DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ... - inyoplanning.orginyoplanning.org/documents/CrystalGeyserCEQA.pdf · DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND INITIAL STUDY PROJECT

Inyo County Planning Department Appendix G-Environmental Checklist Form Page 1

Planning Department 168 North Edwards Street Post Office Drawer L Independence, California 93526

Phone: (760) 878-0263 FAX: (760) 878-0382

E-Mail: inyoplanning@ Inyocounty.us

DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

AND INITIAL STUDY

PROJECT TITLE: CG Roxane Warehouse Expansion Project: General Plan Amendment #2009-03

Zone Reclassification #2009-05

Conditional Use Permit #2009-06

PROJECT LOCATION: South side of Cartego, on the east side of U.S. Highway 395

(APN 033-470-03)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CG Roxane proposes to construct a 55,000 sq.ft. warehouse adjacent to their

current water bottling plant. To facilitate this project, the applicant proposes to re-designate/re-zone a 2.38-acre

vacant parcel of land located on the south side of the existing water bottling plant to Light Industrial (from

Rural Protection (RP)/Rural Residential (RR)) to be consistent with the rest of the water bottling plant property.

In addition, a conditional use permit is necessary because a water bottling plant is a conditional use in the Light

Industrial Zone and also because the proposed warehouse will cover more that 50% of the parcel area. No

increase in bottling production levels or traffic levels at the plant are proposed; the warehouse is needed strictly

for added storage capacity to support the logistics of the company’s expanding “private label” (i.e., non-C.G.

Roxane label) water bottling business.

Due to the size and the proximity of the proposed warehouse facility to U.S. Highway 395, landscaping will be

required to mitigate for aesthetic impacts. In addition, an archaeological monitor and a Native American

monitor will be required to observe all ground disturbance activities due to the possible presence of

archaeological artifacts, as determined by archaeological surveys prepared for the site. The mitigation measures

are similar to mitigation measures for past warehouse expansion projects at the bottling plant site.

FINDINGS:

An Initial Study and Evaluation of Potential Impacts has been prepared by the Planning Department (attached).

Staff finds that the proposed project will NOT have a significant adverse impact on the environment for the

following reasons:

A. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Inyo County General Plan: the

proposed General Plan Amendment to designate the project parcel as Light Industrial is consistent with

the designation of the rest of the existing bottling plant property as Light Industrial.


B. The proposed project is consistent with the provisions of the Inyo County Zoning Ordinance: the

proposed Zone Reclassification of the project parcel to M-2 (Light Industrial) is consistent with the

zoning of the rest of the existing bottling plant property as Light Industrial.

C. Potential adverse environmental impacts will not exceed thresholds of significance, either individually

or cumulatively: the proposed warehouse is similar to past warehouse expansion projects on the site,

with similar mitigation measures for archaeological and aesthetic impacts, and similar conditions of

approval for identified archaeological, drainage, fire, air quality, and aesthetic impacts. As a result, the

project will not exceed thresholds of significance.

D. Based upon the environmental evaluation of the proposed project, and the existing mitigation measures

as conditioned in Conditional Use Permits No. 1999-06, 2002-02, and 2006-04, the project could have

the potential to create a significant adverse impact on Cultural Resources and Aesthetics. However,

with the incorporation of the mitigation measures recommended below, it has been found that the project

will not result in any significant adverse impacts. This constitutes a Mitigated Negative Declaration for

the Mandatory Findings required by Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Mitigation Measures/Mitigation & Monitoring Plan

I.Cultural Resources

Potential Impact: The project 2.3-acre site contains one cultural site, CA-INY-6601, which an archaeological

survey for the site determined had no significance under Nation Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria. In

addition, other cultural sites have been found nearby, remnants or scatter of which have the potential to be found

on the project site.

Mitigation Measures: An archaeological survey was prepared for the site in July 2009 by MACTEC, entitled

“Archaeological Re-Survey of 2.3-acre Crystal Geyser Roxane Parcel, Inyo County, California.” The survey

recommended that an archaeological monitor and a Native American monitor should be present during any

ground-disturbing activities due to the fact that subsurface intact prehistoric remains may exist on the location.

