HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 207-10TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: UTILITIES
DATE: APRIL 12,2010 CMR: 207:10
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Water Fund Budget Amendment Ordinance in the
Amount of $117,000 and Approval of Amendment No.3 to Contract
C07120333 with RMC Water & Environment, Inc. in the Amount of
$372,000 fora Total Not to Exceed Amount of $674,700 for
Completion of Environmental Documents for Capital Improvement
Program Project WS-07001, (Recycled Water Distribution System
Extension)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) in the amount of $117,000 transferring
$117,000 from the Water Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve to existing Capital
Improvement Project (CIP) WS-07001, (Recycled Water Distribution System Extension);
and
2. Approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute a third amendment to the
existing contract with RMC Water & Environment, Inc. for a not-to-exceed amount of
$372,000 for planning and engineering design services for the Recycled Water Expansion
Capital Improvement Program Project.
BACKGROUND
On April 16, 2007, the City Council approved and authorized the City Manager to execute a
contract with RMC Water & Environment, Inc. (RMC) for preparation of a Recycled Water
Facility Plan and associated environmental documents for Capital Improvement Program Project
WS-07001 (CMR:191:07). The original contract included $220,700 for professional services
and reimbursable expenses, plus a contingency of $22,000, for a total not to exceed amount of
$242,700.
The original scope of work focused primarily on preparation of a Recycled Water Facility Plan
and associated environmental documents that would position the project to compete for State and
Federal grant funding and low interest loans. This generally included analyses of all of the
essential components of a potential expanded recycled water system to serve additional users in
the City of Palo Alto.
CMR: 207:10 Page 1 of8
On June 2, 2008, the City Council approved Amendment One to the contract with RMC (CMR
255:08). The amendment added an additional $25,000 to the original contract to complete
various unforeseen activities that were largely driven by external state requirements for both the
Facility Plan and the Administrative Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).
On November 8, 2008, the City Council approved Amendment Two to the contract (CMR
431 :08). The Amendment added an additional $35,000 to the original contract to complete a
financial cash flow model for the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and to
complete unforeseen activities related to preparation of the Recycled Water Draft NIND. In
particular, it was determined that the environmental documents needed to address potential
impacts of using recycled water on existing landscapes and trees, notably redwoods. A staff
working group was formed to create an Adaptive Management Plan that was included in the
Recycled Water Draft MND. This additional effort was a primary driver for both the schedule
delays and additional funding needs.
The Final Recycled Water Facility Plan was completed in December 2008 and was provided to
the Utilities Advisory Commission in March 2009. The plan was provided to the Council on
April 27, 2009 (CMR: 203:09). The Recycled Water Facility Plan develops a preferred project,
estimated to cost $33.5 million, to expand the use of recycled water in Palo Alto. The estimated
recycled water use for this expansion is 900 acre-feet per year, or about 6% of the City's current
potable water usage. The conclusions from the Facility Plan were that the project was expensive,
but could be feasible if funding from outside the City could be received. There are many
possible sources for this funding, including State and Federal grants and low-interest loans. To
be eligible for such funds, the environmental documents for the projects, as well as the Facility
Plan, must be complete.
On March 18, 2009, the City circulated the Draft MND for public comment. On April 6, 2009,
staff held a public meeting to discuss and receive comments on the Draft MND. The notice for
the meeting was published in the Palo Alto Daily News on March 13,2009 and was also noticed
on the City'S webpage. There was one attendee (Attachment C) at the meeting and no coniments
were made on the record.
The City received seven comment letters from the following stakeholders qn the Draft MND
after the close of the CEQA public comment period: .
• Canopy
• Santa Clara Valley Water District
• State of California (Department of Transportation, Department of Toxic Substances
Control, and State Water Resources Control Board)
• Stanford University Real Estate Office (Stanford REO)
• Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
(
The commenters provided input on numerous issues related to Biological Resources, Water
Quality, Hydrology, Hazardous Materials, Traffic and Cultural Resources. Potential tree and
vegetation issues associated with using recycled water for irrigation purposes was the subject of
concern for Canopy and the Stanford REO. The concerns were focused on the water quality of
the recycled water, particularly the "salinity" content of the recycled water. The City responded
to comments with adjustments to the language in the Final MND when the comments warranted
such a change.
CMR: 207:10 Page 2 of8
In May 2009, the City finalized the MND, including the response to comments on the Draft
MND. However, staff opted to seek additional independent validation of potential impacts of
recycled water on landscaping before presenting the document to Council. The FinallVIND was
never considered by Council apd was never approved. Since that time, staff met with
stakeholders and decided to complete an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to fully analyze the
issue of whether and how the recycled water could safely. be used on landscaping.
DISCUSSION
Amendment Three to the existing contract with RMC will allow the City to complete all federal
and state environmental reviews and progress towards project approval. The amendment also
includes funding to re-evaluate the current pipeline alignment to ensure the lowest cost route has
been selected. The tasks to be completed under Amendment Three are summarized here and
included in detail in the scope of work, which is an exhibit to the amendment (Attachment B).
Task I: California Environmental Quality Act Requirements
Preparation of an EIR will afford the City some latitude to properly evaluate the remaining issue,
broaden the alternatives to be analyzed, assess potential significant impacts and weigh the
benefits of the project against any program mitigation costs. Since the main issue of concern is
the quality of the recycled water for irrigation purposes, the City will prepare a single-issue EIR.
While the single-issue EIR focuses on one major issue of concern, the preparer is still obligated
to fulfill the CEQA obligations for the other sections of the EIR. Since much of the material and
content of the MND is still relevant, its analysis will provide background material for the other
sections of the EIR. Preparation of a single-issue EIR is less expensive and takes less time than a
full EIR.
The single-issue EIR will evaluate water quality impacts on plant species that exist on target
sites, with particular emphasis on Redwood trees. The single-issue EIR will be based on the
same pipeline alignments and pump station sites that were evaluated in the Draft MND published
by the City in March 2009, though this amendment contemplates additional services that provide
the City the flexibility to evaluate other alignments that could lower the project's cost.
