HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 7.A 05/17/2004CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
AGENDA BILL M 17, 21
`
Agenda 'title Resolution Re- certifying May 17, 2004 Water
Recycling Facility and Meetin�y fate:
River Access Improvements
m r
Project Fin;tl Environental Impact.Rep ..
Addendum, and Adopting Findings and titatenicht: of Overriding
C;onsi.derations, and Adopling.Revised °,litigatiim Measures and Meeting'Pime ❑ 3:00 PM
Monitoring Prog X 7:00 PM
C ategory (check one) ❑ Consent. Calendar ❑ Public Hearing X New Business
❑ Unfinished_ Business ❑ Presentation
Department
Director
Contact Person
Phone Number
Water Resources and
Michael J. Ban, P.E.
Margaret P. Orr, P.E.
778 -4589
Conservation
Cost of Proposal
Account Number
C500402
Name of Fund:
Item
Water Recycling
River Access
Facility
Wastewater
Construction Costs
$68M
— Improvements
$13M
Project Costs
$34M
$0.7
Land Acquisition
$2.3M
$1.9m
Total
$104.3M
$3.9
Proposed FY 04 -05
$104.3M
$3.9M
Budget
Attachments to Agenda Packet
Resolution
Exhibit A Findings of Fact
Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Considerations
Exhibit C Revised Mitigation Monitoring Program
Agenda Report
Attachment A – EIR Addendum
Summary Statement A feasibility study conducted in 2003 determined there were many benefits to locating the
new water recycling facility at 41.00 Lakeville Highway. An Addendum to the Water Recycling Facility and River
Access Improvements EIR was prepared to evaluate potential changes to the environmental affects of the Project due
to this proposed project revision, The EIR concludes that the determinations of the Final EIR remain
valid for the revised Project in that none of the Project modifications will have new significant impacts or
substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects. The Water Recycling Facility and
River Access Improvements Final' 'EIR Addendum represents the culmination of an extraordinary amount of City,
public and professional effort to develop a project that treats the community's wastewater in- an ecologically and
economically sustainable manner, and a companion project that includes recreation, education, habitat creation and
restoration, extension of the Shollenber er trail and placement of freshwater tidal wetlands in public ownership.
Recommende4fitY Council Action /Su22ested Motion City Management recommends the City Council adopt the
Resolution Re- Certifying the Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Project Final Environmental
Impact Report and.Addendum.
Reyiewed bv Finance Director:
Reviewed x Cotv Attor,ne :
A rov c Cit Mana er:
Date:
a e:
Date:
_
T ay's ate
Revision # and D ie evised:
File Code: \water resources &
April 22, 2004
#
con servation\ Wastewater \90.12 \city counciWay 3,
2004\Agenda Bill WRF.doc
4
4
•
1.: �_.
. I RE- CERTIFYING THE WATER RECYCLING FACILITY AND RIVER
2 ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT FINAL.ENVIRONMENTAL N
3 IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM, AND ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
4 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING
5 REVISED MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING PROGRAM
6
7 WHEREAS, in 1938, the original wastewater treatment processes were constructed at
8 950 Hopper Street;
9
10 WHEREAS, to meet the community's needs and changing regulatory requirements,
11 various upgrades and additions to the wastewater treatment plant were conducted through
12 the 1960s;
13
14 WHEREAS, in 1972, the oxidation ponds were constructed at 4400 Lakeville Highway
15 to provide additional treatment capacity;
16
17 WHEREAS, in 1988, with. influent flows exceeding 75% of the permitted capacity of the
18 wastewater treatment facility, and necessary upgrades to the facility to increase treatment
19 capacity and continue to meet the needs of the community were determined to be too
20 costly, the City determined to replace the existing wastewater treatment facility;
21
22 WHEREAS, in 1.991 the City executed a Memorandum of Understanding with
23 Envirotech Operating Services (EOS) to design, build, construct, own and operate (20
24 years) a new wastewater treatment facility (Resolution No. 94-107);
25
26 WHEREAS, on July 31, 1991, EOS submitted an application to the California Public
27 Utilities Commission (CPUC) seeking an exemption from CPUC regulation under the
28 California Local Government Privatization Act of 1985;
29
30 WHEREAS, on October 2.1, 1991, Administrative Law Judge Ramsey determined that
31 the MOU did not meet the requirements of the Public Utilities Code and ordered that "the
32 application is denied without °prejudice to refiling after amendment ";
33
34 WHEREAS, in February 1992 EOS and the City mutually agreed to rescind the MOU;
35
36 WHEREAS, on. June ;20, 1994, following a report prepared by Ernst and Young, the City
37 Council adopted Resolution No. 94 -156, which directed that the Service Agreement
38 Approach (privatization) be utilized for procurement of a new wastewater treatment
39 facility;
40
41 WHEREAS, on June 17, 1996, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96 -163, which
42 certified the Final EIR documents, Resolution No. 96 -164, which approved the project,
43 and Resolution No. 96 -165, which approved and authorized issuance of the Request For
10,45 44 Proposal;
Page 1 of 7.
