Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-27-16 PC Item 1 - OTHER-2318-2015Meeting Date: April 27, 2016 Item Number: 1 2 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of San Luis Obispo Water Resource Recovery (WRRF) Project. PROJECT ADDRESS: 35 Prado Road BY: Jennifer Haddow, Rincon Consultants Brian Leveille, Senior Planner Phone Number: 781-7166 e-mail: bleveille@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: OTHR-2318-2015 FROM: David Hix, Deputy Director, Utilities RECOMMENDATION: Receive a presentation and public testimony, and provide feedback on the Water Resource Reclamation Facility (WRRF) project DEIR SITE DATA Applicant City of San Luis Obispo, Utilities Department Representative David Hix, Deputy Director - Wastewater Zoning Public Facility (PF and PF-S) and Conservation and Open Space (C/OS-20) General Plan Public and Open Space Site Area Approximately 66 acres Environmental Status Draft Environmental Impact Report was released for public review on April 18, 2016 SUMMARY The City is proposing the WRRF Project, which entails upgrading the City’s wastewater treatment facility to comply with updated discharge requirements outlined in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in September 2014. The NPDES permit went into effect December 1, 2014, and compliance is required by November 30, 2019. At the same time, the WRRF would be upgraded to provide a nominal increase in average dry weather flow (ADWF) capacity to serve the needs of the City, as projected in the updated San Luis Obispo 2035 General Plan Land Use Element. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been prepared that evaluates the proposed WRRF project’s potential to significantly impact the environment, while also identifying ways to reduce or avoid environmental impacts through mitigation measures and alternatives to the project. The DEIR PC 1- 1 OTHR-2318-2015 (35 Prado Road) Water Resource Reclamation Facility DEIR Page 2 has been prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes and guidelines. The City is the lead agency for the CEQA process. 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW Review the DEIR, receive public comment, and provide feedback on any needed refinements or issue areas which should be addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). 2.0 BACKGROUND The City WRRF Facilities Plan (San Luis Obispo, June 2015) contains an extensive discussion of the background for the project, technical evaluations of various treatment options, and detailed descriptions and graphics for the various improvements proposed. A brief summary of that information is presented here, with an emphasis on the items that relate to environmental issues and the assessment of impacts and mitigation within the DEIR. The primary document or permit that governs the WRRF is the approval from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). This approval is in the form of Order No. R3-2014-0033, establishing the Waste Discharge Requirements for the facility. Under authority from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the SWRCB approval also serves as the federal permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, and the approval is NPDES No. CA0049224. The Waste Discharge Requirements Order establishes prohibitions on certain types of discharges, and limitations and specifications for the permitted discharges. This Order was adopted in September, 2014, and it establishes discharge requirements that are more stringent than before, and which the current treatment plant equipment cannot meet. The Waste Discharge Requirements also has an accompanying Time Schedule Order (TSO No. R3-2014-0036) that establishes the compliance schedule for the project. The WRRF Facilities Plan (San Luis Obispo City June 2015: Section 1) explains this situation: A key driver of the WRRF Project is the new NPDES permit adopted in September 2014 (effective December 1, 2014). The new permit includes discharge limitations that will require significant process upgrades. Specifically, the new permit includes strict disinfection byproduct limits which will require a new disinfection technology, as well as nitrate limits which will require a significant upgrade of the secondary treatment processes. A new Time Schedule Order (TSO) was also adopted in September 2014 which requires the City to achieve the disinfection byproduct limits and nitrate limits by November 30, 2019. The existing facility is currently rated for 5.1 million gallons per day (mgd) for ADWF conditions. The WRRF Facilities Plan states that the plant currently treats an average of approximately 3.5 mgd under ADWF (without Cal Poly the ADWF is 3.1 mgd) and 3.9 mgd under average annual flow (AAF) conditions (San Luis Obispo June 2015: Section 1.1 and Table 5-1). The EIR that was prepared for the City’s recent update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements estimates the AAF at 4.39 mgd based on records from 2000 through 2012 (San Luis Obispo December 2014: page 4-359). The difference PC 1- 2 OTHR-2318-2015 (35 Prado Road) Water Resource Reclamation Facility DEIR Page 3 between the two AAF condition estimates may reflect the influence of more recent drought conditions, including conservation measures implemented in response. The City General Plan Land Use Element projects a future 2035 City population of 56,686 (City of San Luis Obispo December 2014: Table 3), with a slightly higher population of 57,200 if the City’s Urban Reserve Capacity is used. For planning purposes, a per capita wastewater generation rate of 87.5 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) for ADWF conditions was used to determine the required capacity, which is consistent with what the City has used in past studies and evaluations (City of San Luis Obispo 2015: page 5-2). A population projection of 57,200, which is in line with the City’s Urban Reserve Capacity as well as projected contributions from Cal Poly, was used to determine an estimated ADWF of 5.4 mgd. During wet weather, additional water enters the collection system through inflow and infiltration even though the system is not designed to collect stormwater flows. The peak flows during wet weather amount to an equivalent of 33.5 mgd (San Luis Obispo City June 2015: Table 1-2), but the current plant has a peak wet weather flow capacity of 22 mgd (City of San Luis Obispo September 2014: page 4-359). Currently, wet weather flows are handled through a combination of temporary storage in ponds and the practice of blending treated and less treated flows prior to discharge; however, the latter practice is no longer permitted under the new NPDES permit. In summary, the WRRF is being upgraded to meet a number of objectives, including providing the nominal increase in ADWF capacity to serve the needs of the City as anticipated in the updated General Plan Land Use Element to upgrade/replace aging infrastructure. Primarily, though, the WRRF upgrade is necessary to meet the more stringent discharge requirements established by the RWQCB and SWRCB in late 2014. Finally, the proposed upgrades would increase the production of recycled water, provide a number of public amenities, and position the City for potential future potable reuse, as described below. A more complete description of the individual project components and their respective impacts follows. The City is acting as the Lead Agency in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in processing the EIR. In conjunction with the EIR certification, the City will have the opportunity to act on project approvals related to ministerial permits (i.e., building permits, grading and drainage permits, encroachment permits, etc.) and if applicable, discretionary permits (i.e., architectural review permit and land use permit). Staff will return to the Planning Commission for review of the Final EIR and if applicable, land use entitlements. Once the City has certified the Final EIR, other agencies will be able to utilize the EIR to process regulatory permit requests including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and RWQCB. The SWRCB will also use the Final EIR in evaluating the project’s compliance with requirements und er the State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan Project The purpose of this hearing is to highlight the findings of the DEIR, while receiving public and Commissioner testimony on the DEIR during the public comment period. The public comment period for the DEIR ends on Thursday, June 2nd, 2016. Comments on the DEIR will be utilized to prepare the Final EIR which is anticipated to be released in July of this year. PC 1- 3 OTHR-2318-2015 (35 Prado Road) Water Resource Reclamation Facility DEIR Page 4 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 3.1 Site Information/Setting The City of San Luis Obispo WRRF is located at 35 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (see DEIR Figure 2-2. The facility occupies approximately 66 acres (along with other uses described below) between U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101) on the west and San Luis Obispo Creek on the east. Most of the components of the WRRF are located within Assessor Parcel Number 053-051-045 (54.7 acres), which fronts Prado Road. The project site also includes the mostly undeveloped area to the southwest of the main facility site as well as the area containing the decommissioned chlorine contact channels and related equipment, approximately 0.5 mile south of the main facility. The decommissioned chlorine contact channels and equipment are located adjacent to existing holding ponds near the present effluent outfall, or discharge point, for the WRRF. In addition, San Luis Obispo Creek runs adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site. Further site specific details are noted below. 3.2 Project Description The WRRF Facilities Plan provides details regarding the components of the project and their construction. These are summarized as follows: 1. Demolition of Existing Structures. During the WRRF upgrade certain structures would be demolished to make room for new and enlarged equipment. The Prado Day Center building would be removed, along with the small bore gun range, some sludge drying beds and other facilities. DEIR Figure 2-3 shows a draft demolition plan, indicating the structures that are proposed to be demolished. Since the WRRF must continue operating during the upgrades, not all of the indicated demolition would occur concurrently. 2. Treatment Upgrades. Section 7 in the WRRF Facilities Plan provides a detailed description of the proposed upgrades within the WRRF. The details of the equipment and processes identified for the WRRF upgrade are described below and are based on meeting various performance standards, so that the facility will comply with the discharge specifications set by the SWRCB. The proposed changes are shown in DEIR Figure 2-4 (Construction Sequencing) and DEIR Figure 2-5 (Proposed Site Plan), and summarized briefly below. DEIR Figure 2-6 illustrates the proposed process flow diagram with the upgraded equipment. DEIR Figure 2-7 provides photos characterizing existing conditions at the site and locations of proposed upgrades.  