EXHIBIT B AFTER LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - Stanislaus County · EXHIBIT B AFTER LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT...

EXHIBIT B

AFTER LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT

PARCEL I

All that real property designated "A. L. Gilbert Company (Large Parcel)" as filed for record in the Grant Deed Instrument no. 2006-0098102, Stanislaus County Records, more particularly described as follows:

Parcel "A" as shown on the parcel map filed on January 5, 1988, in book 40 of Parcel Maps, at Page 39, Stanislaus County Records, being a portion of the southwest one quarter of Section 30, Township 4 South, Range 10 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian.

TOGETHER with the following described property:

BEGINNING at the northeast corner of Parcel "A" as shown on the parcel map filed on October 7, 1988, in Book 41 of Parcel Maps, at Page 33, Stanislaus County Records, being a portion of the southwest one quarter of Section 30, Township 4 South, Range 10 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian; thence West along the north line of said parcel, a distance of 450.00 feet; thence leaving said north line North, a distance of 220.00 feet; thence 220.00 feet north of and parallel with said north line, East a distance of 450.00 feet; thence South, a distance of 220.00 feet to THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

ALSO TOGETHER with the following described property:

Parcel " C as shown on the parcel map filed on December 19, 1986, in Book 39 of Parcel Maps, at Page 9, in the office of the County of recorder of Stanislaus County, being a portion of a Resubdivision of Parcel "A" as shown in Book 29 of parcel maps, at 28 and a division of portion of the Southwest quarter of Section 30, township 4 South, Ranges 10 East, Mount Diablo, Base and Meridian, Stanislaus County.

EXEPTING therefrom the following described property;

BEGINNING at the southeast corner of Parcel "A" according to the Official Map thereof recorded in Book 40 of Parcel Maps, at Page 39, Stanislaus County Records; thence West along the South line of said Parcel "A", a distance of 175.00 feet; thence North, a distance of 258.63 feet to the Northeasterly line of said Parcel "A"; thence South 42"13'38" East along said line, a distance of 260.39 feet; thence South along the East line of said Parcel "A", a distance of 65.82 feet to THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

ALSO EXEPTING therefrom the following described property;

75161-ALLA.doc, March 2,2007

COMMENCING at the southeast corner of Parcel "A" according to the Official Map thereof recorded in Book 40 of Parcel Maps, at Page 39, Stanislaus County Records; thence West along the South line of said Parcel "A", a distance of 175.00 feet to THE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continue on said south line West 194.23 feet; thence leaving said south line, North a distance of 442.91 feet to a point being 20.00 feet southwesterly and at right angle from the northeasterly line of said Parcel "A" as shown on Book 40 of parcel Maps, at Page 39; thence 20.00 feet southwesterly and parallel with said northeasterly line North 42"13'38" West, a distance of 556.18 feet more or less to a point on the west line of said Parcel "A ; thence along the West line of said Parcel "A" North 29.76 feet to the most northerly point of said Parcel " A ; thence along the northeasterly line of said Parcel "A" South 42-13'38" East a distance of 845.20 feet to the most northerly corner of that certain parcel designated as "A. L. Gilbert Company (Small Parcel)"; thence along the west line of the last said Parcel south a distance of 258.63 feet to THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

CONTAINS an area of 10.96 acres, more or less,

SUBJECT TO all easements and1 or rights-of-way of records.

Date

Expires 913012007


PARCEL 2

All that real property filed for record in the Grant Deed Instrument No. 2006- 00981 01, Stanislaus County Records, more particularly described as follows:

Parcel designated "Remainder" as shown on the parcel map filed on March 7, 1990, in Book 42 of Parcel Maps, at Page 86, Stanislaus County Records, being a portion of the southwest one quarter of Section 30, Township 4 South, Range 10 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian.

EXEPTING therefrom the following described property:

BEGINNING at the northeast corner of Parcel "A" as shown on the parcel map filed on October 7, 1988, in Book 41 of Parcel Maps, at 3, Stanislaus County Records, being a portion of the southwest one quarter of Section 30, Township 4 South, Range 10 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian; thence West along the north line of said parcel, a distance of 450.00 feet; thence leaving said north line, North a distance of 220.00 feet; thence 220.00 feet north of and parallel with said north line, East a distance of 450.00 feet; thence South a distance of 220.00 feet to THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

CONTAINS an area of 28.72 acres, more or less.

SUBJECT TO all easements and1 or rights-of-way of records.

RCE H 2 0 8 Expires 913012007


PARCEL 3

All that real property in the county of Stanislaus, State of California, more particularly described as follows:

Parcel "1" as shown on the parcel map filed on January 22, 1987, in Book 39 of Parcel Maps, at Page 21, Stanislaus County Records, being a portion of the southwest one quarter of Section 30, Township 4 South, Range 10 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian.

TOGETHER with the following described property:

BEGINNING at the southeast corner of parcel "A" according to the Official Map thereof recorded in Book 40 of Parcel Maps, at Page 39, Stanislaus County Records; thence West along the south line of said Parcel "A", a distance of 175.00 feet; thence North, a distance of 258.63 feet to the northeasterly line of said Parcel "A"; thence South 42"13'38" East along said line, a distance of 260.39 feet; thence South along the East line of said Parcel "A", a distance of 65.82 feet to THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

ALSO TOGETHER with the following described property;

COMMENCING at the southeast corner of Parcel "A" according to the Official Map thereof recorded in Book 40 of Parcel Maps, at Page 39, Stanislaus County Records; thence West along the South line of said Parcel "A", a distance of 175.00 feet to THE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continue on said south line West 194.23 feet; thence leaving said south line North, a distance of 442.91 feet to a point being 20.00 feet southwesterly and at right angle from the northeasterly line of said Parcel "A" as shown on Book 40 of parcel Maps, at Page 39; thence 20.00 feet southwesterly and parallel with said northeasterly line North 42"13'38 West, a distance of 556.18 feet more or less to a point on the west line of said Parcel "A"; thence along the West line of said Parcel "A" North 29.76 feet to the most northerly point of said Parcel "A"; thence along the northeasterly line of said Parcel "A" South 42"13'38 East a distance of 845.20 feet to the most northerly corner of that certain parcel designated as "A. L. Gilbert Company (Small Parcel)"; thence along the west line of the last said Parcel south a distance of 258.63 feet to THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

CONTAINS an area of 8.69 acres, more or less.

SUBJECT TO all easements and/ or rights-of-way of records.

75161-BLLA.doc, March 2,2007

REFERENCES ( I ) REFERS TO BODY 40 O i PARCEL MAPS PACE JP. (8) REFERS 10 BOOK 39 OF PARCEL MAPS PAGE 9. (C) IESERS TO BOOK 42 OF PARCEL MAPS PACE 85.

(0) REFERS TO BOUY 18 OF PAIICLL MAPS PACE 21. (E) REFER6 10 INST#iO05--00DRXO!.

ii) REFERS 10 tNSi/2006-11098?02.

SOIL TYPE: SCALE >"=ZOO' HANFORO SANDY LOAM. 0 70 3 PERCENT ELOPES

FLOOD INFORMATION: ZONE X-AREA W MINIMAL FLOODIN0

LEGAL OWNER A. i. GiLBLRT

------A C I S LINE

PROPERTY ADDRESS: SANIIARI IEWR LINE

420D dESIUP ROAD L- FlRE LINE

K F E l CA 95528 EASEMENT L1NE

PO* IPN 41-26-3( SANITARY SEWER & WATER: KEMS CDMMUNin SERVCLZ DISTRICT

PROP. DRAINAGE ELECTRICAL POWER: IURLOCK lRRlGLiiON Di i iRlCT

AFTER LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT M A P

BEING A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTON 30, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH RANGE 1 0 EAST, MOUNT DlABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN, STANISLAUS COUNTY

DATE: AUGUST 14. 2 0 0 6 JOB# 75161

R.B. WELTY & ASSOCIATES, INC. 521 l 3 m STREET / P.O. BOX 1 7 2 4 MODESTO, CALIFORNIA 9 5 3 5 4 (209) 526-1515 FAX 523-3383

STANISLA US COUNTY MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN

This Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMl') has been required by and prepared for the Stanislaus County Planning and Community Development Department, 1010 10th Street, Suite 3400, Modesto, CA 95353, pursuant to CEQA Section 21081.6.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Project Name:

Project Sponsor:

Address and Phone Number of Proiea Contact:

Keyes Community Plan Update

Stanislaus County

Bob Kachel Planning and Community Development Department 1010 10th Street, Ste. 3400

Modesto, CA 95353

Agency Requiring Checklist:

Other Agencies whose approval is required:

Stanislaus County

None identified

Project Location

The Community of Keys is located in central Stanislaus County along Highway 99 north of the City of Turlock. The Keyes Community Plan Area is generally bounded on the west by Faith Home Road, Washington Road on the east, Turlock Inigation District Lateral 2% on the north, and Keyes Road on the south.

Proiect Descri~tion

Stanislaus County is in the process of updating the Keyes Community Plan. The Keyes Community Plan Update (proposed project) will provide land use direction through permissible use guidelines, to encourage development and to control growth. The proposed project includes updating the designated land uses to allow for more controlled growth in the community.

Mitigation Monitoring Plan

MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN

Introduction

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires review of any plan or project that could have significant adverse effects on the environment. In 1988, CEQA was amended to require reporting on and monitoring of mitigation measures adopted as part of the environmental review process. This Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) is designed to aid Stanislaus County in its implementation and monitoring of measures adopted from the Keyes Community Plan Update EIR.

Mitieation Measures

The mitigation measures are taken verbatim from the Draft EIR or, if revisions have been made, from the Final EIR. The MMP describes the actions that must take place to implement each mitigation measure, the timing of those actions, and the entities responsible for implementing and monitoring the actions.

MMP Components

The components of the monitoring program are addressed briefly, below.

Mitigation Measure: All mitigation measures that were identified in the EIR are presented, and numbered accordingly. The mitigation measures are presented by topic (e.g, Land Use, Transportation/Circulation).

Implementation. Monitorin? and Reporting Actions: For every mitigation measure, one or more actions is described. These are the center of the MMT, as they delineate the means by which measures will be implemented, and, in some instances, the criteria for determining whether a measure has been successfully implemented. Where mitigation measures are particularly detailed, the action may refer back to the measure. Where more than one action is required in the monitoring program, each item is numbered, and the timing and responsible parties are numbered accordingly.

Moniroring and Reporting Responsibilities: This item identifies the entity that will undertake the required action. Stanislaus County is responsible for ensuring that most mitigation measures are successfully implemented. Within the County, a number of departments and divisions will have responsibility for monitoring some aspea of the overall project. At this time, the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors, Planning Department, Building Division, Agriculture Department, Department of Environmental Resources, and Public Works Department have been identified. Monitoring outside the County include U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Senrice, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, and Keyes F i e Protection District. These parties are referred to as "Responsible Agencies" by CEQA.

Mitigation Monitoring Plan

Implementation. Monitorine and Reporting Schedule: Each action must take place prior to the time at which a threshold could be exceeded. Implementation of the action must occur prior to or during some part of approval, project design or construction, or on an ongoing basis. The timing for each measure is identified.

easements. d sllall bc of equal quality of that being d for development, to the satisfaction of

would continue

I There mitigation rneuurcl ire taken verbatim from the DER, except where revised by the Find EIR. Initid Study mitig=rion meuurcr incorporatad in the DEIR rre not included in the initid Srudy ponion of this Mitigation Monitoring Program.

M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G P L A N KEYES C O M M U N I T Y P L A N U P D A T E

Slgntficant or Potentially Significant

Impact

Loss of wetlands and other waters of the U.S.

6'

4.2-l(a) Prior to approval of development projects in ponions of the Community Plan Area that could suppon wetlands, the project proponent shall conduct a wetland analysis/delineation to determine whether jurisdiction wetlands or waters of the U.S. are present or absent in the proposed development area. If there are no wetlands or waters of the U.S. present no further mitigation is required. If wctlands or waters of the U. S. are present then;

(b) Direct or indirect losses of wetlands shall be compensated by replacement, rehabilitation, contribution to a mitigation bank, or purchase of wetlands habitat at a ratio that ensures no net loss of wetlands. A wetlands miti~ation - rnorlitoring program rhall be rubmi~ted to the Corps and CDPG for rcvtew prlor to perrntt approval,

Developers of new projects in the Community Plan area shall conduct a wetland andyrir/delineation. in consultation with the US Army Corpr of Engineers (Corps) to determine whether jurisdiction wetlands or waters of the U.S. ate present in the proposed development area.

If wetlands are present, loss of wetlands shall be compensated ensuring no net loss of wetlands. Prior to grading permit approval, a wetlands mitigation monitoring program shall be submitted to the Corps and CDFG for review.

(c) The project applicant shall obtain applicable If wetlands are present, the project applicant rhdl permit(s)/agreements(s) and implement all the obtain all applicable permits required by the terms and conditions required by the Corps, Corps. USFWS, and CDFG. USFWS and the CDFG for impacts to wctlands.

1.0s of I 4 2 - 2 ( ~ ) Prinr to the approval of development projects in ?'he project proponcnt shall conduct a project. ootrnt~al vonions of thc Con~rnunitv l'lan Area that soecif~c nt rvcv for clderbcrrv rhntbr in areas that habitat for the valley elderberry longhorn beetle NELBI.

contain natural or artificial drainages, the project proponent shall conduct a project- specific survey for potentid VELB habitat (elderberry shrubs).

could contain VELB habitat, consistent with USFWS gurdelines.

