Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2016-089 N.C.S. 06/06/2016Resolution No. 2016 -089 N.C.S. of the City of Petaluma, California RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE WATER RECYCLING FACILITY AND RIVER ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT BRIDGE RELOCATION ADDENDUM, APPROVING THE PROJECT, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility ( ECWRF) site is bisected by Ellis Creek, with the main facility and administration offices on the northwest side of the creek and the oxidation ponds and ancillary facilities on the southeast side; and WHEREAS, the 2002 Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Environmental Impact Report and Approved Project included a bridge over Ellis Creek; and WHEREAS, the original bridge was not carried forward in subsequent design plans and was never built; and WHEREAS, operations and maintenance staff must leave the ECWRF and travel on Lakeville Highway to access the part of the facility southeast of Ellis Creek multiple times a day; and WHEREAS, a bridge across Ellis Creek will increase efficiency of operations and maintenance staff at the ECWRF and reduce the risk of highway accidents; and WHEREAS, the new bridge location will connect both facilities directly; and WHEREAS, construction of the bridge will reduce traffic on Lakeville Highway during construction of new facilities as well as under normal operation; and WHEREAS, on August 5, 2002, the City Council, by Resolution No. 2002 -135 N.C.S., certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Project; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 20 02-13 6 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, 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 Bridge Relocation Addendum, attached hereto as Exhibit 1A, together with the original Certified EIR, attached hereto as Exhibit 1C, both of which are hereby made a part of this resolution; and WHEREAS, there is sufficient funding for the project in Wastewater Enterprise funds. Resolution No. 2016 -089 N.C.S. Page 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Petaluma, that: 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. c. Therefore, there are no conditions warranting further environmental review. d. The Bridge Relocation Addendum represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. 2. The City Council determines that the Bridge Relocation Addendum is the appropriate CEQA documentation for the Project as modified; and 3. The City Council hereby certifies the Bridge Relocation Addendum; and 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; and 5. The City Council hereby approves the bridge as described in the Bridge Relocation Addendum to the Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements EIR; and 6. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program attached as Exhibit 1B and hereby made a part of this resolution; and 7. The City Council directs staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. 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 meeting on the 6`h day of June, 2016, form: by the following vote: AYES: Albertson, Barrett, Mayor Glass, Healy, Kearney, Vice Mayor King, Miller NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Attorney Resolution No. 2016 -089 N.C.S. Page 2 Notice of Determination To: 91 Office of Planning and Research U.S. Mail Street Address: P,O, Box 3044 1400 Tenth St., Rm 'I 13 Sacramento, CA 95812 -3044 Sacramento, CA 90814 Prom: Public Agency: City_ of Petaluma Address: 3890 Cypress Drive Petaluma, CA 94954 Contact:leah Walker Phone, 707478-4583 Exhibit 1 A Appendix D M County Cleric County of: Sonorna Lead Agency (if different from above): Address: 2300 County Center Drive, Suite 13177 Same Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Address: _ Contact: SUBJECT. Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of file Public Resources Corte, State Clearinghouse Number (if submitted to State Clearinghouse): 2001052089 Project Titlo: Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvement EIR Bridge Relocation Addendum Project Applicant: City of Petaluma Project Location (include county):4000 block of Lakeville Highway, Petaluma, Sonoma County Project Description: The approved Project included a bridge over Ellis Creek along the northeast border of the site adjacent to Lakeville Highway. The bridge however, was not carried forward in subsequent plans for the site and was never built. The City now proposes to build the bridge, but at a different location Ilion that analyzed in tho Wator Rooyoling Facility >--IR. This minor change to the original Project is evaluated in this Bridge Relocation Addendum. This is to advise that the City of Petaluma has approved the above (XM Lead Agency or [J Responsible Agency) described project on March 7th , 2016 and has made the following determinations regarding the above (date) described project. 1. The project [C] will © will not] have a significant effect on the environment. 2, 0 An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. ❑ A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures [© were [I were not] made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A mitigation reporting or monitoring plan [ X1 was Q was not] adopted for this project. 5. A statement of Overriding Considerations [❑ was d was not] adopted for this project. 