HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/21/2000, 3 - WATER REUSE PROJECT - APPROVE DESIGN ALTERNATIVE council M
Nov.
21 2000
j agenOA nEpout mnmik,
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P 0
FROM: John Moss,Utilities Directogr-
Prepared By: Dave Pierce, Water Projects Manager
SUBJECT: WATER REUSE PROJECT—APPROVE DESIGN ALTERNATIVE
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Select and approve Project Alternative 1.
2. Authorize the Utilities Director to begin investigation of opportunities to provide recycled
water in exchange for groundwater.
3. Authorize the Utilities Director to direct the design engineer to move forward with the design
of the project identified as the Initial Project, Groundwater Exchange, and the Future User
portions of Alternative 1.
DISCUSSION
History
In 1988,while reviewing options for upgrading the Water Reclamation Facility to meet new
discharge requirements,the City Council directed staff to develop a project to recycle the tertiary
treated effluent. In September1991, the City of San Luis Obispo filed Wastewater Change
Petition#12 with the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) requesting that recycled
water to be produced by the Water Reclamation Facility be used for irrigation and other uses
allowed by the California Department of Health Services. Six protests were filed against the
petition. At this time the City began the environmental review process that included: the
preparation and certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), consultation with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning potential impacts to the tidewater goby, consultation
with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) concerning potential impacts to the
steelhead, and consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game. After the City
completed the environmental review and developed an extensive mitigation and monitoring
program, the SWRCB, on June 21, 2000, issued Order 2000-07 DWR approving the City's
petition to recycle treated wastewater. On September 5, 2000 the City Council approved the
Water Reuse Project and a Notice of Determination was filed.
In December 1997, the City Council awarded a design contract to Brown and Caldwell (B&C)
for the design of the Water Reuse Project. The design is to be completed in three phases.
• During the first phase of design, B&C prepared an Engineering Report. The report is
submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the State Department of Health
3-1
Council Agenda Report—Water Reuse Project—Approve Preliminary Design Report
Page2
Services as part of the request for a Master Reclamation Permit. That permit will approve the
use of recycled water for specific types of use. This first phase of design was completed in
February 2000.
• During the second phase of design, B&C investigated the modifications that need to be made
to the Water Reclamation Facility and alternative designs for the storage and the distribution
systems. After the Council approves a preferred altemative, B&C will complete a
Preliminary Design Report that documents the selected alternative and the system modeling
that defines pipe and pump sizes as well as storage requirements.
• During the third phase of design, B&C will prepare the plans and specifications needed to
advertise and construct the project.
Alternatives Investigated
During the pre-design phase, two projects (identified as Alternatives 2 and 3 in the Brown and
Caldwell report) were investigated to utilize the maximum amount of available recycled water to
offset the consumption of potable water. As will be discussed later in this report, these
altematives are not being recommended. The distinguishing characteristic between these
altematives is that Alternative 2 proposes elevated storage at a location, which is not yet finalized
and may require property acquisition, whereas Alternative 3 proposes storage at the existing
Water Reclamation Facility site in conjunction with a pump station to provide the required
hydraulic grade line. Altematives 2 and 3 have an estimated capital cost of$20.3 million.
Since these cost estimates are nearly twice the project budget,Brown and Caldwell and City staff
have worked to identify a more cost effective alternative. This more cost effective alternative has
been identified as Altemative 1.
The recommended altemative, Alternative 1,includes three identified phases:
• Phase 1 - Construction of an initial phase or backbone facilities to serve existing users
close to the Water Reclamation Facility;
• Phase 2 - Investigation into the possibility of delivering recycled water to nearby
agricultural operations in exchange for the groundwater they are currently using for
irrigation; and
• Phase 3 - Connection of future users to the backbone facilities developed in Phase 1.
The backbone system will be developed so that it will be possible to extend the distribution
system to the Sinsheimer area, downtown, and to Cal Poly at a future date if evaluation at that
time deems it appropriate. It is important to note that the Groundwater Exchange element(Phase
3-2
Council Agenda Report—Water Reuse Project—Approve Preliminary Design Report
Page3
2) of this alternative has not been discussed with parties outside the City, and will require
additional investigation prior to implementation.
The attached figure (Attachment 2) shows proposed pipeline locations for the three alternatives.
The Proposed Proiect
As indicated in the attached report from Brown and Caldwell the preferred alternative is to
construct Phase lof Alternative 1, investigate opportunities to develop the groundwater exchange
program for approximately 400 acre feet of exchange (Phase 2), and provide facilities to serve
new development as it occurs within the area that can be served from the pipeline installed
during Phase 1. The project so defined will provide up to 968 acre-feet per year at an average
unit cost of approximately$1,035/acre-foot.
FISCAL IMPACT
Council has previously approved an agreement with Brown and Caldwell for the design services
identified in the recommended action and no additional funding is required at this time.
