Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/06/1990, 1 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE AND SEWER MAIN REPLACEMENT 9a N°I�uIA II "J r � MATING DATE: CI O SanDAIS OBIS __ March 6; 1990 1111MG6 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT mu" EE' FROM: Arnold Jonas Community Development Director BY: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner C W SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for wastewater treatment plant upgrade and sewer main replacement. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution to certify the EIR, including findings of overriding concern for significant, unavoidable impacts, and mitigation and monitoring actions. DISCUSSION The. city proposes to upgrade its wastewater treatment plant to meet water quality standards and to replace some sewer mains to avoid overflows. A draft EIR has been prepared and circulated for public and. agency comment. (The draft was distributed to councilmembers previously; contact staff if you need another copy. ) Before approving the project or applying for state financial help, the council must certify that the EIR is adequate. Staff is recommending that the council do so, and that the final EIR include the comments, responses, and additional information. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The recommended action itself involves no significant impacts. Potentially significant impacts evaluated in the draft EIR include noise exposure, energy use, changes to wildlife habitat, project appearance, air pollution, growth inducement, harm to cultural resources, and public safety hazards. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TARING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION If the council does not certify the EIR at this meeting or the next, the city may fall behind its agreed upon schedule for meeting the water quality standards, risking imposition of fines by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The council must certify the EIR before the state will approve loan financing and give conceptual approval for the project. city of saUl tuts osIspo COUNCIL AGENOA REPORT OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSENTS Concerns of other departments have been addressed in the recommended resolution. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION The Planning Commission is scheduled to consider the draft EIR and to act on a use permit for the treatment plant changes on February 28. Staff will update the council on the commission's actions orally, and try to distribute any needed, additional written material on March 2. ALTERNATIVES The council may certify the EIR with any findings, mitigation measures, and additional material that it deems appropriate, and which conform with state environmental reporting rules. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution to certify the EIR, including: 1. Adoption of mitigation and monitoring actions for changes in wildlife habitat, cultural resources, aesthetics, and noise; 2. Finding that the project is justified by the overriding concern to meet water quality standards, despite significant, unavoidable impacts of energy use and noise; 3. Comments and responses, and additional discussion of pipeline construction and public safety impacts. ATTACHMENTS Draft resolution gmD: wweir-cc.wp RESOLUTION NO. (1990 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT -REPORT FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE AND SEWER LINE REPLACEMENT (ER 46-89) The Council of the City of San Luis Obispo resolves as follows• Findings 1. The city has published and made available for public review a draft environmental impact report (EIR) for the proposed upgrade of its wastewater treatment plant and sewer line replacement project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the city's Environmental Impact Procedures and Guidelines. 2 . On March 6, 1990, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the EIR. . Actions 1. The Council determines that the EIR is adequate, and hereby certifies it provided that all the additions and corrections listed below are made. A final EIR incorporating these additions and corrections is to be published within 30 days. 2 . The Council determines that the project may be approved despite significant, unavoidable adverse impacts of (1) noise exposure for residents due to project construction and (2) energy use for activated sludge aeration, due to the overriding concern of meeting state water quality standards for San Luis Obispo Creek. 3 . The Council determines that the status of impacts is: A. Significant, unavoidable, long-term impact: energy use for activated sludge aeration. B. Significant, unavoidable, short-term impact: noise exposure for residents due to. project construction. C. Potentially significant impacts which will be reduced to acceptable levels through mitigation measures recommended in the draft EIR: changes to wetland habitat; harm to cultural resources; aesthetics. Ir� Resolution No. (1990 Series) Wastewater treatment EIR Page 2 D. Potential impacts found not to be significant, due to absence in the area, minor effects, 'or features incorporated in the project as proposed: topography; land use, population, economics, and housing; geologic stability and soils; climate; air quality; vegetation; fish and wildlife; threatened or endangered species; wild and scenic rivers; groundwater; agricultural land; coastal zone; flood plain; recreation; open space; sensitive areas; transportation and circulation;. public services; public safety (toxic hazards) . This listing of impact status will be included_ in the final EIR summary. 