HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 7.A-Attch1 05/17/2004• - CITY OF .PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
AGENDA REPORT
FOR
RESOL1TION RE- CERTIFYING WATER RECYCLING . FACILITY AND
RIVER ACCESS IMPROVE'MENT'S PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM9 AND ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION.$,, AND ADOPTING
REVISEI)1> I TIGATION MEAS 1RES AND MONITORING PROGRAM
C7
SAwater resources & conservation \Wastewater \9012 \city counciWay 3, 2004 \final eir addendum agenda bill draft.doc
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Executive Summary
1
2.0 .Background
3
2.1 EXISTING WASTEWATER.T,REATMENT FACILITY
3
2.1.1 Hopper Street Wastewater Treatment Facility .............................. ...............................
4
2.1.1.1 Preliminary and Primary Treatment ..............: .......................
2.1.1.2 Activated Sludge Plant .............................................................. ...............................
5
Trickling Filter Plant..... ............................................................. ...............................
2 .1.1.3
2.1.1.4 Solids Handling Facilities ......................................................... ............:......:...........
5
2.1.1.5 Summary of Hopper Street Facilities .......................:................ ...............................
6
2.1.2 4400 Lakeville Highway ............................................................... ...............................
6
2.1.2.1 Oxidation. Ponds ........................................................................ ...............................
6
2.1.2.2 Disinfection Facilities ............................................................... ...............................
6
2.2 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
8
2.2.1 Water Quality, Requirements .:....................................................... ...............................
9
2.2.1.1 Existing NPDES Requirements ................................................ ...............................
9
2.3 WHY DO WE NEED A NEW WATER RECYCLING FACILITY?
9
2.3.1 The Existing Facility is Operating Near Its Permitted Discharge Capacity ................. 9
2.3.2 The Existing Facility is Near the End of Its Useful Life ............... .............................10
2.3.3 The Existing Facility Is Costly To Maintain .............................: .......10
2.4 PROJECT HISTORY
• Exemption (1988 - 1992)
12
2.4.1 Privatization Part I — Application For CPUC ...................12
2.4.1.1 Proposal for A New Wastewater Treatment Facility ................ .............................12
2.4.1.2 Memorandum of Understanding ............................................... .............................
2.4.1.3 California Public Utility Commission .. ..................................... .............................1
2.4.2 Privatization Part II — Selection and Negotiation (1992 - 1999) ... .............................15
2 .4.2.1 Planning Criteria ........................................:.............................. .............................
2.4.2.2 Vendor Short- List ..................................................................... .............................
2.4.2.3 Initiation of the Environmental Impact Review Process ........... .............................16
2.4.2.4 Decision To Pursue Privatization ......:....................................... .............................
2.4.2.5' EIR Completion and Issuance of the RFP .............................................................
2.4.2.6 Contract Negotiations. With MUW ........................................... .............................
2.4.2:7 Decision To Terminate Privatization Process ........................... .............................19
2.4.2.8 Sonoma County Water Agency Proposal — .March . 1998 ........ ...............................
21
2.5 PROCUREMENT OF A PUBLICLY OWNED WATER RECYCLING FACILITY
21
2.5.1 Phase 1 — Project Report ............................................................:. :..............................
21
2.5.2 Phase-2 - Project Development .................................................. ...............................
22
2 .5.2.1 Predesign .................................................................. :.............. ...............................
22
2.5.2.2 Permits .......... .............................24
.........:................................... ...............................
2 .5.2.3 CEQA Documentation ............................................................. ...............................
24
2.5.2.4 StateRevolving Loan Fund ..................................................... ...............................
27
2.6 HISTORY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS
28
. 3.0 ALTERNATIVES.
31
SAwaterresources & conservation \Wastewater \9012 \city council\May 3, 2004 \final eir addendum agenda bill draft.doc
4.0 Financial Impact 32
5.0 Conclusions 35 •
6.0 Outcomes or Performance Measurements That Will Identify Success or Completion 39
7.0 Recommendation 40
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Summary of Hopper Street Treatment Facilities .................................. ........... ....................7
Table 2 Summary of Recent Major Maintenance Repairs at the Wastewater Treatment Facility. 10
Table3 Project Timeline ................................................................................... .........................:...
Table4 Permits ........................................................... : ................................................................... :.24
Table 5 Summary of Proposals For Water Recycling Facility .......................... .............................29
Table 6 Estimated Costs For Water Recycling Facility ....................................:. .............................32
Table 7 Construction Cost Comparison of Wastewater Treatment. Facility. Projects ................33
Table 8 Resolutions.Adopted For the Water Recycling Facility Project .......... .. .. ..........................35
Table 9 Schedule ........:.. ............................... ........37
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements EIR Addendum
C
SAwater resources &conservation \Wastewater \9012\city councilWlay 3, 2004\ final eir addendum agenda bill draft.doc
AGENDA REPORT
FOR
RESOLUTION-RE-CERTIFYING WATER RECY.C FACILITY AND
RIVER ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM, AND ADOPTING
FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,
AND ADOPTING.REVISED MITIGATION MEASURES AND
MONI'T'ORING PROGRAM
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Petaluma began treating '.its wastewater in 1938, at a time when less then 30% of urban
wastewater was treated. After over 60 years of ;treatment, this facility is reaching the end of its
useful life: Sixteen years ago, in 1988, the City embarked on, an. effort to replace the existing
wastewater treatment facility With a new water recycling facility.. The City achieved a milestone
in this effort in August 2002, with issuance of the Water Recycling Facility and River. Access
Improvements Final EIR. The Final EIRincludes a statement of Project objectives:
• To develop an economically and ecologically sustainable Water Recycling Facility to
accommodate growth and development anticipated by the City's General Plan. The buildout
population for Petaluma and :Penngrove is estimated to be 70650, requiring. treatment of 6.7
• mgd during average dryVeather flow (ADWF).
• To comply with Federal, State and regional air and water quality regulations through
appropriate design and operation_ of the Water Recycling Facal>ty. Reliability and redundancy
features will be included to be able to meet applicable regulations consistently.
® To replace or upgrade the existing, wastewater treatment facility, that is operating near its
capacity and the end of its useful life.
® To protect the water quality of the Petaluma River and, the San Francisco Bay by continuing
to conduct wastewater treatment. 'in an environmentally sensitive manner. The Water
Recycling Facility will include polishing wetlands to reduce effluent concentrations of
metals,, organics, and nutrients.
® To stabilize and treat the biosolids .generated in the wastewater treatment process to EPA's
Class B istandards f6r beneficial reuse of the biosolids.
® To produce tertiary recycled water in accordance with California Title 22 so water can be
recycled to irrigation users throughout the City.
® To provide _storage in the oxidation ponds during river discharge prohibitions from May 1 st
to October 20th and to balance the: recycled water program during this non - discharge period.
•
S;: \water resources & conservation \W6stewater \9012 \city council\May.3, 2004\final eir addendum agenda.bill:dra $ idoc
To develop a facility that serves as an amenity, to the community by providing educational
and recreational opportunities.
The project objectives listed above for ihe;Final EIR certited by the City Council in August 2002
have not changed.. 'The project has, been modified yielding many benefits through the -Value
Engineering Study conducted in December 20,02 and a-Feasibility Study on, Parcel A conducted
in July 2003 but the project intention and affects on the 'enviroriment have not.'changed.
Overall, there are no new significant unavoidable 'environmental impacts'as a.result of the revised
site plan. The one significant unavoidable 'impact from the approved Project remains:
s Impact AG -1:- Loss of approximately 1.49 acres of farmland on Parcels A and.B'
When the project was approved in August of 2002, a statement of overriding considerations was
adopted, explaining the City's reasons that the polishing wetlands and public educational and
recreational facilities were approved despite tler'significant impact on farmland'.
The following changes. to the Final EIR are preseinted in the Final EIR Addendum.
1. Relocation of the project from.Pond No. '1 at Alie. City's oxidation pond site to Parcel
nos. 068- 010 -026 and 017-01,0- 002
2. Extended' aeration, basins are replaced with oxidation ditches;
3. The bridge over Ellis Creek is no longer needed; •
4. The east `and. west gate improvements are,no longer needed,
5. A new west' gate located on Parcel nos. 068 - 01.0 and 017- 010 -0021& needed
6. The existing pond `site improvements are no longer needed, except,repaving of
East Road;
p "from the ,project;
7. The seasonal ponds were removed
, 8. The levee wasre from the project;
9. The river trail was removed from the project;
10: Two levee bridges with boat access at High Tide were removed;
11. Storm water distribution wetlands will' be "completed as a future phase improvement;
12. Marsh restoration will be completed as a future phase improvement;
1,3. The pipeline crossing near Pond 5 is deleted and replaced with 3 pipelines crossing
near Pond 1.
The. treatment process for the preferred project,, as described' in the EIR Addendum, uses
oxidation ditches and oxidation ponds. 'Because algae are generated in the oxidation pond, the
system also includes algae removal, 'which is necessary to meet discharge and reuse
requirements. Algae 'removal is provided by a wetlands treatment system within the existing
oxidation pond site. In addition, up'to 45 acres northwest of the existing oxidation ponds wilh
developed into polishing wetlands;on the area designated Parcels and B. These-wetlands will
treat, disinfected ; secondary effluent and will, be open for public access and' 'education. The
polishing wetlands will provide further reduction of metals; 'nutrients and organics. The effluent
from the polishingwetlands will be returned to the plant. site for reuseor°discharge:
2
SAwater resources& conservation\ Wastewater \9012 \city,,council\May'3', 2004\f nal eiraddendum agenda bill draft.doc
w
During. the 45 -day public comment period for the Draft EIR, the City received 14 comment
letters, which included 167 comments on the Draft EIR. A total of '19 members of the public and
City Council presented 64 comments during the public hearings on May 13 and 20, 2002. The
revised project does not include any new significant impacts. Therefore, there is no need to
recirculate the EIR. The Final EIR Addendum has been prepared and is ready for City Council
review and certification. The Final EIR Addendum is provided in, Attachment A.
Since 1988, five separate proposals have been submitted and considered by the City for a new
wastewater treatment facility, prior to development of the Water Recycling Facility described in
the Final EIR Addendum. The Water .Recycling Facility Project is the only proposal that
provides a complete wastewater - treatment system for the City. None of the other proposed
projects included an active odor control system or recycled water storage. None of the other
proposed projects would have been able to meet the anticipated permit limits. A comparison of
the projects is provided in Table 5 of the Agenda Bill.
The construction cost of the Water Recycling Facility is estimated at $68M. The Water
Recycling Facility Project and its costs have been carefully prepared and reviewed by the Project
Team and a Value Engineering Team. A comparison of the Project's construction costs
demonstrated that these costs are consistent with construction costs for other wastewater
treatment facility projects in the Bay Area. This comparison is provided in Table 7 of the
Agenda Bill.
City Management requests the City Council Adopt the Resolution Re- Certifying. the Water
i Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Report
and Addendum.
