HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - August 15, 2007 K-02AGENDA ITEM Kr
CITY OF LODI
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
rni
AGENDA TITLE: Approve Staff Recommendation for Preferred Site Selection for the Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facilities
MEETING DATE: August 15,2007
PREPARED BY: Public Works Director
RECOMMENDEDACTION: Approve the staff recommendationfor the preferred site selection for
the Lodi Surface Water Treatment Facilities.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the April 4, 2007 Council meeting, a professional services
contract was awarded to HDR, Inc., of Folsom, to prepare the
Surface Water Treatment Feasibility Conceptual Design and
Feasibility Evaluation for Water Supply and Transmission. An
important element of this contract was the consideration of five alternative sites with the objective to
receive Site Selection direction from the City Council early in the program. By selecting the preferred site
early in the program, it allows for a focused evaluation of the single site instead of multiple sites.
Initial screening of the five alternative sites has been completed, and Site A is recommended as the
preferred site. The five alternative sites (as shown on Exhibit 1) were:
A —The vacant 13 acres at the west side of Lodi Lake
B —The General Mills orchard property west of Site A
C —The "scenic overlook site at the end of Awani Drive at the Mokelumne River
D —Along the Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) Canal, 0.6 miles northwest of the corner of
Lower Sacramento Road and Sargent Road (immediately west of the proposed Westside residential
development project)
E —Along the WID canal, just north of Turner Road
A complete copy of the Draft Technical Memorandum 1 —Alternative Site Selection — Initial Screening
(TM 1) is provided as AttachmentA. A summary of TM 1 is provided below.
The screening criteria applied to each of the alternative sites are listed below:
1. Sufficient Size of Site (minimum 5 acres) — Membrane filtration or conventional treatment plant
have been assumed.
2. Flooding Hazard and Flooding Protection—Each site is assumed to be modified to a 500 -year
flood protection condition. Costs vary.
3. Water Quality — Each site has similar characteristics, except Site C that is superior to all.
4. Environmental Permitting Issues —The primary environmental differentiator is the requirement
for a new river intake at Site C, which would be costly and difficult to permit.
5. Costs Including Piping to the Site and Site -Specific Improvement Costs
APPROVED: rzt�-R--�
Blair Kiity Manager
C:\Documents and Settingslrprima\Local SettingslTemporary Internet FileskOLK1 BkCApproveSitel .doc 8/9/2007
Approve Staff Recommendation for Preferred Site Selection for the Lodi Surface Water Treatment
Facilities
August 15,2007
Page 2
6. Educational Opportunities —Visitor center/river education center
7. Aesthetic Compatibility with Surrounding Area
Site A ranked highest or near -highest in the categories of Sufficient Size, Environmental Permitting,
Pipeline Costs, Site Improvement Costs, Educational Benefits, and Aesthetic Compatibility. Although
Site B ranked high along with Site A, the site acquisition costs associated with Site B lowered its ranking,
Site A requires approximately two feet of fill to provide 500 -year flood protection. Site C is not
recommended for further consideration for Site Size and Environmental considerations.
At its August 7, 2007 meeting, the Lodi Parks and Recreation Commission voted (4-1) to support the
Site A concept. The Commission had a number of concerns and suggestions:
• That the Parks & Recreation staff, the Commission and the public be involved in the overall site
design
• That the aesthetics of the project fit well within Lodi Lake Park
That the project provide some Park benefit to mitigate the loss of land that has been planned for
future park development
Public Works staff concurs with these points and looks forward to assisting in the improvement of this
land that has been vacant since its purchase in 1957, should the City Council approve the staff
recommendation.
"Next steps" in this project process will be to refine the site layout and the treatment technology (which
includes the watershed assessment), geotechnical work, evaluation of environmental considerations,
distribution system modification evaluation and phasing/cost estimates. Staff hopes to be ready to start
final design in less than eighteen months in order to have a functioning facility in the 2010111 time frame.
FISCAL IMPACT: Site A is the recommended site for the Surface Water Treatment Facility
and could realize a reduced capital expenditure in excess of $1,000,000.
FUNDING AVAILABLE: Not applicable.
Richard C. Prima, Jr.
Public Works Director
Prepared by F. Wally Sandelin. City Engineer/Deputy PublicWorks Director
RCP/FWS/pmf
Attachment
CADocuments and SettingslrphrnalLocal Setlings\Temporary Intemet FilesNOLK1BNCAppmveSitei.doc 819/2007
'Nil
v jr
iF': ' �• _ _ � _ r --�;:-r�� "'ter l r � 1
_ r �.� — �• �. - •+r�- �1{--'ry. �^ +���yy J" iii,,;,,-'r." ia• T. ��'��,''(� ,
/l1fry{F V .
�,:ii yw�{ ■i 9•,...ir.�1e{['S�; �_� ri�',i ��j' � �:SY;��-?, � �\.riai�"" —�
i' '.�L y�i{d c �Y �1�: i. e `t �� '� [ t l: •I 1>r '' 1 _ �.
f ,\ � r. _ � S11==AY.?I''� j } '�t •mac' • " t � � i
� - � • , cis js.'�
Aq
TL' r "�P.t�S''�" -•�' ; ai_:iF '• ti :"'"��! I 1 1 ; ,{ a' r ry ' �
+C�'"� 'F"• ;;;;L 4 is '� /i,, r* 7►.-
l�.YM!'+40-: - - ) ..} +., x �• - 3 "'7�� - � - ,�� �� •'�" ' R�`,,��"�i�4,y1
�•atr`n�-� a '�, �' '�Y. �'�� R11?�:d•� .�e c .�7s#,mss � a •° • ��k
PP
ff ■.- l-ft,PUF
..�, -' y _ w ly' I �"ffy r!T!s. - a r'f v� .r :� .Y. '•'� .a� f
Ya• +t �' 7': !3r'. �F.[ • •R s�'!'#:• :; 1� {'fes?,fF .. ,h .5. f �w+'
+TT
.43 Fa �' ,�r•.., rY' ��k?1!s •��:.•� �".' 3,1 i{�' � l ,Y �•'�� - �.�� i �: V -41i..}�
r p�i y ' '�r if.�. y�� f�,�•. . '3�1.+ r �i..•�.',�• '�-- . '7 �• �• tiir , r r rl M r' � �'� ..