Task II: National Environmental Policy Act Requirements
The City is applying for numerous grants and low interest loans from various State and Federal
sources for the project. Two likely sources include the SWRCB and the United States Bureau of
Reclamation (USBR). Both agencies typically closely scrutinize the environmental process and,
specifically, the cultural and biological resources sections. The EIR will provide the necessary
coverage to satisfY the SWRCB, but the USBR is a Federal agency and has obligations under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) to review the project. The USBR will be the federal
Lead Agency under NEP A for the project. As the project proponent, the City is required to assist
the USBR in preparing the necessary NEP A documents. Staff was aware this activity would be
required as part of any grant award, but did not request NEP A review from the USBR while the
City awaited confirmation that the City's grant application was progressing towards eventual
approval. In December 2009, the City's grant application received authorization from the House
of Representatives under H.R. 2442. There are still numerous milestones that need to be reached
prior to any grant award, but at this time, it is prudent to begin NEP A review.
Task III -Project Management I Meetings
The Project Team will coordinate with the SWRCB, USBR, and internal staff on all CEQA and
NEPA items related to the project. This task also includes attendance at up to four, 4-hour
CMR: 207:10 Page 3 of8
j
I meetings with the City andlor USBRto discuss CEQA and NEPA issues at key junctures of the
process. This task also covers preparation of monthly invoices and progress reports.
Task IV -Additional Services
The City evaluated several potential project alignments and chose a project route that would
result in the lowest construction costs and the highest recycled water yields. This analysis was
discussed in detail in the Recycled Water Facility Plan (CMR 203:09). Subsequent CEQ A
review analyzed this preferred route. Considering the time that has lapsed since the original
analysis and selection of the preferred route, Staff will re-evaluate the preferred project route to
determine if another route may be more appropriate. Since the CEQA and NEPA review
requires the City to select and analyze a preferred route, the City will make a determination on
the appropriate route soon to ensure there is no delay in the environmental review process.
Table 1 below summarizes the subtasks under each task and provides the estimated cost to
complete each task. The total estimated cost for all tasks is $338,034. The total not-to-exceed
amount for the contract amendment is $372,000 including a 10% contingency.
a e -T: bl 1 A men d men o. as tN 3T: kD 'f escnpl10ns an sima e os dEf tdC t
; ;. . ,c . •• (:'/;' ........' ...... ·····<?F~· •........ , i~~t!m~'ted
. .........•.• rrasKand$llbtasl{P~~"ipti~J1'· ...... ...... :' ,Cc<. ..·...(,.: •. Qo§t .•• , ... '· . ',.' ....
1: California Envir9mllen!~IQuality Act Reqtlire~ents .... .. , . ...
.'
Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting $12,578
• Prepare of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) based on the existing Project
Description in the ISIMND
• Distribute the ~9P and one public scoping meeting for interested parties
Draft EIR Preparation $111,825
• The Draft EIR will focus on the water quality analysis of impacts of irrigation on
landscape plants in the project area, with particular emphasis on redwood trees.
• The EIR will also update biological resource and cultural resource sections to
ensure most recent data is captured.
• Perform vertical soils analysis in the primary target areas to assess the suitability
of the area for irrigation with recycl~9 water
Ipublic Review of Draft EIR $7,284
• Publish the Draft EIR for public comments pursuant to the CEQA guidelines.
• Conduct one public meeting during the public comment period to answer
questions on the Draft EIR.
Final EIR and Associated Documents $30,908
• Incorporate comments on the Draft EIR and prepare a Final EIR to be submitted
for City Council approval.
Task I Total $162,595
lraskII:National EnvironmentalPoUcy A~t Requirements. .....
;. ...... ' . , ." ...
Administrative Draft EA $56,459
• Prepare an Administrative Draft EA to submit to the USBR.· It is assumed that
the EA can use a similar format to the Initial Study Checklist, with the inclusion
of additional topical analysis required by NEP A, including socioeconomics and
environm.ental justice.
Public Review of Draft EAlFONSI $8,069
• Prepare a draft environmental document for public review
CMR: 207:10 Page 4 of8
I
•. Meet with the USBR to coordinate responses to comments on the environmental
document.
• Prepare an Administrative Final environmental document for submittal to the
USBR and make revisions as required.
• Submit final co ies of the environmental document to the USBR.
Task II Total
Task Ill-Pro' ecf:Man~ emerit/:M~etins
• Coordinate with the SWRCB, USBR, and internal staff on all CEQA and NEP A
items related to the project.
• Attendance at up to four 4-hour meetings with the City andlor USBR to discuss
CEQA I NEP A issues at key junctures of the process.
• Pre are monthly ro ress re orts.
Task TV,.. AdditionalServices .
Iternative Project Components
• Review alternative routes that could result in lower construction costs, including
routes that minimize street cut fees or employ less disturbing construction
technologies than traditional trenching.
Update Biological and Cultural Studies
• If the initial analysis identifies an alternative route that is superior to the current
preferred route, update the Biological and Cultural studies for the CEQA and
$44,737
NEP A environmental reviews and evaluate the new route. ~~~~~~------~----------------~----~
$67,933
·,$318;034
Contin enc $33,968
Total fotAm~ndl11.entNo.: 3
In addition to the RMC contract, the CIP project includes funds for staff costs. Currently, the
CIP project includes $12,300 for staff costs. Additional costs for staff time are needed for the
remaining work required to complete this phase of the project. An additional $10,000 for staff
time for this project is requested to be included in the total CIP costs.
CMR: 207:10 Page 5 of
1
j
The total costs for the project are summarized in Table 2 below:
Table 2 -Recycled Water CIP Costs
..•.... >.. . ..•...•... ...... '.
.. '
.' .. ".-: .• Apt:l1:oved .< ........ ' Total Costs '. .. .
Original RMC Contract Amount April 16, 2007 (CMR: 191:07) $242,700
Amendment No, 1 June 2, 2008(CMR: 255:08) $25,000
Amendment No.2 Nov. 8, 2008 (CMR: 431 :08) $35,000
Amendment No.3 Proposed $372,000
. TQtalRMC Contract with all amendments' ..
................... >
. " . .$(j74,700 ......
