Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout18.a. Committee Minutes-Real Estate, Environmental & Planning 06-14-21 Page 1 of 15 Item 18.a. CENTRALSAN jdf A- hom CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT July 1, 2021 TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: KATIE YOUNG, SECRETARYOF THE DISTRICT SUBJECT: JUNE 14, 2021 - REAL ESTATE, ENVIRONMENTAL & PLANNING COMMITTEE - CHAIR MCGILLAND MEMBER HOCKETT Attached are minutes of the above Committee meeting. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Minutes of 06-14-21 meeting July 1, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 205 of 231 Page 2 of 15 CENTRALSAN CONTRACENTRAL •STA SANITARY DISTRICT 5019 IMHOFF BOARD OF DIRECTORS: REGULAR MEETING OF THE TA°IPILECKI President CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA DAVID R. WILLIAMS SANITARY DISTRICT President Pro Tem REAL ESTATE, ENVIRONMENTAL MASH°URIT EN & PLANNING COMMITTEE MICHAEL R.MCGILL PHONE: (925)228-9500 M I N U T E S FAX.- (925)372-0192 www.centralsan.org Monday, June 14, 2021 9:00 a.m. (A11 attendees participated via videoconference) Committee: Chair Mike McGill Member Barbara Hockett Guests: Bruce Pruitt, General Manager and CEO, Diablo Country Club (left after Item 6.a.) Tom Terrill, Water and Energy Committee Member, Diablo Country Club (left after Item 6.a.) Bert Michalczyk, Recycled Water Project Manager, Diablo Country Club (left after Item 6.a.) Florence Wedington, Senior Engineer, East Bay Municipal Utility District (left after Item 6.a.) Sarah Reynolds, Associate Engineer, East Bay Municipal Utility District (left after Item 6.a.) Staff. Roger S. Bailey, General Manager Katie Young, Secretary of the District Steve McDonald, Director of Operations Philip Leiber, Director of Finance and Administration Jean-Marc Petit, Director of Engineering and Technical Services Emily Barnett, Communications and Intergovernmental Relations Manager (left after Item 5.a.) Danea Gemmell, Planning and Development Services Division Manager (left during Item 6.b.) John Huie, Information Technology Manager Melody LaBella, Resource Recovery Program Manager Lori Schectel, Environmental and Regulatory Compliance Division Manager Dana Lawson, Senior Engineer (joined during Item 5.a., left after Item 6.b.) Tim Potter, Environmental Compliance Superintendent (left after Item 5.b.) Kim Stahl, Development Services Supervisor (joined during Item 6.a., left during Item 6.b.) Robert Hess, Assistant Engineer (joined during Item 5.a., left during Item 6.b.) Lupe Saldana, Administrative Services Supervisor-Records July 1, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 206 of 231 Page 3 of 15 Real Estate, Environmental & Planning Committee Minutes June 14, 2021 Page 2 1. Notice This meeting was held in accordance with the Brown Act as in effect under the State Emergency Services Act, the Governor's Emergency Declaration related to COVID-19, and the Governor's Executive Order N-29-20 issued on March 17, 2020 that allowed attendance by Board Members, District staff, and the public to participate and conduct the meeting by teleconference, videoconference, or both. The agenda included instructions for options in which the public could participate in the meeting. 2. Call Meeting to Order Chair McGill called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 3. Public Comments None. Ms. Young requested Item 6.a. be heard out of order after Item 5.a. 4. Consent Calendar a. Review draft Position Paper to adopt Resolution No. 2021- authorizing execution of a Real Property Agreement for property located at 599 Blackhawk Club Drive, Danville, and authorizing staff to record the documents with the Contra Costa County Recorder b. Review draft Position Paper to adopt Resolution No. 2021- accepting a Grant of Easement at 1011 Harbor View Drive, Martinez, related to District Project 8458, and authorizing staff to record the documents with the Contra Costa County Recorder COMMITTEE ACTION: Recommended Board approval. 5. Items for Committee Recommendation to Board a. Review draft Position Paper to approve the Maintenance Access (Manhole) Covers proposed design Ms. Barnett reviewed the proposed design included in the agenda materials and recapped the design work process. She stated that the Board is asked to approve this final proposed design at the Board meeting on June 17. She noted the waterbird on the design and explained the egret image was modified to distinguish it from egret images used by two nearby agencies. July 1, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 207 of 231 Page 4 of 15 Real Estate, Environmental & Planning Committee Minutes June 14, 2021 Page 3 Member Hockett commented that she liked an egret better because it shows up in a lot of the work that Central San does, to which Ms. Barnett agreed and stated she would ask the foundry if it can refine the image. Ms. Barnett shared that the cover design was created in-house by her staff, award-winning graphic artist Charles Waltmire. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reviewed and recommended Board approval. b. Review draft Position Paper authorizing the General Manager to execute a three-year permit contract with Acme Fill Corporation (Acme) for discharge of treated landfill leachate from the Acme landfill located in Martinez, California, through June 30, 2024 Item 5.b. was heard after the conclusion of Item 6.a. Mr. Potter reviewed the information provided in the agenda materials and advised the Committee that the current three-year contract expires at the end of this month. Central San needs to either extend or renew the contract so that Acme can continue past June 30. Mr. Potter and Ms. Schectel responded to questions from the Committee. Member Hockett shared that Central San has a long history with Acme and recollected a time when Acme repeatedly violated its permitting. However, she recognized that Acme is now better managed, and the permit has been fine- tuned so that all are parties are in compliance. With that said, she was satisfied with the agreement. Chair McGill said that Central San's mission is to protect the public health and the environment, and it uses landfill gas, meaning it has a vested interest in the landfill. He recalled people at the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) used to thank Central San profusely for accepting the leachate whom no longer are with the agency and asked staff whether it had a sense of RWQCB's current position. Mr. Potter said that Tom Mumley is still with the RWQCB and is familiar with the negotiations that occurred 20 or 30 years ago. He believes that if Central San were to discontinue accepting the Acme leachate, it would draw significant attention from the RWQCB, and they would come back to ask Central San to take the leachate because it would be the right thing to do. The Committee agreed with Mr. Potter's statement. July 1, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 208 of 231 Page 5 of 15 Real Estate, Environmental & Planning Committee Minutes June 14, 2021 Page 4 Chair McGill wondered why Central San no longer receives kudos from the Regional Board for doing it. Ms. Schectel shared that Central San has been receiving credit in other forms. She explained that Central San has been getting excellent audits from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and when she attends Bay Area Water Quality Control Board (BAWQCB) meetings, the Board is always impressed by Central San's performance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reviewed and recommended Board approval. 6. Other Agenda Items a. Receive an update on the Diablo Country Club Satellite Water Recycling Facility Project Item 6.a. was taken out of order after Item 5.a. Mr. Petit acknowledged attendance at this meeting by representatives from Diablo Country Club (DCC), Tom Terrill, Bert Michalczyk, and Bruce Pruitt. He advised that DCC will give its presentation following Ms. LaBella's presentation. Mr. Petit restated the background information provided in the agenda materials and advised that recently other entities, such as Rossmoor, are also showing interest in a Satellite Water Recycling Facility (SWRF). Because Central San previously had an interest in using the DCC SWRF as a demonstration project, staff invited DCC to present where it stands on its SWRF project today regarding its interest in pursuing the project and efforts it has completed to date. Ms. LaBella acknowledged attendance at this meeting by representatives from East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), Florence Wedington, who manages their recycled water program, and Sarah Reynolds, the Associate Engineer that works on SWRF on behalf of EBMUD. Ms. LaBella began the presentation provided in the agenda materials. She reviewed the concept of a SWRF, which is to divert (pump) wastewater from the collection system near the site and use the flow as a source for the irrigation demand which would require a SWRF for on-demand treatment on- site. She explained that ideally, diversion would be upstream and return of processed solids downstream, though that is not the case for DCC, which creates a little complexity to work around that. She briefly described the DCC SWRF project and reviewed the highlights of Central San's past activities. July 1, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 209 of 231 Page 6 of 15 Real Estate, Environmental & Planning Committee Minutes June 14, 2021 Page 5 Bert Michalczyk (DCC Recycled Water Project Manager) began by explaining that Bruce Pruitt (newly hired DCC General Manager& CEO) will start the presentation, that Tom Terrill (DCC Water and Energy Committee member) will cover historical context, and that he will cover some of the technical details and where the project is heading. Mr. Terrill spoke about the history of the DCC and their concurrent work of this project with its master plan to renovate the golf course. He explained that in 2018 the membership approved fitness and other amenity renovations at the golf course, including continuing the SWRF project. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was significant on the DCC over the last 18 months because it caused the golf course to become a frontrunner in recreational amenities. Mr. Terrill explained that in 2019 DCC installed sophisticated purple pipes underground, that every sprinkler system had its own valve, weather station, and all of the things needed to manage water. He said that the tun`area was reduced by about 25 percent, and the remaining areas had been replaced with water-conserving grasses. Mr. Terrill spoke about why the SWRF efforts were interrupted by DCC in 2019. He said the County had provided two options under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to proceed with the three elements of their project (1- Club House renovation, 2- turf renovation, and 3- the SWRF). Either all renovations could be done as individual projects and the permits received in short term, or all renovations could be done under one umbrella, requiring much more time due to noticing, hearings, etc. He explained that their Board was not convinced that the risk of delaying all of the planned renovations was worth the effort to get the CEQA SWRF permits. Although he recommended to do a collective project under one umbrella, the DCC Board disagreed. DCC proceeded with the first two projects and received permits for these other renovations but postponed the SWRF project at that time. Mr. Terrill spoke about efforts made to make sure that the current DCC Board understands this project. He explained that the DCC Board has come up with its major goals, and recycled water use remains at the top. It has also continued and expanded the DCC General Manager's contract, in addition to continued work to get all easements in place; two easements are almost complete. He clarified not all work on the SWRF was stopped, only the design effort. He concluded his presentation by stating the DCC is committed to this now $20 million project, as it is viewed to be the right option for the long-term interest of the club. July 1, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 210 of 231 Page 7 of 15 Real Estate, Environmental & Planning Committee Minutes June 14, 2021 Page 6 Member Hockett asked how many of the 400 members play golf. Mr. Terrill responded that 436 of its 700 members are golf members, who control the corporation's stock. Mr. Michalczyk reviewed a map of DCC's vision of the SWRF project. He noted that the diversion pump location has not changed and showed the preferred pipeline location, explaining that if DCC cannot acquire the Green Valley Recreation District easement, there is an alternative, though more expensive and complex through another route. The other two easements are in process, and no issues are expected. Mr. Michalczyk reviewed the projects and activities undertaken between 2018 to date. He emphasized that in January 2021, the DCC Board approved an Action Plan and a budget to restart the SWRF project with the intent to procure a vendor to deliver the project by January 2022 and to renew conversations with Central San about its role in acquiring the wastewater. Mr. Michalczyk spoke about the 2021 Action Plan. He explained that DCC is working on the financing plan for the $20 million costs, acquiring property rights, environmental impacts analysis, flow needs, and evaluating financing options. Concerning agreements, he explained that DCC is in preliminary discussion with EBMUD, and no conceptual problems are expected. The reason for meeting today with Central San is to reopen the discussion. Future discussions concerning pipes that will route through city streets are anticipated to start this summer to determine the roles of the Town of Danville and the County in terms of encroachment and environmental review. DCC plans to solicit a project delivery partner in early 2022. Mr. Michalczyk spoke about the new SWRF project vision and its evolution since previous discussions with Central San a few years back. He said there were no significant technical changes; however, DCC has changed its thoughts on the ownership model. He explained that it is considering an investor-owned utility to own and implement the project for them. DCC is also considering a project delivery company to design, build, finance, and operate it. The project delivery, if DCC is the owner, would be DCC-led progressive design-build; otherwise, it would be turnkey. The contract for operations, if DCC is the owner, would be with an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) service provider, otherwise, it would be with the utility or company that delivered the project. He spoke about financing options based on the ownership model. He concluded by stating that DCC is asking Central San for(1) policy level support for the continuation of the DCC SWRF as the Central San "demonstration project,"(2) a wastewater diversion agreement, and (3) a permit to return the biosolids. July 1, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 211 of 231 Page 8 of 15 Real Estate, Environmental & Planning Committee Minutes June 14, 2021 Page 7 Chair McGill asked if this item goes back to staff at this point. Mr. Petit responded that staff wanted feedback from the Committee today, and later it would go to the Board. Mr. Petit commented that now that DCC has changed its vision to a construction, building, and financing approach; it was not clear to him who would operate the diversion stations and where the Town of Danville stands on this project. Ms. LaBella added that the Town of Danville was a big driver in the previous delivery model for Central San to own and operate it. She also wanted clarity on the Town of Danville's current stance concerning the new project delivery model, as mentioned