Corpr; Planning Department

Corps; CDFG; Planning Department

Corpr; CDFG; USFWS

USFWS

Prior to any construction or grading activity.




MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN

all identified VELB habitat wllere shall implement mitigation for the protection of construction or

Take of Swainson's hawk individuals (eggs, nestlings or juveniles) and other raptors (b i rds-~f-~re~) .

feasible. Where avoidance is infeasible and elderberry sl~rubs are subject to removal or

damage from the propored development, the projen proponent shall develop and implement a VELB mitigation plan in accordance with the most current USFWS mitigation guidelines for unavoidable take of VELB habitat, pursuant to either Section 7 or Section 10(a) of the Federal Endangered Species Act. The mitigation plan shall provide for no net loss of VELB habitat and shall include, but might not be limited to, relocation of elderberry shrubs, planting of elderberry shrubs, and monitoring of relocated and elderberry shrubs.

4.2-3(a) Prior to approval of development in ponions of the Community Plan Area that contain trees, the project proponent, in consultation with the DFG, shall conduct a pre-construction survey of trees in the proposed development area for raptor nests. The surveys shall occur during the raptor breeding-reason (approximately March 1 through August 31). The Survey shall be conducted by a qualified raptor biologist during the same calendar year that the proposed activity is planned.

elderberry shrubs, ensuring no net loss of habitat, consistent with USFWS mitigation guidelines.

The proponent, in consultation with the DFG, shall conduct a pre-construction survey of trees in any proposed development area for raptor nests. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified raptor biologist during the same calendar year that the proposed activity is

CDFG In the breeding season prior to any construction or grading activity.

Prior to construction

Removal of native oak trees.

nesting burrowing owls.

If an active Swainson's hawk nest is involved then no construction activities shall be initiated during the Swainson's hawk nesting period (IE., Marc11 1 - August 1) within .25 mile without the approval by DFG. Construction shall be permitted at such time that juvenile Swainson's hawks are no longer dependant upon the nest tree.

4.2-4(a) All oak trees over four inches (dbh) on proposed development sites shall be to the maximum esen t practical. Final development plans shall depict all trees proposed for removal. Any trees that are removed shall be replaced at a two to one tree replacement ratio. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a tree preservation plan to the Stanislaus County planning division for review and approval The tree presewation plan shall include the location, number, species, and size of proposed replacement plantings. In addition, the shall include monitoring provisions for watering and landscaping to ensure survival and health of planted oak trees. During the monitorine period, dead trees shall be replaced.

There shall be no construction activities initiated during the Swainson's hawk nesting period within .25 miles of an active Swainson's hawk nest without prior approval by CDFG.

Project proponenrr shall submit a rree preservation plan to the Stanislaus County planning division for review and approval that ensures that any oak trees over four inches (dbh) that arc to be removed shall be replaced at a two to one tree replacement ratio. The plan shall include provisions for watering and landscaping and a monitoring period during which time dead trees shall be replaced

CDFG

Planning Depanment; Agriculture Department

During construction or grading activity.

Prior to issuance of a grading permit.

Provide dual westbound lefr-turn lanes on Keyes Road to southbound SR99.

Provide three eastbound and three westbound through lanes.

Provide a free eastbound right-turn lane from Keyer Road to southbound SR99.

right-turn lane on the northbound

Provide an eastbound left-turn lane from Keyes Road to northbound SR99.

Provide three eastbound and three westbound through lanes.

Provide single westbound and dual eastbound left-turn lanes.

Provide two northbound and two southbound through lanes.

Provide a separate right-turn lane on the northbound approach.

Provide a separate southbound left-turn

T o reduce PM,, emissions associated with construction the following strategies r h J l be included as part in all construction contracts for Mitigation Measure 4.4-1. future development.

All clearing, grading, earth moving, o r excavation activities shall cease when wind

nsistently equal to o r greater

2. All excavated material, graded or otherwise disturbed shall be watered sufficiently to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering sllall occur twice daily with complete coverage, preferably in late morning and after work is done for the day.

3. All material transported and vehicle speeds shall be limited to 15 mph on unpaved roadways.

4. Street sweeping andlor washing shall be undertaken to reduce dust emissions on paved roads, shoulders and access ways adjacent to the conrtmction site. Wetting of the pavement shall occur either prior to or in conjunction with rotary sweeping.

5. All internal combustion equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned according to manufacturer's specifications.

6 . Idling of a11 internal combustion equipment shall be limited to ten minutes at any given time.

7. The use of building materials that do not require the use of paints/solvents shall be encouraged.

@) All diesel-fueled construction equipment shall implement the following measures:

(i) Retard injection timing 2 degrees.

SJVAPCD standards. If the project is found to If development would exceed SJVAPCD exceed these standards, mitigation shall be standards after implementation of the measures in

District's offset program, by purchasing new equipment or other measures that would reduce emissions in the district by an amount equivalent to the amount of project emissions in excess of District

See Mitigation Measure 4.4-2(a).

, If the use of septic tanks is proposed for new The developer for any new project in the development, a study shall be conducted by a Community Plan shall conduct a study to

connection to the Kcyes CSD lines.

Adequate water would be available to serve future development prior to the approval of any development projects.

Discharge into surface waters.

Discharge into surface waters.

determiner that the soil is inadequate, the development shall be required to be annexed into the Keyes Community Service District for the provision of wastewater services.

3. New development shall not be approved until it has demonstrated that adequate water supplier exist to serve the

4. During project conrtruction, all new development shall implement appropriate rtarmwater runoff BMPs and design features to protect receiving water quality during construction and occupancy, consistent with Stanislaus County standards.

5. BMPs shall be incorporated into project design to reduce urban contaminant levels in stormwater runoff, consistent with Stanislaus County standards.

development shall be required to be annexed into the Keyes Community Service District.

The developer for any new ~roject in the Community Plan shall provide to the City "will serve" letters from the appropriate water purveyor.

The developer of any new projecr in the Conlmunity Plan area shall incorporate design features to protect receiving water quality during construction and occupancy of the project. The contractor shall implement appropriate stormwater m o f f BMPs during conrtmction. The County shall inspect the project rite to verify that stormwater runoff measurer are being implemented

The developer of any new project in the Community Plan area shall incorporate BMPs into project design to reduce urban contaminant levels in stormwater runoff.

Department of Environmental Resources

Public Works

Public Works; Department of Environmental Resources

Prior to project approval.

Duriig project construction.

Prior to issuance of building permit.

DEV!3LOPMENT STANDARDS

This Planned Development be conducted as described in the application and supporting information (including the plot plan) as approved and in accordance with other laws and ordinances.

That building permits must be obtained from the Building Inspection Division.

A suitable sewage disposal system and water supply, if other than public, must be approved and inspected by the Department of Environ- mental Resources.

Prior to the occupancy of any building, or operation of the approved use, the applicant shall meet all the requirements of the Department of Fire Safety and the Air Pollution Control District.

That sufficient paved and marked parking spaces be provided as required by Chapter 21.76 of the Stanislaus County Code.

That a landscaping plan indicating type of plants, initial plant size, location and method of irrigation shall be submitted and approved by the County Planning Director. Landscaping must be installed prior to occupancy.

All landscaped areas, fences, and walls shall be maintained and the premises shall be kept free of weeds, trash, and other debris.

All outdoor lighting shall be shielded from adjacent properties as required by the Planning Director.

That sufficient road right-of-way be dedicated to Stanislaus County to provide for the following:

(a) 30 feet of right-of-way east of the existing center line of Faith Home Road.

(b) 30 feet of right-of-way north of the existing center line of Jessup Road.

(c) A 15 foot radius return at the intersection of Keyes Road and Jessup Road.

That curb, gutter, drainage facilities and matching pavement be constructed along the frontage of all streets in and adjacent to the site to County standards prior to occupancy. Improvement plans for each phase to be improved, shall be approved by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any building permits for the phase.

Rezone 85-18

Keyes Community Plan. It is compatable with the surrounding area and shouZd cause no adverse impacts to the area. We are recommending, therefore, that the Commission make the following recommendations to the Board of Supervisors.

(1) Support the Environmental Review Committee and issue a Negative Declaration for this project.

(2) Find that the rezone is consistent with the County General Plan and Keyes Community Plan.

(3) Find that the project will intensify use of the property, thereby necessitating road widening and improvements.

(4) Rezone the property to PD (Planned Development) subject to the following:

(1) Plot plan

(2) List of permitted uses

(3) Development Schedule

(4) Development Standards

Attachments:

Development Standards Development Schedule Negative Declaration Maps

Rezone 85-18

San Joaquin Valley ~ified Air Pollution Control District February 6, 2007 Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion, Inc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

A. PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Project Title: Cilion, Inc. - Ethanol Plant. District Project Number N1062063

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 1990 E. Gettysburg Avenue Fresno CA 93726-0244

3. Contact Person: PlanninglCEQA: Daniel Barber, Ph.D. Permit Services: Rick Dyer

(559) 230-5800 (209) 557-6400

4. Project Location: The facility will be located at 4209 Jessup Road, Ceres, CA. The site is south of Ceres, near the unincorporated town of Keyes and just west of CA Highway 99 on Jessup Road. The District has verified that the proposed project location is not within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a K-12 school. Therefore, the public notification requirement of California Health and Safety Code 42301.6 is not applicable to this project.

5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Cilion, Inc. P.O. Box 1029 Goshen, CA 93327

6. Assessor's Parcel Number: The proposed facility is on ~ssessors parcels numbered: 45-29-14, 34 and 35

7. General Plan Designationlzoning: The General Plan designations are "Industrial" and "Planned Development" respectively APN 045-026-35 is also zoned "PD 123". The General Plan Designation is "Planned Development". The proposed Ethanol Plant is consistent with both the Zoning and General Plan on all 3 APN's.

8. Project Description:

Cilion, Inc. is proposing to install a new ethanol production facility at 4209 Jessup Road, Ceres, CA. Stanislaus County has determined that the proposed ethanol plant will be located in an area zoned for an Industrial Planned Development. The Development Standards for this Planned Development require a "Staff Approval Permit" for all uses. The County typically considers staff approvals to be ministerial actions and exempt from

Page 1 of 48

San Joaquin Valley ~ified Air Pollution Control District February 6, 2007 Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion, Inc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

CEQA. Cilion has applied to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) for 21 Authority to Construct (ATC) permits for the proposed equipment. Since the District is not aware of any other agency with discretionary approval authority for the project, the District is serving as the Lead Agency.

The proposed project will use fermentation and distillation processes to produce up to 55 million gallons of fuel grade ethanol per year from corn. The facility will receive corn via an enclosed conveyor from A.L. Gilbert Company, an adjoining feed manufacturer. The facility will also have multiple large storage tanks to store intermediate and final product and a loading rack to ship the product by truck. The District's evaluation of the project concludes that the potential impact on air quality will be reduced to less than significant through compliance with District Rule 2201 (New Source Review) and implementation of voluntary mitigation measures.

Background on Ethanol Plants:

The principals of Cilion Inc. built the first corn-to-ethanol plant in California two years ago in Goshen (near Visalia). In August 2005, the United States Senate & Congress passed an Energy Bill, which was signed by the President. This new law requires an increase in ethanol production that will double production and use in the United States over the next 7 years, from 4 billion to 8 billion gallons per year. Ethanol is used in California gasoline today as an oxygenate, reducing emissions and helping improve air quality. Currently ethanol demand is being met by rail cars of ethanol being transported from the Mid-West, Canada and South America to the California fuel hubs where it is then trucked to the local markets. The Keyes project will reduce the need for this rail and truck service and supplement it with direct truck service from Keyes to the Bay Area fuel blenders. The project also provides the added benefit of reducing California's reliance on imported fuel.

The United States has a goal to: 1. Reduce dependence on imported oil, 2. Reduce the trade deficit that is negatively impacted by importing oil, 3. Increase the supply of refined fuel to reduce prices to the consumer, and 4. Improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gases.

The ethanol plant in Keyes will help accomplish these goals

Process Description:

The production of ethanol involves the conversion of starch to sugars and then the conversion of those sugars to ethanol (i.e. grain alcohol). Cilion Inc. proposes to process 571,000 tons of corn to produce 55 million gallons of fuel grade ethanol and 306,000 tons of wet distillers grain (WDG). Based on a simplified process flow diagram provided by the applicant, the ethanol production process can be broken down as follows:

Page 2 of 48

I Q s ;

ad1 I J U ~ ~ U I I I vdlley . I I I ~ U MII ruIIuLIu1 I bur ILI UI UI~LIILL

Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion. lnc. Ethanol Production Facilitv in Cerer CA

Grain Receivinq and Handlinq Operation: Grain (corn) is received via an enclosed convevor from the adioininq business, A.L. ~ i l b e k into'an enclosed elevator and is stored-in a 200-ton whole corn storage bin sewed by 2 bin vent filters. Grain is removed from the storage bin and elevated by an enclosed elevator and processed through the bin weigh system and the grain scalperlcleaner. The grain is then elevated by another enclosed elevator to a 50-ton whole corn surge bin. The 50-ton whole corn surge bin is also sewed by 2 bin vent filters. This equrpment generates particulate matter (PMlo) emissions. The elevators and scalping equipment is sewed by a fabric filter baghouse, a Donaldson Torit Model 81 MBT 8, or equal.

