Notice of Preparation - Lerdo Detention Facility Expansion Project

Transcription

PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AGENCY
Engineering, Surveying and Permit Services
Planning and Community Development
Roads
Lorelei H. Oviatt, AICP, Director
2700 "M" STREET, SUITE 100
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301-2323
Phone: (661) 862-8600
FAX: (661) 862-8601 TTY Relay 1-800-735-2929
E-Mail: [email protected]
Web Address: www.co.kern.ca.us/planning
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
DATE: February 8, 2013
To:
See Attached Mailing List
SUBJECT:
FROM: Kern County Planning & Community
Development Department
Attn: Jaymie L. Brauer
2700 “M” Street, Suite 100
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 862-8629
NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The Kern County Planning and Community Development Department as Lead Agency (per the California Environmental
Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines Section 15052) has required that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (per CEQA
Guidelines Section 15161) be prepared for the project identified below. The Planning and Community Development
Department solicits the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information, which is
germane to your agency’s statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to
use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval of projects.
Due to the limits mandated by State law, your response must be received by March 11, 2013 at 5 pm. In addition,
comments can be submitted at a scoping meeting that will be held at the Kern County Planning and Community
Development Department on Friday, March 1, 2013 at 1:30 pm at the address shown above.
PROJECT TITLE: Lerdo Detention Facility Expansion Project by the Kern County Sheriff’s Office (PP13224)
(EIR 06-12 JLB ); Conditional Use Permit 48, Map 81
PROJECT LOCATION: The Kern County Sheriff’s Lerdo jail complex is located at 17801 Industrial Farm Road,
approximately 2.5 miles east of State Route 99 (SR-99) and 1.5 miles west of State Route 65 (SR-65), roughly 3 miles
southeast of the City of Shafter and 5 miles northeast of the City of Bakersfield.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project includes an application for approval of a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP 48, Map 81), to allow for the expansion of the existing Lerdo Detention Facility. Construction and operation of a
“community or regional correctional and similar involuntary detention facility” requires approval of a CUP pursuant to
Chapter 19.12.030.I of the Kern County Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the project proponent proposes to expand the
current detention facility (also referred herein as the jail complex). Implementation of the project includes the
construction of new, ancillary buildings, as well as the upgrade and expansion of the existing on-site water system and
wastewater treatment and disposal facility. The total proposed on-site expansion area is approximately 26.5 acres. The
Lerdo jail complex encompasses six parcels totaling about 297.6 acres, as well as a 35-acre undeveloped parcel
immediately south of Lerdo Highway, portions of which will be used for wastewater disposal. The project would result in
a total of 822 new beds for housing inmates, 194 new employees and 47 additional average daily visitors. A total of an
additional 241 employees/visitors are expected to access the project site per day.
Signature:
________________________
Title:
Jaymie L. Brauer, Planner III
(661) 862-8629
[email protected]
CUP #48, Map #81
WO #PP13224
I:\WP\LABELS\eir06-12jlb.nop.doc
Sc 01/25/13
ACLU of Southern California
1313 West 8th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
City of Arvin
P.O. Box 548
Arvin, CA 93203
Bakersfield City Planning Dept
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield City Public Works Dept
1501 Chester Avenue
California City Planning Dept
21000 Hacienda Blvd.
California City, CA 93515
Delano City Planning Dept
P.O. Box 3010
Delano, CA 93216
City of Maricopa
P.O. Box 548
Maricopa, CA 93252
City of McFarland
401 West Kern Avenue
McFarland, CA 93250
City of Ridgecrest
100 West California Avenue
Ridgecrest, CA 93555
City of Shafter
336 Pacific Avenue
Shafter, CA 93263
City of Taft
Planning & Building
209 East Kern Street
Taft, CA 93268
City of Tehachapi
115 South Robinson Street
Tehachapi, CA 93561-1722
City of Wasco
764 E Street
Wasco, CA 93280
Inyo County Planning Dept
P.O. Drawer "L"
Independence, CA 93526
Kings County Planning Agency
1400 West Lacey Blvd, Bldg 6
Hanford, CA 93230
Los Angeles Co Reg Planning Dept
320 West Temple Street
San Bernardino Co Planning Dept
385 North Arrowhead Avenue, 1st Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0182
San Luis Obispo Co Planning Dept
Planning and Building
976 Osos Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
Santa Barbara Co Resource Mgt Dept
123 East Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tulare County Planning & Dev Dept
5961 South Mooney Boulevard
Visalia, CA 93291
Ventura County RMA Planning Div
800 South Victoria Avenue, L1740
Ventura, CA 93009-1740
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Caliente/Bakersfield
3801 Pegasus Drive
Bakersfield, CA 93308-6837
Federal Aviation Administration
Western Reg Office/
Airport Div - AWP 600
P.O. Box 92007
U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Division of Ecological Services
2800 Cottage Way #W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
North West Kern Resource Cons Dist
5000 California Avenue, Suite 100
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX Office
75 Hawthorn Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
U.S. Dept of Agriculture/NRCS
5000 California Avenue, Ste 100
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 997
Lake Isabella, CA 93240
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
1325 "J" Street, #1350
State Air Resources Board
Stationary Resource Division
P.O. Box 2815
Sacramento, CA 95812
So. San Joaquin Valley Arch Info Ctr
California State University of Bkfd
9001 Stockdale Highway
Caltrans/Dist 6
Planning/Land Bank Bldg.
P.O. Box 12616
Fresno, CA 93778
State Clearinghouse
Office of Planning and Research
P.O. Box 3044
CERTIFIED MAIL
State Dept of Conservation
Director's Office
801 "K" Street, MS 24-01
Division of Oil & Gas
4800 Stockdale Highway, Ste 417
Office of Land Conservation
801 "K" Street, MS 18-01
California Fish & Wildlife
1234 East Shaw Avenue
Fresno, CA 93710
California Highway Patrol
Planning & Analysis Division
P.O. Box 942898
Integrated Waste Management
P.O. Box 4025, MS #15
California Regional Water Quality
Control Board/Central Valley Region
1685 E Street
Fresno, CA 93706-2020
State Dept of Toxic Substance Control
Environmental Protection Agency
1515 Tollhouse Road
Clovis, CA 93612
State Department of Toxic
Substances Control
8800 Cal Center Drive
State Dept of Water Resources
San Joaquin Dist.
3374 East Shields Avenue, Room A-7
Fresno, CA 93726
Kern County Airports Department
Kern County Engineering, Surveying,
& Permit Svs/Floodplain
Kern County Engineering, Surveying,
& Permit Svs/Survey
Kern County
Env Health Services Department
Kern County Fire Dept
Brian Marshall, Fire Chief
Benny Wofford
Dave Goodell
Kern County Library/Beale
Local History Room
Kern County Library/Beale
Sherry Gomez
Kern County Library
Shafter Branch
236 James Street
Shafter, CA 93263
Kern County Sheriff's Dept
Administration
Kern County Roads Department
Richland-Lerdo Union School Dist
331 Shafter Avenue
Shafter, CA 93263
Beardsley School Dist
1001 Roberts Lane
Kern County
Waste Management Department
McFarland Unified School Dist
601 Second Street
McFarland, CA 93250
Kern High School Dist
5801 Sundale Avenue
Kern County Superintendent of Schools
Attention Mary Baker
1300 17th Street
KernCOG
1401 19th Street - Suite 300
Local Agency Formation Comm/LAFCO
5300 Lennox Avenue, Suite 303
Cawelo Water Dist
17207 Industrial Farm Road
North Kern Water Storage Dist
P.O. Box 81435
McFarland Recreation Dist
100 South 2nd Street
McFarland, CA 93250
Public Utilities Comm Energy Div
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
North of the River Rec & Parks Dist
405 Galaxy Avenue
San Joaquin Valley
Air Pollution Control District
1990 East Gettysburg Avenue
Fresno, CA 93726
Kern Mosquito Abatement Dist
4705 Allen Road
Bakersfield Municipal Airport
4101 Truxtun Avenue
Minter Field Airport District
201 Aviation Street
Shafter, CA 93263
Adams, Broadwell, Joseph & Cardozo
Attention: Janet M. Laurain
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Kern Audubon Society
P.O. Box 3581
Center on Race, Poverty
& the Environmental
47 Kearny Street, Suite 804
San Francisco, CA 94108-5528
Center on Race, Poverty
& the Environmental/
CA Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
1012 Jefferson Street
Delano, CA 93215
Communities for a Better Environment
1904 Franklin Street, Suite 600
Oakland, CA 94612-2922
Defenders of Wildlife/
Cynthia Wilkerson, M.S.
California Representative
1303 "J" Street, Suite 270
Native American Heritage Council
of Kern County/Fay Van Horn
P.O. Box 1507
Pacific Gas & Electric Co
Land Projects
650 "O" Street, First Floor
Fresno, CA 93760-0001
Southern California Gas Co
1510 North Chester Avenue
Southern California Gas Co
Transportation Dept
9400 Oakdale Avenue
Chatsworth, CA 91313-6511
Chumash Council of Bakersfield
P.O. Box 902
David Laughing Horse Robinson
P.O. Box 1547
Kernville, CA 93238
Kern Valley Indian Council
Attn: Bob Robinson
P.O. Box 1010
Kern Valley Indian Council
Historic Preservation Office
P.O. Box 401
Weldon, CA 93283
Santa Rosa Rancheria
Clarence Atwell, Chairperson
P.O. Box 8
Lemoore, CA 93245
Tejon Indian Tribe
Kathy Morgan, Chairperson
2234 4th Street
Wasco, CA 93280
Sierra Club/Kern Kaweah Chapter
Arthur Unger
***PUT IN BUCKET***
Kitanemuk & Yowlumne Tejon Indians
Chairperson
981 North Virginia
Corvina CA 91722
Tubatulabals of Kern County
Attn: Robert Gomez
P.O. Box 226
Tule River Indian Tribe
Neal Peyron, Chairperson
P.O. Box 589
Porterville, CA 93258
Cuddy Valley Statistical
11667 Steinhoff Road
Frazier Park, CA 93222
Charlene Aboytes
Board of State & Commission Correction
600 Bercut Drive
Darlene Maston, Mgr
California Dept of Corrections
Facility Planning
9838 Old Placerville Road, Ste B
Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal
Mail to: State Clearinghouse, P. O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 (916) 445-0613
For Hand Delivery/Street Address: 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
SCH #
Project Title: Lerdo Detention Facility Expansion Project by the Kern County Sheriff’s Office (PP13224) (EIR 06-12 JLB )
Lead Agency: Kern County Planning Department
Contact Person: Jaymie L. Brauer
Mailing Address: 2700 "M" Street Suite 100
Phone: (661) 862-8629
City: Bakersfield
Zip: 93301-2323
County: Kern
Project Location: County: Kern
City/Nearest Community: Shafter, Bakersfield
Cross Streets: Lerdo Highway, Industrial Farm Road, and Quality Road
Zip Code: 93308
Lat. / Long: 119° 6’46.6” W, 35°30’23.4” N
Total Acres:
332.6 ac
Assessor's Parcel No.: 481-030-24, -27, -71, -72, -73, -74, and 481-090-08
Section: 7 Twp.: 28 S Range: 27 E Base: MDB&M
Within 2 Miles:
State Hwy #: SR-99, SR-65
Waterways Beardsley Canal; Cawelo Canal; Friant-Kern Canal
Airports: N/A
Railways: N/A
Schools: N/A
Document Type:
CEQA:
NOP