S: \water resources & c6nservation \Wastewater \9012 \city council \May 3, 2004\resolution certifying final eir
addendum final.doc
WHEREAS, on July 17, 1996, the RFP was issued to five pre-qualified vendor teams;
2
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;
9
10 WHERAS, 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 thewalue 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 7
•
I*
S: \water resources & conservation \Wastewater \9012 \city council\May 3, 2004\resolution. certifying final eir
addendum final.doc
® I / Inability to Agree On Contract Language. After extensive negotiations
2 between the City and MUW, specific contract language on the above and other
3 critical issues could -not be agreed upon.
4
5 WHEREAS, on September 21, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99 -189,
6 which approved the Wastewater Treatment Master Plan, with the understanding that the
7 Master Plan's recommended projectwould be further'reviewed to address questions
8 asked by the City's independent wastewater professionals;
9
10 WHEREAS, on October 29, 1999, the City issued_ a Request For Proposal for
11 engineering services in. support of the water recycling facility prof ect (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, 200.1, December 17, 2001 and January 7, 2002;
Page 3 of 7
SAwater resources & conservation \Wastewater \9012 \city council \May 3, 2004 \resolution certifying final eir
addendum final.doc
2
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 2002 -012 on January 7 2002, which
•
3
approved design parameters for the preferred alternative for the water. recycling facility
4
project and authorized completion of the environmental impact report;
5
6
WHEREAS,, the City prepared Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements
7
Draft EIR (April. 2002) and.distributed it to the California State Clearinghouse and to all
8
responsible local, state and federal, agencies involved in the project and made it available
9
for public review;
10
11
WHEREAS, the City Council held noticed public hearings :on May 13, 2002, and May
12
20, 2002, during which all interested persons. were provided an opportunity to comment
13
on the adequacy of the Draft EIR; -
14
15
WHEREAS, the public_review period for the Draft EIR began April 15, 2002, and.
16
closed May 29, 2002;
17
18
WHEREAS, the City prepared Water Recycling. Facility and River Access Improvements
19
Final EIR and Response To Comments (July 2002), which responded to comments
20
received on the,Draft EIR. The Final EIR did not identify any new significant impacts
21
that had not been previously evaluated in the Draft EIR.
22
23
WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on August 5, 2002 to
24
consider the Final EIR;
25
26
WHEREAS, that after due consideration, the Petaluma City Council, adopted Resolution
27
2002 -135 certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Water Recycling.
28
Facility and River Access Improvements Project and made the following findings on
29
August 5, 2002.
30
31
1. The Final Environmental Impact Report has been completed in compliance with
32
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CE
33
Guidelines.
34
2. The documents referenced below constitute the Final Environmental Impact
35
Report and were presented. and considered along with both written and oral
36
comments received during the public review period on the project and
37
environmental documents:
38
a. Water Recycling Facility and.River Access Improvements Draft
39
Environmental Impact'Report; in two volumes (April 2002).
40
b. Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Final
41
Environmental Iinpact.Report and. Response To Comments (July 2002).
42.
3. The City Council, as the decision making body of the City of Petaluma,
43
independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the. information in the Final EIR
44
45
and found that the contents of the Final EIR reflect the independent judgment of
the City of Petaluma
: Page 4 of 7
SAwater resources & con servation\Wastewater\901 2\city council\May 3, 2004\resolution certifying - . final eir
addendum.final.doc
1 4. The Final EIR was published, made available and circulated for review and
2 comment.
