City of Morro Bay
New Water Reclamation Facility Project
Second Public Draft Options Report

Introduction:  Changes since the First Draft Report

This is a Second Public Draft Options Report, first released in draft form on October 29, 2013.  Since that time, the report was presented at a community workshop (November 5) and again at a City Council meeting (November 12).  The second draft of the Options Report responds to public and Council input received at those meetings.  Some of the changes are minor, but others are more fundamental, and have to do with the site analysis, how the various factors are weighted, or the nature of the factors themselves.  All public input was insightful.  The second draft of the report was always envisioned as part of a larger iterative process, and necessary to help the City Council be able to make informed decisions based on a transparently collaborative effort.  The conclusions in this report are based on sound technical information, but at the same time are framed by the insights, concerns and creative thinking displayed through the public outreach process. 

To assist the reader, the key aspects of the Second Draft Options Report that have changed since the first draft are summarized below:

Issues and Analysis

• New Issues.  Based on public input, the report will now evaluate two new issues not fully considered in the first draft.  Neighborhood Compatibility (especially as it relates to odors) will be evaluated as one of the issues under “Engineering and Design.”  The second new issue is the project’s consistency with long-range planning concepts.  This will relate not only to the General Plan, but also to the concept of “opportunity cost”; i.e., by constructing a new WRF, will it preclude some greater potential future use at the location?  Are there other planning issues or initiatives outside the General Plan to consider?  This issue will be evaluated under “Logistics.”
• Revised Weighting.  At the November 5 workshop, the City received important feedback about whether the scoring criteria accurately reflected community concerns.  The second draft report recalibrates the scoring and weighting of factors based on this input.  One notable change is to place a somewhat greater emphasis on the issue of cultural resources.
• Role of the Ocean Outfall.  Based on continuing concerns about the future use of the ocean outfall, the report will clarify its role in a new WRF, and explain the consequences if the outfall were removed.

Study Sites

1. Expanded Chorro Valley Site.  The report expands the Chorro Valley site to include a roughly 400-acre parcel outside the City (part of the Tri-W site), because of public input suggesting it may have good potential for locating a new WRF.
2. Identifies the Most Promising Location within Each Site.  Many of the larger sites have multiple opportunities for locating a new facility, but also have many challenges.  For that reason, evaluating these sites is somewhat difficult.  For that reason, the analysis will identify the “most promising area” within each site, and focus the analysis on these areas.  This has the greatest potential effect on the evaluation of the Chorro Valley, Morro Valley, Chevron and Giannini sites.  For the smaller sites, (notably Sites E and F), the entire site is somewhat equivalent to the “most promising location” since there is less variation on these sites that would affect the analysis.

Cost Evaluation

1. Refined Cost Assumptions.  The cost assumptions shown in Appendix D of the report will be clarified, particularly from the perspective that these are rough estimates not based on a specific design, but are useful primarily for comparative purposes from site to site.  To that end, the second draft report will include an assumption of what it would cost to do a similar project at the existing WWTP site, not because that site is under consideration (it is not), but to allow the public and City Council to understand the comparative costs in a context that is more easily understood.
2. The Effects of Cost Sharing with Multiple Agencies at the CMC Site.  Cost assumptions in the first draft report do not consider cost-sharing with other agencies, because this possibility cannot yet be assumed.  That said, the CMC Site (Site D) has multiple potential partners that the other sites do not (notably the State of California and County of San Luis Obispo; Cayucos is a potential partner at all sites).  For that reason, the evaluation for Site D will also consider (in rough terms) the implications of cost-sharing with multiple agencies if it were conceived as a regional facility, and how that might affect the evaluation.  It should be noted that it would be unlikely that the existing users of the CMC site would share in any costs due to treatment plant expansion or pipeline and pumping costs.

• Purpose of the Report

The purpose of this report is to provide information that assists the City Council in making a decision about an appropriate location to build a new Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) to replace the City’s existing Wastewater Treatment Plant.  The report is based on a combination of existing technical studies and recent public input, which, when collectively considered in the context of newly developed technical information, will allow the community to understand the rationale behind the recommendations contained in this report.

This is a comparative siting study that considers a combination of environmental, logistical, engineering and economic factors.  It is not a technical or engineering analysis.  It is not intended to design a project, or even locate the new project within a specific parcel.  It is planning-level information that begins a series of actions leading to the eventual construction and operation of a new facility.  It is not intended to repeat the work done in the previous rough and fine screening evaluations, particularly the exhaustive policy analysis contained in those documents.  Those documents are included in this new study by reference, and where the analysis in this new study differs from the conclusions of those previous studies, it will be so noted.

Once the City Council chooses a site, the next steps would include acquiring the site, gaining the support of the Coastal Commission to pursue development on the site, and the creation of potential designs for the facility, as well as a plan for paying for that facility.  This would be followed by environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), resource regulatory agency permitting as needed, annexation (if necessary), and ultimately construction and operation.  These future actions are beyond the scope of this study.

This report includes extensive information about different technologies that could be applied to the project design, discussing the pros and cons, cost and siting ramifications, and the effectiveness of such technologies relative to treating wastewater to tertiary standards and beyond.  This information is found in Appendix A.  The report also discusses options on how to dispose of or use biosolids that are byproducts of wastewater treatment (Appendix B).  This information is intended to help the City Council make an informed decision about the most appropriate site.  It is important to note that the Council will not be asked to make a decision about which technologies to apply in designing the new WRF—that is more appropriately left to a project designer responding to the stated goals for the new facility.  Instead, the Council will be asked to provide direction regarding the following:

• The overall goals for the new WRF relative to:
• the level of wastewater treatment;
• goals for the use of reclaimed water;
• goals for the beneficial reuse of biosolids;
• the timing and schedule of meeting these goals;
• whether or not it is desirable to pursue a regional facility; and
• An appropriate location for such a facility

From there, this information will be provided to potential design consultants, who will propose on the project and recommend an appropriate approach to meet these goals.  The best design will be the one that balances the long-term utility of the facility, expandability as needed, the use of appropriate technologies to achieve the City’s stated goals, and lifecycle cost.

• Executive Summary

Broadly speaking, the new WRF is intended to accomplish several goals, including the following:

• Production of tertiary, disinfected wastewater in accordance with Title 22 requirements for unrestricted urban irrigation
• Designed to be able to produce reclaimed wastewater for potential users, which could include public and private landscape areas, agriculture, or groundwater recharge.  A master reclamation plan should include a construction schedule and for bringing on customers in a cost effective manner.
• Onsite composting
• Energy recovery
• Ability to treat contaminants of emerging concern in the future

City-Operated vs. Regional Facility
Fundamentally, this report also assumes that the project would be constructed and operated by the City of Morro Bay alone, rather than with any partner agencies, because that has been the direction provided to City staff to this point.  Such a project would be under the sole control of the City, and would not rely on other agencies relative to long-term facility operations and maintenance.  However, this approach has cost implications for certain sites that may not be the same if the project were approached as a multi-agency facility.

Cost Assumptions
Relative to the issue of cost, this analysis presents a rough estimate of costs, without presuming that such costs could be shared by multiple agencies in a regional facility.  This allows for a more direct comparison of sites.  If an agreement with potential partner agencies can be reached for a new WRF at any site, this would likely have positive ramifications with respect to the desirability of that site.  The analysis will show that it is will be expensive to construct a new WRF at any location.  Appendix D of the report shows the detailed cost assumptions used in this analysis.

Water Reuse and the Ocean Outfall
During the public outreach process, there was much input regarding the existing outfall structure—should it stay, or should it go?  Is it needed?  If so, under what conditions?  Can it be eliminated as part of the project?  Is there an advantage to keeping it in place?

At this time, it is assumed the ocean outfall would only be used to accommodate wet weather flows when no irrigation water can be used by customers.  If a site with suitable percolation characteristics can be identified, or if streamflow augmentation is feasible, this would likely lower wet weather disposal costs but the use of the outfall is considered a conservative assumption for developing conceptual cost opinions.

Study Sites
Seven sites are examined in this report relative to their ability to meet these goals, which represent a reconfiguration of many (but not all) of the 17 sites examined in the 2011 Rough Screening Evaluation.  They range in size, and the number of properties included in each, based on factors described in this report.  These sites include:

• Site A (Chevron)
• Site B (Morro Valley)
• Site C (Chorro Valley)
• Site D (CMC Wastewater Treatment Plant Site)
• Site E (Power Plant—southern portion of property)
• Site F (Panorama)
• Site G (Giannini)

Note that the existing Wastewater Treatment Plant Site was removed from consideration as a result of the California Coastal Commission’s January 2013 denial of a new facility at that location. 

Table ES-1 summarizes the sites as they are studied in this report, which are shown in Figure 1.