Early Cons
Neg Dec
Mit Neg Dec
Draft EIR
Supplement/Subsequent EIR
(Prior SCH No.)
Other
Local Action Type:
General Plan Update
General Plan Amendment
General Plan Element
Community Plan
Development Type:
Residential: Units
Office:
Sq.ft.
Commercial: Sq.ft.
Industrial: Sq.ft.
Educational
Recreational
Specific Plan
Master Plan
Planned Unit Development
Site Plan
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Employees
Employees
Employees
NEPA:
NOI
EA
Draft EIS
FONSI
Other:
Rezone
Prezone
Use Permit
Land Division (Subdivision, etc.)
Joint Document
Final Document
Other
Annexation
Redevelopment
Coastal Permit
Other
Water Facilities: Type
Transportation: Type
Mining:
Mineral
Power:
Type
Waste Treatment: Type
MGD
Hazardous Waste: Type
Other: Correctional Facility (expansion of existing facility)
Project Issues Discussed in Document:
Aesthetic/Visual
Fiscal
Recreation/Parks
Agricultural Land
Flood Plain/Flooding
Schools/Universities
Air Quality
Forest Land/Fire Hazard
Septic Systems
Archeological/Historical
Geologic/Seismic
Sewer Capacity
Biological Resources
Minerals
Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading
Coastal Zone
Noise
Solid Waste
Drainage/Absorption
Population/Housing Balance
Toxic/Hazardous
Economic/Jobs
Public Services/Facilities
Traffic/Circulation
Other
Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Designation: A (Exclusive Agriculture) / 3.3 (Other Facilities)
Vegetation
Water Quality
Water Supply/Groundwater
Wetland/Riparian
Wildlife
Growth Inducing
Land Use
Cumulative Effects
Project Description: The proposed project includes an application for approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 48, Map 81), to
allow for the expansion of the existing Lerdo Detention Facility. Construction and operation of a “community or regional correctional
and similar involuntary detention facility” requires approval of a CUP pursuant to Chapter 19.12.030.I of the Kern County Zoning
Ordinance. Specifically, the project proponent proposes to expand the current detention facility (also referred herein as the jail
complex). Implementation of the project includes the construction of new, ancillary buildings, as well as the upgrade and expansion of
the existing on-site water system and wastewater treatment and disposal facility. The total proposed on-site expansion area is
approximately 26.5 acres. The Lerdo jail complex encompasses six parcels totaling about 297.6 acres, as well as a 35-acre
undeveloped parcel immediately south of Lerdo Highway, portions of which will be used for wastewater disposal. The project would
result in a total of 822 new beds for housing inmates, 194 new employees and 47 additional average daily visitors. A total of an
additional 241 employees/visitors are expected to access the project site per day.
Reviewing Agencies Checklist
Lead Agencies may recommend State Clearinghouse distribution by marking agencies below with and "X".
If you have already sent your document to the agency please denote that with an "S".
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Air Resources Board
Boating & Waterways, Department of
California Highway Patrol
CalFire
Caltrans District # 6
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics
Caltrans Planning (Headquarters)
Central Valley Flood Protection Board
Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy
Coastal Commission
Colorado River Board
Conservation, Department of
Corrections, Department of
Delta Protection Commission
Education, Department of
Energy Commission
Fish & Game Region # Fresno
Food & Agriculture, Department of
General Services, Department of
Health Services, Department of
Housing & Community Development
Integrated Waste Management Board
Native American Heritage Commission
S
S
Office of Emergency Services
Office of Historic Preservation
Office of Public School Construction
Parks & Recreation
Pesticide Regulation, Department of
Public Utilities Commission
Regional WQCB # Central
Resources Agency
S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission
San Gabriel & Lower L.A. Rivers and Mtns Conservancy
San Joaquin River Conservancy
Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
State Lands Commission
SWRCB: Clean Water Grants
SWRCB: Water Quality
SWRCB: Water Rights
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Toxic Substances Control, Department of
Water Resources, Department of
S
S
Other Army Corps of Engineers
Other
S
S
S
S
Local Public Review Period (to be filled in by lead agency)
Starting Date
February 8, 2013
Ending Date
March 11, 2013
Lead Agency (Complete if applicable):
Consulting Firm:
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Contact:
Phone:
Applicant:
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Phone:
Signature of Lead Agency Representative:
Date:
2/8/13
Jaymie L. Brauer, Planner 3
Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 21161, Public Resources Code.
INITIAL STUDY/NOTICE OF PREPARATION
Lerdo Detention Facility Expansion Project
By the Kern County Sheriff’s Office (PP 13224)
Conditional Use Permit No. 48, Map 81
LEAD AGENCY:
Kern County Planning and Community Development Department
2700 M Street, Suite 100
Contact: Ms. Jaymie L. Brauer
(661) 862-8629
[email protected]
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE BY:
RBF Consulting
4540 Duckhorn Drive, Suite 202,
February 2013
KERN COUNTY PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Lerdo Detention Facility Expansion
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
Project Description
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
2.
Project Location ..................................................................................................................... 1
Environmental Setting............................................................................................................ 7
Background and History ...................................................................................................... 10
Project Description ............................................................................................................... 12
Project Objectives ................................................................................................................ 16
Proposed Discretionary Actions/Required Approvals ......................................................... 17
Kern County Environmental Checklist Form (Environmental Determination)
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................................................................ 19
Determination....................................................................................................................... 19
3.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................. 22
Agriculture and Forest Resources ........................................................................................ 23
Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... 25
Biological Resources............................................................................................................ 28
Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................... 30
Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................ 31
Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................................. 33
Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................ 34
Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................................. 38
Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................................ 41
Mineral Resources................................................................................................................ 42
Noise .................................................................................................................................... 43
Population and Housing ....................................................................................................... 45
Public Services ..................................................................................................................... 46
Recreation ............................................................................................................................ 47
Transportation/Traffic .......................................................................................................... 48
Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................... 50
Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................................... 52
February 2013
i
Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
TABLES
Table 1
Existing Land Use Designation and Zoning of the Project Site ............................................. 7
Table 2
Existing Staffing .................................................................................................................. 10
Table 3
Proposed Jail Beds ............................................................................................................... 13
Table 4
New Staffing Requirements (Proposed)............................................................................... 15
FIGURES
Figure 1
Regional Vicinity ................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2
Project Vicinity ...................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 3
Project Boundaries ................................................................................................................. 4
Figure 4
Project Site – Assessor Parcel Numbers ................................................................................ 5
Figure 5
Project Site Plan ..................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 6
Existing General Plan Designations ....................................................................................... 8
Figure 7
Existing Zone Classifications ................................................................................................ 9
February 2013
ii
1.0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project includes an application for approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 48,
Map 81), to allow for the expansion of the existing Lerdo detention facility. Construction and
operation of a “community or regional correctional and similar involuntary detention facility”
requires approval of a CUP pursuant to Chapter 19.12.030.I of the Kern County Zoning
Ordinance. Specifically, the project proponent proposes to expand the current detention facility
(also referred herein as the jail complex). Implementation of the proposed project includes the
construction of new, ancillary buildings, as well as the upgrade and expansion of the existing onsite water system and wastewater treatment and disposal facility. The total proposed on-site
expansion area is approximately 26.5 acres (Figures 1, 2, and 3). The Lerdo jail complex
encompasses six parcels totaling about 297.6 acres, as well as a 35-acre undeveloped parcel
immediately south of Lerdo Highway, portions of which will be used for wastewater disposal
(Figures 4 and 5). The proposed project would result in a total of 822 new beds for housing
inmates, 194 new employees and 47 additional average daily visitors. A total of an additional
241 employees/visitors are expected to access the project site per day. Below, please see a
complete list of the project characteristics for the proposed expansion facilities.
Proposed Project Characteristics:

