Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report Item 6 8/5/2002 • AUG 0 5 2002 • CITY'OF,PETAL UMA„CALIFO R.NIA AGENDA BILL. Agenda Title: Resolution Authorizing. City Manager To Amend Meeting Date: August 5, 2002 — Professional ,Services Agreement With Carollo Engineers For Professional Services In Support of Phase 2 — Project Development 7:00 PM • of the Water Recycling Facility Project Department: City Director: Contact Person: Phone Number: Manager and Fred Stouder Mike.Ban Ii/� 778-4487 Department of Water Tom Hargis Resources & . Conservation Cost of Proposal: $448,500 with a requested project contingency Account Number: of $50,000, for a total of $498,500. This would increase the total 9012 authorized amount from $7,977,812 to $8,476,312. Name of Fund: Amount Budgeted: The budget for environmental, planning and Wastewater Enterprise Fund design is.$9MI. Attachments to Agenda Packet Item: • Agenda Bill • • Resolution Authorizing City Manager to Amend Professional Services Agreement With Carollo Engineers For Professional Services In Support of Phase 2 — Project Development of the Water Recycling Facility Project • Attachment A Original Scope of Work • Attachment B Resolution No. 2000-215 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement With Carollo Engineers For Professional Services In Support of Phase 2— Project Development • Attachment C Green Building Design Information • Attachment D Technical Memorandum No. 7 — Sludge Treatment and Disposal Facilities • Attachment E Proposed Amended Scope of Work Summary Statement: During predesign and preparation of the Draft EIR, several necessary task items were identified for the Water Recycling Facility Project. These include maintenance of the outfall, a recycled water pipeline, a parallel forcemain, a digester gas handling system, additional CEQA . documentation and necessary permitting.requirements. Council Priority: THIS AGENDA ITEM IS'CONSIDERED TO BE PART OF, OR NECESSARY TO, ONE OR MORE OF THE 2001 PRIORITIES ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON JULY 21, 2001. Priority(s): Complete wastewater-facility plan process. • Recommended City Council Action/Suggested Motion: City.Management recommends the City Council consider the project and the proposed amendment, and approve the resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend the professional services agreement with Carollo Engineers for professional services in support of Phase 2 —Project Develo ment. • Reviewed by Finance Director: Reviewed by City Attorney: Approved by City Manager: Da e: 1 Date: C • Today'swDate: July 21, 002 Revision # •l,+ 1 , 'evised: File Code: 'Includes 52.062M for planning,$6a4M for design,and 5800K contingency. • CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 5, 2002 AGENDA REPORT FOR RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER To AMEND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CAROLLO ENGINEERS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF PHASE 2 - PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OF THE WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PROJECT 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: During predesign and preparation of the Draft EIR, several necessary:task items were identified for the Water Recycling Facility Project. These include maintenance of the outfall, a recycled water pipeline, a parallel forcemain, a digester gas handling system, additional CEQA documentation and additional permitting requirements. City Management recommends the City Council consider the project and the proposed amendment, and approve the resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend the professional services agreement with Carollo Engineers for professional services in support of Phase 2 — Project Development. 2. BACKGROUND: Phase 2—Project Development • Phase 2—Project Development of the Water Recycling Facility Project includes translation of the conceptual plan identified in Water Recycling Facility Project Report into very detailed construction specification and drawings that will be the basis for construction of the facility, and a description of anticipated changes-to the environment from the project and alternatives will be made. Phase:2—Project Development comprises two phases: Predesign and Final Design. • Predesign Preliminary design includes a.focused engineering review and report on the key processes. This work is the foundation for final design. The Predesign Report, comprising approximately 20 Technical Memorandums (TMs)' has been prepared. The TMs present a focused evaluation of the key processes,. including secondary treatment facilities, algae removal facilities, tertiary treatment facilities, disinfection facilities, site improvements, landscaping, electrical power and electrical distribution, instrumentation and control, architecture and facility aesthetics, and • hydraulic profile. Additional work includes aerial mapping of the site, control survey, and a geotechnical investigation on construction soils. • S:\water resources&conservat ion\Wastewater\CityCouncil\2002\august 5\amendment l\agenda bil.doc • Additional work conducted during Predesign includes permitting and environmental documentation. It is anticipated that permits,for the project will be obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Bay Area Air:Quality Management.District, the US Army Corps of Engineers, and the California Department of Transportation. Consultations with various regulatory agencies will also be conducted, including the State of California Division of Safety of Darns, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, Sonoma County, the Marin/Sonoma.Mosquito Abatement and. Vector Control District, and the California Department of Health Services. A subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The EIR describes anticipated changes to the environment from the project and alternatives with respect to land use, agriculture, geology, water quality, hydrology, public'health and safety, biological resources, traffic and circulation, air resources, noise, historic and archaeological resources, open space and visual resources, and public services and utilities. Final Design The specifications prepared during final design include instructions to bidders„ bid .forms,. contract and bonding forms, a description of general conditions on the projectsuch as the hours of construction, changes and extra work, and safety. The specifications describe in detail the requirements; for every.single piece of equipment to be supplied on the project, from, valves, piping, painting and metals, to programmable logic controllers, switches and alarms. The drawings prepared during final design illustrate how the.facility is to be constructed, including, the location Of piping, the thickness and location of concrete slabs, the size of reinforcement bars, the location of all pumps, blowers, controllers, and valves and all the other..equipment, the layout of electrical services,landscaping, and architectural features. Once completed, the plans and specifications are igsued for public bidding purposes. The construction bids are then reviewed and the lowest responsible bidder is submitted for City Council consideration for the construction contract. Scope.of Work The original scope.of work, prepared in accordance with Resolution No.,2000-215, whieh • authorized the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Carollo Engineers for Phase 2 —Project Development, is provided in Attachment A. Resolution No. 2000-215 is provided in Attachment B. In developing the original scope of work, the Cit'and Carollo Engineers detailed and described all the anticipated work items necessary for Phase 2. • Since the agreement was executed in March2001, a significant amount of work has been completed. As the"engineering design,and.environmenial review and documentation work has progressed, additional necessary work and task items have been identified. These items are related to maintenance, environmental documentation, andpermitting, and include: 1. Urban Recycled Water Pipeline. The City is currently designing a new 24-inch.diameter pipeline to convey secondary recycled water from the ezistilig recycled water pipeline at the 2 S:\water resources&.conservation\Wastewater\CityCouncil\2002\august Samendment 1\agenda bin.doc • intersection-of Browns Lane and ElyRoad to the-Rooster Run Golf Course. This new task items includes design of approximately 2,000•feet Of 24-inch diameter recycled water pipe to run from the Water Recycling Facility, cross under,Lakeville•Highway, and travel up Browns • Lane and connect to'the new recycled water pipeline at the intersection of Browns Lane and Ely Road. It is estimated that this.will require 3-additional civil drawings and associated specifications. 2. Operation/Maintenance/Laboratory Buildings. This item includes design tasks necessary to design and document the Operations/Maintenance/Laboratory buildings as certified Green Buildings. The standard for.Green Building design is the US Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy•and Environmental Design (LEED) Green-Building Rating System. Green Buildings have less impact,on the environment, have reduced operating costs, and provide a healthy workplace. The Green Building design will require slightly more complex design for architectural, structural.and mechanical elements. Information on Green Building is provided in Attachment C. 3. Influent Forcemain. Wastewater is conveyed from the City's Pond Influent Pump Station at the Hopper Street Wastewater Treatment Facility to the oxidation ponds through.a 14,100 foot long, 36-inch diameter forcemain. This forcemain,was constructed in 1972.- The City will eventually construct a parallel forcemain to provide relief to the existing forcemain and provide insurance should the existing forcemain fail. This task item includes design of a 4,000 foot section of a new 36-inch diameter forcemain to parallel the existing 36-inch diameter forcemain across Parcels A and B, prior to construction of any improvements on Parcels A and B. This section of forcemain pipeline will eventually-connect to a future parallel forcemain from the Pond Influent Pump Station. 4. Outfall. During predesign it was determined that the existing outfall is in poor condition and can inhibit the flow of wastewater. This task includes design modifications to eliminate the hydraulic constraints. • 5. Digester Gas Handling/Energy Recovery System. During predesign, a two phase anaerobic digestion process was recommended for the solids process. If the City elects to pursue this process, a digester gas handling system would need to be added. As shown in Technical Memorandum No. 7, provided in Attachment D, this process has several advantages over the proposed aerobic.digestion. These advantages include less.sludge-production and lower operating costs. This task includes design of the digester gas handling system. Gordon Culp's review of the draft TM 7 and the two phase anaerobic digestion process is also provided in Attachment D. 6. CEQA Documentation. This task includes the revision of the DraftElRto include the River Access Improvements, additional wetlands delineation, coordination with the City's NPDES permitting activities,,and preparation of responses;to additional comments (the original scope of work allowed for 100 comments on the Draft EIR - the City received over 250). 3 S:\water resources&conservat ion\wastewater\CityCouncil\2002\august SUmendment!\agenda bili.doc 7. Permitting., Additional permitting tasks address permits necessary for construction of the outfall maintenance work described in Item A above, and environmental permitting tasks identified during preparation of the Draft HR. A. Outfall Maintenance. To conduct proposed improvements to the outfall, permits • • will need to be procured from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (administrative permit), US Army Corps of Engineers (Section 10 and 404 permits), and a lease with therState Lands Commission will need to be obtained. B. Environmental Permitting. Environmental permitting is accomplished in phases. . The first phase involves'conducting document and general field research to assess the potential presence of special status plant and animal species. This phase is conducted as part of the-EIR. Once the,EIR is completed, a second,more intensive phase is conducted as.a follow-up:to the initial phase, and prior to construction. The initial phase of environmental permitting is completed. This amendment includes the second phase of environmental permitting, and includes: i. Performance of field surveys for special-status species in support of requirements issued by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marie Fisheries Service;'and California Department of Fish and Game. ii. Procurement of Advisory Council on Historic Preservation — Section 106 • Compliance Review. iii. Procurement of Sonoma County Stream Crossing Permit-38368. iv. Preparation of California Department of Fish and Game Section-2081 Management Agreement. The proposed scope of work for this amendment is provided in Attachment E. 3. ALTERNATIVES: re Alternatives for this work include: 1. Take no:action. 2. Delay approval.of tasks related to maintenance. 3. Approve resolution authorizing`CityManager to amend professional services:agreement with Carollo Engineers,for:professionalservices'in support of Phase 2 —Project: Development of the Water Recycling Facility Project. 4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: With an estimated professional fee of'$448,500, and.a City Management requested contingency of$50,000 to address any design/permitting issues.that'may be identified prior to construction, the total authorized amount would be'$498,500. This amendment would increase the.total authorization from $7,977,812 to $8,476,312. This;amount is 13.5% of the estimated construction cost of$63M, which is similar to other Petaluma wastewater treatment facility project costs. The costs for each task item is shown in Table 1. 4 S:\water resources&conservation\Wastewater\CityCouncil\2002\august 5\amendment 1\agendabill.doc • Table l Amendment Cost Summary Design Item Cost Operation/Maintenance/Laboratory Buildings $62,017 Recycled Water Pipeline $56,508 Influent Forcemain $49,678 Outfall Repair/Replacement $29,465 Digester Gas Handling System ' $47,868 CEQA Documentation $51,010 _ Permitting $151,954 Subtotal $448,500.00 Contingency 50,000 Total $498,500 5. CONCLUSION: The proposed amendment includes design features necessary.for the operation and maintenance of the water recycling facility, and necessary environmental permitting activities identified in the Draft EIR. Not all of the tasks described are absolutely necessary to complete the project. Some of the maintenance tasks could be delayed for implementation at a future date. However, delaying • these activities could result in higher maintenance and repair costs in the future. 6. OUTCOMES OR PT6RFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS THAT WILL IDENTIFY SUCCESS OR COMPLETION: Implementation of preventativemaintenance activities, completion of permitting activities, preparation of final plans and specifications, construction of improvements, and operation of the new water recycling facility. • 7. RECOMMENDATION: • City Management recommends the City Council consider the project and the proposed • amendment, and approve the resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend the professional services agreement with Carollo Engineers for professional services in support of Phase 2— • Project Development. 8. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Original Scope of Work 5. S:\water resources&conservation\Was tewatcr\CityCouncil\2002\august 5\amendment I\agenda bill.doc • • Attachment B Resolution No. 2000-215 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement With Carollo'Engineers For Professional Services In Support of Phase 2:Project Development Attachment C Green Building.Design Information Attachment D Technical Memorandum No. 7 — Sludge Treatment and Disposal Facilities Attachment E Proposed Amended Scope of Work • • • • • 6 • S:\water resources&conservation\Wastewater\CityCouncil\2002\august 5\amendment 1'agenda.bill.doc RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO AMEND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CAROLLO ENGINEERS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF PHASE 2 - PROJECT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE WATER RECYLING FACILITY PROJECT 1 • 2 3 4 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AMEND THE PROFESSIONAL 5 SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CAROLLO ENGINEERS FOR 6 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF PHASE 2— 7 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OF THE WATER RECYCLING FACILITY • 8 PROJECT 9 10 11 WHEREAS, on December 11, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2000-215, 12 which authorized the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with 13 Carollo Engineers for professional services in support of Phase 2—Project Development 14 of the Water Recycling Facility Project for a total authorized amount of$7,977,812; 15 16 WHEREAS, additional scope items necessary to complete Phase 2 have been identified, 17, including design of an urban recycled water pipeline connection, design of a section of 18 36-inch diameter forcemain to parallel the existing 36-inch diameter forcemain, design of 19 maintenance and repair improvements for the wastewater outfall, design of digester gas 20 handling and recovery systems, additional CEQA documentation, and additional 21 permitting identified in the'Draft ER; 23 WHEREAS, the cost for the additional items is estimated at $448,500, with a requested 24 contingency of$50,000, for a total additional authorization of$498,500, which increases 25 the total authorization from$7,977,812 to $8,476,312; 26 27 NOW THEREFORc BEIT'RESOLVED by the Petaluma City Council that the City 28 Manager is authorized to amend the professional services agreement with Carollo 29 Engineers, subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney and the City's Risk 30 Manager. 