Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/21/1991, C-8 - HIRING A CONSULTANT TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR UPGRADE OF THE STENNER CANYON WATER TREATMENT PLANT. IIIII�I^���IflIIIIIIIuIII MEETING GATE: IIUI city of san r��s os�spo s _ = _ 1, COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT STEM � FROM: Arnold B. Jonas Community Development Director PREPARED BY: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Hiring a consultant to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) for upgrade of the Stenner Canyon water treatment plant. CAO RECOMMENDATION (1) Authorize the selection of Technical Analysis Corporation as the consultant for the water treatment plant upgrade EIR, and (2) authorize the Mayor to sign the consultant services agreement for an amount of compensation not to exceed $29, 820. DISCUSSION In July 1990, the City Council approved consultant services by Black & Veach for design of an upgrade to the main water treatment plant, to meet recent and anticipated changes in the standards for public water supplies. In December 1990, the Community Development Director approved an initial environmental study and determined that an EIR must be prepared. ' The EIR will focus on energy impacts. A previous effort to select an EIR consultant was stopped in April by the single proposing firm withdrawing its proposal. The current selection effort resulted in five proposals, with a wide range of costs and expertise. i Proposals were evaluated by planing staff and the city's energy coordinator. The recommended firm has experience in energy evaluation of water systems; it was ranked second in overall qualifications and was also the second lowest cost. The combination of specific experience and cost resulted in the recommended firm being top-ranked according to the selection criteria which staff used (attached summary table) . FISCAL IMPACTS This project is authorized on pages E-17 and E-19 of the 1989-91 Financial Plan and Budget. Technical Analysis Corporation has provided a not-to-exceed cost estimate of $29, 820 to complete the EIR. The city will have minor additional expenses, such as printing. This money will come from water enterprise funds. ALTERNATIVES The council may continue action with direction to staff to renegotiate an agreement with the recommended firm or with other firms. Attachments: Draft resolution approving agreement Agreement, with workscope and schedule Initial environmental study C� g ' ( . � _ en � m _ q — Q4 « 22 k � z eq § Q & r m m cq — 7 _ 3 / « - 2 & & tn� k 6 n - _ r 00 — % k 0 (CID, » � ° E § � a r § u & = n n n _ c — 2� \ \ w t 2cd§ g c / k < n — n eq — n Q % •% \ Em / n r r r C14 N r f \ k \ o o — — — _0a � \ � \ ( § § ƒ � ) % 33 ' 2k §cn L4 . ej E Q \ /\ � / 4 co k t . c% k = wcdo RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING CONSULTANT SELECTION AND AGREEMENT FOR THE STENNER CANYON WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WHEREAS, the City Council has directed staff to proceed with work on upgrading the main water treatment plant to meet standards for public water supplies; and WHEREAS, staff has negotiated an agreement with Technical Analysis Corporation for preparation of an environmental impact report in compliance with state and city requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: SECTION 1. The certain agreement, attached hereto marked Exhibit ^1^ and incorporated herein by reference, between the City and Technical Analysis Corporation is hereby approved and the Mayor is authorized to execute the same. SECTION 2. The City Finance Director shall transfer and encumber $31, 000 from the Capital Appropriations Fund (#9090- 080-890) to Project Account No. 050-9740-092-570 for consultant services and related expenses. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall furnish a copy of this resolution and a copy of the executed consultant's agreement approved by it to the Finance Director, the Community Development Director, and Technical Analysis Corporation. On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1991. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Resolution No. Page 2 APPROVED: VCityinistrative Officer n Fi a Director Community DevM p`ment Director Utilities Director gmD: stnr-cc.wp EXHIBIT 1 CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT This agreement, made this $th day of Ma; 1991, by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, California (hereinafter referred to as "City") , and TECHNICAL ANALYSIS CORPORATION , (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant") . WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, City desires to retain certain services in conjunction with environmental review for upgrading the main water treatment plant in Stenner Canyon. The services being provided by Consultant under this contract are preparation of draft and final environmental impacts reports pursuant to C.E.Q.A and the city's Environmental Guidelines; and WHEREAS, City desires to engage Consultant to provide services by reason of its qualifications and experience for performing such services, and Consultant has offered to provide the required services on the terms and in the manner set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual covenants, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. PROJECT COORDINATION a. City. The Community Development Director shall be the representative of the city for all purposes under this agreement. The director, or his designated representative, Glen Matteson, Associate Planner, hereby is designated as the Project Manager for the City. He shall supervise the progress and execution of this agreement. b. Consultant. Consultant shall assign a single Project Manager to have overall responsibility for the progress and execution of this agreement for Consultant. Don H. Beckham is hereby designated as the Project Manager for Consultant. Should circumstances or conditions subsequent to the execution of this agreement require a substitute Project Manager for any reason, the Project Manager designee shall be subject to the prior written acceptance and approval of City's project manager. Consultant's Project Team is further described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The individuals identified and the positions held as described in Exhibit "A" shall not be changed except by prior approval of City. Consultant Services Agreement 2 Water Treatment Plant EIR 2. DUTIES OF CONSULTANT a. Services to be furnished. Consultant shall provide all specified services as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. b. Ouality Control. All instruments of service shall reflect high standards of professional research, analysis, and written and graphic communication. City's project manager shall be responsible for evaluating quality of work and for the issuance of consultant payments upon satisfactory delivery, completion, and city acceptance of work. C. Laws to be observed. Consultant shall: (1) Procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices which may be necessary and incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of the services to be performed by Consultant under this agreement; (2) Keep itself fully informed of all existing and proposed federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees which may affect those engaged or employed under this agreement, any materials used in Consultant's performance under this agreement, or the conduct of the services under this agreement; (3) At all times observe and comply with, and cause all of its employees to observe and comply with all of said laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees mentioned above. (4) Immediately report to the City' s Project Manager in writing any discrepancy or inconsistency it discovers in said laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees mentioned above in relation to any plans, drawings, specifications, or provisions of this agreement. d. Release of reports and information. Any reports, information, data, or other material given to, or prepared or assembled by, Consultant under this agreement shall be the property of City and shall not be made available to any individual or organization by Consultant without the prior written approval of the City's' Project Manager. Consultant Services Agreement 3 Water Treatment Plant EIR e. Copies of reports and information. If City requests additional copies of reports, drawings, specifications, or any other material in addition to what the Consultant is required to furnish in limited quantities as part of the services under this agreement, Consultant shall provide such additional copies as are requested, and City shall compensate Consultant for the costs of duplicating such copies at Consultant's direct expense. 3 . DUTIES OF CITY City agrees to cooperate with Consultant and to perform that work described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. 4 . COMPENSATION The Consultant will perform the work in phases as described in Exhibit "A" . Consultant will bill City on a time and material basis upon completion of the identified phases. City will pay invoices according to its normal accounts payable schedule, generally within 30 days of receipt. The Consultant may not charge more than the amount shown in Exhibit "A" without prior approval of the City' s Project Manager. 5. TIME FOR COMPLETION OF THE WORK Program scheduling shall follow the attached Exhibit "A" unless revisions are approved by the City's Project Manager and Consultant. Time extensions may be allowed for delays caused by City, other governmental agencies, or factors not directly brought about by the negligence or lack of due care on the part of the Consultant. 6. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION The Community Development Director shall have the authority to suspend this agreement wholly or in part, for such period as he deems necessary due to unfavorable conditions or to the failure on the part of the Consultant to perform any provision of this agreement. Consultant will be paid the compensation due and payable to the date of temporary suspension. C - F -7 Consultant Services Agreement 4 Water Treatment Plant EIR 7. SUSPENSION: TERMINATION a. Right to suspend or terminate. The city retains the right to terminate this agreement for any reason by notifying Consultant in writing seven days prior to termination and by paying the compensation due and payable to the date of termination; provided, however, if this agreement is terminated for fault of Consultant, City shall be obligated to compensate Consultant only for that portion of Consultant services which are of benefit to City. Said compensation is to be arrived at by mutual agreement of the City and Consultant and should they fail to agree, then an independent arbitrator is to be appointed and his decision shall be binding upon the parties. b. Return of materials. Upon such termination, Consultant shall turn over to the City immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by Consultant, and for which Consultant has received reasonable compensation, or given to Consultant in connection with this agreement. Such materials shall become the permanent property of City. Consultant, however, shall not be liable for City's use of incomplete materials or for City's use of complete documents if used for other than the project contemplated by this agreement. B. INSPECTION Consultant shall furnish city with every reasonable opportunity for City to ascertain that the services of Consultant are being performed in accordance with the requirements and intentions of this agreement. All work done and all materials furnished, if any, shall be subject to the City's Project Manager's inspection and approval. The inspection of such work shall not relieve Consent of any of its obligations to fulfill its agreement as prescribed. 9. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS All original drawings, plan documents and other materials prepared by or in possession of Consultant pursuant to this agreement shall become the permanent property of the City, and shall be delivered' to the City upon demand. Consultant Services Agreement 5 Water Treatment Plant EIR 10. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT Failure of City to agree with Consultant's independent findings, conclusions, or recommendations, if the same are called for under this agreement, on the basis of differences in matters of judgment shall not be construed as a failure on the part of Consultant to meet the requirements of this agreement. 11. ASSIGNMENT: SUBCONTRACTORS: EMPLOYEES This agreement is for the performance of professional consulting services of the Consultant and is not assignable by the Consultant without prior consent of the City in writing. The Consultant may employ other specialists to perform special services as required with prior approval by the City. 12 . NOTICES All notices hereunder shall be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by Certified Mail, addressed as follows: To City: Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo P.O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 To Consultant: Technical Analysis Corporation 282 Second Street , Third Floor San Francisco , - CA 94105 13 . INTEREST OF CONSULTANT Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the services hereunder. Consultant further covenants that, in the performance of this agreement, no subcontractor or person having such an interest shall be employed. Consultant certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest under this agreement is an officer or employee of City. It is expressly agreed that, in the performance of the services hereunder, Consultant shall at all times be deemed an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of City. Consultant Services Agreement 6 Water Treatment Plant EIR 14. INDEMNITY Consultant hereby agrees to indemnify and save harmless City, its officers, agents and employees of and from: a. Any and all claims and demands which may be_ made against City, its officers, agents, or employees by reason of any injury to or death of any person or corporation caused by any negligent act or omission of Consultant under this agreement or of Consultant's employees or agents; b. Any and all damage to or destruction of the property of City, its officers, agents, or employees occupied or used by or in the care, custody, or control of Consultant, or in proximity to the site of Consultant's work, caused by any negligent act or omission of Consultant under this agreement or of Consultant' s employees or agents; C. Any