Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
5-14-13 Agenda Packet
1 City of Morro Bay City Council Agenda ________________________________________________________________________ Mission Statement The City of Morro Bay is dedicated to the preservation and enhancement of the quality of life. The City shall be committed to this purpose and will provide a level of municipal service and safety consistent with and responsive to the needs of the public. ________________________________________________________________________ REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2013 PUBLIC SESSION VETERANS MEMORIAL HALL - 6:00 P.M. 209 SURF ST., MORRO BAY, CA ESTABLISH QUORUM AND CALL TO ORDER MOMENT OF SILENCE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CLOSED SESSION REPORT MAYOR & COUNCILMEMBERS’ REPORTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & PRESENTATIONS PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS PUBLIC COMMENT - Members of the audience wishing to address the Council on City business matters not on the agenda may do so at this time. For those desiring to speak on items on the agenda, but unable to stay for the item, may also address the Council at this time. To increase the effectiveness of the Public Comment Period, the following rules shall be followed: When recognized by the Mayor, please come forward to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Comments are to be limited to three minutes. All remarks shall be addressed to Council, as a whole, and not to any individual member thereof. The Council respectfully requests that you refrain from making slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any elected official, commission and/or staff. Please refrain from public displays or outbursts such as unsolicited applause, comments or cheering. Any disruptive activities that substantially interfere with the ability of the City Council to carry out its meeting will not be permitted and offenders will be requested to leave the meeting. Your participation in City Council meetings is welcome and your courtesy will be appreciated. 2 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk, (805) 772-6205. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. A. CONSENT AGENDA Unless an item is pulled for separate action by the City Council, the following actions are approved without discussion. A-1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 23, 2013; (ADMINISTRATION) RECOMMENDATION: Approve as submitted. A-2 APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 23, 2013; (ADMINISTRATION) RECOMMENDATION: Approve as submitted. A-3 APPOINTMENT OF ONE (1) RECREATION & PARKS COMMISSION MEMBER TO A CURRENT BOARD VACANCY; (ADMINISTRATION) RECOMMENDATION: Appoint Bob Swain to the vacancy on the Recreation & Parks Commission for the remainder of the term which expires January 31, 2014. A-4 AUTHORIZATION TO FILE NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR PROJECT NO. MB2012-WC01: MORRO BAY LIFT STATION 3 AND SSFM UPGRADE (PUBLIC SERVICES) RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to file the Notice of Completion for Morro Bay Lift Station 3 and Sanitary Sewer Force Main Upgrade Project and transfer required funds from the Sewer Accumulation fund to the Lift Station 3 SSFM Upgrade project.. A-5 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MATCHING FUNDS AND GRANT AGREEMENT FOR THE MORRO CREEK MULTI-USE TRAIL AND BRIDGE PROJECT; (PUBLIC SERVICES) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution 29-13 authorizing execution of the grant agreement and approving matching requirements amounting to 20% of project costs. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3 B-1 RESOLUTION NO. 28-13 CONTINUING THE PROGRAM AND LEVYING THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE 2013/14 FISCAL YEAR FOR THE MORRO BAY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (MBTBID); (ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES) RECOMMENDATION: Hold a public hearing, record testimony for/against the continuation of the MBTBID, and adopt Resolution No. 28-13 levying the assessments for. B-2 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ENGINEERS REPORT AND DECLARING THE INTENT TO LEVY THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE NORTH POINT NATURAL AREA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT; (RECREATION & PARKS) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 26-13 declaring the intent to levy the annual assessment for the maintenance of the North Point Natural Area and approving the Engineers Report. B-3 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ENGINEERS REPORT AND DECLARING THE INTENT TO LEVY THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE CLOISTERS LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT; (RECREATION & PARKS) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 27-13 declaring the intent to levy the annual assessment for the maintenance of the Cloisters Park and Open Space and approving the Engineers Report. B-4 PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS, AND PROVIDE FURTHER DIRECTION TO STAFF AND APPLICANT REGARDING A REQUEST FOR AN ABANDONMENT (E00-103) AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (CP0-391) TO ALLOW THE ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY (ROW) NOT USED FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES USING THE PROCEDURES PROVIDED BY THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE, SECTION 8300 ET SEQ. THE ABANDONMENT IS LOCATED WESTERLY OF THE EXISTING BACK OF CURB OF TORO LANE, BETWEEN YERBA BUENA AND NORTH POINT SUBDIVISION. (GREG FRYE, 3420 TORO LANE, APPLICANT); (PUBLIC SERVICES) RECOMMENDATION: Receive public comment regarding the proposed abandonment and provide direction to staff based on the listed alternatives. C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE D. NEW BUSINESS 4 D-1 CONSIDERATION OF ALLOWING THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TO USE THE FACILITY AT 535 HARBOR STREET FOR AN INTERIM LIBRARY DURING THE MORRO BAY LIBRARY REMODEL; (ADMINISTRATION) RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the County of San Luis Obispo to utilize the facility located at 535 Harbor Street as a temporary library facility during the remodel of the Morro Bay Library. Staff further recommends the City Council review the provided alternatives with staff recommending Alternative 3. D-2 REVIEW OF THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE AS IT RELATES TO MINOR USE PERMIT FEES FOR THE BUSINESS PROPOSED FOR 1700 PARK AVENUE. (TROSS MOBILE AUTOMOTIVE AND R/V REPAIR BUSINESS); (PUBLIC SERVICES) RECOMMENDATION: Require the payment of the fees for the processing of a Minor Use Permit for the relocation of a mobile automotive repair business at 1700 Park Avenue. D-3 WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY (WRF) PROJECT STATUS AND DISCUSSION; (ADMINISTRATION) RECOMMENDATION: Discuss in open session, the progress to date on the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) and provide direction to staff as necessary. D-4 AUTHORIZE PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR TO FINALIZE THE CONTRACT FOR THE PLANNING CONSULTANT FOR THE NEW WRF AND APPROVE THE DRAFT “SCOPE OF WORK”; (PUBLIC SERVICES) RECOMMENDATION: Authorize finalizing the contract for the Planning Consultant and approve the draft Scope of Work. D-5 HISTORY AND STATUS OF WATER RIGHTS ISSUES IN THE CHORRO VALLEY; (CITY ATTORNEY/PUBLIC SERVICES) RECOMMENDATION: Review the comprehensive staff report on the City’s water history and our current ongoing practices related to the City’s water rights and issues surrounding the Chorro Valley. After review, public comment and discussion provide any further direction to Staff. D-6 COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS FOR CURRENTLY VACANT LEASE SITES 138-139 (BETWEEN NORTH T-PIER PUBLIC RESTROOM AND CRILL’S), 107W-108W (ADJACENT TO SOUTH T- PIER), AND 49/49W (SOUTH OF ASSOCIATED PACIFIC CONSTRUCTORS); (HARBOR) 5 RECOMMENDATION: Approve Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for vacant Lease Sites 138-139, 107W-108W, and 49/49W. D-7 DISCUSSION ON OPENING THE BATHROOM AT LIFT STATION 2 ON THE EMBARCADERO DURING SUMMER MONTHS; (RECREATION & PARKS) RECOMMENDATION: Discuss the possibility of opening the bathroom to the public which is located at Lift Station 2 at the north end of Front Street for the summer months. D-8 REVIEW OF THE 2008 MANAGEMENT PARTNER STUDY (ASSESSMENT OF CITY ORGANIZATION AND FINANCIAL OPTIONS), INCLUDING PROGRESS ON THE 21 EXPENDITURE CONTROL STRATEGIES, 13 REVENUE CREATION STRATEGIES AND 4 LONG RANGE STRATEGIES AND PROVIDE FURTHER DIRECTION TO STAFF; (ADMINISTRATION) RECOMMENDATION: Review the attached report on the progress made on the 21 Expenditure Control Strategies, 13 Revenue Creation Strategies and 4 Long Range Strategies from the 2008 Management Partners Assessment of City Organization and Financial Options document and provide staff direction. E. COUNCIL DECLARATION OF FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS F. ADJOURNMENT THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO AMENDMENT UP TO 72 HOURS PRIOR TO THE DATE AND TIME SET FOR THE MEETING. PLEASE REFER TO THE AGENDA POSTED AT CITY HALL FOR ANY REVISIONS OR CALL THE CLERK'S OFFICE AT 772-6205 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION AT CITY HALL LOCATED AT 595 HARBOR STREET; MORRO BAY LIBRARY LOCATED AT 625 HARBOR STREET; AND MILL’S COPY CENTER LOCATED AT 495 MORRO BAY BOULEVARD DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, IF YOU NEED SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN A CITY MEETING, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT LEAST 24 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING TO INSURE THAT REASONABLE ARRANGEMENTS CAN BE MADE TO PROVIDE ACCESSIBILITY TO THE MEETING. 1 MINUTES - MORRO BAY CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING – APRIL 23, 2013 VETERANS MEMORIAL HALL - 4:30 P.M. Mayor Irons called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. PRESENT: Jamie Irons Mayor George Leage Councilmember Christine Johnson Councilmember Nancy Johnson Councilmember Noah Smukler Councilmember Rick Grantham Chair John Solu Vice Chair John Fennacy Planning Commissioner Michael Lucas Planning Commissioner Robert Tefft Planning Commissioner STAFF: Andrea Lueker City Manager Robert Schultz City Attorney Rob Livick Public Services Director Kathleen Wold Planning Manager Cindy Jacinth Associate Planner Jamie Boucher City Clerk ESTABLISH QUORUM AND CALL TO ORDER MOMENT OF SILENCE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CLOSED SESSION REPORT MAYOR & COUNCILMEMBERS’ REPORTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & PRESENTATIONS PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS PUBLIC COMMENT Rigmore purchased the Sun Bulletin building and she is hoping that the Los Osos Mexican Market will get their business license soon. She thanked the two new Councilmembers for their service. She thanked the City for getting ready to put in new sidewalks in on Market. She also stated that she met with staff last week to talk about planting trees along Market Street. Bill Martoney spoke on Measure D stating that Joe Giannini was instrumental in putting Measure D in place for a specific purpose. He saw the future and saw how the Embarcadero was turning towards tourism; he wanted to preserve the northern section for fishermen and the fishing industry. He urged Council and the Commission to keep in mind what the original intent was as he feels the Measure D area has been crept into over the years. AGENDA NO: A-1 MEETING DATE: 5/14/2013 2 Sharon Moore of Virg’s Sportfishing was here when Measure D was voted in; Virg and Joe Giannini wrote it to protect the industry. She stated that the Paddle Board business, in the winter time is fine but in the summer, her sportfishing business can’t operate with them there as there isn’t enough room in the parking lot. To protect the industry is to protect the creep. Mayor Irons closed Public Comment. I. JOINT MEETING DISCUSSION ITEMS A) Planning Commission bylaws, duties and expectations of City Council Councilmember Christine Johnson discussed the importance of the Bylaws stressing that they are fluid documents and can be adjusted; Councilmember Smukler stressed while its challenging, the General Plan and LCP are documents that should be guiding the Commission’s decisions, and on some items he senses deviation from following those documents as guiding principles; and Mayor Irons stressed that the Planning Commission’s duty was to advocate for the General Plan and to act in the best interests of the public. Commissioner Fennacy responded that he looks forward to opportunities like this to share ideas specific to planning and looks forward to working with the Council on the issues before us. Commissioner Solu appreciates the opportunity to serve and realizes that the Commissioners serve at Council’s pleasure. He thought it would be a good idea to get specific examples of how Councilmember Smukler felt they deviated from the General Plan and didn’t do as well. Commissioner Tefft also appreciates the opportunity to meet jointly and agrees with the several of the Councilmembers that the current General Plan is difficult to work with. Councilmember Lucas stated he is happy to serve and it’s important to remember that the General Plan and LCP are living documents and it’s equally important to be able to exchange dialogue as to where things are going and coming from; those currently serving represent different groundings and different aspects of being here. Chair Grantham is pleased to be here and feels it’s an honor to serve; he hopes that everybody can work to be a part of the solution. Councilmember Nancy Johnson stated that one of the overriding things to remember is that anything that comes to the Planning Commission is very unusual – a variance or an exception – and these projects don’t fit neatly into a box. B) Discussion of Goal #3 - Update Plans for Current and Future Land Use Needs Commissioner Fennacy stated that by definition, the General Plan is general and inconsistent. If a project is coming to the PC, it is because something is falling in the fringes of the General Plan or LCP, otherwise it would be dealt with at the administrative level. He favors constantly looking at it and being open minded, especially if there are problem areas that are tripping up staff, the Planning Commission or the public. Commissioner Tefft stated that the overriding aspect of the General Plan is that it’s primarily a negative document; ie: you can’t do this and you can’t do that. A major 3 improvement would be to make it a more positive document expressing the vision of each area of town and gives people an overall community vision of those areas. Commissioner Lucas initially provided information to everybody prior to the meeting. Reading through the documents, a lot of the vision elements that are in there have been accomplished and a lot of them have been changed. When we don’t have a black and white law in front of us, it would be a good idea to have the discernment of the vision of the City that would help us interpret these situations. Chair Grantham stated that when the document was completed it was a good document but now it needs revising. Unfortunately it will take a lot of time and money which we don’t have. He felt it necessary to establish reasonable goals and follow through on ones that we can and work on the ones we know we have to do. Commissioner Solu agrees 100% with Commissioner Tefft and hopes that when we look at the General Plan, it will be more positive. If we are going to be a friendly City to do business, it needs to be more positive. Public Services Director Rob Livick stated that the update has been something we’ve tried to do for many years. The City’s current goal is to look for grant funding. If no grant monies are available, then possibly we would strategize to supplement current staffing on the lower end to give more experienced staff the ability to look at long range planning. Its also important to put together a work program for the LCP and GP. The Circulation Element will necessitate external help as well as it is too technical. Planning Manager Kathleen Wold agrees stating that she feels we will also need additional help with the environmental documentation. Councilmember Christine Johnson in encouraged to hear from staff that even if it’s difficult, we are going to move forward, have a work plan, we’re going to put together an outline and will have a scope. Councilmember Nancy Johnson is happy to see staff has a plan to work through this. She asked staff to consider using an intern who may have a fresh perspective on items. Councilmember Smukler is also glad to hear that work has already been done in preparation of this plan in the upcoming budget. He feels it’s important to try to get a foundational plan together and then take some time to strategize and consider the different options particularly given the funding challenges. He would be willing, if necessary depending on the finances, to prioritize and be strategic about specific elements if we can’t fund the whole chunk at once. C) Discussion of Projects Appealed to City Council Councilmember Smukler has seen a number of appeals come to the Council in the last couple of months; at times staff’s presentation of information is lighter than in the past; he’d like to see more robust staff reports/presentations. Also, the Planning Commission 4 has heard some “non-standard” projects and it would be his wish that if they felt that they’ve been presented an incomplete project that taking a little more time at the Planning Commission level could make for a stronger and more complete project. Continuing a project to make it stronger would be preferable to an approval. Councilmember Nancy Johnson disagrees as over the years she has seen several projects come to the Council and projects that come are unusual in the first place. Also, anytime we deal with a superior agency, things tend to get complicated and convoluted. She feels the Planning Commission is doing a good job; there will always be appeals because projects that come before Planning Commission are always unusual and different and there are people who disagree with things that are different and outside of the box. Councilmember Christine Johnson stated that where Council has been strongest is when we have continued an item and stepped back and learned. This gives Council time to think and allows staff to spend more time flushing out things for us. Mayor Irons echoes all these comments and recognizes there a lot of challenging projects. He is in support of taking more time, having discussion and if needed, continuing an item could make for a better project. Chair Grantham stated that by the time Council gets the project on appeal, the Council can often get much more information than the Planning Commission ever had when making their initial determination. Commissioner Solu agrees; in fact he gets angry when something that is appealed is overturned as often times the PC doesn’t have the information. The Planning Commission does its due diligence and will continue something if we don’t feel good about it but that realistically if there is a 3-2 vote it will likely get appealed anyway, that’s the reality of things. The Planning Commission will do its best to make sure their decisions are in the best interest of the City and in compliance with the General Plan. Commissioner Fennacy wanted to reinforce the position that a factor out of the Planning Commissioners control is the appellants and the motivation for their appeal. It would be good to educate the general public as we move forward with the General Plan and LCP which he feels would diminish the “off the wall” and political appeals. Commissioner Lucas stated that in his experience, part of the issue is time versus information. He doesn’t think that at times the information is satisfactory in order to make a proper decision or to understand what’s being proposed. Commissioner Tefft feels that they are being asked to be deliberate and thorough. He is not offended if an appeal is overturned by the Council as it is a way that Council can send a message as to what their priorities are. He is okay with the appeals process and will try and do his job the way the Council would like him to. 5 Mayor Irons stated that as appeals come forward, he encourages the Commissioners to let their reasoning for their position be known to the Council. D) Discussion on the Interpretation of Measure D Councilmember Smukler stated that since he’s been on Council, there has never been any action to change Measure D and that any change would need to be made through the public process and initiative process. We are seeing a recovery in the fishing industry and as such, we need to hold Measure D strong unless it’s changed through the public process. Mayor Irons stated that Measure D is vital to the area and strengthens our fishing community. Chair Grantham stated that Measure D protects the rights of our local commercial fishermen and definitely supports it, and supports the businesses that are in the area that support Measure D. He hopes we don’t crowd it out so much that there won’t be enough room for slips for the fishermen. Commissioner Solu met with those affected by Measure D and stated that there is a sense among the local fishermen that we may circumventing the system, and there is a question about whether we are changing language; their number one complaint is that they don’t have slips and are worried that future slip fees will go up. The goal is to keep the fishermen whole and if language changes need to be made, that has to be kept at the forefront. Commissioner Fennacy is a proponent of Measure D and that strict adherence is in the best interest unless it goes to a vote of the people. He doesn’t want the City to diminish the amount of slips; there are places along the Embarcadero to increase slips for non- commercial boats. Commissioner Lucas completely agrees; the fishing industry should be an asset we want to enhance as best we can. As we look forward, the question should be – how can we support this longer term as a healthy industry? It’s amazing they have had such resiliency during such difficult times. Commissioner Tefft agrees with a strict interpretation of Measure D; without that, the influx of other commercial/recreational vessels for the slips and landside uses will push the fishing community out of the market on the Embarcadero. Measure D preserves the area for commercial fishing and maybe we need to look at actively providing some additional facilities or support. Councilmember Leage stated that Measure D is one of the most important things we have for our fishing community. There is a lot of concern about what is and what has been going on. He suggested bringing this back as a stand-alone Council item to talk about it in more depth. 6 Councilmember Smukler agrees that bringing Measure D back as a stand-alone item is a good idea and in fact, believes it should start at the Planning Commission level first. Councilmember Nancy Johnson agrees and would like to see this as a Future Agenda Item at the Council level as we need to enforce Measure D. Councilmember Christine Johnson stated that what makes Morro Bay different than every other coastal community is Measure D. She would like to see the fishing community invited in on a discussion as we move forward. E) Discussion of Creation of a Specific Plan Overlay District from No. Embarcadero to Cloisters, West of Highway 1 There was not time for discussion on this item. II. ADJOURNMENT – 5:55 p.m. This meeting adjourned to the regularly scheduled City Council meeting. Recorded by: Jamie Boucher City Clerk MINUTES - MORRO BAY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING – APRIL 23, 2013 VETERAN’S MEMORIAL HALL – 6:00P.M. PRESENT: Jamie Irons Mayor Christine Johnson Councilmember Nancy Johnson Councilmember George Leage Councilmember Noah Smukler Councilmember STAFF: Andrea Lueker City Manager Robert Schultz City Attorney Jamie Boucher City Clerk Amy Christey Police Chief Steve Knuckles Fire Chief Eric Endersby Harbor Director Susan Slayton Administrative Services Director Joe Woods Recreation & Parks Director Mayor Irons called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ESTABLISH QUORUM AND CALL TO ORDER MOMENT OF SILENCE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CLOSED SESSION REPORT – City Attorney Robert Shultz reported that City Council met in Closed Session on April 16th and 17th, 2013 on the following items: Government Code Section 54957, Personnel Issues regarding one (1) public employee regarding evaluation, specifically the City Attorney; and, Government Code Section 54957.6, Conference with City Council, the City’s Designated Representative, for the purpose of reviewing the City’s position regarding the terms and compensation paid to the following unrepresented employee: City Attorney. No reportable action under the Brown Act was taken. MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS’ REPORTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & PRESENTATIONS PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS PUBLIC COMMENT Janice King, owner of Vibrant Life, a new artist cooperative located at 315 Morro Bay Blvd., on the corner of Morro Bay Blvd and Main Street. They sell beautiful products, paintings, candles, mosaic mirrors, handmade items for the home, etc… They are looking for other artists to join them in their venture. They will also be holding art classes for middle and high school students. Their hours are Wednesday – Saturday, 10-5pm and Sundays noon-5pm. Their phone number is 541-218-8275. AGENDA NO: A-2 MEETING DATE: 5/14/2013 2 MINUTES - MORRO BAY CITY COUNCIL – APRIL 23, 2013 Ken Vesterfelt publicized the great success of Morro Bay’s Emergency Car Show. He also advertised the upcoming 17th Annual Morro Bay Cruisn’ Car Show being held on May 2nd – May 5th. Dennis Gage of My Classic Car will be in attendance, taping one of his show’s segments. Stan House spoke on behalf of Friends of the Fire Department congratulating Steve Knuckles on his promotion to Fire Chief. He also said that the fundraising efforts of the Friends of the Fire Department have been very successful. Just recently, Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian donated $995 for the purchase of a King Vision Video Laryngoscope. He also thanked all those who purchased bricks. Don Doubledee spoke as a Board Member/Director for the Harbor Festival and Car Show regarding City fees charged for these events. He stated that both events bring thousands of people into town who shop, buy gas, stay in motels; all of which bring additional sales tax to Morro Bay. Both events are volunteer run and both donate money to non-profit community groups. He urged Council to consider rethinking charging fees for these events as they would much rather partner with the City. Keith Taylor stated that the Emergency Car Show was a huge success and wanted to thank everybody for their support; it was wonderful to see the kids enjoying themselves so much. He also spoke on the Cruisn’ Morro Bay Car Show thanking people for “doing what they do” and making visitor’s feel so welcome. Father Ed urged that Council not support the adoption of an official policy on signs in Morro Bay. We need more signage in Morro Bay promoting events, businesses, religious services, etc… He said that during elections they are everywhere and there is no attempt to limit them. Visitors and residents need a greater awareness of the attractions in Morro Bay. Limiting signs is an unnecessary distraction from the more important work of promoting Morro Bay. Mandy Davis, as a representative of Coast Alliance, presented a short report on what’s happening with the seismic testing. She/they have been going to meetings to make sure that those entities intervene with the California State Lands Commission and ensure the process for issuing permits for seismic testing are appropriate. Coast Alliance is drafting a Resolution to put before Morro Bay and she hopes we will be that proactive progressive City to lead the way with Marine Protection. She also applauded the efforts of the Harbor Department staff. Wally Auerbach requested Council pull Item A-7 from the Consent Calendar and take the procedural steps necessary to reconsider the item in hopes of providing the residents of the beach tract an opportunity to unify behind a single position on the project so that Council can approve the project with appropriate conditions. He is asking that we would postpone rehearing the matter for 2 weeks to give us enough time to unify behind a single position made clear in a document to the City and the State Parks. If after that there is a need to still hear an appeal, at least everyone will have been heard. 3 MINUTES - MORRO BAY CITY COUNCIL – APRIL 23, 2013 Shaun Farmer spoke on behalf of the upcoming Morro Bay Kite Festival. He hopes that everyone will come out and join them in flying a kite this weekend. He thanked all those responsible for helping put this event on. Mayor Irons closed the public comment period. A. CONSENT AGENDA Unless an item is pulled for separate action by the City Council, the following actions are approved without discussion. A-1 APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 9, 2013; (ADMINISTRATION) RECOMMENDATION: Approve as submitted. A-2 STATUS REPORT OF A MAJOR MAINTENANCE & REPAIR PLAN (MMRP) FOR THE EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLAN; (PUBLIC SERVICES) RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file this report. A-3 REVISED RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CITIZENS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ON THE REALLOCATION OF STORM DRAIN CARRYOVER FUNDS IN THE DISTRICT TRANSACTION TAX (MEASURE Q) FUND; (ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends accepting the Citizens Oversight Committee’s recommendation to reallocate the $471,000 Measure Q storm drain carryover, with $385,000 going to street maintenance, and $86,000 to update the 1987 Storm Drain Master Plan. A-4 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATUS REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2013; (ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES) RECOMMENDATION: Accept the reports as presented. A-5 REAFFIRM COUNCIL ACTION OF APRIL 9, 2013 PERTAINING TO THE SELECTION OF FIVE (5) CITIZEN MEMBERS TO PARTICIPATE ON THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR CONSULTATION SERVICES FOR THE WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY; (CITY ATTORNEY) RECOMMENDATION: Reaffirm and approve its previous decision by selecting Don Boatman, Stephen Shively, Donald Smith, Paul Donnelly and Valerie Levulett to serve as Citizen Members to Participate on the Selection Committee for Consultation Services for the Water Reclamation Facility. 4 MINUTES - MORRO BAY CITY COUNCIL – APRIL 23, 2013 A-6 PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORRO BAY DECLARING MAY 2013 AS BIKE MONTH; MAY 13 TO MAY 17, 2013 AS BIKE TO WORK WEEK; AND MAY 8, 2013 AS BIKE TO SCHOOL DAY; (ADMINISTRATION) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Proclamation. A-7 RESOLUTION 25-13 ADOPTING FINDINGS TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL AND OVERTURN THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (#CP0-390), MORRO STRAND CAMPGROUND IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT; (PUBLIC SERVICES) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution No. 25-13 adopting findings to uphold the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission’s approval of Coastal Development Permit (#CP0-390). Mayor Irons opened up the public comment period for items on the Consent Calendar. Betty Winholtz spoke on Item A-3 feeling all of this money should be put towards streets; on Item A-7 stating there is a need to have findings before anything can happen next so she is in favor of us going ahead with the findings this evening; and Item A-5 stating that the issue isn’t just a matter of whether or not expansion was aired but whether or not if people had known that more applicants would be chosen, would they have chosen to apply. Mayor Irons closed public comment for the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Smukler pulled Item A-5 and A-7; Councilmember Christine Johnson pulled Item A-1 and recused herself from Item A-7; and Mayor Irons pulled Item A-6 so that a Proclamation can be read. MOTION: Councilmember Nancy Johnson moved the City Council approve Items A- 2, A-3, and A-4 of the Consent Calendar as presented. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Christine Johnson and carried unanimously 5-0. A-1 APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 9, 2013; (ADMINISTRATION) Councilmember Christine Johnson pulled this item to read into the record the amended section of the minutes; she had previously spoken with the City Clerk and it was determined that the change was warranted. MOTION: Councilmember Christine Johnson moved the City Council approve Item A-1 as amended. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Smukler and carried unanimously 5-0. 5 MINUTES - MORRO BAY CITY COUNCIL – APRIL 23, 2013 A-5 REAFFIRM COUNCIL ACTION OF APRIL 9, 2013 PERTAINING TO THE SELECTION OF FIVE (5) CITIZEN MEMBERS TO PARTICIPATE ON THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR CONSULTATION SERVICES FOR THE WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY; (CITY ATTORNEY) Councilmember Smukler pulled this item stating that there was public concern this process didn’t follow the Brown Act. City Attorney Rob Schultz stated that when this was brought up by a citizen via an email complaint, it triggered a time period where the City can tell the person that they don’t believe there was a Brown Act violation or we can bring it back to cure. Even if there is a difference in opinion as there is in this case, it is the City’s position is that we didn’t violate the Brown Act, it’s always best to bring the item back to cure and give the Council the opportunity reaffirm their original decision. Councilmember Smukler went on to say that he has studied the issue the last couple of weeks and feels the committee members are committed and as such, he trusts that they will have Morro Bay’s best interests in mind. Councilmember Nancy Johnson felt this was a good idea when it came up and still does; Council continually asks for more public input; she feels using 2 panels will be very valuable and would hate to start all over again. Councilmember Leage states that is important to start moving ahead. Councilmember Christine Johnson agrees with the sentiments that if we change direction now, it will delay the process which concerns her. While the process was unfortunate, she did speak to all the applicants and was incredibly impressed with their qualifications. Mayor Irons is in favor of proceeding with this and is very happy with the quality of applicants. MOTION: Councilmember Leage moved for City Council approval of Item A-5. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Smukler and carried unanimously 5-0. A-6 PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORRO BAY DECLARING MAY 2013 AS BIKE MONTH; MAY 13 TO MAY 17, 2013 AS BIKE TO WORK WEEK; AND MAY 8, 2013 AS BIKE TO SCHOOL DAY; (ADMINISTRATION) Mayor Irons read the Bike Month Proclamation MOTION: Councilmember Nancy Johnson moved for approval of the Bike Month Proclamation. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Smukler and carried unanimously 5-0. A-7 RESOLUTION 25-13 ADOPTING FINDINGS TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL AND OVERTURN THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (#CP0-390), MORRO STRAND CAMPGROUND IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT; (PUBLIC SERVICES) 6 MINUTES - MORRO BAY CITY COUNCIL – APRIL 23, 2013 Councilmember Christine Johnson had to recuse herself from this item due to a conflict of interest. Public Services Director Rob Livick presented the staff report. Mayor Irons spoke with State Parks Sector Chief, Nick Franco who expressed that they are going to the Coastal Commission as we speak and would not be in favor of extending this for 2 weeks. As such, this item is being heard to establish the findings which needed to be delineated as well as continue the City’s support of the Morro Strand State Park. Councilmember Nancy Johnson feels we need to move forward with this and tell our citizens who are still concerned to meet with State Parks, with Nick Franco of State Parks and with the Coastal Commission. Councilmember Smukler left the last meeting wishing we could have been able to work with State Parks to create a better plan. He didn’t feel we went as far as we needed to in order to be clear about what we wanted to address about this project. He wants to address the possibility of not approving this tonight and bringing it back to a Public Hearing giving everybody more time to come up with an agreement that meets everybody’s needs. He has concerns that State Parks, when meeting with the Coastal Commission, may be delayed even further without a better support of the City and neighborhood. Mayor Irons reminded Council that at the last meeting, the applicant didn’t want us to approve this and in fact asked for a denial so they can move forward and take it directly to the Coastal Commission. They made no indications that they want to come back in front of Council as it will be an appealed project anyway and they wanted to get to Coastal Commission as soon as possible. Councilmember Nancy Johnson stated that State Parks is a superior agency; they made their position very clear that they want it denied so that they can move forward. She feels we should move forward emphasizing our support for the Park and neighbors. Councilmember Smukler stated that we still have the responsibility to push this project to be the best it can be. At a minimum, we should strengthen the Resolution to recognize the concerns of both Council and the neighborhood and we follow through with having a Public Hearing that is timely so we are clear about the issues that are important to the community. Mayor Irons says we are in support of State Parks being successful as well as being in support of our community and the potential impacts of this project but we do want to move this forward. Councilmember Smukler is still interested in working with the neighborhood to come up with a Resolution or a clear message to Coastal Commission and State Parks as to what the issues are, making sure the neighborhood had a strong voice in the process. 7 MINUTES - MORRO BAY CITY COUNCIL – APRIL 23, 2013 Councilmember Nancy Johnson stated that the Resolution as written is a very strong statement; State Parks has made it very clear what they want to do and they need this information tonight so they can move forward; and, we are still coming back with a hearing where we can take public input. It’s important that we move forward with this tonight. MOTION: Councilmember Nancy Johnson moved for approval of Resolution 25-13. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Leage and carried 3-1-1 with Councilmember Smukler voting no and Councilmember Christine Johnson having been recused from the item. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS B-1 RESOLUTION NO. 24-13 DECLARING THE INTENTION TO CONTINUE THE PROGRAM AND ASSESSMENTS FOR THE 2013/14 FISCAL YEAR FOR THE MORRO BAY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (MBTBID) AND SCHEDULING A PUBLIC HEARING TO LEVY THE ASSESSMENTS; (ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES) Administrative Services Director Susan Slayton presented the staff report. Mayor Irons opened the public comment period for Item B-1; seeing none, the public comment period was closed. MOTION: Councilmember Leage moved approval of Resolution 24-13, declaring the intention to continue the program and assessments for the 2013/14 fiscal year for the Morro Bay Tourism Business Improvement District and scheduling a public hearing to levy the assessments. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Nancy Johnson and carried unanimously 5-0. B-2 APPROVAL OF CONSENT OF LANDOWNER FOR LEASE SITE 82-85/82W-85W (ROSE’S LANDING) TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR DOCK IMPROVEMENTS AND ALLOW STAFF TO ENTER INTO LEASE NEGOTIATIONS; (HARBOR) Councilmember Leage had to recuse himself from this item due to a conflict of interest. Harbor Director Eric Endersby presented the staff report. Mayor Irons opened the public comment period for Item B-2. Steve Paglessi, Project Architect, agrees with staff and would also opt for Alternative B. He reminded Council that Mr. Redican is a significant stakeholder in Morro Bay and has already invested upwards of 2 million dollars in Roses Landing. In addition, this project with slips has been vetted with the City already. 8 MINUTES - MORRO BAY CITY COUNCIL – APRIL 23, 2013 Betty Winholtz hopes that Council will address 2 issues: one is the policy change which is significant; the other is the conditions under which you are granting him what he wants. At the Lease Holder Study Session, one of the major concerns is that you are equitable to everybody. She feels this decision represents a larger decision for all the lease holders because Council hasn’t made the definitive decision about what the policy is. She feels this decision is premature and she wonders if this is how you will handle the next guy and the next guy, and etc… She feels you need to postpone the decision. Mayor Irons closed the public comment period for Item B-2. Councilmember Christine Johnson finds it appealing to see this this kind of project at this stage because in 2018, there will a number of lease sites that will be expiring. Because of the policy, folks are coming forward to start to think about the future of those lease sites. It is in the best interest of the community for us to be able to participate in what the next 40-50 years will look like on the Embarcadero. She recognizes people are making incredible investments in Morro Bay so there needs to be a balance we will want to make. Councilmember Smukler agrees we wouldn’t be tying ourselves into an agreement. He is willing to move forward as it gives us the opportunity to see how much staff time this may take and in fact wants staff to keep track of their time. He feels comfortable as Mr. Redican has historically proven to be a good leaseholder. He does want to be cautious of the view shed and the navigable channel as slips may infringe in those areas. He also wants to include affordability and access of slips into the universal policy when we get to that point. Mayor Irons wanted to be assured that the current lease management policy is performing properly. He also wanted to be assured we aren’t circumventing the concept approval process. He has concerns that slips 6 & 7 may need adjusting to allow proper access to the working dock next to it. Councilmember Nancy Johnson likes the new possible process; she recognizes that Mr. Redican has made extensive improvements over the years; and he is proposing 6 new slips which will hopefully help our Measure D situation. Councilmember Christine Johnson wondered if we should set a time line to revisit this new process and wondered if want to go deeper into any of the lease issues that were brought up at the study session. She suggested revisiting this after the summer. It was directed by Council consensus to have the Harbor Advisory Board review the Harbor Lease Site Policy before coming to Council. MOTION: Councilmember Christine Johnson moved to approve Item B-2, Alternative B as presented in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Nancy Johnson and carried 4-0-1 with Councilmember Leage being recused from this item. C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS – NONE 9 MINUTES - MORRO BAY CITY COUNCIL – APRIL 23, 2013 D. NEW BUSINESS D-1 PRESENTATION BY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Chamber of Commerce CEO, Craig Schmidt made a presentation. This is the Chamber’s first report to the Council regarding the formation and actions of the newly formed Economic Development Program. The goal of this partnership is to ensure that Morro Bay’s local economy is vibrant, strong and sustainable over the long term by providing strategies, programs, and policies that will help improve the business climate in Morro Bay. This can be accomplished through Data Collection and Analysis, Business Retention and Expansion (BRE), and Business Attraction. The Chamber is helping to grow new businesses in Morro Bay. As indicated by the high percentage of self-employed, the entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well in Morro Bay. The Chamber has developed and is operating the Morro Bay Incubator in the hopes that these will mature to provide jobs and fill vacant commercial property. Economic Development Director John DiNunzio made a presentation on the current progress of the Economic Development Program. The presentation covered “What is the Economic Development Program”, the roles and responsibilities of the ED Program Coordinator, Upcoming ED Program Initiatives, a run-down of businesses who have received direct assistance from the Chamber for business retention or expansion, contacts made to or were received from businesses, contacts made with prospective businesses in Morro Bay, jobs in Morro Bay, regional job trending, and growing and declining occupations and industries. D-2 REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF CO-SPONSORSHIP OF SPECIAL EVENTS TO INCLUDE INITIAL REVIEW OF THE SPONSORSHIP POLICY; (RECREATION & PARKS) Recreation & Parks Director Joe Woods presented the staff report. Mayor Irons opened the public comment period for Item B-1; seeing none, the public comment period was closed. Councilmember Christine Johnson stated that the reason for additional City services tend to be as a result of increased traffic, alcohol and pyrotechnics. Councilmember Smukler is cautious due to potential financial impacts to the City. He is willing to explore the concept but wants to ensure we are covering ourselves and we have a strong program to not overextend ourselves. Before we talk about criteria, he feels we should wait and hear from the Recreation & Parks Commission and the participants from the event planning meeting with the Chamber that’s coming up. If we sponsor, we need to hold the events to a high standard of reporting. He also recommends expanding and requiring a recycling component for these events to include a zero waste initiative. Mayor Irons shares the concerns of the Council and feels that the results from the events meeting will help in making this decision. 10 MINUTES - MORRO BAY CITY COUNCIL – APRIL 23, 2013 Councilmember Christine Johnson stated that the optimum solution is not to have to choose one organization over another. She remains cautious about funding. She recommended looking to discuss adding an alcohol free policy to co-sponsorship. The question of “who does events in Morro Bay’ needs to be answered. Councilmember Leage doesn’t feel that the $18,000 in fees is that big of a hurdle for the City to find for the revenues that the events bring in. Councilmember Smukler hoped that with the events meeting coming up, it’s more important to focus on a general direction, work the process more and then bring the item back to the Council. He agreed that an alcohol free component could be very effective. Councilmember Nancy Johnson agrees with much of what has been discussed and also agrees that we need more information. She felt it important to know how much the events bring to the City – what is the financial return? She would also like to see the following added to the co- sponsorship application: The cost of putting the event on; where the money goes at the conclusion of the event; and then to have a requirement that the event organizer(s) bring back a balance sheet. It was the consensus of Council to bring this item back at a later date (July) following input from the events meeting, look into alcohol free, analyze the financial return and know who is doing events. D-3 WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY (WRF) PROJECT STATUS AND DISCUSSION; (ADMINISTRATION) City Manager Andrea Lueker presented the staff report. Mayor Irons opened up the public comment period for Item D-3; seeing none, the public comment period was closed. There was no Council discussion on this item. D-4 CONFIRMATION OF CITY GOALS AND GOAL OUTLINES FOR 2013; (ADMINISTRATION) City Manager Andrea Lueker presented the staff report. Mayor Irons opened up public comment for Item D-4; seeing none, the public comment period was closed. Councilmember Smukler spoke on Goal #3 hoping to add under Key Tasks an e. Update the Circulation Element to include Complete Streets Initiative; he also spoke on Goal #6 hoping to add under Key Tasks a g. Update Way-Finding Signage within the City and on Highway 1; he also spoke on Goal #7 hoping to add under Key Tasks an i. Work with Non-profit Group to 11 MINUTES - MORRO BAY CITY COUNCIL – APRIL 23, 2013 move the Bike Park Project forward; and he spoke on Goal #5 hoping to add under Key Tasks an e. Evaluate concept of Budget Sub-Committee. Councilmember Christine Johnson spoke on Goal #6 hoping to add under Key Tasks an a. …fund Economic Dev. Program, Tourism Marketing and the Visitor’s Center Mayor Irons spoke on Goal #3 hoping to add under Key Tasks an f. Develop work plan for the update of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Plan. MOTION: Councilmember Christine Johnson moved for approval of the City Goals as amended. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Smukler and carried unanimously 5-0. D-5 SELECTION OF REAL ESTATE CONTRACT SERVICES AND AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE A RESIDENTIAL LISTING AGREEMENT FOR EXCLUSIVE AUTHORIZATION AND RIGHT TO SELL THE CITY-OWNED PROPERTY ON THE CORNER OF CORAL AVENUE AND SAN JACINTO STREET; (CITY ATTORNEY) Mayor Irons and Councilmember Nancy Johnson recused themselves as there was a potential for a conflict of interest. City Attorney Rob Schultz presented the staff report. Vice-Mayor George Leage opened up public comment for Item D-5; seeing none, the public comment period was closed. Councilmember Smukler stated that after looking at all the proposals, Ciano Real Estate stood out, especially since they were willing to take a commission of 3.5% Councilmember Christine Johnson stated that all the agents would be able to sell this property. The money for the sale of this property will go to the Fire Station debt service which then would free up some Measure Q monies. She liked Ciano Real Estate due to the fact they are familiar with the Cloisters as their consultant was very involved with the original sale of Cloisters lots. Vice Mayor Leage feels that we could be just as successful and make more money if we just tried to sell it ourselves. MOTION: Councilmember Smukler moved to accept the proposal from Ciano Real Estate to list City owned property on the corner of Coral Avenue and San Jacinto Street. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Christine Johnson and carried 3-0-2 with Mayor Irons and Councilmember Nancy Johnson having been recused from the item. 12 MINUTES - MORRO BAY CITY COUNCIL – APRIL 23, 2013 E. COUNCIL DECLARATION OF FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Smukler requested a discussion and evaluation of updated Resolution and Communication to Coastal Commission regarding the Atascadero Beach Campground Appeal to clarify the City’s and Neighborhood Concerns; all Councilmembers concurred. Mayor Irons requested developing a work plan for the General Plan and the Local Coastal Plan update; all Councilmembers concurred. Councilmember Leage requested a discussion of Measure D; Mayor Irons and Councilmember Christine Johnson concurred. Councilmember Smukler requested an update and review on the status of the Centennial Stairway Project; Mayor Irons and Councilmember Nancy Johnson concurred. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:43pm. Recorded by: Jamie Boucher City Clerk Staff Report TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: February 20, 2013 FROM: Andrea K. Lueker, City Manager SUBJECT: Appointment of One (1) Recreation & Parks Commission Member to a Current Board Vacancy RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council appoint Bob Swain to the vacancy on the Recreation & Parks Commission for the remainder of the term which expires January 31, 2014. ALTERNATIVES City Council can appoint Bob Swain to the vacancy on the Recreation & Parks Commission. City Council can require staff to advertise for the vacancy and conduct interviews for the opening. City Council can leave the vacancy unfilled for the remainder of the term. BACKGROUND Interviews for openings on the City’s Commissions and Advisory Boards occurred at a Special City Council meeting held on Tuesday, January 29, 2013. At that time, the Recreation & Parks Commission had 3 vacancies to fill. Council interviewed 4 applicants for those openings and after voting, filled those vacancies with Alfonso Romero (5 votes), Drew Sidaris (5 votes) and Tom Coxwell (3 votes). Subsequently, there was a resignation from the board. It is staff’s hope this vacancy can be filled with the fourth applicant interviewed that evening, Robert Swain who received 2 Council votes. Mr. Swain has been contacted by staff and is very interested in this appointment. CONCLUSION As there is a current vacancy on the Recreation & Parks Commission and there is a qualified candidate from the original applicant pool expressing his interest to fill that vacancy, staff recommends that Council appoint Robert Swain to fill the current vacancy on the Recreation & Parks Commission through January 31, 2014. AGENDA NO: A-3 MEETING DATE: 5/14/13 Prepared By: __JB___ Dept Review:_____ City Manager Review: ________ City Attorney Review: ________ Prepared By: JW Dept Review: RL City Manager Review: ________ City Attorney Review: ________ Staff Report TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: May 6, 2013 FROM: Robert Livick, PE/PLS - Public Services Director/City Engineer Jarrod Whelan, EIT - Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: Authorization to File Notice of Completion for Project No. MB2012- WC01: Morro Bay Lift Station 3 and SSFM Upgrade RECOMMENDATION Authorize staff to file the Notice of Completion for Morro Bay Lift Station 3 and Sanitary Sewer Force Main Upgrade Project and transfer required funds from the Sewer Accumulation fund to the Lift Station 3 SSFM Upgrade project. ALTERNATIVES Staff does not recommend any alternatives to the recommendation. FISCAL IMPACT The Project was funded from accumulated Sewer Revenues and was approved in the 2012/13 annual budget. The budgeted amount for the upgrade was $1,205,983, and the contractors bid was $1,191,052. During the course of the project, contract change orders added $241,076. This resulted in a final total contract cost of $1,432,128. There are sufficient funds in the sewer accumulation fund to compensate to the change in contract amount. DISCUSSION This project has been identified as a priority project in the Sewer Collection System Master Plan since 1974. In 2006, the City adopted an update of the Sewer Collection System Master Plan, which contains the following recommendation: “Upgrade lift station to submersible pump station with self-cleaning wet well, with shallow valve vault (eliminates confined space entry, except for any future wet well interior repairs), and with sufficient hydraulic capacity/redundancy to meet future peak flows.” On July 10, 2012, City Council awarded the Morro Bay Lift Station 3 and Sanitary Sewer Force Main Upgrade Project to Specialty Construction, Inc. of San Luis Obispo in the total bid amount of $1,191, 052. In September 2012, construction began at the Lift Station #3 site. Construction process resulted in 28 Contract Change Orders, including credits, totaling $218,859. The AGENDA NO: A-4 MEETING DATE: May 14, 2013 2 changes included underground unforeseen circumstances, roadway section removal, site enhancements, and the purchase of a standby generator and replacement pump. Daily inspection and post-construction punch list items verified that the lift station rehabilitation is a success. This replaced lift station should provide an additional 30 years or more of service. CONCLUSION Specialty Construction, Inc. has completed the Project and staff recommends the City Council accept the Project and authorize the filing of a Notice of Completion. Staff Report TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: May 7, 2013 FROM: Rob Livick, PE/PLS – Public Services Director/City Engineer Barry Rands, PE, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Matching Funds and Grant Agreement for the Morro Creek Multi-Use Trail and Bridge Project RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution 29-13 authorizing execution of the grant agreement and approving matching requirements amounting to 20% of project costs. ALTERNATIVES Should the City Council so choose, the following are possible alternatives to the staff recommendation: 1. Fund the required match with General Fund Reserves. 2. Not authorize the required match funds and cancel the grant and project. FISCAL IMPACT Half of the $55,000 match requirement ($27,500), will come from accumulated Local Transportation Funds that are designated for bicycle and pedestrian projects. An additional $27,500 in in-kind services will be provided in the form of salaries to City staff working on the project. The Grant amount is $220,000 from the National Scenic Byways Program. BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION The City Council adopted the Waterfront Master Plan in May of 1996 which included a project to link the two sections of the Embarcadero with a multi-use bridge. More recently, the City Council adopted the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan in February 2012, which also included the Morro Creek Bridge as a high priority project. Based on these Plans, the City was able to successfully apply for two major grants to fund the planning, design and construction of this project, which includes interpretive areas and a multi-use trail linking the Harborwalk with the proposed bridge across Morro Creek. The funds for construction, amounting to $616,000, are programmed from State Transportation Enhancement funds and the funds for planning and engineering are provided through a $220,000 grant from the National Scenic Byways program, authorized in February of this year. The subject resolution is related to the latter grant. In order to execute the grant agreement, the City Council must authorize matching funds and designate an official to execute the agreement. AGENDA NO: A-5 MEETING DATE: May 14, 2013 Prepared By: _BR_______ Dept Review:___RL City Manager Review: ________ City Attorney Review: ________ 2 The match requirement is 20% of the total project cost, estimated at $275,000. Half of the 20% ($55,000) match requirement can be contributed in services and the other half in funds. Salary payments to administrative, planning, legal, and engineering staff working on the project will make up half of the match requirement. The other half will be contributed in cash as payments from Local Transportation Funds for consulting services. The Director of Public Services is the appropriate official to execute the grant agreement and to provide overall administration of the project. CONCLUSION: Cyclists and pedestrians will benefit from a safer and more convenient link between the waterfront and north Morro Bay. The use of $27,500 in designated Local Transportation Funds and the equivalent amount in staff time to leverage a $220,000 Grant is a good and appropriate use of City resources. ATTACHMENT: Supplemental Grant Agreement RESOLUTION NO. 29-13 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORRO BAY, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. 05-5391R MORRO CREEK MULTI-USE TRAIL AND BRIDGE PROJECT T H E C I T Y C O U N C I L City of Morro Bay, California WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the Waterfront Master Plan in May of 1996 which included a project to link the two sections of the Embarcadero with a bridge; and WHEREAS, the City has successfully applied for and received a $220,000 Grant through the National Scenic Byways Program to fund the engineering and environmental studies necessary for this project; and WHEREAS, the City must provide a 20% match in funds and services as required by the Grant; and WHEREAS, the City currently has adequate funds in the Local Transportation Fund Account for such purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Morro Bay, California, authorizes the Public Services Director to execute the subject agreement and to use staff resources and Local Transportation Funds to meet the 20% match requirements of this Grant. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Morro Bay at a regular meeting thereof held on the 14th day of May, 2013 on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ______________________________ JAMIE L. IRONS, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ JAMIE BOUCHER, City Clerk Staff Report TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: April 30, 2013 FROM: Susan Slayton, Administrative Services Director/City Treasurer SUBJECT: Resolution No. 28-13 Continuing the Program and Levying the Assessments for the 2013/14 Fiscal Year for the Morro Bay Tourism Business Improvement District (MBTBID) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing, record testimony for/against the continuation of the MBTBID, and adopt Resolution No. 28-13 levying the assessments. ALTERNATIVES Based on the testimony received during the Public Hearing, City Council may either: 1) adopt the Resolution; or 2) reject the Resolution, and direct staff accordingly. FISCAL IMPACT Estimated revenue for 2013/14 is $550,000 in assessment and a potential of $160,593 ($102,168 Visitors Center plus $58,425 former Community Promotions Committee (CPC)) from the City, all dedicated to marketing. SUMMARY This is the final step in the reaffirmation of the MBTBID, which results in the authorization of the 3% assessments, as required by State law. Staff requests that the City Council hold the public hearing to receive testimony for and/or against the continuation of the MBTBID, and then adopt Resolution No. 28-13. BACKGROUND The Morro Bay Tourism Business Improvement District (MBTBID) was established by Ordinance #546, dated April 27, 2009. It is an improvement district composed of hotel businesses that are self-assessing 3% of the rent charged by the operator per occupied room per night for all transient occupancies. This improvement district is established under the State of California Streets and Highway Code Section 36520-36537. Annual reaffirmation of the improvement district is required. AGENDA NO: B-1 MEETING DATE: 05/14/2013 Prepared By: ________ Dept Review:_____ City Manager Review: ________ City Attorney Review: ________ 2 At the City Council’s April 9 and 23, 2013 meetings, staff presented the annual reports and draft budget for the MBTBID. The draft budget provided by the Morro Bay Tourism Bureau included $216,850 in City support. The City’s proposed budget provided to the Council on April 26th includes a potential City contribution to the MBTBID of $160,593, which is $102,168 for the Visitors Center and $58,425 for marketing (represents 50% of the former CPC funding). On April 23rd, the City Council held a public hearing, declaring its intention to continue the MBTBID program and levy the assessments. No testimony, either for or against, was presented, and Council adopted Resolution No. 24-13, declaring the intention to continue the program and assessments for the 2013/14 fiscal year for the MBTBID. Also at that meeting, the date of May 14, 2013 was set as the final public hearing, during which members of the public may speak for or against the continuation of the MBTBID program and assessment. DISCUSSION This is the final step in the required annual affirmation of the MBTBID program and authorization of the 3% assessment levy. The first two steps were the approval of the reports on April 9, 2013, and the setting of the first public hearing. The second step was the public hearing that was held on April 23, 2013, where the City Council adopted Resolution No. 24- 13, the intent to continue the activities and levy the assessments. Letters were mailed to all hoteliers on May 1, 2013, notifying them of tonight’s public hearing. Based on the testimony presented at this public hearing, the City Council will make the decision whether or not to continue the program and levy the assessments. If the Council decides to continue the program and levy the assessments, the Council will adopt Resolution No. 28-13. If the Council decides against the program and assessments, Council will need to state that for the record and direct staff accordingly. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 28-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORRO BAY, CALIFORNIA, CONTINUING THE PROGRAM AND LEVYING THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE 2013/14 FISCAL YEAR FOR THE MORRO BAY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (MBTBID) THE CITY COUNCIL City of Morro Bay, California WHEREAS, the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989, Section 36500 et seq., of the California Streets and Highway Code authorizes cities to establish and review business improvement areas of the purpose of promoting tourism; and WHEREAS, on April 13, 2009, the City Council held a public hearing and first reading of Ordinance 546 to establish the Morro Bay Tourism Business Improvement District (MBTBID), and approved Ordinance 546 at its April 27, 2009 meeting; and WHEREAS, the advisory board has requested the renewal of the TBID for the 2013/14 fiscal year to continue its activities; and WHEREAS, all other findings of Ordinance 546 to establish the TBID remain unchanged; and WHEREAS, on April 9 and 23, 2013, staff presented the annual report for the fiscal year 2011/12 (the third year of the TBID), the adopted budget for 2012/13, and the budget plan for 2013/14, all of which are attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the annual report and budget plan generally describe the activities to be marketing activities, which attract and extend overnight stays in Morro Bay hotels, support for the Visitors Center, whose outreach to potential visitors is key; and WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City Council to levy and collect 3% assessments from the hoteliers within the TBID for the 2013/14 fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public meeting on April 23, 2013, to affirm the annual report and budgets along with its intent to levy the 3% assessments, and set the public hearing date to confirm the program and levy the assessments as May 14, 2013, at 7:00 p.m. (or soon thereafter as possible), said hearing to be held in the Morro Bay Veterans Memorial Hall located at 209 Surf Street, Morro Bay, California, in accordance with the California Streets and Highway Code Sections 36524 and 36525; and 4 WHEREAS, on May 1, 2013, letter were sent to all affected businesses, notifying them of the public hearing scheduled for May 14, 2013; and WHEREAS, on May 14, 2013, the City Council conducted a public hearing regarding the renewal of the TBID for the 2013/14 fiscal year, at which meeting affected businesses had the opportunity to protest the TBID renewal, with the following results: FOR: AGAINST: NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Morro Bay as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct, and incorporated herein by reference. 2. That the City Council, having affirmed the annual report and budgets on April 9th and 23rd, 2013 at regular meetings, declares the renewal of the Morro Bay Tourism Business Improvement District for the 2013/14 fiscal year, and instructs the hoteliers to levy and collect 3% assessments for overnight stays of 30 days or less. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Morro Bay, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 14th day of May, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ______________________________________ JAMIE L. IRONS, Mayor __________________________________ JAMIE BOUCHER, City Clerk Staff Report TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: May 1, 2013 FROM: Joe Woods, Recreation and Parks Director SUBJECT: Resolution Approving the Engineers Report and Declaring the Intent to Levy the Annual Assessment for the North Point Natural Area Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution No. 26-13 declaring the intent to levy the annual assessment for the maintenance of the North Point Natural Area and approving the Engineers Report. ALTERNATIVES Staff does not recommend any alternatives to the recommendation. FISCAL IMPACT Based on the Engineers Report, which estimates the annual costs of maintaining the North Point Natural Area for the upcoming fiscal year, the fiscal impact is estimated at $5,645. These costs will be offset by the collection of an assessment for the same amount from the parcel owners in the North Point Subdivision. SUMMARY On April 9, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-13, which initiated the proceedings to levy the annual assessment to fund the maintenance of the North Point Natural Area. Additionally, staff was directed to have an Engineer’s Report prepared, detailing the estimated annual assessment for the parcel owners for fiscal year 2013/14. Upon adoption of Resolution No. 26-13, the next and final step in the annual levy of assessment process is the protest hearing/public hearing after which the City Council actually orders the levy of assessment. BACKGROUND As part of the annual assessment process, staff is required to provide an Engineers Report, which is an estimate of costs for maintenance of the North Point Natural Area. The cost estimates are based on the maintenance standards currently adhered to in the existing parks within Morro Bay and included in the Flat Rate Manual for Parks Maintenance, as well as maintenance costs from the current fiscal year. The estimate for the maintenance of the North Point Natural Area is $5,645 or $564.50 per parcel for fiscal year 2013/14. North Point AGENDA NO: B-2 MEETING DATE: May 14, 2013 Prepared By: CE Dept. Review: JW City Manager Review: ___________ City Attorney Review: ___________ 2 Page 2 As with the Cloisters Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Assessment district, personnel costs as well as supplies and services have risen significantly in the last several years. However, due to the small acreage, natural landscaping and little irrigation in the North Point Natural Area the assessment amount collected is currently adequate to cover the costs of maintenance. DISCUSSION The process for the annual levy of assessment for the North Point Natural Area Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District requires the City Council to receive the Engineers Report, approve and/or modify the report and adopt a Resolution of Intention. The Resolution of Intention gives notice of the time, date and place for a public hearing by the City Council on the issue of the levy of assessment. The protest hearing/public hearing has been set for June 25, 2013 at the Veteran's Memorial Building. Upon adoption, a summary of the Resolution of Intention shall be published in the newspaper as a legal notice of public hearing, at which point all interested parties are afforded the opportunity to be heard either through written or oral communication. In addition, the City sends public notices via first class mail to all property owners on record in the Assessment District. Upon completion of the protest hearing/public hearing on June 25, 2013, the City Council may adopt the resolution ordering the levy of the annual assessment. RESOLUTION NO. 26-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL DECLARING THE CITY'S INTENTION TO LEVY THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE NORTH POINT NATURAL AREA T H E C I T Y C O U N C I L City of Morro Bay, California WHEREAS, all property owners of the North Point subdivision requested the City of Morro Bay form a maintenance assessment district to fund the maintenance of the North Point Natural Area; and WHEREAS, the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (the "Act") enables the City to form assessment districts for the purpose of maintaining public improvements; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 22623 of the Act, the Engineer has filed in the Office of the City Clerk, and submitted for review to the City Council, a report entitled "Engineers Report North Point Natural Area Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Assessment", dated May 8, 2013, prepared in accordance with Article 4 of the Act, commencing with Section 22565; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 22608.2 of the Act, the subdivider(s) were required by City Ordinance to install improvements for which an assessment district was required in order to assure continued and uninterrupted maintenance of the North Point Natural Area; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the intent of Article XIII, Section 4, of the California Constitution, the property owners have elected to form the North Point Natural Area Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Morro Bay that it is the intent of the Council to order the annual levy and collection of assessments for the North Point Natural Area Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District generally located as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto at a public hearing to be held June 25, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. in the Veteran's Memorial Building, 209 Surf Street, Morro Bay, CA. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council the improvements to be maintained at the North Point Natural Area are specified in the Engineer's Report dated May 8, 2013 which is hereby approved. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the City Council the assessment upon assessable lots within the district is proposed to total $5,645 or $564.50 per assessable parcel for fiscal year 2013/14. RESOLUTION 26-13 PAGE 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Morro Bay at a regular meeting thereof held this 14th of May, 2013 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: _______________________________ JAMIE L. IRONS, MAYOR ATTEST: ________________________________ JAMIE BOUCHER, CITY CLERK CITY OF MORRO BAY NORTH POINT NATURAL AREA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ENGINEER’S REPORT May 8, 2013 ASSESSMENT ENGINEER'S AFFIDAVIT NORTH POINT NATURAL AREA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT City of Morro Bay San Luis Obispo County, State of California This Report describes the proposed plans and specifications, method of apportionment, budgets and special benefit assessments to be levied on lots, parcels and subdivisions of land within the North Point Natural Area Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District for fiscal year 2013/2014, as the same existed at the time of the passage of the Resolution of Intention and meets the minimum requirements as specified in section 22565 et seq of the California Streets and Highways Code; and was prepared by, or under the direction of the following Professional Engineer in accordance with the provisions of Section 6700 of the California Business and Professions Code. The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed Report as directed by the City Council. Dated this 12th day of May, 2013. Rob Livick, PE/PLS – Public Services Director/City Engineer CITY OF MORRO BAY NORTH POINT NATURAL AREA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ENGINEER’S REPORT Table of Contents Page 1. Project Description 1 2. Maintenance Tasks 1 3. Maintenance Costs 1 4. Apportionment of Assessment 2 Assessment Diagram 3 Maintenance Task List Attachment A Detailed Cost Analysis Attachment B CITY OF MORRO BAY NORTH POINT NATURAL AREA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ENGINEER’S REPORT 1. Project Description As a condition of approval for Tract No. 2110, the North Point subdivision, the developers were required to offer to the City for dedication Lot 11 of the subdivision for park purposes, and to construct improvements on Lot 11 including a paved parking area, a stairway providing access to the beach, benches, landscaping and irrigation, lighting, and other improvements. The subdivision was also conditioned to provide maintenance of the park by establishing an assessment district. Lot 11 of Tract No. 2110 is identified as the North Point Natural Area. For a detailed description of the improvements, refer to the plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer. The owners of the ten residential lots within the North Point subdivision have requested that the City form a maintenance assessment district to fund the maintenance of the North Point Natural Area. II. Maintenance Tasks A list of maintenance tasks required to maintain the North Point Natural Area in acceptable condition for public use was developed by the City Recreation and Parks Department based on maintenance standards established for existing parks within the City and is included in this report as Attachment A. III. Maintenance Costs The estimated annual cost of maintaining the North Point Natural Area was developed by the Recreation and Parks Department based on the tasks required and the City’s Flat Rate Manual for Parks Maintenance. The annual cost of maintenance for the 2013/14 fiscal year is estimated to be $5,645.00. The detailed cost estimate is included in this report as Attachment B. IV. Apportionment of Assessment The total assessment for the District is apportioned to each of the ten residential lots equally. Lot 11, the North Point Natural Area; Lot 12, a private street; and Lot 13, an open space parcel to be granted to the State of California; are not assessed. Individual assessments are listed in the following table: Parcel/Assessment Table Lot Number County Assessor’s Parcel Number Annual Assessment 1 065-082-10 $564.50 2 065-082-11 $564.50 3 065-082-12 $564.50 4 065-082-13 $564.50 5 065-082-14 $564.50 6 065-082-15 $564.50 7 065-082-16 $564.50 8 065-082-17 $564.50 9 065-082-18 $564.50 10 065-082-19 $564.50 11 065-082-20 $ 0.00 12 065-082-21 $ 0.00 13 065-082-22 $ 0.00 2 Attachment A NORTH POINT NATURAL AREA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT MAINTENANCE TASKS MAY 2013 Routine Maintenance Tasks Review for vandalism/repair Pick-up - paper trash cigarette butts Empty - trash cans Clean - benches Check - fencing beach access stairway bike rack lights planting hillside, erosion Weekly or as needed Blow paths, parking lot Monthly or as needed Check trees Check/repair sprinkler system Trim trees and bushes as needed Critical parts inspections Annually or as needed Paint beach access stairway, public access signage New plantings (replacement) General safety inspection Annual tree pruning Remove graffiti Mow open space Pest/gopher control Trim and spray paths Repair public access signage Attachment B NORTH POINT NATURAL AREA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT MAY 2013 NAME: North Point Natural Area Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District DIAGRAM: Attached PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS: For a detailed description of the improvements, refer to the plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer. No bonds or notes will be issued for this Maintenance Assessment District. ESTIMATED COST OF MAINTENANCE: The following outlines the estimated budget for the maintenance of the North Point Natural Area for fiscal year 2012/13. Personnel Services $4,800.00 Includes all daily and routine tasks as well as non-routine maintenance and repair costs. Supplies $ 200.00 Includes trash liners, round-up and all other supplies in daily tasks as well as non-routine repair and maintenance. Services $ 645.00 Includes utilities, engineering, insurance and structural repair to stairway and other structures. Total Assessment Estimate: $5,645.00 Per Parcel Yearly Assessment $5,645.00/10 parcels $ 564.50 s.ad.northpoint.staff reports.nrthpt.engrpt13 Staff Report TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: May 8, 2013 FROM: Joe Woods, Recreation and Parks Director SUBJECT: Resolution Approving the Engineers Report and Declaring the Intent to Levy the Annual Assessment for the Cloisters Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution No. 27-13 declaring the intent to levy the annual assessment for the maintenance of the Cloisters Park and Open Space and approving the Engineers Report. FISCAL IMPACT Based on the Engineers Report, which estimates the annual costs of maintaining the Cloisters Park and Open Space for the upcoming year, the fiscal impact is estimated at $148,944. These costs will be offset by the collection of an assessment for the same amount from the parcel owners in the Cloisters Subdivision. ALTERNATIVES Staff does not recommend any alternatives to the recommendation. SUMMARY On April 9, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 23-13, which initiated the proceedings to levy the annual assessment to fund the maintenance of the Cloisters Park and Open Space. Additionally, staff was directed to have an Engineer’s Report prepared, detailing the estimated annual assessment for the parcel owners for fiscal year 2013/14. Staff intends to continue to outsource certain maintenance tasks within the District, which may redistribute the expenditure estimates. Upon adoption of Resolution No. 27-13, the next and final step in the annual levy of assessment process is the protest hearing/public hearing after which the City Council actually orders the levy of assessment. BACKGROUND Tract 1996, known as the Cloisters development, is a 124 lot subdivision bounded by State Highway One at the east, Atascadero State Beach at the west, Morro Bay High School at the south, and Azure, Coral, and San Jacinto Streets at the north. Prior to development, the Cloisters was a privately owned 80-plus acre expanse of open land that AGENDA NO: B-3 MEETING DATE: May 14, 2013 Prepared By: __JMW_____ Dept Review:__JMW___ City Manager Review: ________ City Attorney Review: ________ 2 was historically used for lateral and vertical access and contained a large area of sensitive sand dunes abutting the eastern edge of Atascadero State Beach. Also, prior to development, the Cloisters was the subject of various land development proposals including an RV park, a 390-unit condominium development, a 466-unit single family residential development, a 455-unit mixed residential development, and a 213-unit residential development. None of these proposals were approved. It was well known that any development at the Cloisters was going to require a balance between continuation of lateral and vertical access within and through the property, while at the same time conserving the sensitive plant and wildlife resources present. Zoning on most of the Cloisters site is Planned Development, Single-Family Residential with the sand dunes and wetlands zoned Environmentally Sensitive Habitat. The purpose of the Planned Development (PD) overlay zone is to provide for detailed and substantial analysis of development on parcels, which because of location, size or public ownership, warrant special review. This overlay zone is also intended to allow for the modification of or exemption from the development standards of the primary zone which would otherwise apply if such action would result in better design or other public benefit. On September 23, 1996 the City Council passed Resolution No. 69-96 which accepted the final map for Tract 1996 known as the Cloisters Subdivision, consisting of 124 lots. Lots 1 through 120 were for single-family residential purposes, Lots 121, 122 were set aside for the 34-acre park and open space, Lot 124 was dedicated for a fire station and Lot 123 was offered to the state. The findings and conditions of approval for the project were numerous. For example, the City Council made findings that the Cloisters project could cause significant environmental impacts relating to land use, visual/aesthetics, affordable housing, traffic generation, air quality noise, geology, drainage and water quality, ecological resources, and public services; but that these impacts can be mitigated by the recommended conditions. In addition, the City Council made further findings that the Cloisters project was in compliance with the specific policies of the GP/LUP and Zoning Ordinance with respect to protection of views, environmentally sensitive resources, public access, circulation, hazards and other requirements so long as the environmental impacts were mitigated. Finally, the City Council made further findings that the Cloisters project complies with MBMC with respect to optional subdivision design and related improvements, and that the optional design is justified in order to contribute to a better community environment through the dedication of extensive public areas, restoration of the ESH area, provision of scenic easements, provision of larger than usual lots adjacent to such areas, and maintenance of a consistent lot layout pattern adjacent to existing development on the north side of Azure Street. In order to mitigate the environmental impacts of the project, and to provide a greater than public benefit as required in a PD overlay zone, the conditions of approval for the project required the applicant to form an assessment district for the maintenance of the public park, bicycle pathway, right of way landscaping, coastal accessways, ESH restoration areas and any other improved common areas to be privately held or dedicated to the City. The public park area, as well as all open space improvements and the assessment district were part of many detailed discussions during each 3 City and Coastal Commission hearings. Without this Condition of Approval the project would not have been approved and there would not be a Cloisters Development and plaintiff’s homes would not exist. The assessment district formation proceedings began in August, 1996, with the all of the Owners of the real property within the proposed district consenting in writing to the formation of the district pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. The assessment district formation proceedings concluded with the final public hearing for formation on September 23, 1996, which levied the annual assessment of $148,944 for the maintenance of the thirty-four (34) acres of park and open space. In preparing the various purchase and sale documents for each individual lot, including the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions, the developer was especially careful to call out the existence of the assessment district and to make certain that the existence of assessment district would not come as a surprise to anyone who purchases one of these lots. The Developer assured the City that “THERE WILL BE NO SURPRISES TO PROSPECTIVE OWNERS ABOUT THE ASSESSMENTS OR THEIR AMOUNTS.” In drafting all the project documents, the City and the developer reinforced the special benefits for the residents of the Cloisters Project with the public amenities and easements. Indeed, the Cloisters lots directly benefit from the public park, bicycle pathway, right of way landscaping, coastal accessways, ESH restoration areas and coastal accessways. The huge extent of the Cloisters open space, allow the Cloisters residents use of the public park, public restrooms, as well as the play equipment, coastal accessways, and other improvements which will benefit them to a substantial degree. There was also created and reserved in favor of each owner in the Cloisters Development easements for view, open space, scenic, passive recreation and coastal access across the entirety of Lots 121, 122 and 123, which shall not be developed with any improvements or structures unless necessary and proper for the restoration and maintenance of the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area. Each year since its formation, the City has used the same assessment rates and methodology and assessed the Cloisters homeowners $148,944 for the continued maintenance and operation of the public park, bicycle pathway, right of way landscaping, coastal accessways, ESH restoration areas and coastal accessways as required by the conditions of approval and pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. Unfortunately for the City, the assessment district does not a have a cost of living increase, so each year it cannot assess more than $148,944 even though the costs to maintain these areas has consistently gone up over the years. Over the years there have been many Cloisters residents that support the assessment district, as it is viewed as insurance against future degradation of the unique “Cloisters environment” and that phasing out the assessment would, in the end, be a bad deal for residents/homeowners of the Cloisters and possibly attract “troublemakers”. CONCLUSION The process for the annual levy of assessment for the Cloisters Landscaping and Lighting 4 Maintenance Assessment District requires the City Council to receive the Engineer’s Report, approve and/or modify the report and adopt a Resolution of Intention. The Resolution of Intention gives notice of the time, date and place for a public hearing by the City Council on the issue of the levy of assessment. The protest hearing/public hearing has been set for June 25, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at the Veteran's Memorial Building. Upon adoption, a summary of the Resolution of Intention shall be published in the newspaper as a legal notice of public hearing, at which time all interested parties are afforded the opportunity to be heard either through written or oral communication. In addition, the City sends public notices via first class mail to all property owners on record in the Assessment District. Upon completion of the protest hearing/public hearing on June 25, 2013, the City Council may adopt the resolution ordering the levy of the annual assessment. RESOLUTION NO. 27-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL DECLARING THE CITY’S INTENTION TO LEVY THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE CLOISTERS PARK AND OPEN SPACE T H E C I T Y C O U N C I L City of Morro Bay, California WHEREAS, all property owners of the Cloisters subdivision requested the City of Morro Bay form a maintenance assessment district to fund the maintenance of the Cloisters Park and Open Space; and WHEREAS, the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (the "Act") enables the City to form assessment districts for the purpose of maintaining public improvements; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 22623 of the Act, the Engineer has filed in the Office of the City Clerk, and submitted for review to the City Council, a report entitled "Engineers Report - Cloisters Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District", dated May 8, 2013, prepared in accordance with Article 4 of the Act, commencing with Section 22565; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 22608.2 of the Act, the subdivider(s) were required by City Ordinance to install improvements for which an assessment district was required in order to assure continued and uninterrupted maintenance of the Cloisters Park and Open Space; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the intent of Article XIII, Section 4, of the California Constitution, the property owners have elected to form the Cloisters Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Morro Bay that it is the intent of the Council to order the annual levy and collection of assessments for the Cloisters Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District generally located as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto at a public hearing to be held June 25, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. in the Veteran's Memorial Building, 209 Surf Street, Morro Bay, CA. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council the improvements to be maintained at the Cloisters Park and Open Space are specified in the Engineer's Report dated May 8, 2013, which is hereby approved. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the City Council the assessment upon assessable lots within the district is proposed to total $148,944 or $1,241.20 per assessable parcel for Fiscal Year 2013/14. RESOLUTION 27-13 PAGE 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Morro Bay at a regular meeting thereof held this 14th day of May, 2013 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: _______________________________ JAMIE L. IRONS, MAYOR ATTEST: __________________________________ JAMIE BOUCHER, CITY CLERK 1 CITY OF MORRO BAY CLOISTERS LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ENGINEER’S REPORT May 8, 2013 ASSESSMENT ENGINEER'S AFFIDAVIT CLOISTERS LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT City of Morro Bay San Luis Obispo County, State of California This Report describes the proposed plans and specifications, method of apportionment, budgets and special benefit assessments to be levied on lots, parcels and subdivisions of land within the Cloisters Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District for fiscal year 2013/2014, as the same existed at the time of the passage of the Resolution of Intention and meets the minimum requirements as specified in section 22565 et seq of the California Streets and Highways Code; and was prepared by, or under the direction of the following Professional Engineer in accordance with the provisions of Section 6700 of the California Business and Professions Code. The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed Report as directed by the City Council. Dated this 12th day of May, 2013. Rob Livick, PE/PLS – Public Services Director/City Engineer CITY OF MORRO BAY CLOISTERS LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ENGINEER’S REPORT Table of Contents Page I. Project Description 1 II. Improvements 3 III. Method of Assessment 4 IV. Maintenance Tasks 4 V. Maintenance Costs 5 VI. Apportionment of Assessment 5 VII. Assessment Diagram 11 Maintenance Task List Attachment A Detailed Cost Analysis Attachment B Estimated Budget Details Attachment C 1 CITY OF MORRO BAY CLOISTERS LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ENGINEER’S REPORT I. Project Description Tract 1996, known as the Cloisters development, is a 124 lot subdivision bounded by State Highway One at the east, Atascadero State Beach at the west, Morro Bay High School at the south, and Azure, Coral, and San Jacinto Streets at the north (the “Cloisters”). The Cloisters, prior to development, was a privately owned 80-plus acre expanse of open land. Prior to development the property was historically used for lateral and vertical access and contained a large area of sensitive sand dunes abutting the eastern edge of Atascadero State Beach. Prior to development, the Cloisters was the subject of various land development proposals including an RV park, a 390-unit condominium development, a 466-unit single family residential development, a 455-unit mixed residential development, and a 213-unit residential development. The City of Morro Bay (the “City”) approved none of these development proposals. It was well known that any development at the Cloisters was going to require a balance between continuation of lateral and vertical access within and through the property, while at the same time conserving the sensitive plant and wildlife resources present. In addition, the negative impacts of development on the site would have to be sufficiently offset by public resources and public amenities from the site. Zoning on most of the Cloisters site is Planned Development, Single-Family Residential with the sand dunes and wetlands zoned Environmentally Sensitive Habitat (ESH). The purpose of the Planned Development (PD) overlay zone is to provide for detailed and substantial analysis of development on parcels, which because of location, size or public ownership, warrant special review. This overlay zone is also intended to allow for the modification of or exemption from the development standards of the primary zone which would otherwise apply if such action would result in better design or other public benefit. On September 23, 1996 the City Council passed Resolution No. 69-96 which accepted the final map for Tract 1996 known as the Cloisters Subdivision, consisting of 124 lots. Lots 1 through 120 were for single-family residential purposes. Lots 121, 122 were for the 34-acre park and open space and Lot 124 was dedicated for a fire station and Lot 123 was offered to the state. The findings and conditions of approval for the project were numerous. For example, the City Council made findings that the Cloisters project could cause significant environmental impacts relating to land use, visual/aesthetics, affordable housing, traffic generation, air quality noise, geology, drainage and water quality, ecological resources, and public services; but that these impacts can be mitigated by the recommended conditions. In addition, the City Council made further findings that the Cloisters project was in compliance with the specific policies of the GP/LUP and zoning ordinance with respect to protection of views, environmentally sensitive resources, public access, circulation, hazards and other requirements so long as the environmental impacts were mitigated. Finally, the City Council made further findings that the Cloisters project complies with MBMC with respect to optional subdivision design and related improvements, and that the optional design is justified in order to contribute to a better community environment through the dedication of extensive public areas, restoration of the ESH area, provision of scenic easements, and provision of larger than usual lots adjacent to such areas, and maintenance of a consistent lot layout pattern adjacent to existing development on the north side of Azure Street. In order to mitigate the environmental impacts of the project, and to provide a greater public benefit as required in a PD overlay zone, the conditions of approval for the project required the applicant to form an assessment district for the maintenance of the public park, bicycle pathway, right of way landscaping, coastal accessways, ESH restoration areas and any other improved common areas to be privately held or dedicated to the City. The public park area, as well as all open space improvements and the assessment district were part of many detailed discussions during each City and Coastal Commission hearings. Without this Condition of Approval and the creation of the ongoing assessment district, the project would not have been approved and there would not be a Cloisters Development. The assessment district formation proceedings began in August 1996, when all of the owners of the real property within the proposed district consented in writing to the formation of the Cloisters Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District (the “District”) pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (the “Act”). The assessment district formation proceedings concluded with the final public hearing for formation on September 23, 1996, which levied the annual assessment of $148,944 (the “Assessment”) for the maintenance of the thirty-four (34) acres of public resource lands including open space and natural lands, wetland area and pond used for drainage mitigation for homes constructed in Cloisters, median landscaping, street trees, a neighborhood park and recreation area, fencing and other public improvements. In preparing the various purchase and sale documents for each individual lot, including the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions, the owners and developer were especially careful to call out the existence of the assessment district and to make certain that the existence of assessment district was disclosed to anyone who purchased one of these lots. In drafting all the project documents, the City and the developer reinforced the special benefits for the residents of the Cloisters Project from the public amenities and easements maintained by the Assessments. Moreover, the City and the developer clearly understood that the creation and continuation of the Assessments was necessary for the approval of residential development within the Cloisters Project. II. Improvements The work and improvements to be undertaken for the Cloisters Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District, and the costs thereof paid from the levy of the annual assessments (the “Improvements”), are generally described as follows: Installation, maintenance and servicing of public improvements, including but not limited to, turf, ground cover, shrubs, and trees, other landscaping, irrigation systems, fencing, signage, trails, walkways, recreation facilities lighting, restroom facilities, parking and all necessary appurtenances, and labor, materials, supplies, utilities and equipment. The public resources maintained and improved by the assessments from the District are further summarized as follows: 4 acres of park land 24.4 acres of open space meadow and natural land 5.5 acres of wetland 1.6 acres of medians, street trees and public right-of-ways Within those areas, the following improvements are maintained and improved by the assessments: Parking lot Play equipment and sand lot Trash cans Demonstration garden Turf Decomposed granite paths Habitat fencing Observation pier Scrub/meadow plantings Hydro-seeded planting areas ESHA fencing and keep out signs Thickly planted medians Street trees Gabion channels Asphalt path system Coastal access ways Play area surfacing Drinking fountains Restroom Picnic tables Bike rack Benches Concrete walks Wetland plantings Willows Interpretive exhibits Trees &shrubs along the sound wall Directional signs Monuments with lights Sound wall 6’ and 3’ solid fence Wetland area and pond Bridges Light bollards Drainage systems Barbeques Irrigation (spray and drip) For a detailed description of the improvements, refer to the plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer. III. Method of Assessment This section of the Engineer's Report includes an explanation of the benefits to be derived from the installation, maintenance and servicing of the improvements; and the methodology used to apportion the total assessment to properties within the District. The Assessment is an annual assessment pursuant to the Act, which was established prior to the effective date for Proposition 218 and which meets the conditions in Article XIIID Section 5 of the California Constitution. Therefore, the Assessment is exempt from the requirements for new or increased assessments imposed by Article XIIID. The proceeds from the District are being used to fund the maintenance and upkeep of public resources within the Cloisters development project for the special benefit of the properties located within this project. In absence of the Assessments, such improvements would not be provided and the properties within the District would be negatively impacted by the demise and deterioration of the landscaping, median improvements, street trees, turf areas, open space lands, drainage areas, fencing, pathways and other improvements maintained by the Assessments and located within the District. Therefore, the continued maintenance and upkeep of these important improvements is a distinct and special benefit to properties within the District. Easements were also created and reserved in favor of each owner in the Cloisters Development for view, open space, scenic, passive recreation and coastal access across the entirety of LOTS 121, 122 and 123, which shall not be developed with any improvements or structures unless necessary and proper for the restoration and maintenance of the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area. This is another distinct and special benefit conferred on property within the District. Moreover, these improvements, and their continued maintenance, were an original requirement for the creation of the residential single family lots within Cloisters and the subsequent development of residential housing in the project.1 Without the Assessments, these residential lots would not have been approved and created. Consequently, the creation of the residential lots approved for residential development is the primary special benefit from the Assessments. This special benefit is conferred exclusively on property within the District and is not a general benefit to the public at large. IV. Maintenance Tasks A list of maintenance tasks required to maintain the Cloisters Park and Open Space in acceptable condition for public use was developed by the City Recreation and Parks Department based on maintenance standards established for existing parks within the City and is included in this report as Attachment A. V. Maintenance Costs 1 . It should be noted that the Assessments were unanimously approved prior to Proposition 218 by the owners of all property within the District. The estimated annual cost of maintaining the Cloisters Park and Open Space was developed by the Recreation and Parks Department based on the tasks required and the City’s Flat Rate Manual for Parks Maintenance. The annual cost of maintenance for the 2013/14 fiscal year is estimated to be $148,944. The cost estimate is included in this report as Attachment B. Staff has been directed to outsource the maintenance for the District which may affect the distributions of expenditures. VI. Apportionment of Assessment The total assessment for the District is apportioned to each of the one hundred and twenty residential lots equally. Lots 121 and 122 (Parcel 1) Cloisters Park and Open Space, Lot 124 (dedicated for a fire station) and Lot 123 (now Parcel 2) was offered to the State: are not assessed. Individual assessments are listed in the following table: Parcel/Assessment Table Lot Number County Assessor’s Parcel Number Annual Assessment 1 065-387-001 $1,241.20 2 065-387-002 $1,241.20 3 065-387-003 $1,241.20 4 065-387-004 $1,241.20 5 065-387-005 $1,241.20 6 065-387-006 $1,241.20 7 065-387-007 $1,241.20 8 065-387-008 $1,241.20 9 065-387-009 $1,241.20 10 065-387-010 $1,241.20 11 065-387-011 $1,241.20 12 065-387-012 $1,241.20 13 065-387-013 $1,241.20 Lot Number County Assessor’s Parcel Number Annual Assessment 14 065-387-014 $1,241.20 15 065-387-015 $1,241.20 16 065-387-016 $1,241.20 17 065-387-017 $1,241.20 18 065-387-018 $1,241.20 19 065-387-019 $1,241.20 20 065-387-053 $1,241.20 21 065-387-054 $1,241.20 22 065-387-055 $1,241.20 23 065-387-023 $1,241.20 24 065-387-024 $1,241.20 25 065-387-025 $1,241.20 26 065-387-026 $1,241.20 27 065-387-027 $1,241.20 28 065-387-028 $1,241.20 29 065-387-029 $1,241.20 30 065-387-030 $1,241.20 31 065-387-031 $1,241.20 32 065-387-032 $1,241.20 33 065-387-033 $1,241.20 34 065-387-034 $1,241.20 35 065-387-035 $1,241.20 Lot Number County Assessor’s Parcel Number Annual Assessment 36 065-387-036 $1,241.20 37 065-387-037 $1,241.20 38 065-387-038 $1,241.20 39 065-387-039 $1,241.20 40 065-387-040 $1,241.20 41 065-387-041 $1,241.20 42 065-387-042 $1,241.20 43 065-387-043 $1,241.20 44 065-387-044 $1,241.20 45 065-387-045 $1,241.20 46 065-388-001 $1,241.20 47 065-388-002 $1,241.20 48 065-388-003 $1,241.20 49 065-388-004 $1,241.20 50 065-388-005 $1,241.20 51 065-388-006 $1,241.20 52 065-388-007 $1,241.20 53 065-388-008 $1,241.20 54 065-388-009 $1,241.20 55 065-388-010 $1,241.20 56 065-388-011 $1,241.20 57 065-388-012 $1,241.20 58 065-388-013 $1,241.20 59 065-388-014 $1,241.20 Lot Number County Assessor’s Parcel Number Annual Assessment 60 065-388-015 $1,241.20 61 065-388-016 $1,241.20 62 065-388-017 $1,241.20 63 065-388-018 $1,241.20 64 065-388-019 $1,241.20 65 065-388-020 $1,241.20 66 065-388-021 $1,241.20 67 065-388-022 $1,241.20 68 065-388-023 $1,241.20 69 065-388-024 $1,241.20 70 065-388-025 $1,241.20 71 065-388-026 $1,241.20 72 065-388-027 $1,241.20 73 065-388-028 $1,241.20 74 065-388-029 $1,241.20 75 065-388-030 $1,241.20 76 065-388-031 $1,241.20 77 065-388-032 $1,241.20 78 065-388-033 $1,241.20 79 065-388-034 $1,241.20 80 065-388-035 $1,241.20 81 065-388-036 $1,241.20 82 065-388-037 $1,241.20 83 065-388-038 $1,241.20 84 065-388-039 $1,241.20 Lot Number County Assessor’s Parcel Number Annual Assessment 85 065-388-040 $1,241.20 86 065-388-041 $1,241.20 87 065-388-042 $1,241.20 88 065-388-043 $1,241.20 89 065-388-044 $1,241.20 90 065-388-045 $1,241.20 91 065-388-046 $1,241.20 92 065-388-047 $1,241.20 93 065-388-048 $1,241.20 94 065-388-049 $1,241.20 95 065-388-050 $1,241.20 96 065-388-051 $1,241.20 97 065-388-052 $1,241.20 98 065-388-053 $1,241.20 99 065-388-054 $1,241.20 100 065-388-055 $1,241.20 101 065-388-056 $1,241.20 102 065-388-057 $1,241.20 103 065-388-058 $1,241.20 104 065-388-059 $1,241.20 105 065-388-060 $1,241.20 106 065-388-061 $1,241.20 107 065-388-062 $1,241.20 108 065-388-063 $1,241.20 109 065-388-064 $1,241.20 Lot Number County Assessor’s Parcel Number Annual Assessment 110 065-388-065 $1,241.20 111 065-388-066 $1,241.20 112 065-388-067 $1,241.20 113 065-388-068 $1,241.20 114 065-388-069 $1,241.20 115 065-388-070 $1,241.20 116 065-388-071 $1,241.20 117 065-388-072 $1,241.20 118 065-388-073 $1,241.20 119 065-388-074 $1,241.20 120 065-388-075 $1,241.20 121 065-386-005 0 122 Parcel 1 065-386-016 0 123 Parcel 2 065-386-017 065-386-018 065-386-019 065-386-012 065-386-013 065-386-014 065-386-010 0 124 065-386-015 0 Attachment A CLOISTERS PARK AND OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE TASKS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE TASKS Review for vandalism/repair Outdoor Pick-up trash paper cigarette butts Empty 6 trash cans Clean 7 tables 2 drinking fountains Check 5 interpretive panels 2 barbeques bike paths walkways 2 bridges 2 coastal access ways 1 observation pier 1 bike rack 2 play apparatus 25 light bollards play area surface 1 demonstration garden Clean 3 toilets 1 urinal 2 sinks restroom floors/walls 18 benches restock restrooms WEEKLY OR AS NEEDED Mow turf Edge turf Remove weeds from demonstration garden, medians, planters Trim turf around trees, posts and other hard to reach areas Check and replace failed lamps Blow all walkways, observation deck and parking lot Attachment A CLOISTERS PARK AND OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE TASKS Page two BI-WEEKLY OR AS NEEDED Rake/redistribute gravel under picnic tables and benches Empty barbeques of ashes Litter pick-up open space area MONTHLY OR AS NEEDED Check new trees and plantings Check/repair sprinkler system Trim trees and bushes as needed Critical parts inspection New plantings BI-ANNUALLY OR AS NEEDED Fertilize turf/planter areas Paint restrooms, structures, signs, etc. Seed and aerate turf areas ANNUALLY OR AS NEEDED General safety inspection Annual tree pruning AS NEEDED Remove graffiti Pest/gopher control Trim and spray paths Mow open space area Wetland observation/maintenance TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR Landscape Maintenance Cloisters Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District LITTER CONTROL Litter is to be picked up as encountered during scheduled visits to each designated area. Particular care must be given to the removal of fecal matter from highly traveled and highly visible areas. Trash removal from garbage cans as specified on the Project Area Map. Cans are to be dumped per the distributed seasonal frequency schedule. All debris removed from the work site at the end of each work day. WALKWAYS/ HARDSCAPE/PARKING LOT Walkways and median hardscape and parking lots will be cleaned per the seasonal frequency schedule. All foreign objects, trash and weeds are to be removed from surfaces. Trash, clippings and foreign objects will be removed from the site. A blow pack may used to clean walkways and median hardscape between 8:00 a.m. till 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday only. All litter gathered by a blow pack must be picked up and removed from the site. Walkways and median hardscape shall be kept clear of all shrubs and ground cover. Prune shrubs and ground cover as necessary to maintain safety. IRRIGATION All irrigation schedules shall comply with City watering restrictions, Irrigation shall be programmed to maintain proper plant growth in all areas. Proper maintenance and/or replacement of all irrigation systems and their component parts is required. This includes, but is not limited to, valve boxes and lids, gate valves, quick couplers, mainlines and laterals, all fittings and riser assemblies, hose bibs, sprinkler heads and emitters, wiring, backflow devices, remote control valves, irrigation controllers and enclosures. Automatic controllers will be programmed for seasonal water requirements. Each automatic system will be checked monthly for proper operation.. Where automatic sprinkler systems do not exist, manual watering all plant material is required. Irrigation system requires monitoring of water usage at or below a three year running historical average. PEST CONTROL Control and elimination of weeds, insects, rodents and diseases affecting all vegetation using material and methods that are non-injurious to the plants as well as citizens and pets is required. BIKE PATHS AND PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY MAINTENANCE The path and/or walkway will be inspected on a daily basis, to ensure it is in safe condition. Inspections will include checking the condition of path and/or walkway surface, for erosion and drainage problems in the path and/or walkway corridor, for required clearances (vegetation encroachment or fallen trees), and for condition and proper function of path and/or walkway furnishings and amenities including signs, gates, bollards, fencing, benches, etc. Inspections after storm events are recommended to check for erosion, drainage problems and fallen trees or debris blocking the trail surface. The removal of invasive species from much of the path and/or walkway will assist in the restoration of native habitats, the diversifying of plant species present along the trail, and the improvement of the health, vigor and longevity of existing vegetation. The grass shoulder adjacent to the path and/or walkway shall be kept to a maximum height of 4” throughout the growing season. Erosion of the path and/or walkway surface, shoulders, base and sub-base courses can create hazardous conditions for trail users and compromise the structural integrity of the path and/or walkway. Signs are critical to the safe and convenient functioning of the path and/or walkway and must be kept graffiti free and free of obstructions, such as vegetation. Site furnishings and signs are typically constructed of wood or metal. They should be inspected weekly to check for graffiti, splintering, chipped paint or general deterioration or damage. A weekly schedule of litter and trash pickup shall be developed to keep the path and/or walkway clean. Path and/or walkway users should be encouraged through appropriate signage to clean up after themselves and to pick up litter they find as they use the trail. Dog litter shall be removed daily. RIGHT OF WAY PLANTERS/ MEDIAN STRIP MAINTENANCE Edging and pruning is to be done per the seasonal frequency schedule. Plant growth shall not encroach onto sidewalk, roadway or other hardscape, along fences and walls. Chemical application is not an acceptable method for ground cover edging. All ground cover shall be maintained in a weed free condition. Ground cover fertilizer shall be a complete slow release fertilizer equal to a ratio of 15-15, 15 evenly broadcast at the minimum rate of five (5) pounds per one thousand (1,000) square feet of ground cover area, per application. Bark mulch will be maintained in shrub beds as per the task frequency schedule. Bark mulch to be refreshed seasonally and/or as needed. IRRIGATED LANDSCAPE AREA MAINTENANCE All plants and shrubbery shall be pruned to encourage healthy growth habits for shape and appearance according to accepted industry standard. Pruning shall be done according to the natural growth of each individual species of plant to maintain viability by cutting out dead, diseased or injured wood and to control growth when an unshapely shrub may result. Shrubbery adjacent to walkways and roadways must be kept pruned, avoiding safety hazards in traveled areas. Irrigated landscape beds shall be maintained in a weed free condition. Shrub beds shall be raked free of all debris, weeds and leaves and maintained in a neat condition during each work session. Bark mulch will be maintained in shrub beds as per the task frequency schedule. Mulch to be refreshed seasonally and/or as needed. Shrubs and shrub beds shall be fertilized per the seasonal task frequency schedule. Shrub fertilizer shall be a complete slow release fertilizer equal to a ratio of 25-5-5 evenly broadcast at the minimum rate of five (5) pounds per one thousand (1,000) square feet of ground cover area, per application. All fence lines, curbs, gutters, asphalt paths, parking lots, signs and other structures shall be free of all weeds. TREE BED/ WALK-ON BARK AREA MAINTENANCE All ground cover shall be maintained in a weed free condition. Bark mulch will be maintained in shrub beds as per the task frequency schedule. Contractor to refreshed bark mulch seasonally and/or as needed. TREE MAINTENANCE All tree pruning activities shall be performed only by trained, experienced personnel. Supervision shall be by a Western Chapter International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist complying with WCISA Pruning Standards or ANSI 300 specifications. All trees shall be pruned to provide pedestrian and vehicular clearance. All tree wells are to be kept clear of trash, suckers and weeds. No structural changes are to be made. All trees must be supported sufficiently. This includes, but is not limited to minor repairs consisting of replacing or repairing ties, refastening boards and, braces and removal of nursery stakes. All staking and ties shall be done in a way to avoid tripping hazards. Tree stakes or ties shall be removed promptly once their function has been completed. TURF MAINTENANCE Mowing operations shall be performed in a workmanlike manner that ensures a smooth appearance without scalping or allowing excessive cuttings to remain. Turf shall be mowed with a reel type mower equipped with rollers or a rotary type mower. All equipment shall be adjusted to the proper cutting height and shall be adequately sharpened. Mowing height shall be three inches (3”) for all turf areas. Mowing height may vary for special events and conditions as determined by the City of Morro Bay. Any and all litter and trash must be removed before the mowing operation. Walkways shall be cleaned immediately following each mowing operation. All turf areas will be mowed per the seasonal task frequency schedule. This is generally split into the warm season- April through October, and the cool season- November through March. Mowing will be scheduled to occur Monday through Friday. All turf edges, including but not limited to sidewalks, driveways, curbs, shrub beds, ground cover beds, tree basins and open space areas shall be edged to a neat and uniform line; all grass invasion must be eliminated. All turf edges shall be trimmed and limited around sprinklers, valve boxes, meter boxes, backflow devices, park equipment and other obstacles. Weed-eater type string trimmers may be used for edging. Use of string type trimmers requires caution near trees and plants. When a power edger with a rigid blade is used, the edging of turf shall be completed as one operation in a manner that avoids damage to concrete sidewalks and borders and results in a well- defined, V-shaped edge that extends into the soil. Chemical application for edging may be used in and around areas such as planter, areas adjacent to building, trees, fence lines, sprinkler heads, etc. Prior to application of any chemical, all areas shall be trimmed to the property height. All turf shall be fertilized per seasonal task frequency schedule. Turf fertilizer shall be a complete fertilizer, evenly broadcast at the minimum rate of one (1) pound actual available nitrogen per one-thousand (1,000) square feet of turf area, per application. Applications shall be as follows; 16-8-8 applied in May; 22-3-9 (slow release) applied in January. Turf areas shall be aerated per the seasonal task frequency schedule. Turf areas shall be maintained in a weed free condition. WEED CONTROL- MISCELLANEOUS OPEN SPACE AREAS/ DETENTION BASINS Designated open space, non-irrigated areas and detention basins are to be mowed or weed- whipped seasonally (approximately three to four times per year All noxious weeds are to be removed and discarded. All fence lines, light standard bases, tree wells, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, asphalt berms, parking lots, signs and other structures shall be free of all weeds. WETLANDS Designated Wetland maintenance must be coordinated with City of Morro Bay Maintenance Staff and within the State Fish and Game guidelines as stated on current maintenance permit. RESTROOM Restroom sanitation is the process of cleaning and sanitizing restrooms to keep them safe and in proper working order. Cleaning and sanitizing is required daily. Service and refill all dispensers to include soap, paper towel, toilet tissue; and empty sanitary napkin and waste receptacles. Ensure all dispensers are in good working order and properly cleaned. Clean and disinfect toilets, urinal and wash basins. Liquid bowl cleaner shall be used as needed to prevent stains and lime buildup. Floors shall be swept daily and pressure washed as needed. Attachment B CLOISTERS LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT MAY 2013 NAME: Cloisters Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District DIAGRAM: Attached PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS: Attached. No bonds or notes will be issued for this Maintenance Assessment District. ESTIMATED COST OF MAINTENANCE: The following outlines the estimated budget for the maintenance of the Cloisters Park and Open Space for fiscal year 2013/14. Personnel Services $ 92,000 Includes all daily and routine tasks as well as non-routine maintenance and repair costs. Contracted/In-House Supplies $ 9,000 Includes all supplies used in daily tasks as well as non- routine repair and maintenance. Services $ 36,000 Includes utilities, engineering, insurance and structural repair. Deferred Maintenance $ 11,944 Accumulated funds to be directed at capital projects, Permits, and other one-time expenses Total Assessment Estimate: $148,944 Per Parcel Yearly Assessment $148,944/120 parcels $ 1,241.20 Attachment C CLOISTERS LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ESTIMATED BUDGET DETAILS May 14, 2013 Contract Maintenance EstimatedActual Actual Cost Breakdown Routine and Periodic$83,000$1 Monument Planting x3$4,350$0 Additional Work $4,000$0 Total $91,350$1 Utilities Estimated Utilities$1 Water$20,000 Electricity$2,000 Trash$3,000 Insurance$4,400$0 Total $29,400$1 CMB Maintenance Estimated Non-Routine tasks$6,000$1 Routine $1,650 Total $7,650$1 CMB Management Estimated Estimated vs. Actual Operational$4,000$1 Management$1,000 Engineering$500 Notices & Publications$700 Total $6,200$1 Pemits Estimated Fish and Game annual$25$1 Biological Services$2,000$0 Backflow Inspection$250$0 Total $2,275$1 Deferred Maintenance Estimated Capital Projects$11,719$1 Fish and Game Permit 5yr$350 Other Total $12,069$0 Total Expenses Estimated $148,944$5 FISCAL YEAR 13/14 CLOISTERS DISTRICT ESTIMATED BUDGET DETAILS $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000 $90,000 $100,000 Estimated Actual 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 0%0% $5 Contract Maintenance Utilities CMB Maintenance CMB Management Pemits Deferred Maintenance Made in Office 2007 for CMB Staff Report AGENDA NO: B-4 MEETING DATE: May 14, 2013 Prepared By: ___RL___ Dept Review:___RL_ City Manager Review: ________ City Attorney Review: ________ TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: May 5, 2013 FROM: Rob Livick, PE/PLS - Public Services Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Receive Public Comments, and Provide Further Direction to Staff and Applicant Regarding a Request for an Abandonment (E00-103) and Coastal Development Permit (CP0-391) to Allow the Abandonment of a Portion of the Public Right of Way (ROW) not Used for Public Street Purposes Using the Procedures Provided by the California Streets and Highways Code, Section 8300 et seq. The Abandonment is Located Westerly of the Existing Back of Curb of Toro Lane, between Yerba Buena and North Point Subdivision. (Greg Frye, 3420 Toro Lane, Applicant) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends City Council receive public comment regarding the proposed abandonment and provide direction to staff based on the listed alternatives. ALTERNATIVES 1. Direct staff to work with the applicant to refine the abandonment and bring forward the “Resolution of Intention” for City Council action. 