6. Findings [© were M were not] made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that the final EIR with comments and responses and record of project approval, or the negative Declaration, is available to the General Public at: Petaluma City [tall, City Clerks Office, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 Signature (Public Agency): Date: �/ 2 2 % � - V> I t� lf Title: Environmental Services Manager Date Received for filing at OPR: Authority cited: Sections 21083, Public, Resources Code. Reference Section 21000 - 21174, Public Resources Code. Revised 2011 Resolution No. 2016 -089 N.C.S. Page 4 CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA WATER RECYCLING FACILITY AND RIVER ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT A 1 i Prepared by Resolution No. 2016 -089 N.C.S. Page 6 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY .......................................................................... ..............................1 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................... .............................11 3 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM REVISIONS ...................................... .............................14 4 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................ .............................15 5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ............................................... .............................19 6 CEQA- REQUIRED SECTIONS .................................................................................. .............................19 7 PREPARERS ................................................................................................................. .............................20 City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page TOC -1 March 2016 Bridge Relocation Addendum 8411271 Resolution No. 2016 -089 N.C.S. Page 7 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY TIRE= , The City of Petaluma currently operates the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility (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. Subsequent to EIR Certification, the City approved the project. The approved Project included a bridge over Ellis Creek along the northeast border of the site adjacent to Lakeville Highway. The bridge however, was not carried forward in subsequent plans for the site and was never built. The City now proposes to build the bridge, but at a different location than that analyzed in the Water Recycling Facility EIR. This minor change to the original Project is evaluated in this Bridge Relocation Addendum. The Water Recycling Facility site is bisected by Ellis Creek, with the main facility and administration offices on the northwest side of the creek and the oxidation ponds and ancillary facilities on the southeast side. The oxidation ponds require access multiple times a day for both operations and maintenance activities. To access the oxidation pond portion of the facility, operations and maintenance staff must leave the main facility via Cypress Drive and travel more than a mile on Lakeville Highway to a gated entrance. A bridge over Ellis Creek would facilitate access to both sides and reduce traffic on Lakeville Highway. This Addendum amends the original Water Recycling Facility EIR. Five other Addenda to the Water Recycling Facility EIR have previously been adopted, but they are not related to the current revisions to the project being evaluated in this Bridge Relocation Addendum. This Addendum concludes that the relocation of the bridge does not result in new significant impacts and does 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, March 7, 2016, at 7:00 pm. Written comments should be mailed or emailed to: City of Petaluma Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility 3890 Cypress Drive Petaluma, CA 94954 lwalker@ci.petaluma.ca.us 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. City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 1 March 2016 Bridge Relocation Addendum 8411271 Resolution No. 2016 -089 N.C.S. Page 8 • 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 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. 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. 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 City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 2 March 2016 Bridge Relocation Addendum 8411271 Resolution No. 2016 -089 N.C.S. Page 9 Section 15162 calling for preparation of a Subsequent EIR do not occur. As noted above, none of the circumstances that require a Subsequent EIR are 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. 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 1 provides a summary of the impacts and mitigation measures that were identified in the 2002 Certified EIR for the approved project and those identified for the proposed Project. The impacts and mitigation measures remain the same. 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. Table 1 Impact and Mitigation Summary Approved Project and Project Modifications Impact Approved Project Bridge Relocation Mitigation Measures for 2002 Certified EIR Addendum Bridge Relocation 1. Land Use 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 introduce No Impact No Impact No mitigation is necessary. 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? City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 3 March 2016 Bridge Relocation Addendum 8411271 Resolution No. 2016 -089 N.C.S. Page 10 Table 1 Impact and Mitigation Summary Approved Project and Project Modifications Impact Approved Project Bridge Relocation Mitigation Measures for of farmland? 2002 Certified EIR Addendum Bridge Relocation LU -6. Will the project convert Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. non -urban land to urban uses for Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. Project facilities? LU -7. Will the project convert No Impact No Impact No mitigation is necessary. public open space for Project facilities? Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. LU -8. Will the project result in Less than Significant No Impact No mitigation is necessary. loss of homes due to construction Significant Significant No feasible mitigation of facilities? available. LU -Cl: 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. land uses? 2. Agriculture AG -l. Will the project cause loss Significant Significant No feasible mitigation 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 -C1. Will the project have Significant Significant No feasible mitigation cumulative impacts to agriculture? available. 