specific sites
within a proposed development and on the soil characteristics and topography of each site. Individual
projects are required to comply with applicable codes, standards, and permitting requirements (e.g.,
preparation of a SWPPP) to mitigate erosion impacts. The proposed project’s compliance with these codes,
standards and permitting requirements are required by Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-3 and MM 4.7-4. Other
cumulative scenario projects would be required to adhere to similar requirements, thereby minimizing
cumulative scenario erosion impacts. Specifically, all planned projects in the vicinity of the project are

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 62 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
subject to environmental review and would be required to conform to the Kern County General Plan and
Building Code and would implement additional mitigation of seismic hazards to ensure soil stability,
especially related to seismically induced erosion. With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-3
and MM 4.7-4, the project would not contribute to any cumulative impacts related to substantial soil erosion
or loss of topsoil. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

The potential for liquefaction and other geologic hazards related to liquefaction, including lateral spreading,
are considered low as historic groundwater levels in the area of the project site have been recorded at a
depth greater than 100 feet bgs. With regard to subsidence, as the project would not obtain water from an
underground aquifer, development of the project would not lead to subsidence on the project site or in the
area. In addition, cumulative projects would be expected to use water supply canals and water pumping
facilities in the project vicinity rather than pumping from underground aquifers. Areas where natural slope
is over-steepened by the construction of access roads, structure formations or other excavated areas would
have the potential for landslide susceptibility, lateral spreading, and collapse as a result of the project or
other cumulative projects. However, as with the project, cumulative projects would likely implement
mitigation similar to Mitigation Measure 4.7-1, which would require a design level geotechnical
investigation, which would include further pre-construction subsurface exploration to confirm the
subsurface conditions. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.7-1, the project would not
contribute to any cumulative impacts related to on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Cumulative impacts to paleontological resources in the study area could occur if other related projects, in
conjunction with the proposed project, had or would have impacts on paleontological resources that, when
considered together, would be significant. Development of the proposed project, in combination with other
projects in the area, has the potential to contribute to a cumulatively significant paleontological resources
impact due to the potential loss of paleontological resources unique to the region. However, mitigation
measures are included in this EIR to reduce potentially significant project impacts to paleontological
resources during construction of the proposed project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.7-5
requires paleontology sensitivity training for construction workers and Mitigation Measure MM 4.7-6
requires appropriate monitoring of construction activities for potential paleontological resources that may
be encountered. Although project construction has the potential to disturb paleontological resources, the
implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.7-7 would ensure the appropriate protocol is followed with
regard to identifying and handling remains. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce
potential impacts to paleontological resources to a less-than-significant level. With implementation of
Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-5 through MM 4.7-7, the project would not result in significant impacts to
paleontological resources. Given this minimal impact and the requirement for similar mitigation for other
projects in the Southern San Joaquin Valley, project’s incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of other closely related past projects, the effects of other current
projects and the effects of probable future projects and thus cumulative impacts to paleontological resources
would be less than significant.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-5 through MM 4.7-7, the project would not result in
significant impacts to paleontological resources. Given this minimal impact and the requirement for similar
mitigation for other projects in the Antelope Valley, cumulative impacts to paleontological resources would
be less than significant.

Finding

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 63 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
The project has the potential to result in cumulative impacts in regard to geology and soils. The
implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-1 through MM 4.7-7, described above, would reduce
impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Level of Significance

With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-1 through MM 4.7-7, impacts would be less than
significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding

CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts. The
implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-1 through MM 4.7-7, described above, would reduce
impacts to a less-than-significant level.

E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project that Would Have a Significant and
Unavoidable Impact on the Environment.

The project would not have a significant and unavoidable cumulative environmental impact related to
geology and soils.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the

Environment, or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
The project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment (Impact 4.8-1).
The project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gas (Impact 4.8-2).

B. Environmental Effects of the Project that Are Potentially Significant, but that Can
Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.

The project would not have any environmental effects related to greenhouse gas emissions that are
potentially significant and no mitigation is required.

C. Environmental Effects of the Project that Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less Than

Significant Level.
The project would not have any environmental effects related to greenhouse gas emissions that cannot be
mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project that Would Have a Less-Than-

Significant Impact on the Environment.

The project would have a cumulative environmental impact related to greenhouse gas emissions that has a
less-than-significant impact on the environment.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 64 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project that Would Have a Significant and
Unavoidable Impact on the Environment.

The project would not have a significant and unavoidable cumulative environmental impact related to
greenhouse gas emissions.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the

Environment, or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
The project would emit hazardous emissions or involves handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school (Impact 4.9-3).
The project would be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment (Impact 4.9-4).
The project would result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project
area, for a project located within the adopted Kern County Airport Land Use Plan (Impact 4.9-5).
The project would generate vectors (flies, mosquitoes, rodents, etc.) or have a component that includes
agricultural waste. Specifically, would the proposed project exceed the following qualitative threshold: the
presence of domestic flies, mosquitoes, cockroaches, rodents, and/or any other vectors associated with the
proposed project is significant when the applicable enforcement agency determines that any of the vectors:
i. Occur as immature stages and adults in numbers considerably in excess of those found in the
surrounding environment; or
ii. Are associated with design, layout, and management of proposed project operations; or
iii. Disseminate widely from the property; or
iv. Cause detrimental effects on the public health or well-being of the majority of the surrounding
population (Impact 4.9-8).

B. Environmental Effects of the Project that Are Potentially Significant, but that Can
Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.

Significant Effect
The project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials (Impact 4.9-1).

Description of Significant Impact

Construction of the project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of significant quantities
of hazardous materials, as defined by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act. Most of
the hazardous waste generated by the project would occur during the temporary construction period and
would consist of liquid waste, including cleaning fluids, dust palliative, herbicides, and solvents. Some
solid hazardous waste, such as welding materials and dried paint, may also be generated during
construction. These materials would be transported to the project site during construction, and any

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 65 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

hazardous wastes that are produced as a result of the construction of the project would be collected and
transported away from the site in accordance with best management practices (BMPs). During construction
of the project, material safety data sheets for all applicable materials present at the site would be made
readily available to onsite personnel in accordance with required BMPs as part of a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (see Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR). During
construction of the project, material safety data sheets for all applicable hazardous materials present at the
site would be made readily available to onsite personnel. During construction of the facilities, non-
hazardous construction debris would be generated and disposed of in local landfills. Sanitary waste would
be managed using portable toilets located at a reasonably accessible on-site location.

Fuels and lubricants used on field equipment would be subject to the Material Disposal and Solid Waste
Management Plan, and SPCC plan and other measures to limit releases of hazardous materials and wastes.
Recyclable materials including wood, shipping materials, and metals would be separated when possible for
recycling. Liquids and oils in the transformer and other equipment would be used in accordance with
applicable regulations. The disposal of all oils, lubricants, and spent filters would be performed in
accordance with all applicable regulations including the requirements of licensed receiving facilities.
Overall, the relatively limited use of hazardous materials during construction would be controlled through
compliance with applicable regulations and would result in a less-than-significant impact.

O&M activities associated with a PV solar facility are relatively minor when compared to other land uses
such as conventional power plants, and would require limited use of hazardous materials. Any hazardous
materials that would be used would be stored on-site and in designated areas. The site would be fenced to
prevent public access to hazardous materials and the PV panels.

Operational activities are limited to monitoring plant performance, conducting scheduled maintenance for
on-site electrical equipment, and responding to utility needs for plant adjustment. No heavy equipment
would be used during normal project operation. O&M vehicles would include trucks (pickup, flatbed),
forklifts, and loaders for routine and unscheduled maintenance, and water trucks for solar panel washing.

Large heavy-haul transport equipment and cranes may be brought to the project site infrequently for
equipment repair or replacement. Long-term maintenance and equipment replacement would be scheduled
in accordance with manufacturer recommendations. Solar panels are warranted for 25 years or longer and
are expected to have a life of 30 or more years. Moving parts, such as motors and tracking module drive
equipment, motorized circuit breakers and disconnects, and inverter ventilation equipment, would be
serviced on a regular basis, and unscheduled maintenance would be conducted as necessary. Mitigation
Measure MM 4.9-1 would ensure that all handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials would be
conducted in accordance with proven practices to minimize exposure to workers or the public.

The PV modules that would be installed on the project site use CdTe thin-film technology. CdTe is generally
bound to a glass sheet by a vapor transport deposition during the manufacturing process, followed by sealing
the CdTe layer with a laminate material and then encapsulating it in a second glass sheet. The modules meet
rigorous performance testing standards demonstrating durability in a variety of environmental conditions.
The PV modules conform to the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) test standards IEC 61646
and IEC61730 PV as tested by a third-party testing laboratory certified by the IEC. In addition, the PV
modules also conform to Underwriters Laboratory (UL) 1703 a standard established by the independent

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 66 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

product safety certification organization. In accordance with UL 1703, the PV modules undergo rigorous
accelerated life testing under a variety of conditions to demonstrate safe construction and monitor
performance. Studies indicate that unless the PV module is purposefully ground to a fine dust, use of CdTe
in PV modules do not generate any emissions of CdTe (Fthenakis 2003). The project includes operational
and maintenance protocols that would be used to identify and remove damaged or defective PV modules
during annual inspections. The PV module manufacturer created the first global and comprehensive module
collection and recycling program in the PV industry in 2005. Dust palliatives and herbicides, if used during
operations to control vegetation, may be transported to the project site. These materials would be stored in
appropriate containers in accordance with the hazardous materials business plan required by Mitigation
Measure MM 4.9-1.

Project operations could require the use of hazardous materials at the energy storage facility which would
contain battery acids, as well as lead acid, sodium sulfur, and sodium or nickel hydride. All transformers
would be equipped with spill containment areas and battery storage would be in accordance with OSHA
requirements such as inclusion of ventilation, acid resistant materials, and spill response supplies. All
components would have a comprehensive SPCC plan, in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and
local regulations. Dust palliatives and herbicides, if used during operations to control vegetation, may be
transported to the project site. These materials would be stored in appropriate containers to prevent
accidental release. There are no designated routes for the transport of hazardous materials located on or
immediately adjacent to the project site; the closest route is SR-14. In addition, implementation of
Mitigation Measure MM 4.9-1, which requires the preparation of a hazardous materials business plan that
would describe proper handling, storage, transport, and disposal techniques and methods to be used to avoid
spills and minimize impacts in the event of a spill, would further reduce impacts related to hazards to a less-
than-significant level.

Further, implementation of the project would not result in the significant risk of EMFs associated with
overhead power lines, as the project would ultimately connect into the existing infrastructure (i.e., the Big
Sky North substation). In addition, the project would not construct sensitive uses under the existing lines.
As the state has not adopted any specific limits or regulations regarding EMF levels from electric power
facilities, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

During the decommissioning and disposal process, it is anticipated that all project structures would be fully
removed from the ground. Above-ground equipment that would be removed would include electrical
wiring, equipment on the inverter pads, transformer pads, telecommunications equipment and other
associated equipment. Equipment would be de-energized prior to removal, salvaged (where possible),
placed in appropriate shipping containers, and secured in a truck transport trailer for shipment off-site.
Removal of the solar modules would include removal of the racks on which the solar panels are attached,
and their placement in secure transport crates and a trailer for storage, for ultimate transportation to another
facility.

Once the solar modules have been removed, the racks would be disassembled, and the structures supporting
the racks would be removed. All other associated site infrastructure would be removed, including fences,
concrete pads that may support the inverters, transformers and related equipment, and underground
conduit/electrical wiring. The fence and gate would be removed, and all materials would be recycled to the
extent feasible. The area would be thoroughly cleaned and all debris removed. As discussed above, most

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 67 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

panel materials would be recycled, with minimal disposal to occur in landfills in compliance with all
applicable laws. The PV module manufacturer would likely provide CdTe module collection and recycling
services. In any case, current CdTe PV modules pass federal leaching criteria for non-hazardous waste, due
in part to the low solubility of CdTe, which means they would not pose a significant risk for cadmium
leaching if they reached a landfill.

Several peer-reviewed studies have evaluated the environmental, health, and safety aspects of CdTe PV
modules. These studies have consistently concluded that during normal operations, CdTe PV modules do
not present an environmental risk. CdTe releases are also unlikely to occur during accidental breakage or
fire due to the high chemical and thermal stability of CdTe. As described in Section 4.16, Utilities and
Service Systems, Mitigation Measure MM 4.16-1 requires that an on-site recycling coordinator be
designated by the project proponent to facilitate recycling of all waste through coordination with the on-
site contractors, local waste haulers, and/or other facilities that recycle construction/demolition wastes. The
on-site recycling coordinator shall also be responsible for ensuring that wastes requiring special disposal
are handled according to state and county regulations that are in effect at the time of disposal. The name
and phone number of the coordinator shall be provided to the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources
Department prior to issuance of building permits.

Finding
The project has the potential create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.16-1,
described below in Findings for Utilities and Service Systems, and Mitigation Measure MM 4.9-1,
described below, would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Level of Significance
With Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.16-1 and MM 4.9-1, impacts would be less than
significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.16-1 described below in Findings for Utilities and Service
Systems, and Mitigation Measure MM 4.9-1, described below, would reduce these impacts to a less-than-
significant level.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 68 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
MM 4.9-1: Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the project proponent shall prepare a
hazardous materials business plan and submit it to the Kern County Environmental Health
Services Division/Hazardous Materials Section for review and approval.
a. The hazardous materials business plan shall:
1. Delineate hazardous material and hazardous waste storage areas.
2. Describe proper handling, storage, transport, and disposal techniques.
3. Describe methods to be used to avoid spills and minimize impacts in the
event of a spill.
4. Describe procedures for handling and disposing of unanticipated
hazardous materials encountered during construction.
5. Establish public and agency notification procedures for spills and other
emergencies, including fires.
6. Include procedures to avoid or minimize dust from existing residual
pesticide and herbicide use that may be present on the site.
b. The project proponent shall provide the hazardous materials business plan to all
contractors working on the project and shall ensure that one copy is available at
the project site at all times.
c. A copy of the approved hazardous materials business plan shall be submitted to
the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department.
Significant Effect
The project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment
(Impact 4.9-2).
Description of Significant Impact

Construction activities required for the project would involve trenching, excavation, grading, and other
ground-disturbing activities. Construction activities would temporarily require use of equipment, such as
trucks, excavators, and other powered equipment, and would use potentially hazardous materials such as
fuels (gasoline and diesel) and lubricants (oils and greases). In addition, construction may use hazardous
materials such as glues, solvents, paints, thinners, or other chemicals. Such materials would be used in
quantities typically associated with construction of PV solar facilities and would be transported, handled,
stored, and disposed of in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and manufacturers’ instructions.

An accidental release of hazardous materials could result in a significant hazard to the public or the
environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.9-1 and the Hazardous Materials Business
Plan, which would provide methods to be used to avoid spills and minimize impacts in the event of a spill
by providing procedures for handling and disposing hazardous materials as well as public and agency
notification procedures for spills and other emergencies including fires, would reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 69 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
According to CalGEM, the project site is not located within a known active oil production field, but does
include six plugged exploratory oil wells located within the project boundary (CalGEM, 2019). Despite the
relatively open spaces surrounding the project site, nearby sensitive receptors could be exposed to pollutant
emissions during construction of the project, resulting in a potentially significant impact. An adverse risk
related to exposure to hazardous materials could result from the installation and use of transformers, grading
of the site, the application of herbicides, or other construction or operation processes if hazardous materials
are not used appropriately during construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.9-2, which
regulates the use of herbicides as described below, as well as Mitigation Measures MM 4.9-1 and MM 4.16-
1, would reduce impacts related to sensitive receptors to a less-than-significant level.

The PV modules and inverters would produce no hazardous waste during operation. Each enclosed
transformer at the substation would include mineral oil, but secondary containment would be provided in
accordance with applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations. The mineral oil contained in each
transformer does not normally require replacement, and mineral oil disposal would be in accordance with
all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations.

The PV modules and inverters would produce no hazardous waste during operation. Each enclosed
transformer at the substation would include mineral oil, but secondary containment would be provided in
accordance with applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations. The mineral oil contained in each
transformer does not normally require replacement, and mineral oil disposal would be in accordance with all
applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations.

It has been demonstrated that standard operation of polycrystalline silicon PV systems does not result in
pollution emissions to air, water, or soil. Polycrystalline silicon panels removed from the site would be
recycled or otherwise disposed at an appropriate waste disposal facility. Hazardous materials are unlikely
to occur during accidental breakage of the polycrystalline silicon solar panels. Similarly, fire damage would
not result in the release of hazardous materials. Crystalline silicon and CdTe thin film PV modules do not
pose a threat to nearby residences.

In the event that CdTe PV modules are used for the project, CdTe releases are unlikely to occur from
accidental breakage of or fires involving the PV modules. CdTe is a highly stable semiconductor compound
due to strong chemical bonding that translates to extremely low solubility in water, low vapor pressure, and
a melting point greater than 1,000 degree Celsius (˚C). Potential impacts to soil, air, and groundwater
quality from broken CdTe PV modules are highly unlikely to pose a potential health risk as they are below
both human health screening levels and background levels.

Potential CdTe emissions from fire are unlikely to occur at the project site because of the lack of fuel to
support a sustained wildfire. Grass fires are the most likely fire exposure scenario for ground-mounted PV
systems, and these fires tend to be short-lived due to the thinness of grass fuels. As a result, these fires are
unlikely to expose PV modules to prolonged fire conditions or to temperatures high enough to volatilize
CdTe, which has a melting point of 1,041˚C. Moreover, even if a desert wildfire could reach that
temperature, the actual CdTe emissions from a PV module would be insignificant (~0.04 percent) due to
encapsulation in the molten glass matrix.

Potential CdTe emissions from broken PV modules exposed to precipitation are also unlikely. Based on
warranty return data, the breakage rate of CdTe PV modules is low, one percent over 25 years, which translates
to an average of 0.04 percent per year. This breakage rate is an overestimate because over one-third of PV
module breakage occurs during shipping and installation. Modules that break during shipping and installation
are removed from the construction site and returned to a manufacturing facility for recycling. Even if the CdTe
semiconductor layer becomes exposed to the environment, it strongly resists being released from the PV
module into the environment, and CdTe has an extremely low solubility in water.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 70 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
The CdTe PV modules do not pose a threat to nearby residences. The use of CdTe PV modules at the project
site would not result in human or aquatic exposure of cadmium. A recent research article, Fate and Transport
Evaluation of Potential Leaching Risks from Cadmium Telluride Photovoltaics (Sinha et al., 2012), further
substantiates that during operation, CdTe PV modules do not pose a threat to human health or the
environment due to its construction. The study evaluates the worst-case scenario to estimate potential
exposures to CdTe compounds in soil, air or groundwater. The results show that exposure point
concentrations in soil, air, and groundwater are one to six orders of magnitude below human health
screening levels and below background levels, indicating that it is highly unlikely that exposures would
pose potential health risks to onsite workers or offsite residents.

In addition, the hazardous materials that would be present in the ESS would be contained within
specifications that follow applicable federal, State and local requirements. OSHA requirements call for the
inclusion of appropriate ventilation, acid resistant materials, and presence of spill protection supplies.

Removal and/or maintenance of vegetation may require pesticide and herbicide use during both
construction and operation. If not handled properly, use of these products could create a hazard to the public
(construction workers, maintenance employees, and nearby residences), resulting in a potentially significant
impact. Mitigation Measure MM 4.9-2 would reduce impacts related to use of pesticides and herbicides to
a less-than-significant level.

As noted above, the project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of substantial quantities
of hazardous materials, as defined by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act. The
closest designated route for the transport of hazardous materials is I-5 which is approximately 4.3 miles
from the project site. Adherence to regulations and standard protocols during the storage, transportation,
and usage of any hazardous materials would minimize and avoid the potential for significant impacts related
to upset and accident conditions.

Overall, adherence to regulations and standard protocols during the storage, transportation, and usage of
any hazardous materials, and implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.9-1, MM 4.9-2, and 4.16-1
would minimize or reduce potential impacts related to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials, to a less-than-significant level.

The decommissioning and disposal process is described under Impact 4.9-1, above. Panel materials would
either be recycled, or would be disposed of in accordance with local, state, and Federal regulations. The PV
module manufacturer provides CdTe module collection and recycling services. In any case, current CdTe
PV modules pass federal leaching criteria for non-hazardous waste, due in part to the low solubility of
CdTe, which means they would not pose a significant risk for cadmium leaching if they reached a landfill.
In the case of both crystalline silicon and thin film CdTe PV technology, a national PV module recycling
network has been established by the U.S. Solar Energy Industry Association (SEIA) for providing module
collection and recycling services.

Mitigation Measure MM 4.16-1 requires that an onsite recycling coordinator be designated by the project
proponent to facilitate recycling of all feasible waste through coordination with the onsite contractors, local
waste haulers, and/or other facilities that recycle construction/demolition wastes. The onsite recycling
coordinator shall also be responsible for ensuring that wastes requiring special disposal are handled
according to State and County regulations that are in effect at the time of disposal. The name and phone
number of the coordinator shall be provided to the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources
Department prior to issuance of building permits.
Finding

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 71 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

The project has the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.9-1, described above, and MM 4.16-1,
described below in Findings for Utilities and Service Systems, and Mitigation Measure MM 4.9-2,
described below, described below would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Level of Significance
With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.9-1, MM 4.9-2, and MM 4.16-1, impacts would be
less than significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.9-1, described above, MM 4.16-1, described below in
Findings for Utilities and Service Systems, and Mitigation Measure MM 4.9-2, described below, would
reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level.
MM 4.9-2: The project proponent/operator shall continuously comply with the following:
a. The construction contractor or project personnel shall use herbicides that are approved for
use in California, and are appropriate for application adjacent to natural vegetation areas
(i.e., non-agricultural use). Personnel applying herbicides shall have all appropriate State
and local herbicide applicator licenses and comply with all State and local regulations
regarding herbicide use.
b. Herbicides shall be mixed and applied in conformance with the manufacturer’s directions.
c. The herbicide applicator shall be equipped with splash protection clothing and gear,
chemical resistant gloves, chemical spill/splash wash supplies, and material safety data
sheets for all hazardous materials to be used. To minimize harm to wildlife, vegetation, and
water bodies, herbicides shall not be applied directly to wildlife.
d. Products identified as non-toxic to birds and small mammals shall be used if nests or dens
are observed; and herbicides shall not be applied if it is raining at the site, rain is imminent,
or the target area has puddles or standing water.
e. Herbicides shall not be applied when wind velocity exceeds 10 miles per hour. If spray is
observed to be drifting to a non-target location, spraying shall be discontinued until
conditions causing the drift have abated.
f. A written record of all herbicide applications on the site, including dates and amounts, shall
be furnished annually to the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department.

Significant Effect

The project would impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan (Impact 4.9-6).
Description of Significant Impact
As discussed in Section 4.14, Traffic and Transportation, of this EIR, the project site is located in a rural area
with various access roads allowing adequate egress/ingress to the site in the event of an emergency. Additionally,
as part of the project, additional onsite access roadways (internal to the site) would be constructed. Therefore,

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 72 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
the development of the proposed project would not physically interfere with emergency vehicle access or
personnel evacuation from the site.
As further described in Section 4.14, Traffic and Transportation, of this EIR, increased project-related traffic
would not cause a significant increase in congestion and or significantly worsen the existing service levels at
intersections on area roads; therefore, project-related traffic would not affect emergency access to the project site
or any other surrounding location. The proposed project would not require closures of public roads, which could
inhibit access by emergency vehicles. For these reasons construction and operation would have a less-than-
significant impact on emergency access.
While impacts would be less than significant, Mitigation Measure MM 4.14-1 would provide further assurances
for emergency access. Mitigation Measure MM 4.14-1 requires the preparation of a Construction Traffic Control
Plan that considers access for emergency vehicles to the project site. During project operation, Mitigation
Measure MM 4.14-1 requires the project operator obtain Kern County approval of all proposed access road
designs prior to construction, further ensuring onsite emergency access is adequate.
Finding
The project has the potential to impair implementation of, or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.14-1, described
below in Findings for Transportation, would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Level of Significance
With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.14-1, impacts would be less than significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.14-1, described below in Findings for Transportation, would reduce
impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Significant Effect
The project would expose people or structures either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving wildland fires (Impact 4.9-7).
Description of Significant Impact
The project site is not located within a high fire hazard severity zone (CAL FIRE, 2007a; CAL FIRE,
2007b). However, there is sparse vegetation onsite and site preparation would involve the removal of
additional vegetation, although natural vegetation may be maintained if it does not interfere with project
construction or the health and safety of onsite personnel. The project would also include a Battery Energy
Storage System (BESS), which has a very low likelihood of producing a fire (generally a result of thermal
runaway event from an internal short with cascading events) and a very low likelihood of catching fire (due
to the non-flammable material that are used for the structure and absence of flammable vegetation or other
materials nearby). However, BESS still have the possibility of catching fire under the right circumstances
(which are rare) or being damaged by fire and may generate fumes and gases that are extremely corrosive
in those instances. Dry chemical, carbon dioxide, and foam are the preferred methods for extinguishing a
fire involving batteries as water is not useful in extinguishing battery fires.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 73 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

As discussed further in Section 4.13, Public Services, of this EIR, the project proponent would implement
Mitigation Measure MM 4.13-1, which would require the preparation and submittal of a Fire Safety Plan
to the Kern County Fire Department for review and approval. The purpose of the Fire Safety Plan would
be to eliminate causes of fire, prevent loss of life and property by fire, to comply with County and County
Fire Protection District standards for solar facilities, and to comply with the OSHA standard of fire
prevention, 29 CFR 1910.39. The fire safety plan would address fire hazards of the different components
of the project, including the energy storage facility, and would include BMPs to reduce the potential for
fire and extinguishment techniques if a fire were to occur. As discussed in more detail in Section 4.17,
Wildfire, the project would not place the gen-tie and electrical collection system, energy storage facility, or
internal/perimeter dirt maintenance roads within a high fire hazard zone, and would clear all necessary
vegetation, which would reduce fire risks. Mitigation Measure MM 4.13-1 would be implemented to ensure
a fire safety plan for construction and operation of the project is incorporated as part of the project. With
mitigation, potential impacts from wildland fires would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Finding
The project has the potential to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands. The implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.13-1, described below in
Findings for Public Services, would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Level of Significance
With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.13-1, impacts would be less than significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.13-1, described below in Findings for Public Services, would
reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

C. Environmental Effects of the Project that Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less Than

Significant Level.
The project would not have any environmental effects related to hazards and hazardous materials that
cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project that Would Have a Less-Than-

Significant Impact on the Environment.

Significant Effect
The project would have a cumulative environmental impact related to hazards and hazardous materials.
Description of Significant Impact

As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, a limited number of industrial/utility projects are proposed
in the project vicinity in addition to a large mixed-use specific plan which proposes the development of
residential and commercial uses. The geographic scope of impacts associated with hazardous materials

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 74 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

generally encompasses the project site and a 0.25-mile-radius area around the site. A 0.25-mile-radius area
allows for a conservative cumulative analysis because, similar to other potential impacts, such as those
related to geology and soils, risks related to hazards and hazardous materials are typically localized in
nature.

Impacts regarding the handling, use, and/or storage of hazardous materials would be project specific and
would not cumulatively contribute to impacts. An accident involving a hazardous material release during
project construction or operation through upset or accident conditions including site grading and the use
and transport of petroleum-based lubricants, solvents, fuels, batteries, herbicides, and pesticides to and from
the project site would be location specific. Conformance with existing State and County regulations, as well
as project safety design features and the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.9-1 and MM 4.9-2
identified above would further reduce cumulative impacts. In addition, implementation of appropriate
safety measures during construction of the project, as well as other cumulative projects, would reduce the
impact to a level that would not contribute to cumulative effects. Given the minimal risks of hazards at the
project site, cumulative impacts are unlikely to occur. Therefore, impacts would not be cumulatively
significant.

Hazardous materials to be used during decommissioning and removal activities are of low toxicity and
would consist of fuels, oils, and lubricants. Because these materials are required for operation of
construction vehicles and equipment, BMPs would be implemented to reduce the potential for or exposure
to accidental spills or fires involving the use of hazardous materials. Impacts from minor spills or drips
would be avoided by thoroughly cleaning up minor spills as soon as they occur. While foreseeable projects
have the potential to cause similar impacts, it is assumed these projects would also implement similar
BMPs. Conformance with existing State and County regulations, as well as implementation of Mitigation
Measures MM 4.9-1, MM 4.9-2, MM 4.13-1, of Section 4.13, Public Services, (Fire Safety Plan) and MM
4.16-1, of Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, (recycling of debris and waste) would further reduce
the potential for cumulative impacts. In addition, implementation of appropriate safety measures during
construction of the project, as well as any other cumulative project, would reduce the impact to a level that
would not contribute to cumulative effects. Therefore, impacts related to hazardous materials would not be
cumulatively significant.

Finding
The project has the potential to result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to hazards and hazardous
materials. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.9-1 and MM 4.9-2, described above,
MM 4.13-1, described below under Findings for Public Services, MM 4.16-1, described below under
Findings for Utilities and Service Systems, would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Level of Significance
With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.9-1 and MM 4.9-2, MM 4.13-1, and MM 4.16-1,
impacts would be less than significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.9-1 and MM 4.9-2, described above, MM 4.13-1, described

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 75 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
below under Findings for Public Services, MM 4.16-1, described below under Findings for Utilities and
Service Systems, would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level.

E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project that Would Have a Significant and
Unavoidable Impact on the Environment.

The project would not have a significant and unavoidable cumulative environmental impact on hazards and
hazardous materials.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the

Environment, or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.

The project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin
(Impact 4.10-2).

The project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan (Impact 4.10-8).

B. Environmental Effects of the Project that Are Potentially Significant, but that Can
Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.

Significant Effect
The project would violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise degrade
surface or groundwater quality (Impact 4.10-1).
Description of Significant Impact
Potential impacts on water quality from erosion and sedimentation are expected to be localized and
temporary during construction. Stormwater runoff from the project site would not discharge to waters of
the United States since the project area is within a watershed that is not hydrologically connected to a
navigable waterway. However, because the project would disturb more than 1 acre of land area and
stormwater would not be contained on site or discharge into a terminal drainage facility, according to the
Kern County Engineering, Surveying, and Permit Services Department NPDES applicability form, the
project would be required to implement a SWPPP during construction. Per Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-1,
the SWPPP would include BMPs designed to prevent the occurrence of soil erosion and discharge of other
construction-related pollutants that could contaminate water quality, and would be applicable to all areas
of the project, including the solar fields and the gen-tie line. In addition, prior to the commencement of
construction activities, the project proponent would be required to adhere to the requirements of the Kern
County Grading Code. This includes implementation of various measures designed to prevent erosion and
control drainage onsite, thereby further preventing the potential sedimentation and subsequent degradation
of stormwater.

During project construction, any activity that results in the accidental release of hazardous or potentially
hazardous materials could result in water quality degradation. Further, any construction activity that results
in the accidental release of pollutants, hazardous or potentially hazardous materials could result in water

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 76 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

quality degradation. Materials that could contribute to this impact include, but are not limited to, diesel fuel,
gasoline, lubricant oils, hydraulic fluid, antifreeze, transmission fluid, lubricant grease, cement slurry, and
other fluids utilized by construction and maintenance vehicles and equipment. Motorized equipment could
leak hazardous materials such as motor oil, transmission fluid, or antifreeze due to inadequate or improper
maintenance, unnoticed or unrepaired damage, improper refueling, or operator error.

As discussed in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure
MM 4.9-1 would require the project proponent to provide a Hazardous Materials Business Plan that would
delineate hazardous material and hazardous waste storage areas; describe proper handling, storage,
transport, and disposal techniques; describe methods to be used to avoid spills and minimize impacts in the
event of a spill; describe procedures for handling and disposing of unanticipated hazardous materials
encountered during construction; and establish public and agency notification procedures for spills and
other emergencies, including fires. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.10-1 and
MM 4.9-1, impacts to water quality would be less than significant during construction.

The solar facilities would require limited use of certain hazardous materials for routine operations and
maintenance. Accidental release of such materials could include fuels, paints, coatings, lubricants, and
transformer oil, which would result in water quality degradation should the materials become entrained in
stormwater. This would result in a potentially significant impact on water quality. However, as described
above, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.9-1 would require the implementation of a Hazardous
Materials Business Plan that would ensure safe handling of hazardous materials onsite and provide the
means for prompt cleanup in the event of an accidental hazardous material release. There would be no
hazardous materials associated with the interconnections to the gen-tie lines.

Water quality could also be degraded by non-hazardous materials during operation activities. During dry
periods, impervious surfaces (i.e., hardscape surfaces such as foundations and buildings) can collect
greases, oils, and other vehicle-related pollutants. During storm events, these pollutants can mix with
stormwater and degrade water quality. However, per Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-2, a drainage plan
would be prepared in accordance with the Kern County Development Standards and Kern County Code of
Building Regulations. Therefore, the drainage plan would include post-construction structural and
nonstructural BMPs that could include features such as drainage swales for collection of runoff prior to
offsite discharge. Adherence to these requirements would minimize potential for operation period water
quality degradation. Apart from infrequent cleaning of panels with water that would result in minimal
runoff, no other discharges would occur when the project is operational. Therefore, with the implementation
of Mitigation Measures MM 4.9-1, MM 4.10-1 and MM 4.10-2, project operation would not violate water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise degrade water quality.

