Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-07-06; City Council; 3500-2; Encina Facility upgradingCITY OF CARLSBAD AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: July 6, 1976 DEPARTMENT:Public Works Initial: Dept.Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. £ Subject:WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY (EWPCF) PHASE III UPGRADING AND ENLARGEMENT PROJECT Statement of the Matter On June 23, 1976, the Joint Advisory Committee (JAC) passed a resolution recommending that each member agency pass a resolution modifying our previously approved scope of project. Resolution 3834 (AB 3500), passed unanimously by Council on February 17, 1976, approved the project which included the upgrading to secondary treatment and the enlargement from 13.75 MGD to 18.0 MGD. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not approved the project environmental impact report because of concerns about the secondary impact on air quality as a result of increased population that could be accomodated by the increased capacity. Before we can overcome EPA objections and proceed with the project, we would have to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement and adopt a Regional Air Quality Maintenance Program. This course of action could delay the project up to 2 years. The State has proposed a compromise which would allow us to design and build the plant as previously proposed except that we would delay construction on one of the four biofilters and one of the four secondary clarifiers. This deletion would categorize the project as providing no additional capacity. The pros and cons of this alternative, as well as two others, are outlined in a May 18, 1976, staff memo, Exhibit "I". Exhibits I. Staff memo dated May 18, 1976 II. Draft JAC resolution with attachments III. Resolution No. Recommendation If the Council approves the change in concept it should pass Resolution No. i3<?jT& anc^ instruct the Clerk to forward a certified copy to the Vista Sanitation District. Council action 7-6-76 Resolution #3950 was adopted, approving modifications in project approval. May 18, 1976 • / * MEMORANDUM TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR SUBJECT: ENCINA WATER POLUTION CONTROL FACILITY - PHASE III 4 On Thursday, May 6, 1976, a meeting was held at the E.W.P.C.F. Re- presentatives of the member-agencies met with Jay Smoot and Dave Holtrie of State Water Resources Control Board, (S.W.R.C.B.). The primary subject of the meeting was the alternatives we faced in responding to the Environmental Protection Agency _(E.P.A.) letter of April 9, 1976, wherein E.P.A. referred the 0 ^3£project back to S.W.R.C.B. for a re-evaluation of the project concept approval. After considerable- discussion, three basic alternatives emerged. ALTERNATIVE I; is a continuation of our present program of going for a project that provides for increased capacity (from 13.75 MGD to 18.0 MGD) along with secondary treatment. ALTERNATIVE II; calls for holding out for 18 MGD hoping that during the delay we would surely face before receiving project concept approval, the federal law requiring secondary treatment would be changed. With the fed- eral mandate for the project removed, we would not have to have a project. ALTERNATIVE III; provides for designing the project for 18 MGD but construct only three of the proposed four bio-filters and secondary clarifiers. Thus the plant is a 13.75 MGD facility ' with capability of being expanded to 18 MGD at a future date with minimum impact on the existing plant and minimal additional cost. The following shows the pros and cons associated with each of the alternatives. ALTERNATIVE I; " . - Provides additional inexpensive capacity now (4.25 MGD total; 1.13 MGD to Carlsbad). - Eliminates need to duplicate administrative &.engineering costs on project. - Provides advantages of secondary treatment, i.e. - effluent capable of industrial use. - effluent capable of being treated for reclamation. - construction of odor control facilities at plant. - compliance with existing federal and state laws. - Will delay project 1-2 years due to probable requirement by E.P.A. to prepare a supplemental environmental impact state- ment (E. I. S.) . MEMORANDUM, City Manager,(Cont'd Alt. No. 1) May 18, 1976 Page 2 / ' - Delay of two years will result in probable cost escalation of 20%, or more, in construction costs. This could add 5% million dollars