Grain Grindinq Operations: Grain is transferred from the 50-ton surge bin to one of three hammermills, which grind the grain in preparation for the liquefaction process. The ground grain is conveyed via enclosed conveyors and an enclosed elevator to a 100-ton ground grain storage bin. The 100-ton ground grain storage bin is sewed by 2 bin vent filters. This equipment generates particulate matter (PM~o) emissions. The hammermills and conveyors are vented to a shared fabric filter baghouse, a Donaldson Torit Model 162 MBT 10, or equal.

Cookinq and Liquefaction Process: The ground grain is transferred from the hammermills to the slurry mixing tank and combined with dilution waterlrecycled streams (thin stillage, spent lees, and process steam condensate) from the cook tank and enzymes from the enzyme dosing tank to form a slurry. After processing in the slurry mixing tank, the slurry is pumped to the initial liquefaction tank where it is mixed with water and enzymes and then cooked using process steam. The slurry is then transferred to the final liquefaction tank where the liquefaction is completed. The resulting mash is then cooled prior to being sent to the fermentation process. This process generates volatile organic (VOC) emissions. The cook tank, the liquefying enzyme dosing tank, the slurry mixing tank and the 2 liquefaction tanks are fixed roof tanks that are vented to the 2-unit C02 aqueous wet scrubber. Water that is removed from the 2-unit CO2 wet scmbber is sent to the scrubbed water tank and recycled to the pre-fermentation tanks. The C02 is vented to the atmosphere. There are minimal, unquantifiable emissions in this process due to recycled processing water flows that enter the Recycle Streams Collection Tank. The applicant is venting all of the tanks in this process to the scrubbers to ensure that all emissions are controlled.

Fermentation Process: A portion of the mash from the final liquefaction tank is then transferred to one of the two pre-fermentation tanks to prepare a yeast culture. There it is mixed with additional enzymes to break the starches down to sugars. Active dry yeast is then added to the pre-fermentation tank. The yeast culture is then added to the main fermentation tanks to initiate the fermentation process.

Page 3 of 48

San Joaquin Valley -,iified Air Pollution Control District February 6, 2007 Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion, Inc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

The main portion of the mash is from the final liquefaction tank is transferred to one of the four main fermentation tanks. The yeast culture is then added to the main fermentation tank to start the fermentation. This process is designed to be a continuous flow process. After fermenting for approximately 48-60 hours, the resultant liquid, called beer or distilling material (DM), contains approximately 15% ethanol by weight. The beer is stored in the 1,485,058 gallon beer well (fixed roof storage tank). The fermentation process generates carbon dioxide (C02) and volatile organic (VOC) emissions. Each fermentation tank and the beer well storage tank are fixed roof tanks that are vented to the shared 2-unit C02 wet scrubber.

Distillation Process: The DM from the beer well storage tank is distilled in a two-column distillation process that consists of a degasifyinglmash stripper column, and a rectifier column. The fermented mash depleted of ethanol from the mash stripper column is called whole stillage and is pumped to the decantation operation. The top product of the distillation process (from the rectifier column) contains approximately 95% ethanol (190-proof) and 5% water. The 190-proof ethanol is sent to the day storage tank or the molecular sieve for dehydration. The molecular sieve is used to remove the remaining 5% water from the 190-proof ethanol resulting in 100% ethyl alcohol (200-proof ethanol). In this process hydrous ethanol is pumped from the distillation process or the 190-proof day storage tank, dehydrated, and sent to one of the 200-proof ethanol storage tanks.

Decantation Operation: The whole stillage removed from the bottom of the mash stripper column is conveyed to one of five decanter centrifuges or stored in the fixed-roof whole stillage holding tank. The centrifuges concentrate the slurry to a 30% solids Wet Distillers' Grain (WDG). The WDG is stored in a partially enclosed building and shipped to local dairies as a high-value animal feed. The remaining water, which contains residual amounts of organic material, is collected in a fixed-roof thin stillage storage tank. The thin stillage is then processed in the steam-heated evaporator. The result is an organic syrup, which is then combined with the WDG, and process water, which is returned to cook tank for reuse in the slurry mixing tank.

From the storage area the WDG will be loaded into trucks via front-end loaders for delivery to farms in the local region as an animal feed. The WDG handling and load- out are not expected to be sources of PMqo emissions since the WDG will have a high moisture content, approximately 70%. The decantation operation generates volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. VOC emissions from the centrifuges and thin stillage tank are vented to the COa wet scrubber.

Ethanol Storaqe Tanks: Ethanol from the molecular sieves is transferred to one of the fixed roof ethanol storage tanks. There are two 210,000 gallon and one 1,050,000 gallon 200-proof ethanol storage tanks. There is also one 63,000 gallon 190-proof storage tank. The storage of

Page 4 of 48

3 0 1 1 JUO~UIII vatley IIICU n t t TUIIULIUI I ~ U I ILIUI U I~L I ILL r cu l U ~ I y 0. LUUI

Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion, Inc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

ethanol generates volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. All of the tanks will have a natural gas blanket to eliminate the emissions from the tank operation (filling and emptying the tanks). The tanks are vented to the Tank Vapor Recovery (TVR) system where condensabies are returned to product storage and the non-condensable vapors are routed to the boilers or the standby flare for incineration.

Gasoline Storaqe Tanks with Unloadina Racks: The 200-proof ethyl alcohol is mixed with 5% denaturant (usually gasoline) to create denatured ethanol. The denaturant is unloaded from trucks via one of the two racks and stored in two 30,000-gallon storage pressure vessels. The tanks and unloading racks are vented to the (TVR) system where condensabies are returned to product storage and vapors are routed to the boilers or the standby flare for incineration.

Ethanol Loadinq Racks: Durinq ethanol truck loading, the 200-proof ethyl alcohol is mixed with 5% denaturant (usually gasoline) to createbenatured ethanol. This will be accomplished by blending the gasoline directly into the ethanol as the truck is being loaded at the rack. The loading of trucks generates VOC emissions as residual organic vapors are displaced. The truck loading racks will be equipped with a vapor balance system that will return all the displaced vapors from the trucks to the ethanol storage tanks.

Boilers: The 3 natural gas-fired boilers provide process steam for the various operations and also serve as control devices for the emissions from ethanol and qasoline (denaturant) storage tanks, via the TVR system. The boilers trigger BACT andmust meet NOx emissions of 9 ppmv @ 3% O2 per Rule 4306. The applicant stated they will have no trouble meeting the 9 ppmv limit even while operating as a control device for the TVR system. This has been proven from source tests at another plant they operate with the same configuration of the boiler controlling any emissions for the TVR system (Goshen, CA). The applicant has stated that only 2 of the boilers will be in operation at any time. Conditions will be added to the permits for the 3 boilers to allow only 2 of the 3 units to operate simultaneously.

Standby Flare: This is an air-assisted 280.000 scflday flare that will be used for emissions control only when the boilers are not operating. he applicant has proposed that potential emissions for this unit be based upon operating 24 hrlday and 500 hrlyr. The pilot uses 2,400 scflday of natural gas and its emissions will be based upon operating 24 hrlday, 365 daylyr.

Coolinq Tower: The 34,000 gallmin cooling tower is utilized to remove waste heat from various process streams. The unit will be an induced draft counter-flow design with a manufacturer guaranteed drift factor of 0.0015% of the designed recirculation water flow rate.

Page 5 of 48

San Joaquin Valley -,iified Air Pollution Control District February 6,2007 Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion, Inc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

Wet Distillers' Grain (WDG) Storacle and Load-out:

The WDG is conveyed to a partially enclosed storage building and loaded by front-end loader into trucks for use as animal feed. Approximately 306,000 tonlyr of WDG will be produced. Per the applicant, the WDG will remain at the pile for only a short period, usually not longer than 24 hours. Spoilage problems can develop after four or five days. The applicant has requested that permit conditions allow the on-site storage of WDG for 48 hours. This will allow for any upsets that might occur with trucking operations on weekends. The applicant states the maximum throughput of WDG is 50 tonlhr and 1,200 tonlday.

Process Emission Offsets:

Offsets are the use of Emission Reduction Credits (ERC) to mitigate emission increases of an affected pollutant from a new or modified source subject to District Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review). Offsets are examined on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. Pursuant to Section 4.9 of District Rule 2201, the Pre- Project Stationary Source Potential to Emit (SSPEI) is the Potential to Emit (PE) from all units with valid Authorities to Construct (ATC) or Permits to Operate (PTO) at the Stationary Source and the quantity of emission reduction credits (ERC) which have been banked since September 19, 1991 for Actual Emissions Reductions that have occurred at the source, and which have not been used on-site. Since this is a new facility, there are no valid ATCs, PTOs, or ERCs at this Stationary Source. Therefore, the SSPEI is set equal to zero for all criteria pollutants.

Pursuant to Section 4.1 0 of District Rule 2201, the Post-Project Stationary Source Potential to Emit (SSPE2) is the Potential to Emit (PE) from all units with valid Authorities to Construct (ATC) or Permits to Operate (PTO) at the Stationary Source and the quantity of emission reduction credits (ERC) which have been banked since September 19, 1991 for Actual Emissions Reductions that have occurred at the source, and which have not been used on-site. Offsets are triggered for any pollutant with a SSPE2 equal to or greater than threshold values established in section 4.5.3. Pursuant to section 4.7.2 of District Rule 2201, offsets shall be provided for all increases in Stationary Source emissions above the offset trigger levels, calculated as the difference between the SSPE2 and the offset trigger level.

As illustrated in Table I, the proposed project triggers offsets for VOC emissions. The quantity of emissions that must be mitigated is presented in the Table 2.

Page 6 of 48

san Joaquln Valley ,Itled Alr Pollution Control D~strict February 6,2007 Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion. Inc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

Pollutant .. ..

r . . . - . . - -

1 VOC I 44,897 I 20,000 I 24,897 I

As summarized in Table 3, the applicant has proposed to use ERC Certificates to offset the VOC emissions from this project. The applicant's proposal satisfies the offset requirements of District Rule 2201.

Area and Operational Emissions From Mobile Sources:

(will be reissued to applicant under a

separate certificate number)

Mobile sources are pollution sources that move, such as trucks, bulldozers, and trains. These sources pollute the air through combustion and fuel evaporation. Pollutants resulting from combustion and fuel evaporation include oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter, hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. Mobile sources also produce other important air pollutants, such as air toxics and greenhouse gases.

Area and operational emissions from mobile sources were characterized, using URBEMIS, for the following activities: employee vehicles (cars and light trucks), corn deliveries (Unit trains of 110 cars), grain shipments (heavy-heavy trucks), removal of wet distillers grain (heavy-heavy trucks), ethanol shipments (heavy-heavy trucks), production supplies (miscellaneous trucks), and C02 shipments (heavy-heavy trucks). The analysis was based on information submitted in support of Cilion's ethanol production facility located in Famoso, CA, which for the purpose of this analysis is

+365

Page 7 of 48

+366 +366 +363

San Joaquin Valley _.rified Air Pollution Control District February 6,2007 Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion, Inc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

considered representative of the proposed project. The traffic study assumes that on a daily basis, 26 ethanol trucks will enter and exit the site, along with 68 wet distiller trucks, 26 C02 trucks, and 50 employee vehicles. Total area and operational emissions from mobile sources are presented in Table 4.

7 Area Source and Operational (Vehicle) Emissions are shown as "mitigated" based on results obtained

2 through the URBEMIS 2002 for Windows 8.7.0 Modeling Program. Numbers may not add due to rounding by the URBEMIS 2002 for Windows 8.7.0 Modeling Program.

Table 4. Total Mobile Source Emissions Before Mitigation

Area and Operational Emissions Offsets:

Emissions Source

Area Source ~missions' Operational (Vehicle) Emissions' Total Long-Term Emissions'

If unmitigated, emissions of NOx will exceed the District's significance threshold of 10 tons per year. Mobile source emissions are not subject to Rule 2201 and any reduction would be voluntary mitigation. Cilion has proposed to voluntarily mitigate the mobile source emissions to less than significant by surrendering to the District 5 tons of NOx ERCs (Certificate No. S-2364-2). Total mobile source emissions after mitigation are presented in Table 5.

NOTES:

Pollutant (tonslyear)

1 Area Source and Operational (Vehicle) Emissions are shown as "mitigated" based on results obtained through the URBEMIS 2002 for Windows 8.7.0 Modeling Program. 2 NOx Emissions Reduction Credits to offset project emissions have been purchased and will be surrendered to the SJVUAPCD with project approval. 3 Numbers may not add due to rounding by the URBEMIS 2002 for Windows 8.7.0 Modeling Program. 'The SJVAPCD has not established significance thresholds for CO or SOX.

ROG 0.15 0.91 1.06

Either Threshold Exceeded After Mitigation?

Page 8 of 48

NOX 0.15 14.69 14.84

NOTES:

No

CO 0.12 10.30 10.43

No No

SOX 0.00 0.02 0.02

PMgo 0.00 0.57 0.57

san JOaqUln valle) .ilrrea Alr Iaollutlon Lontrol utstnct Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion, bc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres. CA

tebruary 6,2007

Process Water and Wastewater Discharqe:

The proposed ethanol plant will have three wastewater streams: 1) Blow down water from the cooling tower; 2 ) domestic sewage from the administrative and operations buildings; and 3) process water from the fermentation, distillation and evaporation. All three streams would degrade the ground water if discharged to the land directly.

