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