HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2005-136 N.C.S. 08/01/2005 ReS®I11~1®11 N0.2005-136 N,~,~,
of the City of Petaluma, California
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ESA FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE ELLIS CREEK WATER
RECYCLING FACILITY
WHEREAS, in 1938, the original wastewater treatment processes were constructed at
950 Hopper Street; and,
WHEREAS, to meet the community's needs and changing regulatory requirements,
various upgrades and additions to the wastewater treatment plant were conducted through the
1960s; and,
WHEREAS, in 1972, the oxidation ponds were constructed at 4400 Lakeville Highway
to provide additional treatment capacity; and,
WHEREAS, in 1988, with influent flows exceeding 75% of the permitted capacity of the
wastewater treatment facility, and necessary upgrades to the facility to increase treatment
capacity and continue to meet the needs of the community were determined to be too costly, the
City determined to replace the existing wastewater treatment facility; and,
WHEREAS, in 1991 the City executed a Memorandum of Understanding with
Envirotech Operating Services (EOS) to design, build, construct, own and operate (20 years) a
new wastewater treatment facility (Resolution No. 91-107 N.C.S.); and,
WHEREAS, on July 31, 1991, EOS submitted an application to the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) seeking an exemption from CPUC regulation under the California
Local Government Privatization Act of 1985; and,
WHEREAS, on October 21, 1991, Administrative Law Judge Ramsey determined that
the MOU did not meet the requirements of the Public Utilities Code and ordered that "the
application is denied without prejudice to refiling after amendment"; and,
Resolution No. 2005-136 N.C.S.
WHEREAS, in February 1992 EOS and the City mutually agreed to rescind the MOU;
and,
WHEREAS, on June 20, 1994, following a report prepared by Ernst and Young, the City
Council adopted Resolution No. 94-156 N.C.S., which directed that the Service Agreement
Approach (privatization) be utilized for procurement of a new wastewater treatment facility; and,
WHEREAS, on June 17, 1996, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-163 N.C.S.,
which certified the Final EIR documents, Resolution No. 96-164 N.C.S., which approved the
Project, and Resolution No. 96-165 N.C.S., which approved and authorized issuance of the
Request For Proposal; and,
WHEREAS, on July 17, 1996, the RFP was issued to five pre-qualified vendor teams;
and,
WHEREAS, in January 1997, the City received proposals from Montgomery United
Water (MUW) and US Filter/EOS; and,
WHEREAS, the Citizens' Wastewater Advisory Committee considered the proposals on
May 28, 1997, June 3, 1997, June 4, 1997, July 2, 1997, October 20, 1997, October 30, 1997,
November 4, 1997, November 18, 1997, and on December 3, 1997; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the proposals on July 7, 1997, September 8,
1997, September 15, 1997, September 22, 1997, September 29, 1997, October 6, 1997,
December 3, 1997, and December 8, 1997; and,
WHEREAS, on January 5, 1998, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 98-11 N.C.S.,
which selected MUW for contract negotiations; and,
WHEREAS, negotiations with MUW on technical, legal and agreement issues began on
January 27, 1998 and proceeded through spring 1999; and,
Resolution No. 2005-136 N.C.S. Page 2
WHEREAS, on September 21, 1998, the City Council, recognizing the need for
development of a public alternative to the proposed privatization project, approved preparation
of the wastewater treatment facility master plan; and,
WI~EREAS, on September 21, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-188
N.C.S., which terminated the privatization process and established City ownership of the new
wastewater treatment facility. Reasons cited for this determination included, among others:
? Risk of Change Required ®ver 30-Year Contract Term. Changes in the City's
needs 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 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.
? back of City Approval of Design. In order for MUW to retain tax ownership,
Section 4.8.1 of the agreement limited the City's participation in the design process.
? 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 ®n Contract Language. After extensive negotiations between
the City and MUW, specific contract language on the above and other critical issues
could not be agreed upon.
WIFIEREAS, on September 21, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-189
N.C.S., which approved the Wastewater Treatment Master Plan, with the understanding that the
Master Plan's recommended project would be further reviewed to address questions asked by the
City's independent wastewater professionals; and,
Resolution No. 2005-136 N.C.S. Page 3
WHEREAS, on October 29, 1999, the City issued a Request. For Proposal for
engineering services in support of the water recycling facility project (new wastewater treatment
facility); and,
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 00-66 N.C.S. on April 3, 2000,
which authorized the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Carollo
Engineers for engineering services in support of Phase 1 -Project Report of the Water Recycling
Facility Project; and,
WHEREAS, five alternatives for the new water recycling facility were presented at a
Public Forum at the Community Center on June 14, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council heard a discussion on the criteria for evaluating the
alternatives on September 5, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the results of the analysis and comparison of the alternatives were
presented at a Public Forum at the Community Center on November 8, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council considered and discussed the Draft Water Recycling
Facility Project Report (Carollo Engineers, November 2000) on November 20, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 00-214 N.C.S. on December 11, 2000,
which approved the Water Recycling Facility Project Report (Carollo Engineers, November
2000), selected Alternative 5 -Extended Aeration as the preferred alternative for the new water
recycling facility, and identified Option A -Wetlands as the preferred alternative for algae
removal over Option B - DAFs; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 00-215 N.C.S. on December 11, 2000,
which authorized the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Carollo
Engineers for professional engineering services in support of Phase 2 -,Project Development of
the Water Recycling Facility Project; and,
Resolution No. 2005-136 N.C.S. Page 4
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Water Recycling Facility Project and the
Draft Water Recycling Facility Predesign Report (Carollo Engineers, November 2001) on
November 14, 2001, November 28, 2001, December 17, 2001 and January 7, 2002; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 2002-012 N.C.S. on January 7, 2002,
which approved design parameters for the preferred alternative for the water recycling facility
project and authorized completion of the environmental impact report; and,
WHEREAS, the City prepared Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements
Draft EIR (April 2002) and distributed it to the California State Clearinghouse and to all
responsible local, state and federal agencies involved in the Project and made it available for
public review; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council held noticed public .hearings on May 13, 2002, and May
20, 2002, during which all interested persons were provided an opportunity to comment on the
adequacy of the Draft EIR; and,
WHEREAS, the public review period for the Draft EIR began April 15, 2002, and closed
May 29, 2002; and,
WHEREAS, the City prepared Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements
Final EIR and Response to Comments (July 2002), which responded to comments received on
the Draft EIR. The Final EIR did not identify any new significant impacts that had not been
previously evaluated in the Draft EIR.
WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed. public hearing on August 5, 2002, to
consider the Final EIR; and,
WHEREAS, after due consideration, the Petaluma City Council adopted Resolution
2002-135 N.C.S. certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Water Recycling
Facility and River Access Improvements Project and made the following findings on August 5,
2002.
Resolution No. 2005-136 N.C.S. Page 5
1. The Final Environmental Impact Report has been completed in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines.
2. The documents referenced below constitute the Final Environmental Impact Report
and were presented and considered along with both written and oral comments
received during the public review period on the Project and environmental
documents:
a. Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Draft Environmental
Impact Report, in two volumes (Apri12002).
b. Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Final Environmental
Impact Report and Response To Comments (July 2002).
3. The City Council, as the decision making body of the City of Petaluma,
independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the information in the Final EIR
and found that the contents of the Final EIR reflect the independent judgment of the
City of Petaluma
4. The Final EIR was published, made available and circulated for review and comment.
WHEREAS, the Project certified in the Final EIR included locating a portion of the
treatment plant at 4400 Lakeville Highway, the current site of the City's oxidation ponds (APN
0680-010-025, 032 and 024), with polishing treatment wetlands located at 4104 Lakeville
Highway (APN 068-010-026, and 017-170-002); and,
WHEREAS, the City completed approximately 50% design of the facility in November
2002; and,
WHEREAS, through the value engineering effort conducted in December 2002, it
became apparent the alternative of locating the water recycling facility at 4104 Lakeville
Highway and preserving the oxidation pond site for its current function warranted further
evaluation; and,
Resolution No. 2005-]36 N.C.S. Page 6
WHEREAS, to construct the water recycling facility at the oxidation pond site would
require 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 require
the placement of approximately 250,000 cubic yards of imported fill in the oxidation pond no. 1;
and,
WHEREAS, a feasibility study determined that locating the water recycling facility at
4104 Lakeville Highway was feasible and yields many benefits; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2003-196 N.C.S. on August 18,
2003, which authorized the City Manager to execute an amendment to the professional services
agreement with Carollo Engineers for engineering services in support of locating the new
treatment plant at 4104 Lakeville Highway; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council authorized acquisition of approximately 262 acres of land
in the 4000 block of Lakeville Highway for construction of the Water Recycling Facility and
development of the Petaluma Marsh Acquisition, Enhancement and Access Project on September
8, 2003 through Ordinance No. 2161 N.C.S. for the purchase of real property described as
Sonoma County Assessor's Parcel Nos. 068-010-026 and 017-010-002; and,
WHEREAS, the City acquired Parcel Nos. 068-010-026 and 017-010-002 in February
2004 with the assistance of grant funding from the California Coastal Conservancy and the
Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District; and,
WHEREAS, 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; and,
WHEREAS, the EIR Addendum concluded that the determinations of the Final EIR
remain valid for the revised Project in that none of the Project modifications will have new
significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant
Resolution No. 2005-136 N.C.S. Page 7
effects, or otherwise meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 which outlines
the standards by which subsequent EIRs are required; and,
WHEREAS, the EIR Addendum was published on April 15, 2004 and was available for
public review at the City of Petaluma City Hall, Petaluma Library, Petaluma Community Center,
Petaluma Senior Center, and the Santa Rosa Junior College, Petaluma campus; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2004-101 N.C.S. 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 on June 7, 2004; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2004-092 N.C.S. Authorizing the
City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with The Covello Group for
Construction Management Services Task 1 and Task 2 for the City of Petaluma Ellis Creek
Water Recycling Facility Project on June 7, 2004; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2004-156 N.C.S. Authorizing
General Contractor and Electrical Subcontractor Prequalification for the City of Petaluma Ellis
Creek Water Recycling Facility Project on August 16, 2004; and,
WHEREAS, the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee approved the Project on
November 18, 2004; and,
WHEREAS, the Petaluma Planning Commission considered the Project and the
proposed land use designations at 4104 Lakeville Highway on December 14, 2004, and
recommended the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment to the land use
designation of Public/Institutional, prezoning to Planned Community District (PCD) and
rezoning from Agricultural to Planned Community District, and annexation to the City of
Petaluma; and,
Resolution No. 2005-136 N.C.S. Page 8
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility on
February 7 and 28, 2004 and directed the Department of Water Resources and Conservation to
complete the contract documents for Alternative lA -Full Project With Bid Alternate for the
Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility and issue the contract documents to the following
prequalified contractors for solicitation of bids for construction:
General Contractors
• Slayden Construction
• Kiewit Pacific Company
• Monterey Mechanical
• Balfour Beatty Construction, Inc.
• Walsh Pacific Construction
• ARB, Inc.
Electrical Contractors
• Mass Electric
• Contract Costa Electric
• HGH Electric
• Blocka Construction
• Con J. Franke Electric
WHEREAS, the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project ("Project") is included in
the Department of Water Resources and Conservation Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Capital
Improvement Program Budget; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with Article X of the City of Petaluma Charter, the Petaluma
Municipal Code, California Public Contract Code Section 20162 and other applicable law, the
City of Petaluma solicited bids for the Project; and,
WHEREAS, the Project bids were received on July 14, 2005, and. opened in accordance
with California Public Contract Code Section 4105.5 and other applicable law; and,
Resolution No. 2005-136 N.C.S. Page 9
WHEREAS, the apparent lowest bid for the Project was the bid of Kiewit Pacific
Company in the amount of $106,250,200 for the Base Bid and $4,078,800 for Bid Alternate No.