Construct an 822 bed, Type II (medium-maximum security) facility.

243,909 square feet of new construction including three separate buildings with the
following:

1.1
o
Three medium security housing pods
o
One special housing pod
o
Visitation area
o
Inmate property storage
o
Infirmary (medical and mental health services)
o
Support services area
o
Staff area
o
Administrative offices
o
Central plant
Upgrade and expansion of the existing on-site water supply system and wastewater
treatment and disposal facility
PROJECT LOCATION
The Kern County Sheriff’s Lerdo detention facility is located at 17801 Industrial Farm Road,
approximately 2.5 miles east of State Route 99 (SR-99) and 1.5 miles west of State Route 65 (SR65), roughly 3 miles southeast of the City of Shafter and 5 miles northeast of the City of
Bakersfield (Figures 1, 2, and 3).
The Lerdo jail complex encompasses six Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) totaling about 297.6
acres (Figure 4):


481-030-24: 35.9 acres
481-030-27: 30 acres
February 2013
1
Del
Norte
Siskiyou
Modoc
Humboldt
Shasta
Trinity
Sonoma
ter
Sut
Colusa
ba
Solano
Marin
San Francisco
Santa
Cruz
Santa
Clara
BEAR
Maricopa
58
223
MTN
166
BLVD
Arvin
202
Mettler
Mono
Tehachapi
California City
Mojave
58
Boron
Grapevine
Mariposa
Madera
Frazier Park
Fresno
San
Benito
14
99
Taft
s
a
er
Merced
178
Lamont
33
Tuolumne
Ridgecrest
395
Bakersfield
119
Alpine
r
do
lav
San
Ca
Contra Joaquin
Costa
Stanislaus
Alameda
San
Mateo
Site
Shafter
Rosedale
Placer
a
Am
Inyokern
Oildale
McKittrick
El Dorado
Sac.
Woody
Lake Isabella
58
58
Kernville
Alta
Sierra
65
Buttonwillow
Sierra
Nevada
Yu
Yolo
Napa
99
LERDO HWY
Butte
Glennville
155
McFarland
43
Wasco
46
Plumas
Glenn
Lake
Lost
Hills
Lassen
Tehama
Mendocino
Delano
5
33
5
Rosamond
Lebec
Inyo
Tulare
Monterey
Kings
San Luis
Obispo
Kern
San Bernardino
Santa
Barbara
Ventura
Los Angeles
Or
an
ge
Riverside
San Diego
Imperial
LERDO DETENTION FACILITY EXPANSION • IS/NOP
not to scale
Regional Vicinity
Figure 1
DRESSER AVENUE
ROA
D
I
MERCED AVENUE
INDUSTRIAL FARM ROAD
99
HWAY
MADERA STREET
IG
ITY H
AN C
ROAD 5039
MERIC
KYTE AVENUE
ALL A
ZERKER ROAD
SS
G
EM
MERCED AVENUE
WALLACE ROAD
A
T P
RA
N
QUALITY ROAD
65
Project
Site
LERDO HIGHWAY
LERDO HIGHWAY
0
2000’
4000’
APPROXIMATE
99
AMOS STREET
QUALITY ROAD
ZERKER ROAD
ZERKER ROAD
65
JA M E
S R
D
Project Vicinity
Figure 2
MADERA STREET
Project Site Boundary
KYTE AVENUE
Expansion Area
AMOS STREET
QUALITY ROAD
LERDO HIGHWAY
not to scale
Project Boundaries
Figure 3
MADERA STREET
481-030-74
481-030-24
Project Site Boundary
481-030-72
481-030-27
481-030-73
LERDO HIGHWAY
KYTE AVENUE
481-030-71
AMOS STREET
QUALITY ROAD
481-090-08
not to scale
Project Site and Assessor Parcel Numbers
Figure 4
EXISTING JUVENILE
TREATMENT FACILITY
EXISTING 14-ACRE
PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAY
QUALITY ROAD
T T
N R
A
I T
EXISTING
ASTE WATE
R
WASTE
W
WATER
WASTE WATER
REATMENT
TREATMENT
LERDO HIGHWAY
CENTRAL PLANT
LIMITS OF NEW
CONSTRUCTION
PROPOSED TYPE II
JAIL FACILITY
EXISTING
Y
FAC TY
FAC
PRE-TRIAL
FACILITY
VISITATION AND INMATE
PROPERTY STORAGE
SMITH AVENUE
KELLY STREET
MED
ED M X
EXISTING
Y
MED-MAX
FACILITY
EXISTING
MIN
MU
NIM
MINIMUM
Y
TY
FACILITY
GUARD HOUSE
Project Site
not to scale
Source: Durrant Group, 3-2008
Project Site Plan
Figure 5




481-030-71: 69.6 acres
481-030-72: 64.6 acres
481-030-73: 32.4 acres
481-030-74: 65.1 acres
In addition to the six on-site parcels, the County owns a 35-acre undeveloped parcel (APN 481090-08) immediately south of Lerdo Highway currently used as a leach field for wastewater
disposal.
 481-090-08: 35.0 acres
1.2
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site lies in Section 7, Township 28 South (T.28S), Range 27 East (R.27E), Mount
Diablo Base and Meridian (MDBM) and currently consists of undeveloped land. The site is
specifically designated 3.3 (Other Facilities) by the Kern County General Plan, and zoned A
(Exclusive Agriculture) per the Kern County Zoning Ordinance (Figures 6 and 7). The
undeveloped project site is surrounded by the Lerdo jail complex. The existing jail complex
includes the following facilities:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Male Minimum Detention Facility (704 jail beds);
Female Minimum Detention Facility (96 jail beds);
Medium-Maximum Detention Facility (408 jail beds);
Pre-Trial Detention Facility (1,344 jail beds);
Juvenile Treatment Facility;
Secondary Sewage Treatment Plant; and
14-acre Photovoltaic solar array.
The current Lerdo jail complex includes a total of 2,552 jail beds with an existing (2012) inmate
population of 2,604.
Surrounding Land Uses
Existing development in the area surrounding the Lerdo jail complex includes agricultural uses,
the North Kern Golf Course, and a cattle feedlot (see Table 1). The project site and the
surrounding properties are within the boundaries of Agricultural Preserve No. 8. Utilities in the
area include overhead power lines that trend parallel to Lerdo Highway (to the south).
Table 1. Existing Land Use Designation and Zoning of the of the Project Site
Location
Existing Land Use
Existing General Plan Map Code
Designations
Existing Zoning
Project Site
Detention facility &
undeveloped land
3.3 (Other Facilities)
A (Exclusive
Agriculture)
North
Public golf course
3.1 (Public or Private Recreation Areas)
A
East
Agriculture
8.1 (Intensive Agriculture- 20 ac parcel
size)
A
3.3 (Other Facilities)
A
8.1 (Intensive Agriculture- 20 ac parcel
size)
A
South
West
February 2013
Agriculture
Agriculture
7
8.3
8.3
MERCED AVENUE
8.1/2.1
Land Use Designations
8.1
65
8.3
8.3/2.1
8.4
ZERKER ROAD
8.1/2.1
8.1
1.1
8.3
8.4/2.1
3.1/2.1
3.1
8.3/2.1
KYTE AVENUE
MADERA STREET
QUALITY ROAD
State and Federal Lands
1.2
Incorporated Cities
2.1
Seismic Hazard
3.1
Parks and Recreation Area
3.3
Other Facilities
6.2
General Commercial
7.2
Service Industrial
8.1
Intensive Agriculture
(Min. 20-Acre Parcel Size)
8.3
Extensive Agriculture
(Min. 20-or 80-Acre
Parcel Size)
8.4
Mineral and Petroleum
(Min. 5-Acre Parcel Size)
8.4/2.1
8.1/2.1
Project
Site
8.4
3.3
8.1
7.2
1.1
8.4
1.2
99
SHAFTER
0
3000'
Source: Kern County Online Mapping System
8.4
Y HIGHWAY
ALL AMERICAN CIT
8.1
3.3
AMOS STREET
3.3
LERDO HIGHWAY
65
Existing General Plan Designations
Figure 6
A
A
A
NR(20)
MERCED AVENUE
65
NR(20)
A
ZERKER ROAD
A-1
A
A
A
A
MADERA STREET
Exclusive Agriculture
A-1
Limited Agriculture
NR(20)
Natural Resource
20-acre minimum
NR(5)
Natural Resource
5-acre minimum
NR(5) PD Natural Resource
5-acre minimum
Precise Development
Combining District
M-2
Medium Industrial
A-1
QUALITY ROAD
KYTE AVENUE
County Zoning Districts
A
Project
Site
A-1
A
M-2
A
99
SHAFTER
0
3000'
Source: Kern County Online Mapping System
A-1
A
AMOS STREET
A
NR(5)
A
NR(5) PD
A
Y HIGHWAY
ALL AMERICAN CIT
A
LERDO HIGHWAY
65 A
Existing Zoning Classifications
Figure 7
1.3
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
Site History
The Kern County Lerdo Detention Facility has been operating at the current location since 1940.
Since that time, various buildings were added to the facility including the Superintendent’s house,
barracks, jail housing blocks, dining hall and kitchen, and administrative offices.
With the update of the Kern County Zoning Ordinance in the early 1970s, and the implementation
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), expansion of the original jail included
approval of several Conditional Use Permits and the preparation of environmental reviews. These
include:





CUP 5, Map 81 (Negative Declaration) (Resolution 67-75 approved March 27, 1974) maximum security unit - 200 beds
CUP 9, Map 81 (Negative Declaration) (Resolution 336-82 approved Dec 9, 1982) addition of three (3) minimum security barracks for women inmates
CUP 11, Map 81 (Categorical Exemption) (Resolution 284-83, October 27, 1983) construction of 10 minimum security barracks to replace existing barracks
CUP 13, Map 81 (Negative Declaration) ( Resolution 103-84, approved April 5, 1984) - for
600 bed pre-trial medium/maximum security facility
CUP 47, Map 81 (Categorical Exemption) (Resolution 49-11; approved April 14, 2011) construction of a two-megawatt (2 MW) solar facility for on-site use
Table 2 depicts the existing staffing positions available at the complex and the number of visitors
using the complex each day.
Table 2. Existing Staffing
Staffing
Totals
Kern County Sheriff’s Office – Office and Administrative Staff
8-hour shifts (2 shifts per 24 hours)
36
21 Office and Administrative Staff on-site per 24 hours
Medical Staff
33 Medical Staff on-site per 24 hours
85
Mental Health Staff
10-hour shifts (1 shift per 24 hours)
24
10 Mental Health Staff on-site per 24 hours
23
Food Service Staff
12 Food Service Staff on-site per 24 hours
February 2013
10
Staffing
Chaplains
Average of 10 shifts per week
Totals
2
10
Commissary Staff
10 Food Service Staff on-site per 24 hours
Detentions Security/Administrative Staff1
295
Average of 66 Detentions Security/Administrative Staff on-site per 8-hour shift
Law Librarians (SST)
2 Law Librarians on-site per 24 hours (Monday-Friday)
2
Maintenance Staff
16
16 Maintenance Staff on-site per 24 hours (Monday-Friday)
Warehouse Staff
2 Warehouse Staff on-site per 24 hours (Monday-Friday)
2
Light Vehicle Drivers
3 Light Vehicle Drivers on-site per 24 hours
3
Inmate Programs Instructors
8-hour shifts (3 shifts per 24 hours-over-lapping)
32
22 Instructors on-site per 24 hours (Monday-Friday)
15
Electronic Monitoring Program
9 Electronic Monitoring Program Staff on-site per 24 hours
Total Paid Employees
55
Religious Staff (Volunteers)
Average of 34 religious volunteer staff on-site per week
Total Volunteer Employees
Total Employees
February 2013
11
545
55
600
Staffing
Totals
Average Visitors Per Day2
Encompasses all public visitors, including attorney visits
195
Total Employees and Visitors Per Day
795
Notes:
1. Includes all Facility Detention Staff, Inmate Services, Laundry, Maintenance, Kitchen, Classification, Gangs, K-9,
Compliance, and Programs.
2. This average is based on the total number of visitors recorded in the past twelve months (2011-2012), which was 71,160
public visits.
1.4
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The State of California has awarded the County a $100 million grant for the expansion of the County’s
existing Lerdo detention facility. The proposed project would construct a 822-bed, 243,909 square-foot
Type II (Medium-Maximum Security) facility and ancillary buildings that would provide the number and
the type of beds needed to safely and effectively manage the County’s jail population (Figure 5). The
proposed expansion would include the following:

A new 822 bed, Type II (medium-maximum security) facility with 243,909 square feet
of new construction including three separate buildings with the following:
o
Three medium security housing pods
o
One special housing pod
o
Visitation area
o
Inmate property storage
o
Infirmary (medical and mental health services)
o
Support services area
o
Staff area
o
Administrative offices

