HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/03/1991, C-13 - HIRING A CONSULTANT TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR UPGRADE OF THE STENNER CANYON WATER TREATMENT PLANT. IIVII�I�IIIfIIIIIII�III�fiffilaftm�IIIIII "7 MEETING DATE
►iu�ui► c� o san tws oB�spo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMB ./
a .
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 Perspective Planning 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 $40, 670.
DISCUSSION
In July 1990, the City Council approved consultant services 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.
On January 15, 1991, the request-for-proposals was sent to seven
consulting firms, three within the county and four outside. By
the February 1, 1991, deadline only one firm, Perspective
Planning, had submitted a proposal. Staff reviewed the proposal
and determined that it was adequate. Staff has been negotiating
details of the work scope for several weeks.
FISCAL IMPACTS
This project is authorized on pages E-17 and E-19 of the 1989-91
Financial Plan and Budget. Perspective Planning has provided a {
cost estimate of $40, 670 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 direct staff to request additional proposals, or
continue action.
Attachments: Draft resolution approving agreement
Agreement, with workscope and schedule
Initial environmental study
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 Perspective
Planning 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 111" and incorporated herein by reference, between the
City and Perspective Planning is hereby approved and the Mayor is
authorized to execute the same.
SECTION 2. The City Finance Director shall transfer and
encumber $41, 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 Perspective Planning.
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.
APPROVED:
City A inistrative Officer
tt n
ITZ 4
F1 n Di c r
Community Deve went Director
Utilities Director
gmD: stnr-cc.wp
�-�3-3
EXHIBIT 1
CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT
This agreement, made this day of , 1991, by
and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, California (hereinafter
referred to. as "City") , and Perspective Planning, (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. John
Ashbaugh 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 bate of temporary suspension.
�j3-G
Consultant Services Agreement 4
Water Treatment Plant EIR
7. SUSPENSION: TERMINATION
a. Right to susnehd 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.
8. 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: Perspective Planning
979 Osos Street - Suite A-3
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
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.
�/3-�
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 sue 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
��3-9
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
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
By
Mayor
gmD:contract.Wp 050-9744-092-570
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
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
By
Mayor
gmD:contract.wp
c�3-�3
PROPOSAL FOR SERVY'S WATE' ' REATMENT PLANT EIR
EXHIBIT A
PROJECT APPROACH
PERSPECTIVE PLANNING approaches each project with a commitment to
providing high-quality, accurate, and cost-effective planning
services tailored to the individual client's needs. This commit-
ment requires that the Principal identify the community's needs,
carefully design the research and planning program that is
required, and assemble a project team that is capable of perform-
ing the required services within the available budget. Due to
the small size of the firm, each project is individually super-
vised and a large proportion of the actual work is performed by
the Principal; however each project requires strong personnel
management and team coordination to support the Principal.
PERSPECTIVE PLANNING also approaches each professional assignment
with the ultimate goal of providing its clients with a product
that is comprehensive and well-researched, but which can also be
easily comprehended by staff, decision-makers, and the public.
To achieve this goal, each final project will include a summary
of relevant data and findings, graphical representations of pro-
ject data, and recommendations for achieving goals and objectives
of the Client.
After reviewing the City of San Luis Obispo's RFP and conferring
with City Planning staff, PERSPECTIVE PLANNING has identified the
following major issues at this time with respect to the Water
Treatment Plant Upgrade Project in San Luis Obispo:
- Significant impacts on energy resources, resulting from an
increase in the water treatment plant's annual energy use of
1. 6 million kilowatt hours (kwh) to a substantial increase
of 4. 5 million kwh.
- Cumulative impacts involving the upgrade of the water treat-
ment plant.
The EIR shall also include a description of the existing water
treatment plant with the proposed improvements drawn in to scale.
Detailed graphics of the ozone process will also be provided for
the purpose of energy efficiency analysis.
The proposed scope of services for this EIR follows.