31 32 33 34 35 36• 37 38 39 • 40 41 42 43 44 45 1• s:\water resources&conservation\wastewater\citycouncil\2002\august 5\amendment (\resolution approving amendment.doc EXHIBITA.. „ • • SCOPE OF WORK k'. 5 # ' ' L4KEVILLE HIGHWAY WATER RECYCLING FACILITY CITY OF PETALUMA CALIFORNIA 1. PROJECT BACKGROUND The City of Petaluma (City), California, has prepared a Project Report fora new 6.7 million gallons per day (average dry weather flow) (mgd) water recycling,facility.at the Lakeville. Highway site. The Project Report outlines a recommended process train, as outlined below. Treated effluent from the new facility must.meet NPDES permit requirements;when+,discharging to the Petaluma.River, October 21`at to April 30". The permit requires a monthly.average of 30 milligrams per liter (mg/L)for biochemical oxygen demand.(SQD) and;45 mg/Lfortotal - suspendedsolids (TSS). With the new facility, it is anticipated that the requirements for SOD and TSS will be a monthly average of 30 mg/L or lower. Although not directly listed in the permit, ammonia nitrogen must be reduced when discharging to the river to prevent effluent toxicity to aquatic organisms. In addition, effluent limrts fortoxic substances and a mass limit for mercury must be met Nitrification may also be necessary to protect mosquito fish used for vector control in the wetlands. . • From May 1st to October 20`b, the City is:prohibited from discharging treated effluent into the Petaluma River. Recycled water produced by the water recycling facility will be reused for unrestricted use, which means the treatment process must meet Title 22 disinfected tertiary recycling requirements. Ti es° include flocculation, filtration to a turbidity of..2 NTU and disinfection to a coliform-count of no more than 2.2 most probablenumber (MPN)/100 ml. The Scope of Work is divided into`three'phases: Predesign, Final Design;and Services During Construction, The Prede's`ign'phase,includes CEQA environmental documentation, SRF loan application and submittals, response to initial Value Engineering Workshops (conducted by others on the 10 percent design), site survey, geotechnical report, initiation of•permit procurement, and Predesign Report. The Predesign phase will be followed by the Final Design phase, which includes, preparation of the Plans and Specifications response to final Value Engineering workshop (conducted by others on the 50 percent design), completion of the permit procurement, SRF eligibility analysis,and approval to.award package and project bidding services. The third phase consists'of engineering services required during- construction, O&M Manual, startup, training and project certification for the Lakeville Highway Water Recycling Facility(WRF). The scope for the third phase is not included herein and will be defined and submitted later. P etalumascopeV er6 1 Version 6—February 2,2001 • • • II. SCOPE OF PROJECT/PROJECT ELEMENT`L'IST The scope of the Lakeville Highway Water Recycling Facility (WRF) Project shall,be generally as developed during the Project Report Tf e major workkitem`s to be completed as part of the design are included in the project elementlist summarized below: A. Preliminary Treatment;facilities. 1, Bar Screens. 2. Flow.Measurement. 3. Grit Removal, 4. Odor Control Facilities. • 5. Septage Receiving Station • .. B. Secondary'Treatment Facilities. 1.. Extended;AirActivated-Siudge. • 2. Secondary Clarifiers. ' 3. RAS/WAS Pump,Station. ' 4. Blower Building and Aeration System. • C. Oxidation Pond Improvements: ' 1. Modification'to Existing Oxidation-Ponds Transfer Structures 2. Additional Surface Aerators. • 3. Sitework (Deepen of Fill), as required. 4. Pond Lining1(if required) • 5. ' Levee Rehabilitation (If required) • D. Algae,Removal•Facilities 1. Pond Effluent'Pump Station. 2. Wetlands including: • Conversion of Ponds 9 and 10 to densely vegetated wetlands. • Addition of 70 +/-acres of open water and densely vegetated wetlands on Parcels.A and B. 3. Alternative- Dissolved Air Flotation Thickener Units and support;systems. • E. Tertiary Treatment/ Filtration Faculties. 1. Filter Pum • tation. 2. Filters.- • 3: Polymer Feed System. • • 4. Alum Feed•System. F. Disinfection Facilities • 1. UV System / Contact Channel. - 2. Hypochlorite/Bisulfate System Modifications. • PetalUmascope V er6 _ Version 6—February 2,2001 • • • • °.r ,, �• , a,;.,` . . • G.- Solids Treatmentand Disposal Facilities 1 Sludge Lagoon with Aeration 2.i Dewatenng.Facilities , , ,;, r • 3. Dewatered Sludge"Storage/Truck Loading Facility; ' • 4. Odor Control Facilities: 5. Chemical Storage&Feed Facilities. ; H. RecycledWaterFacilities. . 1. Recycled Water Storage Reservoir 2. RW Pumping and piping,system modification (if required). • • I. Sitework/Yard Piping/Support Factlltie s. ,. • - 1, Site Access usines B h throw g s Parka 2. Bridge over Ellis Creek (three potential locations).' 3. Site Grading/Drainage., 4. Site.Paving., 5. Fencing/Site Security: 6. Site Utilities including, potable water, plant water, natural gas and power. 7. Yard Piping. . B. Alternative - Site Access from Lakeville Highway. 9. Bridge over drainage•ezisting phannel, north of Pond 1 and.2. • • • J. Administration/Operation/Maintenance/ Laboratory Building(s) . K. Electrical, • 1. Main ElectricA„Substation/Transformer, 2. , MCCs/Lightinf Panels, 3. Power/Control/Wiring/Conduits.. 4. Interior/Exterior Lighting. ;, . , - • 5. • Ductbank System. . • 6. Standby Power (Diesel`Generator). • L. Instrumentation. 1. Field Instrumentation. 2. Control System. M. Public Amenities. 1. Trails., • 2. PublicAccess. • 3. Interpretive Center/;Fuolic,Education Facilities • f N. Site Landscaping 1. Plant areas. 2. Tree farm areas. • ,Petaumascope V er6 3 Version 6.—February 2,2001 • III SCOPE OF DESIGN SERVICES . The Design Servicesare divided into three major tasks Predesign, Final Design and Services During Construction. The product;of the Predesign Task will betherPreaesign-Rep'ort which will serve as the basis of design for the final design,effort_The deliverable from`Final,Design Task will be design documents for bidding and•construction•` r " - PHASE 1 - PREDESIGN (10% Design) The objective of this phase is to develop a Predesign Report that will be the basis"of design for the.final design. The Predesign Report will consist of a collection of twenty (20) Technical Memoranda (TM). Two types of TMs are envisioned for this project. The first TM is generally brief.(2 to 3 pages), will list design'criteria.and provide'a recommended'layout. The"List".type will document the design of process areas that require minimal input from the City or evaluation. The second type of TM, the "Expanded"type, will be more detailed (10 to 12 pages), will require input'from City staff, include additional engineering evaluation, alternative layouts, cost analysis and refined design criteria.. - .. • - • • During this.Phase, engineering analyses shall,be conducted for several process areas in,.order to select the appropriate treatment processes, provide the optimum facility siting',;and develop the necessary information to obtain the permits to proceed with the project: Task 1 Predesign Report Task 1.1 Information Collection - Plant Site. There is'significant teclnicahinfortiation'to be collected necessary to completethe final design of a wastewater treatment facility. Certain key'information will include the,following: 1.1.1 Aerial Mapping. It will be necessary to develop a base topographic.drawing for thedevelopment of the finakdesign documents. During'this task, aerial mapping photography shall beperformed of the entire property at a 11:3600 scale; provide 1 inch = 20 feet topographic plots°at 1'-foot contour intervals and spot elevations; provide 1 inch = 100 feet semi-rectifiedspot photo Topographic plots shall be delivered as:AutoCAD Release=14 DWG files and be.compatible with Arclnfo and ArcView to be able to tie into the City's GIS system. 1:12. Control Survey. It-will be necessary tcperforrn a control survey to assistahe aerial photogrammetry firm provide a reliable topographic drawing. Vertical and horizontal control'shall.be set for parcel points for aerial mapping; set • base line and vertical.control'points on the set staking for soil borings; acquire:rim and invert elevations of existing sanitary facilities along or adjacent to site 1.1.3. Soil Classification/ConstructionSoilsReport. It-is necessary to obtain soils information to completethe structural design of the treatment.processes. The;geotechnical subconsultantshall analyze the information'gathered.in the preliminary,investigation, perform the necessary laboratory testing, and provide a.geotechnical report.,'See Geotechnical Subconsultant Scope -: Exhibit A,Attachment 1. ' PetatumascopeVer6 • 4 Version 6—February 2:,2001 • Task;1.2 ; Prepare Technical Memorandums (TMs) , ,. �� y .,u. ; � The objective of thisztask.shall bertd:prepare3TMs that will,be included,m.the Basis of Design Report.,Activities.invollved in this task include 1 ;`« r.1 4m.i Task 1.2.1 (Prepare TM No 1 1Prelimrnary Treatment Facilities .;This TM shall list the design • criteria for the;:preliminarytreatment facilities including finebar `screens flow measurement,grit removal, septage receiving station andEodor control Influent pumping will be included, if required. A preliminary layout,is;provided. (List type). Task 1.2.2 Prepare TM.No 2. Secondary Treatment.Facilities.This TM;shall include•• refinements;ot,the selected secondary treatment alternative,,including+alternative , layouts, refined design:criteria,.operation and control concepts_and.other issues. ..Secondarysedimentation.basins„aeration systems,,and sludge pumping . alternatives will also•be,discuss`ed if required (Expanded,type). Task 1.2.3 TM No 3. Oxidation Pond.lmprovements, This,TM,shelt include layouts/details for the recommended modifications to the,existing ponds including additional surface aerators, pond transfer"piping, pond site.work (deepening etc,)and structure modifications including levee lining and,rehabilitation:,,(List type). Task 1.2.4 TM No. 4-Algae Removal Facilities. This TM shall ` list the design criteria for Wetlands and Dissolved.Air Flotation (DAF),thickener. The TM will include alternative layouts, refinementof design,concepts for•treatmentand;enhancement wetlands,.and a rev_iew;of features•for,mosquito and,vegetation management. This design,memorandum.will be submitted;to,the Marin/Sonoma-Mosquito Abatement • and Vector..Control District for,review. The flow,distribution.and collection system layouts are provided:'The TM will include input from the Wetlands Biologists and wetland consultants on the wetland vegetation and plantings. For the DAF option, layouts and (Sign triteria will be•provided. (Expanded,type). . Task 1.2.5 TM No. 5.-Tertiary.Treatmentf,acilities.•This TM shallaist:the design criteria for the • tertiary filtration:system. Design criteria and costs_for a continuous backwash type filter versus microfiltration will be.developed. Preliminary ayput and design criteria for the tertiary filters, pump station and support facilities are.provided. (Expanded type). • Task 1.2.6 . TM No. 6- Disinfection;Facilities. •This TM shall develop the design criteria for Ultraviolet Light (UV) disinfection system. The configuration.and type.of UV system will be evaluated and e layout will be provided. Modifications to the existing hypochlorite and bisulfite'system will also be evaluated. (Expanded type). Task 1.2.7 -TM:No;7.7 Sludge-Treatment and Disposal Facilities. This TM shall list the design criteria for the sludge:storage;lagoon and.provide a layout for solids treatment and storage facilities. Dewatering.processes, either belt filter presses-or centrifuges, will be evaluated. (Expanded type). ) Task 1.2.8 TM No. 87,Sustainable,Design Features. .This,TM shall evaluate sustainable features that can be incorporated into the,design, such as recycled building materials,.usaoftiyash'in concrete mix design, passive solar heating and cooling systems and renewable energy sources. (Expanded type). • Petalumascope V er6 Version 6—February 2.2001 • • Task 1.2.9 TM No. 9- Recycled Water(RW)'Facilities/tWater`'Balande. This TM shall list theii'c design criteria for the recycled water ry reseoir and include a preliminary layout for reservoir.'A waterbdiance:willbe'developed to'confirm the'storage regwred'to meet zero discharge from May to October` Theezisting RIN pumping'arid 'piping ' system shall be evaluated to determine if any improvements or modifications;,are required to"deliver RW to'the\booster pump,station. Up to three operating i .i....i .: a .t. " scenarios will be evaluated for'delivenng RW to-agricultural and'oth'er users. • "°' Facilities needed'to deliver 9W to trie'ezisting Booster Pump Station No'.-1 will,be 'identified: (Ezpand'eddtype)i•'• • .. Task 1.2.10 TM No: 10`=Site Master Plan'/ Improvement's ThisTM shall evaluate'the various necessary site improvements including,'site'access through-the Business Park, • bridge::across Ellis Creek'and impro&errientto Eastgate Road and'other in-plant roads, addition-of`bridge-over theexisting drainagechannel, improvements to Lakeville Highway;•public,access'trails and fencing/ site security:,;Site utilities,shall also be reviewed including potable water'supplies, non-potable water supplies, ' • plant storm water diaihage'facilities end'tahk drain facilities: Issues-of'system sizing; system pressures, and system'equipment will be investigated: The TM will include input from the traffic •engineering rhasterplan. The TM will Serve as a site master plan and includea preliminary site plan. In addition, staging;areas and access for construction activities shall be identified. (Expanded_type).' Task 1.2.11 TM No. 11 - Administrative Facilities. This TM•shall evaluate the needs for the on- site'administration, operation,•maintenance, and"laboratory.facilities The results shallbeibased'on the facility staffing needs that"will be determined'b9 the process '1 selection and decisions by City staff?egarding the reloeation'of;other Water Resources Departmentstaff to the Lakeville-site. (Expanded type). Task 1.2.12 TM No. 12 -Architecture arid Facility Aesthetics. The objectide for this-TM is to _ develop the architectural and aestheticstheme for the facility: This TM shall include"spatial/function relationships for the,Plant;-results of code study; architectural themesfor the facilityand preliminary renderings of the • administration/maintenance buildings for each architectural theme developed; • redommended architectural theme;materials of construction for buildings and scherimatic'floor plan for each building. Public education features and benefits will be identified. (Expanded type). Task 1.2,13-TM No. 13 - Landscaping. This TM shall include landscape design criteria using native, d roughttolerant species. Areas on the site appropriate for a tree farm will alsobe identified. (List type) • Task 1.2.14 TM No. 14 -Structural Design Criteria: This TM shall include structural design criteria for the project including seismic design: Code requirementswill also be identified. Results from the Geotechnical site hvestigation will be reviewed and recommendations for foundation design Will be made. (Expanded type)'. • Task 1.2.157M No. 15 - Electrical Power and Distribution. This TM shall include plans for • power distribution, expansion and emergency power. It.shall also identify project design standards, code requirements and•electrical requirements as-follows: connected loads basedionprocess redundancy anticipated operating loads, and PetaiumascopeV er6 6 Version 6—February 2,2001 • 25,percent expansloncapaelty.,ln(tral coordination with PG&E will be documented. .., in this TM,including areyiew,of,power quality and,system capacity (Expanded,, • t\ .- . , . Task 1.2.16 TM No. 16 - Instrumentation and Control. TM shall address.the plantoperational philosophy, the control system hierarchy, the control system block diagram and pr oject design standards TM will also investigate alternatiye,SCADA systems.for, communications and controls. nve and security TM shall also istigate plant security,,,,. requirements and a plan for providing security m and.reote viewing .In.addition, this TM shall review connecting the City's existing pump stations (Siemens PLCs) and,PIPS.