3
4 WHEREAS, the project certified in the Final EIR included locating a portion of the
5 treatment plant at 4400 Lakeville Highway, the current site of the City's oxidation ponds
6 (APN 0680 - 010 -025, 032 and 024), with polishing treatment wetlands located at 4100
7 Lakeville Highway (APN 068- 010 -026, and 017 - 170 -002); and
9 WHEREAS, the City completed approximately 50% design of the facility in November
10 2002; and
11
12 WHEREAS, through the value engineering effort conducted in December 2002, it
13. became apparent the alternative of locating the water recycling facility at 4100 Lakeville
14 Highway and preserving the oxidation pond site for its current function warranted further
15 evaluation; and
16
17 WHEREAS, to construct the water recycling facility at the oxidation pond site would
18 require the removal, drying and disposal of sludge from the aerated lagoon and oxidation
19 pond no. 1, construction of a pipeline to deliver influent to oxidation pond no. 2, the
20 construction of aerators in oxidation pond nos. 2 and 3 to maintain and improve treatment
21 capacity, and require the placement of approximately 250,000 cubic yards of imported fill
22 in the.oxidation pond no. 1; and
23
24 WHEREAS, a feasibility study determined that locating the water recycling facility at
25 4100 Lakeville. Highway was feasible and yields many benefits; and,
26
27 WHEREAS, the City Council adopted resolution No. 20.03 -196 on August 18, 2003,
28 which authorized the City Manager to execute an amendment to the professional services
29 agreement with Carollo Engineers for engineering services in support of locating the new
30 treatment plant at 4100 Lakeville Highway; and
31
32 WHEREAS, the City Council authorized acquisition of approximately 261.33 acres of
33 land in the 4000 block of Lakeville Highway for construction of the Water Recycling
34 Facility and development of the Petaluma Marsh Acquisition, Enhancement and Access
35 Project on September 8, 2003 through Ordinance No. 2161 N.C.S. for the purchase of
36 real property described as Sonoma County Assessor's parcel nos. 068 -010 -026 and 017-
37 010 -002; and
38
39 WHEREAS, the City purchased Parcel nos. 068 - 010 -026 and 017 -010 -002 in February
40 2004; and
41
42 WHEREAS, an Addendum to the Water Recycling Facility and River Access
43 Improvements EIR was prepared to evaluate potential changes to the environmental
44 affects of the Project due to the proposed Project revisions; and
Page 5 of 7
SAwat.er resources & con servati on\Wastewater\901 2\city council \May 3,.2004 \resolution certifying final eir
addendum final.doc
2 WHEREAS the EIR Addendum concludes that the determinations of the Final EIR
3 remain valid for the revised Project in that none of the Project modifications will have
4 new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously identified
5 significant effects; or otherwise meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section
6 15162 which outlines the standards by which subsequent EIRs are required; and
7
8 f WHEREAS., the EIR Addendum was published on April 15, 2004 and was available for
9 public review at the City of Petaluma City Hall, Petaluma Library, Petaluma Community
10 Center, Petaluma Senior Center, and the Santa Rosa Junior College, Petaluma campus;
11 and
12
13 WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the summary of revisions to the Water
14 Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Project as evaluated in the Addendum
15 to be as follows:
16
17 1. Relocation of the project from Pond No. 1 at the City's oxidation pond site to
I8 Parcel nos. 068 -010 -026 and 017 -010 -002;
19 2 Extended aeration basins are replaced with oxidation ditches;
20 3. The bridge over Ellis Creek is no longer needed;
21 4. The east and west gate improvements are no longer needed;
22 5., Anew west gate located on Parcel nos. 068 -010 -026 and 017 -010 -002 is
23 needed;
24 6.. The existing pond site road improvements are no longer needed, except
25 repaving of East Road;
26 7. The seasonal ponds were removed from the project;
27 8. The levee stabilization was removed from the project;
28 9. The river trail was removed from the project;
29 10. Two levee bridges with boat access at High Tide were removed; and
30 11. Storm water distribution wetlands will be completed as;a future phase
31 improvement;
32 12. Marsh restoration will be completed as a future phase improvement; and
33 13. The pipeline crossing near Pond 5 is, deleted and replaced with 3 pipelines
34 crossing near Pond 1;
35
36 WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in
37 the Water Recycling Facility and River Access:Improvements EIR Addendum as well as
38 statements and comments presented at. the public meeting of May 3, 2004; and
39
40 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council that:
41
42 1. It re- certifies the Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements
43 EIR as modified by the EIR Addendum;
44 2. It makes findings of fact that changes or.alterations have been required and
45 incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
Page 6 of 7
SAwater resources & conservation \Wastewater \9012 \city council \May 3, 2004\resolution certifying final eir
addendum.final.doc
is
•
23
Coordinator of the City of Petaluma and be made available at the office of
environmental effects as identified in the EIR as modified by the Addendum
• I
2
25
and these findings are attached hereto as Exhibit A;
3
3.