to cost of project. Carlsbads share would increase by $350,000. - Added capacity, if allowed, would not be available until 1980 or until the Regional Air Quality Strategy (R.A.Q.S.) is adopted. - E.P.A. and California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission (C.C. Z.C.C.) conditions on project would make their approval of R.A. Q.S. and the Encina Public Facilities Plan (E.P.F.P.) necessary. - C.C.Z.C.C. conditions will severly impact capability of city to make its own decisions regarding land use decisions in coastal resources management zone (land west of El Camino Real). - Could result in outright denial of project due to large increase in capacity. - Various 'conditions and subsequent actions by JAC member agencies who face capacity problems will result in internal disention, possible court fights amongst ourselves and will accelerate creation of a regional agency as opposed to our present confed- eracy. - Secondary treatment will result in a significant increase in our maintenance and operations costs and will use considerably more energy. ALTERNATIVE II; (assumes change in federal law) - Will provide no additional capacity. - Will eliminate need to expend local funds - at this time. - Will remove need for significant increase in cost of operations and maintenance and will not require use of additional energy. - Will delete potential source for industrial/agricultural water. - Will not provide solution to plant site odor problems. - Assumes that state law would also change. - Would still require all expense and effort of proceeding with .18 MGD project until federal and state laws are changed. - Would still be faced with immediate specter of C.C.Z.C.C. and E.P.A. conditions. - Will not resolve capacity problems faced by individual JAC mem- bers. ALTERNATE III; - Will not provide immediate additional capacity. - Will facilitate additional capacity at future date. - Will result in duplication of some engineering and administra- tive costs. ,- Will provide advantages of secondary treatment. - Will allow us to go ahead without significant additional delay. - Will not require E.I.S. for E.P.A. - Will eliminate escalation costs except for 4th bio-filter and 4th clarifier. c I • ** MEMORANDUM, City Manager, (Cont'd Alt. No. 3) May 18, 1976 Page 3 • • - Will allow for physical construction of 4th unit without major impact on remainder of plant (no repiping, etc.). - Will eliminate E.P.A. and C.C.Z.C.C.- objections regarding over- sizing. - Will eliminate objectional conditions placed on Carlsbad by C.C.Z.C.C. and on project by E.P.A. - Will provide time for us to complete R.A.Q.S. and E.P.F.P. to our satisfaction. This in turn will provide answers to questions posed by E.P.A., S.W.R.C.B., C.C.Z.C.C. (if they are still in - existenance by then,) etc. when we request additional capacity required to meet our planning efforts. - Will allow us to be further along the road to providing addition- al capacity, if needed, than we would be if we delayed project now by up to two years. - Will result in significant increase in our maintenance and oper- ations cost and will use significantly more energy. Ronald A. Beckman Public Works Administrator RAB/slw 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE ENCINA JOINT SEWERAGE SYSTEM RECOMMENDING 2 MODIFICATION OF PROJECT APPROVAL 3 4 WHEREAS, each of the Member Agencies of the Encina Joint 5 Sewerage System, the Vista Sanitation District, the City of 6 Carlsbad, the Buena Sanitation District, the San Marcos County 7 Water District, the Leucadia County Water District and the 8 Encinitas Sanitary District ("Members") have previously approved 9 the Project Report, Environmental Impact Report and Financial 10 Plan and Revenue Program for the Phase III Enlargement and 11 Upgrading of the Encina Water Pollution Control Facilities 12 ("Project"); and 13 WHEREAS, the Joint Advisory Committee believes that certaii 14 modifications in said project as so approved are appropriate. 