HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 179-16RESOLUTION NO.
179 -16
RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING IT HAS
RECEIVED, REVIEWED, EVALUATED AND CONSIDERED THE
INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE PROGRAM 2016 FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE KERN RIVER FLOW AND
MUNICIPAL WATER PROGRAM, AND CERTIFYING THAT THE 2016 FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT,
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, AND THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD CEQA
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES, AND MAKING FINDINGS.
WHEREAS, the proposed Kern River Flow and Municipal Water Program
( "Program ") is a multi- objective flow management and water supply program. The
primary objective is to allow substantial quantities of water to flow in the Kern River
channel to protect, increase and enhance the water supply for the City of Bakersfield
(City). The source of the water for the Program would be water accruing to the City's
pre -1914 appropriative Kern River water rights, and additional unappropriated surplus
Kern River water. Water flowing in the Kern River would provide multiple benefits to the
City and its residents, before the water is ultimately used to satisfy the City's municipal
water demand within its boundaries; and
WHEREAS, it was determined that the Program may have a significant effect on
the environment and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR( was required for
the Program in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield retained the professional consulting services of
Horizon Water and Environment, LLC to prepare the Program EIR and related
documents; and
WHEREAS, on September 26, 2012, City adopted Resolution 108 -12, which
certified the Final Environmental Impact Report SCH # 2011021042 ( "2012 EIR "),
adopted a Statement of Facts and Findings, and adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the Program; and
WHEREAS, the adequacy of the 2012 EIR was challenged in a lawsuit entitled
North Kern Wafer Storage, of al. v. City of Bakersfield, Tulare County Superior Court Case
No. VCU251748 [consolidated with Case Nos. VCU251598 and VC1.12515351; and
WHEREAS, on July 6, 2015, the Tulare County Superior Court ruled that the 2012 EIR
was deficient, only in that more description was needed in the Project Description to
clarify the role and function of the Program EIR and what actions the City was taking,
but that all other sections and analyses of the 2012 EIR were adequate; and
WHEREAS, the Court issued a Judgment Granting a Peremptory Writ of Mandate
requiring the City to set aside its certification of the 2012 EIR, which was done by the
City Council on September 2, 2015; and
gAKF9
o k sT
� m
r
U �
ORIGINAL
WHEREAS, to satisfy the Court's ruling over the 2012 EIR, City prepared a
Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (R -DEIR) that revised the Project
description to 1) clarify that the proposed Program is a policy to pursue acquisition of
additional water supplies; 2) explain that the proposed Program does not, at this time,
involve any new actions related to or uses of Kern River water; 3) describe future actions
that would be reviewed in detail as part of the tiering process for project -level activities
prior to approval of the proposed Program; and 4) make other changes and additions
as directed by the Court, and
WHEREAS, the R -DEIR found that there were no significant changes to any
environmental resource evaluations previously analyzed in the 2012 FIR as the result of
adding information to the Project Description, and, as such, no additional avoidance,
minimization, and /or mitigation measures were required; and
WHEREAS, on August 22, 2016, the R -DEIR was released for public review and
comment, and a properly noticed public hearing on the R -DEIR was held on September
14, 2016 before the Water Board; and
WHEREAS, the Water Board unanimously recommended that Staff prepare
responses to the comments received on the R -DEIR and bring the new Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Kern River Flow and Municipal Water Program to
City Council for consideration; and
WHEREAS, during the 45 -day public comment period, which ended on October
7, 2016, the City received written and oral testimony (at the public hearing); and
WHEREAS, a new Final EIR (2016 Final EIR), which includes the 2012 EIR, the R -DEIR,
and responses to public comments received on the R -DEIR, has been prepared; and
WHEREAS, the Clerk of the City Council set Wednesday, November 2, at 5:15 p.m.