:L -_
2.0 BACKGROUND
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
The City. Council considered the Water Recycling Facility Project Report on December 11, 2000,
and determined Alternative 5 — Extended Aeration to be the preferred alternative, thus
completing Phase 1— 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 engineering services in support of locating the new treatment plant at
4100 Lakeville Highway (Parcel A).
2.1 EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
• Petaluma's wastewater. treatment facility provides services to the City of Petaluma and the
unincorporated Sonoma County community of Penngrove. Wastewater treatment is conducted at
3
SAwater resources & conservation \Wastewater \9012\city counciWay 3, 2004\final eir addendum agenda bill draft.doc
two facilities: the Hopper Street - Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Lakeville. Highway Pond
Site. All wastewater is conveyed to the Hopper Street- through an underground network of
200 miles of collection system pipeline.- Up to 6. mgd of flow is treated at Hopper Street. All flow
exceeding 6 mgd is routed to, the Pond Influent Pump Station (PIPS) and sent directly to the
oxidation ponds located on ; Lakeville Highway. Effluent from the Hopper Street plant, which
consists of approximately 2 mgd primary effluent, 2 mgd trickling filter effluent and 2 mgd
activated sludge effluent, is routed to the PIPS and sent to the oxidation ponds. The oxidation
ponds provide additional treatment and storage `before the effluent is disinfected and either
discharged to the Petaluma River in the winter or reused for agricultural4rrigation in the summer.
An upgrade to the PIPS was completed in 2001. This project increased the peak capacity to 36
mgd.
2.1.1 Hopper Street Wastewater Treatment Facility
The wastewater treatment plant at Hopper Street consists of several different types of treatment
systems built over many decades. The. Hopper Street facilities consist of two parallel plants: a
trickling _filter plant (built in stages in 1937 and ;1953) and an activated sludge plant (built in
1966). Hopper. Street is located near downtown Petaluma and is adjacent to the Petaluma River
waterfront. Potential odors from the Hopper Street facilities are a concern for existing and future
neighborhood businesses.
Essentially all of the structural and. many of the mechanical facilities at Hopper Street are at or
near the end of their useful life: Numerous repairs have occurred at the plant over the last ten •
years. Many of the concrete structures have visible cracks and corrosion and were not built to
current seismic standards. The underground piping is deteriorated and prone to failure. If any of
the buildings or structures were to be significantly altered or modified, compliance with current
building/structural codes would be required which would. add significant cost.
2.1.1.1 Preliminary and Primary Treatment
Raw wastewater entering the Hopper street plant is limited to 6 mgd. All flows exceeding 6 mgd
are routed directly to the oxidation ponds located at 4400 .Lakeville Highway. All 6 mgd, or less,
of wastewater flow is treated by the preliminary' and primary treatment facilities, which were
constructed in 1966. The influent screening facilities have adequate capacity for 6 mgd.
However, -the grit removal capacity has been rated at 4 mgd and the primary clarifier capacity has
been rated at 2.5 mgd. Consequently, the grit removal and primary treatment ,facilities are
overloaded under the current operation. The concrete in "these structures has cracking. Frequent
repair and/or replacement of mechanical equipment and piping ,have been necessary to maintain
treatment capacity. In the last three years, wall sleeves for piping connections for future tanks
have failed. The facilities have no provisions for odor control.
2.1.1.2 Activated Sludge Plant
The activated' sludge system was constructed in 1966 and is operated at 2.5 mgd. The aeration
tanks and support equipment have adequate capacity to operate at 2.5 mgd, although the
N
SAwater resources & conservation \Wastewater \9012 \city counciWay3, 2004\finaf eir addendum agenda bill draft.doc
® secondary clarifier performance degrades at flows greater than 2 mgd. The aeration tanks have
structural cracking. When the tanks were last dewatered, cleaned and put back in service in 1985,
leaking around the tanks was observed for the next 6 months. The circular secondary clarifier
structure could be reused although the mechanical equipment would need to be replaced. The
blower building could be also reused, although the blowers and mechanical equipment are at the
end of their useful life.
2.1.1.3 Trickling Filter Plant
The trickling filter plant was constructed in two projects in 1937 . and 1953 and is operated at
approximately 2 mgd. The piping and pumping systems are corroded and have experienced
failure.. As -built drawings and plans for the trickling filter plant site are incomplete, and the
location of the underground piping and utilities are unknown. Recent excavation work uncovered
numerous pipes, electrical conduits, and gas lines that are not' recorded on any available
drawings.
The original distribution arms for the filters were replaced in February 2000. During the
replacement work, the concrete crumbled when attempts were made to drill and bolt into the
existing concrete . structure. Given the deteriorated rcondition. of the concrete, the ability to
rehabilitate the filters is questionable: The filter structures do not meet current Uniform Building
Code requirements and would have to be seismically upgraded. The trickling filter media is the
original rock media and much smaller than current design standards would specify. The original
underdrain system was constructed of "irrigation grade rough redwood," and is likely to have
deteriorated after 60 years exposure to wastewater. The ventilation is inadequate based on current
standards and no provision is provided for odor control.
The trickling filter plant is not, very effective for wastewater treatment due to media type and
size, lack of ventilation and shallow depth. These factors coupled with the age, physical
condition of the structure and limited treatment capacity 'lead to a determination that none of the
trickling filter plant facilities are suitable for future use.
2.1.1.4 Solids Handling Facilities
The secondary anaerobic digester, originally constructed in 1937, has severe cracking and leaking
has been observed. Therefore, this structure has been abandoned for use as a digester and
currently acts as 'a sludge storage tank prior to dewatering. The primary anaerobic digester,
constructed in 1950, currently treats the primary, sludge and secondary sludge from the trickling
filter plant. This structure reportedly has some structural cracking. While the primary digester
could potentially be reused after extensive upgrades to meet current structural and uniform fire
codes, its capacity is not large enough to treat the quantity of sludge that would be generated by
6.7 mgd of primary and secondary wastewater treatment. The earthen sludge lagoons / aerobic
digesters are unlined and have no provisions for odor control. Based on the poor structural
conditions, it is .recommended that none of the digestion or lagoon facilities be reused. The
• dewatering equipment consists of a centrifuge, manufactured in 1963, . and a trailer- mounted belt
filter press, which was installed for temporary use in 1995. The belt filter press could be
5
S: \water resources & conservation \Wastewater \9012 \city counciWay 3, 2004Tiinal eir addendum agenda bill draft.doc
relocated to a new facility for continued use. However, the centrifuge is near the end of its
useable life.
2.1.1:5 Summary of Hopper Street' Facilities
A summary of the condition of the Hopper Street facilities and recommendations of potential
future use are listed in Table 1. Most facilities at Hopper Street site -are not suitable for any long-
term treatment alternative. New facilities would have to be constructed. For many of the facilities
it is not feasible to rehabilitate, for others the costs of rehabilitating the existing facilities would
likely exceed the costs of constructing, new more reliable facilities. Continued use of 'the existing
aged facilities increases risk of failure, increases risk of permit violations and increases costs for
operations and maintenance to upkeep and repair the crumbling infrastructure. The , existing
administration and maintenance building, blower building, secondary clarifier, old outfall 2 and
belt filter press all may be reusable. Continued use of the existing facility will not achieve the
City's goal of providing long-
2.1.2 4400 Lakeville Highway
The -facilities at 4400 Lakeville Highway consist of an aerated lagoon, oxidation ponds and
.disinfection facilities, all built in approximately 1972. In 1999, the City upgraded the
disinfection facilities by converting from a gaseous chlorine disinfection system to a liquid .
disinfection system using sodium hypochlorite and sodium bisulfite.
2.1.2.1 Oxidation Ponds W
Wastewater from the PIPS at.Hopper Street is pumped through - a 14,100 -foot, 364rich diameter
forcemain to an aerated lagoon and Pond 1.. Approximately 60 percent of the flow goes directly
to the aerated lagoon, while the other40.percent goes to Pond 1. The aerated lagoon is
approximately 3 acres and is 16 ft deep. Aeration is provided by three vertical 15 horsepower
,(Hp)` surface aerators. The first oxidation pond (Pond 1) also has surface aeration provided by
four 15 Hp vertical aerators and three 10 Hp horizontal aerators. Pond 1 is approximately 1.0
acres and 8 ft deep. The remaining ponds 2 through 10 provide further treatment and storage.
Each pond is approximately 15 acres and the depths vary from .5 to 11 ft. Approximately 1,300
acre-ft of volume is provided in Ponds 2 though 10. The full depth of the ponds cannot be used
for active storage due to the location of the water transfer structures. The usable volume provided
in the ponds provides. storage from April through October when no discharge to the Petaluma
River is allowed. The storage is also used to balance the needs of'the water recycling program
during the- summer.months.
2.1.2.2 Disinfection Facilities
The original disinfection facilities were constructed. in 1972 and consist of a chlorine contact
basin and gaseous chlorine and gaseous sulfur dioxide :facilities: In 2000 the City completed the
project to convert from a gaseous disinfection/dechlorination 'system to a liquid system. This
•
0
SAwater resources &-conservation \Wastewater \9012 \city counciWay 3, 2004\final`eir addendum agenda bill draft.doc
project improved worker and,public safety. The chlorine contact basin has a volume of 0.36 MG
andwill provide a contact time of 90 minutes at, 8 mgd.
U
7
SAwater resources & conservation \Wastewater \9012\city councilWay 3, 2004Vnal eir addendum agenda bill draft.doc.
Table 1
Summary of Hopper Street Treatment Facilities
Petaluma, California
Facility
Date
Assessment
( Reason
Constructed
Headworks
1966
Unusable
Structural, cracks; grit facilities sized for 4
m d — inadequate capacity.
Primary Clarifier
1966
Unusable
Structural cracks; unreliable for continued
lon - term,use.
Primary Digester
1950
Unusable
Inadequate capacity does not meet
structural/seismic codes.
Secondary Digester
1937
Unusable
Extensive structural damage; does not meet
structural/seismic codes; unheated.
Centrifuge
1 1963
Unusable
Inadequate capacity.
Belt Filter Press
1995
Useable
Primary Sedimentation
1937
Unusable
Inadequate capacity; does not meet
Tank 2
structural/seismic codes.
Primary Trickling Filters
1937
Unusable
Inadequate capacity; does not meet
and Final Trickling Filter
structural/seisn& codes; poor ventilation;
deteriorating underdrains; media not
optimum size; source of odors with not
p rovisions for odor control.
Final Sedimentation Tank
1953
Unusable
Inadequate capacity; does not meet
structural/seismic codes.
Aeration Basins (2)
1966
Unusable
Inadequate capacity; structural cracks;
unreliable for lo_ n -term use.
Blower Building
1966
Usable.
Blowers
1966
Unusable
End of useful life.; inadequate capacity;
recent attempts at repair have not been
successful.
Final Clarifier
1966
'Usable
Secondary Sludge
1966
Unusable
End of useful life.
Structure
Aerobic Digester and
1966
Unusable.
Inadequate capacity; no odor control.
La oons 2
Pond,Influent Pump
1972
Usable
Upgrade completed in 2001 will provide
Station
another 30 -50 year of operation.
Electrical System
1937 -1966
Unusable
No capacityfor additional loads;without
upgrades; does not meet electrical codes.
2.2 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
Regulatory requirements for Petaluma's wastewater treatment facility are based on federal, state
and local regulatory agencies and regulations. Regulations apply to water discharge, water reuse,
biosolids reuse or disposal, air quality, and land use.
•
SAwater resources &conservation \Wastewa ter \9012 \city councilWay 3, 2004\fmal eir addendum agenda bill draft.doc
i
=i
2.2.1 Water Quality Requirements
Water quality requirements are set nationally by the Clean Water Act. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to 'regulate discharges to the waters of the United
States under the Clean Water Act: EPA also grants authority to state agencies for regulation and
'enforcement of water quality standards. In California, the authority to regulate discharges falls
with the State Water Resources Control Board, which authorizes Regional. Water Quality Control
Boards (RWQCBs) to issue.National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), permits.