and all claims and demands which may be made against City, its officers, agents, or employees by reason of any injury to or death of or damage suffered or sustained by any employee or agent of Consultant under this agreement, however caused, excepting, however, any such claims and demands which are the result of the negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers, agents, or employees; d. Any and all claims and demands which may be made against City, its officers, agents, or employees by reason of any infringement or alleged infringement of any patent rights or claims caused by the use of any apparatus, appliance, or materials furnished by Consultant under this agreement; and e. Any and all penalties imposed or damages sought on account of the violation of any law or regulation or of any term or condition of any permit, when said violation of any law or regulation or of any term or condition of any permit is due to negligence on the . part of the Consultant. Consultant, at its own costs, expense, and risks, shall defend any and all suits, actions, or other legal proceedings that may be brought against or for employees on any such claim or demand of such third persons, or to enforce any such penalty, and pay and satisfy any judgment or decree that may be rendered against City, its officers, agents, or employees in any such suit, action or other legal proceeding, when same were due to negligence of C-? - /0 Consultant Services Agreement 7 Water Treatment Plant EIR the Consultant. 15. WORKERS COMPENSATION Consultant certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California, which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and it certifies that it will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this agreement. 16. INSURANCE The Consultant shall provide proof of comprehensive general liability insurance ($500, 000) (including automobile) and professional liability insurance ($250,000) satisfactory to the City. 17. AGREEMENT BINDING The terms, covenants, and conditions of this agreement shall apply to, and shall bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assigns, and subcontractors of both parties. 18. WAIVERS The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any term, covenant, or condition of this agreement or of any provision, ordinance, or law shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, ordinance, or law. The subsequent acceptance by either party of any fee or other money which may become due hereunder shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other party of any term, covenant, or condition of this agreement or of any applicable law or ordinance. 19. COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES The prevailing party in any action between the parties to this agreement brought to enforce the terms of this agreement or arising out of this agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorney's fees expended in connection with such an action from the other party. Consultant Services Agreement 8 Water Treatment Plant EIR 20. DISCRIMINATION No discrimination shall be made in the employment of persons under this agreement because of the race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion or sex of such person. If Consultant is found in violation of the nondiscrimination provisions of the State of California Fair Employment Practices Act or similar , provisions of federal law or executive order in the performance of this agreement, it shall thereby be found in material breach of this agreement. Thereupon, City shall have the power to cancel or suspend this agreement, in whole or in part, or to deduct from the amount payable to Consultant the sum of Twenty- five Dollars ($25) for each person for each calendar day during which such person was discriminated against, as damages for said breach of contract, or both. Only a finding of the State of California Fair Employment Practices Commission or the equivalent federal agency or officer shall constitute evidence of a violation of contract under this paragraph. If Consultant is found in violation of the nondiscrimination provisions of this agreement or the applicable affirmative action guidelines pertaining to this agreement, Consultant shall be found in material breach of the agreement. Thereupon, City shall have the power to cancel or suspend this agreement, in whole or in part, or to deduct from the amount payable to Consultant the sum of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250) for each calendar day during which Consultant is found to have been in such noncompliance as damages for said breach of contract, or both. 21. AGREEMENT CONTAINS ALL UNDERSTANDINGS This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between City and Consultant and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by written instrument, signed by both City and Consultant. All provisions of this agreement are expressly made conditions. This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Consultant Services Agreement 9 Water Treatment Plant EIR IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Consultant have executed this agreement the date first above written. CONSULTANT By 1 Don H. Beckham, Vice President CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO By Mayor gmD:contract.wp 050-9744-092-570 EXHIBIT A 1. Statement of Qualifications This section is provided in format and content according to item 1 on page 2 of the RFP. 1. 1. Description of the Firm and Experience Technical Analysis Corporation (TAC) was established in 1981 in McLean, Virginia, a suburb of Washington, DC. The San Francisco Office was established in 1985. Since its inception, TAC has provided top quality technical consulting to a host of state and municipal governments and agencies in nineteen states. In the field of energy conservation, TAC has provided services to local government, to commercial and industrial facilities, and to residential clients over the past three years. TAC assisted the City and County of San Francisco in formulating technical and administrative guidelines for an energy conservation program known as the Commercial Energy Conservation Ordinance (CECO) . Staff of TAC are now involved in the CECO public hearing process on behalf of the Mayor's Energy Management Committee. In the private sector, the company has done energy audits of over seven million square feet of office and industrial facilities. These structures range from 2, 000 to 210001000 square feet in size and vary from the simple to the complex. A complete listing of TAC projects related to energy conservation is appended to this proposal as attachment B, Part 3 . In addition to energy conservation, TAC personnel are well qualified in the field of water treatment. To supplement its in house experience, however, TAC has secured the services of its associate, Mr. Frank Steiner who served as Senior Engineer for the San Luis Obispo Water System Master Plan and Rate Study performed about ten years ago. His experience includes project management, 5 design, and construction of water treatment, wastewater treatment, and similar facilities in California. The Company's work also involves technical analysis of the design, construction and operation of fossil and nuclear electric generating units. TAC has provided witnesses to testify before the Public Utility Commissions of nineteen states on the prudence of utility company expenditures for the construction and operation of power plants, on decommissioning costs, and on industry cos comparisons for nuclear plants, including construction, operation and maintenance, and capital additions. A listing of TAC projects related to the technical analysis of electric generating units is appended to this proposal as Attachment B, Parts 1 and 4 . 