It has balanced the potential adverse environmental impacts of the selected
4
28
Project, and all other alternatives as described in the Final EIR as modified by
5
the Addendum, with the benefits of the Project, and adopts Exhibit B attached
6
31
hereto as its Statement of Overriding Considerations;
7
4.
It adopts the Revised Mitigation Monitoring Program incorporating the
8
program adopted in the Final EIR with changes as outlined in the EIR
9
Addendum (Exhibit C);
10
5.
It finds thatAhe Project revisions with.new facilities placed on Parcel nos. 068-
11
010 -026 and 017 -010 -002 is the.preferred Project based upon the value
12
engineering review and the Parcel A feasibility study relocation conclusion
13
that the project is feasible, practical, and optimizes compliance with project
14
objectives, and the Project as revised is hereby approved;
15
6.
City Management is authorized to prepare final plans and specifications for
16
the Water Recycling Facility;
17
7.
City Management is authorized to name the new facility the "Ellis Creek
18
Water Recycling Facility ";
19
8.
City Management is authorized to pursue funding for construction of the new
20
facilities through.revenue bonds if state revolving loan funds are unavailable;
21
9.
The Certified EIR and the EIR Addendum and all documents constituting the
22
Administrative Record, therefore, shall reside with the Environmental Review
23
Coordinator of the City of Petaluma and be made available at the office of
24
such Coordinator at the Petaluma City Hall, 11 English Street, Petaluma,
25
California; and
26
10. The Environmental Review Coordinator is directed to file a notice of
27
Determination for the Project adopted hereby.
28
29
30
31
32
•
Page 7 of 7
SAwater >resources,& conservation \Wastewater \9012 \city council\May 3, 2004\resolution certifying final eir
addendum final.doc
. EXHIBIT A TO THE RESOLUTION APPROVING
THE CITY OF PETALUMA WATER RECYCLING FACILITY AND
MARSH ACQUISITION, ENHANCEMENT, AND ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Introduction
The City proposes to construct new treatment facilities, capable of producing tertiary
treated recycled water, at 4100 Lakeville Highway. Also, the project includes a set of
improvements that will provide public recreational and educational amenities on parcels
northwest of the existing oxidation pond site.
These findings, as well as the accompanying statement of overriding considerations, have
been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the CEQA
Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 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.
2. Findings
The EIR and EIR Addendum 'identified two significant, unavoidable impacts:
Agriculture Impact AG -1, loss of farmland and AG -C1, cumulative loss of farmland.
The EIR also identified 11 significant impacts that; with mitigation ' 'can be reduced to
• less - than= significant levels: Groundwater Impact GW -1, degradation of groundwater
quality at existing drinking water wells; Surface Water Quality Impacts WQ -1 and WQ-
2, exceedence of numeric- and narrative -based criteria; Biological Resources Impact
BIO -1, loss of individuals or occupied habitat of endangered species; B10 -2, loss of bird
nests or wildlife nursery sites; B104, loss of sensitive native plant communities; BI0-5,
disruption of fish or wildlife migration corridors; BI0-6, loss of aquatic habitat; BI0-7,
loss of wetlands or waters of the U.S.; B10 -8, exposure of organisms to bioaccumulatory
substances; and Transportation - Impact TR -1, congestion along study area roadways. The
EIR Addendum identified the same significant impacts with the exception. of BI0-4. Due
to the removal of the bridge across Ellis Creek from the project.description, BI0-4, loss
of sensitive native plant communities,.was found to be less than significant. There are
now only ten significant impacts that, with mitigation, will be reduced to less -than-
significant levels.
With respect the two agricultural impacts, loss of farmland and the cumulative loss of
farmland, one mitigation measure was recommended .by the EIR, but has not been
adopted: Measure AG -1, Maintain Maximum Acreage of Agricultural Production.