by Mr. Petit. In response to the staff comments concerning the Town of Danville, Mr. Terrill explained that there are two parts, one with the County and the other with the Town of Danville. DCC discussions with the County have been very supportive of the project. He opined that the County is the proper entity to lead the CEQA process because they would have a lot at stake, and they support the idea. DCC thinks the initial response from the Town of Danville was driven by a group of neighbors at that time. He explained that its perception may have changed now that there are a couple of very good examples of publicly- approved and operated SWRFs (including Pacific Grove and Sharon Heights). He acknowledged that DCC still has work to do with the Town of Danville; however, he and Mr. Michalczyk believe that the goal of having successful golf course amenities in town would make those discussions less difficult. Member Hockett commented that the Central San Board needs an opportunity to first develop its policy for doing these kinds of projects, explaining that the Board now has new members with new opinions. She offered that this project is a challenge for her due to equity issues regarding the availability of recycled water to the 500,000 ratepayers. She would prefer a project that serves more constituents, so she thinks the Central San Board should look at equal opportunity and equity issues. If wastewater were given to DCC for this project for their golf course, only 400 or so would be benefiting. She opined that rest of the ratepayers would not benefit, which makes it a challenge for her to embrace this project. In follow up to Ms. LaBella's comments concerning the operation of the pump station in Danville, Mr. Michalczyk offered that ownership could be bifurcated, such that what is in Danville could be owned and operated by Central San and the treatment plant, which is in the County, could be owned and operated by another entity. He expressed that Central San is an absolute strategic partner, without the wastewater from Central San, there is no project. Chair McGill said that this project began in 2012 or earlier. Since then, attitudes towards water policy in California have been evolving and possibly EBMUD policy now that they have a new General Manager. He explained that July 1, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 212 of 231 Page 9 of 15 Real Estate, Environmental & Planning Committee Minutes June 14, 2021 Page 8 he was a big supporter of this project when it started because he was eager to demonstrate the value of recycled water in Northern California. Now his view has changed as a result of policy changes and a focus on more extensive use of recycled water, possibly at a state level. His opinion is that Central San needs to take a hard look at the ownership and operations of the SWRF, and any concern by the Town of Danville. He stated agreement with Member Hockett that the Central San Board needs an overarching policy on the distribution of recycled water. Chair McGill asked staff to bring the project back to the Committee with an analysis of what would make sense to proceed given the new information received today and include input from EBMUD. Member Hockett agreed with Chair McGill that the Board needs to take a deep look at what it does with recycled water, adding that equality in distribution and access is a Board responsibility to its ratepayers. She emphasized that the Board is responsible for making this opportunity available to everyone in its service area. Mr. Terrill stated he appreciates and understands the equity concerns, however, DCC has exhausted all other water source alternatives except to buy it from EBMUD. DCC believes there is a balance about the right thing to do for how DCC irrigates. He added that he agrees and supports that Central San needs to create its policy. Chair McGill, in response to Mr. Terrill's comment, said that the reason he has asked to hear EBMUD is that if EBMUD takes a strong position of having DCC off of potable water, that would be a vital element to consider. Mr. Bailey, in response to Chair McGill's request for his comments, said that staff takes its direction from the Board but needs to understand where the Committee is on this project so that it can follow up on its directives before bringing it back to the Committee. He added that he was not sure staff could progress until the macro issues of recycled water have been addressed at the Board level. He said he would propose to agendize a discussion for the Board to learn and determine what macro issues it would want to do or see from a policy standpoint relative to recycled water and, to an extent, address the concerns the Committee expressed today. He said that at a micro-level, he thinks that DCC needs to reach out to the Town of Danville sooner rather than later. He recalled Danville came to a Central San Board meeting to initially oppose this project until adjustments were made to allow Central San to own and operate the facility. He emphasized Danville's ability to make it difficult at a Board level for this project to succeed. He offered that Central San is a strategic partner and that Danville is or should be a strategic partner for the DCC. Considering its current mode of July 1, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 213 of 231 Page 10 of 15 Real Estate, Environmental & Planning Committee Minutes June 14, 2021 Page 9 operating with the County, it is important to listen to Danville's perspective. He expressed that it was also important to understand where EBMUD stands on the issues expressed today. Florence Wedington, representing EBMUD, thanked the Committee and said that EBMUD would like to continue its partnership that has existed over the years with Central San. She commented that from EBMUD's perspective, as a water and wastewater agency, it is always looking for ways to conserve water, but recognizes that this is a very unique project that is outside of its wastewater service area and would like to make sure that EBMUD is not hindering operational issues on Central San's side. She added that if Central San decides to move forward with this project, EBMUD is happy to partner. She explained that conserving EBMUD potable water in one of its areas frees up water that can be used within its full service area. Chair McGill thanked Ms. Wedington for her comments. He expressed that it is evident that the project benefits EBMUD and the DCC, but Central San has to consider how the project affects the District. Chair McGill advised that hypothetically if the Board were to give the go- ahead, he would then like staff to tell the Committee how it should be engaging the DCC to move forward. Mr. Bailey responded that once the policy is resolved at the Board level, that Central San has a great relationship with DCC and if nothing has changed from the information received today, staff has the necessary information to proceed. Mr. Terrill expressed appreciation for today's thoughtful discussion and to EBMUD for its cooperation and involvement. He said that the DCC came back to Central San because it is the most important partner and because it did not want to go to Danville until it had this discussion. He opined the project has many merits, and the fact that DCC will be taking on the total cost will get to the right outcome and will soon be in contact with the Town of Danville. COMMITTEE ACTION: Received the update and directed staff to take the recycled water at a macro level to the Board for discussion and policy direction and resume the DCC SWRF project as a subset of that process. b. Receive an update on the Refinery Recycled Water Exchange Project cost allocation Mr. Bailey said this exchange project will be part of the discussions on a recycled water policy and that the policy issue would also relate to Central San's contribution to the project by way of the nutrient contribution. He explained that the Board would need to decide if and how it would participate in the project. This project is a win-win project to a certain extent because the District has a customer for the water, except that money would be spent now July 1, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 214 of 231 Page 11 of 15 Real Estate, Environmental & Planning Committee Minutes June 14, 2021 Page 10 rather than later. It is a big decision because, at some point, the Regional Board will most likely impose a load cap relevant to nutrients, which equates to investment in the treatment plant to become compliant with those regulations at an estimated cost of$200 million or more. This water exchange project is estimated to cost about $400 million and, split in two, Central San ends up spending the same, but the benefit is that the it will have a usable commodity and a partner who would be using the water. Member Hockett expressed that it was not easy for her to understand the impacts because the project is conceptual and asked how much impact this type of project would have on Central San's future concept of going out with another zone for recycled water. Mr. Bailey responded that he believes Central San can service its customers and provide the supply to Valley Water. In the Recycled Water Master Plan, in terms of availability of liquid water, the allocation was made for Central San, including the Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS). The question becomes how much more of Central San will be served beyond Zone 1 and the CNWS. Central San may find itself in a situation where it needs to wait a long time for homes to be connected and may never get there. Member Hockett clarified that she meant how much impact on irrigating street medians, schools, Heather Farms, and such, to know if Central San had enough recycled water to meet its vision. Mr. Bailey said Central San has to factor the cost of installing the infrastructure to potentially serve some of these projects. Chair McGill interjected that if water districts encourage people to use less water, then there will be less recycled water available. Ms. LaBella said that Member Hockett's question ties back to an earlier comment on the DCC and the need for policy guidance from the Board, because, in the past, the Board has supported uses of year-round recycled water over the seasonal use, which is why the staff has been focused on the refineries. Whereas, in other projects such as landscape irrigation, use will be significant in the summertime but won't use the effluent other times of the year. Mr. Petit added that usually the peak demand for recycled