Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2015-08-05 Utilities Advisory Commission Agenda Packet
NOTICE IS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2(a) OR 54956 I. ROLL CALL II. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Members of the public are invited to address the Commission on any subject not on the agenda. A reasonable time restriction may be imposed at the discretion of the Chair. State law generally precludes the UAC from discussing or acting upon any topic initially presented during oral communication. III. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Approval of the Minutes of the Utilities Advisory Commission Meeting held on July 1, 2015 IV. AGENDA REVIEW AND REVISIONS V. REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONER MEETINGS/EVENTS VI. DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES REPORT VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. NEW BUSINESS 1. Staff Recommendation that the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend that the Action City Council Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Recycled Water Distribution Project, Approve the Recycled Water Distribution Project, and Direct Staff to Seek Funding for the Project 2. Selection of Potential Topic(s) for Discussion at Future UAC Meeting Action 3. Update and Discussion on Impacts of Statewide Drought on Water and Discussion Hydroelectric Supplies IX. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS X. NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING: September 15, 2015 – Special Meeting INFORMATIONAL REPORTS - A complete list of informational reports provided to the UAC can be viewed at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/uac/reports.asp?code=CAPALO_8 and at City Hall, 3rd Floor, Utilities Administration office. Information reports cannot be discussed during UAC meetings, in compliance with Govt. Code Section 54954.2(a)(2 UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5, 2015 – 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS Palo Alto City Hall – 250 Hamilton Avenue Chairman: Jonathan Foster Vice Chair: James F. Cook: Commissioners: Michael Danaher, Steve Eglash, Garth Hall, and Judith Schwartz Council Liaison: Gregory Scharff Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 1 of 7 UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 1, 2015 CALL TO ORDER Chair Foster called to order at 7:02 p.m. the meeting of the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC). Present: Commissioners Cook, Danaher, Eglash, Chair Foster, and Schwartz Absent: Commissioner Hall and Council Liaison Scharff ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Jeff Hoel stated that Council received a non-agendized item on CTC and the wireless plan, but the report did not say when the item will go to Council, or even that it should go first to the UAC, but he noted that the items appear on the UAC’s rolling calendar for September. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Commissioner Danaher moved to approve the minutes from the June 1, 2015 UAC meeting as presented and Commissioner Schwartz seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously (5-0 with Commissioners Cook, Danaher, Eglash, Foster and Schwartz voting yes, Commissioner Hall absent). AGENDA REVIEW AND REVISIONS None. REPORTS FROM COMMISSION MEETING/EVENTS Commissioner Schwartz went to an event at SRI with many area companies who are working in the smart utilities/smart cities area. She said they have many technically literate young people who are interested in energy management, climate change and related issues. She said that she was pleasantly surprised to find that we have so many issues in common. UTILITIES DIRECTOR REPORT 1. Community Outreach Events, Workshops and Staff Speaking Engagements in June Event Date Attendance BAWSCA Design It Yourself Native Garden June 3 130 (Communications Manager Elvert) presentation to Department of Water Resources about Palo Alto’s adoption of the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance June 8 20 BAWSCA Install It Yourself Native Garden June 13 100 Peninsula SunShares Solar workshop June 14 15* Palo Alto Family YMCA - Water Conservation tabling June 20 50 Net Zero Home Energy Efficiency June 27 40 *during game 5 of NBA Championship series DRAFT Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 2 of 7 2. Drought Update Staff is closely tracking citywide water use to monitor progress toward meeting Palo Alto’s 24% water use reduction goal and posting updates at cityofpaloalto.org/water. Since the beginning of 2015, citywide water consumption has reduced by more than 22%. Staff is focusing educational efforts around the drought, offering free community workshops, attending neighborhood, school and business group meetings, advertising in utility bill inserts, local papers and on television, and encouraging community members to report incidents of water waste through the PaloAlto311 mobile app. The City has also set up a new email address (drought@cityofpaloalto.org) to enhance communication. 3. Marketing Services Update Peninsula SunShares enrollment and contracted system data as of June 10: Total Peninsula SunShares program registrants (number homes requesting a proposal) = 526 Palo Alto registrants = 225 (43%) Palo Alto - Sunrun (10 contracts) = 37.35kW Palo Alto - Skytech (9 contracts) = 50.48kW PaloAltoGreen Gas: 888 customers signed up as of June 26. All City accounts will join PaloAltoGreen Gas program on July 1 so sales volumes will climb considerably. The results will be reported in the next Utilities quarterly update. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS ITEM 1: DISCUSSION: Discussion of Results of Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Electrification Options for Appliances and Passenger Vehicles in Single Family Residential Homes Resource Planner Aimee Bailey summarized the written report Commissioner Danaher asked what climate was assumed in the evaluation of heat pump performance since the output depends on the difference in temperatures. Bailey said that the analysis did use a climate zone similar to Palo Alto's. Commissioner Eglash added that Palo Alto has an ideal climate for heat pump technologies. Public Comment Bruce Hodge, representative of Carbon Free Palo Alto, noted that staff's analysis is very solid and this result should be used to support the scenario that favors electrification since many of these characteristics are under the control of the Utility such as electric rates. He said that a carve-out of low cost energy for those with heat pumps or EVs is one mechanism to consider. The all electric house initiative is a good idea, but we should look for opportunities for retrofits in Palo Alto. He noted that the end of life of natural gas-fueled water heaters is the best time to replace them with heat pump water heaters. He said that if we cannot influence replacement of devices that burn fossil fuels, we will not hit carbon emissions reduction goals. Commissioner Foster asked if a carve out should apply for new and existing devices. Hodge said that there were not many existing heat pump water heaters in town, maybe 3, but staff would need to determine a carve out for EV owners. Walter Hays noted that he agrees with everything Mr. Hodge said. He noted that tiered rates are a disincentive to electrification. Commissioner Danaher noted that special rates, such as a carve out, could be considered in the next phase of the electric rate adjustments as long as the voters approved of such a carve out. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 3 of 7 Commissioner Eglash stated that the report noted that the initial cost of heat pump water heaters is high, but the operating costs are low since they are very efficient. He added that the report is fundamentally about energy efficiency. He noted that using electric resistance water heaters are not a good choice since they use much more energy and are very inefficient. He noted that heat pump water heaters should be encouraged, but they do have issues including they are noisy, they require extra space, they cool the surrounding air and are more expensive to purchase. He also noted that the City's electric supplies are carbon neutral, but it is still connected to the grid, which is still supported by fossil fuels so there should be a careful consideration given to the potential impact on the grid from additional use of electricity. He said that there is now so much solar energy now on the grid that there is relatively less demand for power from conventional generators in the middle of the day when the sun is shining, but in the early morning and late afternoon there is a need to run conventional power plants in order to meet demand for electricity. In California, more than half of total electricity is supply by fossil fuels, mostly natural gas. A consequence of more people switching from natural gas water heaters and space heaters to heat pump units and switching to electric vehicles may force California to build more natural gas fired power plants to support the grid. Commissioner Eglash added that the City Council Colleagues Memo states that natural gas is only slightly better for the environment than coal due to fugitive emissions, but that is a controversial statement, not a fact. Recent research on natural gas emissions has found that in many cases it is due to leaky valves and other components at energy refineries so the amount of fugitive emissions should decrease in the future. He said he supported the recommendation for the work plan (Item 2 on the agenda), but is concerned about overly simplistic thinking and the loss of personal freedom. He would like City to educate the public about heat pump technology, and the City should support their installation. On-bill financing would be a great way to support heat pump technology to deal with the initial cost, but that may be impossible with the current billing system. He also suggestion the use of a trial or demonstration program. However, he noted that heat pumps can be used for both heating and cooling and promoting heat pumps may encourage people to install air conditioning when they did not have that before. He said that the City should not mandate how people heat their water or homes, but provide them options and flexibility. Requiring all electric homes is a bad idea since it takes away choices for residents. He said that he had heard rumors that Palo Alto might require new residential construction to be all-electric and he stated that would be a bad idea. He said that the building codes should be designed to provide options and flexibility for the future by incorporating capabilities during construction when it is most economic to do so, but the building codes should not take away options by mandating or limiting behavior. Vice Chair Cook noted that these efforts should involve more departments, not just Utilities. The Planning and Building Departments should also be involved. The entire City should consider electric vehicles, not just Utilities. Director Fong noted that the City Manager is very involved with this process and evaluation and it is coordinated with many departments. Vice Chair Cook said that the City should look to see what other entities, such as the City of Quebec, have done. Vice Chair Cook asked what assumption was used for the electric price forecasts. Bailey said that the forward prices for electricity were used as the base case assumption, which were the same as those used in the long-term financial forecasts. The price for carbon was assumed to be the floor price for the cap-and-trade auction. Commissioner Schwartz asked if there would be issues with changing the shape of the City's energy use profile by adding lots of electric loads. This could result in using energy at higher cost periods, or could require upgrades to substations and distribution system components. Bailey noted that the analysis was for single family residential appliances only and the entire residential sector uses only 20% of the energy Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 4 of 7 of the City. She added that the City's substations are only 50-60% loaded at this point so there is sufficient capacity for increases in the use of electricity. Commissioner Schwartz warned that if there is an electric outage, then there is no heating. Director Fong acknowledged that this could be an issue. Commissioner Schwartz added that if there is massive movement to electrification, the cost per unit of delivered natural gas will rise and it could lead to stranded gas assets. Director Fong acknowledged that this could be an outcome. Commissioner Danaher noted that this is about efficiency, as noted by Commissioner Eglash, and wondered if there is more greenhouse gas emissions reduction from insulating windows than the use of heat pumps. He asked if the City has looked at a Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program in the past. Bailey replied that the City participates in the California First PACE program, but there has not been a lot of uptake at this point. She noted that they also looked at the Hero PACE program. Chair Foster asked if he could characterize Commissioner Eglash's comments as "be careful what you wish for" since if we convert everyone away from natural gas, the consequence is that we increase our demand on the grid, which is backed by natural gas. Commissioner Eglash said that the grid is not yet smart, but it will be. Chair Foster noted that if we were to use more electricity, we would buy more renewable energy so we would still be carbon neutral and should not be adding GHG emissions. Commissioner Schwartz said that the carbon neutral calculation is an accounting practice. Commissioner Eglash explained that every hour of every day will not be supplied by renewable resources. Chair Foster said there were three potential paths to take with respect to electrification: do not encourage it, encourage it, or mandate it. Chair Foster said that under the current regime, as the City’s use of electricity increases, it will buy more renewable power to support the increased use and that there will not be any change in terms of gas-fired generation on the grid. He indicated that he was supportive of moving towards electrification. He said there were many ways besides mandates to encourage electrification including rebates and education. Chair Foster asked if Walt Hays had a comment on what's been said. Walt Hayes said that small steps are not appropriate given the level of the crisis. He said that it will take a long time to get fully electrified in Palo Alto. Chair Foster said that turning off natural gas for existing houses is challenging, but that mandating it for new homes may not be a bad idea. He acknowledged that, in the grand scheme, what Palo Alto does will not affect things, but it can serve as a model for others, so he would err on side of pushing for electrification. Commissioner Schwartz said that renewable energy currently only provides 20% of the state's energy and so electrification is not realistic. And, to expect it to change in five years is unrealistic. Chair Foster asked what the downside would be. Commissioner Schwartz said that it's not necessarily efficient and it is using a blunt instrument to achieve goals. Vice Chair Cook said that renewable energy will provide a greater and greater proportion of the state's energy over the next 5 to 10 years, noting that it will move to 33% in five years and 50% in ten years. This is a radical change in a short period of time. Public Comment: Hiromi Kelty said that she lives in a very old house and is undergoing a remodel to go all electric along with solar PV on the roof. She noted a barrier in the form of the new green building codes that make it hard to do the right thing. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 5 of 7 Commissioner Schwartz said that it should be easy for people to choose what they want to do, but there is not just one path and choices should be available for people. Chair Foster said that choices are fine, but there may be consequences in terms of greenhouse gas emissions that must be thought through. ITEM 2: ACTION: Staff Recommendation that the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend that Council Review and Approve the Proposed Work Plan to Evaluate and Implement Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies by Reducing Natural Gas and Gasoline Use Through Electrification Chief Sustainability Officer Gil Friend said that his report is a comprehensive report addressing social, economic, and environmental aspects of electrification. He noted that the December 2014 Council Colleagues Memo directed staff to identify the resources required to evaluated electrification issues. In February 2015, staff provided a work plan to respond to the Colleagues Memo and this is the Phase I work plan. Friend stated that the proposed work plan evaluates fuel switching options, but doesn't necessarily recommend implementation at this time. Commissioner Schwartz said she was delighted to see Utilities working with the Sustainability Office, but she saw that the plan includes boundaries that do not necessarily make sense, for example, advanced meters may be beneficial for more than just EV owners. Friend responded that the overall effort may be broad, but what's referred to in this work plan is for electrification only. Vice Chair Cook stated that the action is to provide a recommendation for what staff is proposing to explore. This does not mean that a direction has been selected, but only to explore the various areas. This does not limit flexibility and choice. He advised that the points made in the last item merit consideration as the exploration is done. Friend agreed that flexibility is very important. Vice Chair Cook stated that the TOU rates will likely evolve so that we shouldn't refer to EV charging at night since the best time to charge may change as more renewables come onto the grid. He recommended that work plan item #7 should remove "for residential EV charging" to make the item more broad. Commissioner Eglash supports the proposed work plan. He commented that the tasks were largely using existing staff so this effort will not require additional staff. Commissioner Danaher said that the City is only carbon neutral for electricity in the short term due to the purchase of offsets. Director Fong noted that by 2017, the City will be carbon neutral with long- term renewables plus large hydroelectric resources. Director Fong stated that who pays and who benefits must be considered. Chair Foster noted that natural gas is one of the remaining two sources of the City’s GHG emissions. Friend confirmed that about 61% is from mobile transportation and use of natural gas is about 31%. Chair Foster asked if electrification reduces GHG emissions in the grand scheme of things. Friend confirmed that it is important. Public Comment Walt Hays urges that the UAC recommend that the Council adopt the proposed work plan. Bruce Hodge stated that Carbon Free Palo Alto had a large part in writing the Council Colleagues Memo and that it has been a long time coming. He said that the proposed plan is reasonable and supportable. He advised that the City become active in many EV-related events. He said that TOU rates can be useful as devices can be grid-interactive and add value from that capability. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 6 of 7 Commissioner Danaher asked if the timeline could be sped up. Director Fong said that the plan was developed in consideration of the existing staff resources available for the work. ACTION: Vice Chair Cook moved to recommend that Council approve the proposed work plan with the insertion of “for example” in work plan item #7 so that it would read: “Explore offering Ti me-of-Use electric rate options; for example, for residential EV charging.” Commissioner Eglash seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously (5-0 with Commissioners Cook, Danaher, Eglash, Foster and Schwartz voting yes, Commissioner Hall absent). ITEM 3. PRESENTATION: Update on Spring 2015 Request for Proposal for Renewable Energy Projects Assistant Director Jane Ratchye presented early results from the City's Request for Proposals (RFP) for renewable energy projects. Ratchye said that even though the City has contracts in place to achieve a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RFP) of 57% by the end of 2016, the earliest renewable project contract the City entered into, for a wind project, is expiring in 2021. She said that renewable energy prices are still very low, but may rise after the end of 2016 when the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) falls from 30% to 10%. In addition, there is some uncertainty that some of the solar projects that the City has signed contracts for will be completed, and there is the chance of low hydro output in the future. The City sought proposals for projects that would come on line in 2021 for 3% to 8% of the City's needs. 40 projects were proposed in response to the RFP including 32 solar projects, 5 wind projects, 2 biomass projects 1 geothermal project and 1 ocean wave project. Ratchye stated that the criteria used to evaluate the proposals included price/value and project viability. The price/value was evaluated by calculating the "green premium", which is the difference between the price proposed and the levelized value of power from the market over the life of the contract. Ratchye provided a chart of the green premium for each project type, noting that the prices have fallen from those seen in the last RFPs. Ratchye stated that staff is currently conducting interviews with the top ten proposers and will select the best project, with which to negotiate a final contract. She expects that a recommendation to execute a contract will be ready for the UAC's consideration in October, followed by Finance Committee consideration and Council action. The preliminary timeline assumes that a new contract would be in place by the end of 2015. Chair Foster asked whether selection criteria included a desire for diversity of supply sources. Senior Resource Planner Jim Stack said that diversity is a “pro” and that the cost of integrating different types of intermittent resources into grid was considered. Commissioner Eglash noted that this is yet another example of Palo Alto looking several years ahead. He asked if staff is concerned that in timeframe from 2020 to 2030, solar might become less valuable if the state has so much solar that it can’t use it. He questioned whether we should value dispatchable sources more highly. Ratchye replied that she expects that storage technologies will be improved and costs will come down so that issue will likely be addressed in the marketplace. Stack added that a significant number of proposals were for projects to be built by end of 2016, so that the seller takes the risk to find another buyer/short term sale before 2021 when the City would take the output. In addition, since there is a higher risk associated with projects to be built later, staff requested a higher development deposit. Commissioner Eglash said he was not sure how comforting the risk mitigation is since we don’t know the value of dispatchability versus solar output and whether projects are best if completed soon or in 2021. He said that the need to back up solar generation needs to be considered. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 7 of 7 Commissioner Schwartz asked about whether the financeability of the project is evaluated. Stack said that he takes into account the financeability of project based on the availability of financing, noting that some projects can finance themselves based on balance sheet funds so have little financing risk. All three solar projects that are slated to come on line next year are being constructed on balance sheet. Vice Chair Cook asked about the viability of the ocean wave project proposed. Ratchye stated that since the RFP evaluation process is ongoing, staff is unable to speak directly to any particular proposal. Stack noted that the requirement of providing a fairly large development assurance is one of the best tools to assess viability. Chair Foster wondered if there should be a discussion about the selection criteria for renewable projects prior to release of an RFP. ITEM 4: ACTION: Selection of Potential Topic(s) for Discussion at Future UAC Meeting Chair Foster noted that he was disappointed that the Community Solar program ended and he hoped that a new program could be developed. ACTION: None. ITEM 5: DISCUSSION: Update and Discussion on Impacts of Statewide Drought on Water and Hydroelectric Supplies Assistant Director Jane Ratchye presented an update on the impacts of the drought. She noted that recently, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) has taken action to issue curtailment notices to water rights that emanate from before 1914, the year the State Board was created. These notices have gone to the City and County of San Francisco. Ratchye said that regional water use for 2015 to date is well below the 10% request and also below the State Board mandated reductions that are in place starting June 2015. She noted that regional system storage is down, but still amounts to over three years of supplies. The City of Palo Alto has reduced water use even more than the 24% mandate, but conservation must persist to meet the goal for the entire period since savings are easier to make in the summer, than in the winter. On the electric side, Ratchye noted that the increased costs due to the drought are about $13.5 million for Fiscal Year (FY) 2015. For FY 2016, the expected increase costs due to drought are about $10.5 million, but could approach $13 million if FY 2016 is critically dry. Commissioner Eglash asked what the increased costs amount to in terms of a rate increase. Ratchye replied that they are about a 10% rate increase for each year. Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Marites Ward City of Palo Alto Utilities Page 1 of 7 1 MEMORANDUM TO: UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DATE: August 5, 2015 SUBJECT: Staff Recommendation that the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend that the City Council Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Recycled Water Distribution Project, Approve the Recycled Water Distribution Project, and Direct Staff to Seek Funding for the Project Recommended Motion Staff recommends that the Utilities Advisory Commission recommend that Council: 1. Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Recycled Water Distribution Project; 2. Approve the Recycled Water Distribution Project as described; and 3. Direct staff to proceed with filing funding applications for the project consistent with the project description. Executive Summary The City of Palo Alto’s Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) produces high quality recycled water on a daily basis. Recycled water is a sustainable non-potable water supply that will help reduce Palo Alto’s reliance on imported water supplies. The RWQCP produces a drought-proof, locally controlled supply of recycled water in excess of the current demand; therefore staff is working to expand the recycled water distribution system. In order to expand recycled water use, the City must first complete the required environmental review. Staff has finalized the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and recommends that Council certify the Final EIR for the project to expand the recycled water distribution system to serve non-potable uses in Palo Alto, including the Stanford Research Park. Completion of this major milestone makes the project eligible for outside funding for the project. If directed by Council, staff will seek funding for the project, prepare a business case, and return to the UAC and Council with a recommendation on whether to move forward with engineering design and construction of the project. Background The City of Palo Alto’s Recycled Water Program began in the early 1980s. Phase 1 of the recycled water delivery system provided recycled water to Shoreline Golf Links in Mountain Page 2 of 7 View and was later expanded to serve other uses including: irrigation at the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course, Greer Park, and around the RWQCP; certain processes at the RWQCP; maintenance of the duck pond; and enhancement of Emily Renzel Marsh. All of these uses are at City-owned facilities. The City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) and the partners/owners of the RWQCP examined the feasibility of expanding the use of recycled water to serve additional City and commercial customers in the RWQCP service area in 1991 and 1992. This examination concluded with the publication of the April 1992 report, “Water Reclamation Master Plan for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant” (Master Plan). In April 1995, the Council certified the Program EIR for the projects identified in the Master Plan (CMR:217:95). At that time, the Council decided not to go forward with t he new projects as they were not cost-effective. Council directed staff to re-evaluate the projects in case of changed conditions such as: 1) changes in the RWQCP discharge permit requirements; 2) increased mass loading to the RWQCP; 3) requests by partner agencies of other local agencies; 4) availability of federal or other funds; and 5) supply-side issues, which may lead to increases in the value of recycled water from a water supply perspective, such as water supply cost, water supply availability, regulatory and legislative initiatives and advanced treatment for potable reuse. Since that time, Phase 2, an extension of the RWQCP’s recycled water system to Mountain View, has been completed. In addition, the wholesale costs of water from the San Francis co Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), the City’s primary water supplier, have increased dramatically as projects are completed to upgrade SFPUC’s regional water system. In response to these changed circumstances, in July 2006, the City completed a Recycled Water Market Survey (RWMS) to update the 1992 Master Plan and re-examine the feasibility of Phase 3, an extension of the recycled water system to end-users in Palo Alto. The 2006 RWMS identified a total potential demand of about 1,700 acre -feet per year (AFY) in Palo Alto and identified a project to serve about 840 AFY of recycled water d emand. The 2006 RWMS also determined that the estimated cost of the recycled water from the project is higher than the expected future cost of water from the SFPUC. Therefore, the project did not appear to be cost-effective for Palo Alto unless outside funding could be secured and Palo Alto’s cost was significantly lowered. Before the project can be considered for state and federal funding, additional planning and design work was required. Specifically, state grant funds require the completion of a Recycled Water Facility Plan. Therefore, staff solicited proposals from qualified consultants to complete such a plan and submitted an application for a planning grant from the State Water Resources Control Board to cover part of the cost of the plan. On November 20, 2006, the Council approved proceeding with the preparation of a facility plan and the development of environmental documentation for expanding the recycled water distribution system in Palo Alto. At that time, the Council authorized the City to file a Water Recycling Facilities Planning Grant application in the amount of $75,000 with the State Water Page 3 of 7 Resources Control Board (SWRCB) (CMR:415:06). The City’s application for this planning grant was approved by the State. On April 16, 2007, Council approved the execution of a contract with RMC Water & Environment, Inc. for completion of a Recycled Water Facilities Plan and preparation of environmental documents (CMR:191:07). The project generally consisted of analyses of all of the essential components of a potential expanded recycled water system to serve additional users in Palo Alto. The tasks included site investigations, analysis of project alternatives, preparation of a financial plan, environmental documentation, pu blic outreach, development of user agreements or use ordinances, and the preparation of the facility plan reports. A Recycled Water Facility Plan was completed in December 2008. The Recycled Water Facility Plan identified a “target area” that had sufficient recycled water use potential to justify the extension of the development of a project. The target area is the Stanford Research Park, where the largest concentration of customers with irrigation needs exist within the City. The plan also developed a recommended project to deliver water to the target area. The pro ject included a pipeline that would connect to the Phase 2 pipeline to Mountain View along East Bayshore Road and run through south Palo Alto, ultimately to serve customers in the Stanford Research Park. According to the December 2008 Facility Plan, the total estimated cost for the project (in 2008 dollars) was $33.5 million in capital costs and $200,000 per year in operations and maintenance (O&M) costs. The projected recycled water usage at the identified customer sites along the pipeline alignment and in the target area was about 900 acre-feet (AF) per year. According to the plan, if the capital costs could be financed at an interest rate of 5.5% per year for 30 years, the annual cost, including O&M costs, is about $2.5 million. Therefore, the unit cost of the recommended recycled water project was estimated at $2,700/AF. This cost was significantly higher than the then current cost of high quality potable water from the SFPUC of $623/AF.1 Since the project was not cost effective at that time from the perspective of the City of Palo Alto, staff determined that it could not justify proceeding with the project without securing outside funding to improve the cost-effectiveness for Palo Alto. Potential sources of outside funding include grants from the State and Federal governments and low- or no-interest loans from the State Revolving Loan Fund. However, in order to pursue grants or loans for the project, the environmental documents must be completed. As part of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, an Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued in March 2009. This document contained a checklist evaluating impacts on the environment associated with construction and operation of the project. Comments were received during the 30-day public comment period. The City completed a Response to Comments document in May 2009. Due to public concerns regarding 1 Note that the cost of SFPUC water in FY 2016 is $1,809/AF and SFPUC’s wholesale water costs are projected to reach $2,400/AF by FY 2025. Page 4 of 7 the irrigation of redwood trees and sensitive species with recycled water, the City de cided to undertake an EIR focused on the water quality issues associated with the RWQCP’s recycled water. On January 25, 2010, Council approved the Recycled Water Salinity Reduction Policy (Staff Report 111:10, Resolution 9035), including a goal of reducing the Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) of the recycled water to 600 milligrams per liter (mg/l). Since that time, the RWQCP’s partner agencies have taken steps to reduce salinity. Finally, the current severe statewide drought conditions have made consideration of the project urgent. Discussion The primary objectives of extending the recycled water distribution system are: 1. To allow the City to maximize recycled water as a supplemental water source, thereby improving potable water supply reliability by conserving drinking water, which is currently used for irrigation and other non -potable uses; 2. To provide a dependable, drought-proof, locally controlled non-potable water source; 3. To increase recycled water use from the RWQCP and reduce discharge to San Francisco Bay; and 4. To reduce reliance on imported water. The proposed Project would help the RWQCP and its partners to further preserve San Francisco Bay by reducing the wastewater constituent mass loadings to the Bay and provide long -term environmental and economic benefits to the community. The attached EIR complies with CEQA, as well as additional CEQA requirements (“CEQA Plus”) required because the City is applying for a low-cost loan from the State Revolving Fund. Because of potential Federal grant funding opportunities, this EIR has also been prepared in compliance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. The United States Bureau of Reclamation, as a Lead Agency for NEPA compliance, would be able to use this EIR and other NEPA-required supporting documents, as a basis for decision making for the proposed Action. Because the Project was previously evaluated in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) that was publicly circulated, this EIR focuses on those issues of primary concern identified during the 30-day public comment period for the Draft IS/MND and in the 30 -day scoping comment period for the Draft EIR. Thus, three primary issue areas have been identified: Effects of recycled water use for irrigation of landscaped areas Effects of recycled water use on the groundwater basin Effects of recycled water use on the urban forest Staff held three stakeholder meetings throughout the public comment review period, specifically with Stanford Land Management and Canopy. After receiving public comment, staff modified the mitigation section of the Final EIR; and staff believes that all stakeholders can now support the project. A major change from the Draft EIR is that the City will implement at least one of three mitigation measures if the City will be unable to meet the commenter’s goal for a Page 5 of 7 TDS of 650 mg/l by project start-up. A second major change is that the City stated that it is initiating a feasibility analysis to treat and blend recycled water prior to delivery. The feasibility analysis is also supported by the City of Mountain View, a RWQCP partner agency, since it already uses the recycled water and has an interest in improving the water quality of the recycled water it delivers. Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Plans for Recycled Water The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) strongly supports expanding the use of recycled water use in the county. SCVWD’s long-term plans include both the use of “non-potable reuse” (NPR) and using advanced treatment systems to purify treated wastewater to potable water standards. The Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center was operational in 2014 and the current drought and concern about dwindling imported water supplies and groundwater levels has encouraged SCVWD to evaluate expanding the use of purified water . Initially, SCVWD is pursuing “indirect potable reuse” (IPR), in which purified water is used to supplement SCVWD’s groundwater recharge operations from existing sources (imported and local stored water). In the future, SCVWD envisions projects that provide “direct potable reuse” (DPR), in which highly purified water could be blended with other untreated water for treatment at the District’s conventional water treatment plants prior to distribution to retailers as potable water. Staff has had early discussions with the City of Mountain View, City of Sunnyvale and the SCVWD regarding opportunities for recycled water project development. The City of Sunnyvale is currently upgrading its wastewater treatment plant and plans to reuse all of its treated effluent for IPR, but wants so ensure that its current NPR water customers will continue to receive recycled water. Staff has discussed the possibility of interconnecting the RWQCP recycled water system through the City of Mountain View to serve NPR water to Sunnyvale’s recycled water customers. Staff is exploring other potential uses of recycled water along the proposed pipeline with the SCVWD, including the possibility of groundwater recharge or other non-potable water uses. Project Alternatives There are several alternatives to the proposed project to bui ld a pipeline to serve areas along the pipeline route to the Stanford Research Park: 1. Convert landscaping to drought tolerant plantings to reduce the need for recycled water. 2. Construct distributed treatment systems at the end user sites to produce recycled water on-site. 3. Wait and build an advanced purification facility that would provide potable water, obviating the need for a separate non-potable water distribution system. Staff believes that the proposed project is justified despite these potenti al alternatives. If all landscaping was converted to drought tolerant plantings, there remain other needs for non - potable water such as for cooling towers, the flushing of toilets and urinals and other processes. Small treatment systems could be constructed at the users’ sites, but these are Page 6 of 7 expected to cost more than the cost for the pipeline to distribute recycled water to all the users. Distributed treatment systems may make sense when a wastewater treatment system is reaching its capacity, but the RWQCP is not near its capacity. If the proposed pipeline was built, it could be used in the future to deliver IPR water to spreading basins or percolation facilities to recharge the groundwater. The proposed pipeline would provide optionality in the future and is not expected to become a stranded asset. Project Timeline The estimated Project timeline is shown in the table below. As shown, there are many steps that remain before the Project would be constructed. A key step is the pursuit of additional funding, which will determine whether the Project can be justified. Task Estimated Completion Facility Plan (Includes preliminary research and project feasibility Completed in 2008 Draft EIR Released April 20, 2014 Public Review of Draft EIR April 20-June 4, 2015 Final EIR and Response to Comments Released Summer 2015 EIR Certified and Project Approved by Palo Alto’s City Council Fall 2015 Project Funding Pursued 2015-2016 Design 2016-2017 Construction 2018 Resource Impact The resource impact of the three recommended actions is negligible. Certification of the Final EIR for the project is the first step to pursue State and Federal funding for the project. If directed, staff will pursue all available funding for the project, and will return to Council with a recommendation on whether to proceed with the project. This recommendation will be accompanied with a full economic analysis based on the funding that can be secured . Policy Implications 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 consistent with the Council direction to reduce imported water supplies and limit or reduce diversions from the Tuolumne River. Environmental Review The EIR complies with Federal and State environmental requirements. The EIR consists of the Draft EIR that was circulated for comments, for which a link is provided (EIR) due to its length, and the Response to Comments to the Draft EIR, which is provided as Attachment A. Attachment A. Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments Document PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: APPROVED BY: KARIN NORTH, Manager of Watershed Protection, Public Works PHIL BOBEL, Asst. Director, Environmental Services, Public Works 1: ~." 7\NE RATCHYE, Asst. Director, Resource Management, Utilities 1V\)ALERIE 0. FONG, Director of Utilities Ml$<£:~ Director of Public Works Page 7 of 7 City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments Document State Clearinghouse No. 2011062037 Prepared by: July 2015 ATTACHMENT A Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page i Response to Comments Document TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 6 Introduction ................................................................................................... 1 6.1 Purpose of the Final Environmental Impact Report ................................................. 1 6.2 Environmental Review Process ................................................................................ 1 6.3 Report Organization .................................................................................................. 2 Chapter 7 Response to Comments ................................................................................. 5 7.1 Master Response (Recycled Water Quality and Trees) ....................................... 5 7.2 Individual Comments and Responses ................................................................ 11 Comment Letter 1 – State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) ....................... 16 Comment Letter 2 - California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) .................... 23 Comment Letter 4 – Stanford University...................................................................... 29 Comment Letter 5 - Canopy ......................................................................................... 31 Comment Letter 6 - Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority ............................... 33 Comment Letter 7 – California Native Plant Society (CNPS) ..................................... 35 Comment Letter 8 –Governor’s Office of Research and Planning, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit ......................................................................................................... 38 Comment Letter 9 – Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society .......................................... 40 Chapter 8 EIR Revisions ............................................................................................. 41 Staff-Initiated Changes and Changes in Response to Public Comments ...................... 41 City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Introduction Final EIR Responses to Comments Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 1 Response to Comments Document Chapter 6 Introduction 6.1 Purpose of the Final Environmental Impact Report This report has been prepared to accompany the Public Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Palo Alto Recycled Water Project. The Public Draft EIR identified the impacts / environmental consequences associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project and recommended mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts. This document (Response to Comments) responds to the comments on the Public Draft EIR and makes revisions to the Public Draft EIR, as necessary, in response to these comments. Together with the Public Draft EIR, this document constitutes the Final EIR for the proposed project. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the proposed project is included in this document as Appendix A. The Final EIR consists of the following: (a) The Public Draft EIR; and (b) Response to Comments document containing the following: • Comments received on the Public Draft IS/MND. • A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Public Draft EIR. • The response of the lead agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. • Staff-initiated text changes added by the lead agency to clarify information presented in the Public Draft EIR. 6.2 Environmental Review Process The Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) is owned and operated by the City of Palo Alto for the communities of Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Stanford University and the East Palo Alto Sanitary District. The City and the RWQCP member agencies prepared the Water Reclamation (now referred to as Recycled Water) Master Plan (Master Plan) for the Palo Alto RWQCP in 1992 and the accompanying Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in 1995 (CH2MHill, 1995). The Master Plan included a phased approach to the expansion of treatment, distribution, storage, and use of recycled water and evaluated, at a program-level, development of a regional water reuse system that could ultimately provide service to the entire RWQCP service area including the cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, East Palo Alto, Los Altos Hills, part of Menlo Park, as well as Stanford University. The proposed Project is Phase 3 of the RWQCP recycled water system. On April 20, 2015, the City of Palo Alto (lead agency) released the Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Public Draft EIR for public review (State Clearinghouse No. 2011062037). The Public Draft EIR evaluates project-specific impacts of the Palo Alto Recycled Water Project, which is the next phase of the Recycled Water Master Plan. The public review and comment period on the Public Draft EIR began on April 20, 2015 and closed on June 4, 2015. The public review period was extended to June 8 at the request of the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society. The City of Palo Alto City Council is scheduled to consider certifying the Final EIR (a finding that the EIR complies with the requirements of CEQA) at a regularly scheduled Council meeting in October 2015. Following Final EIR certification, the City Council may proceed with consideration of project approval actions. City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Introduction Final EIR Responses to Comments Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 2 Response to Comments Document In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15087, the City provided a Notice of Availability (NOA) notifying the public of the publication of the Public Draft EIR. The notice was sent via regular mail and email. Copies of the Public Draft EIR were sent to responsible agencies as well as the State Clearinghouse. Additional notification was provided through the publication of a legal notice in the Palo Alto Weekly on April 24, 2015 1. During the 49-day public comment period, two public meetings were held on May 19, 2015 and May 21, 2015 at the Mitchell Park Community Center in the City of Palo Alto to discuss the proposed project and receive comments on the Public Draft EIR. The date, time, and place of the meeting were identified in the NOA, the Palo Alto Weekly on April 24, 2015, as well as the City’s website. Public meeting sign-in sheets were passed around at the meeting and are included in this document as Appendix B. Two public citizens attended the meeting on May 19 and four public citizens attended the meeting on May 21 2. No verbal or written comments were made at the first meeting, and verbal comments from the second meeting were provided in letter format subsequent to the meeting. In addition, the City met with Stanford University separately on May 18 to discuss comments on the Public Draft EIR. 6.3 Report Organization Chapter 7 of this Response to Comments document contains copies of comment letters received during the comment period followed by the City’s responses to those comments. Each comment is numerically coded in the margin of the comment letter, based on the number assigned for each letter (see Table 6-1 below) and the order of the comments. For example, the first comment in the letter from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is 1-1. Because many of the comments concerned the issue of recycled water quality and effects on redwood trees/urban forest, a master response regarding this topic has been prepared and is presented up front, before the responses to the individual comments. Revisions to the Public Draft EIR are made as a staff-initiated change or in response to comments, and are shown in Chapter 8, EIR Revisions. Text revisions are formatted in revision fashion: strikeouts indicate removed text and underlines indicate new text. The Public Draft EIR is not reprinted with the revisions included. Rather, as discussed above, the Public Draft EIR, along with the Responses to Comments document, together constitute the Final EIR. Table 6-1 lists all persons and organizations that submitted comments on the Public Draft EIR during the comment period, the date of the letters, and the numbers used to identify each letter. Each communication is identified below by number, comment author and date. 1 http://www.paloaltoonline.com/morguepdf/2015/2015_04_24.paw.section1.pdf 2 More than two individuals attended the meeting on May 19 and included representatives of the City. One of the private citizens attending the meeting on May 19 elected not to be included on the sign-in sheet. City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Introduction Final EIR Responses to Comments Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 3 Response to Comments Document Table 6-1: Comment Letters Comment Letter Number Comment Author, Title and Affiliation Comment Letter Date 1 Ahmad Kashkoli, Senior Environmental Scientist, State Water Resources Control Board May 13, 2015 2 Patricia Maurice, District Branch Chief, Local Government – Intergovernmental Review, California Department of Transportation June 3, 2015 3 Dawn S. Cameron, County Transportation Planner, County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department June 4, 2015 4 Jim Inglis, Director of Design & Construction, and Jean McCown, Assistant Vice- President, Stanford University Real Estate Office. June 4, 2015 5 Catherine Martineau, Executive Director, Canopy June 4, 2015 6 Roy Molseed, Senior Environmental Planner, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority June 4, 2015 7 Linda Ruthruff, Chair, Conservation Committee, California Native Plant Society, Santa Clara Valley Chapter June 4, 2015 8 Scott Morgan, Director, State Clearinghouse June 4, 2015 9 Shani Kleinhaus, Ph.D., Environmental Advocate, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society June 8, 2015 City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Introduction Final EIR Responses to Comments Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 4 Response to Comments Document This page intentionally left blank City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Response to Comments Final EIR Responses to Comments Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 5 Response to Comments Document Chapter 7 Response to Comments 7.1 Master Response (Recycled Water Quality and Trees) A number of individuals commented on the issue of recycled water quality and its effects on salt- sensitive trees. For that reason, a master response has been developed to provide a discussion of this issue in one location. This master response addresses comments made by the following (please see individual comment letters for verbatim comments): • Stanford University (Comment 4 -1) • Canopy (Comments 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3) • California Native Plant Society (Comment 7-1) • Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society (Comment 9-1) The commenters expressed both support and concerns about the use of recycled water for irrigation and the effects of recycled water on the City’s urban forest/redwood trees. The City recognizes the value of the urban forest and street trees and thus has prepared an Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP) and Tree Technical Manual, and has a Tree Ordinance in place to address these resources. The UFMP, summarized in Section 1.6.3 (on p. 1-13 in Chapter 1, Introduction and Project Background, of the Public Draft EIR) establishes long-term management goals and strategies to foster a sustainable urban forest in Palo Alto. The UFMP identifies alternative water sources for landscape irrigation, including recycled water. The City has been aware of public concerns regarding the local use of recycled water for irrigation prior to 2009, and thus has proactively addressed this issue by adopting the City’s Salinity Reduction Policy (2010), promoting commitment by the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) Partners to adopt their own salinity reduction policies (2010-2011) and implement projects that would reduce saline infiltration in sewers, implementing and identifying projects within the City to reduce the infiltration of saline groundwater into its sewers, engaging with stakeholders (e.g., Stanford University and Canopy), and preparing