(Modicon),to_the new plant SCADA.system. (Expanded type). Task 1.2.17 TM.No 17 ,:Project,Delivery Analysis This TM shall include the development of a detailed,construction schedule to-identify the critical path and determine the j. length of constructionand construptability issues; reviewequipment procurement . options and.identifypotential_prequalifi,ed or sole source equipment. The prequalification of general and:special contractors will also be evaluated. (Expanded type). Task 1.2.18 TM No. 18 - Preliminary Hydraulic Profile/ Process Model. This TM shall include a preliminary hydraulic profile based on the site plan,,,predeign process sizing and existing plant hydraulics. This TM will also include a preliminary process model. (Expanded type). Task 1.2.19 TM:No. 19 -Construction Cost Estimate. This.TM,shall provide an updated construction and prbjedt costestimate. (Expanded type): . Task 1.2.20 TM No. 20-Staffing Evaluation. This TM shall evaluate the staffing needs for the Lakeville WRF based on the treatment process selection and instrumentation /control.philosophy.,This will,include:operation,.maintenance, laboratory and clerical persopnel. . , • TMs shall be provided,nor.less,than one week before any,scheduled,workshop for City review. . Any review comments on.a.TM bythe City will be provided,to Carollo either at the workshop or within two weeks following the workshop.. Task 1.3 Site Visits It is anticipated in the.course of developing the TMs that the City will wish to make site visits to existing installations to assist in the decision-making process. A total of up to ten (10) site visits during the project shall be made during the Predesign. A summary trip report shall be prepared for each.site-visit. • .. . . • Task 1.4 Technical Workshops. Four (4).one- day workshops shall be scheduled over the duration of the Predesign Task including: • Wetlands Treatment, Preliminary, Primary and Secondary Treatment, • • Disinfection, Tertiary and Solids Treatment • Architectural / Landscaping and Electrical /Instrumentation ( half day each). Petalumascope V er6 7 version 6—February 2,2001 At these workshops!the findings in'the TMs shall be'discussed arid all'review`'cornrnents shall be incor'porated into"th'e.final•TM!`becisions madeatthese'workshops arid TMs shall serve as the basis for the Predesign Report. Task t5: Predesign Repo'rt,::. A Draft and°Final Predesign report shall tie provided for the Lakeville Highway Water"Recycling Facility (WRF)`site facilities based'upon'the TMs City staff shall review a draft re'port'and • commentsshalhbeiheorpor`ated'intothe ilhalpredesigrireport: • r The Predesign.Report shall provide the cbnclusionsfortne following items: the design of the preliminary, secondary and tertiary processes; design of the oxidation-pond system modificatidnsand the Wetland`s: Theoptimurt layout based'upon hydraulic restriotions;'the • ultimate set back requirements on all'sides ofproperty;the:general flowstream layout and.unit process locations; the "good "neighbor requireriients for the facility including; 1) level of noise control; 2) level of odor control; 3) building height requirements; 4)'peritnetersecurity and 5) visual screening requirements; and key technical decisions such as electrical power; control, and instrumentation. • Task 1.6 Value Engineering and Peer Review Workshops • • Two review workshops will be conducted before finalizing the Predesign Report: A Value Engineering (0/E) review team will be assembled by the City and will receive a brief presentation by the Carollo design team describing:the project. The designteam.shall prepare a.response to the VE report. The final VE report and.responses shall be submitted,to the SWRCB. • In-house (Engineer's owri;staffeypeer review of the design using senior staff engineers:not directly part of the designiteam. The peer review team Shall consist of onemember each of the following disciplines:. sarlitary, structural, mechanical, electrical / instrumentation and construction management• The peer review shall occur at completion of the:Draft Predesign Report: The review shall include all design concepts, design configuration, construction sequencing:and constructability constraints. The peer review shall includetwo'days of • independent review byeadh•discipline engineer and one and one-half days ofgroup.review. A set of meeting notessummarizing the peer review group session shall be made. City staff will participate in the peer review process at their discretion. Task 1.7 Permitting • The purpose of this task is to identify, develop.and•procurethe.necessary permits required to design and construct the new Lakeville Highway Water Recycling Facility. However,,at this • . time, it is!difficult to anticipate the full range of activities required to secure the permits for the facility. Both the level of effort and the total listing of permit requirements to be satisfied are difficult, at-this time, to fully identify. Therefore, the budget for this permitting task should be considered an estimate only Any additional activities which may ariseas a result of regulatory or City direction may require an amendment to the level of services anticipated in this scope of . services. The City shall•be responsible for all permit fees. The environmental /general permits which are anticipated at this time for siting, construction and startup of this-project are listed below: PetalumascopeVer6 8 Version 6-February 2.2001 • • _ A. RegionelMater;;Quelity Control,Board;r NPDESeP.ermit;assistance, Section,401.Water.; . ���� Quality Certlficatlon i 'z- ka,1 �!�rer, t" ,.f'?,. "P t` "r Foy . B. State of California Division oftSafety of-Dams - Ponds maybe subject to these rules: based on the volume impounded and'the height of the containment levees N ,; C. Bay Area Air Quality-Management District - Authority toConstruct/Perrri]it to Operate for Lakeville Highway D. US. Army Corp of Engineers -Wetlands Issues, Section 404 (Ellis Creek Crossing). g. l ,:_ E. U.S. FishiandaWildlife Service+.-.Wetlands and.endan ered,species;consu tation, ,. F. California Department.of Fish•and Game-Streambed alteration, NPDES permit and wetlands consultation . r '',,1111;\;'", , , ; G. California Department,otTransportation,(Caltrans).- Lakeville Highway Improvements,:-.° including eastbound-right turrulane; if required. _ H. Sonoma County:- Generalland'use=permits:: . , I. LAFCO - Rezoning issues:°;... , • , • ; T J. Marin/Sonoma Mosquito Abatement and Vector Control District- Review and comment.:• ., on wetlands concept and design. K. City of Petaluma including Building,Department Permits, Plannings,Department-and architectural review committee (SPARC), coordination with Parks and'Recreation, and Fire Marshall, as required:. . L. Department''of•Health Services-Title,22 Engineering-Report.,,, M. National Marine Fisheries'Service:'-Wetlands and endangered species consultation., Task 1.8 CEQA Environmental Documentation. The purpose of this task is to develop CEQA Environmental Documentation for the project - including a project-Environmental Impact Report (EIR)..See CEQADocumentation Scope - Exhibit A, Attachment2. . - . . Task 1.9 State,Revolving Fund i(SRF).LoanSubmittals;/ Support . The purpose of this task is to assist the City with the SRF loan fund application and submittal process. Consultant shall address comments-on the.Project Report, assist with VE Workshop (Task 1.6) and provide input and reviewof the draft Revenue Program (prepared by others): • Task 1.10 Ellis Creek Hydraulic Evaluation . • This task shall include the hydraulic evaluation of Ellis Creek for the purpose of determining water level and velocity at potential bridge locations joining Parcel A to the main process;area at the Water Recycling Facility. The hydrau,lies/hydrologyevaluation shall consider flows • . • produced by the 10-yearreturh period storm at highest high tide. For the purpose of this • computational effort, City of Petaluma or Sonoma County is presumed to have highest high , tide records for Petaluma River'intheivicinityof:Ellis Creek. City of Petaluma or Sonoma County is also presumed to provide the duration and intensity of a 10-year return period storm event. This information will be included1n.TM No. 10: • Task 2 Predesign Management / Administration The purpose of this task is to provide administrative functions for the orderly execution of the -I work and tracking and reporting of work progress including project schedule, project meetings, status reports, management of subconsultants, and decision logs. PetalumascopeVer6 9 Version 6-February 2,2001 Task 2.1 Project Schedule Schedule-Maintenance. Monitor• project'progress:against:accepted schedule;.take:•correctiye actions necessary to keep project on schedule; revise the'schedule as required,:tormaintain; ; established project milestone-dates. Review`cbmparison z of.project schedule-to'projected'labor requirements and budget °•=• era Task 2.2 Progress Meetings ., -F . .... ':i-•nt- '.5•.,_ '._ •:�. H+ V..i! :". i .i.�l.! .. :r:-1i i ry r.• Il v These meetings;begin with`theproject kick-off%meeting;landsshall-include the following, activities: reviewproject scope; reviewwproject schedule; establish project communication procedures; define project deliverables; develop monthly project meetingschedule. .• Progress meetings:shall be held on a monthly basis'to•keep-the City appraised:ol:.the project, to review detailed plans or reports prepared to date;!and to:receive City input,..comments,.and approval on proposed concepts. Meeting notes shall be prepared withinkl4 calendar days of the;meeting. Budget.assumes approximately half`of these meetings will be conducted at Carollo's office. . Task 2.3 Status Report • ., Prepare and submit'a written monthly progress report to City staff which•shall:show the percentage of work completed and thepercentage of`contract billed;surnmarize,the work completed during the month, and summarize the work to be completed duringthe following month.. Task 2.4 -Management of Subconsultants • . . , This is an activity that shall be performed throughout the project. Activities shall include the following: provide information on project issues; review/approve work product integrate work product with.Carollo work effort; mitigate design issues, which arise between Subconsultant/Carollo/City; control•subconsultant budgets and schedules. The following subconsultants are requir to aid inxhe design and construction of this project: Topographic Surveys. INC. - Surveyirfg and Photomapping Burks Tema - Architect Parsons HB and Associates - EIR Preparation and Permitting consultation. Harza Engineering Company - Geotechnical Consultant ZAC Landscape Architect- Landscape Architect Sherwood Reed - Wetlands.Consultant... Francesca;Demgen (URS) - Wetlands Biologist _ • Robert Gearheart- • Wetlands Consultant Patricia Johanson - Environmental Artist DKS Associates • Traffic•Engineering/Control, Roadway and Bridge Design. Paul Larkin &Associates - Mechanical Engineering•Consultant Other special subconsultants may be added where required upon written notice to the City, provided prior approval of the City is obtained. • P etalutascop eVer6 to Version 6—.February 2,2001 • Y, " F "i' .. i.F.. 1:. ' Wit. . • Teak 2.5br ; Decisiontog, „:. " :.w'-' , . sr ;:: . \ A decision log summary.shall be maintained throughout the design period to record the decisions:made by the team. The decision log shall contain the decisions.made during regular design meetings and design workshops as well as during meetings ortelephone conversations' The:decision log;shall list the date the;decision;was,made the tYPeof,meeting . • in which it w#•made-(regular design,meeting telephone conversation, etc) ,the individual involved making the decision,.and the naturaof,.the,d'ecision ,,, Task 2.6 Technical Project Meetings Project meetings will be held with City staff, Carollo design staff, subconsultants and others as necessary, throughout the project:to coordinate and discussrspecific technical issues.One meeting each month•has beenrassumeddforbudget purposes;- . • Task 2.7 PubIiC•Forum / Council Workshops: A total of four public forum meetings or council workshops will be conducted in the Predesign phase of the project. PHASE 2 - FINAL DESIGN . - Final Design'shall include the preparation•of design-documents for bidding and construction. Three design submittals; 50 percent,.90:percent and final:,bid documents.shall be prepared. • This task,shall also include the effort to-,prepare and meet with•City staff over the course of the • design:. Task 3 Final Design Task 3.1 Contract Documents Submittals • The objective of this task s tall be to provide:the,City with a.set of Contract Documents. Contract'Ddcumehts forbidding.(including Plans and:Specifications),shall be prepared and myiar plans provided; as well as `camera-ready" specifications for printing..Plans shall be prepared using AutoCAD Release 14 and will include general;-architectural„landscaping;. mechanical, structural, civil, electrical, and instrumentation drawings. Specifications shall include General Conditions, Special Conditions, and final Technical Specifications for bidding packages Using Carollo's Standard Specifications. Specifications and Bid and Contract Documents shall be;reviewed by the City's legal counsel as to form. Specifications shall be prepared to meet SRF lban requirements..., .. . • • Task 3.1.1. 50 Percent Plans and Specification Submittal. The 50 Percent Submittal shall include all schematics, P&IDs; control:descriptions, schedule, specifications for major mechanical equipment; draft:construction sequencing plans and.all other plans and specifitationstompletedtOdata Task 3.1.2. 90 Percent Plans and Specification Submittal, The 90 Percent Submittal shall include all the Plans and Specifications ready for internal checking.by.Carollo, final control descriptions, construction sequencing plans and construction,schedule. • Task 3.1.3. Final Plans andSpecification Submittal. Submit the Final Plans and Specifications in preparation for bidding. • PetalumascopeVer6 I I Version 6—February 1 2001 • i • The 50 and 90 percent plans and specifications shall be provided at the Design Workshops noted below. The City will either provide comments within three weeks following,the::review meeting. Task 3:2 ;• D'esign•Workshops - ` • During this'`task a design'workshop shall be•conducted with City:staff at tha 50:and 90,percent completion stage of the project'•The purpose of thesepworkshops will be tojpresent the 50 and • 90 percent submittals. Written responses shall be provided;for all questions raised during the, review meeting and comments incorporated, where'appropriate. . • Task 3.3 Value Engineering and Peer Review Workshops Two review workshops will be conducted before finalizing the:Final Design:Contract . Documents. A Value.Engineering (VE) review team will be assembled by the City;to review the 50 percent design and will receive a brief presentation describing the project: The design-team shall prepare a response to the VE report. The final VE Report shall be submitted to the • SWRCB. • A peer review team with outside and in-house reviewers will review the 50 percent design submittal. The in-house peer review team shall consist of one member each of the following disciplines: sanitary, structural, mechanical, electrical./ instumentation and construction management. The peer review shall occur at approximately the 50 percent design point. The review shall include.all-design concepts, design configuration, construction sequencing and constructability constraints. The peer review shall include two days of independent review by each discipline engineer and one day of group review. A set of meeting notes summarizing the peer review group session shall be made. City staff will participate in the peer review process at their discretion. Task 3.4 Construction Cost Estimate The objective of this task call be to provide the;City..with:a,project cost estimate to.allow the • City to prepare for project funding. A preliiminary.construction cost estimate shall be prepared' at the 50 and 90-percent complete design stage and following.the final submittal of the plans and specifications:• Task 3.5 Permitting • The purpose of,this.task is to complete procurement of the necessary. permitsrequired to construct the new Lakeville Highway Water Recycling Facility. However, et this time, it is difficult to anticipate the full range of activities required to secure the permits for the facility. Both the level of effort and the total listing of permit requirements;to be satisfied are difficult, at this time, to'fully identify. Therefore, thebudget for.this permitting task should be considered an estimate only Any additional activities which may arise as a result of regulatory or City direction may,require an amendment to the level of services anticipated in this scope of services. City shall be responsible for all permit fees. The environmental / general permits which:areanticipated.at this time for siting,:construction • and startup of this project art listed in Predesign Task 1.7. • P etalumas copeVer 6 12 Version 6—February 2.2001 • • Task 3.6 SRF Loan Submittals rf� 3C.1 yy The purpose of this,task is,to assist the City with the SRF loan fund application and submittal ' } "T � f E y,r C < . � process. Consultant