The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Bill 4APart3 12/21/200912/H (/2009 15' 92 7~J7-~F5-3??8 HRL~ nF Si iP/SD rn pT~Nt FnGF Ri !>E~2 _ ..._ _, , J!~!„~~llt;~~rl -. Simone.Mausz@uscg.mii on oenaiiai'i~ausZ, Himont ~T ~Si; -t~•ne.~v~aLs~~usc~.':^,i!; From: ` Sent: Ntoriday; S.7ecemoer 17r,.Z~C19 r .3~ t~~~~ 7a' jenny.Caltaway~tdsm ca.g~v ! • ~ - iii:%icc ter,^9~'~F'v~,h KellA~r ~fr+~n ("~[r(~Id Valerie tsrow~l; ~fiK~ -tiG<<5; ,,..• i. GCr ~, ~•~. .t.~ .+.~11 i Sun~ect: 11~iyy{$'~Ir~ L4i5G.:Il l'~,!'~vvvvr,y+~ AtiaCi'ie'tte€~'.s: ~~aSQ.p~f 1 Gacd marring ???;• gtt~C4ted 1c an ?ddendum our office issued to CSW/StubL=r-Stroeh regarding the reCreatic~rsial „os,sAi tc?nc?rns ?n relation to this project. Once a resolution nas been fleatheo, you iii ur ca~idd on the r~sultin~'correspondence. If you have any questions ar concerns, peasE s~ee1 free to call ~: y/R L7 Simone Mausz ! Chief, Waterways Safe€y.Branch f i Verba Buena Island, 'alcig. Z78 San Francisco, to 943.30 f 415-399-7443 r. ~0~ T"2lR7l29R9 15;:42 707-555-3776 tJ,S. ~?13p:~rtment; ~~F f4ar»rh:nd ~:ec~.ir;y - ~ ~. rr 9~k lPr~lied States ~o~as C,(rTrtF 13RP OF Sts?/5n r_.n 7~DM r omm~nd? ~'vorna Furng l,larci C rl[et; ~~, ~ r , :>. t,;:3'd 4 ~ ° .: ~r,~ 4"o'j`i ti, ctnr' a~n F rn nci.ntn ?i nt!!..' {4 I ~ V 4gcL i t.f3 ~,r~ l (7 f ;~U~1 ~;C,~j,F.r-Strne~ •~:?1~.ii~Crii~ ~iirj`kln, Ync:. f~:`tt' ~iT. Ror,.t_' t~7l~12 - ~ ,1 Ei):~ 7CiiC1' 1~ f"7t7}luLl]~. it5•wl)',iiE{~.t:n.Ci].STiZi:)"i3t]i"JC:tii:r f7: 4:~",f'%7.t;'lY ~.Tii`1C i,,'r`t;'cr'c"t, cS.}Q}. (G(ltlC~l'T7]1}lY t~)t r1'()1)O~tlj Z?:LF{j~e t7.fl-E<i:#({:ri.SC..ilSf~ r1t;%1fS ~'~il~yyel~Eti. ~....~1't(ir7f~ <.lrl ~IIC' ~Ctl'i~T3Tia~ :Ci.uvi.. ` C>c7r pre~irn.lr Ie?it-r r~-~g ]ssur-;cJ prin~iar]ty Zv:itl', re.F~nrti:~ tt> 't4m]~~~-rci.~i t7ti]Sil;:,tntt itu: i?rapaCt yi>t7>- J]aupt>5c~1 fauiiitY ~+•nuliJ;h:tve.rc[~as(iist~n•+v.i~;a~it~t];7i, c11ct~'. ~'~fter fi]rtlu]: re~.teu~. urz_ ~vt7uld tsist] liki; io ti,tlv.=rnah~~e ttl~. t~ivei''4 u~c,~rc¢Kt1n~, rr:~.rec~t.ional'vG~,~c1 t~~ai~'ict~ mitiE;~tt:4in~':IzazarCiF mTd'car'tsJfnr,~cYrtlr.~ty tt! all~r>,rtias;~r'he uae tl.'tis «•a:,-tv~y. A.t tic; c«ncltesi~n t31'r:,l~ rc~~it;w, un; ~E~~,lll.issuc vCt]I fi]rthcc ~ctic~~n~ ea'e~c7'cclt~f,~ ~Ur l~clcTrretttaliin, lair; 1~~t74 ft7rcl~,~u'd t() wnclgip~ «'it1T ~~ota tnt tlTi_c tn~t:;c]• antl as ~l~va~R,.il~tin~t h•~ye a]Sx~ gt]e:~tit)r14 ox Ti:i~t7,7TC talrtl?~T atS.CE<S=atiGC"., Ta1(:an5e C(Y!'lt tGt L:iE;~tat('IliY!'lT fl't7.crn.C; i\'~{F1L1~"/t7:E~ 1x7y V4'FLiC,1'V4:C].vc~~ylfeCv~iz~1'' t,t E 1.1 i'} 'xt}q,?;~,,1.~ C)r ~ F~ua,l Zf ~iis't?!3e;;?m'7.USZ~f`tl"(:::.]111'. : .._. In . ~ll :`t.'i1.)t1'~i .,'~..["C~~tai[l. L1. ~. t`.~(lit:ct: {;iL].11'h' . Cil~]1,8ti3 t)P t~TC ~'r>,f't :_~an 1-7:]]]Cicf:C] ,A ~~c.rstl,E~r~~7.t 1.arecJ .F~~F~+'r7an lp~ Resolution No. 2009- N.C.S. of the City of Petaluma, California Directing the li~ayor to Submit a Letter t® the Sonoma County hoard of Supervis®rs Objecting to the Revised Du~tra 1VIaterals Asphalt hatch Plant Project WI~EREAS, a revised Dutra Materials Asphalt Batch Plant project ("Project") is scheduled to be considered by the Board of Supervisors at its January 12, 2010 meeting; and WHEREAS, the previous Project was the subject of objections and opposition from many Petaluma citizens and groups, including two letters opposing the project submitted by the City Council; and WHEREAS, according to the County staff report for the revised project, the revised Project reduces environmental impacts on aesthetics,. air quality, hydrology and water.quality, noise and transportation and traffic, but does not change the Project's impacts on biological resources, geology and soils, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and larid uses and WHEREAS, also according to the County staff report on,the Project, aesthetic and air quality impacts remain significant despite the project revisions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the, Petaluma City Council that the Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to submit to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on behalf of the City Council for consideration at the Board of~Supervisors' January 12, 2010 meeting a letter presenting the City's objections to the revised Project, based on environmental impacts and other issues concerning the Project substantially in accordance with