an EIR that focuses on this matter. The Public Draft EIR provides an analysis of project effects of using RWQCP- produced recycled water for irrigation of salt-sensitive trees, and outlines the comprehensive strategy that the City has already initiated to reduce salinity in recycled water. Specifically, Section 2.4, Recycled Water Quality (starting on p. 2-11 in Chapter 2, Project Description of the Public Draft EIR) describes recycled water quality produced at the RWQCP and the actions that the City has already initiated and will continue to take to reduce the levels of total dissolved solids (TDS) and related parameters in recycled water. The recycled water that would be provided to landscape customers would be Title 22 disinfected, tertiary recycled water. This level of water is permitted for general use in landscape irrigation and restricted use in recreational impoundments. Recycled water, in general, but also that produced at the RWQCP, has historically had higher salinity compared to the existing potable water supply (Hetch Hetchy water from SFPUC). Because of the City’s recently completed and ongoing projects to address saline infiltration, water quality has improved substantially, as shown in Figure 2-7 of the Public Draft EIR. While the drought has increased TDS levels in the last couple of years, this is anticipated to be a short-term effect that would tend to be reversed over time. As discussed in Section 2.4, the City will continue to strive to meet the goals of the City of Palo Alto Salinity Reduction Policy, which has established a goal of lowering TDS levels for recycled water (see a discussion of this Policy on p. 1-12 in Section 1.5.4 of the Public Draft EIR). The City expects that TDS would cumulatively reduce to below 650 mg/L, which is the impact level for salt-sensitive trees suggested by Stanford University (based on studies conducted by City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Response to Comments Final EIR Responses to Comments Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 6 Response to Comments Document HortScience) and is the value when the salinity hazard is eliminated. The City’s approach to addressing salinity would also involve monitoring of water quality and the implementation of other actions as needed to reduce salinity. Impact HYD-3 in Chapter 3 of the Public Draft EIR analyzes the effects on health of salt- sensitive trees of using recycled water to irrigate landscapes. HYD-3d lays out the variety of factors that affect the response of landscapes to recycled water (e.g., water quality of irrigation water, soil characteristics, salt-tolerance of landscape plants) and references the HortScience study that describes the constituents of concern in recycled water that could affect landscapes as well as the impacts that elevated TDS (in the range of 870 to 1,000 mg/L) could have on certain types of landscapes. As stated on page 3-23 of the Draft EIR: “The study also indicated that the salinity hazard would be eliminated if TDS levels were maintained below 650 mg/L, Ecw below 1,000 µmoh/cm, chloride below 100 mg/L, sodium below 70 mg/L, and specific ranges for the combination of SAR and ECw (HortScience, 2011). This high level of water quality (Category 1 water as defined by HortScience), is appropriate for use for all soil types and salt-sensitive plants3. Because TDS of the RWQCP recycled water would improve toward, and is projected to reach, the 600 mg/L goal by the time the Project is implemented in 2019, it is expected that the salinity hazard from recycled water would be eliminated and it could be used for landscape irrigation without any substantial issues.” Impact HYD-3 also recognizes that the health of trees could decline based on unfavorable circumstances that may not be related to the quality of the water supply. These conditions, including a soil regime that is not suitable for the tree species it supports; pre-existing, suboptimal health of trees; hydrological and climatic conditions (e.g., drought); and diseases, are all factors outside of the City’s control. These conditions, coupled with poor site management, could affect tree health even if the salinity hazard in recycled water is eliminated. Page 3-24 of the Draft EIR notes that: “Despite the potential for a combination of unfavorable conditions where some trees may decline in health and/or appearance, or die (which could occur even if other water sources are used), it is not expected that such fate would occur en masse for substantial numbers of landscaped trees, including protected trees.” The EIR also conservatively analyzes the unlikely possibility that the salinity hazard is not eliminated by the time the Project is operated. Because the City is sensitive to concerns of landowners whose properties are dominated by salt-sensitive tree species, it has identified other actions that would mitigate the potential for damage to those trees. The City has identified a comprehensive mitigation strategy to address potential significant impacts of using recycled water for irrigation on redwood trees and other salt-sensitive species. While recycled water is routinely used for landscapes throughout the state, including in the San Francisco Bay Area, and recycled water with TDS greater than 650 mg/L could be safely used on many landscaped areas, the City has identified a set of mitigation measures that would address the proposed Project’s potential effects on salt-sensitive species, including redwood trees. These measures, specified as Mitigation Measures HYD-3a, HYD-3b, HYD-3c and HYD-3d, have been clarified since publication of the Public Draft EIR as a result of the City’s discussions with Stanford University. The revised mitigation measures, shown with underline for new text and strike-out for deleted text, are included below. 3 HortScience prepared Recycled Water Guidelines for Stanford University which included a discussion of four categories of water quality based on the tolerance of the plant materials to salts in the water source and degree to which soil is expected to become degraded. Category 1 is defined as good water quality with no restrictions on site use. The TDS, chloride and sodium concentrations for a Category 1 source water are <650 mg/L, 100 mg/L and 70 mg/L, respectively, and specific ranges for the combination of SAR and ECw are met, similar to the recommendation provided in the 2011 HortScience report (see Appendix C for the HortScience Guidelines include in the Stanford comment letter). City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Response to Comments Final EIR Responses to Comments Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 7 Response to Comments Document Mitigation Measure HYD-3a. Source Control of Saline Groundwater. The City shall continue to line and repair existing sewers to minimize saline groundwater Infiltration. Mitigation Measure HYD-3b. Monitoring. The City shall immediately begin quarterly monthly monitoring of the salinity (and related constituents) of the recycled water and shall report the rolling 12-month average for comparison to the Palo Alto City Council goal of 600 mg/l TDS. Monthly electronic reporting to those requesting it will be performed for two years, and then the frequency will be re-evaluated. The City shall monitor soil salinity and SAR through semi- annual soil analyses, preferably taken early and late in the irrigation season (approximately April and October). Mitigation Measure HYD-3c: Site Management. As a condition of recycled water use, the City shall require the site owners to: 1) Continue to irrigate with recycled water, even during droughts, (because recycled water is a drought-proof supply), to meet the water demand of the subject plants and trees; and 2) conduct appropriate best management practices/management actions specified below in the event that protected, low-salt-tolerant trees irrigated with recycled water show signs of decline. If at a particular site receiving recycled water, monitoring identifies an increase in soil salinity and SAR over historical levels, the City in cooperation with the owner of that site shall conduct a site-specific evaluation. That evaluation would consider (1) the extent to which the site contains protected trees (including redwood trees and oaks) that might be impacted by soil salinity, (2) the extent to which the elevated salinity is at a level that poses a threat to such protected trees, and (3) the extent to which the elevated salinity is the result of the use of the City's recycled water. If a threat is found, the City shall work cooperatively with the site owner to develop a site-specific mitigation plan, including the site owner's implementation of best management practices which are described below: o To avoid plant damage to salt sensitive landscape plants, site owners can implement a leaching program to maintain soil salinity within the root zone below 2.0 dS/m4 and SAR below 6.0. For moderately salt-tolerant plants, maintain soil salinity below 4.0 dS/m. Where subsoils do not drain adequately, installation of subsurface drainage systems may be needed recommended. Rainfall will satisfy a portion of the leaching requirement, depending on the rate, volume, and distribution through the season. The frequency with which leaching applications should be made depends on several variables, and is typically triggered by approaching soil salinity thresholds defined above. o Site owners can aApply gypsum prior to leaching when indicated by soil analysis. Gypsum is a soil amendment that, when combined with leaching, helps lower soil sodium concentrations. Gypsum application can shall be considered when soil analyses reveal one or more of the following conditions: SAR exceeds 6.0, SAR increases 2 units or more (e.g., 2.3 to 4.3), and/or sodium concentration exceeds 5 meq/l (115 mg/L). The amount of gypsum needed and the frequency of application depend on site-specific soil and water characteristics, and can shall be determined by laboratory analysis. 4 ds/m is decisiemen/meter. A dS/m is a measure of electrical conductivity, and 1.0 dS/m approximates to 640 mg/L TDS. City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Response to Comments Final EIR Responses to Comments Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 8 Response to Comments Document Mitigation Measure HYD-3d: Other Options to Protect Salt-Sensitive Plants. In the event that monitoring results (see Mitigation Measure HYD- 3b) show that optimal concentrations of TDS and related parameters will not be achieved prior to operation of the Project (i.e., recycled water application), the City will consider evaluate and implement one or more of the following other actions to reduce improve TDS levels, as follows: o The City shall amend Utilize its existing Recycled Water Ordinance exemption process (Palo Alto Municipal Code 16.12.050) to include an exemption for to exempt redwood trees (and/or other salt sensitive species) from the use of recycled water and allow for the use of dual systems so the exempted trees could be irrigated separately using potable water, if desired by individual landowners; o The City shall bBlend recycled water and other lower salinity potable water prior to application; and/or o The City shall tTreat recycled water to reduced TDS prior to application, or shortly thereafter (the City is initiating an investigation of the feasibility of Reverse or Forward Osmosis treatment of its recycled water, combined with blending of appropriate water). These measures are not intended to be standalone measures. That is, they are part of a larger vision to ensure that salinity hazard is eliminated and recycled water is safely used on landscapes. The measures involve the City continuing to line and repair existing sewers to minimize saline groundwater infiltration, concurrent monitoring by the City to track success, concurrent best management practices by site owners as needed, and if deemed necessary (in the event the salinity hazard has not been eliminated), other actions to be implemented by the City. With respect to the changes shown above, the first bullet under HYD-3d has been revised because the City will not need to amend its existing Recycled Water Ordinance for the exemption process. Section 16.12.050 of the Ordinance already provides for an exemption from the use of recycled water if recycled water has an adverse effect on an applicant’s landscaping (see Section 1.5.3, City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Ordinance on p. 1-12 in Chapter 1, Introduction and Project Background, of the Public Draft EIR). The last bullet in Mitigation Measure HYD-3d has been revised to include the text “or shortly thereafter” to clarify that if additional treatment is not ready immediately when the recycled water system is ready, it would be ready shortly thereafter. This text is consistent with the discussion on p. 3-24 of the EIR that discusses the unlikely event that TDS and other related parameters in recycled water are not achieved by the time of Project operation. Another change in this bullet is mention of the fact that the City is initiating an investigation of the feasibility of Reverse and Forward Osmosis treatment of its recycled water, combined with blending of appropriate water, because upfront planning is needed in the event that additional treatment is deemed necessary to address recycled water quality. The City is committed to implementing one or a combination of the measures described above and ensuring that impacts to salt-sensitive tree species are less than significant. As part of the CEQA process, these measures will be included in the MMRP as a condition of approval for the proposed Project. It should be noted that despite the changes shown above, the analysis provided in the EIR is adequate, the conclusions remain the same, and the mitigation measures identified are appropriate. The revisions to the mitigation measure were not made in response to an increase in severity of impact as presented in the EIR or any new finding of significant impact. The implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure that impacts would be less than significant. City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Response to Comments Final EIR Responses to Comments Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 9 Response to Comments Document The EIR also addresses the effects of using recycled water to irrigate landscapes on visual quality (see Impact AES-1 on pp. 3-31 and 3-32 in Chapter 3), and on habitat and special-status wildlife (see checklist item a in Section E.3, Biological Resources, on p. E-20 in Appendix E [Volume 2 of the Pubic Draft EIR). The objectives of the Project are listed in Section 1.4.2, Project Objectives (on p. 1-10 to 1-11 of Chapter 1, Introduction and Project Background in the Public Draft EIR). These include the following: • Improve potable water supply reliability by conserving drinking water, currently used for irrigation and other non-potable uses, for potable purposes; • Provide a dependable, locally controlled non-potable water source; • Increase recycled water use from the Regional Water Quality Control Plant; • Secure a non-potable water source that will be available even in droughts to serve irrigation and other non-potable uses; and • Reduce reliance on imported water. As discussed under the No Project Alternative in Chapter 4, Other CEQA and NEPA Considerations (starting on page 4-15 of the Public Draft EIR): “imported water from SFPUC could diminish over time because of droughts, climate change effects, or regulatory actions, which could reduce potable supply for the City in the long term. In the short-term, emergencies such as an earthquake damaging the SFPUC water system could also affect the availability of water supplies for the City. The effects of a diminished supply would be more severe rationing during droughts, and an inability to accommodate future demands associated with approved growth.” The current drought has resulted in mandatory conservation across the state, imposed by the Governor, enacted by the SWRCB, and implemented by local municipalities and public agencies (see p. 4-30 of the Public Draft EIR for a discussion of the actions by the Governor and the SWRCB). Because of this drought, and anticipated droughts in the future, it is critical for the City to find alternative, sustainable water supplies to offset potable water use. Otherwise, during droughts, there would be rationing (in accordance to the stages of actions identified in the Urban Water Management Plan) that could increase in severity depending on the length and duration of the shortage. Under the worst-case situation when there is insufficient potable supply to meet demand, the City could adopt regulations that restrict the use of potable water for landscape irrigation and other non-potable uses for commercial and industrial users entirely (see the No Potable Water Supply for Landscape Irrigation or Other Non-Potable Uses Alternative discussion in Chapter 4 of the Public Draft EIR, starting on page 4-30). With reduced or no potable water for outdoor uses during droughts, there could be substantial impacts on the health and quality of the urban forest due to the reduction or absence of any water for irrigation of the landscape. In such a case, the availability of water (in the form of recycled water) would be critical to maintain landscapes and preserve the urban forest. In response to Comment 5-2, it is not the intent of the City to imply that high quality potable water is wasteful in the landscape; rather, given the reality that droughts are inevitable and could result in insufficient demand to meet potable water needs, it is important to conserve potable water for drinking water uses, and to find alternative, sustainable supplies for non-potable uses, in keeping with the objectives of the project. In addition, the proposed Project would ensure “a reliable supply of water for landscape irrigation” which is “of paramount importance for the function of the urban forest as a whole over the long-term” (p. 3-25 in Chapter 3 of the Public Draft EIR). In response to Comment 9-1, as described above, there would be insufficient water supply to meet the needs of outdoor use if rationing were imposed. It is the intent of the proposed Project to provide a sustainable, alternative water supply that could be used even during droughts, in keeping with the Project objectives, and for the benefit of the urban forest. City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Response to Comments Final EIR Responses to Comments Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 10 Response to Comments Document This page intentionally left blank City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Response to Comments Final EIR Responses to Comments Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 11 Response to Comments Document 7.2 Individual Comments and Responses CALIFORNIA Water Boards EDMUND G. Bnowly GOVERNOR ATrHEw RODRIQUEZ SECRETARY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION State WaterResources Control Board MAY 1 3 2015 Karin North City of Palo Alto 2501 Embarcadero Way Palo Alto; CA 94303 Dear Ms. North: TATE CLEARING: HOUSE I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR CITY OF PALO ALTO` (CITY); `PALO ALTO RECYCLED WATER PROJECT (PROJECT); SANTA CLARA COUNTY; STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2011062037 We understand that the City may be pursuing Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) financing for this Project. As a funding agency and a state agency with jurisdiction by law to preserve, enhance, and restore the quality of California's water resources, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) is providing the following information and comments for the environmental document prepared for the Project. The State Water Board, Division of Financial Assistance, is responsible for administering' the CWSRF Program. The primary purpose for the CWSRF Program is to implement' the Clean Water Act and various statelaws by providing financial assistance for wastewater treatment facilities necessary ,to prevent water pollution, recycle water, correct nonpoint source and storm drainage pollution problems, provide for estuary enhancement, and thereby protect and promote health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the state. The CWSRF Program provides low -interest funding' equal to one-half of the most recent State General Obligation Bond Rates with a 30-yearterrn. Applications are accepted and processed continuously: Please refer to the State Water Board's CWSRF website at: www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/grants loans/srflindex.shtml. The CWSRF Program is partially funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and requires additional "CEQA-Plus" environmental documentation and review. Three enclosures are included that further explain the CWSRF Program environmental review process and the additional federal requirements. For the complete environmental application package, please visit: httpa/www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/grants loans/srf/srf forms.shtml. The State Water Board is required to consult directly with agencies responsible for implementing federal environmental laws and regulations. Any environmental issues raised by federal agencies or their representatives will need to be resolved prior to State Water Board approval of a CWSRF financing commitment for the proposed Project. For further information on the CWSRF Program, please contact Mr. Ahmad Kashkoli, at (916) 341-5855. It is important to note that prior to a CWSRF financing commitment, projects are subject to provisions of the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), and must obtain Section 7 clearance from the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service;(USFWS), and/or the United States Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for any potential effects to special status species. FELICIA. MARCUS,CHAIR I THOMAS HOWARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. 1001 I Street;Sacramento, CA 95814 1 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 100, Sacramento, Ca 95812-0100 1 www.waterboards.ca.gov 0 RECYCLED PAPE Please be advised that the State Water Board will consult with the USFWS, and/or the NMFS regarding all federal special -status species that the Project has the potential to impact if the Project is to be financed by the CWSRF Program. The City will need to identify whether the Project will involve any direct effects from construction activities, or indirect effects such as growth inducement, that may affect federally listed threatened, endangered, or candidate species that are known, or have a potential to occur in the Project site, in the surrounding areas, or in the service area, and to identify applicable conservation measures to reduce such effects. In addition, CWSRF projects must comply with federal laws pertaining to cultural resources, specifically Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106). The State Water Board has responsibility for ensuring compliance with Section 106 and the State Water Board must consult directly with the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). SHPO consultation is initiated when sufficient information is provided by the CWSRF applicant. The City must retain a consultant that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards (httpJ/www.nps.:gov/history/local-law/arch stnds 9.htm) to prepare a Section 106 compliance report. Note that the City will need to identify the Area of Potential Effects (APE), including construction and staging areas, and the depth of any excavation. The APE is three-dimensional and includes all areas that may be affected by the Project. The APE includes the surface area and extends below ground to the depth of any Project excavations. The records search request should extend to a'/z-mile beyond Project APE. The appropriate area varies for different projects but should be drawn large enough to provide information on what types of sites may exist in the vicinity. Other, ;Wesel environmental requirements _pertinent to the Project under the CWSRF _Pro_gram include the following (for a complete list of all environmental requirements, please visit: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/grants loans/sif/docs/forms/application environ mental package.pdf): A. Compliance with the Federal Clean Air Act: (a) Provide air quality studies that may have been done for the Project; and (b) if the Project is in a nonattainment area or attainment area subject to a maintenance plan, (i) provide a summary of the estimated emissions (in tons per year) that are expected from both the construction and operation of the Project for each federal criteria pollutant in a nonattainment or maintenance area, and indicate if the nonattainment designation is moderate, serious, or severe (if applicable); (ii) if emissions are above the federal de'minimis levels, but the Project is sized to meet only the needs of current population projections that are used in the approved State ImplementationPlanfor air quality, quantitatively indicate how the proposed capacity increase was calculated using population projections. B. Compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act: Identify whether the Project is within a coastal zone and the status of any coordination with the California Coastal Commission. C. Protection of Wetlands: Identify any portion of the proposed Project area that should be evaluated for wetlands or United States waters delineation by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), or requires a permit from the USACE, and identify the status of coordination with the USACE. D. Compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act: Identify whether the Project will result in the conversion of farmland. State the status of farmland (Prime, Unique, or Local Statewide Importance) in the Project area and determine if this area its under a Williamson Act Contract. E. Compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act: List any birds protected under this act that may be impacted by the Project and identify conservation measures to minimize impacts. F. Compliance with the flood Plain Management Act: Identify whether or not the Project is in a Flood Management Zone and include a copy of the Federal Emergency Management Agency flood zone maps for the area. G. Compliance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act: Identify whether or:not .any Wild and,Scenic Rivers would be potentially impacted by the Project and include conservation measures to minimize such impacts. Following are specific comments on the City's draft EIR: 1. Page 3-1'ofthe City's Draft EIR, Volume 1, describes the risk of flooding in regards to the proposed Project. Please provide a map depicting the FEMA-designated-flood zones in relation to the proposed Project. 2. Table E-3 and E-4 of •the Air Quality section in Appendix E: Environmental Checklist shows that NOxthresholds may be exceeded during construction of the Project unless Mitigation. Measure AIR -1 is implemented. Please provide a table showing NOX emissions after Mitigation Measure AIR -1 is applied._ Appendix I: Air Quality Emissions Calculations show unmitigated and mitigated construction emissions, however there is no difference in NOx levels among the two scenarios. 3. The Biological Resources Assessment indicated that a search of the California Native Plant Society, California Natural Diversity Database, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service species lists were reviewed for the Project. Please include these lists in the Assessment. 