Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5.C 04/03/20065.0 CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA April 3, 2006 AGENDA BILL Aeenda Title: Resolution Certifying the Water Recycling Facilities I Meetine Date: April 3, 2006 and River Access Improvements Project Environmental Impact Meetine Time: © 3:00 PM Report February 2006 Construction Addendum, Approving the ❑ 7:00 PM Proposed Project Revisions, and Adopting Findings of Fact Cateeory (check one): ❑ Consent Calendar ❑ Public Hearing ❑ New Business N Unfinished Business ❑ Presentation Denartment: Director: Contact Person: Phone Number: Water Resources & Michael Ban, P.E. Margaret Orr, P.E. 778-4589 Conservation Cost of Proposal: Proposal is estimated to save approximately Account Number: $180,000 8299-C500402 Amount Budeeted: N/A Name of Fund: Wastewater Fund Attachments to Aeenda Packet Item: • Agenda Report • Resolution (including Exhibit A Findings of Fact) • Attaclunent A - EIR February 2006 Construction Addendum • Attachment B — S. McDowell Boulevard and Cypress Drive Road Condition Summary Statement: The Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project construction is now underway and two minor revisions to the Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were evaluated in the 2006 Construction Addendum to facilitate construction. The revisions include improving project safety by re-routing construction truck traffic and replacing an existing portion of a pipeline. As a result, the City has prepared an Addendum to the original EIR certified in August 2002 and modified in April 2004 and August 2005. No new significant environmental effects have been identified as a result of these revisions, and so an Addendum is the appropriate method of modifying the EIR. Recommended City Council Action/Sueeested Motion: City Management recommends that the City Council approve the resolution certifying the Water Recycling Facilities and River Access Improvements Project Environmental Impact Report February 2006 Construction Addendum, approving the Proposed Project Revisions, adopting Findings of Fact. Reviewed by Finance Director: te: 3 Today's Date: 3/22/06 Reviewed by City Attorney U Date: Revision # and Date Revised: Approve City Manaeer: ��� 11Y Date: 1 File Code. s\wR&c\ww\c500402�cc Meetings\April 3, 2006, ETR Agenda Bill CC Report Final.doc CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA APRs. 3, 2006 AGENDA REPORT FOR Resolution Certifying the Water Recycling Facilities and River Access Improvements Project Environmental Impact Report February 2006 Construction Addendum, Approving the Proposed Project Revisions, and Adopting Findings of Fact EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project construction is now underway and two minor revisions to the Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were evaluated in the 2006 Construction Addendum to facilitate construction. The revisions include improving project safety by re-routing construction truck traffic and replacing an existing portion of a pipeline. As a result, the City has prepared an Addendum to the original EIR certified in August 2002 and modified in April 2004 and August 2005. No new significant environmental effects have been identified as a result of these revisions, and so an Addendum is the appropriate method of modifying the EIR. City Management recommends that the City Council approve the resolution certifying Water Recycling Facilities and River Access Improvements Project Environmental Impact Report February 2006 Construction Addendum, approving the Proposed Project Revisions, and adopting Findings of Fact. 2. BACKGROUND: The City has begun construction of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility at 4000 Lakeville Highway, adjacent to the City's oxidation ponds. The facility will provide secondary treatment for up to 6.7 million gallons per day (mgd) average dry weather flow, tertiary treatment for up to 4 mgd, biosolids treatment to meet EPA Class B requirements for beneficial reuse, and includes algae removal with treatment wetlands and polishing treatment wetlands for nutrient and additional metals removal. An EIR for the project was certified, findings made, and a statement of overriding considerations adopted in August 2002. Revisions to the project were subsequently proposed and an EIR addendum certified, findings made, and statement of overriding considerations adopted in May of 2004. On August 1, 2005, after final design was complete, minor project revisions were made and a construction addendum along with findings of fact and a revised Mitigation and Monitoring Program were approved by the City Council. Construction has begun and two minor revisions in the project are currently proposed. These minor revisions as described in the 2006 Construction Addendum are as follows: Re-routing of construction truck traffic. Construction truck traffic is proposed to be routed off Lakeville Highway at the western, signalized intersection with South McDowell Boulevard and then to Cypress Drive to access the Project site. The route evaluated in the 2004 EIR Addendum routed construction truck traffic along Lakeville Highway, where it accessed the site directly off of Lakeville Highway (see Figure 1, page 2-2, EIR Addendum, Attachment A). Under this addendum, the entrance off of Lakeville Highway would remain for emergency purposes only (second access point for fire trucks). The routing of 50 to 150 construction workers per day remains the same as described in the 2004 EIR Addendum. The routing of employees and visitors during operation remains as described in the 2002 certified EIR. In both cases traffic would exit off Lakeville Highway at the western, signalized intersection with South McDowell Boulevard and then to Cypress Drive to access the Project site, similar to the construction truck traffic route proposed in this addendum. • Replacement of an existing portion of a pipe section. This work involves replacement of approximately 70 -foot section of the existing 42 -inch pond transfer pipe between Pond 9 and Pond 10. The pipe needs to be replaced in order to allow flow from Pond 10 to Pond 9, once the ponds have been converted to treatment wetlands (the conversion to treatment wetlands was included as part of the project description in the 2002 Certified EIR). Canal C, a jurisdictional wetland, is located between the berm of Pond 9 and the berm of Pond 10 (see Figure 1, page 2-2, EIR Addendum, Attachment A). This berm is also utilized as a road. A majority of the pipe to be replaced extends from the top of bank down the side of the berm on the Canal C side. The pipe section to be replaced is approximately 4 feet below the grade of the top of the Pond 9 berm. The new pipe section will sit approximately 8 feet below grade. Open cut excavation will be used to remove and demolish the existing section of pipe and to install the new pipe. These minor revisions do not result in new significant impacts, and therefore, no changes to the previously adopted statement of overriding considerations are required. Overall, there are no new significant unavoidable environmental impacts resulting from the proposed modifications to the project. The February 2006 construction addendum is provided in Attachment A. 3. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the February 2006 Constriction Addendum. 2. Do not approve the February 2006 Construction Addendum. This action will result in higher costs for the project and supports an access pattern that is not as safe as the Addendum provided solution for truck traffic. 3. Other action as provided by the City Council. 4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The modifications to the project allow for construction truck traffic to be routed through South McDowell Boulevard and Cypress. There are no restrictions for truck traffic on U.S. 101 and Lakeville Highway (S.R. 116) since they are designated truck routes. If the City were to provide access to the site from Lakeville Highway, Caltrans will require the City to add a turn pocket for a cost of $502,775. 3 Further Caltrans requirements received as part of their permit to build the temporary constriction access received this past November 2005 indicated an unanticipated requirement. The additional requirement was asphalt paved shoulders instead of rocked paved shoulders. This additional requirement would cost approximately $120,000 in changes to the current project. Kiewit Pacific Co. (General Contractor for the project) anticipated Lakeville Highway access availability during the construction of the project. Changes to their work were twofold. The first change was increased time for fill trucks to access the site via Cypress Drive. A total of 2,487 truck trips were delayed by five minutes because the trucks could not exit back onto Lakeville Highway. This change is still under negotiation but a rough estimate is presented in this document for a cost of $43,733. The second change to their work includes shoring certain pipeline excavations that they would have open cut previously and re -sequencing of operations to keep the one access route from Cypress open at all times. This cost to add shoring and to change the sequence of construction is approximately $62,000. Hence, a change order would be required if we build the Caltrans access or not. The attached EIR Addendum commits the City to maintain South McDowell Boulevard (between Lakeville, at the western signalized intersection, and Cypress Drive) and Cypress Drive to the entrance of the new plant in its pre -construction condition and to return the road to pre - construction condition after the completion of construction. These roads are in poor condition and require maintenance. The access route described above requires 37,000 square feet of immediate repair (Attachment B, pictures of road bed along South McDowell Boulevard and Cypress Drive). The cost for these immediate repairs is approximately $336,623. A change order will be executed for the initial repairs. Once the project begins concrete operations, it is anticipated that approximately 2,200 concrete trucks will travel into and out of the site from a concrete supplier within the City. It is anticipated that additional road repairs along this corridor will be required as construction progresses. Either way repairs to South McDowell Boulevard and Cypress are needed. By making the proposed change, City funds will be directed towards repairing and maintaining City infrastructure instead of Caltrans infrastructure. Routing traffic from a signalized intersection into the project site and from the project site is safer given the volume of traffic on Lakeville Highway. The cost of safer access is not delineated but acknowledged. The change created by this EIR addendum will result in a savings of approximately $180,419 to the project as shown in Table 1. This savings will likely be utilized as additional repairs to Cypress and South McDowell Boulevard are anticipated. Overall, the City will be spending funds to maintain City infrastructure (Cypress and South McDowell Boulevard) instead of building new infrastructure (turn pocket) along Lakeville Highway for Caltrans. Access via Cypress is safer due to the extraordinary volume of traffic along Lakeville Highway. El Table 1 Ellis Creels Water Recycling Facility Cost Impact of Truck Traffic re-route Item Caltrans Upgrade to Lakeville Highway Caltrans Upgrade for Temporary Access Subtotal Caltrans Improvements General Contractor Delay Charge for Access to Lakeville General Contractor to change Means and Methods without Lakeville Access S. McDowell Blvd and Cypress Road Initial Repair Change Order Subtotal New Traffic Route Overall Savings to Project Cost $502,775 (1) $120,000 (2) $622,775 ($43,733)(3) ($62,000) (4) ($336,623) (5) ($442,356) $180,419 (6) (1) This budget was set for the permanent right turn pocke_ into the site. The work was anticipated to be completed in 2009 and was shown in the CIP budget as being spent in that year. (2) Caltrans increased requirements in the temporary access permit. This increase in requirements would cause a $120,000 change order to the project. The increased requirement was paving of shoulders instead of rock shoulders. (3) The General Contractor was delayed 5 minutes for each fill truck entering the site due to the unavailability of the access from Lakeville Highway. This access was not available because the temporary permit from Caltrans was not received in time to keep the import fill placement on schedule. Hence, import was brought in via the access road on Cypress. The cost for the delay will be a change order to the project. (4) The General Contractor needs to change means and methods of construction of the site access road from Cypress without the Lakeville access route. Without the access from Lakeville, the General Contractor will shore the excavations and re -sequence the work to keep the access available at all times. (5) Roads within the business park need reconstruction. Immediate repairs are necessary along the roads to the project site. Further repairs are anticipated as the project progresses. Initial change order for 37,000 square feet of road repairs is presented as this cost. (6) Further repairs are anticipated along Cypress and S. McDowell Boulevard. CONCLUSION: The preceding discussion regarding project impacts reveals that no new significant effects are identified in the February 2006 Construction Addendum. 