HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 266-04 266-04
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS, APPROVING THE
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND THE
PHASING CLOSURE OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY
SANITARY LANDFILL CLOSURE
WHEREAS, such closure of the Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill Closure is as
follows:
Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill Closure
This project is the final closure plan for the Bakersfield City Sanitary
Landfill facility (refuse dump) which began receiving refuse during 1943
and stopped receiving refuse in 1983. There are no plans to reopen the
site for future refuse disposal. The site covers approximately 132 acres.
Closure of the Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill facility requires the City of
Bakersfield to implement plans that describe how that portion of the site
which received waste will be permanently covered and how the entire
facility will be monitored and maintained. These plans are known as the
Final Closure/Post-Closure Plans and must conform to state law. Such
plans have been prepared for the Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill facility;
and
WHEREAS, for the above-described project, an Initial Study was conducted and
it was determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the
environment and Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared; and
WHEREAS, the law and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of
Mitigated Negative Declarations as set forth in CEQA and City of Bakersfield's CEQA
Implementation Procedures, have been duly followed by the city staff and the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Bakersfield, in accordance with the
provisions of Section 65355 of the Government Code conducted and held a public
hearing on SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 on the above described Bakersfield City Sanitary
Landfill Closure, notice of time and place of the hearing having been given at least thirty
(30) calendar days before the hearing by publication in the Bakersfield Californian, a
local newspaper of general circulation; and
WHEREAS, the Council has considered and hereby makes the following
findings:
1.
2.
All required public notices have been given.
The provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act have been
followed.
The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
5.
6.
7.
Mitigation Measures/Conditions of Approval shown on Exhibit A1 are
included in the project to ameliorate impacts.
The proposed project is consistent with the surrounding land uses.
The proposed Plan is required by Section 258.60 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
California's solid waste program was approved by the federal
Environmental Protection Agency on October 1, 1993 and is jointly
administered by the California Integrated Waste Management Board and
the State Water Resources Control Board and their Regional Water
Quality Control Boards.
Conformance with this program (California's solid waste program)
ensures compliance with federal criteria and allows flexibility allowed
under Subtitle D regulations for the portion of the program administered
by the California Integrated Waste Management Board.
Public safety, general welfare and good planning practices justify the
amendment to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.
10.
Based on the absence of evidence in the record as required by Section
21082.2 of the State of California Public Resources Code (CEQA) for the
purpose of documenting significant effects, it is the conclusion of the Lead
Agency that this project will result in impacts that fall below the threshold
of significance with regard to wildlife resources and, therefore, must be
granted a "de minimis" exemption in accordance with Section 711 of the
Sate of California Fish and Game Code. Additionally, the assumption of
adverse effect is rebutted by the above-reference absence of evidence in
the record and the Lead Agency's decision to prepare a Negative
Declaration for this project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED and found by the Council of the City of
Bakersfield as follows:
1. The above recitals and findings incorporated herein, are true and correct.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Bakersfield City Sanitary
Landfill is hereby approved and adopted.
The City Council hereby approves and adopts the Bakersfield City
Sanitary Final Closure plan as shown in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration prepared for this project for that site shown on the map
marked Exhibit A 2 attached hereto and incorporated as though fully set
forth, for property generally located north of Panorama Drive, South of
Alfred Harrell Highway, west of Fairfax Road and east of Wenatchee
Avenue/County Road 219 subject to and mitigation measures shown in
the Mitigated Negative Declaration marked Exhibit A 1.
the
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted, by
Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on
.~'D 2 9 onn, by the following vote:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBER COUCH, CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO
COUNClLMEMBER
COUNCILMEMBER
COUNCLMEMBER.
PAMELA A. McCARTHY, Cl~
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED SEP 2 2 2004
APPROVED as to form
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
EXHIBITS: (Attached)
A 1 Mitigated Negative Mitigation
A 2 Location Map
RED
S:~Dole~Sanitary Landfill Closure\CC Res.doc
3
City of Bakersfield EXH I B IT A 1
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
(661) 326-3733
PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT THE
PROPOSED ]MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
In accordance with City of Bakersfield (City) policies regarding implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
the City has conducted an Initial Stady to determine whether the following project may have a significant adverse effect on thc
environment. On the basis of that study, the City hereby finds:
The proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the enviromnent: therefore an Environmental
Impact Report is not required and a Negative Declaration wilt be prepared.
Although the proposed project could have a significant adverse effect on the environmenL there will not be a
significant adverse effect in this case because the Mitigation Measures described on the attached Initial Study
have been added to the project. Therelbre, an Environmental Impact Report is not required and a Mitigated
Negative Declaration will be prepared.
The Environmental documents which constitute the Initial Study and provide the basis and reasons for this deterannatton are attached and
hereby made a part of this document.
PROJECT: Title: Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill Final Clospre
Location: Nontheast Bakersfield. no~h of Panorama Drive between Alfred Harrell Hiehwav, Panorama Drive and Fairfax Road
Description: The proposed pr0iect is the final closure °f the Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill and includes installati°n °f the final s°ll
cover over the entire landfill site. oost-closure monitor/ne and maintenance activities, and imooaing soil from an off-site
source. The pumose of the soil cover is to nrevent water from percolation intu the buried waste, establish final slones that
allow for the orderly conveyance and discharee of stormwater runoff, and allow for the establishment of a i~ermanent
vC:gctafive cover of native olants. Mohiturin~ and maintenance activities ir~cludes security of the entire landfill site. landfill gas
toleration mohitodn~ and maintenance, stormwater moniturin~, final cover maintenance plan. veeetation maintenance,
settlement mohitufine and maintenance, access road malmenanee, drainaee control system insoection and maintenance, and
site security knsoection and malntencance. Soil needed to cover the landfill site will be from an on-site borrow pit located near
the eastern boundary of the landfill site and from an off-site source located approximately 500 ti. noah of the Falffax Road-
Paladino Drive intersection.
Project Proponent: City of Bakersfield. Plannine Department
Address: 1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, Califorrfia 93301
Contact Person: Marc Gauthier Telephone Number: (661) 326-3733
Facsimile Number: (661)852-2136
NOTICE:
qlfis document and supporting attachments are provided for review by the general public. This is an information document about
environmental effects only. Supplemental information is on file and may be reviewed in the office listed above. The decision~making
body of the City will review this document and potentially many other sources of information before considering the proposed project.
As discussed in the attached Initial Study, the project site is designated on the hazardous materials list that has been compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5.
This Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is circulated for public review for a 30-day period starting August 2, 2004 and ending on
August 31, 2004. If you have comments on the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, provide written comments to Marc Ganthier at
the City of Bakersfield address shown above by September 2, 2004. Please address your written comments to our finding that the project
will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment: (1) identify the environmental effect(s), why they would occur, and why
they would be significant, and (2) suggest any mitigation measures which you believe would eliminate or reduce the effect to an
acceptable level. Regarding item (1) above, explain the basis for your comments and submit any supporting data or references.
During the 30-day public review period, a copy of thc Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is available for review and referenced
documents can be made available for review at the City of Bakersfield at the address shown above.
This notice is hereby considered the City of Bakersfield's Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Final
Closure of the Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill. The City Council of the City of Bakersfield will hold a public hearing on September
Signed: /k.A_c.,.~e2.~ ~q-.qa.a ~t-¢ ~- Dated:
Mark Gauthier. Prqject Manager/Principal Planner >-
ORIGINAL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
SEPTEMBER 22, 2004, at 5:15 P.M. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be
heard, in the City Council Chambers at 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield,
California, to consider the Mitigate Negative Declaration prepared for the
Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill Final Closure located in northeast Bakersfield,
north of Panorama Drive between Alfred Harrell Highway, Panorama Drive and
Fairfax Drive.
The proposed project is the final closure of the Bakersfield City Sanitary
Landfill and includes installation of the final soil cover over the landfill site, post-
closure monitoring and maintenance activities, and providing soil for the soil cover.
The purpose of the soil cover is to prevent water from percolating into the buded
waste, establish final slopes that allow for the orderly conveyance and discharge
of storm water runoff, and allow for the establishment of a permanent vegetative
cover of native plants. Monitoring and maintenance activities include secudty of
the entire landfill site, landfill gas migration monitoring and maintenance, storm
water monitoring, final cover maintenance plan, vegetation maintenance,
settlement (subsidence) monitoring and maintenance, access road maintenance,
drainage control system inspection and maintenance, and site secudty inspection
and maintenance. Soil needed to cover the landfill site will be from an on-site
borrow pit located near the eastem boundary of the landfill site and from an off-site
source located approximately 500 feet north of the Fairfax Road-Paladino Drive
intersection.
The public review period for the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
begins AUGUST 2, 2004 and ends AUGUST 3'1, 2004.
Copies of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration are available for
inspection by interested persons during normal business hours in the Planning
Department Office, 1715 Ches[er Avenue, Bakers~eld, California. Persons
seeking additional information regarding this matter should contact Marc
Gauthier of the City of Bakersfield Planning Department at (661) 326-3733.
Anyone wishing to present evidence or be heard in this matter may appear
at the hearing or any continuation thereof. If you challenge the action taken on
this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in wdtten
correspondence delivered to the City Council prior to the public hearing.
July 26, 2004
PAMELA A. MCCAR3~Y, CMC
C}erk of the City of Bakemfietd and
Ex-Officio Clerk of the Council
ORIGINAL
INITIAL STUDY
City of Bakersfield
Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill Final Closure
Prepared for:
City of Bakersfield
Department of Public Works
Solid Waste and Recycling Division
4101 Truxtun Road
Bakersfield, CA 93309
661.326.3114
Contact: Kevin Barnes, Solid Waste Manager
Prepared by:
Michael Brandman Associates
220 Commerce, Suite 200
I~ine, CA 92602
714.508.4100
Contact: Kevin B. Shannon, Project Manager
July 20, 2004
Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study Table of Contents
4. Biological Resources ................................................................................... 4-5
5. Cultural Resources ...................................................................................... 4-6
6. Geology and Soils ....................................................................................... 4-7
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................. 4-8
8. Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................... 4-10
9. Land Use and Planning ............................................................................. 4-12
10. Mineral Resources .................................................................................... 4-13
11. Noise ......................................................................................................... 4-13
12. Population and Housing ............................................................................ 4-15
13. Public Services ......................................................................................... 4-15
14. Recreation ................................................................................................ 4-16
15. Transportation/Traffic ................................................................................ 4-16
16. Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................... 4-18
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................... 4-19
Section 5 References ....................................................................................................... 5-1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Buffer Properties .................................................................................................. 1-3
Table 2: Activities by Project Phase ................................................................................... 2-1
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map ....................................................................................... 1-4
Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map ............................................................................................... 1-5
Exhibit 3: Soil Borrow Sources and Buffer Properties ......................................................... 1-6
Exhibit 4: Landfill Footprint ................................................................................................. 2-4
Appendix A: Site Photographs
LIST OF APPENDICES
Michael Brendman Associates
ORIGINAL
City Sanitary Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Bakersfield (City) is proposing to implement fmal closure of the Bakersfield City
Sanitary Landfill (BCSL) located in northeast Bakersfield north of Panorama Drive between
Wenatcbee Avenue and Fairfax Road (see Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2). The project site encompasses
approximately 132 acres (see Exhibit 3).
The BCSL began operation in 1943 and stopped accepting waste in 1983 with no plans to reopen (see
Section 1.2). As a result, the City is required to implement plans that describe how the portion of the
facility that received waste will be permanently covered and how the entire facility will be monitored
and maintained. These plans, known as Final Closure/Post-Closure Maintenance Plans, must
conform to State law. A Final Closure/Post-Closure Maintenance Plan has been prepared for the
BCSL.
