HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2002-136 N.C.S. 08/05/2002t'
Resolution No. 2002-136 N.C.S.
of the City of Petaluma, California
APPROVING THE WATER RECYCLING FACILITY AND RIVER ACCESS
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, ADOPTING MITIGATION MEASURES AND
MONITORING PROGRAM, AND SETTING FORTH SPECIFIC FINDINGS AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
WHEREAS, in 1938, the original. wastewater treatment processes were
constructed at 950 Hopper Street; and,
WHEREAS, to meet the community's needs and changing regulatory
requirements, various upgrades and additions to the wastewater treatment plant were
conducted through the 1960s; and,
W>FIEREAS, in 1972, the oxidation ponds were constructed at 4400 Lakeville
Highway to provide additional treatment capacity; and,
WHEREAS, in 1988, with influent flows exceeding 75% of the- permitted
capacity of the wastewater treatment facility, and necessary upgrades to the facility to
increase treatment capacity and continue to meet the needs of the community were
determined to be too costly, the City determined to replace the existing wastewater
treatment facility; and,
WHEREAS, in 1991 the City executed a Memorandum of Understanding with
Envirotech Operating Services (EOS) to design, build, construct, own and operate (20
years) a new wastewater treatment facility (Resolution No. 91-107 N.C.S.); and,
WHEREAS, on July 31, 1991, EOS submitted an application to the California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) seeking an exemption from CPUC regulation under
the California Local Government Privatization Act of 1985; and,
WHEREAS, on October 21, 1991, Administrative Law Judge Ramsey
determined that the MOU did not meet the requirements of the Public Utilities Code and
ordered that "the application is denied without prejudice to refiling after amendment";
and,
WHEREAS, in February 1992 EOS and the City mutually agreed to rescind the
MOU; and,
WHEREAS, on June 20, 1994, following a report prepared by Ernst and Young,
the City Council adopted Resolution No. 94-1..56 N.C.S., which directed that the Service ~
Resolution No. 2002-13( N.C.S.
Agreement Approach (privatization) be utilized for procurement of a new wastewater
treatment facility; and,
WHEREAS, on June 17, 1996, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-163
N.C.S., which certified the Final ElR documents, Resolution No. 96-164 N.C.S., which
approved the project, and Resolution No. 96-165 N.C.S., which approved and authorized
issuance of the Request For Proposal; and,
WHEREAS, on July 17, 1996, the RFP was issued to five pre-qualified vendor
teams; and,
WHEREAS, in January 1997, the City received proposals from Montgomery
United Water (MUW) and US FilterBOS; and,
WHEREAS, the Citizens' Wastewater Advisory Committee considered the
proposals on May 28, 1997, June 3, 1997, June 4, 1997, July 2, 1997, October 20, 1997,
October 30, 1997, November 4, 1997, November 18, 1997, and December 3, 1997; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the proposals on July 7, 1997,
September 8, 1997, September 15, 1997, September 22, 1997, September 29, 1997,
October 6, 1997, December 3, 1997, and December 8, 1997; and,
WHEREAS, on January 5, 1998, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 98-11
N.C.S., which selected MUW for contract negotiations; and,
WHEREAS, negotiations with MUW on technical, legal and agreement issues
began on January 27, 1998 and proceeded through spring 1999; and,
WHEREAS, on September 21, 1998, the City Council, recognizing the need for
development of a public alternative to the proposed privatization project, approved
preparation of the wastewater treatment facility master plan; and,
WHEREAS, on September 21, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No.
99-188, N.C.S., which terminated the privatization process and established City
ownership of the new wastewater treatment facility. Reasons cited for this determination
included, among others:
~ Risk of Change Required Over 30-Year Contract Term. Changes in the
City's needs may occur during the 30-year life of the contract. The City is at a
disadvantage by being able to negotiate with only one party for changes in the
facility's capacity.
Requirement of Fair Market Value Purchase. In order for MUW to retain
tax ownership, the City's option to purchase the facility at the end of the
contract. term would have to be at fair market value. The price of the facility
Resolution 2002-1'36 N.C.S. Page 2
could not be fixed in the contract, but would depend on the value of the
facility at the time of the exercise of the option, thereby putting the City and
ratepayers at risk of having to pay for part of the plant twice.
- Lack of City Approval of Design. In order for MUW to retain tax
ownership, Section 4.8.1 of the agreement limited the City's participation in
the design process.
- Third Party Services. In order for MUW to retain tax ownership, Section
5.2.4 would allow the Company to provide services to others (in addition to
the City) at the Project Site.
- Inability to Agree ®n Contract Language. After extensive negotiations
between the City and MiJW, specific contract language on the above and other
critical issues could not be agreed upon.
WHEREAS, on September 21, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No.
99-189 N.C.S., which approved the Wastewater Treatment Master Plan, with the
understanding that the Master Plan's recommended project would be further reviewed to
address questions asked by the City's independent wastewater professionals; and,
WHEREAS, on October 29, 1999, the City issued a Request For Proposal for
engineering services in support of the water recycling facility project (new wastewater
treatment facility); and,
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2000-066 N.C.S. on April
3, 2000, which authorized the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement
with Carollo Engineers for engineering services in support of Phase 1 -Project Report of
the. Water Recycling Facility Project; and,
WHEREAS, five alternatives for the new water recycling facility were presented
at a Public Forum at the Community Center on June 14, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council heard a discussion. on the criteria for evaluating the
alternatives on September 5, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the results of the analysis and comparison of the alternatives were
presented at a Public Forum at the Community Center on November 8, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council considered and discussed the Draft Water
Recycling Facility Project Report (Carollo Engineers, November 2000) on November 20,
2000; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2000-214 N.C.S. on
December 11, 2000, which approved the Water Recycling Facility Project Report
(Carollo Engineers, November 2000), selected Alternative 5 -Extended Aeration as the
Resolution 2002-136 N.C.S. Page 3
preferred alternative for the new water recycling facility, and identified Option A -
Wetlands as the preferred alternative for algae removal over Option B - DAFs; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2000-215 N.C.S. on
December 11, 2000, which authorized the City Manager to execute a professional
services agreement with Carollo Engineers for professional engineering services in
support of Phase 2 -Project Development of the Water Recycling Facility Project; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Water Recycling Facility Project
and the Draft Water Recycling Facility Predesign Report (Carollo Engineers, November
2001) on November 14, 2001, November 28, 2001, December 17, 2001 and January 7,
2002; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No_ 2002-012 N.C.S. on
January 7, 2002,. which approved design parameters for the preferred alternative for the
water recycling facility project and authorized completion of the environmental impact
report;
WHEREAS, the City prepared Water Recycling Facility and River Access
Improvements Draft EIR (April 2002) and distributed it to the California State
Clearinghouse and. to all responsible local, state and federal agencies involved in the
project and made it available for public review. The Draft EIR includes a statement of
Project objectives:
• To develop an economically and ecologically sustainable Water Recycling
Facility to accommodate growth and development anticipated by the City's
General Plan. The buildout population for Petaluma and Penngrove is
estimated to be 70,650, requiring treatment of 6.7 mgd during average dry
weather flow (ADWF).
• To comply with Federal, State and regional air and water quality regulations
through appropriate design and operation of the Water Recycling Facility.
Reliability and redundancy features will be included to be able to meet
applicable regulations consistently.
® To replace or upgrade the existing wastewater treatment facility that is
operating near its capacity and the end of its useful life.
® To protect the water quality of the Petaluma River and the San Francisco Bay
by continuing to conduct wastewater treatment in an environmentally sensitive
manner. The Water Recycling Facility will include the additional steps of
ammonia removal to reduce the risk of ammonia toxicity in the river and
polishing wetlands to reduce effluent concentrations of metals, organics, and
nutrients.
Resolution 2002-136 N.C.S. Page 4
o To stabilize and treat the biosolids generated in the wastewater treatment.
process to EPA's Class B standards for beneficial reuse of the biosolids.
To produce tertiary recycled water in accordance with California Title 22 so
water can be recycled. to irrigation users throughout the City.
• To provide storage in the oxidation ponds during river discharge prohibitions
from May 1st to October 20th and to balance the recycled water program
during this non-discharge period.
® To develop a facility that serves as an amenity to the community by providing
educational and recreational opportunities.
W>FIEREAS, the City Council held noticed public hearings on May 13, 2002, and
May 20, 2002, during which all interested persons were provided an opportunity to
comment on the adequacy of the Draft EIR; and,
WI~EREAS, the public review period for the Draft EIR began April 15, 2002,
and closed May 29, 2002; and,
WHEREAS, the City prepared Water Recycling Facility and River Access
Improvements Final EIR and Response To Comments (July 2002), which responded to
comments received on the Draft EIR. The Final EIR did not identify any new significant
impacts that had not been previously evaluated in the Draft EIR; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on August 5, 2002, to
consider the Final EIR; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council certified the Final EIR by Resolution 2002-135
N.C.S. on August 5, 2002; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the .information
contained in the Final EIR; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered each of the alternatives set forth in
the Final EIR relative to their environmental effects and ability to fulfill the project
objectives.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council that:
1. It makes findings that changes or alterations have been required and
incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
Resolution 2002-136 N.C.S. Page 5
environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR and these findings are
attached hereto as Exhibit A;
2. It has balanced the potential adverse environmental impacts of the selected
Project, and all other alternatives as described in the Final EIR, with the
benefits of the Project, and adopts Exhibit B attached hereto as its Statement
of Overriding Considerations;
3. The Mitigation Monitoring Program as described in the Final EIR is hereby
adopted, with the exception of Mitigation Measure AG-1, which is hereby not
adopted;
4. It finds that the Extended Aeration Alternative with wetlands, the preferred
alternative in the Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements
Project Final EIR, is feasible, practical, and optimizes compliance with
project objectives, and is hereby approved;
5. City Management is authorized to prepare final plans and specifications for
the Water Recycling Facility;
6. City Management is authorized to pursue funding opportunities for the River
Access Improvements, including potential opportunities with the California
Coastal Conservancy, the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open
Space District, and any other potential funding agencies;
7. The Certified EIR and all documents constituting the Administrative Record,
therefore, shall reside with the Environmental Review Coordinator of the City
of Petaluma and be made available at the office of such Coordinator at the
Petaluma City Hall, 11 English Street, Petaluma, California; and
8. The Environmental Review Coordinator is directed to file a Notice of
Determination for the Project adopted hereby.
Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City.
REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the Approved as to
Council of the City of Petaluma at a (Regular) (Adjourned) (Special) meeting for
on the .........~Il?............ day of ........F.~iJ~.h~Sx ................................... 20.Q~:, by the ~
following vote: ........:.....:......................
ity Attorney
AYES: Cader-Thompson, Vice Mayor Healy, Maguire, Moynihan, O'Brien, Torliatt
NOES: Nc;ne
ABSENT: -or Thompson
ATTEST: .... • .......................................................................... ....... ... .......................................................................
City lerk , Mayo
Council File ...................................
Res. No........2.Q~~at~.G........N.GS.
EXI~I~IT A
FINDINGS FOR TIIE CITY OF PETAL><JMA WATER RECYCLING FACILITY
AND RIVER ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
The EIR identified two significant, unavoidable impacts: Agriculture Impact AG-1, loss
of farmland and AG-C1, cumulative loss of farmland. The EIR also identified 11
significant impacts that, with mitigation, can be reduced 'to less-than-significant .levels:
Groundwater Impact. GW-1, degradation of groundwater quality at existing drinking
water wells; Surface Water Quality Impacts WQ-1 and WQ-2, exceedence of numeric-
and narrative-based criteria; Biological Resources Impact BIO-1, loss of individuals or
occupied habitat of endangered species; BIO-2, loss of bird nests or wildlife nurseryaites;
BIO-4, loss of sensitive native plant communities; BIO-5, disruption of fish or wildlife
migration corridors; BIO-6, loss of aquatic habitat; BIO-7, loss of wetlands or waters of
the U.S.; BIO-8, exposure of organisms to bioaccumulatory substances; and
Transportation Impact TR-1, congestion along study area roadways.
With respect to the two .agricultural impacts, loss of farmland and the cumulative loss of
farmland, one.mitigation measure was recommended by the EIR, but has not been
adopted: Measure AG-1, Maintain Maximum Acreage of Agricultural Production.
'Measure AG-1 would require the City to maintain the maximum acreage feasible in
agricultural production on Parcels A and B, approximately 70 acres. Even with this
reduction in impact, approximately 79 acres of .farmland would be removed, and the
impact would remain significant after mitigation. The City has determined not to adopt
Measure AG-1 because it (a) interferes with the project objectives, namely the
educational and recreational use of Parcel A for trails and butterfly habitat; (b)
agricultural production on 70 acres is a very small contribution to agriculture in the
region; (c) current agricultural. use of the property is not for high-value or unique crops;
and (d) agricultural production so near the Water Recycling Facility could create conflicts
between the two uses. Because the. Water Recycling Facility is surrounded by the
Petaluma River on one side and agriculture on three sides., there is no other parcel which
could feasibly attain the project objectives, without similar loss of agriculturally
.productive land. No other feasible mitigation has been identified, and these impacts
remain significant after mitigation. It was-suggested that the City purchase agricultural
land and -place it into production. This mitigation measure was considered but rejected as
infeasible, as any land which is not currently in production is likely in that condition fora
good reason. Public ownership and management of agricultural land does not increase
the amount of agriculturally productive land in the County, as the currently healthy state
of the agricultural economy in Sonoma County places the maximum amount of land in
production without government subsidies.
With respect. to Groundwater Impact GW-1, degradation of groundwater quality at an
existing drinking water well, one mitigation measure has been adopted: Measure GW-1,
Drinking Water Well Protection Program. Because there is a drinking water well within
one=quarter mile of the project, Measure GW-1 requires the City to monitor water quality
S:\watei resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 2\EIR\final: eir\findings\DraftFindings.doc
in this well, before and after construction: If changes are detected after construction that
are deemed deleterious to public health, the City will need to drill a new well, retrofit the
existing well,. or provide a wellhead treatment system-:for the.constituents that are causing
the public hearth concern. Any one of these three alternate approaches is feasible and
would,reduce the impact to a level below significance.
With respect to the two Surface Water Quality Impacts WQ-1 and WQ-2, exceedance of
numeric- and narrative-based criteria, five mitigation measures have been adopted:
Measure WQ=1a, Chromium. Monitoring and Source .Reduction; Measure WQ-lb, Nickel
Monitoring and Source Reduction Program; Measure WQ-1 c, Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Effluent Monitoring and Source .Reduction Program; Measure WQ-ld, Constituents not
Monitored~in Effluent Monitoring and Source Reduction Program.; and Measure WQ-le,
Dioxin/Furan Cogener Monitoring and Source Reduction Program. Measures WQ-la
through WQ-1e require monitoring of the specific constituents listed in their titles and,_if
necessary, control of the source of each constituent . The Source Reduction Program
would establish or revise pretreatment limits or provide for enforcement of these limits.
Measure WQ-1e would also reduce Impact WQ-2, bioaccumulation. of dioxin/furan
congeners, in the same manner. These mitigation measures are feasible and would
reduce water quality impacts below significance.
With respect to the six biological resources impacts, eight mitigation measures have been
adopted: Measure BIO-la, Aquatic Species Protection Program; Measure BIO-lb,
Threatened and Endangered Plant Protection Program; Measure BIO-lc, Wildlife
Protection :Program; Measure BIO-2a, Active Raptor and Migratory Bird Nest Protection
Program; Measure BIO-2b, Rookery Protection Program; BIO-4, Prepare a Riparian
Census and: Conceptual Riparian Mitigation Plan; Measure BIO-7, Create or Restore
Wetlands and Water of the U.S.; and WQ-le, Dioxin/Euran Congener Monitoring and
Source Reduction Program.
Regarding Impact BIO-1, loss of individuals or occupied habitat of endangered species,
Measures BIO-1a, lb, and lc will- avoid impacts to rare and endangered plant and
wildlife species or compensate for any impacts by replacing or restoring them in kind and
on site. Land is available within'the project area for compensatory creation of habitats or
transplantation of individuals.. Mitigation Measure BIO-la requires a Worker
Environmental Awareness Training Program, limits ground-disturbing activity in Ellis
Creek, relocates sensitive species if encountered, requires revegetation, establishes buffer
zones, creates. or restores damaged aquatic habitat, identifies opportunities to improve
habitat. conditions within Ellis Creek, and controls erosion. Measure BIO-lb requires
surveys for special-status plants, establishes exclusionary buffer zones around each
population site, and provides for a compensatory replacement program for affected
plants. Measure BIO-lc, Wildlife Protection Program, requires dogs to be leashed and
the public to remain on established'trails. These requirements are feasible and will result
in reduction of impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Regarding Impact BIO-2, loss of nests or wildlife nursery sites, Measure BIO-2a, Active
Raptor .and Migratory Bird Nest Protection Program,. and BIO-2b, Rookery Protection
Program, will identify nests and establish exclusion zones to avoid disturbance during
2
S:\water resources & conservation\VVastewater\9012\phase 2\EIR\final eir\findings\Draft Findings.doc
i
both the nesting ;and non-nesting, season. These ~m;tigation .measures are feasible and will
reduce~project related impacts to ales=than=significant level.
In response. to Impact BIO-4, permanent loss of sensitive native plant communities,
Measure BIO-4 requires preparation of a riparian census and revegetation or
compensatory replacement, thus reducing impacts to a .less-than-significant level. Land
is available within the. project area. for compensatory creation of riparian habitats.
Regarding Impact BIO-5, disruption. of fish or wildlife migration corridors, mitigation
measures BIO-la and BIO-4, described above, will ensure that steelhead could migrate
up Ellis Creek during migration periods despite bridge construction over or pipeline
construction under Ellis Creek. Measure PD-8, Construction Erosion and Spill Control
Measures, requires Best Management Practices for erosion control. These measures are
feasible and will reduce impacts to fish and wildlife migration to a level below
significance.
Regarding Impact BIO-6, loss of aquatic habitat, Measure BIO-la, described above,
requires avoidance of impacts to aquatic habitat where feasible and compensation for any
loss, resulting in less-.than-significant impacts.
Regarding Impact.BIO-7, loss of wetlands or waters of the U.S., Measure BIO-7, requires
revegetation of temporary:impacts to wetlands and compensatory creation of wetlands for
permanent impacts, thus reducing impacts to wetlands to aless-than-significant level.
Land is available within the project area for compensatory creation of riparian or
wetlands habitats.
Regarding Impact BIO-8, ~ exposure of organisms to bioaccumulatory substances,
Measure WQ-le, described. above, is feasible and will reduce impacts below the level of
significance.
With respect to Transportation Impact TR-1, congestion, on study area roadways, two
mitigation measures have been adopted: Measure TR-1 a, Reroute Construction Worker
Trips. and Measure TR-lb, Install Signage to Reroute Employee and Visitor Trips.
Measure TR-la requires construction workers to enter and exit Lakeville Highway at
McDowell Boulevard before 9:00 AM and after 4:00 P1VI, reducing impacts to a level
below significance during construction. Measure TR-lb requires installation of an
informational sign- on Lakeville Highway at McDowell Blvd. indicating that the new
wetlands park can ~be accessed by turning right on McDowell Blvd. and installation of a
sign on Cypress Drive prohibiting a right turn from the Wetlands Park into Pine View
Way between 4:00 and 6:00 PM on weekdays., thus reducing impacts at Pine View and
Lakeville Highway to less-than-significant levels. Both measures are feasible.
3
S:\water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 2\EII2\final eir\findings\Draft Findings.doc
EX~II~IT
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERA'T'IONS FOR T`HE'. CITY OF
PETALUIVIA WATER RECYCLING FACILITY ANT) RIVER ACCESS
IIVIPROVEIVIENTS PROJECT
The City of Petaluma. has certified the Water Recycling Facility and River Access
Improvements EIR (State Clearinghouse #2001052089), and it has been determined that,
as stated in the EIR, the Project may result in significant and unavoidable impacts with
respect to Impact AG-1, loss of farmland and Impact AG-C1, cumulative loss of
farmland. Mitigation Measure AG-1, Maintain Maximum Acreage of Agricultural
Production, has been considered by the City, as it reduces the loss of farmland by
approximately 70 acres. .Even with this mitigation however, approximately 79 acres of
farmland on Parcel A will be converted for use by the Water Recycling Facility and River
Access Improvements. Because this Mitigation.Measure (a) interferes with the project
objectives, namely the. educational and recreational use of Parcel A for trails and butterfly
habitat; (b) agricultural production on 70 acres is a very small contribution to agriculture
in the region; (c) currently agricultural use of the. property is not for high-value or unique
crops; and (cl) agricultural production so near the Water Recycling Facility could create
conflicts between the two uses, the City determines not to adopt Measure AG-1.
Because. the Water Recycling Facility is surrounded. by the Petaluma River on one side
and agriculture on three sides, and the facilities proposed for Parcel A must be adjacent to
the rest of the. Water Recycling Facility, there is no other parcel which could feasibly
attain the project objectives., without. similar loss of agriculturally productive land. No
further feasible mitigation has been identified and impacts to farmland remain significant.
It was suggested .that the City purchase agricultural land and place it into production.
This mitigation measure was considered but rejected as infeasible, as any land which is
not currently,in production is likely in that condition for a good reason. Public ownership
.and management of .agricultural land does not increase the amount of agriculturally
productive land in the County, as the currently healthy state of the agricultural economy
in Sonoma County places the maximum amount of land. in production without
government subsidies.
Of the five alternatives evaluated in the EIR, all of them. cause the same or greater loss of
farmland,.. except the No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative does not meet
the project objectives, and in fact, creates three significant impacts not caused by the
project. Therefore, the No Project Alternative is not an acceptable means of reducing
impacts to farmland.
Implementation of the Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Project
would result in benefits, including provision of polishing wetlands, improvement in water
quality of water to be discharged or reused for agricultural irrigation, a buffer zone
between the Water Recycling. Facility and private land uses, and provision of a variety of
educational and recreational facilities, such as trails, visitor center, use of the existing
S:\water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 2\EIR\final eir\statement oc - wout mm.doc
farmhouse for public or city uses, visitor parking .lot, educational kiosks, and use of
cropland for habitat/host plants for butterflies
In balancing the Project's benefits against the significant impacts to agriculture, the City
finds that the public benefits of the Project outweigh the need to adopt Mitigation
Measure AG-1, and that the benefits outweigh the unavoidable impacts, and therefore
determines that the'impacts of the Project are acceptable.
S:\waterresources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 2\EIR\final eir\statement oc - wout mm.doc