Soquel_Avenue_Pump_Station_Preliminary_Basis_of_Design.pdf

SOQUEL AVENUE SDPS Preliminary Basis of Design

S&W PROJECT NO. CSCZ.03.22.002

PREPARED FOR

City of Santa Cruz

2 MAY 2025

PREPARED BY

City of Santa Cruz | Soquel Avenue SDPS Preliminary Basis of Design

Reviewed by: May 2, 2025 Signature Date

Logan N. Fox, PE Printed Name

Reviewed by: May 2, 2025 Signature Date

Glen M. Anderson, PE Printed Name

Professional Engineer: May 2, 2025

Signature Date

Lawrence D. Johnson, PE Printed Name

C84183 License No.

SCHAAF & WHEELER | i

Table of Contents

1.0 Preliminary Basis of Design Summary

2.0 Existing Site Summary

2.1 Environmental Permitting

3.0 Pump Station Improvements

3.1 Pump Design Flow

3.2 Wet Well Configuration and Pump Selection

3.3 Pump Station Layout Alternatives

3.3.1 Alternative A

3.3.2 Alternative B

3.3.3 Alternative C

3.3.4 Alternative D

4.0 Electrical Controls and Systems

4.1 Applicable Standards and Codes

4.2 Electrical Service and Power Distribution

4.3 Electrical Panels

4.4 Motor Control Center and Panelboard

4.5 Main Switchboard (MSB)

4.6 Communication and Alarms

4.7 Basic Level Control

4.8 Standby Power

5.0 Pump Station Configuration Summary

5.1 Pump Station Access

5.2 Pumping Equipment

5.3 Electrical Service and Power Distribution

5.4 Motor Control Center (MCC)

5.5 Lighting

5.6 Backup Power

5.7 Control Logic

SCHAAF & WHEELER | ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table i. Acronyms Used in this Report ..................................................................................... iii

Table ii. Units of measure in this report .................................................................................... iv

Table iii. Hydraulic Equations Used in this Report ...................................................................... v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Project Location Map

Figure 2-1 Planned Development at 530 Front Street

Figure 2-2 Soquel SDPS Drainage Area

Figure 3-1 SSDPS System Curves

Figure 3-2 Alternative A Preliminary Site Layout

Figure 3-3 Alternative B Preliminary Site Layout

Figure 3-4 Alternative C Preliminary Site Layout

Figure 3-5 Alternative D Preliminary Site Layout

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A – Soquel Storm Drain Pump Station Preliminary Alternatives Appendix B – Soquel Storm Drain Pump Station Plan and Section Details Appendix C – Regulatory Permitting and CEQA Strategy Memorandum for the SSDPS by WRA, Inc.

Appendix D – Preliminary Cost Estimate

SCHAAF & WHEELER | iii

Table i. Acronyms Used in this Report

Acronym Description AFY, ac-ft/yr Acre-feet/year ccf, hcf Hundred cubic feet CFS, cu-ft/s Cubic foot per second gpd Gallons per day gpm Gallons per minute mgd Million gallons per day sq-ft Square feet

ACP Asbestos Cement Pipe BMP Best management practice BPS Booster Pump Station CCR California Code of Regulations CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CWC California Water Code DDW SWRCB Division of Drinking Water DIP Ductile Iron Pipe DWR California Department of Water Resources HGL Hydraulic Grade Line NAVD North American Vertical Datum (1988) NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum (1929) PCCP Prestressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe RVSS Reduced Voltage Soft Starter SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board

SCHAAF & WHEELER | iv

Table ii. Units of measure in this report

Unit Equals 1 acre-foot = 43,560 cubic feet

= 325,851 gallons

1 cubic foot = 7.48 gallons

1 CFS = 448.8 gpm

1 ccf = 100 cubic feet = 748 gallons

1 mgd = 1,000,000 gallons/day = 1,120 acre-feet/year (AFY) = 694.4 gallons/minute

1 acre = 43,560 square feet

1 square mile = 640 acres = 27,878,400 square feet

SCHAAF & WHEELER | v

Table iii. Hydraulic Equations Used in this Report

Hazen-Williams Equation: hf = (10.44)(𝐿)(𝑄𝑔𝑝𝑚)

1.85

(𝐶)1.85(𝑑)4.87 where: hf is the headloss due to friction in feet L is pipeline length in feet Q is the flow rate in gpm C is the Hazen-Williams friction factor (130 for plastic pipe) D is the pipe diameter in inches

10.44 is a conversion constant

Minor loss equation: hf = k 𝑉2

2𝑔 where: hf is the headloss due to the fitting in feet k is the loss coefficient for the fitting V is flow velocity length in feet/second g is gravitational acceleration = 32.2 ft/s2

Pump power equation: HP =

(𝑇𝐷𝐻)(𝑄)

(3960)(𝐸𝑓𝑓) where: HP is the pump horsepower TDH is the total dynamic head (total of friction and minor loss plus static lift) Q is the flow rate in gpm Eff is the pump efficiency, as a decimal 3960 is a conversion constant

Manning’s Equation: V = (1.486/n)R2/3 S1/2 where: V is the flow velocity in feet/second n is the roughness coefficient R is the hydraulic radius = P/A S is the pipeline slope in ft/ft P is the wetted perimeter at the given d/D A is the cross-sectional area at the given d/D