in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the
time and place for a public hearing before the City Council to consider the proposed
2016 Final EIR, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in
Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, during the public hearing, City Council considered all facts, testimony,
and evidence concerning the 2016 Final EIR and correspondence and responses; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is considering certification of the 2016 Final EIR, but
not approving the Program at this time because the ultimate quantities of water
available to support the Program are uncertain and pending an approval process for
unappropriated water with the State Water Resources Control Board; and
WHEREAS, the City Council will consider approving the Program at such time
after the State Water Resources Control Board identifies quantities of water available to
support the Program and further evaluation of potential environmental effects is
analyzed in a subsequent CEQA analysis based on the specific Program water
Page 2 of 6 gAK
13 F9T
m
U O
ORIGINAL
amounts; and
WHEREAS, the administrative record prepared in conjunction with the Program
includes the following:
The Notice of Preparation for the 2012 EIR and 2016 FIR, Draft
Environmental Impact Report, R -DEIR, and 2012 EIR and 2016 Final EIR;
2. All staff reports, memoranda, maps, letters, and minutes of meetings and
other documents prepared by the consultant relating to the Program;
3. All testimony, documents and evidence presented to the City by
consultants working with the City relating to the Program;
4. The proceedings before the Water Board relating to the Program,
including testimony and documenting evidence introduced at the public
hearings;
5. All Notices of Availability and Notices of Completion provided to the State
Clearinghouse and the City Clerk regarding availability of the Draft EIR,
Final EIR, Recirculated Draft EIR, and Recirculated Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield City Clerk's Office and Planning Department are
the custodian of all documents and other materials upon which the environmental
determination is based; and
WHEREAS, the 2016 Final EIR was prepared in accordance with State CEQA
Guideline Section 15132, and consists of the following:
The 2012 EIR;
2. The R -DEIR and comments and recommendations received on the R -DEIR
either verbatim or in summary;
3. A list of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the R-
DEIR;
4. The responses of the lead agency to significant environmental points
raised in the review and consultation process and associated errata to
the R -DEIR; and
WHEREAS, on November 2, 2016, this Council fully considered all facts, testimony,
and the environmental record for the 2016 Final EIR and finds the following:
1. The laws and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of
Environmental Impact Reports as set forth in CEQA, the State CEQA
�gAKF9
s
Page 3 of 6 O m
U �
ORIGINAL
Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures
have been duly followed by City staff and the Wafer Board; and
2. In accordance with State CEQA Guideline Section 15151, City Council
considered the following direction regarding "standards for adequacy" of
an EIR:
"An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide
decision - makers with information, which enables them to make a decision
which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An
evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not
be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of
what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make
an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of
disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for
perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full
disclosure;" and
3. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15751 and 15090, the
2016 Final EIR was considered for adequacy, completeness and good
faith effort at full disclosure and has been completed in compliance with
CEQA; and
4. The 2016 Final EIR analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives to the
Program, each of which has been rejected as infeasible due to specific
considerations in accordance with State CEQA Guideline Section 15091,
as supported by the substantial evidence contained in the Statement of
Facts and Findings in Exhibit A; and
5. Attached Exhibit A containing the Statement of Facts and Findings is
appropriate and incorporated into the Program; and
6. Attached Exhibit B containing the Statement of Overriding Considerations
for significant unavoidable population growth impacts is appropriate and
incorporated into the Program; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15090, the City of
Bakersfield, as lead agency certifies that:
The 2016 Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; and
2. The 2016 Final EIR was presented to the decision - making body of the lead
agency and that the decision - making body reviewed and considered the
information contained in the Final EIR; and
3. The 2016 Final EIR includes a Statement of Overriding Considerations in
Page 4 of 6 gPKF
m
� o
ORIGINAL
accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15093 relative to population
growth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD as
follows:
The above recitals and findings incorporated herein by reference are true
and correct and constitute the Findings of the City Council In this matter.
2. That all required notices have been given.
3. The provisions of CEQA have been followed.
4. The City Council hereby certifies that it has received, reviewed, evaluated
and considered the information contained in the 2016 Final EIR for the
Kern River Flow and Municipal Water Program.
5. The findings contained herein reflect the City Council's independent
judgment and analysis.
6. The City Council hereby certifies the 2016 Final EIR for Kern River Flow and
Municipal Water Program.
7. All of the foregoing findings are supported by substantial evidence in the
record of the proceedings before the Water Board and City Council,
which are maintained by the City Clerk and Planning Director at 1600
Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301.
B. The Planning Division of the Development Services Department is hereby
directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of Kern
County, and the State Clearinghouse, pursuant to the provision of Section
21152 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15094 of the State CEQA
Guidelines adopted pursuant thereto.