shall provide technical support td City during thekState review of the Plans and Specifications on the project eligibility and the determination of the eligible capacity Consultant shall,Aeet with,the City staff and'State officials to discuss cornments on the City ` SRF application,iupto three meetings are included intthe project budget. - Task 3.7 Prequalification of Contractors Prequalification documents will be prepared to prequalify general contractors, speciality subcontractors including electrical; and•instrumentation contractors. • Task 3.8 Bid Period Assistance The Engineer shall take the lead in bidding the Plans and Specifications including advertising, printing, distributing plans:and specifications to potential bidders; and answering questions during bidding. Task 3.8.1 Attend Prebid.Conference., The Engineer shall attend pre-bid;conference and site tour as the City's:design representative and present a project;overview. Task 3.8.2 Addenda Preparation..Responses to bidder inquiries shall be provided-and as appropriate,addendum shall be prepared and issued to plan holders. • Task 3.8.3 Bid Opening/Bid Evaluation. Engineer will attend.Bid Opening; tabulate and review all bids.received, check references.of•contractor, subcontractors, and equipment and prepares.bid evaluation/recommendation. Task 3.8.4 Conformed Drawingsand Specifications. .Consultant shall conform Drawings and Specifications fo include all changes made by addenda during bidding. Conformed Drawings;and Specifications will be prepared within 21 days after Notice-to-Proceed with construction. Engineer;shall provide one conformed camera-ready full size set of Drawings,one conformed camera-ready half-size set of Drawings, and one,.conformed_original Specification. Consultant shall make all copies of conformed documents necessary for construction. Task 4.0 Final Design Management/Administration ,. The purpose of this task is to provide administrative functions for the orderly execution of the • work and tracking,and reporting of work progress including project schedule, project meetings, status reports, management of subconsultants, and decision logs. Task 4A Project Schedule , _ • Schedule Maintenance..Monitor,project progress against accepted schedule take corrective actions necessary to,keep project on schedule; revise the schedule as required to maintain established project milestone dates. Review comparison of project schedule to projected labor requirements and budget. • PetalumascopeVer6 13 Version 6—February 2,2001 Task 4.2 Progress Meetings These meetings begin with the project kick-off meeting, and shall include the following activities review project scope review project schedule °establish project communication procedures define project deliverables develop monthly project meeting schedulje • Progress meetings shall;be heltl on a monthly b'asis`to keep the City appraised of the project to review detailed plans or reports-prepared'to date, and to receive City input, comments and' `'. approval on proposed concepts: Meeting notes'shallibe`pre'pared within'142calendardays or the meeting. Budget assumes approximately half of these meetings will be conducted at Carollo's office: Task 4.3 Status Report Prepareand subrnit a written monthly progress report to City staff which shall show the. percentage of;work completed'and the percentage.of contract;billed,;summarize the work completed during the month,and summarize the to be completed during the following: month. Task 4.4 Management of"Subconsultants This is an on-going activity that shall be performed,throughou't the project.,Activities shall include the following'.provide information on°,project issues; review/approve work product;: integrate work product with Carollo work effort; mitigate design issues, which arise`between SubconsultantiCarollo/City; control subconsultant'budgets and schedules. The following: subconsultants are required to aid in the design and constructiomof this project: Topographic Surveys, INC. - Surveying and Photomapping ) Burks Toma - Architect; Parsons HS and,Associates - EIR"Preparation:and Permitting consultation. Harza. Geotechnical Consultant ZAC,Landscape Architect Landscape Architect Sherwood Reed - 4. Wetlands Consultant • FrancescaiDemgen (URS) - Wetlands Biologist Robert'Gearheart Wetlands'Consultant Patricia Johanson - Envir nmental'Artist • • DKS Associates Traffic-Engineering/Control. Roadway and Bridge Design. Paul Larkin & Associates MechanicalEngineering,Consultant Other subconsultants;may be added where;required'upon written notice to the City, provided prior approval of the City is obtained. Task 4.5 Decision Log A decision log summary shall be maintainedthroughout;thedesign period toTrecord;the decisions made by the City: The decision log shall contain the decisions'made during regular design meetings'and'design workshops as well as during meetings or phone conversations. The decision log shall list'the date thedecision'was,made, the type of meeting in wh ich it was made (regular'design meeting, telephone conversation; etc:), the individual involved'making the decision, andthenature of'the:decision. • PetalumascopeVer6 14 Version 6—February 2,2001 • • • Task 4.6 Technical Project Meetings Project meetings will be held with City staff, Carollo design staff; subconsultants and others as necessary,throughout the project-to coordinate and discuss specific technical issues. One meeting each month as been assumed for budget purposes. Task 4.7 Public Forum / Council Workshops A total of four public'forum meetings or council workshops will be conducted in the Final Design phase of the project. V1 SCHEDULE The conceptual overall schedule is presented in Exhibit A Attachment 3 and includes Predesign, CEQA documentation, permitting, Final design, bidding, and construction. VII DELIVERABLES The following shall be the deliverables for the Predesign and Final Design projects. • Phase 1 - Predesign TMs Draft of each TM - 10 copies. Final of each TM - 15 copies:plus PDF file. Meetings Meeting agenda-dratt'by*,mail final provided at meeting. Meeting minutes-email cd'py. Predesign Report Draft of Report- 10 copies. Final of report- 15 copies plus PDF file. Phase 2— Final Design Project schedule. 50 and 90 percent design,submittals - 10 copies. Final design submittal -:10'sets.and electronic copy. Cost estimate at 50 and 90`percent`and final. Addenda-Sent to Plan Holders List;plus,,electronic copy. Bid tabulation, analysis and recommendation. PetalumascopeV e16 15 Version 6—February 2.2001 . . . . • • • .• . . . fit . . . ... • • • • • • • • . . .• • — • •/' • • EXHIBit AttCHMENT 1 • • - „ __—.,... . C7Tg ' SCOPE'OrSERVICES ' • • . - -"GEOTECHNl6AILS6BCONSULTANT „,, ,. • • INTRODUCTION • The,project will consist of the following.facilities: Facility • Anticipated Plan 'Anticipated Foundation '''AnticiPateld Foundation• Dimensions (feet) Depth (feet) Loads'(lef) 50 x 70 • WS — EL 22 TBD Headworks/Pond 1 • Grade El. 18 or 20 • SWD 6 ad 12 ft • Headworks 70 x 70 At grade. TBD • Biofilters/Pond 1 • Extended Air Basins 280 x 245 W , S —El 20 TBD -••'. (2)/Aerated Lagoon Grade- El 18 or 20 SWD 16 to 18 ft _ Secondary Clarifiers (4)/ 80 diameter WS — El 19 . TBD . Pond 1 GIrade— El 18 SWD 14 ft Sludge Lagoon (2)/ 300 x 300 (Zacre) WS —El 18 TBD Pond 1 Grade El 18 Depth 12 ft Blower Building/Pond 1 70 x 40 At grade TED RAS/WAS PS 45 x 25 Grade El 18 (Submersible)/Pond 1 Depth 18 ft TED Pond Effluent Pump 35 x 45 Grade ?? TBD Station/ Pond 9 or 10 Depth 16 ft • Filter Pump Station/Pond 35 x45 • Grade 12 TED 10 • Depth 16 ft Tertiary Filters/Pond 10 60 x 100 WS El 28 . TBD • • Grade El 12 • Depth below grade 8 ft Filter Support Building 100x50 , • Atgrade TfD with Polymer&Alum /Storage/ Pond 10 • Dissolved Air Flotation 50 ft diameter Grade 12 TBD Exhibit A—Attachment 2 1 02/02/01 • • EXHIBIT A ATTACHMENT:1 (DAF) (2)/Pond 10 DC th below grade 10 ft UV Disinfection System/ 70 x 20 WS 12 TBD' Channel/Pond 10 • Grade 12`..; Depth,8 RW Reservoir/Pond 10 10 acres - 12 feet below grade TBD• Dewatering 100 x 80 At,grade TBD Building/Truck Loading/Pond 10 Dewatering Biofilter 70 x 70 At grade • TBD Standby Power (Diesel ,. .50 x 70 At grade . TBD generator) Building.. • . -. Administration / 75 x•100 ;At grade TBD • Maintenance Bldg. • Bridge:over.Ellis Creek TBD At grade TBD (3•potential locations) Bridge over center . TBD At grade • TBD Drainage Channel - Improvements to Existing TBD At grade _TBD • Levees and Roads Notes: SWD=Side Water Depth WS =Water Surface TBD =To be Determined a . ft, SUBCONSULTANT'S SERVICES SUBCONSULTANT's scope of services shall include thefollowing: TASK 1 • FIELD'INVESTIGATION AND INFORMATION GATHERING SUBCONSULTANT shall perform a field investigation as follows: 1.1 Perform a site reconnaissance. 1.2 Review available published geotechnical data applicable to the project. • 1.3 Drill borings, dig test pits, or perform cone penetrometer tests, obtain soil samples, construct pieumeters, • and do other field work and tests as required to obtain sufficient information to make recommendations in the geotechnical report. Soils shall be classified using the Unified Soil Classification System. Exploratory boring breakdown: • Exhibit A-Attachment 2 2 • 02/02/01 • EXHIBIT,A=;ATTACHMENT:1. Facility No. of Borings ., •. Anticipated_Depth,(feet) Extended Aeration/Pond 1, 1 Boring & 1 CPT 40 to 60 ft (2) Headworks/ Pond 1 1 boring * 40 to 60 ft Sludge Lagoon/ Pond 1 1 boring *& 1 CPT 40 to 60ft(boring)1'60 ft (CPT) Secondary Clarifier/ Pond 1 1 CPT 60 • Pond 2 t'boring 40 to 60 ft Ponds 3 1 CPT 60 ft- Ponds 3 & 6(facing,Parcel C) 0:.1 boring:* , ,t 40 to 60 ft•. Ponds 6 & 7 (facing parcel C) 1 boring * 60 ft• • Pond 5 1 boring 40 ft Pond 8 • 1'boring 60 ft Pond 9 1 CPT . 80,ft • Pond 10 1 CPT 80 ft DAFs/Pond 10 1 boring * & 1 CPT 60 ft(boring)-&80' (CPT) Recycled Water Storage 1 CPT 80 ft Filtration/ Disinfection Facilities 2 boring & 2 CPTs I 60' (boring) &80' (CPTs) Parcel A/ Bridge Crossing 3 borings * 30 ft • Borrow areas (2•sites) 3 borings I 20 ft Road widening 1 boring 5 ft * (8) borings will be converted into standpipe piezometers and will be used for ground water monitoring. 1.4 Provide geological mapping in the.field. • 1.5 Review aerial photographs for site evaluation. 1.6 Provide SUBCONSULTANT copies of geotechnical reports ENGINEER has available. TASK 2 • FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTS • SUBCONSULTANT shall perform field and laboratory tests of the type and number as required•to obtain sufficient information to prepare the geotechnicafreport. In the report, state standards used for laboratory tests. 2.1 Laboratory tests shall include the following: - A. Consolidation properties of the soil. B. UBC expansion. C. Classification of soil materials in accordance with the Unified Soil•Classification System (i.e., Atterberg limits and grain size). Exhibit A —Attachment 2 3 02/02/01 EXHIBIT''A-ATTAGH MENT'1 D. ' Sieve and"hydrometer analysis. E. Permeability. .. .F. Strength:h • G. Moisture'content and dry density. • • H. Compaction. . Perform laboratory testing for corrosion on at"representative samples of soil from'the exploratory borings. . 1. The laboratory testing of each soil semple,shall include the following: pH • • Resistivity,(ohm-centimeter) Redox (millivolts, positive or negative) Sulfides (positive, negative, or trace) • Chlorides (parts per-million) • Sulfates (parts per million) 2. Soil samplegp,,hall be taken from depths at which buried piping and concrete structures will be placed. 3. If necessary, multiple samples shall be taken from various depths in specific borings to provide sufficient data for evaluating the corrosivity of soils through which some structures might extend, as in the case of driven steel bearing piles. • J. Provide data from laboratory testing of samples of materials from all potential borrow locations which may be considered for use as a source for backfill around,piping, concrete structures and new dikes. As a minimum, each material sample shall be tested for the following: Resistivity (ohm-centimeter) Chlorides (parts per million) • Sulfates (parts per million) • • Exhibit A—Attachment.2 • 4 . . 02/02/01 EXHIBIT A-ATTACHMENT 1 „, t2.2 Provide ajtotal of(20)fieldisits to monitor the ground water level of(8) new monitoring wells proposed by Harza (2001), existing (3)'monitonng .wells installed previously by HLA (1995) and existing (3) monitoring' • wells at the north of Lakeville Highway- Evaluate`'and report the.measured"water level at, he Lakeville WTP site on a regular basis. TASK 3 • GEOLOGIC":HAZARDS, FAULT LOCATION, AND SEISMIC RESPONSESTUDIES 3.1 Geologic Hazards Study: ' • SUBCONSULTA NT shall evaluate•geole gic and seismic hazards based on report guidelines established by the California Division of Mines and,Geology (Note 42, 1986) Assessment shall beebased on the specific soil data generated during the field,exploration and published literature. The assessmenfshall'include: A. Regional and sitageologic'coridittions: . 1. Geologic map and cross'section. B. Site surface (topographic).and-subsurface (soil) conditions. C. Seismicity and estimated,intensity ofshaking due to historic earthquakes. D. Active and potentially active faults withih 100 kilometers of the site: 1. Description of the.faults. 2. Location of faults and distance from the site: 3. Upper bounds earthquake for each fault. 4. ,Potential ground,motion'generated, at the site, by each upper,bounds earthquake. E. Potential for ground rupture'. • F. Potential for liquefaction. G. • Potential seismic-induced settlement. H. Potential for native slope failure. I. Potential for flooding: 1. 100:and.500 year,flood zones. 1 2. Seismic-induced flooding due to darn failure. J. Potential for tsunamis and seiches. Exhibit A—Attachment 2 5 02/02/01 • • EXHIBIT A-ATTACHMENT 3.2 SUBCONSULTANT shall review in more detail`the activity-of the Tolav fault, which is located %mile northeast of the site Results shall be;compared with the`rnore"active"Rodgers'Creek fault/located—.3-112 miles from the site to evaluate,the seismic stability of existing and'new dikes. • • -3.3 Seismic Response.Study: To evaluate the seismic stelo'ility of the exieting fill dik es, SUBCONSULTANT shall perform.detailed seismic response analyses using a state-of-practice procedure•(time;history,procedure) for fill dikes constructed over soft • Bay Mud and stiff alluvium sites, Due to the complex soil layer beneath the existing ponds and different thickness of soft Bay Mud, the simplified'-procedure used in the.preliminary analyses may not be accurate to evaluate the seismic stability of fill dikes. Therefore, by incorporating'additional soil data from present soil investigation program, SUBCONSULTANT shall perform.2-dimensional finite element method (FEM) analyses to calculate the seismic stability of existing fll dikes including developing.the most feasible mitigation methods. The:ground motion; iLe., peak ground acceleration and response spectra generated.:fromthe FEM analyses shall be based on the geologic, tectonic, seismic recurrence information, and foundation material,properties associated with the specific,site. The;spectra shall be representative of motions which can be generated by,known'faults which can affect'this site. The seismic analyses for fill dikes shall use a deterministic approach, where ground motions from most near-by faults with the highest occurrence:intervals;or fault activity such as Rogers Creek and Tol'ey faults Will be employed.This approach is,consistent=withthe seismic hazard evaluation°stipulated by-the DSOD for levees=and embankments in the state of California. The:ground motion representation for new facilities shall be developed by the SUBCONSULTANT using a probabilistic approach. The probabilistic approach shall be developed based on: a) an equal hazards^response spectra h aving a 10:percent.prot bIlity of being exceeded in 50 years (500 years return period),based on the 1997 UBC code; and b) an equal hazard response spectra,having:a 2 percent probability of being exceeded In 50 years -• (2,500 years return period) based"on the 2000:IBC code."Curves shall be provided for 1/2,(2,and 5 percent damping. The:response spectra shall have.a curve extending to a period of 5 seconds for 2 and 5 percent • damping,and 20 seconds for%percent damping; SUBCONSULTANT shall also provide vertical response,spectra of 5 percent,damping, for both 500 and 2,500-year return period seismic events. TASK 4,:GEOTECHNICAL REPORT SUBCONSULTANT shall submit<a draft and-final geotechnical report. A draft report,shalhbesubmitted for the review and_comment by the ENGINEER and'OWNER.,The final report shall incorporate changes as required by these comments. • For all design.values, indicate-if they are allowable design values or ultimate values: This information is required to avoid use of double'safety factors in.the design. The report shall.contaih the following informations: • 4.1 General Information: A. . Provide a site description and history. Exhibit A—Attachment 2 6 02/02/01. EXHIBIT A-ATTACHMENT41:, , B. Provide a list of existing.geotechnical reports that has been prepared for'the project site • C. Discuss the general and local site geology. D. Provide the depth to groundwater, if encountered; whether the groundwater is perched, and the historical summary of annual groundwater fluctuations(if available). • E. Discuss the corrosivity of the soils at the site with respect to corrosion rates anticipated for buried metallic piping;and structures,driven.:steel piling;.,and.withtespectto anticipated deleterious effects on concrete coatings and structures: • . • . F. Provide a plan showing the locations,of borings and/or test pits and a log of borings and/or test pits.