The URL can be used to link to this page

SR 06-14-2022 3D City Council Report City Council Meeting: June 14, 2022 Agenda Item: 3.D 1 of 5 To: Mayor and City Council From: Rick Valte, Public Works Director, Public Works, Water Resources Subject: Adoption of Resolution Approving Olympic Restoration and Arcadia Expansion Project Mitigated Negative Declaration Second Addendum Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Adopt the attached resolution to approve the second addendum to the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project to relocate groundwater recharge well SM-11i to the City Yards, add a potential second groundwater recharge well at the City Yards, and replace the existing fence at the Arcadia Water Treatment Plant. 2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a first modification to Professional Services Agreement #10873 in the amount of $276,301 with GHD Inc. to provide additional owner’s engineer services and construction support services for the Public Works Department. This would result in a five-year amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $1,527,401, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval. Summary The Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project (Project), as outlined in the City’s 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan Update (Components 2 and 3 in the plan), aims to reduce the City’s reliance on imported water supplies and provide a diverse, sustainable local water supply. A second addendum to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared by Dudek for the Project to include an alternative location for groundwater recharge well (SM-11i), moving it from the City’s Ishihara Park to the City Yards to minimize any community impacts. The second addendum to the IS/MND also includes a second groundwater recharge well (SM-12i) within the City Yards and replacing the existing fence 3.D Packet Pg. 640 2 of 5 surrounding the Arcadia Water Treatment Plant to upgrade site security. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution to approve the second addendum to the IS/MND for the Project. To support the Project, the City also awarded a professional services agreement with GHD Inc. in June 2019 to provide Owner’s Engineer services that included engineering oversight, advisory services, and construction phase services. With the construction phase now fully defined for the project, staff recommends executing a first modification to the professional services agreement in the amount of $276,301 for construction oversight, start-up/commissioning, and asset integration support services for a total contract amount not to exceed $1,527,401. Discussion Consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, staff conducted an environmental evaluation and prepared an IS/MND for the Project. The IS/MND for the Project was adopted by City Council on November 24, 2020 and a first amendment to the IS/MND, to add the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California as a project partner for contributing up to $19.6 million over a 25 year period to the City’s production of local water supplies, was adopted on February 23, 2021. For the purposes of CEQA, the environmental document prepared for the Project includes all associated improvements required to convey, treat, and improve the production efficiency at the Arcadia Water Treatment Plant. The Project as defined by the CEQA document includes the following key components: 1. Olympic Well Field: Equipping four wells and decommissioning one well within the Olympic Sub-basin. 2. Recycled Water Pipeline: The construction of approximately 1,500 linear feet of recycled watermain pipeline to connect the potential new injection well (SM-11i) within Ishihara Park or alternate location if available. 3. Olympic Pipeline: The construction of approximately 6,600 linear feet of transmission mainline to carry groundwater pumped from the Olympic Subbasin 3.D Packet Pg. 641 3 of 5 in the City of Santa Monica to the Arcadia Water Treatment Plant in the City of Los Angeles. 4. Olympic Advanced Water Treatment Facility: The construction of the new well head treatment facility, which would remove 1,4-Dioxane, 1,2,3-TCP, TCE, and PCE contamination from the Olympic Well Field groundwater. 5. Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion: To accommodate the additional volume of groundwater from the Olympic Well Field, the treatment capacity of the plant would be expanded and production efficiency increased. The second amendment to the IS/MND was prepared in accordance with Section 15164(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines where an addendum to a previously adopted MND is the appropriate environmental document in instances when project changes and additions are necessary, but there would be no new or substantially more significant environmental effects beyond those identified in the MND. Staff has determined that an addendum pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines is appropriate to address the changes to the approved project. The proposed changes to the IS/MND in the second addendum include the following: 1. Olympic Well Field. Of the four wells being equipped, groundwater recharge well SM-11i located at the Ishihara Park in the original approved project would be relocated to a location outside the park and approximately 0.25 miles west to within the City Yards property. A potential fifth well in the Olympic Well Field used for groundwater recharge, groundwater recharge well SM-12i, would be located within the City Yards property as well. 2. Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion. The existing perimeter fence surrounding the plant would be replaced to enhance site security. Additional details of the Second Amendment of the IS/MND can be found in the attachments. Past Council Actions Past Council Actions pertaining to the IS/MND and Project are summarized below. Meeting Date Description 5/28/2019 Award Professional Services Agreement with Dudek for the 3.D Packet Pg. 642 4 of 5 (Attachment A) Preparation of an Environmental Study for the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project 6/25/2019 (Attachment B) Award Professional Services Agreement to Provide Owner’s Engineer Services for the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project 11/24/2020 (Attachment C) Adoption of a Resolution of Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project 2/23/2021 (Attachment D) Adoption of Resolution to enter into an Agreement to receive funding from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s Local Resources Program 7/27/2021 (Attachment E) Approval for the Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Design/Build Guaranteed Maximum Price Amendment Financial Impacts and Budget Actions Staff seeks authority to approve funding from the Water Fund to increase the amount of the professional services agreement with GHD Inc. for construction oversight, start- up/commissioning, and asset integration support services. Funds are available in the FY 2021-22 Capital Improvement Program Budget. Future year funding is contingent on Council budget approval. Contract Modification Request Agreement # Current Authorized Amount Modification Request Amount CIP Account # Total Revised Contract Amount 10873 $454,560 $276,301 C5007740.689740 $730,861 $303,040 C5007750.689000 $303,040 $493,500 C5007370.689000 $493,500 $1,251,100 $276,301 Total: $1,527,401 3.D Packet Pg. 643 5 of 5 Prepared By: Sunny Wang, Water Resources Manager Approved Forwarded to Council Attachments: A. Award PSA with Dudek for Preparation of Environmental Study of Olympic Well Field Restoration & Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project (Web Link) B. Award PSA to GHD to Provide Owner's Engineer Services (Web Link) C. Adoption of Resolution of Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Olympic Well Field Restoration & Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project (Web Link) D. Adoption of Resolution for Approval of IS/MND First Addendum (Web Link) E. Award of Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Design/Build Guaranteed Maximum Price Amendment (Web Link) F. Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Mitigated Negative Declaration G. Resolution to Adopt IS-MND 2nd Addendum for the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project H. Oaks Initiative (GHD) I. CT #10873 (CCS) - Original Contract 3.D Packet Pg. 644 Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2022 City of Santa Monica Public Works Department 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, California 90401 3.D.f Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Mitigated Negative 3.D.f Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Mitigated Negative 12038 i APRIL 2022 Table of Contents SECTION PAGE NO. Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................ iii 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 CEQA Requirements ............................................................................................................................................. 1 3 Project Description ............................................................................................................................................... 3 3.1 Description of Approved Project ............................................................................................................ 3 3.2 Description of the Modified Project ....................................................................................................... 4 3.2.1 Olympic Well Field Restoration ................................................................................................ 4 3.2.2 Arcadia WTP Expansion ............................................................................................................ 5 4 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................................................................... 5 4.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................... 6 4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ...................................................................................................... 7 4.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................ 7 4.4 Biological Resources .............................................................................................................................. 8 4.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................................. 9 4.6 Energy .................................................................................................................................................. 10 4.7 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................................ 11 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................ 11 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................................................................... 12 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................................... 13 4.11 Land Use and Planning ....................................................................................................................... 13 4.12 Mineral Resources .............................................................................................................................. 14 4.13 Noise .................................................................................................................................................... 14 4.14 Population and Housing ...................................................................................................................... 15 4.15 Public Services .................................................................................................................................... 15 4.16 Recreation ............................................................................................................................................ 15 4.17 Transportation ..................................................................................................................................... 16 4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 17 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems .............................................................................................................. 17 4.20 Wildfire ................................................................................................................................................. 17 5 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................... 18 3.D.f Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Mitigated Negative ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE OLYMPIC WELL FIELD RESTORATION AND ARCADIA WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12038 ii APRIL 2022 FIGURES 1A Project Location and Regional Vicinity (Approved Project) ............................................................................. 19 1B Project Location and Regional Vicinity (Modified Project) .............................................................................. 21 2 Well SM-11i and Well SM-12i Locations and Vicinity ..................................................................................... 23 3 Modified Project - Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Fence Replacement ....................................................... 25 4 City Yards Former Clay Pit/Landfill - Modified Project Well Sites ................................................................... 27 5 Olympic Well Field Contamination Plume - Modified Project Well Sites ........................................................ 29 3.D.f Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Mitigated Negative 12038 iii APRIL 2022 Acronyms and Abbreviations Acronym Definition AWTF Advanced Water Treatment Facility CEQA California Environmental Quality Act City City of Santa Monica EIR Environmental Impact Report Master Plan City Yards Master Plan MM Mitigation Measure MND Mitigated Negative Declaration WTP Water Treatment Plant 3.D.f Packet Pg. 649 Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Mitigated Negative ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE OLYMPIC WELL FIELD RESTORATION AND ARCADIA WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12038 iv APRIL 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3.D.f Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Mitigated Negative 12038 1 APRIL 2022 1 Introduction This document is the second addendum to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project (approved project) Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), which was prepared by the City of Santa Monica (City) to analyze and disclose the approved project’s environmental impacts pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The MND (State Clearinghouse No. 2020070129) was adopted by the Santa Monica City Council on November 23, 2020. Since adoption of the MND, the City has identified minor changes in the approved project that warrant consideration of environmental impacts pursuant to CEQA, as are addressed in this addendum. The updated project incorporating these minor changes is referred to in this addendum as the “modified project,” whereas the project as described in the MND is referred to as the “approved project.” In summary, the changes in the approved project addressed in this addendum include relocating the injection well proposed for Ishihara Park to a location outside the park and approximately 0.25 miles west, within the City Yards property; potentially installing an additional injection well elsewhere within the City Yards property; and replacing in place the existing fence surrounding the Arcadia Water Treatment Plant (WTP) site. Details of the modified project are further described in Section 3.2 of this addendum. According to Section 15164(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, an addendum to a previously adopted MND is the appropriate environmental document in instances when project changes and additions are necessary, but there would be no new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects beyond those identified in the MND. The City has determined that an addendum pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines is appropriate to address the changes to the approved project. The City Yards is an approximately 14.7-acre municipal facility that currently houses maintenance operations, equipment and materials storage, Fire Department staff training, Water Resources Department facilities, and other industrial uses. The City Yards site has been identified for redevelopment pursuant to the City Yards Master Plan (Master Plan), which was the subject of an EIR certified by the City Council in December 2018 (State Clearinghouse No. 2017111053). Because certain features of the modified project are proposed for location in the EIR’s subject impact area, this addendum incorporates certain impact analysis and mitigation measures that are relevant to the modified project. 2 CEQA Requirements Sections 15162 through 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines discuss a lead agency’s responsibilities in considering project changes once an MND has been adopted. Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines provides the following: When an EIR [Environmental Impact Report] has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the 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; 3.D.f Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Mitigated Negative ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE OLYMPIC WELL FIELD RESTORATION AND ARCADIA WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12038 2 APRIL 2022 (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the 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, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, 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. If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subdivision (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation. Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines provides the following: The lead agency or 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. An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration. The decision making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. A brief explanation of the decisions not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s finding on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. The purpose of this Addendum is to address whether proposed modifications to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project (the modified project) could result in any new significant environmental impacts which were not identified in the MND or whether previously identified significant impacts would be substantially more severe. As indicated in the analysis provided herein, the modified project would not constitute a substantial change in the project that will involve “new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects”. The environmental impacts associated with the modified project would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the MND and/or do not constitute a new or greater significant impact. 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 modified project. 3.D.f Packet Pg. 652 Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Mitigated Negative ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE OLYMPIC WELL FIELD RESTORATION AND ARCADIA WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12038 3 APRIL 2022 3 Project Description 3.1 Description of Approved Project The approved project is intended to diversify and enhance the sustainability of the City’s local water supply. The project would maximize local water resources and reduce the City’s reliance on imported water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. This would be accomplished by restoring the pumping capacity of the City’s existing Olympic Well Field, expanding local groundwater production, conveying the extracted groundwater to a new Olympic Advanced Water Treatment Facility (AWTF) (co-located at the Arcadia WTP) via a new dedicated pipeline, and adding reverse osmosis concentrate treatment capability to the Arcadia WTP to enhance production efficiency. The approved project described and analyzed in the MND is composed of three primary elements: (1) Olympic Well Field Restoration, (2) Olympic Pipeline, and (3) Olympic AWTF and Arcadia WTP Production Efficiency Enhancement and Expansion (Arcadia WTP Expansion). These elements as analyzed in the MND are described below. Figure 1A, Project Location and Regional Vicinity (Approved Project), of this addendum shows the project features analyzed in the MND. ▪ The Olympic Well Field Restoration component involves equipping two new injection wells (Santa Monica Well [SM]-10i and SM-11i) and two new domestic groundwater production wells (SM-8 and SM-9) in the Olympic Well Field. Lateral pipeline connections from the groundwater production wells and the injection wells to existing pipelines would be constructed within the public right-of-way. The production wells would connect to the proposed Olympic Pipeline and the injection wells would connect to existing recycled water pipelines. Additionally, a new recycled water pipeline would connect SM-11i to a planned recycled water pipeline at the Santa Monica City Yards property. ▪ The Olympic Pipeline component involves construction of a new 16-inch water transmission pipeline to transport water extracted from the Olympic Well Field in the City of Santa Monica to the new Olympic AWTF in the City of Los Angeles. ▪ The Olympic AWTF and Arcadia WTP Expansion involves two interrelated components that would be co-located at the Arcadia WTP. The proposed Olympic AWTF includes new treatment process equipment designed to treat key contaminants from the Olympic Well Field. The existing Arcadia WTP would be partially expanded to handle the additional flows from the Olympic AWTF. Additionally, this component includes a new reverse osmosis (RO) concentrate treatment technology to increase production efficiency and produce additional potable water while reducing concentrate discharges to the sewer system. The MND also anticipated broadly defined plant-wide improvements to support the treatment capacity expansion, including site work, yard piping, and electrical service modifications. In March 2021 the City prepared the first addendum to the MND, addressing a change in circumstances under which the project would be implemented. The first addendum stated that the City was proposing to obtain financial assistance for constructing the approved project through the Local Resources Program administered by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which provides financial incentives to public and private water agencies to encourage local development of water recycling, groundwater recovery, and seawater desalination. The first addendum concluded that the minor technical change in project circumstances did not affect the environmental impact analysis presented in the MND. 3.D.f Packet Pg. 653 Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Mitigated Negative ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE OLYMPIC WELL FIELD RESTORATION AND ARCADIA WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12038 4 APRIL 2022 Changes to certain aspects of the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia WTP Expansion are the subject of this second addendum. There are no changes in the Olympic Pipeline or Olympic AWTF components of the approved project. As analyzed in the adopted MND, injection well SM-11i was originally proposed to be located in the City’s Ishihara Park, north of Exposition Boulevard, with a new recycled water line to be constructed in Exposition Boulevard to connect the well to an existing pipeline to the west. These facilities are no longer planned as part of the project, and are proposed to be replaced by infrastructure described below in Section 3.2. Changes in the Arcadia WTP Expansion are limited to replacing the site’s existing perimeter fence, with no changes in the infrastructure proposed as part of the approved project. 3.2 Description of the Modified Project 3.2.1 Olympic Well Field Restoration Well SM-11i is no longer proposed to be located in Ishihara Park. Instead, the City plans to construct up to two injection wells within the City Yards property located approximately 0.25 miles west of the originally proposed well site. The two well sites under consideration are identified in this addendum as SM-11i and SM-12i and their proposed location is shown in Figure 1B, Project Location and Regional Vicinity (Modified Project), and Figure 2, Well SM-11i and Well SM-12i Locations and Vicinity. The relocation away from Ishihara Park is being considered in response to community concerns regarding park impacts expressed during the MND’s CEQA public review period. The City may install and operate two wells in place of the previously planned single well at this location because injection capacity at the City Yards locations may be lower than the capacity at the Ishihara Park location. Relocating Well SM-11i from Ishihara Park would also preclude the need to construct the underground recycled water pipeline extension within Exposition Boulevard that was previously under consideration. The alternative well locations within the City Yards property have been selected because they are adjacent to an existing underground recycled water pipeline, which is the same facility that was planned for connection by the Exposition Boulevard extension to SM-11i in the approved project. Underground pipelines required to connect the two wells in the City Yards to this recycled water line would be much shorter, as shown in Figure 2, reducing the amount of trench excavation planned for the project. The wells would otherwise be constructed by the methods described in the MND, and associated impacts would include a permanent, fenced well pad and temporary staging area. The two alternative well locations discussed in this addendum are within the boundaries of the City’s City Yards Master Plan (Master Plan), which was the subject of an EIR certified by the City Council pursuant to CEQA in December 2018 (State Clearinghouse No. 2017111053). The City Yards house existing facilities related to operation of several municipal service departments. The Master Plan proposes phased redevelopment of this City- owned property to meet the various departments’ current and future operational needs. This would entail demolition and reconstruction of several buildings; reconfiguration of facilities; and implementation of utilities infrastructure improvements (new storm drain systems, hydrological features), circulation improvements, and certain landscaping, lighting, and sustainability features. The western well site, referred to in this addendum as SM-11i, is within an area that is currently used by the City’s Resource Recovery and Recycling Division. The eastern well site, referred to in this addendum as SM-12i, is within an area that is currently used by the City’s Water Division. Both locations were planned for redevelopment in the Master Plan. Well SM-11i is proposed very close to the existing recycled water pipeline that 3.D.f Packet Pg. 654 Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Mitigated Negative ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE OLYMPIC WELL FIELD RESTORATION AND ARCADIA WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12038 5 APRIL 2022 crosses the City Yards property, requiring trench installation of a short pipeline extension that is anticipated to be less than 20 feet long and all within the City Yards property. The proposed well SM-12i site is farther from the existing pipeline than SM-11i, and would require trench installation of approximately 150 feet of pipeline to connect to the existing facility. Most of this trench construction would occur within the City Yards property, but some would also occur within the adjacent Gandara Park parking lot. 3.2.2 Arcadia WTP Expansion As part of the Arcadia WTP Expansion, the City plans to replace in place approximately 1,620 feet of the facility’s existing perimeter fence, as shown in Figure 3. The existing chain-link fence is mostly 5 feet high, but is shorter in certain areas, and is typically topped with two or three spans of barbed wire. Portions of the fence feature fabric visual screens, and screening ornamental vegetation has been planted at the base of the fence in other areas. Electric gates are located at the facility’s main driveways on Bundy Avenue, on the site’s west side, and South Saltair Avenue, on the east side. A padlocked gate for personnel access is located at the alley bordering the site to the north. Most of the fence abuts public sidewalks or alleys, with the exception of approximately 350 feet on the site’s south side, where the fence skirts the back- and side yards of two residences owned by the City and occupied by WTP operations and maintenance personnel. At these residential locations ornamental vegetation covers the fence and screens views between the WTP and the residences. The modified project would replace approximately 1,620 feet of this existing chain-link fence with an approximately 8-foot high decorative wrought iron fence. The fence bordering the residences southwest of the plant would remain in place. A representation of the replacement fence type is shown in Figure 31. The existing driveway gates and personnel gates would be replaced in their current locations with iron gates of the same material and design as the rest of the fence. Existing vegetation along the parts of the fence proposed for replacement would be removed to accommodate the fence installation, and would be replaced where feasible. Fence replacement would entail removing existing posts and fence panels and disposing of them off site, excavating a shallow, narrow trench for installation of a concrete foundation that would support the replacement fence, fastening new posts to the foundation, and hanging replacement fence panels on the posts. This work is generally consistent with the “site work” described for the approved project in the MND, but because fence replacement was not explicitly referenced in the MND and additional project details are now available, the City has elected to disclose and assess the environmental impacts of the fence replacement in this addendum. 4 Impact Analysis This section presents a discussion of how the proposed minor changes to the project affect the analysis and impact conclusions of the environmental issues analyzed in the MND. The environmental issue areas are presented in the order in which they appear in the MND. 1 The image shown in Figure 3 includes a photograph of a representative fence that is white in color, whereas the actual fence to be constructed as part of the modified project is anticipated to be black. 3.D.f Packet Pg. 655 Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Mitigated Negative ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE OLYMPIC WELL FIELD RESTORATION AND ARCADIA WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12038 6 APRIL 2022 4.1 Aesthetics No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Potential impacts to aesthetics are discussed in Section 3.1, Aesthetics, of the MND. The MND stated that the project site and the surrounding area of the approved project are located within highly urbanized portions of the Cities of Los Angeles and Santa Monica and do not contain open spaces or topographical features, designated scenic highways, nor do they offer scenic views. The approved SM- 11i well site, located within Ishihara Park, and recycled water pipeline would be located within the City of Santa Monica. In addition, there are no scenic resources, either natural or manmade, within the viewshed of the project site. The approved project would include the construction of a pipeline that would be located underground and the installation of well sites that would be enclosed within fencing and would not be tall enough to hinder views of distant scenic vistas. Temporary visual impacts associated with construction were determined to not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality. The MND concluded the approved project would result in either less-than-significant impacts or no impacts associated with aesthetics. The modified project would be located in the same urban visual setting as the approved project. The proposed well sites would be located within the City Yards property that currently features other public facilities and civic uses, and is planned for redevelopment that will reconfigure these uses. As analyzed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the City Yards EIR, the appearance of the City Yards property and associated structures associated with the Master Plan would be visually consistent with surrounding buildings. The proposed wells would feature aboveground components that would be visible from within the City Yards and from adjacent areas, but these features would not be visually incompatible with the existing and future uses of the City Yards. Similar to the approved project, visual impacts associated with construction of the modified project would be temporary. However, the proposed pipeline extensions would be substantially smaller and primarily located within City Yards property and the parking lot for Gandara Park, thus reducing visibility of project construction from the neighboring residential area. As discussed in the MND, development of the well sites would comply with the Santa Monica Municipal Code as it relates to zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality. By relocating the previous SM-11i well site out of Ishihara Park, the modified project would avoid adding infrastructure within the park that would be visible to park users and adjacent residences. This would also avoid the removal of existing trees within the park, as previously planned and discussed in the MND. As the modified project would avoid any visual change to Ishihara Park, the modified project would represent a beneficial change in aesthetics impacts compared to the approved project addressed in the MND. While not explicitly identified in the MND, the proposed fence replacement would be consistent with general “site work” discussed as part of components of the Arcadia WTP component of the approved project. Replacement of an existing chain-link fence (and barbed wire topper) with a slightly taller wrought iron fence represents a marginal visual change in the context of the other components of the Arcadia WTP expansion and surrounding urban environment, and may be perceived as an improvement to aesthetic conditions by many viewers. The proposed fence replacement would be considered ancillary improvements in support of construction, installation, and operation of public utilities. As discussed in the MND, per §53091(d) of the California Government Code, building ordinances of a county or city (in this case, the City of Los Angeles) shall not apply to the location or construction of facilities for the production, generation, storage, treatment, or transmission of water, wastewater, or electrical energy by a local agency. As such, the additional detail now known regarding the fence replacement would not result in new aesthetic impacts beyond those anticipated in the MND. 3.D.f Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Mitigated Negative ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE OLYMPIC WELL FIELD RESTORATION AND ARCADIA WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12038 7 APRIL 2022 Similar to the approved project, the modified project would not result in significant impacts to aesthetic and scenic resources within the project site of surrounding area. In conclusion, no new or more substantially severe significant impacts associated with aesthetics would occur as a result of the modified project when compared to the MND. No new mitigation measures are required. 