- - - -- -000 --
o�0AKF9�
N
Page 5 of 6 m
U O
ORIGINAL
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the
Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on
NOV 0 2 2016 by the following vote:
YE
COUNCILMEMBER
FS'
COUNCILMEMBER
ABSUaa
COUNCILMEMBER
A 15iLN r.
COUNCILMEMBER
'i ✓ ✓ r ✓ ✓ ✓'
'ERA, MAXWELL, WEIR, SMITH, HANSON, SULLIVAN, PARLIER
4" "�
ROBERTA GAFFORD, CMC
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
NOV 0 2 2016
APPROVED
HARVEY L. HALL
Mayor of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form:
City Attar GEAiNARO
City Attor
By: "u ti-*-r -r Ca
VI GINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
EXHIBITS: A Statement of Facts and Findings
B Statement of Overriding Considerations
pcoueplAeanNa nAbrn Rbr f WrFenci4e e¢mmh�eenma
Page 6 of 6
oFgpKF9`P.�
> m
U �
ORIGINAL
EXHIBIT A
Statement of Facts and
Findings Regarding the Environmental Effects for the Kern River Flow
and Municipal Water Program EIR
SCH # 2011021042
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... ..............................z
II. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................... ..............................3
III. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE
MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL .................................. ..............................7
IV. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE FULLY
V. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
VI. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ............................... ............................... 10
VILSUBSTANTIAL
10
VIII. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM .......... .............................10
A-1
1 o�0AKF9s.�
a m
U O
ORUJN141_
The Bakersfield City Council ("Council") hereby finds, determines and declares as
follows:
Introduction
The 2012 EIR for the Kern River Flow and Municipal Water Program (Program) identifies
certain significant environmental effects which may occur as a result of the Program.
Therefore, findings are set forth herein pursuant to Section 15091 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
The City of Bakersfield (City(, as lead agency, prepared a Program Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) for the Program. The EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2011021042)
consists of the October 2016 Recirculated Final EIR (including a Response to
Comments), the August 2016 Recirculated Draft EIR, the September 2012 Final EIR
(including a Response to Comments), and the June 2012 Draft EIR. This document
presents Findings of Fact by the Council regarding the EIR for the Program, for which the
City is acting as CEQA lead agency. The Findings presented herein were prepared in
compliance with CEQA and the State's CEQA Guidelines. Substantial evidence
supporting all findings made herein is contained in the EIR and /or the record of
proceedings.
The following Statements of Facts and Findings have been prepared in accordance
with CEQA and California Public Resources Code Section 21081. Potential impacts of a
project are generally separated into three categories:
1) Those potential impacts that have been determined to be less than significant
based on a review of available information in the project record, and in
consideration of existing standard development review requirements and
existing codes and regulations;
2( Those potential impacts that could be mitigated to a level that is considered less
than significant with the implementation of recommended mitigation measures;
and
3) Those potential impacts that could not be reduced to a less- than - significant level
with the implementation of existing policies and standards or feasible mitigation
measures.
If a project would have significant adverse effects on the environment, CEQA requires
the lead agency to prepare findings describing how those effects would be reduced or
avoided. Under California Public Resources Code Section 21081 [a], several findings are
possible:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
(2) Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other
agency.
A -2
o�eAKF9T
m
U O
ORIGINAL
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report.
For any significant effects that cannot be avoided or reduced to a less- than - significant
level (categories (2) and (3) above), the lead agency must describe the reasons why
mitigation or adoption of an alternative approach is infeasible (California Public
Resources Code Sec. 21081[3]). Adoption of a project that would have significant
adverse effects on the environment requires that the lead agency identify the project
benefits that are evaluated as outweighing its significant effects on the environment
(Public Resources Code Sec. 21081 [b]).
As described in the sections below, the EIR for the Program did not identify any feasible
mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant effects; therefore, a mitigation
monitoring program will not be adopted as part of the resolution.
II. Background
A. Program Description
To protect and preserve the local water supply, environment and quality of life for City
residents, the City has proposed this program to increase and restore more regular flows
of water to the Kern River channel. Consistent with and to implement City policies, and
to provide water for prior and ongoing City projects, the City proposes to increase and
restore stream flows in the Kern River channel throughout the year, primarily
downstream of the Calloway Weir, located just west of the Chester Avenue Bridge in
Bakersfield.