the draft letter attached. to and' made a part of this resolution as Exhibit A. (~ 5 R® ~~LU~ ~~a ~I85$~ Pamela Torliatt Mayor Teresa Barrett David Glass Mike Harris Mike Healy David.Rabbift Tiffany Rene C'ouncibnembers City Manager's Office 11 EnglishStreet Petalunrq GA 9'4952 Phone (707) .778-4345 Fax ('707) 778-4419 E-Aiait citymgr@ci.Petalunur: ca. us Housing Division Phone (707) 778=455 Fax (707) 778- 4586 E-Mail bgaebler~ci: petaluma. ca. us Humdn Resources Division Phone (707) 778-4534 Fax (707) 778-4639 E-Mail hrimanresoui•ces@~ ci.petal:rnra:ca:us Information Technologu Diyisiou Phone (707) 77~-=1417 Fax (707) 7.76'-3623 E-Mall it@ci.petalunaa:ca;us Risk iYtanagemerat Division Phone (707) ~~776=3695 Fax (707) 776-3697 F.-Mail riskrngt@ci. petaluma. ca. us EOUAL XOUSINO OPPOPTUNITV CITY ®F ET'AI.IJIVIA POST ®FFICE BOX 61 PETALUMA, CA 94953-0061 Via Facsimile and US iVIail Sonoma County Board of Supervisors 575 Administration Drive, Room 100A Santa Rosa, CA 95403-2887 Re: Revised:l)utra Asphalt Plant Project Dear Hon. Chair Kelley, Members of the Board of Supervisors, I am again writing on behalf of the entire Petaluma City Council to submit further comments regarding the Dutra asphalt plant'("Project') and the Environmental Impact Report ("E'IR") for the Project currently pending before the County. Unfortunately, rather than directly addressing the comments in the previous two letters submitted by the City, the County has instead compounded the problems identified in our letters by continuing to modify the Project and conducting further environmental analysis of the Project without thebenefit of public input. In addition to the violations of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the Guidelines implementing CEQA, and the Planning :and Zoning Laws (Gov't Code, § 65000 et seq.) identified in the City's previous letters, which we attach hereto and incorporate fully herein, in this letter, we address further CEQA violations set forth below. The City continues: to have numerous. concerns with the Project and with the County's EIR, including;the Project's significant impacts on the City's Shollenberger Park, which thousands of the City's residents use every year, and the impacts that placing this industrial facility at the. gateway to the City- will have for years to come. Neither the proposed reductions to the Project nor the placement of an "interpretive display" directly across.. from the Project's proposed barge loading operations mitigate the City's concerns. The County Still 1VIust Recirculate the EIR Prior to Certification Despite the substantial evidence submitted by the City and other. commenters that recirculation. of the EIR is required, rather than recirculate, the County continues to attempt to 'address the flaws in the environmental analysis in a I Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Re: Dutra Plant EIR Page 2 piecemeaLmanner; changing and amending the EIR itself and adding substantial environmental review and. analysis subsequent to the publication of both the draft EIR ("DEIR") and the Final EIR ("FEIR"), all without the benefit of the required public review and comment. As the City previously explained, under CEQA, "[i]f, subsequent to the period of public and interagency review, the lead agency adds significant new information. to an EIR', the agency must issue new notice and must `recirculate' the revised EIR, or portions thereof, for additional commentary and .consultation. The revised environmental document must be subjected to the .same critical evaluation that occurs in the draft stage, so that the public is not denied an opportunity to test, assess, and evaluate the data and make an informed judgment as to the validity of the conclusions to be drawn therefrom:" (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. Of Supervisors (2001) 87 Ca1.App.4th 99, 13.1.; Guidelines, § 15088.5.) "Significant new information"-can include, for example, situations where: "(1) Anew significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. (2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously-analyzed would clearly lessen the signifcant environmental impacts of the project, but the.profect's proponents decline to adopt it. (4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and. comment were precluded." (Guidelines, § ;1,5088.5.:). B_y,contrast, recirculation