Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2016-007 N.C.S. 01/04/2016Resolution No. 2016-007 N.C.S. of the City of Petaluma, California CERTIFYING ADDENDUM NO. 5 TO THE WATER RECYCLING FACILITY AND RIVER ACCESS IMPROVEMENT CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 recognizes the importance of reducing reliance on non-renewable energy sources, and encourages the use and development of renewable or nontraditional sources of energy; and WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 recognizes the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and WHEREAS, the construction of a second anaerobic digester and appurtenant facilities, installation of gas scrubbing and compression equipment and a Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) fueling facility, and construction of high strength waste handling facilities (the 13213 Project) will increase the availability of bio -methane at the ECWRF; and WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma proposes to implement the Biomass-to-Biofuel Improvements (13213 Improvements) which would modify the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility to accept high-strength waste from local food and beverage industries and convert it to compressed natural gas (CNG) for use in buses and utility fleets; and WHEREAS, the B2B Improvements are part of the larger Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Project; and WHEREAS, the B2B Improvements implement the original objectives of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project, namely to "develop an economically and ecologically sustainable Water Recycling Facility." WHEREAS, on August 5, 2002, the City Council, by Resolution No. 2002435 N.C.S., certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Project; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2002-136 N.C.S. made certain findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations as required under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project; and WHEREAS, on June 7, 2004, the City Council, by Resolution No. 2004-101 N.C.S., re- certified the Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Project Final Resolution No. 2016-007 N.C.S. Page 1 Environmental Impact Report Addendum, and Adopted Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Adopted Revised Mitigation Monitoring Program; and WHEREAS, on August 1, 2005, the City Council, by Resolution No. 2005-130 N.C.S., certified the Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements EIR 2005 Construction Addendum, Approved Revisions to the Project, and Made Findings of Fact, and Adopted a Revised Mitigation Monitoring Program; and WHEREAS, on April 3, 2006, the City Council, by Resolution No. 2006-057 N.C.S. certified the Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements EIR February 2006 Construction Addendum, approved the project revisions, and adopted findings of fact; and WHEREAS, on May 7, 2007, the City Council, by Resolution No. 2007-080 N.C.S. certified the Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements EIR April 2007 Addendum, approved the revisions to the project, and made findings of fact; and WHEREAS, under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15164, a lead agency may prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR to analyze changes in a project, or in circumstances surrounding a project, where the record indicates that a supplemental or subsequent EIR or negative declaration is not required; and WHEREAS, the Council has considered the 2015 Biomass-to-Biofuel Addendum, attached hereto as Exhibit lA ("Addendum No. 5"), together with the original Certified EIR, attached hereto as Exhibit 1B. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA, that: 1. Findings: Based upon the substantial evidence set forth in the record, the City Council makes the following findings: a. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated by reference. b. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15164(b) and (e), no further environmental review is warranted because: i. no new significant environmental impacts would occur due to the proposed Project modifications; and ii. No substantially more severe significant environmental impacts would occur due to the proposed Project modifications. Resolution No. 2016-007 N.C.S. Paee 2 c. Therefore, there are no conditions warranting further environmental review. d. The Addendum No. 5 represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council, 2. The Council determines that Addendum No. 5 is the appropriate CEQA documentation for the Project as modified; and 3. The Council hereby certifies Addendum No. 5. 4. The documents, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this Resolution is based, are available for review at the City Clerk's office during normal business hours. 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 I ,App roved as to Council of the City of Petaluma at a Regular meeting on the 4th day of January, form: 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Albertson, Barrett, Mayor Glass, Healy, Kearney, Vice Mayor King, Miller Ci"orney Resolution No. 2016-007 N.C.S. Page 3 CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA WATER RECYCLING FACILITY AND RIVER ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2016 ADDENDUM BIOMASS-TO-BIOFUEL IMPROVEMENTS January 4, 2016 Prepared by Resolution No, 2016-007 N.C.S. Page 5 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY.................................................................................................... 1-1 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................................... 2-1 3 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM REVISIONS................................................................. 3-1 4 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS........................................................................................................... 4-1 5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT.......................................................................... 5-1 6 CEQA-REQUIRED SECTIONS............................................................................................................. 6-1 7 PREPARERS............................................................................................................................................7-1 Resolution No. 2016-007 N.C.S. Page 6 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY BACKGROUND The City of Petaluma currently operates the Ellis Creels Water Recycling Facility. An EIR for the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility (titled the Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements EIR — State Clearinghouse #2001052089) was certified by the City of Petaluma in 2002. The City continues to improve its Water Recycling Facility and now proposes to modify the Facility to accept high-strength waste' from local food and beverage industries and convert it to compressed natural gas (CNG) for use in buses and utility fleets. The City has applied to the California Energy Commission for funding assistance for these modifications, which are known as the Biomass-to-Biofuel improvements. This Addendum evaluates the environmental impacts of the Biomass-to-Biofuel improvements at the Water Recycling Facility. Four previous Addenda have been prepared for the Water Recycling Facility EIR. In 2004, the City adopted an Addendum that considered revisions to the site plan evaluated in the 2002 Certified EIR. In 2005 and 2006, the City adopted two Construction Addenda that considered minor revisions to the site plan and re-routing of construction traffic. In 2007, the City adopted an Addendum to increase the capacity of tertiary treatment from 4.0 to 6.7 mgd to match the capacity of the rest of the Facility. This fifth Addendum concludes that the minor revisions being proposed for the Biomass-to- Biofuel improvements do not result in new significant impacts and do not cause substantially more severe significant impacts relative to the impacts previously disclosed in the Water Recycling Facility EIR. Thus, an Addendum is the appropriate level of CEQA analysis and the appropriate method of amending the 2002 Certified EIR, pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15164 of the Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). PUBLIC AND AGENCY COMMENTS This Addendum is available for review at the City Clerk's Office located at City Hall at 11 English Street. The Addendum is tentatively scheduled for consideration at the Petaluma City Council meeting to be held on Monday, January 4, 2016, at 7:00 pm. Written comments should be mailed or