Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2011-01-18 ,mo S ANG Of c4 LIFO? Kevin Mullin, Mayor Jim Ruane, Mayor Richard Garbarino, Vice Mayor Michael Salazar, Vice Mayor Mark N. Addiego, Councilmember Ken Ibarra, Councilmember Pedro Gonzalez, Councilmember Irene O'Connell, Councilmember Karyl Matsumoto, Councilmember Rico E. Medina, Councilmember MINUTES JOINT SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SAN BRUNO CITY COUNCIL AND SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CITY COUNCIL January 18, 2011 6:30 p.m. Meeting location: Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Dr. South San Francisco 1. CALL TO ORDER. TIME: 6:37 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL /PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. All Present 3. PUBLIC COMMENT. None. 4. STUDY SESSION: Discussion of the Water Quality Treatment Plant Capital Improvement Program Update. Public Works Director for the City of South San Francisco introduced Water Quality Control Plant Superintendent and San Bruno resident Dave Castagnola, Clara Fabbri, Public Services Director for the City of San Bruno, and Carollo Engineers Mike Brittain and Lydia Holmes. Director White gave history of sewer plant which is co -owned and operated by San Bruno and South San Francisco. The plant is a huge community asset and staff does their best to keep it in good condition and in full compliance with discharge permits and laws. Coming off the heels of a 10 year cease and desist placed by the State Water Board, staff has done well to move on from that and is looking and planning ahead. In doing so, elements needing care had been identified. A plan had been derived, determining what is most important. Consultants, Carollo Engineers have done a lot of work at the plant and know it pretty well. Tonight, the Councils were being presented with the plans, action was not being requested but reaction and opinion were needed. Mr. Brittain and Ms. Holmes walked Council members through the plan. The three (3) main areas discussed this evening would be the current discharge permit, facility improvements and green energy opportunities. Information was given on the discharge locations, current discharge rates, and primary and secondary treatments. Mr. Brittain noted that under very extreme circumstances a few times over the last 10 years the flood gates were opened and discharged directly to Colma Creek. Previously the permit allowed for primary/secondary effluent blending in extreme weather flows. Now, there is strong encouragement for minimizing blending. There were 2 main issues to focus on with the new permit; 1) Minimize primary/ secondary blending of effluent and 2) completely eliminate the Colma Creek discharges. It would be best for the cities to get a permit that allows discharging into the creek. If we can demonstrate that we are not impacting the creek, we are hoping to negotiate a permit that would allow that under extremely limited conditions since it only happens approximately once every five (5) years or so. If permit doesn't work, another wet weather storage basin should be installed. Schematically speaking, the approach to reducing primary effluent would be to add an additional secondary treatment capacity. The next step would be to add storage and eliminate primary blending. Currently, there was no permit to do this. The next approach would be to add a storage basin, which would eliminate blending and near storm discharges. Ms. Holmes took over to explain the second and third areas of the presentations; facility improvements and green energy opportunities. The second element was looking at critical liability replacement projects. After testing and analysis the following issues were identified: the electrical system required safety improvements, seismic improvements needed, digester and support facilities needed improvements and emergency generators in need of replacement. New green energy opportunities that were considered were fuel cells, wind turbines, solar Fats, Oils and Grease ( "FOG "), and hydro electric power. A phased approach was suggested for implementing these alternatives. First phase would include placing solar on existing buildings during the next five (5) years through the Capitol Improvement Plan ( "CIP ") for a total project cost of $22 million. All three elements of the plan equaled a total project cost of $22 million. Next steps would be for the City Councils to approve the recommendations and incorporate into the CIP, then present and submit the plan to the regional board, and begin working on the design and environmental documentation and permitting. Councilwoman Matsumoto asked the difference fixed versus operational assets. She also asked if the burdens created by extreme wet weather had been remedied or if it was still a problem. Director White responded the fixed assets were items like the digesters and grit chambers. Operational assets are based on flow and consumption. Mr. Brittain stated the currently things were ok with the level of flow. Mayor of San Bruno, Jim Ruane sought clarification as to if the Colma Creek permit was denied, would that automatically kick into the additional wet weather storage provision. Mr. Brittain stated yes, but noted a plan to eliminate Colma Creek discharges must be made and implemented, but a timeline was not given. Mayor Ruane asked if the two could be combined, in other words apply for the permit at approximately $1 million and then implement the future plan for additional storage plan for an additional $12 million. Mr. Brittain stated you could, but first approach is to try to get permit, based on the plan for the future. Director White noted it would take $12 million to build a storage basin, let alone finding the space to build it, would be problematic. Anticipated steps were taken to hopefully negotiate with the Board, SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE SAN BRUNO AND JANUARY 18, 2011 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CITY COUNCILS MINUTES PAGE 2 which may be possible if we can prove there are only discharges at high flow and we can get 10:1 or better dilution rate. It would take a number of environmental studies to look at E.coli in the creek already, a lot of which is present due to the number of birds there. This could lead to quite a bit of dispute as we go forward. It would be a big gamble to put together a study. Would you want spend 100,000 to 200,000 to fend of a $12 million dollar hit? Staff felt that was a wise decision. Councilman Gonzalez asked how much capacity was the storage at Linden Avenue and was told the storm water pump station held approximately 1 million gallons. Director White added the capacity on a 12 million gallon storage basin is 7 million gallons. Councilman Gonzalez asked about the treatment done to the water discharged at Colma Creek. Director White stated water that is stored in the current pod, has a primary treatment to the lowest level of treatment, but it can be stored, disinfected and discharged out to the bay. Director White stated if we could build a bigger basin and capture would we /could we continue to pump primary affluent out to the bay. Potentially the Water Board would allow us to do that but they would probably ask us to study bringing another pipe and pump situation back to front part of plant and run through full process again. Depends on the storage we can put out there. What we have out at the point now, given the soil conditions, the likelihood we can make that any more than we have now, is just not practical. Mr. Brittain stated the soil there was so weak, additions would fail. The only other option would be to build another sight. Mayor Ruane asked if the storage facility had to be land based or could it be floating, like a tanker. Mr. Brittain stated that it could and talks about potential for corrosion or spills had occurred. You could also put the storage upstream into the collection system. Mayor Mullin referring to the green energy piece, wind power had not found its way into the plan short term or long term. Was this because of the affordability or the overall cost effectiveness compared to the other options like solar and FOG? Brittain stated the issues included: foundations issues to support windmills, habitat and costs of construction. Otherwise this is one of the better wind locations in the bay. Smaller scale models were looked at as well, but the idea was to have larger, higher and slower moving windmills. At this point however, there would be an opportunity to contract with a developer that would offer to pay a share of the burdens rather than putting up all the capital yourselves. San Jose was doing something similar. Mayor Mullin asked when talking about the generational investments being made in this location, have bay level models been looked at and evaluated, taking into consideration the changes that could occur along the bay front? Ms. Holmes stated sea level rise analysis was looked at as there was a lot of uncertainty in how much they were going to increase. Extreme high tide was looked at, and identified one of the week points on the chart. For most part, the work determined the Cities were ok. Councilman Addiego asked about the expense related to fuel cells. Mr. Brittain stated FOG and fuels cell costs were estimated at $12 million. Councilman Addiego found the concept of a floating basin interesting and possibly something to explore. Referring back to the main discharge line which contained product from Millbrae, Burlingame, and the airport the Councilman asked for details of the agreement held with these entities. SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE SAN BRUNO AND JANUARY 18, 2011 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CITY COUNCILS MINUTES PAGE 3 Director White responded there was a five -way agreement with the North Bayside System Unit ( "NBSU "), which included the formulas on who would be responsible to pay for what. Costs are shared between those in the agreement. Mr. Brittain noted the agreement had provisions for the amount of flow to pass through the pipelines though some days there might be a little more. Councilman Addiego asked if these other entities had finite storage facilities. Mr. Brittain understood Burlingame had construction underway but was unsure of the others. Vice Mayor Garbarino asked about the parcel at the Costco parking lot site for a storage site. Director White stated it could be done but was not preferred. One of the things done now was digesters that were not full are currently used as storage. A favorable discharge permit would continue to be pursued because whatever could be done to divert other fixed costs towards energy savings was worth while. Mayor Mullin asked for a timeline as to the next steps. Director White noted staff would finish the facility plan and bring forward at a later regular staff meeting for adoption. Collectively, between San Bruno and South San Francisco, it would be sent off to the Water Board with resolutions attached. With the direction from this evening, the plan was essentially 99.9% complete so it could happen relatively soon, possibly in March. Councilman Addiego felt Mr. Brittain had alluded that at some point San Bruno expressed interest on being a little more aggressive on the green component. Mayor Ruane deferred to Connie. Connie did not recall that was the case. It had been reviewed by a subcommittee and discussed in an informal context. The idea of green energy was something desirable but the City Council as a whole felt the cost of the necessary improvements were very high to being with. As Councilwoman Matsumoto pointed out earlier, there would definitely be interest in pursuing any grant our outside funding to move forward with the green aspects of the program. Mayor Mullin thanked the Councils, staff and Carollo Engineers for their work on the project. Mayor Ruane thanked the City of South San Francisco for hosting the session. 5. ADJOURNMENT. Being no further business, Mayors Mullin and Mayor Ruane adjourned the meeting at 7:36 p.m. Submitted: Approved: Anna Brown, Deputy Clerk, Kevin Mullin, Mayor, City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE SAN BRUNO AND JANUARY 18, 2011 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CITY COUNCILS MINUTES PAGE 4