6. OUTCOMES OR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS THAT WILL IDENTIFY SUCCESS OR COMPLETION: Construction of the facilities safely, on schedule, and within the budget that included some contingency, with means and methods that follow all environmental requirements followed by successful operation and maintenance of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility. The schedule for the project is shown in Table 2. Table 2 Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Construction Schedule Item City Council Contract Award Notice -To -Proceed / Begin Constriction Constriction Phase Start Up Phase Project Completion RECOMMENDATION: Date August 1, 2005 October 2005 October 2005 — April 2009 September 2008 April 2009 City Management recommends that the City Council approve the resolution certifying Water Recycling Facilities and River Access Improvements Project Environmental Impact Report February 2006 Construction Addendum, approving the Proposed Project Revisions, and adopting Findings of Fact. Resolution Exhibit A - Findings of Fact 2 RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE WATER RECYCLING FACILITIES AND 3 RIVER ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT 4 REPORT FEBRUARY 20o6 CONSTRUCTION ADDENDUM, APPROVING THE 5 PROJECT REVISIONS; AND ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 WHEREAS, in 1938, the original wastewater treatment processes were constructed at 950 Hopper Street; WHEREAS, to meet the community's needs and changing regulatory requirements, various upgrades and additions to the wastewater treatment plant were conducted through the 1960s; WHEREAS, in 1972, the oxidation ponds were constructed at 4400 Lakeville Highway to provide additional treatment capacity; WHEREAS, in 1988, with influent flows exceeding 75% of the permitted capacity of the wastewater treatment facility, and necessary upgrades to the facility to increase treatment capacity and continue to meet the needs of the community were determined to be too costly, the City determined to replace the existing wastewater treatment facility; WHEREAS, in 1991 the City executed a Memorandum of Understanding with Envirotech Operating Services (EOS) to design, build, construct, own and operate (20 years) a new wastewater treatment facility (Resolution No. 91-107); WHEREAS, on July 31, 1991, EOS submitted an application to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) seeking an exemption from CPUC regulation under the California Local Government Privatization Act of 1985; WHEREAS, on October 21, 1991, Administrative Law Judge Ramsey determined that the MOU did not meet the requirements of the Public Utilities Code and ordered that "the application is denied without prejudice to refiling after amendment"; WHEREAS, in February 1992 EOS and the City mutually agreed to rescind the MOU; WHEREAS, on June 20, 1994, following a report prepared by Ernst and Young, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 94-156, which directed that the Service Agreement Approach (privatization) be utilized for procurement of a new wastewater treatment facility; WHEREAS, on June 17, 1996, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-163, which certified the Final EIR documents, Resolution No. 96-164, which approved the project, and Resolution No. 96-165, which approved and authorized issuance of the Request For Proposal; Page 1 of 9 sAwater resources & conservation\Nvmtewatcr\c5004O2\city council meetings\march 6, 2006\resolution 2006 eir construction addendum.doc 0 WHEREAS, on July 17, 1996, the RFP was issued to five pre -qualified vendor teams; 3 WHEREAS, in January 1997, the City received proposals from Montgomery United 4 Water (MUW) and US Filter/EOS; 6 WHEREAS, the Citizens' Wastewater Advisory Committee considered the proposals on 7 May 28, 1997, June 3, 1997, June 4, 1997, July 2, 1997, October 20, 1997, October 30, 8 1997, November 4, 1997, November 18, 1997, and on December 3, 1997; 10 WHEREAS, the City Council considered the proposals on July 7, 1997, September 8, 11 1997, September 15, 1997, September 22, 1997, September 29, 1997, October 6, 1997, 12 December 3, 1997, and December 8, 1997; 13 14 WHEREAS, on January 5, 1998, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 98-11, which 15 selected MUW for contract negotiations; 16 17 WHEREAS, negotiations with MUW on technical, legal and agreement issues began on 18 January 27, 1998 and proceeded through spring 1999; 19 20 WHEREAS, on September 21, 1998, the City Council, recognizing the need for 21 development of a public alternative to the proposed privatization project, approved 22 preparation of the wastewater treatment facility master plan; 23 24 WHEREAS, on September 21, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-188, 25 which terminated the privatization process and established City ownership of the new 26 wastewater treatment facility. Reasons cited for this determination included, among 27 others: 28 29 / Risk of Change Required Over 30 -Year Contract Term. Changes in the 30 City's needs may occur during the 30 -year life of the contract. The City is at a 31 disadvantage by being able to negotiate with only one party for changes in the 32 facility's capacity. 33 ► Requirement of Fair Market Value Purchase. In order for MUW to retain 34 tax ownership, the City's option to purchase the facility at the end of the contract 35 term would have to be at fair market value. The price of the facility could not be 36 fixed in the contract, but would depend on the value of the facility at the time of 37 the exercise of the option, thereby putting the City and ratepayers at risk of having 38 to pay for part of the plant twice. 39 ► Lack of City Approval of Design. In order for MUW to retain tax 40 ownership, Section 4.8.1 of the agreement limited the City's participation in the 41 design process. 42 ► Third Party Services. In order for MUW to retain tax ownership, Section 43 5.2.4 would allow the Company to provide services to others (in addition to the 44 City) at the Project Site. Page 2 of 9 sAwater resources & conseNation\%vmtewatcr`c5G04O2\city council mectings\march 6, 2006\resolution 2006 eir construction addendum.doc 9 ► Inability to Agree On Contract Language. After extensive negotiations between the City and MUW, specific contract language on the above and other critical issues could not be agreed upon. WHEREAS, on September 21, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-189, which approved the Wastewater Treatment Master Plan, with the understanding that the Master Plan's recommended project would be further reviewed to address questions asked by the City's independent wastewater professionals; 10 WHEREAS, on October 29, 1999, the City issued a Request For Proposal for 11 engineering services in support of the water recycling facility project (new wastewater 12 treatment facility); 13 14 WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2000-66 on April 3, 2000, which 15 authorized the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Carollo 16 Engineers for engineering services in support of Phase 1 — Project Report of the Water 17 Recycling Facility Project; 18 19 WHEREAS, five alternatives for the new water recycling facility were presented at a 20 Public Forum at the Community Center on June 14, 2000; 21 22 WHEREAS, the City Council heard a discussion on the criteria for evaluating the 23 alternatives on September 5, 2000; 24 25 WHEREAS, the results of the analysis and comparison of the alternatives were presented 26 at a Public Forum at the Community Center on November 8, 2000; 27 28 WHEREAS, the City Council considered and discussed the Draft Water Recycling 29 Facility Project Report (Carollo Engineers, November 2000) on November 20, 2000; 30 31 WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 00-214 on December 11, 2000, which 32 approved the Water Recycling Facility Project Report (Carollo Engineers, November 33 2000), selected Alternative 5 — Extended Aeration as the preferred alternative for the new 34 water recycling facility, and identified Option A — Wetlands as the preferred alternative 35 for algae removal over Option B — DAFs 36 37 WHERAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 00-215 on December 11, 2000, which 38 authorized the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Carollo 39 Engineers for professional engineering services in support of Phase 2 — Project 40 Development of the Water Recycling Facility Project; 41 42 WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Water Recycling Facility Project and the 43 Draft Water Recycling Facility Predesign Report (Carollo Engineers, November 2001) 44 on November 14, 2001, November 28, 2001, December 17, 2001 and January 7, 2002; 45 Page 3 of 9 sAwater resources & conservation\wastewater\e500.102\cih, council meetingMmurch 6, 2006\msolution 2006 eir construction addendum.doc 10 I WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 2002-012 on January 7, 2002, which 2 approved design parameters for the preferred alternative for the water recycling facility 3 project and authorized completion of the environmental impact report; 4 5 WHEREAS, the City prepared Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements 6 Draft EIR (April 2002) and distributed it to the California State Clearinghouse and to all 7 responsible local, state and federal agencies involved in the project and made it available 8 for public review; 9 10 WHEREAS, the City Council held noticed public hearings on May 13, 2002, and May 11 20, 2002, during which all interested persons were provided an opportunity to comment 12 on the adequacy of the Draft EIR; 13 14 WHEREAS, the public review period for the Draft EIR began April 15, 2002, and 15 closed May 29, 2002; 16 17 WHEREAS, the City prepared Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements 18 Final EIR and Response To Comments (July 2002), which responded to comments 19 received on the Draft EIR. The Final EIR did not identify any new significant impacts 20 that had not been previously evaluated in the Draft EIR. 21 22 WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on August 5, 2002, to 23 consider the Final EIR; 24 25 WHEREAS, that after due consideration, the Petaluma City Council certified the Final 26 Environmental Impact Report for the Water Recycling Facility and River Access 27 Improvements Project and made the following findings on August 5, 2002. 28 29 1. The Final Environmental Impact Report has been completed in compliance with 30 the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA 31 Guidelines. 32 2. The documents referenced below constitute the Final Environmental Impact 33 Report and were presented and considered along with both written and oral 34 comments received during the public review period on the project and 35 environmental documents: 36 a. Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Draft 37 Environmental Impact Report, in two volumes (April 2002). 38 b. Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Final 39 Environmental Impact Report and Response To Comments (July 2002). 