15 NOW, THEREFORE, the Joint Advisory Committee of the Encina 16 Joint Sewerage System hereby resolves as follows: 17 That it is hereby recommended that each of the governing 18 bodies of each of the members of the system pass, approve and 19 adopt a resolution substantially in the form attached hereto, 20 marked Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein as if set forth in ful! 21 approving modifications in said project as reflected in said 22 resolution, including reduction in the capacity resulting from 23 said project from 18 MGD to 13.75 MGD. 24 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Joint Advisory Committee of the 25 Encina Joint Sewerage System at a regular meeting thereof held 26 // 27 // 28 // -1- 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 •15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 on the 23rd day of June, 1976, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Ed Stiles, Bill Dominguez, A.J. Skotnicki, Lew Chase, Jack Filanc, Richard Hanson, Stan VanSickle, Oby Blanchard, Joe Zapotocky, Bob Foo - NOES: None ABSENT: Mark Schneider, Stanley , Chairman ATTEST: Wilda Varner , Secretary -2- 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE (Governing Body) OF . (Name of Member) 3 •: APPROVING MODIFICATIONS IN PROJECT APPROVAL 4 5 WHEREAS, the (Governing Body) of 6 (Name of Member) has previously approved the 7 Project Report, EIR and Financial Plan and Revenue Program for the 8 Phase III Enlargement and Upgrading of the Encina Water Pollution 9 Control Facilities ("Project"); and 10 The (Governing Body) of (Name of Member) 11 believes that certain modifications in said project as so 12 approved are appropriate. 13 NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the (Governing Body) 14 of (Name of Member) , as follows: 15 Section 1. The modifications in the project as reflected 16 in the draft letter to Mr. Charles B. Oldsen of the County of 17 San Diego from Larry F. Walker of the State Water Resources \v 18 Control" Board, a copy of which is attached hereto, marked 19 Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein as if set forth in full, 20 including reduction in capacity resulting from said project from 21 18 MGD to 13.75 MGD, are hereby approved substantially in the 22 form set forth in said letter. 23 Section 2.' -Although said project is hereby modified to 24 result in a capacity of 13.75 MGD, the plans and specifications £5 therefor shall be prepared to accord with the 18 MGD project 26 originally proposed in order to be in a position to construct 27 same if and when there is compliance with CONDITIONS OF 28 CERTIFICATION 2.b., 2.C., or 2.d. set forth in said Exhibit u bi^ JET Exhibit "A" Section 3. The Vista Sanitation District and all staff persons thereof and of the (Name of Member) are authorized and directed to take all necessary and appropriate steps and actions to pursue and complete said project as provided for herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the (Governing Body) at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , ° 1976, by the following vote: 10 AYES: 11 NOES: 12 ABSENT 13 14 15 ATTEST: 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Exhibit "A" c In Reply Re see- to: 510; » Charles B» Oidsen County Of San Diego Bcpaetaerit of sanitation and Flood Control, County Operations Center 5555 Overland Avenue S*n. Diego, CA 92123 ENCINn, JOINT POWERS, PROJECT NO. 1016, F.Y. 1974-7S, CONCEPT APPROVAL office tic»a revi£?<snct th£ jProjeet Report dated February, 1975 for the subject project* The Division of Water Quality, «ith concurrence Ox ths Environmental Protection. Agency, hereby tlie concept of ccnstr«etlnc| ph^se III enlargement and upgrading o£ the Encina WPCF as shon*n in tha Project Report with Codifications dsscribad in this letter. Funding «til bs based on the following eligible flowss ADWFs I3*5S M3D, PDWF- 26.65 HOD* t grant participation: SLIGISLS PEOJSCT DESCRIPTION: Ths following it€?rs3 ^-ill fce s^ 2* Headwords* - ' / Construction Of & nes* inrluant junction structure to 33, 1 incoming flo^s to ha divartad to a- casuaon influent channel* A ne« bar screen structure to b« north of th^ proseafc facility, 3, Bar screen and grinders. FUrtdsble capacity 'of 26-54 MGD 4. G^ifc reiaoval system sd griv removal Ftndable capacity of 13,55 H<5D ?,B«F, A new purcping facility, Fundable capacity Of 26*54 flao OriJ//Ul/ Exhibit "3' ' *. .primary si-cfiTnicintaticn tank raodif icatiwn. existing effXuent troughs with submerged effluent liodifcation o£ existing longitudinal collectors to eliminate the return flight skirair.ing feature*, to bfc replaced yith a low pressure «ir ^ystfeia* ?undabie (capsC.ity / Of 13^5 HGD 6t Cdor control facilities Odor control facilities for headwords, primary sedimentation and solids handling areas. 7, [Covered biqfilters £ capacity of 13*55 KGD ADS?