11
'�, ft -yr .t. � r }� .a. .,� ;.YS. _� •,� ...-_� [ .�`}rTs'i11M;. i,:S,itY ��';��c ." ""�`€: ��,�.',�• f,A..� , f• �S{ y y .�� . , `!
'c ��r• .r��y ���� • #�' i� •�'�s`] i .i } '�[rr � � i �;J,S. � ,�5■�P• i!� _ '..1: 5�� •' �rr�+ �{ �- y.j
µti :: r' _�� .� � ! f -+;,..�!' *:►�1'�' � - - 2 y `� +:���� ��_ � -•;-►u
'} -A' Y� l�� ����,ifiYf� �-Y.� .L�' l r�11��.-- •• �� _ wYy � 1. •�' -
- 71 Ir...- '�'.!' ZNYiniTi.i �^ i<�I~..• �'TF ."V'.$,'.i 1
. ..
�,,q '►r ` 1 i -
y Il• it .'-3 !s
:':"!Y.i'�y •moi. �4 '.65 �.�s.. •9'{J.,,; '::•`"''� • �{
7 ,. .._i•. hrna�_�.ri'���,,.�,. - •� [7k..:!_i- g �..';. tziP"?•- ?:ir'F'"' 1{ �A
i44��, -3�;��1�^•A'Fz�r� �yy �-��,,.,■ �'1'�3 'i1��a ir4�-rte- __ _��- :,�r" .s� �•:��� 't;:-. �,y,�e,
'1 y�An
a rFw,
�''��.F.'f."-r'�•1.' -■4 : #�+f-�.LK•�r vw: .,rt � :y:..��1•��,�i. .;�y}� . - ��;�� Y.�' 1'�,• F�_'r:•i� + �` �' �:�>�d� '�i�t~ � • '�nf..� ��Fq_ [ �Y`
?s
,�� ,-d:,,,,��VV �[C. ■� Ste. ,( w ! f f.• �, ' 'µF':.,
Aa
�L �Ci[.iflt� [ •T T e���a5.ni}I. Cr'ts'Y illy: �li ��y9 _ � ` y 1 �i'F.. � r4�[ } 4 .. ] ,..r
- 1-'. �� i",r�i�:,'Z .-0'!* ,�4k • .;,i ice.--:-• _ .T-'.. rY
- - - '•[�wq„•, 1rt, �� -�i.4'iY•'Ly�l^lt�k''4::i'r".., r' ��-'x-1�.{l. _ _ •i4•:• 1' y�� s����• ,_h" �
�� r� �: �'�-!;' C �°�•' i-•° ^ hr' .� �' ".K;• j y
% •`'4z''�. i'• m���� ��Y•R.+'f; 1•�:,'�' ,:a'�� - �,r�y '�>�,+�
l��$j=�iy"I,• ._Z Ili. -- i -d .w•. ��1.�� Ji N��V�•" �7�y .i'iT �^ j4 �. [,LT �.� y-.q _.I ..
-' 'i:�.'�1YN' • :.y� 3;. �. '�.. Sa•�t'�!.�' yH h.°` l r7:�� � , +t'yF�•'� "�•ti•1'yr �•• l '.i 1f a 'j v'
.real.. :c' . r. _ s, ',j,. •'IF. aR_-
s 1.7 1 i .-?� .� .�'�I,��'���'�-�� •,n�;� Liy ' �'�y�„g rf%.�.iF-a. I� �,� r�• `� •`��y
{{SS �• '•f J� ^�S.' �, _[ice:•..
_ {{ r i. .= 1�/'+1 1"�,'r''rs.•' '�R� i y, 1i ,liTq{V:: 1,, i� — 6
-..:
Vit{,ry ..ev.'r-:1rl',:y— '.•�i�,:r-- � IF cE'i�r •' •'=�:.'L� %i �1` * T "?s• � �
fl
Draft Technical Memorandum
TM 1 -ALTERNATIVE SITE SELECTION -
INITIAL SCREENING
City of Lodi Surface Water Treatment
Facility Conceptual Design and Feasibility
Evaluation July 30, 2007
Reviewed by: Richard Stratton, P.E.
Prepared by: Shugen Pan, PhD, P.E.
