Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 92-83RESOLUTION NO. 92-83 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD DECLARING IT HAS REVIEWED, EVALUATED AND CONSIDERED THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE FINAL EIR AND A SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIR WHICH COMBINED CONSTITUTES A FINAL EIR FOR FIVE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT NO. 3 EXPANSION, MAKING FINDINGS, AND CERTIFYING THAT SAID FINAL EIR HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, THE STATE EIR GUIDELINES AND CITY RESOLUTION NO. 60-80. WHEREAS, it is proposed that the City of Bakersfield provide additional wastewater disposal capability in connection with approved facility expansion at Treatment Plant No. 3 located South of the City of Bakersfield at the Southwest corner of Akers Road and McCutchen Road; and WHEREAS, four alternative disposal methods were originally submitted as appropriate action in connection with facility expansion. These alternative disposal methods are generally identified as follows: and Direct percolation on the present plant/ disposal site. Transport to, and irrigation disposal of effluent on, two sections of land West of Highway I-5. Transport to, and disposal of effluent by irrigation on, five sectlions of land constituting the James-Pioneer Irrigation District, seven miles West/Northwest of the present plant/disposal site. Transport to, and disposal of effluent in, the Stine Canal of the Kern Delta Irrigation District; WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report on said project was prepared by the City of Bakersfield under contract with a consultant, circulated and distributed in accordance with the requirement of law and applicable regulations; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held and conducted by and before the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission in accordance with the procedures required by Council Resolution No. 60-80, on March 18, 1982, at which hearing the public was entitled to comment upon the Draft Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, the City has responded in writing to all significant points raised by the public and private agencies and individuals in the review and public hearing process, and the Final Environmental Impact Report, comments and recommendations received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, a list of persons or organizations and public agencies commenting on the draft and the responses of the City as aforesaid has been completed by the Development Services Department and placed on the Agenda of the Meeting of the Planning Commission on 1, 1982, for evaluation and consideration by said Commission; July and WHEREAS, at said meeting on July 1, 1982, the Planning Commission evaluated and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report by its Resolution No. 52-82, adopted July 1, 1982, recommended to the City Council that the Final EIR be certified as completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines and City of Bakersfield Resolution No. 60-80; and WHEREAS, a fifth alternative disposal site was submitted This alternative site is generally described as for consideration. follows: Pipeline transport to, and flood irrigation disposal of effluent on, approximately 2,085 acres located on both sides of Highway I-5 approximately one and one-half to three miles south of Highway 119 (Taft Highway); and WHEREAS, a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report on said project was prepared by the City of Bakersfield under contract with a consultant, circulated and distributed in accordance with the requirement of law and applicable regulations; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held and conducted by and before the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission in accordance with the procedures required by City Council Resolution No. 60-80, on June 2, 1983, at which hearing the public was entitled to comment upon the Draft Supplemented Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, the City has responded in writing to all significant points raised by the public and private agencies and individuals in the review and public hearing process, and the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, comments and recommendations received on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, a list of persons or organizations and public agencies commenting on the draft and the responses of the City as aforesaid has been completed by the Development Services Department and placed on the Agenda of the Meeting of the Planning Commission on July 7, 1983, for evaluation and consideration by said Commission; and WHEREAS, both written and oral testimony was received from four sources recommending that the area east of Highway I-5 (approximately 435 acres) be deleted from consideration as part of the project area because of potential developmental and operative problems related to land levelling, flood irrigation and access property boundaries east of Highway I-5 and adjacent property owners; and WHEREAS, at said meeting on July 7, Commission evaluated and considered the Final created by irregular other concerns raised by 1983, the Planning Supplemental