Central plant

Upgrade and expansion of the existing on-site water supply system and wastewater
treatment and disposal facility
Table 3 depicts the allocated jail beds proposed.
Table 3. Proposed Jail Beds
Type
Number
Medium Security
Flexible: Administrative Segregation or Disciplinary
Isolation
High Risk – “Super Maximum” Security
Flexible: Medium Security or Mental Health
Total Rated Capacity
576
32
Rated Capacity
February 2013
12
64
128
800
Table 3. Proposed Jail Beds
Number
Type
Special Use
Suicide Watch
Infirmary
Total Special Use Capacity
Total Design Capacity
15
7
22
822
Housing Units Building
The proposed Type II Medium-Maximum Security Facility would construct four Housing Pods.
Each Pod includes six housing units that would total 800 jail beds. Three Medium Security Pods
(Pods A, B, and D) would be constructed to house 576 medium security beds. Housing Pod C
would include a Mental Health Housing Unit (with 128 treatment beds) and a Special Housing
Unit to hold 64 “high-risk” beds. The Special Housing Unit would include enhanced security
features for the protection of staff, secure areas with individual showers, enclosed dayroom space
for every four cells, and enhanced video surveillance.
Ancillary operations include Housing Pod Control operations, as well as educational, vocational,
substance abuse, and therapeutic inmate programs. Outdoor recreation yards would be provided
(one yard for each Housing Pod, with the exception of Pod C, which would have two yards).
Each Housing Pod would include two, 300 square-foot multi-purpose rooms. These rooms would
provide on-site treatment, educational, and vocational programs space as well as program staff
space. The facility would also include one central classroom with office space for program staff,
which would be used to provide on-site instruction and wired to allow distance-learning courses
to be broadcasted to each Housing Unit multi-purpose room.
Infirmary Building
The proposed Infirmary building would serve both medical and mental health needs. This
building would include a total of 7 infirmary beds and 15 suicide watch beds. Medical and
mental health space includes an administrative office and records area, a conference room, a
medication preparation room, two safety cells and one sobering cell, storage space, secure storage
space, three medical exam rooms, and a dental exam room.
Other support services located within this building would include an intake/release processing
area with 14 holding cells as well as kitchen, warehouse, laundry, and maintenance space. Staff
areas include administrative office space, security office space, staff briefing, staff dining, and
locker rooms. The facility also includes a staff training room, including a mock extraction cell.
Visitation Building
The Visitation building would house a Visitor’s Center/Property Storage Warehouse. Video
visitation, the acceptance of bonds, and the release of inmate property would all occur in the
Visitor’s center. Inmate personal property, personal clothing, court clothing, and other storage
needs would be provided for in the Property Warehouse. Locating the Visitor’s Center/Property
Warehouse in this manner would result in increased facility security, as only professional visitors
or vendors would be admitted into the remainder of the facility, substantially decreasing the
opportunity to introduce contraband into the facility.
February 2013
13
Other On-Site Improvements
The proposed project will also include on-site civil improvements including access roads,
parking, drainage infrastructure, and landscaping as well as a partial road realignment of the
existing two-lane road (Industrial Farm Road), which allows access to and egress from the
existing Sheriff’s detention facility. A security guard house, which controls incoming and
outgoing traffic to the facilities, will be designed to allow bypass lanes for staff and turn-around
lanes for public visitors who drive up to the guard house in error. Approximately 300 parking
spaces (one space per four beds per Zoning Ordinance 19.82.G.5) will be provided as part of the
proposed project for both staff and visitor parking.
The existing perimeter fence is 12 feet in height with a combination of razor, barbed, and
concertina wire. New fencing is included in the proposed expansion project, which would be
constructed at the same height, but includes two or three additional strands of barbed wire across
the top as well as 24 inch razor wire. There will be two strands of razor wire on top of both new
inner and outer security fences.
The Lerdo jail complex currently has 25 to 35 foot poles with lighting, ranging from 400 watts to
1000 watts bulbs, around the perimeter and throughout the facility grounds. The proposed
expansion will include the installation of additional lighting of a similar type and luminosity.
Staffing
Table 4 depicts the new staffing requirements as well as anticipated average daily public visits as
a result of the proposed project. Per Table 4, the proposed project would result in 194 new
employees and 47 additional average daily visitors, for a total of an additional 241
employees/visitors accessing the project site.
February 2013
14
Table 4. New Staffing Requirements (Proposed)
Staffing
Totals
132
17
10
4
1
10
2
10
Kern County Sheriff’s Office and Administrative Staff
Medical Staff
Mental Health Staff
Food Service Staff
Chaplains
Commissary Staff
Law Librarians (SST)
Inmate Programs Instructors
Total New Paid Employees
Religious Staff (Volunteers)
Total Volunteer Employees
Total New Employees
Additional Average Visitors Per Day2
Encompasses all public visitors, including attorney visits
186
8
8
194
47
Total New Employees and Additional Visitors Per Day
241
Notes:
1. Includes all Facility Detention Staff, Inmate Services, Laundry, Maintenance, Kitchen, Classification, Gangs, K-9,
Compliance, and Programs.
2. This average is based on the total annual estimated number of new public visits (17,000).
Expansion of Existing On-Site utilities
The Lerdo detention facility currently uses 625,000 to 650,000 gallons per day of potable water
and generates 510,000 to 540,000 gallons per day of wastewater. Upon implementation of the
proposed project, an additional 160,000 to 200,000 gallons per day of potable water and 140,000
to 160,000 gallons per day of generated wastewater would result. Thus, the proposed project
would require the upgrade and expansion of the existing on-site water supply system and
wastewater treatment facility in order to meet these increased water demands and wastewater
generation.
The proposed project will include, but is not limited to: on-site utilities distribution including
electrical; plumbing; mechanical; computerized heating, ventilation, and air conditioning;
security; security electronics; and fire protection systems. The proposed project will share
existing infrastructure components located near the project site including electrical, water,
wastewater, phone, and natural gas.
The expansion of the on-site water system will involve the addition of a new potable water well,
an expansion of the water treatment and storage facilities, upgrade of the booster pumps and new
buried water pipelines to convey potable water to the new Type II facility and ancillary buildings.
The upgrade of the wastewater treatment and disposal facility will result in the ability to convert
the existing leach disposal system to a farmed area and reclaim treated effluent on feed, fodder
and fiber crops (no crops for human consumption). Additional reclamation will occur via farming
February 2013
15
within the Lerdo detention facility complex boundary using a buried and/or above ground pipe
delivery system to convey reclaimed water to the farmed parcels. Additional treated effluent
storage will also be provided adjacent to the existing storage ponds.
Construction Phasing
Construction would commence and a project “final inspection” would be conducted on or before
the end of the fourth quarter 2017. Occupancy would be completed by the end of the first quarter
2018.
1.5
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The following are the proposed project objectives:
1. Operational bed capacity
a. Increase capacity to house the inmate population
i. The Kern County jail system needs approximately 1,071new beds
ii. The Kern County jail system lacks adequate medium security housing
iii. The Kern County jail system lacks adequate maximum security housing
2. Reduce the number of inmates released early
3. Increase inmate safety
a. Separate the more violent “high-risk” criminals from the general inmate population
4. Improve safety and security for staff with enhanced facility design concepts
a. Reduce the number of large-scale inmate disturbances
b. Reduce the number of staff injuries due to contact with combative or assaultive inmates
c. Reduce inmate movement with de-centralized facility design
d. Enhance security features for staff protection- segregation unit
i. Video surveillance
ii. Secure areas with individual showers
5. Dedicated Visitor Center
a. Improve visitor safety
b. Reduce the introduction of contraband
c. Improve warehouse storage for inmate property
6. Enhance health services for inmates
a. Improve compliance with HIPAA
b. Increase mental health facility space for suicide watch
c. Provide additional space for inmate healthcare treatment
7. Reduce recidivism: Expand /Improve Educational and Vocational program space
a. Expand in-custody program capacity to meet the needs of the inmate population
i. On-site education
ii. Distance learning courses
8. Reduce litigation related to crowding
February 2013
16
9. Comply with state regulations, existing case law, and court orders;
i. Anderson vs. Kern (42 U.S.C. § 1983 action)
ii. California Code of Regulations Title 15 (Crime Prevention & Corrections)
iii. California Code of Regulations Titles 17 & 22 (Drinking Water Related Statues
and Regulations)
iv. California Code of Regulations Title 24 (California Building Standards Code)
10. Reduce the number of non-compliance findings
i. Reduce comingling of minimum and medium security inmates
11. Provide additional office and storage space
i. Mental Health staff
ii. Medical staff
iii. Staff training
iv. Emergency equipment
1.6
PROPOSED DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS/REQUIRED APPROVALS
Construction and operation of the proposed project may require certain discretionary actions and
approvals including, but not limited to, the following:
Kern County


Consideration and certification of a final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) with
appropriate findings (15091 and 15093), and the mitigation measures monitoring program, by
the Kern County Planning Commission
Approval of Conditional Use Permit–CUP 48, Map No. 81

Kern County Engineering, Surveying and Permit Services Department
o Grading and Building Plans

Kern County Environmental Health Services Division
o Water well permits

Kern County Fire Department
o Fire Safety Plan
Other Responsible Agencies



California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
California State Publics Work Board
California Department of Fish and Wildlife

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD)
o Fugitive Dust Control Plan
o Authority to Construct
o Permit to Operate
o Any other permits as required

California Department of Public Health
o Water System Permit

Regional Water Quality Control Board- Central Valley (RWQCB- Central Valley)
February 2013
17
o
Waste Discharge Requirements

Regional Water Quality Certification (401 Permit)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit

General Construction Stormwater Permit (Preparation of a SWPPP)
Other additional permits from responsible agencies may be required for the proposed project.
February 2013
18
KE
ERN COUNTY
Y PLANNING & COMMUNITY
Y DEVELOPMENT DEPART
TMENT
Lerdo Detention
n Facility Expa
ansion
KERN COUNTY EN
NVIRONMEN
NTAL CHEC
CKLIST FO RM
ENVIRO
ONMENTAL
L FACTORS POTENTIA
ALLY AFFEC
CTED:
The envirronmental facctors checked below would
d be potentiallly affected byy this projectt, involving att least
one impaact that is a “potentially
“
significant
s
im
mpact” as inddicated by thhe Kern Counnty Environm
mental
Checklist on the follow
wing pages.
2.2
Aessthetics
Agricullture and Foreestry
Resourcces
Air Qualiity
Bio
ological Resou
urces
Culturaal Resources
Geology and Soils
Greeenhouse Gass
Em
missions
Hazards and Hazarddous
Materiaals
Hydrologgy and Water
Quality
Lan
nd Use and Pllanning
Minerall Resources
Noise
Pop
pulation and Housing
H
Public Services
S
Recreatioon
Traansportation and
a Traffic
Utilitiess and Servicee
System
ms
Mandatorry Findings of
Significannce
DETERMINA
D
ATION (TO BE COMPL
LETED BY T
THE LEAD A
AGENCY)
On the baasis of this inittial evaluation
n:
I find that the proposed
p
proj
oject COULD NOT have a significant eeffect on the eenvironment, and a
ON will be prrepared.
NEGATIVE
N
DECLARATI
D
I find that although the prop
posed projectt could have a significant eeffect on the eenvironment,, there
will
w not be a significant efffect in this case because reevisions in thee project havve been made by or
ag
greed to by the project proponent.
p
A MITIGAT
TED NEGAT
TIVE DECLA
ARATION w
will be
prrepared.
I find that thee proposed project
p
MAY
Y have a signnificant effecct on the envvironment, annd an
ENVIRONME
E
ENTAL IMPA
ACT REPORT is required..
I find that thee proposed project
p
MAY have a “pottentially signnificant impacct” or “potenntially
d” impact on
n the environnment, but att least one eeffect (a) has been
siignificant unlless mitigated
ad
dequately anaalyzed in an earlier docum
ment pursuannt to applicabble legal stanndards, and (bb) has
beeen addressed
d by mitigatiion measuress based on thhe earlier anaalysis as desccribed on atttached
sh
heets. An EN
NVIRONMEN
NT IMPACT REPORT is rrequired, but it must analyyze only the eeffects
th
hat remain to be addressed.
I find that alth
hough the prroposed projeect could havve a significaant effect onn the environnment,
beecause all potentially sign
nificant effectts (a) have beeen analyzed adequately inn an earlier E
EIR or
NEGATIVE
N
DECLARATI
D
ION pursuantt to applicab le standards, and (b) havve been avoidded or
mitigated
m
purssuant to that earlier EIR or
o NEGATIV
VE DECLAR
RATION, inclluding revisioons or
mitigation
m
meaasures that aree imposed upon the propossed project, nnothing furtheer is required.
2/8/13
Signature
Datte
Jaymie L. Brauer
B
Printed Name
Forr
February 2013
2
19
In
nitial Study/No
otice of Prepa
aration
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(1)
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls
outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on
project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
(2)
All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
(3)
Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant
with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially
Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) is required.
(4)
“Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact”
to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measure and
briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures
from Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross-referenced).
(5)
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration,
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
(a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
(b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist where
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based
on the earlier analysis.
(c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant With Mitigation Measures
Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
(6)
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared
or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where
the statement is substantiated.
(7)
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
(8)
This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
February 2013
20
(9)
The explanation of each issue should identify:
(a)
The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
(b)
The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant
level.
February 2013
21
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Discussion:
(a)
The project site is situated within a relatively flat, rural, agricultural area within the County and is
only readily visible from adjacent public streets as a result of intervening existing orchards and
structures (associated with the existing Lerdo jail complex). The project site is not located within or
in the vicinity of a scenic vista. Thus, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista. No impact would result in this regard and no further analysis is warranted.
(b)
As noted above, the project site is located within a rural, agricultural area with fruit trees, no rock
outcroppings, or historic buildings. The nearest Officially Designated or Eligible State or County
Scenic Highway is located more than 50 miles from the project site. Thus, no impact would result
from damage to scenic resources within a state scenic and no further analysis is warranted.
(c)
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the replacement of vacant land with an 822bed, 243,909 square-foot Type II detention facility and ancillary buildings. Although the project site
is located on the grounds of the existing Lerdo jail complex, which supports similar jail-related
structures on-site, the project site currently consists of undeveloped land and is partially surrounded
by a rural, agricultural area. Further, an existing public golf course (North Kern Golf Course)
directly to the north has views to the surrounding area and could be visually affected by the proposed
project. Thus, the proposed project could result in the degradation of character/quality at the project
site or in the surrounding area. This potentially significant impact will be evaluated in the EIR.
(d)
The existing Lerdo jail complex supports existing nighttime lighting for security purposes.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in similar lighting requirements for the
proposed project. However, as the proposed project would increase the nighttime lighting emitted at
the project site and could result in adverse nighttime views in the surrounding area, further analysis
of the specific lighting required and the effects of nighttime light are warranted. This potentially
significant impact will be evaluated in the EIR.
February 2013
22
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In
determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment
Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided
in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a.
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to
nonagricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or Williamson Act contract?
c.
Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code Section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Productions (as defined in Government Code
section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
e.
Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
f.
Result in the cancellation of an open space
contract made pursuant to the California Land
Conservation Act of 1965 or Farmland Security
Zone Contract for any parcel of 100 or more
acres (Section 15206(b)(3) Public Resources
Code?
February 2013
23
Discussion:
(a)
There is no designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
within the project boundaries, none of the subject parcels are under a Williamson Act land use
contract. However, parcels to the east, south and west of the project site are under Williamson Act
land use contracts. The California Department of Conservation (DOC) designates the project site as
vacant or disturbed. As such, the project site is not considered to be prime, unique, or statewide
important farmland. Therefore, construction and/or operation of the proposed project would not
result in the conversion of designated Farmland to a nonagricultural use. No impact would result in
this regard and no further analysis is warranted.
(b)
The project site is with the A (Exclusive Agriculture) zone district, and is designated 3.1 (Other
Facilities) by the Kern County General Plan. The project site has been used as a detention facility for
over 70 years, and no part is being actively farmed, nor are they under a Williamson Act land use
contract. The construction and operation of a correctional facility is a conditionally permitted use,
and with approval of CUP 48, Map 81, the proposed project would be considered a consistent and
compatible use. Therefore no impact would result in this regard and no further analysis is warranted.
(c)/(d) No lands within or immediately adjacent to the proposed project are designated forest land or
timberland. No impacts resulting in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest
use are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project and no further analysis is warranted.
(e)
The project boundaries include the existing Lerdo jail facility, and as noted above, the project site
and adjoining properties have been under use as a detention facility for over 70 years. None of the
parcels contain any forest land nor are actively farmed. The project site is located within the Kern
County Agricultural Preserve No. 08 boundaries, but the project site is not currently subject to a
Williamson Act contract. Due to the historical use as a detention facility, the a lack of forest land or
active farming on the site, the proposed project would not involve any changes to the existing
environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact is anticipated to result in
this regard and no further analysis is warranted.
(f)
See Responses (a), (b) and (e), above. The proposed project would not result in the cancellation of an
open space contract made pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 or Farmland
Security Zone Contract for any parcel of 100 or more acres (Section 15206(b)(3) Public Resources
Code. No impact would result in this regard and no further analysis is warranted.
February 2013
24
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b. Violate any air quality standard as adopted in
(c)I or (c)ii, or as established by EPA or air
district or contribute substantially to an existing
or projected air quality violation?
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is nonattainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
Specifically,
would
implementation of the project exceed any of the
following adopted thresholds:
i.
San Joaquin Valley Unified
Pollution Control District:
Air
Operational and Area Sources:
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG)
10 tons per year.
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)
10 tons per year.
Particulate Matter (PM10)
15 tons per year.
Stationary Sources as Determined
by District Rules:
Severe Nonattainment
25 tons per year.
Extreme Nonattainment
10 tons per year.
February 2013
25
Potentially
Significant
Impact
ii.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control
District:
Operational and Area Sources:
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG)
25 tons per year.
Oxides of nitrogen (NOx)
25 tons per year.
Particulate Matter (PM10)
15 tons per year.
Stationary Sources as Determined
by District Rules:
25 tons per year.
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
e. Create objectionable odors
substantial number of people?
affecting
a
Discussion:
(a)/(b) The proposed project would be located entirely within the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The SJVAB
is designated nonattainment for both the State and Federal ozone standards, the State and Federal
particulate matter of less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5) standards, and the State particulate matter
of less than 10 microns in size (PM10) standard. To meet Federal Clean Air Act requirements, the
SJVAPCD has adopted an Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan (2007), a PM10 Attainment
Demonstration Plan (2006), and a PM2.5 Attainment Demonstration Plan (2008). In addition, to meet
California Clean Air Act requirements, the SJVAPCD has also adopted an Air Quality Attainment
Plan (1991) and corresponding updates to address the California ozone standard.
Proposed project construction and operations would generate emissions of criteria pollutants that
could result in significant impacts to air quality in the area. Equipment usage and activities during
construction of the proposed project would result in emissions of PM10 and ozone precursors,
including oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC), which could result in
significant impacts to air quality in the area. The sources of emissions include construction (from
heavy equipment used for grading, trenching, paving, and building construction, as well as on-road
motor vehicles for equipment and material deliveries and workers commuting to the project site) and
project operations (from vehicle trips and energy and area sources). Proposed project contribution to
regional air emissions could result in a potentially significant impact. Further analysis of air quality
impacts is warranted to determine whether the proposed project would conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable plans for attainment and if so, to determine the reasonable and
feasible mitigation measures that could be imposed. These issues will be evaluated in the EIR.
Additionally, short-term construction emissions and facility operations could significantly contribute
February 2013
26
to an existing or projected air quality violation of PM10 or ozone standards, requiring the
consideration of mitigation measures. This impact is potentially significant and will be evaluated in
the EIR.
(c)
The SJVAPCD is a nonattainment area for the State and Federal ozone standards, the State and
Federal PM2.5 standards, and the State PM10 standard, and the SJVAPCD rules and regulations apply
to all proposed project activities. No proposed project activities would occur within the Eastern
Kern Air Pollution Control District; therefore no impacts would occur in this regard. Cumulative
contributions to the SJVAB could be potentially significant. Construction and operational emissions
will be analyzed in the EIR as related to SJVAPCD.
(d)
Land uses determined to be “sensitive” to air quality include residential areas, schools, convalescent
and acute care hospitals, parks and recreational areas, and churches. The nearest sensitive receptors
to the project site are recreational users at the North Kern Golf Course to the north (approximately
one-half-mile) of the project site. Project construction activities would not occur immediately
adjacent to the recreational users. Construction-related activity and temporary facilities would result
in diesel exhaust emissions and dust that could adversely affect air quality for the nearest sensitive
receptors. Mitigation measures for diesel equipment and dust control that are recommended by the
SJVAPCD will be evaluated as part of the EIR to avoid or reduce the impacts to construction
workers and recreational users.
