6.1 Introduction. Chapter 6 Alternatives

Transcription

1 Chapter 6 Alternatives 6.1 Introduction CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or to the location of the proposed project that could feasibly avoid or lessen any significant environmental impacts of the proposed project while attaining most of the project s basic objectives. An EIR also must compare and evaluate the environmental effects and comparative merits of the alternatives. This chapter describes alternatives considered but eliminated from further consideration (including the reasons for elimination), and compares the environmental impacts of several alternatives retained with those of the proposed project. The following are key provisions of the CEQA Guidelines (Section ): The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the proposed project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the proposed project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the proposed project objectives, or would be more costly. The No Project Alternative shall be evaluated, along with its impacts. The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation was published, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the proposed project were not approved based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a rule of reason; therefore, the EIR must evaluate only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the proposed project. For alternative locations, only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the proposed project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative. The range of feasible alternatives is selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision-making. Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives (as described in Section (f)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines) are environmental impacts, site suitability, economic viability, social and political acceptability, technological capacity, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the operator could reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to an alternative site. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, whose implementation is remote or speculative, and that would not achieve the basic project objectives. 6 1

2 The proposed project has the potential to have significant adverse effects on: Aesthetics (project level and cumulative) Agricultural resources (project level and cumulative) Air quality (project level construction and cumulative construction) Biological resources (cumulative only) Noise (project level only) Even with the mitigation measures described in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, impacts in these issue areas would be significant and unavoidable. CEQA requires that an alternatives section be prepared to discuss alternatives to the proposed project that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening effects on these resources. The significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project are discussed below. Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project after Mitigation Aesthetics Significant and unavoidable impacts to aesthetics would result from the proposed solar facility, and include Impact (substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista) and Impact (substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings). The proposed solar facility would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on a scenic vista because the project would replace views of open desert land with mechanical equipment. Despite mitigation measures, solar facilities located on Sons Ranch Sites 1 and 2 would significantly alter existing views from the Jawbone Station Visitor Center, which would result in a significant impact to a scenic vista. The solar facility would substantially degrade the existing visual character of the project sites by introducing an industrial facility into an undeveloped viewshed and by disturbing views of scenic vistas from nearby lookout points in the project area. The solar facility would be visually significant in an area that is currently undeveloped. Cumulative impacts related to aesthetics would also result from the solar facility contributing to the widespread solar development within the County and developing land that would result in obstructed views of regional topographical features, and degradation of visual character and quality. Agriculture Impacts related to agriculture would include Impact (conflict with existing zoning for a Williamson Act Contract) and Impact (result in the cancellation of the agricultural preserve contracts), which would be significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts. Sons Ranch Sites 1 and 2 are currently under Williamson Act contracts totaling 692 acres. Because a determination of public benefit by the County has not yet been made and because the project proposes cancellation of the Williamson Act contracts prior to their expiration in December 31, 2015, impacts related to conflicts with existing Williamson Act contracts would be significant and unavoidable. 6 2

3 Furthermore, cumulative impacts from the loss of Williamson Act and agricultural preserve lands resulting from the proposed project, when combined with other proposed projects in the County, would also be considered significant and unavoidable. Air Quality Significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality include Impact (violation of an air quality standard or substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation), Impact (cumulatively considerable increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment), and cumulative impacts to regional air quality. The NO X emissions produced during construction of the proposed solar facility would exceed East Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD) thresholds, resulting in a significant and unavoidable construction related impact. The proposed project would also result in a significant and unavoidable impact because construction activities would generate a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. In addition, the proposed project s contribution to cumulative impacts would be cumulatively considerable because construction emissions alone would exceed EKAPCD and Kern County significance thresholds; and when combined with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects the project would result in an incremental increase further exceeding applicable thresholds established by EKAPCD. These impacts are only considered potentially significant during the construction phase of the project, as project operation emissions are expected to be negligible. Therefore, construction emissions would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. Biological Resources Within the regional context and when considered with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, which encompasses the Fremont Valley and the Antelope Valley in the western Mojave Desert as well as part of the Tehachapi Range to the west, the proposed solar facility would have an incremental contribution to a cumulative loss of low- to high-quality foraging, dispersal, and breeding habitat for special-status wildlife including: desert tortoise, Mohave ground squirrel, desert kit fox, American badger, special-status raptors, and other protected bird species that are known to, or have potential to, utilize the project area. As a result, the proposed solar facility, coupled with other development proposed in the area, would result in a significant and unavoidable contribution to cumulative loss of habitat for special status species. Noise The closest group of sensitive receptors is located adjacent to Sons Ranch Sites 1 and 2. The noise levels from construction of the solar facility may generate exterior noise levels of dba L dn at the noisesensitive receptors located in the Rancho Seco subdivision near the Sons Ranch Sites 1 and 2. Given that this would be an increase over existing ambient noise levels of approximately 5 dba L dn where existing ambient noise levels exceed 65 dba L dn, an impact associated with a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels would result. While implementation of mitigation would reduce the project s construction noise levels, these measures are unlikely to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level 6 3