water is summertime when there is the least amount of sewer in the pipe, and it has always been a challenge, especially at night when there is even less; this can be addressed by storage to some extent. He said that refineries have been changing their business practices, using less water. July 1, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 215 of 231 Page 12 of 15 Real Estate, Environmental & Planning Committee Minutes June 14, 2021 Page 11 Chair McGill suggested that as part of the policy decision, Central San needs to consider whether it wants to focus on year-round use instead of summertime use. Central San needs to think about whether it wants to integrate with other elements of programs that are going on in the County; in particular, there is a big push to cleaner environmental industries on the northern waterfront, and they will need more water. He said recycled water would take the load off CCWD but clarified he is not advocating that,just that it needs to be considered. Ms. LaBella explained that the presentation is an update on particularly the cost allocation effort between Valley Water and Central San. The information reflects staff-level discussions with Valley Water so far. The reason for today's presentation is to make sure staff does not get too far ahead in the talks without letting the Board know what is going on. She emphasized that the numbers presented today are still in flux. Ms. LaBella began reviewing the presentation slides provided in the agenda materials. She said that the staff is in the process of scheduling another meeting of the Board liaisons with CCWD and Valley Water, hopefully, on June 29, to give an update on a project that is very similar to what she is presenting today. Concerning cost-sharing, she explained that the efforts have been between Valley Water and Central San; however, CCWD had indicated they are open to paying if they did receive a benefit. On slide 6, concerning the estimated costs, she explained that the cost is for the new treatment that would be needed and includes an allocation to rehabilitate existing facilities. Two estimates (18.3 MGD and 16.5 MGD) are provided because, in the discussions, staff learned that Marathon Refinery might use somewhere between 65% and 83% of its historical use if they are successful in moving forward with their transition to producing renewable diesel. On slide 7, concerning the Total Inorganic Nitrogen (TIN) load planning level target, there was discussion on projections based on existing data and the effect of variables on reaching the load cap (black dashed line on the graph) such as weather, treatment plant performance, what the population is doing, etc. Mr. Bailey said that staff needs to be transparent at the discussion with the full Board because Central San will need to do something before the load cap line is hit to ensure compliance. If the load cap will be hit 10 years from now, Central San may want to consider making the investment now. July 1, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 216 of 231 Page 13 of 15 Real Estate, Environmental & Planning Committee Minutes June 14, 2021 Page 12 Mr. Petit said that using the current data on TIN highs and lows (blue diamonds on the graph), the load cap could be reached as early as year 2030 or later(top and bottom line of the green band on the graph) but could hit it sooner or later depending on the variables. Provisions would need to be made at the Treatment Plant to always be under the load cap. Ms. LaBella commented that from a policy level, the Board would need to consider how long it is willing to wait it out and the ambiguity from the Regional Board on the load cap. With this project, Central San can do something substantial and innovative to stretch its potential supply of water to CCWD. She concluded these are all factors the Board will need to consider. Mr. Bailey added that the Board needs to weigh when to spend the money against the potential to put the recycled water to beneficial use rather than discharging it to the Bay. Member Hockett asked how much potential there is for water storage. Mr. Bailey said the storage opportunity in this project would be through the Los Vaqueros Reservoir. Central San does not have storage capacity, and the water quality would have to meet requirements to store it, water storage is expensive, and the only option for storage is Los Vaqueros. Ms. LaBella, referring to slide 8 and the $206 million capital cost estimate, explained that to allow for an easier comparison, staff had asked the consultant to estimate the cost to achieve roughly 20 years of TIN compliance if Central San were to do it without a water exchange project. She indicated that slide 9 shows the estimate as a red line on the diagram and a corrected capital cost estimate of$225 million to do the 24 MGD parallel treatment (the $206 million on the previous slide was incorrect.) She stressed that the estimates in the cost table developed by CCWD (slide 12) are still in progress and that CCWD will refine the numbers with its partners on the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion project, and that the High Range Estimated Costs will be updated once the work with Valley Water is done. She thinks the low end of the Preliminary Net