emailed: City of Petaluma Ellis Creek water recycling Facility 3890 Cypress Drive Petaluma, CA 94954 lwalker@ci.petaluma.ca.us ' High-strength waste is the liquid waste from food processing industries that exceeds local limits for biological oxygen demand (BOD) and, therefore, cannot be discharged to the sewer system. Resolution No. 2016-007 N.C.S. Page 7 Attention: Leah G. Walker, P.E., Environmental Services Manager ORGANIZATION OF THE ADDENDUM The Addendum is organized in a similar fashion to the 2002 Certified EIR. • This Introduction and Summary Chapter includes Table 1-1, a summary of the potential significant impacts and mitigation measures associated with the approved project and the proposed revisions. • Chapter 2 contains a detailed description of the proposed modifications to the Project Description. • Chapter 3 presents the revisions to the Mitigation Monitoring Program. • Chapter 4 presents the changes to the environmental analysis due to the proposed revisions. • Chapter 5 updates the Alternatives chapter. • Chapter 6 updates the CEQA Issues chapter. • Chapter 7 presents the preparers of this Addendum. APPLICABILITY AND USE OF AN ADDENDUM As directed by CEQA, California Public Resources Code Section 21166, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, when an EIR has been prepared for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared, unless one or more of the following circumstances occur: 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of Resolution No. 2016-007 N.C.S. Page 8 the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. The change in environmental impacts due to proposed changes in the project or changed conditions has been evaluated and measured against the standards set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above to determine whether an Addendum is appropriate or a subsequent EIR is needed. The environmental analysis in Chapter 4 provides the detailed examination of each of these issues. The conclusion is that none of the circumstances which might require a subsequent or supplemental EIR has occurred, and that an Addendum is, therefore, appropriate. This Addendum should be read together with the full text of the 2002 Certified Petaluma Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements EIR and previous Addenda. Even though modifications to the adopted project are minor, the modifications have been subjected to a detailed analytical process consistent with the methodology and thresholds of significance applied in the 2002 Certified EIR. The Addendum has been prepared by a team of professional environmental consultants managed under the direction of the City of Petaluma (see Chapter 7, Preparers). Section 15164 of the Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") provides that an Addendum is the appropriate level of CEQA analysis when the circumstances defined in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a Subsequent EIR do not occur. None of the circumstances that require a Subsequent EIR, such as new significant impacts or significant impacts of a substantially more severe nature, is present. Thus, an Addendum is the appropriate level of CEQA analysis and the appropriate method of amending the 2002 Certified EIR. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS There are no new significant unavoidable environmental impacts as a result of the proposed revisions to the project. The one significant unavoidable impact from the previously approved Project remains: • Impact AG -1: Loss of approximately 149 acres of farmland on Parcels A and B When the project was approved in August of 2002, a statement of overriding considerations was adopted, explaining the City's reasons that the polishing wetlands and public educational and recreational facilities were approved despite their significant impact on farmland. Resolution No. 2016-007 N.C.S. Page 9 IMPACT AND MITIGATION SUMMARY No new significant impacts have been identified as a result of this addendum, and therefore, no new mitigation measures have been developed. Table t provides a summary of the impacts and mitigation measures that were identified in the 2002 Certified EIR as revised in the 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 Addenda. The impacts and mitigation measures are identified in one of three categories: • Significant - Impact is significant before mitigation; some of these significant impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level, but others remain significant after mitigation. • Less than Significant - Impact is not considered significant and no mitigation is required. No Impact - The project has no effect on the resource described in the criterion. Impact 1. Land Use Table 1 Impact and Mitigation Summary Approved Project and Project with Proposed Revisions APPROVED PROJECT 2002 EIR, as revised by 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 Addenda PROJECT WITH PROPOSED REVISIONS 2016 Addendum Mitigation Measure LU -1. Will the project be Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. inconsistent with the land use plan map of an adopted General Plan? LU -2. Will the project be Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. inconsistent with zoning? LU -3. Will the project be an No Impact No Impact No mitigation is necessary, incompatible land use type in the MRZ-2 classification or in a designated quarry area? LU -4. Will the project No Impact No Impact No mitigation is necessary. introduce inappropriate uses in a Community Separator? LU -5. Will the project increase Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. potential for conflict as a result of incompatible land uses? LU -6. Will the project convert Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. non -urban land to urban uses for Project facilities? LU -7. Will the project convert No Impact No Impact No mitigation is necessary. public open space for Project facilities? Resolution No, 2016-007 N.C.S. Page 10 Table 1 Impact and Mitigation Summary Approved Project and Project with Proposed Revisions 2. Agriculture AG -1. Will the project cause APPROVED PROJECT WITH No feasible mitigation loss of farmland? PROJECT PROPOSED available. Impact 2002 EIR, as revised REVISIONS Mitigation Measure Williamson Act contracts to be by 2004, 2005, 2006; 2016 Addendum No mitigation is necessary. canceled? 2007 Addenda LU -8. Will the project result in Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. loss of homes due to construction of facilities? Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. LU -Cl: Will the project have a Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. cumulative potential to disturb Significant Significant No feasible mitigation land uses? available. 2. Agriculture AG -1. Will the project cause Significant Significant No feasible mitigation loss of farmland? available. AG -2. Will the project cause No Impact No Impact No mitigation is necessary. Williamson Act contracts to be Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. canceled? AG -3. Will the project cause Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. damage to adjacent vineyards by increasing glassy -winged Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. sharpshooter populations? AG -Cl. Will the project have Significant Significant No feasible mitigation cumulative impacts to available. agriculture? 3. GeoloLiv. Soils and Seismicity GS -1. Will project facilities be Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. located within an area of unstable slope conditions? GS -2. Will project facilities be Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. subject to ground rupture due to location near a surface trace of an active fault? GS -3. Will project facilities be Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. located in areas with soils and groundwater conditions that are susceptible to liquefaction during an earthquake? GS -4. Will earthquake -induced Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. strong ground shaking damage project facilities? GS -5. Will construction of the Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. project cause off-site water - related erosion? Resolution No, 2016-007 N.C.S. Page 11 Table 1 Impact and Mitigation Summary Approved Project and Project with Proposed Revisions 4. Groundwater GW -1. Will the project degrade APPROVED PROJECT WITH No mitigation is necessary. groundwater quality at existing PROJECT PROPOSED Impact 2002 EIR, as revised REVISIONS Mitigation Measure a public health hazard? by 2004, 2005, 2006, 2016 Addendum No mitigation is necessary. GW -2. Will the project cause 2007 Addenda Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. GS -6. Will project facilities be Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. exposed to damage due to Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. expansive soils? GS -7. Will project facilities be Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. exposed to damage due to No Impact No Impact No mitigation is necessary. construction on corrosive soils? GS -Cl: Will the project have a Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. cumulative potential for Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. geologic or seismic impacts? 