40 3. The City Council, as the decision making body of the City of Petaluma, 41 independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the information in the Final EIR 42 and found that the contents of the Final EIR reflect the independent judgment of 43 the City of Petaluma 44 4. The Final EIR was published, made available and circulated for review and 45 comment. Page 4 of 9 s:hvater resources & conservation\%vmtewater\ci00402\city council meetings\murch 6, 2006\resolution 2006 eir construction addendum.doc I I 2 WHEREAS, the project certified in the Final EIR included locating a portion of the 3 treatment plant at 4400 Lakeville Highway, the current site of the City's oxidation ponds 4 (APN 0680-010-025, 032 and 024), with polishing treatment wetlands located at 4100 5 Lakeville Highway (APN 068-010-026, and 017-170-002); and WHEREAS, the City completed approximately 50% design of the facility in November 2002; and 10 WHEREAS, through the value engineering effort conducted in December 2002, it 11 became apparent the alternative of locating the water recycling facility at 4100 Lakeville 12 Highway and preserving the oxidation pond site for its current function warranted further 13 evaluation; and 14 15 WHEREAS, to construct the water recycling facility at the oxidation pond site would 16 require the removal, drying and disposal of sludge from the aerated lagoon and oxidation 17 pond no. 1, construction of a pipeline to deliver influent to oxidation pond no. 2, the 18 construction of aerators in oxidation pond nos. 2 and 3 to maintain and improve treatment 19 capacity, and require the placement of approximately 250,000 cubic yards of imported fill 20 in the oxidation pond no. l; and 21 22 WHEREAS, a feasibility study determined that locating the water recycling facility at 23 4104 Lakeville Highway was feasible and yields many benefits; and, 24 25 WHEREAS, the City Council adopted resolution No. 2003-196 on August 18, 2003, 26 which authorized the City Manager to execute an amendment to the professional services 27 agreement with Carollo Engineers for engineering services in support of locating the new 28 treatment plant at 4104 Lakeville Highway; and 29 30 WHEREAS, the City Council authorized acquisition of approximately 262 acres of land 31 in the 4000 block of Lakeville Highway for construction of the Water Recycling Facility 32 and development of the Petaluma Marsh Acquisition, Enhancement and Access Project 33 on September 8, 2003 through Ordinance No. 2161 N.C.S. for the purchase of real 34 property described as Sonoma County Assessor's parcel Nos. 068-010-026 and 017-010- 35 002; and 36 37 WHEREAS, the City acquired Parcel Nos 068-010-026 and 017-010-002 in February 38 2004 with the assistance of grant funding from the California Coastal Conservancy and 39 the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District; and 40 41 WHEREAS, an Addendum to the Water Recycling Facility and River Access 42 Improvements EIR was prepared to evaluate potential changes to the environmental 43 affects of the Project due to the proposed Project revisions; and 44 Page 5 of 9 sAwaler resources & conservationhvmtewaler\c500402\city council meetings\much 6, 2006\resolution 2006 eir construction addendum.doc 12 I WHEREAS, the EIR Addendum concluded that the determinations of the Final EIR 2 remain valid for the revised Project in that none of the Project modifications will have 3 new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously identified 4 significant effects, or otherwise meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 5 15162 which outlines the standards by which subsequent EIRs are required; and 7 WHEREAS, the EIR Addendum was published on April 15, 2004 and was available for 8 public review at the City of Petaluma City Hall, Petaluma Library, Petaluma Community 9 Center, Petaluma Senior Center, and the Santa Rosa Junior College, Petaluma campus; 10 and 11 12 WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2004-101 N.C.S. Re -certifying the 13 Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Project Final Environmental 14 Impact Report Addendum, and Adopting Findings and Statement of Overriding 15 Considerations, and Adopting Revised Mitigation Monitoring Program on June 7, 2004; 16 and 17 18 WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2004-092 N.C.S. Authorizing the 19 City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with The Covello Group for 20 Construction Management Services Task 1 and Task 2 for the City of Petaluma Ellis 21 Creek Water Recycling Facility Project on June 7, 2004; 22 23 WHEREAS, the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee approved the Project on 24 November 18, 2004; and 25 26 WHEREAS, the Petaluma Planning Commission considered the Project and the 27 proposed land use designations at 4104 Lakeville Highway on December 14, 2004, and 28 recommended the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment to the land use 29 designation of Public/Institutional, prezoning to Planned Community District (PCD) and 30 rezoning from Agricultural to Planned Community District, and annexation to the City of 31 Petaluma; and 32 33 WHEREAS, after due consideration, the City Council certified the Water Recycling 34 Facility and River Access Improvements EIR Addendum and adopted the revisions to the 35 project at the public hearing of May 3, 2004; and 36 37 WHEREAS, on May 3, 2004, the City Council authorized City Management to prepare 38 final plans and specifications for the Water Recycling Facility and these final plans and 39 specifications have resulted in minor revisions to the project description being proposed; 40 and 41 42 WHEREAS, a Construction Addendum (July 2005) to the Water Recycling Facility and 43 River Access Improvements EIR was prepared to evaluate potential changes to the 44 environmental affects of the Project due to the proposed Project revisions; and 45 Page 6 of 9 sAwater resources & conservation\Nvmtewater\c500402\city council meetines\march 6, 2006\resolution 2006 eir construction addendum.doc 13 I WHEREAS, the 2005 Construction Addendum found that the determinations of the 2 Final EIR, as modified by the April 2004 Addendum, remain valid for the revised Project 3 in that none of the Project modifications will have new significant impacts or 4 substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, or otherwise 5 meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 which outlines the standards 6 by which subsequent EIRs are required; and 7 8 WHEREAS, the 2005 Construction Addendum was published on July 25, 2005 and was 9 available for public review at the City of Petaluma City Hall, Department of Water 10 Resources and Conservation; and 11 12 WHEREAS, the City Council considered the summary of revisions to the Water 13 Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Project as evaluated in the 2005 14 Construction Addendum; and 15 16 WHEREAS, after due consideration, the City Council certified the Water Recycling 17 Facility and River Access Improvements EIR Construction Addendum and adopted the 18 revisions to the project at the public hearing of August 1, 2005 (Resolution No. 2005-130 19 N.C.S.); and 20 WHEREAS, on August 1, 2005 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2005-131 21 N.C.S. Awarding the Construction Contract for the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility; 22 and 23 24 WHEREAS, on August 1, 2005 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2005-132 25 N.C.S. authorizing borrowing of funds in an amount not to exceed $100,000,000 under 26 two separate lines of credit to finance Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Construction 27 and related expenses, and authorizing official action Thereto; and 28 29 WHEREAS, on August 1, 2005 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2005-133 30 N.C.S. authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with 31 The Covello Group for Construction Management and Inspection Services in Support of 32 Construction of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility; and 33 34 WHEREAS, on August 1, 2005 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2005-134 35 N.C.S. authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with 36 Carollo Engineers for Construction Engineering Services in Support of Construction of 37 the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility; and 38 39 WHEREAS, on August 1, 2005 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2005-135 40 N.C.S. authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with 41 ArcSine for Professional Programming Services in Support of Construction of the Ellis 42 Creek Water Recycling Facility; and 43 44 WHEREAS, on August 1, 2005 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2005-136 45 N.C.S. authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Page 7 of 9 sAwater resources & conseNationhvmtewnter\c500402\city council meetings\march 6, 2006Vesolution 2006 eir construction addendum.doc 14 ESA for Environmental Services in Support of Construction of the Ellis Creek Water 2 Recycling Facility; and 4 WHEREAS, on October 7, 2005 the Director of Water Resources and Conservation 5 provided the Notice to Proceed to the General Contractor and work commenced; and 7 WHEREAS, in the course of construction the Construction Manager has requested a 8 change in the construction truck route for ingress at the Water Recycling Facility site; and 10 WHEREAS, a Construction Addendum (February 2006) to the Water Recycling Facility 11 and River Access Improvements EIR was prepared to evaluate potential changes to the 12 environmental affects of the Project due to the proposed Project revisions; and 13 14 WHEREAS, the 2006 Construction Addendum found that the determinations of the 15 Final EIR, as modified by the 2004 Addendum and 2005 Construction Addendum, 16 remain valid for the revised Project in that none of the Project modifications will have 17 new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously identified 18 significant effects, or otherwise meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 19 15162 which outlines the standards by which subsequent EIRs are required; and 20 21 WHEREAS, the February 2006 Construction Addendum was published in February, 22 2006 and was available for public review at the City of Petaluma City Hall and 23 Department of Water Resources and Conservation; and 24 25 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council that: 26 27 1. It certifies the February 2006 Construction Addendum to the Water Recycling 28 Facility and River Access Improvements EIR as modified by the 2004 29 Addendum and 2005 Construction Addendum as having been prepared in 30 accordance with CEQA; 31 2. It makes findings of fact that changes or alterations have been required and 32 incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant 33 environmental effects as identified in the Construction Addendum and these 34 findings are attached hereto as Exhibit A; 35 3. It finds that the project revisions do not cause new significant environmental 36 effects, and therefore, the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted at 37 the time of the project approval in August 2002 and April 2004 is still 38 applicable and need not be modified; 39 4. It finds that the project revisions do not cause new significant environmental 40 impacts or new or revised mitigation measures, and therefore, the Revised 41 Mitigation Monitoring Program adopted in July 2005 is still applicable and 42 need not be modified; 43 5. The Certified EIR, 2004 Addendum, 2005 Construction Addendum, 2006 44 Construction Addendum, and all documents constituting the Administrative 45 Record, therefore, shall reside with the Environmental Review Coordinator of Page 8 of 9 sAwater resources & consemationhvmtewatcrkc5004O2\city council meetings\march 6, 2006\nnolution 2006 eir construction addendum.doc 15, I the City of Petaluma and be made available at the office of such Coordinator 2 at the Petaluma City Hall, i l English Street, Petaluma, California; and 3 6. The Environmental Review Coordinator is directed to file a Notice of 4 Determination for the revisions to the project adopted hereby. SAwaler resources & conservation\Wastewater\Ci00402\City Council Meetines\March 6, 2006\Resolution 2006 EIR Construction Addendum.doc Page 9 of 9 sAwater resources & conservation\wastewater\e500402\city council meetings\march 6, 2006\resolution 2006 eir construction addendum.doc 16 ExHIBIT A TO THE RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE WATER RECYCLING FACILITIES AND RIVER ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FEBRUARY 2006 CONSTRUCTION ADDENDUM FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Introduction The City is constructing a new wastewater treatment facility, capable of producing tertiary treated recycled water at property northwest of the existing oxidation pond site at 4000 Lakeville Highway. The project includes a set of improvements that will provide public recreational and educational amenities. These findings have been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., title 14, §15000 et seq.). The City of Petaluma is the lead agency for the environmental review of the Program and has the principal responsibility for its approval. An EIR for the project was certified, findings made, and a statement of overriding considerations adopted in August 2002. Revisions to the project were subsequently proposed and an EIR addendum certified, findings made, and statement of overriding considerations adopted in April of 2004. Subsequently, final engineering design occurred requiring minor revisions in the project, an EIR construction addendum was certified, and findings made in August of 2005. These findings are available for review at the City of Petaluma. Additional minor revisions in the project are currently proposed. These Findings of Fact are made relative only to the decision at hand: approval of minor revisions to the City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility and Marsh Acquisition, Enhancement, and Access Improvements Project, as described in the February 2006 Construction Addendum. These minor revisions currently being adopted do not result in new significant impacts, and therefore, no changes to the previously adopted statement of overriding considerations is required. In addition, the revisions to the project did not require any mitigation, therefore, the previously adopted 2005 Revised Mitigation Monitoring Program is still applicable. 