1.486 is a conversion constant

SCHAAF & WHEELER | 1

1.0 Preliminary Basis of Design Summary

The existing 42-inch and 48-inch storm drain piping that parallels the San Lorenzo River (SLR), also known as the toe drain, is currently deficient under the City’s design storm event scenario. Since capital improvements along the toe drain would be difficult to implement given the proximity to the SLR levee and various development projects along Front Street, alternatives were assessed that included construction of a new pump station to alleviate stormwater flows into the toe drain. Based on modeling from the City’s storm drain modeler Balance Hydrologics, and the results of the Soquel SDPS Feasibility Study performed by Schaaf & Wheeler (12/02/2022), Soquel Avenue was selected as the preferred location for an additional pump station with the goal of reducing peak flows being sent down the toe drain toward Pump Station 1 (PS1).

This report serves as the Preliminary Basis of Design (BOD) to document considerations that should be used in the design of the Soquel Storm Drain Pump Station (SSDPS). Schaaf & Wheeler and its subconsultants TJC & Associates (TJCAA) and WRA Inc. (WRA) provide recommendations for proposed improvements herein. Existing site conditions, planned pump station features, and anticipated operations are discussed.

The SSDPS will be located south of the Soquel Avenue bridge, west of the San Lorenzo River (SLR), near the intersection of Soquel Avenue and Front Street as shown below in Figure 1-1. The existing area includes pedestrian walkways, walkway lighting, landscaped area, and several existing electrical enclosures for traffic signals, metering, and local area lighting. The existing toe drain currently runs through this area. The SSDPS would divert storm drain flows from the toe drain, accounting for approximately 224 acres of drainage area from the downtown area, and discharge into the SLR via a new outfall structure.

Figure 1-1 Project Location Map

SCHAAF & WHEELER | 2

2.0 Existing Site Summary

The SSDPS will intercept the existing 42-inch gravity main located west of the river trail in a City-owned portion of the SLR riverwalk. Collection of the 42-inch gravity flows will require a drop manhole installation to divert flow to the SSDPS. Flows that exceed the SSDPS’s capacity would then flow down the existing 42-inch toe drain similar to existing conditions.

This area covers approximately 4,000 square feet and can accommodate submersible pumps in a below grade wet well along with above-grade appurtenances such as control panels, pad mounted transformer, sump termination cabinet and emergency generator. The site is in close proximity to the

530 Front Street development and may impact planned offsite improvements for the development

(refer to Figure 2-1 below).

Figure 2-1 Planned Development at 530 Front Street

Based on the feasibility study performed by Schaaf & Wheeler for this pump station, Soquel Avenue was the preferred location as it would intercept the largest portion of the downtown drainage area, providing the largest potential hydraulic benefit to the toe-drain and PS1 (refer to Figure 2-2). In addition, proximity to a potential PG&E service, proximity to SLR, proximity to the existing storm drain lines, right-of-way availability, public impacts and maintenance access were key considerations.

SCHAAF & WHEELER | 3

Figure 2-2 Soquel SDPS Drainage Area

2.1 Environmental Permitting

Schaaf & Wheeler’s subconsultant WRA performed an initial site walk to assess potential regulatory permitting requirements and biological constraints based on the site’s existing environmental characteristics. The existing site consists of developed hardscape, landscaped areas, non-native grasslands, arroyo willow, riverine wetland and the perennial river. Based on the proposed pump station improvements WRA anticipates the following permits for this project:

• Section 404 Nationwide Permit 7 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)

• Section 401 Water Quality Certification (Central Coast RWQCB)

• Section 1602 Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (CDFW)

• CEQA Project Acceptance (City of Santa Cruz Lead Agency)

• ESA Section 7 Consultation (USFWS/NMFS)

• Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (NMFS)

The WRA-prepared regulatory memorandum is included as an attachment to this report for reference.

3.0 Pump Station Improvements

The SSDPS will be designed in coordination with the City’s public works engineering and operations staff.

Pump station equipment, controls, and appurtenances will be recommended to maintain consistency

SCHAAF & WHEELER | 4

with similar stations maintained throughout the City. Outlined below are recommended features of the

SSDPS.

3.1 Pump Design Flow

The SSDPS design flow is based on modeling performed by the City’s storm drain modeler Balance

Hydrologics for the City’s design storm event. Balance explored various scenarios including potential impacts that upstream capital improvement projects may have on peak stormwater flows at the SSDPS.

Scenarios also included PS1 operating in tandem with SSDPS to determine the joint impacts on the interior drainage. Based on site footprint limitations, coordination with the City and Balance

Hydrologic’s technical memorandum Soquel Pump Station Design Considerations (dated June 28, 2023) a design flow rate of 60 CFS was selected for the SSDPS.

3.2 Wet Well Configuration and Pump Selection

The pump station should be capable of conveying 60 CFS before the water level in the 42-inch storm drain line reaches approximately elevation 9.0 feet to keep the water level from reaching the crown of the pipe. Therefore, a wet well configuration was developed that allows for all pumps to be running when the wet well level rises to elevation 8.5 feet.

The new pump station will connect to the existing storm drain by adding a diversion structure to divert flow to a 48-inch pump station inlet pipe. The wet well configuration and dimensions are based on

ANSI/HI 9.8-2018 "American National Standard for Rotodynamic Pumps for Pump Intake Design"

(Hydraulic Institute Pump Intake Standard).