4 at all sensitive receptor locations. Therefore, this impact would be a short-term significant and unavoidable noise impact. 6.2 Project Objectives As described in Section 3.0, Project Description of this EIR, the following objectives have been established for the proposed project and will aid decision makers in the review of the project and associated environmental impacts. The project operator has identified the following objectives for the proposed solar facility: Establish a solar PV power-generating facility in order to assist the State of California in achieving the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) for 2020 by providing a significant new source of renewable energy. Produce and transmit electricity at a competitive cost. Locate the facility in a low impact part of the Central Valley within Kern County in proximity to an available connection to the existing electrical distribution infrastructure and customer loads. Minimize environmental effects by: o o o o Using existing electrical distribution facilities, rights-of-way, roads, and other existing infrastructure, where practicable; Minimizing impacts on threatened and/or endangered species; Minimizing water use; and Reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Use technology that is available, proven, efficient, and easily maintained, recyclable, and environmentally sound. 6.3 Proposed Project Summary The proposed project would develop an up to 350 megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic (PV) electrical generating facility. The proposed project would be located on approximately 1,350 acres of undeveloped and formerly cultivated and grazed lands and other previously disturbed lands from human activities on two geographically separate sites (encompassing 13 parcels) within unincorporated eastern Kern County (Figure 3-1). The project would develop a solar facility and associated infrastructure including an estimated 1.5 million PV solar modules, transmission lines and towers, supply powerlines, and operations and maintenance (O&M) buildings. The project operator is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in order to facilitate the construction of an up to 350 MW solar PV generating facility on a 1,350-acre site in the A (Exclusive Agriculture) zone district for each project site. 6 4

5 The proposed project also includes General Plan Amendments to eliminate future road reservations along section and mid-section lines within the project sites where there are no existing roads, and to remove portions of each site from the Cantil Rural Community Plan. Additionally, approximately 690 acres of the proposed project is under Williamson Act Land Use Contracts, and Williamson Act Land Use Contract cancellations are requested. Additionally, the project includes a modification to the previously approved Springbok 1 Solar Farm (CUP 14, Map 152; CUP 15, Map 152; CUP 2, Map 153; Approved on March 27, 2014) which would allow for O&M facilities at alternative locations on the Springbok 1 Site. In addition, the applicant is requesting a GPA to the Circulation Element of the Kern County General Plan to remove section and mid-section lines within the Springbok 1 project as future road reservations. The applicant also is requesting an increase in the amount of construction water from the previously analyzed 50 acre-feet to 200 acre-feet. The project includes the following components: Solar fields on each of the three sites totaling 1.5 million glare-resistant PV solar modules. Electrical poles or towers, typically 80 to 150 feet tall, located between collector substation(s) and transmission substation(s). A system of collection and supply power lines, and/or underground distribution cables, located between inverters and substation(s). Up to three collector substations for collecting solar generation and stepping up voltage to transmission levels (each typically 100,000 square feet). Up to 350 equipment pads (one per MW, each typically 675 square feet and 15 feet tall). Up to three O&M buildings (each typically 22,500 square feet and 16 feet tall). Up to three above-ground water tanks (up to 50,000 gallons each). Infrastructure including driveways and fencing (up to eight-foot-tall chain link and/or wildlifeappropriate wire fencing, potentially topped with barbed wire ) 6.4 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration Alternatives may be eliminated from detailed consideration in an EIR if they fail to meet most of the project objectives, are infeasible, or do not avoid or substantially reduce any significant environmental effects (CEQA Guidelines, Section [f][2]). Kern County considered several alternatives to reduce the project s impacts on aesthetics, agriculture, air quality, and biological resources. Per CEQA, the lead agency may make an initial determination as to which alternatives are feasible and warrant further consideration and which are infeasible. The following alternatives were initially considered but were eliminated from further consideration in this EIR because they do not meet project objectives or are infeasible. 6 5