2.2.1.1 Existing NPDES Requirements
The City's existing, NPDES permit (No. CA 00378 10) was 'adopted on July 15, 1998 by the San
Francisco .Bay Regional Water QualityControl Board. Specif c provisions of this permit include:
The average dry weather flow shall .not exceed 5.2 mgd The average dry weather
flow is determined over three consecutive dry'weather.months each year.
Discharge to the Petaluma River is prohibited from May 1 through October 20.
To meet the discharge prohibition, the City must store and recycle all its effluent during the.
summer. Petaluma provides secondary recycled water for irrigation of 800 acres of agricultural
lands and 60 acres at the Adobe .Golf Course: During the summer iof 2004, the City will begin
irrigating 126 acres atRooster.R'un Golf Course.
The.. NPDES permit limits the' City to anaverage dry weather, flow, of 5:2 mgd. To accommodate
build-:out of the General Plan, the new Water Recycling Facility will require an average dry
weather flow capacity of 6.7' mgd. The City will have to apply to the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board for anew permit to increase the capacity to an average dry weather flow
of 6.7 mgd. Discussions with the Regional Board have begun.
2.3 WHY DO WE NEED: A NEW WATER RECYCLING' FACILITY?
Now that we've covered how wastewater is treated in: Petaluma and the regulatory authority
under which this treatment takes place, let's talk about why the existing wastewater treatment
facility needs to be replaced.
2.3.1 The Existing Facility is Operating Near Its Permitted Discharge Capacity
The permitted ,discharge capacity for Petaluma's wastewater treatment facility is an average dry
weather flow of 5.2 mgd. The average .dry weather flow is the average daily amount of
wastewater that is treated by the wastewater treatment facility during the dry weather months of
the summer. 4n 1-985, the average dry weather flow was 4.00 mgd. This was the first time flows
exceeded 75% of the permitted discharge capacity. In response, the Regional Water Quality
Control Board 'issued Order No. 90 -153, which included a time schedule for upgrading the
wastewater treatment facility.. The average dry weather flow in 2000 was 4.755 mgd. At current
flowrates, it is estimated that the existing facility will reach the permitted discharge capacity of
0
SAwatei Tesources & conservation\ wastewater \9012 \city counciWay 3, 2004 \final eir addendum agenda bill,draft:doc
5.2 mgd in 2007 or thereafter. To treat wastewater flows in excess of the permitted ,discharge
capacity at the existing wastewater treatment facility would. constitute a violation of the City's
NPDES permit. If this occurs, the Cit y could, be subject to fines and other _actions by the
California Regional Water Quality'Control Board..
An alternative to replacing the existing p g g wastewater treatment facility is to, increase its capacity.
This option was: evaluated in the Water Recycling Facility Project Report (Carollo: Engineers,
November 2000). 'and ifithelEIR as Alternative 4 — Hopper Street. This alternative was not
selected primarily due to its relatively higher cost.
2.3.2 The Existing Facility is Near the End' of Its Useful Life
Equipment has generally reached the end of'its useful life when it becomes more cost effective 'to
replace it than .repair it. This is the case with the, existing wastewatertreaiment facility. Table 1
provides a component -by- component review of the, equipment at the existing wastewater
treatment facility. Even if the City were to undertake the repairs, described in Table 1, the.
facilities; would not "provide another 50 plus ,years of reliable service. due to their current
condition. Facilities not at'the end of their useful life include the Pond Influent Pump Station
and the:Blower Building. "
2.33 The Existing Facility Is Costly To Maintain
It is often said the existing wastewater treatment facility is held together with "band aids and
bailing wl .
re:" This statement is more �a reflection of the difficulty of keeping an aged facility
operating than a reflection of Ihe actual repairs implemented to maintain the facility: Due to the
volume of wastewater treated (nearly 2 billion °gallons annually) and. the corrosive environment,
repairs; must be 'substantial and robust. As the existing wastewater treatment facility nears the
end .of 'its,usef it life, the City finds itself in the position of 'having to conduct-more
frequent, and costly repairs in order to continue treating the community`s wastewater, in
.accordance with the NPDES permit.. Table 2 summarizes" some of the recent major maintenance
projects constructed at; the facility.
Water conservation efforts may extend thi's timeframe. The'timeframe will'also be extended if' growth trends are
lower' than prior 'years.
10
SAwater resources & conservation\ Wastewater \9012\city counci]\May 3,3004TinaLeii addendum agenda bill -diaf .doc.
Table 2
Summary of Recent Major MaintenancerRepai'rs at the Wastewater Treatment Facility
Petaluma, California
0
Date
D,escri tion
Cost'
Purpose
1995
Trailer Mounted Belt Filter Press
$239,000
Designed to improve solids
handling.and reduce Ioad on aging
centrifuge. The belt filter press
handles 90% of the solids.
1997
Installation of screen and compactor at
$105,000
Improve treatment capability of
the Pond Influent Pump Station and
treatment plant and oxidation
upgrade epair °of the existing.screen
ponds by removing large materials
'and compactor at the influent
from wastewater.
headworks.
1998
OxidationTond Capacity Increase
$283,000
As wastewater flows increase, more
load is placed on the oxidation
ponds: This project improved the
treatment,capability of the
oxidation ponds.
1999
Influent Pump Station Upgrades
$48,000
To improve; control and reliability
of influent pump station. Included
replacement of electrical panels,
drives and motors.
2000
Trickling Filter Upgrade Project
$138,000
Maintain treatment capability of
trickling_ filters. Replaced three
trickling' filter, distributor arms and
drive mechanisms.
2001
Replacement Plant Influent Pumps
$81,000
Improve reliability and
and Controls, and,Replacement,of
'Performance of Influent rand RAS
Return Activated Sludge Pump
Pumps, Replaced pumps had been
in operation fouover 33 years and
were prone to failure.
2002
Biofilter Plant Primary Clarifier
$44,000
Repair of malfunctioning 1938
Repairs
clarifier. Replaced the drive unit,
drive motor, and reconstructed top
isweeper arm. Replaced electrical
from unit to control panel.
2003
Blower Repairs
$140,000
Rebuild blower
2003`
Sludge Pumps
$50,000
Add sludge pumps; to aerated
lagoons
Since the 950 Hopper Street facility is operating at capacity, more burden is placed on the
oxidation pond&.as flows increase. As the loading to the oxidation ponds increases, additional
projects may be necessary to improve the treatment,capacity of the ponds.
In summary; the existing wastewater treatment facility needs, to be replaced because it is
operating near its permitted discharge capacity, is near the end of its useful life, and is costly to
maintain. The existing facility also produces secondary recycled water, which has limited use.
This water is used to irrigate Golf Courses and approximately 800 acres of agricultural land. The
new Water Recycling Facility will produce tertiary recycled water. This water can be used for
11
SAwater resources & consecvat ion\ Wastewater \901.2 \city. council\Ivtay 3, 2004 \final eir addendum agenda bill draft.doc
irrigation of many more ; areas. than the secondary -recycled water, including non- restricted access
golf course, parks, playgrounds, and schools. •'
2.4 PROJECT HISTORY
Petaluma first. began an effort to improve its wastewater treatment system in 1088, This section
discusses the paths the City has taken since then and how we got to where we. are today. A
histonca'timeline is provided in Table 3
2:4.1 Privatization Part I Application For CPUC' Exemption (1988 - 1992)
The ; impetus for procuring a new wastewater treatment :facility began in 1988 with an evaluation
of the, capital .improvements needed for operation of they existing wastewater 1teatment facility on
Hopper = Street. The evaluation yielded an extensive list. of major repairs including repair and
cleaning, of the anaerobic digesters, repair of the grit collection and removal system, repair of all
clarifiers and .bioflters, and repair to the ponds�and distribution system. In addition to being'
in need of repair, the facility was also in need, of expansion since average 'dry weather - flows had
exceeded 75 .percent of the 5.2 -mgd average dry, weather design (and permitted) capacity. The
City, determined that.additional investment: in the treatment.plant would not be cost - effective and,
therefore, decided to `implement the minimum, repairs necessary to the existing treatment ,facility
(cleaning and rehabilitation of the digesters) and begin pursuing a long-term strategy . 'to meeting
the community's wastewater treatment needs.
2.4.1.1 Proposal for A New Wastewater`Treatment Facility
In October '1988, the City's contract operator .:Envirotech Operating Services (E S) submitted a
.proposal to design, 'build own, and operate a new wastewater treatment facility to ;replace the
existing facility. The proposal included conducting preliminary treatment at the > existing WWTP
site, with, construction of a new 10.0 -mgd secondary wastewater treatment facility (oxidation
ditch followed by secondary clarification) at the oxidation pond. site. ' The secondary treated
effluent would be discharged into the aerated lagoon, flow through the oxidation pond system
and then would finally be 'disinfected in 'the chlorine contact tank prior to being used for
reclamation or being dechloriiiated and discharged -into `the.Petaluma River. The proposal did not;
include tertiary treatment and thus would. not :have produced Tertiary Recycled water. EOS
estimated the capital cost of its project'at $18M.
6;
12
S: \water resources & conservation \Wastewater \9012\city cduncil\May 3, 2004Tfinal,eir addendum agenda bill draft.doc
h
•
•
•
Table 3
Proj'eet`Timeline
Petaluma, California
• City review of existing :facility to replace existing facility
1988
(4n early memorandum to the CiiyCouncil'slated that if the proposed schedule'
be maintained, a new plant would be on -line by 1992)
• EOS proposal to design, build, own.and operate new facility
October 1988
• City Council adoption Resolution No authorized execution of a
April 29, 1991
Memorandum of Understanding with,EOS
• EOS submittal of application CPUC regulation of
July 31, 1999
proposed privately owned wastewater treatment, facility
• CPUC denial of application seeking exemption from CPUC regulation
October 21, 1991
• City and EOS rescind MOU
February 1992
• City Council adoption of,Resolution:No. 92 -247, which approved theRequest
September 1992
For Statements of Qualification for'provision ofa turnkey design, construction;,arid
contract operations of new wastewater treatment facility
June 20, 1994
• City Council adoption of.Resolution No. 94 -156, which directed that,the service
agreement approach (privatization) be utilized for procurement.of'a new wastewater
treatment facility
June 17, 1996
• City Council certification of ;EIR, approval of project and authorization to issue
the Request For Proposals for the-d"esign, construction, financing, ownership, and
operation of a wastewater treatmentfacility
January 1997
• City receives proposals from -N. W and EOS (US Filter)
January 1
• City Council adopts Resolution 98 -1 I,selecting MUW for contract negotiations
September 1998
• City Council authorizespreparation of master plan to identify public alternative
for comparison to privately owned facility
September 21, 1999
• City Council authonzes•Resolution.No. 99 -188, which terminates the
privatization process and establishes, City ownership of the new wastewater
treatment facility
• City Council adopts Resolution,No: 00 -66, authorizing the City Manager to
Aril 3 2000
P
execute a professional services agreement °with Carollo Engineers for. Phase I —
Project. -Report
• City Council adopts. Resolution. No. 00 -214 approving the Water Recycling.
