Monday, June 16, 2008

Presentation from May 28 meeting now posted

City staff has posted a PDF file with their PowerPoint presentation
from the May 28 Community Meeting.

http://www.menlopark.org/departments/pwk/cip/reservoir/May28PPT.pdf

Reading this is a good way to get up to speed on how the City is positioning this project.

A few notes:
- All of the sample reservoirs cited in this proposal were either below sports fields (3) or on a barren hilltop (1).

- Slide 12 is incorrect: the 2005 Kennedy/Jenks report actually did NOT evaluate Burgess, the VA, or St. Patrick's Seminary (private lands). Those three sites were evaluated in the June 2000 Metcalf and Eddy report. The only Menlo Park sites fully evaluated by the Kennedy/Jenks study were Willow Oaks Park and Seminary Oaks Park.

- Slide 22 shows the project progress, which indicates that the only opportunity for public involvement is in park redesign.

Sunday, June 15, 2008

12-inch diameter well could provide up to 2.6 million gallons per day! (from Menlo Park City Council minutes from Dec 13, 2005)

The following text is copied from the middle of page 5 in this file.

2. Approval of Seminary Oaks Park as the preferred site for further study of a new water storage reservoir; and, authorization to proceed with further analysis of the site, including geo-technical evaluations, preliminary design, public outreach, and exploring the use of groundwater for both emergency and irrigation uses.

Kent Steffens, Public Works Director and Yaw Owusu, Supervising Engineer co-presented the report. Mr. Steffens covered regional and local water systems, need for water storage, findings and conclusions of the study. He emphasized water shortage issues in case of a regional calamity, and the need for water to fight fires. Mr. Owusu covered primarily the sites that were reviewed and the pros and cons of each locale. He elaborated on the different types of facilities available and types of storage tanks. Mr. Owusu shared what other communities have done, showing covered underground storage tanks as well as above ground tanks. The potential sites included Seminary Oaks Park, Willow Oaks Park and Sharon Heights. Mr. Owusu illustrated how the water tanks would fit in those contexts covering pluses and minuses of each location. He said that Seminary Oaks Park is the preferred site, given the constraints of other sites, however further investigation is needed. This site also represents the lowest investment.

The feasibility study was covered in detail and Mr. Steffens explained how the recommendations were arrived at. The deep and shallow aquifers that exist in Menlo Park were mentioned, and Mr. Steffens said that the challenge with using wells to extract water is that capacity is unpredictable. So while groundwater is worth considering, its quality needs to be established as well as a separate distribution system. Mr. Steffens outlined the next steps which include completing additional studies, updating the water system hydraulic model, and beginning a public outreach effort.

Council inquired about the capacity level of groundwater and Mr. Steffens said that a preliminary evaluation shows that a 12-inch diameter well could provide up to 2.6 million gallons per day. Mr. Steffens held this to be a viable solution, and part of the next steps. Mayor Pro Tem Fergusson complimented staff on the excellent overview and for emphasizing the need to plan for possible water shortages. Ms. Fergusson said that one of her concerns with the current recommendation is that it limits Page 6 of 7

negotiations, and Menlo Park Municipal Water District does not cover all water users. She believes that by partnering with one entity only, this limits the City’s options. Mr. Steffens responded that this approach does not preclude future negotiations with Cal Water.

Council addressed the period of construction and the disruption time, and Mr. Steffens said it is estimated at 12 to 18 months. Mr. Steffens offered that the estimates show that the yield of the groundwater basin is much greater than the estimates for a single well. Council Member Duboc asked about Saint Patrick’s Seminary and staff explained that that entity communicated in writing its lack of interest in selling the land. Ms. Duboc believes that the Willows Oak Park should be kept on the table. Mr. Steffens clarified that this is not staff’s recommendation. Ms. Duboc shared her interest in the groundwater approach and exploring wells. Mr. Steffens made it clear that while Willow Oaks Park is the cheapest option the only real way to test capacity of a well is to build it. Ms. Duboc would like to see the Parks and Recreation Commission and the community involved in this process.

Mayor Jellins said that the Council is acting as the Board of Directors of the Menlo Park Municipal Water District and so the funds to pay for this will come from the water fund. Council Member Winkler agreed with Mr. Cohen and would like to find out how much water can be gotten through groundwater instead of delving into more expensive options.
Mayor Jellins asked staff to address item F3 so that the two matters could be reviewed concurrently.

3. Direction to staff regarding proposed water rates and water policy issues, including: capital facilities charges, maintaining minimum operating and capital reserves, increasing water meter and consumption charges and development of a four-year water rate plan.

Ruben Nino, Supervising Engineer, and Tom Gaffney with Bartle Wells and Associates, presented the report. Mr. Gaffney explained that as a water district, the City is in good shape and has strong reserves. Mr. Gaffney clarified that the City Water District would likely need to debt finance a large capital water project. He offered that the City could consider increases in various fees. He proposed a phasing-in of water rate increases with a multi-year rate increase plan.

Mr. Nino said that what staff is recommending is outreaching to the large water users and local homeowners associations to share the proposed plan. Council discussed giving credit for existing meters when owners want to upgrade to a larger meter. Mr. Gaffney explained that usually there are no new capital charges when a residence changes hands; however, if the person remodels and increases the meter capacity with the new meter, there will be a capital surcharge. Some Council Members voiced interest in developing a policy allowing credit for previous meters. Mayor Jellins would like staff to consider alternative approaches to this matter to reflect the possibility of a credit or a buy-in system for capital surcharges. Council Member Winkler would like to know where other cities are in the process of raising fees. Council Member Cohen asked how many residents are in the Cal Water system and Mr. Nino said that approximately 20,000 residents are in the Cal Water system, and 10,000 in the Menlo Park water system. Council asked about Cal Water rate increases and Mr. Steffens said that it is not permitted to plan rate increases in advance, so it has to wait until water supply costs go up to pass those on to customers.

Mayor Jellins offered the floor for the public. There was no public comment.

Mayor Pro Tem Fergusson said one of the aspects she considers is the human cost/impact, and in her opinion public health and public safety are the top responsibilities for elected officials. Ms. Fergusson believes this should move ahead and she likes staff’s recommendation because it includes reservoirs and wells. Her sole concern is the City losing the ability to partner with Cal Water, so she’d like staff to keep an open mind on partnering with that entity.

M/S Fergusson/Duboc to approve the staff recommendation on item F2 as presented, considering Seminary Oaks Park as the preferred site for further study of a new water storage reservoir; and, authorizing staff to proceed with further analysis of the site, including geo-technical evaluations, preliminary design, public outreach, and exploring the use of groundwater for both emergency and irrigation uses.

Council Member Duboc asked if water storage has been discussed with Cal Water and Mr. Steffens confirmed that this entity is interested in a joint storage facility. Council Member Winkler asked if the next steps are to be taken in serial or in parallel, because she would like to have the ground water studies take place first and then have staff check back with Council. Mr. Steffens confirmed that the process would be serial. Council Member Cohen supports increasing the connection charge but he likes the well and not the reservoir option. Mayor Jellins said that if it is discovered that there are adequate amounts of groundwater, then before proceeding, staff should bring this back to the Council as requested by Ms. Winkler. The maker of the motion clarified that by agreeing with the check-in step she would not like to overly constrain staff on the update of the water system hydraulic model and that this could happen in parallel. Mr. Steffens explained that the groundwater depth and quality will be studied early on, and staff can return to Council.

The maker and second of the motion agreed with the item coming back after the groundwater depth and quality studies occur. Motion carries unanimously.

Agenda item F3

Staff reiterated that it is requesting Council’s support for the process, since it intends to come back in March via a Public Hearing, after meeting with the big water users and homeowners associations.

M/S Winkler/Cohen to move forward and not make a firm determination on water rate increase but instead further study the matter when staff comes back. Motion carries unanimously.

Thursday, June 5, 2008

Mountain View's reservoir at Graham Middle School

The City of Mountain View is winning awards for their partnership with Graham Middle School in a $20 million project that placed an 8mg (million gallon) emergency water reservoir on school property and topped it with a top-notch sports complex that includes an all-weather regulation track, two sports fields ( soccer/ football), a baseball diamond, and basketball and volleyball courts.

The engineering firm that completed this project, Infrastructure Engineering Corporation, is the same retained by the City of Menlo Park. Their website shows photos of the Mountain View project.

Indeed, at Menlo Park's public meeting on this project last week, nearly all of the example reservoirs shown in the display photos were beneath sports fields.

This creative partnership looks like a a win-win for the city of Mountain View, which now has a sizeable emergency reservoir, and the school, which now has what has to be one of the best middle school sports complexes around on the city's dime.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

Contact info for people on this project

Jennifer Ng
Project Engineer
jcng@menlopark.org
(650) 330-6743

Ruben Nino
Assistant Director of Public Works
rrnino@menlopark.org
(650) 330-6780

Menlo Park's website for this project

Here is the City's website on the project: http://www.menlopark.org/departments/pwk/cip/reservoir/index.html

Yahoo group available - For neighbors only

Greetings! There is now a Yahoo Group established to help disseminate information and organize efforts. Apply to join the group by sending an email to seminaryoakspark-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Yahoo Group info:Post message: seminaryoakspark@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe: seminaryoakspark-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe: seminaryoakspark-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
List owner: seminaryoakspark-owner@yahoogroups.com