Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReal Estate, Environmental & Planning MINUTES 07-26-21 Page 2 of 11 CENTRALSAN CONTRACENTRAL •STA SANITARY DISTRICT 5019 IMHOFF BOARD OF DIRECTORS: SPECIAL MEETING OF THE TAD JPILECKI CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA President MS SANITARY DISTRICT DAVID R. tProTem President Pro Tem REAL ESTATE, ENVIRONMENTAL BARBARA D.HOCKETT & PLANNING COMMITTEE MARIAHNLAURITZEN MCGILL MCGILL MICHAEL R. M I N U T E S PHONE: (925)228-9500 FAX. (925)372-0192 www.centralsan.org Monday, July 26, 2021 8:00 a.m. (All attendees participated via videoconference) Committee: Chair Mike McGill Member Barbara Hockett Staff. Roger S. Bailey, General Manager Katie Young, Secretary of the District Steve McDonald, Director of Operations (joined during Item 4.a.) Jean-Marc Petit, Director of Engineering and Technical Services Danea Gemmell, Planning and Development Services Division Manager John Huie, Information Technology Manager (left after Item 4.b.) Melody LaBella, Resource Recovery Program Manager Lori Schectel, Environmental and Regulatory Compliance Division Manager Mary Lou Esparza, Laboratory Program Administrator Kim Stahl, Development Services Supervisor (joined during Item 4.a.; left after Item 4.b.) Robert Hess, Assistant Engineer (joined during Item 4.b.) Amelia Berumen, Assistant to the Secretary of the District 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 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. August 5, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 245 of 262 Page 3 of 11 Real Estate, Environmental & Planning Committee Minutes July 26, 2021 Page 2 2. Call Meeting to Order Chair McGill called the meeting to order at 8:02 a.m. 3. Public Comments No public comments. 4. Other Agenda Items a.* Recycled Water Policy Discussion (Continued) This agenda item continued the July 20 Committee meeting discussion. These discussions were to gain Committee input in order for staff to effectively conduct a policy discussion with the full Board at its upcoming meeting. Ms. LaBella began with an overview of the current Recycled Water commitments, as shown on slide 39 (p. 21 of 24). In response to Member Hockett's request at the last meeting, Ms. LaBella provided the attached Central San 2009 will-serve letter regarding the Concord Community Reuse Project. She noted its high-level agency representation on the intent to provide recycled water. Policy Question #3 Continuation (slide 43, P. 23 of 24) [Regarding Diablo Country Club (DCC) and the Satellite Water Recycling Facility (SWRF) project Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)] Member Hockett preferred to do a pilot SWRF project rather than a demonstration project if this were to move forward. However, she stated her concern of tapping into the water supply source and not having enough supply to provide to those already promised. Chair McGill favored the demonstration project option. In response to Mr. Bailey's inquiry of whether the previous Board limited the MOU as a demonstration project, Ms. LaBella stated the DCC MOU does discuss it being a demonstration project, but the Moraga Country Club (MCC) MOU does indicate that it would be, if it were to move forward. Policy Question #4 (slide 44, p. 23 of 24) Staff reviewed the status of the MCC MOU established 2016, and the lack of further communication from MCC since 2018. Member Hockett said the District needs to get its messaging clear on the avenue it wants to proceed and not have projects planned that may not be August 5, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 246 of 262 Page 4 of 11 Real Estate, Environmental & Planning Committee Minutes July 26, 2021 Page 3 completed or be able to be served. Such as, not having hypothetical dream projects but focus on volume available and actual customer commitments. Mr. Petit replied that the District has both wet commitments (recycled water already being produced) and paper commitments (MOUS). If all the commitments were to come to fruition, Central San could face a challenge to deliver. Peak demand during the summer could exceed the supply at times. This could be partially solved with some storage; however, if all 12 golf courses wanted to connect, it would create a real challenge as the water would be diverted before it reached the District's facility. Mr. Bailey directed staff to prepare an updated recycled water demand chart for the current commitments. Chair McGill recalled a similar chart and data from prior discussion of user projections that had also been provided to the prior Board. Mr. Bailey asked for a catalogue of each project and associated volume flow, an average daily flow during the driest period of the year, and how it compares to the demand. Member Hockett reiterated it would be wise to have a policy in line so that the District is not moving all over the map doing small and medium projects when the policy was for large projects. If a policy direction is not agreed upon, such issues will continue to flounder. Member Hockett replied to Chair McGill's inquiry of other known potential small projects other than golf courses, and said the large number of golf courses are a hinderance to keeping up with MOUs currently in place. She also offered that the City of Walnut Creek may have interest in obtaining recycled water in the future. Policy Question #5 (slide 45, p. 24 of 24) Ms. LaBella stated the Contra Costa Country Club and Buchanan Fields Golf Course are currently served under Zone 1. Recently, another golf course in Rossmoor has expressed interest and approximately 10 other golf courses in Central San's service area could follow suit. Chair McGill stated he was inclined to see how the DCC project goes, and opined that the Boundary Oaks