HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2005-130 N.C.S. 08/01/2005 1
resolution 1Vo.2oos-13o T~T.C.S.
of the City of Petaluma, California
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE 2005 CONSTRUCTION ADDENDUM TO THE WATER
RECYCLING FACILITY AND RIVER ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS EIl2; APPROVING THE
PROJECT REVISIONS; MAI~NG FINDING OF FACT; AND ADOPTING A REVISED
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM THEREFORE
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,
Resolution No. 2005-130 N.C.S.
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,
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. 98-11 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,
Resolution No. 2005-130 N.C.S. Page 2
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.
? 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,
Resolution No. 2005-130 N.C.S. Page 3
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. 00-66 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 00-214 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 00-215 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,
Resolution No. 2005-130 N.C.S. Page 4
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 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
.y 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; and,
WHEREAS, after due consideration, the Petaluma City Council adopted Resolution
2002-135 N.C.S. certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Water Recycling
Facility and River Access Improvements Project and made the following findings on August 5,
2002.
Resolution No. 2005-130 N.C.S. Page 5
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.
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 4104 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 4104 Lakeville
Highway and preserving the oxidation pond site for its current function warranted further
evaluation; and,
Resolution No. 2005-130 N.C.S. Page 6
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,
WI~EREAS, 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
Resolution No. 2005-130 N.C.S. Page 7
effects, or otherwise meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 which outlines
the standards by which subsequent EIRs are required; and,
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
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 Measures and 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 City Council adopted Resolution No. 2004-156 N.C.S. Authorizing
. General Contractor and Electrical Subcontractor Prequalification for.the City of Petaluma Ellis
Creek Water Recycling Facility Project on August 16, 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,
Resolution No. 2005-130 N.C.S. Page 8
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility on
February 7 and 28, 2004 and directed the Department of Water Resources and Conservation to
complete the contract documents for Alternative lA -Full Project With Bid Alternate for the
Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility and issue the contract documents to the following
prequalified contractors for solicitation of bids for construction:
General Contractors
• Slayden Construction
• Kiewit Pacific Company
• Monterey Mechanical
• Balfour Beatty Construction, Inc.
Walsh Pacific Construction
• ARB, Inc.
Electrical Contractors
• Mass Electric
• Contract Costa Electric
• HGH Electric
Blocka Construction
- Con J. Franke Electric
WHEREAS, on May 3, 2004, the City Council authorized City Management to prepare
final plans and specifications for the Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements
Project 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 of previously identified significant effects, or otherwise meet the requirements of CEQA
Resolution No. 2005-130 N.C.S. Page 9
Guidelines Section 15162 which outlines the standards by which subsequent Environmental
Impact Reports 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,
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 to be as follows:
1. Addition of two temporary pipeline crossings of Ellis Creek;
2. Removal of several outbuildings associated with the farmhouse;
3. Use of secondary recycled water during construction; and
4. Minor revisions to mitigation measures.
NOW, THEREFORE, DE IT RESOLVED by the City of Petaluma City Council that:
1. It certifies the 2005 Construction Addendum to the Water Recycling Facility and
River Access Improvements EIR as modified by the Apri12004 EIR 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 adopts the Revised Mitigation Monitoring Program incorporating the program
adopted in the Final EIR and the April 2004 Addendum with changes as outlined in
the 2005 Construction Addendum;
Resolution No. 2005-130 N.C.S. Page 10
5. The Certified EIR, Apri12004 EIR Addendum, 2005 Construction Addendum and all
documents constituting the Administrative Record, therefor, .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; and
6. The Environmental Review Coordinator is directed to file a Notice of Determination
for the revisions to the project adopted hereby.
BE IT FURTHER RES®LVED by the City Council that:
1. The above recitals are true and correct and hereby declared to be findings of the City
Council of the City of Petaluma.
2. The Resolution shall become effective immediately.
3. All portions of this Resolution are severable. Should any individual component of
this Resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable by a body of competent
jurisdiction, then the remaining Resolution portions shall be and continue in full force
and effect, except as to those Resolution portions that have been adjudged invalid.