In addition, the December 14, 1995, survey by Archaeological Research Services, Inc., entitled “Cultural

Resources Management Plan, C.G. Roxane Bottling Plant Lease Area, Inyo County California (CRMP)” is

hereby incorporated in its entirety by reference into this Mitigated Negative Declaration. The CRMP’s

procedures for preparing for future construction, ground disturbance necessitated by emergencies, discovery of

human remains and notification procedures, archaeological field methods, and reporting requirements are

attached to this Initial Study and are required mitigation measures (Inyo County Code Section 9.52.020 through

9.52.060). The Inyo County Planning Department will provide qualified individuals an opportunity to review the

CRMP in its entirety upon written request.

Mitigation Level: Mitigate to a level of less than significant.

Lead Agency: Inyo County Planning Department


Funding Source: Owner/Operator/Applicant shall bear sole financial responsibility.

Implementing Party: Owner/Operator/Applicant.

Monitoring Agency: Inyo County Planning Department and Inyo County Public Works Department.

Time Frame: Mitigation and monitoring measures shall be implemented during any ground disturbing activities

(i.e., any grading, construction activities, etc.).

II. Aesthetics

Potential Impact: The project is adjacent to U.S. Highway 395, the main visual resource corridor for Inyo County.

The cumulative impact caused by the expansion of the bottling plant could have a negative impact on travelers

using U.S. Highway 395.

Mitigation Measures: The applicant will need to comply with the landscaping as conditioned/approved by the Inyo

County Board of Supervisors. The landscaping (likely a mix of cottonwood and evergreen trees) will need to be

watered by an automatic irrigation system.

Mitigation Level: Mitigate to a threshold of less than significance.

Lead Agency: Inyo County Planning Department

Funding Source: Owner/Operator/Applicant shall bear sole financial responsibility.

Implementing Party: Owner/Operator/Applicant.

Monitoring Agency: Inyo County Planning Department.

Time Frame: Mitigation and monitoring measures shall be implemented within 1 year of completion of the

warehouse facility.


The review period (30 days) for this Mitigated Negative Declaration expires on: November 6, 2009.

Inyo County is not required to respond to any comments received after this date.

Additional information is available from the Inyo County Planning Department. Please contact Project Planner

Tanda Gretz at 760-878-0265 if you have any questions regarding this project.

___________________ _______________________________________

Date Mike Conklin

Acting Planner Director

Attachments:

1. CEQA Initial Study

2. Site Plan for Future Warehouse Facility

3. “Archaeological Re-Survey of 2.3-acre Crystal Geyser Roxane Parcel, Inyo County, California,” by

MACTEC, p. I, 12-13 (July 2009)

4. “Cultural Resources Management Plan, C.G. Roxane Bottling Plant Lease Area, Inyo County

California” by Archaeological Research Services, Inc., p. 6-12, 14 (December 14, 1995)

5. Chapter 9.52 of Inyo County Code, “Disturbances of Archaeological and Paleontological and Historical

Features”

6. “Biological Report for the CG Roxane Property,” by Resource Concepts, p. 9-12 (August 2009) and

follow-up letter from Sheila Anderson dated September 25, 2009


INYO COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT

CEQA APPENDIX G: INITIAL STUDY & ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by

the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer

is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to

projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should

be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not

expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative

as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers

must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than

significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be

significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an

EIR is required.

4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the

incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less

Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they

reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,”

may be cross-referenced).

5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect

has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a

brief discussion should identify the following:

a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.

b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of

and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such

effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,”

describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent

to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for

potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside


document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is

substantiated.

7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals

contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies

should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in

whatever format is selected.

9) The explanation of each issue should identify:

a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and

b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance issues.