Axial flow, column pumps are generally used for storm water pump stations with relative high flow and low head. While motors to drive column pumps are usually located above the wet well, the proposed

Soquel Avenue Pump Station is in an area that has relatively high public visibility. The area is also open to pedestrian traffic. Using submersible motors will keep the motors out of public view and also limit impedances to pedestrian travel over the wet well. The pumps with the closed coupled submersible motors unit can be raised and lowered in the column tube when needed for maintenance. Trash racks are located in the wet well upstream of the pumps to protect them from large objects or rags that may find their way into the storm water system.

A wet well configuration was developed with three 20 CFS (9,000 gpm) pumps based on criteria in the

Hydraulic Institute Pump Intake Standard. The pump station discharge piping was sized as nominally 24-inches with a velocity of 6.8 fps at the 9,000 gpm design flow rate.

System curves, representing the TDH required to pump through the piping system at a given flow rate, were generated. These curves account for static lift from the wet well water surface to the flow discharge point as well as friction and minor losses.

System curves were generated for “normal” pumping conditions, when the outfall flap gates are not submerged. A high TDH curve was also generated to represent the condition where the level in the San

Lorenzo River rises above the flap gates to elevation 24.00, requiring additional pumping head. A low

SCHAAF & WHEELER | 5

TDH curve was developed to represent the condition where the wet well water surface elevation rises to elevation 24.00.

A pump selection were made targeting a flow of 9,000 gpm with at the third pump start elevation of

8.50 and a SLR stage of 24.00 feet. The pump curve is plotted along with the system curves in Figure 3-1.

Figure 3-1 SSDPS System Curves

3.3 Pump Station Layout Alternatives

Due to the proximity of the site location to the development on 530 Front Street, four site layout alternatives were considered, each with its advantages and disadvantages to consider. All alternatives are required to provide the City options for construction of a code compliant pump station while attempting to minimize the project’s overall footprint and impact to other developments and to the public.

3.3.1 Alternative A

Alternative A is the preferred site layout from an operations standpoint since all equipment would be in one central location (refer to Figure 3-2).

, gpm Design Point

, 4, 6, 8, 1 , 1 , 14, High TDH System (Wet Well WSE = ast Pump Stop evel = . , E at Discharge = San orenzo River E = 4. ) System (Wet Well WSE = ast Pump Stop evel = . , E at Discharge = Discharge Piping C E = . ) System (Wet Well WSE = ext ongest Running Pump Stop evel = . , E at Discharge = Discharge Piping C E = . ) System (Wet Well WSE = ongest Running Pump Stop evel = . , E at Discharge = Discharge Piping C E = . ) Design Flow System (Wet Well WSE = Third Pump Start evel = 8. , E at Discharge = San orenzo River E = 4. ) System (Wet Well WSE = First Pump Start evel = . , E at Discharge = Discharge Piping C E = . ) System (Wet Well WSE = Second Pump Start evel, WW evel = 1 . = 8. , E at Discharge = Discharge Piping C E = . ) System (Wet Well WSE = Third Pump Start evel = 8. , E at Discharge = Discharge Piping C E = . ) ow TDH System (Wet Well WSE = Wet Well Rises = 4. , E at Discharge = San orenzo River E = 4. ) Pump Flygt P 4 Model 61 8 41 mm mpeller 1,18 RPM, 6 pole, 8 HP motor

SCHAAF & WHEELER | 6

Figure 3-2 Alternative A Preliminary Site Layout

The alternative A layout attempts to keep a majority of construction on the west side of the primary river walkway which has the added benefit of being outside of the S R’s top of bank. This alternative does encroach into the space previously designated for the 530 Front Street developments offsite improvements. Inclusion of pump station electrical equipment in this location would require revision to the previously planned access walkway, retaining wall, outdoor patio, and landscaping.

3.3.2 Alternative B

Alternative B mirrors the below grade structure alignment to the east side of the 42-inch toe drain (refer to Figure 3-3). This provides additional space to move equipment further from the 530 Front Street development. The Army Corps of Engineers may have additional feedback with this alternative during consultation due to the location of below grade equipment within the designated top of bank.

SCHAAF & WHEELER | 7

Figure 3-3 Alternative B Preliminary Site Layout

3.3.3 Alternative C

Alternative C, shown in Figure 3-4, mimics the configuration of Alternative A in terms of the below grade items such as the wetwell, discharge piping and outfall. This alternative relocates the generator equipment north of the project site, across Soquel Avenue. This alternative provides an opportunity to locate the largest electrical item where its impact to the riverwalk is minimized. This alternative also provides more available space for the Front Street project’s offsite improvements. Acquisition of easement rights may be required if the electrical equipment must be located outside the City’s existing right-of-way within the sidewalk. There is potential to also locate the transformer and automatic transfer switch north of Soquel Avenue as well, providing more space within the pump station area and reducing overall impact on the riverwalk.

SCHAAF & WHEELER | 8

Figure 3-4 Alternative C Preliminary Site Layout

Although inclusion of a stand-alone emergency generator set is preferred for SSDPS, impacts from

Alternatives A, B and C could be reduced by providing a generator receptacle with manual transfer.