The blow down water will have an elevated TDS and conductivity. No chromates or other toxic metals will be used in the tower. Cilion has identified three options for mitigating the environmental impact from this wastewater discharge to less than significant. One mitigation measure is the use of Reverse Osmosis treatment to achieve the discharge requirements discussed below and contained in the City of Turlock letter to the Keyes Services District. Reverse Osmosis treatment would create a brinelsludge that would be stored in an above ground holding tank and shipped offsite for proper disposal at an authorized facility. If this mitigation measure is selected, Cilion will obtain an Industrial Sewer permit through the Keyes Services District and must comply with established sampling and monitoring requirements. A second mitigation measure is to treat the wastewater stream to a recyclable level. The resulting treated water would be returned to the makeup water tank and used in the ethanol manufacturing process. The brine reject component of waste discharge would require addit~onal processing. To mitigate the impact of the brine reject, Cilion would apply for a Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) permit to install lined ponds to evaporate the brine reject to a solid to be taken off slte to an authorized facility. A third mitigation measure is to further treat and concentrate the brine reject and recycle the brine by adding it to the liquid syrup feed that is used to enhance the dairy feed, replacing salts and minerals that are added to this stream offsite. (A preliminary onsite treatment schematic is attached).

Cilion has not completed their analysis of the options for mitigating this potential wastewater discharge. However, Cilion has identified the following course of actions, pending final determination:

Prior to Startup of operation; If Cilion chooses to treat the cooling tower blow down water and discharge it to the sewer, Cilion shall obtain an Industrial discharge permit from the Keyes Services District. Cilion shall install a tank to hold the brine and sludge from onsite treatment for shipment off site to a proper disposal facility. If Cilion is able to install additional lime softening and other tertiary treatment processes to treat the water to a level that can be recycled to the front of the manufacturing process and chooses to dispose of the brine sludge, a lined evaporation pond for evaporation and eventual offsite disposal as a solid, Cilion shall complete and submit a report of waste discharge to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and obtain a Waste Discharge Requirement under the California Code of Regulations Title 27.

Page 9 of 48

San Joaquin Valley ,nified Air Pollution Control District Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion, Inc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

February 6,2007

If Cilion is able to reuse the concentrated brine as a replacement for the salts and minerals added to the byproduct feed, a WDR will not be required. A letter from a qualified animal nutritionist will be maintained on file approving the substitution of the recycled material.

The second wastewater stream is domestic sewage from restrooms and break facilities in the office and operations buildings. This wastewater discharge will be processed separate from any process wastewater discharge and mitigated to a less than significant level by treatment at a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) facility. Connection to the POTW is through the Keyes Services District, which has provided Cilion with a letter to serve for the project. The POTW facility is operated by the City of Turlock. Cilion has indicated that prior to operation it shall obtain a permit to connect to the public sewer maintained by the Keyes Services District for discharge of the domestic waste from the office and operations building.

The third wastewater stream is process water from the fermentation, distillation and evaporation. Process streams of condensate have trace amounts of product, ethanol. This potential wastewater discharge will be mitigated to less than significant levels by recycling the potential discharge to the front end of the manufacturing process.

There are hazards associated with potential leaks or spills and storage and handling of process chemicals. Cilion has proposed the following mitigation measures:

The process units, cookinq/liquefaction. fermentation, distillation, decantation and storaqelload-out, are to be located on cement slabs with curbing to contain leaks or spills and the drains from the slabs will be collected to a lined containment sump. The sump contents will be pumped back to the make up water tank. The process drips from pumps and sample systems that contain minor amounts of product will be contained and pumped back to the make up water tank. The product tank f a n s will be located within containment berms and a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure plan will be in place prior to operation. All process chemicals will be stored within containment. Any hazardous waste generated will be properly characterized, stored and shipped offsite for disposal at an approved facility.

A potential exists for potential environmental impact from storm water runoff. Cilion has filed a Notice of Intent (NOI) with State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to follow the State General Construction Storm Water Permit and WDlD #5S50C342430 was issued to the facility. Per correspondence with Cilion, AL Gilbert is listed as the owner and Cilion the developer, as the escrow has not yet closed on the property. Once Cilion fully owns the property, Cilion has stated that it will convert the WDlD to its name. A construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPP) has been compiled and will be converted to an operation plan when the construction permit is rescinded and the NO1 is submitted for operations to conform to SWRCB Water Quality Order No. 97-03-DWQ, General Permit No. CAS000001. Cilion has indicated that they will conform to SWRCB Water Quality Order No. 99-08-DWQ, General Permit No.

Page 10 of 48

e san Joaquln valley .Ittea Alr rollutlon Lontrol ulstrlct February 6, 2007 Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion, Inc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

CAS000002 during construction and shall re-file for an Operational Storm water Discharge Permit prior to commencement of operation. Compliance with state and regional requirements is considered adequate to ensure that the project's potential impact on water quality is mitigated to less than significant

The proposed facility is within a zoned industrial park. No wetlands are anticipated in the area that would be disturbed by the project. Therefore, no US Army Corps of Engineers or Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB is required.

The manufacturing process is estimated to consume 1,017,960 gallons of water per day, which Cilion proposes to source from an industrial well system to be installed on site. Installation of wells is subject to review and approval by the Stanislaus County Department of Environmental Resources (DER). Cilion is seeking an industrial water well drilling permit through the County of Stanislaus. If approved, Cilion will follow the requirements for containing the well development fluids. If necessary. Cilion will file a Dewatering Permit Application with the RWQCB. Compliance with DER and RWQCB requirements is considered adequate to ensure that the project's potential impact on groundwater is mitigated to less than significant.

No dredged material will be discharged to a navigable waterway so a Section 404 Permit from Fish and Game is not required.

Page 11 of 48

San Joaquin Valley ,,~ified Air Pollutron Control District Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion, lnc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

February 6,2007

9. Other Agencies Whose Approvals Are Required and Permits Needed:

Stanislaus County Planning and Community Development: Planning Department staff has determined the proposed use is permitted within the zone and as such, no discretionary approval of the project is required. Planning staff will process this request through the issuance of mechanical and electrical permits. Issuance of these permits is a ministerial action.

Stanislaus County Department of Environmental Resources: Permits for water supplies and Storm Water Pollution Prevention will be required.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board:

Keyes Community Sewices District: Approvals for water and sewer service will be required.

To the District's knowledge, the above permitting actions are ministerial; consequently, the District is the lead agency under CEQA.

10. Name of Person Who Prepared Initial Study:

Daniel T. Barber, Ph.D. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 1990 E. Gettysburg Ave. Fresno, CA 93726 (559) 230-5800

Page 12 of 48

2,\5

361 1 JUd~UIII VdllC:y illltXl MI1 rUIIULIUI1 bUIILIUI UIbLI ICl


Figure 1

Project Location within San Joaquin Valley Air Basin

Page 13 of 48

Z d \ G

San Joaquin Valley ,hified Air Pollution Control District February 6, 2007 Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion, Inc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

Figure 2

Project Location: 4209 Jessup Road, Ceres, CA

Page 14 of 48

9 , \ r2

3an Joaquln valley . .crlea Air rollurlon Lonrrol ulsrncr te~ruary a, LUUI Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cihon, bc. Ethanol Production Faciiify in Ceres, CA

B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the proposed project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated", as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services UtilitiesIService Systems

Agriculture Resources IX] Air Quality Cultural Resources GeologylSoils HydrologyNVater Land UseIPlanning Quality Noise Population/Housing Recreation Transportationrrraffic Mandatory Findings of Significance

C. DETERMINATION

I certify that this project was independently reviewed and analyzed and that this document reflects the independent judgment of the District.

C] 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 the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

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

C] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect@) 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, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

Date: /"./..

3a"ic\ tgatKd- Printed name: \ Title: -&or a$ tar*^ -3 S&4u;ceS

Page 15 of 48

San Joaquin Valley b,~ified Air Pollution Control District Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion, Inc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

February 6,2007

D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST

I. AESTHETICS ould the proposal:

lready impact aesthetics.

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)

Page 16 of 48

San Joaquin Valley ,.died Air Pollution Control District February 6,2007 Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion, lnc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

Air Act. The San Joaquin Valley Air Polltltion Control District has been established by the State of California in an effort to control and minimize air pollution. As such, the District maintains permit authority over stationary sources of air pollution.

Emissions from the project have the potential to result in a signifcant impact on air quality. However, the, potential impact can be reduced to less than significant through compliance with applicable State, Federal and District

Emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from Stationary Source would exceed the District's offset threshold of 10 tons per year for VOCs. VOC emissions from the Stationary Source project can be offset to less than significant by surrendering to the District Emission Redudion Credits (ERC).

Emissions of nibogen oxides (NOx) from mobile sources would exceed the District's signiticance threshold of 10 tons per year for NOx. NOx emissions from the mobile sources can be offset to less than significant by surrendering to the District Emission Reduction Credits (ERC).

District Rule 4102 (Nuisance), section 4.0 prohibits the discharge of air contaminants that could cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to the public into the atmosphere. The following condition will be placed on each permit: No air contaminant shall be released into the atmosphere, which causes a public nuisance [District Rule

1 41021. Compliance with this Rule is expected. I

Page 17 of 48

San Joaquin Valley unified Air Pollution Control District February 6,2007 Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion, Inc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

Page 18 of 48

12.8 tons VOC of ERC (prior to applying the Distance Offset Ratio requirement).

Mobile sources emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) will be offset by surrendering 5.0 tons NOx of ERC.

Cilion has secured the required amounts of ERCs to mitigate both Stationary Source and mobile source emissions, and Cilion must surrender the ERCs to the District before operating the equipment proposed under the Authority to Construct permit.

V. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project:

or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) .Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? ----

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

x

X

x

X

X

x

San Joaqu~n Valley .Ifled Air Pollutron Control D~strict February 6,2007 Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion, Inc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

Page 19 of 48

21 2

allowed use in the industrial zone. Stanislaus County's General Plan Circulation Element was updated, in il2006 and addresses the Keyes Community Plan. The Keyes Community Plan designates lands west of te Highway 99 for industrial use and residential expansion to the north and east of Keyes. The Keys

roperties built out for industrial uses. There is no evidence to suggest this project would result in impacts to ndangered species or habitats, locally designated species, or wildlife dispersal or migration'corridors. There re no known sensitive or protected species or natural communities located on the site andlor surrounding area.

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project:

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?

Discussion: Cultural resources are not known to exist on the project site. The project would be located adjacent to an existing industrial site; however, there is the possibility of discovering unknown cultural resources during construction activities related to the project. If this should occur, the contractor or project official shall consult Central California Information Center (CCIC), the State Office of Historic Preservation in Sacramento, or the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento for recommended procedures, as required under Section 7050 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097 of the Public Resources Code.

The proposed facility is an allowed use within a zoned industrial park. Stanislaus County's General Plan Circulation Element was updated in April of 2006, and addresses the Keyes Community Plan. The Keyes Community Plan was subject to extensive CEQA review in 1998. Potential impacts on cultural resources were identified as being less than significant in the Keyes Community Plan NOP and Initial Study. Mitigation: None

Potentially Significant

Impact

lmpact Unless

Mitigated

Less Than Significant

Impact No

Impact

X

x

X

x

San Joaquin Valley unified Air Pollution Control District February 6,2007 Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion, Inc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

VI. GEOLOGYISOILS Would the project:

ence of a known fault? Refer ines and Geology Special

Keyes Community Plan was subject to extensive CEQA review in 1998. Potential impacts on Geology were identified as being less than significant in the Keyes Community Plan NOP and Initial Study.

Page 20 of 48

2 ) :

San Joaquin Valley Xied Air Pollut~on Control District February 6, 2007 Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion, Inc. Ethanol Producfion Facility in Ceres, CA

Page 21 of 48

2 ! 4

Would the project:

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 projed area?

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

x

X

X

X

X

X

San Joaquin Valley ~ , l i f ied Air Pollution Control District February 6,2007 Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion, Inc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

Page 22 of 48

2 1 :,

The project proponent will prepare a site specific Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan (SPCC) and Emergency Response, and site specific Hazardous Materials Business Management Plan once the once the site is in operation. The project proponent will prepare and comply with a Risk Management Plan (RMP) if stored quantities of certain hazardous materials exceed state and federal limits. The propose project is subject to Federal Process Safety Management (PSM) requirements and a plan will be compiled and Hazardous Operations (HAZOP) studies will be conducted as part of the startup operation.

The proposed facility is an allowed use within a zoned industrial park. Stanislaus County's General Plan

VIII. HYDROLOGYMlATER QUALITY Would the project:

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 ~ n o f f in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water 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?

x

X

x

x

aan Joaquln valley *Ilea n l r rolcurlon Lonrrol ulsrrlcr reoruary o, LUUI

Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion, lnc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

I I I Potentially I I 1 VIII. HYDROLOGYNVATER QUALITY

Continued:

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?