Finding
The project has the potential to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. However,
implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.9-1, described above in Findings for Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, MM 4-10-1 and MM 4.10-2, described below, would reduce these impacts to a less-than-
significant level.

Level of Significance

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 77 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.9-1, MM 4-10-1 and MM 4.10-2, impacts would be
less than significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding

CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts related
to violating water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Implementation of Mitigation
Measures MM 4.9-1, described above in Findings for Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and MM 4-10-1
and MM 4.10-2, described below, would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level.

MM 4.10-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent/operator shall submit a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval by the Kern
County Planning and Natural Resources Department and/or Kern County Public Works
Department. The SWPPP shall be designed to minimize runoff and shall specify best
management practices to prevent all construction pollutants from contacting stormwater,
with the intent of keeping sediment or any other pollutants from moving offsite and into
receiving waters. The requirements of the SWPPP shall be incorporated into design
specifications and construction contracts. Recommended best management practices to be
incorporated in the SWPPP may include the following:
a. Minimization of vegetation removal;
b. Implementing sediment controls, including silt fences a necessary;
c. Installation of a stabilized construction entrance/exit and stabilization of disturbed
areas;
d. Properly containing and disposing of hazardous materials used for construction
onsite;
e. Properly covering stockpiled soils to prevent wind erosion;
f. Proper protections and containment for fueling and maintenance of equipment and
vehicles; and
g. Appropriate disposal of demolition debris, concrete and soil, and aggressively
controlling litter.
h. Cleanup of silt and mud on adjacent street due to construction activity.
i. Checking all lined and unlined ditches after each rainfall.
j. Restore all erosion control devices to working order to the satisfaction of the Kern
County Planning and Natural Resources Department and/or Kern County Public
Works Department after each rainfall run-off.
k. Install additional erosion control measures as may be required due to uncompleted
grading operations or unforeseen circumstances which may arise.
MM 4.10-2: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent/operator shall complete a
hydrologic study and final drainage plan designed to evaluate and minimize potential
increases in runoff from the project site. The study shall include, but is not limited to the
following:

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 78 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
a. A numerical stormwater model for the project site that evaluates existing and proposed
(with project) drainage conditions during storm events ranging up to the 100-year
event.
b. The study shall also consider potential for erosion and sedimentation in light of
modeled changes in stormwater flow across the project area that would result from
project implementation.
c. Engineering recommendations to be incorporated into the project design and applied
within the site boundary. Engineering recommendations will include measures to offset
increases in stormwater runoff that would result from the project, as well as
implementation of design measures to minimize or manage flow concentration and
changes in flow depth or velocity so as to minimize erosion, sedimentation, and
flooding onsite or offsite.
d. A specification that the final design of the solar arrays shall include one foot of
freeboard clearance above the calculated maximum flood depths for the solar arrays or
the finished floor of any permanent structures. Solar panel sites located within a 100-
year floodplain shall be graded to direct potential flood waters without increasing the
water surface elevations more than one foot or as required by Kern County’s
Floodplain Management Ordinance.
e. The hydrologic study and drainage plan shall be prepared in accordance with the Kern
County Grading Code and Kern County Development Standards, and approved by the
Kern County Public Works Department prior to the issuance of grading permits.

Significant Effect
The project would substantially alter the existing drainage patterns of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner
than would result in substantial erosion and/or sedimentation on‐site or off‐site (Impact 4.10-3).

Description of Significant Impact

Required grading activities for the proposed project would alter existing onsite drainage patterns and
flowpaths, and could alter the way that stormwater flows onsite during major events. These changes could
concentrate flows and thus, result in increased erosion of existing soils onsite and subsequent sedimentation
downstream. Further, the impervious surfaces introduced to the site due to development of the project would
generate additional stormwater runoff on site, which could exacerbate potential erosion and sedimentation
on site or downstream.

As described above, the project would implement a SWPPP per Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-1 that would
require preservation of existing vegetation and topography to the maximum extent feasible, as well as
include erosion and sediment control BMPs designed to prevent erosion and sedimentation from occurring
during project construction. Compliance with the Kern County Grading Ordinance is also required, which
requires erosion prevention measures. With regard to erosion and sedimentation during project operation
caused by increased runoff from impervious surfaces, large amounts of pervious ground surface would
remain during project operation that would continue to absorb the majority of surface flows. Further,
Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-2 requires the completion of a hydrologic study and final drainage plan for
the proposed project prior to the issuance of a grading permit; the plan would demonstrate that the project

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 79 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

site has been designed to minimize potential increases in runoff. Minimization of runoff increases could
require inclusion of a retention basin onsite to capture high storm flows. Any stormwater management
features would be consistent with existing regulatory requirements and would minimize any erosion or
sedimentation to less than significant levels. With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.10-1 and
MM 4.10-2, impacts would be less than significant.

Finding
The project has the potential to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner that would result in substantial erosion and/or sedimentation on-site or off-site. Implementation
Mitigation Measures MM 4.10-1 and MM 4.10-2, described above, would reduce these impacts to a less-
than-significant level.
Level of Significance
With implementation Mitigation Measures MM 4.10-1 and MM 4.10-2, impacts would be less than
significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.10-1 and MM 4.10-2, described above, would reduce these
impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Significant Effect
The project would substantially alter the existing drainage patterns of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in flooding onsite or offsite
(Impact 4.10-4).

Description of Significant Impact

As discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, grading and installation of
project facilities would alter existing onsite drainage patterns and flowpaths. This could cause localized
flooding during major events along the margins of the project area, or within the project area, depending
upon how stormwater is managed under final project design. During operation of the project, large amounts
of pervious ground surface would remain onsite that would continue to absorb the majority of surface flows.
In addition, Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-2 would require the preparation of a final hydrologic study and
drainage plan prior to issuance of a grading permit that would detail the design and implementation of any
necessary stormwater control features to onsite that would ensure runoff is not substantially increased by
the proposed facilities. Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-2 would also require that grading for the project
facilities does not alter the ground surface such that the extent of flooding during flood events is
substantially increased. Therefore, impacts related to flooding would be less than significant.

Finding
The project has the potential to substantially alter the existing drainage patterns of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in flooding onsite or
offsite. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-2, described above, would reduce these impacts
to a less-than-significant level.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 80 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
Level of Significance
With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-2, impacts would be less than significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-2, described above, would reduce these impacts to a less-
than-significant level.

Significant Effect
The project would create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff (Impact 4.10-5).

Description of Significant Impact

The project site is located in a remote, rural region with no existing or planned stormwater infrastructure.
There are no existing stormwater drainage systems on the project site, and no stormwater drainage systems
are proposed as part of the project. The project would be required to adhere to Kern County Public Works
Department storm water requirements, which include measures to address stormwater controls on both
management of runoff volume and water quality, including controlling erosion and protection of water
quality of stormwater runoff. As described in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR,
a large amount of pervious surfaces would surround the proposed facilities that would continue to absorb
runoff thus allowing infiltration of the runoff produced by the new minor impervious surfaces. Further, the
drainage plan required by Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-2 would detail any necessary design features
required to properly control stormwater runoff onsite; design features would be appropriately sized for
storm events per the final hydrology study performed for the site. Impacts related to storm water drainage
systems would be less than significant.

Finding
The project has the potential to create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-2, described above, would reduce these impacts to a less-
than-significant level.
Level of Significance
With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-2, impacts would be less than significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts. The
project has the potential to create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-2, described above, would reduce these impacts to a less-
than-significant level.

Significant Effect

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 81 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
The project would place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood
flows (Impact 4.10-6)

Description of Significant Impact

The project sites are located within a 100-year flood zone (Kimley Horn, 2020). The project would introduce
structures on the project site such as the solar panels mounted on elevated single-axis tracker racking systems,
at-grade compacted native access roads, and the associated electrical equipment that, as noted above would
have a minor effect on flood elevations. Therefore, impacts related to flooding would be less than significant.
In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-2 would require preparation of a drainage plan
that would design project facilities to have one-foot of freeboard clearance above the calculated maximum
flood depths for the solar arrays or the finished floor of any permanent structures. Additionally, per Mitigation
Measure MM 4.10-2, grading for the project would be designed so that water surface elevations during flood
events would not be increased by more than one foot. Therefore, impacts related to flooding would be less
than significant.

Finding
The project has the potential to impede or redirect flood flows. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM
4.10-2, described above, would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Level of Significance
With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-2, impacts would be less than significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts. The
project has the potential to impede or redirect flood flows. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-
2, described above, would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Significant Effect
The project would result in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone, that would risk release of pollutants
due to project inundation (Impact 4.10-7).

Description of Significant Impact

The project sites are located within a 100-year flood zone (Kimley Horn, 2020). As noted above,
implementation of the drainage plan required by Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-2 would ensure that
improvements that would include the storage of hazardous materials would be required to have at least one
foot of freeboard above the calculated flood depth. As discussed more thoroughly in Section 4.9, Hazards
and Hazardous Materials, the project would not include the use, storage, or disposal of significant quantities
of hazardous materials. In addition, the project site is located well inland and far from the ocean or any
enclosed or semi-enclosed water body such that there would be no potential threat from tsunami or seiche
hazards. Therefore, considering the limited area of the site that is in the flood hazard area, the limited
amount of storage of hazardous materials at the site, and with the implementation of the drainage plan
required by Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-2, which would provide flood protection measures, the potential
for release of pollutants due to project inundation would be less than significant.

Finding

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 82 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
The project has the potential to result in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone, that would risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-2, described above,
would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Level of Significance
With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-2, impacts would be less than significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts. The
project has the potential to result in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone, that would risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-2, described above,
would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level.

C. Environmental Effects of the Project that Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less Than

Significant Level.
The project would not have any environmental effects related to hydrology and water quality that cannot
be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project that Would Have a Less-Than-

Significant Impact on the Environment.

Significant Effect
The project would have a cumulative environmental effect on hydrology and water quality.
Description of Significant Impact
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, multiple projects, including several utility-
scale solar and wind energy production facilities, are proposed throughout the Western Antelope Valley
in both Kern and Los Angeles Counties.

The Antelope Valley HU is a closed basin with no outlets to the ocean. The Antelope Valley is a
recognized groundwater basin and use of the basin as the geographic scope allows for analysis of impacts
to the local groundwater supply. The related projects listed in Table 3-9, Cumulative Projects List, all
reside in a somewhat smaller geographic scope than the Antelope Valley HU, but this smaller area is
likely experiencing development, particularly development of renewable energy, of a type and density
that is representative of the hydrological unit as a whole.

With regard to water supply, the cumulative scenario projects, including solar energy projects, would
require water for construction and operation. The Santa Clara Superior Court has established a safe
threshold for water extraction from the Antelope Valley Groundwater Basin to be 110,000 acre-feet per
year. As noted above for the proposed project, related projects in the Antelope Valley Groundwater Basin
would also be required to adhere to the adjudication judgement. Water suppliers that are providing water
supply to the related projects are parties subject to the requirements of the adjudication basin management
overseen by the Watermaster. Therefore, the incremental water use of the project, along with the other
similar cumulative projects that are being managed by the Watermaster, during construction and

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 83 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

operations would not result in a significant cumulative impact to the basin. Hence, cumulative impacts
related to water supplies are less than significant.

Similar to the proposed project, all cumulative projects would not discharge to waters of the United States
due to their location within the Antelope Valley, which is a closed basin with no outlet to the Pacific
Ocean. Regardless, Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-1 would require the project to prepare and implement a
SWPPP in accordance with County requirements. Similarly, all projects that would not retain all runoff
onsite would be required to prepare a SWPPP, which would include BMPs designed to prevent the
mixture of sediment and other pollutants with stormwater and degrading water quality. Furthermore, the
proposed project would implement a Hazardous Materials Business Plan as part of Mitigation Measure
MM 4.9-1 that would require appropriate handling of hazardous materials onsite to ensure they do not
come into contact with stormwater and affect water quality. All other projects in the vicinity that would
handle hazardous materials would be required to comply with hazardous material regulations. Therefore,
cumulative scenario impacts associated with water quality degradation would not be cumulatively
considerable, and the project would not contribute to a cumulative impact on water quality.

With respect to erosion, drainage, and flooding, the project would implement Mitigation Measure MM
4.10-2, which would minimize direct impacts on erosion, drainage, and flooding. Other cumulative
scenario projects would be required to implement similar measures, in order to minimize erosion,
drainage, and flooding related impacts. Additionally, drainage related impacts from cumulative scenario
projects would be primarily localized. Therefore, cumulative scenario impacts on erosion, drainage, and
flooding are not anticipated to be cumulatively considerable, and the project would not contribute to a
cumulative impact on flooding, erosion, or drainage.

Finding
The project has the potential for cumulative environmental effects on hydrology and water quality.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures, MM 4.9-1, described above in Findings for Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, MM 4.10-1 and MM 4.10-2, described above, would reduce these impacts to a less-
than-significant level.

Level of Significance
With implementation of Mitigation Measures, MM 4.9-1, MM 4.10-1 and MM 4.10-2, cumulative impacts
would be less than significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding

CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures, MM 4.9-1, described above in Findings for Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, MM 4.10-1 and MM 4.10-2, described above, would reduce these impacts to a less-
than-significant level.

E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project that Would Have a Significant and
Unavoidable Impact on the Environment.
The project would not have a significant and unavoidable cumulative environmental effect on hydrology
and water quality.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 84 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

LAND USE AND PLANNING

A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the

Environment, or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
The project would cause a significant environmental impact due to physically dividing an established
community (Impact 4.11-1).
The project would cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy,
or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect (Impact 4.11-2).

B. Environmental Effects of the Project that Are Potentially Significant, but that Can
Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.

The project would not have any environmental effects related to land use and planning that are potentially
significant and no mitigation is required.

C. Environmental Effects of the Project that Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less Than

Significant Level.
The project would not have any environmental effects related to land use and planning that cannot be
mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project that Would Have a Less-Than-

Significant Impact on the Environment.

Significant Effect
The project would have a cumulative environmental impact on land use and planning.
Description of Significant Impact

The anticipated impacts of the project in conjunction with cumulative development in the area of the project
would increase the urbanization and result in the loss of open space. However, potential land use impacts
require evaluation on a case-by-case basis because of the interactive effects of a specific development and
its immediate environment. As described in Table 4.11-2, Consistency Analysis with Kern County General
Plan Land Use, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would be consistent with the goals and policies of
the Kern County General Plan. In addition, with approval of the Specific Plan Amendments, Zone Changes,
and CUPs, development of solar facilities for the proposed project would be an allowable use that would
not conflict with the land use or zoning classification for the project site. Therefore, as proposed the project
would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Kern County General Plan and the Kern County
Zoning Ordinance and would therefore not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact regarding land
use.

Furthermore, all related projects would be required to separate undergo environmental review on a case-
by-case basis in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Each related project would also be required
to demonstrate consistency with all applicable planning documents governing the project site, including the
Kern County General Plan the Kern County Zoning Ordinance, and the Willow Springs Specific Plan.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 85 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

Should potential impacts be identified, appropriate mitigation would be prescribed that would likely reduce
potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.

With regard to cumulative effects of utility-sized solar power generation facilities, there is a potential that
outside factors, such as the development of newer technology, change in State or national policy that
encourages the construction of such facilities, or other economic factors, could result in the abandonment
of such facilities. Unlike other facilities that, once constructed, can be retrofitted and utilized for another
specific use, solar power generation facilities have little opportunity for other uses should the project not
be in operation. The potential for the cumulative effects caused by the abandonment of multiple solar
facilities in Kern County could result in impacts on surrounding land uses should it be determined that these
facilities are no longer viable commercial operations. Therefore, Mitigation Measure MM 4.11-1, which
would require the implementation of a decommissioning plan to be carried out by the project proponent
once the life of the project has ended, has been included to establish safeguards to ensure the maintenance
of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the County. While it is the intent of Kern County to
promote the use of an alternative to fossil-fuel-generated electrical power in areas of the County that are
identified to have suitable characteristics for production of commercial quantities of solar PV-generated
electrical power, it is necessary to protect surrounding landowners from potential impacts associated with
the abandonment of such facilities. Mitigation Measure MM 4.11-2 is also being included to ensure that the
proposed solar facility does not interfere with the telemetry operations associated with the Edwards Air
Force Base. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.11-1 and MM 4.11-2, cumulative land
use impacts would be considered less than significant.

Finding
The project has the potential to result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to land use and planning.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.11-1 and MM 4.11-2, described below, would reduce
impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Level of Significance
With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.11-1 and MM 4.11-2, cumulative impacts would be
less than significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.11-1 and MM 4.11-2, described below, would reduce
impacts to a less-than-significant level.

MM 4.11-1: Prior to issuance of any building permit, the project operator shall provide a Decommission
Plan for review and approval by the Kern County Public Works Department or a County-
contracted consulting firm at a cost to be borne by the project operator. The Decommission
Plan shall factor in the cost to remove the solar panels and support structures, replacement
of any disturbed soil from removal of support structures, and control of fugitive dust on the
remaining undeveloped land. Salvage value for the solar panels and support structures shall
be included in the financial assurance calculations. The assumption, when preparing the
estimate, is that the project operator is incapable of performing the work or has abandoned
the solar facility, thereby requiring Kern County to hire an independent contractor to

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 86 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
perform the decommissioning work. In addition to submitting a Decommission Plan, the
project operator shall post or establish and maintain financial assurances with Kern County
related to the decommissioning of the site as identified on the approved Decommission
Plan in the event that at any point in time the project operator determines it is not in the
company’s best interest to operate the facility.
The financial assurance required prior to issuance of any building permit shall be
established using one of the following:
a. An irrevocable letter of credit;
b. A surety bond;
c. A trust fund in accordance with the approved financial assurances to guarantee the
decommissioning work will be completed in accordance with the approved
decommission plan; or
d. Other financial assurances as reviewed and approved by the respective County
administrative offices, in consultation with the Kern County Planning and Natural
Resources Department.

The financial institution or Surety Company shall give the County at least 120 days’ notice
of intent to terminate the letter of credit or bond. Financial assurances shall be reviewed
annually by the Kern County Public Works Department or County contracted consulting
firm(s) at a cost to be borne by the project operator to substantiate those adequate funds
exist to ensure decommissioning of all solar panels and support structures identified on the
approved Decommission Plan. Should the project operator decommission the site on their
own, the County will not pursue forfeiture of the financial assurance.
Once decommissioning has occurred, financial assurance for that portion of the site will no
longer be required and any financial assurance posted shall be adjusted or returned
accordingly. Any funds not utilized through decommissioning of the site by the County
shall be returned to the project operator.
Should any portion of the solar field not be in operational condition for a consecutive period
of twelve 12 months that portion of the site shall be deemed abandoned and shall be
removed within sixty (60) days from the date a written notice is sent to the property owner
and solar field owner, as well as the project operator, by the County. Within this sixty (60)
day period, the property owner, solar field owner, or project operator may provide the
director of the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department a written request
and justification for an extension for an additional twelve (12) months. The Kern County
Planning and Natural Resources Director shall consider any such request at a Director’s
Hearing as provided for in Section 19.102.070 of the Kern County Zoning Ordinance. In
no case shall a solar field that has been deemed abandoned be permitted to remain in place
for more than forty‐eight (48) months from the date, the solar facility was first deemed
abandoned.
MM 4.11-2: Prior to the operation of the solar facility, the operator shall consult with the Department of
Defense to identify the appropriate Frequency Management Office officials to coordinate the
use of telemetry to avoid potential frequency conflicts with military operations.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 87 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

NOISE

A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the

Environment, or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
The project would generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels (Impact 4.12-2).

The project would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project (Impact 4.12-3).

The project is not located within the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and would not
expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels (Impact 4.12-4).

B. Environmental Effects of the Project that Are Potentially Significant, but that Can
Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.

Significant Effect

The project would result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in the ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies (Impact 4.12-1).
Description of Significant Impact
As discussed in Section 4.12, Noise, of the Draft EIR, project construction would generate off-site traffic
noise from vehicle traffic on area roadways. Traffic noise from daily construction worker commute trips
and truck trips would contribute to the existing traffic volumes, potentially increasing traffic noise levels
along roadways used to access the project site. Under peak construction conditions, it is anticipated that a
total of 995 worker vehicle trips and 92 heavy truck trips (combined inbound and outbound) would occur
on a daily basis (2018 Raceway Project CalEEMod input information., 2020). Because these local access
roads do not experience frequent traffic on a daily basis, the project’s construction traffic noise would have
the greatest effect on sensitive receptors along and near these roads. As such, for the purpose of this analysis,
the roadway noise levels that would be generated from vehicular travel by 100 percent of the project’s
construction-related traffic were estimated and assessed against the County’s average-daily noise level of
65 dBA CNEL.

Based on the anticipated traffic volumes that would occur under peak construction conditions (i.e., 995
worker vehicle trips and 92 heavy truck trips), it was determined that the estimated traffic noise level on
any of the potential local access routes that can be used to access the project site would be approximately
56 dBA CNEL, which would be below the County’s average-daily noise standard. Therefore, overall
shortterm construction related impacts associated with worker commute and equipment transport to and
around the project site would be less than significant.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 88 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

As shown in Table 4.12-10, Construction Equipment Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors, the highest
estimated construction-related noise levels that could result at nearby sensitive receptors over the course of
the project’s construction period would range from 52 dBA Leq to 87 dBA Leq. During quieter phases of
construction or when construction activity moves farther away from the receptor, the noise levels would
decrease. As such, the highest construction noise levels experienced at each analyzed receptor would only
occur over a temporary period within the project’s overall construction schedule.

Sensitive land uses in the project site vicinity that would be exposed to project construction noise levels
include the sparsely distributed residential dwellings that are in the vicinity of the project site. Potential
construction-related noise impacts resulting from the proposed project were assessed at nine representative
sensitive receptors nearest to and surrounding the project site. These receptors would be representative of
the worst-case impacted receptors and impacts at sensitive uses located at greater distances to the project
site would be lower.

Chapter 8.36 of the Kern County Municipal Code includes established hours of construction and limitations
on construction related noise impacts on adjacent sensitive receptors. It is anticipated that most construction
activities associated with the new solar site configuration would occur more than 1,000 feet away from the
sensitive receptors identified in this study. However, due to the potential use of loud construction
equipment, such as vibratory pile drivers, it is expected that sensitive receptors in Willow Springs could be
temporarily exposed to noise levels in exceedance of local permissible standards (55 dBA at the receptor
boundary). Those noise would be intermittent and reduced during times when the vibratory pile driver is
not operating at its highest capacity. Additionally, in compliance with Kern County Noise Ordinance
(Municipal Ordinance Code 8.36.020) construction activities would not occur between the hours of 9:00
p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on weekdays and 9:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. on weekends for construction sites located
within 1,000 feet of an occupied residential dwelling. Given the fact that construction activities could
generate noise greater than the standard 65dBA for the Kern County General Plan and 55 dBA for short
period of times, temporary construction impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. Residences D,
E and F would be potentially exposed to construction noise levels exceeding the 65 dBA threshold.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.12-1 through MM 4.12-3 are designed to reduce impacts to
the extent feasible during construction activities.

Estimated operational noise levels at studied sensitive receptors have been determined based on their
respective nearest distance to each of the project’s applicable noise sources. Table 4.12-11, Distance from
Project Stationary Equipment to Noise Level Standard, shows the project boundary and the distance to the
adjacent receptors at which the project would need to comply with applicable daytime and nighttime
thresholds (45 dBA Leq/L50 nighttime and 55 dBA Leq/L50 daytime within the WSSP and 65 dBA Ldn
within the County).

As all of the identified operational noise sources, with the exception of the periodic on-site maintenance
activities, would be operating on a daily basis, the composite noise level generated from the concurrent
operation of these noise sources (e.g., tracker system, BESS, substation) at the nearby sensitive receptors
were estimated. On-site maintenance activities, such as panel washing, would be transient (up to twice per
year) and, thus, would not occur for an extended duration at any one location and would only occur during
daytime hours.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 89 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

As such, they have not been included in the composite noise analysis. The noise contour distance to the
applicable WSSP daytime noise standard (55 dBA L50) for onsite maintenance activities is 224 feet. Of the
nearby analyzed sensitive receptors surrounding the project site that are within the WSSP area, only one
sensitive receptor is located within this distance. This sensitive receptor, which is estimated to be located
as close as approximately 250 feet from the nearest proposed solar panels, is expected to experience noise
levels of approximately 54 dBA Leq/L50 when operation of a power washer for panel washing is occurring
at this distance, which would not exceed the daytime noise standard of 55 dBA L50 of the WSSP. The
combined operational stationary equipment noise levels from the project would expose studied receptors
within the WSSP Area to noise levels below 40 dBA Leq during nighttime hours and below 50 dBA Leq
during daytime hours. These levels would not exceed WSSP nighttime or daytime standards of 55 dBA
Leq/L50 and 45 dBA Leq/L50, respectively. Mitigation Measure MM 4.12-4 would be implemented, such
that noise levels generated would comply with the applicable noise standards at all offsite sensitive receptor
locations nearest to the project site.

The daily maintenance vehicle trips at the project site would not create a substantial increase of vehicular
noise along access roads to the project site. As assumed in the traffic analysis prepared for the project, the
project would not result in a doubling of the traffic volumes on roadways accessing the project site, and
therefore, the noise level increase would be substantially below a perceptible level of a 3 dBA increase.
Additionally, operational traffic is not expected to exceed established thresholds identified within the Kern
County General Plan and Willow Springs Specific Plan. As such, operational traffic noise levels from
operation of the project would be minimal, and impacts would be less than significant.

Activities associated with a potential decommissioning of the project would result in similar or lower noise
levels than those that would be experienced under the loudest phases of construction. As temporary
increases in ambient noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors would likely occur similar to the project’s
construction activities, decommissioning activities could generate noise greater than the standard 65dB(A)
for the Kern County General Plan and 55 dB(A) for short period of times. Thus, similar to construction,
impacts during decommissioning of the project are considered significant and unavoidable. Mitigation
Measures MM 4.12-1 through MM 4.12-3 would similarly be implemented during decommissioning
activities. Noise from the proposed project operation and maintenance activities would be similar to the
sources and levels discussed for original solar site configuration and not expected to exceed applicable
noise standards in Kern County and Los Angeles County. The proposed project would be unstaffed and
would be monitored remotely, with the support of regular on-site staff security and monitoring visits.

Finding
The proposed project would expose construction workers to excessive noise levels. However, with
implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.12-1 through MM 4.12-4, described below, would reduce
impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Level of Significance
With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.12-1 through MM 4.12-4, impacts would be less than
significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 90 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts. With
implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.12-1 through MM 4.12-4, described below, would reduce
impacts to a less-than-significant level.

MM 4.12-1: The following measures are to be implemented to further reduce short-term noise levels
associated with project construction and decommissioning:
a. Construction and decommissioning activities at the project site shall comply with the
hourly restrictions for noise-generating construction activities, as specified in the
County’s Code of Ordinances, Chapter 8.36. Accordingly, construction activities shall
be prohibited between the hours of 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. on weekdays, and between
9:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. on weekends. These hourly limitations shall not apply to
activities where hourly limitations would result in increased safety risk to workers or
the public, such as commissioning and maintenance activities that must occur after
dark to ensure photovoltaic arrays are not energized, unanticipated emergencies
requiring immediate attention, or security patrols.
b. Equipment staging and laydown areas shall be located at the furthest practical distance
from nearby residential land uses. To the extent possible, staging and laydown areas
should be located at least 500 feet of existing residential dwellings.
c. Construction equipment shall be fitted with noise-reduction features such as mufflers
and engine shrouds that are no less effective than those originally installed by the
manufacturer.
d. Haul trucks shall not be allowed to idle for periods greater than five minutes, except as
needed to perform a specified function (e.g., concrete mixing).
e. On-site vehicle speeds shall be limited to 15 miles per hour, or less (except in cases of
emergency).
f. Back-up beepers for all construction equipment and vehicles shall be broadband sound
alarms or adjusted to the lowest noise levels possible, provided that the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration and California Division of Occupational Safety and
Health’s safety requirements are not violated. On vehicles where back-up beepers are
not available, alternative safety measures such as escorts and spotters shall be
employed.
MM 4.12-2: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a “noise disturbance coordinator” shall be
established. The project operator shall submit evidence of methods of implementation and
shall continuously comply with the following during construction: The disturbance
coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction
noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g.,
starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall be required to implement reasonable
measures such that the complaint is resolved.
MM 4.12-3: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project operator shall submit evidence of the
following: Construction contracts shall specify that notices shall be sent out to all
residences within 1,000 feet of the construction areas at least 15 days prior to
commencement of construction. The notices shall include the construction’s schedule and

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 91 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
a telephone number where complaints can be registered with the noise disturbance
coordinator. A sign legible at a distance of 50 feet shall also be posted at the construction
site throughout construction, which includes the same details as the notices.
MM 4.12-3: The project shall be designed to ensure that operational noise levels at nearby sensitive
receptors, depending on their location within or outside of the WSSP area, would not
exceed the applicable WSSP or County noise standards. Techniques that can be
incorporated into the BESS design to achieve compliance with the applicable noise
standards may include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Place HVAC units on the far side of the BESS containers relative to the nearest
offsite sensitive receptors to allow the containers to act as a barrier to provide noise
attenuation.

• Erect permanent noise barriers of sufficient height to attenuate noise levels from
the BESS containers.

• Provide a sufficient buffer distance between the BESS containers and the nearest
offsite receptor. The adequacy of the selected noise control technique(s) shall be
demonstrated in an acoustical study submitted.

C. Environmental Effects of the Project that Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less Than

Significant Level.

The project would not have any environmental effects related to noise that cannot be mitigated to a less-
than-significant level.

D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project that Would Have a Less-Than-

Significant Impact on the Environment.

Significant Effect
The project would contribute to a cumulative environmental impact on noise.
Description of Significant Impact

As described in Section 3.9, Cumulative Projects, and listed in Table 3-9, Cumulative Projects List, there
are a total of 19 projects in the vicinity to the project site, all of which are located within the 6-mile
cumulative radius of the project site, as shown on Figure 3-15, which include other solar projects, such as,
Antelope Valley, Aurora, RE Astoria, RE Rosamond One and Two, Rosamond Solar Array, Willow Springs
Solar Array, Valentine, Apollo, Windhub, Gettysburg, EDF, Mojave and Tropico, and IP Solar. Due to the
localized nature of noise impacts, cumulative impacts would be largely limited to areas within the general
vicinity (i.e., within approximately 1,000 feet per Chapter 8.36 of Kern County Code of Ordinances (County
of Kern, 2010)) of the project site.

The proposed project’s construction activities, in combination with the construction of other reasonably
foreseeable projects in the area could result in increased short-term construction noise levels in the project
area (depending upon the specific timing of the construction of those other projects and proximity to the
project site). Construction activities associated with other projects in proximity to the project site could

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 92 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

occur at the same time as the proposed project. Of the cumulative projects located within the 6-mile radius
of the project site, there are several projects located within 1 mile of the project site including a project
within 1 mile of each of the facility sites. Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.12-1 through
MM 4.12-3 would reduce and minimize construction noise levels; noise levels would be less than
significant level on a project level basis.

In addition, noise producing construction activities occurring outside of these acceptable construction hours
is considered to be a violation of the County’s noise control ordinance. However, as previously stipulated,
the following exceptions are permitted: (1) The resource management director or a designated
representative may for good cause exempt some construction work for a limited time, and (2) Emergency
work is exempt from this section. Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.12-1 through MM 4.12-3
would reduce and minimize construction noise levels and ensure the project’s consistency with the County’s
noise control ordinance; noise levels would be less than significant on a project level basis. As a result,
construction of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to noise
impacts at residences located within approximately 1,000 feet of the project site. At receptor locations
further than 1,000 feet from the project site, project-generated construction noise would diminish to near
ambient levels and would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to construction noise levels
associated with other construction projects. Therefore, when considered with other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future projects, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to construction noise impacts.

With respect to operational noise, as discussed for cumulative construction noise, there are 7 projects
located within 1-mile of the project site including a project within 1 mile of each of the facility sites. As
discussed under Impact 4.12-1, the maximum operational noise level of 37 dBA at the nearest receptor
(Receptor #19) would be much lower than the County’s 65 dBA Ldn exterior noise standard for residential
use. The nearest cumulative project is located further away from Receptor #19 than both facilities of the
proposed project. Therefore, Receptor #19 would be exposed to lower operational noise levels (less than
37 dBA) from operational noise generated by cumulative projects. As such, cumulative impacts associated
with combined operational noise from the proposed project and cumulative projects are anticipated to be
negligible at the nearest receptor. During operation, the gen-tie would not generate noise beyond the
existing baseline environment. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure MM 4.12-4 would be implemented, such
that noise levels generated would comply with the applicable noise standards at all offsite sensitive receptor
locations nearest to the project site. Thus, cumulative operational noise impacts would be less than
significant.

