Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1992/08/26 August ii, 1992 FROM: The Honorable Mayor & City Council Patty Wesp, Secretary MR JOINT CITY COUNCttr~AY WATER DISTRICT MEETING MEMO TO: SUBJECT: After polling Councilmembers, the following date and time have been confirmed via Attorney Tom Harron representing the District to conduct a Joint City Council/Otay Water District meeting: Wednesday. August 26, 1992 . 3:00 p.m. Otay Municipal Water District (Board Room) 10595 Jamacha Boulevard Spring Valley For your reference, I am attaching a copy of our 7/24/92 letter. Should you have questions or additional directions, please advise. cc: City Manager City Attorney City Clerk otay NOTICE OF A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCILjOTAY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the city Council of the City of Chula vista will meet in an special joint meeting on Wednesday, August 26, 1992 at 3:00 p.m. in the otay Municipal Water District Board Room, 10595 Jamacha Boulevard, spring valley, CA. Said meeting will be for the purpose of a Joint Meeting with the otay Municipal Water District Board. DATED: August 18, 1992. Beverly A. Authelet, city Clerk "I declare under penalty of perjury that I am emplo'le1 by the City of Chula Vista in the 01fice of t"o Ci ty Cieri: and th~ 1 posted this r,;;eneJ3/Notice en the Bulletin Ooard at the pUbly?es BuJding and at Cit~1t!!1 on DATED: I~/~ SIGNED6-9'r::y/ .. ~\ft- =~~~ ~~~~ ~~~"""'" "'"""'- ~ OFFICE OF THE MAYOR TIM NADER ellY OF CHULA VISTA July 24, 1992 Board of Directors Otay Municipal Water District 10595 Jamacha Blvd. Spring Valley,Ca. 91978 Dear Chairman Hilton and Board Members: This letter is in regards to the action taken by the City Council in December 1991, to work with the Otay Water District in resolving concerns we had with the purchase of a 57 acre parcel from the Otay Ranch without environmental clearance. The City Council's concerns have been centered in the area of emergency/terminal storage. The storage options presented in your master plan, prepared by Black and Veach, placed over half of your total system cost into concrete storage facilities. We are concerned with the lack of environmental review and planning consultation prior to this decision. Our staffs have been working on the issues over the last 6 months with written questions and answers being transmitted back and forth. Our staff was slow in responding to your last letter. We apologize but due to the necessity of having top management involvement coupled with very critical issues during the last two months of the fiscal year, our response and further questions were delayed. We have been made aware that your Board has indicated a desire not to extend the period that an environmental lawsuit may be filed. Therefore, it is important that decisions be made prior to early September which are acceptable to our respective agencies. We request that a joint meeting between your Board and the City Council be held. Our last staff communication was transmitted to you in early July. In order to give you ample time to reply, and our staff time to review your reply, we would suggest the joint meeting be held during the week of August 24. If your Board agrees, please contact Patty at my office to schedule the joint meeting. Very truly yours,. ..[;.. /k~<C.- Tim Nader Mayor TN:mab 276 FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 919101(619) 691-5044 CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM August 21, 1992 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Director of Public Works ~ SUBJECT: Otay Water District Meeting- August 26, at 3:00 pm There will be a special joint meeting with the Otay Water District to discuss the Lawsuit over purchase of the 57 + Acre Reservoir site from Baldwin. Otay has indicated that they do not wish to continue the time for a CEQA lawsuit beyond their first board meeting in September. Attached is a packet of pertinent material. This includes the Council report that started this process; and correspondence between the two agency staffs concerning the issues. The main issue is the method of providing 10 days emergency storage as recommended by the CW A. CV staff is not opposed to 10 days storage. We still question, that the most economical method is being used. There is a need for hundreds of millions of dollars of infrastructure and public facilities to be constructed in the Eastern Area, including Streets, Sewers, Drainage, Parks, Schools as well as an adequate water system. Our concern is that if an independant water agency gold plates their system, there is less debt that can be used for other needed infrastructure. Sid Morris or John Lippitt will be willing to discuss this with you prior to the meeting. WE have also asked our consultant to be available for a closed session following Tuesday's Council meeting, should the council wish to call one. AUG-21-'92 14:31 ID:POWELL/PC AQUATICS TEL NO:619-753-0730 11950 P02 . u . . DRAFT alSIOHS. TO OTAY WAT.a D%8TaXCT'S LBTT.a OP AUGUST 17, un City staff has reviewed the Auqust 17, 1992, letter response trom Otay Water District (otay) regarding their Water Resource. Master Plan. We believe that Otay has written a credible response to the issues that have been raised and we appreciate the time and effort that went into the letter. Certainly, the City staff agrees that the provision of sufficient water storage is critically important and does not dispute the validity of the CWA recommendinq that its member agencies develop the ability to remain off the aqueduot for up to ten days. It should be noted that the issues that have been raised by staff are focused on the form that the emerqency supplies should take, not the need for the emergency supplies themselves. There are several alternatives available for developing emergency storaqe and its is important that the most economic and operationally appropriate form of developing that storage be selected. The following are Bome specific comments on several of the issues discussed in the letter I 1. Master Plan storage M04if1cat1ons- Staff is pleased to see that Otay will amend its draft master plan to call for 5 days of emergency storage in the form of potable water in covered reservoirs and 5 days of storaqe in the form of raw water storaqe in larqe open reservoirs. Staff also agrees with otay's position that distribution system storage be credited towards the 5 day requirement. Both of these amendments allow for considerable cost savings. 2. LoWer otay .e..rv01r- It is also encouraging to read that otay is pursuing raw water storage rights and treatment capacity from the city of San Diego in Lower otay Reservoir. Staff agrees that this approaoh appears to be the most economic way of supplying emergency supplies to otay'. service area. ~"....-..........-- - - RUG-21-'92 14:31 ID:POWELL/PC AQUATICS TEL NO:619-753-0730 11950 P03 . - ,. pe.klnq I'.oto~- staff still believe. that a peaking factor of 2.2 or 2.3 i. very conservative for the design of district-wide facilities. This level of peaking factor may be appropriate for the design of smaller localized system components but is too conservative for the design of District-wide facilities. Significant opportunities for facility cost savings may be possible if lower peaking factors are considered. ... Longer Term Raw Water storage- staff pleased to see that otay is working with the CWA, MWO and the county to secure one to three months of raw water storage in the event of an area-wide emergency. We also understand that the CWA has .tored raw water in Lower Otay Reservoir for many year.. However, it is very important that Otay have the facilities available to treat and deliver this water to all portions of its service area in order to take advantage of this storage. 5. con.ervation DurinljJ an Emergenoy- Reducing water demands during an emergency was discussed in otay I s letter. Staff concurs that it would be inappropriate to design water storage for ~he extreme case that all water for irrigation and outdoor uses would be prohibited such that significant landscape losses would occur. We believe that a more moderate approach of some what restricting outdoor water uses could allow significant conservation without causing the death of plants. This level of conservation could substantially reduce the size and cost of water .torage. I. BOODO.io Analy...- As stated above, it appears that obtaining raw water supplies from the City of San Diego appear. to be the moat economic alternative at this time. Staff concurs that if this alternative is workable detailed economic studies may not be needed. However, costs and benefits do not always work out as they may tir.t appear upon a cursory evaluation. Spendinq several thousand. ot dollars now in economic studies could literally save millions of dollars in the future. Should the negotiations with San Diego be unsuccessful, it will be very important that a careful economic evaluation of the remaining storage options be undertaken prior to commencement with the construction of 10 days treated water storage. 7. J Days TJ:eate4 Wat.r storaqa- Otay has clearly explained its rationale for covered water storage.Th1s rationale is based on operational experience and judgement, which has merit. However, there are ways other that using judgement to determine if the five days of covered storage is the optimum amount of storage. Failure and risk analyse. can be performed to determine the need for _.~--~._"_.'- AUG-21-'92 14:32 tD:POWELL/PC AQUATICS TEL NO:619-753-0730 11950 P04 - . covered storage. The CWA is doing this now in conjunction with their emergency storage studies. We fe.l that this issue is important and encourage Otay to perform . risk analysis to quantify the potable water storage requirement. If raw water storalle can be purchased form the city of San Diego, it will likely be cheaper than the construction of treated water .torage. Possibly purchasing 6 or 7 days storage should be considered, thereby reducing the amount of treated water .toraljJe needed.. 8. 'fre.t..llt l'lut loonom10 u.u..- Staff aqrees that each of the ar9U=ents made in each of the paragraphs on page a of otay's letter are valid when viewed separately. As stated. before, constructinq treatment facilities just for the .ake of saving the coat differential between raw and treated water is probably not economic. However having access to or owning treatment facilities and raw water storage can lJignificantly reduce the requirement and capital cost of treated water storaqe. When the cost savings of purchasing raw water are added to the cost savinqs of not having to construct hundreds of millions of gallons of treated storage treatment facilities lI\ay be very economic. In addition invaluable benefits are gained by havinq the ability to construct or purchase riqhts in a raw water reservoir that would qive one to three months of storaqe as opposed to 10 days. 88/17/'2 13:32 a 1 619 670 22'S OTAY WATER DI5T. P.e2 ...ct>OOICtrIcd to (',()IIIIWmII~ f:c.IlIir.c .....,JIULICHA IOUl.E\MD, ......N3 ~ C/N.FORfr&' '"'" ta.a'HCNE: -. ARiA CODE" Auqust 17, 1992 Hr. John D. Goss City Manager city of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Re: Water Resources Kaster Plan Dear John: Thank you for your l.etter of July 15, 1992. Your co_entll in that letter zero in on the vital issues which affect both of our agencies, i.e., how to finanoe the neoessary infrastructure to serve future development in a manner in which ill both economi- cally feasible and whioh preserves the quality of life in Cbula Vista. There are some fundamental assumptions which we JIlake in address- ing these problems. The first is that development should pay its own way. Existing customers should not be forced to subsidize future development. You have colDlllented on the -general" nature of some of our answers to your questions ami requested more specifics. In order to obtain the specific answers that you seek, in sOllie instances it is necessary that expensive studies be conducted. We believe that it is reasonable to finance general planning from customer rates but the specific studies are financed by the developers who benefit from them. In some instances, it may be that our general planning will obviate the need for lIore specific stUdies. SOlletiDes the beet anllwerll becollle obvious and nothing further need be done. In other instances, specific studies are required and timing beoomes oru- cial. Those specific studies should be carried out at the ti1lle a developer applies for water service so that the studies will be financed by the developer rather than existing customers. With these basic assumptions in .incl, we will try to give further responses to your letter. We continue to refer to the subject titles and the paragraph nUJDbers that we have used in previous letters. 88/17/"2 1:S1:S:S :s: 1 61" 678 22:18 OTAY WATER DIST. P.8:S Mr. John D. Goss city Manager city of Chula Vista Page 2 August 17, 1992 CURRENT CWO TERMINAL WATER STORAGE PLAN OWD a'lr.ell with City Staff'lI allllertion that .erioUII conll1deration should J)e 'liven to directin'l OWO's resouroes and efforts towards finding a seoure souroe of raw water storage. Potential souroes inolude treating raw water fro>> the San Diego County Water Authority (CWA), the City of San Diego, Sweetwater Authority and Helix Water Distriot. The Middle Sweetwater River Croundwater Basin is also under consideration. We believe that the construc- tion of new raw water storage is a less promising alternative. The expense and severe envirolllllental impacts associated with the development of new raw water storage facilities argues against it. It is true that we have not incurred the expense of detailed specific studies on this latter approach but we have followed the experience ot OliveDhain with Mt. IsraelI, CWA with Pallo Dam and ot the NWO with Domenigoni Reservoir. Focusing on the issue of emergency water supply for Eastern Chula villtar we don't need a ctudy to know that if we could obtain a right to raw water in Lower otay Reservoir and either build addi- tional treatment capacity for the city of San Diego or indepen- dent treatment capacity for ourselves, this should be the most preferable and least expensive alternative for providing emer- gency supply for days six through ten. We use the word "should" because we don't know how much the City of San Diego or CWA is going to charge us for this right. We will offer to pay for the raw water and the oost of constructing the additional treatment capacity. The advantage to San Diego is that it will bring dol- lars to the City at a time when all government agencies are strapped for funds and it will add sOlRe redundancy to the City's system. In our aeetings with representatives of the Baldwin Com- pany, it has been our understanding that they are also willing to otfer to _ke lIoms improvementll to the City of San oiego'lI .ystem in return for right. to raw water .torage and trsament. We hope that we will be able to offer a "paokage" to San Die'lo that will be attraotive enough to convinoe it to agree to thill alternative. While we aSIIWIle that the above alternative would be the least expensive, we do not know what its actual cost will be until we get a response fron San Dieqo. The City is currently considering our initial proposal. Until we get this response we cannot put a dOllar figure on this alternative and it is therefore i.possible to do a cost analysis of this alternative versus other 1 oUvenhain water District has been workin'l on the Mt. Israel Reservoir for nearly 20 years. NoW, as they are approaChing construction, the neighboring honeowners are 1IIOunting strong oppolli tion. 88....17....92 1:S1:S~ S 1 61~ 678 22" OTRY WRTER OIST. P.84 Mr. John D. Goss city Manager city of Chula Vista Pllqe 3 August 17,. 1992 alternatives. xt would be hard to justiry spending thousands or dollars on studies until we have this alternative nailed down. In the interia, it continues to be our position that ve should be prspared for the vorst oas.. consistent with HWD and CWA quide- lines, OWO requires 10 average days of _ergenoy supply to be available in oase of an aqlleduot shutdown, earthquake or other _jor _e~enoy. We r8qllire that five days of this supply be in oovered reservoirs containing potable water. The remaining five days Ilay be provided froa other .ources but OWD require. .ites for these additional covered reservoirs in oase other sources are never found. OWO currently has sites purc::hased for five clays of oovered storage for our Central Areo. system if the Baldwin parcel is included. The acreage required to site an additional five days of storaCjJe, if other sources are not available, is a little over 100 acres. 'l'he cost of this acreage would be sODewhere between $5,000,000 and $6,000,000 if the land is not dedicated as a condition of develop~ent. We oonsider this to be a reasonable a~ount to insure that OWD will be able to provide a 10-day _er- gancy supply to future custo~ers. If assured sources of cheaper _erqency supply are obtained, the additional reservoirs vill not be built and the site(s) can be sold or used for other purposes. You asked how the oost for correcting deficiencies in terainal storage for existing custo~ers will be allocated. The District's primary souroes of revenue for facilities benefitting existing custo~ers are the monthly water revenues and availability fees. These revenues go into specific funds whic::h are then drawn upon to pay for the replacement or betterment portion of a faoility benefitting existing users. These funds would be used to correct any deficiencies in terminal storage. WATER STORAGE QUESTIONS AND ISSUES 1. Water Resource OUAlitv Issues. You asked for OWO's schedule for oompleting the water quality plan. The Distriot's Water Quality Kaster Plan is IIOheduled. to be oompleted in early 1~~3 in advanoe of the BPA's Disinfeotion Byproduots Rule. When this plan i8 coapleted, Staff will forward a oopy to the city of Chula vista for review. 2. Distribution SVStem storaae. You asked for a aore preoise rationale for the District's eme~ency distribution storage requirement of 2.3 average days. The District.. requir_nt i. actually equal to one maximum day demand. This is approximately equal to 2.3 average days but varies .Ughtly dependlnq on the land use and location in the system. We checked with the allen- cies mentioned in your letter and also the oriteria for vista Irrigation, SWeetwater Authority, Helix and Vallecitos. Of the B8/17/92 13136 S I 619 678 22'8 OTAY WATER DI5T. P.B~ Kr. John D. Goss city Hanager city of Chula Vista Page 4 August 17, 1992 various agenoies, it appears.that you cite~ the .tan~ards ot only those agencies that bave a lower criteria than otay an~ excl~e~ those that are higher. You cited the City of San Diego's crite- ria as 0.8 average days when it is actually 1.2 average days an~ mentioned the criteria for OCeanside, whioh does not have one. It should also be noted that the' city of San Diego currently bas three treatment plants, with a fourth planned, with a oombined capacity 130\ greater than their average day demand in addition to the 1.2 days of treated storage. 