The City Council of the City of Petaluma hereby declares that it would have adopted
this Resolution and each section, subsection, clause, sentence, phrase and other
portion hereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more section subsection, clause
sentence, phrase or other portion may be held invalid or unconstitutional.
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 .........1s1 day of ...,...~lltgust.................................., 20AS., by the
following vote:
City Attorney
AYES: Canevaro, Mayor Glass, Vice Mayor Harris, Healy, Nau, O'Brien, Torliatt
NOES: None
ABSENT: None ~
ATTEST: ' .......W.. :.lT`ll..............................
City Clerk ayor
Council File
Res. No.......~D(}$-}~Q-.......N.C;S.
EXHIBIT A TO THE RESOLUTION APPROVING REVISIONS TO
THE CITY OF PETALUMA WATER RECYCLING FACILITY AND
MARSH ACQUISITION, ENHANCEMENT, AND ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
FINDINGS of FACT
1. Introduction
The City proposes to construct the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility at 4104
Lakeville Highway, adjacent to the City's oxidation ponds. The facility includes
facilities to provide secondary treatment for up to 6.7 million gallons per day (mgd)
average dry weather flow, tertiary treatment for up to 4 mgd biosolids treatment to meet
EPA Class B requirements for beneficial reuse, and includes algae removal with wetlands
and polishing with wetlands. 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 overriding
considerations adopted in April of 2004. These findings are available for review at the
City of Petaluma, Department of Water Resources and Conservation. Since that time,
final engineering design has proceeded and 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 2005
Construction Addendum.
These minor revisions currently being adopted do not result in new significant impacts,
and therefore, no changes to the previously adopted statement of overriding
considerations is required.
2. Findings
The 2005 Construction Addendum identified two significant impacts ,resulting from
project revisions that, with mitigation, can be reduced to less-than-significant levels:
BIO-2, loss of bird nests or wildlife nursery sites; and BIO-7, loss of wetlands or waters
of the U.S. Also, minor changes have been made to Mitigation Measure BIO-2b.
With respect to the two biological resources impacts, three mitigation measures have
been adopted: Measure BIO-2a, Active Raptor and Migratory Bird Nest Protection
Program; Measure BIO-2b, Rookery/Nest Protection Program; and Measure BIO-7,
Create or Restore Wetlands and Water of theU.S.
Resolution No. 2005-130 N.C.S. Page 12
Regarding Impact BIO-2, loss of nests or wildlife nursery sites, Measure BIO-2a, Active
Raptor and Migratory Bird Nest Protection Program, and BIO-2b, Rookery/Nest
Protection Program (as modified in this Addendum), will identify nests and establish
exclusion zones and seasonal limitations in consultation with the California Deparhnent
of Fish and Game to avoid disturbance during the nesting season. These mitigation
measures are feasible and will reduce the impacts to a level below significance.
Regarding Impact BIO-7, loss of wetlands or waters of the U.S., Measure BIO-7, requires
restoration of temporary impacts to wetlands and compensatory creation of wetlands for
permanent impacts, thus reducing impacts to wetlands to ales-than-significant level.
Land is available within the project area for compensatory creation of riparian or
wetlands habitats; therefore this mitigation measure is feasible and will reduce impacts to
wetlands to a level below significance.
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
fmdings, 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. Resources Code, § 21002; Laurel .Hills Homeowners
Association, supra, 83 Ca1.App.3d at p. 521; see also Kings City Farm Bureau v. City of
Hanford (1990) 221 Ca1.App.3d 692, 730-731; Laurel Heights Improvement Association
v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400-403.)
The preceding discussion regarding project impacts reveals that significant effects
identified in the 2005 Construction Addendum have been substantially lessened by the
adoption of feasible mitigation measures, and therefore no further consideration.. of
project alternatives need be undertaken.
Resolution No. 2005-130 N.C.S. Page 13