Cumulative operation could also result in the exposure of people to or the generation of excessive
groundborne vibration. However, since operation of the proposed project and related projects would involve
operational traffic, including O&M staff and regular maintenance truck (0.076 in/sec PPV), and panel
washing activity (not measurable), project-related vibration impacts would not have any measurable effect
on the adjacent off-site sensitive receivers. Therefore, cumulative vibrational impacts would be less than
significant.

Overall, when considered with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, the proposed
project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to noise impacts.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 93 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
Finding
Cumulative impacts with respect to noise would be less than significant. No mitigation measures would be
required. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.12-1 through MM 4.12-4 would further
reduce cumulative impacts.
Level of Significance
Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.12-1 through MM 4.12-4, described above, would reduce
project impacts to a less-than-significant level.

E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project that Would Have a Significant and
Unavoidable Impact on the Environment.
The project would not result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative environmental impact related to
noise.

PUBLIC SERVICES

A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the

Environment, or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
The proposed project would not result in any environmental effects related to public services that would
have no impact or a less than significant impact on the environment.

B. Environmental Effects of the Project that Are Potentially Significant, but that Can
Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.

Significant Effect
The project would result in the 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 fire protection services or police protection services
(Impact 4.13-1).
Description of Significant Impact
The average and peak number of construction workers to be onsite would be approximately 200 500 and
800, respectively. The presence of construction workers at the project site would be temporary during the
construction period spanning a 10 to 12-month period. The project would include development of up to a
combined 291 271 megawatts (MW) (alternating current or “AC”) of renewable electrical energy and up to
80 MWh of Energy Storage Systems (ESS) on approximately 1,331 1,251 acres in unincorporated portions
of Kern County, California. (BOS 7/27/2021)

As determined by the County, the project site is not within an area of high or very high fire hazard.
Construction activities could introduce fire risks such as sparks and fuel to the site; construction would also
generate truck and employee traffic along haul routes and at the project site, which could temporarily

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 94 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

increase the accident potential in these areas requiring fire protection response. Service demands as a result
of personnel onsite would occur during construction of the proposed project. Typically, service demands
per employee are less than service demands per resident. Nevertheless, the addition of construction
personnel on the project site would result in an increase in demand for fire protection services. While this
would be an increase above existing levels, the presence of construction workers on the site would be
temporary, as the construction period for the proposed project is anticipated to last a maximum of 12
months. As required by Mitigation Measure MM 4.13-1, the project proponent would prepare and
implement a fire safety plan that contains notification procedures and emergency fire precautions consistent
with the 2019 California Fire Code and Kern County Fire Code. The aforementioned fire safety plan would
be for use during the anticipated 10- to 12-month construction period, as well as during operations and
decommissioning, and would include emergency fire precautions for vehicles and equipment as well as
implementation of fire rules and trainings so temporary employees are equipped to support handling fire
threats. Given the temporary nature of the project’s construction phase and implementation of Mitigation
Measure MM 4.13-1, impacts to fire protection services and facilities during project construction would be
less than significant.

Once constructed, all maintenance would be performed by personnel located offsite, and staff of two to four
people would be required during panel washing and are expected to be hired from the local community.
However, all maintenance activities would be required to comply with the fire safety plan implemented per
Mitigation Measure MM 4.13-1, which would help reduce fire risks onsite. In addition, all project facilities
would have been designed and constructed in accordance with the 2019 California Fire Code and Kern
County Fire Code such that fire hazards are reduced and/or avoided.

The project operator would be required to pay a Kern County cumulative impact fee (CIC), through
implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.13-2 to provide funding for the county budget for services
that are not funded due to the State of California Active Solar Energy Exclusion provision on property taxes
that the county would otherwise receive for services and facilities thereby supporting a prosperous economy
and assuring the provision of adequate public services and facilities. In addition, if the project is sold to a
city, county, or utility company with assessed taxes that total less than $3,000 per megawatt per year, then
that entity shall pay the taxes plus the amount necessary to equal the equivalent of $3,000 per megawatt.
The amount shall be paid for all years of operation, through implementation of Mitigation Measure MM
4.13-3. Through implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.13-4, the project proponent/operator shall
work with the County to determine how the use of sales and use taxes from construction of the project can
be maximized. With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.13-1 through MM 4.13-4, any potential
operational impacts on fire protection services would be reduced. The project would not result in the need
for new or physically altered KCFD facilities and impacts would be less than significant.

As described in Section 4.13.2, Environmental Setting, of Section 4.13, Public Services, of the Draft EIR,
the Kern County Sheriff’s Office (KCSO) provides primary law enforcement protection services for the
project site and surrounding areas. The Rosamond Substation, located approximately 3.9 miles northeast of
the project site, would provide primary law enforcement services to the project site. Similar to fire
protection services, the need for police protection services would increase during construction of the
proposed project as well as after construction.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 95 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

The project site is located in a relatively remote location surrounded by undeveloped land, solar facilities,
two sparse rural residential developments and residential accessory structures and is unlikely to attract
attention that would make project facilities susceptible to crime. Therefore, a large increase for KCSO
services is not expected. However, construction activities may temporarily increase traffic volumes along
SR-58 and SR-14 during the 12 to 24-month construction period. The added traffic associated with workers
commuting to the project site, haul routes, deliveries, and other project-related traffic would be temporary
and, therefore, would not have a significant adverse effect on the KCSO protective service provision or
California Highway Patrol’s (CHP’s) ability to patrol the highways.

Additionally, fences would be installed around the perimeter of each site, substation, and other areas
requiring controlled access, for safety and security purposes. All fencing shall comply with all applicable
requirements of the Kern County Public Works Department/Building Inspection Division. The fencing
would remain for the life of the project.

While construction of the project would increase the number of people on the project site, the increase
would be temporary and, thus, would not necessarily substantially increase the service demand for law
enforcement protection services in Kern County. However due to existing budget constraints, substations
may close or be modified to address fiscal limitations). Therefore, new or physically altered KCSO facilities
would not be required to accommodate the proposed project and impacts to the CHP patrol are not
anticipated. Impacts would be less than significant.

Project operation could attract vandals or present other security risks. As described above, the project site
is located in a relatively remote location in a rural community and is thus unlikely to attract attention that
would make project facilities susceptible to crime. The security fencing around the perimeter of each site
and other areas requiring controlled access and controlled access gates would minimize the need for
surveillance and response by KCSO during project operation. Therefore, new or physically altered KCSO
facilities would not be required to accommodate the proposed project. The additional volume of vehicles
associated with workers commuting to the project site during routine maintenance would be minor and is
not expected to adversely affect traffic (see Section 4.14, Transportation and Traffic, for more details).
Therefore, impacts to the CHP patrol are not anticipated.

The project would implement Mitigation Measure MM 4.13-2 to provide a CIC to provide funding for the
county budget for services that are not funded due to the State of California Active Solar Energy Exclusion
provision on property taxes that the county would otherwise receive for services and facilities and assuring
the provision of adequate public services and facilities. In addition, if the project is sold to a city, county,
or utility company with assessed taxes that total less than $3,000 per megawatt per year, then that entity
shall pay the taxes plus the amount necessary to equal the equivalent of $3,000 per megawatt. The amount
shall be paid for all years of operation, through implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.13-3. Through
implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.13-4, the project proponent/operator shall work with the
County to determine how the use of sales and use taxes from construction of the project can be maximized.
Impacts would be less than significant.

During operation, the proposed project could require up to two to four offsite maintenance personnel. This
staff would likely come from an existing local and/or regional labor force and would not likely relocate
their households as a consequence of working on the project. Even if the maintenance employees were

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 96 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

hired from out of the area and had to relocate to southern Kern County, the resulting addition of potential
families to this area would not result in a substantial increase in the number of users at local schools as
accommodations for temporary housing would be available in the nearby hotels in Rosamond, Mojave,
Lancaster, or other local communities. Therefore, staff required during operation would not increase
demand for local schools, parks, or public facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of such
facilities would occur, nor would project construction require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse effect on the environment, nor result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the construction of new or physically altered facilities in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios. Impacts during construction would be less than significant.

Unlike other businesses in California, large scale solar has an exclusion from property taxes on their
equipment. This property tax exclusion results in the project not providing the revenue needed to provide
services and facilities for both the project and the communities that prevent decline of the physical
neighborhoods in unincorporated Kern County. This is a direct impact from the project structure and the
land if built with another type of land use would produce property tax revenue to provide necessary services
and facilities and prevent physical decline of homes and businesses due to vacancy and inability for
response for all services, including code enforcement to law enforcement, fire, roads and health and safety
issues such as elderly care and child protection services. The cumulative impacts of this active solar tax
exclusion over the life of the over 36,000 acres of projects has resulted in a loss to the General Fund over
the last 10 years of over $103 million and deepened the on-going fiscal emergency of the county. Public
policies in the Kern County General Plan and Willow Springs Specific Plan require development to address
economic deficiencies in public services and facilities costs. Further the cumulative impacts of all the
projects in addition to this project on various resources including aesthetics, air and biological resources
have contributed to changing the visual and community character of the unincorporated communities and
caused decline due to using land for a use that does not provide normal property tax revenue.

Mitigation Measure MM 4.13-2 provides a CIC calculated on net acreage that excludes assessable structures
and permanent improvements (Operation and Maintenance Building and Energy Storage) and legally
unbuildable land (recorded easements). The charge factor was calculated based on the fair share under the
Government Code that the project would have paid if the Tax Exclusion was not present. The amount the
project should pay is calculated as $550 per net acre annual charge. This is in addition to the normal property
tax revenue legally assessed on the property as the fair share that is provided to the Kern County General
fund. As this project application had already been deemed complete and commenced processing when the
Dec 8, 2020 report on the amount of the deficiency in the revenue from the State of California Active Solar
Energy Exclusion was presented to the Kern County Board of Supervisors, an accommodation is included
in the mitigation that requires a one-time charge for the General fund contribution. In addition, if the project
is sold to a city, county, or utility company with assessed taxes that total less than $3,000 per megawatt per
year, then that entity shall pay the taxes plus the amount necessary to equal the equivalent of $3,000 per
megawatt. The amount shall be paid for all years of operation, through implementation of Mitigation
Measure MM 4.13-3. Through implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.13-4, the project
proponent/operator shall work with the County to determine how the use of sales and use taxes from
construction of the project can be maximized. With this CIC and assessed taxes if the project is sold, the
project impacts on public services and facilities and contribution to decline of communities is less than
significant.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 97 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
Finding
While this impact is considered less than significant without mitigation, Mitigation Measures MM 4.13-1
through MM 4.13-5, described below, would further reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Level of Significance
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts. While
this impact is considered less than significant without mitigation, Mitigation Measures MM 4.13-1 through
MM 4.13-5, described below, would further reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

MM 4.13-1: Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits the project proponent/operator shall
develop and implement a fire safety plan for use during construction, operation and
decommissioning.
The project proponent/operator shall submit the plan, along with maps of the project site
and access roads, to the Kern County Fire Department for review and approval. A copy of
the approved Fire Safety Plan shall be submitted to the Kern County Planning and Natural
Resources Department. The Fire Safety Plan shall contain notification procedures and
emergency fire precautions including, but not limited to, the following:
a. All internal combustion engines, both stationary and mobile, shall be equipped
with spark arresters. Spark arresters shall be in good working order.
b. Light trucks and cars with factory-installed (type) mufflers shall be used only on
roads where the roadway is cleared of vegetation. These vehicle types will
maintain their factory-installed (type) muffler in good condition.
c. Fire rules shall be posted on the project bulletin board at the contractor’s field
office and areas visible to employees.
d. Equipment parking areas and small stationary engine sites shall be cleared of all
extraneous flammable materials.
e. Personnel shall be trained in the practices of the fire safety plan relevant to their
duties. Construction and maintenance personnel shall be trained and equipped to
extinguish small fires to prevent them from growing into more serious threats.
f. The project proponent/operator shall make an effort to restrict the use of
chainsaws, chippers, vegetation masticators, grinders, drill rigs, tractors, torches,
and explosives to periods outside of the official fire season. When the above tools
are used, water tanks equipped with hoses, fire rakes, and axes shall be easily
accessible to personnel.
MM 4.13-2: The following Cumulative Impact Charge (CIC) shall be implemented as payment on
approved Conditional Use Permit acreage.
a. Submittal of Building Permit and Phasing

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 98 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
i. Any building permit submitted shall be accompanied by a map and legal
description showing a defined phase for which permits are being requested.
All phases shall be numbered sequentially for identification.
ii. The map for either the total project or a phase shall calculate the Cumulative
Impact Charge (CIC) net acreage as follows:
a) Total gross acreage (Phase)
b) Total acres for Operations and Maintenance building permanent
accessory improvements
c) Total acres for Energy Storage structure and permanent accessory
improvements
d) Total acres of recorded easements
iii. Formula: Net Acreage = (ii)a minus the sum of [(ii)b + (ii)c + (ii)d].
iv. Temporary storage areas or non-permanent commercial coaches or cargo
containers for construction or operations are not eligible for inclusion under
(ii)b or (ii)c, above.
v. All areas of buildings, accessory improvements and easement used in the
calculations shall be shown on the submitted Phase Map.
vi. Any property included in the approved Conditional Use Permit that is not
included in a phase must be included in the last phase or a formal modification
processed to remove it from the Conditional Use Permit.
b. Calculation and Payment of Cumulative Impact Charge (CIC)
i. A payment of $620 per net acre for the map shown with the building permit
submittal shall be paid upon issuance of the first building permit. If it is not
paid within 30 days after the issuance of the first building permit for the phase
regardless of the total number of building permits or type of building permit
issued, all such permits shall be suspended until the fee is paid in full.
ii. Payments shall be made to the Planning and Natural Resources Department
for transfer directly to the County Administrative Office Fiscal Division
(CAO) and labeled Cumulative Impact Charge (CIC) with the project name
and phase number.
iii. Any acres denoted for an operation and maintenance building or energy
storage that are not built, cannot be used for solar panels unless payment is
provided for the Cumulative Impact Charge (CIC.
MM 4.13-3: Written verification of ownership of the project shall be submitted to the Kern County
Planning and Natural Resources Department by April 15 of each calendar year. If the
project is sold to a city, county, or utility company with assessed taxes that total less than
$3,000 per megawatt per year, then that entity shall pay the taxes plus the amount necessary
to equal the equivalent of $3,000 per megawatt. The SCIC payments shall be made

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 99 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
annually directly to the County Administrative Office Fiscal Division (CAO) and labeled
“Supplemental Cumulative Impact Charge (SCIC)” with the project name and phase
number.
MM 4.13-4: The project proponent/operator shall work with the County to determine how the use of
sales and use taxes from construction of the project can be maximized. This process shall
include, but is not necessarily limited to, the project proponent/operator obtaining a street
address within the unincorporated portion of Kern County for acquisition, purchasing and
billing purposes, and registering this address with the State Board of Equalization. As an
alternative to the aforementioned process, the project proponent/operator may make
arrangements with Kern County for a guaranteed single payment that is equivalent to the
amount of sales and use taxes that would have otherwise been received (less any sales and
use taxes actually paid); with the amount of the single payment to be determined via a
formula approved by Kern County. The project proponent/operator shall allow the County
to use this sales tax information publicly for reporting purposes.
MM 4.13-5: Prior to the issuance of any building permits on the property, the project operator shall
submit a letter detailing the hiring efforts prior to commencement of construction, which
encourages all contractors of the project site to hire at least 50 percent of their workers
from local Kern County communities. The project operator shall provide the contractors a
list of training programs that provide skilled workers and shall require the contractor to
advertise locally for available jobs, notifying the training programs of job availability, all
in conjunction with normal hiring practices of the contractor

C. Environmental Effects of the Project that Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less Than

Significant Level.

The project would not have any environmental effects on public services that cannot be mitigated to a less-
than-significant level.

D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project that Would Have a Less- Than -
Significant Impact on the Environment.

Significant Effect
The project would have a cumulative environmental impact on public services.
Description of Significant Impact

Cumulative impacts are two or more individual impacts that, when considered together, are considerable
or that compound or substantially increase other environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts for a project
are considered significant if the incremental effects of the individual projects are considerable when viewed
in connection with the effects of past projects, and the effects of other projects located in the vicinity of the
project site. The cumulative impact analysis area for public services includes the service areas for each of
the fire, police and other governmental offices/facilities serving the project site. For both the KCSO and the
KCFD, service areas comprise unincorporated areas of Kern County. As discussed above, police and fire
service impacts related to the proposed project would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM
4.13-1 requires implementation of a fire safety plan during project construction, operation and

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 100 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

decommissioning that would include notification procedures and emergency fire precautions to help reduce
fire risks and the consequential need for fire protection services onsite. Mitigation Measures MM 4.14-2
through MM 4.13-5 require the project proponent to pay a CIC to reduce significant impacts to all public
services, including fire and law enforcement services, provided by the Kern County General Fund.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.13-2 through MM 4.13-5 would also prevent the decline of
services in unincorporated communities that result in physical impacts on neighborhoods.

Such cumulative impacts include increase in vandalism on public spaces such as parks, lack of road and
park facilities maintenance, abandoned vehicles and buildings, trash abandonment on private property, and
lack of funding for code enforcement of regulations for public health and safety, lack of services for
homelessness prevention programs, as well as lack of services and facilities for elder, adolescent and child
health and safety services and general mental health facilities. With payment of the required mitigation
charge as assessed by the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department for transfer to the Kern
County General Fund, impacts from the project’s cumulative contribution to decline of services would be
appropriately mitigated. Therefore, the project would not create a cumulatively considerable impact on
public services even from the State of California Active Solar Energy Exclusion which creates a lack of
fair share funding by the project for public services.

Finding
This impact is considered less than significant without mitigation; however, implementation of Mitigation
Measures MM 4.13-1 through MM 4.13-5, described above, would further reduce impacts to a less-than-
significant level.

Level of Significance

With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.13-1 through MM 4.13-5, impacts would be less than
significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts. While
this impact is considered less than significant without mitigation, implementation of Mitigation Measures
MM 4.13-1 through MM 4.13-5, would further reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project that Would Have a Significant and
Unavoidable Impact on the Environment.

The project would not have a significant and unavoidable cumulative environmental impact on public
services.

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the

Environment, or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.

The project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, as follows: Kern County General Plan LOS
“D” (Impact 4.15-1).

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 101 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
The project would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3,
subdivision (b) (Impact 4.14-2).

B. Environmental Effects of the Project that Are Potentially Significant, but that Can
Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.

Significant Effect
The project would substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) (Impact 4.15-3).

Description of Significant Impact

During construction, the project would require the delivery of heavy construction equipment and PV solar
components using area roadways, some of which may require transport by oversize vehicles. Heavy
equipment associated with these components would not be hauled to/from the site daily, but rather would
be hauled in and out on an as-needed basis. Nevertheless, the use of oversize vehicles during construction
can create a hazard to the public by limiting motorist views on roadways and by the obstruction of space,
which is considered a potentially significant impact.

The project would not include a design feature or utilize vehicles with incompatible uses that would create
a hazard on the roadways surrounding the project site. The need for and number of escorts, California
Highway Patrol escorts, as well as the timing of transport, would be at the discretion of Caltrans and Kern
County, and would be detailed in respective oversize load permits. Thus, potential impacts would be
reduced to a less-than-significant level. While impacts would be less than significant, Mitigation Measure
MM 4.14-1 would require that all oversize vehicles used on public roadways during construction obtain
required permits and obtain approval of a Construction Traffic Control Plan, as well as identify anticipated
construction delivery times and vehicle travel routes in advance to minimize construction traffic during AM
and PM peak hours. This would ensure that construction-related oversize vehicle loads are in compliance
with applicable California Vehicle Code sections and California Street and Highway Codes applicable to
licensing, size, weight, load, and roadway encroachment of construction vehicles.

Finding
The project has the potential to substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). The use of oversize vehicles
during construction can create a hazard to the public by limiting motorist views on roadways and by the
obstruction of space, which is considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation
Measures MM 4.14-1, described below, would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

Level of Significance
With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.14-1, impacts would be less than significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.14-1, described below, would reduce impacts of the project
to a less-than-significant level.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 102 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
MM 4.14-1: Prior to the issuance of construction or building permits for each Facility, the project
proponent/operator shall:

a. Prepare and submit a Construction Traffic Control Plan to Kern County Public Works
Department-Development Review and the California Department of Transportation
offices for District 9, as appropriate, for approval. The Construction Traffic Control
Plan must be prepared in accordance with both the California Department of
Transportation Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and Work Area Traffic
Control Handbook and must include, but not be limited to, the following issues:

i. Timing of deliveries of heavy equipment and building materials;

ii. Directing construction traffic with a flag person;

iii. Placing temporary signing, lighting, and traffic control devices if required,
including, but not limited to, appropriate signage along access routes to indicate
the presence of heavy vehicles and construction traffic;

iv. Ensuring access for emergency vehicles to the project sites;

v. Coordinate construction activities with nearby schools that could be affected by

increased vehicle delay along Rosamond Boulevard (i.e., Tropico Middle School
and Rosamond High School);

vi. Temporarily closing travel lanes or delaying traffic during materials delivery,
transmission line stringing activities, or any other utility connections;

vii. Maintaining access to adjacent property; and

viii. Specifying both construction-related vehicle travel and oversize load haul routes
and avoiding residential neighborhoods to the maximum extent feasible.

b. Obtain all necessary encroachment permits for the work within the road right-of-way
or use of oversized/overweight vehicles that will utilize county maintained roads,
which may require California Highway Patrol or a pilot car escort. Copies of the
approved traffic plan and issued permits shall be submitted to the Kern County
Planning and Natural Resources Department, the Kern County Public Works
Department-Development Review, and Caltrans.

c. Enter into a secured agreement with Kern County to ensure that any County roads that
are demonstrably damaged by project-related activities are promptly repaired and, if
necessary, paved, slurry-sealed, or reconstructed as per requirements of the State
and/or Kern County.

d. Submit documentation that identifies the roads to be used during construction. The
project proponent/operator shall be responsible for repairing any damage to non-
county maintained roads that may result from construction activities. The project
proponent/operator shall submit a preconstruction video log and inspection report

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 103 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
regarding roadway conditions for roads used during construction to the Kern County
Public Work Department-Development Review and the Kern County Planning and
Natural Resources Department.

e. Within 30 days of completion of construction, the project proponent/operator shall

submit a post-construction video log and inspection report to the County. This
information shall be submitted in DVD format. The County, in consultation with the
project proponent/operator’s engineer, shall determine the extent of remediation
required, if any.

Significant Effect
The project would result in inadequate emergency access (Impact 4.14-4).

Description of Significant Impact

The project site is located in a rural area with the primary access roads (West Avenue A, Gaskell Road, 8th
Street West, and 70th Street West) allowing adequate egress/ingress to the site in the event of an emergency.
Additionally, as part of the project, one or two secondary emergency access gates would be provided for
each of the six sites. Therefore, the development of the project would not physically interfere with
emergency vehicle access or personnel evacuation from the site.

As described above, increased project-related traffic would cause a significant increase in congestion and
or significantly worsen the existing service levels at intersections on area roads; therefore, project-related
traffic could affect emergency access to the project site or any other surrounding location. The proposed
project would not require closures of public roads, which could inhibit access by emergency vehicles. For
these reasons construction and operation would have a less-than-significant impact on emergency access.

While impacts would be less than significant, Mitigation Measure MM 4.14-1 would provide further
assurances for emergency access. Mitigation Measure MM 4.14-1 requires the preparation of a Construction
Traffic Control Plan that considers access for emergency vehicles to the project site. During project
operation, Mitigation Measure MM 4.14-1 requires the project operator obtain Kern County approval of all
proposed access road designs prior to construction, further ensuring onsite emergency access is adequate.

Finding
The project has the potential to result in inadequate emergency access. With implementation of Mitigation
Measures MM 4.14-1, described above, impacts would be less than significant.

Level of Significance
With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.14-1, impacts would be less than significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts. With
implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.14-1, described above, these impacts would be considered
less than significant.

C. Environmental Effects of the Project that Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less Than

Significant Level.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 104 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
The project would not have any environmental effects on transportation and traffic that cannot be mitigated
to a less-than-significant level.

D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project that Would Have a Less- Than -
Significant Impact on the Environment.

Significant Effect
The project would not have a cumulative environmental impact on transportation and traffic.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the

Environment, or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American tribe that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code
Section 5020.1(k) (Impact 4.15-1a).

The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American tribe that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion
and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe (Impact 4.15-1b).

B. Environmental Effects of the Project that Are Potentially Significant, but that Can
Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.

The project would not have any environmental effects related to tribal cultural resources that are potentially
significant and no mitigation is required.

C. Environmental Effects of the Project that Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less Than

Significant Level.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 105 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
The project would not have any environmental effects on tribal cultural resources that cannot be mitigated
to a less-than-significant level.

D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project that Would Have a Less- Than -
Significant Impact on the Environment.

The project would not have a cumulative environmental impact on tribal cultural resources.

E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project that Would Have a Significant and
Unavoidable Impact on the Environment.

The project would not have a significant and unavoidable cumulative environmental impact on tribal
cultural resources.

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the

Environment, or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.

The project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years (Impact 4.16-2).

B. Environmental Effects of the Project that Are Potentially Significant, but that Can
Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.

Significant Effect

The project would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects (Impact 4.16-1).
Description of Significant Impact
As discussed in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR, construction and operation
of the proposed project would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. As such, impacts would
be less than significant without the implementation of mitigation to these utilizes and service systems.
Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, construction of
the project is not expected to exceed the capacity of existing storm water drainage systems in the area.
Therefore, operation of the project is not anticipated to result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded stormwater drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects. Impacts would be less than significant, in this regard.

As discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, the project site is located in a
remote, rural region with no existing or planned stormwater infrastructure. There are no existing stormwater
drainage systems on the project site, and no stormwater drainage systems are anticipated to be applicable as
part of the project. The project would include limited grading such that off-site flow that enters the site would
continue to flow through the site in a similar manner as it does currently. However, installation of the proposed
facilities discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, could alter existing on-site drainage

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 106 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
patterns and flowpaths to some degree and could alter the way that stormwater from upgradient flows across
the project site during major events. The project would be required to adhere to Kern County Public Works
Department storm water requirements, which include measures to address stormwater controls on both
management of runoff volume and water quality, including controlling erosion and protection of water quality
of stormwater runoff. In addition, a large area of pervious surfaces would surround the proposed facilities that
would continue to absorb runoff, thus allowing infiltration of the runoff produced by the new minor
impervious surfaces. Further, the hydrologic study and final drainage plan required by Mitigation Measure
MM 4.10-1 would detail any necessary design features required to properly control stormwater runoff, both
onsite and offsite. The proposed project is not expected to exceed the capacity of existing storm water drainage
systems in the area. Therefore, operation of the project is not anticipated to or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects. Impacts would be less than significant.

Finding
The operation of the proposed project has the potential result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded storm water drainage facilities. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-1,
described above in Findings for Hydrology and Water Quality, would further reduce impacts to less-than-
significant levels.
Level of Significance
With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-1, impacts would be less than significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-1, described above in Findings for Hydrology and Water
Quality, would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Significant Effect
The project would generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of
local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals (Impact 4.16-3).

Description of Significant Impact

It is anticipated the project would not generate substantial amounts of non-recyclable waste during
construction. Currently, the project site is primarily vacant with scattered abandoned structures located east
of 90th Street, north of west Avenue A, west of 70th Street West and South of Roasmond Avenue in
Rosamond, Kern County, California (Terracon, 2020). The existing vacant structures, with the exception
of the residential and agricultural buildings on Raceway 2.0 Solar Site 2 (APN 374-020-55), are proposed
to be demolished and removed in compliance with applicable Kern County Building code requirements.
Materials brought to the project site would be used to construct facilities, and few residual materials are
expected. Solar modules would be delivered to the site via shipping containers packaged in wood and
cardboard materials. The shipping containers for module deliveries would be recycled and are not
anticipated to generate non-recyclable waste. Common construction waste may include metals, masonry,
plastic pipe, rocks, dirt, cardboard, or green waste related to land development. Any hazardous waste
generated during construction would be disposed of at an approved location.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 107 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

Non-hazardous construction refuse and solid waste would either be collected and recycled or disposed of
at a transfer station or local landfill. The Mohave-Rosamond Sanitary Landfill (approximately 12 miles to
the northeast of project site) is the closest landfill to the project site and, therefore, would be the most likely
recipient of project site solid waste prior to disposal at the Tehachapi Sanitary Landfill. The Mohave-
Rosamond Landfill has a remaining capacity of 76,310,297 cy with an anticipated closure year of 2123
(CalRecycle, 2019). The landfill is a Class III landfill and, therefore, accepts wastes from construction and
demolition as well as industrial sources, but does not accept hazardous waste, hot ashes, and liquids of any
kind. In addition, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.16-1, a recycling coordinator
would ensure the separation and proper disposal of recyclable materials and solid waste during construction.
Therefore, construction impacts of the project to existing landfills are anticipated to be less than significant.

During operation, little to no solid waste would be generated. The only waste generated onsite would result
from maintenance activities which are anticipated to be relatively minor. No permanent employees would
be required onsite. In addition, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.16-1, a recycling
coordinator would ensure the separation and proper disposal of recyclable materials and solid waste
generated during project operation, thereby further reducing solid waste generated during operation.
Therefore, impacts related to landfill capacity would be less than significant.

Solar PV panels have a lifespan of over 35 years, after which the land could be converted to other uses in
accordance with applicable land use regulations in effect at that time. Solar PV panels contain valuable
materials that would likely be reused and recycled at the end of their useful life. Solar panel manufacturers
have identified that approximately ninety percent of materials in solar panel modules can be recycled.
Decommissioning of the gen-tie line route would not generate substantial amounts of solid waste. As stated
above, the Mohave-Rosamond Landfill is expected to be in operation through 2123 and would serve as a
solid waste disposal location during project decommissioning. Per Mitigation Measure MM 4.16-1, a
collection and recycling program would be implemented during decommissioning to recycle project
components and minimize disposal of project components in landfills. Following decommissioning, the
project site would be returned to predevelopment conditions and would not generate waste. Therefore,
impacts related to landfill capacity would be less than significant during decommissioning with the
implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.16-1.

Finding
The project has the potential to generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. However,
implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.16-1, described below, would reduce impacts to less-than-
significant levels.
Level of Significance
With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.16-1, impacts would be less than significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.16-1, described below, would reduce these impacts to a less-
than-significant level.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 108 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
MM 4.16-1: During construction, operation, and decommissioning, debris and waste generated shall be
recycled to the extent feasible. The provisions listed below shall apply to the project.
a. An onsite Recycling Coordinator shall be designated by the project proponent/operator
to facilitate recycling as part of the Maintenance and Decommissioning, Trash
Abatement and Pest Management Program.
b. The Recycling Coordinator shall facilitate recycling of all construction waste through
coordination with contractors, local waste haulers, and/or other facilities that recycle
construction/demolition wastes.
c. The onsite Recycling Coordinator shall also be responsible for ensuring wastes
requiring special disposal are handled according to State and County regulations that
are in effect at the time of disposal
d. Contact information of the coordinator shall be provided to the Kern County Planning
and Natural Resources Department prior to issuance of building permits.
e. The project proponent/operator shall provide a storage area for recyclable materials
within the fenced project area that is clearly identified for recycling. This area shall be
maintained on the site during construction, operations and decommissioning. A site
plan showing the recycling storage area shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any
grading or building permit for the site.

Significant Effect
The project would not comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste (Impact 4.16-4).

Description of Significant Impact

The project would generate solid waste during construction and operation. Common construction waste
may include metals, masonry, plastic pipe, rocks, dirt, cardboard, or green waste related to land
development. AB 341 requires Kern County to attain a waste diversion goals of 75 percent by 2020 through
reduction, recycling, or composting. In addition, as part of compliance with CALGreen requirements, Kern
County implements the following construction waste diversion requirements:

• Submittal of a Construction Waste Management Plan;

• Recycle and/or reuse a minimum 65 percent C&D waste; and
• Recycle or reuse 100 percent of tree stumps, rocks, and associated vegetation and soils resulting
from land clearing.

Furthermore, the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, as amended, requires
expanded or new development projects to incorporate storage areas for recycling bins into the project
design. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.16-1 would ensure compliance with waste diversion
and recycling requirements by requiring recycling during construction, operation, and decommissioning of
the project. The project would be required to comply with all federal, State, and local statutes and
regulations related to the handling and disposal of solid waste. Therefore, implementation of the project

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 109 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

would result in less-than-significant impacts regarding compliance with management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid waste.

Finding
The project has the potential to not comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid waste. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.16-1,
described above, would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Level of Significance
With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.16-1, impacts would be less than significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding

CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts related
to solid waste management and reduction statutes. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.16-1,
described above would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level.

C. Environmental Effects of the Project that Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less Than

Significant Level.

The project would not have any environmental effects on utilities and service systems that cannot be
mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project that Would Have a Less- Than -
Significant Impact on the Environment.