Staff costs included in request April 16, 2007 (CM~: 191:07) $7,300
June 2,2008 (CMR: 255:08) $5,000
2009 Mid-year Budget Change $20,000
Additional staff costs Proposed $10,000
T qtalstaffco~tsin~ll1ded in.CIP ... ••
.. ..
. '" . ··.$42,30:0 .
Total approved CIP costs -RMC contract plus staff costs $335,000
Total proposed new CIP costs-RMC contract plus staff costs $382,000
Total CIP Costs RMC contract plus· staff costs $717,000
The total budgeted and proposed new funds for the project are summarized in Table 3 below:
T bl 3 R a e -I d W t CIP b d t d d ecyc e a er u Ige use an 'I bl aval a e
Original CIP Budget $250,000
~'l.ldget adjustment for Amendment No.1 $30,000
Budget adjustment for Amel1dment No.2' $35,000
Budget Adjustment from 2009 Mid-year Budget Change $20,000
Total Prior Years Budget $335,000
FY 2010 CIP budget -$265,000
Total Approved Budget $600,000
Proposed BAO request for new Amendment 3 $117,000
New Proposed Budget including BAO $717,000
staff recognizes that this is a large amendment to the City's contract with RMC. The change will
. bring the total not to exceed amount to $674,700 for the contract that was originally for a not to
exceed amount of $242,700. As discussed above, the additional $372,000 requested now for the
RMC contract includes the following additional services that were not envisioned at the
beginning of the project:
CEQA Single Issue EIR
National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A)
Additional Services
Project Management/Meetings
Contingency
Total
$162,595
$ 84,731
$ 67,933
$ 22,775
$ 33,968
$372,000
The single-issue EIR was determined to be required as the concerns raised in the review of the
project's draft MND needed further examination for the project to go forward. The NEPA work
is needed since the City is seeking a federal grant of $8 million for the project. Projects seeking
CMR: 207: 10 Page 6 of
federal grants or loans must complete NEP A requirements. Staff advises getting all the required
reviews complete for the project to best position it for all state and federal financial assistance
that it may qualify for. The "additional services" includes estimates of additional costs'related to
evaluating alternative pipeline alignments that could result in lower construction costs for the
project. These services include engineering and right of way assistance, in addition to additional
biological and cultural studies that may be required for those alignments. Some of these costs
may not be realized if the original route alignment remains the preferred choice.
The original RMC contract's scope of work included preparation of a Recycled Water Facility
Plan and associated environmental documents. However, an EIR was not anticipated at that
time. Staff recommends adding these expanded services to the existing contract with RMC as
they have the background on the project and are .kr!owledgeable of the concerns that arose from
the public review of the MND. Staff believes that RMC is the best choice to continue with this
project as it would require even more money to start over with a new consultant to complete the
EIR at this stage in the project.
NEXT STEPS
After the environmental documents are complete, staff will pursue potential grant funding
opportunities and develop a recommendation on whether to proceed towards construction of the
required facilities. The recommendation will then be submitted to City Council for
consideration.
RESOURCE IMPACT
With the addition of the $382,000, the amended budget for the CIP project increases to $717,000
with $674,700 for the contract with RMC and $42,300 for staff costs. To fund this amendment,
$265,000 is available in the FY 2010 budget for the project. A BAO is required in the amount of
$117,000 to add funds to the existing recycled water CIP (WS-07001). The additional $117,000
will be transferred from the Water Rate Stabilization Reserve (WRSR). The remaining balance
of the WRSR after deducting $117,000 is $15,888,791, above the maximum reserve guideline
level of $8,660,000. The requested contract amendment and BAO will have a very small impact
on budgeted reserve level, and will not result in reserve levels falling to below the minimum
guideline level of $4,330,000. This project's expenses have no impact on the General Fund.
Staff is currently tracking stimulus related opportunities to help offset some of the cost of
preparing the EIR for the project. Any award would offset project and environmental document
preparation costs.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Amending the contract is consistent with Council policy. This project is consistent with the
Council-adopted Water Integrated Resource Plan Guideline 3: "Actively participate in
development of cost effective regional recycled water plans." The project is also consistent with
Council direction to seek to reduce imported water supplies and limit or reduce diversions from
the Tuolumne River.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
As part of this project, the City is preparing an Environmental Impact Report.
CMR: 207:10 Page 7 of8
ATTACHMENTS
A: Budget Amendment Ordinance
B: Amendment No. Three to Contract No. C07120333
C: Recycled Water MND public meeting sign in sheet
D: CIP Budget in FY 2010-2011 Capital Budget for Water Recycling Facilities (WS-7001)
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
1,,# NICOLAS PROCOS
'f" Senior Resource Planner
~ANE O. RATCHYE
'(' Assistant Director, Resource Management
DEPARTMENT APPROVAL:
Director of Utilities
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR: 207:10 Page 8 of8
'A~TACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE
BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION
OF $117,000 TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) WS-07001, RECYCLED
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EXTENSION
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and
determines as follows:
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of
the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 15, 2009
did adopt a budget for fiscal year 2010; and
B. From fiscal year 2007 through 2010, the Council appropriated
a total amount of $600,000 to CIP Project WS-07001, Recycled Water
Distribution System Extension (Project); and
C. On April 16, 2007, council approved a contract with RMC
Water and Environment, Inc. (RMC) to prepare a recycled water
facili ty plan and the associated environmental documents.
Subsequently, two amendments to the contract were made to incluue to
complete various unforeseen activities that were driven both by the
Facility Plan and the Administrative Draft Mitigated Negative
Declaration, and complete financial cash flow model for the State
Water Resources Board; and
D. Amendment three to the contract is needed for the City of
Palo Alto to complete all federal and state environmental reviews.
The tasks of amendment three to the contract are outlined in detail
in CMR:207:10; and
E. The existing appropriation balance of the Project is not
sufficient to cover the added costs identified in Section D of this
ordinance. An additional appropriation of $117,000 is needed to cover
the costs; and
F. The total additional appropriation of $117,000 for the
Project will be funded by the Water Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve;
and
G. Council authorization is needed to amend the 2010 budget to
make available the funds required for CIP Project WS-0700l, Recycled
Water Distribution System Extension.
SECTION 2. The sum of One Hundred Seventeen Thousand Dollars
($117,000) hereby appropriated to CIP Project WS-07001, Recycled
Water Distribution System Extension.