• Present standard penetration data,on logs. G. Provide a summary of all laboratory test data. - H. Discuss pertinent geotechnical factors(soil, rock, geology, and water) that could,affect the design and construction of this facility. . Describe type and location of any subsurface contamination encountered or measured during geotechnical investigation. J. Describe method of disposal of any contaminated or hazardous cuttings or excavated material encountered in subsurface exploration. Include.a statementii22.the body of the report and on the boring logs that the report was prepared to provide information to the ENGINEER for design purposes. 4.2 Conclusions and Recommendations: A. Recommend lateral soil pressures for flat and sloping backfill for use in the design of buried structures. Provide the information for soil located above and below the water tables to include the following lateral soil loads: • 1. Active soil pressure. • 2. At rest soil pressures for stiff structures. 3. Passive soil pressures for resisting static and seismic load. 4. Surcharge soil pressures. 5. Dynamic soil pressures due to earthquakes. B. Recommend the type of foundation system(s) to be used such.as: ' Exhibit A—Attachment 2 r 02/02/01 • EXHIBIT A—ATTACHMENT 1 • 1. Spread foundations including'maffoundations'. ""' . 2. Preloading and spread foundations and their expected settlement. 3. Spread footings on improved ground. 4. Piles. C. Recommend allowable spread foundation bearing.pre"ssures for isolated, continuous, and mat foundations and minimum embedment-depths;Preferably;the information.should be presented in the form of a graph and shall consider allowable bearing pressure for different foundation dimensions.and - depths of embedment. For mat foundations, recommend Young's modulus, Poisson's ratio, vertical elastic modulus of subgrade reaction, and corrections required for size of the foundations. Provide a coefficient of friction between the foundation and the soil or subbase for the resistance of lateral load for static and earthquake loads. Consideration shall be given to the fact that the embedment depth of foundations on the inside of building basements and tanks maybe equal to the foundation thickness. D. If preloading is required, the following information.shall be provided as a minimum: • 1. Depth of fill required. 2. Stability of fill. • 3. Time requirsf for consolidation. 4. If necessary to reduce consolidation time, provide recommendation.for wicks.. 5. Effect of the fill used for preload on the adjoining structures. E. Discuss other feasible ground.improvement methods such as lime grouting to improve the strength and reduce the compressibility of soft Bay Mud. F. If pile foundations are recommended, the following information shall be provided as a minimum: 1. Load and.uplift capacity of piles for different lengths of piles. 2.. Types of piles that are suitable for the site. 3. Lateral load capacity of piles and moment caused due to lateral loading. The information shall be provided on how to design forlateral'loadwhich is shared between the passive pressure on the structure and the piles. This shall include information on deflection versus load for the system. Exhibit A —Attachment:2 8 02/02/01 .EXHIBIT A-ATTA_ CHMENT-L._ , 4, Design criteria for piles in groups. • .t.• _ k r � � .n<`3 � +. �i' = + '•; r 5, Driving criteria including requirements for predrilling. 6. Provide Young's modulus and Poisson s ratio for the soil for the design.of machine ; foundations for vibratory loads. The information shall include methods for correcting the values based on.the:plan.area:ofthe foundations G. Provide information on-the expected;settlement<and,differential settlements for structures, H. Recommend mitigation measures for expansive soils. Recommend subbase requirements,for foundations. J. Recommend maximum design water table for uplift on structures. • K. Provide design criteria for retaining-wall-type structures. This information.shall include coefficient of friction between soil or subbase and foundation for use in resisting lateral load. L. Provide recommended pavement'structural section for A.C. paving for heavy vehicles. M. Recommend maximum slopes for permanent cuts andfills'and discuss the need for erosion control. N. Recommend maximum cut slopes for excavated basins and recommend liner materials to limit seepage. 0. Provide a recommenfded dike section for basins and include maximum slopes and recommend liner materials to limit seepage. P. Provide drain requirements for lined basins. Q. Provide requirements for pipe trench design including: • 1. Stability of soil and recommended mitigation measures for unstable soil conditions. 2. Methods of open trench excavation. 3. Suitable materials for backfill and bedding for pipes. 4. Compaction and moisture requirements for bedding and backfill. 5. Loading on pipe due to backfill. • 6. Methods to_prevent the,pipe bedding and backfill from acting as a conduit for the flow of groundwater along the pipe. • Exhibit A—Attachment 2 9 • 02/02/01 • • EXHIBITA—ATTACHMENT1 • 7. • Recommendations for use.ofgeotextites, if necessary:' 8. Identify any special design requirements to minimize pipe settlement, including seismically induced settlement. R. Recommend maximum temporary excavation slopes and'their effect on existing structures. c' S. Discuss the stability of temporary vertical cuts and the need for shoring or other stabilization methods. T.. Estimate the requirements for dewatering during construction; expected difficulty of dewatering, and possible dewatering methods. U. Recommend 1997`Uniform Building Code and 2000 International Building Code soil site coefficients for the project site for use in seismic design. V. Recommend mitigation measures for earthquake,geologic hazards, induced settlement and liquefaction, lurching, and slope stability. W. Provide recommendations for excavation and site earthwork, including procedures forsubgrade preparation and proper placement of fills and backfill. X. Recommend suitable materials•for site fills and for backfill around structures;(i.e.,-native soil, imported ) • soil, or other) and compaction requirements. Y. Provide recommendations on suitability of available borrow materials. Z. Make.recommenda ajns for corrosion control measures that should be used to protect buried structures against soil-related corrosion•activity, including but not limited to metallic piping and • • structures, concrete structures, driven piling, and others. AA. Provide an estimate of soil swelling to be expected upon excavation and subsequent loss of volume • after compaction for use in a cut and fill balance. BB. Review and recommend any required changes to the ENGINEER's Master Specifications for geotechnical work that is applicable to the work for the project (i.e., fills, backfills, piles, etc.). CC. Determine the extent of groundwater mounding by.utilizing the results of groundwater elevations in • the piezometers.plus existing well information and impact on adjacent parcels. • • TASK 5- SEISMIC,EVALUATION OF EXISTING PIPELINES The purpose of this study is to evaluate the seismic integrity of 42"outfall sewer line at the Lakeville WTP and 36" force main line from a pump station at WTP in Hopper Street to the Lakeville WTP. Exhibit A —Attachment 2 10 02/02/01 • EXHIBIT A—`ATTACH ._ r � � MENT 1 • " 1. Review the previous soil borings by'others, along the existing pipeline alignment; E. Evaluate„the,available as-built drawings, conduct field reconnaissance and discuss theipast performance of existing pipelines with theiCify; C. Confirm the previous soil boring data=by drilling (3) borings and (1) CPT along the outfalbsewer•alignment, asi well as drill (4) borings and (1) CPT along the force main line alignment. The depths of the borings will be about 10 to'20 feet, The CPT will extend to a depth of about 40 to 60 feet; D, Perform laboraterytests to determine;ttfe appropriate gedtechnical parameters and to confirm the corrosive potential of the surface soils; E. Perform a geologic hazard evaluation,;including evaluation of ground failure; fault rupture and surface slumping etc., along the pipeline alignment; F. Evaluate liquefaction potential of subsurface soils; including determining the magnitude of potential total and differential settlement; lateral spreading; subsidence; dynamic densification, etc., during the postulated seismic event; G. Provide peak ground accelerations.and'a:site-specific response spectrum at the most critical segment of the pipelines; >1. Incorporate the findings of this task into the geotechnical report as described under task A.O. TASK 6— REVIEW OF PROJECT DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS 6.1 ' Review the 90 percent co49jplete project Drawings and Specifications on those aspects of the project related to the soil investigatrbn and recommend changes that are required. 6.2 Attend a maximum of 3 meetings with the design team in the ENGINEER's office. 6.3 Provide a maximum of 100 hours of general consultation during design in addition to above services. OPTIONAL'SCOPE ITEMS 1. Install (3) piezometers on parcel C. 2. Lead Testing in Caltrans Right-of-Way. • Exhibit A-Attachment 1 11 02/02/01 EXHIBIT A ATTACHMENT. 1 TIME OF PERFORMANCE • Work shall be undertaken and completed in a sequence assuring expeditious completion, but in any event, all the services required by this Agreement shall be completed within the following number of consecutive calendar days from the authorization to proceed. • 1. Draft report- 120 days. 2. Final report- 14 days from receipt of comments on draft report from the ENGINEER and OWNER_ 3. Review of Drawings-and Specifications -21 days frontreceipt of Drawings and Specifications. • • • Exhibit A—Attachmenti 12 02102/0.1 EXHIBMA-ATTACHMENT SCOPE OF SERVICES r: CEQA DOCUMENTATION; , • • • Subconsultant proposes to prepare a Subsequent EIR for one preferred alternative on the Petaluma Wastewater Treatment Plant. The work on the EIR will be divided into three tasks: E1R ScopingiNOP,- Draft EIR, and Final EIR. , 1 EIR Scoping/NOP - .. • Subtask 1.1 Project Ifiek-Off Meetings and Site visit • Meet with the City staff and Carollo Engineers to discuss and refine the environmental process necessary to obtain project approvals and the list of topics to be addressed in the environmental analysis. • Attend City Council meetings,leading to the selection of a Preferred alternative' and • Conduct an in-depth site visit with Petaluma staff to review existing conditions and document physical opportunities and constraints. Subtask 1.2 EIR Outline Prior to the issuance of the Notice of Preparation, Subconsultant will ptepare:an Ea Outline for Staff and Carollo review of the format and organization. Deliverables: ... EIR Outline Subtask 1.3 Initial Study/Notice'of-Preparation Subconsultant will prepare a Draft Notice of Preparation for City Staff'and Carollo review that includes: • A description of the prop s sed,alternatives, • An Initial Study checklist, and . • Information about the public:scoping meetings. Following staff review, Subconsultant will:niodify the NOP and circulate it to the California Office of Planning and Research and to other interested persons and agencies identified by the•City. Subconsultant will distribute and notice NOP to all responsible agencies and the public. Deliverables: NOP/Initial Study: Draft and Final. Subtask 1.4 Public Scoping Meetings The Project Manager will facilitate two scoping sessions. Conclusions from the Initial Study will be summarized on a hand-out for discussion by attendees. A Scoping ;Report will be prepared that summarizes public and=agency comments, and which identifies how the Ea scope of work responds to those comments. Deliverables: • Handout Scoping Report • :E`<hibit A —Attachments 2 1 EXHIBIT A-ATTACHMENT 2 Subtask 1.5 Permitting Strategy Review Subconsultant will prepare a table listing each of the peimits that may be necessary for the preferred alternative, the length of:time estimate to obtain the penult; the cost, and notes regarding the sequencing • and potential problems associated with each'perniit: DELIVERABLES: Permitting Strategy Table 2 Draft EIR. Subtask 2.1 Administrative Draft EIR/Mitigation,and Monitoring Program' Subconsultant will prepare an Administrative Draft FIR that contains the following sections. Introduction and Summary • summary of the etivironmental process, • brief description of the project, • summary table andalternative•analysis matrix, • mandated topics, including: irreversible,or irretrievable'commitments of'resources;;growth-inducing effects; and unavoidable adverse impacts, and • the .environmentally preferred alternative based on a comparison, of the significant impacts . associated withthethree alternatives Description ofthePProject and Five Alternatives • Description of the:City's preferred alternative; • Description of"no action" and four alternatives, and • Alternative descriptions' will include mapping, a description of construction processes; and a determination of construction phasing. Environmental Setting • Prepare a description of the affected environment for each topic area identified below, and • Existingenvironment will be described at a level of detail necessary to provide an understanding of the significant impacts of the project and alternatives, Environmental Impacts:and Mitigation-Measures • Identify impact evaluation criteria and describe anticipated changes (impacts) to the environment from the project and alternatives, • Assess:potential impacts, and • Prepare mitigation measures. • Land Use The Environmental Setting will.include: • identification of planning jurisdictions, • .regional.landuse patterns, and • land use:goals, objectives and policies. Potential project'impacts evaluated will include: • • general plan land use designations, Exhibit A.-Attachment'?' ' - o • t EXHIBITFA-ATTACHMENTry; .. • zoning, and • land use conflicts. • .. Agriculture • The Environmental Setting will include: • • • agricultural soil capability, • current agricultural uses, • general plan policies, and - • Williamson Act status. Potential project impacts evaluated will include: • loss of prime farmland and Williamson Act land, and • consistancy with General Plan policies and goals. • Geology and Seismic . The environmental setting will include data from existing sources. Potential project impacts evaluated will include: • geology in the project area, major landforms, earth materials and features, • seismic activity including the historical seismicity, and seismic hazards, • slope characteristics, slope instability and earthquake induced slope instability, and • soil hazards including corrosivity and shrink/swell hazards. • Groundwater Potential project impacts evaluated will include: • direction or rate of flow of groundwater, • change in the groundwater storage, or potential adverse affects on groundwater quality, • potential for discharge elements to degrade groundwater quality at existing drinking water wells, • potential for groundwater mounding:or an increase in groundwater levels, and • hydrogeological data based on information presented in existing literature. Water Quality Environmental Setting will include: ▪ Existing water quality in Petaluma River and local surface waters, as provided by Larry Walker & • Associates; and • Basin Plan and General Plan policies related to water quality. Potential project imapcts evaluated will include: • Evaluation criteria based upon meetings with Regional Water Quality Control Board and other interested agencies; • Evaluation of impacts, based upon analysis and data provided by Larry Walker& Associates; and • Recommendations for mitigation measures for construction and operation. • Exhibit A —Attachment 2 3 EXHIBIT A—ATTACHMENT 2 Merritt Smith Consulting will work with Larry Walker &Associates to develop a strategy for addressing public and agency comments regarding water quality issues. Hydrology • Existing information will be used to prepare the environmental setting. Potential project impacts evaluated will include: • flooding, and • streambank erosion. • Public Health and Safety/Hazardous Materials • • Existing information will be used to prepare the environmental setting. Potential project impacts evaluated will include: • use of hazardous-materials during construction and operation, • • potential foi the project to create safety hazards,.and • • potential to create,habitat for disease vectors. Biological Resources The Subconsultant Team will characterize: • • vegetation cover types; • special-status plant communities; • aquatic habitat; including fisheries resources; and • key wildlife habitat. Where detectable, observations of special-status plants and animals will be reported. However, this scope of work does not include protocol-level surveys for endangered or rare