Significant

~~ ~ ~

Discussion: The manufacturing process is estimated togenerate a maximum daily discharge of 236,808 gallons of waste constituents. The proposed ethanol plant will have three wastewater streams: 1) Blow down water from the cooling tower; 2) domestic sewage from the administrative and operations buildings; and 3) process water from the fermentation, distillation and evaporation. All three streams would degrade the ground water if discharged to the land directly. Accordingly, the discharge of these waste streams is subject to regulation by the California Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board). Section 13264 of the California Water Code requires individuals proposing to discharge waste that may affect water quality to submit a complete report of waste discharge (RWD) to the appropriate Regional Water Board office at least 140 days prior to the initiation of the discharge. To be determined complete by the Regional Water Board, the RWD shall include a technical supplement that characterizes the proposed discharge, as well as existing water quality (groundwater and, if appropriate, surface water), and evaluates the extent to which the proposed discharge may degrade water quality. Discharges that degrade, or threaten to degrade, high quality water are required to be conducted in a manner consistent with State Water Quality Control Board Resolution No. 68-16, Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality of Waters in California. The RWD should contain sufficient information for Regional Water Board staff to determine the discharge's consistency with this policy. The discharge of cooling water to land may be eligible for coverage under the Regional Water Board's Low Threat General Waiver, Resolution No. R5 2003-0008 for the category of Air Conditioner, Cooling, and Elevated Temperature Waters Discharged to Land. The discharge of the project's storm water may be covered under individual waste discharge requirements. Compliance with existing regulations is considered adequate to minimize any environmental impact resulting from discharge of waste constituents.

. I I I I

A potential exists for potential environmental impact from storm water runoff. Cilion has filed a Notice of Intent (NOI) with State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to follow the State General Construction Storm Water Permit and WDlD #5S50C342430 was issued to the facility.

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow

I The manufacturing process is estimated to consume 1,017,960 gallons of water per day, which the project I

X

proponent proposes to source from a well system to be installed on site. Installation of wells is subject to review and approval by the Stanislaus County Department of Environmental Resources (DER). Compliance with DER requirements is considered adequate to ensure that the project's potential impact on groundwater is less than significant.

Page 23 of 48

216

San Joaquin Valley d f i e d Air Pollution Control District February 6, 2007 Initial StudytNegative Declaration Cilion, Inc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

VI11. HYDROLOGYIWATER QUALITY Continued

Cilion has not completed their analysis of the options for mitigating this potential wastewater discharge. However. Cilion has identified the following course of actions, pending final determination:

Prior to Startup of operation; If Cilion chooses to heat the cooling tower blow down water and discharge it to the sewer, Cilion shall obtain an Industrial discharge permit from the Keyes Services District. Cilion shall install a tank to hold the brine and sludge from onsite treatment for shipment off site to a proper disposal facility.

If Cilion is able to install additional lime softening and other tertiary treatment processes to treat the water to a level that can be recycled to the front of the manufacturing process and chooses to dispose of the brine sludge, a lined evaporation pond for evaporation and eventual offsite disposal gs a solid. Cilion shall complete and submit a report of waste discharge to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and obtain a Waste Discharge Requirement California Code of Regulations Title 27. If C~lion is able to reuse the concentrated brine as a replacement for the salts and minerals added to the byproduct feed, a WDR will not be required. A letter from a qualified animal nutritionist will be maintained on file approving the substitution of the recycled material.

Process streams of condensate have trace amounts of product, ethanol. This potential wastewater discharge inrill be mitigated to less than significant levels by recycling the potential discharge to the front end of the manufacturing process.

Domestic sewage from restrooms and break facilities in the office and operations buildings will be processed separate from any process wastewater discharge and mitigated to a less than significant level by treatment at a 3ublicly owned treatment works (POTW) facility. Connection to the P O W is through the Keyes Services District.

3ilion is seeking an industrial water well drilling permit through the County of Stanislaus. If approved, Cilion will 'ollow the requirements for contatning the well development fluids. If necessary, Cilion will file a Dewatering 'ermit Application with the RWQCB. For a more complete discussion of these wastewater streams and ~roposed control measures, please refer to the Process Water and Wastewater Discharqe section of the above Orocess Description.

The proposed facility is an allowed use within a zoned industrial park. Stanislaus County's General Plan 2irculation Element was updated in April of 2006, and addresses the Keyes Community Plan. The Keyes 2ommunity Plan was subject to extensive CEQA review In 1998. Potential impacts of hydrology and water quality were identified as being less than significant in the Keyes Community Plan NOP and Initial Study. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to have significant impacts as identified above. Mitigation: None.

Page 24 of 48

J~II J U ~ ~ U I I I V~IIG) JI IIIIGU MII rul luuurl UUIILIUI UISLIIC;~

Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion. Inc Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, C.4

F#$~~:;?q:); %-(a% , ,..

I I Potentiallv I

I I I I Discussion: The County of Stanislaus has determined that the proposal can be accommodated under existing land use entitlements. The proposed project will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan and will not physically divide an established community

IX. LAND USElPLANNlNG Would the project:

a) Physically divide an established community?

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy. or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?


Impact

Mitigation: None Reference: Stanislaus County General Plan. Keyes Community Plan and Support Documentation.

, . .., ,. , . . . . 8 . : : .. . . . . ..,,,.,.. ,.--.. ,:.-. .:. l ;nl . , , , . ,.; , , , . . . .~ &~ ,,;,, ;*+..r;,d<.::;,i;.:hv{: ,,:i&&:@:: cv.c :@;:;::$i:ki~:;$:$:i$8*>;$::f,:;;3sa .%,, > -!{$A!;,. ,.;:>%. 'f..2$$5;$ :, ;,5:?:.:-:,3?:?/b. i... . ..*>a,.;-.brii.;il;r. c3?A~3::>?.E!'.?!!:;;:,~!::! 3

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 reaion and the residents of the state?

or other land use plan?

Discussion: The location of all commercially viable mineral resources in Stanislaus County has been mapped

~ignifican-t lmpact Unless

Mitigated

- I I I

by the State Division of Mines and Geology in Special Report 173. There are no known significant resources in or around the project area.


impact

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local aeneral plan, specific plan

The proposed facility is an allowed use within a zoned industrial park. Stanislaus County's General Plan Circulation Element was updated in April of 2006, and addresses the Keyes Community Plan. The Keyes 1


Impact

x

Community Plan was subject to extensive CEQA review in 1998. Potential impacts on energy and mineral resources were identified as being less than significant in the Keyes Community Plan NOP and Initial Study.

No Impact

x

x

X


lmpact Unless

Mitigated

Mitigation: None Reference: Stanislaus County General Plan, Keyes Community Plan and Support Documentation, and State Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 173.

Page 25 of 48

21g


impact No

Impact

X

san Joaquln val ley crnltleci Alr k'ollutton Lontrol ulstrlct Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion, Inc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

February 6,2007

Page 26 of 48

. . . , . . .. , , . . . ., . ,,' , : , . . . " :-:. > " ' " .. ;' .,e,'S2: ... ,, , . . . , ' ' , , , . ; > .~,;.: , .. . . . , , l.. . , ~,

XI. NOISE Would the project result in:

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 groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels?

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

e) For a project located within 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?

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Discussion: The Stanislaus County General Plan normally acceptable level of noise for industrial, manufacturing, utility, and agricultural uses. On-site grading and construction resulting from this' project may result in a temporary increase in the area's ambient noise levels. The project's impact on noise associated with on-site activities and traffic are not anticipated to exceed normally acceptable noise levels. The site itself is impacted by noise generated from nearby Highway 99 and the Union Pacific Railroad.

The proposed facility is an allowed use within a zoned industrial park. Stanislaus County's General Plan Circulation Element was updated in April of 2006, and addresses the Keyes Community Plan. The Keyes Community Plan was subject to extensive CEQA review in 1998. Potential impacts from noise were identified as being less thansignificant in the Keyes Community Plan NOP and Initial Study. Mitigation: None Reference: Stanislaus County General Plan, Keyes Community Plan and Support Documentation.

"'O"i:.- "'., .7,x..., , , . . ,. . .+. .. ...


Impact

identifies noise

... > : '%,::";T: : - . ., ,, .. . ,


lmpact Unless

Mitigated

levels up to 75

- ' .: , . .,, ~ - .

.> ~

Less Than Significant . Impact

x

X

X

dbLd, (or CNEL)

'".:'>.~z,:I."-'.",".2:.:~".,: :' >".-:.. 41..,,~,>,,, . :

No Impact

X

x

x

as the

3an Joaquln va l le j Jnlrleo f i l r ro l lur lon bonr ro l ulsrrlct t e ~ r u a r y o, LUUI Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion. Inc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

Page 27 of 48

XII. POPULATlONlHOUSlNG Would the project:

'on of roads or other

The proposed facility is an allowed use within a zoned industrial park. Stanislaus County's General Plan Circulation Element was updated in April of 2006, and addresses the Keyes Community Plan. The Keyes

XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project

altered govemrnentat 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

b) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections?

c) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g.. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)?

x

X

San Joaquin Valley clnified Air Pollution Control District February 6, 2007 Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion, Inc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Continued

XIV. RECREATION

Page 28 of 48

oa~a ouaqu~o I vasaczy - I IIIIGU n u runuuulr bul arlul u t ~ u ILL


Would the project:

sharp curves or dangerous ) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm

99 and by rail sidings of the Union Pacific Railroad. The project is not anticipated to have a significant traffic impact to local County roads associated with this project.

The proposed facility is an allowed use within a zoned industrial park. Stanislaus County's General Plan Circulation Element was updated in April of 2006, and addresses the Keyes Community Plan. The Keyes Community Plan was subject to extensive CEQA review in 1998. Potential impacts from traffic were considered in the Keyes Community Plan addressed in both the Draft and Final EIR. Mitigation measures were proposed. There is no evidence to indicate that the proposed project's potential impact on traffic would exceed that addressed in the Keyes Community Plan.

XVI. UTlLlTlESlSERVlCE SYSTEMS Would the project:

Page 29 of 48

San Joaquin Valley dnified Air Pollution Control District February 6,2007 Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion, Inc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

Page 30 of 48

'11) + L ,)

cause significant environmental effects?

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?

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

x

x

X

X

x Discussion: Limitations on providing services have not been identified. The project proponent has received approval from the Keyes Community Services District for sewer and potable water sources serving the office and sanitary facilities. It is anticipated that process water will come from a well system to be installed on site and process waste constituents will be processed by either the City of Turlock's municipal waste treatment facilities or on-site evaporative ponds. Well construction, discharge of waste constituents and connections to municipal services are subject to review and approval by the respective agencies. Compliance with conditions of approval andlor permit requirements is considered adequate to ensure that the project's potential impact on utilitieslservice systems is less than significant.

Impacts on government services, including law enforcement and public facilities maintenance, are mitigated through the collection of property taxes and development fees. The proposed facility is an allowed use within a zoned industrial park. Stanislaus County's General Plan Circulation Element was updated in April of 2006, and addresses the Keyes Community Plan. The Keyes Community Plan was subject to extensive CEQA review in 1998. Potential impacts on utilities and services were identified as being less than significant in the Keyes Community Plan NOP and Initial Study.

Mitigation:

san Joaquln Valley ~ n ~ t l e d Alr Pollution Control District February 6,2007 Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion, Inc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

Page 31 of 48

VII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF IGNIFICANCE

the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively Considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are 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?

Discussion: Review of this project has not indicated any features, which might significantly impact the environmental quality of the site andlor adjacent areas. -

x

X

San Joaquin Valley Jnified Air Pollution Control District February 6,2007 Initial StudyINegative Declaration ' Cilion, Inc Ethanol P r o t i o n c in Ceres. CA

APPENDIX A

Comments and Responses for Initial StudyIProposed Negative Declaration

Cilion, Inc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

January 19,2007

Page 32 of 48

I ? , ) : - ,, . )

ad1 I J U ~ ~ U I I I vdtle) ,I IIIICU n I i TUIIUIIUII ~ U I I L I U I UISLIICL

Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion, lnc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

reoruary o, LUUI

The following parties provided written comments on the proposed Initial StudyIMitigated Negative Declaration:

City of Ceres Community Development Department California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region Mr. Richard Harriman, Attorney at Law, Representing Valley Advocates

Copies of the respective comment letters are incorporated into this document as attachments B thru D. A summary of salient comments and associated responses follow.

The following parties provided written comments after close of the comment period:

Stanislaus County, Department of Planning and Community Development Stanislaus Economic Development & Workforce Alliance

Copies of the respective comment letters are incorporated into this document as attachments E and F. The documents provide information relevant to comments received regarding the District serving as the Lead Agency under CEQA for the project, traffic impacts, and land use planning. The documents are included for reference.

City of Ceres:

1. Comment: It appears that all aspects of the project have been adequately addressed with specific mitigation measures identified regarding air quality that will be implemented with the development of this project. The City of Ceres has no further comments.

Response: Comment noted, a response is not required.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region:

2. Comment: The project description should characterize the project's waste, provide details on waste treatment and disposal, and discuss relevant effects on the environment (surface water and groundwater).

Response: The project description has been amended to include a discussion of the project's wastewater characteristics, treatment, and options for disposal. Relevant effects on surface water and groundwater are also discussed.

3. Comment: The CEQA document should describe the project provisions that will avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant impacts would occur. Mitigation measures should demonstrate how the Discharger intends to comply with state and federal Anti-degradation Policies.

Page 33 of 48

San Joaquin Valley dnified Air Pollution Control District February 6,2007 Initial Study/Negative Declaration Cilion, Inc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

Response: The project description has been amended to include a discussion potential mitigation measures and how the project proponent intends to comply with state and federal Anti-degradation Policies.

4. Comment: A Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit must be obtained prior to construction.

Response: The site has a Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit WDlD identification number: 5S50C342430.

5. Comment: Stormwater discharges associated with industrial sites must comply with the regulations contained in the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Water Quality Order No. 97-03-DWQ NPDES, General Permit No. CAS000001.