1, for a total bid of $110,329,000; and,
WHEREAS, Kiewit Pacific Company was prequalified on December 15, 2004 to bid for
the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Resolution certifying the 2005 Construction
Addendum to the Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements EIR as modified by
the Apri12004 Addendum and Adopting Findings of Fact and Adopting Revised Mitigation
Measures and Monitoring Program on August 1, 2005; and,
WHEREAS, the 2005 Construction Addendum to the Water Recycling Facility and
River Access Improvements EIR concluded that the determinations of the Final EIR remain valid
for the revised Project in that none of the Project modifications will have new significant impacts
or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, or otherwise
meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 which outlines the standards by
which subsequent EIRs are required; and,
WHEREAS, the City requires the assistance of a professional environmental services
firm for biological surveys, monitoring, oversight of restoration and enhancement and to assist
in meeting all regulatory requirements during construction of the project; and,
WHEREAS, the City issued a Request For Proposal (RFP) for environmental services
during construction on June 8, 2005 to four (4) professional environmental firms, and received a
proposal on June 29, 2005 from one firm, Environmental Science Associates (ESA); and,
WHEREAS, the project team interviewed ESA on July 8, 2005; and,
WHEREAS, the project team evaluated the proposal based on the following criteria:
personnel assigned to the project, inspection team capability, team cohesion, management
systems, reference checks, back-up within the proposed team, proposal, presentation, answers
given during dialogue portion of the interview, cost and cost/hour; and,
Resolution No. 2005-136 N.C.S. Page 10
WHEREAS, ESA is recommended for the following reasons:
1. The firm has extensive experience with environmental management service on
projects of similar magnitude and complexity as the City'a Ellis Creek Water
Recycling Facility.
2. The firm has committed to provide a qualified environmental management team with
over 190 years of combined experience.
3. The firm has a proven track record of controlling schedule and costs.
4. The firm is known for being proactive and solution oriented when addressing
environmental issues.
5. The firm's core values are based on teamwork.
6. The firm has established management systems for project management.
7. The firm has very good reference checks.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that:
1. The above recitals are true and correct and hereby declared to be findings of the City
Council of the City of Petaluma.
2. The City Manager is authorized to execute a Professional Services Agreement with a
contract not-to-exceed amount of $1,434,830 with Environmental Science Associates
(ESA) for Environmental Services as described in the scope of work that is attached
to and hereby made a part of this Resolution as Attachment A on terms that are based
on the City of Petaluma standard professional services agreement and modified as
appropriate to implement the scope of work, subject to approval as to form by the
City Attorney.
3. Subject to available funds for the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project, the
City Manager is hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City of Petaluma
amendments to the Agreement Scope of Work, and to the. not-to-exceed amount, so
long as such amendments in the aggregate do not increase the original Agreement
Resolution No. 2005-136 N.C.S. Page 11
not-to-exceed amount by more than 15% (excluding increases in the original not-to-
exceed amount due to City-required insurance).
4. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.
5. All portions of this Resolution are severable. Should any individual component. of
this Resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable by a body of competent
jurisdiction, then the remaining Resolution portions shall be and continue in full force
and effect, except as to those Resolution portions that have been adjudged invalid.
The City Council of the City of Petaluma hereby declares that it would have adopted
this Resolution and each section, subsection, clause, sentence, phrase and other
portion hereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more section subsection, clause
sentence, phrase or other portion may be held invalid or unconstitutional.
Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City.
REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the A as to
Council of the City of Petaluma at a (Regular) (Adjourned) (Special) meeting
on the .........ls` day of ........Au$ust.................................., 20.05., by the
following vote:
City Attorney
AYES: Canevaro, Mayor Glass, Vice Mayor Harris, Healy, Nau, O'Brien, Torliatt
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST: • -
City Clerk Mayor
Council File
Res. Nn........2005-i36........N.C.S.
ATTAC~IMENT A
SCOPE OF WORK
ESA ®vervie~nr
Environmental Science Associates (ESA) is pleased to submit this Statement of Qualifications in
response to the City of Petaluma's Request for Proposal (RFP) for Environmental Services during
Construction of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility. ESA appreciates the opportunity to present our
extensive qualifications to provide environmental compliance monitoring services during the construction
phase of this important project. ESA provides construction managers with asolution-oriented project
team that spans the technical issues that arise during construction of projects within today's regulatory
environment. On the construction site, our aim is to work proactively with construction management to
resolve problems before they affect site resources or construction schedule and budget while ensuring that
compliance standazds are enforced.
Pr®ject Understanding
The City of Petaluma (City) has been developing the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility for
approximately 5 years, and has completed CEQA, permitting, and design tasks to develop the proposed
facility on two approximately 296 acre parcels adjacent to the City's existing Lakeville Highway
oxidation pond facility. The facility would provide the City of Petaluma with improved reliability;
increased capacity, and higher quality wastewater treatment services. Project implementation would
include construction of facilities on Parcels A and B to produce secondary treatment for up to 6.7 mgd
average dry weather flow, tertiary treatment for up to 4 mgd, biosolids treatment to meet Class B
requirements for beneficial reuse, and includes algae removal with wetlands and polishing with wetlands
to improve effluent discharge quality. Project components would be built over a 42-month time period,
with the facility coming on line at the end of 2008. These components include buildings and facilities to
provide both physical and biological treatment, a number of polishing, stormwater, and enhancement
wetlands, parking and access roads, including a public trail system.
The site has a number of environmentally sensitive features, including wetlands and waterways. It is
bisected by Ellis Creek, which provides potential habitat for California red-legged frog, as well as
migratory bird species and raptors. The wetlands include both freshwater and salt-water marshes and are
habitat for clapper rail, salt marsh harvest mouse, and other associated species. Impacts to these features
have been specifically minimized through design, requiring added attention to site boundaries.
Based on our review of the project, key objectives for the construction phase include the following:
® Construction of the facility in compliance with all environmental laws and permits
Resolution No. 2005-136 N.C.S. Page 13
Secto®n 3. ESe4 Pr®ject ~earrt ®rganizati®n
Our Project Team is led by senior staff in ESA's Water Group, and will be
The size and depth of the ESA supported by other ESA technical staff in all major environmental
in-house team, combined with disciplines. As we will demonstrate here, given the size and depth of the ESA
relevant experience and
qualifications for this in-house team with relevant experience and qualifications for this
assignment, provides the City assignment, ESA can provide the City with a cohesive, effectively managed
with a cohesive, effectively compliance services team that is available to handle many assignments
managed compliance services ' concurrently. Because we can rely largely on in-house personnel, ESA can
team that can handle many assure the City of a well coordinated and cost-effective contract management
assignments concurrently. and response effort.
