HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-19-2015 C7 Authorize WRRF ProjectCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
Prepared By: David Hix, Deputy Director Utilities – Wastewater
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PERMITTING SERVICES FOR THE WATER
RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY (WRRF) PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the environmental and
permitting services for the WRRF project, and;
2. Authorize the City Manager to award a consultant services agreement if the selected proposal
is within the estimate of $650,000 and after 2015-17 Financial Plan adoption.
DISCUSSION
Background
The recent adoption of the revised National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit for the City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) has resulted in the need to
upgrade wastewater treatment processes. Replacing the aged infrastructure and addressing future
growth as outlined in the City’s 2035 General Plan is also required.
To prepare for the project, the City’s WRRF Project Program Manager, Water Systems
Consulting and their sub-consultant HDR Engineering, prepared a Draft Facilities Plan that
details a preliminary scope and project description. In addition, they prepared a technical
memorandum that identifies an environmental and permitting strategy for the WRRF Project
(provided as an attachment to the RFP). The proposed improvements and upgrades at the WRRF
require compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Satisfying the
environmental review requirements is a key aspect of the WRRF project and is also necessary to
move forward with securing financing.
Staff has identified the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Program as the most
favorable financing for the WRRF Project. Staff met with CWSRF staff last July to discuss the
project and has submitted an initial application. In order to move forward with the application
process, the City must comply with the CWSRF environmental requirements, which includes
“CEQA-Plus” as described below. Initiating the environmental review process is critical to
maintaining the project schedule.
Request for Proposal
Staff is requesting authorization to solicit an RFP for environmental and permitting services for
the WRRF Project. The scope of work to be performed by the environmental consultant includes
May 19, 2015
C7
C7-1
RFP for EIR Prep WRRF Project Page 2
preparation of environmental documentation to comply with CEQA and the CWSRF Program.
The CWSRF Program is partially funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), and as such, is subject to Federal environmental regulations as well as additional
“CEQA-Plus” environmental documentation and review. All applicants seeking CWSRF
financing must comply with both CEQA and Federal cross-cutting regulations, including the
Clean Air Act (CAA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA).
In addition to preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR), the consultant’s scope of
work will include environmental permitting and consultations and preparation of the CWSRF
Environmental Package, as outlined in the RFP.
Staff plans to pursue other State and Federal grant programs in addition to the CWSRF Program
to fund the WRRF Project. Depending on the funding sources, compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) may be required. The scope of this RFP includes an optional
task to meet NEPA requirements if required. Once the funding sources are finalized, staff can
choose to authorize this task if required.
Section A of the attached RFP describes the full scope of work requested by the City.Staff will
evaluate proposals according to the evaluation and consultant selection process described in the
RFP. Staff anticipates executing a contract with the selected consultant this summer.
FISCAL IMPACT
A total of $650,000 has been identified in the 2015-17 Financial Plan, Capital Improvement
Plan, Water Resource Recovery Facility Upgrade Project. This funding is expected to be
adequate to support the proposed preparation of an EIR and other associated documents for the
WRRF project. Funding for this request has not been approved and award of an agreement will
not be authorized until Council approval of the CIP request and final adoption of the 2015-17
Financial Plan
ATTACHMENT
1. Request for Proposal for Environmental and Permitting Services for the Water Resource
Recovery Facility Project
T:\Council Agenda Reports\2015\2015-05-19\WRRF Project EIR
C7-2
City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401‐3218, 805.781.7170, slocity.org
Notice Requesting Proposals for Environmental and Permitting Services
for the Water Resource Recovery Facility Project
Specification No. 91359
The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals to provide professional environmental
and permitting services for the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) Project. The WRRF Project
represents a significant community investment and will help the City implement its long‐term
strategy for resource management.
The proposed improvements and upgrades at the WRRF require compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City plans to utilize the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(CWSRF) Program to finance the proposed improvements and upgrades to the WRRF. The CWSRF
Program is partially funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and as such, is
subject to Federal environmental regulations as well as additional “CEQA‐Plus” environmental
documentation and review. Therefore, the City is soliciting proposals for environmental
documentation in compliance with CEQA‐Plus as well as the associated environmental permitting
requirements required for the WRRF Project. All proposals must be received by the Department of
Finance at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 by 3:00 p.m. on Friday, June 19, 2015, when
they will be opened publicly in the Main Conference Room at 919 Palm Street.
Proposals received after said time will not be considered. To guard against premature opening,
each proposal shall be submitted to the Department of Finance, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
CA 93401, in a sealed envelope plainly marked with the proposal title, specification number,
proposer name, and time and date of the proposal opening. Proposals shall be submitted using the
forms provided in the specification package.
A pre‐proposal conference will be held in the Main Conference Room at 919 Palm Street on June 5
from 10 a.m. to 11:30 am to answer any questions that the prospective bidders may have regarding
the City's request for proposals. A site visit will convene at the WRRF, located at 35 Prado Road, at
1:30 pm, June 5.
Obtaining a Specification Package
Download from the City’s Web site www.slocity.org ‐ Bids & Proposals link
Questions
Deputy Director – Wastewater, Dave Hix at (805) 781‐7039 or dhix@slocity.org with any questions
regarding this Request for Proposals.
Attachment 1
C7-3
2
Specification No. 91359
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
DESCRIPTION OF WORK………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……. 3
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 10
CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION…………………………………………………………………………………………… 11
PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS……………………………………………………………………...…. 12
PROPOSAL CONTENT……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….. 12
PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONSULTANT SELECTION………………………………………………………...….. 13
FORM OF AGREEMENT………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…….. 16
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORMS……………………………………………………………………………………………….…… 24
INSURANCE CERTIFICATE…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 24
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS……………………………………………………………….. 25
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 25
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Consultant Services……………………………………………………………………… 27
Attachment 1
C7-4
3
Section A
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
Project Description
The City owns and operates the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) located off Prado Road in
the southern portion of the City. Highway 101 is located immediately west of the southern portion
of the WRRF. The Bob Jones Trail and San Luis Obispo Creek run along the east side of the WRRF.
The WRRF treats municipal wastewater collected from the City, California Polytechnic State
University (Cal Poly), and the San Luis Obispo County Airport under Waste Discharge Requirements
(WDR) R3‐2014‐0033 and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) No. CA0049224.
The WRRF is currently rated for 5.1 million gallons per day (mgd) for average dry weather flow
(ADWF) conditions and currently treats an average of approximately 3.1 mgd under ADWF
conditions. After being treated, the water is either discharged to San Luis Obispo Creek or recycled.
The plant was originally constructed in 1923 and upgraded or expanded in 1962, 1994, and 2006.
The WRRF Project includes the following upgrades:
1. Lining of the existing flow equalization pond.
2. Improvements at the headworks, including new influent flow monitoring and odor control.
3. Rehabilitation of the existing primary clarifiers, including new weirs, new sweeps and arms,
new sludge and scum pumps, a new primary sludge pump pit, and odor control.
4. Retrofits of the primary effluent diversion box.
5. Demolition of the existing trickling filter and decommissioning of the existing secondary
clarifier.
6. Addition of two aeration basins, as well as new blowers and blower building, diffusers,
mixed liquor pumps and mixers, and chemical feed.
7. Addition of two new final clarifiers and new RAS and WAS pumps.
8. Expansion of the existing filter tower complex, including four new monomedia filters, new
backwash pumps and air scour blowers.
9. Addition of new cooling towers, effluent chillers, and pumps.
10. Demolition of the existing chlorine contact basins.
11. Addition of UV disinfection.
12. Solids treatment upgrades, including new thickening and conversion of the DAFT to a blend
tank, a new screw press, odor control, and a new anaerobic digester.
13. Sidestream treatment facilities, including a new tank and mixers.
14. Onsite stormwater management improvements, including low impact development
features.
15. Flood proofing of existing facilities.
16. Demolition of the old chlorine contact basins at the south end of the plant.
17. Addition of a new operations center and lab, and new maintenance building.
18. Retrofit of the existing administration building.
19. Addition of solar photovoltaic systems.
20. General site work, including grading and paving.
The draft site plan, illustrating new facilities, is included for reference. Additional information is
provided in the Facilities Plan.
Attachment 1
C7-5
4
The City has procured a Program Manager to facilitate the execution of the WRRF Project, including
providing oversight and management of the associated professional services contracts, including
the environmental consultant. It is expected that the selected environmental consultant will work
the City and the Program Management Team to execute the scope of services.
Background and Reference Documents
As indicated previously, the City plans to utilize the CWSRF Program to finance the proposed
improvements and upgrades to the WRRF. The CWSRF Program is partially funded by the USEPA,
and as such, is subject to Federal environmental regulations as well as additional “CEQA‐Plus”
environmental documentation and review. The City would be the CEQA lead agency for the WRRF
Project. However, since the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Financial
Assistance, administers the CWSRF Program, the SWRCB is a Responsible Agency under CEQA.
Therefore, the SWRCB will have to make findings on the Project and will have to complete
environmental review of the Project before it can be funded. The SWRCB has developed and
published literature that outlines the CEQA‐Plus documentation and environmental review process
through the CWSRF Program.
An Environmental and Permitting Strategy Technical Memorandum was prepared for the WRRF
Project (included as an attachment to this RFP). The Technical Memorandum identifies potential
impacts of the WRRF Project and evaluates the appropriate level of CEQA‐Plus documentation for
the Project. The Technical Memorandum reviewed existing available data including the City’s
Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City’s Land Use and Circulation Elements
Update (LUCE). The LUCE EIR states that an upgrade of the WRRF is planned in response to stricter
discharge limits required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), to increase
capacity to serve the City’s population at General Plan build‐out, and to replace existing aged
facilities at the end of their service life. The LUCE EIR was certified in September 2014 and is
available on the www.slo2035.com website.
As stated in the LUCE EIR, preliminary planning efforts for the WRRF expansion indicate that the
WRRF’s treatment capacity can be increased to adequately treat wastewater flows resulting from
build‐out of the proposed Land Use Element. Thus, the proposed WRRF expansion would provide
sufficient treatment capacity to accommodate the anticipated Land Use Element build‐out
conditions.
Based on the current understanding of the project and the project area, review of the City’s LUCE
EIR and the proposed site plan, the potential presence of sensitive receptors, biological resources,
and cultural resources the proposed improvements may result in potential temporary
(construction) and/or permanent (operational) impacts that could require the preparation of an
EIR. In addition, the uncertainty of feasible mitigation to offset project impacts, the public
perception of the project and the environmental process, and the City’s need to have some
flexibility due to the continued development and refinement of the WRRF Project, it is expected
that an EIR will be prepared for the Project.
Attachments
The following attachments are available for review and pertain to this RFP and the Scope of Work
included below:
Attachment 1
C7-6
5
Draft WRRF Project Site Plan (Attachment 1)
Draft Environmental and Permitting Schedule (Attachment 2)
Environmental and Permitting Strategy Technical Memorandum (Attachment 3)
LUCE EIR can be obtained at the following website:
http://www.slo2035.com/library/documents‐reports/43‐public‐draft‐documents‐
published‐june‐13‐2014.html
Scope of Work
The following section describes the tasks that are anticipated for the preparation of the EIR.
Task 1. Kickoff Meeting and Review of Available Studies and Documentation
This task shall include:
Review available studies completed for the WRRF Project, including the Facilities Plan and
the LUCE EIR.
Have a kickoff meeting with City staff and Program Management Team within 10 days of
notice to proceed. A project schedule and communication plan should be presented during
the kickoff meeting.
Task 2. Prepare Project Description
Consultant shall prepare a detailed Project Description to initiate the environmental analyses and
documentation for the proposed project. The Final Facilities Plan shall serve as the basis for the
Project Description. The project description shall include the following elements:
The location and boundaries of the proposed project.
A statement of objectives sought by the proposed project, including the underlying purpose
of the project.
A comprehensive project description and scope.
A discussion of the benefits of the project.
A statement briefly describing the intended uses of the EIR, including a list of the agencies
that are expected to use the EIR in their decision making; a list of permits and other
approvals required to implement the project; and a list of related environmental review
and consultation requirements required by federal, state, or local laws, regulations, or
policies.
The Consultant shall work closely with the Program Management Team in development of the
Project Description. Proposer shall assume 2 review / comment revisions from the City.
Task 3. Prepare Initial Study and Notice of Preparation
This task shall include:
Consultant shall prepare a Notice of Preparation and Initial Study. The Draft IS shall be
prepared based on the finalized Project Description and per “CEQA‐Plus” guidelines.
Proposer shall assume 2 review/comment revisions.
Attachment 1
C7-7
6
Consultant shall be responsible for publishing the NOP in the local paper with the largest
circulation.
Consultant shall be responsible for sending copy of NOP to State Clearinghouse and
stakeholders.
Attend and participate in a public meeting regarding the NOP. Assume 1 evening meeting.
Review response letters / comments and incorporate into development of the EIR.
Prepare executive summary of comment review with recommendations for inclusion into
the EIR.
Task 4. Prepare Project Alternatives
This task shall include:
Collaborate with the City and Program Management Team to identify and develop a range
of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project that conform to CEQA criteria.
Alternatives will be analyzed in the EIR to a lesser but sufficient level of detail than that of
the project.
Task 5. Prepare Technical Reports
Detailed technical reports may be required for specific resource areas that are shown in the Initial
Study to need supporting documentation to substantiate impact levels.
The proposer shall assume that resource areas will include Biological Resources and Cultural
Resources, which will also require preparation of a Biological Resources Evaluation and a Cultural
Resources Survey Report. Preparation of the technical reports shall include consultation with
applicable Federal and state agencies with jurisdiction over resources in the project area and in
compliance with “CEQA‐Plus”.
Task 6. Prepare Administrative Draft EIR
This task shall include the preparation of the Administrative Draft EIR for review by City and
Program Management Team. This shall include completion of a table of contents, preparers and
reference chapters. Proposer shall assume 2 review / comment revisions.
Task 7. Prepare Public Review Draft EIR
This task shall include:
Revise the Administrative Draft EIR per comments.
Consultant shall be responsible for posting of all notices, including posting notices of
availability with the County Clerk, and any other notices as required.
Deliver proper amount of copies of the Draft EIR, Executive Summary and Notice of
Completion to the State Clearinghouse.
Coordinate with the City to prepare a list of recipients of the Notice of Availability (NOA)
and prepare the NOA.
Proposer shall provide 10 printed copies of the Draft EIR, 10 electronic copies on CD, and an
electronic version suitable for posting on the City’s website.
Proposer shall prepare for and attend two public hearings. The public hearings shall include
a presentation of environmental components of the EIR and a response to technical
questions that arise during the public hearing.
Following the public hearings, meeting notes shall be prepared, and written and oral
comments shall be collected and summarized for submittal to the City for review.
Attachment 1
C7-8
7
Consultant shall be responsible for publishing the NOA in the local paper with the largest
circulation.
Review of proposed mitigations with appropriate advisory body for input.
Task 8. Prepare Final EIR
This task shall include:
Response to comments received during the public comment period. Proposer shall assume
responding to 20 comments.
Prepare Final Administrative EIR. Proposer shall assume 2 review / comment revisions.
Proposer will prepare the Final EIR and shall submit 10 printed copies, 10 electronic copies
on CD, and an electronic version suitable for posting on the City’s website.
Proposer shall prepare for and attend a public hearing during a City Council Meeting.
Task 9. Prepare Findings, Notice of Determination (NOD), and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP)
This task shall include:
Prepare draft findings of fact describing the disposition of each significant impact identified
in the EIR.
Prepare a statement of overriding consideration discussing the benefits that outweigh the
project’s significant and unavoidable impacts. If necessary, the City will provide support to
the Consultant in preparation of this statement.
Provide draft findings and statement for review.
Attend City Council meeting for approval of the project.
Prepare draft NOD. Proposer shall assume 1 review / comment of draft.
Post the notices with the County Clerk and State Clearinghouse.