Introduction
The City of Lodi (City) contracted with HDR and WYA to develop a conceptual design and
feasibility evaluation of alternatives for a nominal 12 million gallon per day (mgd) surface
water treatment facility (SWTF), storage facilities and distribution system improvements. As
part of the project, the City wishes to evaluate the feasibility of surface water treatment at five
potential sites as shown in Figure 1. The 12 mgd capacity of the SWTF is needed to have
sufficient flexibility to fully utilize the City's 6,000 acre-feet per year water purchase from
Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID). The WID water currently can only be used during the
period March 1 through October 15. The 12 mgd plant capacity allows for satisfying peak
demands during the summer plus providing the ability to treat carryover water storage or
potential surplus during wet years. The City identified four of the potential sites and gave the
consultant the option of identifying one more site to be included in a screening process. The
initial screening will establish the selection criteria and present preliminary findings and
recommend the preferred site(s). A detailed evaluation of selected site including water system
modeling of the needed piping to convey water to the distribution system, detailed analysis of
needed site improvements, and a layout of the SWTF on the selected site will be presented in a
separate TM.
Criteria for Initial Site Screening
The purpose of the initial site screening is to identify preferred sites for the SWTF and
eliminate inferior sites from further evaluation. The following initial criteria will be used to
screen the sites. Additional criteria may be added based on input from the City.
• Sufficient size of site (at least 5 acres need).
• Flooding hazard.
• Environmental issues (Significant environmental impacts).
City of Lodi I
SWTF Conceptual Design and Feasibility - TM -01 8/1/2007
PA343957 Lodi WTP\TMs\Site Alt TM\Lodi SWTF Site Alt Screening TM01 RS edits.doc
falDraft Technical Memorandum
• Pipe line costs (raw water pipe line from intake to SWTF and treated water
pipe line from SWTF to distribution tie in). Preliminary costs based on current
information are used for this initial comparison. These costs will be refined
after hydraulic modeling is performed.
• Site Improvement Costs (including land procurement, site access
improvements, drainage facilities, and flood protection features).
• Other Benefits (use of facilities by public for educational purposes)
• Aesthetic compatibility with the surrounding land uses
Potential SWTF Sites
The following five potential sites have been identified for the SWTF. The sites are shown in
Figure 1.
Site A — Lodi Lake site (City owned).
Site B — General Mills site - This site is adjacent to site A to the west across the railroad
tracks.
Site C — Old landfill site at the end of Awani Drive along the Mokelumne River (City
owned).
Site D — Along Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) canal 0.6 mile northwest of corner
of Lower Sacramento Drive and West Sargent Rd. This site is adjacent to proposed
future development.
Site E — Along the WID canal just north of Turner Road.
Sites A through D are identified by the City as potential SWTF sites. Site E was identified by
HDR as an additional potential site. This site was picked because it is along the WID Canal
alignment, and is existing farm land located near the west side of the City's water distribution
system.
In order to determine the acreage of land needed for the SWTF, design criteria for both
conventional and membrane treatment processes are developed (covered in detail in a separated
TM). Preliminary flow schematics for conventional treatment and membrane filtration are
shown in Figures 2 and 3, respectively. Conceptual layouts for conventional treatment and
membrane treatment are presented in Figures 4 and 5, respectively.
City of Lodi 2
SWTF Conceptual Design and Feasibility - TM -01 8/1/2007
PA343957 Lodi WTP\TMs\Site Alt TM\Lodi SWTF Site Alt Screening TM01 RS edits.doc
r fti f - yr
.� � � c � . __!1� „%+. • '�lk �s • � ^ .r �• 1�.� 7` aWOODBRIDGE
.
INTAKE
ke
.. �_„ F yam• ® .�� ��� :� t~i..•�'�';•�-��'.� �: d _' 2� - _ • � .. r•�.
• ►2�- ' '_'�;a _ ; >�, r�i'�•��`�r �y l 7
`' .. �.tr .•� � I ,Lr •� �' s:�-1 . �� r•L i�•+ri �`.'i l_ -' 1. } �.b" u`^• - `' r3
{•:3rY;�r�+ � i r .: �"•, :� ••}�; T��;�' .,_, . ,y..e ' row`s.
�-. � r �r 'I� " �, .;' • ■ } iT�.y .� .�i�a'• 5 ..`�" j(f' �s �- if.� f���'11
I► iii �' ��1,y.'i* , . .{ .'• - •�_ • ..�•
'.j,
':mac i� `ri a-ia.. r �,�•h+'4�• �. •Y ` r'� 1 I i�.. :. y.
4.4
.�4._. •+ .S f+ /.te•_�53►Iil � �• :.Xis � ,r";r •e� 1 �. aa_f� �y q � y t -7-"
�_�� f S'• ., _ ,'x 4a� 'tt�� ,� F 1 'h ,� }r � it � .•1 �"
iY •��
' - I. � �,Z' 'r�` .-3�i�-•w '• ' � •' y x ;, �r - , .rte �... .� fry "' �.;.
tis` ..� ` '_ �: s���' _�� ` yam..•- � 7
yi iii.
•, ;x:' j'•*�' `�i�- ►,liisYc ;' � � f.. � ,�� .� a .�•� �r
- � � x•; .�.. =» 'r: ' _ ••fir r, -:77—
"
:7 = .T •� +: � � _.
�t r. .�i ��1 G T. :.3r• *_ . •�,A" . �f�. � `,.. ...�_� .r ,ll�'s � .�rr�.�?qrh�. . i Wi � � -i- eM.
.r -- � i; � •�'�y�'•��.r!!1•'r? _ �i' +. r ifs :�'� %:`�!'� ,•�g� :"3�'. - .1
i[: .eC�� .�•�~ ':�'i a '��� �.��• •��'�� .� xsF' ..r•1�' •;�, .i. �'�y`'s•.:�+�;
• • "i P : t ,..:: �; -' - L�?•• 1;,� cru
is rrr
1 :*ii! •.'�. +d' a . .'!.F<"u f,`,Y � .- .:Al' $i. �.�} •' 'r •`C-� ...:rn `-L-
'7 .0
If
ILI
IJJ.