Primary Treatment. Addition of a new flow monitoring system, along with other mechanical and structural improvements to the existing headworks. Rehabilitation of the primary clarifiers and upgrades to the supporting mechanical equipment.  Flow Equalization. Upgrades to the existing equalization pond (including an increase in capacity) to enhance operations and maintenance and improve wet weather performance.  Secondary Treatment. Upgrades and expansion of secondary treatment system to remove nitrogen and organic components, necessary to meet the new Waste Discharge Requirements specifications.  Tertiary Treatment. Expansion of the filter capacity to meet peak flow requirements and construction of a new Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection unit to meet the new stringent discharge limits for disinfection byproducts PC 1- 4 OTHR-2318-2015 (35 Prado Road) Water Resource Reclamation Facility DEIR Page 5  Solids and Liquids Handling Processes, including: o Solids Thickening. Addition of new equipment to thicken the solids produced in the treatment process. Upgrade would replace existing Dissolved Air Flotation Thickener, with a less energy-intensive process. o Anaerobic Digester. Construction of a new anaerobic digester. o Biosolids Dewatering. Replacement of the old belt filter press with a new screw press. o Sidestream Treatment/Return Stream Management. Several upgrades would be made in the handling and treatment of waste streams produced internally. These include filter backwash, thickening return fluid (sidestream), digester return fluid (sidestream), lagoon supernatant (from dewatering sidestream), sludge drying bed return fluid, and plant drain. 3. Cooling. Upgrades to effluent cooling would be provided as part of the project, either through the addition of cooling towers, wetland cooling or other methods. Additional cooling could be provided through a combination of cooling towers and/or heat exchangers. An alternate cooling method may include use of the undeveloped area immediately southwest of the main facility for development of a wetland cooling system. The concept of using wetlands for cooling and polishing effluent before discharge in lieu of using mechanical chillers has been modeled and determined to be a viable option for cooling at the site. The size of this area is sufficient to allow use of the wetland cooling option without requiring removal of the portion of Bob Jones Bike Trail present in that area of the site, though some realignment may be necessary. 4. Stormwater Management/Flood Protection Improvements. The project would also include internal drainage improvements. As part of the proposed project, stormwater discharges from the site would be managed using one of several options, including a) continuing to direct all stormwater to the existing discharge points, b) directing part or all of the onsite stormwater flow to the undeveloped area southwest of the main facility, if the wetland cooling option is selected, c) directing part of the stormwater flow to a new discharge point along San Luis Obispo Creek, possibly near the northeast corner of the WRRF, or d) a combination of the three options above. Low impact development (LID), may also be included as part of the internal stormwater management plan for the site. Planned flood protection improvements include construction of enhanced protection for key facilities, which includes raising concrete walls protecting some structures, and a new berm around the flow equalization basin. 5. Public Amenities. Public amenities proposed at the site include construction of a new Water Resource Center, and grading and restoration of land at the northeast corner of the WRRF after removal of the existing supernatant lagoon, which may ultimately be used for public park purposes under the direction of the City Parks and Recreation Department. The purpose of the Water Resource Center is to serve staff needs while simultaneously engaging and educating the community on the water cycle and recycled water treatment. Other amenity improvements would include a Learning Center with a walking tour of the facility, interpretive exhibits, picnic areas, a small amphitheater and demonstration gardens and wetlands. The project would also include improvements to perimeter fencing and landscaping, particularly at the Prado Road frontage of the property, as well improvements for security, access control, and internal circulation. PC 1- 5 OTHR-2318-2015 (35 Prado Road) Water Resource Reclamation Facility DEIR Page 6 6. Research and Development. Cal Poly currently conducts water treatment research at the WRRF facility. Cal Poly would continue to conduct these types of activities in the future at various locations throughout the site, depending on the type of research being conducted. In addition, the City intends to test pilot processes and treatment technologies in the future at the WRRF facility. These tests would occur at various locations throughout the site, depending on the type of research being conducted. 7. Other Proposed Improvements. The following is a list of other proposed upgrades/improvements included as part of the WRRF Project.  Odor Control improvements  Internal Access Improvements  Additional Electrical and Control Upgrades  Renewable Energy Improvements 4.0 DRAFT EIR KEY FINDINGS The following paragraphs briefly introduce each of the project impacts and the key findings of the DEIR. The DEIR classifies potential environmental impacts into four categories:  Class I: Impacts which are significant and unavoidable even with mitigation  Class II: Impacts that can be mitigated to less than significant levels  Class III: Less than significant impacts that do not require mitigation  Class IV: Beneficial impacts No Class I impacts were identified for the proposed project. Mitigations are proposed for all Class II impacts. The Attached Executive Summary (Attachment 2) and the complete DEIR (enclosed CD or weblink: http://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=10532) provide substantial additional detail in addition to describing project impacts and proposed mitigation measures. 4.1 Class I Impacts (Significant and Unavoidable) None identified. 4.2 Class II Impacts (Significant but Mitigable)  Air Quality. Construction of the proposed project would result in temporary generation of air pollutants, which would affect local air quality. Short term emissions would exceed SLOAPCD thresholds for ozone precursors.  Biological Resources. Construction of the project could have a substantial adverse effect on candidate, sensitive, or special-status species.  Biological Resources. Construction of the project could have a substantial adverse effect on sensitive habitats, including riparian areas.  Biological Resources. Construction of the project could have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.  Cultural Resources. Construction of the proposed project would involve ground-disturbing activities which have the potential to unearth or adversely impact archaeological resources.  Cultural Resources. Construction of the proposed project would involve ground-disturbing activities which have the potential to unearth or adversely impact paleontological resources. PC 1- 6 OTHR-2318-2015 (35 Prado Road) Water Resource Reclamation Facility DEIR Page 7  Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Construction of the proposed project would temporarily increase the routine transport and use of hazardous materials used in construction activities. Operation of the expanded and upgraded WRRF would entail the routine transportation, use, storage, and/or disposal of minor amounts of hazardous materials.  Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The proposed project has potential to create a hazard through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment during both construction and operation.  Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The proposed project could result in the disturbance of contaminated soils on an active cleanup sites listed on the SWRCB GeoTracker database.  Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The proposed project could impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency evacuation and response during construction.  Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The proposed project would not increase the exposure of people or structures to wildfire risks due to population growth, but construction activities could create hazardous fire conditions.  Hydrology and Water Quality. During construction the proposed project could potentially violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.  Hydrology and Water Quality. The proposed project could result in placement of stormwater outfall infrastructure within a 100-year flood hazard area.  Recreation. Impacts associated with construction of the recreational components of the proposed project are part of the wider project analyzed in the DEIR. Potential adverse impacts have been identified in several environmental issue areas, related primarily to construction activities associated with the proposed project. 4.3 Class III Impacts (Less than Significant)  Air Quality. The proposed project would not contribute to population growth, and would therefore be consistent with the growth assumptions in the 2001 Clean Air Plan and the City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan.  Air Quality. Construction of the proposed project would result in temporary generation of air pollutants, which would affect local air quality. Short term emissions would exceed SLOAPCD thresholds for ozone precursors.  Air Quality. Standard operation of the proposed project would involve regular testing of two new diesel generators, which would incrementally increase long-term emissions. Regular testing of the generators would ensure they would not generate emissions greater than the daily or annual thresholds set by SLOAPCD.  Air Quality. In the unlikely event of an emergency power outage, the two new generators would temporarily generate worst-case scenario emissions over a short period of time.  Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The proposed project would generate greenhouse gas emissions through construction, increased energy use, increased biogenic processes as a result of the increased wastewater capacity, and testing of emergency diesel generators. The increased emissions would be below the SLOAPCD threshold for annual greenhouse gas emissions.  Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The proposed project would not conflict with State GHG reduction goals, or any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.  Hydrology and Water Quality. The proposed project would not result in flooding, erosion or siltation on- or off-site.  