4. If the City is seeking CWSRF funding for the proposed Project, please consider the following in regards to cultural resources: The records search conducted for the Cultural Resources•Assessment Report extends beyond the Project APE% of a mile. Please be advised that CWSRF program requirements specify that the records search should extend to a'/2 mile beyond the Project APE. Page 45 of the Cultural Resources Assessment Report states that a records search was conducted for the Project at Northwestern Information Center on October23, 2014. The References Cited beginning on page 70 of the Report shows that cultural resource records searches were requested by William Self Associates, Inc. on September 6, 2007, March 12, 2008, and March 14, 2008. Please include the most current request for the cultural resource records search in the References Sited for the Report. iii. Please include the email sent to the NAHC requesting information on sacred lands and Native American contacts on October 22, 2014. In addition, please provide documentation of follow-up phone calls made to the Native American contacts provided by the Native American Heritage Commission and the responses from any of these contacts. Please provide us with the following documents applicable to the proposed Project if seeking CWSRF or other State Water Board funding: (1) one copy ofthe draft and final EIR, (2) the resolution certifying the EIR and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) making California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings, (3) all comments received during the review period and the City's response to those comments, (4) the adopted MMRP, and (5). the Notice of Determination filed with the Santa Clara County Clerk and the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse. In addition, we would appreciate notices of any hearings or meetings held regarding environmental review of any projects to be funded by the State Water Board. Thank you for the opportunity to review the City's draft EIR. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at (916) 341-5855, or by email at Ahmad.Kashkoli@waterboards.ca.gov, or contact Elysar Naja at (916) 327-9117, or by email at Elvsar.Naia(waterboards.ca.gov. Sincerely, Ahmad Kashkoli Senior Environmental Scientis Enclosures (3) 1. Clean Water State Revolving Fund Environmental Review Requirements 2. Quick Reference Guide to CEQA Requirements for State Revolving Fund Loans 3. Basic Criteria for Cultural Resources Reports cc: State Clearinghouse (Re: SCH# 2011062037) P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Response to Comments Final EIR Responses to Comments Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 16 Response to Comments Document Comment Letter 1 – State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Response to Comment 1-1 Because the City intends to apply for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) funding, the City has prepared an EIR to meet CEQA-Plus requirements, as specified in the Executive Summary chapter in the Public Draft EIR (see p. ES-5). It should be noted that because the City is also seeking funding from the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) through the Title XVI Program, it is also meeting NEPA requirements, which fulfills the CEQA-Plus requirements. Based on a kick-off meeting with Reclamation and SWRCB on August 12, 2010, staff from both agencies agreed that Reclamation would take the lead on United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) informal consultation and Section 106 consultation. Based on the results of the Biological Resources Assessment, Reclamation has already requested concurrence from USFWS that the proposed Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, federally- listed species (May 19, 2015). The Section 106 process is not yet complete, and subsurface testing may be needed depending on the method that the City will ultimately select for construction of the proposed pipelines. Once complete, Reclamation Staff will complete the Section 106 process and sign off on the Finding of No Significant Impact, to complete the NEPA process. Please refer to Appendix E of the Public Draft EIR for discussions of air quality conformity, biological resources and cultural resources effects associated with the proposed Project. Section 4.5.4 (starting on p. 4-33 of Chapter 4, Other CEQA and NEPA Considerations in Volume 1 of the Public Draft EIR), discusses compliance with relevant federal laws, executive orders, and policies, in keeping with CEQA-Plus requirements. Response to Comment 1-2 A map of FEMA-designated flood zones is provided in Chapter 8 of this document, EIR Revisions. The section on flooding in Chapter 3 (p. 3-1 of the Public Draft EIR) has been updated to include a reference to the figure and minor staff-initiated changes to the text to clarify the description of flood zones. The analysis of potential flood risks does not change. The significance determination remains the same and no changes are warranted to the conclusions presented in the Public Draft EIR. Response to Comment 1-3 Appendix I (Volume 2 of the Public Draft EIR) includes the results of air quality modeling conducted for the project. In the table “Maximum Daily Construction Emission (lbs/day) on p. 1 of the appendix, it shows that NOx for the 2-crew scenario (for the pipeline) is 85.0 lbs/day and for the 1-crew scenario is 51.1 lbs/day. The subsequent tables in Appendix I that show results for mitigated / unmitigated construction are for the pump station; the CalEEMOD results automatically identify both scenarios, even though there is no difference because the City did not include any mitigation in the analysis. The results of the air quality modeling for pipeline construction assuming both 2- and 1-crew scenarios are shown in the section of results titled “Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 7.1.5.1”. The 1-crew scenario is the scenario described in Mitigation Measure AIR-1. Dust control mitigation using watering trucks is assumed in the model runs for pipeline construction under all pipeline construction scenarios. It should be noted that those tables erroneously show “Pasadena RW” in the “Emission Estimates for” field. They should state “City of Palo Alto RW.” These changes have been addressed in Chapter 8, EIR Revisions below, and do not affect the analysis or conclusions in the Public Draft EIR. City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Response to Comments Final EIR Responses to Comments Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 17 Response to Comments Document Response to Comment 1-3 Because the SRF application materials will require database searches that are less than one year old, the City will provide the requested information (USFWS, CDFW Natural Diversity Database, and CNPS species list), when it submits the SRF application. Response to Comment 1-5 The City notes the need to conduct a cultural resources record search that extends ½ mile beyond the Project APE. As indicated in Section E.4, Cultural Resources (p. E-28 in Appendix E, Volume 2 of the Public Draft EIR), the latest records search of the proposed Project area, which extends ¼ mile beyond the Project APE, was conducted on October 23, 2014. Because the SRF application materials will require a record search that is less than one year old, the City will conduct a new record search when it submits the SRF application. It should be noted that the current search is adequate for the evaluation of impacts in the Public Draft EIR because the ¼ mile area covers all potential resources within the APE that could be affected. Thus, the analysis and conclusions for cultural resources in the Public Draft EIR are adequate and do not need to be revised. In addition to the City providing an updated cultural resource records search at the time of SRF application submittal, the City will provide the correspondence with NAHC requesting information on sacred lands and Native American contacts, as well as follow-up documentation to the Native American contacts. The absence / inclusion of this material does not affect the analysis or conclusions in the Public Draft EIR. Response to Comment 1-6 The City will provide the requested information when it submits the SRF application. The City will also notify SWRCB regarding any hearings/meetings held regarding environmental review for this Project. Jun 03 2015 8:51AM HP LASERJET FAX p. 1 STAIE OE CALIEQRWA-N r IF1J.BNIA STATE TRANSPORIAl'XON AP.ENCY EDI....n.JNI) G BROWN Jr Goyr.:rpQI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT4 P.O. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623~0660 . • PHONE (510) 286·5'28 FAX (.S 10) 286-5SS9 s'.,.'""'8 Drorjght. He(p "'~ wate,. ! TTY 7ll www.dot.ca.gov June 3, 2015 Ms. Karin North Planning and Commilllity Environment Department City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Ms. North: SCLVAR013 SCLN AR/PM VAR SCI:I# 2011062037 Palo Alto Recyeled Water Project -Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Thank you for continuing to include the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the project referenced above. The mission of Caltrans is to provide 4 safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California~ s economy and livability. The Caltrans District 4 Local Development~Intergovernmental Review (LD-IGR) Program reviews land use and plans to ensure consistency with o~r mission and state planning priorities of infill~ cons~rvationism, and efficient development. We have reviewed the DEIR and have the following comments to ·offer. Please also refer to our previous comment letters, dated April 8, 2009, and July 18, 201 l, on this project's Mitigated Negative Declaration and Notice of Preparation~ respectively. We provide these comments consistent with the State's smart mobility go.al& to support a vibrant economy and build communities~ :not gprawl. Pro)llct Ut1dirstt1ndi11g . The proposed. project would construct a recycled water pipeline andias9ociated facilities to provide an altemative water supply for non-potable u.~es. The proposed Project would involve the construction and operation of the foliowing: · • About 5 miles of 12-to 18-inch backbone pipelines; • About 5 miles of 6-to 10-in.ch lateral pipelines to over. SO use sites; • Up to J 3 500-square-foot booster pump station along th~ proposed pipeline; • Up to 1~600-squarc-foot pump station at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP); • -0.1 S mile of connection pipeline in and north of the RWQCP (on Embarcadero Road); and • Up to 0. 15 mile of connection pipeline on East Bayshore Road t¢ oonnect the proposed pipeline to· the existing Mountain View recycled water pipeline. "Provide a safe, ~u:Jta;nable, infegraltd am/ effiate11t lt~rJJp(Jt/ctttoh sys~m to enhQn'e California's eccmomy and livubtlfty" Jun 03 2015 8:51AM HP LASERJET FAX Ms. Karin North/City of Palo Alto June 3, 2015 Page2 ....... The Project would initi.ally provide approximately 9o'O acre.feet pe~ year {AFY) of recycled water, primarily to the Stanford Research Park Area. Future extensibns could serve Stanford University and Los Altos Hills~ as well as provide a loop by ma.king a second connectionto the Phase 2 Mountain View Project. The predominant use of recycled ~ater for thi~ Project would be landscape irrigation. Sm;ne industrial use,, such as commercial and lfaht industrial cooling towers, could also be included at a later date. Lead Agency ; As the lead agency, the City of Palo Alto (City) is responsible for a~l project mitigation, including.any needed improvemeµts to State highways. T.he project1s fair share c~ntribution, financing~ scheduling~ implementation re$ponsibilities and lead ageiicy monitotjng should be fully discussed for all proposed.mitigation measures. Transp(lrtatlon Management Plan (TMP) If it is detennined that traffic restrictions and detours are needed, a TMP or constmction TIA may be required for approval by Caltrans prior to construction. Traffic Management Plans must be prepared in accordance with Caltrans! TMP Guidelines. Further i~formation· is available for download at the following web address: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tra.ffops/trafmgmt/tmp,..,, lcs/index.htm. Please ensure that such plans are also prepared in accordance with the TMP r~quirements of the . corresponding jurisdictions. For further 1MP assistance, please contact the Caltrans District 4 Office of Traffic Management Operations at (S 10) 286-4579. Cultural Resources Caltrans requires that a projeces envirorunental document include documentation of a current archaeological record search from the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Infonnation System if.construction activities are proposed within State right-of-way (ROW). Current record searches must be no more than flvc years old. Caltrans requires the records search, and if wananted~ a cultural resource study by a qualified, professional archaeologist, and evidence of.Native American consultation to ens(tre compliance w~th CEQA, Section 5024.5 and 5097 of the California Public Resources Code) and Volume 2 of Caltrans' Standard· Environmental Reference (http:/ /www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol2/vol2 .. htm). These requirements, including applicable mitigation, must'be fu.lfill~d before an encroachment pennit can be issued for project-related work in State ROW.·Work sµbject to these requirements includes, but is not limited to: lane widening, chaMeli2ation, auxilif\ry lanes~ arid/or modification of existing features such as slopes 1 drainage features, curbs, sidewalks and driveways within or adjacent-to State ROW. · Transportation Permit Project work that requires movement of oversized or excessive load yehlcles on State roadways requires a transportation permit that is issued by Caltrans. To apply, a completed transportation permit application with the determined specific route(s) for the shipper to follow from· origin to destination must be submitted to: David Salladay~ District Office chief, Office of Permits9 "P1avidfi! a 5qfe, su.5talnahlre, Integrated and (ffeclimt transporrtt.tJon .sy.!l"t:m la enhance California '11 economy arid livahl.lJt;y" Jun 03 2015 B:51AM HP LASERJET FAX Ms. Karin North/City of Palo Alto June 3, 2015 Page3 CalifomiaDepanment of Transportation, District 4, P.O. Box 23660, OakJand, CA 94623-0660. See the following website for more information: http://www.dot.c~.gov/hq/traffops/permits. Encroachment Permit . Please be advised that any work or traffic control that encroaches dnto the State ROW requires an encroaclunent permit that is issued by Caltrans. Work within St$.te ROW at State Route (SR) 82 (El Camino Real) a~d U.S. Highway (U.S.) 101 should be done1using the "jack and bore" method, which is preferred over the open-cut trench method. Neith¢ropen .. cut trenching in a lane of a State facility nor hanging or attaching a utility such as a pipeli*e to a bridge or overpass structure will be permitted. To apply~ a completed encroachment p~nnit application, enviromnental documentation, and five (5) sets of plans clearly indicating State ROW must be submitted to: David Salladay, District Office Chief, Office of Perm~ts, California Department of Transportation, District 4, P.O. Box 23660~ Oakland, CA 94623·06~0. Traffic .. related mitigation measures should be incorporated into the construction plans prior to the encroachment pennit process. See this website for more information: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/developserv/pennits. Should you have any questions regarding this lettert please contact' Brian Ashurst at (510) 286- 5505 or brian.as~urst@dot.ca.gov. Sinoerelyt PATRICIA MAURICE District Branch Chief Local Development -Intergovernmental Review c: Scott Morgan~ State Clearinghouse "Prt:Md~ a 5qfe, sustatnablf1, ;megrated and efflatenr tran~portG'lflon .~8tt111 ta snhcmce Calrforma '.! ectmom)' and f/Yt:tbWly" i,i 1 kJ 1‘ 11Vli .111 1 'jr 1 i(t11"131-4J1( 1 H.111...1N 111 GRAND AVENUE P. O. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510) 622-5491 FAX (510) 286-5559 TTY 711 April 8, 2009 APR 1 0 2009 <;- ' En and Ms. Clare Campbell COMIp GM �� -� onment City of Palo .Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Ms. Campbell: Flex your power! Be energy efficient! SCL-082-24.04 SCL082418 SCH2009032065 Palo Alto Recycled Water Project - Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the environmental review process for the proposed project. We have reviewed the MND for the proposed Palo Alto Recycled Water Project and have the following comments to offer. As lead agency, the City of Palo Alto is responsible for allproject mitigation, including any needed improvements to state highways. The project's fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures and the project's traffic mitigation fees should be specifically identified in the environmental document. Any required roadway improvements should be completed prior to issuance of project occupancy permits. An encroachment permit is required when the project involves work in the State Right of Way (ROW). Therefore, we strongly recommend that the lead agency ensure resolution of the Department's concerns prior to submittal of the encroachment permit application. Further comments will be provided during the encroachment permit process as required; see the end of this letter for more information regarding the encroachment permit process. Cultural Resources The cultural resource study satisfies the Department's cultural resource legal requirements. Although there is no known site within State ROW for this project, should ground -disturbing activities take place within State ROW and there is an inadvertent archaeological or burial discovery, all construction within 50 feet of the find shall cease in compliance with CEQA, PRC 5024.5, and Department Standard Environmental Reference (SER) Chapter 2 (at http://ser.dot.ca.gov). The Department's Cultural Resource Studies Office, District 4, shall be immediately contacted at (510) 286-5618. A staff archaeologist, will evaluate the finds within one business day after contact. "Caltrans improves mobility across California" April 7, 2009 Page 2 Permits Transportation Permit - Project work that requires movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles on State roadways, such as State Route (SR) 82 and US 101 requires a transportation permit that is issued by the Department. To apply, a completed transportation permit application with the determined specific route(s) for the shipper to follow from origin to destination must be submitted to the address below. Office of Transportation Permits, California DOT Headquarters P.O. Box 942874 Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 See the following website link for more information: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/permits/. Encroachment Permits — Additionally, any work that encroaches onto the State ROW requires an encroachment permit that is issued by the Department. To apply, a completed encroachment permit application, environmental documentation, and five (5) sets of plans clearly indicating State ROW must be submitted to the address below. Traffic -related mitigation measures.will be incorporated into the construction plans during the encroachment permit process. Office of Permits California DOT, District 4 P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 See the website link below for more information: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/developserv/permits/ Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please call Jose L. Olveda of my staff at (510) 286-5535. Silcerely, tak/ LISA CARBONI District Branch Chief Local Development — Intergovernmental Review c. Scott Morgan (State Clearinghouse) "Caltrans improves mobility across California" City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Response to Comments Final EIR Responses to Comments Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 23 Response to Comments Document Comment Letter 2 - California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Response to Comment 2-1 Caltrans’ April 8, 2009 comment letter to the Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (March 2009) is included above following the June 3, 2015 letter. Caltrans’ July 18, 2011 comment letter on the Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Notice of Preparation (NOP) is included in Appendix C of the Public Draft EIR (see Volume 2 of the Public Draft EIR). Because the comments in the April 8, 2009 letter are very similar to those specified in Caltrans’ June 3, 2015 letter, and the Public Draft EIR was prepared in consideration of NOP comments, no additional responses to the July 2011 letter are warranted (and the April 2009 letter is not bracketed). As indicated above, the City considered comments on the NOP in preparing the Public Draft EIR. The need for a Traffic Impact Study was considered and described in Response to Comment 2-2 below. Response to Comment 2-2 The City is responsible for all project mitigation. All standard project requirements and mitigation measures identified in the Public Draft EIR will be incorporated into the MMRP, and implementation of the MMRP will be a condition of approval for the proposed Project. Chapter 2 of the Public Draft EIR discusses the proposed Project, and identifies the potential for the Project to cross under US 101 and for construction to occur along El Camino Real or State Route (SR) 82 (between Page Mill Road and Hanson Way). Figure 2-2 illustrates the options to cross US-101. The proposed alignment would cross under US 101 using trenchless construction (i.e., bore and jack, microtunneling, or horizontal directional drilling [HDD]) within the area defined by the polygon in Figure 2-2; Option 1 is to cross under US 101 by hanging from the pedestrian bridge along the south side of Adobe Creek. As described on page 2-20 of the EIR, the precise option and locations would be determined during design. The Project proposes to cross SR 82 using trenchless construction techniques, as shown in Table 2-1 (see p. 2-8) and discussed in Section E.4 (p. E-65) of the Public Draft EIR. Option 2 would include installation of the pipeline alignment on El Camino Real between Page Mill Road and Hanson Way via open-cut construction or HDD. Open-cut construction would likely require a minimum one-lane of traffic and the adjacent shoulder, resulting in a construction corridor of approximately 20 to 30 feet wide. As specified in the Public Draft EIR, under the proposed Project, the precise location and method of construction will be determined by the City during design. Caltrans has indicated in the June 2015 comment letter that “work within State ROW at State Route (SR 82 (El Camino Real) and U.S. Highway (U.S.) 101 should be done using the ‘jack and bore’ method, which is preferred over the open-cut trench method. Neither open-cut trenching in a lane of a State facility nor hanging or attaching a utility such as a pipeline to a bridge or overpass structure will be permitted” (see Comment 1-5). It should be noted that the Public Draft EIR specifies that the pipeline crossing US-101 could be hung from the bridge along Adobe Creek. Existing pipelines are currently hung from the bridge. The City will discuss the crossing design with Caltrans to confirm whether this is acceptable given that current, existing use of the bridge. The Draft EIR has been clarified to show that hanging from the bridge is allowed only with approval from Caltrans. Because the proposed Project would cross State facilities using trenchless construction, City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Response to Comments Final EIR Responses to Comments Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 24 Response to Comments Document no direct impacts to traffic along US 101 or SR 82 would occur5. In addition, the City proposes implementation of a Traffic Control Plan as part of the proposed Project (see Chapter 2, Project Description). The avoidance of State facilities and implementation of the Traffic Control Plan would ensure that any potential traffic-related effects would be less than significant. The City previously assessed the need to prepare a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) based on Caltrans comments received during the NOP period and determined that the threshold for preparing a TIA was not triggered. As described in the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (December 2002), a TIS is needed if a project generates over 50 or more peak hour trips assigned to a State highway facility or if a project generates 1 to 49 peak hour trips with specific conditions met (e.g., affected State highway facilities experiencing significant delay, the potential risk for a traffic accident is significantly increased, or change in local circulation networks that impact a State highway facility). Based on the criteria above, and the fact that the proposed alignment would not directly affect State highway facilities, the City did not prepare a TIA. The City acknowledges Caltrans comment that a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) or construction TIA may be required if it is determined that the traffic restrictions and detours are needed. The City has clarified in Chapter 8, EIR Revisions below, that Option 2 would utilize trenchless construction methods, and would not be conducted using open-cut construction. Because the Public Draft EIR evaluates both open-cut construction and trenchless construction for pipeline construction, all anticipated impacts have been evaluated and no additional modification of the Public Draft EIR is needed. Response to Comment 2-3 A Cultural Resources Assessment Report was conducted for the proposed Project and is included as Appendix K of the Public Draft EIR (see Volume 2). As described in the report and summarized in Section E.4 (Cultural Resources) of Appendix E, a records search was conducted at the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University and Native American Consultation was conducted in October 2014. The report describes the effects of the proposed Project on cultural resources along the proposed pipelines, including areas in and around Caltrans facilities as describe in Response to Comment 2-2 above. Standard project requirements to protect cultural resources, including human remains, and paleontological resources have been incorporated as part of the Project to ensure potential impacts are reduced to less than significant. These measures are intended to be implemented during construction, in the event that previously unrecorded or unknown cultural resources are discovered. The Public Draft EIR did not find areas of high archaeological sensitivity in the areas around Caltrans facilities and thus no additional mitigation measures apply to these specific areas. This information would support the City’s application for an encroachment permit. Response to Comment 2-4 The City acknowledges the need for a transportation permit from Caltrans for the movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles on State roadways, and, if needed, will submit an application accordingly prior to construction. Response to Comment 2-5 The City acknowledges the need for an encroachment permit prior to construction and Caltrans’ preference for bore and jack construction on State ROW. The City will submit the appropriate application forms for this process prior to construction. 