'l'hia capacity, along with the redun~anoy built into their distribution systea, provides a great deal of flexibility during emergencies. OW's oriteria are based on two factors: 1) Hany area a in the District are'remote from the aqueduct and muat stand alone clurinq an outage, and 2) Distribution storage serves the dual purpose of providing some emergency storage. Historically there has not been sufficient development to allow the District to interconnect its various subsystems with re~un- dant feeds. However, as development continues to expan~ and fill in the District's system, the interconnecting facilities in the Kaster Plan will be laplemented. If sufficient interconnections between pressure zones and subays- tns are in place, there is some support for the rationale that lower criteria for distribution storage would exist. However, this storage also counts towards the required five days of cov- ered emergency storage and removing it from the distribution reaervoira would alao reduce the amount of emergency storage be- low 10 days. '1'hia atorage muat atill be aupplied ela_here, pre- sumably in larger terminal storage reservoira. It is aigniti- oantly cheaper to pay for the incremental upsizinq of the diatri- bution reservoir to hold more emergency storage then to build a new terminal reservoir. It is therefore desirable to put aa much emergenoy storage as possible in the distribution system reser- voirs to reduoe the cost to our custollers of the five-days cov- ered emergency storage. 3. EmeraenCIV storaae Reauirements. You argue that our storage criteria are .ubjeotive, not quantitative, unoonvinoing and not based on rational analyais. Aa profe..ionals who operate and maintain a water diatribution aystem on a daily basis under a wil2e ranqe of emergencies and conl2itions and who meet on a regu- lar basis with representatives of other districta, CWA, the MWD and state water otticials to discuss criteria, it ia our opinion that five days of covered storage is the minimum ..erQsDCy stor- age requirement at this tille. We benefit from our own experience as well as the experience of others in ~raftinq our oriteria. 88/17/'2 1;S1;S7 a 1 61' 678 22~8 OTAY WATER 015T. P.86 Mr. John D. Goss city Manager city of Chula vista paqe 5 Auqust 17, 1992 At thill point it aiqht be helpful to cite an example with which the City ia ramlliar. When CWA ahut down the aquedUct in April to allow for the relocation of some of ita facilities in oonjuno- tion with the i.prov_ent of Highway 52, we haeS a .planned out- age." OWD was able to make arrangeaenta with the city of San Dieqo and HeUx to provieSe t_porary interconneotions. What wasn't planned. was the extraordinary heat wave that struok the County at that tiae and some Jlalfunctions in the City of San Dieqo's syatea. Although this outage didn't present a threat to life or health, it did threaten property (e.q., parks and playing fields in Chula vista). Property eSllJDage due to a lack of water oan be very expensive. It has been estiJlated that Santa Barbara lost up to $450,000,000 worth of landsoaping during the drought. ClfA employees inspected the aqueduct in the South Bay during this planned outage and found it to be in operable condition. This was no sure thing. Had they been required to replace some of the aqueduot, the outaqe oould have lasted another week. This woulcl have had a aevere impaot on the South' Bay. Again, this wa. a .planned outage." We Jlust be prepared for the unplanned emer- qency~ Although emergenoy storage may be drawn upon for minor, local emergenoies, the primary purpose of the 10-day total _ergenoy supply with five days in oovered. storage is to _intain servioe eSuring Jlajor outages. Under normal oonditions, it Jlay be possi- ble to activate a treatment plant in one or two days. However, in a major outage, such as an .,.rthquake, the aqueduct couleS be severed and treatment facilities dllJDaqed. It could take days or weeks before supplies from those sources would be available. In addition, after such a major event, it is reasonable to expect numerous District pipelines could fail also, as well as those of neiqhboring agencies. Althouqh otay and the other local a9encies keep suffioient pipe on hand for most minor emervencies, after a major event there will be a high demand placecl upon pipe manufac- turers who mayor may not be able to make immediate deliveries due to inventories and road conditions. Based on the Distriot's experience over the last 36 years in operating a water systsa under aqueduct shutdowns and local emerCjJencies, we believe five eSays Is a reasonable compromise between the risks and oosts involved. You charaoterize this as a "feels right" analysis as opposed to a "rational analysis." It is probably not,unlike the analysis you apply to many of your own servioes. For exllJDple, the City'S thresholds contain minimum response tises tor polioe and tire. we would imagine that,you would have a hard time providinq quan- titative back-up to support a five-minute response time versus a six-minute response time for the fire department. What Is the value of the property that burns in that extra minute versus the 88/17/92 13139 a: 1 619 678 22'8 OTAY WATER 0 1ST. P.87 Kr. John D. Goss city Manager city of Cbula Vista Page 6 August 17, 1992 cost of another fire station ana sora fire righters? ~ase kinds of questions do not readily lend themselves to quantitative anal- ysls, particularly when health and safety are involved. Instead, jud9l1ents are based on experience. Similarly, experience plays a large role in the water business in developing oriteria. Peakina Pact.ors. You comment that the pxuum day peaking fact.or of 2.3 used in the report was conservatively hi41h and that a lower peaking factor would reduce the size of the emergency stor- age requirements. Please note that the maximum day peaking fao- tor of 2.3 is an approximation of the combined potable and non- potable peaking factors. The maximua day peaking factor used in the Master Plan for potable. water is actually 2.2, not 2.3. You also mentioned that the peakinq factor shown in the Master Plan steadily decreased since 1970. Although the trend may be correct for District-wide demands, the.peakin9 factor shown in the report were for District-wide maximum month demands which have a consid- erably lower peakinq factor than for maxillum day demanda. When sizing a atorage reaervoir, pipeline or pump atation, peaking faotors 100a1 to the faoility, not Distriot-wide peakinq factors, are used. In cheoking with several other agenoies, we found 2.4 to be a OODmon lIaximum day peaking faotor used for sizing faoili- ties. Historically the District has used 2.6 as a maxillUD day peaking factor. Therefore the 2.2 used in the Master Plan reflects the District's continuing effort to appropriate adjustaents to our criteria as conditions change. Our plan is that the construction of facilities will keep pace with development. If the trend con- tinues for lower peaking factors, we will be able to downsize our facil.ities. Bal.anced Infrastructure Develonment. We ahare your concerns for the limits on the allount of money available for infrastructure improvements. We .believe that we should not spend more than the minimUlll amount neoessary to provide reliable water service. We hope to have a oooperative relationship with the city of Chula Vista in exwning these issues. On the other hand, we want to be careful not to develop an inadequate system that will require oonstant and expensive upgrading at the expense of our lIutual oonstituents. 4 . onA ~o fJ'hrAEl Months of RAW Wa1:ar St:.orllOB. The CWA has begun the EIR process required to locate and con- struct a major storage reservoir .in Harth county. The MWD is proceeding with its work to design and construct Domeniqoni aeaervoir. CWA is examining the cost effectiveness of storing emergenoy 8upplies at various locations throughout the county. 88/17/'2 13140 a 1 619 678 22'S OTAV WATER DI5T. P.8S Mr. John D. Goss city Jlanaqer city of Chula Vista page 7 August 17, 111112 As we stated in our April 16th letter, CWA and HWD are planninq to provide eaerqenoy supplies for up to six .onths. They have also advised us to plan to be self-suffioient for up to 10 days. The County of San Diego's Water Annex for B1aergenoy water Supply i. a document which provides for .utual aid among all oounty agencies after a ma:lor event. Thi. Annex is in the final draft staqe and expected to qo to tbe Board of Supervisors for approval in October. The CWA already has water stored in several of the City of San Dieqo reservoirs, ineludinq Lower Otay. In the event of a aajor outage, this stored water would be available to otay as well as the other .8lIIber aqencies of CWA. 5. Imnact of Water conservation on Storaae Reauirements. Your oomment that 8hort-term emergency outdoor watering restrictions reduce demands i8 a valid one. We have had 80me experience with thie from the aquedUct fallure two year8 aqo and recent 8hut- downs. We want to be able to get the community throuqh an emer- gency outage with as little damage as possible. cutting off irriqation bas its consequences. For example, if you lost land- scaping valued at $1,000 per home, 10,000 homes would suffer $10,000,000 in damages. These and other losses would need to be weighed with any savings resulting from not building _erqency storage. 6. Use of Groundwater Basins for Storaae. You asked for the status and copies of the Middle Sweetwater Basin Study. The Dis- trict has now finalized this study and is makinq it available for public comment. A copy is attached for the city of Chula vista for review. Inte~rated Plannina Issues. You comment that the District is cont nuinq to use a "piece-llIeal" approach in planning the water system and asked what plans we had in it for integrating our var- ious water subsystems. A review of the Master Plan plainly ahows plans to tie all six of our subsystems together. As you .en- tioned, this will i.prove our operation flexibility and reliabil- ity. Thes. improve.ents are shown on the Master Plan, Water Dis- tribution System Improvements Map (Fiqure IX-l). You..y be con- tusinq the phased construction described in the Master Plan with a "piece-meal" approach. Many of the facilities planned are being phased to coincide with development. The District triss, whenever possible, to avoid building facilities that benefit future customsrs at existing customers' expense. 7. Economics of Obtainincr Storaae in SWAA't:.WIl't.Ar Reservoir. Your commenta and questions in Items 7, II, 10 and 11, priaarily deal with evaluating the economics of various alternatives fer emerqency sources of supply or storaqe. The alternatives men- tioned include raw water storage in other aqeneies' reservoirs 88/17/92 1:'5142 Z 1 619 678 22'8 OTAY WATER DIST. f'.B' Mr. John D. Goss city KanaljJBr city of Chu1a vista Pa'1e 8 AUCJUst 17, 1992 and treating raw water frOlI the aqueduct or a new open re..rvoir. We do not !:Ielieve that it takes an expensive study to tell us that obtaininq treatment capacity and raw water storaqe at Lower Otay Lake lIhould be the JDOst economic alternative. The i.sue is what will San Diego or possibly CWA deaand from us in compensa- tion for this storage. To date, our discussions with San Diego have been very encouraging. We bave _de a proposal whereby we would pay the cost of redundant treataent capacity in return tor the right to treatment of water during an emergency. Once we have San Die90's response, we will be able to attach cost tigures to this alternative. If the cost is cOIlllll8nsurate with the actual cost of purchasing and treating the lake water, we believe it will be much less than the COlilt of treating raw water trom the aqueduct or establiShing a new open reservoir. The need for an expensive study to do comparative cost analysis will no lonqer exist. It San Diego lIakes excessive deJllands, we would have to oompare the oost ot meeting those demands with the cost of providin9 treatment for raw water from the aqueduct or a new open reser- voir. At that point, the COllt of preparing- a ClOJIlprebensive eco- nOllic comparison of alternativell would be justified. 8. Neaotiations with Helix and San nieao for Raw Water storaqe. You requested more specific information and a schedule regarding negotiations with Helix, San Diego, sweetwater and CWA. After reviewing Sweetwater's counter-proposal, negotiations have ):)een put on hold pending a search for less expensive alternatives. We have had meetings with ):)oth San Diego and Helix and have a pro- posal ):)efore the City of San Diego. It is cur hope that we will have some resolution of these Negotiations this year. Our dis- cussions with Helix are at a preliminary stage. g. Economic Comnarison of Treated Versus Raw Wat.er storaae. See Item 7. 10. Sitina Raw 'Water storaae and TreatlM!nt Pacilities. This option has not been discarded but we recognize that it has severe limitations. We have followed CWA's experience with PaRo Dam, Olivenhaints experience with Mt. Israel and the MWD's experience with the Domeniqoni Reservoir olosely. Not only is this approach tille oonsuminq an4 expensive, it involves severe environmental consequences. We would bave problellS justifying the initial stu4y costs, of such an alternative until we first resolve the issue of whether we can obtain storage in Lower otay Reservoir. 11. Providina Treatment Pacilities to Access Both Raw and Piltered Water Pioe1ines, Again, we are not at a point where we oould justify the expenditure of funds on this alternative until 88'17'92 13:43 II: 1 6U 678 22'S OTAY WATER 015T. P.1S Mr. John D. Goss City Manager City of Chula Vista Page 9 August 17, 1992 we have determined whether we can o/:;)tain treatment capacity and storage at Lower otay Reservoir. oThere are economies of scale that can be o/:;)tained in treating raw water. Bulldinq a treatDent facility for the sole purpose of meeting the ..ergenay storage requireaant does not on its face seea to be a very economical solution. Buildinq a treatment facility to treat all or a large portion of water used in the otay Water District would seea to be uneconoaical compared to buying water treated by MWD because their treataent facilities would have an -econoay of .cale~ advantaqe over otay trea~ent facilities. 1'reatment Plant Economic XIIIIU811. Your point is well taken that oonstruction of a treatment plant could result in a reduction in the cost of storage facilities which may more than offset the additional oost of the treatment facilities. We believe that this issue deserves further economic anallsis prior to building underqround storage facilities for days s x through ten. xt is our hope that the cost of performing such a study will be avoided if we can reach agre8llent with the city of San Dieqo over treat- ment and storage at Lower otay Reservoir. RENTAL OF TREATMENT CAPACXTY You raised several questions reqarding the District's efforts to lease "excess capacity. from another aqency's treatment plant. Treatment plants are oonstructed in a modular fashion. Extra filtration modules are usually provided for redundancy and baok- up capacity. Xf a lDodule is out of service When the full plant oapacity is needed, the "excess capacity" makes up the differ- ence. OWD has proposed to obtain some "excess capacity. frolD the city of San Diego. The conditions, such as the term of the lease, the quantities involved 0 and the availability during an emergency, would all be subject to negotiation. CONCLUSION As we bave stated in the past, the draft Master Plan for Water is be1n9 revised to CAll for ten days of 8IIIer\Jency supply with a minimum of five days in covered storage (inclucUn\J emergency storaqe in distribution reservoirs). We believe that five days distributed throughout the District in covered storaqe tacilities is necessary to enable us to have tilDe to repair treatment facil- ities, pumps and tranalllission pipes that lIay be duaqed in a major earthquake or other emariency. We hope to provide for days six throuqh ten in the most econolDically feasible manner. At the salDe tilDe, we want to reserve sites to provide tor underground storaqe throuqhout the District tor days six throu\Jh ten in case no other aolution is found. 88/17/92 1314' S I 61' 678 22~8 DTRY WRTER DIST. P.II Mr. John D. Goss City Nanaqer city of Chula Vista Page 10 AU'iUst 17, 1992 The purchase of the Baldwin property is required for the five 4ays of covered storaqe. The reservation of additional sites in the Central Area for emerqency storaqe should continue until firm cCJlllllitments for additional sources of emet'gency supply are in place. San Diego'S asking price for treatment capacity and any additional storaqe in LOWer otayReservoir should be determined prior to incurring the expllJ1se of a comprehensive cost analysis of other alternative.. We hope this information provides additional olarification and addresses your oo_ents on our April 16, 1992, letter. It is the Dietriot's 90&1 to provide reliable service at a reasonable oost to our customers inoluding the City of Chula vista. We deaire to continue cooperating with you to addreaIJ your concerns. Very truly ~?, . ~~~ Iteith Lewinqer General Xanager XL/TJH/BM/nes Enclosure cc: otay Board of Direotors (w/o enolosure) CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM July 31, 1992 TO: Honorable Mayor and city Council PROM: city Manager j SUBJECT: Water Consultant Study - Phase II In December of 1991 Council authorized me to execute a contract with John Powell and Associates, civil Engineers, for the purpose of assisting the City in evaluating the actions of the Otay Water District as it relates to their water Master Plan for Chula vista, and with particular emphasis on the economics of concrete storage vs. open reservoir storage. The Contract was to be in two phases. Phase I was in the amount not to exceed $10,000, and was to assist in addressing the potential lawsuit we would place against otay Water District for buying the 59 acre reservoir site from Baldwin without an EIR. Phase II would be entered into if phase I showed a need to do further detailed studies on the best way to serve water to the Otay Ranch and Eastern Chula vista. Phase II could not exceed $100,000 without a contract provision approved by Council. It was also indicated that I would inform Council before entering into Phase II. I believe it is now time to enter into phase II of the contract. The primary reasons that we should enter into phase II portions now are: 1. Phase one is virtually finished, and there is no more money left without a contract modification or entering into phase II. 2. The otay Ranch hearings are beginning with the project to receive approval with the next several months. Since annexation would follow that approval, we need to have a good position on water service for that area prior to annexation. 3. The Otay Board has indicated that they will not delay the deadline for filing of an environmental lawsuit beyond the first Board meeting in September. 