Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-09-27; City Council; Resolution 88-353‘ ‘3 : t,. 0 RESOLUTION NO. 88” 35.a RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSE APPROVING THE PHASE 3.V PROJECT AND CAUSING NOTICE TO BE FILED WITH THE COUNTY CLERK WHERBAS, Ehe City of Carlsbad is a party to a 30int Pow4 Ags-ment, commnly known ad the Balsic Agreesent for o-ersbip, opcaraeioa and maintenance af‘the Encina Joint Sc System; alld WHEREAS, there exists a need to increase the capacity said Joint Sewer System to serve the future needs of inhabit of the City of Carlsbad as well as the future inhabitants o areas served with sewer service by the Leucadia County W District, the City of Vista, the San Marcos county W District, the Encinitas Sanitary District and the B Sanitation District; and WI(ER;GAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Qua Act, the Leucqdia County Water District has been, and still acting as the Lead Agency on behalf of the Encina Joint PC for said Phase 2V Project; and MHTBEAS; on August 11, 1988, the said Leucadia Cc Water District completed the Environmental Impact Report prc and certified said Report as complete, and mms t in considering and evaluating the Environmental Impact Report, the Leucadia County Water Disi made certain findings as required by law, copies of which attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and WHERW, the City of Carlsbad is a Vesponsible agenc defined in Section 21069 of the California Public Resources and 1 % .? ,I,. mmms, @ City of Carlsbad has re vlbed and consider the "findings' of the Final Environmental Impact Report a desires to approve the Phase 1V Project and give notice of SL approval to the County Clerk of the County of San Diego; and WHER$AS; the Joint Advisory Committee to the Encina Job Powers has heretofore unanimously approved the Phase 1V Projc after considering the tsfindings" of the Environmental Imp; Report caused to be prepared and certified by the Leucadia Cou: Water District; and WHICRB.AS, upon completion thereof the Phase 1V Project w increase the treatment capacity of the Encina Water Pollut Control Facility from 22.5 million gallons per day to 36.0 liquid and 38.0 MGD solids by the year 2010. NOW, THEREFORE, BE m RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY CARLSBAD AS FOLLOWS: flection 1. The City of Carlsbad hereby approves and adc the findings contained in Exhibit ''Af1 attached hereto incorporated herein by reference. Section 2. The City of Carlsbad hereby approves the Phas, Project. section 3. The officers and employees of the City Carlsbad are hereby authorized and instructed to prepare or c to be prepared a Notice to the County Clerk of the County of Diego within five days after adoption of this resolution that City of Carlsbad approves the Phase 1V Project, and intends carry out the Project together with the other five (5) me agencies of the Encina Joint Powers, that the Project will hc significant impact on the environment and that an Environmen't 2 1 ., 11,. ' Impact Repart foBhe Project has been certi a ed as complete the Leucadia County Water District; and that said Environmenf Impact report is available to the general public. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular rneetiq of City Council on the 27th day of September , 1988, by following votes, to wit: AYES: 5 NOES: ATTEST : di&ktL /Qr& ALETJ3.A L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Cle 3 ., 1 .* , ?. . L. m CANDIDATE FINDINGS AND STA OF OVERRIDING CONSIDEMTION Encina Water Pollution Conml Facility Expansion Sa No. $904 ism The California Environmental Qudity Act (CEQA) 'requires that no public agency shl approve or carry out a project for which a Find Environmental Impact Repon (En identifies one or more significant effects thereof, unless such pubk agency makes one mort of the following findings: (1) Changes OT alterations have been required in, OT inwrpvrarcd into, such project which mtigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof u identified in the complettd environmental impact reporz (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency, and such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, social, or other considera- tions make infeasible the mitigation me'asures M yjm alternatives identified in the environmental MP=t report. (Section 21081 of the California Environmental wv Act) CEQA funher quires that, where the decision of the public agency allows the occur re^ of si@lcant effffts which are identified in the Final kIR but arc not at least substantic mitigated, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action ba on the Final BIR and/or other information in the record (Stctiun 15093 of the CEC Guidelines). - 19- EXHIBIT .... ..I, I. 0 0 FINDINOS The following frndings are made relative to the conclusions and recommendations of the Final EIR for the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility (EWPCF) expansion (SCH No. 87042206). These findings have been prepared pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Public Resources Code and Sections 15091 and 15093 of the Californir Administrative Me. A. The member agencies of the Encina Joint Powers, having rwitwed and considcrcc the information contained in the Final EIR and record for the EWPCF expansion, fmd tha the following changes or alterations are king required in, or have betn incorporated intc the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant en*nmental effects identified in th EIR. Specifically: L!