The final closure of the BCSL has two parts (see Section 2). The first part of the final closure
involves adding additional soil to the portion of the facility that contains buried waste to create a final
cover system. This area contains approximately 115 acres. Currently, this area of the facility has an
intermediate, or temporary, soil cover system. The purpose of constructing this final cover system is
to prevent water from percolating into the buried waste, establish final slopes that allow for the
orderly conveyance and discharge of stormwater runoff, and allow for the establishment of a
permanent vegetative cover of native plants, and other features (see Section 2.1). The second part of
the final closure involves monitoring and maintenance of the overall facility (see Section 2.5). This
includes security of the entire facility, monitoring and maintenance of the existing environmental
control features, and reporting requirements. The post-closure monitoring and maintenance period
will last for thirty years.
The BCSL has existing environmental controls that will continue during the cover construction phase
and the monitoring and maintenance phase. They are stormwater drainage controls and a landfill gas
control and recovery system.
The end use of the facility will be non-irrigated open space (see Section 2.4). In addition, the City
recently adopted a Specific Parks and Trails Plan for Northeast Bakersfield that identifies a portion of
the BCSL for a future Local Park/Staging Area. The fmal closure of the BCSL would not prohibit or
interfere with the utilization of the BCSL in the implementation of the Parks and Trails Plan.
Michael Brendman Associates
ORIGINAL
Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study Executive Summary
Before the City can implement or approve this project, it must comply with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by the preparation of this Initial Study. This Initial Study
evaluates the proposed project in relation to pre-determined environmental issues (see Section 3) in
order to determine if any significant impacts to the physical environment would result from approving
this project (see Section 4). This Initial Study also describes any mitigation measures proposed to
lessen or eliminate potential significant impacts and if the proposed project includes design features,
commonly known as Project Design Features (PDFs), that reduce or eliminate potential significant
impacts. The results of this Initial Study determined that the proposed fmal closure of the BCSL does
not result in any significant physical impacts to the environment because the proposed project
includes Project Design Features and also proposes mitigation measures. Because no significant
physical impacts to the environment would result from implementing or approving this project, an
Environmental Impact Report is not required. The City will instead adopt a mitigated negative
declaration. The term negative, as used in mitigated negative declarations, refers to the determination
that no physical impacts, or no "negative" impacts to the physical environment would occur from
project implementation.
Michael Brandman Associates
ORIGINAL
Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study Introduction
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Initial Study (IS) is to identify the potential environmental impacts associated
with the proposed final closure of the Bakersfield City Sanitary Landf'fll (BCSL). This facility is
identified in the California Integrated Waste Management Board Solid Waste Information System
(SWIS) as Facility No. 15-AA-0044. Final closure of the BCSL conforms to the Final Closure/Post-
Closure Maintenance Plan (FC/PCMP). As stated in Section 3.13 of the FC/PCMP, this plan
provides the basis for describing the proposed project in order to conform with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and that the City of Bakersfield (City) will initiate the
CEQA process. Therefore, the City is the Lead Agency in the preparation of this IS. This IS has
been prepared in conformance with the State CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) that implement CEQA
and the City's Implementation Procedures for CEQA.
Final closure of the BCSL is required by Section 258.60 of the Code of Federal Regulations (see also
California Code of Regulations Section 20080). These regulations were adopted on October 9, 1991
and are commonly known as Subtitle D regulations. California's solid waste program was approved
by the federal Environmental Protection Agency on October 1, 1993. This program is jointly
administered by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) and the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and their Regional Water Quality Control Boards. Conformance
with this program ensures compliance with federal criteria and allows flexibility allowed under
Subtitle D regulations for the portion of the program that is administered by the CBVMB.
The organization of the IS allows the reader to:
· Identify environmental issues that have no impact or are less than significant;
· Identify environmental issues that are less than significant because Project Design Features
(PDFs) are included in the proposed project; and
· Identify environmental issues that are reduced to less than significant by the development and
adoption of recommended mitigation measures.
Following is the organization of the IS:
Section 1 - Introduction. Identifies the project location and describes its environmental setting,
provides a brief history of the project, and states the intended uses of the document.
Michael Brsndman Associates
H:~Client (pN-JN)\02I 6\02161J026~O2160026_1S.doc
~
r.--
ORIGINAL
Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study Introduction
Section 2 - Project description. Provides a detailed description of the proposed project. This
description includes the activities related to closing the landfill, including installation of the final
cover system in accordance with applicable regulations, and the activities related to monitoring and
maintenance of the landfill throughout the post-closure period.
Section 3 - Environmental Checklist. Provides an environmental checklist that identifies the level
of impact associated with each environmental issue. The checklist provided matches the checklist
contained in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Section 4 - Discussion of Enviromnental Evaluation. Provides a narrative discussion of each
environmental issue contained in the environmental checklist.
Section 5 - Reference Sources. Provides a list of references used in the preparation of this
document.
1.2 SITE HISTORY
The BCSL was in operation from 1943 to 1983. Between 1943 and 1956, the site was operated as an
"over the bank" bum dump near the southern boundary of the site. Therefore, the southern slopes, or
bluffs, are comprised of residuals from the burning process. From 1956 to 1983, the site was used as
a sanitary landfill using the natural canyons as the disposal area. Prior to 1975, the landfill was
owned and operated by the City of Bakersfield. In 1975, Kern County assumed operational
responsibility of the landfill through a joint powers agreement with the City.
The landfill operated in accordance with State Minimum Standards for a Class III disposal facility as
established by the SWRCB and the C1WMB. The BCSL accepted mixed municipal solid waste that
is classified as non-hazardous and inert wastes. The BCSL site received approximately 1,117 tons of
waste (average) per day. No liquid or hazardous wastes were knowingly accepted at the site. The
facility ceased operations in 1983.
The portion of the site that operated as a burn dump was the subject of remedial action as required by
the State Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Expedited Remedial Action Enforceable
Agreement (EA). This agreement between the DTSC and the City (Agreement No. 96-36) designated
the City as the responsible party to investigate and mitigate the site for chemicals of concern.
Remedial action included the excavation and removal of the contaminated soil material from the
backyards of specific residential properties along the site's southern bluff. The excavations were
backfilled with 3 feet of clean soil. A minimum 6-foot high fence was installed along the northern
property boundaries of the backyards to prohibit access to the slope. The slope of the burn dump was
Michael Brandman Associates
H:~glient (PN JN)\0216\02160026'O2160026 ISdoc
Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study Introduction
intentionally left uncovered and was proposed to be finally covered at the same time the remainder of
the BCSL was to receive final cover.
1.3 PROJECT LOCATION
The BCSL is located in northeast Bakersfield in Kern County, north of Panorama Drive between
Wenatchee Avenue on the west and Faiffax Road on the east. The address of the BCSL is 4200
Panorama Road, Bakersfield, California (see Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2).
1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1.4.1 Vicinity Environmental Setting
The BCSL is located on a bluff, south of the Kern River and is bordered by undeveloped, hillside
property to the north and east, and low-density residential neighborhoods to the south and west. There
are two oil production fields located within the vicinity of the site. The closest residences are located
atop the bluffs of the southern and western slopes of the project site. The surrounding land is zoned
predominantly Agricultural or Residential.
The City is establishing a buffer zone between the BCSL and adjacent property owners. The
purchase of these properties is not part of the proposed project. The buffer zone will allow the City to
control the type of development, if any, that could occur adjacent to the landfill facility. The buffer
properties are adjacent to the west, north, and east of the project site (see Exhibit 3). The following
table presents information on these properties and corresponds to the numbering on Exhibit 3:
Table 1: Buffer Properties
Buffer Property No. I 100 Purchase completed
Buffer Property No. 2 20 Purchase completed
Buffer Property No. 3 15 Purchase completed
Buffer Property No. 4 90 Proposed purchase
Source: City of Bakersfield, Department of Public Works, Solid Waste and Recycling Division, written
correspondence, December 9, 2003 and verbal communication, February 20, 2004.
Michael Brsndman Associates
~RiGiNAL~'
H:~lglient (pN-JN)\0216~02160026~32160026_IS.doc
$~ Lul$
Obispo Count/
H
[ ..... J
ORIGINA.
Masterson St.
Morning Dr.
Fairfax Rd.
Vernon Ave.
Oswell St.
ORIGINAL
Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill Final C~'?'~!rs - Initial Study Introduction
1.4.2 Site Environmental Setting
The landfill facility contains 132 acres. The landfilled footprint contains approximately 115 acres.
The on-site and off-site borrow acres contain approximately 8.25 acres and 9.0 areas, respectively.
The temporary haul road contains approximately 1.9 acres. The geomorphology of the BCSL is
virtually a flat plane with a southern slope rising to an elevation of 815 feet above mean sea level
(AMSL) and a northern slope failing to an elevation of 595 feet AMSL. The deck of the BCSL is at
an average elevation of 755 feet AMSL.
Groundwater was encountered at the site approximately 630 feet below the ground surface.
Groundwater, recharged from the Kern River, is inferred to generally flow to the south or southeast in
the vicinity of the site.
A series of existing downdrain chutes, diversion berms and drainage swales serve as the drainage
system for stormwater runoff at the BCSL. Stormwater from the southern slope will drain to the deck
of the landfill. Runoff from the deck area will drain to a number of swales where it will be routed to
the inlets of downdrain chutes located at the northern slopes. The northern slopes drain to the
drainage benches (access roads), which route the runoff to the downdrain chute inlets located along
the drainage benches. The combined flow from the southern and northern slopes exit the BCSL
property at the property line via a series of nateral and constructed drainage channels.
A landfill gas control/recovery system has been installed at the BCSL and is currently operating. This
system consists of a series of vertical and horizontal gas extraction wells connected by a system of
lateral and main header pipes. A landfill gas flare station combusts collected gas from a series of
perimeter wells installed to control off-site migration. The gas control system consists of
approximately 33 vertical gas extraction wells and 3 horizontal extraction wells. The wells are
connected by laterals and gas is piped downhill to the northern refuse boundary by an eight-inch
header and is then pulled to the flare station. No additional wells are required for closure.
A landfill gas-to-energy facility is also located adjacent to the flare station, which was used to
produce electricity. This facility is not in operation.
There are two structures located on the BCSL site: a City-owned radio tower used by the Police
Department and a the non-operational gas-to-energy facility. Neither of these structures is located
directly on the landfilled footprint.
Michael Brsndman Associates
t~
ORIGINA~:>
H :x~2 lient (pN-JN)~02I 6g)2160026xO2160026_IS.doc
Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study Introduction
1.5 INTENDED USES OF THE DOCUMENT
The intended use of this document is to provide the City, other public agencies, and interested
members of the public with a document that discloses the potential environmental impacts associated
with approving this project.
Approval of this document would occur at the time the City Council approves City staff to advertise a
bid for construction services for the proposed project. There are no other discretionary entitlements
or approvals associated with this project. The ClWMB and the Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board must deem the FC/PCMP complete.
Michael Brandman Associates
ORIGINAL
$a;m,~,'ield City Sanitary Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study Project Description
SECTION 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The final closure of the BCSL is divided into two broad phases: the closure construction phase and
the post-closure monitoring and maintenance phase. The closure construction phase includes all
activities related to the physical closure of the BCSL. The post-closure monitoring and maintenance
phase includes all activities related to the monitoring and maintenance of the BCSL occurring after
the closure construction phase. Major activities of each phase are identified in the following table:
Source of cover material
Structure decommissioning and relocation
Soil placement and site grading
Stormwater drainage control features
Erosion control features
Integration of final cover and landfill gas control
system
Site security installation
Table 2: Activities by Project Phase
Landfill gas migration monitoring and maintenance
Sturmwater monitoring
Final cover inspection and maintenance
Vegetation maintenance
Settlement monitoring and maintenance
Access road maintenance
Drainage control system inspection and
maintenance
Site security inspection and maintenance
Because the BCSL ceased operations in 1983 and has not received any wastes since that time, there
are no activities related to the closure of an open, active landfill such as diversion of incoming waste
to a different landfill, re-routing of refuse truck traffic, etc. Moreover, there are no plans to re-open
the landfill.