2. Continue the item to receive additional public comment. 3. Table the abandonment and terminate the abandonment proceedings. FISCAL IMPACT Toro Lane is perhaps the only segment of City ROW that is owned by the City in fee and constitutes a parcel of real property. Being that it is owned in fee, if abandoned, the City can choose to sell a portion or the entire piece of property. Prior to any sale or negotiations for sale with any potential buyer, the City would need to determine the fair market value for the property. Additionally, once the abandonment is complete and property sold, this portion of Toro Lane no longer requires City resources for maintenance activities, i.e. weed abatement. Furthermore, once the ROW is abandoned and sold, the benefiting properties may be subject to increased property taxes, thus increasing the amount of revenue to the City. 2 BACKGROUND On March 12, 2013 the City Council was presented with the “Resolution of Intention” for the partial abandonment of Toro Lane based on Planning Commission recommendation. Discussion at both the March 12th City Council meeting and the previous Planning Commission meeting included public comment and correspondence reflecting that the area proposed for abandonment should be preserved for the development of parking as there is a need for additional parking to serve beach access as well as for the future Morro Bay – Cayucos Bike Path. It is the professional opinion of staff that the development of a parking lot is not feasible without extensive grading within the excess ROW due to the parcel configuration and topography. The portion of the proposed abandonment area that is relatively flat is the narrowest portion of the area, being less than 20-feet in width, which is less than the required parking space length. The wider portion of the proposed abandonment contains slopes ranging from 10 to 25-percent which would result in significant fill in the area as well as presenting obstacles in meeting accessibility requirements. In City Council’s deliberations regarding the abandonment, some Councilmembers were in favor of needing additional public input as well as a better analysis of the parking issues in the area; others were in favor of approving the “Resolution of Intention” for the final abandonment and proceeding to the Public Hearing where these issues could be addressed. Ultimately, the City Council did not adopt Resolution of Intention 18-13, but directed the applicant and staff to come forward at a Public Hearing to work out details of the development and/or partnership and/or acquisition of the property to include exploring and evaluating scenarios of existing and maximized parking opportunities. DISCUSSION Staff has prepared a concept plan that shows the potential for the development of a ten space parking area using a portion of the ROW that was proposed for abandonment along with a portion of the neighboring applicant's property. This area is in the flattest portion of the ROW adjacent to the paved street. The area would be large enough for parking and the loading and unloading of bicycles and other recreational equipment. This proposal uses approximately 2,500 square feet of the ROW and 1,600 square feet of the applicant’s property. The probable cost for designing and constructing the parking area has been estimated at approximately $36,000. After subtracting the area for parking, this would leave approximately 5,500 square feet of ROW adjacent to the applicant’s property that could be abandoned and disposed of as Council desires. The 5,500 square foot remaining portion is encumbered by a reservation of a 15-foot wide public pedestrian and utility easement, a Caltrans drainage easement, environmentally sensitive habitat and the associated buffer. This yields the applicant at most, approximately 2,400 square feet of unencumbered area. While not suitable for development on its own, when combined with the adjoining parcel, does have some value as a setback area. Although the applicant did not request abandonment north of the easterly prolongation of the northerly property line for his parcel, staff recommends continuing the abandonment north to the boundary of Tract 2110 (North Point). This would allow the property owner north of the 3 applicant to “buy out” of a Special Encroachment agreement that allows significant private improvements to remain in the public ROW at the pleasure of the City. The gross area for this portion of the Toro Lane abandonment is approximately 5,500 square feet. The net area of abandonment, when subtracting the area similar encumbrances previously described, is approximately 2,500 square feet. An additional issue that surfaced during the abandonment discussions and previous hearings for Toro Lane is the disposition of a 7.58 foot wide portion of the previously abandoned Torro Drive that was not abandoned during the proceedings in 1983. It appears that this strip was reserved for pedestrian access to the bluff top or to the beach if at some future time a stairway was constructed. From staff's research of City records, it appears that abandonment and reservation of the 7.58 foot wide strip came out of a litigation settlement agreement with an adjoining property owner over the public rights to Torro Drive. The reservation of the strip did not require the construction of any improvements and as far as staff can tell is available for public use. CONCLUSION This item has been brought back at Council’s request to receive additional public input on the abandonment proposal. At face value, the proposal is found to be consistent with the California Streets and Highways Code, the City’s General Plan/Local Coastal Plan and the California Coastal Act. Based on the additional public input received this evening, it is requested that Council provide direction to staff on how to proceed with the abandonment. ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed Abandonment Site Map 2. Information from the project representative received February 22, 2013. 3. Conceptual Parking Plan 4. Torro Drive Abandonment Exhibit from Resolution 73-83, Recorded September 7, 1994 ProposedToroLane PartialAbandonment E00-103(Frye) 60ft CityGIS Sale of the abandoned property at 3420 Tore ane City council members, thank you for allowing me to meet with most of you over the past few weeks. Please take a moment to review my thoughts on the matter of the abandonment of the surplus city land. Below are what I feel are the pro's for the abandonment: 1. Divestment of land that has been unused and unmaintained for well over 50 years, from the time Hwy 1 was improved. 2. Maintenance and liability of this land is transferred to the new owner(s) from the city. Beautification via landscaping will add value to the community. 3. Generate immediate revenue by the sale 4. Generate future revenue from additional property taxes, enhanced by development of the property. 5. Future uses remain available by the easements set by the city. ( parking, bike staging area, etc) 6. Four property owner's benefit form the sale ( Frye, Nakata, St. Clair and Coomer) while the city keeps options open via the easement. ( We plan to sell the property adjacent to our 2 southerly neighbors and have a preliminary agreement regarding this.) City council members, please reflect on the following questions as you make a decision on the sale of the surplus land.( abandonment area ) 1. What are the actual and feasible future uses for this surplus property? Do these uses fit within the ambiance of the neighborhood? RECEIVED City of Monro Bay FEB 2 2 2013 Administration ATTACHMENT 2 2. What portions of the surplus land are usable? Evaluate slope and ESH setbacks. ( see the topographical maps attached ) 3. What will be the cost to the city to build out the proposals ?( specifically parking ) 4. Is the easement adequate for the proposed future uses ? ( parking ) 5. Can you sell the land with it's easement and still allow for proposed future uses? I have considered all of these items and feel that the sale offers a mutually beneficial agreement. One more item to consider, once we build our residence, we will have no interest in this property. We would have no interest in additional costs, maintenance, liability or additional property taxes. Our interest is simply to build further back on parcel land once we build there is no reason to purchase the adjacent land. Furthermore, if the city chooses to hold this land, it is our expectation that the city council and those concerned citizens would push forward with the plans to use this land for parking or another use. It would be a shame to let it remain in it's current condition for the foreseeable future. Thank you , Greg Frye ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 Fl_OOD ZONE; * pormci or P SURVEYOR'S S-TATEMENT: REPHESEHIS A FIELD SWiCT «JD ELEVAnONS MOVEUBEH B, 2017. SY M B O L L E O E N O : „ SC W E R M « N ^ rC K D O X nc D i C / I E L L P I I O N C / C A O L E E D T E U I P H O H E C ® W E I L o - O sm t E T U C I ix j W A T C H v A L v c •' • o - J O t m p o a . C O L U U M IC C O N C R E T E ® s e w n L ; P O L t V I N Y l . PW E BE f t W ' R E W F O R C E D CO N C 1 C A N o r r R A D I U S PO I N T O N S L O P E • ST E P W W A T E R •T . W A L L t)H W A T E H W E I 0 1 »V W A T E R OI.- 1 .aF L TO P O F C R A T E - I .S " F L O * U M E BE N C H M A R K : piP C T u M 7 ,o o r r c i s o i m i E B L r O F n i c C E N T E R L W C C BA S I S O F B E A R I I S I O S or B E A B I U C S FO R ws PROJCCT IS CASED ON FOUMD ; AL O N G T W E N O F I O I C A S I U I L Y IWES OF PARCELS 1 *i 3 if 3 7 - o a - W . ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 To r o La n e Co n c e p t u a l Pa r k i n g Pl a n At t a c h m e n t 3 ATTACHMENT 4 Staff Report TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: 05/05/13 FROM: Andrea K. Lueker, City Manager SUBJECT: Consideration of Allowing the County of San Luis Obispo to use the Facility at 535 Harbor Street for an Interim Library during the Morro Bay Library Remodel RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council authorize the County of San Luis Obispo to utilize the facility located at 535 Harbor Street (the building that formerly housed the Transit office) as a temporary library facility during the remodel of the Morro Bay Library. Staff further recommends the City Council review the provided alternatives with staff recommending Alternative 3. Should the City Council agree to this use, staff will enter into an agreement with the County of San Luis Obispo outlining the terms and conditions of the use. ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1 – The City of Morro Bay prohibit the County of San Luis Obispo from utilizing the facility located at 535 Harbor Street as a temporary Library Facility during the remodel of the Morro Bay Library. Alternative 2 – The City of Morro Bay allow the County of San Luis Obispo to utilize the facility located at 535 Harbor Street as a temporary Library Facility during the remodel of the Morro Bay Library with the following conditions: a. The County of San Luis Obispo pays no monthly per sq. ft. charge for the facility b. Utilities are paid by the City of Morro Bay c. Custodial duties are provided by the County of San Luis Obispo d. All Tenant Improvements must be approved by the City of Morro Bay with all costs borne by the County of San Luis Obispo Alternative 3 - The City of Morro Bay allows the County of San Luis Obispo to utilize the facility located at 535 Harbor Street as a temporary Library Facility during the remodel of the Morro Bay Library with the following conditions: a. The County of San Luis Obispo pays no monthly per sq. ft. charge for the facility AGENDA NO: D-1 MEETING DATE: 5/14/2013 Prepared By: ________ Dept Review:_____ City Manager Review: ________ City Attorney Review: ________ 2 b. Utilities are paid by the County of San Luis Obispo c. Custodial duties are provided by the County of San Luis Obispo d. All Tenant Improvements must be approved by the City of Morro Bay with all costs borne by the County of San Luis Obispo Alternative 4 - The City of Morro Bay allow the County of San Luis Obispo to utilize the facility located at 535 Harbor Street as a temporary Library Facility during the remodel of the Morro Bay Library with the following conditions: a. The County of San Luis Obispo pay $1.00 - $1.50 (or other agreed upon rate) per sq. ft./month for building use b. Utilities are paid by the County of San Luis Obispo c. Custodial duties are provided by the County of San Luis Obispo d. All Tenant Improvements must be approved by the City of Morro Bay with all costs borne by the County of San Luis Obispo FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact of allowing (or not) this use will vary based on the Alternative the City Council selects. The following are monthly estimates of the fiscal impact associated with each Alternative: Alternative 1 – no fiscal impact to the City of Morro Bay Alternative 2 - $25 - 75/month cost to the City for utilities Alternative 3 – no fiscal impact to the City of Morro Bay Alternative 4 – Revenue of $682 - $1,023/month based on $1.00 - $1.50/sq. ft. charge SUMMARY The Morro Bay Friends of the Library are in the process of fundraising for a remodel of the Morro Bay Library building. Once the funds are collected, the remodel will necessitate closure of the library for a period of approximately 6 months. The County of San Luis Obispo has expressed interest in providing a minimal level of public library service during those months and has inquired about use of the building located at 535 Harbor Street for such a purpose. BACKGROUND The history of the Morro Bay Library is very interesting and staff provides this brief review: 9/1984 City leases property at 625 Harbor to Friends of the Library for the purpose of construction, maintaining and operating a public library. The term of the lease was 50 years. 7/1985 The Friends of the Library sub-lease the building and property to the County in order for the County to operate the library. The term of the lease was 25 years. 1985/86 Construction of the library commenced through Friends of the Library using many volunteer efforts, donations and contracts with local construction firms. 3 3/1987 Certificate of Occupancy issued for the Library. 5/1987 The City Council, by Resolution No. 57-87, accepts ownership of the Library Building from Friends of the Morro Bay Library. The City also accepts the Assignment of the Sublease with the County and accepts Surrender of the original lease to the Friends, reassuming full ownership and control of the property. The City releases remaining Conditions Placed upon the Permit of Occupancy for the Library. As a result, the only remaining agreement is the sublease between the City of Morro Bay and the County of San Luis Obispo which expired July 8, 2010. 5/2008 Friends of the Library contacted the City regarding setting up a meeting for negotiations for a new lease. The City contacted David Edge, County CAO to request an initial proposal from the County. 7/2008 County and City begin negotiations and came to agreement on a new 25 year lease between the County of San Luis Obispo and the City of Morro Bay. For many years, the Morro Bay Friends of the Library have engaged in fundraising efforts to make improvements to the Morro Bay Library. More recently, those fundraising efforts have intensified with the Friends having raised over $300,000 towards their goal of $500,000. The remodel project will result in the Library becoming one integrated space which will provide for a more efficient use of the entire interior as well as be better suited for staffing purposes. Upgrades to plumbing, electrical and mechanical systems will be done as well as improvements to the restrooms made. The architect renderings can be viewed on the Morro Bay Friends of the Library website http://mbfol.org/remodel/. Not wanting to close down for such a significant amount of time, the Morro Bay Friends of the Library have held preliminary discussions with the City to discuss potential locations in order to conduct a minimal level of library service during the construction period, estimated to be from September 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014. As a result of those discussions, the County’s Library Director Brian Reynolds, has sent the City of Morro Bay a letter requesting use of the facility located at 535 Harbor Street during this time period (see attached letter). DISCUSSION As stated above, the County of San Luis Obispo has requested, in a letter dated March 23, 2013, use of the City-owned facility at 535 Harbor Street, beginning on September 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014 for use as a temporary library facility during the construction/remodel of the Morro Bay Library. The facility was most recently used as the Morro Bay Transit office; prior to that, the building was remodeled and used as a Teen Center and even prior to that, as City offices. During the 2012 Goal Setting process the City Council adopted Goal 3 “Improve and Maintain Infrastructure”, under which an objective was listed “move transit and utilize that space”. As a result, in December 2012, the Transit Office was moved to the Morro Bay Community Center, sharing an office with Meals on 4 Wheels. During the time the Transit Office occupied 535 Harbor, the back ¼ of the building was used as secured storage for the Information Systems Technician. The back portion of the building is secured from the office and restroom areas and will continue to be used for the Information Systems Technician’s IT purposes, rendering it unavailable for other uses. Most recently, the building has been used as office space for the City’s auditor to complete work on both the Harbor Lease Audit and the Transient Occupancy Tax Audit. Those projects will be completed by July 2013 at which point the building will be available. At this time, there are no future uses slated for the facility and staff recommends allowing the use of the building for interim library purposes. Prior to the Transit Office being relocated, but in anticipation of the move, staff had internal discussions focused on the future use of this facility, the outcome of which included additional meeting space for City needs, use by the Mayor and City Council for meetings and/or possible rental opportunities for small use groups. Following the County of San Luis Obispo’s use, staff will likely come back before the City Council to determine their preferences for the long-term use of this facility. Both Library staff and Friends of the Library members have toured the available office space and believe it a good fit for interim library services. The only concern staff has at this time is the schedule of the remodel. Currently, the Friends of the Library are still fundraising in their efforts to reach their goal of $500,000. Also, they are continuing to firm up questions with the County of San Luis Obispo regarding project control and management. Should the project be unfortunately delayed for some reason, staff does have some concerns about keeping the facility unused and vacant. With that expressed, staff recommends the City Council approve Alternative 3 with the timeframe stated in the letter, September 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014 and request the County of San Luis Obispo keep the City of Morro Bay informed of their timeframe and any delays that may occur. CONCLUSION The City of Morro Bay understands and agrees with the importance of local library services and supports the request from the County of San Luis Obispo for use of the city-owned facility located at 535 Harbor Street for interim library services. Staff Report AGENDA NO: D-2 MEETING DATE: May 14, 2013 Prepared By: ___RL___ Dept Review:___RL_ City Manager Review: ________ City Attorney Review: ________ TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: May 7, 2013 FROM: Rob Livick, PE/PLS – Public Services Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Review of the Master Fee Schedule as it Relates to Minor Use Permit Fees for the Business Proposed for 1700 Park Avenue. (Tross Mobile Automotive and R/V Repair Business) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council require the payment of the fees for the processing of a Minor Use Permit for the relocation of a mobile automotive repair business at 1700 Park Avenue. ALTERNATIVES As an alternative to the fees set in the Master Fee Schedule City Council could: 1. Waive all or a portion of the fees if Council finds that the relocation of the business is a benefit to the entire community that outweighs the costs of providing the permit and does not constitute a “grant of special privilege”; or 2. Direct staff to track their time on this project and charge the applicant based on time and materials for the processing of this permit. FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact of fee waivers would vary considerably depending upon the caseload and types of permit fees waived and would result in a loss of revenue to the general fund. In general, fees recoup somewhere between 50 and 80 percent of the costs incurred in the processing of permits. In this particular request the loss in revenue would amount to $698.00. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION On March 25, 2013 the City received a request from Stephen Tross to waive the Minor Use Permit fee for the relocation of his business, TROSS MOBILE AUTO & RV SERVICE, to 1700 Park Street in Morro Bay. This property is zoned M-1/PD/I and is across the street from a C-VS/PD (Commercial – Visitor Serving) zone. The M-1 use requires a minor use permit when located within 2 300’ of other non M-1 zone districts pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 17.24.140. A Use Permit is not required if there is a continuation of a business or the same type of business at a location and there has not been a gap in operations of over six months. The City has no record of a Use Permit for the property and no business has been at this location with benefit of a business license in well over six months, therefore a Use Permit is required as stipulated in the code section listed above. The City’s Master Fee Schedule requires a fee of $529.00 for the processing of a Minor Use Permit. In addition to the Minor Use Permit Fee there are environmental and noticing fees that total an additional $169 to the Minor Use Permit fee. The current fee and fee structure for a Minor Use Permit (and other fees) was adopted by City Council Resolution 62-04. The setting of these fees was based on a “Public Services Cost Study”, prepared by Revenue & Cost Specialists, LLC, in April 2004. Additionally through the public hearing process, the City Council reduced the Minor Use Permit fee and similar planning fees in order to reflect community values, i.e. there is community benefit from development and redevelopment. In establishing any fees, the fee must not exceed the cost of providing the regulation, product or cost and do not constitute “proceeds of taxes.” Based on the 2004 Cost of Services Study, the fees do not exceed the cost of providing the service. CONCLUSION The requirement of a Minor Use Permit is clear in the City’s Zoning Code for this proposed use in the zoning district when in proximity to a different zoning district. Additionally, City Council set these fees as a way to partially recover the costs required to process the permits while still recognizing that development benefits the community and the waiving of fees could constitute a “grant of special privilege” not afforded to other businesses in the community. Therefore, staff does not recommend waiving the permit fee for this or any future required permits. ATTACHMENTS 1. Fee waiver request dated March 25, 2013 Staff Report TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: 4/17/2013 FROM: Andrea K. Lueker, City Manager SUBJECT: Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) Project Status and Discussion RECOMMENDATION Discuss in open session, the progress to date on the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) and provide direction to staff as necessary. ALTERNATIVES Not applicable at this time. FISCAL IMPACT Not applicable at this time. SUMMARY Staff provides this report as a bi-weekly update to the progress made to date on the new WRF project. BACKGROUND With the denial of the permit for the WWTP project in its current location, the City has embarked on a process for a WRF. This staff report provides a review of what has occurred to date as well as provides the City Council an opportunity for open discussion on the WRF project. DISCUSSION Below is a brief review of dates, status and accomplishments on the WRF facility project. Note the bolded information has been added since your last review on 4/23/13. Date Action_________________________________________________________ 01/03/13 Special City Council meeting – City Adopted Resolution No. 07-13 recommending denial of the WWTP project. 01/08/13 WWTP Project denied by the California Coastal Commission (CCC). 01/08/13 January JPA not held due to CCC meeting. 01/24/13 City Staff, Morro Bay JPA Sub-Committee, Cayucos SD representatives, staff AGENDA NO: D-3 MEETING DATE: 5/14/13 Prepared By: ________ Dept Review:_____ City Manager Review: ________ City Attorney Review: ________ 2 and attorney meet and discuss strategy and moving forward. 02/14/13 February JPA meeting held, “Discussion and Consideration of Next Steps for the WWTP Upgrade Project” was on the agenda and discussed. 02/26/13 City Council meeting - draft schedule/project timeline presented to City Council. City Council directed staff to prepare an RFP for a project manager. 03/11/13 City Council goal session, WRF established as Essential City Goal. 03/14/13 City Council goal session, WRF established as Essential City Goal. 03/14/13 March JPA meeting held, “Status Report on the Discussion with RWQCB Staff Renewal Process for the WWTP NPDES Permit No. CA0047881” and “Verbal Report by the City and District on the Progress of the future WWTP” were on the agenda and discussed. 03/18/13 RFP issued. 03/26/13 City Council meeting - City Council approves citizens to serve on the RFP selection committee. 03/27/13 Announcement placed on City website, etc. regarding citizen selection committee application period. 04/05/13 Citizen selection committee deadline. 04/09/13 City Council meeting - appointment of 5 citizens for the RFP selection committee at City Council meeting. 04/10/13 Addendum to RFP issued, re: selection committee 04/11/13 April JPA meeting held, “Verbal Report by the City and District on the Progress of the future WWTP” and Discussion and Approval to Terminate the Consultant Services Agreements with Delzeit; Dudek, McCabe and Company; and Montgomery Watson Harza (MWH)” were on the agenda and discussed. 04/15/13 RFP due. 04/16/13 Study Session on WRF facility announced for April 29, 2013 04/23/13 City Council meeting –reaffirmation of 5 members of citizen selection committee. 04/25/13 Quarterly Meeting with California Coastal Commission staff, WRF discussion and status report on the meeting agenda. 04/25/13 Initial meeting with Selection Committee for the RFP for Planning Services for the WRF. 04/29/13 WRF Study Session at Veteran’s Hall. 05/02/13 Interviews to recommend the individual/team for the WRF project manage Future Items 05/09/13 May JPA meeting held, “Verbal Report by the City and District on the Progress of the future WWTP” was on the agenda and discussed. 05/14/13 City Council meeting – Proposed approval of John F. Rickenbach, Consulting as the Preliminary Planning Consultant for the WRF project CONCLUSION City Council, since the denial of the WWTP permit in January has made measured and deliberate progress on the WRF project, as outlined above. Staff Report Addenda AGENDA NO: D-4A MEETING DATE: May 14, 2013 Prepared By: ___RL___ Dept Review:___RL_ City Manager Review: ________ City Attorney Review: ________ TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: May 13, 2013 FROM: Rob Livick, PE/PLS - Public Services Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Addendum to Item D-4 Authorize Public Services Director to Finalize the Contract for the Planning Consultant for the NEW WRF and Approve the Draft “Scope Of Work”; Unfortunately, Staff misinterpreted the cost estimate prepared by John F. Rickenbach consulting for the estimate of fees in the preliminary planning proposal revised scope of work. A revised estimate of fees is attached along with changes in the proposed recommendation and conclusions contained in the staff report. RECOMENDATION Authorize finalizing the contract for the Planning Consultant and approve the draft Scope of Work. for a fee not to exceed $117,256, with a 10-percent contingency of $11,725 for optional listed tasks. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the City Council, authorize staff to negotiate a final scope of services, schedule and fee and execute a contract with John F. Rickenbach Consulting for the preparation of substantial issues studies for a fee not to exceed $117,256, with a 10-percent contingency of $11,725 for optional listed tasks. ATTACHMENTS 1. Revised Fee Estimate (Final Draft) New Water Reclama-on Facility Planning Services Cost Es’mate -‐ May 10, 2013 Baseline Tasks Cost Labor John Rickenbach Mike Nunley MKN Staff MKN Staff Kevin Merk Debbie Rudd RRM Staff RRM Staff Hours Proj. Manager Engineering Engineering Dra;ing Coastal/Env.Public Outreach Graphics Clerical $135/hour $150/hour $135/hour $60/hour $125/hour $160/hour $90/hour $40/hour Labor Hours 1. Project IniHaHon (Kickoff MeeHng, Document Review)$4,560 32 12 12 4 4 1.1 Analysis of Biosolids Treatment AlternaHves and PresentaHon $9,840 78 34 28 16 1.2 Analysis of Treatment/Effluent AlternaHves and PresentaHon $11,460 90 44 28 18 2. Community Outreach Strategy $960 6 6 3. Stakeholder Interviews/Focus Groups $2,560 16 16 3.1 Coastal Commission MeeHng (includes prep; assumes local meeHng)$3,900 30 8 4 10 8 4. Public Workshop #1 (includes preparaHon Hme) (also see Op’onal Tasks)$5,260 39 8 8 4 11 8 5. IdenHfy Community Goals $1,020 7 4 3 6. Analysis of ExisHng Studies $10,400 75 48 12 8 7 7. Prepare First Draa OpHons Report (including analysis of 2 new sites)$18,850 143 50 28 24 12 10 16 3 8. Public Workshop #2 (includes preparaHon Hme) (also see Op’onal Tasks)$5,260 39 8 8 4 11 8 9. PresentaHon #1 to the City Council (includes prep Hme)$3,405 25 6 6 3 6 4 10. Prepare Second Draa OpHons Report $4,860 39 16 4 4 5 8 2 11. PresentaHon #2 to the City Council (includes prep Hme)(also see Op’onal Tasks)$3,405 25 6 6 3 6 4 12. Prepare Final OpHons Report $4,980 38 12 8 8 4 4 2 13. MeeHngs with City Staff (5 throughout process besides Kickoff MeeHng)$4,740 33 15 6 3 9 Quality Control/Internal Review of Documents $4,320 32 32 Project Management/Coordina’on $6,480 48 48 Subtotal Labor:$106,260 795 273 176 88 34 49 108 60 7 Addi-onal Costs Supplies, Travel and Miscellaneous Expenses $500 Total Cost By Consultant Subconsultant Expenses $1,800 Rickenbach $46,051 ProducHon of CDs and Digital File DocumentaHon $300 RRM $23,160 General & AdministraHve (Subconsultant Management)$8,396 Nunley $41,920 Subtotal Addi-onal Costs:$10,996 Merk $6,125 TOTAL LABOR + ADDITIONAL COSTS (Baseline Tasks)TOTAL $117,256 10% Con-ngency (for Op-onal Tasks described below) Op-onal Tasks Cost Labor John Rickenbach Mike Nunley MKN Staff MKN Staff Kevin Merk Debbie Rudd RRM Staff RRM Staff Hours Proj. Manager Engineering Engineering Dra;ing Coastal/Env.Public Outreach Graphics Clerical $135/hour $150/hour $135/hour $60/hour $125/hour $160/hour $90/hour $40/hour Labor Hours (op-onal tasks) 4.1 Public Workshop #1: Hand Held Remote Full Survey $1,040 10 2 8 4.2 Public Workshop #1: Online Survey $2,900 24 4 8 12 8.1 AddiHonal Workshops (cost per workshop)$3,200 23 8 11 4 11.1 AddiHonal City Council PresentaHons (cost per presentaHon)$2,130 16 6 6 4 13.1 AddiHonal MeeHngs with City Staff (cost per meeHng)$1,335 9 3 3 3 John F. Rickenbach Consul-ng Team $117,256 John F. Rickenbach Consul-ng Team $11,725 ATTACHMENT 1 Revised JohnF.RickenbachConsulting NewWaterReclamationFacilityProjectPlanning Services –SCOPEOFSERVICESMay2013 CityofMorroBay - 1 - A.SCOPEOFSERVICES Theintentofthisworkprogramistotakeinputfromthecommunityandthenguidethemthrougha seriesofdecisionsregardingthefeaturesandsitingofthenewWaterReclamationFacility(WRF). Among thedecisionsthatthecommunitythroughtheCityCouncilneedstomakeinclude: ¥ Treatmenttechnology.Approachtoenergyuse,waterqualityandsitingrequirements ¥ Typeofdisposal.Oceanoutfall,landapplication,subsurfacedisposalandstreamdischarge; ¥ Ownership/operation.Considerationof PrivateandPublicoptions; ¥ LevelofReclamation.Urbanuses,ruralagriculturalusesandgroundwaterrecharge; ¥ BiosolidsOptions.Compostingonsiteandhaulingoptions; ¥ SitingCriteria.Whatcriteriaare importanttothecommunityinsitingthenewWRF?And ¥ Scheduling.Giventheotherfactors,whatisarealisticscheduleforthesiting,permitting,design andconstructionofthenewWRF? The currenteffortdescribedinthisscopeofworkwillnotdefinitivelyanswerallthesequestions. However,itwillprovideafreshunbiasedanalysisof existingscreeningstudiesandrelatedreports, basedonahighdegreeofdirectcommunityinput,forthepurposeofguidingtheCityCounciltoward makinganinformed decisionregardingwhichsitetopursueingreaterdetail,aswellastheappropriate technologiestoapply,forthelong-‐termwell-‐beingofthecommunityasawhole. The JohnF.RickenbachConsulting teamproposesthefollowingworkprogram,whichincludesthese broadtasks: ¥ Task1:ProjectInitiation ¥ Task1.1:IdentificationofBiosolidsAlternatives ¥ Task1.2:IdentificationofTreatmentAlternatives ¥ Task2:CommunityOutreachStrategy ¥ Task3:StakeholderInterviews/FocusGroups ¥ Task3.1:CoastalCommissionMeeting ¥ Task4:Workshop#1 (alsoincludesoptionalsubtasks) ¥ Task5:IdentifyCommunityGoals ¥ Task6:AnalysisofExistingStudies ¥ Task7:PrepareFirstDraftOptionsReport ¥ Task8:Workshop#2 (alsoincludesoptionalsubtasks) ¥ Task9:CityCouncilPresentation#1 ¥ Task10:PrepareSecondDraftOptionsReport ¥ Task11:City CouncilPresentation#2(alsoincludesoptionalsubtasks) ¥ Task12:PrepareFinalOptionsReport ¥ Task13:Meetings withCityStaff(ongoingthroughoutprocess) SomeofthesetasksalsoincludesubtasksthattheCitymaywishtoconsider,generallyto addressa morerobustpublicoutreachprocessormoredetaileddiscussionofengineeringandrelatedtechnical issues.Eachofthesetaskandoptionalsubtaskisdescribedingreaterdetailbelow: ATTACHMENT 1 JohnF.RickenbachConsulting NewWaterReclamationFacilityProjectPlanning Services –SCOPEOFSERVICESMay2013 CityofMorroBay - 2 - Task1.ProjectInitiation.Teamleaderswillattend akickoffmeetingwithCitystaff,thepurposeof whichwillbetoconfirmthestudyobjectives,refineourproposedstudyapproach asneeded,and gatheranykeyexistingdocumentationthatisnotalreadyavailableonline.Wewillconfirmthekey productsandscheduleassociatedwiththeeffort,andestablishcommunicationprotocolsamongCity staff,theconsultants,andthecommunityingeneral.Thekickoffmeetingwill also providean opportunitytostrategize anddiscusstheworkshops,stakeholders,andoutreachmethods. Itmaybeusefultoexpandthis meeting intoasitetourwithCitystaffand/orCouncilrepresentatives. The tourwillfocusonpotential sitesunderconsideration. Deliverables:Attendkickoffmeeting;confirmstudygoals;gain abetterpreliminary understandingofcommunitygoalsthroughasitetour.Thismeetingwillbe attendedbyJohnRickenbach,DebbieRuddandMikeNunley. Task1.1.IdentificationofBiosolidsAlternatives.Atafederal,state,andlocallevellandapplicationof biosolidsisbecomingmorechallenging.The Cityhasoperatedasuccessfulcompostingoperationfor manyyears.MikeNunleyofMKN willprepareanoverviewand summaryofpossiblebiosolids treatmentandprocessing