PROPOSAL FOR SERVIr WATER `ZEATMENT PLANT EIR
PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK
This scope of work has been prepared in light of the City' s RFP
and the consultant's understanding of the project and the commu-
nity. Proposed tasks and personnel are as follows:
SUMMARY: An Executive Summary of the EIR, as defined by CEQA
section 15123 , will be provided, including a decision-makers sum-
mary table that identifies each impact and corresponding mitiga-
tion measures. This listing of impacts will be organized
according to the level of significance of the impacts (i. e. ,
Class I, Class II, etc. ) . A summary of major alternatives and
other pertinent .sections of the EIR will also be provided here.
1. 0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This section will include a brief description of the site loca-
tion and surrounding area, project objectives, technical
characteristics, and consistency with the general plan, related
ordinances and other plans (water and air) . Reduced graphics
will be provided, utilizing the conceptual engineering designs
and site layout already prepared by Black and Veach wherever pos-
sible. Additional data to be provided includes a description of
the ozone process, and photographs of the site.
This section will be reviewed with staff (and the applicant, if
desired) at an early stage of the EIR preparation, prior to com-
pletion of the Environmental Setting and Impacts section.
2 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS
This section will begin with a brief discussion of the regional
setting, incorporating by reference from relevant background
information and other EIR's wherever possible.
Only one section of the Environmental Analysis is anticipated, as
follows:
2 . 1 Enerav Resources: Working with City staff, the City's
engineering consultant Black and Veach, the Consultant team will
prepare a narrative describing the increased energy consumption
required for the treatment plant upgrade. This additional
electrical demand will be compared to existing City requirements
and other institutional users in the community.
Based on that impact scenario, a mitigation program will be de-
signed as follows: Energy Investment, Inc. will prepare a design
alternative study on the mechanical and electrical system modifi-
cations for the Stenner Canyon plant. The study will provide
savings and cost estimates available for each alternative.
2
PROPOSAL FOR SERVI WATER EATMENT PLANT EIR
Consultant will also undertake a design review of teh wastewater
treatment plant, focussing on measures to reduce electric power
consumption. The final report will include the results of the
design reviews and will also include a section on other conserva-
tion plans taking place within the City and in conjunction with
the utilities.
The energy resources section will be organized as follows:
1. Design Review of the New Stenner Canyon Plant.
2 . Design Review of the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
3 . Summary of other conservation programs taking place in the
city.
The three sections are described in more detail below. NOTE: As
the steps below show, the focus is on the identification of
energy conservation opportunities, the presentation of the steps
for implementation associated with needed mitigation, as well as
participation in the overall EIR process. Actual implementation
is subject to later phases of work for which Perspective Planning
and Energy Investment would be available if needed and requested
by the City.
2 . 1. 1: Design Review of Modification to Stenner Canyon Water
Treatment Plant
1. Collect and review available plans and specifications
from Black and Veach representing selected design for
electrical and mechanical systems for the plant. Dis-
cuss operating levels and requirements with San Luis
Obispo.
2. Review alternative designs not selected for this pro-
ject. Check if any significant assumptions have been
changed. Re-assess selected components of the design.
3 . Identify alternatives for improved electrical efficiency
in the following systems.
a. Lighting systems
b. HVAC systems
C. Pumping systems
d. Building shell
e. Process equipment
f. Motors
4 . For each promising design alternatives, consult with
Black and Veach and estimate the following relative to
required base design conditions:
a. Impact on demand and consumption
b. Incremental cost over base design
PROPOSAL FOR SERVIL-, WATER .EATMENT PLANT EIR
c. Operating cost savings
5. Consult with PG&E to identify potential rebates avail-
able for the changes.
6. Review preliminary cost and savings estimates with the
designers, Black and Veach, Tom Herrington and other
appropriate San Luis Obispo city staff.
7. Document results of the study in the EIR outlining the
cost-effective design alternatives identified.
2 . 1.2: Design Review of Wastewater Treatment Plant: Provide de-
tailed savings projections and cost estimates based upon
a review of the proposed wastewater treatment plant up-
grade. In particular, the following steps will be
taken:
1. Collect and review plans and specifications for the pro-
posed upgrade. Discuss operating levels and require-
ments with San Luis Obispo.