&uG m The project site is designated for public utilities use in the City { Carhbad General Plan, with wastewater treatment identified as the primary onsf use by he of a Gend Plan Amendment. Because of this designation and tl fact that all proposed expansion facilities would be within the existing EWC site, no significant land use impacts are expected as a result of the proposl ptoject A number of offsite facilities arc generally discussed in relation to the props project, including a new ocean outfail or flow equalization smcturc, and a dud rcusc/disposal facility. All of these facilities could potentially impact offsite la uses through construction and operation activities. Findinn: The EWPCF will obtain and comply'with all pwdnent federal, state, e local discretionary and non-discretionary permits associated with the propo: expansion. This will allow implementation of the proposed project with; sigr;ificantly affecting land use designations or character in the project site vicini1 No offsite structures arc specifically proposed for the current EWPCF expansic Construction of a new ocean outfall, flow equalization structure, or sluc reuse/disposd facility would require the preparation of a sitc-spec! -20- .- . .. , '. . .. a e environmental analysis to identify potential impacts rtIated to land use and othc appropriate resome values. W~ckean~ m Both the proposed project and waiver scenario alternative would result i the increased discharge of effluent. On the basis oP current monitoring dat: however, it is not expected that this inmascd dish& would have significa impacts to Ocean water quality in the zone of initial dilution (ZID), t) accumulation of organic material, or the direction of deposition in the area ( discharge. Increased discharge could affect' the rate of deposition, although tt interaction between flow rates, mass load, and currents will ultimately determi she potential for &podtion. Bacterial loads in the discharged effluent would likely bc maintained at cxisti levels or reduced slightly under full secondary treatment, due to the cumbin effects of higher treatment levels and increased effluent quantities. Under t waiver scenario, total bacterial content in the dischsrged effluent would inm; due to higher flows. It is possible that there will be a minor but increased risk permit txcaedence for bacterial content in the discharged effluent, particula during the winter months. The potential for viruses will increase due to population gmwth, however, potential risk from this increase cmot bt identified at the present time and with existing monitoring program. There would be an increased potential for atrc dispession of viruses in the surf zone and nearshort zone; howeves, this modc transmission is still under study and no conclusions should be drawn at the pre:! tims. -: Adherence to appropriate regulations and requirements would red impacts related to effluent discharge below lcvels'of significance. This w( include restrictions on the quality of both effluent (NPDES permit) and inflr (some conml program) assocfated with the EWPCF. Viruses will be remove a degree in the secondary process but will not be removed completely. Exis data has not identified significant adverse effects associated with viral loadin -2 1- . .I 1. . a a effluent discharge, although no regulatory standards have yet bcen developed an( methodology is not well established. - a: No signifkant impacts to the wide diversity of &ne organisms an habitats in the area of dischargc would be anticipated from either the propose projccr or waiver scenario. Findine: The proposed project would increase both the total quantity of efflue: discharge and the associated level of treatment, resulting in no significant impac to thc marine environment. The waiver scenario would increase the total quanti of pollutants emitted due to increased dischargc volumes. This would not ' expected to rtsult in significant impacts to marine biological resources because existing discharge quality and monitoring requirements. mic Health w, Neithe~ the proposed project or the Aver scenario would be expected mult in significant impacts related to public bealth concerns, assuming pertint "gulatory guidelines €ue met. Findiw: The proposed project would likely maintain or slightly reduce existing levels of bacteria in the discharged effluent, due to increases in b treatment levels and discharge