Response: The project description has been amended to include a discussion potential mitigation measures and how the project proponent intends to comply by rescinding the construction permit and submitting a new Notice of Intent and receiving a new identification number.

6. Comment: If a U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) permit is required due to the disturbance of wetlands, then Water Quality Certification must be obtained from the Regional Board prior to initiation of project activities.

Response: The project description has been amended to explain that the proposed facility is an allowed use within a zoned industrial park. Specifically, Stanislaus County's General Plan Circulation Element was updated in April of 2006, and addresses the Keyes Community Plan. The Keys Community Plan was subject to extensive CEQA review in 1998, which included an assessment of the site built for industrial uses. Furthermore, the project is subject to Stanislaus County permit requirements. Subsequent reviews by that agency will further ensure potential impacts are appropriately addressed.

7. Comment: The proponent may be required to file a Dewatering Permit for coverage under WDRs General Order for Dewatering and Other Low Threat Discharges to Surface Waters Permit, Order No. 5-00-175 (NPDES CAG995001).

Response: The project description has been amended to include a discussion potential mitigation measures and how the project proponent intends to obtain a permit to drill and develop a agricultural/commercial well from Stanislaus County. If required a Dewatering permit will be obtained from the RWQCB. Furthermore, the project is subject to Stanislaus County permit requirements. Subsequent reviews by that agency will further ensure potential impacts are appropriately addressed.

Page 34 of 48

acl11 rludqulll V ~ I I ~ J I I I I I~U 1 1 1 1 ~UIIULIUII ~ V I I L I U I UISLIIGL re~ rua ry D, LUUI


8. Comment: If the project will involve the discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters or wetlands, a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act may be needed from the US Army Corps of Engineers. If a section 404 permit is required by the Corps, the Regional Water Board will review the permit application to ensure that discharge will not violate water quality standards. If the project requires surface water drainage realignment, the applicant is advised to contact the Department of Fish and Game for information on Streambed Alteration Permit requirements. If a Section 404 permit is required, the proponent must apply to the Regional Board for a Water Quality Certification under Section 401.

Response: The project description has been amended to explain that the proposed facility is an allowed use within a zoned industrial park. Specifically, Stanislaus County's General Plan Circulation Element was updated in April of 2006, and addresses the Keyes Community Plan. The Keys Community Plan was subject to extensive CEQA review in 1998, which included an assessment of the site built for industrial uses. Furthermore, the project is subject to Stanislaus County permit requirements. Subsequent reviews by that agency will further ensure potential impacts are appropriately addressed.

Mr. Richard Harriman, Attorney at Law, Representing Valley Advocates

9. Comment: (1 of 33) The Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (Proposed MND) fails to address whether emissions resulting from construction activities would surpass daily emission threshold levels as established by SJVUAPCD. Criteria air pollutants would be generated from grading activities and from operation of construction equipment. While temporary, the document should assess the impacts of emissions from construction activities.

Response: Gross acreage for the site is about 9.5 acres. Of the 9.5 acres, about 261,360 square feet either would consist of industrial structures, or paved access ways. Of the 261,360 square feet, 39,000 square feet would consist of industrial structures. Based on guidance provided in the Districts Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, the project falls below the Small Project Analysis Level (SPAL) level for manufacturing (400, 000 f?). Thus, characterization of construction emissions is not necessary.

10. Comment: (2 of 33) The Air Quality analysis fails to address whether toxic air would be released from the project, nor the impacts of such releases. For example, diesel particulate matter has been determined by the state of California to be a toxic air contaminant; the project may operate diesel sources. A Health Risk Assessment may be required.

Response: The District has performed a refined health risk assessment in accordance the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment's (OEHHA)

Page 35 of 48

San Joaquin Valley clnified Air Pollution Control District Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion, Inc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

February 6,2007

and the District's modeling guidance documents for the 55 million gallons per year ethanol facility located at 4209 Jessup Road Ceres, CA.

The modeling run consisted of the 21 permitted sources as well as the truck travel and truck idling emissions. The emissions used in the model were based on a worst-case assum~tion that the maximum emissions would be emitted for 70 years. Based on t'his modeling run the following risks were determined; the residence located South of the facility has a risk of 9.05 in one million and the risk at the nearest school was determined to be 0.397 in one million. The maximum worker risk was determined to be 4.44 in one million. To put this in perspective the District's level of significance is 10 in one million. Therefore, the risk associated with the operation of this facility is considered less than significant.

11. Comment: (3 of 33) The Proposed MND states that the impact resulting from "objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people" will be less than significant. The document does not present any evidence to support this assertion.

Response: The project description has been amended to state "District Rule 4102 (Nuisance), section 4.0 prohibits the discharge of air contaminants that could cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to the public into the atmosphere. The following condition will be placed on each permit: No air contaminant shall be released into the atmosphere, which causes a public nuisance [District Rule 41021. Compliance with this Rule is expected." The amendment strengthens the conclusion that the project's potential impact from objectionable odors would be less than significant.

12. Comment: (4 of 33) The Proposed MND states that the impact resulting from the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations will be less than significant. The document does not present any evidence to support this assertion.

Response: Please see Response 10.

13. Comment: (5 of 33) In mitigating the potentially significant impacts of pollutant emissions resulting from area and operational emissions, the analysis solely relies on emission offsets. The analysis fails to discuss any alternatives, which would have the effect of reducing emissions from the project. While offsets are important for mitigation, other reasonably effective measures may be available.

Response: The project's stationary source of emissions is subject to District Rule 2201 (New Source Review). New Source Review (NSR) is a program used in non-attainment areas to permit or site new industrial facilities or modifications to existing industrial facilities that emit non-attainment criteria pollutants. Two major requirements of NSR are Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and offsets. Offsets are required when increases from project implementation meet specific

Page 36 of 48

- - . . - - - _I_._. _ _ .._, ... . . - - . - - . , -, - - - . Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion, lnc. Ethanol Production Facility in Cerer. CA

detailed thresholds in adopted Rule 2201, even when sources implement BACT. The District reviewed the stationary source emissions from this project and required BACT, as appropriate.

Mobile source emissions are not subject to Rule 2201 and any reduction would be voluntary mitigation. Cilion has proposed to voluntarily mitigate the mobile source emissions to less than significant by surrendering to the District 5 tons of NOx ERCs.

14. Comment: (6 of 33) The projected emissions from the project are based on modeling results using the URBEMIS 2002 for windows 8.7.0 Modeling Program. However, there is insufficient information regarding the assumptions relied upon to support the conclusions reached by this model, nor have the modeling results been provided. Assumptions such as how many hours such vehicles are operational, and the types and amounts of such vehicular emissions, are excluded. Furthermore, there is no description of assumptions used in modeling the operational emissions from the project.

Response: The project description has been amended to clarify that the traffic studv assumes that on a dailv basis. 26 ethanol trucks will enter and exit the site, along with 68 wet distiller trucks, 26 C02 trucks, and 50 employee vehicles. The amendment strenqthens the conclusion that the project's potential impact from mobile source em~ssions would be significant if unmitigated. Accordingly, Cilion has voluntarily proposed to offset 5 tons of NOx emissions by surrendering five tons of NOx Emission Reduction Credits.

15. Comment: (7 of 33) The water quality discussion fails to analyze the potential pollutants in the project storm flows or process wastewater discharges; and fails to analyze the potential effects to local surface waters, groundwater resources, or sanitary sewer facilities that may receive such discharges from the proposed project site. There is no statement as to where discharges from the project will go (e.g.., which receiving water) and no discussion of the water quality objectives applicable in the area or how the discharges from the project will not violate those standards. The project proponent does not seem to have made any decision concerning wastewater discharge so it is premature to proceed with a MND until that is resolved. The Proposed MND does not clarify which state or federal water quality permits will apply, what the requirements of the permits are, or how the project will meet permit requirements-such regulatory programs include permits for groundwater discharges, process wastewater discharges to surface waters or publicly owned treatment works, and storm water discharges (including compliance w~th the County of Stanislaus Storm Water Management Program). Thus, the conclusion of less than significant impacts to water resources presented in the Proposed MND lacks sufficient evidentiary support.

Page 37 of 48

San Joaquln Valley Jnified Alr Pollution Control District Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion, Inc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

February 6,2007

Response: The project description has been amended to include a discussion of the project's wastewater characteristics, treatment, and options for disposal. Relevant effects on surface water and groundwater are also discussed. Additional information is presented in Response 2 thru Response 8. The amended project description has been presented to the Regional Water Quality Control, Central Valley Region (RWQCB) for further consideration. Consultation with RWQCB staff indicates that the MND appropriately characterizes the project's potential impact on hydrologylwater quality. The amendment strengthens the conclusion that the project's potential impact would be less than significant.

Furthermore, the proposed facility is an allowed use within a zoned industrial park. Stanislaus County's General Plan Circulation Element was updated in April of 2006, and addresses the Keyes Community Plan. The Keyes Community Plan was subject to extensive CEQA review in 1998. Potential impacts on hydrology and water quality were identified as being less than significant in the Keyes Community Plan NOP and Initial Study.

16. Comment: (8 of 33) There is no discussion whatsoever of the potential project impacts or of the necessary mitigation measures to address water quality during the construction phase.


17. Comment: (9 of 33) The project will add a large amount of impervious surface to the project site which will likely alter drainage patterns and increase runoff rates, volumes, and velocities. There is no analysis of the availability or capacity of storm water drainage systems to accept flows from the project site or potential effects of the project on these facilities.

Response: The project description has been amended to explain that the proposed facility is an allowed use within a zoned industrial park. District staff reviewed the relevant sections of the Keyes Community Plan and finds that potential environmental affects associated with the project site to be appropriately characterized. Furthermore. the Stanislaus Countv's General Plan Circulation Element was updated in ~ ~ ; i l of 2006, and addresses the Keyes Community Plan. The Keves Communitv Plan was subject to extensive CEQA review in 1998, which included an assessment of the site b h t for industrial uses. The amendment strengthens the conclusion that the project's potential impact on hydrology and water quality would be less than significant.

18. Comment: (10 of 33) There is no analysis whatsoever of the project site in the context of the 100-year floodplain and no analysis of the potential flooding impacts caused by the project or flooding that could occur at the project site as required by CEQA Appendix G.

Page 38 of 48

ad11 Juaquln vale) Jnlriea Hlr rollurlon Lonrrol ulsrrlcr teDrUary 6, ZUU/ Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion, Inc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

Response: Please see Response 17

19. Comment: (11 of 33) The project proposes to draw over a million gallons of groundwater daily from a proposed on-site well. There is no discussion of the potential water quality or the hydrologic impacts the proposed extractions will have on upon the groundwater supplies. Additionally, there is no discussion or analysis of the availability of groundwater in the area to meet the project's needs as well as the needs of other existing projects and the future needs of the area.

Response: District staff reviewed the relevant sections of the Keyes Community Plan and finds that potential environmental affects associated with the project site to be appropriately characterized. The proposed facility is an allowed use within a zoned industrial oark. Stanislaus Countv's General Plan Circulation Element was updated in April bf 2006, and addressesthe Keyes Community Plan. The Keyes Community Plan was subject to extensive CEQA review in 1998. Potential impacts on hydrology and water quality were identified as being less than significant in the Keyes Community Plan NOP and Initial Study. Also, please see Response 15 and Response 21.

20. Comment: (12 of 33) The list of thresholds for hydrology and water quality does not include all thresholds as listed in CEQA Appendix G.

Response: The project description has been amended to include an assessment of potential impact from "Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow". The amendment strengthens the conclusion that the project's potential impact on hydrology and water quality would be less than significant.

21. Comment: (1 3 of 33) A Water Supply Analysis is required to be prepared for the project per California Water Code section 10910. Such an assessment has not yet been prepared, thus the availability of water supplies for the project in the context of other existing and future projects has not been sufficiently assessed.

Response: Cilion has received a letter to serve from the Keyes Services District to provide service to the office and operations building that provided water quality data from the existing groundwater wells. Per the project proponent, the Keys Services District reviewed the impact of the well in their public meeting approving the letter to serve. The applicant has received verbal approval from Stanislaus County for drilling a commercial/agricultural well.

Furthermore, the proposed facility is an allowed use within a zoned industrial park. Stanislaus County's General Plan Circulation Element was updated in April of 2006, and addresses the Keyes Community Plan. The Keyes Community Plan was subject to extensive CEQA review in 1998. Potential impacts on hydrology and water quality were identified as being less than significant in the Keyes Community Plan NOP and Initial Study.

Page 39 of 48

San Joaquin Valley dnified Air Pollution Control District February 6,2007 Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion, Inc, Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

22. Comment: (14 of 33) Although the Proposed MND acknowledges that the project will utilize municipal facilities for the disposal of surface runoff and process wastewater, there is no analysis that the local storm drain system and local wastewater treatment plant have the capacity to accept flows from the project or that those flows will meet pre-treatment requirements established by the treatment plant. Without a capacity analysis, it is unknown if additional facilities or expanded facilities will be required, construction of which may have a significant environmental impact.

Response: The District has received comment from the City of Ceres, approving the proposed MND. The Keyes Service District has provided the project proponent with a letter to serve for domestic sewer and water and for an Industrial sewer connection, provided the conditions of the POTW are met by the project proponent's onsite treatment. Furthermore, the proposed facility is an allowed use within a zoned industrial park. Stanislaus County's General Plan Circulation Element was updated in April of 2006, and addresses the Keyes Community Plan. The Keyes Community Plan was subject to extensive CEQA review in 1998. Potential impacts on utilities and service systems were identified as being less than significant in the Keyes Community Plan NOP and Initial Study.