Measure AG -1 would require the City to maintain the maximum acreage feasible in
agricultural production on Parcels A and B, approximately 35 acres.. Even with this
reduction in, impact, approximately 114 acres of farmland would be removed, and the
impact would remain significant after mitigation. The City has determined not to adopt
Measure AG -1 because it (a) interferes with the project objectives, namely the
educational,and recreational use of Parcel A for trails and wildlife habitat; .(b) agricultural
production on 35 acres is, a very small contribution to agriculture in thexegion; (c) current
.S \WR &C \WW \9012 \City Council \May 3, 2004\
Exhibit A to the Resolution Findings Addendum
agricultural use of the property is not for high -value or unique crops; and (d) agricultural
production so near the Water Recycling Facility could create conflicts between the two
uses. Because the Water Recycling Facility is surrounded by the Petaluma. River on one
side and- agriculture on three sides,. there is no other. parcel which could feasibly attain the
project objectives, without similar loss of agriculturally productive land. No other
feasible xnitigation has been identified, and these impacts remain significant after
mitigation. Refer to Exhibit B for the Statement of Overriding considerations regarding
these impacts.
With respect to Groundwater Impact GW -1, degradation of groundwater 'quality at an
existing drinking water well, one mitigation measure has been adopted: Measure GW -1,
Drinking Water Well Protection Program. Because'there is a drinking water well within
one - quarter mile of the project, Measure GW -1 requires the City to monitor water quality
in this well before and after construction: If changes are detected after construction that
are deemed deleterious to public health, the City will need to drill a new well, retrofit the
exsting,well, or provide a wellhead treatment system for the constituents that are causing
the public health concern. Any one of these three alternate approaches is feasible -and
will reduce the to a level below significance.
With respect to the two Surface Water Quality Impacts. WQ -1 and WQ -2,. exceed ance of
numeric and narrative -based criteria, five mitigation measures have been adopted
WQ -la, Chromium Monitoring and Source Reduction; Measure WQ -Ib, Nickel
Monitoring .and Source Reduction Program; Measure WQ -1 c, Bis(2- ethylhexyl)phthalate
Effluent Monitoring and Source Reduction Program; Measure WQ -1d, Constituents not •
Monitored in Effluent Monitoring and Source. Reduction. Program; and Measure. WQ -le,
Dioxin/Furan Cogener Monitoring and Source Reduction Program. Measures WQ -la
through WQ -Ie require monitoring of the specific constituents listed in their titles and, if
necessary; control of the source of each constituent. The Source Reduction Program
would establish or revise pretreatment limits or provide for enforcement of these limits. ,
Measure WQ -1e would also reduce Impact WQ -2, bioaccumulation of dioxin/furan
congeners, in the same manner. These mitigation measures are feasible and will reduce
water quality impacts to a level below significance.
With respect to the six biological resources impacts, seven mitigation measures have
been adopted:: Measure BIO -la, Aquatic Species Protection Program; Measure BIO -lb,
Threatened and Endangered Plant Protection Program; Measure BIO -1c, Wildlife
Protection Program; Measure BIO -2a, Active Raptor and Migratory Bird Nest Protection
Program; Measure BIO -2b, Rookery Protection Program; Measure BIO -7, Create or
Restore Wetlands and Water of the U.S.; and WQ -le, Dioxin/Furan Congener
Monitoring and Source Reduction Program.
Regarding Impact BIO -1, loss of individuals or occupied habitat of endangered ispecies,,
Measures BIO -la, lb, and l,c will avoid impacts to rare and endangered plant and
wildlife species or compensate for any impacts by replacing or restoring them in kind. and
on site. Land is available within the project area for compensatory creation of habitats or
transplantation of individuals. :Mitigation Measure BIO -1.a requires a Worker
Environmental Awareness Training Program, limits ground- disturbing activity in Ellis 40
S \WR &CCWW \9012 \City Council \May 3, 2004\
Exhibit A to the Resolution Findings Addendum
Creek, relocates sensitive species if encountered, requires revegetation, establishes buffer
zones, creates or restores damaged .aquatic habitat, identifies opportunities to improve
habitat conditions within Ellis Creek, and controls erosion. Measure BIO -lb requires
surveys for special- status plants, establishes exclusionary buffer zones around each
population site, and provides for a compensatory replacement program for affected
plants. Measure BIO -lc, Wildlife Protection Program, requires dogs to be leashed and
the public to remain on established trails. These mitigation measures are feasible and
will reduce the impacts to ;a.level below significance.
Regarding Impact BIO -2, loss of nests or wildlife nursery sites, Measure BIO -2a, Active
Raptor and Migratory Bird Nest Protection Program, and BIO -2b, Rookery Protection
Program, will identify nests and establish exclusion zones to avoid disturbance during
both the nesting and non- nesting season. Tese mitigation measures are feasible and will
reduce the impacts to a level below significance.