Figure 3 highlights our Project Team and assigned experienced senior staff to oversee each major work
task and key deliverable. Supporting the senior core Project Management Team and Task Management
Team are several members of ESA's technical staff -providing the necessary breadth and depth of
technical capabilities as well as the needed manpower to complete environmental compliance services for
this contract. With this team structure, each major work task and critical deliverable has the focused
attention of an experienced task manager. References for key project team members are provided in
Table 3-1 below. Figure 4 presents a Staff Expertise Matrix that indicates the azea(s) of expertise for our
key staff members, and their availability for assignment to this contract. Key team members aze discussed
below. Full resumes for all proposed team members are presented in Appendix B.
Team 1V1{ember Reference/Address Phone
Jim O'Toole Vivian Housen, LAVWMA,5091 Dublin Blvd, Dublin CA 94568 925-551-7230
Te Becker, DWR, 901 P Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 916-653-6432
Jim Horen, Zone 7, 100 N. Can ons Pazkwa ,Livermore, CA 94551 925-454-5019
Jon Wa oner Grant Kreinber ,SSJID, 11011 E. Hi hwa 120, Manteca, CA 95336 209-249-4612
Lee Leavelle, EGUSD, 9510 Elk Grove-Florin Rd, Elk Grove, CA 95624 916-686-7711
Michael Jae er, Covello, 1660 Ol m is Blvd, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 925-933-2300
Jennifer Garrison Grant Kreinberg, SSJID, 11011 E. Highwa 120, Manteca, CA 95336 209-249-4612
Will Hicks, DWR, 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 916-802-3441
Michael Jae er, Covello, 1660 Olym is Blvd, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 925-933-2300
Chris Rogers Terry Becker, DWR, 901 P Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 916-653-6432
Curt Luck, Town of Hillsborough, 1600 Floribunda, Hillsborough, CA 94010 650-375-7443
Elish R an, Santa Clara County, 298 Garden Hill, Los Gatos, CA' 95032 408-358-3741
Resolution No. 2005-136 N.C.S. Page 14
Task 5. Contingency
The following have been identified as contingency items, based upon our experience on projects of
similar scale and scope. These contingency items represent level of effort estimates, and would be
modified as appropriate to. address specific conditions as they occur on the proposed project. For all
contingencies, the Project Team would be briefed on approach prior to agency consultation. Contingency
items, anticipated actions, and level of effort cost estimates are provided.
Contin enc Item Actions Effort
Bat Presence .Eviction, Monitor Boazdin ,Pre aze Re ort. 13,540
CRLF Presence Agency Coordination, USFWS Approval, Frog Relocation, 24,450
Pre aze Re ort.
Schedule Variation - Agency Coordination, Intensification of Monitoring 42,160
Sensitive Habitat
Sensitive Species Agency Meeting (2)/Approval, Relocation, Prepare Report 17,560
Presence - A uatic
Sensitive Species Agency Meeting (2)/Approval, Increased Monitoring, Prepare 25,210
Presence -Non- Report
A uatic
Unanticipated Cultural Recording site, preparation of plan, SHPO concurrence, 53,360
Resource Discove Increased Monitorin
Active Rookery Agency Approval, Weekly Monitoring, Prepaze Report 12,120.
Monitorin
Active Raptor Nest Consultation with CDFG, Weekly Monitoring, Prepare Report 12,700
Monitorin
Water Quality Visual discharge event - 5 sampling events for 3 wet seasons 13,600
Sam lin $2,000
SWPPP Design Issues 80 hours per season to address SWPPP BMP design and 42,250
monitoring of any discharges. This scope results in a
contin enc of 240 hours.
Turbidity Monitoring BMP sampling station design and implementation to provide 14,240
15-minute and 2 hour turbidi sam lin
Wetland Specification Additional inspection following corrective action 14,700
Non-com liance
Contractor Non- Contractor violation(s) of MMRP, Permit, SWPPP Conditions 40,000
Compliance resulting in Agency Shut-down. NCR prepazation,
documentation of corrective action and success.
A enc Permittin Permit Amendments to address alterations/ ro'ect clan e 50,000
Total Contin enc $372,440
Task 6. Project Management
ESA's Project Manager, Jim O'Toole, will track budget and schedule, including development of a
tracking spreadsheet and submittal of tracking spreadsheet with billings. Written monthly progress reports
will be submitted with billings. Corrective actions will be identified as appropriate, and overages will be
identified within 30 days of occurrence. Mr. Waggoner will track personnel relative to the contract, and
will notify the City in writing of personnel changes.
Resolution No. 2005-136 N.C.S. Page 15
implemented satisfactorily in the field: To address daily and seasonal fluctuations in construction schedule,
our cost estimate assumes (on an annual basis) one 3/a time monitor in Year 1, one % monitor in Year 2, and
one '/o time monitor in Year 3. ESA is available to staff the job appropriately to ensure environmental
compliance.
Task Timing Notes
22.1 CRLF Monitoring 4 weeks Ellis Creek, Canal C, Ponds 9&10
2.2.2 Routine Monitoring Construction MMRP/Permits, Species Exclusion Zones
2.2.3 SWPPP Construction Daily during events; weekly during winter; monthly
durin season.
2.2.4 Cultural Resources Construction General Observation; specific monitoring at
Farmhouse Buildings
Task 3. 1Netland Restoration, Enhancement, Construction
Chris Rogers will oversee monitoring of contractor for compliance with Specifications Sections
summarized in the table below. Tasks will include: 1) stake and monitor protection zones; 2) review
PO/hydroseed mix; 3) inspect.plants prior to delivery; 4} monitor site preparation and grading; 5) inspect
plants on delivery; 6) inspect planting 7) installation inspection (5 day, 6 weeks) and report to CM
.regarding acceptance or corrective action. Optimal wetland planting is September 15 through October 15
for plant establishment. Merritt-Smith will support ESA. on this task as appropriate.