Prior to the commencement of the closure construction phase, the fmal cover design must be
deterrmned. State law prescribes minimum standards for a final cover design, known as prescriptive
standards. Alternatives to the prescriptive design standards are pertained by State law when the
construction of the prescriptive design, or components of the design, are deemed infeasible. An
alternative cover design is proposed for the BCSL.
Michael Brendman Associates
H:~Client (pN_JN)~0216~02160026~02160026_1S.doc
ORIGINAL
~,;~=r~;~:d Cliy Sanitary Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study
Project Description
2.1 FINAL COVER DESIGN
The following considerations were included in establishing a f'mal cover design for the BCSL:
geometry of the existing landfill site; local climatic conditions; landfill settlement; final soil material
availability and its performance criteria; erosion protection; vegetative growth; construction cost; and
the proposed end use. It was determined that an alternative fmai cover design utilizing a monolithic
engineered select soil cover is the most appropriate final cover system for this site. The alternative
final cover design proposed for the BCSL is similar to the final closure design proposed for the China
Grade Landfill, located northeast of the BCSL.
The alternative final cover system has been designed to:
· Ensure containment of waste raateriais;
· Minimize the deep infiltration of rain water;
· Provide a vegetative cover of native grasses;
· Prevent exposure of people and animals to waste;
· Limit the production of landfill gas emissions;
· Limit the generation of leachate;
· Minimize odor;
· Prevent and control internal frres; and
· Provide for an aesthetically pleasing appearance.
Project Design Features
This final cover design includes design features that are specific to solid waste disposal facilities in
general and to this specific project. These are referred to as Project Design Features (PDFs). In many
cases, PDFs include environmental considerations or directly address environmental issues that, as a
result, have the same effect as a mitigation measure in reducing or eliminating potentially significant
impacts to the environment to less than significant. For this reason, and to ensure inclusion in the
project, the PDFs associated with this project are hereby identified.
Use of PDFs in this project as mitigation measures is consistent with the City's CEQA
Implementation Procedures that state "... effort should be made to identify and incorporate mitigation
measures into the project design..." and "creativity, reasonableness, and practicality should be used in
developing mitigation measures ....
Following are PDFs associated with this project:
PDF 1 Stormwater Conveyance - Use of graded swales, ditches, and mechanical conveyance
features that prevent stormwater intrusion in the landfill mass and prevent soil erosion.
Michael Brendman Associates 2~.
ORIGINAL
City S~,,,i;~;-x- Landfill Final Ctn="re ' Initial Study Project Description
2.3 CLOSURE ACTIVITIES
The closure construction phase is comprised of several activities. Although these activities are
described separately for purposes of clarity, some aspects of each may be performed concurrently.
2.3.1 Structure Decommissioning and Relocation
Currently, them are two structures located on the BCSL site: a City-owned radio tower used by the
Police Department and a non-operational landfill gas-to-energy facility. Neither of these structures is
located directly on the landfilled footprint and, therefore, will not require decommissioning or
relocation.
2.3.2 Final Cover
Clearing and Grubbing
Prior to final grading and placement of the final cover, any existing vegetative materials will be
removed from the surface without disturbing or exposing the underlying refuse. Any vegetative
materials removed during clearing and grubbing operations will be reused on the facility.
Soil Placement and Grading
Prior to placement, the borrow soil materials will be wetted to the CQA specifications (within 1-3%
of dry optimum) and thoroughly mixed to obtain a near uniform condition. The material will then be
placed in lifts with a maximum uncompacted thickness of six to eight inches. Each lift will be spread
evenly and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density.
The northern and southern slopes will be approximately 3:1 and 2:1, respectively. Other locations
will require existing soil removal and re-compaction for construction of the final cover. In some
areas, the top deck will receive some additional foundation soil materials to increase the minimum
gradient of 2.5 percent. A number of swales will be constructed at one percent on a south-north
alignment to convey runoff to downdrains on each end of the top deck.
The final grading configuration will promote lateral runoff of surface water and accommodate the
effects of the anticipated settlement of the refuse.
Drainage Control
The primary function of the BCSL drainage control system is to collect and convey stormwater in a
controlled manner to minimize erosion and infiltration of stormwater into the refuse. The FC/PCMP
included a hydrology study for the proposed conditions at the site calculated storm water runoff for
sizing and location information for the site's storm drain facilities at closure.
Michael Brandman Associates
ORIGINAL
City Sufi;;=,y Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study Project Description
The existing drainage facilities will be either decommissioned or removed and relocated, and
incorporated into the new drainage facilities. All new drainage structures have been sized to
accommodate mn-off from a 100-year, 24-hour storm event.
Runoff from the southern slope will naturally drain to the top deck. To prevent mn-on to the deck, a
drainage ditch will be constructed at the foot of the southern slope, around the southern perimeter of
the landfill, to convey stormwater to natural drainage systems off the landfill. Therefore, the southern
slope will not contain any designed drainage system. The top deck of the BCSL will be graded to
direct the runoff to the downdrain chute inlets of the top deck berm located on the northern slope.
The downdralns, consisting of 10 metal flumes, are designed to convey water across the benches via
concrete bench crossings to the natural drainage system located at the base of the northern slope. The
outlets of the metal flumes will contain riprap energy dissipation structures as an erosion control
measure. An existing concrete stormwater conveyance feature, located along the southern boundary
of the facility, prevents mn-on from adjacent residences.
Erosion Control
Three primary erosion control features that will reduce the potential for soil erosion due to water and
wind. These features include landfill contouring, a slope bench system, and vegetation.
Landf'fll Contouring - The decks will be contoured for sheet flow mn-off with a minimum
slope of approximately 2.5 percent. Any large erosion gullies formed during storm events on
the deck and slopes will be filled and the area track walked by a crawler tractor to replace and
recompact the soil.
Slope Bench System - The slope bench will be constructed at approximately 40 to 50-foot
above the toe of the landfill slope. The final slope bench system will reduce the length of
travel of mn-off on the slope face thus reducing the opportunity for rilling and gullying.
Vegetation - Vegetative materials were selected to fulfill two primary functions: erosion and
moisture control. Moisture control through evapotranspiration of selected plants is the main
infiltration controlling mechanism in a monolithic alternative final cover design. Plant
species include native seasonal grasses. This will provide a good soil root distribution at
varying, relatively shallow depths (up to 36 inches) within the monolithic cover section.
The project also proposes addition of this same vegetative cover to the on-site borrow source after the
soil has been extracted.
Michael Brendman Associates
H:Xl21ient (pN-JN)~216~02160026~0216~26 iS.doc
City Sui~i;~i-i L~,.dl#l Final Closure - Initial Study Project Description
Integration of Final Cover and Landfill Gas Control System
The existing landfill gas system at the BCSL was constructed on berms set at the estimated final
grade elevation of the final cover. Therefore, prior to placement of the final cover, the header system
on the benches will be marked in order to be protected in place during construction activities.
Any horizontal and/or deep or shallow vertical gas collection wells in place at closure will be
protected during the placement of the final cover since control of landfill gas must continue during
cover construction. The top of the vertical or horizontal wells will be extended beyond the final cover
and then reconnected to the lateral header line as before. The final cover material will be placed and
compacted by hand around the wells or vault to protect against damage by earthmoving equipment.
Site Security
The BCSL ceased operations in 1983 and all points of vehicular access have since been restricted.
The southwest and south property lines are bounded by fences from the private residences. Along
Panorama Drive, a chain link fence and gate restricts entry. Site security will include a six-foot chain-
link perimeter fence with two-double 12 foot wide swing gates to allow for authorized vehicular
access by the City. A sign will be installed at each vehicular access gate to indicate that no
unauthorized vehicular access is allowed, and a number to call in case of emergency. These measures
are intended to reduce incidents of vandalism and illegal disposal of wastes during the post-closure
monitoring and maintenance period.
Perimeter Maintenance Road
A perimeter maintenance road and deck vehicular access roads (consisting of compacted soil and
gravel) will be constructed for use in maintaining the final cover and environmental control systems
throughout the post-closure monitoring and maintenance period.
2.4 POST-CLOSURE END USE
The proposed post-closure end use for the BCSL (landfilled footprint) is non-irrigated open space.
Current requirements limit end uses on landfilled footprints in order to maintain the integrity of the
final cover surface. The C1WMB, RWQCB, and Local Enforcement Agency, in accordance with 27
CCR, Section 21190, must review any future proposed changes to the proposed end use that would
require construction improvements on the lanfilled footprint.
Michael Brendman Associates
H:X/Elient (pN_JN)~0216~02160026~216EO26 ISdoc
Bakersfield Ci~/ S..;;~,-y Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study Project Description
2.5 POST-CLOSURE MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE
Post-closure monitoring and maintenance will be performed in accordance with applicable regulatory
standards included in the California Code of Regulations and any applicable City regulations.
2.5.1 Landfill Gas Migration Monitoring and Maintenance
Regular monitoring, maintenance and repairs on the LFG system are conducted by the City staff and
landfilled gas consultants, under contract to the City. LFG&E reports the monitoring data to the City
on a monthly basis. Inspections of the landfill gas recovery/collection system will be carried out by
personnel during regular working hours and will inspect wells, pipelines, low points, mainline valves
and mainline sample points. Unusual ground surface seeps, odors or landscape distress that appear
along the pipe alignments will be investigated and documented.
The landfill gas migration monitoring wells will be inspected monthly in conjunction with scheduled
monitoring tasks. System components will be repaired and replaced to maintain full system
capabilities as intended at initial installation. Should a probe be deemed non-repairable, it will be
abandoned in-place and a new probe will be placed in the same proximity.
2.5.2 Stormwater Monitoring
The City will continue to collect stormwater samples in accordance with and will complete testing
and reporting as required by the RWQCB. As part of the requirements for a General Industrial
Stormwater Permit, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Stormwater Monitoring
Plan (SWMP) were prepared for the landfill in compliance with the State's National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. The SWPPP and SWMP will be
amended, as necessary, to reflect any future changes in the operation and design of the facility.
2.5.3 Final Cover Maintenance Plan
The primary purpose of the final cover maintenance procedures is to maintain the integrity of the
completed final cover over the long-term and provide maintenance, scheduling and documentation so
that materials and maintenance practices are consistent with the specifications. Visual inspections of
the final cover will be performed quarterly and after each heavy rainfall. Inspections will include
identification of any erosion and settlement problems. The City will be responsible for documenting
the location and extent of any repairs.
2.5.4 Vegetation Maintenance
The BCSL vegetative cover is designed to provide erosion control from water and wind. The
vegetative cover will be inspected quarterly.
Michael Brsndman Associates
H:~Client (pN_JN)\0216~2160026~216CO26_1S.doc
Bakersfield City S~,,;;,,iy Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study Project Descrfption
The following post-closure activities are identified as necessary to effectively maintain the vegetative
cover.
Weed Control - The intent of the weed control program is to properly identify weeds or
other plant materials, which are not suitable for erosion control and for establishment on the
f'mal cover system. If problematic weeds are identified, eradication methods will be
implemented prior to seed production.
Soil Quality - In order to provide long-term erosion control and a visually cohesive
landscape, soil conditioning must be considered for the site. The proposed vegetative cover
normally would not require additional fertilizer. However, nutrient deficiencies in the soil
may warrant the application of supplemental fertilizers to maintain proper growth.
Rodent Control - Monitoring of rodent activity will occur in the spring months when food is
most available. Rodent control measures will be implemented as needed. The recommended
natural controls include rodents, natural predators such as hawks, and kestrels. The
recommended man-made controls typically include traps. Man-made controls should be set
in place by a licensed pest control advisor.
Reseeding - As post-closure monitoring activities and maintenance operations are performed,
the vegetative cover may be damaged or small portions removed. At these times, reseeding
will be necessary to maintain the vegetative cover. Additionally, the vegetative cover will be
evaluated every five years to determine if reseeding is necessary. To take advantage of
seasonal rainfall, reseeding in the fall and winter months is recommended. Reseeding should
not be performed during windy conditions or in the summer months. Hand-held "whirly-
bird'' spreader is the recommended form of seed application for smaller areas.
