The URL can be used to link to this page

SR 09-10-2019 8A City Council Report City Council Meeting: September 10, 2019 Agenda Item: 8.A 1 of 13 To: Mayor and City Council From: Susan Cline, Director, Public Works, Engineering and Street Services Subject: Approval of the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) Design/Build Contract Guaranteed Maximum Price Amendment Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Guaranteed Maximum Price amendment to Design-Build Agreement No. 10736 (CCS) in the amount not to exceed $84,973,490 (including $6,050,000 City contingency) with Kiewit Infrastructure West Co., a Delaware-based company, for the construction phase of the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project for the Public Works Department for a new total amount not to exceed $92,473,490. 2. Authorize the Director of Public Works to issue any necessary change orders and contract modifications to complete additional work within the contract authority. 3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a first modification to Professional Service Agreement No. 10541 (CCS) in the amount of $1,090,080 with Stantec Consulting Services, an Edmonton, Canada-based company, to provide additional owner’s engineer services and construction inspection services for the Public Works Department. This will result in a five-year agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $2,740,000, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval. 4. Authorize the City Manager to accept and execute the amended funding agreement and all necessary documents to increase the funding from the State Water Board Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program in the amount of $19,000,000 and to accept all renewals. 5. Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the application for an additional $19,000,000 in funding from the State Water Board Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program. 6. Adopt the attached resolution for Reimbursement Resolution and Pledged Revenue and Fund(s). 7. Authorize the Director of Public Works, as the City’s Authorized Representative pursuant to State Water Board requirements, to issue any necessary amendments to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund agreement within contract authority. 8. Authorize the budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of this report. 2 of 13 Summary The City has supplied safe and reliable water service to its residents and businesses for more than 100 years. To ensure the continued safety, reliability and affordability of that service, the City’s Sustainable Water Master Plan was updated in 2018, with the goal of achieving water self-sufficiency by 2023. This goal will be reached through a combination of water demand reduction strategies and increased development of local water supplies. Water self-sufficiency will result in long-term cost protection for ratepayers, a drought resilient local water supply, and a reduced energy footprint resulting from the elimination of water delivery from distant locations. As a key strategy to achieve water self-sufficiency, the implementation of the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) would supply 1,680 acre-feet per year (AFY) of clean and reliable water, which represents about 12% of the City’s annual water demand. The SWIP leverages alternative water resources by treating brackish (salty) groundwater, stormwater, and municipal wastewater for non-potable reuse and groundwater recharge. The City awarded a design build agreement to Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. (Kiewit) to provide design services for the SWIP and subsequently submitted a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) for construction services. Staff recommends executing a GMP amendment in the amount not to exceed $84,973,490 (including $6,050,000 City contingency) for a total contract amount not to exceed $92,473,490. This represents a significant increase over the project’s original estimates, primarily due to the rapid rise in regional public works construction costs. The City also awarded a professional services agreement to Stantec to provide Owner’s Engineer services that included engineering oversight and advisory services throughout the design phase. With the construction phase now fully defined, staff recommends executing a modification in the amount of $1,090,080 for construction inspection and support services during the construction phase for a total contract amount not to exceed $2,740,000. 3 of 13 After value engineering and negotiating based on a submittal from the Design Build team in May 2019, the total estimated cost for the Project as recommended by staff is now $95.9 million. This is roughly $26 million over the current budget of $69.9 million approved in 2016. The total estimated cost includes $720,000 for administrative costs including permitting, public outreach, and prevailing wage services. Staff recommends that Council approve an additional $19 million loan financed through the existing Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and an additional $7 million budget appropriation as detailed below. Discussion The City’s Sustainable Water Master Plan (SWMP) outlines a comprehensive plan to achieve water self-sufficiency by 2023. The SWMP seeks to reduce the City’s reliance on imported water, develop local groundwater resources, and integrate available local water resources by treating brackish (salty) groundwater, municipal wastewater, and wet and dry weather runoff. The Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) would harvest these water sources and treat them for non-potable uses such as irrigation, toilet flushing, and recharging the City’s groundwater supply as shown in Figure 1. The SWIP would be a first-of-its-kind, innovative and progressive Advanced W ater Treatment Facility (AWTF) to be permitted in California for groundwater recharge. 4 of 13 Figure 1: SWIP Overview The SWIP is a major component of the SWMP as it would provide a sustainable and drought resilient water resource in its production of advanced treated water for recharge to local groundwater aquifers. This aquifer recharge would then provide the City with an increased raw water supply that could then be treated with the implementation of a second major component of the SWMP: the future Arcadia water treatment plant expansion. As depicted in Figure 1, the SWIP consists of an underground AWTF and stormwater harvesting tank at the Civic Center surface parking lot, and facility enhancements to the existing Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF). Preliminary renderings of the initial concept design are shown in Attachment A. The AWTF would produce 1.0 million gallons per day (MGD) of purified water by treating harvested runoff in the tank and municipal wastewater diverted from the city wastewater system, which would offset imported water purchases from Metropolitan Water District (MWD). The tank (the size of more than 2 Olympic sized pools) would have the capacity to harvest 1.5 million gallons (MG) of dry-weather runoff and wet-weather (stormwater) runoff. Reverse osmosis membrane filtration upgrades and other enhancements to the 5 of 13 SMURRF would allow it to operate at full production and produce 0.5 MGD of treated water. In total, the SWIP would supply 1,680 acre-feet per year (AFY) of treated water. Beneficial Use Besides the increased water supply capacity, the SWIP provides multiple benefits that include reducing urban runoff discharges to the ocean, improving beach water quality in the Santa Monica Bay by reducing the amount of polluted water entering the Bay, advancing compliance with the MS4 permit and Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP) requirements, and generating a new water resource. The EWMP is a City stormwater planning program implemented in order to achieve the State’s MS4 permit. The MS4 permit is a State permit regulating discharge water quality for any water that enters navigable waters. In addition, the SWIP would implement new Civic Center surface parking lot improvements and enhance access to the adjacent childcare center and sports field. Project Costs The approved $69.9 million budget was developed based on estimates supported by preliminary information available in 2016. As the design progressed and the detailed construction scope of the various project elements were more fully defined, the estimated project costs increased and resulted in an initial GMP of $110.9 million in May of 2019. Staff was able to reduce the scope and estimate to $92.4 million for a project total of $95.9 million (including City’s costs such as inspection services and permitting costs). The higher costs are associated to trending increases in the regional water production market, shortage of highly skilled labor, volatile material prices, and a large volume of projects in the Los Angeles region. With this significant increase in estimated project cost, staff evaluated three options for next steps: proceed with a reduced scope, do not build, or re-bid with a reduced scope. The evaluation of options is summarized in Table 1. Return on Investment 6 of 13 While the SWIP requires a significant upfront capital expenditure, the cost would be offset by treating and producing more water locally, allowing the City to avoid costly imported water fees and wastewater fees paid to outside agencies. Staff conducted a financial analysis comparing future costs of imported water and avoided wastewater treatment fees against the projected cost of locally produced water over a 35-year period. The analysis supported the financial viability of the SWIP even at the $110 million price. The project’s life expectancy of approximately 50 years well exceeds the 35-year ROI (return on investment). Proceeding with the SWIP as proposed is critical to the City’s effort to achieve water self-sufficiency by 2023. Residents and business owners within the City would benefit from the implementation of SWIP by keeping local water costs lower than without the project compared to the ongoing cost increases for imported water. SWIP also represents a major step forward in the City’s effort to meet the requirements of the City’s stormwater discharge permit (MS4). Non-compliance with the MS4 permit requirements may subject the City to future penalty assessments ranging between $1,000 and $10,000 or more per day during a rain event beginning in 2021, which is the deadline for agencies to comply with their Enhanced Watershed Management Plans . 7 of 13 Table 1. Next Step Options Option Cost Pros Cons 1. Proceed with reduced scope (storage tank is reduced to 1.5MG from the original 4.5MG) $95.9M • EWMP is partially implemented. • Achieving water self- sufficiency remains on schedule • Cost is fair and reasonable in today’s current market • Project sees a return on investment over a 35- year period. • Reduce pollutants to ocean improving ocean water quality. • $69.9M budgeted. $26M budget shortfall. 2. No Build $9M • Least costly option. • No construction impacts to public. • Water self-sufficiency not achieved by 2023 • Continue purchasing costly imported water at $1.8 million per year in 2022 (2022 completion), plus annual rate increases • $1.1 million in sewer costs per year in 2021, plus annual rate increases • Loss of $56.9M low interest (1.8%) CWSRF loan with $4.0 million forgiveness, with no guaranteed funding for alternate projects • Loss of $9 million in already- spent design funds with no project 3. Re-bid with a reduced scope $9M + X • May result in better pricing due to competition • EWMP is partially implemented. • First major step in water self-sufficiency Preserve low interest loan • Stormwater funding supports the project. • Project sees a return on • No guarantee of improved bids, current pricing was validated and reasonable in current market. • High risk of incurring price escalation or higher cost. • Significant schedule delay (at least 1 year would be necessary to revise the financing agreement, prepare the revised bid package, complete procurement, and negotiate the new contract). • Additional construction impacts to 8 of 13 investment over a 35- year period. • Reduce pollutants to ocean improving ocean water quality. the users after Early Child Lab School and Sports Field are completed. Staff recommends Option 1, for a total project cost of $95.9 million. Table 2 provides a comparison of the original budget and the proposed budget. The proposed budget examines the project moving forward with Option 1, the reduced scope, 1.5MG tank option. This option requires an additional $26 million in budget , $19 million of which would come from an increase to the CWSRF loan. Staff has communicated with the State regarding the loan increase and the State has confirmed funds are available for the SWIP. The State would confirm the final loan approval upon receiving the City Council Resolution. The execution of the GMP is contingent upon receiving the increased CWSRF loan. The increased loan amount to fund the SWIP is already included in the proposed Wastewater Fund rate adjustment scenarios presented to Council at the August 13, 2019 Council Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session. Staff is not seeking for any additional budget increases than what was already presented to Council at the Study Session. Should the proposed Wastewater Fund rate adjustment not be approved, capital projects and operating budgets in the Wastewater Fund would need to be reduced by approximately $13 million ove r the next 5 years to cover the increased SWIP cost covered by the Wastewater Fund . Potential cuts would include forgoing certain maintenance activities and deferring the annual wastewater main replacement program during that period. While there is always some risk in reducing maintenance activities and deferring capital improvements, the cuts would be to the wastewater system on non-pressurized pipes, which are less subject to breaks and leaks than the pressurized potable system. The cuts would not impact potable water infrastructure. Proposed budget increases are detailed by fund in table 2 and in the financial section. 9 of 13 Table 2: Original Project Funding Sources vs. Proposed Project Funding Sources Fund Type Original Funding Sources Increase Proposed Funding Sources State Loan $56.9M $19.0M $75.9M Measure V $4.5M $3.1M $7.6M Storm Water Fund $1.4M $1.4M Wastewater Fund $7.1M $7.1M Stormwater In Lieu Fees1 $3.0M $3.0M Development Agreement fees related to City storm water infrastructure $0.9M $0.9M Total $69.9M $26.0M $95.9M 1 Fees paid to the City by applicants (those obtaining a building permit) in lieu of installing perm anent stormwater collection or infiltration devices Schedule Construction is tentatively scheduled to start in November of 2019 and take approximately 2.5 years to complete. Public Outreach Public Outreach will be conducted by City staff and Kiewit. The outreach team will meet regularly with neighboring businesses and residents to keep them informed of the project schedule and construction impacts. The project was presented to the Task Force on the Environment subcommittee on August 19, 2019. The subcommittee supports the SWIP and moving forward with Option 1. Permitting This project will require multiple permits which include, but are not limited to, California Coastal Commission, Building and Safety (for surface improvements), and the Regional 10 of 13 Water Quality Control Board with the Division of Drinking Water. Kiewit would pursue and obtain all necessary permits. Environmental Analysis The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents for the project were certified by the Santa Monica City Cou ncil on September 27, 2016, and the Notice of Determination was filed at the State Clearinghouse on September 30, 2016. An addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration was also prepared in October 2018 to reflect the change and is provided as Attachment B. Past Council Actions 12/6/16 (Attachment C) Adoption of Reimbursement Resolution and Pledged Revenue and Fund(s) Resolution for the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project 01/26/16 (Attachment D) Authorizing to Accept the Funding Agreement from State Water Resources Control Board for Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project 08/28/18 (Attachment E) Selection and Award of Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project Design/Build Services Contract 11/27/18 (Attachment F) Sustainable Water Master Plan Update and Pathway to Water Self-Sufficiency. Financial Impacts and Budget Actions Approval of the recommended action requires the following: 1. Modification to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Funding Agreement (reference to Attachment G, State Water Board loan agreement). A loan increase of $19,000,000 is required to increase the project budget. Staff recommends Council to authorize a resolution to apply for the modification increasing the loan amount and to adopt the Reimbursement Resolution and 11 of 13 Pledged Revenue and Fund(s) Resolution. The State has confirmed the additional funding is available to be allocated to SWIP. Upon adoption of the resolution, staff would begin the administrative process of application and execution for an updated loan agreement with the State. The annual debt service on the additional $19 million in loan proceeds, which totals approximately $835,000, will be shared by the Clean Beaches and Ocean Parcel Tax (16) Fund and the Wastewater (51) Fund. The 16 Fund will pay de bt service on $6 million of the loan and the 51 Fund will pay debt service on the remaining $13 million loan amount. The split between the funds for the additional loan amount is in line with how the rest of project costs are divided, which is based on the proportional benefits to Water Resources and the Stormwater Program. The debt service for the additional loan amount will be incorporated in the ten-year forecasts for both funds with the anticipation that a W astewater rate increase would be authorized later in 2019 through the Wastewater rate study. 2. An appropriation of the $13,000,000 State loan amount to the FY 2019-20 Wastewater Fund Capital Improvement Program in account number C5106950.689000. 3. An appropriation of the $6,000,000 State loan amount to the FY 2019-20 Clean Beaches and Ocean Parcel Tax Fund Capital Improvement Program in account number C1606950.689000. Additional appropriation of $3,140,054 from the Clean Beaches and Ocean Parcel Tax Fund Balance to FY 2019 -20 Capital Improvement Program account number C1606950.689000. 4. An appropriation of $3,000,000 from the Stormwater Fund to FY 2019-20 Stormwater Fund Capital Improvement Program account number C5206950.689530. 12 of 13 5. An appropriation of $900,000 from the Wastewater Fund from Development Agreement revenue to FY 2019-20 Capital Improvement Program account number C5106950.689540 6. An appropriation of $15,840,000 to reflect a transfer from the Wastewater Fund (account number 51800001.691660) to the Clean Beaches and Ocean Parcel Tax Fund (account number 16800001.691660) for funds received from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. 7. GMP Amendment to Kiewit Design Build Agreement Staff seeks authority to approve funding from the Wastewater Fund, Clean Beaches and Ocean Parcel Tax Fund and the Stormwater Fund to increase the amount of the design/build contract with Kiewit Infrastructure West, Inc. for the construction phase of the design / build services contract. Agreement Modification Request Request Amount FY 2019-20 Budget CIP Account # Total Contract Amount $33,319,855 C1606950.689000 $33,319,855 $46,353,635 C5106950.689000 $53,853,635 $900,000 C5106950.689540 $900,000 $4,400,000 C5206950.689000 $4,400,000 $84,973,490 Total $92,473,490 8. First Modification to Owner’s Engineer Professional Service Agreement Staff seeks authority to approve funding from the Wastewater Fund to increase the amount of the contract with Stantec for construction inspection and support services during the construction phase. Agreement Modification Request Request Amount FY 2019-20 Budget CIP Account # Total Contract Amount $1,090,080 C5106950.689000 $2,740,000 13 of 13 Prepared By: Jason Hoang, Civil Engineering Associate Approved Forwarded to Council Attachments: A. SWIP Renderings B. Addendum to MND- SWIP October 2018 C. December 6, 2016 Staff Report - Adoption of Reimbursement Resolution and Pledged Revenue and Fund(s) for SWIP D. January 26, 2016 Staff Report - Application for CWSRF Funding E. August 28, 2018 Staff Report - Selection and Award of Design/Build Services Contract F. November 27, 2018 Staff Report - Sustainable Water Master Plan Update and Pathway to Water Self-Sufficiency G. California Clean Water State Revolving Funding Agreement for SWIP September 2017 H. Stantec Oaks Initiative Disclosure Form I. Kiewit Oaks Initiative Disclosure Form J. PW - Resolution - SWIP Grant - 09.10.2019 K. PW - Resolution - SWIP 2 Pledge - 09.10.2019 L. Written Comment M. PowerPoint Presentation ADDENDUM TO THE SWIP MND Addendum to the SWIP MND October 2018 Page 1 of 28 ADDENDUM TO THE SUSTAINABLE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT (SWIP) MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OCTOBER 2018 CITY OF SANTA MONICA PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1685 MAIN STREET SANTA MONICA, CA 90401 ADDENDUM TO THE SUSTAINABLE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT MND Addendum to the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project MND October 2018 Page 2 of 28 INTRODUCTION This document is the Addendum to the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Program (SWIP) Mitigated Negative Declaration [SCH #2016071056]. This Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the relevant provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (as amended) and the State CEQA Guidelines as implemented by the City of Santa Monica. According to Section 15164(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, an addendum to a previously adopted negative declaration is the appropriate environmental document in instances when only minor technical change or additions are necessary, and none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent negative declaration have occurred . Section 15162 states the circumstances for when a subsequent negative declaration is required: 1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects 2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revision of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3) New information of substantial importance, including one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous negative declaration As discussed in this addendum, the City proposes to revise SWIP Element 3, which includes the construction of two stormwater control and harvest tanks. Specifically, SWIP Tank #1 was originally proposed to be located at Memorial Park beneath the existing playfield. The City now proposes to revise the location of SWIP Tank #1 to beneath the existing Civic Center surface parking lot adjacent to SWIP Element 2 recycled treatment fa cility and to stormwater tank #2. For construction efficiency, both SWIP Tank#1 and SWIP Tank#2 may be designed and constructed as a single combined structure resulting in a 4.5-million gallon(MG) capacity tank. Based on the analysis in this addendum, the proposed change in tank location would not result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would occur, such that a subsequent negative declaration would be required. As such, the addendum is the appropriate environmental document under CEQA . All mitigation measures identified in the previously adopted MND shall remain applicable. This Addendum includes a description of the SWIP as it is currently proposed and a comparison of its impacts to those identified in the SWIP MND previously adopted by the City of Santa Monica in August 2016. BACKGROUND PROJECT LOCATION Tank #1 and Tank #2 for the SWIP are currently proposed to be located under the existing Civic Center surface parking lot near the corner of Fourth Street and Pico Boulevard in the Civic Center Specific Plan area of the City of Santa Monica (see Figure 1). The Civic Center surface parking lot is bound by Fourth Street to the east, Main Street to the west, Pico Boulevard to the south and Civic Center Drive to the north. (see Figure 3). ADDENDUM TO THE SUSTAINABLE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT MND Addendum to the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project MND October 2018 Page 3 of 28 SWIP MND A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the SWIP in accordance with Section 15087 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The SWIP MND, adopted on September 27, 2016, analyzed the development of the SWIP, which included three key elements (see Figure 2). The various components of the SWIP that were analyzed in the SWIP MND are listed in Table 1. ADDENDUM TO THE SWIP MND Addendum to the SWIP MND October 2018 Page 4 of 28 FIGURE 1 - PROJECT LOCATION ADDENDUM TO THE SWIP MND Addendum to the SWIP MND October 2018 Page 5 of 28 FIGURE 2 – SWIP MAP ADDENDUM TO THE SUSTAINABLE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT MND Addendum to the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project MND October 2018 Page 6 of 28 FIGURE 3 –SWIP CIVIC CENTER LOCATION ADDENDUM TO THE SWIP MND Addendum to the SWIP MND October 2018 Page 7 of 28 TABLE 1 – SWIP ELEMENTS ANALYZED IN SWIP MND Details Element 1  Installation of reverse osmosis (RO) and pretreatment unit at the SMURFF  Installation of solar panel arrays at SMURFF, Pico Kenter SMUFF pumping station, and City Parking Lot #1  Installation of groundwater extraction well at existing Beach Maintenance Yard Element 2  Installation of underground recycled water treatment facility beneath Civic Center parking lot Element 3  Installation of underground stormwater tank (SWIP Tank #1) at Memorial Park  Installation of underground stormwater tank (SWIP Tank #2) at Civic Center The SWIP MND addressed the potential environmental effects of the SWIP in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Less than significant impacts or no impacts were found in all environmental issue areas, except for Biological Resources and Paleontological and Archaeological Resources. For these three issue areas, mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant. On August 2016, the City Council certified the SWIP MND and adopted the necessary mitigation measures to implement and approve the SWIP. APPROVED SWIP ELEMENT 3: STORMWATER TANK 1 The SWIP MND analyzed the environmental impacts of the SWIP, which included development of an underground stormwater tank (Tank #1) at Memorial Park at the intersection of 14th Street and Olympic Boulevard. Tank #1 was proposed to be constructed beneath Memorial Park’s existing playfield (adjacent to the City’ Colorado Maintenance Yard). As described in the SWIP MND, Tank #1 will be capable of harvesting up to 3.0 million gallons (MG) of stormwater from any single precipitation event from the Pico-Kenter sub-watershed tributary area within the City. As analyzed in the MND, after a storm event, the tank will slowly release its contents to the SWIP’s proposed downgradient Civic Center Tank (Tank #2) via the City’s existing storm drain system. Tank #1 will gradually release its contents into the source water feed to the proposed recycled water advanced treatment plant (SWIP Element 2). Excavation will encompass an area of approximately 23,260 square feet, or 0.53 acre (assuming a 172-foot-diameter circular and sloped excavation, including a 10-foot pre-stress leeway). To the extent feasible, excavated soils will be managed onsite. It is estimated that approximately 17,800 cubic yards of soil may be exported. Both Tank#1 and Tank#2 will be constructed entirely underground, utilizing either modular tanks or standard cast-in-place methods. Excavation depths for each tank will be appr oximately 20 to 30 feet, and will employ engineered shoring, or be sloped to accommodate safe and efficient construction. Due to the underground construction design, a portion of the excavated soils will be used to backfill around and over the tanks. To th e extent feasible, excavated soils will be managed onsite. Non-hazardous excess soils will be exported for reuse to the City Maintenance Yard. Soils requiring offsite disposal shall be transported and managed pursuant to applicable laws and regulations ADDENDUM TO THE SUSTAINABLE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT MND Addendum to the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project MND October 2018 Page 8 of 28 CURRENTLY PROPOSED SWIP ELEMENT 3: STORMWATER TANK 1 In general, SWIP Tank #1 would be consistent with what was analyzed in the SWIP MND. Tank #1 would be the same size and serve the same functions as analyzed. However, the City proposes to locate Tank #1 to the Civic Center surface parking lot, adjacent to the proposed recycled water advanced treatment facility and to the south of the future Early Childhood Education Center (which is currently under construction). Locating Tank #1 to beneath the Civic Center surface parking lot would not directly impact the historic Civic Auditorium and would not remove any landscape elements of the Civic Auditorium. Tank#1 will be connected to the City’s existing storm drain system and the recycled water treatment plant inc luded under Element 2 by a diversion structure and pumping station constructed beneath City property. Consistent with what was described and analyzed in the SWIP MND, Tank #1 will be capable of harvesting up to 3.0 MG of stormwater from any single precipit ation event from the Pico-Kenter sub-watershed tributary area within the City. Excavation will encompass an area of approximately 23,260 square feet, or 0.53 acre (assuming a 172 -foot-diameter circular and sloped excavation, including a 10-foot pre-stress leeway). To the extent feasible, excavated soils will be managed onsite. It is estimated that approximately 17,800 cubic yards of soil may be exported . For construction efficiency, both Tank#1 and Tank#2 may be designed and constructed as a single combined structure resulting in a 4.5-MG capacity tank. Construction of the SWIP elements at the Civic Center surface parking lot would be coordinated with the construction of the future Civic Center Sportsfield (approved in 2018). ADDENDUM TO THE SWIP MND Addendum to the SWIP MND October 2018 Page 9 of 28 TABLE 2: PROPOSED CHANGES TO SWIP TANK #1 SWIP MND Assumptions Current Proposal (2018) Location Memorial Park (beneath existing playfield) Civic Center (beneath surface parking lot adjacent to proposed recycled water treatment plant) Size 3.0 MG 3.0 MG Functions Harvest stormwater from a single precipitation event from the Pico-Kenter sub-watershed tributary area Harvest stormwater from a single precipitation event from the Pico-Kenter sub-watershed tributary area. Relationship to SWIP Elements Connection to recycled water treatment plant at Civic Center and Connection to recycled water treatment plant at Civic Center; alternatively Tank #1 and Tank #2 could be combined as one large tank Excavation 17,800 cubic yards 17,800 cubic yards ADDENDUM TO THE SWIP MND Addendum to the SWIP MND October 2018 Page 10 of 28 FIGURE 4 –PROPOSED SWIP CIVIC CENTER SITE PLAN ADDENDUM TO THE SWIP MND Addendum to the SWIP MND October 2018 Page 11 of 28 REGULATORY AUTHORITY FOR ADDENDUM CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines establish the type of environmental documentation which is required when changes to a project occur after an EIR is certified. Section 15164(a) states that: “The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred”. Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines requires a Subsequent EIR where an EIR has already been prepared under the following circumstances: 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will requi re major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete shows any of the following: a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration, b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR, c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative, or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. The purpose of this Addendum is to address whether the proposed changes to Tank #1 of the SWIP could result in any new significant environmental impacts which were not identified in the SWIP MND or whether previously identified significant impacts would be substantially more severe. As indicated in the analysis provided herein, the proposed stormwater tank relocation to the Civic Center surface parking lot would not constitute a substantial change in the SWIP that will involve “new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects”. The environmental impacts associated with relocation of SWIP Tank #1 to the Civic Center surface parking lot would be consistent with those identified in the SWIP MND and/or do not constitute a new or greater significant impact. ADDENDUM TO THE SUSTAINABLE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT MND Addendum to the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project MND October 2018 Page 12 of 28 On the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, the City has determined that an Addendum is the appropriate form of CEQA documentation to address the proposed changes to the SWIP’s Tank #1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF THE REVISED SWIP - TANK #1 The following discussion analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposed changes to the SWIP (namely, the relocation of Tank #1 to the Civic Center) and compares the impacts to those identified in the SWIP MND: AESTHETICS The SWIP MND analyzed potential aesthetic impacts that could occur as a result of the SWIP, including construction of Tank #1, and determined that such impacts would be less than significant. Page 17 of the SWIP MND states the following: “The only above-grade features of the project include the modular RO units proposed at the SMURRF (Element 1), a small wellhead structure and well protection posts at the existing Beach Maintenance Yard, and a section of piping associated with the proposed groundwater extraction well. These features will not be visible from PCH, due to existing intervening obstruction between PCH and the SMURFF (i.e., Moomat Ahiko Way, McClure Tunnel), existing vegetation and fencing around the SMURFF, and elevation difference. Thus, the project will have no permanent impact to scenic highways or scenic resources… As discussed above, the proposed project will be predominantly underground. Therefore, the project elements will not create new sources of light or glare in the project area. Similarly, they will not produce shadows that could affect adjacent uses.” Construction of the underground stormwater tanks would not result in impacts related to scenic vistas, scenic resources, visual character, light/glare, and shadows since they would be underground and not be visible. Therefore, changing the location of underground Tank #1 to the Civic Center parking lot would not result in aesthetic effects that would be greater than those identified in the SWIP MND. Aesthetic impacts associated with the SWIP, including the proposed changes to Tank #1, would be less than significant and would be consistent with those identified in the SWIP MND. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES The SWIP MND analyzed the potential impacts on agriculture and forestry resources that could occur as a result of the SWIP, including construction of Tank #1, and determined that no impacts would occur. As stated on page 20 of the SWIP MND: “No existing agricultural land, forest land, or timberland zoning is present on the SWIP sites, including the existing SMURFF, Beach Maintenance Yard, the Civic Center Center Parking lot, Memorial Park, or near the project vicinity.” Therefore, changing the location of Tank #1 to the Civic Center parking lot would not result in impacts on agriculture and forestry resources that would be greater than those identified in the SWIP MND. No impacts would occur, consistent with the SWIP MND. ADDENDUM TO THE SUSTAINABLE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT MND Addendum to the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project MND October 2018 Page 13 of 28 AIR QUALITY The SWIP MND analyzed potential air quality impacts that could occur as a result of the SWIP, including those associated with Tank #1, and determined that impacts would be less than significant. Construction The SWIP’s construction-related air quality impacts were calculated based on parameters such as the duration of construction activity, area of disturbance, and anticipated equipment used during construction. Page 24 of the SWIP MND states the following: “Table 3 summarizes the estimated annual emissions of pollutants during construction; as shown, project emissions would not exceed SCAQMD construction thresholds or Local Significance Thresholds for SRA-2.” There are no proposed changes to the size or excavation for Tank #1. Therefore, changing the location of Tank #1 to the Civic Center parking lot would not result in new construction pollutant emissions that would be greater than those identified in the SWIP MND. Rather, the emissions would be the same and would simply occur at the Civic Center surface parking lot. Construction air quality impacts associated with the SWIP, including the proposed changes to Tank #1, would be less than significant and would be consistent with those identified in the SWIP MND. Operation As stated on page 24 of the SWIP MND, operational air quality impacts of the SWIP (including Tank #1) would be less than significant: “During operation of the SWIP, small amounts of emissions will be generated due to vehicle trips associated with new employees (one new full-time employee and up to two new part-time employees). These trips will be minimal, as the project will primarily be monitored remotely using smart technology and SCADA. Therefore, given the negligible amount of emissions, the project will not violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.” There are no proposed changes to the size or functions of Tank #1 nor would there be any increases in anticipated number of employees. Operational air emissions and odors would not be greater than those identified in the SWIP MND. Operational air quality impacts associated with the SWIP, including the proposed changes to Tank #1 would be less than significant and would be consistent with those identified in the SWIP MND. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Sensitive Species, Habitat, Wetlands, US Waters, and Habitat Conservation Plans The SWIP MND analyzed the SWIP’s potential impacts on sensitive species, sensitive habitat and natural communities, and wetlands/waters of the US and determined that no impacts would occur. As stated on pages 26-28 of the SWIP MND: “The project site consists entirely of developed and landscaped areas located within an urban city setting. Project Element 1 will be constructed at an existing water recycling facility, Project Element 2 will be constructed under a paved parking lot, and Project ADDENDUM TO THE SUSTAINABLE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT MND Addendum to the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project MND October 2018 Page 14 of 28 Element 3 will be constructed at an existing facility and under the maintained turf of a recreational park. Given the developed nature of the study area, habitat opportunities for sensitive species that occur in the region are limited. The presence of any sensitive or special status species is therefore unlikely. Mature ornamental trees and mowed grass/turf are the only vegetation types present within the non-paved portions of the study area…Based on the above, the proposed project would not result in impacts on sensitive species….. No sensitive natural communities as defined by CDFW occur within the study area. Wetlands and waters regulated by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Regional Water Quality Control Board under the Clean Water Act (§ 404 and 401, respectively) and CDFW under Fish and Game Code §1602, are absent from the proposed project work areas. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community is present at the project sites.” The proposed relocation of Tank #1 to the Civic Center would not have greater impacts on sensitive species and habitats than those identified in the SWIP MND. There are no such resources present on the sites or surrounding area. The Civic Center parking lot was already analyzed as a project site – and as such, impacts would remain consistent with the SWIP MND. Therefore, changing the location of Tank #1 to the Civic Center parking lot would not result in impacts on sensitive species, habitats, and wetlands/US waters that would be greater than those identified in the SWIP MND. No impacts would occur, consistent with the SWIP MND. Migratory Species The SWIP MND analyzed the SWIP’s potential impacts on migratory species and determined impacts would be less than significant. As stated on page 28 of the SWIP MND: “The Biological Resource Assessment…for the project identified ornamental trees surrounding and mowed grass/turf in portions of the study area, including m ature trees situated around the SMURRF. These landscaped areas could provide potential roosting habitat for nesting birds and roosting bats. Tree removal is not proposed as part of the project, but equipment will be staged and working immediately adjacent to numerous mature trees. This could result in disturbance to potential adjacent bird nest or bat roost sites. Therefore, mitigation is required to reduce impacts to nesting birds and roosting bats to a less than significant level.” The proposed relocation of Tank #1 from Memorial Park to the Civic Center parking lot would not result in impacts on migratory birds that would be greater than those identified in the SWIP MND. The Civic Center parking lot was already analyzed as a project site – therefore, impacts would remain consistent with the SWIP MND. Furthermore, with relocation of Tank #1 to the Civic Center parking lot, trees at Memorial Park would not be affected. Impacts associated with the SWIP, including the proposed changes to Tank #1 would be less than significant and would be consistent with those identified in the SWIP MND. As prescribed in the SWIP MND, mitigation measure MM BIO- 1 remain applicable: MM BiO-1 Nesting Birds and Roosting Bats Survey. A pre-construction survey for nesting birds and roosting bats shall occur prior to work during the nesting season (January 15 - August 31). These surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 14 days prior to the start of construction staging or ground disturbance and reinitiated as needed after periods of inactivity at each project site. If nesting birds or bats are found, a non- disturbance buffer zone shall be implemented with input from the qualified biologist. Buffer zones shall be clearly marked with exclusion fencing/staking and signage. Biological ADDENDUM TO THE SUSTAINABLE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT MND Addendum to the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project MND October 2018 Page 15 of 28 monitoring shall be implemented if active nests or roosting bats are found to regularly assess their status and condition. Given the urban setting and the high baseline disturbance level, buffer zones can likely be focused to a limited area and, therefore, a specific distance is not provided. Nesting raptors (e.g., red-tailed hawk) typically warrant a larger zone than nesting passerines. If buffers are determined to be necessary (based on the survey), they can be adjusted based on work activities, monitoring results (e.g., reaction of the animals), and the biologist’s judgment. Buffers shall be maintained until work has ceased in the identified area or the birds/bats are done nesting/roosting, as confirmed by the biologist. CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS The SWIP MND analyzed potential construction impacts that could occur as a result of the SWIP, including construction of Tank #1, and determined that construction impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Construction activities for Tank #1 would entail removal of the existing surface parking lot, grading/excavation of fill and dirt, and reconstruction of the Civic Center surface parking lot. The proposed relocation of Tank #1 to the Civic Center would not have greater construction effects (air, noise, and construction waste) than those identified in the SWIP MND. The size of the tank and excavation activities would be consistent with those analyzed in the SWIP MND. The Civic Center parking lot was already analyzed as a construction site – therefore, impacts would remain consistent with the SWIP MND. Furthermore, with relocation of Tank #1 to the Civic Center parking lot, Memorial Park would not be affected. Construction impacts associated with the SWIP, including the proposed changes to Tank #1, would be less than significant with mitigation and impacts would be consistent with those identified in the SWIP MND. As described in the SWIP MND, mitigation measures have been identified for Biological Resources (Section IV) and Cultural Resources (Section VI). CULTURAL RESOURCES Historic The SWIP MND analyzed potential cultural resources impacts that could occur as a result of the SWIP and determined that impacts would be less than significant. Page 4.4-28 of the SWIP MND states the following: “The project sites are currently developed with the SMURRF, the City’s Beach Maintenance Yard, Civic Center parking lot, and the City’s Memorial Park. The nearest identified historic resources to the project is the Santa Monic Civic Auditorium, which is designated as a Santa Monica Landmark and the Santa Monica Looff Hippodrome building, which is a National Historic Landmark. The proposed project will construct an underground recycled water treatment facility (Element 2) and an underground stormwater collection and storage tank in the Civic Center lot (Element 3). The underground footprint of the recycled water treatment plant and water tank will be approximately 375 feet northeast of the Civic Auditorium. The project will not involve any modifications to this landmark or any other historic resources in the vicinity. Additionally, the project’s installation of the modular RO unit in the existing SMURRF (Element 1) and the installation of an underground stormwater harvest tank at Memorial Park (Element 3) would not affect historic resources, since there are no historic resources in close proximity to any of these sites.” ADDENDUM TO THE SUSTAINABLE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT MND Addendum to the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project MND October 2018 Page 16 of 28 The proposed changes to Tank #1 would not result in historic impacts that would be greater than those identified in the SWIP MND. Locating Tank #1 to beneath the Civic Center surface parking lot would not directly impact the historic Civic Auditorium and would not remove any landscape elements of the Civic Auditorium. Therefore, no impacts to historic resources would occur and, impacts on historic resources would be consistent with those identified in the SWIP MND. Archaeological Resources The SWIP MND analyzed potential impacts to archaeological resources that could occur as a result of the SWIP and determined that impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Page 32-33 of the SWIP MND states the following: “Project construction will involve excavation for underground water treatment and storage facilities in areas (Civic Center Parking Lot and Memorial Park) that could potentially contain subsurface archaeological remains (e.g., artifact -rich middens). Excavation associated with the proposed underground recycled water treatment facility, and underground stormwater harvest tanks, has the potential to encounter buried archaeological deposits. Therefore, a mitigation measure is proposed to ensure that any discovered resources shall be protected and curated if encountered during project construction. Accordingly, this impact will be less than significant. The proposed changes to Tank #1 would not result in impacts on archaeological resources that would be greater than those identified in the SWIP MND. The size of the tank and amount of excavation would remain consistent with that analyzed in the SWIP MND. The SWIP MND had analyzed potential impacts associated with the SWIP’s excavation activities at the Civic Center parking lot – therefore, no new or worsened impacts would occur. Furthermore, with relocation of Tank #1 to the Civic Center parking lot, the potential to encounter archaeological resources at Memorial Park would not occur. Archaeological impacts associated with the SWIP, including the proposed changes to Tank #1, would be less than significant with mitigation and would be consistent with those identified in the SWIP MND. As prescribed in the SWIP MND, mitigation measure MM CR-1 remain applicable: MM CR-1 Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources: In the event of an inadvertent discovery of prehistoric or historic-period archaeological resources during construction, the applicant shall immediately cease all work within 50 feet of the discovery. The applicant shall immediately notify the City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development Department and shall retain a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) to evaluate the significance of the discovery prior to resuming any activities that could impact the site/discovery. This investigation shall be driven by a Treatment Plan that sets forth explicit criteria for evaluating the significance of resources discovered during construction and identifies appropriate data recovery methods and procedures to mitigate project effects on significant resources. The Treatment Plan shall be prepared by an RPA familiar with both historical resources and prehistoric archaeological resources prior to further excavation or site investigation following initial discovery. The Treatment Plan shall also provide for a final technical report on all cultural resource studies and for the curation of artifacts and other recovered remains at a qualified curation facility, to be funded by the applicant. If the archaeologist determines that the find may qualify for listing in the California Register, the site shall be avoided or a data recovery plan shall be developed. Any required testing or data recovery shall be directed by an RPA prior to resuming construction activities in the affected area. Work shall not resume until authorization is received from the City. ADDENDUM TO THE SUSTAINABLE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT MND Addendum to the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project MND October 2018 Page 17 of 28 Paleontological Resources The SWIP MND analyzed potential impacts to paleontological resources that could occur as a result of the SWIP and determined that impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Page 33 of the SWIP MND states the following: “Excavations associated with construction of the proposed project’s subterranean elements could potentially impact such res ources. Mitigation is necessary to ensure that resources discovered during project construction will be appropriately protected and curated.” The proposed changes to Tank #1 would not result in impacts on paleontological resources that would be greater than those identified in the SWIP MND. The size of the tank and excavation activities would remain consistent with that analyzed in the SWIP MND. The SWIP MND had analyzed potential impacts associated with the SWIP’s excavation activities at the Civic Center parking lot – therefore, no new or worsened impacts would occur. Furthermore, with relocation of Tank #1 to the Civic Center parking lot, the potential to encounter resources at Memorial Park would not occur. Paleontological impacts associated with the SWI P, including the proposed changes to Tank #1, would be less than significant with mitigation and would be consistent with those impacts identified in the SWIP MND. As prescribed in the SWIP MND, mitigation measure MM CR-2 remain applicable: MM CR-2 Inadvertent Discovery of Paleontological Resources: In the event that a paleontological resource is discovered during ground-disturbing activities associated with the project, work will immediately cease within 50 feet of the discovery and the find shall be assessed by a qualified paleontologist for scientific significance and collected for curation, if necessary. If significant resources are encountered, curation will occur according to accepted standards as recommended by the Paleontologist in consultation with City staff. Human Remains The SWIP MND analyzed potential impacts to archae ological resources that could occur as a result of the SWIP and determined that impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Page 33 of the SWIP MND states the following: “Human remains have not been identified in the project vicinity; however, human remains could be preserved at depth beneath the existing onsite building and surface parking lot, and the possibility exists that such remains could be uncovered during construction of the proposed project….Compliance with existing regulations prescribed in California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, will ensure that impacts to human remains will be less than significant” The proposed changes to Tank #1 would not result in impacts on human remains that would be greater than those identified in the SWIP MND. The size of the tank and excavation activities would be consistent with what was analyzed in the SWIP MND. The SWIP MND had analyzed potential impacts associated with the SWIP’s excavation activities at the Civic Center parking lot – therefore, no new or worsened impacts would occur . Furthermore, with relocation of Tank #1 to the Civic Center parking lot, the potential to encounter human remains at Memorial Park would not occur. Therefore, impacts to human remains associated with the SWIP, including the proposed changes to Tank #1. would be less than significant and would be consistent with those identified in the SWIP MND. ADDENDUM TO THE SUSTAINABLE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT MND Addendum to the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project MND October 2018 Page 18 of 28 GEOLOGY AND SOILS The SWIP MND analyzed potential geology/soils impacts that could occur as a result of the SWIP, including construction of Tank #1, and determined that impacts would be less than significant . Geological/soils impacts are typically site-specific,and are determined partly by the specific characteristics of the underlying soils and geological setting. Fault Rupture The SWIP MND analyzed the SWIP’s potential impacts that could occur as a result of fault rupture and determined that impacts would be less than significant. Page 36 of the SWIP MND states the following with regard to fault zones: “The project sites are not located in these zones as the closest site, Memorial Park, is approximately 2,500 feet south of the south branch and 7,000 feet south of the north branch. Additionally, no other known active or potentially active faults underlie the project sites. As such, the potential for fault rupture to occur at the project site is low. Therefore, impacts related to fault rupture will be less than significant.” The proposed changes to Tank #1 would not result in fault rupture-related impacts that would be greater than those identified in the SWIP MND. The SWIP MND had analyzed potential fault rupture risks at the Civic Center parking lot – no active faults run beneath this site. Therefore, relocation of Tank #1 to the Civic Center parking lot would not have an effect on fault rupture risk. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and, impacts would be consi stent with those identified in the SWIP MND. Seismic Groundshaking, Liquefaction, Landslides, Erosion, Unstable Geological Unit/Soils, Expansive Soils The SWIP MND analyzed the SWIP’s potential impacts that could occur as a result of seismic groundshaking, liquefaction, landslides, erosion, unstable soils, and expansive soils and determined that impacts would be less than significant. Page 36 of the SWIP MND states the following with regard to these issues: “The proposed project consists of sustainable wat er infrastructure that will be largely below the ground surface and will not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects such as risk of loss, injury or death involving seismic ground shaking. Therefore, impacts associated with ground shaking will be less than significant.” “The project sites at the SMURRF, Civic Center Parking Lot, and Memorial Park are not identified as having soils susceptible to liquefaction. However, Parking Lot #1 -South and the Beach Maintenance Yard are identified as having soils susceptible liquefaction along the coastline. The proposed solar panel parking shade at the Parking Lot #1 -South and the shallow groundwater extraction well at the Beach Maintenance Yard would not expose people or structures to liquefaction or exacerbate existing liquefaction risks. Therefore, implementation of the project will not expose structures or people to potential adverse effects involving liquefaction. Impacts will be less than significant.” “The project will construct a shallow groundwater extraction well on the Beach Maintenance Yard site; these features will not cause a landslide to occur, but may be inundated in the unlikely event that the bluff on the other side of the PCH from the site fails ADDENDUM TO THE SUSTAINABLE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT MND Addendum to the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project MND October 2018 Page 19 of 28 and a landslide event does occur. Implementation of the project will not expose people or structures to potentially adverse effects involving landslides.” The proposed changes to Tank #1 would not result in groundshaking, liquefaction, or landslide impacts that would be greater than those identified in the SWIP MND. The SWIP MND had analyzed these potential risks at the Civic Center parking lot and determined that impacts would be less than significant since the SWIP would not expose people or struc tures to potential adverse effects related to groundshaking, liquefaction, or landslides . Therefore, relocation of Tank #1 to the Civic Center parking lot would not have an effect on geological hazards. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and, impacts would be consistent with those identified in the SWIP MND. Septic Tanks/Alternative wastewater Systems The SWIP MND analyzed potential impacts related to septic tanks/alternative wastewater systems that could occur as a result of the SWIP, including construction of Tank #1, and determined that no impacts would occur. Page 38 of the SWIP MND states the following: “The proposed project will not involve the installation of septic tanks or other wastewater disposal systems.” The proposed relocation of Tank #1 to the Civic Center would not have greater impacts related to septic tanks/alternative wastewater systems than those identified in the SWIP MND. As stated in the MND, the SWIP would not install septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems. Therefore, changing the location of Tank #1 to the Civic Center parking lot would not result in impacts related to septic tanks/alternative wastewater systems . No impacts would occur, consistent with the SWIP MND. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS The SWIP MND analyzed potential greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts that could occur as a result of the SWIP, including those associated with Tank #1, and determined that impacts would be less than significant. Construction The SWIP’s construction-related GHG impacts were calculated based on parameters such as the duration of construction activity, area of disturbance, and anticipated equipment used during construction. Page 40 of the SWIP MND states the following: “Construction activities from mobile sources such as vehicles and machinery used to install the proposed project features. Emissions will also occur during project operations, but will be primarily limited to the use of trucks and vehicles to access pr oject sites for inspections and repairs, as needed… Thus, construction of the proposed project would generate an estimated 12.4 metric tons CO2e per year. Therefore, impacts of construction related emissions would be less than significant.” There are no proposed changes to the size or excavation for Tank #1. Therefore, changing the location of Tank #1 to the Civic Center parking lot would not result in new construction GHG emissions that would be greater than those identified in the SWIP MND. Rather, the emissions would be the same and would simply occur at the Civic Center s urface parking lot. Construction GHG impacts associated with the SWIP, including the proposed changes to Tank #1 would be less than significant and would be consistent with those identified in the SWIP MND. ADDENDUM TO THE SUSTAINABLE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT MND Addendum to the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project MND October 2018 Page 20 of 28 Operation As stated on page 24 of the SWIP MND, operational GHG impacts of the SWIP (including Tank #1) would be less than significant: “Operation and maintenance of the project will not introduce GHG emissions that are inconsistent with the existing environment, as the project’s minimal staff will be dr awn from the local workforce, thereby avoiding the introduction of new commuters. Further, the project will reduce the City’s current reliance on imported water. For every 2.5 billion gallons of avoided imported water associated with water savings under the project, approximately 8.9 million kWh of energy use and 5.256 million kg GHG emissions will be avoided. Because the project will ultimately decrease energy expenditures associated with providing a sustainable water supply to the City, potential impacts associated with GHG emissions will ultimately be beneficial.” There are no proposed changes to the size or functions of Tank #1 nor would there be any increases in anticipated number of employees. Operational GHG emissions would not be greater than those identified in the SWIP MND. Operational GHG impacts associated with the SWIP, including the proposed changes to Tank #1 would be less than significant and would be consistent with those identified in the SWIP MND. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Hazardous Materials – Routine Use/Accidental Release The SWIP MND analyzed potential impacts that could occur as a result of the use, transport, and accidental release of hazardous materials that could occur as a result of the SWIP , including construction of Tank #1, and determined that impacts would be less than significant. Page 43 of the SWIP MND states the following: “During construction activities for the project, typical hazardous materials will be used at the site, including hydraulic fluids, paints/sealers, c leaning materials, and vehicle fuels. The use of these materials during project construction will be short -term in nature and will occur in accordance with standard construction practices, as well as with applicable federal, state, and local health and saf ety regulations. Construction activities will not create a new hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Operation of these [project] facilities will not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of unusual or large quantities of hazardous substances. Any hazardous materials used or generated through operation of these facilities will be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations. Potential impacts associated with the transport, use, and storage of hazardous or potentially hazardous materials during construction and operation will be less than significant. Potential impacts to human health associated with treated non-potable water reuse will be less than significant. The quality of water for reuse will be in compliance with CCR Title 22 and Title 17 as determined by LA County Department of Public Health through their ADDENDUM TO THE SUSTAINABLE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT MND Addendum to the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project MND October 2018 Page 21 of 28 permitting process and their Guidelines for Alternate Water Sources: Indoor and Outdoor Non-Potable Uses.” There are no proposed changes to the size, function, or excavation for Tank #1. Therefore, the proposed relocation of Tank #1 to the Civic Center surface parking lot would not result in new hazards/hazardous impacts that would be greater than those identified in the SWIP MND . Hazards/hazardous impacts associated with the SWIP, including the proposed changes to Tank #1 would be less than significant and would be consistent with those identified in the SWIP MND. Hazardous Site Listing The SWIP MND analyzed potential impacts related to the presence of a hazardous materials site that could occur as a result of the SWIP, including construction of Tank #1, and determined that impacts would be less than significant. Page 43 of the SWIP MND states the following: “Review of the databases listed above found no listing of the project sites as hazardous sites due to accidental contamination/spills or handling of hazardous materials. Th e hazardous material site nearest to the project is an open remediation case for a LUST, approximately 200 feet southeast of the Civic Center Parking Lot (Element 2) across Pico Boulevard. Sampling at the LUST site indicates that contamination is stable an d decreasing. Further, sampling at the LUST site indicates a southwest groundwater flow direction (Stratus Environmental Inc. 2016). Therefore, contamination will not migrate to the Civic Center Parking Lot. Impacts will be less than significant.” The proposed changes to Tank #1 would not result in hazardous site impacts that would be greater than those identified in the SWIP MND. The SWIP MND had analyzed potential hazard risks at the Civic Center parking lot through a review of database listings– the site is not subject to risks due to a hazardous materials site listing either onsite or offsite. Therefore, the proposed relocation of Tank #1 to the Civic Center surface parking lot would not result in new hazards/hazardous impacts that would be greater than those identified in the SWIP MND. Hazards/hazardous impacts associated with the SWIP, including the proposed changes to Tank #1, would be less than significant and would be consistent with those identified in the SWIP MND. Airport Hazards and Wildland Fires The SWIP MND analyzed potential impacts related to airport hazards and wildland fires that could occur as a result of the SWIP, including construction of Tank #1, and determined that no impacts would occur. Page 44 of the SWIP MND states the following: “The project will not involve placing people or structures in proximity to aircraft operations and no risks to life or property from airport operations will occur as a result of the project. Therefore, no impact will occur…. The project sites are not located adjacent to or intermixed with wildlands. As such, the proposed project will not subject people or structures to a substantial risk of loss, injury, or death as a result of exposure to wildland fires. Therefore, no impacts will occur.” The proposed relocation of Tank #1 to the Civic Center would not have greater impacts related to airport hazards or wildland fires than those identified in the SWIP MND. As stated in the MND, the Civic Center parking lot is not located near an airport or near wildlands. Therefore, changing the location of Tank #1 to the Civic Center parking lot would not result in impacts related to airport hazards or wildland fires. No impacts would occur, consistent with the SWIP MND. ADDENDUM TO THE SUSTAINABLE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT MND Addendum to the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project MND October 2018 Page 22 of 28 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The SWIP MND analyzed potential hydrology and water quality impacts that could occur as a result of the SWIP, including construction of Tank #1. The SWIP MND determined that impacts would be less than significant on pages 48-50 The proposed changes to Tank #1 would not result in impacts on hydrology/water quality that would be greater than those identified in the SWIP MND. The size of the tank and excavation activities would be consistent with what was analyzed in the SWIP MND. The SWIP MND had analyzed potential impacts associated with the construction and operation of the SWIP at the Civic Center parking lot – therefore, no new or worsened impacts would occur. Furthermore, with relocation of Tank #1 to the Civic Center parking lot, the potential for hydrology/water quality impacts (such as the temporary alteration of onsite drainage patterns) at Memorial Park would not occur. Hydrology/water quality impacts associated with the SWIP, including the proposed changes to Tank #1, would be less than significant and impacts would be cons istent with those identified in the SWIP MND. LAND USE AND PLANNING The SWIP MND analyzed potential land use impacts that could occur as a result of the SWIP, including construction of Tank #1, and determined that impacts would be less than significant. Page 51 of the SWIP MND states the following: “The proposed project involves the construction of sustainable water infrastructure and facilities. All proposed components of the project would occur within existing City property, which is previously disturbed. Furthermore, the major elements of the project such as the recycled water treatment plant and underground stormwater harvest tanks would be located underground. By constructing the key project elements underground, the project areas will be allowed to be developed with future land uses. The proposed project will be compatible with existing adjacent land uses” The proposed relocation of Tank #1 to the Civic Center would not have greater land use impacts than those identified in the SWIP MND. No changes to the size or function of the tank are proposed. Tank #1 would be installed underground adjacent to the SWIP’s proposed recycled water treatment plant. The Civic Center parking lot was already analyzed as a project site – therefore, land use impacts would remain consistent with the SWIP MND. Furthermore, with relocation of Tank #1 to the Civic Center parking lot, potential land use impacts at Memorial Park would not occur (i.e., existing playfield would remain undisturbed). The SWIP with the currently proposed Tank #1 would be consistent with City land use goals and policies to reduce water demand. Land use impacts associated with the SWIP, including the proposed changes to Tank #1, would be less than significant and impacts would be consistent with those ident ified in the SWIP MND. MINERAL RESOURCES The SWIP MND analyzed potential impacts on agriculture and forestry resources that could occur as a result of the SWIP, including construction of Tank #1, and determined that no impacts would occur. Page 55 of the SWIP MND states the following: “The proposed project will not occur in an area known to contain mineral resources. Given that the project sites are located in a highly urbanized area of the City and are developed as the SMURFF, Beach Maintenance Yard, Civi c Center, and Memorial Park the potential for mineral resources to occur onsite is low. Therefore, the proposed project will not result ADDENDUM TO THE SUSTAINABLE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT MND Addendum to the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project MND October 2018 Page 23 of 28 in the loss of availability of a mineral resource or a mineral resource recovery site and no impacts will occur.” Therefore, changing the location of Tank #1 to the Civic Center parking lot would not result in impacts on mineral resources that would be greater than those identified in the SWIP MND. No impacts would occur, consistent with the SWIP MND. NEIGHBORHOOD EFFECTS The SWIP MND analyzed potential neighborhood impacts that could occur as a result of the SWIP, including construction of Tank #1, and determined that impacts would be less than significant. Page 56 of the SWIP states the following: “The project sites are located within existing City property and are surrounded by existing commercial, institutional, recreational, and residential uses…. The only above -ground project features will be located at the SMURRF, which is not in a residential neighborhood, and at the Civic Center parking lot, also not a residential neighborhood (at the Civic Center parking lot a low profile stairwell and elevator structure will be constructed to provide secure access to the underground recycled water treatment facility). All other project features