Collaborate with the City and Program Management Team to finalize the MMRP, which
shall include an introduction explaining its purpose and use. The MMRP shall also specify
the project impacts to be mitigated, initiation/timing of mitigation, monitoring frequency,
responsibility for verification of compliance, performance criteria, the date compliance is
completed, and other specifications as necessary
Submit the draft MMRP for review. Proposer shall assume 2 review / comments of the draft
MMRP.
Task 10. Prepare Environmental Package for CWSRF Financial Assistance Package
The Consultant shall also be responsible for completing the Environmental Package portion of the
CWSRF Financial Assistance Package and be responsible for gaining final approval/acceptance of
the environmental package by the State Board. Proposer shall assume 1 review / comment of the
draft Environmental Package.
The Consultant shall also assist the City in responding to informal SWRCB staff questions and
information requests.
Task 11. Environmental Permitting, Approvals, and Consultations
In addition to CEQA‐Plus compliance (and NEPA, if applicable – see below), several Federal, state
and local permits and/or authorizations are anticipated for the proposed improvements and
upgrades at the WRRF Project. The proposer shall assume the following permits and approvals will
Attachment 1
C7-9
8
be required (list will be refined through development of the project design and preparation of
detailed project description):
Clean Water Act (CWA), Section 404. Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) for discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including
wetlands.
CWA, Section 401. Water Quality Certification from RWQCB.
California Department of Fish and Game Code 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement.
Administered by CDFW.
Federal ESA. Consultation with USFWS and NMFS for potential impacts to federally listed
species, and take authorization as applicable. The BA discussed under Task 3 would be
utilized in consultation with USFWS and NMFS for federally listed special status species.
California ESA. Consultation with CDFW for potential impacts to state listed species, and
take authorization as applicable. The BRE discussed under Task 3 would be utilized in
consultation with CDFW for state listed special status species.
National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106. Consultation with the SHPO for affects to
historic properties and resources.
California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Consultation and coordination
with the NAHC.
The Consultant shall prepare the draft and final permit applications for City review and approval
prior to submittal to the appropriate agencies. The Consultant will be responsible for all printing
and mailing of permit applications to the agencies.
As directed by the City, Consultant support would be provided during permit negotiations. This
support may take the form of strategizing with the City, attending meetings to answer questions
and/or give short presentations, and preparing handouts, displays, and/or other supplemental
materials. If requested by the City, meeting notes to document meeting discussions and outcomes
would also be prepared by the Consultant. Proposer shall make a clear assumption regarding the
level of effort necessary for this support.
Optional Task 12. NEPA Compliance
At this time, there is no federal nexus (partner or funding source) to initiate the preparation of a
joint CEQA/NEPA document. However, the City may pursue federal grant funding. If successful, the
project would be financed, or approved in whole or in part by a Federal agency, then a NEPA
document would need to be prepared and a joint CEQA/NEPA document could be utilized.
Given the potential project impacts it is anticipated that the level of documentation required for a
joint CEQA/NEPA document would be an EIR/Environmental Assessment (EA). The CEQA‐Plus
documentation and review process encompasses many of the analyses that are required for NEPA
documentation and federal environmental regulation compliance. Therefore, if federal funding is
Attachment 1
C7-10
9
obtained after the EIR is initiated; the Consultant would be required to convert the CEQA‐Plus EIR
into an EIR/EA. It is anticipated that an EIR/EA could be completed within the timeframe shown in
the draft schedule included in Attachment 2 for the EIR. This would be dependent on the timing of
receipt of federal funding and nexus (assumed receipt prior to Public Review Draft EIR).
The proposer shall provide the optional scope of work required to convert the CEQA‐Plus EIR to an
EIR/EA, including the addition of a socio economics analysis and section. Additional reformatting
would be required to convert the CEQA‐Plus EIR to an EIR/EA. Assistance with NEPA required
noticing in the Federal Register would also be tasked to the Consultant under this optional task.
Attachment 1
C7-11
10
Section B
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Requirement to Meet All Provisions. Each individual or firm submitting a proposal
(Consultant) shall meet all of the terms, and conditions of the proposal specifications package.
By virtue of its proposal submittal, the Consultant acknowledges agreement with and
acceptance of all provisions of the proposal specifications.
2. Proposal Submittal. Each proposal must be submitted on the form(s) provided in the
specifications and accompanied by any other required submittals or supplemental materials.
Proposal documents shall be enclosed in an envelope that shall be sealed and addressed to the
Finance Department, City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401. Each
proposal submittal shall include one electronic copy of the proposal, submitted in Adobe
Acrobat format on CD or flash drive. In order to guard against premature opening, the proposal
should be clearly labeled with the proposal title, specification number, name of Consultant, and
date and time of proposal opening. No FAX submittals will be accepted.
3. Insurance Certificate. Each proposal must include a certificate of insurance showing:
a. The insurance carrier and its A.M. Best rating.
b. Scope of coverage and limits.
c. Deductibles and self‐insured retention.
The purpose of this submittal is to generally assess the adequacy of the Consultant’s insurance
coverage during proposal evaluation; as discussed under paragraph 12 below, endorsements
are not required until contract award. The City’s insurance requirements are detailed in
Section F.
4. Submittal of References. Each proposer shall submit a statement of qualifications and
references on the form provided in the specifications package.
5. Statement of Contract Disqualifications. Each proposer shall submit a statement regarding any
past government disqualifications on the form provided in the specifications package.
6. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening. A Consultant may withdraw its proposal, without
prejudice prior to the time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request
to the City for its withdrawal, in which event the proposal will be returned to the Consultant
unopened. No proposal received after the time specified or at any place other than that stated
in the "Notice Requesting Proposals" will be considered. All qualification proposals will be
opened and declared publicly. Consultants or their representatives are invited to be present at
the opening of the proposals.
7. Submittal of One Proposal Only. No individual or business entity of any kind shall be allowed
to make or file, or to be interested in more than one proposal, except an alternative proposal
when specifically requested; however, an individual or business entity that has submitted a
sub‐proposal to a Consultant submitting a proposal, or who has quoted prices on materials to
Attachment 1
C7-12
11
such Consultant, is not thereby disqualified from submitting a sub‐proposal or from quoting
prices to other Consultants submitting qualification proposals.
8. Communications. All timely requests for information submitted in writing will receive a written
response from the City. Telephone communications with City staff are not encouraged, but will
be permitted. However, any such oral communication shall not be binding on the City.
9. Alternative Proposals. When specifically requested, the proposer may submit an alternative
qualification proposal (or proposals) that it believes will also meet the City's project objectives
but in a different way. In this case, the proposer must provide an analysis of the advantages
and disadvantages of each of the alternatives, and discuss under what circumstances the City
would prefer one alternative to the other(s). If an alternative proposal is submitted, the
maximum length of the proposal may be expanded proportionately by the number of
alternatives submitted.
CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION
10. Proposal Retention and Award. The City reserves the right to retain all proposals for a period
of 60 days for examination and comparison. The City also reserves the right to waive non‐
substantial irregularities in any proposal, to reject any or all proposals, to reject or delete one
part of a proposal and accept the other, except to the extent that proposals are qualified by
specific limitations. See the "Special Terms and Conditions" in Section C of these specifications
for proposal evaluation and contract award criteria. The City may choose to interview any
number of qualified consultants as the basis for making a final selection.
11. Competency and Responsibility of Consultant. The City reserves full discretion to determine
the competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of Consultants.
Consultants will provide, in a timely manner, all information that the City deems necessary to
make such a decision.
12. Contract Requirement. The Consultant to whom award is made (Consultant) shall execute a
written contract with the City within ten (10) calendar days after notice of the award has been
sent by mail to it at the address given in its proposal. The contract shall be made in the form
adopted by the City and incorporated in these specifications.
13. Insurance Requirements. The Consultant shall provide proof of insurance in the form,
coverages and amounts specified in Section F of these specifications within 10 (ten) calendar
days after notice of contract award as a precondition to contract execution.
14. Business License & Tax. The Consultant must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business
license and tax certificate before execution of the contract. Additional information regarding
the City's business license and tax program may be obtained by calling (805) 781‐7134.
15. Failure to Accept Contract. The following will occur if the Consultant to whom the award is
made (Consultant) fails to enter into the contract: the award will be annulled and an award
may be made to the next highest ranked Consultant with whom a responsible compensation is
negotiated, who shall fulfill every stipulation as if it were the party to whom the first award was
made.
Attachment 1
C7-13
12
Section C
PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS
PROPOSAL CONTENT
Submittal Forms
o Acknowledgement
o Certificate of Insurance
o References
o Statement of Past Disqualifications
Qualifications
o Experience of your firm in performing similar services.
o Resumes of the individuals who would be assigned to this project, including any
sub‐consultants, demonstrating their experience with performing similar services.
o An organizational and staffing chart to show the names of all key personnel
assigned to the project and their primary area of responsibility and office location
should also be included.
o Standard hourly billing rates for the assigned staff, including any sub‐consultants.
o Statement and explanation of any instances where your firm has been removed
from a project or disqualified from proposing on a project.
Work Program
o Description of your approach to completing the work which expands on, the
Scope of Work contained in Section A of this RFP. The work program shall itemize
major tasks and work products and identify responsible staff, special information or
studies required, and special methods or equipment, if any, you anticipate using.
Procedures should be included showing how the Consultant plans to coordinate
with City staff and the Program Management Team.
The work program should identify all elements of the EIR that are needed
to assure CEQA compliance. The work program should also identify the
elements that are needed to assure NEPA compliance if Federal funding is
utilized. All of the specific elements required for CEQA and NEPA (if
necessary) compliance may not be listed in the Scope of Work; however,
the work program should explain how these elements will be
accomplished. The Consultant, in consultation with the Program
Management Team, shall be responsible for the preparation of the
required Notice of Preparation, Notice of Completion & Environmental
Transmittal, Notice of Availability, and Notice of Determination for the EIR.
The Consultant will also be responsible for mailing these notices and copies
of the Draft EIR to relevant agencies and interested parties. The costs for
these tasks and mailing costs should be factored into the total EIR budget.
Similarly, the work program should identify all environmental permits,
Attachment 1
C7-14
13
approvals, and consultations that are needed to assure compliance with
Federal and State regulations. The Consultant’s work program should
provide a complete summary of these permits, approvals, and
consultations, the materials/costs for preparing related permit packages,
the costs for obtaining these permits and approvals, and the costs
associated with negotiating permits, approvals, and carrying out
consultations. The Program Management Team will assist with review of
required permit packages and will attend meetings with resource agencies
for permit negotiations and/or to carry out consultation. However, the
Consultant will take the lead on obtaining all environmental permits and
approvals for the Project.
o Draft schedule by phase and task for completing the work. A Draft Schedule is
included in Attachment 2. The Consultant should review this Draft Schedule and
provide an equal level of detail schedule in their work program.
o Proposed fee. Proposed fee shall include an itemized summary of personnel, labor
hours, labor rates, and expenses by task, including all sub‐consultants.
o Services or data to be provided by the City that are not already identified in the
Scope of Work.
o Any other information that would assist the City in making this contract award
decision.
Proposal Length and Copies
o Your firm’s proposal should be the minimum length to provide the required
information. Charts and other short form approaches to conveying information are
encouraged.
o 10 copies of the proposal (printed double sided) must be submitted.
o 1 pdf format electronic copy must be submitted on flash drive.
PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONSULTANT SELECTION
Timely completion and circulation of the Draft EIR is essential to expeditious processing of the
project consistent with CEQA, and for obtaining required funding and financing. Therefore, project
schedule will be considered in evaluating consultant proposals. Proposals that emphasize timely,
cost‐effective and concise environmental documents that fulfil the regulatory requirements will be
evaluated favorably, as well as a focus on effective coordination and collaboration with the City and
Program Manager.
Proposals will be evaluated by a review committee. The City may select a consultant following the
written proposal phase.
Written Proposal Review/Finalist Candidate Selection
Written proposals will be evaluated based on the following criteria:
Attachment 1
C7-15
14
a. Understanding of the work required by the City
b. Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal
c. Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for
successfully performing the work required by the City
d. Recent experience in successfully performing similar services
e. Proposed approach in completing the work
f. Proposed schedule
g. References
h. Background and experience of the specific individuals to be assigned to this project.
i. Proposed fee
Oral Presentations/Interviews and Consultant Selection
The City may elect to conduct interviews with a group of finalist candidates (generally the
top 3 to 5 proposers), in which case finalist candidates will make an oral presentation to the
review committee and answer questions about their proposal. The purpose of this second
phase would be two‐fold: to clarify and resolve any outstanding questions or issues about
the proposal; and to evaluate the proposer’s ability to clearly and concisely present
information orally. After evaluating the proposals and discussing them further with the
finalists or the tentatively selected Consultant, the City reserves the right to further
negotiate the proposed workscope and/or method and amount of compensation.
Contract award will be based on a combination of factors that represent the best overall
value for completing the workscope as determined by the City, including: the written
proposal criteria described above; results of background and reference checks; results from
the interviews and presentations phase (if conducted); and proposed compensation.
Proposal Review and Consultant Selection Schedule
The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for proposal review and consultant selection:
Issue RFP May 26, 2015
Conduct pre‐proposal conference June 5, 2015
Receive proposals June 19, 2015
Complete proposal evaluation June 24, 2015
Conduct finalist interviews (if required) July 9, 2015
Finalize staff recommendation July 16, 2015
Award contract August 18, 2015
Execute contract/Start work September 1, 2015
If you have any questions about this RFP, schedule, or attachments, please calls Dave Hix at (805)
781‐7039.
Attachment 1
C7-16
15
PRE‐PROPOSAL CONFERENCE
A pre‐proposal conference will be held at the following location, date, and time to answer any
questions that prospective bidders may have regarding this RFP:
Friday, June 5, 2015 from 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
Conference Room No. 1, 919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
A site visit will of the WRRF will follow:
Friday, June 5, 2015 from 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
35 Prado Road
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attachment 1
C7-17
16
Section D
FORM OF AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on [day, date,
year] by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred
to as City, and [CONSULTANT’S NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS], hereinafter referred to as Consultant.
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, on [date], requested qualifications for Environmental and Permitting Services
for the Water Resource Recovery Facility Project per Specification No. 91359.
WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Consultant submitted a proposal that was accepted by
City for said services.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants
hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and entered,
as first written above, until acceptance or completion of said services.
2. Start and Completion of Work. Individual projects shall be completed in accordance with
approved project schedules.
3. Contract Term. The services identified in this specification will be contracted for by the City
based on a mutually agreed scope of work, cost and schedule to be negotiated between the
City and EIR consultant following consultant selection.
4. Contract Modification. The scope, cost, and schedule of the agreed‐upon contract may not be
change except either by City approval of a prior written request by the consultant to respond to
changing project conditions outside the consultant’s control, or as otherwise directed by the
City.
5. Work Delays. Should the Consultant be obstructed or delayed in the work required to be done
hereunder by changes in the work or by any default, act, or omission of the City, or by strikes,
fire, earthquake, or any other Act of God, or by the inability to obtain materials, equipment, or
labor due to federal government restrictions arising out of defense or war programs, then the
time of completion may, at the City's sole option, be extended for such periods as may be
agreed upon by the City and the Consultant. In the event that there is insufficient time to grant
such extensions prior to the completion date of the contract, the City may, at the time of
acceptance of the work, waive liquidated damages that may have accrued for failure to
complete on time, due to any of the above, after hearing evidence as to the reasons for such
delay, and making a finding as to the causes of same.
Attachment 1
C7-18
17
6. Termination. If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Consultant is not
faithfully abiding by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Consultant
in writing of such defect or failure to perform. This notice must give the Consultant a 10 (ten)
calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to perform said work or cure the deficiency.
If the Consultant has not performed the work or cured the deficiency within the ten days
specified in the notice, such shall constitute a breach of the contract and the City may
terminate the contract immediately by written notice to the Consultant to said effect.
Thereafter, neither party shall have any further duties, obligations, responsibilities, or rights
under the contract except, however, any and all obligations of the Consultant's surety shall
remain in full force and effect, and shall not be extinguished, reduced, or in any manner waived
by the termination thereof.