(e)
Aside from odors associated with typical vehicle exhaust or fueling of project construction or
maintenance vehicles, the proposed project is not anticipated to generate objectionable odors. As
there are no residents within the vicinity of the project site, fueling odors during project construction
and/or maintenance activities would not impact a substantial number of people. Therefore, the
proposed project would not result in impacts to air quality relative to objectionable odors, and no
further analysis is warranted.
February 2013
27
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special-status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f.
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Discussion:
(a)(b)
As noted in Agriculture and Forest Resources Response (b), the project site has been used as a
correctional facility for over 70 years. Portions of the overall project site are developed with related
infrastructure and are fenced. The undeveloped portions of the facility are regularly disked and/or
mowed to reduce weed growth. The majority of the surrounding area is under active cultivation and
is lacking natural vegetation. Field surveys for special status plant and animal species, species listed
as either threatened or endangered by either the State or federal government, riparian habitat, and
February 2013
28
sensitive natural communities will be included in the EIR. Although impacts to biological resources,
riparian habitat, and sensitive natural communities are anticipated to less than significant, this issue
will be analyzed in the EIR.
(c)
No federally protected wetlands occur within the Lerdo jail complex (including the project site).
Therefore, proposed project implementation would not have an effect on federally protected
wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. No impact would result in this regard
and no further analysis is warranted.
(d)
See Response (a), above. No wildlife corridors or native wildlife nurseries exist in the Lerdo jail
complex (including the project site). Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not
interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, nor with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. No impact would result in this regard and
no further analysis is warranted.
(e)
The Kern County General Plan includes oak tree conservation policies. However, there are no oak
trees located within the project site. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with the County’s
tree preservation policy and no further analysis is warranted.
(f)
The proposed project does not occur within any area covered by an adopted conservation plan.
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the any adopted conservation plan, and no
further analysis is warranted. The project site is within the boundaries of the proposed, draft Valley
Floor Habitat Conservation Plan (VFHCP). The VFHCP has not been adopted, but it can be used to
indicate the potential for habitat resources in the area. The plan area identifies three separate habitat
zone categories based on habitat value. White zones consist primarily of intensive agricultural areas
that are typically highly disturbed and not considered valuable habitat. The Lerdo jail complex,
including the project site, is identified as being in the white zone. No impact would result in this
regard and no further analysis is warranted.
February 2013
29
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined
in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion:
(a)
As noted in Biological Resources Response (a)/(b), the project site has been used as a correctional
facility for over 70 years. Portions of the overall project site are developed with related infrastructure
and are fenced. The undeveloped portions of the facility are regularly disked and/or mowed to reduce
weed growth. Previous environmental documents prepared for the existing facilities included cultural
assessments of the site, and no historical or archaeological resources have been identified. Although
impacts to cultural resources are anticipated to less than significant, further evaluation is warranted
to identify potential impacts and formulate avoidance or mitigation measures, if applicable.
(b)
See Response (a), above. Further evaluation of this impact will be evaluated in the EIR.
(c)
Previous environmental review prepared for the existing Lerdo jail complex did not identify
paleontological resources. Although impacts are expected to be less than significant, potential
impacts to paleontological resources will therefore be evaluated in the EIR.
(d)
The project site consists of developed and undeveloped land. Thus, there is the potential for locating
human remains at the project site. The EIR will evaluate this potential impact and identify measures
to be implemented, should any human remains be unexpectedly uncovered during project site
disturbance activities.
February 2013
30
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i)
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on-or offsite landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water?
Discussion:
(a)(i)
February 2013
The proposed project is not crossed by an Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone; however, the one
Special Study Zone is located approximately 2 miles to the east of the proposed project (along
State Route 65), as well as the Kern Front Fault, located about 4.5 miles east of the proposed
project. As there are no Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zones within one mile of the project site,
31
the proposed project is not anticipated to result in the potential rupture of a known earthquake
fault. Although impacts are expected to be less than significant, further analysis is warranted.
(ii)
Strong seismic ground shaking could occur at the project site, resulting in damage to structures
that are not properly designed to withstand strong ground shaking. The proposed project is
located within a seismically active area within the County. The proposed project would
potentially be subject to moderate to strong ground shaking from local and regional
earthquakes. Construction of the proposed project would be subject to all applicable
ordinances of the Kern County Building Code (Chapter 17.08). Kern County has adopted the
California Building Standards Code, 2007 Edition (CCR Title 24), which imposes
substantially the same requirements as the International Building Code (IBC), 2006 Edition,
with some modifications and amendments. The entirety of Kern County is located in a seismic
Zone 4, a designation previously used in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) (the predecessor
to the IBC) to denote the areas of highest risk to earthquake ground motion. Although
adherence to all applicable regulations would reduce any potential impacts associated with
seismic ground shaking, this potential impact will be further evaluated in the EIR.
(iii) The potential for substantial adverse effects due to seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction, will be examined in the geotechnical report being prepared for the project site.
Related potential impacts will be analyzed in the EIR.
(iv)
The project site is located within a generally flat area of the County and is not considered to be
at high risk for landslides. Thus, no impacts in this regard are expected and no further
analysis is warranted.
(b)
Grading and construction activities would be required for the proposed project. These activities
could result in substantial soil erosion. These impacts are potentially significant and the potential for
increased erosion will be evaluated in the EIR.
(c)
The proposed project would be designed such that it would not degrade the stability of the
underlying soils. The geotechnical report currently being prepared will examine the current baseline
stability of the soils that underlie the project area and the findings of that report will be evaluated in
the EIR. While potential impacts are expected to be less than significant, they will be evaluated in
the EIR and mitigation measures will be presented, if necessary, to protect both structures and people
from adverse effects due to lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, and/or collapse.
(d)
Expansive soils generally result from specific clay minerals that expand when saturated and that
shrink when dry. The geotechnical report currently being prepared for the proposed project will
confirm the presence or absence of expansive soils within the project area, and those results will be
evaluated in the EIR.
(e)
The project proposes improvements and expansion to the existing on-site wastewater generation
system. The proposed project would be designed to comply with applicable building codes, State
wastewater treatment regulations and codes, and structural improvement requirements as
recommended by the Kern County Environmental Health Services Division. Although impacts are
expected to be less than significant, further analysis is warranted.
February 2013
32
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Discussion:
(a)
Global climate change is an international phenomenon, and the regulatory background and scientific
data are changing rapidly. In 2006, the California state legislature adopted AB 32, the California
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Assembly Bill (AB) 32 describes how global climate
change would affect the environment in California. The impacts described in AB 32 include
changing sea levels, changes in snow pack and availability of potable water, changes in storm flows
and flood inundation zones, and other impacts.
As required by AB 32, California Air Resources Board (CARB) determined what the statewide
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions level was in 1990 and then approved a statewide GHG emissions
limit that is equivalent to that level, which is to be achieved by 2020. CARB approved the 2020
limit on December 6, 2007. CARB’s GHG inventory estimated the 1990 emissions level in
California to be 427 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e). In 2004, the
emissions were estimated to be 480 MMTCO2e.
The proposed project would clear and grade the project site and construct a 822-bed, 243,909 squarefoot Type II facility. As a result, the proposed project could generate both direct and indirect GHG
emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, this issue will be
analyzed in more detail in the EIR to determine the significance of potential impacts.
(b)
The County does not have an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of GHGs. It should be noted that there is a draft Chapter 19.81, Dark Skies
Ordinance (Outdoor Lighting) of the County Code of Ordinances, which includes the following
objective “Promote a reduction in the generation of greenhouse gases by reducing wasted electricity
that can result from excessive or unwanted outdoor lighting.” Kern County has not developed a
quantified threshold of significance for GHG emissions, but a project found to contribute to a net
decrease in GHG emissions and found to be consistent with the adopted implementation of the
CARB AB32 Scoping Plan is presumed to have less‐than significant GHG impacts. GHG emissions
will be addressed and reviewed in the EIR to determine the significance of potential impacts.
February 2013
33
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e. For a project located within the adopted Kern
County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
f.
For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
g. Impair implementation of, or physically
interfere with, an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
i.
Would implementation of the project generate
vectors (flies, mosquitoes, rodents, etc.) or
have a component that includes agricultural
waste? Specifically, would the project exceed
February 2013
34
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
the following qualitative threshold:
The presence of domestic flies, mosquitoes,
cockroaches, rodents, and/or any other vectors
associated with the project is significant when
the applicable enforcement agency determines
that any of the vectors:
i.
Occur as immature stages and adults in
numbers considerably in excess of
those found in the surrounding
environment; and
ii.
Are associated with design, layout, and
management of project operations; and
iii.
Disseminate widely from the property;
and
iv.
Cause detrimental effects on the public
health or well being of the majority of
the surrounding population.
Discussion:
(a)
The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The existing Lerdo detention facility
has been operating at this site for over 70 years, and the proposed project involves the expansion of
the facility. Long-term operations associated with the proposed medical operations at the facility
would require the handling and disposal of small quantities of medical waste. However, these
operations would be subject to existing federal, State, and local regulations that require a hazardous
materials management plan (approved by the County Environmental Health Services Department,
acting as the Certified Unified Program Agency [CUPA] designee) to be implemented on a daily
basis. Non-hazardous wastes would be transported from the site during construction activities.
Although construction vehicles would contain some hazardous materials, such as diesel fuel,
hydraulic oil, grease, solvents, adhesives, paints, and other petroleum based products, these materials
are commonly used during construction activities and would not be disposed of on the project site.
All applicable safety standards for the safe handling and use of these materials would be adhered to;
and the applicant would develop and implement a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures
Plan (SPCCP) to minimize the potential for, and effects from, spills of hazardous, toxic, or petroleum
substances during construction activities for all contractors. The Circulation Element of the Kern
County General Plan designates SR-99 (2.5 miles west) and SR-65 (1.5 miles east), as adopted
commercial hazardous materials shipping routes, which would reduce these impacts to less than
significant levels; however further analysis is warranted.
(b)
The project site is located within the boundaries of the Poso Creek oil field, and in the vicinity of the
Kern Front and Rosedale Ranch oilfields. However, there are no known oil wells within the project
site and the potential for accidental leaks, spills or exposure to petroleum is unlikely. As discussed
February 2013
35
above under Response (a) above, during construction the use of hazardous materials would be
limited to common substances associated with construction vehicles (i.e., gasoline, hydraulic oil, and
grease) and does not pose a potentially significant impact from the release of hazardous materials
into the environment. However, potential impacts from proposed project operations may result from
the accidental release of storage materials such as medical waste. The potential release of these
materials would depend on the quantity, the type of storage container, and safety protocols used on
the site. Existing federal and State laws and regulations require that a complete list of all materials
used on site, how the materials would be transported, and in what form they would be used, would be
required to be recorded in order to maintain safety and prevent possible environmental contamination
or worker exposure. If regulations and standard protocols are followed during the storage, usage,