4 . Comments and responses, as fully set out in the attached in Exhibit A, will be included in the final EIR. 5. Other changes, as fully set out in the attached in Exhibit B, will be included in the final EIR. 6. The Council hereby adopts the following mitigation measures and monitoring: A. Creation of four-acre ponds near San Luis Obispo Creek, as described on page 30 of the draft EIR and item 6 of Exhibit A, within two years of completing the treatment plant upgrade (unit 4) ; B. Recognition and protection of cultural resources, as described on page 32 of the draft EIR; C. Planting to screen the cooling towers and above-ground tanks for filtering, as described on page 34 of the draft EIR; D. Limits on times for construction, as described under "Noise" in Exhibit A. A summary of these measures and monitoring will be included in the summary of the final EIR. i Resolution No. (1990 Series) Wastewater treatment EIR u Page 3 On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: ' AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution as passed and adopted this day of 1990. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk �1 APPROVED: Citgministrative Officer Community Devel nt Director LJ i,JLt4 _.I Utilities Director gmD: eir-res.wp EXHIBIT A COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Following are written comments received during the public review period. The numbers of comments and responses correspond to numbers noted on the following letters. 1. S. L. O. County Air Pollution Control District Comment: Significant air quality impacts are unlikely. Response: None required. 2. S. L. O. County Environmental Coordinator Comment: Further environmental review will be required if any of the rejected treatment/disposal options are considered in the future, Response: The city will conduct another environmental. review of any proposal to divert effluent from San Luis Obispo Creek. The final EIR will acknowledge this. 3. State Water Resources Control Board Comment: Include a list of potentially significant effects and adopted mitigation measures in the summary of the final EIR. Response: The discussion on page 4 of the draft will be expanded to do so. 4. State Water Resources.Control Board Comment: A final mitigation plan and monitoring program adopted by the City Council must be submitted. Response: It will be included in the final EIR. 5. State Water Resources Control Board Comment: If the city decides to divert effluent for irrigation or other uses, the city should notify the Division of Water Rights to determine if any downstream water rights holders would be injured. Response: The city will do so. However, the city's position is that downstream users have no legal claim to the effluent since, except during winter peak storm flows, nearly all of it comes from watersheds other than San Luis Obispo Creek, and the rest comes from groundwater. The city may attempt to negotiate agreements with downstream water users who have become dependent on stream flow levels reflecting effluent disposal, so they would receive the benefits of stream disposal in exchange for open space protection, including helping to protect stream habitat from the effects of livestock. 6. State Department of Fish and Game Comment: The change in operation for the existing ponds at the south end of the plant has a potential for significant loss of open water habitat where such habitat is at a premium: Wetland creation should be made a part of this project. Response: The city believes that its management of Laguna Lake results in their being more open water habitat than before European settlement, at least in the immediate area. The draft EIR (pages 29 and 30) discusses the potential for creation of pond habitat near the treatment plant. City planning staff recommends that the supplemental pond habitat be created within two years of completion of the treatment plant upgrade. Facilities to divert treated effluent to the new pond should be included in the project plans. If the City Council agrees to this mitigation, it will be included in the final EIR. 7. State Department of Fish and Game Comment: There are significant benefits to fish and wildlife from discharging well-treated effluent 'to the creek. If diversion of effluent for other uses is considered, habitat impacts must be identified and mitigaiion implemented. Response: The city agrees. The city has asked the Department of Fish and Game for a recommendation on the amount of effluent which should be �.i discharged to the creek, throughout the year and under various natural runoff conditions, to adequately protect the. habitat. ' 8. State Department of Fish and Game Comment: New construction at the plant site should be well separated from the creek banks, and grading should avoid silt eroding into the creek. Response: The rebuilt supernatant lagoon will about 20 feet from the westerly creek bank, while all other work at the plant site will be at least 50 feet away. The most substantial excavation (aeration tanks). will