6 I 1.3 . Individuals Who Will Actually Do the work Resumes of the following TAC personnel are included as Attachment C to this proposal: Don H. Beckham, C.E.M. , Vice President C. Frank Steiner, P.E. , CFS Associates, Senior Associate John D. Peters, Ph.D. , Senior Principal David Dietrich, P.E. , Principal Engineer James E. Landes, P.E. , Engineer Don H. Eggert, Engineer Don H. Beckham Mr. Beckham manages the San Francisco office of TAC and is a Certified Energy Manager with the Association of Energy Engineers in Atlanta. He directs or participates in energy inspections and audits and is licensed by the City of San Francisco as a Commercial Energy Inspector. Regarding water treatment, Mr. Beckham has participated in an extensive evaluation of the water treatment and waste water treatment facilities in the Washington, D.C. area for the Washington, D.C. Council of Governments and contributed to a study published by the Water Resources Center of the University of the District of Columbia on Areawide Water Resources Management. C. Frank Steiner. TAC has secured the services of this eminent associate for the Stenner Canyon project. Mr. Steiner is familiar with the San Luis Obispo water treatment system and served as Senior Engineer for the San Luis Obispo Water System Master Plan and Rate Study performed about ten years ago. His experience includes project management, design, and construction of water treatment, wastewater treatment, and similar facilities in California. John D. Peters. Dr. Peters has extensive experience in energy conservation and management and has conducted evaluations of 8 commercial and industrial facilities for local governments, the 1 federal government, and private industry. He has experience in the I construction of large projects in the U.S. Air Force Engineering Division and established the first energy conservation and quality Iassurance programs in the Air Force. I David Dietrich. Mr. Dietrich has had a lead role in TAC energy conservation audits and is licensed by the City of San Francisco as a Commercial and Residential Energy Inspector. A registered Professional Engineer and a member of the American Water Works Association, Mr. Dietrich also has design, specification, and construction experience with industrial water treatment systems and components including evaporators, demineralizers, flocculants, various types of filters, and reverse osmosis. I James E. Landes. Mr. Landes has broad experience in civil engineering and construction. He is licensed as a Commercial Energy Inspector by the City of San Francisco and participates in Ienergy inspections and audits. Mr. Landes is a registered professional engineer in two fields, civil engineering and lcorrosion engineering. Don H. Eggert. Mr. Eggert has a degree in physics from Dartmouth College and is registered as an Engineer in Training (EIT) with the State of California. He participates in TAC energy inspections and audits and takes a lead role in tasks involving lighting energy conservation. Mr. Eggert is licensed by the City of San Francisco as a residential energy inspector. 9 2. Description of Research and Analysis The basic element of the focused EIR process is the energy audit. Several steps are common to all elements of water utility operation including distribution pumping, transmission pumping, wastewater treatment, and water treatment. These steps have been formulated for the water treatment plant and include: 1. Review the quantity and cost of energy consumed by the existing plant and by the improvements. 2. Determine how and where the energy is used. 3. Evaluate the physical characteristics of the equipment that have the greatest impact on energy requirements. 4 . Evaluate operational procedures that involve the equipment with emphasis on the utility rate schedule. 5. Evaluate operational procedures that involve the equipment with emphasis on load shifting. 6. Identify potential energy conservation measures in equipment design and operations. 7. Determine cost and benefit of each energy conservation measure as a basis for recommendation. The following discussion of each of these topics outlines the methods, objectives, and work products. 2. 1. Review the Quantity and Cost of Energy Consumed by the Existing Plant and by the Improvements. TAC performed a brief review of the Black & Veatch design drawings for the Stenner Canyon plant in San Luis Obispo on April 22, 1991. We also reviewed PG&E's energy consumption and rate schedules for the existing plant with the water Treatment Plant Supervisor, Mr. Ken Earing. While these drawings and schedules provide an excellent starting point for a thorough review of the quantity and cost of energy consumed by the existing plant, these 10 documents do not address energy consumption of the plant upgrade. We will evaluate the increases in energy consumption due to the plant upgrade by reviewing in detail the drawings and specifications for the upgrade. The energy consumption of all systems and components should be readily available in the equipment specifications prepared by Black and Veatch in Walnut Creek. 2.2. Determine How and Where the Energy is Used. i The annual energy use of the existing plant is about 1. 6 million kWh according to the Planning Department. The annual energy use of the plant after the improvements will be about 4 . 5 million kWh. Our initial analysis will determine what parts of the total energy budget will be consumed by ozone generation, filter operation, other process costs, pumping costs, facility lighting, facility HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) , and other sources. This information will provide a basis for seeking ' out appropriate energy conservation measures. In effect, the amount of effort applied to each end use, e.g. , ozone generation or building heating, should be proportional to its energy consumption. 2. 3 . Evaluate the Physical Characteristics of the Equipment that have the Greatest Impact on Energy Requirements. The systems identified in the previous step that use the largest amounts of energy will receive more detailed study. The components of those systems will be studied to identify their energy consumption and potential for conservation. Both initial cost and operating costs will be addressed by standard life cycle cost analysis methods. i 11 2.4. Evaluate Operational Procedures that Involve the Equipment with Emphasis on the Utility Rate Schedule. The plant is currently billed under Pacific Gas & Electric's A-10 rate schedule. Since the upgrade will result in increased energy consumption by the plant, other rate schedules may be available. TAC will consider each available schedule in order to determine the one resulting in the lowest bill to the city. During TAC's review of the City of San Luis Obispo's monthly energy bills on April 22, significant potential was found for reducing the energy bills of other plants and buildings by switching rate schedules. 