2. Identify alternatives for improved electrical efficiency
in the following systems.
a. Lighting systems
b. HVAC systems
C. Pumping systems
d. Building shell
e. Computer control
f. Wet line process equipment
g. Motor
3 . For each of the promising alternatives, consult with the
designer and contractor and estimate the following rela-
tive to the bid design:
a. Impact on electrical demand and consumption
b. Incremental cost over bid design
C. Operating cost savings
d. Schedule implications for construction
4. Consult with PG&E to identify potential rebates avail-
able for the changes.
5. Review preliminary cost and savings estimates with the
designers, Tom Herrington and other appropriate San Luis
Obispo city staff.
7. Document results of the study in the EIR outlining the
cost-effective design alternatives identified.
2. 1.3 Summary of other City Conservation Programs: As part of
the EIR, the Consultant will compile a summary of exist-
. 4
PROPOSAL FOR SERV' S WATEI ZEATMENT PLANT EIR
ing and planned San luis Obispo energty conservation
programs. This summary will utilize information from
the audit prepared by Newcomb-Anderson and will include
a summary of savings potential and suggested implementa-
tion. This section of the report will also contain
information on utility programs and other outreach pro-
grams available to improve efficiency in the city.
2.2 Mitigation Monitoring Program
Perspective Planning will formulate a mitigation monitoring pro-
gram which includes discussion of the effectiveness of proposed
mitigations. The mitigation monitoring program will specify the
responsible party for carrying out the mitigation, a defined time
frame for completion and a responsible regulatory agent to assure
compliance.
3 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Perspective Planning shall prepare this section in accordance
with Section 15126 (d) and 15127 of the CEQA Guidelines.
3 .1 Unavoidable/Irreversible Impacts of the Project
Perspective Planning will describe those significant adverse
environmental impacts for which there are no mitigation or only
partial mitigation possible. If the proposed energy conservation
program by Energy Investment, Inc. does not fully mitigate the
additional energy requirement for the water treatment plant, that
fact will be so noted in this section
3 .2 Alternatives to the Proiect
This section will describe the types of alternatives to the pro-
ject that might be reasonably feasible for the City--i.e. , no
project, other types of treatment modifications, etc. The alter-
natives section will compare each of the identified alternatives
for the energy consumption issue analyzed elsewhere in the EIR.
Other environmental issues, to the extent that they are relevant,
will be discussed in a manner similar to that used for the Ini-
tial Study. .
3 . 3 Growth Inducement
The extent to which the treatment plant upgrade could present a
growth-inducing impact will be discussed, and the strength and
potential significance of this impact will be determined.
4 . 0 RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES
5 /3-/f
PROPOSAL FOR SERVICi_j WATER _..EATMENT PLANT EIR
c. Operating cost savings
5. Consult with PG&E to identify potential rebates avail-
able for the changes.
6. Review preliminary cost and savings estimates with the
designers, Black and Veach, Tom Herrington and other
appropriate San Luis Obispo city staff.
7. Docubent results of the study in the EIR outlining the
cost=effective design alternatives identified.
2 . 1.2 : Design Review of Wastewater Treatment Plant: Provide de-
tailed -savings projections and cost estimates based upon
a review of the proposed wastewater treatment plant up-
grade. In particular, the following steps will be
taken:
1. Collect and review plans and specifications for the pro-
posed upgrade. Discuss operating levels and require-
ments with San Luis Obispo.
2. Identify alternatives for improved electrical efficiency
in the following' .aystems.
a. Lighting systems
b. HVAC systems ,'
c. Pumping systems
d. Building shell
e. Computer control
f. Wet line process equipment
g. Motor
3 . For each of the promising alt,qrnatives, consult with the
designer and contractor and estimate the following rela-
tive to the bid design:
a. Impacton electrical demand acid consumption
b. Incremental cost over bid desiqn.
c. Operating cost savings
d. Sched{ile implications for construction
4 . Consult with PG&E to identify potential rebates avail-
able for the changes.
5. Review,preliminary cost and savings estimates with the
designers, Tom Herrington and other appropriate San Luis
Obispo city staff.
7. Document results of the study in the EIR outlining the
cost-effective design alternatives identified.