4. It is very important to Chula Vista that an economical and CONFIDENTIAL ! adequate water supply be provided our developments. We have huge infrastructure costs, in addition to water, that need to be completed and all will be financed, one way or another, by the new homeowner. A single purpose agency like a water District has a tendency to only look at the needs of their water customers, and not balance the total costs to the buyer more like a City would do. We have had discussions with City of San Diego about supplying us water to be able to serve Otay Ranch as a City enterprise. This consultant has been helpful in giving us ideas that we could use to bargain with the City of San Diego. Although we have not finished our questions and answers correspondence with Otay, and since Otay Board has indicated that they will not extend the date for a lawsuit beyond their first meeting in September, we need to enter. Phase II of the Consultant Contract at this time. This study will provide the information needed to determine if we should proceed to attempt to become a water provider, or stay with the Otay Water District and, if we stay, what changes we would urge Otay to make in the master plan/operations. 5. Attached are copies of correspondence between Otay staff and us. Also attached is a proposal by John Powell and Associates for Phase II of the Study. The Contract will be written such that anytime at City's direction, all work will stop, or the scope could be modified. This would stop further expenditures if an agreement is reached with Otay in the early stages. Also included is a list of some of the problems we have had with the Otay Water District, and a background statement of Powell & Associates. CONFIDENTIAL \ PROBLEMS WITH OTAY WATER DISTRICT We have experienced problems with Otay Water District over the past few years that I believe gives more justification to consider alternatives for water service to the area: 1. Otay asked us to hold up our Telegraph Canyon/Otay Lakes Road project in order to design and pay for reclaimed water distribution lines in the roadway. Otay then backed out of paying for the lines in Phases I & II of the project. They did pay for lines in Phase III. 2. When Otay has emergencies in the roadway, they take a very long time to repair the street to a satisfactory condition. 3. They have known and been working on a plan to provide water to the Otay Valley Redevelopment Area for over 5 years. They had a plan to build a 3 mg tank at the Sanitary landfill site. When the development plans for the Auto Park were distributed to them, we received a reply that there was not adequate water supply to serve the area. We are working with Otay and City of San Diego to resolve this. But it is another example of a lack of coordination and follow through on their commitments. 4. Several years ago we built a water reservoir and pump station in an assessment district for Otay to serve Eastlake I. They approved the plans, but when it came time to accept the work, they found reasons to require many change orders, involving several hundred thousand dollars. This was very difficult to resolve. 5. Their new General Manager appears to be making some headway to improving the situation. Recently, for reasons unknown to me, the Chief Engineer has left. The decisions are made by a 5 member board which only has two members representing Chula Vista areas. Their area of influence and concern is different than Chula Vista's. 6. They have not aggressively pursued agreements with Sweetwater Authority and/or City of San Diego to provide more economical ways to store water. ~Vt~ -iC- r-..:_ ____ "'"....:~~ ~~~- /11- y' G:D /0 t/ tV ~j) 7- / :r- ellY OF CHUlA VISTA OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER July 15, 1992 Mr. Keith Lewinger General Manager Otay Water District 10595 Jamacha Boulevard Spring Valley, CA 92D78 SUBJECT: WATER RESOURCES MASTER PLAN Dear Keith: Thank you for your response to the City's March 5, 1992, letter regarding your Water Resources Master Plan. I appreciate the time and effort you, your staff and Board put into the letter. It shows a commendable effort at cooperation and your obvious interest in providing economical water service to your District. However, after a careful and detailed review of your April 16, 1992 letter, staff finds that a number of the responses are incomplete, and in some instances, non- responsive. The following are several comments and additional questions regarding the April 16, letter. The numbered responses refer directly to the corresponding numbers in the April 16, letter. CURRENT OWD TERMINAL WATER STORAGE PLAN You have stated orally that until the 5 days of raw water storage is secured from outside agencies, OWD will continue to secure sites for 7.7 days of terminal storage. Please confirm OWD's current position on this matter. This is a significant issue in that considerable time and money will be expended to purchase or otherwise tie up reservoir sites. Staff strongly believes that serious consideration should be given to directing OWD's resources and efforts towards finding a secure source of raw water storage (either by purchasing or leasing existing storage or by constricting new raw water storage), rather than securing sites for additional treated water storage. A 1 so, the Apr il 16 1 etter po i nts out that some of the serv i ce areas may be deficient in storage (have less than 2.3 average days of emergency storage). How will the costs for correcting this deficiency be allocated? Who will pay for the construction of the large terminal storage projects? WATER STORAGE QUESTIONS AND ISSUES 1. Reservoir Water Quality Issues - We have no further comments at this time. Staff would like the opportunity to review the plans for maintaining reservoir water quality as they are developed by OWD. What is OWD's schedule for completion of the water quality plan? 276 FOURTH AVENUElCHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691.5031 2. Distribution System Storage - Distribution system storage is typically constructed to provide peak hour flows, fire flows and emergency storage for a particular pressure zone. Dual pipeline feeds to one pressure zone greatly increases the reliability of the water supply to that pressure zone. If dual feeds or looping are provided, then the 2.3 average days requirement of distribution system emergency storage seems quite high. Other water purveyors use much less stringent criteria. For example, the City of San Diego's requirement for emergency storage is 0.8 average days, the City of Escondido's requirement is 1.0 average days and the City of Oceanside's requirement is 0.8 average days. Could you provide a more precise rationale for this higher level of distribution storage? 3. Emergency Storage Requirements - The statements made here to justify OWD's emergency storage criterion are very subjective and do not provide quantitative back-up for the decision to have 5 days of treated water storage. It appears that the 5 day requirement was selected because it "feels right", not because it was based on a rational analysis. If raw water were available locally, staff believes a treatment plant could be activated and water delivered in much less than 5 days, probably as little as one or two days. I I i I I I i i I I , I \ \ \ i. It may take the CWA and MWD 5 to 10 days to repair seven to ten foot diameter pipelines; however it is hoped that OWD could repair 18" to 24" diameter local distribution mains in much less time (one to two days). After reading the letter, staff is not convinced that the five and five day split (raw and treated) is the optimum arrangement. Perhaps it is 7 days raw water and three days treated water storage, or maybe it is 8 days raw and 2 days treated depending on the location and reliability of raw water and treatment facilities. Five days of treated water storage is still a large quantity of water and it is very expensive to build. ~; Factors - In addition, staff believes that the maximum day peaking factor of 2.3 selected in your study is conservatively high. The OWD Master Plan shows that peaking factors in OWD have decreased steadily since 1970 (from about 2.2 to 1.7). Two factors typically account for this reduction in peaking. The first is growth in size of the District, which helps to dampen the peaking factors. The second is a change in the types of customers serviced from largely agricultural uses to municipal and industrial uses. Staff believes that both of these trends wi 11 cont inue, thereby reducing peak ing even further. Experience of other water districts suggests that OWD should review the peaking factor criteria and consider adopting a lower figure based on a detailed analysis. A lower peaking factor would substantially reduce projected water demands and associated emergency storage. For example, use of a 1.8 factor in lieu of 2.3 would result in about 22% reduction in emergency storage requirements. These reductions could represent approximately 33 MG at a projected cost of $17 million. Similar cost savings could be realized for all system components, including pipelines and pump stations. Balanced Infrastructure Development - From the perspective of City Government, I am concerned that if excessive amounts of capital are used -2- CITY OF CHULA VISTA to construct treated water storage or other water works, that this will take away money from other needed infrastructure facilities. There is only a finite amount of money available for infrastructure improvements and the quality of streets, storm drains, fire facilities, schools, parks, 1 ibraries, etc. will suffer as a resu lt of over ly-conservat i ve water system design criteria. 4. One to Three Months of Raw Water Storage - The statements made in this part of the letter are very general. More information on the status of the negotiations and studies with the CWA and the County is requested. It would be helpful to know what OWO believes that likely outcome of these negotiations will be. 5. Impact of Water Conservation on Storage Requirements - In order to clarify the question in the original letter, the conservation that was referred to is short-term conservation that will be implemented during an emergency. Restrictions can be placed on outdoor water usage during an emergency that will very significantly reduce demands, thereby reducing short-term treated water emergency storage requirements. Short-term conservation could be in the 30% to 50% range, thereby significantly cutting treated water storage requirements. 6. Use of Groundwater Basins for Storage - Please send copies of the draft study reports when they are ready. What is OWO's schedule for completing these reports? The letter states that the Middle Sweetwater Basin study will be completed in May 1992. Is it available now? Integrated Planning Issues - The statements about the Middle Sweetwater Basin not benefitting Chula Vista raises another issue. Historically, the OWD system has been planned and designed as essentially several separate water systems. This piece-meal planning approach appears to be continued in the current planning efforts. What plans does OWO have to integrate the design and operation of the separate sub-systems into one large system? The redundancy of an integrated system would certainly improve system re 1 iabil i ty as we 11 as improve operat ion flex ibil ity. Shared groundwater storage is an example of such benefits. 7. Economics of Obtaining Storage in Sweetwater Reservoir - The issue raised in the March 5 letter was economics, but OWD's response furnished only capital costs. The Montgomery report contains capital costs only and does not address economics. There are major differences between a capital cost estimate and an economic study. As stated in the March 5 letter, an economic study is needed that compares alternatives and addresses the issues raised in paragraph 9 of that letter. These issues include raw versus treated water pricing, seasonal pricing, the cost of constructing covered water storage, etc. As has been stated before, while the economics of building a treatment plant (or purchasing existing treatment capacity) and treating water may not be attractive on the surface, when the cost of covered storage is included, it may be economic. The economic viability of your proposed approach has not been shown. -3- CITY OF CHULA VISTA Prior to commencing with the extremely costly storage program outlined in your Master Plan, we believe it is essential that a comprehensive economic comparison of alternatives be performed. Anything less could border on an unjustified commitment of the limited funds available for infrastructure development. 8. Negotiations with Helix and San Diego for Raw Water Storage - Your response is appreciated, but not as helpful as it may have been because it was very general. Discussions with Helix and San Diego were mentioned, but does OWD believe they will lead to real results? Please furnish more specific information on these meetings and negotiations and an assessment of what the likely outcome may be. For example, what were the results of your April meeting with City of San Diego staff? What is the next step with the City of San Diego? What is the current status of your negotiations with Helix, Sweetwater and the CWA? What is your schedule for these negotiations? 9. Economic Comparison of Treated Versus Raw Water Storage - The March 5 letter presented many issues and preliminary cost figures relating to the issues of treated water storage, raw water storage, treatment plant costs, seasonal water pricing, etc. While the response in the April 16 letter is appreciated, it was very general and did not address the economic and other issues stated in the March 5 letter. For example, the December 1989 report prepared by Woodward-Clyde/Engineering Science addressed preliminary capital costs but not an economic comparison of alternatives. In our vipw, a detailed economic study of raw water storage and treatment versus treated water storage is needed for proper planning of your storage system. 10. Siting Raw Water Storage and Treatment Facilities - The possibility of raw water storage and treatment options should not be discounted. Any study that could potentially save millions of dollars and improve the reliability of Otay's system should not be ignored. The prior study prepared for OWD did identify several candidate sites, however, it did not follow through with further technical review or an economic analysis. 11. Providing Treatment Facilities to Access Both Raw and Filtered Water Pipelines - The question in the March 5 letter dealt with what consideration OWD has given to the potential increased reliability of being able to access both the raw and filtered water pipelines. Staff believes that having the capability to take water from both pipelines significantly increases the reliability of water supply to the District. What consideration has OWD given to this issue? Treatment Plant Economic Issues - Economics do play an important part in resolution of this issue. However, it is not just the issue of whether one can construct and operate a treatment plant more (or less) economically than purchasing treated water. It also includes the issue of what reduction in treated water storage can be realized by having more than one source of supply. The reduction in cost of treated water storage facilities may more than offset the cost of treatment facilities. -4- CITY OF CHULA VISTA RENTAL OF TREATMENT CAPACITY The Apri 1 16 letter concludes by suggest ing that rent ing excess treatment capacity is a solution to OWO's storage problems. A more complete description of this alternative would be helpful. What is meant by "excess capacity?" Would this alternative provide a secure long term water supply source? Would the "excess capacity" diminish over time as the water demands of the (Moner agency increase? Would this capacity be available to OWO under an area wide water emergency? CONCLUSION Again, the time and effort you, your staff and Board have put into discussion of these water issues is greatly appreciated. We request your further cooperation in reviewing and respondi~g to this letter. I suggest that a meeting be calendared as soon as possible to discuss these issues further. To allow us time to review your response to this letter, we would like to receive your written response at least one week prior to the scheduled meeting. My staff will contact OWO to select an appropriate time and date. .v- "John O. Goss City Manager J , JOG/kt/cf (B:LEWINGER) cc: Mayor/City Council -5- CITY OF CHULA VISTA ./ I . ...-1),(/il'rllllllr, ('('"ll\lllllil~ r:;rHiN 105e~ ,JAMACHA BOULEVARO. SPRING VALLEV. CALIFORNIA 81977 TElEPMONE 157'0-2222. AREA CODE 818 April 16, 1992 Mr. John D. Goss city Manager' city of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92012 Subject: Water Resources Master Plan Dear Mr. Goss: We have reviewed the ~estions sent in your March 5, 1992 letter. The purpose of this letter is to respond to those questions and address some of the concerns that were raised. ;' CURRENT OWD TERMINAL WATER STORAGE PLAN Your understanding of otay's current approach to satisfying a minimum of ten (10) days terminal water storage is essentially correct. Only 2.7 days of additional covered terminal storage will be required if the following conditions are established: 1) otay is able to successfully negotiate with other agencies for 5 days of raw water storage and treatment capacity, and 2) Otay is able to achieve 2.3 average days (1 Maximum Day) of emergency storage located in the distribution system's operational reservoirs. Although Otay has been in contact with neighboring agencies and has attempted to negotiate with them for 5 days of water supply (storage and treatment) for some time, there is no assurance that these agencies will agree. Agreements have not been established to date. Depending on the success of these negotiations, and otay's ability to find other alternatives for replacing 5 of the 10 day terminal storage requirement, otay may need to provide anywhere from 2.7 to 7.7 days of covered terminal storage reservoirs similar to the 30 MG reservoir being designed for construction in EastLake. Although otay provides for some emergency storage in its operational reservoirs, a full 2.3 average days cannot always be counted on. For example otay has some areas where there is insufficient operational storage to meet existing demands. Where sufficient operational storage is not available, the emergency component is reduced to less than the 2.3 average days to make up the difference. These variables must be considered in making the statement that otay only needs an additional 2.7 average days of covered terminal storage. Mr. John D. Goss city Manager City of Chula Vista Page 2 WATER STORAGE OUESTIONS AND ISSUES 1. All major terminal and operational reservoirs built in the future will have water recirculating capabilities so that the turn over rate of reservoir water occurs every 5 to 7 days. Where nece~sary, the appropriate chlorination, and/or ammoniation capabilities will be provided to maintain proper disinfection residuals. otay is currently preparing a disinfection plan that will recommend the appropriate facilities and procedures to meet the current and proposed Federal and state water quality standards in existing and future facilities. Terminal storage cost estimates include the appropriate disinfection facilities to protect water quality. 