SECTION 3. The Water Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve is hereby
decreased by One Hundred Seventeen Thousand Dollars ($117,000) with a
remaining balance of Fifteen Million Eight Hundred Eighty Eight
Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety One Dollars ($15,888,791).
SECTION 4. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the Council is required to adopt
this ordinance.
SECTION 5. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon
adoption.
SECTION 6. As part of this Project, the City of Palo Alto is
preparing an Environmental Impact Report:
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ty Manager
Deputy ty Attorney Director of Utilities Department
Director of Administrative Services
I
I
I
I
I,
AHENDDN'l' NO. THREE' TO CONTRACT NO. C07120333
BETwEEN THE CI'l'Y OF PALO ALTO AND
RHC WATER AND ENVIRONMENT, INC.
ATTACHMENTB
This Amendment No. Three to Contract No. C07120333
("Contract ll ) is entered into April 12, 2010, by and between the
CITY OF PALO ALTO, a charter city and a municipal corporation of
the State of California ("CITYI') I and RMC Water and Environment I
Inc'l a California corporation, located at 2290 North First Street
Suite 212, San Jose, cA. 95131 ("CONSULTANT") .
R E CIT A L Ss
WHEREAS, the Contract was entered into between the
parties for the provision of Recycled Water Facility Plan and
Preparation of Environmental Documents; and
WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement to
increase the compensation by an additional $372,000 for provision
of completion of environmental reports, and project management;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms,
conditions I and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree:
SECTION 1. Section 2 entitled "TERM" is hereby amended
to read as follows:
"TERM"; The services and/or materials furnished under
the Agreement shall commence 'on April 17 I 2007 and shall ,be
completed before June 15, 2011.
SECTION 2. Section 4 entitled "NOT TO EXCEED
COMPENSATION" is hereby amended to read as follows:
"SECTION 4. NOT '1'0 EXCEED COMPENSATION". The compensation to be
paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in
Exhibit "All, including both payment for professional 'services and
reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Six Hundred Seventy Four
Thousand Seven Hundred dollars ($674 /'700), In the event Additional
S~rvices are authori'zed, the total compensation for services and
reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Sixty Seven Thousand Four
Hundred Seventy dollars ($67,470). The applicabie'rates and
schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit "CII, entitled
"COMPENSATION," which is attached to and made a part of this
agreement,
Additional Services, if any I shall be authorized in
accordance with and subject, to the provisions of Exhibit "C II •
1
100326 sm 010
I
I
i
J
I
CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional
Services'performed without the prior written authorization of CITY.
Addit~onal Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY
to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but 'which
is not included within the Scope of Servioes describe~ in Exhibit
"Al'.
SECTION 3. Exhibit "A" to the Agreement is hereby
amended to include additional work required for financial planning,
revisions to the mitigated negative declaration, ,preparation of·
reports, a~d project management.
SECTION '4. Except as herein modified,. all other
provisions of the Agreement, including any exhibits and subsequent
amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by, their duly
authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date
first above ·written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO:
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Deputy City At~orney
Attaohments:
Exhibit A -Scope of Services
Exhibit B -Project Schedule
Exhibit C -Compensation
100315 am 010
2
RMC WATER AND ElNIRONMENT I
INC.
By: -"",f, ·~lJI
Name: _ ..... +1.1::41"""'1 q......,I\t.= ... ::..........LLG=vo:;....;;b~I-""v:.:;..;., __
Ti tle : --.,...\I;..III.UI,u. __ ~P ..... C"'e...-&.~ \.;...:4_fArc;..' :..;.-t __
Scope of Services Exhibit A
RMC will prepare a single-issue EIR to address water quality
impacts of irrigation of.redwood trees with recycled water. Th~
EIR will be based on the same pipeline alignments and pump
station sites as evaluated in the Initial'Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration (IS/MND) published by the City in March
2009. ~C will, in consultation with the City, determine the
alternatives to be analyzed following completion of the water
quality impact analysis. RMC will evaluate the No Project
Alternative, Proposed Project, and one other alternative. (e.g.
additional treatment). This approach is preliminary; the scope of
the CBQA alternatives analysis would be confirmed and may require
revision following the public scoping period and conclusion of
the water quality impact evaluation. Each task is described
below.
Environmental Impact Report
Not1ce of Preparation and Scoping Meeting
RMC will prepare a.Notice of Preparation (NOP) based on the
existing Project Description as detailed in the IS/MND. RMC will
submit a draft NOP to the City for review. RMC will incorpora.te
the City's comments and provide a screencheck version for review'
before publishing the NOP. It is assumed that City staff will
develop a distribution list for the NOP.
RMC will as~ist the City in conducting a single public scoping
meeting, which is assumed to occur at the middle of the NOP
review period, at a location to be determined by the City.
Deliverables: ~C will sUbmit a draft and screenclleck version of
the NOP to the City. City staff will have up to one (~) week to
review the draft and provide comments. Following receipt of
comments on the Draft NOP from the City, RMCwill incorporate
comments and Bubmi t the screencheck version wi thin one (1) week.
Following receipt of comments from ebe City on the screencbeck
versJ.on, RMC will· incorporate comments and submit the NOP to the;
city for publication within' two (2) days.
At the end of the NOP review period, RMC will review comments
received and determine if additional review and analysis is
required to address agency or public comments. RMC will meet
with the City to summarize and evaluate comments, and discuss the
adequacy of the project scope to address public and agency
concerns ..
3
100315 8m 010
I
j
1
I.
Draft BIR. Preparat:ton
The Draft EIR will focus on the water quality analysis of impacts
of irrigation on landscape plants in the project area, with
particular emphasis on redwood trees. The Initial Study (IS)
Checklist, which includes the analysis for the remaining
environmental topic areas, will be included as an appendix.
Other D~aft EIR-related sections not specific to an environmental .
resource area, including.the Summary, Introduction, Project
Description, and Alternatives will be presented in the upfront
sections of theBIR. Tasks for completion of the EIR are
described below.
