Greenfield council directs staff to draft moratorium ordinance as wastewater plant nears permitted capacity

Greenfield City officials on July 8 were warned the city’s wastewater treatment plant is operating at its permitted limit and directed staff to draft a building moratorium ordinance targeted at projects that would add sewer demand.

Public Works Director Jamie Tugel told the council the plant’s permitted average daily flow was reduced by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board from 1.5 million gallons per day to 1.2 million gallons per day after recent violations and observations that the rapid infiltration basins (RIBs) are not providing the required two feet of freeboard. “The spray fields are not a measure to accept higher influent flows from future development,” Tugel said, describing the temporary 16-acre emergency spray fields the city placed online in February 2025 to relieve the RIBs.

Tugel and other staff described recent investments and constraints: headworks, a clarifier and the digester have been rehabilitated; the city installed a portable sludge dewatering press in May 2023; and a fats, oils and grease (FOG) program launched in April 2024 that has performed 48 restaurant inspections and reached roughly 925 residents through outreach. Design plans for a replacement plant were at 90% completion in November 2024. City staff estimated total construction costs at about $110 million, with $75 million in potential grant funding and roughly $36 million that the city would need to borrow; the council was told a wastewater rate study is under way to model debt service and voter approval timing.

Council discussed the policy trade-offs. Staff identified the principal benefits of a moratorium as protecting public health and the environment, preserving existing infrastructure, avoiding further violations and giving time to align upgrades with long-term growth plans. Staff also warned of drawbacks: delays to projects that would help meet the state’s Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) — Greenfield’s RHNA is 1,090 units for 2023–2031 — potential economic impacts, lost permitting revenue and the risk of state scrutiny or legal challenges if housing production stalls.

Legal counsel explained how a narrowly drawn moratorium could be implemented. Under state law, vested rights typically arise once a building permit is issued; tentative maps and entitlement approvals may continue to be processed while a moratorium halts issuance of new building permits that would add sewer load. City Attorney Thompson and outside counsel advised council that maps and preliminary approvals could proceed so projects remain “in the pipeline,” but that the ordinance should preserve the city’s ability to exempt permits that do not affect sewer demand (for example, routine repairs or work that does not add plumbing fixtures).

Members of the public urged a cautious approach. Advocates and developers called for an interim capacity management plan (ICMP) as an alternative to a full moratorium; representatives of the Monterey County Association of Realtors asked that any moratorium be as short as possible and that staff keep the pipeline moving so builders can plan.

Council did not adopt an ordinance that night. By consensus, council directed staff to draft a building moratorium ordinance that would: apply only to projects that add wastewater demand and lack an issued building permit; allow projects with existing building permits to continue; permit non-sewer-related permits and allow tentative maps and entitlements to proceed; and return to council for adoption after the required hearings and state review. Council also directed staff to prepare interim measures — a formal interim capacity management plan that could include strengthened FOG enforcement, targeted water-conservation messaging, enforcement of unauthorized sewer connections, and evaluation of flow-offset or low-flow retrofit programs — and to expedite the wastewater rate study and funding applications.

Staff emphasized the timeline and regulatory steps: an ordinance requires introduction and adoption at two council meetings, submission to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for review if it affects housing, and a 30-day wait after adoption before it takes effect; staff said the full process and HCD review could make an effective start date roughly 60–90 days out, depending on agency response time. The council asked staff to return with a draft at the next feasible meeting and to prioritize public outreach so residents and builders understand exceptions, timelines and financing implications.