4. Groundwater GW -1. Will the project degrade Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. groundwater quality at existing after Mitigation drinking water wells, resulting in a public health hazard? Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. GW -2. Will the project cause Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. groundwater mounding or increase groundwater levels that Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. cause surface discharge in a non - stream environment? GW -3. Will the project lower No Impact No Impact No mitigation is necessary. groundwater levels at existing wells? GW -Cl: Will the project have a Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. potential for cumulative groundwater impacts? 5. Surface Water Quality WQ-1. Will the project Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. discharge cause numeric -based after Mitigation criteria to be exceeded? WQ-2. Will the project cause Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. narrative -based criteria to be after Mitigation exceeded. WQ-3: Will project Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. construction result in a substantial degradation of surface runoff quality? Resolution No. 2016-007 N.C.S. Page 12 H -l. Will the project discharge NEEF.• - Less than Significant Impact and Mitigation Summary Approved Project and Project with Proposed Revisions APPROVED PROJECT WITH PROJECT PROPOSED Impact 2002 EIR, as revised REVISIONS Mitigation Measure by 2004, 2005, 2006, 2016 Addendum Less than Significant 2007 Addenda WQ-C1: Will the project have a Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. cumulative potential to cause Petaluma River? numeric or narrative -based H-3. Will non -discharge Less than Significant Less than Significant criteria to be exceeded? project components cause Less than Significant Less than Significant 6. Hydrology flooding? H -l. Will the project discharge Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. cause flooding anywhere along the Petaluma River? H-2. Will the project discharge Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary, cause streambank erosion in the Petaluma River? H-3. Will non -discharge Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. project components cause Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. flooding? H-4. Will non -discharge Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. project components cause streambank erosion? Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. H -Cl: Will the project have a Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. cumulative potential to cause flooding or erosion? 7. Public Health and Safety PHS -1. Will the project expose Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. the public to chemicals, radionuclides, pathogenic viruses, bacteria, or other disease organisms at concentrations detrimental to human health? PHS -2. Will the project expose Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. workers or the public to hazards from a known hazardous waste site? PHS -3. Will the project Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. increase potential exposure of the public to hazardous materials due to a chemical release? Resolution No. 2016-007 N.C.S. Page 13 Table 1 Impact and Mitigation Summary Approved Project and Project with Proposed Revisions 8. Biological Resources BI0-1. Will the project cause APPROVED PROJECT WITH BI0-1a. Aquatic Species loss of individuals or occupied PROJECT PROPOSED Protection program. Impact 2002 EIR, as revised REVISIONS Mitigation Measure threatened, or rare fish, wildlife by 2004, 2005, 2006, 2016 Addendum Program or plant species? 2007 Addenda PHS -4. Will the project expose Less than Significant . Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. the public to safety hazards after Mitigation after Mitigation Migratory Bird Nest associated with operation of Protection Program. heavy machinery, vehicles, or BI0-2b. Rookery Protection equipment; or creation of Program. accessible excavations Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. (trenches, pits, or borings); or creation of an accessible open body of water? Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. PHS -5. Will the project Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. increase the potential exposure of the public to disease vectors Less than Significant Less than Significant BIO -la. Aquatic Species (i.e., mosquitoes)? after Mitigation after Mitigation Protection Program PHS -C1: Will the project have Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. a cumulative impact on public health and safety? Less than Significant Less than Significant BIO -la: Aquatic Species 8. Biological Resources BI0-1. Will the project cause Less than Significant Less than Significant BI0-1a. Aquatic Species loss of individuals or occupied after Mitigation after Mitigation Protection program. habitat of endangered, BI0-1c. Wildlife Protection threatened, or rare fish, wildlife Program or plant species? BI0-2. Will the project cause Less than Significant Less than Significant BI0-2a. Active Raptor and loss of active raptor nest, after Mitigation after Mitigation Migratory Bird Nest migratory bird nests, or wildlife Protection Program. nursery sites? BI0-2b. Rookery Protection Program. BI0-3. Will the project cause Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. permanent loss of sensitive wildlife habitat? BI0-4. Will the project cause Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. permanent loss of sensitive native plant communities? BI0-5. Will the project Less than Significant Less than Significant BIO -la. Aquatic Species substantially block or disrupt after Mitigation after Mitigation Protection Program major fish or wildlife migration or travel corridors? BI0-6. Will the project cause Less than Significant Less than Significant BIO -la: Aquatic Species permanent loss of aquatic after Mitigation after Mitigation Protection Program habitat (i.e., streams)? Resolution No. 2016-007 N.C.S. Page 14 Table 1 Impact and Mitigation Summary Approved Project and Project with Proposed Revisions 9. Traffic and Circulation TR -1. Will project traffic cause APPROVED PROJECT WITH No mitigation is necessary. congestion along study area PROJECT PROPOSED Impact 2002 EIR, as revised REVISIONS Mitigation Measure TR -2. Will lane closures due to by 2004, 2005, 2006, 2016 Addendum No mitigation is necessary. project construction cause 2007 Addenda 13I0-7. Will the project destroy Less than Significant Less than Significant 13I0-7: Create or Restore wetlands or other waters of the after Mitigation after Mitigation Wetlands and Waters of the U.S.? U.S. 13I0-8. Will the project expose Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. organisms to hazardous levels after Mitigation of toxic or bioaccumulatory Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. substances? 13I0 -C1. Will the project have Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. cumulative impacts to biological resources? Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. 9. Traffic and Circulation TR -1. Will project traffic cause Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. congestion along study area after Mitigation roadways? TR -2. Will lane closures due to Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. project construction cause traffic delays, transit delays, restricted access, increased traffic hazards, and rerouting of traffic, including emergency vehicles? TR -3. Will project construction Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. traffic increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? TR -4. Will project construction Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. traffic damage public or private roadbeds? TR -5. Will there be inadequate Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. parking for project activities? TR -6. Will project construction Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. activities result in heavy vehicles on roadways not designated or suitable as truck routes? TR -C1: Will there be traffic Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. congestion along study area roadways during the cumulative conditions? Resolution No. 2016-007 N.C.S. Page 15 Table 1 Impact and Mitigation Summary Approved Project and Project with Proposed Revisions APPROVED PROJECT WITH PROJECT PROPOSED Impact 2002 EIR, as revised REVISIONS Mitigation Measure by 2004, 2005, 2006, 2016 Addendum 2007 Addenda 10. Air Quality AQ -1. Will construction of the Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. Project generate emissions that expose people to high levels of dust and equipment exhaust? Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. AQ -2. Will project emissions Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. cumulatively exceed allowable limits? Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. AQ -3. Will the project expose Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. sensitive receptors to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants? Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. AQ -4. Will project violate or Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. contribute to violation of ambient air quality standard? AQ -5. Will the project cause Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. potential odors? AQ -C1: Will the project have Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. the potential to have a cumulative impact to air quality? 11. Noise N-1: Will construction of the Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. Project expose the public to high noise levels? N-2. Will construction of the Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. Project cause high noise levels from construction traffic? N-3: Will operation and Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. maintenance of the project expose the public to high noise levels? N -C1: Will the project have a Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. cumulative potential to disturb noise -sensitive receptors during or after construction? Resolution No. 2016-007 N.C.S. Page 16 Table 1 Impact and Mitigation Summary Approved Project and Project with Proposed Revisions Impact 12. Cultural Resources APPROVED PROJECT 2002 EIR, as revised by 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 Addenda PROJECT WITH PROPOSED REVISIONS 2016 Addendum Mitigation Measure CR -1. Will the project disturb Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. known, potentially -eligible National or California Register properties, including archaeological, historical, architectural, and Native American/ traditional heritage No impact No impact No mitigation is necessary. resources? CR -2. Will the project disturb Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. unknown archaeological resources? CR -C1: Will the project have a Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. cumulative potential to disturb Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. historical or cultural resources? 13. Visual Resources VR -1. Will the project be No impact No impact No mitigation is necessary. inconsistent with the Sonoma County Open Space Element regarding Community Separators seen from public viewpoints? VR -2. Will the project be No impact No impact No mitigation is necessary. inconsistent with the Sonoma County Open Space Element regarding Scenic Landscape Units seen from public viewpoints? VR -3. Will the project be Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. inconsistent with the Sonoma County Open Space Element regarding Scenic Corridors? VR -4. Will the project be Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. inconsistent with minimum building setbacks for structures along Sonoma County designated scenic corridors? Resolution No. 2016-007 N.C.S. Page 17 Table 1 Impact and Mitigation Summary Approved Project and Project with Proposed Revisions 14. Public Services and Utilities PS -1. Will the project increase APPROVED PROJECT WITH No mitigation is necessary. demand for police, fire, park PROJECT PROPOSED Impact 2002 EIR, as revised REVISIONS Mitigation Measure sewage treatment and disposal by 2004, 2005, 2006, 2016 Addendum or solid waste removal to such a 2007 Addenda VR -5. Will the project cause an Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. adverse effect on foreground or middle -ground views from a No Impact No Impact No mitigation is necessary. high volume travelway, recreation use area, or other public use area? VR -6. Will the project cause an Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. adverse effect on foreground views from one or more private Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. residences VR -7. Will the project create a Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. new light source? VR -C1: Will the project have a Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. cumulative potential to disturb open space or visual resources? 14. Public Services and Utilities PS -1. Will the project increase Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. demand for police, fire, park and recreation facilities, water, sewage treatment and disposal or solid waste removal to such a degree that accepted service standards are not maintained? PS -2. Will project construction No Impact No Impact No mitigation is necessary. disrupt police, fire, schools, parks and recreation facilities to such a degree that accepted service standards are not maintained? PS -Cl: Will the project have a Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. cumulative potential to impact public services and utilities? Resolution No. 2016-007 N.C.S. Page 18 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION LOCATION The proposed modifications to the Project are located entirely on the existing site of the Ellis Creels Water Recycling Facility. The Water Recycling Facility is located in eastern Petaluma between Lakeville Highway and the Petaluma River. PROPOSED PROJECT The Biomass-to-Biofuel (13213) improvements would allow production of biomethane from locally -produced food processing waste products and convert them to a renewable biofuel to power buses and other utility vehicle fleets. The improvements would install an anaerobic digester equipped with mixing and heating systems to allow co -digestion of the food processing waste with the existing wastewater solids. The improvements would eliminate the long hauls required for disposal of most of the food processing waste from local food and beverage industries (e.g., beer, dairy, and poultry processing) to the nearest processing facility over 45 miles away. The biofuel produced would be scrubbed, compressed, and dispensed via a new compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling station at the Water Recycling Facility. The 13213 improvements implement the original objectives of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project, namely to "develop an economically and ecologically sustainable Water Recycling Facility to accommodate... treatment of 6.7 mgd during average dry weather flow". The City is proposing these improvements to maximize the production of energy from the wastewater treatment processes, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and support the local food and beverage production industry and associated employment base. The 13213 improvements would implement Petaluma's commitment to greenhouse gas reduction by producing a very low -carbon fuel2 for local use, by decreasing trucking of food processing waste biomass out of the community, and by reducing emissions at the Water Recycling Facility. The proposed improvements would not increase the capacity of the Water Recycling Facility beyond that identified in the 2002 Certified EIR. The 13213 improvements require construction of three types of improvements at the Water Recycling Facility: 1) food processing or high-strength waste facilities; 2) upgrades to the solids treatment processes, including conversion of biomethane to CNG; and 3) a CNG fueling station. These improvements are shown in Figure 1 and explained in more detail below. All improvements related to 1 and 2 above would occur within the existing paved area labeled as "Treatment Upgrades." 