���j•J T�• w. `�.i r� arc .�+[_• , - •[ —
II(r_�A'}AA'"�R;�.}TJ. S� � i} 1 .'i��f--�'• ..{'.� . e*
Tlob
im
�.• �•:� � {}gip: ��
IL
�'?";1'jy� '(�jti•:�.t� 'yam S' •• - •. +
M ! fk q• Ate. '� "!
1 s '-•'�R
r.
,j - G-1
�y�`c�',
MOKELUMNE
RIVER
FISH
SCREEN
TO BWW
HOLDING BASIN
48"
1 NTAKE
LOW LI FT
PS
REC
ALUM, POLM,
NaOH PA(
GRIT FLASH FLOCULATIO N
REMOVAL MIX BASIN
SEDIMENTATION
BASIN
C12
HOLDING BWW
BASIN
C0 NAL TREATMENT
SCALE: NONE
NON—POTABLE
HOLDING TANK
:AD
FILTER
DUAL
MEDIA H202 NaHS03
TO
LANDFILL
CONVENTIONAL WTP SOLIDS HANDLING r2
SCALE: NONE
fal
C12
HIGH
UV CLEARWELL SERVIC E
PUMPING
FLOW SCHEMATIC
CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT
CITY OF LODI — SURFACE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
DATE
6/19/07
FIGURE
2
MOKELUMNE
RIVER
FISH
SCREEN
TO BWW
HOLDING BASIN
48"
1 NTAKE
REC
LOW LI FT
PS
BACKWASH WASTE
HOLDING BASIN
GRIT FLASH
REMOVAL MIX
FLOC
B,
MEMBRANE
MEMBRANE TREATMENT
SCALE: NONE
ALUM,
POLM
HOLDING TANK
PLATE
SETTLER
VA
FLOCULATION
CHAMBER
MECHANICAL
DEWATERING
NON—POTABLE
WATER SYSTEM
RECYCLE
C12, NaOH
TO
LANDFILL
MEMBRANE SOLIDS HANDLING r
SCALE: NONE
faz
HIGH
DATE
FLOW SCHEMATIC 6/19/07
MEMBRANE TREATMENT 6/19/07
FIGURE
FIGURE
CITY OF LODI — SURFACE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY 3
RAW WATER
PUMP
STATI 0 N
50'x60'
RESIDUALS
HANDLING AND
SLUDGE
DEWATERING
BUILDING
60'x70'
BACKWASH
HOLDING POND
70'x70'
TREATED
WATER
PUMP
STATI 0 N
50' x 60'
TOTAL AREA
=390'x540'
—� =4.83 ACRES
1.3 MG CLEARWELL
100,0
oQ \
C)
FILTERS
D-
45'x90'
GRIT
20'x20' FLASH MIX, FLOCCULATION,
SEDIMENTATION BASINS,
PLATE SETTLERS OR ACTIFLO
48'x90'
EXPANSION AREA \
CHEMICAL
BUILDING
60'x70'
OPERATIONS
BUILDING
60'x 100'
PLANT LAYOUT
SCALE: 1 "=50'
faz
PLANT ENTRANCE
(F) CLEARWELL
PARKING LOT
PLANT LAYOUT
CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT
I I I CITY OF LODI - SURFACE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
DATE
6/19/07
6/19/07
FIGURE
FIGURE
4
RAW WATER
PUMP
STATION
50'x60'
RESIDUALS
HANDLING AND
SLUDGE
DEWATERING
BUILDING
60'x70'
1:1
GRIT
FLASH MIX,
20'x20'
FLOCCULATION
20'x40'
EXPANSION AREA
OPERATIONS/M EMBRAN E
BUILDING
60'x220'
BAC KWAS H
HOLDING POND
70'x70'
CHEMICAL
BUILDING
60'x70'
TREATED
WATER
PUMP
STATION
50'x60'
TOTAL AREA
=390'x540'
—� =4.83 ACRES
1.3 MG CLEARWELL
100,0
(F) CLEARWELL
PARKING LOT
PLANT ENTRANCE
PLANT LAYOUT
SCALE: 1 "=50'
PLANT LAYOUT
MEMBRANE TREATMENT
CITY OF LODI - SURFACE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
DATE
6/19/07
FIGURE
falDraft Technical Memorandum
In order to accommodate the 12 mgd ultimate capacity of the treatment plant, a minimum plant
site size of 5 acres is recommended. This will provide sufficient space for either conventional
treatment or membrane treatment facilities and allow for efficient site planning and possible
future additions to the treatment facility. If practical, additional site area would be desirable to
provide a wide landscaping buffer along the perimeter buffer to mitigate noise and visual
impacts.
Preliminary Evaluation
The preliminary screening matrix for the alternative sites is presented in Table 1. A
comparison of the costs for each site is summarized in Table 2. Assumptions used for the cost
comparison are as follows:
• Land acquisition costs are based on an initial estimate of $200,000 per acre based on
information from the City. For cost comparison, a total sire area of 5 acres of land is
assumed.
• Pipeline costs, including the raw water pipeline to the SWTF and treated water main
from the SWTF to the City's distribution system. The raw water and treated water
main routing for each alternative is shown in Figure 6. These preliminary alignments
are based on information in the Technical Memorandum -Preliminary Planning for
Water Distribution System Expansion (RMC - November 2, 2006).