The construction cost is estimated to be $12.4 million. The Water Reuse Project CIP approved
budget includes $8,000,000 in 2000-01 for construction. The increase in construction costs could
increase the annual debt service by approximately$250,000. The increase will be included in the
2000 Water Fund analysis to determine the actual impact on rates. This is a worst-case scenario
for this cost estimate. The City has applied for grant/loan funding under the 2000 Water Act that
was approved by the voters as Proposition 13 in the March 2000 election. The State Water
Resource Control Board is scheduled to make a decision these projects in January 2001. At this
time it is expected that the funding from this source will be 25%grant and 75% low interest loan.
The City has also has made an initial application for a State Revolving Fund Loan. Actual
cost/fund impact will be more clearly defined after the City receives the commitment of
loan/grant funds from the State and the design is finalized.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Brown and Caldwell Report
2. Figure showing pipeline locations
3-3
Purpose
This report serves as an Executive Decision Paper to the City Council regarding the three
identified alternatives for the City of San Luis Obispo Water Reuse Project. The intent is to
provide the Council sufficient information to both approve an alternative, and to authorize staff
to move forward with design of the selected alternative.
Background
The City Council has previously approved the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this
project. The project described in the EIR proposed to take effluent from the City's existing
Water Reclamation Facility(WRF), treat this effluent to Department of Health Services Title 22
requirements for unrestricted water reuse for irrigation purposes, and then deliver this Reclaimed
Water(RW) to identified users. The Water Reuse Project will provide a drought tolerant water
supply to meet a portion of the City's nonpotable demand, will increase the water quality of San
Luis Obispo Creek by reducing the quantity of contaminants discharged, will assist in complying
with the Federal Clean Waters Act, and will contribute to the efficient management of the City's
water resources.
The City retained Brown and Caldwell to prepare an Engineering Report, a Pre-Design Report,
and a Final Design for the Reuse Project. The project in its simplest form consists of three main
capital components:
1. Modifications to the existing WRF.
2. A new system of pipelines for distribution of the RW.
3. Storage to allow collection of RW during non-demand hours.
Discussion
The most cost-effective project is a phased approach(see Alternative 1 on the attached matrix) to
project implementation that maximizes RW delivery by first serving"potable offset" customers
closest to the WRF,through an innovative groundwater exchange program proposed by City
staff, and by planning to service future users when expected development occurs. A key aspect
of this alternative is that it retains the flexibility to serve all "potable offset"customers, while
minimizing the unit costs through the"Groundwater Exchange" and"Future Users"planned
phases.
Two other project alternatives (reflected on the attached matrix as Alternatives 2 and 3)
identified in the early pre-design phase would distribute RW only to uses throughout the City
that offset the consumption of potable water. The unit cost of these two alternatives is identical;
the distinguishing characteristic between them is that Alt. 2 proposes elevated storage at a
location which is not yet finalized and would require property acquisition by the City, whereas
Alt. 3 proposes to utilize storage at the existing WRF site in conjunction with a pump station to
1 "Water Reuse Project," Final Environmental Impact Report, City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department,3/97.
'It is important to note that this element of Alternative 1 has not been discussed with parties outside of the City and
will require additional investigation prior to implementation.
Decision Paper Text Page 1 of 2 3-A
SLO Water Reuse Project �F
/}rTA-C 1 /MCet 7—
provide
provide the required hydraulic grade line. Alternatives 2 and 3 are not phased projects, and they
do not consider the delivery of water via the Groundwater Exchange element proposed in
Alternative 1.
The attached matrix provides the capital cost and a"Cost/Acre-foot"calculation for each of the
phases proposed in Alternative 1, and for Alternatives 2 and 3. As can be seen from the
"Cost/Acre-foot" column in Alternative 1, the most cost-effective project is to build the"Initial
Project'that serves users closest to the WU, to develop the "Groundwater Exchange" element,
and to then service the"Future Users." When Alternative 1 is built in this order, the cost of RW
is expected to be on the order of$1,013/acre-foot.3 Building the system further to service the
"Sinsheimer Area" and the"Downtown and Cal Poly Areas"produces a diminishing returns
effect. The averaged cost to deliver RW to these areas would be $1,182 and $1,451 per acre-
foot.
The unit cost to build out either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 is expected to be $1,980.
Recommendation
Brown and Caldwell recommends that the Council select and approve Alternative No. 1. We
recommend that the Council authorize staff to begin investigation of opportunities to provide
reclaimed water in exchange for groundwater. We also recommend that the Council authorize
staff to direct the design engineer to complete the design of a project that will serve users
identified in the"Initial Project," the "Groundwater Exchange"and the "Future Users" elements
of Alternative No. 1.
3 These costs are simple averages of the calculated cost/acre-foot;due to the unknown start date of demands for the
"Future Users,"no adjustment has been made for the time value of money.
