Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-25RESOLUTION N0.200~-25 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH APPROVING FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR FINAL DESIGN OF WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, 1. On March 3, 2004, the City Council adopted a mitigated negative declaration ("Negative Declaration"), mitigation monitoring program, approved SPH Associates' design recommendation for the water system improvement project ("the Project") and authorized proceeding with final design of the Project; and 2. The Project consists of constructing additional water storage tanks to increase the City's water storage capacity by 3.3 Million gallons, installing two additional treatment modules in the City's water treatment plant, each module capable of treating up to 3 MGD, installing additional and rebuilding pumps, and other associated improvements, all as more particularly described in the Agenda Summary Reports, which description is incorporated herein by reference; and 3. These findings are adopted to further explain the basis for the City Council's March 3, 2004, decision; and 4. The City Council has exercised its independent judgment in approving the Negative Declaration and has considered the findings set forth herein; and 5. The findings set forth the ultimate facts which the City Council finds to be true and the findings support the City Council's conclusions; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: 1. The Negative Declaration was prepared and made available for public review and comment in full compliance with the procedures set forth in California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines. 2. Both the Negative Declaration and the Project were considered by the City Council at properly noticed public meetings on February 18, 2004, and March 3, 2004. 3. The City Council has considered all documents submitted during the public comment period for the Negative Declaration and all documents and testimony presented during its meetings on February 18, 2004 and March 3, 2004, Agenda Summaries, including all S:\u\resos04\WaterProjectFindings March 23, 2004 attachments, prepared for said meetings, and the Response to Additional Howard Points, including attachments submitted by the City Attorney to the City Council at the March 3, 2004, meeting. In addition, the record upon which the Negative Declaration is based includes the files maintained by the City for the Project, and all documents referred to during the consideration of the Project at the City Council meetings of February 18 and March 4, 2004. 4. The Initial Study and Negative Declaration evaluated the impacts of the Project itself as well as its impacts in combination with impacts from past, present and probable future projects. 5. The Negative Declaration did not include in its evaluation of the Project's environmental impacts the impacts from new development in the City's sphere of influence which might be served, if the City water system produced an additional 6 Million Gallons per Day ("MGD"), because: a. The Project has been designed and is proposed to address storage and treatment deficiencies in the City's existing water system serving the existing water service connections to that system and to improve the efficiency and durability of the system; b. The water sources for the City's5water system (wells and the Ranney Collector) produce a maximum 6. 5 MGD which does not meet the maximum day demand of the City's existing water system; c. Unless new sources of water are developed, the Project will not produce a sufficient amount of new water to serve significant new development; d. The City intends to investigate new water sources, but the details of that investigation have not been developed and the exact nature of the investigation and its outcome are unknown at present; e. The City must undertake the Project whether it discovers and develops new water sources or not. The Project does not legally or practically commit the City to develop new water sources and is not a precedent for the development of new water sources; and f. Considering the environmental impacts of the Project in combination with a project of developing new water sources requires speculation and conjecture about a new water source project, including, but not limited to, speculation about the location of the new water sources, whether they will consist of groundwater or surface water, how much water can be developed and what practical and legal limitations may apply to the appropriation or use of that water. 6. There exists on the Treatment Plant property a pond which is used to store filter media (colloidal clay)produced when the water S: \u\resos04\WaterProjectFindings March 23, 2004 2 filters used in the plant are back washed. The record does not contain substantial evidence upon which a fair argument can be based that the existence of this pond may have a significant, adverse impact on the environment, because: a. The ponds and the process of back washing the filters are part of the existing water treatment plant which the Project does not propose to change. As such these facilities are part of the existing environment rather than an impact from the development of the Project. The size of the sedimentation pond will remain the same and, therefore, the amount of sediment stored in the pond will not change significantly, even if additional treatment modules are installed; b. The amount of filter media stored in the ponds currently is actually 25 cubic yards rather than the 100 cubic yards reported in the Initial Study; and c. The only evidence presented that the pond could pose a potentially adverse impact on the environment comes from the testimony of Lee Howard who speculated that in a flood like the flood in 1964, flood waters would reach the pond causing some of the sediment to be washed into the Russian River where it could adversely affect fish habitat. The testimony did not include any facts pertaining to the likelihood of another flood like the one that occurred in 1964, as compared, for example, to a 100 year flood event, how much sediment in the pond the flood waters would wash into the river, the sediment level in the river during a flood event, the flow of water or the movement of sediment in the river during such a flood, or the amount, if any, of the sediment from the pond which would remain in the river or where or how it would be deposited. The record contains none of these facts or the opinion of qualified experts based on facts. As such, the testimony does not contain substantial evidence upon which a fair argument can be based that the storage of filter media produced by the Project may have an adverse environmental impact. 7. The City Council has reviewed the summary of public comments and the responses thereto contained in the Agenda Summary Report prepared for the March 3, 2004, Council meeting, and adopts the responses as additional City Council findings, which are incorporated herein by reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED on March 17, 2004, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT ABSTAIN: Councilmembers Rodin, Smith, and Mayor Larson. Councilmembers Andersen and Baldwin None None S:\u\resos04\WaterProjectFindings March 23, 2004 Eric Larson, Mayor ATTEST: Marie Ulvila, Deputy City Clerk S:\u\res0s04\WaterProjectFindings March 23, 2004