3. Geology, 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? City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 4 March 2016 Bridge Relocation Addendum 8411271 Resolution No. 2016 -089 N.C.S. Page 11 Impact and Mitigation Summary Approved Project and Project Modifications Impact Approved Project Bridge Relocation Mitigation Measures for groundwater quality at existing 2002 Certified EIR Addendum Bridge Relocation GS -6. Will project facilities be Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. exposed to damage due to Less than Significant No Impact No mitigation is necessary. expansive soils? Less than Significant No Impact No mitigation is necessary. GS -7. 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, construction on corrosive soils? GS -C1: Will the project have a Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. cumulative potential for geologic No Impact No Impact No mitigation is necessary. 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 No Impact No mitigation is necessary. GW -2. Will the project cause Less than Significant No Impact 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 -C1: 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 discharge Less than Significant No Impact No mitigation is necessary. cause numeric -based criteria to be after Mitigation exceeded? WQ -2. Will the project cause Less than Significant No Impact No mitigation is necessary. narrative -based criteria to be after Mitigation exceeded. WQ -3: Will project construction Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary, result in a substantial degradation of surface runoff quality? WQ -C1: Will the project have a Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. cumulative potential to cause numeric or narrative -based criteria to be exceeded? City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 5 March 2016 Bridge Relocation Addendum 8411271 Resolution No. 2016 -089 N.C,S. Page 12 Impact and Mitigation Summary Approved Project and Project Modifications Impact I Approved Project I Bridge Relocation Mitigation Measures for 2002 Certified EIR Addendum Bridge Relocation 6. Hydrology H -1. Will the project discharge Less than Significant No Impact No mitigation is necessary. cause flooding anywhere along the Petaluma River? H -2. Will the project discharge Less than Significant No Impact No mitigation is necessary. cause streambank erosion in the Petaluma River? H -3. Will non - discharge project Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. components cause flooding? H -4. Will non - discharge project Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. 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 No Impact 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 increase Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. potential exposure of the public to hazardous materials due to a chemical release? PHS -4. Will the project expose Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. the public to safety hazards associated with operation of heavy machinery, vehicles, or equipment; or creation of accessible excavations (trenches, pits, or borings); or creation of an accessible open body of water? PHS -5. Will the project increase Less than Significant No Impact No mitigation is necessary. the potential exposure of the public to disease vectors (i.e., mosquitoes)? City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 6 March 2016 Bridge Relocation Addendum 8411271 Resolution No. 2016 -089 N.C.S. Page 13 Impact and Mitigation Summary Approved Project and Project Modifications Impact Approved Project Bridge Relocation Mitigation Measures for loss of individuals or occupied 2002 Certified EIR Addendum Bridge Relocation PHS -C1: Will the project have a Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. cumulative impact on public health and safety? 8. Biological Resources BIO -1. Will the project cause Less than Significant Less than Significant 1310- Ia. Aquatic Species loss of individuals or occupied after Mitigation after Mitigation Protection program. habitat of endangered, threatened, or rare fish, wildlife or plant species? BIO -2. Will the project cause Less than Significant Less than Significant BIO -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? BIO -2b. Rookery Protection Program. BIO -3. Will the project cause Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. permanent loss of sensitive wildlife habitat? BIO -4. Will the project cause Less than Significant Less than Significant BIO -4. Prepare a Riparian permanent loss of sensitive native after Mitigation after Mitigation Census and Conceptual plant communities? Riparian Mitigation Plan BIO -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? BIO -6. Will the project cause Less than Significant Less than Significant BIO -la: Aquatic Species permanent loss of aquatic habitat after Mitigation after Mitigation Protection Program (i.e., streams)? BIO -7. Will the project destroy Less than Significant No Impact No mitigation is necessary, wetlands or other waters of the after Mitigation U.S.? BIO -8. Will the project expose Less than Significant No Impact No mitigation is necessary. organisms to hazardous levels of after Mitigation toxic or bioaccumulatory substances? BIO -Cl. Will the project have Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. cumulative impacts to biological resources? 