will be installed underground and therefore will result in no long -term change to neighborhood character or effects. Construction and operation of the proposed project will not result in adverse effects on a residential neighborhood given the project site location.” The proposed relocation of Tank #1 to the Civic Center would not have greater neighborhood effects than those identified in the SWIP MND. The Civic Center parking lot was already analyzed as a construction site – therefore, impacts would remain consistent with the SWIP MND. Furthermore, with relocation of Tank #1 to the Civic Center parking lot, Memorial Park would not be affected. Neighborhood impacts associated with the SWIP, including the proposed changes to Tank #1, would be less than significant and impacts would be consistent with those identified in the SWIP MND. NOISE Construction The SWIP MND analyzed potential construction noise impacts that could occur as a result of the SWIP, including construction of Tank #1, and determined that impacts would be less than significant. Pages 58-59 of the SWIP MND state the following: “During project construction, maximum noise levels could reach as high as 83 dBA at the exterior of nearest commercial uses approximately 100 feet southeast of Element 2. The nearest residences are the apartments adjacent to the SMURRF; Element 1 at the SMURRF involves the installation of prefabricated modular RO units and will not require n oise- intensive activities such as excavation. Regardless, maximum noise levels could reach as high as about 80 dBA at the exterior of the residences adjacent to the SMURRF. Therefore, construction activities for the proposed project will not generate noise levels that exceed the established exterior noise limit of 85 dBA in a commercial zone. Impacts associated with construction activities will be less than significant and no mitigation will be required .” The proposed relocation of Tank #1 to the Civic Center parking lot would not result in construction noise impacts that would be greater than those analyzed in the SWIP MND. Rather, the proposed ADDENDUM TO THE SUSTAINABLE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT MND Addendum to the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project MND October 2018 Page 24 of 28 changes to Tank #1 would result in less construction noise impacts since construction noise would not occur at Memorial Park. Construction noise impacts associated with the SWIP, including the proposed changes to Tank #1, would be less than significant and would be consistent with those identified in the SWIP MND. Operation The SWIP MND analyzed potential operational noise impacts that could occur as a result of the SWIP, including construction of Tank #1, and determined that impacts would be less than significant. As stated on page 24 of the SWIP MND, operational noise impacts of the SWIP (including Tank #1) would be less than significant: “Operation of the project will generate minimal vehicle trips. The noise that is anticipated to occur from operation of the project will be nominal and consisting of vehicle -related mobile sources during inspection and repair activities. Underground components, which comprise the majority of project facilities, will not generate operational noise. Potential noises associated with the use of inspection and repair vehicles and equipment will be minimal and consistent with the existing environment.” There are no proposed changes to the size or functions of Tank #1 nor would there be any increases in anticipated number of employees. Operational noise would not be greater than those identified in the SWIP MND. Operational noise impacts associated with the SWIP, including the proposed changes to Tank #1, would be less than significant and would be consistent with those identified in the SWIP MND. POPULATION AND HOUSING The SWIP MND analyzed potential population and housing impacts that could occur as a result of the SWIP and determined that no impacts would occur. Page 60 of the SWIP MND states the following: “The proposed project will not include construction of any housing units, and will not directly or indirectly induce population growth…. No impact will occur…..The project sites are currently developed as the SMURFF, Beach Maintenance Yard, Civic Center, and Memorial Park. There are no existing housing units or residents on these sites. As such, the project will not displace existing housing units or people and will have no impact.” The proposed changes to Tank #1 would not result in population/housing impacts, consistent with the SWIP MND. The proposed Tank #1 would be developed beneath the existing Civic Center surface parking lot and would not induce population growth or displace people or housing. Population and housing impacts associated with the SWIP, including the proposed changes to Tank #1, would not occur and would be consistent with the SWIP MND. PUBLIC SERVICES Fire Protection, Police Protection, Schools The SWIP MND analyzed potential fire, police, and school impacts that could occur as a result of the SWIP, including construction of Tank #1, and determined that no impacts would occur. Page 62 of the SWIP MND states the following: ADDENDUM TO THE SUSTAINABLE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT MND Addendum to the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project MND October 2018 Page 25 of 28 “The project will result in a negligible demand for fire protection services since the facilities will be predominantly underground and unmanned. Expansion of existing SMFD facilities or personnel will not be necessary to accommodate demand associated with the proposed project. During project operation, project infrastructure will be monitored largely remotely via smart technology and SCADA with minimal onsite staff support, and no substantial risk or unusual demand for SMPD services will be introduced. Further, the project will n ot result in an increase in population in the City. As a result, demand for police protection services will not increase and there will be no need for new or expanded SMPD facilities. The proposed project will not introduce new residential structures or uses that will generate demand for school facilities, libraries, or other public facilities. Further, the construction of the project will not generate employment such that direct or indirect increases in demand for such facilities will result.” The proposed relocation of Tank #1 to the Civic Center parking lot would not result in additional residential or daytime population that would generate increased demand for fire, police, and schools. Impacts associated with the SWIP, including the proposed changes to Tank #1, would not occur and would be consistent with the SWIP MND. Parks The SWIP MND analyzed potential impacts on parks that could occur due to the SWIP, including construction of Tank #1, and determined that impacts would be less than significant. Page 62 of the SWIP MND states the following: “Element 3 of the proposed project includes the installation of a stormwater harvest tank located underground in the City’s Memorial Park. During construction of this tank, access to portions of the park will be temporarily restricted. Upon completion of construction, the stormwater harvesting tank at Memorial Park will be underground and the above surface area will be restored to recreational uses. Impacts to Memorial Park will be temporary and limited to the construction period. Therefore, impacts to parks will be less than significant.” The proposed changes to Tank #1 would not result in impacts on parks that would be greater than those identified in the SWIP MND. Rather, with relocation of Tank #1 to the Civic Center parking lot, the temporary construction effects to Memorial Park would not occur. Park impacts associated with the SWIP, including the proposed changes to Tank #1, would not occur and would be less than those identified in the SWIP MND. RECREATION See above in discussion of “Parks” TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Street Network The SWIP MND analyzed potential transportation/traffic impacts that could occur as a result of the SWIP, including construction of Tank #1, and determined that impacts would be less than significant. Page 65 of the SWIP MND states the following: ADDENDUM TO THE SUSTAINABLE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT MND Addendum to the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project MND October 2018 Page 26 of 28 “The proposed project will not generate a substantial amount of vehicle trips during project operation. Improvements to the SMURRF proposed in Element 1 of the project will not result in any net new increase in vehicle trips. The proposed recycled water treatment facility at the Civic Center Parking Lot in Element 2 will require about eight truck trips, two times per year for the removal of the processed solids for a total of 16 vehicle trips per year. Other portions of the project are not anticipated to generate vehicle trips since they will include underground water storage facilities and a shallow groundwater extraction well. The project will not generate traffic on a regular basis. The minor increase in trips will have a negligible effect on the performance of the existing street network. The proposed project will not conflict with transportation plans, including the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program. Impacts will be less than significant.“ The proposed changes to Tank #1 would not affect the trip generation that was analyzed in the SWIP MND since there is no proposed increased in size, function or use. Nor would there be any increases in anticipated number of employees. Trip generation would not be greater than those identified in the SWIP MND. Traffic impacts associated with the SWIP, including the proposed changes to Tank #1 would be less than significant and would be consistent with those identified in the SWIP MND. Airport Traffic/Alternative Transportation The SWIP MND analyzed potential airport traffic and alternative transportation impacts that could occur as a result of the SWIP, including construction of Tank #1, and determined that impacts would not occur. Page 65 and page 66 of the SWIP MND states the following: “Due to its distance from the airport, the project elements are not located in an airport land use plan or airport limited (e.g., safety-restricted) area. In addition, the project elements are not in established flight paths for the Santa Monica Airport and will not construct any structures or features that could interfere with air traffic. Construction of the proposed project will involve the use of crane equipment; however, this will not affect air traffic patterns. Therefore, this project will have no impact.” “The proposed project will not disrupt existing rail/bus service nor will it require the relocation of existing bus stops.” The proposed relocation of Tank #1 to the Civic Center would not result in greater impacts related to airport traffic and alternative transportation than those identified in the SWIP MND. Tank #1 would be placed underground. Therefore, changing the location of Tank #1 to the Civic Center parking lot would not result in impacts related to airport traffic and alternative transportation. No impacts would occur, consistent with the SWIP MND. Hazardous Design/Emergency Access The SWIP MND analyzed potential hazardous design and emergency access impacts related to the SWIP, including construction of Tank #1, and determined that impacts would be less than significant. Page 65 of the SWIP MND states the following: “The proposed project involves the construction of sustainable water infrastructure at several distinct sites, and will not include hazardous design features such as dead ends, sharp curves, or dangerous intersections. The project also will not include incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).” ADDENDUM TO THE SUSTAINABLE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT MND Addendum to the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project MND October 2018 Page 27 of 28 “During project construction, there are no expected lane closures and emergency access will be maintained at all times. Construction of the recycled water tre atment plant may require the temporary closure of one or two driveways at the Civic Center parking lot. In the event that temporary closure of a driveway is required, a secondary detour driveway will be provided to ensure that access to the parking lot wil l be maintained for the Civic Center uses. Further, the project will be reviewed by the SMFD and SMPD prior to issuance of building permit to ensure adequate access.” The proposed relocation of Tank #1 to the Civic Center would not result in greater impact s related to hazardous design/emergency access than those identified in the SWIP MND. Tank #1 would be placed underground. Therefore, changing the location of Tank #1 to the Civic Center parking lot would not result in impacts related to hazardous design/emergency access. Impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the SWIP MND. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS The SWIP MND analyzed potential utilities and infrastructure impacts that could occur as a result of the SWIP, including construction of Tank #1, and determined that impacts would be less than significant. Pages 70-71 of the SWIP MND states the following: “The proposed project will increase the City’s capacity to treat and reuse wastewater, stormwater, and brackish/saline groundwater, as well as reduce the City’s demand for environmentally costly imported water. As such, the project will not require construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities beyond what is proposed as part of the SWIP. Impacts will be less than significant…. The proposed project involves construction of stormwater harvesting facilities (Element 3), including a 3.0-MG tank beneath Memorial Park and a 1.5-MG tank beneath the Civic Center Parking Lot. The Memorial Park tank will harvest stormwater from two storm drains, one beneath Santa Monica Boulevard and another from beneath Broadway, both with diversions at 15th Street. Currently, flows from these two storm drains are discharged at the Pico-Kenter Outfall into the Pacific Ocean. The 1.5-MG stormwater collection and holding tank will be constructed adjacent to the recycled water treatment facility proposed in Element 2 of this project. This tank will primarily harvest stormwater from the approximately a portion of the Pico-Kenter sub drainage tributary area and the 6.2-acre Civic Center parking lot to store for treatment at the proposed recycled water treatment facility. A secondary use for this tank will be to serve as a settling tank for stormwater collected from the Memorial Park harvesting tank. Water will be delivered from the Memorial Park tank to the proposed recycled water treatment facility through the City’s existing stormwater drainage facilities. Together, these harvesting tanks act as stormwater control measu re BMPs. They also contribute to the Santa Monica Bay Jurisdictional Groups 2 and 3 EWMP compliance and help improve beach water quality at the Pico -Kenter outfall. The proposed project will not result in the need of new or expanded stormwater drainagefacilities beyond what is proposed as part of the SWIP design …. A stated purpose of the SWIP is to reduce the City’s demand for imported water supplies and work towards water supply self -sufficiency. Through the treatment and reuse of wastewater, stormwater runoff, and brackish/saline water resources in the City, the proposed project will increase the availability of local water resources and help to reduce demand for imported water purchased from MWD. Therefore, implementation of the project will not require new or expanded entitlements and will ultimately have a beneficial impact to the available water supply for the City of Santa Monica. No impact will occur.” ADDENDUM TO THE SUSTAINABLE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT MND Addendum to the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project MND October 2018 Page 28 of 28 The proposed relocation of Tank #1 would not result in additional water use, wastewater generation, solid waste generation, or energy use greater than analyzed in the SWIP MND there is no proposed increased in size, function or use. Tank #1 is still proposed to harvest stormwater from the Pico-Kenter drainage area, thus decreasing City wastewater generat ion and reducing City demand on potable water use. Utilities impacts associated with the SWIP, including the proposed changes to Tank #1 would be less than significant and would be consistent with those identified in the SWIP MND. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The currently proposed SWIP Tank#1 would not substantially change the analysis presented in the SWIP MND or mandatory findings of significance that were adopted for the approved SWIP. CONCLUSION As demonstrated in this Addendum, the proposed changes to SWIP Tank #1 would not generate new significant environmental impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in the adopted SWIP MND. City Council Report City Council Meeting: December 6, 2016 Agenda Item: 11.A 1 of 4 To: Mayor and City Council From: Susan Cline, Director, Public Works, Water Resources Subject: Adoption of Reimbursement Resolution and Pledged Revenue and Fund(s) Resolution for the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Reimbursement Resolution and Pledged Revenue and Fund(s) Resolution for the City of Santa Monica’s proposed Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP). Executive Summary On January 26, 2016, the City Council adopted a resolution (Attachment A) authorizing City staff to file applications with the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) requesting funding from a combination of various State programs including Proposition 1 grant programs and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), and to negotiate funding for the proposed SWIP with the State Water Board. The State Water Board is currently reviewing the financial section of the City’s CWSRF application for low interest financing. Before the State Water Board provides a funding proposal for review, City Council adoption of the attached Reimbursement Resolution (Attachment B) and Pledged Revenue and Fund(s) Resolution (Attachment C) is required. The preliminary estimated cost of the project is approximately $57,050,000. Staff has determined that the Wastewater Fund has the financial capacity to pledge future revenues towards payment of any and all CWSRF financing for the SWIP, thereby completing an important step in the funding application process for the SWIP. Adoption of the subject resolutions has no fiscal impact. Staff will return to City Council for review and approval for any project funding agreement. Background The State Water Board is committed to assisting its stakeholders build resiliency to drought and climate change. Similarly, the City has established among its sustainability goals the objective of reaching water self -sufficiency by the year 2020, concurrent with addressing the water conservation requirements made necessary by the on-going drought. The City’s proposed SWIP would align with these objectives, while simultaneously helping to improve drought resiliency, increase water supply for reuse, and enhance flexibility in the management of the City’s water resources, by allowing for 2 of 4 the treatment and reuse of brackish/saline groundwater, municipal wastewater, and stormwater. City Council previously approved staff applying for State Water Board grant and low interest financing on January 26, 2016. City Council adopted the SW IP environmental documents on September 27, 2016. Currently, the City’s water supply is a combination of imported water and local groundwater. Long term, the City seeks to become sustainably independent from imported water through continued conservation and increasing reliance on its groundwater resources. The SWIP takes a forward thinking approach to help secure the City’s water future by leveraging use of existing City infrastructure and by linking together three distributed water reuse elements into a single cohesive and comprehensive project to harvest, treat, and reuse non-conventional water resources. Advanced treated water produced from the SWIP would be used to meet existing permitted non-potable reuse demands. When properly permitted, a significan t portion of the advanced treated water would be utilized for indirect potable reuse via aquifer recharge. Combined, these three elements would produce approximately 1,680 acre- feet per year (AFY) of new water. The SWIP has three basic elements (Attachment D) all designed to function as a cohesive and integrated system for the harvesting, treatment and conjunctive reuse of all nonconventional water resources that are available to the City (i.e. stormwater, brackish/saline impaired groundwater, and municipal wastewater). SWIP Element 1, a shallow brackish/saline impaired groundwater supply well, would be installed to replenish a City stormwater harvest tank near the Santa Monica Pier during dry weather. The City recently received a $3.7M Clean Beaches Initiative (CBI) grant to construct this 1.6 million gallon tank. Runoff and impaired groundwater from the CBI tank would be piped to the City’s existing Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF). As part of Element 1, the SMURRF would also be upgraded with the installation of a containerized reverse osmosis (RO) unit capable of treating both captured stormwater and brackish/saline impaired groundwater for permitted non-potable distribution and future permitted indirect reuse (aquifer recharge). SWIP Element 2 would provide a source of recycled water for permitted conjunctive reuse via the construction of a new below ground Advanced Water Treatment 3 of 4 Facility (AWTF) to treat up to 1 million gallons per day (MGD) of municipal wastewater. Treatment would include, among other things, membrane bioreactors, membrane filtration, reverse osmosis, and advanced oxidation. SWIP Element 3 would include added infrastructure to further improve stormwater harvesting and reuse. Two below-grade runoff harvest tanks totaling 4.5 million gallons would reduce ocean discharges and divert the harvested runoff to the new AWTF. One tank would be constructed upgradient beneath Memorial Park and the other below ground at a location on the Civic Center Parking Lot . The subject tanks also provide for compliance with new State Enhanced Watershed Management Plan (EWMP) for Jurisdictional Group 2 and 3 and Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit requirements for nonpoint source pollution control, and would help improve beach water quality. Discussion The preliminary estimated cost of the project is approximately $57,050,000. The City is pursuing a combination of grants and low interest financing from the State Water Board to fund the proposed SWIP. In addition to applying for Proposition 1 grant funding, City staff submitted an application seeking CWSRF low interest financing. The current CWSRF interest rate is approximately 1.7% per annum. If the entire project were funded via the CWSRF, debt service costs to the Wastewater Fund may be as much as $2.5 million per year. Grant funding or principal forgiveness by the State would lower repayment costs. Staff has determined that the Wastewater Fund has the financial capacity to pledge future revenues toward payment of any and all CWSRF financing for the SWIP and still maintain adequate reserves. This new debt service cost would be almost entirely offset after one year, when the existing Wastewater Revenue Bonds reach maturity and no longer require debt payments. The CWSRF application consists of four packages: General, Environmental, Financial, and Technical. The State Water Board has completed the review of the General and Environmental Packages for the SWIP and is currently completing its review of the Technical and Financial Packages. In order to complete the Financial Package review and provide a funding proposal, City Council adoption of the Reimbursement Resolution and Pledged Revenue and Fund(s) Resolution is required. Financial Impacts and Budget Actions There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. Staff will return to City Council for review and approval for any 4 of 4 project funding agreement. Prepared By: Thomas Watson, Water Resources Protection Programs Coordinator Approved Forwarded to Council Attachments: A. January 26, 2016 Staff Report - City Council Resolution B. Reimbursement Resolution C. Pledged Revenue and Fund(s) Resolution D. SWIP Project Elements City Council Report City Council Meeting: January 26, 2016 Agenda Item: 3.L 1 of 3 To: Mayor and City Council From: Martin Pastucha, Director, Public Works, Water Resources Subject: Application for Funding for the Santa Monica Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP), California Clean Water State Revolving Fund and Proposition 1 Funding Programs Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the application for funding consideration from the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) in the amount of approximately $57,050,000 from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and Proposition 1 Funding Programs. 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents to apply and negotiate for funding. Executive Summary The attached resolution would authorize an application for the State Water Board Clean Water State Revolving Fund and Proposition 1 funding programs. The proposed Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) improves drought resiliency, increases water supply for reuse, and enhances flexibility in the management of the City’s water resources by installing a containerized reverse osmosis unit at the Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF), constructing a below grade municipal wastewater treatment facility, and installing two below grade stormwater harvest tanks. The proposed project cost is approximately $57,050,000. This SWIP project would be eligible for f inancial assistance in the form of grants and low interest financing repaid over 30 years. Background The State Water Board is committed to assisting its stakeholders build resiliency to drought and climate change. Similarly, the City has established among its sustainability goals the objective of reaching water self-sufficiency by the year 2020, concurrent with addressing the water conservation requirements made necessary by the current drought. The City’s proposed SWIP would align with these objectives, while simultaneously helping to improve drought resiliency, increase water supply for reuse, and enhance flexibility in the 2 of 3 management of the City’s water resources by allowing for the treatment and reuse of brackish/saline groundwater, municipal wastewater, and stormwater. Discussion The Clean Water State Revolving Fund and Proposition 1 funding programs were promulgated in response to the unprecedented drought conditions currently afflicting California. The State has allocated over $900 million for various response programs, including grants, and low interest financing. City of Santa Monica Sustainable W ater Infrastructure Project (SWIP) The SWIP is comprised of three integrated project elements to improve drought resiliency, increase water supply, and enhance flexibility in the management of the City’s water resources. Project Element 1 is the installation of a containerized, off-the-shelf saline reverse osmosis unit at the SMURRF. When operational, the reverse osmosis unit will be utilized to advance treat non-potable water resources such as urban and wet weather runoff harvested by the recently funded Clean Beaches Initiative Project storage tanks to be constructed at the Deauville Parking Lot. These tanks will capture runoff from the 90 -acre Pier Drainage Area that would normally be discharged to the ocean at the Pier Outfall. When runoff is scarce, the tanks would be replenished with brackish/saline groundwater from a proposed shallow groundwater well located at the Beach Maintenance Yard. Project Element 2 includes the construction of a below grade recycled water treatment plant beneath the Civic Center parking lot. The recycled water plant would advance treat approximately 1.0 million gallons/day (MGD) of municipal wastewater for reuse. Project Element 3 consists of two below grade stormwater harvest tanks. One tank would be constructed beneath Memorial Park, and the other adjacent to the below grade recycled water treatment facility. Project elements to be located under the Civic Center Parking lot would be constructed to accommodate future development on the site. Benefits provided by the stormwater harvest tanks include capturing stormwater and urban runoff for treatment and reuse, improving beach water quality and complying with State Water Board Enhanced Watershed Management Plan (EWMP) requirements. Together, the Project elements would produce approximately 1.5 MGD (1,680 acre-feet/year) of new water for immediate non-potable reuse, and when properly permitted, for indirect potable reuse via aquifer 3 of 3 recharge. All treated water would be distributed via the City’s existing recycled water system. The preliminary project cost is approximately $57,050,000. As part of the State Water Board funding application process, the preliminary costs will be refined and an initial funding agreement for the full amount consisting of a combination of grants and low interest financing will be provided by the State Water Board to the City for consideration and finalization. If the proposed funding package is acceptable, staff will return to Council with a separate funding resolution for adoption. Environmental Analysis California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) evaluations are pending. The studies are required to be completed prior to the State Water Board approving the project final funding agreement. Financial Impacts & Budget Actions There are no financial impacts or budget actions required at this time. Prepared By: Chris Aguillon, Water Resources Protection Specialist Approved Forwarded to Council Attachments: A. Attachment 1 - SWIP Resolution B. Attachment 2 - SWIP Project Locations City Council Report City Council Meeting: August 28, 2018 Agenda Item: 3.C 1 of 5 To:Mayor and City Council From:Susan Cline, Director, Public Works, Civil Engineering Subject: Selection and Award of Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project Design/Build Services Contract Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council: 1.Award RFP #SP2456 to Kiewit Infrastructure West Co., a Delaware-based company, for the design-build services for the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project; 2.Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a design-build services agreement with Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. in an amount not to exceed $7,500,000 to provide design services for the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project, including engineering, permitting, preparation of construction documents, and submittal of a guaranteed maximum price for construction services; and 3.Authorize the Director of Public Works to issue any necessary change orders to complete additional work within contract authority. Summary Santa Monica strives to be water self-sufficient and independent from costly imported water. Imported water can be impacted by seasonal and regional droughts and has a high environmental impact due to the energy demands of transporting the water from distance locations. Water self-sufficiency will result in long-term adaptability and resiliency to climate vulnerabilities by providing the security of a sustainable water supply. The Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) would produce approximately 1.5 million gallons/day (MGD) of new water for immediate non-potable reuse. In the future, the water would also be used for indirect potable reuse via aquifer recharge upon approval by the California State Water Resources Control Board. The project would help offset the City’s costly imported water, which is currently 2.67 MGD. The project would also protect the ocean and the City’s beaches from stormwater and urban runoff 2 of 5 pollution. Staff recommends awarding a design-build services agreement to Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. (Kiewit) in an amount not to exceed $7,500,000. Discussion The City’s water supply is a combination of 25% imported water and 75% local groundwater. The City seeks to reduce its reliance on imported water through conservation, increased reliance on its groundwater resources, and the integration of all available local water resources by treating brackish/saline groundwater, municipal wastewater, stormwater and urban runoff. The SWIP would construct three new water treatment and storage facilities designed to function as a cohesive and integrated system to harvest and treat nonconventional water resources, including stormwater, brackish/saline impaired groundwater, and municipal wastewater, for reuse for irrigation and toilet flushing. The three sites are outlined in Table 1 and a detailed project description is provided in Attachment A. Table 1 Location Proposed Improvement Civic Center 1.0 MGD underground advanced water treatment facility 1.5 MG capacity underground stormwater harvesting tank Memorial Park 3.0 MG capacity underground stormwater harvesting tank Santa Monica Urban Runoff Reclamation Facility (SMURRF) New reverse-osmosis (RO) membrane filtration system and facility enhancements to produce 0.5 MGD treated water Once the design phase is completed, staff would return to the City Council for approval of the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) amendment to complete the construction phase. Environmental Analysis The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents for the project were certified by the Santa Monica City Council on September 27, 2016, and the Notice of Determination was filed at the State 3 of 5 Clearinghouse on September 30, 2016. The SWIP was also presented to the Water Advisory Committee on May 23, 2016 and the City’s Task Force on the Environment on June 20, 2016. Design-Builder Selection Request for Qualifications (RFQ) RFQ Data RFQ Posting Date RFQ Posted On RFQ Advertised In (City Charter & Municipal Code) # of Vendors Downloaded # of Submittals Received Date SOQs Received 11/22/2017 City's Online Bidding Site Santa Monica Daily Press 99 3 01/17/2018 Pre-qualified List Vendor Selection Recommendation Black & Veatch Construction, Inc. Municipal Code SMMC 2.24.073 J.F. Shea Construction, Inc Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. Evaluation Criteria Previous experience, financial stability, safety record, qualifications of the key personnel and project understanding. Justification to Short-List Staff from the Civil Engineering and Water Resources divisions evaluated the statements of qualification (SOQs) based on the criteria in SMMC 2.24.073, including references, experience and qualifications of key personnel, project understanding, financial stability, safety record and knowledge and prior experience on design-build water treatment projects. Based on these criteria, the firms were recommended as pre-qualified design- build firms. Proposals were solicited from all pre-qualified firms prior to awarding the design-build agreement. Request for Proposals (RFP) RFP Data RFP Posting Date RFP Posted On # of Vendors Downloaded # of Submittals Received Date Proposals Received 04/30/2018 City's Online Bidding Site 3 3 06/14/2018 RFPs Received Black & Veatch Construction, Inc. 4 of 5 J.F. Shea Construction, Inc. Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. (lowest construction mark-up) Justification for Award A selection panel of staff from the Civil Engineering and Water Resources divisions evaluated the proposals and interviewed all three teams based on the following criteria: Fee, qualifications, skills and ability of proposed team members, cohesiveness of the team members, ability of the team to manage the complexity of the project, quality and variety of the design, technical and management services offered, sophistication of the organization and team, ability and methodology to successfully design and construct according to a given design program within budget and under time constraints, character, integrity, reputation, good judgment, training, experience and efficiency of the team. The focus of the evaluation committee was to identify the most qualified and cohesive team that has the best proposal and understanding of the project and is the best fit for the SWIP. Kiewit provided the best ranked proposal and interview. Based on the evaluation criteria and the interviews, the committee recommends the team of Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. in association with Arcadis US, Inc. and Perc Water Corporation as the best qualified firm to provide design and engineering services for the SWIP. The recommended Kiewit team submitted a bid estimate with the lowest fixed construction markup. Team qualifications and a cost comparison table are provided in Attachment B. Past Council Actions Council Meeting Date Action Type Description 9/27/2016 (Attachment C) Adoption of CEQA IS/MND Adopted CEQA Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Financial Impacts and Budget Actions Staff seeks authority to award a design-build services agreement to Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. for design and engineering services. Agreement Request Request Amount FY 2018-19 Budget CIP Account #Total Contract Amount $7,500,000 C5106950.689000 $7,500,000 5 of 5 Prepared By:Selim Eren, Civil Engineer Approved Forwarded to Council Attachments: A.SWIP Project Description & Site Layouts B.Team Qualifications & Cost Comparison C.September 27, 2016 Staff Report - Adopted CEQA Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (WebLink) D.Kiewit West Infrastructure Oaks Initiative Form City Council Report City Council Meeting: November 27, 2018 Agenda Item: 8.C 1 of 40 To: Mayor and City Council From: Susan Cline, Director, Public Works, Water Resources Subject: Sustainable Water Master Plan Update and Pathway to Water Self - Sufficiency Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Provide staff with direction to proceed with water self-sufficiency components. 2. Provide staff with direction regarding funding recommendations to achieve water self-sufficiency. 3. Authorize budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts and Budget Actions section of this report. 4. Direct staff to return for a public hearing on January 8, 2019, to consider implementation of 9% water rate increase previously approved by Council on February 24, 2015 to go into effect on March 1, 2019. Executive Summary The City of Santa Monica (City) has historically provided water service to residential and business customers allowing for bold efforts in securing resiliency and self -sufficiency for the community. Given the statewide challenges surrounding a safe and reliable water supply in recent years, Council directed staff to develop a water self -sufficiency plan with the goal of meeting 100% of Santa Monica’s water demand using local water sources by 2020. On October 28, 2014, Council adopted the Sustainable Water Master Plan (SWMP), which outlines a strategy to achieve the City’s water self -sufficiency goal (Attachment A). Staff initiated a comprehensive update of the SWMP in 2017 to incorporate new information regarding local groundwater resources and to integrate new water conservation programs and alternative water supply opportunities. On January 9, 2018, staff reported to Council that further analysis was needed to assess whether the City could meet its water self -sufficiency goal by 2020 (Attachment B). The further analyses have been completed and confirm that achieving water self -sufficiency that can be maintained into the future is practical and cost effective, but the projected 2 of 40 date of reaching that goal would be 2023. The delay from the original date is due to new state drinking water requirements implemented in 2018, permitting requirements for alternative water supply projects, and results of recently completed feasibility studies which resulted in longer timelines for project completion relative to previous estimates. The benefits of becoming water self-sufficient when compared to the alternative of continuing to meet a portion of local water demand using imported water include: long - term cost benefits for water ratepayers, establishment of a diverse, sustainable and drought resilient local water supply, and reduction of the City’s water supply energy footprint. It should be noted that in the updated plan proposed by staff, water self - sufficiency equates to approximately 99% locally sourced water, with 1% of the City’s water supply still being purchased from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) to maintain the imported water connection for emergency purposes. The updated proposal to meet water self-sufficiency presented in this staff report includes an optimized water conservation program together with local water supply projects, an updated implementation timeline, and recommended funding toward achieving water self-sufficiency for the City. Following Council direction and approval, the final components will be included in an updated SWMP that will guide City efforts toward achieving the goal through 2023. To achieve self -sufficiency by 2023, staff is proposing to replace imported water purchases with a comprehensive plan consisting of: Component 1 - continuing and increasing water conservation efforts to permanently reduce water demand, Component 2 - developing sustainable and drought resilient alternative water supplies, and Component 3 - expanding local groundwater production within sustainable yield limits. The anticipated cost to implement the components required to meet the self -sufficiency goal is approximately $38 million to increase local water supplies, which includes capacity expansion of the Arcadia Water Treatment Plant (WTP), implementation of 3 of 40 production efficiency enhancements, as well as acquiring an additional groundwater well to enhance resiliency. The $38 million would be funded primarily through the issuance of a water revenue bond and a contribution from the Wastewater Fund ($3.25 million) to the Water Fund to fund the various projects outlined in this staff report, with the debt service on the bonds incorporated into water rates in an upcoming rate study. An additional $64 million from existing water-contamination settlement funds would be used for restoring the Olympic Sub-basin, which would allow additional water production from that sub-basin to support achievement of water self -sufficiency. The proposed water self-sufficiency plan and staff recommendations are based on recently completed studies (e.g., confirmation of sustainable yield analysis, evaluation of new drinking water regulations on the Olympic Sub-basin restoration, and feasibility studies to assess new technologies that increase production efficiency at the Arcadia WTP) in which multiple scenarios were evaluated for cost, benefits and effectiveness. Lastly, staff will return to Council on January 8, 2019, for a public hearing and to recommend a full implementation of the 9% water rate adjustment (within the previously adopted Council authorization) for calendar year 2019 and effective on water bills issued on or about March 1, 2019. The recommended water rate adjustment would ensure a fiscally sustainable comprehensive program for safe, clean, reliable water supply to our community. It would also help offset increased construction costs to keep up with the City’s 100-year water main replacement program and fund preliminary design efforts on the various components required to achieve water self -sufficiency as contemplated in the 2014 rate study. Background On January 25, 2011, City Council directed staff to develop a water self -sufficiency plan with the goal of meeting 100% of Santa Monica’s water demand using local water sources by 2020. On October 28, 2014, Council adopted the SWMP which outlines a comprehensive plan to achieve water self-sufficiency. The SWMP involves a combination of water demand reduction strategies through various water conservation and efficiency programs designed to permanently reduce residential and commercial 4 of 40 water use, along with increased water supply from 1) alternative water sources such as captured rainwater and treated wastewater; 2) increased efficiency of the City’s water treatment systems; and 3) additional pumping from existing groun dwater wells and new wells in the local groundwater basin. Implementation of the SWMP has been proceeding since 2014, with updates provided during Council’s annual consideration of water rate adjustments. The most recent update was provided on January 9, 2 018. Between 2014 and 2018, other elements of the SWMP progressed, including completion of a preliminary Sustainable Yield Analysis (SYA) of the Santa Monica groundwater basin and finalizing plans for the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) to support further analysis and refinement of alternatives to reduce reliance on imported water supply and meet the City’s self-sufficiency goal. Staff initiated a comprehensive update of the SWMP in 2017 to incorporate new information regarding local groundwater resources, regulatory updates, and to integrate new water conservation programs and alternate water supply opportunities. On January 9, 2018, staff reported to Council that further analysis was needed to assess whether the City could meet its water self-sufficiency goal by 2020. Additional work completed since January 2018 included analysis to validate preliminary SYA estimates of the local groundwater basin, drilling of exploratory water wells in the Coastal sub-basin to evaluate potential new local water production, technical studies to evaluate the cost and viability of increasing the production efficiency of the City’s Arcadia WTP, evaluating the impact of new drinking water regulations (e.g., maximum contaminant level [MCL] for 1,2,3 TCP) on groundwater extraction from the Olympic Sub-basin, and evaluating the cost and viability of additional water conservation programs as requested by the Task Force on the Environment. A timeline summarizing key events related to the development of the SWMP from 2011 is provided in Figure 1. Staff currently anticipates that the City would achieve water self -sufficiency in 2023 based on the plan outlined in this report. In addition to the proposed plan to achieve water self-sufficiency, a Five-Year Rate Study (2020-2024) is also currently underway and will consider potential rate impacts of water self-sufficiency projects. Results of the Five Year Rate Study will be presented to Council in the first half of 2019. 5 of 40 January 25, 2011 City Council directed staff to develop water self-sufficiency plan (100% on local water supplies) Council adopts Sustainable Water Master Plan (Oct ’14) Plan outlines the City’s strategy to achieve water self-sufficiency Olympic Treatment Pilot Project Initiated (Sept ’14) Evaluate treatment technologies to restore pumping capacity at Olympic Sub Basin SWMP Update (Nov ‘18) Staff to present strategy to meet City’s water self- sufficiency goal Conservation Plan Implemented (2015) Increased conservation efforts saw a ~20% reduction in gallon per capita per day (gpcd) water consumption SWMP Update (Jan ‘18) Staff reported to City Council that additional analysis was needed to determine if self- sufficiency goal could be met by 2020 New Contaminant at Olympic Sub Basin (May ‘18) New drinking water regulations required additional analysis of Olympic Sub Basin treatment strategy Water Self- Sufficiency Achieved (2023) Figure 1: Self-Sufficiency Timeline Discussion Goals and Benefits of Water Self-Sufficiency The proposed plan to meet the City’s self-sufficiency goal involves a combination of demand reduction through various water conservation and efficiency programs and the addition of local water supplies which will also provide the following benefits: Long-term cost benefits to ratepayers by maximizing local water resources Provide a more sustainable and drought-resilient water supply through a diversified water supply portfolio Reduce the City’s water supply energy footprint through conservation and locally sourced water supplies With imported water purchase costs from MWD expected to increase annually from 3 to 7 percent over the next 10 years, the primary focus of the updated SWMP was to develop water self-sufficiency scenarios that are both sustainable and economical compared to the continued purchase of imported water from MWD. Development of 6 of 40 cost-effective local, sustainable, and drought resilient water supplies will provide Santa Monica water ratepayers with cost benefits over the long-term and provide the City with greater cost certainty on water rates compared to the continued purchase of imported water from MWD. Providing a sustainable and drought-resilient water supply through a diversified water supply portfolio eliminates the City’s reliance on the purchase of imported water from MWD and maintains reliable production during routine maintenance and unforeseen downtimes of treatment equipment. Lastly, maximizing local water resources instead of purch asing imported water from MWD also has long-term environmental benefits for the community in terms of reduced energy use and the associated reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, which support Council’s goal to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 or sooner. The addition of alternative water supplies, expansion of local groundwater supplies, and increased conservation will result in a 25-30% reduction of total energy footprint from the City’s water supply compared to continued purchase of imported water from MWD. Marching Toward Water Self-Sufficiency The City’s water supply portfolio has progressively transformed since 2011, with the community making significant strides toward water self-sufficiency and reduced reliance on the purchase of imported water to supplement local water resources as indicated in Figure 2. In 2011, after completion of the Charnock Wellfield Restoration Project, the City was able to meet approximately 51 percent (~6,700 acre -feet per year [AFY]) of its water supply demand through local groundwater resources and reduce the purchase of water from MWD, which is imported from Northern California and the Colorado River, to approximately 48% (~6,400 AFY). 7 of 40 Figure 2: Overview of City’s Water Supply Portfolio from 2011 through 2017 In 2015, the City and its residents responded to severe drought conditions throughout California with conservation efforts that resulted in a decrease in the City’s total water demand of 14,300 AFY in 2014 by about 17% (-2,500 AFY) to approximately 11,800 AFY by 2017. Santa Monica’s population grew by about 1.6% from 92,321 to 93,834 over the same period. Conservation efforts resulted in a decrease in average annual water consumption, measured in gallons per capita per day (GPCD), from 140 GPCD to approximately 110 GPCD as indicated in Figure 3 and continues today even after the governor declared an end to the drought. 8 of 40 Figure 3: Historical Population Growth versus Per Capita Water Consumption From 2015 through 2017, the City was meeting approximately 50-56% of its water supply demand through local water sources (7,400-8,200 AFY) and 26-29% through water conservation (approximately 2,500 AFY), with the amount of imported water purchased from MWD dropping to approximately 26 -29% (3,700-4,100 AFY). In 2017, local groundwater supply temporarily decreased due to an extended shutdown (approximately six months) of one well in the Charnock sub -basin for maintenance and repair. The loss of a single well from the Charnock Sub-basin over the six-month period and loss of approximately 800 AFY of groundwater production highlighted the need to increase resiliency of the local water supply to maintain reliable production as the City continues its march toward water self-sufficiency. Refined SWMP Pathway to Achieve Water Self-Sufficiency Additional analyses of various elements of the SWMP, as outlined at the January 9, 2018 City Council meeting, have been completed, and based on those analyses staff now estimates that water self -sufficiency can be achieved by 2023. To achieve self- sufficiency by 2023, staff is proposing to replace the purchase of imported water from MWD (approximately 50% of the total water supply demand when self -sufficiency efforts were initiated in 2011) with a comprehensive plan consisting of: 1) Component 1 - continuing and increasing water conservation efforts to permanently reduce water demand, 2) Component 2 - developing sustainable and drought resilient alternative 9 of 40 water supplies, and 3) Component 3 - expanding local groundwater production within sustainable yield limits. The delay in achieving the City’s self-sufficiency goal from 2020 to 2023 is due to several factors, including new regulations established by the State Water Resources Control Board’s Division of Drinking Water (DDW) that required further analysis to determine the level of treatment required for the Olympic Sub -basin, the project timeline and permitting schedule for the SWIP project to recharge local groundwater aquifers with purified water, and the need to confirm and refine preliminary SYA estimates with additional data to establish an accurate estimate of the sustainable yield for the Santa Monica Groundwater Basin. The remainder of this staff report is organized as follows to provide detailed descriptions of each component of the updated SWMP and its contribution/benefits toward the City’s self-sufficiency goal: Proposed Plan to Achieve Water Self-Sufficiency SWMP Project Cost and Implementation Schedule Funding Recommendations Proposed Plan to Achieve Water Self-Sufficiency A comprehensive plan was developed through the SWMP and comprises three components that provide a path for the City to achieve water self -sufficiency by 2023. The contribution of each proposed component to eliminate reliance on imported water supply by 2023 is summarized in Figure 4 along with the percent contribution toward replacing imported water purchases. In total, the three components: 1) conservation, 2) alternative water supplies - production efficiency, recycled water, and purified water for recharge, and 3) new local groundwater will contribute approximately 8,057 AFY toward the City’s total water supply and reduce imported water purchase to only 170 AFY. A brief description of each of the recommended components is provided below. 10 of 40 New Local Groundwater, 2,100 AFY, 25% Imported Water (MWD), 170 AFY, 2% Alternative Water Supply - Purified Water (Recharge), 1,100 AFY Alternative Water Supply - Recycled Water , 560 AFYAlternative Water Supply -Production Efficiency, 1,200 AFY Conservation, 3,097 AFY, 38% PROPOSED STRATEGIES TO REPLACE IMPORTED WATER SUPPLY (2023) New Local Groundwater Imported Water (MWD) Alternative Water Supply - Purified Water (Recharge)Alternative Water Supply - Recycled Water Alternative Water Supply - Production Efficiency Conservation Alternative Water Supply, 2,860 AFY, 35% Figure 4: Summary of Proposed Components to Replace Imported Water Supply by 2023 Component 1 - Conservation (38% Reduction in Imported Water Purchases) In 2014, Council authorized the significant expansion of staffing and funding to augment the City’s water conservation efforts to address the state-wide drought and help the City meet its self-sufficiency goal. This contributed to a water demand reduction of approximately 20% over the past three years (2015 -2017), which equates to saving approximately 2,500 AFY. Continued implementation of the existing conservation programs with the addition of supplemental conservation efforts is expected to continue this trend of water demand reduction through 2040, with the staff recommended Optimal conservation plan which is described below. Continuation of existing, and implementation of proposed, conservation programs are essential for the City to eliminate reliance on imported water from MWD. The recommended Optimal conservation plan will contribute approximately 3,100 AFY to the City’s water supply portfolio in 2023 and reduce imported water purchases by roughly 38%. Staff modeled three conservation plans (Optimal, Enhanced, and 90 GPCD), which are presented in gallons per capita per day by 2025 and abbreviated as GPCD. The Optimal Conservation Plan can be completed using existing budgeted resources and would reduce the City’s total water demand by approximately 20%, even after factoring in demand increases associated with expected population growth through 2025. 11 of 40 Increasing conservation efforts from the Optimal to the Enhanced Plan would cost an additional $7.2 million in total program cost, on top of the budget already allocated for the Optimal Conservation Plan, but with a marginal increase in water conserved (approximately 2% additional reduction in GPCD with the Enhanced Plan). The enhanced conservation plan would still require approximately 3,500 to 3,700 AFY of water that would need to be met through the purchase of imported water or from the development of additional local water resources. With marginal gains from increased conservation efforts compared to the additional implementation cost required, staff is recommending continuing with the optimal conservation plan, which costs approximately $708/AF of water saved. A third, aggressive conservation plan was also studied following a request by the Task Force on the Environment to evaluate the cost and feasibility of reducing city -wide water demand to 90 GPCD by 2025. The assessment of the 90 GPCD Plan conducted by staff concluded that reducing overall water demand to 90 GPCD would be extremely costly and may not be feasible for implementation. The overall cost to implement this plan would exceed $56.6 million, with $40 million of the cost incurred over the first five years. In addition to the significant cost premium, this scenario would likely require additional staffing and would be very challenging to achieve by 2025. Staff met with industry experts to review and receive input on the City staff modeling of proposed conservation programs. A panel of outside experts supported both the optimal and enhanced conservation plans and the proposed programs that comprise them. A summary of the conservation scenarios evaluated is provided in Table 1. Table 1: Summary of Conservation Scenarios Considered Description1 Conclusion Cost Optimal, 108 GPCD  Best Conservation option  Does not achieve self-sufficiency goal by itself but supports demand reduction. Within current operating budget $708/AF (over 30 years) 2 Enhanced, 106 GPCD  Feasible but expensive compared to Optimal Plan. Requires 1.5 new staff for 10 years $7.2 million increase in program costs compared to Optimal (2018-2023) 12 of 40  Does not achieve self-sufficiency goal  Not worth the incremental cost for a 2GPCD reduction. 137% increase in budgeted costs (2018-2013) $1,078/AF (over 30 years) 2 Aggressive, 90 GPCD  Potentially feasible but very expensive, requires 2.5+ new staff for 10 years  Does not achieve self-sufficiency goal $40.8M over the first five years; $58.6 M 2019-2040, 800% increase in costs (2018- 2023) compared to Optimal Scenario ~$1,280/AF (over 30 years)2 1GPCD based on water conservation efforts achieved as of 2025 2Excluding ongoing conservation staffing cost. Due to conservation efforts since 2015, the City’s current water demand measured in gallons per capita per day (GPCD) is approximately 110 GPCD. Staff also conducted a theoretical exercise to determine what would be required for the City to become water self-sufficient solely through conservation efforts (assuming no imported water and no additional local water production). Results of that exercise indicated that the total per capita water demand would need to be reduced to 64 GPCD. Staff consulted water conservation experts, analyzed conservation efforts in other cities and evaluated various local conservation scenarios and determined that attempting to achieve the self - sufficiency goal through conservation alone (i.e. achieving 64 GPCD in Santa Monica) is neither financially feasible nor realistic within the time horizon. However, the community should be commended on the conservation efforts already taken to reduce water demand and decrease imported water purchased from MWD. Santa Monica is - and can be - a model for a new ethic of resource self-sufficiency and environmental sustainability. The Council’s recent adoption of the 100% renewable default rate for community electric supply represents this ethos of “living within our means.” Conservation will continue to play a critical role in the City’s march toward water self-sufficiency by continuing to reduce overall water demand in the face of continued population growth from new housing and demand from the commercial and institutional sectors of our local economy. 13 of 40 Based on the modeling described above, staff recommends pursuing the Optimal conservation plan, which continues the successful conservation programs initiated over the past three years and increases water conservation in untapped areas such as: Funding of retrofits in Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District facilities and landscapes Commercial sector fixture retrofits and enhanced rebates Coin-operated laundry machine retrofits Increase in Water Neutrality offsets and direct installs Rebates for new technologies including gray and black water systems Enhanced water conservation education and enforcement Additional sustainable landscape conversions Outreach to assist customers on how to properly adjust their irrigation timers New marketing and outreach campaign focusing on instilling permanent conservation behaviors consistent with the state’s forthcoming framework for “Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life” Incorporating limited-term employees as part of the permanent water conservation team to ensure new state requirements and regulations are met, as well as maintaining programs at an effective level In developing the water conservation plan to reach and maintain self-sufficiency, the City evaluated the potential for further water efficiency and conservation in all customer sectors. This included an assessment of the current level of water fixtures in the city, as well as identifying where the greatest opportunity for reducing water consumption existed. Based on this analysis, a program plan was developed to reach the City’s long- term objectives via existing and new conservation programs. Table 2 shows the projects planned over the next five years including the number of activities for each program such as number of rebates, consultations and direct installation of water efficient fixtures to replace inefficient fixtures in existing buildings 14 of 40 throughout the city. The projected number of activities is based on historical participation, available market of opportunity, and strategic community engagement campaigns to increase programs over multi-year periods. The table also includes the estimated water savings and total costs from 2018 through 2023 when water self - sufficiency is expected to be reached. Table 2: Summary of Optimal Water Conservation Programs and Results Measure Customer Class Total Activities 2018-2023 Total Water Savings (AF) 2018-2023 Rebates, Single Family (i.e. clothes washers, landscape, soil sensors, toilets, irrigation)Single Family 4,660 286 Water Use Consultations, Single Family Single Family 720 58 Graywater System Incentive Single Family 60 1 Direct Installs, Single Family (i.e. 0.80 gpf toilets, water neutrality) Single Family 0 0 Direct Installs, Multi-Family (0.80 gpf and 1.06 or less gpf toilets)Multi-Family 3,750 124 Rebates, Multi-Family (i.e. high-efficiency clothes washers, landscape, toilets)Multi-Family 1,475 94 Water Use Consultations, Multi-Family Multi-Family 750 90 School Education Program Institutional 2,090 14 Direct Installs, Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District (i.e. 0.80 gpf and 0.125 gpf toilets and urinals, water neutrality) Institutional 537 9 Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District Weather Based Irrigation Controller Incentive Institutional 22 21 Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District Landscape Incentive Institutional 9 8 Rebates, Commercial & Institutional (i.e. ice machines, toilets, urinals, toilets, irrigation)Commercial & Institutional 1,792 260 Direct Installs, Commercial & Institutional (i.e. toilets and urinals) Commercial & Institutional 3,280 517 Water Use Consultations, Commercial & Institutional Commercial & Institutional 300 45 Performance Pays Commercial & Institutional 4 9 Soil Moisture Sensor Rebates Multi-Family, Commercial & Institutional 75 7 Water Saving Devices - Faucet Aerators All 9,240 328 Water Saving Devices - Showerheads All 4,200 160 Community Outreach & Education All 16 1 Pilot Projects All 2 2 32,982 2,034Total The financial summary of the Optimal Conservation Plan is provided in Table 3. Table 3: Financial Summary of Optimal Water Conservation Plan Average Water Savings (AFY) 610 Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/AF) 15 of 40 $708 Modeling of the water conservation plan was purposefully conservative and only includes expected water demand reductions directly related to City efforts. Therefore, the projected demand reductions do not include the potential savings from efficiency improvements in California State Plumbing Codes known as “passive conservation.” Passive water conservation is achievable through non -City sponsored programs, such as maximizing current plumbing code enforcement, landscape ordinances, natural fixture replacement rates, as well as future local and state regulations and codes. This includes the impact and enforcement of the legislation, California SB 407, requiring noncompliant plumbing fixtures in any single-family residential and multi-family residential, and commercial properties to be replaced by the property owner with water- conserving plumbing fixtures. Through the currently established programs, proposed new programs, and passive conservation, it is estimated that the City can reach 99 GPCD by 2025 and 96 GPCD by 2030. These efforts would result in an estimated additional annual savings between 680 acre-feet (AF) per year by 2025 and as much as 1,000 AF per year in 2030. The City allocates funding for conservation within the water fund annual operating budget; no additional funding would be required to implement the Optimal Conservation Plan. Staff will return during the Five-Year Rate Study to present long-term staffing options for the recommended Optimal Conservation Program. Component 2 - Alternative Water Supplies (35% Reduction in Imported Water Purchases) To further diversify the City’s water supply portfolio and increase overall resilience , three alternative water supply projects are proposed and collectively offset imported water purchases from MWD by 35 percent (see Figure 4). These projects include: Increase recycled water production through the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP), upgrading the existing Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling 16 of 40 Facility (SMURRF) and constructing a new Advanced Water Purification Facility (AWPF) that provides a drought resilient, local water supply. The increase in recycled water production from SMURRF would offset imported water purchases from MWD by approximately 4% (approximately 560 AFY). Recharge local groundwater aquifers in the Olympic Sub-basin to maintain sustainable yield pumping levels with purified water from the SWIP’s AWPF. The purified water from the AWPF would offset imported water purchases from MWD by approximately 7% (approximately 1,100 AFY). Upgrade the City’s Arcadia Water Treatment Plant (WTP) with new technology to increase overall production. Closed Circuit Reverse Osmosis (CCRO) would be added to the Arcadia WTP to treat the Reverse Osmosis concentrate waste stream, which is currently discharged to the sewer system, and increase the overall treatment efficiency at the Arcadia WTP to approximately 90 percent, or greater. The addition of CCRO at the Arcadia WTP would offset imported water purchases from MWD by approximately 8% (approximately 1,200 AFY). The SWIP project is a major component of the alternative water supply for the City as it will provide a sustainable and drought resilient water supply by providing purified water to recharge local groundwater aquifers. In return, the aquifer recharge that will be provided by the SWIP will allow the City to maximize groundwater pumping, within sustainable yield limits, from the Olympic Sub-basin. Component 3 - New Local Groundwater Production (25% Reduction in Imported Water Purchases) To offset the remaining imported water purchased from MWD, local groundwater production would need to be increased to reduce imported water purchases from MWD by 25% and resiliency measures implemented to maintain reliable production. Staff developed and analyzed seven scenarios to expand the City’s groundwater production and carefully vetted each scenario internally and with outside industry experts. The seven scenarios were compared based on project feasibility, capital, and operation cost, and are summarized in Attachment C. All scenarios evaluated assume 17 of 40 that the Optimal Conservation Plan is implemented. Of the seven scenarios evaluated, Scenario 1 - Expansion of Arcadia WTP with Closed Circuit Reverse Osmosis (CCRO) combined with a Separate Olympic Sub-basin Pipeline and Treatment at the Arcadia WTP site is recommended. Scenario 1 combined with the Optimal Conservation Plan is the most cost-effective solution to achieve self-sufficiency and maximize local water resources. Scenario 1 includes the following elements: Expansion of the Arcadia WTP, including CCRO technology (as discussed under component 2 - alternative water supplies), to increase treatment capacity and accommodate future 2040 water demands. Acquisition of a new groundwater well to enhance resiliency. Olympic Sub-basin Restoration: o A new pipeline separating Olympic Sub-basin water, conveying it independently to the Arcadia WTP, thus requiring a smaller treatment facility at the Arcadia WTP to remove contaminants in the Olympic Sub-basin. o Separate contamination treatment facility at the Arcadia WTP for the Olympic basin. Expansion at Arcadia WTP To support development of alternative water supplies and restoration of the Olympic Sub-basin, treatment capacity expansion and plant upgrades are required at the Arcadia WTP to support an overall increase in water production and enhance resiliency to achieve water self-sufficiency. The Arcadia WTP is currently capable of treating up to approximately 11,300 AFY (10 million gallons per day [mgd]) and produce 9,900 AFY (8.9 mgd) of treated water (approximately 82% recovery or efficiency). The proposed expansion and addition of new technologies to increase production efficiency at the Arcadia WTP will increase its treatment capacity to approximately 14,700 AFY (13 mgd) and produce 13,400 AFY (12 mgd) of treated water (approximately 92% recovery or efficiency). The proposed improvements for expanding production capacity at the Arcadia WTP and enhancing water supply resiliency include: 18 of 40 Acquire an additional groundwater well to enhance resiliency and maintain production during routine maintenance or unforeseen downtimes of groundwater wells, while aggressively pumping within the sustainable yield. Install new CCRO to increase overall plant efficiency to 90 percent or greater (as discussed previously under component 2 - alternative water supplies). Expand capacity (e.g., pumps, blowers, cartridge filters, etc.) of the Arcadia WTP to accommodate increased groundwater production and new technologies (e.g., CCRO described in Component 2). Olympic Sub-basin Restoration The Olympic Sub-basin plays a key role in achieving the City’s water self -sufficiency goal as it could provide up to 3,200 AFY of groundwater and is also the location where purified water from the SWIP will be recharged to sustain this pumping rate. However, the Olympic Sub-basin contains several contaminants that would require additional treatment to meet drinking water standards. The key contaminants in the Olympic Sub - basin include: 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (1,2,3-TCP), 1,4-Dioxane, trichloroethylene (TCE), and tetrachloroethylene (PCE). Drinking water regulations, or maximum contaminant levels (MCL), have been in place for TCE and PCE prior to January 2018, and regulations for 1,2,3- TCP were established after January 2018 which required further treatment analysis. 1,4-Dioxane is currently on the State of California’s drinking water Notification Level (NL) list, which is a health-based advisory level and not an MCL. It is anticipated that the NL of 1 microgram per liter (g/L) or part per billion (ppb) for 1,4-Dioxane will likely become an MCL in the near future (within next 5 years). Further analysis of treatment options for the Olympic Sub -basin was required due to a recently established drinking water regulation that established a MCL for 1,2,3 TCP at 5 parts per trillion (ppt), and additional data on 1,4 Dioxane was available to refine the treatment analysis to determine if the current 1 ppb NL (anticipated future MCL) could be met once full production of the Olympic Sub-basin is restored. The Olympic Sub- basin treatment analysis was performed by an outside consultant, Black & Veatch. Key findings of the treatment analysis are listed below: 19 of 40 1,2,3-TCP was only detected at one well, SM-4, and the MCL of 5 ppt could be met through blending with other wells at full production capacity. 1,4-Dioxane is present in all three wells (two existing and one future) and could limit groundwater production from the Olympic Sub-basin to 845 AFY or approximately 25% of the basin’s total sustainable yield. Other contaminants, TCE and PCE, do not impact groundwater production from the Olympic Sub-basin as they would be removed through existing treatment processes at the Arcadia WTP. To maximize groundwater production from the Olympic Sub-basin and comply with regulation on the key contaminants of concern, the following improvements are recommended: Increase groundwater pumping from existing wells (SM -3 and SM-4), complete equipping and permitting of one recently installed new well (SM-8) and install a replacement well (SM-9) to increase local production from this sub-basin to ~3,200 AFY within sustainable yield levels. Please note that purified water from the SWIP will be used to recharge the Olympic Sub-basin that helps maintain the sustainable yield levels by supplementing naturally available groundwater within the sub -basin. Design and procurement efforts are currently underway, and the well projects were previously approved by Council in the FY 19-20 Capital Improvement Budget. Construct a new pipeline to separate Olympic Sub-basin groundwater from Charnock wellfield groundwater for separate treatment at the Arcadia WTP, primarily to target removal of 1,4 Dioxane. This reduces the amount of water needing treatment since only the Olympic Sub-basin flows (3,200 AFY) contain 1,4 Dioxane. If the flows are not separated, 14,700 AFY (Olympic + Charnock) would need to be treated. Construct a new contamination treatment facility for only the Olympic Sub -basin flows to remove 1,4 Dioxane, 1,2,3-TCP, TCE, and PCE at the Arcadia WTP site. The proposed treatment train consists of the ultraviolet light advanced oxidation 20 of 40 process and granular activated carbon. With the new contamination treatment facility and increased production efficiency (90-92% recovery) at the Arcadia WTP, approximately 2,900 AFY of treated water will be produced from the 3,200 AFY extracted from the Olympic Sub-basin. The new contamination treatment facility will provide high-quality drinking water that meets current and future regulatory standards. Sustainable Yield Update The sustainable yield from the Santa Monica Groundwater Basin is a critical component to ensure overall groundwater production is within sustainable limits of the basin and could support the proposed projects described above on an ongoing basis. A preliminary Sustainable Yield Analysis, (SYA), prepared by Richard C. Slade & Associates (Slade) in 2017, was presented to Council in January 2018. Since then, additional work was performed to refine and update the SYA. Additional work included the Coastal Sub-basin Exploratory Boring Program and a digital elevation mapping study that analyzed the potential recharge from the nearby mountain front. The updated report contains findings from this recently completed work as well as 2017 data regarding rainfall, geology, static water levels in key wells, and groundwater withdrawals from active City wells and other known private well owners (Attachment D). The updated SYA estimate from Slade’s analysis for the Santa Monica Basin is between 11,800 and 14,725 AFY. To substantiate the assessment conducted by Slade, City staff contracted with consultants from ICF to perform a separate estimate of the sustainable yield using a water-balance approach. This method compares the amount of water that recharges into a basin (inflow) from a wide range of sources (natural and anthropogenic), with the amount of water leaving the basin (outflow) from losses caused by pumping, evapotranspiration, basin outflow, etc. ICF’s assessment also considered findings from both the digital elevation mapping and Differential Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar Study (DInSAR) studies, presented to Council in January 2018. Based on ICF’s water-balance approach, average sustainable yield was estimated to be between 21 of 40 11,416 AFY to 13,722 AFY. The similarity of the sustainable yield estimates developed by Slade and ICF using different modeling methods provide a strong level of confidence that the City can use local groundwater resources in an ongoing manner into the future without negatively impacting the basin or creating overdraft conditions. It should be noted that the estimates developed by Slade and ICF are conservative and do not include a sustainable yield estimate for the Crestal Sub-basin. In addition, all estimates of sustainable yield are transitory due to myriad associated climatic and hydrogeologic factors that are constantly in flux. The State legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (Water Code sections 10720 et seq.)("SGMA"), which became effective on January 1, 2015. A portion of the 50 -square mile Santa Monica Basin that underlies Santa Monica has been designated by the Department of Water Resources as a "medium-priority" groundwater basin. Any groundwater basin designated as medium -priority must be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan (“GSP”) adopted by a local groundwater sustainability agency and approved by the Department, by January 31, 2022. In light of SGMA, further analysis will be required to determine if future demand will exceed what could be sustainably pumped from the basin. If it is determined that the City’s plans to extract more groundwater is not supported in the approved draft of the GSP, then the City may be precluded from withdrawing groundwater in excess of the then -projected sustainable yield and the City would need to continue purchasing imported water from MWD to meet its potable water demand. The potential limitations on future groundwater withdrawals from the City’s active sub-basins indicate that the City’s approach of pursuing nonconventional resources, indirect potable reuse via aquifer recharge, additional water supply wells in the Coastal sub-basin, replacement of underperforming wells, increasing treatment efficiency at the Arcadia Water Treatment Plant, and continuing conservation efforts are necessary for the City to achieve and sustain its long-term objective of independence from imported water. Future updates of the SYA and numerical models will further refine the sustainable yield for the basin. Going forward, the City is planning to update the SYA approximately every two to three years. Future updates will include additional findings from work being conducted jointly with the US Geo logical Survey (USGS) and an ongoing climate stress test evaluation by the Rand Corporation. The 22 of 40 City plans to produce groundwater within the upper limit of the estimated sustainable yield, while taking into consideration two irrigation pumpers in the Arca dia Sub-basin and one in the Crestal in addition to one diminutive residential irrigation well. Summary of Proposed Plan to Achieve Water Self-Sufficiency The three components proposed in the SWMP will help the City achieve water self - sufficiency by 2023 and eliminate the City’s reliance on imported water purchases from the MWD. The projected makeup of the City’s water supply portfolio is summarized in Figure 5, and contribution from each component to the City’s total water supply is provided in Table 4. The location for each of the three components is provided in Figure 6, and the synergy and inter-relationship between each component is illustrated in Figure 7. Achieving water self-sufficiency through a diversified water supply portfolio also provides the City with greater cost control over water rates as compared to the continued purchase of imported water from the MWD. As noted previously, approximately 1 percent of the water supply would continue to be made up of imported water purchased from the MWD as periodic circulation is required to maintain the supply line as an emergency backup for the City. 23 of 40 New Local Groundwater 13% Imported Water (MWD) 1%Alternative Water Supply -Purified Water (Recharge) Alternative Water Supply - Recycled Water Alternative Water Supply - Production Efficiency Conservation 20% Local Groundwater 47% WATER SELF-SUFFICIENCY BY 2023 New Local Groundwater Imported Water (MWD) Alternative Water Supply - Purified Water (Recharge)Alternative Water Supply - Recycled Water Alternative Water Supply - Production Efficiency Conservation Local Groundwater Alternative Water Supply 19% Figure 5: A Sustainable and Drought Resilient Water Supply Portfolio Achieved through Self Sufficiency 24 of 40 Table 4: Summary of Water Supply Contribution from Each Self-Sufficiency Component Water Self Sufficiency Component Estimated Water Supply Contribution by 2023 (AFY) % Reduction in Imported Water Estimated $/AFY Component 1 - Conservation Optimal Conservation Plan 3,100 38% $708 Component 2 – Alternative Water Supplies Recycled Water from SMURRF 560 7% $4201 Purified Water from SWIP to Recharge Olympic Sub-basin 1,100 13% $1,0171 Increase Production Efficiency at Arcadia WTP 1,200 15% $1,0711 Component 3 – New Local Groundwater Production Arcadia WTP Expansion and Resiliency Enhancement2 N/A N/A $7051 Olympic Sub-basin Restoration 2,100 26% N/A3 Subtotal 8,060 99% Existing Water Resources Existing Local Groundwater (2023 projected costs) 7,330 $1,100 Imported Water from MWD (to maintain for emergency use, 2023 projected costs) 170 $1,248 Subtotal 7,500 TOTAL WATER RESOURCES (2023) 15,560 1Estimated year 1 cost when project is complete and includes savings from avoided imported water purchase cost 2Aracadia WTP upgrades to accommodate increase in production efficiency and Olympic Sub-basin Restoration 3Olympic Sub-basin Restoration will be paid for through settlement funds 25 of 40 •Olympic Sub-Basin Restoration •Recharge with SWIP •Production Efficiency and Capacity Expansion at Arcadia WTP •Separate Olympic Pipeline + New Treatment •CBI Tank •SWIP Well Acquisition to Enhance Resiliency Figure 6: Project Locations of Proposed SWMP Component Toward Self-Sufficiency 26 of 40 Figure 7: Synergy between Proposed Water Supply Components to Achieve Self-Sufficiency SWMP Cost Summary and Implementation Schedule A cost summary for the proposed SWMP components to achieve self -sufficiency by 2023 is provided in Table 5. The funding required to complete the capital projects increasing local water supplies and enhance water supply resiliency is $38 million. A Five-Year Rate Study (2020-2024) is currently underway and will present funding solutions to cover these costs. It is projected that the components of the proposed SWMP may be funded primarily through the issuance of water revenue bonds (approximately $34.75 million), with the debt service on the bonds incorporated into water rates, and from a contribution from the Wastewater Fund (approximately $3.25 million). Staff will return to Council in spring 2019 for a rate study session. An additional $64 million from existing water-contamination settlement funds would be used for restoring the Olympic Sub-basin, which would allow additional water production from 27 of 40 that sub-basin to support water self-sufficiency. The Olympic Sub-basin restoration cost includes an approximate, one-time $20 million capital expenditure for treatment systems and 30 years of ongoing operation and maintenance for an additional $20 million. Based on current modeling projections by ICF, over 80% of the Olympic Sub-basin will be remediated within the first 30 years; however, the Sub -basin may not be completely restored. Thus, the remaining balance in the settlement fund ($24 million) should be reserved to address any contamination that may still be present after 30 years or any new regulations that may impact use of the Olympic Sub-basin. A more detailed discussion on recommended budget appropriations is provided below. Table 5: SWMP Cost Summary for Proposed Components to Achieve Self-Sufficiency Unfunded Projects Additional Cost Arcadia WTP: Expand Capacity and Production Efficiency Enhancement $30M Additional Well and Improvements: Increase Resiliency and Ground Water Production $8M Olympic Sub-basin Restoration, Capital Improvements and 30 years of Operations and Maintenance $40M Olympic Sub-basin Restoration Reliability Reserve $24M Total: $102M Implementing the SWMP and reaching water self-sufficiency by 2023 entails numerous capital projects that are interrelated. An overview of the proposed implementation schedule is provided in Figure 8. Several well projects (SM-8, SM-9 and injection well) were approved by Council on July 11, 2017 and on June 12, 2018 and are on track to be completed by 2021 (Attachments E and F, respectively). A portion of the projects are in the City of Los Angeles and require installation of pipelines. Construction and permitting of pipelines in the City of Los Angeles will take time and was considered in the schedule. The design, construction, and permitting of improvements at the Arcadia WTP, including efficiency upgrades, are expected to be completed in 2023 if procurement starts in December 2018. A schedule contingency of approximately six months has been included to account for unforeseen conditions or new regulations that could impact the plan implementation. 28 of 40 Figure 8: Proposed Implementation Schedule to Achieve Self -Sufficiency by 2023 Alternatives to Water Self-Sufficiency The proposed SWMP components summarized above are a considerable investment towards the City’s future resiliency and achieving water self-sufficiency by 2023. In consideration of the capital investment and impacts to water rates, staff has also evaluated potential alternatives to reduce capital expenditures to potentially provide relief to potential water rate increases (to be confirmed in the Five-Year Rate Study for 2020-2024). A summary of potential alternatives that may reduce upfront capital investment compared to the proposed water self-sufficiency plan is provided in Table 6. The capital cost summarized in Table 6 for each alternative is the capital cost that needs to be funded and does not include the $64 million in settlement funds that will be used for the Olympic Sub-basin restoration. For all alternatives, it is assumed that the Olympic Sub-basin restoration will be implemented. A brief description on which component is implemented and its associated capital cost to be funded is provided. Staff also considered delaying self-sufficiency goal to beyond 2023 and delaying capital expenditures to ease rate increase over the next five years. However, delaying implementation may result in increasing overall project cost due to inflation and negate 29 of 40 any potential up front capital savings. The alternatives summarized in Table 6 only consider reduction in upfront capital cost and do not include projected increase of imported water purchase from MWD (estimated to be at 5% annual increase), which will ultimately be more expensive than locally produced water. Table 6: Summary of Alternatives Considered for Self-Sufficiency Alt. No. Alternatives Description Capital Cost3 Locally Sourced Water + Conservation Imported Water Purchase from MWD Staff Recommended Plan 99% water self- sufficiency1 Component 1 - Conservation Component 2 - Alternative Water Supplies Component 3 - New Local Groundwater $38M 11,730 AFY (Existing Arcadia WTP + Olympic) 3,100 AFY (Conservation) 560 AFY (Recycled Water)2 170 AFY 1 87% water self- sufficiency1 Implement only SWIP and Olympic Sub-Basin Restoration. Acquire new well to enhance resiliency at Arcadia WTP. No expansion and production efficiency enhancements at Arcadia WTP $8M 9,900 AFY (Existing Arcadia WTP + Olympic) 3,100 AFY (Conservation) 560 AFY (Recycled Water)2 2,000 AFY 2 90% water self- sufficiency1 Implement SWIP, Olympic restoration, and expansion at Arcadia WTP. No production efficiency enhancements at Arcadia WTP. Results in loss and negative impact to treatment resiliency. $21M 10,500 AFY (Existing Arcadia WTP + Olympic) 3,100 AFY (Conservation) 560 AFY (Recycled Water)2 1,400 AFY 3 94% water self- sufficiency1 Implement SWIP, Olympic Restoration, expansion $30M 10,900 AFY (Arcadia WTP + Olympic) 3,100 AFY 1,000 AFY 30 of 40 and production efficiency upgrades at Arcadia WTP. Do not acquire a new well to enhance resiliency. (Conservation) 560 AFY (Recycled Water)2 1Percentages are based on year 2023 projected demand. 2560AFY of recycled water to be available in 2023, but actual usage of full capacity may not be until 2040. 3Excluding Olympic Sub-Basin restoration cost, which is funded through settlement funds and SWIP capital costs as it is already funded through a low interest loan from the State of California. The alternatives evaluated by staff are simply presented as scenarios to reduce capital expenditures over the next five years but does not provide a complete solution to achieve the City’s water self-sufficiency goal. Funding Recommendations to Achieve Water Self-Sufficiency A financial analysis for the plan outlined in this report to achieve water self-sufficiency was conducted by staff. The financial analysis includes comparing the future cost of imported water to the projected cost of locally produced water over a 30 -year period. This analysis excluded the Olympic Sub-basin restoration costs, as the recommended funding source would be from groundwater settlement funds received by the City from outside sources to cover the costs for remediating the contaminants in that sub -basin. In summary, locally produced water from the recommended SWMP components outlined in this report is projected to cost between $400/AFY to $1,100/AFY, which is less than the expected cost to purchase imported water from the MWD at $1248/AFY in 2023. Please refer to Table 5, presented previously, for a detailed breakdown on the cost per acre-foot for each local water supply component. A comparison of the projected cost differential between the purchase of imported water from the MWD and production of locally produced water is provided in Table 7. With locally produced water cheaper than imported water costs, the components outlined in the SWMP to achieve water self - sufficiency by 2023 are a positive investment toward the future of the City. Ratepayers will benefit from the implementation of these projects, thus keeping local water costs low compared to the ongoing cost increases for imported water. Not only does the proposed SWMP provide a sustainable and drought resilient water supply for the City, it would also benefit the ratepayers with greater control over future water rates compared with 31 of 40 imported water rates that are projected to increase at a higher rate and are outside the City’s control. Table 7: Future Estimated Imported Water Cost (increased at 5%) Compared to Projected Locally Produced Water Cost. Assuming Efficiency (CCRO) technology is installed and 2,800AFY is produced. As noted previously, staff recommends a combination of bonding and use of settlement funds to fund the capital projects supporting water self-sufficiency and the Olympic Sub- basin restoration. Water Revenue Bond: A rate study is currently being conducted through October 2019 to set water and wastewater rates for calendar years 2020 to 2024. The rate study will address options to support the costs of this plan. A possible funding solution, to be confirmed in the rate study, is the issuing of a 30-year water revenue bond totaling approximately $34.75 million to increase local water supplies and enhance resiliency as outlined in the SWMP. The remaining $3.25 million would be contributed from the Wastewater Fund due to joint property use. The $34.75 million in bonds would cover new well acquisition, treatment capacity expansion and implementation of new 32 of 40 technologies to enhance production efficiency at the Arcadia WTP, and other supporting infrastructure upgrades. The Water Fund would need to cover an annual payment of approximately $2.2 million over the next 30 years to fund the projects outlined in the SWMP. Assuming a bond is issued, Figure 9 illustrates projected annual savings from avoiding imported water purchases and estimated annual bond repayments. In year 2036, where the two lines cross, the City will start saving money for rate payers on an annual basis. This analysis assumes imported water cost from MWD will increase at an annual rate of 5%. The total money borrowed is estimated to be offset by cumulative savings in the year 2048. Figure 9: City’s Projected Annual Savings due to Local Water Production in lieu of Import Water Purchases, compared to the Payments (debt service) for a 30 Year Bond. Settlement Funds Usage - The current balance of Gillette/Boeing funds available to program is $64.1 million. This balance includes $11.1 million transferred and currently 33 of 40 available in the W ater Fund as authorized by Council on January 9, 2018 and $53.0 million in the General Fund. Staff recommends transferring $53.0 million from the General Fund to the Water Fund to be used to restore the Olympic Sub -basin. Additionally, to satisfy the settlement agreement, Boeing still owes the City three payments totaling $11.0 million. Staff recommends depositing these funds directly into the Water Fund. Approximately $20 million would be used to construct a new treatment facility to remove the contaminants currently present in the sub-basin and $20 million would be reserved for operation and maintenance costs of the treatment facility related to restoration of the Olympic Sub-basin over a 30-year period. Due to uncertainty with the Olympic Sub - basin restoration after 30 years, staff recommends setting aside the remaining $24 million of Gillette/Boeing funds as a reliability reserve. The remaining $11.0 million that has been previously transferred to the Water Fund, is currently being used for groundwater modeling, monitoring, and reporting in support of Olympic Sub-basin remediation. With the proposed injection of advanced purified water from the SWIP into the Olympic Sub-basin, staff will revisit this timeframe and report back to Council in the future o nce recharge operation begins. Grants - Staff will identify and apply for state and/or federal grants to help offset the $38 million capital investment and return to Council in early 2019 with resolutions required for grant applications if available for the proposed projects. Staff has engaged a grant consultant to assist in the process. Grants being considered are: MWD, Local Resources Program California Department of Water Resources, Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 (Proposition 1). Previously Authorized Water Rate Increase 34 of 40 On February 24, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 10867 (CCS) to authorize water rate increases over a five-year period, beginning March 1, 2015. The five-year water increase schedule was adopted after Council’s consideration of a rate study conducted by Kennedy Jenks Consultants. Resolution Number 10867 (CCS) also contained a provision, giving Council flexibility to approve a suspension of each annual increase, in whole or part, beginning with the 9% scheduled increase for January 1, 2016. This resolution was adopted without a majority protest, following a noticed public hearing in accordance with Proposition 218. Since adoption of this resolution, Council has partially suspended the full increases authorized for 2016-2018, and instead approved 5% increases for each of those years due to: Actual water sales revenues exceeded expectations during 2015 to 2017. Actual operating and capital expenditures lower than expected. Resu lting savings were applied to conservation programs, water main replacements and partially suspending planned 9% annual rate increases to more modest 5% increases. State of the Water Fund and Forthcoming 2019 Rate Adjustment Justification Staff will return to Council on January 8, 2019 for a public hearing and to obtain authorization for the full 9% water rate increase previously approved by Council on February 24, 2015 for calendar year 2019. If approved this would result in a monthly increase of $4.33 to average single-family customer. This is the final year of a five-year rate adjustment cycle approved via resolution as mentioned above. A summary of rate increases from 2015 is provided in Table 8. Table 8: Rate Increase History Calendar Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Effective Date March 1, 2015 January 1, 2016 January 1, 2017 January 1, 2018 January 1, 2019 Maximum Authorized Increase 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 35 of 40 Actual Increase* 9% 5% 5% 5% 9%** Date Actual Increase Authorized February 24, 2015 February 23, 2016 November 22, 2016 January 9, 2018 **public hearing on January 8, 2019 The full implementation of the 9% previously authorized adjustment would be sufficient to allow the City to: A) Deliver potable water to Santa Monica customers reliably, safely and sustainably in compliance with federal and state regulations. B) Fund operating and capital budgets that are necessary to implement the City's self-sufficiency goals to encourage water conservation and sustainability, as contemplated in the City's 2014 water rate analysis. C) Continue to implement infrastructure improvements associated with replacing aging existing infrastructure facilities comprised of water mainlines that are approaching the end of their useful lives. The 9% rate increase would provide sufficient funding to complete the following capital projects as contemplated in the City's 2014 water rate analysis and to continue progress toward the City’s water self-sufficiency goal: 1. Additional capacity improvements, which include Preliminary Design for the Arcadia Treatment Capacity Expansion and Enhancement Project - $3.18 million in FY 2018-19. As noted in the prior section, the design would upgrade pumps, blowers, cartridge filters, and other equipment at the treatment plant to accommodate increased groundwater production and new technologies. The design would also incorporate a new process (CCRO) to increase overall plant efficiency to 90% or greater (as discussed previously under component 2 - alternative water supplies. 2. New Groundwater Resiliency Well - $6,825,000 in FY 2018-19 for acquisition of a new groundwater well to enhance resiliency. Also limit future exposure to imported water. 3. Water Main Replacement Cost Escalation - an increase of $2,000,000 starting in FY 19-20. The rate increase is necessary to fund the sharp increase observed in 36 of 40 water main replacement construction costs. Water main contract awards in 2017 and 2018 have returned bids of $600 to $700 per linear foot in the current high - cost construction environment. These costs have increased from a prior $400 per linear foot estimate. The budget was established at $4 million per year. However, staff is now estimating a need of $6 million per year to implement the recommended 100-year water main replacement cycle (2 miles replaced per year for the City’s 205-mile water main system. Maintaining a $4 million per year budget would only yield replacement of 1.1 to 1.25 miles of pipeline per year, thus increasing the replacement cycle from 100 years to approximately 160 to 190 years. Staff recommends staying on a 100-year replacement cycle to maintain operational reliably. Council approval of the full 9% rate increase would also help fund the following ongoing operational expenditures: 1) Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California - $5 million per year from FY 2020-21 to FY 2022-23 (additional $8.7 million) to ensure sufficient funding for imported water deliveries prior to achieving water self -sufficiency. 2) City Yards Master Plan - Required contribution from the Water Fund for upgrades to City Yards - $4 million modeled, actual costs to be determined. As noted above, staff will return to Council on January 8, 2019 with a recommendation that Council adopt the full 9% rate increase for calendar year 2019 as previously authorized in 2015. The staff report will include a detailed justification for the 9% rate increase as well as a 10-year fund forecast, cost comparison with other water agencies and an analysis of impacts to ratepayers. Funding Summary Table 9 provides a summary of funding recommendations to implement the SWMP. As noted above, staff also recommends that Council approve funding for three Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects, which would commence in FY 2018 -19: 37 of 40 Arcadia Capacity Expansion and Enhancement Project, Preliminary Design ($3,180,000) New Groundwater Resiliency Well ($6,825,000) Olympic Wellfield Restoration Design ($1,800,000). Table 9: Funding Summary Settlement Funds Available for current remediation and O&M for next 30 years Settlement Funds Available for Future Reserve (Olympic sub- basin Restoration) Water Bond Amount (pending ongoing rate study) Est. Annual Bond Payment (30 yrs): $40 million $24 million $34.75 million $2.2 million Task Force on the Environment and Water Advisory Committee Actions Findings of the Sustainable Yield Analysis, Sustainable Water Master Plan Update and proposed projects, cost and schedules were presented to the Task Force on the Environment on March 19, June 18, and October 15 and to the Task Force on the Environment Water Subcommittee on November 19, 2018. Similar updates were presented to the Water Advisory Committee on March 5, May 7, June 4, September 5 and November 5, 2018. Rate Adjustment recommendations were presented to the Water Advisory Committee on November 5, 2018 and at a Task Force on the Environment Water Subcommittee on November 19, 2018. The Water Subcommittee strongly supports the Sustainable Water Master Plan Update and staff’s recommendations. Financial Impacts and Budget Actions Approval of the recommended action requires the following: 1. Appropriations to the FY 2018-19 Capital Improvement Program in the Water Fund: 38 of 40 Account Number Amount C5007740.689000 - Arcadia Capacity Expansion and Enhancement Project, Preliminary Design $3,180,000 C5007750.689000 - Olympic Wellfield Restoration Design $1,800,000 C5007760.689000 - New Groundwater Resiliency Well $3,575,000 Total $8,555,000 2. An appropriation to the FY 2018-19 Capital Improvement Program in the Wastewater Fund C5107760.689000 - New Groundwater Resiliency Well, Property Joint Use. $3,250,000 Total $3,250,000 3. $53 million cash transfer of Gillette/Boeing settlement funds from the General Fund to the Water Fund and the corresponding release of the remaining fund balance in General Fund account 1.380237. The cash will be recorded in an interest earning restricted cash account in the Water Fund, Olympic Wellfield Remediation account 50.102442. 4. Transfer of two remediation capital projects, appropriated in previous fiscal years and funded with Gillette/Boeing funds, from the General Fund to the Water Fund to consolidate all budgeted Olympic restoration projects in the Water Fund. General Fund Account Number Proposed Water Fund Account Amount C019045.589000 Olympic Sub-basin Remediation C5005880.689000 $1,909,732 C019067.589000 Olympic Sub-basin Well Hydrology C5006050.689000 $1,946,407 5. The following budget items related to Gillette/Boeing water mediation settlement funds were previously taken by Council: 39 of 40 On January 9, 2018, Council authorized staff to make an $11,100,000 transfer of Gillette/Boeing settlement funds from the General Fund to the Water Fund for ongoing and future remediation costs associated with polluted groundwater in the Olympic Wellfield (Attachment B). Staff transferred these funds to account 25695.570080 in FY 2017 -18. On June 12, 2018, Council approved a FY 2018 -19 transfer of $2,300,000 of Gillette/Boeing water mediation settlement funds from the General Fund to the Water Fund (Attachment F). This transfer was to fund the projects for the Olympic Wellfield remediation appropriated in the FY 2018-19 Capital Improvement Program. Account Number Amount C5007460.689410 City / USGS Monitoring Well & Numerical Flow Model $1,800,000 C5007260.689410 Redrill Santa Monica Well #3 $500,000 Total $2,300,000 6. Future Gillette/Boeing settlement funds are to be deposited in the Water Fund, and a corresponding receivable shall be established. The liability associated with current and future pollution remediation utilizing Gillette/Boeing funds will be recorded in the Water Fund. Prepared By: Alex Nazarchuk, Interim Water Resources Manager Approved Forwarded to Council Attachments: A. October 28, 2014 Staff Report (Web Link) B. January 9, 2018 Staff Report C. Summary of Water Self-Sufficiency Scenarios to Expand Groundwater Production 40 of 40 D. Updated Preliminary Sustainable Yield Analysis E. July 11, 2017 Staff Report (Web Link) F. June 12, 2018 Staff Report (Web Link) CITY OF SANTA MONICA OAKS INITIATIVE DISCLOSURE FORM In order to facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Oaks Initiative, the City compiles and maintains certain information. That information includes the name of any person or persons who is seeking a “public benefit.” If the “public benefit” is sought by an entity, rather than an individual person, the information includes the name of every person who is: (a) trustee, (b) director, (c) partner, (d) officer, or has (e) more than a ten percent interest in the entity. Public benefits include: 1. Personal services contracts in excess of $25,000 over any 12-month period; 2. Sale of material, equipment or supplies to the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12- month period; 3. Purchase, sale or lease of real property to or from the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12- month period; 4. Non-competitive franchise awards with gross revenue of $50,000 or more in any 12-month period; 5. Land use variance, special use permit, or other exception to an established land use plan, where the decision has a value in excess of $25,000; 6. Tax “abatement, exception, or benefit” of a value in excess of $5,000 in any 12- month period; or 7. Payment of “cash or specie” of a net value to the recipient of $10,000 in any 12- month period. Name(s) of persons or entities receiving public benefit: Name(s) of trustees, directors, partners, and officers: Name(s) of persons with more than a 10% equity, participation, or revenue interest: Prepared by: ____________________________Title: __________________________ Signature: ______________________________________ Date: ________________ Email: ____________________________________ Phone: ____________________ FOR CITY USE ONLY: Bid/PO/Contract # ____________________________ Permit # ___________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Kari D. Shively Vice President August 6, 2019 kari.shively@stantec.com 916-418-8405 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Please see the attached. N/A NAME OFFICE (POSITION HELD) BUSINESS ADDRESS DIRECTORS Scott L. Murray Executive Vice President & COO 3052 Beaumont Centre Circle, Lexington KY 40513 - 1703 Jeffrey P. Stone Senior Counsel & Assistant Secretary 61 Commercial Street, Suite 100, Rochester NY 14614-1009 OFFICERS Gord Johnston President 200, 325 – 25 Street SE, Calgary AB T2A 7H8 Scott L. Murray Executive Vice President & COO 3052 Beaumont Centre Circle, Lexington KY 40513 - 1703 Valentino DiManno Executive Vice President & CBO 200, 325 - 25th Street SE, Calgary AB T2A 7H8 Steve M. Fleck Executive Vice President & CPPO 1100, 111 Dunsmuir Street, Vancouver BC V6B 6A3 Leonard Castro Executive Vice President 200, 325 - 25th Street SE, Calgary AB T2A 7H8 Marshall W. Davert, Jr. Executive Vice President 370 Interlocken Boulevard, Suite 300, Broomfield CO 80021-8012 Michael A. Kennedy Executive Vice President 6900 Professional Parkway East, Sarasota FL 34240-8414 Daniel J. Lefaivre Executive Vice President 400-10220 103 Avenue NW, Edmonton AB T5J 0K4 Stuart E. Lerner Executive Vice President 475 Fifth Avenue, 12th Floor, New York NY 10017-7239 Kirk M. Morrison Executive Vice President 200, 37 Quarry Park Blvd SE, Calgary AB T2C 5H9 Eric Nielsen Executive Vice President 38 Technology Drive, Suite 100, Irvine CA 92618-5312 Catherine Schefer Senior Vice President Temple Court, Birchwood, Warrington WA3 6GD UK Robert Seager Senior Vice President 600, 805 – 8th Avenue SW, Calgary AB T2P 1H7 Stanis I.R. Smith Executive Vice President 1100, 111 Dunsmuir Street, Vancouver BC V6B 6A3 Russ Wlad Executive Vice President 1100, 4900 - 50 Street, Red Deer AB T4N 1X7 Brian Larson Senior Vice President & CEO - Engineering 111 Grant Ave, Suite 201, Endicott NY 13760 Chris McDonald Senior Vice President & CIO 400-10220 103 Avenue NW, Edmonton AB T5J 0K4 John Adams Senior Vice President 130 Somerset Street, Saint John NB E2K 2X4 Paul J.D. Alpern Senior Vice President 400-10220 103 Avenue NW, Edmonton AB T5J 0K4 Richard Andrachek Senior Vice President 1340 Treat Boulevard, Walnut Creek 94597-7966 Donald W. Armour, Jr. Senior Vice President 1500 Lake Shore Drive, Suite 100, Columbus OH 43204-3800 Jamie Bagan Senior Vice President 400-10220 103 Avenue NW, Edmonton AB T5J 0K4 Donal J. Bassett Senior Vice President 300 North Lake Avenue, Suite 400, Pasadena CA 91101-4169 David R. Bernier Senior Vice President 5 Dartmouth Drive Suite 101, Auburn NH 03032-3984 Clayton A. Bock Senior Vice President 350 North Orleans Street, Suite 1301, Chicago IL 60654-1983 Patrick G. Corser Senior Vice President 370 Interlocken Boulevard, Suite 300, Broomfield CO 80021-8012 Paul J. DeKeyser Senior Vice President 11320 Random Hills Road, Suite 240, Fairfax VA 22030-7478 Nigel Denby Senior Vice President 500-4730 Kingsway, Burnaby BC V5H 0C6 David J. Emery Senior Vice President 200-835 Paramount Drive, Stoney Crrek ON L8J 0B4 Mario Finis Senior Vice President 370 Interlocken Boulevard, Suite 300, Broomfield CO 80021-8012 Reno Fioraonte Senior Vice President 13401 - 108 Avenue, 10th Floor, Surrey BC V3T 5T3 Joseph Geller Senior Vice President 226 Causeway Street, 6th Floor, Boston, MA 02114-2155 Anton Germishuizen Senior Vice President 1500 Spring Garden, Suite 1100, Philadelphia PA 19130 James Grasty Senior Vice President 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 650, Sacrmento CA 95814-4583 Jeffrey Green Senior Vice President 500-4730 Kingsway, Burnaby BC V5H 0C6 John J. Hanula Senior Vice President 300 North Lake Avenue, Suite 400, Pasadena CA 91101-4169 David Haywood Senior Vice President 2600 South Douglas Road, Suite 600, Coral Gables FL 33134-6100 Fay (Skip) L. Holland Senior Vice President 370 Interlocken Boulevard, Suite 300, Broomfield CO 80021-8012 David Irvine Senior Vice President 580 Westlake Park Boulevard, Suite 1000, Houston TX 77079-2662 Isabelle Jodoin Senior Vice President 1060, rue University, Bureau 600, Montreal QC V5C 6A8 Dave Lamontagne Senior Vice President 1500 Spring Garden, Suite 1100, Philadelphia PA 19130 Maurice Leger Senior Vice President 400, 1331 Clyde Avenue, Ottawa ON K2C 3G4 Jon Lessard Senior Vice President 20 East Greenway Plaza, Suite 200, Houston TX 77046-2012 James E. Lindell Senior Vice President 3010 West Charleston Boulevard, Suite 100, Las Vegas NV 891021969 Lui Mancinelli Senior Vice President 100, 401 Wellington Street, Toronto ON M5V 1E7 John S. Montgomery Senior Vice President 3052 Beaumont Centre Circle, Lexington KY 40513 - 1703 Bjorn Morisbak Senior Vice President 400-10220 103 Avenue NW, Edmonton AB T5J 0K4 Janet L. Mulligan Senior Vice President 400-10220 103 Avenue NW, Edmonton AB T5J 0K4 Robert Mullins Senior Vice President 1509 Timberwood Circle, Suite 100, Louisville KY 40223-5301 Michael Newbery Senior Vice President 350 North Orleans Street, Suite 1301, Chicago IL 60654-1983 James (Jim) R. Obermeyer Senior Vice President 1560 Broadway, Suite 1800, Denver CO 80202-6000 Eric Overton Senior Vice President 400 Fairview Avenue, North, Suite 620, Seattle, WA 98109-5371 Simon O'Byrne Senior Vice President 400-10220 103 Avenue NW, Edmonton AB T5J 0K4 Dean Palumbo Senior Vice President 38 Technology Drive, Suite 100, Irvine CA 92618-5312 Philip R. Perciavalle Senior Vice President 38 Technology Drive, Suite 100, Irvine CA 92618-5312 Stephen W. K. Phillips Senior Vice President 100-401 Wellington Street West, Toronto ON M5V 1E7 Richard E. Pineo Senior Vice President 400-10220 103 Avenue NW, Edmonton AB T5J 0K4 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. DIRECTORS & OFFICERS as of January 31, 2019 NAME OFFICE (POSITION HELD) BUSINESS ADDRESS Ward Prystay Senior Vice President 500-4730 Kingsway, Burnaby BC V5H 0C6 Ryan Roberts Senior Vice President 200-325 25th Street SE, Calgary AB T2A 7H8 Peter Salusbury Senior Vice President 1100, 111 Dunsmuir Street, Vancouver BC V6B 6A3 Asifa Samji Senior Vice President 1100, 111 Dunsmuir Street, Vancouver BC V6B 6A3 Rodney Schebesch Senior Vice President 200-325 25th Street SE, Calgary AB T2A 7H8 Chander K. Sehgal Senior Vice President 350 North Orleans Street, Suite 1301, Chicago IL 60654-1983 Constantino Senon Senior Vice President 285 Summer Street, Suite 200, Boston MA 02210-1518 William F. Shelley Senior Vice President 482 Payne Road, Scarborough Court, Scarborough ME 04074-8929 Keith Shillington Senior Vice President 400-10220 103 Avenue NW, Edmonton AB T5J 0K4 Emree Siaroff Senior Vice President 401 Wellington Street, Suite 100, Toronto ON M5V 1E7 Robert A. Simm Senior Vice President 8211 South 48th Street, Phoenix AZ 85044 David Smith Senior Vice President Temple Court, Birchwood, Warrington United Kingdom WA3 6GD Donald J. Spiegel Senior Vice President 3301 C Street, Suite 1900, Sacramento CA 95816-3394 Scott Storlid Senior Vice President 209 Commerce Parkway, Cottage Grove WI 53527 John Take Senior Vice President 5151 E Broadway Blvd, Suite 400, Tucson AZ 85711-3712 Glenn S. Tarbox Senior Vice President 2353 130th Avenue NE Suite 200, Bellevue WA 98005-1759 Jonathan R. Treen Senior Vice President 1438 West Broadway Road, Suite 101, Tempe, AZ 85282-1173 Susan Walter Senior Vice President 475 Fifth Avenue, 12th Floor, New York NY 10017-7239 Mike Watson Senior Vice President 3301 C Street, Suite 1900, Sacramento CA 95816-3394 Frank Aceto Vice President 1060 Andrew Drive, Suite 140, West Chester PA 19380 Nick Bokaie Vice President 500 Jefferson Street, Suite 1670, Houston TX 77002-7300 Donald Del Nero Vice President 3160 Main Street, Suite 100, Duluth GA 30096-3262 Troy Peoples Vice President 801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300, Raleigh NC 27606 Michael Reagan Vice President 3700 Park East Drive, Suite 200, Cleveland OH 44122 Alfonso Rodriguez Vice President 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 650, Sacrmento CA 95814-4583 Jeffrey P. Stone Vice President 61 Commercial Street, Suite 100, Rochester NY 14614-1009 Chris Young Vice President 1000 North Central Expressway, Suite 1140, Dallas TX 75231-2357 Keith Morrow Senior Principal 5801 Pelican Bay Blvd., Suite 300, Naples FL 34108-2709 Robert R. Cunningham Principal 6900 Professional Parkway East, Sarasota FL 34240-8414 Jason Schneider Associate 6800 College Boulevard, Suite 750, Overland Park, KS 66211-1855 Jerome Means Associate & CEO - Surveying 61 Commercial Street Suite 100 Rochester NY 14614-1009 Robert J. Sands Manager 1500 Lake Shore Drive, Suite 100, Columbus OH 43204-3800 Linda Brown Right of Way Officer 3717 - 23 Street South, Saint Cloud MN 56301-5094 Geraldine V. Webb Right of Way Officer 1011 Boulder Springs Drive, Suite 225, Richmond VA 23225 - 4951 David Archer Corporate Counsel 61 Commercial Street, Suite 100, Rochester NY 14614-1009 Donald Blackwell Corporate Counsel 370 Interlocken Boulevard, Suite 300, Broomfield CO 80021-8012 William A. Butler Corporate Counsel 11130 NE 33rd Place, Suite 200, Bellevue WA 98004-1465 Mike Cavanaugh Corporate Counsel 370 Interlocken Boulevard, Suite 300, Broomfield CO 80021-8012 Thomas Curran, Jr. Corporate Counsel 61 Commercial Street, Suite 100, Rochester NY 14614-1009 William J. Edwards Corporate Counsel 5 Dartmouth Drive Suite 101, Auburn NH 03032-3984 Cate Hite Corporate Counsel 2890 East Cottonwood Parkway, Suite 300, Salt Lake City UT 84121-7283 Katharine LaFrance Corporate Counsel 400-10220 103 Avenue NW, Edmonton AB T5J 0K4 Christy J. Leonard Corporate Counsel 2000 South Colorado Blvd, Suite 2-300, Denver CO 80222 Amy Oygen Corporate Counsel 400-10220 103 Avenue NW, Edmonton AB T5J 0K4 Marissa Johnson Prakash Corporate Counsel 370 Interlocken Boulevard, Suite 300, Broomfield CO 80021-8012 Robert Ray Corporate Counsel 400 Morgan Center, 101 East Diamond Street, Butler PA 16001 Corey Sanchez Corporate Counsel 370 Interlocken Boulevard, Suite 300, Broomfield CO 80021-8012 Matthew Storey Corporate Counsel 400-10220 103 Avenue NW, Edmonton AB T5J 0K4 John Wood Corporate Counsel 370 Interlocken Boulevard, Suite 300, Broomfield CO 80021-8012 Chirstopher O.Heisler Secretary 400-10220 103 Avenue NW, Edmonton AB T5J 0K4 Jeffrey P. Stone Assistant Secretary 61 Commercial Street, Suite 100, Rochester NY 14614-1009 Theresa Jang Treasurer 400-10220 103 Avenue NW, Edmonton AB T5J 0K4 1 City Council Meeting: September 10, 2019 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER (CCS) (City Council Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO APPLY FOR ADDITIONAL CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD LOAN FUNDING, NEGOTIATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING LOAN FUNDING AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the California Water Action Plan and the City of Santa Monica's Sustainable Water Master Plan recognize that drought resiliency and a sustainable and secure water future must include the reuse of all locally available water resources, including traditionally non-potable sources such as municipal wastewater, brackish/saline groundwater, and urban and storm water runoff; and WHEREAS, the City has established among its sustainability goals the objective of reaching water self -sufficiency by the year 2023, concurrent with addressing the water conservation requirements made necessary by the current drought; and WHEREAS, the City seeks funding to construct certain public facilities and improvements relating to its water and wastewater system as part of the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP), including certain treatment facilities, pipelines, and other infrastructure; and 2 WHEREAS, the City obtained grant funding in the amount of $56.9 million provided by the State of California acting by and through the California State Water Resources Control Board to fund a portion of the SWIP project; and WHEREAS, due to construction cost escalation and other factors, the construction budget for the SWIP has significantly increased from $69.9 million to $95.9 million; and WHEREAS, the City desires to seek additional loan funds from California State Water Resources Control Board in the amount of $19 million to fill the construction budget gap for the SWIP; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Manager or his designee is authorized to apply for additional funding from the California State Water Resources Board in the amount of $19 million to increase the loan amount from $56.9 million to $75.9 million from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, Proposition 1 funding programs, and for other funds that may be identified for the City's Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project. The City Manager or his designee is also authorized to negotiate with the State Water Resources Board in connection with the funding application and terms of the 3 proposed financial assistance, if any, and meet established deadlines by the State Water Resources Board in connection with the funding application. SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and henceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________ LANE DILG City Attorney 1 City Council Meeting: September 10, 2019 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER(CCS) (City Council Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA TO DEDICATE AND AND PLEDGE WASTEWATER FUND REVENUES TO PAYMENT OF ANY AND ALL CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND AND/OR WATER RECYCLING FUND PROGRAM FINANCING FOR THE SUSTAINABLE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT WHEREAS, the California Water Action Plan and the City of Santa Monica's Sustainable Water Master Plan recognize that drought resiliency and a sustainable and secure water future must include the reuse of all locally available water resources, including traditionally non-potable sources such as municipal wastewater, brackish/saline groundwater, and urban and storm water runoff; and WHEREAS, the City has established among its sustainability goals the objective of reaching water self -sufficiency by the year 2023, concurrent with addressing the water conservation requirements made necessary by the current drought; and WHEREAS, the City seeks funding to construct certain public facilities and improvements relating to its water and wastewater system as part of the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP), including certain treatment facilities, pipelines, and other infrastructure; and 2 WHEREAS, the City obtained grant funding in the amount of $56.9 million provided by the State of California acting by and through the California State Water Resources Control Board to fund a portion of the SWIP project; and WHEREAS, due to construction cost escalation and other factors, the construction budget for the SWIP has significantly increased from $69.9 million to $95.9 million; and WHEREAS, the City desires to seek additional loan funds from California State Water Resources Control Board in the amount of $19 million to fill the construction budget gap for the SWIP; and WHEREAS, the State Water Resources Board requires the City to dedicate and pledge revenues to payment of any and all Clean Water State Revolving Fund and/or Water Recycling Funding; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. City hereby dedicates and pledges the Wastewater Fund (Fund 51) to payment of any and all Clean Water State Revolving Fund and/or Water Recycling Fund Program financing for the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP). The City commits to collecting such revenues and maintaining such fund(s) throughout the term of such financing and until the City has satisfied its repayment obligation thereunder unless modification or change is approved in writing by the State Water Resources Control Board. So long as the financing agreement(s) are outstanding, the City’s pledge hereunder shall constitute a lien in favor of the State Water Resources Control Board on the foregoing fund(s) and revenue(s) without any 3 further action necessary. So long as the financing agreement(s) are outstanding, City commits to maintaining the fund(s) and revenue(s) at levels sufficient to meet its obligations under the financing agreement(s). SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and henceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________ LANE DILG City Attorney 1 Vernice Hankins From:Ann Maggio <annmaggio@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 10, 2019 12:00 PM To:councilmtgitems; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Sue Himmelrich; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis Cc:Lane Dilg Subject:Agenda Item 8A for Sept 10 City Council Meeting - REMOVE ITEM FROM AGENDA Sept. 10, 2019 RE: Agenda Item 8A -Approval of the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) Design/Build Contract Guaranteed Maximum Price Amendment Dear City Council and Mayor Davis, We oppose moving forward with this Item this evening. The last substantive information provided to the publicregarding the scope of the SWIP was included as text and appears as Attachment b. - Addendum to MND- SWIP October 2018 - on tonight's Agenda Item 8A, the item before you tonight. This Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the SWIP you agreed to describes the relocation of a 3.0MG tank from Memorial Park the the Civic Lot and this is what the public is currently being led to believe is what's being built at the Civic Lot. This is what we are being led to believe we are paying for. This is not a true picture. Last night several City Staff members attended the Northeast Neighbors meeting to present the City's Water Sustainability Plan and the SWIP. During the question and answer phase of the meeting Rick Valente, when questioned, informed a room full of residents that costs for the SWIP had increased significantly and as a result a decision had been made in July/Aug that the 3.0MG tank would no longer be a part of this project. He informed us that this significant material change in the project is part of what would be presented at tonight's City Council meeting. We do not believe council should be hearing this item tonight in light of the fact that the public was not made aware of this huge material change that eliminates nearly half the scope of the project. We request diagrams and transparent documentation in the form of City Staff reports in order to provide us with the tools for informed public participation. The public has a right to know exactly what we are getting for our $95 million dollars! We must be provided with documents that explain how much we're paying this contractor, what the scope of the project is and what the project actually looks like. Where are the scaled diagrams? This is a Design/Build project allocating an enormous sum of tax payer money in the form of increased water rates, etc. yet the project itself remains completely invisible from public view! What exactly are we getting here? This is a 30% price increase for a project that may have eliminated one of the largest components and what the City has submitted to the CCC doesn’t match and includes a further study and full transparency. It only has a lifespan of 50 years but it’s supposed to pay for itself in 35 years. However, if we are downsizing and only building half the project, do we actually have the capacity to generate the offset Staff has projected. Additionally, although a hearing for the SWIP's Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is taking place this Thursday in Newport Beach, the Staff report fails to even mention it. Plus, the CDP application Item 8-A 09/10/19 1 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 2 and public documents attached for public review and the comment period that ended last Friday say nothing about the elimination of the 3.0 MG tank from the project. The 3.0MG tank is included in the diagrams and accounted for in the projections for water output that is supposed to help Santa Monica achieve water self sufficiency. Why is the City misrepresenting the project to the public and why are they providing false documents to the California Coastal Commission for a CDP when there is no plan to move ahead as stated? Public Requests 1. We request Council remove Item 8A Approval of the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) Design/Build Contract Guaranteed Maximum Price Amendment from tonight’s Agenda and direct staff to return with transparent information to inform the public on the scope, design, and costs of the SWIP at the Civic. Additionally, we request Council direct staff to reschedule the SWIP Coastal Commission’s hearing for a CDP until they deliver concrete diagrams and information for a proper review and analysis so the public can comment on the actual project and not just some hypothetical version of it. [Contractor Images provided as a part of the CDP for public comment] OR 2. If Council ignores our request to remove this item and decides to move ahead and direct staff to continue building the 3.0 MG tank as a part of this plan, we request that you direct staff conduct robust soil testing in the actual area of the project using CEQA guidlines and should the soil exceed the acceptable standards for pollutants, that the City cease moving forward until proper pubilc notice is delivered as per CEQA and standard CEQA process is utilized. We also request that you direct staff to clarify, in writing, any miscommunications Staff may have made to the public during their presentation last night and make that statement immediately available to the public and to the California Coastal Commission. Background When Council approved the relocation of this tank from it's original site at Memorial Park on November 27, 2018 you also agreed to increase the size of the project to over ONE ACRE. This triggers the need for an EIR because the neither of the two MND's that you've approved for the SWIP at Civic addressed a project of this magnitude. Both the SWIP Final EIR and the Addenmdum to it remain direct opposition to the 2005 EIR in the CCSP which cites serious concerns to sensative receptors. You chose to ignore us when we documented this information in our public comments to on November 27th, (comment sent separately.) If you proceed in a direction to retain the 3.0MG tank as a part of the SWIP sighted for the Civic Lot, your primary duty is to protect the health and safety of residents and the environment. Will you move forward without discussing this potentially risky health issue that could endanger thousands and alter the fragile health of our coastal environment? Is agreeing to the staff report that asks for ammending this non-transparent Design-Build Agreement, (No. 10736) that also requires an application for an additional $19 million dollar loan from the State appropriate? Timeline Documenting Scope Approval Sept. 27, 2016 - City Council adopted resolution 10992 CCS], the initial SWIP Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) -see agenda Item 11 - “Resolutions.” The meeting minutes reflect a question asked of staff about what happened to the Environmental Protection Agency’s grant that was received. At that time, documents attached to agenda item informed the council that the SWIP ELEMENTS 2 and 3 - then planned as SWIP Tank #1 (3.0MG Memorial Park) which was one of 2 Item 8-A 09/10/19 2 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 3 pieces of ELEMENT 3, SWIP Tank #2 (1.5 MG Civic Lot) which was the other of the 2 pieces of ELEMENT 3 plus ELEMENT 2, (Treatment Facility Civic Lot) would total more than one acre. One acre projects require an EIR, however City Council approved this MND becuase the projects were at separate locations.  Under Element 2, ground-disturbing activities will include an excavation area of approximately 150 feet by 120 feet, or 0.41 acre for the recycled water facility (assuming engineering shoring). Up to approximately 6,200 cubic yards of soil may need to be exported during construction of SWIP Element 2. Export activities will be limited to 10 to 12 truck trips per day for this element, and will be timed to avoid midday traffic. Excess soils designated non-hazardous will be staged for reuse at the existing City Maintenance Yard located at 2500 Michigan Avenue in Santa Monica. Soils requiring offsite disposal will be transported and disposed pursuant to applicable laws and regulations. [Page 7 of the 124 page Aug. 2016 IS/MND Mitigated Negative Declaration -attachment a. &page 7 Aug. 2016 Final MND - attachment b.]  Excavation associated with the Memorial Park Tank will encompass an area of approximately 23,260 square feet, or 0.53 acre (assuming a 172-foot-diameter circular and sloped excavation, including a 10-foot pre-stress leeway). To the extent feasible, excavated soils will be managed onsite. It is estimated that approximately 17,800 cubic yards of soil may be exported to the City Maintenance Yard located at 2500 Michigan Avenue for reuse, requiring a maximum of 20 to 25 truck trips per day, which will be timed to avoid mid- day traffic. Soils determined to require offsite disposal, if any, shall be transported and disposed pursuant to applicable laws and regulations… [Page 9 of the 124 page Aug. 2016 IS/MND Mitigated Negative Declaration -attachment a. & page 9 Aug. 2016 Final MND - attachment b.]  Excavation associated with the Civic Center Tank will encompass an area of approximately 50 feet by 135 feet, or 0.15 acre (assuming modular tanks and engineering shoring). To the extent feasible, excavated soils will be managed onsite. It is estimated that approximately 8,458 cubic yards of soil may be exported to the City Maintenance Yard for reuse, requiring a maximum of 10 to 12 truck trips per day, … [Page 9 of the 124 page Aug. 2016 IS/MND Mitigated Negative Declaration -attachment a. & page 9 Aug. 2016 Final MND - attachment b.] We cannot understand how the MND concluded that 8,458 cubic yards of soil would be removed for a 1.5 MG tank and only equate to 0.15 acres when the 3.0MG tank originally sited under a ball field at Memorial Park woud be 0.53 acres and would require the removal of 17,800 cubic yards of soil. It does not add up. Although the City plans to utilize much of the soil excavated on site, it does not look good to use this to hide the actual dimension of the SWIP dig. We believe the actual acrage required to install the 1.5MG tank at the Civic Lot is closer to 0.265 acres. The total acreage of the SWIP project, according to the Final MND is 1.09 acres. We believe it is more like 1.245 acres given the calculated soil expected to be removed for the 3.0 MG tank . An EIR for the SWIP should have been required and the Addendum to the MND City Council adopted on November 27, 2018 did nothing to change this fact. Item 8-A 09/10/19 3 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 4 November 27, 2018 - City Council adopted Resolution No. 11150 (CCS) entitled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SUSTAINABLE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT which states that the addendum to the MND is in compliance with CEQA . WHEREAS, an Addendum to the SWIP IS/MND was prepared in compliance with the CEQA; This statement is patently false. The city council had all the documentation necessary to require an EIR for the SWIP and failed to do so. We look forward to your action tonight. Sincerely, Ann Maggio Thanawalla Nikki Kolhoff To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Images attached to SWIP Application for CDP HEARING for Sept. 12, 2019 Both contain the 3MG tank Swip image attached to Loan Application Item 8-A 09/10/19 4 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 5 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Item 8-A 09/10/19 5 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 Sept. 10, 2019 RE: Agenda Item 8A -Approval of the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) Design/Build Contract Guaranteed Maximum Price Amendment Dear City Council and Mayor Davis, We oppose moving forward with this Item this evening. The last substantive information provided to the publicregarding the scope of the SWIP was included as text and appears as Attachment b. -Addendum to MND- SWIP October 2018 - on tonight's Agenda Item 8A, the item before you tonight. This Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the SWIP you agreed to describes the relocation of a 3.0MG tank from Memorial Park the the Civic Lot and this is what the public is currently being led to believe is what's being built at the Civic Lot. This is what we are being led to believe we are paying for. This is not a true picture. Last night several City Staff members attended the Northeast Neighbors meeting to present the City's Water Sustainability Plan and the SWIP. During the question and answer phase of the meeting Rick Valente, when questioned, informed a room full of residents that costs for the SWIP had increased significantly and as a result a decision had been made in July/Aug that the 3.0MG tank would no longer be a part of this project. He informed us that this significant material change in the project is part of what would be presented at tonight's City Council meeting. We do not believe council should be hearing this item tonight in light of the fact that the public was not made aware of this huge material change that eliminates nearly half the scope of the project. We request diagrams and transparent documentation in the form of City Staff reports in order to provide us with the tools for informed public participation. The public has a right to know exactly what we are getting for our $95 million dollars! We must be provided with documents that explain how much we're paying this contractor, what the scope of the project is and what the project actually looks like. Where are the scaled diagrams? This is a Design/Build project allocating an enormous sum of tax payer money in the form of increased water rates, etc. yet the project itself remains completely invisible from public view! What exactly are we getting here? This is a 30% price increase for a project that may have eliminated one of the largest components and what the City has submitted to the CCC doesn’t match and includes a further study and full transparency. Item 8-A 09/10/19 6 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 It only has a lifespan of 50 years but it’s supposed to pay for itself in 35 years. However, if we are downsizing and only building half the project, do we actually have the capacity to generate the offset Staff has projected. Additionally, although a hearing for the SWIP's Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is taking place this Thursday in Newport Beach, the Staff report fails to even mention it. Plus, the CDP application and public documents attached for public review and the comment period that ended last Friday say nothing about the elimination of the 3.0 MG tank from the project. The 3.0MG tank is included in the diagrams and accounted for in the projections for water output that is supposed to help Santa Monica achieve water self sufficiency. Why is the City misrepresenting the project to the public and why are they providing false documents to the California Coastal Commission for a CDP when there is no plan to move ahead as stated? Public Requests 1. We request Council remove Item 8A Approval of the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) Design/Build Contract Guaranteed Maximum Price Amendment from tonight’s Agenda and direct staff to return with transparent information to inform the public on the scope, design, and costs of the SWIP at the Civic. Additionally, we request Council direct staff to reschedule the SWIP Coastal Commission’s hearing for a CDP until they deliver concrete diagrams and information for a proper review and analysis so the public can comment on the actual project and not just some hypothetical version of it. [Contractor Images provided as a part of the CDP for public comment] OR 2. If Council ignores our request to remove this item and decides to move ahead and direct staff to continue building the 3.0 MG tank as a part of this plan, we request that you direct staff conduct robust soil testing in the actual area of the project using CEQA guidlines and should the soil exceed the acceptable standards for pollutants, that the City cease moving forward until proper pubilc notice is delivered as per CEQA and standard CEQA process is utilized. We also request that you direct staff to clarify, in writing, any miscommunications Staff may have made to the public during their presentation last night and make that statement immediately available to the public and to the California Coastal Commission. Background Item 8-A 09/10/19 7 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 When Council approved the relocation of this tank from it's original site at Memorial Park on November 27, 2018 you also agreed to increase the size of the project to over ONE ACRE. This triggers the need for an EIR because the neither of the two MND's that you've approved for the SWIP at Civic addressed a project of this magnitude. Both the SWIP Final EIR and the Addenmdum to it remain direct opposition to the 2005 EIR in the CCSP which cites serious concerns to sensative receptors. You chose to ignore us when we documented this information in our public comments to on November 27th, (comment sent separately.) If you proceed in a direction to retain the 3.0MG tank as a part of the SWIP sighted for the Civic Lot, your primary duty is to protect the health and safety of residents and the environment. Will you move forward without discussing this potentially risky health issue that could endanger thousands and alter the fragile health of our coastal environment? Is agreeing to the staff report that asks for ammending this non-transparent Design-Build Agreement, (No. 10736) that also requires an application for an additional $19 million dollar loan from the State appropriate? Timeline Documenting Scope Approval Sept. 27, 2016 - City Council adopted resolution 10992 CCS], the initial SWIP Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) -see agenda Item 11 - “Resolutions.” The meeting minutes reflect a question asked of staff about what happened to the Environmental Protection Agency’s grant that was received. At that time, documents attached to agenda item informed the council that the SWIP ELEMENTS 2 and 3 - then planned as SWIP Tank #1 (3.0MG Memorial Park) which was one of 2 pieces of ELEMENT 3, SWIP Tank #2 (1.5 MG Civic Lot) which was the other of the 2 pieces of ELEMENT 3 plus ELEMENT 2, (Treatment Facility Civic Lot) would total more than one acre. One acre projects require an EIR, however City Council approved this MND becuase the projects were at separate locations. ●Under Element 2, ground-disturbing activities will include an excavation area of approximately 150 feet by 120 feet, or 0.41 acre for the recycled water facility (assuming engineering shoring). Up to approximately 6,200 cubic yards of soil may need to be exported during construction of SWIP Element 2. Export activities will be limited to 10 to 12 truck trips per day for this element, and will be timed to avoid midday traffic. Excess soils designated non-hazardous will be staged for reuse at the existing City Item 8-A 09/10/19 8 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 Maintenance Yard located at 2500 Michigan Avenue in Santa Monica. Soils requiring offsite disposal will be transported and disposed pursuant to applicable laws and regulations. [Page 7 of the 124 page Aug. 2016 IS/MND Mitigated Negative Declaration -attachment a. &page 7 Aug. 2016 Final MND - attachment b.] ●Excavation associated with the Memorial Park Tank will encompass an area of approximately 23,260 square feet, or 0.53 acre (assuming a 172-foot-diameter circular and sloped excavation, including a 10-foot pre-stress leeway). To the extent feasible, excavated soils will be managed onsite. It is estimated that approximately 17,800 cubic yards of soil may be exported to the City Maintenance Yard located at 2500 Michigan Avenue for reuse, requiring a maximum of 20 to 25 truck trips per day, which will be timed to avoid mid-day traffic. Soils determined to require offsite disposal, if any, shall be transported and disposed pursuant to applicable laws and regulations… [Page 9 of the 124 page Aug. 2016 IS/MND Mitigated Negative Declaration -attachment a. & page 9 Aug. 2016 Final MND - attachment b.] ●Excavation associated with the Civic Center Tank will encompass an area of approximately 50 feet by 135 feet, or 0.15 acre (assuming modular tanks and engineering shoring). To the extent feasible, excavated soils will be managed onsite. It is estimated that approximately 8,458 cubic yards of soil may be exported to the City Maintenance Yard for reuse, requiring a maximum of 10 to 12 truck trips per day, … [Page 9 of the 124 page Aug. 2016 IS/MND Mitigated Negative Declaration -attachment a. & page 9 Aug. 2016 Final MND - attachment b.] We cannot understand how the MND concluded that 8,458 cubic yards of soil would be removed for a 1.5 MG tank and only equate to 0.15 acres when the 3.0MG tank originally sited under a ball field at Memorial Park woud be 0.53 acres and would require the removal of 17,800 cubic yards of soil. It does not add up. Although the City plans to utilize much of the soil excavated on site, it does not look good to use this to hide the actual dimension of the SWIP dig. We believe the actual acrage required to install the 1.5MG tank at the Civic Lot is closer to 0.265 acres. Item 8-A 09/10/19 9 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 The total acreage of the SWIP project, according to the Final MND is 1.09 acres. We believe it is more like 1.245 acres given the calculated soil expected to be removed for the 3.0 MG tank . An EIR for the SWIP should have been required and the Addendum to the MND City Council adopted on November 27, 2018 did nothing to change this fact. November 27, 2018 - City Council adopted Resolution No. 11150 (CCS) entitled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SUSTAINABLE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT which states that the addendum to the MND is in compliance with CEQA . ●WHEREAS, an Addendum to the SWIP IS/MND was prepared in compliance with the CEQA; This statement is patently false. The city council had all the documentation necessary to require an EIR for the SWIP and failed to do so. We look forward to your action tonight. Sincerely, Ann Maggio Thanawalla Nikki Kolhoff Images attached to SWIP Application for CDP HEARING for Sept. 12, 2019 Both contain the 3MG tank Swip image attached to Loan Application Item 8-A 09/10/19 10 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 Item 8-A 09/10/19 11 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Nikki Kolhoff <nhkolhoff@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 10, 2019 12:03 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:City Council Meeting - Item 8A - OPPOSE SWIP Design Build Contract Attachments:2016 SWIP MND HLKK Comments.pdf; 2004 CCSP EIR Checklist.pdf Dear City Council - We are making again the comments we made to the MND in Decemeber as they are still relevant to the item tonight. The SWIP should not move forward without an EIR. Thanks, Nikki Kolhoff Ann Thanawalla ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Nikki Kolhoff <nhkolhoff@yahoo.com> To: Councilmtgitems <councilmtgitems@smgov.net> Cc: Ann Maggio <annmaggio@gmail.com>; City Clerk SM <clerk@smgov.net>; Nicole Kolhoff <nhkolhoff@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018, 12:03:11 PM PST Subject: Re: City Council Meeting - Consent Item J - OPPOSE Resolution for SWIP MND Here are the attachments. Ann Thanawalla Nikki Kolhoff On Tuesday, November 27, 2018, 12:00:08 PM PST, Nikki Kolhoff <nhkolhoff@yahoo.com> wrote: Dear City Council and Mayor Winterer - Statement: Placing both SWIP Elements #2 and #3 on location at the Civic increases the scope of the project beyond one acre. Therefore, we do not believe the Addendum to the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project MND, dated October 2018, is sufficient because it has not provided an adequate environmental analysis nor studied the environmental effects of the entire project. (See Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 C3d 376.) Given the scope of the SWIP project remains unclear, the public is requesting an extension of the SWIP MND comment period (See State CEQA Guidelines § 15073) and a public meeting to determine the scope, impact, and viability of elements #2 and #2 of the SWIP project. Questions:  Why does the SWIP project at the Civic Center NOT require an EIR? o Initial negative declaration was done with two locations and each was under one acre, giving the appearance that each component was under the de minimus levels and not requiring an EIR. Item 8-A 09/10/19 12 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 2 o Now Staff is trying to say the change to consolidate the locations from Memorial Park to the Civic Center is a second de minimus change. o However, now the consolidated project at the Civic Center is over one acre in size (1.09 acres) and was never contemplated in the 2004 CCSP EIR (“CCSP EIR”). According to the SWIP IS-MND, “Localized Significance Thresholds have been developed for emissions in construction areas up to five acres in size. The SCAQMD provides lookup tables for sites that measure one, two, or five acres. The individual Element sites would each measures less than one acre and are located in Source Receptor Area 2 (SRA-2) Northwest Coastal Los Angeles. LSTs for construction on a one acre site in SRA 2 are shown in Table 2.” Therefore, the SWIP requires an addendum to the EIR and an amendment to the CCSP.  Neither the 2016 nor 2018 MNDs analyze the environmental impacts listed in the CCSP EIR as “Potential Significant Impacts” or “Less Significant Impacts with Mitigation Incorporated” that are implicated by SWIP, which was NOT analyzed in the CCSP EIR (see attached). Why not?  Why do we want this happening in our Civic Center? The primary use water being treated is sewage (wastewater), not stormwater or urban runoff. “As part of Element 2, the City will construct an underground, recycled water treatment facility at a location beneath the existing Civic Center parking lot. When completed, the recycled water facility will be capable of advance treatment of up to 1.0 MGD of municipal wastewater. The treatment plant will be sourced primarily by nearby City sanitary sewers and will utilize, among other things, membrane bio-reactor (MBR)-type technology and RO filtration. A seasonal secondary source of water for treatment and reuse will be stormwater harvested by the runoff storage tanks described in SWIP Element 3.” (SUSTAINABLE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2016 Page 7 of 124 )  What is the total cost? We recall an initial expense of $13 million and $57 million in State loans.  What value do residents get from this project when it appears to be used to prop up water supply numbers for additional private development, when the project actually generates NO POTABLE WATER? It looks like RAND, the bowling alley replacement, the ECLS and the CSB get their sewage collected and 500 Broadway gets Purple Pipes to service the 500 Broadway DA so it can claim “No Net New Water” even though that project, like the Water Garden nearly two decades ago, is STILL NOT permitted for flushing toilets. The public is therefore on the hook for paying $70+ million for mostly private development benefits. (see Comments HLKK2 #11, #12 below) “Initially, the advanced treated water from SMURRF will be distributed through the City's existing reclaimed (purple) pipe system for non-potable use. When the advanced treatment system is fully operational and permitted, the City will begin to use a portion of this water to replenish its groundwater aquifers via injection for indirect potable use (discussed further in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality). The RO concentrate produced by the RO-upgraded SMURRF and at the SWIP recycled wastewater treatment facility will be blended with City sanitary sewer flows for treatment at the existing City of Los Angeles Hyperion Treatment Plant.”  Has the City notified the school district, parents and students and discussed the potential health impacts with them?  Has the City notified SMC and the Growing Place and discussed the potential health impacts with them?  Has the City notified the Rec & Parks Commission, FSAC or Field Advocates about the change to Memorial Park and the potential health impacts of this project on the Sports Field? Item 8-A 09/10/19 13 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 3  What impact will more than doubling the size of the SWIP at the Civic Center have on the Sports Field? o Will this be built before or after the Sports Field? o The twice plus size amounts to more than a one acre whole in the ground. Is there a scaled drawing with all elements shown to confirm there is space for the SWIP, the ECLS and its fire lanes, and the Sports Field at the Civic Center? If not, the ECLS should be halted now or the SWIP can’t move forward. The Sports Field benefits thousands of residents and must move forward. o SWIP Elements #2 and #3 require approval from the Coastal Commission. While most of the SWIP is underground there are ventilation elements to the project, and access elements (stairwell, a ventilation shaft and an elevator) that extend above ground. The construction period will be at least 22 months, disrupt parking and create toxic traffic with 48 truckloads per day passing through this heavily populated area.  How is this an appropriate topic for a Consent Item? Scope of SWIP Project SWIP element Water Volume Dig size /footprint Soil removal Daily truck loads Above Grade Days on Site #2 recycled water facility .041 acres 6,200 cubic yards 10-12 Stairwell access & Elevator Access points & Ventilation shaft 520 days Tank #1 1.5 - MG Million gallons 0.15 acres 8,458 cubic yards 10-12 Tank #2 (relocated from Memorial) 3.0 - MG Million gallons .053 acres 17,000 cubic yards 20-24 401 days TOTAL 4.5 -MG 1.09 acres 31,658 cubic yards 40 - 48 loads per day Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP)  Why doesn’t the MND or Staff Report address the issues raised in 2016 by Harding Larmore Kuptz and Kozal (“HLKK”), which are perhaps more relevant now with the larger project size? We have attached the entirety of HLKK’s 2016 comments and incorporate them herein by reference. For ease of reading, we have inserted a few below as well. o Comment HLKK2 #7 The potential for future use of SWIP’s recycled water for toilet flushing in residential or mixed-use buildings is not disclosed anywhere in the Draft MND, including in any of the three elements identified in the SWIP MND project description. As confirmed in our August 8, 2016 comment letter, our client’s understanding from discussions with the City had been that the scope of does not include or contemplate use of its recycled water for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed-use residential buildings. In that regard, I contacted the City’s EIR Planner Item 8-A 09/10/19 14 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 4 Rachel Kwok on July 27, 2016 requesting clarification on this issue and she indicated to me that her understanding was that SWIP recycled water would not be used for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed-use residential building. Ms. Kwok indicated that she would need to confirm this with Tom Watson, but thought that this clarification could be added prior to publishing the Final MND. After not hearing back from the City to the contrary, I submitted the August 8, 2016 letter formally requesting that this clarification be made in the MND project description. On August 17, 2016 (only three days before the close of the MND comment period), City Staff informed us in a conference call apparently spurred by our comment letter that there is a future possibility that the SWIP water might be used for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed-use residential buildings. Following that conference call, I received a telephone call from Deputy City Attorney Susan Y. Cola in which she stated that Title 22 does not currently permit direct delivery of recycled water into residential homes. Thus, our client remains confused about the scope of the SWIP project, and it appears the City is as well. o Comment HLKK2 #8 The MND needs an accurate, stable and finite project description. Courts have held, “An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR.” (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 CA3d 185, 192.) In this instance, although City Staff has prepared an MND rather than an EIR for this project, the stability of the project description is equally important. If the SWIP project is reasonably like to lead to use of its recycled water for toilet flushing in residential or mixed-use buildings, then the project description in the Draft MND is not accurate as it completely ignores this potential future use. If the MND’s project description does not describe the entire project, then it appears likely that the MND’s environmental analysis may not have studied the environmental effects of the entire project. (See Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 C3d 376.) o Comment HLKK2 #9 The State CEQA Guidelines explain the “project” is the “whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environmental or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” (State CEQA Guidelines §15378(a).) In this regard, Laurel Heights provides that the environmental analysis “must include an analysis of the environmental effects of future expansion or other action if: (1) it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and (2)the future expansion or action will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects.” Thus, if the SWIP project includes the reasonably foreseeable future use of its recycled water for toilet flushing in residential or mixed-use buildings, then this must be described in the SWIP project description and the MND must study whether this future expansion of the use of the recycled water produced by the SWIP project will have the potential for any significant environmental effects, including public health and safety impacts. o Comment HLKK2 #10 We believe this may be the most productive way to move forward, as that meeting may clarify whether our client will have an interest in retaining a water quality expert to further evaluate the Draft MND from a technical standpoint. We have been informed that the City may have deadlines by which the MND needs to be completed in order to apply for certain grant funding related to the SWIP project. Thus, our client is prepared to make themselves available to meet as soon as the City is able. Please feel free to contact me to schedule the requested meeting and/or if you have any questions. Response to HLKK2 #10 This comment requests extension of the MND comment period and a meeting with the City to discuss the scope of the proposed SWIP project. Item 8-A 09/10/19 15 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 5 o Comment HLKK2 #11 If none of the above solutions are pursued by the City and it is reasonably foreseeable that the SWIP project will result in the City’s use of recycled water for toilet flushing in residential or mixed use buildings, then we reserve the right to assert the SWIP MND is legally deficient due to (a) failing to have an accurate and clear project description and (b) failing to study the reasonably foreseeable use of SWIP water for toilet flushing in residential or mixed-use buildings which is likely to change the project’s environmental effects. o Comment HLKK2 #12 Specifically, our client is concerned about ensuring there is no potential public health risk to individuals and animals occupying the residential units where recycled water is used for toilet flushing, especially sensitive users such as children and pets who may reasonably come into direct contact with (including ingesting) the recycled water. We anticipate the environmental analysis would need to consider the water quality standard proposed for use of recycled water for toilet flushing in residential homes, the roles of the State, County and City in establishing these SUSTAINABLE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2016 Page 111 of 124 standards and monitoring to ensure the water consistently meets these standards, a health risk assessment, an assessment of odors, and a consideration of alternatives. There may be other potential environmental effects; however, given the lack of clarity in the project description our client and other members of the public have not had time to fully consider or analyze the additional potential environmental effects. At a minimum, the MND should incorporate the City’s SMURRF water usage requirements included in Section 2.8.5(b) the 500 Broadway DA as mitigation measures. In this regard, this comment letter is submitted without prejudice to the purple pipe and SMURRF water usage requirements in Section 2.8.6 of the 500 Broadway DA. Thank you. Ann Thanawalla Nikki Kolhoff Item 8-A 09/10/19 16 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Ann Maggio <annmaggio@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 10, 2019 1:51 PM To:councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis Cc:Nikki Kolhoff; Lane Dilg; Rick Cole Subject:Agenda Item 8A - Addendum to Comment Dear City Council and Mayor Davis, Below are both images intended for inclusion to the comment we sent earlier. Unfortunately this first image didn't make it into that comment. City Council must direct staff to cancel the CDP hearing scheduled for Thursday, Sept 12th. The Californial Coastal Commission deserves accurate information and analysis and the public deserves an opportuntiy to revew accurate information before commenting. The reason we make this statement is because Staff delivered a shocking piece of news last night. During Northeast Neighbor's Association meeting, City staff presented the city's water sustainability plan so residents coult better understand why water rates continue to rise. Staff also shared information on the SWIP which is a project intended to all but eliminate Santa Monica's need to purchase water from LA's Metropolitan Water District. During that presentation's Q&A, Staff told us that the 3.0 million gallon (MG) water storage tank, a substancial part of the project appearing in both Contractor images the City used to "accurately" represent the SWIP in it's quest for a Coastal Development permit (CDP), has been removed from the Civic Center Lot project! We were unclear as to whether or not the City is planning to relocate the tank elsewhere. We certainly cannot understand why you are being asked for approval to apply for an additional $19 million dollar STATE LOAN when removing this piece and before the public has an opportunity to review accurate diagrams and a copy of the DESIGN/Build contract. This is $95 million dollar Project with no transparency! Both images below were provided to CA Coastal Commission as material evidence for the CDP. Both include a 3.0 MG tank and written documentation to supporta its use as a part of Santa Monica's water plan. The Coastal Commission is holding a hearing for this CDP on Thursday, Sept. 10th. If what City Staff told us last night is accurate, then the presentation to the Coastal Commission and the public for the CDP is also inaccurate and the public comment period for the CDP hearing closed last Friday, Sept. 6th. We are asking the City to pull the CDP application for the SWIP if the 3.0 MG tank is, in fact, not sighted for the Civic Lot. The public deserve the opportunity to proper documentation as does the CA Coastal Commission. Item 8-A 09/10/19 17 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 2 The image below was included in our comment delivered by Noon today. Both images found in KIEWIT's attachemnts for the CDP are over an acre and therefore add up to a false City claim made to the Coastal Commission that CEQA process was followed: On November 27th, 2018. City Council approved an Addendum to the Final MND, however this clause in that resolution: WHEREAS, an Addendum to the SWIP IS/MND was prepared in compliance with the CEQA; If you move ahead and dig to include this 3.0 MG tank, you must admit that the City is out of compliance with CEQA because your subsequent actions - approval of the "Final MND" and approval of the Addendum to the Final MND that placed the 3.0 MG tank at the site made compliance with CEQA a requirement. Item 8-A 09/10/19 18 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 3 Whatever you decide tonight, please consider our requests sent to you earlier today, Informing the public about what is happening and providing us with transparent evidence of how our money is being spent illustrates a responsible government. Furthermore, If the tank is not going to be a part of the project, come clean about it. If the reason for the removal was not financial but due to unacceptable level of pollutants discovered as a result of the contractor's soil boring samples, say so. If soil mitigation is the reason Santa Monican's are being asked to pay tens of millions more than the City's projected costs for the SWIP, show us the contract. We have a right to honest answers, the right to a transparent public process and the right to know when and if public and/or environmental health and safety is being jeopardized for a project that makes promises it appears unable to deliver. We should not hear from a senior water staffer that the LA County Department of Health has approved SMURRF water for toilet flushing or that Rand's toilets operate this way because these are false statements that get passed through from one new employee to the next, unwittingly perpetuating inaccuracies that cost residents dearly. As it stands, the only SMURRF water currently permitted by the LACounty Dept of Health for toilet flushing is a pilot project at Los Amigos Park. The park is owned by the SMMUSD and the City requested and the school board approved an MOU to pilot a treatment facility built under the baseball diamond. The toilets at the park are plumbed to flush with this water. We have not seen results of the required test to know if use is within the required safety guidelines. Sincerely, Ann Maggio Thanawalla Resident Item 8-A 09/10/19 19 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 CITY OF SANTA MONICA EIR No. _______ PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295 eff3 1 INITIAL STUDY AND NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT STATEMENT DATE FILED __________ This checklist is to be completed for all projects which are not exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The information, analysis and conclusions contained in the checklist form the basis for deciding whether an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), a Negative Declaration (ND) or a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is to be prepared. Additionally, the checklist shall be used to focus an EIR on the effects determined to be potentially significant. I. INTRODUCTION 1. Project Title: Civic Center Specific Plan Comprehensive Update, Downtown Redevelopment Plan Amendment and Associated Development 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Planning and Community Development Department, City of Santa Monica, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Andy Agle, Assistant Director, 310-458-2275 4. Project Location: The project site is located in the western portion of Los Angeles County, in the City of Santa Monica. The project site area is accessible from Interstate 10 (the Santa Monica Freeway) and State Route 1 (Pacific Coast Highway). The Civic Center Specific Plan Area consists of approximately 62 acres in downtown Santa Monica. The Specific Plan Area is bounded by Fourth Street on the east, Ocean Avenue on the west, Pico Boulevard on the south, and extends northward across the I-10 freeway to include all of the Sears complex and the Santa Monica Place shopping center. Main Street bisects the Specific Plan Area in a north to south direction. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:, Planning and Community Development Department, City of Santa Monica, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 Item 8-A 09/10/19 20 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 CITY OF SANTA MONICA EIR No. _______ PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295 eff3 2 6. General Plan Designation: Institutional, Oceanfront Special, General Commercial, Downtown Core 7. Specific Plan Designation: Civic Center Specific Plan 8. Zoning: CC / Civic Center, C3 / Downtown Commercial, C3C / Downtown Overlay 9. Description of Project: The proposed CCSP establishes the planning policies and land use and development regulations for the 62 acres of land in the CCSP area, more than two-thirds of which are in public ownership. The proposed CCSP builds upon the 1993 CCSP and its amended version adopted in 2000. It recommends revisions to the land use mix in the traditional Civic Center area, and also incorporates the Santa Monica Place shopping center property into the overall planning area. The proposed CCSP sets forth a vision for the Civic Center, which represents the greatest potential for infill development to meet the city’s housing, open space, cultural, civic and recreational needs. The Civic Center would retain its governmental and institutional role, but these uses would be integrated with new residential, recreational, civic and cultural activities to become a mixed-use district within the city. New linkages would strive to connect the area to the surrounding neighborhoods, and Main Street would become an integral part of the open space system and a more significant and central feature that unifies the site. In addition, the Third Street pedestrian extension would be connected through Santa Monica Place and across the historic Main Street Bridge, which would become an exclusive pedestrian way. Overall, the proposed CCSP would allow for the development of up to 16.4 acres of public open space, 775 units of mixed-use multifamily housing with 20,000 square feet (sf) of new ground-floor commercial retail, 150,000 sf of public and community facilities, 560,000 sf of reconfigured or reconstructed commercial retail, 85,000 sf of commercial office space, and associated street and parking improvements. The Improvement Program is presented in Table 2-1, Item 8-A 09/10/19 21 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 CITY OF SANTA MONICA EIR No. _______ PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295 eff3 3 and the Proposed Building Program, in relationship to existing and approved Specific Plan area uses, is provided in Table 2-2. In comparison to the existing CCSP, overall development of the Civic Center south of the freeway would be revised by eliminating commercial office as a permitted use, by reducing the anticipated cultural and community facilities from 55,000 sf to 20,000 sf, and by adding the 100,000 sf Community Services Building to the development program. The net reduction of square footage is approximately 185,000 sf of overall floor area. In addition, the proposed CCSP promotes some increases of building heights on specific parcels south of the freeway in order to preserve as much public land for open space as possible, and it promotes some intensification and redevelopment of both the Santa Monica Place and Sears properties. 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is located in an urbanized setting. The general vicinity of the project is completely developed and contains a wide variety of residential, office, and retail uses, including the Third Street Promenade and several retail and office buildings. Uses to the west of the site include the Santa Monica Pier, beach recreational areas, parking lots, single and multifamily residential, visitor serving retail and lodging. Uses to the south of the site include the Main Street Commercial District and the Ocean Park neighborhood. The Doubletree Hotel, Santa Monica High School, and an office complex are located east of the site across Fourth Street. Land uses north of the site beyond the Interstate 10 freeway include the Holiday Inn at the Pier, and the downtown business and retail districts. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Santa Monica Redevelopment Agency, California Coastal Commission. Item 8-A 09/10/19 22 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 CITY OF SANTA MONICA EIR No. _______ PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295 eff3 4 Table 2-1 Civic Center Specific Plan Improvement Program Streets, Promenades, and Pathways •The extension of Olympic Drive and the Olympic Drive Promenade from Main Street to Ocean Avenue •The improvement of Main Street including Main Street Circle between Olympic Drive and Pico Boulevard. •The extension of Second Street between Colorado Avenue and Olympic Drive, including the construction of a new bridge across the Santa Monica Freeway. •The construction of additional streets to provide access to specific sites and facilities including the improvement of Fujinomura Douri and Civic Center Drive •The enhancement of the pedestrian and visual environment along the perimeter streets including Pico Boulevard, Ocean Avenue, Second and Fourth Streets. •Traffic controls throughout the area to provide for safe vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle access. •The improvement of the Main Street Bridge and the existing public right-of-way along Colorado Avenue as a pedestrian way and gateway plaza to the Civic Center. •The creation of a pedestrian promenade along the alignment of Third Street from Broadway to Colorado Avenue. Parks and Open Spaces •The 5.6-acre Civic Auditorium Park on the existing Civic Auditorium parking lot. •The improvement of the Courthouse lawn and the creation of a 0.8-acre plaza along the Main Street frontage. •The 2.5-acre Town Square in front of City Hall. •The 4-acre Palisades Garden Walk north of Olympic Drive and west of Second Street. •The 0.7 acre Village Green as a focal point for the new neighborhood south of Olympic Drive. Community Facilities •The restoration of the historic City Hall and its central courtyard. •The development of a City Services Building of up to 100,000 square feet to meet the needs of the public. •The replacement of the existing East Wing of the Civic Auditorium with up to 20,000 net new square feet of community, cultural and educational uses. •The development of an Early Childhood Center of up to 12,500 square feet with an adjoining play area within the Civic Auditorium Park. Public Parking Facilities •The replacement of surface parking lots within the Civic Center with below-grade parking beneath the Civic Auditorium expansion and the new Community Services Building. •The replacement of the existing Santa Monica Place parking garages with below-grade parking. Housing • Up to 325 units of housing within the Village south of Olympic Drive. • Up to 450 units of housing within Santa Monica Place. Private Redevelopment •The reconfiguration of Santa Monica Place to provide for the pedestrian connection to the Third Street Promenade and for the creation of a more vibrant retail environment with up to 560,000 square feet of retail uses and 85,000 square feet of upper-level office. •The future redevelopment of the Sears site with a mixture of uses to be determined as part of a separate development process, and with provision for public parking and public transit facilities. Item 8-A 09/10/19 23 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 CITY OF SANTA MONICA EIR No. _______ PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295 eff3 5 Table 2-2 Proposed Building Program Special Use District Existing/ Approved Use Existing/ Approved Allowable New Total Program Yield Auditorium 125,000 sf 20,000 sf 145,000 sf Auditorium Early Childhood Center 0 sf 12,500 sf 12,500 sf City Hall 62,000 sf No Expansion 62,000 sf Public Safety Building 120,000 sf No Expansion 120,000 sf County Courts 140,000 sf No Expansion 140,000 sf City Services Building 0 sf 100,000 sf 100,000 sf The Civic Core Civic Center Garage 1,000 spaces No Expansion 1,000 spaces Lodging (Ocean View Lodge) 7,500 sf No Expansion 7,500 sf Palisades Garden Walk Park-Oriented Buildings/Restaurant 2,000 sf 13,000 sf 15,000 sf Residential 0 du’s 325 du’s 325 du’s Neighborhood Serving Retail 0 sf 20,000 sf 20,000 sf Office (1733 Ocean Avenue) 70,000 sf No Expansion 70,000 sf Institutional (RAND) 310,000 sf No Expansion 310,000 sf The Village Lodging (Viceroy Hotel) 93,000 sf No Expansion 93,000 sf Retail/Restaurant 560,000 sf 0 sf 560,000 sf Office 0 sf 85,000 sf 85,000 sf Santa Monica Place Dwelling Units 0 du’s 450 du’s 450 du’s Retail (Sears) 135,000 sf No Expansion 135,000 sf Office (5th Street) 100,000 sf No Expansion 100,000 sf Colorado Avenue Lodging (Holiday Inn) 65,000 sf No Expansion 65,000 sf II. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED Environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Geology/Soils X Shadows X Public Services X Construction Effects X Hazards/Hazardous Materials X Air Quality Biological Resources X Hydrology/Water Quality Economic and Social Impacts X Population/Housing X Land Use/Planning Recreation X Cultural Resources X Aesthetics X Noise X Transportation/ Mineral Resources X Utilities/Service Item 8-A 09/10/19 24 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 CITY OF SANTA MONICA EIR No. _______ PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295 eff3 6 Circulation Systems X Mandatory Findings of Agriculture Resources X Neighborhood Significance Effects III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In completing this checklist, keep in mind the following: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). All explanations should be contained in a "Discussion of Environmental Evaluation" which should be attached to this checklist. 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or Item 8-A 09/10/19 25 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 CITY OF SANTA MONICA EIR No. _______ PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295 eff3 7 other CEQA process an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pot. Less Than Less Than No Signif. Signif. Signif. Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. Geology and Soils. Would the project: Item 8-A 09/10/19 26 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 CITY OF SANTA MONICA EIR No. _______ PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295 eff3 8 a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication ( ) X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ( ) X _ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) _ X iv) Landslides? ( ) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ( ) X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? ( ) X d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial Item 8-A 09/10/19 27 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 CITY OF SANTA MONICA EIR No. _____ PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295 Pot. Less Than Less Than No Signif. Signif. Signif. Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated eff3 9 risks to life or property? X __ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? X 2. Air Quality - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ( ) X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) X c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? ( ) X Item 8-A 09/10/19 28 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 CITY OF SANTA MONICA EIR No. _____ PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295 Pot. Less Than Less Than No Signif. Signif. Signif. Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated eff3 10 d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ( ) X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ( ) _X_ 3. Hydrology and Water Quality - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ( ) X _ b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? ( ) X c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or Item 8-A 09/10/19 29 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 CITY OF SANTA MONICA EIR No. _____ PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295 Pot. Less Than Less Than No Signif. Signif. Signif. Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated eff3 11 off-site? ( ) X _ d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? ( ) X _ e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? ( ) X _ f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ( ) X _ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other hazard delineation map? X h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? ( ) X i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure Item 8-A 09/10/19 30 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 CITY OF SANTA MONICA EIR No. _____ PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295 Pot. Less Than Less Than No Signif. Signif. Signif. Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated eff3 12 of a levee or dam? ( ) X j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ( ) X 4. Biological Resources - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. fish and Wildlife Service? X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? ( ) X c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? X d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife Item 8-A 09/10/19 31 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 CITY OF SANTA MONICA EIR No. _____ PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295 Pot. Less Than Less Than No Signif. Signif. Signif. Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated eff3 13 species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? X e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ( ) _ X_ f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? X 5. Noise - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ( ) X b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ( ) X c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels Item 8-A 09/10/19 32 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 CITY OF SANTA MONICA EIR No. _____ PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295 Pot. Less Than Less Than No Signif. Signif. Signif. Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated eff3 14 existing without the project? X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ( ) X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X 6. Shadows. Will the proposal produce extensive shadows affecting adjacent uses or property? ( ) X 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ( ) X b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the Item 8-A 09/10/19 33 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 CITY OF SANTA MONICA EIR No. _____ PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295 Pot. Less Than Less Than No Signif. Signif. Signif. Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated eff3 15 release of hazardous materials into the environment? ( ) X __ c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ( ) X d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ( ) X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ( ) X g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an Item 8-A 09/10/19 34 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 CITY OF SANTA MONICA EIR No. _____ PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295 Pot. Less Than Less Than No Signif. Signif. Signif. Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated eff3 16 adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) X h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? ( ) X 8. Population and Housing - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? X _ __ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ( ) X c) Displace substantial number of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ( ) X 9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project: Item 8-A 09/10/19 35 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 CITY OF SANTA MONICA EIR No. _____ PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295 Pot. Less Than Less Than No Signif. Signif. Signif. Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated eff3 17 a) Physically divide an established community? ( ) X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ( ) X __ c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ( ) X 10. Transportation/Traffic - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? X Item 8-A 09/10/19 36 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 CITY OF SANTA MONICA EIR No. _____ PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295 Pot. Less Than Less Than No Signif. Signif. Signif. Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated eff3 18 b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ( ) X c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? X d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? X _ ___ e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ( ) X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ( ) X_ _ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X ___ h) Involve right of way dedication resulting in a reduced lot area? _ X_ i) Reduce access to other properties and uses? ( ) X ___ Item 8-A 09/10/19 37 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 CITY OF SANTA MONICA EIR No. _____ PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295 Pot. Less Than Less Than No Signif. Signif. Signif. Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated eff3 19 j) Create abrupt grade differential between public and private property? ( ) X ___ 11. Utilities and Service System - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ( ) X ___ b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ( ) X __ c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ( ) X _ _ __ d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or Item 8-A 09/10/19 38 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 CITY OF SANTA MONICA EIR No. _____ PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295 Pot. Less Than Less Than No Signif. Signif. Signif. Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated eff3 20 expanded entitlements needed? ( ) X ___ e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? ( ) X _ f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? X ___ g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ( ) X ___ 12. Public Services a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other Item 8-A 09/10/19 39 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 CITY OF SANTA MONICA EIR No. _____ PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295 Pot. Less Than Less Than No Signif. Signif. Signif. Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated eff3 21 performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ( ) X __ Police protection? ( ) X _ Schools? ( ) X _ __ Parks? ( ) X __ Other public facilities? ( ) X __ 13. Recreation a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ( ) X __ b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ( ) X __ 14. Cultural Resources - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as Item 8-A 09/10/19 40 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 CITY OF SANTA MONICA EIR No. _____ PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295 Pot. Less Than Less Than No Signif. Signif. Signif. Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated eff3 22 defined in '15064.5? ( ) X __ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5? ( ) X __ c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ( ) X __ d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X __ 15. Aesthetics - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ( ) X ___ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ( ) X __ c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ( ) _ X __ Item 8-A 09/10/19 41 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 CITY OF SANTA MONICA EIR No. _____ PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295 Pot. Less Than Less Than No Signif. Signif. Signif. Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated eff3 23 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? _ X __ 16. Construction Effects. Would the proposal have considerable construction- period impacts due to the scope, or location of construction activities? ( ) X __ 17. Economic and Social Impacts. Does the project have economic or social effects which would result in additional physical changes (e.g. if a new shopping center located away from a downtown shopping area would take business away from the down- town and thereby cause business closures and eventual physical deterioration of the downtown)? ( ) X ___ 18. Agriculture Resources: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the Project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Item 8-A 09/10/19 42 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 CITY OF SANTA MONICA EIR No. _____ PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295 Pot. Less Than Less Than No Signif. Signif. Signif. Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated eff3 24 Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use? X 19. Mineral Resources - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? X 20. Neighborhood Effects. Will the proposal have considerable effects on the project neighborhood? X __ 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. Item 8-A 09/10/19 43 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 CITY OF SANTA MONICA EIR No. _____ PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295 Pot. Less Than Less Than No Signif. Signif. Signif. Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated eff3 25 a) Does the project have the poten- tial to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal commun- ity, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or pre-history? ( ) X b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? ( ) X __ c) Does the project have environ- mental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) X __ IV. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Item 8-A 09/10/19 44 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 CITY OF SANTA MONICA EIR No. _____ PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295 Pot. Less Than Less Than No Signif. Signif. Signif. Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated eff3 26 Several factors have potentially significant impacts on the environment and require further analysis. V. DETERMINATION An environmental impact report (EIR) must be completed to adequately analyze these environmental factors. VI. SOURCES City of Santa Monica Civic Center Specific Plan, FEIR, Addendum to FEIR, 1993 City of Santa Monica Safety Element, 1995 City of Santa Monica Public Safety Facility EIR, 1997 City of Santa Monica Civic Center Parking Structure EIR, 2003 RAND Corporate Headquarters EIR, 2000 F:\PLAN\ADMIN\CIVCTR\CCPARKING\CEQA\DRAFTCHECKLIST.DOC Item 8-A 09/10/19 45 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 Comment HLKK #1 Based on their review of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) for the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (“SWIP”), our client’s understanding is that the SWIP project contemplates use of SMURRF/recycled water in the City’s purple pipe system for non-potable uses. Because the draft MND for the SWIP does not appear to include a definition of the intended meaning of the term “non-potable,” we request confirmation in the final MND that the scope of SWIP does not include or contemplate approval for use of any recycled water for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed-use residential building. In this regard, at least one other jurisdiction has defined “non-potable” applications to include toilet flushing in addition to irrigation. Thus, this clarification is important. It is our understanding that use of recycled water for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed- use residential buildings will require separate approvals and upgrades to the treatment process at the SMURRF (and potentially the new facilities contemplated in the SWIP program if these facilities will also feed the City’s purple pipe system). And, we assume that approval process will trigger its own environmental assessment. Because the MND for SWIP does not study the potential impacts of use of recycled water for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed-use residential buildings, it is important for the project description to be clear that this use is not part of the project scope or description. Response to HLKK #1 For the purposes of the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP), ”non-potable use” includes all reuse that is not intended for human consumption. The SWIP will, as noted in the subject MND, provide for technology upgrades to the SMURRF and the construction of a below grade recycled water treatment facility. Once completed, both facilities will be capable of producing high quality advanced treated water via the use of reverse osmosis (RO) technology. This level of treatment would exceed the water quality level currently achieved by the SMURRF. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LACDPH) regulates reuse water within the County of Los Angeles, in accordance with Titles 22 and 17 of the California Code of Regulations. All indoor reuse of water, including reuse of recycled water for toilet flushing, must be permitted or approved by the LACDPH with review by the State Water Board. The specific criteria for approval, including minimum water quality standards, treatment processes, and monitoring & reporting requirements, are set forth in the LACDPH's Guidelines for Alternate Water Sources: Indoor and Outdoor Non-Potable Uses. These Guidelines are attached for reference as Appendix 6 to the MND. Thus, the scope of SWIP encompasses all non-potable water use that is permitted by the LACDPH, in accordance with Titles 22 and 17 of the California Code of Regulations. The MND has also been clarified to state that only reuse permitted by the LACDPH will be allowed, in accordance with Titles 22 and 17 of the California Code of Regulations. Item 8-A 09/10/19 46 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 Item 8-A 09/10/19 47 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 Item 8-A 09/10/19 48 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 Comment HLKK2 #1 This letter is submitted on behalf of DK Broadway, LLC (“DK Broadway”), the owner of the property located at 500 Broadway where the City recently approved a Development Agreement for a mixed-use housing project (12DEV-008). We have previously submitted a comment letter on the City’s Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) on the City’s Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (“SWIP”). This letter supplements those prior comments, due to the change in information we have received from the City since that first submission. Response to HLKK2 #1 This comment is introductory in nature and references the prior letter submitted by the applicant. Responses to the prior comment letter are provided in the prior pages of this MND. Comments are noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their review. Comment HLKK2 #2 DK Broadway enthusiastically supports the City’s water conservation efforts, including innovative and responsible use of recycled water and understands the City is operating under time constraints while seeking grant funding to assist these efforts. However, in light of our most recent conversations with City Staff about SWIP and the MND, we are concerned that the project description set forth in the Draft MND fails to fully and adequately describe the SWIP project and its reasonably foreseeable uses. As to reasonably foreseeable uses, Section 15004(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides: “[N]egative declarations should be prepared as early as feasible in the planning process to enable environmental considerations to influence project program and design and yet late enough to provide meaningful information for environmental assessment.” Section 15004 goes on to confirm, “To implement the above principles, public agencies shall not undertake actions concerning the proposed public project that would have a significant adverse effect or limit the choice of alternatives or mitigation measures, before completion of CEQA compliance.” Response to HLKK2 #2 The commenter indicates their concern that the project description in the MND fails to adequately describe the proposed project and cites Section 15004(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. Please see Responses HLKK2 #3 through #6 with regard to the project description and how the MND complies with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Comment HLKK2 #3 Here, absent confirmation from the City that the SWIP project does not contemplate future use of its recycled water for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed-use residential buildings, we request that either (a) the MND be revised and recirculated to clarify that it may lead to use of its recycled water for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed-use residential buildings or (b) the City extend the public comment period to provide sufficient time for us to meet with City Staff to better understand the scope of the SWIP project and assess whether to retain a water quality expert to assist with review of and commenting on the Draft MND. Response to HLKK2 #3 The commenter states that there is no confirmation in the MND whether the proposed SWIP project contemplates future use of recycled water for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed- use residential building. The commenter further requests that either (a) the MND be revised and Item 8-A 09/10/19 49 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 recirculated to clarify that SWIP may lead to use of its recycled water for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed use residential buildings or (b) that the City extend the public comment period. Please see Response to HLKK #1 regarding the SWIP and non-potable water uses as permitted by the LACDPH, in accordance with Title 22 standards (drinking water standards) or other applicable state and county laws, guidelines and permits. Additionally, the MND has been clarified to make clear that the SWIP will be designed to recycle water for non-potable uses, including, without limitation, toilet flushing, and indirect potable water uses [ page 4 of the MND]. Notwithstanding that SWIP will be designed to maximize recycled water use, actual reuse of recycled water, including reuse for toilet flushing, will not occur unless and until such use is permitted by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LACDPH), in accordance with Title 22 standards (drinking water standards) or other applicable state and county laws, guidelines and permits. Comment HLKK2 #4 As a follow up to our August 8, 2016 letter and August 17, 2016 discussion with City Staff, we request confirmation in the Final MND that the SWIP project does not contemplate future use of its recycled water for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed-use residential buildings. In our most recent call with the City, City Staff indicated that Title 22 does not allow use of recycled water for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed-use residential buildings. The City should clearly state this legislative prohibition on use of recycled water for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed-use residential buildings (with the appropriate legal citation) in the Final MND and indicate that the SWIP project does not contemplate future use of any recycled water for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed-use residential buildings because such usage would be inconsistent with State law. In this situation, recirculation of the MND presumably would not be required because such new information “merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration.” (State CEQA Guidelines §15073.5(c)(4).) Response to HLKK2 #4 The comment requests confirmation that the proposed SWIP project does not contemplate future use of its recycled water for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed use residential buildings. The commenter further states that this confirmation would not require recirculation. Please see prior Response to HLKK #1 and HLKK2 #3 regarding the SWIP and non-potable water uses as permitted by the LACDPH, in accordance with Title 22 standards (drinking water standards) or other applicable state and county laws, guidelines and permits. Comment HLKK2 #5 We acknowledge that if, in the future, State law is amended to establish a process by which recycled water may be used for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed-use residential buildings, the City might then wish to pursue approvals for use of SWIP’s recycled water to be used for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed-use residential buildings. At the present time, we request that the City confirm in the Final MND that an assessment of the required level of environmental review to allow recycled water to be used for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed-use residential buildings will be conducted consistent with CEQA as part of any future process the City might then initiate to seek any such approvals. Response to HLKK2 #5 The commenter acknowledges that State law may be amended in the future to allow recycled water for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed use buildings. The commenter also requests that a CEQA assessment be conducted should the City seek approval for the use of recycled Item 8-A 09/10/19 50 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 water for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed use residential projects. State law and the LACDPH Guidelines currently authorize reuse of recycled water for toilet flushing (see, e.g., page 10 of the LACDPH Guidelines attached as Appendix E to the MND); however, SWIP treated water will need to be recognized by the State and LACDPH as recycled water within the meaning of Title 22 in order to be approved for toilet flushing. The specific criteria for approval, including minimum water quality standards, treatment processes, and monitoring & reporting requirements, will be in accordance with state law and approved LACDPH Guidelines. The City acknowledges that the issuance of a permit by LACDPH for potential Title 22 reuse of SWIP wastewater for toilet flushing is an independent discretionary approval of the LACDPH that would be subject to CEQA requirements. Comment HLKK2 #6 If the SWIP project contemplates future use of its recycled water for toilet flushing in residential or mixed-use buildings, the SWIP project description must be revised to add this important new project component, the MND must study this additional aspect of the project, and the Draft SWIP MND must be recirculated for public review and comment. See State CEQA Guidelines § 15073.5. Response to HLKK #6 The commenter states that if the proposed SWIP project contemplates reuse of recycled water for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed-use residential buildings, the MND must be revised and recirculated pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15073.5. As stated in §15073.5, CEQA only requires recirculation of a MND when “the document must be substantially revised”. The CEQA Guidelines further states, “a substantial revision” means: 1) “A new avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to significance , or 2) “The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance” CEQA Guidelines §15073.5 also provides that “recirculation is not required when new provision revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project’s effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new significant effects; or when new information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration.” The MND has been revised to clarify that the scope of SWIP encompasses all non-pot able water use that is permitted by the LACDPH, in accordance with Title 22 (drinking water standards) or other applicable state and county laws, guidelines and permits. The potential for non-potable uses of SWIP treated wastewater was already disclosed in the MND and has been further clarified in Response to HLKK #1 and HLKK2 #3. These revisions merely clarify information in the MND and do not implicate new significant effects. Therefore, recirculation of the MND is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15073.5. Comment HLKK2 #7 The potential for future use of SWIP’s recycled water for toilet flushing in residential or mixed-use buildings is not disclosed anywhere in the Draft MND, including in any of the three elements identified in the SWIP MND project description. As confirmed in our August 8, 2016 comment letter, our client’s understanding from discussions with the City had been that the scope of SWIP Item 8-A 09/10/19 51 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 does not include or contemplate use of its recycled water for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed-use residential buildings. In that regard, I contacted the City’s EIR Planner Rachel Kwok on July 27, 2016 requesting clarification on this issue and she indicated to me that her understanding was that SWIP recycled water would not be used for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed-use residential building. Ms. Kwok indicated that she would need to confirm this with Tom Watson, but thought that this clarification could be added prior to publishing the Final MND. After not hearing back from the City to the contrary, I submitted the August 8, 2016 letter formally requesting that this clarification be made in the MND project description. On August 17, 2016 (only three days before the close of the MND comment period), City Staff informed us in a conference call apparently spurred by our comment letter that there is a future possibility that the SWIP water might be used for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed-use residential buildings. Following that conference call, I received a telephone call from Deputy City Attorney Susan Y. Cola in which she stated that Title 22 does not currently permit direct delivery of recycled water into residential homes. Thus, our client remains confused about the scope of the SWIP project, and it appears the City is as well. Response to HLKK2 #7 The commenter requests clarification regarding the use of SWIP water for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed use residential buildings. Please see Response to HLKK #1 and HLKK2 #3 and #6 regarding the SWIP and non-potable water uses as permitted by the LACDPH, in accordance with Title 22 standards (drinking water standards) or other applicable state and county laws, guidelines and permits. Comment HLKK2 #8 The MND needs an accurate, stable and finite project description. Courts have held, “An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR.” (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 CA3d 185, 192.) In this instance, although City Staff has prepared an MND rather than an EIR for this project, the stability of the project description is equally important. If the SWIP project is reasonably like to lead to use of its recycled water for toilet flushing in residential or mixed-use buildings, then the project description in the Draft MND is not accurate as it completely ignores this potential future use. If the MND’s project description does not describe the entire project, then it appears likely that the MND’s environmental analysis may not have studied the environmental effects of the entire project. (See Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 C3d 376.) Response to HLKK2 #8 The commenter states that if SWIP water is to be used for toilet in residential and/or mixed residential buildings, then the MND’s project description and associated analysis is inadequate. Please see Response to HLKK2 #3, #5 and #6. Comment HLKK2 #9 The State CEQA Guidelines explain the “project” is the “whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environmental or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” (State CEQA Guidelines §15378(a).) In this regard, Laurel Heights provides that the environmental analysis “must include an analysis of the environmental effects of future expansion or other action if: (1) it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and (2)the future expansion or action will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects.” Thus, if the SWIP project includes the reasonably foreseeable future use of its recycled water for Item 8-A 09/10/19 52 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 toilet flushing in residential or mixed-use buildings, then this must be described in the SWIP project description and the MND must study whether this future expansion of the use of the recycled water produced by the SWIP project will have the potential for any significant environmental effects, including public health and safety impacts. Response to HLKK2 #9 The commenter further details that if SWIP water is to be used for toilet in residential and/or mixed residential buildings, then the MND does not adequately address the potential environmental effects, including public health and safety impacts. Please see Response to HLKK2 #3, #5 and #6. Comment HLKK2 #10 Given that our client remains unclear on the scope of the SWIP project, we are requesting an extension of the SWIP MND comment period (See State CEQA Guidelines § 15073) to allow us to meet with City Staff and clearly and definitively understand the final scope of the project. We believe this may be the most productive way to move forward, as that meeting may clarify whether our client will have an interest in retaining a water quality expert to further evaluate the Draft MND from a technical standpoint. We have been informed that the City may have deadlines by which the MND needs to be completed in order to apply for certain grant funding related to the SWIP project. Thus, our client is prepared to make themselves available to meet as soon as the City is able. Please feel free to contact me to schedule the requested meeting and/or if you have any questions. Response to HLKK2 #10 This comment requests extension of the MND comment period and a meeting with the City to discuss the scope of the proposed SWIP project. Comment is noted. Comment HLKK2 #11 If none of the above solutions are pursued by the City and it is reasonably foreseeable that the SWIP project will result in the City’s use of recycled water for toilet flushing in residential or mixed- use buildings, then we reserve the right to assert the SWIP MND is legally deficient due to (a) failing to have an accurate and clear project description and (b) failing to study the reasonably foreseeable use of SWIP water for toilet flushing in residential or mixed-use buildings which is likely to change the project’s environmental effects. Response to HLKK2 #11 This comment summarizes the previous comments. Please see Response to HLKK2 #3, #5, and #6. Comment HLKK2 #12 Specifically, our client is concerned about ensuring there is no potential public health risk to individuals and animals occupying the residential units where recycled water is used for toilet flushing, especially sensitive users such as children and pets who may reasonably come into direct contact with (including ingesting) the recycled water. We anticipate the environmental analysis would need to consider the water quality standard proposed for use of recycled water for toilet flushing in residential homes, the roles of the State, County and City in establishing these Item 8-A 09/10/19 53 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 standards and monitoring to ensure the water consistently meets these standards, a health risk assessment, an assessment of odors, and a consideration of alternatives. There may be other potential environmental effects; however, given the lack of clarity in the project description our client and other members of the public have not had time to fully consider or analyze the additional potential environmental effects. At a minimum, the MND should incorporate the City’s SMURRF water usage requirements included in Section 2.8.5(b) the 500 Broadway DA as mitigation measures. In this regard, this comment letter is submitted without prejudice to the purple pipe and SMURRF water usage requirements in Section 2.8.6 of the 500 Broadway DA. Response to HLKK2 #12 The commenter expresses concern regarding the use of recycled water for toilet flushing and states that environmental effects of such use would need to be analyzed. Please see Response to HLKK2 #3, #5 and #6. The commenter also states that the MND should incorporate the City’s SMURRF water usage requirements as referenced in the 500 Broadway DA. Since the MND has not identified any significant impacts relating to use of recycled water for toilet flushing because such use would not be allowed unless permitted by the LACDPH in accordance with laws, it would not be appropriate to include SMURRF water usage requirements as referenced in the 500 Broadway DA as mitigation measure to be adopted as part of the MND for the project. Any measures necessary to mitigate identified significant environmental effects from the use of SWIP water for toilet flushing would need to be incorporated as part of the LACDPH's permitting process, as determined based upon the applicable laws and guidelines then in effect. Item 8-A 09/10/19 54 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 Item 8-A 09/10/19 55 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 Item 8-A 09/10/19 56 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 Item 8-A 09/10/19 57 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 Item 8-A 09/10/19 58 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 Item 8-A 09/10/19 59 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 Item 8-A 09/10/19 60 of 60 Item 8-A 09/10/19 Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) GMP for Construction Presented by Civil Engineering Division 9/11/2019City of Santa Monica | Public Works Department | 1 Agenda 1.Recent History –Council Actions and Presentations 2.Importance of SWIP 3.Options Considered & Cost 4.Staff Recommendation 9/11/2019City of Santa Monica | Public Works Department | 2 Recent History -Council Actions and Presentations 1.6/20/16 –Task Force on the Environment 2.9/27/16 –Council adopted CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.9/27/17 –Council authorized State loan agreement 4.10/16/17 –Task Force on the Environment 5.5/23/18 –Memorial Park Master Plan Workshop 6.8/13/18 –Memorial Park Master Plan Workshop 7.8/20/18 –Task Force on the Environment 8.8/28/18 –Council authorized agreement w/Kiewit Infrastructure West for the SWIP design ($7.5M) 9.2/13/19 –SWIP presented to the Clean Beaches & Ocean Parcel Tax Citizens Oversight Committee 10.6/17/19 –Task Force on the Environment 11.8/23/19 –Task Force on the Environment 9/11/2019City of Santa Monica | Public Works Department | 3 SWIP -Importance •Sustainable Water Master Plan SWIP is critical to Santa Monica’s goal of water self- sufficiency by 2023. Without SWIP the City will be 10% short (1,120AFY + 560AFY) in 2023. 9/11/2019City of Santa Monica | Public Works Department | 4 SWIP -Importance •Clean Water Act (MS4 Compliance) Depending on severity, CWA violations result in daily penalties ranging from $1,000 to $50,000 or more per day of violation. 9/11/2019City of Santa Monica | Public Works Department | 5 SWIP –Options Considered & Cost 9/11/2019City of Santa Monica | Public Works Department | 6 Option Cost Considerations 1.No Build $9M •Water self sufficiency not achieved by 2023 •Fa ilure to comply w/MS4 Permit 2.Rebid w/Reduced Scope $9M + New Bid •Risk of escalating costs •Longer time frame for completion, results in more disruption to the Civic Center Area 3.Move Forward w/GMP for Reduced Scope $95.9M •City continues path to water self- sufficiency in 2023 •Addresses major component of the MS4 Permit requirements •Cost accounted for in the Water Rate Study presented Council on 8/13/19 SWIP –Options Considered & Cost 9/11/2019City of Santa Monica | Public Works Department | 7 Programmed Budget $69.9M budgeted -> $26M shortfall Additional Budget Required to reach $95.9M $19M additional loan $7M cash on-hand $26M $95.9M includes GMP, City costs, permitting, and contingency SWIP –Options Considered & Cost 9/11/2019City of Santa Monica | Public Works Department | 8 Factors in the Shortfall •Rapidly escalating construction costs •Labor market demands higher wages •Escalating transportation costs into/out of West LA Staff Recommendation 1.Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Guaranteed Maximum Price amendment to Design-Build Agreement No. 10736 (CCS) in the amount not to exceed $84,973,490 (including $6,050,000 City contingency) with Kiewit Infrastructure West Co., a Delaware-based company, for the construction phase of the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project for the Public Works Department for a new total amount not to exceed $92,473,490. 2.Authorize the Director of Public Works to issue any necessary change orders and contract modifications to complete additional work within the contract authority. 3.Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a first modification to Professional Service Agreement No. 10541 (CCS) in the amount of $1,090,080 with Stantec Consulting Services, an Edmonton, Canada-based company, to provide additional owner’s engineer services and construction inspection services for the Public Works Department. This will result in a five-year agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $2,740,000, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval. 9/11/2019City of Santa Monica | Public Works Department | 9 Staff Recommendation 4.Authorize the City Manager to accept and execute the amended funding agreement and all necessary documents to increase the funding from the State Water Board Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program in the amount of $19,000,000 and to accept all renewals. 5.Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the application for an additional $19,000,000 in funding from the State Water Board Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program. 6.Adopt the attached resolution for Reimbursement Resolution and Pledged Revenue and Fund(s). 7.Authorize the Director of Public Works, as the City’s Authorized Representative pursuant to State Water Board requirements, to issue any necessary amendments to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund agreement within contract authority. 8.Authorize the budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of this report. 9/11/2019City of Santa Monica | Public Works Department | 10 REFERENCE: Agreement No. 10736 (CCS) & Modified Agreement 10541 (CCS) & Resolution No. 11199 – 11200 (CCS)