HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 4.C-7 08/01/2005CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
4. C. 7.
AGENDA BILL August 1, 2005
Aeenda Title: Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute I Meetine Date:
a Professional Services Agreement with ESA for Environmental August 1, 2005
Services in Support of Construction of the Ellis Creek Water Meeting Time: ® 3:00 PM
Recycling Facility. ❑ 7:00 PM
Cateeory (check one): ❑ Consent Calendar ❑ Public Hearing ❑ New Business
® Unfinished Business ❑ Presentation
Department: Director: Contact Person: Phone Number:
Water Resources and Michael J. B`a; Margaret P. Orr, 778-4589
Conservation P.E. '1'/`e P.E.1M-P•VA,,
Cost of Proposal: $1,434,830 Account Number:
Amount Budgeted: FY05/06 $25,000 (The budget for this item was 8299-C500402
included as part of the budget for construction management Name of Fund:
services. A mid -year budget adjustment will be made to separate Wastewater Enterprise
the budgets for construction manager and environmental services.)
Attachments to Agenda Packet Item:
Agenda Report
Attachment A — Scope of Services
Resolution
Summary Statement: In order to maintain and document compliance with the Environmental Impact
Report, the mitigation and monitoring plan, and regulatory permits for the Ellis Creek Water Recycling
Facility Project, there are numerous environmental actions the City must undertake during construction.
These include constructing mitigation wetlands, training construction staff on the project's environmental
restrictions and procedures, conducting special status species surveys, establishing and maintaining barriers
to sensitive areas, ensuring that workers do not encroach sensitive areas, monitoring and inspecting
construction of environmental restoration and enhancement projects, and preparing and submitting reports
to Federal and State regulatory agencies. Environmental Science Associates (ESA) has provided similar
environmental services that include environmental monitoring for 400 linear miles of fiber optic
installation consisting of biological surveys, multi agency consultations, and biological monitoring. The
firm also prepared and implemented a wetland enhancement plan, marshland monitoring program, and
wetland restoration plan for a 500 -acre parcel in the City of San Leandro. ESA managed the mitigation
monitoring compliance and reporting program for the 164 Alturas 345—kV transmission line. The firm is
providing a qualified environmental management team with over 190 years of combined experience.
Recommended Citv Council Action/Suggested Motion:
City Management recommends the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a Professional
Services agreement with ESA for Environmental Services in support of Construction of the Ellis Creek
Water Recycling Facility.
Rev' wed by Finance Director: Reviewed by City Attornev: ADDroe %CRY Manaeer:
Date:` Date:/Code:
Date:
Todav's Date: Revision # and Date Revised: F:\water resources &
July 21, 2005 # conservation\wastewater\9012\nhase 3 -
couslruction\City CoundhAumist 1.
2005\Environmental\Environmental Nlanaeer
AEenda aitLdoc
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
AUGUST 1, 2005
AGENDA REPORT
FOR
Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement
with ESA for Environmental Services in Support of Construction of the Ellis Creek Water
Recycling Facility
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In order to maintain and document compliance with the Environmental Impact Report, the
mitigation and monitoring plan, and regulatory permits for the Ellis Creek Water Recycling
Facility Project, there are numerous environmental actions the City must undertake during
construction. These include constructing mitigation wetlands, training construction staff on the
project's environmental restrictions and procedures, conducting special status species surveys,
establishing and maintaining barriers to sensitive areas, ensuring that workers do not encroach
sensitive areas, monitoring and inspecting construction of environmental restoration and
enhancement projects, and preparing and submitting reports to Federal and State regulatory
agencies. Environmental Science Associates (ESA) has provided similar environmental services
that include environmental monitoring for 400 linear miles of fiber optic installation consisting
of biological surveys, multi agency consultations, and biological monitoring. The firm also
prepared and implemented a wetland enhancement plan, marshland monitoring program, and
wetland restoration plan for a 500 -acre parcel in the City of San Leandro. ESA managed the
mitigation monitoring compliance and reporting program for the 164 Alturas 345—kV
transmission line. The firm is providing a qualified environmental management team with over
190 years of combined experience.
City Management recommends the City Council approve the resolution authorizing the City
Manager to execute a professional services agreement with ESA for Environmental Services in
support of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Construction.
2. BACKGROUND:
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Petaluma's Water Recycling Facility is being developed under the following program:
• Phase 1 —Project Report
• Phase 2 —Project Development
• Phase 3 — Construction and Start-up
Phase One concluded on December 11, 2000 with the City Council's acceptance of the Project
Report. The City began work on Phase 2 — Project Development in January 2001 and completed
approximately 50% design in November 2002. The City completed a Value Engineering Study
in December 2002. Based on results of the VE Study, the City commenced the Parcel A
Feasibility Study in January of 2003. On August 18, 2003 City Council adopted a resolution for
2
engineering services in support of locating the new Water Recycling Facility at 4100 Lakeville
Highway (Parcel A). The design of the new Water Recycling Facility was completed on April
26, 2005 and bid on July 14, 2005. The project is anticipated to break ground in September 2005
and construction to continue for 36 months followed by an additional 6 months of start up. The
warranty period continues for another year.
PERMITTING STATUS
One of the Environmental Manager's key tasks will be to ensure the project proceeds in
accordance with the permits. The following section provides an update of the permits.
The City Certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on August 5, 2002 and an
Addendum to that report on May 17, 2004. A second EIR Administrative Addendum is being
presented at the August 1, 2005 City Council meeting to address mitigation of cultural resource
issues and minor changes in the project description. The City submitted a 404 Individual Permit
application using the JARPA format on September 6, 2004 to the US Army Corps of Engineers
and received Fish & Wildlife Concurrence on March 10, 2005. The Corps is waiting for the San
Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board 401, approval anticipated by July 29, 2005, and
Section 106 Cultural Resources approval from the State Historical Preservation Officer,
anticipated by August 17, 2005. This approval will be provided via the State Water Resources
Control Board Historical Officer who is the Lead Agency for the Corps and the State Water
Board historical approvals because the City is pursuing a State Revolving Fund Loan which is a
Federally funded financial program for wastewater infrastructure. The City received the State
Department of Fish & Game 1602 Agreements on December 16, 2004 and learned that the State
Department of Fish & Game agrees with the City's assessment that no state endangered species
will be adversely affected, hence a letter indicating this is anticipated to be sent to the Corps of
Engineers by August 5, 2005. The City received an Authority to Construct permit on April 26,
2005 from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission determined that the project is outside of their jurisdiction.
The City anticipates having the Corps permit by August 24, 2005. The contractor will be ready
to begin work on September 6, 2005. Once the permit is in hand construction will soon follow.
Hence, the award made by City Council for construction is contingent on the Corps permit.
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Key stakeholders during construction of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility include the
City, the Contractor, the Construction Manager, the Design Engineer, the Environmental
Manager, and the Programming Manager. The Contractor is responsible for the construction of
the project and will oversee all the work performed by its subcontractors. The Environmental
Manager ensures that the project is constructed in accordance with the Environmental Impact
Report, Mitigation Monitoring Programs and the environmental permits. For a construction
project to be successful, it is important that the key stakeholders work together and agree on a
way of approaching the project. Key tasks for the environmental services scope of work are
described as follows:
Manage Environmental Program. This task requires the Environmental Manager to
study the Contractor's schedule and determine exactly which environmental requirements the
Contractor must meet and then communicate to the team these requirements to keep the project
on track as a "look ahead" item. At the peak of construction, the contractor will be spending
nearly $37,500 per hour. Any hold up due to an environmental miscalculation could be very
costly to the project. This task includes EI R and Permit review, checklist update once Corps
permit is received, budget confirmation, monitoring schedule, document checklist/schedule,
project tracking system input and as mentioned above most importantly construction schedule
review. Also included are 72 weekly construction meetings, 36 monthly meetings, etc. Twelve
Quarterly reports are required for survey results (bird, frog, etc.), survey measures, mitigation
implementation status, monitoring sheets, violation, and violation resolutions. These documents
are then collated into three annual reports. Four Contractor created environmental submittals
will be reviewed. Three annual storm water pollution prevention reports will be generated, three
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service reports, three CA Department of Fish & Game Raptor reports, and
one CA Department of Fish & Game and Regional Water Quality Control Board Ellis Creek and
Wetland restoration report. All construction personnel are required to attend an environmental
training session within 5 days of presence on the site. The magnitude of this requirement and the
required regulatory tracking is also covered under this task.
Surveys and Monitoring. Surveys are required for nesting birds such as raptors (eagles,
osprey, hawks, owls), passerine birds (half of all bird species are passerine commonly known as
perching birds or less accurately as song birds), and the Heron/Egret Rookery located near
Oxidation Pond No. 8. Approximately 20 surveys are required as part of the permits for the new
plant. For each sensitive species, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service requires an approved
biologist. Hence, the team established for this important work is varied depending upon the
expertise required in the specific sensitive area.
This task includes the bulk of the environmental funding due to daily environmental
monitoring requirements. Monitoring of construction activities for conformance with plans and
specifications in the areas of wetland barriers, upland habitat barriers, red legged frog barriers,
creek crossing barriers, rookery barriers, nesting barriers, stone water pollution control design
conformance, salt marsh harvest mouse barriers, other endangered species, and cultural
resources. The primary responsibility of the monitor is to provide consistent observation,
documentation, reporting, and enforcement activities to ensure that sensitive biological resources
are avoided and ultimately remain undisturbed. This work is most intense at the beginning of the
project during grading operations and initial barrier placement. Hence the project is funded at
75% monitoring in year one and tapers to 25% monitoring in year three when much of the
construction activity is within buildings.
Wetland Restoration, Enhancement, Construction. The City is required to provide
working wetlands as mitigation for wetlands that are forever used to support new structures,
pipelines, roadways, etc. In addition, the City the wetland plants in Oxidation Pond Nos. 9 10
are designed to enhance treatment in such a way that the wetland plant growth becomes so
matted that no light can shine through, hence eliminating the energy source for algal growth
which should result in clear water. This clear water will then be sent to the polishing treatment
wetlands for further nutrient and metals reduction. The polishing treatment wetlands have
4
planted and non -planted areas to create different environments for different species of microbes
to continue to adsorb or eat any remaining waste in the water as food. To ensure the success of
all the various wetland projects on the site, the environmental manager will stake and monitor
wetland protection zones, review seed mixes for hydroseeding to ensure compliance with
contract documents (we can't afford to "accidentally seed an area" with non-native species, etc.),
inspect wetland plants prior to delivery (it is not uncommon for suppliers to provide plants
without roots), inspect plant installation, and report on acceptance or recommend corrective
actions. The City is required to provide a mosquito control plan and reports on the viability of
wetlands prior to construction closeout. These two reporting dimensions are included in this
aspect of the scope.
Ellis Creek Restoration and Enhancement. By Federal and State law, the Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is responsible for maintaining the quality of water
needed to maintain natural habitats dependent on water bodies. Under Section 401 of the Federal
Clean Water Act, every applicant for a Federal permit or license for any activity which may
result in a discharge to a water body must obtain a State Water Quality Certification that the
proposed activity will comply with State water quality standards (Porter -Cologne Act). The
City's certification will be issued in concert with the Corps permit. The RWQCB added the Ellis
Creek restoration and enhancement requirement to the project earlier this year. The RWQCB is
allowing the project to provide one (1) acre of wetland for each acre of wetland taken. Normal
ratios for many developments are three (3) acres of wetland for each acre of wetland taken. In
order to prevent potential litigation over issuing the City the one to one ratio, the RWQCB
requested Ellis Creek restoration and enhancement. The 30 new acres of wetlands provided as
polishing treatment wetlands can not be counted as mitigation since they will be used for
treatment. The activities for the Ellis Creek restoration and enhancement are similar to those for
the wetlands above.