2.5.5 Settlement Monitoring and Maintenance
A minimum of two permanent monuments will be installed at the landf'dl so that the precise location
and elevation of wastes and final cover, drainage conveyance and gas system facilities can be
determined throughout the post-closure monitoring and maintenance period, and controls can be
provided from which to monitor future landfill settlement.
2.5.6 Access Road Maintenance
The site vehicular access roads and benches will require periodic maintenance. The vehicular access
road and the bench will be inspected yearly and should be graded, if necessary, every five years, or
more frequently.
Michael Brendman Associates
Bakersfield City Sanitat~ Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study Project Description
2.5.7 Drainage Control System Inspection and Maintenance
The on-site drainage control facilities must be free of excessive debris and operational at all times. In
order to provide the desired protection against flooding and erosion damage, routine inspections of
the drainage control system will be conducted. A visual inspection of each open channel and
downdrain will be conducted to identify any of the following deficiencies: cracking, settlement, or
spalling.
After the drainage control system has been in service for several years, a more def'mitive inspection
and maintenance schedule can be developed identifying those areas that must be inspected quarterly
and those areas that must be inspected prior to and after a storm and those areas that require
maintenance before the wet season. In general, the system will be inspected on a quarterly basis.
During the wet season the system may be inspected more frequently, such as after a significant storm
event, and will be inspected after a significant seismic event or natural disaster.
2.5.8 Site Security Inspection and Maintenance
Security fencing, vehicular access gates, and signs will be inspected quarterly to ensure that the
integrity of site security has been maintained. The gates will be inspected to ensure that the locks are
intact. Any necessary repairs or replacements will be made during the quarterly inspection.
Michael Brsndman Associates
~ORIGINA?
H:~Client (PN ]N)XlY216~02160026~lY2160026_iS.doc
Bal~,, =;;~;~, City Sanitary Landfill Final C!o_=, ,,'e - Initial Study Environmental Checklist
SECTION 3
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
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?
prepared by th~
ora
Would the projec .
Evaluation and Site Assessment Mode~ [. ~ O
)ptional model to use in assessing tmpaets
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 non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use?
[] []
Air Quality . ·
Where available, the s~cance criteria established by the appliCable mr quality management or mr
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the [--I [ [-] ['-I I
applicable air quality plan?
Michael Brondmen Associates ~- r~
H:~ClJent (PN4N)~216\02160026~2160026 ISdoc ~ORIGIN^~
Bakersfield City Su.i;p, y Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study Environmental Checklist
b) Violate any air quality standard 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 non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concena'ations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
Wou~ the proj~ct:
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, and 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 wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Michael Brandman Associates
U:~Uent(PNJN)m216~2160G26~21600261Sdoc ~ A~
RIGIN
Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study Environmental Checklist
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?
5,
Wo~ld th~ ~oject:
,
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined [] [] [] []
in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource [] [] [] []
pursuant to § 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?
WoUld the project:
a) Expose people or slractares to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Pdolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area [] [] [] []
or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? [] [] [] []
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including [] [] [] []
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides'? [] [] [] []
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of [] [] [] []
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in on- [] [] [] []
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code [] [] [] []
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
Michael Brondman Associates
F- m
City SaniMry Landfill Final Closure o Initial Study Environmental ChecMiat
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater []
disposal systems where sewers are not available
0r the dispo}al of wastewater?
W~ the Proj~:
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
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 an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or []
public use airport, 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
airs~p, 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?
8. Hydrology and Water QUality
Would the projeCt:
[] []
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
[] []
Michael Brandman Associates
City Sanitary Landfill Final ~!_-~,,re - Initial Study Environmental Checklist
lmm: i '
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 thc existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a [] [] [] []
manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or [] [] [] []
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner, which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
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?
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? [] [] [] []
Michael Brandman Associates
H:~l~ent (pN-IN)~0216\02 t 60026~02160026_1S.doc
-- n=k. rsfleld City Sanita~/ Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study Environmental Checklist
Wo~ tF~ projgct:
~) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural communities
conservation plan?
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of 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 generation of
excessive ground borne vibration or ground
borne 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 an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
Michael Brendman Associates
City Sa,,;:~;-t Landfill Final C~_,~;re - Initial Study Environmental ChecMist
__
Wou~ ~ project:
a) Cause ~ incre~e in W~fic, w~ch is
subs~ntial in relation to the existing ~affic load
~d capacity of the s~eet system (i.e., result in
a subs~nfial increase in either the number of
vehicle ~ps, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service s~nd~d established by the
county congestion ~nagement agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in ~r ~affic pat~rns,
including either ~ increase in ~c levels or a
change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase h~ds due to a design
feat~e (e.g,, sh~ c~ves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., f~m
equipment)?
e) Result in in.equate emergency access?
~ Result in inad~uate p~king capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
pro.ms supposing alternative ~sponation
(e.g., bus t~nouts, bicycle rac~)?
WouM the project:
a) Exceed wastewamr ~eatment requirements of
· e applicable Region~ Water Quality Consol
Bo~d?
b) Requke or result in the cons~uction of new
water or wastewater ~eatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, ~e cons~uction
of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Requke or result in the cons~ucfion of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the cons~ction of which
could cause significant envkonmen~ effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies av~lable to
serve the project ~om existing entitlements and
reso~ces, or ~e new or expanded entitlements
needed?
Michael Brandman Associates
Bakersfield Cliy SaniM~/ Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study Environmental Checklist
e) Result in a dctcrmiantion by thc wastcwater
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?
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, 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 limiled, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project [] [] [] []
are considerable 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 will cause substantial adverse effects on [] [] [] []
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Michael Brandman Associates
~3-9 ~
ORIGINAL
Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study Environmental Checklist
, Any environmental factors that are checked below indicate that at least one environmental issue within each
environmental factor category has been identified as a "Potentially Significant Impact" according to the
environmental checklist in the preceding section (Section 3).
[] Aesthetics
[] Biological Resources
[] Hazards & Hazardous Materials
[] Mineral Resources
[] Public Services
[] Utilities/ServiceSystems [] Mandatory Findings of Significance
[] None of these environmental factors has an environmental issue that is a "Potentially Significant
Impact".
[] Agriculture Resources
[] Cultural Resources
[] Hydrology/Water Quality
[] Noise
[] Recreation
[] Air Quality
[] Geology/Soils
[] Land Use/Planning
[] Population/Housing
[] Transportation/Traffic
Michael Brsndman Associates
H:XlElient (pN-JN)~0216~02160026~216CO26 IS.doc
Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study Environmental Checklist
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I f'md that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a
Negative Declaration (ND) will be prepared.
I fred that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent and the proposed project contains Project
Design Features (PDFs) that reduce or eliminate potential environmental impacts. A
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required.
I fmd that the proposed project may have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measure based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An EIR is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects I) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR,
ND or MND pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, ND or MND, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signed ,k.A.^~-<_~ ~-.a¢~-. ~L~}-o,~- Date
Name Marc Gauthier
Title Principal Planner
Michael Brsndman Associates
H:XClient (pN-JN)~0216~2160026~02160026_1S.doc
Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study Environmental Discussion
SECTION 4
ENVIRONMENTAL DISCUSSION
1. AESTHETICS
a)
b)
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista ?
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact (a-b). The BCSL site is not identified as a scenic vista. The closest
designated scenic vista is identified on Exhibit 4.2-2 (Scenic Resources) of the Final
Program Environmental Report (PE1R) for the Bakersfield Metropolitan General Plan
north of the BCSL site along Alfred Harrell Hwy. The directional vantage points
from this vista are to the north and east, away from the BCSL site. There are no
State-designated scenic highways adjacent to or near the BCSL site. Tbemfore, no
impacts to scenic resources would result from project implementation.
c)
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings ?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The existing visual characteristics
and quality of the site will not be significantly changed. No structures or buildings
are proposed. The site has been significantly disturbed by previous landfill activities.
Currently, the landfill footprint portion of the site is covered with an intermediate soil
cover system. This intermediate cover system is an interim, or intermediate,
environmental control system, but does not include all of the elements necessary for a
final cover design, such as final contouring or vegetative cover.
Among the many considerations of the cover design are two that relate to appearance
or aesthetics. They are the existing geometry of the site and vegetation. The f'mal
cover design essentially contours the existing site to conform to current regulations.
This contouring will resemble the current shape and result in a minimal increase in
height above the existing contours. The use of non-irrigated vegetation on the final
cover provides the basis for the end use of the site as open space. In addition to
maintaining the integrity of the final cover, the use of vegetation is considered an
appearance enhancing feature and, where necessary, an aesthetic measure.
Excavation of the off-site borrow source would result in a change in topography in
this location. However, excavation in this general location would ultimately occur
apart from the proposed project because Paladino Road is designated in the City
Michael Brendman Associates
H:Xl21ient (pN-JN)\0216\02160026~0216~)26_1S.doc
Bakersfield City Saniteq/ Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study Environmental Discussion
General Plan for eventual extension to Fairfax Road. Although designated for
eventual extension, a precise plan line has not been established and has not been
programmed in the City's Capital Improvement Program. As a result, the precise
alignment and potential constmction date are not known at this time.
Incorporation of the following Project Design Features will reduce to a level below
significance visual impacts resulting from the recontouring of the landfill and
installation of the vegetative cover:
PDF 2 Final Slope Contouring - Construction of the final cover to match the
existing on-site slopes.
PDF 5 Vegetative Cover - Use of a non-irrigated vegetation cover of native
grasses over the landfilled footprint, on-site borrow area, and temporary
haul road that maintains the physical integrity of the soil cap and prevents
wind-borne soil erosion.
In addition to the Project Design Features, the following Mitigation Measure is
recommended:
A-1 The City will leave an intervening ridgeline between the off-site
excavated area and the residential dwellings located on Cliffwood Way,
Cliff wood Court, or Paladino Road (east of Lamplight St.) not lower than
the roof lines, as measured from the highest peak.
Therefore, with the incorporation of the Project Design Features and adoption of the
recommended Mitigation Measure, less than significant impacts would result from
project implementation.
d)
Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
No Impact. The project does not propose any buildings or structures. Therefore, no
light and glare impacts would result from project implementation.
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
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 non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract ?
c)
Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use ?
No Impact (a-c). The BCSL is not used for, zoned for, or proposed for agricultural
production or enrolled in a Williamson Act Contract. In addition, the property does~
Michael Brendman Associates ~2
H:~Zlient (PN-JN)\0216~02160026xO2160026_1S doc ~ORIGINAF
City Sanitary Landfill Final ~,,re - Initial Study Environmental Discussion
not contain any prime agricultural land or soils. Therefore, no farmland impacts
would result from project implementation.
3. AIR QUALITY
a)
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No Impact. A project is deemed inconsistent with air quality plans if it results in
population and/or employment growth that exceed growth estimates in the applicable
air quality plan. Because there is no development proposed by the project, there will
not be any obstruction of the implementation of the applicable Air Quality
Attainment Plan (AQAP). Therefore, no impacts to the AQAP would result from
project implementation.
b)
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Emissions produced during this
project are temporary and therefore considered "short-term" impacts. Dust emissions
would result from earthmoving impacts and exhaust emissions would result from
excavation and transport vehicles. The types of emissions that could occur are
PM10, CO, ROG, NOX, and SOX. Dust emissions vary substantially depending on
the time of day, season, and weather conditions. The SJVAPCD does not require
quantification of PM10 emissions. However, the project is subject to regulation by
the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). Following
completion of the construction, activities associated with the post-closure monitoring
and maintenance phase will not contribute substantially to dust or other air quality
violations.
The following Mitigation Measures are recommended:
AQ-1 Submit a Dust Control Plan, subject to the review and approval of the
SJVAPCD, in conformance with the provisions of SJVAPCD Rule No.
8021.
AQ-2 Load uncovered haul trucks with a minimum of 6 inches of freeboard and
apply water to the top of the load sufficient to limit Visible Dust
Emissions to below 20% opacity, or cover the load.