4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Potential impacts on agriculture and forestry resources are discussed in Section 3.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, of the MND. The MND concluded the approved project would result in no impacts on agriculture and forestry resources and no mitigation was identified. The City, including the entirety of the project site, is not mapped under the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, and, thus, does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The approved project would be located within an urbanized area, which is not located on or surrounded by land uses that contain forest lands or timberlands. Similarly, the modified project would be located within an area that does not contain any farmland, forest lands, or timberlands and, thus, would not result in conflict with these resources. In conclusion, no new or more substantially severe significant impacts associated with agricultural and forestry resources would occur as a result of the modified project when compared to the MND. No new mitigation measures are required. 4.3 Air Quality No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Potential impacts on air quality are discussed in Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the MND. As discussed in Section 3.3 of the MND, the approved project is located within the South Coast Air Basin, which comprises Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The project site is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. While the MND notes that construction of the approved project would result in a temporary addition of pollutants to the local airshed during construction, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure [MM] AQ-1 and MM-AQ-2, there would be no exceedance of South Coast Air Quality Management District construction Localized Significance Thresholds. The MND identified mitigation of potential impacts to air quality for construction activities at the Arcadia WTP and Olympic AWTF; construction of individual well sites and pipelines would not exceed construction Localized Significance Thresholds and was not assigned any mitigation in the MND. As such, the MND concluded that impacts relating to the approved project’s potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plans, the cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants, exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and odors would be less than significant. The modified project would include similar project components to the approved project. Estimated construction emissions for the approved project are well below the daily South Coast Air Quality Management District thresholds. Minor changes in construction equipment use or duration to accommodate the modified project would not result in exceedance of these daily thresholds. The new proposed site for the SM-11i well would be located within the City Yards property, away from sensitive receptors, while the proposed SM-12i well would be located a similar distance to sensitive receptors and would require similar construction methods, phasing, and duration when compared to the approved project. SM-12i would not exceed construction Localized Significance Thresholds, similar to the other well sites analyzed in the MND. Additionally, the modified project would include a substantially smaller pipeline compared to the approved project. The proposed fence replacement at the Arcadia WTP falls under the disclosed “site work” to occur amongst various 3.D.f Packet Pg. 657 Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Mitigated Negative ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE OLYMPIC WELL FIELD RESTORATION AND ARCADIA WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12038 8 APRIL 2022 other plant-wide improvements discussed in the MND. Therefore, this improvement does not substantially differ from what was assumed in the MND’s air quality analysis for the Arcadia WTP. Approved project construction of the Arcadia WTP would result in exceedances of construction Localized Significance Thresholds. Within implementation of mitigation measures MM-AQ-1 and MM-AQ-2, impacts of the approved project would be reduced to less than significant. Construction of the modified project at Arcadia WTP would still implement MM-AQ-1 and MM-AQ-2 and impacts would remain mitigated to below Localized Significance Thresholds. Estimated operational emissions for the approved project are well below the daily SCAQMD thresholds, and including the additional SM-12i well would not result in more emissions that would result in the exceedance of applicable operational emissions thresholds. Estimated construction and operational emissions of the modified project are likely to be similar to what is calculated in the MND. In conclusion, no new or more substantially severe significant impacts associated with air quality would occur as a result of the modified project when compared to the MND. No new mitigation measures are required. 4.4 Biological Resources No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Potential impacts to biological resources are discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, of the MND. The MND stated that the installation of SM-11i would result in the removal of nine Ficus trees within Ishihara Park, which would result in direct impacts on nesting birds and their foraging habitat. To avoid potential direct impacts to nesting birds, the approved project would implement MM-BIO-1. As concluded in the MND, with implementation of mitigation, the approved project would result in a less- than-significant impact or no impact on other biological resources. Construction of the modified project wells sites would be located within, and adjacent to, City Yards property, near the proposed site of the approved project. As discussed in Section 5.4.3, Biological Resources, of the City Yards EIR, the City Yards property has been developed for over 50 years and does not contain suitable habitat for native vegetation or special-status species. The City Yards EIR concluded implementing the Master Plan would not result in impacts on biological resources. Therefore, the modified project’s well construction in the City Yards is not anticipated to result in direct impacts on biological resources. Installing the pipeline extension to well SM-12i would involve construction activity adjacent to trees located in the Gandara Park parking lot, which could result in temporary indirect impacts on nesting birds. The proposed fence replacement would occur within the Arcadia WTP expansion site, which does not contain sensitive biological resources, as described in the MND. Fence replacement may result in temporary indirect impacts on nesting birds, as well as potential direct impacts on nesting birds where vegetation is removed. The modified project would incorporate MM-BIO-1, which would require pre-construction nesting bird surveys during the nesting season and postponement of construction activities within a minimum of 100 feet of active nests, to reduce potential impacts to nesting birds. Further detail regarding MM-BIO-1 is included in Section 3.4 of the MND. Implementation of the modified project would avoid removal of the nine Ficus trees identified for removal in the MND, presenting a beneficial change in the project’s impacts on biological resources compared to that identified in the MND. In conclusion, no new or more substantially severe significant impacts associated with biological resources would occur as a result of the modified project when compared to the MND. No new mitigation measures are required. 3.D.f Packet Pg. 658 Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Mitigated Negative ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE OLYMPIC WELL FIELD RESTORATION AND ARCADIA WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12038 9 APRIL 2022 4.5 Cultural Resources No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Potential impacts to cultural resources are discussed in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, of the MND. As discussed in Section 3.5 of the MND, search records identified 21 cultural resources within 0.5 miles of the site of the approved project. Implementation of the approved project would include ground-disturbing activities that could result in impacts to unanticipated cultural resources. The MND identified MM-CUL-1, MM-CUL-2, and MM-CUL-3 to reduce potential impacts to cultural resources. These mitigation measures would require pre-construction worker training, archaeological monitoring, and the halting of construction activities within 100 feet of a potential cultural resource find until the find can be properly evaluated. The MND concluded that with the implementation of MM-CUL-1, MM-CUL-2, and MM-CUL-3 the approved project would result in less- than-significant impacts related to historical resources, human remains, and paleontological resources. Further detail regarding MM-CUL-1, MM-CUL-2, and MM-CUL-3 is included in Section 3.5 of the MND. A portion of the modified project would be located within and adjacent to the City Yards property, near the proposed site of the approved project. The City Yards EIR did not identify any known cultural resources within or adjacent to the City Yards property. As discussed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of the City Yards EIR, the City Yards property itself is not considered eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources, so implementing the modified project’s proposed wells and pipe extensions would not affect known cultural resources. The City Yards EIR concluded that impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant, and no mitigation was identified for earth disturbance within the City Yards property. The proposed fence replacement is located within the Arcadia WTP expansion site, which does not contain known cultural resources. Similar to the approved project, the modified project would include ground-disturbing activities during construction that could uncover unanticipated cultural resources. Given the revised well sites relocation to the City Yards property, MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-3 from the MND have been revised to clarify that the measure is not required when installing wells SM-11i and SM-12i. The revised cultural mitigation measures are shown below in strikeout/underline format. Implementation of MM- CUL-1 through MM-CUL-3 as applicable for other portions of the modified project would reduce impacts to a level below significance. In conclusion, no new or more substantially severe significant impacts associated with cultural resources would occur as a result of the modified project when compared to the MND. No new mitigation measures are required. Revised Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-1: Prior to commencement of construction activities at the Olympic Well Field (except for well sites SM-11i and SM-12i), Olympic Pipeline, and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant, the City’s construction contractor and construction personnel shall attend and complete a Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training conducted by a qualified archaeologist. The WEAP training shall provide: (1) the types and characteristics of archaeological materials that may be identified during construction and explain the importance of and legal basis for the protection of significant cultural resources; (2) proper procedures to follow in the event that cultural resources or human remains are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities, including procedures for work curtailment or redirection; and (3) protocols for the contact of the site supervisor and archaeological monitor upon discovery of a resource. 3.D.f Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Mitigated Negative ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE OLYMPIC WELL FIELD RESTORATION AND ARCADIA WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12038 10 APRIL 2022 MM-CUL-2: If archaeological resources (i.e., sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities of any components of the proposed Project at the Olympic Well Field (except for well sites SM-11i and SM-12i), Olympic Pipeline, and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified archaeological principal investigator, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. This work exclusion buffer may be adjusted based on the recommendation of the archaeological principal investigator. Reservation in place of any unanticipated resource should be considered the preferred approach wherever possible, and the feasibility of avoidance should be discussed with the City prior to moving forward with excavation or other potentially destructive evaluation efforts. Should it be required, temporary flagging may be installed around this resource in order to avoid any disturbances from construction equipment. Depending upon the nature of the find, the archaeological monitor in correspondence with the qualified archaeological principal investigator may simply record the find to appropriate standards (thereby addressing any data potential) and allow work to continue. If the qualified archaeological principal investigator determines the discovery to be potentially significant under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or City regulations, additional efforts in conformance with requirements set forth in CEQA Section 21083.2 related to unique archeological resources shall be conducted, such avoidance of the resources, preservation in place, additional testing, and/or data, prior to allowing construction to proceed in the area of the find. MM-CUL-3: During construction activities at the Olympic Well Field (except for well sites SM-11i and SM-12i) and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant that require earthwork below five feet or disturbance of native soils, periodic archaeological monitoring shall be conducted. The frequency and duration of the periodic monitoring shall be determined by a qualified archaeological principal investigator based on inspection of exposed subsurface soils and their observed potential to contain intact cultural deposits or material. The archaeological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt work to inspect areas as needed for potential cultural material or deposits. In the event that archaeological resources are exposed during construction activities for the proposed Project’s MM- CUL-2 shall be followed. The archaeological monitor shall be responsible for maintaining daily monitoring logs during monitoring. Following the completion of construction, an archaeological monitoring report with the results of the cultural monitoring program shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. Once approved, the final report will be filed with the South Central Coastal Information Center. 4.6 Energy No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Potential impacts to energy are discussed in Section 3.6, Energy, of the MND. As discussed in Section 3.6 of the MND, the approved project would have a less-than-significant impact associated with energy consumption. Implementation of the approved project would result in an increase in electricity, natural gas, and petroleum usage within the City. However, the total use of these resources would be a small fraction of the statewide use. The MND determined the approved project would not result in inefficient consumption of energy. The approved project’s potential to conflict with a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency would be less than significant. 