be farthest from the creek (about 300 feet). Since the site is nearly flat and excess soil will be promptly removed, the potential for erosion into the, creek is minimal. If it appears that drainage would carry silt to the creek, straw bales or other means to divert flow or trap sediment will be used. 9. State Department of Fish and Game Comment: Any activities which may affect creek banks or riparian vegetation will require a streambed alteration agreement. Response: None of the work at the treatment plant will affect creek banks. Installing a new sewer main siphon between Lincoln and Santa Rosa streets may require removal of some bedrock and a eucalyptus tree on the east side of r- 7 C Stenner Creek (draft EIR, pages 21 and 27). The city will obtain any needed approvals from, and work within the limits set by, the Department of Fish and Game. 10. Creekside Homeowners Association Comment: Motors used to aerate the activated sludge process might cause a no problem. There should be a sound barrier screened with trees. Response: The shortest distance from the new blowers to a mobile home will be 850 feet. The shortest distances from other major noise sources, such as South Higuera Street and Highway 101 traffic, are about 50 feet and 650 feet, respectively. While the precise noise characteristics of the motors are not known, they are believed to be comparable to the existing large, electric powered motors at the treatment plant. The blowers forcing air into the effluent will be somewhat noisier than motors simply forcing liquid through a pipe. However, the sound of the blowers will not be discernible from, nor add perceptibly to, normally continuing background ("ambient") noise for those living in the mobile home- parks near the treatment plant, as stated on page 34 of the draft EIR. Depending on the angle of the straight-line path from the new blowers to the residents, about 100 to 300 feet of riparian trees, as well as existing plant structures and mechanical noise sources, will continue to be between the blowers and the closest residents of a mobile home_ park. No additional mitigation is necessary. 11. Creekside Homeowners Association Comment: The height of the plant is a concern. Response: None of the new facilities will be visible to residents of the mobile home parks. The previously reviewed and approved, single-story electrical switchgear building will be screened by a band of riparian trees at least 100 feet wide. The new cooling towers will be no taller than about twelve feet, and likewise will be screened. Some of the concern about height is probably due to the term "cooling towers," which brings images of towers used at power plants. The proposed structures are more like the evaporative coolers installed on the tops of some buildings in hot, dry climates, only they will be placed on the ground. Also, the small-scale pilot plant included test facilities which were taller than they were wide, appearing tower-like. These items will not be higher in the full-scale plant. The full-scale facilities will increase in width and length, but not height. (The depth of the filter media determines its effectiveness, while its horizontal area determines the amount of effluent which can pass through it in a given period.) /-8 The following agencies acknowledged receiving this draft or the previous draft EIR, but made no comments other than to confirm that no permits or further review was necessary: E. C. Fullerton, Regional Director National Ocean and Atmospheric. Administration (National Marine Fisheries) Terminal Island, California James Johnson, Area .Manager California Coastal Commission Santa Barbara, California David Nunenkamp, Deputy Director State Office of Planning and Research Sacramento, California "Notices of Preparation" and draft EIRs were sent to the following agencies, and no response was received: S. L. O. County Council of Governments San Luis Obispo, California National Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Golden, Colorado District Engineer, Division of Ecological Services U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento, California U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento District Sacramento, California U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Construction Grants Branch San Francisco, California Federal Emergency Management Agency San Francisco, California State Conservationist U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service Davis, California Land Use Planning Office U.S. Forest Service San Francisco, California California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region San Luis Obispo, California �- 9 After close of the public review period, discussions with the Public Works Department and the Fire Department revealed that the following material should be added to the EIR, including additions or changes to previously recommended mitigation. Noise (page 34) [Add the following discussion.] To avoid major disruptions to normal traffic flow, pipeline replacement at some intersections was proposed to occur at night. Work schedules which would minimize detours during heavy traffic times on segments of state highways i and 227 were proposed. These locations are: South Street at Beebee Street, where work was proposed to occur from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. and