Task S ecification Notes
3.1 Existing Wetland Restoration 01140.1.10.B.8.d; Stake Protection Zone/Post Construction
01110.1.10.B.8.e Monitorin
3.2 Wetland Enhancement Section 02975 Optimal wetland planting eriod Sept 15-Oct 15
'3.3.1 Pond 8 and 10 Section 02950 _ O timal wetland lantin eriod Set 15-Oct 15
3.3.2 MCMVCD Management Prepare draft and final management plan
Re ort.
3.3 Wetland Final Year Re ort Final year ins ection rior to startu .
Task 4. Ellis Creek Restoration and Enhancement
Chris Rogers will oversee monitoring of contractor for compliance with Specifications Sections
summarized below. Tasks will include: 1) stake and monitor protection zones; 2) review PO/hydroseed
mix; 3) inspect plants prior to delivery; 4) monitor site preparation and grading; 5) inspect plants on
delivery; 6) inspect planting; 7) installation inspection (5 day, 6 weeks) and report to CM regarding
acceptance or corrective action. Optimal wetland planting is September 15 through Octoher 15 for plant
establishment. Merritt-Smith will support ESA on this task as appropriate.
Task S ecification Notes
4.1 Ellis Creek Restoration EC RR Plan O timal wetland lanting eriod Se t 15-Oct 15
4.2 Ellis Creek Enhancement EC W&E S ec timal wetland lanting eriod Se t 15-Oct 15
4.3 Wetland Final Year Re ort Final ear ins ection ribr to startu .
Resolution No. 2005-136 N.C.S. Page 16
As the project progresses and work begins in sensitive areas, ESA may conduct short tailgate training
sessions (10-15 minutes). These tailgate trainings provide site specific information the area's restrictions,
' the important measures and procedures in place to protect the surrounding sensitive areas, resources, and
species. ESA will also conduct a specialized training session for the contractor's designated
Environmental Coordinator. During the, training, ESA will provide an overview of the EIR, permits and
construction conditions, timing restrictions associated with habitats and species on the site, as well as
provide the EC with important`ESA contact information andprotocols to be followed if a sensitive
species or resource is encountered on the site. A training session for the City will be organized and
presented by the Environmental Management staff to discuss the wetlands management plan, report
tracking system, and post-construction reporting schedule.
Task 2. Surveys and Environmental Monitoring
Task 2.1 Surveys
ESA will provide pre-construction screening, site clearance; and coordination of site barrier establishment
for sensitive species, including bird species, bats, California red-legged frog, and aquatic species, as
appropriate. All surveys will conform to agency.standards and specifications. Following completion, ESA
will provide a verbal or email report to the CM and City Staff the day of the survey, and will then prepare
a letter report summarizing methodologies and findings of the pre-construction survey. For each sensitive
species, USFWS approved biologists will implement the appropriate mitigation strategy as outlined in the
MMRP in the event that sensitive species are identified as present. Pre-construction survey requirements
are broken down by task in the table below. In addition to scheduled surveys, species surveys would be
integrated into daily monitoring.
Task Timin Num Notes
2.1.1 Nesting Bird Survey March-May 3
2.1.2.a Raptor 15 days Prior 3 500 ft Ellis Creek, DWG G-23, west entrance
2.1.2.b Passerine 15 da s Prior 3 100 ft of ri arian: all work and Ellis Cr Crossing
2.1.2.c Rookery 15 days Prior 1 Pond 8 Construction Jan 15-June 15
2.1.3 Bats Aug 15-19 1 Four Buildin s around Farmhouse
2.1.4 CRLF 14 days Prior 3 Ellis Creek Crossings and Canal C. Work limited
A rl-Nov 1.
2.1.5 A uatic S ecies 15 days Prior 6 Ri arian, Ellis Creek Crossings, Canal C, Pond 9&10
Task 2.2 A/lonitoring
ESA will implement compliance monitoring and reporting required by MMRP, Permits, SWPPP,
biological resources, and cultural resources, and other issue areas as appropriate. E,SA will monitor
construction activities in sensitive areas, periodically inspect barriers, and recommend repairs to be
performed by the contractor to maintain barrier integrity. The primary responsibilities of the
environmental compliance monitors will be to ensure through consistent observation, documentation,
reporting and enforcement activities, that sensitive biological resources to be avoided remain undisturbed,
that areas to be cleared and graded are minimized and limited to areas identified in the Contractor
Specifications, and that specific construction mitigation compliance activities and measures are
Resolution No. 2005-136 N.C.S. Page 17
Task 1.2 A9eefings
ESA will integrate with the CM meeting schedule in order to provide proactive problem-solving on a
weekly basis to maintain project schedule. We anticipated both Project Manager and Environmental
Manager involvement during the first year of construction. Anticipated meeting attendance is summarized
in the table below as follows: Project Manager (PM) Jim O'Toole; Environmental Manager (EM) Jennifer
Garrison; Group Manager (GM) Jon Waggoner. We have included EM attendance on a weekly basis to
' reduce need for unscheduled meetings.
Meetin Task Number Attendance
1.2.1 Pre Construction Conference 1 PM, EM, GM
1.2.2 Partnerin Session 1 PM, EM, GM
1.2.3 Additional Partnerin Session 2 PM, EM, GM
1.2.4 Monthly Meetin s 36 PM 36
1.2.5 Weekly Meetings 72 PM (I8) EM (72))
1.2.6 Unscheduled Meetin s 10 PM 10 EM 10
1.2.7 Meetin Records Review Inclusive 1.2.5 Inclusive 1.2.5
1.2.8 Report Review Meetings 6 PM (6)
1.2.9 Re latory Meetin s 4 PM EM
Task 1.3 Reporting
Daily reports will be submitted to CM, and an electronic summary will be provided weekly and monthly
to support meetings. Monitoring reports will be prepared and submitted to the City on a quarterly and
annual schedule. Quarterly Reports will. include: 1) survey results; 2) survey measures; 3) mitigation
implementation status; 4) monitoring sheets; 5) violations; 6) violation resolutions. ESA will address
violations with CM. Annual reports will collate this data. Assuming.3 year active construction schedule,
deliverables include:
Task Number Notes
1.3.1 Miti ation Monitoring Re orts 15 12 Quarterly, 3 Annual
1.3.3 Submittal Review 4 Com leted within 10 da s
1.3.4 Permit Annual Re orts
a. SWPPP 3 Annual Re ort
b. USFWS 3 Com liance Re ort
c. CDFG - Ra for 3 Ra for Nest Protection Pro am
d. CDFG/RW CB 1 Yeaz 0-1 Re ort, Ellis Creek/Wetlands
1.3.5 Regulatory Reporting Schedule 1 Schedule/Format for Year 2-5 Reporting
Task 1.4 Training
All construction personnel will be required to attend a short environmental training program (generally
between 15 and 30 minutes), which will include a videotape training currently being developed. ESA will
track worker training sessions through the use of sign-in sheets and regular checks of personnel hazdhats.