is not required where the new information "merely clarifies: or amplifies or snakes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR." (Id.) The County did,not rectify the. error of failure to recirculate the EIR following the identification of significant new information in the City's previous letters. Now, the County has compounded this error. by again revsing~the Project and releasing further significant environmental analysis, which also requres,recirculation. The County Staff report itself contains significant new information and analysis of the Project. In addif:on, the Staff Report attaches several new reports, each of which by itself would require recirculation. Specifically, the Staff Report: l~1 Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Re: Dufra Plant EIR Page 3 ® Attaches a letter from CSW/Stuber-Stroeh regarding the revised Project, which includes new -photo simulations, a new site plan, new elevations, and new information regarding the proposed barge dock; ® Attaches 22 pages of new environmental analysis of the project by Christopher A. Joseph & Associates addressing the Aesthetic, Air Quality, Human Health Risk, Global Warming, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Road Transportation, and Marine Transportation impacts of the Project; o Attaches a completely revised Human Health Risk Assessment ("HRA") by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District ("BAAQMD") which concludes that the previously prepared HRA used incorrect assumptions and underestimated .the impacts of the Project; ® Attaches a peer review of the BAAQMD analysis performed by the applicant's consultant Environ (it should be noted that the opportunity provided the applicant to peer review the BAAQMD analysis has not been provided to the public); ~ Attaches new information regarding available water volume and a new water intake design; ® Attaches a new Noise Analysis performed by Rosen, Goldber, Der & Lewitz, Inc.; and ® Attaches new information from local tug operators regarding marine transportation impacts. In addition to all of this new information, the Staff Report also proposes the elimination or modification of several .conditions of approval and notes that. the Project will: not be able to comply with a previously proposed condition of approval intended to mitigate the Project's impacts on marine transportation. For all of these reasons, .recirculation is required. In addition, as set forth in the City's previous letters and as further set forth below, the County must also correct the flaws in the environmental analysis in order`to comply with CEQA. After the County corrects these flaws, the County must .also recirculate the corrected sections for review and comment. The Connty Should Determine the Significance of the Project's Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As noted previously, the EIR has not proceeded in the manner required by CEQA in the evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and global warming impacts by failing to determine whether the Project's impacts are significant. The fact that the state has not formally adopted guidance dictating which threshold .lead agencies must use for GHG analyses does not relieve the County from exercising its independent judgment and analysis to determine the significance of the Project's impacts. (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21081, 21082.1, 21082.2; Exhibit 1, (OPR Technical Advisory on GHG emissions and CEQA)) l~`~ Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Re: Dutra Plant EIR Page 4 Moreover, while still in draft form, the proposed revisions to the Guidelines would allow local agencies to make significance findings based on a project's compliance with. a local climate action plan. (Exhibit 2.) Since the County has already.approved the Sonoma County Community Climate Action Plan, the County should, at the very least, determine whether the Project will comply with the County's own.local climate action plan. (Exhibit 3.) The Staff Report, however, only notes that the Reduced Project will result in fewer GHG emissions than the unrevised project,. but again fails to make a determination of significance, instead simply stating that "the Revised Project's contribution to ... GHG emissions would not violate any adopted thresholds.'' (Staff-Report, p. 7.) Since no adopted thresholds exist, simply stating that the Revised Project would not violate any adopted thresholds is misleading. The GHG emissions evaluation done to date does not constitute a good faith effort to determine significance under CEQA. Should the County chose to approve the Project, the County must present a more detailed evaluation of GHG emissions. 