• Site improvement costs: Preliminary costs are based on raising the grade of the sites
in the flood plain to 1.5 feet above the 100 year flood level. Costs also include an
access road or driveway from the nearest available road onto the site.
• Additional Improvements: Due to the long distance of Site C from the new WID
canal intake facility, the cost of a new river intake structure is included for Site C. In
addition, because of potential poor soils in the land fill, it is assumed that all of the
structures at Site C would be built on piles. The cost of piles is included with the
other costs for this site.
• The cost of the water treatment facility is the same for each alternative and is not
included in the comparison.
• Operating costs will be similar for each site and are not considered for this initial
screening. (Although more pumping costs are expected for alternatives with longer
pipelines, these costs are considered covered in the pipeline costs)
City of Lodi 8
SWTF Conceptual Design and Feasibility - TM -01 8/1/2007
PA343957 Lodi WTP\TMs\Site Alt TM\Lodi SWTF Site Alt Screening TM01 RS edits.doc
w `! Lm �' t
Y �n RAW WATER PIPE
TO SITE E
_. ' f - -� ,•fir,77 7
a«
RAW WATER PIPE
TO SITES A & B P.
SITE E_;`r3tti;'<,?� -.
-?4;',-SITE' B
'RAW WATER PIPE TO SITE D/
DISTRIBUTION MAIN FOR ALT E
�� SITE D ', � ��'� •� '',tt����
� 74
.1
s:
". DISTRIBUTION MAIN FOR k
Y ALT E STOPS HERE R;
WOODBRIDGE
INTAKE
SITE A
DISTRIBUTION MAIN
FOR ALT A/B
DISTRIBUTION MAIN
FOR ALT D
••
rN _ Im
'."�! �y11 ■.li
5.�1- : 1
'Y7���+,'..firlip
_rr
I
SITE C
N
r,64K
7�r
1 ' = 120'
rf
- t :. •'� _.� a A 0 120' 240'
I -r�� i � •;� � - � yrl
17-=_
j.
jz
p=..:• �� ,--• Y - _ .s i. _ _ rte_-,_;... _ k=;r
Ar
.. =' DISTRIBUTION MAINof
. `T. ±-
�. r
ALT C
Fal
P LEGEND:{ ?'
1
W WATER
PIPE
mm DISTRIBUTION
S Xy.;]: ! ]IMAIN
4 !
rte, 3
;r 5
i5�ly '._. 'N s
iL
XL
;;4M -4-
1.7
-.K{.. - +
w
i�+y Y�•� ti �?ii• y
Jjr
ism ' ---"- Jr■-{ i57' '7}
■SYS ~ l
ALTERNATIVE SWTF SITE LOCATIONS
RAW WATER AND TREATED WATER ROUTING
CITY OF LODI SURFACE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
DATE
6/19/07
FIGURE
6
fl
Draft Technical Memorandum
Table 1 Preliminary Screening of SWTF Alternative Sites
Site
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
Site E
Alternative
Available
13.0 ac owned by City,
8.9 ac owned by
3.0 ac owned by City,
8.6 ac owned by
> 5 ac available from
Space
more than sufficient.
General Mills with no
additional land may be
private party,
private party, sufficient
plans to sell, sufficient.
available from the railroad
sufficient.
company.
Flood Hazard
Currently in FEMA 500 -year
Same as Site A
Currently in 500 -year flood
Currently falls
Currently in FEMA
flood zone. The site
zone.
outside of the 100-
500 -year flood zone.
elevation is also lower than
year or 500 -year
the 100 year water surface
flood zones.
elevation at of 44.5 based
on the 1987 FEMA Flood
Insurance Map.
Water Quality
• Water source is existing
Same issues as for Site
Upstream of most urban
Same issues as for
Same issues as for
WID intake.
A.
run-off and Lodi Lake
Site A.
Site A.
• Urban drainage enters
the river upstream of
the WID intake.
• Water body contact
recreation in Lodi Lake
upstream of intake.
Environmental
The SWTF will need to be
• This site would require
Permitting
compatible with the Lodi
a new Mokelumne
Issues
Lake Park Master Plan.
River Intake that
would be difficult to
City of Lodi 10
SWTF Conceptual Design and Feasibility - TM -01 8/1/2007
PA343957 Lodi WTP\TMs\Site Alt TM\Lodi SWTF Site Alt Screening TM01 RS edits.doc
fl
Draft Technical Memorandum
City of Lodi 11
SWTF Conceptual Design and Feasibility - TM -01 8/1/2007
P:\343957 Lodi WTP\TMs\Site Alt TM\Lodi SWTF Site Alt Screening TM01 RS edits.doc
permit
• Clean-up of the old
landfill may be
required prior to
constructing any new
facilities
• Access to the site is
through a residential
neighborhood
Required
The total length of raw water
The total length of raw
A new intake will need to
The total length of
The total length of raw
Pipelines
line from the WID intake at
water line from the new
be constructed at the site.
raw water line from
water line from the
Woodbridge is about 3,000
WID intake at
It is impractical to use the
the new WID intake
new WID intake at
feet. The treated water
Woodbridge is about
WID intake at Woodbridge
at Woodbridge is
Woodbridge is about
distribution main is about
3,500 feet. The treated
13,800 feet away. The
about 12,000 feet.
7,800 feet. The treated
7,000 feet based on
water distribution main
treated water distribution
The treated water
water distribution main
preliminary evaluation of the
is about 7,000 feet
main is about 9,000 feet
distribution main is
is about 9,000 feet
City's distribution system.
based on preliminary
based on preliminary
about 9,000 feet
based on preliminary
evaluation of the City's
evaluation of the City's
based on
evaluation of the City's
distribution system.
distribution system.
preliminary
distribution system.
evaluation of the
City's distribution
system.
