CleanPowerSF Sfpuc Commission
September 27, 2022

DEPARTMENT

Water Enterprise

AGENDA NO.

15 MEETING DATE September 27, 2022

APPROVAL:

COMMISSION

SECRETARY

Donna Hood

AGENDA ITEM
Public Utilities Commission
City and County of San Francisco

Authorize Memorandum of Agreement: Regular Calendar
Project Manager: YinLan Zhang

Authorize Memorandum of Agreement, San Francisco-Peninsula Regional Purewater Project Basis of Design Report

Summary of
Proposed
Commission Action:

Authorize the General Manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to execute a Memorandum of Agreement with Silicon Valley Clean Water, Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency, California Water Service Company, Mid-Peninsula Water District, City of Redwood City, and City of San Mateo for the preparation of a Basis of Design Report for the potential S an Francisco -Peninsula Regional Purewater Project, with a duration of 27 months , terminatin g on December 31, 2024, for an amount not-to-exceed $515,000.

Background: In 2016 , Silicon Valley Clean Water (SVCW) approached the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency (BAWSCA), and California Water Service Company (Cal Water) with a propo sal to collaborate on a potential potable reuse project to address water supply and wastewater issues in the San Francisco Bay Area. On June 14, 2016, by Resolution No. 16- 0119, this Commission authorized the General Manager to execute a Memorandum of Unde rstanding (MOU) with SVCW, BAWSCA, and Cal Water to develop a coordinated plan for potable reuse in the San Francisco Bay Region, known as the Potable Reuse Exploratory Plan (PREP), for an amount not -to-exceed $35,000, and with a total duration of 18 months. The main purpose of the MOU was to conduct a study to determine the initial technical feasibility and a range of cost projections for the PREP project ( which has also been referred to by the SFPUC as the “Crystal Springs Purified Water Project”) with each of the parties contributing funding towards its costs. The PREP Phase 1 Initial Study produced under the MOU considered potable reuse alternative concepts, including reuse through groundwater replenishment and reservoir w ater augmentation (RWA) at the SFPUC’s Crystal Spring Rese rvoir and Cal Water’s Bear Gulch Reservoir.

Agreement: Authorize Memorandum of Agreement, San Francisco-Peninsula Regional Purewater Project Basis of Design Report
Commission Meeting Date: September 13, 2022

On March 27, 20 18, by Resolution No. 18 -0049, the Commission authorized the General Manager to execute an amendment to the 2016 MOU that added the City of San Mateo and the City of Redwood City as parties to th e MOU, expanded t he scope of the analysis, extended the term of the MOU by 28 months, and increased SFPUC’s share of the funding for PREP by up to $50,000 for a total not -to-exceed amount of $81,000. The PREP Phase 2 Concept Study produced under the MOU as amended further defined the concept of a n RWA project at Crystal Spring Reservoir.

On October 27, 2020, by Resolution No. 20- 2019, the Commissi on authorized the General Manager to execute a new Memoran dum of Agreement (MOA) with S VCW, BAWSCA, Cal Water , Redwood City, and San Mateo for the preparation of a third study, with a duration of 25 months and with SFPUC’s funding contribution not-to- exceed $160,661. The PREP Phase 3 Feasibility Study produced under this MOA provided more detailed analysis of the i mpacts of reservoir augmentation at Crystal Springs on the regional water system and direct potable reuse options through raw water and treated drinking water augmentation, with a short list of potential projects that the parties might continue to advance for further analysis.

Through these studies and collaborative work, the SFPUC, S VCW, BAWSCA, Cal Water, Redwood City, and San Mateo have identified a phased, hybrid potable reuse concept that they wish to move into the preliminary design phase and have na med the SF -Peninsula Regional Purewater ( SPRP) Project . The Mid -Peninsula Water District (MPWD), which has not par ticipated in the PREP to date, wishes to join the other six parties in the development of the potential SPRP Project.

All seven parties have negotiated a new MOA setting forth the ir respective roles and responsibili ties, and cost sharing allocations and procedures, for the preparation of a Basis of Design Report (Report), which will f urther develop the potential SPRP Project concept, establish design criteria, create design drawings, delineate a preliminary project footprint, and analyze costs. The term of the proposed MOA will end on December 31, 2024 , or when all obligations have been performed , whichever occurs first, and the parties will share the total cost for the preparation of the Report, agreed to be an amount not to exceed $1,030,000 , in the following proportions, with the SFPUC’s individual share of the total cost not to exceed $515,000.

• SVCW: 9% $92,700
• San Mateo: 9% $92,700
• BAWSCA: 5% $51,500
• Cal Water: 9% $92,700
• Redwood City: 9% $92,700
Agreement: Authorize Memorandum of Agreement, San Francisco-Peninsula Regional Purewater Project Basis of Design Report
Commission Meeting Date: September 13, 2022

• MPWD: 9% $92,700
• SFPUC: 50% $515,000

The scope of work for the Report, which is attached to the proposed MOA, w ill be conducted by the consultant firm Kennedy Jenks, unde r contract with SVCW, in collaboration with the parties. Kennedy Jenks is the same consultant firm that the parties worked with for the PREP Project’s three previous study phases. SVCW and Kenne dy Jenks have entered into a separate agreement concernin g the scope of work and Kennedy Jenks’s obligations under its contract with SVCW with respect to its performance of the scope of work, which is also incorporated in the MOA as an attachment.

Description of
Agreement:

The MOA will allow the SFPUC to pa rticipate in the development of the Report to continue to advance this potential potable reuse project in the San Francisco Bay Area that would imp rove the reliabi lity and sustainability of the SFPUC’s Regional W ater System for its retail and wholesale cus tomers, as well as the reliability and susta inability of the other parties’ water and wastewater systems.

Parties to Agreement: SFPUC, SVCW, BAWSCA, Cal Water,
MPWD, City of San Mateo, and City of
Redwood City
Purpose: Preparation of report for preliminary
design for potential potable reuse project
Location: SF Bay Area
Commencement Date: October 2022

Duration: 27 months

Result of Inaction: The SFPUC is considering potable reuse as part o f future water supply planning. The SFPUC has already participated in three phases of feasibility studies for a potential potable reuse project i n the Bay Area region with SVCW, BAWSCA, Cal Water, S an Mateo, and Redwood City, and with these partner agencie s and MPWD , has identified a phased, hybrid proje ct concept that would be feasible. The Report that would be produced under the proposed agreement would further develop the project concept and costs. Inaction will delay the SFPUC’s ability to participate in this regional effort and to consider this potential alternative water supply project in its water supply plans.

Budget & Costs: Not-to Exceed Amount : $515,000 of the to tal maximum cost of $1,030,000 that will be shared among the parties to the MOA.

Funds will be available upon execution from project 10036483- Crystal Springs Purified Water Project . This is a Regional project, and the SFPUC’s wholesale customers represented by BAWSCA will reimburse the SFPUC for approximately two-thirds (2/3) of its costs.

Agreement: Authorize Memorandum of Agreement, San Francisco-Peninsula Regional Purewater Project Basis of Design Report
Commission Meeting Date: September 13, 2022

Schedule: Start Date: October 2022
End Date: December 2024

Recommendation: SFPUC staff recommends that the Commission adopt the attached resolution.

Attachment: 1. Memorandum of Agreement (with attachments)

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
City and County of San Francisco
RESOLUTION NO.

WHE
REAS, The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) has an interest in developing potential water reuse projects. In 2016, Silicon Valley Clean Water (SVCW) approached the San Francisco P ublic Utilities Commission (SFPUC), Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency (BAWSCA), and California Water S ervice Company (Cal Water) with a proposal to collaborate on a potential potable reuse project to address regional water supply and wastewater issues; and
WHE
REAS, On June 14, 2016, by Resolution No. 16- 0119, this Commission authorized the General Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with SVCW, BAWSCA, and Cal Water to develop a coordinated plan for potable reuse in the San Fra ncisco Bay Region, known as the Potable Reuse Exploratory Plan (PREP), for an amount not -to-exceed $35,000, and with a total duration of 18 months, and the PREP Phase 1 Initial Study produced under the MOU with funds f rom each of the parties considered pot able reus e alternat ive concepts, including reuse through groundwater replenishment and Reservoir Wate r Augmentation (RWA) at th e SFPUC’s Crystal Spring Reservoir and Cal Water’s Bear Gulch Reservoir; and
WHE
REAS, On March 27, 2018, by Resolution No. 18-0049, the Commission authorized the General Manager to execute an amendment to the MOU that added the City of San Mateo and the City of Redwood City as parties to the MOU, expanded the scope of the analysis, extended the term of the MOU by 28 months, and increased SFPUC’s share of the funding by up to $50,000, for a total not -to-exceed amount of $81,000; and the PREP Phase 2 Concept Study produced under the MOU as amended further defined the concept of a n RWA project at Crystal Spring Reservoir; and
WHE
REAS, On October 27, 2020, by Resolution No. 20- 2019, the Commission authorized the General Manager to execute another agreement with S VCW, BAWSCA, Cal Water, Redwood City, and San Mateo for the preparati on of a third study, with a duration of 25 months and with SFPUC’s funding contribution not -to-exceed $160,661; and the PREP Phase 3 Feasibility Study produced under that agreement provided more detailed analysis of the impacts of reservoir augmentation at Crystal Springs on the regio nal water system and direct potable reuse options through raw water and treated drinking water augmentation, with a short list of potential projects that the parties might continue to advance for further analysis; and WHE
REAS, Through these studies and c ollaborative work, the SFPUC, SVCW, BAWSCA, Cal Water, Redwood City, and San Mateo have identified a phased, hybrid potable reuse concept that they wish to move into the design phase and have named the SF- Peninsula Regional Purewater (SPRP) Project; and
WHEREAS, The Mid-Peninsu la Water District (MPWD ), which has not participated in the PREP to date, wishes to join the other six parties in the development of the potential SPRP Project; and
WHEREAS, All seven parties have negotiated a new Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) setting forth their respective roles and responsibilit ies, and cost sharing allocations and procedures, for the preparation of a Basis of Design Report (Report), which will further develop the potential SPRP Project concept, establish design cri teria, create design drawings, delineate a preliminary project footprint, and analyze costs; and
WHEREAS, The scope of work for the Report, which is attached to the proposed MOA, will be conducted, in collaboration with the parties, by the consult ant firm Kennedy Jenks,
under contract with SVCW, which is the same consultant fi rm that the parties worked with for the PREP’s t hree previous study p hases ; and WHEREAS, The term of the proposed MOA will end on December 31, 2024, or when all obligations have been performed, whichever occurs first, and the parties will share the total cost of the Report, which shall not exceed $1,030,000, with the SFPUC’s individual share of the total costs not to exceed $515,000; and
WHEREAS, Funds for this new Agreement will be available at the time of execution of the MOA
from Crystal sprin gs Purified Water Project ; now, therefore, be it RES
OLVED, That this Commission hereby authorizes the General Manager to execute the Memorandum of Agreement with Silicon Valley Clean Water, Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency, California Water Service Company, Mid -Peninsula Water District, City of San Mateo, and City of Redwood City, for the preparation of a Basis of Design Report for the potential San Francisco-Peninsula Regional Purewater Pro ject, with a duration of27 months and an amount not-to-exceed $515,000.

I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Public Utilities Commission at its meeting of September 13, 2022.

Secretary, Public Utilities Commission
1 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AMONG

BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION AGENCY,

CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY, CITY OF REDWOOD CITY,

CITY OF SAN MATEO, CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC

UTILITIES COMMISSION, MID-PENINSULA WATER DISTRICT

AND SILICON VALLEY CLEAN WATER

REGARDING SF-PENINSULA REGIONAL PUREWATER PROJECT

BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT

THIS MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (“Agreement”), made in the State of California on this ____ day of _______, 2022, is by and among the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (“BAWSCA”), California Water Service Company (“Cal Water”), City of Redwood City (“Redwood City”), City of San Mateo (“San Mateo”), City & County of San Francisco acting by and through its Public Utilities Commission (“San Francisco” or “SFPUC”), Mid-Peninsula Water District (“MPWD”), and Silicon Valley Clean Water, a Joint Powers Authority (“SVCW”), referred to collectively herein as the “Parties” and individually as a “Party.”

RECITALS

1. WHEREAS, the Parties represent, own, and/or operate independent water or wastewater treatment systems that collectively serve the needs of over 2.7 million residents and businesses in the San Francisco Bay Region; and

2. WHEREAS, the Parties recognize that California is prone to droughts, which will be exacerbated by climate change, and that the use of advanced water purification technology for potable reuse may provide increased water supply reliability and/or water quality benefits to the Parties and the public they all serve; and

3. WHEREAS, BAWSCA, Cal Water, Redwood City, San Mateo, SFPUC, and SVCW have worked collaboratively since 2016, under two separate agreements dated November 3, 2016 (amended in April 2018) and December 11, 2020, to develop a coordinated plan for potable reuse in the San Francisco Bay Region, known as the Potable Reuse Exploratory Plan (“PREP”); and

4. WHEREAS, this collaboration has thus far produced three feasibility studies, which analyzed, in succeedingly more technical detail, a number of potable reuse alternatives and described the risks and viabilities of those alternatives; and

5. WHEREAS, through these studies, the six Parties developing the PREP have identified a phased, hybrid potable reuse concept that they wish to move into the 2 design phase and have named the SF-Peninsula Regional Purewater (“SPRP”) Project; and

6. WHEREAS, MPWD, which has not participated in the PREP to date, wishes to join the other six Parties in the development of the SPRP Project under this Agreement; and

7. WHEREAS, the Parties wish to engage a consultant to produce a “Basis of Design Report,” which will further develop the SPRP Project concept, establish design criteria, create design drawings, delineate a preliminary project footprint, and analyze costs, and have together prepared a scope of work for the Basis of Design Report, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment 1 (“Scope of Work”); and

8. WHEREAS, SVCW has an existing contract with the consulting firm Kennedy Jenks (“Consultant”) under which the Parties would like the Consultant to produce the Basis of Design Report via task order, and the total maximum costs for such services shall not exceed $1,030,000; and

9. WHEREAS, SVCW and the Consultant have also entered into a separate agreement concerning the Scope of Work and the Consultant’s obligations under its existing contract with SVCW with respect to its performance of the Scope of Work (“SVCW- Consultant Agreement”), which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as part of Attachment 1, and that said SVCW-Consultant Agreement, together with the Consultant’s existing contract with SVCW, is referred to in this Agreement as the “Contract”; and

10. WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter into this Agreement setting forth the respective roles and responsibilities of the Parties, and the cost sharing allocations and procedures, regarding the SPRP Project Basis of Design Report;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and mutual obligations of the Parties herein expressed, the Parties agree as follows:

1. TERM
a) This Agreement shall become effective on the date that all Parties have signed the Agreement, with the condition precedent that SVCW and the Consultant must have signed the SVCW-Consultant Agreement for this Agreement to be effective. b) This Agreement will terminate on December 31, 2024, or when all obligations under this Agreement have been performed, whichever occurs first, unless the Agreement is earlier terminated as otherwise provided herein. 3 i. Payment obligations under Section 6, Cost Sharing and Payment, and Section 10, Termination, shall survive the termination of this Agreement until obligations under those sections are satisfied.

2. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Agreement is to:
a) Define the general roles and responsibilities of all Parties, and the additional roles and responsibilities of SVCW, for the development of the SPRP Project Basis of Design Report. All work associated with the Basis of Design Report is to be conducted in accordance with the Agreement, and the Parties agree that no work on the Basis of Design Report shall commence until this Agreement has been executed by all Parties.
b) Establish the cost sharing allocations among the Parties for the Basis of Design Report and the procedures by which the Parties will contribute their individual cost shares and be reimbursed for any funds collected that are not expended for the Basis of Design Report.

3. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The Parties agree that the work contemplated in this Agreement, as it involves the preparation of the Basis of Design Report, is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

4. GENERAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES
The general roles and responsibilities of each Party under this Agreement are as follows:
a) Work cooperatively with the other Parties and the Consultant, as applicable, and commit staff time, as needed, to develop and complete the Basis of Design Report, as described in the Scope of Work, and complete other related tasks and activities.
b) Provide oversight of, and review and prepare comments on, the Consultant’s draft and final deliverables as well as other work product prepared for the Basis of Design Report.
c) Contribute its share of the total actual costs of the Basis of Design Report, as specified in Section 6 of this Agreement.
d) Share relevant engineering, permitting, regulatory, and operational information regarding its own facilities and permits with other Parties or the Consultant when requested, if such information is necessary forthe Basis of Design Report. 4 e) Provide other Parties and/or the Consultant with access to facilities and/or operational data when requested, if such access or data is necessary for the Basis of Design Report (such access or data might concern groundwater management, hydrogeology, intakes, aqueducts and pumping plants, transmission lines, reservoirs, treatment plants, interties). If there is also a reasonable need, commit staff time to conduct analysis of its own facilities, permits, operational data, modeling information, procedures or requirements, or any other data and share the information from such analysis with other Parties and/or the Consultant. Access to facilities will be consistent with, and will follow, the facility owner’s standard safety and notification requirements.
f) Conduct general work that is needed to advance the Basis of Design Report’s development. These efforts may include State and Federal grant application and grant administration support, website updating, and outreach.

5. ADDITIONAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF SVCW
The additional roles and responsibilities of SVCW under this Agreement are as follows:
a) Subject to approval by SVCW’s governing board, serve as the contracting entity, managing and administering the Contract with the Consultant to develop the Basis of Design Report, as described in the Scope of Work, on behalf of all of the Parties.
b) Prepare and transmit to the other Parties invoices for their respective shares of the total costs of the Basis of Design Report, per Section 6 of this Agreement. c) Receive and pay all invoices from the Consultant for services rendered under the Contract to develop the Basis of Design Report. Costs for the Consultant’s services shall be shared among the Parties as described in Section 6 of this Agreement.
d) Instruct the Consultant to communicate with all Parties directly about the development of the Basis of Design Report and related activities and deliverables. e) Instruct the Consultant to distribute both draft and final deliverables for the Basis of Design Report, and other related work product, to all Parties directly for review and comment.
f) Return to the other Parties as a reimbursement any funds collected by SVCW under this Agreement that are not expended to pay for the Consultant’s services for the Basis of Design Report, per Section 6 of this Agreement. g) Ensure that the Consultant abides by the terms of the SVCW-Consultant Agreement (included in Attachment 1).
5 6. COST SHARING AND PAYMENT
The Parties agree that the total financial contribution of all Parties for the Basis of Design Report, based on the Consultant’s estimate of the total costs for the services in the Scope of Work, shall not exceed $1,030,000.

The Parties agree to allocate the total actual costs of the Basis of Design Report among the Parties in accordance with the following proportions, with each Party’s individual share of the total actual costs not to exceed the following amounts:

Party Cost Allocation &
Refund Percentage
Not to Exceed Amount
SVCW 9% • $92,700
San Mateo 9% • $92,700
BAWSCA 5% • $51,500
Cal Water 9% • $92,700
Redwood City 9% • $92,700
MPWD 9% • $92,700
SFPUC 50% • $515,000
After all Parties have approved and executed this Agreement, SVCW will prepare and transmit to the other Parties invoices for their respective shares of the costs of the Basis of Design Report. The invoice that SVCW prepares and transmits to each Party shall be for the individual Party’s not-to-exceed amount as specified in this Section. The Parties will pay SVCW their individual shares promptly, in a single payment, upon receipt of SVCW’s invoices. SVCW will use the funds collected from the other Parties, and its own financial contribution specified above, to pay the invoices SVCW receives from the Consultant for its performance of services with respect to the Basis of Design Report under the Contract.

After the completion of the Basis of Design Report, SVCW will return to the Parties as a reimbursement any funds collected by SVCW under this Agreement that were not expended to pay for Consultant’s services for the Basis of Design Report in the proportions identified in the table in this Section, above. 6 If a Party chooses to terminate its participation under the terms of this Agreement, said Party shall remain financially responsible for its individual share of the total actual costs of the Basis of Design Report as specified in Section 10, Termination.

7. INDEMNIFICATION
To the extent permitted by California State law and in proportion to fault, each Party will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless all other Parties and their respective directors, officials, officers, agents, and employees for any and all claims, suits, judgments, damages, penalties, costs, expenses, liabilities, and losses (including without limitation, sums paid in settlement of claims, actual attorneys' fees, paralegal fees, consultant fees, engineering fees, expert fees, and any other professional fees) that arise from or are related in any way to the acts or omissions of itself, its respective directors, officials, officers, employees, subconsultants, or other agents in the operation and/or performance of this Agreement; provided, however, that no Party shall indemnify or hold harmless another Party for that Party’s own negligent acts, errors, or omissions, or willful misconduct, in the operation and/or performance of this Agreement.

SVCW’s Contract with Consultant shall similarly contain language requiring Consultant, to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless all Parties and their respective directors, officials, officers, agents, and employees for any and all claims, suits, judgments, damages, penalties, costs, expenses, liabilities, and losses (including without limitation, sums paid in settlement of claims, actual attorneys' fees, paralegal fees, consultant fees, engineering fees, expert fees, and any other professional fees) that arise from or are related in any way to the operation and/or performance of this Agreement. In addition, SVCW’s Contract with Consultant shall contain language requiring Consultant, , to indemnify and hold all Parties harmless from all loss and liability, including attorneys’ fees, court costs and all other litigation expenses for any infringement of the patent rights, copyright, trade secret or any other proprietary right or trademark, and all other intellectual property claims of any person or persons arising directly or indirectly from the receipt by the Parties of the Consultant’s services under this Agreement.

This indemnity provision shall survive the termination of this Agreement and the termination of any Party’s participation in this Agreement. Further, each Party will be liable to the other Party(ies) for attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, and all other costs and expenses whatsoever, which are incurred by the other Party(ies) in enforcing this indemnity provision.

8. INSURANCE
Each Party agrees that it will maintain in force, throughout the term of this Agreement, a program of insurance and/or self-insurance of sufficient scope and amount to permit each Party to discharge promptly any obligations each incurs by operation of this Agreement.

If at any time during the term of this Agreement any Party plans to cease to be self- insured for any such possible claims, the Party shall provide the other Parties advance notice of the change in sufficient time for the Parties to negotiate appropriate insurance 7 requirements before any lapse in coverage. If the Parties fail to reach agreement on the terms of insurance policies or policy endorsements required, the Parties may terminate that Party’s participation in this Agreement by giving written notice of termination specifying the date upon which termination shall become effective. If a Party’s participation in this Agreement is terminated under this Section, the additional termination provisions of Section 10 shall apply.

SVCW’s Contract with the Consultant shall require the Consultant to procure and maintain in force the following insurance at all times during the term of this Agreement and its performance of the Scope of Work and to name all other Parties and their directors, officials, officers, agents, and employees as additional insureds: (1) Commercial General Liability Insurance with limits not less than $2,000,000 each occurrence for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including Contractual Liability, Personal Injury, Products and Completed Operations; (2) Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance with limits not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence, “Combined Single Limit” for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including Owned, Non-Owned and Hired auto coverage, as applicable, if Consultant uses or causes to be used any vehicles in connection with its performance of services under the Contract; (3) Workers’ Compensation, in statutory amounts, with Employers’ Liability Limits not less than $1,000,000 each accident, injury, or illness with a waiver of subrogation in favor of each of the Parties; and (4) Professional Liability Insurance, applicable to Consultant’s profession, with limits not less than $1,000,000 for each claim with respect to negligent acts, errors or omissions in connection with services provided.

9. DISPUTES
Any claim that a Party may have against another Party or Parties regarding the performance of this Agreement including, but not limited to, claims for compensation will be submitted to the other Party or Parties in writing. Parties will meet and confer, first at a staff level and then elevated to a meeting of executive management, as needed, in a good faith attempt to negotiate a resolution of the claim and, if necessary, process an amendment to this Agreement or a settlement agreement to implement the terms of any resolution.

10. TERMINATION
If an individual Party elects to terminate its participation in this Agreement, it may do so by providing each of the other Parties at least thirty (30) days’ written notice of its intention to terminate. The terminating Party’s notice shall state the effective date of its termination. Termination of a Party from this Agreement shall not terminate this Agreement. No portion of the terminating Party’s financial contribution provided under this Agreement for use in preparing the Basis of Design Report shall be refunded to the terminating Party. If the staff of the terminating Party was providing a service to the other Parties for the Basis of Design Report under the terms of this Agreement that was not completed as of the effective date of the Party’s termination, it shall be the responsibilities of the remaining Parties to assume the terminating Party’s staff role or 8 roles. If SVCW is the terminating Party, the obligations of the Consultant under the Contract with SVCW with respect to the Basis of Design Report shall also terminate, and it will become the responsibilities of the remaining Parties to pursue further development of the Basis of Design Report from the Consultant (or another consultant) independent of either SVCW or the Contract entered into by the Consultant with SVCW. Under such circumstances, the remaining Parties to the Agreement shall have joint ownership of and access to the deliverables that were produced under the Agreement by Consultant and SVCW as of the effective date of SVCW’s termination, per Section 12 of this Agreement, and SVCW shall return to the other Parties as a reimbursement any funds collected by SVCW under this Agreement that were not expended to pay for Consultant’s services for the Basis of Design Report as of that same date in the same proportions specified under Section 6 of this Agreement, plus SVCW’s remaining individual share of the costs, for the other Parties to use towards the further development of the Basis of Design Report without SVCW's participation; the other Parties shall not be liable for any costs incurred by the Consultant after SVCW’s termination date of this Agreement.

11. MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION OF BOOKS, RECORDS, AND

REPORTS
All Parties will maintain and, upon reasonable advance written notice, make available for inspection to the other Parties all records, books, and other documents directly relating to the Basis of Design Report as well as any other work related to water supply institutional arrangements and agreements that are necessary for the Basis of Design Report, except where privilege applies. If a Party receives a request for information or records related to the Basis of Design Report from a non-Party, including but not limited to requests under the California Public Records Act, San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance (San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 67), a subpoena, or court order, the Party that has received the request shall provide prior written notice to any other Party to whom the request pertains to provide the Party or Parties the opportunity to obtain a protective order to prevent disclosure, if applicable. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to affect the applicability of the Sunshine Ordinance to documents that would otherwise have to be disclosed under the terms of the ordinance.

12. OWNERSHIP OF RESULTS
The Parties shall have joint ownership of and access to the deliverables that are produced under this Agreement, including any final: drawings, plans, specifications, blueprints, studies, reports, memoranda, computation sheets, computer files and media or other documents prepared by the Parties or the Consultant for the purposes of this Agreement.

13. AGREEMENT NOT A PRECEDENT
The Parties intend that the provisions of this Agreement will not bind the Parties as to the provisions of any future agreement between them. This Agreement was developed for the specified Agreement term.
9 14. NOTICES
Any notice, demand, or request made in connection with this Agreement must be in writing and will be deemed properly served if delivered in person or sent by United States mail, postage prepaid, to the addresses of the Parties identified in this Section.

Any Party may change its signatory authority, delegated project contact, or agency phone number or mailing address to which notices are to be sent by giving written notice thereof to the other Parties. Day-to day communications about the Basis of Design Report and related tasks and activities under this Agreement will be among the delegated project contacts identified in this Section.

AGENCY SIGNATORY

AUTHORITY

DELEGATED PROJECT

CONTACT
AGENCY

MAILING

ADDRESS AND
PHONE
NUMBER
Bay Area
Water
Supply and
Conservation
Agency Nicole M.

Sandkulla

Tom Francis
[email protected]
(650) 349-3000
Bay Area Water
Supply and
Conservation
Agency
155 Bovet Road,
Suite 650
San Mateo,
California 94402
(650) 349-3000
California
Water
Service
Company
Rob Kuta
Ken Jenkins
[email protected]
(408) 367-8200
California Water
Service Company
1720 North First
Street
San Jose, CA
95112-4508
(408) 367-8200
(800) 750-8200
toll-free
San
Francisco
Public
Utilities
Commission
Dennis Herrera

YinLan Zhang
[email protected]
(415) 487-5201
San Francisco
Public Utilities
Commission
525 Golden Gate
Avenue
San Francisco, CA
94102
(415) 551-3000
Silicon
Valley Clean
Water
Teresa Herrera
Arvind Akela
[email protected]
(650) 832-6485
Silicon Valley
Clean Water
1400 Radio Road
Redwood City, CA
94065
(650) 591-7121
10 San Mateo Azalea Mitch

Azalea Mitch
[email protected]
(650) 522-7309

City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th
Avenue
San Mateo, CA
94403
(650) 522-7000

Redwood
City
Melissa
Stevenson Diaz

Justin Chapel
[email protected]
(650) 780-7469

City of Redwood
City
Public Works
Services
1400 Broadway
Street
Redwood City, CA
94063
(650) 780-7469
Mid-
Peninsula
Water
District
Tammy Rudock
Tammy Rudock
[email protected]
(650) 591-8941

Mid-Peninsula
Water District
3 Dairy Ln,
Belmont, CA
94002
(650) 591-8941

15. NO THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARIES
No third-party beneficiaries are intended or created by this Agreement.

SVCW’s Contract with the Consultant shall contain language granting third-party beneficiary status to the other Parties that are contributing funds towards the performance of the Consultant’s services in the Scope of Work under this Agreement.

16. SAN FRANCISCO CERTIFICATION OF FUNDS
San Francisco’s financial obligations under this Agreement are subject to the budget and fiscal provisions of the City and County of San Francisco’s Charter. Charges will accrue only after prior written authorization certified by the City’s Controller, and the amount of the SFPUC’s obligation hereunder shall not at any time exceed the amount certified for the purpose and period stated in such advance authorization. This Agreement will terminate without penalty, liability or expense of any kind to the SFPUC at the end of any fiscal year if funds are not appropriated for the next succeeding fiscal year. If funds are appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year, this Agreement will terminate, without penalty, liability or expense of any kind at the end of the term for which funds are appropriated. The SFPUC has no obligation to make appropriations for this Agreement in lieu of appropriations for new or other agreements. San Francisco budget decisions are subject to the discretion of the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors. THIS SECTION

CONTROLS AGAINST ANY AND ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS
11 AGREEMENT. ALL PARTIES MAY TERMINATE WITHOUT PENALTY IF THE REQUIRED FUNDS UNDER SECTION 6 ARE NOT APPROPRIATED BY THEIR RESPECTIVE GOVERNING BODIES.

17. SAN FRANCISCO MAXIMUM COSTS
As provided in Section 6 of this Agreement, in no event shall the amount of this Agreement for the SFPUC exceed $515,000. The SFPUC’s payment obligation under this Agreement cannot at any time exceed the amount certified by the City's Controller for the purpose and period stated in such certification. Absent an authorized Emergency per the City Charter or applicable Code, no City representative is authorized to offer or promise, nor is the City required to honor, any offered or promised payments under this Agreement in excess of the certified maximum amount without the Controller having first certified the additional promised amount and the Parties having modified this Agreement as provided in Section 22 of this Agreement.

18. PAYMENT OF PREVAILING WAGES
The Parties agree to comply with all applicable City and County of San Francisco, State of California, and federal lawsrespecting the payment of prevailing wages for services provided under this Agreement.

19. PROHIBITION ON USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS FOR POLITICAL

ACTIVITY
In performing activities under this Agreement, the Parties shall comply with San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 12G, which prohibits funds appropriated by the City for this Agreement from being expended to participate in, support, or attempt to influence any political campaign for a candidate or for a ballot measure. The Parties are subject to the enforcement and penalty provisions in Chapter 12G.

20. SEVERABILITY
If any term or provision of this Agreement is deemed invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction or by operation of any applicable law, it will not affect the validity of any other provision, which will remain in full force and effect.

21. ASSIGNMENT
This Agreement is not assignable either in whole or in part, except upon mutual written consent of the Parties.

22. AMENDMENT AND WAIVER
Except as provided herein, no alteration, amendment, variation, or waiver of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed and approved in the 12 same manner as this Agreement by all Parties except those Parties, if any, who have withdrawn from the Agreement before the amendment is made.

23. SUCCESSORS
This Agreement shall bind the successors of the Parties in the same manner as if they were expressly named.

24. INTERPRETATION
This Agreement shall be deemed to have been prepared equally by all Parties, and its individual provisions shall not be construed or interpreted more favorably for one Party on the basis that the other Parties prepared it.

25. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement, together with the attachment hereto, represents the entire agreement of the Parties as to those matters contained herein. No prior oral or written communications among the Parties shall be of any force or effect with respect to those matters covered hereunder.

26. TIME OF THE ESSENCE
Time is of the essence in this Agreement.

27. WAIVER
The waiver at any time by any Party of its right with respect to default or other matter arising in connection with this Agreement will not be deemed a waiver by that Party with respect to any subsequent default or matter.

28. GOVERNING LAW
This Agreement is governed by and will be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

29. COUNTERPART SIGNATURES
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, which taken together constitute one and the same Agreement. A scanned, electronic, facsimile, or other copy of a Party’s signature shall be accepted and valid as an original.

If all Parties agree, electronic signatures may be used in place of original signatures on this Agreement. Each Party intends to be bound by the signatures on the electronic document, is aware that the other Parties will rely on the electronic signatures, and hereby waives any defenses to the enforcement of the terms of this Agreement based on the use 13 of an electronic signature. After all Parties agree to the use of electronic signatures, all Parties must sign the document electronically.

[SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW]

14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement by their duly authorized representatives, in counterpart.

BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION AGENCY

By: ___________________________ Date: ____________
Nicole M. Sandkulla
General Manager and CEO

Approved as to form:

By:_____________________________

15 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY

By: ___________________________ Date: ____________
Robert Kuta
VP Eng & Chief WQ & ECO

Approved as to form:

By:_____________________________

16 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY

By: ___________________________ Date: ____________
Melissa Stevenson Diaz
City Manager

Approved as to form:

By:____________________________
Veronica Ramirez,
City Attorney

17 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

By: ___________________________ Date: ____________
Dennis J. Herrera
General Manager

Authorized by SFPUC Resolution No. _________

Approved as to form:

David Chiu, City Attorney

By:_____________________________
Deputy City Attorney

18 CITY OF SAN MATEO

By: ___________________________ Date: ____________
Drew Corbett
City Manager

Approved as to form:

By:_____________________________
Linh P. Nguyen
Assistant City Attorney

19 SILICON VALLEY CLEAN WATER

By: ___________________________ Date: ____________

ALICIA AGUIRRE

CHAIR, SVCW COMMISSION

By: ___________________________

GEORGE OTTE

SECRETARY, SVCW COMMISSION

Approved as to form:

By:_____________________________
Christine C. Fitzgerald
SVCW General Counsel

20 MID-PENINSULA WATER DISTRICT

By: ___________________________ Date: ____________
Tammy Rudock
General Manager

Approved as to form:

By:_____________________________

21 22

ATTACHMENT 1

CONSULTANT SCOPE OF WORK FOR

SPRP PROJECT BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT

AND SVCW-CONSULTANT AGREEMENT

https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/WIBUMarketingStaff/Proposals/Silicon_Valley_Clean_Water_CA/2022_PREP Pre- Design/03_Working_Documents/PREP_BODR_DRAFT_ScopeFee_2.22.2022.docx Scope of Work
Potable Reuse Exploratory Plan (PREP)
Basis of Design Report (BODR)

The Potable Reuse Exploratory Plan (PREP) is a regional effort to resolve multiple water supply and wastewater issues, while realizing the benefits of shared infrastructure, asset recovery, economies of scale and a more competitive strategy to pursue funding. PREP Parties include the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency, Cal Water, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Silicon Valley Clean Water, and other wastewater providers and recycled water users in the area.

Kennedy Jenks Consultants (KJ) has led the technical work and facilitated a series of interactive webinars and workshops with the PREP Parties over three phases, which have focused on identifying and evaluating concepts for potable reuse on a local and regional scale. Through the PREP studies, the Parties have utilized an integrated approach to identifying projects that enhance local water supply resiliency and reduce discharge to the San Francisco Bay, with the goal of developing a regional project with multiple economic, environmental, and social benefits. The three phases include:
• The PREP Phase 1 Initial Study considered potable reuse alternative concepts, including groundwater replenishment reuse and Reservoir Water Augmentation (RWA) at Crystal Springs Reservoir (CSR) and Bear Gulch Reservoir.
• The PREP Phase 2 Concept Study further defined the concept of a RWA project at CSR. Phase 2 also included a parallel study of PREP Institutional Considerations, which provided a preliminary evaluation of institutional considerations related to the implementation of a potable reuse project that augments CSR with purified water.
• The PREP Phase 3 Feasibility Study was initiated in 2020 to further simulate the impact of reservoir augmentation on the regional water system and explore direct potable reuse opportunities through raw water augmentation and treated drinking water augmentation.

The outcomes of Phase 3 have identified a short-list of projects to move forward for further analysis. The completion of this study is good timing for the SFPUC Regional Water System’s overall water supply planning efforts, for which SFPUC has projected a shortfall of dry year supply by 2025. A PREP Project is one of multiple projects that can address dry year supplies in a short year. SFPUC has made a commitment to the SFPUC Commission to present project(s) that are ready for analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by July 2023.

The next steps for the PREP is to develop a hybrid project, resulting from the short list of alternatives identified in Phase 3, to be “CEQA Ready”. “CEQA Ready” to SFPUC means preparation of a conceptual- level design at or near the 10-percent level, and completion of an abbreviated CEQA checklist document, Pa ge 2
which would allow the project to move forward with CEQA and to be compared with other projects. The PREP Parties identified the need for a Basis of Design Report (BODR) to satisfy these requirements.

At the most recent meeting with the PREP Parties on Jan 25th, 2022, the Parties aligned on developing the BODR for a phased potable reuse project, described as follows:
• Phase 1 – Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) via Reservoir Water Augmentation (RWA) at Crystal Springs Reservoir (CSR)
• Phase 2 – Direct Potable Reuse (DRP) via Treated Drinking Water Augmentation (TDWA) for local use by the City of Redwood City, Cal Water and/or potentially the Mid-Peninsula Water District. • Construction of a new Advanced Water Purification Facility (AWPF) that meets regulatory requirements for IPR in Phase 1 and DPR for the Phase 2 expansion. • Conveyance infrastructure to deliver tertiary effluent to the new AWPF, purified water to the place of use and brine for discharge via the SVCW outfall. • Upgrades at SFPUC’s Pulgas Facility to treat and discharge purified water into CSR. • Source water derived from up to 8 mgd of tertiary effluent from SVCW and 8 mgd of tertiary effluent from the San Mateo Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTF) • An operational strategy where the new AWPF would produce up to 12 mgd of purified water for potable reuse, with 6 mgd or more delivered to CSR.

The PREP Parties are also interested in preparing a US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) Title XVI Feasibility Study (FS) / SWRCB Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study (RWFPS) to be able to get in line for funding through US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and for SRF funds. The report will aim to meet the requirements of both funding agencies in one document. Given the available funding remaining in Phase 3 budget, the PREP Phase 3 Feasibility Study will be submitted in a format to match the USBR Title XVI FS requirements, with a cross-walk to meet the SWRCB RWFPS requirements. The initial work completed as part of the BODR will be integrated into the Title XVI FS to define the recommended project and considerations for environmental, legal, financing and research needs, which are elements required by USBR. Due to limited USBR staffing resources, the timing for review and approval are uncertain at this time, however, the goal will be to submit a Draft Title XVI FS to USBR by end of June in hopes of having an approved Final Title XVI FS by the end of 2022.

This scope of work presented herein has been prepared to develop a Basis of Design Report (BODR) that meets SFPUC definition of “CEQA Ready” by July 2023. The following Attachments are included to support this Scope of work:
• Attachment A: Agreement between SVCW and Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. • Attachment B: Detailed Fee Breakdown and Rate Schedule • Attachment C: CEQA Checklist
• Attachment D: USBR/SWRCB Report Outlines and Cross-Walk

Scope of Work
The scope of work includes the following tasks to develop a BODR for a phased, hybrid potable reuse project that meets the requirements of SFPUC’s definition of CEQA Ready by July 1, 2023. The scope of work includes the following tasks, major deliverables and task specific meetings summarized in Table 1, and described in the scope sections herein.

Table 1: Summary of Tasks, Major Deliverables and Task Specific Meetings Tasks Major Deliverables Task Specific Meetings
Task 1: AWPF Basis of
Design & Drawings
AWPF Design Criteria TM
(Draft/Final)
AWPF Mtg#1 - Process/WQ for AWPF Design
Criteria (SFPUC/SVCW/SM)
AWPF Conceptual Site Maps AWPF Mtg#2 - Review Design Criteria and Discuss Siting Considerations (SFPUC/SVCW)
AWPF Conceptual-Level
Design Drawings (Draft/Final)
AWPF Mtg#3 - Walk through comments on
Draft drawings
Task 2: Conveyance
Basis of Design &
Drawings
Conveyance Design Criteria
TM (Draft/Final)
Conveyance Mtg#1 - Conveyance Design
Criteria and Data Requests
Pipeline Conceptual
Alignments and PS
Conceptual Site Maps
Conveyance Mtg#2 and Mtg#3 - Review
Design Criteria and Discuss Alignments and
Repurposing Assets
Conveyance Conceptual-Level
Design Drawings (Draft/Final)
Conveyance Mtg#4 - Walk through
comments on Draft drawings
Task 3: Pulgas Facility
Upgrades Basis of
Design & Drawings
Pulgas Facility Upgrades
Design Criteria TM
(Draft/Final)
Pulgas Mtg#1 - Breakpoint Chlorination
Design Criteria (SFPUC)
Pulgas Facility Upgrades
Conceptual Site Maps
Pulgas Mtg#2 and Mtg#3 - Review Design
Criteria and Discuss Upgrades and Facility
Siting (SFPUC)
Pulgas Facility Upgrades
Conceptual-Level Design
Drawings (Draft/Final)
Pulgas Mtg#4 - Walk through comments on
Draft drawings (SFPUC)
Task 4: Technical
Support
Source Control TM
(Draft/Final)
Source Control Mtg#1 & Mtg#2 - Data
Request/Info Gathering (SVCW, San Mateo)
& Walk-through TM
Brine Disposal TM
(Draft/Final)
Brine Disposal Mtg#1 to Mtg#3 - Data
Request/Info Gathering (SVCW, San Mateo),
Regulatory Meeting & Walk-through TM
Preliminary CSR Operational
Strategies TM (Draft/Final)
Ops Strategy Mtg#1 & Mtg#2 - Strategy
Discussion (SFPUC) & Walk-through TM
Drinking Water Distribution
System (DWDS) TM
(Draft/Final)
DWDS Mtg#1 to Mtg#6 - Data Request/Info
Gathering (CalWater, MPWD, RWC) & Walk-
through TM

Tasks Major Deliverables Task Specific Meetings
Task 5: CEQA Checklist
and NEPA
Considerations
CEQA Checklist Report (Admin
Draft, Draft and Final)
CEQA Mtg#1 - Discuss for Title XVI FS
responses and CEQA Checklist tailored for
this project
Summary of additional NEPA
requirements
CEQA Mtg#2 - Walk through comments on
Admin Draft CEQA Checklist
CEQA Mtg#3 - Walk through comments on
Draft CEQA Checklist
Task 6: Cost Analysis
and Financial Planning
Cost Analysis TM (Draft/Final) Cost estimates to be discussed at monthly status meeting
Summary of Funding Sources
and Possible Financial
Approaches
Financial Mtg#1 to Mtg#4 - 2022 Mtgs to
support Title XVI FS Financial Plan, 2023
Mtgs to support BODR
Task 7: Basis of Design
Report
BODR (Outline, Admin Draft,
Draft and Final)
In-Person Presentation of Draft and Final
BODR
Task 8: Public Outreach
Strategy
Meeting agendas and notes Up to 12 meetings (virtual/in-person) with PREP Agency outreach staff, decision
makers, board, commission, or council
members, political appointees and/or
elected officials.

Strategic Outreach Plan (Draft
and Final)
One in-person meeting to present Outreach
Strategy
Task 9: Meetings and
Presentations
Meeting materials and
minutes.

Kickoff and 13 Monthly Status Webinars
Meeting materials and
minutes.

Up to three (3) in-person meetings
Task 10: Project
Management and
QA/QC
Status reports and monthly
invoices (15)
Weekly internal coordination meetings
Concept and Criteria Review
(C&CR) findings
Three (3) internal C&CR meetings
Task 11: As-Requested
Support
To be determined To be determined

The following sections describe each task included in the scope of work, first describing the purpose of the task, followed by a brief description, list of assumptions and deliverables associated with each subtask. The project team, anticipated project schedule and budget are provided following the scope of work.

Task 1: AWPF Basis of Design and Drawings
This task will focus on developing a conceptual-basis of design for the AWPF, including defining treatment processes and design criteria to meet IPR and DPR regulatory requirements, siting considerations at up to three locations and preliminary drawings at a conceptual-level of design to support the cost analysis in Task 4 and fulfill the CEQA checklist requirements in Task 5.

1.1 AWPF Treatment Requirements and Design Criteria
Purpose: Identify conceptual-level AWPF treatment requirements.

Description: Furthering the design concepts established in the PREP Phase 3 Feasibility Study, KJ will establish the design requirements and criteria for the advanced water purification facility, which will include the following:
• Regulatory/permitting requirements for RWA/TDWA treatment processes • Summary of the tertiary effluent quality (influent to the AWPF) • Summary of treatment objectives and water quality objectives for RWA/TDWA • Preliminary design criteria for the AWPF, including but not limited to anticipated removal rates, equipment sizing, chemical dosing, etc.
• Code and standard reference requirements
• Phasing implementation plan and schedule
• Staffing requirements and operator certification requirements at potable reuse facilities • AWPF Process Flow Diagram
• AWPF Hydraulic Profile
• Preliminary operational strategies
The AWPF train is expected to consist of the following:
• Ozone and biologically activated carbon (BAC) filtration pretreatment, likely required for TDWA and potentially beneficial for a phased RWA/TDWA project • Low-pressure membrane microfiltration (MF) or ultrafiltration (UF) pretreatment • Reverse osmosis (RO) system
• Advanced oxidation process (AOP), which typically combines UV treatment with the addition of an oxidant, such as hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) or chlorine • Free chlorine or ozone addition (to provide additional log-removal credits for virus or giardia if the dilution credits are insufficient)
• Product Water Stabilization
• Process equalization and storage tanks
• Dechlorination prior to discharge into the reservoir (to meet surface water requirements), which may be achieved via breakpoint chlorination at the AWPF or at the Pulgas Facilities (Task 3) • Nutrient removal after the AWPF process (to reduce nutrients prior to discharge into the reservoir to meet surface water quality objectives), which may also be achieved via breakpoint chlorination at the AWPF or at the Pulgas Facilities.

Assumptions:

1. This Conceptual-Design scope and associated level of effort is based on a 12 mgd output capacity AWPF.

2. SVCW will provide the geotechnical, survey, utility or other site-specific information available for the site near SVCW and the Hwy 101 Site prior to start of this task.

3. Power supply requirements to operate the AWPF will be calculated and compared to available power at each site to identify additional power needs. This task does not include discussions with local energy providers to initiate new power agreements. Temporary power requirements during construction will also be estimated.

4. Pump station requirement design criteria will be developed as part of Task 2.1.

5. Noise studies and any associated acoustical design elements are not included in this scope of work.

6. The conceptual design excludes structural drawings and calculations for the AWPF.

7. Since the preferred delivery approach for the AWPF is unknown at this time, the level of completion for the preliminary design and BODR may not be suitable for all types of procurement methods.

8. SVCW and San Mateo will provide available water quality data for the AWPF influent. Sampling, testing and data collection are not included.

9. Brine minimization will not be considered.

10. The phased approach the AWPF treatment train will consider the merits of (1) two parallel treatment trains to meet RWA and TWDA requirements, (2) one treatment train implemented in a phased approach to add processes to the full flow to meet TDWA requirements or (3) one treatment train implemented to meet TDWA for the initial phase. The conceptual design will only reflect one preferred treatment train.

11. This task includes one (1) meeting with SFPUC, SVCW and San Mateo to discuss available water quality information, process considerations and AWPF design criteria.

Deliverable: Prepare an AWPF Design Criteria Technical Memorandum (TM) that defines the design parameters for use in developing a Conceptual-Design for the AWPF sizing and expanded unit processes.

A Draft and Final AWPF Design Criteria TM will be included as an appendix to the BODR.

1.2 AWPF Siting
Purpose: Review existing background information and participate in discussions with SVCW and San Mateo County to identify potential siting options at or near SVCW and the Hwy 101 site, as identified in the Phase 3 Feasibility Study. Identify up to two (2) potential sites that have between 4 to 6 acres of available space and identify constraints that would impact the AWPF site layout or orientation (e.g. height restrictions, ability to construct below grade facilities, need for supporting piles, and other construction considerations). The AWPF site will include pump stations to deliver purified water to CSR for RWA, purified water to TDWA, and RO concentrate to outfall will be .

Description:

KJ will review available background information to develop a list of considerations pertaining to each site alternative, which will guide the conceptual-level design. Siting information/considerations will include:

• Existing topographic/survey data
• Existing property ownership review
• Environmental considerations and potential mitigation requirements • Geotechnical considerations – based on available geotechnical studies/evaluations • Utility considerations – based on record drawings and existing/desktop utility survey data • Power considerations - based on available record drawings, KJ will identify available power sources near the AWPF sites and compare them to the expected facility power demand (per Task

1.1 design criteria). Transformers and other major equipment needed will be shown on the AWPF site layouts.
• Pump station requirements will be developed as part of Task 2.3. • Structural considerations - based on existing data /desktop structural assessment • Architectural considerations – general descriptions only, architectural renderings will not be developed.
• Traffic considerations (e.g. site access and parking) • Relevant codes and building requirements, including: Building Occupancy Classification, Construction Classification(s), Hazardous Materials Storage and Use including Contaminated Soils, Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Requirements, LEED and/or other Sustainability, Energy Code, Fire Code (NFPA 820), Building Code, Electrical Code, Stormwater requirements, Planning department requirements (e.g. setbacks, appearance, height restrictions, and other local requirements).

Assumptions:

1. Two site layouts will be evaluated, one at the AWPF site near SVCW and one at the Hwy 101 Site.

No additional site layouts will be evaluated. A preferred AWPF site will not be identified as part of this task.

2. Siting considerations will rely on existing survey data and prior site investigation studies.

Additional field surveys or site investigations will not be performed as part of this Task.

3. Redwood City and SVCW will provide geotechnical, survey, utility or other site-specific information available for the existing facilities at SVWC, including Redwood City’s storage tanks which maybe repurposed for the project.

4. SVCW will identify preferred points of connection to tertiary effluent (source water) and the existing outfall (RO concentrate disposal).

5. New pipeline connections (tertiary, purified, and RO concentrate) and pump stations at the AWPF will be considered in this task. Conveyance design criteria development and evaluation of pipeline alignments will be developed in Task 2.

6. Pump station requirement design criteria will be developed as part of Task 2.1. Siting for the pump stations located at the AWPF site will be considered in this task.