3.3.4 Alternative D

Alternative D, shown in Figure 3-5, includes upsizing the emergency generator located at PS1 in order to provide emergency power to feed both PS1 and SSDPS. A conduit feeder would be installed within the

City’s toe-drain easement to facilitate emergency power services. This alternative assumes that both PS1 and SSDPS would communicate via the City’s SCADA system which the City is currently being upgraded.

SCADA specifics are discussed further in Section 4.6 of this report.

SCHAAF & WHEELER | 9

Figure 3-5 Alternative D Preliminary Site Layout

4.0 Electrical Controls and Systems

A new 480-volt switch gear and motor control center (MCC) panel will house all electrical controls and systems inside a lockable NEMA 3R or higher rated enclosure. Electrical standards, codes, equipment, and systems are described below.

4.1 Applicable Standards and Codes

The project will be designed to comply with applicable portions of the latest edition of codes and standards as follows:

CEC California Electrical Code, Part 3, Title 24, California Code of Regulations

NEMA National Electrical Manufacturers Association

NFPA National Fire Protection Association

ANSI American National Standards Institute

JIC Joint Industrial Council

ISA Instrument Society of America

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers

ICEA Insulated Cable Engineers

SCHAAF & WHEELER | 10

CalOSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration Standards

4.2 Electrical Service and Power Distribution

New underground power lines within the project limits will provide PG&E three phase distribution. The pump station will be powered from a pad-mounted transformer installed to PG&E standards, providing

480V, 3-phase power to the new MCC. The following criteria will be incorporated into final design:

1. All power feeder circuits will be protected by circuit breakers.

2. Branch circuits feeding non-primary 120/240 volt equipment, receptacles, and lighting fixtures will be protected by thermal-magnetic, molded-case circuit breakers. All circuit breakers will be of the bolt-on type.

3. All cables will be installed in conduits.

4. Voltage separation will be accomplished in the following manner:

a. 240-volt power and 120-volt control conductors will be installed in common conduits if cable sizes are compatible for pulling.

b. 24-volt DC signal conductors and manufacturer supplied signal cables will be installed in separate conduits.

c. Signal and communication conductors installed in separate conduits.

d. Intrinsically safe conductors will be installed in separate conduits.

5. Provide 25% spare conduit for future improvements.

4.3 Electrical Panels

In general, motor control will be provided with the following features:

1. Low voltage motors: 1/2 horsepower and larger will be 480 volt:

a. Short circuit protection for motors will be provided by motor circuit protectors (MCPs).

b. Motor starters for motor 1/4 HP and larger will be the solid-state reduced voltage type soft starters. Soft-starters will be provided with individual control power transformers, 120-volt secondary fuses with blown fuse indicators.

2. Indicating lights will be the push-to-test, transformer LED type. Colors will be as follows:

Green: Running

White: Control power on, Status OK, ready

Red: Fault or alarm

3. A "Hand-Off-Auto" selector switch will be provided for any piece of equipment that needs to be started automatically, such as the pumps. Status of the switch will be monitored by the control system.

SCHAAF & WHEELER | 11

4.4 Motor Control Center and Panelboard

Motor Control Center (MCC) and Panelboard will meet the following specifications:

• MCC and the magnetic starters will be built to NEMA standards.

• A minimum of 25 percent spare compartment cubicle spaces will be provided if there is sufficient space for the MCC line-up.

• A main circuit breaker with a ground fault protection will be provided.

• Each starter will have a 6-digit non-resettable elapsed time meter.

• A 120/240-volt single phase panelboard will be located in the MCC.

• The MCC doors will have entry alarms that will produce an audible alarm upon unauthorized entry and notify SCADA Central

• Panelboard will have a minimum of 4 spare circuit breakers and 4 spaces.

4.5 Main Switchboard (MSB)

The MSB shall meet the following specifications:

• The MSB will be built to NEMA standards.

• The MSB will be the outdoor type with isolated compartments to mitigate arc flash hazards.

• PG&E pull section for underground service and metering compartments will be provided.

• A main circuit breaker with an integrally mounted, digital RMS sensing trip module will be provided. The module will have an interchangeable trip unit and adjustable short circuit, overload and ground fault trip and time delay functions.

4.6 Communication and Alarms

The City is presently upgrading remote facilities to include SCADA on a site-by-site basis. Features of the City’s phased implementation of SCADA include the following:

• Rockwell Automation Programmable Automation Controllers (PAC’s) configured to provide pump control, status monitoring, and remote alarm reporting to the City SCADA Central facility.

• Local Operator Interface Terminal (OIT) to allow staff to integrate and monitor system status locally.

• SCADA Central Human Machine Interface (HMI) based on Aveva (formerly WonderWare) SCADA platform to provide the graphical user interface, data historian, and report generation.

• Communication from remote sites to SCADA Central via a third party (Comcast) internet link via a site-to-site Virtual Private Network (VPN) for security.

SCHAAF & WHEELER | 12

All electrical cabinets and access hatches for all below grade structures will be provided with intrusion switches that will report the unauthorized access to the local control device and forwarded over the communication link for appropriate response by the City.

4.7 Basic Level Control

The process instrumentation signal will be 4-20 mA type. Each process signal transmitter will be provided with a local indicator with scale in engineering units.