Contingency. Environmental work is difficult to predict. The presence or absence of a
species is unknown until it is observed in the field. For instance, if bats are observed in the farm
house building scheduled for demolition early in the project, eradication will be required. If
Native American human remains are found special ceremonies may be required or movement of
the remains. If the RWQCB observes the storm water discharge and feels there is too much
sediment being put into the wetland then turbidity sampling may be required. Since the
construction project is so very expensive and any delay could cost as much as $37,500 each hour
City Management asked the environmental team for a decisive list of potential contingency
items. This contingency accounts for approximately 22% of the budget. City Management
recommends this contingency to eliminate as much delay as possible when environmental
challenges occur.
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES (ESA)
In pursuit of an Environmental Manager with construction experience, the City solicited
proposals in June from four (4) firms. In response, the City received a proposal from ESA.
After review of the City's environmental documentation on the project, the other funis
determined the complex nature of the project was beyond their capabilities and decided not to
submit a proposal. After reviewing ESA's proposal, interviewing their team and learning about
ESA's experience, and checking their references, it was clear that ESA had the capability and
team to provide this important assistance during the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility
construction. ESA has provided similar environmental services for the Contra Costa Water
District, the City of San Leandro, and the Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management
Authority. Reference checks were outstanding particularly for the Project Manager and on-site
Environmental Manager. Will Hicks for the Department of Water Resources in Sacramento
commented that he was "happy with their work and currently has employed them on another
project. "
The City of Petaluma's project is of a magnitude that success will be defined by how well
environmental issues are forecasted in advance and if a species is un -expectantly found how
quickly the team can respond with appropriate environmental outcomes. The ESA team has the
depth of experience to guide the City through the complicated environmental issues surrounding
the construction of the project. It has been demonstrated to City Management through our
prescreening, proposal, interview, and reference checks that ESA can meet the demands of our
complicated project.
City Management recommends the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a
professional services agreement with ESA for Environmental Services in support of the Ellis
Creek Water Recycling Facility construction. ESA and the City have initiated negotiations on a
comprehensive scope of work. A copy of the scope of work and associated cost detail is
provided in Attachment A.
3. ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatives to be considered at the August 1, 2005 Council meeting include:
1. Take no action.
2. Select another firm.
3. Approve resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services
Agreement with ESA for Environmental Services in support of the Ellis Creek
Water Recycling Facility construction.
4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
Proposed costs for Environmental Services are $1,434,830, which is approximately 1.3% of the
construction cost. The proposal includes a Senior Project Manager, two Senior Technicians,
Senior Associate, Senior Associate I, two Associate III, Administration and clerical support.
5. CONCLUSION:
ESA is being recommended because the firm has the depth of experience with environmental
management services on projects of similar magnitude and complexity as the Ellis Creek Water
Recycling Facility. ESA has provided environmental monitoring service for 400 linear miles of
fiber optic installation consisting of biological surveys, multi agency consultations, and
biological monitoring. The firm also prepared and implemented a wetland enhancement plan,
marshland monitoring program, and wetland restoration plan for a 500 -acre parcel in the City of
San Leandro. ESA managed the mitigation monitoring compliance and reporting program for
the 164 Alturas 345—kV transmission line. Furthermore, the firm has committed to provide a
qualified environmental management team with over 190 years of combined experience. Thus, it
is with due diligence and a competitive selection process that City Management recommends
ESA as the Environmental Manager for the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility.
6. OUTCOMES OR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS THAT WILL IDENTIFY SUCCESS OR
COMPLETION:
Successful construction of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility.
7. RECOMMENDATION:
City Management recommends that the City Council approve the resolution authorizing the City
Manager to execute a professional services agreement with ESA for Environmental Services in
support of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Construction.
7
Attachment A
Scope of Services and Budget Estimate
For
Environmental Services
7 r'1/q 225 Bush Street mjw.esassoc.com
'l
d j r' Suite 1700
r Mt. v -�
p San Francisco, CA 94104
415.1396.5900 phone
415.896.0332 fax
June 29, 2005
Ms. Margaret P. Orr, P.E.
City of Petaluma
Department of Water Resources and Conservation
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952-2610
Dear Ms. Orr:
Environmental Science Associates' (ESA) Water Group is pleased.to submit our Statement of Qualifications in
response to the City's Request for Proposal (RFP) for environmental services during construction of the Ellis
Creek Water Recycling Facility. Our team is very excited about this opportunity, having just come out of the
field following completion of three very similar construction monitoring assignments for the LAV WMA Export
Pipeline Project, DWR's South Bay Aqueduct Maintenance Project, and SSJID's South County Water Supply
Project. Our designated Project Manager Jim O'Toole, Environmental Manager Jennifer Garrison; and
Construction Service Group Manager Jon Waggoner, who directs ESA's field staff resources, are ready and
available now to apply their energy and tremendous experience to this important City project.
ESA is in the best position to provide Petaluma with the environmental services needed during construction of
this particular project for several reasons. First, ESA has unequaled experience in construction monitoring and
compliance reporting for water resource projects. This is a very specialized type of assignment, different from
environmental impact assessment or other resource management exercises. Hands-on knowledge about the
construction process and realities is essential to both successful compliance monitoring and resource protection.
As described in our proposal, our team brings you experience monitoring over 10 projects in the last five years.
Our core management team—Jim, Jennifer and Jon—have been focused on providing these specialized
environmental compliance monitoring services for the last several years and have had great success in doing so
on behalf of our clients.
Second, ESA has the right breadth and depth of technical expertise. ESA's Biological Resources Group of over
15 biologists includes specialists in wetlands, botany, and wildlife with particular expertise in the key special
status species potentially affected by this project. Chris Rogers, our senior wetland expert, has valuable
experience in wetland restoration and monitoring, including the 172 -acre San Leandro Shoreline Marshlands
Restoration Project, for which he contributed to design and implementation and oversaw a five-year monitoring
program, and the 35 -acre Scottsdale Marsh Restoration Project in Novato, which has recently been constructed.
ESA's extensive in-house biological resources capability is further enhanced by the addition of Merritt -Smith
consultants, who will provide wetland restoration planning assistance, particularly from a hydrologic and water
quality standpoint. In addition, ESA has in-house technical staff in all environmental disciplines so we can
respond to any technical need of the project as it arises, be it storm water quality management issues, dust, noise,
or cultural resources. We are prepared.
Ms. Margaret P. Orr, P.E.
June 29, 2005
Page 2
Our core management team, Jim and Jennifer, had an excellent working relationship with the Covello Group,
Petaluma's Construction Management consultant, from the LAVWMA pipeline monitoring project, and come
with knowledge of Covello's construction management and inspection procedures and approach that will help us
quickly join the effort as an effective team member.
The ESA Water Group and Jim O'Toole in particular have completed several recent assignments in the North
Bay area, including CEQA review and permitting for Novato Sanitary District, Marin Municipal Water District,
and the Town of Windsor Recycled Water Master Plan. Jim and his team know flee environmental resources
issues specific to the project area and know the key regulatory agency staff that will have oversight for project
compliance with key permits. In addition, we are pleased to announce that we are opening an office in Petaluma
later this year where Jim O'Toole will be based as one of our key senior staff—the timing couldn't be better for
assignment requiring Jim's close attention to Petaluma's needs.
We appreciate this opportunity and look forward to discussing our approach and qualifications with you further.
ESA is prepared to begin environmental compliance services immediately. Please feel free to contact either
James O'Toole, Project Director, at 415-962-8499, or myself at 415-962-8495 to discuss our qualifications
further.
Sincerely,
Leslie Moulton
Vice President
ESA Water
Greg Thornton
Chief Financial Officer
James E. O'Toole
Senior Project Manager
ESA Water
WE
, TONT
City of Petaluma Ellis Creek Water
Recycling Facility Construction Services
Introduction
Pace
INTRODUCTION. ESA Overview 1
Project Understanding 1
ESA Strengths Relevant To This Contract 2
Section 1. Project Management
Section 2. Technical Approach
4
5
Section 3. ESA Project Team Organization 11
Section 4. ESA Team Experience And Qualifications 14
Appendix
A. Resumes
A-1
City of Petaluma Ellis Creek Wafer Recycling Facility— Construction Services
11
INTRODUCTION
ESA Overview
Environmental Science Associates (ESA) is pleased to submit this Statement of Qualifications in
response to the City of Petaluma's Request for Proposal (RFP) for Environmental Services during
Construction of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility. ESA appreciates the opportunity to present our
extensive qualifications to provide environmental compliance monitoring services during the construction
phase of this important project. ESA provides construction managers with a solution -oriented project
team that spans the technical issues that arise during construction of projects within today's regulatory
environment. On the construction site, our aim is to work proactively with construction management to
resolve problems before they affect site resources or construction schedule and budget while ensuring that
compliance standards are enforced.
Project Understanding
The City of Petaluma (City) has been developing the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility for
approximately 5 years, and has completed CEQA, permitting, and design tasks to develop the proposed
facility on two approximately 296 acre parcels adjacent to the City's existing Lakeville Highway
oxidation pond facility. The facility would provide the City of Petaluma with improved reliability,
increased capacity, and higher quality wastewater treatment services. Project implementation would
include construction of facilities on Parcels A and B to produce secondary treatment for up to 6.7 mgd
average dry weather flow, tertiary treatment for up to 4 mgd, biosolids treatment to meet Class B
requirements for beneficial reuse, and includes algae removal with wetlands and polishing with wetlands
to improve effluent discharge quality. Project components would be built over a 42 -month time period,
with the facility coming on line at the end of 2008. These components include buildings and facilities to
provide both physical and biological treatment, a number of polishing, stormwater, and enhancement
wetlands, parking and access roads, including a public trail system.
The site has a number of environmentally sensitive features, including wetlands and waterways. It is
bisected by Ellis Creek, which provides potential habitat for California red -legged frog, as well as
migratory bird species and raptors. The wetlands include both freshwater and salt -water marshes and are
habitat for clapper rail, salt marsh harvest mouse, and other associated species. Impacts to these features
have been specifically minimized through design, requiring added attention to site boundaries.
Based on our review of the project, key objectives for the construction phase include the following:
• Construction of the facility in compliance with all environmental laws and permits
City of Petaluma Ellis Creek Wafer Recycling Facility— Construction Services
13
Introduction
• Maintenance of construction schedule through proactive enviromnental compliance and
contractor management
• Integration of environmental monitoring with overall construction management
• Minimization of schedule delays through proactive responsiveness to environmental issues as
they arise during the construction phase
• Continuation of the City's efforts to maintain close coordination with agency personnel in order
to facilitate project implementation
ESA Strengths Relevant to this Contract
ESA has provided Construction
Monitoring Services for over
10 water infrastructure pmjects
in the last 5 years alone. ESA
experience provides the City
with the regulatory
understanding and problem -
solving capability necessary for
successful construction of water
projects in today's regulatory
environment.