7. This task includes one (1) meeting with SFPUC, SVCW and San Mateo to discuss siting, leasing and land purchasing options.

8. This task does not include development of agreements to confirm the acquisition or leasing of a piece of property.

Deliverables:
 Summary tables summarizing considerations for each AWPF Site.  Conceptual site maps and building footprints.
 Meeting materials and notes (PDF format).

1.3 AWPF Preliminary Drawings
Purpose: Prepare conceptual-level design level drawings for the AWPF, including site layouts for up to two (2) potential AWPF siting options at or near SVCW and at the Hwy 101 Site, including pump stations on the AWPF site.

Description:

This task builds upon Tasks 1.1 and 1.2 to develop the conceptual-level design drawings of the AWPF.

Table 2 lists the drawings and anticipated number for sheets include in the AWP conceptual-level design package.

Table 2: AWPF Conceptual-Level Design Package
Drawing(s) Est. No. Sheets
Title – Location Map, Vicinity, Map, and Index of Drawings 1 Standard Abbreviations 1
Site Topography and Grading Plan for Each Site 2
Proposed Site Plan for the AWPF Site near SVCW and the Hwy 101 Site 2 Overall System Process Flow Diagram 1
AWPF Process Flow Diagrams 2
Hydraulic Profile 1
Electrical Single-line Diagram 1
Overall Process Control Block Diagram 1
Total Number of Sheets: 12
The conceptual-level design drawings will include information to support CEQA documentation (Task 5), including
• General site plan requirements, including overall work limits and adjacent property lines • Site access and parking (if known)
• Structure footprints
• Preliminary grading areas (cut/fill) and quantities
Assumptions:

1. Conveyance design criteria development and evaluation of pipeline alignments will be developed in Task 2. New pipeline connections (tertiary, purified, and RO concentrate) and pump stations at the AWPF will be shown in the Task 1.3 drawing set.

2. Pump station requirement design criteria will be developed as part of Task 2.1. Drawings for the pump stations located at the AWPF site will be included in this task.

3. Drawings at the conceptual-level design will not be generated in 3D or BIM formats.

4. Technical specifications, vendor pre-qualification, and equipment selections will not be provided.

5. This task includes one (1) meeting with SFPUC, SVCW and San Mateo to walk through comments on draft conceptual-level design drawings.

Deliverable: Draft and Final AWPF Conceptual-Level Design Drawings (11” x 17” PDF Format).

Task 2: Conveyance Basis of Design and Drawings
This task will focus on developing the basis of design for conveyance facilities (pipelines, pump stations and points of connections to existing facilities), including defining conveyance requirements and design criteria to meet regulatory, code and standard reference requirements. This task includes considerations for trenching versus trenchless construction, identification of potential sites for jacking and receiving pits, considerations for repurposing existing assets, and identification of pump stations outside of the AWPF fence line. Preliminary drawings will be developed at a conceptual level of design to support the cost analysis in Task 4 and to fulfill the CEQA checklist requirements in Task 5.

As described in the PREP Phase 2 Concept Study and Phase 3 Feasibility Study, the conveyance alignment options to be considered include those listed in Table 3.

Table 3: Summary of Conveyance Options
Alignment
Description
Locations Design
Flow (mgd)
Pump Station Siting Pipeline Alignment Options
San Mateo
Tertiary
San Mateo
 AWPF
8 San Mateo WWTP Option A: Beach Park to SVCW Site
Option B: - Edgewater Blvd to Hwy 101
Site
SVCW Tertiary SVCW 
AWPF
8 SVCW Anchored in abandoned SVCW influent
pipeline with new trenched pipeline
Purified Water
(RWA)
AWPF 
CSR
> 6 AWPF Site (Task 1.2) Option 1: Woodside Road - SFPUC ROW Option 2: San Carlos – Club Drive
Option 3: Edgewood Road
Purified Water
(TDWA)
AWPF 
TWDA
< 6 AWPF Site (Task 1.2) To preferred point of connection identified by water agencies.

RO Concentrate AWPF 
Outfall
4 AWPF Site (Task 1.2) From AWPF to preferred point of
connection to SVCW outfall identified by
SVCW.

The repurposing of abandoned pipelines identified in the Phase 2 Concept Study will further be explored including:
• Repurposing the SVCW Influent Line, a 54-inch RCP pipeline that will be deactivated in advance of repurposing or decommissioning in late 2022. This segment is approximately three miles in

length and traverses through the Redwood Shores area, a community that is particularly sensitive to new construction. One, or possibly two, pipelines could be slip-lined into the abandoned pipeline and supported inside to convey: 1) purified water to the place of use; 2) tertiary effluent to the AWPF at the Hwy 101 site; and/or 3) the RO concentrate or reject water back to the SVCW outfall.
• Repurposing the SVCW Abandoned Sewer Line, which includes 48-inch to 54-inch pipeline segments that are also planned to be abandoned in late 2022 after the SVCW Gravity Pipeline Project is complete. This segment is approximately 2.4 miles in length and passes through an environmentally sensitive area on Inner Bair Island (part of the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service), which would be a challenging and expensive stretch to lay new pipeline. A segment of the pipeline on Bair Island, now decommissioned and out of service, is subject to ground movement in poor soils and has had joint leaks while in service and operating under pressure. This 48-inch segment passes through (and under) the San Carlos Airport, which is owned and operated by the County of San Mateo. The alignment from the Hwy 101 APWF site to Inner Bair Island RCP either passes through airport and under Pulgas Creek that separates Airport from Inner Bair, or it goes down Skyway Road and has a trenchless crossing under Pulgas Creek (SVCW has paid for and recorded a permanent easement for this crossing, which was not used as part of the SVCW 48-inch force main project completed in 2015).

This task will identify a conceptual-level design criteria to repurpose these valuable assets by installing and/or suspending new pipeline(s) within the abandoned pipe.

2.1 Conveyance Requirements and Design Criteria
Purpose: Identify the design criteria for conveying tertiary effluent, RO concentrate, and purified water to CSR for RWA and existing drinking water system points of connection for TWDA.

Description:

Furthering the concepts established in the PREP Phase 3 Feasibility Study, KJ will establish the design requirements and criteria for the conveyance facilities, including pipelines, pump stations, and connections to existing facilities. The criteria will include the following:
• Regulatory/separation requirements
• Preliminary design criteria for the pipelines and pump stations, including but not limited to pipeline sizing and lengths, preliminary hydraulic calculations, pumping design points, etc. • Requirements for repurposing the existing abandoned pipelines. • Code and standard reference requirements
• Phasing implementation plan and schedule
• Process Flow Diagrams
• Preliminary Hydraulic Profiles
Assumptions:

1. This conceptual-level design scope and associated level of effort is based on a 12 mgd output capacity AWPF.

2. SVCW will provide the geotechnical, survey, utility, or other site-specific information available for the existing pipelines to be reused and the approximate alignments prior to start of this task.

3. SVCW will provide relevant documentation prepared for the RESCU project related to construction activities in Inner Blair Island that would be applicable to repurposing abandoned pipelines and installation of new pipelines in the area, which would be considered for future CEQA efforts.

4. San Mateo will identify preferred points of connection to tertiary effluent.

5. Pump station design criteria, including those located at the AWPF site, will be developed as part of this task.

6. SFPUC will provide geotechnical, survey, utility, ROW or other site-specific information available for the alignments following the Bay Division Pipeline ROW and in the vicinity of the Las Pulgas Facilities.

7. Other PREP Parties to provide site-specific information if available.

8. Field work is not included as part of this work. All information will be based on existing data sets, reports, GIS layers and surveys provided by the PREP Parties or available through existing databases.

9. Noise studies and any associated acoustical design elements are not included in this scope of work.

10. Since the preferred delivery approach for conveyance facilities is unknown at this time, the level of completion for the preliminary design and BODR may not be suitable for all types of procurement methods.

11. This task includes one (1) meeting to discuss conveyance design criteria and data requests.

Deliverable: Prepare a Conveyance Design Criteria TM that defines the design parameters for use in developing a conceptual-level design for the pipeline alignments, evaluation of repurposing abandoned SVCW pipelines, pump stations and points of connection to existing facilities. A Draft and Final Conveyance Design Criteria TM will be included as an appendix to the BODR.

2.2 Pipeline Alignments
Purpose: Review existing background information and participate in discussions with SVCW, SFPUC Redwood City, CalWater and MPWD in evaluating the conveyance pipeline alternative alignments identified in Task 2.1. Identify constraints that would impact the pipeline alignments and/or costs (e.g. soil conditions, easements required, surge analysis, corrosion control, major crossings, considerations for construction utilities, micro tunneling sections).

Description:

KJ will review available background information to develop a list of considerations pertaining to each alternative alignment. Siting information/considerations will include:
• Existing topographic/survey data
• Preliminary property ownership review – KJ will perform a high-level evaluation of property ownership. Alignments will be located in public utility easements and partner easements (i.e., SFPUC) where possible, minimizing private easements that are required. KJ will also consider revisiting uses in the existing SVCW easements for currently-active force mains in Redwood Shores.

• Environmental considerations and potential mitigation requirements • Geotechnical considerations – based on available geotechnical studies/evaluations • Utility considerations – based on record drawings and existing/desktop utility survey data • Structural considerations - based on existing/desktop structural data • Traffic considerations
• Corrosion Control
• Surge Analysis
• Relevant codes and building requirements, including: Building Occupancy Classification, Construction Classification(s), Hazardous Materials Storage and Use including Contaminated Soils, Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Requirements, LEED and/or other Sustainability, Energy Code, Fire Code (NFPA 820), Building Code, Electrical Code, Stormwater requirements, and Planning department requirements (e.g. setbacks, appearance, height restrictions, and other local requirements)
Assumptions:

1. Additional alignments or conveyance alternatives beyond those listed in Table 3 will not be evaluated.

2. A preferred alignment will not be identified as part of this task.

3. Alignment considerations will rely on existing survey data and prior site investigation studies. No additional field survey, site investigations, or pipeline condition assessments will be performed.

4. KJ will perform a desktop study using available general parcel information from the County of San Mateo Parcel GIS system. KJ will make general assumptions regarding the timing and cost associated with acquiring easements in overall program but will not perform outreach for titles of individual properties. This task does not include development of agreements to confirm the acquisition or leasing of property or easements.

5. KJ will evaluate each alignment for major crossings (based on aerial images and available information) that may require trenchless construction methods. Approximate lengths of such crossings will be developed for each alignment alternative and reflected in the estimated costs (Task 6). This task does not include developing a total number of utility crossings for each alternative, performing a USA/dig request, or contacting individual utilities for records along the proposed pipeline alignments.

6. This task does not include outreach or coordination with regulatory/permitting agencies or residents.

7. KJ assumes most of the pipeline alignments will be constructed in existing roads and right-of-way.

The centerline of the alignment will not be identified in the conceptual-level design.

8. New pipeline connections to the AWPF (tertiary, purified, and RO concentrate) and pump stations at the AWPF site will be developed in Task 1.2.

9. This task includes two (2) meetings to discuss alignments, repurposing assets, ROW and traffic considerations.

10. KJ assumes the PREP parties will provide relevant data including geotechnical studies, parcel maps, utility maps, topographic files, etc.

11. KJ will identified likely areas for trenchless construction and jacking/receiving pit locations based on aerial photos. The limits of trenchless construction and pit locations will be further investigated during the EIR phase.

Deliverables:
 Summary tables summarizing alignment considerations for each AWPF Site and place of use.  Conceptual site maps for pipeline alignments (GIS based)  Meeting materials and notes (PDF format).

2.3 Pump Station
Purpose: Review existing background information and participate in discussions with SVCW and SFPUC, to identify potential siting options(s) for new pump stations outside of the AWPF footprint, if needed.

Identify the available space and site constraints for the proposed pump station sites (e.g. height restrictions, ability to construct below grade facilities, need for supporting piles, and other construction considerations).

Description:

KJ will review available background information to develop a list of considerations pertaining to the pump station siting. Siting information/considerations will include:
• Existing topographic/survey data
• Existing property ownership review – consider right-of-Way and possible encroachment/coordination issues (e.g. with Caltrans, Caltrain, SFPUC, US Fish and Wildlife, BCDC, US Army Corps of Engineers)
• Environmental considerations and potential mitigation requirements • Geotechnical considerations – based on available geotechnical studies/evaluations • Utility considerations – based on record drawings and existing/desktop utility survey data. • Power Supply – Evaluate the power supply has sufficient voltage and availability near PS location(s).
• Power supply requirements to operate the pump stations will be calculated and compared to available power at each site to identify additional power needs. This task does not include discussions with local energy providers to initiate new power agreements. Temporary power requirements during construction will also be estimated. • Structural considerations - based on existing/desktop structural data • Architectural considerations – general descriptions only, architectural renderings will not be developed.
• Traffic considerations (e.g. site access and parking) • Relevant codes and building requirements, including: Building Occupancy Classification, Construction Classification(s), Hazardous Materials Storage and Use including Contaminated Soils, Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Requirements, LEED and/or other Sustainability, Energy Code, Fire Code (NFPA 820), Building Code, Electrical Code, Stormwater requirements,

Planning department requirements (e.g. setbacks, appearance, height restrictions, and other local requirements).

The preliminary design criteria developed in Task 2.1 will be used to develop conceptual site maps and pump station footprints.

Assumptions:

1. No additional field survey or site investigations will be performed.

2. Additional site alternatives will not be evaluated.

3. This task does not include development of agreements to confirm the acquisition or leasing of a piece of property.

4. Siting considerations for the pump stations and pipeline connection points located at the AWPF site will be included under Task 1.2.

Deliverables: Summary tables summarizing considerations for each pumps station based on available information. Conceptual site maps and building footprints.

2.4 Conveyance Preliminary Drawings
Purpose: Prepare conceptual-level design drawings for the conveyance pipeline alignments and pump stations outside the AWPF (if needed).

Description:

This task builds upon Tasks 2.1 through 2.3 to develop the pre-design to a conceptual-level design. These drawings will include pump stations outside of the AWPF and the conveyance alternatives.

Table 4 lists the drawings and anticipated number of sheets included in the conveyance conceptual-level design package. The drawing list assumes that the layouts and grading for the pump stations located at the AWPF site are included in Task 1. The purified pipeline alignment drawings will show possible connections to the potential AWPF sites, Pulgas facility and potable drinking water system tanks and pipelines. The conceptual-level design drawings will include information to support CEQA documentation (Task 5), including:
• General site plan requirements, including overall work limits • Topographic and aerial background
• Preliminary grading areas (cut/fill) and quantities
• Structure footprints for pump stations (outside AWPF) • Preliminary pipeline alignments (plan view only) with considerations for points of connections at a conceptual-level of design
• Preliminary estimate of lane closures
• Approximate lengths of open trench and trenchless construction for each alternative and preliminary number and locations of jacking/receiving pits • Conceptual laydown areas, if known

• Major anticipated utility crossings, where known (note: KJ map all small diameter utilities, minor crossings, or lateral crossings).

Table 4: Conveyance Conceptual-Level Design Package
Drawing(s) Est. No. Sheets
Title – Location Map, Vicinity, Map, Index of Drawings, Standard Abbreviations 1 San Carlos Tertiary Pump Station – Site Topography, Grading, and Site Plan 1 SVCW Tertiary Pump Station – Site Topography, Grading, and Site Plan 1 San Carlos Tertiary Pipeline –Option A (Plan View) 2
San Carlos Tertiary Pipeline – Option B (Plan View) 2
SVCW Tertiary /RO Concentrate – Option A: AWPF at SVCW Site (Plan View) 1 SVCW Tertiary /RO Concentrate – Option B: AWPF at Hwy 101 Site (Plan View) 1 RWA Purified Water Pipeline – Option 1 (Plan View) 4
RWA Purified Water Pipeline – Option 2 (Plan View) 2
RWA Purified Water Pipeline – Option 3 (Plan View) 3
SVCW Tertiary Pipeline – Option B: AWPF at Hwy 101 Site (Plan View) 2 TDWA Purified Water Pipelines(s) Alignment Alternatives (Plan View) 2 Hydraulic Profiles (San Carlos and SVCW Tertiary Alignments) 1 Hydraulic Profiles (Purified Pipeline Alignments) 1
Hydraulic Profiles (TDWA Purified Alignments) 1
San Carlos Tertiary Pump Station – Electrical Single-Line Diagram 1 SVCW Tertiary Pump Station – Electrical Single-Line Diagram 1 Process and Instrumentation Diagrams 4
Total Number of Sheets: 31
Assumptions:

1. Drawings at the conceptual-level design will not be generated in 3D or BIM formats.

2. The points of connections from the proposed pipeline alignment options to existing tertiary effluent facilities (at SVCW and San Mateo WWTP), SVCW’s brine outfall pipeline, Pulgas Facilities, potable drinking water systems (tanks or pipelines) will be developed at a conceptual- level of design based on preferences by the agency that owns the existing facility.

3. Drawings for the pump stations located at the AWPF site are included under Task 1.3.

4. Technical specifications will not be provided.

5. Pipeline profiles are not included.

6. Utility locating will not be performed along the pipeline alignments.

7. This task includes one (1) meeting with to walk through comments on draft conceptual-level design drawings.

8. Drawings developed under Tasks 1.3, 2.4 and 3.3 will be submitted as a combined set in the BODR document. The Title Sheet (Location Map, Vicinity, Map, and Index of Drawings) and Standard Abbreviations sheet are included in Task 1.3.

Deliverable: PREP Conveyance Conceptual-Level Design Drawings (11” x 17” PDF Format) Task 3: Pulgas Facilities Upgrades - Basis of Design and Drawings This task will focus on developing the basis of design for new facilities and upgrades at SFPUC’s Pulgas Facilities, including defining the point of connection to accept purified water and treatment requirements and design criteria to reduce nutrient concentrations in the purified water to meet background water quality objectives for Crystal Springs Reservoir (CSR). This task includes siting considerations for identified facilities and upgrades and preliminary drawings at a conceptual-level of design to support the cost analysis in Task 4 and fulfill the CEQA checklist requirements in Task 5.

3.1 Pulgas Facilities Additional Treatment Requirements and Design Criteria Purpose: Identify the treatment requirements and design criteria for the Pulgas facilities upgrades needed to accept and treat purified water prior to discharge into CSR.

Description:

Furthering the design concepts established in the PREP Phase 2 and Phase 3 Feasibility Studies, KJ will work with SFPUC to establish the design requirements and criteria for the Pulgas Facilities upgrades, which will include the following:
• Regulatory/permitting requirements for RWA
• Preliminary design criteria for the Pulgas Facility upgrades, including but not limited to treatment objectives, sizing, storage, chemical dosing, blending, required treatment retention time etc. • Code and standard reference requirements
• Pulgas facilities upgrades process flow diagram
• Pulgas facilities upgrades hydraulic profile
• Process and Instrumentation Diagrams
• Preliminary operational strategies
The Pulgas Facilities upgrades may consist of the following:
• New connection of the purified water line to the existing Pulgas Facilities • Additional chemical storage and dosing, contactor pipe, and break tank for additional retention time
• Consider breakpoint chlorination (to provide nutrient removal prior to discharge into the reservoir to meet surface water requirements), with and without the addition of ozone at the AWPF.

Assumptions:

1. This conceptual-level design scope and associated level of effort is based on 6 to 12 mgd of purified water augmentation to CSR.

2. SFPUC will provide the record drawings, geotechnical, survey, utility, or other site-specific information available for the Pulgas Facilities and site prior to start of this task. KJ will work directly with SFPUC’s staff to identify design criteria and understand existing facility and operational constraints.

3. Noise studies and any associated acoustical design elements are not included in this scope of work.

4. This conceptual-level design scope excludes structural drawings and calculations.

5. SFPUC will provide relevant water quality data for the Pulgas Facilities (e.g. from the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System (RWS) and CSR). Sampling and data collection are not included.

6. This task includes one (1) meeting with SFPUC Pulgas Facilities staff to discuss system connections, breakpoint chlorination design criteria and chemical dosing process controls Deliverable: Prepare a Pulgas Facility Design Criteria TM that defines the design parameters for use in developing a conceptual-level design for upgrades or new facilities required at the Pulgas Facility points of connection to existing facilities. A Draft and Final Pulgas Facility Design Criteria TM will be included as an appendix to the BODR.

3.2 Pulgas Facility Upgrades Siting
Purpose: Review existing background information and participate in discussions with SFPUC to identify potential options to located new facilities or implement upgrades at the Pulgas Facilities site, as identified in the Phase 3 Feasibility Study, including the possible location(s) for the new connection to the purified water line and placement of potential additional break tanks for retention time. Identify the available space and site constraints that would impact the Pulgas Facilities upgrades (e.g. height restrictions, ability to construct below grade facilities, need for supporting piles, and other construction considerations).

Description:

KJ will review available background information to develop a list of considerations pertaining to the Pulgas Facilities site, which will guide the conceptual-level design. Siting information/considerations will include:
• Existing topographic/survey data
• Existing property ownership review
• Environmental considerations and potential mitigation requirements • Geotechnical considerations – based on available geotechnical studies/evaluations • Utility considerations – based on record drawings and existing/desktop utility survey data • Structural considerations - based on existing/desktop structural data • Architectural considerations, if applicable – general descriptions only, architectural renderings will not be developed.
• Traffic considerations (e.g. site access and parking)

• Relevant codes and building requirements, including: Building Occupancy Classification, Construction Classification(s), Hazardous Materials Storage and Use including Contaminated Soils, Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Requirements, LEED and/or other Sustainability, Energy Code , Fire Code (NFPA 820), Building Code, Electrical Code, Stormwater requirements, and Planning department requirements (e.g. setbacks, appearance, height restrictions, and other local requirements)
The preliminary design criteria developed in Task 3.1 will be used to develop conceptual site maps.

Assumptions:

1. Facility siting considerations will rely on existing survey data and prior site investigation studies.

No additional field survey or site investigations will be performed.

2. One preferred siting location for new facilities will be evaluated based on discussions with SFPUC.

Multiple siting alternatives will not be evaluated.

3. This task includes two (2) meetings with SFPUC Pulgas Facilities staff to discuss breakpoint chlorination facility upgrades and facility siting considerations.

4. This task does not include development of agreements to confirm the acquisition or leasing of a piece of property.

5. This task does not include design related to other planned upgrades by SFPUC at the Pulgas Facilities.

Deliverables:
 Summary tables summarizing considerations for each site alternative based on available information.
 Conceptual site maps and building footprints.

3.3 Pulgas Facility Upgrades Preliminary Drawings
This task builds upon Tasks 3.1 and 3.2 to develop the conceptual-level design drawings for Pulgas Facilities Upgrades. Table 5 lists the drawings and anticipated number for sheets include in the AWP conceptual-level design package.

Table 5: Pulgas Facilities Upgrades Conceptual-Level Design Package Drawing(s) Est. No. Sheets
Title – Location Map, Vicinity, Map, Index of Drawings, Standard Abbreviations 1 Site Topography, Drainage, and Grading Plan 1
Proposed Site Plan 1
Pulgas Facilities Upgrades Process Flow Diagram 1
Pulgas Facilities Upgrades Hydraulic Profile 1
Electrical Single-line Diagram 1
Overall Process Control Block Diagram 1
Total Number of Sheets: 7

The conceptual-level design drawings will include information to support CEQA documentation (Task 5), including:
• General site plan requirements, including overall work limits and adjacent property lines • Site access and parking
• Structure footprints
• Preliminary grading areas (cut/fill) and quantities
• Plot plans for tree removal greater than 4 inches in diameter or 20 feet in height, if any Assumptions:

1. Drawings at the conceptual-level design will not be generated in 3D or BIM formats.

2. Technical specifications, vendor pre-qualification, and equipment selections will not be provided.

3. This task includes one (1) meeting with SFPUC Pulgas Facilities staff to walk through comments on draft conceptual-level design drawings.

Deliverable: Pulgas Facilities Upgrades Conceptual-Level Design Drawings (11” x 17” PDF Format) Task 4: Technical Support

4.1 Source Control Program Considerations
Purpose: Summarize existing source control programs by SVCW and San Mateo and anticipated DDW requirements for source control for an indirect or direct potable reuse project.

Description: Review existing pre-treatment and source control programs by SVCW and San Mateo and available information (e.g. industrial pretreatment program reports and associated sampling) on significant industrial users (SIUs) in the SVCW and San Mateo wastewater service areas. Review existing sampling event data and results developed by others. Identify gaps and future studies needed to develop a Source Control Program for the PREP Project. Evaluate and provide considerations for a source control strategy that could include either a phased or combined approach to comply with existing RWA source control requirements and anticipated future enhanced source control requirements for TDWA.

Assumptions:

1. Additional sampling and data collection are not included and will be provided by others in response to an information request.

2. This task includes two (2) meetings with SVCW and San Mateo to understand current source control efforts, request industrial/commercial data prepared for NPDES permit compliance, and walk through the Draft TM.

3. Developing, amending, revising and/or implementing the source control program is outside the scope of this task.

Deliverables: Prepare a Draft and Final Source Control TM to document items above and next steps to implement supplemental source control, including summary of additional source control sampling and periodic review of SIUs for project implementation, identification of agency responsibilities for source control activities including potential coordination and governance approaches and summary of DDW requirements for potable reuse. A Draft and Final Source Control TM will be included as an appendix to the BODR.

4.2 Brine Disposal Considerations
Purpose: Summarize existing NPDES discharge permit requirements and identify additional studies needed to discharge brine through existing outfalls.

Description: Review existing NPDES discharge permits for SVCW and San Mateo, describe results of Task

4.1 - Source Control Program Considerations to estimate changes in concentration/flow of industrial pollutants through brine concentration process. Summarize how other potable reuse projects have or are addressing brine discharge from a new AWPF to an existing outfall (e.g. San Diego, Padre Dam, Oceanside, Monterey One Water) to identify potential issues and approaches. Develop preliminary list of studies (e.g. mixing zone, dilution credits, toxicity etc.) to be submitted with NPDES revised permit application; confirm needed studies, future monitoring, schedule and other considerations with call with Regional Board staff.

Assumptions:

1. This task includes two (2) meetings with SVCW to discuss point of connection to brine outfall, water quality/permitting considerations and walk through the Draft TM.

2. This task includes one (1) meeting with Regional Board staff to discuss and review studies to be conducted and anticipated future NPDES permit requirements

3. Developing, amending, revising and/or implementing a revision to the existing NPDES permit requirements is outside the scope of this task.

Deliverable: Prepare a Draft and Final Brine Disposal TM to document items above including likely brine disposal connection point, estimated brine concentration and flow, next steps/future studies and schedule to update NPDES permit(s) to include brine as a discharge. A Draft and Final Brine Disposal TM will be included as an appendix to the BODR.

4.3 Preliminary Operational Strategies
This task will identify preliminary operational strategies for the RWA and TDWA deliveries, building on prior work in the Phase 3 Feasibility Study
• RWA operational strategies to meet regulatory requirements for dilution and retention were developed as part of the Phase 3 Feasibility Study, utilizing a Reservoir Operations Model (ROM), utilizing data from SFPUC’s monthly timestep water balance model called the Hetch Hetchy Local Simulation Model (HHLSM). For the PREP Phase 3 Study, the HHLSM model was primarily used to understand the amount of available storage space for purified water in the RWS in dry years, the associated water supply benefits for the RWS, and conversely to evaluate the amount of water that would “spill” from the RWS to make room for purified water when the reservoir system is full (e.g. primarily in wet years). Three RWA operational scenarios (continuous, seasonal ramp down and seasonal shut down) were evaluated to assess the impact of continuous versus seasonal augmentation with purified water, to calculate how reduced production of purified water would reduce the amount of spill during wet years. • TDWA operational strategies do not have to adhere to retention requirements, however there is still a nexus with the blending of purified water with other water (e.g. potable water or raw water) to provide additional dilution, which may guide the need for additional treatment processes (e.g. ozone and biological activated carbon (BAC)). Additionally, augmenting a local drinking water system with purified water could theoretically result in a “spill” from the RWS when the reservoir system is full and those. The Phase 3 Feasibility Study did not assess TWDA operational scenarios.

Purpose: This task will summarize the preliminary operational strategies for both RWA and TDWA to support the development of AWPF design and operational criteria. For RWA, operational strategies to meet dilution and retention criteria will guide treatment process selection for meeting log-removal value (LRV) requirements set forth by the Division of Drinking Water (DDW). For TWDA, operational strategies will consider potable water demands and the percent of purified water augmenting each Agency’s drinking water distribution system. The potential for “spill” from the RWS will be addressed for both RWA and TDWA.

Description: This task will describe the following:
• Overall approach for introduction of purified water into CSR to meet RWA regulatory requirements for retention and dilution, based on the ROM outcomes. • Operational strategies that could be applied to maintain retention greater than or equal to 6 months and dilution greater than or equal to 100:1 to minimize LRV requirements • Operational strategies to minimize the amount of Hetch Hetchy water that would “spill” in the upcountry system as a result of purified water addition to CSR, based on the HHLSM model outcomes from the Phase 3 Feasibility Study. This could include ramping down or shutting down the AWPF during wet months of wet years, as evaluated in Phase 3.

• Estimation of the amount of purified water that would be blended with potable water in that portion of each water agency’s service area that is augmented by purified water, based on the outcomes of Task 4.4.
• The need for a three-dimensional (3-D) hydrodynamic numerical model of the Crystal Springs – San Andrews Reservoir System to simulate mixing, dilution and retention within the reservoir, and evaluate compliance with the key elements of the RWA regulations.

Assumptions:

1. The ROM will be run to identify emergency scenarios and operational constraints to avoid the calculated retention going below 6 months.

2. A three-dimensional (3-D) hydrodynamic numerical model will not be developed as part of this task.

3. Field data collection will not be performed as part of this task.

4. Drinking water distribution system considerations will be addressed in Task 4.4.

Deliverable: Prepare a Preliminary Operational Strategies TM to document items above. A Draft and Final Preliminary Operational Strategies TM will be included as an appendix to the BODR.

4.4 Drinking Water Distribution System Considerations
Purpose: Identify preferred points of connection to introduce purified water into the existing drinking water distribution systems owned and operated by the City of Redwood City, CalWater and/or the Mid- Peninsula Water District, and determine potential operational and hydraulic constraints and infrastructure requirements.

Description: For TDWA, purified water would be delivered to the drinking water distribution system for local distribution. Potential tie-in locations would consist of potable water storage tanks, distribution and/or transmission pipelines. The following potential points of connection will be considered:
• Redwood City’s existing Redwood Shores tanks, which have a combined storage capacity of 6.2 million gallons (MG). Additional points of connection to be identified by Redwood City and their modeling group.
• CalWater has various locations within its distribution system that could serve as potential tie-in locations in San Carlos and San Mateo. Cal Water is planning to add additional storage tanks that could potentially be an additional tie-in. Additional points of connection to be identified by CalWater and their modeling group.
• Mid-Peninsula Water District service area potential points of connection to be identified by their modeling group.

Understanding the boundary conditions for augmenting each drinking water system is important to defining flow restrictions and infrastructure requirements.

Assumptions:

1. Purified water would be delivered to the existing potable distribution systems via:

o Existing tanks via an air gap or an existing inlet manifold o Direct pipe-to-pipe connections within the distribution system. This option would require coordination regarding the hydraulic grade line (HGL)/operating pressure of the existing potable water pipeline at the tie-in location. Pressure reducing valves/systems will be identified as needed.

2. Redwood City, CalWater and the MPWD would provide information on their respective systems, hydraulic capacities, operating HGLs and pressures at each tie-in location, operational constraints, and preferred locations and infrastructure requirements to tie-in.

3. Redwood City, CalWater and the MPWD will share considerations for planned and future CIP projects that may be impacted by or benefit from the project.

4. This task includes up to six (6) meetings with Redwood City, CalWater and MPWD to discuss point of connection to their potable water system, coordinate with their modeling groups and walk through the Draft TM.

5. Redwood City, CalWater and the MPWD would run their respective drinking water distribution system models and provide operational and design criteria and limitations (e.g. pressure requirements, maintenance and operational requirements, etc.) as appropriate.

6. Development of a new distribution system hydraulic model is not included in this task.

Deliverable: Prepare a Drinking Water Distribution System TM to document items above, define infrastructure and system operational requirements and identify additional evaluations needed to support the next phase of design. A Draft and Final Drinking Water Distribution System TM will be included as an appendix to the BODR.

Task 5: SFPUC CEQA Checklist and NEPA Considerations

5.1 CEQA Checklist
Purpose: In order for the proposed project to be considered “CEQA Ready” by SFPUC, SFPUC’s CEQA Checklist for environmental review would need to be submitted to provide SFPUC’s Bureau of Environmental Management (BEM) with sufficient information about the project and alternatives to begin environmental review. The completed CEQA Checklist would allow the project to move forward with CEQA and to be compared with other projects.

Description: This task will address relevant elements of the SFPUC CEQA Checklist, provided in Attachment C, based on the conceptual-level design in Tasks 1 through 3, and additional efforts performed as part of Task 4 or the Phase 3 Title XVI Feasibility Study.

Assumptions:

1. This task is focused on providing information about the project to meet SFPUC’s BEM initial requirements to perform environmental review.

2. The Checklist will be developed using information developed as part of conceptual-level design , known site conditions, and anticipated permit requirements.

3. No additional site work or coordination with permitting or trustee agencies will take place as part of Task 5.

4. This task assumes three (3) meetings with SFPUC BEM staff to answer questions about CEQA Checklist items and discuss comments received on the Admin Draft and Draft CEQA Checklists.

Deliverable:
 Admin Draft, Draft and Final CEQA Checklist Report, which will be included as an appendix to the BODR.
 The schedule assumes that the PREP parties will review and return comments on submitted deliverables within two weeks. Each agency shall submit one set of consolidated comments, preferrable in a digital format (track changes/comments in word and pdfs)

5.2 NEPA Considerations
Purpose: Since the project will potentially pursue federal funding in the future, either through USBR Title XVI program or EPA loan programs (e.g. WIFIA), NEPA analysis may be required in the future. The purpose of this task will be to identify the additional analyses needed to comply with NEPA (e.g., “cross- cutters”) Cross-cutting federal authorities are the requirements of other federal laws and Executive Orders that apply in the case of federally funded projects. In the State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs, compliance with federal cross-cutting authorities is required by all recipients of these federal funds.

Typical federal cross-cutters that need to be addressed include: the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act , the Clean Air Act, the Coastal Barriers Resources Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Environmental Justice Executive Order, Flood Plain Management, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act.

Description: The USBR Title XVI Feasibility Study report, completed as part of Phase 3, does not require National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance, however, USBR does require a discussion on whether, and to what extent, the proposed Title XVI project will have potentially significant impacts on endangered or threatened species, public health or safety, natural resources, regulated waters of the United States, or cultural resources. As well as identification of additional and/or unique environmental risks, environmental and cultural compliance measures or NEPA compliance measures (e.g. use of CEQA+ approach to satisfy NEPA Requirements) , which will be discussed with SFPUC BEM staff who will be responsible for leading future CEQA efforts.

SFPUC’s CEQA Checklist (Attachment C) notes that if projects are pursuing federal funding or require federal permits then NEPA analysis would be required and would need to analyze a range of alternatives with a co-equal level of detail. The approach for Task 1 to look at two alternative AWPF sites and Task 2 to look at multiple alignments would serve to support this requirement.

Assumptions: The description of NEPA considerations will be developed using information developed as part of conceptual-level design, known site conditions, and anticipated permit requirements. No additional site work or coordination with permitting or trustee agencies will take place as part of Task 5.

Deliverable: A list of additional analysis that would need to occur, above and beyond that typically performed to comply with CEQA, to meet the federal cross-cutters and make the project eligible for federal funding. This information will be incorporated into the appropriate section of the BODR in Task 7.

Task 6: Cost Analysis and Financial Planning

6.1 Engineers Estimate of Probable Costs for Conceptual-Level Design Purpose: The engineers estimate of probable cost will include a summary of cost assumptions, construction, operations and maintenance (O&M), unit life cycle costs and other cost considerations. The cost analysis will be at a Class IV level (AACE) sufficient to reflect the conceptual-level design.

Description: This task will identify capital and O&M costs for the proposed project and any sub- alternatives identified as part of the basis of design, reflecting annual costs to construct, operate and maintain the system. Unit life cycle cost will be developed to compare the project cost to projected wholesale water rates over time.
• Capital Costs: will be developed at a Class IV level, representing quantity take-offs from the preliminary design, capturing anticipated material and labor costs by discipline and appropriate markups. Unit costs will be based on equipment quotes, recent projects and professional experience for treatment, pipelines, pump stations, storage tanks and other facilities. Site development costs will be based on earthwork quantities developed as part of the conceptual-level civil design work.

Additional facility costs yard piping, electrical, and instrumentation and controls are assigned as a percent of facility costs. Sales taxes, mobilization costs, engineering and design, environmental permitting, contractor overhead and profit costs, and an estimate contingency are applied to all alternatives as a percent of facility direct costs. An annual inflation rate will be applied to represent anticipated escalation to the mid-point of construction, based on an estimated construction schedule.
• Annualized Construction Costs: Construction costs will be converted to annualized life cycle costs using basic assumptions about discount rates and life expectancy of project components. • O&M Cost: will be developed, representing O&M requirements from the preliminary design, capturing anticipated material and labor costs by discipline and appropriate markups. Annual O&M costs include energy, labor, chemicals, and maintenance costs with a contingency applied to all O&M costs. Operational considerations, such as ramping or shutting down the AWPF will be incorporated into the O&M costs.
• Life Cycle Unit Cost: Annualized construction costs will be added to O&M annual costs to get a total annualized costs for the project. Total annualized costs will be divided by the purified water delivered over the life of the project to obtain a uniformly derived unit cost of water in dollars per acre-foot ($/AF), which is also converted to dollars per gallon ($/gal) and dollars per hundred cubic feet ($/CCF).

• Cost of “Spill”: The amount of “spilled” water will be estimated based on the Reservoir Operations Modeling work done in Phase 3 and discussions with SFPUC. The cost of spilled water may be estimated based on the projected wholesale water rate over time or another rate schedule, to be determined by SFPUC. The intent is to reflect the lost opportunity to capture upcountry supplies if there is insufficient storage in the Regional Water System (RWS).

Assumptions: PREP Parties will provide feedback on proposed cost assumptions and provide recent relevant project bids, if available. Given current chain supply issues, an additional contingency will be included in the cost estimate to reflect increased bid prices received for pipeline projects in the area.

Opinions of probable construction cost will be at a preliminary level (+50%/-15%) accuracy with allowances and contingencies applicable to this level of estimate.

Deliverable: Prepare a Cost Analysis TM that defines the cost assumptions used to develop the Class IV costs and includes detailed and summary cost tables for construction, O&M and unit life cycle costs. A Draft and Final Cost Analysis TM will be included as an appendix to the BODR.

6.2 Project Implementation Schedule
Purpose: a proposed project implementation schedule will be developed to support the unit life cycle cost analysis, financial plan and CEQA checklist (Task 5). The schedule will reflect a phased project that begins with RWA and expands to include TDWA.

Description: the schedule will identify milestone dates for design, environmental documentation, permitting, contract bidding, equipment procurement, construction, testing and start-up.

Assumptions: Project delivery strategies can be discussed but a preferred method (e.g. design bid build, design build, progressive design build, or other) will not be identified as part of this effort. A discussion of how these different strategies will impact the schedule can be provided.

Deliverable: Proposed project implementation schedule and discussion of implementation considerations, to be incorporated into the appropriate section of the BODR in Task 7.

6.3 Financial Planning Considerations
Purpose: The purpose of this task is to identify potential approaches to fund the project as it moves into construction. This task will focus on funding considerations irrespective of institutional agreements, cost sharing and ownership framework, which will not be determined as part of this task.

Description: The financial plan will utilize the cost analysis (Task 4.1), identify typical funding sources (financing approaches, bonds, grants/loans) and discuss common pricing policies to identify key considerations for financial planning. Since the project sponsor will not be identified as part of this study, the financing plan will be at a conceptual level, documenting established vehicles used by the PREP Parties to fund capital projects and recovery annual costs. This task will identify the connectivity between design, environmental/permitting and construction activities on funding (e.g. eligibility for grants/loans to payback considerations).

Assumptions:

1. SFPUC’s consultant, under a separate contract, will be performing a financial analysis for this project as well as other projects in the alternative water supply portfolio. This task includes up to two (2) meetings to coordinate with SFPUC’s financial consultant.

2. Two additional task focused meetings are assumed to understand vehicles used by the PREP Parties (water and wastewater agencies) to fund capital projects and recovery annual cost.

3. The development of institutional agreements and cost-sharing commitments are not included in this task, However, partnership goals and objectives discussed during the status meetings could be integrated in the BODR to support future governance activities.

4. The Phase 2 Institutional Study considerations will be summarized, as-appropriate, and that report could be included as an appendix to the BODR.

Deliverable: Tables summarizing available funding sources and general financing approaches. This information will be incorporated into the appropriate section of the BODR in Task 7.

Task 7: Basis of Design Report (BODR)
Purpose: KJ will prepare a BODR summarizing the content of the work performed in Tasks 1-6 and from the Phase 3 Feasibility Study, where appropriate. The TMs and design drawings will be included in an appendix and/or attachment to the BODR. The BODR will represent a preliminary design for key project facilities at a conceptual-level design, which is deemed to be at a suitable level to confirm that the project is CEQA Ready.

Description: The BODR is anticipated to include, but not be limited to, the following components:

1. Introduction – Background, Parties, Goals

2. Project Definition – Source Water, Flows, Place of Use, Regulatory Overview,

3. Project Facilities – Overview of Treatment, Conveyance, Brine Disposal, Reservoir Augmentation, Drinking Water System Points of Connection,

4. AWPF Basis of Design

5. Conveyance Basis of Design

6. Pulgas Facility Upgrades Basis of Design

7. Operational Strategies and Controls

8. Environmental Considerations (CEQA/NEPA)

9. Opinion of Probable Costs

10. Implementation Considerations - Schedule, Phasing Plan, Institutional, Funding, Outreach, Attachments may include but not be limited to:

A. AWPF Design Criteria TM, Brine Disposal TM and supporting information B. Conveyance Design Criteria TM and supporting information C. Pulgas Facility Upgrades Design Criteria TM and supporting information D. Cost Analysis TM (with detailed cost sheets)

E. CEQA Checklist and supporting environmental information F. Source Control TM
G. Preliminary CSR Operational Strategies TM
H. Drinking Water Distribution System TM
I. Phase 3 Feasibility Report (Title XVI FS)
A separate Design Package will include:

A. AWPF Conceptual-Level Design Drawings
B. Conveyance Conceptual-Level Design Pre-Design Drawings C. Pulgas Facilities Upgrades Conceptual-Level Design Drawings General Assumptions:

1. The BODR will not include reservoir modeling at CSR, institutional agreements, land purchase/ROW agreements, financial and cost sharing agreements

2. No other special studies not identified in the scope are included unless added by amendment.

3. Front-end specifications, bid documents, procurement documents, and/or standard form contracts are not included for the BODR

4. Technical specifications, vendor pre-qualification, and equipment selections will not be provided.

Review and Response Expectations
• The schedule assumes that the PREP parties will review and return comments on submitted deliverables within two weeks.
• Each agency will provide one set of consolidated comments, submitted in a digital format (.doc, .pdf and/or .xls)
• Conflicting comments between agencies will be discussed at project meetings • Responses to editorial comments on the BODR text will be provided in the .doc in track changes mode
• Responses to substantial technical comments on the BODR will be prov ided in a spreadsheet format to track how decisions were made an integrated.
• Responses to comments on the design drawings will be provided in a spreadsheet format to track how decisions were made an integrated.

7.1 Outline and Admin Draft BODR
Description: Develop a BODR outline early in the process to solicit input from the PREP Parties on elements to be include in the BODR. Develop and submit Admin Draft BODR sections for preliminary review and comments. The Admin Draft BODR sections may be submitted at different times to allow Assumptions:

1. The schedule assumes that the PREP parties will review and return comments on submitted deliverables within two weeks.

2. Each agency shall submit one set of consolidated comments, preferrable in a digital format (track changes/comments in word and pdfs)

3. General comments on the Admin Draft BODR comments will be discussed during task specific meetings with and monthly status webinars all parties, which are anticipated to include the following participants.
• AWPF Basis of Design Section (SFPUC and SVCW)
• Conveyance Basis of Design Section (All Parties)
• Pulgas Upgrade Basis of Design Section (SFPUC)
• General and Implementation (All Parties)
Deliverables:
 Draft and Final BODR Outline (digital .doc, .pdf, .xls format)  Admin Draft BODR (digital .doc, .pdf, .xls format) – potentially submitted in sections, not including the executive summaries

7.2 Draft BODR
Description: Develop a Draft BODR that responds to and updates the Admin Draft BODR sections based on the comments received from the PREP Parties. The Draft BODR will include an Executive Summary Assumptions:

1. The schedule assumes that the PREP parties will review and return comments on submitted deliverables within two weeks.

2. Each agency shall submit one set of consolidated comments, preferrable in a digital format (track changes/comments in word and pdfs)

3. This task includes one (1) task-specific meeting to discuss Draft BODR comments.

Deliverables:
 Response to comments on Admin Draft Sections of the BODR (in track changes vers ion of the document).
 Draft BODR with Executive Summary (digital .doc, .pdf, .xls format)

7.3 Final BODR
Description: Develop a Final BODR that responds to and updates the Draft BODR sections based on the comments received from the PREP Parties.

Assumptions:

1. The schedule assumes that the PREP parties will review and return comments on submitted deliverables within two weeks.

2. Each agency shall submit one set of consolidated comments, preferrable in a digital format (track changes/comments in word and pdfs)

3. The final report will be provided in a print-ready format. Hard copies will not be provided.

Deliverable:
 Response to comments on Draft Sections of the BODR (in track changes version of the document).  Final BODR Report (digital .doc, .pdf, .xls format)

Task 8: Public Outreach Strategy
The public outreach strategy will be led by Data Instincts

8.1 Outreach Focused Meetings
Purpose: Initiate conversations with PREP Agency outreach staff, decision makers, board/commission/council members, and/or elected officials regarding the PREP Project.

Description: To help us prepare and develop a stakeholder/public outreach strategy we will gather PREP Agency input and views regarding certain education and outreach approaches that could be used, while evaluating and considering potable reuse alternatives that would directly affect constituents in their respective service areas. DI’s efforts would include applying lessons learned from similar successful water reuse projects and building upon them for this effort.

Assumptions:

1. Effort includes participation in up to three (3) PREP Monthly meetings to identify individuals for outreach focused meetings and report out on outreach activities.

2. Effort includes up to 12 meetings (virtual/in-person) with PREP Agency outreach staff, decision makers, board, commission, or council members, political appointees and/or elected officials regarding the PREP Project

3. This does not include outreach to NGOs, stakeholder groups or the public.

Deliverable: Meeting agendas and notes, with recommendations based on cumulative input gathered.

8.2 Develop Outreach Strategy
Purpose: Develop an outreach strategy, based on the input received through Task 8.1, which provides a road map for communicating with stakeholders and the public when/if the PREP Project is selected to move forward.

Description: Developing a public outreach action plan in collaboration with Partner Agencies and their respective locally elected officials and policymakers. There are several ways as a region the communication and engagement with customers could be advanced. Achieving these in a sensitive and appropriate manner will be key to initial and long-term community and regional acceptance. An outreach strategy will encompass these goals:
• Crafting of key messages regarding augmenting water supplies with purified water, for external audiences and interested parties, Board members, and staff of water retailers and cities throughout the region

• Inform stakeholders about recycled and purified water, including the many possible uses • Ensure understanding and acceptance of the science and technology behind purified water and potable reuse
• Minimize confusion, opposition, and discomfort about using purified water for potable reuse • Identify potential Agency partnership opportunities and draft an initial strategy to guide development of such opportunities
• Create and maintain a pathway for all stakeholders to easily access clear and credible information • Seek balanced media coverage throughout the region as appropriate

Assumptions: Strategy will be based on input received in Task 9.1 and consideration of successful approaches elsewhere.

Deliverable:
 Provide a written Strategic Outreach Plan (Draft and Final) for consideration by PREP  Present strategic outreach plan to PREP leaders in a meeting: explain objectives, methods and tactics, and respond to questions/concerns

8.3 Additional Outreach Support
Purpose: This effort would be in support of the initial conversations in Task 9.1 that typically result in requests for additional outreach or technical support to address concerns related, but not limited to:
• The significance of unknown or perceived health risks and characterization of health risks from recycled water exposure for potable reuse (i.e., potential concerns related to Constituents of Emerging Concern (CECs), and Pharmaceuticals & Personal Care Products (PPCPs) • Rational, scientific approaches to identifying potential risks to human health or the environment to make informed, defensible environmental management decisions (such as, Management of Source Waters)
Description: Support the PREP Parties in addressing concerns of their decision makers, board/commission/council members, and/or elected officials about potential risks associated with the PREP Project. From prior experience, we anticipate the following services:
• Development of, and participation in, additional meetings/workshops with PREP Agency outreach staff, decision makers, board, commission, or council members, political appointees and/or elected officials regarding the PREP Project
• This does not include outreach to NGOs, stakeholder groups or the public. • Presentations to elected officials and tours of existing demonstration and educational potable reuse facilities
• Guidance to existing documentation and/or preparation of a technical white paper on state of the science and risk analyses

Assumptions: This is a vital component of outreach to communities considering/evaluating augmentation of their water supply with advanced purified water. This would be needed to support initial outreach efforts, to address any health and environmental concerns raised and could be provided as-requested by the PREP Parties up to the budget established for this task.

Deliverables:
 Outreach materials developed per PREP project components and referencing state requirements  Development of Communications materials (frequently asked questions, key messages, videos, fact sheets, maps, web, social media, project emails, presentation slides, info-graphics, etc.) in support of PREP related web pages and descriptions for public viewing, public workshops, and public meetings (virtual/in-person)
 Draft and Final technical white paper defined above (optional) Task 9: Meetings and Presentations

9.1 Monthly Status Webinars with PREP Parties
Purpose: Monthly meeting will be conducted via webinar to provide status updates, align on decisions and obtain input from all PREP parties.

Description: This task assumes one (1) kickoff meeting and 13 monthly status meetings via webinar, 1.5 hours in duration, including time to prepare meeting materials in advance and send out minutes, highlighting action items, after each meeting.

Assumptions: A monthly recurring meeting will be scheduled during the kick-off meeting. The anticipated focus of each meeting is described in Table 1, in the schedule section of this proposal.

Deliverables: Meeting materials and minutes.

9.2 In-Person Meetings or Presentations
Assume three (3) in person meetings to present (1) Outreach Strategy, project concepts and design criteria, (2) Draft BODR Presentation and (3) Final BODR Presentation. If the ability to meet in person is limited by statewide or local quarantine requirements these meetings will be held via video conferencing and/or webinar.

Assumptions: SVCW or SFPUC to identify schedule based on availabilities of parties and coordinate logistics for meeting location.