Admdnistrative Draft mIR
Project Description
Based on the evaluation of water quality impacts,' it may be
necessary to update the project description. If necessary, the
Adaptive Management Program that was included in the original
project description will be modified to include any
recommendations developed' as part of the water quality analysis.
RMC will update the project description that is included in the
EIR.
Water Quality Analysis
The Water Quality section will focus only on the salinity issue
as it relates to effects on redwood trees/vegetation. Other
topics relating to hydrology and water quality have already been
addressed in the IS, which will be included as. an appendix. The
EIR will describe the existing environmental and regulatory
setting relevant to evaluation of salinity impacts, state where
relevant the impact significance criteria, describe the impacts
of the proposed project, assess their significance, and develop
feasible mitigation measures as applicable to reduce or eliminate.
identified impacts. The EIR wil.l identify any cumulative and
unavoidable impacts associated with use of recycled water for
irrigation. RMC will contract with Hortcience, Inc. to evaluate
impacts on plants of irrigation with recycled water. Hortscience
will complete the following tasks (also see Exhibit C) :
• Review existing site information including USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service soil maps and other available
site data.
• Identify approximately 12 sample site locations representing
the range of conditions among the 134 properties, and perform
the following assessments: .
4
100315 sm010
j
j
o Inventory the plant species present and rate· their
appearance.
o Inspect and describe soil profiles within root :or:ones.
o Collect and analyze 2 -3 soil samples at each sampling
location from surface and subsurface (up to 32· samples).
• pH, ECe, Ca, Mg, Bf Cl, Na,SAR , mechanical
analysis (texture).
o Map locations of samples collected.
• Per~orm a survey-level soil landscape evaluation to identify
problem areas or areas that may need further evaluation. before
irrigation decisions are made •. Soils will be examined within
the root area without making full descriptions or collecting
sampl~s for analysis.
• Identify any constraints the plant palette, current plant
condition, and/or soil characteristics may have on successful
use of recycled water for irrigation .
•. . Describe the short-and long-term effects irrigation with
recycled "water across the site are likely to have on landscape
appearance, health, and function.
• Prepare a summary report of methods, findings, and.
recommendations.
• Attend ~etings are requested by the RMC (4 hours included).
Initial Study Update
RMC will update the I$/MND to,reflect comments made during public
review of the March 2009 IS/MND, and to meet new Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD) requirements for
quantification of 'construction-period emissions. In addition, a
new CNDDB search and a new NWIC search will be conducted to
determine if new, sensitive biological and cultural resources
occur in the project area. The biological and cultural resources
reports previously prepared for SWRCB will 'be updated as
necessary for submittal to the SWRCB.
Please refer to Exhibits D and E regarding the scope and budget
for the biological and cultural resources tasks conducted by
Christopher Joseph and Associates and William Self Associates,
r{!aspectively.
ClQA Required Analyses
·Most of the CEQArequired analyses can be based on the analysis
contained in the IS/MND. This section will include evaluation of
growth inducing impacts and , cumulative impacts, and
identification of any significant irreversible environmental
changes or significant unavoidable adverse impacts. The EIR will
5
I0031SsmOlO
I.
also include a·summary and evaluation of alternatives, including
identification of the environmentally superior alternative. With
the exception of t~e cumulative analysis, the other sections will
be integrated in the upfront portion of the EIR. The cumulative
analysis will be included in the IS Checklist.
Document Preparation
RMC will prepare a concise, clearly written, and easily
understandable Administrative Draft EIR (ADEIR) summarizing the
information developed in the above ·tasks. !me will prepare all
CEQA Mandated Sections. RMC will include tangible (i.e.,
quantifiable) performance objectives for all identified
. mitigation to the extent feasible, identification of
appropriateiy timed monitoring, identification of agency or staff
responsible for monitoring l and mitigation or measures to be
implemented should the performance objectives not be met.
RMC will sUbmit the ADEIR to the City for internal review and
. comment.
Screenoheok Draft mIR
The City will provide comments on a s.ingle annotated comment copy
of the ADEIR th~t provides clear direction for revisions. upon
receipt of comments from the City, RMC will hold a meeting to
review comments and discuss the approach for revising the
document. RMC will prepare a Screencheck Draft EIR incorporating
necessary revisions and refinements based upon comments received
from the City on the ADEIR. RMC will ensure that all City
comments are addressed thoroughly.
Del:lverables: !We will submit an ADEIR to the City. City sta:ff
will have up. to three (3] weeks to review-the ADBIR and provide
comments. Following receipt of comments from the City, RMC will
submi t a Screen check Draft wi thin three (3) weeks. The Ci ty will
have up to one (1) week to review the Screen check Dra.ft EIR.
Public Review of Draft SIR .
RMC will prepare a Draft EIRJ incorporating necessary revisions
and refinements based upon the City1s final edits on the
Screencheck Draft EIR. RMC will submit the Draft EIR in hard
copy (40 bound copies and one unbound copy) and electronic . format'
ready for posting on the City's website. RMC will also submit a
draft Notice of Availability and Notice of Completion (NOe) to
the City so that the eity can advertise in the local newspaper
and file the Noe at the State Clearinghouse (along with 15 copies
of the Draft EIR) , respectively. RMC will submit 8 hard copies
of the Draft EIR and supporting documentation to the SWRCB. RMC
will work with the City to refine the NOP distribution list to
produce a distribution list for the EIR.
RMC'will work with the City to plan and conduot a public meeting
6
100315 smOIO
j
to answer questions regarding the Draft EtR. The public meeting'
may include an open house format to allow the maximum opportunity
for the public to ask questions and get information about the
project.
Deliverables: DC will prepare a D~aft EIR within one (1) week
of receipt of comments from the City on tbe Sareencheck Draft
BIR. RMC will submit a NOA and NOC to the City. RMC will assist
·the Ci ty in preparing for and conducting a public review meeting
during the EIR public comment period.
'inal SIR and Assooiated Doaumeats
RMC will meet with the City at the close of the comment period
during the final BIR phase to identify and. develop approaches for
key issues raised. If appropriate, RMC may use master responses
for topics of greatest interest to local agencies ,and the
surrounding community_ The scope of work assumes 74 hours of
staff time to determine with the City the approach to respond to
public comments, bracket'the comments, and provide written
response to the comments; should the estimated level of effort
for preparing responses exceed the hours assumed, additional work
would need to be authorized through a contract modification.