2 . 1. 3 Summary of other City Conservation Programs: As part of
the EIR, the Consultant' will compile a summary of exist-
4 � 145
PROPOSAL FOR SERVIC-_ WATER ...EATMENT PLANT EIR
This section will reference agencies in addition to the City
which may review or have permitting authority for the project.
5. 0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONTACTED
This section will be included as a standard portion of any EIR.
6. 0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
The final EIR will include comments by all responsible agencies
and the general public, and responses of the consultant team.
6
PROPOSAL FOR SERVI WATEP 2ATMENT PLANT EIR
PROJECT ADMINISTRATION AND COSTS
Perspective Planning will administer this contract in accordance
with the standards and- requirements of the City of San Luis
Obispo. Our firm meets basic eligibility standards, including
holding the proper amount and type of liability insurance.
We are willing to commit to the following Time of Performance:
Administrative Draft EIR 30 calendar days from
contract initiation
Draft EIR 10 days from receipt
of City comments on ADEIR
Administrative Final EIR 10 days from receipt
of City comments on DEIR
Final EIR 10 days from receipt
of City comments on AFEIR
ESTIMATED FEES
In the opinion of Perspective Planning staff, this EIR will re-
quire estimated fees and project costs of about $ 40, 670. A
precise breakdown of estimated fees follows; the individual staff
members included in this proposal are stated below.
A payment schedule for the above fees is set forth as follows:
Administrative Draft EIR: 50%
Draft EIR 20%
Administrative Final EIR 20%
Final EIR 10%
The standard contract provisions and pgayment schedule are
acceptable to Perspective Planning. This proposal is valid for
60 days.
We have budgeted for two public hearings by our Principal and one
member of Energy Investment, Inc. ; additional hearings may be
attended at cost. Actual costs for additional hearings would be
billed on a time and materials basis.
PROPOSAL FOR SERVI%_. S WATER TREATMENT PLANT EIR
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
Perspective Planning is associating with a very highly-qualified
team of energy conservation consultants for this EIR. Detailed
statements of qualifications for all key team members are en-
closed with each copy of this proposal. For .ease of reference,
and as a cross-reference to the above table of cost estimates and
time allocations, the following team members are included herein:
Perspective Planning
John B. Ashbaugh, AICP Principal
Teresa M. Thomas Environmental Planner
Energy Investment, Inc.
James B. Redden, P.E. Vice-President, Engineering
Michael R. Eaton Project Coordinator
Andrew H. Sims, Jr. , P.E. Senior Engineer
Elizabeth Johnson Project Administrator
Margaret V. Selig, P.E. Project Engineer
8
r
PROPOSAL FOR WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE EIR
ESTIMATED COSTS
EIR Component Team Memb. Hours Rate Est. Fees Subtotals
ADMINISTRATION Staff Time 8 $75. 00 $600
Other Costs $500
Energy Investment, Inc. $2,500
SUMMARY Principal 10 $75.00 $750
Staff 16 $35. 00 $560
SUBTOTAL ADMIN. & SUMMARY: 14-L-9 10
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
1. 1 Project Description
Principal 8 $75.00 $600
Staff 10 $35.00 $350 '
1.2 Relationship to Other Plans SUBTOTAL 1. 1: $950
Principal 2 $75.00 $150
Staff 6 $35. 00 $210
SUBTOTAL 1.2 : $360
SUBTOTAL CHAPTER 1: $1 , 310
CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS
'b
2. 1 Enerav Use
Principal 6 $75. 00 $450
Staff 16 $35. 00 $560
Energy Investment, Inc. $28, 000
SUBTOTAL 2 . 1: $29. 010
SUBTOTAL CHAPTER 2:_$229. 010
CHAPTER 3 - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
3 . 1 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
Principal 4 $75.00 $300
Staff 6 $35. 00 $210
SUBTOTAL 3 . 1: $510
3 .2 Project Alternatives
Principal 6 $75.00 $450
Staff 12 $35. 00 $420
SUBTOTAL 3 .2: $870
3 . 3 Growth Inducement
Principal 2 $75.00 $150
Staff 6 $35. 00 $210
SUBTOTAL 3 . 2: $360
SUBTOTAL CHAPTER 3 : S1.740
SUBTOTAL TEXT PREPARATION/ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT EIR• $36.970
8
e-/3-1a?
Proposal for WATER TREATMENT PLANT EIR -- COST ESTIMATE
SUBTOTAL PREPARATION OF ADEIR (from previous page) _ $36 ,970
FINALIZE DRAFT AND FINAL EIR'S:
PRINTING OF ADEIR (3 copies @ $15.00) _ $45
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON ADEIR = $600
PRINTING OF DRAFT EIR (3 copies @ $15) _ $45
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR = $800
PRINTING OF ADMINISTRATIVE FINAL EIR (3 @ $15) _ $45
FINALIZE EIR/RESPONSE TO COMMENTS = $650
PRINTING OF CERTIFIED FEIR (1 copy @ $15.00) _ $15
ATTENDANCE AT TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS (ea @ $750) _ $11500
SUBTOTAL COST FOR DEIR AND FEIR FINALIZATION — $3 ,700
GRAND TOTAL COST = $40 ,670
9
C17Cy Of San 1U1S OBISPO
• INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITELOCATION Stenner Canyon. north of San Luis Obispo APPLICATION NO. ER 34-90
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Upgrade the city's water treatment plant and expand treatment
Capacity.
APPLICANT City of San Luis Obispo ( Gary Henderson, UtiIitioc Fngineor)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED X ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
PREPARED BY DATE 1?-13-9n
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION: DATE I'L•?le•90
G
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
7ESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
11.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ................................................... YES*
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH...................................... .... YES*
C. LAND USE ...................................................................... . NO
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .............................................. YFS*
E. PUBLICSERVICES ................................................................ Nn*
F. UTILITIES........................................................................ nin
G. NOISE LEVELS ................................................................... YFS*
H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS .................... nen
I. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS................................................ VEc*
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY .............................................. NO
K. PLANT LIFE ...................................................................... NO
L ANIMAL LIFE..................................................................... NO
M. ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL ................................................... NO
N. AESTHETIC ....................................................................... YES*
O. ENERGY(RESOURCEUSE .......................................................... YES*
Public Safety - toxics
tkOTHER ......................... . ........................................... ..... NO*
III.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT
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.
PROPOSAL FOR SERVIC WATER ;ATMENT PLANT EIR
Consultant will also undertake a design review of teh wastewater
treatment plant, focussing on measures to reduce electric power
consumption. The final report will include the results of the
design reviews and will also include a section on other conserva-
tion plans taking place- within the City and in conjunction with
the utilities.
The energy resources section will be organized as follows:
1. Design Review of the New Stenner Canyon Plant.
2 . Design Review of the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
3 . Summary of other conservation programs taking place in the
city.
i
The three sections are describe'd' in more detail below. NOTE: As
the steps below show, the focus `is on the 'identification of
energy conservation opportunities, the,'presentation of the steps
for implementation associated with',.nee'ded mitigation, as well as
participation in the overall EIR process. Actual implementation
is subject to later phases of work 'for•' which Perspective Planning
and Energy Investment would be available if needed and requested
by the City.
2 . 1. 1: Design Review of Modification '*o Stenner Canyon Water
Treatment Plant
1. Collect and review available plan's- and specifications
from Black and Veach representing,,'selected design for
electrical and mechanical systems 'for the plant. Dis-
cuss operating leveis and requirements with San Luis
Obispo.
2 . Review alternatiye;' designs not selected for this pro-
ject. Check if ,apy significant assumptions have been
changed. Re-astess selected components of the design.
3 . Identify alternatives for improved electrical efficiency
in the following systems.
a. Lightingsystems
b. HVAC s' stems
C. Pumpi4c systems
d. Builging shell
e. Process equipment
f. Motors
4 . For each.'promising design alternatives, consult`•with
Black and Veach and estimate the following relative to
required base design conditions:
a. Impact on demand and consumption
b. Incremental cost over base design
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.
J
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 capacity 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
ignal(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 duality
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
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 45 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
e-13-.2 9
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 many 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.
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 3S.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.
gm3: ER34-90.WP
-/3- 3/
l4 N. Ea L U I
\ I,n
I 0 N: U R V l ' Nl.
Chor+rll f 600 -
1
11'-- i BM
R R p - � r1
)i (� / � �� �® •• ��j i I�, \ ,m�, q 'M' 1 .�yyao'y.,�` 797
120
gg t `�,. �•C'.:. I i` 1 :nl.'B95
770
r -1 ' aV �- \ as aaa'1 'tl •o ate, 1
Tatl]as COO
BM 599
° a�
I 9 i
6 a
��� ��\\\\ � •ar��I -. .-.; I: 81 ;,:B :, ��, Chorea :..-
i \ l `.. 00
to
���\ Q •�`.�.) - BM 515
,a a<..... \ _ OF I .. �• _ e �r;� _ _ g�.,• ..
plan
•BM.,3� I "-I bstatio'..�.. . ..ter :t.. Mirie( ..z ': '.
a\ 4T5�/r :. 'ooa s`.01.
In
N 46
it /� / •,ai i '` : - �. ` _'.\�tiJ. ..� �� �1. .r� :1
00,
1
_\ Ovvvafl y
i ,'/ — �: + BM \ California Stat`` I .r-� \'■ C
I._ .326 Polytechnic College h;\ ` f:` O ■µ<00 ^�O
�T 6.\\\ ,T-,..aC17,rt� ,. _ --_—�— ---'I"--- — ----- AK.Pnrl I "�
C. urn s, � ,: :> .lI - '. �\o
r
P' kir il`J �j�(' y.,l •.�; 1 $ - � I -� :e3i= - �F�; �`
�:�/���\1.111 v/���/ti I' ll 11�`./`�r.+'//`_' b i/ •�L. I - - � \` � '•�
am
00
�`.` •��..-., _ o` I `. w33
• �a loc
en n • _ Water
°. __`
702 ,,'I QONOO I LY. ■ g a •Tank
•.l".=h�7/� ` '�'' %ls« _-`, hap -° `q, '_t ;j •� A`1. ■
AI
%_ I / la.,\•'.�'.,. 1 ,\ 1 POC
sa
ch
r _���� •:... � Qu tan .�f--�F. 27B ��rt•.. \� _.. •i �•
CZ I
. , .\-... 1-;.1;I — —�' r —.' 'i r_`•.� — , . O .. ... __ Thr 1%I � ONUILDO 211,
j ehco at `
Sch
BLVD
28 -
-✓( \ ).• �� _.,`'?p�. .: ,/ MOiiiiiis
R '�.L�\t• �� 'I 1� �' FR D �CKS /57
1 ` `- --- •• a'2:. Santa Rosi. 62.. I1r\
rk 1
28 Water
/
4
y(l
Tank• 'I •` r 'v 9�
.'Water I L', a /: i eft
•Tank 271 i a ' j i ZB .o
I •. o
Rao 'StationI: 1R
Mfr ING AGENDA
DATE / ITEM #
�i►I�IIII iII I����������II�II�IIIII tIIIA II
OcitysAn lui s oBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
MEMORANDUM
April 2, 1991
TO: John Dunn, CAO
C
VIA: Arnold Jonas, ommunity Development Director
FROM: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Council agenda item C-13, April 3, 1991 meeting .
Perspective Planning has withdrawn its proposal for consultant services to prepare an EIR
for upgrading the Stenner Canyon water treatment plant. No council action is possible at
this time.
Perspective Planning was the sole firm proposing for this work. Staff will conduct another
round of requests for proposals and return to the council once a new draft agreement has
been prepared.
copies: Bill Hetland
Jeff Jorgensen
Bill Statler
COPIES TO:
❑ Denotes Action Q FYl
�COU"� LTJ CDDDIR
ACRO ❑ FW.DIX
CAO
dnTTa:,vEr ❑ Fu�Ea�F �`b �` ` P L
LTJ CLFliK/ORIC. ❑ POUCECH V F
❑ MCMI:TE1bi ❑ MC DIX
�MRFA RU ❑ Arf1LDIR. APR 1991 y
i,;iTY r}Loin
oFilopo