and disposal of medical waste, no substantial impacts would occur. Nonetheless, further analysis is
warranted.
(c)
The nearest school to the project site is Norris Elementary School, located approximately 5.5 miles
to the southwest of the project site, in the metropolitan Bakersfield area. Shafter High is located 8.5
miles west. Thus, the proposed project would not emit hazardous materials or involve handling
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing
or proposed school. No impacts would occur in this regard and no further analysis is warranted.
(d)
The project site is not listed in a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5.1 No impact would result in this regard and no further analysis is warranted.
(e)
The project area is not located within the sphere of influence (SOI) of any airport as identified by the
Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). However, the site is within
approximately 5 miles of the Shafter Airport and the Meadows Field Airport, and in close proximity
to the Majors and Minter airfields. Although there are no anticipated safety hazards for people
residing or working in the project area with respect to the proposed project’s proximity to a public or
public use airport, further analysis is warranted.
(f)
As noted above, the project site is located approximately one mile southwest of Majors Airport, a
private airstrip and in the vicinity of Minter Field Airport, another private airstrip, as well as the
Shafter Airport and Meadows Field SOI. Based upon the record to date, there are no anticipated
safety hazards for people residing or working in the project area with respect to the proposed
project’s proximity to this private airstrip. Further, implementation of the proposed project would
not result in the construction of any structures that would obstruct a flight path to this air strip, as the
proposed structures would be similar in massing and height as the existing structures in the area.
Although impacts would be less than significant in this regard, further analysis is warranted.
(g)
The construction the proposed project is not anticipated to physically impede the existing emergency
response plans, emergency vehicle access, or personnel access to the site. The site is located along
Lerdo Highway, Industrial Farm Road and Quality Road, which provide access to the site in the
event of an emergency. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the modification
of these roadways. Thus, no impacts related to impairment of the implementation of, or physical
interference with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan are
anticipated. No further analysis is warranted.
(h)
The project site is under the jurisdiction of the Kern County Wildland Fire Management Plan. This
plan documents wildland fire conditions within the County. According to this plan, the project site is
not located within an area with a history of fires and is situated within an agricultural/non-wildland
fire area. Additionally, there are at least 14 fire hydrants located on the grounds of the Lerdo jail
complex to help provide fire protection at the facilities. Thus, implementation of the proposed
1
Department of Toxic Substances Control, http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/mandated_reports.asp, accessed on
December 28, 2012.
February 2013
36
project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving
wildland fires. No impact would result in this regard and no further analysis is warranted.
(i)(ii)
(iii)(iv) The proposed project would result in construction of an 822-bed, 243,909 square-foot Type II facility
and ancillary buildings, which is an expansion of the existing Lerdo jail complex. Project-related
infrastructure includes expansion of the existing waste water treatment ponds and may increase the
amount of garbage and human waste that would provide habitat for vectors such as mosquitoes, flies,
cockroaches, or rodents. Construction workers would generate only small quantities of solid waste
(i.e., trash) that would be appropriately stored for permanent disposal offsite. Although potential
impacts are anticipated to be less than significant, further analysis is warranted.
February 2013
37
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation onsite or offsite?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding onsite or offsite?
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
f.
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
February 2013
38
Potentially
Significant
Impact
i.
Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j.
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Discussion:
(a)
Construction of the proposed project would be subject to County, state, and federal water quality
regulations. This includes, but is not limited to, required adherence to the federal Clean Water Act,
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System requirements, the National Flood Insurance Act,
requirements of the California Department of Water Resources, adherence to the requirements of the
California Fish and Wildlife Code, the California Water Code, the requirements of the Kern County
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, etc. Development of the proposed project would result in a
significant impact to hydrology and water quality, if associated construction activities or operations
would result in the violation of any water quality or waste discharge standards. It should be noted
that the project proposes upgrades to the existing on-site water and wastewater infrastructure in order
to serve the proposed project. Such violations could occur through the creation of erosion,
sedimentation, and/or polluted runoff or through the discharge of water as a result of operation of the
detention facility. It is anticipated that appropriate best management practices and compliance with
applicable regulations would reduce potential water quality impacts to a less than significant level;
however, this potential impact will be evaluated fully in the EIR.
(b)
The project site is currently undeveloped land located on the existing Lerdo jail complex grounds.
The proposed project would result in the construction of an 822-bed, 243,909 square-foot Type II
facility and ancillary buildings, which would increase the impervious surface at the project site.
However, this increase is not substantial for the purposes of groundwater recharge in the area. The
project site is situated within a relatively flat agricultural area of the County. There are no water
features (e.g., streams, creeks, or other water features) that generally serve the purpose of
groundwater recharge for the area within the project vicinity. Thus, the proposed project would not
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge in the area. The proposed project is not expected
to result in significant impacts to groundwater recharge; however, further analysis is warranted.
(c)
The project site is relatively flat (approximately 520 feet above mean sea level) and slopes
downward to the southwest toward a Beardsley Canal located approximately 1.5 miles southwest.
Additionally, the Friant-Kern Canal is less than 2 miles to the southwest and the Cawelo Canal is
less than one mile east of the site. Construction and operations would potentially alter the existing
drainage patterns of the site or area. These impacts are potentially significant. Evaluation of impacts
to existing drainage patterns onsite, as well as the potential for increased erosion and/or siltation, will
therefore be evaluated in the EIR.
(d)
Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in impervious areas at the project
site, which would increase the amount of runoff experienced at the project site. These impacts
would be potentially significant. Therefore, an evaluation of impacts resulting from the proposed
project’s potential alteration of drainage patterns of the site will be provided in the EIR.
February 2013
39
(e)
The proposed project would result in an overall increase in impervious surfaces onsite, which could
substantially increase storm water runoff. Further analysis in the EIR is required to identify
appropriate mitigation/design measures and evaluate their effectiveness.
(f)
Proposed project construction activities could potentially degrade water quality through erosion at
the project site. Additionally, accidental release of potentially harmful materials, such as engine oil,
diesel fuel, turbine lubricant, and cement slurry could degrade the water quality of runoff.
Implementation of best management practices would likely reduce the impact of proposed project
activities on surrounding water quality. However, further analysis in the EIR is required to identify
appropriate mitigation/design measures and evaluate their effectiveness.
(g)/(h) The project site is located within Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-designated areas
of minimal flood hazard, which are the areas outside the special flood hazard area (SFHA) and
higher than the elevation of the 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood, labeled Zone X flood zone;
therefore, the site cannot be inundated by flooding. Impacts would not occur, and no further analysis
of this issue is warranted in the EIR
(i)
The Isabella Dam has a capacity to hold 570,000 acre-feet of water. If the dam were to fail, or if an
earthquake were to occur in the vicinity, it could result in a break in the dam. This could, under
certain conditions, cause the entire lake storage to be released, which would result in flooding of
approximately 750 square miles. The Isabella Dam is located approximately 37 miles northeast of
the project site. Based on a review of the inundation map in the Kern County Flood Evacuation Plan
for County and Greater Bakersfield Area below Lake Isabella Dam, the project site is not within the
flood area with failure of Isabella Dam. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or
structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death due to flooding. No impact would occur and
(j)
The proposed project is not located near an ocean or enclosed body of water, and would not be
subject to inundation by seiche or tsunami. Mudflows are a type of mass wasting or landslide, where
earth and surface materials are rapidly transported downhill under the force of gravity. The project
site is not situated within the vicinity of sloping topography and is not anticipated to be subject to
mudflows. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard and no further analysis is warranted.
February 2013
40
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c. Conflict with any
conservation plan or
conservation plan?
applicable habitat
natural community
Discussion:
(a)
The proposed project would be developed on agricultural land, and the surrounding area is primarily
agricultural land. The proposed project components would be installed on undeveloped land
adjacent to the existing Lerdo jail complex. No residential uses or other established communities are
located within the project vicinity. Further, the proposed project would be an extension of the
existing jail complex to the north. Therefore, no impact would occur and no further analysis is
warranted.
(b)
The project site is designated 3.3 (Other Facilities) by the Kern County General Plan and within the
A (Exclusive Agriculture) zone district. Implementation of the proposed project would require
approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 48, Map 81). The appropriateness of the proposed
project with regard to its consistency with the policies of the Kern County General Plan adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect will be evaluated in the EIR.
(c)
As noted in Biological Resources Response (f), the proposed project is not within the boundaries of
any adopted habitat conservation plan (HCP) or natural community conservation plan. Therefore, as
no adopted HCP would be affected by the proposed project, no impacts would occur and no further
analysis is warranted in the EIR.
February 2013
41
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
Discussion:
(a)
Based on a review of California Geological Survey publications, there are no known mineral
resources of statewide or regional importance located within the project site boundaries. However,
as noted in Hazards and Hazardous Materials Response (b), the project site is located within the
boundaries of the Poso Creek oil field, and in the vicinity of the Kern Front and Rosedale Ranch
oilfields. Although there are no known oil wells within the project site boundaries, the existing
Lerdo jail complex includes four drill site areas, to allow for the exploration and extraction of
petroleum by subsurface mineral rights holders. Although impacts to mineral resources are expected
to be less than significant, further analysis is warranted.
(b)
Based on a review of California Geological Survey publications, there are no known mineral
resources of statewide or regional importance located within the project site. The project site is not
designated by the Kern County General Plan, or any other local plans, for mineral resources. Thus,
February 2013
42
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
NOISE. Would the project result in:
a. Exposure of persons to, or generate, noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Exposure of persons to, or generate, excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
e. For a project located within the Kern County
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, would
the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f.
For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Discussion:
(a)
Land uses determined to be “sensitive” to noise as defined by the Kern County General Plan include
residential areas, schools, convalescent and acute care hospitals, parks and recreational areas, and
churches. The nearest sensitive receptors are recreational users located at the North Kern Golf
Course to the north (approximately 0.5 mile) of the project site. Although not specifically identified
as a sensitive receptor, the existing inmate population, as well as correctional officers and staff may
be exposed to noise and/or vibrations during the construction phase of the proposed jail expansion.
Noise from the proposed use would be generated during construction by the use of vehicles and
equipment on the site, including the use of heavy equipment, such as graders, dozers, excavators, and
backhoes. The Kern County General Plan Noise Element sets a 65-decibel limit on exterior noise
levels for stationary sources (i.e., non-transportation) at sensitive receptors. The Noise Control
Ordinance in the Kern County Code (Section 8.36.020 et seq.) prohibits a variety of nuisance noises,
as well. While the project operator would adhere to the provisions of Kern County Noise Ordinance;
nonetheless, the proposed project could significantly expose persons to, or generate, noise levels in
excess of established standards during construction further analysis of noise impacts both during
construction and operations will be included in the EIR.
February 2013
43
(b)
Groundborne vibration and groundborne noise could originate from earth movement during the
construction phase of the proposed project, as well as from the operation and maintenance of the
facilities. The proposed project would be expected to comply with all applicable requirements for
long-term operation, as well as with measures to reduce excessive groundborne vibration and noise
to ensure that the proposed project would not expose persons or structures to excessive groundborne