'The County Still lFIas Failed 'To Adequately Analyze the Impacts of a 500% increase in Barge Traffic. The City noted previouslythat the Project proposes to increase barge traffic from 25 yearly trips to 125 yearly trips, a 500% increase. The new information provided in the Staff Report does not rectify this problem. First, the Staff Report notes that staff and the applicant met with the U.S. Coast Guard, Waterways Management Division. The Staff Report goes on to note, however, that the Coast Guard. doesn't regulate traffic on the River. It is only concerned with obstructions into the navigable channel such as the Project's proposed barge dock. Thus, neither the letter from the Coast Guard, nor the letters from. upstream River users noting that their operations would not likely be impaired bythe proposed barge dock, addresses the substantial increase in overall barge traffic on the River. As with GHG emissions, the County cannot ignore its duty to determine impact significance simplybecause (here is not another regulatory authority dictating:to the County what the threshold of significance should be. The County is required under CEQA to exercise its independent judgment to analyze the impacts of the Project and determine the significance of those impacts. The County has done neither with respect to marine transportation impacts. Second,. as previously°noted in the City's letters, the County continues to fail to examine.: .Biological Resource impacts from a 500% increase in barge traffic along the length of the River; Water Quality.impacts from a 500% increase in barge traffic along the length of the River;' and Health Risk Assessment impacts from a 500% increase in barge traffic along the length of the River. All ofthese impacts must be addressed prior to certification of the EIR. l~~ Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Re: Dutra Plant EIR Page 5 The County Continues to Fail to Adequately Examine the hydrology Impacts of Pumping Petaluma River Water The City previously commented that the EIR had failed to adequately examine the Project's impacts from water pumping. None of the new information provided with the Staff Report directly addresses this impact except to note that the Revised Project will likely use less water than the Proposed Project. This does not answer the issues previously raised. The County Continues to Failto Examine the Impacts Associated with Obtaining Water from Another Source The City previously commented that the County had .failed to examine the potential impacts of trucking in water to the Project site -from another location. The new CSW report confirms that "water°for dust suppression will be trucked in from an offsite source." (CSW Report, p. 3) Nowhere, however, has the County examined the impacts of obtaining this water or the impacts of trucking- the water to the Project site. The County must examine these impacts prior to certification of the FEIR in order to comply with CEQA. The County has Not Responded. to The City's Previous Comments Regarding Flaws in the County's`CEQA Analysis and Procedure The City commented in the attached letters regarding inadequate mitigation measures, inadequate alternatives analysis, and inadequate responses to comments in the FEIR. The City will not reiterate these comments here except to note that these comments have not been addressed by the County and these flaws still remain in the EIR and in the County's CEQA process. The County hasp not Adequately Addresses the Project's Incompatibility with the County's General Plan In the City's previous comments; the City raised the Project's incompatibility with the County's General Plan. including: ® Horizontal inconsistencies created by re-designating the Project parcels from Limited. Commereia~l to Limited Industrial despite the fact that the majority of the Project site is in a mapped flood hazard zone and has significant geotechnical hazards due to soil instability; ® Horizontal, inconsistencies created by re-designating the Proj ect parcels from Limited