plant or animal species: Subconsultant will conduckvetlands delineations, verified by the Corps of Engineers or Resource Conservation Service based on the Corps 1987 wetland manual or-National Food Security Act-Manual as determined to be appropriate for Parcels A, and B. An estimate of wetlands acreage wine prepared for • Parcel C, because it is utilitzed in alternatives. After consultation with CDFG, US F&WS, and NMFS, Subconsultant will identify key,aquatic species sensitive to changing concentrations due to discharge. A screening analysis will be performed to determine if significant bioaccumulation will occur amongst these,key species., Potential impacts to terrestrial, aquatic, andawetlands habitat and special status species will be identified and mitigaiton provided where necessary. Traffic and Circulation The Subconsultant Team will collect available traffic count data from Caltrans;the City of Petaluma, and/or Sonoma County. Potential project impacts evaluated will`include: • congestion during construction; • lane closure during construction; • safety issues; • impacts to"roadbeds during construction; j • parking impacts during construction; and • Exhibit A—.Attachment 2 • • - EXHIBIT-A—ATTACHMENT2 ti .:. ... .b,.._ access points, es ecially'sight distance for tru � • p p cks furring into the Lakeville Highway site Air Resources ; .. The Environmental Setting and potential project impacts evaluated'will 'include (air toxics analyses necessary for wastewater treatment facilities permitting will be.utilized); . s air pollutant emissions associated-with construction and operation.of the proposed facilities, ., • baseline and project setting with meteorological and air'quality data developed-through-the California Air Resources Board (ARB) and climatological and air quality profile data gathered by the BAAQMD, • most recent air quality data:from local•monitoring-stations for the past three to five years to help • highlight existing air quality issues local to the proposed project site, • evaluation of odor impacts andrecommendations for mitigation, - • summary of current air quality management efforts that are,related to the proposed'project, and • overview of the nature and location of existing sensitive receptors to set the context for how such uses may be affected by the proposed project. Noise The Environmental Setting and potential project impacts evaluated will,include: • sensitive land uses adjacent to the proposed project sites, • short term project-related construction activities, • adjacent existing or planned noise sensitive areas resulting from long-term project-related stationary and mobile sources, • survey of existing ambient noise-levels to.establish the characteristics of the noise environment adjacent to the project sites. ,Noise measurements„,if requested, will be made in periods of 30 minutes at up to six (6) locations. Obseryi Lion's of noise sources and other noise correlates'will be noted during each measurement period. • areas where potential future noise impacts would occur, using land use information. aerial photographs. and field reconnaissance, and • • discussions of existing and planned residences and other noise sensitive uses adjacent to the project sites. Historic and Archaeological Resources The Environmental Setting and potential project impacts evaluated will include: • Record.Search Subconsultant will conduct..a.record,search.at.the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University to identify previously surveyed areas and known cultural resources. ▪ Interested Parties Contact letters will be sent to interested agencies and individuals, such as the State Office of Historic Preservation. the Native American Heritage Commission, local historical groups, and.Native American groups and individuals. • Field Survey If the results of Task 1 indicate that the project area, or any part thereof, hastnot been surveyed for cultural resources within the,last five years, a field,surs;ev will be conducted to confirm.The presence or Exhibit A —Attachment 2 .. EXHIBIT A— ATTACHMENT 2 absence known previously s archaeological proposed and historical sites (including h architectural es suchas the farmhouse located he oje tsit). Identified sites will be recorded on Department of Parks and Recreation.523 series forms (DPR: 523). Sites will be mapped and photographed Isolated fords will:be mapped and noted. • Report of Findings and Elk Section A letter report will be-prepared:to summarize the findings of the cultural resources investigation,and will • be submitted.to:the Client for:review and comment. No more than two sites and all isolated'finds will be recorded as a part of this scope and budget. If additional sites :are'noted during the field survey, a supplemental agreement for additional recordation time will be required. Two copies::of'the letter report and any site records will be:forwarded to the NWIC for archiving. The EIR will incorporate the findings of the cultural resources investigation and appropriate migitation measures to avoid potential impacts to cultural resources from this project. • Open Space.and Visual'.Resources The Subconsultant Team will: • Identify and,describe existing open space lands'within:the project area • Review and summarize scenic policies, and other scenic information available from Petaluma and Sonoma County. • Develop scenicimpact mitigation measures. • Prepare one visual simulation of wetlands:area to allow public to evaluate the visual.and-recreational , benefits of the project. The simulations will be conceptual in nature and will be representative of several pond sites. Public Services and Utilities The Environmental Setting and potential projectimpacts evaluated will include: • summary of information regarding existing service providers, service area boundaries, current-levels and standards of service in the project area,,and current'Service planning or expansion efforts • ability of service providers to maintain existing.level.of service. List of Preparers-and References - A list of preparers will be provided,and will identify individuals on the consultant and client team that contributed to preparation of'tl e Ea A-list of references will also be provided to identify each data source used during preparation of the:background'<studies:and"environmental document. Mitigation-Monitoring Program The mitigation measures sett forth in the Administrative Draft EIR will be incorporated into the Mitigation.Monitoring Program.(MMP). The MMPwill include: • overview of mitigation monitoring, compliance and reporting requirements, • description of the required mitigation measure or action, • assignment of monitoring responsibilities by.agency, • identification of the timing-and method of ensuring mitigation implementation, and • criteria for evaluating he effeciiveuess oftti ligation measures; (as needed). • The IVIMP will be modified based upon changes to the Administrative Draft Ea. The format could be modified as necessary to meet:the City needs. Quality Assurance/Quality-Control EAhibit A.—.<?ttaChmeht 2 - • • _ ',: Q requirements, P delivery to,the: City, to :ensure that„[he E1R conforms,wtth CE Are utrements and that all issues err. , The Technical Director will review all,documents related to the Administrative Draft EIR nor to their. ry ry, ues • identified in public:scoping.have been addressed. - 2 . ;:•: - Deliverables: Ten (10) copies of the Administrative Draft ER and Mitigation and Monitoring Program(MMP). Subtask 2 2 Draft EIR • • Based upon the comments,'Subconsultant will prepare five (5) screen'check•versions of the Draft EIR, MMP and Notice of Completion for final staff approval prior to'production. • One hundred (100) copies ofthe Draft EIR and a camera-ready`original will be submitted to the City for distribution _During circulation of the Draft EIR; Subconsultant will conduct•two-'public hearings. Subconsultant will prepare p esentatio$ for,the hearings:"Subconsultant will compile and maintain a list of agencies and individuals for distribution of the Draft and Final ERR. Subconsultant will do the noticing and distribution of the document. Preparation of the list will be coordinated with the City staff and submitted for review prior to Draft.E1R circulation. Deliverables: Five (5) Screen Check Versions of the Draft ER 100 copies of the Draft EIR • Power point presentation 3 Final EIR Subtask 3.1 Administrative Final EIR • Subconsultant will compile a database of written and oral 'comments submitted to the City of Petaluma in response to the Draft EIR. All comments, both.written and verbal, will be numerically identified. Responses to the comments will be keyed to the comment reference number. " An Administrative Final ER will be prepared and will include an introduction,.nutnbered comments, . responses to comments, revised Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and replacement pages showing changes to the Draft EIR.l : • Subconsultant assumes that 100 comments will be received on the Draft FIR. Deliverables: Ten(10) copies of the Administrative Final EIR. Subtask 3.2 Final EIR Subconsultant will prepare the Final EIR by responding to City staff's comments on the Administrative Final EIR. Deliverables: 100 copies of the Final EIR. Subtask 3.3 Statement of Overriding Considerations The Subconsultant Team sbili prepare a draft and final statement of overriding consideration for the selection of the project. Deliverables: • Five(5) copies of the draft Statement of Overriding Considerations .. Five (5) copies of the.final Statement of Overriding Considerations . • Subtask 3.4 Hearings Subconsultant will attend up to three hearings before the City Council for Final EIR and Certification and prepare Power Point presentations: Exhibit A —Attachment 2 7 • • EXHIBIT A—ATTACHMENT 2 Project Management/Meetings • The project management includes implementation of the management systems that are required to support the successftil completion of the project. Project management.includes coordination and tracking of scope and schedule,.preparation of project status reports, administration of.the,project budget,and twelve (12) monthly administrative meetings with Carollo Engineers to discuss'project status, completed work,project schedule, and budget. • Subconsultant;:project management tools include: 1) a project management.plan, 2) an•automated cost accounting system, and 3)monthly.progress'reports. The use of these matiagefnetit tools ensures our complete.attention to the project's schedule, contract, and budget. • The project management plan is prepared, upon project initiation and describes the project's deliverables, schedule, budget, and staff responsibilities.. The cost accounting system receives information on a daily and weekly basis through recovery and timesheet entries and can provide the Project Manager with a variety of financial reports at any point in time. • TherProject Manager will prepare and submit:monthly progress reports to Carollo Engineers for the duration of the contract(Appendix 2). The progress reports will provide a description of the work completed during the previous month, an estimate of the percent work completed to date; a description of any .out-of-scope work. conducted (such work will be conducted only with authorization from the City),'and a description of any current problems, including recommendations for resolution of each identified problem. • Subconsultant project manager will attend up to five (5) meetings with City staff to review interim project submittals. • List of Deliverables • One (1)EIR Outline • One (1)NOP/Initial`Study, Draft and Final. One(d.) Scoping Report • Ten (10) copies of the AdministrativeDraft EIR and Mitigation and Monitoring Program(MMP). • Five (5) Screen Check version of the Draft EIR • One hundred(100) copies of the Draft EIR • • Five (5)power:point presentations. • • Ten (10) copies of the Administrative Final EIR • One hundred (100)copies of the Final EIR. • '• Five (5) copies of the draft Statement of Overriding Considerations • Five (5) copies of the final Statement of Overriding Considerations • Twelve(12)Progress Reports • • _ . . ..� Exhibit A —Attachment 2 . l a- Q- Y3 • Mei rs tr1 ? E U zwi gi < w 't CC cc 'lea W J ›- =yam 53.; o w Q m ;' W U cs , I• Q Q 4w _ , tosj U Q Z G"i O▪ a- } = a_ o w w `v i%; E U F 14 1 3 a ® 0 0. I � 6 ! °� mm c' p r o C � Q a UI m a E= m ¢ o m X - a w n. U CO 9 o2 b O_ 0 d Attachment B RESOLUTION NO. 2000-215 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CAROLLO ENGINEERS FOR PROFESSIONAL;SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF PHASE 2 — PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 0„,r, --? F, I2 90 ] L IO1 , , Resolution No 00-215 N,.C.S. of the City of Petaluma, Califbitia, AUTHORIZINGCITYMANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROF'ESSIONAL,SERVICES • AGREEMENT WITH CAROLLO ENGINEERS.FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF PHASE-2.-PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OF THE WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PROJECT WHEREAS, in 1938, the"original wastewater treatment processes were constructed at 950 Hopper Street; WHEREAS, to meetthe community's needs and changing regulatory requirements, various upgrades and additions to the wastewater treatment plant were conducted through the 1960s; WHEREAS, in 1972, the oxidation.ponds were constructed at 4400 Lakeville Highway to provide additional treatment capacity; WHEREAS, in 1988, with influent flows exceeding 75% of the permitted capacity of the wastewater treatment facility, and necessary upgrades to the facility to increase treatment capacity and continue to meet the needs to the community too costly, the'City determined to replace the eicisting wastewater treatment'facility; WHEREAS, in 1991 the City executeda Memorandum of Understanding with Envirotech Operating Services (FOS)to design, build, construct, own and operate (20 years)a new wastewater treatment facility (Resolution No. 91-107); WHEREAS, on July 31, 1991, EOS submitted an application to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) seeking an exemption from CPUC regulation under the California Local _ Government Privatization Act of,1985 WHEREAS, on October 21, 1991, Administrative Law Judge Ramsey determined that the IMIOU did not meet the requirements of the Public Utilities Code and ordered that "the application is denied without prejudice to refilihg after amendment"; • WHEREAS, in February 1992 EOS and the City mutually agreed to rescind the MOU; WHEREAS, on June 20, 1994, following a report prepared by Ernst and Young, the,City Council adopted Resolution No. 94-1156, which directed'that the Service Agreement Approach (privatization) be utilized for procurement:of a new wastewater treatment facility; WHEREAS, on June 17, 1996. the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-163, which certified the Filial EHt documents, Resolution No. 96-164. which approved the project, and Resolution No. =6-i65. which approved ana authorized issuance of the Request For Proposal; Zeno . 00-215 VCS Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, on July 17, 1996, the RFP was issued to five pre-qualified vendor'teams;' WHEREAS; in January 1997, the City received proposals from Montgomery United Water (MUW) and US Filter/EOS; WHEREAS, on January 5, 1998, the City Co until adopted Resolution No. 98-11, which selected MUW for contract negotiations; WHEREAS, negotiations with ivRJW on technical, legal and agreement issues began;on,January, 27, 1998 and proceeded through spring 1999; WHEREAS, on September 21, 1998, the City.Council, recognizing'the need for development of a public alternative to the proposed privatization-project, approved preparation of the wastewater' treatment facility master plan; WHEREAS, on,September:21, 1999, the CityCouncil adopted Resolution No 99=188, which terminated the privatization process and,established City ownership,of the new wastewater treatment facility; • `WHEREAS,on September 21, 1999,•the City Council-adopted Resolution No. 99-189, which• approved the Wastewater Treatment Master;Plan, with;the understanding that the;Master Plan's recommended,project would be reviewed to address questions asked by the City's independent wastewater professionals; WHEREAS, on October 29, 1999, the City issued a Request For Proposal for engineering services in supporrof the t ter recycling facility project (new wastewater treatment:facility); WHEREAS, the.City Council adopted Resolution No'.-2000-66 on April 3, 2000,,which authorized the City to execute.a professional services agreement with Carob° Engineers for engineering services in support of Phase 1 Project Report of the Water Recycling Facility Project; WHEREAS, five alternatives for the new water recycling facility were developed;,evaluated and compared in the report Water Recycling Facility Project Report (Carollo Engineers); WHEREAS, the City Council considered and discussed the Water Recycling Facility Project Report (Corolla Engineers, November 2000). on November20, 2000; WHEREAS, the City Council.determined Alternative -':tended Aeration:to be The preferred alternative; Reso . ;;r: = 2 of 3 • • . 