Required Site
• Access road from
• Purchase minimum
• Purchase of additional
• Purchase
• Purchase of
Improvements
Turner Road onto the
5 acres of land.
2 acres of land in a
minimum 5
minimum 5 acres
south end of the site
developed area (land
acres of land.
of land.
(including a rail road
• Access road from
may not be available)
crossing) and roadway
Lower Sacramento
• Access road
• Access road from
to the north side where
• Access road from
from the Lower
the Tuner Road
City of Lodi 11
SWTF Conceptual Design and Feasibility - TM -01 8/1/2007
P:\343957 Lodi WTP\TMs\Site Alt TM\Lodi SWTF Site Alt Screening TM01 RS edits.doc
fl
Draft Technical Memorandum
City of Lodi 12
SWTF Conceptual Design and Feasibility - TM -01 8/1/2007
PA343957 Lodi WTP\TMs\Site Alt TM\Lodi SWTF Site Alt Screening TM01 RS edits.doc
SWTF would be
Road onto the site.
Awani Drive onto the
Sacramento
onto the site.
located.
site.
Road onto the
• Fill to bring SWTF
site (the costs
• Fill to bring SWTF
above the 100 -year
• Piles in building areas.
for this item
above the 100 -year
flood elevation.
could possibly
flood elevation
• A new intake at site.
shared with the
planned
housing
development)
Other Benefits
Part of the operations
Outside urban area.
Outside urban area.
building could include an
education for Lodi Lake and
Mokelumne River
environmental topics and
water supply and treatment.
Would jump start park
development.
Aesthetic
View of the Lodi Lake, can
Fits in with industrial
View of the Mokelumne
May not blend well
On edge of town. May
Compatibility
blend well with the
uses, but not
River, however, not
with new
not blend well with
with
educational uses of the
educational uses.
compatible with residential
developments.
new developments.
Surrounding
area.
area.
Area
City of Lodi 12
SWTF Conceptual Design and Feasibility - TM -01 8/1/2007
PA343957 Lodi WTP\TMs\Site Alt TM\Lodi SWTF Site Alt Screening TM01 RS edits.doc
fl
Draft Technical Memorandum
Table 2 SWTF Site Alternatives Cost Comparison Summary*
Site
Alternative
Pipeline
costs
Required Site
Improvements
Site
Acquisition
Total cost
Site A
$3,600,000
$765,000
$0
$4,365,000
Site B
$3,780,000
$705,000
$1,000,000
$5,485,000
Site C
$3,240,000
$4,560,000
$400,000
$8,200,000
Site D
$7,560,000
$400,000
$1,000,000
$8,960,000
Site E
$6,048,000
$60,000
$1,000,000
$7,108,000
*Note: Details of pipeline and site improvement costs for alternatives are included in Appendix A
City of Lodi 13
SWTF Conceptual Design and Feasibility Evaluation - TM 01 August 1, 2007
PA343957 Lodi WTP\TMs\Site Alt TM\Lodi SWTF Site Alt Screening TM01 RS edits.doc
fl
Draft Technical Memorandum
Preliminary Findings and Recommendations
Based the site alternatives cost presented in Table 2, Site A has the lowest cost with the order of
the alternative costs from the lowest to the highest being: Site A, Site B, Site E, Site C, and Site
D.
Raw water pipeline cost is the most influential factor because of the significant differences in
raw water pipeline length among the potential site alternatives. The treated water pipeline costs
are similar among all the alternatives because all the alternative SWTF sites are fairly close to
the perimeter of the existing distribution system and the treated water main can connect with
the distribution system from all directions.
Major site improvement costs differ among different alternatives. Site C will need most site
improvement including piles and a new intake structure. Site A, Site B, and Site E will require
similar improvements to provide access and to do grading to ensure good drainage. Major Site
improvement cost for Site D is the long access road (this cost could possibly be shared with the
planned housing development).
Land acquisition is needed for all alternatives except Site A. Land is expected to be available
for purchase at all sites except for Site C, which is in a developed residential area.
Environment impacted is not expected to be significant for all alternatives except Site C unless
results of the under going environmental evaluation shows otherwise. Site C will require a new
intake on the Mokelumne River which will be very difficult to permit.
The difference between Site A and Site B is that the City owns site A, but not site B. The cost
difference of these two sites is primarily due to the land acquisition cost for site B. In addition,
Site A has the advantage of incorporating educational and recreational facilities into the SWTP
due to its proximity to the Lodi Lake. Ideally, the existing Discovery Center in the park can be
upgraded, expanded and incorporated into the SWTF.
The aesthetic compatibility with surroundings is best for Site A because of proposed
educational elements and public facility elements. The SWTF would seem out of place at all of
the other sites.
Preliminary recommendations based on the initial screening are as follows:
• The recommended site for SWTF is Site A.
• If the under going environmental evaluation shows significant impact of the
recommended alternative (Site A), the order of back up alternatives will be:
Site B, Site E, and Site D.
City of Lodi 14
SWTF Conceptual Design and Feasibility Evaluation - TM 01 August 1, 2007
PA343957 Lodi WTP\TMs\Site Alt TM\Lodi SWTF Site Alt Screening TM01 RS edits.doc
falDraft Technical Memorandum
• Eliminate Site C from further consideration because of the potentially high
costs of dealing with the old landfill and the difficult permitting issues
associated with a new intake.