Noise. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would expose nearby PC 1- 7 OTHR-2318-2015 (35 Prado Road) Water Resource Reclamation Facility DEIR Page 8 sensitive receptors to temporary increases in noise, however, these would not exceed City noise thresholds.  Noise. Project construction would expose nearby sensitive receptors to a temporary increase in vibration levels. However, vibration levels during construction would not expose nearby structures to vibration damage or excessive vibration noise.  Noise. Noise associated with operation of the proposed project would not exceed City thresholds.  Public Services and Utilities. The proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth and require the need for new or addition fire protection or police services that would result in the need for expanded facilities.  Public Services and Utilities. Stormwater drainage improvements are included as part of the proposed project, therefore the project would not result in the need for additional expansion.  Public Services and Utilities. The proposed project would be served by a landfill with sufficient capacity to accommodate solid waste that would be generated.  Public Services and Utilities. The proposed project would comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. 4.4 Class IV Impacts (Beneficial)  Air Quality. The proposed project would have the potential to emit odors as a result of several processes on site. However, the project would include a variety of odor control technologies, ultimately reducing odor from the site, and would be 300 feet away from the nearest sensitive receptor.  Hydrology and Water Quality. The proposed project would result in an improvement in the quality of discharges from the WRRF to San Luis Obispo Creek.  Recreation. The proposed project would potentially affect operation of existing and planned park and recreation facilities, as it would enhance recreational amenities at the site.  Public Services and Utilities. The proposed project would include improvements to the WRRF, which would improve treated wastewater quality. 5.0 DRAFT EIR ALTERNATIVES Alternatives to the project have been developed in accordance with CEQA. Two alternatives to the proposed project were chosen for analysis as follows: Alternative 1: No Project and Alternative 2: Alternate Process Options. 5.1 No Project Alternative (Required by CEQA) The No Project Alternative assumes that the proposed project site and existing treatment methods at the WRRF would remain as currently described in the existing setting under each issue area discussed in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, of the DEIR. It should be noted that implementation of the No Project Alternative would not be feasible because implementation of improvements at the project site are required to meet the more stringent discharge limits in the new NPDES permit for the facility as well as the accompanying TSO. If the No Project Alternative is selected the City would not be able to achieve compliance with the NPDES permit requirements in the required timeframe. PC 1- 8 OTHR-2318-2015 (35 Prado Road) Water Resource Reclamation Facility DEIR Page 9 The No Project Alternative would be the Environmentally Superior Alternative when compared to the proposed project in that it would avoid all of the potentially significant impacts associated with construction of the proposed project. However, it would not meet any of the objectives of the proposed project, including complying with the stringent discharge requirements included in the facility’s September 2014 NPDES permit and the accompanying TSO that establishes the compliance schedule for the project. In addition, none of the beneficial impacts of the project with regards to water quality and odor reduction would be realized under this alternative. 5.2 Alternative 2 (Alternate Process Options) Alternative 2 (Alternate Process Options) considers alternate technologies that would enable the WRRF to meet the new NPDES permit requirements. These process alternatives are available for renewable energy, flow equalization, disinfection, cooling, secondary treatment and filtration. Details of these various alternatives are discussed in the WRRF Facilities Plan. While these alternate process options were not included in the proposed project, they would be feasible for use at the WRRF site, though not preferred. For a list of the current technology at the site, the technology that was selected for each process for inclusion in the proposed project, and a list of the alternate technologies considered as part of this alternative, refer to Table 5-1 of the DEIR. The alternate technologies considered comprise Alternative 2. Alternative 2 (Alternate Process Options) would result in a similar level of impact as the proposed project, though in some issue areas, such as air quality, noise and greenhouse gases, potential impacts could be better or worse depending on which combination of process options is selected. This alternative would avoid the potential need to realign the segment of the Bob Jones Bike Trail that passes through the southern portion of the site as it would not include the wetlands cooling option. The impact to the trail resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant as it would not necessitate removal of the trail from within the site and would maintain continuity with the portions of the trail north and south of the facility. 6.0 DRAFT EIR PROCESS Following completion of the Draft EIR comment period, the City and the EIR consultant will respond to any comments received and make necessary amendments to the EIR. Table 1 illustrates the estimated timing. Table 1: Anticipated EIR/Process Timing Activity Timing Release of Draft EIR April 18th End of public Comment Period June 2nd Estimated Release of Final EIR July 5th Planning Commission Hearing (FEIR, entitlements) October 23 City Council Hearing (FEIR, entitlements) November 19 7.0 NEXT STEPS Following the end of the public comment period, the Final EIR will be prepared and provided to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation to the City Council. If applicable, any land use PC 1- 9 OTHR-2318-2015 (35 Prado Road) Water Resource Reclamation Facility DEIR Page 10 entitlements associated with the proposed project will also be reviewed by the Planning Commission at that time. Following City certification of the FEIR, the City will be able to utilize the EIR to process City permits, pursue State and Federal Agency regulatory permits and as a component of the City’s application to the SWRCB SRF Loan Program. 8.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Executive Summary Enclosed: CD copy of DEIR The DEIR is also available online at: http://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=10532 PC 1- 10 PC 1- 11 Attachment 1 Water Resource Recovery Facility Project Draft EIR Executive Summary City of San Luis Obispo 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This draft environmental impact report (Draft EIR) evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposed City of San Luis Obispo Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) Project. This document has been prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes and guidelines, and includes additional analysis for the “CEQA-Plus” documentation that is required for the City of San Luis Obispo (City) to apply for State Revolving Fund (SRF) funding.1 The City is the lead agency for the CEQA process. Inquiries regarding this document and project should be directed to: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA Attn: David Hix Phone: 805-781-7039 PROJECT OVERVIEW The City proposes the WRRF Project, which entails upgrading the City’s wastewater treatment facility to comply with updated discharge requirements outlined in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in September 2014. The NPDES permit went into effect December 1, 2014, and compliance is required by November 30, 2019. At the same time, the WRRF would be upgraded to provide a nominal increase in average dry weather flow (ADWF) capacity to serve the needs of the City, as projected in the updated San Luis Obispo 2035 General Plan Land Use Element. Need and Objectives The WRRF Project is necessary in order to meet new wastewater discharge requirements and accommodate forecasted future growth in the City. The objectives of the WRRF Project include: 1. Meeting the standards outlined in the NPDES permit adopted by the RWQCB and SWRCB in September 2014 (effective December 1, 2014) 2. Providing a nominal increase in ADWF capacity to serve the needs of the City, as anticipated in the updated General Plan Land Use Element 3. Increasing the production of recycled water, positioning the City for potential future potable reuse 4. Incorporating interpretive features and public amenities 5. Replacing aging infrastructure and equipment 1 SWRCB is the responsible agency that would review and consider the information in the environmental document prior to approving the project. PC 1- 12 Attachment 2 Water Resource Recovery Facility Project Draft EIR Executive Summary City of San Luis Obispo 2 The new NPDES permit contains stricter discharge limitations that require significant process upgrades to the WRRF facility, specifically, disinfection byproduct limits that will require new disinfection technology and nitrate limits that will require a significant upgrade of the secondary treatment processes. A new Time Schedule Order (TSO) was also adopted in September 2014, which requires the City to achieve the disinfection byproduct limits and nitrate limits by November 30, 2019. The City General Plan Land Use Element projects a future 2035 City population of 57,200 (City of San Luis Obispo December 2014: Table 3). The ADWF capacity required to accommodate this increase in population is 5.4 million gallons per day (mgd), while the current capacity of the WRRF is 5.1 mgd.2 Therefore, a nominal increase in ADWF capacity is needed to serve the needs of the City’s anticipated growth. For “a statement of objectives sought by the proposed project,” which includes the City’s vision, mission, and objectives for the proposed project, please refer to Section 2.5, Project Objectives. Project Location The City of San Luis Obispo Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) is located at 35 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. The facility occupies approximately 55 acres (along with other uses described below) between U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101) on the west and San Luis Obispo Creek on the east. Figure 2-1 shows the project location within the City limits and in the region. Figure 2-2 shows the project site and vicinity. Project Description The WRFF Project includes equipment and process upgrades that are based on meeting various performance standards so that the facility will comply with updated discharge specifications set by the RWQCB and