6 Wind Energy Project Alternative The Wind Energy Project Alternative would involve the use of wind energy as an alternative to development of solar sites. As with solar power, power from the wind is an alternative to energy production from coal, oil, or nuclear sources. Wind energy provides the following benefits: It is a renewable and infinite resource. It is free of any emissions, including carbon dioxide (GHG). It is a free resource after the capital cost of installation (excluding maintenance). In addition, energy production from wind power would not require the significant water usage associated with coal, nuclear, and combined-cycle sources. Turbines used in wind farms for commercial production of electric power are usually three-bladed units that are pointed into the wind by computer-controlled motors. The wind farm would consist of a group of wind turbines placed where electrical power is produced. The individual turbines would be interconnected with a medium-voltage power collection system and a communications network. At a substation, the medium-voltage electrical current would be increased through a transformer before connection to the high-voltage transmission system. Compared with traditional energy sources, the environmental effects of wind power are relatively minor. However, unlike the proposed project, wind turbines would have the potential to affect avian species in the local area during project operation. As noted above, some of the project objectives for the proposed project are to develop a solar facility that will help meet the increasing demand for clean, renewable electrical power as well as help California meet its statutory and regulatory goals of generating more renewable power with minimum potential for environmental effects and land use conflicts; and co-locate solar power plant facility in order to maximize use of land and minimize the cost of providing solar renewable energy. Alternatives may be eliminated from detailed consideration in an EIR if they fail to meet most of the project objectives, are infeasible, or do not avoid or substantially reduce significant environmental effects. This alternative was eliminated from further consideration because: It would substantially increase the significant aesthetic impacts to scenic vistas associated with the proposed project because wind turbines would be much taller than solar panels and more visible from many viewpoints. It would result in additional/greater biological resources impacts than the proposed project. It would generate long-term noise impacts to nearby sensitive receptors from rotating turbine blades. The proposed project area is not the most conducive to wind production and would not generate as much electricity as solar equipment. Industrial Power Plant Alternative This alternative would involve the development of a natural gas-fired power plant or plants (equivalent to 150 MW) in Kern County. Fossil fuel powered plants are designed on a large scale for continuous operation. However, byproducts of industrial power plant operation need to be considered in both design and operation. Sometimes waste heat that results from the finite efficiency of the power cycle, when not 6 6

7 recovered and used as steam or hot water, must be released to the atmosphere, often using a cooling tower as a cooling medium, especially for condensing steam. The flue gas from combustion of the fossil fuels is discharged to the air and contains carbon dioxide and water vapor as well as other substances, such as nitrogen, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur oxides. Unlike the proposed project, fossil fuel powered plants are major emitters of GHGs. In addition, industrial power plants generally involve the construction of large structures, such as cooling towers and gas stacks, as well as a large number of employees to operate the facility on a 24/7 basis, 365 days a year. Accordingly, the development of an industrial power plant would typically result in greater adverse impacts related to (1) air quality and GHG emissions, (2) aesthetics and the local visual setting of the project area, (3) land use and planning conflicts with the rural agricultural designation of the surrounding area, (4) noise from the plant operations, (5) traffic from increased employment at the facility, and (6) demand on public utilities, including water and waste disposal. As noted above, some of the project proponents objectives for the proposed project are to develop a solar facility that will help meet the increasing demand for clean, renewable electrical power as well as help California meet its statutory and regulatory goals of generating more renewable power with minimum potential for environmental effects and land use conflicts. Alternatives may be eliminated from detailed consideration in an EIR if they fail to meet most of the project objectives, are infeasible, or do not avoid or substantially reduce significant environmental effects. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration because: It would result in additional/greater impacts than the proposed project (air quality, GHG emissions, aesthetics, land use and planning, noise, traffic, and public utilities,). Depending on siting, this alternative may also result in greater biological resources impacts than the project. Alternative Site Alternative This alternative would involve the development of the proposed project on another site located within Kern County. Although undetermined at this time, the alternative project site would likely remain in the Antelope Valley region of the County, similar to the proposed project. This alternative is assumed to involve 1,350 acres of land on which a 350 MW solar PV electrical generating facility would be developed. While other large areas of land could be found, based on the known general conditions in the area and the magnitude of the proposal, an alternative site in the area is likely to have the same significant impacts after mitigation as the project: aesthetics, agricultural, air quality, biological resources, and noise. In addition, an alternative site for the project is not considered to be potentially feasible, as there is no suitable sites that would reduce project impacts within the control of the project applicant. Given the size of the proposed project and the project objectives, this alternative was eliminated because it is not potentially feasible and would not avoid or substantially reduce the significant environmental effects of the proposed project. 6.5 Alternatives Selected for Analysis A range of alternatives with the potential to attain most of the basic objectives of the proposed project but avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts is analyzed below. Each alternative is discussed in relation to the objectives of the proposed project. The Environmentally Superior Alternative, as required 6 7