* Total constructed not excscd 13.75 MGD A 8. Biological odor scrubber ana yelat&o £^cilitie$ for biof 0* Secondary sedimentation tanKs / ' " iO» Chlorine storage building and equipment 11. intcjfstsgs COmSuit-s, channels and related structyres* 12. outside process pipir?ij, water and gas. 13. Aiaainistratipn and laboratory buiiaing gsdifi cation. 14* Operations center including sfcsndby generator. 15. Stor^Wate? control 16, Earthwork and sit*V Iiandscaping sit-© worlc, fencing, and a s&rvic<? J^Oad to tli£ s beds, 17, Chlorination/d^ehXorinatioii facilities., Fundable capacity is 26.54 «GD PWKF* 15, Digester addition. 19. Revisions to existing taig&sters including gas jp 20. e^ntrifaQr- Building and n$ 21. Flood control S" Estimated construction coat is $18,417,009* E^timatc-d eli [*- t cost is $17.007,000, L B V -*-,»- -CONDITIONS OP CON^PT APPROVAL; ^Tliis concept: approval is contingent on ths following: ipt of the complete plans and specif icatipns by tfre datecl Specified fe&low* If the plans and specifications are not d by this date, concept approval nay bo INSTRUCTIONS PERTAINIKG TO TEE PREPARATION OF FINAL PLMJS AND Concept approval is not. an authorisation to proceed vith preparation of final plans and specifications. An executed Step 2 grant agreement is necessary £>&£ore any Step 2 (design costs way ba incurred, The undertaking of any Step 2 ^ork before tbs execu- tion of a Step 2 $rsnt- agreement nay jeopardise ths entire Step 2 EPA Grant Ksg. 40 CFR ScC* 35*925-13). After the Step 2 grant is mode and design work has been the in£ormaticn outlined below should ha submitted in some (design drawings, design nOt^S, calculatiorss, flov? scheniat-ics , etc.) either by nsect-inaft with our staff or in a written format (preferably) We iijr* not concerned so auch -with th& £0r»3t o± these "in reviews as v;e are with the- £«Ct- t~na.t they are accomplished., information d^sir^d i$ ss follows: 1. At the estimated 10 perceni: design completion level, t^ubmi^sion should includg, as a niini^wm, prQCe?;^: sc finalized design criteria vith svsppoi'ting calculations regarding process unit mixing t solids balance sheet, proposed service building flcor plaris delineating «bowt- tbfi 30 percent completion point, t-b£ si include available design drawings, pxisping and piping arid supporting design ealeiilatiGSis. The mechanical an<3 arChitciCt-U^al design drawings should al^O i?^ submitted- Additicm^lly, only the mceh«nic-al portion of the "draft" specifications (0,9*, pusps, blowera, etc,) should t>fr submitted. After ths material is reviewed by our staff aitd^ if a nesting is varrantyd, you vdil be -contacted for an informal review resting to discuss any matters. For further inioriaaiiion and for isailing arrangements for subraittals, please contact Toa Korpalski or John Kcrren of thv Facilities Design Section at C91§) 322-3052 or 322-428?. Upon completion o£ final plans and specifications, the rfiust bs submitted to Luis office for review; 1. Two sionsd sets o^ the final plans and specifications.3 \ 2. Two copies of complete Operation & Maintenance Manual draft f ornu • Exhibit 3. Outline of proposed Instructional Program in conformance vit-h Stftta guidelines. 4, Updated project cost estimate which includes a of all engir.eex-ing costs, (i,c, , Project Report, plans and specifications, inspection, soil testing, etc.), G & M Kar.ual, Revenue jRrograia, and other costs* Thfc plans t specifications, and Operation & Maintenance S4«n dust be submitted within nino rncnths of the grant offer. Upon receipt arid approval, the State will certify the eligible project to the EPA for a Federal INFOSHATIQH AND DOCUMENTS i?BEDSD PRIOR TO CEKT1 The follovring additional indorsation and doctuaents must also bs submitted and approved prior t-0 project certification: & <3ocu?nunt-s and requested information corjtaififcd in the I enclosed Cl&isji W^tor Grent applicant packet. l£ the application and supporting docusc-nts cannot be returned within 60 days of receipt, please Contact this office, CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION! - In addition to any standard provisions, thfc State and EPA will place the following special conditions on tfce prcjj^ct cerfcif icstioii or any grants that might be awarded on this project! 