Golf Course in Walnut Creek is too far upstream to serve. Mr. Bailey said this topic is important as a meeting is soon to occur between staff and representatives of the Golden Rain Foundation, on behalf of Rossmoor, about an MOU for a potential SWRF project there. He anticipates a similar commitment request like that of DCC to have flow available to them, to the extent the capacity exists. With that said, he wants to ensure the Board is aware of this recent inquiry and if there are any issues or concerns, he would like to hear them. August 5, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 247 of 262 Page 5 of 11 Real Estate, Environmental & Planning Committee Minutes July 26, 2021 Page 4 Member Hockett replied that since the Board has not yet made a policy decision, why continue to entertain these inquiries. Chair McGill stated that with treated water that is discharged into Suisun Bay, he would not want to see any opportunities missed. Moreover, he said he would like to see how Rossmoor plans to achieve this, engineering wise. There was discussion to continue dialogue with East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), as there are currently a number of overlapping projects and they are the biggest water supplier in Central San's service area. Mr. Bailey has had lengthy discussions in the past with EBMUD's former General Manager and former EBMUD Board that had a strong position against using recycled water as part of its delivery supply. However, there is a new General Manager and new Board members to engage with. Member Hockett opined that the District needs to reengage with the new colleagues. The Committee stated they would reach out to their respective liaison agencies to schedule time to meet and discuss the agencies'future visions. As it pertained to the upcoming meeting on Rossmoor, Member Hockett opined not to enter into any agreement at this time. Chair McGill opined to enter into an investigation. Ms. LaBella replied to Mr. Bailey regarding the flow available for a Rossmoor diversion. She said there is approximately 380,000 gallons per day of wastewater flow and they anticipate 350,000 gallons per day of recycled water production. Chair McGill asked what would happen to the system when that much flow is pulled out at a certain area. Mr. Petit responded that some water would be needed to allow some flushing, so that any solid materials could flow downhill by gravity without a lot of maintenance. Also, a diversion does not allow the flow to be used at the main Central San treatment facility for large supply projects. With that explanation, Chair McGill opined that if the flow availability does not work, then he would say no to Rossmoor; but, if it can, it reverts back to a policy issue. Member Hockett stated these are important details to know. Mr. Bailey concluded that an important criteria is the availability of wastewater flow and impact to the collection system, which needs to be sorted out. Staff confirmed they had enough input from the Committee to finalize the presentation to the Board. COMMITTEE ACTION: Continued the discussion and provided input to staff. August 5, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 248 of 262 Page 6 of 11 Real Estate, Environmental & Planning Committee Minutes July 26, 2021 Page 5 b. Receive an update on the Oracle permitting software Ms. Gemmell provided an overview of the permitting software integration with Oracle as part of the early adopter program for the District's latest ERP, implementation. Central San is the second agency working with Oracle on this particular software. The first agency's integration, City of Vallejo, was much simpler and did not integrate with its Finance system. Staff has been working directly with Oracle since August 2019 on this implementation, which is different than the Finance and Human Resources components already in use. As part of this integration, in May 2021 older permits were migrated as historical records into the system that currently has two platforms: test and production. A problem occurred recently when Oracle performed some updates; the old permits that were closed triggered the software to think they were live and expired. That glitch generated thousands of emails to customers that their permits had expired; some emails were fortunately not received by the recipients. The Permit Counter staff received a lot of activity of customers inquiring about those notifications. Mr. Huie stated the software is a beta program that is not 100% complete; this glitch was a mistake on Oracle's side. The auto-generated notification function has since been turned off so no further accidental emails are released. He stated the occurrence has been taken seriously and steps are being taken to ensure it does not happen again. COMMITTEE ACTION: Received the update. C. Receive an update regarding the cost analysis for the furnace and related improvements for Clean Air Act requirements Mr. Petit stated this update was an informational item regarding the Clean Air Act 129 Rule which would impact the Solids Handling Facility Improvements Project (Solids Project) that recently bid. The regulations stipulate that as long as the modifications are made within 50% of the original construction cost of the multiple hearth furnaces (MHF), the operations and permitting could continue under the current rules. Once over the 50% threshold, it would trigger a requirement to meet the new MHF rule's compliance category, which has stricter air emission limits. Staff has historically been tracking the costs closely and recently provided data on the project's estimate at the request of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A case was made by staff that the seismic work component should not be accounted