8 by CEQA, is described below in the Environmentally Superior Alternative section. The following alternatives are analyzed in detail: Alternative A: No Project Alternative Alternative B: Reduced Project Alternative Alternative C: No Ground-Mounted Utility-Scale Solar Development Alternative Distributed Commercial and Industrial Rooftop Solar Only Alternative D: Buildout of the Existing General Plan and Zoning No General Plan and Zoning Amendment Alternative Table 6-1 provides a summary of the relative impacts and feasibility of each alternative and Table 6-2 provides a summary side-by-side comparison of the potential impacts of the alternatives and the proposed project. A complete discussion of each alternative is provided below. Table 6-1. Summary of Development Alternatives Alternative Description Basis for Selection and Summary of Analysis Proposed Project Alternative A: No Project Alternative Alternative B: Reduced Project Alternative Facilities covering a total of 1,350 acres Would generate up to 350 MW of electricity No development would occur on the project sites Sites would remain as undeveloped land Removal of Sons Ranch Sites 1 and 2 from the project area elimination of the 690 acres Development of up to 150 MW of a solar electric generating facility and N/A Required by CEQA Avoids all significant impacts Reduced impact to Williamson Act Contracts and Agricultural Preserves Reduced impact to visual resources Reduced noise impacts Reduced construction-related air quality impacts Alternative C: No Ground-Mounted Utility- Scale Solar Development Distributed Commercial and Industrial Rooftop Solar Only Alternative D: Buildout of Existing General Plan and Zoning No General Plan and Zoning Amendment Alternative CUP = Conditional Use Permit 350 MW of PV solar distributed on rooftops throughout region The project sites would be developed to the maximum intensity allowed under the Kern County zoning, and land use The existing zoning and land use designations would remain The existing midsection road lines would remain Avoids need for CUP for solar facility Avoids significant impacts to aesthetics and noise Reduces impacts to biological resources Reduction in construction related impacts (air quality, noise, traffic, etc.) A form of the required No-Project Alternative Avoids/minimizes significant impacts on aesthetics 6 8

9 Table 6-2: Comparison of Alternatives Alternative C: No Ground-Mounted Solar Development Distributed Commercial and Industrial Rooftop Solar Only Alternative D: Buildout of the Existing General Plan and Zoning No General Plan and Zoning Amendment Alternative A: Alternative B: Environmental Resource Proposed Project No Project Reduced Project Aesthetics Significant and unavoidable Fewer Fewer Fewer Fewer Agricultural Resources Significant and unavoidable Fewer Fewer Fewer Fewer Air Quality Significant and unavoidable Fewer Fewer Fewer Greater Biological Resources Significant and unavoidable (cumulative only) Fewer Fewer Fewer Greater Cultural Resources Less than significant with mitigation Fewer Fewer Fewer Fewer Geology and Soils Less than significant with mitigation Fewer Similar Similar Greater Greenhouse Gas Emissions Less than Significant with mitigation Greater Fewer Fewer Greater Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less than significant with mitigation Fewer Fewer Fewer Similar Hydrology and Water Quality Less than Significant with mitigation Fewer Fewer Greater Greater Land Use and Planning Less than significant with mitigation Fewer Fewer Fewer Fewer Mineral Resources Less than significant Fewer Similar Fewer Fewer Noise Significant and unavoidable (cumulative only) Fewer Fewer Fewer Fewer Public Services Less than significant with mitigation Fewer Fewer Fewer Greater Traffic and Transportation Less than significant with mitigation Fewer Fewer Fewer Greater Utilities and Service Systems Less than significant with mitigation Fewer Fewer Similar Greater Meet Project Objectives? Yes No Some No No Reduce Significant and Unavoidable Impacts? N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Fremont Preservation Project 6 9 September 2013