1» The Grftntfcfc shall o£«rat-<i its treatment v?orks as a coordinated regional facility providing service on a fair and equitable and in accordance with guidelines and regulations o£ State »'Botwd to the EnCina Joint Pov?ers, specif iCft.liy including 'the service areas designated in the Grantee's ct- Report of February 1975, 2, (Jr^nt^G agrees that no facilities v:ill be adde-ci to the waste«ater tr^,atrn$nt plant except as approved by this conCc.pt approval letter and covered by Federal Grant Agreerssiit e Grant Contract issued Pursu-wrt thereto until a 30, 1930, a, Approved in writing by the EPA and S'#?KC£, or b. AJI Air Quality Kaintenance Plan covering the project service area is developed and approved by the Air Resources Board and EPA, or IternOnstrfitiOn to the s^tisf action of the £ir Resources Board and the EPA that Compliance vith KatiOnAi Ambient: Quality Standards h3S be-tn attained, or Exhibit "B d. Thb work plan as outlined in the resolution of the Joint Advisory Committee of the Encina Joint Sewerage System and executed on September 24, 1975 is completed and implemented. Compliance with special conditions 2.b, 2.c, or 2.d prior to June 30, 1980 will permit the Grantee to enlarge the capacity (ADWF) of the treatment works to a capacity of 18 MOD. 3. Grantee agrees to pro-vide reasonable assistance, information and data within its statutory authority for the development of an Air Quality Maintenance Plan. 4. Grantee agrees to implement the mitigation measures outlined in the,-Environmental Impact Report. • i , f 5. Grantee agrees to prepare a literature overview of the service area of cultural properties whose scope is sufficiently detailed to. identify those properties which are known and eligible for the National Register. For such properties, identify those--impacts which will occur in the 'area of potential environmental impact", and possible measures which might be taken to minimize these impacts. This concept approval^includes only that project described above and does not include any associated projects which may have been referred to in the Project Report and does not guarantee grant funding on any subsequent project which may be necessaryrto assure that the approved project is functional. Exhibit "B" -w Should you have any questions, please contact Lynn Johnson, the State Evaluator, assisned to your project at (9l6) 322-5633- Larry F. Walker Division ChiefManager - Clean Water Grant Program cc: CRWQCB, San Diego Region (9) Environmental Protection Agency Region IX Exhibit "B" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 3950 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING MODIFICATIONS IN PROJECT APPROVAL'. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad has previously approved the Project Report, EIR and Financial Plan and Revenue Program for the Phase III Enlargement and Upgrading of the Encina Water Pollution Control Facilities ("Project"); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad believes that certain modifications in said project as so approved are appropriate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad , as follows: Section 1. The modifications in the project as reflected in the draft letter to Mr. Charles B. Oldsen of the County of San Diego from Larry F. Walker of the State Water Resources Control Board, a copy of which is attached hereto, marked Exhibit 'A1 and incorporated herein as if set forth in full, including reduction in capacity resulting from said project from 18 MGD to 13.75 MGD, are hereby approved substantially in the form set forth in said letter. Section 2. Although said project is hereby modified to result in a capacity of 13.75 MGD, the plans and specifications therefore shall be prepared to accord with the 18 MGD project originally proposed in order to be in a position to construct same if and when there is compliance with CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION 2.b, 2.c, or 2.d. set forth in said Exhibit -1- •V*" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 "•A". Section 3. The Vista Sanitation District and all staff * persons thereof and of the City of Carlsbad are authorized and directed to take all necessary and appropriate steps and actions to pursue and complete said project as provided for herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of July 1976, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen Frazee, Lewis, Packard, Skotnicki and Councilwoman Casler NOES: None ABSENT:None ROBERT C. FRAZEE, Mayffr of the City of Carlsbad, California ATTEST : MA^GAtfT E. ADAMS, ICity Clerk -2-