HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 92-247 09/21/1992Resolution No. 9~-247 N.C.S.
of the City of Petaluma, California
1
2
3
4
5
6
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
RESOLUTION AI'I'ROVING REQUEST FOR
STATEMENTS OF QUALIFICATIONS
FOR WASTEWATER FACILITY
WHEREAS, the citizen committee and staff have forwarded a recommended
Request for Statements of Qualifications for the Wastewater Facility; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered that recommended Request for
Statements of Qualifications SOQ on September 21, 1992; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Request for Statements of
Qualifications as recommended and as may be amended per the direction of the City
Council is hereby approved.
Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City.
REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the Approved as to
Council of the City of Petaluma at a (Regular) (~C~a~~bl~~($ meeting {O~'
on the ..-.1St ............. day of ....................~e.ptamher................, 19.9.., by the ~~-
following vote: '-i.~-----------------------
City Attorney
AYES: Read, Davis, Woolsey, Nelson, Sobel, Vice Mayor Cavanagh, Mayor Hilligoss
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
~..~ .- ..
ATTEST : .. .......................................................... ---......................... ........
City Clerk Mayc
Council File ................•-----..............
CA 10-85 Res. No...92.-247.......... N.C.S.
~~: '
;.
REQUEST FOR STATEh1ENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
TO PROVIDE FORA "TURNKEY" FYATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY
FOR THE CITY OF PETALUMA
To all interested firms:
The City of Petaluma.is seeking Statements of Qualifications for provision of
"turnkey" design, construction, and contract operations of a new Wastewater Treatment
Facility. Proposals that include financing and/or private ownership options are also
welcome.
The City of Petaluma has just completed a series of public workshops
addressing alternatives for meeting the community's wastewater treatment needs.
Attached is a listing of planning criteria (goals and objectives) developed as a result of
the workshops. Your attention is especially directed to the Wastewater Management
Flow Diagram developed through. the workshop process. In addition to those
considerations, it should be noted that construction contracts must recognize that
prevailing wage rates. will be applicable and, additionally, that utilization of local,
North Bay, labor resources is highly desirable.
It is anticipated that the existing treatment plant in central Petaluma will be
replaced by a new plant at the site of the existing oxidation ponds (preferred location
approximately 3 miles distant at the edge of the urban area). Refer to the attached
project summary .information. for-.more background information. Since the City of
Petaluma is under a Regional Water Quality Control Board NPDFS Permit timeline for
construction of this new facility, timely completion of the design and implementation
process is truly of the essence.
The SOQ's should contain the following information:
1. A description of the firm/team including .information about the size and
capabilities of the firm and relevant experience (see below). Include
descriptions of individuals or subcontractors that may comprise the
firm/team, their qualifications and anticipated role(s).
2. Resumes of personnel anticipated to be assigned to the project, their
anticipated role on this project and descriptions of their role on relevant
past projects.
3. Description. of experience and techniques used for projects involving
intense. publie'participation.
4. ~ Description of relevant experience with California and/or Bay Area
permitting processes `and legal issues.
5. A list of 3 - 5 relevant references, including names, titles, and phone
numbers.
ti., ~,
R.~D2 ° 24 7NCS
6. Description of relevant experience in "turn key" design construction.
operation and/or .ownership/financing of wastewater treatment facilities
including;
- Size of facility
- Period oP operation
- Construction costs/operational costs per year and million, gahons
per day (mgd)`• -
- General statement of discfiarge requirements arid= evidence 'of
consistent compliance.
- Involvement with aquatic treatment projects/processes.
- Financing and revenue recovery utilization .for constructio_ n and
operation. .
- Evidence of timely delivery. of project.
- Evidence of experience with project similar to proposed.
wastewater management flow' diagram.
7. Description of -experience:-with privatization', if applicable; .including.
candid assessment. of strengths and weaknesses for service provider. and
client agency, and recorrimeridatons'for this project.
8. Last 5 „projects completed including, a contact: person and phone number.
A narrative description of .the positives ..and negatives aril eXperiences
gained relative to each.
9. Include a di`scussion' at the conceptual leveF of the technology or service
approach. the firm (or firms) would be subsequently presenting in greater
detail in a proposal. -
It is also `envisioned that::an interactive design/environmental.review approach
will be necessary to produce the final .design option. The final selected firrti and the
environmental consulting team. will `be expected to facilitate a phased project~design to
evaluate design. at various .stages and -make appropriate adjustments to avoid
environmental problems:
. The'Statements of Qualifications whbe reviewedby City staff and.aamall
citizens' committee. A short'lis't of the most .qualified firms will be.invited to submit
detailed proposals. The City will review those proposals in concert. with~'the. citizens' ,
committee and may. invite the firm/team. s which best :meet the needs :of the City to
participate in, an. interview process:' Those firms wily be requested to `prov'ide evidence
of financial capabilities and stability, The City anticipates negotiation of a .final
contract-for services once the selection review process is complete. Please note, direct
.contact. with citizen committee, members and/or City Councilmembers `is' not desired.
The"SOQ should be precise and succinct, with an executive. summary with
statements limited only to relative experience and personnel that would be assigned to
.I
..'
~,-~ :.. ~., ~~ ~ ~~_ -_ . ~; ~ K ~~~ Rio ~ `? e 2 4 '7 H
N 2 C~
this project. The responses to the direct questions should total no more than 10 pages
and the supporting materials, i.e., resumes, brochures, past project information, etc.,
should not exceed 30 additional pages. The document should have reference tabs.
Nine copies of the SOQ plus an unbound camera ready copy of the direct response
material called. for above should be submitted to Thomas S. Hargis, Director of
Engineering, City Hall, 11 English Street, Petaluma CA 94952 by 10:00 a.m.,
November 2, 1992.
Yours very trulyr
__
_~
Thomas S. Hargis
Director of Engineering
TSHi mk/ sal moos/w stsoq
Attachments:
Project Summary Information including Planning Criteria and Wastewater Management
Flow Diagram
Water Pollution Control Management Outline
Eight Month Timeline
3 RES®e ~ `? -? 4 7 N C S
APPR®VEI) WASTEWATER FACILITY
PLANNING CRITERIA
I. ADOPT THE SCHEMATIC SYSTEM DESIGN PRESENTED BY DR.
TCHOBANOGLOUS, I. E. INITIAL WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT FLOW DIAGRAM INCLUDING SECONDARY
TREATMENT (OXIDATION DITCH/SEDIMENTATION OR
EQUIVAI:ENT PROCESS). (SEE ATTACHED)
II. REQUIRE SYSTEM DESIGN TO MEET DISCHARGE
REQUIREMENTS AS SPECIFIED BY E.P.A. AND BAY AREA
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD.
III. DESIGN CAPACITY TO ACCOMMODATE GENERAL PLAN _
BUILDOUT AT2005 PLUS RESIDUAL CAPACITY REQUIRED BY
BAY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD: WITH 20
YEAR PLANNING/DESIGN HORIZON FOR TREATMENT
CAPACITY AND 30-50 YEAR HORIZON FOR PIPING AND
OTHER COMPONENTS WHICH ARE DIFFICULT TO UPSIZE IN
MODULES. DESIGN FLOWS WILL BE CALCULATED BASED ON
VARIOUS LEVELS OF WATER CONSERVATION INFLOW AND
INFILTRATION REDUCTION.
IV. CREATE AND IMPLEMENT A WATER CONSERVATION
PROGRAM INDEPENDENTLY FROM AND IN ADVANCE OF
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACII.ITY DEVELOPMENT WHII.E
RETAINING THE OPTION TO DISCHARGE RATHER THAN
BEING PROHIBITING .FROM DISCHARGING' BY THE REGIONAL
WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD,
V. PHASE OUT RIVER DISCHARGE.
VI. MODULAR EXPANSION CAPABILITY.
;~~
-~~~~ 1 ®~~ ?_ 2~ 7 N C S
VII. 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, CQNSTRUCTION,
AND OPERATION AND ANY_ COMBINATION OF
(PUBLIC/PRIVATE), F_iNANGING AND/OR OWNERSHIP.
VIII. SYSTEM IvfUST,HAVE' DESIGN FLEXIBILITY TO
ACCOMMODATE FUTTJRE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS.
IX. REQUIRE ENERGY ASSESSMENT ~AS: PART OF'.RESPONSE TO
RFP. ,ANALYSIS MUST INCLUDE; BUT NOT BE LIIVIITED TO,
LIQUID., SOLID, AND GAS BY-PRODUCTS OF TREATMENT.; OIV
SITE ENERGY GENERATION; MANPOWER EFFICIENCY,
BIPRODUCT UTILIZATION INCLUDING CROPS, AND
RESOURCE RECOVERY.TO PROVIDE AN ALL`
ENCOMPASSING, INNOVATIVE ANALYSIS.
X. CITY WILL SET USER RATES.
XI. PREFERRED FACILITY LOCATION IS AT CLfRRENT CITY
OXIDATION POND SITE.
XII. TECHNOLOGY MUST BE` PROVEN TO BE RELIABLE':' UNDER
CALIFOI2NIA/BA~Y AREA/PETAI:UMA NATLTRAT,
ENVIRONMENTAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND BE ABLE 'PO
ACCOMMODATE EXISTING-.AND PROJECTED
.LOADING/CHARACTERISTICS OF THE WASTEWATER STREAM.
XIII. EVALUATE~INFI;OW AND INFILTRATION REDUCTION
(COLLECTION SYSTEM RECONSTRUCTION) .PROGRAM
INDEPENDENTLY FROM AIVD` IN ADVANCE OF WASTEWATER
TREA'I~NT FACILITY DEVELOPMENT: WE WII,L, EXPLORE
HOW OTHER AGENCIES HANDLE .ISSUES SUCHSAS PRIVATE
FUNDING, :AL:TERIVATTVE'PRO.CESSES, PRIVATE LATERAL.
REPAIR'.AND NECESSARY FUNDING'COMPONENTS IIV TH$IR
RATE 'STRUCTCTRE. .
~ 9~ _ 247NCS
XIV. EXPLORE SLUDGE' DISPOSAL OPTIONS OTHER THAN
LANDFILL, E. G. COMPOSTING, VERMICULTURE .
XV. CONTRACT THE OPERATIONS- OF THE WASTEWATER
FACILITY AND THE WASTEWATER RECLAMATION AND
REQUIRE CONTRACTOR TO ASSUME FULL LIABILITY FOR
FINES AND PENALTIES, RECOGNIZING, HOWEVER, THAT
THERE ARE EXISITING OUTSTANDING' CONTRACTS WITH
ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING SERVICES AND REDWOOD
AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT WHICH MUST BE
ACCOMMODATED.
XVI. AN ONGOING EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM SHOULD BE
UNDERTAKEN T.O INFORM'THE COMMUNITY ABOUT WATER
CONSERVATION, WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND WATER
REUSE ISSUES.
XVII. PROPOSALS MUST INCLUDE LAND NEEDS ASSESSMENT.
XVIII. MAXIl~IIZE VALUE OF WASTEWATER AS A RESOURCE.
XLX. CONDUCT A FOLLOWUP WORKSHOP FOCUSING ON
PRIVATIZATIONS ISSUES, E.G., FINANCIAL, OWNERSHIP,
OPERATION.
XX. WASTEWATER WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS ARE WILLING TO
PROVIDE ONGOING PARTICIPATION FOR THE WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITY PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION
PROCESS AND IlWTTE THE CITY COUNCIL TO CALL ON THEM
FOR ASSISTANCE/INPUT.
XXI. THE CITY SHOULD PROCEED IN A TIMELY MANNER TO
IMPLEMENT A NEW WASTEWATER FACILITY AND SATISFY
THE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
REQUIREMENTS . _
SEWER 7/30!93
'~ ' ~ . ~v1 '~ ~, "~ ~ r' ~ ..:~''~a~ ~ ~ 3 R~dDo 9 =. - 2 4 7 N C S
d -a t,
;e
Wastewater
Preliminary treatment
(Screening)
Primary treatment
(Primary sedimentation)
Diverted
s[ormwaier
1~~Iarsh/Storage pgnd - Filtration
(Lemna or other natural system)
Disinfection ~ Dissinfection
(Chlorine, UV light) (UV light)
Summer Summer/
reuse winter reuse
(Title 22)
APPROVED WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
FLOW DIAGRAM
psni/salmons/ ,
wscwv
d
Disinfection
(UV light)
1
Winter
discharge to
Petaluma River
City of Petaluma FY 92-93 [3u~igct
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
Control Plant
Operation &
Administration
6210
Effluent
Irrigation
ENGINEERING System
6220.
Page
Industrial
Monitoring
6240
Page
Collection
System
PUBLIC W®RICS Maintenance
6230
Page
~------~
I Customer I
- - - - -' - - ~ I Services &
FINANCE ( ! Billing
I
.3- ?
F R° E ~ r ~ .N ~ O 1\ C
WASTF.WA'TER FACIL/TY PLANNING
PROTECT/ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SCHEDULC
INITIAL EIGHT MONTHS
E1V VIRONMENT.4I. PROJECT
S~OQ Draft Complete
SOQ Mail List Complete
Final SOQ
Distribute SOQ Request
SOQ's Returned
SOQ Eval `Criteria Com
NOP Out
RFP List/Di-aft to Council
RFP Final .
RFP Distribu ed
Data Package Complete
NOP Returned
RFP Returned
RFP Eval Criteria Com
Staff-RFP Eval Complete
Counci[ Selects. Firm
Constraints Analysis Begins
Draft Constraints Analysis Com.
Constraints. Analysis Final
Mtgs.. with Project R.F.P: Firms
EIR Draft Begin
07/20 Council Study Session
OZ/24 Council Committee Selection
07/24 SOQ Draft Complete
07/24 SOQ Daft to 'Committee
08/ 17 Draft S'OQ to Councl-
08/ 17' Council Approve SOQ
'08/18 SOQ Mail List Complete
-10/OS Distribute SOQ. Request
10/06 SOQ's Returned-
10/07 SOQ's EvaL Criteria Com
.1,0/07 SOQ Evaluation Com
10/ 11 Draft RFP' & List o Council
1:1./09 - Distribute RFP
11/09 Data Package Complete
`11;/23
'12/07 RFP's Returned
12/21 RFP Eval Criteria Com
1993 RFP Eval Com
02/01 Interviews Top 2-4 Firms
02/16 Council Selects Top Firm.
02/26 Final Negotiations Begin
04/05
0.7/27
08/ 1`7
08/24
08/24
08/28
09/21
09/21,
09/24
11/.02
11-/02
- 12/07
12/21
12/31
12/31
1993•
03/01
03/01
04/.05
04/30
05%'17
OS/l8
COM. = Complete
CONSTRAINTS = Environmental' Constraints Analysis
DATA PACKAGE = Background And Resource Material
EV'AL = Evaluation
I.S. = Initial Study - .
N.O.P. _ ~ Notice of Pcepacati'on
I2.1~.P. _ Reguest.For Proposals
S.O.Q. = Statement Of Qua[if7cations
salmons/wslclnJr 9/23/92 revision
~,,5 ~
CITY OF PETALUMA
PROPOSED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT/EXPANSION
PROJECT SUMMARY INFORMATION
I. PURPOSE AND NEED
The existing treatment facility has undergone numerous modifications and
expansions since its original construction in 1938. Although the plant generally is
meeting discharge requirements, the plant's operation has experienced problems in
managing shock organic loads which are typical in Petaluma.
In 1988, Envirotech Operating Service (EOS), the wastewater treatment plant
operator, conducted a facility review of the City's .,wastewater treatment. plant to
determine the need for improvements to that facility to meet operating permit
requirements and' capacity for future demand levels. EOS recommended an
extensive list of repairs and maintenance to improve the plant's reliability.
However, these improvements would only extend the life of the plant for an
additional 5 to 10 years and would not provide increased capacity to meet future
demand.
The flow currently exceeds 75% of the. plant's design capacity, a threshold which
triggers a requirement by the State for the' City to begin work on design of the plant
expansion. Projected. growth indicates that by the mid-90's wastewater flows will ..
.reach the actual design limits of the existing facility barring near-term
implementation of flow reduction measures. The Regional Water Quality Control
Board issued an order in January 1991 requiring the City to complete an upgrade of
the wastewater facility to provide additional capacity by mid-1994.
The City Council determined that additional investment in the existing facility
would not be cost-effective. and that the existing facility should, be replaced by a new
facility with additional capacity to meet projected demand.
II. EXISTING FACILITIES
The existing wastewater treatment plant, located at '950 Hopper Street is a
combination of facilities which have been added together at vanous stages of
community development over the past 50 years. The facility treats a combined flow
of domestic, commercial and industrial wastewater from the City of Petaluma and
the unincorporated community of Penngrove with a current dry weather design
capacity of 5.20 million gallons per day (MGD).
The biofilter plant was originally constructed in 1938, consisting of primary
sedimentation and biologic treatment using three- trickling filters. As the community
;grew, an activated sludge plant was built at the treatment plant site and put on-line
in 1966. In order to provide a backup .treatment mode, increased storage and
improved effluent quality, oxidation ponds were added to the system in 1972. The
location of these existing facilities is illustrated in Figure 1.
'The oxidation ,fonds were constructed on a separate site located outside the urban
area on Lakeville Highway approximately 2.5 miles southeast of the existing plant.
The pond system consists of one aerated lagoon, with ten oxidation ponds covering
~~ f~ -~ 1 R~~~9`~ ° 24'7NCS
,~P a~~ y~
an area of approzirnately 162 acres. Effluent from .the ponds is chlorinated and
dechlorinated prior to discharge:
These changes created two (Z) parallel processes providing secondary treatment.
with a~ backup of the pond system as a treatment mode.. Each process. has capacity
to treat 2 million gahons per day (MG.D.) with all excessflow going, to the.. oxidation
ponds untreated: The current flow of 4.4 MGD with higher, daily. peaks. ca. uses flow
to be .r.egularly diverted to the pond system. This mode of operation: has not.
consistently produced effluerit which meets discharge requirements. Algae blooms
and tur-bidty from erosion i'n Pond #10 have contributed to high suspended solids in
the final effluent.
Treated effluent. is discharged to the Petaluma River during winter months (.October
2'lst through -April 30th).. Current permit requirements allow winter discharge to the
Petaluma River up to a- maximum 1.0;1. dilution ratio. The. outfallconsists of a
~subrnerged diffuser located about ,100 feet from the bank of the °Petaluma'River.
During the summer (May 1 through. October 20th) wastewater `is reel-aimed' 'for
irrigation on approximately 700_ acres of .agricultural land anfl':a 1'00-acre golf ;course`.
The City's Wastewater ..Irrigation Project was previously evaluated m. an EI'R
prepared.. by :Brown and Caldwell iii 1981. According to this study,. the. 1991
available. water supply was estimated at .2,132 acre-feet` per yearbased :upon an
inflow of 5:21VIGD.
Sinee~ the demand for wastewater exceeds the available supply, specific areas on six
.ranches were ;selected for irrigation basted upon slope limitations and the economics
of pumping and pipeline transmission. The six ranches provide an estimated water
demand of 1,4;0$ acre-feet per year. -The golf- course at Frates •R`oad and Ely Road,
irrigates with approximately 1.0 MGD of treated wastewater year-round,, providing
an estimated water demand of.approxmately 724 acre-feet<per,year The gerieral
location of irrigated properties is shown in Figure. 2.
Solid digestion occurs in an aerobic .reactor and conventional anaerobic digestors.
A pipeline transports the aerobically digested sludge to he anaerobic digestors.
where it: is further digested. 'The sludge is then dewatered by' a centrifuge and
.disposed of at ~a landfill.
[II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City will be issuing, a reduest for proposals to design, build, operate and .possibly
finance and own the new facility through a competitive proposal:proeess. Through a
series of_ public workshops the -City has developed, a set of planning= criteria for use
in 'the design. and :development of the new treatment plant.
The new facility is proposed to_ be constructed at: the: existing pond site. Figure 3
provides an aerial view of existing conditions at the pond si'te'. It 'is ,anticipated that
the existing: treatrrient plant would be substantially abandoned,and' demolished for:
redevelopment, with the exception of the underground divers'ori structure,
connecting 54" sewer, and the: pump station. These facilities will .be re ained gat the
existing plant site to pump the wastewater to the new facility va.,an existng36",force
~mai~n .
v r~ , tM l 2
.~, - 2 4 7 .~ C ~
System Sizing
Community growth projections for capacity sizing must be based upon the City's
1987-2005 General Plan, and the Growth Management Plan. The General Plan
assumes 2.6 persons/dwelling unit (DU) and an increase of 500 DU per year. This
is consistent. with the City's Growth Management Plan which provides a maximum
of 500 allotments per year.
Water Conservation
The City has adopted a planning criteria (see attached) to develop and implement a
water conservation program. In addition, the City will pursue an evaluation of the
potential to reduce the inflow and infiltration into the system. These programs are
expected to be considered in terms of their affect on the' initial design of the
treatment plant, and should reduce the ultimate size of the facility, the amount of
winter discharge, and/or extend the timeframe for future construction of modular
expansion units.
Collection System
Minor modifications to the collection system are anticipated since the force main to
the pond site is already in place.
Treatment Process
A number of alternative processes have been considered for the facility design
which had to meet certain criteria. First, the new- facility must consistently meet
and/or exceed the current and probable future NPDES permit requirements with a
high degree of reliability. Secondly, the process must be able to handle shock
organic loads typical in Petaluma and be simple to operate. Also important to
process selection will be modular expansion capability, and design attention given to
minimizing lifecycle cost by focusing on labor and energy requirements.
In order to meet these design criteria, an oxidation ditch/sedimentation design or
equivalent process is desired. Other equivalent Treatment processes may also be
considered.
Wastewater Disposal System
No change in the disposal methods is currently proposed. However, the City has
adopted along-term goal to phase out discharge to the Petaluma River and
maximize the value of ~ wastewater as a resource. Consideration will be given to
creation of a marsh or other natural system to meet future storage requirements.
The future expansion of storage, reuse, and reclamation sites is anticipated to be
addressed in a subsequent EIR.
According to the. study prepared by Brown and Caldwell in 1981, approximately
1,390 acres of agricultural land was identified as potentially available for future
effluent irrigation. Therefore, land availability for the expansion of irrigation is not
expected to be a serious constraint.
Over the near term, the City proposes to extend wastewater mains to the airport site
where 150-acre golf course has been approved for development on city-owned land
and .inclusion in the irrigation program. The new golf course will irrigate year-round
with an estimated '1.0 MGD.
The new treatment plant design will be expected to be able to comply with San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Cortol Board requirements for a shallow
water discharge to the Petaluma River during winter. .
The City will explore sludge reuse options such as composting or vermieulture as
part'of the long-range wastewater treatment program.
V. SITE/LOCATION
The existing treatment plant site, situated at 950 Hopper Street consists of
approximately 9.6 .acres. The site is severely constrained by its .proximity to. urban
uses. The site is. bounded by the mainline of the Northwestern Pacific Railroad on
the north and by industrial uses on the east, west and south.; .There is virtually no
room for replacement of the existing plant while maintaining current operations.
Therefore re-use of the existing site has'been determined to be infeasible.
Thee existing: oxidation pond site has, been identified, as the preferred. location for the
new treatment plant. This site consists of approximately 380 acres encompassing the
lower reach. of Ellis Creek and the adjoining saltwater marsh and river meander just
north of "Cloudy Bend" on the Petaluma River. Approximately 160 acres of the site
has been sectioned into 10 oxidation ponds and one aerated lagoon for- wastewater
treatment and storage.. Approximately 18 acres of the site, situated north of Ellis
Creek, is currently utilized for hay crops.
One alternative to be considered is to fill one of the existing ponds for construction
of the new treatment plant. Another alternative location within the existing site
would be on the north side of Ellis Creek. Other alternative site locations may be
evaluated in the initial study and constraints analysis.
The pond site is located approximately 1/2 mile from the City's eastern limits and is
surrounded by agricultural uses on the north, east and west. The si e adjoins the
Petaluma. River and associated marshes to the south. Ellis Creek is a natural stream
that receives tidal inflows from the Petaluma River. Figure 3 provides an aerial
view of 'the pond site in 1991.
The pond site is considered to be the most .feasible location for -a new treatment
plant :for several reasons. First, the site is already served by an existing 36" force
main and very little modification to the. collection system would be needed. Second,
the site is. situated in an area surrounded by agricultural uses that are not. only
compatible with the' existing use, but. could also benefit from the expanded
availability of wastewater for irrigation.. Finally, this. site is already, .owned by the.
City as an incorporated island and dedicated to public use for wastewater treatment.
Utilizing the existing site :for pant replacement/expansion would avoid the
additional cost and time-lag of land acquisition, land-use issues and ~inter-
jurisdictional reviews.
,~ .tip . ~,:..~. ,. ~~E~O.9 2- 2 4 7 N C S
VI. KEY ISSUES
In response to public concerns,~the City hosted a series of eight .public workshops on
the project. The workshops provided a forum for presentation of the purpose and
need for the project and discussion of the issues. The workshop participants
developed a set of recommended planning criteria which were subsequently adopted
by the City Council as general goals and objectives. A wastewater management flow
diagram was also developed and adopted: The recommended cntena and flow
diagram are attached as Figures 4.
The age and reliability of the existing treatment plant is a primary concern dictating
an urgent response to the replacement project. The City's approach will be to
initiate the design development process by completing an initial study and
constraints analysis. This information will be made available to qualified firms that
are interested in providing proposals to design, build and operate the new plant.
The proposals submitted 'will be subject to further environmental review and
preparation of a full environmental impact report.
A tiered, staged program EIR process is anticipated.
on the expansion. and replacement of the treatment
long-range wastewater treatment program, such
irrigation expansion will be addressed tangentially
subsequent studies. and project proposals. A rate
determine appropriate cost allocations.
The focus of the EIR will be
plant. Other aspects of the
as reuse, conservation and
now and in more detail 'in
study will be undertaken to
The following outlines .some of the issues to be evaluated.. The City invites further
comment and suggestions from other agencies and interested parties at this early
stage of review.
A. SOCIAL & CULTURAL
Relationship to Plans and Policies
One issue of concern, to local residents is the potentia to induce growth beyond the
adopted General. Plan. The sizing of the facility will be based upon the City's
General Plan projections. plus the Regional Water Quality Control Board's 2s%
reserve requirement. The EIR will be expected. to document the pertinent policies
and criteria and evaluate the proposed design's potential growth inducing effect.
Through the public workshop process, it was determined that pipelines and other
components of the plant that. will be difficult to upsize should be sized for a s0-year
projection of use. A modular plant design that can be expanded incrementally is
preferred. Limitations of the collection, storage and disposal systems may remain as
a constraint to growth that will need to be further evaluated.
Aesthetic~Visual
There is invited potential for visual impact from construction at the pond site
because the site is well-screened from Lakeville Highway by a dense band of trees
planted as part of an experimental project. To the north the site is well-screened by
dense vegetation along Ellis Creek. The treatment plant is not expected to provide
an obstruction or affect any "line of sight" since there are no uses in close proximity
of the site.
. ~' ~ `~~ ~' : ~ ~~ ~ .. ~..~%:°~~°i s RCS(). ~ ~ ° 2 4 7 N C S
Cultural .Resources
The site has already been disturbed by the .construction of the pgnds and is not
expected to have any sensitivities to potential cultural resources. The portion of the
property- situated. north. of Ellis Creek is near the margins of the Historic river
meander" and may have greater potential for buried.. cultural resources.. Ali erature
search and field; survey must be conducted as part of the constraints analysis to
determine the potential for buried resources.
B. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
Soils, geology an'd seismicity
The site is situated within three miles,. of the Healdsburg=Rogers Creak`Fault which
is considered to be an active fault. The Today faulT has been located',withingne=rnil`e
of: the site; but was removed.:.from. the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone in 198'5
and is considered. inactive.. The: sails are "also designated to have 'high l'quefaeton.
potential. Seismic hazards ,and.. the suitability of .soils/filT.materi'als to support' the
proposed facility need "to be further evaluate"d...Soils and geologic ,studies. will be
necessary to identify constraints and engineering requirements.
There is potential for erosion of soil during and immediately following construction
activities. Erosion and sedimentation control measures should be identified 'for
implementation during construction.
Water Quality
The .new ;facility is expected: to provide improved treatment with greater reliability
and reserve capacity to meet future demand, reducing the: potential for spills or-
overflow of effluent. Treated effluent would continue to be dispose.d_ of in the same
.manner as is currently practiced over the near=term, with dscharge to the Petaluma
River durrig.winter months"and: stored for irrigation -reuse du%ing the, summer with ~a
long-term. goal to reuse most or all of the, wastewater.
The primary concern with respect; to the plant's'expansion:is the potential for the
discharge to degrade the water quality of~ the Petaluma River. The Crty's current
di charge permrt prohibi s .discharges exceeding a 10:.1 dilution: ratio with the
receiving waters. The proposed. plant is expected to provide a higher. level of
treatment. that will meet the shallow water.discharge requirements established by
the San Francisco. Bay Regional Water Qualit Control Board. Additional. storage
may be necessary to meet future discharge and~or irrigation requirements.
Another .area of concer-n. is the potential >for toxic. pollutants to exceed new" standards
established by the' Regional Water Quality Control Board. The City has an
established model pre-Treatment program for industrial discharges which. limits the
potential for toxic pollutants to enter the treatment "system. Currently, the City :has
a number of .industries that discharge high,:organcs into the system. " An evaluation.
of local industrial sources may be necessary to estimate future industrial wastewater
"flows and constituents.
.Another concern. for -water ,duality is the potential :for flood hazards. A portion of
the pond site is si uated within a designated floodpiain.
L. 4+~ _.
Biotic Resources
Construction of the treatment plant has potential to impact the biotic resources
along Ellis Creek, the Petaluma River and associated marshes. The ponds
themselves provide open water habitat for a number of birds and wildlife. Filling of
a pond and/or construction of the treatment plant may disturb some of this habitat,
and therefore may trigger the requirement to enhance and expand the wetland
habitat in other areas.
There are several special status species that have been identified in the Petaluma
River marshes in the vicinity of the project including the salt marsh harvest mouse,
California black rail and Common Yellow Throat. Biotic resource constraints will
be further evaluated in the initial study/constraints analysis.
Algae~growth and mosquito control are two other biotic issues that will need to be
addressed.
Air Quality
Any sewage treatment plant has potential to create objectionable odors: The
existing facility has had problems with odors, and abandonment of these facilities is
expected to eliminate the problem in the vicinity of the old plant. The new facility is
expected to reduce odors through an improved treatment process. The surrounding
land uses are primarily agricultural and considered compatible uses; however, a
developing business park lies northwest of the pond site approximately 2,000 feet
distant.
Noise
Noise levels can be expected to decrease near the existing site and increase at the
pond site. However, the site is surrounded by agricultural uses. The only sensitive
uses of concern would be three farmhouses that are located within approximately
1,000 feet of the pond site. A temporary increase in~noise levels during construction
activities can be expected.
Energy
Treatment facilities will require energy for pumping and operation. An energy
assessment will be conducted as part of the project design, constraints analysis and
EIR to focus on long-term; on-going energy demand and costs. Conservation
measures and alternative energy sources will be explored as part of project design.
Attachments
Figure 1 Location Map
Figure 2 Petaluma Wastewater Irrigation Project
Figure 3 Aerial View of the Project Area
Figure 4 Resolution 92-215 Approved Planning Criteria and Wastewater Flow
Management Diagram
proj-sum/jb-12
7
Park _ ~ I ~ r _~ r< _? ° ' " E ~.~.,~ / _.\ ='-' •
(BM 1141 ~ _-'_ ~---- --~,~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ •~ z, '~ "r•r ",~ ` - i
___ ~ .. - l ~ - ~
.~ ~,- ~ , ~ Son m~ p:ass ~_;~ ,-.i'.
_ ~~~ e ,Pen rove ;~ ~ ~ f~ ~~
~ ;' t ' '~~L ~>; E1 ~"sera
/
.'~~i/\. ~ Btn 159 BM:286 ~~~~' ,`~ 9 0
_~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ,
~• `,
_ BM 7$ Petaluma 5~ 3ancfl_ "" ~~ _ \ __.~~~ ~
\:Airfield vl CC:M^ s GnE ~. ~ J
- r ~~;_ /-
~ ~ .r
U ~ ~,f ~ ~
_ .• ~
C r _
_ ~ ~ -- - ~~
.~
`o ~ +% - f ~
~t3liTri21. /' M tom. ~, -. t `>
~' `O 18L• cq /~ ( J 4 ' I
-{ `ICI - =EXISTLNG _ ~ <a -.
SEWAGE . -~ <zs `` ._ .~
REATMEN _ 4; ;'~
! PLANT ~ °~
_- _
o~ ~ __ - .
-- -I - - -_ FORCE MAxN - " . -~` _ ;;' -- -
~= ~ _ - ~' _
- sus . ~. _ - _. - - ~_-~
~ ~ .-;IryPONIS ~ _ _ -
~. _ - -
~. _ _ -- - 6t. ~ " _ I
_ \
' ti'
- _-
" ~ __-~~;
-- ;-
_ _- .;,
- -1
~.- "" --
t
Figure 1 Locafion Map
~~ ~+~,~ r ~ ~_. ~' ~ "~ , T n "~'h~o.e~~ ~ ~'~~~ ~•~r7`WO 9 ral• _ 2 3 ~ • 1 V ' V p/'
k
.. FIGURE' 4
Resolution No. 92-21s N.C.S. THE WIT,-Iln Ir:sT~:~r:~~";r Is A
of the City of PCtaluma. California TRUE COPY OF THEORIGINAI:
ON FILE IN THIS OFFICE
RESOI,UTIOly APPROVING PLANNING CRITERIA FOR ~~6 ~ ~ ~~r~2
WASTEWATER FACII.ITY ATTEST
~ ~47ATRICIk E. BFRN~IC ~
CITY CLERK C1TY.Of DETCl~A1A ,
DAULE?TE lYOM D[pUTY CITY CLERK
1 WHEREAS, the. participants at a series of Wastewater Workshops formulated a
2 set of recommended planning criteria; and
3
4 WHEREAS, on July 27, .1992, the City Council in a study session considered
5 said recommended criteria; and
6
7 WHEREAS, the Council discussed changes and .amendments to said criteria;
8
9 NOW,' THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the criteria as reviewed and
10 modified by the Council are herein adopted.
11
12
Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City.
REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced. and adopted-by the Approved as to
Council of the City of Petaluma at a (Regular) i~~Xl7~a{~Q) meeting -form
on the .._ 1.?.~11..-......... day of ............ElligUS~...-•---•--•--• ................... 19.5:2.., by the
following vote: -
' City Attorney
AYES: Read, Davis,. Woolsey, Nelson, Vice Mayor Cavanagh
NOES: None
ABSENT: Sobel, Ma;i~]~~p~~y
Patricia E. Bernard
ATTEST : ...............................~i tY..Cterk.....................
City Clerh
Catmcil Fila.-~_.-_.._.....--•-------
c:~ to-es kr5..vo..::._.9.2-2.1..5......vc.s.
Original signed by
...._...._..~,.P.~tticia_H{IligossR_ j~9a~or ._••.-.-•--
~~c~x Vice Mayor
~; ~ ~~ °' 2 4 71V C S
: ~ SEPTEMBEI•t 2.3, 1992 STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS MAIL. OUT LIST
KAWEAH CONST CO KAWEAH CONST CO FACILITY TECHNICS
.WILL LYLES DIV MGR SACRAMENTO DIV JOE AKINORI OUYE PRES
P O BOX 7780 P O BOX 292096 1212 BROADWAY #1600
FRESNO CA 93747 SACRAMENTO CA 95829 OAKLAND CA 94612
ES ENVIRON SERV INC
DAVID L SULLIVAN PRES
622 BANCROFT WAY
BERKELEY CA 94710
WHEELABRATOR ENVIRON
SYSTEMS INC
LIBERTY LANE
HAMPTON NH 03842
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE INC
ANTHONY BOUCHARD PE
1301 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
SUITE 200
ALAMEDA CA 94501
LEMNA CORP
MICHAEL VAN ERDEWYK
1408 NORTHBOUND DR #310
ST PAUL MN 55120-1013
SANTINA & THOMPSON INC
1040 OAK GROVE RD
CONCORD CA 94518
PROF SERVICES GROUP INC
14950 HEATHER FOREST PKWY
SUITE 200
HOUSTON TX 77032
ENVIRO-GRO TECHNOLOGIES
1540 CATON CENTER DR
BALTIMORE MD 21227
BRELJE & RACE CONSULT'.
ENGINEERS
5341 SKYLANE BLVD
SANTA ROSA CA 95400
BSI CONSULTANTS INC
WM H'BASHMAN V.,P/MGR
16880 W BERNARDO DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92127
BLACK & VEATCH
RONALD G SNEDEGAR MGR
2300 CLAYTON RD #1200
CONCORD CA 94520-2100
URS CONSULTANTS DEEP SHAFT TECHNOLOGY
R MARTIN C&ARNECKI SR VP LYLE G CUTHBERT PRES
100 CALIFORNIA ST #500 700, 1207 - 11TH AVE SW
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111- CALGARY .ALBERTA CANADA
4529 T3C OM5
WHEELABRATOR CLEAN WATER
SYSTEM INC.
DENIS E DANDENEAU DIR
P O BOX 380083
BIRMINGHAM AL 35238
JAMES M MONTGOMERY CONSULT
ENGINEERS. INC
355 LENNON LANE
WALNUT CREEK CA 94598
SANTINA & THOMPSON
1300 SO BEACON ST
SAN PEDRO CA 90731
WATER & WASTEWATER
1025 LAUREL OAK RD
VOORHEES NJ 08043
PROFESSIONAL SERV GROUP
WM S WARDWELL REG VP
1777 BOREL PL #403
SAN MATED CA 94402
HENRY M OWADES, PE
5928 HEIGHTS ,RD
SANTA ROSA CA 95404-
1022
INC OPERATIONS MGMT INT'L
KATHY L SORENSEN
P O BOX 5169
KINGWOOD TX 77325-5169
N-VIRO
3450 W CENTRAL AVE #328
TOLEDO OH 43606
NUTE ENGINEERING
907 MISSION AVE
SAN RAFAEL CA 94900
BIOGRO SYSTEMS
180 ADM COCHRANE DR
SUITE 305
ANNAPOLIS MD 21401
WILLDAN ASSOC
222 SO HARBOR BLVD #600
ANAHEIM CA 92805-3711
WINZLER & KELLY
495 TESCONI CIR
SANTA ROSA CA 95400
PBG&S INC RADIAN CORP CH 2 M HILL
ONE PENN PLAZA P O BOX 201088 P O BOX 12681
NEW YORK NY 10119 ~ AUSTIN TX 78720-1088 OAKLAND CA 94604-2681
CDM-INC ENVIROTECH OPER SERVICES ENVIRON MANAGEMENT CORP
ONE CAMBRIDGE CENTER LIBERTY LANE 689 CRAIG RD
CAMBRIDGE MA 02142 HAMPTON NH 03842 CREVE COEUR MO 63141
BECHTEL ENVIRON INC BROWN & CALDWELL ACM 'ENVIRONMENTAL -
P 0 BOX 193965 3480 B[JSKIRK AVE. P O BOX 3049
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94119- PLEASANT 'HILL CA 94523 COSTA MESA CA 92628
3965 ,
BOYLE ENGR CORP
1501 QUAIL ST
NEWPORT BEACH CA 9266`0
BARRETT CONSULT GROUP
DAVID J SAN.CHEZ
300''0 ALPINE RD
MENLO PARK CA 9,4.028
PSOMAS & ASSOC
ROBT S ROSCOE., PE
646 N MARKET BLVD #4
SACRAMENTO CA 95834
TAIT &-ASSOC INC
GREGORY S NOTTINGHAM
,780=3' MADISON AVE #370
CITRUS HEIGHTS CA'95610
KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULT
JOHN O; GLOVER
MARATHON PLAZA - 10TH FLOOR
303 SECOND ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94107
EARTH SCIENCES ASSOC
WILL B BETCHART
701 WELCH RD
PALO .ALTO. CA 94304
NORMAN BRAZELTON, DIR
WATER RESOURCES
`3840' ROSIN CT #110
SACRAMENTO CA '9'58 3 0
HARDING LAWSON~ASSOC
TRACY WHITEHEAD
P O. BOX 578
NOVATO CA '94948
METCALF & EDDY
555 TWIN DOLPHIN DR
SUITE 400
REDWOOD CITY CA.94A65
JOHN'CAROLLO ENGINEERS
RONALD BERGLAND,, PE
450 NO WIGET LANE
WALNUT CREEK 'CA 94.598
MLCHAEL BRANDMAN ASSOC
R JOHN LITTLE, PhD
1750 A OAKS DR
SACRAMENTO CA 9'5833
A-N WEST INC'
RICHARD H. MITCHELL
412'3 LAKESIDE DR
RICHMOND CA 94806-
' 194.2
C S YOUNG ENGINEERS
HENRY H C LIN, PE
323 LENNON LANE
SECOND FLOOR
WALNUT CREEK CA 94598
SVERDRUP CORP
JACK L 'STILES
P O BOX 5668
WALNUT CREEK CA 94596
SWANSON OSWALD ASSOC
LORNE 'SWANSON
1340 ARNOLD DR #110
MART:INEZ CA 94553
HARZA KALDEEER
WILLIAM RETTBERT
425 ROLAND WAY
OAKLAND: CA 94621
ENGR-SCIENCE INC
ANTHONY $ BOUCHARD,
130,0 MARINA VILLAGE
SUITE 200
ALAMEDA CA 94501
R BEIN, WM FROST ASSOC
6929 SUNRISE BLVD #106
CITRUS HEIGHTS CA 95610-
310.0
127+Q. SPRINGBOK. RD #D
WALNUT CREEK CA 945:96
DAMES & ;MOORS
DANA J $ROCK,'PE, CEG
37;0;0 LAKEVILLE HWY
PETALUMA CA 94954
J H POMEROY & CO INC
ROBERT'A GORDON
P O BOX. 411
PETALUMA CA 94953-0411
KLH ENGR .GROUP INC
RICHARD V COSTALES
600 B' ST
SANTA ROSA CA 95402
LEE ENGR ENTERPRISES INC
JUIrENE GENTLE CAWLEY
115"3 BQRDEAUX`DR #103
SUNNYVALE CA 94089
WILLDAN ASSOCIATES
JIM EASTON
2495 NAT.OMAS PARK 'DR
SACRAMENTO CA 95833
HDR ENGINEERING INC
PE DAVIp J REARDON, PE
PKWY 5175 HI-LLSDALE CIR
EL DORADO HILLS CA
95630=5.700
S C CO SANITATION DIST
JOHN FANTHAM,~DTRECTOR
TOl~ ,OCEAN ST
SANTA CRUZ CA 95060
SPENCER ENG'INEERTNG
RICH FENTON
1660 CENTRAL AVE #E
MC KTNLEYVILLE CA 9.55.2:1
6°{. E'n f' ` e. A;a „~ 'r4 s, H~'~~-R/e ~ v ® Fr ~ Q 1~
G,WOODWARD:-CLYDE CONSULT WEST ENGRS & ASSOC INC HARRIS & ASSOC
5'.0'0'- 12TH ST #1.0'0 KAREN WEST LARRY TIMMER
OAKLAND CA°94607 44 MONTGOMERY ST #1305. 22:0 MASON CIRCLE
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104 CONCORD CA 94520
DON TODD ASSOC .INC PARSONS BRINKERHOFF CONST OWEN ENGR & MGMT CONSULT
KIM PIPKIN JOHN JACOBSEN WEBSTER J OWEN JR
303 SECOND ST #355 1740 TECHNOLOGY DR #210 3'77 COACH LANE #K
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94107 SAN JOSE CA 95112-4512 CAMERON PARK CA 956&2
THE MARK GROUP LEE SAYLOR INC O'BRIEN-KREITZBERG
DELRECIA SCOTT BRAD SAYLOR MATT SCOBLE
3480 BUSKIRK AVE #120 1390 WLLLOW PASS RD #200 188 THE EMBARCADERO
PLEASANT HILL CA 94523 CONCORD CA 94520 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105
PERINI CORP
JACK RIZZO
73 MT WAYTE AVE
FRAMINGHAM MA 01701
HSA CONSULT ENGINEERS
HABTE ASFAHA
3857 BIRCH ST #416
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
ECOLOGICAL ENGR ASSOC
SUSAN PETERSON
T3 MARCONI LN
MARION MA 02738
VILLALOBOS & ASSOC
BARBARA E ROSE
LAKE MERRITT PLAZA
1999 HARRISON 5T #975
OAKLAND CA 94612
BILL WARDWELL
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GROUP
177 BOREL PLACE, STE 403
SAN MATEO, CA 94402
9/23/92
SOQLIST
PRIVATIZATION WATCH
REASON FOUNDATION
3415 S. SEPULVEDA BLVD
SUITE 4.00
LOS ANGELES, CA 90034
DAVID $ANCHEZ
BARRETT CONSULTANTS
ALPINE ROAD
MENLO PARK, CA 94028
R~~~y~, - ~~'~NCS
..4~ .{ _, 5{ ~xh.: \'~ ~ ~1^ 4 ~'~ ,fin ~~ ~~ r~
~ r`~ w~~ _ ~ `•~+ ~z, ~~ per, P
_ t~
~. ~ p
1
~~., fi`r'' i;c ~,~~
} 'ti" _ Cs F~~ ~q~~
' ~ ^~r~
r ~ 7 ~ w `wl
oaf ty ~ 4 . ~ Y .i ~,4~{ - ~ ~(ryR ~ fl, it9 4
~'w{ 1 65• lt„
r
& z 8 g fi ~ ~,
`g ~. ~~'
d
t _ t ~, i_ ~9 ~~r~~~
~•~-p ;Er ri 1!:o'F "• 4~. - ~~.~.Y~~FN~""c°1~ !4~ ~r.~.fi'~q~~
eQ y` /.
Fit" V _ .: t. ~ ~F 'G+~ Y P
~ ~- ~~~ t < ~ -~-
~ ~ ~• ~~ ~~
f 9 rt
~~ I r
g ~ ~ ~, rr
F ~~ ti ~ Sc + _±~ ~{ 4 Yn
Z
r ~ ~.~` is y.. M~ ~ F _ I •~~,~m- : 7~`'~!
'~y r ~ ~ r ~
d F~ N +r
yIr'a _ ~ ~ ~ 1 I vr^ ~ •. f d
~ ~ ~ ~ KF V k t I ~/ ~ ~ zr3 Y~ ~R
A r
r r y ~ ~
~, ~ ~..' ~
T f` qJ rx ~. I ~''
~;4+
t~ - ~5~ r; ~ ~:;~ ~V'~.y-ice ,.. l~. -,~~1-~+.i i
)"
''~. a `. ~' ~~ € t~S~~~ ~~ yip ~`1 ~f `~
c - k~ >t
-I
^ ~:~
yF ~'Y+Mt~° ~ ~~ qSl. ~'i
..AA11 ° ~>~ 9
A
~ 1 I r 'ut
~ ~, « .~ b ~ 4~ 'ai
~ ~ ~ ~ ti ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ y~~
ti: t
f ^~ ICI ! ~ !y~t ~;~
f i ..' r ~' ~ ~j. ff i f ~{ -7~ta9 FFF~ 'A'
k ~ ~ji~
1 s~ ~
+ c '~ ~ ~~, eW j f4 ~ ~ 1~ rk'
A-" t~ ~ ~ _ o ~ - ~ d
t ~y+ .~~G-~ ~---ate. .~'M 1 '~ f~~
~,~ r .i r'~"'d~ ,~ Ali ~ ~~ '~ _ i_
N
t~ ~+~~ ~k~} !~ ~
1:
I'. 'bV9 ,~ ,~ I; '~' `t4e~~'tL„yrL aL~k A~'4i+C
~a Mkt
~{ ~ r~2
~ :,'r~~~' tf~yre ~~y `ny1`+i'~4 k a p~l~S~''w~~~ ~„~+;"~
~~ ~^~T 33 ~ E~ ~•... r ~ ~N,3'~~' ro.
t ~r
t x h F~
y.
f ~~
.J -~" .3 - '~ ar~
~~ - - `tat .. 1^a R "~- AF - ~ fj~'~ ~ ~.
,r - ~'-
!!y
~"' a
? ~~ 4 t r
a1 r~ ~. ee A
t ~~ f
~ 4 ~~~ ,_ `' ,_
~ ~ ~ _b
»~.
~ , ,;
~°%i
s
~'~-.'
_:. ~.I
~sr~~ ~~~~ ~'~~~~~~~~..~~ Y 7 ~t3r ~A :~v 4~t.'M ~ §~4~' ~ ..3 E ~ ~~J~~.-:2r
b j, (~ .t a ~ r~ ~ Vin' t t t}
~ r"6~~r~~ }~r'~ '~II~ ,c I~`~
~, t-5~; ~ A~~'IYY;`FP ~~'. 't"~ ""..' F/i'"i,~ ~ 4 ,,j, ~ ~ `,ti` ORS.
~ ,.
('~ _ ~e
~ f~l ~L4y~ ~ W V 1 ~~ 7 ~f ~ jl v
C~, t ~ ~ ' ~ ~'~ "cam ~ t' x f ~ t~
h, f Y`7~ ~ ~i~ k ` i y ~ L. } ~ ~ ., ~ ~ ` F+
~~,~~ ~ .~a ~ ~r~~~~ k ~
t ~
A ,~[~
"~qa~~ _ w ~xa .~ - - 8 y
< -f f x mid J ~ ~ ~ i T ~ !` .~` '
r a- a~a^ .§ y ~, s s ~,
i~~.
`~ t ~A - ..
p ~1~rt i :t ~ $ ~:
e _ 1 ~
S ~~~ ~
~ ~~
.. /
;~--r
R~~~ t :t:~ .~P~i
,
n
~
,~v..~ `
11~~,~
Ta ~.A
~
~5
Y
b~ • ~
" '
~
, t
~
,
~Y,y ~
~, .~~.
~
t ~„ ~~
h ~~ sj;
~.
z
'a
r T
`i A
1
~y
M
j fr
`
p _ H
'
~ T.p
q { ~, A..
s - ~
~ ,~~i S X6
~ ':
CI s
t
"L~
~
t
nl~ ~ ~y~' 1
,
~
i
~
;
Y ..
{
~R* ~~ r .. •t~l3Z ~.~ru
~'~in to
le~F ~
ti 0~~ ~ ~~ ~
~, ~yt ~C "~ ~ Fz w
r'7' t -
~~~ ~ r `_ t
1 r f Ji, t+.,i ~ 4 ~..
Y. 1+ ~,.
R-~r ,f ~~ ~ , t fiw•
F~
~ ~ ~
`-~
~~~ ~~
jt ~ ~ f f *"
r t I~ ~
~~ S `.
{ k F"~.ys
t,
'r'
.y }S~
M'~ f F ity~'4.
ti
h ~~ ~Y y~ { ~~~ M
a 7`~ ~~.
i ti
tt S l ~`.:
^~ ~ _
~ ~ r. ~,.
F' r s
" ~'~~
~ ,~>~
_~ `; ~'.
~, s ~'~~'
i~ ~ ~~:~'a"" ~~~ ns'c~' ~:, a~ .-~~' sue[
fi~~` µ~ q F
'g''t .ate ''s-y '~'~ ~Si ~`Ti~ ~~~.~~~~ L ~!
9 a ~.~
.~p~ ~ ~
f~~„~-~y- a'`~:ik` `~AwAh -~j `;_;1~,M ~..~~~, Ar 1 ~s .
' ~
~~~~ is
p v ti +s^I n + w^»m-
' R ~~
Zt` '~ ~ 3e ~n k_.~
~ 1r"~ A h ¢'~y ,T ~. F" ~
h I ._ttJ{f. ~ : f y ~ ~ ] k ~ fi~ ~
•-, ~ k ~ 7~.i L s~ .rte ~ a LSD,. ~ { ~ _ ~ r - ,~I ", Ir -
~, f x• ,fit 3 - CC !
t ~~~ , ri M+i I, r) w; .,~wsy~ .
d ~ F' ' n t r a N ~ j~ t y ~'_ ~ y '~-+'
f r
+ ~
~ p ~
Y
~'k+.i~ ~.. x~ Lbw • 2 f . '1 J ~-. r 7.~'f~. 4 J~
'~ ~ ~ I ~ , f c 7 lk rti `'
~~ ~ ~`"~,~~ 13,E ~, ~ Lt$ ~~."^ ~ ~~,~~ ~ a
-.1 A t c ~, Y(i i} ~i sir y 4. 1,~ Y '-i
£%'y°" g ~: 4~'~I~n-Y>~ ..~jr ~ ,~< 1„~,.,, . j.q v'I+FS ~ --. _}~. _abn ~ .
,1~3 ~, -
I `~~;r
~
~
za' ~ ,,: ~
. ~ ~
~i5
~..
F~ ~2 _ t.~1~.~~r ~* ~ ,. ., ,-6"3 ~.~.
~'T r'~ ~` ~~-~_3• 9~ 4~~~ k+'y'~~~;G~~ ~+~i-~ ~~~i~ ~ r~ ~~ Ti+x
L ;t ~ 4~ ~ x
i, ~'~ ~
.4p:1.,~y~~ ~ .: S f .Y ~ ~~ ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ IT ~ .r~
~Y k