5 Construction of Option 2, which is not part of the proposed Project, had previously been identified as open-cut. Based on CalTrans’ comments, Table 2-1 in Chapter 2, Project Description, has been revised to shown trenchless construction. Please see Chapter 3, EIR Revisions, for the change. C m 'y ,f ISM ara lioads and Airpoi°t Dc partirtcrit 1t)1 Sk)'I 011 Drive gC1 .lose; (dlltolllin 9511 :30 1-408-573-2400 ne4, 2015 I ari1 North City of Palo Alto 2501 Embarcadero Way Palo Alto, CA 94303 SUBJ CT: Draft Envir°onurental Impact Report —Palo Alto .ecyeled ate rProject Dear Ms, Nort The County of Santa Clara Roads arid, Airports Departlnel is submitting the following comments. appr iates the opportunity to review to the draft EIR atld Page Mill Road from, Alma Street to 1-280 is a County -maintained expressway. Table 2-1 on page 2-8 notes that the pipeline would be located in the'Page Mill Road right-of-way from Alma Street to Hanover Street with a proposed construction method of open -cut trenching. The County does not permit open -cut trenching of the expressways. The construction method for all expressway alignments and crossings (Page Mill Road and Foothill Expressway) is to be bore and jack. The EIR should be updated to reflect the proper construction method for the expressways. The EIR should include Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department as a listed agency for which encroachment permits and approvals are required(Section 2.6, page 2-30). Please contact Permits at (408) 573-2475 to obtain further instructions in receiving an Encroachment Permit before work begins vvithin County right-of-way. As part of the submittal, the City should submit plans, specifications, and a traffic control plan to County Roads for review and approval prior to beginning the construction \\fork, The design plans shall beconsistent with the September 1997 Standard Detail Manual, County of Santa Clara, Roads and Airports Department and all subsequent Notices of Change, the most current dated July 1, 2014. If you have any questions or concerns about these comments, please contact life at (408) 573-2465 or dawn.cameron cr rda.sccgov.or-g. S Dawn S, Cameros County Transportation P1annt cc: Masoud Akbarzadeh, Coaitr�71 Traffic L`ttg + Ananth Prasad, Senior Tv/1k Engineer Board oP l Count) ° E_xe vl11 E wassern vez, i )71\re Cortese, K Yeager. S. loscph 'lnrtiari et., v.Smith City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Response to Comments Final EIR Responses to Comments Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 26 Response to Comments Document Comment Letter 3 – County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department Response to Comment 3-1 The County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department has specified that the construction method for all expressway alignments and crossings is not open-cut trenching but rather using a trenchless technique. The City will revise the EIR to show that Page Mill Road from Alma Street to Hanover Street would be conducted using trenchless methods. Because the Public Draft EIR evaluates both open-cut and trenchless construction of its pipeline alignments, all anticipated impacts have been evaluated and no additional modification of the Public Draft EIR is needed. Response to Comment 3-2 The Roads and Airports Department specified that the City should include the Department as a listed agency for which encroachment permits and approvals are required. This change has been made as shown in Chapter 8, EIR Revisions below. The City will design its facilities within the County’s jurisdiction in accordance with the Department’s standards and submit the appropriate applications and supplemental information to the Department as part of the encroachment permit process. June 4, 2015 REAL ESTATE and, Buildings and Real Estate VIA EMAIL Ms. Karin North Watershed Protection Program Manager Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant 3501 Embarcadero Way Palo Alt©, CA 94303 Karin:north @ cityofpaloalto.org Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report for City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2011062037 Dear Karin: We appreciate this opportunity to present Stanford University's comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Palo Alto's Recycled Water Project. We support the City's efforts to reduce potable water use in the Stanford Research Park through this important project, and we appreciate the revisions that City staff have made to the water quality mitigation measures in the Draft EIR, as memorialized in the May 21 correspondence from the City on this issue, in response to the concerns raised by Stanford about the potential impacts of recycled water use on redwood trees and other salt -sensitive plantings. With respect to the revised Mitigation Measure HYD-3d, we support the City's firm commitment to implement mitigation that will ensure that recycled water that fails to meet the City's salinity goals will not be applied to salt -sensitive plantings. Accordingly, it is our understanding that, if the City's monitoring shows that the constituent levels in the recycled water exceed the City's goal of 600 milligrams per liter of total dissolved solids, the City will take one of the following mitigation actions: (a) the City will treat the recycled water (for example, through reverse or forward osmosis), or will blend it with potable water, so that the salinity goal is achieved prior to use on salt -sensitive plantings; or (b) the City will grant an exemption under the provisions of its recycled water ordinance (see Palo Alto Municipal Code § 16.12.050) to allow for the use of potable water for landscape inigation, in lieu of recycled water, to avoid salinity impacts to salt -sensitive plantings. We would like to discuss with City staff the mechanics and: triggers for implementing this mandatory mitigation. In addition to the salinity issues, as we have discussed with you, we believe it is important that the City update its project demand data and financial assumptions, in light of the implementation of water conservation measures and practices in recent years at the Stanford Research Park, which has reduced the demand for water. We also believe there Page 2 of 2 should be a provision to allow businesses in the Stanford Research Park that use treated, non -potable groundwater associated with remediation efforts to opt out of the requirements to use recycled water for landscape irrigation. Moreover, it is important that the City coordinate closely with Stanford prior to and during project construction, in order to ensure that the specific project pipeline alignment and construction methods are designed and implemented to avoid potential impacts to groundwater remediation pipelines and subsurface archeological resources. It is also important to coordinate with us in regard to the operation of the project in order to avoid potential impacts to biological resources in creeks within the area covered by the Stanford Habitat Conservation Plan that could result from potential runoff of recycled water from irrigation sites. It is clear that City staff have put a tremendous amount of work into this project. We support the City's efforts to move forward with the project and we look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure that the project is implemented in a way that protects the environment of the Stanford and Palo Alto communities. Sincerely yours, Inglis . an McCown Director of Design Construction Assistant Vice -President Real Estate Group Government and Community Relations STANFORD UNIVERSITY REAL ESTATE OFFICE 60 Port Drive, Suite 200 • Palo Alto, CA 94304 T: 650,724,7990 6 : 6 0,724,505 City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Response to Comments Final EIR Responses to Comments Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 29 Response to Comments Document Comment Letter 4 – Stanford University Response to Comment 4-1 The City acknowledges Stanford University’s support of the proposed Project. The revisions to the mitigation measures (HYD-3b, HYD-3c, and HYD-3d) referenced in this comment are shown in Chapter 8, EIR Revisions below. Please refer to the Master Response, Recycled Water Quality and Trees, above for more information regarding changes to the mitigation measures. Response to Comment 4-2 The City acknowledges Stanford University’s suggestion regarding the need for the City to revisit the project demand data and financial assumptions. As part of the Facility Planning phase for this Project, the City will determine the demands of the end users to confirm the sizing of the proposed facilities. Response to Comment 4-3 Please refer to the Master Response above (and Section 1.5.3, City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Ordinance, on p. 1-12 in Chapter 1, Introduction and Project Background of the Public Draft EIR) for a summary of the exemption process to opt out of using recycled water. While the Recycled Water Ordinance does not specifically address opting out of recycled water use in cases where the landowner has available treated, non-potable groundwater associated with remediation efforts, the City would be amendable to granting the exemption if other non-potable water is available for irrigation. Response to Comment 4-4 The City has been actively engaging Stanford University regarding the proposed Project and will continue to do so. The EIR includes standard project requirements and mitigation measures that will be included in the MMRP to reduce potential impacts, including on archaeological resources and related to hazardous materials, to less than significant (see Appendix E, Environmental Checklist in Volume 2 of the Public Draft EIR). Implementation of the MMRP is a condition of approval for the proposed Project, and thus would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. Response to Comment 4-5 As discussed in E.3, Biological Resources (Volume 2 of the Public Draft EIR), the use of recycled water would not affect habitat or special-status species due to the strict prohibitions of the City’s existing Permit (Order No. 93-160) that would be imposed to ensure that recycled water is applied during dry weather and that recycled water is not allowed to escape to areas outside the designated use areas (p. E-20). As part of the City’s recycled water permitting process, site supervisors would be required to participate in training on the safe uses of recycled water. Compliance by site supervisors with the City’s requirements would ensure that use of recycled water would not result in any operational impacts on biological resources in areas covered by the Habitat Conservation Plan. Canopy 3921 East Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 650 964 6110 canopy.org Staff Catherine Martineau Executive Director Michael Hawkins Program Director Anwyn Hurxthal Communications Director Board of Directors David Collins Chair Susan Ellis Vice-Chair Marilyn Keller Secretary Beth Lim Treasurer Marty Deggeller Mark McInerney Sally O’Neil Geoff Paulsen Maria Rocha Susan Rosenberg Wen Shu Tang Advisory Committee Matthew Bahls Faye Brown Tony Carrasco James F. Cook Urban K. Cummings Anne Draeger Patricia Foster Carroll Harrington Joe Hirsch Leannah Hunt Jeanne Kennedy Carole Langston John McClenahan Mary McCullough Scott McGilvray Dave Muffly Jeff Newborn Brooks Nelson Nancy Peterson Forest Preston, III Elizabeth Schwerer Jeff Snyder Jane Stocklin Lauren Bonar Swezey Lanie Wheeler CANOPY plants and cares for trees where people need them the most. We bring the life- giving benefits of trees to the schools, neighborhoods, and public spaces of the San Francisco Mid-Peninsula. Ms. Karin North Watershed Protection Manager City of Palo Alto 2501 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 June 4, 2015 Dear Ms. North: Thank you for giving us an opportunity to comment on the Recycled Water Project draft Environmental Impact Report dated April 2015. What is missing from this report are the risks and deleterious consequences of long term application of recycled water to a variety of trees. What is addressed in the report is simply the impact of the construction of the pipeline on trees. The report fails to recognize the value of the trees in the proposed recycled water distribution area and the value of the ecosystem services these trees provide. Consequently, the report implies that using high quality Hetch Hetchy potable water is wasteful in the landscape and fails to make a distinction between low value elements of the landscape (lawns, annuals, etc. ) and trees which are the most valuable element of the urban landscape. However Canopy recognizes the need for innovative solutions to address current and future constraints on the availability of potable water. Canopy thus supports the Recycled Water Project under the following conditions: 1. The pipeline or other means of transportation will not be used to distribute recycled water destined for the landscape unless that water meets the standards defined by the Recycled Water Salinity Reduction Policy adopted by City Council on 1/25/2010 (600 ppm TDS maximum.) At a minimum, blending with potable water will occur before distribution. 2. The City will actively explore alternative m for recycled water, such as groundwater recharge. 3. The City will actively pursue measures described in Mitigation Measure HYD-3d (new language provided on 5/22/15) such as Reverse or Forward Osmosis with the goal of lowering salinity dramatically and opening new markets for the recycled water. The mission of Canopy is to engage the community in growing and caring for our urban forest. Trees bring many tangible benefits to Palo Alto. Palo Alto’s public trees (only a fraction of the entire forest) represent a cost-effective resource that provides net benefits of $4.6 million per year. These benefits include energy savings, air quality improvements, stormwater interception, atmospheric CO2 reduction, and aesthetic contributions to the social and economic health of the community. Best regards, Catherine Martineau Executive Director City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Response to Comments Final EIR Responses to Comments Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 31 Response to Comments Document Comment Letter 5 - Canopy Response to Comment 5-1 The Public Draft EIR evaluates more than the impact of the construction of the pipeline but also includes a discussion of effects of the using recycled water on salt-sensitive tree species. Please see the Master Response on Recycled Water Quality and Trees. Response to Comment 5-2 Please refer to the Master Response on Recycled Water Quality and Trees. The Master Response also addresses the City’s need to manage its water supply sustainably, particularly in light of the current drought. Response to Comment 5-3 The City acknowledges Canopy’s support of the proposed Project based on the conditions specified in its subsequent comment. Response to Comment 5-4 Please refer to the Master Response on Recycled Water Quality and Trees for a discussion of the City’s approach to addressing salinity in recycled water, and the clarifications to the mitigation measures HYD-3a through HYD-3d, which would ensure that impacts to salt-sensitive tree species would be less than significant. The City is exploring alternative uses of recycled water with the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Response to Comment 5-5 The City acknowledges the ecosystem value of trees. June 4, 2015 City of Palo Alto Planning Department P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Attention: Karin North Subject: Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Dear Ms. North Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) staff have reviewed the Draft EIR for 5 miles recycled water pipeline and pump stations in central Palo Alto and Stanford University. We have the following comments. Traffic Control Plan In response to VTA's comments on the NOP requesting that the project prepare a Traffic Control Plan and route it to VTA for review, the DEIR states, "Chapter 2, Project Description describes the Traffic Control Plan. The Final Traffic Control Plan will be provided to VTA upon completion and prior to construction and prior to construction activities." VTA commends the City for including this response and looks forward to reviewing the final Traffic Control Plan when available. Access to Adobe Creek Undercrossing During Construction Will the Adobe Creek Undercrossing be closed during construction? If so, appropriate notice should be given to trail users. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions, please call me at (408) 321-5784. Sincerely, PAO9OI Roy Molseed Senior Enviro ental Pla San Jose, CA 95134-1927 • Adminisfir do 408.321.5555 Customer;Servire 408.321 2300 City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Response to Comments Final EIR Responses to Comments Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 33 Response to Comments Document Comment Letter 6 - Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Response to Comment 6-1 The City will provide a final Traffic Control Plan for VTA’s review prior to construction. Response to Comment 6-2 If the City were to hang the proposed pipeline from the Adobe pedestrian bridge, then the City would require temporary closure of the Adobe Creek pedestrian trail during construction. While the impact to this resource would be considered less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required, the City would provide appropriate, advanced notice of its closure to users of the trail. Santa Clara Valley Chapter 3921 East Bayshore Rd. Palo Alto, CA 94303 Ms. Karin North Watershed Protection Manager City of Palo Alto 2501 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 June 4, 2015 Dear Ms. North: Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the draft EIR of the Recycled Water Project. We have concerns that are not adequately addressed in this DEIR. Impact HYD-3. Impact on Redwoods and other salt sensitive species. The analysis for this impact is based on very short-term studies of impacts on Redwoods over periods of less than 10 years of monitoring. Redwoods, even in landscaping situation have lifespans of hundreds of years. The fact that many of the redwoods that were monitored were showing damage over such a short period of time does not bode well for the ultimate survival of these trees after many years of irrigation with recycled water. Even if the quality of the water improves in the manner the city is striving to achieve, we feel that the current studies do not support the determination that with mitigation—landowners can be expected or required to subject their redwood trees to this type of irrigation. There are many reasonable uses for recycled water that will do minimal harm. We think that there is insufficient scientific support to suggest that watering redwood trees is one of these acceptable uses. Our city forests are a valuable asset to be protected not experimented upon. Sincerely, Linda Ruthruff, Chair Conservation Committee California Native Plant Society Santa Clara Valley Chapter City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Response to Comments Final EIR Responses to Comments Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 35 Response to Comments Document Comment Letter 7 – California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Response to Comment 7-1 The City acknowledges the concerns expressed by CNPS. Please see the Master Response on Recycled Water Quality and Trees regarding the City’s approach to ensure that impacts are less than significant, as well as the availability of an exemption by landowners from the use of recycled water for irrigation of redwood trees. It should be noted that HortScience, on behalf of both the City and Stanford University, had identified that salinity hazards would be eliminated if TDS were to be less than 650 mg/L, and other water quality parameters were to meet the Category 1 standards specified in HortScience’s 2011 study (see p. 3-23 in Chapter 3 of the Public Draft EIR, as well as Appendix G for the original HortScience Study). Thus, there is scientific information to support the analysis presented in the Public Draft EIR. STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Edmund G. Brown J Governor June4 2015 Karin North City of Palo Alto 2501 Embarcadero Way Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject: Recycled Water Project SCH#: 2011062037 Dear Karin North: �F�cEOf s. *, " e O X n cc Ken Alex Director The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on June 3, 2015, and the continents from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this continent package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten -digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. S ncerely, Scott Morgan Director, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 TEL (916) 445.0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www;opr.ca.gov Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2011062037 Project Title Recycled Water Project Lead Agency Palo Alto, City of Type Description EIR Draft EIR The proposed Project involves the construction and operation of an expanded recycled water system to deliver recycled water produced by the Regional Water Quality Control Plant to customers in the City, potentially including Alta Mesa Memorial Park, Stanford Research Park, and others. The proposed Project includes about 10 miles of pipeline (backbone; lateral, and ,..cnnnactiric:p,u elines) and.. two pump stations (one at the RWQCP and another at Mayfield Soccer Fields, along the pipeline alignment). The Project would initially provide approximately 900 acre-feetper-yearof recycled water; primarily to the Stanford Research Park Area. Lead Agency Contact Name Karin North Agency City of Palo Alto Phone 650 329 2104 email Address 2501 Embarcadero Way City Palo Alto fax State CA Zip 94301 Project Location County City Region Lat / Long Cross Streets Parcel No. Township Santa Clara Palo Alto 37°25'22"N/122°08'33"W E. Meadow Dr.'; Cowper St; El Dorado Ave; Alma St; Page Mill Road; Hanover St; Hillview Ave Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways Airports Railways Waterways Schools Land Use Hwy 101 Palo Alto Airport Caltrain along Alma Ave SF Bay, Adobe Creek, Barron Creek, Matadero Creek Multiple Various Project Issues AestheticNisual; Agricultural Land; Air Quality; Archaeologic -Historic; Biological Resources; Drainage/Absorption; Flood Plain/Flooding; Geologic/Seismic; Minerals; Noise; Population/Housing Balance; Public Services; Recreation/Parks; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Solid Waste; Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Water Supply; Wetland/Riparian; Growth Inducing; Landuse; Cumulative Effects Reviewing Agencies Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 3; Department of Parks and Recreation; San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission; Department of Water Resources; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 4; Air Resources Board; State Water Resources Control Board, Divison of Financial Assistance; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2; Native American Heritage Commission; Public Utilities Commission Date Received 04/20/2015 Start of Review 04/20/2015 End of Review 06/03/2015 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Response to Comments Final EIR Responses to Comments Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 38 Response to Comments Document Comment Letter 8 –Governor’s Office of Research and Planning, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Response to Comment 8-1 The City acknowledges the comment. The comment letters attached to the State Clearinghouse letter are separated in this document, as Comment Letter 1 (SWRCB) and Comment Letter 2 (Caltrans). 22221 McClellan Road, Cupertino, CA 95014 Phone: (408) 252-3748 * Fax: (408) 252-2850 email: scvas@scvas.org * www.scvas.org June 8, 2015 via email Ms. Karin North Watershed Protection Manager City of Palo Alto Re: Recycled Water Project draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Ms. North, The Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society (SCVAS) has reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Palo Alto Recycled Water Project. SCVAS’ mission is to preserve, to enjoy, to restore and to foster public awareness of native birds and their ecosystems, mainly in Santa Clara County. As stewards for avian species and their environmental resources and habitat, we are interested in innovations and improvements that help conserve resources and yet include nature, trees and birds into the planning. Due to high salt content, irrigation with recycled water can be expected to harm existing trees in Palo Alto and neighboring cities, and to change tree and other plant selection forever. This would impose a significant impact on trees and landscaping, on urban and park ecosystems and on aesthetic resources in Palo Alto and other Cities in the service area. If mature trees die, and new trees are planted, there will also be long-term, significant changes to tree canopy in the service area. If high-quality habitat trees are replaced with drought tolerant trees of lesser habitat value, there will be an impact on bird and pollinator community. We believe that loss of trees and tree canopy, especially in years of drought, should be considered a significant unavoidable impact – especially if ancient oak trees and sycamores are lost. There should be special mitigation afforded to trees of high habitat value such as oaks and sycamores. Furthermore, mitigation should allow irrigation of trees with potable water especially in years of drought. We believe that Mitigation Measure HYD-3c may have significant and deleterious impacts to biological and aesthetic resources, and should be modified or removed In addition to these comments, we wish to express support to Catherine Martineau’s comments, as submitted in Canopy’s letter dated June 4th, 2015. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and for providing an extension. Please keep SCVAS on the notification list for the proposed project site. Sincerely, Shani Kleinhaus, Ph.D., Environmental Advocate shani@scvas.org Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Response to Comments Final EIR Responses to Comments Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 40 Response to Comments Document Comment Letter 9 – Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society Response to Comment 9-1 The City acknowledges the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society’s concerns. Please refer to the Master Response on Recycled Water Quality and Trees summarizing the evaluation of using recycled water for irrigation and its effects on trees and the visual environment. The area of potential effects associated with the use of recycled water is only those areas that would be irrigated using recycled water. The project has the potential to impact oaks and sycamores, but implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-3a through HYD-3d will mitigate any such impact to a level of less-than-significant. Oaks and sycamores are more tolerant of salinity than sensitive species like redwoods. As explained in the Draft EIR, tree species with moderate salt tolerance could experience some impacts with recycled water at higher salinity levels, but such impacts could be managed even at those levels. Furthermore, those impacts would not occur if salinity levels are brought below 650 mg/l TDS. The recycled water used in the project is expected to have TDS concentrations below this level, and the mitigation measures mandate soil testing, plant health monitoring, and salinity monitoring in the recycled water to ensure that optimal concentrations of TDS and related parameters will be achieved, as well as implementation of a range of additional feasible mitigation measures if these levels are not achieved (including exemption of salt sensitive species from use of recycled water, blending, and/or further treatment of recycled water to further reduce TDS). The proposed Project would not affect other areas within the City or neighboring cities. There is a movement in California to replace existing landscapes with landscapes that are drought tolerant. Such changes are based on the decisions of individual landowners and are not the responsibility of the City. The Master Response describes Mitigation Measure HYD-3c (site management actions that would be implemented by site owners as needed) as part of a comprehensive mitigation strategy that would ensure that potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant; it should be noted that the master response does make significant modification to this measure; contrary to the commenter’s suggestion, Mitigation Measure HYD-3c, which involves monitoring soil salinity, implementation of a leaching program, and use of gypsum prior to leaching, would not generate additional impacts on the environment that would warrant evaluation in the EIR; the analysis presented in the Public Draft EIR is adequate, and Mitigation Measure HYD-3c is appropriate and does not need to be removed. Response to Comment 9-2 It should be noted Canopy is in support of the proposed Project with the conditions specified in its letter (see Comment Letter 5 above). Response to Comment 9-3 The City will include the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society on future correspondence related to this Project. City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project EIR Revisions Final EIR Responses to Comments Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 41 Response to Comments Document Chapter 8 EIR Revisions This section addresses changes to the EIR that are either staff-initiated or made in response to public comments on the Public Draft EIR. These changes are primarily for clarification. They would not result in any change to the analyses provided in the EIR; specifically, they do not include significant new information that would warrant recirculation of the EIR pursuant to Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines (Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification). The changes do not result in an increase in the severity of impacts already identified in the Public Draft EIR and do not result in a new finding of significant impact. For that reason, the analyses and conclusions drawn in the EIR are adequate and applicable to the proposed Project as described, and recirculation of the EIR is not needed. Staff-Initiated Changes and Changes in Response to Public Comments The following addition has been made to the end of Section 2.6 Potential Permits and Approvals Required on page 2-30 in Chapter 2, Project Description (Volume 1 of the Public Draft EIR) in response to the comment letter from the County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department. • County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department – encroachment permit. The following note has been made in response to Caltrans comment letter regarding its preference for construction across highway crossings. Figure 2-2: Proposed Work Area in the Vicinity of US 101a a The City will work with CalTrans to confirm whether hanging from the bridge is acceptable for Option 1, as existing pipelines are already hung from the bridge. City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project EIR Revisions Final EIR Responses to Comments Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 42 Response to Comments Document Table 2-1 in Chapter 2, Project Description (p. 2-8 in Volume 1 of the Public Draft EIR) has been revised in response to comment letters from Caltrans and the County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department. Table 2-1: Proposed Backbone Pipeline Alignment Alignment Location Starting Cross Street Ending Cross Street Proposed Construction Method at Crossings Proposed Backbone Pipeline Alignment Under US 101 E. Bayshore Rd. at Corporation Way Fabian Way Trenchless under 101 Fabian Way West Bayshore Road East Meadow Drive Open-Cut1 East Meadow Drive Fabian Way Cowper Street Open-Cut; Potential trenchless2 section across Adobe Creek Bridge Cowper Street East Meadow Drive El Dorado Avenue Open-Cut; Potential trenchless sections across Barron Creek Bridge and Matadero Creek Bridge El Dorado Avenue Cowper Street Alma Street Open-Cut Alma Street El Dorado Avenue Page Mill Road Open-Cut Page Mill Road Alma Street Hanover Street Trenchless Open-Cut; Trenchless section under railroad crossing; Potential trenchless section under El Camino Real Hanover Street Page Mill Road Hillview Avenue Open-Cut Hillview Avenue Hanover Street Arastradero Road Open-Cut; Potential trenchless section across SFPUC Easement; trenchless under and Foothill Expressway Proposed Pipeline Alignment Option 1 Adobe Creek US 101 West Bayshore Road Potential trenchless3 (hang from the bridge) West Bayshore Road Adobe Creek Fabian Way Open-Cut Pipeline Alignment Option 2 El Camino Real Page Mill Road Hanson Way Trenchless Open-Cut Palo Alto Square Parking Hanson Way Hanover Street Open-Cut 1 The open-cut construction method involves long, narrow excavations in the ground to accommodate the placement of the pipelines. An alternate construction method to open-trench is Horizontal Directional Drilling. Both types of construction methods are described in Section 2.5 below. 2 All of the bridge crossings would be trenchless (constructed with the pipe attached to the side of the bridge or installed underneath the bridge). The construction method has not been finalized. Neither method would require work to be done in the creeks. 3 The City will work with CalTrans to confirm whether hanging from the bridge is acceptable at this location, as existing pipelines are already hung from the bridge. City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project EIR Revisions Final EIR Responses to Comments Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 43 Response to Comments Document The last paragraph in Section 2.4 (at the bottom of p. 2-13 extending to the top of 2-14) has been revised as both a staff-initiated change and response to Stanford comments to clarify that an exemption is already allowed under the Recycled Water Ordinance (No. 5002) and to modify the text to reflect the changes in Mitigation Measure HYD-3b discussed further below. Salinity reductions due to the planned projects are expected to result in a cumulative reduction to below 650 mg/L within the next several years, before the Project is completed. Ongoing monitoring and surveillance would confirm reductions, track success and identify other potential sources. Key projects are due for completion in the next several years, in advance of the operation of the proposed recycled water delivery system (2019). Therefore, it is estimated that TDS levels would be below the commenter’s indicated TDS impact level (650 mg/L) by the time this Project is completed and water is delivered. TDS levels in the RWQCP-effluent and recycled water will be reported to interested parties initially monthly quarterly, using a rolling 12-month average to compare to the City’s 600 mg/L goal. In the unlikely event that TDS levels do not drop below 650 mg/L by the time the Project is implemented (recycled water is delivered) or shortly thereafter, the City shall consider other actions, including utilizing its existing Recycled Water Ordinance exemption process inclusion of a blanket exemption in the City’s Recycled Water Permit for salt-sensitive species (including redwood trees) from the use of recycled water, blending of recycled water with potable water, or other additional treatment of recycled water prior to application or shortly thereafter (the City is initiating an investigation of the feasibility of Reverse and Forward Osmosis treatment of its recycled water, combined with blending of appropriate water). The following change has been made in response to Caltrans comment letter regarding its preference for construction across highway crossings. Three creeks would be crossed by the proposed alignment, alignment options, and laterals: Adobe Creek, Barron Creek, and Matadero Creek. The creek crossings would be constructed as follows: • Adobe Creek. There are three proposed Adobe Creek crossings. The first crossing is associated with the proposed alignment on East Meadow Drive, west of US 101. The pipeline would be attached to the existing East Meadow Drive Bridge on the south side of the bridge or installed in the roadway on the bridge. The second crossing is associated with the Option 1 alignment, where the existing Adobe Creek crosses under US 101. The pipeline may, with approval from Caltrans, would be hung on the south side of the existing bridge. The third crossing is associated with a lateral pipeline on Middlefield Rd, which would require crossing Adobe Creek using trenchless techniques at the Middlefield Road bridge. The following change has been made in response to Caltrans comment letter regarding its preference for highway crossings. A footnote has been added to the section on US 101 on p. 2-20 (in Chapter 2 of the Public Draft EIR), as shown below. To reduce the change in numbering of footnotes, the footnote will be designated “9b’. US 101 Crossing9b As described above, the two options to cross underneath US 101 are using a trenchless construction technique under the proposed alignment and hanging from an existing bridge. The precise option and the locations would be determined during design. If trenchless construction is employed, the pits could be located within any open area shown in the polygon shown on Figure City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project EIR Revisions Final EIR Responses to Comments Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 44 Response to Comments Document 2-2 (e.g., on existing parking lots). Depending on the location, landscaped trees may be trimmed and/or removed to accommodate the pits and other activities in the work area. Existing parking spaces would be temporarily eliminated. Construction would require the City to work with the land owner to accommodate temporary loss of parking and disruption. If the pipeline is hung from the existing bridge on the south side of Adobe Creek, then construction would likely occur during the non-rainy season (April 15 through October 15), when the Adobe Creek Pedestrian Path is open. However, installation of the proposed pipeline would require temporary closure of the existing path for several days to a week. Text to footnote 9b: 9b The City would work with CalTrans to confirm whether hanging from the bridge is acceptable at this location, as existing pipelines are already hung from the bridge. The section on flooding in Chapter 3 (p. 3-1 of the Public Draft EIR) has been updated to include a figure showing 100-year flood plain and the text revised to reflect the figure, as a response to SWRCB comments and as a staff-initiated change for clarity of the flood zones. Flooding The proposed pipeline alignment lies within two different flood zones as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). These zones are described below and shown in Figure 3-0. • Zone AE. (Base Flood Elevations determined). Zone AE is the 100-year flood zone. The elevation of the base flood (i.e., 100-year flood level) has been determined by FEMA to be 8 feet above mean sea level. • Zone X. Zone X is described as an area of moderate risk of flooding (roughly speaking, outside the 100-year flood but inside the 500-year flood limits). While some risk of flooding exists, structures within Zone X areas are not considered to be at substantial risk of flooding. Most of the Project area is located within Zone X. The northeast part of the Project area between Middlefield Road and US 101 (as well as area further east to the Bay), including and the proposed pump station site at the RWQCP, are located in Zone AE. City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project EIR Revisions Final EIR Responses to Comments Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 45 Response to Comments Document Figure 3-0: FEMA-Designated Flood Zones within the Project Area Page 3-24 of Chapter 3 has been revised to clarify that the existing Recycled Water Ordinance already allows for an exemption from use of recycled water. While TDS and other related parameters in recycled water are expected to achieve the desired concentrations by the time the Project is operated, in the unlikely event that they are not achieved by the time of Project operation, there is potentially a greater risk that certain salt-sensitive plants could be adversely affected by recycled water use. While TDS greater than 650 mg/L can be safely used on many landscaped areas, some salt-sensitive trees, such as redwood trees, could be affected, particularly under the combination of factors that are independent of recycled water quality. The City is sensitive to concerns of landowners whose properties may be dominated by salt-sensitive tree species, and thus has identified actions that would mitigate the potential for damage to those trees. Specifically, the City would consider other options prior to Project operation if anticipated recycled water quality is not achieved by the time of Project operation, and would select the best strategy moving forward. These actions would include an amendment utilizing to the City’s existing Recycled Water Ordinance to allow for an exemption from use of recycled water on redwood trees (and other salt-sensitive trees) such that an individual site would have dual plumbing to allow potable water to be used on salt-sensitive species (if desired by the individual landowner), blending of the recycled water, or additional treatment of recycled water, based on available technology at the time City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project EIR Revisions Final EIR Responses to Comments Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 46 Response to Comments Document (see Mitigation Measure HYD-3d). The City’s initiation of an investigation of the feasibility of Reverse or Forward Osmosis treatment of its recycled water, combined with blending of appropriate water, has also been included in Mitigation Measure HYD-3d to show the City’s commitment to this measure. However, there may be a limited period at the beginning of Project operations when recycled water quality is not at the optimal level. In such an event, there is a potential for adverse effects similar to those described above for the use of any source water, particularly for salt-sensitive species. Given the expected short duration of recycled water use with less optimal recycled water quality, any effects on vegetation would occur for a limited time, and long-term damage to salt-sensitive species is not expected. Recycled water with higher TDS levels can be used on certain landscapes with minimal effect, and with proper site management (as required in Mitigation Measure HYD-3c), and the implementation of options to reduce TDS (Mitigation Measure HYD-3d), impacts would be less than significant. The following revisions have been made to Mitigation Measures HYD-3a through HYD-3c (in Table ES-1 on page ES-11 in the Executive Summary (Volume 1 of the EIR) and pages 3-25 and 3-26 in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures (also Volume 1 of the EIR) to clarify the entities responsible for the actions, clarify that the City has in place an existing exemption process from use of recycled water for salt-sensitive trees, and the City’s commitment to implement other actions. This change is a voluntary change by the District based on discussions with Stanford University. The analysis provided in the EIR is adequate and the level of mitigation proposed is appropriate. The revisions in the mitigation measure is not in response to an increase in severity of impact or any new finding of significant impact, is not required by CEQA, and does not create new significant environmental impacts. Similar to the original mitigation measures, the revisions would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure HYD-3a. Source Control of Saline Groundwater. The City shall continue to line and repair existing sewers to minimize saline groundwater Infiltration. Mitigation Measure HYD-3b. Monitoring. The City shall immediately begin quarterly monthly monitoring of the salinity (and related constituents) of the recycled water and shall report the rolling 12-month average for comparison to the Palo Alto City Council goal of 600 mg/l TDS. Monthly electronic reporting to those requesting it will be performed for two years, and then the frequency will be re-evaluated. The City shall monitor soil salinity and SAR through semi- annual soil analyses, preferably taken early and late in the irrigation season (approximately April and October). Mitigation Measure HYD-3c: Site Management. As a condition of recycled water use, the City shall require the site owners to: 1) Continue to irrigate with recycled water, even during droughts, (because recycled water is a drought-proof supply), to meet the water demand of the subject plants and trees; and 2) conduct appropriate best management practices/management actions specified below in the event that protected, low-salt-tolerant trees irrigated with recycled water show signs of decline. If at a particular site receiving recycled water, monitoring identifies an increase in soil salinity and SAR over historical levels, the City in cooperation with the owner of that site shall conduct a site-specific evaluation. That evaluation would consider (1) the extent to which the site contains protected trees (including redwood trees and oaks) that might be impacted by soil salinity, (2) the extent to which the elevated salinity is at a level that poses a threat to such City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project EIR Revisions Final EIR Responses to Comments Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 47 Response to Comments Document protected trees, and (3) the extent to which the elevated salinity is the result of the use of the City's recycled water. If a threat is found, the City shall work cooperatively with the site owner to develop a site-specific mitigation plan, including the site owner's implementation of best management practices which are described below: o To avoid plant damage to salt sensitive landscape plants, site owners can implement a leaching program to maintain soil salinity within the root zone below 2.0 dS/m6 and SAR below 6.0. For moderately salt-tolerant plants, maintain soil salinity below 4.0 dS/m. Where subsoils do not drain adequately, installation of subsurface drainage systems may be needed recommended. Rainfall will satisfy a portion of the leaching requirement, depending on the rate, volume, and distribution through the season. The frequency with which leaching applications should be made depends on several variables, and is typically triggered by approaching soil salinity thresholds defined above. o Site owners can aApply gypsum prior to leaching when indicated by soil analysis. Gypsum is a soil amendment that, when combined with leaching, helps lower soil sodium concentrations. Gypsum application can shall be considered when soil analyses reveal one or more of the following conditions: SAR exceeds 6.0, SAR increases 2 units or more (e.g., 2.3 to 4.3), and/or sodium concentration exceeds 5 meq/l (115 mg/L). The amount of gypsum needed and the frequency of application depend on site-specific soil and water characteristics, and can shall be determined by laboratory analysis. Mitigation Measure HYD-3d: Other Options to Protect Salt-Sensitive Plants. In the event that monitoring results (see Mitigation Measure HYD- 3b) show that optimal concentrations of TDS and related parameters will not be achieved prior to operation of the Project (i.e., recycled water application), the City will consider evaluate and implement one or more of the following other actions to reduce improve TDS levels, as follows: o The City shall amend Utilize its existing Recycled Water Ordinance exemption process (Palo Alto Municipal Code 16.12.050) to include an exemption for to exempt redwood trees (and/or other salt sensitive species) from the use of recycled water and allow for the use of dual systems so the exempted trees could be irrigated separately using potable water, if desired by individual landowners; o The City shall bBlend recycled water and other lower salinity potable water prior to application; and/or o The City shall tTreat recycled water to reduced TDS prior to application, or shortly thereafter (the City is initiating an investigation of the feasibility of Reverse or Forward Osmosis treatment of its recycled water, combined with blending of appropriate water). 6 ds/m is decisiemen/meter. A dS/m is a measure of electrical conductivity, and 1.0 dS/m approximates to 640 mg/L TDS. City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project EIR Revisions Final EIR Responses to Comments Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 48 Response to Comments Document The text in Impact AES-1 has been revised by staff to reflect changes in Mitigation Measure HYD-3d (last paragraph, 3rd line in Chapter 3 of the Public Draft EIR), as shown below: In the event that the combination of factors described in Impact HYD-3 occur or in the unlikely event that recycled water quality does not achieve the desired concentrations by the time the Project is implemented (by the time of Project operation or shortly thereafter) additional actions are executed as specified in Mitigation Measures HYD-3d), some salt-sensitive plants could react poorly to recycled water (e.g., some salt-sensitive plants may show browning of leaves). Under this circumstance, the Project is not anticipated to result in a substantial change in the visual quality of the Project area from declines in the health of redwood trees and other salt-sensitive species. Any visual changes would likely occur gradually, over time, and with the site management actions described in Mitigation Measure HYD-3c, site managers would be able to monitor the appearance of trees and the quality of the soil and make necessary adjustments to maintain the health of its landscaped areas. Also, damage, if any, would unlikely occur in multiple locations simultaneously, due to the variations in site specific conditions of the tree, soil, and site management regime. Potential exposure of salt-sensitive plants to less optimal recycled water quality would be expected to be temporary. Also, recycled water with higher TDS levels could be used on a variety of landscapes with minimal effect, and with proper site management (as required in Mitigation Measure HYD-3c), even if some plants were to be affected, such visible effects would be scattered and unlikely to occur en masse. Because options (Mitigation Measure HYD-3d) are available to improve irrigation water quality, impacts to the visual environment would be less than significant. As discussed in the City’s Draft UFMP, the future composition of Palo Alto’s urban forest will be influenced by an emphasis on drought tolerant and recycled water tolerant species. Thus, any alterations in the visual environment associated with the conversion of the existing landscape to that containing more drought-tolerant regime should not be attributed to potential effects by the proposed Project. The choice to convert is an independent decision by each landowner. Headings in three tables in Appendix I (Volume 2) have been revised to reflect the proposed Project name. The air quality modeling was not rerun and the results of the air quality modeling remain the same. Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 7.1.5.1 Emission Estimates for ->Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (English Units)ROG (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) CO2 (lbs/day) Grubbing/Land Clearing 7.0 38.5 60.0 6.2 2.8 3.4 3.2 2.5 0.7 7,609.1 Grading/Excavation 8.7 53.0 85.0 7.2 3.8 3.4 4.1 3.4 0.7 13,427.5 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 8.0 44.1 66.4 6.9 3.5 3.4 3.9 3.2 0.7 8,508.2 Paving 3.7 23.7 21.7 1.3 1.3 - 1.1 1.1 - 3,828.5 Maximum (pounds/day)8.7 53.0 85.0 7.2 3.8 3.4 4.1 3.4 0.7 13,427.5 Total (tons/construction project)1.0 5.9 8.9 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.1 1,310.8 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2019 Project Length (months) -> 12 Total Project Area (acres) -> 37 Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 0 Total Soil Imported/Exported (yd 3/day)->307 Pasadena RW PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified. Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns H and I. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column J are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns K and L. Open Trench Construction - 2 Crews Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 7.1.5.1 Emission Estimates for ->Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (English Units)ROG (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) CO2 (lbs/day) Grubbing/Land Clearing - - - - - - - - - - Grading/Excavation 4.8 31.4 34.8 1.6 1.5 0.1 1.3 1.3 0.0 7,470.6 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade - - - - - - - - - - Paving 4.1 26.7 26.7 1.4 1.4 - 1.3 1.3 - 4,525.7 Maximum (pounds/day)4.8 31.4 34.8 1.6 1.5 0.1 1.3 1.3 0.0 7,470.6 Total (tons/construction project)0.6 4.0 4.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 908.4 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2019 Project Length (months) -> 12 Total Project Area (acres) -> 3 Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 0 Total Soil Imported/Exported (yd 3/day)->24 Pasadena RW PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified. Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns H and I. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column J are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns K and L. Horizontal Directional Drilling - 2 Crews Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 7.1.5.1 Emission Estimates for ->Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (English Units)ROG (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) CO2 (lbs/day) Grubbing/Land Clearing 3.5 19.3 30.3 3.5 1.4 2.1 1.7 1.2 0.4 3,874.9 Grading/Excavation 4.8 28.8 51.1 4.3 2.2 2.1 2.4 1.9 0.4 8,736.9 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 4.3 23.8 35.9 4.0 1.9 2.1 2.2 1.8 0.4 4,676.4 Paving 2.1 14.6 13.5 0.8 0.8 - 0.7 0.7 - 2,368.4 Maximum (pounds/day)4.8 28.8 51.1 4.3 2.2 2.1 2.4 1.9 0.4 8,736.9 Total (tons/construction project)0.5 3.2 5.1 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.0 802.2 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2019 Project Length (months) -> 12 Total Project Area (acres) -> 36 Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 0 Total Soil Imported/Exported (yd 3/day)->307 Pasadena RW PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified. Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns H and I. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column J are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns K and L. Open Trench Construction - 1 Crew City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project EIR Revisions Final EIR Responses to Comments Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 52 Response to Comments Document This page intentionally left blank Appendix A - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2 1 Any cells marked “--” indicates a standard project requirement, which has no mitigation measure number. City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN Item Number Impact Summary Mitigation No.1 Standard Project Requirement/Mitigation Measure (Exact Text) Monitoring and Reporting Plan Implementation and Reporting Monitoring and Reporting Actions Implementation Schedule Verification: Status/ Date Completed/ Initials Re s p o n s i b l e Pa r t y Re v i e w & Ap p r o v a l HYDROLOGY HYD-1 Have the potential violation of water quality standards and/or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality? -- Best Management Practices – Storm Water Quality. The City shall require contractors to file a Notice of Intent with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) indicating compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit) and to prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) outlining BMPs for construction/post- construction activities as specified by the City of Palo Alto’s Pollution Prevention plan sheet, the California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook and/or the Association of Bay Area Governments’ Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. The BMPs include measures guiding the management and operation of construction sites to control and minimize the potential contribution of pollutants to stormwater runoff from these areas. These measures address procedures for controlling erosion and sedimentation, and managing all aspects of the City of Palo Alto and its contra ctors City of Palo Alto 1. Include in plans and specifications. 