9. Traffic and Circulation TR -1. Will project traffic cause Less than Significant No Impact No mitigation is necessary. congestion along study area after Mitigation roadways? City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements FIR Page 7 March 2016 Bridge Relocation Addendum 8411271 Resolution No. 2016 -089 N.C.S. Page 14 Impact and Mitigation Summary Approved Project and Project Modifications Impact Approved Project Bridge Relocation Mitigation Measures for Project generate emissions that 2002 Certified EIR Addendum Bridge Relocation TR -2. Will lane closures due to Less than Significant No Impact No mitigation is necessary. project construction cause traffic delays, transit delays, restricted Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. access, increased traffic hazards, and rerouting of traffic, including emergency vehicles? Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. TR -3. Will project construction Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. traffic increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. pedestrians? TR -4. Will project construction Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. traffic damage public or private Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. 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? 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? AQ -2. Will project emissions Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. cumulatively exceed allowable limits? 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? 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 the Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. potential to have a cumulative impact to air quality? City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 8 March 2016 Bridge Relocation Addendum 8411271 Resolution No. 2016 -089 N.C.S. Page 15 Table 1 Impact and Mitigation Summary Approved Project and Project Modifications Impact Approved Project Bridge Relocation Mitigation Measures for 2002 Certified EIR Addendum I Bridge Relocation 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? No impact No impact No mitigation is necessary, 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? Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. 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 Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. after construction? 12. Cultural Resources CR -1. Will the project disturb Less than Significant No Impact No mitigation is necessary. known, potentially - eligible National or California Register properties, including archaeological, historical, architectural, and Native No impact No impact No mitigation is necessary, American/ traditional heritage 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 historical or cultural resources? 13. Visual Resources VR -l. 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? City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 9 March 2016 Bridge Relocation Addendum 8411271 Resolution No. 2016 -089 N.C.S. Page 16 Table 1 Impact and Mitigation Summary Approved Project and Project Modifications Impact Approved Project Bridge Relocation Mitigation Measures for demand for police, fire, park and 2002 Certified EIR Addendum Bridge Relocation 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 No Impact No mitigation is necessary. inconsistent with minimum No Impact No Impact No mitigation is necessary. building setbacks for structures along Sonoma County designated scenic corridors? VR -5. Will the project cause an Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. adverse effect on foreground or Less than Significant No Impact No mitigation is necessary. middle - ground views from a 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 residences VR -7. Will the project create a Less than Significant No Impact 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 No Impact 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 -C1: Will the project have a Less than Significant No Impact No mitigation is necessary. cumulative potential to impact public services and utilities? City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 10 March 2016 Bridge Relocation Addendum 8411271 Resolution No. 2016 -089 N.C.S. Page 17 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION LOCATION A bridge over Ellis Creek was originally proposed along the northeast border of the project site, adjacent to Lakeville Highway. This addendum evaluates relocating the bridge approximately 700 feet downstream. Refer to Figure 1, Project Modifications, to see the bridge location from the 2002 Certified EIR, and the proposed relocation as evaluated in this addendum. BRIDGE DETAILS The bridge would be pre- fabricated, assembled on -site, and lowered into place using a crane. The staging area for assembly would be on the existing paved area to the north and northeast of the headworks, while the crane pocket (i.e. staging for the crane) would be located in an area currently used for hay production, as shown on Figure 2 Site Plan. The bridge deck would be 12 feet wide with a 65 -foot span and rated for HL931 loading. The abutments would have an estimated footprint of approximately 300 square feet each and would be located in excess of five feet back from the top of bank. The bridge approaches, which would connect the bridge to the existing roads, would be 15 feet wide with lengths of approximately 160 feet and 135 feet on the west and east sides, respectively. The road connections would most likely be composed of compacted aggregate, but may alternatively be asphalt. Refer to Figure 2 Site Plan, for additional details. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Construction is expected to occur in October and November 2016, and would last for up to 45 days. Temporarily impacted areas (i.e.: crane pocket, staging area) would be restored immediately after construction of the bridge and road extensions are complete. Replacement tree planting would occur during the months of November to April when the ground is moist and temperatures are moderate. ENTITLEMENTS, PERMITS, AND APPROVALS The following City of Petaluma entitlements and approvals may be required for the Project: • Building Permit • Grading Permit • Planned Community Development Standards. The following agency permits and approvals may be required for the Project: • Section 404 Nationwide Permit, US Army Corps of Engineers • Section 401 Water Quality Certification, San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board • Streambed Alteration Agreement, California Department of Fish & Wildlife 1 UL -93 load includes variations and combinations of truck, tandem, and lane loading. The design truck is a 3- axle truck with variable rear axle spacing and a total weight of 72,000 pounds. The design tandem is a two -axle vehicle, 25,000 pounds per axle, spaced 4 feet apart. City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 11 March 2016 Bridge Relocation Addendum 8411271 Resolution No. 2016 -089 N.C.S. Page 18 Resolution No. 2016-089 N.C.S. � § § / k � � � /)) {� ®® � mR o )} / Ff3 0 //0 3 I@± \ 16 /\7 2 \ 5 Im f m 3 � U) \ � § k < m k 0 \ / RUN, Page 19 Resolution No. 2016 -089 N.C.S. N N Q LL � m za aE �b �v a ro ro cT o U) aaa o rn k Page 20 The following Mitigation Measure from the 2002 Certified EIR is updated to conform to existing policies of the California Department of Fish & Wildlife: Mitigation Measure 13I0-4. Prepare a Riparian Census and Conceptual Riparian Mitigation Plan A qualified biologist shall conduct a census of all riparian woody vegetation from the top -of bank and /or drip -line of the tree or shrub canopy within the project area of the proposed Ellis Creek bridge and approaches. The census will take place within the staked and flagged areas of the site where ground disturbance will take place. The census will include identification of riparian tree and shrub species, counts of stems, and diameter at breast height for those stems greater than -24 inches in diameter within the construction footprint. The City will prepare a Riparian Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to include a planting palette, a conceptual planting plan, performance criteria, and procedures for maintenance and monitoring. The plan will be written in sufficient detail for a GDFG California Department of Fish & Wildlife 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement. Mitigation will be on site, if possible, at a ratio of 2:1, namely 2 acres of riparian forest for every acre impacted by the construction of the proposed Ellis Creek Bridge. Mitigation sites will be preserved in perpetuity. No other changes are proposed to the 2002 Mitigation Monitoring Program. City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 14 March 2016 Bridge Relocation Addendum 8411271 Resolution No. 2016 -089 N.C.S. Page 21 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 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 for descriptions of setting, discussion of methodology, and the complete identification and discussion of impacts. 4.1 LAND USE The bridge, as a component of the original project, was determined to have less than significant impacts to Land Use. The relocation 700 feet downstream from the original bridge site would not change that analysis. The land use designations identified in the 2002 Certified EIR for the Facility site, were Public and Institutional on the east side of Ellis Creek and Land Extensive Agriculture on the west side of Ellis Creek, with those on the west privately owned and under County jurisdiction. The 2002 Certified EIR found that the Project facilities would be compatible with the Land Extensive Agriculture and Public and Institutional designations because public buildings and structures were considered conditional uses within the zoning designations. After certification of the EIR, the City purchased the parcels on the west side of Ellis Creek, changed the land use designation to Public and Institutional, and prezoned the site Planned Community District (as well as rezoned the parcel on the east side of Ellis Creek). The bridge would be compatible with the permitted and conditional uses at the site as it is an ancillary structure that supports the on -site uses. In addition, the bridge would not be in conflict with Section 11, Circulation Plan, of the PCD. Implementation of the bridge at the new site would not cause new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2002 Certified EIR. 4.2 AGRICULTURE The proposed modification to the Project does 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. The approach to the bridge on the west side would remove less than 0.06 acre of land from hay production. The original EIR identified the loss of 100 percent of the farmland on the site. Therefore, the impact of the bridge relocation on agricultural land would be no more than what was identified in the 2002 Certified EIR. The impact was identified as significant and unavoidable. No change to the impacts on agricultural resources relative to Williamson Act land and glassy- winged sharpshooter populations would occur due at the new bridge site. Project Measure PD -2, Purchase Locally Grown or Inspected Plants, would continue to be implemented, as needed. The proposed relocated bridge site would not cause new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2002 Certified EIR. City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 15 March 2016 Bridge Relocation Addendum 8411271 Resolution No. 2016 -089 N.C.S. Page 22 4.3 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY The proposed change to the Project does 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, general location, and geologic setting remains the same. The bridge relocation 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 would still be applicable. Construction of the bridge at the new location would not cause