The Program calls for more regular, measured flows that will Increase Kern River flows
throughout the year. Up to an average of approximately 160,000 acre feet per year
(afy) of water (as available based on hydrologic conditions) may be provided to the
Kern River. The primary objective of the Program is to allow additional quantities of
water to flow in the Kern River channel to protect, increase, and enhance the City's
water supply to meet present and future demands for water. Increased flows in the Kern
River would also increase infiltration and percolation to the aquifer beneath the river
corridor, to serve as a long -term water supply and source for City residents.
Providing a restored and consistent flow of water in the Kern River throughout the
Bakersfield city limits would produce multiple reasonable and beneficial uses of water
associated with a more naturally flowing river. Such benefits include purposes and uses
associated with environmental, public trust domestic and municipal and industrial
purposes, and more specifically for uses related to streamflow restoration, constructed
wetlands, recreation, aesthetics, fish and wildlife restoration and protection,
underground aquifer supply, aquifer water quality enhancement and underground
water banking for drought and other emergencies.
A -3
'< OpK,9q
Q,
T
ti
U O
ORIGINAL
The Program and the restored and increased flows of water in the river channel would
provide these benefits to the City, its residents, and the local groundwater basin and
environment, by, among other things:
1. Increasing river flows, which will increase groundwater levels in the aquifer
beneath the river to help address historic overdraft conditions and to help
alleviate and reverse the depletion of the groundwater basin.
2. Providing an additional water source, and protecting and preserving the City's
present water supply and source for City residents.
3. Restoring, enhancing and preserving the natural riparian environment and
habitat in and around the river channel, including restoring plants, vegetation,
animals, birds and aquatic species habitats.
4. Ensuring that flows of water in the Kern River will be kept within the river channel
so that such wafer is not diverted and used outside the County. The
development protection and preservation of more natural flows in the Kern River
will protect and preserve the river as a water supply for the City for the present
and into the future.
5. Enhancing and improving wafer quality through, among other things, increased
recharge and migration of high quality Kern River water into areas of the basin
where the quality of groundwater has been diminished or threatened.
6. Improving the desirability and quality of life in the Bakersfield area by improving
and enhancing the aesthetic and recreational benefits and opportunities in and
around the river, and by restoring the Kern River as the important, central, and
productive natural resource feature of the community. Residents of the City
have consistently noted that a restored, flowing Kern River is critically important
to the economic success, pride, identity and well -being of the entire community.
The Program directly supports the City's long -term planning process and policies to
conserve, protect, and enhance the natural resources of the Kern River while also
providing important flood management and water supply needs. The Program also
furthers California water policy by putting Kern River water to multiple reasonable and
beneficial uses, with an emphasis on municipal, environmental, recreational, and public
trust purposes.
B. Environmental Review Process
The City, as lead agency, prepared the Kern River Flow and Municipal Water Program
Final EIR, based on the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA;
California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 - 21177) and the Guidelines for CEQA
(California Administrative Code, Title 14, Chapter 3, Sections 15000- 15387). The 2012
Final EIR for the Program contains a description of program elements, information on
the program setting, assessment of impacts and standard measures designed to
reduce such impacts. Decisions about program objectives, feasible alternatives, and
the scope of the Final EIR are based on input from environmental assessments, internal
project meetings, and the public participation process.
A4 o�gAKF9s,�
> m
r
ORIGINAL
In accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e), the record of
proceedings for the City's decision on the Program includes the following documents:
• Notice of Preparation, dated February 16, 2011;
• Kern River Flow and Municipal Wafer Program Draft EIR (June 2012) and all
appendices thereto;
• Kern River Flow and Municipal Water Program Final EIR (September 2012),
including:
• All written comments received in response to, or in connection with,
environmental documents prepared for the Program, including comments
in response to the Notice of Preparation;
• Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR;
• Kern River Flow and Municipal Water Program Recirculated Draft EIR (August
2016) and all appendices thereto;
• Kern River Flow and Municipal Water Program Recirculated Final EIR (October
2016), including:
• All written comments received in response to, or in connection with,
environmental documents prepared for the Recirculated Draft EIR; and
• Responses to Comments on the Recirculated Draft FIR;
• Documents cited or referenced in the Draft FIR, Final EIR, Recirculated Draft EIR,
and Recirculated Final EIR;
• All findings adopted by the City for the Program;
• All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning
documents relating to the Program prepared by the City or consultants to the
City with respect to the City's compliance with CEQA and with respect to the
City's action on the Program;
• Any records of public hearings held by the City in connection with the Program;
and
• Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public Resources
Code Section 21167.6, subdivision (e).