2 The carbon intensity of a fuel is associated with the lifecycle of transportation fuels, including the emissions associated with producing, transporting, distributing, and using the fuel. Fuels with a low carbon intensity reduce greenhouse gas emissions because of the lower emissions that result from the fuel's production, distribution, etc. A fuel with a low carbon intensity rating is said to be a "low -carbon" fuel. Resolution No. 2016-007 N.C.S. Page 19 Food Processing or High-strength Waste Facilities The existing acid -phase digesters would be modified and repurposed for receipt and blending of high strength waste with wastewater solids. From the repurposed digesters, the high- strength waste would be conveyed to and split between two anaerobic digesters, one existing and one new. The digestion upgrades are described in the following section. All construction staging would take place on existing paved areas. Upgrades to the Solids Treatment Processes A new strain press facility would be located on existing asphalt. The existing thickening system would also be expanded with a second gravity belt thickener and a third pump to be located inside an existing structure in space set aside for redundant equipment when the Water Recycling Facility was originally designed. A second anaerobic digester would be constructed to treat the additional volumes as a result of the high-strength waste stream. The digester would be approximately 60 feet in diameter and 40 feet tall. It would be located on existing pavement in a location that was set aside for a second digester when the Water Recycling Facility was initially designed and constructed. To support the second digester and the different type of waste stream, new heating and mixing equipment systems would be installed on a new equipment pad to be located on existing pavement. The additional digester capacity would result in additional biomethane and additional solids production. Some minor improvements to the existing anaerobic digester would also be completed. The sludge heating pump will be relocated from the existing equipment area to a new sludge heating pump pad. This pad will be located on existing pavement. The solids remaining after the anaerobic digestion process is complete would be conveyed to the screw press, where the final dewatering would take place. A second screw press would be added in a new building to be located on existing asphalt. The dewatered solids would be conveyed to truck trailers via new conveyors. The new conveyance equipment would be located inside an existing building. A new truck scale would be added adjacent to the existing building. The other byproduct of the anaerobic digestion process is biomethane gas. The gas would be scrubbed using new equipment to be located in a small structure on existing pavement. The scrubbing treats the gas to remove impurities and meet requirements for vehicle fueling. The scrubbed gas would then be conveyed via a new pipeline to the proposed compression and fueling station. The pipeline would be approximately 2,000 to 2,200 feet long and buried in the shoulder of the existing Water Recycling Facility roadway. The trench would be shallow (approximately 4 feet deep or less) and 1 to 2 feet in width. All construction staging would take place on existing paved areas. Resolution No. 2016-007 N.C.S. Page 20 CNG Fueling Station A new 20,000 square -foot fueling station would be built across from the Administration Building near the entrance road to the Water Recycling Facility. The fueling station would include an equipment area, with dimensions of approximately 35 feet by 40 feet, for a compressor, inlet gas dryer, and fuel storage vessels. The tallest part of the equipment would be the fuel storage vessels at approximately 10 feet high. Because it is a gas, CNG storage would occur in approximately three small tube-like vessels, rather than tanks, and does not require much space. The equipment area would be fenced with a 6 -foot high chain link fence. The fueling station would include two 15 -foot area lights and two 8 -foot lights at the dispensing pumps. Similar to the existing lighting fixtures at the Water Recycling Facility, the additional lights at the CNG fueling station would be sharp cut-off fixtures which comply with the City's standards. The existing gate across the Water Recycling Facility entrance road would be moved to the east so that the fueling station could be available to vehicles 24 hours a day, without allowing entry to the treatment area of the Water Recycling Facility. Construction staging for the fueling station would temporarily disturb an additional approximately 13,000 to 15,000 square feet. The location for the fueling station was used for staging during the initial construction at the Water Recycling Facility, and the area is currently farmed for hay production. Alternatively, the City may decide to conduct fueling of buses and trucks by loading a fuel truck with CNG at the Water Recycling Facility and driving it to the location of the buses and/or trucks to be fueled. Construction Traffic Construction of the proposed improvements would take place over several years. The maximum number of construction employees on the site at one time is estimated to be 35. Up to five deliveries per day could occur during construction. All major grading on the site was completed during the original construction of the Water Recycling Facility, so no hauling of soil on or off the site would be required. Therefore, construction traffic is estimated to be, at maximum, 40 round trips or 80 one-way trips per day. Construction Schedule California Energy Commission funding is expected to be received in 2016, and the improvements would be constructed in a phased manner over the next several years, completing by 2022 at the latest. Operation The existing anaerobic digester currently generates biomethane, a portion of which is used as fuel for the boiler and to heat the anaerobic digester. The remainder is burned via a digester gas flare. The B2B improvements would reduce the need for the digester gas flare and, at full capacity, would eliminate the need for flaring. Resolution No. 2016-007 N.C.S. Page 21 The B213 improvements would accommodate an increase in biomass inputs from food processing waste of up to 790,000 gallons per month. Together with processing of the solids from the rest of the Water Recycling Facility, the B2B improvements would have the capability to produce up to 150,000 gasoline -gallon -equivalents (GGE) of CNG per year. It is expected that it would take several years for biomass inputs from local industries to reach the full capacity of the proposed improvements. Therefore, the improvements may be constructed in phases. At full capacity, the 150,000 GGE of CNG would be sufficient to fuel up to 8 buses and 15 waste collection vehicles. Because the Project would allow the Water Recycling Facility to accept 790,000 gallons per month in additional semi-liquid waste feedstock, the Project would produce an additional 0.026 mgd of recycled water (Walker personal communication, November 2015). During the summer, this additional discharge volume would likely be sent to agricultural or urban reuse customers. During the winter, the additional discharge volume would likely be discharged to the Petaluma River. The additional inputs of up to 830,000 gallons per month from food processing industries would also produce an additional approximately 9,000 wet tons of biosolids (Walker personal communication, November 2015). The City currently has an agreement with Total Waste Systems to haul off and dispose of the biosolids generated at the Water Recycling Facility. At this time, the biosolids are hauled to the Hay Road Landfill in Vacaville where they are used for alternative daily cover and to build landfill cells. The City would prepare a new or amended agreement for the additional waste hauling when operation of the B2B improvements begin. Approximately two to three additional employees would be needed to operate and maintain the Biomass-to-Biofuel improvements. Increased traffic from trucking of food processing wastes to the Water Recycling Facility would be approximately 10 round trip truck trips per day at maximum 3. Increased traffic from the fueling station would be approximately 27 round trip truck or bus trips per day at maximum. Increased traffic from employee trips would be approximately two to three round trips a day. Increased biosolids hauling would be approximately one to two round trips a day. In total, at maximum capacity, approximately 42 new round trips or 84 one-way trips a day would be added to local roadways accessing the Water Recycling Facility site. If the City opts to use a CNG fuel truck instead of constructing a fueling station at the Water Recycling Facility, operational traffic would be less. ENTITLEMENTS, PERMITS, AND APPROVALS The following City of Petaluma entitlements and approvals may be required for the Project: • Building Permit 3 Each of the participating food processors currently trucks their waste to facilities for disposal, so these truck trips are not new trips within the region. However, there may be new trips for certain roadways, such as Cypress Drive, the access road to the Water Recycling Facility. Resolution No. 