• Perform more detailed evaluation on the selected site include water system
modeling of the needed piping to convey water to the distribution system,
detailed analysis of needed site improvements, and development of a layout of
the SWTF on the site (in a separate TM).
City of Lodi 15
SWTF Conceptual Design and Feasibility Evaluation - TM 01 August 1, 2007
PA343957 Lodi WTP\TMs\Site Alt TM\Lodi SWTF Site Alt Screening TM01 RS edits.doc
fl
Draft Technical Memorandum
Appendix A
Pipeline and Site Improvement Cost Breakdown
City of Lodi 16
SWTF Conceptual Design and Feasibility Evaluation - TM 01 August 1, 2007
PA343957 Lodi WTP\TMs\Site Alt TM\Lodi SWTF Site Alt Screening TM01 RS edits.doc
fl
Draft Technical Memorandum
Table A-1 Raw Water and Distribution Main Costs for Alternative Plant Sites
Alternative
Sites
Raw Water Line
Length ft Cost
Distribution Main
Length ft Cost
Total Cost
Site A
3000
$1,080,000
7000
$2,520,000
$3,600,000
Site B
3500
$1,260,000
7000
$2,520,000
$3,780,000
Site C
4
$0
9000
$3,240,000
$3,240,000
Site D
12000
$4,320,000
9000
$3,240,000
$7,560,000
Site E
7800
$2,808,000
9000
$3,240,000
$6,048,000
Assumptions:
1) 24 IN pipeline is assumed for raw water line and treated water distribution main.
2) Unit cost for 24 IN pipe is assumed to be $360/foot ($15/lnch.foot) for cost comparison
purposes.
Table A-2 Site Improvement Costs for Alternative Plant Sites
Alternative
Sites
Fill
Feet
Quantity
(CY)
Fill Cost
($ 20
Access
Road
Feet
Road Cost
$ 200
New Intake
and Piles
Total Cost
Site A
4
32,267
$645,000
600
$120,000
$765,000
Site B
4
32,267
$645,000
300
$60,000
$705,000
Site C
0
100
$20,000
$4,540,000
$4,560,000
Site D
0
2000
$400,000
$400,000
Site E
0
300
$60,000
$60,000
Assumptions:
1. Cost is based on a 5 -acre plant site.
2. Fill depth is based on raising the site elevation to 1.5 feet above the 100 -year flood elevation.
3. Access road length is the minimum from the available road onto the plant site.
4. At site C, 1 pile is assumed for every 25 square feet at $200; cost of new intake $3,500,000.
City of Lodi 17
SWTF Conceptual Design and Feasibility Evaluation - TM 01 August 1, 2007
PA343957 Lodi WTP\TMs\Site Alt TM\Lodi SWTF Site Alt Screening TM01 RS edits.doc
e
fm 1 0X I- CO M M NV I
-lop
I kr
e
fm 1 0X I- CO M M NV I
11 . . '11, -jk..k
Identify Preferred Site Early in Process
Allow Focused Evaluation of Preferred Site
Provide Good Rationale for Eliminating Other Sites
P 'N , ,
N,
0I
.I'
:r
ion
s lft
s a_
�,. an b +�o�
6%.UbtfI Wtj 67',';J67C)'F 1�Ij it l
I
I �1
r
rou dl
r
f'.1
ISI
I
f � 1
,
�' •� .� ` \A +I�1�r!- f t � • � \` ifs ,.,
'\ `` .
,, ,. ot , e ""
tG '"
~ ♦.
Tr, a
- -0
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
F-Imff Alona WID Canal. North of Turner Road
■
Ske
E
U
D
�
O
She D
O
r
E
L
:.i
cn
L
3
0
J
Z
She ,A She C i
■ W. Turner Road
Sile B
W. Lodi Avenue
� ,.' + i � S; ;. t A t,•\� ,3.�L\'.a`wi��, �Mu� � t l �. � ` pit t `ti � yi � aa:% w� s � '
Z \ t `\- {\ j {. ,'� `• \Y Y ✓,8 - \� wt.,., n'��y'q't .k j-
..�, i{t�
`. ,� ;:s tit •��. , d o�s�'jL`.`p. �_�a<x ,. � ' �wc�' �• t� �
,� A , � Jnr _ • �. � ,� -�. ;' �✓ �e '� `la ', 'tt .;
_� � _ - -\.t�� ,.`7� ,c� �-hR�'G t•iaA�"�6.- - 1. � 1�, i4.r.t a"-' ��' -'3w,.. � .d: I ,♦
x ��_ :♦ ,�� ., �- .--- �� � .—_.,_.. - � —� � ,fit
. }_p'4i'�t ',:• 1; r v r��r.'•t- �'r'4r`fx'- ,~��• k.-..� � � �'��#� '#.
"! .: 4. „�Y ; . .�ir.kr *�1 .. � �•t• � � r�r r� �"` k?sry;,�r�.C�x�� a #,��
� .n. � &.r:{+,.,:.#Y.t `{ r .n' 'e ry kk �.�. X,.s�SY.'�`. �'- -i•,•: T
X � �� � �'��•� • � Site A
Site B
14,:-,V c Y
ILL
-
Site D - - _ -
Site 7�!r',A.i /( rIIT� i', ',��f Site E +':3
', .7 ` t 'f ail �,. 1� 7
� )�lr�� ����t � f ��, �•. � �A �yi � ����,( ���h� *''�1��,,
'�i��:n�/,,'i`•a'l.�k��11r��1r'"i1tl.\Ri'AihlliJ�: "r L\�ri.�,.'�.��'�^JIYf',I�?t,� ni%EY�;��fC' i� �',�\tF�l���� �� .�;
P,.,,.reg:
% � J
♦ , r
From
"River INNER*.'