within the 50% threshold. However, since the Solids Project cost estimates were recently updated from a recent bid opening, the Enterprise Resource Planning management system August 5, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 249 of 262 Page 7 of 11 Real Estate, Environmental & Planning Committee Minutes July 26, 2021 Page 6 work related to solids handling and MHFs is higher than originally estimated; the threshold may be impacted. Staff continues to be in close contact with the EPA and BAAQMD2. Ms. Schectel added that BAAQMD will defer to the EPA's decision on the 50% cost analysis. In response to Chair McGill's inquiry of dollar adjustments over time, Mr. Petit said the rules do allow inflation. Staff uses the Engineering News Record (ENR) cost index. More work will continue and the determination has not yet been made. During the discussion of the table on slide 8, Mr. Petit explained that should the cost determination go over the threshold, the items represented in red would need to be added to the project. It is a not a surprise for design and layout, as this scenario was anticipated, but the components were not included in the current project scope. Staff is cautious of being required to include additional work in the middle of the project. He reiterated this update was for informational purposes for furnace and pollution control. Staff will present the project's construction bid award to the Engineering & Operations Committee at an upcoming meeting. COMMITTEE ACTION: Received the update. d. Receive update on the most recent meeting of the Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA) Ms. Schectel reviewed the memorandum content included and focused discussion on the more recent July BACWA meeting. In regard to the BACWA triennial Basin Plan review, she stated the stage has been set for their intended priorities of climate change and wetlands fill policies. Workshops will be provided in the future to present more information. There was some discussion on climate change impacts with sea level rise and its potential effect of flow being pumped back into systems. Mr. McDonald shared that Bay Area agencies (i.e., San Francisco) are looking at their infrastructure and increasing their berm heights. Mr. Petit stated Central San is already addressing similar matters now. For example, the current Filter Plant Improvements Project has work scope to use soil excavated as part of the project to increase an onsite berm near the Filter Plant. Ms. Gemmell shared that staff is also working on a project to raise berms along the creeks. 2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District August 5, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 250 of 262 Page 8 of 11 Real Estate, Environmental & Planning Committee Minutes July 26, 2021 Page 7 Regarding Central San's participation in the regional PFAS3 study, staff is working in close collaboration with other participating agencies to ensure the study is meaningful and cost effective. Thus far, effluent values were generally higher than influent levels, and grab samples were lower than composite samples. Central San's values have been at the median level and similar to other participating agencies. COMMITTEE ACTION: Received the update. 5. Announcements Staff provided an update of a BAAQMD meeting held July 21, 2021 that reviewed its regulations rules 6-5, in which BAAQMD reduced the refinery levels on particulate matters to a very low number. This will be a significant financial impact to the refineries as the new rules would require a high investment to meet the new standards imposed. BAAQMD estimated the impact to be $200 million; the refineries rebutted the impact at a cost closer to $1 billion, and may make it difficult to stay in business. The rules would allow a five-year compliance time allowance. The immediate concern, that would require further information and investigation, is the extent on the rules impact to the refineries and how it would affect the Water Exchange project currently under a feasibility study. 6. Suggestions for future agenda items a. Receive list of upcoming agenda items and provide suggestions for any other future agenda items In regard to the announcement made above, Chair McGill requested an update be provided on any implications the BAAQMD rules would have on Central San, particularly relative to the scrubbers. However, the new rules do not have an impact on Central San as it was related to oil refineries. COMMITTEE ACTION: Received the list and provided input to staff. 7. Future scheduled meetings Monday, August 16, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. Monday, September 13, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. Monday, October 25, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. 8. Adjournment— at 9:22 a.m. *Attachment 3 Per- and polyfluroalkyl substances August 5, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 251 of 262 Pagef 11 4 f�emo .a. (Handout) Central Contra Costa Sanitary District �1� Wit!1_' / I/ !(' +1 %� !f LI�III'�a! .l�l�/3 K�'�'dR"y }� '� / 7 1 I r, J •. August 10, 2009 Pl1oNE: (925)228-9500 FIX: (925)676-7111 www.centralsan.org Mr. Joseph L. Campbell Mayor Laura Hoffmeister KELLY President, Board of Directors City of Concord General Manager KENION 1. AIM Contra Costa Water District 1950 Parkside Drive Counxel fi)rlhe Dislnt! 