Water Infrastructure Construction Monitoring
Our Water Group consists of 30 professionals focused specifically on all
phases of environmental compliance services for major water utility projects,
including Environmental Compliance Services. Within the last 5 years alone,
ESA's Water Group has conducted Construction Monitoring services for
over 10 major water pipeline and infrastructure projects (see Section 3.0,
Project Experience) as well as CEQA and Permitting for these and several
others. ESA's experience addressing environmental implementation issues
for major facility projects throughout California provides the City with the
regulatory understanding and problem -solving capability essential to
successful construction of major water facilities in today's regulatory
environment.
Experienced Project Management Team
Jim O'Toole will serve as Project Manager for this Contract, providing the
ESA's Project Director Jim City with over 15 years of CEQA, Permitting and Compliance Monitoring
OToole provides the City with experience focused on major water and wastewater infrastructure projects.
an experienced understanding
crucial for effective Mr. O'Toole has been the Project Manager for several projects directly
implementation of applicable to this assignment, including: the SBAEnlmgementProject
environmental compliance. (CEQA, Permitting, Construction Alonitoring), SBA Maintenance Project
(CEQA, Permitting, Construction Monitoring), LAVUWbl Export Pipeline
Facilities Project (CEQA, Pennitting, Construction Alonitoring), IPindsor Water Reclamation Master
Plan EIR, Novato Sanitary District Alaster Plan EIR, Zone 7 Mater Supply Planning Program EIR, the
ACWD Capital Improvements Program EIR, ACWD Desalination Plant NPDESPennitting. Mr.
O'Toole will serve as the Primary Point of Contact for this contract; he brings to the City a thorough
understanding of construction management and inspection practices, and has demonstrated problem -
solving ability at all levels.
Mr. O'Toole will be assisted by Jon Waggoner, ESA's Construction Group Manager. Mr. Waggoner
brings an extensive resume of construction monitoring experience. These include installation of over 112
miles of water supply pipeline for Rural North Vacaville Water District, and installation of several major
City ofPelalunna Ellis creek Water Recycling Facility— Construction Services
14
Introduction
fiber optic cable projects within California for Williams Communications, including alignments from
Point Arenas to Sacramento, Pittsburg to Sacramento, and Sacramento to Robbins, California. Mr.
Waggoner coordinates ESA's field monitors, and will assist in group staffing assignments and agency
coordination.
ESA's onsite Environmental Jennifer Garrison will supervise on-site monitoring, and will serve as the
Manager Jennifer Garrison has Project's Environmental Manager. Ms. Garrison has served in this role
managed construction during the construction monitoring phases of the LAVff AAA Export Facilities
monitoring for the IAVWMA Project, SSJID Water Supply Project, and SBA Plaintenance Project. Ms.
Export Facilities, SSJID Water Garrison has an excellent working relationship with Covello Group, and has
Supply Project, SBA experience with federal and state agency negotiations for variance and
Maintenance and several CPUC
permitting conditions.
projects.
Senior Biological Resources Staff
ESA's Biological Resources Group is comprised of over 15 specialists in
ESA brings senior -level botany and plant ecology, wildlife biology, fisheries, aquatic ecology, and
biologists with real-world wetland permitting, providing a full range of biological resource capabilities.
problem -solving skills to this Lead by Tom Roberts, Certified Wildlife Biologist, and Chris Rogers,
assignment.
Wetland Permitting Specialist, ESA provides the essential senior experience
to address sensitive species and wetland restoration issues for the project. Mr. Rogers is currently
supervising wetland restoration for the SBA rblaintenance Project and the Town of Hillsborough Crystal
Springs Sewer Replacement Project. We have supplemented our in-house capabilities with Merritt Smith
for CRLF and wetland restoration tasks, and specific technical experts for bat and clapper rail issues.
Project Team Responsiveness
ESA has demonstrated responsiveness both in meeting the wide range of
ESA's responsiveness to
technical needs and the aggressive real-time scheduling needs of construction
Construction Managers and
projects. As an integral member of Construction Management teams that
Inspectors provides solution -
have successfully implemented the DWR SBA Ylaintenance Project (44-
oriented problem solving in the
field with an eye toward
mile), the LAVWhIA Export Facilities Project (16 -mile), the SSJID Water
maintaining project schedules.
Project (new Water Treatment Plant and 30 -mile pipeline) projects, ESA
understands the need for responsiveness to Construction Managers to provide
solution -oriented problem
solving in the field. Our team members are dedicated to meeting the City's
needs throughout the challenging
implementation of this project.
City orPetaluma Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility—Construction Services
15
Introduction
Section 1. Project Management
schedule and budget with the City Construction Management Team on a day to day basis. Jon
Waggoner will provide field monitor resource oversight and agency
coordination assistance. The tools ESA employs in managing a project include biweekly labor and direct
cost expense reports, reports on subconsultant invoices; and, regular progress meetings. Each month, ESA
will prepare a concise progress report summarizing effort and budget spent in the period to date, budget
remaining, key work completed, and key upcoming tasks. The progress report will also include
recommendations to respond to schedule and scope of work issues. ESA is proactive in scheduling and
facilitating team meetings to address project issues.
Schedule Management and Critical Path Identification
As a key member of the Construction Management Team, ESA is adept at identifying critical path items
and work -around strategies to facilitate project implementation. The City has prepared a well -thought out
environmental program, and ESA will complement the City and Construction Management team to
maintain project schedule. Our Project Management Team has the experience and technical expertise to
understand the regulatory "big picture," as well as the hands-on knowledge to identify workable field
solutions to address changes in field conditions, project designs and implementation schedules. This type
of "out of the box" thinking has established ESA's reputation for effective project implementation.
Problem Solving at Field and Management Levels
ESA's approach utilizes a core group of experienced professionals in a
On the construction site, our aim
management structure that provides the hands-on, day-to-day management
is to work proactively with
necessary to ensure efficient project completion. Our Project Manager, Jim
construction management and
the oversight agency to resolve
O'Toole, will provide scope of work and schedule oversight, including
problems before they affect site
quality control and review of key work products. Jennifer Garrison will
resources or the construction
serve as On-site Environmental Coordinator, and will coordinate directly
schedule and budget with the City Construction Management Team on a day to day basis. Jon
Waggoner will provide field monitor resource oversight and agency
coordination assistance. The tools ESA employs in managing a project include biweekly labor and direct
cost expense reports, reports on subconsultant invoices; and, regular progress meetings. Each month, ESA
will prepare a concise progress report summarizing effort and budget spent in the period to date, budget
remaining, key work completed, and key upcoming tasks. The progress report will also include
recommendations to respond to schedule and scope of work issues. ESA is proactive in scheduling and
facilitating team meetings to address project issues.
Schedule Management and Critical Path Identification
As a key member of the Construction Management Team, ESA is adept at identifying critical path items
and work -around strategies to facilitate project implementation. The City has prepared a well -thought out
environmental program, and ESA will complement the City and Construction Management team to
maintain project schedule. Our Project Management Team has the experience and technical expertise to
understand the regulatory "big picture," as well as the hands-on knowledge to identify workable field
solutions to address changes in field conditions, project designs and implementation schedules. This type
of "out of the box" thinking has established ESA's reputation for effective project implementation.
Problem Solving at Field and Management Levels
City of Petaluma Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility—Construction Services
IN
Construction implementation requires responsiveness to changing conditions
ESA understands the often
and continual application of field solutions to issues at they arise in the field.
complex relationship between
ESA has a proven track record of providing construction managers with a
Owner, Construction Manager,
Design Engineers, and
proactive solution -oriented approaches that provides real-world solutions.
Contractors. ESA's problem
ESA understands the relationship between the Owner, Construction Manager,
solving capability and
Design Engineer, Contractor, and provides an integral role in day to day field
management structure provides
operations. Through our experience during the LAV WMA project, ESA has
a parallel structure for efficient
an understanding of the Covello Construction Management team and its
communication and issue
structure, providing for monitoring of conditions and effective
resolution.
communication to Construction Inspectors regarding compliance issues.
Figure 1 shows our proposed decision and resolution structure and key staff responsibilities at various
management levels. ESA's
problem solving capability and management structure provides a parallel
structure for efficient communication and issue resolution.
City of Petaluma Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility—Construction Services
IN
Construction Monitoring Staffing Plan
ESA has developed a preliminary staffing plan that
provides an estimate for anticipated construction
monitoring work effort during the 2005 to 2008
construction of the project. Based on our
experience, a high level of monitoring and
supporting technical services will be required
during project start up and during the fust year of
construction. Typically, monitoring levels are
reduced as protection zones are established, site
Introduction
Figure i ESA-PETALUMA DESIGN AND 0011STDUCTION TEAM INTERFACE
CRY OF FLTALUMA
Ellix C".k Water 11c,ding Facility
-Ir TSA PROJECT
HAIIAGHIENT
ESA HUO 1
.1ntlA^v£I.tllE
Gn[uoreu'nmelru —> eea F:Fcn
grading is completed, and the contractor focuses on
facility construction. For example, following
completion of Ellis Creek Crossings, Wetland
Grading and Restoration activities, we would anticipate one monitor would be able to meet project needs,
with fluctuations depending upon construction location and intensity. Monitoring efforts will of course
respond to daily and seasonal contractor schedule variation. For budgeting purposes, we have identified
one full time monitor through calendar year 2006, budgeted using 22 -day months and 8 hour construction
days. The monitor will be supported by the Environmental Manager and technical specialists. For 2007
and 2008, we anticipate monitoring to be reduced, although survey and reporting efforts will remain
equivalent. As such, we have budgeted for a half time and quarter time monitoring for each calendar year,
respectively. Throughout the project, ESA's Project Manager, Jim O'Toole, and On-site Environmental
Manager, Jennifer Garrison, will attend weekly and monthly meetings to provide project look -ahead
schedule, and to apply ESA teclurical resources as necessary to maintain project construction schedules.
Section 2. Technical Approach
The following discussion presents our technical approach to completing the anticipated scope of work.
Additionally, contingency tasks have been identified based upon our understanding of the project and
experience with project of similar scale and environmental sensitivity.
Task 1. Manage Environmental Program
Task 1.1 Schedule and Tracking
ESA's Project Manager, Jim O'Toole, and On-site Environmental Manager, Jennifer Garrison, will be
responsible for ensuring compliance with mitigation checklist and consistency with overall project
schedule. Mr. Waggoner will manage overall manpower and field monitoring staff. This will include: 1)
EIR and Permit Review; 2) Checklist Update with approved/modified permits; 3) Budget Confirmation;
4) Monitoring Schedule; 5) Document Checklist/Schedule; 6) Project Document Tracking System Inputs;
7) Construction Schedule Review. A preliminary schedule of environmental compliance tasks is provided
in Figure 2.
City of Petaluma Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility— Construction Services
17
Figure 2 PROPOSED SCHEDULE
circ eF PETALUMA
Ellie Crook Wale, flecycllnn Facility
n. IDa6 ]cal SOn®
Environmental U.S.. TASKS L. ! - I J J A S p N 0 I J I f 11y A I} J A 5 j 0 tl 11 J f M P L1 J 'i, J A 'i' R p N p
1.lontn q' -� p '� t! p J f 1.1 A 1.1 - -' -' - t �� - ' I
I
Pm cRr etmmcn Pm aranon ..: '_-_ _-__________�_ �__�_-,_._�__-.....,...._._- .__ ______-__.. _ _ _. �. ' ' _ ' J
. _.' 1. 1
(---I I ( t-_1 (-1- I-I'--� ( i'-�--j I I_.._.__. ..
REPORTING : ,____
offered, NMmaenn Mnnnnnn, Repml P¢pmetbp _... ...:.. �._'._.A i.... A. J,.-..__. kA,�,..ATCA!._..'..._. A;.-.