from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m., with some road lanes remaining open during the work. The 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. work period has been rejected since it would expose residents of the nearby mobile home park and apartments to unacceptable noise levels. This intersection will be affected for four or five days. Higuera Street at Nipomo Street, which would be closed completely from 6 p.m. to 8 a.m., excluding Thursday night, for about three nights. The noise exposure for nearby residents, especially on Dana Street, will be undesirable. However, this exposure is seen as an acceptable tradeoff to. the traffic congestion, added air pollution, and added daytime noise exposure from detoured traffic along residential streets which would result from daytime intersection closure. Santa Rosa Street at Montalban Street, which would be reduced to one lane in each direction from 7:00 p.m. to about 6:30 a.m. The undesirable nighttime noise effects are seen as anftcceptable tradeoff to the substantially greater daytime traffic congestion and safety hazards which would result from constraining or rerouting Santa Rosa Street traffic around blocks which serve as freeway access. This intersection would be affected for three nights. [Change the recommended mitigation to read:] Mitigation: Except for the night work to avoid daytime intersection closures described above and emergencies (such as broken pipes), construction activities will be limited to Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (They will typically be from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.). Mufflers will be kept in proper condition. l-/D Transportation and Circulation (page 37) [Add the following reference.] See also the discussion of intersection closures and noise exposure discussed under "Noise" above. Public Safety (page 37) [Substitute the following for the discussion of airborne hazards.] The treatment plant will continue to use chlorine gas for disinfection of the effluent, and sulfur dioxide gas to dechlorinate the effluent just before it is discharged. Use of these gases poses a risk to residential areas near to and downwind from the treatment plant. In April 1989, the city Fire Department identified several deficiencies in the city's facilities and procedures for handling these toxic gases, and in dealing with other emergencies at the treatment plant. The status of thesedeficiencies is: 1. Problem: Chlorine leak-detection equipment notifies plant standby personnel, not the Fire Department, possibly causing a significant delay in needed emergency response. Also, the monitor at the north chlorine station may not properly detect a leak. Response:. In July 1989, newly installed chlorine and sulfur dioxide leak- detection and notification equipment was functional, employing city telemetry, a private alarm company, and .the city fire and police dispatch. center. 2. Problem: A water spray would be critical in stopping or reducing a toxic chlorine cloud, but no hydrants are available within a usable distance. Response: Water lines and hydrants will be installed as part of the unit 4 upgrade. 3. Problem: Fire access roads within the plant site are not the required . 20-foot width, which is a particular concern near the proposed caustic soda storage area. Response: Proper access roads will be completed as part of the unit 3 upgrade. 4. Problem: Chlorine and sulfur dioxide tanks are not properly secured to prevent movement and damage during an earthquake. Response: The tanks have been secured. C 5. Problem: Chlorine tanks at the north chlorine station are exposed and subject to vandalism. Response: The chlorine shed will be replaced as part of the unit 4 upgrade. 6. Problem: If the wooden shed covering the north chlorine tanks caught fire, the heat would melt the release plugs, causing a toxic cloud. Response: The chlorine shed will be replaced as part of the unit 4 upgrade. 7. Problem: The state-required emergency response plan for the treatment plant has not been completed. Response: Staff plans to contract for preparation of the plan. 8. Problem: The (existig) south chlorine station is critically close to a residential area. Prevailing winds are toward the residences. A leak from this location could kill several people. Response: A secondary containment and scrubbing system for chlorine and sulfur dioxide will be completed as parr of the unit 4 upgrade. The Utilities Department had previously indicated that chlorine safety items (2, 5, and 6 above) would be completed. as part of unit 3 improvements. Since unit 3 plans and specifications are nearly complete, these items will be included in unit 4. Both units will be completed about the same time, so inclusion in unit 4 will not delay completion 'of the safety modifications. In summary, the treatment plant upgrade will comply with the 1988 Uniform Fire Code, which will make the plant safer than it is. No additional, discretionary mitigation is required. [Add to the discussion of waterborne hazards:] There will be a minor increase in risks to public safety from use and transportation of caustic soda, which will be used in the treatment process. The risk will be adequately mitigated by secondary containment around the storage area, staff training and procedures in normal use and accident response, and state and federal regulation of transportation. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2156 SumtA WAY,SUITE B —SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALffORNIA 93401 —(805) 549-5912 y. JAN 0 3.1990 City of San Lws Oo,soc TO: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner, City of San"'f.'&i'hmobispo FROM: Larr}Kllen, SLO County Air Pollution Control District DATE: December 27, 1989 SUBJECT: Revised DEIR for Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade and. Sewer Line Replacement (ER 46-89; SCH# 89692704) We have reviewed the information provided regarding the above-named project and recommend the following action be taken: There is insufficient information to determine the potential for significant air quality impacts. Please provide the additional information specified on the attached sheet. OX This project is unlikely to cause significant air quality impacts; further consideration of air quality issues is not required. This project is unlikely to cause significant, long-term air quality impacts. Short-term impacts from construction appear likely and should be mitigated to the maximum extent feasible See attached list for recommended mitigation measures. This project has the potential to cause significant air quality impacts_ A screening analysis should be performed to determine the worst-case impact potential. See attached sheet for analysis recommendations. This project has the potential to cause significant air quality impacts and will require a comprehensive air quality analysis. The consultant should contact the APCD prior to performing the analysis. This project may be subject to the provisions of the APCD New Source Review Rule. This may include an air. quality impact analysis prior to issuance of Authority to Construct. This project will be subject to District permit requirements. Please contact me at 549-5912 if you require further input or information from our office. AQP 89250 cc: State Water Resources Control Board County of San Luis Obispo :M COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93408 (8%0ft9wi 1 i'N 18104e.ul San Luis Obispo OFFICEOFTHE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR January 16, 1990 Glen Matteson P.O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 re: Comments on the Revised Draft EIR for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade and Sewer Line Replacement ( for the City of San Luis Obispo) ; ER 46-89, SCH#89092704 Dear Mr. Matteson, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft EIR for the above-referenced project. Staff of the San Luis Obispo County Environmental Coordinator's Office has completed its review of the subject document and has the following comments. Staff is generally pleased with the completeness of the EIR analysis. Our only comment pertains to clarification within the "Alternative Project" section. We understand that all of the rejected alternatives will not be incorporated as a part of this proposed project. Should any of these "rejected" alternatives be considered in the future, Oadditional environmental review would be necessary to adequately evaluate potential environmental impacts . Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the draft EIR. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please feel free to contact me. If any of the "rejected" alternatives (or portions thereof) are being considered as a part of this project or in the future we will look forward to reviewing the documents addressing the potential impacts associated with those alternatives. Sincerely, John McHenzi Environmental Specialist c-State Water Resources Control Board Division of Grants and Loans Environmental services Unit P.O. Box 94.4212 Sacramento, CA 94244-2120 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1 GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN,Governor .cva.c= STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD DIVISION OF LOANS AND GRANTS JAN 2 2 1990 2014 T STREET . P.O. BOX 944212 AY Of San Luis uo soy ° SACRAMENTO, CA 94244-2120 (916) 739-4414 JAN 19 1990 Mr. Glen Matteson, Associate Planner City of San Luis Obispo P.O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 Dear Mr. Matteson: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO'S DRAFT EIR FOR %kWEWATEt TREATMENT PLANP UPGRADE AND SMM REPLACEMIM PROTECT. SCS #89092704 We have reviewed the above document and have the following comments. 1. The City of San Luis Obispo (City) is seeking a State Revolving Fund loan from the State Water Resources Control Board (State Boardj , and the State Board will be a responsible agency for the subject project. We commented earlier on the notice of preparation and preliminary draft EIR. Please provide a copy of the final document, including comments and responses, the City's findings relative to CEQAF and the notice of determination as soon as available. In addition, we would appreciate notice of any public meeting or hearing related to the document or project. 2. 14iile CE}QA itself does not require formal public hearings at any stage of the environmental review process, at least one formal hearing is required for an SRF loan. Notices need to be distributed at least 30 days in advance of public hearings or meetings; copies of the notice and summary of the public review should be sent to the State Board. 