1331 Concord Avenue Concord, CA 94519 '5//'',108- WO P.O. Box H2O 1:1-41 'E R.flOh'HS1E Concord, CA 94524 .Secretary afthe District - �L-k-CA Dear President C�pFfell and Mayor Hof ter: CCCSD'S PROVISION OF RECYCLED WATER TO THE CONCORD COMMUNITY REUSE PROJECT This letter is in response to a request from the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) for commitment from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) for the supply of recycled water to the Concord Community Reuse Project (CCRP), also known as the Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS) Project. Water recycling is an integral part of CCCSD's mission to protect public health and the environment through maximizing use of this valuable resource. CCCSD is committed to recycling high-quality water meeting all regulatory requirements in ways that enhance the regional water supply. CCCSD is willing and able to serve recycled water to the CCRP. CCCSD is expressing its willingness and ability to supply the needed recycled water in the form of this "will serve" letter. It is CCCSD's understanding that the exact amount of recycled water needed for the CCRP has not yet been determined but that current estimates, as contained in the June 2009 Administrative Draft of the Environmental Impact Report, are up to 3,000 acre feet of recycled water per year for irrigation purposes, and CCWD indicates it could be as much as 6,000 acre feet per year. It is CCCSD's intention to supply, or make available, recycled water in sufficient quantity to meet the needs of the CCRP as determined by the City of Concord, up to the 6,000 acre feet per year. The State Water Resources Control Board has granted CCCSD the authority to provide up to 26,120 acre feet of recycled water per year for irrigation and industrial purposes. There are no water transfer or entitlement costs associated with making use of water made available by this grant. CCCSD currently only supplies ROA RD OF DIRECTORS J.Ofl-S,I 1'r,­dw•S!/(11:11/ /1 10,11/.iYer hwi'r..1.m•8WH_R'11) ORR/17•<,PRt/(Il! l1tI! •k/Il1lt)tt MA/S/.V/ August 5, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 252 of 262 Page 10 of 11 President Campbell and Mayor Hoffmeister August 10, 2009 Page 2 approximately 700 acre feet of recycled water annually; accordingly, it has sufficient recycled water supply available to meet even the highest demand estimates for the project. Delivery of recycled water to the CCRP would require construction of a pipeline connecting CCCSD's facility to the CCRP and potentially construction of a reservoir or other facilities on the CCRP property. Expansion and renovation of CCCSD's existing tertiary treatment facility would also be required. The specific needs and associated costs for additional recycled water facilities depend on refinement of recycled water demands of the CCRP as determined by future planning and legal considerations. All projects and related construction activities require separate environmental and technical analysis and project-level approval by CCCSD and possibly other agencies in the future. However, sufficient time and basic resources are available to meet the current base reuse development schedule, as we understand it. In addition to the construction of any necessary capital improvements, CCCSD's ability to provide recycled water to the CCRP will be subject to certain future actions of the City of Concord, the Reuse Commission, and potentially other governmental entities, as well as other financial and institutional agreements, as documented in the Attachment to this letter. CCCSD is committed to supporting the use of recycled water in the CCRP in the most cost-effective and environmentally-sound manner. CCCSD stands ready to work with the City of Concord, the Base Reuse Commission and CCWD to provide recycled water consistent with future approvals and environmental review. Given the importance to CCCSD of providing recycled water services to the CCRP, our Board of Directors has reviewed this matter and authorized sending this letter as confirmation of its clear intention to supply recycled water upon successfully addressing the conditions set forth above. If you have any questions, feel free to contact James M. Kelly, General Manager at (925) 228-9500. Sincerely, James A. Nejedly President, Board of Directors cc: Daniel E. Keen, City Manager, City of Concord Michael W. Wright, Reuse Project Director, City of Concord Walter J. Bishop, General Manager, CCWD Jerry Brown, Assistant General Manager, CCWD August 5, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 253 of 262 Page 11 of 11 President Campbell and Mayor Hoffmeister August 10, 2009 Page 3 ATTACHMENT CCCSD's ability to commit to the supply of recycled water to the Concord Community Reuse Project is dependent upon the actions noted below: 1. The City of Concord, the Federal authorities and either CCCSD or CCWD must complete necessary environmental review including the use of recycled water in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and National Environmental Protection Act ("NEPA"). 2. The City of Concord, along with other applicable planning entities, must determine the basic recycled water flow rates, uses, system demands and requirements, such as any requirements for backup water supply, storage, fire uses, etc. 3. Mechanisms must be in place to ensure that all CCCSD cost of recycled water, including the treatment and delivery infrastructure, cost of regulatory compliance, as well as other direct costs, if any, associated with the use of recycled water is borne by the new users and/or developers of the CCRP. 4. A formal agreement between CCCSD and CCWD, or CCCSD and the City of Concord, as to the supply of recycled water to CCRP by CCWD or CCCSD may be required as a condition prior to obtaining service. Other service agreements will be necessary with the parties that are to receive recycled water service. 5. Unforeseen circumstances, and any changes in local, state, or federal law adversely affecting CCCSD's ability to supply recycled water to the CCRP, if any, will have to be addressed. August 5, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 254 of 262