volumes. Bacterial discharge levels for the wai scfnafio would increase somewhat because of greaser eMum volumes, and wo increase the potential for permit excttdence, especially during the winter month viral loading would likely increase under both the proposed project and wa; scenarios due to inmsed flows, No known specific regulatory guidelines e for the detnmination of public health risks associated with viral loading, altho existing data has not yielded any statistically significant evidence for inme health rislcs associated with viral loading from effluent discharge. -22- * .I , '. . .. m e Sfvdntd m: Sludge production for the EWPCF is projected to increase significant with flow rates under either the proposed project or waiver scenario. This in- will represent n significant impact duo to the inmasing restrictions on currc disposal methods. pindin@: Both inttrim and long-term potential sludge rcusddisposd metho have been identified and are currently under investigation, Agreement has be reached regarding interim (up to 5-year) use of stabilized sludge as fertilizer/se amendment for agricultural operations. Both interim and long-term slud rcuse/disposal systems will require implementation during the life of the props Phase N project to accommodate projected sludge quantities. The long-ta project may genesate a number of potential environmental impacts depending the alternative method and site selected. It will be necessary, thatfore, to condl appropriate environmental and technical studies prior to implementation, and generate site-specific mitigation measures as required The long-term disposal sludge generated at Encina remains a potentially significant effect mConsumr>tion and Consemtion JmDacts: No significant impacts art cxpccted in regard to energy consumption I conservation for either the proposed project or waiver scenario. Finding&: Expansion of the EWPCF would likely produce an operating enc deficit under either the proposed or waiver scenario. lncreases in enc consumption would likely include additional requirements for electricity, nan gas, and diesel fuel (for hauling increased quantities of sludge). Onsite ma needs would be met by purchasing electricity and natural gas from San Diego ( and Electric at variable rates, depending on perid of use, etc. The project des incorporates a number of rnea~ures to maximize cugcneration and the potential t of excess digester gas and waste heat to offsitc users. Additional diesel f consumption related to sludge hauling is not considered significant due to relatively low number of truck trips involved. -23- * .. , .'. * * Impacts: Construction-related activities would be expected to produce ad~c efftcts related to noise, air quality, and traffic under both the proposed project 1 the waiver scenario. These would be related to the operation of heavy equipm and associated vehicles, excavation and grading activities, and the generatior traffic due to importation of equipment, employee ingress-egress, ctc. TI potential impacts arc not expected to be signifrcant, however, due to exis, regulatory requirements and guidelines, and the traffic capacities of 1( ckcufation systems. m: Although no significant consmction-related impacts are anticipatc number of adverse noise, air quality, and traffic effects are likely. Approp: midgation measures related to hours of operation, dust abatement, equip! maintenance and traffic control have been rtcomrnendcd to minimize ad7 construction-related effects. Noisa m No significant impacts arc anticipated in relation to long-term opera noise levels far either the proposed project or-waiver sccnaxio. mes: The name of the proposed facilities and the ambient noise levels EWPCF vicinity arc such that no significant increase in noise levels is ~tici This conclusion is based in field measurements of existing noise level tstimaticm of noise generation for pwpo~ad facilities. AiauuY m: The proposed project would rquh the u6t of one additional ( blower and engine generator, which would result In exceedence of e: regulatory emission limits. Another potential concern is the release of \ organic compounds through the aeration process. The potential for greater release of such compounds would occur with implementation of the prc project, due to the increased volume of aeration. The issue of volatile { compound release is currently being investigated by the State Water Re! -24- i . .