The wet well level will be monitored by a submersible hydrostatic level transducer which will transmit a 4-20 mA level signal to the pump controller. The controller will be set to provide a start-stop contact output for each pump and will provide pump sequencing based on selectable pump alternation functions and manual bypass control. Wet well level monitoring will also include a local backup, independent of the PAC and level transducer to eliminate a single point of failure. Standalone floats with independent relay-based controls will be provided to allow SSDPS to operate upon failure of the PAC or level transducer.

Under normal operation the pumps will be set to alternate to provide even run times as much as practicable. For the three pumps, the controller will turn the longest running pump off first to limit the starting frequency of individual pump motors. After a programmable period of about 30 minutes with the pumps not running, the pump with the lowest total run time will be moved to the first pump start position to provide even run times as much as practicable. A selector will be provided to indicate that a pump has been removed for servicing.

Intrinsically safe relays will be provided to interface between the backup level switches and the level control circuits. If desired, continuous monitoring can be included in the telemetry to be displayed at SCADA central.

Pump Controller: A simple microprocessor pump controller (PC) will be provided with the following logic for controlling the wetwell level and pumps. If desired the PC capabilities can be incorporated into a Programmable Logic Controller platform to match equipment in place at other City pump stations.

Auto: The PC will monitor the 4-20 mA wetwell level signal and will control the operation of pumps to lower the level. When the wetwell level signal reaches the lead pump stage start setpoint, the PC will automatically start one pump. The pump will continue to run until the wetwell level decreases to the lead stage stop setpoint. When the lead pump stage start level setpoint is detected again, the next pump in sequence will be started. If the pump fails before the lead pump stage stop level setpoint is reached, the next pump in sequence will be started and will run until the off setpoint is reached. If the wetwell level is not lowered with one pump and the level rises to the lag pump stage start setpoint, the second pump will be started.

After each pump has started and stopped, the pump assignment will be rotated in sequence. For example, the previous lead pump becomes the back-up pump, and the previous back-up pump becomes the lead. The intent is to roughly equalize pump run times over the long term, so that each pump experiences its maximum service life.

If primary level monitoring system failure is detected by the PC for the loss of the 4-20 mA signal, the PC will alarm and will control the pumps with the back-up float switches.

SCHAAF & WHEELER | 13

Manual: n manual mode, each pump can be started by placing the “Hand-Off-Auto” selector switch to “Hand”. The pump will continue to operate until it is stopped manually.

The manual controls will be configured to bypass the electronic controller and bypass relay controls to allow full manual operation by direct activation of the pump. The status of the HOA switch will also always be monitored by the local controller for relaying back to SCADA central for remote monitoring of the switch position.

4.8 Standby Power

The provision of standby power is essential for station reliability in the event of a power failure. For self-reliance and engine efficiency, diesel fuel is preferred over natural gas. Based on the anticipated electrical station loads, it is recommended that a 300 kW/375kVA emergency generator with automatic transfer switch be installed as part of the project rehabilitation. The generator will be installed at the pump station with a weatherproof sound enclosure. The automatic transfer switch will sense PG&E outages and automatically transfer power to the generator when needed.

5.0 Pump Station Configuration Summary

Basic pump station features and design parameters are outlined below.

5.1 Pump Station Access

• Access to Pump Station via mounting the existing curb along Soquel Avenue

• Enclose above grade panels, transformer and generator in fenced area with colored slats and razor wire.

5.2 Pumping Equipment

• Three duty pumps, Flygt Model P 7040, with 80 HP motor, or approved equal.

• One dewatering pump with 5 HP motor, or approved equal. Dewatering pump will be rail-mounted, submersible type.

5.3 Electrical Service and Power Distribution

• Underground 3 phase, 4-wire electrical service

• 480V, 3 phase main service switchboard with meter and circuit breaker

5.4 Motor Control Center (MCC)

• Pad mounted MCC with NEMA rated, weather proof enclosure

5.5 Lighting

• Dedicated 120/240V lighting panel for site lighting.

• LED lighting inside MCC panels, and site light near MCC panel and wetwell. Site lighting to be provided with integral photo-cell activation and motion activated high level lighting.

SCHAAF & WHEELER | 14

5.6 Backup Power

• 300kW/375kVA Emergency Generator: Caterpillar, Cummins, or approved equal.

• Automatic transfer switch

5.7 Control Logic

• Install a SCADA and Telemetry section in the panel line up or a separate enclosure

• Primary level sensor: Submersible hydrostatic level transducer

• Backup level sensor: Float switches for pump level controls, and alarms

• Pump controller with 4-20 ma DC level signal from submersible hydrostatic level transducer.

Pump controller may be PAC based to match City system standards under development if desired.

SCHAAF & WHEELER | A-1

Appendix A:

Soquel Storm Drain Pump Station Preliminary Alternatives

SCHAAF & WHEELER | B-1

Appendix B:

Soquel Storm Drain Pump Station Plan and Section Details

SCHAAF & WHEELER | C-1

Appendix C:

Regulatory Permitting and CEQA Strategy Memorandum for the SSDPS by WRA

SCHAAF & WHEELER | D-1

Appendix D:

Preliminary Cost Estimate

WRA, Inc. | 2169 G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901 www.wra-ca.com · ph: 415.454.8868

MEMORANDUM

TO:

Lawrence Johnson, Schaaf and Wheeler

FROM: Geoff Reilly, WRA, Inc.