Copies of the 2016 Final EIR are on file, along with the planning and other City records,
minutes, and files constituting the record of the proceedings, and are incorporated
herein by this reference. The Council designates the City Clerk's Department, 1600
Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301, as the custodian of documents and record of
proceedings on which the decision was based. The two volumes of the Final EIR consist
of the following materials:
• Volume 1 - copies of all comments on the 2012 Draft EIR received by the City;
the City's responses to those comments; and the complete text of the 2012 FIR,
including revisions made in response to comments received; and
A-5
s 0AKF9J'
� m
U 6
ORIGINAL
Volume 2 - copies of all comments on the 2016 Recirculated Draft EIR received
by the City; the City's responses to those comments; and the complete text of
the Recirculated EIR, including revisions made in response to comments
received.
Development of the 2012 Draft EIR
The City submitted the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Draft EIR to the California
Office of Planning and Research (OPR) on February 17, 2011. The NOP was distributed
to responsible and trustee agencies and other interested parties. The purpose of the
NOP was to solicit comments from public agencies on issues to be considered in the
Draft EIR. Public comments were received by mail and e -mail during the 30-day public
scoping period, February 17, 2011 to March 21, 2011. One public scoping meeting was
held on March 10, 2011 at the City Council Chambers. Issues raised in the NOP
comment letters were addressed in the Draft EIR.
The Draft EIR and Notice of Completion were filed with OPR and the Kern County Clerk
on June 20, 2012.The 45 -day public review period for the Draft EIR occurred from June
20, 2012 to August 6, 2012.Bound hard copies of the Draft EIR were placed at City
offices, and on reserve at several public libraries, including the Kern County Law Library,
Kern County Southwest Branch Library, Beale Library, and the Bryce Rathbun Branch
Library, The Draft EIR was also made available in electronic format online, via the City's
website. Notice of the Draft EIR's availability was published in local newspapers. A
public hearing to solicit comments on the Draft FIR was held during the evening of July
11, 2012 at the City Council Chambers.
Response to Comments - Development of Final EIR
The City evaluated and considered all comments received from persons or agencies
who reviewed the Draft EIR. The Final EIR reflects revisions to the Draft EIR made to
address comments received during public circulation. These revisions show insertions
underlined and deletions in sftikee 4 in the Final EIR. The City prepared written responses
to all comments on the Draft EIR.
Development of the 2016 Recirculated Draft EIR
Following a January 30, 2015 hearing in the Tulare County Superior Court, the Honorable
Lloyd L. Hicks, Judge of the Tulare County Superior Court, issued a judgment granting
the consolidated petitions for writ of mandate and ordering the City to set aside its
certification of the Draft EIR (Kern Wafer Bank Authority v. City of Bakersfield, Tulare
County Superior Court, Case Nos. VCU251535, VCL1251598, and VCU251748). The Court
found that the City had not complied with CEQA in connection with its preparation of
the Program Description chapter of the Draft EIR. The Court, however, found that the
City had otherwise complied with CEQA in every other respect with regard to the 2012
DEIR, and the Court did not require the City to revise or change any section or chapter
of the 2012 Draft EIR other than the Program Description.
As a result of the judgments and writs issued in the Tulare County CEQA litigation, the
City rescinded its prior certification of the Draft EIR on September 2, 2015. A
Recirculated Draft EIR and Notice of Completion were filed with the Governor's Office
of Planning and Research and the Kern County Clerk on August 22, 2016.The 45 -day
public review period for the Recirculated Draft EIR occurred from August 22, 2016, to
AE
oF0AKF9s
T
� m
U O
ORIGINAL
October 7, 2016. Bound hard copies of the Recirculated Draft EIR were placed at City
offices and on reserve at several public libraries, including the Kern County Law Library,
Kern County Southwest Branch Library, Beale Library, and the Bryce Rathbun Branch
Library. The Recirculated Draft EIR was also made available in electronic format online,
via the City's website. Notice of the Recirculated Draft EIR's availability was published in
local newspapers. A public hearing to solicit comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR
was held during a Special Hearing of the Water Board at 2 p.m. on September 14, 2016,
at the City Council Chambers.