Environmental Impact Report including the reduction in site disposal area from 2,085 acres to 1,650 acres by its Resolution No. 44-83, adopted July 7, 1983, recommended to the City Council that the Final Supplemental EIR be certified as completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines and City of Bakersfield Resolution No. 60-80; and WHEREAS, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD desires to consider both the Final EIR evaluating the original four alternative disposal methods and the Supplemental Final EIR addressing a fifth alternative disposal site as a single Final EIR; and WHEREAS, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, on the basis of the Plant No. 3 Wastewater Treatment Plant Disposal Alterna- tives EIR identifies several significant or potentially signifi- cant effects associated with the approval and use of Alternative Disposal Methods 1, 2 and 3; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act requires one or more of the following findings as to each significant effect: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which miti- gate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the Final EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, social, or other consider- ations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, such findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record summarized for each identified significant or potentially significant effect, below, for each Alternative Disposal Method accompanied by a statement of the facts support- ing each finding: ALTERNATIVE NO. 1: DIRECT PERCOLATION OF PLANT NO. 3 PLANT DISPOSAL SITE Groundwater: Full design flows to approximately 250 acres of direct percolation area would pro- bably result in groundwater "mounding" and would add nitrogen considerably in excess of State Water Quality standards. A probable long-term result would be a buildup of nitgrogen in the unconfined aquifer adjacent to the disposal area unacceptable for domestic purposes. Findings and Application: Finding (1), above, applies to the entire percolation area. Supporting Facts: Inclusion in the project, if it is selected, a mitigation measure requiring the drilling of wells adjacent to the disposal area with pumping to nearby canals at a rate monitored to prevent groundwater mounding and confine the nitrogen buildup to the disposal area. Careful monitoring is essential to prevent adverse effects upon the efficiency of nearby wells. ALTERNATIVE NO. 1: (continued) Energy: Approximately 1,500,000 kilowatt hours of energy will be required annually to pump groundwater to prevent mounding and excessive nitrogen buildup equal to the design effluent direct percolation rate. Findings and Application: None of the above findings can be made to the above significant effect which applies to the entire disposal site. The Council of the City of Bakersfield finds the effect necessary for the issuance of a Statement of Overriding Consideration under CEQA Section 15089. Supporting Facts: The approximate cost for the energy necessary for annual groundwater pump- ing is estimated at $112,875. This is based on an average daily/annual kilowatt per hour charge of 0.7525. This cost if justifiable when compared to the potential adverse effect on the quality of groundwater in the area if this mitigation measure were not applied. It is understood that energy costs are subject to increases depending upon availability. ALTERNATIVE NO. 2: TRANSPORT TO, AND IRRIGATION DISPOSAL OF EFFLUENT ON, TWO SECTIONS OF LAND WEST OF HIGHWAY I-5 aJ Flora and Fauna: Loss of approximately 1,200 acres of various pristine valley floor vege- tation types and associated wildlife. Both vegetation and certain wildlife species (i.e., San Joaquin Kit Fox and Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizard) are considered as rare and/or endangered by State and Federal agencies. It is estimated that the project will impact approximately 11 to 15 Kit Foxes and 240 Leopard Lizards. Findings and Application: Finding (3) above, ap- plies to the entire percolation area. This find- ing is to be combined with the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Supporting Facts for Finding (3): 1) Due to the necessity to proceed with the project, it is infeasible to wait for donations of monies and/or land as a mitigation measure in ordez to provide additional permanent habitat for rare and endangered animal species. 2) The cost of acquiring comparable land as a mitigation measure (i.e., 1,200 acres) for permanent habitat for rare and endangered animal species is esti- mated to be equal to the $2.4 million cost for the alternative site property. ALTERNATIVE NO. 2. (continued) 3) It is ~ound that the identified signifi- cant effects of this alternative action are reduced to an acceptable level by the following action; Relocate rare and endangered animal species to the 2,800- acre City-owned property along the Kern River between Highway' I-5 on the West and the vicinity of Stockdale Highway bridge on the East giving due attention to not exceed habitat carrying capacity. The above facts are presented to also support the issuance of a Statement o~ Overriding Consider- ations to the recommended mitigation supporting Finding (3), above. ALTERNATIVE NO. 3~ TRANSPORT TO, AND DISPOSAL OF EFFLUENT BY IRRIGATION ON FIVE SECTIONS OF LAND CONSTITUTING THE JAMES-PIONEER IRRIGATION DISTRICT Flora and Fauna~ Loss o~ a maximum of 1,800 acres of wildlife habitat, dependent upon the amount of land irrigated wholly or in part by effluent, coincident with the loss of habitat is the loss of wildlife including rare and endan- gered species. Three sensitive species (i.e., San Joaquin Kit Fox, the Nelson's Antelope Ground Squirrel, and the Burrowing Owl), are known to occur on the undeveloped portion of the site. It is also possible that the southern portion of the site contains rare and endangered species of the Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizard. The only quantitative estimate of rare and endan- gered populations is 17 Kit Fox may inhabit the site. ?J~J~S ~nd Application: Finding (3), above, applies to the entire percolation area. This finding is to be combined with a Statement o~ Overriding Considerations. Su_pp__ort_in_g_ 5~ jo[_~9__(JJ: Same as Alter- native Method 2, above, with adoption of Statement of Overriding Considerations. .E~: Plant effluent must be pumped to this site -- a distance of approximately seven miles -- requiring approximately 225,000 kilo- wat hours of energy annually. ~i__n~n~_j~J_~p~j~tion~ None of the above findings apply. The City of Bakersfield Planning Commission finds the effect necessary for the issuance of a Statement of Overriding Consideration under CEQA Section 15089. Supporting Facts: The cost for energy neces- sary to pump effluent to the project site is estimated to approach $15,000 annually. This cost is justifiable as part of the total pro3ect cost when compared to other project costs, as one of the factors which may be considered in the selection of a final project., or with the "no project" alternative which will result in accelerated nitrogen overloads, ultimate ad- verse impacts on groundwater quality, ponding overflow and odor problems or the necessity for a building moratorium. ALTERNATIVE NO. 4~ TRANSPORT TO, AND DISPOSAL OF EFFLUENT IN THE STINE CANAL OF THE KERN DELTA IRRIGATION DISTRICT No significant environmental impacts are identified with this disposal method provided that effluent is treated to the degree desired by District agricultural water users. ALTERNATIVE NO. 5: PIPELINE TRANSPORT TO, AND FLOOD IRRIGATION DISPOSAL OF EFFLUENT ON, APPROXIMATELY 2,085 ACRES LOCATED ON BOTH SIDES OF HIGHWAY I-5 APPROXIMATELY ONE AND ONE-HALF TO THREE MILES SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 119 (TAFT HIGHWAY) No significant or potentially significant effects are identi- fied with this disposal site including the reduction of site disposal area from approximately 2,085 acres to 1,650 acres by elimination of the proposed project area east of Highway I-5~ and WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission, on the basis of the Findings and Statement of Facts, has determined that significant environmental effects for each Wastewater Treat- ment Disposal Alternative raised in the EIR have been substan- tially lessened and that any remaining, unavoidable significant effects have been found acceptable on the basis of specific economic, social, or other considerations, including those described for a Statement of Overriding Consideration, making additional mitigation or alternatives to the project infeasible and that no significant adverse environmental effects will result from modifications and additions recommended by the Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, THE: CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD HEREBY DETERMINED, FINDS AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 1. The above recitals are true and correct. 2. That the Final EIR dated May 1982, including City Responses to Comments (titled "Final. Environmental Impact Report"), as an appended document and the Final Supplemental EIR dated June 1983, including City Responses to Comments (titled "Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report"), as an appended document, have been reviewed, evaluated and considered by the City Council as a single Final EIR. 3. That the Final EIR, consistin9 of the DRAFT EIR (dated February 19~2) and the Supplemental EIR (dated May 1983), the Responses to Comments (dated respectively May 1982, and June 1983), and this Resolution have been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and City of Bakersfield Resolution 60-80. 4. That the said Final EIR is the State EIR Guidelines, an accurate and objective discussion of the proposed project alternative actions and ade- quately discusses and describes the environmental considerations and mitigation measures. 5. That the "no project." alternative has been considered in the Final EIR. 6. The consideration of findings, that the Final EIR be and the above statements and hereby is certified as complete, with appended material, and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines and City of Bakersfield Resolution 60-80. .......... o0o .......... 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 the 13th day of July, 1983, by the following vote: CI F/x Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPR,~q~D this 13th day of J~ly, 1983 APPROVED as to form: of Bakersfield AJS:mro:bl 7-08-83