Water Cost Estimated Range will end up somewhere in the $1,600-$1,700 range. She pointed out that a new Central San Commodity Charge was added to the table, that Mr. Bailey's vision was tying it to the current cost of Central Valley Project Supply, where CCWD and Central Valley buy some of its raw water supply. Mr. Bailey interjected that water has some value, and it would be a policy issue for the Board to consider, and if it were to decide to negotiate a commodity charge, it would need to establish a value. Chair McGill commented that of all the recycled water options he has seen, he feels this is the very best. He expressed concern about refineries changing and the impact on this project (reminding that many of the companies along the waterfronts, such as the paper companies and Dupont, are no longer July 1, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 217 of 231 Page 14 of 15 Real Estate, Environmental & Planning Committee Minutes June 14, 2021 Page 13 there) and concern that DCC delays could yield a disaster. However, he preferred to move "full speed ahead"and asked Mr. Bailey to move the project forward to closure, where Central San will have a financial partner. Mr. Bailey commented that Central San "has its foot on the throttle full speed," so to speak, but the partners, Valley Water and CCWD are needed because without them there is no project, and the Board needs to make the big policy decisions. Mr. Bailey asked Chair McGill to clarify if by "full speed ahead,"he meant yes to spending the money to do the nutrient mitigation by sharing the cost of this project. Chair McGill said yes, that is what he meant but clarified that it was his personal opinion. Member Hockett, regarding the treatment plant piece of the project, asked if the smaller version were to be done, could the recycled water go to another project such as increasing the zone distribution. Mr. Petit responded that it could be done at another location, but the problem is that the two water agencies would need agreements to cross service area boundaries; though, not impossible and can be evaluated. Member Hockett asked if another alternative can be found in case something fails. Ms. LaBella said there could be some future opportunities for pivoting, like tacking on reverse osmosis membranes to reduce salt, or another partner might come up, or highly treating the water to wholesale. Mr. Bailey said the Committee and staff brought up good points in these discussions. He agrees that if the refineries were to shut down and are no longer around this would be a big issue for Valley Water because, without the refineries, there is no exchange. Valley Water needs to assess the viability of refineries. He believes that direct potable reuse (DPR) and indirect potable reuse (IPR) will no longer be novel, and are other options. He recalled past issues of social reluctance to use the 1PR water due to perceptions of"dirty" water. He said that Central San's investment is for nutrient removal, and it needs to decide when to invest. Chair McGill asked if it would be possible for staff going forward on this project to negotiate with CCWD the option to provide to new industries along the northern waterfront if in the future the refinery were to back out and Valley Water no longer wanted the water or cost. Mr. Bailey responded that on a macro level, he has advocated for that, and it would be ideal for Central San, but it is a decision for the water agencies. Ms. LaBella added that Valley Water recently began looking at, for their advanced treated recycled water, getting supply from San Jose and Santa Clara, and injecting it into their groundwater basin at the cost of about$3,500 an acre-foot. July 1, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 218 of 231 Page 15 of 15 Real Estate, Environmental & Planning Committee Minutes June 14, 2021 Page 14 Mr. Bailey said he has a meeting with the Valley Water General Manager this afternoon to put urgency on this project, however, he thinks it is more meaningful for Central San's elected officials to reach out to show interest and support for this project, sharing that Member Williams is the Board liaison for Valley Water. COMMITTEE ACTION: Received the update and provided input to staff. C. Receive an update on the Oracle permitting software To be rescheduled to a future meeting. COMMITTEE ACTION: None. d. Receive an update regarding the cost analysis for the furnace and related improvements for Clean Air Act requirements To be rescheduled to a future meeting. COMMITTEE ACTION: None. e. Receive written report on the most recent meeting of the Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA) COMMITTEE ACTION: Received the report. 7. Announcements None. 8. Suggestions for future agenda items a. Receive list of upcoming agenda items and provide suggestions for any other future agenda items COMMITTEE ACTION: Received the list. 9. Future scheduled meetings Tuesday, July 20, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. (Special, rescheduled from July 19) Monday, August 16, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. Monday, September 13, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. 9. Adjournment— at 11:09 a.m. July 1, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 219 of 231