2.5. Evaluate Operational Procedures that Involve the Equipment with Emphasis on Load Shifting. How equipment is operated often has as great an impact on the energy bill as the type of equipment itself. For example, there are numerous case studies in the literature of operations where four pumps run for two hours instead of one pump running for eight hours. Although four pumps running for two hours use the same amount of total energy as one pump running for eight hours, the four pumps use four times as mucheak p power. If the four pumps run during peak demand hours, they could lead to an unnecessarily large kilowatt demand charge. Optimal use of storage capacity to avoid on-peak demand charge is another example of operational improvement that reduces the energy bill but not the quality of service. TAC will evaluate operational procedures to determine if improvements can be made to lower the energy bill. Shifting demand off of peak periods is encouraged by utility rate schedules because it reduces the need for new capacity (ie. generating plants, transmission lines, etc. ) . In addition to saving money, this method of conservation is environmentally sound 12 policy. 2.6. Identify Potential Energy Conservation Measures in Equipment Design and Operations. Equipment design and operation may be altered to allow greater energy conservation. An example of this might involve increased reservoir capacity to allow more flexible operation of the plant. wThe existing reservoir can store six hours of production. With more storage capacity, the plant could be operated at off peak hours, thus reducing demand charges. Another example might involve high efficiency motors. It is usually cost-effective to replace low efficiency motors in sizes of 25 horsepower or more. The three 75-horsepower transfer pumps presently installed at the plant therefore offer excellent potential for energy conservation. 2.7. Determine cost and benefit of each energy conservation measure as a basis for recommendation. For proposed energy conservation measures, TAC will employ the BLCC code, Version 3 .0 developed by the U.S. Department of Commerce as a standard life cycle cost analysis method. This analysis allows all costs (purchase, installation, capital and energy costs) wover the entire lifetime of the equipment to be minimized. Simple payback and rate of return will also be provided. [� 13 Proposed Time Schedule Initial staff meeting - week of May 20 Administrative draft EIR complete - July 1, 1991 Public review draft EIR published - July 16, 1991 Close of public review period - September 3, 1991 City Council certification of final EIR - October 1, 1991 4. Maximum Cost 4 . 1. Direct Costs Technical Analysis Corporation proposes to complete the tasks listed in the RFP and in this proposal for a maximum price not to exceed $29, 520 in direct costs. The schedule of payments is discussed in the following section. Invoices will be based on the time actually spent and may be less than the proposed maximum figure. Hourly rates for the individuals are: Mr. Beckham, Mr. Steiner $135 Mr. Dietrich, Dr. Peters 110 Mr. Landes 85 Mr. Eggert 65 The following table gives a breakdown of the staff hours and dollar amounts corresponding to each task. The total contract amount not to be exceeded is $29,520. This is a "not-to-exceed" cost, not a fixed price proposal and TAC will bill only for hours actually spent. 4 . 2. Indirect Costs These costs include travel, copying, postage, and so forth. Travel expenses will include trips by car to San Luis Obispo and to Black and Veatch in Walnut Creek. The latter is a short distance from TAC offices in San Francisco and will be a minor expense. Trips to San Luis will also be a small expense with appropriate planning. TAC will not bill San Luis for travel included in the proposed schedule. Additional trips required by the city of San Luis Obispo will be billed at cost. Regarding other indirect expenses, TAC estimates that copying and overnight express delivery may add $300 to the expenses. These costs will be billed to San Luis Obispo without markup. 16 1� C '� � Z3 I 1 1 Level of Effort by Task and Individual Beckham Dietrich Eggert Landes Peters Steiner Sus Sum Rate 135 110 65 85 110 135 Task (hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) (S) 1 4 4 4 4 16 1780 2 16 16 8 40 3880 3 8 8 16 1400 4 8 .24 24 6 4 8 76 7480 5 16 16 32 2800 6 8 8 16 1960 7 8 32 24 B 8 4 84 a260 8 s 8 16 1960 Proj. hr 20 116 92 16 12 40 296 Audit hr 8 48 48 8 4 16 132 Audit S 1080 5280 3120 680 440 2160 12760 12760 Proj. S 2700 12760 5980 1360 1320 5400 29520 29520 r f A (\slo.wkl) I� 1 Project meeting in SLO 2 Review plans 3 Site audit 4 Audit rpt and admin draft EIR 5 Draft EIR 6 Public hearing 7 Comment res and final EIR 8 Public meeting ' 5. Payment Schedule The payment schedule for completion of work shall be as suggested in the RFP: 1. 50% of total contract amount paid upon completion of the administrative draft. 2. 30% of total contract amount paid upon circulation of the public review draft. 3. Remaining 20% of total contract amount paid at certification of the final EIR. 18 i i 6. Work Products The work products produced by Technical Analysis Corporation shall consist of the following: 1. Three copies of the administrative draft EIR. 2. one camera-ready original copy of the public review draft EIR 3. Attendance at up to two public hearings to present TAC's conclusions and to respond to questions and comments. 4. A compilation of comments and written responses which will Jbe included in a council agenda report for consideration in certifying the EIR. 5. one camera-ready original of the final EIR in form certified by the City Council (including comments and responses) . r r 19 7. Minimum Outline of EIR Summary Background Environmental Procedures and Intended Use of the EIR Initial Study and Focused EIR A. Project Description 1. Equipment and Processes 2. Fuel Type and End Use 3. Energy Conservation Equipment and Design 4. Initial and Life Cycle Costs 5. Trips and Energy B. Environmental Setting C. Environmental Impacts 1. Energy Requirements and Efficiencies 2. Local and Regional Effects 3 . Peak and Base Loads 4. Existing Standards 5. Effects on Energy Resources 6. Transportation Energy D. Mitigation Measures 1. Potential Measures 2 . Potential of Siting, Orientation, and Design 3 . Potential for Reducing Peak Demand 4. Alternate Fuels 5. Recycling E. Alternatives F. Unavoidable Adverse Effects G. Irreversible Commitment of Resources H. Short-Term Gains vs. Long-Term Impacts I. Growth Inducing Effects Attachment: Initial Study 20 city of San LUIS OBISpo INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SITE LOCATION Stenner Canyon. north of San Luis Obi sop APPLICATION NO. ER 34-90 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Upgrade the citvts water treatment plant and expand treatment capacity. APPLICANT City of San Luis Obispo (Gary Henderson, Utilities Engineer) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION INCLUDED EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED X ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED PREPARED BY DATE 12-11-90 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION: DATE ISL•2k•90 rh SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS i.