10 Alternative A: No Project Alternative Pursuant to Section (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the No Project Alternative shall: discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. Under the No Project Alternative, the existing land uses on the project sites would continue to operate as they do under current conditions. The existing land uses, including undeveloped land, would continue. In addition, existing ancillary structures, such as the roadways providing access to the project area, would remain in their current capacity and existing road reservations along section and mid-section lines would continue to exist. The undeveloped setting of the project sites, with strewn debris from previous uses, would continue for an indefinite period and no physical changes within the project sites would occur. The No Project Alternative would maintain the current zoning and land use designations. Impacts Compared to Project Impacts The following compares environmental impacts associated with the No Project Alternative to those identified for the proposed project. Aesthetics Under the No Project Alternative, the project sites would remain undeveloped, and would retain their current character. Solar panels would not be placed on the sites; and therefore, no views of the sites from surrounding areas would be altered. No new nighttime security lighting would be installed, and no potential glare would occur from reflection of solar panels. The viewshed would remain the same. Thus, there would be no significant and unavoidable aesthetics impacts under the No Project alternative. Air Quality In contrast to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would not generate construction emissions that would result in a cumulatively significant impact on air quality in the area. Under this alternative no construction would occur, and impacts related to air quality would also not occur. Biological Resources Under this alternative, there would be no potential for disturbance of sensitive or endangered species and natural habitats because no construction or operation activities would occur. Thus, there would be no activities that would contribute to a cumulatively significant and unavoidable impact to biological resources under this alternative. Cultural Resources Under the No Project Alternative, the project sites would not be disturbed to install solar panels. There would be no potential for disturbance or damage to cultural resources (historic, archaeological, or paleontological) at or near the project sites, and impacts would not have the potential to occur. 6 10

11 Geology and Soils No construction work or activities would occur under the No Project Alternative, and people or structures would not be exposed to adverse impacts resulting from potential geologic or seismic hazards. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Unlike the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would not involve the construction or operation of a solar facility. Therefore, heavy equipment operation, truck deliveries, and trips by commuting construction workers would not result from this alternative. Construction emissions that contribute to GHGs would be eliminated. However, the potential offset or displacement of GHGs from operation of the proposed solar power generating facility, compared with traditional gas- or coal-fired power plants, would not be realized. Therefore, GHG impacts from this alternative would be greater than those of the proposed project. Hazards and Hazardous Materials In contrast to the proposed project, under the No Project Alternative, the project sites would remain undeveloped land, and no construction or operational activities would occur. No new hazardous materials would be introduced to the project sites; therefore, no impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials would occur. Hydrology and Water Quality Under this alternative, no construction would occur that could alter on-site drainage patterns, and potential water quality impacts from construction activities would not occur. Land Use and Planning This alternative would be consistent with the zoning and general plan land use designations for the project sites and the surrounding area. As a result, this alternative would not require a CUP for the sites, General Plan Amendment (GPA), or Zone Change (ZCC). Mineral Resources Under this alternative, there would be no construction or operation of the proposed project. As a result, no impacts to mineral resources would occur. Noise In contrast to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would not create short-term noise from construction of solar generating facilities from heavy equipment operation, truck deliveries, and worker commute trips. As a result, no impacts related to noise would occur, which is less than the significant unavoidable impacts that would result from the proposed project. Public Services Because no project would be constructed, no new demand for fire or police protection services would occur. 6 11

12 Transportation and Traffic In contrast with the proposed project, there would be no construction associated with the No Project Alternative. Therefore, there would be no potential to affect traffic volumes on nearby roadways as a result of construction-related activities. Utilities and Service Systems Under the No Project Alternative there would be no construction of a solar facility. Therefore, no impacts to utilities and services systems would occur. Conclusion and Relationship to Project Objectives The No Project Alternative would avoid some of the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed project; including those to air quality, noise and aesthetics. However, this alternative would result in greater GHG emissions impacts than the proposed project, because the potential offset or displacement of GHGs from operation of the solar power generating facility, compared with traditional gas- or coal-fired power plants, would not be realized. Furthermore, this alternative would not achieve any of the project objectives listed above in Section 6.2, such as offsetting energy generated from fossil fuels or helping to achieve California s renewable energy goals. Alternative B: Reduced Project Alternative Alternative B, the Reduced Project Alternative consists of removal of Sons Ranch Sites 1 and 2 from the project area. The Sons Ranch Sites 1 and 2 are acres; and removal of this area would reduce the project acreage by approximately 50 percent to a total of acres. Sons Ranch Sites 1 and 2 were selected for removal in this alternative because the project would result in the most significant and unavoidable impacts related to the improvements on the Sons Ranch Sites. Sons Ranch Sites 1 and 2 has the largest number of nearby sensitive receptors (residences) that would be impacted by noise, changes to views, and air quality impacts from project activities. Solar facility infrastructure located on the Sons Ranch Sites 1 and 2 would significantly alter existing views from the Jawbone Station Visitor Center, which would result in a significant impact to a scenic vista. In addition, Sons Ranch Site is currently under a Williamson Act Contract and within Agricultural Preserve No. 17, which would be impacted from the proposed project. The Reduced Project Alternative would not develop the following proposed solar facility infrastructure on the Sons Ranch Sites 1 and 2 which would include two substations, two O&M buildings, and up to 200 MW PV of solar panels and associated facilities Impacts Compared to Project Impacts The following compares environmental impacts associated with the Reduced Project Alternative to those identified for the proposed project. Aesthetics This alternative would result in fewer impacts to aesthetics compared to the proposed project. Under this alternative the Sons Ranch Sites, which are acres, would remain undeveloped, and no viewshed 6 12

