Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-04-15; City Council; 6229; LCWD satellite sewer plantcld CITY OF CARLSBAD AGENDA BILL NO- LJA9 DATE : April 15, 1980 I Initial: Dept. Hd. C, Atty-DSp DEPARTMENT : City Manager C. Mgre Sub] ect : LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT SATELLITE SEWER PLANT Statement of the Matter At the April 1, 1980 Council meeting, the Leucadia County Water District (LCWD) requested the City to consider a joint satellite sewer plant to be located near Palomar Airport. The request was referred to City staff for analysis. On April 4, 1980 a meeting was held with LCWD engineers, Koll Company representatives and City staff. The attached report of the Assistant City Manager dated April 9, 1980 points out a number of problems which would be associated with ' the proposed satellite plant. The general conclusion is that a joint plant would be considerably more costly for LCWD both in construction ($5.5 million) and maintenance. In addition it is believed that the experience of joint operation of a sewer plant would not favor such a proposal. From the standpoint of the City there are no significant advantages to endorsing the joint proposal, in fact such a proposal would be a departure from previous Co%ncil policies contained in the Lake Calavera Hills project and in the- Waste Water Master Plan. The single perceived advantage of locating the LCWD plant at Palomar Airport would seem to be that of siting the facility in an industrial area rather than in the residential area recommended in the LCWD study. Whether or not the advantage of the industrial site outweighs the 38% increase in cost would properly be a policy decision for the LCWD Board and the City Council to decide. Exhibit Report from Assistant City Manager dated April 9, 1980 Recommendation Based on the findings set forth in the attached report, it is recommended that the City Council find that there are no significant advantages to the City in approving a joint project, however, the City would be willing to consider the matter further provided the LCWD: . a) filed a more detailed report in 30 days, addressing the issues b) set forth a schedule for accomplishing the project within the C) agreed to a contractural arrangement whereby the City would I outlined in the Assistant City Manager's report and; time taL;le required by the Koll Company and;' operate the plant. Council Action: 4-15-80 Council approved above stated recommendation, c MEMORANDUM TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER FOR DEVELOPMENT DATE: APRIL 9, 1980 SUBJECT: LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT JOINT SATELLITE PLANT PROPOSAL DEFINITION OF TASK Leucadia County Water District (LCWD) has proposed that they, and the City of Carlsbad, cosponsor a study, to be completed by June 6, 1980, to deter- mine the engineering and economic advantages, or disadvantages, of a joint- ly owned, operated and administered facility for treatment and reclamation of sanitary wastes. the purpose of determining whether such a study would have the potential of benefit to the City. Council instructed staff to meet with LCWD staff for A proposal for a privately funded facility has been presented to the City. This, along with the several reports prepared by the LCWD, provide a basis for comparing independent facility costs. been prepared to determine the cost of joint facilities. a basic premise that any increase in cost to accommodate LCWD would be borne by the District. Rough engineering estimates have We have used as In order to comply with the issues in the LCWD proposal we must first ana- lyze the impacts on several issues of joint versus separate facilities. We must then quantify the impacts of a joint facility or a proposed City facility. RECOMMENDATION Based on the cost differential of locating the LCWD capacity at the Palo- mar site versus the cost of locating it at the site east of Rancho Santa Fe Road and being consistent with the policy position taken by the City Council for the Lake Calavera Hills plant and for the San Marcos County Water District plant (i .e. , 100-yard building restriction zone), the rec- ommendation would have to be to support the Rancho Santa Fe Road location. If Council wishes to provide sewer treatment services to LCWD, it should be on the basis of contract services with all additional costs to be borne by the District. JOINT FACILITIES VERSUS SEPARATE FACILITIES Solids Handling - LCWD proposes to handle all solids at the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility (EWPCF). poses to provide solids handling capability at the satellite sites to provide the capability of independent operation and as a backup to Encina in case of operational problems there. The City, as a matter of policy, pro- -2- Operations and Maintenance Costs - Assuming the proposed Carlsbad site is not changed, a combined operation could mean some reduction in operations and maintenance costs in that overhead charges would be spread over a larger base. treated effluent back south would more than offset the savings to them in lower administrative costs. The additional costs to LCWD to pump raw sewage north and Site Acquisition - Since the original facility for the City is being pro- posed by a developer, the additional costs of a larger site for a joint facility would accrue to LCWD. would be the loss of revenue if the additional land acquired developed as a governmental facility instead of a private business. The other po- tential impact would be the possibility that the developer might change his mind if more land for a site were required. The only negative impacts to the City Energy Consumption - As outlined under the operations and maintenance sec- tion above, a combined facility would consume more enerqy due to the addi- - -- tional pumping needs. Excess Effluent Lines - If LCWD took their treated effluent back for fur- ther treatment and reuse, there would be no impact on Carlsbad's excess effluent line. line approximately 70% longer than from the site east of Rancho Santa Fe Road. LCWD would be required to construct an excess effluent An excess effluent pump station would also be required. Stora e - Thirty +- 460 acre-feet). 