Annual ldtlSWu U.n.tunnG Renmt%etlaranall � � .... � _ __�"A.f. -.:... __ �_ _. - - _ ..!i�. .. ... ........ . ........ .. ....A..._V._
..... i... 1...i. E. f
AnnoaI SWPPPRepnrin
Regmml waver Cuaklr Scam ___ _, - A-! ` !___L:,.iS..:p d_�'-., _ __ ....__. '.:--,: A -i .. ........ ...... .
AlmumusMvsaprcenminlance Rennn•i .-..�...:.-.-1-..I-.. �..._ ._sw:.�:.:.!'::.:f_ ... - ....... ,__i___.__.i_..
:
Annual RWGCR Reetnrallon Reporting IT Ymrl .-_ _.__... ..._., _.y ----------- 1__y --- _ _______________ _________________ _.
i
Annual HI, Wetlands Cremlon and
Enuanceneat nepnn lg-1 veep^ _._ _ ! __
SURVEYS
NlnVal llestin RIN SUrney Arll __ ------------------
1_4
Ali
IPaae,macsnlpveyT inn eweoEntrance
oomni cmeeq.3. _:.. ..:. ------------------------ !_-_I_-_
a .. L:...---... �.....: J.-..._
Rnnkery Eotaffamenl Suver ____------ ____ �_-_SL__il _- J ..t_._
- --- c
Rat.OcRlf vpmcY -_�- �_-_L.. 'i- ___-_;-_.If.��..= __..�.._ .. -I f ' __
M On, Ptlpr le EllisfinekGre•s:nO,and T511ule .__. :.I -.__. l_ 1 .-..- ..-._. __.a..
mallIMMING
compnanne rncmmnna Pmgrmn-__ __ _
- -_i-.. _.L_____.%_ _
wmnn cntfxamtal, 6cwsmn ... ... 1 �. :-- I .,.._._ l -_ ___'___ __ ___ ___ ___
EIAs Cr eek, Canal G. Pma i --- - -� I I i ! -�_-I - I I
City Cnnetmctlen P...anal .. _.... __.i _. �._ t...._. -___..,. ...............___---..-_.t_._____'-_ _ _ __ ___ --- _ _ __- ..�---
y__ -R...,...
_.Iv
Potential Nestln9 Set Monlimin9 I -- ---= --'-
IfPresent ------- ____�... --__- ___ _________ __________________ ____ _ __ _ ____ _ __.
S%VPPP tn"I'lle. _-...... .. ._. _.,.-_r . ... ..... ... ....... .....:....y___
I
Clapper Ran lwmwrn Pnmi R and 10 __!-_ ..i....!. i �_. - —__l ._'. _. �._ •k_ . ___
OII
VlET1TIARD EIIIIIMNCEMEW- !
6mtllnB _ _ _ _ _
!.. L __I_.- �.
blue Gene n.fmravinn'
-- --- --- -I �- --
•Acmaulreamlomseoeduleemlbe
negen,mut 'pen compltllon til reslomllon w"k
"Act 11, repnrNg acdedul"'ll be F-EA-1enx1 wndc, f,4-Il:a mnerl C--.�' be.I rvefamnu W rm,ev fIl VPI -11 A iMnre,mL 'unci: imvul,zmn
dependaul upon ce.,IIllnn of planning scdedule 6
Introduction
Task 1.2 Meetings
ESA will integrate with the CM meeting schedule in order to provide proactive problem -solving on a
weekly basis to maintain project schedule. We anticipated both Project Manager and Environmental
Manager involvement during the fust year of construction. Anticipated meeting attendance is summarized
in the table below as follows: Project Manager (PM) Jim O'Toole; Environmental Manager (EM) Jennifer
Garrison; Group Manager (GM) Jon Waggoner. We have included EM attendance on a weekly basis to
reduce need for unscheduled meetings.
Meeting Task
Number
Attendance
1.2.1 Pre Construction Conference
1
PM, EM, GM
1.2.2 Partnering Session
1
PM, EM, GM
1.2.3 Additional Partnering Session
2
PM, EM, GM
1.2.4 Monthly Meetings
36
PM (36)
1.2.5 Weekly Meetings
72
PM (18) EM (72))
1.2.6 Unscheduled Meetings
10
1 PM (10) EM (10)
1.2.7 Meeting Records Review
Inclusive 1.2.5
Inclusive 1.2.5
1.2.8 Report Review Meetings
6
PM (6)
1.2.9 Regulatory Meetings
4
PM EM
Task 1.3 Reporting
Daily reports will be submitted to CM, and an electronic summary will be provided weekly and monthly
to support meetings. Monitoring reports will be prepared and submitted to the City on a quarterly and
annual schedule. Quarterly Reports will include: 1) survey results; 2) survey measures; 3) mitigation
implementation status; 4) monitoring sheets; 5) violations; 6) violation resolutions. ESA will address
violations with CM. Annual reports will collate this data. Assuming 3 year active construction schedule,
deliverables include:
Task
1.3.1 Mitigation Monitoring Reports
1.3.3 Submittal Review
1.3.4 Permit Annual Reports
a. SWPPP
b. USFWS
c. CDFG—Raptor
d. CDFG/RWQCB
1.3.5 Regulatory Reporting Schedule
Task 1.4 Training
Number Notes
15 12 Quarterly, 3 Annual
4 Completed within 10 days
3 Annual Report
3 Compliance Report
3 Raptor Nest Protection Program
1 Year 0-1 Report, Ellis Creek/Wetlands
1 Schedule/Format for Year 2-5 Reporting
All construction personnel will be required to attend a short environmental training program (generally
between 15 and 30 minutes), which will include a videotape training currently being developed. ESA will
tract: worker training sessions through the use of sign -in sheets and regular checks of personnel hardhats.
City of Petaluma Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility— Construction Services
19
Introduction
As the project progresses and work begins in sensitive areas, ESA may conduct short tailgate training
sessions (10-15 minutes). These tailgate tramings provide site specific information the area's restrictions,
the important measures and procedures in place to protect the surrounding sensitive areas, resources, and
species. ESA will also conduct a specialized training session for the contractor's designated
Environmental Coordinator. During the training, ESA will provide an overview of the EIR, permits and
construction conditions, tiering restrictions associated with habitats and species on the site, as well as
provide the EC with important ESA contact information and protocols to be followed if a sensitive
species or resource is encountered on the site. A training session for the City will be organized and
presented by the Environmental Management staff to discuss the wetlands management plan, report
tracking system, and post -construction reporting schedule.
Task 2. Surveys and Environmental Monitoring
Task 2.1 Surveys
ESA will provide pre -construction screening, site clearance, and coordination of site barrier establishment
for sensitive species, including bird species, bats, California red -legged frog, and aquatic species, as
appropriate. All surveys will conform to agency standards and specifications. Following completion, ESA
will provide a verbal or email report to the CM and City Staff the day of the survey, and will then prepare
a letter report summarizing methodologies and findings of the pre -construction survey. For each sensitive
species, USFWS approved biologists will implement the appropriate mitigation strategy as outlined in the
MMRP in the event that sensitive species are identified as present. Pre -construction survey requirements
are broken down by task in the table below. In addition to scheduled surveys, species surveys would be
integrated into daily monitoring.
Task
Timing
2.1.1 Nesting Bird Survey
March -May
2.1.2.a Raptor
15 days Prior
2.1.2.b Passerine
15 days Prior
2.1.2.c Rookery
15 days Prior
2.1.3 Bats
Aug 15-19
2.1.4 CRLF
14 days Prior
Num Notes
3 500 ft Ellis Creek, DWG Cr -23, west entrance
3 100 ft of riparian: all work and Ellis Cr Crossing
1 Pond S Constriction Jan 15 -June 15
1 Four Buildings around Farmhouse
3 Ellis Creek Crossings and Canal C. Work limited
Apr I — Nov 1.
2.1.5 Aquatic Species 15 days Prior 1 6 Riparian, Ellis Creek Crossings, Canal C, Pond 9&10
Task 2.2 Monitoring
ESA will implement compliance monitoring and reporting required by MMRP, Permits, S WPPP,
biological resources, and cultural resources, and other issue areas as appropriate. ESA will monitor
construction activities in sensitive areas, periodically inspect barriers, and recommend repairs to be
performed by the contractor to maintain barrier integrity. The primary responsibilities of the
enviromnental compliance monitors will be to ensure through consistent observation, documentation,
reporting and enforcement activities, that sensitive biological resources to be avoided remain undisturbed,
that areas to be cleared and graded are minimized and limited to areas identified in die Contractor
Specifications, and that specific construction mitigation compliance activities and measures are
City o/Petaluma Elis Creek Water Recycling Facility— construction Services
20
Introduction
implemented satisfactorily in the field. To address daily and seasonal fluctuations in construction schedule,
our cost estimate assumes (on an annual basis) one'/4 time monitor in Year 1, one'/ monitor in Year 2, and
one '/4 time monitor in Year 3. ESA is available to staff the job appropriately to ensure environmental
compliance.
Task Timing Notes j
2.2.1 CRLF Monitoring 4 weeks Ellis Creek, Canal C, Ponds 9&10
2.2 .2 Routine Monitoring Construction MMRP/Permits, Species Exclusion Zones
2.2.3 S WPPP Construction Daily during events; weekly during winter; monthly
during dry season.
2,2,4 Cultural Resources Construction General Observation; specific monitoring at
Farmhouse Buildings
Task 3. Wetland Restoration, Enhancement, Construction
Chris Rogers will oversee monitoring of contractor for compliance with Specifications Sections
summarized in the table below. Tasks will include: 1) stake and monitor protection zones; 2) review
PO/hydroseed mix; 3) inspect plants prior to delivery; 4) monitor site preparation and grading; 5) inspect
plants on delivery; 6) inspect planting 7) installation inspection (5 day, 6 weeks) and report to CM
regarding acceptance or corrective action. Optimal wetland planting is September 15 through October 15
for plant establishment. Merritt -Smith will support ESA on this task as appropriate.
Task Specification I Notes
3.1 Existing Wetland Restoration 01140.1.10.B.8.d; Stake Protection Zone/Post Construction
01110.1.10.B.S.e Monitoring
3,2 NVetland Enhancement Section 02975 1 Optimal welland planting period Sept 15 -Oct 15
3.3.1 Pond 8 and 10 Section 02950 Optimal wetland planting period Sept 15 -Oct 15
3.3.2 MCMVCD Management Prepare draft and final management plan
Report
3.3 Wetland Final Year Report Final year inspection prior to startup.
Task 4. Ellis Creek Restoration and Enhancement
Chris Rogers will oversee monitoring of contractor for compliance with Specifications Sections
summarized below. Tasks will include: 1) stake and monitor protection zones; 2) review PO/hydroseed
mix; 3) inspect plants prior to delivery; 4) monitor site preparation and grading; 5) inspect plants on
delivery; 6) inspect planting; 7) installation inspection (5 day, 6 weeks) and report to CM regarding
acceptance or corrective action. Optimal wetland planting is September 15 through October 15 for plant
establislunent. Merritt -Smith will support ESA on this task as appropriate.
Task Specification Notes
4.1 Ellis Creek Restoration EC RR Plan Optimal wetland planting period Sept 15 -Oct 15
4.2 Ellis Creek Enhancement EC W&E Snec Optimal wetland planting period Sept 15 -Oct 15
j 4.3 Wetland Final Year Report Final year inspection prior to startup.