3.D.f Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Mitigated Negative ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE OLYMPIC WELL FIELD RESTORATION AND ARCADIA WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12038 11 APRIL 2022 The modified project would include similar project components to the approved project. The modified project would include an additional well, which would increase construction-related energy consumption, and a substantially smaller pipeline, which would reduce construction-related energy consumption. Overall construction energy is anticipated to be similar to that of the approved project. With the implementation of the additional well site, operational energy of the modified project would be incrementally greater than described in the MND, but not to the extent that it would result in a significant impact pursuant to CEQA. In conclusion, no new or more substantially severe significant impacts associated with energy consumption would occur as a result of the modified project when compared to the MND. No new mitigation measures are required. 4.7 Geology and Soils No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Potential impacts to geology and soils are discussed in Section 3.7 of the MND. The MND concluded the approved project would have less-than-significant or no impacts related to earthquakes/faulting, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, erosion, unstable geologic units/soils, expansive soils, and septic tanks. According to the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, the approved project is located in an area considered to have a low paleontological sensitivity. The modified project would be located in the vicinity of the approved project and would be subject to the same geologic conditions discussed in the MND. As discussed in Section 4.5, Geology and Soils, of the City Yards EIR, some portions of the City Yards property overlie a clay pit/landfill pit. Decomposition and settlement of the landfill materials could result in structural distress. The City Yards EIR indicated compliance with requirements of the Santa Monica Building Code would include measures to minimize the risk of soil settlement, subsidence, and soil collapse. The proposed pipeline extension from the well SM-12i site to the existing recycled water pipeline would overlie the clay pit/landfill pit identified in the City Yards EIR, while the proposed well site does not overlie this area (Figure 4). Design of the modified project’s wells and pipelines will incorporate recommendations from geotechnical analysis to meet Santa Monica Building Code requirements and ensure the facilities are stable. The modified project would not result in an inability to meet seismic requirements and would include applicable design features to minimize adverse effects from earthquakes and strong seismic activity. As with the approved project, the modified project would not include the use of septic tanks. Furthermore, with respect to paleontological resources, the modified project would be located within the same area as the approved project that is considered to have low paleontological sensitivity. Therefore, no new impacts to paleontological resources would occur. In conclusion, no new or more substantially severe significant impacts associated with geology and soils would occur as a result of the modified project when compared to the MND. No new mitigation measures are required. 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Potential impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions are discussed in Section 3.8 of the MND. The MND determined the approved project would result in GHG emissions primarily during the construction phase, including those associated with use of off-road construction equipment, on-road haul and vendor trucks, and worker vehicles. When accounting for both construction and operational GHG emissions, the MND concluded the approved project would result in a net reduction in GHG emissions because the project would replace imported water with a local source. 3.D.f Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Mitigated Negative ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE OLYMPIC WELL FIELD RESTORATION AND ARCADIA WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12038 12 APRIL 2022 Construction equipment and construction duration of the modified project would be similar to that of the approved project. Minor changes in construction equipment use or duration to accommodate the modified project would not result in a substantial increase in GHG emissions beyond what was estimated for the approved project in the MND. Similar to the approved project, net emissions generated as a result of modified project are negative with the replacement of imported water with local groundwater. As such, the modified project would result in a potential GHG emissions benefit. The modified project would not result in any new, significant sources of GHG emissions that would increase impacts from that identified in the MND. In conclusion, no new or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with GHG emissions would occur as a result of the modified project when compared to the MND. No new mitigation measures are required. 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Potential impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials are discussed in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the MND. The MND identified construction-period impacts warranting mitigation due to potential worker exposure to contaminated soil and groundwater during well installation. Several components of the approved project, including the original well SM-11i, were proposed for construction in areas of known groundwater contamination referred to as the Olympic Well Field Contamination Plume. This plume includes Cortese List sites pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5. MM-HAZ-1 requires preparation of a Hazardous Materials Contingency Plan to address the potential impacts related to disturbance of potentially contaminated soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater during construction in the Olympic Well Field. Another potentially significant impact was identified due to worker exposure to hazardous levels of chromium and lead during removal of existing road surfaces, but with incorporation of mitigation measure MM-HAZ-2 impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Further details regarding MM-HAZ-1 and MM-HAZ-2are included in Section 3.9 of the MND. Construction of the modified project would require the same routine use, transport, storage, and disposal of potentially hazardous materials as described in the MND for the approved project. Well SM-11i of the modified project is located along the edge of the Olympic Well Field Contamination Plume depicted in the MND (see MND Figure 15). Well SM-12i is similarly located within the plume boundaries shown in the MND (Figure 5). Construction of the modified project would still require implementation of MM-HAZ-1, identified in the MND, which would apply to construction (specifically, earth-moving activities) of the modified project’s wells and pipeline extensions, requiring preparation of and adherence to a Hazardous Materials Contingency Plan by project contractors. With implementation of MM-HAZ-1, impacts related to the plume would be less than significant. As discussed in Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the City Yards EIR, the City Yards property is underlain by a former landfill, which is subject to settling. The proposed pipeline extension that would connect well SM-12i to the existing recycled water pipeline would be located within the portion of the City Yards property that is underlain by a former landfill. Mitigation measures were incorporated into the City Yards EIR to ensure impacts related to the former landfill are reduced to a less than significant level. The modified project would not impact the implementation of mitigation measures within the City Yards EIR addressing the former landfill. Similar to mitigation measures contained within the City Yards EIR, MM-HAZ-1 would be implemented for all components of the modified project, including any areas that overlie the former landfill. Construction of the modified project would comply with federal, state, and local regulations including the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, California Accidental Release Prevention Program, the Hazardous Material Management Act, and Hazardous Waste Control Act, which provide safety and control measures for those materials handled on site, ensuring that potentially significant impacts would not occur. 3.D.f Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Mitigated Negative ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE OLYMPIC WELL FIELD RESTORATION AND ARCADIA WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12038 13 APRIL 2022 As the proposed fence replacement would occur within the Arcadia WTP site, it would be subject to MM-HAZ-2, identified in the MND, which would require a hazardous material site survey. With implementation of both MM-HAZ- 1 and MM-HAZ-2, impacts related to the proposed fence replacement would be less than significant. Construction of the modified project would require the temporary closure of a portion of the Gandara Park parking lot to allow trench installation of the pipeline connection to well SM-12i. This parking lot also provides vehicle access to the City Yards. Emergency access through the City Yards would be maintained at all times. Existing conditions of the Gandara Park parking lot would be restored upon completion of construction. In conclusion, with the implementation of MM-HAZ-1, no new or more substantially severe significant impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials would occur as a result of the modified project when compared to the MND. No new mitigation measures are required. 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Potential impacts associated with hydrology and water quality are discussed in Section 3.10 of the MND. The MND determined construction of the approved project may temporarily alter drainage patterns within the approved project sites, but these changes would be temporary and would warrant implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan and sediment-control best management practices to control construction pollution in compliance with the State Water Resources Control Board’s Construction General Permit. As concluded in the MND, the approved project would otherwise result in less-than-significant or no impacts related to hydrology and water quality, flooding, and inundation. Construction of the modified project would be subject to best management practices to be implemented by the project’s stormwater pollution prevention plan to minimize adverse effects to water quality and erosion. Similar to the approved project, any alterations to drainage patterns during construction would be temporary. Implementation of the modified project would not conflict with water quality regulatory requirements. In conclusion, no new or more severe impacts associated with hydrology and water quality would occur from implementation of the modified project when compared to the MND. No new mitigation measures are required. 4.11 Land Use and Planning No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning, of the MND concluded the approved project would have a less-than-significant impact associated with land use and planning, and no mitigation is required. The MND anticipated construction of the approved project would require multiple temporary lane closures and detours, but stated the approved project would not divide an established community because operation of roadways would resume as under existing conditions upon completion of construction. The MND concluded that the proposed uses of the approved project would not conflict with land use and zoning designations because it proposed constructing public infrastructure within roads and other existing public-use areas. The modified project would be located within City Yards property and the Arcadia WTP expansion site. The modified project would not change the overall purpose or function of the approved project. The addition of the proposed injection well sites within the City Yards Property would be consistent with the existing and planned land uses for that site as well as the general plan and zoning designations. The modified project would be located within an existing City facility proposed for redevelopment and an adjacent parking lot; therefore, this relocation of sites would not physically divide an established community. 3.D.f Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Mitigated Negative ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE OLYMPIC WELL FIELD RESTORATION AND ARCADIA WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12038 14 APRIL 2022 In conclusion, no new or more substantially severe significant impacts associated with land use and planning would occur as a result of the modified project when compared to the MND. No new mitigation measures are required. 4.12 Mineral Resources No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As discussed in Section 3.12, Mineral Resources, of the MND, the approved project would result in no impact to mineral resources. The locations of the approved project are identified as Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) 1, which are defined as areas where no significant construction aggregate deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. The approved project would be located within a highly urbanized area of the City, which includes land uses that are not compatible with mineral extraction. The modified project would be located within a developed area within MRZ-1, and the loss of availability of a known resource as a result of implementation of the proposed project is unlikely to occur. This is consistent with the impact conclusions of City Yards EIR. As discussed in Section 5.4.8, Mineral Resources, of the City Yards EIR, clay-mining operations occurred within the City during the early 1900s. The City Yards property was abandoned and later developed into a landfill over 50 years ago once clay was depleted from the site. No known mineral resources exist within the City Yards property today. In conclusion, no new or more severe impacts associated with mineral resources would occur from implementation of the modified project when compared to the MND. No new mitigation measures are required. 4.13 Noise No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Potential impacts associated with noise are discussed in Section 3.13, Noise, of the MND. The MND concluded that installation of the proposed recycled water pipeline of the approved project could create temporary noise at levels that would require mitigation. MM-NOI-1 was identified for this component of the project to require construction noise reduction measures that would reduce temporary noise impacts during construction to less than significant. The MND determined that vibration impacts resulting from the approved project would not be significant. The overall scale and duration of construction for the modified project would be similar to that of the approved project, and the modified project is not anticipated to result in noise impacts beyond those stated in the MND. Under the modified project, well SM-11i would be located on the western side of the City Yards property, farther from sensitive land uses than the well SM-11i site analyzed in the MND. The proposed SM-12i well site of the modified project would be located near existing residences just east of the City Yards property, at a similar distance to residences as well SM-11i analyzed in the MND. Installation of well SM-12i and the proposed pipeline extension to well SM-12i could create temporary noise at levels anticipated to require mitigation, similar to the approved project. The proposed fence replacement at the Arcadia WTP expansion site would not generate greater levels of noise for the specified construction work analyzed in the MND (i.e., demolition and grading). The modified project would implement MM-NOI-1 to reduce potential noise impacts during construction. Since the overall design of the well sites would be the same as the approved project, the modified project would result in similar less-than- significant operational noise impacts. 3.D.f Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Mitigated Negative ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE OLYMPIC WELL FIELD RESTORATION AND ARCADIA WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12038 15 APRIL 2022 In conclusion, no new or more severe impacts associated with noise would occur from implementation of the modified project when compared to the MND. No new mitigation measures are required. 4.14 Population and Housing No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As discussed in Section 3.14 of the MND, the approved project would result in either less-than-significant impacts or no impacts associated with population and housing. The approved project does not propose the implementation of infrastructure that would induce substantial population growth. Furthermore, the approved project would be located within City-owned property and would not require the demolition or alteration of existing housing. Similar to the approved project, the modified project would not result in any residential units or employment and would not induce substantial population growth in the area. Construction personnel are anticipated to come from the local areas, and thus the construction of the project would not result in growth. As with the approved project, implementation of the modified project would not result in change in water production that would induce population growth or result in substantial displacement of existing people or housing, requiring replacement housing. In conclusion, no new or more severe impacts associated with population and housing would occur from implementation of the modified project when compared to the MND. No new mitigation measures are required. 