13 including this site would be altered. This includes scenic views from the Jawbone Station Visitor Center, which would not be altered with implementation of the Reduced Project Alternative. Therefore, implementation of this alternative would eliminate the significant impact to the scenic vista from the Jawbone Station Visitor Center. Therefore, the elimination of Sons Ranch Sites 1 and 2 by Alternative B would reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts that would be created by the proposed project for this site. However, impacts to the visual character of the remainder of the project sites would occur and cumulative impacts associated with the overall change of the landscape from open space to PV panels would remain significant and unavoidable. Agriculture and Forest Resources The Sons Ranch Sites, which includes acres of land that is within a Williamson Act and Agricultural Preserve, would not be developed under Alternative B. This would reduce the amount of Williamson Act and Agricultural Preserve land that would be impacted by the project. As a result, implementation of this alternative would create fewer impacts on agricultural resources than the proposed project; however, impacts related to the loss of agricultural lands would remain significant and unavoidable. Air Quality As compared to the proposed project, less severe construction emissions would occur under this alternative because Sons Ranch Sites 1 and 2 which contain acres, would not be developed. The use of construction vehicles, heavy equipment operation, and worker carpool trips would be reduced and would only occur at the other site, therefore, the project would create fewer emissions over the smaller project area, thus reducing air quality impacts. Thus, impacts under this alternative would be less than those of the proposed project. Biological Resources Under this alternative, there would be less potential for disturbance of sensitive or endangered species, and less loss of habitat than with the proposed project because no construction or operational activities would occur on Sons Ranch Sites 1 and 2. However, cumulative loss of habitat for special status species would still occur. Thus, like the proposed project, there would be significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts on biological resources under this alternative although these impacts would be less severe than those for the proposed project. Cultural Resources With no construction on the Sons Ranch Sites 1 and 2, unknown cultural resources would not be disturbed or discovered within this acre area. Therefore, this alternative would result in less potential of an impact to unknown cultural resources than the proposed project. The cultural resource impacts that are anticipated to under the proposed project would still occur by this alternative, but overall this alternative would result in fewer impacts to cultural resources compared to the proposed project. Geology and Soils This alternative would result in less severe impacts to geology and soils and would reduce human and structural exposure to geologic hazards compared to the proposed project. The geology and soils impacts 6 13

14 identified for the proposed project would not occur on the Sons Ranch Sites 1 and 2, which is acres, but would still occur on the other sites; thus this alternative would result in similar impacts on geology and soils. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under this alternative, less-severe construction-related GHG emissions would occur because Sons Ranch Sites 1 and 2, which are acres would not be developed. However, the 200 MW of energy that would be generated on Sons Ranch Sites 1 and 2 would have to be generated by another power generating facility to meet California s energy demand, and the alternative energy generator (likely a fossil-fuel power plant) would emit more GHGs than the proposed project. Overall, this alternative would result in a more severe GHG impact than the proposed project. Hazards and Hazardous Materials With no construction on Sons Ranch Sites 1 and 2, people and adjacent properties would not be exposed to the hazards and hazardous materials that may be present at this portion of the site. Hazards and hazardous materials impacts that are anticipated to occur by the proposed project would continue to occur on the Homes Ranch Site, but overall this alternative would result in a less potential impacts on hazards and hazardous materials than the proposed project. Hydrology and Water Quality This alternative would have fewer impacts to hydrology and water quality than the proposed project because Sons Ranch Sites 1 and 2 would not be developed. However, because Sons Ranch Sites 1 and 2 would remain unchanged and the drainage and runoff patterns would not be impacted under this alternative, impacts related to drainage and erosion from construction of this alternative would be less than those of the proposed project. Land Use and Planning This alternative would have fewer impacts on land use and planning compared to the proposed project. Sons Ranch Sites 1 and 2 would continue to conform to the General Plan s land use designation and County zoning and would not require a CUP, GPA, or ZCC. Therefore, this alternative would have fewer land use and planning impacts compared to the proposed project. The impacts anticipated by the proposed project would occur on the Homes Ranch Site by this alternative. Mineral Resources This alternative would have fewer impacts to mineral resources than the proposed project because Sons Ranch Sites 1 and 2 would not be developed. However, no mineral resource impacts are anticipated under the proposed project. Hence, impacts related to mineral resources by this alternative would be the same those of the proposed project. Noise With no construction on the Sons Ranch Sites 1 and 2, sensitive receptors in the Rancho Seco subdivision would not be exposed to the significant construction noise impacts of the project. Therefore, Alternative 6 14