SWRCB. Implementation of the proposed project would include the following elements: 1.Demolishing existing structures to make room for new and enlarged equipment 2.Modernizing equipment and operations processes to improve primary, secondary, and tertiary wastewater treatment systems, as well as solids and liquids handling processes 3.Upgrading effluent cooling system through the addition of cooling towers, wetland cooling, and/or other methods 4.Improving internal site drainage for stormwater management and flood control, with the possibility of designing these improvements to support the effluent cooling system 5.Incorporating public amenities at the site, including within the newly constructed Water Resource Center, the proposed Learning Center, and grading and restoring land at the northeast corner of the WRRF site after removal of the existing supernatant lagoon; this restored area may ultimately be used for public park purposes under the direction of the City Parks and Recreation Department 6.Promoting continued research and development activities by Cal Poly and future testing of as yet unidentified pilot process and treatment technologies at the WRRF facility 2 These estimates were calculated based on the three driest months of the year. PC 1- 13 Attachment 2 Water Resource Recovery Facility Project Draft EIR Executive Summary City of San Luis Obispo 3 These project elements are further described in Section 2.4.2, Project Characteristics, and the proposed changes are shown in Figure 2-4 (Construction Sequencing) and 2-5 (Proposed Site Plan). Additionally, detailed descriptions of the proposed upgrades are provided in Section 7 of the WRRF Facilities Plan, while control upgrades and other proposed amenities are further described in other sections of the WRRF Facilities Plan. The WRRF Facilities Plan is available at the following link: http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/utilities- department/wastewater/wastewater-treatment/wrrf-upgrade-project. (San Luis Obispo City June 2015) Because the WRRF must continue operating during upgrades, not all of the demolition and upgrades would occur concurrently. The proposed construction sequencing is shown in Figure 2-4 (Construction Sequencing) and described in the WRRF Facilities Plan (San Luis Obispo City June 2015: Figure 13-2). This sequencing, however, may be refined as the design process continues. Construction activities are expected to start in late 2017. The deadline for most of the proposed upgrades that are required to meet the TSO issued by the SWRCB is November 30, 2019. Other upgrades that will address capacity, condition and other facility needs are planned to be completed as part of this project, at a later date. As the City continues to move forward with design procurement discussions with the RWQCB, the City will evaluate if the compliance schedule for nitrate permit limit can be extended. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Two alternatives to the proposed project were chosen for analysis as follows: •Alternative 1: No Project •Alternative 2: Alternate Process Options The No Project Alternative assumes that the proposed project site and existing treatment methods at the WRRF would remain as currently described in the existing setting under each issue area discussed in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures. It should be noted that implementation of the No Project Alternative would not be feasible because implementation of improvements at the project site are required to meet the more stringent discharge limits in the new NPDES permit for the facility as well as the accompanying TSO. The TSO establishes the compliance schedule for the permit and requires the City achieve the required disinfection byproduct limits and nitrate limits by November 30, 2019. If the No Project Alternative is selected the City would not be able to achieve compliance with the NPDES permit requirements in the required timeframe. Alternative 2 (Alternate Process Options) considers alternate technologies that would enable the WRRF to meet the new NPDES permit requirements. These process alternatives are available for renewable energy, flow equalization, disinfection, cooling, secondary treatment and filtration. Details of these various alternatives are discussed in the WRRF Facilities Plan. While these alternate process options were not included in the proposed project, they would be feasible for use at the WRRF site, though not preferred. For a list of the current technology at the site, the technology that was selected for each process for inclusion in the proposed project, and a list of the alternate technologies considered as part of this alternative, refer to Table 5-1. The alternate technologies considered comprise Alternative 2. PC 1- 14 Attachment 2 Water Resource Recovery Facility Project Draft EIR Executive Summary City of San Luis Obispo 4 TYPE OF DOCUMENT This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA statutes and guidelines, and includes additional analysis required for the “CEQA-Plus” documentation that is required for the City to apply for SRF funding.3 CEQA-Plus documentation includes evaluation of compliance with the Federal Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and the General Conformity Rule for the Federal Clean Air Act. In addition, it requires evaluation of compliance with the federal regulatory framework. Relevant to this project are the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, policies for protection of wetlands, and flood plain management. In compliance with CEQA, this Draft EIR contains a description of the project and existing environmental setting, identification of project impacts, mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant, and an analysis of project alternatives. The analysis in this document is expanded beyond the typical content requirements of an EIR to include additional CEQA‐Plus information pertaining to federally designated endangered species, cultural resource protection, conformity with applicable air management plans, and other federal executive orders and federal regulations. This EIR focuses on those issues of primary concern identified through an initial scoping process, which included discussions among the public, consulting staff, and the City during the 30-day public comment period for the Notice of Preparation (NOP). During this process, nine issue areas were identified for evaluation in this Draft EIR. These topics are discussed in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, and include: •Air Quality •Biological Resources •Cultural Resources •Greenhouse Gas Emissions •Noise •Recreation •Hydrology and Water Quality •Hazards and Hazardous Materials •Public Services and Utilities The remaining environmental topics are addressed in Section 3.10, Effects Found Not to be Significant. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY No comments or concerns were raised by agencies or the public during the scoping comment period. ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED There are no issues to be resolved prior to implementation of the proposed project. 3 SWRCB is the responsible agency that would review and consider the information in the environmental document prior to approving the project. PC 1- 15 Attachment 2 Water Resource Recovery Facility Project Draft EIR Executive Summary City of San Luis Obispo 5 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Table ES-1 provides a summary of potential impacts by issue area, as analyzed in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Only the impacts in Chapter 3 have been assigned a numbering system. All identified environmental impacts associated with the proposed project can be mitigated to less than significant levels, either with the implementation of standard project best management practices (BMPs) included as part of the proposed project and/or with mitigation measures identified in the analysis. No significant unavoidable impacts would occur from proposed project implementation. Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Significance After Mitigation Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation AIR QUALITY Impact AQ-1 The proposed project would not contribute to population growth, and would therefore be consistent with the growth assumptions in the 2001 Clean Air Plan and the City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan. This impact would be Class III, less than significant. None required. Less than significant. Impact AQ-2 Construction of the proposed project would result in temporary generation of air pollutants, which would affect local air quality. Short term emissions would exceed SLOAPCD thresholds for ozone precursors. Impacts would be Class II, potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. AQ-2(a) Standard Mitigation Measures. The project shall comply with the following, outlined in Section 2.3.1 of the SLOAPCD CEQA Handbook: •Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer’s specifications; •Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with CARB certified fuel (non-taxed version suitable for use off-road); •Use diesel construction equipment meeting CARB’s Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State off-Road Regulation; •Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the CARB’s 2007 or cleaner certification standard for on-road heavy- duty diesel engines, and comply with the State On-Road Regulation; •Construction or trucking companies with fleets that do not have engines in their fleet that meet the engine standards identified in the above two measures (e.g. captive or NOX exempt area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative compliance; •All on and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5 minutes, with the exception of concrete delivery vehicles. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and or job sites to remind drivers and operators of the 5 minute idling limit; •Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted; •Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors; •Equipment shall be electrified when feasible; •Diesel powered equipment shall be substituted with gasoline powered equipment when feasible; •Alternatively fueled construction equipment shall be used onsite when feasible, such as compressed natural gas Less than significant. PC 1- 16 Attachment 2 Water Resource Recovery Facility Project Draft EIR Executive Summary City of San Luis Obispo 6 Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Significance After Mitigation Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane, or biodiesel. AQ-2(b) Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for Construction Equipment. The following BACTs, outlined in the SLOAPCD CEQA Handbook, shall be incorporated into construction of the proposed project: •Tier 3 or Tier 4 off-road and 2010 on-road compliant engines shall be used; •Equipment shall be repowered with the cleanest engine available; •California Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies shall be installed. Impact AQ-3 Standard operation of the proposed project would involve regular testing of two new diesel generators, which would incrementally increase long-term emissions. Regular testing of the generators would ensure they would not generate emissions greater than the daily or annual thresholds set by SLOAPCD. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant. None required. Less than significant. Impact AQ-4 In the unlikely event of an emergency power outage, the two new generators would temporarily generate worst-case scenario emissions over a short period of time. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant. None required. Less than significant. Impact AQ-5 The proposed project would have the potential to emit odors as a result of several processes on site. However, the project would include a variety of odor control technologies and would be 300 feet away from the nearest sensitive receptor. Therefore, impacts would be Class IV, beneficial. None required. Beneficial. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact BIO-1 Construction of the project could have a substantial adverse effect on candidate, sensitive, or special- status species. Impacts would be Class II, potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. BIO-1(a) Special Status Plant Species Surveys. Prior to the start of on-site construction activities and when the plants are in a phenological stage conducive to positive identification (i.e., usually during the blooming period for the species), the applicant shall ensure an approved biologist will conduct surveys for special status plant species throughout suitable habitat within the project site. BIO-1(b) Special Status Plant Species Avoidance. If special status plant species are discovered within the study area, the applicant shall ensure an approved biologist will flag and fence these locations before construction activities start Less than significant. PC 1- 17 Attachment 2 Water Resource Recovery Facility Project Draft EIR Executive Summary City of San Luis Obispo 7 Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Significance After Mitigation Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation to avoid impacts. BIO-1(c) Restoration Plan. If avoidance is not feasible; the applicant shall ensure all impacts be mitigated at a minimum ratio of 2:1 (number of acres/individuals restored to number of acres/individuals impacted) for each species as a component of habitat restoration. The applicant shall prepare and submit a restoration plan to the City for approval. The restoration plan shall include, at a minimum, the following components: •Description of the project/impact site (i.e., location, responsible parties, areas to be impacted by habitat type); •Goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project [type(s) and area(s) of habitat to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved; specific functions and values of habitat type(s) to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved]; •Description of the proposed compensatory mitigation site (location and size, ownership status, existing functions and values); •Implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation site (rationale for expecting implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site preparation, planting plan [including species to be used, container sizes, seeding rates, etc.]); •Maintenance activities during the monitoring period, including weed removal and irrigation as appropriate (activities, responsible parties, schedule); •Monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation site, including no less than quarterly monitoring for the first year, along with performance standards, target functions and values, target acreages to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved, and annual monitoring reports to be submitted to the City for a maximum of five years; •Success criteria based on the goals and measurable objectives; said criteria to be, at a minimum, at least 80 percent survival of container plants and 30 percent relative cover by vegetation type; •An adaptive management program and remedial measures to address any shortcomings in meeting success criteria; •Notification of completion of compensatory mitigation and agency confirmation; and •Contingency measures (initiating procedures, alternative locations for contingency compensatory mitigation, funding mechanism). BIO-1(d) Best Management Practices. The applicant shall ensure the following general wildlife Best Management Practices (BMPs) are required: •No pets or firearms shall be allowed at the project site during construction activities. •All trash that may attract predators must be properly contained and removed from the work site. All such debris and waste shall be picked up daily and properly disposed of at an appropriate site. PC 1- 18 Attachment 2 Water Resource Recovery Facility Project Draft EIR Executive Summary City of San Luis Obispo 8 Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Significance After Mitigation Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation •All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles shall occur at least 100 feet from San Luis Obispo Creek and the southern holding ponds and in a location where a spill would not drain toward aquatic habitat. A plan must be in place for prompt and effective response to any accidental spills prior to the onset of work activities. All workers shall be informed of the appropriate measures to take should an accidental spill occur. •To control sedimentation during and after project implementation, appropriate erosion control BMPs (i.e., use of coir rolls, jute netting, etc.) shall be implemented to minimize adverse effects on adjacent San Luis Obispo Creek. No plastic monofilament netting shall be utilized on-site. •All vehicles and equipment shall be in good working condition and free of leaks. •Environmentally Sensitive Areas shall be delineated to confine access routes and construction areas. •Work shall be restricted to daylight hours. BIO-1(e) WEAP Training. Prior to the initiation of construction activities (including staging and mobilization), the applicant shall ensure all personnel associated with project construction shall attend a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training. •The training shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, to aid workers in recognizing special status resources that may occur in the project area. The specifics of this program shall include identification of the sensitive species and habitats, a description of the regulatory status and general ecological characteristics of sensitive resources, and review of the limits of construction and avoidance measures required to reduce impacts to biological resources within the work area. A fact sheet conveying this information shall also be prepared for distribution to all contractors, their employers, and other personnel involved with construction of the project. All employees shall sign a form provided by the trainer documenting they have attended the WEAP and understand the information presented to them. BIO-1(f) Blainville’s Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma blainvilli). The applicant shall ensure the following measures are implemented to avoid and minimize potential impacts to Blainville’s horned lizard. •A qualified biologist shall be present on-site during initial ground disturbance in areas determined to have suitable habitat for this species. Any Blainville’s horned lizards that are observed during initial ground disturbance shall be relocated the shortest distance possible to a location that contains suitable habitat not likely to be affected by activities associated with the proposed project. BIO-1(g) Western Pond Turtle (Actinemys [=Emys] marmorata). The applicant shall ensure the following measures are implemented to avoid and minimize potential impacts to southern western pond turtle: PC 1- 19 Attachment 2 Water Resource Recovery Facility Project Draft EIR Executive Summary City of San Luis Obispo 9 Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Significance After Mitigation Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation •A qualified biologist(s) shall conduct a pre-construction survey within 24 hours prior to the onset of work activities within and around areas considered potential western pond turtle habitat. If this species is found and the individuals are likely to be injured or killed by work activities, the approved biologist shall be allowed sufficient time to move them from the project site before work activities begin. The biologist(s) must relocate the any western pond turtle the shortest distance possible to a location that contains suitable habitat that is not likely to be affected by activities associated with the proposed project. •Access routes, staging, and construction areas shall be limited to the minimum area necessary to achieve the project goal and minimize potential impacts to southern western pond turtle habitat including locating access routes and construction staging areas outside of wetlands and riparian areas to the maximum extent practicable. BIO-1(h) California Red-Legged Frog (Rana draytonii). The applicant shall ensure the following measures are implemented to ensure that impacts to CRLF from the proposed project are reduced to a less than significant level. •Only USFWS-approved biologists shall participate in activities associated with the capture, handling, and monitoring of CRLF. •Ground disturbance shall not begin until written approval is received from the USFWS that the biologist is qualified to conduct the work. If the USFWS does not authorize the relocation of CRLF occurring within the project site, CRLF found within the project site shall be avoided with a 100-foot buffer and no activities shall occur within that buffer until the CRLF has left the project site on its own. •The project site shall be surrounded by a solid temporary exclusion fence (such as silt fencing) that shall extend at least three feet above the ground and be buried into the ground at least 6 inches to exclude CRLF from the project site. Plastic monofilament netting or other similar material will not be used. The location of the fencing shall be determined by a qualified biologist. The fence shall remain in place throughout construction activities. Installation of the exclusion fencing shall be monitored by a qualified biologist to ensure that it is installed correctly. •All vehicles and equipment shall be in good working condition and free of leaks. •Environmentally Sensitive Areas shall be delineated to confine access routes and construction areas. •Work shall be restricted to daylight hours. •To ensure that diseases are not conveyed between work sites by the approved biologist, the fieldwork code of practice developed by the Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force