=. .. . ,I 0 e Control Board (SWRCB), although to date no regulatory requirements or recommendations have been issued. No significant impacts would result from implementation of the waiver scenario. m: A new Air Pollution Control District (APCD) permit (including additional air pollution emission controls) would bc obtained during implementation of the proposed project. This would mitigate potential aif quality impacts MOW levels of significance for the propos& project, with no mitigation measures required for the waiver( scenarie. The results of the SWRCB investigation on volatile organic compound release ‘MI be incorporated into the project &sign (as appropriate) when available. Qdors bny~. No significant impacts related to the generation of offsite dm’s would be anticipated from implementation of either the proposed project or waiver scenario. Findinga: The proposed project design incorporates a number of measures f( mitigate potential odor-rclattd impacts, such as the expanded use of odor mnuu coy~s, ducting, and scrubbing towers. Additionally, the EWPCF maintains 81 odor control program whereby public odor complaints are logged and investigated with additional system modifications incarparated as appropfiatc. Traffic Imaam: No significant impacts related to traffic are expected fmm either tk proposed project or waiver scehario. -: Expansion of the EWPCF under either the proposed OT waiver scend would not significantly increase long-tenn -IC gentration within the pqject si\ and vicinity. Such traffic would be limited to ingress and egress associated with small number of additional employees and a relatively few additional truck til related to sludge removal. The existing local circulation system is adequate 1 Bccommodate this traffic without significant &m. -25- ' .a. . . -. . 0 e Geottchnical m Based on previous gmtechnical investigations of the site, no significan. adverse impacts are anticipated. A number of offsite improvements have been discussed in relation to expandin the existing plant, includhg a sludge rtusJdisposal sip and a new ocean outfd C flow equalization structure. These facilities could involve sigMcanr geotechnicr constraints and would require sitt-specific environmental ana lyse^ prior t impltraentation. mes: The standards established for excavation, giading, and construction the prMous geotechnicd investigations of the site wiU reduce potential impac below levels of significance. If construction activities result in unexpectc subsurface conditions or unmitigated geologic impacts, furrher geotechnic investigation would be conducted as required. All potential offsite development will bc subject to sitt-spccific geotechnic dysis prior to implementation. Such evaluauonc will be conducted by qualified gcotcchnical consultant, with all identified mitigation measures includ in the subsequent facilities design. Hvdrolo- w The proposed expansion of the EWPCF would not be expected produce any significant impacts to surface or gmundwater hydrology under el1 the secondary treatment or waiver scenarios. Findings: Potential water quality impacts include the contamination of surf runoff into the flood control channef and the influx of reclaimed effluent into 1c groundwatex tables. Regulatory requirements and protective measures Containa the project design (e.g., Containment bums) are expected to reduce these potel impacts below levels of significance. -26- .. . , *P , *, -. e 0 wcal Resow= l[mDacta: Implementation of either the proposed OT waiver scenario expansion would not be expected to result in significant impacts to terrcsoial biological resources. Selection of future offsite facility locations, however, may require additional biological investigadon. w: pnvious investigation of the EWPCF site bid not identify any sensitive biological resource values. The current filled and gradcd nature of the site likely precludes the occmnce of any significant ternstrial biological t sources these. - m: No significant impacts to cultural resources rue expected fron implementation of either the proposed project or waiver scenario. Offsitc improvements, however, would require site-sptcific archaeological investigation; to determine potential imp- Findinps: previous culNal resource investigations and the disturbed nature of thc site likely precludes the Occurrence of any significant cultural fe~~urces then. w No significant impacts to visual resoms art anticipated fiom either thc pmposcd project or waiver scenario. This is due to the fact that all proposu structures would be similar to existing facilities, and would be contained within th existing site. -: Although no significant visual impacts art anticipated fhm the proposec or expansion scenarios, a number of mitigation measures have been recommende to minimize advase visual effects. These include the use of additional landscapin, and the submission of detailed landscape and grading plans with the City c Carlsbad Precise Development plan application, -27- .. , , .e, - .. e e growth In- -. The proposed project would provide treatment capacity in excess (approximately 2 percent for Phase IV and 5 percent for Phase V) of demands associated with populations .and flows projected from SANDAG Series 7 forecasts (although less than those projected as necessary by individual membei agencies). Consequently, it is considered growth-inducing under stricl interpretation of the definitions contained in CEQA and SNAG guidelines. Hndines: Much of the cxccss capacity asscciated with the proposed expansion i attributable