23. Comment: (15 of 33) The Proposed MND contains no discussion of the potential project impacts on solid waste disposal facilities or on how the proposed project will comply with solid waste disposal regulations.

Response: The facility will have an administrative office and operations building which will both generate office wastes, i.e. trash. There will be packaging wastes from spare parts shipped on site. All process chemicals will be received in bulk or tote containers that will be returned to vendors for reuselrecycling. The project is not expected to generate solid waste other than that identified above. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that solid waste from the facility will not have significant impact on local solid waste disposal facilities.

24. Comment: (1 6 of 33) There is no indication that a traffic study was prepared or any traffic analysis set any level was included in the production of the Proposed MND. Given the size of the project and the expected traffic (most notably truck traffic) the project will generate, a traffic study should be prepared to analyze the project's impacts on traffic and circulation, including levels of service. Depending onthe results of the traffic study, a traffic control plan may be necessarv. In addition, capital improvements~to adjacent roadways ma; be appropriate especially due to the hazardous nature of the cargo carried to and from the project site.

Response: In issues of land use planning, the District defers to the expertise of local land use agencies. As stated in the attached letter from the Stanislaus

Page 40 of 48

vclll YYCIqUIII V6141Tj, , I I I I I T U run r U I ~ U L I U ~ I ~UI I I IUI Y I ~ L ~ Z L L raurud~y o, LUUI


County Department of Planning and Community Development (SCDPCD), "A traffic analysis was conducted as part o f the Keyes Community Plan update and EIR in 1998. In addition, further analysis was done for the Circulation Element update and related EIR in 2006. Therefore, since this project is consistent with the Keyes Community Plan and the General Plan, no additional analysis is necessary." This position is supported in the attached letter from the Stanislaus Economic & WorMorce Alliance (SEWA), and the attached letter from the City of Ceres.

25. Comment: (17 of 33) Traffic in the project area has the potential to be impacted by lane closures and construction vehicles traveling in and out of the project site. No analysis for construction-phase traffic impacts is presented in the Proposed MND.

Response: District staff reviewed the relevant sections of the Keyes Community Plan and finds that potential environmental affects associated with the project site to be appropriately characterized. Furthermore, the Stanislaus County's General Plan Circulation Element was updated in April of 2006, and addresses the Keyes Community Plan. The Keyes Community Plan was subject to extensive CEQA review in 1998, which included an assessment impact on traffic. Also, please see Response 24.

26. Comment: (18 of 33) If the adjacent grain facility increases railway activity in order to service the instant [SIC] project, then potentially significant impacts on both railway capacity and railroad crossings exist -such impacts have not yet been analyzed. Information provided to the County indicates that the Ethanol Plant will require at least one I 10-car unit train from the Midwest per week.

Response: Please see Response 24 and Response 25 for a discussion on vehicular emissions. As discussed in Response 45, expansion of the A.L. Gilbert facility is an independent project, and rail emissions should not be attributed to Cilion.

27. Comment: (19 of 33) The Proposed MND fails toconsider cumulative noise impacts of the project. Moreover, there is no linkage discussed in the analysis provided between the existing setting (with a nearby highway, railroad and grain mill) and the proposed project. An analysis of cumulative noise impacts may demonstrate that noise levels set by the Stanislaus County General Plan will be exceeded because of the project.

Response: In issues of land use planning, the District defers to the expertise of local land use agencies. The proposed facility is an allowed use within a zoned industrial park. Stanislaus County's General Plan Circulation Element was updated in April of 2006. The plan established acceptable noise levels for industrial, manufacturing, utility and agricultural uses. District staff reviewed the

Page 41 of 48

san Joaquln valrej ~nlrlea HIr volluxlon C;onIroI ulsrncx teoruary b, zuu / Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion, Inc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

relevant sections of the Keyes Community Plan and finds that potential environmental affects associated with the project site to be appropriately characterized.

Furthermore, the proposed facility is an allowed use within a zoned industrial park. Stanislaus County's General Plan Circulation Element was updated in April of 2006, and addresses the Keyes Community Plan. The Keyes Community Plan was subject to extensive CEQA review in 1998. Potential impacts noise were identified as being less than significant in the Keyes Community Plan NOP and Initial Study.

28. Comment: (20 of 33) There is no analysis provided of the potentially significant hazard to the public of transporting 55 million gallons of ethanol by truck annually. The associated risks include fires, explosions, spills, and wastewater discharges. Additionally, the project may involve the routine transport of natural gas and denaturant - both considered hazardous (flammable). Without proper analysis, significant unmitigated impacts may exist that have not been opened to public review. The proposed project must be analyzed to determine if it requires a Hazardous Materials BusinesslManagement Plan and Emergency Response Plan to reduce the risk of impact from the use and transport of hazardous materials. Without sufficient analysis, the need for and contents of such plans is unknown, however, this is not even discussed in the Proposed MND.

Response: The project description has been amended to identify specific state and federal mitigation measures that apply to the project. The amendment strengthens the conclusion that the project's potential impact from hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant.

Furthermore, the proposed facility is an allowed use within a zoned industrial park. Stanislaus County's General Plan Circulation Element was updated in April of 2006, and addresses the Keyes Community Plan. The Keyes Community Plan was subject to extensive CEQA review in 1998. Potential impacts from hazards were identified as being less than significant in the Keyes Community Plan NOP and Initial Study.

29. Comment: (21 of 33) The Proposed MND fails to analyze the potentially significant safety hazard to people working and/or residing in the project area that results from the routine use of hazardous materials to produce ethanol, which include ammonium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, sulfuric acid, and anhydrous ammonia. The associated risks include: potential cancer risk, explosions, fires, and reasonably foreseeable releases to the environment.


Page 42 of 48

00, I r )YO~UI I 1 "PUGl I I t I ITU r ? I # I YIIULIUI I YUI SLI YI Y S C s L I I b L

Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion, bc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

30. Comment: (22 of 33) There appears to have been no site-specific geotechnical investigations, including subsurface exploration and laboratory testing conducted for the Proposed MND. Such investigations could reveal fault lines and would determine the potential for impact from seismic ground shaking and whether such impact would be potentially significant. Potentially significant impacts include soil liquefaction and buildinglroadway subsidence.

Response: In issues of land use planning, the District defers to the expertise of local land use agencies. The proposed facility is an allowed use within a zoned industrial park. Stanislaus County's General Plan Circulation Element was updated in April of 2006. District staff reviewed the relevant sections of the Keyes Community Plan and finds that potential environmental affects associated with the project site to be appropriately characterized.

Furthermore, the proposed facility is an allowed use within a zoned industrial park. Stanislaus County's General Plan Circulation Element was updated in April of 2006, and addresses the Keyes Community Plan. The Keyes Community Plan was subject to extensive CEQA review in 1998. Potential impacts of geology were identified as being less than significant in the Keyes Community Plan NOP and Initial Study.

The project will be subject to Stanislaus County permit requirements, which is considered adequate to potential impacts will be less than significant.

31. Comment: (23 of 33) There is no analysis of soil disturbance associated with construction activities or the long-term development of the project that could result in erosion (on-site or in off-site areas) during construction or in the operations phase.


32. Comment: (24 of 33) Apparently, there has been no survey performed to verify that project site does not contain cultural or paleontological resources. Rather than conducting a survey, the Proposed MIND simply bases its conclusion of less than significant impacts upon a statement that the project's location is "adjacent to an existing industrial site." This is an insufficient basis for the conclusion that this project will have no impact on such resources.

Response: In issues of land use planning, the District defers to the expertise of local land use agencies. The proposed facility is an allowed use within a zoned industrial park. Stanislaus County's General Plan Circulation Element was ,

updated in April of 2006, and addresses the Keyes Community Plan. The Keyes Community Plan was subject to extensive CEQA review in 1998. Potential impacts on cultural resources were identified as being less than significant in the Keyes Community Plan NOP and Initial Study. Thus, the District correctly

Page 43 o f 48

San Joaquin Valle) Jnified Air Pollution Control District February 6,2007 Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion. Inc. Ethanol Production Facilitv in Ceres. CA

concluded that the project will have no impact on cultural or paleontological resources.

33. Comment: (25 of 33) The Proposed MND fails to discuss any pre-discovery mitigation measures to be taken in order to reduce potential impacts to cultural or paleontological resources during the construction phase that would potentially avoid damage to such resources. Without such mitigation, the potential impacts remain significant and unmitigated.

Response: Please see Response 32

34 Comment: (26 of 33) There is no indication that any study or surveys were performed to investigate the existence of any endangered species or habitats, locally designated species, wildlife dispersal or migration corridors, migratorylnesting bird locations, or riparianlwetland areas at the proposed project site. The Proposed MND simply asserts biological resources are not impacted by the proposed project, but such conclusory statements, lacking any evidentiary support, are not sufficient to support the claim that there will be no impact to biological resources as a result of the project.

Response: The project description has been amended to include a discussion of Stanislaus County's General Plan Circulation Element and the Keyes Community Plan. Stanislaus County's General Plan Circulation Element was updated, in April 2006 and addresses the Keyes Community Plan. The Keyes Community Plan designates lands west of State Highway 99 for industrial use and residential expansion to the north and east of Keyes. The Keys Community Plan itself was subject to extensive CEQA review in 1998, which included an assessment of these properties built out for industrial uses. The amendment strengthens the conclusion that the project's potential impact on biological resources would be less than significant.

35. Comment: (27 of 33) The Proposed MND fails to consider the potentially significant construction-phase impacts of the project on various public services, including road blockageslclosures, and increased demand for emergency services (inclusive of response times for local fire and police departments).

Response: District staff reviewed the relevant sections of the Keyes Community Plan and finds that potential environmental affects associated with the project site to be appropriately characterized. The proposed facility is an allowed use within a zoned industrial park. Stanislaus County's General Plan Circulation Element was updated in April of 2006, and addresses the Keyes Community Plan. The Keyes Community Plan was subject to extensive CEQA review in 1998. Potential impacts on Public Services were identified as being less than significant in the Keyes Community Plan NOP and Initial Study.

Page 44 of 48

ad11 J U ~ ~ U I I I vale, ,IIIII~U Hlr roliurlon bonrro! uisrncr lnitial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion, Inc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

No comments have been received indicating that the project will have significant impact on any public service program.

36. Comment: (28 of 33) There is a complete lack of analysis of available firefighting response capabilities or available water supplies for firefighting to address the numerous and extremely large volumes of hazardous and highly flammable substances that will be stored at the proposed project site. Without such analysis, the document's conclusion that project impacts related to fire projection would be less than significant lacks sufficient support.

Response: District staff reviewed the relevant sections of the Keyes Community Plan and finds that potential environmental affects associated with the project site to be appropriately characterized. The proposed facility is an allowed use within a zoned industrial park. Stanislaus County's General Plan Circulation Element was updated in April of 2006, and addresses the Keyes Community Plan. The Keyes Community Plan was subject to extensive CEQA review in 1998. Potential impacts on pubic services, and utilities and service systems were identified as being less than significant in the Keyes Community Plan NOP and lnitial Study.

However, the project description has been amended to include a discussion that the project proponent will prepare a comprehensive fire protection plan, to be reviewed by the local fire and emergency response agencies. The plan will be finalized and approved prior to startup of the operation. The amendment strengthens the conclusion that the project's potential impact on Public Services would be less than significant

37. Comment: (29 of 33) Because the project will involve the transportation, handling and storage of various hazardous materials, the risk that an accident or spill involving such materials will occur places additional burdens on local public services, and the Proposed MND fails to analyze these burdens or mitigate their potential impacts.


38. Comment: (30 of 33) Although the Proposed MND indicates that a Public Facilities Fee will be paid to mitigate the impacts the plant will have on local public services, there is no evidence to support the claim that the payment of such a fee will adequately reduce the impact of the project. Significantly, the Proposed MIND does not discuss how such a fee will allow firefighting and police forces to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times and other performance objectives established by these local departments when the additional burdens of this fuel are added to their service areas.

Response: Availability of public services was reviewed as a part of the initial project review by Stanislaus County. No comments have been received indicating

Page 45 of 48

San Joaquin Valley ~nif ied Air Pollution Control District Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion, Inc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

February 6,2007

that the project will have significant impact on any public service program. Please see Response 36.

39. Comment: (31 of 33) The Proposed MND fails to analyze the individual impacts the proposed project would have on aesthetics, but rather, relies on the fact that the project will be built adjacent to an existing industrial facility. The adjacency to an existing plant is not sufficient analysis, as it does not evaluate any additional aesthetic impacts posed by the project individually, and thus, the conclusion of less than significant project impacts is insufficiently supported.

Response: In issues of land use planning, the District defers to the expertise of local land use agencies. The proposed facility is an allowed use within a zoned industrial park. Stanislaus County's General Plan Circulation Element was updated in April of 2006. The project will be subject to Stanislaus County zoning and permit requirements, which is considered adequate to ensure mitigation of the projects potential impact on aesthetics.

Furthermore, the proposed facility is an allowed use within a zoned industrial park. Stanislaus County's General Plan Circulation Element was updated in April of 2006, and addresses the Keyes Community Plan. The Keyes Community Plan was subject to extensive CEQA review in 1998. Potential impacts on aesthetics were identified as being less than significant in the Keyes Community Plan NOP and Initial Study.