Response to Comments - Development of Recirculated Final EIR
The City evaluated and considered all comments received from persons or agencies
who reviewed the Recirculated Draft EIR. The Recirculated Final EIR reflects revisions to
the Recirculated Draft EIR made to address comments received during public
circulation. These revisions show insertions underlined and deletions in strikeeut in the
Recirculated Final EIR, The City has prepared written responses to all comments on the
Recirculated Draft EIR.
C. Council Review and Consideration of the Final EIR
At a public meeting on November 2, 2016, the Council considered the information
contained in the Final EIR.
The Council has adopted the State CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15000- 15387,
Administrative Code, Title 14, Chapter 3) as the basis for its due diligence in evaluating
potential impacts. Where appropriate, additional threshold considerations were also
employed to ensure that potential impacts and suitable mitigation measures were
identified.
The Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR
and considered the record of proceedings, including, but not limited to, staff reports,
oral and written comments given at public hearings on the Program or otherwise
received by the City, the responses thereto contained in the Final EIR, and all other
matters deemed material and relevant to the Program. The Final EIR reflects the
independent judgment of the City.
III. Findings Regarding Significant Impacts Determined to Be
Mitigated to a Less - than - Significant Level
The Council finds that the Final EIR did not identify any potentially significant
environmental impacts that could be mitigated to a less -than- significant level. All
impacts but one (as described below) were identified as less than significant and no
mitigation measures would be necessary.
A-7 oKBAKf9a'
� T
� m
U O
ORIGINAL
IV. Findings Regarding Significant Impacts Which Cannot Be Fully
Mitigated
Based on the Final EIR analysis, implementation of the Program will cause or contribute
to potentially significant, unavoidable environmental effects. The Council finds that the
Program will result in the following potentially significant and unavoidable impact:
Impact POP -1: Potential to Induce Substantial Population Growth within the City of
Bakersfield and the City's Sphere of Influence
The Program would provide a long -term water supply, some or all of which could
support municipal water demands in the City's Sphere of Influence, and as such, would
remove an obstacle to future population growth. Increased groundwater supply
recharged as a result of the Proposed Program, would primarily be available to water
purveyors in the vicinity of Bakersfield. This increased groundwater supply would not
likely influence municipal water supplies for other communities farther away from the
city. Population growth within Bakersfield would occur in accordance with current and
future General Plans and thus would not result in unplanned or disorderly growth.
Secondary environmental effects of growth would be moderated by future General
Plan policies and through implementation of mitigation measures identified via the
CEQA compliance process. However, growth itself would not be eliminated; the
growth- inducing effects of the Program are considered significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation
No feasible mitigation is available to reduce the significant and unavoidable impact
associated with growth as a result of the Program.
Findings
As described on Page 3.10 -8 of the 2012 Draft EIR: "specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation
measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report." The Council
finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce this impact.
Supporting existing and future planned growth in the City's Sphere of Influence is a
desired outcome of the Program. As such, secondary impacts associated with growth
would constitute a significant impact, and are considered unavoidable. In summary,
the growth- inducing effects of the Program are considered significant, and no feasible
mitigation is available.
V. Findings Regarding Alternatives Analysis
The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to
the project, focusing on alternatives that appear to be feasible, would meet the
project objectives, and would avoid or substantially lessen at least one of the project's
A -8
o``gAKF9�
T
U O
ORIGINAL
significant environmental effects. The CEQA Guidelines also require that the range of
alternatives considered include a No Project Alternative.
The Council finds that the Final EIR described a reasonable range of alternatives and
rejected them in favor of the Program as summarized below.
The Draft EIR analyzed three alternatives in addition to the Program as proposed. The
Alternatives considered in the Final EIR are:
• No Program Alternative
• Reduced Intensity Alternative No. 1
• Reduced Intensity Alternative No. 2
Alternatives were developed by considering the Program's overall goals and
objectives, as well as its potential environmental impacts. Alternatives would seek to
achieve goals similar to those of the Program, although the alternatives may reach
these goals to a greater or lesser extent than the Program. The alternatives also seek to
reduce the significance of environmental impacts associated with the Program.