shall be followed at all times. •No pets or firearms shall be permitted on-site. BIO-1(i) Steelhead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus). The applicant shall ensure the following mitigation measures PC 1- 20 Attachment 2 Water Resource Recovery Facility Project Draft EIR Executive Summary City of San Luis Obispo 10 Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Significance After Mitigation Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation are undertaken to ensure that impacts to steelhead from the proposed project are reduced to a less than significant level. These measures are included in or are subsequent to the measures stipulated in the facility’s existing National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion. •Before any activities begin on the project, a qualified biologist will conduct a training session for all construction personnel. At a minimum, the training will include a description of the steelhead and its habitat, the specific measures that are being implemented to conserve this species for the current project, and the boundaries within which the project may be accomplished. Brochures, books, and briefings may be used in the training session, provided that a qualified person is on hand to answer any questions. •During the duration of project activities, all trash that may attract predators will be properly contained and secured, promptly removed from the work site, and disposed of regularly. Following construction, all trash and construction debris will be removed from the work areas. •All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles will occur at least 100 feet from riparian habitat or bodies of water and in a location where a potential spill would not drain directly toward aquatic habitat (e.g., on a slope that drains away from the water source). The monitor shall ensure that contamination of suitable habitat does not occur during such operations. Prior to the onset of work activities, a plan must be in place for prompt and effective response to any accidental spills. All workers shall be informed of the importance of preventing spills and of the appropriate measures to take should an accidental spill occur. •The number of access routes, size of staging areas, and the total area used for construction activities shall be limited to the minimum area necessary to achieve the project goals. •The City will attempt to schedule work within the immediate vicinity of San Luis Obispo Creek for times of the year when potential impacts to steelhead would be minimal. To the maximum extent feasible, work should be restricted during the wet season (October 15 through April 30) and should ideally occur during the late summer and early fall. •To control sedimentation during and after project implementation, the City shall implement the following BMPs. If the BMPs are somehow ineffective, the City, in consultation with the appropriate resource agency(ies), will attempt to remedy the situation immediately. •It shall be the owner’s/contractor’s responsibility to maintain control of the entire construction operations and to keep the entire site in compliance. •The owner/contractor shall be responsible for monitoring erosion and sediment control measures (including but not limited to fiber rolls, inlet protections, silt fences, and gravel bags) prior, during and after storm events, monitoring includes maintaining a file documenting onsite inspections, problems encountered, corrective actions, and notes and a map of remedial PC 1- 21 Attachment 2 Water Resource Recovery Facility Project Draft EIR Executive Summary City of San Luis Obispo 11 Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Significance After Mitigation Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation implementation measures. •All earth stockpiles over 2.0 cubic yards shall be covered with a tarp and ringed with straw bales or silt fencing. The site shall be maintained so as to minimize sediment- laden runoff to any storm drainage system including existing drainage swales and/or sand watercourses. o Construction operations shall be carried out in such a manner that erosion and water pollution will be minimized. o State and local laws concerning pollution abatement shall be complied with. o If grading operations are expected to denude slopes, the slopes shall be protected with erosion control measures immediately following grading on the slopes. •Specifically, in order to prevent sedimentation and debris from entering San Luis Obispo Creek during construction, silt fencing shall be installed along the top of the banks on the west side of the channel prior to the onset of construction activities. •The project biologist will monitor construction activities, in stream habitat, and overall performance of BMPs and sediment controls for the purpose of identifying and reconciling any condition that could adversely affect steelhead or their habitat. •Equipment will be checked daily for leaks prior to the initiation of construction activities. A spill kit will be placed near the creek and will remain readily available during construction in the event that any contaminant is accidentally released. •In addition to these avoidance and minimization measures, mitigation measure BIO-2 would also ensure that potential indirect impacts to steelhead from this project are reduced to the extent practicable. BIO-1(j) Nesting Birds. The applicant shall ensure the following mitigation measures are undertaken to reduce any potential impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level. •For construction activities occurring during the nesting season (generally February 1 to September 15), surveys for nesting birds covered by the California Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to vegetation removal. The surveys shall include the disturbance area plus a 500-foot buffer around the site. If active nests are located, all construction work shall be conducted outside a buffer zone from the nest to be determined by the qualified biologist. The buffer shall be a minimum of 50 feet for non-raptor bird species and at least 300 feet for raptor species. Larger buffers may be required depending upon the status of the nest and the construction activities occurring in the vicinity of the nest. The buffer area(s) shall be closed to all construction personnel and equipment until the adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site. A qualified biologist shall confirm that breeding/nesting is completed and young have fledged the nest prior to PC 1- 22 Attachment 2 Water Resource Recovery Facility Project Draft EIR Executive Summary City of San Luis Obispo 12 Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Significance After Mitigation Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation removal of the buffer. •If feasible, removal of vegetation within suitable nesting bird habitats will be scheduled to occur in the fall and winter (between September 1 and February 14), after fledging and before the initiation of the nesting season. Impact BIO-2 Construction of the project could have a substantial adverse effect on sensitive habitats, including riparian areas. Impacts would be Class II, potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. BIO-2 Riparian Habitat. A Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) shall be prepared which will provide a minimum a 1:1 ratio for temporary and permanent impacts to riparian habitat. The HMMP will identify the specific mitigation sites and it will be implemented immediately following project completion. The HMMP shall include, at a minimum, the following components: •Description of the project/impact site (i.e. location, responsible parties, areas to be impacted by habitat type); •Goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project [type(s) and area(s) of habitat to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved; specific functions and values of habitat type(s) to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved]; •Description of the proposed compensatory mitigation- site (location and size, ownership status, existing functions and values of the compensatory mitigation- site); •Implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation-site (rationale for expecting implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site preparation, planting plan [including plant species to be used, container sizes, seeding rates, etc.]); •Maintenance activities during the monitoring period, including weed removal and irrigation as appropriate (activities, responsible parties, schedule); •Monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation site, including no less than quarterly monitoring for the first year (performance standards, target functions and values, target acreages to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved, annual monitoring reports); •Success criteria based on the goals and measurable objectives; said criteria to be, at a minimum, at least 80 percent survival of container plants and 80 percent relative cover by vegetation type; •An adaptive management program and remedial measures to address negative impacts to restoration efforts; •Notification of completion of compensatory mitigation and agency confirmation; and •Contingency measures (initiating procedures, alternative locations for contingency compensatory mitigation, funding mechanism). BIO-3 Jurisdictional Water and Wetlands Best Management Practices (discussed below) Less than significant. Impact BIO-3 Construction of the project could have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the BIO-1(d) Best Management Practices (discussed above) BIO-3 Jurisdictional Water and Wetlands BMPs. The following BMPs shall be implemented: 1.To control sedimentation during and after project Less than significant. PC 1- 23 Attachment 2 Water Resource Recovery Facility Project Draft EIR Executive Summary City of San Luis Obispo 13 Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Significance After Mitigation Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation Clean Water Act. Impacts would be Class II, potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. implementation, appropriate erosion control best management practices (i.e., installation of straw wattle, jute netting, etc.) shall be implemented to minimize adverse effects on jurisdictional areas in the vicinity of the project. Plastic monofilament erosion control matting will not be implemented onsite. 2.Project activities within the jurisdictional areas shall occur during the dry season (typically between June 1 and November 1) in any given year, or as otherwise directed by the regulatory agencies. Deviations from this work window can be made with permission from the relevant regulatory agencies. 3.During construction, no litter or construction debris shall be placed within jurisdictional areas. All such debris and waste shall be picked up daily and properly disposed of at an appropriate site. In addition, all project-generated debris, building materials, and rubbish shall be removed from jurisdictional areas and from areas where such materials could be washed into them. 4.Any substances which could be hazardous to aquatic species resulting from project-related activities shall be prevented from contaminating the soil and/or entering jurisdictional areas. 5.All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles shall occur at least 100 feet from bodies of water and in a location where a potential spill would not drain directly toward aquatic habitat (e.g., on a slope that drains away from the water source). Prior to the onset of work activities, a plan must be in place for prompt and effective response to any accidental spills. All workers shall be informed of the importance of preventing spills and of the appropriate measures to take should an accidental spill occur. CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact CR-1 Construction of the proposed project would involve ground-disturbing activities which have the potential to unearth or adversely impact archaeological resources. Impacts would be Class II, potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. CR-1(a) WEAP Training. Prior to project construction, the applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for historic archaeology to conduct a Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) for all construction personnel working on the project. The training shall include an overview of potential cultural resources that could be encountered during ground disturbing activities to facilitate worker recognition, avoidance, and notification to a qualified archaeologist in the event of unanticipated discoveries. The Native American monitor shall also be present at the WEAP training to provide the Native American perspective on cultural resources and potential project-related impacts, and to receive information regarding the project schedule, roles and responsibilities, and mitigation measures CR-1(b) Archaeological and Native American Monitoring. Prior to project construction the applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative to conduct archaeological monitoring of all project related ground disturbing activities within 200 feet of the creek bed. Archaeological monitoring should be performed under the direction of an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Less than significant. PC 1- 24 Attachment 2 Water Resource Recovery Facility Project Draft EIR Executive Summary City of San Luis Obispo 14 Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Significance After Mitigation Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation archaeology (NPS 1983). The duration and timing of monitoring shall be determined by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with the City and based on the grading plans and level of previous disturbance within work areas. If archaeological resources are encountered during ground- disturbing activities, work in the immediate area must halt and the find be evaluated for significance under Section 106 of the NHPA and CEQA. CR-1(c) Discovery of Archaeological Resources. In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during project construction, all earth disturbing work within the vicinity of the find shall be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find. Evaluation of significance for the find may include the determination of whether or not the find qualifies as an archaeological site. Isolated finds do not qualify as historical resources under CEQA or historic properties under the NHPA and require no management consideration under either regulation. Should any resource(s) be identified, an evaluation of eligibility for the CRHR and NRHP may be required through the development of a treatment plan including a research design and subsurface testing through the excavation of test units and shovel test pits. After effects to the find have been appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume. Mitigation of significant impacts or adverse effects to the find may include a damage assessment of the find, archival research, and/or data recovery to remove any identified archaeological deposits, as determined by a qualified archaeologist. CR-1(d) Discovery of Human Remains. If human remains are found, the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the county coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the San Luis Obispo County coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Impact CR-2 Construction of the proposed project would involve ground-disturbing activities which have the potential to unearth or adversely impact paleontological resources. Impacts would be Class II, potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. CR-2(a) Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Program. Prior to construction activity a qualified paleontologist should prepare a Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Program to be implemented during project ground disturbance activity. This program should be based on the final project plans to identify specific areas where ground disturbing activity has the potential to impact scientifically significant paleontological resources and include the following details: 1)Outline the procedures for construction staff Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training; 2)Specify the extent, location and duration of Less than significant. PC 1- 25 Attachment 2 Water Resource Recovery Facility Project Draft EIR Executive Summary City of San Luis Obispo 15 Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Significance After Mitigation Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation paleontological monitoring based on proposed construction activity; 3)Specify the procedures for salvage and preparation of fossils; 4)Require a final mitigation and monitoring report; and 5)Specify the qualifications of a qualified paleontologist and paleontological monitors. CR-2(b) Paleontological WEAP. Prior to the start of construction, construction personnel should be informed on the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction staff. CR-2(c) Paleontological Monitoring. Any excavations exceeding five feet in depth, including those in the young alluvium, should be monitored according to the specifications outlined in the PMMP. At a minimum, paleontological monitoring should be sufficient to evaluate the potential of newly exposed geologic units to contain fossils. If the qualified paleontologist determines that geologic units are unlikely to yield significant paleontological resources, monitoring may be discontinued. If ground disturbance activity is initiated in a new area or to a deeper depth than previous excavations, paleontological monitoring should be re-initiated. Monitoring should be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor as specified in the PMMP. Ground disturbing activity that does not exceed five feet in depth in young alluvium would not require paleontological monitoring. CR-2(d) Salvage of Fossils. If fossils are discovered, the qualified paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) should recover them. Typically fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a single paleontologist and not disrupt construction activity. In some cases larger fossils (such as complete skeletons or large mammal fossils) require more extensive excavation and longer salvage periods. In this case the paleontologist should have the authority to temporarily direct, divert or halt construction activity to ensure that the fossil(s) can be removed in a safe and timely manner. CR-2(e) Preparation and Curation of Recovered Fossils. Once salvaged, fossils should be identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curation-ready condition and curated in a scientific institution with a permanent paleontological collection (such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology or the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History), along with all pertinent field notes, photos, data, and maps. CR-2(f) Final Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Report. Upon completion of ground disturbing activity (and curation of fossils if necessary) the qualified paleontologist should prepare a final mitigation and monitoring report outlining the results of the mitigation and monitoring program. The report should include discussion of the location, duration and methods of the monitoring, stratigraphic sections, any recovered fossils, and the scientific significance of those PC 1- 26 Attachment 2 Water Resource Recovery Facility Project Draft EIR Executive Summary City of San Luis Obispo 16 Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Significance After Mitigation Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation fossils, and where fossils were curated. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Impact GHG-1 The proposed project would generate greenhouse gas emissions through construction, increased energy use, increased biogenic processes as a result of the increased wastewater capacity, and testing of emergency diesel generators. The increased emissions would be below the SLOAPCD threshold for annual greenhouse gas emissions, therefore impacts would be Class III, less than significant. None required. Less than significant. Impact GHG-2 The proposed project would not conflict with State GHG reduction goals, or any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant. None required. Less than significant. NOISE Impact N-1 Construction activities associated with the proposed project would expose nearby sensitive receptors to temporary increases in noise, however, these would not exceed City noise thresholds. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant. None required. Less than significant. Impact N-2 Project construction would expose nearby sensitive receptors to a temporary increase in vibration levels. However, vibration levels during construction would not expose nearby structures to vibration damage or excessive vibration noise. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant. None required. Less than significant. Impact N-3 Noise associated with operation of the proposed project would not exceed City thresholds. Therefore, impacts would be Class III, less than significant. None required. Less than significant. RECREATION Impact REC-1 The proposed project would potentially affect operation of existing and planned park and recreation facilities, as it would enhance recreational amenities at the None required. Less than significant. PC 1- 27 Attachment 2 Water Resource Recovery Facility Project Draft EIR Executive Summary City of San Luis Obispo 17 Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Significance After Mitigation Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation site. This is a Class IV, beneficial impact. Impact REC-2 Impacts associated with construction of the recreational components of the proposed project are part of the wider project analyzed in this EIR. Potential adverse impacts have been identified in several environmental issue areas, related primarily to construction activities associated with the proposed project. Impacts would be Class II, potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. Mitigation measures identified in Section 3.1, Air Quality, Section 3.2, Biological Resources, Section 3.3, Cultural Resources, and Section 3.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, would apply. Less than significant. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Impact HYD-1 During construction the proposed project could potentially violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Impacts would be Class II, potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. HYD-1 Prepare an Emergency Wastewater Treatment Plan. Before construction is initiated, the City of San Luis Obispo shall work with its design engineers and construction contractor to develop an Emergency Wastewater Treatment Plan which identifies procedures for handling and treating wastewater flows during construction of the Project. This Plan shall include procedures and contingency measures for proper handling and treatment of wastewater flows in the event that the treatment train goes offline unexpectedly as a result of construction activities, such as temporary storage wastewater flows. The Plan shall consider storage options, varying levels of treatment and/or blending, temporary treatment options, and conveyance to alternative treatment facilities. An existing emergency treatment plan could be used in place of this Emergency Wastewater Treatment Plan so long as its provisions could be successfully implemented during project construction. HAZ-1(a) Hazardous Materials Management and Spill Control Plan (discussed below) HAZ-1(b) Preparation of Hazardous Materials Business Plan (discussed below) Less than significant. Impact HYD-2 The proposed project would not result in flooding, erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant. None required. Less than significant. Impact HYD-3 The proposed project would result in an improvement in the quality of discharges from the WRRF to San Luis Obispo Creek. Impacts would be Class IV, beneficial. None required. Beneficial. Impact HYD-4 The proposed project would result in placement of structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. Impacts would be Class II, potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. HYD-4 Design Stormwater Outfall with Energy Dissipaters. The City of San Luis Obispo shall ensure that the San Luis Obispo Creek stormwater outfall, if selected to manage storm flows on the WRRF site, is designed with energy dissipation features as needed to prevent flooding and erosion at or downstream of the point of discharge. Less than significant. PC 1- 28 Attachment 2 Water Resource Recovery Facility Project Draft EIR Executive Summary City of San Luis Obispo 18 Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Significance After Mitigation Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation The design and location of the stormwater outfall shall be approved by USACE to ensure that it does not impede high flow capacity. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Impact HAZ-1 Construction of the proposed project would temporarily increase the routine transport and use of hazardous materials used in construction activities. Operation of the expanded and upgraded WRRF would entail the routine transportation, use, storage, and/or disposal of minor amounts of hazardous materials. Impacts would be Class II, potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. HAZ-1(a) Hazardous Materials Management and Spill Control Plan. Before construction begins, all construction contractors shall be required to develop and implement a HMMSCP that includes project-specific contingency plan for hazardous materials and waste operations. The HMMSCP shall establish policies and procedures consistent with applicable codes and regulations, including but not limited to the California Building and Fire Codes, and federal and California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The HMMSCP shall articulate hazardous materials handling practices to prevent their release into San Luis Obispo Creek during construction of the storm water outfall. HAZ-1(b) Preparation of Hazardous Materials Business Plan. Prior to operation of the new facilities, a HMBP shall be prepared and implemented for the proposed project. The HMBP shall include a hazardous materials inventory, site plan, an emergency response plan, and requirements for employee training. An existing HMBP can be updated and resubmitted for the expanded facilities. Less than significant. Impact HAZ-2 The proposed project has potential to create a hazard through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment during both construction and operation. Impacts would be Class II, potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. HAZ-1(a) Hazardous Materials Management and Spill Control Plan (discussed above) HAZ-1(b) Preparation of Hazardous Materials Business Plan (discussed above) Less than significant. Impact HAZ-3 The proposed project could result in the disturbance of contaminated soils on an active cleanup sites listed on the SWRCB GeoTracker database. Impacts would be Class II, potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. HAZ-3(a) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Before construction begins, the City of San Luis Obispo shall perform a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) to clarify the potential for soil contamination due to the adjacent open cleanup site. The recommendations set forth in the Phase I ESA shall be implemented before construction begins. Follow-up sampling may be conducted, if needed, to characterize soil and groundwater quality. Prior to construction, contractors shall be informed of the location of potential areas of hazardous materials that may be encountered during construction, and shall ensure that safety precautions are in place to avoid or minimize exposure to potentially contaminated soils, and to reduce the potential for accidental damage to underground storage tanks that could cause accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment. HAZ-3(b) Contaminated Soil Contingency Plan. The City of San Luis Obispo shall require its construction contractors to develop and implement a Contaminated Soil Contingency Plan to handle treatment and/or disposal of contaminated soils. If contaminated soil is encountered Less than significant. PC 1- 29 Attachment 2 Water Resource Recovery Facility Project Draft EIR Executive Summary City of San Luis Obispo 19 Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Significance After Mitigation Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation during project construction, work shall halt and an assessment made to determine the extent of contamination. Treatment and/or disposal of contaminated soils shall be conducted in accordance with the Contingency Plan. Impact HAZ-4 The proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area due to location within an airport land use plan. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant. None required. Less than significant. Impact HAZ-5 The proposed project could impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency evacuation and response during construction. Impacts would be Class II, potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. HAZ-5 Traffic Management Plan. Prior to the start of construction, the City shall develop a Traffic Management Plan, in coordination with City Transit, Public Works, and other appropriate departments or users of the site, that would include industry, Caltrans, and City standards for managing construction traffic to and from the site. Measures to manage construction traffic could include warning signs, flag men, and scheduling deliveries outside the AM and PM peak hours. The Traffic Management Plan shall include measures that address how to accommodate emergency evacuation and response, if needed. Less than significant. Impact HAZ-6 The proposed project would not increase the exposure of people or structures to wildfire risks due to population growth, but construction activities could create hazardous fire conditions. Impacts would be Class II, potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. HAZ-6 Prevention of Fire Hazards. During construction of the proposed project, staging areas, welding areas, or areas slated for construction shall be cleared of dried vegetation or other material that could ignite. Construction equipment that includes a spark arrestor shall be equipped in good working order. In addition, construction crews shall have a spotter during welding activities to look out for potentially dangerous situations, such as accidental sparks. Other construction equipment, including those with hot vehicle catalytic converters, shall be kept in good working order and used only within cleared construction zones. The creation and maintenance of approved fire access to work areas shall be required in accordance with local Fire regulations. During construction of the proposed project, contractors shall require vehicles and crews working at the project site to have access to functional fire extinguishers. Less than significant. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Impact UTL-1 The proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth and require the need for new or addition fire protection or police services that would result in the need for expanded facilities. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant. None required. Less than significant. Impact UTL-2 The proposed project would include improvements to the WRRF, which would improve treated wastewater quality. There would be a beneficial impact on wastewater effluent quality. Impacts would be Class IV, None required. Beneficial. PC 1- 30 Attachment 2 Water Resource Recovery Facility Project Draft EIR Executive Summary City of San Luis Obispo 20 Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Significance After Mitigation Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation beneficial. Impact UTL-3 Stormwater drainage improvements are included as part of the proposed project. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant. None required. Less than significant. Impact UTL-4 The proposed project would not require additional water supplies. No impact would occur. None required. No impact. Impact UTL-5 The proposed project would not be served by a landfill with insufficient capacity to accommodate solid waste that would be generated. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant. None required. Less than significant. Impact UTL-6 The proposed project would comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant. None required. Less than significant. PC 1- 31 Attachment 2