Commercial.'to Lirnted,Industrial despite the fact that the General Plan only allows such re-designation to recognize an existing, permitted use, which use is not supported by substantial evidence: ® Project inconsistencies with the General Plan created by conflicts with the General Plan's noise.policies; ~O Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Re: Dutra Plant EIR Page 6 ® Project inconsistencies with the General Plan created by placing these facilities in a flood plain; ® Project inconsistencies with the. General Plan raised by Staff's attempt to designate an asphalt batch plant as a "river dependent use;" and Project inconsistencies with the General Plan policies regarding "streamside conservation areas." Of these inconsistencies, the Staff Report has only attempted to deal with the Project's noise impacts on nearby residences. However, the Staff Report.merely notes that the Reduced Project will, to a certain degree, reduce the General Plan Noise Policy violations. (Staff Report, pp. 8 - 10.) As the Staff Report itself concludes, the Revised Project will still violate the General Plan Noise Policies and, thus the Project-would. still require a General Plan amendment for approval. (Id.) The remaining inconsistencies are unaddressed and continue to be an obstacle to the County's ability°to approve:the Project. Conclusion Though the City continues to recognize that this type of use is important to the infrastructure needs throughout the County, the Project, as proposed, is simply incompatible with the chosen location. For'the reasons articulated: above, and in -the City's previous letters, the City continues to urge the County°to reject this Project altogether. If the County determines to go forward with the Project, however, the County must fully comply with CEQA and the State Planning and Zoning Laws before doing,so. Further; as we indicated in our February 2, 20091etter to the Board concerning-this Project, the-City is willing to work collaboratively with the applicant, the County and other stakeholders either to ;sufficiently improve the proposal for the proposed site or to identify a mutually satisfactory~~alternative site. Best regards, Pamela Torliatt Mayor Attachments: 1. February2,'20.09 letter from the City of Petaluma 2. June 2, 2009 letter from the City of Petaluma cc: .1336644.1 ~~ Ele~eer~ 7-089 Via Facsimile and US Mail Sonoma County Board of Supervisors 575 Administration Drive, Room 100A Santa Rosa, CA 95403-2887 Re: Ravi Dutra . ~ h_ .Plant E--tR--Q_ c Dear Hon. Chair Kelley, Members of the Board of Supervisors, I am again writing on behalf of the entire Petaluma. City Council to submit further comments: regarding -the' _Dutra as halms t Ip ant_(lPro'ect`__and_tke Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Project t#~e-~C~~~t~=a~-a~p~att-p~€,{`R~ejeet'}-currently ,. pending before the County Tk~e City-rotes-w+th disa{~pointer~t thhatUnfortunately, rather than directly addressing the comments in the previous two letters submitted by the City, the County has instead et~4y-compounded the problems identified. in our letters by continuing to modify the Project behie~ cfesn. conducting further environmental analysis of the Project without the benefit of public input, ^~~ +"an r°~°~s~n~ +"ic ci~nnifin~rs+ r,~~~erma-tier-eel-y d-ads-he#or-e-ho4di~g--a--~earaag-erg-~~e-P-ro}eet-~ep~i~-the Gity, a~-d-the-po~+e-of a-deq~,sty-time-te-~ev~ew-~rad~eent. In addition to the violations of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the Guidelines implementing CEQA, and the Planning and Zoning Laws (Gov't Code, § 65000 et seq.) identified in the City's previous letters, which we attach hereto and incorporate fully herein, a~-i_n._this...letter w~. add.resst~e further CEQA violations set forth ~ t"tTTf~JTL+-14~rb,e l_ow,. ... ' r®n.-,'rr~~nn +"® nrsari nra ego. nF-$"e~ rl r~r~c inn_rs1~G~nn nre-~r rnr~n°rreinrv +"ic rirrii°rf ..~_..., ~~ ~....,.. ... .. ... .. ,.... ...,... . .