alternativesforconsiderationbyCitystaff.Thisanalysiswillbebasedona reviewofexistingstudiesanddocumentation.Oneoftheprojectgoalsappearstobeminimization of energyimpactandconsideringalternativebiosolidsprocessingtechnologiescouldimprove opportunitiesforenergyrecovery.Itisassumedthefollowingapproacheswouldbediscussed and describedinaqualitativemannerforconsiderationbytheProjectTeamandCitystaff.MKN willprovide abriefdiscussionofregulatorytrendsrelatedtobiosolidsandalternativeequipmentortechnologies willbebrieflydescribedforeachapproachidentifiedbelow: ¥ Composting ¥ Thickeningandanaerobicdigestionwithdewateringandoffsitehauling o With/withoutenergyrecovery(combinedheat/powergeneration) o With/withoutfatsoil&grease(FOG)receivingandprocessing ¥ Directenergyrecoverywithoutanaerobicdigestion: TechnologiesbyMaxWest,NexTerra,andotherswillbebrieflydescribedsincetheseemerging technologiescanmaximizeenergyrecovery.Itisusefulfor theCityto understandemerging technologiesinbiosolidsprocessingsinceitcanaffectthelong-‐term planningeffort. Deliverables:MKNwillprepareadrafttechnicalmemorandumandmeetwiththeProject Teamtodiscusscomments.MKNwillthenprepare afinaltechnical memorandumand educational presentationforthepublicandCityCouncil with respecttobiosolidsissues. Task1.2.IdentificationofTreatmentAlternatives.Itisrecommendedthatthefinaltreatment technologybeselectedduringthe futurefacilitymaster planningprocess.MikeNunleyof MKNwill provideanarrativeoverviewoftreatmenttechnologiesthatcouldbeconsideredforthemostlikely reusegoalsandanticipatedeffluentdisposallimits.Adiscussionofthe mostcritical regulatoryconcerns associatedwitheachproposeddisposalopportunitywillbepreparedandwillincorporatetheanalysis frompriorstudiestotheextentpracticable.Theinformationpresented inpriorreportsforproject layoutandcostwillalsobeused totheextentpracticable.Thesetreatment technologieswouldlikely include: ¥ Screeningandgritremoval ¥ Secondaryorbiologicaltreatmentprocesses: ATTACHMENT 1 JohnF.RickenbachConsulting NewWaterReclamationFacilityProjectPlanning Services –SCOPEOFSERVICESMay2013 CityofMorroBay - 3 - o Oxidationditchtechnology o Waveoxidation o Conventionalactivatedsludge o Membranebioreactor(MBR),whichisacombinedsecondarytreatmentandfiltration Process ¥ TertiaryTreatment(forthosealternativesotherthanMBR) o Filtration Diskfilters Membranefiltration o Disinfection Ultravioletdisinfection Chlorination Chloramination Flowdiagramswillbepreparedforeachofthemajortreatmentalternatives.Photosandan approximatefootprintwillbeprovidedbasedonpriorstudies. Deliverables:MKNwillprepareadrafttechnicalmemorandumandmeetwiththeProject Teamtodiscusscomments.MKNwillthenprepareafinaltechnical memorandumand educational presentationforthepublicandCityCouncilwith respecttotreatmenttechnologies. Task2.CommunityOutreachStrategy.Ourteam,ledbyDebbieRuddofRRM inthiscase,willwork withCitystaffand/orCouncilrepresentativetodevelop,refineandcustomize thecommunityoutreach program.Thiswillincludeadvertisementstrategies,formatforeachworkshop,workshopexercises,and outreachtothe stakeholders.Theoutreachstrategywillbuild from previousoutreacheffortsand incorporatemethodsthathavebeensuccessfulinthepast.Thisoutreachprocesswillneedtobe transparentandinclusive.Theoutreachstrategymemowilloutlinethisprocessandmakesurethatthe decisionmakersand stakeholdersagreeontheapproachandstrategybeforetheoutreachbegins.This processmayberevisedtoaccommodatetheoutcomeofthisstrategytask. Deliverable:Communityoutreachstrategymemorandum,meetingwithCouncil representative/staffsummarizingfutureoutreachefforts Task3.StakeholderInterviews/FocusGroups.Theconsultantteamwillconductonedayof30to60-‐ minuteinterviewswithpropertyandbusinessowners,interestgroups,neighborhoodrepresentatives, agriculturalrepresentatives,decisionmakers,regulatoryagencyrepresentatives,andotherstohelp exploreandunderstandtheissuesimportanttothecommunityfacingthissiteselection.Theintentis togainadiverseperspectiveabouttheproject,frombothpublicandprivateentities.Thestakeholder groupwillbeidentifiedwiththeassistanceofCitystaff.TheCitywouldcoordinatemeetinglocationand setup.Thistaskallowsforadditionalstakeholdercoordinationthroughouttheprocess. Deliverables:Meetingattendance,follow-‐upstakeholdermeetings Task3.1.CoastalCommissionMeeting.DebbieRuddandJohn Rickenbachwillprepareforandattend a CoastalCommissionmeeting.ThismeetingwouldbetoupdatetheCommissiononprojectprogressand receive initialfeedback.Ourbudgetassumesthatthemeetingwouldbe held atalocationwithin San LuisObispoCounty. ATTACHMENT 1 JohnF.RickenbachConsulting NewWaterReclamationFacilityProjectPlanning Services –SCOPEOFSERVICESMay2013 CityofMorroBay - 4 - Task4.Workshop#1.DebbieRuddwilljoinJohnRickenbachinfacilitating thefirstoftwointeractive workshopsthatwillfocusonidentifyingandprioritizingissuesaswellaseducatingthecommunityon options.MikeNunleywouldalsoattendthisworkshop.Ourgoalwillbetodesigntheworkshopsto engageparticipantsinafunandinteractivewaythatwillallowthecommunityandstakeholdersan opportunitytodiscussissues,priorities,andsolutionsthatresonatewiththecommunitypriorities. Exercisesmayinvolveformsofpollingparticipantsthroughtheuseoftapedots,reportcards,andhand-‐ heldremotecontrolvotingdevicesorsimilarmethods.Thisoutreacheffortneedstobecompletely openandtransparenttogarnerconsensusonasolutionthatistrulyacommunity-‐basedsolution.RRM willprovidegraphicsupport,materialsforworkshop(e.g.,nametags,sign-‐insheets,agendas,aerial photosmaps). Deliverables:Preparationforandco-‐facilitationoftheworkshop.Citystafftocoordinate meetinglogistics,notification,microphones,refreshments,andadvertisement. OptionalTask4.1.HandHeldRemoteFullSurvey.Asanoptionaltask,RRM will prepare amodest preferencesurveyusingthehandheldremotetechnologyatone(1)ofthetwo(2)workshops.Asan optionaltask,RRMcanprepareafullsurvey(30 –45questions)withgraphicsandphotos. OptionalTask4.2.On-‐Line Survey.Asanoptionaltask,RRMandJohnRickenbachcanprepare questionsforanon-‐linesurveytosupplementtheoutreachefforts.Weunderstandthatmanypeople cannotmakeittocommunitymeetingsandworkshops,butwilltakethetimetotakeonline surveys. Thistaskwouldtakeanestimated12hourstocreateandpostthesurveyinstrument,plus12hoursto developthequestions,editandsummarizetheresults. Task5.IdentifyCommunityGoals.Basedoninputfromthecommunityworkshopandstakeholder interviews,ourteamwillworkwithCitystafftoidentifygoalsfordeterminingtheappropriatesitefor thenewWRF.Wewillalsoconsidertheconcernspreviouslyexpressedbymembersofthecommunity throughtheRoughScreeningandFineScreeningprocess,includingthoseofvariousagencies, organizationsandindividuals. Forexample,frompublicinputreceivedontheexistingdocumentation,wecanalreadyclearlyseea patternofconcerns,including(butnotlimitedto)thefollowing: ¥ Visual Impacts ¥ Floodingpotentialatthesite ¥ Appropriatenessofthefacilitywithrespecttoadjacentlanduses ¥ Riskfromtsunami,sealevelrise,andothercoastalhazards ¥ Impactstobiologicalresources ¥ Waterqualityandrunoff ¥ Traffic ¥ Noise ¥ Odors ¥ Consistency with Local Coastal Program(LCP)policies ¥ Appropriatenessofproposedfacilitydesignandtechnology ¥ Cost(bothmonetaryandenvironmental) ATTACHMENT 1 JohnF.RickenbachConsulting NewWaterReclamationFacilityProjectPlanning Services –SCOPEOFSERVICESMay2013 CityofMorroBay - 5 - Wewillcomparethesetomorerecentworkshopinputtohelprefinethekeyissuestofocusonwithin theOptionsReport.Relativetothecostissue,wewillidentifythecommunity’sperceptionofwhatisof mostconcerntothem(Capitalcosts?Annualoperatingcosts?Ratespaidbypropertyowners?)anduse thisinformationappropriatelyintheOptionsReportaspart oftheanalysis. Task 6.DataGathering/AnalysisofExistingStudies andNewSites.Ourteam,ledbyJohnRickenbach, willanalyzetheexistingstudiespreviouslyprepared,includingtheRoughScreeningAnalysis,Fine ScreeningAnalysis,andsupporting technicalstudies.Thepurposewill be to criticallyevaluatethe conclusionsofthosestudies,basedontheissuesidentifiednotonlyinthereports,butincomparison withthecommunitygoalsas summarizedintheprevioustask.BasedoncommunityinputandCitystaff inputgainedthroughthestakeholderinterviewsandfirstworkshop,ourteamwillalsoidentifynewsites notconsideredinpreviousstudiesforanalysis.Ourscopeassumes analyzingupto twonewsites,as wellasamodifiedconceptat theexistingCMCsite,whereintheexistingtreatmentplantatthatlocation couldbeexpandedintoaregionalfacility.Ifmorethantwositesareidentifiedthroughthe first community workshop,wewillworkwithstafftodetermineanappropriatecourse ofactionrelativeto howtoaddresstheseadditionalsites. Withrespecttotheexistingstudies,someofthecommentsreceivedontheprojectthusfarexpressed concernthatthevariouscriteriawerenotappliedconsistentlytoallsites,andhadthey been,the conclusionsaboutwhichsiteswerebestmayhavebeendifferent.Ouranalysiswillcriticallyinvestigate thispoint,withfreshunbiasedeyes. Withrespecttothepreviousstudies,wearewellawarethattheexistingWWTPsiteisnolongeran optionforthenewWRF,sowewillbeginouranalysiswithinthiscontext. ConclusionsoftheRoughScreeningAnalysis.Thepurposeofthisreportwastonarrowthesites downtothreeforfurtherconsiderationusingavarietyofbirds-‐eyelevelscreeningfactors.Many commentsexpressedtheconcernthatthe“fatalflaw”analysisinthatreportprematurelyeliminated certainsites,ormayhaveotherwisebeeninconsistentlyappliedtoallsites.Inaddition,therankingof keycriteriamaynothavebeenconsistentwithmanyoftheexpressedcommunitygoals.Wewill criticallyinvestigatethesepoints,anddeterminewhetheranysitesthatwerepreviouslyeliminated shouldbestudiedinfurtherdetail.Ifso,thiswouldbecomeoneoftherecommendationsofour OptionsReport.Totheextentpossible,wewillqualitativelyanalyzesuchsitesintheOptionsReport,to theextentthescheduleandbudgetallow,atleasttoprovideameaningful comparisonofpossiblesites. OnepossibilityheremaybetheCMCsite(Site12),whichinspiteofsomeconstraints,wasfoundto havethesecondhighestoverallscorerelativetotheconsistencycriteriaappliedinthereport,andyet waseliminatedfromfurtherconsiderationbecauseofthe apparent highcost ofconstructingatthatsite. Ourreportwillcriticallyevaluatethisconclusion. ConclusionsoftheFineScreeningAnalysis.Thisreportanalyzed three sitesindetail:1)the existingtreatmentplantsite(Site1);2)theChevronsite(nowcombinedasSites5and15);andthe Righettisite(Site16).Basedoninputpreviouslyreceived,wecannoweliminatetheexistingtreatment plantsite,andfocusontheothertwo.Wewilllookcloselyatthesetwosites,plusanyothersfromthe RoughScreeningAnalysisthatwebelievewarrantfurtherinvestigation. Theweightingofkeycriteriawillbecrucial.TheFineScreeningAnalysisput40%oftheweightonissues relatedtoLCPconsistencyandenvironmentalfactors,withtheother60%splitevenlybetween project implementationissuesandeconomicconsiderations.Basedonmanyofthecommentsthatwere ATTACHMENT 1 JohnF.RickenbachConsulting NewWaterReclamationFacilityProjectPlanning Services –SCOPEOFSERVICESMay2013 CityofMorroBay - 6 - receivedthroughtheprocess,therewasconcernthatthesefactorswerenotweightedappropriately basedontheactualprioritiesofthecommunity.Wewill investigatethisconcern,andfactorthisinto ourindependentanalysisofthedata.Forexample,theideathatdevelopmentattheexistingsitewas theeasiesttodofromaprojectmanagementandlandacquisitionstandpoint,andthatitwouldcost less,weighedheavilyinthepreviousconclusionthattheexistingsitewasbestoverall.However,itis clearfrominputreceivedthroughtheprocessthatthesefactorswouldhavereceivedconsiderablyless weightinwhatmanybelievedwouldhavebeenamore objectiveanalysis.Ifso,theconclusionsmay havebeendifferent. Aspartofthisanalysis,MikeNunley,PE,willcriticallyinvestigatetheengineeringandcostconclusions describedintwothescreeningreports.Forexample,hewillinvestigatethe conclusionsrelativetothe varioustreatmenttechnologiesappliedfrombothacostandfeasibilitystandpoint,todetermineifthe previousconclusionswerevalid.Hewillalsolookatthecostassumptionsfortheconstructionand operationofthefacilitiesatthedifferentsites,againwiththepurposeofprovidinganexperiencedand unbiasedengineeringperspectivetoguidefuturedecisionswithrespecttotheultimatesiteforthenew facility.Basedonthisnewanalysis,Citystaffwillbetterbeabletoabletoproducearoughestimateof howthismightaffectrates. MikeNunleywillalso reviewexistingstudiesandidentifyanydata“gaps”oradditional information required toanalyzethe sitesinquestion.Hewillreviewthefollowingstudies: ¥ RoughScreeningAnalysis ¥ FinalScreeningAnalysis ¥ RecycledWaterFeasibilityStudy ¥ FacilitiesMasterPlan ¥ MorroValleyandChorroValleyNitrateStudies MikeNunleywillthenprepareascopingmemorandumsummarizingthefollowing: ¥ Sites ¥ Likelyrecyclingoreffluentdisposalmethodsforeachsite ¥ Listofprojectelementsthatwouldberequiredtoconvey,treat,anddispose/reuse wastewater ateachsite.Itisassumedthateithercompostingordewatering/haulingwillbepursuedsince thespacerequiredforthesefacilitiesismorethanrequiredforsomeotherprocessing alternatives. ¥ Discussionofincreasinglystringentregulatorycriteriarelativetothedisposalofeffluent,and howimplementingtheseevolvingrulescouldaffectprojectcost. Thepurposeofthescopingmemorandumistoidentifyprojectelementsandalternativesthat willbe analyzedandallowtheCityandProjectTeam tocompletetheDraftOptionsReport. KevinMerkwilllookcloselyatcoastalpolicesandpermittingassumptionsmadeinthepreviousreports, aswellasenvironmentalresourceconsiderations,particularlywithregardtobiologicalresources,atthe varioussites.HisinputwillalsobekeyinpreparingtheOptionsReport. Deliverable:Ourteamwill meetwithCitystafftogooverourpreliminaryconclusionsand gaintheirinputbeforecompletingthedraftoftheOptionsReport(Task7).Mike Nunleywillprepareatechnicalscopingmemorandumthatfocusesonvarious ATTACHMENT 1 JohnF.RickenbachConsulting NewWaterReclamationFacilityProjectPlanning Services –SCOPEOFSERVICESMay2013 CityofMorroBay - 7 - effluentdisposalmethodsandtheappropriatenessofvarious technologiesat thevarioussites. Task7.PrepareFirstDraftOptionsReport.Ourteam,ledbyJohnRickenbach,willprepareaFirstDraft OptionsReport,whichsummarizestheresultsoftheinvestigationsfromtheprevioustasks.Tothisend, hewillcoordinatetheanalysiswitheachoftheotherthreeteammembers.DebbieRudd,forexample, willassistJohnwithdevelopingappropriatesolutionsanddocumentreview.RRMwillalsoprovide clericalandgraphicssupportasneeded.Thisreportwilldrawplanninglevelconclusionsthatcanbe usedasthebasisformoredetailedanalysisinthefuture.Theintentofthereportistobeas transparentandunderstandableaspossible.Allassumptionsincludedinthereportwillbeclearlycited toallowthecommunityanddecisionmakerstounderstandhowtheconclusionsweredrawn.Although theformatofthedocumenthasnotyetbeendetermined,weproposeanoutlinethatincludesthe followingcomponents: 1. SummarizeandReprioritizeKeyCommunityBasedPlanningGoals.Thereportwilldescribethe keyissuesandcommunitygoals,andprioritizethemmoreinalignmentwithwhatthe communityhassaid; 2. ModifythePreviousAnalysis.Wewillmodifythepreviousanalysisasappropriate,basedonthe inputfromourteamexpertswithrespecttocommunitybasedplanninggoals,environmental issue,andengineeringandcostconsiderations.Thissectionwillbetheheartofthereport,and willdescribeinbroadnarrativetermstheissuesofconcernrelativetoeach site.AttheCity’s choosing,wecaneitherorganizethissectionbyissue,thenexamineeachsiterelativetothe issue;orwecanorganizethisbysite,thenexamineeachissueaccordingly.Becausethisisa comparativestudy,werecommendthatthisbeorganizedbyissuearea,sothedocumentcan moreeasilycompareeachsitesidebyside,andthushavegreaterutilityrelativetoitsintended purpose.Weexpectthattheanalysisofeachissuewillincludeafewparagraphs,orwhateveris neededtoconveytheoverallconcernsinassuccinctamanneraspossible.Insomeways,this sectionwillbeanalogoustoanAlternativesdiscussionwithinanEnvironmentalImpactReport, andwilllikelyexhibitasimilarlevelofdetail; 3. CreateaSummaryMatrix.Ourreportwillincludeamatrixthatsummarizesthisupdated analysis,andrecalculatestheresultsoftheanalysisbasedonthemodifiedweightingoffactors. Theintentistokeepthematrixvisuallysimple(possiblywithcolor-‐coding),toallowforan easy comparisonoftheissuesrelativetoeachsite.Thiswouldlikelyfocusonthekeyfindings,with bulletshighlighting keyfindings;and 4. PresentaNarrativeSummaryofConclusions.Thereportwillincludeasummaryofthe conclusionsrelativetothepossiblesitesunderinvestigation,witharecommendationforthe communityandCityCounciltoconsiderforfurtheractionintheprocess.Thissummarymaybe easilyadaptedtoapossiblestaffreportfortheCityCouncil. Inall,weanticipatethat theentirestudywillbebrief.Itwillbeaslongasneededtodrawthenecessary conclusions,butsufficientlybrieftobeuser-‐friendly.Totheextentpossible,thestudywillusematrices, tables,andgraphicstoconveytheneededinformation. Akeyconsiderationinthisreportisthatitwilladdress upto twosites(tobedetermined)thatwerenot addressedintheoriginalRoughorFineScreeningAnalyses.Thus,originalworkwillbeneededto ATTACHMENT 1 JohnF.RickenbachConsulting NewWaterReclamationFacilityProjectPlanning Services –SCOPEOFSERVICESMay2013 CityofMorroBay - 8 - addressthosesites,inamannersimilartothatdescribedintheRoughScreeningAnalysis,suchthatthe publicanddecisionmakerscangainaclearunderstandingabouttheenvironmental,engineering,cost andregulatoryconsiderationsassociatedwiththesesites. Thefirstconsiderationwillbetodeterminewhetherthesesiteshaveanyfatalflawsthatwouldpreclude themfromfurtherconsideration.BasedontheexistingRoughScreeningReport,thesecriteriainclude: ¥ Woulddevelopmentonthesiteunavoidablyimpactprimefarmlandoractivelyfarmedland withinthecoastalzone? ¥ DoesthesitehaveEnvironmentalSensitiveHabitatAreas(ESHA),asdefinedbytheCityor CountyLCPortheCoastalAct,whichcannotbeavoided? ¥ Wouldthepotentialdevelopmentenvelopedonthesitebewithinthe100-‐yearflood hazard zone(orotherinundationzone),asdelineatedontheCityorCountyLCPsorshownonthe FEMAFloodInsuranceRateMaps? Ifasitedoesnothaveafatalflaw,furtherinvestigationwillbewarranted.Generallyspeaking,eachsite willbeevaluatedbasedonthefollowingcriteriasetforthintheRoughScreeningAnalysis: 1. EnvironmentalPolicyApplicability o BiologicalResources/ESHA o WaterQuality o CoastalPriorityLandUses o CoastalDependentDevelopment o FloodPlain o ShorelineDevelopment/CoastalHazards o PublicAccess/Recreation o VisualResources o Agriculture o CulturalResources o SustainableUseofPublicResources o LandUseCompatibility(Air,Noise,Traffic) o EnergyConsumption/GHGEmissions 2. Logistics/SiteConstraints o Zoning o SiteAccessibility o SiteAvailability o ImplementationPotential o AdditionalSiteRequirements(hazardouswastecleanup,slope/gradingconcerns) 3. EngineeringandEconomicConsiderations o TreatmentPlantProcess o WastewaterConveyanceInfrastructure o WastewaterConveyanceOperation o EffluentDisposal o RecycledWaterFeasibility o SiteDevelopment o EconomicDevelopmentFeasibility ATTACHMENT 1 JohnF.RickenbachConsulting NewWaterReclamationFacilityProjectPlanning Services –SCOPEOFSERVICESMay2013 CityofMorroBay - 9 - Withrespecttotheengineeringandcostissues,MikeNunleyofMKNwillprepareadraftmemorandum thatwillinformtheOptionsReport.TheremainingissueswillbeinvestigatedprimarilybyJohn RickenbachandKevinMerk,withsupportfromRRMDesignGroup.Theseenvironmental,regulatory andlogisticalfindingswillbefoldeddirectlyintotheOptionsReportwithoutatechnicalmemorandum. Deliverable:Ourteamwill deliverone(1)electroniccopy ofthe First DraftOptionsReportfor City staffreview.Oncereviewed,wewillprovideadigitalcopyofthedocument (includinggraphics)thatisreadyforreproduction.TheCitywillprintand distributeasmanycopiesasitdeterminestobenecessary. Task8.Workshop#2.RRMwilljoinJohnRickenbachinconductingasecondinteractivepublic workshop,thepurposeofwhichwillbetopresentthefindingsoftheFirstDraftOptionsReport.Mike NunleyandKevinMerkwillalsoparticipateinthisworkshop.Ourintentistogainfurtherinputfrom thepublic,andcourse-‐correcttotheextentneededfortheSecondDraftOptionsReport.Wewilluse manyofthesameoutreachtechniquesdescribedforthefirstreport. Deliverables:Preparationforandco-‐facilitationoftheworkshop.Citystafftocoordinate meetinglogistics,notification,microphones,refreshments,andadvertisement. OptionalTask8.1AdditionalWorkshop#2.Asanoptionaltask,RRMwilljoinJohnRickenbachto conductadditionalworkshopsasdesired,ifadditionalcommunityinputisdeterminedtobeneeded. Theseworkshopswillbesimilarinapproachtothefirsttwoworkshops. Task9.CityCouncilPresentations#1.WewillpresenttheresultsoftheFirstDraftOptionsReportfor CityCouncilconsiderationandinput.TogetherwithpreviouspublicinputfromWorkshop#1,wewill havetheneededinputtoprepareaSecondDraftofthereport. Deliverable:KeyteammemberswillaCityCouncilmeeting,presenttheFirstDraftReportin PowerPointformat,andbeavailabletoanswerquestionsandreceiveinput. Task10.PrepareSecond DraftOptionsReport.BasedoninputreceivedfromWorkshop#2(Task8) andthefirstCityCouncilmeeting (Task9),JohnRickenbachwilltaketheleadinrevisingtheFirstDraft OptionsReport.DebbieRuddwillcollaboratewithJohnindevelopingsolutions,andreviewingthe document.RRMwillprovideclericalandgraphicssupportasneeded.Changesmayincludemodified weightingofcriteria,updatingofinformation,orotherissuesthatmaymateriallyaffecttheoutcomeof thereport.TheDrafttechnicalmemorandumpreparedbyMKNmayalsobemodifiedasaresultofthis input.WewilldiscussandconfirmthesechangeswithstaffbeforecreatingafinalDraftReportthatcan beconsideredbyCityCouncil. Deliverable:Ourteamwilldeliver one(1)electroniccopy ofthe Second DraftOptionsReport forCity staffreview.Oncereviewed,wewillprovidea digitalcopyofthe document(includinggraphics)thatisreadyforreproduction.TheCitywillprint anddistributeasmanycopiesasitdeterminestobenecessary. Task11.CityCouncilPresentation#2.OurteamwillpresenttheresultsoftheSecond DraftOptions ReportforCityCouncilconsideration.OurscopeassumesthatJohnRickenbach,DebbieRudd,andMike ATTACHMENT 1 JohnF.RickenbachConsulting NewWaterReclamationFacilityProjectPlanning Services –SCOPEOFSERVICESMay2013 CityofMorroBay - 10 - Nunleywillattendthemeeting.Weanticipatethattheremaybesomeminorchangestothedocument neededasaresultoftheiraction.JohnRickenbachwilltaketheleadinthePowerPointpresentationfor themeetings.RRMwillcollaborate,reviewandcommentonPowerPointpresentation,andprepare graphics,asneededforthepresentation. Deliverable:Keyteammemberswillattendasecond CityCouncilmeetings,presentthe SecondDraftReportinPowerPointformat,andbeavailabletoanswerquestions andreceiveinputasneeded. OptionalTask11.1AdditionalCityCouncilPresentations.Asanoptionaltask,RRMwilljoinJohn RickenbachtomakeadditionalpresentationsbeforetheCityCouncilasdesired.Thesepresentations willbesimilarinapproachtothefirsttwodescribedabove. Task12.PrepareFinalOptionsReport.BasedonCityCouncilinput,wewillmakeminormodifications tofinalizetheOptionsReport.JohnRickenbachwilltaketheleadinthefinaldraftoftheOptions Report,basedoninputfromallotherteammembers,includingatechnicalmemorandumfromMike Nunley.DebbiewillcollaboratewithJohnontranslatingCouncilfeedbackintoreport.RRMwillprepare graphicsorclericalsupport asneededforthereport. Deliverable:Ourteamwilldeliver one(1)electroniccopy ofthe FinalOptionsReporttobe postedbytheCityonitswebsite.TheCitywillprintanddistributeasmany copiesasitdeterminestobenecessary. Task13.MeetingswithCity Staff.Throughthecourseoftheprogram,weexpecttomeetwithCity staffonseveraloccasions.Ourscopeofworkassumesatsix(6)meetingswithstaffthroughthecourse oftheproject,includingtheKickoffMeeting,whichiscoveredinTask1. OptionalTask13.1AdditionalMeetings.Asanoptionaltask,keyteammemberswillattendadditional meetingswithCitystaffthroughoutthecourseoftheprocess.Weassumethreehourspermeetingfor budgetpurposes. ATTACHMENT 1 JohnF.RickenbachConsulting NewWaterReclamationFacilityProjectPlanning Services –SCOPEOFSERVICESMay2013 CityofMorroBay - 11 - B.SCOPEANDCOSTASSUMPTIONS Ourproposedscopeofworkandrelatedcostestimatearebasedonthefollowingassumptions: 1. JohnRickenbachwillbetheProjectManagerandprimarypointofcontact.Forthetimesthat Johnisunavailable(suchasduringavacation),DebbieRuddwillbetheDeputyProjectManager. Debbieisthesecondarypointofcontact. 2. TheOptionsReportwillbebasedprimarilyonexistinginformationfromtheRoughandFine ScreeningStudies,aswellasrelatedtechnicalstudies,exceptasnotedbelow. 3. ThereportwillnotconsidertheexistingWastewaterTreatmentPlantsiteasapossiblelocation forthenewWRF. 4. Ourscopeassumesourteamwillprovidenewanalysisforupto twonewsites,whichwillbe chosenbasedoncommunityandstaffinput.Thenewanalysiswillbebasedonthecriteriaset forthintheRoughScreeningAnalysis.Fortheremainingsites,theanalysiswillrefineexisting information,andapplyamodifiedweightingschemetotheevaluationcriteriabasedoninput gainedfromthepublicandCityCouncil. 5. WeassumethattheexistinganalysisforSite12(CMCsite)manyneedtobemodifiedsomewhat becauseamodifiedconceptmaybeconsideredatthislocation.Insteadofanewtreatment facility,themodifiedconceptwouldbeanexpansionoftheexistingfacilitytoactasaregional facility. 6. OurscopeincludestwoworkshopsandtwoCityCouncilpresentations.Additionalworkshopsor presentationsarepossiblebasedonthefeesincludedundertheOptionalTasksportionofthe accompanyingspreadsheet. 7. Ourscopeassumesattendanceatupto6meetingswithstaff,includingthekickoffmeeting. Ourscopegenerallyassumes3hoursperpersonpermeeting.Additionalmeetingsarepossible attheratesshownunderOptionalTasks. 8. Weassumethata meetingwiththeCoastalCommissiontodiscussthisproject willoccurata locationsomewherewithinSanLuisObispoCounty,attheprescribedlevelofeffortsetforth in theaccompanyingspreadsheet. 9. Thelevelofeffort thatwillbeapplied tocompletetheabovetasksiscommensuratewithwhat isincludedtheattachedspreadsheet. 10. Ifunforeseenprojectcomplexitiesariseduringthecourseoftheprojectoutsideofour scopeof work(including,butnotlimitedto:communityinputdesiringtheanalysisofadditionalsitesnot includedinourscope;additionalhours neededinthereviewandrevisionofdraftdocuments;or additionaltime neededformeetingsandcoordination),wewill notifytheCityasearlyas possibletodeterminehowbesttoaddresstheseissues.Ifallpartiesagree,wewillrequest additionalfundingtoaddress itemsnotintheoriginalscopeofwork. 11. Wecan re-‐allocateportionsofthebudgettodifferenttasks if City staff determinesthatthetime isbetterallocatedtosuchtasks. 12. City staff willhandleallprinting,noticing,advertising,distribution,andwebsiteposting associatedwithprojectdocumentation. ATTACHMENT 1 JohnF.RickenbachConsulting NewWaterReclamationFacilityProjectPlanning Services –SCOPEOFSERVICESMay2013 CityofMorroBay - 12 - C.SCHEDULE Ourteam proposestoadheretoanaggressivebutrealistic schedule.Itiscrucialthatweprovide enoughtimeupfrontforpublicinput,andthesynthesisofthatinputintoourreport.Thus,tosome degreeitwilldependonthetimingoftheinitialoutreacheffortsandpublicworkshop,butwewillbe workingconcurrentlytotheextentpossibleoncriticallyevaluatingtheexistingstudies,whichisatthe coreofthisassignment.ItwillalsodependtosomeextentonthetimingoftheCityCouncilmeetingsat whichourinformationwillbepresented.Thatsaid,webelievethattheFirstDraftOptionsReportcould becompletedwithin12 weeksoftheKickoffMeeting.Dependingonthesubsequentreviewofthe documentandthetimingofworkshopsandCityCouncilmeetings,the entireprocesscouldbe realisticallycompletedwithinabout4to5months.Thefollowingdescribesourestimatedschedule. KickoffMeeting:WeassumetheCitywillcoordinate aprojectkickoffmeetingwithinoneweek of all partiessigningthecontract.Thismeetingwill include Citystaff,andkeymembersoftheconsulting team. OutreachStrategy/StakeholderInterviews:Withinthree weeksofthekickoffmeeting,ourteamwill conduct stakeholderinterviewstogainspecificinputontheprocess. Workshop#1:Withinfour weeksofthekickoffmeeting,ourteamwillconductthefirstpublic workshop,whichisintendedtogaininputcrucialtothepreparationoftheOptionsReport. IdentifyCommunityGoals/AnalysisofExistingStudies:This effortwillstartimmediatelyafterthe kickoffmeeting,butwillbeguidedthroughthepublicoutreachprocess.FollowingWorkshop#1,we willhavetheneededinformationtocompletethecoreofouranalysis.Itisestimatedthatthiseffort willbecompletedwithin4weeksofconductingtheworkshop,andabout8weeksfromtheKickoff Meeting. CompleteFirstDraftOptionsReport:Basedonalleffortsintheprevioustasks,thisreportwillbe completedandsubmittedtotheCityforreviewwithin12weeksoftheKickoffMeeting.Weexpectto receivecommentsfromCitystaffwithinaweekofsubmittingthereport,anditwillbereadyfor distributionwithinaweekofCityreview.Thus,thereportcanbepublishedandcirculatedwithin14 weeksofthe KickoffMeeting. Workshop#2:AsecondWorkshopwillbeconductedwithintwo weeks ofcompletionoftheFirst Draft Report,oranestimated16 weeksaftertheKickoffMeeting. CityCouncilPresentation#1:ThereportwillbepresentedtotheCityCouncilassoonaspossibleafter thesecondworkshop,orabout17 weeksaftertheKickoffMeeting. CompleteSecondDraftOptionsReport:Withintwo weeksofthefirstCityCouncilmeeting,wewill revisethestudyandcompleteaSecondDraftoftheOptions Report.Thiswouldbe19 weeksafterthe KickoffMeeting. CityCouncilPresentation#2:TheSecondDraftreportwillbepresentedtotheCityCouncilatthe meetingfollowingthepreviousCouncilmeeting,or2weeksafterward.Thisisanestimated20 weeks ATTACHMENT 1 JohnF.RickenbachConsulting NewWaterReclamationFacilityProjectPlanning Services –SCOPEOFSERVICESMay2013 CityofMorroBay - 13 - aftertheKickoffMeeting.Wewillfinalizethedocumentshortlythereafterbasedoninputfromthe secondCityCouncilmeeting. Theabilitytomeetthisscheduledependsonthe availabilityofalldataneededtocompletethestudy, promptCitystaffresponsetimestodraftdocuments,andthatnounanticipated issuesariseduringthe process thatarebeyondtheconsultingteam’scontrol. D.COSTESTIMATE The consultingteam will conductthestudyinaccordancewithourscopeofservicesforanestimated not-‐to-‐exceedfee of $117,256.Thisdoesnotincludetheoptionaltasksasdescribedinourscopeof work.This includesprojectmanagement,technicalwork,andsubconsultantcostsassociatedwiththe assignment.ItalsoreflectsourProjectManagerJohn Rickenbach’sbillingrateof$135perhour,and other teammembers’ratesconsistentwithwhatareshownontheaccompanyingspreadsheet. This baselineproposalincludesattendance ataprojectkickoffmeeting,2publicworkshops,2City Councilmeetings,andupto5additionalmeetingswithCitystaffthroughtheprocess.Italsoassumesa meetinginfrontoftheCoastalCommission.Wealsoassumeinformalconsultationwithstaffviaemail andonthephonethroughouttheprocess.Ourscopeassumes thatthe City andconsultantteamwould meetpriortoeachmilestoneanduponconclusionof City reviewofadministrativedraftproducts. Publichearingswouldbeattended attime andmaterialsbillingrates. We intendtoinvoicetheCityonatime-‐and-‐materialsbasis,nottoexceedthetotalfeeshownabove. Theproposedscopeofservicesandassociatedcostsarefullynegotiabletomeettheneedsofthe City. Additionalwork notincludedwithinourproposedworkprogram willbecompletedonlyuponwritten City authorizationonatime-‐and-‐materialsbasis.Thisofferforservicesisvalidfor60days.Questions regardingtheproposalandaccompanyingcostestimatemaybedirectedtoJohnRickenbachat 805/610-‐1109,orat JFRickenbach@aol.com. ATTACHMENT 1 NewWaterReclama-onFacilityPlanningServices CostEs’mate-‐May10,2013 BaselineTasks Cost Labor JohnRickenbachMikeNunleyMKNStaffMKNStaffKevinMerkDebbieRuddRRMStaffRRMStaff Hours Proj.Manager EngineeringEngineering Dra;ing Coastal/Env.PublicOutreachGraphics Clerical $135/hour$150/hour$135/hour$60/hour$125/hour$160/hour$90/hour$40/hour LaborHours 1.ProjectIniHaHon(KickoffMeeHng,DocumentReview)$4,5603212 12 4 4 1.1AnalysisofBiosolidsTreatmentAlternaHvesandPresentaHon $9,84078 342816 1.2AnalysisofTreatment/EffluentAlternaHvesandPresentaHon $11,46090 442818 2.CommunityOutreachStrategy $960 6 6 3.StakeholderInterviews/FocusGroups $2,56016 16 3.1CoastalCommissionMeeHng(includesprep;assumeslocalmeeHng)$3,90030 8 4 10 8 4.PublicWorkshop#1(includespreparaHonHme)(alsoseeOp’onalTasks)$5,26039 8 8 4 11 8 5.IdenHfyCommunityGoals $1,020 7 4 3 6.AnalysisofExisHngStudies $10,4007548 12 8 7 7.PrepareFirstDraaOpHonsReport(includinganalysisof2newsites)$18,85014350 2824 121016 3 8.PublicWorkshop#2(includespreparaHonHme)(alsoseeOp’onalTasks)$5,260 39 8 8 4 11 8 9.PresentaHon#1totheCityCouncil(includesprepHme)$3,40525 6 6 3 6 4 10.PrepareSecondDraaOpHonsReport $4,8603916 4 4 5 82 11.PresentaHon#2totheCityCouncil(includesprepHme)(alsoseeOp’onalTasks)$3,405 25 6 6 3 6 4 12.PrepareFinalOpHonsReport $4,9803812 8 8 4 42 13.MeeHngswithCityStaff(5throughoutprocessbesidesKickoffMeeHng)$4,7403315 6 3 9 QualityControl/InternalReviewofDocuments $4,3203232 ProjectManagement/Coordina’on $6,4804848 SubtotalLabor:$106,260 79527317688344910860 7 Addi-onalCosts Supplies,TravelandMiscellaneousExpenses $500 TotalCostByConsultant SubconsultantExpenses $1,800 Rickenbach $46,051 ProducHonofCDsandDigitalFileDocumentaHon $300 RRM $23,160 General&AdministraHve(SubconsultantManagement)$8,396 Nunley $41,920 SubtotalAddi-onalCosts:$10,996 Merk $6,125 TOTALLABOR+ADDITIONALCOSTS(BaselineTasks)TOTAL $117,256 Op-onalTasks Cost Labor JohnRickenbachMikeNunleyMKNStaffMKNStaffKevinMerkDebbieRuddRRMStaffRRMStaff Hours Proj.Manager EngineeringEngineering Dra;ing Coastal/Env.PublicOutreachGraphics Clerical $135/hour$150/hour$135/hour$60/hour$125/hour$160/hour$90/hour$40/hour LaborHours(op-onaltasks) 4.1PublicWorkshop#1:HandHeldRemoteFullSurvey $1,04010 2 8 4.2PublicWorkshop#1:OnlineSurvey $2,90024 4 8 12 8.1AddiHonalWorkshops(costperworkshop)$3,20023 8 11 4 11.1AddiHonalCityCouncilPresentaHons(costperpresentaHon)$2,13016 6 6 4 13.1AddiHonalMeeHngswithCityStaff(costpermeeHng)$1,335 9 3 3 3 JohnF.RickenbachConsul-ngTeam $117,256 JohnF.RickenbachConsul-ngTeam ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 CITY OF MORRO BAY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES NEW WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY Proposal for: Project Planning Services Submitted on: April 15, 2013 Ripley Pacific Company LLP WATER REUSE INFRASTRUCTURE ATTACHMENT 4 [blank page] ATTACHMENT 4 RIPLEY PACIFIC COMPANY LLP WATER REUSE INFRASTRUCTURE HAND DELIVERED April 15, 2013 Mr. Rob Livick, P.E./P.L.S. Director, Department of Public Services City of Morro Bay 955 Shasta Avenue Morro Bay, CA 93442 Re: New Water Reclamation Facility Proposal for Project Planning Services Transmittal – 10 Hardcopies of Proposal Dear Mr. Livick: Please find enclosed ten hardcopies of the referenced proposal. Ripley Pacific Company LLP appreciates the opportunity to offer the planning team charged with creating a new vision for wastewater infrastructure serving the MBCSD service areas. We are committed to water reuse as an integral part of any municipal water resource and wastewater management strategy. The fact that the City of Morro Bay controls both its own water and wastewater services removes the thorniest obstacle to water reuse--institutional (dis)agreements among separate entities that normally control these vital functions in most California cities. Our dedication to and advocacy for water recycling is well-known in the profession. The RPC team's exclusive interest in the planning phase of the project removes any potential conflict of interest or pre-conceived favoritism toward specific concepts, technologies, or methods of project delivery. The only strong leaning of the team is toward maximization of water reuse and minimization of discharges to the environment. Our team stands ready to respond to any questions that you or your staff may have on the Ripley Pacific Company LLP proposal. We look forward to an invitation to interview with the selection committee April 22-26, 2013. My telephone number is 925-847-2086 and email: dana@ripleypacific.com. Sincerely yours, Principal /dr Enclosure: 10 hardcopies proposal report 6130 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 105, Pleasanton, CA 94588-3208 USA +1 925-847-2086; ripleypacific.com N G I NEER No. C59192 Exp. 06-30-13 NAD P R TE G S TA RE ERE IST D L L I IVIC FO AC ARNI F O IP SI KA R FEO . S L E E Y NA L O ATTACHMENT 4 City of Morro Bay Department of Public Services New Water Reclamation Facility Proposal for: Project Planning Services Submitted by: Ripley Pacific Company LLP In association with: Bahman Sheikh Water Reuse Consulting Kenneth D. Schmidt and Associates Irrigation and Turfgrass Services Submitted on: April 15, 2013 ATTACHMENT 4 MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility April 15, 2013 Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Understanding the Problem.......................................................................................................................... 3 Scope of Services .......................................................................................................................................... 4 The Project Team .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Team Qualifications ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Ripley Pacific Company LLP ....................................................................................................................... 7 Bahman Sheikh Water Reuse Consultant ................................................................................................. 7 Kenneth D. Schmidt and Associates .......................................................................................................... 8 Irrigation & Turfgrass Services .................................................................................................................. 8 Project Management .................................................................................................................................... 9 Approach ................................................................................................................................................... 9 Work Plan .................................................................................................................................................. 9 Project Coordination ................................................................................................................................. 9 Progress and Quality Control .................................................................................................................... 9 Contingencies .......................................................................................................................................... 10 Scope, Schedule and Budget ................................................................................................................... 10 Prior Experience with Public and Public Agencies .................................................................................. 10 Schedule ...................................................................................................................................................... 11 Preliminary Fee Estimate ............................................................................................................................ 