new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2002 Certified EIR. 4.4 GROUNDWATER The proposed change to the Project does not require revisions to the evaluation of Groundwater. The facilities at the Water Recycling Facility were found to have less- than - significant impacts to groundwater because they are in completely contained structures and would not interfere with groundwater recharge. The relocation of the proposed bridge would not change this analysis. There would be no new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 200 Certified EIR. 4.5 SURFACE WATER QUALITY The proposed change to the Project does not require revisions to the evaluation of Surface Water Quality. Placement of a bridge over Ellis Creek was evaluated in the 2002 Certified EIR; relocation of the bridge would not change that analysis. The City's discharges and recycled water reuse would continue to meet standards set by federal, state, and regional agencies. As indicated in the 2002 Certified EIR, construction activities for the bridge would have the potential to cause discharge of pollutants to waterways through erosion and accidental spills. Measure PD -8, Erosion, Stormwater Runoff, and Spill Control Measures, adopted as part of this Project, requires the City to develop and implement measures designed to prevent significant construction and operational impacts to water quality. Construction of the bridge at the new location would not cause new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2002 Certified EIR. 4.6 HYDROLOGY The proposed change to the Project does not require revisions to the evaluation of Hydrology. There would be no additional discharge associated with the bridge relocation. The bridge footings would increase impervious surfaces at the Facility site by approximately 600 square feet. If constructed of asphalt, the bridge connections would increase impervious area by 4,425 square feet. However, the bridge would be approximately the same size as that analyzed in the 2002 Certified EIR. Therefore, impervious surfaces would not substantially increase. The bridge abutments would be set back at least five feet from the top of bank and would not impede the creek flow such that it would result flooding. Construction of the bridge at the new location would not cause new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2002 Certified EIR. 4.7 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY The proposed change to the Project does not require revisions to the evaluation of Public Health and Safety. The bridge would be constructed in an area that is generally inaccessible to the public. The relocation of the bridge does not change the production of recycled water, increase the use of hazardous materials, or increase exposure to disease vectors. The proposed bridge relocation would not cause new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2002 Certified EIR. City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 16 March 2016 Bridge Relocation Addendum 8411271 Resolution No. 2016 -089 N.C.S. Page 23 4.8 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES On September 30, 2015, the bridge relocation site was evaluated to verify that the habitat is the same as what was evaluated in the 2002 Certified EIR. The results of the site evaluation were reported in a memo dated October 26, 2015, entitled Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility, Ellis Creek Bridge Project. The evaluation found that the riparian forest, wetland, and cropland vegetation communities in the location of the relocated bridge site were unchanged from previous studies described in the 2002 Certified EIR. In Table 4.8 -6, Project Impacts to Sensitive Habitats, of the 2002 Certified EIR, impacts related to the Ellis Creek Bridge are identified as 0.19 acre of temporary and 0.13 acre of permanent impacts to riparian forest, and 0.03 acre of temporary and 0.02 acre of permanent impacts to wetlands and waters from installation of the bridge. The original bridge required fill on the bank and slope of the east bank to compensate for an elevation difference between the banks. The relocated bridge would be located in the same area that was previously disturbed to accommodate a pipeline installed beneath Ellis Creek during construction of the original Facility. Because this portion of Ellis Creek was temporarily disturbed during construction of the original facility, it is the site of post - construction restoration. The restoration included re- planting native shrubs and trees to replace those that were removed during installation of the pipe, as well as invasive plant removal. Placement of the bridge at this location would require removal of some of the trees that were planted as part of the restoration. The bridge abutments and approaches at the new location would cover an area of approximately 0. 12 acre. Of this, less than half would result in permanent impacts to riparian habitat. Approximately .03 acre of temporary impact to riparian would occur along the edges of the approaches. The permanent and temporary impact to riparian forest would be significantly less than the impacts to riparian forest identified in the 2002 Certified EIR. The bridge design at the new location would not result in any fill to wetlands or waters. Therefore, wetland and water impacts at the new location would be less than that analyzed in the 2002 Certified EIR. 