4.15 Public Services No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As discussed in Section 3.15, Public Services, of the MND, implementation of the approved project would have less-than-significant or no impact to public services. Construction would be coordinated with the Santa Monica Fire Department and Police Department and the Los Angeles Fire Department and Police Department to ensure that service providers are properly notified of the road closure and adequate rerouting is achieved. Construction associated with the modified project would relocate the approved SM-11i well site and the extension of the existing recycled water pipeline. Unlike the approved project, implementation of the modified project would occur within City Yards property and not within Ishihara Park. Construction of the modified project would require the temporary closure of a portion of the Gandara Park parking lot to allow trench installation of the pipeline connection to well SM-12i. Existing conditions of the Gandara Park parking lot would be restored upon completion of construction. Therefore, the modified project would avoid any temporary and permanent changes to existing parks. Furthermore, implementation of the modified project would not result in any indirect or direct increase in population in an area. Therefore, the demand for public services in the area will not change. In conclusion, no new or more severe impacts associated with public services would occur from implementation of the modified project when compared to the MND. No new mitigation measures are required. 4.16 Recreation No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Potential impacts associated with recreation are discussed in Section 3.16, Recreation, of the MND. As discussed in Section 3.16 of the MND, the approved project would result in less-than-significant or no impact to recreation. The approved project does not involve a population- 3.D.f Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Mitigated Negative ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE OLYMPIC WELL FIELD RESTORATION AND ARCADIA WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12038 16 APRIL 2022 generating land use that could contribute to an increase in use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The approved project would not involve the construction of recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational facilities. The modified project would avoid well installation within Ishihara Park. Installation of the recycled water pipeline extension to well SM-12i would require the temporary closure of some parking at Gandara Park, but this minor, temporary loss of parking would not be considered a significant impact pursuant to CEQA. Upon completion of construction, the parking lot would return to its existing conditions. As with the approved project, the modified project would not increase the use of existing parks or recreational facilities such that substantial deterioration of a facility would occur. In conclusion, no new or more severe impacts associated with recreation would occur from implementation of the modified project when compared to the MND. No new mitigation measures are required. 4.17 Transportation No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Potential impacts associated with transportation are discussed in Section 3.17, Transportation, of the MND. The MND concluded that construction of the approved project may introduce temporary hazards due to the presence and use of construction vehicles and equipment in a developed area that could present a conflict with vehicles travelling roadways in the vicinity of the site. The MND identified MM-TRAF-1 to minimize potential safety hazards during construction by requiring preparation of a Traffic Control Plan prior to construction. Further detail regarding MM-TRAF-1 is included in Section 3.17 of the MND. The modified project would result in the temporary partial closure of the Gandara Park parking lot to construct the recycled water pipe extension to well SM-12i. Closure of the parking lot would cease upon completion of construction and would not result in inadequate emergency access. Implementation of the modified project would no longer require construction of the pipeline within Exposition Boulevard, thus reducing construction impacts related to transportation from temporary lane closure of that street. Fence replacement may require brief, temporary closure of the vehicle access driveways to the Arcadia WTP, with one of the two driveways closed at a time. This would reroute worker access and deliveries to the other driveway that would remain open. The volume of traffic affected by this closure would not create a significant impact on the circulation system, and emergency access to the driveways would remain open at all times. Similar to the approved project, construction of the modified project may introduce temporary hazards due to the presence and use of construction vehicles and equipment in a developed area, and MM-TRAF-1 would be required. The modified project would not involve any long-term or ongoing operational traffic or circulation changes to the project site. This is consistent with the construction of the City Yards Master Plan, which anticipated short-term construction traffic, vehicular and pedestrian safety, pedestrian/bicycle access and parking, street closures, and construction parking, which would cease upon completion of construction. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts associated with transportation programs, plans, ordinances, and policies addressing the circulation system would occur. In conclusion, no new or more severe impacts associated with transportation would occur from implementation of the modified project when compared to the MND. No new mitigation measures are required. 3.D.f Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Mitigated Negative ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE OLYMPIC WELL FIELD RESTORATION AND ARCADIA WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12038 17 APRIL 2022 4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Potential impacts associated with tribal cultural resources are discussed in Section 3.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, of the MND. As determined in Section 3.18 of the MND, the approved project would have a less-than-significant impact or no impact associated with tribal cultural resources. As previously discussed, the approved project would have no impact on historical resources. A portion of the modified project would be located within City Yards property, near the proposed site of the approved project. Similar to the approved project, the modified project would be located within a highly urbanized area of the City. As discussed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of the City Yards EIR, no tribal cultural resources were identified within the City Yards site. In addition, previous uses of the site included a significant amount of ground- disturbing activities, so any unrecorded tribal cultural resources would likely already have been disturbed. The City Yards EIR did not identify mitigation for tribal cultural resources. As described above in Section 4.5, MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-3 have been revised to clarify they do not apply to installation of wells SM-11i and SM-12i. The proposed fence replacement is located within the Arcadia WTP expansion site, which does not contain known tribal cultural resources but would be subject to the same mitigation measures referenced above. Implementation of MM-CUL-1, MM-CUL-2, and MM-CUL-3, as discussed above in Section 4.5, would ensure the remaining components of the modified project’s impact on any previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. In conclusion, no new or more severe impacts associated with tribal cultural resources would occur from implementation of the modified project when compared to the MND. No new mitigation measures are required. 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Potential impacts associated with utilities and service systems are discussed in Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems, of the MND. As discussed in Section 3.19 of the MND, the approved project would result in less-than-significant impacts to water, wastewater, stormwater, and solid waste facilities. Implementation of the modified project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater or stormwater drainage facilities. The modified project would include the construction of two injection wells and the extension of an existing recycled water pipeline. Similar to the approved project, implementation of the modified project would improve the City’s water facilities. Implementation of the project would not result in any long-term solid waste requiring waste disposal. The modified project would be served by a local landfill with sufficient capacity. In conclusion, no new or more severe impacts associated with utilities and services would occur from implementation of the modified project when compared to the MND. No new mitigation measures are required. 4.20 Wildfire No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Potential impacts associated with wildfires are discussed in Section 3.20, Wildfire, of the MND. As discussed in Section 3.20 of the MND, the proposed well locations of the 3.D.f Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Mitigated Negative ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE OLYMPIC WELL FIELD RESTORATION AND ARCADIA WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12038 18 APRIL 2022 approved project are within highly urbanized areas that lack wildlands and are not within state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity. Additionally, the approved project sites and the surrounding area are generally flat and lack topographical features that would exacerbate wildfire risks. As concluded in the MND, implementation of the approved project would result in no impacts associated with wildfires. Similar to the approved project, the modified project would not be located within a very high fire hazard severity zone or on land that features topographical features that would exacerbate wildfire risks. The modified project would include the construction of two injection wells within the City Yards and the extension of an existing recycled water pipeline. The modified project would be located within highly urbanized areas that lack wildlands and are not susceptible to wildfire risks In conclusion, no new or more severe impacts associated with wildfires would occur from implementation of the modified project when compared to the MND. No new mitigation measures are required. 5 Conclusion This document identifies all changed circumstances related to the modified project that were not previously disclosed in the MND. As discussed in Section 4 above, none of the changes associated with the proposed modification require the preparation of a subsequent MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Therefore, this addendum constitutes the modified project’s full compliance with CEQA. 3.D.f Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Mitigated Negative Project Location and Regional Vicinity (Approved Project) Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project SOURCE: Bing Maps 2021; Open street Map 2019 0 1,000500Feet Arcadia Water Treatment Plant New Well Location Well to be Removed New Recycled Water Pipeline New Untreated Water Pipeline New Pipeline Alternative City Boundary FIGURE 1A MapExtent Long Beach Carson Torrance Manhattan Beach Gardena Compton El Segundo Hawthorne Lynwood South GateInglewood Huntington Park Maywood CommerceCulver City Malibu West Hollywood Beverly Hills Agoura Hills Calabasas Hidden Hills Pasadena Pasadena Pasadena Glendale Redondo Beach Burbank HermosaBeach Santa Monica Simi Valley Los Angeles L o s A n g e l e s C o u n t y Ve n t u r a C ou n t y 101 101 90 60 107 187 170 134 91 2 27 1 5 10 210 105 405 Features Removed from Project 3.D.f Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Mitigated Negative ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE OLYMPIC WELL FIELD RESTORATION AND ARCADIA WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12038 20 APRIL 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3.D.f Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Mitigated Negative Project Location and Regional Vicinity (Modified Project) Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project SOURCE: Bing Maps 2021; Open street Map 2019 0 1,000500Feet Arcadia Water Treatment Plant New Well Location Well to be Removed Modified Project - Fence Replacement New Untreated Water Pipeline New Pipeline Alternative City Boundary FIGURE 1B MapExtent Long Beach Carson Torrance Manhattan Beach Gardena Compton El Segundo Hawthorne Lynwood South GateInglewood Huntington Park Maywood CommerceCulver City Malibu West Hollywood Beverly Hills Agoura Hills Calabasas Hidden Hills Pasadena Pasadena Pasadena Glendale Redondo Beach Burbank HermosaBeach Santa Monica Simi Valley Los Angeles L o s A n g e l e s C o u n t y Ve n t u r a C ou n t y 101 101 90 60 107 187 170 134 91 2 27 1 5 10 210 105 405 Modified Project Well Sites 10 3.D.f Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Mitigated Negative ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE OLYMPIC WELL FIELD RESTORATION AND ARCADIA WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12038 22 APRIL 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3.D.f Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Mitigated Negative Date: 3/21/2022 - Last saved by: ckubacki - Path: Z:\Projects\j1203801\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR Addendum\Fig2_Modified_Project_Well_SM-11i_SM-12i.mxd3.D.fPacket Pg. 673Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE OLYMPIC WELL FIELD RESTORATION AND ARCADIA WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12038 24 APRIL 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3.D.f Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Mitigated Negative Date: 3/21/2022 - Last saved by: ckubacki - Path: Z:\Projects\j1203801\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR Addendum\Fig3_ModifiedProject_FenceReplacement.mxd3.D.fPacket Pg. 675Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE OLYMPIC WELL FIELD RESTORATION AND ARCADIA WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12038 26 APRIL 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3.D.f Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Mitigated Negative Date: 3/24/2022 - Last saved by: ckubacki - Path: Z:\Projects\j1203801\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR Addendum\Fig4_CityYardsFormerClayPitLandfill_ModifiedProjectWellSites.mxd3.D.fPacket Pg. 677Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE OLYMPIC WELL FIELD RESTORATION AND ARCADIA WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12038 28 APRIL 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3.D.f Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Mitigated Negative Date: 3/24/2022 - Last saved by: ckubacki - Path: Z:\Projects\j1203801\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR Addendum\Fig5_OlympicWellFieldContPlume_ModifiedProjectWellSites.mxd3.D.fPacket Pg. 679Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE OLYMPIC WELL FIELD RESTORATION AND ARCADIA WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12038 30 APRIL 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3.D.f Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: Addendum No. 2 to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Mitigated Negative Page 1 of 3 City Council Meeting: June 14, 2022 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER (CCS) (City Council Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ADOPTING THE SECOND ADDENDUM TO THE INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE OLYMPIC WELL FIELD RESTORATION AND ARCADIA WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent to Adopt an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project (Project) was published in the Santa Monica Daily Press and City Public Works Website on May XX, 2022 in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, on November 24, 2020, the City Council, as Lead Agency, adopted the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project. WHEREAS, on February 23, 2021, the City Council, as Lead Agency, adopted the First Addendum to the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, a Second Addendum to the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this Project in compliance with the CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Second Addendum to the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration did not identify new or substantially more severe environmental effects from the adopted Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. 