Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2006-057 N.C.S. 04/03/2006 Resolution No. 2006-057 N.C.S. of the City of Petaluma, California CERTIFYING THE WATER RECYCLING FACILITIES AND RIVER ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FEBRUARY 2006 CONSTRUCTION ADDENDUM, APPROVING THE PROJECT REVISIONS; AND ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT 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. 2006-057 N.C.S. Page 1 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 on 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. 98-011 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: 1 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. 1 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. Resolution No. 2006-057 N.C.S. Page 2 1 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. 2000-66 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 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 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, Resolution No. 2006-057 N.C.S. Page 3 WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 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; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on August 5, 2002, to consider the Final EIR; and, WHEREAS, that after due consideration, the Petaluma City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Project and made the following findings on August 5, 2002. 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: a. Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Draft Environmental Impact Report, in two volumes (April 2002). 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, ..independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the information in the Final EIR and found 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. Resolution No. 2006-057 N.C.S. Page 4 WHEREAS, the project certified in the Final EIR included locating a portion of the treatment plant at 4400 Lakeville Highway, the current site of the City's oxidation ponds (APN 0680-010-025, 032 and 024), with polishing treatment wetlands located at 4100 Lakeville Highway (APN 068-010-026, and 017-170-002); and, WHEREAS, the City completed approximately 50% design of the facility in November 2002; and, WHEREAS, through the value engineering effort conducted in December 2002, it became apparent the alternative of locating the water recycling facility at 4.100 Lakeville Highway and preserving the oxidation pond site for its current function warranted further evaluation; and, WHEREAS, to construct the water recycling facility at the oxidation pond site would require the removal, drying and disposal of sludge from the aerated lagoon and oxidation pond no. 1, construction of a pipeline to deliver influent to oxidation pond no. 2, the construction of aerators in oxidation pond nos. 2 and 3 to maintain and improve treatment capacity, and require the placement of approximately 250,000 cubic yards of imported fill in the oxidation pond no. 1; and, WHEREAS, a feasibility study determined that locating the water recycling facility at 4104 Lakeville Highway was feasible and yields many benefits; and, WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2003-196 N.C.S. on August 18, 2003, which authorized the City Manager to execute an amendment to the professional services agreement with Carollo Engineers for engineering services in support of locating the new treatment plant at 4104 Lakeville Highway; and, WHEREAS, the City Council authorized acquisition of approximately 262 acres of land in the 4000 block of Lakeville Highway for construction of the Water Recycling Facility and development of the Petaluma Marsh Acquisition, Enhancement and Access Project on September 8, 2003 through Ordinance No. 2161 N.C.S. for the purchase of real property described as Sonoma County Assessor's parcel Nos. 068-010-026 and 017-010-002; and, WHEREAS, the City .acquired Parcel Nos. 068-010-026 and 017-010-002 in February 2004 with the assistance of grant funding from the California Coastal Conservancy and the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District; and, WHEREAS, 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 the proposed Project revisions; and, WHEREAS, the EIR Addendum concluded 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, or otherwise meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 which outlines the standards by which subsequent EIRs are required; and, Resolution No. 2006-057 N.C.S. Page 5 WHEREAS, the EIR Addendum was published on April 15, 2004 and was available for public review at the City of Petaluma City Hall, Petaluma Library, Petaluma Community Center, Petaluma Senior Center, and the Santa Rosa Junior College, Petaluma campus; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2004-101 N.C.S. Re-Certifying the Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum, and Adopting Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Adopting Revised Mitigation Monitoring Program on June 7, 2004; and, WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2004-092 N.C.S. Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with The Covello Group for Construction Management Services Task 1 and Task 2 for the City of Petaluma Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project on June 7, 2004; and, WHEREAS, the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee approved the Project on November 18, 2004; and, WHEREAS, the Petaluma Planning Commission considered the Project and the. proposed land use designations at 4104 Lakeville Highway on December 14, 2004, and recommended the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment to the land use designation of Public/Institutional, prezoning to Planned Community District (PCD) and rezoning from Agricultural to Planned Community District, and annexation to the City of Petaluma; and, WHEREAS, after due consideration, the City Council certified the Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements EIR Addendum and adopted the revisions to the project at the public hearing of May 3, 2004; and, WHEREAS, on May 3, 2004, the City Council authorized City Management to prepare final plans and specifications for the Water Recycling Facility and these final plans and specifications have resulted in minor revisions to the project description being proposed; and, WHEREAS, a Construction Addendum (July 2005) 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 the proposed Project revisions; and, WHEREAS, the 2005 Construction Addendum found that the determinations of the Final EIR, as modified by the April 2004 Addendum, remain valid for the revised Project in that none of the Project modifications will have new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity ofpreviously identified significant effects, or otherwise meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 which outlines the standards by which subsequent EIRs are required; and, WHEREAS, the 2005 Construction Addendum was published on July 25, 2005 and was available for public review at the City of Petaluma City Hall, Department of Water Resources and Conservation; and, Resolution No. 2006-057 N.C.S. Page 6 WHEREAS, the City Council considered the summary of revisions to the Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Project as evaluated in the 2005 Construction Addendum; and, WHEREAS, after due consideration, the City Council certified the Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements EIR Construction Addendum and adopted the revisions to the project at the public hearing of August 1, 2005 (Resolution No. 2005-130 N.C.S.); and, WHEREAS, on August 