- U
Station
(50' x 60') I
': • •
LJ1,111N11 0
W Y70
Operations/Parking Lotj
Building X60' x 220)Plant Entrance
...,
} =
r
���•yµ•.yt
': • •
LJ1,111N11 0
W Y70
Operations/Parking Lotj
Building X60' x 220)Plant Entrance
...,
} =
r
x
pp Ore.
Y i
it
- ,,,{ J Ir,, 1 Iii i � i� • �r� ��A �� 71.. JI, _ fi � i
/ � � ' � \�1��' 1�� r ill i �, �,���}t/�! •w- -r
� ���•A � / �� 1',f`�� �� i' 1 � 11 'r� � � � i' � I 'lei, I V ' �i �_ YQ V 't �'>4�
Wi
X.,
v I
't er-
k Y4
161
4
a 6JY-)c
411k
Al�
J
ML
0 AA,
07 -
OF,
IV
1,ly
bV
i- f i - JP- ..
ar.ra� t
v -.4".4Jty
Site Size (Acres)
Notes
. . . . . . . ....
Site Environmental
i
Impact
Notes
� `_v � � ",� �,��� � , { � t 1 � �, i � �l � �� � �; 'moi �• \ � � � �`-� it` �
, A
A�atf 1'
.:
Site Flood Zone
Notes
A-1
' 'it' 'S✓•,a,'lettia +v
Site 48" Raw Water
Pipeline (feet
24" Distribution
Main (feet)
At,,e
Site Pipeline
Site
Improve-
ments
kl I
Land
Acquisition
Ih,�r° � y I'.:', a,(.f 1�1 11 �y1 {fir ►' .:1�� �v , �v ,{ i j
KU, i 4
+� �R,', r •. � .fir .s, , 1. ( I\�.� �.; r L�.,l. ,,Uws � k
i44
w
ern
_I
"�tnY t,"1C t
s 4�
site Ranking Notes
Education center about .. - .
supplywater -
replace Discovery Center.
B 3 Similar to site A. Site is further from the
Lake.
C 2 Education center about Mokelumne River
and water supply and treatment.
D 4 Education center about water supply and
treatment.
E 4 Education center about water supply and
treatment.
. Y 1
� •� \ iii— !� � fY'•`\
\ � S
y
^ •.. ~ / �.� '. \lam Y P
\
Site Ranking
Notes
�Pp r''/till +��,' �'\�1`!'\ � \ �\•��Y � `� d �\!y �'•-
V k"",
Eliminate
Site C
Preferred
Site A
Re
Eliminate
Site C
Preferred
Site A
t�;`: ��i' '7 ` l�8• �A�\,� w �, i nr� -h �' .k
',m r .� 't 1 yk i�`ys,�`� � 1 �1 sh ,i �i •i
1 y LL - �v s , ,� �y'i�Y �• •'�
VA-.�,,.
"R"
t., • '� _e � f + ef'S 's '" ; `$-�' +� '� -.kit' �'�''': .T
.Y y
k+ y Ir� ' E r
r.s: ' ,w Location of
Naomi Ew
06.
O
6.Rhcommbnded
r —'
1
't.
- - _ .. -
ar
VrF N
r`� ` f ^�r + iG• � t i ; � :� t � . t, ,ry�e � . 6�x ;,
� '. -. �-'• t'. 1... rr-q`
` •_Site`has� .bee .� a e1op d
.l�'�'
50 years.�ago� "
• Various Bevel ndht con17"
s
,;A`
considered. blu',
re is at
��es to COPS
.:
I�
Y
H,
r
I
lin
portu r ity, t cete ,rn
velo
p
, {
ek�r� arty �ss�c�n��-:c6,61 �rit��and
pa ti i a ror
,� �f, \. F,,yy ion . , • u
Oki_
4�• S ` j{F^ 11�. , '4 tit , �.ti+'t' Y' h�, `.
� r l
.s . . . . . . . . . . . .ion
.
_ it `9 �•.� Y .``. ..r �,l` ,,r� :] tr y�'.
• 1 nvolr Pyre com
Site Desi._
sth e*t'l
.a& •Pr
o
,
�. i ` .1, 1 1., ,rI SS tt:.�", f�,rx �}Qi FM�;,n�,➢n,. �:`""� - ���
Lland,
». � �_��, �< I', ,��} i , , ♦' � ,I��J���� X11 t � � ���
1 V If j I 1 �� i ,t ��'!\•,
'St. 1 1 •I '` �1' �i A �A .
-r4
.,bp•t
Q =LF,
�• 'r�.� i r
1 ;
w ti
f �
r.
i
-
'
r ,
A,
Development of Conceptual Design Criteria
�• , - �`` /1 ''`.ti ``'l• "��.�'.i+ .. T ��k ti" i "�� fir^:: �. -�k ..
October 17 2007 - Presentation to City Council
Capital Costs, O&M Cost, and Comparison of Life -Cycle Costs
1
�4.
December 17, 2007 - Presentation to City Council
Financing Alternatives
February 5, 2008 - Presentation to City Council
,,� ,"�'�,� �1.���1�� '!�� � i�.�i'Alil�il�;�r `'',(,, '�_ � i�I��t,� ii! E���;��, �'rC' �1 ,. '* `tF� :. '' •�. .}ts j. _.