3.D.g Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: Resolution to Adopt IS-MND 2nd Addendum for the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability of a Second Addendum to the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project was published in the Santa Monica Daily Press and City Public Works website on May XX, 2022; and WHEREAS, the Second Addendum to the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for public comment for X-days, beginning on May XX, 2022 and ending at 5:30 p.m. on June XX, 2022. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Second Addendum to the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration together with the comments received during the public review process, prior to acting on the Second Addendum. SECTION 2. The City Council finds that the Second Addendum to the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration did not identify new or substantially more severe environmental effects from the proposed changes to the project. SECTION 3. With mitigation measures identified in the adopted Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, the proposed changes would have less than significant impacts on Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Construction Effects. No impacts would occur or impacts would be less than significant for the remaining environmental factors considered pursuant to CEQA. SECTION 4. To ensure that mitigation measures are properly implemented, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared and will be enforced during construction and operation of the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project. 3.D.g Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: Resolution to Adopt IS-MND 2nd Addendum for the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Page 3 of 3 SECTION 5. The City Council finds, based on the whole record before it, including the Second Addendum to the Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and any comments received, that with incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the changes to the Project will have a significant effect on the environment, and that the Second Addendum to the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis. Therefore, the City Council hereby adopts the Second Addendum to the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. SECTION 6. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (a) (2), the documents which constitute the record of proceedings for approving the Second Addendum for this Project are located in the City Clerk Department, 1680 Main Street, Santa Monica, California. The custodian of these documents is the City Clerk. SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Douglas Sloan City Attorney 3.D.g Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: Resolution to Adopt IS-MND 2nd Addendum for the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion 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 # ___________________________ _________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ Paul Hermann 10873 (CCS) Principal/Vice President 05/09/2022 paul.hermann@ghd.com (949)585-5217 GHD Inc. See Attached None 3.D.h Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: Oaks Initiative (GHD) (5066 : Olympic Restoration and Arcadia Expansion Project MND Addendum) GHD INC. DIRECTORS & OFFICERS Director/President Director/Treasurer Director/ Executive Vice-President Director/ Executive Vice-President Director/Chairman Company Secretary Assistant Company Secretary Effective: May 2, 2022 Iver Skavdal 2235 Mercury Way, Suite 150, Santa Rosa, California 95407 Mike Moran 6705 Millcreek Drive, Unit 1, Mississauga, ON L5N 5M4 Stephen Quigley 445 Phillip Street, Waterloo, ON N2L 3X2 Harry Sturdevant 16701 Melford Blvd, Suite 330, Bowie, Maryland 20715 Ashley Wright 999 Hay Street, Perth, Western Australia 6000 Duncan Findlay 4747 N. 22nd Street, 2nd Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85016 Lindsay Ray 651 Colby Drive, Waterloo, ON, N2V1C2 3.D.h Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: Oaks Initiative (GHD) (5066 : Olympic Restoration and Arcadia Expansion Project MND Addendum) - 1 - Contract No. 10873 (CCS) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT This Professional Services Agreement (“Agreement”), entered into as of _________________(“Execution Date”), by and between the City of Santa Monica (“City”) and GHD Inc. (“GHD”), is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. The City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of the City. B. GHD is qualified to do business, and is doing business, in the State of California. GHD represents it has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise necessary to provide the services set forth in this Agreement. C. The City and GHD now desire to enter into an agreement for GHD to provide professional services to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. Term. This Agreement begins on the Execution Date and terminates on June 30, 2024, unless sooner terminated in accordance with Section 14. 2. GHD Services. GHD will perform all of the services (“Services”) described in Exhibit A, Scope of Services. GHD will complete the Services in accordance with Exhibit B, Budget. 3. City Services. The City agrees to: 3.1 Make available to GHD any currently existing documents, data or information required for the performance of the Services. 3.2 Designate a representative authorized to act on behalf of City. 3.3 Promptly examine and render findings on all documents submitted for staff review by GHD. 4. Compensation. The City will compensate GHD for the Services performed in an amount not to exceed $1,191,496.07, as set forth in Exhibit B. 5. Invoices. GHD will invoice the City for the Services in accordance with Exhibit B and the City will pay any undisputed amount within 30 days of receipt. 6. Notices. All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement, must be in writing and will be deemed served when delivered personally, DocuSign Envelope ID: B0493407-C299-4FAB-898F-3B47BB3E2EB7 8/1/2019 3.D.i Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: CT #10873 (CCS) - Original Contract (5066 : Olympic Restoration and Arcadia Expansion Project MND Addendum) - 2 - by email, or on the third business day after deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified, addressed as follows: 6.1 All notices, demands, requests or approvals to the City: Water Resources Division City of Santa Monica 1212 5th Street, Third Floor Santa Monica, California 90401 Attention: Mr. Sunny Wang Re: Contract No. 10873 (CCS) with a copy to: Santa Monica City Attorney’s Office 1685 Main Street, Third Floor Santa Monica, California 90401 Attention: City Attorney Re: Contract No. 10873 (CCS) 6.2 All notices, demands, requests or approvals to GHD: GHD Inc. 320 Goddard Way, Suite 200 Irvine, California 92618 Attention: Mr. Paul Hermann Re: Contract No. 10873 (CCS) 7. Independent Parties. Both parties to this Agreement will be acting in an independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint venturers of one another. Neither the City nor its officers or employees will have any control over the conduct of GHD or any of GHD’s agents, employees, or subconsultants, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement. 8. Integrated Contract. This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties. Any preliminary negotiations and agreements of any kind or nature are merged into this Agreement. No oral agreement or implied covenant may be held to vary the provisions of this Agreement. This Agreement may be modified only by written agreement signed by City and GHD, and approved as to form by the City Attorney. 9. Insurance. Prior to commencing work, GHD must procure, maintain and pay for insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Services by GHD or GHD’s agents, representatives, employees or subconsultants for the duration of this DocuSign Envelope ID: B0493407-C299-4FAB-898F-3B47BB3E2EB7 3.D.i Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: CT #10873 (CCS) - Original Contract (5066 : Olympic Restoration and Arcadia Expansion Project MND Addendum) - 3 - Agreement. GHD must obtain insurance that, at a minimum, meets the requirements for insurance set forth in Exhibit C, Insurance Requirements and Verifications. 10. Defense and Indemnification. 10.1 Indemnification. As to GHD’s Services produced under this Agreement, GHD agrees to defend, indemnify, protect, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, boards and commissions, and employees (collectively, “City”) from and against any and all liability, claims, demands, damages, or costs, including but not limited to attorney’s fees, or payments for injury to any person or property (collectively, “Losses”) caused or claimed to be caused by the acts, errors and/or omissions of GHD, or GHD’s employees, agents, officers, and subconsultants. GHD’s responsibilities under this Section 10.1 include liability arising from, connected with, caused by, or claimed to be caused by the active or passive negligent acts or omissions of the City, which may be in combination with the acts or omissions of GHD, its employees, agents or officers, or subconsultants; provided, however, that GHD’s duty to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless shall not include any Losses arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. Notwithstanding GHD’s obligation to defend City hereunder, City has the right to conduct its own defense and seek reimbursement for reasonable costs of defense from GHD, if City chooses to do so. 10.2 Enforcement Costs. GHD agrees to pay any and all costs the City incurs enforcing the indemnity, defense and hold harmless provisions set forth in Section 10.1. 11. Prohibition Against Transfers. 11.1 GHD may not assign, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any attempt to do so without the City’s consent will be null and void, and any assignee, hypothecatee or transferee acquires no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. 11.2 The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of GHD or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of GHD, if a partnership or joint venture or syndicate exists, which results in changing the control of GHD, will be construed as an assignment of this Agreement. Control means 50% or more of the voting power of the corporation. 12. Permits and Licenses. GHD, at its sole expense, must obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement all required business and professional permits, licenses and certificates. DocuSign Envelope ID: B0493407-C299-4FAB-898F-3B47BB3E2EB7 3.D.i Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: CT #10873 (CCS) - Original Contract (5066 : Olympic Restoration and Arcadia Expansion Project MND Addendum) - 4 - 13. Waiver. A waiver of any breach of this Agreement may not be deemed a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement. 14. Default and Termination. 14.1 If GHD fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement, and if the default is not cured within a period of five days after the City’s written notice of default specifying the nature of the default, City may immediately terminate this Agreement by written notice to GHD. 14.2 The City has the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement by giving ten days’ written notice to GHD. Upon termination of this Agreement, City will pay GHD any compensation earned and unpaid up to the effective date of termination. 15. Compliance with Law. GHD must comply with all laws of the State of California and the United States, and all ordinances, rules, and regulations enacted or issued by City. 16. Discrimination. GHD may not discriminate in the provision of services hereunder because of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, sexual orientation, marital status, AIDS or disability. 17. Nuisance. GHD may not maintain, commit, or permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in connection with the performance of services under this Agreement. 18. Records. 18.1 GHD must maintain complete and accurate records with respect to costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by the City for any services provided where compensation is on the basis of hourly rates, subconsultant costs, or other direct costs. GHD must keep the records, together with supporting documents, separate from other documents and records and maintain them for a period of three years after receipt of final payment. 18.2 GHD must maintain records in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of the Services and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. GHD must clearly identify all records and make them readily accessible to the City. At the City’s request, GHD must provide records in an electronic format and, if necessary, access to any proprietary software to view such electronic records. 18.3 GHD must allow the City to have free access to GHD’s books and records and to inspect all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. The City has the right to examine or audit GHD’s records, and GHD agrees to cooperate with any examination or audit of its records. If a City audit discloses an error of 5% or more in information reported by GHD, GHD DocuSign Envelope ID: B0493407-C299-4FAB-898F-3B47BB3E2EB7 3.D.i Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: CT #10873 (CCS) - Original Contract (5066 : Olympic Restoration and Arcadia Expansion Project MND Addendum) - 5 - agrees to pay the cost of the City’s audit computed on the basis of four times the direct payroll of the audit staff completing the audit and audit report. 19. Work Product; Reports. 19.1 Any work product prepared or caused to be prepared by GHD or any subconsultant for this Agreement will be the exclusive property of City. No work product given to or prepared by GHD or any subconsultant pursuant to this Agreement may be made available to any individual or organization by GHD without prior written approval by City. 19.2 At the City’s request, GHD must furnish reports concerning the status of the Services. 20. Standard of Care. GHD agrees to provide all Services, including services performed by any subconsultant, in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of GHD’s profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions. 21. Subconsultants. 21.1 If GHD proposes to have any subconsultant perform any part of the Services, GHD must submit a request for approval in writing, describing the scope of work to be subcontracted, the name of the proposed subconsultant, and the total price or hourly rates used in preparing an estimated cost for the subconsultant’s services. The City, in its sole discretion, may grant or deny the request. 21.2 GHD will be responsible for the quality of any subconsultant’s work. Every subcontract or agreement of any kind entered into between GHD and any subconsultant (or between any subconsultant and others) must contain the following provision: This agreement is consistent with all terms and conditions of the Agreement No. 10873 (CCS) entered into between the City of Santa Monica and GHD on^^____________________. 22. Governing Law. The laws of the State of California, without regard to any choice of law provisions, will govern this Agreement. 23. Venue and Jurisdiction. The City and GHD agree that the Services will take place in Los Angeles County. Any litigation arising out of this Agreement may only be brought in either the United States District Court, Central District of California, or the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, West District, as appropriate. The parties agree that venue exists in either court, and each party expressly waives any right to transfer to another venue. The parties further agree that either court will have personal jurisdiction over the parties to this Agreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: B0493407-C299-4FAB-898F-3B47BB3E2EB7 8/1/2019 3.D.i Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: CT #10873 (CCS) - Original Contract (5066 : Olympic Restoration and Arcadia Expansion Project MND Addendum) - 6 - 24. Survival of Provisions and Obligations. Any provision of this Agreement, which by its nature must be exercised after termination of this Agreement, will survive termination and remain effective for a reasonable time. Any obligation that accrued prior to termination of this Agreement will survive termination of this Agreement. 25. Exhibits. The following exhibits are incorporated by reference into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. Exhibit A Scope of Services Exhibit B Budget Exhibit C Insurance Requirements In witness whereof, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. ATTEST: ______________________________ DENISE ANDERSON-WARREN City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ LANE DILG City Attorney CITY OF SANTA MONICA, a municipal corporation By: ______________________________ RICK COLE City Manager GHD Corporation #VENDOR By: ________________________________ DocuSign Envelope ID: B0493407-C299-4FAB-898F-3B47BB3E2EB7 Lane Dilg City Attorney 7/31/2019 GHD Inc. 8/1/2019 Principal Paul Hermann 8/1/2019 Rick Cole City Manager 8/1/2019 City Clerk Denise Anderson-Warren 3.D.i Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: CT #10873 (CCS) - Original Contract (5066 : Olympic Restoration and Arcadia Expansion Project MND Addendum) Exhibit A Scope of Services DocuSign Envelope ID: B0493407-C299-4FAB-898F-3B47BB3E2EB7 3.D.i Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: CT #10873 (CCS) - Original Contract (5066 : Olympic Restoration and Arcadia Expansion Project MND Addendum) Owner’s Engineer for The Olympic Wellfield Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project The City of Santa Monica (City) is retaining a City Representative (Owner’s Engineer or OE) to provide technical assistance in implementing the Olympic Wellfield Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project (Project). The Project is one of several projects outlined (see below) in the City’s Sustainable Water Master Plan to achieve water self- sufficiency by 2023.  