AQ-3 Limit vehicular speed sufficient to limit Visible Dust Emissions to below
20% opacity.
Construction activity will also result in exhaust emissions from gas- and diesel-
powered equipment. Exhaust emissions would result from excavation equipment and
transportation vehicles.
Michael Brandman Associates 4~
H:~Cliem (PN-JN)\0216\02160026~B2160026 IS.doc
Bakersfield CiP/ Sanitary Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study Environmental Discussion
The following Mitigation Measures are recommended:
AQ-4 Properly and routinely maintain all constmction equipment, as
recommended by manufacturer manuals, to control exhaust emissions.
AQ-5 Turn equipment off when not in use for extended periods of time.
AQ-6 Encourage ride sharing and use of public transportation for constmction
workers commuting to the job site.
AQ-7 Where applicable, use electric-powered equipment rather than fossil fuel-
fired equipment.
Therefore, with the implementation of the recommended Mitigation Measures, less
than significant impacts would result from project implementation.
c)
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds
for ozone precursors)?
No Impact. There will not be any net increase of any criteria pollutant because the
project does not propose any development. Moreover, the proposed post-closure land
use is non-irrigated open space. Therefore, no cumulative air emissions impacts
would result from project implementation.
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations ?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located on a closed Class III sanitary
landfill that received municipal solid waste (Class III wastes) and did not receive
designated waste (Class II wastes) or hazardous waste (Class I wastes). The landfill
will not be reopened. No interred wastes will excavated or relocated. The residential
subdivisions located south of the BCSL, considered sensitive receptors, will not be
exposed to any substantial pollution concentrations. Therefore, less than significant
concentrations of emissions would result from project implementation.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people ?
No Impact. Odors are one of the most obvious forms of air pollution to the general
public. Odors can present significant problems for both the source and the
surrounding community. Although offensive odors seldom cause physical harm, they
can cause agitation, anger, and concern to the general public. Most people determine
an odor to be offensive (objectionable) if it is sensed longer than the duration of a
human breath; typically 2 to 5 seconds. The project does not include any
development that would generate odors. In addition, no interred wastes will be
excavated or relocated. The only potential odors associated with the project are from
Michael Brsndman Associates
H:~Client (pN-$N)[0216~02160026~02160026 IS.doc
Rnk~rsfisld City Ssnitary Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study Environmental Discussion
the diesel exhaust, and the apphcation of asphalt during the construction period.
These odors, if perceptible, are common in the environment, would dissipate rapidly
as they mix with the surrounding air, and would be of very limited duration.
Therefore, any potential odor impacts would be considered a less than significant.
e
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
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 ofFish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b)
d)
e)
f~
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community Mentified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department ofFish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
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 ?
Conflict with any local applicable policies protecting biological resources?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other applicable habitat conservation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation (a-b, d-f). The project site and
proposed activities are covered by the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation
Plan (MBHCP), associated Implementation/Management Agreement by and among
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and
Game, City of Bakersfield and County of Kern, and Incidental Take Permit PRT-
786634.
Under the terms of the MBHCP and Implementing Ordinances, public project 10
acres or less in size and public park sites do not pay MBHCP fees. Developer paid
MBHCP fees include a fee component which mitigates acreage lost to public projects
and parks which support private urban development.
The on-site borrow area will be the location of a future park site as depicted on the
adopted Specific Parks and Trials Plan for Northeast Bakersfield (September 2003)
and is therefore exempt from MBHCP fee payment. The off-site borrow area on
private property east of Fairfax Road will pay MBHCP fees when developed as a
private project. The haul road is a temporary disturbance on land that will remain in
open space and will be revegetated with a seed mix appropriate for the area and
approved by a biologist.
Michael Brandmsn Associstas
H:~Client (pN-JN)~0216~02160026~02160026 IS.doc
ORIGINAL
Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study Environmental Discussion
Incorporation of the following Project Design Feature will reduce potential impacts
relating to biological resources to less than significant:
PDF 5 Vegetative Cover - Use of a non-irrigated vegetation cover of native
grasses over the landfilled footprint, on-site borrow area, and temporary
haul road that maintains the physical integrity of the soil cap and prevents
wind-borne soil erosion.
In addition to the Project Design Feature, the following Mitigation Measure is
recommended:
B-1 Pre-construction surveys for protected plant and animal species shall be
conducted. The study shall include, but not be limited to, an evaluation of
habitat suitability for Blunt-Noised Leopard Lizard (BNLL). If property
is deemed to be suitable habitat for BNLL, surveys for BNLL must be
conducted prior to grading.
Therefore, with the incorporation of the Project Design Feature and adoption of the
recommended Mitigation Measure, less than significant impacts would result from
project implementation.
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 ?
No Impact. There are no wetlands located on the BCSL property or the off-site
borrow source. Therefore, no wetland impacts would result from project
implementation.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §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?
No Impact (a-d). The BCSL is a Class III sanitary landfill and is not considered a
historical resource. In addition, no archaeological or paleontological resources are
known to exist on-site. The project primarily installs a fmal cover system on an
existing landfilled refuse mass, and extracts soil from two borrow areas. Therefore,
no cultural resources impacts would result from project implementation.
MichaetBrandmanAssoctatas ~'~K~'~-n~
H:~21ient (PN-JN)~0216\02160026xO216~O26 ISdoc ~ ~
OR/GINAL
Bakersfield City SaniMry Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study EnvironmenMI Discussion
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture ora known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist
for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking ?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides ?
No Impact (i-iv). The project does not include the construction or modifications of
any buildings or structures, or propose any development. Therefore, no impacts
would result from project implementation.
b)
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed project includes
Project Design Features that control soil erosion and prevent the loss of top soil. A
Soil Loss Analysis was performed for the FC/PCMP. This study concluded that the
average soil loss, after the final cover system has been installed, is below the
threshold allowed by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (C1WMB).
Incorporation of the following Project Design Features will reduce potential impacts
relating to soil erosion and loss of topsoil to less than significant:
PDF 1 Stormwater Conveyance - Use of graded swales, ditches, and
mechanical conveyance features that prevent stormwater intrusion in the
landfill mass and prevent soil erosion.
PDF 2 Final Slope Contouring - Construction of the f'mal cover to match the existing on-site slopes.
PDF 5 Vegetative Cover - Use of a non-irrigated vegetation cover of native
grasses over the landfilled footprint, on-site borrow area, and temporary
haul road that maintains the physical integrity of the soil cap and prevents
wind-borne soil erosion.
In addition to the Project Design Features, the following Mitigation Measure is
recommended:
G-1 The City will implement erosion control measures during borrow
activities for the off-site borrow source. In addition, the City will install
interim erosion control measures, or erosion control design features, that
prevent significant erosion of this borrow location. These interim erosion
control measures will remain in place if, and until such time, as Paladino
Road is extended to Faiffax Road.
Michael Brendman Associates
H:K21ient (pN_JN)\0216\02160026~02160026 ISdoc O t~
ORIGINAL
Bakersfield CiW S=fi;;a,-y Landfill Final C!~$,,re - Initial Study Environmental Discussion
Therefore, with the incorporation of the Project Design Features and adoption of the
recommended Mitigation Measure, less than significant impacts would result from
project implementation.
c)
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable
as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse ?
No Impact. The project does not propose any structural development. Therefore, no
stability impacts would result from project implementation.
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?
No Impact. The project does not propose any structures. Therefore, no stability
impacts would result from project implementation.
e)
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
No Impact. The project does not propose any buildings or structures. Therefore, no
wastewater impacts would result from project implementation.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
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?
No Impact (a-b). The project does not propose to use, transport, or dispose of any
hazardous materials. Therefore, no public hazard impacts would result from project
implementation.
c)
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No Impact. There are no existing or proposed schools within one-quarter mile of
the project boundary. Therefore, no hazardous emission impacts would result from
project implementation.
ORrGINAL
Michael Brandman Associates
H:~C lient (pN-JN)~02I 6~2160026~02160026_1S doc
City Sanitary Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study Environmental Discussion
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?
No Impact. The BCSL is enumerated on the Hazardous Waste Substances Sites List
maintained by the DTSC. The project does not propose any buildings or structures.
Therefore, implementation of the project would not create a significant hazard to
either the public or the environment, and no impacts would result from project
implementation.
e)
For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, wouM the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
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 ?
No Impact. The BCSL is not located within an airport land use plan or in the
vicinity of a private airstrip. The BCSL is located approximately 4.6 miles east of
Meadows Field. Therefore, no safety hazard impacts would result from project
implementation.
g)
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan ?
No Impact. Implementation of the final closure plan does not include any structural
development or proposed any additional uses that would interfere with an adopted
emergency response 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 ?
No Impact. The BCSL is not located adjacent to any wildland fire areas. The
closest identified wildland fire area is located approximately one mile to the north
across the Kern River. Therefore, no wildland fire impacts would result from project
implementation.
City Sanitary Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study EnvironmenMI Discussion
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality ?
No Impact (a, f). The BCSL operates in conformance with Waste Discharge
Requirements, Order No. 5-00-235 and the Standard Provisions and Reporting
Requirements Waste Discharge Requirements, both issued by the Central Valley
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The BCSL operates in conformance by collecting stormwater samples in accordance
with and will complete testing and reporting as required by the RWQCB. As part of
the requirements for a General Industrial Stormwater Permit, a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Stormwater Monitoring Plan (SWMP) were prepared
for the landfill in compliance with the State's National Poilu 'tant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. The SWPPP and SWMP will be
amended, as necessary, to reflect any future changes in the operation and design of
the facility. Therefore, no water quality impacts would result from project
implementation.
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)?
No Impact. The vegetative component of the final cover system does not require
irrigation. The post-closure use of the site is non-irrigated open space. Therefore, no
groundwater impacts would result from project implementation.
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 that would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site ?
d)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site ?
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?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation (c-e). No rivers or streams exist on
the BCSL or the off-site borrow area. The proposed project incorporates Project
Michael Brendman Associates
~ ,---.
ORIGINA~
Ba;~,,~::~:d City S,,,~;;,,~t Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study Environmental Discussion
Design Features related to stormwater management that are designed to
accommodate stormwater runoff from a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. The existing
drainage pattern will not be substantially altered. Stormwater will continue to be
collected and directed off-site into natural drainage courses similar to existing
conditions. The project proposes to install energy dissipaters in the natural drainage
courses.
Incorporation of the following Project Design Features will reduce significance
potential impacts relating to stormwater runoff and erosion to less than significant:
PDF 1 Stormwater Conveyance - Use of graded swales, ditches, and
mechanical conveyance features that prevent stormwater intrusion in the
landfill mass and prevent soil erosion.
PDF 2 Final Slope Contouring - Construction of the final cover to match the
existing on-site slopes.
PDF 5 Vegetative Cover - Use of a non-irrigated vegetation cover of native
grasses over the landfilled footprint, on-site borrow area, and temporary
haul road that maintains the physical integrity of the soil cap and prevents
wind-borne soil erosion.
In addition to the Project Design Features, the following Mitigation Measure is
recommended:
G-1 The City will implement erosion control measures during borrow
activities for the off-site borrow soume. In addition, the City will install
interim erosion control measures, or erosion control design features, that
prevent significant erosion of this borrow location. These interim erosion
control measures will remain in place if, and until such time, as Paladino
Road is extended to Fairfax Road.
g)
h)
Place housing within a lO0-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
Place within a lO0-year flood hazard area structures, which wouM impede or
redirect flood flows ?
No Impact (g-h). The project does not include any housing or stmctares. Moreover,
the BCSL site is located within Area C on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (Panel No.
06077 006 B). This area is identified as subject to minimal flooding. Therefore, no
flooding impacts would result from project implementation.
Michael Brandman Associates
Baku,=;;eld City S~,i~;;~-i I_~,i~,~#l Final Closure - Initial Study Environmental Discussion
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?
No Impact. The project does not propose any development. In addition, Figure VII-
2 of the Bakersfield Metropolitan General Plan does not identify the BCSL site as
being located within the Lake Isabella Inundation Area. Therefore, no flooding
impacts would result from project implementation.