2. The District's objective is for each pressure zone in the distribution system to be designed to carry its own level of operational storage that consists of operational, fire, and emergency storage components. Currently the required emergency storage component is equal to I maximum day's demand that is approximately equal to 2.3 average days demand. This criterion has been established by otay due to the remote location of otay's service area from the water supply. Looping and dual pipelines are also used by otay to increase reliability, however, they do not reduce the amount of storage required. A second pipeline allows you to deliver water if the first pipeline is out of operation but it is of no help if there is no water available to deliver. These options add flexibility to the system, enhances otay's ability to distribute storage and transfer water between zones in the case of an emergency such as fire. 3. Several factors were considered in establishing five days as the minimum amount of covered terminal storage that would be required by otay. These factors included the reaction time of repair crews in the case of major pipeline emergency shutdowns and unanticipated emergencies such as earthquakes; the economic impact to District customers to construct facilities for storing more than the 5 days of covered terminal storage; otay's abilities to schedule and construct the facilities as part of its Capital Improvements Program; and the feasibility of maintaining the quality of large volumes of water over long periods of time. otay feels strongly that requiring less than five days of covered emergency storage would significantly reduce the reliability of the system for serving our customers. In some cases it could take at least five days to marshall the required equipment and material and make other preparations to repair a severed major transmission line that serves a remote part of the District. This judgment is based on our own experience in maintaining our system and on our observations of repair and maintenance projects carried out by SDCWA and MWD. If otay had only one day of . Mr. John D. Goss City Manager City of Chula vista Page 3 emergency storage and relied primarily on other agencies' treatment plants that could also be damaged in an emergency, there is a high risk that customers would be out of water. On the other hand, if otay is required to construct a full 10 days of emergency storage it will place a tremendous financial burden on existing and future customers. Five days is also considered to be a conservative time period to maintain the quality of water in storage. To a certain extent, this is a judgment call and we ask the City to exercise its own judgment in considering this question in light of the factors discussed above. Consider an emergency situation such as an earthquake. If the treatment plant is damaged or if the transmission pipes from the plant or the pump stations are out, the covered storage will be all Chula Vista residents will have quring this very critical time. It may be difficult to effect repairs in such circumstances. Fire fighting problems are predictable. How many days of reliable water supply does the City believe its citizens should have? We believe five days is a reasonable compromise considering risks and costs. 4. If we have five days in tanks, that gives us an opportunity to repair our system to treat and deliver the water that is stored in open reservoirs. We then have an additional five days to connect to other sources within the County. SDCWA and MWD have a program to ultimately provide two months of storage below the San Luis Rey River and six months of storage below San Bernardino. The theory is that repairs could be accomplished outside these areas within the two and six month periods so that these sources would suffice. SDCWA and MWD advise us to be self sufficient for ten (10) days. In addition, Otay is interested in obtaining several months' storage over and above the 10 day storage requirement. Discussions are ongoing with the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA), City of San Diego, Helix Water District, and the Sweetwater Authority for storage and treatment capacity. otay will continue to pursue agreements with these agencies as well as continue working with the SDCWA and the County of San Diego in their preparation of the Water Annex For Emergency Water Supply. The Water Annex will address long-term emergencies. 5. Water conservation has been considered in projecting the future storage requirements of otay. However, since terminal storage will be built over a long period of time, possibly 20 years, usage patterns could change. If these patterns change over the long-term due to conservation, the sizing of reservoirs wi~l be adjusted to reflect the change in demands. 6. Groundwater storage to provide water supply during an emergency is being investigated for long-term water outages. This type of storage is usually extracted and delivered at a slower rate over an extended period of time to supplement more Mr. John O. Goss City Manager city of Chula vista Page 4 readily available sources such as terminal storage and lakes. otay and Sweetwater Authority have hired a consultant to study the Middle Sweetwater River Basin. otay is considering joint studies on the Upper San Diego River and otay Valley Basins. otay will be evaluating the alternative projects identified in the study to transport imported raw water for groundwater storage and extraction. However, the Middle Sweetwater Basin would primarily benefit the northern area of otay and an adequate groundwater source has not yet been found in the Chula Vista area. A final report on the Middle Sweetwater Basin is expected to be available in May 1~92. 7. Possible storage in the Sweetwater Reservoir along with 15 - I MGD of treatment plant capacity from Sweetwater Authority has ~/. . ~ been discussed and a report has been prepared by Montgomery ~,~ Engineering. [The economics presented in the report were not ~ favorable to Otay in that the report presented costs for storage~ and treatment that were greater than otay purchasing treated ~ water from SDCWA.] Alternatives are being considered to develop a project that is more economical. For example, the purchase of existing auxiliary treatment capacity for emergency use would be less expensive. A copy of the Montgomery report has been provided to your staff. 8. As previously mentioned Otay has had ongoing discussions with the City of San Diego and Helix Water District. In January Otay made a proposal to the City of San Diego for the use of their treatment plant's emergency treatment capacity. These discussions have been positive from the Staff's standpoint. A future meeting has been scheduled in April with the City of San Diego for continued discussions with staff on the details. The Helix Water District has also, over a number of years, provided otay with emergency water supply through an interagency connection. Otay is working with Helix and the SDCWA to maintain this connection. Otay is also discussing with SDCWA the possibilities of how a desalination plant they are studying may fulfill part of the District's emergency storage requirement. Otay is pursuing agreements with the City of San Diego, Helix Water District, and possibly Sweetwater Authority to acquire emergency storage, treatment capacity and additional interagency support. 9. otay has considered the construction of raw water storage and treatment facilities. In pursuing such a project Otay would develop more raw water storage than would be required for five 1 days. It would be economically infeasible to construct treatment facilities for a reservoir that could be dry in 2 or 10 days. Such a reservoir project would require large up front expenditures that could range from 50 to 90 million dollars [compared to the incremental construction of covered storage, the cost of which is spread over time and is paid for as development occurs.] This expenditure would be required to fund the Mr. John D.Goss city Manaqer city of Chula Vista paqe 5 environmental and regulatory process, accomplish the required mitiqation, purchase the land, build a reservoir and construct treatment facilities. otay could not afford to finance such a larqe amount, therefore, participation with other aqencies or the SDCWA would be required for these types of facilities. Recently otay, alonq with Padre Dam, participated in a study for just such a possible project called the West Sycamore Canyon Reservoir and Treatment Project. However, when SDCWA was approached for their involvement, they would not support it because of hiqher priority reservoir sites outside of the Padre Dam and otay Service areas. The pamo Dam experience .has engendered some pessimism as to whether projects of this nature can be built at all for environmental reasons. It is difficult to justify larqe expenditures for projects that face a stronq chance of rejection. Although otay is not completely closed to the idea, other alternatives or combinations of alternatives appear more achievable from an environmental and economics stand point than constructing new raw water reservoir and treatment facilities. 10. otay is in aqreement with your assessment of the difficulties in findinq a suitable site to construct a raw water storage reservoir. It is therefore not wise for otay to abandon any environmentally acceptable sites it now owns for environmentally difficult sites that could be used for future terminal storage. otay has performed a study in the north part of the District to consider constructing a treatment plant and dam for raw water storage. The economics for a less than 1000 acre foot reservoir was not justifiable considering the environmental process and permits required, in addition to finding a suitable site. A copy of this study is enclosed for your information. Based on the Pamo Dam experience and otay's experience in pursuing new raw water storage reservoirs, Otay does not feel further study at this time is worthwhile. 11. The benefits of constructing a treatment plant solely to treat water from the new raw water pipeline may not be justifiable compared to buying existing excess treatment capacity in existinq plants. However, Otay agrees that having access to treatment facilities through other aqencies does make sense and is beinq pursued. Raw water could also be used directly to help reduce demands on filtered water supplies. Otay is considerinq the possibility of utilizing raw water for qroundwater storaqe and for supplementing reclaimed water for irrigation. Storage of raw water in qroundwater basins could improve the groundwater quality and fit into a long range storage and extraction program for emergency supply. This program could provide replacement water to raw water taken from lake reservoirs. Agreements with other water agencies for treatment would also need to be considered as a part of the groundwater program. Mr. John D. Goss city Manager City of Chula Vista Page 6 ECONOMIC DATA In response to our February meeting at which time we said economic data was available to prove that construction of treatment facilities for treating imported water were uneconomical, we were primarily referring to information in a report prepared by Montgomery Engineering for Sweetwater Authority. This report has been sent to John Lippitt for his information. This report shows that construction of treatment facilities for treating raw water is uneconomical when compared to purchasing treated water from SDCWA. Construction of treatment facil.ities is less expensive than building covered storage but we believe that five days of covered storage is necessary under any circumstances. We believe a more economical alternative for dealing with emergency storage for days 6-10, is to "rent" excess treatment capacity in existing plants for use in an emergency. This is the alternative we are currently pursuing with the City of San Diego. Very truly yours, ;s;;;-~ ~~ Keith. Lewinger 1./ . General Manager KL/GED/BM:mds Attachment K-CiCIM' .DOC t, Woodward. Clyde Consultants NORTH DISTRICT TERMINAL STORAGE PROJECT PHASE ONE SCREENING STUDY RESULTS proiect Obiective To provide a means for the Otay Water District to store up to 674 million gallons of emergency potable water supply (sufficient to meet an average ten-day demand, as recommended by San Diego County Water Authority) at or near the 520-pressure zone in the North District Service Area. preliminarv Pro;ect Characteristics The conceptual design components of the project at each site included: an unlined, uncovered terminal storage facility capable of holding at least 674 MG of raw water; a booster pump station capable of delivering a minimum of 15 MGO to the 520- zone service area; pipelines for carrying raw water into the facility and for delivering treated water back into the nearest OWO distribution network; and, access roads for facility construction and operation. The des'ign concept was to minimize disruption or disturbance of current site conditions and to take advantage of natural topographic and hydrologic characteristics or existing OWO facility locations wherever possible. Desianation of Candidate sites and Alternatives After considering several dozen potential candidate sites and alternatives suggested by staff engineers, consultants, community leaders, and community planning groups, OWO planning staff selected nine candidate sites and one alternative project 'to undergo preliminary feasibility screening (Phase One of the 1 ,.- NDTRP -. .. .... -. '. ~ . '" . ~ ~ . '. =: . ~ . .~ I > :. . " .l.."".": C 4" ...:.. ~~ .. ..q. ...-'. ,. ".. o~ I '. ~. I \ (~ ~ .~ Woodward. Clyde Consultants site Selection and Environmental Review Process). As located on the accompanying map, the Phase One screening candidate sites were: Candidate site Name site Desicnation Jamacha Village West Site 0 Regulatory Hilltop Site 1 Sweetwater Gorge East-- 2A River Access Site Sweetwater Gorge East-- 2B Upland Access site Steele Canyon North Site 3 Sweetwater Gorge North site 5 Sweetwater Gorge West Site VF-3 Jamacha Boulevard North Site VF-4 Jamacha Boulevard South site MF-B Sweetwater Reservoir Storage, SWR Pipeline, and Treatment Plant (Alternative Project) Phase One Evaluation Methodolocv 'Each of the candidate sites was visited by evaluation teams from WCC and ESI. Additional site characterization data was obtained 3 Woodward. Clyde Consultants from a review of aerial photography and previously documented or published reports on the site area. In many cases, source documents included certified Environmental Impact Reports and technical field studies (e.g., biologic diversity data bases, archeological reports, geologic investigations) which had been prepared in conjunction with earlier development proposals in the area; these provided valuable site-specific information which was used in evaluating site conditions. Finally, members of the evaluation teams met to develop a uniform set of quantitative scoring criteria for each of the four categories of characteristics compared: Engineering, Land Use, Environmental, a~d Geologic/Geotechnical. Subsequently, the evaluation teams developed quantitative ratings for each of the sites using a much more detailed breakdown of subcategories, which were then summarized as shown in Table 1 into the four major categories. screenina criteria and ouantitative Ratinas The attached matrix depicts a quantitative rating of various engineering, land use, geotechnical, and environmental criteria for the nine sites, three of which were deemed infeasible because they did not accommodate basic project design characteristics. Ratings were given on a scale of 0 (least desirable) to 5 (most desirable) for each sub-category at the six remaining candidate sites. Issue-by-issue rating was performed by technical specialists from the District I s consultants on the project, Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC) for environmental and geotechnical issues, and Engineering-Science, Inc. (ESI) for engineering and land-use issues. The definitions for each rating were as follows: 5 Good opportunity; most acceptable, constraints least 4 Project NO. _11118-001A TobIe 1: MORTN DISTRICT TERMINAL STORAGE PROJECT SINWlT SITE RANKING MATRIX SITE DESIGNATION aater Category/Criteri. D 2A 28 3 5 Yf-3 Yf-4 MF-8 ESI 1. Engineering . Nydrology 3 2 4 4 Not 4 3 Not Rot . Constructebilfty 3 2 4 4 Techni. 2 1 Technl' Teen'" . Project Cost Effectiveness 3 3 5 5 caUy 3 1 cally caUy . Risk Mitigation J 1 4 4 Feas- ,4 4 Fees. Fees. . praxl.ity to Service Area 4 5 J 3 ible 3 2 Iblelble Total Engineering .atlng 16 13 20 20 16 11 ESI 2. land Use . C~tibility 3 4 3 3 3 2 . Site Access 4 5 3 2 3 2 . Required She 4 5 5 5 3 2 . Ownership 4 5 2 2 4 4 Totat land Use Ret Ing 15 19 13 12 13 lD IICC 3. Envlr~nt.l . Vegetal ion 3 3 2 4 2 4 . lIildllfe 2 3 1 3 2 2 . Habi tat 2 3 1 3 2 3 . Rare/Endangered Specl.. 2 4 0 4 4 3 . Cultur.l Resources 3 4 2 3 2 2 . Aesthetics/VisU81 1 2 4 4 2 3 . Traffic/Circuletlon 2 3 3 3 3 3 Totel Environmental Rating 15 22 13 24 17 20 IICC 4. Geoloqfc/Geotechn'ce' SeiSRIic Considerations 5 5 4.5 4.5 5 4.5 . Stetic Stability 5 4.5 5 S 4.5 1.5 Seepage 3 2.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1.5 Totel Geologic Rating 16.5 14.5 17.5 17.5 16 8.5 OVERAll RARKING ORDER 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 5th 6th Woodward. Clyde Consultants 4 Above average level of opportunity: more acceptable 3 - Average or "baseline" level for site comparison purposes 2 Below average level of opportunity: less acceptable. 