to tbe modular design of the plant, in which individual facilities hav, inherent, fixed capacities. This makes it virtually impossible to match projecta populations and flows exactly. The project design incorpatates pbasing schedule to coordinate facility use with demand as fully as possible. In addition, treatmet: capacity needs incorporate septage flows from outside the service areas an1 daytime flows hm the proposed California State University at San Diego Nort County Campus (CSUSD), which are not reflected in SANDAG Series 7 figures B . The member agencies of the Encina Joint Powm, having reviewed and considere tbe information contained in the FinaI EIR and recurd for the EWPCF expansion, find thr no changes or alterations contained therein which mitigate on avoid significa environmental effects are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another publ: agency. C. The member agencies of the Encina Joint Powers, having reviewed and considen the information contained in the Final BIR and record for the EWPCF expansion, find tb specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the project alternativ~ identified in the Final EIR as outlined below: 1. NoROa Under the no project alternative the EWPCF would remain in its prcse condition with no expansion of treatment capabilities. The capacity of the existing facilid would not change, and the overall plant capacity would remain at 22.5 millions gallons g day (MOD). Based on projected wastewater flow rates, this capacity would be exceed prior to 1995. -28- ...- : . .. . '. . e 0 While the no project alternative would eliminate the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed plant expansion, it would not meet the stated objectives. The EWPCF service area would bt faced with inadquate wastcwstcr treatment capacity within five years, and a moratorium of new sew hookups would likely be imposed by the member agencies of the Encina Joint Powers. 24 v Five potential expansion alternatives were identified in the EWPCF facilitj plan, including three for secondary treatment and two for the waiver scenario. Of these me alternative was selected as the proposed project for each treatment scenario, with thc dning three designated as engineering alternatives as described below. a. mmr The first engineering alternative would allow for secondar: treatment by utilizing biofilters to treat all effluent before it etlttr~ the amtion bins. Thi would reduce loading rates to the basins and increase their capacity, although the rcsultar hydraulic retention times would still require consnuction of an additional aeration bash The potential environmental impacts for this altcmarive would be similar to the propost project with the exception of the 20-foot biotowtrs being mort visible, producing 18 cubi yards per day less sludge, and requiring 3.4 percent less energy that the propose facilities. These latter two rtductions are not considered significant in relation to overa sludge production and energy use. Total annual expenditures for this alternative woul exd the pmpcwd projcct by approximately $l,SOO,OOO due to the distribution of capit costs over time. Therefore, while this alternative is capable of meting the stated pmje objectives, it offa no sign5cant reduction in environmental impacts and would result in substantial in~se in capital costs. b. tofilter Tnatraenr This alternative would provide secondary treatment by utilizi~ biofiltess in padel with aeration basins. Existing amtion basins would trwt effluent up their nominal c~rpacity, with a two-stage biofiter mating the remaining flow, Potentj t;nvJronmental impacts for this alternative would be similar to the proposed project with t exception of the biotowers being more visible, producing 22 cubic yards per day le sludge, and requiring 3.4 percent less energy than the proposed facilities. The -29- .. ~ "".. . .. 0 0 rcductions arc not considered significant with respect to ovedi sludge production and energy use, Total annual expenditures for the alternative exceed those for the proposed project by approximately $50,000. Therefore, while this alternative is capable of meeting the project objectives, it offers no significant reduction in environmtntd impacts and would zsult in a slight irlcrease in capital costs. C. This altarnative utilizes chemical addi;ives to increase treatmen levels such that all primary effluent (except that used for reclamation purposes) could bc diverted directly to the ocean outfall. Potential environmental impacts associated witb thir tlternadve would be similar to the preferred waiver scenario, with the exception o requiring 12 percent less energy and producing approoximatdy 4 cubic yards per day o edditional sludge. Total annual costs for this alternative would exceed those for th proposed project by approximately $200,000. This drernative would be capable o meeting the project objectives with a significant reduction in energy demand, although j would increase sludge production and raise annual expenditures by approximatel: s200,000. 