40. Comment: (32 of 33) Additionally, there is a lack of analysis of the cumulative aesthetic impact resulting from the additional industrial use proposed by this project.


41. Comment: (33 of 33) There is a complete absence of discussion on mitigation to reduce light and glare from the proposed pro7ject.

Response: In issues of land use planning, the District defers to the expertise of local land use agencies. The proposed facility is an allowed use within a zoned industrial park. District staff reviewed the relevant sections of the Keyes Community Plan and finds that potential environmental affects associated with the project site to be appropriately characterized. Furthermore, the Stanislaus County's General Plan Circulation Element was updated in April of 2006, and addresses the Keyes Community Plan. The Keyes Community Plan was subject to extensive CEQA review in 1998, which included an assessment of light and glare. The project will be subject to Stanislaus County zoning and permit requirements, which are considered adequate to ensure mitigation to reduce light and glare from the proposed project.

Page 46 of 48

""l'U""L,""' ""llL, ',lllL" -0, I "I1"LI"II V",,,,", ",.,,I,,,' 8 =Y' U a r y ", L""'


The following comments have been summarized for brevity. A copy of the original comments can be obtained by contacting the District.

42. Comment: Determination of Correct Lead Agency - The lead agency for the project should be one that is capable of examining the impact of this project to all, aspects of the environment - the County of Stanislaus.

Response: During early consultation with the County of Stanislaus, the County indicated the proposed ethanol plant is an allowed use in the Industrial zone and County approvals for the project were ministerial. The County stated that it was not intending to prepare CEQA documents for their permitting actions. Whereas, District permitting actions for the project are discretionary, the District performed the Lead Agency role for this project.

43. Comment: Substantial Evidence - There is a great deal of reasonable, credible evidence showing that the proposed project will have significant effect on the environment.

Response: The District's review of the project stands on its own merit. However. it is pertinent to note, within the last 12 months the District has review environmental impact assessments from three other ethanol plant projects. These facilities are substantially similar to the proposed project in terms of annual throughput, manufacturing process, proximity to rail and major regional highways, and location adjacent to an existing grain source. As with the District's determination for the proposed project, potential environmental impact from the other ethanol plants were determined to be less than significant with mitigation. The comment lacks evidentiary support.

Furthermore, District staff reviewed the relevant sections of the Keyes Community Plan and finds that potential environmental affects associated with the project site to be appropriately characterized. Furthermore, the Stanislaus County's General Plan Circulation Element was updated in April of 2006, and addresses the Keyes Community Plan. The Keyes Community Plan was subject to extensive CEQA review in 1998.

44. Comment: Rejection of Use of Negative Declaration by Court - The proposed negative declaration fails to analyze the potential pollutants in the project storm flows or process wastewater discharges, and fails to analyze the potential effects to local surface waters, groundwater resources, or sanitary sewer facilities that may receive such discharges from the proposed site. There is no discussion or analysis regarding the potential project impacts on solid waste disposal facilities or on how the proposed project will comply with solid waste disposal regulations. Traffic in the area will clearly be impacted by the proposed project, however the proposed mitigated negative declaration fails to provide a traffic study or address how the area may be impacted by construction phase traffic. The Air Board

Page 47 of 48

San Joaquin Vallej ~nified Air Pollution Control District February 6,2007 Initial StudyINegative Declaration Cilion, Inc. Ethanol Production Facility in Ceres, CA

cannot ignore these and other issues by electing to simply declare that there will be no environmental impact without supporting the each [SIC] conclusion with substantial evidence.

. Response: This comment has been addressed in previous responses to comments. In summary, the respective section of the mitigated negative declaration was amended to provide additional information. The amendments strengthen the conclusion that the project's environmental impact is less than significant. Furthermore, District staff reviewed the relevant sections of the Keyes community Plan and finds that potential environmental affects associated with-the oroiect site to be aoorooriatelv characterized. Furthermore. the Stanislaus , , County's General ~ i a n 'Circulation Element was updated in April of 2006, and addresses the Keyes Community Plan. The Keyes Community Plan was subject to extensive CEQA review in 1998.

45. Comment: "PiecemealApproval"- The Board's mitigated negative declaration is problematic because it approaches the proposed project as one that is separate and distinct from the expansion of A.L. Gilbert Berry Feed and Seed, which will suoolv the oroiect with nearlv all of its corn. The exoansion of the A.L. Gilbert . . . . . facility is being done specifi~ally with the creation o i the propose [SIC] ethanol plant in mind, and will certainly impact the surrounding environment significantly. Because these projects are part of a combined effort to establish the proposed project, and because the A.L. Gilbert expansion would not occur but for the proposed ethanol plant, the "Feed and Seed" operation must be considered when examining the overall impact of the proposed project.

Response: Both Cilion and A.L. Gilbert have stated that the two projects are independent of one another. In a letter dated January 19,2007, A.L. Gilbert states they began preliminary planning their high-speed shuttle train receiving system in mid 2004, solely to qualify for Union Pacific Railroad shuttle train freight rates. A.L. Gilbert also states that the Cilion project was proposed to their company well after the shuttle train receiving project had been initiated. Furthermore, Berry Seed and Feed Company (A.K.A. A.L. Gilbert ) received an Authority to Construct (ATC) (N-1758-33-0, Project No. N-1054217) to construct a new railcar grain receiving and storage operation, issued on Februaly 9, 2006. They received another ATC (N-1758-33-1, Project No. N-1061858) to construct an additional grain silo, issued on September 21, 2006. Per applicant request, these ATCs were approved without increases to previously approved annual grain receiving process limits. Therefore, the District considers the two projects to be independent of one another. The comment lacks evidentiary support.

Page 48 of 48

LLA 2006-45, SAA 2007-08 - C~lion Ethanol PlantiGilbert Feeds February 9, 2007 Page 2

'.. The existing and proposed uses, total acreage, and zoning are as follows:

CEQA Review

Stanislaus County evaluated the potential impacts of industrial development on these properties in 1985 when it adopted a negative declaration for Planned Development 123, and again in 1999 when it certified the Keyes Community Plan EIR. Additionally, traffic circulation related impacts of industrial development on these properties were evaluated based on the Keyes Community Plan Land Uses in the General Plan Circulation Element Update EIR certified in April. 2006. Finally, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District completed and certified a Mitigated Negative Declaration on February 7, 2007 for issuance of an "Authority to Construct " permit. This project has also been reviewed by Stanislaus County Environmental Review Committee (ERC) with no comments.

Proposed Zoning

Industrial and PD 123

PD 123

Industrial

Industrial

At this time, it is this Department's determination that no additional CEQA review beyond that done for the original approval of PD123, the Keyes Community Plan, the Circulation Element Update, and the Air Board's ATC Permit is necessary for the following reasons:

Parcel 1

Parcel 2

Parcel 3

Parcel 4

Ethanol Plant. Pursuant to Section 21080 of Public Resources Code exempts those projects over which public agencies exercise only ministerial authority. Because the Ethanol Plant itself is an

Proposed Use

Ethanol Plant & Drain Basin

Vacant & Drainage

Basin for AL Gilbert Facility

AL Gilbert Facility

Ethanol Plant (Parcel 4 to be merged

into Parcel 1)

Existing Use

Vacant & Storage for AL Gilbert

Facility

Vacant

AL Gilbert Facility

Storage for AL Gilbert

Facility - No structures

allowed use within the lndustrial zone, the County would exercise only ministerial issuance of building permits and as such it is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to both Section 21080 of Public Resources Code and Section 15300.1 of the CEQA guidelines.

ATTACHMENT 8

xis st in^ Acres

8.77

31 .O

6.8

1.8

Proposed Acres

10.96

28.72

8.96

0

Existing Zoning

Industrial and

PD 123

PD 123

Industrial

Industrial

Keyes Community Plan Mitigation Funding Program

Land Use Units & YieldlUnit Use 1. Low Density Residential Yield = Unitslacre (R-I) 5

ITE Land Use 210, Trips/Unif = 9.57 10 2. Medium Density Residential Yield = Unitslacre (R-2) 8

ITE Land Use 210, TripslUnit = 9.57 10 3. Medium High Density Residential Yield = Unitslacre (R-3) 16

IT€ Land Use 221, TripslUnit = 6.59 7 4. Commercial Yield= % of Area Coverage (C-I) 5 0

ITE Land Use 814, Trips11000sf = 42.04 42 5. Highway Commercial Yield = % of Area Coverage (C-I) 50%

IT€ Land Use 614, Trips/1000sf =42.04 42 6. Industrial ITE Land Use 110, TripslAcre = 26.04 26 7. Planned Industrial ITE Land Use 110, TripsIAcre = 26.04 26

Yield = Unitslacre (RI) 5 8. Urban Transition Use Low Density Res., TripslUnit = 9.57 10

Notes: I. Total KCP Improvement Costs: $2,029,320 KCP= Keyes Community Plan 2. Land uses above taken from Keyes Communitv Plan EIR. 3, Acerages taken from County ~ssessor maps. . 4. Trip information extracted from ITE Trip Generation 6th Edition

Date Printed:411712003 Sheet: 1 of 1

Keyes Community Plan Transportation Mitigation

Total Assigned Cost: 40,536,333.00 2,029,320.00 4,190.1 PFF KCP 0 t h ~

As+,,mc=d'

Attributed Cost PFF I KCP 1 Other

4.3.1.a

4.3.l.b

4.3.l.c

.......... Cost Per Lane Mile : 51,000,000.00

Item

Definitions: PFF ................... Public Facilities Fee Program (2003 Edition) KCP .................. Keyes Community Plan Other ................. Funding imm other sources to be identified.

Limits Road

Faith Home Rd.

Keyes Rd.

Keyes Rd.

Golden State Blvd.

1 Strucuilu, ramp nlnen ng and slgnals ale incunell n the cast ol llum 4 3 2 a 2 Some I osls ate ta*en irc,rn In" c .rrenl eoli on of the Pun rc Fec acmes Fee progronl

N A 4.3.3.a Keyes Rd. SR 99 SIB Ramps Install Traffic Signals NA See Note 1 KCP 47.20% 0.00 000

3. Struclure widening is included in the cost of item 4.3.1.a 4. Proportional Share taken from Keyes Community Plan EIR

Date Printed:4/17!2003

Improvements

Redwood Rd. to Keyas Rd.

Faith Home Rd. to SR 99 SIB Ramps

NIB SR 99 Ramps to Galden State Blvd

Taylor Rd. to Keyes Rd.

*,.

Funding Source

Widened Roadway from 2 la 4 lanes

Widened Roadway from 2 to 4 lanes



Keyes Rd.

SR 99

SR 99

Proporttonal Share (4)

1.50

0.83

0.13

1.10

SR 99 N/B Ramps

SIB Ramps

NIB Ramps

5,528,063

902,520

260.000

5,395,750

Install Traffic Signals

Widen Ramps

Widen Ramps

PFF

PFF

PFF

PFF

NA

NA

NA

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

See Note 1

SeeNote 1

See Note 1

5,528.063.00

902.520.00

260,000.00

--App 5,395,750.00

KCP

KCP

KCP

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

45.60%

47.20%

45.60%

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00 -- 0.00

0.00

-

Stanislaus County Planning Commission Minutes April 19, 2007 Page 3

6:20 p.m. Commission Souza left the chambers

D. APPEAL OF STAFF'S DETERMINATION REGARDING STAFF APPROVAL APPLICATION NO. 2007-09 AND LOT LINE APPROVAL APPLICATION NO. 2006-45 - CILION, INC. ETHANOL FACILITY -Appeal of a Staff determination to complete a lot line adjustment (LLA 2006-45) and to issue a staff approval permit for two drainage basins (SAA 2007-09) related to construction of the Cilion, Inc. Ethanol Facility and existing A.L. Gilbert Feed facilities on approximately 40 acres located in the "Industrial" (M) and "Planned Development" (PD123) zoning districts at 4209 and 4431 Jessup Road, Keyes area. Ethanol manufacturing is a permitted use within the "Industrial" zone and the lot line adiustment was ap~r0ved to consolidate ownership patterns consistent with the proposed site plans f i r both the existing A.L. Gilbert facility and the proposed Cilion. Inc. Ethanol Facility. The Staff ~ p ~ r o v a l was required in-order for.two drainage basins to be constructed on A.L. Gilbert property located in Planned Development 123. Staff Approval permits are required for all uses in compliance with Development Standards of PD123. APN: 045-026-014, 045-026-035, 045-026-036, 045-026-037 Staff Report: Kirk Ford Recommends DENIAL OF APPEAL. Public hearing opened. IN FAVOR OF APPEAL: Richard Harriman, representing Valley Advocates, 191 W. Shaw Avenue, Fresno (presented three documents to the Commission); James Wagner, 4130 Jessup Road, Ceres IN OPPOSITION OF APPEAL: Karri Hammerstrom, representing Cilion, 31189 Road 68, Goshen; Jeremy Wilhelm, 31189 Road 68, Goshen; lzick Camarena, 6042 Faith Home Road, Ceres Public hearing closed. LaymanIAssali, 6-0 (Mataka abstained), SUPPORTED THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND DENIED THE APPEAL.

7:45 p.m. Commissioner Souza returned to the chambers.

EXCERPT

PLANNING COMMISSION

M4Y 2 3 , m Date

7

EXHIBIT B AFTER LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - Stanislaus County · EXHIBIT B AFTER LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT...

Documents

Transcript of EXHIBIT B AFTER LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - Stanislaus County · EXHIBIT B AFTER LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT...