HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 96-163 06/17/1996 Resolution No. g~-~F~ NC.S.
1 of the City of Petaluma. California
z
3 CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
a FOR THE WASTEWATER FACILITIES PRO.IECT AND
5 LONG RANGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
6
7 WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma has identified the need for improved wastewater treatment and
8 management services to meet water quality standards, improve reliability and accommodate
9 projected growth that meets the community health, economic development, and housing goals and
to objectives of the City's adopted General Plan.
11
12 WHEREAS, the City hosted a series of nine public workshops between February and November
13 1.992 to provide for public education and input into the planning process.
la
15 WHEREAS, the workshop participants developed 21 Planning Criteria and a Wastewater
16 Management Flow Diagram that was subsequently adopted by the City Council Resolution 92-
17 215 on August 17, 1992.
18
19 WHEREAS, in accordance with the adopted "Planning Criteria", the City Council called for a
20 competitive selection process that would allow consideration of any combination of public/private
zt financing and/or ownership to meet the City's wastewater management needs and appointed a
22 Citizen's Wastewater Advisory Committee to assist in development of the Draft Contract
23 Agreements and Request for Proposals.
2a
25 WHEREAS, the City issued a Request for Qualifications and the Citizen's Wastewater Advisory
z6 Committee reviewed and recommended five qualified teams which were selected by the City
27 Council to participate in the proposal process.
z8
29 WHEREAS, the City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIlt) should be prepared
3o and issued a "Notice of Preparation" on August 28, 1992. .Interagency scoping meetings were
31 held on January 7, 1993 at the City of Petaluma with representatives from U.S. Fish and Wildlife
32 Service, Department of Fish and Game, Environmental Protection Agency, and the San Francisco
33 Regional Water Quality Control Board.
34
35 WHEREAS, the City hired a team of qualified consultants including Brown and Caldwell,
36 engineers and Jones and Stokes Associates, environmental consultants, to assist in evaluating the
37 facility needs, design options and siting alternatives and prepaze an Environmental Impact Report
38 for the project.
39
4o WHEREAS, the City hired a sepazate team of qualified consultants including Camp, Dresser and
4t McKee, engineers, Ernst & Young and the law firm of Nossaman, Guthner, Knox and Elliott to
42 assist in development of the Request for Proposals and Draft Service Agreements.
43
44 WHEREAS, a "Technical Memorandum" dated June 28, 1993 was prepazed by Brown and
a5 Caldwell and circulated for public review and consideration by the Citizen's Wastewater Advisory
46 Committee which defined the projected flows for the wastewater system at build-out of the
aes. ~o..._.....9.6-..163... Ncs. Page 1 of 7
Wastewater Facilities Project and Long Range Management Program Resolution 96-163
Certification ojEIR June 17, /996
1 General Plan and defined the site area requirements for new treatment facilities and identified the
2 need for expanded storage and irrigation capacity to meet the dischazge limitations.
3
a WHEREAS, a "Constraints/Opportunities Analysis" (Constraints Report) dated July 1993 was
5 prepared which identified potential sites for location of new treatment facilities and potential
6 irrigation expansion areas based on an assessment of envvonmental constraints. An Addendum
7 dated July 1993 was also prepared which evaluated 13 potential reservoir sites for expanded
s storage. Based on these studies, design options and two siting alternatives for new treatment
9 facilities and two reservoir site alternatives were recommended for further evaluation in the EIR.
to
11 WHEREAS, two public scoping workshops were hosted by the City on July 14th, 1993 and
12 August 17th, 1993 to review the design options and siting alternatives recommended for
13 consideration in the Environmental Impact Report.
14
15 WHEREAS, an "Fzpatuled Notice of Preparation" was prepared which described the expanded
16 scope of the project to include additional storage facilities and identified, siting opportunities. The
17 notice was distributed on April 25th, 1994 to the State Clearinghouse and to responsible local,
is state and federal agencies and mailed to residents and property owners potentially affected and to
19 interested parties requesting such notice.
zo
21 WHEREAS, the City attended an interagency scoping meeting at the U.S. Army Corps offices on
22 May 11th, 1994 to review the changes in the project scope and the design options and site
23 alternatives. Representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection
2a Agency, California Department of Fish and Game, and the National Marine Fisheries Service were
25 present at the meeting. Several additional field review meetings with representatives from the U. S.
z6 Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps and California Department of Fish and Game were
27 conducted during the preparation of the environmental documents.
28
29 WHEREAS, the City also consulted directly with representatives from: California Department of
3o Health Services, Natural Resource Conservation District, California Department of
31 Transportation, State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of Conservation, State
32 Lands Commission, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Integrated
33 Waste Management Board, Sonoma County Planning Department, Local Agency Formation
34 Commission, and the Mosquito Abatement District.
35
36 WHEREAS, the Citizen's Wastewater Advisory Committee reviewed a report entitled
37 "Comparative Aturlysis ojService Delivery Alternatives" dated May 18, 1994 prepared by Ernst
38 & Young. The Advisory Committee recommended that the City utilize the "service agreement
39 approach" for the procurement of wastewater management services and that the City form a
4o commission or boazd to provide oversight of the service agreement and a higher level of ongoing
41 public involvement in the long-term operation of the wastewater system.
a2
43 WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Citizen's Wastewater Advisory Cormiilttee's
as recommendations on June 20th, 1994 and approved the recommended procurement approach in
45 Resolution 94-156 to consider full privatization through a service agreement and to the concept of
a6 a local public utilities commission to oversee the operations.
Reso. 96-163 NCS Page 2 of 7
Wastewater Facilities Project and Long Range Management Program Resolution 96-163
Certification ojE1R June 17, 1996
1
2 WHEREAS, the City hosted another public scoping workshop on June. 28th, 1994 to review the
3 project description, design options and siting alternatives and vendor selection process.
4
5 WHEREAS, staff attended interagency meetings at the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers in June and
6 August of 1994 and conducted several interagency field review meetings with representatives
7 from State Department of Fish and Game, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
8 Board, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and Anny Corps of Engineers to solicit input .and response
9 on the proposed Wetland Mitigation Plan and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the proposed
l0 reservoir pursuant to Section 15083 of CEQA Guidelines and Section 10.0 of local Environmental
11 Review Guidelines.
12
13 WHEREAS, a "Draft EIR"was prepazed and distributed to the State Clearinghouse along with a
la Notice of Completion .and to all responsible local, state and federal agencies involved in the
15 project and made available for public review. A "Notice of Availability and Public Hearing" was
16 published in the local newspaper and mailed on December 13th, 1994 to the residentsJproperty
17 owners in the areas potentially affected and to all interested parties who requested such notice,
18 pursuant to Section 15087 of CEQA Guidelines and Sections 12.5 and 12.6 of local
19 Environmental Review Guidelines inviting all interested persons to comment on the project and
20 environmental document.
21
zz WHEREAS, public hearings were held before the Planning Cotmnission on January 10th, 1995,
23 January 24th, 1995 and January 31st, 1995 in which all interested persons were provided an
2a opportunity to speak. After consideration of the comments, the Planning Commission directed
25 staff to provide more information about the project, evaluate other design options and siting
s6 alternatives and re-evaluate the EIIt findings on the oxidation pond alternative.
27
z8 WHEREAS, the "Ellis Creek Watershed Enhancement and Wetland Mitigation Plan and
29 Monitoring Program" (Mitigation Plan) dated May 1995 was prepared in accordance with
3o Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code (AB 3180) and federal guidelines to address
31 biological impacts associated with the proposed reservoir. The Mitigation Plan was distributed
32 for review and comment to all responsible local, state and federal agencies involved in the project
33 and made available for public review.
34
35 WHEREAS, the City prepazed a "Draft Project Report" dated June 15th, 1995 for the
36 Wastewater Facilities Project and. Long Range Management program describing the project
37 objectives, facility requirements, design options, operating chazacteristics and estimated capital
38 and operating costs as the basis for evaluation in the EIR and further defining the scope of work
39 for the Request for Proposals documents.
40
41 WHEREAS, a "Notice of Availability" was mailed to interested parties, and the Draft Project
42 Report was distributed to responsible local, state and federal agencies, and a public information
43 meeting was hosted by the City on June 14th, 1995.
44
45 WHEREAS, the "Request for Proposals and Draft Contract Documents" (RFP/Draft Contract
46 Documents) were also developed and reviewed by the Citizen's Wastewater Advisory Committee
Reso. 96-163 NCS Page 3 of 7
Wastewater Facilities Project and Long Range Managemen! Program Resolution 96-163
Certification ojEIR June 17, 1996
1 and provided to the Planning Commission and City Council and made available for public review
2 including all of the appendices that could be prepared in advance of the proposals, but were not
3 considered within the scope of the EIR.
4
5 WHEREAS, a "Revised Draft EIR" dated August 1995 was prepared to address the
6 environmental issues raised and include analysis of additional alternatives including: acquisition of
7 additional land at the existing facility location on Hopper Street; created wetlands identified as
s feasible design options in the Draft Project Report.
9
l0 WHEREAS, the Revised Draft EIR was distributed to the State Clearinghouse along with a
11 Notice of Completion and to all responsible local, state and federal agencies involved in the
12 project and recirculated for public review and comment.
13
14 WHEREAS, a "Notice of Availability of the Revised Draft EIR and Public Hearing" was
15 published in the local newspaper and mailed on August 7th, 1994 to the residents/property owners
16 in the areas potentially affected and to all interested parties who requested such notice, pursuant
17 to Section 15087 of CEQA Guidelines and Sections 12.5 .and 12.6 of local Environmental Review
18 Guidelines inviting all interested persons to comment on the project and environmental document
19 within the public reviewperiod through September 20th, 1995.
20
21 WHEREAS, a public information meeting was hosted by the City on August 30th, 1995 to review
22 the major changes to the EIR, present the preliminary project recommendations and respond to
23 any questions.
24
25 WI-IEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on September 12th, 1995
26 and continued to September 20th, 1995 at which time all individuals, groups and agencies who
27 desired to comment were given the opportunity to speak and/or submit written comments as
28 required by the City's Environmental Review Guidelines. The public hearing was closed on
29 September 20th but the period for submittal of written comments was extended to October 4th,
30 1995.
31
32 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the above referenced documents and considered
33 the comments received and made a recommendation to the City Council that the EIR provides
34 adequate analysis of impacts and available mitigation measures for use in decision-making with
35 some additional clarifications and directed staff to prepare responses to comments in a Final EIR
36 for certification by the City Council.
37
3S WHEREAS, the Planning Commission also recommended. that the City Council hold a public
39 hearing on the contract documents prior to certification of the Final EIR.
ao
41 WHEREAS, a "Final EIR/Response to Comments" (Final EIR) was prepared which responded
az to the comments raising environmental points and provided additional clarification of issues as
a3 directed by the Planning Commission. The Final EIR document did not change any of the data or
44 conclusions of the Revised Draft EIR and no new significant effects were noted that had not been
45 evaluated previously in the Revised Draft EIR.
46
Reso. 96-163 NCS Page 4 of 7
Wastewater Facilities Project and Long Range Management Program Resolution 96-163
Certification ojE1R June 17, 1996
1 WHEREAS, a `Final Project Report" was prepared to reflect the project recommendations as
2 adopted by the Planning Commission and recommended by the Citizen's Wastewater Advisory
3 Committee.
4
5 WHEREAS, the City Council held a study session on November 27th, 1995 at which staff
6 reviewed the planning and procurement process and the environmental findings of the Revised
7 Draft EIR and presented the siting and water quality recommendations contained in the Final
8 Project Report. The consultant team provided a review of the RFP/Draft Contract Documents
9 and summarized the changes to the Draft Contract Documents recommended by the Citizen's
to Wastewater Advisory Committee.
11
12 WHEREAS, a "Notice of Availability of the Final EIR/Response to Comments and Public
13 Hearing", was published in the local newspaper and mailed on January 9th, 1996 to residents and
la property owners in the azeas potentially affected and to all interested parties and responsible and
15 trustee agencies, as provided in Section 15089 of CEQA Guidelines.
16
17 WHEREAS, the Final EIR was distributed to the City Council, made available to the public and
18 circulated to the State Clearinghouse and responding local, state and federal agencies on January
19 11th, 1996.
20
21 WHEREAS public hearings on the project and related documents were held on February 12th,
22 1996 and Mazch 25th, 1996 at which time all interested parties were provided an opportunity to
23 speak. The public hearing was officially closed on Mazch 25th, 1996.
za
- z5 WI~REAS, the City Council authorized afollow-up meeting with City staff for those who spoke
26 at the public hearings in order to assist staff in providing more proactive responses to the
27 comments received. The follow-up meetings were held on April 17th, 1996 and May 8th, 1996.
28
29 WHEREAS, the City Council continued the discussion to April 22, 1996 to consider additional
30 information regarding various organizational structures for a utility commission to oversee the
31 wastewater management system. At the meeting on April 22nd the Council provided direction to
32 staff that a local commission appointed by the City Council was preferred and continued the
33 discussion on the wastewater facilities project to May 13th, 1996.