3. Y sc of Sallite - Then are currently three operating satellite treatment plants in the EWPC Service ma, with R founh scheduled to come in line in the early 1990s. The combine ultimate capacity -of all four plants is 5.2 MOD, with the ability to utilize this toti dependent on mevket and environmental factors. Even with full satellite treatment capacit] however, the combined EWPCF/satelUte capacity of 27.7 MOD would be exceeded pic to 1995, The us(: of satellite treatment plants therefore does not meet the project objectivc of providing adquate treatment capacity through the year 2020 and is not considered viable project alternative in and of itself. 4. Ymeclamation Elffluent suitable for various reclamation uses is currently produced at tl operating satellite treatments plants and the EWPCF. By treating more wastewater at tI satellite plants, the capacity requirements for the EWPCF plant could be reduce However, solids treatment capacity requirements would remain unchanged since e wastewater solids arc treated at the EWPCF. Any use of reclaimed (and hence treatel - 30- I ". ., - e *. e water from the s,atellite plants would reduce flows to the outfall. However, the capacity f; fdsafe disposall through the outfall would still bc required pursuant to Regional Wat Quality Control :Board (RWQCB) requirements. A,ssuming full use and reclamation of satellite treatment capaci (5.2 MGD) and 2.0 MGD of offsite reclamation use fmm the EWPCF, availabte effluc reclamation in the EWPCF service area would total 7.2 MGD. Based on flow projectio listed in the Find EIR, the existing EWPCF capacity would'still be exceeded prim to i . year 1995, even with maximum available reclamation use. Utilidng mmudmuI.n reclamad1 smld reduce total flow to the Ocean outfall by 7.2 MOD, although outfdl capacity nee would rem& the same due to fail-safe discharge requirements. Thus, water reclamation itself does not meet the project objectives and is not considered a viable stand-do alrernative to the proposed project. 5. This alternative involves providing capacity to the year 2000 under t bignation of Phase IV, with subsequent development to the year 2010 designated Phase V. Potential environmental impacts associated with the phasing alternati would be similar to those for the proposed phasing scheme, as the ultimate level dtvelopment w'ould be the same. By combining consauction activities to the year 20 into a single Plhase N project, the overall impact period associate3 with constructi activities would be duccd. Short-term (Phase IV) capital costs arc lower for 1 alternative phasing scheme as it iavolves la Phase N construction. OveraIl costs for t alternative, however, would be approximately 3 percent higher due to the economics conducting separate construction operations (ie., Phase IV and V). Also, based member agency growth forecasts, the Phase IV project capacity would be exccedtd tk before the year 2000. Thus, this alternative would provide the same wed capacity as % mmmended project, although no technical, environmental, or economic benefits WOI result, a longer construction period would ensue, and the Phase V project codd required shortly after Phase IV is brought into service. -31- .-, . 4 .!, - , - .. -. e e .- STATE” OF OVERRDlNG CONSIDERATIONS The member agencies of the Encina Joint Powers, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and rccord for the EWPCF expansion make the following statcme~ts of overriding considerations: Kthough the project would result in sludge disposal and growth-inducement Impacts whick rn not fully mitigated, to the extent that these impacts would occur, specific beneficia economic and social effects associated with the projcct would ovcrride these impacts, Population within the service art8 is projected to increase from the current figure o 200,OOO to at least 380,000 by the year 2020. With this assumption, the current capaciy of the FWPCF will be exceeded around the year 1991. The proposed phased expansion i. designed to provide full secondary treatment capacity for projected population in the EWPCF service area through the year 2020 (Phase IV would provide capacity through the year 2010; Phase V would provide capacity to the year 2020). This is seen as a public benefit. In lieu of expandug the EWPCF facility, the seMcc area member agencies woulc be compelled to pvidde adequate treatnztnt capacity by some additional means and/or limi senice area growth to ttflcct existing capacity. The proposed expansion would also provide additional local employment during thc construction period, incrementally increasing regiond income and employment in thc San Diego region. Therefon, the member agencies of tht Encina Joint Powers find that the need to providc ‘;v83#w&t~‘ matmcnt capacity to meet projected population growth in the EWPCF servicl =a overrides the impacts which would result from this project. -32-