Significant Effect
The project would have a cumulative environmental impact on utilities and service systems.
Description of Significant Impact

The geographic scope for cumulative analysis of impacts on water supply and wastewater are the related
projects that would impact the Antelope Valley Groundwater Basin. The geographic scope of analysis for
stormwater drainage, solid waste disposal, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications includes the
projects that would be relying on the same facilities and infrastructure. Impacts of the proposed project
would be cumulatively considerable if the incremental effects of the proposed project when combined with
other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects (listed in Table 3-9, Cumulative Projects List, in
Chapter 3, Project Description) would result in a significant cumulative effect. Physical impacts to public
services, utilities, and service systems are usually associated with population in‐migration and growth in an
area, which increase the demand for a particular service, leading to the need for expanded or new facilities.
There is little to no growth associated with the proposed project and nearby other solar and wind energy
projects, thereby limiting the potential to contribute to demand for a particular service.

As described above, the proposed project would place few demands on water, wastewater, stormwater
drainage, solid waste disposal (during construction and operation), electricity, natural gas, and
telecommunications.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 110 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

Several utility-scale renewable energy projects are proposed in the Antelope Valley that would impact the
existing water supply, which is derived almost entirely from the Antelope Valley Groundwater Basin. The
water-intensive use period for renewable energy projects is typically the construction phase. Given the
limited water supply in the area, other projects are expected to either rely on new or existing wells to collect
their water supply (similar to the project). In response to the recent adjudication of the Antelope Valley
Groundwater Basin, all projects relying on water from Basin would be required to obtain water from water
purveyors that have existing water rights within the Basin, or would be required to apply for new water
rights from the Antelope Valley Watermaster. New water rights may or may not be granted. Any projects
that cannot secure a water supply would not move forward to construction or operation. Therefore,
cumulative impacts related to water supply and facilities would be less than significant.

The project is located in an area with no wastewater treatment provider or infrastructure and is not expected
to generate a significant amount of wastewater. Wastewater produced during construction would be
collected in portable toilet facilities and disposed of at an approved facility. No permanent onsite staff are
proposed and the installation of a septic system would not be required. Maintenance personnel are expected
to visit the project site several times a year for routine maintenance. Therefore, the proposed project would
not have the potential, when combined with impacts from past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects,
to result in a cumulative impact to a regional wastewater treatment facility or the capacity of said facilities.

As described above, there are no constructed stormwater drainage systems present onsite and stormwater
on the project site either percolates onsite or drains offsite via sheetflow. The existing pattern and
concentration of runoff could potentially be altered by project activities, such as the introduction new site
features. To the maximum extent possible, new site features that are considered pervious or are impervious
include compacted native roads, fence posts or fence post footings, and PV modules, which will be elevated
above the ground on racking systems and will shed precipitation onto the existing native soil below, where
runoff will infiltrate or runoff similar to existing conditions, thereby not changing the existing drainage or
affecting flow within the project site (Kimley Horn, 2020). In compliance with National Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit requirements, the proposed project would
design and submit a site-specific SWPPP to minimize the discharge of wastewater during construction. In
accordance with Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-1, the proposed project would implement a drainage plan
that would incorporate measures to offset increases in stormwater flows caused by the project. Other
projects in the vicinity would be required to offset substantial increases in stormwater as well per County
requirements and would also be required to implement best management practices (BMPs), as well as
comply with the NPDES General Construction Permit and their respective SWPPP as applicable.

Cumulative projects would also be required to prepare a drainage plan that would help avoid substantial
increases of stormwater generated onsite by their respective ground disturbance. Depending on the findings
of their respective drainage plans, these projects may need to construct stormwater control structures onsite
to reduce the potential for increased stormwater runoff. Therefore, the project would not substantially
contribute to a cumulatively impact on stormwater drainage facilities. The proposed project would generate
a minimal amount of waste and is not expected to significantly impact Kern County landfills. Although the
Tehachapi Landfill is expected to cease operation in 2020, the Mojave- Rosamond Landfill is expected to
operate until 2123 (CalRecycle, 2019a). However, generation of waste from cumulative projects, including
other solar and wind projects, could result in a cumulative impact. To ensure that the proposed project
reduces the amount of waste sent to landfills, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.16-1 requires

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 111 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

that debris and waste generated shall be recycled to the extent feasible, and an onsite recycling coordinator
be designated by the project proponent to facilitate recycling efforts. With implementation of MM 4.16-1,
the project’s incremental contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable. Furthermore, other
cumulative projects would also be required to comply with State and local waste reduction policies.

There are no existing electrical facilities on site. The proposed project would include construction of a
collector line that would tie into existing facilities and provide 291 271 MW of renewable electrical energy
to the state-wide utility grid. Electricity demand of the project would be minimal and would be provided
by the onsite PV system. This project in combination with other cumulative solar projects in East Kern
County would help to reduce or offset electricity on the state-wide utility grid and therefore provide a
beneficial cumulative impact on electrical demand and facilities. There are no existing natural gas facilities
on the project site nor would natural gas be required for construction and operation of the project. Therefore,
the project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact related to natural gas demand and
facilities. (BOS 7/27/2021)

The proposed project in combination with cumulative projects would increase demand on
telecommunication facilities. However, demand associated with energy projects and other cumulative
development would be minimal and is expected to be within the planning forecasts of the affected
telecommunications provider. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to telecommunications facilities
would be less than significant.

In conclusion, the proposed project would not have a significant impact on public utilities. The incremental
effects of the proposed project would also not be substantial enough to result in a cumulatively considerable
impact on utilities and service systems with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.10-1 and MM
4.16-1. Furthermore, the proposed project would result in a beneficial impact on utility services and offset
future stress on energy service providers as energy demand grows in Kern County and Southern California.

Finding
The project has the potential to result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to utilities and service
systems. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.10-1, as described above in Findings for
Hydrology and Water Quality, and MM 4.16-1, described above, would reduce these impacts to a less-than-
significant level.
Level of Significance
With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.10-1 and MM 4.16-1, impacts would be less than
significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts. Even
with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.10-1, as described above in Findings for Hydrology
and Water Quality, and MM 4.16-1, described above, cumulative impacts would reduce these impacts to a
less-than-significant level.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 112 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

WILDFIRE

A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the

Environment, or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.

The project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan (Impact 4.17-1).

The project would not, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of
a wildfire (Impact 4.17-2).

B. Environmental Effects of the Project that Are Potentially Significant, but that Can
Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.

Significant Effect

The project would require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment (Impact 4.17-3).
Description of Significant Impact
The proposed project includes several options for gen-tie routes as described in Chapter 3, Project
Description, of this EIR, although only one route would be constructed. The selected gen-tie would be
constructed within its 150-foot-wide corridor and would consist of the utility poles, cabling, trenches, and
a corresponding dirt maintenance road. A buried 34 kV collector system would connect to the inverters of
each array. Power generated on the project site would be collected at an onsite substation and converted
from 34 kV to 230 kV of power for transmission in an overhead or underground line into the SCE
transmission system and interconnection location.

The combined energy of the solar field would ultimately transfer to the Big Sky North Substation or the
proposed LADWP Substation , and join via a ring bus assembly with other projects for ultimate delivery of
electrical power and communications. All utility poles, cabling, trenches, and corresponding dirt
maintenance road associated with the gen-tie line would be erected inside the limits of the corridor, which
would be maintained during operations and therefore, would not exacerbate fire risk that could result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.

Additionally, new project site access roads would be installed within the project site, as well as a 15 to 20-
foot-wide internal maintenance roads and a minimum 20-foot-wide perimeter road around the solar arrays,
which would be cleared and compacted for equipment and emergency vehicle travel and access to the solar
blocks. These project site access roads would remain in place for ongoing operations and maintenance
activities after construction is completed. All new roads would comply with development requirements for

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 113 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

emergency access, and therefore, would not exacerbate fire risk that could result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment.

Most fires in the desert are caused by lightning or vehicles. The installation of the gen-tie and electrical
collector system and internal/perimeter dirt maintenance roads would not be placed within a high fire hazard
zone, and the vegetation would be cleared; therefore, the proposed project would not result in increased fire
risks that could result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Additionally, as discussed in
Section 4.13, Public Services, the project proponent/operator shall develop and implement a Fire Safety
Plan that contains notification procedures and emergency fire precautions consistent with the 2019
California Fire Code and Kern County Fire Code for use during construction, operation and
decommissioning, per implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.13-1. Implementation of this plan
would ensure that potential impacts related to installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure is
reduced and, thus, impacts would be less than significant.

Finding
The project has the potential to exacerbate fire risk due to the installation or maintenance of associated
project infrastructure. However, these impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the
implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.13-1, described above in Findings for Public Services
impacts.
Level of Significance
With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.13-1, impacts would be less than significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.13-1, described above in Findings for Public Services
impacts, would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.

Significant Effect

The project would expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire instability, or drainage changes (Impact 4.17-4).
Description of Significant Impact
Development of the proposed project would alter existing on-site drainage patterns and flowpaths compared
to existing conditions and include the introduction of new impervious surfaces. The project would require
implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which would include erosion and
sediment control BMPs during construction, thereby reducing the potential of erosion and siltation during
construction and would control potential flooding events that could occur during construction. Additionally,
the proposed new impervious surfaces would generate additional stormwater runoff onsite, albeit in minor
quantities compared to existing conditions. However, this could exacerbate potential erosion and
sedimentation onsite or downstream. As discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, Kern
County requires development of a drainage plan with the site development grading permit, which will
manage stormwater and reduce the risk for offsite impacts due to erosion and impacts on water quality, as
implemented by Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-1. Design measures are intended to minimize or manage
flow concentration and changes in flow depth or velocity so as to minimize erosion, sedimentation, and

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 114 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

flooding on or off site. One element of the drainage plan is a retention basin to manage facility stormwater.
The majority of the project development would be on mowed lands; however, in some limited areas gravel
pads and compacted dirt roadways would be used and may act similar to impervious surfaces and encourage
sheet flow. The amount of new impervious surface would be less than 1 percent of the project area and
would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff. The project proponent anticipates
constructing one or more retention basins to manage stormwater due to new impervious surface in areas
with compacted soil such as roads, solar array areas, battery storage containers, and the substation.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-1 would minimize potential increases in runoff and ensure
that the retention basins and other stormwater management features are implemented to minimize erosion
and sedimentation to less than significant.

Finding
The project has the potential to expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire instability, or drainage changes. However,
these impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the implementation of Mitigation
Measure MM 4.10-1 described above in Findings for Hydrology and Water Quality impacts.
Level of Significance
With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-1, impacts would be less than significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-1, described above in Findings for Hydrology and Water
Quality impacts, would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.

C. Environmental Effects of the Project that Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less Than

Significant Level.

The project would not have any environmental effects related to wildfire that cannot be mitigated to a less-
than-significant level.

D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project that Would Have a Less-Than-

Significant Impact on the Environment.
The project would not have any cumulative effects on wildfire that would be less than significant.

E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project that Would Have a Significant and
Unavoidable Impact on the Environment.

Significant Effect
The project would result in a cumulative environmental impact to wildfire.
Description of Significant Impact
The geographic scope for wildfire impacts is considered the Antelope Valley region. This geographic scope
was selected because the land within the region possesses relatively similar uses, including sparse desert
vegetation, rural access roads, scattered rural residences, producing and non-producing water wells, cattle

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 115 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

ranching and maintenance facilities, mining, wind and solar energy uses. As shown in Chapter 3, Project
Description, Table 3-9, Cumulative Projects List, there are approximately 19 solar and non-solar projects
proposed or approved throughout the Antelope Valley in Kern County and in the desert portion of Kern
County outside the Antelope Valley. Of the approximately 19 total projects in Kern County, 12 would be
located within 6 miles of the project site and 7 would be located within 1 mile of the project site.

With regard to impairment of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, all of
the related projects would be required to provide adequate emergency access in accordance with County
Fire Code and Building Code requirements and prior to the issuance of a building permit. As previously
mentioned, the project site is not classified as being within a high fire hazard severity zone, is located in
rural, sparsely developed areas with limited population, is not located along an identified emergency
evacuation route or within an adopted emergency evacuation plan, and would be in compliance with Fire
Code and Building Code requirements including fire prevention and emergency response training for site
personnel. As concluded in the discussion of project impacts above, the project would have a less than
significant impact related to impairment of an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Similar to
the project, related projects would be required to determine whether they are classified as being within a
high fire hazard severity zone, identified within an emergency evacuation route or within an adopted
emergency evacuation plan, and whether they meet the requirements of applicable Fire Code and Building
Code. Nevertheless, given the location in a rural area and limited infrastructure, the project and related
projects have the potential to result in a cumulative impact to an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan and, thus, would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact.

With regard to cumulative impacts related to exposure of project occupants to pollutant concentrations from
a wildfire, while the proposed project is not within SRAs and/or High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, some
related projects in the area may be. Similar to the proposed project, all related projects would be required
to implement building and landscape design features in accordance with the Fire Code and Building Code
to reduce wildfire risk and exposure of occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire. Adherence to
the Fire Code and Building Code requirements would minimize potential impacts related to exposure to
and the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. As concluded in the discussion of project impacts above, the
project would have a less-than-significant impact related to exposure of project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Nevertheless, given the location in
a rural area and limited infrastructure, the project and related projects have the potential to result in a
cumulative impact related to exposure of project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire and,
thus, would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact.

Related projects may require associated infrastructure such as roads, fuel breaks, and power lines that could
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. These projects
would be reviewed by Kern County for land use and zoning consistency and compliance with applicable
requirements, and potentially analyzed for environmental impacts. The placement of infrastructure would
adhere to all fire codes to minimize the potential fire risk such as siting and design. The proposed project
would involve the installation and maintenance of a gen-tie line and access roads to support project
construction and ongoing maintenance and operation. While the potential for fire is considered moderate,
Mitigation Measure 4.13-1 would be implemented to ensure that a Fire Safety Plan is prepared that contains
notification procedures and emergency fire precautions consistent with the 2019 California Fire Code and
Kern County Fire Code for use during construction, operation and decommissioning. Nevertheless, given

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 116 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

the location in a rural area and limited infrastructure, the project and related projects have the potential to
result in a cumulative impact related to the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure and,
thus, would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact.

Some related projects could be proposed in areas that could expose people or structures to risks from
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of post-fire instability. Based on the recent fire
events in California, all projects would be required to adhere to Kern County’s zoning and land use
designations and codes, State and local fire codes, and regulations associated with drainage and site
stability. These regulations, policies, and codes would reduce the potential for exposing people or structures
to risks from downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of post-fire instability. Each
project would require site-specific hydrology and drainage studies for effective drainage design. As
concluded in the discussion of project impacts above, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM
4.10-1, the project would not expose people or structures to significant risks due to post-fire slope instability
or drainage changes and would have a less-than-significant impact. Nevertheless, given the location in a
rural area and limited infrastructure, the project and related projects have the potential to result in a
cumulative impact related to exposing people or structures to significant risks as a result of runoff, postfire
slope instability, or drainage changes and, thus, would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative
impact.

Finding
The project would contribute to cumulative impacts on wildfire. Even with implementation of Mitigation
Measures MM 4.10-1, described above in Findings for Hydrology and Water Quality, and MM 4.13-1,
described above in Findings for Public Services, cumulative impacts on wildfire would remain significant
and unavoidable.
Level of Significance
Cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable, even with implementation of Mitigation
Measures MM 4.10-1 and MM 4.13-1.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.10-1 and MM 4.13-1 would reduce impacts but not to a
less-than-significant level. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. See Mitigation Measures
MM 4.10-1, described above in Findings for Hydrology and Water Quality, and MM 4.13-1, described
above in Findings for Public Services.
SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE IMAPCTS

Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines defines the nature of an irreversible impact as an impact that
uses non-renewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project. Irreversible impacts
can also result from damage caused by environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable
commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such consumption is justified.

Finding

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 117 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
Build-out of the project would commit nonrenewable resources during project construction. During project
operations, oil, gas, and other fossil fuels and nonrenewable resources would be consumed, primarily in the
form of transportation fuel for project employees. Therefore, an irreversible commitment of nonrenewable
resources would occur as a result of long-term project operations. However, assuming that those
commitments occur in accordance with the adopted goals, policies, and implementation measures of the
Kern County General Plan, as a matter of public policy, those commitments have been determined to be
acceptable. The Kern County General Plan ensures that any irreversible environmental changes associated
with those commitments will be minimized.
GROWTH INDUCEMENT
The Kern County General Plan recognizes that certain forms of growth are beneficial, both economically
and socially. Section 15126.2(e) of the CEQA Guidelines provides the following guidance on growth
inducing impacts: “A project is identified as growth-inducing if it “would foster economic or population
growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding
environment.”
Finding
Growth inducement can be a result of new development that requires an increase in employment levels,
removes barriers to development, or provides resources that lead to secondary growth. With respect to
employment, the project would not induce substantial growth. Up to two to four full-time employees would
be located at the project site at any given time. It is anticipated that the construction workforce would
commute to the site each day from local communities, and the majority would likely come from the existing
labor pool as construction workers travel from site to site as needed. Construction staff not drawn from the
local labor pool would stay in any of the local hotels in Willow Springs, Rosamond or other local
communities.
Although the project would contribute to the energy supply, which supports growth, the development of
power infrastructure is a response to increased market demand. It does not induce new growth. Kern County
planning documents already permit and anticipate a certain level of growth in the area of the project and in
the State as a whole, along with attendant growth in energy demand. It is this anticipated growth that drives
energy-production projects, not vice versa. The project would supply energy to accommodate and support
existing demand and projected growth, but it would not foster any new growth. Therefore, any link between
the project and growth in Kern County would be speculative.
In Kerncrest Audubon Society v. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the analysis of growth-
inducing effects contained in the EIR for the Pine Tree Wind Development Project was challenged.
Plaintiffs argued that the discussion was too cursory to provide adequate information about how additional
electricity generated by the project would sustain further growth in the Los Angeles area. The court held
that the additional electricity that the project would produce was intended to meet the current forecast of
growth in the Los Angeles area. As such, the wind development project would not cause growth, and so it
was not reasonable to require a detailed analysis of growth-inducing impacts. In addition, EIRs for similar
energy projects have contained similarly detailed analyses of growth-inducing impacts. Their conclusions
that increasing the energy supply would not create growth has been upheld, because: (1) the additional
energy would be used to ease the burdens of meeting existing energy demands within and beyond the area
of the project; (2) the energy would be used to support already-projected growth; or (3) the factors affecting
growth are so multifarious that any potential connection between additional energy production and growth
would necessarily be too speculative and tenuous to merit extensive analysis. Thus, as has been upheld in

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 118 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
the courts, this level of analysis provided in this EIR is adequate to inform the public and decision makers
of the growth-inducing impacts of the project.
SECTION III. FINDINGS REGARDING CONSIDERATIONS, WHICH MAKE CERTAIN
ALTERNATIVES, ANALYZED IN THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
INFEASIBLE.
The following findings and brief explanation of the rationale for the findings regarding project alternatives
identified in the Final EIR are set forth to comply with the requirements of Section 15126.6 of the CEQA
Guidelines.
The consideration of alternatives is an integral component of the CEQA process. The selection and
evaluation of a reasonable range of alternatives provides the public and decision-makers with information
on ways to avoid or lessen environmental impacts created by a project. When selecting alternatives for
evaluation, CEQA requires alternatives that meet most of the basic objectives of the project, while avoiding
or substantially lessening the project’s significant effects. Thus, objectives for the project were considered
in evaluating the alternatives. These objectives are as follows:

• Maximize renewable energy production and economic viability through the installation of solar PV
panels on private lands with high solar insolation values.

• Locate the project on disturbed land or land that has been previously degraded from prior use.

• Minimize offsite impacts by using existing electrical distribution facilities, rights-of-way, roads,
and other existing infrastructure where possible to minimize the need for new electrical support
facilities.

• Minimize impacts to threatened or endangered species or their habitats, wetlands and waters of the
United States, cultural resources, and sensitive land use.

• Generate substantial direct and indirect economic opportunities in Kern County during construction
with the creation of “green” jobs.

• Minimize water usage.

• Assist the State of California in reducing fossil fuel air quality pollution and in achieving the
greenhouse gas emission (GHG) reductions required by the California Global Warming Solutions
Act (Assembly Bill 32) which requires the California Air Resources Board to reduce statewide
emissions of GHGs to at least the 1990 emissions level by 2020. This timeline was updated in 2016
under Senate Bill 32, which requires that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to at least 40
percent below the statewide GHG emissions limit by 2030.

• Offset carbon dioxide that would have resulted from producing an equivalent amount of electricity
utilizing generators powered by fossil fuels.

• Develop a viable source of clean energy to assist California and its utilities in fulfilling California'
Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program. In October 2015, Governor Brown signed into law
Senate Bill 350, which establishes a new RPS for all electricity retailers in the state. Electricit

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 119 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
retailers must adopt the new RPS goals of 50 percent of retail sales from renewables by the end o
2030. Senate Bill 100 (De León, also known as the “California Renewables Portfolio Standard
Program: emissions of greenhouse gases”) as approved by the California legislature and signed by
Governor Brown in September 2018, increases RPS in 2030 from 50 percent to 60 percent and
establishes a goal of 100 percent RPS by 2045.

• Use proven and established PV technology that is efficient and requires low maintenance.

ALTERNATIVE 1: NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

The CEQA Guidelines require EIRs to include a No Project Alternative for the purpose of allowing decision
makers to compare the effects of approving the proposed project versus a No Project Alternative.
Accordingly, Alternative 1, the No Project Alternative, assumes that the development of the photovoltaic
(PV) solar facility and associated infrastructure required to generate a combined 291 271 megawatts (MW)
of renewable electrical energy and/or energy storage capacity on the approximately 1,3301,251-acre project
site would not occur. No gen-tie lines would be constructed. The No Project Alternative would not require
Conditional Use Permits (CUP) for construction and operation of a combined 291 271 MW solar and/or
battery storage project with associated facilities on the six discontinuous sites which make up the total the
project site. An amendment to the General Plan and Specific Plan circulation element along with public
easement vacations would not be required. The No Project Alternative would maintain the current zoning,
land use classifications, and existing land uses, which consist mostly of undeveloped desert vegetation. No
physical changes would be made to the project site. (BOS 7/27/2021)

Finding
The No Project Alternative would avoid creating nearly all of the significant and unavoidable impacts
associated with the proposed project. This alternative would result in less impact to all remaining
environmental issue areas with the exception of Wildfire and GHGs; since this alternative would not offset
GHGs through the operation of a solar energy facility, impacts to GHGs would be greater under this
alternative.

The No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the project objectives listed above, including assisting
California in reducing GHG emissions. Although this alternative would create less environmental impacts
overall, the objectives that shape the project would not be realized under this alternative.

ALTERNATIVE 2: SPECIFIC PLAN AND ZONING BUILD-OUT ALTERNATIVE

Alternative 2, the General Plan and Zoning Build-Out Alternative, would develop the project site to the
maximum intensity allowed under the existing Kern County General Plan land use and zoning
classifications. According to the Kern County General Plan, the project is located within land use
designation of 4.1 (Nonjurisdictional land: Accepted county plan areas) (County of Kern, 2009). The
accepted county plan land use designation applies to areas where specific land use plans have already been
prepared and approved. The proposed project is located within unincorporated Kern County and within the
jurisdiction of the Willow Springs Specific Plan. The project site is designated as Willow Springs Specific
Plan Map Codes 7.1 (Light Industrial), 7.1/4.4 (Light Industrial/ Comprehensive Plan Required), 7.2
(Service Industrial), 7.2/4.4 (Service Industrial/ Comprehensive Plan Required), 5.5 (Residential,
Maximum 1 units/net acre), 5.5/2.85 (Residential, Maximum 1 units/net acre/Noise Management Area),
5.6 (Residential, Maximum 2.5 gross acres/unit), 5.6/2.85 (Residential, Maximum 2.5 gross
acres/unit/Noise Management Area), 5.3 (Residential, Maximum 10 units/net acre), 5.3/4.4 (Residential,

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 120 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

Maximum 10 units/net acre/ Comprehensive Plan Required), 5.3/2.85/4.4 (Residential, Maximum 10

units/net acre/Noise Management Area/Comprehensive Plan Required), 5.4 (Residential, Maximum 4
units/net acre) and 5.4/2.85 (Residential, Maximum 4 units/net acre/Noise Management Area).
Implementation of Alternative 2 would consist of developing the project site under the current land use
classification of 4.1 (Willow Springs Specific Plan), where parcels designated as 5.3, 5.3/4.4, 5.4, 5.4/2.85
5.5, 5.5/2.85, 5.6, and 5.6/2.85 would be developed with residential uses specific to the requirements of
defined for each residential designation. Parcels designated with 7.1, 7.1/4.4, 7.2, and 7.2/4.4 would be
developed with the particular industrial uses defined for each industrial land use designation.

The project site has various zone classifications, which include: A FPS (Exclusive Agriculture – Floodplain
Secondary Combining); E-2.5 RS FPS (Estate Residential – 2.5 acres Minimum – Residential Suburban
Combining – Floodplain Secondary Combining); E-2.5 RS MH FPS (Estate Residential – 2.5 acres
Minimum – Residential Suburban Combining – Mobile Home Combining – Floodplain Secondary
Combining); and OS (Open Space). Given that the zoning designation for the project site is A FPS
(Exclusive Agriculture – Floodplain Secondary Combining); E-2.5 RS FPS (Estate Residential – 2.5 acres
Minimum – Residential Suburban Combining – Floodplain Secondary Combining), E-2.5 RS MH FPS
(Estate Residential – 2.5 acres Minimum – Residential Suburban Combining – Mobile Home Combining –
Floodplain Secondary Combining); and OS (Open Space) the project site would be developed inaccordance
with those designations. The portions of the project site zoned as A would be developed with agricultural
uses (approximately 315 acres), the portions of the project site zoned as E would be developed with single-
family residential units (approximately 975 acres), and the portion of the project site zoned OS would be
developed as open space (approximately 40 acres).

With implementation of Alternative 2, approval of eight (8) Conditional Use Permits (CUP) for construction
and operation of commercial solar electrical generating facilities, an Amendment to the General Plan,
Willow Springs Specific Plan, and Willow Springs Specific Plan Circulation Element, and removal of
public easement vacations would not be required. No solar facilities would be developed under this
alternative.

Finding
Alternative 2 would result in less impacts to aesthetics, agricultural and forestry resources, and land use
and planning. The alternative would result in similar impacts to biological resources, hazards and hazardous
materials, and tribal cultural resources. This alternative would result in greater impacts in all remaining
environmental issue areas. Greater impacts to air quality would result from emissions from the proposed
agricultural uses on site, such as agricultural vehicles and livestock emissions. Given the ground disturbance
required, greater impacts would occur to potentially undiscovered cultural resources. This alternative would
result in greater energy impacts as the project site would not generate renewable energy as compared to the
proposed project, and would therefore, not assist the state in meeting its renewable energy generation goals.
Greater impacts to geology and soils would result from greater initial soil disturbance during construction
and greater potential to expose people to seismic hazards resulting from permanent human presence on site
from the proposed agricultural uses. This alternative would result in greater GHG emission impacts than
the project because the potential offset or displacement of GHG emissions from operation of the solar power
generating facility, compared with traditional gas- or coal-fired power plants, would not be realized. Greater
impacts to hydrology and water quality would result from continued ground disturbance from activities
such as grazing and plowing and the application of pesticides or herbicides from the proposed agricultural

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 121 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

uses. Greater impacts to noise would occur under this alternative during operation, through the noise
associated with the daily operation of agricultural equipment and worker vehicles, as well as residential
traffic. The increase in human population on site is also responsible for greater impacts to public services,
transportation and traffic, utilities and service systems, and wildfires. This alternative would not eliminate
significant and unavoidable impacts associated with air quality (cumulative only), biological resources
(cumulative only), and wildfires (cumulative only).

Alternative 2 would not achieve any of the project objectives listed above, including the project’s objective
related to developing solar facilities to produce clean electricity to help achieve California’s renewable
energy goals.

ALTERNATIVE 3: REDUCED ACREAGE ALTERNATIVE

Under Alternative 3, the Reduced Acreage Alternative, the project’s footprint would be reduced from 1,330
1,251 acres to 695 acres as development of the solar panels and associated facilities would only be allowed
on Sites 1-3. The solar panels and associated infrastructure would all be located in the reduced project site,
and gen-tie route options 1 through 4 would remain the same as proposed under the project. The reduced
project acreage under this alternative is still expected to contain enough land to construct a combined solar
array field capable of generating approximately 141 MW capacity due to the proportional reduction in
project size. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would require the approval of three (3) CUPs
to allow for the construction and operation of 141 MW photovoltaic electrical generating facility with
associated facilities on approximately 695 acres encompassed in Sites 1-3; approval of amendments to the
Willow Springs Specific Plan to redesignate and rezone the sites with uses that allow for solar development;
approval of amendments to the Willow Springs Specific Plan Circulation Element to eliminate various road
reservations and mid-section lines; and approval of vacation of existing public access easements on the
reduced project site. Decommissioning activities would be the similar as the proposed project but reduced
proportionally with the decreased acreage of the reduced project site. (BOS 7/27/2021)

Finding
Alternative 3 would be reduced in size compared to the proposed project, and would generate approximately
141 MW due to the proportional reduction in project size. Therefore, all construction and operational
methods, workforce, and timing for the Reduced Acreage Alternative would be reduced in comparison with
the proposed project. Due to the reduced project footprint, the Reduced Acreage Alternative would result
in less or similar impacts for all of the environmental issue areas, with the exception of eliminating the
significant and unavoidable impact to agriculture and forestry resources that would occur under the
proposed project. However, this alternative would not eliminate significant and unavoidable impacts
associated with aesthetics (project and cumulative), air quality (cumulative only), biological resources
(cumulative only), noise (project and cumulative), and wildfires (cumulative).
Alternative 3 would meet most of the project objectives listed above. Under the Reduced Acreage
Alternative, the project would only develop on sites 1-3 and would reduce the project’s footprint from 1,330
1,251 acres to 695 acres. Therefore, this alternative would create fewer environmental impacts; however, it
would not reduce any identified significant and unavoidable impact to less than significant. (BOS
7/27/2021)

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 122 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
ALTERNATIVE 4: NO GROUND-MOUNTED UTILITY-SOLAR DEVELOPMENT
ALTERNATIVE – DISTRIBUTED COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ROOFTOP SOLAR
ONLY ALTERNATIVE
Alternative 4, the No Ground-Mounted Utility-Solar Development Alternative, would involve the
development of a number of geographically distributed small to medium solar PV systems (100 kWh to 1
MW) within existing developed areas, typically on the rooftops of commercial and industrial facilities
situated throughout the Antelope Valley. Under this alternative, no new land would be developed or altered.
However, depending on the type of solar modules installed and the type of tracking equipment used (if
any), a similar or greater amount of acreage (i.e., greater than 1,330 1,251 acres of total rooftop area) may
be required to attain project’s capacity of 291 271 MW of solar PV generating capacity. Because of space
or capital cost constraints, many rooftop solar PV systems would be fixed-axis systems or would not include
the same type of sun-tracking equipment that would be installed in a freestanding utility-scale solar PV
project and, therefore, would not attain the same level of efficiency with respect to solar PV generation.
Alternative 4 would generate 291 271 MW of electricity, but it would be for on-site use only. This
alternative assumes that rooftop development would occur primarily on commercial and industrial
structures due to the greater availability of large, relatively flat roof areas necessary for efficient solar
installations. Similar to the project, this alternative would be designed to operate year-round using PV
panels to convert solar energy directly to electrical power. Power generated by such distributed solar PV
systems would typically be consumed on-site by the commercial or industrial facility without requiring the
construction of new electrical substation or transmission facilities. Decommissioning of this alternative
would not be required. (BOS 7/27/2021)
Finding
Alternative 4 would result in less impacts related to aesthetics, agricultural and forestry resources, air
quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials,
hydrology and water quality, public services, transportation, and utilities and service systems. Furthermore,
this alternative would result in similar impacts to energy (less than significant), noise (significant and
unavoidable for alternative and cumulative), tribal cultural resources (no impact) and wildfire (significant
and unavoidable for cumulative. This alternative would result in greater impacts to GHG emissions due to
the smaller potential for overall GHG emission offset compared to the project. Additionally, this alternative
would eliminate significant and unavoidable impacts to aesthetics (project and cumulative), agriculture and
forestry resources (project and cumulative), and biological resources (cumulative).
This alternative would satisfy some of the project objective of assisting California in reducing GHG
emissions. This alternative theoretically has the potential to generate of up to 291 271 MW of electricity
but it would be used on the sites generating the power, and would not achieve the project objective of
assisting California load-serving entities in meeting their obligations under California’s RPS Program. The
alternative would not achieve other project objectives including utilizing existing transmission
infrastructure to minimize costs. It is also unlikely the project would have an average insolation value of 6
kWh/m2/day or greater given the lack of efficiency of rooftop solar compared to solar tracking technology.
Additionally, there are some drawbacks to this alternative that include, but not limited to those listed below.

• The system would not likely be built out within a timeframe that would be similar to that of the
proposed project.

• Given the distributed nature of such a network of facilities, construction, management, and
maintenance would not be as efficient, and total capital costs would likely be higher.

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 123 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A

• The project proponent does not have immediate control or access to potential urban sites that could
accommodate facilities to generate 291 271 MW of solar power.

• A distributed system of the scale of the project would be cost-prohibitive.