34
35 WHEREAS, 'Responses to Comments on the Final EIR, Final Project Report and Request for
36 Proposals/Draft Contract Documents" (Response Document) was prepared and distributed on
37 May 6th, 1996 to the City Council and to those who spoke at the public hearings.
38
39 WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the Revised Draft EIR, the Final EIR, and
4o the Response Document along with the comments received during the public hearings, the follow-
al up meetings and at the meeting on May 13th and directed staff to prepaze legislation for
42 certification of the EIR and approval of the Project Report and Request for Proposals/Draft
a3 Contract Documents for consideration on June 17th, 1996.
44
a5 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that after due consideration, the City Council hereby
46 certifies the E1R documents and makes the following findings:
Reso. 96-163 NCS Page 5 of 7
Wastewater Facilities Project and Long Range Management Program Resolution 96-163
Certification ojEIR June I7, 1996
1
2 1. The EIR has been completed in compliance with the intent and requirements of the
3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines and is in
4 all respects adequate and complete for purposes of this Council's consideration of and
5 action on the proposed Wastewater Facilities Project and the Long Range Management
6 Program.
s 2. The documents referenced below which constitute the .Final EIR were presented and
9 considered along with both written and oral comments received during the public review
to period on the project and environmental documents.
11
12 a. Final Project Report, December 29, 1995;
13 b. Final Ellis Creek Watershed Enhancement and Wetland Mitigation Plan and
14 Monitoring Program, January 1996;
15 c. Revised Draft E]R, August 1995;
16 d. Final EIIt/Response to Comments, November 1995; and,
17 e. Responses to Comments on the Final EIR, May 1996.
18
19 3. This Council has independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the information in the
20 Final EIR and finds that the content of the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the
21 City of Petaluma and this Council.
22
23 4. The Council further finds that a notice of availability of the Final EIR was published and
2a the Final EIR was made available and circulated for public review and comment in
zs accordance with Section 15087 and 15086 of CEQA Guidelines.
26
z7 s. The Council further finds that additional feasible mitigation measures and monitoring
2s requirements to further reduce the severity of unavoidable land use impacts were
29 recommended in the Response Document dated May 1996 which will be adopted and
3o incorporated into the project. The Council further finds that the Response Document was
31 also made available for public review and additional comments were considered. The
32 Council finds that the additional mitigation measures and monitoring requirements will not
33 result in any new significant impacts and will further reduce the severity of previously
34 identified significant effects described in the Environmental Impact Report.
35
36 6. The Council finds that the modifications to the Final Project Report as recommended in
37 the May 13th, 1996 staff report to include a larger marsh component on the Gray pazcel is
3a fully evaluated as a project alternative in Chapters 4A - M of the Revised Draft EIR. The
39 Council finds that modifications to the Final Project Report to utilize reclaimed water for
ao mazsh enhancement rather than storage will reduce the severity of previously identified
41 significant effects described in the EIR and enhance the environmental benefits of the
a2 project. The Council further finds that modifying the Final Project Report to incorporate a
a3 larger mazsh component would therefore not result in any new significant impacts not
44 previously analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report.
45
Reso. 96-163 NCS Page 6 of 7
Wastewater Facilities Project and Long Range Management Program Resolution 96-/63
Certification ojFJR June 17, 1996
1 7. The Council further finds that the potential to increase the discharge through the marsh to
2 the Petaluma River may reduce the reservoir size and should be further evaluated in an
3 environmental document subject to public review.
4
5 8. The Council further finds that new information regarding siting alternatives for storage
6 (Tolay site or multiple smaller storage sites) and for marsh creation (Airport site) was
7 considered during review of the Final EIR and the Response Document. The Council
a finds that these alternatives or substantially similar alternatives were evaluated and found
9 to be either infeasible or would not clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project.
to
11 9. Finally, the Council finds that no significant new information regarding new significant
12 impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts, and no new information
13 demonstrating the feasibility of alternatives or mitigation. measures previously found to be
la infeasible, has become available since the Final EIIt was completed. Accordingly, this
15 Council. finds that there is no need to circulate the EIR for further public review.
16
17
18 c:\wwlp4eso-a\jb99
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 App form as to
Council of the City of Petaluma at a (Regular) meeting °`'°'/~/(J ~(yJ
on the ....1..X11...._...... day of ...._..s~Uile....._:...- 19_96.. by the ! 4~. '
following vote:
City Attorney
AYES: Maguire, Hamilton, Stompe, Read, Shea, Mayor Hilligoss
NOES: None
ABSENT: Vice Mayor ~ '
ATTEST: ~Yl
...:...........I.................
City rk ayor
Cmmdl Fila._._..._
ca loss ~ Re,,,,o,.96-163........... N.as. Page 7 of 7