~r.'vxac~~-vrn~~...rmr r~ -srreer~rvJWVe. The: City continues to have numerous concerns with the Project and with. the County's EIR, rye-lea~af~#i~~-areincludina the Project's significant impacts on the City's.Shollenberger Park, which thousands of the City's residents use every ,year, and the impacts that placing this industrial facility at the gateway to the Cityuvill have for years to come. Neither the proposed reductions to the ,Project nor the placement of.an "interpretive display" directly across from the Project's proposed barge loading operations; mitigate the City's concerns. The County Still Must Recirculate the EIR Prior to Certification Despite the substantial evidence submitted by the City :and other commenters that recirculation of the EIR is required, ratherthan recirculate, the.County continues to attempt to address the flaws in the environmental analysis in a t ' ~6 Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Re: Dutra Plant EIR n....-...,.~.._~ manna Page 2 piecemeal manner, changing and amending the EIR itself and adding substantial environmental .review and analysis subsequent to the publication of both the draft EIR ("DEIR") and the Final EIR ("FEIR"), all without the benefit of the required public review and comment. As the City previously explained, under CEQA, "[i]f, subsequent to the period of public and interagency review, the lead agency adds significant new information to an EIR, the agency must issue new nofice and must"recirculate' the revised EIR, or portions thereof; for additional commenfary and consultation: The revised. environmental document must be subjected to the same critical evaluation that occurs in the draft stage, so that the public is not denied an opportunity to test, assess, and evaluate the data and make an informed judgment as to the validity of the conclusions to be drawn therefrom." (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County 8d: Of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 131; 'Guidelines, § 15088.5.) "Significant new information" can include, for example, situations where: "(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. (2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce ahe .impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others. previously :analyzed would clearly lessen the. significant environmental impacts: of the project, .but the project's proponents decline to adopt it. (4) The. draft' EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and commentwere precluded." (Guidelines, § 1:5088.5.) By contrast, recirculation is not required where the new information "merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in.an adequate EIR:" (Id:) The County d'id not rectify fhe error of failure to recirculate the EIR. following the identification ofsignificant new information in the City's previous letters. Now, the 1 Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Re: Dutra Plant EIR -------- Page 3 County has compounded this error by again revising the Project and releasing ~y~t further significant environmental analysis, which also requires recirculation. The County Staff report itself contains significant new information and analysis of the Project. In addition, the Staff Report atfaehes~several new reports, each of which by itself would. require recirculation. Specifically; the :Staff Report: ® Attaches a letter from CSW/Stuber-Stroeh regarding the revised Project, which includes new photo simulations., a new site plan,, new elevations, and new information regarding the proposed barge dock; • Attaches 22 pages of new environmental analysis: of the project by Christopher A. Joseph & Associates addressing the Aesthetic, :Air Quality, Human Health Risk, Global 1Narming, Hydrology and Water.Quality, Noise, Road Transportation, and. Marine Transportation impacts of Elie .Project; • Attaches a completely revised Human Health Risk Assessment (".HRA") by the Bay Area Air Qualify .Management District (``BAAQMD") which concludes that the previously prepared HRA used incorrect assumptions and underestimated the impacts of the Project;, ® Attaches a peer,review of the BAAQMD analysi perfor"med by the applicant's consultant Environ (it should be noted that the opportunity provided the applicant to peer review fhe BAAQMD analysis has.not been provided to the public); • Attaches new information regarding available water volume and a new water intake design; • Attaches a new Noise Analysis performed by Rosen, Goidber, Der & Lewitt; Inc.; and o Attaches new informa'fion from local tug operators regarding marine transportation impacts. In addition to all of'th'is "new information, ~ ; f+rs~;:-time ~'^~j "°~^r~"~e "-r-rear; the Staff Report also proposes the elimination or modification of several contlitions of approval and notes that the Project will not be ,able to comp'hy with a previously proposed condition of approval intended to mitigate the Project's impacts on marine transportation. Fo_r all of°these reasons, recirculation is required. fn addition, as set forth in the City's previous letters and as further set forth below, the County must also correct the flaws in the environmental :analysis in order to comply with CEQA. After the County corrects these flaws, the County must -also recirculate the corrected sections for review and comment.. 