Contract 1 – Olympic Wellfield Improvements (drilling and equipping of new wells, production and injection). The City is leading majority of the work with support from outside hydrogeologist.  Contract 2 – Olympic Pipeline. The new Olympic Pipeline would be delivered through design-bid-build. The City is currently in the process of procuring a design engineer for the pipeline.  Contract 3 – Olympic Wellfield AWTF and Arcadia WTP Expansion (Project). The Project involves design and construction of a new advanced water treatment facility for the Olympic Wellfield (co-located at the Arcadia WTP) as well as upgrade and expansion of the Arcadia Water Treatment Plant. *OE may assist the City with the coordination of all three contract packages The general requirements or skill sets of the Owner’s Engineer is listed below. The work requiring these skill sets may be needed at various stages throughout the Project, but is not intended to be utilized for the entire duration of the Project. Additional firms may be added, as needed, with the approval of the City. 1. The Program or Project Manager assigned to the Project shall be experienced in leading and managing a large collaborative program being executed under different delivery methods, including progressive design-build of an advanced water treatment facility (e.g. UV AOP, high recovery RO, and RO concentrate treatment) or brackish groundwater desalination facility. The Program/Project Manager shall have proven managerial and leadership experience with excellent communication and facilitative skills, understanding of the proposed treatment technologies for the Project, and detailed understanding of issue/decision management. 2. The Program/Project Manager shall have an in-depth understanding of collaborative progressive design-build delivery, project controls (schedule and cost tracking), and quality control and assurance. The Owner’s Engineer shall provide, at the request of the City, provide assistance in developing the terms and conditions of the GMP amendment with the design/builder. The assistance provided will not require the use of an attorney, but will oriented with the engineering, project management, and commercial sections of the GMP. 3. The Owner’s Engineer shall assist City staff on engineering and technical issues related to oversight and management of the Project. Owner’s Engineer technical efforts shall be led by the Owner’s Engineers Technical Support Manager. The Technical Support DocuSign Envelope ID: B0493407-C299-4FAB-898F-3B47BB3E2EB7 3.D.i Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: CT #10873 (CCS) - Original Contract (5066 : Olympic Restoration and Arcadia Expansion Project MND Addendum) Manager shall be supported by a strong technical advisory group with expertise in all areas of work for the Project, including for the advanced water treatment processes, process mechanical, electrical, civil, architectural, geotechnical, structural, building mechanical, plumbing, instrumentation, and permitting. 4. The Owner’s Engineer shall assist the City, as required, to develop and provide technical information to support public outreach efforts. Note that the City has in-house public outreach staff through the Office of Communications as well as on-call contracts with outside public outreach specialists/firms. 5. Throughout the term of the agreement, Owner’s Engineer shall ensure the availability of qualified staff with the discipline-specific expertise and experience to provide the necessary engineering and technical support to the City. 6. As requested, Owner’s Engineer shall attend, participate, and assist the City staff at Project meetings, which specifically entail technical issues or need for technical issues and provide support in making decisions regarding technical matters. Owner’s Engineer shall review for accuracy the minutes of such meetings prepared by either the Design- Build Entity (DBE) or others. Owner’s Engineer shall clarify and report any meeting minutes discrepancies affecting the Project to City staff. 7. Owner’s Engineer shall prepare the development of procedures and practices required of the DBE. This includes quality management, document management, scheduling systems, and project templates and forms. 8. The Owner’s Engineer shall provide construction and operation expertise to provide constructability review at various stages of the progressive design build work for the new AWTF and upgrade/expansion of the Arcadia WTP (Contract 3). 9. The Owner’s Engineer will review construction cost estimates prepared by the DBE, conduct independent cost estimates to help validate the DBE’s Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP). 10. Prepare monthly invoices in accordance with City requirements for review. Invoices shall be organized, with hourly costs and number of hours expended for each task, and include a summary of activities completed during the billing period. 11. Owner’s Engineer shall respond to City, DBE or Project-related questions. 12. Owner’s Engineer shall assist the City in reviewing all necessary documentation and reports for environmental documentation and permits (e.g. amend existing drinking water permit and if required, 97-005 compliance for impaired water supplies). The DBE would take the lead in obtaining all necessary permits for completion of the Project. 13. Provide other services as reasonably assigned by the City in support of the Project. 14. The Owner’s Engineer will review 30, 60 and 100% construction documents (drawings and specifications) in addition to contractor’s submittal and offer recommendations during construction (Contract 3). DocuSign Envelope ID: B0493407-C299-4FAB-898F-3B47BB3E2EB7 3.D.i Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: CT #10873 (CCS) - Original Contract (5066 : Olympic Restoration and Arcadia Expansion Project MND Addendum) 15. The Owner’s Engineer shall also provide building and safety and code compliance review of the DB Entity’s design on behalf of the City. 16. By performing this scope of services, Owner’s Engineer shall not have any authority or responsibility to supervise, direct, or control the DBE’s work or the DBE’s means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures of construction. Owner’s Engineer shall not have authority or responsibility for safety precautions and programs incident to the DB Entity’s work The Scope of Work for the Owner’s Engineer is outlined below. Scope of Work TASK 1 – PROGRAM MANAGEMENT Task 1.1 – Program Coordination and Management The OE team will provide programmatic management services for the Olympic Wellfield Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project (Project). The Program/Project Manager identified shall be the primary contact for the City and shall have thorough knowledge of all aspects of the Project. The Owner’s Engineer shall hold bi- weekly progress meetings, in person or via teleconference, with the City to discuss Project progress, schedule, technical design, issues/conflicts, and any other on-going work related to the Project. During the design phase until the GMP for Contract 3, weekly progress meetings may be required. The Owner’s Engineer shall prepare an overall Project Implementation Plan to define the following: various contract/work packages for the Project, alignment of contract sequencing with project timelines, risk/issues expected with suggested mitigation and metrics to measure overall Project progress, and description of coordination and collaboration between contracts. This plan will also include a detailed program management approach and project schedule. Deliverables  Project Implementation Plan – Draft and Final  Project Implementation Plan execution items (e.g., risk/issue and decision logs), to be included and updated as part of the progress meeting packages  Progress meetings – agenda  Progress meetings – minutes Scope Extent  We have assumed 20 progress meetings (pre-design phase through GMP) Task 1.2 – Project Funding DocuSign Envelope ID: B0493407-C299-4FAB-898F-3B47BB3E2EB7 3.D.i Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: CT #10873 (CCS) - Original Contract (5066 : Olympic Restoration and Arcadia Expansion Project MND Addendum) The OE shall support the City in identifying and preparing applications for project funding opportunities (e.g. Prop 1 Desalination Grant, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and MWD local resources program). Deliverables  Technical Memorandum listing viable funding opportunities, including fund name, documentation level of effort for fund application, approximate cost to submit fund application, monies available (overall and per application/project) and timing of fund monies. Scope Extent  Between the commencement of GMP development and the 30% stage, GHD will determine with the City the timing as to when to cease the continued investigation into grant funding opportunities. Task 1.3 – Permitting Prepare the list of required permits, comprehensive requirements for each permit and estimated cost of effort for each permit. Provide technical assistance to the City or DB Entity, as required, to obtain each permit. Key permits include amendment of the existing drinking water permit and if compliance with 97-005 for impaired water sources is required. A preliminary list of regulatory and other agencies that permits may be required is provided below.  California State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW)  City of Santa Monica  City of Los Angeles  City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation (LA Sanitation)  Other agencies as requested by the City Deliverables  Permit Matrix – Draft and Final  Permit Development and Assistance – Draft and Final for 6 permits in their entirety (or agreed equivalent of)  Meetings with Permitting Agencies (i.e. DDW) (assumes 6 meetings) with Agendas and Meeting Minutes Scope Extent  We have assumed 6 permits only, in their entirety; or the equivalent of. DocuSign Envelope ID: B0493407-C299-4FAB-898F-3B47BB3E2EB7 3.D.i Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: CT #10873 (CCS) - Original Contract (5066 : Olympic Restoration and Arcadia Expansion Project MND Addendum) Task 1.4 – Not Used by the City Task 1.5 – Project Coordination As stated previously, the OE’s primary responsibility will be to assist the City with Contract 3, Progressive DB of the new Olympic Well Field AWTF and expansion/upgrade of the Arcadia WTP, of the Project. The OE, as required, would also assist the City in providing coordination between contracts (Contract 1 – Olympic Wellfield Improvements, Contract 2 – Olympic Pipeline, and Contract 3 – Olympic Wellfield AWTF and Arcadia WTP Expansion) and technical assistance, as required, to ensure all three contracts are coordinated to avoid conflicts and completed on schedule. Deliverables  Meeting agenda’s, minutes, and other items as necessary to properly facilitate information gathering and sharing. Scope Extent  We have assumed 4 coordination meetings Task 1.6 – Document Control The OE shall be recommend document control procedures to the City and be responsible for Project document control using the City’s SharePoint site. Deliverables  Development of project specific procedures and protocols  Management of the Document Control system Scope Extent  Scope also includes an analysis of the City’s system, and whether any additional system is required to compliment SharePoint.  No software costs are included in this fee proposal  Design deliverables management of the Document Control system to be jointly managed by the OE & the City  Construction related deliverables management of the Document Control system to be managed by the City. TASK 2 – ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION SUPPORT The overall scope of the Project was developed through separate feasibility studies completed to support the City’s SWMP. The primary objectives of the studies were to assess project alternatives and feasibility as well as to establish project budget and schedule to DocuSign Envelope ID: B0493407-C299-4FAB-898F-3B47BB3E2EB7 3.D.i Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: CT #10873 (CCS) - Original Contract (5066 : Olympic Restoration and Arcadia Expansion Project MND Addendum) meet the City’s overarching goal of achieve water self-sufficiency. The OE shall assist the City to develop technical/design information on various scope elements for the Project (e.g. groundwater production wells and injection well(s) in the Olympic Well Field, new AWTF for Olympic Well Field, new Olympic Pipeline, and upgrade/expansion of the Arcadia WTP) to support environmental documentation efforts. Technical support for environmental documentation may include, but not limited to, the following: conceptual site layout for the new AWTF and upgrade/expansion of the Arcadia WTP (assume up to 3 alternative site layouts), preliminary process design criteria, construction activity and schedules, power requirements, utility requirements, construction and operation methods, noise, pipeline alignment(s), coordination with existing WTP operations, and footprint and height of proposed improvements. Note that the OE is to provide technical support only to the City’s lead environmental documentation consultant. It is anticipated that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared for the Project. Deliverables  As necessary, per the above scope TASK 3 – TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR DESIGN BUILD (CONTRACT 3) Task 3.1 – DB Entity Procurement Services The OE shall assist the City in review and assessment (evaluate any proposed technology innovations, project alternatives, and indicative cost estimate) of the Design-Build contractor team (DB Entity) selection. Due to the timing of the OE RFP and DB contractor procurement, the City will be leading and preparing the DB contractor RFQ and RFP. The OE will likely be selected and contracted to assist the City after the DB RFP have been issued. Deliverables  As necessary, per the above scope Task 3.2 – Design Project Meetings The OE shall participate in weekly design meetings with the DB entity (in person or teleconference), key project design workshops (in person), and project design review meetings (in person) during the design phase of the progressive design-build process. Deliverables  Weekly design meeting agendas and minutes  Design Workshop agendas and minutes  Design Review meeting agendas and minutes  Technical Memorandums as necessary DocuSign Envelope ID: B0493407-C299-4FAB-898F-3B47BB3E2EB7 3.D.i Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: CT #10873 (CCS) - Original Contract (5066 : Olympic Restoration and Arcadia Expansion Project MND Addendum) Scope Extent We have assumed:  60 weekly design meetings  4 design workshops  8 Project review meetings Task 3.2.1 – Building and Safety Code Compliance Meetings The OE shall also hold project meetings associated specifically with Building and Safety Code Compliance, where discipline specialists on the OE team and Design team can coordinate as needed. Task 3.3 – Design and Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) Development Phase The OE shall assist the City during the design and GMP development phase by review design packages prepared by the selected DB entity. The OE shall actively coordinate with City staff and verify that City’s preferences are reflected in the design. The OE shall perform constructability and operability reviews if desired by the City. Key duties of the OE during the Design/GMP development phase include, but are not limited to, the following: • Assist the City in review and assessment (evaluate any proposed technology innovations, project alternatives, and indicative cost estimate of the Design-Build contractor team during the design phase). • Review pilot test program proposed by the DB entity and provide technical oversight during pilot testing conducted by the DB entity. The City has already purchased the Re-Flex Max CCRO Pilot from Desalitech and will turn it over to the DB entity to operate and refine the design criteria for the full-scale CCRO system. • Perform Project design review and construction oversight consisting of schedule analysis, design review and validation, payment requests, change order requests, and review of quality control and quality assurance efforts by the DB Entity related to the design phase. • Perform technical review of optional design concepts submitted by the DB Entity and prepare summary report on assessment as required. • Provide advice and guidance to assist City Engineering staff in coordination and resolution of major project, permitting, environmental, and technical issues to accomplish efficient delivery of the Project. • Provide independent engineering project cost estimates, evaluate and validate design- build cost proposals, and assist City Engineering staff in the negotiations of the GMP (anticipated at 60% design of the overall design package). • Utilizing a collaborative approach, provide technical review and assist the City to negotiate performance guarantees and determine testing protocols to be included in the GMP. Assist the City to determine if extended start-up testing/commissioning support by the DB DocuSign Envelope ID: B0493407-C299-4FAB-898F-3B47BB3E2EB7 3.D.i Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: CT #10873 (CCS) - Original Contract (5066 : Olympic Restoration and Arcadia Expansion Project MND Addendum) entity is warranted. Deliverables  As necessary, per the above scope  Task 3.3.1 – Building and Safety Code Compliance Review The Owner’s Engineer shall also provide building and safety and code compliance review of the DB Entity’s design on behalf of the City. The OE shall act, on behalf of the City, to enforce and ensure compliance with building and safety codes (e.g., structural and electrical code compliance).  