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING If.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ................................................... YES* B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH.......................................... YFS* C. LAND USE .........._............................................................ NO D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .............................................. YFC* E. PUBLICSERVICES .............................................................. .. NCI* F. UTILITIES........................................................................ No G. NOISE LEVELS ................................................................... yrs* H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS S TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS .................... Nn I. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS................................... ....... ..... YES* J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY ............................................... NO K. PLANT LIFE...................................................................... NO L ANIMAL LIFE...................................................................... NO M. ARCHAEOLOGICALIHISTORICAL ................................................... NO N. AESTHETIC ................................................ * ...................... YES O. ENERGY/RESOURCEUSE .......................................................... YES* Pub I i c Safety - tox i cs . NO* P. OTHER ................................... ............................. ..... III.STAFF RECOMMENDATION 'SEE ATTACHED REPORT 55435 " INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY 34-90 Water Treatment Plant Upgrade DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT & SETTING The City of San Luis Obispo proposes to modify treatment processes at its existing water treatment plant in Stenner Canyon. The changes are intended to make the treatment process safer for employees and the public, and to help meet anticipated, stricter requirements for drinking water quality. The changes will also double the designed treatment capacity, from about eight million gallons per day (mgd) to 16 mgd. All the new facilities would be built within the existing treatment plant site. The plant treats water from Salinas Reservoir and from Whale Rock Reservoir. The quality of raw water arriving from the two reservoirs varies substantially throughout the year, and differs between the two sources. The plant does not treat water from the city's wells, which is treated in smaller "package plants" close to the wells. The treatment plant is set into a gradually sloping hillside above Stenner Creek, and is bordered by the Southern Pacific Railroad and grazing land. The nearest development, other than utility structures, is a dwelling about one-third mile to the northwest. Some proposed changes were evaluated in the Environmental Impact Report for the Water Management Element and Water Management Plan (City of San Luis Obispo, February 1987). That EIR concluded that the previously proposed changes would have no impacts; in fact, they could be considered "categorically exempt," since they would be changes to an existing facility with no substantial expansion of capacity. Additional changes are now proposed. They are: 1. Replace the initial ("flash") mixing facilities with a larger, two-stage facility. This facility introduces chemicals to the incoming, raw water so that contaminating particles will group together rather than repel each other. The city does not propose changing the types of chemicals used in this stage. 2. Replace the flocculation equipment, in the existing basin. This step gently mixes the water, encouraging larger clumps of particle to form so they will settle out. 3. Replace filter media and rehabilitate drains and outflow pipes, to improve the effectiveness of filtering and filter washing. 4. Add a tank and pumps to reduce the time between cycles of filter washing. 5. Make more accessible and modify the equipment which recycles water used to wash the filters back to earlier treatment steps, to make removal of solids more effective. The changes will help meet state standards for water treatment plants. 00* ' �-f " 2 ? Water Treatment Plant Environmental Review 2 6. Use liquid sodium hypochlorite (bleach) rather than chlorine gas for residual disinfection. Adding chlorine in an active form is the final step before treated water is sent to storage tanks and distribution pipes throughout the city. The chlorine inhibits growth of viruses and bacteria which survive the treatment process or which enter the water-system (a concern primarily in dead-end water mains where water may stay for a long time before being used). The liquid chemical is safer to store and handle, and far easier to contain if it leaks, than the pressurized gas. 7. Provide a stand-by metering pump for each of several systems which feed chemicals into the stream of water undergoing treatment. 8. Upgrade the electrical system, replacing the 208-volt service with 480- and 120- volt services. 9. Provide new control equipment, which will be compatible with existing equipment to be retained. 10. Remodel the existing laboratory and office to better provide for monitoring requirements. 11. Use ozone rather than chlorine as the primary disinfectant, which will require an ozone generator and a new ozone contact basin at the beginning of the treatment process. 12. Provide a new building to house the ozone generator, new chemical feed systems, control room, and additional office space. This building will be two stories, with about 7,000 square feet of floor space. POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW A. Community plans and goals Overall, the project is consistent with community goals. With the exception of policies concerning energy use, discussed under item "O" below, the project is consistent with the general plan Water and Wastewater Management Element. The project raises no issues of consistency with other general plan elements. B. Population distribution and growth The project will raise one threshold which now constrains city growth, but this project alone will not induce growth. C - S -3v Water Treatment Plant Environmental Review 3 The existing plant was designed to treat about 8 million gallons per day (mgd). At times of peak demand during summer and fall, it has treated at a rate of about 11 mgd for short periods, though the level of treatment was barely adequate. The proposed project would increase the designed treatment capacity to 16 mgd. The project would increase one threshold which now constrains growth. Other growth-limiting resource thresholds are the amount of water supply (reason for the current moratorium on projects which increase water use), wastewater treatment capacity, and air quality. The project would have no effect on the amount of water available for treatment: the safe yield of the existing reservoirs, or possible new sources of water. Considering peak demand experienced with existing population, and assuming that peak treatment demands would increase approximately in proportion to city population, the increased rapacity could serve a city population of