In said event, the Consultant shall be entitled to the reasonable value of its services performed
from the beginning date in which the breach occurs up to the day it received the City's Notice
of Termination, minus any offset from such payment representing the City's damages from
such breach. "Reasonable value" includes fees or charges for goods or services as of the last
milestone or task satisfactorily delivered or completed by the Consultant as may be set forth in
the Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any other work, services or goods
performed or provided by the Consultant shall be based solely on the City's assessment of the
value of the work‐in‐progress in completing the overall work scope.
The City reserves the right to delay any such payment until completion or confirmed
abandonment of the project, as may be determined in the City's sole discretion, so as to permit
a full and complete accounting of costs. In no event, however, shall the Consultant be entitled
to receive in excess of the compensation quoted in its proposal.
If, at any time during the term of the contract, the City determines that the project is not
feasible due to funding shortages or unforeseen circumstances, the City reserves the right to
terminate the contract. Consultant will be paid compensation due and payable to the date of
termination.
7. Ability to Perform. The Consultant warrants that it possesses, or has arranged through
subcontracts, all capital and other equipment, labor, materials, and licenses necessary to carry
out and complete the work hereunder in compliance with any and all applicable federal, state,
county, city, and special district laws, ordinances, and regulations.
8. Sub‐contract Provisions. No portion of the work pertinent to this contract shall be
subcontracted without written authorization by the City, except that which is expressly
identified in the Consultant’s proposal. Any substitution of sub‐consultants must be approved
in writing by the City. For any sub‐contract for services in excess of $25,000, the subcontract
shall contain all provisions of this agreement.
9. Contract Assignment. The Consultant shall not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of
the contract, or its right, title or interest, or its power to execute such a contract to any
individual or business entity of any kind without the previous written consent of the City.
Attachment 1
C7-19
18
10. Inspection. The Consultant shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to
ascertain that the services of the Consultant are being performed in accordance with the
requirements and intentions of this contract. All work done and all materials furnished, if any,
shall be subject to the City's inspection and approval. The inspection of such work shall not
relieve Consultant of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract requirements.
11. Record Retention and Audit. For the purpose of determining compliance with various laws
and regulations as well as performance of the contract, the Consultant and sub‐consultants
shall maintain all books, documents, papers, accounting records and other evidence pertaining
to the performance of the contract, including but not limited to the cost of administering the
contract. Materials shall be made available at their respective offices at all reasonable times
during the contract period and for four years from the date of final payment under the
contract. Authorized representatives of the City shall have the option of inspecting and/or
auditing all records. For Federally funded projects, access to records shall also include
authorized representatives of the State and Federal government. Copies shall be furnished if
requested.
12. Conflict of Interest. The Consultant shall disclose any financial, business, or other relationship
with the City that may have an impact upon the outcome of this contract, or any ensuing City
construction project. The Consultant shall also list current clients who may have a financial
interest in the outcome of this contract, or any ensuing City construction project which will
follow.
The Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest—
direct, indirect or otherwise—that would conflict in any manner or degree with the
performance of the work hereunder. The Consultant further covenants that, in the
performance of this work, no sub‐consultant or person having such an interest shall be
employed. The Consultant certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest in
performing this work is an officer or employee of the City. It is hereby expressly agreed that, in
the performance of the work hereunder, the Consultant shall at all times be deemed an
independent Consultant and not an agent or employee of the City.
13. Rebates, Kickbacks or Other Unlawful Consideration. The Consultant warrants that this
contract was not obtained or secured through rebates, kickbacks or other unlawful
consideration, either promised or paid to any City employee. For breach or violation of the
warranty, the City shall have the right in its discretion; to terminate the contract without
liability; to pay only for the value of the work actually performed; to deduct from the contract
price; or otherwise recover the full amount of such rebate, kickback or other unlawful
consideration.
14. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Consultant warrants by execution of this contract that
no person or selling agency has been employed, or retained, to solicit or secure this contract
upon an agreement or understanding, for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent
fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies
maintained by the Consultant for the purpose of securing business. For breach or violation of
this warranty, the City has the right to annul this contract without liability; pay only for the
value of the work actually performed, or in its discretion, to deduct from the contract price or
Attachment 1
C7-20
19
consideration, or otherwise recover the full amount of such commission, percentage,
brokerage, or contingent fee.
15. Compliance with Laws and Wage Rates. The Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and
shall observe and comply with all applicable state and federal laws and county and City of San
Luis Obispo ordinances, regulations and adopted codes during its performance of the work.
This includes compliance with prevailing wage rates and their payment in accordance with
California Labor Code. For purposed of this paragraph, “construction” includes work performed
during the design and preconstruction phases of construction, including but not limited to,
inspection and land surveying work.
16. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the
Consultant is required to pay.
17. Permits, Licenses and Filing Fees. The Consultant shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all
charges and fees, and file all notices as they pertain to the completion of the Consultant’s work.
The City will pay all application fees for permits required for the completion of the project
including building and regulatory permit application fees. Consultant will provide a 10 day
notice for the City to issue a check.
18. Safety Provisions. The Consultant shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to
safety established by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety.
19. Public and Employee Safety. Whenever the Consultant's operations create a condition
hazardous to the public or City employees, it shall, at its expense and without cost to the City,
furnish, erect and maintain such fences, temporary railings, barricades, lights, signs and other
devices and take such other protective measures as are necessary to prevent accidents or
damage or injury to the public and employees.
20. Preservation of City Property. The Consultant shall provide and install suitable safeguards,
approved by the City, to protect City property from injury or damage. If City property is injured
or damaged resulting from the Consultant's operations, it shall be replaced or restored at the
Consultant's expense. The facilities shall be replaced or restored to a condition as good as
when the Consultant began work.
21. Immigration Act of 1986. The Consultant warrants on behalf of itself and all sub‐consultants
engaged for the performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the United
States pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws
shall be employed in the performance of the work hereunder.
22. Consultant Non‐Discrimination. In the award of subcontracts or in performance of this work,
the Consultant agrees that it will not engage in, nor permit such sub‐consultants as it may
employ, to engage in discrimination in employment of persons on any basis prohibited by State
or Federal law.
23. Accuracy of Specifications. The specifications for this project are believed by the City to be
accurate and to contain no affirmative misrepresentation or any concealment of fact.
Consultants are cautioned to undertake an independent analysis of any test results in the
Attachment 1
C7-21
20
specifications, as City does not guaranty the accuracy of its interpretation of test results
contained in the specifications package. In preparing its proposal, the Consultant and all sub‐
consultants named in its proposal shall bear sole responsibility for proposal preparation errors
resulting from any misstatements or omissions in the specifications that could easily have been
ascertained by examining either the project site or accurate test data in the City's possession.
Although the effect of ambiguities or defects in the specifications will be as determined by law,
any patent ambiguity or defect shall give rise to a duty of Consultant to inquire prior to
proposal submittal. Failure to so inquire shall cause any such ambiguity or defect to be
construed against the Consultant. An ambiguity or defect shall be considered patent if it is of
such a nature that the Consultant, assuming reasonable skill, ability and diligence on its part,
knew or should have known of the existence of the ambiguity or defect. Furthermore, failure
of the Consultant or sub‐consultants to notify City in writing of specification defects or
ambiguities prior to proposal submittal shall waive any right to assert said defects or
ambiguities subsequent to submittal of the proposal.
To the extent that these specifications constitute performance specifications, the City shall not
be liable for costs incurred by the successful Consultant to achieve the project’s objective or
standard beyond the amounts provided therefor in the proposal.
In the event that, after awarding the contract, any dispute arises as a result of any actual or
alleged ambiguity or defect in the specifications, or any other matter whatsoever, Consultant
shall immediately notify the City in writing, and the Consultant and all sub‐consultants shall
continue to perform, irrespective of whether or not the ambiguity or defect is major, material,
minor or trivial, and irrespective of whether or not a change order, time extension, or
additional compensation has been granted by City. Failure to provide the hereinbefore
described written notice within one (1) working day of Consultant's becoming aware of the
facts giving rise to the dispute shall constitute a waiver of the right to assert the causative role
of the defect or ambiguity in the plans or specifications concerning the dispute.
24. Indemnification for Professional Liability. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the
Consultant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City and any and all of its
officials, employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all losses,
liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees and cost which arise out of,
pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant.
25. Non‐Exclusive Contract. The City reserves the right to contract for the services listed in this
proposal from other consultants during the contract term.
26. Standards. Documents shall conform to City Standards and City furnished templates shall be
used.
27. Consultant Endorsement. Technical reports, plans and specifications shall be stamped and
signed by the Consultant where required.
28. Required Deliverable Products and Revisions. The Consultant will be required to provide
documents addressing all elements of the RFP work scope, and consultant’s proposal as
mutually agreed upon under a contract to be negotiated between the Consultant and City
following consultant selection.
Attachment 1
C7-22
21
29. Ownership of Materials. Upon completion of all work under this contract, or termination of
the contract, ownership and title to all reports, documents, plans, specifications, and estimates
produced as part of this contract will automatically be vested in the city and no further
agreement will be necessary to transfer ownership to the City. The Consultant shall furnish the
City all necessary copies of data needed to complete the review and approval process.
The Consultant is not liable for claims, liabilities, or losses arising out of, or connected with the
modification, or misuse by the City of the machine‐readable information and data provided by
the Consultant under this agreement. Further, the Consultant is not liable for claims, liabilities,
or losses arising out of, or connected with any use by City of the project documentation on
other projects, except such use as may be authorized in writing by the Consultant.
30. Release of Reports and Information. Any reports, information, data, or other material given
to, prepared by or assembled by the Consultant as part of the work or services under these
specifications shall be the property of City and shall not be made available to any individual or
organization by the Consultant without the prior written approval of the City.
The Consultant shall not issue any news release or public relations item of any nature,
whatsoever, regarding work performed or to be performed under this contract without prior
review of the contents thereof by the City and receipt of the City’s written permission.
31. Copies of Reports and Information. If the 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 work or services under these specifications, the Consultant
shall provide such additional copies as are requested, and City shall compensate the Consultant
for the costs of duplicating of such copies at the Consultant's direct expense.
32. Attendance at Meetings And Hearings. Consultant shall attend as many "working" meetings
with staff as necessary to accomplish the work scope tasks. Consultant shall attend workshops
with the public, and City commission, committee or Council meetings as identified in the
approved work scope.
33. Permit and Filing Fees. The Consultant shall procure all permits, and licenses, pay all charges
and fees and file all notices necessary as they pertain to the completion of the Consultant’s
work. The City will pay all application fees for permits required for the completion of the
project work. The City requires a 10‐day notice to issue a check.
34. Project Proposal Submittal. Upon City request, the Consultant shall submit a proposed work
scope, compensation and schedule within 10 working days. The cost proposal shall include all
costs including miscellaneous direct cost items.
35. Consultant Invoices. The Consultant shall deliver a monthly invoice to the City, itemized by
project work phase or, in the case of on‐call contracts, by project title. Invoice must include a
breakdown of hours billed and miscellaneous charges and any sub‐consultant invoices, similarly
broken down, as supporting detail.
Attachment 1
C7-23
22
36. Payment. For providing services as specified in this Agreement, City will pay and Consultant
shall receive therefore compensation in a total sum not to exceed the agreed upon project fee.
Should the Consultant’s work products contain errors or deficiencies, the Consultant shall be
required to correct them at no increase in cost to the City.
The Consultant shall be reimbursed for hours worked at agreed‐upon hourly rates. Hourly rates
include direct salary costs, employee benefits, overhead and fee. In addition, the Consultant
shall be reimbursed for direct costs other than salary and vehicle cost that have been identified
and are attached to this agreement. The Consultant’s personnel shall be reimbursed for per
diem expenses at a rate not to exceed that currently authorized for State employees under
State Department of Personnel Administration rules.
37. Payment Terms. The City's payment terms are 30 days from the receipt and approval of an
original invoice and acceptance by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment or services
provided by the Consultant (Net 30).
38. Resolution of Disputes. Any dispute, other than audit, concerning a question of fact arising
under this contract that is not disposed of by agreement shall be decided by a committee
consisting of the City’s Project Manager and the City Director of Public Works, who may
consider written or verbal information submitted by the Consultant. Not later than thirty days
after completion of all deliverables necessary to complete the plans, specifications and
estimate, the Consultant may request review by the City Council of unresolved claims or
disputes, other than audit, in accordance with Chapter 1.20 Appeals Procedure of the Municipal
Code.
Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an audit of this contract that is not
disposed of by agreement, shall be reviewed by the City’s Chief Fiscal Officer. Not later than 30
days after issuance of the final audit report, the Consultant may request a review by the City’s
Chief Fiscal Officer of unresolved audit issues. The request for review must be submitted in
writing.
Neither the pendency of a dispute, nor its consideration by the City will excuse the consultant
from full and timely performance in accordance with the terms of this contract.
39. Agreement Parties.
City: Carrie Mattingly
Utilities Director
City of San Luis Obispo
879 Morro St
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Consultant:
All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid by
registered or certified mail addressed as shown above.
40. Incorporation by Reference. The City Request for Proposal Specification No. 91359 and
Consultant's proposal are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement.
Attachment 1
C7-24
23
41. Amendments. Any amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement
shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the Community Development
Director.
42. Working Out of Scope. If, at any time during the project, the consultant is directed to do work
by persons other than the City Project Manager and the Consultant believes that the work is
outside of the scope of the original contract, the Consultant shall inform the Project Manager
immediately. If the Project Manager and Consultant both agree that the work is outside of the
project scope and is necessary to the successful completion of the project, then a fee will be
established for such work based on Consultant's hourly billing rates or a lump sum price agreed
upon between the City and the Consultant. Any extra work performed by Consultant without
prior written approval from the City Project Manager shall be at Consultant's own expense.
43. Complete Agreement. This written agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated
herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto. No
oral agreement, understanding or representation not reduced to writing and specifically
incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement,
understanding or representation be binding upon the parties hereto. For and in consideration
of the payments and agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed by City,
Consultant agrees with City to do everything required by this Agreement, the said specification
and incorporated documents.
44. Authority to Execute Agreement. Both City and Consultant do covenant that each individual
executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered
to execute Agreements for such party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and
year first above written.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO: CONSULTANT:
Katie Lichtig, City Manager By:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
Attachment 1
C7-25
24
Section E
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORMS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The undersigned declares that she or he:
Has carefully examined the Proposal Specification
Is thoroughly familiar with its content
Is authorized to represent the proposing firm; and
Agrees to perform the work as set forth in the specification and this proposal.
Firm Name and Address:
Contact Name:
Email:
Fax: Phone:
Signature of Authorized Representative:
Date:
INSURANCE CERTIFICATE
Insurance Company’s A.M. Best Rating
Certificate of insurance attached
Attachment 1
C7-26
25
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS
The Consultant shall state whether it or any of its officers or employees who have a proprietary
interest in it, has ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevenviolation of law, a safety
regulation, or for any other reason, including but not limited to financial difficulties, project delays,
or disputes regarding work or product quality, and if so to explain the circumstances.
Do you have any disqualification as described in the above paragraph to
declare?
Yes No
If yes, explain the circumstances.
Executed on ______________________at _______________________________________ under
penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.
______________________________________
Signature of Authorized Consultant Representative
REFERENCES
Number of years engaged in providing the services included within the scope of the specifications
under the present business name: _________
Describe fully the last three contracts performed by your firm that demonstrate your ability to
provide the services included with the scope of the specifications. Attach additional pages if
required. The City reserves the right to contact each of the references listed for additional
information regarding your firm's qualifications.
Reference No. 1
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Project Outcome
Attachment 1
C7-27
26
Reference No. 2
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Project Outcome
Reference No. 3
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Project Outcome
Attachment 1
C7-28
27
Section F
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Consultant Services
The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims
for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the
performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or
sub‐consultants.
Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 20 10
Prior to 1993 or CG 20 10 07 04 with CG 20 37 10 01 or the exact equivalent as determined by
the City).
2. Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code 1
(any auto).
3. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability
Insurance.
4. Errors and Omissions Liability insurance as appropriate to the consultant's profession.
Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than:
1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property
damage. If Commercial General Liability or other form with a general aggregate limit is used,
either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general
aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
4. Errors and Omissions Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence.
Deductibles and Self‐Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self‐insured retentions must be
declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or
eliminate such deductibles or self‐insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials,
employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses
and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.
Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or
be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
1. The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as insureds
as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant;
products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by
the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The
coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its
officers, official, employees, agents or volunteers.
2. For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary
insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any
insurance or self‐insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or
volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
Attachment 1
C7-29
28
3. The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made
or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.
4. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not
be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after
thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given
to the City. The Consultant agrees to notify the City in the event that the policy is suspended,
voided or reduced in coverage or limits. A minimum of 30 days prior written notice by certified
mail, return receipt requested, will be provided.
Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating
of no less than A:VII.
Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance showing
maintenance of the required insurance coverage. Original endorsements effecting general liability
and automobile liability coverage required by this clause must also be provided. The endorsements
are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All
endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences.
Attachment 1
C7-30
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
C7
-
3
1
ID
T
a
s
k
Na
m
e
D
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
r
t
F
i
n
i
s
h
1
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
Pr
o
c
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
86
da
y
s
Mo
n
4/
2
0
/
1
5
Tu
e
8/
1
8
/
1
5
16
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
Im
p
a
c
t
Re
p
o
r
t
28
1
da
y
s
Tu
e
9/
1
/
1
5
Tu
e
9/
2
7
/
1
6
17
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
50
da
y
s
Tu
e
9/
1
/
1
5
Mo
n
11
/
9
/
1
5
18
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
Dr
a
f
t
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
30
da
y
s
Tu
e
9/
1
/
1
5
Mo
n
10
/
1
2
/
1
5
19
Ci
t
y
Re
v
i
e
w
of
Dr
a
f
t
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
10
da
y
s
Tu
e
10
/
1
3
/
1
5
Mo
n
10
/
2
6
/
1
5
20
Fi
n
a
l
i
z
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
10
da
y
s
Tu
e
10
/
2
7
/
1
5
Mo
n
11
/
9
/
1
5
21
In
i
t
i
a
l
St
u
d
y
Ch
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
an
d
NO
P
57
da
y
s
Tu
e
11
/
1
0
/
1
5
We
d
1/
2
7
/
1
6
22
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
IS
Ch
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
an
d
NO
P
15
da
y
s
Tu
e
11
/
1
0
/
1
5
Mo
n
11
/
3
0
/
1
5
23
Ci
t
y
Re
v
i
e
w
of
IS
Ch
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
an
d
NO
P
10
da
y
s
Tu
e
12
/
1
/
1
5
Mo
n
12
/
1
4
/
1
5
24
Fi
n
a
l
i
z
e
IS
Ch
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
an
d
NO
P
10
da
y
s
Tu
e
12
/
1
5
/
1
5
Mo
n
12
/
2
8
/
1
5
25
Pu
b
l
i
s
h
NO
P
0 da
y
s
Mo
n
12
/
2
8
/
1
5
Mo
n
12
/
2
8
/
1
5
26
Pu
b
l
i
c
re
v
i
e
w
pe
r
i
o
d
fo
r
NO
P
30
ed
a
y
s
Mo
n
12
/
2
8
/
1
5
We
d
1/
2
7
/
1
6
27
Sc
o
p
i
n
g
Me
e
t
i
n
g
0 da
y
s
We
d
1/
1
3
/
1
6
We
d
1/
1
3
/
1
6
28
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
15
3
da
y
s
Tu
e
12
/
2
9
/
1
5
Th
u
7/
2
8
/
1
6
29
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
Ad
m
i
n
.
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
45
da
y
s
Tu
e
12
/
2
9
/
1
5
Mo
n
2/
2
9
/
1
6
30
Ci
t
y
Re
v
i
e
w
of
Ad
m
i
n
.
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
15
da
y
s
Tu
e
3/
1
/
1
6
Mo
n
3/
2
1
/
1
6
31
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
Sc
r
e
e
n
ch
e
c
k
EI
R
15
da
y
s
Tu
e
3/
2
2
/
1
6
Mo
n
4/
1
1
/
1
6
32
Ci
t
y
Re
v
i
e
w
of
Sc
r
e
e
n
ch
e
c
k
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
10
da
y
s
Tu
e
4/
1
2
/
1
6
Mo
n
4/
2
5
/
1
6
33
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
Pu
b
l
i
c
Re
v
i
e
w
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
5 da
y
s
Tu
e
4/
2
6
/
1
6
Mo
n
5/
2
/
1
6
34
Pu
b
l
i
s
h
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
0 da
y
s
Mo
n
5/
2
/
1
6
Mo
n
5/
2
/
1
6
35
Pu
b
l
i
c
Re
v
i
e
w
Pe
r
i
o
d
fo
r
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
45
ed
a
y
s
Mo
n
5/
2
/
1
6
Th
u
6/
1
6
/
1
6
36
Pu
b
l
i
c
He
a
r
i
n
g
fo
r
EI
R
0 da
y
s
We
d
5/
1
8
/
1
6
We
d
5/
1
8
/
1
6
37
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
Dr
a
f
t
Co
m
m
e
n
t
‐Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
Su
m
m
a
r
y
15
da
y
s
Fr
i
6/
1
7
/
1
6
Th
u
7/
7
/
1
6
38
Ci
t
y
Re
v
i
e
w
of
Dr
a
f
t
Co
m
m
e
n
t
‐Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
Su
m
m
a
r
y
10
da
y
s
Fr
i
7/
8
/
1
6
Th
u
7/
2
1
/
1
6
39
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
Fi
n
a
l
Co
m
m
e
n
t
‐Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
Su
m
m
a
r
y
5 da
y
s
Fr
i
7/
2
2
/
1
6
Th
u
7/
2
8
/
1
6
40
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
46
da
y
s
Fr
i
7/
2
2
/
1
6
Fr
i
9/
2
3
/
1
6
41
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
Ad
m
i
n
.
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
10
da
y
s
Fr
i
7/
2
2
/
1
6
Th
u
8/
4
/
1
6
42
Ci
t
y
Re
v
i
e
w
of
Ad
m
i
n
.
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
10
da
y
s
Fr
i
8/
5
/
1
6
Th
u
8/
1
8
/
1
6
43
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
10
da
y
s
Fr
i
8/
1
9
/
1
6
Th
u
9/
1
/
1
6
44
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
Dr
a
f
t
MM
R
P
10
da
y
s
Fr
i
7/
2
2
/
1
6
Th
u
8/
4
/
1
6
45
Ci
t
y
Re
v
i
e
w
of
Dr
a
f
t
MM
R
P
10
da
y
s
Fr
i
8/
5
/
1
6
Th
u
8/
1
8
/
1
6
46
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
Fi
n
a
l
MM
R
P
5 da
y
s
Fr
i
8/
1
9
/
1
6
Th
u
8/
2
5
/
1
6
47
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
Dr
a
f
t
Fi
n
d
i
n
g
s
,
St
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
of
Ov
e
r
r
i
d
i
n
g
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
an
d
No
t
i
c
e
of
De
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
(N
O
D
)
10
da
y
s
Fr
i
8/
1
9
/
1
6
Th
u
9/
1
/
1
6
48
Ci
t
y
Re
v
i
e
w
of
Dr
a
f
t
Fi
n
d
i
n
g
s
,
St
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
of
Ov
e
r
r
i
d
i
n
g
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
an
d
NO
D
10
da
y
s
Fr
i
9/
2
/
1
6
Th
u
9/
1
5
/
1
6
49
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
Fi
n
a
l
Fi
n
d
i
n
g
s
,
St
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
of
Ov
e
r
r
i
d
i
n
g
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
an
d
NO
D
5 da
y
s
Fr
i
9/
1
6
/
1
6
Th
u
9/
2
2
/
1
6
50
Co
u
n
c
i
l
ad
o
p
t
i
o
n
an
d
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
of
th
e
EI
R
,
Fi
n
d
i
n
g
s
,
an
d
St
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
of
Ov
e
r
r
i
d
i
n
g
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
0 da
y
s
Th
u
9/
2
2
/
1
6
Th
u
9/
2
2
/
1
6
51
Fi
l
e
NO
D
wi
t
h
SC
H
an
d
Co
u
n
t
y
Cl
e
r
k
1 da
y
Fr
i
9/
2
3
/
1
6
Fr
i
9/
2
3
/
1
6
52
Pe
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
22
0
da
y
s
Fr
i
7/
2
2
/
1
6
Th
u
5/
2
5
/
1
7
53
US
A
C
E
Se
c
t
i
o
n
40
4
Pe
r
m
i
t
22
0
da
y
s
Fr
i
7/
2
2
/
1
6
Th
u
5/
2
5
/
1
7
54
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
US
A
C
E
40
4
pe
r
m
i
t
pa
c
k
a
g
e
75
da
y
s
Fr
i
7/
2
2
/
1
6
Th
u
11
/
3
/
1
6
55
Ci
t
y
Re
v
i
e
w
15
da
y
s
Fr
i
11
/
4
/
1
6
Th
u
11
/
2
4
/
1
6
56
Fi
n
a
l
i
z
e
US
A
C
E
40
4
pe
r
m
i
t
pa
c
k
a
g
e
10
da
y
s
Fr
i
11
/
2
5
/
1
6
Th
u
12
/
8
/
1
6
57
Su
b
m
i
t
40
4
pe
r
m
i
t
pa
c
k
a
g
e
to
US
A
C
E
0 da
y
s
Th
u
12
/
8
/
1
6
Th
u
12
/
8
/
1
6
58
US
A
C
E
Re
v
i
e
w
an
d
Ne
g
o
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
of
40
4
pe
r
m
i
t
6 mo
n
s
Fr
i
12
/
9
/
1
6
Th
u
5/
2
5
/
1
7
59
CD
F
W
Se
c
t
i
o
n
16
0
2
,
St
r
e
a
m
b
e
d
Al
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
16
5
da
y
s
Fr
i
7/
2
2
/
1
6
Th
u
3/
9
/
1
7
60
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
CD
F
W
SA
A
pe
r
m
i
t
pa
c
k
a
g
e
60
da
y
s
Fr
i
7/
2
2
/
1
6
Th
u
10
/
1
3
/
1
6
61
Ci
t
y
Re
v
i
e
w
15
da
y
s
Fr
i
10
/
1
4
/
1
6
Th
u
11
/
3
/
1
6
62
Fi
n
a
l
i
z
e
CD
F
W
SA
A
pe
r
m
i
t
pa
c
k
a
g
e
10
da
y
s
Fr
i
11
/
4
/
1
6
Th
u
11
/
1
7
/
1
6
63
Su
b
m
i
t
SA
A
pe
r
m
i
t
pa
c
k
a
g
e
to
CD
F
W
0 da
y
s
Th
u
11
/
1
7
/
1
6
Th
u
11
/
1
7
/
1
6
64
CD
F
W
Re
v
i
e
w
an
d
Ne
g
o
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
of
SA
A
pe
r
m
i
t
4 mo
n
s
Fr
i
11
/
1
8
/
1
6
Th
u
3/
9
/
1
7
65
CD
F
W
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
In
c
i
d
e
n
t
a
l
Ta
k
e
Pe
r
m
i
t
22
0
da
y
s
Fr
i
7/
2
2
/
1
6
Th
u
5/
2
5
/
1
7
66
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
CD
F
W
20
8
1
IT
P
Pa
c
k
a
g
e
75
da
y
s
Fr
i
7/
2
2
/
1
6
Th
u
11
/
3
/
1
6
67
Ci
t
y
Re
v
i
e
w
15
da
y
s
Fr
i
11
/
4
/
1
6
Th
u
11
/
2
4
/
1
6
68
Fi
n
a
l
i
z
e
CD
F
W
20
8
1
IT
P
Pa
c
k
a
g
e
10
da
y
s
Fr
i
11
/
2
5
/
1
6
Th
u
12
/
8
/
1
6
69
Su
b
m
i
t
20
8
1
IT
P
Pa
c
k
a
g
e
to
CD
F
W
0 da
y
s
Th
u
12
/
8
/
1
6
Th
u
12
/
8
/
1
6
70
CD
F
W
Re
v
i
e
w
an
d
Ne
g
o
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
of
IT
P
6 mo
n
s
Fr
i
12
/
9
/
1
6
Th
u
5/
2
5
/
1
7
71
RW
Q
C
B
40
1
Wa
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Ce
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
20
5
da
y
s
Fr
i
7/
2
2
/
1
6
Th
u
5/
4
/
1
7
72
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
RW
Q
C
B
40
1
WQ
C
pa
c
k
a
g
e
60
da
y
s
Fr
i
7/
2
2
/
1
6
Th
u
10
/
1
3
/
1
6
73
Ci
t
y
Re
v
i
e
w
15
da
y
s
Fr
i
10
/
1
4
/
1
6
Th
u
11
/
3
/
1
6
74
Fi
n
a
l
i
z
e
RW
Q
C
B
40
1
WQ
C
pa
c
k
a
g
e
10
da
y
s
Fr
i
11
/
4
/
1
6
Th
u
11
/
1
7
/
1
6
75
Su
b
m
i
t
40
1
WQ
C
pa
c
k
a
g
e
to
RW
Q
C
B
0 da
y
s
Th
u
11
/
1
7
/
1
6
Th
u
11
/
1
7
/
1
6
76
RW
Q
C
B
Re
v
i
e
w
an
d
Ne
g
o
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
of
40
1
WQ
C
6 mo
n
s
Fr
i
11
/
1
8
/
1
6
Th
u
5/
4
/
1
7
12
/
2
8
1/
1
3
5/
2
5/
1
8
9/22 12/8 11/17 12/8 11/17
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
JunJulAugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMay
20
1
6
2017
Ta
s
k
Sp
l
i
t
Mi
l
e
s
t
o
n
e
Su
m
m
a
r
y
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Su
m
m
a
r
y
Ex
t
e
r
n
a
l
Ta
s
k
s
Ex
t
e
r
n
a
l
Mi
l
e
s
t
o
n
e
In
a
c
t
i
v
e
Ta
s
k
In
a
c
t
i
v
e
Mi
l
e
s
t
o
n
e
In
a
c
t
i
v
e
Su
m
m
a
r
y
Ma
n
u
a
l
Ta
s
k
Du
r
a
t
i
o
n
‐on
l
y
Manual Summary Rollup Manual SummaryStart‐only Finish‐onlyDeadlineProgress
Pa
g
e
1
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
:
De
t
a
i
l
e
d
EI
R
& Pe
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
Da
t
e
:
Fr
i
4/
2
4
/
1
5
Attachment 1 C7-32
Page 1 of 9
Date: 4/21/2014
Prepared by: Jeanette Price and Linda Fisher
Reviewed by: Holly Kennedy, PE; Jeff Szytel, PE
Project: WRRF Project
SUBJECT: TM NO. 11 – ENVIRONMENTAL AND PERMITTING STRATEGY (DRAFT)
Introduction
The City of San Luis Obispo (City) is undertaking a series of upgrades to the Water Resource
Recovery Facility (WRRF) located on Prado Road in San Luis Obispo, CA. These upgrades,
collectively referred to as the WRRF Project, represent a significant community investment and
will help the City implement its long-term strategy for resource management.
The purpose of this technical memorandum is to present a summary of the environmental and
permitting requirements for the WRRF Project, and to present a recommended CEQA strategy
and permitting plan.