City of Petaluma Ellis Creek Waler Recycling FaclOty—Construction services
21
Introduction
Task 5. Contingency
The following have been identified as contingency items, based upon our experience on projects of
similar scale and scope. These contingency items represent level of effort estimates, and would be
modified as appropriate to address specific conditions as they occur on the proposed project. For all
contingencies, the Project Team would be briefed on approach prior to agency consultation. Contingency
items, anticipated actions, and level of effort cost estimates are provided.
Contingency Item
Bat Presence
CRLF Presence
Schedule Variation—
Sensitive Habitat
Sensitive Species
Presence — Aquatic
Sensitive Species
Presence — Non -
Aquatic
Unanticipated Cultural
Resource Discovery
Active Rookery
Monitoring
Active Raptor Nest
Monitoring
Water Quality
Sampling
SWPPP Design Issues
Turbidity Monitoring
Wetland Specification
Non-compliance
Actions Effort
Eviction, Monitor Boarding, Prepare Report. 13,540
Agency Coordination, USFWS Approval, Frog Relocation, 24,450
Prepare Report.
Agency Coordination, Intensification of Monitoring 42,160
Agency Meeting (2)/Approval, Relocation, Prepare Report 17,560
Agency Meeting (2)/Approval, Increased Monitoring, Prepare 25,210
Report
Recording site, preparation of plan, SHPO concurrence, 53,360
Increased Monitoring
Agency Approval, Weekly Monitoring, Prepare Report 12,120.
Consultation with CDFG, Weekly Monitoring, Prepare Report
Visual discharge event - 5 sampling events for 3 wet seasons
0$2,000
80 hours per season to address SWPPP BMP design and
monitoring of any discharges. This scope results in a
contingency of 240 hours.
BMP sampling station design and implementation to provide
15 -minute and 2 hour turbidity sampling
Additional inspection following corrective action
Contractor Non- Contractor violation(s) of MMRP, Permit, SWPPP Conditions
Compliance resulting in Agency Shut -down. NCR preparation,
documentation of corrective action and success.
Agency Permitting Permit Amendments to address alterations/project change
Total Contingency
Task 6. Project Management
12,700
13,600
42,250
14,240
14,700
40,000
50,000
$372,440
ESA's Project Manager, Jim O'Toole, will track budget and schedule, including development of a
tracking spreadsheet and submittal of tracking spreadsheet with billings. Written monthly progress reports
will be submitted with billings. Corrective actions will be identified as appropriate, and overages will be
identified within 30 days of occurrence. Mr. Waggoner will track personnel relative to the contract, and
will notify the City in writing of personnel changes.
City Of Petaluma Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility—Construction Services
22
M
Introduction
Section 3. ESA Project Team Organization
Figure 3 highlights our Project Team and assigned experienced senior staff to oversee each major work
task and key deliverable. Supporting the senior core Project Management Team and Task Management
Team are several members of ESA's technical staff—providing the necessary breadth and depth of
technical capabilities as well as the needed manpower to complete environmental compliance services for
this contract. With this team structure, each major work task and critical deliverable has the focused
attention of an experienced task manager. References for key project team members are provided in
Table 3-1 below. Figure 4 presents a Staff Expertise Matrix that indicates the area(s) of expertise for our
key staff members, and their availability for assignment to this contract. Key team members are discussed
below. Full resumes for all proposed team members are presented in Appendix B.
Team Member
Our Project Team is led by senior staff in ESA's Water Group, and will be
The size and depth of the ESA
supported by other ESA technical staff in all major environmental
in-house team, combined with
disciplines. As we will demonstrate here, given the size and depth of the ESA
relevant experience and
in-house team with relevant experience and qualifications for this
qualifications for this
assignment, ESA can provide the City with a cohesive, effectively managed
assignment, provides the City
with a cohesive, effectively
compliance services team that is available to handle many assignments
managed compliance services
concurrently. Because we can rely largely on in-house personnel, ESA can
team that can handle many
assure the City of a well coordinated and cost-effective contract management
assignments concurrently.
and response effort.
Figure 3 highlights our Project Team and assigned experienced senior staff to oversee each major work
task and key deliverable. Supporting the senior core Project Management Team and Task Management
Team are several members of ESA's technical staff—providing the necessary breadth and depth of
technical capabilities as well as the needed manpower to complete environmental compliance services for
this contract. With this team structure, each major work task and critical deliverable has the focused
attention of an experienced task manager. References for key project team members are provided in
Table 3-1 below. Figure 4 presents a Staff Expertise Matrix that indicates the area(s) of expertise for our
key staff members, and their availability for assignment to this contract. Key team members are discussed
below. Full resumes for all proposed team members are presented in Appendix B.
Team Member
Reference/Address
Phone
Jim O'Toole
Vivian Housen, LAVWMA,5091 Dublin Blvd, Dublin CA 94568
925-551-7230
Terry Becker, DWR, 901 P Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
916-653-6432
Jim Boren, Zone 7, 100 N. Canyons Parkway, Livermore, CA 94551
925-454-5019
Jon Waggoner
Grant Kreisberg, SSJID, 11011 E. Highway 120, Manteca, CA 95336
209-2494612
Lee Leavelle, EGUSD, 9510 Elk Grove -Florin Rd, Elk Grove, CA 95624
916-686-7711
Michael Jaeger, Covello, 1660 Olympic Blvd, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925-933-2300
Jennifer Garrison
Grant Kreisberg, SSJID, 11011 E. Highway 120, Manteca, CA 95336
209-249-4612
Will Hicks, DWR, 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
916-802-3441
Michael Jaeger, Covello, 1660 Olympic Blvd, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925-933-2300
Chris Rogers
Terry Becker, DWR, 901 P Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
916-653-6432
Curt Luck, Town of Hillsborough, 1600 Floribunda, Hillsborough, CA 94010
650-375-7443
Elish Ryan, Santa Clara County, 298 Garden Hill, Los Gatos, CA 95032
408-358-3741
City of Petaluma Ellis Creek Water Recycling Favi ly—Censtmction services 11
23
Figure 3 TEAM ORGANIZATION
CITY OF PETALUMA
Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility
I
COVELLO GROUP
i Bruce Presser, P.E.
Ed O'Brien, P.E.
i
ESA MANAGEMENT TEAM
Leslie Moulton Jon Waggoner
Principal -fin -Charge Princi James a ____
P g � Project Manager Construction Group Manager
Jennifer Garrison
On -Site Environmental Manager
j
TECHNICAL TEAM
SWPPP
BIOLOGICAL
CONSTRUCTION
COMPLIANCE
SURVEYS
MONITORING
Peter Hudson, P.G., C.E.G.
Tom Roberts, C.W.B.
Jennifer Garrison
Eric Schniewind, R.E A,
Brian Pittman, C.W.B.
Even Helmond
Asavan Devadiga
Lee Miles
Rob Wolfson
Amy Sinsheimer
Christine Gabor
Mark Baumgartner
Jennifer Garrison
Martha Lowe
Justin Gragg
Michael Fancell, Ph.DI
Anne Wallace, C.W.B 3
Greg Tearlan 4
Trish Tafarian 4
CULTURAL
RESOURCES
WETLAND RESTORATION
REPORTING
Barry Scott, R.P.A.
Chris Rogers
Jennifer Garrison
Dean Marlorana, R P.A
Jon Waggoner
Lisa Nunes
Traci O'Brien
Jennifer Garrison
Amy Sinsheimer
Jennifer Garrison
Brian Pittman, C.W.B.
Christai Love
Willlarn Sell, RP.A2
David Smith, Ph.D. I
Asavari Devadiga
Std comullants in italics Task Leaders names in hold
I Aferret-Smith Associates
P William Sell Associates
3 EcaRridges Environmental Consulting
4 Wildlife Research Associates
24
12
Figure 4 RELEVANT CONSTRUCTION MONITORING EXPERIENCE
CITY OF PETALUMA
Ellla Crook Of Hi llnD Facility
PROJECT CAME S DESCRIPTION
Altus laterite IAtlgalim Mpnlloring Laorpllanee and Ill Program
Ei1 tN.,anse fAJ13rnall't rinarp Lal N:larmanInepalllnq f'rvara:nlnr ole 1painll A511rni lrecono]AS\V ion:m is [mann ESA
1'aJ tut limo sonllalvinlbt®klNca,wa11M¢mimtlmnq:ma froulnene—leamposses allvralmenes¢a onnnewaClmenln:: I.cre OnnvJm!n
IIm LFOCtgrace ea lane poonal al aeyann m.I nl No Rod cane. ane OG Pomsl 4svea In xneurc p mlvtl mmplaa— E. -010 e:GeFJuly mill
IIIC FteCu alts Emlmnm:Inal long anJenglmvsia te:ufs nemanplal:a ususs vna tins'/ mlenlns
do 'eT.' fiber Optic network Dialogical Solvents and Manilming
E_.: asrtsJ L:.x!3 con".albns In I'll 30W ocka If 111,,ole¢Lb lwa lmn lvn L¢e Inrvllel..it r.Bmminnnedsns v'Rento o.hc anA Ideal
j:,may' Caplan. Theml.l...,slenln Ilda,,e, Orar Elll!Mwc vi..nnla:Mn...d0nran¢mmpb!e Helsol Clsevme.Ranc:minnoah:n:ed
h, w-twl'aBs,lanesesa aln.1
Jn[u:nanUlnn ane l:rtJ lelmna len t!rc nl aIle all lu've
1.�
grain no, Aqueeum lmllmvareanl and EnlOnaaaenl Project
Bapnronsi,crdon,en.+IVlnema dao:msulalun lbrmpnlsm mmmwlkn anu manealMd repammd polio, anewnevpslmnmwwp'd g:ervinaal moat
't.,xd Mpluir..msmdmeemmmnnivrer Nsoinres dnVhp SRAadar AgwdLTl nen nm ha llncHeelryllaw.lnemaamrer,zo me. atl.q ue 4L mow
l,maaa Force are Est Pral alai Jorma boa onflan xsV. snow Over,elny l mntRoonalnemvm ORO II :Manz aleon:narocoait,
.„ nbnyilealarmenl EJl an[[ef:l Yll/I:elCdreleJ In uAN'ylyNnauMmns lnrvuyMNlle mnsl:utl vn pluses
Santa Codnly Sorince Water SID,ly Pon,..