Regarding Impact BIO -5, .disruption of fish or wildlife migration corridors, mitigation
measure BIO -1 a, described above, will ensure that steelhead could migrate up Ellis Creek
during migration. periods, despite. pipeline construction under Ellis Creek. Measure PD -8,
Construction Erosion and Spill Control Measures, requires Best Management Practices
for erosion control. This mitigation measure is feasible and will reduce impacts to fish
and wildlife migration to a level below significance.
• Regarding Impact BIO -6, loss of aquatic habitat, Measure -BIO -la, described above,
requires avoidance of impacts to aquatic habitat where feasible and compensation for any
loss. This mitigation measure is feasible and will reduce impacts to aquatic habitat to a
level below significance..
Regarding Impact BIO -7, loss of wetlands or waters of the U.S., Measure BIO -7, requires
revegetation of temporary impacts to. wetlands and compensatory creation of wetlands for
permanent impacts, thus reducing impacts to wetlands to a less- than - significant level.
Land is available within the project area for compensatory creation of riparian or
wetlands habitats; therefore this mitigation measure is feasible and will reduce impacts to
wetlands to a level below significance
Regarding Impact BIO -8, exposure of organisms to bioaccumulatory substances,
Measure WQ -1 a described above, is feasible and will reduce impacts to a level below
significance.
With respect to Transportation Impact TR -1, congestion on study area roadways, two
mitigation measures have been adopted: Measure TR -1a, Reroute Construction Worker
Trips and. Measure TR -1b, Install Signage to Reroute Employee and Visitor Trips.
Measure TR -1a requires construction workers to enter and exit Lakeville Highway at
McDowell Boulevard before 9:00 AM and after 4 :00 PM. Measure TR -lb requires
installation of an informational sign on Lakeville Highway at McDowell Blvd. indicating
that the new wetlands park can be accessed by .turning right on McDowell Blvd. and
installation of a sign on Cypress Drive prohibiting a right turn from the Wetlands Park
S \WR &C \WW \9012 \City Council \May 3, 2004\ 3
Exhibit A to the Resolution Findings Addendum
into Pine View Way between 4:00 and 6 :00 PM on weekdays. These mitigation
measures are feasible and will reduce the impacts to traffic to a level below significance. •
3. Alternatives Analysis
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 Farm Bureau v. City of
Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 730 -731; Laurel Heights Improvement Association
Y. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400 -403.)
The preceding discussion regarding project impacts reveals that most significant effects
identified in the EIR have been. substantially lessened by the adoption of feasible
mitigation measures. As a legal matter, the Council, in considering alternatives in these
findings, need only determine whether any alternatives are environmentally superior with
respect to those impacts not mitigated to a less than significant level. If 'any alternatives
are superior with respect to those impacts, the Council is then required to determine
whether -the alternatives are feasible. If the Council determines that no alternative is both
feasible and environmentally superior with respect to the unavoidable significant impacts
identified in the EIR, then the Board may :approve the proposed Program as mitigated,
after adopting a statement of overriding considerations.
Provided that potentially significant impacts of the project remain that have not been
avoided or reduced to a less than significant level by the mitigation measures, the Council
may determine to approve the project as mitigated, after adopting a statement of
overriding considerations. "[I]f economic or social conditions make infeasible the
mitigation of one or more significant adverse environmental effects of a project, such
project may nevertheless be approved provided the project is otherwise permissible under
applicable laws and regulations ( §21.002.1, subd. (c).)" (Laurel Hills Homeowners
Association, at 521).
The only significant unavoidable impacts of the project are AG -I, loss of farmland, and
AG -C1, cumulative loss of farmland. Of the five other alternatives evaluated in the EIR
(as modified by the Addendum), only the No Project alternative has less impact upon
agricultural lands than the Preferred Project (as modified in the Addendum). , The No
Project alternative does not meet any of the proponent's project objectives, and is
therefore not a feasible alternative. Therefore, none of the other feasible alternatives
have fewer impacts then the Preferred Project relative to significant unavoidable impacts.