J)
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow ?
No Impact. The BCSL site is located in an inland valley, a considerable distance
from the Pacific Ocean or a large inland body of water, which precludes the hazard of
a tsunami or seiche. Them are no drainage features that could carry a mudflow to the
site. Therefore, no inundation impacts would result from project implementation.
LAND
a)
USE AND PLANNING
Physically divide an established community ?
No Impact. The project is a modification of an existing use that does not propose or
require any new development. Therefore, no land use impacts would result from
project implementation.
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 LRDP, general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
No Impact. The project is consistent with the Bakersfield Metropolitan General
Plan. The BCSL is identified on the General Plan Land Use map as a Public Solid
Waste Facility (P-SW). The project's end use of non-irrigated open space is also
consistent with Policy No. 8 of the Open Space Element of the General Plan that
requires consideration of abandoned landfill areas for open space purposes. The
BCSL site is designated in the zoning ordinance as R-I-HD (Residential zone -
Hillside Development overlay). Because this land use commenced in 1943 and
continued until 1983, the BCSL is considered a legal, non-conforming land use and is
therefore consistent with the City Zoning Ordinance. The Specific Parks and Trails
Plan for Northeast Bakersfield identifies the BCSL as the location and Local
Park/Stuging Area and trail. The final location of the proposed parks and trails will
be determined by the City. Because the tentative location of the park and trails is not
located on the landfilled footprint, implementation of the proposed project would not
prevent the implementation of the Parks and Trails Plan or prevent the use of the
Michael Brandman Associates '
.:~21ient (pN_JN)~0216~02160026~02160026_IS.doc OORIGilNA~
Bakersfield City S=,~;~,, X Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study Environmental Discussion
BCSL for a Local Park/Staging Area trail. Therefore, no land use planning impacts
would result from project implementation.
c)
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan ?
No Impact. Refer to discussion in Section 4, Biological Resources.
10.
MINERAL RESOURCES
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?
No Impact. There are no known mineral resoumes on the BCSL site. Therefore, no
mineral resource impacts would result from project implementation.
b)
Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan ?
No Impact. The Bakersfield Metropolitan General Plan does not identify the BCSL
site as a mineral resource recovery site.
11.
NOISE
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in any applicable plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies ?
Less Than Significant Impact, Construction-related noise impacts are considered
short-term impacts occurring only during periods of construction. The City Noise
Ordinance def'mes construction and sets forth regulations for construction-related
activities that occur within one-thousand feet of a residential dwelling. These
regulations limit the time periods within which construction activities may take place.
Construction activities greater than one-thousand feet from residential dwellings are
not regulated. A portion of the construction activities will be located within this one-
thousand foot zone. Mandatory compliance with the requirements of the Noise
Ordinance would result in less than significant impacts to receptors located within
this zone. Construction activities located outside this zone would not result in any
noise-related impacts. Therefore, less than significant construction noise impacts
would result from project implementation.
Michael Brsndman Associates
City Sa,,;£=,~j Landfill Final Cto~!re - Initial ~,_,~.v Environmental Discussion
b)
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels ?
Less Than Significant Impact. Persons residing in the residential subdivisions
south of the BCSL may experience some minor groundbome vibrations to the
placement and compaction of the final cover material. However, the groundbome
vibrations will be attenuated, or lessened, because the placement and compaction of
the soil will occur on a refuse mass rather than native soil or engineered fill material.
The heterogeneous nature of the material contained in the refuse mass will have a
tendency to absorb the majority of the vibrations. Therefore, less than significant
vibration impacts would result from project implementation.
c)
d)
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
No Impact. The non-irrigated end use does not have the potential to generate any
permanent increase in noise. Therefore, no permanent noise impacts would result
from project implementation.
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities on the BCSL will result in
temporary noise levels during the placement of the final cover material. However,
these increases will not occur over the entire site. Rather, they will be located on the
landfilled footprint portion of the site and the two soil borrow areas. Therefore, less
than significant temporary noise impacts would result from project implementation.
e)
For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
For a project within the vicinity ora private airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels ?
No Impact (e-f). Refer to discussion in Section 7 (e) and (f), Hazards and Hazardous
Materials.
Michael Brandmen Associates
H:K21ient (pN_JN)~216~02160026~02160026_1S.doc
Bakersfield Cib/ Sanitary Landfill Final ~!o-""re - Initial Study Environmental Discussion
'12.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
a)
b)
c)
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)?
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere ?
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere ?
No Impact (a-c). The BCSL does not contain any housing structures or any other
structures where people work or assemble or propose any development or
infrastructure. Therefore, no population and housing impacts would result from
project implementation.
13. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the
following public services?
a) Fire protection ?
b) Police protection ?
c) Schools? Parks? Other public facilities?
d) Parks? Other public facilities ?
e)
Other public facilities ?
No Impact (a-e). The project is the final closure of an inactive landfill. The landfill
will not be reopened and no portion of the property is proposed for any development.
No new government facilities will be required for the post-closure monitoring and
maintenance period. Therefore, no pubic services impacts would occur as a result of
project implementation.
Michael Brandmsn Associates
City Sanital7 Landfill Final C!-"'="re - Initial Study Environmental Discussion
14. RECREATION
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?
No Impact. The project does not include any development. Since the proposed
project would not generate a population of humans, the project would not affect
existing recreational impacts. Therefore, no impacts would result from project
implementation.
b)
Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
No Impact. The project does not include any recreational facilities or require the
modification of any existing recreational facilities. Therefore, no recreational
impacts would result from project implementation.
15.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load
and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections) ?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by
the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways ?
Less Than Significant Impact (a-b). The project does not propose any development
that would generate vehicle trips. Vehicle trips associated with the project would
occur from construction vehicles accessing the site during the temporary, short term
construction period and from maintenance and monitoring vehicles accessing the site
during the post-closure period. Vehicles transporting soil material from the off-site
borrow source will be required to cross Fairfax Road to access the temporary, off-
roadway haul road.
The City of Bakersfield performance criteria for intersections and street segments is
Level of Service (LOS) "C". Tables 4.3-5 and 4.3-6 of the Program Environmental
Impact Report (PE1R) for the Bakersfield Metropolitan General Plan identifies
Panorama Drive, which would be utilized for vehicle trips associated with this
project, as operating at LOS "A" for the year 2000. In addition, Tables 4.3-9 and 4.3-
10 of the PEIR identifies Panorama Drive as continuing to operate at LOS "A" for
the year 2020. The relatively small number of vehicle trips generated by this project
during the post-closure maintenance and monitoring phase would not cause the Level
Michael Brandman Associates 4-1~~
H:~lient (pN-JN)\0216~2160026~02160026_1S.doc
Bakersfield City Sanite~/ Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study Environmental Discussion
of Service on Panorama Drive to drop. Therefore, less than significant traffic
impacts would result from project implementation.
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 ?
No Impact. Refer to discussion in Section 7 (e) and (f).
d)
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Transportation of soil from the off-
site borrow source will require vehicles to cross Fairfax Road (approximately 19 trips
per hour) to access the temporary haul road. With the adoption of the following
Mitigation Measure, less than significant traffic safety impacts would result from
project implementation:
T-1
The City will implement traffic control measures, in accordance with
applicable City regulations, for construction vehicles crossing Fairfax
Road at all times when construction operations are occurring.
e)
Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact. The project does not propose any development. Should any emergency
arise during the post-closure monitoring and maintenance period, vehicular access
would be provided by the main gate off Panorama Drive.
Result in inadequate parking capacity ?
No Impact. The project does not propose any development. There is sufficient
space on the BCSL property to accommodate monitoring maintenance vehicles
during the post-closure period. Therefore, no parking impacts would result from
project implementation.
g)
Conflict with applicable policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
No Impact. There is no development associated with the proposed project.
Therefore, no impacts to alternative transportation programs would result from
project implementation.
Michael Brsndman Associates
City Sanitary Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study Environmental Discussion
16.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
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 ?
No Impact (a-b). The project does not propose any development. Therefore, no
wastewater would be generated and no impacts would result from project
implementation.
c)
d)
Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects ?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Refer to discussion in Section 8 (c-
f).
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
No Impact. The project does not propose any development or require underground
water supplies. Therefore, no impacts would result from project implementation.
e)
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
No Impact. Refer to discussion in Section 16 (a) and (b).
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs ?
No Impact. The proposed project will generate nominal amounts of refuse from
construction related activities. Although the project is the t'mal closure of a Class III
sanitary landfill, none of this refuse will be deposited on-site. All refuse generated
during the short-term construction period will be placed in temporary containers and
transported off-site in a timely manner and deposited into solid waste and/or
recycling receptacles. No refuse is expected to be generated during the post-closure
monitoring and maintenance period. The City Solid Waste Division and contracted
private refuse haulers are responsible for solid waste collection within the City.
There are three County landfills that serve the municipal solid waste disposal needs
Michael Brendman Associatas
ORIGINAL'~
H:XClient (pN-JN)~0216~02160026~2160026_1S.doc
City SaniMry Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study EnvimnmenMI Discussion
of Metropolitan Bakersfield. Bena Landfill is located east of the City in
unincorporated Kern County and is the primary landfill serving Metropolitan
Bakersfield. This landfill has a permitted capacity of approximately 39 years and,
based on future needs, may include expansion to have a lifetime of 75 years if fully
permitted. The nominal amounts of refuse generated by the project will not affect the
capacity of the landfill. Therefore, no impacts to existing landfills would result from
project implementation.
g)
Comply with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
No Impact. The project will be served by one of the private refuse haulers under
contract to the City's Solid Waste Division or by City personnel from the Solid
Waste Division. All waste haulers are required to comply with all statutes and
regulations related to solid waste collection and transportation. Therefore, no solid
waste impacts would occur as a result of project implementation.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a)
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat ofa fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, 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 ?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project is the modification of an existing
facility that is incorporating State- and federally-mandated improvements that
incorporate design features that specifically protect the environment. Impacts to
biological and cultural resources would be less than significant as described in
Section 4 (Biological Resources) and 5 (Cultural Resources).
b)
Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) ?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project is limited to the existing landfill site and
one off-site borrow source. As discussed previously, the design features incorporated
into the project are primarily designed to protect the environment in conformance
with State- and federally-mandated laws and regulations. There are no aspects
related to this project that would produce a cumulative effect with any other projects.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Michael Brandman Associates
ORIGINAL~
H:~Client (pN-JN)\0216\02160026~02160026 lS.doc
Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study Environmental Discussion
c)
Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
No Impact. The project does not propose any structural development and is
designed to protect the environment. Therefore, there would be no adverse effects on
human beings.
Michael Brandman Associates
H:K2 lient (pN-JN)~)216~02160026X02160026_IS.doc
ORIG{NAL
Bakersfield Cib/ Sanitary Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study References
SECTION 5
REFERENCES
State of California, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Facility Inventory Data Base,
Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, April 16, 1998, page 288
Bryan A. Stirrat & Associates. Final Closure/Post-Closure Maintenance Plan - Bakersfield City
Sanitary Landfill. August, 2003.88pp
City of Bakersfield, CEQA Implementation Procedures, November 18, 1998.21pp
City of Bakersfield, Final Program Environmental Impact Report, Metropolitan Bakersfield General
Plan Update, 2002
City of Bakersfield, Zoning Map No. 103-10, No. 103-11, and No. 103-14
City of Bakersfield, Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, December 2002
Thomas Bros. Maps, The Thomas Guide for Central Valley Cities, 1998, pp 221-223
State of California, California Department of Forestry, Natural Hazard Disclosure - Fire, Kern
County, Map NHD-15, June 6, 2000
Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Flooding Program, Flood Insurance Rate
Program, Community Panel No. 06077 006 B, May 1, 1985
Michael Brsndman Associates
ORIQINA~
Bakersfield City Sanite~/ Landfill Final Closure - Initial Study
Appendix A: Site Photographs
Michael Brandman Associates
Photograph 1: Project site looking north toward Kern River.