15 B would not result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to noise, and would result in less noise impacts than the proposed project. Public Services With the elimination of Sons Ranch Sites 1 and 2, this alternative would reduce the project s need for fire and police protection services. Therefore, this alternative would result in fewer impacts on public services compared to the proposed project. Transportation and Traffic This alternative would result in fewer construction- and operations-related traffic impacts because the alternative would require less construction equipment and materials transport during the construction phase and a reduced level of maintenance and panel washing during the operational phase. Additionally, all of the project-related traffic would travel to the Homes Ranch Site, and would not impact the roadways around the Sons Ranch Sites 1 and 2. Therefore, this alternative would result in fewer impacts on transportation and traffic than the proposed project. Utilities and Service Systems This alternative would not develop the Sons Ranch Sites 1 and 2. As a result, this alternative would use less water during construction and operation. Therefore, water supply impacts from this alternative would be fewer than those of the proposed project. This alternative would also result in a reduced amount of solid waste needing transport to local landfills as acres of the project area would not be developed. Impacts related to solid waste would be fewer than the proposed project, but would remain less than significant. Conclusion and Relationship to Project Objectives Alternative B involves a smaller project and would reduce significant impacts related to construction noise to a less than significant level. However, Alternative B but would still result in significant and unavoidable project level aesthetic, air quality, and agricultural impacts; and contribute to cumulatively significant and unavoidable impacts on aesthetics, air quality, agricultural, and biological resources. Additionally, this alternative would not realize the same GHG emissions reductions. Although this alternative would achieve some of the project objectives, it would not achieve the goals of developing facilities to produce the proposed amount of clean electricity to help achieve California s renewable energy goals. This alternative would meet the objective of locating the facility in a low impact, rural part of the southeastern Kern County in proximity to an available connection to the existing electrical distribution infrastructure; minimizing environmental impacts by using existing electrical distribution facilities; reducing GHG emissions; and using technology that is available, proven, efficient, and easily maintained, recyclable, and environmentally sound. This alternative would also provide potential educational opportunities in Kern County concerning the benefits of renewable energy, but would not achieve the project objectives of generating 350 MW of solar PV power 6 15

16 Alternative C: No Ground Mounted Utility Scale Solar Development and Injection Well Only Alternative Distributed Commercial and Industrial Rooftop Solar Only and No Percolation Basins Alternative This alternative would involve the development of a number of geographically distributed small to medium solar PV systems (100 kilowatts to 1 MW) within existing developed properties, on the rooftops of commercial and industrial facilities throughout Kern County. Under this alternative, no agricultural 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 1,350 acres of total rooftop area) may be required to attain the project operator s project objective of 350 MW of solar PV generating capacity. Utility-scale solar installations typically use thin-film solar technology, which currently has half the power density, or PV electrical generating capacity (watts per square foot), compared with crystalline solar technology, which is often used in smaller residential and commercial rooftop installations. 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. This objective would enable the generation of 350 MW of electricity but it would be for use by the sites with the panels (to meet on-site demand) only. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would be designed to operate year-round using an array of PV modules 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. Impacts Compared to Project Impacts The following compares environmental impacts associated with the No Ground-Mounted Utility-Scale Solar Development Distributed Commercial and Industrial Rooftop Solar Only. Aesthetics This alternative would reduce aesthetics impacts compared to the proposed project. Under this alternative, undeveloped land would not be developed to accommodate solar panels, but rather existing developed areas would be modified. In many cases, the installation of solar panels on large rooftops would be visually unobtrusive or unnoticeable from receptors at ground level. In other circumstances, the installation of rooftop solar panels may be visible, but would not likely affect the visual character or scenic quality of an area. The exceptions may be if rooftop solar panels were proposed on historic buildings, which could affect the historic character and integrity of the buildings. Implementation of this alternative may require historic surveys and investigations to evaluate the eligibility of potentially historic structures that are over 50 years old, and either avoidance of such buildings, or incorporation of design measures to minimize impacts on historic integrity of historically significant structures. This alternative would reduce aesthetics impacts associated with the solar components of the proposed project from significant and unavoidable to less than significant. 6 16