S \WR &C \'W W \9012 \City Council \Ma.y 3,...2004\ 4
Exhibit A to the Resolution Findings Addendum
EXHIBIT B TO THE RESOLUTION APPROVING
THE CITY OF PETALUMA WATER RECYCLING FACILITY AND
MARSH ACQUISITION, ENHANCEMENT, AND ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
1. Introduction
"CEQA recognizes that in ,determining whether and how a project should be approved, a
public 'agency has an obligation to balance, a variety of public objectives, including
economic, environmental, and social factors and in particular the goal of providing a
decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian. An agency shall
prepare a statement of overriding :considerations as described in CEQA Guidelines section
15093 to reflect the ultimate balancing of competing public objectives when the agency
decides to approve a project that will cause 'one or more significant effects on the
environment" (CEQA Guidelines, § 15021, subd. (d); see also City of Del Mar v. City of
San Diego (1982) 133 Ca1.App.3d 401; CEQA Guidelines, § 15093). A statement of
overriding considerations sets forth the reasons why the agency finds the project's
"specific economic, legal, .social, technological, or other benefits" render "acceptable" its
"unavoidable adverse environmental effect." (CEQA Guidelines, . §§ 15093, subd. (a),
15043, subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources'Code, § 21081, subd. (b)).
As set forth in the City's, CEQA findings, the City. Council's approval of the Water
Recycling Facility EIR Addendum (State Clearinghouse 42001052089) will result in
significant adverse environmental_ effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided
even with the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures. The significant and
unavoidable impact is
AG -1 Project will cause loss of farmland: Loss of approximately 149 acres
of farmland on Parcels A and B, and
AG -C1 Project`will cause cumulative loss offarmland.
The Council finds that there is no feasible way to further lessen or avoid these significant
impacts. Despite / these unavoidable impacts, the City Council chooses to approve the
Project because the public benefits render the significant and unavoidable effects
acceptable.
The following statement identifies the'reasons that, in the Council's judgment, the benefits
of the Project as approved outweigh its unavoidable significant effect.
2. Overridibg Consid'erati'ons
Mitigation Measure AG -1; Maintain Maximum Acreage of Agricultural Production, was
considered by the City tduring certification of the Water Recycling Facility and River
Access Improvements EIR. Even with this mitigation however, approximately 114 acres
of farmland on Parcels A and B will be converted for use by the Water Recycling Facility
and Marsh Acquisition, Enhancement, and Access Improvements Project. Because this
Mitigation Measure (a) interferes with the project objectives, namely the educational and
S \WR &C \W.W \901,2. \City Council \MAY 3. 2004\
Exhibit B to the .Resolution SOC Addendum
recreational use of Parcel A for, trails and wildlife habitat; and (b) agricultural production
on 35 acres is a very small contribution to agriculture in the :region;, ,(c) currently
.agricultural use of the property is not for.high- value or unique crops;; and (d) agricultural
production so :near the Water Recycling Facility could. create conflicts between the two
uses; `the City :determines not, to adopt'Measure AG -1.
.Because the Water Recycling Facility is surrounded by the Petaluma River on one side and
agriculture on three sides, and the facilities proposed for Parcel A must'be.adjacentto the
rest of the Water Recycling Facility, there is no 'other parcel which could feasibly attain the
project .objectives, without similar Joss 'of agriculturally productive land. No further
feasible mitigation has been identified,and';mpacts to farmland remain�significant.
Of the five alternatives evaluated in the EI'R all of them, cause the same or greater loss of
farm land, except "the�No Project Alternative. The No'Project Alternative, does not meet the
project objectives; and in fact, creates three significant impacts not :caused by the project.
Therefore; the No Project Alternative is not an acceptable means of'reducing impacts to
farmland.
Imp] ementation.of the Water Recycling Facility and Marsh Acquisition, Enhancement, and
Access ,Improvements Project Would result in benefits, including expansion of the
wastewater treatment to accommodate growth foreseen in the, City of Petaluma's-General
Plan; replacement of the existing wastewater treatment plant built in 1938 and in. need of
seismic safety upgrade;, provision of tertiary treated water `for urban and agricultural.reuse;
provision of polishing wetlands; improvement in water quality of water to be, discharged 'or
reused for agricultural irrigation; .a buffer zone between the Water Recycling Facility and
private land uses; and provision of a variety of educational and recreational facilities, ,such
as trails; visitor- center,'use of the existing farmhouse.for public or city uses, visitor parking
lot, .educational kiosks.
•
S \WRBC \WW,\901'2 \City Council\MA "Y 3, 2004\
Exhibit B' to the ,Resolution SOC Addendum
• REVISED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
_
•