1 • • WHEREAS, Phase.2-Project Development includes California Environmental Quality Act documentation(preparation.of the environmental impact-report), preparation and submittal of the State Revolving Fund.Loanapplication, detailed geotechnical investigations and review, permitting (including National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit, Bay Area Air Quality Management District permit, US Army Corp Section 404 Nationwide permit, California Department of Transportation Encroachment Permit), preliminary design to establish the foundation for final design, and preparation of final plans and specifications (contract documents) • addressing equipment, site work, yard piping, hydraulic profile, architectural drawings, • landscaping; structural features; mechanical features, and electrical and instrumentation for construction bidding purposes; WHEREAS, the successful completion of Phase 2 —Project Development requires the contract services of a highly qualified professional engineering firm familiar with the water recycling" facility project; WHEREAS, the professional:contract services for Phase 2 —Project Development are estimated at $7,677,812 with a-requested contingency of$300,000 for a total authorized amount of S7,977,812; NOW THEREFORE TT BE.:RESOLVED by the Petaluma City Council.that the City Manager is authorized to execute,a Professional Services Agreement with Carob Engineers for - professional engineering services in•support of Phase 2 —Project Development. Under the power and authority conferred upon this'Council by the Charter-of said City. REFERENCE: I hereby cenify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the Council of the City of Petaluma at a Regular meeting.on December 11, 2000 Approved as to by the following vote: form: • .,,• City Attorney AYES: Healy, Cader-Thompson, Keller, Maguire. Hamilton. Vice Mayor Torliatt, Mayor Thompson NOES: None ABSENT: None. w ATTEST: u .;y , �c-%°_��. a/ • City Clerk U Mayor • Pecn . 00-7.1 5 NCS ?22e 3 or • Attachment C GREEN:BUILDING DESIGN INFORMATION /�yr, y�6� ,A° , 1� �. ; ®i U.S. Green Building Council An Introduction to the 4 The Nation's foremost coalition of leaders U.S. Green Building Council , from across the.building industry working S. to piomotei buildings thatare and the :-ft environmentallyresponsible, profitable, LEEDTM Green Building , y; and healthy places to live and work. :4' S " Rating System a The organization's purpose is to " '??,I Integrate building industry sectors Muth 2002 °+s{ • Lead market transformation r • Educate owners and practitioners Zf°4Y^.io'CC I,LLS.Gun 9u4fn■Cc.'" 7 4e, U.S. Green'Building Council r ill What is "Green" Design? } ti' It Design and construction practices that National-nonprofitorganization'based.in z significantly reduce or eliminate the s - Washington, DC ,, negative impact of buildings on the Diverse membership of organizations 04 environment and occupants in five broad •0-,, • Consensus driven t areas: t.. • Committee-based product development p •Sustainable site planning 0. • Developer,andradministrator of the r • Safeguarding water and water efficiency LEEDTM Green Building Rating System ...Energy efficiency and renewable energy a 1,...%`"e •Conservation of materials and resources rz ' / .r< • Indoor environmental quality tick:.,;* t.. ti ` C, Environmental Impact f acli Benefits of Green Building of Buildings* „r, Environmental Benefits. ee • 6E2%of total U.S.electricity consumption I ' • Reduce the impacts of natural resource >36%of total U.S.primary energy use? �, • consumption 30%of total U.S.greenhouse gas emissions' ° Economic Benefits r .N • 136 million tons of c 'onstruction and demolition • Improve the bottom line waste the U S,(approx.2 e Ibstperson/day)° Health and Safety Benefits • 12%of potable water in the U S.'' OA' • Enhance occupant comfort and health id • 40%(3.billion tons annually)of raw materials It Community Benefits use globally• Mmimrzestrain on local infrastructures and• . . improve quality of life Commercial and residential 1 l 0, Economic.Benefits Economic Benefits Competitive first costs ''t Increase building valuation. ., - - • Using the income capitalization method:.asset 4 .Integrated design allows high benefit at low .. , t value net operating income(NOi)divided by it�, cost by.achieving synergies'between ._ the capitalization rate If the cap rate is`10%, - . disciplines.and between technologies t multiply the reduction in annual operating -c:c , costs by 10 to calculate the increase in the ear Reduce operating costs '4.. buildings asset value ..Lower utiliy colts(i.e.r.$60-57.20 per square ; Decrease vacanc ,:im rove retention toot versus$1.50) '�3a y P Marketing advantages 041 CP msEEO w- uw n,:�E�A.E ,PPS..n• =�"ou�:`"w•A. '°` Optimize life-cycle economic performance ptva.yz Energy Pawn a,nnl •.naz ' gi _ West Bend Mutual Insurance si ©° Economic Benefits ° o Q - Company fi 1 ',lid '•., Improve productivity ,� - tw•,1 Bend.WO- \z a y tt • Estimated$29-168 billion in'national � ,_ • ' r RNY°'� ntli ) rs i I + g productivity losses per year i ...� _.,_. ' ,N, Reduce absenteeism and,turnover • , • Providing aihealihy workplace improves 5 '+? 114bl igfr�,sksa93EW°i„t,gal ty,`,fi ?_A employee satisfaction d .#,. k �".2;din? vn "+ € t� ., Reduce liability rar ,loon p` '• ,�n !:.;aria kita�,g •.Improve risk management r n, ' P � s% r = fix+ s4 Increase Retail Sales with Daylighting + '° ® st ,." + "- "t '4.=; Studies have showjr-40%improvement s µ�L nn Productivity'm Pm Wily In rF+t iY P. old eum, ouMP Hon vw,9umna ^4.( 4 11t`, - r.` TM eilLEED ®,` Why Was LEEp - Created? �. - -- •. • Facilitate positive reesults for the ^r environment•occu anthealth'and Leadership in Energy& ' "4,r' financial return •.:Define green by.providing::-a standard Environmental Design fpr measuremenc! 14. • r r • Prevent"greenwashmg"(false:or heesv A,leading;,edgelystem for-designirig, + - exaggerated claims)• it•• p. constructing,.operating ano certifying the Promote whole-building„integrated world's greenest buildings. design processes • • - 2 ; S'' '''• - - - TM. a_ LEED ` Why Was LEEDTM Created? s Transforming the Marketplace • 20 Certified Projects* z " •• Use a design guideline. '• • More Than 340 Registered Projects* • Recognize,leaders rs �' Stimulate;green competition ?-?n I S g' a . 2s - 7 • Establish market value with recognizable a6 ti �e, 1 1� 6 national"brand" " 'iii• ti .� v ,dot a • Raise consumer,awareness �t �r • Transform the marketplace! F', brik 3a7 xP P!• r "' 1 .. .•; • >594 million;gsf in 40 States,'6 Countries' • >18 building types* •.M aUllsma Eitn, - PhlipM IIE 'm IIC I �T finene,° Diverse Owners and Buildings: • ^� ^« © 1 F li F)M p.„,:M Examples of.Certified Projects , r� ,....„......„.„:„........_.:: r Y se q4 -f c� a .i ! ,ii I w.. ll' �:u • t, 1. 4 PNC Fusiside Center If PNC Financial Services,Prisburgh,PA 647,000 galComm,cal Office Building "•... i LEED 20 s1i4October 2000 —"rte • � Diverse Owners and Buildings: " i Diverse;;Owners and Buildings: ' • Examples'of Registered Projects v.y oP Examples of Registered Projects is t 'C." l LT -�- 444 hvgtl .=k, a A t a `' Y '.1 no imudifiA � ni iJ t dl 'fai''''r',"�ei < IjY Ih9 nit Hitt 7111 tD�t a r �>iF� II lli111l9Yi still u., jl a" a j PI a i .r tit 'y rr. mt{t x z _•.t. fa. 1 Af F� } r"k C a•�. K tix"> £, ' Whitehead Research Building Sabre Corporate Campus Emory University.Atlanta,Georgia ? f'. Sabre,Inc:,Southlake.Texas p "r �y 464,000 gsf Office Building 325,000 gsf laboratory and Office Building ''- 3 vac. . 3 ,Diverse Owners and Buildings; Diverse Owners and Buildings:, Examples of'Registered Projects f� Examples of Registered Projects ' F ;g2,-+b� �1• t1, ,4�^' ';�,i '`'k Or.r a TA ta' x o"-g n o ff atti r-bred. t4 tl LtC '*. i y, a i. 1 .je .dd 8 n' j 4 "• eyr�3a•�+-, r 'ti a@ i . Greenwood Elementary School ° Pottery Barn , Seattle Public School District,Seattle,WA .. x Williams-Sonoma,Inc,San Francisco:Calif0mm' } 61,000 gsf educational building 12,000 of Reim)Store • k Technical Overview of LEEDTM Technical'Overview_ of LEEDTM . o (continued) „ • Green building rating system„currently for i, ,i.i • Whole-building approach encourages and yQ commercial institutional, and ugh,rise' ;n guides a collaborative;;integrated design residential new.constructionr and major and construction process = renovation. •'-` •-Optimizes-environmental'and'economic • Existing; proven technologies factors Evaluates and recognizes performance in acce 14 • Four levels of certification % ; pled green design categories k: 'I , • LEED,3,0t product development includes ,�4 • LEED.Certified 26 32 points e existing buildings, multiple buildings,co e ;t,e= • Silver Level 33 38 points :-' &shell,:interiors,.and residential • Gold Level 39 51 points ; 9: Platinum Level . 52+points(69 possible) • $fig LEED?Tt Point Distribution .= LEEDT" Certification Process M. _ ,•• A three step process °ma"'M ,� '"' •.Step 1:Project Registration , • ;y •Welcome Packet andlon-line project. - • .• •t �® listing mdan i • Step 2:Technical.Support `+;.. Energy •+! •Reference Package •'t•a nM• I 1 _ _Credit Rulings •'.Step 3:Building Certification Five LEEDcredrtcategories V4:14` •.Upon documentation submittal and ' USGBC review . 4 LEEDTM Resources '0't Certification Benefits 7 Recognition of Quality Buildings and 3 • LEED Green Building Rating System g m.,.. Environmental Stewardship s. • Training Workshop -• A •Third party validation of achievement • Reference Package s . •Qualify for growing array of state and local -1 • Professional Accreditation Ra . government incentives Ali • Welcome Packet t •Contribute:to growing knowledge base Credit Re Packet � ••LEED certification plaque to mount on building •- ' •Official certificate • Website(www.leedbuilding.org) •Receive marketing exposure through USGBC Web kt yydr;- site,case studies,media announcements kV ry For more information - please visit www.usgbclorg • ' i. • 5 Attachment D TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 7 —SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FACILI-TIES PROPOSED AMENDED SCOPE OF WORK • • City of Petaluma, California Lakeville Highway Water Recycling Facility Project TECHNICAL MEMORADUM NO. 7 SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES ADDENDUM NO. 1 ALTERNATIVE DIGESTION PROCESS DRAFT July 2002 • . CCI OLLO encineers 2700 YGNACIO VALLEY ROAD, SUITE 300 • WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94598 • (925) 932-1710 • FAX (925) 930-0208 C:\Documents and.Settings\urban\Locall Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OL K2\Solids Addendumdoc City of Petaluma, California Lakeville,Highway WaterRecycling Facility Project TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 7 SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES' ADDENDUM,NO. 1 ALTERNATIVE DIGESTION PROCESS TABLEOF CONTENTS • Page No. 1.0 PURPOSE 7-1 2.0 PROPOSED CHANGES. 7-1 2.1 Process Description _ 7-1 22 Design Elements 7-1 2.3 Design Criteria 7-2 3.0 ALTERNATIVE PROCESSrBENEFITS/IMPACTS 7=3 3.1 Process - 7-3 32 Sustainability 7-3 4.o COST COMPARISION 7=3 5.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - 7=4 • LIST'OF'TABLES Table 1 Two Stage Anaerobic Digestion Design Criteria 7-6 Tablet Digester Alternatives - Power Costs 7-7 Table 3 Cost Comparison of Digestion Alternatives 7-8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Alternative Sludge Treatinent Schematic 7-5 • DRAFT - July 22, 2002 i C:\Documentsand Settings\mban\Local Settings\Temporary Interne)Files\OLK2\Solids Addendum.doc Techriical Memorandum No. 7 SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES ADDENDUM N0. 1 ALTERNATIVE DIGESTION PROCESS 1 .0 PURPOSE The purpose of this addendum is to document proposed changes to technical memorandum (TM) No. 7, Sludge Treatment and Disposal Facilities prepared for the City of Petaluma, Lakeville,Highway Water Recycling Facility (WRF). These changes were proposed in May 2002 during in-house peer review. 2.0 PROPOSED CHANGES This addendum addresses changes from the originally proposed aerobic digestion process to two phase anaerobic digestion. The two phase anaerobic digestion was proposed during an internal peer review. The change was proposed based on the lower operating and maintenance costs for anaerobic digestion. The proposed anaerobic digestion process is shown schematically in Figure 1 (attached at . end). 2.1 Process Description Two phase anaerobic digestion consists of an acid formation phase and methane production phase.Each phase is performed in a separate tank(s). The process will produce a Class B sludge.the digesters operate as follows: Thickened WAS (5 to 6'percent total solids) is either continuously or intermittently fed from the gravity belt thickener to the first acid phase tank. The sludge is heated at 95°F and held for 1 to 3 days HRT. Sludge then overflows by gravity to the second acid phase tank. It is then pumped to the methane phase digester. The acid phase tanks are arranged so that either one can be taken out of service with the other remaining operational. Sludge is held in the methane phase digester for 12 to 15 days at 95° F and is continually mixed. If a.Class A sludge is required in-the future, it will be possible to add equipment to heat the sludge in the methane (second) stage digester to 120°F to operate it in a thermophillic mode. 2.2 Design Elements Elements of the process include: DRAFT - July 22, 2002 7-1 C:\Documents and Settings\mban\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2\Solids Addendum.doc • • Acid Phase The acid phase digesters will be 15-foot diameter, insulated, glass lined steel tanks, with provisions for a third tank in the future. The acid phase digesters have a.detention time of 0.7'to2.6 days, and target pH of 5.5—6,0..The key design parameter is the minimum volatile solids loading rate is 1:5 lbs VSS/ft3/day: Based on the experience at DuPage County, IL, 1.5 lbs VSS/ft3/day is minimum.. . In the,proposed configuration, the tanks will allow for one unitto be out otservicefor cleaning. The tanks will be provided°with access hatches for cleaning. • Methane Phase Digestion The methane'phase digester will be a:55 foot diameter concrete tank with a floatinggas holder cover. Space fora futuresecond digester will'be provided. The methane phase digester operateaat similar conditions as a conventional high-rate anaerobic digester: The design detention time is 15 to 17 days and pH range of 7.5 to 8.3. The floating gas holder allows for sludge:.drawoff by allowing level variation. In addition the gas holder provides gas storage for gas utilization/boiler system. • Sludge.Heating System Sludge in both`the acid phase and methane phase digester will be heated to 95°'F. Sludge •will baheated by circulating through external heat exchangers. Hot water, heated by a boiler will provide the heat source. Digester gas produced by the methane phase digester will provide fuel for the boiler. • Sludge Transfer Pump System During normal operation, sludge will be pumped from the second acid phase digester to methane phase digester. • • Sludge Mixing The.acid phase tanks do not have dedicated sludge mixing. Mixing is accomplished by using the recirculation provided by the heated sludge recirculation pumps. The methane phase•digester is mixed using an external pumpmixing system. 2.3 Design Criteria Preliminary design criteria for the process is:listed`in Table 1 (attached at end). DRAFT—July 22„2002 7-2 C:\Documents and Settings\roan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet.Files\OLK2\Solids'Addendum.doc 3.0 ALTERNATIVE PROCESS BENEFITS/IMPACTS 3.1 Process Two phase anaerobic digestion has the following benefits when compared to aerobic digestion. • Greater volatile solids destruction, resulting in reduced solids production. Solids production will be-35 percent to 45 percent less based on a typical waste secondary sludge with a volatile-solids,percentage of 50 to 70 percent. This will reduce the capital and operating costs of the dewatering equipment Cost savings are shown below. • Reduced power requirements. A comparison,of power costs is presented in Table 2. • Reduced odor potential with enclosed tanks. • Enhanced pathogen destruction. • Ability to produce ClassA,sludge (If methane phase digesters are operated in the thermophillic modeit 120.degree F). The following are,disadvantages of this alternative process: • Increase in centrate ammonia concentration which"increases recycle loads • Potential increase in struvite formation. • Perceived "new" process,.for difficult to dewater sludge. • Increased operator attention. Additional operator costs are included for the two stage digester costs below. 3.2 Sustainability The anaerobic digestion process provides several benefits,that make it a more sustainable alternative over a‘robicdigestion. Anaerobic digesters require,less power and will allow for cogeneration as a future option. The ability to produce Class A sludge is also a benefit as it potentially will allow for more sludge reuse option. Table 2 (To be added) shows a comparison between aerobic and anaerobic digestion. 