Alternatives to the Program are program -level alternatives. The programmatic
alternatives considered would provide varying amounts of Kern River flow and
groundwater recharge.
The Council rejects the No Program Alternative, as beneficial impacts of the Program
related to biological resources, water quality, recreation, and aesthetics would be
significantly reduced. Since the City would not obtain or dedicate new water supplies
to reduce groundwater recharge, existing declining groundwater level trends would
continue. As a result this alternative would fail to adequately accomplish many of the
Program objectives.
The Council rejects the Reduced Intensity Alternative No. 1, because the alternative
would not avoid the Program's significant unavoidable growth - inducing impact.
Overall improvements to beneficial uses supported by the Kern River would be
significantly reduced compared to the Program because less new water supplies would
be provided to the Kern River channel. As a result, beneficial impacts and uses
supported by the Program related to biological resources, water quality, recreation,
and aesthetics would be significantly reduced under this alternative. Since the City
would obtain less new water supplies to reduce groundwater recharge, existing
declining groundwater level trends would continue. As a result, this alternative would
fail to adequately accomplish many of the project objectives.
The Council rejects the Reduced Intensity Alternative No. 2 because the alternative
would not avoid the Program's significant unavoidable growth inducing impact.
Overall improvements to beneficial uses supported by the Kern River would be
significantly reduced compared to the Program because less new water supplies would
be provided to the Kern River channel. As a result, beneficial impacts and uses
supported by the Program related to biological resources, water quality, recreation,
and aesthetics would be significantly reduced under this alternative. Since the City
A -9
o``epKF9m
� m
U O
ORIGINAL
would obtain less new water supplies to reduce groundwater recharge, existing
declining groundwater level trends would continue. As a result, this alternative would
fail to adequately accomplish many of the project objectives.
Other Alternatives Rejected from Further Analysis under CEQA
Other alternatives were considered in the process of preparing the Draft EIR, but were
eliminated from further consideration at that stage. The following alternatives were
considered but ultimately were dismissed from further analysis for one or more of the
following reasons: (1) they were not substantively different from one of the considered
alternatives; (2) they would not sufficiently meet the Program objectives; (3) they were
determined to be infeasible; or (4) they would not avoid or substantially reduce one or
more significant impacts of the Program:
• Increased Municipal Conservation /Efficiency Alternative
• Supply (Other Contracted Supplies, SWP, or CVP Water) Alternative
VI. Statement of Overriding Considerations
The statement of overriding considerations for the Program's significant and
unavoidable impacts is included in Exhibit B.
VII. Substantial Evidence
Substantial evidence supporting each and every finding made herein is contained in
the EIR and /or record of proceedings.
VIII. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
No mitigation measures were identified for the Kern River Flow and Municipal Water
Program EIR. Therefore, no mitigation monitoring and reporting program is proposed or
required.
A -10
o``gAKF9�
� m
U p
ORIGINAL
EXHIBIT B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 15093 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines establishes
the following requirements for a Statement of Overriding Considerations:
a) CEQA requires the decision - making agency to balance, as applicable, the
economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a proposed project
against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to
approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological or
other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered
,.acceptable."
b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of
significant effects which are then identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or
substantially lessened, the agency shall state In writing the specific reasons to
support its action based on the final EIR and /or other information in the record.
c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement
should be Included in the record of the project approval and should be
mentioned in the notice of determination.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council adopts and makes this
Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the significant unavoidable impact
of the Kern River Flow and Municipal Water Program (Program) and the anticipated
environmental, economic, legal, social and other benefits of the Program.
The City Council has weighed the benefits of the Program against the adverse impact
identified in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as significant and that cannot be
avoided or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant through mitigation.
The City Council hereby determines that the benefits of the Program outweigh the
unmitigated adverse impact and the Program should be approved. The City Council
finds that, to the extent that the identified significant adverse impact cannot be
avoided or substantially lessened, there are specific environmental, economic, legal,
social or other considerations which support carrying out the Program.
Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impact
The City Council has determined that the Program would cause significant unavoidable
growth impacts because it would remove an obstacle to growth, as disclosed in the
EIR. This impact is described below.