2016-007 N.C.S. Page 22 • Grading Permit • Review of the CNG fueling station site plan may be required for both consistency with the PCD zoning standards and for Design Review. This review would occur when a more definitive site plan has been prepared. • Hazardous Materials Business Plan • New or revised agreement for biosolids hauling and disposal. The following agency permits and approvals may be required for the Project: • Authority to Construct permit from the BAAQMD. • Amend existing Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Permit to Operate. Resolution No. 2016-007 N.C.S. Page 23 Resolution No. 2016-007 N.C.S. N a)C LJ C a) •V += Q co V E m W c L U c3) E O as W > C E U a) a) _0 In EL aa) E Q (0 o U (0 E U w > N m 11 Page 24 3 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM REVISIONS The following Mitigation Measure from the 2002 Certified EIR is updated to conform to existing policies of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act: Mitigation Measure 13I0-7. Create or Restore Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. The City shall obtain credits at an approved Wetlands Mitigation Bank or prepare a Conceptual Wetlands Mitigation and Monitoring Plan that requires revegetation of temporary impacts to wetlands and compensatory creation of wetlands for permanent impacts. If the Plan option is selected, it shall include a planting .palette, a conceptual planting plan, performance criteria, and procedures for maintenance and monitoring. Mitigation will be en site and ,Y. 1„rrl if possible-. Compensatory mitigation for permanent impacts shall be provided at a ratio of 1:1, that is 1 acre of wetlands habitat created for every acre filled, or at the ratio prescribed by the Corps of Engineers or Regional Water Quality Control Board. Resolution No. 2016-007 N.C.S. Page 25 4 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This Chapter consists of 14 sections, each of which presents the analysis of the proposed revisions to the Project within a particular environmental discipline. The analysis refers back to the original evaluation of impacts contained in the 2002 Certified EIR and 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 Addenda and identifies the change in impacts, if any, from the previously approved Project. If there are no changes to the previous impact evaluation, an explanation for this conclusion is provided. For those sections where a change in impacts is identified, the evaluation criteria taken directly from the 2002 Certified EIR are also provided. For ease of reference, the evaluation criteria table numbers remain the same as the numbering used in the 2002 Certified EIR. Most of the information presented in the 2002 Certified EIR has not changed and is not repeated here. Please refer to the 2002 Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements EIR and subsequent Addenda for descriptions of setting, discussion of methodology, and the complete identification and discussion of impacts. 4.1 LAND USE The proposed changes to the Project occur completely in the interior of the Water Recycling Facility site and do not require revisions to the evaluation of Land Use. The proposed treatment upgrades would be located approximately 800 feet west of Lakeville Highway adjacent to other similar treatment facilities and would be consistent with the prescribed uses on the property as described in the Planned Community Development (PCD) zoning standards for the Water Recycling Facility. The proposed fueling station would be located approximately 225 feet from Lakeville Highway, and the fuel dispensers would be approximately 40 feet from the parking lot for the Kaiser Permanent Medical Offices. The fueling station would also be consistent with the prescribed uses on the property as described in the PCD zoning standards. The City proposes to evaluate the consistency of the fueling station design with the PCD zoning standards related to the northeast portion of the Water Recycling Facility property, at the time that a more definitive design has been developed. Minor changes may be made to the design of the fueling station at that time. The proposed 13213 improvements would not cause new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2002 Certified EIR. 4.2 AGRICULTURE The proposed changes to the Project do not require revisions to the evaluation of Agriculture. The 2002 Certified EIR identified a significant and unavoidable loss of agricultural land due to construction of the Water Recycling Facility, including all 149 acres of the site. Since completion of construction at the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility, the City has leased some land on the site to a local farmer for hay production, including land at the northeast corner of the site where the CNG fueling station is proposed. The CNG fueling station would be about a half -acre in size, but due to its location and configuration, it may prevent farming on several acres. Because the original EIR identified the loss of 100 percent of the farmland on the site, the impact of the CNG fueling station on agricultural land would be the same as that identified in the 2002 Certified EIR. The impact was identified as significant and unavoidable. No change to the impacts on Resolution No. 2016-007 N.C.S. Page 26 agricultural resources relative to Williamson Act land and glassy -winged sharpshooter populations would occur due to the 13213 improvements. Project Measure PD -2, Purchase Locally Grown or Inspected Plants, would continue to be implemented, as needed. The Project modifications would not result in new significant impacts. The proposed 13213 improvements would not cause new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the Certified EIR. 4.3 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY The proposed changes to the Project do not require revisions to the evaluation of Geology, Soils and Seismicity. The entire site was evaluated in the original EIR, and the modifications will not result in any new impacts as the type of facilities, location, and geologic setting remain the same. The 13213 improvements would not be deeper than the original Water Recycling Facility improvements, and therefore would not create ' the potential for additional or different geologic hazards. Project Measures included in the Project to address liquefaction, ground shaking, and expansive and corrosive soils will still be applicable. The proposed 13213 improvements would not cause new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the Certified EIR. 4.4 GROUNDWATER The proposed changes to the Project do not require revisions to the evaluation of Groundwater. The treatment facilities at the Water Recycling Facility were found to have less -than -significant impacts to groundwater because they are in completely contained structures. Similarly, the proposed Biomass-to-Biofuel improvements would be in completely contained structures, and would not interact with groundwater. In particular, the CNG storage tank at the CNG fueling station would be above -ground and would not affect groundwater. Measures included in the Project to address groundwater quality are still applicable. The proposed 13213 improvements would not cause new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the Certified EIR. 4.5 SURFACE WATER QUALITY The proposed modifications to the Project do not require revisions to the evaluation of Surface Water Quality. The 13213 improvements would create approximately 26,000 gallons of new recycled water which would likely be discharged during the winter discharge season and reused during the summer non -discharge season. The quantity of additional water would be small (0.26 mgd compared to the Water Recycling Facility's 2015 ADWF of 4.8 mgd and the permitted ADWF of 6.7 mgd) and would not affect the water quality of effluent to be discharged or recycled water to be reused (Walker personal communication, November 2015). The City's discharges and recycled water reuse would continue to meet standards set by federal, state, and regional agencies. Similar to the original Project, construction activities for the 13213 improvements have the potential to cause discharge of pollutants to waterways through erosion and accidental spills. In addition, runoff from new impervious surfaces for the CNG fueling station has the potential of contributing contaminants to stormwater runoff entering the Petaluma River. Measure PD -9, Construction Erosion and Spill Control Measures, adopted as part of this Project, requires the City Resolution No. 2016-007 N.C.S. Page 27 to develop and implement measures designed to prevent significant construction and operational impacts to water quality. Measures included in the Project to address potential exceedance of narrative- or numeric -based criteria from project discharge or potential degradation of surface water quality would still be applicable. The proposed B2B improvements would not cause new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the Certified EIR. 4.6 HYDROLOGY The proposed changes to the Project Description do not require revisions to the evaluation of Hydrology. The changes to the Project would result in a small increase in the volume of discharge to the Petaluma River. The peak day discharge rate for the Water Recycling Facility at full capacity is estimated to be 16.0 mgd. Therefore, project revisions could cause an approximately 0.2 percent increase in discharge volume if they occurred .during a storm during a peak day discharge. Such a small increase would not affect downstream flooding significantly and would not be a substantially greater impact than identified in the Certified EIR and subsequent addenda. The CNG fueling station would add approximately 0.46 acre of impervious surfaces to site, and the solids treatment improvements would be located on existing impervious surfaces. Overall, impervious area at the project site would increase by 0.3 percent. This minor increase is not a substantially greater impact than identified in the Certified EIR and subsequent addenda. The CNG fueling station would be located at an elevation of approximately 16 feet (NVGD 1929), which is above the 100 -year flood elevation of 7 feet (NVGD 1929). The proposed new solids treatment facilities would be located at an elevation of approximately 15 to 17 (NVGD 1929). Therefore, the B2B improvements would not be located in the 100 -year flood plain and would not displace floodwaters from a 100 -year flood such that increased downstream flooding would result. The site is not a valuable recharge area, and no domestic potable water wells are located downgradient of the improvements. Measures included in the Project to address potential flooding or streambank erosion would still be applicable. The proposed B2B improvements would not cause new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the Certified EIR. 4.7 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY The proposed changes to the Project do not require revisions to the evaluation of Public Health and Safety. Both the proposed treatment facilities and the CNG fueling station would be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with relevant local, state, and federal regulations, in a manner similar to that for the hazardous chemicals used at the existing Water Recycling Facility. The Hazardous Materials Business Plan for the Water Recycling Facility may need to be updated. Measures included in the Project to address potential exposure of the public or workers to hazardous materials, chemicals or disease vectors (i.e., mosquitoes) would still be applicable. The proposed B2B improvements would not cause new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the Certified EIR. Resolution No. 2016-007 N.C.S. Page 28 4.8 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The proposed changes to the Project do not require revisions to the evaluation of Biological Resources. The solids treatment facilities would be installed adjacent to the existing solids treatment processes in the eastern part of the site on existing asphalt. A CNG pipeline from the solids treatment facilities to the CNG fueling station would be buried in the existing Water Recycling Facility access road or the road shoulder. The CNG fueling station would be located on uplands in the northeast portion of the property. The proposed facilities would not affect any jurisdictional wetlands and would not be located within the buffer zones of any sensitive resources. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was accessed on July 21, 2015 for the Water Recycling Facility and nearby areas. The special -status species potentially present on the project site were compared to the special -status species evaluated in the Certified EIR and subsequent addenda. No new special -status species were identified by the CNDDB and therefore, no new evaluation of special -status species is required for the 13213 improvements. Project modifications would not cause additional impacts to wetlands or waters, riparian areas, sensitive habitat, trees, migration corridors or streams beyond those that were identified in the 2002 Certified EIR and subsequent addenda. Furthermore, all affected areas of the Facility are in disturbed areas. These new and modified project components would abide by the same restrictions and be subject to the same project measures and mitigation measures as the existing Water Recycling Facility. The proposed B2B improvements would not cause new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the Certified EIR. 4.9 TRANSPORTATION Increased operational traffic would result from two to three additional employees, one to two additional biosolids trucks per day, and up to 37 round trips per day for trucks delivering high strength waste and buses and trucks coming to the CNG fueling station. Many of these trips already occur on local roadways, but would be new trips on roadways approaching the Water Recycling Facility such as South McDowell Boulevard and Cypress Drive. Construction traffic would increase traffic on South McDowell Boulevard by approximately 1 percent on peak construction days. Measures included in the Project to address congestion or lane closures would still be applicable. The proposed 13213 improvements would not cause new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the Certified EIR. 4.10 AIR QUALITY The changes to the Project do not require revisions to the evaluation of Air Quality. The proposed treatment upgrades would require a Authority to Construct from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and would require a modification to the City's existing Permit to Operate at the Water Recycling Facility. If needed to meet permit requirements, emissions controls would be added to the new facilities. The proposed addition of a pump station would not increase air emissions because it would be electric powered. The CNG fueling facility would also be subject to standard regulations of the state Air Resources Board and BAAQMD. Therefore, no new significant air emissions, either for criteria pollutants or toxics, would occur. Resolution No. 2016-007 N.C.S. Page 29 The 13213 improvements would substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions in three ways: replacement of diesel fuel with CNG, reduction of vehicle miles traveled by waste haulers, and elimination of flaring of methane at the Water Recycling Facility. At build -out, greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by 2,450 metric tons of CO2e per year, due to replacement of diesel fuel with biomethane fuel. In addition to the reduction from fuel replacement, the project would result in 87% fewer vehicle -miles -traveled by the heavy duty diesel haul trucks transporting the feedstock outside of Petaluma and Sonoma County. Three of the four Petaluma businesses that will participate in this Project currently haul their liquid feed stock and food waste from 40 to 45 miles to the East Bay (exact mileage varies depending on location of business). Petaluma Creamery takes waste 8 miles outside of Petaluma. Overall, the trucks from all four businesses travel 13,230 miles per month to dispose of waste in the East Bay and Sonoma County. The 13213 Project would be conveniently located between 2 and 6 miles from the respective businesses. Once the 13213 Project is up and running, the travel distance would be reduced to 1,760 miles per month, resulting in a reduction of 190 metric tons of CO2e. In addition, the need for the digester flare will be eliminated resulting in a reduction of 620 metric tons of CO2 per year. The total greenhouse gas savings from implementation of the Project would be 3,260 metric tons per year. Measures included in the Project to address air quality will still be applicable. The proposed 13213 improvements would not cause new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the Certified EIR. 4.11 NOISE The changes to the Project do not require revisions to the evaluation of Noise. Construction noise would be substantially less than the noise levels identified in the Certified EIR for the construction of the Water Recycling Facility. Additional construction traffic (at maximum approximately 40 round trips per day, 35 of which would be from construction worker vehicles) would also be much less than the construction traffic for the original construction of the facility. Operational noise from