17 Agriculture and Forest Resources This alternative would reduce impacts on agriculture compared to the proposed project. This alternative would install solar panels on buildings and not on Williamson Act Contract and Agricultural Preserve lands. Because this alternative would not use Williamson Act or Agricultural Preserve land for solar generating facilities, it would largely reduce the significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project. Air Quality This alternative would reduce impacts on air quality compared to the proposed project. Under this alternative, the solar facility would not be developed on the project sites and only developed areas would be modified with solar facility infrastructure. No construction activities or ground disturbance related to solar panels would occur. The vehicular mobile-source emissions from commuting workers associated with installation of solar equipment under this alternative would be similar to the construction worker trip emissions generated by the proposed project. Due to the reduction in ground disturbance related construction activities, air quality impacts under this alternative would be less than those of the proposed project, but may still be cumulatively considerable significant. Biological Resources This alternative would reduce impacts on biological resources compared to the proposed project. Under this alternative, the solar facility infrastructure would not be installed on the project sites. The currently developed areas used for the solar facility under this alternative would be unlikely to provide habitat for threatened and endangered species. As a result, this alternative would reduce the potential for disturbance of on-site sensitive or endangered species, and cumulative impacts to biological resources would be reduced in comparison to the proposed project. Therefore, impacts to biological resources under this alternative would be less than those of the proposed project. Cultural Resources This alternative would reduce impacts on cultural resources compared to the proposed project. Under this alternative, the solar facility would not be installed on the project sites. Therefore, this alternative would reduce the potential for disturbance or damage to cultural resources (historic, archaeological, and paleontological) at or near the sites. If rooftop solar were proposed on historic buildings, the alternative could affect the historic character and integrity of the buildings. Implementation of this alternative would require historic surveys and investigations to evaluate the eligibility of potentially historic structures that are over 50 years old, and either avoidance of such buildings, or incorporation of design measures to minimize impacts on historic integrity of historically-significant structures. Therefore, the potential impacts to cultural resources would be less than those of the proposed project. Geology and Soils This alternative would reduce impacts on geology and soils compared to the proposed project. This alternative would involve installation of solar equipment on existing structures and would not require new, in-ground construction. These installations would only minimally expose people or structures to 6 17

18 adverse impacts resulting from geologic or seismic hazards, which is similar to the proposed project. Thus, potential impact on geology and soils would be similar to those of the proposed project. Greenhouse Gas Emissions This alternative would reduce GHG emissions compared to the proposed project. Unlike the proposed project, this alternative would involve minor assembly activities without substantial construction emissions from operation of construction vehicles, trucks and other heavy grading and site preparation activities. Therefore, construction emissions that contribute to GHGs would be significantly reduced or avoided. Trips by commuting workers to install rooftop equipment would be spread out over a larger area when compared with construction worker trip emissions of the proposed project, which would be on the project sites, and potential impacts would be lower. During project operation, the potential offsets or displacement of GHGs, compared to traditional gas- or coal-fired power plants, would be realized to the same degree as they would under the proposed project because of similar renewable power generating potential. Thus, GHG impacts from this alternative would be less than those of the proposed project. Hazards and Hazardous Materials This alternative would reduce hazards and hazardous materials impacts compared to the proposed project. In contrast to the proposed project, under this alternative, the solar facility would not be developed on the project sites. As a result, less construction activities would occur that could potentially disturb hazardous materials in the soil. The installation rooftop solar equipment may involve the minimal use of chemicals, including fuels, solvents, paint, lubricants, and other potentially hazardous materials. However, as with the proposed project, standard best management practices (BMPs) would ensure that exposure to potentially hazardous materials used or found on the sites would be reduced or minimized. Therefore, the potential impact from hazards and hazardous materials would be less than impacts of the proposed project. Hydrology and Water Quality This alternative would reduce impacts on hydrology compared to the proposed project. Under this alternative, no solar related construction would occur on the project sites. Therefore, the potential impact on water quality would be less than that of the proposed project. Land Use and Planning Installation of rooftop solar would be consistent with current zoning as well as existing land use plans, policies, and regulations. This alternative would also achieve the County s goals and policies relative to accommodating renewable energy facilities. Impacts would be less than those of the proposed project. Mineral Resources This alternative would reduce impacts on mineral resources compared to the proposed project. Under this alternative, only developed areas would be modified for the solar facility. As a result, there would be a reduced potential for disturbance of mineral resources over those of the proposed project. 6 18