Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2002-135 N.C.S. 08/05/2002Resolution No. 2002-135 N.C.S. of the City of Petaluma, California CERTIFYING THE WATER RECYCLING FACILITY AND RIVER ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT FINAL EIR WHEREAS, in 1938, the original wastewater treatment processes were constructed at 950 Hopper Street; and, 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; and, WHEREAS, in 1972, the oxidation ponds were constructed at 4400 Lakeville Highway to provide additional treatment capacity; and, 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; and, 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 N.C.S.); and, 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; and, 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"; and, WHEREAS, in February 1992 EOS and the City mutually agreed to rescind the MOU; and, WHEREAS, on June 20, 1994, following a report prepared by Ernst and Young, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 94-156 N.C.S., which directed that the Service Agreement Approach (privatization) be utilized for procurement of a new wastewater treatment facility; and, Resolution No. 2002-135 N.C.S. WHEREAS, on June 17, 1996, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-163 N.C.S., which certified the Final EIR documents, Resolution No. 96-164 N.C.S., which approved the project, and Resolution No. 96-165 N.C.S_, which approved and authorized issuance of the Request For Proposal.; and, WHEREAS, on July 17, 1996, the RFP was issued to five pre-qualified vendor teams.; and, WHEREAS, in January 1997, the City received proposals from Montgomery United Water (MUW) and US Filter/EOS; and, WHEREAS, the Citizens' Wastewater Advisory Committee considered the proposals on May 28, 1997, June 3, 1997, June 4, 1997, July 2, 1997, October 20, 1997, October 30, 1997, November 4, 1997, November 18, 1997, and December 3, 1997; and, WHEREAS, the City Council considered the proposals on July 7, 1997, September 8, 1997, September 15, 1997, September 22, 1997, September 29, 1997, October 6, 1997, December 3, 1997, and December 8, 1997; and, WHEREAS, on January 5, 1998, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 98-11 N.C.S., which selected MUW for contract negotiations; and, WHEREAS, negotiations with MUW on technical, legal and agreement issues began on January 27, 1998 and proceeded through spring 1999; and, WHEREAS, on September 21, 1998, the City Council, recognizing the need for development of a public alternative to the proposed privatization project, approved preparation of the wastewater treatment facility master plan; and, WHEREAS, on September 21, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-188 N.C.S., which terminated the privatization process and established City ownership of the new wastewater treatment facility. Reasons cited for this determination included, among others: / Risk of Change Required Over 30-Year Contract Term. Changes in the City's needs may occur during the 30-year life of the contract. The City is at a disadvantage by being able to negotiate with only one party for changes in the facility's capacity. / Requirement of Fair Market Value Purchase. In order for MUW to retain tax ownership, the City's option to purchase the facility at the end of the contract term would have to be at fair market value. The price of the facility could not be fixed in the contract, but would depend on the value of the facility at the time of the exercise of the option, thereby putting the City and ratepayers at risk of having to pay for part of the plant twice. Resolution No. 2002-]35 N.C.S.. Page 2 Lack of City Approval of Design. In order for MUW to retain tax ownership, Section 4.8.1 of the agreement limited the City's participation in the design process. Third Party Services. In order for MUW to retain tax ownership, Section 5.2.4 would. allow the Company to provide services to others (in addition to the City) at the Project Site. 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 N.C.S., 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; and, WHEREAS, on October 29, 1999, the City issued a Request For Proposal for engineering services in support of the water recycling facility project (new wastewater treatment facility); and, WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2000-066 N.C.S. on April 3, 2000, which authorized the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Carollo Engineers for engineering services in support of Phase 1 -Project Report of the Water Recycling Facility Project; and, WHEREAS, five alternatives for the new water recycling facility were presented at a Public Forum at the Community Center on June 14, 2000; and, WHEREAS, the City Council heard a discussion on the criteria for evaluating the alternatives on September 5, 2000; and, WHEREAS, the results of the analysis and comparison of the alternatives were presented at a Public Forum at the Community Center on November 8, 2000; and, WHEREAS, the City Council considered and discussed the Draft Water Recycling Facility Project Report (Carollo Engineers, November 2000) on November 20, 2000; and, WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2000-214 N.C.S. on December 11, 2000, which approved the Water Recycling Facility Project Report (Carollo Engineers, November 2000), selected Alternative 5 -Extended Aeration as the preferred alternative for the new water recycling facility, and identified Option A - Wetlands as the preferred alternative for algae removal over Option B - DAFs; and, WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 2000-215 N.C.S. on December 11, 2000, which authorized the City Manager to execute a professional services Resolution No. 2002-135 N.C.S. Page 3 agreement with Carollo Engineers for professional engineering services in support of Phase 2 -Project Development of the Water Recycling Facility Project; and, WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Water Recycling Facility Project and the Draft Water Recycling Facility Predesign Report (Carollo Engineers, November 2001) on November 14, 2001, November 28, 2001, December 17, 2001. and January 7, 2002; and, WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2002-012 N.C.S. on January 7, 2002, which approved. design parameters for the preferred alternative for the water recycling facility project and authorized completion of the environmental impact report; and, WHEREAS, the City prepared Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Draft EIR (April 2002) and distributed it to the California State Clearinghouse and to all responsible local, state and federal agencies involved in the project and made it available for public review; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held noticed public hearings on May 13, 2002, and May 20, 2002, during which all interested persons were provided an opportunity to comment on the adequacy of the Draft EIR; and, WHEREAS, the public review period for the Draft EIR began April 15, 2002, and closed. May 29, 2002; and, WHEREAS, the City prepared Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Final EIR and Response To Comments (July 2002), which responded to comments received on the Draft EIR. The Final EIR did not identify any new significant impacts that had not. been previously evaluated in the Draft EIR. WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on August 5, 2002, to consider the Final EIR. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that after due consideration, the Petaluma City Council hereby certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Project and makes the following findings: 1. The Final Environmental Impact Report has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA. Guidelines. 2. The documents referenced. below constitute the Final Environmental Impact Report and were presented and considered along with both written and oral comments received during the public review period on the project and environmental documents: Resolution No. 2002-135 N.C.S. Page 4 a. Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Draft Environmental Impact Report, in two volumes (Apri12002). b. Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Final Environmental Impact Report and Response To Comments (July 2002). 3. The City Council, as the decision making body of the City of Petaluma, has independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the information in the Final EIR and finds that the contents of the Final EIR reflect the independent judgment of the City of Petaluma 4. The Final EIR was published, made available and circulated for review and comment. Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City. REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the Approved as to Council of the City of Petaluma at a (Regular) (Adjourned) (Special) meeting form on the ........~tl? ............. day of .......f~u~~St..................................., 2002., by the ,' following vote: •••••••• •••••• ••••• •••••••••••••• ity Attorney AYES: Cader-Thompson, Vice Mayor Healy, Maguire, Moynihan, O'Brien, Torliatt NOES: None ABSENT: M r Thompson ATTEST: ... .... ............................... .................................... ........ ................................................................................. C~ Clerk Mayor _ Council File ................................... Res. No......~~.QZ-.1.35.._......N.C.S.