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1
Background ................................................................................................................................. 2
CEQA Compliance ...................................................................................................................... 2
Consideration of Recycled Water Expansion ........................................................................................... 5
NEPA Compliance ....................................................................................................................... 5
Permitting Considerations ......................................................................................................... 6
Attachment A: Sample Scopes of Work ................................................................................. 10
IS/MND Tasks ......................................................................................................................................... 10
Prepare Project Description ............................................................................................................... 10
Prepare IS Checklist ........................................................................................................................... 10
Prepare Technical Reports and Administrative Draft IS/MND ........................................................... 10
Prepare Public Review Draft IS/MND ................................................................................................. 11
Prepare Administrative Final and Final IS/MND ................................................................................. 12
Prepare the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program ............................................................... 12
EIR Tasks ............................................................................................................................................... 13
Prepare Notice of Preparation ............................................................................................................ 13
Prepare Technical Reports and Administrative Draft EIR .................................................................. 13
Prepare Public Review Draft EIR ....................................................................................................... 14
Prepare Notice of Availability (NOA) of Public Draft EIR ................................................................... 14
Prepare for and Attend Public Hearing .............................................................................................. 15
Respond to Comments Received on the Public Draft EIR ................................................................. 15
Prepare Administrative Final and Final EIR ....................................................................................... 15
Prepare the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program ............................................................... 15
Prepare Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and NOD .............................................. 15
Appendix B: Schedule .............................................................................................................. 16
Attachment C: Program EIR Guidelines ................................................................................. 20
Attachment 1
C7-33
WRRF Project
TM No. 11 – Environmental and Permitting Strategy (Draft)
Page 2 of 21
Background
As described in the City’s Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City’s Land Use and
Circulation Elements Update (LUCE), an upgrade of the WRRF is planned in response to stricter
discharge limits required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), to increase
capacity to serve the City’s population at General Plan buildout, and to replace existing aged
facilities at the end of their service life. The EIR for the LUCE was finalized in September 2014 and
adopted in December 2014.
As stated in the LUCE EIR, preliminary planning efforts for the WRRF expansion indicate that the
WRRF’s treatment capacity can be increased to adequately treat wastewater flows resulting from
buildout of the proposed Land Use Element. Thus, the proposed WRRF expansion would provide
sufficient treatment capacity to accommodate the anticipated Land Use Element buildout conditions.
CEQA Compliance
The proposed improvements and upgrades at the WRRF require compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City plans to utilize the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(CWSRF) Program to finance the proposed improvements and upgrades to the WRRF. The
CWSRF Program is partially funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and as
such, is subject to federal environmental regulations as well as additional “CEQA-Plus”
environmental documentation and review. All applicants seeking CWSRF financing must comply
with both CEQA and federal cross-cutting regulations, including the Clean Air Act (CAA),
Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).
Based on the current understanding of the project and the project area, review of the City’s LUCE
EIR and the proposed site plan, and the potential presence of sensitive receptors, biological
resources, and cultural resources, the proposed improvements may result in potential temporary
(construction) and/or permanent (operational) impacts that could require the preparation of an EIR.
Potential environmental impacts, include, but are not limited to, the impacts outlined in Table 1.
Table 1: Potential Environmental Impacts
Impact Temporary (Construction) Permanent (Operation)
Aesthetics Disrupt visual quality due the presence of
construction vehicles and equipment.
Change visual quality due to new structures.
Based on the nature of the individual changes to the
visual quality of the various features at the WRRF,
aesthetic impacts may be beneficial. For example, the
upgrades include a public interpretive center as well as
a garden/public green space that would include
aesthetic features.
Air Quality Increase in emissions and/or odors from
construction vehicles and equipment.
Increase in emissions as a result of new process units.
Expected decrease in odors due to new odor control
facilities and new operational parameters (i.e., no
diurnal equalization). Also, potential increases in
emissions as a result of additional traffic coming to and
from the facility for deliveries, visiting, etc.
Biological Potential disturbance during construction to
special-status plant or wildlife species or
habitats, and/or migratory birds; disruption of
migration corridors.
Potential direct and/or indirect effects to special-status
plant or wildlife species or habitats. The project area
and vicinity, specifically San Luis Obispo Creek,
potentially provides habitat for Central Coast
Attachment 1
C7-34
WRRF Project
TM No. 11 – Environmental and Permitting Strategy (Draft)
Page 3 of 21
Impact Temporary (Construction) Permanent (Operation)
Steelhead, California red legged frog, California tiger
salamander, and yellow billed cuckoo. Potential new
restoration and/or habitat enhancement areas may be
created/constructed as part of the upgrades at the site.
Cultural Potential disturbance to previously unidentified
historic or archaeological resources.
Potential removal of previously unidentified historic or
archaeological resources. Given the age of the facility
there is the potential for structures to meet SHPO
eligibility criteria for evaluation.
Growth N/A The WRRF upgrades would accommodate growth
projections that are substantiated in the LUCE EIR.
The LUCE EIR utilized a threshold of an average
growth rate of one percent per year per Land Use
Element Policy 1.10.2. Per Land Use Element Policy
1.9.3, the upgrades to the WRRF would not result in
the average growth rate of one percent to be
exceeded.
Hydrology and
Water Quality
Potential discharge of contaminants during
construction to storm drains and San Luis
Obispo Creek.
Increase in runoff as a result of new
structures/operations and impervious surfaces. Low
impact development (LID) features and stormwater
bio-retention facilities would be constructed on site to
retain the 95th percentile flows on-site or within the
watershed. On-site improvements would be
constructed to provide protection for the 100-year flood
event and would involve raising structures and any
electrical that could be affected during the 100-year
storm event. On-site improvements would not redirect
flood flows.
Noise Noise from construction activities may be
detectable at residences located within ¼ mile
of the site.
Increase in noise output from WRRF as a result of new
facilities/operations.
Traffic Construction vehicles utilizing and
entering/exiting local roadways.
Additional traffic coming to and from the facility for
deliveries, visiting, etc. resulting in potential disruption
to local circulation.
In order to initiate the CEQA compliance process, an Initial Study (IS) Checklist should be prepared
for the WRRF improvements project, per the “CEQA-Plus” guidelines. The IS Checklist will assist
the City in determining if the proposed project may have a significant impact on the environment and
to what extent. If no significant impacts are identified, then the IS will support the preparation and
adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). If potentially significant impacts are identified
in the IS, then an EIR will need to be prepared; however, the IS Checklist will help to focus the
analysis to be provided in the Draft EIR.
Figures 1 and 2 illustrate flowcharts for an IS/MND and an EIR, respectively. As shown, the
components involved in preparing both an IS/MND and an EIR overlap in several aspects. Both
documents start with the preparation of a Project Description and an Initial Study Checklist to define
impacts and identify the resource areas requiring further analysis. Technical studies are prepared to
support both documents. Also since the project will likely result in potentially significant impacts that
require mitigation, a Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program would be prepared under either
scenario. The required permits and approvals for the project will also remain the same under either
scenario. However, the complexity of the required permit applications and length of time related to
Attachment 1
C7-35
WRRF Project
TM No. 11 – Environmental and Permitting Strategy (Draft)
Page 4 of 21
securing the required permits and approvals for the project will likely vary between the IS/MND and
EIR approaches given the level of impacts allowed within each document.
Figure 1: IS/MND Flowchart
Figure 2: EIR Flowchart
Based on the information presented above, the uncertainty of feasible mitigation to offset project
impacts, the public perception of the project and the environmental process, and the City’s need to
have some flexibility due to the continued development and refinement of the project and potential
funding sources, it is recommended that an EIR be prepared for the project.
Attachment 1
C7-36
WRRF Project
TM No. 11 – Environmental and Permitting Strategy (Draft)
Page 5 of 21
An EIR provides coverage for the City if it is determined further in the process that the project may
result in a significant and unavoidable impact, whereas an IS/MND does not afford that same
coverage.
Sample scopes of work for both an IS/MND and an EIR are included in Attachment A. Attachment B
includes a draft EIR schedule for the project that include anticipated durations of tasks, linkages
between tasks, and responsible parties. The draft schedule also includes permitting tasks and
review times for the agencies.
Consideration of Recycled Water Expansion
There is some uncertainty with respect to the scope of the WRRF Project due to the ongoing
discussions regarding identifying and developing appropriate beneficial uses of the recycled water
produced by the WRRF currently and in the future. These beneficial uses also include opportunities
to deliver recycled water to new customers, including irrigators in the Edna Valley. As a result, the
City considered the option of preparing a Program EIR (PEIR), which would allow for a more
comprehensive and programmatic approach to the consideration of effects than would be practical in
separate EIRs for individual actions. The City considered the PEIR process as a practical method to
cover the components of the recycled water expansion (e.g., transmission, storage, etc.) that are not
yet well defined, but which are closely tied to the WRRF Project. A Program EIR is intended to
provide a general analysis, followed by tiered analyses as more information about the specific
projects within the program becomes available. As described in the CEQA Guidelines Section
15168, a PEIR may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large
project and are related to individual activities to be carried out under the same authority and with
similar environmental effects. The CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 description for a Program EIR is
provided in Attachment C.
The City is pursuing a grant to conduct a recycled water feasibility study, and if successful, that
study would run in parallel with the engineering for the WRRF Upgrade. Thus, there won’t be
sufficient information available within the timeframe necessary to prepare a PEIR. Therefore, it is
recommended that the City prepare an EIR for the proposed upgrades at the WRRF and, at a later
date, prepare a separate EIR for the recycled water component.
NEPA Compliance
In addition to CEQA compliance, the proposed improvements and upgrades at the WRRF could be
subject to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Sections 15220 to
15229 of the CEQA Guidelines discuss CEQA projects that are also subject to NEPA, which applies
to projects that are carried out, financed, or approved in whole or in part by federal agencies.
CEQA Guidelines state that when a project will require compliance with both CEQA and NEPA, and
the Lead Agency finds that an EIS or Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for a project would
not be prepared by the federal agency by the time when the Lead Agency will need to consider an
EIR or Negative Declaration, the Lead Agency should try to prepare a combined EIR-EIS or
Negative Declaration-FONSI. To avoid the need for the federal agency to prepare a separate
document for the same project, the Lead Agency must involve the federal agency in the preparation
of the joint document.
At this time, there is no federal nexus (partner or funding source) to initiate the preparation of a joint
CEQA/NEPA document. However, if the project would be financed, or approved in whole or in part
Attachment 1
C7-37
WRRF Project
TM No. 11 – Environmental and Permitting Strategy (Draft)
Page 6 of 21
by a federal agency, then a NEPA document would need to be prepared and a joint CEQA/NEPA
document could be utilized. Given the potential project impacts (Table 1) it is anticipated that the
level of documentation required for a joint CEQA/NEPA document would be an EIR/Environmental
Assessment (EA). The CEQA Plus documentation and review process already encompasses many
of the analyses that are required for NEPA documentation and federal environmental regulation
compliance. Therefore, it would not be a substantial effort to take the CEQA Plus EIR and convert it
into an EIR/EA if federal funding is obtained after the EIR is initiated. Furthermore, an EIR/EA could
be completed within the timeframe shown in the draft schedule included in Attachment B for the EIR.
Permitting Considerations
In addition to CEQA (and NEPA, if applicable) compliance, several federal, state and local permits
and/or authorizations are anticipated for the proposed improvements and upgrades at the WRRF
project. A list of anticipated permitting requirements for the WRRF Project is provided below. Table
2 further summarizes the permitting requirements.
The regulations and ordinances listed below represent a preliminary assessment of permitting
requirements, which should be refined through project design and preparation of a detailed project
description.
Clean Water Act (CWA), Section 404. Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) for discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including
wetlands.
California ESA. Consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW),
and take authorization as applicable.
California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Consultation and coordination
with the NAHC.
CWA, Section 401. Water Quality Certification from RWQCB.
CWA, Section 402. NPDES General Permit from the RWQCB for general construction
activities and General Permit for Discharges with Low Threat to Water Quality.
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD). Authority to Construct and
Permit to Operate.
PG&E. Approval for new power infrastructure to the site.
City Building, Grading, and Encroachment permits, as appropriate.
Caltrans Encroachment Permit
FEMA CLOMR/LOMR for flood control improvements
Attachment 1
C7-38
WR
R
F
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
TM
N
o
.
1
1
–
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
a
n
d
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
(
D
r
a
f
t
)
Pa
g
e
7
o
f
2
1
Ta
b
l
e
2
.
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
e
r
m
i
t
s
a
n
d
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
s
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
Ag
e
n
c
y
Ty
p
e
o
f
P
e
r
m
i
t
o
r
Ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
Re
g
u
l
a
t
e
d
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
Pe
r
m
i
t
T
i
m
e
l
i
n
e
*
Agency Contact
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
US
A
C
E
CW
A
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
4
0
4
P
e
r
m
i
t
Se
c
t
i
o
n
4
0
4
p
e
r
m
i
t
f
o
r
di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
s
o
f
d
r
e
d
g
e
d
o
r
f
i
l
l
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
i
n
t
o
w
a
t
e
r
s
o
f
t
h
e
U
n
i
t
e
d
St
a
t
e
s
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
c
a
n
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
e
x
p
e
c
t
a
Se
c
t
i
o
n
4
0
4
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
o
b
e
i
s
s
u
e
d
b
y
US
A
C
E
w
i
t
h
i
n
6
m
o
n
t
h
s
t
o
1
.
5
y
e
a
r
s
af
t
e
r
U
S
A
C
E
a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
s
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
of
a
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
U.
S
.
A
r
m
y
C
o
r
p
s
o
f
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
,
Lo
s
A
n
g
e
l
e
s
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
91
5
W
i
l
s
h
i
r
e
B
l
v
d
.
Lo
s
A
n
g
e
l
e
s
,
C
A
9
0
0
1
7
Ph
o
n
e
(
2
1
3
)
4
5
2
-
3
3
3
3
St
a
t
e
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
O
f
f
i
c
e
(S
H
P
O
)
NH
P
A
,
Se
c
t
i
o
n
1
0
6
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
i
t
i
a
t
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
4
0
4
Pe
r
m
i
t
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
)
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
re
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
e
f
f
e
c
t
s
o
n
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
l
i
s
t
e
d
i
n
,
o
r
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
li
s
t
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
e
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
Up
o
n
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
o
f
a
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
,
t
h
e
Of
f
i
c
e
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
O
H
P
)
re
v
i
e
w
e
r
s
l
o
o
k
f
o
r
t
h
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
su
g
g
e
s
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
c
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
an
d
w
i
l
l
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
3
0
d
a
y
s
.
Of
f
i
c
e
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
17
2
5
2
3
r
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
S
u
i
t
e
1
0
0
Sa
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
,
C
A
9
5
8
1
6
Ph
o
n
e
(
9
1
6
)
4
4
5
-
7
0
0
0
U.
S
.
F
i
s
h
a
n
d
W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
(
U
S
F
W
S
)
,
Na
t
i
o
n
a
l
M
a
r
i
n
e
F
i
s
h
e
r
i
e
s
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
(
N
M
F
S
)
ES
A
,
Se
c
t
i
o
n
7
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
i
t
i
a
t
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
4
0
4
Pe
r
m
i
t
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
)
Se
c
t
i
o
n
7
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
ef
f
e
c
t
s
o
n
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
s
t
a
t
u
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
Se
c
t
i
o
n
7
(
a
)
(
2
)
o
f
t
h
e
E
S
A
s
t
a
t
e
s
t
h
a
t
US
F
W
S
h
a
s
9
0
d
a
y
s
t
o
c
o
n
c
l
u
d
e
co
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
U
S
A
C
E
a
n
d
a
n
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
4
5
d
a
y
s
t
o
i
s
s
u
e
a
Bi
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
O
p
i
n
i
o
n
a
n
d
,
i
f
n
e
e
d
e
d
,
a
n
in
c
i
d
e
n
t
a
l
t
a
k
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
.
US
F
W
S
,
V
e
n
t
u
r
a
O
f
f
i
c
e
24
9
3
P
o
r
t
o
l
a
R
o
a
d
,
S
u
i
t
e
B
Ve
n
t
u
r
a
,
C
A
9
3
0
0
3
-
7
7
2
6
Ph
o
n
e
(
8
0
5
)
6
4
4
-
1
7
6
6
NO
A
A
F
i
s
h
e
r
i
e
s
Lo
n
g
B
e
a
c
h
O
f
f
i
c
e
50
1
W
e
s
t
O
c
e
a
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
,
Su
i
t
e
4
2
0
0
Lo
n
g
B
e
a
c
h
,
C
A
9
0
8
0
2
Ph
o
n
e
(
5
6
2
)
9
8
0
-
4
0
0
0
Attachment 1 C7-39
WR
R
F
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
TM
N
o
.