2. Document contractor compliance with plans and specifications. 1. Pre-construction 2. Construction 1.________ 2.________ 3 construction process to ensure control of potential water pollution sources. Erosion and sedimentation control practices typically include: • Performing equipment maintenance at least 100 feet from all water bodies and wetlands, with measures in place to contain spills of diesel fuel, gasoline, or other petroleum products. • Directing drainage from all work sites away from any water bodies or wetlands where feasible; • Preventing erosion of uplands and sedimentation of creeks, tributaries, and ponds; • Minimizing creek bank instability; • Preventing flooding; and • Returning grades to preconstruction contours. • Installation of silt fencing and/or straw wattle; • Soil stabilization; • Revegetation of graded and fill areas with a standard erosion control mix (approved by a native habitat restorationist); • Runoff control to limit increases in sediment in stormwater runoff (e.g., straw bales, silt fences, drainage swales, geofabrics, check dams, and sand bag dikes); A SWPPP that complies with the statewide General Permit shall be developed and implemented to protect water quality of the creeks that lie in the study area. Appropriate erosion and sediment control and non-sediment pollution control (i.e., sources of pollution generated by construction equipment and material) BMPs shall be prescribed in the SWPPP, and erosion and sediment control material included in the SWPPP shall be 4 certified as weed free. Dewatering operations are covered under the General Construction Permit as an authorized non-stormwater discharge. The discharge from dewatering operations would be evaluated and made part of the Project SWPPP. In addition, the Project shall comply with RWQCB regulations and standards to maintain and improve the quality of both surface water and groundwater resources. HYD-1 Have the potential violation of water quality standards and/or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality? -- Frac-Out Plan. Prior to constructing underground crossings of creeks or channels, a Frac-out Contingency Plan shall be developed. At minimum, the plan shall prescribe the measures to ensure protection of water quality and related biological resources (e.g., aquatic resources, and special-status plants and wildlife) including: • Procedures to minimize the potential for a frac-out associated with horizontal directional drilling; • Procedures for timely detection of frac-outs; • Procedures for timely response and remediation in the event a frac-out; and • Monitoring of drilling and frac-out response activities by a qualified biologist. City of Palo Alto and its contra ctors City of Palo Alto 1. Verify that Frac- Out Contingency Plan is developed and that measures are outlined in the plans and specifications. 2. Monitor construction activities to verify that measures are implemented during construction. 1. Pre-construction 2. Construction 1.________ 2.________ HYD-1 Have the potential violation of water quality standards and/or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality? -- Discharge of Exceptional Wastewater. Hydrostatic test water and water collected from dewatering activities (including contaminated water) are discharged to the sanitary sewer with an Exceptional Waste Discharge Permit from RWQCB. The permit requires chemical constituents to be sampled and identifies limits for these constituents. To minimize impacts to water quality, the City shall obtain an Exceptional Wastewater Permit prior to discharge of such waters into the sanitary sewer. City of Palo Alto and its contra ctors City of Palo Alto 1. Verify that permit is obtained. 2. Confirm that water is discharged appropriately. 1. Pre-construction 2. Construction 1.________ 2.________ HYD-2 Have the potential to substantially alter the -- See above for HYD-1 information. 5 existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? HYD-3 Have the potential to result in the substantial decline in health of redwood trees and other salt- sensitive plant species? HYD-3a Mitigation Measure HYD-3a: Source Control of Saline Groundwater. The City shall continue to line and repair existing sewers to minimize saline groundwater infiltration. City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto 1. For anticipated lining/repair projects identified in the EIR initiated by the City and any other future City projects that would minimize saline infiltration, confirm funding available for the work. 2. Retain the as- built drawings of the project in the project file. 1. Ongoing (throughout the life of this project) 2. Ongoing 1.________ 2.________ HYD-3 Have the potential to result in the substantial decline in health of redwood trees and other salt- sensitive plant species? HYD-3b Mitigation Measure HYD-3b: Monitoring: The City shall immediately begin monthly monitoring of the salinity (and related constituents) of the recycled water and shall report the rolling 12-month average for comparison to the Palo Alto City Council goal of 600 mg/l TDS. Monthly electronic reporting to those requesting it will be performed for two years, and then the frequency will be re- evaluated. The City shall monitor soil salinity City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto 1. Monitor salinity (and related constituents) monthly. 2. Retain transmittal of results to those requesting this information. 1. Monthly, for two years (recycled water). The frequency will be reevaluated thereafter. 2. Ongoing 3. Semiannually for two years. The frequency will be 1.________ 2.________ 6 and SAR through semi-annual soil analyses, preferably taken early and late in the irrigation season (approximately April and October). 3. Document salinity monitoring and reporting and retain in the project file. reevaluated thereafter. Retaining information will be ongoing. 3.________ HYD-3 Have the potential to result in the substantial decline in health of redwood trees and other salt- sensitive plant species? HYD-3c Mitigation Measure HYD-3b: Site Management: If at a particular site receiving recycled water, monitoring identifies an increase in soil salinity and SAR over historical levels, the City in cooperation with the owner of that site shall conduct a site-specific evaluation. That evaluation would consider (1) the extent to which the site contains protected trees (including redwood trees and oaks) that might be impacted by soil salinity, (2) the extent to which the elevated salinity is at a level that poses a threat to such protected trees, and (3) the extent to which the elevated salinity is the result of the use of the City's recycled water. If a threat is found, the City shall work cooperatively with the site owner to develop a site-specific mitigation plan, including the site owner's implementation of best management practices which are described below: • To avoid plant damage to salt sensitive landscape plants, site owners can implement a leaching program to maintain soil salinity within the root zone below 2.0 dS/m and SAR below 6.0. For moderately salt-tolerant plants, maintain soil salinity below 4.0 dS/m. Where subsoils do not drain adequately, installation of subsurface drainage systems may be needed. Rainfall will satisfy a portion of the leaching requirement, depending on the rate, volume, and distribution through the season. The frequency with which leaching applications should be made depends on several Site owner s City of Palo Alto 1. Include requirements in use agreements for recycled water. 2. Confirm site owners implement BMPs if deemed necessary by the site owners in inspection reports. 3. Retain inspection reports in the project file. 1. Ongoing 2. Ongoing 3. Ongoing 1.________ 2.________ 3.________ 7 variables, and is typically triggered by approaching soil salinity thresholds defined above. • Site owners can apply gypsum prior to leaching when indicated by soil analysis. Gypsum is a soil amendment that, when combined with leaching, helps lower soil sodium concentrations. Gypsum application can be considered when soil analyses reveal one or more of the following conditions: SAR exceeds 6.0, SAR increases 2 units or more (e.g., 2.3 to 4.3), and/or sodium concentration exceeds 5 meq/l (115 mg/L). The amount of gypsum needed and the frequency of application depend on site- specific soil and water characteristics, and can be determined by laboratory analysis. HYD-3 Have the potential to result in the substantial decline in health of redwood trees and other salt- sensitive plant species? HYD-3d Mitigation Measure HYD-3d: Other Options to Protect Salt-Sensitive Plants. In the event that monitoring results (see Mitigation Measure HYD-3b) show that optimal concentrations of TDS and related parameters will not be achieved prior to operation of the Project (i.e., recycled water application), the City will evaluate and implement one or more of the following actions to reduce TDS levels: • Utilize its existing Recycled Water Ordinance exemption process (Palo Alto Municipal Code 16.12.050) to exempt redwood trees (and/or other salt sensitive species) from the use of recycled water; • Blend Recycled Water and other lower salinity water prior to application; and/or • Treat recycled water to reduce TDS prior to application, or shortly thereafter (the City is initiating an investigation of the feasibility of Reverse or Forward Osmosis treatment of its recycled water, combined with blending of appropriate water). City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto 1. Initiate the investigation of the feasibility of Reverse and Forward Osmosis treatment of its recycled water, combined with blending of appropriate. 2. Retain final technical document in project file. 3. If the Project proceeds and TDS and optimal concentrations of TDS and related 1. Upon certification of the EIR and approval of the Project 2. Upon completion of the investigation, prior to construction. 3. Prior to and during operation (if necessary) 1.________ 2.________ 3.________ 8 parameters are not achieved, document implementation of selected option. ASETHETICS AES-1 Have a substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings or on a public view or view corridor? -- Compliance with the Tree Technical Manual The City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual (Dockter 2001) is a separately published document issued by the City Manager, through the Departments of Planning and Community Environment and Public Works to establish specific technical regulations, standards and specifications necessary to implement the Tree Ordinance (Chapter 8.10, Tree Preservation and Management Regulations), and to achieve the City’s tree preservation goals and natural resource conservation goals. Section 2.00 specifically addresses the protection of trees during construction; its objective is to reduce the negative impacts of construction on trees to a less than significant level. Construction projects within the tree protection zone (TPZ) of Regulated Trees are required to implement protective practices prior to and during construction. The City would be required to retain a certified arborist to prepare a Tree Protection and Preservation Plan if any activity is within the dripline of a Protected or Designated Tree. The Plan must include an assessment of impacts to trees, recommended mitigation to reduce impacts to a less than significant level, and identification of construction guidelines to be followed through all phases of a construction project. City of Palo Alto and its contra ctors City of Palo Alto 1. Document completion of Tree Protection and Preservation Plan. 2. Document compliance with requirements of 2.00 and 3.00 of the City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual. 1. Pre-construction 2. Pre-construction/ Construction 1.________ 2.________ 9 Section 3.00 of the Tree Technical Manual outlines requirements associated with the removal and replacement of regulated trees. The standards and specifications for replacements of trees are dependent on the location where a Protected or Designated Tree would be replaced. If a tree is to be replaced on site, the replacement tree must be the same species unless the Director determines that another species would be more suitable for the location. The location of the replacement tree on site must be approved by the Director. If it is not possible to replace the tree on site, funding for the replacement of trees is calculated using a Tree Value Replacement Standard. The funding is then applied for planting of trees elsewhere. AES-1 Have a substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings or on a public view or view corridor? -- Architectural Review and Site and Design Review Architectural Review and/or Site and Design review will be required for all exterior modifications, including hanging pipes, pump stations, and landscaping. The individual components will require approval by the City’s Architectural Review Board (ARB) for architectural review, and by the planning commission, ARB, and City Council for site and design review prior to project implementation. City of Palo Alto and its contra ctors City of Palo Alto 1. Document completion of Architectural Review and/or Site and Design review. 1. Pre-construction 1.________ AES-1 Have a substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings or on a public view or view corridor? HYD-3a See above for HYD-3a information. AES-1 Have a substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality HYD-3b See above for HYD-3b information. 10 of the site and its surroundings or on a public view or view corridor? AES-1 Have a substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings or on a public view or view corridor? HYD-3c See above for HYD-3c information. AES-1 Have a substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings or on a public view or view corridor? HYD-3d See above for HYD-3d information. AES-1 Have a substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings or on a public view or view corridor? AES-1 Mitigation Measure AES-1: Restoration to Pre-construction Conditions. The City shall require its contractors to restore disturbed areas to their pre-construction conditions, to the extent consistent with pipeline operations, so that short-term construction disturbance does not result in long-term visual impacts. City of Palo Alto or its contra ctor City of Palo Alto 1. Include in plans and specifications. 2. Document contractor has complied with plans and specifications. 1. Design 2. Post-Construction 1.________ 2._________ AIR QUALITY Item b Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? -- Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Dust Control Measures The following basic construction measures are identified by BAAQMD and shall be incorporated into contract specifications and implemented by the contractor. City of Palo Alto and its contra ctors City of Palo Alto 1. Include in plans and specifications. 2. Document contractor has complied with plans and specifications. 1. Design 2. Construction 1.________ 2.________ 11 • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day; • All haul trucks transporting soils, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered; • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited; • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. • Post a publicly visible sign with telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective 12 action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. The following additional construction mitigation measures identified by BAAQMD shall be incorporated into contract specifications and implemented by the contractor, to supplement the proposed standard project requirement. • All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe. • All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph. • Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Wind breaks should have at maximum50 percent air porosity. • Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast- germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. • The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time. • All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. • Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6 to 12 inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch or gravel. 13 • Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent. • Idling time of diesel powered construction equipment shall be minimized to two minutes. • The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOx reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent ARB fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become available. • Use low VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings). • All construction equipment, diesel trucks and generators shall be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM. • All contractors shall use equipment that meets CARB’s most recent certification standard for off-road heavy duty diesel engines. Item c Have the potential to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project -- See Item b above for Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Dust Control Measures 14 region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Item d Have the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants? -- See Item b above for Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Dust Control Measures Items b, c, d Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Have the potential to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative AIR-1 Mitigation Measure AIR-1. Two Crew Construction of Proposed Pipeline (using open trench construction technique) and Pump Station Restrictions. To ensure NOx emissions do not exceed the BAAQMD threshold, the City shall either: 1. Incorporate into contract specifications the requirement for contractors to limit open trench construction of the proposed pipeline to one crew (rather than two crews) and sequence the pump station construction so that it would be constructed one at a time, not concurrent with any other activity; or 2. Upon refinement of the construction details and assumptions for equipment use, dimensions of the trenches, rate of construction, backfill volume, the City shall rerun the air quality model analysis to confirm whether simultaneous construction of the proposed pipeline or pump stations would result in exceedance of BAAAMD NOx emissions threshold. If NOx threshold City of Palo Alto and its contra ctor City of Palo Alto 1. Document construction method to be used. 2. Confirm that appropriate limitations have been included in plans and specifications. 3. Include in plans and specifications the appropriate method for sequencing / limiting construction, as needed. If thresholds are not exceeded, the City may proceed with 1. Facility Planning / Design 2. Design 3. Construction 1.________ 2.________ 3._________ 15 thresholds for ozone precursors)? Have the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants? is exceeded, then the City shall implemented item 1 above. If NOx threshold is not exceeded, then the City would be able to proceed with concurrent construction of two pipelines (using open trench construction) / two pump stations accordingly. construction using two crews. If thresholds are exceeded, sequence / limit construction such that NOx emissions thresholds are not exceeded. 4. Document contractor has complied with plans and specifications. 4.________ BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Item a Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? -- Health and Safety and Hazardous Materials Management and Spill Prevention Control Plans. The City shall require the contractor to prepare a Health and Safety Plan and Hazardous Materials Management and Spill Prevention and Control Plan prior to commencement of construction that includes a project-specific contingency plan for hazardous materials and waste operations. The Health and Safety Plan shall be applicable to all construction activities, and shall establish policies and procedures according to federal and California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations for hazardous materials Health and Safety Plans, and the City of Palo Alto’s Pollution Prevention plan sheet. Elements of the plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following: • Discussion of hazardous materials management, including delineation of hazardous material storage areas, access City of Palo Alto and its contra ctors City of Palo Alto 1. Document that requirement is included in plans and specifications. 2. Document contractor has complied with the plans and specifications. 1. Design 2. Construction 1.________ 2.________ 16 and egress routes, waterways, emergency assembly areas, and temporary hazardous waste storage areas; • Notification and documentation of procedures; and • Spill control and countermeasures, including employee spill prevention/response training. Item a Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? -- See HYD-1 for Best Management Practices – Stormwater Quality Item b Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, including federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, -- See Biological Resources, Item a above 17 marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Item d Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10)? -- See Biological Resources, Item a above See AES-1 above for Compliance with the Tree Technical Manual Items a, b, d Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive BIO-1 Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Protection of Sensitive Habitats and Jurisdictional Features. The proposed project has been designed to avoid impacts to sensitive habitats, including jurisdictional wetlands and waters. However, indirect impacts to jurisdictional waters could occur as a result of the proposed project. The following general measures will be implemented during the construction and operation of the proposed project to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive habitats and jurisdictional features: • All construction equipment will use identified staging areas and access roads located in upland areas. When accessing work sites, travel and parking of vehicles and equipment will be limited to pavement, existing roads, and previously disturbed areas (except where overland travel is required). Construction workers will not 1, 2. City of Palo Alto or its contra ctor 2. Contr actor 3, 4. City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto 1. Document that requirements are included in plans and specifications. Confirm measures are implemented. 2. Inspect construction sites to confirm plans and specifications implemented during construction. 3. Inspect construction sites to confirm plans and specifications 1. Design 2. Construction 3. Post- Construction, before operation. 1.________ 2.________ 3.________ 18 natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, including federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10)? be allowed to enter sensitive areas that have been fenced or staked. • Ground disturbance and vegetation removal will not exceed the minimum amount necessary to complete work at the site. • The following BMPs shall be incorporated into the SWPPP as protective measures to address wind- or water-related erosion: o No discharge of pollutants from vehicle and equipment cleaning will be allowed into storm drains, wetlands, or water courses. o No vehicles may be refueled within 100 feet of wetlands, streams, or other waterways. Vehicles operating adjacent to wetlands and waterways must be inspected and maintained daily to prevent leaks. o Waste facilities will be maintained. Waste facilities include concrete wash- out facilities, portable toilets, and hydraulic fluid containers. Waste will be removed to a proper disposal site. • After construction is completed, a final cleanup will include removal of all stakes, temporary fencing, flagging, and other refuse generated by construction. implemented after construction is completed. Items a, d Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or BIO-2 Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Protection of CRLF. Construction activities associated with the creek crossing (Matadero Creek near Deer Creek Road) will be limited to the dry season (generally April 15 to October 15) to the extent feasible. City of Palo Alto or its contra ctor City of Palo Alto 1. Confirm requirement is included in plans and specifications. 2. Confirm construction occurs in compliance 1. Design 2. Construction 1.________ 2.________ 19 regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10)? with plans and specifications. Items a, d Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting BIO-3 Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Employee Education Program (required for CRLF, BUOW, and CCR if preconstruction surveys determine they are present). An employee education program will be conducted by a qualified biologist, consisting of a brief presentation to explain special-status species concerns to contractors, their employees, and any other personnel involved in the project. The program will include the following: a description of relevant special-status species and their habitat needs as they pertain to the project; a report of the occurrence of these species in the project vicinity, as applicable; an explanation of the status of these species and their protection under the MBTA, California Fish and Game Code, and other statutes; and, a list of measures being taken to reduce potential impacts to natural resources during project construction and implementation. A fact sheet conveying this information will be prepared for distribution to the above-mentioned people and anyone else 1. City of Palo Alto or its contra ctor 2. Contr actors City of Palo Alto 1. Confirm requirement is included in plans and specifications the need to conduct an employee - education program as described in Mitigation Measure BIO-3. 2. Upon completion of training, have Contractor employees sign a form stating they have attended 1. Design 2. Pre-construction 1.________ 2.________ 20 biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10)? who may enter the project area. Upon completion of training, employees will sign a form stating that they attended the training and understand all of the conservation and protection measures. Construction crews will be informed during the education program meeting that, to the extent possible, travel within the marked project area will be restricted to established roadbeds. training and understand conservation and protection measures. Items a, d Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10)? BIO-4 Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Monitoring During Construction. A qualified biologist will be retained to monitor construction activities associated with the creek crossing (Matadero Creek near Deer Creek Road). The biologist will have expertise with CRLF biology and ecology. The biologist will have the authority to halt work if a special-status species is observed. 1. City of Palo Alto or its contra ctors City of Palo Alto 1. Confirm requirement is included in plans and specifications the need for monitoring at Matadero Creek during construction. 2. Retain biologist to monitor creek crossing activities. 3. Confirm monitoring at creek crossing. 1. Design 2. Prior to/during construction 3. Construction 1.________ 2.________ 3.