2. Findinas The 2006 Construction Addendum did not identify any significant impacts resulting from project revisions. 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, are 17 present. Thus, an Addendum is the appropriate level of CEQA analysis and the appropriate method of amending the 2002 Certified EIR. 3. Alternatives Analvsis Where a significant impact can be substantially lessened (i.e., mitigated to an "acceptable level') solely by the adoption of mitigation measures, the lead agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to consider the feasibility of alternatives with respect to that impact, even if the alternative would mitigate the impact to a greater degree than the proposed Project. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association, supra, 83 Cal.App.3d at p. 521; see also Kings City Farn: Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Ca1.App.3d 692, 730-731; Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400403.) The preceding discussion regarding project impacts reveals that no significant effects were identified in the February 2006 Construction Addendum, and therefore no further consideration of project alternatives need be undertaken. S1water resources & conservation\wastewater\C5D0402\City Council MeetingsWarch 6, 200&Ezhibit A to the Resolution.doc is e I I I- I_ �.. _ EIR February 2006 Construction Addendum 19 c� y of s f '?1ymay�MEMO q'a _ - �i t 'f 1 NOTE; - GAIA 10 A? A �ttirg 42_01( 4 va'1a Y L i' CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA WATER RECYCLING FACILITY AND RIVER ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT February 2006 Z �. 21 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 4.1 LAND USE........................................................................................................................................ 4.1-1 4.2 AGRICULTURE..............................................................................................................................4.2-1 4.3 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY....................................................................................... 4.3-1 4.4 GROUNDWATER...........................................................................................................................4.4-1 4.5 SURFACE WATER QUALITY.......................................................................................................4.51 4.6 HYDROLOGY.................................................................................................................................4.6-1 4.7 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY................................................................................................4.7-1 4.8 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES........................................................................................................4.8-1 4.9 TRANSPORTATION......................................................................................................................4.9-1 4.10 AIR QUALITY............................................................................................................................... 4.10-1 4.11 NOISE.............................................................................................................................................4.11-1 4.12 CULTURAL RESOURCES..........................................................................................................4.12-1 4.13 VISUAL RESOURCES.................................................................................................................4.13-1 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES.......................................................................................4.14-1 5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT.......................................................................... 5-1 6 CEQA-REQUIRED SECTIONS............................................................................................................ 6-1 7 PREPARERS............................................................................................................................................7-1 City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements BIR Page TOC -1 February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205503 22 I INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY In August 2002, the City of Petaluma (City) certified the Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Final EIR. In April 2004, the City adopted an addendum that considered revisions to the site plan evaluated in the 2002 EIR, In July 2005, the City adopted a construction addendum that considered minor revisions to the site plan as well as minor changes in the impact analysis resulting from the permitting of the project. Project construction is now underway, and the Engineering Manager and Construction Manager have requested minor changes to the Project Description to facilitate construction. The two proposed changes are re-routing of construction traffic and replacement of an existing portion of pipeline. This Addendum concludes that the minor revisions being proposed do not cause substantial changes in impacts and do not result in new significant impacts. 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 Petaluma City Hall. The Addendum is tentatively scheduled for consideration at the Petaluma City Council meeting to be held on Monday, February 27, 2006, at 3:00 pm. Written comments should be mailed or faxed to: City of Petaluma Department of Water Resources and Conservation 202 N. McDowell Blvd Petaluma, CA 94952 707-778-4508 (fax) Attention: Margaret P. Orr, P.E. 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; City of Petaluma water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 1-1 February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205503 23 • 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 City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 1-2 February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205503 24 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 have occurred, and that an Addendum is appropriate. This Addendum should be read together with the full text of the 2002 Certified Petaluma Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements EIR, the April 2004 Addendum, and the July 2005 Construction Addendum. 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 by Winzler & Kelly 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, 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 site plan. 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. The changes evaluated in this 2005 Addendum do not involve unavoidable impacts, and therefore no need for a Statement of Overriding Considerations exists relative to this Addendum. 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 EIR as revised in the 2004 and 2005 Addendums. 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. City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page IJ February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205503 25 • 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 and Mitigation Summary Approved Project and Project with Proposed Revisions Approved Project Project with 2002 EIR, as Proposed Revisions Impact revised by 2004 2006 Construction and 2005 Addendum Addendums 1. Land Use LU -l. Will the project be inconsistent with the land use plan map of an adopted General Plan? LU -2. Will the project be inconsistent with zoning? LU -3. Will the project bean incompatible land use type in the MRZ-2 classification or in a designated quarry area? LU -4. Will the project introduce inappropriate uses in a Community Separator? LU -5. Will the project increase potential for conflict as a result of incompatible land uses? LU -6. Will the project convert non -urban land to urban uses for Project facilities? LU -7. Will the project convert public open space for Project facilities? LU -8. Will the project result in loss of homes due to construction of facilities? LU -C 1: Will the project have a cumulative potential to disturb land uses? Less than Significant Less than Significant Mitigation Measure No mitigation is necessary. Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. No Impact No Impact No mitigation is necessary. No Impact No Impact Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant No Impact No Impact Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. No mitigation is necessary. No mitigation is necessary. No mitigation is necessary. No mitigation is necessary. No mitigation is necessary. - - City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility Se River Access Improvements EIR Page 1-4 February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205503 26 !Jill'! iiiiiii Impact and Mitigation Summary Approved Project and Project with Proposed Revisions Approved Project Project with 2002 EIR, as Proposed Revisions Impact revised by 2004 Mitigation Measure and 2005 2006 Construction Addendums Addendum 2. Agriculture AG -1. Will the project cause Significant Significant Previous mitigation measure loss of farmland? AG -1, Maintain Maximum Acreage of Agricultural Production, is not recommended, because City decided, during the project approval in 2002, to reserve the flexibility to construct improvements on Parcels A and B, and made a Statement of Overriding Considerations to indicate the reasons they did not adopt Mitigation Measure AG -1. AG -2. Will the project cause No Impact No Impact No mitigation is necessary. Williamson Act contracts to be 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 sharpshooter populations? AG -C1. Will the project have Significant Significant Previous mitigation measure cumulative impacts to AG -1, Maintain Maximum agriculture? Acreage of Agricultural Production, is not recommended, see comments under AG -1. 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? City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 1-5 February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205503 27 Impact and Mitigation Summary Approved Project and Project with Proposed Revisions Impact GS -3. Will project facilities be located in areas with soils and groundwater conditions that are susceptible to liquefaction during an earthquake? GS -4. Will earthquake -induced strong ground shaking damage project facilities? GS -5. Will construction of the project cause off-site water - related erosion? GS -6. Will project facilities be exposed to damage due to expansive soils? GS -7. Will project facilities be exposed to damage due to construction on corrosive soils? GS -Cl: Will the project have a cumulative potential for geologic or seismic impacts? 4. Groundwater GW -1. Will the project degrade groundwater quality at existing drinking water wells, resulting in a public health hazard? GW -2. Will the project cause groundwater mounding or increase groundwater levels that cause surface discharge in a non - stream environment? GW -3. Will the project lower groundwater levels at existing wells? GW -Cl: Will the project have a potential for cumulative groundwater impacts? Approved Project Project with 2002 EIR, as Proposed Revisions revised by 2004 2006 Construction Mitigation Measure and 2005 Addendum Addendums Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant after Mitigation after Mitigation Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. No mitigation is necessary. No mitigation is necessary. GW -I. Drinking Water Well Protection Program No mitigation is necessary. No Impact No Impact No mitigation is necessary. Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 1-6 February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205503 28 Impact and Mitigation Summary Approved Project and Project with Proposed Revisions Approved Project Project with 2002 E1R, as Proposed Revisions Impact revised by 2004 2006 Construction and 2005 Addendum Addendums 29 5. Surface Water Quality WQ-l. Will the project discharge cause numeric -based criteria to be exceeded? WQ-2. Will the project cause narrative -based criteria to be exceeded. WQ-3: Will project construction result in a substantial degradation of surface runoff quality? WQ-C 1: Will the project have a cumulative potential to cause numeric or narrative -based criteria to be exceeded? 6. Hydrology H-1. Will the project discharge cause flooding anywhere along the Petaluma River? H-2. Will the project discharge cause streambank erosion in the Petaluma River? H-3. Will non -discharge project components cause flooding? Less than Significant Less than Significant after Mitigation after Mitigation Less than Significant Less than Significant after Mitigation after Mitigation Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Mitigation Measure WQ-la. Chromium Monitoring and Source Reduction Program WQ-lb. Nickel Monitoring and Source Reduction Program WQ-lc. Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Effluent Monitoring and Source Reduction Program WQ-1d. Constituents not Monitored in Effluent Monitoring WQ-le. Dioxin/Furan Congener Monitoring and Source Reduction Program WQ-le. Dioxin/Furan Congener Monitoring and Source Reduction Program No mitigation is necessary. No mitigation is necessary. No mitigation is necessary. No mitigation is necessary. Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 1-7 February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205303 29 Impact and Mitigation Summary Approved Project and Project with Proposed Revisions Approved Project Project with 2002 EIR, as Proposed Revisions Impact revised by 2004 2006 Construction and 2005 Addendum Addendums H-4. Will non -discharge project components cause streambank erosion? H -Cl: Will the project have a cumulative potential to cause flooding or erosion? 7. Public Health and Safety PHS -1. Will the project expose the public to chemicals, radionuclides, pathogenic viruses, bacteria, or other disease organisms at concentrations detrimental to human health? PHS -2. Will the project expose workers or the public to hazards from a known hazardous waste site? PHS -3. Will the project increase potential exposure of the public to hazardous materials due to a chemical release? PHS14. Will the project expose 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 the potential exposure of the public to disease vectors (i.e., mosquitoes)? PHS -Cl: Will the project have a cumulative impact on public health and safety? City of Petaluma February 2006 Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Mitigation Measure No mitigation is necessary. No mitigation is necessary. Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 1-8 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205507 30 Impact and Mitigation Summary Approved Project and Project with Proposed Revisions Approved Project Project with 2002 EIR, as Proposed Revisions Impact revised by 2004 2006 Construction and 2005 Addendum Addendums Less than Significant 8. Biological Resources BIO -l. Will the project cause loss of individuals or occupied habitat of endangered, threatened, or rare fish, wildlife or plant species? BI0-2. Will the project cause loss of active raptor nest, migratory bird nests, or wildlife nursery sites? Less than Significant Less than Significant after Mitigation after Mitigation Less than Significant Less than Significant after Mitigation after Mitigation Mitigation Measure BIO -la. Aquatic Species Protection program. BIO -le. Wildlife Protection Program BI0-2a. Active Raptor and Migratory Bird Nest Protection Program. 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? B1O4. 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)? BI0-7. Will the project destroy Less than Significant Less than Significant BI0-7: Create or Restore wetlands or other waters of the after Mitigation after Mitigation Wetlands and Waters of the U.S.? U.S. BI0-8. Will the project expose Less than Significant Less than Significant WQ-le: Dioxin/Furan organisms to hazardous levels after Mitigation after Mitigation Congener Monitoring and of toxic or bioaccumulatory Source Reduction substances? BIO -Cl. Will the project have Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. cumulative impacts to biological resources? City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility $ River Access Improvements FIR Page 1-9 February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205503 31 Impact and Mitigation Summary Approved Project and Project with Proposed Revisions Approved Project Project with 2002 EIR, as Proposed Revisions Impact revised by 2004 2006 Construction and 2005 Addendum Addendums 9. Traffic and Circulation TR -1. Will project traffic cause congestion along study area roadways? TR -2. Will lane closures due to project construction cause traffic delays, transit delays, restricted access, increased traffic hazards, and rerouting of traffic, including emergency vehicles? TR -3. Will project construction traffic increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? TR -4. Will project construction traffic damage public or private roadbeds? TR.5. Will there be inadequate parking for project activities? TR -6. Will project construction activities result in heavy vehicles on roadways not designated or suitable as truck routes? TR -C1: Will there be traffic congestion along study area roadways during the cumulative conditions? 10. Air Quality AQ -1. Will construction of the Project generale emissions that expose people to high levels of dust and equipment exhaust? Less than Significant Less than Significant after Mitigation after Mitigation Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Mitigation Measure TR -la Reroute construction worker trips TR -lb Install Signage to Reroute Employee and Visitor Trips No mitigation is necessary. No mitigation is necessary. No mitigation is necessary. No mitigation is necessary. No mitigation is necessary. Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. Less than Significant I Less than Significant I No mitigation is necessary. City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility 3c River Access Improvernents FIR Page I-10 February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205503 32 Impact and Mitigation Summary Approved Project and Project with Proposed Revisions Approved Project Project with 2002 EIR, as Proposed Revisions Impact revised by 2004 2006 Construction and 2005 Addendum Addendums AQ -2. Will project emissions cumulatively exceed allowable limits? AQ -3. Will the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants? AQ4. Will project violate or contribute to violation of ambient air quality standard? AQ -5. Will the project cause potential odors? AQ -Cl: Will the project have the potential to have a cumulative impact to air quality? 11. Noise N -l: Will construction of the Project expose the public to high noise levels? N-2. Will construction of the Project cause high noise levels from construction traffic? N-3: Will operation and maintenance of the project expose the public to high noise levels? N -Cl: Will the project have a cumulative potential to disturb noise -sensitive receptors during or after construction? Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Mitigation Measure No mitigation is necessary. No mitigation is necessary. No mitigation is necessary. No mitigation is necessary. No mitigation is necessary. No mitigation is necessary. No mitigation is necessary. No mitigation is necessary. No mitigation is necessary. City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 1-11 February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205503 33 Impact and Mitigation Summary Approved Project and Project with Proposed Revisions Approved Project Project with 2002 EIR, as Proposed Revisions Impact revised by 2004 2006 Construction and 2005 Addendum Addendums 34 12. Cultural Resources CR -I. Will the project disturb known, potentially -eligible National or California Register properties, including archaeological, historical, architectural, and Native American/ traditional heritage resources? CR -2. Will the project disturb unknown archaeological resources? CR -Cl: Will the project have a cumulative potential to disturb historical or cultural resources? 13. Visual Resources VR -l. Will the project be inconsistent with the Sonoma County Open Space Element regarding Community Separators seen from public viewpoints? VR -2. Will the project be inconsistent with the Sonoma County Open Space Element regarding Scenic Landscape Units seen from public viewpoints? VR -3. Will the project be inconsistent with the Sonoma County Open Space Element regarding Scenic Corridors? VR -4. Will the project be inconsistent with minimum building setbacks for structures along Sonoma County designated scenic corridors? Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Mitigation Measure No mitigation is necessary. No mitigation is necessary. No mitigation is necessary. No impact . No impact No mitigation is necessary. No impact No impact No mitigation is necessary. Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation is necessary. City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 1-12 February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205503 34 luu' IiJ IJJi I, ��� i�l Impact and Mitigation Summary Approved Project and Project with Proposed Revisions Approved Project Project with 2002 EIR, as Proposed Revisions Impact revised by 2004 2006 Construction and 2005 Addendum Addendums VR -5. Will the project cause an adverse effect on foreground or middle -ground views from a high volume travelway, recreation use area, or other public use area? VR -6. Will the project cause an adverse effect on foreground views from one or more private residences VR -7. Will the project create a new light source? VR -Cl: Will the project have a cumulative potential to disturb open space or visual resources? 14. Public Services and Utilitie' PS-1. Will the project increase 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? Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant PS -2. Will project construction No Impact disrupt police, fire, schools, parks and recreation facilities to such a degree that accepted service standards are not maintained? No Impact PS -Cl: Will the project have a Less than Significant Less than Significant cumulative potential to impact public services and utilities? Mitigation Measure No mitigation is necessary. No mitigation is necessary. No mitigation is necessary. No mitigation is necessary. No mitigation is necessary. No mitigation is necessary. No mitigation is necessary. City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 1-13 February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205503 35 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This Addendum evaluates two changes to the Project Description: rerouting construction traffic to the project site and replacement of a section of existing pipe between Pond 9 and Pond 10. CONSTRUCTION TRUCK TRAFFIC ACCESS Construction truck traffic is proposed to be routed off Lakeville Highway at the western, signalized intersection with South McDowell Boulevard and then to Cypress Drive to access the Project site. The route evaluated in the 2004 EIR Addendum routed construction traffic along Lakeville Highway, where it accessed the site directly off of Lakeville Highway (see Figure 1, Proposed Modifications). Under this addendum the entrance off of Lakeville would remain for emergency purposes only. The routing of 50 to 150 construction workers per day remains the same as described in the 2004 EIR Addendum. The routing of employees and visitors during operation remains as described in the 2002 Certified EIR. In both cases traffic would exit off Lakeville Highway at the western, signalized intersection with South McDowell Boulevard and then to Cypress Drive to access the Project site, similar to the construction truck traffic route proposed in this addendum. As part of the project the City will: 1) maintain South McDowell Boulevard (between Lakeville, at the western, signalized intersection, and Cypress Drive) and Cypress Drive to the entrance of the new plant in