about 59,000. City population, consistent with the general plan, is projected to increase from about 42,000 to about 53,000 by the year 2015, assuming other resource thresholds are increased. Constructing and installing the new facilities will increase construction employment in the area by roughly 50 people at a time, for up to one year. Probably, there will be several specialized contractors working in sequence, with insignificant impact on migration to the area. There are now eight permanent workers for the plant, with one to four on duty per shift. With completion of the project, there would be nine or ten workers. The number of additional workers which may be needed when the plant is running at full capacity sometime in the future, if any, is not known at this time. D. Transportation and circulation The project will not significantly affect traffic in the vicinity. Stenner Canyon Road is a paved county road, which is wide enough to accommodate one vehicle travelling in each direction, though lanes are not marked. It connects the site with Highway 1, about one mile to the south, at a 'T' intersection with no signal. (The Highland Drive entry to the Cal Poly campus provides an alternate connection to Highway 1 at an intersection with signals and turn lanes.) Stenner Canyon Road also serves a few dwellings in the area, and is a minor entrance to the north end of the Cal Poly campus. It is lightly travelled. Traffic from permanent employees at the plant will not change significantly. There may be slightly less truck traffic for chemical supply, with use of ozone. Construction traffic, both workers and material trucks, will be a substantial increase over existing traffic levels on Stenner Canyon Road, but will not significantly affect Highway 1. Water Treatment Plant Environmental Review 4 E. Public services The project will not directly impact other public services. The estimated total capital cost of about 8.7 million dollars is expected to be funded by water rates and connection fees, and therefore will not affect the level of funding for other public services. G. Noise levels Noise impacts will not be significant. Construction activity will temporarily increase noise at the plant and along the access route. Operation of the ozone generator and blowers will cause more noise than current plant operations, but the increase is not expected to be noticeable along Stenner Canyon Road, and will not be detected from existing dwellings in the vicinity. I. Air quality The project will not significantly impact air quality. Construction traffic will cause a minor increase in emissions for a few months. The ozonation process raises air quality issues. Ozone is a highly chemically active form of oxygen, which lasts about 20 to 30 minutes in the atmosphere before forming other compounds. In the lower atmosphere, it is a major component of smog, causing irritation of eyes and lungs, and damage to plants and some synthetic materials. County air quality is in violation of state ozone standards, which have been exceeded several times per year in recent years. The draft County Air Quality Attainment and Maintenance Plan aims for a 40 percent reduction in ozone production from current levels. The ozone generation system would have a firm capacity of about 500 pounds per day. The system would produce air that is about two percent ozone, by weight, which is far higher than occurs even in smoggy air. This ozone-rich air would be brought into contact with the water. The ozone generation equipment and pipes would be air tight, and the chamber where water receives the ozone would be sealed. About 90 percent of the ozone brought into contact with the water would be transferred to it. The ozone that is not transferred would be held in an air space at the top of the chamber. The pressure in the contact chamber would be kept below atmospheric pressure, to prevent leaks. Air vented from the vacuum blower which provides the lower pressure would pass through a catalytic converter, where nonhazardous manganese dioxide would convert the ozone to elemental oxygen. If ozone is detected at 0.01 parts per million (ppm) or more in the ozone generation building, indicating a leak, the generation system will shut down and the building 4 , 31 Water Treatment Plant Environmental Review 5 ventilation will stop, to contain leaks. A vent gas ozone analyzer will be provided to assure that discharges stay below 0.10 ppm under all operating conditions. * The San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District staff has conducted a preliminary review of the proposed ozone system, and has concluded that impacts will not be significant. However, the volume of air to be vented from the containment area is not known at this time. A complete review of the discharge will occur when the design is further refined. At that point, the district may require the city to obtain an "authority to construct" and a "permit to operate," which would specify any additional ozone control measures. N. Aesthetics The appearance of the plant will not change substantially. The plant is visible from several hundred feet along the Southern Pacific Railroad (Amtrak) line on the hillside above, on both approaches to the "horseshoe" curve. A relatively small part of the plant is visible from Stenner Canyon Road near the plant access road. The existing multistory building at the plant is visible from 100 to 200 feet on the northbound lanes of Highway 1, near the Stenner Canyon Road intersection. It is not visible from the southbound lanes unless one looks back (to the left rear) at that short segment. Most of the proposed changes will be below ground or in existing structures. The new building will be in the same area and about the same size as the existing building. No specific design is proposed at this time. O. Energy use The cumulative impact of increasing energy use in city utility projects is significant. The water treatment plant now uses about 1.6 million kilowatt hours (kwh) per year. The ozone process will substantially increase electricity usage. After the upgrade, the plant would use about 4.5 million kilowatt hours per year. This additional energy use is an unavoidable consequence of the ozone process. While there will be a small, but unknown, reduction in the amount of energy used to produce and transport chlorine, the reduction would not nearly offset the increase due to ozone production. The general plan Water and Wastewater Management Element says, "Water operations will minimize energy use and will incorporate all cost-effective energy production facilities" (Policy 5.3). The Energy Conservation Element says, 'The city will set an example for energy conservation and the use of renewable sources in its own facilities and operations." * 1-15-91 update: the project will be designed to limit vent gas ozone concentration to 0.09 ppm or less, in compliance with State ambient standard. gm G - g -3Z Water Treatment Plant Environmental Review 6 The engineers who recommend the proposed project concluded, after evaluating six alternative treatment processes, including pilot plant evaluations, that ozone treatment was the most desirable due to treatment effectiveness and safety (Water Treatment Plant Modifications and Ozone Pilot Study, Final Report; Black and Veatch, June 1990). Four of