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. The construction of the bridge at the proposed new location would abide by the same restrictions and be subject to the same project measures and mitigation measures as the existing Water Recycling Facility. These measures include BIO -la Aquatic Species Protection Program, BIO -2a Active Raptor and Migratory Bird Nest Protection Program, BIO -2b Rookery Protection Program, and BIO -4 Prepare Riparian Census and Conceptual Riparian Mitigation Plan. Construction of the bridge at the new location would not cause new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2002 Certified EIR. 4.9 TRANSPORTATION There would be no increased operational traffic from implementation of the bridge. In fact, back and forth trips along Cypress Drive and Lakeville Highway to access the east side of the Facility site would be reduced by 2 to 3 round trips per day. Construction traffic would increase traffic on South McDowell Boulevard by 2 to 6 vehicles per day during the 6 -week construction period. This is significantly less than what was evaluated in the 2002 Certified EIR. Neither construction nor operation of the bridge at the new location would cause new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2002 Certified EIR. 4.10 AIR QUALITY The proposed change to the Project does not require revisions to the evaluation of Air Quality, Measure PD -14 Construction Air Quality Controls, included in the Project to address air quality during construction would still be applicable. Operation of the bridge would not create new air emissions. There City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 17 March 2016 Bridge Relocation Addendum 8411271 Resolution No, 2016 -089 N.C.S. Page 24 could be a slight decrease in mobile emissions as a result of the shorter travel distance between the east and west side of the Facility site. Neither construction nor operation of the bridge at the new location would cause new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2002 Certified EIR. MIMMO-0 The proposed change to the Project does not require revisions to the evaluation of Noise. Construction noise would be substantially less than the noise levels identified in the 2002 Certified EIR for the construction of the Water Recycling Facility. In addition, the bridge site is located more than 1,000 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor, within intervening topography. Construction traffic also would be much less than the construction traffic for the original construction of the facility. The proposed bridge relocation would not result in any new operational noise activities, as vehicles already operate in the vicinity of the new proposed bridge location. Neither construction nor operation of the bridge at the new location would cause new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2002 Certified EIR. 4.12 CULTURAL RESOURCES The proposed change to the Project does not require revisions to the evaluation of Cultural Resources. The entire Facility site was evaluated in the original EIR The proposed bridge location is within that footprint and would not result in any new impacts. Measures included in the Project to address unknown cultural resources would still be applicable. Construction of the bridge at the new location would not cause new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2002 Certified EIR. 4.13 VISUAL RESOURCES The proposed change to the Project does not require revisions to the evaluation of Visual Resources. The bridge site would be located approximately 700 feet downstream of its original proposed location and approximately 750 feet south /southwest of Lakeville Highway. Given its location adjacent to Lakeville Highway and the Facility site boundary, the original location for the bridge was more prominent and visible to travelers and surrounding residences. At the proposed new location, the bridge would not be visible to residences due to intervening buildings and landscaping, but could be briefly and intermittently visible from travelers on Lakeville Highway. Therefore, no new significant visual impacts would occur resulting from view obstruction or degradation of visual quality. The bridge does not include any new lighting, therefore there would be no impact related to a new light source. Construction of the bridge at the new location would not cause new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2002 Certified EIR. 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES The proposed change to the Project does 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. Implementation of the bridge at the new location would not cause new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2002 Certified EIR. City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 18 March 2016 Bridge Relocation Addendum 8411271 Resolution No. 2016 -089 N.C.S. Page 25 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 the proposed changes 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. 6 CEQA- REQUIRED SECTIONS GROWTH- INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT The potential for growth inducement would not increase due to the proposed relocated bridge site, because the bridge location does not affect the capacity of the Water Recycling Facilities. 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 the Environmentally Superior Alternatives as both 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. There are no new impacts related to the relocation of the bridge and therefore the relative comparison of alternatives does not change. Therefore, the approved project, Extended Aeration, continues to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative. City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 19 March 2016 Bridge Relocation Addendum 8411271 Resolution No. 2016 -089 N.C.S. Page 26 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 Bridge Relocation 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 Erica Ahman Smithies, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer DOCUMENT PREPARATION GHD Staff Member Role Pat Collins Quality Control Kristine Gaspar Project Planner Renee Remillard Graphics Designer City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 20 March 2016 Bridge Relocation Addendum 8411271 Resolution No. 2016 -089 N.C.S. Page 27