Photograph 2: Project site looking northeast.
Source: City of Bakersfield Department of Public Works Solid Waste & Recycling Division, November 2003.
[]~1~11~1~ Appendix
[][][]~ Site Photographs 1
Michael Brandman Associates
02160026 · 02/2004 [ site photos.cdr
BAKERSFIELD CITY SANITARY LANDFILL- FINALi~LOSURE ~
Photograph 3: Project site looking northeast.
Photograph 4: Project site looking west.
Source: City of Bakersfield Department of Public Works Solid Waste & Recycling Division, November 2003.
~l~jJ~J~Jl~ Appendix A
[1~1[][1 Site Photographs 3 oa~
Michael Brandman Associates
02160026 · 02/2004 J site photos.cdr BAKERSFIELD CITY SANITARY LANDFILL - FINAl ~LOSURE ~
°0RIGiNA~
Photograph 5: Looking southwest toward project site from Fairfax Road.
Photograph 6: Looking southwest toward project site.
T
Source: City of Bakersfield Department of Public Works Solid Waste & Recycling Division, November 2003.
~1~]~]]1~ Appendix A
[l[][][l Site Photographs 5
Michael Bmndman Associates
02160026 · 02/2004 I site photos,cdr
BAKERSFIELD CITY SANITARY LANDFILL- FINAL d~SURE ~
ORIGINA~
EXHIBIT A I (cont.)
Consideration of Comments
Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Bakersfield
Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill Final Closure
City of Bakersfield
Department of Public Works
Solid Waste and Recycling Division
4101 Truxtur. Road
Bakersfield, CA 93309
661.326.3i 14
Contact: Kevin Barnes, Solid Waste Mar~ager
Prepared by:
Michael Brandman Associates
220 Commerce, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92602
714.508.4100
Contact: Kevin B. Shannon, Project Manager
September 7, 2004
Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill Final Closure
Response to Comments on the Initial Study Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: Introduction AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................... 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
1.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................... 1
Section 2: LIST OF SCOMMENTORS ................................................................................ 3
Comment Letters Received on the Initial Study / MJtigated Negative Declaration ...... 3
Section 3: Responses To Comments ................................................................................ 4
Michael Brsndman Associates
~ORIGiNAf
Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill Final Closure
Response to Comments on the Initial Study Introduction
SECTION 1:
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The Initial Study for the proposed final closure of the Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill was
circulated for public review and comment beginning on August 2, 2004 and ending on August 31,
2004. A formal written response to any written comments received during the public review period is
not required by law. Rather, the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section
15074 [bi) only requires the decision-making body of the lead agency to consider any written
comments received during the public review period at the time it adopts the mitigated negative
declaration.
The written responses to comments presented in this document are intended to assist the lead agency
in their adoption of the mitigated negative declaration.
This document is organized as follows:
· Section 1. Introduction and Executive Summary.
· Section 2. This section lists the agencies/individuals that provided written comments on the
contents of the mitigated negative declaration.
· Section 3. This section includes the written comments received and the responses to those
comments.
1.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Bakersfield (City) is proposing to implement final closure of the Bakersfield City
Sanitary Landfill (BCSL) located in northeast Bakersfield north of Panorama Drive between
Wenatchee Avenue and Fairfax Road. The project site encompasses approximately 132 acres.
The BCSL began operation in 1943 and stopped accepting waste in 1983 with no plans to reopen. As
a result, the City is required to implement plans that describe how the portion of the facility that
received waste will be permanently covered and how the entire facility will be monitored and
maintained. These plans, known as Final Closure/Post-Closure Maintenance Plans, must conform to
State law. A Final Closure/Post-Closure Maintenance Plan has been prepared for the BCSL.
Michael Brandman Associates
Bakersfield Cib/ Sanitary Landfill Final Closure
Response to Comments on the Initial Study Introduction
The final closure of the BCSL has two parts. The first part of the final closure involves adding
additional soil to the portion of the facility that contains buried waste to create a final cover system.
This area contains approximately 115 acres. Currently, this area of the facility has an intermediate, or
temporary, soil cover system. The purpose of constructing this final cover system is to prevent water
from percolating into the buried waste, establish final slopes that allow for the orderly conveyance
and discharge of stormwater runoff, and allow for the establishment of a permanent vegetative cover
of native plants, and other features. The second part of the final closure involves monitoring and
maintenance of the overall facility. This includes security of the entire facility, monitoring and
maintenance of the existing environmental control features, and reporting requirements. The post-
closure monitoring and maintenance period will last for thirty years.
The BCSL has existing environmental controls that will continue during the cover construction phase
and the monitoring and maintenance phase. They are stormwater drainage controls and a landfill gas
control and recovery system.
The end use of the facility will be non-irrigated open space. In addition, the City recently adopted a
Specific Parks and Trails Plan for Northeast Bakersfield that identifies a portion of the BCSL for a
future Local Park/Staging Area. The final closure of the BCSL would not prohibit or interfere with
the utilization of the BCSL in the implementation of the Parks and Trails Plan.
Before the City can implement or approve this project, it must comply with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by the preparation of this Initial Study. This Initial Study
evaluates the proposed project in relation to pre-determined environmental issues in order to
determine if any significant impacts to the physical environment would result from approving this
project. This Initial Study also describes any mitigation measures proposed to lessen or eliminate
potential significant impacts and if the proposed project includes design features, commonly known
as Project Design Features (PDFs), that reduce or eliminate potential significant impacts. The results
of this Initial Study determined that the proposed final closure of the BCSL does not result in any
significant physical impacts to the environment because the proposed project includes Project Design
Features and also proposes mitigation measures. Because no significant physical impacts to the
environment would result from implementing or approving this project, an Environmental Impact
Report is not required. The City will instead adopt a mitigated negative declaration. The term
negative, as used in mitigated negative declarations, refers to the determination that no physical
impacts, or no "negative" impacts to the physical environment would occur from project
implementation.
Michael Brandman Associates
~RIGINAL~
Bakersfield Ci~/ Sanitary Landfill Final Closure
Response to Comments on the Initial Study List of Commentors
SECTION 2:
LIST OF SCOMMENTORS
A list of public agencies and organizations that provided written comments on the mitigated negative
declaration is presented below. Each comment letter has been assigned an alphabetical designation
(A through D). Responses follow each comment letter.
COMMENT LETFERS RECEIVED ON THE INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
A. State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse
B. State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal
Resources
C. County of Kern, Resource Management Agency, Environmental Health Services Department
D. Mr. Gilbert Gia
Michael Brendman Aseocintaa
RIGINA~
Bakersfield Cily Sanits~/ Landfill Final Closure
Response to Comments on the Initial Study Responses To Comments
SECTION 3:
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Following are the responses to the written con~nents that were received during the public review
period on the mitigated negative declaration. Where a comment results in a modification to the text
of the mitigated negative declaration, the response provides specific page, paragraph, and sentence
reference, along with the new text.
Michael Brsndmsn Associates
Amold
Schwarzeneggo'
Governor
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
.lan Boel
Acting Director
August 30, 2004
Marc Gauthier
City of Bakersfield
17 l 5 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
SEP - 1 2004
CiTY OF BAKERSFIELD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Subject: Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill Final Closure
SCH#: 2004071156
Dear Marc Gauthier:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for
review. The review period closed on August 27, 2004, and no state agencies submiUed conunents by that
date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied xvith the State Clearinghouse review requirements
for draft enviromnental documents, pursuant to fire California Environmental Quality Act.
Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the
environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named projecL please refer to the
ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when cootact~ng this office.
Sincerely,
Terry Roberts
Director, State Clearinghouse
1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044
TEL(916)445-0613 FAX(916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov
~RIGINAf
SCH#
Project ~tle
LeadAgency
2004071156
Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill Final Closure
Bakersfield, City of
Type
Description
Nag Negative Declaration
Final closure of the Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill that includes installation of the final soil cover
over the entire landfill site, post-closure monitoring and maintenance activities, and importing soil from
an off-site source.
Lead Agency Contact
Name Marc Gauthier
Agency City of Bakersfield
Phone 661-326-3733
email
Address 1715 Chester Avenue
City Bakersfield
Fax
State CA
Zip 93301
Project Location
city
Region
Cross Stree~
Parcel No.
Townsh~
Kern
Bakersfield
Panorama Drive / Fairfax Road
several in books 146 & 436
29S Range 28E
Section
14
Base SBBM
Proximity to:
Highways
Airports
Railways
Waterways
Schools
Land Use
SR-178
Kern River
2 HS, 3 Jr. HS, and 4 Elam.
Inactive Class III Sanitary Landfill
GP: Public Solid Waste Facility (P-SW)
Z: R-1-HD (Residential)
Project Issues AestheficNisual; Air Quality; Drainage/Absorption; Geologic/Seismic; Noise; Soil
Erosion/Compaction/Grading; ToxidHazardous; TraffidCirculation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Wildlife
Reviewing
Agencies
Resources Agency; Regional Water Quality Control Bd., Region 5 (Fresno); Department of Parks and
Recreation; Native American Heritage Commission; Integrated Waste Management Board;
Department of Fish and Game, Region 4; Department of Water Resources; Department of
Conservation; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 6; Air Resources Board, Major Industrial
Projects; Department of Toxic Substances Control
Date Received 07/29/2004 Start of Review 07/29/2004 End of Review 0812712004
Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency.
Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill Final Closure
I~?__.~,,?~se to Comments on the Initial Study Responses To Comments
State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State
Clearinghouse
Al.
This correspondence is noted and acknowledges the closing of the public review
period for the Draft EIR as required by law. No specific comments on the contents of
the Draft E1R were provided. The correspondence indicates that the only state
agency to respond was the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Refer to
Response to Comment C regarding this comment letter.
No further response is necessary.
Michael Brandman Associates
OI~SION OF OIL, GAS,
& GEOTHERMAL
RESOURCES
4800 STOCKDALE HWY
SUITE 417
BAKERSFIELD
CALIFORNIA
93309-2694
PHONE
FAX
661/861-0279
INTERNET
CONSE RVAl IONCA GOV
ARNOLD
SCHWARZENEGGER
GOVERNOR
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
STATE OF CA LI FO R N lA
August19,2004
] ECE VE
AUG 2 3 2004
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mr. Marc Gauthier
Bakersfield City Planning Department
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Dear Mr. Gauthier:
Subject:
Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill Final Closure
Portions of Sections 10, 11, & 14-T29S/R28E MDB&M
The Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources
(Division) has reviewed the proposed project. The Division supervises the drilling,
maintenance, and abandonment of oil, gas, and geothermal wells in California. The
Division offers the following comments for your consideration.
Portions of the landfill and buffer properties are located within the administrative
boundaries of the Kern River and Kern Bluff oilfields. Please reference "Enclosure
A," a portion of DOGGR Maps 457 and 439. Presently there are two observation
wells, and nine abandoned wells within the landfill and buffer properties.
Operator
New Chaparral
Petroleum, Inc.
LeaseANell
Ho enbeck-Phoen x 1
Location (Section 10)
fr Ctr 1570' S'ly & 100' E'iy
New Chaparral
Petroleum, Inc.
"Hollenbeck-Phoenix"2
fr Ctr 1720' S'ly & 100' E'ly
New Chaparral
Petroleum, Inc.
"Hollenbeck-Phoenix" 3
fr SE cor 600' N & 1650' W
New Chaparral
Petroleum, Inc.
"Hollenbeck-Phoenix"4
fr Ctr 1301' S & 120' E
New Chaparral
Petroleum, Inc.
Kern County Waste
Mgmt. Dept.
Kern County Waste
Mgmt. Dept.
"Hollenbeck-Phoenix" 101
Well No. PW-3
Well No. BC-07
(observation well)
fr S/4 cor 1237' N'ly & 50' E'ly
fr SE cor 1317' N & 592' W
fr SE cor 800' N & 800' W
Mr. Marc Gauthier
August 19, 2004
Page 2
Operator
Loren L. Hillman
Loren L Hillman
New Chaparral Petroleum, Inc.