vibration. Further analysis of groundborne vibration and groundborne noise will be included in the
EIR.
(c)
The proposed project would introduce new permanent noise sources from operations (including
parking lot noise) and increased traffic. Further analysis of ambient noise levels and the proposed
project’s potential operational impacts on those levels will be included in the EIR.
(d)
Heavy equipment use during construction would cause a temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels. Temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels caused by construction
activities could be reduced with the incorporation of mitigation measures. Project-related
construction noise levels will be quantified and evaluated in the EIR.
(e)
The proposed project is not located within the sphere of influence of an airport, as identified in the
Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The project site is more than four
miles from the nearest public airport. Thus, the proposed project is not expected to expose
individuals working in the project area to excessive noise levels resulting from any airports located
within the ALUCP. No further analysis related to public airports is warranted.
(f)
The proposed project is located approximately one mile southwest of the Majors Airport and Minter
Airport, both private airstrips. Implementation of the proposed project may therefore have the
potential to expose individuals working in the project area to excessive noise levels generated from
private airstrips. Further analysis related to private airstrips will therefore be evaluated in the EIR.
February 2013
44
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a. Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c. Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Discussion:
(a)
Typical established local thresholds of significance for housing and population growth pursuant to
the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.7, include effects that would induce substantial growth or
concentration of a population beyond County projections, alter the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the population beyond that projected in the General Plan Housing Element, result in a
substantial increase in demand for additional housing, or create a development that significantly
reduces the ability of the County to meet housing objectives set forth in the General Plan Housing
Element. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the construction of an 822-bed,
243,909 square-foot Type II facility and ancillary buildings, which would require 194 new
employees. Proposed project implementation could induce direct and indirect population growth in
the area. Additional analysis is required in the EIR to determine the growth inducing potential of the
proposed project.
(b)
There are no residential uses within or surrounding the project site. No housing would be displaced
as a result of the proposed project. Thus, no impacts would result in this regard and no further
analysis is warranted.
(c)
See Response (c) above. Thus, this potential impact will be further evaluated in the EIR.
February 2013
45
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need
for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times, or to other performance objectives for
any of the public services:
i)
Fire protection?
ii)
Police protection?
iii)
Schools?
iv)
Parks?
v)
Other public facilities?
Discussion:
(a)(i) (ii)
(iii)(iv)(v) The Kern County Fire Department provides fire suppression and medical emergency services;
police protection services are provided by the Kern County Sheriff’s Office. The nearest fire station from the
project site is Station No. 62 (Meadows Field), located at 1652 Sunnyside Court in Bakersfield, California;
located approximately six miles southeast. The intent of the proposed project is to alleviate service
deficiencies and security/safety issues at the existing Lerdo jail complex, serviced by the Kern County
Sheriff’s Office.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the construction of an 822-bed, 243,909 square-foot
Type II facility and ancillary buildings, which would require 194 new employees. Construction and
operations may result in an increased need for fire and police protection services, as well as indirectly result
in impacts to schools, parks, and other public services (e.g., library and post office services). Therefore,
these potential impacts are potentially significant and will be evaluated in the EIR.
February 2013
46
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
RECREATION. Would the project:
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities that might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
Discussion:
(a)
Refer to Public Services Response (a)(iv). This issue will be further evaluated in the EIR.
(b)
Refer to Public Services Response (a)(iv). This issue will be further evaluated in the EIR.
February 2013
47
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness
for the performance of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and
bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b. Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not
limited to, level of service (LOS) standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
i.
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan
LOS “C”
ii. Kern County General Plan
LOS “D”
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate emergency access?
f.
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities?
Discussion:
(a)
During construction and operation, the project site would be regionally accessed from SR-99 or SR-65
via Lerdo Highway. The project site is currently accessed by the paved, two-lane Industrial Farm
Road. The construction of the proposed project would generate additional traffic on the existing
roadway network. These new vehicle trips would include construction workers traveling to the site
as well as delivery trips associated with the construction equipment and materials. Delivery of
February 2013
48
construction materials would require a number of oversize vehicles that may travel at slower speeds
than existing traffic and, due to their size, may intrude into adjacent travel lanes. These oversize
trips may decrease the existing level of service (LOS) on area freeways, roadways and intersections.
Additionally, the total number of vehicle trips associated with all construction-related traffic
(including construction workers) could temporarily increase daily traffic volumes traveling on local
roadways and intersections.
Proposed project operations would also increase the daily traffic volumes on the local roadways and
intersection, as the proposed project would result in up to 194 new employees and potentially 47
additional average daily visitors, for a total of an additional 241 employees/visitors accessing the
project area. Thus, both the temporary construction-related traffic and the proposed project’s
operational-related traffic on the area roadway system will be evaluated in the EIR.
(b) (i) The project site is not located in or near the metropolitan Bakersfield area. While some construction
and operational staff come from the metropolitan Bakersfield area, it is not anticipated that
construction or operational traffic would degrade current LOS on freeways, roadways or
intersections within the metropolitan Bakersfield area. Therefore, no further analysis of this topic
will be conducted in the EIR.
(ii) Construction of the proposed project would generate construction trips and may require roadway lane
closures, which could temporarily increase the daily traffic volumes on local roadways and
intersections. Operation of the proposed project would also generate trips on local roadways. The
potential impacts of these conditions on LOS of area roadways will be evaluated in the EIR.
(c)
The project site is located more than four miles from Shafter Airport, the nearest public airport.
However, the project site is located approximately one mile southwest of Majors Airport and Minter
Airport, private airstrips. Prisoners are not typically transported by air, and when air travel is
necessary, the facility transports inmate via the Fresno or Victorville airports. No impacts in this
regard are anticipated, and no further analysis is warranted.
(d)
The proposed project would construct an 822-bed, 243,909 square-foot Type II facility and ancillary
buildings that would result in an additional 241 employees/visitors accessing the project site. This
increase in persons at the project site could result in hazards due to proposed project design features
(e.g., driveway locations, ingress/egress, etc.). Potential traffic-related design hazards will be
evaluated in the EIR.
(e)
Construction of the proposed project would generate construction trips, potential roadway lane
closures, and potential operational traffic increases that could impact the daily traffic volumes on
local roadways and intersections, thereby impeding emergency access. The proposed project’s
potential impacts to emergency access will be further evaluated in the EIR.
(f)
Due to the rural nature of the project site area, no designated bicycle lanes exist on the local
roadways that would be used during construction and/or operation. Additionally, there are no public
transportation services to the existing jail facility. Therefore, no further analysis of this issue will be
conducted in the EIR.
February 2013
49
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b. Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion
of
existing
facilities,
the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c. Require or result in the construction of new
stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or would new or expanded
entitlements be needed?
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected demand in
addition
to
the
provider’s
existing
commitments?
f.
Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion:
(a)
The proposed project would expand the facility by an additional 822-bed, 243,909 square-foot Type
II facility and ancillary buildings. The proposed project would result in 194 new employees and 47
additional average daily visitors, for a total of an additional 241 employees/visitors accessing the
project site daily, in addition to the 790 additional prisoners. The Lerdo detention facility currently
generates 510,000 to 540,000 gallons per day of wastewater. Upon implementation of the proposed
project, the project would generate an additional 140,000 to 160,000 gallons per day of wastewater.
Thus, the proposed project would require the expansion of the existing on-site wastewater treatment
facility in order to meet these increased wastewater generation. The proposed project’s consistency
February 2013
50
with the wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board will be
further evaluated in the EIR.
(b)
As noted above, upon implementation of the proposed project, the Lerdo jail complex would use an
additional 160,000 to 200,000 gallons per day of potable water, as well as result in generating
between 40,000 to 160,000 gallons per day of wastewater. Thus, the proposed project would require
the expansion of the existing on-site water supply system and wastewater treatment facility in order
to meet these increased water demands and wastewater generation. Implementation of these on-site
utility expansions could result in significant impacts. The EIR will further evaluate these proposed
project design features and their potential for environmental impacts.
(c)
Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in impervious surface at the
project site. The existing pattern and concentration of runoff could potentially be altered by the
proposed project. Further evaluation of the proposed project’s potential to impact the capacity of
existing stormwater drainage systems in the area or create substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff will be provided in the EIR to determine the need for appropriate stormwater
mitigation/design measures, if necessary.
(d)
See Responses (a) and (b), above. Thus, the proposed project would require the expansion of the
existing on-site water supply system in order to meet these increased water demands and new or
expanded entitlements may be required and will be evaluated in the EIR.
(e)
See Responses (a) and (b) above. Thus, wastewater generation issue will be evaluated in the EIR in
order to determine whether or not the proposed improvements would meet the required capacity of
the proposed project.
(f)
See Response (a), above. Thus, the proposed project would generate additional solid waste as a result
of the proposed construction and operations. This issue will be further analyzed in the EIR.
(g)
The proposed project would generate solid waste during construction and operation activities, thus
requiring the consideration of waste reduction and recycling measures. The 1989 California
Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) requires Kern County to attain specific waste diversion
goals. In addition, the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, as
amended, requires expanded or new development projects to incorporate storage areas for recycling
bins into the proposed project design. The need for mitigation measures to confirm that the proposed
project will comply with the 1989 California Integrated Waste Management Act and the 1991
California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, as amended will be evaluated in
the EIR.
February 2013
51
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal,
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are
individually
limited,
but
cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project
are significant when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c. Does the project have environmental effects
which would cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion:
(a)
Impacts to biological resources are currently unknown. Biota studies for the proposed project are
currently being conducted. The EIR’s biological resources section will discuss specific proposed
project impacts on plants and wildlife including avian and bat species. Additionally, the potential
exists for as-yet undiscovered archeological/paleontological resources to be encountered during
proposed project construction. Therefore, the EIR will evaluate the proposed project’s potential to
impact biological resources or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory.
(b)
The proposed project has the potential to contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, biological
and cultural resources, and utilities and public services, among others. The EIR will evaluate the
proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts in these and other areas as further impacts are
identified.
(c)
The proposed project has the potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly. Potential adverse effects on human beings will be evaluated in the EIR.
February 2013
52

Notice of Preparation - Lerdo Detention Facility Expansion Project

Transcription

Similar documents

exploring the kuiper belt with the magellan telescopes

Can Dance Studio June 2016 Newsletter

Putting it all together to serve Healthy, Nutritious Meals

Summer - California Veterans Assistance Foundation, Inc.

May 29 - BMW RA

Mardi Gras World - Amy Gordon Media

2011 Bil Jac Sponsorship Flyer

Making Choices 18.6 - Precious Blood Ministry of Reconciliation

Friday filing

No Weekly Rap Up next week! - Monroe County Sheriff`s Office

Newsletter as a PDF

Chaparral High School Administrative Team Performance Zone 7