Planning Department 168 North Edwards Street Post Office Drawer L Independence, California 93526

Phone: (760) 878-0263 FAX: (760) 878-0382

E-Mail: inyoplanning@ Inyocounty.us

INYO COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT

APPENDIX G: CEQA INITIAL STUDY & ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM

1. Project title: CG Roxane Warehouse Expansion Project (GPA #2009-03; ZR #2009-05; CUP #2009-06).

2. Lead agency name and address: Inyo County Planning Department.

3. Contact person and phone number: Tanda Gretz, Senior Planner, (760) 878-0265. 4. Project location: South side of Cartego, on the east side of U.S. Highway 395 (APN 033-470-03). 5. Project sponsor’s name and address: CG Roxane, c/o Rick Moore, 1400 Marys Drive, Weed, CA, 96094. 6. General Plan designation: Existing – Rural Protection (RP); Proposed – Light Industrial (LI). 7. Zoning: Existing – Rural Residential (RR); Proposed – M-2(Light Industrial).

8. Description of project (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary): CG Roxane proposes to construct a 55,000 sq.ft. warehouse adjacent to their current water bottling plant. To facilitate this project, the applicant proposes to re-designate/re-zone a 2.38-acre vacant parcel of land located on the south side of the existing water bottling plant to Light Industrial (from Rural Protection (RP)/Rural Residential (RR)) to be consistent with the rest of the water bottling plant property. In addition, a conditional use permit is necessary because a water bottling plant is a conditional use in the Light Industrial Zone and also because the proposed warehouse will cover more that 50% of the parcel area. No increase in bottling production levels or traffic levels at the plant are proposed; the warehouse is needed strictly for added storage capacity to support the logistics of the company’s expanding “private label” (i.e., non-C.G. Roxane label) water bottling business. Due to the size and the proximity of the proposed warehouse facility to U.S. Highway 395, landscaping will be required to mitigate for aesthetic impacts. In addition, an archaeological monitor and a Native American monitor will be required to observe all ground disturbance activities due to the possible presence of archaeological artifacts, as determined by archaeological surveys prepared for


the site. The mitigation measures are similar to mitigation measures for past warehouse expansion projects at the bottling plant site. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project’s surroundings:

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Resources Agriculture Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology /Soils

Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning

Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing

Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic

Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance

DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find 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. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

Location: Use: Gen. Plan Designation Zoning

Site Vacant land Rural Protection (RP) Rural Residential (RR), 1-acre minimum lot size

North CG Roxane water bottling plant

Light Industrial (LI) M-2 (Light Industrial)

East Vacant pasture land & riparian areas

Agriculture (A) OS-40 (Open Space, 40-acre minimum lot size)

South Vacant pasture Agriculture (A) OS-40 (Open Space, 40-acre minimum lot size)

West Vacant land (across Highway 395)

Rural Protection (RP) OS-40 (Open Space, 40-acre minimum lot size)


I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find 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 measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 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 (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

_______________________________________ __________________ Tanda Gretz Date Senior Planner Inyo County Planning Department


INYO COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM

Less Than Significant

Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No. The proposed warehouse will be constructed immediately adjacent (on the south) to the existing CG Roxane water bottling plant, which is approximately 27 acres in size and consists of a number of very large buildings. The complex as a whole is very large and the majority of complex buildings are within 50 feet of U.S. Highway 395. Similar past expansion projects have required landscaping along the Highway 395 side of the bottling plant site as a way of buffering the buildings from traffic on the highway, which serves as the only major route through the surrounding scenic eastern Sierra area. As a result, the current warehouse project will require landscaping (with automatic irrigation) on the western and southern sides of the project site as mitigation against such scenic corridor impacts. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No. See I (a) above. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? No. See I (a) above. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No. Lighting is proposed only for the actual docking area of the warehouse building, and will be directed downward/shielded. As a result, impacts will be less than significant. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?