the six alternatives involved ozone at some stage of treatment, while two did not. The cumulative impact of increasing energy use in city utility systems is significant. In addition to this proposed project, the recently approved upgrade of the city's wastewater treatment plant will increase energy use, from about 1.75 million to about 5 million kwh per year (Final EIR for Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade and Sewer Line Replacement, City of San Luis Obispo, March 1990). That increase was determined to be significant, adverse, and unavoidable, but justified by the overriding concern of meeting water quality standards. Further, the city proposes a seawater desalination plant at Morro Bay which would use between 19.5 million and 32.6 million kilowatt hours per year (EIR 45-90, forthcoming). Energy use in the area would be further increased if the proposed wastewater treatment plant is built in Los Osos (not a city project), and if additional water transmission lines are built in connection with the State Water Project Coastal Branch or other regional water projects. An average single-family residential customer in San Luis Obispo uses about 6,300 kwh per year of electricity. The increased electricity usage due to the proposed project is therefore equivalent to the usage of about 460 households. The combined additional electricity usage of the three utility projects, 38.7 million kwh per year, would equal the usage of about 6,100 households in the San Luis Obispo area. California Energy Commission policy favors accommodating added electricity demands of new customers or new uses by increased efficiency in energy use (conservation) of existing customers. Assuming that the average residential customer can still reduce electricity usage by 25 percent through more efficient lighting and motors on appliances, the added usage by the water treatment upgrade would cancel out the savings of about 1,800 households, while the increased usage of all three city utility projects would cancel out the savings of about 25,000 households. The secondary effects of increased energy use are major environmental concerns. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, the utility serving this area, generates electricity from oil-fired and natural-gas fired plants, hydropower, nuclear, wind, and geothermal (to be eliminated) sources at marry stations throughout central and northern California. At times, California power demand is met by purchases from out-of-state sources, including coal-fired plants. The impacts of increased electricity production, depending on power sources, include: air pollution (including acid-rain and acid-fog contributors); greenhouse gases; radioactive waste; water pollution from petroleum spills; land disturbance from mining, inundation of free-flowing streams, forests, and farmland; noise, appearance, and bird mortality due to wind generators; and soil or water pollution from geothermal brine. 4:5-4 -3; Water Treatment Plant Environmental Review 7 The increased energy usage of the proposed project would represent about 0.1 percent of the 1987 output of Pacific Gas & Electric Company's fossil-fueled Morro Bay power plant, which was about 3.5.billion kwh (primarily to meet peak demands in other parts of the state); the three projects' usage combined would be about one percent of that year's output. P. Public safety There will be no adverse impacts; hazards will be reduced by the proposed project. Chlorination has been the conventional means of disinfecting public drinking water, including San Luis Obispo's. Chlorine (the active component of household bleach) kills microorganisms. However, it does not remove all tastes and odors from the water. In fact, in relatively high concentrations, it adds its own taste and odor (as found in swimming pools, which have far higher chlorine concentrations than drinking water). Also, chlorine reacts with some natural or synthetic organic compounds often found in water to produce trihalomethanes (THMs), a group of compounds which have been shown to cause cancer. While the city's treated water has met current standards for THMs on average, there have been occasional, short-term exceedances. Further, the chlorine treatment methods will not be able to consistently meet new federal standards, which will allow about one-half the THM concentration which has been allowed, or potential federal standards which would again reduce by one-half the allowed concentration. The ozone system will use an electrical current to produce a stream of air rich in this chemically active form of oxygen, which will be brought in contact with the water. Ozonation will remove tastes and odors, as well as avoiding formation of THMs. Further, it will eliminate the need for pretreatment using both powdered activated carbon and potassium permanganate, which is a potentially explosive combination. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To comply with CEQA, an EIR should be prepared even though it would address only one issue: energy consumption. The city -has already determined that an increase in electricity usage about the same as that caused by the proposed project is individually significant. The cumulative energy impact of the three currently proposed major water and wastewater projects also would be significant. Increased energy use appears to be a significant impact for which no mitigation is available. No other impacts will be significant. gni: Ex34-90.wP N.;A L _ G U' v rQN1 * j (I I Cho� '� -_' / `;\ /: �1\l, •,, :tom. �l' Ga _ I ,.. , �_•-".-I'•-� . J' /Y er is _ir _ °' �.,.1�.. '.��•�� . �/ /� :•,��. .O '.��" v\] i mM `. a 797 is ° s 720 a '! I e93 •,�`• • r '`b ,I r �" l+xx •1.:- \ p•a! ` ; a0 TaT1ts Goo . +SsBM399 0 8�i�♦♦♦ L '�11 I '.I; '.81': a \ \\\. Chorro= i.--�.` - - -_. -' / - _ ��♦♦♦♦ ' �/�♦♦41 �~:♦ '/ al/�r BM `1`I• �\ // iii� ��:." .. '-. ;•. .�' -' =:o�� \,\ �� � ` 1♦♦ ♦ � ,535 •.�,, .%"� �:C-:-. ��__��.. ';'. �Ir r' <� ♦ ♦;�': � \ \ i/;, .iii;=Jl,�l /����� \����( /lam. I �cem' ¢ LIF I /—' :,-.1 - ' `. e' ��_-.�.—�—.. /:' --_;��:; •' ' i . . M 39 EN C NY fes... '1.. - .`Fil f T /, ,1.�``��8��\ Pldn r. 'BM 3 _I Dstation �. I �' _� Mipe "'If 000 65 . /'/.foo ';'c 1 466 1 P:. / ., • _ fn xx Q', �� I, Vi // . r- : �` - <)1r'♦ �. \ �''+K.360.•-c BM California I . POI ( Lam -•—_ •_/. 3?a r echnlc College /(J/^168.1\1 �:'•m/!�`�. —�. ._--__— _--a--- T ----_ Airport Peak- >r217'1.;�, �i '(�i [/�/� �rl .. -�. - '�.�d' I::_ �8/ I� •1��•� 13 � laaa.` �fv J.�I ei am 33 V WIII a 300 ° (j Water _ a ���,• ',��'_ _ ��j•. , '•f' I 201 ,4 � I �Y_ a a •Tank Pea — '•,\ i \I j! ;._P.¢e+aBM 29 �� �/ ` I� ICAJ Pot ' �-t1 ��• ,,� �'�L�20."'�\\,. �-\ - - - I l is _ ui.. 'Ci0 �`�' I �'� '�1 \( .•`,,t•'I .�'\, �`�i...___ -_.^.�,.��g .' S1.__ a•.�I �•Sch \ ,I\apoa 1,��. �I.I•'I �l V _, ` {I'r scli -- t `d t - ' - ca I t ll\ - _ �� ... f :.a Thr e�h 1 �_s_�:cc_•_- _ 'I1-1�.y ` \-�\.Gravel' ' w OMUALO0 Pafk ho in Ila I `, aehee° _. •.�I'` ... a• a r� II Schll BLVD o I �'• � •''. I 1t• • .�• 1 I \ ♦ a-It D IL1 .,.1 ( FNED ICKS 57 3 a■••�a�tat�� \ - axa ��. . 1. I ra:Vi 'OJ ` �\'V •Z (MID • .\ - N£TA O a:� \r \ •H sO - I I L .. , UAR 5T I / ^ -- /�_ y• a Santa Rosa 1 ----,��• ter Ti c� Water 27I i,i \ i --_¢ .r�-' `r\/ .-1 •Tank �� ••., �� 'a / -10 L ro IPaoW $Ial.on `.aGO ',•'i 9 .r 4. '•y�,Myry.