Kern County Waste
Mgmt. Dept.
Lease/Well
"Hillman-Roos" 1
"Hillman-Roos" 2
"K & M" 101
Well No. BC-08
(observation well)
Location (Section 11 )
fr SW cor 1720' N & 1680' E
frSW cor 780' N & 1120' E
fr Orr 1370' S & 400' E
fr SW cor 800' N & 800' E
The location coordinates on record may be approximate. The Division recommends that the well
locations be accurately plotted on all future maps related to this project. Also, a legible copy of
the final project map should be submitted to the Division.
The Division commented previously on the landfill closure and monitoring plan in our letter to Mr.
Ken AIvis dated September 23, 1994. A copy of that letter is enclosed.
Regardless, if any abandoned or unrecorded wells are uncovered or damaged during excavation
or grading, remedial plugging operations may be required. This office must be contacted to
obtain information on the requirements for and approval to perform remedial operations.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions, please call
Joseph A. Austin at the Bakersfield district office: 4800 Stockdale Highway, Suite 417,
Bakersfield, CA 93309; phone (661) 322-4031.
Sincerely,
David Mitchell
Senior Oil & Gas Engineer
~ORIGINA~:~
, ,STA'"E OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
DIVISION OF OIL, GAS, AND GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES
4800 STOCKDALE HWY, SUITE 417
BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA 93309
(805) 322-4031
PETE WILSON, Governor
September 23, 1994
County of Kern
Solid Waste Management Department
2700 M Street Suite 500
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Attn: Mr. Ken Alvis
re: Notice of Preparation/Initial Study
CPCMP for BCSL
Portions of Secs. 10, 11, 14, & 15
T29S R21E MDB&M
Dear Mr. Alvis:
This office has received and reviewed the above referenced project and offers
the following comments for your consideration.
The northern portion (ie. portions of Section 10 and 11) of the former
landfill is located within the Kern River oil field. The potential for future
oil exploration and development should be considered. The subsequent conver-
sion o~ this site to low-intensity open space appears to provide adequate
access ~or potential oil field activity.
There are three abandoned oil wells within the project boundaries. Given the
nature of the proposed project, remedial action for any of the abandoned wells
is unwarranted at this time. This assessment, however, would likely change
when and if other development occurs at this site. For information purposes,
the identification and location of these wells are as follows:
Kern Co. Waste Mgmt. Dept. PW-3 located 1317.36' north and 591.57' west
of the southeast corner of Section 10. This well was abandoned in 1992
and does meet current Division abandonment requirements.
2. Chaparral Petroleum, Inc. ,,Hollenbeck-Phoenix" 3 located 600' north
and 1650' west of the southeast corner of Section 10. This well was
abandoned in 1966 and does not meet current Division abandonment
requirements.
3. Loren L. Hillman "Hillman-Roos" 2 located 780' north and 1120' east of
[he southwest corner of Section 11. This well was abandoned in 1953 and
<Joes not meet current Division abandonment requirements.
m
The Division recommends that no structure or roadway be built over or in the
proximity to an abandoned well location. Section 3208.1 of the Public
Resources Code authorizes the State Oil and Gas Supervisor to order the
reabandonment of any previously abandoned well when construction of any
structure over or in the proximity of the well could result in a hazard.
This office must be notified if excavation or grading operations uncover a
previously unknown oil well. Remedial operations may be required.
The Division requests that these wells be accurately plotted on any future
maps related to this project, and that a legible copy of the final project map
be submitted to this office.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this review, call Joe Perrick
at 322-4031.
Yours truly,
David Mitchell
Senior Oil & Gas Engineer
JP~DM~jp
jp~wp~ceqa-15
ORIGINAL.
Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill Final Closure
Response to Comments on the Initial Study Responses To Comments
State of California, Department of Conservation, Department of Conservation,
Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources
BI.
The comment regarding wells is noted. Section 1.4.1 of the Initial Study identified
the oil production fields as being within the vicinity of the project site. Regarding the
two observation wells (Well BC-07 and Well BC-08) referenced in the comment,
should these wells continue in operation, they may be protected in the same manner
as the gas production wells described in Section 2.3.2 (page 2-7) of the Initial Study.
The abandoned wells that are located within the landfilled footprint boundary will not
be affected by the addition of the final cover material. The abandoned wells located
on the buffer properties should not be affected by either the temporary haul road or
the use of the properties. Section 1.4.1 of the Initial Study (page 1-3) stated that them
are no development plans for these buffer properties.
No further response is necessary.
Recommendations:
a. Submit a copy of the final project map to the Department of Conservation,
Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources.
b. Prior to the construction of the temporary haul road, stake the location of Well
K&M 101 to verify that it is not located within the proposed alignment of the
temporary haul road.
If any recorded or unrecorded abandoned wells are uncovered during the
construction activities, these wells shall be plugged in conformance with
published guidelines from the Department of Conservation, Department of
Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resoumes.
Michael Brandman Assoc~tas
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH S. ,CES DEPARIMLNI
sTEVE McCALLEY, R.E.H.S., Direclor
2700 'M' STREEI, SUITE 300
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301-2370
Voice: (661) 862-8700
fax: (661) 862-8701
~ Retay: (800) 735-2929
August 12, 2004
City of Bakersfield Planning Department
Attention: Marc Gauthier
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
DAVID PRICE III, RMA DIRECTOR
AUG 1 ? 2004
Oll'~ OF BAKEFtSFIELD
pLANNING DEPAFtTME~T
SUBJECT:
Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill Closure
Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2004071156)
Dear Mr. Gauthier:
The Environmental Health Services Department has reviewed the referenced project and offers the
following comments for your consideration:
1. The Kern County Environmental Health Services Department, as Local F~nforcement Agency for
the California Integrated Waste Management Board, has approved the Final Closure and
Postclosure Plans for the Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill.
2. The Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, and the California Integrated
Waste Management Board have not approved the Final Closure and Postclosure Plans for the
Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill. Approval by these agencies is necessary before closure
acnvities may be initiated.
After closure activ t cs ha,,'(: been completed and, as required by Title 27, California Code of]
3. Regulations, Section 21880 et seq., the City of Bakersfield shall submit a certification to the /
Loca Enforcement Agency, California Integrated Waste Management Board, and the Regional /
Water Quality Control Board that the solid waste landfill has been closed in accordance with the
approved final closure plan.
4. The Local Enforcement Agency will continue to inspect the facility on a monthly basis until the
certification of closure is approved by the above agencies.
5. Upon approval of the certification of closure, the Local Enforcement Agency will decrease the]
inspection frequency to once every three months.
If you should have any questions, please contact Diana Wilson at (661) 862-8768.
Sincerely,
. Sieve McCalley.~./.~/~</~
/" /~'"/.,-' ;,
Land Development Program
Ttt:jrw
(land~hardyXcity sir closure)
Cl.
Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill Final Closure
Response to C~,~,,,~;s on the Initial Study Responses To Comments
County of Kern, Resource Management Agency, Environmental Health
Services Department
Cl.
The comment regarding the role of the Kern County Environmental Health Services
Department as the Local Enforcement Agency of the California Integrated Waste
Management Board is noted and that this agency has approved the Final
Closure/Post4Zlosure Maintenance Plan.
No further response is necessary.
C2.
The comment regarding the role of the California Integrated Waste Management
Board and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board is noted.
Section 1.5 of the Initial Study (page I-8) identifies the intended uses of the
document. This section identified the California Integrated Waste Management
Board and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board as having
approval authohty of the Final Closure/Post-Closure Maintenance Plan.
No further response is necessary.
C3. The comment regarding the certification of final closure is noted.
No further response is necessary.
C4.
The comment regarding the continuation of inspection and enforcement duties by the
Kern County Environmental Health Services Department is noted.
Section 2.5 of the Initial Study (page 2-8) describes the post-closure and monitoring
activities that would occur on the prqiect site after the construction period.
No further response is necessary.
Recommendations:
Obtain written approval from the California Integrated Waste Management
Board and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to the
commencement of construction activities.
After the completion of closure activities, submit written verification to the Kern
County Environmental Health Services Department as the Local Enforcement
Agency of the California Integrated Waste Management Board, the California
Integrated Waste Management Board, and the and Central Valley Regional
Water Quality Control Board.
ORIGINA~
From: Kevin Barnes
To: Marc Gauthier
Date: 8~4~04 8:20AM
Subject: Fwd: letter to planning commission re Panorama closure
Here's your copy. I'll wait to hear from you on the health issue.
>>> "Gilbert Gia" <ggia@igalaxy.net> 8/3/2004 4:24:11 PM >>>
Thank you for you help. Here is a copy of the letter I mailed today:
August 3, 2004Gilbed P. Gia 4104 Boise STBakersfield CA 93306-1102(661 ) 872-1480
Mark Gauthier, Project Manager \ Principal Planner
City of Bakersfield Planning Department
1715 Chester AVE
Bakersfield CA 93301-5210
RE: Notice of City Council Hearing, September 22, 2004
Proposed Mitigate Negative Declaration...
Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill Final Closure,
(Panorama DR--Alfred Harrell HWY--Fairfax DR)
Dear Mr. Gauthier,
Please investigate an unaddressed Mitigated Measure in the Michael Brandman Associates document
"Initial Study --City of Bakersfield - Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill Final Closure, July 20, 2004".
By way of review, Brandman projected that up to 500,000 cubic yards of fill would be moved by trucks,
representing about 150 round-trips per day over a period of five months. One of the sources of this fill is
within the boundaries of the landfill, and the other is about a half-mile ESE. Brandman recommended that
dust emissions arising from transport of fill be attenuated via the requirements of SJVAPCD Compliance
Assistance Bulletin, Fugitive Dust Control at Construction Sites on earthmoving contractors.
Brandman Associates of Irvine make no mention of locally endemic coccidioides immitis at the borrow
sites. Coccidioidomycosis, or "Valley Fever", is respiratory in origin, and although usually benign and
limited to the lungs, it also frequently spreads, forming burrowing abscesses in the skin. Among certain
racial groups and immune-compromised persons the mycosis migrates into bones and visceral organs and
becomes fatal
it is generally know that parts of the County are epicenters of coccidioides [mmitis. The city needs to know
if significant levels of the fungus reside in the two proposed borrow-sites. These sources might be quite
inappropriately chosen. Why chance it?Sincerely,
Gilbert Gia
Bakersfield City Sanitary Landfill Final Closure
Response to Comments on the Initial Study
Mr. Gilbert Gia
D1. The comment regarding valley fever is noted. The valley fever fungus generally is
found in the base of hillsides in undisturbed soil. Typically, it grows in the top few
inches of soil, but can grow down to about one foot in depth. The fungus does not
survive well in highly populated areas due to the lack of undisturbed soil. In
addition, the fungus is not likely to be found in soul that has been cultivated and
fertilized. Individuals most susceptible to valley fever are agricultural workers,
construction and road workers, and archaeologists because they are directly exposed
to the locations where the fungus could be present.
The environmental issues associated with hazards and hazardous materials (Initial
Study page 4-8) or the environmental issues associated with air quality (Initial Study
page 4-3) do not require an evaluation of potential effects related to valley fever. In
addition, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District does not identify
thresholds of significance related to valley fever. Testing for the presence or absence
of fungus in the soil is not required for this project.
The potential for spores to be released would be associated with the short-term and
temporary construction activities. However, the construction activities require
compliance with San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District's regulation for
the suppression of dust emissions. These regulations have been included in the air
quality analysis in the Initial Study (page 4-3) and resulted in proposed mitigation
measures. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the potential for
the release of the spores, should they be present in the soil, is significantly reduced
along with the dust.
Recommendations:
a. During grading activities, reconunend that workers wear facemasks during windy
periods of time.
b. Include in the construction bid package information disclosing the potential for
expose to valley fever due to the construction activities.
Michael Brandman Associates
OFttGiNA~>