TASK 4 – OPTIONAL SERVICES Task 4.1 – Program Management Technical Support GHD will be able to provide additional program management technical support on the project as deemed necessary in the future. Deliverables As necessary, per the above scope and assumptions agreed upon with the City prior to authorization Task 4.2 – Design Criteria Development GHD will work with City staff to identify design preferences and develop Design Criteria that the DBE will adhere to in the project. This will be an early work item, likely done in parallel with CEQA support, with a target completion date of before February 2020. Deliverables  Draft and Final Technical Memorandum on Design Criteria for the Project.  As necessary, per the above scope Task 4.3 – General Process Technical Support Task 4.3.1 Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Existing/Baseline Performance Evaluation The GHD team will work with City engineering and operations staff to establish baseline performance of the existing equipment at the Arcadia Water Treatment Plant. This will include field visits to the plant site, meetings with plant operations staff and engineers, and review of historical data on unit operations. Where applicable, the GHD team will put forth recommendations for optimization. DocuSign Envelope ID: B0493407-C299-4FAB-898F-3B47BB3E2EB7 3.D.i Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: CT #10873 (CCS) - Original Contract (5066 : Olympic Restoration and Arcadia Expansion Project MND Addendum) Deliverables  Draft and Final Technical Memorandum on Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Baseline Performance Assessment  As necessary, per the above scope Task 4.3.2 Pilot Plant Technical Support The GHD team will provide pilot plant technical support at the beginning of the project (first 6 to 8 months) to help establish an initial operating plan, and also assist with pilot plant startup and operational data review. This will include periodic site visits and meetings to with City staff to review operations. We have assumed the City will be responsible for installation, maintenance work, and day to day operations. Deliverables  As necessary, per the above scope Task 4.4 – Asset Management/CMMS Technical Support The GHD team will provide technical support to City staff related to Asset Management and CMMS. GHD proposes to work with the City on their asset management program as follows:  GHD will conduct a “Discovery Workshop” and review the City’s structure, roles and responsibilities, business rules, policies, procedures, and methods used to determine how work is identified, approved, planned, scheduled, executed, completed and analyzed (IPSECA-methodology approach). The assessment will also identify potential gaps that could lead to delays and inefficiencies (time, material, labor).  GHD will conduct a review and evaluation of current data and systems that support the City’s existing asset and work management practices. These systems may be manual or automated in nature (i.e. paper based, MS Excel, MS Access), identified from the Discovery Workshop or point solution tools (e.g., GIS). GHD will be onsite for three (3)- hours to perform the review of the systems. The purpose of this task is to identify potential integration touchpoints between the existing systems and a potential new AMS/CMMS as well as data migration efforts that would need to be accounted for from legacy systems with the new software solution.  Both the Discovery Workshop and System and Data review will produce the foundation for the Functional Requirements. GHD will prepare the initial list of functional requirements and facilitate a two (2) hour on-site Functional Requirements Workshop with City staff. The purpose of the workshop is to review and explain each of the AM/CMMS Functional Requirements with City staff, and to document desired software needs. This will be an interactive workshop and capabilities/functions will be added to and deleted from the requirements list. Additional topics of discussion during this meeting will include identifying potential vendor packages based on the desired functional requirements, and addressing outstanding questions or concerns. GHD will present the Functional Requirements in PowerPoint format (for ease of display and discussion) and the finalized Functional Requirements will be included as part of the software recommendation output. These functional requirements can be used by the City as part of future software procurement and selection processes.  GHD will create a summary report which identifies up to three (3) relevant CMMS and up DocuSign Envelope ID: B0493407-C299-4FAB-898F-3B47BB3E2EB7 3.D.i Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: CT #10873 (CCS) - Original Contract (5066 : Olympic Restoration and Arcadia Expansion Project MND Addendum) to three (3) relevant AM solutions for the City based on our findings. This report will provide information on the software, recommended platforms, and planning-level cost estimates based as determined by the established Functional Requirements. Software specification information will also be provided in tabular form for side-by-side comparison purposes. Deliverables • Draft and Final Summary Report on Asset Management/CMMS DocuSign Envelope ID: B0493407-C299-4FAB-898F-3B47BB3E2EB7 3.D.i Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: CT #10873 (CCS) - Original Contract (5066 : Olympic Restoration and Arcadia Expansion Project MND Addendum) Exhibit B Budget DocuSign Envelope ID: B0493407-C299-4FAB-898F-3B47BB3E2EB7 3.D.i Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: CT #10873 (CCS) - Original Contract (5066 : Olympic Restoration and Arcadia Expansion Project MND Addendum) Task # Task DescriptionMark Donovan ‐ Project ManagerRyan Kristensen ‐ Deputy Project Manager Paul Hermann ‐ Program Management LeadJamal Awad ‐ Technical Advisor Services Lead Mark Waer ‐ Lead Process Engineer Homayoun Moghaddam ‐ PermittingHector Ruiz ‐ Project Advisor Senior Engineer ‐ Technical Lead: All Disciplines Project Engineer ‐ All Disciplines CAD Drafter Administration Support (Monica / Emily) GHD TOTAL SPI GSI MNS GHD Sub‐markup (5%)TOTAL HOURSODC's (3%) TOTAL COST256.00$ 171.00$ 256.00$ 256.00$ 246.00$ 256.00$ 256.00$ 256.00$ 166.00$ 141.00$ 91.00$ LS LS LS 1.1 Program Coordination and Management 76 92 32 40 32 20 16 16 16 16 24 81,900.00$ 12,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 800.00$ 380 2,937.00$ 101,637.00$ 1.2 Project Funding40 60 20,200.00$ 2,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 400.00$ 100 846.00$ 29,446.00$ 1.3 Permitting 12 28 104 68 96 67,828.00$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 308 2,034.84$ 69,862.84$ 1.41.5 Project Coordination 40 48 20 12 24 24 36,768.00$ ‐$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 168 1,703.04$ 59,471.04$ 1.6 Document Control 4 4032 40 22,696.00$ ‐$ ‐$ 20,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 116 1,280.88$ 44,976.88$ Task 1 Sub‐totals 132 208 52 52 32 124 16 180 236 16 24 229,392.00$ 14,000.00$ 16,000.00$ 34,000.00$ 3,200.00$ 1072 8,801.76$ 305,393.76$ 2 Environmental Documentation Support 40 80 24 24 24 12 48 64 80 40 83,016.00$ 4,000.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 450.00$ 436 2,760.48$ 95,226.48$ Task 2 Sub‐totals 40 80 0 24 24 24 12 48 64 80 40 83,016.00$ 4,000.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 450.00$ 436 2,760.48$ 95,226.48$ 3.1 DB Entity Procurement Services 80 24 8045,064.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 150.00$ 184 1,441.92$ 49,655.92$ 3.2 Design Project Meetings 154 184 92 100 100 16 96 104 190,576.00$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 846 5,717.28$ 196,293.28$ 3.2.1 Building and Safety Code Compliance Meetings8 12 12 7,112.00$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 32 213.36$ 7,325.36$ 3.3 Design and GMP Development Phase 152 160 96 72 124 96 100 186,936.00$ 25,000.00$ ‐$ ‐$ 1,250.00$ 836 6,358.08$ 219,544.08$ 3.3.1 Building and Safety Code Compliance10 30 48 18,208.00$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 88 546.24$ 18,754.24$ Task 3 Sub‐totals 386 368 268 172 224 34 0 234 264 0 0 422,576.00$ 26,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,400.00$ 1986 13,517.28$ 491,572.88$ SUBTOTAL OF TASKS 1‐3 892,193.12$ 4.1 Program Management Technical Support 163 437116,455.00$ ‐$ 600 3,493.65$ 119,948.65$ 4.2 Design Criteria Development 20 40 20 20 20 235 20 67,950.00$ ‐$ 375 2,038.50$ 69,988.50$ 4.3 General Process Technical Support‐$ 0‐$ ‐$ 4.3.1 Arcadia Treatment Plant Baseline Performance Evaluation 10 10 10 30 12,560.00$ 14,800.00$ 1,776.00$ 60 820.80$ 29,956.80$ 4.3.2 Pilot Plant Technical Support 20 20 70 21,660.00$ 24,000.00$ 2,880.00$ 110 1,369.80$ 49,909.80$ 4.4 Asset Management/CMMS Technical Support60 80 28,640.00$ ‐$ 140 859.20$ 29,499.20$ Task 4 Sub‐totals 213 477 20 30 50 0 60 0 415 0 20 247,265.00$ 38,800.00$ ‐$ ‐$ 4,656.00$ 1285 1,334.40$ 299,302.95$ TOTAL (Including Optional Tasks) 771 1133 340 278 330 182 88 462 979 96 84 982,249.00$ 82,800.00$ 19,500.00$ 37,500.00$ 9,706.00$ 4779 25,079.52$ 1,191,496.07$ % Contribution on Project 16% 24% 7% 6% 7% 4% 2% 10% 20% 2% 2%Task 4 – Optional Tasks5/22/2019Task 1 – Program Management Task 2 – Environmental Documentation SupportTask 3 – Technical Support for Design Build (Contract 3) NOT USED BY CITYCity of Santa Monica ‐ Owner’s Engineer for the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion ProjectPROPOSED TOTAL FEEDocuSign Envelope ID: B0493407-C299-4FAB-898F-3B47BB3E2EB73.D.iPacket Pg. 704Attachment: CT #10873 (CCS) - Original Contract (5066 : Olympic Restoration and Arcadia Expansion Project MND Addendum) Exhibit C Insurance Requirements and Verifications DocuSign Envelope ID: B0493407-C299-4FAB-898F-3B47BB3E2EB7 3.D.i Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: CT #10873 (CCS) - Original Contract (5066 : Olympic Restoration and Arcadia Expansion Project MND Addendum) 1 Professional Services Agreement Insurance Requirements – Template 1 Professional Liability Insurance Required Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Minimum Scope and Limits of Insurance Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office Form CG 00 01 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury and personal and advertising injury, with limits of no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location (Insurance Services Office Form CG 25 04) or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 2. Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Form CA 00 01 covering Code 1 (any auto), or if Consultant has no owned autos, Code 8 (hired) and Code 9 (non-owned), with limits of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 3. Workers’ Compensation: Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits and Employers’ Liability Insurance with limits of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease (see footnote #1). 4. Professional Liability: Insurance appropriate to the Consultant’s profession with limits of no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim/$2,000,000 in the annual aggregate. If the Consultant maintains broader coverage or higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City of Santa Monica requires and shall be entitled to any broader coverage and higher limits maintained by the Contractor. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City of Santa Monica. Other Insurance Provisions 1. The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: a. Additional Insured Status: The City of Santa Monica, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on DocuSign Envelope ID: B0493407-C299-4FAB-898F-3B47BB3E2EB7 3.D.i Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: CT #10873 (CCS) - Original Contract (5066 : Olympic Restoration and Arcadia Expansion Project MND Addendum) 2 behalf of Consultant including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. CGL coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Consultant’s insurance (at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Form CG 20 10 11 85, or if not available, through the addition of a combination of (1) CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38 and (2) CG 20 37). b. Primary Coverage: For any claims related to this Agreement, the Consultant’s insurance shall be primary coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Offices Form CG 20 01 04 13 as respects the City of Santa Monica, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City of Santa Monica, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be in excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. c. Notice of Cancellation: Each insurance policy required herein shall state that coverage shall not be cancelled except after notice has been given to the City of Santa Monica. d. Waiver of Subrogation: Consultant hereby grants to the City of Santa Monica a waiver of any right of subrogation which any insurer of said Consultant may acquire against the City of Santa Monica by virtue of payment of any loss. Consultant agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City of Santa Monica has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer. Self-Insured Retentions Self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City of Santa Monica. The City of Santa Monica may require the Consultant to purchase coverage with a lower retention or provide satisfactory proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention. The policy language shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the self-insured retention may be satisfied by either the named insured or City of Santa Monica. Acceptability of Insurers Insurance is to be placed with insurers authorized to conduct business in California with a current A.M. Best rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City of Santa Monica. Claims Made Policies 1. If the Professional Liability policy provides “claims made” coverage: a. The Retroactive Date must be shown and must be before the date of this Agreement or the start of work. DocuSign Envelope ID: B0493407-C299-4FAB-898F-3B47BB3E2EB7 3.D.i Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: CT #10873 (CCS) - Original Contract (5066 : Olympic Restoration and Arcadia Expansion Project MND Addendum) 3 b. The insurance must be maintained, and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least 5 years after completion of work. c. If the policy is cancelled or not renewed, and not replaced with another “claims made” policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the effective Agreement date, the Consultant must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of 5 years after completion of work. Verification of Coverage Consultant shall furnish the City of Santa Monica with original certificates and amendatory endorsements (or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage provided by this clause). All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City of Santa Monica before work commences. However, failure to obtain required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Consultant’s obligation to provide them. The City of Santa Monica reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including the endorsements required herein, at any time. Failure to Maintain Insurance Coverage If Consultant, for any reason, fails to maintain insurance coverage which is required pursuant to this Agreement, the same shall be deemed a material breach of contract. The City of Santa Monica, at its sole option, may terminate this Agreement and obtain damages from the Consultant resulting from said breach. Subcontractors Consultant shall require and verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein. All exceptions must be approved in writing by the Risk Manager. Footnotes # 1: Workers’ Compensation insurance coverage is not required if the Consultant does not have employees. The Consultant must, however, execute the City’s Workers’ Compensation Coverage Exemption Declaration Form. DocuSign Envelope ID: B0493407-C299-4FAB-898F-3B47BB3E2EB7 3.D.i Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: CT #10873 (CCS) - Original Contract (5066 : Olympic Restoration and Arcadia Expansion Project MND Addendum)