1N~ Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Re: Dutra Plant EIR Ceez~~ ___ _ Page 4 The County Should Determine the Significance of the Project's Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As noted previously, the EiR has not proceeded in the manner required by CEQA in the evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and global warming impacts by failing to determine whether the Project's impacts are significant. The fact that the state has not formally adopted guidance dictating which threshold lead agencies must use for GHG analyses does not relieve the Gounty from- exercising its independent judgment and analysis to determine the significance of the Project's impacts. (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21081, 21082.1,., 21082.2;. Exhibit 1, (OPR Technical Advisory on GHG emissions and CEQA).-) . Moreover, while still in draft form, the proposed .revisions to the Guidelines would allow local agencies to make significance findings based on a project's. compliance with a local climate action plan. (Exhibit 2.) Since the County has already approved the Sonoma County Community Climate Action Plan, the County hould, at the very least, determine whether the Project. will comply with the County's own local climate action plan. (Exhibit 3.) The Staff Report, however,. only notes that the .Reduced Project will result in fewer GHG emissions than the unrevised project, but again fails to make a determination ofsignificance; instead simply stating that "the Revised Project's contribution to ... GHG emissions would not violate any adopted thresholds." (Staff Report, p. 7.) Since no adopted thresholds exist, simply stating that the Revised Project would not violate any adopted thresholds is misleading. The GHG emissions evaluation done to date does not constitute a .good faith effort to determine significance under CEQA. Should the County chose to approve the Project; the County must present a more detailed evaluation of GH'G emissions. The County. Still Has Failed'To.AdequatelyAnalyzc the Impacts of a 500% increase in Barge Traffic. The Gity noted previously that the Project proposes to increase barge traffic from 25 yearly trips to 125 yearly trips, a 500.% increase. The new information provided in the Staff Report does not .rectify this problem. First, the Staff Report notes that staff arid the applicant met with the U.S. Coast Guard, Waterways Management Division. The Staff Report goes on to note, however, that the Coast Guard doesn't regulate traffic on the River. It is only concerned.. with obstructions into the na"vigable channel such as the Project's.proposed barge dock. Thus, neither the letter from the Coast Guard, nor the letters~from upstream River users noting that their operations would not likely be impaired by the proposed barge dock,. addresses. the substantial increase in overall barge traffic on the River. As with GHG emissions, the County cannot ignore its duty to determine impact significance simply because there is .not another regulatory authority dictating to the County what the threshold of significance should be>. The County is ~`S Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Re: Dutra Plant EIR [lov~cv~mp°M~n~ _ __ __ Page 5 required under CEQA to exercise its independent judgment to analyze the impacts of the Project and determine the significance of those impacts. The County has done neither with respect to marine transportation impacts. Second, as previously noted in the City's letters, the County continues to fail to examine: ® Biological Resource impacts from a 500% increase in .barge traffic along the length of the River; e Water Quality impacts from a 500% increase in barge traffic along the length of the River; and ® Health Risk Assessment. impacts from a 500% increase in barge traffic along the length of the River. All