it's pre -construction condition and 2) return the road to pre -construction condition after the completion of construction on the Water Recycling Facility. PIPE SECTION REPLACEMENT This work involves replacement of an approximately 70 -foot section of the existing 42 -inch pond transfer pipe between Pond 9 and Pond 10. The pipe needs to be replaced in order to allow flow from Pond 10 to Pond 9, once the ponds have been converted to treatment wetlands (the conversion to treatment wetlands was included as part of the project description in the 2002 Certified EIR). Canal C, a jurisdictional wetland, is located between the berm of Pond 9 and the berm of Pond 10. This berm also is utilized as a road. A majority of the pipe to be replaced is positioned beneath this road. Approximately 16 feet of the pipe section to be replaced extends from the top of bank down the side of the berm on the Canal C side. The pipe section to be replaced is approximately 4 feet below the grade of the top of the Pond 9 berm. The new pipe section will sit approximately 8 feet below grade. Open cut excavation will be used to remove and demolish the existing section of pipe and to install the new pipe. Refer to Figure 1 for the location of the pipe replacement. UPDATE OF CUMULATIVE PROJECTS Both the City of Petaluma and the County of Sonoma are currently in the process of updating their General Plans. However, the Courts have held that, in considering water supply projects, agencies should accommodate the growth envisioned in adopted General Plans, and not in draft or anticipated futures plans (see County ofAmador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility 3 River Access Improvements Page 2-I February 2006 2006 EIR Construction Addendum 04-205503 36 Cal.App.4ti' 93 1). Although this case focuses on a water supply project, the logic of this decision applies to basic infrastructure needs generally, such as wastewater treatment capacity. Therefore, this addendum does not address the possibility of increased capacity requirements based on these general plans in progress. No other new cumulative projects have been identified. I f City of Petaluma February 2006 I Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements Page 2-2 2006 FIR Construction Addendum 04-205503 37 MITIGATION •' O' "Oi Ti REVISIONS There are no revisions to the Mitigation Monitoring Program. City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility S River Access tmprovements EIR Page 3-1 February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205503 J9 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 the analysis in the April 2004 and July 2005 Addenda and identifies the change in impacts, if any, from the Project approved in July of 2005. 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 EIR are also provided. For ease of reference, the evaluation criteria table numbers remain the same as the numbering used in the 2002 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 April 2004 and July 2005 Addenda for descriptions of setting, discussion of methodology, and the complete identification and discussion of impacts. City of Petaluma Nater Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements Elft Page 4.0-I February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205507 40 4.1 LAND USE The proposed modifications to the Project Description do not require revisions to the evaluation of Land Use. No new information regarding changed conditions is known. The entire site was evaluated in the original EIR, and the modifications would not result in any new impacts as the project boundaries remain the same and the proposed land use remains the same. City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility S River Access Improvements GIR February 3006 2006 Construction Addendum 41 -- Page 4.1-1 04-205503 4.2 AGRICULTURE The proposed modifications to the Project Description do not require revisions to the evaluation of Agriculture. The entire site was evaluated in the original EIR and April 2004 Addendum, and the modifications would not result in any new impacts as the footprint of the site pian remains the same as previously presented and will not remove additional agricultural land from production. Measures included in the Project to address loss of agricultural land and increasing glassy -winged sharpshooter populations will still be applicable. lCity of Pctaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 42 Page 4.2-1 04-2055-03 4.3 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY The proposed modifications to the Project Description 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 project boundary remains the same. Measures included in the Project to address liquefaction, ground shaking, and expansive and corrosive soils will still be applicable. City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility $ River Access Improvements EIR Page 4.3-1 February 2006 1006 construction Addendum 04-205503 43 4.4 GROUNDWATER The proposed modifications to the Project Description do not require revisions to the evaluation of Groundwater. The re-routing of the construction traffic has no relation to groundwater and the pipe replacement work in Canal C, while it may require de -watering, will not occur at a depth or magnitude that would impact groundwater. Measures included in the Project to address groundwater quality are still applicable. City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 44 Page 4.4-1 04-205503 4.5 SURFACE WATER QUALITY The proposed modifications to the Project Description do not require revisions to the evaluation of Surface Water Quality. The re-routing of construction traffic has no relation to surface water and the pipe replacement will not result in any new impacts because project discharge and surface runoff will not change. 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 will still be applicable. City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements FIR Page 4.5-1 February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205503 45 4.6 HYDROLOGY The proposed modifications to the Project Description do not require revisions to the evaluation of Hydrology. Re-routing of construction traffic and the pipe section replacement will not result in any new impacts because project discharge will not change nor will there be a reduction of the floodplain. Measures included in the Project to address potential flooding or streambank erosion will still be applicable. City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 4.6-1 February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205503 46 4.7 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY The proposed modifications to the Project Description do not require revisions to the evaluation of Public Health and Safety. Neither the re-routing of construction traffic nor the pipe replacement in Canal C have any relationship to the significance criteria for Public Health and Safety established in the Original 2002 EIR. 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. City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 4.7-1 February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205503 47 4.8 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION CRITERIA WITH POINT OF SIGNIFICANCE TABLE 4.8-5 Evaluation Criteria with Point of Significance — Biological Resources Evaluation Criteria 1. Will the project cause loss of individuals or occupied habitat of endangered, threatened, or rare fish, wildlife or plant species? 2. Will the project cause loss of active raptor nests, migratory bird nests, or wildlife nursery sites? 3. Will the project cause permanent loss of sensitive wildlife habitat? 4. Will the project cause permanent loss of sensitive native plant communities? As Measured By a. Number of individuals of a plant or wildlife species that would be lost b. Acres of occupied or designated critical habitat Number of active nesting or nursery sites Acres of sensitive wildlife habitat Acres of sensitive native plant community (as defined by the California Natural Diversity Data Base) lost Point of Significance a. Greater than 0 individuals b. Greater than 0 acres Greater than 0 active nest sites Greater than 10 percent of each habitat type in the project area The 10 percent significance threshold is used here to define a "substantial" impact for species that are not rare, threatened, or endangered, pursuant to CEQA Appendix G, Item IV. (a). Greater than 0 acres Justification FESA, CESA (Sections 2062 and 2067), CEQA (Article 5, Section 15065), and California Native Plant Protection Act (CDFG Code Sections 1900-1913); Petaluma General Plan; Petaluma Watershed Plan; Sonoma County General Plan OS -4 and RC -5 CEQA, CDFG Wildlife Habitat Relationships model, Fish and Game Code CEQA, CDFG Wildlife Habitat Relationships model; Petaluma General Plan; Sonoma County General Plan OS4 and RC -5 CEQA, California Native Plant Protection Act, CDFG Interim Wildlife/Hardwood Management Guidelines, CNDDB, Sonoma County General Plan OS -4 and RC -5, Petaluma General Plan; Petaluma Watershed Plan City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 4.8-1 February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205503 48 TABLE 4.8-5 Evaluation Criteria with Point of Significance — Biological Resources Evaluation Criteria As Measured By Point of Significance Justification 5. Will the project substantially block or disrupt major fish or wildlife migration or travel corridors? 6. Will the project cause permanent loss of aquatic habitat (i.e., streams)? 7. Will the project destroy wetlands or waters of the U.S.? 8. Will the project expose organisms to hazardous levels of a) toxic or b) bioaccumulatory substances Number of corridors substantially blocked or disrupted Linear feet of stream habitat Acreage of permanent discharge to or placement of fill in potential jurisdictional wetlands or waters of the U.S. a. Chronic and acute effluent toxicity tests b. Concentrations of constituents in secondary treat water IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT: Analysis: City of Petaluma February 2006 Greater than 0 corridors Greater than 0 linear feet of stream habitat Greater than 0 acre a. 100/NOEL = 1 (chronic) and median percent survival>90% or >70% 10% of the time (acute) b. Exceeds the CTR standard for protection of aquatic life or bioconcentration factor <30 or log octanol/water partition coefficient <3 CEQA; Petaluma General Plan Goals 6.3-5, 6.3-6 and Objectives 6.4-n, -o, -r, and -s; Petaluma Watershed Plan; Sonoma County General Plan OS -4 and RC -5 CEQA, with concurrence from Bill Cox CDFG fisheries biologist, Region 3 Yountville; Petaluma General Plan Goal 5.1-2; Petaluma Watershed Plan; Sonoma County General Plan OS -4 and RC -5 Clean Water Act, 40 CFR 230 Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, Corps, EPA, and State of California no net loss policies; Petaluma General Plan; Petaluma Watershed Plan; Sonoma County General Plan OS -4 and RC -5 a. SFRWQCB Basin Plan toxicity objective b. California Toxics Rule (CTR) and Franke et al. (1994) 11I0-1: Will the project modifications cause loss of individuals or occupied habitat of endangered, threatened, or rare fish, wildlife or plant species? Significant —No change in level ofsignif:cance from 2002 Certified EIR Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR 2006 Construction Addendum 49 Page 4.8-2 04-205503 The pipe replacement work may result in temporary impacts to Canal C. Canal C is considered suitable habitat for the California red -legged frog. As such, the work will be subject to the mitigation measures for the California red -legged frog included in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service -approved Biological Assessment for this project. Canal C does not provide habitat to any other known endangered, threatened, or rare fish, wildlife or plant species. While BI0-1 is still considered significant based on the analysis in the 2002 Certified EIR, the minor changes discussed in this document are considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures BIO -la, Aquatic Species Protection Program, and BIO -lc, Wildlife Protection Program, are still applicable. IMPACT: BIO -2: Will the project cause a loss of active raptor nests, migratory bird nests, or wildlife nursery sites? Analysis: Significant — No change in level ofsignifCance f•om 2002 Certified EIR The pipeline replacement work is not in the vicinity of any trees or other potential nesting sites. Therefore, the modifications to the Project will not cause additional impacts. Mitigation Measure BI0-2a Active Raptor and Migratory Bird Nest Protection Program and