Resolution No. 2005-136-N.C.S. Page 18
Figure 2 PROPOSED SCHEDULE
CITY OF PETALUMA
Ellis Creek Water Recycling Faelllly
' zoos zoos xooT xgoa
Month A~'. 5 0 N 0 J F M A M: J~ J! A S 0 I N D J 4 F M A ~ M J I Ji A i S D i to D J~ F M A
M~ J J! A~ S D i N 0
TASKS I ,I I
I I ~ I i ii__
Environmental Program J ,,,y,r y ~ Tom-.. I W + rr 6- . _ I ~rt` ~ ~ ~i^T ~ i L ~I
` u u`~'. J n s "'SZ.~ ~ ?.,r ~1'TJ~...S,u~~t Tn~ i `r~ i is - Lq
I. 1
I i
Pre-Conslrueuon Preparabon - _ _i_ . I , ~ I i I ~ ~ 9 - i I i I - - -
l
` -
~i___ _i _ _
1
I c__ _ _ _ I _
REPOHrINO ~ I I ~ ~ - - I _ _
Ouarterty Miugation Monilodnp ReDart Preparation I ~ ~ ~ ii
x I I'
___.d1 I _S.~
Annual Mlugation Monitoring Re0ort Preparation _ I ~ ~ ' ~ - - - I. ~ i ~ I
..J---- - - 1 - -
I - --.i. A._ J
AnnuaISWPPP RePOrt to ~ ( i iI ~ i' I ~ I i i
Regional Water OualRy Board _ _ i _ _ i I . ~ I i i wE ~ I. I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ l~ I i', I I
_
_ tt
Annual USFWS/COFG ComDbance Report(s) _ I _r 8 ~ S ~ .I . , I - _ _ ~ r - - i IFW r ! I ' ' I I 'I ~ I - - ~ ~ - I- -
- - I
z{' ~
~ Annual RWOCB Restonllon Reporting (0-1 year)' I - I -I ~ I ~ _ -
_ _ _ _ ~ I I. j, 4
i
~ _ l _ _
O - J
I I 1
~ Annual RWOCB Wetlands Creation and I ~ ~ I 17
_ i ~~I ~ ~ I .I _ I I r
O, Enhancement ReDOtl (0-1 year)" I ~ ~ I ~ ` ~ I i ~ I -
_ I•
, _ r___
~ SURVEYS ~ ~ ~ _ r ,I 1 I___ i___ _ _ _ _
I
O Annual Nesahp Bird Survey (April) - _ . . I ~ _ _ _ - ~ _ ~ I I - _ _ I ~ r I JI i i
_ _ I _
I
I -
' Raptor Survey within S00'oI EIIIS Creek, ~ i ~ i i I I - -I--~- - ~
~ Eucalyptus Trees d Wesl Entrance Trees ' I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i '
p (Passerine Survey included wRn 100' of Creeek) ~ - ! ~ I , - _
U I _ __r__ _ I _ I__ ~-7-_ I I
{
i
,
W Rookery Establishment Survey --__I_ r I i I - i i- - - ~ - i_,
~ Bat Presence Survey ~ ~ ~ i r _ _ _ _ I _ _ i . _ _ _ _ _ _ I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _
Z - _r __~.___i_ ~ I .
, - ; ~ _____I____ _
n CRLF Survey. _ _ : j _ 1
~ 14 Days Poor to Ellis Creek Crossings, and Ganal C _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ i ~ '
F ~
MONITORING ~ ~ I I ~ I -
. i I i i I -
I
ComPhance Monilminp Program -i, _ ~ I I
. _ I • _
Within CRLF Habnal,.Ezduslon ; -
_ i I'. ~ _
i_
~ ~ _ _ ____I_ I .