the proposed treatment upgrades would be similar to the existing noise levels at the Water Recycling Facility. Any noise generated during operation, even at night, would be muffled and not audible from surrounding sensitive receptors such as residences on the opposite side of Lakeville Highway which are at a distance of approximately 1,100 feet. Fueling of buses and trucks at the CNG fueling station would tend to occur in the evening when the Kaiser Permanente Medical Offices and other Business Park uses typically closed, and would not substantially increase noise levels for sensitive receptors. Increased operational traffic would result from two to three additional employees, one to two additional biosolids trucks per day, and up to 37 round trips per day for trucks delivering high strength waste and buses and trucks coming to the CNG fueling station. Many of these trips already occur on local roadways, but would be new trips to roadways such as South McDowell Boulevard and Cypress Drive. Construction traffic would increase traffic on South McDowell Boulevard by approximately 1 percent. Noise from such an increase would be so small that adjacent businesses would not be affected. The Measures included in the Project to address high noise levels during construction and operation would still be applicable. The proposed 13213 improvements would not cause new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the Certified EIR. Resolution No. 2016-007 N.C.S. Page 30 4.12 CULTURAL RESOURCES The proposed changes to the Project do not require revisions to the evaluation of Cultural Resources. The entire site was evaluated in the original EIR, and the proposed modifications would not result in any new impacts as the type of facilities and location remain the same. Measures included in the Project to address unknown cultural resources would still be applicable. The proposed B2B improvements would not cause new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the Certified EIR. 4.13 VISUAL RESOURCES The proposed changes to the Project do not require revisions to the evaluation of Visual Resources. The upgrades to the treatment processes would be located approximately 800 feet west of Lakeville Highway and would not be visible to residences due to intervening buildings and landscaping. Some of the upgrades may be barely visible from parking areas at the Business Park from a distance of approximately 1,400 feet. Many of the proposed treatment facilities would be inside existing buildings, while the other treatment upgrades would be located adjacent to existing improvements which are of similar height, mass, and color. The pipelines would be buried and therefore, not visible. The CNG fueling station dispensers would be approximately 225 feet from Lakeville Highway and 40 feet from the parking areas at Kaiser Permanente Medical Offices and Business Park. The fueling station improvements consist of a fence, CNG storage tanks that would be approximately 10 feet high, and two 15 -foot area lights and two 8 -foot high lights at the dispensing pumps. The proposed treatment upgrades would be located far enough away from sensitive receptors that no view obstruction or significant degradation of visual quality would occur. The proposed CNG fueling station would be set back from Lakeville Highway further than the Business Park buildings, but less than the Water Recycling Facility Administration Building. Similar to the requirements in the original EIR, the CNG fueling station would be subject to Project Measure PD -21, Landscaping Design which requires that landscaping be provided to screen views from northwest -bound Lakeville Highway and residents east of the highway. Landscape materials would be mature and fast-growing trees. Therefore, no new significant visual impacts would occur resulting from view obstruction or degradation of visual quality. Similar to the lighting fixtures evaluated in the original EIR, the additional luminaries at the CNG fueling station would be subject to Project Measure PD -22, Lighting Design that would reduce lighting impacts to less -than -significant levels. The luminaries would have sharp cut-off fixtures which, by design, eliminate glare and result in virtually no detectable light on adjacent properties. Therefore, the lights would not pose a glare hazard to traffic on SR 116 or in the Kaiser Permanente Medical Offices or elsewhere in the Business Park. These minor changes to the lighting would not substantially increase the lighting impacts identified in the original EIR. Measures included in the Project to address visual resources will still be applicable. The proposed B2B improvements would not cause new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the Certified EIR. Resolution No. 2016-007 N.C.S. Page 31 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES The proposed changes to the Project do not require revisions to the evaluation of Public Services and Utilities. The modifications will not change the demand for public services nor the potential disruption of emergency services that was analyzed in the Certified EIR. Emergency vehicles will still be able to access the site from two locations: from Cypress Drive and directly from Lakeville Highway via a gravel road. Measures included in the Project to address public services and utilities will still be applicable. The proposed 132B improvements would not cause new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the Certified EIR. Resolution No. 2016-007 N.C.S. Page 32 5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed changes to the Project are minor and would not affect the relative comparison of alternatives presented in the Certified EIR. Nor do they require the consideration of new or revised alternatives, because environmental impacts are not substantially greater than previously reported, and there are no new significant effects. Resolution No. 2016-007 N.C.S. Page 33 6 CEQA-REQUIRED SECTIONS GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT The potential for growth inducement would not increase due to the proposed 13213 improvements because they do not increase the capacity of the Water Recycling Facilities beyond what was evaluated in the 2002 Certified EIR and 2007 Addendum (6.7 ADWF). SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS There are no new significant unavoidable environmental impacts as a result of the proposed revisions. The one significant unavoidable impact from the approved Project remains: • Impact AG -1: Loss of approximately 149 acres of farmland on Parcels A and B When the project was approved in August of 2002, a statement of overriding considerations was adopted, explaining the City's reasons that the polishing wetlands and public educational and recreational facilities were approved despite their significant impact on farmland. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE The 2002 Certified EIR identified Environmentally Superior Alternatives both as Alternative 4, Hopper Street, and Extended Aeration, because they would have similar levels of environmental impacts and therefore both qualify as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. However, since approval of the project in August 2002, the Hopper Street site has been reduced in size due to approval of a homeless shelter on the site, and is no longer large enough to accommodate the project. Therefore, the Environmentally Superior Alternative was limited to the preferred alternative and proposed project, Extended Aeration, in the April 2004 Addendum. The impacts of the proposed project modifications are minor and do not affect the relative comparison of alternatives. Therefore, the proposed project, Extended Aeration, continues to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Resolution No. 2016-007 N.C.S. Page 34 PREPARERS LEAD AGENCY The City of Petaluma is the lead agency under CEQA for the preparation of the Petaluma Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements EIR 2016 Addendum. Staff Member Role Dan St. John, F. ASCE Director, Petaluma Department of Public Works and Utilities Leah Godsey Walker, P.E. Environmental Services Manager, Department of Petaluma Public Works and Utilities DOCUMENT PREPARATION GHD Staff Member Role Kristine Gaspar Quality Assurance Pat Collins Project Planner ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE Carollo Engineers Staff Member Role Doug Wing, P.E. Project Manager, Engineering Christine Gharagozian, P.E. Project Engineer Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Staff Member Role Dawn Taffler, P.E. Project Manager Mike Joyce, P.E. Project Engineer Ganesh Rajagopalan, P.E. Project Engineer Resolution No. 2016-007 N.C.S. Page 35