Draft Pinal BIR (Response to Camments document), MMRP, and
Findings
The Final EIR will consist of the Response to Comments (RTC)
document and Public Draft BIR. RMC will prepare an a RTC document
that includes:'!) all letters received on the Draft EIR and
summaries of all substantive comments made on the Draft EIR at
the public meeting, 2) responses to each comment, and 3) text
revisions to the Draft EIR shown in errata format. RMC will also
prepare a Draft MMRP, which,will consolidate all required and
recommended mitigation measures into one, table. In addition, RMC
will prepare draft Findings. RMC will submit the Draft Response
to Comments document, Draft ~RP, and Draft Firidings to the City
for review.
Sareenaheak Final ElK (RTC doaument)I HNRP, and Pindings
RMC will revise the Draft RTC document, Draft MMRP, and Draft
Findings per City recommendations and a screencheck will be
submitted for review.
Final SIR (RTC doaument), MHRP, and Findings
RMC will submi~ the Final Response to Comments document, MMRP,
and Findings to the City in electronic format. RMC will provide
20 bound copies and one unbound copy of the final Response to
Comments document. RMC will attend the certification hearing and
will 'be prepared to answer questions from the City Council. RMC
will prepare a Notice of Determination for the City to file with
7
lO0315smOlO
the State Clearinghouse.
Dellverables: RMC will prepare a Draft Response to Comments
document, draft and Final MMRP, and draft and Final Findings.
RMC will also prepare a Notice of Determination. The City wil'l
have up to two (2) weeks to review and provide comments.
Following receipt of comments, RMC will submit a Screencheck
. Response to Comments Document, MMRP, and Findings to the City
within one (1) week. .The City will have one (1) week to review
and provide comments. Following receipt of comments,.RMC will
submit the Final EIR, MMRP, and Findings within one week.
NBPA Dooumentation
RMC will assist the City in obtaining NEPA clearance from the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), so that the project can
qualify for federal funding,· It is assumed that USBR will
require an Environmental Assessment (EA), leading to a Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI), RMC will conduct the NEPA process
in parallel with the CBQA process. However, the publication of
the BA will be timed to occur several week,s after publication of
the EIR. The scope of work assumes 280 hours of staff time to
prepare the Administrative Draft BA and Screencheck BA; should
the estimated level.of effort exceed the hours assumed,
additional work would need to be authorized through a contract
modification. RMC will complete the tasks identified below.
Please refer to Bxhibits D and E regarding the scope and budget
for the biological and cultural resources tasks conducted by
Christopher Joseph and Associates and William Self Associates,
respectively.
Administrative Dra£t SA
RMC will repackage the'Draft EIR and prepare an Administrative
Draft SA to submit to USBR. It is 'assumed that the EA can use a
similar format to the Initial Study Checklist, with the inclusion
of additional topical analysis required by NEPA, including
socioeconomic~ and environmental justice. .
Del:J.verables: RMC will submit an Administrative Draft EA to
USBR. It is assumed that USBR staff will require·up to four (4)
weeks to review the Administrative Draft EA and provide comments •.
Screeucneck Draft BA
USBR will provide comments on a single annotated comment copy of
the Administrative Draft EA'that provides clear direction for
revisions. Upon receipt of comments from USBR, RMC will hpld a
meeting to review comments and discuss the approach for revising
the document. RMC will prepare a Screencheck Draft EAt
8
100315 smOIO
I
1
J
; ,
i
J
incorporating necessary revisions 'and refinements based upon
comments received from USSR on the Administrative Draft EA. RMC
will ensure that all USSR comments are addressed thoroughly.
DelJ.verables: Followi.ng receipt of comments from USBR, RMC will
submit a ,Screencheck Dra.ft within three (3) o/eeks. USBR wi.ll
have up to one (1) week to review the Screencbeck Dra.ft EA •
.Public RevJ.ew of Draft EA/1I0NBI
RMC will prepare a Draft EA/FONSI, incorporating necessary
revisions and refinements based upon USSR final edits on the
Screencheck Draft EA. RMC will submit the Draft EA in hard copy
(20 bound copies and one unbound copy) and electronic format. '
DelJ.verables: RMC will prepare a Draft EA wi thin one (1) week of
receipt of comments from USBR· on t1;te Sareenabeak Draft EA.
FJ.nal EA and AssoaJ.ated Documents
RMC will meet with USB~ at the close of the comment period to
~dentify and develop approaches for key issues raised. RMC will
develop a comment database to facilitate tracking and ensure an
effici.ent'response effort. If appropriate, RMC may use master
responses for topics of greatest interest to local agencies and
the surrounding community. The scope of work assumes 48 hours of
staff time to provide written response to public comments; should
the estimated level of effort for preparing responses exceed the
hours assu~ed, additional work would need to be authorized
through a ,contract modification.
Administrative Final EA/FONSX
RMC will prepare an Administrative Final EA that includes: 1) all
letters received on the Draft EA 2) responses to each comment,
and 3) text revisions to the Draft EA shown in errata format.
RMC.will submit the Administrative Final EA to USBa for review.
In a~dition, RMC will prepare a Administrative Draft FONSI.
Sareenoheok Final EA
RMC will revise the Administrative Final EA/FONSI, and a
screencheck will be submitted for review.
Final BA Puhli9~tion
RMC will submit 'the Final EA/FONSI to USBRfor publication in
hard copy (20 bound copies and one unbound copy) and electronic
format. '
De11verableS: RMC will prepare an Administrative Final l
Screencheck and Final EA!FONSI. USSR will have up to two (2)
weeks to review and provide comments. Following receipt of
comments, RMC will submi t a Screencheck Final EA, MMRP, and FONSI
9
100315 8m 010
I
I within one (1) week. ·The City will have one (1) week to review
and provide comments. Following receipt of comments, RMC will
submi t the. Final BA, MMRP, and FONSI wi thin one week.
Project Management. I Meetings
RMC will coordinate with the City, USER, RMC's subconsu1tants and
internal staff on all CEQA and NEPA items related to the project.