ESaT ulelond do [lit and CbmM.apermiccal teras ler his pmptlllel col me San loapum P., Nrels Ren, iv Old!Mncl locks LSA::rl mall
kTdl6+fenvnlal m'laM pelmal.naneaamdatnm,ireanm'iptln pmol pee antlp Nnn Gel AYRF assaTlu'Ir neevl:dea--Sear uvatbn
'f :Ing was .mile, It ........ lnngnl.¢nloss"I"ahr ESAIRraded endmn adoLb:o4lc,41 Icoa l mon5vnnaane ammnd, rv¢se:nb
Icy pme mofyp toIno:be-,.is Old Ial To a11nor esmu
so amvemoocry Iran lice al Innon
en. ERA R. artWI's 1.1 anNallre e ArLn
rcr
amRvnam: las also pnmr 1, nralM le tlan41 awYmlanf r r If, se nline all tm vi
- LT Contra Costs Welea District AinuLPam ata PAaehnp
L'6 ERA pmNreJ Ell, In J p .orae Fern Nn np elsvu.'[Ior nM L.nnk comae uvmnmrros:on room E5.v, .vwc,wod a npamm np aM am imnnerom
nrvirnl]r¢rmrWronwnF.IT. nto ESe tum vmnvlm me mntld mtc Ansi me Fgaonn. action na"Reabn wJp It R ran'
tae Rearx
'• I:ale nx::van-:I:eetar Ina ma°'nal rnrtle nn wmnlwmmrololmvb¢. ERA also pond Ra malJemn Rearinrcs mamnarn Red Ilam all', mmmblrn
nuaaannpmmn¢npn fell amaam narrow on do and a,RR.
prrnureecmSlremmbea wamnei Fnmrramm�n'hrr WmLnnl.Imlcoll PLpnm and vrtmnJ Fnimralmn roan m,a sC}a].m 9]rtrara rar¢umb9 der nl
t9anaa nen prF^nlMlwealne ertannm pw'e:a[¢:[Imus ane harlot r::+nai nvndlici ervan Itc,Neeombn]bna l.Ylnp arnear m
n:abn E=A mnapm mrld 1=nn mnna mina n um=mm rh,b r ming wNwtnn nrwee iuxnev n4nlne, Inco nae, awlny rrennm m�wrernmmrhs n s
A inq norm nl rap:reem,far mleervnmrm nu npeun nrrm trarrvn+:nn araelry Placed Itol omit, frnrnl pound
Crocal Springs Trunk Sewer Rephnemanl Prole/ -Town of lMlihomugh
Pivnartl nm mnnen!almepGn¢ man emme for mplwxra clad npaW unneeaee aortrldc tart@ Imvn vlainlamnnll rood nnerann l/morin MJ Ndy
]onleor uvnnee Ly llm 9nEnnnso Fnblr-fLLICa Lcmmnssmn ane oarYel wnh yr AUteh Crze\Valslf,,IInto vn an mminllrx Fpe bumma netlmI la
"alloolatenaels'.
clam maltre5ive11 uuI plL,itl eMrvv'ee.L]N Lmefl'ITA vF rLmvJ SV.IInWI rill leu nbS WWllrnp ktnlntalen COaMNteJ xeh COEGana➢EFIIC on lie
nnV'nmll rstul harm ...Ra /mnautlnny rzve pelmmnnm neo nnBmm:n in Rl'hre hvph pw4y llaoRTIo l.RRRpmrlrr ememnsnnlL:,noir hal, nllv]ane
1 pro Ina, amm uryndI
zona T Almmnnt CrmklAlmya Lou Puslloa Channel Restoration
Por final s,', zone tfemrnenmA ERA mal.,he a 11101 mwmlwn armoring p]gem IT, trc Awasor ank'son, Us Ppms cwnmi Il
"I'a Lml Jn ;'.rG wRrenzurn...notch on"rslmmm1napnng aIIIII times a hlNm erect] contains 11l2Yn¢euMmRmvdlanrvAci
Em nl i se nnee]o rn can l C4inma Red ,1115aw1Wmstore cFam nl now: g:vtmn, a no nmaan se r mx nelbn,Rora m nMreLa A a wit re 0 tom rat mn
Rv,"Onmian, ccmotoo.":mTo. ep nn➢arm. /'nae— tea m afrtlup l sol, B n.,I o'.ance ace brim mr"Ood, ml h no an a an nvsR. raunnom
arni ERAbran se rn rWe ,I n l M Lune i., 1, on, nm/Inoleso0 lv—lao lh n ,an. mech"coo rata, n uenaa. iM inti IT na llnI nnow
ncalla.n-a
Livermore-0mador Vale, Yield, Slannoemenl Authority. Waslewaler Pipeline Project
HA
Onrznklel,i of O end 1,1111 Wil tat JItvrvrin �R a Prown T m/xel3 ad p Ymr iia ora n Fact as led pelma a]a an to n he m sown mJ lane, al alienee. EApm o",
M1mn a Ra'lom¢nnrmmn In the LL mpm re A naMr Val ky Baal Fhmgmmi Ann, EFa a Paeone
FIrdaslrml:6 na delen nl-lR—aleq....ale.anddendInneN V as,,Inarawv areenpbal our roenaprawm\W rIaR,,hOn mR.Rea n
cm'niadenorllrenR 11 aa�o lonl .Cmpl,a I cmiwmv,nnle w nd iM.1".'a n mu of 1, —1 nrurn:oak 0a nm amm l ma.vy,e�Rd 0 nen Pluvud
• O O O O O O 'L[eyIO
s rest
nnr
oo!n.."
n
O iO O O O O O N!toff3ueeN
A le
130
.sd�g6'mTP
Or
s
ri
at
asa
ti SayEFFS
g
,s5 d H R, cT u �
CW
y3y�$`
br„ r.7� .('
58l
Cdr
+$ U' W
y�S.O�/O¢
K
• • o e e • '', • e 1.
e l•
1 e
• as e
•
m
•
• • • ' •
O ' a 1 O
I O •
a e i
I• e
o
o
I I i
e1•e�s•I,0
�
�;a'Ie
III
cool. 10 a !a
• • • a as O as as •
o • as
I e as we
ed as
• •
a
• • I• B l as o
as
• •
b
e1• if as
o
• e a
o • e o a o
a • as
a e l s
as I e
•
'
a
I
•
••• a a m
0 a 0
as
I
•
I
o
• a• • a e e
e••
s• o
• O O O O O O 'L[eyIO
s rest
nnr
oo!n.."
n
O iO O O O O O N!toff3ueeN
A le
130
Introduction
Section 4. ESA Team Experience and Qualifications
ESA's specialized environmental monitoring staff has over 30 years of
ESA's specialized monitoring combined experience in biological, cultural resource, and compliance
staff has provided compliance
monitoring for statewide monitoring. In this section, we first feature a core selection of 9 of our most
infrastructure projects relevant projects — summarized in Figure 5.
throughout California.
ESA staff work proactively throughout the design and construction process to
ensure that the construction team completes projects on time, within budgets and in compliance with
applicable environmental and occupational protection laws. ESA's highly experienced and dedicated
compliance monitoring staff play an essential role in the implementation of the project by providing the
client (and agencies) with assurances that the project is constructed according to plan and with the
required level of environment protection. As important, however, is the role that monitors play in
responding in short order to the inevitable need to revise plans due to unforeseen conditions. This requires
that judgment be applied in the field to adjust what may otherwise appear be rigid limitations on
construction approach, such that the resources are protected and compliance is maintained as required,
and construction proceeds.
ESA understands the boundaries of exercising this type of interpretation while making every effort to
provide flexibility within the intent of permit conditions or mitigation measures. This provides the clients
Construction Inspectors and contractors with technical expertise and in -field problem solving capability
necessary to successfully implement construction projects within sensitive resource areas. ESA's full
suite of expertise, from site assessment, documentation of resources, design input, agency coordination
and implementation ultimately provides our clients with the greatest degree of certainty in project
constructability and ability to meet its schedule.
As members of construction management teams, ESA translate mitigations into construction contract
language, and give pre-bid presentations to contractors so they may better understand schedule and
budget implications of environmental compliance. Prior to construction, ESA plays a key role, providing
"site clearance" for construction areas by locating and flagging sensitive resources to be avoided or by
trapping and relocating wildlife. On the construction site, our aim is to work proactively with construction
management to resolve problems before they affect site resources or construction schedule and budget
while ensuring that compliance standards are enforced. ESA field monitors are versatile, covering
compliance issues as diverse as stream crossing wetland protection, cultural and paleontological resource
finds, and hazardous spill response.
City of Petaluma Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility— Construction Services 14
26
N
J
Figure 5 KEY STAFF EXPERIENCE
CITY OF PETALUMA
Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility
STAFF
4
Leslie Moulton
z
WJames
O'Toole
a
Jon Waggoner
`
Jennifer Garrison
Tom Roberts, G.W.B.
�'
Chris Rogers
,r �N E;
p
m
Brian Pittman, C.W.B.
i,
Lee Miles
�a
Peter Hudson, P.G., G.E.G.
3
Eric Schniewind, Rx A.
2';�ti+r
Justin Gregg
S
W —
ti
Bean Marterana, R.P.A.
Barry Scott, N.P.A.
Even Holmhoe
=
Rob Wolfson
g
o ! • • m
0
Mark Baumgartner
w
Christal Love
e,
Amy Sinsheimer
a
Asavarl Oevadiga
Figure 5 KEY STAFF EXPERIENCE
CITY OF PETALUMA
Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility
15
1
4
oc m
; g°i
/ :' i
' j ; r
r' a
�'
rk ad �9 �a �
,r �N E;
p
m
rh'; a3'�y.Jz/r
2';�ti+r
3m; v'� 3`�tiC!3r1
r
at
20 16 e
i • •
o ! • • m
0
o • • !
•
I •
at
15 60 e!•
s •
I• •
• o
• o o
I • •
m
m I
m m •
sac 1 15
125
I ° I
° °
i °
' ° ! °
I ° ° i ®
• •
° ! °
I °
° °
° ° °
sac 5 g6 • I•!•
I•
0 I•
O O O
0
•
0
0
0 0
•
1 •
' oak
( 25
110
I °
°
I ° °
I °
° ! ° i
° ° ' I
o •
•
•
oak
113
j 58
o
• • •
•
(e • o i
• •
( •
I
•
o
o
! •
oak 8 38
at 6 40 0
0 1 0.
i 0 0.
0 '
O 1
0
O
at 15 36
st 10 28
sf � 5 � 28
•••
I
0
°(
1 0 m i
0•
i
oak
( 5 156
® (
•
i •
�
� • I
!
! ° ! ° i
,
I ° !
(
!
,
° !
sac 26
38 I ° I
° °
I
I °'
° °
°
oak 14
g0 I•
•
0 1
0'
• j 0 •
0 0 • 1
i
0 •
0 i
•
sac' 350 ! 0
I (
0( 0
j o
m I®®
i o
V O I
••
I
•
0
oak
10 (58
�
0�
0 I o �
� o
i•
o �• !
l o
o i e l �
i o l
• i •�
st'2 40!•i
I
�° i° •
i
°i
sf 5 48 0 (
(
° i ° °
I °
° I
°
••
at 4, 4g !
�
o o i
l i
o•` •
i �
•.
�
m
!