1
1
–
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
a
n
d
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
(
D
r
a
f
t
)
Pa
g
e
8
o
f
2
1
Ag
e
n
c
y
Ty
p
e
o
f
P
e
r
m
i
t
o
r
Ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
Re
g
u
l
a
t
e
d
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
Pe
r
m
i
t
T
i
m
e
l
i
n
e
*
Agency Contact
St
a
t
e
CD
F
W
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
E
S
A
,
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
Fi
s
h
a
n
d
G
a
m
e
C
o
d
e
,
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2
0
8
1
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
t
a
k
e
au
t
h
o
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Ty
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
,
a
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
C
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
De
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
c
a
n
b
e
c
o
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
wi
t
h
i
n
3
0
d
a
y
s
o
f
C
D
F
W
’
s
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
o
f
th
e
U
S
F
W
S
/
N
M
F
S
B
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
Op
i
n
i
o
n
a
n
d
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
C
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
De
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
.
Fo
r
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
l
e
a
d
i
n
g
t
o
a
s
t
a
t
e
in
c
i
d
e
n
t
a
l
t
a
k
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
,
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
ca
n
t
a
k
e
u
p
t
o
1
2
0
d
a
y
s
.
CD
F
W
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
R
e
g
i
o
n
(
R
e
g
i
o
n
4)
12
3
4
E
.
S
h
a
w
A
v
e
n
u
e
F
r
e
s
n
o
,
CA
9
3
7
1
0
Ph
o
n
e
(
5
5
9
)
2
4
3
-
4
0
0
5
CD
F
W
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
F
i
s
h
a
n
d
G
a
m
e
Co
d
e
,
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
1
6
0
2
St
r
e
a
m
b
e
d
A
l
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
A
S
t
r
e
a
m
b
e
d
A
l
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
ca
n
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
b
e
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
9
0
-
12
0
d
a
y
s
o
f
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
o
f
t
h
e
ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
N
A
H
C
N
A
H
C
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
re
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
e
f
f
e
c
t
s
o
n
Na
t
i
v
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
b
u
r
i
a
l
s
o
r
ar
t
i
f
a
c
t
s
Th
e
l
e
a
d
a
g
e
n
c
y
m
u
s
t
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
w
i
t
h
a
tr
i
b
e
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
g
e
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
a
l
a
r
e
a
o
f
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
f
t
h
e
t
r
i
b
e
(
1
)
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
th
e
l
e
a
d
a
g
e
n
c
y
t
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
i
t
o
f
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
i
t
s
a
r
e
a
,
a
n
d
(2
)
t
h
e
t
r
i
b
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
3
0
d
a
y
s
of
r
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
n
o
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
s
co
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
N
A
H
C
15
5
0
H
a
r
b
o
r
B
l
v
d
,
S
u
i
t
e
1
0
0
We
s
t
S
a
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
,
C
A
9
5
6
9
1
Ph
o
n
e
(
9
1
6
)
3
7
3
-
3
7
1
0
Attachment 1 C7-40
WR
R
F
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
TM
N
o
.
1
1
–
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
a
n
d
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
(
D
r
a
f
t
)
Pa
g
e
9
o
f
2
1
*T
h
e
s
e
t
i
m
e
l
i
n
e
s
a
r
e
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
,
a
n
d
c
a
n
v
a
r
y
.
M
a
n
y
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
a
f
f
e
ct
t
h
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
o
r
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
t
i
m
e
l
i
n
e
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
w
h
e
n
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
at
i
o
n
i
s
d
e
e
m
e
d
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
,
wh
e
t
h
e
r
o
r
n
o
t
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
b
y
th
e
a
g
e
n
c
y
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
s
t
a
t
u
s
o
f
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
p
e
r
m
i
t
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
s
.
Ag
e
n
c
y
Ty
p
e
o
f
P
e
r
m
i
t
o
r
Ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
Re
g
u
l
a
t
e
d
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
Pe
r
m
i
t
T
i
m
e
l
i
n
e
*
Agency Contact
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
C
o
a
s
t
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Wa
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
Bo
a
r
d
(
C
C
R
W
Q
C
B
)
CW
A
,
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
4
0
2
Se
c
t
i
o
n
4
0
2
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
P
o
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
E
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
(N
P
D
E
S
)
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
e
r
m
i
t
f
o
r
St
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
s
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
La
n
d
D
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
,
Wa
s
t
e
D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
fo
r
D
e
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
O
t
h
e
r
L
o
w
Th
r
e
a
t
D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
s
t
o
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
Wa
t
e
r
s
On
c
e
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
fe
e
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
R
W
Q
C
B
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
a
n
be
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
a
s
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
P
e
r
m
i
t
,
s
o
l
o
n
g
a
s
t
h
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
a
r
e
i
n
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
t
h
e
t
e
r
m
s
a
n
d
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
pe
r
m
i
t
.
CC
R
W
Q
C
B
89
5
A
e
r
o
v
i
s
t
a
P
l
a
c
e
,
Su
i
t
e
1
0
1
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
.
9
3
4
0
1
-
79
0
6
Ph
o
n
e
(
8
0
5
)
5
4
9
3
1
4
7
CC
R
W
Q
C
B
CW
A
,
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
4
0
1
Se
c
t
i
o
n
4
0
1
W
a
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Ce
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
o
f
dr
e
d
g
e
d
o
r
f
i
l
l
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
i
n
t
o
wa
t
e
r
s
o
f
t
h
e
U
n
i
t
e
d
S
t
a
t
e
s
a
n
d
St
a
t
e
.
Wa
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
C
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
c
a
n
ty
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
b
e
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
9
0
d
a
y
s
of
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
o
f
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
SL
O
A
P
C
D
Au
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
t
o
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
/
Pe
r
m
i
t
t
o
O
p
e
r
a
t
e
Ce
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
w
i
l
l
m
e
e
t
a
l
l
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
n
o
t
in
t
e
r
f
e
r
e
w
i
t
h
a
i
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
Ce
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
co
m
p
l
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
r
u
l
e
s
an
d
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
A
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
p
e
r
m
i
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
m
u
s
t
be
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
A
P
C
D
a
l
o
n
g
w
i
t
h
a
d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
t
h
e
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
/
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
t
o
b
e
u
s
e
d
.
T
h
e
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
to
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
b
e
f
o
r
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
b
e
g
i
n
s
,
s
o
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
sh
o
u
l
d
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
w
e
l
l
i
n
ad
v
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
s
t
a
r
t
d
a
t
e
.
SL
O
A
P
C
D
34
3
3
R
o
b
e
r
t
o
C
o
u
r
t
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
Ph
o
n
e
(
8
0
5
)
7
8
1
-
5
9
1
2
Attachment 1 C7-41
WRRF Project
TM No. 11 – Environmental and Permitting Strategy (Draft)
Page 10 of 21
Attachment A: Sample Scopes of Work
IS/MND Tasks
The following subsections describe the tasks that would be included for the preparation of an
IS/MND.
Prepare Project Description
A detailed Project Description would be prepared to initiate the environmental analyses and
documentation for the proposed project. The Final Facilities Plan would serve as the basis for the
Project Description. Additional information may be required to provide details not included in the
Facilities Plan. Section 15071 of the CEQA Guidelines describes the contents of an ND, which
include a brief description of the project, including a commonly used name for the project, if any; the
location of the project, preferably shown on a map; and the name of the project proponent. The
Project Description would also include background information about the need for the project; project
objectives; details about construction, including the construction equipment needed to construct the
project, construction hauling and access routes, construction sequencing/phasing, construction
timing and work schedule, etc.; and anticipated permits and approvals.
The draft Project Description would be submitted to City staff for review and would then be revised
per City comments and resubmitted for review and approval by the City. Upon approval, the Project
Description would be finalized and would be used in the environmental analyses and documentation
for the proposed project.
Prepare IS Checklist
A Draft IS Checklist would be prepared based on the finalized Project Description and per “CEQA-
Plus” guidelines. The Draft IS Checklist would be submitted to City staff for review. The Draft IS
would then be revised per City comments and resubmitted for review and approval by the City. The
conclusions provided in the completed IS Checklist would assist the City in determining if the
proposed project may have a significant impact on the environment and to what extent. If no
significant impacts are identified, then the IS would support the preparation and adoption of an MND.
If potentially significant impacts are identified in the IS, then an EIR would need to be prepared,
which would result in a modified scope (see the following section regarding scope of work for an
EIR).
Prepare Technical Reports and Administrative Draft IS/MND
An Administrative Draft IS/MND would be prepared per CEQA Guidelines. The Administrative Draft
IS/MND would include a description of the environmental setting; identify direct, indirect, and
cumulative effects of the proposed project; and recommend mitigation measures to avoid, reduce, or
mitigate for those impacts. Additionally, under this task detailed technical reports would be prepared
for specific resource areas that are shown in the IS checklist to need supporting documentation to
substantiate impact levels. These resource areas may include Biological Resources and Cultural
Resources, which in turn would require preparation of a Biological Resources Survey Report or
Biological Assessment (BA) and a Cultural Resources Survey Report, as outlined in further detail
below. The technical reports would discuss the potential construction related effects of the proposed
project on the affected resource area(s).
Attachment 1
C7-42
WRRF Project
TM No. 11 – Environmental and Permitting Strategy (Draft)
Page 11 of 21
Biological Assessment. Section 7 of the federal ESA prohibits “take” (including harm or
harassment) of species listed as threatened or endangered without authorization. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has jurisdiction under the ESA for federally listed plants
and wildlife species, and certain species of fish. The National Marine Fisheries (NMFS) has
jurisdiction under the ESA for marine mammals and listed anadromous fish. A review of
USFWS, NMFS, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) species lists, as
well as the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) would be conducted for records
of special-status species in the project area and vicinity. A field reconnaissance survey would
be conducted to determine the potential presence of protected-species and/or habitats in the
project area. A habitat map would be prepared based on the results of the field survey. A
Draft BA would be prepared for submittal to the City for review and comment. The Draft BA
would be revised based on comments from the City. The BA would address the potential for
the project to result in “take” of listed species or adverse modification of their habitat. Once
complete and approved by the City, the BA would be submitted for agency review. The
findings of the BA would also be incorporated into the IS/MND.
Cultural Resources Survey Report: A records search would be conducted at the Northwest
Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS)
located at Sonoma State University. This record search would consult California’s database
of previous studies and previously recorded sites within the project area and within a ½-mile
radius. A cultural resources field survey would then be conducted for the project area. The
results would be provided in the Cultural Resources Survey Report. In addition, any forms
documenting cultural or archaeological resources or historic properties in the project’s Area
of Potential Effect (APE) would be included with the Technical Report. The findings of the
technical report would also be incorporated into the IS/MND.
Preparation of the technical reports and Administrative Draft IS/MND would include consultation with
applicable Federal and state agencies with jurisdiction over resources in the project area and in
compliance with “CEQA-Plus”. For example, preparation of the BA would include consultation with
the CDFW and the USFWS for potential impacts to special-status plant and animal species and/or
habitats; and preparation of the Cultural Resources Survey Report would include consultation with
the California SHPO for potential impacts to historic and archaeological resources. Table 2 includes
a list of the agency offices that would be contacted for each potential permit and/or approval.
The draft technical reports and the Administrative Draft IS/MND would be submitted to City staff for
review. The draft technical reports and the Administrative Draft IS/MND would then be revised per
City comments and resubmitted for review and approval by the City.
Prepare Public Review Draft IS/MND
Upon approval, all comments on the Administrative Draft IS/MND would be addressed and/or
incorporated as appropriate, and the Public Review Draft IS/MND would be prepared. A Draft Notice
of Intent (NOI) to Adopt an MND would also be prepared for City review and approval. Upon
approval, the NOI would be finalized and published in the local newspaper or posted on or off the
site. The Public Review Draft IS/MND would be submitted to the City, and to the State
Clearinghouse for compliance with CEQA. A Notice of Completion (NOC) would also be prepared
and would accompany the Public Review Draft IS/MND for submission to the State Clearinghouse.
Attachment 1
C7-43
WRRF Project
TM No. 11 – Environmental and Permitting Strategy (Draft)
Page 12 of 21
Prepare Administrative Final and Final IS/MND
An Administrative Final IS/MND would be prepared and would include response to the public
comments received on the Public Review Draft IS/MND. All comments received on the Draft IS/MND
would be reviewed and draft responses to public comments would be prepared. A responses to
Public Comments Appendix would be included in the Final IS/MND.
The Administrative Final IS/MND would also include necessary minor corrections, changes, or
revisions to the IS/MND as appropriate. The Administrative Final IS/MND would be submitted to the
City for review. Upon receipt of the City’s comments, the Administrative Final IS/MND would be
revised and resubmitted for review and approval by the City. Upon approval, the Final IS/MND
would be prepared and submitted to the City for adoption.
Per CEQA Guidelines, a Draft NOD would be prepared describing the City’s decision to approve the
project. The NOD would be submitted to the State Clearinghouse and the San Luis Obispo County
Clerk along with copies of the Final IS/MND.
Prepare the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program
A Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) would be prepared for the proposed project
in accordance with CEQA. The MMRP would specify the project impacts to be mitigated,
initiation/timing of mitigation, monitoring frequency, responsibility for verification of compliance,
performance criteria, the date compliance is completed, and other specifications as necessary.
Attachment 1
C7-44
WRRF Project
TM No. 11 – Environmental and Permitting Strategy (Draft)
Page 13 of 21
EIR Tasks
If after the preparation of the IS Checklist, it is determined that an EIR is needed, the following tasks
would be needed. Similar to the IS/MND, a project description and IS Checklist would be prepared.
Section 15120 to 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines describes the contents of an EIR. The project
description would include the following elements:
The precise location and boundaries of the proposed project shall be shown on a detailed
map, preferably topographic. The location of the project shall also appear on a regional map.
A statement of objectives sought by the proposed project. A clearly written statement of
objectives will help the lead agency develop a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in
the EIR and will aid the decision makers in preparing findings or a statement of overriding
considerations, if necessary. The statement of objectives should include the underlying
purpose of the project.
A general description of the project’s technical, economic, and environmental characteristics,
considering the principal engineering proposals if any and supporting public service facilities.
A statement briefly describing the intended uses of the EIR, including a list of the agencies
that are expected to use the EIR in their decision making; a list of permits and other
approvals required to implement the project; and a list of related environmental review and
consultation requirements required by federal, state, or local laws, regulations, or policies. If
a public agency must make more than one decision on a project, this statement would also
include a list of all its decisions subject to CEQA, preferably in the order in which they will
occur.
The Project Description would also include background information about the need for the project;
and details about construction, including the construction equipment needed to construct the project,
construction hauling and access routes, construction sequencing/phasing, construction timing and
work schedule, etc.
Prepare Notice of Preparation
If potentially significant impacts are identified in the IS Checklist, then an EIR would be prepared. A
Draft Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR would be prepared per the CEQA Guidelines. The
Draft NOP would be submitted to the City for review and comment. Based on comments and
guidance received from the City, the Final NOP would be prepared. The IS Checklist would
accompany the NOP for submittal to the State Clearinghouse.
Prepare Technical Reports and Administrative Draft EIR
An Administrative Draft EIR would be prepared per CEQA Guidelines. Similar to an IS/MND, the
Administrative Draft EIR would include a description of the environmental setting; identify direct,
indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed project; and recommend mitigation measures to
avoid, reduce, or mitigate for those impacts. Additionally, under this task detailed technical reports
would be prepared for specific resource areas that are shown in the IS checklist to need supporting
documentation to substantiate impact levels. These resource areas may include Biological
Resources and Cultural Resources, which in turn would require preparation of a Biological
Resources Survey Report or BA and a Cultural Resources Survey Report, as outlined in further
detail below. The technical reports would discuss the potential construction related effects of the
proposed project on the affected resource area(s).