DATE: August 3, 2023

SUBJECT:

Regulatory Permitting and CEQA Strategy Memo for the Soquel Avenue Storm Drain Pump Station (SDPS)

The purpose of this memorandum is to describe the key regulatory and biological constraints relevant to the Soquel Avenue Storm Drain Pump Station (SDPS) Project (Project) located in Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California (Study Area) and provide a recommended permitting strategy, estimated permitting costs, and an estimated permitting timeline for the proposed Project. The proposed Project proponent is the City of Santa Cruz (City).

The proposed Project involves the installation of a storm drain pump station that will outlet via rip rap into the San Lorenzo River (River). The proposed Project is located at the intersection of Soquel Avenue and the Santa Cruz Riverwalk pedestrian walkway on the west side of the San Lorenzo River in the City of Santa Cruz. The River flows south from the proposed Project to the Pacific Ocean, which is obstructed by a sand berm for most of the year. The River has an unlined, natural bottom, and Branciforte Creek (which flows southwest from the Santa Cruz mountains) converges with the River immediately upstream of the proposed Project. A riverine wetland occurs on the low terrace portion of the riverbank where the topography is relatively flat. The slope of the bank of the River gradually increases and gives way to riparian vegetation in the form of an arroyo willow thicket (Figure 1). The proposed Project is still being designed but the staging area is expected to be in developed areas adjacent to the proposed Project site.

Dependent upon final Project plans, regulatory approval for the proposed installation may be required.

Table 1, below, identifies regulatory agencies whose approvals would likely be required if work will affect any potentially regulated biological resources observed within or adjacent to the proposed Project during a site visit conducted by WRA, Inc. on July 12, 2023. This site visit does not qualify as a protocol-level survey for any of the potential regulated resources observed within or adjacent to the proposed Project site; therefore, a more comprehensive site visit that includes protocol-level methods and techniques may be required to confirm the presence or absence of these potentially regulated resources. Table 2, below, provides a summary of the anticipated permit requirements by agency, estimated permitting timelines, and information on costs to obtain the permits.

http://www.wra-ca.com/

WRA, Inc. | 2169 G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901

Table 1. Regulatory Agencies Potentially Applicable to the Soquel Avenue SDPS Project

REGULATORY AGENCY REGULATORY AUTHORITY JURISDICTIONAL LIMITS AT THE

PROJECT SITE

City of Santa Cruz California Environmental Quality Act

(CEQA)

• Entire Project Area

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)

Section 404 Clean Water Act

Waters of the U.S.:

• Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM)1

• Riverine wetland

Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act Section 401 Clean Water Act

Waters of the State:

• Top of Bank (TOB) + riparian vegetation (whichever is greater)

• Riverine wetland

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)

Section 1600 California Fish and Game Code (CFGC)

• Top of Bank (TOB) + riparian vegetation (whichever is greater)

California Endangered Species Act (CESA) - Section 2081 CFGC

Take of state listed species:

• Work or impacts below OHWM outside of work windows

United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS)

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

Take of federal listed species:

• Impacts to individuals or their habitat (riverine wetland and/or

OHWM)

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) • Take of native nesting birds

National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS)

ESA Take of federal listed species and designated Essential Fish Habitat

(EFH):

• Impacts to individuals or their habitat (riverine wetland and/or

OHWM)

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

1 In tidal areas, Section 404 jurisdiction extends to the Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) which requires estimations from nearest tidal datum stations. The River may be considered tidal at the proposed Project site; however, WRA’s experience in the region is that the OHWM will be indistinguishable from the MHHW. OHWM was measured in the field and is used in the remainder of this document.

WRA anticipates the proposed Project will be able to avoid “take” as defined by the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and no Incidental Take Permit would be required from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). No estimates for a CESA Incidental Take Permit are included in Table 2 below. If the proposed Project can avoid impacts to the riverine wetland and River (below the Ordinary High Water Mark [OHWM]), no permits would be necessary from the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The associated Corps permit consultations with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) would also not be necessary. However, the proposed Project design is not yet final and WRA has included details related to Corps permits and consultations for informational purposes.

WRA, Inc. | 2169 G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901

Table 2 Summary of Anticipated Permitting Process and Estimated Timeline

AGENCY

ANTICIPATED

PERMIT TYPE

ANTICIPATED PERMIT

MECHANISM

PERMIT TRIGGERS

ANTICIPATED TIMELINE, COSTS ESTIMATES, AND

POTENTIAL RISKS

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)

Clean Water Act Section 404

Nationwide Permit 7 - Outfall Structures and Associated Intake Structures

Any project activity occurring within the riverine wetlands or below the OHWM of Waters of the U.S.

• 6-12 months

• $20,000 to prepare applications and obtain permit, including SHPO consultation documentation

• Corps will require an additional document for endangered species consultation. Cost to prepare consultation document outlined below under USFWS and NMFS

• No application fee

Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)

Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act

401 Water Quality Certification

Any work within RWQCB jurisdictional wetlands, riparian habitat, or up to top of bank within Waters of the State (i.e., San Lorenzo River).

• 8-18 months

• $12,000 to prepare applications and obtain permit

• $2,734 application fee and project fee depending on size of impact

• Risk agency will require mitigation for temporary and permanent impacts to San Lorenzo River and riparian vegetation. Cost to obtain agency approval of compensatory habitat mitigation estimated at $10,000. If required, mitigation would need to be implemented in the same year as the first impacts. Implementation costs vary greatly depending upon final impacts and agency requirements and are not included in this estimate.

• Certified CEQA documentation is needed for a complete application

Clean Water Act Section 401

ANTICIPATED

PERMIT TYPE

ANTICIPATED PERMIT

MECHANISM

PERMIT TRIGGERS

ANTICIPATED TIMELINE, COSTS ESTIMATES, AND

POTENTIAL RISKS

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)

CFGC – Sections 1600-1616

Section 1602 Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement

Work at or below top of bank or removal of associated riparian trees or habitat.

• 6-12 months

• $9,000 to prepare applications and obtain permit

• $6,236 application fee

• Risk agency will require mitigation for temporary and permanent impacts to San Lorenzo River and riparian vegetation. The CWA 401 mitigation plan should also satisfy CDFW, and can be used for both; however additional costs for agency coordination may add $5,000 to $8,000 to the above costs.

• Certified CEQA documentation is needed for a complete application

ANTICIPATED

PERMIT TYPE

ANTICIPATED PERMIT

MECHANISM

PERMIT TRIGGERS

ANTICIPATED TIMELINE, COSTS ESTIMATES, AND

POTENTIAL RISKS

City of Santa Cruz CEQA approval Project application submittal/acceptance

Discretionary approval of Project

Categorical Exemption, if feasible

• 3-5 weeks depending if technical reports are included

• Costs range between $6,000 - $20,000 depending if technical reports are included Or Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

(IS/MND)

• 6-8 months

• CEQA process may involve developing supplemental documentation including biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology, etc.

• Costs range between $35,000 - $75,000

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

Informal ESA Consultation

Federal ESA Section 7

“Take” of any federally listed species, if a Corps permit needed, consultation triggered regardless of take

• 6 - 9 months

• Timeline highly dependent on agency staffing and workload

• Assumption - no potential for listed species above

OHWM

• $10,000 to prepare a Section 7 report. Report can be combined with NMFS Section 7 report for submittal to both agencies.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

Informal ESA Consultation

Federal ESA Section 7

“Take” of any federally listed species, if a Corps permit needed, consultation triggered regardless of take

• 6 - 9 months

• Timeline highly dependent on agency staffing and workload

• Cost to prepare the report is included with USFWS estimate.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

Adverse Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)

POTENTIAL REGULATORY PERMITTING PROCESS

Information on the regulatory authority for each agency applicable to the proposed Project is provided below. In addition, a summary of the permit requirements for each of these agencies, estimated permitting timelines, and information on permit application costs are provided in Table 2, above.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)

The Corps issues aquatic resources regulatory permits under two authorities:

• Clean Water Act Section 404: generally, permits required for construction or other placement of earth or building materials in “waters of the U.S.”

“Waters of the U.S.” is defined specifically in 33 CFR Part 328, but generally include lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, wetlands, bays, tidal waters, and similar bodies of water. For the proposed Project, the River and adjacent riverine wetland are the only waters of the U.S. present on site.

Areas below the River’s ordinary high water mark (OHWM), or Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) if the River in this region is considered tidal, are within Corps jurisdiction. WRA assumes that OHWM and MHHW are nearly identical based on experience in the area and the riverine wetland is at higher elevations and in closer proximity to the potential Project. Impacts to the riverine wetland would trigger permit requirements even if no work or impacts occur below OHWM or MHHW. Rip-rap installation within the riverine wetland or below the OHWM would require a permit from the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

The Corps issues permits through a variety of vehicles, but those potentially applicable to the proposed Project are a “Nationwide Permit” (NWP) and an “Individual Permit” (IP). NWPs are programmatic permits that can be processed under relatively short time frames and do not require independent public notice or project-specific National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review. To be authorized by a NWP, a project must meet the General and Regional Conditions of the permit. Individual Permits are permits issued to an individual project by the local Corps District. Individual Permits require much more detailed analysis than Nationwide Permits, including an alternatives analysis based on guidelines established in Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) and 40 CFR Part 230, and project-specific NEPA review.

WRA expects the proposed Project will qualify under NWP 7 – Outfall Structures and Associated Intake Structures. This NWP authorizes the following:

Activities related to the construction or modification of outfall structures and associated intake structures, where the effluent from the outfall is authorized, conditionally authorized, or specifically exempted by, or otherwise in compliance with regulations issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program (Section 402 of the Clean Water Act). The construction of intake structures is not authorized by this NWP unless they are directly associated with an authorized outfall structure.

This NWP is expected to be applicable to the entire Project; no additional NWPs or an Individual Permit are expected to be needed to authorize the proposed Project. There is no fee required to file an application for a Corps NWP.

Prior to issuing a permit, the Corps is required to ensure the action they are permitting is consistent with requirements of other federal laws and regulations including:

• Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act

• The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

• The National Historic Preservation Act

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

Based on the site visit conducted by WRA, Inc. on July 12, 2021, if the proposed Project conducts work or indirectly impacts areas within the riverine wetland or below the OHWM, it may affect federal-listed threatened or endangered species, critical habitat, and essential fish habitat.