Given the size of the proposed project, the project objectives, and the need to arrange a suitable assemblage
of participating commercial and industrial properties, it is impractical and infeasible to propose a distributed
generation project of this type and still proceed within a reasonably similar timeframe. (BOS 7/27/2021)
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
The CEQA Guidelines require the identification of an environmentally superior alternative to the project
(CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[e][2]). An environmentally superior alternative is an alternative to the
project that would reduce and/or eliminate the significant environmental impacts associated with the project
without creating other significant impacts and without substantially reducing and/or eliminating the
environmental benefits attributable to the project.
Selection of an environmentally superior alternative is based on an evaluation of the extent to which the
alternatives reduce or eliminate the significant impacts associated with the project on a comparison of the
remaining environmental impacts of each alternative. In conducting this comparative evaluation, it can be
difficult to make a determination of relative significance because some categories are relatively more or
less important and cannot be simply summed. In some cases, these categories do not create a picture of the
nuances of the alternatives.
Finding
As presented in the comparative analysis in Chapter 6, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, and as shown in
Table 6-2, Comparison of Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, there are a number of factors in selecting the
environmentally superior alternative. An EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative to the
proposed project.
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines states that if the No Project Alternative is found to be
environmentally superior, “the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the
other alternatives.”
Because the No Project Alternative cannot be the Environmentally Superior Alternative under CEQA, the
Environmentally Superior Alternative is considered to be the No Ground-Mounted Utility-Solar
Development Alternative. This alternative would avoid significant and unavoidable impacts to aesthetics,
agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, and biological resources. Impacts related to GHG emissions
would be greater under this alternative due to the lower efficiency of the distributed solar PV systems,
which would not include solar tracking technology. This alternative could potentially result in greater
impacts to land use and wildfire risks due to the numerous power lines that would be required to harness
the distributed solar panel energy. In addition, this alternative would result in less impact to aesthetics
agricultural and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils,
hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, public services, transportation, and utilities
and service systems. Thus, for most environmental issue areas, this alternative would result in fewer
environmental impacts, both short-term and long-term, when compared to the proposed project.
It is important to note that it is considered impracticable and infeasible to construct the No Ground-Mounted
Utility-Solar Development Alternative within the same timeframe and/or with the same efficiency as the

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 124 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021
EXHIBIT A
proposed project because the project proponent lacks control and access to the sites required to develop 291
271 MW of distributed solar generated electricity. In addition, this alternative would not achieve the project
objective of assisting California load-serving entities in meeting their obligations under California’s RPS
Program. Nonetheless, because this alternative reduces impacts to a greater degree than the General Plan
and Zoning Build-Out Alternative and Reduced Acreage Alternative, the No Ground-Mounted Utility-Solar
Development Alternative is considered the Environmentally Superior Alternative. (BOS 7/27/2021)

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Page 125 of 125
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 July 27, 2021

Exhibit B
15093 Statement of
Overriding Considerations

EXHIBIT B

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093

for

Raceway Solar 2.0 Project

By sPower Development Company, LLC

Final Environmental Impact Report

SCH# 2020079007

Lead Agency: Kern County Planning and Natural Resource Department

Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Statement of Overriding Considerations - Page 1 of 6 July 27, 2021
Section 15093
EXHIBIT B

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a public agency to balance the benefits of a
proposed project against its significant unavoidable adverse impacts in determining to approve the project.
The Raceway Solar 2.0 Project would result in environmental effects that, although mitigated to the extent
feasible by the implementation of mitigation measures required for the project, would remain as significant
and unavoidable adverse impacts, as discussed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and CEQA
findings of fact. These impacts are summarized below and constitute those impacts for which this statement
of overriding considerations is made.
1) The project would, in nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. Implementation of the project would result
in potentially significant visual impacts to the existing visual quality or character of the site and
surrounding area. As shown in the visual simulations, the visual change associated with project
development would be somewhat muted when viewed from a distance of greater than 0.5 miles.
With distance, the effects associated with removal of vegetation from the project site would be
masked by dense groupings of solar arrays. Similarly, thousands of solar arrays viewed from
distance would begin to appear similar to other dark tones associated with distant terrain in the
landscape. However, visual change would be evident from Rosamond Boulevard.
Even with distance and diminished visibility, the visual change associated with the introduction of
approximately 1,330 1,251 acres of solar development on currently undeveloped desert terrain
would likely attract attention. Further, the introduction of thousands of solar panels, the ESS
facilities, and the collection lines would increase the footprint of solar and electrical transmission
development in the area. Solar and other renewable energy developments are generally
concentrated to the west of SR-14, and the project would introduce additional manufactured
elements where they do not currently dominate the landscape, resulting in significant aesthetic
impacts. (BOS 7/27/2021)

Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-1 through MM 4.1-4 would reduce visual impacts associated with
the proposed project by limiting vegetation removal, planting native vegetation, providing privacy
fencing, reducing the visibility of project features, and ensuring that the site is kept free of debris
and trash. Native vegetation would be left in place around the proposed project area where feasible,
allowing for a natural screening of project components. Furthermore, the color treatment of
buildings would help these components to better blend in with the natural landscape.
However, there are no feasible mitigation measures that can be implemented to preserve the
existing open space landscape while at the same time developing a solar energy facility. Therefore,
impacts to visual character would remain significant and unavoidable despite implementation of
these mitigation measures.
2) The project would result in cumulative aesthetics impacts related to visual character. The project
in combination with the cumulative projects would have significant and unavoidable impacts
related to aesthetics. As detailed in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the EIR, Cumulative
development includes the conversion of thousands of acres in a presently rural area to solar and
wind energy production uses. This conversion of land will alter the visual character of the area.
While other projects in the region would also be required to implement various mitigation measures
to reduce impacts associated with visual character, the conversion of land in a presently rural area
to solar and wind energy production uses cannot be mitigated to a degree that impacts are no longer
significant. Development of the project would result in significant impacts associated with visual
Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT
Statement of Overriding Considerations - Page 2 of 6 July 27, 2021
Section 15093
EXHIBIT B
character in the area. Even with implementation of mitigation measures, the project’s contribution
to significant cumulative impacts associated with visual character in the Antelope Valley would be
significant and unavoidable.
3) The project would conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract.
As the project site is currently subject to a Williamson Act Contract, development of the project
prior to expiration would conflict with the contract, was made to restrict the project site to
agricultural and compatible uses. Therefore, the proposed project would require the cancellation of
an open space contract made pursuant to the California Lands Conservation Act of 1965 for a parcel
over 100 acres. No feasible mitigation is available to reduce impacts related to the cancellation of
Williamson Act Contracts, therefore, impacts related to the cancellation of an open space contract
would be significant and unavoidable.
4) The project would result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to the conversion of
agricultural land to non-agricultural uses. As described in Chapter 2, Agricultural Resources, the
proposed project would convert approximately 247 acres of Prime Farmland to non-agricultural
uses. While development of the cumulative projects could result in conversion of Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), the proposed project’s
contribution to the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses would be cumulatively
considerable. The project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of other closely related past projects, the effects of other current projects
and the effects of probable future projects and thus cumulative impacts would be significant and
unavoidable. As explained under Impact 4.2-4, in Chapter 3, Agricultural Resources, no feasible
mitigation is available to reduce impacts related to the cancellation of Williamson Act Contracts.
As such, cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable as it relates to the conversion
of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses.
5) The project would result in cumulative air quality impacts. As discussed in Section 4.3, Air Quality,
of the EIR, there are several alternative energy (wind and solar) projects being developed within
the eastern Kern geographical area. From a site-specific, project-level operational review, these
projects are required to comply with all rules and regulations of the Eastern Kern Air Pollution
Control District. Impacts associated with operation of the proposed project are generally considered
less than significant. However, given the total number of development proposals within the region,
even with the implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-1 through MM 4.3-5, cumulative
temporary construction impacts are considered significant and unavoidable.

6) The project would result in cumulative biological resources impacts. There are a number of special-
status species that currently utilize the project site and surrounding vicinity. Implementation of the
project in addition to the other projects underway or proposed within Kern County would impact
transient wildlife species, including burrowing owls, Swainson’s hawk, loggerhead shrike, northern
harrier, other raptors, migratory birds, American badger, and desert kit fox. The project site contains
habitat that support plants, insects, rodents, and small birds that provide a prey base for raptors and
terrestrial wildlife. In addition, based on the literature review and database search completed for
the project, the region is known to support a diversity of special-status species, most of which are
not expected to utilize the project site on a transient basis, if at all. Within the regional context and
when considered with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, the project
would have an incremental contribution to a cumulative loss of foraging and nesting habitat for
special-status bird species, even with the implementation of project-specific mitigation measures.
Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT
Statement of Overriding Considerations - Page 3 of 6 July 27, 2021
Section 15093
EXHIBIT B
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-12, MM 4.1-1 through MM
4.1-6, MM 4.9-3, and MM 4.10-1 would help reduce impacts to special status species. This
mitigation involves avoidance and minimization for special-status plant species, monitoring,
worker environmental awareness training, preconstruction clearance survey, general biological
resources avoidance measures, preconstruction special-status plant surveys, and creation of a
Joshua Tree Preservation Plan. In addition, Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-1 through MM 4.1-6
(from Section 4.1, Aesthetics, in this EIR) would minimize nighttime lighting and reduce impacts
to special status species. However, given the present and reasonably foreseeable future
development projects in the Antelope Valley, the proposed project, when combined with other
projects, would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative loss of foraging and nesting
habitat for special-status species.
7) The project would result in significant and unavoidable generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project, in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
Activities associated with the construction and decommissioning of the project would result in the
generation of noise greater than the standard 65dB(A) for the Kern County General Plan and 55
dB(A) for short period of times. The highest estimated construction-related noise levels that could
result at nearby sensitive receptors over the course of the project’s construction period would range
from 52 dBA Leq to 87 dBA Leq. During quieter phases of construction or when construction
activity moves farther away from the receptor, the noise levels would decrease. However, due to
the potential use of loud construction equipment, such as vibratory pile drivers, it is expected that
sensitive receptors in Willow Springs could be temporarily exposed to noise levels in exceedance
of local permissible standards (55 dBA at the receptor boundary). Those noise would be intermittent
and reduced during times when the vibratory pile driver is not operating at its highest capacity.
Additionally, in compliance with Kern County Noise Ordinance (Municipal Ordinance Code
8.36.020) construction activities would not occur between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on
weekdays and 9:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. on weekends for construction sites located within 1,000 feet
of an occupied residential dwelling. Given the fact that construction activities could generate noise
greater than the standard 65dBA for the Kern County General Plan and 55 dBA for short period of
times, temporary construction impacts are considered significant and unavoidable, even with
implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.12-1 through MM 4.12-3, which requires noise
reduction measures and the establishment of a “noise disturbance coordinator”.

8) The project would result in cumulative wildfire impacts. As concluded in the EIR, the project would
have a less-than-significant impact related to impairment of an adopted emergency response or
evacuation plan. Similar to the project, related projects would be required to determine whether
they are classified as being within a high fire hazard severity zone, identified within an emergency
evacuation route or within an adopted emergency evacuation plan, and whether they meet the
requirements of applicable Fire Code and Building Code. Nevertheless, given the location in a rural
area and limited infrastructure related to fire suppression such as high pressure water systems and
paved access roads to the site, the project and related projects have the potential to result in a
cumulative impact to an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and, thus,
would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact.
With regard to cumulative impacts related to exposure of project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire, while the project is not within SRAs and/or High Fire Hazard
Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT
Statement of Overriding Considerations - Page 4 of 6 July 27, 2021
Section 15093
EXHIBIT B
Severity Zones, some related projects in the area may be. Similar to the proposed project, all related
projects would be required to implement building and landscape design features in accordance with
the Fire Code and Building Code to reduce wildfire risk and exposure of occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire. Adherence to the Fire Code and Building Code requirements would
minimize potential impacts related to exposure to and the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.
Nevertheless, given the location in a rural area and limited infrastructure, the project and related
projects have the potential to result in a cumulative impact related to exposure of project occupants
to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire and, thus, would result in a significant and unavoidable
cumulative impact.
Related projects may require associated infrastructure such as roads, fuel breaks, and power lines
that could exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment. Despite implementation of the mitigation and adherence to all regulations, given the
location is subject to high wind speeds, and is a rural area with limited infrastructure, the project
and related projects have the potential to result in a cumulative impact related to the installation or
maintenance of associated infrastructure and, thus, would result in a significant and unavoidable
cumulative impact.
Some related projects could be proposed in areas that could expose people or structures to risks
from downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of post-fire slope instability.
Based on the recent fire events in California, all projects would be required to adhere to Kern
County’s zoning and land use designations and codes (or those of the applicable jurisdiction within
Los Angeles County), State and local fire codes, and regulations associated with drainage and site
stability. These regulations, policies, and codes would reduce the potential for exposing people or
structures to risks from downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of post-fire
slope instability. Each project would require site-specific hydrology and drainage studies for
effective drainage design. As concluded in the EIR, with the implementation mitigation, the project
would not expose people or structures to significant risks due to post-fire slope instability or
drainage changes and would have a less-than-significant impact. Nevertheless, given the location
in a rural area and limited infrastructure, the project and related projects have the potential to result
in a cumulative impact related to exposing people or structures to significant risks as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes and, thus, would result in a significant and
unavoidable cumulative impact.
Findings
This Board of Supervisors finds and determines that it has considered the identified means of lessening or
avoiding the project’s significant effects and the extent any significant direct or indirect environmental
effects, including cumulative project impacts, and they remain unavoidable or not reduced to below a level
of significance after mitigation. The Board of Supervisors further finds and determines that the specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental
benefits of the project, as discussed below, outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects. Such
benefits override, outweigh, and make “acceptable” any such remaining environmental impacts of the
project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15092(b)).
The following benefits and considerations outweigh the identified significant and unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts. All of these benefits and considerations are based on the facts set forth in the
findings, the Final EIR, and the record of proceedings for the project. Each of these benefits and

Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Statement of Overriding Considerations - Page 5 of 6 July 27, 2021
Section 15093
EXHIBIT B
considerations is a separate and independent basis that justifies approval of the project, so that if a court
were to set aside the determination that any particular benefit or consideration would occur and justifies
project approval, this Board of Supervisors would otherwise stand by its determination that the remaining
benefit(s) or considerations are sufficient to justify and substantiate project approval.
Facts
Each benefit set forth below constitutes an overriding consideration warranting approval of the project,
independent of the other benefits, and the Board of Supervisors determines that the adverse environmental
impacts of the project are “acceptable” if any of these benefits would be realized. The project would provide
benefits to the County of Kern as follows:
1) The project would help to meet the increasing demand for clean, renewable electrical power.
2) The project would establish solar PV power-generating facilities that are of a sufficient size and
configuration to produce approximately 291 271 megawatts (MW) of electricity. (BOS
7/27/2021)
3) Assist the County in continuing the goal in the Energy Element of its General Plan to develop
large scale solar energy development as a major energy source in the County.
4) The project would produce and transmit electricity at a competitive cost.
5) The proposed project would minimize environmental effects by:

− Using existing electrical transmission facilities, rights-of-way, roads, and other existing
infrastructure where practicable;

− Minimizing water use; and

− Reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

6) The project would supply clean, safe, renewable energy.
7) The project would support the economic development of Kern County, Los Angeles County, and
the State of California.
8) The project would produce and transmit electricity at a competitive cost and in a manner that is
eligible for commercial financing.
9) The project would assist the state of California in achieving the Renewable Portfolio Standard
(RPS) for 2030, by providing a significant new source of renewable energy (California State
Assembly Bill [AB] 32, Senate Bill [SB] 1078, SB 107, SB 350, and SB 2).
10) The project would enhance existing electrical distribution infrastructure and provide greater
support to existing and future customer loads.
11) The project would generate up to 800 200 jobs during construction and two- to four permanent
jobs during operation, which would provide increased business for local contractors and vendors.
(BOS 7/27/2021)

Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Board of Supervisors – DRAFT

Statement of Overriding Considerations - Page 6 of 6 July 27, 2021
Section 15093

Exhibit C
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring Program
(MMRP)

EXHIBIT C

Mitigation Measure Monitoring Plan (MMMP)

Raceway 2.0 Solar Project

By sPower Development Company, LLC.

SPA 33, ZM 231; ZCC 154, ZM 231; CUP 116 ZM 231; SPA 35, ZM 231; ZCC 155, ZM 231; CUP 117, ZM 231; SPA 36, ZM 231; SPA 37, ZM 231; ZCC 156, ZM
231; CUP 118, ZM 231; SPA 38, ZM 231; CUP 119, ZM 231; CUP 4, ZM 231-20; SPA 39, ZM 231; SPA 3, ZM 231-20; SPA 5, ZM 231-21; SPA 5, ZM 231-28;
ZCC 3, ZM 231-21; ZCC 3, ZM 231-28; CUP 3, ZM 231-21; CUP 7, ZM 231-28; SPA 6, ZM 231-21; SPA 6,
ZM 231-28
Cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract 20-06;
Kern County Franchise Agreement
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.1 Aesthetics
1. MM 4.1-1: Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, a Maintenance, Prior to issuance of Kern County Planning and
Trash Abatement, and Pest Management Program shall be submitted for grading building permits Natural Resources Department;
review and approval to the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources and during construction Kern County Waste
Department. The program shall include, but not be limited to the following: and operation Management Department;
a. The project proponent/operator shall clear debris from the project Recycling Coordinator
area at least four times per year; this can be done in conjunction with Steps to Compliance:
regular panel washing and site maintenance activities.
A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
b. The project proponent/operator shall erect signs with contact
information for the project proponent/operator’s maintenance staff at B. Recycle construction waste to the extent feasible.
regular intervals along the site boundary, as required by the Kern C. Provide Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department and Kern
County Planning and Natural Resources Department. Maintenance County Waste Management Department with copies of hauling receipts.
staff shall respond within two weeks to resident requests for
additional cleanup of debris. Correspondence with such requests and
responses shall be submitted to the Kern County Planning and Natural
Resources Department.
c. The project proponent/operator shall implement a regular trash
removal and recycling program on an ongoing basis during
construction and operation of the project. Barriers to prevent
pest/rodent access to food waste receptacles shall be implemented.
Locations of all trash receptacles during operation of the project shall
be shown on final plans.
d. Trash and food items shall be contained in closed secured containers
at the end of the day and removed at least once per week to reduce the
attractiveness to opportunistic predators such as common ravens,
coyotes, and feral dogs.

2. MM 4.1-2: The project proponent shall install metal fence slats or similar During construction Kern County Planning and
view-screening materials, as approved by the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department
Natural Resources Department, in all on-site perimeter fencing for any portion
of the solar site that is adjacent to a residence or parcels zoned for residential Steps to Compliance:
use, including E (Estate Residential), R-1 (Low-Density Residential), R-2 A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
(Medium-Density Residential), R-3 (High-Density Residential), or PL (Platted
Lands) zoning unless the adjacent property is owned by the project proponent

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 1 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.1 Aesthetics
(to be verified by the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources B. Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department will verify ownership
Department) or a public or private agency that has submitted correspondence of adjacent property and will approve metal fence slats or other similar view-
to the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department requesting screening materials.
this requirement to be waived. Should the project proponent sell the adjacent C. The project proponent shall install metal fence slats or similar view-screening
property, slat fencing or similar view-screening materials shall be installed materials.
prior to the sale.

3. MM 4.1-3: Prior to the issuance of the building permit for the solar facility, Prior to issuance of Kern County Planning and
the project proponent/operator shall submit a proposed color scheme and building permits Natural Resources Department
treatment plan, for review and approval by the Kern County Panning and
Natural Resources Department, that will ensure all project facilities including Steps to Compliance:
operations and maintenance buildings, collection line poles, array facilities, A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
etc. blend in with the colors found in the natural landscape. All color treatments B. The project proponent shall submit plans including the proposed color treatment
shall result in matte or nonglossy finishes. and use nonreflective materials as outlined in mitigation to the Planning and
Natural Resources Department for review and approval.
4. MM 4.1-4: Wherever possible, within the proposed project boundary the During construction and Kern County Planning and
natural vegetation shall remain undisturbed unless mowing is necessary for prior to commencement Natural Resources Department
placement of the project components. All natural vegetation adjacent to the of project operation and
proposed project boundary shall remain in place. Prior to the commencement decommissioning
of project operations and decommissioning, the project proponent/operator
shall submit a Landscape Revegetation and Restoration Plan for the project site Steps to Compliance:
to the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department for review A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
and approval. The plan shall include the measures detailed below. B. Project proponent shall submit a Landscape Revegetation and Restoration Plan
a. In areas temporarily disturbed during construction and to the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department for review and
decommissioning (including grading or removal of root balls approval prior to the commencement of project operations and
resulting in loose soil), the ground surface shall be revegetated with a decommissioning.
native seed mix or native plants (including Mohave creosote scrub C. The project proponent shall submit evidence of implementation of compliance
habitat) and/or allowed to re-vegetate with the existing native seed to the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department with practices
bank in the top soil where possible to establish revegetation. Areas as outlined in mitigation.
that contain permanent features such as perimeter roads, maintenance
roads or under arrays do not require revegetation.
b. The plan must include but is not limited to: (1) the approved
California native seed mix that will be used onsite, (2) a timeline for

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 2 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.1 Aesthetics
seeding the site, (3) the details of which areas are to be revegetated,
and (4) a clear prohibition of the use of toxic rodenticides.
c. Ground cover shall include native seed mix and shall be spread where
earthmoving activities have taken place, as needed to establish re-
vegetation. The seed mix or native plants shall be determined through
consultation with professionals such as landscape architect(s),
horticulturist(s), botanist(s), etc. with local knowledge as shown on
submitted resume and shall be approved by the Kern County Planning
and Natural Resources Department prior to planting. Phased seeding
may be used if a phased construction approach is used (i.e., the entire
site need not be seeded all at the same time).
d. Vegetation/ground cover shall be continuously maintained on the site
by the project operator.
e. The re-vegetation and restoration of the site shall be monitored
annually for a three-year period following restoration activities that
occur post-construction and post-decommissioning. Based on annual
monitoring visits during the three-year periods, an annual evaluation
report shall be submitted to the Kern County Planning and Natural
Resources Department for each of the three years. Should efforts to
revegetate with the existing native seed bank in the top soil prove in
the second year to not be successful by 75 percent cover rate, re-
evaluation of revegetation methods shall be made in consultation with
the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department and an
additional year shall be added to the monitoring program to ensure
coverage is achieved. The three-year monitoring program is intended
to ensure the site naturally achieves native plant diversity, establishes
perennials, and is consistent with conditions prior to implementation
of the proposed project, where feasible.
5. MM 4.1-5: Prior to commencement of project operations of the solar facility, Prior to site plan Kern County Public Works
the project proponent shall demonstrate to Kern County Planning and Natural approvals and issuance of Department and Kern County
Resources Staff that the project site complies with the applicable provisions of building permits, and Planning and Natural Resources
the Dark Skies Ordinance (Chapter 19.81 of the Kern County Zoning during construction and Department
Ordinance), and shall be designed to provide the minimum illumination needed operation
to achieve safety and security objectives. All lighting shall be directed downward
and shielded to focus illumination on the desired areas only and avoid light Steps to Compliance:

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 3 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.1 Aesthetics
trespass into adjacent areas. Lenses and bulbs shall not be exposed or extend A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
below the shields. B. The project proponent shall ensure all outdoor lighting meet the minimum
requirements for safety and security standards as well as provide the minimum
illumination needed to achieve safety and security objectives as outlined in the
mitigation.
C. The Kern County Public Works Department and/or the Kern County Natural
Resources Department shall verify compliance.

6. MM 4.1-6: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project proponent shall Prior to issuance of Kern County Planning and
demonstrate the solar panels and hardware are designed to minimize glare and building permits Natural Resources Department;
spectral highlighting. Emerging technologies shall be used, such as diffusion Kern County Public Works
coatings and nanotechnological innovations, to effectively reduce the Department
refractive index of the solar cells and protective glass. These technological
advancements are intended to make the solar panels more efficient with respect Steps to Compliance:
to converting incident sunlight into electrical power while also reducing the A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
amount of glare generated by the panels. Specifications of such designs shall B. The project proponent shall ensure that all panels and hardware utilizes
be submitted to the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department. advanced technologies utilized to the extent possible to minimize glare and
spectral highlighting as outlined in mitigation.
C. Specifications of such designs shall be submitted to the Kern County Planning
and Natural Resources Department.
D. The Kern County Public Works Department shall verify compliance in the field.
7. MM 4.1-7: Prior to commencement of project operations of the solar facility, Prior to issuance of Kern County Planning and
the project operator shall demonstrate that all onsite buildings utilized non- building permits Natural Resources Department;
reflective materials, as approved by the Kern County Planning and Natural Kern County Public Works
Resources Department. Department
Steps to Compliance:
A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
B. The project proponent shall submit plans including the proposed use of
nonreflective materials as outlined in mitigation to the Planning and Natural
Resources Department for approval.
C. The Kern County Public Works Department shall verify compliance in the field.

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 4 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.1 Aesthetics
Justification: Changes or alterations to the project have been required to substantially reduce the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR to the
extent feasible.

4.3 Air Quality

8. MM 4.3-1: Implement Diesel Emission Reduction Measures during During grading and Kern County Public Works
Construction, Operation and Decommissioning. To control NOX and PM construction Department
emissions during construction, the project proponent/operator and/or its
contractor(s) shall implement the following measures during construction of Steps to Compliance:
the project, subject to verification by the County: A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
a. Off-road equipment engines over 25 horsepower shall be equipped B. The project proponent shall submit evidence of implementation of compliance
with EPA Tier 3 or higher engines unless Tier 3 construction with practices as outlined in mitigation.
equipment is not locally available. C. The Kern County Public Works Department shall verify in the field during the
b. All equipment shall be maintained in accordance with the construction phase of the project.
manufacturer’s specifications.
c. Construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment,
motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not
in use for more than 5 minutes.
d. Notification shall be provided to trucks and vehicles in loading or
unloading queues that their engines shall be turned off when not in
use for more than 5 minutes.
e. Electric equipment shall be used to the extent feasible in lieu of diesel
or gasoline-powered equipment.
f. All construction vehicles shall be equipped with proper emissions
control equipment and kept in good and proper running order to
substantially reduce NOX emissions.
g. On-road and off-road diesel equipment shall use diesel particulate
filters (or the equivalent) if permitted under manufacturer’s
guidelines.
h. Existing electric power sources shall be used to the extent feasible.
This measure would minimize the use of higher polluting gas or diesel
generators.

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 5 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.3 Air Quality

i. The hours of operation of heavy-duty equipment and/or the quantity
of equipment in use shall be limited to the extent feasible.

9. MM 4.3-2: Implement Fugitive Dust Control Plan during Construction, Prior to issuance of Kern County Planning and
Operations and Decommissioning. To control fugitive PM emissions during grading permits and Natural Resources Department;
construction, prior to the issuance of grading or building permits and any during operation Kern County Public Works
earthwork activities, the project proponent shall prepare a comprehensive Department
Fugitive Dust Control Plan for review by the Kern County Planning and
Natural Resources Department. The plan shall include all EKAPCD- Steps to Compliance:
recommended measures, including but not limited to, the following: A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
a. All soil being actively excavated or graded shall be sufficiently water B. The project proponent shall submit Site Specific Dust Control Plan to the Kern
to prevent excessive dust. Watering shall occur as needed with County Public Works Department.
complete coverage of disturbed soils areas. Watering shall take place C. The Kern County Public Works Department shall verify compliance of
a minimum of three times daily where soil is being actively disturbed, vehicular control measures in the field during the construction and
unless dust is otherwise controlled by rainfall or use of a dust decommissioning phases of the project.
suppressant. D. The notice shall be mailed to all parcels within 1,000 feet of the project site and
b. Vehicle speed for all on site (i.e., within the project boundary) one sign shall be posted at the construction site, no sooner than 15 days prior to
construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface construction.
at the construction site. Signs identifying construction vehicle speed E. Documentation shall be sent to the Kern County Planning and Natural
limits shall be posted along onsite roadways, at the site entrance/exit, Resources Department.
and along unpaved site access roads.
F. The Kern County Public Works Department shall verify in the field during the
c. Vehicle speeds on all offsite unpaved project-site access roads (i.e., construction phase of the project.
outside the project boundary) construction vehicles shall not exceed
25 mph. Signs identifying vehicle speed limits shall be posted along
unpaved site access roads and at the site entrance/exit.
d. All onsite unpaved roads and offsite unpaved public project-site
access road(s) shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using
water or EKAPCD-approved dust suppressants/palliatives, sufficient
to prevent wind-blown dust exceeding 20 percent opacity at nearby
residences or public roads. If water is used, watering shall occur a
minimum of three times daily, sufficient to keep soil moist along
actively used roadways. During the dry season, unpaved road surfaces
and vehicle parking/staging areas shall be watered immediately prior
to periods of high use (e.g., worker commute periods, truck convoys).

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 6 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.3 Air Quality

Reclaimed (non-potable) water shall be used to the extent available
and feasible.
e. The amount of the disturbed area (e.g., grading, excavation) shall be
reduced and/or phased where possible.
f. All disturbed areas shall be sufficiently watered or stabilized by
EKAPCD-approved methods to prevent excessive dust. On dry days,
watering shall occur a minimum of three times daily on actively
disturbed areas. Watering frequency shall be increased whenever
wind speeds exceed 15 mph or, as necessary, to prevent wind-blown
dust exceeding 20 percent opacity at nearby residences or public
roads. Reclaimed (non-potable) water shall be used to the extent
available and feasible.
g. All clearing, grading, earth moving, and excavation activities shall
cease during periods when dust plumes of 20 percent or greater
opacity affect public roads or nearby occupied structures.
h. All disturbed areas anticipated to be inactive for periods of 30 days or
more shall be treated to minimize wind-blown dust emissions.
Treatment may include, but is not limited to, the application of an
EKAPCD-approved chemical dust suppressant, gravel, hydro-mulch,
revegetation/seeding, or wood chips.
i. All active and inactive disturbed surface areas shall be stabilized,
where feasible.
j. Equipment and vehicle access to disturbed areas shall be limited to
only those vehicles necessary to complete the construction activities.
k. Where applicable, permanent dust control measures shall be
implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil-
disturbing activities.
l. Stockpiles of dirt or other fine loose material shall be stabilized by
watering or other appropriate methods sufficient to reduce visible
dust emissions to a limit of 20 percent opacity. If necessary and where
feasible, three-sided barriers shall be constructed around storage piles
and/or piles shall be covered by use of tarps, hydro-mulch,
woodchips, or other materials sufficient to minimize wind-blown
dust.

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 7 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.3 Air Quality

m. Water shall be applied prior to and during the demolition of onsite
structures sufficient to minimize wind-blown dust.
n. Where acceptable to the fire department and feasible, weed control
shall be accomplished by mowing instead of disking, thereby leaving
the ground undisturbed and with a mulch covering.
o. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials shall be
covered or shall maintain at least six inches of freeboard (minimum
vertical distance between top of the load and top of the trailer) in
accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114.
p. Gravel pads, grizzly strips, or other material track-out control
methods approved for use by EKAPCD shall be installed where
vehicles enter or exit unpaved roads onto paved roadways.
q. Haul trucks and off-road equipment leaving the site shall be washed
with water or high-pressure air, and/or rocks/grates at the project
entry points shall be used, when necessary, to remove soil deposits
and minimize the track-out/deposition of soil onto nearby paved
roadways.
r. During construction paved road surfaces adjacent to the site access
road(s), including adjoining paved aprons, shall be cleaned, as
necessary, to remove visible accumulations of track-out material. If
dry sweepers are used, the area shall be sprayed with water prior to
sweeping to minimize the entrainment of dust. Reclaimed water shall
be used to the extent available.
s. Portable equipment, 50 horsepower or greater, used during
construction activities (e.g., portable generators) shall require
California statewide portable equipment registration (issued by
CARB) or an EKAPCD permit.
t. The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall identify a designated person or
persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the
implementation of the measures, as necessary, to minimize the
transport of dust off site and to ensure compliance with identified
fugitive dust control measures. Contact information for a hotline shall
be posted on site should any complaints or concerns be received
during working hours and holidays and weekend periods when work
may not be in progress. The names and telephone numbers of such
Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 8 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.3 Air Quality

persons shall be provided to the EKAPCD Compliance Division prior
to the start of any grading or earthwork.
u. Signs shall be posted at the project site entrance and written
notifications shall be provided a minimum of 30 days prior to
initiation of project construction to residential land uses located
within 1,000 feet of the project site. The signs and written
notifications shall include the following information: (a) Project
Name; (b) Anticipated Construction Schedule(s); and (c) Telephone
Number(s) for designated construction activity monitor(s) or, if
established, a complaint hotline.
v. The designated construction monitor shall document and immediately
notify EKAPCD of any air quality complaints received. If necessary,
the project operator and/or contractor will coordinate with EKAPCD
to identify any additional feasible measures and/or strategies to be
implemented to address public complaints.
10. MM 4.3-3: Minimize Exposure to Potential Airborne Valley Fever– Prior to and during Kern County Planning and
Containing Dust. To minimize personnel and public exposure to potential construction Natural Resources Department
Valley Fever–containing dust on and off site, the following control measures
shall be implemented during project construction: Steps to Compliance:
a. Equipment, vehicles, and other items shall be thoroughly cleaned of A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
dust before they are moved off site to other work locations. B. All Valley Fever materials shall be provided to all construction personnel prior
b. Wherever possible, grading and trenching work shall be phased so to construction activities.
that earth-moving equipment is working well ahead or downwind of C. The project proponent shall ensure practices are implemented as outlined in
workers on the ground. mitigation.
c. The area immediately behind grading or trenching equipment shall be D. The project proponent shall submit all evidence of the training session materials,
sprayed with water before ground workers move into the area. handout(s) and schedule to the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources
d. In the event that a water truck runs out of water before dust is Department within 5 days of the first training session.
sufficiently dampened, ground workers being exposed to dust shall
leave the area until a truck can resume water spraying.
e. To the greatest extent feasible, heavy-duty earth-moving vehicles
shall be closed-cab and equipped with a HEP-filtered air system.

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 9 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.3 Air Quality

f. Workers shall receive training in procedures to minimize activities
that may result in the release of airborne Coccidioides immitis (CI)
spores, to recognize the symptoms of Valley Fever, and shall be
instructed to promptly report suspected symptoms of work-related
Valley Fever to a supervisor. Evidence of training shall be provided
to the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department
within 5 days of the training session.
g. A Valley Fever informational handout shall be provided to all onsite
construction personnel. The handout shall, at a minimum, provide
information regarding the symptoms, health effects, preventative
measures, and treatment. Additional information and handouts can be
obtained by contacting the Kern County Public Health Services
Department.
h. Onsite personnel shall be trained on the proper use of personal
protective equipment, including respiratory equipment. National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health–approved respirators
shall be provided to onsite personal, upon request. When exposure to
dust is unavoidable, provide appropriate NIOSH-approved
respiratory protection to affected workers. If respiratory protection is
deemed necessary, employers must develop and implement a
respiratory protection program in accordance with Cal/OSHA's
Respiratory Protection standard (8 CCR 5144).

11. MM 4.3-4: At the time of project implementation, a COVID-19 Health and During construction and Kern County Planning and
Safety Plan should be prepared in accordance with the Kern County Public operations Natural Resources Department
Health Services Department and Kern County Health Officer mandates. A
copy of the COVID-19 Health and Safety Plan shall be submitted to the Kern
Steps to Compliance:
County Planning and Natural Resources Department for review and approval.
A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
B. The project proponent shall prepare and submit a COVID-19 Health and Safety
Plan to the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department
C. Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department shall review and
approve the plan

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 10 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.3 Air Quality

12. MM 4.3-5: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a one-time fee shall be Prior to issuance of Kern County Public Health
paid to the Kern County Public Health Services Department in the amount of grading permits Services Department
$3,200 for Valley Fever public awareness programs. Steps to Compliance:
A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
B. The project proponent shall pay the onetime fee to the Kern County Public
Health Services Department.
Justification: Changes or alterations to the project have been required to substantially reduce the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR to the
extent feasible.

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 11 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.4 Biological Resources

13. MM 4.4-1: Biological Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of grading or Prior to issuance of Kern County Planning and
building permits and prior to decommissioning, the project operator shall grading or building Natural Resources Department
retain a Lead Biologist who meets the qualifications of an Authorized permits
Biologist as defined by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to oversee compliance
with protection measures for all listed and other special-status species. The Steps to Compliance:
Lead Biologist shall be on the project site during construction of perimeter A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
fencing and grading activities throughout the construction phase, and as- B. The project proponent shall retain a Lead Biologist.
needed during decommissioning. The Lead Biologist shall have the right to C. The project proponent shall submit contact information for the Lead biologist to
halt all activities that are in violation of the special-status species protection the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department or for approval
measures. Work shall proceed only after hazards to special-status species are prior to issuance of building and grading permits.
removed and the species is no longer at risk. The Lead Biologist shall have
in her/his possession a copy of all the compliance measures and appropriate
Plans while work is being conducted on the project site.

14. MM 4.4-2: Construction Worker Environmental Awareness Training Prior to the issuance of Kern County Planning and
and Education Program. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits grading or building Natural Resources Department
and for the duration of construction and decommissioning activities, within permits, and for the
one week of employment all new construction workers at the project site, duration of construction
laydown area and/or transmission routes shall attend an Environmental activities
Awareness Training and Education Program, developed and presented by the
Lead Biologist. Any employee responsible for the operations and Steps to Compliance:
maintenance or decommissioning of the project facilities shall also attend the A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
Environmental Awareness Training and Education Program. B. All construction workers shall attend the Construction Worker Environmental
The program shall include information on the life history of the alkali Awareness Training and Education Program prior to participating in construction
mariposa lily, burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk and other raptors, nesting activities; any employee responsible for the operation and maintenance (O&M) of
birds, American badger, desert kit fox, as well as other wildlife and plant the completed facilities shall also receive this training
species that may be encountered during construction activities. The program C. An acknowledgement form signed by each worker indicating that environmental
shall also discuss the legal protection status of each species, the definition of training has been completed will be kept on record.
“take” under the federal Endangered Species Act and California Endangered D. A copy of the training materials, as well as a list of the names of all personnel
Species Act, measures the project operator is implementing to protect the who attended the training and copies of the signed acknowledgement forms shall
species, reporting requirements, specific measures that each worker shall be submitted to the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department
employ to avoid take of wildlife species, and penalties for violation of the upon the County’s request.
federal Endangered Species Act or California Endangered Species Act.

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 12 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.4 Biological Resources

a. An acknowledgement form signed by each worker indicating that
Environmental Awareness Training and Education Program has
been completed would be kept on record;
b. A sticker shall be placed on hard hats indicating that the worker has
completed the Environmental Awareness Training and Education
Program. Construction workers shall not be permitted to operate
equipment within the construction areas unless they have attended
the Environmental Awareness Training and Education Program and
are wearing hard hats with the required sticker;
c. A copy of the training transcript and/or training video, as well as a
list of the names of all personnel who attended the Environmental
Awareness Training and Education Program and copies of the
signed acknowledgement forms shall be submitted to the Kern
County Planning and Community Development Department; and
d. The construction crews and contractor(s) shall be responsible for
unauthorized impacts from construction activities to sensitive
biological resources that are outside the areas defined as subject to
impacts by project permits.
e. An Operation and Maintenance-phase version of the WEAP will be
maintained within the applicant’s centralized O&M headquarters for
all AV projects, located in the City of Lancaster, for review as may
be necessary during the life of the project.

15. MM 4.4-3: Avoidance and Protection of Biological Resources. During During construction, Kern County Public Works
construction, operations and maintenance, and decommissioning the project operations and Department; Kern County
operator shall implement the following general avoidance and protective maintenance, and Planning and Natural Resources
measures: decommissioning the Department; United States Fish
a. All proposed impact areas, including solar fields, staging areas, project and Wildlife Service; California
access routes, and disposal or temporary placement of spoils, shall Department of Fish and
be delineated with stakes and/or flagging prior to construction to Wildlife; Authorized Lead
avoid natural resources where possible. Construction-related Biologist
activities outside of the impact zone shall be avoided. Steps to Compliance:
b. The project operator shall limit the areas of disturbance to the extent A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
feasible. Parking areas, new roads, staging, storage, excavation, and B. The project proponent shall comply with this mitigation measure pertaining to
Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 13 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.4 Biological Resources

disposal site locations shall be confined to the smallest areas construction activities and biological resources.
possible. These areas shall be flagged and disturbance activities, C. A qualified biologist shall monitor all initial ground-disturbance activities as
vehicles, and equipment shall be confined to these flagged areas. outlined in the mitigation.
c. Spoils shall be stockpiled in disturbed areas that lack native D. The project proponent shall submit a report of all monitor all initial construction
vegetation. Best management practices shall be employed to prevent and decommissioning ground-disturbance activities and to the Kern County
erosion in accordance with the project’s approved stormwater
Planning and Natural Resources Department.
pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). All detected erosion shall be
remedied within 2 days of discovery or as described in the SWPPP. E. In consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife, the project proponent shall implement
d. To prevent inadvertent entrapment of desert kit foxes, American
badgers, or other wildlife during construction, all excavated, steep- construction and operational monitoring in accordance with the specifications of
walled holes or trenches more than 2 feet deep shall be covered with the mitigation measure.
plywood or similar materials at the close of each working day, or F. The project proponent shall submit a Maintenance and Trash Abatement/Pest
provided with one or more escape ramps constructed of earth fill or Management Program to the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources
wooden planks. All holes and trenches, whether covered or not, shall Department for approval.
be inspected for trapped wildlife at the start and end of each
G. The Kern County Building Inspection Department shall verify in the field during
workday. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they shall be
thoroughly inspected by the Lead Biologist or approved biological construction.
monitor for trapped wildlife. If trapped animals are observed, escape
ramps or structures shall be installed immediately to allow escape.
If a listed species is found trapped, all work shall cease immediately.
If the animal is apparently uninjured, then the Lead Biologist shall
directly supervise the provision of escape structures and/or trench
modification to allow the trapped animal to escape safely. Work
shall not resume in the vicinity of the animal, and it shall be allowed
to leave the work area and project site on its own. If the listed animal
is injured, then the Lead Biologist or approved biological monitor
shall immediately contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or
California Department of Fish and Wildlife to identify an individual
with the appropriate permit or authorization to handle listed species,
who shall bring the animal to a pre-identified wildlife rehabilitation
or veterinary facility for care.
e. Burrowing owls, mammals, and nesting birds may use construction
pipes, culverts, or similar structures for refuge or nesting. All towers
shall be of the monopole variety and all hollow vertical structures,
such as solar mount poles, or fencing poles, shall be capped
immediately after installation to prevent bird entrapment. Therefore,
Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 14 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.4 Biological Resources

all construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter
of 4 inches or more that are stored at a construction site for one or
more overnight periods shall be thoroughly inspected for special-
status wildlife or nesting birds before the pipe is subsequently
buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If an animal
is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe shall not be moved
until the Lead Biologist has been consulted and the animal has either
moved from the structure on its own accord (for listed species) or
until the animal has been captured and relocated (for non-listed
species) by the Lead Biologist. If the animal is a listed species, then
work shall immediately halt in the vicinity, and the animal shall be
allowed to move from the structure and the work area of its own
accord. The Lead Biologist will direct work stoppages near the
animal to allow it to freely move out of the pipe and away from the
work area. Listed species shall not be handled or captured by anyone
without the appropriate permit or authorization.
f. No vehicle or equipment parked on the project site shall be moved
prior to inspecting the ground beneath the vehicle or equipment for
the presence of wildlife. If present, the animal shall be left to move
on its own.
g. Vehicular traffic to and from the project site shall use existing routes
of travel. Cross country vehicle and equipment use outside
designated work areas shall be prohibited.
h. A speed limit of 15 miles per hour shall be enforced within the limits
of the proposed project.
i. A long-term trash abatement program shall be established for
construction, operations and maintenance, and decommissioning.
Trash and food items shall be contained in closed containers and
removed daily to reduce the attractiveness to opportunistic predators
such as common ravens, coyotes, and feral dogs.
j. Workers shall be prohibited from bringing pets and firearms to the
project area and from feeding wildlife.
k. Intentional killing or collection of any plant or wildlife species shall
be prohibited.

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 15 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.4 Biological Resources

l. To enable kit foxes and other wildlife (e.g., American badger) to
pass through the project site after construction, the security fence,
and any permanent interior fencing shall be a wildlife friendly
design that meets the goals of allowing wildlife to move freely
through the project site during operation, leaving 4- to 7-inch
openings or portals in the fence or the fence shall be raised 7 inches
above the ground leaving a gap between the fence mesh and the
ground. In the latter case the bottom of the fence fabric shall be
knuckled (wrapped back to form a smooth edge) to protect wildlife
that passes under the fence.

16. MM 4.4-4: Preconstruction Clearance Surveys. During construction and During construction and Kern County Planning and
decommissioning, the Lead Biologist or approved biological monitor shall decommissioning of the Natural Resources Department;
monitor all initial ground-disturbance activities and remain on-call project U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
throughout construction/decommissioning in the event a special-status and California Department of
species wanders into the project site. Fish and Wildlife; Kern County
Preconstruction surveys for special-status species shall be conducted within Public Works
the project boundaries by the Lead Biologist or approved biological monitor Department/Building Inspection
within 14 days of the start of any vegetation clearing or grading activities. Division; Lead Biologist
Methodology for preconstruction surveys shall be appropriate for each Steps to Compliance:
potentially occurring species-status species and shall follow U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
preconstruction survey guidelines where appropriate. Surveys need not be B. A qualified biologist shall be retained by the project proponent and approved by
conducted for all areas of suitable habitat at one time; they may be phased so the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department
that surveys occur within 14 days of the portion of the project site being C. During fencing and grading activities, daily monitoring reports shall be prepared
disturbed. The Lead Biologist may use a variety of approaches (including but by the monitoring biologist(s).
not limited to monitoring, track plates, and direct observation) and evidence D. Documentation shall be sent to the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources
(including burrow characteristics and presence of sign such as scat and tracks) Department.
to determine burrow activity. If any evidence of occupation of the project site
special-status species is observed, a buffer shall be established by a qualified E. Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of
biologist that results in sufficient avoidance, as described below. Fish and Wildlife shall be initiated to obtain the necessary incidental take permit
authorizations or provide evidence such a permit is not required. Kern County
If desert tortoises are found onsite during subsequent surveys or biological Planning Natural Resources Department shall be included in all consultants and be
monitoring activities, construction activities shall cease to avoid the potential kept apprised of consultations and the subsequent results.
for take and consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California
Department of Fish and Wildlife shall be initiated to obtain the necessary
Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 16 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.4 Biological Resources

incidental take permit authorizations or provide evidence such a permit is not
required:
a. Desert kit fox or American badger potential den: 50 feet.
b. Desert kit fox or American badger active den: 100 feet.
c. Desert kit fox or American badger natal den: 500 feet.
d. If avoidance of the potential dens is not possible, the following measures
are required to avoid potential adverse effects to the American badger
and desert kit fox:
e. If the qualified biologist determines that potential dens are inactive, the
biologist shall excavate these dens by hand with a shovel to prevent
American badgers or desert kit foxes from re-using them during
construction.
f. If the qualified biologist determines that potential dens may be active, an
onsite passive relocation program shall be implemented. This program
shall consist of excluding American badgers or desert kit foxes from
occupied burrows by installation of one-way doors at burrow entrances,
monitoring of the burrow for 7 days to confirm usage has been
discontinued, and excavation and collapse of the burrow to prevent
reoccupation. After the qualified biologist determines that American
badgers or desert kit foxes have stopped using the dens within the project
boundary, the dens shall be hand-excavated with a shovel to prevent re-
use during construction.
During fencing and grading activities daily monitoring reports shall be
prepared by the monitoring biologists. The Lead Biologist shall prepare a
summary monitoring report documenting the effectiveness and practicality
of the protection measures that are in place and making recommendations
for modifying the measures to enhance species protection, as needed. The
report shall also provide information on the overall activities conducted
related to biological resources, including the Environmental Awareness
Training and Education Program, clearance/pre-activity surveys, monitoring
activities, and any observed special-status species, including injuries and
fatalities. These monitoring reports shall be submitted to the Kern County
Planning and Community Development Department and relevant resource

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 17 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.4 Biological Resources

agencies, as applicable, on a monthly basis along with copies of all survey
reports.
17. Within 14 days prior to Kern County Planning and
MM 4.4-5: Preconstruction Desert Tortoise Surveys
the commencement of Natural Resources Department;
Preconstruction Special-Status Plant Surveys. Within 14 days prior to the
any ground-disturbing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
commencement of any ground-disturbing activities, the project operator shall activities and during and California Department of
conduct preconstruction surveys for special-status and protected plant species construction Fish and Wildlife
within the project area, including but not limited to western Joshua trees and
alkali mariposa lily. After the preconstruction survey determines the exact Steps to Compliance:
location of these species, if present, on the project site and the number of A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
individuals or populations present, the project proponent/operator shall B. The surveys shall be conducted in accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
submit written documentation to the Kern County Planning and Natural protocol (USFWS, 2010).
Resources Department confirming implementation of the measures described C. Should desert tortoises be observed during preconstruction surveys, consultation
below. with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and
Wildlife shall commence.
a. The project proponent/operator shall work with a qualified biologist to
D. The Authorized Biologist shall have the appropriate education and experience to
determine presence of and identify all known locations of western
accomplish biological monitoring and mitigation tasks.
Joshua tree and alkali mariposa lily to establish “avoidance areas”. All
E. A Raven Management Plan shall be developed for the project site in consultation
special-status plants found within the project site shall be avoided by a
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and
buffer of 25 feet through micro-siting activities, with the exception of Wildlife.
Joshua Trees, which will be avoided by a buffer of 290 feet per CDFW
F. Weekly inspection under all nests in the project area for evidence of raven
recommendations. Sturdy, highly visible, orange plastic construction
predation on local wildlife (bones, carcasses, etc.), and, if evidence of predation is
fencing (or equivalent material verified by the authorized biologist) noted, the project proponent shall submit a report to California Department of
shall be installed around all locations of detected special-status plants Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Kern County Planning and
to protect from impacts during the construction phase, until they can be Natural Resources Department within five calendar days.
relocated. The fence shall be securely staked and installed in a durable G. Evidence of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or California Department of
manner that would be reasonably expected to withstand wind and Fish and Wildlife determination and payment of any required fees shall be
weather events and last at least through the construction period. submitted to the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department.
Fencing shall be removed upon completion of the project construction. H. Reports shall be submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California
b. All alkali mariposa lilies that cannot feasibly be avoided in final Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Kern County Planning and Natural
project design shall have bulbs collected prior to construction. Resources Department.
Additionally, a transplantation plan for alkali mariposa lily will be

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 18 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.4 Biological Resources

submitted and approved by the County prior to ground disturbance
and bulb collection. The plan will include the following:
1. Identify an area of occupied habitat to be preserved and removed;
2. Identify areas of onsite or offsite preservation, restoration, or
enhancement locations;
3. Methods for preservation, restoration, enhancement, and/or
translocation;
4. Indicate a replacement ratio and success standard of 1:1 for impacted
individuals;
5. Establish a monitoring program to ensure mitigation success;
6 Create an adaptive management and remedial measures in the event
that performance standards are not achieved; and
7. Ensure financial assurances and a mechanism for conservation of
any mitigation lands required in perpetuity.
c. Temporary ground disturbance associated with the gen-tie lines or
collector lines shall be recontoured to natural grade (if the grade was
modified during the temporary disturbance activity), and revegetated
with an application of a native seed mix prior to or during seasonal
rains to promote passive restoration of the area to pre-project
conditions. However, if invasive plant species were present, these
species would not be restored. An area subjected to temporary
ground disturbance means any area that is disturbed but will not be
subjected to further disturbance as part of the project. This does not
include areas already designated as urban/developed. Prior to
seeding temporary ground disturbance areas, the qualified biologist
will review the seeding palette to ensure that no seeding of invasive
plant species, as identified in the most recent version of the
California Invasive Plant Inventory for the region, will occur.

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 19 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.4 Biological Resources

d. The project operator shall correspond with the County to determine

what is needed for project compliance with the Willow Springs
Specific Plan.

18. No fewer than 14 days Kern County Planning and

prior to the Natural Resources Department;
commencement of any California Department of Fish
MM 4.4-6: Preconstruction Burrowing Owl Surveys. A qualified
ground-disturbing and Wildlife
wildlife biologist (i.e., a wildlife biologist with previous burrowing owl
activities and during
survey experience) shall conduct preconstruction surveys of the permanent construction
and temporary impact areas to locate active breeding or wintering burrowing
owl burrows no fewer than 14 days prior to ground-disturbing activities (i.e.,
Steps to Compliance:
vegetation clearance, grading, tilling). The survey methodology shall be
A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
consistent with the methods outlined in the 2012 California Department of
B. A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction sweep of the project site for
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and
Burrowing Owls as specified in the mitigation measure.
shall consist of walking parallel transects 7 to 20 meters apart, adjusting for
vegetation height and density as needed, and noting any potential burrows C. A qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction nest surveys during the
with fresh burrowing owl sign or presence of burrowing owls. Surveys may appropriate breeding seasons.
be conducted concurrently with the preconstruction clearance surveys. As D. The project proponent shall submit the findings of the pre-construction sweep to
each burrow is investigated, surveying biologists shall also look for signs of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California State Lands
American badger and desert kit fox. Copies of the survey results shall be Commission, and the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department.
submitted to CDFW and the Kern County Planning and Community E. The project proponent shall implement burrowing owl measures as specified in
Development Department. the mitigation measure and in consultation with the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife, as appropriate.
If active burrowing owl burrows are detected onsite, they shall be protected
F. As directed by the agencies, the project proponent shall implement appropriate
in place through the use of visual screens or through California Department
measures to prevent impacts and provide all documentation to the Kern County
of Fish and Wildlife-identified restricted activity dates and setback distances
Planning and Natural Resources Department.
(presented in Table 4.4-5, Burrowing Owl Burrow Restricted Activity Dates
and Setback Distances, below), or other measures as described in the 2012 G. The Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department shall verify prior
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Staff Report to minimize to issuing grading and building permits.
disturbance impacts unless otherwise authorized by California Department of
Fish and Wildlife. Burrowing owls shall not be moved or excluded from
burrows during the breeding season.

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 20 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.4 Biological Resources

If burrowing owls are detected onsite, no ground-disturbing activities shall

be permitted within a buffer of no fewer than 100 meters (330 feet) from an
active burrow during the breeding season (i.e., February 1 to August 31),
unless otherwise authorized by CDFW. During the non-breeding (winter)
season (i.e., September 1 to January 31), ground-disturbing work can proceed
as long as the work occurs no closer than 50 meters (165 feet) from the
burrow. Depending on the level of disturbance, a smaller buffer may be
established in consultation with CDFW.

If burrow avoidance is infeasible during the non-breeding season or during the

breeding season (February 1 through August 31) where resident owls have not
yet begun egg laying or incubation, or where the juveniles are foraging
independently and capable of independent survival, a qualified biologist shall
implement a passive relocation program in accordance with Appendix E1 (i.e.,
Example Components for Burrowing Owl Artificial Burrow and Exclusion
Plans) of the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

If passive relocation is required, a qualified biologist shall prepare a

Burrowing Owl Exclusion and Mitigation Plan and a Mitigation Land
Management Plan in accordance with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on
Burrowing Owl Mitigation, for review by CDFW prior to passive relocation
activities. The Mitigation Land Management Plan shall include a requirement
for the permanent conservation of offsite Burrowing Owl Passive Relocation

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 21 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.4 Biological Resources

Compensatory Mitigation. At a minimum, the following recommendations
shall be implemented:
a. Temporarily disturbed habitat shall be restored, if feasible, to pre-
project conditions including decompacting soil and revegetating.
b. Permanent impacts to nesting, occupied and satellite burrows and/or
burrowing owl habitat shall be mitigated such that the habitat acreage,
number of burrows and burrowing owl impacted are replaced based on a site-
specific analysis and shall include permanent conservation of similar
vegetation communities (grassland, scrublands, desert, urban, and
agriculture) to provide for burrowing owl nesting, foraging, wintering, and
dispersal (i.e., during breeding and non-breeding seasons) comparable to or
better than that of the impact area, and with sufficiently large acreage, and
presence of fossorial mammals.

c. Permanently protect mitigation land through a conservation

easement, deed restriction, or similar mechanism deeded to a nonprofit
conservation organization or public agency with a conservation mission. If
the project is located within the service area of a CDFW-approved burrowing
owl conservation bank, the project operator may purchase available
burrowing owl conservation bank credits. Land identified to mitigate for
passive relocation of burrowing owl may be combined with other offsite
mitigation requirements of the proposed project if the compensatory habitat
is deemed suitable to support the species.

19. MM 4.4-7: Nesting Birds and Raptors. If construction is scheduled to No more than 7 days California Department of Fish
commence during the non-nesting season (i.e., September 1 to January 31), prior to construction and Wildlife; Kern County
no preconstruction surveys or additional measures are required. To avoid activities Planning and Natural Resources
impacts to nesting birds in the project area, a qualified wildlife biologist shall Department
conduct preconstruction surveys of all potential nesting habitat within the
project site for construction activities that are initiated during the breeding Steps to Compliance:
season (i.e., February 1 to August 31). The raptor survey shall focus on A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
potential nest sites (e.g., cliffs, large trees, windrows) within a 0.5-mile buffer
Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 22 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.4 Biological Resources

around the project site. Swainson’s hawk nest survey shall focus on potential B. During the avian nesting season (February 1 – August 31), a qualified biologist
nest sites (e.g., cliffs, large trees, windrows) within a 5-mile buffer around shall conduct a preconstruction avian nesting survey no more than 7 days prior to
the project site and follow the 2010 Swainson’s hawk protocol surveys (CEC initial vegetation clearing.
and CDFG 2010). Surveys shall be conducted no more than 14 10 days prior C. The surveying biologist must be qualified to determine the status and stage of
to construction activities. Surveys need not be conducted for the entire project nesting by migratory birds and all locally breeding raptor species without causing
site at one time; they may be phased so that surveys occur shortly before a intrusive disturbance.
portion of the project site is disturbed. The surveying biologist must be
D. If active nests are found, a suitable buffer shall be established in consultation with
qualified to determine the status and stage of nesting by migratory birds and
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife around active nests and no
all locally breeding raptor species without causing intrusive disturbance. If
construction within the buffer allowed until a qualified biologist has determined
active nests are found during the breeding season, a suitable buffer (e.g., 200–
that the nest is no longer active.
300 feet for common raptors; 0.5 mile for Swainson’s hawk; 30–50 feet for
passerine species) of 250 feet around active nests of non-listed bird species E. Copies of the completed surveys shall be submitted to Kern County Planning and
and a 500-foot-no-distrubance buffer around nests of non-listed raptor species Natural Resources Department.
shall be established around active nests and no construction within the buffer
allowed until the breeding season has ended or a qualified biologist has
determined that the nest is no longer active (e.g., the nestlings have fledged
and are no longer reliant on the nest). For non-listed species, encroachment
into the avoidance buffer may occur at the discretion of a qualified biologist;
however, for State-listed species, consultation with CDFW shall occur prior
to encroachment into the aforementioned buffers.

20. MM 4.4-8: Swainson’s Hawk Monitoring and Mitigation Plan. The project No more than 7 days California Department of Fish
proponent/operator shall be required to prepare and implement a Swainson’s and Wildlife; Kern County
prior to construction
Hawk Monitoring and Mitigation Plan in consultation with the California Planning and Natural Resources
activities Department
Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Kern County Planning and
Community Development Department. The Plan shall be prepared by a Steps to Compliance:
qualified wildlife biologist approved by CDFW and the County and shall A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
include the following in order to avoid and minimize impacts to Swainson’s B. During the Swainson’s Hawk nesting season (March 1 – September 15), a
hawks in and near the project site: qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction avian nesting survey no more
a. If a nest site is found, design the project site to allow sufficient than 7 days prior to initial vegetation clearing.
foraging and fledgling area to maintain the nest site. C. The surveying biologist must be qualified to determine the status and stage of
nesting by Swainson’s Hawk and all locally breeding raptor species without
b. During the nesting season, ensure no new disturbances, habitat causing intrusive disturbance.
conversions, or other project-related activities that may cause nest D. If active nests are found, a suitable buffer shall be established in consultation with
abandonment or forced fledgling occur within 0.5 miles of an active the California Department of Fish and Wildlife around active nests and no
Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 23 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.4 Biological Resources

nest between March 1 and September 15. Buffer zones may be construction within the buffer allowed until a qualified biologist has determined
adjusted in consultation with CDFW and the County. that the nest is no longer active.
E. Copies of the completed surveys shall be submitted to Kern County Planning and
c. Do not remove Swainson’s hawk nest trees unless avoidance Natural Resources Department.
measures are determined to be infeasible. Removal of such trees
should occur only during the timeframe of October 1 and the last
day in February.

d. If an injured Swainson’s hawk is found during project-related

activities:

1. A plan should be in place to call for immediate relocation to a raptor

recovery center approved by CDFW

2. A system should be set-up so that costs associated with the care or

treatment of such injured Swainson’s hawks will be borne by the
project proponent/operator.

3. Include appropriate contact information for immediate notification

to CDFW and the County if a hawk injury incident occurs. Have an
approved procedure in place to notify CDFW and the County
outside of normal business hours. Notify the appropriate personnel
via telephone or email, followed by a written incident report.
Include the date, time, location, and circumstances of the incident
in reports.

e. Plan will focus on providing habitat management (HM) lands.

Lands which are currently in urban use or lands that have no
existing or potential value for foraging Swainson's hawks will not
require mitigation nor would they be suitable for mitigation. The
plans should call for mitigating loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging
habitat by providing HM lands within the Antelope Valley
Swainson’s hawk breeding range at a minimum 1:1 ratio for such
habitat impacted within a 5-mile radius of active Swainson’s hawk
nest(s). The Department considers a nest active if it was used one

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 24 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.4 Biological Resources

or more times within the last 5 years. Project developers may
consider delegating responsibilities for acquisition and
management of the HM lands to the Department or a third party,
such as a nongovernmental organization dedicated to Mojave
Desert habitat conservation. Seek approval of such delegations
from the Department and the appropriate lead agency. Approaches
for acquisition and management of HM lands include the
following:

1. HM Land Selection Criteria. Identify the region within which lands

would be acquired, and the type/quality of habitat to be acquired.
Foraging habitat should be moderate to good with a capacity to
improve in quality and value to Swainson’s hawks, and must be
within the Antelope Valley Swainson’s hawk breeding range.
Foraging habitat with suitable nest trees is preferred.

2. Review and Approval of HM Lands Prior to Acquisition. Provide

an acquisition proposal to the Department and the appropriate lead
agency for their approval at least 3 months before acquiring the
property. The proposal should discuss the suitability of the property
by comparing it to the selection criteria.

3. Land Acquisition Schedule and Financial Assurances. Complete

acquisition of proposed HM lands before initiating ground-
disturbing project activities. If an irrevocable letter of credit or
other form of security is provided, complete land acquisition within
12 months prior to beginning ground-disturbing project activities.
Provide financial assurances for dedicating adequate funding for
impact avoidance, minimization and compensation measures
required for project approval (see 3. d. below).

4. HM Lands Acquisition. Be prepared to provide a preliminary title

report, initial hazardous materials survey report, biological
analysis, at a minimum to the Department and the appropriate lead
agency. The information will likely also be reviewed by the
Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 25 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.4 Biological Resources

California Department of General Services, Fish and Game
Commission and/or Wildlife Conservation Board. Fee title or
conservation easement will likely be transferred to a Department of
Fish and Game-approved non-profit third party and the
Department, or solely to the Department. Be prepared to support
enhancement and endowment funds for protection and
enhancement of acquired lands. The Department will approve
establishment and management of the funds, ensuring that qualified
non-profit organizations or the Department will manage the funds
in an appropriate manner. Contributed funds and any related
interest generated from the initial capital endowment would support
long-term operation, management, and protection of the approved
HM lands, including reasonable administrative overhead,
biological monitoring, improvements to carrying capacity, law
enforcement measures, and any other action designed to protect or
improve the habitat values of the HM lands. Be prepared to
reimburse the Department or other entities for all land acquisition
costs.

a. The project proponent/operator shall mitigate the loss of

Swainson’s Hawk foraging habitat by providing Habitat
Management (HM) lands within the Antelope Valley
Swainson’s hawk breeding range at a minimum 1:1 ratio, based
on the total approved area of the project, for foraging and
nesting habitat impacted. Project developers may consider
delegating responsibilities for acquisition and management of
the HM lands to the CDFW or a third party, such as a
nongovernmental organization dedicated to Mojave Desert
habitat conservation. The project proponent/operator shall seek
approval of such delegation from the CDFW and the appropriate

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 26 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.4 Biological Resources

lead agency. Approaches for acquisition and management of
HM lands include the following:

1. HM Land Selection Criteria. Identify the region within which

lands would be acquired, and the type/quality of habitat to be
acquired. Foraging habitat should be moderate to good with a
capacity to improve in quality and value to Swainson’s hawks,
and must be within the Antelope Valley Swainson’s hawk
breeding range. Foraging habitat with suitable nest trees is
preferred.

2. Review and Approval of HM Lands Prior to Acquisition.

Provide an acquisition proposal to the Department and the
appropriate lead agency for their approval at least 3 months
before acquiring the property. The proposal should discuss the
suitability of the property by comparing it to the selection
criteria.

3. Land Acquisition Schedule and Financial Assurances.

Complete acquisition of proposed HM lands before initiating
ground-disturbing project activities. If an irrevocable letter of
credit or other form of security is provided, complete land
acquisition within 12 months prior to beginning ground-
disturbing project activities. Provide financial assurances for
dedicating adequate funding for impact avoidance,
minimization and compensation measures required for project
approval.

4. HM Lands Acquisition. Be prepared to provide a preliminary

title report, initial hazardous materials survey report, biological
analysis, at a minimum to the Department and the appropriate
lead agency. The information will likely also be reviewed by the
California Department of General Services, Fish and Game
Commission and/or Wildlife Conservation Board. Fee title or
conservation easement will likely be transferred to a
Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 27 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.4 Biological Resources

Department of Fish and Game-approved non-profit third party
and the Department, or solely to the Department. Be prepared
to support enhancement and endowment funds for protection
and enhancement of acquired lands. The Department will
approve establishment and management of the funds, ensuring
that qualified non-profit organizations or the Department will
manage the funds in an appropriate manner. Contributed funds
and any related interest generated from the initial capital
endowment would support long-term operation, management,
and protection of the approved HM lands, including reasonable
administrative overhead, biological monitoring, improvements
to carrying capacity, law enforcement measures, and any other
action designed to protect or improve the habitat values of the
HM lands. Be prepared to reimburse the Department or other
entities for all land acquisition costs.

b. The project proponent/operator shall perform preconstruction

surveys to verify locations of Swainson’s Hawks and active
nests.

1. The project proponent/operator shall design the project site to

allow sufficient foraging and fledging area to maintain active
Swainson’s Hawk nests located on the project site.

2. During the nesting season, ensure no new disturbances, habitat

conversions, or other project activities that may cause nest
abandonment or forced fledging within 0.5 miles of an active

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 28 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.4 Biological Resources

nest between March 1 and September 15. Buffer zones may be
adjusted in consultation with CDFW and the County.

3. The project proponent/operator shall not remove Swainson’s

hawk nest trees.

c. If an injured Swainson’s hawk is found during project-related

activities:

1. A plan should be in place to call for immediate relocation to a

raptor recovery center approved by CDFW.

2. A system should be set up so that costs associated with the care

or treatment of such injured Swainson’s hawks will be borne by
the project proponent/operator

3. Include appropriate contact information for immediate

notification to CDFW and the County if a hawk injury incident
occurs. Have an approved procedure in place to notify CDFW
and the County inside of normal business hours. Notify the
appropriate personnel via telephone or email, followed by a
written incident report. Include the date, time, location, and
circumstance of the incident in reports.

21. MM 4.4-9: APLIC Compliance. The project proponent/operator shall Prior to the issuance of Kern County Planning and
install power lines in conformance with Avian Power Line Interaction grading and building Natural Resources Department;
Committee (APLIC) standards for electrocution-reducing techniques as permits and during and Kern County Building
outlined in suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: The after construction Inspection Department
State of the Art in 2006 (APLIC 2006), and for collision-reducing techniques activities
as outlined in Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the
Art in 2012 (APLIC 2012), or any superseding document issued by APLIC. Steps to Compliance:
A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
B. After construction, submit written documentation to the Kern County Planning
and Natural Resources Department verifying that all power lines are constructed
to the 2006 Avian Power Line Interaction Committee Guidelines.

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 29 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.4 Biological Resources

C. Kern County Building Inspection Department shall approve building permits and
will verify in the field during construction.
22. MM 4.4-10: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, the project Prior to the issuance of Kern County Planning and
proponent/operator shall submit a final Jurisdictional Delineation report. A grading and building Natural Resources Department
copy of this report shall also be provided to the Lahontan Regional Water permits and during and
Quality Control Board (RWQCB), CDFW, and the County. The report shall after construction
include information as shown below as a plan if necessary and shall outline activities
compliance to the following:
Steps to Compliance:
a. Delineation of all jurisdictional features at the project site. Potential
jurisdictional features (ephemeral drainages) within the project A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
boundary identified in the jurisdictional delineation report that are B. If deemed necessary, obtain appropriate permits from the Lahontan Regional
not anticipated to be directly impacted by project related activities Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
shall be avoided. This may be shown in plan form. C. Correspondence and copies of reports shall be submitted to the Kern County
b. Any material/spoils generated from project activities shall be Planning and Natural Resources Department.
located away from jurisdictional areas or special-status habitat and
protected from storm water run-off using temporary perimeter
sediment barriers such as berms, silt fences, fiber rolls, covers,
sand/gravel bags, and straw bale barriers, as appropriate.
c. Materials shall be stored on impervious surfaces or plastic ground
covers to prevent any spills or leakage from contaminating the
ground and generally at least 50 feet from the top of bank.
d. Any spillage of material will be stopped if it can be done safely. The
contaminated area will be cleaned and any contaminated materials
properly disposed. For all spills, the project foreman or designated
environmental representative will be notified.

23. MM 4.4-11: Prior to ground disturbance activities that would impact aquatic Prior to issuance of Kern County Planning and
features, the project proponent/operator shall be subject to provisions as grading and building Natural Resources
identified below: permits Department; Lahontan
a. The project proponent/operator shall file a complete Report of Waste Regional Water Quality
Discharge with the RWQCB to obtain Waste Discharge Control Board; Bureau of
Requirements and shall also consult with California Department of Land Management;
California Department of
Fish and Wildlife
Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 30 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.4 Biological Resources

Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) on the need for a streambed alteration Steps to Compliance:
agreement. Copies of reports shall be submitted to the County.
A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
b. Based on consultation with RWQCB and CDFW, if permits are
B. If deemed necessary, obtain appropriate permits from the Lahontan Regional
required for the project site, appropriate permits shall be obtained
Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
prior to disturbance of jurisdictional resources.
C. Correspondence and copies of reports shall be submitted to the Kern County
c. Compensatory mitigation for impacts to unvegetated
Planning and Natural Resources Department.
streambeds/washes shall be identified prior to disturbance of the
features at a minimum 1:1 ratio, as approved by the RWQCB or
CDFW either through onsite or offsite mitigation or purchasing
credits from an approved mitigation bank.
d. The project proponent/operator shall comply with the compensatory
mitigation required and proof of compliance, along with copies of
permits obtained from RWQCB and/or CDFW, which shall be
provided to the County.
e. A Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) shall be
prepared that outlines the compensatory mitigation in coordination
with the RWQCB and CDFW.
1. If onsite mitigation is proposed, the HMMP shall identify those
portions of the site, such as relocated drainage routes, that contain
suitable characteristics (e.g., hydrology) for restoration.
Determination of mitigation adequacy shall be based on
comparison of the restored habitat with similar, undisturbed
habitat in the site vicinity (such as upstream or downstream of the
site).
2. The HMMP shall include remedial measures in the event that
performance criteria are not met.
3. If mitigation is implemented offsite, mitigation lands shall be
comprised of similar or higher quality and preferably located in
Kern County. Offsite land shall be preserved through a deed
restriction or conservation easement and the HMMP shall
identify an approach for funding assurance for the long-term
management of the conserved land. Alternatively, the applicant
may purchase credits from an approved mitigation bank.

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 31 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.4 Biological Resources

4. Copies of any coordination, permits, etc., with RWQCB and
CDFW shall be provided to the County.
24. MM 4.4-12: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project Prior to the issuance of Kern County Public Works
proponent/operator shall develop a Joshua Tree Preservation Plan. The Plan grading or building Department; Kern County
shall be prepared by a qualified biologist pre-approved by Kern County and permits, and for the Planning and Natural
shall be approved by the appropriate agencies, including Kern County, prior duration of construction Resources Department;
to implementation. At a minimum, the plan shall include the following: activities U.S. Fish and Wildlife
a. The plan shall identify the methods utilized, as applicable, that the project Service; California
is taking to comply with any CDFW CESA take requirements and Department of Fish and
compensatory mitigation related to the protection or mitigation of impacted Wildlife; Authorized Lead
Joshua Trees and documentation of any such CDFW take authorization and Biologist, and Bureau of
mitigation shall be provided to the Kern County Planning and Natural Land Management
Resources Department. Steps to Compliance:
A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
B. A pre-approved Qualified Biologist per MM 4.4-1 shall prepare a Joshua Tree
Impact Plan as outlined by the mitigation for approval by Kern County Planning
and Natural Resources Department and the Bureau of Land Management.
C. A monitoring report shall be submitted to the Kern County Planning and Natural
Resources Department and the Bureau of Land Management to document the
condition of the Joshua trees annually for 3 years if Joshua trees are relocated.

Justification: Changes or alterations to the project have been required to substantially reduce the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR to the
extent feasible.

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 32 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.5 Cultural Resources

25. MM 4.5-1: The project proponent/operator shall retain a Lead Archaeologist, Prior to the start of any Kern County Planning and
defined as an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards ground disturbing Natural Resources Department;
for professional archaeology (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2011), to carry activities Qualified Archaeologist and
out all mitigation measures related to archaeological and unique historical Native American monitor
resources. The contact information for this Lead Archaeologist shall be
provided to the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department Steps to Compliance:
prior to the commencement of any construction activities on-site. Further, the A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
Lead Archaeologist shall be responsible for ensuring the following employee B. The qualified archeologist must meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
training provisions are implemented during implementation of the project: for professional archaeology (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2011).
a. Prior to commencement of any ground disturbing activities, the Lead C. The qualified archaeologist shall conduct a Cultural Resources Sensitivity
Archaeologist in consultation with the Native American monitor(s) Training for all construction personnel working on the project.
shall conduct a Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training for all D. If necessary, implement recommended procedures in consultation with qualified
personnel working on the proposed project. A Cultural Resources archaeologist and Native American monitor.
Sensitivity Training Guide approved by the Lead Archaeologist shall
be provided to all personnel. A copy of the Cultural Resources E. If cultural materials or artifacts are discovered, halt all work and contact a
Sensitivity Training Guide shall be submitted to the Kern County qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor to assess finds and
Planning and Natural Resources Department. The training guide recommend procedures.
may be presented in video form. A copy of the proposed training
materials shall be provided to the Planning and Natural Resources
Department prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit.
b. The training shall include an overview of potential cultural resources
that could be encountered during ground disturbing activities to
facilitate worker recognition, avoidance, and subsequent immediate
notification to the Lead Archaeologist monitor(s) for further
evaluation and action, as appropriate; and penalties for unauthorized
artifact collecting or intentional disturbance of archaeological
resources.
c. A copy of the Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training
Guide/Materials shall be kept on-site and available for all personnel
to review and be familiar with as necessary. It is the responsibility of
the Lead Archaeologist to ensure all employees receive appropriate
training before the work on-site.

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 33 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.5 Cultural Resources

26. MM 4.5-2: Prior to this issuance of any grading or building permit, the project Prior to the issuance of Kern County Planning and
operator shall submit to the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources any grading or building Natural Resources Department
Department a Cultural Resources Treatment Plan. The plan shall: permit
a. Provide an overview of best management practices to be utilized Steps to Compliance:
during construction activities to ensure protection of cultural
resources. A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
b. Outline the process for evaluation of any unanticipated cultural B. Project operator shall complete a Cultural Resources Treatment Plan that
discoveries during project construction activities. includes best management practices and a process for evaluation of any
unanticipated cultural resources during construction activities.
C. The Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department shall review and
approve the Cultural Resources Treatment Plan prior to any ground disturbing
activities.

27. MM 4.5-3: During implementation of the project, in the event archaeological During all ground Kern County Planning and
materials are encountered during the course of grading or construction, the disturbing activities Natural Resources Department;
project contractor shall cease any ground disturbing activities within 50 feet of Qualified Archaeologist and
the find. The area of the discovery shall be marked off by temporary fencing Native American Tribal monitor
that encloses a 50-foot radius from the location of discovery. Signs shall be
posted that establish it as an Environmentally Sensitive Area and all entrance Steps to Compliance:
to the area shall be avoided until the discovery is assessed by the Lead A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
Archaeologist, as well as Native American representatives affiliated with the B. The services of a qualified Native American monitor shall be retained by the
project site vicinity. The Lead Archaeologist in consultation with Native project proponent to monitor, on a full-time basis, to monitor all ground-
American representatives, shall evaluate the significance of the resources and disturbing activities associated with project-related construction activities within
recommend appropriate treatment measures. If further treatment of the 50 feet of all known prehistoric archaeological sites.
discovery is necessary, the Environmentally Sensitive Area shall remain in C. The Native American monitor shall keep daily logs and the qualified
place until all work is completed. Per California Environmental Quality Act archaeologist shall submit monthly written updates to the Kern County Planning
Guidelines (CEQA) Section 15126.4(b)(3), project redesign and preservation and Natural Resources Department.
in place shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to significant historical
resources. D. After monitoring has been completed, the qualified Native American monitor
shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring, which
Consistent with CEQA Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that shall be submitted to the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources
resources cannot be avoided, the Lead Archaeologist in consultation with Department.
Native American representatives shall develop additional treatment measures
in consultation with the County, which may include data recovery or other
appropriate measures. The County shall consult with appropriate Native
American representatives in determining appropriate treatment for unearthed
Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 34 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.5 Cultural Resources

cultural resources if the resources are prehistoric or Native American in
nature. Diagnostic archaeological materials with research potential recovered
during any investigation shall be curated at an accredited curation facility.
The Lead Archaeologist, in consultation with a designated Native American
monitor, shall prepare a report documenting evaluation and/or additional
treatment of the resource. A copy of the report shall be provided to the Kern
County Planning and Natural Resources Department and to the southern San
Joaquin Valley Information Center at California State University,
Bakersfield.
28. MM 4.5-4: If human remains are uncovered during project construction, the During construction Kern County Planning and
project contractor shall immediately halt work within 100 ft. of the find, activities Natural Resources Department
contact the Kern County Coroner to evaluate the remains, and follow the
procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.4 (e)(1) of the California Steps to Compliance:
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. If the County Coroner determines A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
that the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native B. If human remains are discovered, the project proponent shall immediately halt
American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Health and Safety Code all work and contact the Kern County Coroner to evaluate the remains, and
Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and Public Resources Code 5097.98 (as follow the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5 (e)(1) of the
amended by Assembly Bill 2641). The Native American Heritage CEQA Guidelines.
Commission shall designate a Most Likely Descendent for the remains per C. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner shall
Public Resources Code 5097.98. Per Public Resources Code 5097.98, the contact the Native American Heritage Commission to assess the find.
landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally
accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native D. The Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department shall verify
American human remains are located, is not damaged or disturbed by further compliance with the mitigation.
development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with
the most likely descendent regarding their recommendations, if applicable,
taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. If the remains
are determined to be neither of forensic value to the Coroner, nor of Native
American origin, provisions of the California Health and Safety Code (7100
et. seq.) directing identification of the next-of-kin will apply.
Justification: Changes or alterations to the project have been required to substantially reduce the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR to the
extent feasible.

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 35 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.7 Geology and Soils

29. MM 4.7-1: Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits for the project, Prior to issuance of Kern County Planning and
the project proponent shall conduct a full geotechnical study to evaluate soil grading or building Natural Resources Department;
conditions and geologic hazards on the project site and submit it to the Kern permits and during Kern County Public Works
County Public Works Department for review and approval. construction Department
a. The geotechnical study must be signed by a California-registered and Steps to Compliance:
licensed professional geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist
A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
and must include, but not be limited to, the following:
B. Submit final geotechnical study on the project site to the Kern County Public
1. Location of fault traces and potential for surface rupture and
Works Department for review and approval.
ground shaking potential;
C. The project proponent shall determine the final siting of proposed project facilities
2. Maximum considered earthquake and associated ground
based on the results of the final geotechnical study and implement its recommended
acceleration for design;
measures.
3. Potential for seismically induced liquefaction, landslides,
differential settlement, and unstable soils; D. The Kern County Public Works Department shall evaluate final facility siting
design developed verify that geological constraints have been avoided or
4. Stability of any existing or proposed cut-and-fill slopes; mitigated.
5. Collapsible or expansive soils;
6. Foundation material type;
7. Potential for wind erosion, water erosion, sedimentation, and
flooding;
8. Location and description of unprotected drainage that could be
impacted by the proposed development; and,
9. Recommendations for placement and design of facilities,
foundations, and remediation of unstable ground.
b. The project proponent shall determine the final siting of project
facilities based on the results of the geotechnical study and implement
recommended measures to minimize geologic hazards.
c. The Kern County Public Works Department shall evaluate any final
facility siting design developed prior to the issuance of any building
or grading permits to verify that geological constraints have been
avoided or mitigated.

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 36 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.7 Geology and Soils

30. MM 4.7-2: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall Prior to issuance of Kern County Planning and
retain a California registered and licensed geotechnical engineer to design the grading permits and Natural Resources Department;
project facilities to withstand probable seismically induced ground shaking at during construction Kern County Building
the site. All grading and construction onsite shall adhere to the specifications, Inspection Department
procedures, and site conditions contained in the final design plans, which shall
be fully compliant with the seismic recommendations of the California- Steps to Compliance:
registered professional engineer. A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
a. The procedures and site conditions shall encompass site preparation, B. The project proponent shall submit written documentation to the Kern County
foundation specifications, and protection measures for buried metal. Building Inspection Department that a California registered geotechnical
engineer has been established. Documentation shall include the engineer’s
The final structural design shall be subject to approval and follow-up
phone number, email address and mailing address.
inspection by the Kern County Building Inspection Department. Final design
requirements shall be provided to the onsite construction supervisor and the C. The project proponent shall comply with the full specifications, procedures, and
Kern County Building Inspector to ensure compliance. A copy of the site conditions contained in the final design plans.
approved design shall be submitted to the Kern County Planning and Natural D. The final structural design shall be subject to approval and follow-up inspection
Resources Department. by the Kern County Building Inspection Department.
31. MM 4.7-3: The construction contractor shall incorporate Best Management Prior to issuance of Kern County Planning and
Practices consistent with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System grading permits Natural Resources Department;
General Construction Permit Program for all construction projects that would Lahontan RWQCB
not retain all stormwater onsite and the Kern County Grading Code. The
project proponent shall prepare an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan as Steps to Compliance:
well as a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. The Stormwater Pollution A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
Prevention Plan shall be prepared by a Qualified Stormwater Pollution B. The project proponent shall retain a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) to
Prevention Plan Developer and submitted for review and approval by the prepare an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan as well as a Stormwater
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Stormwater Pollution Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
Prevention Plan Best Management Practices shall include, but not be limited C. The SWPPP shall be submitted for review and approval by the Lahontan
to, the following: RWQCB.
a. Scheduling to avoid ground disturbance during rain events to the D. copy of the approved SWPPP shall be submitted to the Kern County Planning
maximum extent possible and Natural Resources Department.
b. Preservation of existing vegetation and topography to the maximum extent
practicable
c. Stabilized construction entrances and exits
d. Erosion control (including all pertinent temporary erosion control
practices as specified in Chapter 17.28.140 of the Kern County Grading
Code), such as mulching, temporary drains and cullies, sandbag barrier,
Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 37 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.7 Geology and Soils

geotextiles and mats, silt fences, brush or rock filters, earth dikes, straw
bale barriers, and sediment traps
e. Sediment control
f. Waste management
g. Good housekeeping
h. Post-construction site stabilization
i. Prior to initial construction mobilization, preconstruction surveys shall be
performed and sediment and erosion controls shall be installed in
accordance with the approved Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. A
copy of the approved Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan shall be
submitted to the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources
Department.

32. MM 4.7-4: The project proponent shall limit grading to the minimum area Prior to and Kern County
necessary for construction. Prior to the initiation of construction, the project during Planning and
proponent shall retain a California registered and licensed professional construction Natural
engineer to submit final grading earthwork and foundation plans to the Kern Resources
County Public Works for approval. Department;
California
Licensed
Engineer
Steps to Compliance:
A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
B. A California registered and licensed professional engineer shall be retained by
the project proponent to prepare final grading earthwork and foundation plans.
C. The project operator shall ensure all new on-site construction adheres to the
final plans.

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 38 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.7 Geology and Soils

33. MM 4.7-5: The project proponent shall retain a qualified paleontologist, Prior to the start of Kern County
defined as a paleontologist meeting the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology’s any ground Planning and
Professional Standards (SVP, 2010), to carry out all mitigation measures disturbing Natural Resources
related to paleontological resources. activities and Department
a. Prior to the start of any ground disturbing activities, the qualified during
paleontologist shall conduct a Paleontological Resources Awareness construction
Training program for all construction personnel working on the
project. A Paleontological Resources Awareness Training Guide
approved by the qualified paleontologist shall be provided to all
personnel. A copy of the Paleontological Resources Awareness
Training Guide shall be submitted to the Kern County Planning and
Natural Resources Department. The training guide may be presented
in video form.
Steps to Compliance:
b. Paleontological Resources Awareness Training may be conducted in
conjunction with other awareness training requirements. A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
c. The training shall include an overview of potential paleontological B. A qualified paleontological monitor shall be retained by the project proponent
resources that could be encountered during ground disturbing to conduct training.
activities to facilitate worker recognition, avoidance, and subsequent C. A qualified paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Resources Awareness
immediate notification to the qualified paleontologist for further Training program.
evaluation and action, as appropriate; and penalties for unauthorized D. A Paleontological Resources Awareness Training Guide approved by the
artifact collecting or intentional disturbance of paleontological qualified paleontologist shall be provided to all personnel.
resources.
E. The project operator shall ensure all new on-site construction personnel
d. The Paleontological Resources Awareness Training Guides shall be participate in the Paleontological Resources Awareness Trainings.
kept onsite and available for all personnel to review and be familiar
with as necessary.

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 39 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.7 Geology and Soils

34. MM 4.7-6: A qualified paleontologist or designated monitor shall monitor all During Kern County
ground-disturbing activity (with the exception of vibratory or hydraulic construction Planning and
installation of tracking or mounting structures and foundations or supports) that activities and Natural Resources
occurs at a depth of 12 feet or deeper below ground surface in areas mapped as when construction Department;
younger Quaternary alluvium and for all ground disturbance within the mapped has been Qualified
older Quaternary Alluvium. completed. Paleontologist
a. The duration and timing of monitoring shall be determined by the
qualified paleontologist in consultation with the Kern County
Planning and Natural Resources Department, and shall be based on a
review of geologic maps and grading plans.
1. During the course of monitoring, if the paleontologist can
demonstrate based on observations of subsurface conditions that
the level of monitoring should be reduced, the paleontologist, in
consultation with the Kern County Planning and Natural
Resources Department, may adjust the level of monitoring to
circumstances, as warranted.
Steps to Compliance:
b. Paleontological monitoring shall include inspection of exposed rock
A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
units during active excavations within sensitive geologic sediments.
The qualified paleontologist shall have authority to temporarily divert B. The project proponent shall retain a qualified paleontologist to assess finds and
excavation operations away from exposed fossils to collect associated recommended procedures.
data and recover the fossil specimens if deemed necessary. C. Following the completion of construction, the paleontologist shall prepare a
c. Following the completion of construction, the paleontologist shall report documenting the absence or discovery of fossil resources onsite.
prepare a report documenting the absence or discovery of fossil D. If necessary, additional avoidance, testing, and evaluation or data recovery
resources onsite. If fossils are found, the report shall summarize the excavations shall occur by a qualified paleontologist.
results of the inspection program, identify those fossils encountered, E. The Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department shall review and
recovery and curation efforts, and the methods used in these efforts, approve all reports, correspondence.
as well as describe the fossils collected and their significance. A copy
of the report shall be provided to the Kern County Planning and
Natural Resources Department and to an appropriate repository such
as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 40 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.7 Geology and Soils

35. MM 4.7-7: If a paleontological resource is found, the project contractor shall During Kern County
cease ground-disturbing activities within 50 feet of the find. The qualified construction Planning and
paleontologist shall evaluate the significance of the resources and recommend activities Natural Resources
appropriate treatment measures. At each fossil locality, field data forms shall Department;
be used to record pertinent geologic data, stratigraphic sections shall be Qualified
measured, and appropriate sediment samples shall be collected and submitted Paleontologist
for analysis. Any fossils encountered and recovered shall be catalogued and
donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the Steps to Compliance:
materials. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
the repository. B. If a paleontological resource is found, the qualified paleontologist shall
evaluate the significance of the resources and recommend appropriate
treatment measures.
Justification: Changes or alterations to the project have been required to substantially reduce the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR to the
extent feasible.

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 41 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

36. MM 4.9-1: Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the project Prior to issuing grading Kern County Planning and
proponent shall prepare a hazardous materials business plan and submit it to or building permits Natural Resources Department;
the Kern County Environmental Health Services Division/Hazardous California Environmental
Materials Section for review and approval. Protection Agency; Kern
a. The hazardous materials business plan shall: County Public Health Services
1. Delineate hazardous material and hazardous waste storage areas. Department
2. Describe proper handling, storage, transport, and disposal Steps to Compliance:
techniques. A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
3. Describe methods to be used to avoid spills and minimize impacts B. The project proponent shall submit a hazardous materials business plan to the
in the event of a spill. California Environmental Protection Agency (which administers CERS) for
4. Describe procedures for handling and disposing of unanticipated review and approval.
hazardous materials encountered during construction. C. The project proponent shall provide the hazardous materials business plan to all
5. Establish public and agency notification procedures for spills and contractors working on the project and shall ensure that one copy is available at
other emergencies, including fires. the project site at all times.
6. Include procedures to avoid or minimize dust from existing D. A copy of the approved hazardous materials business plan shall be submitted to
residual pesticide and herbicide use that may be present on the the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department.
site. E. Submit final hazardous material business plan to the Kern County
b. The project proponent shall provide the hazardous materials business Environmental Health Services Department/Hazardous Materials Section for
plan to all contractors working on the project and shall ensure that one review and approval.
copy is available at the project site at all times.
c. A copy of the approved hazardous materials business plan shall be
submitted to the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources
Department.

37. MM 4.9-2: The project proponent shall continuously comply with the During construction and Kern County Planning and
following: operation Natural Resources Department;
a. The construction contractor or project personnel shall use herbicides Kern County Public Health
that are approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Services Department/
and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for use in California and are Environmental Health Services
appropriate for application adjacent to natural vegetation areas (i.e. Division
non-agricultural use). Personnel applying herbicides shall have all Steps to Compliance:
appropriate State and local herbicide applicator licenses and comply
with all State and local regulations regarding herbicide use. A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 42 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

b. Herbicides shall be mixed and applied in conformance with the B. The project proponent shall use herbicides as described in mitigation during
manufacturer’s directions. construction and operations.
c. The herbicide applicator shall be equipped with splash protection C. The Kern County Public Health Services Department/Environmental Health
clothing and gear, chemical resistant gloves, chemical spill/splash Services Division shall verify compliance and licenses.
wash supplies, and material safety data sheets for all hazardous D. Evidence of compliance shall be submitted to the Kern County Planning and
materials to be used. To minimize harm to wildlife, vegetation, and Natural Resources Department.
water bodies, herbicides shall not be applied directly to wildlife.
d. Products identified as non-toxic to birds and small mammals shall be
used if nests or dens are observed; and herbicides shall not be applied
if it is raining at the site, rain is imminent, or the target area has
puddles or standing water.
e. Herbicides shall not be applied when wind velocity exceeds 10 miles
per hour. If spray is observed to be drifting to a non-target location,
spraying shall be discontinued until conditions causing the drift have
abated.
f. A written record of all herbicide applications on the site, including
dates and amounts shall be furnished annually to the Kern County
Planning and Natural Resources Department.

Justification: Changes or alterations to the project have been required to substantially reduce the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR to the
extent feasible.

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 43 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality

38. MM 4.10-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project Prior to issuance of a Kern County Public Works
proponent/operator shall submit a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan grading and building Department; Kern County
(SWPPP) for review and approval by the Kern County Planning and Natural permits Planning and Natural Resources
Resources Department and/or Kern County Public Works Department. The Department; Lahontan Regional
SWPPP shall be designed to minimize runoff and shall specify best Water Quality Control Board
management practices to prevent all construction pollutants from contacting
stormwater, with the intent of keeping sediment or any other pollutants from Steps to Compliance:
moving offsite and into receiving waters. The requirements of the SWPPP shall A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
be incorporated into design specifications and construction contracts. B. The project proponent shall submit an approved copy of the Storm Water
Recommended best management practices to be incorporated in the SWPPP Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) from the Lahontan Regional Water Quality
may include the following:
Control Board to the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department.
a. Minimization of vegetation removal;
C. The Kern County Public Works Department will verify compliance in the field
b. Implementing sediment controls, including silt fences a necessary;
during construction.
c. Installation of a stabilized construction entrance/exit and stabilization
of disturbed areas;
d. Properly containing and disposing of hazardous materials used for
construction onsite;
e. Properly covering stockpiled soils to prevent wind erosion;
f. Proper protections and containment for fueling and maintenance of
equipment and vehicles; and
g. Appropriate disposal of demolition debris, concrete and soil, and
aggressively controlling litter.
h. Cleanup of silt and mud on adjacent street due to construction activity.
i. Checking all lined and unlined ditches after each rainfall.
j. Restore all erosion control devices to working order to the satisfaction
of the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department
and/or Kern County Public Works Department after each rainfall run-
off.
k. Install additional erosion control measures as may be required due to
uncompleted grading operations or unforeseen circumstances which
may arise.

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 44 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality

39. MM 4.10-2: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project Prior to the issuance of a grading Kern
proponent/operator shall complete a hydrologic study and final drainage plan permit County
designed to evaluate and minimize potential increases in runoff from the Public
project site. The study and plan shall include the following: Works
a. A numerical stormwater model for the project site that evaluates Department
existing and proposed (with project) drainage conditions during storm
events ranging up to the 100-year event.
Steps to Compliance:
b. An assessment of the potential for erosion and sedimentation in light
A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
of modeled changes in stormwater flow across the project area that
would result from project implementation. B. The project proponent shall complete a final hydrologic study and drainage plan
designed to evaluate and minimize potential increases in runoff from the project
c. Engineering recommendations to be incorporated into the project and
site.
applied within the site boundary. Engineering recommendations will
include measures to offset increases in stormwater runoff that would C. The hydrologic study and drainage plan shall be prepared in accordance with
result from the project, as well as implementation of design measures the Kern County Grading Code and Kern County Development Standards, and
to minimize or manage flow concentration and changes in flow depth approved by the Kern County Public Works Department prior to the issuance of
or velocity so as to minimize erosion, sedimentation, and flooding on- grading permits.
site or off-site.
d. A specification that the final design of the solar arrays shall include 1
foot of freeboard clearance above the calculated maximum flood
depths for the solar arrays or the finished floor of any permanent
structures. Solar panel sites located within a 100-year floodplain shall
be graded to direct potential flood waters without increasing the water
surface elevations more than one (1) foot or as required by Kern
County’s Floodplain Ordinance.
e. The hydrologic study and drainage plan shall be prepared in
accordance with the Kern County Grading Code and Kern County
Development Standards, and approved by the Kern County Public
Works Department prior to the issuance of grading permits.

Justification: Changes or alterations to the project have been required to substantially reduce the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR to the
extent feasible.

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 45 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.11 Land Use

40. MM 4.11-1: Prior to issuance of any building permit, the project operator Prior to the issuance of Kern County Engineering,
shall provide a Decommissioning Plan for review and approval by the Kern building permits Surveying, and Permit Services
County Engineering, Surveying, and Permit Services Department or a Department; Kern County
County-contracted consulting firm at a cost to be borne by the project Planning and Natural Resources
operator. The Decommission Plan shall factor in the cost to remove the solar Department
panels and support structures, replacement of any disturbed soil from
removal of support structures, and control of fugitive dust on the remaining Steps to Compliance:
undeveloped land. Salvage value for the solar panels and support structures A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
shall be included in the financial assurance calculations. The assumption, B. The project proponent shall prepare a Decommissioning Plan and submit the
when preparing the estimate, is that the project operator is incapable of appropriate financial assurances to the Kern County Engineering, Surveying,
performing the work or has abandoned the solar facility, thereby requiring and Permit Services Department.
Kern County to hire an independent contractor to perform the
decommissioning work. In addition to submitting a Decommission Plan, the
project operator shall post or establish and maintain financial assurances
with Kern County related to the deconstruction of the site as identified on
the approved Decommission Plan in the event that at any point in time the
project operator determines it is not in the company’s best interest to operate
the facility.
The financial assurance required prior to issuance of any building permit
shall be established using one of the following:
a. An irrevocable letter of credit;
b. A surety bond;
c. A trust fund in accordance with the approved financial assurances
to guarantee the deconstruction work will be completed in
accordance with the approved decommission plan; or
d. Other financial assurances as reviewed and approved by the
respective County administrative offices, in consultation with the
Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department.
The financial institution or Surety Company shall give the County at least
120 days notice of intent to terminate the letter of credit or bond. Financial
assurances shall be reviewed annually by the Kern County Engineering,
Surveying, and Permit Services Department or County contracted consulting
firm(s) at a cost to be borne by the project operator to substantiate those
adequate funds exist to ensure deconstruction of all solar panels and support
structures identified on the approved Decommission Plan. Should the project
Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 46 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.11 Land Use

operator deconstruct the site on their own, the County will not pursue
forfeiture of the financial assurance.
Once deconstruction has occurred, financial assurance for that portion of the
site will no longer be required and any financial assurance posted shall be
adjusted or returned accordingly. Any funds not utilized through
decommission of the site by the County shall be returned to the project
operator.
Should any portion of the solar field not be in operational condition for a
consecutive period of twelve 12 months that portion of the site shall be
deemed abandoned and shall be removed within sixty (60) days from the
date a written notice is sent to the property owner and solar field owner, as
well as the project operator, by the County. Within this sixty (60) day
period, the property owner, solar field owner, or project operator may
provide the director of the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources
Department a written request and justification for an extension for an
additional twelve (12) months. The Kern County Planning and Natural
Resources Director shall consider any such request at a Director’s Hearing
as provided for in Section 19.102.070 of the Kern County Zoning
Ordinance. In no case shall a solar field that has been deemed abandoned be
permitted to remain in place for more than forty‐eight (48) months from the
date, the solar facility was first deemed abandoned.

41. MM 4.11-2: Prior to the operation of the solar facility, the operator shall Prior to operation U.S. Department of Defense
contact the Department of Defense to identify the appropriate Frequency
Management Office officials to coordinate the use of telemetry to avoid Steps to Compliance:
potential frequency conflicts with military operations. A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
B. Prior to the operation of the solar facility, the operator shall consult with the U.S.
Department of Defense to identify the appropriate Frequency Management Office
officials to coordinate the use of telemetry to avoid potential frequency conflicts
with military operations.

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 47 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.11 Land Use

Justification: Changes or alterations to the project have been required to substantially reduce the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR to the
extent feasible.

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 48 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.12 Noise
43. MM 4.12-1: The following measures are to be implemented to further reduce During construction and Kern County Planning and
short-term noise levels associated with project construction and decommissioning Natural Resources Department;
decommissioning: activities Kern County Public Works
a. Construction and decommissioning activities at the project site shall Department; Noise Disturbance
comply with the hourly restrictions for noise-generating construction Coordinator
activities, as specified in the County’s Code of Ordinances, Chapter Steps to Compliance:
8.36. Accordingly, construction activities shall be prohibited
between the hours of 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. on weekdays, and A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
between 9:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. on weekends. These hourly B. The construction contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is
limitations shall not apply to activities where hourly limitations equipped with manufacturer-approved mufflers and baffles.
would result in increased safety risk to workers or the public, such as C. Contact information for the Disturbance Coordinator shall be submitted to the
commissioning and maintenance activities that must occur after dark Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department prior to
to ensure photovoltaic arrays are not energized, unanticipated commencement of any ground disturbing activities.
emergencies requiring immediate attention, or security patrols. D. The project proponent shall comply with the Kern County Noise Ordinance.
b. Equipment staging and laydown areas shall be located at the furthest E. The Kern County Public Works Department will verify compliance in the field
practical distance from nearby residential land uses. To the extent during inspection.
possible, staging and laydown areas should be located at least 500
feet of existing residential dwellings.
c. Construction equipment shall be fitted with noise-reduction features
such as mufflers and engine shrouds that are no less effective than
those originally installed by the manufacturer.
d. Haul trucks shall not be allowed to idle for periods greater than five
minutes, except as needed to perform a specified function (e.g.,
concrete mixing).
e. Onsite vehicle speeds shall be limited to 15 miles per hour, or less
(except in cases of emergency).
f. Back-up beepers for all construction equipment and vehicles shall be
broadband sound alarms or adjusted to the lowest noise levels
possible, provided that the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration and California Division of Occupational Safety and
Health’s safety requirements are not violated. On vehicles where
back-up beepers are not available, alternative safety measures such
as escorts and spotters shall be employed.

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 49 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.12 Noise
44. MM 4.12-2: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a “noise disturbance Prior to the issuance of Kern County Planning and
coordinator” shall be established. The project operator shall submit evidence grading permits, and Natural Resources Department;
of methods of implementation and shall continuously comply with the during construction and Kern County Public Works
following during construction: The disturbance coordinator shall be decommissioning Department; Noise Disturbance
responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. activities Coordinator
The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint
(e.g., starting to early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall be required to implement Steps to Compliance:
reasonable measures such that the complaint is resolved. A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
B. The construction contractor shall establish a Noise Disturbance Coordinator for
the project during construction.
C. The Noise Disturbance Coordinator shall respond to any local complaints about
construction noise.
D. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint and
shall be required to implement reasonable measures such that the complaint is
resolved.

45. MM 4.12-3: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project operator Prior to the issuance of Kern County Public Works
shall submit evidence of the following: Construction contracts shall specify grading permits Department; Kern County
that notices shall be sent out to all residences within 1,000 feet of the Planning and Natural Resources
construction areas at least 15 days prior to commencement of construction. Department
The notices shall include the construction’s schedule and a telephone number
where complaints can be registered with the noise disturbance coordinator. A Steps to Compliance:
sign legible at a distance of 50 feet shall also be posted at the construction site A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
throughout construction, which includes the same details as the notices. B. The project proponent shall submit evidence to the Kern County Planning and
Natural Resources Department of written notice distribution, prior to issuance of
a grading permit.
C. The project proponent shall submit evidence to the Kern County Planning and
Natural Resources Department, prior to issuance of a grading permit, that a
minimum of one sign, legible at a distance of 50 feet, has been posted at the
construction site or adjacent to the nearest public access to the main construction
entrance throughout construction activities that shall provide the construction
schedule (updated as needed) and a telephone number where noise complaints
can be registered with the Noise Disturbance Coordinator.

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 50 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.12 Noise
D. The Kern County Public Works Department shall verify compliance in the field
during inspection.

46. MM 4.12-4: The project shall be designed to ensure that operational noise Prior to the start of Kern County Public Works
levels at nearby sensitive receptors, depending on their location within or construction activities Department
outside of the WSSP area, would not exceed the applicable WSSP or County
noise standards. Techniques that can be incorporated into the BESS design to Steps to Compliance:
achieve compliance with the applicable noise standards may include, but are A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
not limited to, the following: B. The project proponent shall ensure practices are implemented as outlined in
• Place HVAC units on the far side of the BESS containers relative to mitigation.
the nearest off-site sensitive receptors to allow the containers to act C. The Kern County Public Works Department shall verify compliance.
as a barrier to provide noise attenuation.
• Erect permanent noise barriers of sufficient height to attenuate noise
levels from the BESS containers.
• Provide a sufficient buffer distance between the BESS containers
and the nearest off-site receptor.
• The adequacy of the selected noise control technique(s) shall be
demonstrated in an acoustical study submitted to and approved by
the County prior to the issuance of building permits.

Justification: Changes or alterations to the project have been required to substantially reduce the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR to the
extent feasible.

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 51 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.13 Public Services

47. MM 4.13-1: Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits the project Prior to issuance of Kern County Fire Department;
proponent/operator shall develop and implement a fire safety plan for use building and grading Kern County Planning and
during construction, operation and decommissioning. permits, and during Natural Resources Department
The project proponent/operator shall submit the plan, along with maps of the construction and
project site and access roads, to the Kern County Fire Department for review operation
and approval. A copy of the approved Fire Safety Plan shall be submitted to Steps to Compliance:
the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department. The Fire Safety
Plan shall contain notification procedures and emergency fire precautions A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
including, but not limited to, the following: B. The project proponent/operator shall submit the Fire Safety Plan, along with
maps of the project site and access roads, to the Kern County Fire Department
a. All internal combustion engines, both stationary and mobile, shall be for review and approval.
equipped with spark arresters. Spark arresters shall be in good C. The project proponent shall provide Kern County Planning and Natural
working order. Resources Department a copy of the approved Fire Safety Plan.
b. Light trucks and cars with factory-installed (type) mufflers shall be
used only on roads where the roadway is cleared of vegetation. These
vehicle types will maintain their factory-installed (type) muffler in
good condition.
c. Fire rules shall be posted on the project bulletin board at the
contractor’s field office and areas visible to employees.
d. Equipment parking areas and small stationary engine sites shall be
cleared of all extraneous flammable materials.
e. Personnel shall be trained in the practices of the fire safety plan
relevant to their duties. Construction and maintenance personnel shall
be trained and equipped to extinguish small fires to prevent them from
growing into more serious threats.
f. The project proponent/operator shall make an effort to restrict the use
of chainsaws, chippers, vegetation masticators, grinders, drill rigs,
tractors, torches, and explosives to periods outside of the official fire
season. When the above tools are used, water tanks equipped with
hoses, fire rakes, and axes shall be easily accessible to personnel.

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 52 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.13 Public Services

48. MM 4.13-2: The following Cumulative Impact Charge (CIC) shall be Prior to issuance of Kern County Planning and
implemented as payment on approved Conditional Use Permit acreage. building and grading Natural Resources Department
a. Submittal of Building Permit and Phasing permits and during
construction and
1. Any building permit submitted shall be accompanied by a
operation
map and legal description showing a defined phase for which
permits are being requested. All phases shall be numbered Steps to Compliance:
sequentially for identification. A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
2. The map for either the total project or a phase shall calculate B. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the project proponent shall pay for
the Cumulative Impact Charge (CIC) net acreage as follows: impacts on countywide public protection, sheriff’s patrol and investigative
i Total gross acreage (Phase) services, and fire services project proponent
ii Total acres for Operations and Maintenance C. Written verification of ownership of the project shall be submitted to the Kern
building permanent accessory improvements County Planning and Natural Resources Department
iii Total acres for Energy Storage structure and D. Prior to the issuance of any building permits on the property, the project
permanent accessory improvements proponent shall submit a letter detailing the hiring efforts prior to
iv Total acres of recorded easements commencement of construction
3. Formula: Net Acreage = 2(i) minus the sum of [2(ii) + 2(iii) E. The Kern County Public Works Department shall verify compliance in the field.
+ 2(iv)].
4. Temporary storage areas or non-permanent commercial
coaches or cargo containers for construction or operations
are not eligible for inclusion under 2(ii) or 2(iii), above.
5. All areas of buildings, accessory improvements and
easement used in the calculations shall be shown on the
submitted Phase Map.
6. Any property included in the approved Conditional Use
Permit that is not included in a phase must be included in the
last phase or a formal modification processed to remove it
from the Conditional Use Permit.
b. Calculation and Payment of Cumulative Impact Charge (CIC)
1. A payment of $620 per net acre for the map shown with the
building permit submittal shall be paid upon issuance of the
first building permit. If it is not paid within 30 days after the
issuance of the first building permit for the phase regardless
of the total number of building permits or type of building
Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 53 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.13 Public Services

permit issued, all such permits shall be suspended until the
fee is paid in full.
2. Payments shall be made to the Planning and Natural
Resources Department for transfer directly to the County
Administrative Office Fiscal Division (CAO) and labeled
Cumulative Impact Charge (CIC) with the project name and
phase number.
3. Any acres denoted for an operation and maintenance
building or energy storage that are not built, cannot be used
for solar panels unless payment is provided for the
Cumulative Impact Charge (CIC).
49. MM 4.13-3: Written verification of ownership of the project shall be submitted Prior to issuance Kern County
to the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department by April 15 of grading and Planning and
of each calendar year. If the project is sold to a city, county, or utility company construction Natural Resources
with assessed taxes that total less than $3,000 per megawatt per year, then a permits, and prior Department
Supplemental Cumulative Impact Charge (SCIC) shall be paid for the to April 30 of each
difference annually up to $3,000 per megawatt. The SCIC payments shall be calendar year
made annually directly to the County Administrative Office Fiscal Division
(CAO) and labeled “Supplemental Cumulative Impact Charge (SCIC)” with Steps to Compliance:
the project name and phase number. A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
B. Written verification of ownership of the project shall be submitted to the Kern
County Planning and Natural Resources Department by April 30 of each
calendar year.

50. MM 4.13-4: The project proponent/operator shall work with the County to Prior to Kern County
determine how the use of sales and use taxes from construction of the project commencement of Planning and
can be maximized. This process shall include, but is not necessarily limited to, construction Natural Resources
the project proponent/operator obtaining a street address within the activities Department; Kern
unincorporated portion of Kern County for acquisition, purchasing and billing County
purposes, and registering this address with the State Board of Equalization. As Auditor/Controller
an alternative to the aforementioned process, the project proponent/operator

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 54 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.13 Public Services

may make arrangements with Kern County for a guaranteed single payment Steps to Compliance:
that is equivalent to the amount of sales and use taxes that would have
A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
otherwise been received (less any sales and use taxes actually paid); with the
amount of the single payment to be determined via a formula approved by Kern B. The project proponent shall coordinate with Kern County Planning and Natural
County. The project proponent/operator shall allow the County to use this sales Resources Department and Kern County Auditor/Controller to determine
tax information publicly for reporting purposes. appropriate sales and use taxes for the project, or the project proponent must
register with the State Board of Equalization to determine appropriate sales and
use tax for the property.
C. Written verification of ownership of the project shall be submitted to the Kern
County Planning and Natural Resources Department.
51. MM 4.13-5: Prior to the issuance of any building permits on the property, the Prior to issuance Kern County
project operator shall submit a letter detailing the hiring efforts prior to of building and Planning and
commencement of construction, which encourages all contractors of the grading permits Natural Resources
project site to hire at least 50 percent of their workers from local Kern County and during Department; Kern
communities. The project operator shall provide the contractors a list of construction and County
training programs that provide skilled workers and shall require the contractor operation Auditor/Controller
to advertise locally for available jobs, notifying the training programs of job
Steps to Compliance:
availability, all in conjunction with normal hiring practices of the contractor.
A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval
B. Written verification of ownership of the project shall be submitted to the Kern
County Planning and Natural Resources Department.
C. Prior to the issuance of any building permits on the property, the project
proponent shall submit a letter detailing the hiring efforts prior to
commencement of construction.

Justification: Changes or alterations to the project have been required to substantially reduce the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR to the
extent feasible.

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 55 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.15 Transportation
52. MM 4.15-1: Prior to the issuance of construction or building permits, the Prior to issuance of Kern County Planning and
project proponent/operator shall: construction and building Natural Resources Department;
a. Prepare and submit a Construction Traffic Control Plan to Kern County permits; during Kern County Public Works
Public Works Department- Development Review and the California construction, operations, Department/Building and
Department of Transportation offices for District 9, as appropriate, for and decommissioning Development Division;
approval. The Construction Traffic Control Plan must be prepared in California Department of
accordance with both the California Department of Transportation Transportation
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and Work Area Traffic Steps to Compliance:
Control Handbook and must include, but not be limited to, the following
A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
issues:
B. The project proponent shall submit a traffic control plan to the Kern County
i. Timing of deliveries of heavy equipment and building materials;
Roads Department for review and approval.
ii. Directing construction traffic with a flag person;
C. The project proponent shall obtain necessary encroachment permits from Kern
iii. Placing temporary signing, lighting, and traffic control devices if County Roads Department and California Department of Transportation, if
required, including, but not limited to, appropriate signage along necessary.
access routes to indicate the presence of heavy vehicles and
D. The project proponent shall provide the Planning and Natural Resources
construction traffic;
Department with a copy of an approved traffic control plan, encroachment
iv. Ensuring access for emergency vehicles to the project sites; permits and executed secured agreements, which includes identification of roads
v. Temporarily closing travel lanes or delaying traffic during materials to be used during construction.
delivery, transmission line stringing activities, or any other utility E. The project proponent shall submit preconstruction and post-construction videos
connections; documenting repairs to roads used during construction, as outlined in mitigation.
vi. Maintaining access to adjacent property; and, F. The Planning and Natural Resources Department shall review videos and
vii. Specifying both construction-related vehicle travel and oversize load documentation and verify compliance.
haul routes, minimizing construction traffic during the AM and PM
peak hour, distributing construction traffic flow across alternative
routes to access the project sites, and avoiding residential
neighborhoods to the maximum extent feasible.
b. Obtain all necessary encroachment permits for the work within the road
right-of-way or use of oversized/overweight vehicles that will utilize
county maintained roads, which may require California Highway Patrol
or a pilot car escort. Copies of the approved traffic plan and issued
permits shall be submitted to the Kern County Planning and Natural
Resources Department, the Kern County Public Works Department-
Development Review, and the California Department of Transportation.

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 56 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.15 Transportation
c. Enter into a secured agreement with Kern County to ensure that any
County roads that are demonstrably damaged by project-related activities
are promptly repaired and, if necessary, paved, slurry-sealed, or
reconstructed as per requirements of the State and/or Kern County.
d. Submit documentation that identifies the roads to be used during
construction. The project proponent/operator shall be responsible for
repairing any damage to non- county maintained roads that may result
from construction activities. The project proponent/operator shall submit
a preconstruction video log and inspection report regarding roadway
conditions for roads used during construction to the Kern County Public
Work Department-Development Review and the Kern County Planning
and Natural Resources Department.
e. Within 30 days of completion of construction, the project
proponent/operator shall submit a post-construction video log and
inspection report to the County. This information shall be submitted in
DVD format. The County, in consultation with the project
proponent/operator’s engineer, shall determine the extent of remediation
required, if any.

Justification: Changes or alterations to the project have been required to substantially reduce the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR to the
extent feasible.

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 57 of 58
Kern County Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program – Raceway 2.0 Solar Project
Time Frame for Responsible Monitoring
Impact Mitigation Measure Date Initials
Implementation Agency

4.16 Utilities and Service Systems

53. MM 4.16-1: During construction and operation, debris and waste generated Prior to issuing building Kern County Planning and
shall be recycled to the extent feasible. permits, during grading, Natural Resources Department;
a. An onsite Recycling Coordinator shall be designated by the project construction, operations Kern County Waste
proponent/operator to facilitate recycling as part of the Maintenance, and decommissioning Management Department
Trash Abatement and Pest Management Program. Steps to Compliance:
b. The Recycling Coordinator shall facilitate recycling of all A. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
construction waste through coordination with contractors, local
B. Prior to issuance of building permits, designate onsite-recycling coordinator,
waste haulers, and/or other facilities that recycle
provide name, and phone number to Kern County Waste Management
construction/demolition wastes.
Department and the Kern County Public Works Department.
c. The onsite Recycling Coordinator shall also be responsible for
C. Recycle construction waste to the extent feasible.
ensuring wastes requiring special disposal are handled according to
State and County regulations that are in effect at the time of D. Provide Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department and Kern
disposal. County Waste Management Department with a site plan showing the recycling
d. Contact information of the coordinator shall be provided to the Kern storage area prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for the site.
County Planning and Natural Resources Department prior to E. Provide Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department and Kern
issuance of building permits. County Waste Management Department with copies of hauling receipts.
e. The project proponent/operator shall provide a storage area for F. Kern County Public Works Department will verify in the field during the
recyclable materials within the fenced project area that is clearly construction period.
identified for recycling. This area shall be maintained on the site
during construction, operations and decommissioning. A site plan
showing the recycling storage area shall be submitted prior to the
issuance of any grading or building permit for the site.

Justification: Changes or alterations to the project have been required to substantially reduce the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR to the
extent feasible.

Environmental Impact Report for Raceway Solar 2.0 Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program- DRAFT
Board of Supervisors – July 27, 2021
Page 58 of 58

Applicant Presentation

January 2025 South 9th Street Corridor Plan
No ratings yet
January 2025 South 9th Street Corridor Plan
244 pages
Mission Peak Draft EIR
No ratings yet
Mission Peak Draft EIR
484 pages
Brynn Grey Financial Impact Study
No ratings yet
Brynn Grey Financial Impact Study
239 pages
CEQA Report/Mitigated Negative Declaration
No ratings yet
CEQA Report/Mitigated Negative Declaration
372 pages
Appendix H1 Desktop Review Phase I
No ratings yet
Appendix H1 Desktop Review Phase I
225 pages
City of Cheyenne Proposed Budget
No ratings yet
City of Cheyenne Proposed Budget
269 pages
Sanborn Solar EIR
No ratings yet
Sanborn Solar EIR
18 pages
MORENO VALLEY: Project Description of World Logistics Center
No ratings yet
MORENO VALLEY: Project Description of World Logistics Center
78 pages
24 and T
No ratings yet
24 and T
171 pages
GHANA Questionnaires Introduction
No ratings yet
GHANA Questionnaires Introduction
15 pages
North Slope Helicopter Preliminary Crash Report
No ratings yet
North Slope Helicopter Preliminary Crash Report
5 pages
Venky Harinarayan and Sudha Neelakantan 05-10-17
No ratings yet
Venky Harinarayan and Sudha Neelakantan 05-10-17
53 pages
2024 Statewide House Candidates Summary
No ratings yet
2024 Statewide House Candidates Summary
62 pages
WPBI FCC Application
No ratings yet
WPBI FCC Application
13 pages
DERM Review Memo On Calusa Redevelopment
No ratings yet
DERM Review Memo On Calusa Redevelopment
8 pages
La Brea Initial Study - Negative Declaration
No ratings yet
La Brea Initial Study - Negative Declaration
25 pages
Agriculture Grade 11 Note Concepts of Biodiversity Unit 12
No ratings yet
Agriculture Grade 11 Note Concepts of Biodiversity Unit 12
44 pages
Gordon Certification Letter Kelly Parcel
No ratings yet
Gordon Certification Letter Kelly Parcel
1 page
2024-0514 Unofficial Results
No ratings yet
2024-0514 Unofficial Results
1 page
We Advocate Thorough Environmental Review P.O. Box 873 Mt. Shasta, CA 96067
No ratings yet
We Advocate Thorough Environmental Review P.O. Box 873 Mt. Shasta, CA 96067
10 pages
Minutes April 3, 2018 05-01-18
No ratings yet
Minutes April 3, 2018 05-01-18
10 pages
National Interagency Coordination Center
No ratings yet
National Interagency Coordination Center
56 pages
RCA Comment On Latest Draft Reston Areawide Comprehensive Plan Language
No ratings yet
RCA Comment On Latest Draft Reston Areawide Comprehensive Plan Language
16 pages
Riverside County Letter To The City of Beaumont Regarding The I-10 Logistics Center
No ratings yet
Riverside County Letter To The City of Beaumont Regarding The I-10 Logistics Center
3 pages
Calam MPWSP Deir-Eis
No ratings yet
Calam MPWSP Deir-Eis
26 pages
Calam MPWSP Appendix j2
No ratings yet
Calam MPWSP Appendix j2
24 pages
Appendix J2 DEIR
No ratings yet
Appendix J2 DEIR
26 pages
Flora and Fauna Survey Guidelines PDF
No ratings yet
Flora and Fauna Survey Guidelines PDF
159 pages
Residents' Letter Opposing Warehouse Project
No ratings yet
Residents' Letter Opposing Warehouse Project
9 pages
Update Rio Park-Larson Field Pathway Project 12-06-16
No ratings yet
Update Rio Park-Larson Field Pathway Project 12-06-16
8 pages
Met W. Strozier-Earlier Input To CPC, BCC
No ratings yet
Met W. Strozier-Earlier Input To CPC, BCC
5 pages
Cottonwood Heights Letter - Doverhill Drive
No ratings yet
Cottonwood Heights Letter - Doverhill Drive
3 pages
Minutes November 7, 2017 02-06-18
No ratings yet
Minutes November 7, 2017 02-06-18
6 pages
Second + PCH Comment Letter Draft EIR
No ratings yet
Second + PCH Comment Letter Draft EIR
29 pages
Land Use Plan: Upper Rock Creek Area Master Plan 11 Approved and Adopted - April 2004
No ratings yet
Land Use Plan: Upper Rock Creek Area Master Plan 11 Approved and Adopted - April 2004
24 pages
The Roadrunner: Kern Kaweah Get-Together Sat. Nov 5Th, Reserve Now
No ratings yet
The Roadrunner: Kern Kaweah Get-Together Sat. Nov 5Th, Reserve Now
11 pages
Bech Submission To EAO Re Narrows Inlet
No ratings yet
Bech Submission To EAO Re Narrows Inlet
9 pages
The Roadrunner: Residents Oppose Solar Project in Kelso Valley
No ratings yet
The Roadrunner: Residents Oppose Solar Project in Kelso Valley
10 pages
Biodiversity Viewpoints PDF
No ratings yet
Biodiversity Viewpoints PDF
224 pages
TH The Roadrunner: Solar Conference Tuesday, September 20. It's Free and Close To Everyone's Doorstep
No ratings yet
TH The Roadrunner: Solar Conference Tuesday, September 20. It's Free and Close To Everyone's Doorstep
9 pages
The Roadrunner: Large Projects Threaten General Plan Update
No ratings yet
The Roadrunner: Large Projects Threaten General Plan Update
8 pages
Is-Nd Scanned Sections Where Relevant-Short-Term Rentals in r-1
No ratings yet
Is-Nd Scanned Sections Where Relevant-Short-Term Rentals in r-1
15 pages
Receive An Update On Carmel's Water Conservation Work Plan 09-10-13 PDF
No ratings yet
Receive An Update On Carmel's Water Conservation Work Plan 09-10-13 PDF
6 pages
BOS Remington Solar Facilty Staff Report FINAL
0% (1)
BOS Remington Solar Facilty Staff Report FINAL
19 pages
2011 Annual Report: 100 North D Street, Suite 202 Lakeview, OR 97630
No ratings yet
2011 Annual Report: 100 North D Street, Suite 202 Lakeview, OR 97630
6 pages
Scope FSCR VCK Feb 2012 Comment
No ratings yet
Scope FSCR VCK Feb 2012 Comment
14 pages
2024 Statewide Senate Candidates Summary
No ratings yet
2024 Statewide Senate Candidates Summary
16 pages
Community Engagement Preseentation
No ratings yet
Community Engagement Preseentation
47 pages
Second + PCH Comment Letter Recirculated Draft EIR
No ratings yet
Second + PCH Comment Letter Recirculated Draft EIR
31 pages
From The Desk of The Mayor October/November 2013: Stream Work
No ratings yet
From The Desk of The Mayor October/November 2013: Stream Work
4 pages
Joint RA-RCA-ARCH Comments On Version 10 of Draft Reston Comp Plan, October 28, 2013
No ratings yet
Joint RA-RCA-ARCH Comments On Version 10 of Draft Reston Comp Plan, October 28, 2013
4 pages
Rotary Newsletter For Sept 11 2018
No ratings yet
Rotary Newsletter For Sept 11 2018
6 pages
DPP Pdfconservation of Plants and Animals (Part 4)
No ratings yet
DPP Pdfconservation of Plants and Animals (Part 4)
9 pages
Newsletter 2011 Fall
No ratings yet
Newsletter 2011 Fall
4 pages
Strawberry Plant Park Design Changes
No ratings yet
Strawberry Plant Park Design Changes
9 pages
Hiers 2016 - The Precision Problem InConservation and Restoration
No ratings yet
Hiers 2016 - The Precision Problem InConservation and Restoration
11 pages
FY2024 ATP Approved Selections Rev
No ratings yet
FY2024 ATP Approved Selections Rev
16 pages
State Water Resources Control Board Report
No ratings yet
State Water Resources Control Board Report
66 pages
Definition of Deforestation
71% (7)
Definition of Deforestation
3 pages
Questions and Answers PDF
No ratings yet
Questions and Answers PDF
4 pages
SierraClub LTR 4.4.14 Bd-Sups Ratna Ling
No ratings yet
SierraClub LTR 4.4.14 Bd-Sups Ratna Ling
2 pages
Unit 6 - English 12 - Hè 2021trên 1 T A4
No ratings yet
Unit 6 - English 12 - Hè 2021trên 1 T A4
8 pages
Cutsheet
No ratings yet
Cutsheet
1 page
Trends In Hydraulics
From Everand
Trends In Hydraulics
Ritesh Thalla
No ratings yet
Contra Costa Environmental Health Letter To Richmond, CA, Regarding Flooding, Mosquitoes, Etc.
No ratings yet
Contra Costa Environmental Health Letter To Richmond, CA, Regarding Flooding, Mosquitoes, Etc.
2 pages
Exhibit C Revised 4.10
No ratings yet
Exhibit C Revised 4.10
4 pages
Shutesbury Solar Opposition
No ratings yet
Shutesbury Solar Opposition
9 pages
Chew Comments Re RMP Review To RA Board 100619
No ratings yet
Chew Comments Re RMP Review To RA Board 100619
6 pages
Planning Principles - David Edwards, January 20, 2010
No ratings yet
Planning Principles - David Edwards, January 20, 2010
2 pages
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea
No ratings yet
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea
4 pages
4.14.25 Federal Update
No ratings yet
4.14.25 Federal Update
2 pages
This Is The Title of The Document
No ratings yet
This Is The Title of The Document
4 pages
Laramie County School District
No ratings yet
Laramie County School District
2 pages
CEQA Checklist Summary
No ratings yet
CEQA Checklist Summary
8 pages
Forest Restoration in Landscapes
No ratings yet
Forest Restoration in Landscapes
440 pages
Bio-Diversity Uses, Threats and Conservation: Dr. Anjay
100% (1)
Bio-Diversity Uses, Threats and Conservation: Dr. Anjay
23 pages
Purd 1 - 12 - 09
No ratings yet
Purd 1 - 12 - 09
9 pages
Budget of Work 2021 CLMD 4 A Science 3 10
No ratings yet
Budget of Work 2021 CLMD 4 A Science 3 10
21 pages
Bike Anchorage Letter Fish Creek
No ratings yet
Bike Anchorage Letter Fish Creek
3 pages
Site Analysis: Informing Context-Sensitive and Sustainable Site Planning and Design
From Everand
Site Analysis: Informing Context-Sensitive and Sustainable Site Planning and Design
James A. LaGro, Jr.
4.5/5 (3)
Alaska House Bill 399
No ratings yet
Alaska House Bill 399
6 pages
BOI115 L1Intro2021
No ratings yet
BOI115 L1Intro2021
25 pages
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea City Council Staff Report: TO: Submit T Ed BY
No ratings yet
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea City Council Staff Report: TO: Submit T Ed BY
3 pages
Anchorage Police Department Review and Recommendations
No ratings yet
Anchorage Police Department Review and Recommendations
2 pages
Public Call For Solidarity With Palestine at Purdue University
No ratings yet
Public Call For Solidarity With Palestine at Purdue University
6 pages
Chipko Movement - Final
50% (2)
Chipko Movement - Final
32 pages
Staff Report (Subdivision)
No ratings yet
Staff Report (Subdivision)
3 pages
Vocabulary - Unit 10 - The Ecosystem - English 11
No ratings yet
Vocabulary - Unit 10 - The Ecosystem - English 11
5 pages
Ecology 4 SHS24
No ratings yet
Ecology 4 SHS24
11 pages
House Bill 254
No ratings yet
House Bill 254
3 pages
Ajps 2013032915351719
No ratings yet
Ajps 2013032915351719
11 pages
Unitdesigntemplate Mls 2
No ratings yet
Unitdesigntemplate Mls 2
6 pages
Rain Forest Reaserch Document
No ratings yet
Rain Forest Reaserch Document
91 pages
Preliminary Report Tanana
No ratings yet
Preliminary Report Tanana
4 pages
Shady Grove Advisory Committee Meeting February 20, 2007
No ratings yet
Shady Grove Advisory Committee Meeting February 20, 2007
3 pages
Stipulated Surrender of License Agreement
No ratings yet
Stipulated Surrender of License Agreement
16 pages
Branches of Zoogeography
64% (39)
Branches of Zoogeography
35 pages
1st EnviSummit - ForestryWildlife Act Presentation
No ratings yet
1st EnviSummit - ForestryWildlife Act Presentation
63 pages
Mark Scheme For Papers 1 and 2: Science Tests
No ratings yet
Mark Scheme For Papers 1 and 2: Science Tests
60 pages
Budget of Work School Calendar Science 1
No ratings yet
Budget of Work School Calendar Science 1
124 pages
Critical Incident Report
No ratings yet
Critical Incident Report
4 pages
Manual for Climate Change Adaptation Measures for Transport Infrastructure in Central Asia with a Focus on Uzbekistan
From Everand
Manual for Climate Change Adaptation Measures for Transport Infrastructure in Central Asia with a Focus on Uzbekistan
Asian Development Bank
No ratings yet
Mapping Hazards in Nepal’s Melamchi River: Catchment to Enhance Kathmandu’s Water Security
From Everand
Mapping Hazards in Nepal’s Melamchi River: Catchment to Enhance Kathmandu’s Water Security
Asian Development Bank
No ratings yet
IAL Biology SB2 Answers 5B
No ratings yet
IAL Biology SB2 Answers 5B
6 pages
Đề 33
No ratings yet
Đề 33
16 pages
Order - Grant Writ
No ratings yet
Order - Grant Writ
1 page
A Citizens Guide To Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging
No ratings yet
A Citizens Guide To Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging
2 pages
BRO - Video Release and Waiver
75% (4)
BRO - Video Release and Waiver
1 page
Violation Report Heart of India
No ratings yet
Violation Report Heart of India
3 pages
Brian Curry Portfolio Summer2015
No ratings yet
Brian Curry Portfolio Summer2015
7 pages
KHSD Fentanyl StatementII
No ratings yet
KHSD Fentanyl StatementII
1 page
Teacher of The Year Bios
No ratings yet
Teacher of The Year Bios
2 pages
Sacred Natural Sites Guidelines For Protected Area Managers
No ratings yet
Sacred Natural Sites Guidelines For Protected Area Managers
5 pages
National Blue Ribbon Schools Map
No ratings yet
National Blue Ribbon Schools Map
1 page
ODB - Bio (Ecology) PDF
No ratings yet
ODB - Bio (Ecology) PDF
1 page
Endangered Animals
No ratings yet
Endangered Animals
3 pages
Environmental Law Assignment
No ratings yet
Environmental Law Assignment
4 pages
Environmental Studies Curriculum
No ratings yet
Environmental Studies Curriculum
3 pages
Life Science Crossword Ecosystems
No ratings yet
Life Science Crossword Ecosystems
1 page