Attachment 1
C7-45
WRRF Project
TM No. 11 – Environmental and Permitting Strategy (Draft)
Page 14 of 21
Biological Assessment. Section 7 of the federal ESA prohibits “take” (including harm or
harassment) of species listed as threatened or endangered without authorization. The
USFWS has jurisdiction under the ESA for federally listed plants and wildlife species, and
certain species of fish. The NMFS has jurisdiction under the ESA for marine mammals and
listed anadromous fish. A review of USFWS, NMFS, and CDFW species lists, as well as the
CNDDB would be conducted for records of special-status species in the project area and
vicinity. A field reconnaissance survey would be conducted to determine the potential
presence of protected-species and/or habitats in the project area. A habitat map would be
prepared based on the results of the field survey. A Draft BA would be prepared for submittal
to the City for review and comment. The Draft BA would be revised based on comments from
the City. The BA would address the potential for the project to result in “take” of listed
species or adverse modification of their habitat. Once complete and approved by the City,
the BA would be submitted for agency review. The findings of the BA would also be
incorporated into the EIR.
Cultural Resources Survey Report: A records search would be conducted at the Northwest
Information Center of the CHRIS located at Sonoma State University. This record search
would consult California’s database of previous studies and previously recorded sites within
the project area and within a ½-mile radius. A cultural resources field survey would then be
conducted for the project area. The results would be provided in the Cultural Resources
Survey Report. In addition, any forms documenting cultural or archaeological resources or
historic properties in the project’s APE would be included with the Technical Report. The
findings of the technical report would also be incorporated into the EIR.
Preparation of the technical reports and Administrative Draft EIR would include consultation with
applicable Federal and state agencies with jurisdiction over resources in the project area and in
compliance with “CEQA-Plus”. For example, preparation of the Biological Resources Report would
include consultation with the CDFW and the USFWS for potential impacts to special-status plant and
animal species and/or habitats; and preparation of the Cultural Resources Survey Report would
include consultation with the California SHPO for potential impacts to historic and archaeological
resources.
The draft technical reports and the Administrative Draft EIR would be submitted to City staff for
review. The draft technical reports and the Administrative Draft EIR would then be revised per City
comments and resubmitted for review and approval by the City.
Prepare Public Review Draft EIR
Upon approval, all comments on the Administrative Draft EIR would be addressed and/or
incorporated as appropriate, and the Public Review Draft EIR would be prepared. The Public Review
Draft EIR would be submitted to the City, and to the State Clearinghouse for compliance with CEQA.
A Notice of Completion (NOC) would also be prepared and would accompany the Public Review
Draft EIR for submission to the State Clearinghouse.
Prepare Notice of Availability (NOA) of Public Draft EIR
A Draft NOA would be prepared for the City’s review and approval. Upon approval, the NOA would
be finalized for release by the City.
Attachment 1
C7-46
WRRF Project
TM No. 11 – Environmental and Permitting Strategy (Draft)
Page 15 of 21
Prepare for and Attend Public Hearing
A public hearing for the proposed project would be held after the Draft EIR has been released for
public review. The public hearing would include a presentation of environmental components of the
EIR and a response to technical questions that arise during the public hearing. Following the public
hearing, meeting notes would be prepared, and written and oral comments would be collected and
summarized for submittal to the City for review.
Respond to Comments Received on the Public Draft EIR
Per CEQA Guidelines, and upon completion of the 45-day public review period for the Draft EIR, all
comments received on the Draft EIR would be reviewed and a Draft Comment-Response Summary
would be prepared. The Draft Comment-Response Summary would be submitted to City staff for
review. The Draft Comment-Response Summary would then be revised per City comments and
resubmitted for review and approval by the City. Upon approval, the Comment-Response Summary
would be finalized for inclusion in the Final EIR.
Prepare Administrative Final and Final EIR
An Administrative Final EIR would be prepared and would include response to the public comments
received on the Public Review Draft EIR. The Administrative Final EIR would also include necessary
minor corrections, changes, or revisions to the EIR as appropriate. The Administrative Final EIR
would be submitted to the City for review. Upon receipt of the City’s comments, the Administrative
Final EIR would be revised and resubmitted for review and approval by the City. Upon approval, the
Final EIR would be prepared and submitted to the City for adoption.
Prepare the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program
A Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) would be prepared for the proposed project
in accordance with CEQA. The MMRP would specify the project impacts to be mitigated,
initiation/timing of mitigation, monitoring frequency, responsibility for verification of compliance,
performance criteria, the date compliance is completed, and other specifications as necessary.
Prepare Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and NOD
Per CEQA Guidelines, Draft Findings would be prepared for rationale of each significant impact
identified in the EIR; a Draft Statement of Overriding Considerations, if applicable, would be
prepared to support the City’s action for approval of the proposed project; and a Draft Notice of
Determine (NOD) would be prepared describing the City’s decision to approve the project. Based on
comments and guidance received from the City, the revised Final Findings, Statement of Overriding
Considerations, and NOD would be prepared and submitted to the City. The NOD would be
submitted to the State Clearinghouse and the San Luis Obispo County Clerk along with copies of the
Final EIR.
Attachment 1
C7-47
WRRF Project
TM No. 11 – Environmental and Permitting Strategy (Draft)
Page 16 of 21
Appendix B: Draft EIR Schedule
Attachment 1
C7-48
ID
T
a
s
k
Na
m
e
D
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
r
t
F
i
n
i
s
h
1
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
Pr
o
c
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
86
da
y
s
Mo
n
4/
2
0
/
1
5
Tu
e
8/
1
8
/
1
5
2
De
v
e
l
o
p
RF
P
3 da
y
s
Mo
n
4/
2
0
/
1
5
We
d
4/
2
2
/
1
5
3
Ci
t
y
Re
v
i
e
w
of
RF
P
2 da
y
s
Th
u
4/
2
3
/
1
5
Fr
i
4/
2
4
/
1
5
4
In
c
l
u
d
e
RF
P
in
Ci
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
Ag
e
n
d
a
Pa
c
k
e
t
3 da
y
s
Mo
n
4/
2
7
/
1
5
We
d
4/
2
9
/
1
5
5
Ci
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
of
RF
P
0 da
y
s
Th
u
5/
2
1
/
1
5
Th
u
5/
2
1
/
1
5
6
Pr
i
n
t
an
d
Re
l
e
a
s
e
RF
P
5 da
y
s
Th
u
5/
2
1
/
1
5
We
d
5/
2
7
/
1
5
7
RF
P
so
l
i
c
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
pe
r
i
o
d
15
da
y
s
Th
u
5/
2
8
/
1
5
We
d
6/
1
7
/
1
5
8
Ci
t
y
Re
v
i
e
w
of
Pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
s
5 da
y
s
Th
u
6/
1
8
/
1
5
We
d
6/
2
4
/
1
5
9
Co
n
d
u
c
t
In
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
s
2 da
y
s
Th
u
6/
2
5
/
1
5
Fr
i
6/
2
6
/
1
5
10
Se
l
e
c
t
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
5 da
y
s
Mo
n
6/
2
9
/
1
5
Fr
i
7/
3
/
1
5
11
No
t
i
f
y
Se
l
e
c
t
e
d
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
0 da
y
s
Fr
i
7/
3
/
1
5
Fr
i
7/
3
/
1
5
12
Ne
g
o
t
i
a
t
e
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
Sc
o
p
e
an
d
Fe
e
15
da
y
s
Mo
n
7/
6
/
1
5
Fr
i
7/
2
4
/
1
5
13
In
c
l
u
d
e
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
in
Ci
t
y
Ag
e
n
d
a
Pa
c
k
e
t
5 da
y
s
Mo
n
7/
2
7
/
1
5
Fr
i
7/
3
1
/
1
5
14
Ci
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
Ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
of
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
Sc
o
p
e
an
d
Fe
e
0 da
y
s
Tu
e
8/
1
8
/
1
5
Tu
e
8/
1
8
/
1
5
15
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
Im
p
a
c
t
Re
p
o
r
t
28
1
da
y
s
Tu
e
9/
1
/
1
5
Tu
e
9/
2
7
/
1
6
16
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
50
da
y
s
Tu
e
9/
1
/
1
5
Mo
n
11
/
9
/
1
5
17
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
Dr
a
f
t
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
30
da
y
s
Tu
e
9/
1
/
1
5
Mo
n
10
/
1
2
/
1
5
18
Ci
t
y
Re
v
i
e
w
of
Dr
a
f
t
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
10
da
y
s
Tu
e
10
/
1
3
/
1
5
Mo
n
10
/
2
6
/
1
5
19
Fi
n
a
l
i
z
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
10
da
y
s
Tu
e
10
/
2
7
/
1
5
Mo
n
11
/
9
/
1
5
20
In
i
t
i
a
l
St
u
d
y
Ch
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
an
d
NO
P
57
da
y
s
Tu
e
11
/
1
0
/
1
5
We
d
1/
2
7
/
1
6
21
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
IS
Ch
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
an
d
NO
P
15
da
y
s
Tu
e
11
/
1
0
/
1
5
Mo
n
11
/
3
0
/
1
5
22
Ci
t
y
Re
v
i
e
w
of
IS
Ch
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
an
d
NO
P
10
da
y
s
Tu
e
12
/
1
/
1
5
Mo
n
12
/
1
4
/
1
5
23
Fi
n
a
l
i
z
e
IS
Ch
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
an
d
NO
P
10
da
y
s
Tu
e
12
/
1
5
/
1
5
Mo
n
12
/
2
8
/
1
5
24
Pu
b
l
i
s
h
NO
P
0 da
y
s
Mo
n
12
/
2
8
/
1
5
Mo
n
12
/
2
8
/
1
5
25
Pu
b
l
i
c
re
v
i
e
w
pe
r
i
o
d
fo
r
NO
P
30
ed
a
y
s
Mo
n
12
/
2
8
/
1
5
We
d
1/
2
7
/
1
6
26
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
15
3
da
y
s
Tu
e
12
/
2
9
/
1
5
Th
u
7/
2
8
/
1
6
27
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
Ad
m
i
n
.
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
45
da
y
s
Tu
e
12
/
2
9
/
1
5
Mo
n
2/
2
9
/
1
6
28
Ci
t
y
Re
v
i
e
w
of
Ad
m
i
n
.
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
15
da
y
s
Tu
e
3/
1
/
1
6
Mo
n
3/
2
1
/
1
6
29
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
Sc
r
e
e
n
c
h
e
c
k
EI
R
15
da
y
s
Tu
e
3/
2
2
/
1
6
Mo
n
4/
1
1
/
1
6
30
Ci
t
y
Re
v
i
e
w
of
Sc
r
e
e
n
c
h
e
c
k
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
10
da
y
s
Tu
e
4/
1
2
/
1
6
Mo
n
4/
2
5
/
1
6
31
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
Pu
b
l
i
c
Re
v
i
e
w
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
5 da
y
s
Tu
e
4/
2
6
/
1
6
Mo
n
5/
2
/
1
6
32
Pu
b
l
i
s
h
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
0 da
y
s
Mo
n
5/
2
/
1
6
Mo
n
5/
2
/
1
6
33
Pu
b
l
i
c
Re
v
i
e
w
Pe
r
i
o
d
fo
r
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
45
ed
a
y
s
Mo
n
5/
2
/
1
6
Th
u
6/
1
6
/
1
6
34
Pu
b
l
i
c
He
a
r
i
n
g
fo
r
EI
R
0 da
y
s
We
d
5/
1
8
/
1
6
We
d
5/
1
8
/
1
6
35
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
Dr
a
f
t
Co
m
m
e
n
t
‐Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
Su
m
m
a
r
y
15
da
y
s
Fr
i
6/
1
7
/
1
6
Th
u
7/
7
/
1
6
36
Ci
t
y
Re
v
i
e
w
of
Dr
a
f
t
Co
m
m
e
n
t
‐Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
Su
m
m
a
r
y
10
da
y
s
Fr
i
7/
8
/
1
6
Th
u
7/
2
1
/
1
6
37
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
Fi
n
a
l
Co
m
m
e
n
t
‐Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
Su
m
m
a
r
y
5 da
y
s
Fr
i
7/
2
2
/
1
6
Th
u
7/
2
8
/
1
6
38
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
46
da
y
s
Fr
i
7/
2
2
/
1
6
Fr
i
9/
2
3
/
1
6
39
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
Ad
m
i
n
.
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
10
da
y
s
Fr
i
7/
2
2
/
1
6
Th
u
8/
4
/
1
6
5/
2
1
7/
3
8/
1
8
12
/
2
8
5/2 5/18
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
J
F
M
A
MJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJ
20
1
6
20172018
Ta
s
k
Sp
l
i
t
Mi
l
e
s
t
o
n
e
Su
m
m
a
r
y
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Su
m
m
a
r
y
Ex
t
e
r
n
a
l
Ta
s
k
s
Ex
t
e
r
n
a
l
Mi
l
e
s
t
o
n
e
In
a
c
t
i
v
e
Ta
s
k
In
a
c
t
i
v
e
Mi
l
e
s
t
o
n
e
In
a
c
t
i
v
e
Su
m
m
a
r
y
Ma
n
u
a
l
Ta
s
k
Du
r
a
t
i
o
n
‐on
l
y
Ma
n
u
a
l
Summary Rollup
Ma
n
u
a
l
Summary
St
a
r
t
‐on
l
y
Fi
n
i
s
h
‐on
l
y
Deadline Progress
Pa
g
e
1
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
:
De
t
a
i
l
e
d
EI
R
& Pe
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
Da
t
e
:
Tu
e
4/
2
1
/
1
5
Attachment 1 C7-49
ID
T
a
s
k
Na
m
e
D
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
r
t
F
i
n
i
s
h
40
Ci
t
y
Re
v
i
e
w
of
Ad
m
i
n
.