Species known to be present in the River include steelhead, coho salmon, and tidewater goby, and the River is designated critical habitat for both steelhead and coho salmon. Therefore, the Corps is expected to need to consult with both the USFWS and NMFS under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act or the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

Informal consultation with USFWS and NMFS to confirm that the proposed Project is not likely to adversely affect listed species will be necessary, but formal consultation and receipt of a Biological Opinion is not anticipated. Due to their obligations under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Corps may undergo Section 106 consultation with the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO). The Corps may require the City to provide a cultural resources study to support their consultation.

Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)

The proposed Project is located within the regional boundary of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Each RWQCB is responsible for administering two laws related to the placement of fill within jurisdictional waters:

• Clean Water Act Section 401: federal law requiring the RWQCB to issue a Water Quality Certification (WQC) before the Corps can authorize the discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

• Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act: state law regulating all discharges that could affect the quality of waters of the state.

Under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, the RWQCB’s jurisdiction is the same as that of the Corps. However, under the state Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, “waters of the state” are defined broadly as:

“…any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.”

For the proposed Project, the RWQCB’s jurisdiction under Porter-Cologne would extend to top of bank (TOB), riverine wetland, and any riparian vegetation associated with waters of the state.

Compliance with both Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act can be obtained for the proposed Project through a Water Quality Certification (WQC). Under the federal 2020 Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule (2020 Clean Water Rule), all projects applying for a WQC must request a pre-application meeting with the RWQCB before an application can be submitted. The RWQCB has 30 days to respond to the pre-application meeting request, after which time the proposed Project may submit application materials to the RWQCB. A certified California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document will be necessary to include for a complete application submittal. The RWQCB may require mitigation for temporary or permanent impacts, and a mitigation plan would need to be submitted along with the application.

The RWQCB requires payment of an application fee, a project fee, and an annual fee. The application fee is due when an application is submitted and the project fee is due prior to receipt of the WQC. For the 2022-2023 fiscal year, the RWQCB’s application fee is $2,734. The project fee is based on the total size of temporary and permanent impacts in acres, multiplied by $24,366 up to $237,190. The RWQCB charges a $2,297 annual fee for the first five fiscal years following issuance of a Water Quality Certification until they receive a Notice of Completion from a project.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)

Under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), the CDFW must be notified of projects that would do one or more of the following:

• Divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake;

• Change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake;

• Use material from any river, stream, or lake; or

• Deposit or dispose of material into any river, stream, or lake.

Under the CFGC, CDFW has jurisdiction over all actions below a stream’s top of bank as well as any stream-associated (riparian) vegetation located on the stream’s banks. Streams are defined in the California Code of Regulations and can include ephemeral streams, dry washes, watercourses with subsurface flows, canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife. Riparian generally includes vegetation growing on the banks of a stream or lake. Projects that will alter or work within or adjacent to streambeds or lakes, including riparian vegetation, must obtain a 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA).

The proposed Project may involve work below TOB and has the potential to affect riparian vegetation or work within the stream; therefore, the Project would need to submit a Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration to the CDFW. The proposed Project would occur within the boundaries of CDFW’s Region 3 – Bay and Delta Region. The CDFW requires all Notifications of Lake or Streambed Alteration be submitted via the Environmental Permit Information Management System (EPIMS), their online application portal. Certified CEQA documentation will be necessary to include for a complete application submittal. The CDFW may require mitigation for temporary or permanent impacts, and a mitigation plan would need to be submitted along with the notification.

The CDFW charges application fees based on the total project cost. The CDFW’s 2023 Fee Schedule for Standard LSAA’s is summarized in Table 3, below. These fees may increase in 2024:

Table 3. Summary of CDFW Fees

“TOTAL PROJECT COST” CDFW 2021 STANDARD LSAA FEES

$25,000 but less than $100,000 $2,360.25 $100,000 but less than $200,000 $3,860.25 $200,000 but less than $350,000 $5,235.75

> $350,000 $6,236.00

The CDFW is also responsible for administering CESA (California Fish and Game Code §§2050, et seq.). Under CESA, the “take” of any species listed or are considered for listing (candidate species) as threatened or endangered species is prohibited within the State of California. No state-listed or candidate species are anticipated to be taken by the proposed Project, and no CESA permit applications are anticipated to be necessary. Coho salmon is a listed species under CESA; however, WRA anticipates that the proposed Project can be designed to avoid take as defined by CESA. Under CFGC, the CDFW is also responsible for the protection of all nesting birds and roosting bats. While these protections are not expected to be a key constraint to the proposed Project, pre-construction surveys and potential work buffers may be required and included in the LSAA.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

Approval of the proposed Project by the City of Santa Cruz qualifies as a “discretionary” action under the CEQA, and thus cannot occur without a certified CEQA document. The proposed Project involves the construction of a new pump station and outfall as a part of an existing component of the City’s infrastructure and therefore might qualify for a Class 3 Categorical Exemption (CE) under CEQA pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Class 3 consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. The numbers of structures described in this section are the maximum allowable on any legal parcel. Examples of this exemption include, but are not limited to:

(d) Water main, sewage, electrical, gas, and other utility extensions, including street improvements, of reasonable length to serve such construction.

A determination would first need to be made that (1) the Project represents either no or a negligible expansion of the existing use; (2) there is no reasonable possibility that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment; and (3) the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

If it is determined that a Class 3 CE is not applicable to the proposed Project, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) would need to be…