Deliverables: Meeting materials and minutes.

Task 10: Project Management and QA/QC

10.1 Project Management
Project management includes project setup, submittal of monthly project status reports, tracking of project schedule and budget. The scope herein assumes a 15-month project duration

Deliverables: Status reports and monthly invoices (assume 15-month duration).

10.2 Internal Coordination Meetings
Internal coordination meetings with project teams and subconsultants, assume weekly check-ins between Project Manager, Deputy Project Manager for the conceptual-level design and Deputy Project Manager for overall project.

10.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) activities are integrated into KJ’s project management system from project inception, through execution to final document submission. KJ uses experienced senior staff, familiar with, but not directly involved in the project work, to provide QA/QC review of work products and project deliverables. All submittals will be reviewed by senior engineers prior to submittal to the PREP Parties. This task includes three (3) internal concept and criteria review (C&CR) meetings to discuss design criteria and conceptual layouts for the AWPF, Conveyance and Pulgas Facilities.

Deliverables: outcomes from the C&CR will be integrated into deliverables and discussions for task specific meetings and monthly status webinars.

Task 11: As-Requested Support
As-requested items would be upon authorization only. Activities may include but not be limited to:
• Additional alternatives or more detailed analysis of flows, • water quality or ROM analysis beyond assumptions in Task 1, • engineering support for Pulgas Facility point of connection • additional meetings/webinars beyond those defined in Task 4, • institutional support provided by Paul Brown, if requested, • initial public outreach considerations such as a potential program timeline, public outreach concept strategy, development of FACT sheets and listing of funding opportunities, as previously included in earlier versions of the scope of work, and
• new items identified by PREP Parties.

A budget allowance will be assigned but the actual effort will be confirmed with the PREP parties prior to authorization.

Project Team
KJ will lead the BODR Study. Key team members are highlighted in the organization chart in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Project Organization Chart

Note: Data Instincts, led by Mark Milan, will lead Task 8 Public Outreach Strategy

Anticipated Project Schedule
The anticipated project schedule is shown in Figure 2. Due to the limited time frame for the project, the intent is to stagger deliverables and task specific meetings and to discuss preliminary findings with the broader group at the monthly status webinars. Standing meetings will be established early in the process along with identification of points of contact for task specific meetings. Timey reviews of interim and draft deliverables by the PREP Parties prior and prompt responses to requests for information will be paramount to keeping to the schedule.

Figure 2: Anticipated Schedule

Feb Mar Apr May Jun J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Phase 3 Title XVI Feasibility Study
Admin Draft for PREP Parties Review   
Draft for USBR Submittal and PREP Parties Review  USBR review duration unknown Final to Respond to USBR/PREP Parties Comments 

Notice to Proceed 
Task 1: AWTPF Basis of Design & Drawings
AWPF Design Criteria TM   
Conceptual AWPF Site Maps   
AWPF Drawings   
Task 2: Conveyance Basis of Design & Drawings
Conveyance Design Criteria TM   
Conceptual Alignment Maps, pit/staging identification     AWTF Drawings   
Task 3: Pulgas Facility Upgrades Basis of Design & Drawings Pulgas Facility Upgrades Design Criteria TM   
Conceptual Pulgas Facility Upgrades Site Maps    
Puglas Facility Upgrade Drawings   
Task 4: Technical Support
Source Control TM    
Brine Disposal TM    
Preliminary Operational Strategies TM    
Drinking Water Distribution System TM        
Other (TBD)
Task 5: CEQA Checklist and NEPA Considerations
General CEQA/NEPA Considerations 
Admin Draft and Draft CEQA Checklist   
Final CEQA Checklist  
Task 6: Cost Analysis and Financial Planning
Eng Estimate of Probable Costs (Class IV - 10% Design)   Schedule and Financial Plan    
Task 7: Basis of Design Report
Admin Draft Sections    
Draft 
Final 
Task 8: Public Outreach Strategy
Outreached Focused Mtgs    
Strategy Outreach Plan    
Task 9: Meetings and Presentations
Monthly Status Meetings (via Webinar) KO W#1 W#2 W#3 W #4 W#5 W#6 W#7 W#8 W#9 W#10 W#11 W#12 W#13 In-Person Meetings or Presentations   
Task 10: Project Management and QA/QC                Task 11: As-Requested Support
Meetings Deliverables
Monthly Status Webinar W# Interim/Admin Draft 
Task Focused Mtgs  Draft 
In Person Presentation  Final 
Task and Key Deliverables 2022 2023
LEGEND

Budget
A summary of the budget for each task is provided in Table 6. A detailed fee sheet is included in Attachment B. Figure 3 shows the anticipated monthly effort to meet SFPUC’s requirements for a “CEQA Ready” Project by July 2023.

Table 6: PREP Pre-Design Study Budget by Task
Tasks
Total Est
Hours
Total KJ
Labor
SUB
Data
Instincts
Total
Expenses
Total Labor
+ Subs +
Expenses
Task 1: AWTPF Basis of Design & Drawings 559 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 Task 2: Conveyance Basis of Design & Drawings 910 $189,250 $0 $0 $189,250 Task 3: Pulgas Facility Upgrades Basis of Design
& Drawings 357 $74,500 $0 $0 $74,500
Task 4: Technical Support 526 $119,500 $0 $0 $119,500
Task 5: CEQA Checklist and NEPA Considerations 331 $80,000 $0 $0 $80,000 Task 6: Cost Analysis and Financial Planning 352 $78,750 $0 $0 $78,750 Task 7: Basis of Design Report 342 $79,500 $0 $0 $79,500 Task 8: Public Outreach Strategy 74 $17,500 $75,000 $0 $100,000 Task 9: Meetings and Presentations 193 $49,500 $0 $5,500 $55,000 Task 10: Project Management and QA/QC 328 $83,500 $0 $0 $83,500 Task 11: As-Requested Support 0 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000
TASK 1 - 11 Total 3972 $946,999 $75,000 $5,500 $1,035,000 Figure 3: Anticipated Monthly Effort

An Agreement between SVCW and KJ regarding the PREP Pre-Design Study is included in Attachment A.

This Agreement provides additional indemnification and insurance requirements related to the PREP Parties for this Scope of Work. This Agreement is only applicable to the PREP BODR Study Task Order, which is being contracted under the KJ Master Services Agreement for Professional Consulting Services with SVCW, dated 14 August 2008.

Closing
We look forward to continuing to work with you to support the PREP Project and develop a BODR that meets SFPUC definition of “CEQA Ready” by July 2023. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions on this proposal.

Very truly yours,
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc.

Dawn Taffler, PE, LEED
® Mark Minkowski, PE
Project Manager Principal-in-Charge

ATTACHMENT A I Agreement

AGREEMENT BETWEEN

SILICON VALLEY CLEAN WATER AND KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS, INC

REGARDING POTABLE REUSE EXPLORATORY PLAN

BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT

RECITALS

1. WHEREAS the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency ("BAWSCA"), California Water Service Company ("Cal Water"), City of Redwood City ("Redwood City"), City of San Mateo ("San Mateo"), City & County of San Francisco acting by and through its Public Utilities Commission ("San Francisco" or "SFPUC"), Mid-Peninsula Water District (MPWD) and Silicon Valley Clean Water, a Joint Powers Authority ("SVCW"), referred to collectively herein as the "Parties" and individually as a "Party," have worked collaboratively since 2016 under one agreement, dated November 3, 2016, which was subsequently amended in April 2018 and expired in April 2020, and under a second agreement dated December 11, 2020 to be terminated in December 2022 or when all obligations are performed, to develop a coordinated plan for potable reuse in the San Francisco Bay Region, known as the Potable Reuse Exploratory Plan ("PREP"), through the PREP Phase I Initial Study and PREP Phase 2 Concept Study; .and the PREP Phase 3 Feasibility Study.

2. WHEREAS the Parties recognize an additional study is needed to prepare a conceptual-level design at or near the 10-percent level, and completion of an abbreviated CEQA checklist document, which would allow the project to move forward with CEQA and to be compared with other projects. The Parties identified the need for a "Basis of Design Report (BODR)" to satisfy these requirements and have developed and approved a scope of work for the study to be performed by a consultant, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment 1 ("Scope of Work"); and

3. WHEREAS the Parties propose to enter into an agreement to define the roles and responsibilities of the Parties for the study and share the costs of hiring a consultant to perform the Scope of Work ("SF-Peninsula Regional PureWater (SPRP') Project Basis of Design Report (BODR) Agreement"); and

4. WHEREAS under the SPRP BODR Agreement, SVCW is designated by all Parties as the entity to retain the consultant to perform the Scope of Work and to administer and manage the contract with the consultant; and

5. WHEREAS the SPRP BODR Agreement sets forth certain requirements for SVCW's contract with the consultant and the consultant's performance of the Scope of Work with respect to third-party beneficiaries, indemnification, and insurance; and

6. WHEREAS SVCW and Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc have a Master Agreement for Professional Services, dated August 14, 2008 ("Master Agreement"); and

7. WHEREAS, SVCW proposes to obtain the services of Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc for the SPRP BODR Scope of Work through a task order under the Master Agreement; and

8. WHEREAS, Notwithstanding the terms of the Master Agreement, SVCW and Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc desire to enter into this agreement to set forth the terms for third-party beneficiaries, indemnification, and insurance that will apply to Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc's performance of services under the Master Agreement for the SPRP BODR Scope of Work, which shall control against any conflicting terms within the Master Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and mutual obligations herein expressed, SVCW and Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc agree as follows:

1. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES
BAWSCA, Cal Water, Redwood City, San Mateo, MPWD and SFPUC are Third Party Beneficiaries under the Master Agreement with respect to Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc's performance of services for the SPRP BODR Scope of Work.

2. INDEMNIFICATION
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless all Parties and their respective directors, officials, officers, agents, and employees for any and all claims, suits, judgments, damages, penalties, costs, expenses, liabilities, and losses (including without limitation, sums paid in settlement of claims, actual attorneys' fees, paralegal fees, consultant fees, engineering fees, expert fees, and any other professional fees) that arise from or are related in any way to the operation and/or performance of this SPRP BODR agreement and the task order under the Master Agreement for the SPRP BODR Scope of Work.

Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc agrees to also indemnify and hold all Parties harmless from all loss and liability, including attorneys' fees, court costs and all other litigation expenses for any infringement of the patent rights, copyright, trade secret or any other proprietary right or trademark, and all other intellectual property claims of any person or persons arising directly or indirectly from the receipt by the Parties of the Consultant's services under this SPRP BODR agreement.

3. INSURANCE
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc agrees to procure and maintain in force the following insurance at all times during the term of the SPRP BODR Agreement and the task order under the Master Agreement to perform the Scope of Work, and to name all Parties and their directors, officials, officers, agents, and employees as additional insureds, (1) Commercial General Liability Insurance with limits not less than $2,000,000 each occurrence for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including Contractual Liability, Personal Injury, Products and Completed Operations; (2) Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance with limits not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence, "Combined Single Limit" for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including Owned, Non-Owned and Hired auto coverage, as applicable, if Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc uses or causes to be used any vehicles in connection with its performance of services under the this agreement and the task order under the Master Agreement to perform the Scope of Work; (3) Workers' Compensation, in statutory amounts, with Employers' Liability Limits not less than $1,000,000

each accident, injury, or illness with a waiver of subrogation in favor of each of the Parties; and (4) Professional Liability Insurance, applicable to Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc's profession, with limits not less than $1,000,000 for each claim with respect to negligent acts, errors or omissions in connection with services provided.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, SVCW and Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc have executed this Agreement by their duly authorized representatives, in counterpart.

KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS, INC
/11x4/1/P7kawfk/
By: Mark Minkowski (Jul 7, 2022 09:48 PDT)
Mark Minkowski
07/07/22
Date:

SILICON VALLEY CLEAN WATER
By:

Teresa Herrera
Date: 07/07/22

ATTACHMENT B | Fee Breakdown

ATTACHMENT C | CEQA Checklist

CER CHECKLIST FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (PROJECT DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENTS) Project Name:

Project Number:

PM:

PE:

EPM:

This checklist is designed to provide the design team assistance in determining the type of information that must be provided to Bureau of Environmental Management (BEM) for environmental review. These Description Requirements should be provided at the Draft CER stage. Each team, at the project’s initial conception, should contact environmental staff for assistance in completing this form. The use of this form will be iterative as the project is developed, new environmental issues are identified, and additional detail is needed until CEQA certification and all permits are obtained.

Please note that although this form is titled “checklist”, it is not a form that simply requires check marks.

It is a set of required descriptions of the project components, to be supplied in text and graphics in sufficient detail, the adequacy of which will be determined by the Environmental Project Manager (EPMs). The checklist must be provided at the Draft CER stage, but no later than six (6) months prior to completion of the first administrative draft of the EIR or MND. In addition to filling out the checklist, the PM should provide a description of the project including all the project components covering construction, operation, and maintenance.

The checklist must be completed before a date can be set to present the CER to the Program Steering Committee. A project description outline is provided for your information only. Descriptions will vary depending on the project.

*** Only text in RED is required to meet SFPUC’s definition of CEQA Ready (Per SFPUC) *** *** Additional notes pertaining to this project, from discussion with SFPUC, are provided in GREEN *** Project Objectives

1. Describe the purpose and need for the project. What will this particular project accomplish?

2. List and describe specific project objectives (not Program objectives).

Site Plan
Provide a site plan on a topographic map. Everything should be labeled as either new or existing. Information on the site plan should include the following, including square footage, length, diameter, etc.:

1. Structural footprints (general areas) – existing and created by the project.

2. Roadways and parking areas – existing & created by the project (both permanent and temporary).

3. Utility lines, including construction utilities such as electrical or dewatering lines. Water crossings should be clearly marked. Estimated pole locations should be marked.

4. Emergency generators, SCADA equipment. *estimate as best as possible

5. Fencing (permanent and construction). *types of fencing is not necessary

6. Spoils areas.

7. All grading areas, such as cutting into a slope. *be clear about areas that will be disturbed, “absolute limits” disturbed is important to be broad enough b/c that will guide surveys

8. Laydown/staging areas.

9. Absolute limits on construction area (provide map, square feet/acreage of the project site). Nothing can occur outside of this area – no parking cars for the workmen, no ground disturbance, nothing. Give yourself enough room to work. However, don’t add areas you know you will not need, as it makes the environmental review much more difficult. For example, if you show that an area of trees is within the construction area, BEM will assume those trees will be taken down.

10. Estimated cut/fill information (cubic yards and acreages preferred, but LxWxD is OK).

This is necessary for various topical analyses, such as truck haul estimates in the traffic section, land disturbance, etc.

11. Maximum depth of excavation.

12. General information about elevation, and planned changes in topography. This includes spoils areas – provide a cross-section of the fill, or at least some type of quantified description.

13. Specific information about the types of construction equipment to be used. This is to determine noise and air quality impacts. *Specific information about types of construction equipment can be left out b/c it is very involved

14. Information on all structures affected by the project, including age of existing buildings if known. This is necessary for the historic analysis and needs to be coordinated with the

environmental team member early in the process to determine if further studies are needed. This is especially important if demolition or alteration of structures is planned.

15. Information on offsite spoils areas (and a list of potential landfills if possible). CEQA addresses environmental impacts on offsite spoils areas.

16. Official address of site (or mailing address if no “official” address), if known. Many PUC facilities do not have addresses. *not relevant for pipelines

17. Description of future and operations maintenance activities.

18. Information on parking/loading spaces (numbers of each, including handicapped spaces). *parking and loading spaces can be optional

19. Preliminary project schedule.

20. Construction durations by type of activity. While optional during preparation of this checklist, it will be eventually required for the environmental review.

21. Blowoff locations, and information on where discharges will drain. Also, shutdown information when it concerns discharges. This should be shown on a map. *not relevant, only provide if known

22. Landscaping plans. While optional during preparation of this checklist, it will be eventually required for the environmental review. (This is not a requirement for a plan but rather a general description of type of land cover.) *not needed if only grass, describe for mitigation areas

* 10% civil drawings will be sufficient define much of the site plan information. Pipeline alignments do not have to identify the centerline, as preferred side of the road may not be known, however it would be beneficial to estimate how many lanes will close during construction. Jacking and receiving pits should be identified where possible.

Land Use

1. Aerials of the project area (including staging areas, spoils areas, etc.).

2. Information on encroachment issues – will anything (structures, trees) need to be removed from our ROW?

3. Parcel maps of the area, showing adjacent properties.

4. Copy of USGS 7.5-minute quad maps for the project area.

5. A list of all property owners within 300 feet of the property line of the site if a GRE, NegDec or EIR is expected. Two sets of address labels are required.

6. San Francisco Master Plan designation and zoning of the project parcels. Sites outside City limits require local designation/zoning information.

7. Present and past use of the site, especially permitted uses, if available. *does not apply for roadways

8. Information on growth-inducing issues. This should be coordinated with the environmental manager.

9. Information on any historic preservation requirements.

10. Information on watershed requirements, including applicable policies of the Watershed Management Plans, if applicable.

11. Information on all other permits other than CEQA, NEPA, & resource agencies for project approval (e.g., NPDES, SPMP, etc.) required for the project.

Water, Operations, and Maintenance

1. Dewatering information (estimated location of Baker tanks, location of discharge, estimated quantity if known, etc.) *state if discharge going to the sewer

2. Information on groundwater levels, if known.

3. Flood zone maps, if available.

4. Information on ordinary high water mark for waterways, if applicable.

5. Salt water intrusion information, if necessary. Often occurs as a result of dewatering drawdown.

6. Information on operation water quality/quantity issues (such as any planned discharges, diversion rates, planned releases, etc.).

Hazardous Waste

1. UST information. Coordination with the environmental team member is necessary if USTs exist. A Phase I or II site assessment might be required.

2. Information on chemicals and fuels storage during construction and operation.

3. Site status on the State’s “Cortese List” (list of sites with known hazardous contamination).

4. Existing Phase I, Phase II, or geotechnical studies. Required if you already have them.

However, it is not required for you to perform these studies. * If Phase I/II survey is available for above ground facility site include as general info and soils samples would be useful. Not needed for pipeline alignments.

Noise

1. Information on pile driving, if needed. Indicate the locations and estimated duration of pile/sheet driving. * CEQA assumes impact driven unless otherwise noted. Similar or local work could be used as an example to justify methods/timing

2. Spec. sheets on any noise-generating operational equipment (such as pumps, compressors, or generators – we also need to know the types of actuators being used on valves). This is used with zoning information to determine if operational noise is within an acceptable range. If not, design changes may be required. This should be coordinated with the environmental team member. These spec. sheets do not need to be of the exact equipment that will be used (as that is probably not known). Spec. sheets of representative equipment can be used.

Aesthetics

1. Spec. sheets on proposed lighting elements. These spec. sheets do not need to be of the exact equipment that will be used (as that is probably not known). Spec. sheets of representative equipment can be used. While optional during preparation of this checklist, it will be eventually required for the environmental review.

2. Information on estimated size/height and detail of existing or proposed structures. This includes vaults and proposed access to vaults. *general description and/or block drawing of building would be sufficient (e.g. natural colors, consistent architecture, noted height restrictions, etc.), architectural rendering is not required.

3. Information on site lighting. * description to note that permanent lighting would follow guidance (e.g. shine downward and not spill into residential areas). Lighting plan is not required.

4. Planned color of structures, if known.

Geology and Soils

1. Information on faults. This includes if the project is located on an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zone, if known (See http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/rghm/ap/ for more information on these fault zones).

2. Information on expansive soil (as per Building code), if known.

3. Geotechnical studies, if available (See hazardous waste above). Required by the Planning Dept. *no field work required

4. Information on geologic work near/adjacent to structures (estimates of vibration effects).

Traffic

1. Traffic information, such as proposed haul routes. *estimate as best as possible, assume shortest routes.

2. Estimated staffing levels of existing or proposed facility. Used to determine parking/traffic issues. *estimate as best as possible

Biological Description
If any trees greater than 4 inches in trunk diameter or taller than 20 feet will be removed, a plot plan is required showing the location, size, and common or botanic name(s) of each. *not needed, no plot plan but do indicate if trees will be taken down. Grading plan can provide some detail.

Air Quality
Information on any generators (including map and spec. sheets) for air requirements. Contact the EPM for the latest requirements and refer to
Sample CEQA Air Quality Information (eDOCS
DM #762889). *operational power requirements are not as important (either PG&E or Hetch Hetchy power) but construction power is important (e.g. temporary diesel generators for large power uses like tunnel boring machines). Note potential areas where there could be a concern to be further evaluated later.

Note on NEPA: If your project has federal funding attached, requires certain federal permits (primarily an “Individual” Corps wetland permit), or is located on federal land, NEPA analysis might be required (NEPA is the federal equivalent of CEQA). NEPA will require that you analyze a range of alternatives in equal level of detail, and also have other informational requirements that will need to be addressed in the CER. Your EPM will have more information on NEPA compliance.

Completed by: Signed by:

Signature
Project Manager
Title

Date Date

ATTACHMENT D | USBR/SWRCB Report Outlines

This attachment includes the following
• SAMPLE USBR TITLE XVI FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT OUTLINE • SAMPLE SWRCB RWFPS REPORT OUTLINE
• SWRCB REPORT CONTENT CROSSWALK

SAMPLE USBR TITLE XVI FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT OUTLINE
Introduction ...................................................................................

1.1 Report Organization ...............................................................................

1.2 Project Overview ....................................................................................

1.3 Identification of the Non-Federal Project Sponsor(s) ..............................

1.4 Description of the Study Area and an Area/Project Map .........................

Background ....................................................................................

2.1 Project Description .................................................................................

2.2 Current and Projected Water Supplies ...................................................

2.3 Current and Projected Water Demands ..................................................

2.4 Water Quality .........................................................................................

2.5 Existing and Future Resources ..............................................................

Water Reclamation and Reuse Opportunities ...............................

3.1 Identified Uses for Reclaimed Water ......................................................

3.2 Water Market .........................................................................................

3.3 Potential Project Challenges ..................................................................

3.4 Stakeholders ..........................................................................................

3.5 Potential Sources of Water to be Reclaimed ..........................................

3.6 Source Water Facilities ..........................................................................

3.7 Existing Water Reuse .............................................................................

3.8 Water Reclamation and Reuse Technology ...........................................

Description of Alternatives ............................................................

4.1 Non-Federal Funding .............................................................................

4.2 Project Objectives (aka. Design Requirements) .....................................

4.3 Water Supply Alternatives (or Preliminary/Refined Alternatives) ............

4.4 Waste-Stream Discharge Treatment and Disposal Water Quality Requirements .........................................................................................

4.5 Alternative measures and technologies ..................................................

Economic Analysis.........................................................................

5.1 Existing Conditions and Future Projections ............................................

5.2 Cost Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................

5.3 Substitute Project Cost Opinion ..............................................................

5.4 Qualitative Benefits and Considerations .................................................

Selection of the Proposed Title XVI Project ..................................

Environmental Consideration and Potential Effects .....................

7.1 NEPA and Federal Law Compliance ......................................................

7.1.1 Potentially Significant Environmental and Cultural Impacts

7.1.2 Additional and Unique Environmental Risks

7.1.3 Environmental and Cultural Compliance Measures

7.1.4 NEPA Compliance Measures

7.1.5 Regional Water Supply and Quality Effects

7.1.6 Public Outreach and Involvement

7.1.7 Historical Impacts and Mitigation

Legal and Institutional Requirements ...........................................

8.1 Potential Water Rights Issues (Compliance with State Water Law) .......................................................................................................

8.2 Legal and Institutional Requirements .....................................................

8.3 Multi-Jurisdictional or Interagency Agreements ......................................

8.4 Permitting Procedures ............................................................................

8.5 Unresolved Issues ..................................................................................

8.6 Current and Projected Wastewater Discharge Requirements .................

8.7 Wastewater Discharge Rights ................................................................

Financial Capability of Sponsor .....................................................

9.1 Proposed Project Schedule ....................................................................

9.2 Non-Federal Project Sponsor Preparedness ..........................................

9.3 Funding Plan ..........................................................................................

9.4 Federal and Non-Federal Funding and Restrictions ...............................

Research Needs .............................................................................

10.1 Research Needs and Objectives ............................................................

10.2 Reclamation’s Participation ....................................................................

10.3 Researchers ...........................................................................................

10.4 Research Timeframe ..............................................................................

References .....................................................................................

SAMPLE SWRCB RWFPS REPORT OUTLINE
Section 1: Introduction
Section 2: Project Area
Study Area Characteristics
Surface Hydrology and Groundwater Basins
Water Quality
Land Use
Population Projections
Section 3: Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities
Water Sources and Supply Facilities
Beneficial Uses of Receiving Waters
Groundwater Management
Historical and Projected Water Use Trends
Quality of Water Supplies
Potential Future Water Sources
Section 4: Wastewater Characteristics and Facilities
Wastewater Treatment and Collection Facilities
Commercial and Industrial Treatment Facilities

4.3 Existing Recycled Water System
Section 5: Treatment Requirements
Multi-Barrier Approach and Overview of Regulatory
Requirements
Non-Potable Reuse Requirements
Potable Reuse Treatment Requirements
Section 6: Recycled Water Market
Non-Potable Reuse Market Assessment
Potable Reuse Market Assessment
Section 7: Project Alternatives Analysis
Conceptual-Level Engineering Analysis
Description of Recycled Water Alternatives
Alternatives Screening Approach
Alternative Ranking Results
Preferred Alternative Projects
Section 9: Recommended Project
Description of Recommended Project and Potential Users
Preliminary Design Criteria
Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Costs
Implementation and Operational Plan
Section 10: Construction Financing Plan and Revenue Program Construction Funding Sources and Considerations
Recycled Water Pricing Policy Options

Financial Planning Considerations

SWRCB REPORT CONTENT CROSSWALK
The table below reflects a template that can be used to streamline the permitting processes, by clearly indicating where each report element from the SWRCB’s Recommended Outline (Appendix B) is located in the report. Kennedy Jenks has used this approach on numerous RWFS’s to facilitate efficient review and approval by the SWRCB.

Sec. # Title / Report Element Corresponding
Report Location
A Project Area
1 Detailed map(s) showing:
a Vicinity.
b Relevant hydrologic (major streams, streams receiving waste discharges), geologic, and topographic features

c City boundaries.
d Project site and service/study area boundary. (provide GIS shapefile of service/study area boundary to Project Manager).

e Wholesale and retail water supply entity boundaries within study area and adjacent to study area.

f Wastewater agency boundaries within and adjacent to study area. g Groundwater basin boundaries,
h Existing recycled water distribution pipelines, storage, and users. i Each recycled water facilities alternative, showing approximate locations of distribution pipelines, storage, and potential users.

2 Existing land use, trends, and projected land use.
3 Existing population, trends, and population projections of study area (population projections must be cited from an independent source).

B Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities
1 Description of all wholesale and retail entities.
2 All sources of water for study area, major facilities, costs (fixed and variable), subsidies, and customer prices.

3 Beneficial uses of receiving waters, degree of use, and portion of flow that is effluent.

4 Capacities of present facilities, existing flows, estimated years when capacities will be reached for existing major components (water treatment plants, major transmission, and storage facilities).

5 Groundwater basins; including quantities extracted by all users, natural and artificial recharge, losses by evapotranspiration, inflow and outflow of basins, and safe yield or overdraft.

6 Water quality of groundwater and surface water.
7 Water use trends, future demands, prices, and costs.

Sec. # Title / Report Element Corresponding
Report Location
8 Sources for additional water and plans for new facilities (for both the local entity and the wholesalers).

C Wastewater Characteristics and Facilities
1 Description of entities.
2 Description of existing facilities, including treatment/reuse processes and schematic(s), design criteria, current capacities, current flows, current water quality characteristics and beneficial uses of the water resources affected by the facility, and the current discharge location(s).

3 Wastewater treatment process schematics (existing and proposed) and flows for each stage of treatment (primary, secondary, and tertiary/advanced).

4 Description of current system users (% residential, commercial, industrial, etc.).

5 Water quality of effluent and any seasonal variation. 6 Additional facilities needed to comply with waste discharge requirements. 7 Sources of other problem constituents and control measures. 8 Existing water recycling users, quantities, and contractual arrangements. 9 Existing water rights for use of treated effluent after discharge. 10 Wastewater flow variations, hourly and seasonally
11 Description of the current asset, operation, and maintenance management systems used at the treatment facilities.

D Treatment Requirements for Discharge and Reuse
1 Future flow increases or other changes to the influent wastewater characteristics.

2 Required water qualities for potential uses.
3 Required health-related water qualities or treatment requirements for potential uses, operational and on-site requirements (backflow prevention, buffer zones, dual plumbing, etc.).

4 Wastewater discharge or reuse requirements and anticipated changes in requirements.

5 Water quality-related requirements of the RWQCB to protect surface or groundwater from problems resulting from recycled water use.

E Recycled Water Market
1 Description of market assessment procedures.
2 Definition of logical service area based on results of market assessment.

Sec. # Title / Report Element Corresponding
Report Location
3 Descriptions of all users or categories of potential users, including (a) type of use, (b) expected annual recycled water use, (c) peak use, (d) estimated internal capital investment required (on-site conversion costs), (e) necessary water cost savings, (f) desire to use recycled water, (g) date of possible initial use of recycled water, (h) present and future source of water and quantity of use, (i) quality and reliability needs, and (j) wastewater disposal methods.

4 Summary tables of potential users and related data.

F Project Alternative Analysis
1 Planning and design assumptions
a Delivery and system pressure criteria.
b Peak delivery criteria.
c Storage criteria.
e Planning period over which a water recycling project is evaluated. 2 Water Recycling Alternatives to be Evaluated
a Alternative markets:
i Based on different levels of treatment.
ii Based on Geographical areas.
b Treatment alternatives:
i Alternative levels of treatment.
ii Alternative unit processes to achieve a given level of treatment. iii Plant treatment process prior to construction.
iv Class of plant prior to and after construction (i.e. Class I, II, III, IV, or V). c Pipeline distribution alternatives.
i Route alternatives.
ii Pipeline lengths, diameter, and material.
iii Quantity of service laterals and meters to be installed. d Storage alternatives:
i Location, type, and material.
ii Storage analysis using diurnal flows.
e Pump/lift station alternatives:
i Provide reason for new pump station and/or upgrades.
ii Describe pump types, proposed well design, and proposed components (i.e. debris structure, SCADA controls, backup power, etc.)

iii Provide flow design criteria (average daily flow, peak hour flow, proposed flow for future growth projections) and pump curves.

f Sub alternatives of selected alternative:
i Marginal analysis for selected alternative for certain categories of users or certain geographic areas.

ii Use of water blending during peak irrigation months. 3 Non-recycled water alternatives.

Sec. # Title / Report Element Corresponding
Report Location
a Discussion of other potentially viable new sources of water. b Provide economic costs.
4 Water conservation/reduction analysis.
a Description of analysis.
b Impact on recycling, if any.
c Recommendation.
d Implementation.
5 Pollution control alternatives, if applicable, needed to comply with waste discharge requirements, and possible allocation of costs between recycling and pollution control.

6 No project alternative.
7 Information supplied for each alternative to include, but not be limited to:
a Cost tables for each alternative with breakdown of costs by total capital (without grants), O&M, unit processes, and with equivalent annual cost and per acre-foot cost.

b Lists of potential users assumed for each alternative. c Economic analysis in dollars per acre-foot of recycled water produced or delivered

d Energy analysis, including direct and construction energy. e Water quality impacts:
i Effect on receiving water by removing or reducing discharge of effluent, including effect on beneficial uses resulting from reduced flow.

ii Ground water impacts.
8 Comparison of above alternatives and recommendation of specific alternative.

a Discussion of beneficial and adverse environmental impacts on the existing environment, future environment, and individual sensitive environmental issues identified through project management or public participation.

b Analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on sensitive environmental resources.

c Appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the proposed action or alternatives, to mitigate adverse environmental impacts.

d Thorough discussion of the environmental reasoning for selection of the chosen alternative for the project.

9 Comparison of above alternatives and recommendation of specific alternative.

G Recommended Project
1 Description of all proposed facilities and basis for selection. 2 Preliminary design criteria

Sec. # Title / Report Element Corresponding
Report Location
3 Cost estimate based on time of construction.(a) Selected project alternative total cost (b) Cost index (c) Discount rate. (d) Useful life (years) (e) Life cycle costs (present worth included O&M costs) (f) Operations and maintenance yearly costs (g) Replacement costs.

4 List of all potential users, quantity of recycled water use, peak demand, and commitments obtained.

5 Reliability of facilities as compared to user requirements. 6 Implementation plan:
a Coordination with water suppliers, determination of recycled water supplier and needed agreements or ordinances.

b Commitments from potential users and ability and timing of users to join system and make on-site investments

c Tentative water recycling requirements of RWQCB.
d Commitments from potential users.
e Water rights impact.
f Permits required for project implementation
g Detailed schedule including, but not limited to, notice-to proceed, construction completion, initiation of operations, etc.

7 Operational plan - responsible people, equipment, monitoring, irrigation scheduling, etc.

8 Description of any key issues to be resolved, particularly items that may significantly impact the project budget or schedule.

H Construction Financing Plan and Revenue Program
1 Sources and timing of funds for design and construction. 2 Pricing policy for recycled water.
3 Costs that can be allocated to water pollution control. 4 Annual projection of:
a Water prices for each user or category of users.
b Recycled water used by each user.
c Annual costs (required revenue) of recycling project. d Allocation of costs to users.
e Unit costs to serve each user or category of users.
f Unit price of recycled water for each user or category of users. g Sensitivity analysis assuming portion of potential users fail to use recycled water.

5 Sunk costs and indebtedness.

J Appendices
1 Tables of all abbreviations.
2 Copies of letters of interest or intent from recycled water users, or other documentation of support from potential users.

Sec. # Title / Report Element Corresponding
Report Location
3 Draft of recycled water mandatory use ordinance or model user contract. 4 Drafts of necessary agreements, such as wholesale-retail agreement, joint powers agreement

5 Hydraulic calculations, model output summaries, other related conclusion supporting information.