1 Poor opportunity; least acceptable, most restrictive o - Fatal flaw: project needs to be redesigned. A separate qualitative evaluation of the alternative project (Sweetwater Reservoir Storage and Treatment Plant) was also performed by wee and ESI; this analysis is summarized later in this report. Results of site Ratina Evaluations and Relative Rankina Amona sites The rating scores were totalled by category in order to provide a summary comparison and ranking. By totalling the ratings of characteristics wi thin each category, a relative-preference ranking can be derived. The overall rank order is shown at the bottom of Table 1. Rankings were derived by comparing the relative position within categories: rating scores by category could not be totalled without creating a "weighting" distortion problem. The highest-ranked site (2B -- Sweetwater Gorge East, with Upland Access) rated first or tied for the highest score in 6 Woodward. Clyde Consultants three out of the four categories. In fact, each subcategory evaluated was rated a "J" (average or baseline) or higher for all characteristics reviewed at this site. No other site rated so consistently high, and only in the Land-Use Category did it fail to be rated among the top three sites, tying for fourth because of difficult access and multiple ownership of the property. The next highest overall ranking was achieved by site 0 (Jamacha village West), which was rated second-highest in three of the four categories; unfortunately it received sub-average ratings in five of seven of the Environmental sub-categories, though it was rated average'or above in all other SUb-categories. Site o physical constraints would limit capacity to a maximum of J62 MG, however. The third overall highest ranking site (1 -- Regulatory) was ranked highest in the Land-use category, second highest in Environmental, but could do no better than fourth in the two remaining categories (Engineering and Geologic/Geotechnical). The fourth-highest ranked site (2A -- Sweetwater Gorge East, with River Access) tied for the highest rating in two categories (Engineering and Geologic/Geotechnical), but was last or second to last in the Land-use and Environmental categories; the fact that it achieved a "0" rating in the Endangered Species subcategory (because of access impacts in crossing a designated habitat conservation zone) suggests a possible fatal-flaw, but this issue would require further analysis and discussion with regulatory agencies to confirm absolutely. The fifth-ranking site (5 -- Sweetwater Gorge North) could do no better than tie for third in two categories (Engineering and 7 Woodward. Clyde Consultants Land Use), while tying for fourth or fifth in the two remaining categories (Environmental and Geologic/Geotechnical). Finally, the lowest-ranked site (VF-3 -- Sweetwater Gorge West) was clearly the least desirable of the six candidates, ranking last in three out of the six categories, and achieving a third- highest only in the Environmental category. As previously mentioned, three of the sites (3, VF-3, and Mt-S) did not meet the minimal technical requirements (potential storage capacity, pressure-zone location, impoundment feasibility), and. so were eliminated before the candidate site rating was performed. Alternative proiect In addition to the nine candidate sites reviewed as part of the Phase One screening process, one alternative method of providing emergency storage capacity to the North District service area (other than new reservoir construction) was also considered. The alternative project (SWP -- Sweetwater Reservoir storage, Treatment, and Pipeline) would entail otay Water District negotiating an agreement with the Sweetwater Authority to store a minimum of 674 MG (the average ten-day emergency supply) in Sweetwater Reservoir in lieu of OWD constructing new reservoir storage capacity. In addition, the water treatment plant at Sweetwater Reservoir would be expanded to add 15 MGD nominal capacity and a 15 MGD booster pump station provided to serve the 520 pressure zone. Approximately one-mile of 20 to 30-inch buried pipeline would be constructed beneath existing roadways (Lakeview and Kempton Avenues) to connect the treatment plant with an existing OWP 30-inch pipeline running through the North District Service Area along Jamacha Boulevard. 8 Woodward. Clyde Consultants The SWP Alternative is not shown on the site ranking matrix ~ecause its characteristics are so substantially different that they cannot be compared using the rating scheme used to screen the candidate reservoir sites. Instead the following qualitative analysis is provided, using the same general evaluation categories: . Engineering -- The SWP would ~e relatively easy to construct, involve no su~stantial alteration of existing hydrology or topography, create no additional risk of.. upset or failure: pipeline and construction access would be along existing paved surface streets: project costs would probably be significantly lower than construction of any new reservoir, particularly when compared on a cost per acre-foot of storage capacity basis. Land Use The existing Sweetwater Authority - owned site is currently employed in an identical land use, will require no land purchase or acquisition costs (other than negotiating an agreement regarding costs of shared capacity): fewer than two acres of additional land will be required for the .swp, a full order of magnitude less than any of the reservoir sites. . Environmental Because only a few acres of previously-graded land would ~e developed or changed ~y the SWP, there are likely to ~e few significant env ironmental impacts, none of which would require major mitigation: perhaps the only significant impact would be the temporary disruption of local traffic flow to surface streets which overlie the proposed pipeline connection route along Lakeview and Kempton Avenues. 9 Woodward. Clyde Consultants Comoarative Costs and Cost-Effectiveness The following table (Table 2) summarizes and compares preliminary cost estimates for the six technically feasible reservoir sites and the Sweetwater Reservoir alternative. Cost estimates are based on preliminary and conceptual design characteristics, which may change as the project becomes better defined. Nevertheless, since a common set of project characteristics were used in developing the estimates, they are valid indicators of relative cost, even if the absolute costs are subject to change. The estimates include costs of land acquisition, design and construction of the reservoirs, a booster pump station, access roads, a water treatment plant, offsite pipeline connections, plus 15 percent engineering costs and 15 percent for contingency. No costs are included for environmental mitigation or permitting, . since more detailed studies will be needed to develop this information. The SWP cost estimates do not include any costs for use of Sweetwater Reservoir or lease of land on which the treatment plant would be built, since these potential costs (if any) are subject to negotiation between OWD and the Sweetwater Authority. 10 Woodward. Clyde Consultants Table 2: SUMMARY COMPARISON PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES ....rvolr 5fUI Al ttrnat (y. Toul (stfNted tost (5 millions> Estimeted Cost Per MG t.poofty (5 thousands) o .. Jemie.. VIII.;. West 5 It. 5 23.5 S 65.2 1 .. ";ulltory Hilltop 51t. S 37.5 S 55.6 2A .. Sweetwlter Gorge East, River ACCISI Rout. Sftl 5 28.4 5 42.4 21 .. Sweetwater Gorg, West, Upland ACCIII Rout. Sfte S 28.6 S 42.6 5 .. Sweetwater Gor;. Nor.h 5ft. S 40.4 S 59.9 VF.3 .. Sweetwater Gorge South Sitt S 65.9 S 97.8 SWP .. Sweetwater R.s.rvoir Project 5 16.5" S 24.5* * Does not include potenti.l costl of reservoir use or Lind lease agreement to be negotiated between ~ and Sweetwater Authority. 11 SITE NO. 0 PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE FOR OTAY RESERVOIR PROJECT RAW WATER RESERVOIR $ 7,959,000 Unlined Uncovered Single Inlet/Outlet Selective Drawoff Tower Zoned Dam Embankment (impervious core) Chimney Drain . Spillway BOOSTER PUMP STATION $ 500,000 15 mgd Initial Capacity (520 Zone) 30 m~d Ultimate Capacity Configured to Accommodate Two Other Sets of Pumps (803 & 832 Zones) WATER TREATMENT PLANT S 7,500,000 15 mgd Nominal Capacity 30 mAd Uhimate Capacity Use egulatory Reservoir as Clearwell OFF-SITE PIPELINES S 900,000 Reservoir Supply Line to Conn. & Regulatory Reservoir Outlet line from Regulatory Reservoir to Jamacha Blvd. Sub Total S 16,859,000 Contingency @ 15 Percent S 2,528,000 Sub Total S 19,387,000 Engineering, Surveying, $ 2,908,000 ugal, Administrallve @ 15% (l)Land & Easement Cost $ 1,170,000 (2)Total Project Cost S 23,465.000 (1) TP @ Regulatory Site - reservoir site - 39 acres @ S30,000/acre (2) Doesn't include environmental costs SD02S;,\L llirrF.;RJGI IT SITE NO.1 REGULATORY PRELIMINARY PROJECf COST ESTIMATE FOR OTAY RESERVOIR PROJECf RAW WATER RESERVOIR (Due to downstream development. this estimate includes a liner) Lined . Uncovered . Single Inlet/Outlet Selective Drawoff Tower Homogeneous Dam Embankment Chimney Drain Spillway BOOSTER PUMP STATION IS mgd Initial Capacity (520 Zone) 30 m~d Ultimate Capacity ConfIgured to Accommodate Two Other Sets of Pumps (803 & 832 Zones) WATERTREAT~ENTPLANT IS mgd Nominal Capacity 30 mgd Ultimate Capacity OFF-SITE PIPELINES Reservoir Supply Line to Conn. . & Regulatory Reservoir OutJetline from Regulatory Reservoir 10 Jamacha Blvd. S 19,741,000 S 500,000 S 7,500,000 S 300,000 Sub Total S 28,041,000 Contingency @ IS Percent S 4,206,000 Sub Total S 32,247,000 Engineering, Surveying, S 4,837,000 Legal, Administrallve @ 15% (1)Land & Easement Cost S 400,000 (2)Total Project Cost S 37,484,000 (1) 5 acres for TP @ SSO,OOO/acre (2) Doesn't include environmental costs SD02!{,\LTSrn;iRIGI rr SITE NO. 2A PRELIMINARY PROJEcr COST ESTIMATE FOR OTAY RESERVOIR PROJECf RAW WATER RESERVOIR Unlined Uncovered Single Inlet/Outlet Selective Drawoff Tower Zoned Dam Embankment (impervious core) Chimney Drain ' Spillway ROAD CONSTRUcnON BOOSTER PUMP STATION 15 mgd Initial Capacity (520 Zone) 30 mgd Ultimate Capacity ConfIgured to Accommodate Two Other Sets of Pumps (803 & 832 Zones) $ 10,149,000 S $ 449,000 500,000 WATER TREAT~ENTPLA."lT S 7,500,000 15 mgd Nominal Capacity 30 m~d Ultimate Capacity Use egulatory Reservoir as Clearwell OFF-SITE PIPELINES S 1,416,000 Reservoir Supply Line to Conn. & Regulatory Reservoir Outlet line from Regulatory Reservoir to ]amacha Blvd. Sub Total S 20,014,000 Contingency @ 15 Percent S 3,002,000 Sub Total S 23,016,000 Engineering, Surveying, S 3,452,000 Legal, Administrallve @ 15% (1)Land & Easement Cost 5 1,960,000 (2)Total Project Cost S 28,428,000 (1) TP @ Regulatory Site. Pipeline easement. 2.0 acres @ 55,OOO/acre. reservoir site 65 acres @ S30,000/acre (2) Doesn't include environmental costS SOOUl/AL TSrrE/RIGI rr SITE NO. 2B PRELIMINARY PROJECf COST ESTIMATE FOR OTAY RESERVOIR PROJECf RAW WATER RESERVOIR Unlined Uncovered Single Inlet/Outlet Selective Drawoff Tower Zoned Dam Embankment (impervious core) Chimney Drain . Spillway ROAD CONSTRUcnON BOOSTER PUMP STATION 15 mgd Initial Capacity (520 Zone) 30 mgd Ultimate Capacity ConfIgured to Accommodate Two . Other Sets of Pumps (803 & 832 Zones) WATER TREATMENT PLA.l'1T 15 mgd Nominal Capacity 30 mgd Ultimate Capacity Use Regulatory Reservoir as Clearwell S 10,149,000 S 482,000 S 500,000 S 7,500,000 OFF-SITE PIPELINES Reservoir Supply Line to Conn. & Regulatory Reservoir Outlet line from Regulatory Reservoir to Jamacha Blvd. S 1,496,000 Sub Total S 20,127,000 Contingency @ 15 Percent S 3,019,000 Sub Total S 23,146,000 Engineering, Surveying, S 3,472,000 Legal, Administrative @ 15% (l)Land & Easement Cost S 1,964,000 (2)Total Project Cost S 28,582,000 (1) TP @ Regulatory Site. Pipeline easement. 2.8 acres @ S5,OOO/acre - reservoir site 65 acres @ S30,000/acre (2) Doesn't include environmental costs SD02S/AL TSrn;/RJGI IT SITE NO.5 PRELIMINARY PROJEcr COST ESTIMATE FOR OTAY RESERVOIR PROJEcr RAW WATER RESERVOIR Unlined Uncovered Single Inlet/Outlet Selective Drawoff Tower Zoned Dam Embankment (impervious core) Chimney Drain . Spillway ROAD CONSTRUCTION BOOSTER PUMP ST AnON 15 mgd Initial Capacity (520 Zone) 30 m~d Ultimate Capacity ConfIgured to Accommodate Two Other Sets of Pumps (803 & 832 Zones) WATER TREATMENT PLANT 15 mgd Nominal Capacity 30 mgd Ultimate Capacity Use Regulatory Reservoir as Clearwell S 19,577,000 S 449,000 S 500,000 S 7,500,000 OFF-SITE PIPELINES Reservoir Supply Line to Conn. & Regulatorv Reservoir Outlet line from Regulatory Reservoir to Jamacha Blvd. S 1,330,000 Sub Total S 29,356,000 Contingency @ 15 Percent S 4,403,000 Sub Total S 33,759,000 Engineering, Surveying, S 5,064,000 ugal, Administrallve @ 15% (1)Land & Easement Cost $ 1,565,000 (2)Total Project Cost S 40,388,000 (1) TP @ Regul:llory Site. Pipeline easement - 1.0 acres @ S5,000/acre . reservoir site 52 acres @ S30,000/acre (2) Doesn't include environmental costs SOO=S/AL Tsrre/RJGI rr . ',. SITE NO. VF.3 PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE FOR OTAY RESERVOIR PROJECT RAW WATER RESERVOIR Unlined Uncovered Single Inlet/Outlet Sele :tive Drawoff Tower Zoned Dam Embankment (impervious core) Chimney Drain. Spillway . ROAD CONSTRUCTION BOOSTER PUMP STATION 15 mgd Initial Capacity (520 Zone) 30 m~d Ultimate Capacity Configured to Accommodate Two Other Sets of Pumps (803 & 832 Zones) WATERTREATMENTP~~T 15 mgd Nominal Capacity 30 mgd Ultimate Capacity Use Regulatory Reservoir as Clearwell OFF-SITE PIPELINES Reservoir Supply Line to Conn. & Regulatory Reservoir Outlet line from Regulatory Reservoir to ]amacha Blvd. $ 37,524,000 $ 792,000 S 500,000 S 7,500,000 S 1,786,000 Sub Total S 48,102,000 Contingency @ 15 Percent S 7,215,000 Sub Total S 55,317,000 Engineering, Surveying, S 8,298,000 Legal. Administrallve @ 15% (l)Land & Easement Cost S 2,294,000 (2)Total Project Cost S 65,909,000 (1) TP @ Regulatory Site - Pipeline easement - 3.9 acres @ S5,000/acre- reservoir site 75.8 acres @ S30.000jacre (2) Doesn't include environmental costs SOO2S/,\l TSITF./R1CI IT t., . SWJ::ETW A TER ALTERNATIVE PRELIMINARY PROJECf COST ESTIMATE FOR OTAY RESERVOIR PROJECf COSTro STORE WATER IN SWEETWATER RESERVOIR ROAD CONSTRUcnON BOOSTER PUMP STATION 15 mgd Initial Capacity (520 Zone) 30 mgd Ultimate Capacity WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION 15 mgd Nominal Capacity For Otay OFF-SITE PIPELINES Sub Total Contingency @ 15 Percent Sub Total Engineering" Surveying, Legal, Adnunistratlve @ 150/0 Land & Easement Cost (lrrotal Project Cost Unknown Not Required $ 500,000 S 10,000,000 S 2,0000,000 $ 12,500,000 S 1,875,000 S 14,375,000 $ 2,156,000 Not Required S 16,531,000 (1) Does not include potential costta share capacity in Sweetwater Reservoir. Project No. 8968118U-OO I U \ Silc (t.oc.,tiun) Jatnocha Village (0) RcgulalOry IliIhop (I) ~w("l'h\:ll('r (~nrr.l" f';lsl Rivcr Roule Aligll. (2AJ S wcct",:ner Gorgc J;a,,1 Upland Roule Align. (28) wmchl Nonh District Tennin,,' Reservoir Project Siting Considerations Seismic Considcr;llions . Activc Faults Grmllld Shaking . Liquefaclion Scq..gc Pnlenli:.1 Excavalion/llormw POIcntial Cnmmcnts SIalic Slahilily DalllSilc IA,ndslidcs Rc.~rvnir Dam Silc Reservoir . Dam Sitc . Reservoir . Borrow No aclivc laults; No lalKlslides: Mc.k,r.ne 5Ct.l"'gc Variahlc sl~,lIow Variablc shallow Limiled core Moderate no groulld sl~,killg Kgr IKlth pol. from soils 011 Kgr; soils on Kgr, material il Capacily sile 1"".1fd ahovo typical abulnlclllS amI wc;,lheml. wc.,d,cred K Cr to weathcred K gr 10 residual soil is widlOut major arc.,.wide conccm; lou'Klation. lo;lClurr.tl rock at 20 - 30'. Rock' 20.30'. Rock Slockpilcd, excavation. no signilicanl al,utlllcllt"round oolerups OIl ootcroflS, Good hard rock li'luef:lClion alinn; also res. abotlllcllt colluvium . quarry potenlial. IKllelltial (no Qal atC;, IIallkcd by locally. wid, shallow watcr). ~,kJlcd ridgc wiah moo. scrpagc potclllial. No arli,'e 1'lIIlls: 110 Nol;IIUhli,ks, f\llltl. srrpa!;c Rrmm'c lill, L,,,sc lill, nICk No il1l(1Cn'iOlls SlIIall rar'Kil)' t;HlUllcl shak illg t\:f:r. l1li_1:rll ;11 1"C)Ic.'nli~11 ~lIlbl1l \\C';llh('I...(II\!~r sltx:lpilcs rurc. clislillg !iilc: c:<iSling h;1Ia,,1 ,llx)\'c Iypkal hOlh ;1hullllfl1l ~llc - IlqK:'lItls on f(lumla1iou nnd I"~scnl; 1:lq:c n,'k alMI D.G. ra(ililies hdo\V mCJ-witIcC(lI)ccm; :111(1 rUIlIltI~ltions flll;1l :i1hullllcnl. wilh cxccss III:IICI i:tI. rill. rc~. ic>d anti nn siJ:.llilic::1II1 (al,kl'lh) l-ollli,~III;llitlll: lIIi.ed rock Il'l'C seep,age lilllK"l':tl:(itHI (11""1111)' lill '"hl li!~hl :ll'111I11fl1l alltl lsJllllc:lII)'. tlowlIstrc:un .. IhU(lIli:l1 (1II1Q:l1 fll(kSI,dl',I",1 11I:1)' hc k:lll'. sll~gcslS lining. wilh shall,,\V ""ucr). in res, :U(':1. No a..-li,",' r;lIIlt~ Nc,bIlCI..:lillt..,; Il.illll'll.l'.p 1/,-1I1O\"t..(1:1I al1ll H.K'k ,.'l,'rnl" l.illkl'rno('nrt.~ 1_;lq~r r:lll:k'il)' Iil".~ly . 1i11c.~:l1l1cnl~ hp inl"'lh 1Il;"kl~lh.' :'.~,:rpa~\' IhmllSIIl'a1l1lill Ih,ollghulIl, 1II:lIni:d, litNKI sile; &uutl I"c.'scntnertl SliMly, "hullllt.'IUS. H'~:.. 1",I"1l1ial willi .1';I",t'Ckt!: some resilhl:11 ",,,,1 rtl(k '1(0111)' st'lling u\'cr:lll; Nu grlllll" shakill!: :lIul ft)UlUlali'H~. lu(;dly high ~h:llln\Y slIil :.llIorlh lJOlc"'ial. H.C.C, or hazanlahovc Il'ricaI sh:.lll1wQ;tI IK11C'lIlial; sllil"iIlC ,kJllhs lacing slope. rocUiII \\'ill, area-wkJc concern; downsln:.1I11 01 lI1;l~si\'c ridges ;11 abullnents atId concrek: face. no sicllilic.1II1 foundation, \lound ICS, low lournlation. li'luclacliun 10 lIIotlcr.llC polcntial (110 Qal S<'CJ"Cc wilh shallow walcr). polenlial. .(- 1'1l1.in'l Nil. IlIJhB IIIlB.(KJIII Sit~fl.u,:ali'M') Seismic C()I1sidcmlillRS AClive F'lIIll~ Grolllld Sh:tking IjI)IIe(,"'lioll Nunh l>islI i,'l Tcnuill,.llh'scr"uir l'rojecl Siling Cunsit.lcriUiuns Sl;Ilif :';'ahilily DolIlI Sile ',"..lsli.ks Ih'scr\'nir Srq'al:" PI,lcnli.11 Dam Sile I~csc:r\'oir . Dam Sile Elc.naliulI/llormw Polential . Rc~rvnir \ . Borrow Commellls D,uW...d: SI,'ds Call)'ulI Nonh (J) Sweelwale, Gorge North (5) SW...d\\'~lll'l (iul&t~ \\'l'SI I\T .'1 "......,.'..::11,.( 1.'I....lilh... :\Ii!!I1. IS"I" lil,l;malll'" Q,II . Q"atem.1rY aged alluvium Nn a(live raults; IH) j;IUlllltI sh"lillg ,."",,1 :thove IYJlical .In';1 wilk:: no ~if~lIilk:U1t litIIK'I;...:liuII 1lI'lellli,lI. N(J;I,"lin'I;IIIII~; J'llItIIMI..h.lI.illg 11M)' :lIlnl'1(,-".hl(; tUKI\licks. Nu l;lIuhl itks; K~, alld },I' mixccllcrr.ain in res. wca and dam sill;. I'f,,~illll' I:mcbluk..... tll~".t. ~1lIc.1 SIII:III wak. 1,lllllIl.llicl'I, ;Ihllllllnll, ;lIul "0\,: .1'1' hll;,1I1 ,,,",oI'IY",";III,,,.,,,1 1"1 I ,,:;lk.I,:tO 11ulrlllial r1lt...kr..tlc.in r'lUlutuinn. :lhuunrnl. .lIul Irso Ptlll<<klolh" 1'llIi:oll \\'.'p;I~O" 1"11"1111011 ellh: In (.II-.: ~"'J tkl'u,ihlll ;1"111111'"111 ;11111 ..",,"'\tlll, 1\',,, 1.0' at'"nll", ~o,onlp,'i,.ho",ok, luth ;11 (l'U. ,d..,;tllp,,-. Varjahlc sl..lIow ,uil'pinr. or ,..."II...,ed rock mill ,csidu.,1 soil. \'.ui:lIlk ~1I il Il1i 111: ckpdls ;lIulnlo:l1\i,.c c"'H'.I".lIi~"1 if Qls ('!J ;II\~ 1)f('~'III, Qls. hUldslidc dCIKJSil~. 'IIk~1 icd wlk~rc UllCell.lin Ilock outcrops; lhin soils, v;~riablc wralhe,ing dCl'lh. "o"ihlc f.lb C') ckl'tI..ilS Irph.:~IIII:II~e ,'ullltlle or m:lh'riallu he c"r;wf.llrd. Liltle core lIIalenal; IL,n1 rock quarry potential. l.imill'dnllt: IIlah'Ii;ll: CXfCSS ,\\";ldkoll..'d l...,l"k'k, UlII:nu\\'lItlll:lrry ,"lemi,,1. res. = rcscn'Oir Kgr . Crcl:lCC\IOS aged gr.Ulitic n",l Jsp. Jllra.~ic aged mClOl'\lk.llli.:: .IIItIIllCI..sc..~dillll'nlOuJ ruck of the Santiclgo Peak MClavolcanics a/mehl I"~. = IlIlItnli,,1 .2. Small rap",'ilY Silt; Cllcl1~ivc sile g,ading 10 enlarCt site. Smilll..al',,,'i')" ~il\'. t~\I,OflSi,.~ r"lI1rdiall:r:,ding 1t11~1II()\"C. , ' ~V?- :- ~~ ~ ~~ - - -~ , . em OF CHULA VISTA OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER March 5, 1992 Mr. Keith Lewinger Genera IJtailailer ~ay)Wat~~strict 05~amacha Boulevard prlng Valley, CA 92078 Subject: Water Resources Master Plan Dear Keith: Thank you for meeting with us on February 3, 1992, to discuss the results of your Water Resources Master Plan, particularly the portion that discusses treated water storage requirements. The purpose of this letter is to (a) document our understanding of your current terminal water storage plan as presented on February 3, (b) present some questions and issues that we would like you to respond to and (c) request that you send the economic data that you mentioned in the meeting. Each of these three issues are discussed below. Current OWD Terminal Water Storage Plan We understand that your current terminal water storage plan is somewhat different than that discussed in the Master Plan. The current plan includes 5 average days of fi ltered-water storage in covered reservoirs and contracting with other aQencies, i.e., Sweetwater Authority, City of San Diego and possibly Helix Water Dlstrict, for 5 additional days of raw water storage and treatment capacity. In addition, your plans include for the provision of 1 maximum day of storage (which equals average 2.3 days) located in the distribution system. It is our understanding that this 2.3 average days will be counted as satisfying a part of the 5 average days of terminal water storage. Therefore, only 2.7 days (5 days minus 2.3 days) of terminal water storage will be required. Please let us know if the above understanding is correct. If not, please restate your current plans in your response to this letter. 276 FOURTH AVENUElCHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691-5031 .. Water Storage Questions and Issues We have reviewed your Master Plan and the information presented to us in the February 3 meeting as they relate to your plans for terminal water storage. The following is a list of questions and issues that we would like your written response to: 1. 2. We are pleased to hear that the plans for treated water storage have been scaled back to 5 average days, 2.3 days emergency reserve and 2.7 days of terminal storage. However, this is still a large quantity of filtered water to hold in storage. We are concerned that water quality may deteriorate as a result of loss of chlorine residuals. Based on this concern could you please outline the procedure OWD will use to correct this potential problem and indicate whether the costs have been included 1n the cost of terminal storage? What is the rationale used to justify the need for 2.3 days of distribution system storage that is classified as emergency reserve? Can redundant supply systems (dual pipeline feeds to a given pressure zone or service area) be used to reduce this amount? 3. What is the basis for deciding to have 5 average days of emergency storage as filtered water storage and 5 days as supplies stored in raw water reservoirs from adjacent agencies? Should there be less water stored as filtered water and more as raw water or vice versa? What is your view of having, for an example, one days supply stored as terminal storage (which would give the agencies time to activate treatment facilities and pumping stations to supply the needed water to OWO) and the balance raw water storage? While storing 10 days of water as filtered water may be too much, 10 days of total emergency reserves may be too little. Aqueduct outages could range from as little as several days to as much as several months. What consideration has been given to obtaining 1 to 3 months of raw water supplies to provide water service in the event of an extended aqueduct outage caused by earthquake, flood or other natural disaster? With OWD being literally at the end of the line, what consideration is being given to the true availability of emergency storage owned by the County Water Authority and Metropolitan Water District. Have the effects of water conservation on water demands been considered in selecting storage requirements? Has the storage of imported water in groundwater basins to be used during an emergency been examined in any detail? And, if so, with what results? 4. 5. 6. , o. CITY OF CHULA VISTA 7. What is the current status and what are the terms of the proposal to store water in Sweetwater Reservoir? We understand that 3,500 acre-feet of reservoir storage and up to 30 million gallons per day (MGD) of treatment plant cafacity could be made available. How do the economics of this potentia agreement compare to the terminal water storage option? Please update us on these negotiations. 8. Have any similar type discussions or negotiations been held with the City of San Diego or Helix Water District? Again, we would appreciate an update. (We understand, for example, that the City of San Diego leases up to 60,000 acre-ft of storage to the County Water Authority for $2.00 per acre-ft per year.) 9. Because of the high cost of constructing covered storage and the difficulty in finding suitable sites for several hundred million.gallons of reservoir capacity, it may be prudent to revisit the issue of investigating the feasibility of constructing raw water storage and treatment facilities. What are the economics of constructing treatment facilities and purchasing imported raw water? Although the economics of treating raw imported water may not be attractive on the surface, when a more comprehensive evaluation is made, including the cost of covered storage, this alternative may appear economically feasible. Some of the factors that could be included in this analysis are: o The price differential between raw and treated water, which is currently $46/AF: The operations and maintenance costs of treating water at a locally owned treatment plant: Seasonal pricing of raw and treated imported water. The current seasonal discount in $92/AF for raw water and $107/AF for treated water. If large enough raw water storage facilities could be constructed, then raw water could be stored in the winter for treatment and delivery in the summer, which may help offset the cost of construction of raw water storage. The cost of constructing covered treated water storage is in the range of $0.50 per gallon when all costs are included. If 680 million gallons of covered storage were constructed, this would cost $340,000,000. Raw water storage and treatment facH ities could cost less than covered terminal storage. The following 1s a rough order-of magnitude estimate: (Per the OWD Master Plan, the maximum day water demand is 75 million gallons per day (MGD).) o o o o CITY OF CHULA VISTA Treatment Facilities- 75 MGD @ $800,000= to $l,OOO,OOO/MGD $75,000,000 Raw Water Storage- 2,549 AF @ $6,000 to= $10,000/AF 26,000,000 Subtotal Engineering and Administration 20% Contingencies 20% 5,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 $121,000,000 24,000,000 24,000,000 Misc. Transmission Facilities Land- 150 acres at $65,OOO/acre Environmental Mitigation Total $169,000,000 10. As can be seen from this list of issues, the decision to construct raw water storage and treatment facilities versus constructing terminal water storage is a complex economic issue that requires further detailed study. In addition there is, of course, the issue of finding a suitable site for storage and treatment facilities. This in itself is a formidable task. If you have done any work in this area, could you please describe it? In addition, resolving the environmental issues to gain approval for the construction of reservoir and treatment plant is very difficult. However, gaining environmental approval for several hundred million gallons of treated water storage may prove to be equally as trying. 11. Another reason to construct or have access to treatment facilities is to have the abilitr to take water from the new raw water pipeline that will be constructed 1n the near future. If OWD were able to take both filtered and unfiltered water, then the reliability of supplies to the District would be increased. What consideration has OWO given to this option? Economic Data During the February 3 meeting you stated that you had economic data that proved that constructing treatment facilities to treat imported water was uneconomic. As discussed in that meeting, please furnish us with that economic data. CITY OF CHULA VISTA " " Conclusion I appreciate the time you and your staff have provided to discuss these water issues with us. Obviously, I am concerned not only about having adequate water service and storage, but also with the cost of various alternatives for providing this service and storage as part of the overall cost of the total infrastructure 1n the eastern part of our community. Your further cooperation in reviewing these comments and questions would be greatly appreciated. To allow us time to review your responses and prepare for the next meeting we would like to receive your response one week prior to the meeting. If you have any questions or need further clarification on any of the above, please call. We look forward to your response. JDG:mab '\. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ~: '~ .. ;, COmrC%L aGDIJ:l& ft~'l'DDI'1' ~ .%!'D 'l'n'LBa ~~- ]lee~1Dq Da~e 12/17/91 . "port on Water "ster Plan study rOI: ...tern Cu1a Vista . . . .. . .. , - . .."- "., .esolution authorizinq a Study ~o Bvaluaie the otay Water District ...ter Plan and the cost effectiveness of 'their ruture plana..s it relates to the Cbula Vista General Plan Area and, if necessary, ~o deteraine r_edial action, and appropriate ~unds therefor -City Manager ~ 7rtJj!j (t/nll. Votea ~e.-1- .0_) About two years ago, when ,you adopted the General Plan, you expressed concerns about water availability, supply, storage and quality, as well as proper planning for the total infrastructure of the community. Since then, I have given you reports over the past few years dealing with water issues facing Cbula Vista as this relates to the otay Water District. . 8UBKI'l"1'BD BYa In .ummary of those reports, I think it has been recognized by both those in the County Water Authority and other water districts that, over the long term, the otay Water District has not shown a proficiency for future planning. In the past, the District had the reputation of -living off the pipeline.- . As you know, the otay Water District has had a reputation, and probably will continue to have a reputation, of having higher costs than the other major water provider in Chu1a Vista, the Sweetwater Authority.. ~is is in part because of new racilities being constructed by otay, .whereas the Sweetwater Authority facilities are pretty much in place. On the other hand, Sweetwater ha. an older system, which is requiring major maintenance expenditures as compared to the part of the Otay Water District in Cbula Vista which does not. .. . In recent years, we believed 'that 'there bad been a major effort to turn that around, with the hiring of new General lIanager, and with the planning of the Diatrict infrastructure, including the preparation of a new Kaster Plan for the Diatrict. . However, recent events have focused new conc~ over the planning and cost efficiency decisions of the otay Water District, end the general impact this will have in Chula Vista and its environs. 1 -- ( 2:~ ,~etlD9 Date 11-17-91 While t:.he OWD h.. :finally prepared a draft ...ter plan :for ~t. district operatione (a copy of which -we bave received only recently), ~t 'has not yet prepared an Bnvironaental %apact Report :for thie plan, -and yet ere beginning to iJlpl..ent portione of it, .uch as the purchase of sOlIe 4g acres :frOll t:.he Baldwin to conetruct a tank :fara. While there aay _ a .flood reason :for tilis purchase (it certainly va. a Vood aconOllic'deal :for the 'llistrict), . it appears to staff, .. lay observers, tiult "this is a -.uch aore axpenaive vay to accOllplish vater .torage t:.han obtaining lake .torage rights by working with the SWeetwater Authority or the City of San Diego. Because of this action by the District, .specially without evaluatinq the economics of other alternatives, at least from what we have been able to determine, we have a concern that present and future Chula Vista water ratepayers ..y be spendinq alllions of unnecessary, extra dollars in developing water infrastructure just for these water projects, compared to other infrastructure needs that will be required to build thie part of the community. !l'hiS ultimately will mean hiqher costs for property owners coming into the community. It should be pointed out that this is an area of concern and that the otay Water District is now willinq, apparently after the fact, to prepare an EIR on the land acquisition for the 'rank Farm. While this is all well and good, it would be good public policy to develop additional independent data as to whether or not the action of buyinq land and ultimately building such a ..ssive tank farm, is goinq to be in the best interest of the overall public. . !l'he above comments are .ade recognizing that the City and City staff are not water experts, and at this point we are only raisinq concerns which we feel should be addressed because these actions say have significant impact on the overall cost of infrastructure in developinq new areas to the .ast of the City. UCOVVWWDA'1'%ON 1. Authorize staff to conduct a two phase study of the hapacts of recent actions of otay Water District, the first phase of which is to determine if the planned facilities are adequate and the sost cost effective to be able to keep the costs to current and future Cbula Vista cu.tOllers at the lowest possible level. Xf phase I deteraines that there are negative adverse cost impacts on the development of Cbula Vieta by actions of the District, then the City Manaqer is authorized to conduct phase %1 which is to determine options for the City including developinq significant detailed information to . 2 f , , , I' , I f, I r , , < ........ h~t;_ 3. .....u.,.-te 12-17-11 respond '~ tile 't;wo fiR' a which hopefully .,i11 .- prepared by --the District. , ,,'. r" ..: "......... '...'", < '_"'-~',,:. ,",<;. ",',q..-;' , " Authorize t:be City Attorney to eomaence ~itivat:ion aqaiMt 'the otay Water Dbtrict ~ require t:bea to a) rucind the action to purchase 'the C9 acre reservoir aite, .b) conduct a1U.ster plan of t:beir water 8Yst_, c) .conduct an EIR on t:beir "ster . plan.and 4) conduct an EIR on tile propoaed raservoir aite. i I . Appropriate $50,000 ror tile ~ auit and $110,000" $10,000 for phase X and $100,000 ~or phase %J ror.tile .ater"ster Plan. "2. .. aOARD/COVVT88IOB "cnFMw~~IOB NIl. J)I8CU8SIOB As stated above, staff has been concerned ror aeveral years about the ability of otay to advance plan their facilities to provide water when needed and at the lowest costs to our citizens. It wasn't until a new Director arrived two year. aqo that they were able to enter into a contract with'a consultinq firm to complete a aaster plan. We have recently learned that it ia an adopted policy of OWO to provide a 5 day, 380 Million Gallons, of terminal atoraqe in concrete storaqe tanks. They also purchased a 49 acre aite from Baldwin without an EIR, and are planning to purchase additional property from EastLake. Based upon advise from water Enqineer. and staff from other water purveyor., this auch concrete storaqe i. too costly and difficult to aaintain the water quality. Chula Vista doe. not have ataff that are experts in the water aervice business. But ataff is concerned that otay is vivinq adequate and economical aervice to our existing and future citizens. staff believes it prudent to hire experts to guide us in evaluat:inq otay's plans. '!'he problem 18 that if these alternatives are too expensive, it will take resource. away from other ~jor infrastructure needs auch a. aewer, atreeta, achools, parks, libraries and fire atations. ' . ,~. i. i ! i I' f ~ I "rank Site Em : The Dbtrict COunsel haa indicated by letter that they will do an EIR on 'the Kaster Plan. Also, the otay Water Dbtrict has tentatively agreed to perform an Em for the tank aite purcha.e. They have not agreed to re.cind the purcha.e nor have they agreed to place themaelve. in 'the aame unbia.ed position they would have .3 : ' ~ , ( ,..;: ", ..- ., ,'Zt:_ :"eu.a; Da0""12-17-1I1 I>>aen in bad tiley environaantally reviewed the llaster Plan and ~e t'ank Fara purchase prior ~ .acqulaition. .......our ..legal..dvlaors Mlieve it in 1:he Mst interest of 1:he City t;o ~ile a la".uit prior 'to 1:he expiration of tile CEQA Statuo of Liaitation ~o achieve 1:he . -following: :,. ,. t., 1) 2) 3) ',:,. ... ."~<. -.~ .~. '. c..:;;;, '.-.'_ Perform Cl EIR .on1:he .., acre'C:anJt 1ara .io prior ~o any -design on the .torage Z'..arvoir. .t'hla would "include alternative .ites and ~lternative ...olutiona t;o concrete .torage. complete1:he .uter Plan ~or 1:heir ~acil1ties. 4) Perform an EIR on 1:he Kaster Plan, including cost benefit analysis.' . Rescind the purchase with Baldwin, or at least enter into an aqreement with Baldwin 'to let either party back out of the deal. Conclusion There may be concerns that otay Water District is moving in the wrong direction in implementing Terminal storage facilities. They have just completed a Draft Kaster Plan for the District. However, an EIR for the Master Plan needs to he accomplished prior to its adoption. Also, the Dlatrict is purchasing land for Terminal Storage facilities prior to the Kaster Plan being adopted and environmental review heing conducted.. The Master Plan shows approximately $225 million in capital improvements to he installed during the next 10 years. Of that amount, $118 million (over sot) i. for 'terminal atorage alone. I helieve other options for terminal storage should he considered and We ahould retain expertise to.review their Kaster Plan. ~ ~I1caL %KPACT !'here will be an iJamediate cost ~ 'the General Fund of $10,000 for the study. Bowever, 'there could he .avings t:o tile public that could exceed aeveral aillion over 'the next 10 years if a less costly alterpnative ~or terminal storage is found.' . _ .. , 1 MINUTES OF THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL AND 2 OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS JOINT MEETING 3 AUGUST 26, 1992 4 1. The meeting was called to order by Otay Water S 6 District President Hilton at 3:16 p.m. in the District 7 Boardroom, 10595 Jamacha Boulevard, Spring Valley, Cali- fornia. 8 9 OTAY DIRECTORS PRESENT: Hilton, Haden, Mulcahy, and Watton 10 OTAY DIRECTORS ABSENT: Laudner 11 12 OTAY STAFF PRESENT: General Manager Lewinger Operations Dept. Head Przybylski Finance Dept. Head Chambers Attorney Harron District Secretary Bartlett-May Others as per attached list \3 14 CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Moore, Malcolm, Rindone, Horton and Mayor Nader CHULA VISTA STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Assistant city Manager Morris Director of Public Works Lippitt Deputy City Manager Kremple Attorney Boogaard City Clerk Authelet 2. President Hilton inquired if anyone in the audience desired to address the Board on any item not on 23 the agenda. No one wished to be heard. 24 2S 26 3. President Hilton welcomed the members of the Chula vista city Council and Staff. 4. General Manager Lewinger stated discussions have been held between the City and Otay since December, 27 28 1991 regarding facilities that the District has planned 1 CALL TO ORDER ROLL CA.LL AVDIENCE PARTICIPA- TION 'iJELCOHING RE~1ARKS GENE RA L ~'ANAGER 'S PRFSENTi'.- TJON 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 in its draft master plan to provide service to the exist- ing and future citizens of Chula Vista. He stated some 2 3 of the concerns expressed by City staff revolve around 4 storage facilities and the cost of facilities. The Dis- trict's planning goals are to develop a master plan that includes a long-range picture for 20 to 50 years and will integrate what used to be three separate areas of the District. These were the North, Central and South areas. The master plan has shown that over time as development occurs, the North will be tied to the Central Area by a pipeline in Proctor Valley Road and the South will be tied to the Central Area by a pipeline on the west side of Brown Field as well as a pipeline from the Olympic Training Center area to the Donovan prison area. He stated this will integrate all the systems and should eliminate the perception of piecemeal planning. The master plan will also maintain flexibility to provide for reaction to changes in conditions which may affect the size of ultimate facilities, such as peaking factors, ef- fects of water conservation, and the impact of using more reclaimed water. He stated by building facilities as they are needed based on the conditions in place at that time, the District would not be building too much facility for what might change in the future. One type of storage facility the District builds are the smaller tanks within service zones to meet operational demand. The demand in a neighborhood such as EastLake varies over the day with peak demands typically in the morning and evening. The supply of water from the County Water 2 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 Authority (CWA), however, must be taken at a constant rate. The District must make up the difference between the rate water is taken from CWA and the District's 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 demand through storage. When the demand drops below the rate water is taken from CWA, the tanks are filled. The difference in these numbers represents the volume of storage necessary to equalize the demand in a zone. Mr. Lewinger displayed a schematic of a sample tank including operational storage which typically amounts to about one- third of a maximum day plus fire storage capacity, and emergency capacity for emergencies such as pipeline breaks. A peak day's worth of storage is maintained in the operational reservoirs in case of main breaks where a zone would have to be served without service from the CWA. The District is trying to develop facilities to meet the CWA policy for larger emergencies such as aqueduct breaks or earthquakes. The Metropolitan Water District is trying to develop a reservoir near Hemet so that they will have six months of water storage below San Bernardino and the County Water Authority wants two months of storage below San Luis Rey. otay has been told 22 by the County Water Authority to be prepared to sustain 23 deliveries to its customers for ten days without service ~ 2S from CWA. This is where the District's criteria for ten days of emergency storage is derived. The Board's policy 26 as recommended by Staff is to have five days of this 27 storage in treated water reservoirs owned by the District 28 and another five days in the least costly alternative which is considered to be leasing capacity in the Lower 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 otay Reservoir. The first five days already includes the 2.3 days in the emergency storage in the operational tanks. The 2.3 days is used as the peaking factor in Chula Vista to determine how much water is used on a peak day versus an average day and is based on actual experience. He stated in other areas of the District the factor is closer to 3 or 4 while the City of San Diego's actual peaking factor for their system is 1.7. He stated this factor is very dependent on weather. Mr. Lewinger then explained why the District chose five days of covered storage and five days of another type of storage. He stated the District looked at the type of emergency it wanted to be prepared for and con- cluded that it should be prepared for an earthquake. He stated the District felt it was important to be able to provide the customers with drinking water and sufficient water to fight fires after an earthquake. He stated af- ter a severe earthquake there would be multiple pipeline breaks among the water agencies and stated that after the Sylmar quake in 1971, the city of Los Angeles experienced more than 150 pipeline breaks in that area. He stated none of the water agencies keep enough material on hand to repair that many breaks. He stated the District uses a nationwide criteria which is also followed by Chula Vista's fire department which will supply water to fight a fire for five hours. He stated the sum total of the fire storage in the five service zones in Chula Vista is 7.5 million gallons for five hours. There will very possibly be more than five or ten hours of fire fighting 4 I after an earthquake and between the fire fighting and the 2 3 leaks in the pipelines, almost all of the 2.3 days of emergency storage will be used on the first day after the 4 .5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 earthquake. The 2.7 days of emergency storage facilities will be all that will be remaining and it is reasonable to expect that help from the City of San Diego will not be immediately available as they will be having pipeline and treatment plant breaks and power shortages to cope with before they could provide water to the District. The total of the 2.3 days of emergency storage in the operational tanks and the 2.7 days in the emergency storage facilities is the five days the District uses in its criteria. This is a reasonable number based on the 13 14 1.5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2.5 26 27 28 District Staff's experience in the water business and weighed against the cost of building the facilities. Mr. Lewinger stated there are several different ways of supplying the second five days of emergency storage and the District is not set on anyone way except that it should be the least costly alternative. He stated Staff considers the least expensive to be an arrangement with the city of San Diego and that Staff is currently negotiating with the city. He stated Staff will also consider outright purchase or building new capacity at Lower otay and leasing or purchasing capacity in the lake, building a District-owned treatment plant to either treat water directly out of the CWA aqueduct or in conjunction with a new open reservoir, developing groundwater and desalination. He stated if all of these alternatives fail, the District could build storage tanks 5 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~ 2S 26 27 28 to store treated water but the District wants to do whatever is least costly for the residents of Chula Vista and the District's ratepayers. He stated if none of the other alternatives work and building storage tanks was the District's available source of emergency storage, 100 acres more than the District currently owns would be necessary. He stated the 50 acres purchased from Baldwin along with the property on Eastlake Parkway and the small operational tanks, are enough for five days of storage but to protect the District, it is felt that it would be prudent to work with city staff to identify sites for days 6 through 10 so they do not get developed before a decision is made. If the District is able to develop a less costly alternative for days 6 through 10, the sites could be released. Councilmember Malcolm inquired if there was a reason the sites should all be in Chula vista. General Manager Lewinger stated they do not have to be in Chula Vista and the master plan identifies sites in otay Mesa, the Baldwin property, and in Proctor Valley. Attorney Harron pointed out that the closer to the area of need, the more reliable the service and the Dis- trict is limited by elevations to provide for gravity flow. General Manager Lewinger stated the District's mas- ter plan needs to be re-evaluated as the city re-evalu- ates its general plan. Mr. Lewinger then discussed how the District intends to finance these facilities. He stated the Chula Vista 6 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Z4 25 26 27 28 staff was concerned that the price tag for all the facil- ities in the master plan is hundreds of millions of dol- lars. He stated this is true, but new development will have to pay its own way and existing customers should pay for replacement or betterment facilities. He stated the District does not want to place the burden on existing residents to build facilities to serve future customers. The District's improvement district in this area has bonding authority but the District's Board has a self-im- posed limit of $0.10 per $100 assessed valuation. He stated developers have informed Staff that a 2% tax rate is the limit for new housing and with 1% of that being the general property tax, that leaves 1% for financing of remaining services. He stated of that 1%, the District would take a maximum of $200 per year on a $200,000 home leaving the City and other services with $1800. Attorney Harron stated the District gets as much bonding authority as possible but its not just to build the original facilities to serve the development but for future improvements also. General Manager Lewinger stated the funds needed for capital facilities are funded through two sources of rev- enue; bond debt repaid through taxes and connection fees, and developer funded. Councilmember Malcolm inquired how the District would fund facilities in an area that is built out. General Manager Lewinger stated if an area is built out, the District should not need new facilities. 7 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~ 2S 26 27 28 Councilmember Malcolm stated there are a lot of built out areas that do not have five days. General Manager Lewinger stated in built out areas without five days, the District would consider the facil- ity a betterment project and would fund it through standby charges and availability charges. Existing cus- tomers would pay for the portion of the five days emer- gency storage benefitting them and new development would pay for their share. If the $0.10 tax rate will not pay for the new development's share of the facility, the de- velopers must come up with cash to build the facility. He stated the 30 mg reservoir to be built on Eastlake Parkway will cost between $14 and $17 million dollars but the District will not sell bonds for that amount and so the developers have an agreement with the District whereby their cash participation is $14 million. He stated to cover the design and the construction management for this reservoir, the District may have to sell $5 million dollars worth of bonds which should result in a tax rate of $0.05 or $0.06. He stated any development not participating would have to pay $1,800 per home as their share of the reservoir costs. General Manager Lewinger stated as far as water rates, the District's rates for 95% of its customers are lower than Helix and Sweetwater Authority. He stated the District's monthly service charge is comparable to both agencies also. Councilmember Malcolm stated the city's Staff is saying differently. 8 I 2 3 Chula vista's Director of Public Works Lippitt stated the cost of water service in otay is higher when all the other charges such as the capital facilities costs are added. 4 S 6 7 8 9 General Manager Lewinger stated that would not be comparing apples to apples because the older home in Chula vista at some time in the past would have paid for their capital facilities. He stated the new home should pay its fair share of the facilities necessary to provide service. He stated those costs cannot be charged to the existing customers in Chula Vista. Mayor Nader inquired of his staff how the water cost to an older home in Chula vista would compare between Sweetwater Authority and otay. Mr. Lippitt stated that the homes in otay are in im- provement districts and haven't used assessment district financing and most of the prices in the older homes, if there are any costs, obviously the pipes in front of the house are always paid by the developer and included in the price of the house. He stated he was talking more about the backbone facilities that the original develop- ers and the District paid for. He stated EastLake and some of the new developers have put facilities in, and in fact, the city built a tank through a street assessment district. 10 II 12 \3 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 26 27 28 Director Watton stated out of fairness to Helix and Sweetwater, their rates are higher because they have older systems and they are funding a lot of their re- placement out of their annual budget. He stated a few 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 \8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 years ago San Miguel Partners compared developing their project in Sweetwater Authority versus otay and found the costs to be almost the same. Mayor Nader stated he still had not heard an answer to his question. He stated he thought the Council had been told that when a number of fees, taxes, etc. were added on top of the basic water rate, otay was a great deal more than Sweetwater and he inquired of his Staff if the cost to the new homes is put aside, .is that true. Mr. Lippitt stated if the tax amount is not in- cluded, theotay bill would be a lot less. Mayor Nader inquired what taxes an older home would pay. Mr. Lippitt stated that was not known. General Manager Lewinger stated, for example, Im- provement District 22 where Councilmember Malcolm re- sides, the tax rate for a $200,000 home would amount to about $80 a year and will be 0 in five years. Mayor Nader inquired if the tax is the only other charge besides the basic monthly charge that his staff included in their figures. Mr. Lippitt said that was the only other charge. Director Watton stated the tax is not a monthly fee and City staff should be looking at the monthly cost to the homeowner. Councilmember Malcolm. stated their staff had indi- cated that Otay's water rate is cheaper but there are a lot of hidden charges when in fact Otay is saying if a 10 home is older there are no other charges, just the cost to the new homes for the necessary facilities. General Manager Lewinger stated there were some goals he hoped to accomplish at today's meeting. He stated the most important one was for the two agencies to reach a consensus that his description of the District's policies and goals regarding providing storage for an emergency is reasonable and that five days is not an overly conservative amount and that days 6 through 10 should be provided by whatever is the least costly alternative. He stated the second goal is to provide for coordinated planning between the two agencies, especially regarding the potential siting of reservoirs for days 6 through 10. He proposed that if this can be done, that before any construction is done on the Baldwin site, the District would do an EIR. He stated an EIR would also be I 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 \3 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 26 27 28 done before the District formally adopts its master plan. He stated he hoped that Chula Vista could include the reservoir sites for days 6 through 10 in its general plan and create a "holding" zone for those sites until the District determines what the least cost alternative actually is and if it isn't tanks, those sites can be released. He suggested the best way to accomplish all of this if a consensus is reached is to use the Interagency Task Force who could oversee the implementation of these goals. Councilmember Malcolm stated if he understood so far, the District would agree that prior to construction of the site purchased from Baldwin, an EIR would be done 11 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2-4 2S 26 27 28 and that prior to adoption of a master plan, an EIR would be completed. General Manager Lewinger stated the District has agreed to do this. Councilmember Malcolm asked, if the attorneys can put an agreement together, would there be a problem? Assistant City Manager Morris stated city staff would like to make a presentation. He stated Staff agrees that discussion has been going on since December and part of the process has been to get the issues on the table. He stated both agencies have been going through a protracted process of doing that with an exchange of let- ters raising, responding and identifying new issues and the majority of issues have probably been identified that are of a concern to the city. He stated the City saw movement on otay's part in terms of its initial proposal versus what it has now, regarding the move down to five days covered storage versus the original position. He stated city Staff still has concerns and he is not cer- tain that the City is ready to reach consensus that five days is appropriate and Staff's position might be that maybe this meeting would be the impetus for future meet- ings between Staff on these issues. Councilmember Malcolm inquired if it was possible for the City to deal with the issue of the lawsuit before getting into whether five days is appropriate or not. He inquired what else city Staff would want otay to agree to. 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 .8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Assistant city Manager Morris stated he heard Mr. Lewinger indicate otay still needs the five days and city staff still has questions on that. Mr. Lippitt inquired what the City's position would be as far as moving on if the City is satisfied with otay's agreement to perform the environmental work on the master plan and the site. city Attorney Boogaard explained that the lawsuit is based on two premises: that the District should have done environmental review before purchasing the land and otay should submit their public works projects to the city for review by the city's Planning Department to determine consistency with the City's general plan. He stated the fundamental premise that has brought about these discus- sions is that the city Public Works Department is not convinced that a proper planning approach has been uti- lized in determining the five-five split for storage. He stated he was advised by that Department that there should be some risk assessment to determine what the split should be between covered versus open storage be- fore entering into a decision to buy land. He stated that risk assessment should contribute to a master water plan and after the draft master water plan is prepared an environmental impact report should be engaged in and then the purchase of land necessary to meet the original risk assessment. He said this process has been reversed in this case and the land has been purchased first before any risk assessment or final master plan or environmental impact report has been done. 13 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 Councilmember Moore stated now that they understand otay's side he would like otay to understand the City's side. He stated the City as a multi-purpose agency al- ways expects a draft master plan and a draft EIR. The CEQA rule says "thou shall" and he personally waits for that so that the City can review the documents and return it with their concerns. He stated if they do not receive these documents or the District disagrees with the con- cerns, then a lawsuit is formed for the purpose of forc- ing people to review the concerns of the other parties. His concern is that he has not had an opportunity to re- view a draft master plan or draft EIR. He stated he has seen a master plan but it did not say draft and it did not have a date. Attorney Harron stated that a draft master plan was sent to the city in November of last year and city staff has commented and as a result of the comments, some changes were made by the District. He stated the most important change was in the underground storage for days 6 through 10 which now provides that the District will look for the least expensive alternative. He stated Councilmember Moore is correct regarding the EIR on the master plan. He stated the District has been trying to decide what the project is before an EIR is commenced. He stated the project now will include some of the changes recommended by City staff that otay has agreed to and that is why there is no EIR today. Councilmember Moore stated that was his primary con- cern but his second concern is what happens to the prop- 14 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~ 2S 26 27 28 2 3 erty owners in Chula vista if the cost of all the utili- ties and services exceeds the 2% tax limit. Attorney Harron stated the developers have informed the District that they cannot market homes with more than the 2%. 4 Councilmember Moore inquired if any other agency could assess the property owner in this manner. Attorney Harron stated that could not be done unless the developer or their successors supported the assess- ment. General Manager Lewinger stated a developer would not support an assessment district if it increased the tax bill beyond the 2% because the developer would not be able to sell the homes. Councilmember Moore stated these things should have been worked out by the two Staffs and brought forward to the two policy groups but these are his two concerns. Mayor Nader inquired if Mr. Lippitt could make a presentation that would be keyed specifically to whatever issues might be outstanding regarding the lawsuit. Mr. Lippitt stated he had a presentation that would speak to some of the City Staff's concerns also. He stated otay has been giving the City extensions on the time limit for filing the lawsuit but he understood that otay had decided not to grant any further extensions af- ter September and so this meeting was called. He stated he felt there had been progress made between the two Staffs but there is still a need for further discussion of some of the issues. He stated city Staff members are 15 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~ 25 26 27 1 2 3 not experts in the water field so they hired a consultant to help them and they also looked at other agencies' policies. He stated this was not done necessarily to just critique otay's planning but because the City has their concerns with multi-millions of dollars of improve- ments but they have to build in order to serve their area. He stated in that there is $226,000,000 that otay is proposing to build District-wide before the year 2000. He stated that all of these facilities must be financed out of the tax rate or the price of the home. He stated when the District purchased the 57 acres, the whole thing became urgent and that was when the lawsuit was dis- cussed. When City staff reviewed the master plan, they saw that $118,000,000 was estimated for terminal storage and $50,000,000 for operation storage. He stated the 57 acre parcel purchased from Baldwin is for approximately 90 million gallons with 30 million gallons being built . for EastLake. He stated every day of storage in concrete reservoirs costs approximately $30,000,000 when built out. He stated that relates in the master plan to an av- erage day use of about 76 million gallons and even though the two Staffs are down to two or three days still under discussion, that is still $80 to $90 million dollars and that amount is still worth talking about. He stated one other area that Staff had concerns with is the peak fac- tor which is 1.4 in Sweetwater Authority and otay's mas- ter plan table 4-2 indicates otay's Central Area maximum 4 5 6 7 8 9 28 day to the average annual day ratio is 1.7 or 1.6. He stated he understands it is hotter in otay's area but he 16 7 8 9 10 11 12 \3 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 26 27 28 1 2 3 is wondering if otay's factor of 2.2 is a little high and maybe a lot of facilities could be reduced in cost if that factor was more realistic based on the trends. He 4 stated table 4-1 indicates the trend is tending to go down especially when water reclamation and other things impact the peaking factor. He stated City staff believes otay should adopt a policy on storage, finalize the mas- ter plan, determine locations and perform the environmen- tal study and then purchase the land. He stated that is not the way the process has occurred but maybe there is a way through agreements that the City can be satisfied legally. He stated the City does not know if the five days is the correct number of days for covered storage and is concerned that the rest of the five days is cen- trally located around the aqueduct near EastLake High School and is not spread out enough. He stated an engi- neering firm could probably look at the risk analysis and look at the standards throughout the area and come up with a number. He stated the City feels based on an ex- penditure of $80 million dollars, it would be worth spending $40,000 or $50,000 to perform a study like this. He stated the City is also concerned with the cost to the homeowners for the different alternatives and he under- stands otay has looked at this but only from the taxes standpoint, not the total cost including the cost of the home and other assessment districts and improvement dis- tricts. He stated the City also feels otay should com- plete its negotiations with San Diego and/or Sweetwater Authority and find out what those costs would be and then 17 S 6 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~ 2S 26 27 28 finalize the master plan with a financial plan to tie in the entire burden including the City's needs. He stated the City understands that otay must meet certain safety standards and other requirements and policies. He does not think the two Staffs are far apart on agreement but are only arguing about a few days. General Manager Lewinger stated he and his Staff are professionals in the water business with 20 to 30 years experience and the city has professionals advising on health and safety issues such as fire service. He stated the City has certain criteria on response time for fire service as well as police service. He stated just as it is very difficult for the City to determine the value of providing a five minute response time in lieu of a six minute response time, a study is not done, the City looks to its professionals to determine what is acceptable from a risk standpoint. Assistant City Manager Morris stated before that ex- ample is used he would like to point out that a study was done in a fire station master plan siting using consul- tants and Staff to analyze that entire issue. Councilmember Malcolm stated it was not a good exam- ple but it was understood where Mr. Lewinger was heading. General Manager Lewinger stated he tried to layout a reasonable scenario that the District is trying to pro- tect against which is similar to insurance where some people live on the edge and don't carry a lot of insur- ance and some want to be safe and pay the extra cost. 18 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Councilmember Malcolm stated he agreed but he had no I 2 idea what the assessment would be for four days versus 3 five days and he stated he would like to be educated on this. 4 General Manager Lewinger stated the District has not done a risk analysis as requested by the city Staff but the District's goal is to not run out of water under a plausible set of circumstances. He stated Mr. Lippitt is correct that the master plan indicates a huge amount of money for storage. However, under the revised guidelines 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 26 27 28 once the 30 million gallon EastLake Reservoir is constructed, if development continues at the current pace, additional storage would not be necessary until after the year 2000. He stated the majority of that money was to build the second five days of tanks which will not be built if a cheaper alternative is available. He stated regarding the issue of the peaking factor and Mr. Lippitt's comment that if a lower peaking factor was used, smaller facilities could be built, the District cannot pick a peaking factor, it must use the factor that exists which is 2.3 in Chula vista. He stated the figures in table 4-1 are monthly peaking to average ratios which are much lower than maximum day. He stated there is a trend to peaking factors getting lower but the District is looking at a fifty year planning horizon. He stated the other thing to remember is assuming five days of emergency storage, if the 2.3 peaking factor becomes 1.7, the District still needs five days and whatever is taken out of operational tanks must be put in the 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2<4 25 26 27 28 terminal storage tanks to achieve the five days. He stated tanks have to be sized for each zone and there are five zones in Chula vista. He stated the smaller the zone, the larger the peaking factor because the larger the population, the smoother the curve. The operational tanks in each zone are sized using the peaking factor and whatever portion of the five day emergency storage is not in the operational reservoir needs to be in the emergency reservoir. He stated the emergency storage in the operational tanks is counted toward the needed area-wide emergency storage. Director Watton stated the District's preference is to have the emergency storage located in the operational tanks to improve response time. Councilmember Malcolm inquired what peaking factors have to do with the emergency storage. General Manager Lewinger stated peaking factors have nothing to do with the emergency storage but are used to design the other facilities such as pipeline and pump stations. He stated the point is that the peaking factor is what it is and is not a made up number. Mr. Lippitt stated he would think the District would want all of its storage in the operational tanks spread around the District. Director Watton stated that would be even more ex- pensive. Assistant City Manager Morris stated it is apparent from this discussion that there are still a lot of issues to discuss and the City staff is not prepared to recom- 20 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 26 27 28 I 2 3 mend to the council that five days is appropriate and they have concerns about turning this over to the Intera- gency Task Force. He stated a better scenario might be to have the two Staffs meet to discuss the issues further and bring a final report back to the respective Boards. Councilmember Moore stated it seems to him that our combined goals are to pursue the open and closed storage days of five/five with a goal to reduce closed storage. If closed storage is reduced the next area is to combine the above costs to the combined constituents with both agencies trying for a lower minimal cost. If a minimal cost is achieved more money is released for infrastruc- ture or the cost to the constituency is lowered. Another goal is to pursue sites for closed storage and pursue an EIR to fruition. If the agencies could come an agreement on this type of verbiage the two staffs could work to- gether and keep the policy makers advised. Mayor Nader inquired if there was any inconsistency between Mr. Lewinger's presentation and Councilmember Moore's statement and did otay leave anything that were still concerns of city staff regarding the lawsuit that still needs to be resolved. Attorney Boogaard stated he would like to advise the Council in Closed session. Mayor Nader stated he heard nothing in the otay pre- sentation that sounded wrong with the exception of the five days of covered storage and he doesn't know that it is wrong but if City staff still has qualms he would like to hear what the attorney has to say in Closed Session 21 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~ 2S 26 27 28 before making any commitments. He stated one of the con- cerns he has is that the citizens of Chula Vista be effi- ciently served and while he is not an expert in the water field, he does have to listen to any concerns expressed by Staff. He stated he does feel there needs to be more closer coordination of planning between the Staffs. Director Mulcahy stated it is the otay Board's con- cern that there is enough water to serve its con- stituents. Councilmember Moore stated the District does have some flexibility in what it can do with conservation and restrictions. Mayor Nader stated there was no action that could be taken today but there is need for further discussion on the city's part and he would like to bring the meeting to a close. Attorney Harron stated he would like to reach agree- ment to use the Interagency Task Force to provide status reports because one of the reasons the otay Board stopped extending the statute of limitations is that it was felt the City was being unresponsive. Mayor Nader stated he saw no reason not to use the Task Force. Assistant City Manager Morris stated Staff did not disagreed to the Task Force's use for that purpose but they did not want it to be a decision making body. Councilmember Moore stated some type of time line should be used to keep everyone's feet to the fire. 22 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 26 27 28 1 Director Watton stated there are really two issues that will not be resolved today but he would like closure on them quickly and that is the lawsuit and the reservoir site. He stated either this is going to be worked out or the City is going to file the suit. He stated otay does not want a suit to be filed because that doesn't look good for anybody and is kind of stupid when you get to the end of it because its usually realized that it could have been worked out. He stated if agreeing to an EIR process before concrete is poured is a way to do that, fine but we do need to come to terms on that. He stated 2 3 4 the two agencies should continue the planning and better coordination which is a must without compromising the de- livery of services on either side. He stated debate can be held on the size of water facilities or the size of streets but the coordinated planning effort is what is important not arguing over four versus five days. He stated the bottom line for him on the development issue, whether financing is provided through bonding or capacity fees, the District is going to have a certain level of service necessary for health and safety and the City will have certain levels for the services they are concerned with and either the development supports that in the mar- ket place or it doesn't. If it does support it you move forward and if it doesn't then does the agency go back and reduce the level of service until it works? He stated that is where the coordination and the planning comes in and the location of sites and the master plan and general plan is where it gets more mechanical and 23 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 \8 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 26 27 28 1 2 3 technical. He stated it's important for the staffs to have a better relationship than in the past and not be- cause it hasn't been available but because it hasn't been 4 needed. Both agencies have been going about their busi- ness but now in the current economic times it has become much more critical. He stated the lawsuit and the EIR issues need to be dealt with immediately and the Staffs should get together and coordinate the other issues on an on-going year after year basis, particularly when otay Ranch begins. Councilmember Moore stated to settle the lawsuit is- sue, shouldn't the party who failed to meet a CEQA item make the first move. Director Hilton inquired if the City performs CEQA on every project or any approval of purchase before it comes before the Council. Councilmember Moore stated if a certain level of construction in an area where there are mutual government entities, certain things must be done. Director Watton stated to answer Mr. Moore's ques- tion, the District has already stated an EIR would be done before the site is developed. Councilmember Moore asked if the District would put that in writing. Director Watton stated the District would. General Manager Lewinger stated that had already been put in writing. Councilmember Malcolm stated the City council has been given a set of facts that is a little different from 24 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~ 25 26 27 28 their Staff's presentation and Staff needs to look at the issues again. He stated he thinks every one of the goals outlined by General Manager Lewinger are exactly the same as the City'S such as low price, quality service, and enough water for emergencies. He stated he did not want the District to tell the City how to run the police department and he does not want the city to tell otay what is proper for water issues. He stated the City is concerned that proper zoning and proper planning be done in the placement of these facilities and how it affects the city's circulation, housing, and infrastructure. He stated hopefully the agencies can use the Task Force to get reports to both agencies. Director Haden stated the District had no intention of trying to bypass CEQA but the property came up and the District needed it. Attorney Harron stated a negative declaration was done at the time. Councilmember Horton asked for a response to the comment that the property came up and the District had to act on it. Attorney Harron stated what happened was that Bald- win was in difficult financial straights and the District had been looking at the property for a long time and were able to get a very good deal. Councilmember Horton stated the District had identi- fied it prior to Baldwin coming to the District and mak- ing the offer. 25 " S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 26 27 28 1 Attorney Harron stated that was correct, it was an opportunity the District did not want to miss. He stated he checked to see if there would be opposition to the preparation of a negative declaration, but as he has since learned, Tony Letteri, the person he called was the wrong person to talk to and the District found out at the last second that the City was very much opposed to the negative declaration instead of an EIR but at that point the District was in a time bind. He stated part of the EIR will be an alternatives analysis and if something else makes more sense and is more feasible then that would become the project. President Hilton inquired if there were any other comments. There were none and he thanked everyone for attending the meeting. 2 3 4 5. with no further business to come before the ADJOURN~..EK Board the meeting was adjourned at 5:01 p.m. ~ ATTEST: 26