I
Ellis Creek, Canal C Pond - ~ ~ I I -
i
Cary Construglon Periods : _ _ _ _ - ~ I I' I _I I I i I'
__s_- _ i_
l-
I ~ ~ . i ~ I r 'I' - - - - - -
I I I I •i ,
I I-
Polen0al Nestmq Bud Monitoring I I: _
I ~ ~ I
it Present __I I li I ~ ~
F - I
SWPPP InsPedlon ~ ~ I - ~ _ _ _ _ I. _ _ _ _ 1 _ _ _
I - i
Clapper Rall Monnonnq Ponds Sand 10 - _ _ ) - -F_ ~ I ,
_ _ _
_
I ~ - -
I L ~ - - ~ -
WETLAND MITIGATION POND
WETUNO ENHANCEMENT- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I I i j ~ ~ i ~ _
i I I
Grading i ~ ~ i ~ - ~
Ellis Creek Restoration ~ ~ ~ ~ _ I _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
I
c_- I~
i,
y 'Actually repomnq schedule will be I
C!Q dependant upon completion of restoration work
CD
"Acluall re ortin Schedule v+dl be I"~'1 Survey window (rtpuhed surreyl ) -;,.':'r' Regan Pmpara6on and Re ew Surve /Monitor it Conslnulion -
Y P q - Y Mommr ifPNSenI A pyhserable Periodic faahry SeNp
~ dependant upon completion of planllnq schedule: -
Figure 1 ESA-PETALUMA OCSIGN AND CONSTRUCTION TCADA INTERCACC
LITY OF PE7ALUMA
Construction nAonitoring Staffing Plan EIIIS CreeY Waler Rerycllny fatlllly
ESA has developed a preliminary staffing plan that
provides an estimate for anticipated construction RE50LUTION
monitoring work effort during the 2005 to 2008
g cnrrnrl+F+rniru ~ ~ eSaPUU.iccF
construction of the project. Based on our ~ Q ~.~^+~:,~F;,FUl
experience, a high level of monitoring and ~ ' -
supporting technical services will be required ~
cae[uo c;;eslucClr.'il f,:. FIF:D
during project start up and during the first year of ~,a,L+~G=•+~.II I"hIL:~,~.I+II+
construction. Typically, monitoring levels are '
reduced as protection zones are established, site ~
cnvrunrou,rnur.nmF rtn neGo
grading is completed, and the contractor focuses on ~~~srntFU4s ,i; a+m:n clts
is ,
facility construction. For example, following '
completion of Ellis Creek Crossings, Wetland
Grading and Restoration activities, we would anticipate one monitor would be able to meet project needs,
with fluctuations depending upon construction location and intensity. Monitoring efforts will of course
respond to daily and seasonal contractor schedule variation. For budgeting purposes, we have identified
one full time monitor through calendar year 2006, budgeted using 22-day months and 8 hour construction
days. The monitor will be supported by the Environmental Manager and technical specialists. For 2007
and 2008, we anticipate monitoring to be reduced, although survey and reporting efforts will remain
equivalent. As such, we have budgeted for a half time and quarter time monitoring for each calendar year,
respectively. Throughout the project, ESA's Project Manager, Jim O'Toole, and On-site Environmental
Manager, Jennifer Garrison, will attend weekly and monthly meetings to provide project look-ahead
schedule, and to apply ESA technical resources as necessary to maintain project construction schedules.
Sec#ion 2. Technical Approach
The following discussion presents our technical approach to completing the anticipated scope of work.
Additionally, contingency tasks have been identified based upon our understanding of the project and
experience with project of similar scale and environmental sensitivity.
Task 1. .Manage Environmental Program
Task 7.7 Schedule and Tracking
ESA's Project Manager, Jim O'Toole, and On-site Environmental Manager, Jennifer Garrison, will be
responsible for ensuring compliance with mitigation checklist and consistency with overall project
schedule. Mr. Waggoner will manage overall manpower and field monitoring staff. This will include: 1)
EIR and Permit Review; 2) Checklist Update with approved/modified permits; 3) Budget Confirmation;
4) Monitoring Schedule; 5) Document Checklist/Schedule; 6) Project Document Tracking System Inputs;
7) Construction Schedule Review. A preliminary schedule of environmental compliance tasks is provided
in Figure 2.
Resolution No. 2005-136 N.C.S. Page 20
Secti®n 1. Pr®ject. Management
ESA's approach utilizes a core group of experienced professionals in a
on the construction site, our aim management structure that provides the hands-on, day-to-day management
is to work proactively with necessary to ensure efficient project completion. Our Project Manager, Jim
construction management and
the oversight agency to resolve O'Toole, will provide scope of work and schedule. oversight, including
problems before they affect site quality control and review of key work products. Jennifer Garrison will
resources or the construction serve as On-site Environmental Coordinator, and will coordinate directly
schedule and budget. with the City Construction Management Team on a day to day basis. Jon
Waggoner will provide field monitor resource oversight and agency
coordination assistance. The tools ESA employs in managing a project include biweekly labor and direct
cost expense reports, reports on subconsultant invoices; and, regular progress meetings. Each month, ESA
.will prepare a concise progress report summarizing effort and budget spent in the period to date, budget
remaining, key work completed, and key upcoming tasks. The progress report will also include
recommendations to respond to schedule and scope of work issues. ESA is proactive in scheduling and
facilitating team meetings to address project issues.
Schedule Management and Critical Path Identification
As a key member of the Construction Management Team, ESA is adept at identifying critical path items
and work-around strategies to facilitate project implementation. The City has prepared awell-thought out
environmental program, and ESA will complement the City and Construction Management team to
maintain project schedule. Our Project Management Team has the experience and technical expertise to
understand the regulatory "big picture," as well as the hands-on knowledge to identify workable field
solutions to address changes in field conditions, project designs and implementation schedules. This type
of "out of the box" thinking has established ESA's reputation for effective project implementation.
Problem Solving at Field and IlAanagement Levels
Construction implementation requires responsiveness to changing conditions
ESA understands the often and continual application of field solutions to issues at they arise in the field.
complex relationship between ESA has a proven track record of providing construction managers with a
Owner, Construction Manager,
Design Engineers, and proactive solution-oriented approaches that provides real-world solutions.
Contractors. ESA's problem ESA understands the relationship between the Owner, Construction Manager,
solving capability and Design Engineer, Contractor, and provides an integral role in day to day field
management structure provides operations. Through our experience during the LAVWMA project, ESA has
a parallel structure for efficient an understanding of the Covello Construction Management team and its
communication and issue structure, providing for monitoring of conditions and effective
resolution.
communication to Construction Inspectors regarding compliance issues.
Figure 1 shows our proposed decision and resolution structure and key staff responsibilities at various
management levels. ESA's problem solving capability and management structure provides a parallel
structure for efficient communication and issue resolution.
Resolution No. 2005-136 N.C.S. .Page 21
fiber optic cable projects within California for Williams Communications, including alignments from
Point Arenas to Sacramento, Pittsburg to Sacramento, and Sacramento to Robbins, California. Mr.
Waggoner coordinates ESA's field monitors, and will assist in group staffing assignments and agency
coordination.
ESA's Onsite Environmental Jennifer Garrison will supervise on-site monitoring, and will serve as the
Manager Jennifer Garrison has Project's Environmental Manager. Ms. Garrison has served in this role
managed construction during the construction monitoring phases of the LAVWMA Export Facilities.
monitoring for the ?~4vwMA Project, SSJID Water Supply Project, and SBA Maintenance Project. Ms.
Export Facilities, SSJ/D Water Garrison has an excellent working relationship with Covello Group, and has
Supply Project, sBA experience with federal and state agency negotiations for variance and
Maintenance and several CPUC
projects. permitting conditions.
Senior Biological Resources Staff
ESA's Biological Resources Group is comprised of over 15 specialists in
ESA brings senior-level botany and plant ecology, wildlife biology, fisheries, aquatic ecology, and
biologists with real-world wetland permitting, providing a full range of biological resource capabilities.
problem-solving skills to this
assignment Lead by Tom Roberts, Certified Wildlife Biologist, and Chris Rogers,
Wetland Permitting Specialist, ESA provides the essential senior experience
to address sensitive species and wetland restoration issues for the project. Mr. Rogers is currently
supervising wetland restoration for the SBA Maintenance Project and the Town of
Hillsborough Crystal
Springs Sewer Replacement Project. We have supplemented our in-house capabilities with Merritt Smith
for CRLF and wetland restoration tasks, and specific technical experts for bat and clapper rail issues.
Project Team Responsiveness
ESA has demonstrated responsiveness both in meeting the wide range of
ESAa responsiveness ro technical needs and the aggressive real-time scheduling needs of construction
Construction Managers and projects. As an integral member of Construction Management teams that
Inspectors provides solution-
oriented problem solving in the have successfully implemented the DWR SBA Maintenance Project (44-
field with an eye toward rlule), the LAVWMA Export Facilities Project (16-mile), the SSIID Water
maintaining project schedules. Project (new Water Treatment Plant and 30-mile pipeline) projects, ESA
understands the need for responsiveness to Construction Managers to provide
solution-oriented problem solving in the field. Our team members are dedicated to meeting the City's
needs throughout the challenging implementation of this project.
Resolution No. 2005-136 N.C.S. Page 22
• Maintenance of construction schedule through proactive environmental compliance and
contractor management
• Integration of environmental monitoring with overall construction management
• Minimization of schedule delays through proactive responsiveness to environmental issues as
they arise during the construction phase
• Continuation of the City's efforts to maintain close coordination with agency personnel in order
to facilitate project implementation
ESA Strengths Relevant to this Contract
ESA has provided Construction Water Infrastructure Construction ilAonitoring
Monitoring Services forover Our Water Group consists of 30 professionals focused specifically on all
10 waterinfrastructure projects phases of environmental compliance services for major water utility projects,
in the last 5 years alone. ESA
experience provides the City including Environmental Compliance Services. Within the last 5 years alone,
with the regulatory ESA's Water Group has conducted Construction Monitoring services for
understanding and prob?em- over 10 major water pipeline and infrastructure projects (see Section 3.0,
solving capability necessary for project Experience) as well as CEQA and Permitting for these and several
successful construction of water .others. ESA's experience addressing environmental implementation issues
projects in today's regulatory for major facility projects throughout California provides the City with the
environment.
regulatory understanding and problem-solving capability essential to
successful construction of major water facilities in today's regulatory
environment.
Experienced Project irnanagement Team
Jim O'Toole will serve as Project Manager for this Contract, providing the
ESA's Project Director Jim City with over 15 years of CEQA, Permitting and Compliance Monitoring
OToole provides the City with experience focused on major water and wastewater infrastructure projects.
an experienced understanding
crucial for effective O'Toole has been the Project Manager for several projects directly
implementation of applicable to this assignment, including: the SBA Enlargement Project
environmental compliance. (CEQA, Permitting, Construction Monitoring, SBA Maintenance Project
(CEQA, Permitting, Construction MonitoringJ, LAVWMA Export Pipeline
Facilities Project (CEQA, Permitting, Construction Monitoring, Windsor Water Reclamation Master
Plan EIR, Novato Sanitary District Master Plan EIR, Zone 7 Water Supply Planning Program EIR, the
ACWD Capital Improvements Program EIR, ACWD Desalination Plant NPDES Permitting. Mr.
O'Toole will serve as the Primary Point of Contact for this contract; he brings to the City a thorough
understanding of construction management and inspection practices, and has demonstrated problem-
solving ability at all levels.
Mr. O'Toole will be assisted by Jon Waggoner, ESA's Construction Group Manager. Mr. Waggoner
brings an extensive resume of construction monitoring experience. These include installation of over 112
miles of water supply pipeline for Rural North Vacaville Water District, and installation of several major
Resolution No. 2005-136 N.C.S. Page 23
Figure 3 TEAM ORGANIZATION
CITY OF PETALUMA
Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility
1 ~
~
cf C041ELL0 G kh~.;~ ~ -
~Q~p~ .
? Bruce Pressed;
P E
I E.d O'Brierrr! rP:E i
ESA MANAGEMENT TEAM
Leslle RNoultort James O`Toole Jon Waggoner
Principal in=Charge Project Manager Construction Group Manager
Jennifer Garrison
On-Site Environmental Manager
--1-
TECHNICAL TEAM
SWPPP BIOLOGICAL CONSTRUCTION
COMPLIANCE SURVEYS MONITORING
Peter Hudson, P.G., C.E.c. Tom Roberts, C.W.B. Jennifer Garrison
Eric Schniewind, R.E.A. Brian Pittman, C.W.B. Even Holmboe
Asavari Devadiga Lee Miles Rob Wolfson
Amy Sinsheimer Christine Gaber Mark Baumgartner
Jennifer Garrison Martha Lowe
Justin Gragg Michael Fawcett, Ph.D. r
Anne Wallace, C.W.B. s
Greg Tatarian
Trish Tatarian a
CULTURAL
RESOURCES WETLAND RESTORATION REPORTING
Barry Scott, R.P.A. Chris Rogers Jennifer Garrison
Dean Martorana, R.P.n. Jon Waggoner Lisa Nunes
Traci O'Brien Jennifer Garrison Amy Sinsheimer
Jennifer Garrison Brian Pittman, C.W.B. Christal Love
William Sell, R.P.A.2 David Smith, Ph.D.' Asavari Devadiga
Subconsultants In Ilallcs Task Leaders names in bold
t Merritt-Smith Associates
? Wllllam Sell Associates
3 EcoBrldges Environmental Consulting
4 Wildlile Research Associates
Resolution No. 2005-136 N.C.S. Page 24