15
Resolution
Professional Services Agreement
ESA
Environmental Services
29
2
3
4
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional
Services Agreement with ESA for Environmental Services in Support of
Construction of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility
WHEREAS, in 1938, the original wastewater treatment processes were constructed at
950 Hopper Street;
WHEREAS, to meet the community's needs and changing regulatory requirements,
various upgrades and additions to the wastewater treatment plant were conducted through
the 1960s;
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 of the community were determined to be too
costly, the City determined to replace the existing wastewater treatment facility;
WHEREAS, in 1991 the City executed a Memorandum of Understanding with
Envirotech Operating Services (EOS) to design, build, construct, own and operate (20
years) a new wastewater treatment facility (Resolution No. 91-107);
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 MOU did not meet the requirements of the Public Utilities Code and ordered that "the
application is denied without prejudice to refiling 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. 94-156, 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 Final EIR documents, Resolution No. 96-164, which approved the Project,
and Resolution No. 96-165, which approved and authorized issuance of the Request For
Proposal;
WHEREAS, on July 17, 1996, the RFP was issued to five pre -qualified vendor teams;
Page 1 of 9
S:hvater resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City Council\August 1, 30
2005\Environmental\resolution environmental.draft 3 clean.doc
WHEREAS, in January 1997, the City received proposals from Montgomery United
Water (MUW) and US Filter/EOS;
4 WHEREAS, the Citizens' Wastewater Advisory Committee considered the proposals on
5 May 28, 1997, June 3, 1997, June 4, 1997, July 2, 1997, October 20, 1997, October 30,
6 1997, November 4, 1997, November 18, 1997, and on December 3, 1997;
7
8 WHEREAS, the City Council considered the proposals on July 7, 1997, September 8,
9 1997, September 15, 1997, September 22, 1997, September 29, 1997, October 6, 1997,
10 December 3, 1997, and December 8, 1997;
11
12 WHEREAS, on January 5, 1998, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 98-11, which
13 selected MUW for contract negotiations;
14
15 WHEREAS, negotiations with MUW on technical, legal and agreement issues began on
16 January 27, 1998 and proceeded through spring 1999;
17
18 WHEREAS, on September 21, 1998, the City Council, recognizing the need for
19 development of a public alternative to the proposed privatization project, approved
20 preparation of the wastewater treatment facility master plan;
21
22 WHEREAS, on September 21, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-188,
23 which terminated the privatization process and established City ownership of the new
24 wastewater treatment facility. Reasons cited for this determination included, among
25 others:
26
27 / Risk of Change Required Over 30 -Year Contract Term. Changes in the
28 City's needs may occur during the 30 -year life of the contract. The City is at a
29 disadvantage by being able to negotiate with only one party for changes in the
30 facility's capacity.
31 / Requirement of Fair Market Value Purchase. In order for MUW to retain
32 tax ownership, the City's option to purchase the facility at the end of the contract
33 term would have to be at fair market value. The price of the facility could not be
34 fixed in the contract, but would depend on the value of the facility at the time of
35 the exercise of the option, thereby putting the City and ratepayers at risk of having
36 to pay for part of the plant twice.
37 / Lack of City Approval of Design. In order for MUW to retain tax
38 ownership, Section 4.8.1 of the agreement limited the City's participation in the
39 design process.
40 / Third Party Services. In order for MUW to retain tax ownership, Section
41 5.2.4 would allow the Company to provide services to others (in addition to the
42 City) at the Project Site.
43 1 Inability to Agree On Contract Language. After extensive negotiations
44 between the City and MUW, specific contract language on the above and other
45 critical issues could not be agreed upon.
46
Page 2 of 9
SAwater resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City CouncilAugust 1, 31
2005Trivironmental\resolution environmentat.dratt 3 clean.doc
1 WHEREAS, on September 21, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-189,
2 which approved the Wastewater Treatment Master Plan, with the understanding that the
3 Master Plan's recommended project would be further reviewed to address questions
4 asked by the City's independent wastewater professionals;
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
WHEREAS, on October 29, 1999, the City issued a Request For Proposal for
engineering services in support of the water recycling facility project (new wastewater
treatment facility);
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2000-66 on April 3, 2000, which
authorized the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Carollo
Engineers for engineering services in support of Phase 1 —Project Report of the Water
Recycling Facility Project;
WHEREAS, five alternatives for the new water recycling facility were presented at a
Public Forum at the Community Center on June 14, 2000;
WHEREAS, the City Council heard a discussion on the criteria for evaluating the
alternatives on September 5, 2000;
WHEREAS, the results of the analysis and comparison of the alternatives were
presented at a Public Forum at the Community Center on November 8, 2000;
WHEREAS, the City Council considered and discussed the Draft Water Recycling
Facility, Project Report (Carollo Engineers, November 2000) on November 20, 2000;
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 00-214 on December 11, 2000, which
approved the Water Recycling Facility Project Report (Carollo Engineers, November
2000), selected Alternative 5 — Extended Aeration as the preferred alternative for the
new water recycling facility, and identified Option A — Wetlands as the preferred
alternative for algae removal over Option B — DAFs;
WHERAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 00-215 on December 11, 2000, which
authorized the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Carollo
Engineers for professional engineering services in support of Phase 2 — Project
Development of the Water Recycling Facility Project;
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Water Recycling Facility Project and the
Draft Water Recycling Facility Predesign Report (Carollo Engineers, November 2001)
on November 14, 2001, November 28, 2001, December 17, 2001 and January 7, 2002;
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 2002-012 on January 7, 2002, which
approved design parameters for the preferred alternative for the water recycling facility
project and authorized completion of the environmental impact report;
Page 3 of 9
S9water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City CoundhAugust 1, 32
2005\Environmental\resolution environmental.draft 3 clean.doe
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
WHEREAS, the City prepared Water Recycling Facility and River Access
bnprovements Draft EIR (April 2002) and distributed it to the California State
Clearinghouse and to all responsible local, state and federal agencies involved in the
Project and made it available for public review;
WHEREAS, the City Council held noticed public hearings on May 13, 2002, and May
20, 2002, during which all interested persons were provided an opportunity to comment
on the adequacy of the Draft EIR;
WHEREAS, the public review period for the Draft EIR began April 15, 2002, and
closed May 29, 2002;
WHEREAS, the City prepared Water Recycling Faciliol and River Access
bnprovements Final EIR and Response To Connnents (July 2002), which responded to
comments received on the Draft EIR. The Final EIR did not identify any new significant
impacts that had not been previously evaluated in the Draft EIR.
WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on August 5, 2002, to
consider the Final EIR;
WHEREAS, after due consideration, the Petaluma City Council adopted Resolution
2002-135 certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Water Recycling
Facility and River Access Improvements Project and made the following findings on
August 5, 2002.
1. The Final Environmental Impact Report has been completed in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA
Guidelines.
2. The documents referenced below constitute the Final Environmental Impact
Report and were presented and considered along with both written and oral
comments received during the public review period on the Project and
environmental documents:
a. Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Draft
Environmental Impact Report, in two volumes (April 2002).
b. Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Final
Environmental Impact Report and Response To Comments (July 2002).
3. The City Council, as the decision making body of the City of Petaluma,
independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the information in the Final
EIR and found that the contents of the Final EIR reflect the independent judgment
of the City of Petaluma
4. The Final EIR was published, made available and circulated for review and
comment.
WHEREAS, the Project certified in the Final EIR included locating a portion of the
treatment plant at 4400 Lakeville Highway, the current site of the City's oxidation ponds
Page 4 of 9
SAwater resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City Council\August 1, 33
2005\Environmenta1\reso1ution environmental.draR 3 clean.doc
1 (APN 0680-010-025, 032 and 024), with polishing treatment wetlands located at 4104
2 Lakeville Highway (APN 068-010-026, and 017-170-002); and
4 WHEREAS, the City completed approximately 50% design of the facility in November
5 2002: and
7 WHEREAS, through the value engineering effort conducted in December 2002, it
8 became apparent the alternative of locating the water recycling facility at 4104 Lakeville
9 Highway and preserving the oxidation pond site for its current function warranted further
10 evaluation; and
11
12 WHEREAS, to construct the water recycling facility at the oxidation pond site would
13 require the removal, drying and disposal of sludge from the aerated lagoon and oxidation
14 pond no. 1, construction of a pipeline to deliver influent to oxidation pond no. 2, the
15 construction of aerators in oxidation pond nos. 2 and 3 to maintain and improve treatment
16 capacity, and require the placement of approximately 250,000 cubic yards of imported fill
17 in the oxidation pond no. 1; and
18
19 WHEREAS, a feasibility study determined that locating the water recycling facility at
20 4104 Lakeville Highway was feasible and yields many benefits; and,
21
22 WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2003-196 on August 18, 2003,
23 which authorized the City Manager to execute an amendment to the professional services
24 agreement with Carollo Engineers for engineering services in support of locating the new
25 treatment plant at 4104 Lakeville Highway; and
26
27 WHEREAS, the City Council authorized acquisition of approximately 262 acres of land
28 in the 4000 block of Lakeville Highway for construction of the Water Recycling Facility
29 and development of the Petaluma Marsh Acquisition, Enhancement and Access Project
30 on September 8, 2003 through Ordinance No. 2161 N.C.S. for the purchase of real
31 property described as Sonoma County Assessor's Parcel Nos. 068-010-026 and 017-010-
32 002; and
33
34 WHEREAS, the City acquired Parcel Nos. 068-010-026 and 017-010-002 in February
35 2004 with the assistance of grant funding from the California Coastal Conservancy and
36 the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District; and
37
38 WHEREAS, an Addendum to the Water Recycling Facility and River Access
39 Improvements EIR was prepared to evaluate potential changes to the environmental
40 affects of the Project due to the proposed Project revisions; and
41
42 WHEREAS, the EIR Addendum concluded that the determinations of the Final EIR
43 remain valid for the revised Project in that none of the Project modifications will have
44 new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously identified
45 significant effects, or otherwise meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section
46 15162 which outlines the standards by which subsequent EIRs are required; and
Page 5 of 9
S:\\Vater resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City Council\August 1, 34
2005\Environmental\resolution environmental.draft 3 clean.doe
2 WHEREAS, the EIR Addendum was published on April 15, 2004 and was available for
3 public review at the City of Petaluma City Hall, Petaluma Library, Petaluma Community
4 Center, Petaluma Senior Center, and the Santa Rosa Junior College, Petaluma campus;
5 and
6
7 WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2004-101 N.C.S. Re -certifying
8 Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Project Final Environmental
9 Impact Report Addendum, and Adopting Findings and Statement of Overriding
10 Considerations, and Adopting Revised Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program on
11 June 7, 2004.
12
13 WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2004-092 N.C.S. Authorizing the
14 City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with The Covello Group for
15 Construction Management Services Task 1 and Task 2 for the City of Petaluma Ellis
16 Creek Water Recycling Facility Project on June 7, 2004; and
17
18 WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2004-156 Authorizing General
19 Contractor and Electrical Subcontractor Prequalification for the City of Petaluma Ellis
20 Creek Water Recycling Facility Project on August 16, 2004; and
21
22 WHEREAS, the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee approved the Project on
23 November 18,2004; and
24
25 WHEREAS, the Petaluma Planning Commission considered the Project and the
26 proposed land use designations at 4104 Lakeville Highway on December 14, 2004, and
27 recommended the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment to the land use
28 designation of Public/Institutional, prezoning to Planned Community District (PCD) and
29 rezoning from Agricultural to Planned Community District, and annexation to the City of
30 Petaluma; and
31
32 WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility on
33 February 7 and 28, 2004 and directed the Department of Water Resources and
34 Conservation to complete the contract documents for Alternative IA —Full Project With
35 Bid Alternate for the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility and issue the contract
36 documents to the following prequalified contractors for solicitation of bids for
37 construction:
38
39 General Contractors
40
41
Slayden Construction
42
Kiewit Pacific Company
43
Monterey Mechanical
44
Balfour Beatty Construction, Inc.
45
Walsh Pacific Construction
Page 6 of 9
SAwater resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City Council\August 1, 35
2005\Environmental\resolution environmental.draft 3 clean.doc
I • ARB, Inc.
2
3 Electrical Contractors
4
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Mass Electric
Contract Costa Electric
HGH Electric
Blocka Constriction
Con J. Franke Electric
WHEREAS, the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project ("Project') is included in
the Department of Water Resources and Conservation Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Capital
Improvement Program Budget; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Article X of the City of Petaluma Charter, the Petaluma
Municipal Code, California Public Contract Code Section 20162 and other applicable
law, the City of Petaluma solicited bids for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Project bids were received on July 14, 2005, and opened in accordance
with California Public Contract Code Section 4105.5 and other applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the apparent lowest bid for the Project was the bid of Kiewit Pacific
Company in the amount of $106,250,200 for the Base Bid and $4,078,800 for Bid
Alternate No. 1 for a total bid of $110,329,000; and
WHEREAS, Kiewit Pacific Company was prequalified on December 15, 2004 to bid for
the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Resolution certifying the 2005 Construction
Addendum to the Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements EIR as
modified by the April 2004 Addendum and Adopting Findings of Fact and Adopting
Revised Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program on August 1, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the 2005 Construction Addendum to the Water Recycling Facility and
River Access Improvements EIR concluded that the determinations of the Final EIR
remain valid for the revised Project in that none of the Project modifications will have
new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously identified
significant effects, or otherwise meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section
15162 which outlines the standards by which subsequent EIRs are required; and
WHEREAS, the City requires the assistance of a professional environmental services
firm for biological surveys, monitoring, oversight of restoration and enhancement and to
assist in meeting all regulatory requirements during construction of the project; and
Page 7 of 9
S:\water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City CouncihAugust 1, 36
2005\Environmental\resolution environmental.draft 3 clean.doc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
WHEREAS, the City issued a Request For Proposal (RFP) for environmental services
during construction on June 8, 2005 to four (4) professional environmental firms, and
received a proposal on June 29, 2005 from one firm, Environmental Science Associates
(ESA); and
WHEREAS, the project team interviewed ESA on July 8, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the project team evaluated the proposal based on the following criteria:
personnel assigned to the project, inspection team capability, team cohesion, management
systems, reference checks, back-up within the proposed team, proposal, presentation,
answers given during dialogue portion of the interview, cost and cost/hour; and
WHEREAS, the project team unanimously recommended the City Council select
Environmental Science Associates (ESA); and
WHEREAS, ESA is recommended for the following reasons:
1. The firm has extensive experience with environmental management service on
projects of similar magnitude and complexity as the City's Ellis Creek Water
Recycling Facility.
2. The firm has committed to provide a qualified environmental management
team with over 190 years of combined experience.
3. The firm has a proven track record of controlling schedule and costs.
4. The firm is known for being proactive and solution oriented when addressing
environmental issues.
5. The firm's core values are based on teamwork.
6. The firm has established management systems for project management.
7. The firm has very good reference checks.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the City Council that:
1. The above recitals are true and correct and hereby declared to be findings of the
City Council of the City of Petaluma.
2. The City Manager is authorized to execute a Professional Services Agreement
with a contract not -to -exceed amount of $1,434,830 with Environmental Science
Associates (ESA) for Environmental Services as described in the scope of work
that is attached to and hereby made a part of this Resolution as Attachment A on
terms that are based on the City of Petaluma standard professional services
agreement and modified as appropriate to implement the scope of work, subject to
approval of the City Attorney.
3. Subject to available funds for the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project,
the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City of
Petaluma amendments to the Agreement Scope of Work, and to the not -to -exceed
amount, so long as such amendments in the aggregate do not increase the original
Agreement not -to -exceed amount by more than 15% (excluding increases in the
original not -to -exceed amount due to City -required insurance).
Page 8 of 9
5:\water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City Council\August 1, 37
2005\Environmental\resolution environmental.draft 3 clean.doc
1 4. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.
2 5. All portions of this Resolution are severable. Should any individual component of
3 this Resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable by a body of
4 competent jurisdiction, then the remaining Resolution portions shall be and
5 continue in full force and effect, except as to those Resolution portions that have
6 been adjudged invalid. The City Council of the City of Petaluma hereby declares
7 that it would have adopted this Resolution and each section, subsection, clause,
8 sentence, phrase and other portion hereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more
9 section subsection, clause sentence, phrase or other portion may be held invalid or
10 unconstitutional.
Page 9 of 9
SANvater resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City Council\August 1, 38
2005\Environmental\resolution environmental.draR 3 clean.doc
221 CRLF Momm, ing - 4 Weeks_
--+r:--
_ Cmsulnna Stall No as
- -
160
160
Administrative Staff Hours
$ 37,600
2.22 Routine Monitoring
L Moulton GToolo
Waggoner
Rogers Pllmm
_
Garrison
2,000
$ 328,800
2.23 SWPPP Monitoring- Included in 2.2.2
Total
Total
Submmultant Total By Running
Task Number Description
EXE Sr. PM
SRTec138
SRToch2 SrAaaac
$ _
As..cZAsaoc90
Subtotal
Adm/G90h ASdm/Grph75
Subtotal
Fee.
Labor Price
Malm Task Total
HourlyBilling Rate
9
$ $
$
$
$ 20
$SrAss 715
$ 100 $
Sr
$CIvr1 610
$ _
-
4.o Manage Environmental Program
40
110
$
_
32 Wetland Enhancement
$-
$
1 1 Schedule and Tracking
80
200
80
3 3.7 Pond 9 and 10
$
48,200
40
$ -
360
$ 48,200
12 Meetings
24 3121
40
356
$
97,820
16
80
$ -
732
$ 97,820
13 Reporting
!
24
8
$
$ 8,160
4.o Ellis Creek
1.3.1 Daily and Monthly Reporting
288
$
33,120
$ -
288
$ 33,120
(1.32 SWPPP Reporting (3 annual)
110
48
$ 18,050
300
$
33,480
72
$ 5,400
420
$ 38,880
1.33 CEQA MMRP (3 Annual)
48
4.3 Wetland Final Year Report
300
S
33,480
72
$ 5,400
420
$ 38,880
1.3.4 Permit Annual Reporting
6.o Project Management
$
$ _
en Budget Spreadsheet
34.1 USFWS (3 annual)
72
48
40
60
300
$
45,180
72
62 Personnel and Billings
$ 5,400
520
S 50,580
rya 42 CDFG/RWQCB (3 annual)
48
40
60
300
$
45,180
72
$ 5,400
520
$ 50,580
13.5 Regulatory Reporting Schedule
16
_
51 Bat Presence
40
40
S
11,000
16
$ -
96
$ 11,000
$ 5,000
1 q Training
24
_
60
60
$
15,300
40
_
$ 3,000
176
$ 18,300
$ 392,360 $ 392,360
2.0 Surveys and Monitoring
40
300
$ 36,760
54 Aquatic Species Presence
$
_
16
$ _
_
$ _
21 Sumeps
$ 16,360
as Species Presence - Non-Aqualic
16
40
120
$ 18,760
2.ti Nesting Bird Survey
16
120
$
13,800
4
$ 300
124
$ 14,100
2.t2a Raptor Survey
8
__
40
_
S
4,600
4
$ 300
44
$ 4,900
2.1.2b Passerine
100
40
$ 11,500
S
4,600
4
$ 300
44
$ 4,900
21.2c Rookery Survey
100
$ 12,400
20_
S
2,300
4
$ 300
24
$ 2,600
21.3 Bat Survey
$ 35,800
) 511 Turbidity Monitoring
24
_
$
2,760
_ _
4
$ 300
28
$ 3,060
21.4 CRLF Survey
120
100
$
14,400
4
$ 300
124
$ 14,700 S 2,500
21.5 Aquatic Species Survey
100
120
100
$
14,400
4
$ 300
124
$ 14,700
2.2 A4onitoring
660
3,562
3,140
1,728
_$
Subtotals - Labor Hours
$ 4,680 $
99,000
$ 105.300 $
_
46,980 S
79,200
221 CRLF Momm, ing - 4 Weeks_
160
160
$ 37,600
2.22 Routine Monitoring
_ _ _
1,120
2,000
$ 328,800
2.23 SWPPP Monitoring- Included in 2.2.2
$ _
2.24 Cultural Resources Momtonng
528
$ 47,520
3.0 Wetland Restoration Monitoring
$ _
31 Existing Wetland Restoration
40
110
$ 18,050
32 Wetland Enhancement
40
110
$ 18,050
3 3.7 Pond 9 and 10
40
110
$ 18,050
33.2 MCMVCD Management Plan
16___
16
80
$ 12,240
34 Wetland Final Year Report
24
8
40
$ 8,160
4.o Ellis Creek
4.1 Ellis Creek Restoration
40
110
$ 18,050
4.2 Ellis Creek Enhancement
40
110
$ 18,050
4.3 Wetland Final Year Report
24
6
40
$ 8,160
6.o Project Management
$ _
en Budget Spreadsheet
72
$ 10,800
62 Personnel and Billings
72
$ 9,720
s.o Contingency
$
51 Bat Presence
16
$ 1,840
52 CRLF Presence
24
100
24
$ 18,000
53 Schedule Variation- Sensitive Habitat
16
40
300
$ 36,760
54 Aquatic Species Presence
16
80
40
$ 16,360
as Species Presence - Non-Aqualic
16
40
120
$ 18,760
56 Cultural Resources Find
16
80
$ 11,360
57 Active Rookery Monitoring
8
16
80
$ 10,920
58 Active Raptor Nest Monitoring
100
$ 11,500
59 SWPPP Sampling
16
100
$ 12,400
stn SWPPP BMP Design
16
80
40
180
$ 35,800
) 511 Turbidity Monitoring
16
16
100
$ 14,240
512 Non -Compliance- Wetland installation
100
$ 13,500
513 Non -Compliance -Agency Shutdown
100
100
100
40,000
24
660
780
348
660
3,562
3,140
1,728
_$
Subtotals - Labor Hours
$ 4,680 $
99,000
$ 105.300 $
_
46,980 S
79,200
_
S 409,630
$ 314,000
S 155,520
$ 1,214,310 $
I Percent of Effort -Labor Hours Oniv
0.2%
5.7%
6.8%
3.0%
5.7%
31.0%
27.3%
15.0%
1Percent ofEffort - Total Project Cost
0.3%
6.9%
7.3%
3.3%
5.5%
28.5%
21.9%
10.8%
ESA Labor Costs
ESA Non -Labor Expenses ($511abor hour)
ESA Subconsultant Markup (5%)
8
8
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
600
600
8,640
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
532 144
- $ 39,900 S 8,640 S 46,540
0.096 4.6% 1.3
0.0% 2.8% 0.6%
320 $
3,120 $
528 $
150 $
150 $
150 $
112 $
80 $
150 $
150 $
80 $
$
5
216 S
32 $
164 $
372 $
152 $
192 $
96 $
120 $
116 $
132 $
332 $
132 $
116 $
300 $
11,506
37,600
329,800
47,520
18,050 $
13,050 $
16,050 $
12,240
3,760 $
1p_,050 $
10,050 $
3,760 $
10,800
18,360
3,040 S
19,200 S
37,960 $
17,560
19.960 $
11,360 $
12,120
12,700
13,600
37,000 $
14,240
14,700
40,000
$ 475,380 $ $67,740
2,500
2,500
2,500
10,000 $ 92,650 $ 960,390
2,500
2,500
10,000 $ 59,860 $ 1,020,250
10,000
5,000
4,000
5,000
40,000
5,000
$ 1,262,850 $ 109,000
100.0
08.0%1
$ 29,160 $ 1,049,410
$ 322,440 $ 1,371,850
Total Contract
Project Scope w/Contingency
$ 1,049,410 $ 1,371,850
$ 46,250 $ 57,530
$ 2,000 $ 5,450
$ 1,097,660 $ 1,434,830
H\waterreseuses Bcanservatmn\W.5We 0.A9O12\phase 3-constmctmn\City CounciMugust 1, 2005\EnvnarmentahCosts Final xis -ESA Labor &Expense 28