4.0 COST COMPARISION A cost comparison between the aerobic digestion process proposed during.predesign and the alternative anaerobic digestion process is presented in Table 4. The anaerobic digestion process has a higher construction cost than the aerobic digestion process. However, the lower O&M cost of anaerobic digestion makes it the more favorable alternative over the,life of the facility. The cost to add cogeneration is also shown on Table 3. The higher cost of cogeneration equipment'and maintenance does not balance with the cost benefits and is not recommended at this time but can be added in the future. DRAFT - July 22, 2002 7-3 C:\Documents and Settings\mban\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2\Solids Addendum.doc • The impact of solidsproduction is also shown on Table 3:. The Aerobicrdigester will produce more solids that will need.to.be dewatered and sent to disposal. Therefore, .additional disposal costs are includedfor these,;items. The final cost item outlined"on cost comparison is the impact of the:recycle:stream on:treatment costs. The recycle stream from.the anaerobic digester will have more ammonia than the aerobic unit. Therefore,;the cost to treatthe recycle stream in the secondary process has been added to thecost of the anaerobic process. 5.0 FINDINGS AND. RECOMMENDATIONS • Two phase anaerobic digestion offers significant advantages over aerobic:digestion, reduced,power requirements; enhanced pathogen destruction, and greater volatile §olids destruction. • The increased construction cost is;offset',bythe lower O&M costs over the life of the facility. • Two'phase.anaerobic digestibn,:is.the recommended sludgedigestion alternative. • Digester gas can be utilized to heat sludge. • • • • DRAFT-July 22, 2002 7-4 'C:\Documents and Settingsvnban\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2\Solids Addendum don • • z « ±ƒ® < woZ ®x, w $ ± / a $ u O ® a § § K = > cn@J / I- -\ g \$ 32 » \ , §� Suoe . 93 ) )$ . . we « z > ) r 3®J -J wJ / j o \ < .� W * _ • iii 6 � ° _ 0)0 ° < ƒ o ` k � EK < 2k0 / 6 - = J ea i4 2 ( CO 0 'CT) ON C-1_173 C CD CS • Mi' �ani PI I a s- IJ3fl 0\ \ •° --- j `\ • \ ° I •• % / § 5 } I / �2 °m ) - j {\ ,\ �. •E a / § - . CO * ) 7 : } . \. = 3a ƒ - @\ j \/ b • b ^ j\ •• \jj g § • )}!/ $ . `$CO~» I Table 1 Two Stage Anaerobic:Digestion Design Criteria Lakeville HighwayWater Recycling Facility Project City of Petaluma, California Parameter Value Units Acid Phase Tanks Number of Tanks 2 HRT 1`- 3 days VSS':Loading Rate > 1.5 lbs/ft3-day pH 5.5 -6.0 VFA Conc. 6,000 10,000 mg/L Diameter 15 ft SWD 30 ft Total Volume 10,600 ft3 Detention Time 0.67 -2.56 days. 'Temperature 95 Degrees F Methane.Phase Tank 'Number of Tanks 1 HRT '12 - 15 days pH 7.5 - 8.3 VFA Conc. <100 (mesa), <300 (thermo) mg/L Diameter 55 ft SWD : 26- 30 ft Holding Time) 2 days' Total Volume. 61,770-71,250 ft3 Detention Time 15*- 17 days Temperature (Mesophilic) 95 Degrees F (1) Max SWD- Min`SWD DRAFT-July22, 2002 7.6 C:\Documents and SettingsVnban\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2\Solids Addendum.doc Table 2 Digester Alternatives- Power Costs, • Lakeville HighwayMater Recycling Facility Project City ofPetaluma California • Description HP Operating/Total Three Stage aerobic°Digesters Aerators (4 @ 30 Hp) 120/120 Mixers (2+2 @ 30 Hp) 60/120 Blowers (2+1 @ 100 Hp) 120/300 Total Operating Hp 300 Annual Power Cost, © $0:10/kw-hr $196,000 Annual Power Cost, @:$0.15/kw-hr $294,000 Two.Stage•Anaerobic Digesters Acid Phase Recirculation Pumps,(2+1 @ 10 Hp) 20/20 Acid Phase Transfer Pumps (2 @ 10 Hp) 10/20 Methane Phase Sludge Recirculation Pumps (2 @ 20 Hp) 20/40 Methane Phase Mixing Pump (1 @ 25'Hp) 25 Hot Water Recirculation Pumps (2 @ 7.5 Hp) 7.5/15 Total Operating Hp 82.5 Annual Power Cost, @ $0.10/kw-h0 $54,000 Annual Power Cost, @ $0.15/kw-hrM $81,000 (1) Does not reflect power generation from energy recovery/cogeneration. • DRAFT - July 22,2002 7-7 C:\Documents and Settings\mtian\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2\Solids Addendum_doe Table 4 Cost Comparison of Digestion Alternatives Lakeville Highway'Water Recycling Facility Project City of Petaluma,;California Anaerobic Aerobic Digestion without Anaerobic Digestion Description Digestion Co-generation with Co-generation Construction, ($ M)") General/Sitework $1.18 $0.65 • $0.67 Concrete/Building $1..02 $1.1 $1.1 Metals/Equipment/ Mechanical/ $0.97 $1 .74 $2.23 Special Construction Electrical $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 Contingency/ENR/Adjustment $1.21 $1.31 .$1.48 Total Construction $4.78 $5.21 $5.89 Dewatering Construction Cost (0.35) (0.35) Saving (2) Annualized Cost, ($M/yr)(3) $0.37 $0.38 $0.43 O &M, ($ M/yr) Additional Labor (4) $0 $0.04 0.06 Additional Aeration $0 $0.05 $0.05 Chemicals $0 $0.05 $0.05 • Equipment $0.02 $0.02 $0.05 Maintenance/Replacement, 2%/yr Additional Disposdl Costs 0.16 $0 $0 Power, © $0.10/kw;hr $0.20 $0.05 $0 Power, @ $0.15/kw-hr $0.30 $0.08 $0 ' Total O&M Cost, $M/yr(5) $0.38 $0.21 $0.21 Total Annual Cost, $M/yr $0.59 $0.59 $0.64 Notes: (1)Construction Cost based on ENRCCI =7925 (Dec 2004) (2) Relative cost savings for dewatering equipment only, based on high speed centrifuge. (3) Based on i = 6%, 25'years (4),Additional labor over labor required for anaerobic digester system. (5)'At$0.10/kw-hr DRAFT - July 22, 2002 • 7-8 C:\Documents and Settings\mban\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2\Solids Addendum.doc S IT • CU LP • TCl N S i TI N • • MEMO TO: Mike Ban From: Gordon Culp • Subject: Comments on Carollo Technical Memo No. 7 - Sludge Treatment and Disposal Facilities Technical Memo No. 7 proposes to change from the originally proposed aerobic digestion process to a two-phase (acid-methane phases) anaerobic digestion process. Here are my comments on the,Technical Memo. Cost comparison Table 3 in the TM presents a cost-comparison. The difference between the aerobic and anaerobic sludge options is $60,000 per year ($0.59 Mil/Yr for aerobic vs $0.53 Mil/Yr for anaerobic). At this preliminary level of process evaluation, this difference of 10% falls within the limits of the accuracy of the cost estimates and the costs of the alternatives should be considered equivalent. It does not appear that the added cost for treatment of the recycled ammonia load from the anaerobic process has been,:considered. Nitrification of the ammonia will occur in the extended aeration p ocess: The example project (the Woodridge Greene Valley Wastewater Treatment Plant) described in the attachment to the TM reported an increase in the influent ammonia from 20'mg/L to 40 mg/L due to the recycle from the anaerobic sludge digestion process. My experience has been that influent ammonia typically increases only about 25% when anaerobic digester supernatant is recycled. It may be that the sludge dewatering process at the Woodridge Greene plant is operated only intermittently and the 100% increase occurred during the period when the dewatering process was operating. The use.of•a 100% increase would, in my opinion, result in an overestimation of the cost:of oxidizing the recycle ammonia. If we assume that there is a 5 mg/L,increase in the influent ammonia(from 20 to 25 mg/L), the added power cost for the nitrification of this recycled load would be: Recycledlamnionia load: 5 rng/L x 8.34 x 6.7 mgd = 279 lbs/day Oxygen requirement for ammonia: 4.5 lbs/oxygen/lb ahimonia= 1257 lbs/day oxygen Power'requirernent' 1..1 kwli/lb oxygen = 1383 kwh/day Power costs at $0.10/kwh'= $138 per day= $50,370 per year The added power cost of$50,370 offsets most of the savings of 560,000 estimated in the TM; however, as noted earlier the cost difference is within the accuracy of the estimates at this point and the processes should be considered equivalent in costs. Another anaerobic digestion approach If anaerobic sludge digestion is the preferred:approach, you may want to also'consider;the approach being used by the Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency. They are using a different two-phase digestion process. The first phase is thermophillic digestion with a detention time of 4,7 days and the second phase is mesophillic digestion with.:a detention time of 9.4 days for a.total of 14:1 days. ThisPis slightly less than the 15.7-19.6 days deScnbed on page 7-2 of the TM for the acid-methane phased approach which would provide some slight savings in tank costs. The thermophillic-phased approach offers the potential to produce a Class. A sludge which the acid-methane phased approdch does not when operated atmesophillic temperatures. TTSA is very pleased with their two-stage:process: Advantages/Disadvantages Pages 7-2 and 7-3 of the TM list advantages and disadvantages of the anaerobic process. I agree with the advantages listed but I would add a couple of disadvantages to the anaerobic process: (1) added complexity of operation and (2) increased.odor potential at the point of introduction of the centrate to the secondary treatment process. • • • • • Attachment E PROPOSED AMENDED SCOPE OF WORK Amendment No. 1 Extra Items • PROFESSIONALSERVICES.AGREEMENT WATER"RECYCLING FACILITY PROJECT • FACILITY PHASE 2 — PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Project Account Code No. 602-400-9012-7102 The Agreement made and entered into on March 29, 2001. by and,between the City of Petaluma, a Municipal Corporation and a charter city (hereinafter referred to as "City") and Carollo Engineers P.C., 2700 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 300, Walnut Creek, California 94598, (hereinafter referred to as (Consultant') is hereby amended asdescribed'below. 1. Exhibit A, Scope of Work for the original agreement shall be modified as noted in Attachment No. 1, Amendment'No.1 Scope"of Services, attached. 2. The compensation listed in Paragraph 2D.shall be increased'by$ 448;500 from $ 7,943,826 to $ 8,392,326. Attachment No. 2)summarizes the budget for each additional work item. This Amendment No. 1 is hereby executed this day of August 2002. CITY OF PETALUMA CONSULTANT City Manager Principal ATTEST Principal City Clerk 2700 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 300 Walnut Creek CA 94598 Taxpayer ID No..860899222 APPROVED'AS TO FORM Petaluma.Business Tax Receipt No. 934809 City Attorney APPROVED Director of Water`Resources•& Conservation • AmendmentlscopeVer3.doc 1 07/22/02 Amendment No. 1 Extra.Items Attachment No. 1 SCOPE OF WORK MODIFICATION LAKEVILLE.HIGHWAY WATER:RECYCLING FACILITY ,CITY OF PETALUMA CALIFORNIA I. PROJECT'BACKGROUND The Cityof Petaluma (City), California, is currently preparing the final design fora new 6:7 million gallons per day(average dry weather flow) (mgd)water recycling facility at the Lakeville Highway,site This amendment modifiesand adds elements of the project listed'in,tfe Agreement dated°March 29, 2001 anddefined in the Predesign Report, 'dated February 2002. The amendments to Exhibit A are outlined below. II. SCOPE OF PROJECT[PROJECT ELEMENT LIST . 1: Modify item J. Administration/Operation/Maintenance/Laboratory Building(s) Add items 0, P,Q, and R as follows: "0. Urban Recycled Water Pipeline connection. P. Parallel Influent Raw Sewage Force-main connection. Q. Outfall Maintenance. R. Digester;Gas Handling System:" III. SCOPE OF DESIGN SERVICES Item. J. Operation/Maintenance/Laboratory Building(s). The[Operations/Laboratoryyand:Maintenance Buildings will,be designed as "certified Green Buildings"and the budge€amendmencincludes design tasks to document thejg#een design features and obtairr Leadership.in Energy and Erivironment,Design (LEED) certification. In addition, the geen design will,requireisligntlymore complex'design for both architectural, structural, and mechanical elements. The Administration Building proposed in the Predesign Report will;not be included in the Final Design. The additional work is to be completed as part of the WRF project'tasks. Item 0: Urban Recycled Water Pipeline Connection: The Scope of the'WRF'Predesign/Final Design did not include the design of a 24-inch RW line connection from the new Urban RW Pump Station to the Phase 1 RW line currently under design by others. Approximately 2000 feet of 24 inch RW water main would cross under Lakeville Highway,'up the middle of Browns Lane to Ely Boulevard. The final,design requires the preparation and design of 3 additional civil drawings. Amendrnentl scopeVer3,doc 2 07/23/02 • • Permits from the State of California, Caltrans and Sonoma County will,be required for the construction;activities. The environmental documentation will be covered under a.different project. Consultant will review an administrative draft document and provide comments to the City. The additional work will be completed as part of the WRF project tasks. Item P. Influent.Raw Sewage Force Main Connection • The Scope of the WRF Predesign/Final,Design did not include the design of a parallel 36-inch raw sewage force main. A new section of force main will be included in the WRF design for the portion that crosses Parcel NB for connection to a future parallel force main from the Pond Influent Pump Station. The final design requires the preparation and design of 4 to 5 additional civil, plan, and profile drawings. The additional work will be completed as part of the WRF project tasks. Item Q. Outfall Maintenance. The existing outfall was identified;asa potential hydraulic restriction for River discharge due to plugging of the existing diffuser. The Predesign report recommended replacement of the existing outfall diffuser piping with,a new,section that will`reduce.the potential for plugging. Scope of the WRF Predesign/ Final,Design did not include the design of a replacement outfall diffuser. The final design requires the,preparation and design of additional civil drawings. • Permits will be required fromthe Bey Conservation and Development Commission, State Lands Commission and US Army Corp,ofyEngineers. The additional work will by completed as part of the WRF project tasks. Item R. Digester Gas Handling System • The Scope of the WRF Predesign/ Final.Design did not include the design of Digester gas handling/ Energy Recovery System If the recommended two-phase,anaerobic digestion is selected for the solids process,the digester gas,handling system needs to be added. The final design requires the,preparation and design of 2 additional drawings for electrical, and instrumentation and 2 additional mechanical drawings. In addition, permits will be required from the Bay.Area-AirQuality Management District. The additional work will be completed as part of the WRF'project tasks. Phase 1 — PREDESIGN Modify Task 1.8 CEQA Environmental Documentation The purpose of this task is to develop CEQA:Environmental Documentation for the project. Additional tasks and additional,scope items include: Amendment'scopeVer3.doc 3 07/22/02 1. Addition of River Access lmproveinent,Project:in EIR including revised project description,•additional information'collectionand impact'evaluation. 2. Additional wetlands delineation on-site (north and east roads, headworks area) and off- site (lower portion ofVParcel B); 3. Water Quality Impact evaluation scope expanded to include wetland,bioaccumulation and water quality and coordination with Report of'Waste Discharge and Anti- . Degradation study. 4. Additional comments on the Draft EIR, original budget based on 100 comments, and over 250:received. The amendment incorporates subconsultanttcosts for these additional items. PHASE.2:— FINAL DESIGN • Modify Task3.5 as follows: Task 3.5 Permitting The purpose of this task;is to complete,procurement of the necessary permits required to construct the new Lakeville Highway Water Recycling Facility. Additional subconsultant services have been identified for permit procurement including field'surveys and additional permits:. These include: 1. Conduct Field Surveys - Field surveys for plants and animals in direct support of permit or EIR requirements. Field surveys will be conducted in 2003 and will provide documentation to support:permit applications. 2. Fieldwork to support Biological Assessment for submittal to National Marine Fisheries !Institute on behalf of Army Corps of Engineers. 3. US-Army Corps`of Engineers - Section 10 and,Section 404 permits/approvals for outfall. • 4. Advisory Council din,Historic Preservation - Section 106 Compliance Review, identified during Draft ElFtpreparation. 5. Sonoma County'Stream Crossing Permit— 3836R, identified during Draft ER preparation.. 6. Design'team'input for environmental monitoring and reporting during construction, identified during Draft EIR preparation. 7. State Lands Commission Lease for outfall maintenance work: 8. California Department ofFishand Game—Section 2081 ManagernentAgreement, identified during Draft EIR preparation, 9. Bay'Conservation and Development CommissionrAdministrative Permit, for outfall maintenance work. • AmendmentlscopeVer3:doc 4. 07/22/02 N O O a N 0 O In O (0 _ 1- N W L W O '�Y 0 N N r O N. O W .- e 0 CO Co C N O (o O .V W O Co m N CO v oO H 0 cN0 10 ‘r V N V in r a Ol CO ss » 69 69 69 69 » a � � N E • CS - - y R 'O x m , (n 04 (n C ~ n (n CD(n w O O N ( N -Q ? CO C O N O NC0 *- m M 0 C E i s � � a 6 6964a a E E co ° 0 v m C a C m c C � y . f. ''_N (n co'(n 01 0 0 0 C a s O r. OD r'CO Q a in o N'0 CO co CD m c U m 0 a CO 0 x,6699 6699.69 S S A N C N. 41.--' 15 E 0 0 < CS LL 0) C U a p • C) 03 y C C X L C O rj m E N S . .2. =o C o o, 2 co C N �° m C7 2 . E a 06 -2 w 5.C?w n`, m cu E ❑ 0f5000d d a •5 ._ CO C) w O - -) O d C r.CC .- co E -. N W c N Y Y —! C) 0 H d m 0 'm I- I- F- E Q