B -1
o``eAKF9�
m
ti
m
U O
ORIGINAL
Impact POP -1: Potential to Induce Substantial Population Growth within the City
of Bakersfield and the City's Sphere of Influence
The Program would increase groundwater supply which could remove an obstacle to
future planned development and population growth within the City's Sphere of
Influence. Increased groundwater supply recharged as a result of the Program would
primarily be available to water purveyors in the vicinity of Bakersfield. This increased
groundwater supply would not likely influence municipal water supplies for other
communities farther away from the City.
Population growth would occur in accordance with current and future City and County
general plans and thus would not result in unplanned or disorderly growth, but would
nevertheless be substantial. As such, the Program is considered significantly growth -
inducing. Policies contained in the City and County General Plans would reduce the
secondary environmental effects of growth, but they would not eliminate growth.
Similarly, future individual development projects would be required to comply with
CEQA, which may result in further mitigation for growth and its effects, but that growth
would still be enabled by the Program. No feasible mitigation can be identified; thus,
the growth- inducing impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
As described in Exhibit A: Section V Findings Regarding Alternatives, and as detailed
more fully in the EIR, none of the Program Alternatives would avoid or reduce this
growth- inducing impact to a less -than- significant level, as all alternatives except the No
Program Alternative would result in increased groundwater supply which would remove
an obstacle to growth, similar to the Program but to lesser extents.
Adoption of Overriding Considerations
The City Council adopts these Overriding Considerations and finds that a) the Program
has eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where
feasible; and b) the remaining significant unavoidable growth- inducing impact of the
Program is acceptable in light of the environmental, economic, legal, social and other
considerations set forth herein, because the benefits of the Program outweigh the
significant and adverse impact of the Program, as noted below.
The City Council finds that the each of the overriding considerations set forth below
constitutes a separate and independent ground for finding that the benefits of the
Program outweigh its significant adverse environmental impact and is an overriding
consideration to carry out the Program. These matters are supported by substantial
evidence In the record that includes, but is not limited to, the EIR, staff reports and
analyses, oral and written comments, and other documents referenced in this
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
B-2 o�0AKF9�
� m
U O
ORIGINAL
Benefits of the Kern River Flow and Municipal Water Program
The Program cannot be implemented in a way that accomplishes the basic Program
objectives, but without removing an obstacle to growth. The City Council finds that the
following environmental, economic, legal, social or other benefits of the Program
outweigh Its unavoidable environmental impacts.
A. The Program will accomplish all of its intended objectives, as follows.
1. Increase river flows, which will increase groundwater levels beneath the
river to help address historic overdraft conditions and to help alleviate
and reverse the depletion of the groundwater basin.
2. Provide an additional water source, and protect and preserve the City's
present water supply and source for City residents.
3. Restore, enhance and preserve the natural riparian environment and
habitat in and around the river channel, including restoring plants,
vegetation, animals, birds and aquatic species habitats.
4. Ensure that flows of water in the Kern River will be kept within the river
channel so that such water is not diverted and used outside the County.
The development, protection and preservation of more natural flows in
the Kern River will protect and preserve the river as a water supply for the
City for the present and into the future.
5. Enhance and improve water quality through, among other things,
increased recharge and migration of high quality Kern River water into
areas of the basin where the quality of groundwater has been diminished
or threatened.
6. Improve the desirability and quality of life in the Bakersfield area by
improving and enhancing the aesthetic and recreational benefits and
opportunities in and around the river, and by restoring the Kern River as
the important, central, and productive natural resource feature of the
community. Residents of the City have consistently noted that a restored,
flowing Kern River is critically important to the economic success, pride,
identity and well -being of the entire community.
B. The Program furthers California water policy by putting Kern River water to
multiple reasonable and beneficial uses, with an emphasis on municipal,
environmental, recreational, and public trust purposes.
C. The Program supports the City's long -term planning process and policies to
conserve, protect, and enhance the natural resources of the Kern River while
also providing important flood management and water supply needs.
B -3
o1<�AHF9T
s
t-
U O
ORIGINAL
Conclusion
The City Council has considered the public record of proceedings on the Program, and
has weighed the above benefits of the Program against the unavoidable and adverse
growth impacts identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby determines that these
benefits outweigh the environmental impacts, and further determines that these
environmental impacts are acceptable.
B4
0 0AK, 9&
T
I m
t-
U O
ORIGINAL