65% of our needs -day storage for the City amounts to 150 million gallons The site proposed by Koll would provide approximately (90 to 100 million gallons). needs would be met by smaller reservoirs or by agricultural storage pro- vided by the growers. LCWD requires an additional 82.5 million gallons storage to meet 30-day requirements. If they wish to provide for 60-day storage or greater, more will obviously be needed. Potential reservoir sites in the vicinity of the Palomar site would not be able to accommodate LCWD needs. They would probably be better served to find a site in the proximity of their existing excess effluent line. The balance of City storage Construction Schedule - No major problems have surfaced regarding the con- struction schedule. A related problem may exist regarding the processing of an EIR and coastal permit. Approximately 45% of the LCWD service area for their proposed plant is outside the Carlsbad City limits. that is within the Coastal Zone. It is therefore possible that the in- ability to effect control on portions of the combined service area and/or the presence of service area within the Coastal Zone (all of Carlsbad's service area is outside the Coastal Zone) could delay the process. Some of Master Plan Conformance - Two of the basic concepts of the Master Plan are the ~olicv statement that satellite plants are designed to service drainage' basins in which they are located and the operational concept that the satellite system should allow for maximum flexibility to manage the system to meet current needs. -3- Including LCWD in a joint facility violates the concept of basin ser- vice areas. overall benefit of the City if the policy change allows more efficient service to the people of CarEbad. One certain impact of the reloca- tion of a major unit of treatment capacity is that the Palomar project assumes a different dimension, that of a regional treatment facility. These items can be addressed as a policy issue by the City Council. It is entirely possible that such a change could be to the An item that cannot be resolved by a modification of the policy is the issue of system flexibility. The incorporation of LCWD as a co-owner, co-operator and co-administrator of the Palomar facility would severly inhibit our flexibility to manage the keystone element of our satellite treatment and reclamation program. ty of administering the EWPCF to know the problems we would face. One has only to recall the difficul- Discharge Requirements and Industrial Waste could be fairly easily con- trolled by both agencies agreeing to abide by Regional Water Quality Con- trol Board requirements and by agreeing to limit connections to: (1) De- velopment producing only sani tary wastes and (2) development which pro- hibits the use of self-regenerative water systems. This statement assumes that each agency would be independently responsible for the advanced waste treatment and demineralization necessary to meet reclamation standards. JOINT FACILITY IMPACTS ON CARLSBAD PROJECT This section will discuss the potential impacts of a joint facility on the project proposed by the Koll Company for the Palomar Airport area. Plant Elevation - The Koll proposal would place a plant at elevation 140 and an adjacent reservoir with water surface at approximately 225. would be to LCWD's advantage to locate a treatment facility at a higher level. returning treated effluent to Leucadia would cross a ridge line with an elevation of approximately 320. Locating a plant at a higher elevation would reduce LCWD's pumping costs. a higher elevation would be a reduction in the area that could drain by gravity to the plant. lands to the north. It Pipelines in El Camino Real bringing raw sewage from Leucadia and The impact on the City of a plant at The area affected would be the Koll site and some Plant Capacity - The effect here would be the need to increase ultimate capacity from 5 million gallons per day (MGD) to 7.75 MGD. The draw- backs of a plant of a larger size would involve perception (another large, regional treatment plant in Carlsbad) and the possibility that a plant approaching 8 MGD in capacity should consider an aerobic digestion in order to maximize operational efficiency. We could make the decision to stay with aerobic systems, but it would require more land for the plant. Plant Site Size - The engineers who have discussed this proposal have indicated that a 5 MGD plant would require approximately 7 acres. To increase the ultimate plant size to accommodate LCWD would require an additional 4 to 5 acres. -4- General Location - The site proposed by Koll is in a valley on the west side of their project. If the proposed site were enlarged to accommodate a larger plant, significant grading and drainage work would be required. If the plant were located at a higher elevation, its site would end up in the middle of the Koll project on what they consider their prime sites. Cost Estimates - The engineers have estimated that the project proposed by Koll would cost about $11 million for a 5 MGD plant and an additional $8 to $9 million for the balance of the project, including engineering and contingencies. The cost estimate for co-locating LCWD's capacity at the Palomar site is approximately $20 million. east of Rancho Santa Fe Road would cost approximately $14.5 million. To lcoate LCWD's site Joint Ownership, Operation and Administration - As mentioned earlier in this report, one has only to think of the problems associated with the operational setup at the-EWPCF to visualize what the City would be facing if we gave up any element of total control at the proposed Palomar site. Since operational flexibility is extremely important to the efficient op- eration of a reclamation program, I would not recommend joint ownership, operation and administration. SUMMARY The rationale behind relocating LCWD's treatment facilities to the Palo- mar Airport area is that the Rancho Santa Fe Road location, which is be- tween 2,000 and 2,500 feet from existing residential development, is too close to existing and future residences. The Koll site to the northwest of the Airport is within 1,500 feet of land designated for residential development. ia of maintaining a 100-yard easement around the plant. Both sites are capable of complying with the City's criter- Based on the additional cost of locating at the Palomar site (addition- al $5.5 million) and the increased operations and maintenance costs due to the additional pumping over longer routes, the joint facility proposal does not present a favorable cost/benefit picture. The prospect of joint ownership/operations is one that must be carefully considered. From a staff perspective, joint ownership cannot be recommended. RAB: VEB