1, 2005 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2005-131 N.C.S. Awarding the Construction Contract for the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility; and, WHEREAS, on August 1, 2005 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2005-132 N.C.S. authorizing borrowing of funds in an amount not to exceed $100,000,000 under two separate lines of credit to finance Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Construction and related expenses, and authorizing official action Thereto; and, WHEREAS, on August 1, 2005 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2005-133 N.C.S. authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with The Covello Group for Construction Management and Inspection Services in Support of Construction of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility; and, WHEREAS, on August 1, 2005 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2005-134 N.C.S. authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Carollo Engineers for Construction Engineering Services in Support of Construction of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility; and, WHEREAS, on August 1, 2005 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2005-135 N.C.S. authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with ArcSine for Professional Programming Services in Support of Construction of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility; and, WHEREAS, on August 1, 2005 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2005-136 N.C.S. authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with ESA for Environmental Services in Support of Construction of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility; and, WHEREAS, on October 7, 2005 the Director of Water Resources and Conservation provided the Notice to Proceed to the General Contractor and work commenced; and, WHEREAS, in the course of construction the Construction Manager has requested a change in the construction truck route for ingress at the Water Recycling Facility site; and, WHEREAS, a Construction Addendum (February 2006) 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 the proposed Project revisions; and, Resolution No. 2006-057 N.C.S. Page 7 WHEREAS, the 2006 Construction Addendum found that the determinations of the Final EIR, as modified by the 2004 Addendum and 2005 Construction Addendum, 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, or otherwise meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 which outlines the standards by which subsequent EIRs are required; and, WHEREAS, the February 2006 Construction Addendum was published in February, 2006 and was available for public review at the City of Petaluma City Hall and Department of Water Resources and Conservation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council that: 1. It certifies the February 2006 Construction Addendum to the Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements EIR as modified by the 2004 Addendum and 2005 Construction Addendum as having been prepared in accordance with CEQA. 2. It makes findings of fact that changes or alterations have been required and incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Construction Addendum and these findings are attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. It finds that the project revisions do not cause new significant environmental effects, and therefore, the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted at the time of the project approval in August 2002 and April 2004 is still applicable and need not be modified. 4. It finds that the project revisions do not cause new significant environmental impacts or new or revised mitigation measures, and therefore, the Revised Mitigation Monitoring Program adopted in July 2005 is still applicable and need not be modified. 5. The Certified EIR, 2004 Addendum, 2005 Construction Addendum, 2006 Construction Addendum, and all documents constituting the Administrative Record, therefore, shall reside with the Environmental Review Coordinator of the City of Petaluma and be made available at the office of such Coordinator at the Petaluma City Hall, 11 English Street, Petaluma, California. 6. The Environmental Review Coordinator is directed to file a Notice of Determination for the revisions to the project adopted hereby. Resolution No. 2006-057 N.C.S. Page 8 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 meeting on the 3"~ day of April, 2006, form: by~the following vote: ~ ~ ,,11 ~ U` L~G~ 1. C-? City Attorney AYES: Vice Mayor Canevaro, Healy, Nau, O'Brien, Torliatt NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Glass, Harris - ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: City Clerk ~ ay r _ - Resolution No. 2006-057 N.C.S. ~ Page 9 Exhibit A 1. Introduction The City is constructing a new wastewater treatment facility, capable of producing tertiary treated recycled water at property northwest of the existing oxidation pond site at 4000 Lakeville Highway. The project includes a set of improvements that will provide public recreational and educational amenities. These findings have been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., title 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. An EIR for the project was certified, findings made, and a statement of overriding considerations adopted in August 2002. Revisions to the project were subsequently proposed and an EIR addendum certified, findings made, and statement of oven•iding considerations adopted in April of 2004. Subsequently, final engineering design occurred requiring minor revisions in the project, an EIR construction addendum was certified, and findings made in August of 2005. These findings are available for review at the City of Petaluma. Additional minor revisions in the project are currently proposed. These Findings of Fact are made relative only to the decision at hand: approval of minor revisions to the City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility and Marsh Acquisition, Enhancement, and Access Improvements Project., as described in the February 2006 Construction Addendum. These minor revisions currently being adopted do not result in new significant impacts; therefore, no changes to the previously adopted statement of overriding considerations is required. In addition, the revisions to the project did not require any mitigation; therefore, the previously adopted 2005 Revised Mitigation Monitoring Program is still applicable. 2. Findings The 2006 Construction Addendum did not identify any significant impacts resulting from project revisions. Section 15164 of the Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") provides that an Addendum is the appropriate level of CEQA analysis when the circumstances defined in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a Subsequent EIR do not occur. None of the circumstances that require a Subsequent EIR, such as new significant impacts or significant impacts of a substantially more severe nature, are present. Thus, an Addendum is the appropriate level of CEQA analysis and the appropriate method of amending the 2002 Certified EIR. 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. Resolution No. 2006-057 N.C.S. Page 10 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 v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376, 400-403.) The preceding discussion regarding project impacts reveals that no significant effects were identified in the February 2006 Construction. Addendum, and therefore no further consideration of project alternatives need be undertaken. Resolution No. 2006-057 N.C.S. Page 1 1