30 3. Please include a list of potentially significant environmental effects and adopted mitigation measures in the summary section of the final Em O4. We will need a final mitigation plan and monitoring program for the project and a document from the San Luis Obispo City Council cammitting to implementation of mitigation measures. O5. If, in the future, the City decides to use some or all of the treatment plant effluent for irrigation or other purposes, the City should notify the State Board's Division of Water Rights to determine if any downstream water rights holders would be inured. Mr. Matteson -2- JAN 1 9 1990 Please call me at '(916) 739-4414 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Allan V. Patton, Chief Environmental Services and Special Assignments Unit cc: Mr. John Goni California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region 1102-A Laurel Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Mr. John. Moss City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department 955 Morro Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 State.Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE.RESOURCES AGENC GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Goremor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME _�clvti, POST OFFICE BOX 47 YOUNTVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94599 d (7M 944-5500 ' 51M `dn Lu.S Ob,Spr January 19, 1990 Mr. Glen Matteson City of San "Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mr_ Matteson: Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade and Sewer Line Replacements, San Luis Obispo Creek, City of San Luis Obispo Department of Fish and Game personnel have reviewed the revised DEIR evaluating the proposed upgrade of the City of San Luis Obispo's wastewater collection and treatment systems designed to meet more stringent federal and state water quality standards. The project will include modification and expansion of existing treatment facilities, as well as installation of 3.2 miles of new sewer lines within the City, to solve stormwater infiltration problems that have resulted in overflow at manholes in the past. It is our understanding from review of the DEIR that existing wastewater ponds which currently provide habitat for resident and migratory waterfowl and southwestern pond turtles are to be used for holding partially treated effluent during equipment shutdowns and for flow equalization between final clarifiers and cooling towers. Water would be present infrequently in one of the ponds, and fluctuate to an unknown extent in the other. The Department considers this change in operation to create a potential for significant loss of existing open water habitat in an area where such aquatic habitat is at a © premium. We suggest that wetland creation be an element of this project, perhaps, on pasturelands located north of the ponds. These lands were identified in the. DEIR as potential mitigation sites for future projects. We believe such a project element should be undertaken as a part of the current project to offset potential losses of open water habitat resulting from changes in plant operations; and an attempt to establish benefits for wildlife today which can be used as mitigation at a later date. San Luis Obispo Creek currently supports one of the southernmost runs of steelhead in California, extensive populations of resident fishes and invertebrates as well as a non-profit salmon enhancement program. The Creek also receives treated wastewater discharge from the City's wastewater treatment facilities which has at times exceeded standards for temperature, color, ammonia, nutrients, and other parameters. The resultant water quality degradation has been detrimental to fish life in the creek. Upgrading of this facility, as 'proposed, will provide greater assurance that fish and wildlife, and their habitat will be adequately protected. 117 Mr. Glen Matteson - 2 - January 19, 1990 l Due to significant water diversion in upstream areas, treated effluent comprises a major portion of summer flows in lower San Luis Obispo Creek. Although we are not aware of any immediate plans for secondary reuse or reclamation of the City's effluent, we are concerned that improved treatment O could stimulate increased demand in the future for reclaimed wastewater for landscape or agricultural irrigation. While we strongly support reclamation whenever feasible, we believe that the benefits to fish and wildlife from continued discharge of a well-treated effluent to the Creek are significant. Should reclamation be considered in the future, impacts to the fish and wildlife from reduction or elimination of flow in this valuable habitat area must be identified and appropriate mitigation implemented. OWe recommend that any new construction for the plant be well away from the creek banks to provide a buffer area for wildlife, and that grading be done in A manner that eliminates any possibility of silt eroding into the creek. Any Oactivities which may affect the creek banks or riparian vegetation associated with them will require a streambed alteration agreement with our Department. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Karen Worcester, Fishery Biologist, at (805) 927-8590; or Mr. Mike Rugg, Associate Water Quality Biologist, at (707) 944-5523. Sincerely, Brian Hunter Regional Manager Region 3 i i 1 J'4iv / 2 t . January 25. 1990 ''`.� 619 90 byQ Glen Matteson Community Development City of San Luis Obispo P.O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 Dear Mr. Matteson; The new Environmental Impact Report on the proposed upgrading of the city's sewage treatment plant was read and discussed. At this time we would like to make a couple of commentss First - the motors that are being used might cause some noise problem. Secondly - the height of the plant . Our concern is that nothing is in the planning in these areas . Our suggestion is to build a sound barrier on the resident side and plant trees to hide it to some degree . We have trees now, but maybe in a few years they might fall or die and have to be removed . Let 's look at the future now and not later. On behalf of the residents of Creekside we hope you will con- sider our views . Yours very truly, Raymond Niemesh. President Creekside Homeowners Ass'n. (IT cotatP of Qla ifm 4.-11 GOVERNOR'S OFFICE RtCEiVEL. OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH ` 1400 TENTH STREET JAN 0 3 1990 `a oo.n• SACRAMENTO 95814 City 01 San Luis Geisp: GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN —mi r na pi GOVERNOR December 28, 1989 Mr. Glen Matteson City of San Luis Obispo P.O. Sox 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-8100 Re: Wastewater_ Treatment Plant Upgrade and Sewer Replacement Shortened Review Request, SCH# 89092704 Dear Mr. Matteson: This is to inform you that concerned state agencies have been contacted with regard to your- request for a 30-day review for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade and Sewer Replacement project. As none of the agencies object to shortening the review period, the request has been granted. Accordingly, the review period for state agencies will be from December 28, 1989 to January 26,1990. If you have any questions, please contact Garrett Ashley at (916) 44.5-0613. Sincerely, avid C. Nunenkamp Deputy Director, Permit Assistance DCN:GA:pd < odQ . EXHIBIT B Additional changes and additions for wastewater treatment upgrade EIR Page 26 of the draft EIR discusses air quality impacts of ozonation, which had been considered by not finally selected as a treatment process. Ozonation has been rejected, and chlorination will be used instead. Chlorination at this stage is before, and in addition to, the final chlorination which immediately precedes discharge of: the effluent. Using chlorine instead of ozone at this point will increase the risks associated with handling chlorine, but reduce energy used for ozonation. RECEIVE ® ,EETING AGENDA MAR 1 1990 DATE J4*"'�° ITEM # WASTEWATER UPGRADE EIR - ADDITIONAL COMMENTS & RESPONSES Cm CLERK PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING - FEBRUARY 28, 1990 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 1. Commissioner Kourakis: What are the anticipated problems that lead to Utilities Department not wanting to create ponds as mitigation for reduced quality of habitat due to changes in the existing ponds? Utilities Department response: (A) Possible flows from pond to creek, which could be considered violations of the discharge requirements; (B) inability to remove a pond once it is created, due to requirements for wetland protection; (C) possible concentration of contaminants (such as sodium) in the water, if the only outlet from the created pond is evaporation. There are options to creating a pond. EIR author response: These are valid concerns. (A) Careful design and operation of the pond can avoid overflows. (B) The new pond should be regarded as a permanent feature. No other use for the potential pond site has been proposed. (C) To avoid the problems of a "dead end" pond, outflow from the pond could be used for irrigation. 2. Commissioner Kourakis: What are the options to creating a pond? r Utilities Department response: Determining that improving quality of the discharge is sufficient habitat improvement, or expanding Laguna Lake Marsh. CEIR author response: Mitigation for wetland loss is best achieved by "on-site, in-kind" replacement, which would be ponds at the treatment plant site; creating other types of wetland habitat somewhere else would be less effective mitigation. The city does not own the north end of Laguna Lake where the marsh could be expanded. 3. Ryan Gear (city resident): We should avoid accumulation of toxics in ponds, such as those which have harmed Kesterson area wildlife. Utilities Department and EIR author response: We can and we will. 4. Commissioners Karleskint and Kourakis: Are the time limits for construction activity adequate to protect residents from noise? Utilities Department and EIR author response: The 7:00 am to 6:00 p.m. limit is consistent with typical city practice and should avoid most nuisance complaints. Contractors will usually work from 7:30 to 4:30. Reducing the hours which can be worked could increase the number of days required for completion, and project costs. scY;)by Lea::Pars,ri 5. Commissioner Schmidt: Will delaying construction of the pond for tvf - ewsy________,_ from plant completion mean four years without ponds? ✓council 4CAo b 1 VC;ty Arty. !i/Clerk ohg. r r. E9__F17L_e7_ i Planning Commission EIR comments - page 2 EIR author response: No. The existing basins will continue to exist, but the amount of water available in them will probably decline. There would be about two years between changed operations of the existing ponds and completion of the new pond. 6. Commissioner Duerk: Are there archaeologically sensitive areas on the site? EIR author response: The whole site is sensitive, since it lies along a creek. An archaeological surface survey found no evidence of archaeological resources. 