This task also includes attendance at up to four 4-hour meetings
with the City and/or USER to discuss CEQA / NEPA issues at key
junctures of the process. This task also cover preparation of
monthly invoices and prog~ess reports.
Deliverables: RMC will submit monthly status reports to the
City.
Optional Service.
The following tasks are optional tasks that will require
authorization by the City before can be initiated.
Alternative ~roject Components
If the City determines to add an alternative pipeline alignment
along Matadero Creek and an alternative pump station location
near Lambert Lane in the EIR, then RMC will conduct the necessary
engineering investigation to provide details for inclusion in the
EIR Project Description. RMC will conduct an evaluation of
biological and cultural resources for the new alignment and pump
station site.' The Initial Study will be updated to include
evaluation of the new locations. Please refer to Exhibits D and
E regarding· the scope and budget for the biological and cultural
resources tasks conducted by Christopher Joseph and Associates
and William Self Associates, respectively.
NB~A Documentation
USBR may have additional consultation requirements related to
Section 7 and Section 106 consultation. The need for and level of
consultation have not been determined and will be'determined
based on discussions with USBR. The opt'ional tasks includes both
Sections 7 and 106 consultations. Please refer to Exhibits D and,
E regarding the scope and budget for the biological and cultural
resources tasks conducted by Christopher Joseph and Associates
and William Self Associates, respectively.
10
l0031Ssmoro
Assumptions
• Additional outreach beyond the'EIR preparation is not assumed
in this scope of work/ budget •
• We assume no new issues' (beyond those the City has already
encountered during the public 'comment phase of, the IS/MND)
will come up.
• The NOP and Scoping Meeting task assumes preparation of the
NOP, and support and attendance at a Scoping Meeting (4 hours
each by Helene and Sue); no scoping summary report will be
prepared upon receipt of public comments at the 'end of the
seoping period. The City willfaeilitate the seoping meeting
and present on the Project at the meeting. Tpe City will also
coordinate 'the, meeting planning. Graphics in the NOP will be
printed in black and white. '
• The Project Description is assumed to be generally the same as
provided in the IS/MND, with no modifications to the proposed
project components, construction techniques, or the operation
(unless the City determines the new alignment and pump station
will be included, in which case the optional tasks would be
authorized by the City). However, some additional details in'
the Project Description ,will, be added as warranted (e.g'l
elaboration of the construction techniques). The Adaptive
Management Plan may be modified based,on the findings of the
soils investigation.
• Other sections of the EIR that will be developed include:
Summary, Introductiori, Alternatives, and CUmulative Impacts.
With the exception of the Cumulative Impacts,the other
sections will be included in the upfront portion of the EIR.
• one public meet"ing is assumed during the public comment period
for the Public Draft EIR. RMC will provide support
(presentation preparation) and attend the Public Meeting (4
hours for two staff members). The City will coordinate the
meeting planning, and present at and facilitate the meeting.
• ODCs for the NOP'covers printing, mailing, and travel expens~.
Graphics in the document will be printed in black and white
only. A maximum of 50 hard copies will be printed. The City
will be responsible for ptiQlishing in the local newspaper.
• ODCs for the Public Draft EIR 'covers printing, mailing, and
travel expense. Graphics in the document will be printed in
blaok and white 'only. A maximum of 40 hard copies will be
printed (which includes 15 copies for the seH and 8 copies for
SWRCB), a maximum of 50 copies of a CD will be burned, and a
maximum of 100 notices (NOA) will be printed. The City will be
responsible for publishing the notice ,in the local newspaper
and/or posting the notice at the project sites.
11
l00315smOl0
• Preparation of the Response to Comments document is based on
hours, which may increase depending on the number 'of comments
received. Should the estimated level of effort exceed the
hours assumed, additional work would need to be authorized
through, a contract modification.
• The City will prepare and send response letters to responsible'
agencies commenting on the EIR.
• The Draft EIR and the Response to Comments constitutes the
Final EIR document; RMC will not print an Integrated EIR.
• For all deliverables, only one administrative draft and one
screencheck are proposed. If additional deliverables are
included, then the work effort will increase.
• For all CEQA-related deliverables, we assume, one set of
consolidated, non-conflicting comments from th~ Utilities and
Planning Departments.
• For all NEPA-related deliverables, we assume they will be
. reviewed by the USBR only (not the City). Thus, the hours,
identified for preparation of NEPA deliverables, are based on
one round of comments from usaR only, and not additional
comments from the City.
• For NEPA deliverables, we assume one set of consolidated, non·
conflicting comments from the USBR.
• Preparation of the NEPA EA is based on hours, which may
increase dependi~g on the number of comments received; should
the estimated level of effort exceed the hours assumed,'
additional work would need to be authorized through a contract
~odification.
• USSR will be responsible for all noticing of NEPA documents.
• The City will file the Notice of Determination with the State
Clearinghouse. '
• It is assumed that the NEPA ~ would be published after the.
publication of the EIR, such 'that information developed as
part of the EIR could be incorporated directly into the BA to
increase efficiency.
• The engineering task associated with the new pipeline
alignment and pump' station is based on hours; should the
estimated level of effort exceed the hours assumed, additional
work' would need to be authorized through a contract
modificat:lon.
• If the City determines that the alternative pipeline alignment
and pump station will be added to the project, it will inform
RMC of this decision as soon as possible, prior to the
publication of the NOP for inclusion into that document, and
12
100315 8m 010
'so that, the engineering work can be initiated to support
developmeQ.t of the EIR. A delay ,in the engineering
investigation can delay the publication of the EIR and EA.
• Project management includes coordination with the City, USSR,
and the internal team. A maximum of three meetings (3 hours
each) ,are included'in this task (excluding the public scoping
meeting and the public meeting during the EIR public comment
period). These meetings could be for the following: discussion
of City comments on the Screencheck BIR and discussion of
public comments on the Public Draft EIR with t;he Ci1::Y" and
discussions of puplic comments on the NBPA EA with USBR,
• It is possible that the schedule as shown will be delayed if
the optional tasks are initiated later than anticipated in the
process.