12 Ripley Pacific Company LLP Page i ATTACHMENT 4 MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility April 15, 2013 Appendix Appendix A LOWWP Recycled Water Irrigation Phasing Plan Appendix B Subconsultant Listing Appendix C Ripley Pacific and Subconsultant Reference Contact Information Appendix D Resumes of Key Personnel Appendix E Misc. Statements: Agreement of Services Confirmation, Contested Provisions of Contract, Past Contract Disqualification Appendix F Hourly rate schedule Appendix G Insurance Certificate and Agent Statement List of Attachments (PDF Files on CD Back Cover) Attachment A: A1: CDPH Draft Indirect Potable Reuse Regulations, March 2013. Attachment B: B1: Los Osos Update Report, 2006 B2: Scotts Valley Dual Use Pipeline, 2012 B3: Coronado On-site Recycled Water, 2005 B4: Tesoro Viejo Water Supply Assessment, 2012 Attachment C: C1: Bahman Sheikh, PH.D., P.E. full resume Attachment D: D1: Madera County Integrated Water Plan, 2008 Attachment E: E1: Mike Huck USGA article, 2000 Attachment F: F1: Ripley Pacific Company LLP, MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility, Proposal for Project Planning Services, April 15, 2013. Ripley Pacific Company LLP Page ii ATTACHMENT 4 MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility April 15, 2013 Introduction The coastal location of Morro Bay overlooking the iconic Morro Rock, places the community in a beautiful and environmentally sensitive place. Fully cognizant of the beauty and sensitivity of the Morro Bay/Cayucos Sanitary District (MBCSD) combined service areas, Ripley Pacific Company LLP is pleased to submit this proposal in response to the City of Morro Bay’s Request for Proposals for Project Planning Services for the New Water Reclamation Facility, dated March 18, 2013. The California Coastal Commission provided MBCSD clear and succinct guidance on January 10, 2013 in their staff report to resolve outstanding wastewater issues that have been under consideration for the last decade. CCC staff summarized their position on this matter as follows: In summary, the development of new wastewater facilities offers an opportunity to the City of Morro Bay, much like the permitted development of a new wastewater facility in Los Osos. This project provides it the opportunity to improve the City’s long-term water availability, allowing it to reduce its dependence on expensive, outdated and unreliable water sources. A newly devised plan for a WWTP that incorporated meaningful water reclamation and recycling would help conserve water in situ for habitat protection of sensitive species and bring the project into further compliance with LCP policies that state that water reclamation is the second highest priority for the City.1 The Ripley Pacific (RPC) team is uniquely qualified to address these issues as enumerated by the CCC recognizing that our team was instrumental in relocating treatment facilities away from the center of Los Osos (and away from the coast) in 2006. The RPC team also advanced the 100% beneficial reuse plan that incorporated both urban and agricultural irrigation with zero effluent discharge2. Additionally, addressing overdraft and seawater intrusion problems of the Los Osos aquifer by incorporating a beneficial reuse component into the wastewater project was recognized as critically important to this community that relies exclusively on local groundwater. Applying similar treatment plant site selection analyses (multi-variate, triple-bottom-line alternatives scoring and rating) combined with beneficial effluent reuse expertise, the Ripley Pacific team offers MBCSD an opportunity to develop a wastewater infrastructure and effluent reuse program fully consistent with criteria outlined in the California Coastal Act and the Local Coastal Plan. It will also provide an efficient and cost-effective utility service for present and future generations living, working and recreating in the MBCSD service area. The RPC team recognizes the unique features and inherent constraints involved with infrastructure development in such a beautiful and sensitive location. It is with this sensitivity that RPC proposes to work with City and District staff, elected community leaders, the community at large, local farmers, and local/state regulators to develop a wastewater infrastructure plan that will be a model of sustainability for coastal communities throughout California. 1 California Coastal Commission, De Novo Hearing staff report, Item #Th23b,p.44, January 10, 2013. 2 See Appendix A. Ripley Pacific Company LLP Page 1 of 12 ATTACHMENT 4 MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility April 15, 2013 Goals and Objectives The primary goal of the scope of work presented herein is to assist MBCSD in their decision making process that leads to the development of a comprehensive and sustainable wastewater management and water reuse plan. The overall objective is to develop community consensus with a cost efficient and environmentally sound path forward in the design, regulatory review, and implementation of this critical infrastructure. Finally this integrated plan must be completed in a manner that will minimize the financial burden of residential and commercial ratepayers within the MBCSD service area. Successful outcome of this project will be based on a multitude of decisions that evaluate a variety of factors including but not limited to: • Treatment technology The current wastewater industry offers a variety of technologies to consider. Each technology option has unique features including life-cycle operational costs, footprint, aesthetics, odor containment and control, energy consumption, effluent quality, and pathogen removal that may favor one over the other. Additionally, a variety of alternative delivery formats are available to potentially minimize construction and operational risk as compared to conventional delivery formats. • Types of disposal and/or reuse The CCC has expressed a preference for minimizing ocean outfall disposal and maximizing beneficial reuse of effluent. Non-potable uses of effluent including urban and agricultural irrigation will be evaluated and quantified on a seasonal basis, as well as stream discharge and aquifer recharge. The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) has just released the latest version of its draft guidelines on indirect potable reuse (IPR)3 and the criteria needed to be included in the IPR evaluation. • Alternative Ownership/ operations Alternative delivery formats may include private ownership and/or operations as an alternative to MBCSD ownership/operations – if there is consensus that the advantages outweigh the risks, and that the costs of outside ownership and/or contracted operation are lower than outright ownership and operation by the MBCSD. • Level of reclamation Based on preliminary review of potential urban and agricultural reuse opportunities, California Title 22 disinfected tertiary effluent quality for unrestricted irrigation would be the baseline level of treatment. Beyond that, there may be additional treatment requirements for aquifer recharge and/or stream discharge in compliance with existing and pending criteria by CDPH. • Biosolids options Composting, landfilling, and hauling options will be developed. Biosolids reuse would depend significantly on site constraints and neighboring land uses. This will be one of the criteria in treatment plant site preliminary evaluation and fine screening. 3 See Attachment A. Ripley Pacific Company LLP Page 2 of 12 ATTACHMENT 4 MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility April 15, 2013 • Siting Criteria Based on site analysis already completed, and consideration of any new sites, a matrix analysis will quantify scoring criteria that has community consensus. Proximity to reuse sites will likely be a highly weighted factor in this analysis in comparison to previous site analyses. • Scheduling The scope of work presented herein is estimated to take approximately 12 months, however this schedule is dependent on many factors. The RPC team understands that an expedited schedule is the goal of MBCSD, the community at large, the CCC and the Central Coast RWQCB. It is also recognized that the existing Morro Bay sewer plant has nearly reached the end of its useful life, and that time is of the essence is execution of the plan developed in this planning effort. An additional overriding goal of this project will be the incorporation of a meaningful water reclamation and recycling component as a means of conserving local groundwater and/or imported state water to the greatest extent feasible. Reclaimed water is an important new source of water that otherwise would be discharged to the ocean. The recycling component will undoubtedly become a reliable dry year (drought) water supply – an important factor in Morro Bay urban water management planning in the coming decades. Understanding the Problem Consistent with the goals and objectives above, the scope of work presented by the Ripley Pacific team opens an opportunity to begin again, and to plan with a clean slate. This provides for a unique chance to plan a wastewater management system that best responds to community preferences, considers the best and most appropriate available technologies, and provides for sustainability and environmental protection. This is a primary goal for the team and translates into the following specific objectives for the project: • Zero discharge of wastewater / 100% beneficial reuse, • minimizing energy use, • minimizing carbon emissions, • ensuring that effluent quality is not degraded in the wastewater collection system due to controllable factors, and • Utilizing biosolids for improvement of agricultural soil texture and fertility. Accomplishment of these objectives begins with a planning process that is cognizant of integrated water resources planning principles. The Ripley Pacific team is not locked into traditional view in which disposal is viewed as the primary objective and reuse a remote possibility unless other ancillary conditions happened to be ideally situated. Neither does the team view this planning process as a prelude to a large design project, leading to an even larger construction management assignment. The philosophy of the team is that the planning phase of the project should stand on its own and only be Ripley Pacific Company LLP Page 3 of 12 ATTACHMENT 4 MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility April 15, 2013 concerned with the long-term sustainability of the wastewater management systems without regard to any specific technology, process or other pre-conceived alternative, or subsequent design contracts. From a broader perspective, this project will be adding a critical component to the Morro Bay urban water management plan (UWMP). Beneficially used recycled water will be a new water supply component within the UWMP—a resource that historically has been lost to the ocean. Whether recycled water is used for turf and landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation, aquifer recharge, and/or in-lieu recharge – any of these strategies could potentially offset existing or new water demands currently supplied by local groundwater or imported state water. Once the recycled water plan is finalized and implemented, the Morro Bay UWMP will clearly become more robust and resilient in the face of any future water supply shortages. Scope of Services The Ripley Pacific team’s scope of services is summarized in this section. Thirteen specific tasks are summarized in the following table. Task Title Description Task #1 Understand existing infrastructure condition Become familiar with existing water supply, wastewater collection, wastewater treatment, and effluent ocean discharge situation with site visits and review of existing facility plans and reports. Review wastewater flow variability as related to season and precipitation. This will provide foundational information for the team to quantify volumes, capacities and current infrastructure condition. Task #2 Understand existing aquifer condition Review available hydrogeologic analyses and reports on aquifer conditions, groundwater quality issues, and recharge potential in light of the draft CDPH IPR criteria leading to a preliminary assessment of agricultural exchange potential for direct and/or in-lieu recharge. Task #3 Quantify urban/agricultural water reuse and groundwater recharge potential Determine extent of water reuse study area. Review prior reports, confirm locations, areas, soil conditions and crop type. Determine monthly water demands based on compiled data. Determine seasonal effluent storage requirements if winter flows cannot be used for groundwater recharge or other beneficial uses. Task #4 Develop conceptual monthly water balance scenarios Prepare 3 to 5 scenarios based on wastewater flow data and assumed water reuse options ranging from 100% ocean discharge to 100% reuse (zero discharge). Evaluate winter storage and/or partial reliance on outfall pipeline during extreme precipitation events . Ripley Pacific Company LLP Page 4 of 12 ATTACHMENT 4 MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility April 15, 2013 Task Title Description Task #5 Develop treatment plant siting criteria and compare sites– rough and fine screening Review all prior plant site assessment reports and screening efforts. Consider and visit potential new sites as directed (including Williams Bros. site and CMC site). Assess infrastructure requirements for each alternative site and relative costs for pipeline extensions—both for raw wastewater and final effluent/recycled water. Task #6 Evaluate treatment technologies Consider alternative treatment technologies based on possibilities and constraints of top three sites; consider comparative capital costs, O&M costs, sludge production, etc, including capital/ operational costs related to proximity to water reuse sites and added treatment costs for advance use such as IPR and/or stream discharge. Task #7 Evaluate gravity collection/transmission to treatment site Review NPDES discharge reports and any other data sources to determine extent of inflow/infiltration (I/I) on wastewater flows and peaking factors. Determine if shallow saline groundwater impacts influent salt levels. Determine if exfiltration is an issue by reviewing nitrogen and chloride levels in shallow groundwater, if available. Determine potential use of existing ocean outfall for extreme precipitation event discharges on a permanent basis. Task #8 Estimate preliminary seasonal storage capacity and explore siting possibilities Quantify seasonal storage requirements assuming zero discharge and zero IPR as maximum capacity required. Consider phasing options to construct storage capacity in increments over the planning horizon. Task #9 Analyze recharge capacity and potential siting of recharge wells, basins, or vadose-zone recharge Investigate hydrogeologic conditions for potential recharge of effluent, particularly in winter months to reduce or eliminate seasonal storage capacity requirements. Determine compliance issues with current draft CDPH IPR regulations. Task #10 Prepare summary of estimated costs – conveyance, land purchase, treatment, effluent storage, IPR, effluent reuse Develop clear, concise cost matrix to determine relative cost/value of each option considered for conveyance, treatment, effluent storage, effluent reuse and land acquisition. Task #11 Conceptual Planning Report – Draft #1 Summarize findings above in report form. Task #12 Community outreach – Phase 1 Meet with City and District staff, community leaders, agricultural community, town hall meetings. Task #13 Conceptual Planning Report – Draft #2 Revise Draft #1 to incorporate changes developed through consensus in Task #12. Task #14 Project Management Ongoing communication and coordination with City/MBCSD staff, community, and project team. Ripley Pacific Company LLP Page 5 of 12 ATTACHMENT 4 MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility April 15, 2013 The Project Team The Ripley Pacific Company planning team offers the City of Morro Bay the depth and breadth of qualification and experience especially suited for project planning services for the City’s new water reclamation facility. The RPC team is composed of: • Ripley Pacific Company LLP, Dana Ripley • Bahman Sheikh, Water Reuse Consultant • Kenneth D. Schmidt and Associates, Ken Schmidt • Irrigation & Turfgrass Services, Mike Huck Resumes of key team personnel above are presented Appendix B. Dana Ripley Project Manager, Treatment Options, Site Assessment, Community Liaison Mike Huck Irrigation Specialist, Grower Liaison Ken Schmidt Hydrogeologist, Groundwater Recharge Technical Staff Data Management Graphics Production Bahman Sheikh Deputy Project Manager, Water Reuse Specialist Ripley Pacific Company LLP Page 6 of 12 ATTACHMENT 4 MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility April 15, 2013 Team Qualifications Each member of the team brings an essential specialty service to the Morro Bay project, as graphically represented above, and as further described below. Ripley Pacific Company LLP RPC provides niche client services to small communities and development projects needing to manage wastewater and water supply for their current and projected growth. Over the past several decades, RPC has perfected the integrated water management concept for small communities. By conserving, treating, and reusing the wastewater resource and the nutrients inherent in wastewater, clients are able to solve two environmental problems simultaneously: disposal of wastewater effluent to the receiving waters and extraction of water from nature for non-potable uses. Examples of these project reports are included in Attachment B. Mr. Ripley is an experienced and highly capable project manager. He will assign work elements to team members with clearly defined scopes of work, schedules, and budgets. He will be the direct client contact and will make available each team member as appropriate, for meetings and site visits. Dana Ripley has been active in the wastewater industry for 30 years and has been an independent consultant on the development of sustainable water and wastewater infrastructure for over 20 years. Mr. Ripley has been an observer of the wastewater issues in Los Osos since 1988 when he was retained to acquire a waste discharge requirement (WDR) permit from the Central Coast RWQCB for the Monarch Grove development. In 2006 Mr. Ripley assembled the same project team as the one proposed herein for Morro Bay, to develop a wastewater plan update for Los Osos based on a review of deficiencies in plans prepared by previously retained consultants. The Ripley Team’s plan was presented to the community and accepted by the LOCSD Board as well as fully validated by the National Water Research Institute in November 2006. While subsequent consultants did not include some of the specific elements of the Ripley Team’s plan, it nevertheless served as a starting point for development of the “final” plan, now under construction. The RPC team’s plan differed substantially from prior and the current Los Osos plans prepared by consultants retained by the County and the CSD over the last 23 years. On the technical matters of water conservation, environmental footprint, nutrient management, and sustainability, the alternative plan proposed by the Ripley Team was superior to the wastewater system currently under construction by the County. Half of the water recycling and reuse concepts proposed in the Ripley Team plan have since been adopted by the County in their plan, as it is being implemented now. On the sensitive issue of location, the Ripley Team Plan proposed to relocate treatment and storage facilities east of the community in an agricultural area and not in a central urbanized location. Bahman Sheikh Water Reuse Consultant Dr. Sheikh will serve as the project assistant manager supporting Mr. Ripley in technical decision-making as well as serving as the community outreach coordinator. Dr. Sheikh’s abbreviated resume is presented in Appendix C and a full version resume is presented in Attachment C. Ripley Pacific Company LLP Page 7 of 12 ATTACHMENT 4 MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility April 15, 2013 Bahman Sheikh’s 35 years of professional experience is dedicated to water recycling—reclamation of important, vital resources inherent in the community’s wastewater. He is globally recognized as a water reuse expert, serving clients in various parts of California and internationally providing consultant services to 21 countries. His most relevant experience for Morro Bay is his contribution to the Los Osos Wastewater Management Plan Update of 2006 as a member of the RPC team. Prior to that, he was involved in the development of the water recycling project in Monterey County that culminated in irrigation of 12,000 acres of vegetables with tertiary-treated recycled water from the Monterey regional treatment plant. Dr. Sheikh is currently involved in a planning effort for the City of San Francisco’s Eastside Water Recycling Project—a six-year effort involving needs assessment, markets for use of recycled water, alternatives evaluation, treatment site assessment, treatment options, conveyance routes and systems, and preliminary design. Another current project involves facilitation among the project proponent and the RWQCB staff to establish the potential for success of a proposed zero-discharge development in a sensitive coastal zone with a strict prohibition on all new discharge permits. Kenneth D. Schmidt and Associates Ken Schmidt, Ph.D., R.G. has nearly 40 years’ experience in hydrogeologic evaluations primarily in central California. His firm has been involved in the development of over a thousand large capacity municipal and agricultural supply wells and has been involved in groundwater monitoring at over 70 wastewater sites. Dr. Schmidt’s prior client list includes Cambria CSD and the City of San Luis Obispo. Dr. Schmidt and Mr. Ripley have been collaborators on numerous projects in the Central Valley over the last 25 years. The Schmidt/Ripley team has developed the water/sewer plans designed to serve large master-planned communities in Fresno, Madera, Stanislaus and Merced Counties and recently prepared a 4,000 acre-foot per year SB 610 water supply assessment for a project on the northern side of the San Joaquin River downstream of Friant Dam (See Attachment B4). Dr. Schmidt also was co-author of the Madera County Integrated Water Management Plan (See Attachment D) and he prepared the hydrogeologic evaluation of the Los Osos in-lieu recharge included as a part of the Ripley Plan in 2006. Irrigation & Turfgrass Services ITS’ Mike Huck has over 30-year experience in the turfgrass and landscape industry, is a former agronomist with the United States Golf Association, and is an expert on utilizing recycled water for irrigation. Mr. Huck and Mr. Ripley co-authored an on-site water recycling (OSR) feasibility report for a golf course in San Diego County. That study was funded by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California which seeks to expand the availability of recycled water to the golf industry. Mr. Huck frequently teams up with Dr. Sheikh in training recycled water site supervisors for various agencies in California. Mr. Huck will be responsible for evaluation of potential agricultural sites and communicating with landowners and/or farmers regarding the potential use of recycled water for irrigation. Other potential recycled water users to be investigated may include the Morro Bay Golf Course, athletic fields and other large irrigated landscape sites. A sample of golf industry articles written by Mr. Huck are presented in Attachment E. Ripley Pacific Company LLP Page 8 of 12 ATTACHMENT 4 MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility April 15, 2013 Project Management The RPC project management team consists of Dana Ripley as project manager and Bahman Sheikh as deputy project manager. Between them, Dana Ripley and Bahman Sheikh have over 50 years of project management experience, mostly involving planning studies, research, and evaluations of wastewater and water reclamation/recycling projects. Their project management experience includes projects both within the context of major consulting firms with which they have been affiliated, and as independent consultants in more recent years. Approach The RPC approach to project management will be tailored to the specific needs of the Morro Bay planning services for the new water reclamation facility. Therefore, the management team will endeavor to provide continuous control of work elements, efficient expenditure of resources, maintenance of schedule, and control of costs. This will require continuous communication with project team members and City staff as well as members of the public interested in monitoring project progress. Transparency and ready communication of work progress will be a hallmark of our approach throughout the performance period. Work Plan The RPC team’s work plan will follow closely the scope of work shown in this proposal. Each of the 14 tasks described under Scope of Services will terminate at a milestone, with a technical memorandum that will describe the findings and conclusions from that task. These milestone reports will ultimately form the bulk of the drafts of the conceptual planning report that will be the product of this project. If selected, the RPC team will generate a more detailed work plan based on the Scope of Services, and reflecting client requirements and public input. Project Coordination Coordination of the work with City staff will be an important duty of the project manager and his deputy so that at no time will there be a significant gap in communication among stakeholders and the project team. Preliminary drafts of work products and data will be shared with individuals from the City and other stakeholders to be designated at the initiation of the project. Progress and Quality Control Biweekly project progress conference calls will be set at regularly scheduled time slots (e.g., every second Tuesday of each month at 2:00 PM) to check in, report on progress of the work, list areas that need extra attention, and indicate any potential difficulties that may hamper further progress of the work. As necessary, additional conference calls and personal meetings will be held to discuss critical matters affecting work progress. Quality assurance and quality control will be the specific responsibility of Dr. Bahman Sheikh, who will review work progress, quality of the data, and readiness to present draft work products to the client. However, because the RPC team is composed of highly experienced professionals, every member of the team will double check and perform quality control on the work of other team members as work Ripley Pacific Company LLP Page 9 of 12 ATTACHMENT 4 MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility April 15, 2013 progresses. This interactive process will also ensure complete coordination, smooth transition, and prevention of duplication of effort among the team. Contingencies The RPC team will be prepared to change course and adapt if contingencies arise during the performance of the scope of services. This flexibility will be dependent on City staff having the up-to- date awareness of work progress on a continuous basis and being in tune with the project team’s status as contingencies arise. We believe that we have anticipated the project requirements, based on our knowledge of the community and the stated background in the RFP. Therefore, we anticipate that contingencies, if they occur, will be of a minor nature, and will be readily resolved with frank and immediate communication with the staff. Scope, Schedule and Budget The most important duty of the project manager is ensuring that the project scope is being implemented completely and competently. If work outside the scope is found to be necessary (e.g., sampling, laboratory analysis, field measurements, geotechnical explorations, etc.), the needed tasks will be brought to the attention of the City staff, with a cost estimate and schedule of performance, indicating any potential for the additional work to delay the basic schedule of the project. Tracking the budget and schedule are also key duties of the project management and will be accomplished by maintaining up-to-date records of work progress, resource expenditure, and level of completion of each task. These progress reports will be provided at the monthly coordination conference calls, and more frequently as requested. Prior Experience with Public and Public Agencies Members of the RPC team have extensive experience interacting with members of the public, their elected officials, and other stakeholders. For the Los Osos wastewater plan update, the same team proposed herein made several presentations to the public during different stages of project progress, responding to the public’s questions and developing a plan that reflected their vision for their community. While the RFP indicates two (2) presentations to the City council, we are prepared to be available for more occasions to interact with the Council and its committees if desired. We would also propose to hold “town-hall” style meetings for the general public to lay out the water recycling plans as they develop in their draft stage in order to maintain and enhance the level of confidence and trust among the public, which are essential to the ultimate success of the plan. Ripley Pacific Company LLP Page 10 of 12 ATTACHMENT 4 MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility April 15, 2013 Schedule The estimated time for completion of the fourteen tasks described above is summarized in the following graphic. If an expedited schedule is requested, this time requirement may be reduced by 1 to 4 months depending on ability to fast-track certain elements by MBCSD and the consultant team. Period of Performance, months from NTP Task Title 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 Understand infrastructure condition 2 Understand existing aquifer condition 3 Quantify water reuse potential 4 Develop conceptual water balance 5 Develop treatment plant siting 6 Evaluate treatment technologies 7 Evaluate gravity collection/transmission 8 Estimate preliminary seasonal storage 9 Analyze recharge capacity 10 Prepare summary of estimated costs 11 Conceptual Planning Report – Draft #1 12 Community outreach – Phase 1 13 Conceptual Planning Report – Draft #2 14 Project Management Ripley Pacific Company LLP Page 11 of 12 ATTACHMENT 4 MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility April 15, 2013 Preliminary Fee Estimate The preliminary estimate of fees for professional services related to the scope and schedule described above is anticipated to not exceed $600,000 including all expenses. This fee estimate is based on the professional hourly rate schedule presented in Appendix F and expected project duration of 12-13 months as indicated in the graphic above. Spreadsheet detail on professional man-hour estimates for each task by each key personnel is available on request. Not included in this fee estimate are costs for any geotechnical explorations that may be necessary for evaluation of effluent storage and/or recharge site suitability. Ripley Pacific Company LLP Page 12 of 12 ATTACHMENT 4 MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility April 15, 2013 Appendix A LOWWP Recycled Water Irrigation Phasing Plan Ripley Pacific Company LLP Appendix A ATTACHMENT 4 LO S O S O S P R E L I M I N A R Y R E C Y C L E D W A T E R I R R I G A T I O N P H A S I N G M i d - V a l l e y E n g i n e e r i n g • L a n d P l a n n i n g • E n t i t l e m e n t s • E n g i n e e r i n g • S u r v e y i n g • C o n s t r u c t i o n S t a k i n g • 1 1 1 7 “ L ” S t r e e t , M o d e s t o , C A 9 5 3 5 4 • 1 0 1 0 0 T r i n i t y P a r k w a y , S u i t e 4 4 0 , S t o c k t o n , C A 9 5 2 1 9 • 8 6 6 . 5 2 6 . 4 2 1 4 • w w w . m v e . n e t 06057_Recycled_ Irrigation_Water_ Phasing 072406_RDT LO S O S O S C O M M U N I T Y S E R V I C E S D I S T R I C T LO S O S O S , C A SCALE NTSLEGENDGroundwater Basin Boundary (Source: Cleath, 11/03 Report)Proposed STEP Collection Backbone Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant PR O P O S E D WA S T E W A T E R T R E A T M E N T P L A N T GR O U N D W A T E R BA S I N B O U N D A R Y PR O P O S E D S T E P CO L L E C T I O N B A C K B O N E Re c y c l e d I r r i g a t i o n W a t e r P h a s i n g Ph a s e & P a r c e l A c r e a g e Ph a s e A P N O W N E R P R O P E R T Y A D D R E S S C I T Y / C O U N T Y A B C D N O T E S A 0 6 7 - 0 1 1 - 0 0 4 E T O A L A N T 1 7 R o w C r o p A 0 6 7 - 0 1 1 - 0 1 9 B R A N I N B A R R Y F (PO B o x 5 4 0 M B C A ) T U R R I R D S A N L U I S O B I S P O 5 7 Ro w C r o p A 0 6 7 - 0 1 1 - 0 2 0 B R A N I N B A R R Y F (PO B o x 5 4 0 M B C A ) T U R R I R D S A N L U I S O B I S P O 4 2 Ro w C r o p A 0 6 7 - 0 1 1 - 0 2 1 G I A C O M A Z Z I J O H N L O S O S O S V A L L E Y R D 58 Ro w C r o p A 0 6 7 - 0 1 1 - 0 3 5 E T O A L A N T E T O L N 10 8 Ro w C r o p A 0 6 7 - 0 1 1 - 0 4 9 L E E W I L L I A M J T U R R I R D S A N L U I S O B I S P O 4 0 Ro w C r o p B 0 6 7 - 1 7 1 - 0 1 1 K A N D A R I A N L A R R Y L O S OS O S V A L L E Y R D L O S O S O S 30 Ro w C r o p B 0 6 7 - 1 7 1 - 0 3 8 K A N D A R I A N L A R R Y 3 2 5 5 L O S O S O S V A L L E Y R D L O S O S O S 64 Ro w C r o p B 0 6 7 - 1 7 1 - 0 3 9 S I L V A O L Y M P I A L 3 8 6 5 L O S O S O S V A L L E Y R D L O S O S O S 40 Ro w C r o p B 0 6 7 - 1 7 1 - 0 4 3 P A U L S O N E L L I O T T E 2 3 3 5 J A C A R A N D A L N L O S O S O S 5 Nu r s e r y B 0 6 7 - 1 7 1 - 0 8 4 F U N D A M E N T A L E V A N G E L I S T I C A S SN C L A R K V A L L E Y R D L O S O S O S 17 Ro w C r o p B 0 6 7 - 1 7 1 - 0 8 5 C L A R K V A L L E Y F A R M I N C A C A CO R P 2 3 1 0 C L A R K V A L L E Y R D L O S 16 Ro w C r o p B 0 7 4 - 2 2 2 - 0 1 4 L O S O S O S M O R T U A R Y & M E M P A R K I N C 2 2 6 0 L O S O S O S V A L L E Y R D L O S O S 50 Tu r f & L a n d s c a p e B 0 7 4 - 2 2 5 - 0 0 8 B A U M A N S U S Y S (5 8 1 0 B r o o k l i n e L a n e ) S L O 34 Ro w C r o p B 0 7 4 - 2 2 5 - 0 1 9 G O O D W I N L E S L I E S 2 1 3 1 B L U E H E R O N V I E W L N L O S O S O S 15 Ro w C r o p B 0 7 4 - 2 2 5 - 0 2 0 K O S T I K W I L L I A M D 2 1 3 0 B L U E H E R O N V I E W L N L O S O S O S 10 Tu r f & L a n d s c a p e B 0 7 4 - 2 2 5 - 0 2 1 M A Y E A R L T 2 1 8 1 B L U E H E R O N V I E W L N L O S O S O S 3 Nu r s e r y B 0 7 4 - 2 2 5 - 0 2 2 P A P A Z I A N R O B E R T B L U E H E R O N V I E W L N L O S O S O S 16 Tu r f & L a n d s c a p e B 0 7 4 - 2 2 5 - 0 3 9 E T O A L A N T L O S O S O S V A L L E Y R D L O S O S O S 35 Ro w C r o p C N A Lo s O s o s M i d d l e S c h o o l In T o w n L O S O S O S 9.1 T u r f & L a n d s c a p e C N A Su n n y s i d e E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l In T o w n L O S O S O S 4 T u r f & L a n d s c a p e C N A Mo n a r c h G r o v e E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l In T o w n L O S O S O S 2.8 T u r f & L a n d s c a p e C N A Ba y w o o d E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l In T o w n L O S O S O S 2.2 T u r f & L a n d s c a p e C N A Co m m u n i t y P a r k In T o w n L O S O S O S 1.4 T u r f & L a n d s c a p e C N A Tr i W S i t e * * In T o w n L O S O S O S 12 T u r f & L a n d s c a p e C N A LO V a l l e y N u r s e r y * * * In T o w n L O S O S O S 0.1 T u r f & L a n d s c a p e C N A Sh e l t e r e d A c r e N u r s e r y In T o w n L O S O S O S Tu r f & L a n d s c a p e C N A Se a P i n e s R e s o r t G o l f C o u r s e * * * * In T o w n L O S O S O S 20 T u r f & L a n d s c a p e C N A Se a P i n e s D r i v i n g R a n g e * * * * In T o w n L O S O S O S 9 T u r f & L a n d s c a p e C 0 6 7 - 0 1 1 - 0 5 0 G L I K B A R G M I C H A E L M 1 6 1 4 S A G E A V E L O S O S O S 2 N u r s e r y C 0 6 7 - 0 1 1 - 0 5 1 G L I K B A R G M I C H A E L M 1 6 1 4 S A G E A V E L O S O S O S 3 N u r s e r y D 0 6 7 - 0 3 1 - 0 0 1 T O N I N I J O H N C 35 1 7 T U R R I R D SA N L U I S O B I S P O 14 5 R o w C r o p - O f f B a s i n . D 0 6 7 - 0 3 1 - 0 2 1 A L F O R D 1 9 9 9 3 7 1 0 T U R R I R D SA N L U I S O B I S P O 17 5 R o w C r o p - O f f B a s i n D 0 6 7 - 0 3 1 - 0 2 2 G I A C O M A Z Z I J O H N L O S O S O S R D SA N L U I S O B I S P O 15 0 R o w C r o p - O f f B a s i n D 0 6 7 - 0 3 1 - 0 3 2 D E L G A D O H O L L I E 5 6 6 6 L O S O S O S V A L L E Y R D S A N L U I S O B I S P O 40 R o w C r o p - O f f B a s i n D 0 6 7 - 0 4 1 - 0 0 3 A L F O R D 1 9 9 9 3 7 6 5 T U R R I R D S A N L U I S O B I S P O 11 5 R o w C r o p - O f f B a s i n TO T A L S To t a l A c r e a g e 32 2 3 3 5 6 6 6 2 5 Es t i m a t e d 7 4 7 7 7 7 1 5 2 1 4 5 0 Co o l o r W e t S e a s o n An n u a l A c r e F e e t 8 7 6 9 1 1 1 7 8 1 7 0 0 Av e r a ge S e a s o n By P h a s e 1 1 0 8 1 1 5 2 2 2 6 2 1 5 0 Ho t o r D r y S e a s o n MB C S D N e w W a t e r R e c l a m a t i o n F a c i l i t y Pl a n n i n g S e r v i c e s P r o p o s a l Appendix A-1ATTACHMENT 4 MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility April 15, 2013 Appendix B Subconsultant Listing Ripley Pacific Company LLP Appendix B ATTACHMENT 4 LIST OF SUBCONSULTANTS Subconsultant #1 Company Name Bahman Sheikh Water Reuse Consulting Contact Individual Bahman Sheikh, PhD, PE Telephone & Fax Numbers (415) 695-1178 FAX: (415) 648-3765 Street Address 3524 22nd Street City, State, Zip San Francisco, CA 94114 Description of Services to Provide Water recycling expertise, facilitation, community outreach and meeting with agricultural community. Subconsultant #2 Company Name Kenneth D. Schmidt & Associates Contact Individual Ken Schmidt Telephone & Fax Numbers Tel: 559-224-4412 Street Address 600 West Shaw Avenue, Suite 250 City, State, Zip Fresno, CA 93704 Description of Services to Provide Hydrogeologic evaluations and recommendations for recharge and well production. MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility Planning Services Proposal Appendix B-1 ATTACHMENT 4 Subconsultant #3 Company Name Irrigation & Turfgrass Services Contact Individual Michael T. Huck Telephone & Fax Numbers Tel: 949-373-5097 Fax: 949-661-4157 Street Address 27543 Paseo Tamara City, State, Zip San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675-5309 Description of Services to Provide Survey of potential recycled water users though individual “one on one” meetings. Provide assessment of owners, leasehold growers and/or site manager’s interest and concerns regarding recycled irrigation water. Explore annual / perennial crops grown to determine general water quality, peak water demand, flow rate, and delivery pressure requirements. Assess each site’s degree of difficulty related to pipeline construction due to specific soil conditions, terrain, and/or general accessibility. Other Subconsultants Other consultants not listed above may be retained on an as-needed basis for specific tasks. MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility Planning Services Proposal Appendix B-2 ATTACHMENT 4 MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility April 15, 2013 Appendix C Ripley Pacific and Subconsultant Reference Contact Information Ripley Pacific Company LLP Appendix C ATTACHMENT 4 Reference No. 1 Clients Name Los Osos Community Services District Contact Individual #1 Chuck Cesena, former Director and President Telephone and email 805-801-8183, clcesena@charter.net Contact Individual #2 Julie Tacker, former Director Telephone and email 805-528-3569, julietacker@charter.net Contact Individual #3 Sarah Christie, former Chair, San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission Telephone and email 916-445-6067, Sarah.Christie@coastal.ca.gov Description of services provided including contract amount when provided and project outcome. Ripley Pacific contracted in 2006 to update wastewater plan for Los Osos with special emphasis on relocation of the treatment plant from a central location and develop an urban/agricultural effluent reuse plan. The final report (See Attachment B1) was accepted by the LOCSD and validated by NWRI. However, once San Luis Obispo County assumed project control in 2007, the Ripley Plan was rejected in its entirety. The SLO County Planning Commission later reinserted approximately 50% of the 2006 Ripley Plan including the plant relocation and urban/ag reuse portions. The major element that was not reinserted was the pressure collection system, and instead SLO County chose to construct a conventional gravity sewer collection system even though Los Osos is situated on a sand dune with widespread shallow groundwater with high liquefaction potential in a seismic event. Had SLO County elected to proceed with pressure collection in 2007, the cost savings to Los Osos ratepayers (relative to the current project under construction) is anticipated to exceed $100 million. This anticipated cost difference is due largely to inherent difficulties of gravity sewer open trench construction (in loose sandy soils with shallow groundwater) relative to horizontal directional drilling (HDD) that would have been utilized for the pressure collection system. In addition, road damage/restoration and disruption to Chumash burial sites would have been minimized with directional drilling relative to disturbances currently underway with open trench construction. Contract value: $400,000. MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility Planning Services Proposal Appendix C-1 ATTACHMENT 4 Reference No. 2 Clients Name Pastiempo Golf Course/City of Scotts Valley Contact Individual Scott Hamby, City of Scotts Valley Wastewater & Environmental Program Manager Telephone and Email 831-438-0732, shamby@scottsvalley.org Street Address 700 Lundy Lane City, State, Zip Code Scotts Valley, CA 95066 Description of services provided including contract amount when provided and project outcome. Ripley Pacific was contracted to assess water supply options for this historic golf course completed in 1929. Existing supply is entirely from the City of Santa Cruz potable system. The golf course is situated near the City of Scotts Valley ocean outfall pipeline which conveys secondary effluent to a joint outfall shared with the City of Santa Cruz. A plan was developed that required approval by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to upgrade the 7-mile pipeline for conveyance of disinfected tertiary recycled water. An Engineering Report was prepared, and recommendations were accepted by CDPH in November 2012 (See Attachment B2). The RPC team worked closely with the City of Scotts Valley wastewater staff to develop a protocol for disinfecting the pipeline to meet CDPH requirements. This project will save the City of Santa Cruz approximately 45 million gallons per year of potable water and decrease the ocean discharge of an equal amount by the City of Scotts Valley. Dual use of the Scotts Valley outfall had been previously rejected by an earlier consultant in favor of on-site tertiary treatment of secondary effluent scalped from the same outfall at a cost of about $7 million. RPC's dual use concept and ability to obtain CDPH approval for the outfall dual use concept has saved the client approximately $4 million. Contract value: $200,000 MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility Planning Services Proposal Appendix C-2 ATTACHMENT 4 Reference No. 3 Clients Name Southern California Golf Association Contact Individual Kevin Heaney, Executive Director Telephone and Email 818-432-4173, kheaney@scga.org Street Address 3740 Cahuenga Blvd City, State, Zip Code Studio City, CA 91604 Description of services provided including contract amount when provided and project outcome. Ripley Pacific was awarded this contract by competitive bidding of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s Innovative Supply Program. The Southern California Golf Association was the applicant, and Ripley Pacific was the contracted consultant. The final report (see Attachment B3) was accepted by MWDSC and is recognized by the SCGA as a template for golf courses seeking alternative water supplies that are too distant from existing water recycling pipelines and/or treatment plants. The City of Coronado is located on an island in San Diego Bay where the sewer collection pipes are often under influence of saline shallow groundwater, which can negatively impact recycled water quality for turf irrigation. Special attention to the location and timing of scalping operations would be required to avoid unacceptably high salt levels in the on-site water reclamation facility. Contract value: $50,000 Ripley Pacific Company: Time Period Under Same Name Time period company engaged continuously in providing wastewater, water recycling, and water resource consulting services under business name of Ripley Pacific Company: 19 years. Time period company engaged continuously in providing wastewater, water recycling, and water resource consulting services under business name of Ripley Pacific Company LLP: 1 year. MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility Planning Services Proposal Appendix C-3 ATTACHMENT 4 Reference: Bahman Sheikh Water Reuse Consulting Clients Name Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency Contact Individual Mr. Bob Holden Telephone and Fax Number (831) 645-4634 Street Address 5 Harris Court City, State, Zip Code Monterey, CA 93940-5756 Description of services provided including contract amount when provided and project outcome. Over 30 years of consulting services ranging from pilot research on safety of water recycling to regulatory liaison to increase filter loading rates, and presently assisting the agency in developing a groundwater recharge project for indirect potable reuse of recycled water. Reference: Kenneth D. Schmidt and Associates Clients Name City of Bakersfield Contact Individual Art Chianello Telephone and Fax Number 661 326-3005 661 852-2127 Street Address 1000 Buena Vista Avenue City, State, Zip Code Bakersfield, CA 93311 Description of services provided including contract amount when provided and project outcome. Hydrogeologic services: Evaluated effluent percolation and irrigation at WWTF No. 2 and 3, oversaw new monitor well installation & worked with WDR permit issues. MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility Planning Services Proposal Appendix C-4 ATTACHMENT 4 References: Irrigation and Turfgrass Services Reference No. 1 Clients Name Lake Arrowhead Country Club Contact Individual Michael Stevens General Manager Telephone and Fax Number Tel: 909- 337-2441 ext. 102 Fax: 909-337-9286 Street Address 250 Golf Course Road City, State, Zip Code Lake Arrowhead, CA 92352 Description of services provided including contract amount when provided and project outcome. Recycled water retrofit project manager 2008 – 2010. Developed RFP’s for design and construction bids for irrigation system modifications, pump station replacement, golf architectural changes, and lake designs for LACC’s retrofit to recycled irrigation water. Coordinated design team’s inspections of contractors work, monitored budgets, construction schedules and planting dates, etc. Drafted recycled water user’s manual to comply with site specific requirements of the Lahontan RWQB discharge permit. Original contract of $124,000 to manage design through construction was extended on an “as needed” hourly basis when runoff undermined the lake shoreline and required repairs. MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility Planning Services Proposal Appendix C-5 ATTACHMENT 4 Reference No. 2 Clients Name Coachella Valley Water District Contact Individual Olivia Bennett Non-potable Water Operations Manager Telephone and Fax Number Tel: 760-398-2662 ext. 3586 Fax: 760-391-9638 Street Address 75-525 Hovley Lane East City, State, Zip Code Palm Desert, CA 92260 Description of services provided including contract amount when provided and project outcome. Surveyed existing non-potable irrigation water (canal & recycled) golf course customers regarding operational & agronomic concerns. Provided a summary report of customer responses with recommendations for changes that could promote greater use of non-potable water. Attended meetings with future non-potable customers to address their concerns. Project began in July 2008 with maximum contract amount of $160/Hr for 1000 hours divided over two fiscal years. Work completed though 2010 totaled $24,240. The non-potable project was placed “on hold” as the economy slowed. Contract was extended to an “on call” basis in 2011 for customer meetings that arise as the economy improves. Reference No. 3 Clients Name San Diego County Water Authority Contact Individual Maria Mariscal Water Recycling Program Manager Telephone and Fax Number Tel: 858-522-6746 Fax: 858-268-7881 Street Address 4677 Overland Avenue City, State, Zip Code San Diego, CA 92123 Description of services provided including contract amount when provided and project outcome. Instructor for recycled water site supervisor training classes. Discussed water recycling treatment processes, backflow prevention devices, operating procedures, local rules, regulations, codes and other regulatory requirements. Classes were scheduled quarterly by the SDCWA. The contract was based on a flat rate fee per class instructed. MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility Planning Services Proposal Appendix C-6 ATTACHMENT 4 MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility April 15, 2013 Appendix D Resumes of Key Personnel Ripley Pacific Company LLP Appendix D ATTACHMENT 4 RESUME: DANA K. RIPLEY, P.E. PRINCIPAL, RIPLEY PACIFIC COMPANY LLP Dana Ripley has over thirty years of experience in the water resource and water reuse fields. He has been responsible for feasibility analysis of water supply, water reuse and wastewater infrastructure alternatives, conceptual planning and design, state and local regulations, and implementation of water supply and water reuse projects located in the western United States. Mr. Ripley has completed water reuse assignments from public sector and private development clients to develop solutions for wastewater collection, treatment and reuse as well as potable water supply. His expertise is in assessment of client short-term and long-term needs, evaluation of effluent disposal and beneficial effluent reuse options, and formulation of wastewater and water recycling management concept plans optimized to clients’ needs and acceptable to regulating public agencies. Mr. Ripley has been owner and principal of the firm of Ripley Pacific Company, LLP since its inception in 1991. Ripley Pacific specializes in the planning, feasibility evaluation, regulatory approvals, and design of water reuse infrastructure in California. REGISTRATION California Professional Civil Engineer, #C-59192 DEGREES M.B.A., University of Santa Clara, 1986 B.S. Biology, University of California at Davis, 1976 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS California Water Environment Association California WateReuse Association PUBLISHED WATER REUSE SCHEMATIC Figure 13-15, Schematic flow diagram of comprehensive water reclamation and reuse plan incorporating STEP systems for low-, medium-, and high density developments. Included in Tchobanoglous, G. et al., Water Reuse, Issues, Technologies, and Applications, McGraw Hill, 2007. REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS Current Project: Tesoro Viejo, Madera County, CA A 1.2 million gallon per day (mgd) water reclamation system is being planned to serve this master planned community on the northern side of the San Joaquin River. The anticipated service population will be approximately 15,000 and will include 3 million square feet of commercial, retail, and light industrial space. A water recycling system is proposed to reuse tertiary treated effluent for irrigation of all public and private landscaping, sports turf, and for all toilet flushing in the project. A water supply assessment was recently submitted and approved by Madera County that includes recycled water as an integral component of the project’s water supply portfolio. Other water supply sources include on-site groundwater and San Joaquin River surface water. Surface water will be used conjunctively with groundwater to assure water neutrality and ensure that groundwater resources are not depleted. MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility Planning Services Proposal Appendix D-1 ATTACHMENT 4 Current Project: Pasatiempo Golf Course Switch to Recycled Water, Santa Cruz County, CA A water supply assessment is in preparation to provide drought contingency planning for this historic Alister MacKenzie golf course (built in the late 1920’s). Existing water supply is from City of Santa Cruz, which has alerted the course of a potential 80% supply cutback in the event of drought. A contingency water supply plan including city water, groundwater, and recycled water is in preparation to provide 100% assurance that the golf course will have sufficient irrigation water during drought periods. The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) has recently issued an approval of the “dual use” of the Scotts Valley ocean outfall pipeline to supply tertiary effluent to the golf course during the irrigation season. The 7-mile ocean outfall pipeline will be upgraded seasonally to convey tertiary recycled water during the irrigation season which will off-load approximately 45 million gallons per year from the City of Santa Cruz potable system. Santa Cruz is facing future water shortages based on numerous factors including state and federal mandated habitat conservation plans for restoring salmonid species in local creeks and river. Prior Project: Los Osos Community Services District, San Luis Obispo County, CA A 1.2 mgd wastewater collection and reuse system was planned to serve an existing resident population of approximately 18,000. This highly controversial project has been in various planning stages for over 20 years, and the Ripley Pacific team prepared an integrated wastewater plan that incorporated pressure septic effluent collection, tertiary treatment, seasonal effluent storage, and 100% beneficial reuse for landscape and leafy green agricultural irrigation. The wastewater plan is considered a vital element in the community’s water resources plan that is based on a limited groundwater basin and suffers from seawater intrusion caused by historical over-pumping of the aquifer. The “Ripley Plan Update” was validated by the National Water Research Institute in November 2006. Prior Project: OSR at the Coronado Municipal Golf Course, San Diego County, CA A 0.4 mgd “scalping” on-site water recycling (OSR) facility has been planned to provide a supplemental water supply for irrigation of a municipal golf course and parks on this island city. A grant application was drafted for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Innovative Supply Program on behalf of the Southern California Golf Association to develop a template for on- site water recycling at golf course locations in Southern California. The initially selected site for feasibility evaluation was the Coronado Municipal Golf Course located in San Diego County, California. The project report was reviewed and accepted by the City of Coronado and MWDSC in June 2005, and project implementation is under consideration by city staff. Prior Project: Monarch Grove at Sea Pines Golf Course, San Luis Obispo County, CA A 0.03 mgd water reclamation facility was planned to serve a new residential development in the unincorporated community of Los Osos, just south of Morro Bay. This zero-discharge system reclaims imported wastewater for irrigation of an existing golf course. The Monarch Grove project receives water supply credit for displacing existing groundwater demand. An exemption to a 1988 moratorium was granted based on the proposed system's ability to mitigate California RWQCB’s concerns related to total nitrogen (N) accumulations in the local groundwater basin. A nitrogen budget was developed that calls for reduced fertilizer N application in an amount equal to the amount of nitrogen delivered in tertiary effluent. MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility Planning Services Proposal Appendix D-2 ATTACHMENT 4 3524 22nd Street, San Francisco, CA 94114 USA•1-415-695-1178•bahman.sheikh@g,mail.com Bahman Sheikh, PhD, PE Consulting Specialty and Vision—Water Recycling Provide professional services in water resources and water recycling to communities worldwide Professional Accomplishments Recent Water Recycling and Related Projects Malibu zero-discharge development with water reuse: Facilitation with RWQCB and developer San Jose and Santa Clara Valley Water Distrct: Facilitation for 40-year agreement on joint operation of advanced treatment of recycled water for water quality improvement San Francisco: Planning for recycled water projects in the eastside of the city Los Osos: Wastewater Management Plan Update—member of the Ripley Pacific team Marin Municipal Water District: Evaluation of alternative satellite water recycling options San Jose, Redwood City, Coachella Valley, San Diego: Training recycled water site supervisors Monterey County: food crops irrigation with recycled water, groundwater replenishment project Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District: community gardens irrigated with recycled water International Consulting, 21 Countries Served—Typical Examples: Jordan: Developed standards for water reuse, evaluated Aqaba’s water resources for the future, consulted on irrigation of crops with high-salinity, high-nitrogen recycled water USAID: Evaluated pilot wastewater treatment system for water reuse in Israel, Egypt and Palestine India: Evaluated feasibility of water reuse for irrigation and exchange of river water for potable use in Hyderabad, Nagpur. Developed water conservation and reuse plans for Jaipur, Pune, and Faridabad The World Bank: Provided expertise on water reuse at a workshop for Middle East and North Africa Egypt: Recommended revisions to standards and rules for use of reclaimed water for crops irrigation. Saudi Arabia: Developed master plan for water recycling in the capital city of Riyadh. Professional Contributions Authored National Training Manual for Site Supervisors and Users of Recycled Water Authored Chapters in Major Water Reuse Publications Used in University Classes Serves on Research Advisory Board of National Water Research Institute Served on Boards of Directors of WateReuse Association and Foundation Served as Chair of Public Outreach and Education Committee of WateReuse Association Water Conservation, Demand Management Prepared Rationale for City of Chula Vista for Mandating Water Conserving Features Built into new Home Residential Developments Compared Variety of Water Conservation, Reuse and Desalination Alternatives for Marin Municipal Water District Evaluated Water Conservation in Agriculture for Jaffna Penninsula, Sri Lanka Teaching, Training, Mentoring Delivered Lectures and Seminars at Several Graduate Programs (e.g., Hokaido University, UC, Davis, UCLA, Occidental College, University of Southern California, Pomona College) Trained over 1,000 Recycled Water Site Supervisors in San Jose, San Diego, Redwood City, Coachella Valley, Windsor, and in King County, Washington. Mentored Young Professionals in Advancing their Careers in Water-Related Fields MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility Planning Services Proposal Appendix D-3 ATTACHMENT 4 1-415-695-1178• • bahman.sheikh@g,mail.com Bahman Sheikh, PhD, PE Employment History 1996 to Date Independent Consultant Water Reuse Consultant, San Francisco, CA 1994-1996 Water Resources and Reuse Policy Specialist West Basin Municipal Water District, Carson, CA 1989-1995 Executive Director, Office of Water Reclamation City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 1987-1989 Department Manager, Civil Environmental Engineer CH2MHILL, Oakland, CA 1970-1987 Project Manager, Department Manager Engineering-Science*, Inc., Berkeley, CA *Engineering-Science was acquired/absorbed by Parsons Education 1967 PhD University of California, Davis, California 1964 MS University of California, Davis, California 1957 BSc American university of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon References References are available on request. Papers, Reports, Presentations Bahman Sheikh has over 80 publications, including peer-reviewed journal articles, conference papers published in proceedings of international conferences, and book chapters,. A complete list is available on request. See www.bahmansheikh.com Awards and Honors Resolution of Appreciation in recognition of 30+ years of service from Board of Directors, Monterey Regional Water Pollution control Agency, March 29, 2004. Outstanding Service Award, WateReuse Association, 2002 President’s Award of Appreciation, WateReuse Association, 2002 Appointed to the Board of Directors of WateReuse Research Foundation, 2001 to 12/2007 Appointed to the Research Advisory Board of National Water Research Institute, 1995. Recognized by City of Los Angeles City Council for “efforts and accomplishments,” 1994 Recognized by City of Los Angeles Board of Public Works for “vision & commitment,” 1994 Elected to Board of Directors, WateReuse Association, 1993, served until 2002. Integrated Resource Management Award, Water Policy Conference III, 1993 Outstanding Service Award, WateReuse Association of California1991 MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility Planning Services Proposal Appendix D-4 ATTACHMENT 4 RESUME: K ENNETH D SCHMIDT, PH.D PRINCIPAL, KENNETH D. SCHMIDT AND ASSOCIATES History and Specialized Services KDSA was established in Fresno, California in 1972 by Ken Schmidt as a specialized hydrogeologic consulting firm. The firm has been providing clients with expertise in effluent percolation from ponds and recycled water irrigation for the past several decades. Ken Schmidt, principal of the firm, has a B.S. in Geology from Fresno State College and M.S. and PhD. in Hydrology from the University of Arizona. Four registered geologists and California-certified hydrogeologists provide client services. The firm specializes in hydrogeologic evaluations for CEQA compliance, and for Regional Board WDR permits. KDSA has been heavily involved with monitoring the impacts of wastewater effluent management on groundwater quality. KDSA has conducted a number of exploratory programs and pilot recharge projects for groundwater basin recharge. KDSA professionals are experienced with coastal aquifers and saltwater intrusion issues. Relevant Exemplary Projects Cambria Community Services District (1980's to1990's} For two decades, Ken Schmidt was monitoring groundwater conditions in the San Simeon Creek area. He participated in the development of a new well field and an effluent management area, including several water rights hearings before the State Water Resources Control Board. He developed an extensive groundwater monitoring program to address potential sea water intrusion, effluent percolation, and potential impacts on other wells due to pumping. He instituted the program, reviewed monitoring results for more than a decade, and presented his findings at numerous town hall meetings. Tesoro Viejo, Madera County (2009 to 2012) KDSA completed detailed technical studies to develop groundwater and to construct suitable recharge sites for a large residential development. KDSA prepared a detailed technical report on hydrogeologic conditions at the site, which is located about 15 miles north of Fresno and along the margin of San Joaquin Valley. Ken Schmidt developed a pilot recharge site and determined the amount of water that could be recharged. A pilot production well project was also undertaken to determine the amount of groundwater that could be produced on a sustained basin. The detailed KDSA report was used as part of the CEQA MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility Planning Services Proposal Appendix D-5 ATTACHMENT 4 process to obtain project approval. KDSA conducted a comprehensive technical report, and worked with Ripley Pacific Company to thoroughly evaluate water budgets and recycled water reuse. City of Fresno (1970's to Present) KDSA prepared a detailed technical report on hydrogeologic condition for one of the largest effluent percolation projects in the western U.S. Ken Schmidt evaluated effluent infiltration rates and soil management practices, and helped develop several potable wells at the wastewater treatment facility (WWTF). KDSA routinely evaluates monitoring data from two deep zones in the groundwater and prepares water-level and groundwater quality maps. KDSA participated in studies of mounding and refractory trace organics in the groundwater beneath and downgradient of the WWTF ponds. City of Bakersfield (2000 to Present) KDSA developed a groundwater monitoring program for effluent percolation ponds at WWTF No. 2 ponds and irrigated areas at WWTF No. 3, and prepared technical reports on installation of monitor wells and groundwater monitoring, and evaluated the impacts of effluent percolation and irrigation on groundwater quality. KDSA has participated in several evaluations required by the Regional Board, and was involved with development and the initial monitoring of new monitoring wells at both facilities. Partial List of KDSA Projects Project Type Representative Clients Effluent Percolation* Cities of Fresno, Tulare, Delano, Madera, San Joaquin, McFarland, Kerman, Dinuba, Sanger, Porterville, Exeter, Reedley, Bakersfield, Terra Bella. Irrigation with Recycled Water Cities of Fresno, Porterville, Kerman, Bakersfield, Tulare, Modesto Coastal Aquifers Cambria CSD, Los Osos CSD, Santa Clara Valley, Watsonville, Huntington Beach, Camp Pendleton. * Effluent percolation is indistinguishable from groundwater recharge and ultimately results in potable reuse, indirectly through blending with other water sources contributing to the aquifer. MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility Planning Services Proposal Appendix D-6 ATTACHMENT 4 RESUME: MICHAEL T. HUCK PRINCIPAL, IRRIGATION AND TURFGRASS SERVICES Qualifications • Over 30 years experience in the golf course, landscape and turfgrass maintenance industry. • Conducted over 600 Turf Advisory Service consulting visits to golf courses in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, and Utah as the Southwest Region Agronomist for the United States Golf Association. Approximately 20% of those courses used recycled irrigation water. • Experience in all areas of turfgrass and landscape management, particularly irrigation scheduling, sprinkler uniformity evaluation & recycled water evaluation & management. • Irrigation Association Certified Golf Irrigation Auditor (#53943), California Qualified Applicator (#40528) & Licensed Pest Control Advisor (#06852) • Authored and co-authored multiple technical articles and book chapters on managing recycled and other alternative irrigation water sources. • Delivered approximately one hundred presentations and workshops at local, regional, national and international turfgrass and allied industry conferences, seminars & meetings. Experience 2001 to Present - Independent Consultant, Irrigation and Turfgrass Services. • Provide turfgrass, soils, and water quality consulting to golf and landscape sites. 1995 to 2001 – Consulting Agronomist, USGA Green Section, Southwest Region. • Conducted over 600 Turf Advisory Service visits and written follow-up reports. • Organized & participated in numerous regional and national turf industry conferences. 1994 to 1995 - Golf Course Superintendent, The SCGA Golf Course, Murrieta, CA. • Maintenance of all golf course and landscape areas irrigated with saline groundwater. • Developed a long range plan for remodeling of the Robert Trent Jones Sr. design. 1988 to 1994 - Golf Course Superintendent, Mission Viejo CC, Mission Viejo, CA. • Maintenance of private golf course and landscape areas irrigated recycled water. . • Supervised the design and installation of a complete irrigation system designed to accept recycled water. Sprinkler selections were made based upon laboratory results of equipment submitted to the Center for Irrigation Technology for testing. 1991 – Temporary Faculty, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA. • Developed course lectures, term project, and examinations for the Golf Course Management class due to faculty called to reserve duty during the Desert Storm conflict. 1980 to 1988 - Industry Hills & Sheraton Resort, City of Industry, CA. • 1983 – 1988 - Director of Grounds and Golf Courses, Responsible for all management of the Grounds Maintenance Department for the 650 Acre Resort that includes two championship golf courses built over a sanitary landfill and irrigated with recycled water. Education - Bachelor of Science Degree, Ornamental Horticulture, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, California (1982). MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility Planning Services Proposal Appendix D-7 ATTACHMENT 4 Professional Organizations & Committees LADWP Golf Industry Water Conservation Task Force Member Golf Course Superintendents Association of America (GCSAA) - Member Golf Course Superintendents Association of Southern California - Member California Association of Pest Control Advisors – Member California Alliance for Golf, Water Resources Technical Advisory Committee Clients & Representative Projects Ripley Pacific Company - Pasatiempo Golf Club Project in Santa Cruz CA – Provide agronomic support during planning, permitting, engineering project phases for eventual delivery of recycled water to the golf course & grounds. Primary responsibilities include agronomic assessment of soil and turfgrass conditions, turf and landscape tolerances to available recycled water. Draft report sections pertaining to site specific operational procedures and retrofit requirements for eventual submission to state regulatory agencies that oversee recycled irrigation water use. (2011 – Ongoing) Lake Arrowhead Country Club, Lake Arrowhead CA – Project manager for golf course planning, design, and construction activities during LACC’s recycled water irrigation retrofit. The project included constructing a lake / reservoir on the golf course and various changes to the irrigation system to comply CDPH and regional water board requirements. Developed a site specific recycled water user’s operational manual to satisfy the environmental protection requirements included within the Lahontan Regional Water Board discharge permit issued to the Lake Arrowhead Community Services District. (2007 – 2011) Coachella Valley Water District Mid-Valley Pipeline & Coachella Canal Projects – Surveyed existing users and met with future customers regarding any concerns or problems with using one or both of the CVWD’s non-potable (recycled and/or canal) irrigation supplies Provide CVWD’s urban irrigation customers guidance with potential agronomic management changes needed to successfully use the alternative irrigation sources. (2006 – Ongoing) San Diego County Water Authority Site Supervisor Certification Training – Co-instructed SDCWA’s site supervisor certification training classes required by the State of California for recycled water users. Presented classroom style education covering various subjects and discussed backflow prevention and equipment, employee training and safe handling procedures, proper irrigation scheduling and maintenance, along with regulatory compliance and reporting requirements when working at sites that use recycled water for any one of the state approved uses. (2007 - 2011) Ripley Pacific Company – Los Osos Wastewater Management Plan Update Project – Evaluated the feasibility of using recycled irrigation water at various agricultural and urban irrigation sites as a component of the LOWMP Update Report. Held meetings with area landscape managers, horticultural, and agricultural growers to discuss their interest and/or concerns towards using recycled irrigation water. Coordinated and accompanied Los Osos growers on field trips to visit the Monterey Regional Pollution Control Agency where over 10,000 acres of raw table eaten vegetable crops are irrigated with recycled water. Provided support researching and developing budget costs for recycled water distribution systems, etc. (2006) MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility Planning Services Proposal Appendix D-8 ATTACHMENT 4 MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility April 15, 2013 Appendix E Misc. Proposal Statements: Agreement of Services Confirmation, Contested Provisions of Contract, Past Contract Disqualification Ripley Pacific Company LLP Appendix E ATTACHMENT 4 N G I NEER No. C59192 Exp. 06-30-13 NAD P R TE G S TA RE ERE IST D L L I IVIC FO AC ARNI F O IP SI KA R FEO . S L E E Y NA L O N G I NEER No. C59192 Exp. 06-30-13 NAD P R TE G S TA RE ERE IST D L L I IVIC FO AC ARNI F O IP SI KA R FEO . S L E E Y NA L O Statement Confirming Review of Consultant Services Agreement This confirms that Ripley Pacific Company LLP has reviewed the Consultant Services Agreement attached to the City of Morro Bay, Request for Proposals, Project Planning Services for New Water Reclamation Facility, issued on March 18, 2013. Executed on April 15, 2013 at Pleasanton, California under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. ________________________ Dana K. Ripley Statement Stating Disputed Contract Provisions This confirms that Ripley Pacific Company LLP has no disputes with any of the provisions of City of Morro Bay, Request for Proposals, Project Planning Services for New Water Reclamation Facility, issued on March 18, 2013 and/or the attached Consultant Services Agreement. Executed on April 15, 2013 at Pleasanton, California under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. ________________________ Dana K. Ripley MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility Planning Services Proposal Appendix E-1 ATTACHMENT 4 N G I NEER No. C59192 Exp. 06-30-13 NAD P R TE G S TA RE ERE IST D L L I IVIC FO AC ARNI F O IP SI KA R F EO . S L E E Y NA L O Statement of Past Contract Disqualifications The consultant shall state whether it or any of its officers or employees who have a proprietary interest in it, has ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from proposing on, or completing a federal, state, or local government project because of the violation of law, a safety regulation, or for any other reason, including but not limited to financial difficulties, project delays, or disputes regarding work or product quality, and if so to explain the circumstances. Do you have any disqualification as described in the above paragraph to declare? Answer: No with Potential Exception Potential exception: Ripley Pacific Company (RPC) was selected in a competitive bidding process by the Los Osos Community Services District (LOCSD) in 2006 to develop a comprehensive wastewater and water reuse plan, which was completed on time and under budget. The Plan was fully validated by the National Water Research Institute in November 2006. For reasons beyond control of RPC, San Luis Obispo County Public Works Department assumed control of the project in 2007, and essentially rejected all elements of the RPC Plan. The San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission later reinserted approximately 50% of the RPC Plan (plant relocation, urban and ag reuse). The RPC Plan included pressure effluent collection considered necessary to address the special conditions presented by development on a coastal sand dune with widespread shallow groundwater, liquefaction hazard, and numerous Chumash burial sites. The project currently under construction by SLO County, includes gravity collection, which is considered by RPC to be an inappropriate collection alternative given the special site conditions of the project. Between 2007 and 2012, RPC was unsuccessful in convincing SLO County that conventional gravity collection was inappropriate for the Los Osos project. While the above does not represent a past contract disqualification, it does represent a dispute with a public agency regarding work product quality. RPC’s position remains that SLO County erred in not removing the gravity system as a viable collection alternative for Los Osos. This position is validated by the difficulties experienced by contractors since October 2012 dealing with loose sandy soils, road damage from heavy equipment, shallow groundwater, and dewatering constraints. The extent of cost overruns associated with these factors is unknown at this point in time but will likely be substantial. Further detail and reference contact persons familiar with the foregoing work product dispute is provided in Appendix C1. Executed on April 15, 2013 at Pleasanton, California under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. ________________________ Dana K. Ripley MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility Planning Services Proposal Appendix E-2 ATTACHMENT 4 MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility April 15, 2013 Appendix F Hourly Rate Schedule Ripley Pacific Company LLP Appendix F ATTACHMENT 4 RIPLEY PACIFIC COMPANY LLP Profession Services Billing Rates: 2013 Standard Hourly Rates Schedule Standard Hourly Rates are subject to annual review and adjustment. DESCRIPTION: PER HOUR Project Manager/Principal ................................................................................... $ 240.00 Senior Geologist/Hydrogeologist ........................................................................ $ 240.00 Asst. Proj. Manager/Water Reuse Specialist....................................................... $ 220.00 Agronomist .......................................................................................................... $ 210.00 Staff Hydrogeologist ........................................................................................... $ 180.00 Senior Engineer ................................................................................................... $ 180.00 Staff Engineer...................................................................................................... $ 160.00 Assistant Engineer/CAD Operator ...................................................................... $ 140.00 Document Production.......................................................................................... $ 90.00 Clerical ................................................................................................................ $ 75.00 REIMBURSABLES: Reimbursable expenses for travel, reproduction, and outside services will be invoiced at cost plus ten percent. Invoice copies for reimbursable expenses available on request. MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility Planning Services Proposal Appendix F-1 ATTACHMENT 4 MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility April 15, 2013 Appendix G Insurance Certificate and Agent Statement Ripley Pacific Company LLP Appendix G ATTACHMENT 4 (415) 883-2525 • Fax (415) 883-7752 • Toll-free 1-800-995-0060 • 250 Bel Marin Keys Blvd., Suite E-1 • Novato, CA 94949 www.mitchellandmitchell.com AZ 892307, CA 0620650, CO 253380, NV 6348, OR 810839, WA 160772 April 1, 2013 Ripley Pacific Company, LLP 6130 Stoneridge Mall, Ste. 105 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Dear Mr. Ripley: Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today. Enclosed, please find a copy of your current certificate of insurance. CNA has an AM best: ‘A’ rating. As we discussed, in regards to the insurance requirements for the City of Morro Bay’s proposal, we will be able to provide the adequate limits requested for all coverage’s. Please inform as soon as possible to the time you would like to bind all endorsements/changes to your current policies so that we may keep within the contract proposal’s agreement terms. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to let me know. Sincerely, Jeff Roth Mitchell & Mitchell Insurance Agency, Inc. MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility Planning Services Proposal Appendix G-1 ATTACHMENT 4 DATE (MM/DD/YYYY)CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE THISCERTIFICATEISISSUEDASAMATTEROFINFORMATIONONLYANDCONFERSNORIGHTSUPONTHECERTIFICATEHOLDER.THIS CERTIFICATEDOESNOTAFFIRMATIVELYORNEGATIVELYAMEND,EXTENDORALTERTHECOVERAGEAFFORDEDBYTHEPOLICIES BELOW.THISCERTIFICATEOFINSURANCEDOESNOTCONSTITUTEACONTRACTBETWEENTHEISSUINGINSURER(S),AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT:IfthecertificateholderisanADDITIONALINSURED,thepolicy(ies)mustbeendorsed.IfSUBROGATIONISWAIVED,subjectto thetermsandconditionsofthepolicy,certainpoliciesmayrequireanendorsement.Astatementonthiscertificatedoesnotconferrightstothe certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). CONTACTPRODUCERNAME FAXPHONE(A/C, No)(A/C, No, Ext) E-MAILADDRESS PRODUCER CUSTOMER ID # INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC # INSURED INSURER A INSURER B INSURER C INSURER D INSURER E INSURER F COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER:REVISION NUMBER: THISISTOCERTIFYTHATTHEPOLICIESOFINSURANCELISTEDBELOWHAVEBEENISSUEDTOTHEINSUREDNAMEDABOVEFORTHEPOLICYPERIOD INDICATED.NOTWITHSTANDINGANYREQUIREMENT,TERMORCONDITIONOFANYCONTRACTOROTHERDOCUMENTWITHRESPECTTOWHICHTHIS CERTIFICATEMAYBEISSUEDORMAYPERTAIN,THEINSURANCEAFFORDEDBYTHEPOLICIESDESCRIBEDHEREINISSUBJECTTOALLTHETERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. ADDLSUBRINSR POLICY EFFPOLICY EXPTYPE OF INSURANCE LIMITSPOLICY NUMBERLTR (MM/DD/YYYY)(MM/DD/YYYY)INSRWVD GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE$ DAMAGE TO RENTEDCOMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY $PREMISES (Ea occurrence) CLAIMS-MADEOCCUR MED EXP (Any one person)$ PERSONAL & ADV INJURY$ GENERAL AGGREGATE$ GEN'L AGGREGATE LMIT APPLES PER:PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG$ PRO-$POLICY LOCJECT COMBINED SINGLE LIMITAUTOMOBILE LIABILITY $(Ea accident) ANY AUTO BODILY INJURY (Per person)$ ALL OWNED AUTOS BODILY INJURY (Per accident)$ SCHEDULED AUTOS PROPERTY DAMAGE $(Per accident)HIRED AUTOS $NON-OWNED AUTOS $ UMBRELLA LIAB EACH OCCURRENCE$OCCUR EXCESS LIAB CLAIMS-MADE AGGREGATE $ $DEDUCTIBLE $RETENTION$ WC STATU-OTH-WORKERS COMPENSATION TORY LMITSERAND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Y / NANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE E.L. EACH ACCDENT$N / AOFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? (Mandatory in NH)E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE$ If yes, describe under E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT$DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (Attach ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, if more space is required) CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION SHOULDANYOFTHEABOVEDESCRIBEDPOLICIESBECANCELLEDBEFORE THEEXPIRATIONDATETHEREOF,NOTICEWILLBEDELIVEREDIN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE © 1988-2009 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORDACORD 25 (2009/09) Gary M. Mitchell OP ID: JR 04/01/2013 Phone: 415-883-2525Mitchell & Mitchell-Lic0620650 250 Bel Marin Keys Blvd, Bld E Novato, CA 94949 Gary M. Mitchell Fax: 415-883-7752 RIPLPA1 Ripley Pacific Company, LLP 6130 Stoneridge Mall, Ste. 105 Pleasanton, CA 94588 CNA 1,000,000 AX 5088100704 01/11/201301/11/2014 300,000 X 10,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 X 1,000,000 AX 5088100704 01/11/201301/11/2014 AX 5088100704 01/11/201301/11/2014 A Prof Liab EEH 28-834-50-75 01/11/201201/11/2015 Per Claim 1,000,000 Aggregate 1,000,000 Claims-Made Prof Liab Coverage Prior Acts: 1/11/2012 INSURED MBCSD New Water Reclamation Facility Planning Services Proposal Appendix G-2 ATTACHMENT 4 ATTACMNENT 5 ATTACMNENT 5 ATTACMNENT 5 ATTACMNENT 5 AT T A C H M E N T 6 AT T A C H M E N T 6 AT T A C H M E N T 6 AT T A C H M E N T 6 AT T A C H M E N T 6 AT T A C H M E N T 6 AT T A C H M E N T 6 AT T A C H M E N T 6 AT T A C H M E N T 6 AT T A C H M E N T 6 AT T A C H M E N T 6 Staff Report TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: May 8, 2013 AGENDA NO: D-5__ Meeting Date: May 14, 2013 __ Prepared By: RL /RS / RSchultz Dept Review: __________ City Manager Review: ________________ City Attorney Review: ________________ Page 1 of 7 FROM: Rob Livick, PE/PLS – Public Services Director/City Engineer Rick Sauerwein, PE – Engineering Division Manager Robert Schultz - City Attorney SUBJECT: History and Status of Water Rights Issues in the Chorro Valley RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council review the comprehensive staff report on the City’s water history and our current ongoing practices related to the City’s water rights and issues surrounding the Chorro Valley. After review, public comment and discussion provide any further direction to Staff. ALTERNATIVES 1) Continue on the present course to preserve City water rights in the Chorro Valley by constructing a stream flow gauge in Chorro Creek, and replacing all existing City water service connections with private wells & single point of use reverse osmosis treatment to reduce nitrates; 2) Abandon City water rights to Chorro Valley well fields; 3) Evaluate other alternative strategies to provide a replacement water source for Chorro Valley residents. FISCAL IMPACT None at this time. SUMMARY The water supply for the City of Morro Bay has four main sources. In order of the quantity supplied, these sources are: the State Water Project, Chorro groundwater, Morro groundwater, and the Desalination Plant. Nitrate contamination of both the Chorro and Morro groundwater resources by Page 2 of 7 agricultural activities has greatly impacted our water supplies. During periods of reduced State Water Project deliveries, it is necessary to blend our other sources of water together in order to reduce nitrate levels in the distribution system. The Desalination Plant, which has recently been used to remove nitrates from the Morro groundwater, is undergoing a series of upgrades to improve the efficiency in treating brackish water and restore the ability to treat salt water. The City has produced water from the Chorro groundwater basin to meet water demands. Our groundwater permits require that stream flows be above 1.4cfs when extractions occur. Currently, the City is measuring creek flows biweekly. Our permit conditions require continuous flow monitoring, which has not yet been installed. In 2009, the City was informed of a complaint filed by Jones to the Division of Water Rights staff at the SWRCB. The complaint alleged that the City had not complied with the requirements imposed in the City’s water rights permit for Chorro Creek. Since then the City has contracted with outside legal counsel to help Staff as it continually works on the water rights issues and the complaint in the Chorro Valley. Pursuant to past Council direction, Staff has met with several property owners in the Chorro Valley and is discussing what facilities property owners will need in order to be disconnected from the City’s water system. BACKGROUND Morro Bay incorporated as a general law city in 1964. Prior to incorporation, two waterworks districts under the auspices of San Luis Obispo County served the community. The sole historic source of potable water for the community was groundwater derived from three well fields in two small coastal valleys: the Morro well field in the Morro valley and the Romero and Ashurst well fields in the Chorro valley. In 1972, the City of Morro Bay filed two applications for permits to appropriate water from two well fields (Romero and Ashurst) in the Chorro Creek underflow. The applications sought to formalize the City’s rights to appropriate water from the Chorro underflows based upon the City’s historic use of that water. State Water Board hearings on the City of Morro Bay’s 1972 applications took place five years later in 1977. The State Water Board took no further action until it issued a decision in 1982 and determined the waters of the Chorro basins to be “underflow” subject to the board’s jurisdiction. It then ordered the City to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to support its permit applications. Pursuant to the State Water Board’s 1982 decision, the City prepared an EIR pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The EIR included significant analysis of surface-groundwater interaction in the Chorro and Morro well fields, and concluded that groundwater extraction from the Chorro and Morro wells would have no environmental impact. The State Water Board conducted additional hearings in 1987 and again in 1995. On July 20, 1995, the Board issued a final decision on the applications (Decision No. 1633). Page 3 of 7 Therein, the Board approved the City’s applications and issued permits for 1,142.5 acre feet per year (afy) from the Chorro Basin wells (Well Nos. 8, 9, 9A, 10, 10A, 11A, 12 and 16). The Board’s Order contained numerous conditions, including certain conditions that the Board recognized would have significant impacts on the City’s ability to rely on the Chorro wells. These conditions have been problematic for the City. Those conditions and the City’s current operations are the subject of the Jones complaint and are detailed further in this report. In September 1997, as contemplated in the City’s water right permits, the City began receiving deliveries of 1,313 afy of water from the State Water Project (SWP). Since 1997, the City has utilized State Water as its primary source of water, except during periods of State Water Project maintenance operations. As the chart below indicates, the City’s highest annual use during this period was 49 afy, until significant reduction in State Water availability in 2005. In 2005, the annual water production in the Chorro Valley increased significantly due to diminished State Water Project deliveries and limited production from the Morro Valley. During the State Water shut down in 2006, nitrate levels spiked in the Morro well field and led to health standard compliance issues, forcing the City to substantially reduce water use from the Morro wells. Nitrate issues have continued to plague Morro Valley and, together with diminished State Water Project deliveries during this period, the City has been forced to rely more heavily on the Chorro wells and the treatment of the contaminated Morro wells at its desalination facility to meet the City’s water needs. Year Chorro Basin (ac-ft) Morro Basin (ac-ft) R/O Plant (ac-ft) State Water (ac-ft) Total (ac-ft)1 1997 986 249 0 301 1536 1998 38 0 0 1287 1326 1999 34 0 0 1359 1393 2000 4 0 0 1396 1400 2001 12 0 0 1398 1410 2002 1 32 47 1373 1454 2003 3 29 13 1384 1429 2004 49 213 20 1206 1487 2005 204 151 0 1008 1362 2006 257 79 25 1010 1371 2007 276 35 19 1116 1446 2008 184 52 28 1175 1439 2009 235 80 66 1069 1450 2010 86 391 258 873 1609 2011 18 101 84 1144 1347 2012 1 109 70 1130 1310 In summary, from 1997 to 2006, during the period after the City began receiving deliveries from the 1 The total water is overstated in the years that included R/O plant operation since the feed water for the R/O comes from the Morro Wells. In 2012 the conversion from Million gallons to ac-ft was corrected. Page 4 of 7 SWP and before the Morro wells were significantly impacted by nitrate contamination, the City substantially reduced diversions from the Chorro wells. Since 2006, reduced deliveries from the SWP and the nitrate contamination of the Morro wells have forced the City back to more significant use of the Chorro wells. More recently, treatment of the brackish Morro wells and conservation have been used to reduce the demand on Chorro wells, while still meeting demands. The City’s varied usage history over the past ten years aptly demonstrates precisely the reason why each of the City’s water sources is so important in providing a redundant and reliable water supply for the citizens of the City of Morro Bay. Jones Complaint On October 1, 2009 the City was informed of Mr. Jones’ complaint by letter from the Division of Water Rights staff at the SWRCB. The complaint alleged that the City has not complied with SWRCB Decision 1633 and requirements imposed in the City’s water right permits for Chorro Creek (Permit Nos. 20866, 20867, and 20868). The complaint alleges injury to fish and wildlife and public trust resources, as follows, “For the protection of fish and wildlife habitat and other public trust resources in Chorro Creek and Morro Bay, surface flow needs to be 1.4 cfs per DFG biologist Charles Marshall to protect endangered steelhead trout as stated in Decision 1633.” Mr. Jones proposed that the complaint could be resolved as follows: “Comply with Decision 1633. Install continuous flow meters below Ashurst and Romero well fields. Cease all pumping until flow meters are in place to comply with minimum flow requirements.” The City and Division of Water Rights staff have met on numerous occasions to discuss Mr. Jones’ complaint and other matters related to the City’s Chorro Creek water rights. The parties have discussed the City’s compliance with various conditions of the Chorro water rights permits. The City and Division staff have agreed that the City would prepare and submit a report documenting the City’s compliance with its Chorro and Morro water rights permits and a plan for actions to ensure continued compliance or corrective measures to bring the City into compliance with all permit conditions. On October 25, 2012 the City received approval of its Flow Bypass Compliance Plan from the Division of Water Rights. This plan outlines the conditions and constraints under which the City agrees to operate the Chorro Wells until completion of its stream gauge projects and full compliance with all of the terms and conditions of the revised permits have been met. For the first half of 2013, City staff has worked with Division of Water Rights staff to prepare, review, and revise a Petition for Extension of Time for the Chorro Well Permits. This time extension will give the City the ability to complete all of the compliance activities and take full beneficial use of the Chorro well water. Chorro Valley Customers From time to time since the incorporation of the City, water meters and water services have been provided to customers outside of the City limits. Currently, the City has water service at nine locations outside of the City limits. Some of these connections were made following the procedure outlined in the municipal code with a designation by Council, while others were made in order to Page 5 of 7 secure access or water for the City. There are others that have no available records pertaining to their connection. All of the water service connections that are located within the Chorro Valley receive water from a single pumping line. When the City’s wells in the Ashurst and Romero well fields are operating, water from these wells blend in the pumping line and is distributed to Chorro Valley customers prior to being transported to the King’s tank to blend with water from other sources. When only one well from the Ashurst well field blends with the water from the Romero well it can still meet the nitrate standards, but when more than one Ashurst well is running, the blended water will likely exceed the nitrate limits. When the Chorro Valley wells are not operating, the customers outside of the city limits receive the same blend of water as all other customers within the City limits, which consistently meets drinking water standards. At the time that these connections were made, the water quality in the Chorro Groundwater Basin was considered safe for drinking and met the State and Federal regulations governing water quality. In the last few decades water quality has deteriorated in the basin while a number of new Federal regulations have come into effect governing water supplies. Because of the degradation to the water quality and the changes in regulations, in December of 2008 the California Department of Public Health inactivated all of the wells in the Ashurst well field until a reliable method of providing treatment for nitrate removal or blending is in place. Therefore, the City no longer has the ability to both maintain the pumping of wells in the Chorro Groundwater Basin as well as provide water that meets all State and Federal standards to the nine customers in the Chorro basin. In order to both provide water to the customers outside the City limits and maintain the Chorro Groundwater resource for the benefit of the customers within the City limits, major modifications to the City’s infrastructure would be required. These modifications would be needed to effectively deal with the nitrate contamination while also providing disinfection of the occasional bacteriological contamination events that impact the Chorro Groundwater Basin. DISCUSSION On September 28, 2009, January 11, 2010 and March 22, 2010, the City Council reviewed and analyzed the following alternatives to maintain sufficient water resources for the residents of the City from the Romero and Ashurst wells: 1. Water Treatment Plant Alternative: Providing point source treatment of the well water produced. This would require treatment at the Ashurst well field for nitrates through either ion exchange or reverse osmosis and disinfection facilities at both the Ashurst and Romero well sites. While the City currently has disinfection facilities in place, additional chlorine contact time will need to be provided through the addition of storage volume. The positive aspect of this project is that the water leaving the well sites would meet all applicable health and safety standards and would be safe to deliver to the customers in the Chorro Valley. The negative aspects of this project would be: difficult permitting through the County because of flood plain issues, the capital and ongoing maintenance costs of the project, and the need to add additional Page 6 of 7 staff to cover the operation of these facilities. Installation of sewer disposal facilities to the Ashurst well field or some other method to dispose of reject/brine effluent would be required. Capital costs are roughly estimated at $200,000 at Romero, and $800,000 at Ashurst excluding design/permitting/legal fees and estimating contingencies. The Water Departments annual operating expenses and staffing levels would also have to increase. 2. New Pipeline Alternative: Installation of potable distribution pipe main along Quintana Road, through existing easements, all the way out to the Romero well field. While not an ideal solution from a water quality standpoint (long dead end lines are difficult to flush), this is probably more technically feasible than option 1. The approximate length of this pipeline would be 2.7 miles. Costs to install portable water lines are approximately $100 to $150 per linear foot depending on the specific location and the restoration requirements. This leads to a total project cost excluding design/permitting/legal fees and estimating contingencies of $1,400,000 to $2,100,000. This option would have no projected impact to the Water Department’s operating expenses and staffing levels. 3. Nonpotable Water Agreements: Continuing to provide water to customers outside of the City limits via non-potable water agreements. This alternative will not solve the potential problems of the Chorro Valley customers, as their water will still not meet the standards for potable water at times when the Chorro wells are running. This alternative effectively creates a dual water system of the City’s distribution system, and complicates its operation. Dual water systems require higher levels of certification of all of our Water Department staff. These certifications are difficult to obtain and would likely increase City staffing costs. The City would also have to take measures to ensure that this non potable water is not used for drinking purposes in each and every customer’s home in the Chorro Valley. The City, as a public water system, could not, at the time of these actions by the City Council, install home treatment devices. While these Point of Entry (POE) or Point of Use (POU) systems are capable of treating the water from the Chorro Valley to meet safe drinking water standards, they were not a legal solution for the City to implement. Subsequently, the California Department of Public Health adopted emergency regulations allowing the use of POE/POU treatment systems, although the City of Morro Bay cannot meet the necessary findings to take advantage of this potential approach. 4. Disconnect Customers Outside of the City Limits Alternative: Disconnect customers outside of the City limits from the pumping line. The benefit of removing water services from the pumping line is that blending and disinfection can occur within the pumping line prior to being introduced at the Kings tanks. This will enable a blended and disinfected product to be introduced at the Kings tanks and will protect the City from the liability of providing minimally treated well water to customers who currently are connected to a pumping line. This alternative can be pursued in conjunction with the second alternative (new potable water line) or individually by installing individual wells for each owner. Costs for this alternative are estimated to be $350,000 excluding negotiation costs/staff time. This alternative is consistent with Page 7 of 7 section 13.14.040 of the municipal code which limits the City’s liability to provide water outside of the City limits. On September 28, 2009, Councilmember Smukler moved for the City Council to include the stakeholders of the National Estuary Program, San Luis Obispo County Regional Water Quality Control Board and State Water Quality Control Board with a notice of the City’s conversations and existing situation, and that we elude to our intent for future discussions about Decision 1633 and collaborative actions to address the water quality issue in the Chorro Basin. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Winholtz and carried unanimously. On January 11, 2010, Councilmember Winholtz moved the City Council direct staff to terminate the Agreement between Roandoak and the City of Morro Bay pursuant to Paragraph 9 of the Agreement which states it will terminate in 120 days; in addition, there will be no discontinuation of water service until a new agreement is reached. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Borchard and carried unanimously. On March 22, 2010, Mayor Peters moved the City Council appoint Councilmember Borchard and Councilmember Winholtz to serve on the Chorro and Morro Valley Water Rights Ad-Hoc Committee. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Grantham and carried unanimously. From January 2010 until October 2012, the City worked with Roandoak and the County of San Luis Obispo in the Chorro Basin to develop a permitting strategy and template for the removal of systems from the City’s system. In general, the agreement requires that the City provide a well and POU treatment system in exchange for termination of City water service. This leaves the property with a well and a treatment system capable of meeting the needs of that property. The County also required that the City conduct annual water quality monitoring of those new wells. This robust process and the agreements developed on this first project will facilitate future well construction and system disconnections. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the City will continue to actively pursue compliance with all of the terms and conditions of SWRCB Decision 1633. It is important to note that when the Water Board made Decision 1633, it recognized that it was effectively eliminating or severely restricting the historic municipal water source from the City’s water supply portfolio for the benefit of fish and wildlife resources in a seasonal creek. In the time period between the advent of State Water in 1997 and the nitrate contamination episode in 2006, the City had largely reduced its reliance on the Chorro groundwater basin as was intended by SWRCB Decision 1633. The recent contamination from nitrates in the Morro watershed coupled with the interruptible nature of the State Water Project have necessitated the City’s turning back to the Chorro Basin as a vital part of its water portfolio in order to protect the health and welfare of the residents of Morro Bay. Because the pollution in the Morro basin will not likely be abated any time soon, and State Water Project deliveries are an interruptible resource, the City is committed to taking the steps necessary to preserve the full beneficial use of the Chorro basin groundwater. Staff Report TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: May 6, 2013 FROM: Eric Endersby, Harbor Director SUBJECT: Council Consideration of Requests for Proposals for Currently Vacant Lease Sites 138-139 (between North T-Pier public restroom and Crill’s), 107W-108W (adjacent to South T-Pier), and 49/49W (south of Associated Pacific Constructors) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends City Council approve Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for vacant Lease Sites 138- 139, 107W-108W, and 49/49W. ALTERNATIVES A. Approve the RFPs as presented. B. Identify Council-desired changes to the RFPs and approve as amended. C. Direct staff to investigate and propose City-generated projects. D. Discontinue interest in developing these lease sites. FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impacts, while unknown at this time, have the potential to raise revenues. SUMMARY During the 2012/2013 City budgeting process, several vacant lease sites were identified by the Harbor Department staff as being candidates for possible development and revenue-generation to augment the Harbor budget. Staff was directed to bring RFPs back to the City Council for approvals, which are included with this staff report. BACKGROUND During budget hearings with the City Council for the 2102/2013 fiscal year, and due to the impending cancellation of the $250,000/year Outfall Lease with the power plant, staff presented several options to balance the Harbor Department budget. One of those options was to send out for RFP, several currently vacant lease sites to determine if revenue-generating lease proposals would come forth. The three lease sites under consideration are the culmination of staff’s efforts to develop AGENDA NO: D-6 MEETING DATE: May 14, 2013 Prepared By: __EE____ Dept Review:_____ City Manager Review: ________ City Attorney Review: ________ 2 RFP’s for those lease sites deemed worthy of possible development. . DISCUSSION A brief status and history of each lease site is as follows: Lease Site 138-139 currently contains no leasable property; with the north T-Pier public restroom and shower occupying the northeast corner of site 139. The remainder of 139 and the entirety of 138 are currently being utilized for informal vehicle parking. Historically the site has had no formal development aside from the restroom, although in the early 2000’s, a project was proposed by Driscoll’s Wharf (the then-operator of the fish dock) to redevelop the entirety of the lease sites that now constitute Tognazzini’s I and II, Crills, the Morro Bay Fish Co. dock, and lease sites 138-139. For several reasons that project, which also incorporated a new Harbor Department office building, never came to fruition. Lease Site 138-139 is land-only lease site. Lease Site 107W-108W is the open water and revetment area between the south T-Pier and City’s commercial fishing vessel slips adjacent to the south. Historically, this site has had no improvements or developments proposed; and is a water-only lease site that begins at the top of the rock revetment. Lease Site 49/49W was created in the mid 1980’s out of a larger lease site 50/50W when the South Street street-end right of way was abandoned (termed “vacated” at that time) as part of a larger project to develop the greater Tidelands Park area. At the time, it was a contentious issue with both Associated Pacific Constructors (APC), the then-lessee of lease sites 50-52/50W-52W, and the upland property owners who were in the process of completing the Tidelands Boundary Agreement negotiations. The net result over time was finalization of the Tidelands Boundary Agreement (a 30- year agreement that expired in 2011); the completion of the abandonment of the South Street street- end and creation of lease site 49/49W (Resolution 119-89); and the issuance an RFP in the early 1990’s looking to develop the new lease site 49/49W as well as portions of the Tidelands Park water areas. A “temporary” three-year lease from 1990-1993 was entered into with APC for 49/49W for the duration of the RFP process and subsequent project permitting on the site. That RFP resulted in the award of the lease site to a newly-formed non-profit corporation called the “Environmental Research Center,” or “ERC,” formed expressly to build and operate a marine research center on the site. ERC apparently got as far as City and Coastal Commission approval of their proposed project; unfortunately, the ERC and the City were unable to agree on development, lease terms and conditions, as well as funding issues for continued development of their project, and as such, the project never came to fruition. The City did however, continue their efforts to plan and develop Tidelands Park and side-tie dock projects, the results of which are as they are currently configured today. Lease Site 49/49W is a land and water lease site. Of note during the previous RFP process, the Planning Commission and City Council identified the following as the “range of most appropriate uses” to be included in the RFP itself: 3 1. Offer a new and unique recreational or visitor-serving facility that is not generally available. 2. Be water oriented (coastal dependent/related), at least in one primary aspect. 3. Provide Tidelands Park boat slips. 4. Compliment the Park with recreational or visitor-serving attractions, rather than being subordinate or dependent upon the Park. 5. Provide a use that has broad public appeal, by reason of cost or charges and facilities. Taking those criteria into account, staff has created the attached RFPs for City Council approval. Should the RFPs result in viable project proposals, they will be brought back to Council to begin the public planning process. City Council could, alternatively, direct staff to investigate and propose City-generated projects on said lease sites such as vessel slips or other facilities as identified, or to cease interest in developing these vacant lease sites altogether. CONCLUSION Staff has created draft Requests for Proposals for three currently vacant waterfront lease sites, and is seeking Council direction Staff is recommending Alternative A., approval of the RFPs as presented. Staff Report TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: May 8, 2013 FROM: Joe Woods, Recreation and Parks Director SUBJECT: Discussion on Opening the Bathroom at Lift Station 2 on the Embarcadero during Summer Months RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council discuss the possibility of opening the bathroom to the public which is located at Lift Station 2 at the north end of Front Street for the summer months. ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1 – the City of Morro Bay not allow the bathroom at Lift Station 2 to be open to the public, and continue to allow the exclusive use by authorized personnel only. Alternative 2 – the City of Morro Bay allow the bathroom at Lift Station 2 to be open to the public during summer months and provide city resources to support that usage. Alternative 3 – the City of Morro Bay allow the bathroom at Lift Station 2 to be open to the public on the same schedule as other waterfront restrooms and provide city resources to support that usage. FISCAL IMPACT The current fiscal impact is directed to the Waste Water Collections Division with no direct impact to the General Fund. The fiscal impact would change based on the Alternative the City Council selects. The following are estimates of General Fund fiscal impacts associated with each Alternative: Alternative 1 – no General Fund impact realized to the City of Morro Bay. Alternative 2 – for 13 weeks of summer usage with two a day service – approx. $2,700 Alternative 3 – for 52 weeks of service (13 summer/39 winter) – approx. $8,700 SUMMARY AGENDA NO: D-7 MEETING DATE: May 14, 2013 Prepared By: _JW_____ Dept Review:_JW__ City Manager Review: ________ City Attorney Review: ________ 2 The public restrooms along the Embarcadero are open to the public on a daily basis. These restrooms are located in City parks and operate within park hours, which is 7:00am to Dusk. Current City operated restrooms are located at Tidelands, Centennial, North T-Pier, Coleman and the Rock. Each has unique amenities to provide various levels of service to the public. The bathroom at Lift Station 2 is a single user, unisex facility located at the north end of Front Street parking lot. The facility currently is used by authorized personnel only. If opened to the public, this facility could provide service for users of the parking lot, staircase and citizens at large, but would require additional City resources for upkeep. BACKGROUND The bathroom located within Lift Station 2 at the north end of Front Street was constructed as part of the lift station renovation project. The lift station is a 20’ x 14’ building consisting of a large chemical room, an electrical room, and a single user unisex bathroom. The bathroom is equipped with a toilet and sink, and is handicap accessible. Current use and design of Lift Station 2 should be considered when deciding to open this facility to the public. If it is decided to allow the public to access the bathroom at Lift Station 2, City resources need to be appropriated to provide proper maintenance. Public safety is definitely our first priority, and consideration of site activities and the ability to operate this facility with public access should be thoroughly exhausted prior to final action. DISCUSSION The bathroom is currently set up for authorized use only and would require additional improvements to prepare it for public use. Improvements would include signage, dispensers, and door locks. The dispensers would need to be consistent with other public restrooms to facilitate efficiency and effective maintenance delivery. These improvements would be one-time costs estimated at $700. If the bathroom is open to the public, maintenance will need to be performed on a daily basis. Janitorial service on waterfront restrooms is typically performed by part-time staff. The schedule for routine service is completed in the morning and during the summer months service is repeated in the afternoon. When resources are available and demand requires, staff performs a third visit to ensure proper functioning and clean facilities are available to the public. The two-a-day service begins on Mother’s Day weekend and continues through Harbor Festival weekend. Service for this single user unisex bathroom is calculated at .75 hours per cleaning shift. This would equate to 1.5 hours daily in the high peak season. Using part-time personnel at 13.88/ hour, which includes benefits, service would cost $20.82 per day. Extending these resources 7 days a week, the labor would come to $145.74 per week; and for 13 weeks would be $1,894.62. Staff has estimated $2,000 which includes materials and supplies. If service was extended to year around, the cost is estimated at $8,000, which includes labor, materials and supplies. CONCLUSION 3 If the bathroom at Lift Station 2 is open for public use, additional resources would need to be allocated to support the required routine and non-routine maintenance activities. Allocations would be directed to both personnel and supplies budgets within the maintenance division. Additionally, with an increase of usage from the general public, non-routine maintenance activities involving skilled plumbing and electrical may experience a greater demand. LIFT STATION 2 BATHROOM FLOOR PLAN Staff Report TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: 5/7/13 AGENDA NO: __ D-8___ Meeting Date: 5/14/13 Prepared By: _______________ Dept Review:_____ City Manager Review: ________ City Attorney Review: ________ Page 1 of 3 FROM: Andrea K. Lueker, City Manager SUBJECT: Review of the 2008 Management Partner Study (Assessment of City Organization and Financial Options), Including Progress on the 21 Expenditure Control Strategies, 13 Revenue Creation Strategies and 4 Long Range Strategies and Provide Further Direction to Staff RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council review the attached report on the progress made on the 21 Expenditure Control Strategies, 13 Revenue Creation Strategies and 4 Long Range Strategies from the 2008 Management Partners Assessment of City Organization and Financial Options document and provide staff direction. ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1 –receive and review the 2008 Report, January and August 2009 and May 2013 updates and provide no further direction. Alternative 2 – receive and review the 2008 Report, January and August 2009 and May 2013 updates and direct staff to pursue one or more recommendations. Alternative 3 –receive and review the 2008 Report, January and August 2009 and May 2013 updates and ask that staff bring back this issue for discussion at the May 22, 2013 budget hearing for consideration of funding for an update of the entire document. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact related to the review of the 2008 Management Partner Study (Assessment of City Organization and Financial Options). The fiscal impact of the listed alternatives is as follows: Alternative 1 – no fiscal impact. Alternative 2 – to be determined based on recommendation from City Council Alterative 3 –the cost provided by Management Partners to update the document is $39,500– this would include approximately 229 hours of work. 2 BACKGROUND In 2006/2007, the City of Morro Bay experienced significant financial hardships with expenses to provide public services increasing faster than city revenues could keep up. To make matters worse, the City was lagging in important general revenue sources such as sales tax. In the Fall of 2007, the City Council requested a study be performed that would identify opportunities for improvement at various levels of the City’s organization. The scope of the study included an examination of processes and procedures, effectiveness and efficiency of service delivery, organizational design and staffing levels as well as other services currently being provided. At their November 13, 2007 meeting, the City Council reviewed the four proposals received and narrowed their selection to two proposals. At the December 10, 2007 City Council meeting, the decision was made to contract with Management Partners. Management Partners began research and fact finding for the study in early 2008. They used a number of analytical and management techniques for the project which enabled the Management Partners staff to obtain high quality stakeholder input and suggestions on potential strategies, gain full understanding of the extent of the City’s financial situation, and compare and contrast Morro Bay against other peer jurisdictions. The research and fact-finding techniques included a thorough review of documents, personal interviews with the key managers in the City, selection of 10 communities (in consultation with the City) for benchmarking purposes, implementation of two electronic surveys (one to City employees and the second to elected officials and Advisory Board and Commission members), organization of city employee focus groups (6 in total with 63 people participating) and financial modeling. The report produced by Management Partners, entitled “City Organization and Financial Options” which can still be found on the City’s website, contains 38 recommendations, including 21 Expenditure Control Strategies, 13 Revenue Creation Strategies and 4 Long Range Strategies the City could consider for overall improved financial health. After receiving the document in May 2008, the City Council scheduled a public workshop in August (the delay between receipt of the document and the 1st public workshop was due to the City being in the midst of the fiscal year budget adoption process as well as the hiring of a permanent City Manger). That August 13, 2008 workshop was held with staff first providing an update on the progress made on recommendations that had occurred since receipt of the document, approximately 10 strategies/recommendations had been addressed at that time. Just prior to the workshop, the City Council was asked to rank the Management Partner recommendations on a scale of 1 to 5 (in conjunction with the priorities determined in the Goal Setting Workshop held in June 2008). The City Council was then able to focus their discussion on those top scoring recommendations. Following the August 2008 workshop, staff provided an update on the Management Partner recommendations in January 2009 and then again, at a second workshop that was held in August 2009. The City also included the Management Partners recommendations in their discussions during the goal setting processes in June 2008, February 2009 and March 2010 which were conducted by Amy Paul of Management Partners. At the December 11, 2012 City Council meeting during the Declaration of Future Agenda Items, Mayor Irons asked and received support for City staff to bring back a proposal to update the Management Partners study. Following the meeting, staff contacted Andy Belknap of Management 3 Partners and asked that he provide a proposal to update the study that was originally completed in 2008. Mr. Belknap has provided a proposal, and staff brought back the proposal and corresponding staff report to the City Council at their February 26, 2013 meeting. The proposal provided by Management Partners indicated that an update effort would cost approximately $39,500 and require 229 hours of work. The City Council discussed this issue and directed staff to provide an in-house update of the progress on the recommendations to the City Council in April/May 2013. DISCUSSION Staff has attached the original document that the City Council reviewed in August 2008 and subsequently updated in January and August, 2009. That document has been further updated with any progress on the goals since 2009, being added. CONCLUSION Based on the direction from City Council at their February 26, 2013 meeting, staff has provided an in-house update to the 21 Expenditure Control Strategies, 13 Revenue Creation Strategies and 4 Long Range Strategies originally provided in the report.