BIO -2b Rookery Protection Program, are still applicable. IMPACT: BIO -3: Will the project cause permanent loss of sensitive wildlife habitat? Analysis: Less than Significant —No change in level of significancefrom 2002 Certified EIR Sensitive wildlife habitats are defined as habitats that provide high suitability for foraging and breeding for state or federal species of special concern and California fully protected species, and important nesting, foraging, and breeding habitat for migratory birds and other native wildlife. Sensitive wildlife habitats identified within the proposed project area are valley foothill riparian, saline emergent wetland, eucalyptus, and cropland. The 2005 Construction Addendum identified 4.40 acres of temporary impacts to Marsh and Aquatic sensitive habitats. The pipeline replacement work may increase the temporary impacts by approximately 0.02 acres, but has no permanent impacts. Therefore, this impact remains less than significant as discussed in the 2002 Certified EIR, and 2004 and 2005 Addenda. Mitigation: No mitigation is necessary. IMPACT: BI04: Will the project cause a permanent loss of sensitive native plant communities? Analysis: No impact No change in level of significance from April 2004 Addendum The pipe replacement work is not in an area of sensitive native plant communities. Therefore, they will not cause a permanent loss of sensitive native plant communities. City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 4.8-3 February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205503 50 IMPACT: BIO -5: Will the project substantially block or disrupt major fish or wildlife migration or travel corridors? Analysis: Significant - No change in level ofsignificance f-om 2002 Certified EIR There are no known major terrestrial wildlife migration or travel corridors on the project site. The pipe replacement work may occur partially down the bank of Canal C; however Canal C is not considered to be a major fish migration corridor nor is it known to support runs of anadromous salmonids (2002 Certified EIR). Measure PD -8, Construction Erosion and Spill Control Measures, adopted as part of this project, and Mitigation Measure BIO -la, Aquatic Species Protection Program, are still applicable. IMPACT: BIO -6: Will the project cause permanent loss of aquatic habitat (i.e., streams)? Analysis: No impact — No change in level of significance f rom April 2004 EIR Addendum for Water Recycling Facility The pipe replacement work will not result in any permanent loss of aquatic habitat. The impacts to the bank of Canal C would be temporary. Mitigation: No mitigation is necessary. IMPACT: 13I0-7: Will the Project destroy wetlands or other waters of the U.S.? Analysis: Significant —No change in the level ofsignificance from Certified 2002 EIR The pipe replacement work may cause up to approximately 0.02 acres of temporary impacts to jurisdictional wetlands in Canal C. This would increase the total temporary impacts to wetlands from 4.40 to 4.42 acres. The majority of the disturbance will be at the top of the berm and down the Pond 9 side of the bank of the berm, with a small portion extending down the Canal C side of the bank of the berm to between the 10- and 5 -foot contour line. Work will not be done in the bed of the Canal. Mitigation: BIO -7. Create or Restore Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. After Mitigation: Less than Significant The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board approved the Final Wetlands Mitigation Plan in July of 2005. The measures in this plan for addressing temporary impacts to wetlands are incorporated in Mitigation Measure BI0-7 and will apply to the potential impacts that may result from the pipe replacement work. City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 4.8-4 February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205503 51 IMPACT: 13I0-8: Will the project expose organisms to hazardous levels of toxic or bioaccumulatory substances? Analysis: Significant —No change in level of sign fcance from 2002 certified EIR The analysis included in the EIR remains the same. The proposed modifications to the Project will not change the level of toxic or bioaccumulatory substances to which organisms will be exposed. Mitigation Measure WQ-le is still applicable. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS IMPACT- BIO -Cl: Will the project cumulatively impact biological resources? Analysis: Less than Significant - No change in level of significance from 2002 certified EIR No new cumulative projects have been identified in the vicinity of the project site. Cumulative biological impacts remain less than significant with the modified project. Mitigation: No mitigation is necessary. REFERENCES Winzler & Kelly. 2005. Final Wetlands Mitigation Plan. July. City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 4.9-5 February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205503 52 4.9 TRANSPORTATION EVALUATION CRITERIA WITH POINT OF SIGNIFICANCE Evaluation Criteria with Point of Significance — Transportation and Circulation Evaluation Criteria 1. Will project traffic cause congestion along study area roadways? 2. Will lane closures due to project construction cause traffic delays, transit delays, restricted access, increased traffic hazards, and rerouting of traffic, including emergency vehicles? 3. Will project construction traffic increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? 4. Will project construction traffic damage public or private roadbeds? 5. Will there be inadequate parking for project activities? 6. Will project construction activities result in heavy vehicles on roadways not designated or suitable as truck routes? As Measured by Deterioration in intersection level of service along study area roadways. a. Miles of lane closures not in compliance with Standard Transportation Procedures. Number of locations where there is ingress/egress of construction equipment onto a major roadway not in accordance with regulations!. Number of miles of roadway which project does not restore to existing conditions or better. Any on -street parking Number of roadways traveled by project heavy vehicles on non -designated truck routes without a Transportation Permit. Point of Significance For city streets where existing LOS is C or better, LOS of D or worse is significant. For city streets where existing LOS is D or E, deterioration to the next lower level is significant. Greater than 0 miles. Greater than 0 locations. Greater than 0 miles. Greater than 0 vehicles. Greater than 0 roadways. Justification Petaluma General Plan, Transportation Element, Section 10.3, Policy 1 Sonoma County Public Works Department; California Department of Transportation, and Professional Judgment Sonoma County Public Works Department; California Department of Transportation Sonoma County Public Works Department; California Department of Transportation Code requirements for Sonoma County and City of Petaluma Sonoma County Public Works Department, California Department of Transportation City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility S River Access Improvements EIR Page 4.9-1 February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205503 53 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The Project proposes to re-route construction truck traffic off Lakeville Highway at South McDowell Boulevard (at the westerly signalized intersection, not the easterly intersection) and then to Cypress Drive to access the Project site. Currently, construction worker traffic uses South McDowell Boulevard and Cypress Drive, but truck traffic is routed along Lakeville Highway to access the site, although truck traffic could return to Lakeville Highway via Cypress Drive and South McDowell Boulevard. The highest volume of truck trips (72 trips per day) are expected to occur for approximately 73 days until mid 2007. All other construction traffic and project traffic components, impacts, and mitigation measures remain the same as described in the Transportation and Circulation sections of the 2002 Certified EIR and 2004 and 2005 Addenda. IMPACT: TR -1: Will the project traffic cause congestion along study area roadways? Analysis: Significant — No change in level of significance from 2002 Certified EIR for Construction Peak construction truck traffic has already occurred, and construction traffic is now expected to be less than that projected in the EIR and previous Addenda. EIR estimates of construction truck traffic were 240 truck trips per day. Current estimates of construction truck traffic are 12 to 72 truck trips per day, to be routed along Cypress Drive and South McDowell Boulevard according to the proposed changes in the project description (personal communication, Ed O'Brien, The Covello Group, 2006). This change in routing will decrease truck traffic on Lakeville Highway between South McDowell Boulevard and the Project site by 120 to 240 truck trips per day. The average daily traffic (ADT) on South McDowell Boulevard south of Cader Lane was approximately 3,423 northbound and 2,949 southbound trips in 2001 (Frank Penry, City Traffic Division Manager, personal communication, 2006). The proposed route revisions will increase the ADT by 12 to 72 trips for a total of 3,459 northbound trips and 2,985 southbound trips per day, an approximately 1% increase when the maximum number of trucks are in use. While TR -1 is still considered significant based on the analysis in the 2002 Certified EIR, the small changes in congestion on Cypress Drive and South McDowell Boulevard are considered less than significant and do not require additional mitigation. Congestion impacts on Lakeville Highway between South McDowell and the Project site would be slightly improved. Mitigation Measure TR -la and TR -lb regarding construction workers and visitors is still applicable. IMPACT: TR -2: Will lane closures due to project construction cause traffic delays, transit delays, restricted access, increased traffic hazards, and rerouting of traffic, including emergency vehicles? City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility S River Access Improvements EIR Page 4.9-2 February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205503 54 Analysis: Less than Significant— No change in level ofsignificance from 2002 Certified EIR Lane closures will not be necessary for construction. However, re-routing traffic to exit at the signalized intersection at South McDowell Blvd. would provide a safer entrance to the Project site then slowing and turning off Lakeville where there is no signal or stop sign and traffic is moving at 55 MPH. Mitigation: No mitigation is necessary. IMPACT: TR -3: Will project construction traffic increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? Analysis: Less than Significant -No change in level of significance from 2002 Certified EIR South McDowell Blvd. and Cypress Lane will have up to 72 more truck trips per day. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities along these streets are adequate, and the additional truck traffic will not substantially increase traffic hazards. Mitigation: No mitigation is necessary. IMPACT: TR -4: Will project construction traffic damage public or private roadbeds? Analysis: Less than Significant -No change in level ofsignificance from 2002 Certified EIR There are no restrictions for truck traffic on U.S. 101 and Lakeville Highway (S.R. 116) since they are designated truck routes. These roadbeds have been designed to handle the heavy loads associated with construction traffic. As part of the project the City will: 1) maintain South McDowell Boulevard (between Lakeville, at the western, signalized intersection, and Cypress Drive) and Cypress Drive to the entrance of the new plant in it's pre -construction condition and 2) return the road to pre -construction condition after the completion of construction on the Water Recycling Facility. Therefore, this impact remains less than significant. IMPACT: TR -5: Will there be inadequate parking for project activities? Analysis: Less than Significant - No change in level of significance f •om 2002 Certified EIR Rerouting of truck traffic does not affect the parking analysis. The analysis of Impact TR -5 is the same for the revised project as for the approved project. Mitigation: No mitigation is necessary. IMPACT: TR -6: Will project construction activities result in heavy vehicles on roadways not designated or suitable as truck routes? Analysis: Less than Significant - No change in level of significance f om 2002 Certified EIR City of Petaluma February 2006 U.S. 101 and Lakeville Highway (S.R. 116) are both designated truck routes suitable for heavy vehicles for construction activities. There are no restrictions for trucks or heavy vehicles on these routes. Some roadway damage may result along South McDowell Boulevard and Cypress Drive. As part of the project the City will: 1) maintain South McDowell Boulevard (between Lakeville, at the western, Water Recycling Facility S River Access Improvements EIR 2006 Construction Addendum 55 Page 4.9-3 04-205503 signalized intersection, and Cypress Drive) and Cypress Drive to the entrance of the new plant in it's pre -construction condition and 2) return the road to pre - construction condition after the completion of construction on the Water Recycling Facility. Therefore, this impact remains less than significant. Mitigation: No mitigation is necessary. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS IMPACT: TR -Cl: Will there be traffic congestion along study area roadways during the cumulative conditions? Analysis: Less than Significant - No change in level ofsignificance from 2002 Certified EIR No new cumulative projects have been identified in the vicinity of the project site. The cumulative impact to transportation is still considered less than significant for the revised project. Mitigation: No mitigation required is necessary. REFERENCES Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. 2003. Traffic Impact Study for the Adobe Creek Center. October 8. City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 4.9-4 February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205503 56 4.10 AIR QUALITY The proposed modifications to the Project Description do not require revisions to the evaluation of Air Quality. The modifications do not involve any new air emissions, contaminants, or odors. Measures included in the Project to address air quality will still be applicable. City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 4.10-1 February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205503 57 4.11 NOISE EVALUATION CRITERIA WITH POINT OF SIGNIFICANCE Evaluation Criteria with Point of Significance - Noise Notes: 1 -'rhe property or yard tine of the affected receptor whichever is closer to the affected structure. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT: N-1: Will construction of the project expose the public to high noise levels? Analysis: Less than Significant — No change in level of significance from 2002 Certified EIR Replacement of the pipe in Canal C is at the interior of the Project site and will not change noise levels for adjacent land uses. Up to two residences will experience noise levels of 60 dBA. Measure PD -17, Construction Noise Mitigation, adopted as part of this project requires the City to schedule activities and use equipment to reduce construction noise as much as is feasible. With implementation of these measures as part of the project, construction noise is found to be less than significant. Mitigation: No mitigation is necessary. City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility Se River Access Improvements EIR Page 4.11-1 February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205503 58 Point of Evaluation Criteria As Measured by Significance Justification 1. Will construction of the Projected noise Greater than Leq of 60 California Office of Noise project expose the public to levels at property dBA Control recommended high noise levels? line or "yard" line construction noise limits 2. Will construction of the Projected traffic Greater than 5 dBA An increase of 5 dBA or project cause high noise levels volume due to increase in noise, Leq more will be readily from construction traffic? construction noticeable. 3. Will operation and Projected noise a. Greater than LSO General Plan of Sonoma maintenance of the project levels at property of 45 dBA, County expose the public to high noise line or "yard" line' OR levels? • b. Greater than 5 An increase of 5 dBA or dBA increase in more will be readily noise, Leal noticeable. Source: Parsons, Illinaw.rb & Rodkin 2004 Notes: 1 -'rhe property or yard tine of the affected receptor whichever is closer to the affected structure. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT: N-1: Will construction of the project expose the public to high noise levels? Analysis: Less than Significant — No change in level of significance from 2002 Certified EIR Replacement of the pipe in Canal C is at the interior of the Project site and will not change noise levels for adjacent land uses. Up to two residences will experience noise levels of 60 dBA. Measure PD -17, Construction Noise Mitigation, adopted as part of this project requires the City to schedule activities and use equipment to reduce construction noise as much as is feasible. With implementation of these measures as part of the project, construction noise is found to be less than significant. Mitigation: No mitigation is necessary. City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility Se River Access Improvements EIR Page 4.11-1 February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205503 58 IMPACT: N-2: Will construction of the project cause high noise levels from construction traffic? Analysis: Less than Significant —No change in level of significance firom 2002 Certified EIR The land uses along South McDowell Boulevard and Cypress Drive between Lakeville Highway and the project site include offices, light industrial, warehousing and some retail adjacent to Lakeville Highway. No "noise sensitive" land uses, which normally include residences, hospitals, schools, convalescent homes, etc., are located along the proposed truck route alternative. Truck noise levels have been calculated using the Federal Highway Administration Stamina -Optima Traffic Noise Model. The calculated hourly average noise level generated by the proposed construction trucks 50 feet from the centerline of the South McDowell Boulevard/Cypress Drive route is 58 dBA Leq. An hourly average noise level of 58 dBA Leq is compatible with the land uses along the roadway. The noise of individual trucks driving by could reach about 80 dBA at a distance of 50 feet as each truck passes by. It appeared that all buildings along the route have fixed glazing. Such buildings normally provide at least 30 dBA of noise reduction when going from outside to inside. Maximum instantaneous noise levels are, therefore, expected to be about 50 dBA as the trucks pass. Instantaneous maximum noise levels of 50 dBA are also compatible with interior noise environments normally encountered in offices. Normal daytime truck trips along the corridor would, therefore, not be expected to cause a noise impact upon the existing land uses. Mitigation: No mitigation is necessary. IMPACT: N-3: Will operation and maintenance of the Project expose the public to high noise levels? Analysis: Less than Significant - No change in level of significance from 2002 Certified EIR Neither the pipe replacement nor the re-routing of construction traffic will change the level of noise generation during operation of the Project. The analysis of Impact N-3 is the same for the revised project as for the approved project. Measure PD -18, Operational Noise Mitigation, adopted as part of this project requires the City to utilize an acoustical engineer during the design process to ensure that the noise levels produced by mechanical equipment at the Lakeville facility do not exceed County standards for receptors in the County and City standards for those receptors in the City. Analysis: No Impact - No change in level of significance f rom 2002 Certified EIR These improvements will not cause an increase in noise level off site. Mitigation: No mitigation is necessary. City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 4.11-2 February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205503 59 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS IMPACT: N -Cl: Will the project have a cumulative potential to disturb noise -sensitive receptors during or after construction? Analysis: Less than Significant - No change in level of significance from 2002 Certified EIR No new cumulative projects have been identified. Cumulative impacts to noise remain less than significant with the revised project. Mitigation: No mitigation is necessary. REFERENCES Rodkin, Richard. 2006. Memo: Petaluma YVRF EIR Addendum — Noise. January 24. City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 4.11-3 February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205503 60 4.12 CULTURAL RESOURCES The proposed modifications to the Project Description do not require revisions to the evaluation of Cultural Resources. The entire site was evaluated in the original EIR and subsequent Addendums, and the modifications would not result in any new impacts as the project boundaries remain the same. Measures included in the Project to address unknown cultural resources will still be applicable. City or Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 4.12-1 February 2006 3006 Construction Addendum 04-205503 61 4.13 VISUAL RESOURCES The proposed modifications to the Project Description do not require revisions to the evaluation of Visual Resources. The modifications do not involve any new permanent structures; therefore there would not be any new impacts resulting from view obstruction or degradation of visual quality. Measures included in the Project to address visual resources will still be applicable. City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 4.13-1 February 2006 1006 Construction Addendum 04-205503 62 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES The proposed modifications to the Project Description do not require revisions to the evaluation of Public Services and Utilities. The modifications will not change the demand for public services nor the disruption of emergency services that was analyzed in the 2002 EIR or the April 2004 EIR Addendum. Emergency vehicles will still be able to access the site directly from Lakeville Highway via a gravel road and gate in the permanent fence. Hence two locations are available to access this 261 -acre site. Measures included in the Project to address public services and utilities will still be applicable. City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility 3 River Access Improvements EIR Page 4.14-1 February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205507 63 5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT The changes in impacts due to the proposed modifications to the Project Description are minor and will not affect the relative comparison of alternatives presented in the 2002 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. City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 5-1 February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205507 64 6 CEQA-REQUIRED SECTIONS GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT The growth inducing nature of the project has not changed due to the proposed revisions. 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. The changes evaluated in this 2006 Addendum do not involve unavoidable impacts, and therefore no need for a Statement of Overriding Considerations exists relative to this Addendum. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE The 2002 EIR identified the Environmentally Superior Alternatives as Alternative 4, Hopper Street, and the proposed project, 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 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. City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 6-1 February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205503 65 7 PREPARERS LEAD AGENCY The City of Petaluma, California, is the lead agency under CEQA for the preparation of the Petaluma Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements EIR Addendum. Staff Member Role Michael J. Ban, P.E. Director, Petaluma Department of Water Resources and Conservation Margaret P. Orr, P.E. Engineering Manager, Petaluma Department of Water Resources and Conservation PROJECT COORDINATOR Winzler & Kelly was retained to prepare the 2006 Petaluma Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements EIR Construction Addendum. Winzler & Kelly Staff Member Pat Collins Kristine Gaspar Illingworth & Rodkin Staff Member Rich Rodkin Carollo Engineers Staff Member Bill Knopf, P.E. Doug Wing, P.E. Role Project Manager Project Planner Role Noise Analysis Role Principal -in -Charge, Engineering Project Manager, Engineering City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility & River Access Improvements EIR Page 7-1 February 2006 2006 Construction Addendum 04-205503 66 Attachment B S. McDowell Boulevard and Cypress Drive Road Condition 67