• We assume that protocol-level surveys for special'-status
plants or animal species or formal delineation of waters and
wetlands will not be conducted. The CAJA biological team can
condu~t such studies if required and requested; however, an
expanded scope and cost estimate would be required for such
services. '
• We assume that a jurisdictional deli'neation'study that may be
necessary to adequately evaluate impacts to wetland and water
resources that may be subject to U.S. Army Corps (USACE),
CDFG,and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) will
,not be conducted. CAJA's wetland biologists, can conduct this
study if required and requested; however, an expanded scope
and cost estimate would be required.
• Please also refer to Exhibits, C, 'D, and E for specific
assumptions regarding the subconsultant scope of work.
13
100315 sm 010
J
j Palo Alto RW Project Single-Issue EIR Schedule-exhibit B
Task Name DuratIon Tlmellne
1 City Issues NTP 1 day .. 4/19/2010
2 1.1 NOP and Seoplng Meeting
3 RMC prepares Draft NOP 10 days 4/20 -5/3/10
4 City reviews Draft NOP 5 days 5/4 -5/10/10
5 RMC prepares Sereencheck NOP 5 days 5/11 -5/17/10
6 City reviews Screencheck NOP 2 days 5/18· 5/19/10
7 RMC prepares NOP for publication 2 days 5/20 -5/21/10
8 NOP Publication o day 5/21/2010
9 NOP Seoping Period . 30 days 5/21-6/21/10
10 Scoplng Meeting Oday· 6/4/2010
11 1.2 DEJR Preparpation
. 12 RMC prepares ADEIR 30 days 5/24 -7/2/10
13 City reviews ADEIR 15 days 7/5 -7/23/10
14 RMC prepares Screencheck DEIR 15 days 7/26 -8/13/10
15 City reviews Screencheck DEIR 10 days 8/16 -8/27/10
Meeting with City ot discuss City comments
16 on Screencheck EIR 1 day 8/30/2010
17 1.3 Public Review of DEIR
18 RMC prepares Draft EIR, NOA, and NOC 5 days 8/31 -9/6/10
19 DEIR Publication o days 9/6/2010
20 DEIR public review period 45 days 9/6 -10/21/10
21 PubHc Meeting o day ·10/1/2010
22 1.4 Final EIR and Associated Documents
Meeting with City to discuss public comments
23 on DEIR 1 day 10/22/2010
24 RMC prepares Draft RTC, MMRP, Findings 20 days 10/25 -11/19/10
25 City reviews Draft RTC, MMRP, Findings 10 days 11/22 -12/3/10
RMC prepares SereencheckRTC, MMRP, and
26 Findings 5 days 12/6 -12/10/10
City reviews Screencheck RTC, MMRP, and
27 Findings 10 days 12/13 -12/24/10
28 RMC prepares Final RTC, MMRP, and Findings 5 days 12/27 -12/31/10
EIR certification / Project Approval (2nd and
29 last Weds of the month) 1 day 1/12/2011
30 File NOD 1 day 1/13/2011
Updated: 3/15/10
L:omoen,sation
:!date ProJect Description
r Quality/Odors
imulatlve Impacts
rdrology/Water Qualltv
'owth
)(fate Biological Resources
)date "Cultural Resources
Immary, Alternatives and CEQA Secttons
n:ument Strategy and Preparation
l.2
I.l DrDjt FEIR (RTC document), MMRP,
'11ft RTC document
'sftMMRP
aft Findings
U Screen check FEIR (RTC document), MMRP;
Jdfngs
t..3 FEfR publication (RTCdocumenr), MMRP,
U Administrative Final EA
1.2 Scr~encheck Final EA
Final Ell.
I Alternative Project Components
glne.,rlns· Alternative components
Idate 8101081<:11 R~$Qurces
ldate Cultural Resources
aluatlon of alternative project components In I;IR
r NEPA Suppgrtlnl1 Documentat/gn
Idate Blolollcal Resources
Resources
100315 sroOm
18
18
12
66
4
1
1
120
130
74
14,
9
4S
48
34
$2,940
$3,830
$1,840 '
$11,290
$780
$195
$195
$20,650
$17,595 "
$1~,900
$2,370
$1,770
$7,350
$13,250
$7,640
$0
$8,850
$5.690
$22,52D
$390
$390
$lg,a§O
$0
$780
$34,550
$0
$0
$0
$34,550
$0
$2,000 $1,601 $3,601
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
,$0
$0
$0
$3,650 $3,650
$4,395 $4,395
'$0
$0
$0,
$0
$1,728
$0
$180
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
' $0
$0
$183
$220
$0
Exhibit c
$88
S115
$55
$339
$23
$6
$6"
$620 "
$528
$387
$71
$53
$221
$398
$229
$0
$266
$171
$676
$12
$12
$200
$3,02B
$3,945
$1,895
$47,907
$803
$3,982
$201
"$21,270
$18,1211
$13,287
$2,441
$1,823
$7,571
$13,648
$S,069
$9,116
$5,861
$23,196
$4,135
$5,017
$19,972
;ATTACHMENT C
--
, I
Description: The City of Palo Alto is investigating an expansion of the
existing recycled water delivery system to serve customers in the City.
The pipeline will primarily access the Stanford Research Parkand provide
an alternative supply source of 1,000 AFY (acre feet per year).
Justification: Palo Alto is aggressively pursuing all options to meet
future water supply needs. Recycled water provides a stable, drought
proof supply of water that replaces the need to use Hetch Hetch potable
supplies for irrigation purposes.
Consultant Services Scope: RMC Environmental is preparing the
environmental report and facility plan for the project.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $335,000
Actuals as of 4/06/2010 $322,617
Design Costs
'ATTACHMENT D
CIP •
• Continuing
• Project Status: Design
• Timeline: FY 2007-2014
• Overall Project Completion: 10%
• Percent Spent: 92.17%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-20
• Board/Commission Review: UAC
• Environmental: Project will require environ
mental review.
• Design Elements: Any above ground struc
tures will go through the appropriate review pro
cess.
• Operating: Project will increase utilities operat
ing costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Construction Costs $382,000 $500,000 $750,000 $1,150,000 $4,782,000
Other
$382,000 $500,000 $750,000 $2,000,000 $1,150,000 $4,782,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds: Water Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2010-2011