7. Will the project increase treatment capacity? Utilities Department and EIR author response: Capacity will increase by a nominal five percent, well within the city's planned growth. 8. Commissioner Schmidt: The EIR is not adequate because it does not address (A) community economic impacts and (B) cumulative visual impacts of development on city property along the highway. EIR author response: (A) Economic impacts are outside the scope of the report. They would need to be addressed only to the extent they lead to environmental impacts. Financing for the project (state loan and rate increases) will be considered by the council at public hearings. (B) The city corporation yard and bus maintenance facility have already been built. The visual impacts of the treatment plant project will be insignificant, since nearly all the pasture will remain open, and the above-ground facilities will be small, set back from the highway, and screened by landscaping. No other projects are proposed for this site, so no cumulative impact assessment can be done. Planning Commission action The commission voted five to one (one vacancy) to determine that the EIR provided sufficient information for commission action, and to approve the use permit with the following findings and conditions. Strike-out and underline in the conditions indicate differences from the mitigation recommended in the EIR. Findings 1. The proposed modifications to the treatment plant will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working on the site or in the ^ vicinity. Planning Commission EIR comments - page 3 C 2. The modifications are appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding land uses. 3. The modified use conforms to the general plan and meets zoning ordinance requirements. 4. An environmental impact report has been prepared, recommended mitigation will be included, and the final approving body (City Council) can find that the project is justified despite significant noise and energy impacts, due to the overriding concern to meet water quality standards. Conditions 1. Prior to construction of the cooling towers and dual-media filters, the area to be occupied by these facilities and the flow equalization/holding ponds and chlorination facilities shall have been rezoned from Conservation/Open Space to Public Facility. [map attached] 2. Within two years of completion of the wastewater plant upgrade, the city shall provide a pond with at least four acres water surface, for aquatic wildlife and waterfowl habitat. The precise location, design, and management of the pond shall be developed by mutual agreement of the city's Utilities and Community Development departments and the California Department of Fish and Game. wetlands.The pond shaf! consist of a shallow excavation (cite to thiee feet) with riataial soil bottoin mid sides, wid natim vegetation at the edges. it will be saylifted Them wiH be no dhect-ontlet to -the neek, to avoid oveifiow of liaitfaliy , - 3. A qualified archaeologist will train city public works inspectors and the project's construction contractors in how to recognize resources that may be encountered. In addition, the archaeologist will be present to make spot inspections in sensitive areas. If excavations encounter archaeological resources, construction activities which may affect them shall cease. The Community Development Director shall be notified of the extent and location of discovered materials so that they may be recorded by a qualified archaeologist. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be included on the grading and construction plans for the project. Planning Commission EIR comments - page 4 O 4. Project plans shall include a planting plan emphasizing use of drought tolerant native trees to screen the cooling towers and nearby above-ground equipment from off-site views, for approval by the Architectural Review Commission. Planting in accordance with the approved plan shall be completed prior to operation of the equipment to be screened. 5. Except in emergencies (such as broken pipes), construction activities at the treatment plant will be limited to Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Mufflers will be kept in proper condition. EIR author response to changed conditions #2 The specific direction for the mitigation pond should be kept. However, the option of using well water to fill the pond could be included. #4 This site will have plenty of water for landscape irrigation; for some locations on the site, riparian (water dependent) trees would be more ecologically in character than drought-tolerant species. _ gmD: wweirpcc.wp \ ` C-T '� C �f C-R PF �l �` t , pS R-2—PD R-2-PO C—R-PD R-2 CADS-lo C-N eT �- o 6-S a H b =1 M�°` s R-2 R-3—PD , PF R-2 ,CA pF C-S e � BONETTI � i C'S CN C- - SF �� • , GKANADA DRIVE • N C-S cm SRR •� , °° -S-P �� R - 2 - S C-SM -S P C—TR C/OS-2C Tarr #ANN RRLr INITIATE REZONING TO PF R- C-C- 1 wrwrAr roAo im wog wu. Rpb i Coos - io R-2 PD los-lo