The project does not affect such lands. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No. Inyo County does not subscribe to Williamson Act contracts. 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. See II (a& b) above. III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No. Use of the proposed warehouse, once constructed, will have no significant effect on air quality. Dust control during construction activities will require the applicant to permit through the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (a District authority to construct permit) and the Inyo County Building & Safety Department (grading permit). Review and permitting by such agencies will keep any air quality impacts to less than significant levels. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? No. See III (a) above. 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)? No. See III (a) above. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No. See III (a) above. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No. See III (a) above. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the


California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? A biological survey was prepared for the project which addresses the question of whether the site is used by any species listed by the US Fish & Wildlife Service or the State of California as endangered or threatened, or any state-listed sensitive species, or any species of concern to the California Department of Fish & Game. The survey concludes that the project “does not provide critical habitat for any of the federally listed or state listed threatened or endangered species. The proposed project is not likely to affect any federal or state-listed threatened or endangered species” (p.11). The survey goes on to note that the site may have “slight potential” to be used on occasion by the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) and the spotted bat (Euderma maculatum), but concludes that the “construction of the new warehouse building will not affect existing roosting, maternity, or foraging habitat. Therefore, the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect pallid bat or spotted bat or their habitat” (p. 12). A follow-up letter by the study author confirms no project impacts. (see attachments to this CEQA checklist) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? No. There are no identified riparian areas on the site. See IV (a) above. 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. There are no identified wetland areas on the site. See IV (a) above. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No. See IV (a) above. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No. There are no such local ordinances in place for Inyo County. 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? No. The proposed project does not conflict with any such known plans. See IV (a) above. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? Two archaeological surveys have been performed for the project site: the first in 1999 by T.D. Burke and the second in 2009 by MACTEC. Both surveys conclude that, while there are remains from on identified site (CA-INY-6601), that site is


not significant under the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) standards. Specifically, it is noted that the site could not be eligible for NRHP status due to a “near complete loss of integrity” (MACTEC p. 13). The MACTEC survey concludes that the applicant “can proceed with development of the parcel in the future. If they develop the parcel, an archaeological monitor and a Native American monitor should be present during any ground-disturbing activities, as subsurface intact prehistoric or historic remains may exist at the location” (MACTEC p.13). Such a recommendation is similar to the mitigation measures used for previous expansion projects at the bottling plant (see CUPs 1999-6 & 2002-2). Previous project mitigation measures were based on the 1995 “Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP)” prepared for the bottling plant site by Archaeological Research Services, Inc., and details the procedures to follow for:

• Preparing for future construction activities

• Ground disturbance necessitated by emergencies

• Discovery of human remains and notification procedures Similar to prior projects, the current warehouse project will use Chapters 3.0 – 7.4.2 of the CRMP as mitigation measures for this warehouse project (see attachment to this CEQA Checklist). b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? No. See V (a) above. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No. See V (a) above. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No. See V (a) above. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo 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. The southern tip of the project parcel lies within an identified earthquake fault zone (see State of California Earthquake Fault Zone Map, Olancha Quadrangle, dated January 1, 1990), but the proposed warehouse building will be located to the north of, and outside of, the earthquake fault zone. In addition, the warehouse is not a structure for human occupancy (i.e., it will be used only for storage of bottled water product and will not have a human occupancy rate of more than 2,000 person-hours per year), and so is not subject to the provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. As a result, the environmental impacts of the project will be less than significant. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? See VI (a) above. Ground shaking may occur anywhere in the region, due to numerous earthquake faults, regardless of whether the project site is within an identified Alquist-Priolo zone or not. However, the Uniform Building Code insures that


structures shall constructed to required seismic standards (Level IV) in order to withstand such shaking. In addition, the warehouse facility will be used just for bottled water storage and will have limited human occupancy. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No. The project site is located about ½ mile from the edge of Owens Dry Lake, and is on mainly alluvial soils with some uplifted ancient lakebed soils. The potential impact is less than significant because the chance of liquefaction is remote for alluvial soils. iv) Landslides? No. The project site is flat and is located more than a mile east of any potential source area for landslide material. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No. All future development on the project site is required to conform to all drainage, grading, and “Best Management Practice (BMP) requirements as set forth by the Inyo County Public Works Department, the Inyo County Environmental Health Services Department, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Lahontan), and other associated regulatory agencies. As a result of this regulation, potential impacts are considered less than significant. 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. The project site is on decomposed granite with lakebed soils to the northeast of the site, and such soils are, and are expected to remain, stable. 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. The project site is not located on soils that are subject to expansion. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? The proposed warehouse will be used strictly for storage of bottled water product: there are no restroom facilities planned for the warehouse, and no waste disposal systems are anticipated for the project. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No. The project proposes a warehouse to be used strictly for storage of bottled water product and, as a result, the project will not create a significant hazard through the use or disposal of hazardous materials. There may be temporary use of hazardous petrochemical materials such as oils, fuel, paints, glues, cleaners (etc.) during construction, but with implementation of standard construction procedures related to use, storage, and personal safety equipment, this will be a less than significant impact.


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. See VII (a) above. 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, the project is not within one-quarter mile of a school. See VII (a) above. 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. The project site is not on any such listed site. 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? The project site is not located in any of the above such areas. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No. The project site is adjacent to the already existing bottling complex, and will continue the same ingress/egress patterns. 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. The project site is adjacent to the already existing 27-acre Crystal Geyser bottling plant and will consist of just a warehouse for storage purposes. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No. There will be no restrooms or such facilities for the proposed warehouse. The overall existing Crystal Geyser bottling plant is in compliance with the water quality and wastewater standards of the Inyo County Environmental


Health Services Department and the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. The existing Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the bottling plant will be amended to include the new project site and proposed warehouse, and an NPDES permit for site construction will be required as conditions of approval for the project. 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. This project will not result in any additional groundwater extraction at the bottling plant. The project involves just a proposed warehouse facility so that additional storage capacity will be available for the bottling plant complex. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? No. Although the project will increase the amount of impermeable surfaces at the bottling plant, the plant’s existing Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (on file with the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board) will be amended to reflect this increase and control/mitigate for it. In addition, erosion control and drainage plans will be submitted to the satisfaction of the Inyo County Public Works Department and best management practices will be followed. 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? No. See VIII (d) above. 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? No. See VIII (d) above f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No. See VIII (a-d) above. 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? The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 060073-1475B, dated 9-4-85. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No. See VIII (g) above.


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. The project site is not located within any inundation zone for any levee or dam. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No. Tsunami or seiche events are improbable due to the fact that the project site is hundreds of miles from the ocean. The project site is approximately one mile from the base of the Sierra in an area that has little annual rainfall, so probable mudflow impacts at the site are considered less than significant. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No. The proposed designation and rezone to Light Industrial for a proposed warehouse facility in no way poses such a physical division. 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? No. The proposed water bottling warehouse will require the site be designated and rezoned for Light Industrial land use, per requirements of the Inyo County General Plan and the Inyo County Zoning Ordinance. A conditional use permit is required for both a water bottling plant c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No. The project is not in conflict with any such known applicable plans. X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No. No known mineral resources are affected. 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. See X (a) above. XI. NOISE: Would the project result in the: 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?


No. The project involves a proposed warehouse facility for a Light Industrial use located in a very rural area. This use will involve relatively low noise levels. Construction activities could involve louder noise, but will be temporary in nature. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No. See XI (a) above. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No. See XI (a) above. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Any such substantial temporary increases will be confined to isolated construction period activities, and so are deemed less than significant in nature. 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? The project site is not located within an airport land use plan, nor located within two miles of an airport. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No. The applicant does not anticipate that the proposed new warehouse will involve any additional jobs at the water bottling plant, and so population and housing will be unaffected by the project. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No. See XII (a) above. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No. See XII (a) above.


XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: No. The addition of the proposed 55,000 sq.ft. warehouse building will not significantly alter the services in place and required by the already existing 27-acre water bottling plant. Fire protection? No. See XIII (a) above. The Olancha Cartego Fire Department/Olancha Community Services District (CSD) will respond to fire emergencies. The proposed warehouse facility project will be reviewed by Olancha CSD staff, and will conform to all fire safety requirements of that agency (i.e., access, sprinkler systems, etc.). Police protection? No. See XIII (a) above. Schools? No. See XIII (a) above. In addition, the project is not expected to result in any new jobs, so no additional school facilities will be required by any new families/children. Parks? No. See XIII (a) above. In addition, the project is not expected to result in any new jobs, so no additional park facilities will be required. Other public facilities? No. See XIII (a) above.

XIV. RECREATION: Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No. The project is not expected to result in any new jobs, so no new recreational facilities are needed. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No. See XIV (a) above. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: 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)? Acceleration and deceleration lanes currently exist on U.S. Highway 395 adjacent to the water bottling plant for vehicles entering and exiting the plant, and the project will use these existing entry and exit facilities. The proposed warehouse facility is just for added storage space of bottled water, and the total amount of water bottled at the plant will not be increased. As a result, the total amount of trucking taking place at the bottling plant facility will stay the same overall, although there may be increases in the summer months when demand is higher due to warmer temperatures, and a decrease in the winter months when demand is lower due to cooler temperatures. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No. Overall truck traffic to the site is not estimated to increase, as noted in XV (a) above. 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. The project has no effect on air traffic. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No. The traffic patterns (i.e., ingress/egress patterns, acceleration/deceleration lanes, etc.) at the site will continue to be function the same way. See XV (a) above. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No. Access to the water bottling plant will remain the same. See XV (a & d) above. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No. Overall truck traffic to the site will remain the same. If there are some increases in traffic during the summer months and some decreases during the winter months, they will no be significant and of a number that the 27-acre site can contain. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No. The proposed warehouse project has no impact on alternative transportation issues. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No. The proposed warehouse will not have restrooms nor does the project result in any increase of employees or production at the bottling plant facility. As a result, wastewater will not be increased at the bottling plant. 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. Wastewater facilities at the site are adequate and the proposed warehouse facility will not result in any added wastewater. c) 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? No. Although the project will increase the amount of impermeable surfaces at the bottling plant, the plant’s existing Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (on file with the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board) will be amended to reflect this increase and control/mitigate for it. In addition, erosion control and drainage plans will be submitted to the satisfaction of the Inyo County Public Works Department and best management practices will be followed. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? The project will not require any additional water supplies. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? The project does not involve any increase in wastewater treatment. Existing wastewater treatment facilities are adequate for the bottling plant. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? The project does not involve any increases to solid waste. Existing solid waste facilities are adequate for the bottling plant. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

The project does not involve any increases to solid waste. Existing solid waste facilities are adequate for the bottling plant.

XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, 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? Two archaeological surveys have been performed for the project site, specifically: the first in 1999 by T.D. Burke and the second in 2009 by MACTEC. Both surveys conclude that, while there are remains from on identified site (CA-INY-6601),


that site is not significant under the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) standards. Specifically, it is noted that the site could not be eligible for NRHP status due to a “near complete loss of integrity” (MACTEC p. 13). The MACTEC survey concludes that the applicant “can proceed with development of the parcel in the future. If they develop the parcel, an archaeological monitor and a Native American monitor should be present during any ground-disturbing activities, as subsurface intact prehistoric or historic remains may exist at the location” (MACTEC p.13). Such a recommendation is similar to the mitigation measures used for previous expansion projects at the bottling plant (see CUPs 1999-6 & 2002-2). Previous project mitigation measures were based on the 1995 “Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP)” prepared for the bottling plant site by Archaeological Research Services, Inc., and details the procedures to follow for:

• Preparing for future construction activities

• Ground disturbance necessitated by emergencies

• Discovery of human remains and notification procedures Similar to prior projects, the current warehouse project will use Chapters 3.0 – 7.4.2 of the CRMP as mitigation measures for this warehouse project (see attachments to this CEQA Checklist). 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)? The aesthetic impacts of the proposed 55,000 sq.ft. warehouse, when viewed in conjunction with the existing 27-acre water bottling plant, may be cumulatively considerable. Implementation of the landscaping mitigation described in Section I of this checklist can decrease such impacts to less than significant levels. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The aesthetic issues dealt with above are the only direct environmental effect this project may have on human beings. With implementation of the landscaping mitigation described in Section I of this checklist, human beings will not be significantly negatively affected by this project.


Documents

DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ... - inyoplanning.orginyoplanning.org/documents/CrystalGeyserCEQA.pdf · DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND INITIAL STUDY PROJECT