December 11, 2000
Facility Project.Report and selection of the preferred alternative for the new Water
Recycling Facility
• City Council adopts Resolution No. 00 7215 authorizing City Manager to execute
December 11, 2000
a professional services:ag eenient with Engineers for Phase 2 — Project
Development
• City Council ,, adopts;Resolution_No. 02 -012 approving design parameters for the
January 7, 2002
preferred alterrrative;for. the water recycling facility.
• Public Hearings on Draft EIR
May 13, 20, 2002
•• Certifred.Final'EIR
August 5, 2002
• Completed 50 %Design Review
November 2002
• Completed'Value Engineering Study
December 2002
_
• Completed'Parce I I A Feasibility Study
July 2003
13
SAwater resources &,conservation\ Wastewater \90.12 \city,council\May 3, 2004\final eir addendum agenda bill,drakdoc
• City Council adopts solution 2003-196` authorizing the. City,manager to
Aug4st 18, 2003
execute int or engmeenng service anamendmeriffo the professional services agreement wo Carollo
En fi s in support of locating the new treatment plant at
4100Lakeville Highway
• City Council authorized, acquisition of Lakeville. Highway.for construction September 8, 2003
of the Water Rec Fatility4and development-of the Petaluma. Marsh
Acquisition, Enhancement andAccessTroject through Ordinance No. 2161.
• City° Council considers thev.resolufion approving the, Waieu.Recyclifig Facility ity and May 17,2004
Rivef-Access Improverrients"EIRAddendurn.
In res onse-to the propos -
_p 41, the Council questioned - whether the City's wastewater treatment
needs could be met by modifying the existing treatment 'facility. This, led to. preparation of
FacilitieslReview (EOS;-,.N the
_ovember 1989).. T he Facilities Review concluded, that modif
existing. treatment facilijy'was not cost effi6&ive.
The Review recommended that the: existing treatment facility be abandoned,, with the exception
of the Pond Influent Pump Station,.,and that a.new, treatment 'facility be constructed- at
the oxidation pond site usiogIlie system.
2.4-1,2 Memorandum of Understanding
The Facilities, Review, was followed, up by a City report in April 1990, which concluded , t
_hatby
proceeding with - a design,, build operate, and private ownershi p a pproach ; "the, Citk can' be
reassured that the facility, will be constructed in a timely fashion and At a" .cost affordable to the
City's rate payers." The report recommended that the C ity enter into M
a emorandum 'Of
, �
Understanding (MOU ); with EOS for the desi constru operati"
gn,, on, and ownership
(20
years.) of new wastewater treatment facility
to be located at the oxidati6npond site. On Apri
29, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-107 which aut
the I City Council . . , 0 execution of an
MOU with EOS for provision of a new wastewater treatment facility.
2.4.4.3 Califomia.Public Utility Commission
The California Public Utilities .Commission, (CPUC) regulates privately owned wastewater
treatment fa6lities, in California. On Jul 31, 1991, EOS' submitted an application to the
.California Public Utilities Commission (CPUQ seeking an exemption from CPUC regulation
under the California Local Government Privatization. Act of 1985 On October 21, 1991,
AdininisfratiVe,taw' Judge Ramsey ordered that "the is denied without prejudice to
refling after amendment-.." In renderin his ordez the judge concluded that the MOU, which
formed the basis of the application, did not meet the requirements of the Public Utilities Code
with respect to
0 Granting rate setting authority to the City;
Approval over any changes in ownership of the Company;
0 ; Imposition of finesAnd penalties on the C ompany . for noncompliance;
14
•
•
•
SAwater resources & conserv4tion\Wastewater\9012\city counciWay 3, 2004\final,eir addendum agenda biffdr&doc
► Authority to ensure the facility is adequately maintained; and
• ► Opportunity to amend the agreement in the event of unforeseen circumstances or
PP Y to
contingencies.
In rendering his decision, the judge noted that:
"...the legislation pursuant to which an application for exemption (privatization) is
undertaken is not a model of clarity, and unfortunately affords little guidance to the
parties responsible for moving the project through the procedures which hopefully will
end with a finding of` exemption from regulation by the Commission. The statutory
provisions are, in certain.instances, internally inconsistent orrmutually exclusive, with the
result that those involved in. the process find themselves faced with an apparent "Catch -
22" situation."
In February 1992, EOS and the City mutually agreed to rescind the MOU.
2.4.2 Privatization Part II —Selection and Negotiation (1992 -1999)
In an effort to educate and encourage the community's participation in. the decision- making
process, the City sponsored a series of eight public workshops. The workshops were conducted
beginning in 1992 at the Community Center and were lead by Dr. George Tchobanoglous of the
University of California, Davis. Dr. Tchobanoglous has served as a consultant to the City on
several wastewater related issues and is a leading expert in the field of wastewater treatment.
Each - workshop focused on a specific set of topics, including:
► Workshops 1 and 2 -- Introduction and Background '
► Workshops 3 and 4 -- Technology /Capacity
► Workshop 5 -- Financingt and Rates
► Workshops 6 and 7 - Review and Conclusions
► Workshop 8 - Privatization
The first six workshops were open to all interested persons. However, in recognition of the level
of knowledge and groundwork established by the first six workshops, the final two workshops
were limited to participants who had attended at least four of the previous six workshops and
paid for wastewater treatment services in the City (ratepayers).
2.4.2.1 Planning Criteria
The workshops resulted in the creation of wastewater facility planning criteria and the selection
• of a flow treatment schematic. These planning criteria were adopted by the City Council under
15
SAwater resources & conservation \Wastewater \9012 \city council\May 3, 2004\final eir addendum agenda bill draft.doc
Resolution No. 92 -215. Item VII of the criteria states,.. "Prepare request for statement of
qualifications to select limited number of vendors /contractors to respond to request for detailed
proposals, including costs, from which one will be chosen for a negotiated contract for design,
construction, and operation and any combination of public /private financing and/or ownership."
Another result of the workshops was the creation, under Resolution No. 92 -219; of.a Citizens'
Committee to help draft and review requests for Statements of Qualifications (SOQ) and
Requests for Proposals (RFP) for -the wastewater treatment facility. This committee later became
the Citizens' Wastewater Advisory Committee (CWAC)
2.4.2.2 Vendor Short-List
The.first step towards procurement of proposals for the project was the issuance of a Request for
Statement of Qualifications. In September 1992, the City Council adopted. Resolution No. 92-
247, approving the Request for Statements of Qualifications for the provision of a "turnkey"
design, construction, and contract operations of a new wastewater treatment facility. Proposals
that included financing and/or private ownership options were also welcomed,
The Request for Statements of Qualifications (RSOQ) was issued to over 80 engineering design
firms, construction companies, operations and maintenance companies, and interested persons.
In response, the City received SOQs from nine vendor teams. The City and CWACevaluated the
SOQs, and the following five vendor teams were short- listed:
/ James M. Montgomery Operations. Services, Inc. (later Montgomery United Water)
1 Petaluma Clean Consortium
/ Petaluma Community Wastewater Service Company
Professional Services Group, Inc.
Wheelabrator Clean Water Systems, Inc. (later Veolia Water/US Filter /EOS)
2.4.2.3 Initiation of the Environmental Impact Review Process
The City initiated preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)'for the new wastewater
treatment facility in December 1992. At this time, only the siting of the project was certain. The
type of treatment to be used was unknown (and would remain unknown until the proposals were
received in January 1997). In July and August 1993, . the City sponsored two public
environmental scoping workshops. The objective of the workshops was to present and receive
input/comments on the results of a constraints /opportunities analysis conducted on the proposed
wastewater treatment facility, and the definition of the proposed project and project alternatives.
The Draft EIR was completed in December 1994 and submitted to the Planning Commission.
Subsequent to conducting public hearings, the Planning Commission directed that additional
information and.new alternatives be evaluated prior to forwarding the EIR to the City Council. ,
16
SAwater resources & conservation \Wastewater \9012 \city council\May 3, 2004\final eir addendum: agenda bill draft.doc
• 2.4.2.4 Decision To Pursue Privatization
In 1994, the City commissioned Ernst and Young to assess and compare the relative implications
of three options being considered by the City for procurement of a new wastewater treatment
facility:
1) Traditional Approach. City financing and ownership,. with City contracting with
separate firms for the design, construction management, and operation of the
proposed new wastewater treatment facility. Construction contract would be publicly
bid.
2) Facility Agreement Approach. City contract out design, construction management,
and operations to a single consortium from among the five short- listed vendors.
Construction contract would be publicly bid.
3) Service Agreement Approach. Design, construction, operations, ownership, and
possibly financing by a private consortium from among the five short- listed vendors.
Ernst & Young's report, dated May 19, 1994, was "intended to obtain information relative to the
financial and nonfinancial factors evaluated by other municipalities in deciding between public or
private construction and ownership /financing." However, as indicated in the report, "The
is information received was, as expected, relatively limited, but sufficient for the purposes of this .
comparative analysis. Most municipalities did not perform extensive analysis of the costs and
benefits of service delivery alternatives."
The information compiled for the report led to a projection that the Service Agreement Approach
could provide construction cost savings of 15 percent when compared to the. Traditional
Approach. However, this estimate was not based on actual and documented construction costs
savings. Rather, as stated in the report, "The estimate for private construction incorporates a 15%
reduction in construction costs based on industry experience with private construction managers.
Information on construction ,cost savings is very limited." In, the absence of applicable
construction cost savings, the report utilized operations cost savings to approximate construction
cost savings for the Service Agreement .Approach. The report states "Given the savings
experienced with private operation of wastewater treatment plants of 20 %o to 40% ... a 15%
savings would appear to be an appropriate estimate for construction savings. ".
On June 20, 1994, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 94 -156, which directed that the
"service agreement approach" be utilized for procurement of a new wastewater treatment facility.
The City Council also adopted. Resolution. No. 94 -157, which established the methodology for
evaluating proposals for the wastewater treatment facility project.
11
17
SAwater resources &conservation \Wastewater \9012 \citycouncil\May 3, 2004Tnal eir addendum agenda bill draft.doc
2.4.2.5 EIR Completion and Issuance of the.RFP
In response to Planning Commission direction on the Draft EIR, and in an effort to address issues
raised during review of the Draft EIR and additional alternatives for the project as described in
the Project Report, the Revised Draft EIR was prepared and completed in August 1995 (Brown
and Caldwell, Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. August 1995). On November 27, 1995, the City
Council held a study session during-which the findings of the Revised Draft EIR were discussed
and the findings of the Project Report were presented. The Final EIR and Response To
Comments were completed in December 1995. Additional public hearings were held on
February 12 and March 25, 1996. The public hearing was officially closed on March 25, 1996.
However, because of citizen interest, the City Council authorized follow -up public meetings on
April 17 and May 8,.. 1996.
On June 17, 1996 the City Council certified the Final EIR documents under Resolution No. 96-
1.63. The. Council also adopted Resolution No. 96 -1.64, which approved the Project, and
Resolution No. 96 -165, which approved and authorized issuance of the RFP. The RFP was
issued to five preselected teams on July 17, 1996.
2.4.2.6 Contract Negotiations With MUW
•
In response'to the RFP, the City received proposals from Montgomery United' Water (MUW) and
Wheelabrator EOS (later became Veolia Water/ JS Filter /EOS) in January 1997. The City- •
Council initiated consideration of the proposals with a series of public meetings in September
1997. The °proposals were again considered by the Council at a. Study Session on December 8,
1 and at a. regular Council meeting on December 15, 1997. On January 5, 1998, the City
Council ,adopted.Resolution No.. 98 -11, which selected Montgomery United Water for contract
negotiations for the-wastewater treatment facilities project. Negotiations commenced on January
27, 1.998.
Negotiations with MUW proceeded from January through September 1998. Agreement
negotiations involved many revisions and discussions on contract language and. requirements.
Numerous discussions centered on issues such as the definition of Force Majeure, inflation
adjustments to components of service 'fee, City review and approval of design, prohibition of
service to third parties at Project Site, service fee I payments during periods of non - performance,
proper and continued maintenance of the new wastewater treatment facility and equipment,
indemnification, tax, ownership, fair ,market value of the facility after ,30 years, and dispute
resolution. Negotiations on technical issues proceeded simultaneously. Key technical issues
included:
Odor Control. MUW assumed the City would add ferric chloride into the raw wastewater
at the Pond Influent Pump Station to control odors. There was concern that this plan
placed, responsibility for odor control with the City and would. not be 'effective in
controlling odors at the new wastewater treatment facility.
18
SAwater resources & conservation \Wastewater \9012 \city council\Ivtay 3, 2004\final eir addendum agenda bill draft.doc
Storage. MUW's need to use Pond 2-for treatment and Ponds 1 and 4 for wet weather
• equalization eliminates storage needed to support'the City's "water recycling
Treatment of 'Pond Effluent. MUW's proposal included discharging disinfected effluent
from the new wastewater treatment facility into Pond 3. From Pond 3, the treated effluent
would travel through the oxidation pond system to either the Main Pump Station
(recycling) or the Petaluma. River outfall. No facilities for treating oxidation pond
effluent were included: The. City was concerned that,oxidation pond effluent would not
be suitable for reuse or discharge.
The privatization effort had not included development of a publicly owned wastewater treatment
facility to serve as a bench "mark .for comparison with MUW's proposed privately owned facility.
The.Local Government Privatization. Act of 1,985 .requires' this° comparison. In recognition of the
need for the development of a publicly owned alternative, °the City Council, with the
recommendation of the City Manager, .approved preparation of a master plan for the new
wastewater treatment facility-on September 21, 1998. Negotiations with MUW were temporarily
suspended pending completion of the master plan. In spring 1999, with the master plan nearly
complete, MUW and the City negotiations on the, privatization agreement and technical
issues.
The objectives of the master- plan, were: 1) To identify a City owned. facility that will meet the
City's treatment goals, and needs, and 2) To identify a City owned facility that could
serve , as a benchmark, publicly owned facilify for comparison with the proposed privately owned
facility. Brown and Caldwell presented the Wastewater Treatment. Facility Master Plan to the
City Council on June 7, 1999.
The Master Plan's recommended project,included:
• Mechanically cleaned bar screens
• Advanced facultative ponds (similar to the City of St. Helena, CA)
• Oxidation ponds
• Treatment wetlands
• Effluent filtration
• Disinfection (uv or hypochlorite)
The Advanced Facultative Ponds would ,provide primary treatment and were to be located on the
parcel west of the oxidation ponds. Total project costs for the year .2002 were estimated at
$51M.
2.4.2.7 Decision To Terminate Privatization Process
The City Council considered the master plan's recommended project on June 7, 1999, and the
privatization project ,on ,June 14, 1999. On July 19, 1999, the City Council considered the
following alternatives:
I
SAwater resources & +conservation\ Wastewater \9012 \citycouncil\May3, 2004\final eir addendum agenda bill t;doc
D Alternative! l — Continue and .Complete Negotiations with Montgomery United Water for
a Privately Owned Wastewater Treatment Facility ,
D Alternative 2 Develop Publicly Owned Wastewater' Treatment Facility
Alternative 3 Other Alternatives As Further Developed Pursuantto Policy Deliberations
by the City Council
Under Alternative 1, the City would have continued pursuing a privately owned wastewater-
treatment facility with (MUW). This alternative would have required .MUW to submit a revised
proposal (MUW estimated this would cost them approximately $200,000). In addition to
reviewing :MUW's 'revised proposal the City would have needed to resolve outstanding
agreement term sand, technical issues. Next, the ,City would have prepared ari environmental
review of the final project and conducted a detailed comparison of private and public wastewater
treatment facility projects. If'it was determined that the zosts of the private project- would :be less
than or equal to the public project, the "City and MUW would have submitted an;application with
the California' Public Utilities;Commission (CPUC) requesting exemption from.CPUC;regulation
of the privately owned facility. .'If exemption was granted, and all the remaining conditions
precedent to `the agreement were completed, MUW would' have begun design/construction of the
facility. The exact timetable for this.process was undetermined.
On July, .19, 1`999,, the City'Council determined °that thenEity would no longer; pursue development.
of a privately owned, wastewater treatment - facility and 'thaf the new facilty��would be publicly
owned.' The City Council formalized this action with adoption on September 21, 199:9,, of
Resolution No. 99 -188, which terminated; the privatization process and established. City
ownership of new wastewater treatment facility. Reasons cited for this determination included.,
among others:
D Risk of Chang e:Required Over.30 =Year Contract. Term. Changes in. the City's :needs.
and State and federal requirements may occur during the 30 -year life of the contract.
The City is at a disadvantage by being able to negotiate with only, one party for
changes in the-facility's capacity.
Requirement of Fair Market Value Purchase. In order for MUW to retain tax
ownership, the City's option to purchase the facility at the end of the contract term
would have to be at I .fair: market value. 'The. price .of the facility, could not be fixed in
the. contract,- but would depend on the value of the facility at the time. of the exercise
of the option, thereby,putting the City and ratepayers at risk of having to pay for part
of the plant twice.
D ,Lack of 'City Approval of Design. `In order for MUW to retain tax ownership Section
4o&l of the agreement limited City's participation in the design process.
20
SAwater resources &'conservation \Wastewater \9012,, \city, council\May3, 2004\final eir addendurn agenda bill dri t.doc
Third Party Services. In:order for MUW to retain tax ownership., Section 5.2.4 would
allow the Company to provide services to others (in addition to the City) at the Project
Site.
/ Inability to Agree On Contract Language. After extensive negotiations between the
City and MUW, specific agreed upon contract language on the above and other
critical issues became more difficult, and complexities continued to grow.
2.4.2.8 Sonoma CoupM Water Agency'Proposal March 1998
The Sonoma County Water Agency submitted a proposal for the City's wastewater treatment
facility in March 1998. SCWA's proposed plant included: ,
• Grit removal
• Extended aeration ponds
• Secondary clarifiers
• Sludge drying beds
• Tertiary filters
• UV Disinfection
SCWA's proposal was similar to ,MUW in many` ways, :including the lack of facilities for
treatment of oxidation pond'.effluent..Both SCWA's and MTW's proposed approaches were not
tenable for Petaluma. SCWA estimated the total .cost of its ,proposal at'$36M. SCWA's proposal
also ; estimated the toial project cost for MUW's proposal at $35.4M.
2.5 PROCUREMENT OF A PUBLICLY OWNED WATER REC YCLING FACILITY
The goal for the City is to develop an economically and ecologically sustainable water recycling
facility to accommodate wastewater generated by the City through build -out, of the adopted 1987
General Plan, treat the:community's wastewater in. accordance with the NPDES permit, and
produce Tertiary Recycled Water for irrigation of par "ks, fields, golf courses and landscaped
areas. This facility is being developed under the following program:
/ Phase.l — Project Report
► Phase 2 —Project Development
► Phase 3 — Construction and Start -up
In .October 1999, the City initiated a process for selection, of a professional engineering firm to
conduct the work for Phase 1 - Project Report. The City Council selected Carollo Engineers for
this work ° on April 3, 2000 (Resolution No. 00 -66).
2.5.1 Phase 1— Project`'Report
The objective for the Project; Report was the selection of a treatment system for the new water
recycling facility and development of a basis for design. In May. 2000 the City and its project
21
SAwater resources.& conservation\ Wastewater \9012 \city counciWay 3, 2004\final eir addendum agenda bill ,draf aloe
team began working on the Project Report. A four -day project team workshop, initiated `this
effort. During, the workshop,- the project team reviewed the Master Plan's recommended project
and identified alternatives for the: water recycling facility.
The project and the alternatives were: discussed with members of the Oakmead/Northbay
Business Association on May 25, '2000, and at a Public Forum, at the Petaluma Community
Center on June 1.4, 2000. The project team then began further developing the alternatives,
including location of the facilities, development of process schematics, preparing process and
treatment calculations, and development of _cost estimates. In August the project team discussed
the project with representatives from the Regional Water Quality Control Board„ the Sonoma
Marin. Mosquito Abatement- District, and the Department, of Fish and Game.The rethodology
for evaluating the alternatives, including sustainability and the ecological, footprint;, was
developed. The project team presented the evaluation methodology to the City Council on
September 5, 2000. With 'the draft Project Report nearly complete, the project team again met
with the Oakmead/Northbay Business Association o November 8, 2000. The project, team_ also
conducted a Public Forum at the Petaluma Community Center on November 8, '2000.
The City Council discussed the Project Rep_ ort on November 20 and December 11, 200:0.
Minutes from these .meetings are provided in Attachment A. 'On December, .1 -J, 2000 the City
'Council adopted Resolution No. 00 -214, which approved the Project Report' and selected
Alternative :5 Extended Aeration as the preferred alternative, Resolution No. 00 -2.14 :further
ident>fied` Option A, Wetlands as the , preferred alternative for algae..removal over Option B —
DAFs
2.5.2, Phase 2 — Project Development
Work on Phase 2,—Project Development began in January 2001. During Phase; 2 the ;conceptual
plan identified in Water Recycling Facility Project ,Report will be translated into very detailed
construction specification and drawings that will bet the basis for construction of the facility, and
a,descrnption of'anticipated changes to the environment from the project and alternatives will be
made. Phase 12 — .Project Development comprises two phases'Predesign and Final. Design. Work
on Phase , 2 — Project Development has focused on the following key areas;"
Predesign
Permits
► CEQA Documentation
►, State Revolving Loan Fund
2.5.2.1 Predesign
Preliminary design includes a focused. engineering review and report on the key processes, This
work is the foundation. for.fnal design. The Draft Predesign Report-; comprising 20 Technical
Memorandums (TMs), has: been prepared. The TMs present a focused evaluation of the key
processes; including secondary treatment . facilities, algae removal facilities, tertiary treatment
facilities (sand filtration and mcrof'ltrationj, disinfection facilities, site improvements,
22
S: \water resources:& conservati6n\ Wastewater \9012 \cit)�66unciiWay 3, 20M einal eiraddendum agenda bill draft.doc
landscaping, electrical power and electrical distribution, instrumentation and control, architecture
•, and facility - aesthetics, and - hydraulic profile. Additional work includes aerial mapping of the
site, control survey, and a geotechnical investigation on construction soils. The Predesign Report
has been completed.
Since the Predesign Report. lays the foundation for final design, City Management determined
that it would be appropriate for the City to conduct a Value Engineering (VE) Study of the
Predesign Report. The Purpose of value engineering is to maximize the value of a project or a
facility by emphasizing cost- effective design. VE studies. of wastewater. treatment facility
projects have traditionally been conducted when design of the facility is approximately 50%
complete. The ability of the VE effort to positively impact a project at this.point is limited. All
of the basic decisions on the project have already been made and are likely not subject to review.
Conducting the VE effort at the predesign level allows the VE Team to conduct a comprehensive
review of the project.
City Management worked with Mr. Gordon Culp to assemble a highly qualified VE Team. The
VE Team members have experience in all aspects of wastewater projects, from planning, design,
construction, start-up. and operations. Their abilities encompass civil engineering, natural
systems, structural engineering, mechanical engineering, environmental engineering, electrical,
controls, and instrumentation. Mr. Culp has 38 years of experience in wastewater engineering
and VE Workshops. With Mr. Culp as the Value Engineering Team Coordinator, other members
of the VE.Team included: Gary,Dodson, P.E., G.S. Dodson & Associates; E. Joe Middlebrooks,
Ph.D., Environmental Engineering Consultant; George M. Wesner, P.E., Ph.D., Consulting
Engineer; George Tchobanoglous, P.E., Ph.D., Consulting Engineer, 'Professor Emeritus at
University of California, Davis; Dave Pedersen, Sage Ltd.; Doug McHaney, P.E., Electrical and
Control Systems Engineering, Inc.
The VE Team conducted its workshop in Walnut Creek, California on October 8 — 12, 2001.
Each member of the VE Team reviewed the draft Predesign ;Report prior to the workshop.
October 8, the first day of the workshop, was dedicated to information gathering. City
Management and Carollo Engineers made a presentation on'the project. During the subsequent
days of the workshop, the VE team identified 11 areas of the project for consideration. The team
then brainstormed ideas for improved value in these 11 areas. The VE team identified 78
potential ideas.. During the evaluation phase, the VE team narrowed the list to 24 ideas for
further investigation. During the remainder of the VE workshop, the VE team conducted a
detailed investigation of the 24 ideas. On October 12, the last day of the VE Workshop, the VE
team presented the results of its analysis to City Management and Carollo Engineers. The Draft
Value- Engineering Report was presented to the City Council by Mr. Culp on November 28,
2001.
Following completion of the VE Workshop, the Project Team carefully reviewed each of the
ideas proposed by the VE .team. The Draft Review of Value Engineering Report ( Carollo
Engineers)' was presented to the City Council on December 17, 2001.
•
23
SAwater resources & conservation \Wastewater \9012 \city councilWay 3, 2004Uinal eir addendum agenda bill drafl.doc
Preparation of the Predesign Report ,and subsequent reviews by the VE Team has resulted in •
some key changes to the project. These include, but are not limited to, a reduction in the size of
the ,algae removal facilities, reduction in the number of secondary clarifiers, a revision of the
RAS/WAS pumping configuration, and a sizing of the recycled water system to meet anticipated
demands for Tertiary Recycled Water through construction of the Water Recycling. Facility.
2.5.2.2 Permits
Table 4 presents a summary of the anticipated permits for the water recycling facility project and
the status of the permit'.
2.5.2.3 CEQA. Documentation
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) mandates that discretionary decisions by
public agencies regarding non - exempt public and private projects are subject to environmental
review. The environmental review is conducted through the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR). The Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements EIR has
been prepared. Public hearings on the Draft were conducted on May 13 and 20,,2002. The
purpose of the EIR is to identify the significant effects of the project on the environment, to
identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects
can be mitigated or avoided.
is
•
24
SAwater resources & conservat ion\ Wastewater \9012\city councilWay 3,'2004Vinal eir addendum agenda bill draft.doe
0
•
r �
U
Table 4
Permits
Petaluma, California
Agency
T" e;of:Permit
Status
San Francisco Bay Regional Water
• National Pollutant Discharge
Submitted Project Report. Met with
Quality Control Board, Oakland, CA
Elimination System (NPDES)
Board Staff,in,February and October
• 401 Certification for'COE 404
2001. Submitted.projectstatus report to
permit
Board ;in October 2001. Submitted
report of waste discharge on March 22,
2002. Met with Regional Board staff on
May 16,,2002. Draft permit is not
.anticipated until up to one year before
facility becomes. operational. Submitted
'Final EIR in July 2002.
.Met withi.watershed.division staff in
A ril,2004, to review COE 404 permit.
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Completed wetlands delineation of
(COE), San Francisco, CA
• Section 404 Individual Permit
'Parcels A and B. Submitted Final EIR
• Section 10 Permit
in July 2002.
Wetland.d'elineation resubmitted in
September 2003, and certified in
February 2004.
Conducted several coordination
meetings with C.O.E. on Individual
permit sin,October and November 2003.
Section.404 Package to be submitted in
May 2004:
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, .
'Section 7 consultation on endangered
Met with F &W in Sacramento on March
Sacramento, :CA
s ecieslabitat
2004 and on- site:in April 2004.
State Water Resources Control Board,
General Activities Stormwater Permit
Will be applied for during design, during
Sacramento, CA
July 2004 Submitted Final EIR in July
2002.
California Department.of Fish and
• Streambed Alteration Agreement
Submitted P,rojecfReport. Met with
Game, Yountville, CA
a Section 2081 Management
DFG in August 2000. Will submit
:Agreement for state listed, endangered
application once project details are
species
finalized, in July 2004. Submitted Final
EIR in July2002. Reviewed updated
ro'ect in.A ri1.2004.
California Department of Transportation,
• Review of any modifications
Met.with CalTrans in October 2001 to
Oakland, CA
adjacent Lakeville Highway.
discuss project. Submitted Final EIR in
a Encroachment Permit
July 2002. Encroachment permit
acka a tobesubmitted in August 2004
San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality
Authority to Construct and Authority to
Will apply for permits during:design and
Management District; San;.Francisco,'CA
Operate +permits.
constructiomphase_s once,size, make and
model of pertinent equipment is
determined. Submitted Final EIR in July
2002. Permit application to be
`submitted in July 2004.
Sonoma County Water Agency Santa
Encroachment.pewnt for work in Ellis
Will during design
Rosa, CA
Creek.
(once.location and nature of
encroachment areidetermined)., in July
2004 Submitted Final EIR in July 2002.
Sonoma County Local, Agency
If land is acquired for the
PendingAecision to acquire additional
Formation Commission
project, ian amendment to +the City's
land for project. Submitted Final EIR in
sphere of influence must be filed with
July 2002.
and approved by LAFCO
Mahii/SonomaMosquito andVec`tor•
I Design and operation of wetlands will
Submitted Project Report. Met with
25
S: \water resources & conservation \Wastewater \901'2 \city councilWay 3, 2004\final eir addendum agenda liill;draft.doc
Control District
requiteinput'and review fro_ m the
District n,September "2001. Subrriitted
District.
Final EIR in July;2002.
Sonoma County; Santa Rosa, CA
• Grading permit
Applied'for duringAesigrikonstruction.
O S 0ossin permit 3836R
Submitted Final July 2002.
Advisory Council on Historic
Section 1!06:Compliance Review
Submitted FinaI,EIR in July 2002. Draft
Preservation
Subn ittal`"to,'City in,A ri1;200,4.
State Lands, Commission
Lease for outfalf maintenance work
Obtain prior to - ,construction, under
-
review may no longer, bere uired.
Ba `Conservaf
for outfall
ntenanc
�� 2002; under
Commission
ma. ma workrmtt
r2V w may o
n lon be re uired.
The EIR evaluated anticipated changes: to the environment. from the project and alternatives with
respect to a range of environmental considerations, including land use, agriculture, geology, .
water quality, public health :and safety, biological resources, traffic and circulation, air resources
;noise, historic and archeological resources, open space 'and visual resources, arid public services
and utilities. The City Council .must certify that the'Finat EIR has been completed, in accordance
with the California,,Environmental Quality Act. The :steps for preparing and certifying the EIR
are asfollows:
•
L Initial, Study and Notice. of Preparation. The Initial Stud 'is a,preliminary analysis
prepared bythe City to determine whether. an EIR must be prepared. The 'Initial Study
for'the Water Recycling Facility Project which was issued on May '1'8 2001,
determined that an EIR' is;required. The Notice of Preparation is:a'brief notice to
responsible,agencies that the Lead Agency (City) plans to prepare. an EIR fora ,, project.
The City issued the Notice of Preparation on'May 18, 2001.
2. Scoping Meetings.. •Scoping is the' process through which the Lead Agency (City)
consults directly with, any person or organization;it believes will be concerned) about the
environmental effects of the project. W-hile;not required by CEQA,�inany agencies
have found the scoping process helps to keep the public informed about the project and
identify issues. The City held two public Scoping,Meetings on the project. In,
preparation for the meetings, the City sent an advertisement flyer to over 1130 interested'
persons and agencies. Notices. Were also posted at City.Hall, the Petaluma.Library. 'The
meetings were also announced at the May, 21, 2001, Petaluma City Council meeting.,
The Press'Democrat also advertised the scoping meetings. The City hosted the Scoping
Meetings on June 5 and 19,,20.01, at the Petaluma Community Center.
3. Scoping Report. The Scoping - Report summarizes the written and oral ;comments.
received on the Initial Study at the Scoping Meetings. The Scoping Report was
completed, in August 2001.
4. Draft EIR. Issued`Draft EIR inApril2002.
5. Public Hearings. Conducted public hearings on the Draft EIR onMay , 13' and 20, 2002.
A public hearing oil: the Final EIR will' be conducted on August 5, 2002.
6. Final EIR. Issued Final EIR.on July 24, 2002.
7. 'EIR Certification. The City Council certified that the Final EIR has been,cornpleted in
compliance with. CEQA on August 5;, 2002.
8. ,Findirigs and:Statement of Overriding Conditions. The State ment Overriding
Considerations explains the City''s reasons, for approving a project, despite the'fact
26 .
S: \water resources,& conserv4tion\ Wastewater \90.12 \city coundhMay 3, 2004\final;eir.addendum agenda draft doc
• it may have significant"unavoidable environmental impacts. Findings describe how
each mitigation measure will be effective at reducing impacts. City Council adopted on
August 5, 2002.
9. Notice of Determination. This is a brief notice filed by the City declaring its approval
of a project that is subject to CEQA. The notice is filed the day after the project is
approved.
10. EIR Addendum. An Addendum to the Water Recycling Facility and River Access
Improvements EIR was prepared to evaluate potential changes. to the environmental
affects of the Project due to the proposed Project revisions. The EIR Addendum
concludes 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. The City
Council is scheduled to consider re- certifying - the Water Recycling Facility and River
Access Improvements EIR as modified by the EIR Addendum on May 17, 2004.
2.5.2.4 State Revolving Loan Fund
The California State Water Resources Control Board manages the State Revolving Fund (SRF)
Loan Fund Program. The SRF provides loan funding for construction of publicly owned
wastewater treatment ,works and water reclamation facilities. The first step in the application
process is to be placed on the State's Project Priority List. The Water Recycling Facility Project
has been on the Priority List for several years. The -next step is to prepare and submit the Project
is Report. The Project Report must address project needs and benefits, evaluation of alternatives,
evaluation -of infiltration/inflow discussion of population projections, summary of public
participation, and a copy of the current NPDES permit. The City submitted the Project Report to
the State Water Resources Control Board on August 10, 2001.
Subsequent to submitting the Project Report, the City met with representatives of the State Water
Resources Control Board in Sacramento, California, on September 13, 2001, to discuss the SRF
loan application process and the Water Recycling Facility Project. In an effort to improve the
program, the State now assigns a project engineer to each project. The project engineer is
responsible for. the project through planning, design °and construction. The interest rate on SRF
loans is set when the initial loan contract is issued, but averages approximately 3 %. The
maximum loan amount is $25M per agency per year. A preliminary loan commitment is
obtained once the State has reviewed and approved the Project Report, Draft Revenue Program,
EIR and Water Conservation Plans 3 . The City is responsible for paying all design. costs. The
State will reimburse the City for these costs after the design is completed and the project
approved by the State. Once the State has approved the Plans and Specifications, the City may
advertise and open bids. Pre- qualification of contractors is acceptable. The Los Angeles County
Sanitation District has successfully used this approach. Advertisement. for bids occurs
simultaneously with the processing and execution of the Loan Contract with the State. The City
2 In prior years, different project engineers were assigned to a project as it moved through the different phases of
planning, design and construction. This created many unnecessary problems.
S 3 The Water Conservation Program is not required since the City is a signatory to the California Urban Water
Conservation Council's "Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California."
27
SAwater resources & conservabon \Wastewater \9012 \city council\May 3, 2004\final eir addendum agenda bill draft.doc
must adopt a resolution designating a person who can authorize the loan documents. The State
may attend -any pre -bid meetings and, pre - construction conferences. The ,first payment on the •
loan is due one year after completion of construction. The State will conduct a final inspection
of the project eight months after construction is completed.
The State sells bonds to fund the SRF`program. The latest round of bonds to finance the-program
were not sold, which has caused the State to temporarily suspend funding new projects. In
January 2004 the City learned that the revolving loan program is on hold for 12 -18 months. Due
to the largest bond issue ($15B) approved by the voters of California in March of 2004, the state
is at a bonding maximum and can't afford to bond for the revolving loan program. Thus, the
Federal matching dollars used to supplement the revolving loan program are no ;longer available.
SRF funding is not guaranteed. The City is preparing to fund the project with revenue bonds, if
necessary.
2.6 HISTORY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS
Envirotech Operating Services submitted the first proposed project for the new wastewater
treatment facility in 1988. The oxidation ditch facility proposed included continued use of the,
existing aeration. basins and secondary clarifier at the Hopper Street facility, with construction. of
oxidation ditches, secondary clarifiers at the Lakeville Highway site. Tertiary treatment, facilities
were not included. Since that time, project proposals included Montgomery United. Water's
privatization proposal (January 1997), the Sonoma County Water Agency's proposal (March
1998), the :Master. Plan prepared by Brown & Caldwell (May 1999), Sonoma County Water
Agency's second proposal (April 2001), and the Water Recycling Facility described in Water
Recycling Facility Predesign. Report (Carollo Engineers February 2002). Table 5 summarizes
these proposals with respect to the following items:
Odor Control. Includes facilities to contain and treat odors generated by the wastewater
treatment facility.
Tertiary Treatment. Use of filters to remove fine suspended particles that' remain in the
secondary effluent.
Grit. Removal. Removal of grit, sand, gravel, cinders and other heavy solid materials in
the influent wastewater to protect moving mechanical equipment in the plant from
.abrasion and abnormal wear and to reduce formation of heavy deposits in pipelines,
channels, conduits and storage /treatment ponds.
Oxidation Pond Storage. Needed to support the City's water recycling program and
comply with NPDES permit, which prohibits discharge. of, treated effluent into the
Petaluma River from May 1 'through October 20.
Upgrade Transfer Structures. Includes construction of ..structures that transfer effluent
between the oxidation ponds.. Existing structures limit the amount of usable storage
volume in the oxidation ponds.
28
•
0
S`.\water resources & conservation \Wastewater \9012 \city counciWay 3, 2004Tnal eir addendum agenda bill,draft.doc
Algae Removal. Storage of effluent in the oxidation ponds is conducive to algae growth.
Removal of algae from ; the secondary' effluent is necessary to prevent the tertiary filters
,from plugging and fouling.
Ammonia Removal. Removal of ammonia is needed to control the toxicity of the
effluent.
Solids Handling & Treatment. Thee 100 — 150 dry tons /month of biosolids grown from
food contained in the influent wastewater must be removed and treated prior to landfill
disposal or beneficial reuse. Facilities typically included digesters and dewatering units
(belt filter presses, centrifuges, or screw presses).
Class B Biosolids. Allows biosolids to be beneficially reused.
Tertiary Recycled .Water. Production of tertiary, recycled water in compliance with Title
22 requirements will allow the City'to expand its water - recycling program.
Recycled Water Storage. Allows tertiary facilities to operate at a steady rate, which
improves operation and reduces wear and tear. Storage also allows the City to conduct
_maintenance on the facility without disrupting recycled water service and meet customer
demand throughout the dry season.
Meet Anticipated Discharge Limits'. It is anticipated that the permit discharge P g p _ p hmrts for
the new Water Recycling Facility will'be more stringent than the current requirements.
As shown on Table 5, the only project that includes all of the critical elements described above is
the Water Recycling Facility Project.
•
29
S:\waterresources & conservation\ Wastewater \9012 \citycouncil\[vtay 3, 2004\final eir addendum agenda bill draft.doc
h.
cl:
ct ; C9
10
O
it
O
CC
•
•
•
vj
V)
w
Ln
rA
En
U)
>1
>1
>)
>)
>1
>1
>1
00
r—
u
rn
u
U,
u
0
0,
C�
0
tr)
M
' 00
-cn'
.
a
0
O
C
0
,
>'
f
C-A
r
w
0
(n
lu
rA
u
o
0
=
o
r.
LV
en
>1
>1
Z
GC
co
cc
In !
o
o
10
w
u
0
cu
o
.0
o
o
s - p
rq
m
to
ci
cd
Q)
> ccs
o
00
V L)
06
".0
o
U
0
rn
cn
9
00 1
o
C)
U
14
(LI
ol
0
o r.;
O.
0
0
0
V �
06
r-
z
r.
z
--
>'
>1
r.
ch r. 0 4.
O
JA
Cd
to Co
e. u
Cd
r.
ca a; o
4) cd bb tn
Cd,
"10
Co'
r-
r- 4' c �E o
pOp
co
v,
4),
cd
to
co
M O°
0 . 1� E U
W ,
r
0
C) U U ,
0 2 ' 0
0
rus
1-1�
d
Ln
"n
u
Z
cd P.
0 0
(U E. 0 ; *0 co
+1
cqs
+' to u
0
O �
cds
0
tis
wo"
0
al
rL
0 o o
p
�o
-
..0
cd Ch
cd
0
W
I C A O
7co
' M
79
c d
ulw
U
Ei
0
U5
u
tn
•
•
•
3.0 ALTERNATIVES
This section addresses alternatives for the Water Recycling Facility and alternative actions that
may be taken by the City Council.
3.1 PREFERRED PROJECT AND PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
As noted in the Final EIR Addendum; the City proposes to demolish the existing facilities at
Hopper Street and construct new treatment facilities, capable of producing tertiary treated
recycled water, at 4100 Lakeville Highway, northwest, to the City's existing oxidation pond site.
The treatment process for the preferred project uses oxidation ditches and oxidation ponds.
Because algae are generated in the oxidation pond, the system also includes algae removal, which
is necessary to meet discharge 'and reuse requirements. Algae removal is provided by a wetlands
treatment system within the existing oxidation pond site. In addition, up to 43 acres will be
developed into polishing wetlands. These wetlands will treat- disinfected secondary effluent and
will be open for public access and education. The polishing wetlands will provide further
reduction of metals, nutrients and organics. The effluent from the polishing wetlands will be
returned to the plant site for reuse or discharge.
Also, the project includes a set of improvements titled River Access Improvements that will
provide public recreational and educational amenities on Parcels A and B. These improvements
have been formulated at a conceptual level and environmental review is also at a conceptual
level. - '
• In addition to the preferred Project, the City considered four other treatment alternatives, whose
impacts were evaluated in the Final EIR. Some of these alternatives utilize property to the
southeast designated Parcel C. The Alternatives are:
• Alternative 1 — Advanced Facultative Ponds: advanced facultative ponds => oxidations ponds
wetlands (or DAFs)
• Alternative 2 — Aerated Lagoons: aerated lagoons =:> oxidation ponds ==> wetlands (or DAFs)
• Alternative 3 — Primary Clarifiers/Ponds: primary clarifiers (with digesters and cogeneration)
=> oxidation ponds => wetlands (or DAFs)
• Alternative 4 — Hopper Street: primary clarifiers (with digesters and cogeneration) and
activated .sludge at Hopper street => oxidation ponds at Lakeville Highway => wetlands (or
DAFS) at Lakeville Highway
In addition, the City evaluated three design issues associated with the project and each of the
alternatives. These are: Algae Removal Methods, River Access Improvements, Wetlands and
Treatment for Metals, Nutrients, , and Organics.
3.2 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
31
SAwater resources & conservation\ Wastewater \90,12 \city counciWay 3, 2004\final eir addendum agenda bilbdraft.doc
Alternative actions for the Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Final
EIR Addendum include: •
1. Adopt the resolution re-certifying the Final EIR Addendum (see Attachment A); or
2. Take no action at this time. Provide direction to City Management as 'to how to proceed
on project.
4.0 FINANCIAL, IMPACT
4.1 ' WATER RECYCLING FACILITY
As shown in Table 6, the total project costs for the Water.Recycling Facility are estimated at
$104.3M.
0
0
32
S` \water resources & conservation \Wastewater \9012\city counciWay 3, 2004\fmal eir addendum agenda bill draft.doc
Table 6
Estimated Costs for Water Recycling Facility
Petaluma, California
Item
Costs $millions
Construction Costs
$68
CIP Intragovernmental Overhead
$4.6
Land Acquisition
$2.3
Engineering, legal, administration, construction
management, inspection
$22.6
Subtotal Project Costs
$97.5
Contingency
$6.8
Total
$104.3
How does the capital cost of the Water Recycling Facility compare with other recent wastewater
treat ;tr ^ "ity projects? Table 7 compares the capital cost of- Petaluma's Water Recycling
Facility Project with the capital costs for wastewater treatment facility projects recently
constructed for the Napa Sanitation District, City of Roseville, City of Brentwood, City of
Benicia, and the City of Chico. With an estimated capital cost of $68M and an annual average
capacity of 8 mgd, the unit. cost of Petaluma's Water Recycling Facility is $8.5M/mgd. This is
similar to the unit cost for projects constructed for Napa, Brentwood, and Chico, and
approximately 26% less than the unit cost for Roseville and Benicia: Differences between the
projects are described 'in Table 7.
•
33
SAwater resources & conservation\ Wastewater \9012\citycouncil\May 3, 2004\fmal eir addendum agenda bill'draft.doc
C
U
a+
Cti
6�
L
F
L
U
C0
d
U
7
L
a O
pq U
Q� is
F w'
C
U
6�
0
c
0
y
6.
C�
a
E
0
U
0
U
c
0
w
U
0
L
H
C
O
L
c�
L
W
7
CE
d
a
-w - 1
L---A
•
U
N
O
CL
a
N
L_
O
O
C
O
N
m
a
E
U
t6a
U
ry
O
m
U
n
°
o
t
y
v
c3i
'O
Q
>
cd
D
O
z
�,
0o
O
o6
b
U
O
U
L
v)
ca
3
¢
U
(L
w
Q
vi
U
`4
ry
«
W
a
N
;C
cYOC
3
0
c
m
A
.0
Vl..
p
3
O
°
'N
F"
0
z
Q
C\
(71
N
ds
n
oo
z
W
N
o
O
�o
N
v
ON
Ln
o0
s9
p
Q
u
' U
U,
W
Do CN
c~d
O
tii
cl
=
Z
U
<
N
N
to
<
Q
F
..
¢
N
z.
w l
bN9
Ef3
Q
V
oo
- sd
~
°3
LL
vi,
O
X
o
'fl
H�
E
a
Fes
z
°
q
bn
N
r
z
W
�!1
M
r
s
m
v
V
r
^
bs
Q
i
L
0.l
C)
rq
3
�.
x
U
O
to
a
X67
ro'
W
N
z
,�
V
o
N
Q
Q
O
0
O
O
h
O
N
z
t1
3
.D
N
`�'
O
z'
cd
F
.
G
w
Q
U
Q
ff3
69
c
d'
v,
O,
y
.L
a
oo
O�
ti
.L
a
X
coo
=
a
O
z
C
o
cn�
3
o
-•
Q
W
^
N
G
z
k.
fn
N
H3
oo
N cl
o0
69
L
O
Ca
ti
v
p'.
i
^
U
N-
p
U
z
W
E
LU
Q
00
Qx
z
w
v
� y
c"
<
'.Cd
U Cd
^J
bA
�E
c
U
II
��
Q
C
-w - 1
L---A
•
U
N
O
CL
a
N
L_
O
O
C
O
N
m
a
E
U
t6a
U
ry
O
m
• The City will pursue revenue bonds- for this project. This project is programmed in the City's
Capital Improvement I Program as Project C500402. The current wastewater service "rate is
comprised of two components: a fixed monthly service charge $1.0.37 per month per single
family residential dwelling and a charge of $2.463 per 1;00 cubic feet of wastewater discharged.
Non - residential customers are charged'$3,591, $4.640, or $7.063 per 100 cubic'feet of
wastewater discharged depending upon the strength of the wastewater, plus a monthly fee of
$6.50.
The current rates will fund. a significant portion of the Water Recycling Facility, but additional
increases will be necessary. The City is now updating its water resources financial management
plan.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS'
On August 5, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2002 -135 which certified the Final
Environmental Impact Report. The project certified in the FinatEIR included locating a portion
of the treatment plant at 4400 Lakeville Highway, the current site of the City's oxidation ponds,
with polishing treatment wetlands located at 41.00 Lakeville Highway. The City completed
approximately 50% of`the design.in November of 2002. Through the value engineering effort
conducted in December 2002, it became apparent the alternative of locating the water recycling
facility at 41`00 Lakeville Highway and preserving the oxidation pond site for its current function
warranted further evaluation. To construct- the water recycling facility at the oxidation pond site
• would have required the removal, drying 'and disposal of sludge from the aerated lagoon and
oxidation pond no. 1, construction of a pipeline to deliver influent to oxidation pond no. 2, the
construction of aerators in oxidation pond nos. 2 and 3 to maintain and improve treatment
capacity, and the placement of approximately 250,000 cubic yards of imported fill in the
oxidation pond no. 1. A feasibility study determined, locating the water recycling facility at 4100
Lakeville Highway was feasible and yields many benefits. The° City Council adopted resolution
No. 2003 -196 on August 18, 2003, which authorized engineering iservices in support of locating
the new treatment plant from the City's oxidation ponds to 4100 .Lakevil_le• Highway. The City
Council authorized acquisition of approximately 261.33 acres of land at 4100 Lakeville Highway
for construction of the Water Recycling. Facility and development of the Petaluma Marsh
Acquisition, Enhancement and Access Project on September 8., 2003. The, City purchased Parcel
nos., .068-010-026 and 017 -010 -002 in February 2004. An Addendum to the Water Recycling
Facility and River Access Improvements EIR -was prepared to evaluate potential changes to the
environmental affects,of the Project due to the proposed Project revisions. The EIR.Addendum
concludes '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 1$ f62 which outlines the standards by which subsequent E1Rs are required.
The Water Recycling Facility. and River Access Improvements Final EIR Addendum represents
the culmination of an extraordinary amount of City, public and professional effort to develop a
project that treats the community's wastewater in an ecologically and economically sustainable
manner, and a companion project that includes recreation, education, habitat creation and
restoration„ extension of the Shollenberger trail and placement of freshwater tidal wetlands in
35
S'. \water resources& conservation \Wastewater \9012 \city counciWay 3, 2004\final eir addendum agenda.bill,draft.doc
public ownership. Since 1991, the Petaluma City Council has reviewed, considered and adopted
29 resolutions related to the water recycling facility. They are listed in Table 8.
•
•
36
SAwater resources & conservat ion \Wastewater \9012 \citycouncilWay 3, 2004\f nal eir addendum agenda bill draft.doc
.7
Table 8
Resolutions On the Water Recycling Facility Project
Petaluma, California
r
Resolution No.
Date
Description
91 -107
4/29/91
Authorizing Execution of a Memorandum. of Understanding with EOS Regarding
Construction Operation of Wastewater Treatment "Facility and Approving
Conceptual Design of the Project
92 -19
2/3/92
Confirming Wastewater Workshop Timeline and Participation
92 -215
8//17/92
Approving Planning ,Criteria for Wastewater Facili
92 -219
8/17/92
Appointing Committee to Help Draft and Review Request For Statements of
Qualifications. and Re. uests For Pro osals For the Wastewater Facili
92 -247
9/21/92
Approving Request For Statements of Qualifications For Wastewater Facili
92 -313
12/7/92
Approving Recommended Statements of Qualifications For New Wastewater
Facili
93 -56
3/15/93
Authorizing City Manager To Negotiate and Execute Professional Services
Contracts
94 -156
6/20/94
Approving Wastewater Facility Procurement Approach
94 -157
6/20/94
Approving Wastewater TreatmentTacility Proposal Evaluation Methodolo
96 -163
6/17/96 '
Certifying the Final EIR For the Wastewater Facilities Project and Long Range
Mana ement,Pro am
96 -164
6/17/96
Approving the Wastewater Facilities Project and Long Management Program,
Adopting Mitigation. Measures and,Monitoring,P.rogram, and Setting Forth Specific
Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations_
96 -165
6/17/96
Approving and Authorizing Issuance of the RFP and Draft Contract Documents for
the Wastewater Facilities Project and Long Range Management Program
96 -339
12/16/96
Approving Detailed Proposal Evaluation and Selection, Methodolo
97 -137
5/19/97
Approving Request For Proposals For Analysis of Wastewater Documents and
Recommendations For Local Utilit Commission andAuthorizin Issuance Thereof
97 -207
8/4/97
Specifyin g 'Further Duties for the Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee
97 -264
10/6/97
Authorizing Amendment #3 To Professional Services Agreement For Financial
Assistance With Cam , Dresser & McKee
97 -265
10/6/97
Authorizing Amendment #2 to,Professional Services Agreement For Legal
Assistance With Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott
97 -337
12/15/97
Regarding Receipt of Estimated Costs For the Public Project Evaluation From the
SCWA
98 -10
1/5/98
Clarifying Provisions of the Wastewater Privatization Service Agreement. Based on
Recommendations in the Famko f Report
98 -11
1/5/98
Selecting MUW For Contract Negotiations For the Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Project
99 -188
9/21/99
Terminating Privatization Process and Establishing City Ownership of New
Wastewater Treatment. Facili
99 -1'89
9/21/99
Approving Wastewater Treatment Master Plan
00 -66
4/3/00
Authorizing the CM to Execute A Professional Services Agreement With Carollo
Engineers For Engineering Services In Support of Phase 1 of the Water Recycling
Facility Project
00 -214
12/1.1/00
Approving Water Recycling Facility Project Report and Selection of the Preferred
Alternative For the New Water Recycling Facili
00 -215
12/11/00
Authorizing CM To Execute A Professional Services Agreement With Carollo
Engineers. For Professional Engineering Services In Support of Phase 2 — Project
37
SAwater resources& conservation \Wastewater \9012\city counciWay 3, 2004Viinal eir addendum agenda bill draft.doc
0
•
38
SAwater.resources & conservation\ Wastewater \90l2\city.council\May 3, 2004Tfinal eir addendum agenda bill draft.doc
' Development of the Water Recycling Facility Project
02 -012
1/7/02
Approving Design Parameters For the Preferred Alternative For The Water
Re c clin acili
02 -135
8/902
Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Water Recycling Facility
and River 'Access:Im rovements Project
03 -196
8/1`8/03
Authorizing CM to Amend the Professional Services Agreement with Carollo
Engineers for engineering services in support of locating the new treatment plant at
4100 Lakeville.Hi hwa
Ordinance No.
9/8/03
Authorized acquisition of property. located at 4100 Lakeville. Highway the Water
2161
Re c clip Facili and River Access Improvements Project
0
•
38
SAwater.resources & conservation\ Wastewater \90l2\city.council\May 3, 2004Tfinal eir addendum agenda bill draft.doc
6.0 OUTCOMES OR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS THAT WILL IDENTIFY
SUCCESS OR COMPLETION
If the City Council adopts the resolution re- certifying the Water Recycling Facility and River
Access Improvements EIR as modified by the EIR Addendum and approving the .project, the
outcomes or performance measurements that will .identify success or completion for the Water
Recycling Facility include procurement of permits, procurement of funding,. solicitation of
construction bids, construction of improvements, and operation and maintenance of the new
Water Recycling Facility. The outcomes or performance measurements that will identify success
or completion for the River Access Improvements include procurement of permits, design of
improvements, preparation of bid documents, solicitation of construction bids, construction of
improvements, and commencement of public use of the river access improvements.
The schedule for the project is shown in Table 9.
•
39
SAwater resources & conservation \Wastewater \9012 \city council\May 3, 2004\final eir addendum agenda bill draft.doc
Table 9
Project Schedule
Petaluma, California
Item.
I D_ ate
Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements EIR
City Council Meeting
May 17, 2004
A. AdoptResolution Re- Certifying the Water Recycling Facility and River
Access Improvements EIR as modified by the EIR Addendum.
B. .Adopt Resolution Approving Project, Adopting Findings and Statement
of Overriding Considerations, and Adopting Revised Mitigation
Measures and Monitoring Program
File Notice of Determination
May .18, 2004
Water Recycling Facili
Complete 90% Design Package
June 'l., 2004
A. City Review
Bi Submit to State Water Resources Control Board for review
C. Submit to Construction Manager for Review
Hire Construction Manager
June -7, 2004
Complete Final Plans & Specifications
September 2004
Bid
December 1, 2004
Begin Construction
March 1, 2005
A.
Bidding.Process
A. Solicit Construction Bids From Pre - Qualified Contractors
December 2004
B. Open and Review Submitted Bids
January 2005
C. City Council Award Construction Contract
February 2005
Construction
A. Begin Construction
March 2005
B. Begin Start -up and Testing
Fall.2007
C. Complete Construction, Start-up and Testing
Summer 2008
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
City Management requests the City Council:
Resolution RE- Certifying Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements
Project Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum, and Adopting Findings and
Statement of Overriding' Considerations, and Adopting revised Mitigation Measures and
Monitoring Program.
.O
0
•
SAwater resources & conservation \Wastewater \9012 \city council\May 3, 2004\final eir addendum agenda bill draft.doc
• 8.0 ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution
Exhibit A Finding of Fact
Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Considerations
Exhibit C Revised Mitigation Monitoring Program
Agenda Report
Attachment A EIR Addendum
•
41
S: \water resources & conservation \Wastewater \9012 \city counciWay 3, 2004\final eir addendum agenda bill draft.doc