Decision Paper Text Page 2 of 2
SLO Water Reuse Project 3'5
Decision Paper Matrix - City of San Luis Obispo Water Reuse Project
Alternative No. 1
Initial Project
Customers Served Ac-fUyr Capital Components Capital Cost Annual O&M Cost/Ac-ft'
Cost
Laguna Hills Park 8 7 miles of pipelines
Laguna Lake Goff Course 17 RW Pump Station 12
Laguna Middle School 26 Modifications to
Laguna Lake Park 12 existing WRF
HOA II(2 sites) 9 0.2 MG Storage to
Los Verdes Park HOA 5 maintain creek flows
State Farm Mutual 7
French Park 20
Isla Hills Park g
Total this-Rase 113 $9.6 M $128 K $6,842
Groundwater Exchange
Customers Served Ac-ft/yr Capital Components Capital Cost Annual O&M COSVAC-ft•
Cost
Ag between 101 &Madonna Distribution piping
Ag near South Hi uera 1.0 MG.storage — -
Total this-phase 400 $1.8 M $10 K "
Cumulative 513 $11.4 M $138 K $1,762
Futures Users (Proposed/Planned Developments)
Customers Served Ac-ftlyr Capital Components Capital Cost Annual O&M CosVAc-ft`
Cost
Margarita/Airport 215 Distribution Piping i
Storage
Dalidio Area 200 0.4 MG _ u
Orcutt Area 40 -
Total this phase 455 $1.0 M $10 K -
Cumulative 968 $12.4 M $148 K $1,013
Sinsheimer Area
Customers Served Ac-ftlyr Capital Components Capital Cost Annual O&M CosVAc-ft*
Cost
SLO Coastal Unified 7 Pipeline to
Johnson Park 7 Sinsheimer Area
Sinsheimer Stadium 10 0.3 MG Storage
Sinsheimer Park 9
Parkwood Village _ - 5
Total this phase 38 --- $2.8 M $20 K -`�'•'
Cumulative 1005 $15.2 M $168 K $1,182
Downtown and Cal Poly Areas
Customers Served Ac-ft/yr Capital Components Capital Cost Annual O&M Cost/Ac-ft'
Cost
Cal Poly 150 7 miles of pipelines
Santa Rosa Park 9 1.0 MG Storage
Santa Rosa Ballfield 9
Caltrans(5 sites) 25
Hawthorne School Ballfield 5
Exposition Park 12
Meadow Park 8
Apple Farm 5
Mitchell Park 4 2
Emerson Park 4 -
Total this phase - 231 $8.0 M $68 K
Cumulative 1237 $23.2 M $236 K $1,451
Decision Paper Matrix ���
SLO Water Reuse Project Pagel of 2
Decision Paper Matrix - City of San Luis Obispo Water Reuse Project
Alternative No. 2
Customers Served Ac-ft/yr Capital Components Capital Cost Annual O&M Cost/Ac-ft'
Cost
All users identified in EIR 14 miles of pipelines
RW Pump Station >
Modifications to
existing WRF
1.5 MG Storage
(Terrace Hill elevation)
Total 382 $20.3 M $216 K $4,136-
Futures Users (Proposed/Planned Developments)
Customers Served Ac-ft/yr Capital Components Capital Cost Annual O&M Cost/Ac-ft'
Cost
Margarita/Airport 215 Distribution Piping
Dalidio Area 200 0.4 MG Storage
Orcutt Area 40
Total this phase 455 $1.0 M $10 K
Cumulative 837 $21.3 M $226 K $1,980
Alternative No. 3
Customers Served Ac-ft/yr Capital Components Capital Cost Annual O&M Cost/Ac-ft'
Cost
All users identified in EIR14 miles of pipelines r T ,, —
RW Pump Station
Modifications to
existing WRF
1.5 MG Storage
at existing WRF :» a
In-line booster _A
pump station
Total 382 $20.3 M $216.K_ _ $4,136 :3
Futures Users (Proposed/Planned Developments)
Customers Served Ac-ft/yr Capital Components Capital Cost Annual O&M CosVAc-ft'
Cost
Margarita/Airport 215 Distribution Piping '
Dalidio Area 200 0.4 MG Storage s ;
Orcutt Area 40 _
Total this phase 455 $1.0 M $10 K
Cumulative 837 $21.3 M $226 K $1,980
*Note:
"Cost/Ac-ft"is calculated as
[(Annualized cost of a 20-year bond @ 3%to pay for capital cost);(Annual O&M cost)]/[Ac-ft/yr RW delivered]
Decision Paper Matrix �-�
SLO Water Reuse Project Page 2 of 2
/4 C A4 FA/
. .........
... .........
.... ......
...... ........
Propos9d Resgrvoly
.5
k .
................
16
•
. ............
40
200
20 r Reclamation
Facll'
j;�// X,
. .........
crty of san tuis ompo..
Proposed Pump "o
and Stora ae
C mum r m
LEGEND
Alternative I
Initial Project Pipeline Proposed Use Areas
memommi Abandoned Unocal Pipeline Possible Future Use Areas
® me ® m i Sinsheimer Area Pipeline Potential for Groundwater Exchange
momemmi ommtownfCal Poly Pipeline
mamma a a m Groundwater F nge 20 Annual cortsurnoon in Ace-Feet-Future
Pipeline
Alternate 2 includes Initial Project, Sinsheimer Area, and Downtown/Cal Poly with
Storage at Terrace Hill.
Aftemate 3 includes Initial Project, Sinsheimer Area, and Downtown/Cal Poly with Storage at
the Water Reclamation Facility. 3-8