of these impacts must be addressed prior to certification of the EIR The County Continues to Fait to Adequately Examinee the Hydrology Impacts of Pumping Petaluma River Water The City previously commented that the EI R had failed to adequately examine the Project's impacts from water pumping. None of the new information provided with the Staff Report directly addresses this impact except to note that the Revised Project will likely use less water than the Proposed Project. This does not answer the issues previously raised. The County Continues to Fail to Examine the Impacts Associated with Obtaining Water from Another Source The City previously commented that the County had failed to examine the potential impacts of trucking in water to the Project site from another location. The new CSW report confirms that. "water for dust suppression will be trucked in from an offsite source." (CSW Report, p. 3) Nowhere., however, has the County examined the impacts of obtaining this wafer or the impacts of trucking the water to the Project site. The County must examine these .impacts prior to certification of the FEI R in order to comply with CEQA. The County Has Not Responded to The City's Previous Comments Regarding Flaws i'n thie County's CEQA Analysis and Procedure The City commented in the attached letters regarding inadequate mitigation measures, inadequate alte"rnatives analysis, and inadequate responses to comments in the FEIR. The City will not reiterate these comments here except to note that these comments 1 ~a ~~ Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Re: Dutra Plant EIR x,0.7 inn ~Jeoe~~~9 Page 6 have not been addressed by the County and these flaws still remain in the EIR and in the County's C'EQA process. The County has not Adequately Addresses the Project's Incompatibility with the County's General Plan In the City's previous comments, the City raised the Project's incompatibility with the County's General Plan including: • Horizontal inconsistencies created by re-designating. the Project parcels from Limited Commercial to. Limited Industrial despite the fact that the majority of the Project site is in a mapped flood hazard .zone and has significant geotechnical hazards due to soil instability; ® Horizontal inconsistencies created by re-designating the Project parcels from Limited Commercial to Limited Industrial despite the fact that the General Plan only allows such re-designation ao recognize an existing, permitted use, which use is not supported by substantial evidence: • Project inconsistencies with the General Plan created by conflicts with the General Plan's noise policies; • Project ifnconsistencies with the General Plan created by placing these facilities in a flood plain; ® Project inconsistencies with the General Plan raised by Staff's attempt to designate an asphalt batch plant as a "river dependent use;" and • Project inconsistencies with the General Plan policies regarding "streamside conservation areas." Of these inconsistencies, the Staff Report has only attempted to deal with the Project's nNoise impacts on nearby residences. However,. the Staff Report merely-- notes that the Reduced Projecf wall, to a certain degree, reduce the General Plan Noise Policy violations.. ,(Staff Report;, pp. 8 - 10.) As the Staff Report itself concludes; the Revised Project will still vi`o ate-the General Plan Noise Policies and, thus the Project would still require a General Plan amendment: for approval. (Id.) The remaining inconsistencies are unaddressed and continue to be an obstacle to the County's ability to approve the Project. Conclusion. Though. the City continues ~to recognize that this type of use is important to the infrasfiructure ;needs throughout the County, the Project, as proposed, is simply incompatible with th'e chosen location. For the reasons articulated above, and in the ~q Lj Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Re: Dutra Plant EIR ~~rnhnrQ ____ Page 7 . Best regards, Pamela Torliatt Mayor Attachments: 1. February 2, 2009 letter from.the City of Petaluma 2. June 2, 2009 letter from the City of Petaluma cc: 1336644.1 1' City's previous-.letters, the City continues to urge the County to reject this Project altoge#her: If the County determines to go forward with the Project,. however, the County must fully comply with CEQA and the State Planning and Zoning Laws before