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
10
da
y
s
Fr
i
8/
5
/
1
6
Th
u
8/
1
8
/
1
6
41
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
10
da
y
s
Fr
i
8/
1
9
/
1
6
Th
u
9/
1
/
1
6
42
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
Dr
a
f
t
MM
R
P
10
da
y
s
Fr
i
7/
2
2
/
1
6
Th
u
8/
4
/
1
6
43
Ci
t
y
Re
v
i
e
w
of
Dr
a
f
t
MM
R
P
10
da
y
s
Fr
i
8/
5
/
1
6
Th
u
8/
1
8
/
1
6
44
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
Fi
n
a
l
MM
R
P
5 da
y
s
Fr
i
8/
1
9
/
1
6
Th
u
8/
2
5
/
1
6
45
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
Dr
a
f
t
Fi
n
d
i
n
g
s
,
St
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
of
Ov
e
r
r
i
d
i
n
g
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
an
d
No
t
i
c
e
of
De
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
(N
O
D
)
10
da
y
s
Fr
i
8/
1
9
/
1
6
Th
u
9/
1
/
1
6
46
Ci
t
y
Re
v
i
e
w
of
Dr
a
f
t
Fi
n
d
i
n
g
s
,
St
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
of
Ov
e
r
r
i
d
i
n
g
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
an
d
NO
D
10
da
y
s
Fr
i
9/
2
/
1
6
Th
u
9/
1
5
/
1
6
47
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
Fi
n
a
l
Fi
n
d
i
n
g
s
,
St
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
of
Ov
e
r
r
i
d
i
n
g
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
an
d
NO
D
5 da
y
s
Fr
i
9/
1
6
/
1
6
Th
u
9/
2
2
/
1
6
48
Co
u
n
c
i
l
ad
o
p
t
i
o
n
an
d
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
of
th
e
EI
R
,
Fi
n
d
i
n
g
s
,
an
d
St
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
of
Ov
e
r
r
i
d
i
n
g
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
0 da
y
s
Th
u
9/
2
2
/
1
6
Th
u
9/
2
2
/
1
6
49
Fi
l
e
NO
D
wi
t
h
SC
H
an
d
Co
u
n
t
y
Cl
e
r
k
1 da
y
Fr
i
9/
2
3
/
1
6
Fr
i
9/
2
3
/
1
6
50
Pe
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
10
8
6
da
y
s
Fr
i
7/
2
2
/
1
6
Fr
i
9/
1
8
/
2
0
51
US
A
C
E
Se
c
t
i
o
n
40
4
Pe
r
m
i
t
22
0
da
y
s
Fr
i
7/
2
2
/
1
6
Th
u
5/
2
5
/
1
7
52
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
US
A
C
E
40
4
pe
r
m
i
t
pa
c
k
a
g
e
75
da
y
s
Fr
i
7/
2
2
/
1
6
Th
u
11
/
3
/
1
6
53
Ci
t
y
Re
v
i
e
w
15
da
y
s
Fr
i
11
/
4
/
1
6
Th
u
11
/
2
4
/
1
6
54
Fi
n
a
l
i
z
e
US
A
C
E
40
4
pe
r
m
i
t
pa
c
k
a
g
e
10
da
y
s
Fr
i
11
/
2
5
/
1
6
Th
u
12
/
8
/
1
6
55
Su
b
m
i
t
40
4
pe
r
m
i
t
pa
c
k
a
g
e
to
US
A
C
E
0 da
y
s
Th
u
12
/
8
/
1
6
Th
u
12
/
8
/
1
6
56
US
A
C
E
Re
v
i
e
w
an
d
Ne
g
o
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
of
40
4
pe
r
m
i
t
6 mo
n
s
Fr
i
12
/
9
/
1
6
Th
u
5/
2
5
/
1
7
57
CD
F
W
Se
c
t
i
o
n
16
0
2
,
St
r
e
a
m
b
e
d
Al
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
16
5
da
y
s
Fr
i
7/
2
2
/
1
6
Th
u
3/
9
/
1
7
58
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
CD
F
W
SA
A
pe
r
m
i
t
pa
c
k
a
g
e
60
da
y
s
Fr
i
7/
2
2
/
1
6
Th
u
10
/
1
3
/
1
6
59
Ci
t
y
Re
v
i
e
w
15
da
y
s
Fr
i
10
/
1
4
/
1
6
Th
u
11
/
3
/
1
6
60
Fi
n
a
l
i
z
e
CD
F
W
SA
A
pe
r
m
i
t
pa
c
k
a
g
e
10
da
y
s
Fr
i
11
/
4
/
1
6
Th
u
11
/
1
7
/
1
6
61
Su
b
m
i
t
SA
A
pe
r
m
i
t
pa
c
k
a
g
e
to
CD
F
W
0 da
y
s
Th
u
11
/
1
7
/
1
6
Th
u
11
/
1
7
/
1
6
62
CD
F
W
Re
v
i
e
w
an
d
Ne
g
o
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
of
SA
A
pe
r
m
i
t
4 mo
n
s
Fr
i
11
/
1
8
/
1
6
Th
u
3/
9
/
1
7
63
CD
F
W
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
In
c
i
d
e
n
t
a
l
Ta
k
e
Pe
r
m
i
t
22
0
da
y
s
Fr
i
7/
2
2
/
1
6
Th
u
5/
2
5
/
1
7
64
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
CD
F
W
20
8
1
IT
P
Pa
c
k
a
g
e
75
da
y
s
Fr
i
7/
2
2
/
1
6
Th
u
11
/
3
/
1
6
65
Ci
t
y
Re
v
i
e
w
15
da
y
s
Fr
i
11
/
4
/
1
6
Th
u
11
/
2
4
/
1
6
66
Fi
n
a
l
i
z
e
CD
F
W
20
8
1
IT
P
Pa
c
k
a
g
e
10
da
y
s
Fr
i
11
/
2
5
/
1
6
Th
u
12
/
8
/
1
6
67
Su
b
m
i
t
20
8
1
IT
P
Pa
c
k
a
g
e
to
CD
F
W
0 da
y
s
Th
u
12
/
8
/
1
6
Th
u
12
/
8
/
1
6
68
CD
F
W
Re
v
i
e
w
an
d
Ne
g
o
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
of
IT
P
6 mo
n
s
Fr
i
12
/
9
/
1
6
Th
u
5/
2
5
/
1
7
69
RW
Q
C
B
40
1
Wa
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Ce
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
20
5
da
y
s
Fr
i
7/
2
2
/
1
6
Th
u
5/
4
/
1
7
70
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
RW
Q
C
B
40
1
WQ
C
pa
c
k
a
g
e
60
da
y
s
Fr
i
7/
2
2
/
1
6
Th
u
10
/
1
3
/
1
6
71
Ci
t
y
Re
v
i
e
w
15
da
y
s
Fr
i
10
/
1
4
/
1
6
Th
u
11
/
3
/
1
6
72
Fi
n
a
l
i
z
e
RW
Q
C
B
40
1
WQ
C
pa
c
k
a
g
e
10
da
y
s
Fr
i
11
/
4
/
1
6
Th
u
11
/
1
7
/
1
6
73
Su
b
m
i
t
40
1
WQ
C
pa
c
k
a
g
e
to
RW
Q
C
B
0 da
y
s
Th
u
11
/
1
7
/
1
6
Th
u
11
/
1
7
/
1
6
74
RW
Q
C
B
Re
v
i
e
w
an
d
Ne
g
o
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
of
40
1
WQ
C
6 mo
n
s
Fr
i
11
/
1
8
/
1
6
Th
u
5/
4
/
1
7
75
RW
Q
C
B
40
2
NP
D
E
S
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pe
r
m
i
t
15
5
da
y
s
We
d
3/
1
/
1
7
Tu
e
10
/
3
/
1
7
9/22 12/8 11/17 12/8 11/17
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
J
F
M
A
MJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJ
20
1
6
20172018
Ta
s
k
Sp
l
i
t
Mi
l
e
s
t
o
n
e
Su
m
m
a
r
y
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Su
m
m
a
r
y
Ex
t
e
r
n
a
l
Ta
s
k
s
Ex
t
e
r
n
a
l
Mi
l
e
s
t
o
n
e
In
a
c
t
i
v
e
Ta
s
k
In
a
c
t
i
v
e
Mi
l
e
s
t
o
n
e
In
a
c
t
i
v
e
Su
m
m
a
r
y
Ma
n
u
a
l
Ta
s
k
Du
r
a
t
i
o
n
‐on
l
y
Ma
n
u
a
l
Summary Rollup
Ma
n
u
a
l
Summary
St
a
r
t
‐on
l
y
Fi
n
i
s
h
‐on
l
y
Deadline Progress
Pa
g
e
2
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
:
De
t
a
i
l
e
d
EI
R
& Pe
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
Da
t
e
:
Tu
e
4/
2
1
/
1
5
Attachment 1 C7-50
ID
T
a
s
k
Na
m
e
D
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
r
t
F
i
n
i
s
h
76
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
SW
P
P
P
an
d
NP
D
E
S
pe
r
m
i
t
pa
c
k
a
g
e
50
da
y
s
We
d
3/
1
/
1
7
Tu
e
5/
9
/
1
7
77
Ci
t
y
Re
v
i
e
w
15
da
y
s
We
d
5/
1
0
/
1
7
Tu
e
5/
3
0
/
1
7
78
Fi
n
a
l
i
z
e
SW
P
P
P
an
d
NP
D
E
S
pe
r
m
i
t
pa
c
k
a
g
e
10
da
y
s
We
d
5/
3
1
/
1
7
Tu
e
6/
1
3
/
1
7
79
Su
b
m
i
t
SW
P
P
P
an
d
NP
D
E
S
pe
r
m
i
t
pa
c
k
a
g
e
to
RW
Q
C
B
0 da
y
s
Tu
e
6/
1
3
/
1
7
Tu
e
6/
1
3
/
1
7
80
RW
Q
C
B
Re
v
i
e
w
an
d
Ne
g
o
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
of
NP
D
E
S
pe
r
m
i
t
4 mo
n
s
We
d
6/
1
4
/
1
7
Tu
e
10
/
3
/
1
7
81
SL
O
A
P
C
D
Ai
r
Pe
r
m
i
t
s
84
3
da
y
s
We
d
3/
1
/
1
7
Fr
i
5/
2
2
/
2
0
82
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
SL
O
A
P
C
D
Au
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
to
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
Pe
r
m
i
t
50
da
y
s
We
d
3/
1
/
1
7
Tu
e
5/
9
/
1
7
83
Ci
t
y
Re
v
i
e
w
15
da
y
s
We
d
5/
1
0
/
1
7
Tu
e
5/
3
0
/
1
7
84
Fi
n
a
l
i
z
e
SL
O
A
P
C
D
Au
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
to
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
Pe
r
m
i
t
10
da
y
s
We
d
5/
3
1
/
1
7
Tu
e
6/
1
3
/
1
7
85
Su
b
m
i
t
Au
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
to
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
Pe
r
m
i
t
to
SL
O
A
P
C
D
0 da
y
s
Tu
e
6/
1
3
/
1
7
Tu
e
6/
1
3
/
1
7
86
SL
O
A
P
C
D
Re
v
i
e
w
of
Au
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
to
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
Pe
r
m
i
t
3 mo
n
s
We
d
6/
1
4
/
1
7
Tu
e
9/
5
/
1
7
87
Re
q
u
e
s
t
SL
O
A
P
C
D
Pe
r
m
i
t
to
Op
e
r
a
t
e
(p
o
s
t
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
)
5 da
y
s
Mo
n
3/
2
/
2
0
Fr
i
3/
6
/
2
0
88
Re
c
e
i
p
t
of
Pe
r
m
i
t
to
Op
e
r
a
t
e
10
da
y
s
Mo
n
5/
1
1
/
2
0
Fr
i
5/
2
2
/
2
0
89
Co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
wi
t
h
PG
&
E
(3
0
%
de
s
i
g
n
le
v
e
l
)
12
mo
n
s
Th
u
9/
1
/
1
6
We
d
8/
2
/
1
7
90
Ci
t
y
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
Gr
a
d
i
n
g
,
En
c
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
Pe
r
m
i
t
s
(6
0
%
de
s
i
g
n
le
v
e
l
)
6 mo
n
s
We
d
3/
1
/
1
7
Tu
e
8/
1
5
/
1
7
91
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
En
c
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
Pe
r
m
i
t
6 mo
n
s
We
d
3/
1
/
1
7
Tu
e
8/
1
5
/
1
7
92
FE
M
A
CL
O
M
R
/
L
O
M
R
92
8
da
y
s
We
d
3/
1
/
1
7
Fr
i
9/
1
8
/
2
0
93
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
CL
O
M
R
ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
pa
c
k
a
g
e
(6
0
%
de
s
i
g
n
le
v
e
l
)
30
da
y
s
We
d
3/
1
/
1
7
Tu
e
4/
1
1
/
1
7
94
Ci
t
y
re
v
i
e
w
of
CL
O
M
R
ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
pa
c
k
a
g
e
10
da
y
s
We
d
4/
1
2
/
1
7
Tu
e
4/
2
5
/
1
7
95
Re
v
i
s
e
CL
O
M
R
ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
pa
c
k
a
g
e
pe
r
Ci
t
y
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
10
da
y
s
We
d
4/
2
6
/
1
7
Tu
e
5/
9
/
1
7
96
Su
b
m
i
t
CL
O
M
R
ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
pa
c
k
a
g
e
to
FE
M
A
0 da
y
s
Tu
e
5/
9
/
1
7
Tu
e
5/
9
/
1
7
97
FE
M
A
in
i
t
i
a
l
re
v
i
e
w
of
CL
O
M
R
ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
pa
c
k
a
g
e
30
da
y
s
We
d
5/
1
0
/
1
7
Tu
e
6/
2
0
/
1
7
98
Re
c
e
i
p
t
of
CL
O
M
R
ce
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
60
da
y
s
We
d
6/
2
1
/
1
7
Tu
e
9/
1
2
/
1
7
99
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
LO
M
R
ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
pa
c
k
a
g
e
(p
o
s
t
‐co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
)
30
da
y
s
Mo
n
3/
2
/
2
0
Fr
i
4/
1
0
/
2
0
10
0
Ci
t
y
re
v
i
e
w
of
LO
M
R
ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
pa
c
k
a
g
e
15
da
y
s
Mo
n
4/
1
3
/
2
0
Fr
i
5/
1
/
2
0
10
1
Re
v
i
s
e
LO
M
R
ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
pa
c
k
a
g
e
pe
r
Ci
t
y
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
10
da
y
s
Mo
n
5/
4
/
2
0
Fr
i
5/
1
5
/
2
0
10
2
Su
b
m
i
t
to
LO
M
R
ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
pa
c
k
a
g
e
to
FE
M
A
0 da
y
s
Fr
i
5/
1
5
/
2
0
Fr
i
5/
1
5
/
2
0
10
3
FE
M
A
re
v
i
e
w
of
LO
M
R
ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
pa
c
k
a
g
e
30
da
y
s
Mo
n
5/
1
8
/
2
0
Fr
i
6/
2
6
/
2
0
10
4
Re
c
e
i
p
t
of
LO
M
R
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
60
da
y
s
Mo
n
6/
2
9
/
2
0
Fr
i
9/
1
8
/
2
0
6/13 6/13 5/9
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
J
F
M
A
MJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJ
20
1
6
20172018
Ta
s
k
Sp
l
i
t
Mi
l
e
s
t
o
n
e
Su
m
m
a
r
y
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Su
m
m
a
r
y
Ex
t
e
r
n
a
l
Ta
s
k
s
Ex
t
e
r
n
a
l
Mi
l
e
s
t
o
n
e
In
a
c
t
i
v
e
Ta
s
k
In
a
c
t
i
v
e
Mi
l
e
s
t
o
n
e
In
a
c
t
i
v
e
Su
m
m
a
r
y
Ma
n
u
a
l
Ta
s
k
Du
r
a
t
i
o
n
‐on
l
y
Ma
n
u
a
l
Summary Rollup
Ma
n
u
a
l
Summary
St
a
r
t
‐on
l
y
Fi
n
i
s
h
‐on
l
y
Deadline Progress
Pa
g
e
3
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
:
De
t
a
i
l
e
d
EI
R
& Pe
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
Da
t
e
:
Tu
e
4/
2
1
/
1
5
Attachment 1 C7-51
WRRF Project
TM No. 11 – Environmental and Permitting Strategy (Draft)
Page 20 of 21
Attachment C: Program EIR Guidelines
CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 describes a Program EIR as follows:
(a) General. A Program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be
characterized as one large project and are related either:
(1) Geographically,
(2) As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions,
(3) In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to
govern the conduct of a continuing program, or
(4) As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory
authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in
similar ways.
(b) Advantages. Use of a Program EIR can provide the following advantages. The Program EIR can:
(1) Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than
would be practical in an EIR on an individual action,
(2) Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case
analysis,
(3) Avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy considerations,
(4) Allow the lead agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation
measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic
problems or cumulative impacts,
(5) Allow reduction in paperwork.
(c) Use With Later Activities. Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the light of
the Program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared.
(1) If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the Program EIR, a new
initial study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a negative declaration.
(2) If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no new effects could occur or no new
mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being
within the scope of the project covered by the Program EIR, and no new environmental
document would be required.
(3) An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in
the Program EIR into subsequent actions in the program.
(4) Where the subsequent activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a
written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity
to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were covered in the
Program EIR.
(5) A Program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with subsequent activities if it deals with
the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as possible. With a good
and detailed analysis of the program, many subsequent activities could be found to be
within the scope of the project described in the Program EIR, and no further
environmental documents would be required.
(d) Use With Subsequent EIRS and Negative Declarations. A Program EIR can be used to simplify
the task of preparing environmental documents on later parts of the program. The program EIR
can:
(1) Provide the basis in an initial study for determining whether the later activity may have
any significant effects.
Attachment 1
C7-52
WRRF Project
TM No. 11 – Environmental and Permitting Strategy (Draft)
Page 21 of 21
(2) Be incorporated by reference to deal with regional influences, secondary effects,
cumulative impacts, broad alternatives, and other factors that apply to the program as a
whole.
(3) Focus an EIR on a subsequent project to permit discussion solely of new effects which
had not been considered before.
Attachment 1
C7-53
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK