Synopsis: After the California Coastal Commission formally rejected the proposed Morro Bay/Cayucos plan to build a new wastewater treatment plant, the project is back in the hands of the Morro Bay City Council and Cayucos Sanitary District board to either comply with requirements laid down by the Commission or delay more and thereby cost taxpayers in the two communities more of their money and possibly cause sewer rates to wind up even higher down the road.
See Surfrider Map of Proposed Sites
It took the California Coastal Commission two minutes to reject the proposed multi-million dollar Morro Bay/Cayucos wastewater treatment plant on March 11. To no one's surprise.
Now, where does the project go—in other words, what happens next—after the Commission's swift action sending it back to the Morro Bay City Council and Cayucos Sanitary District board (MB/CSD) for a complete overhaul in the wake of some four years of wasted time and taxpayer's money on a losing cause?
The facts are clear: the Coastal Commission has complete power to decide what kind of a sewer plant will be built in order to conform to the city's own Local Coastal Plan (LCP), which the city had submitted, and the Commission approved long ago and now administers, and the Coastal Act, which the Commission enforces. Those statutes in general require the construction and location of a plant that protects the environment, preserves the coast for recreational and public uses and best serves the civic and economic interests of the two adjacent communities.
The question is: will Morro Bay and Cayucos recognize those realities and move with dispatch to fulfill the Commission's requirements adopted on March 11 in order to replace an old, inefficient sewer plant that contaminates Estero Bay with minimally-treated sewage and kills untold numbers of aquatic life in the ocean. And a plant that now emits unsavory odors that plague residents, pedestrians and car drivers with incoming air eastward of the plant at 180 Atascadero Road near Morro Bay High School. And one that uses much more costly energy than a new, more technologically-advanced one would? And will they act expeditiously to save city taxpayers and sewer rate payers—and city water customers, too—with a project reflecting the most efficient and modern design available and get the project underway as soon as possible to avoid price increases as time passes?
Or will Morro Bay and Cayucos drag their feet or even try to fight the Commission's requirements for unknown reasons, causing more delays and producing mounting costs to sewer and water rates payers in the coming years?
A glimpse of what lies ahead is scheduled to be presented to a joint meeting of the Morro Bay City Council and Cayucos Sanitary District board under their Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) partnership on Thursday, April 14, at the Cayucos Veterans Hall starting at 6 p.m. At that meeting, project manager Dennis Delzeit is expected to lay out the services that staff contends will be needed to comply with the new Commission requirements for a new plant, the time schedule for providing those services and a "rough estimate" of the cost to get those requirements approved by the Commission. And apparently the hiring of an additional project manager to handle these tasks.
But it is far from clear what this plan involves because of confusion in the document about the purpose, personnel and goals—and costs—for an effort to respond to the Commission's finding that the project that had been proposed by MB/CSD raised "substantial issues," meaning failure to conform to the LCP and the Coastal Act.
For instance, the document outlining those services calls the project an "upgrade," even after the Commission report made clear it is a new plant. It cites an appeal of the MB/CSD project proposal that led to the Commission rejecting that proposal when there were 11 appeals. It calls "an allegation" the Commission's determination that the proposed location of a new plant next to the old one is in conflict with the LCP and Coastal Act when, in fact, it was a finding that requires action in order to obtain Commission approval of the project.
But more importantly, the document calls for "preparation of an analysis" of those substantial issues without explaining what that entails and who would carry it out. It calls for the development of a "Scope of Services" without identifying what those should or would be. It also recommends the hiring of a contractor that is called both a "consultant" and a "project manager" in different parts of the document.
And in conclusion, it cautions "Please do not contact the CCC (California Coastal Commission) staff at this time." Since the document does not explicitly state to whom it is directed, it could be one and all.
But perhaps most important is that the plan calls for contracting with a consultant to develop the needed services to comply with the Coastal Commission's requirements even before a scope of work—the broad goals for designing and contracting out a new plant—is agreed upon, which requires community input and involvement, as the Coastal Commission staff has made clear. Resident Barry Branin, a retired engineer, and others have emphasized that the sequence being followed in the document is out of logical order—as in the proverbial cart before the horse.
A deadline of March 31 for proposals by outside consultants to undertake some kind of tasks was set for March 31.
But the document does call for the review of at least 10 alternative sites for the new plant, one of the Coastal Commission's most emphasized requirements. The MB/CSD's original proposal to the Commission identified only one site, next to the present sewage plant. And it does envision several public workshops on the development of a new project plan, which the Commission staff strongly urged in a private meeting with Morro Bay and Cayucos staffs after the Commission meeting on March 11 in Santa Cruz.
The city has provided no information to residents about the outcome of the March 11 meeting, which represented a crossroads event in the four-year development of plans for a new sewer plant. Nor has it made efforts to inform residents about key prior events, such as the February 16 Commission staff report that made clear the proposed MB/CSD plan for a new plant was unacceptable. The Commission essentially adopted that staff finding that it was unacceptable.
However, city manager Andrea Leuker did provide a summary of the March 11 Commission meeting and the meeting between Commission staff and some city and CSD staff members, including her, later that afternoon, in her weekly update to the City Council. She did say that the city and CSD staff members had reached agreement that the project is new "development" and not an upgrade.
Also attending that meeting was Susan McCabe, an attorney who was hired by the MB/CSD as a lobbyist. Questions had been raised about the need for a lobbyist in light of the near certainty that the Commission would reject the project on March 11. And about a controversial incident involving her lobbying. The contract with McCabe, which was just signed on March 11, covers one year at a cost to the city and CSD not to exceed $12,500, including expenses, for the first month plus a flat fee of $12,500 a month for subsequent months. The contract states that the MB/CSD can cancel it with 10 days notice. (link the contract)
The Commission unanimously adopted its staff's report at its March 11, which mandates:
—Investigation of a wide range of possible sites for the new plant because the proposed project adjacent to the present plant on the shore of Estero Bay is "fundamentally flawed in that it lacks a thorough . . . analysis that evaluates a broad range of alternatives . . ."
—Consideration of converting virtually all of the plant's effluent into purified recycled water to meet all potential demand for agricultural irrigation inside and outside the city for "potential revenue generation" and to enable the city to replenish its own water supply from municipal wells and thereby reduce reliance on expensive and unreliable state water supplies. The proposed project included a plan for only a small amount of wastewater reclamation.
—A comprehensive coastal hazards study of the site for the city's proposed new plant, including shoreline erosion, relationship of global climate change and sea level rise, the elevation and inland extent of storm surge and flooding, how far inland and how high such water would go, impacts of a 100-year storm event, the tsunami risks and any shoreline or structural protections that would be necessary to cope with these hazardous conditions.
In submitting its project, virtually none of this information was provided to the Commission or its staff by MB/CSD.
The following is a critique of a document that is scheduled to be presented to a joint meeting of the Morro Bay City Council and Cayucos Sanitary District board on April 14 and is posted on the Morro Bay city website at Morro Bay Ca Us. The addendum is at Morro-Bay Ca Us Addendum.
Request for Qualifications [To do what?]
City of Morro Bay/Cayucos Sanitary District
Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade
[The Coastal Commission staff has determined it is not an upgrade, but a new project.]
California Coastal Commission Appeal [Appeals plural. There were11.], Analysis of Substantial Issues [What does analysis of substantial issues mean? How can they be reversed, modified, addressed, interpreted to the applicants liking, complied with, used to prepare a follow up application for a CDP or other?]
BACKGROUND:
The City of Morro Bay and Cayucos Sanitary District (MBCSD) wastewater treatment upgrade (incorrect name again) (project
was determined by the California Coastal Commission (CCC), on 3/11/11, to have "substantial issues" [with respect to conformance with the city's local coastal plan and the Coastal Act] as identified in the attached staff report. The 23 page staff report stipulates that further studies are needed to address the items that are identified in their staff report, prior to the de novo hearing of the Coastal Commission. The de novo hearing date is expected to be scheduled after the analysis of the substantial issues is prepared and submitted to [and approved by] CCC staff.
The MBCSD has approved the Facilities Master Plan and Environmental Impact Report which provides the basis for the project. [These documents are no longer relevant since the project they reflected has been rejected by the Coastal Commission.] These and other reference documents are provided on the city's web site (Public Services Department/Wastewater Treatment Plant Operations/WWTP Upgrade Project.) [There is no mention on this site of the Coastal Commission staff report finding substantial issues with the project submitted to the Coastal Commission or the Coastal Commission's action on March 11 approving that finding and sending the project back to the MBCSD to achieve conformance. Therefore, the site is completely out of date and misleading.]
The primary substantial issues is the allegation [Not an allegation, but a staff finding confirmed by the Commission.] that the current WWTP site is an inappropriate location. [For what? For a new plant. There were many other equally important issues cited by the Commission Staff and the Commission itself.]
Several [Inaccurate term. The Surfrider Foundation cited 13 possible sites.] other sites were identified in an EIR appeal letter submitted by the Surfrider Foundation. This letter is contained in Chapter 9 of the final EIR and the comment letter to this appeal [Which appeal?] is located in Chapter 10. The Surfrider Foundation letter can be used as a guide. However, public workshop meetings will be held to receive input to determine the actual sites that will be evaluated [By whom?].
GOAL:
The preparation of an analysis [What does this mean?] of the Substantial Issues [By whom?] that are the identified in the California Coastal
Commission staff report prepared 2/16/11 (copy enclosed). [The copy is not linked or attached.]
CONTENT OF QUALIFICATIONS [For whom or what?] SUBMITTAL [To whom?]:
The following items are requested to be included in the submittal [What does submittal mean and to whom would it go?]. The submittal need not be lengthy [Why?].
1. Scope of Services [For what purpose?]:
a. Describe in sufficient detail to identify the major elements of the services that are to be
provided by the consultant [First mention of consultant; what are its functions and duties and how will it be selected? ].
b. The scope of services shall be accomplished in two phases: Phase 1 will evaluate the alternative sites [Using whose or what criteria?]; Phase 2 will provide analysis [Analysis for what purpose?] of the other issues that are required in the Coastal Commission staff report [Other issues? There are so many that are so substantive, how is the consultant going to analyze—whatever that means—them all within a reasonable time period?]
c. Please include two public workshop presentations and two presentations to the JPA [What is the difference between 'workshop presentations' and 'presentations?' Are they all workshops? If not, why not? When will they come in the process? They must precede any planning in order to develop the essential scope of work prior to any analysis of issues by anyone. Otherwise the cart is going before the horse, which will inevitably run counter to Coastal Commission requirements.].
Also, include two meetings with CCC staff and presentations at two California Coastal Commission hearings. [The Commission will not hear any of this until its staff approves the changes in the project.]
d. Developing the list of alternate sites is part of the consultant's work scope [What is the full work scope?]. For estimating purposes, assume that a maximum of 10 sites will be evaluated in the "rough screening" analysis [What does "rough screening" mean? What does rough screening mean? They should all be thoroughly evaluated in order to identify the most desirable ones.] and a maximum of 3 sites will be evaluated in the "fine screening" [Three is an arbitrary number, and the basis for it should be stated] analysis.
e. Provide a first and second draft [Does this mean a first draft and then a second draft after review by the MBCSD staff?] of each of the reports [Which reports?] to MBCSD staff and after approval of the reports [Which reports?] by the MBCSD staff, two drafts [Why two and what is the difference?] will be presented to the Coastal Commission staff.
2. Project Team: Identify the project team and specify the responsible project manager [What does specify mean? Selection? If so, what is the process? Is the project manager also the consultant? A project manager already exists. What is the justification for retaining another?] and key individuals. [How are they identified and selected and by whom?]
3. Qualifications: Provide the qualifications [Qualifications to do what?] of the key individuals on the project team.
4. Schedule: Describe major work task items [What is the purpose of the work task items?] assuming that the JPA approves the consultant [Who will interview candidates and recommend one to the MB/CSD?] selection at the May 12 meeting. Allowing for contract signing, the start date should be assumed as June 1 [Why? Why not May 13?]. There is no specific deadline [Who says? What if the MB/CSD wants one to accelerate whatever the process is?]. However, the MBCSD expects [Who says? The MBCSD hasn't weighed in.] that the schedule will reflect an aggressive commitment. [To do what?]
5. Fee: Please submit a rough cost estimate [For what? The fee for consultant services? The consultant is already hired in step 4. Or does it mean a fee for some additional tasks?]. The consultant selection will not be based upon the fee [What does this mean? The fee has no meaning in selecting the consultant?]. However, it is necessary to request the fee for budget estimating and decision making purposes [What does this mean? Budget to do what? How is decision making affected by the fee?]. The MBCSD does not have budget approval for this study [Why not? The staff, whoever that is, will approve the budget for whatever is being undertaken? By what authority and action of the MB/CSD?]. The contract fee will be based upon a "time and materials" basis with a not-to-exceed limit. [That is a budget.]
6. References: Provide references of the key individuals of the project team [Why? Aren't these going to be city/CSD staff, or are other outsiders going to be employed?], particularly the project manager [The project manager has already been hired. This is after the fact.]. Please provide contact information of the references. [Is this meant to say contact information for the key individuals on the project team? References are information, not human beings.]
7. Proposal Submittal: Please submit 12 copies [OF WHAT?] to Morro Bay City Hall, 955 Shasta Avenue, Morro
Bay, 93422, attention, Bruce Keogh, Wastewater System Division Manager, no later than March
31, 2011. [Why not to the present project manager, Delzeit?]
PROCESS:
The City Council/CSD Board (JPA) [There is no such board. The JPA consists of the Morro Bay City Council and Cayucos Sanitary District Board.] will be presented with a general description of the scope of services [To do what?], schedule [To accomplish what?] and rough estimate of the fee [For what?] at the April 14, 2011 JPA meeting. Assuming that the JPA desires to proceed with the analysis [What does analysis mean?] of substantial issues, either an RFP will be issued [For what?] or the JPA may [The JPA does not act; it is the City Council and CSD Board acting separately] authorize the negotiation of the contract with the consultant that submits the best statement of qualifications. [A number of consultants are going to be considered? Where does the previous text say anything about that?] Staff is targeting the May 12 meeting to present a recommendation for consultant selection or award of contract. [What is the distinction between consultant selection and award of the contract?]
Questions shall be directed to Dennis Delzeit, P.E., Project Manager or by phone at 805-441-1863. Emailed questions are preferred but telephone inquiries are acceptable. Please do not contact the CCC staff at this time. [What right does anyone have to discourage contacting the Coastal Commission Staff, which welcomes inquiries?]
Thank you for your time and interest in this important project.
Sincerely,
Dennis Delzeit, P.E.
Project Manager