________ 21 Items a, d Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10)? BIO-5 Mitigation Measure BIO-5: General Measures to Reduce Impacts to Wildlife Species. The following shall be relevant to the following species: California red-legged frog, burrowing owl, and the California Clapper Rail. • All excavations left open overnight will either be covered to prevent wildlife from becoming entrapped or will include escape ramps. In addition, excavations must be inspected for wildlife at the start of each workday and prior to back filling. The USFWS and/or CDFW will be contacted prior to removing or relocating any special- status wildlife within the excavation. • Food items may attract wildlife into construction areas, which would expose them to construction-related hazards. The construction areas will be maintained in a clean condition. All trash (e.g., food scraps, cans, bottles, containers, wrappers, cigarette butts, and other discarded items) will be placed in closed containers and properly disposed of. If an animal is found at a work site and is believed to be a protected species, work must be halted until the animal leaves of its own accord or the USFWS and/or CDFW is consulted to relocate the species. Care shall be taken not to harm the species. No wildlife or plant species will be handled and/or removed from the site by anyone except approved biologists. City of Palo Alto’s contra ctor City of Palo Alto 1. Confirm requirement is included in plans and specifications the conditions in BIO-5. 2. If special-status wildlife found in excavations, halt work and resume after it leaves or consult with USFWS and/or CDFW prior to removing or relocating species. 3. Confirm compliance with plans and specifications. 1. Design 2. Construction 3. Construction 1.________ 2.________ 3.________ Items a, d Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status BIO-6 Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Burrowing Owl Pre-Construction Surveys. Pre-construction BUOW surveys will be conducted in suitable habitat for BUOW (i.e., in pastureland habitat between Deer Creek Road and Hillview Avenue and in the vicinity of the RWQCP) in accordance with the recommendations and guidelines provided in the Staff Report on City of Palo Alto or its contra ctors City of Palo Alto 1. Confirm requirement is included in plans and specifications the conditions in BIO-6. 1. Design 2. Pre-construction 3. Construction 4. Pre-construction/ Construction 1.________ 22 species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Burrowing Owl Mitigation (Department of Fish and Game, March 2012). If no BUOW or BUOW sign is observed no further action will be required. If BUOW or BUOW sign is observed then no disturbance will occur within 160 feet of occupied burrows during the non- breeding season (September 1 through January 31) or within 250 feet during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31). A qualified biologist will be present in these locations to monitor construction and ensure the BUOW is not disturbed. 2. Confirm pre- construction Burrowing Owl surveys are conducted to determine presence / absence. If no BUOW / BUOW sign is observed, no further action is required. 3. If signs of Burrowing Owls are observed, ensure no disturbance within the identified buffer and have a biologist present to monitor construction 4. Document contractor has complied with plans and specifications. 2.________ 3.________ 4.________ Items a, d Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status BIO-7 Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Buffer for California Clapper Rail or Survey. Construction activities within 500 feet of the marshland habitat surrounding the RWQCP will be conducted outside the breeding season for CCR (i.e., September 1 through January 31). If this is not feasible, a qualified biologist will conduct protocol-level surveys for CCR in City of Palo Alto or its contra ctors City of Palo Alto 1. Confirm requirement is included in plans and specifications the conditions that if construction 1. Design 2. Pre-construction 3. Pre-construction 4. Construction 1.________ 23 species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10)? accordance with the California Clapper Rail Draft Survey Protocol (USFWS 2000). A qualified biologist is an individual who has experience conducting protocol-level surveys for CCR. Prior to commencement of the surveys, the biologist will prepare a brief letter report describing the survey design and submit it to the USFWS and the CDFW for review and approval. Upon the completion of the surveys, results will be submitted to the USFWS and CDFW for a final decision on the possibility of doing work during the breeding season for CCR. occurs within 500 feet of the marshland habitat during CCR’s breeding season, retain qualified biologist to conduct survey. 2. Have biologist prepare a brief letter report describing survey and submit to USFWS and CDFW (if survey needed). 3. Confirm biologist conducts protocol-level surveys and submits results to USFWS and CDFW. 4. Confirm implementation of final decision from USFWS and CDFW. 2.________ 3.________ 4.________ Items a, d Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, BIO-8 Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Measure to Protect Nesting Birds. If equipment staging, site preparation, grading, excavation, or other project-related construction activities are scheduled to occur during the avian nesting season (generally February 1 to September 1), a focused survey for active nests will be City of Palo Alto or its contra ctors City of Palo Alto 1. Confirm requirement is included in plans and specifications. 2. Confirm any necessary 1. Design 2. Pre-construction 3. Pre-construction 4. Construction 5. Pre-construction/ Construction 1.________ 2.________ 24 or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10)? conducted by a qualified biologists within 15 days prior to the beginning of project-related activities. Surveys will be conducted in all suitable habitat located at project work sites, and in staging or storage areas. Surveys will be conducted at the appropriate times of day (e.g., dawn or dusk), and during the appropriate nesting times and will concentrate on areas of suitable habitat. If a lapse in project-related activities of 15 days or longer occurs, another focused survey will be conducted. If no active nests are found, then no further mitigation is required. If an active nest is found within the surveyed areas, an appropriate exclusion buffer will be established by a qualified biologist and the exclusion buffer will be maintained until the young have fledged or will no longer be impacted by the project. A qualified biologist will be present to monitor construction activities in the vicinity of the nest and ensure the nesting species is not disturbed. If a species appears disturbed by construction activities (as determined by a qualified biologist) work will be halted and the USFWS and/or CDFW will be consulted. Project activities will not resume without approval from the USFWS and/or CDFW. surveys are conducted. 3. If active nests are found during the survey, verify installation of buffer and completion of monitoring. 4. Verify coordination with USFWS and/or CDFW if needed. 5. Document contractor has complied with plans and specifications. 3.________ 4.________ 5.________ Items a, d Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California BIO-9 Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Bat Preconstruction Surveys. Preconstruction day and night-roost surveys will be conducted to avoid impacts to bats. The survey will be conducted by a qualified bat biologist following the protocol in the Bats and Bridges Technical Bulletin (Erickson et al. 2003) to determine if bats are using the bridges as a roost site. If a roost is observed, the CDFW and/or USFWS will be consulted and additional mitigation measures will be implemented. Example measures include working during the daytime if night roosts are present, no clearing or grubbing City of Palo Alto and its contra ctors City of Palo Alto 1. Confirm requirement is included in plans and specifications. 2. For bridge crossings, confirm pre- construction bat roost surveys are conducted. 1. Design 2. Pre-construction 3. Construction 4. Construction 5. Pre-construction/ Construction 1.________ 2.________ 25 Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10)? adjacent to the roost, no work within 100 feet of the roost, no lighting near the roost where it could shine on the roost structure. 3. If a roost is observed document consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS. 4. Verify implementation of any measures specified by CDFW and USFWS. 5. Document contractor has complied with plans and specifications. 3.________ 4.________ 5.________ Items a, d Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, BIO-10 Mitigation Measure BIO-10: Bats Breeding Season Surveys. Construction activities near Adobe Creek crossing near Middlefield Road, the Barron Creek crossing near Cowper Street, and the Matadero Creek crossing near Cowper Street will be scheduled to avoid the bat breeding season (April through August) to the extent feasible. If work in these locations is required in the breeding season, a survey for bats will be conducted. The survey will be conducted by a qualified bat biologist following the protocol in the Bats and Bridges Technical Bulletin (Erickson et al. 2003) to determine if bats are using the bridges as a roost site. If a roost is observed, the CDFW and/or USFWS will be consulted and additional mitigation measures will be implemented. Example measures include excluding bats from directly affected work areas or replacing the roost location. City of Palo Alto and its contra ctors City of Palo Alto 1. Confirm requirement is included in plans and specifications. 2. If construction occurs during the bat breeding season, confirm pre-construction survey are conducted. 3. If a roost is observed, document consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS. 4. If needed, document implementation of the measures 1. Design 2. Pre-construction 3. Pre-construction 4. Construction 5. Pre-construction/ Construction 1.________ 2.________ 3.________ 4.________ 26 such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10)? specified by CDFW and USFWS. 5. Document contractor has complied with plans and specifications. 5.________ CULTURAL RESOURCES Item a Have the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural resource that is recognized by City Council resolution? -- Protection of Cultural Resources. Should any previously undiscovered historic or prehistoric archaeological deposits be discovered during construction, work shall stop within 50 feet of the discovery, until such time that the discovery can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist and appropriate mitigative action taken as determined necessary in consultation with the lead Federal agency for NHPA Section 106 compliance, in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.13, and the City. Measures might include preserving in situ the archaeological resource or an archaeological monitoring or data recovery program. Prehistoric archaeological site indicators include chipped chert and obsidian tools, and tool manufacturing waste flakes, grinding implements such as mortars and pestles, and darkened soil that contains dietary debris such as bone fragments and shellfish remains. Historic site indicators include, but are not limited to, ceramics, glass, wood, bone, and metal remains. Section 7050.5(b) of the California Health and Safety code will be implemented in the event that human remains, or possible human remains, are located during Project-related construction excavation. Section 7050.5(b) states: In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the City of Palo Alto and its contra ctors City of Palo Alto 1. Confirm requirement is included in plans and specifications. 2. Document contractor has complied with plans and specifications. 3. If archeological deposits are discovered during construction, document that appropriate action is taken. 4. If human remains, or possible remains are located, confirm implementation of California Health and Safety code section 7050.5(b). 1. Design 2. Construction 3. Construction 4. Construction 1.________ 2.________ 3.________ 4.________ 27 site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined, in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 27460) of Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the Government Code, that the remains are not subject to the provisions of Section 27492 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of death, and the recommendations concerning treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. The County Coroner, upon recognizing the remains as being of Native American origin, is responsible for contacting the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The Commission has various powers and duties to provide for the ultimate disposition of any Native American remains, as does the assigned Most Likely Descendant. Sections 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code also call for protection from inadvertent destruction. To achieve this goal, the construction personnel on the Project would be instructed as to the potential for discovery of cultural or human remains, the need for proper and timely reporting of such finds, and the consequences of failure thereof. Item b Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological -- See Cultural Resources Item a above 28 resource pursuant to 15064.5? Item c Have the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? -- Protection of Paleontological Resources If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving activities, the construction crew would immediately cease work near the find. In accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 2010), a qualified paleontologist would assess the nature and importance of the find and recommend appropriate salvage, treatment, and future monitoring and mitigation. City of Palo Alto and its contra ctors City of Palo Alto 1. Confirm requirement is included in plans and specifications. 2. If paleontological resources are discovered, document appropriate treatment. 1. Design 2. Construction 1.________ 2.________ Item d Have the potential to disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? -- See Cultural Resources Item a above Item e Have the potential to adversely affect a historic resource listed or eligible for listing on the National and/or California Register, or listed on the City’s Historic Inventory? -- See Cultural Resources Item a above Item f Have the potential to eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory? -- See Cultural Resources Item a above Items a, b, d, e, f Have the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural resource that CR-1 Mitigation Measure CR-1: Subsurface Testing. A program of sub-surface testing shall be conducted to determine whether buried resources are present within the areas of high or high to moderate archaeological sensitivity that City of Palo Alto and City of Palo Alto 1. Document completion of sub-surface testing. 1. Design, upon selection of the construction methods. 2. Pre-construction 1.________ 2.________ 29 is recognized by City Council resolution? Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? Have the potential to disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Have the potential to adversely affect a historic resource listed or eligible for listing on the National and/or California Register, or listed on the City’s Historic Inventory? Have the potential to eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory? will be impacted by Project construction. Only those locations where design confirms that the proposed pipeline would be buried at archaeologically sensitive locations will require subsurface testing. A testing program will be developed to determine the best approach for each location, considering the physical constraints of the urban setting (e.g., structures, traffic). The testing program could consist of multiple core extractions at individual sites; the locations and depths of the bore holes would be determined on the basis of projected depths of excavation at the individual work areas. A qualified archaeologist would monitor the testing efforts, and inspect the cores for prehistoric archaeological site indicators (e.g., chipped chert and obsidian tools, and tool manufacturing waste flakes, grinding implements such as mortars and pestles, and darkened soil that contains dietary debris such as bone fragments and shellfish remains) and historic site indicators (e.g., ceramics, glass, wood, bone, and metal remains). If the findings of the subsurface testing are negative, then no further actions (e.g., further testing or archaeological monitoring) would be recommended as necessary for NHPA Section 106 compliance, although consultation with SHPO would still be needed to formally complete the Section 106 process. If the findings of the subsurface testing are positive (and avoidance of the archaeological site is not feasible or practicable through project redesign), then a qualified archaeologist will develop an archeological data recovery plan (ADRP) in consultation with the City, the lead Federal agency, the SHPO and other appropriate consulting parties, as applicable, in accordance with the requirements of 36 CFR Part 800. The its contra ctors 2. If resources are present and avoidance is not feasible, document completion of ARDP. If findings are positive, confirm an ADRP is developed in consultation with relevant agencies which identify appropriate measures. 3. Confirm implementation of the measures identified in the ADRP. 3. Pre-construction/ Construction 3.________ 30 ADRP shall identify how the proposed data recovery program will used to evaluate and preserve the significant information the archaeological resource is expected to contain. That is, the ADRP will identify what scientific/historical research questions are applicable to the expected resource, what data classes the resource is expected to possess, and how the expected data classes would address the applicable research questions. Implementation of the ADRP through the development and execution of an appropriate agreement document by the lead Federal agency, the SHPO, the City, and any other identified signatories, would satisfy the requirements of NHPA Section 106 as outlined at 36 CFR § 800.6. Whether the results of subsurface testing are negative or positive, if Federal funding for the Project is approved, full compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA as determined by the lead Federal agency will be required prior to Project construction. GEOLOGY, SOILS, and SEISMICITY Item a Have the potential to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, groundshaking, liquefaction or landslides? -- Geologic Report for Potentially Affected Facilities. During the design phase for the Project, the City shall require preparation of a Geologic Report by a geologist registered in the State of California for facilities that could be affected by seismic-related hazards or unstable soils (e.g., liquefaction and expansive soils). • The Geologic Report shall include an engineering analysis of liquefaction and the potential for expansive soils at the pump stations. This assessment shall include a liquefaction assessment study in accordance with the California Geological Survey Special Publication 117 Guidelines. If this report finds unstable soils would present potential risks associated with liquefaction, City of Palo Alto and its contra ctors City of Palo Alto 1. Document preparation of Geologic Report. 2. Document incorporation of recommendatio ns in plans and specifications. . 1. Design 2. Design 1.________ 2.________ 31 engineering recommendations for surface and subsurface drainage specifications and detailed design for fill placement and excavation shall be provided. Item b Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil -- See HYD-1 for Best Management Practices – Stormwater Quality Item c Result in substantial siltation. -- See HYD-1 for Best Management Practices – Stormwater Quality Item d Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. -- See Geology and Soils Item a above. Item e Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. -- See Geology and Soils Item a above. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Item a Have the potential to generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? AIR-1 See above for AIR-1 information. See Air Quality Item a above. 32 Item b Have the potential to conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? AIR-1 See above for AIR-1 information. See Air Quality Item a above. HAZARDS and HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Item a Have the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. -- See Biological Resources Item a for Health and Safety and Hazardous Materials Management and Spill Prevention Control Plans See HYD-1 for Discharge of Exceptional Wastewater Item a Have the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. -- Storage, Handling, and Use of Hazardous Materials in Accordance with Applicable Laws. The City shall ensure that all construction-related hazardous materials and hazardous wastes are stored, handled, and used in a manner consistent with applicable federal, state, and local laws, and the City of Palo Alto’s Pollution Prevention plan sheet. In addition, construction-related hazardous materials and hazardous wastes shall be staged and stored away from stream channels and steep banks to keep these materials a safe distance from near- by residents and prevent them from entering surface waters in the event of an accidental release. City of Palo Alto and its contra ctors City of Palo Alto 1. Confirm requirements are included in plans and specifications. 2. Confirm measures are implemented during construction. 1. Design 2. Construction 1.________ 2.________ Item a Have the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or -- Proper Disposal of Contaminated Soil and/or Groundwater. If contaminated soil and/or groundwater is encountered or if suspected contamination is encountered during Project construction, work shall be halted in the area, and the type and extent of the contamination City of Palo Alto and its City of Palo Alto 1. Confirm requirements are included in plans and specifications. 1. Design 2. Construction 1.________ 2.________ 33 disposal of hazardous materials. shall be identified. A contingency plan to dispose of any contaminated soil or groundwater would be developed through consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies and consistent with the requirements of the City of Palo Alto’s Pollution Prevention plan sheet and RWQCP’s permit requirements for discharge of exceptional wastewater to the sanitary sewer contra ctors 2. Confirm measures are implemented during construction. Item b Have the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? -- See Hazards and Hazardous Materials Item a above Item c Have the potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? -- See Hazards and Hazardous Materials Item a above Item e Located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? -- See Hazards and Hazardous Materials Item a above 34 Item h Have the potential to impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? -- Traffic Control Plan. The City’s Transportation Section would require the contractor to have a full traffic control plan prepared by a registered traffic engineer. The traffic control plan shall be in accordance with the City’s Traffic Control Requirements and would show specific methods for maintaining traffic flows to minimize construction impacts on traffic and parking. There are several schools in the vicinity of the Project. These areas would be evaluated more closely to determine whether the traffic control plan is appropriate or if additional measures are needed specific to school areas. Examples of traffic control measures to be considered include: • Identify all roadway locations where special construction techniques (e.g., directional drilling) would be used to minimize impacts to traffic flow; • Develop circulation and detour plans to minimize impacts to local street circulation. This may include the use of signing and flagging to guide vehicles through and/or around the construction zone; • Schedule truck trips outside of peak morning and evening commute hours; • Prohibit construction on collector and arterial streets during morning commute period before 9 a.m. and in the afternoon commute period after 4 p.m.; • Use haul routes, minimizing truck traffic on local roadways to the extent possible; • Consider detours for bicycles and pedestrians in all areas potentially affected by Project construction. Pedestrian and bicycle detours should not be required unless deemed necessary for safety reasons; City of Palo Alto and its contra ctors City of Palo Alto 1. Confirm requirements are included in plans and specifications. 2. Confirm measures are implemented during construction. 1. Design 2. Construction 1.________ 2.________ 35 • Use flagmen to maintain alternating one- way traffic while working on one-half of the street; • Use advance construction signs and other public notices to alert drivers of activity in the area; • Use “positive guidance” detour signing on alternate access streets to minimize inconvenience to the driving public; • Install traffic control devices as specified in the California Department of Transportation Manual of Traffic Controls for Construction and Maintenance Work Zones; • Develop and implement access plans for highly sensitive land uses such as police and fire stations, transit stations, hospitals and schools. The access plans would be developed with the facility owner or administrator. To minimize disruption of emergency vehicle access, ask affected jurisdictions to identify detours, which would then be posted by the contractor. Notify in advance the facility owner or operator of the timing, location, and duration of construction activities and the locations of lane closures; • Store construction materials only in designated areas; and • Coordinate with local transit agencies for temporary relocation of routes or bus stops in work zones, as necessary. • Establish methods for minimizing for construction effects on parking (e.g., identifying designated areas for construction worker parking at staging areas). NOISE 36 Item a Have the potential to expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? -- Compliance with Local Noise Ordinance According to the City of Palo Alto’s Noise Ordinance (Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 9.10), for residential and non-residential property, construction, alteration and repair activities which are authorized by a valid city building permit shall be prohibited on Sundays and holidays and shall be prohibited except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, provided that the construction, demolition or repair activities during those hours meet the following standards: • No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding 110 dBA at a distance of 25 feet. If the device is housed within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made outside the structure at a distance as close to 25 feet from the equipment as possible. • The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the Project shall not exceed 110 dBA. • The holder of a valid construction permit for a construction project in a non- residential zone shall post a sign at all entrances to the construction site upon commencement of construction, for the purpose of informing all contractors and subcontractors, their employees, agents, materialmen and all other persons at the construction site, of the basic requirements of this measure. o The sign(s) shall be posted at least five feet above ground level, and shall be of a white background, with black lettering, which lettering shall be a minimum of one and one-half inches in height. City of Palo Alto and its contra ctors City of Palo Alto 1. Confirm requirements are included in plans and specifications. 2. Confirm measures are implemented during construction. 1. Design 2. Construction 1.________ 2.________ 37 o The sign shall read as follows: CONSTRUCTION HOURS FOR RESIDENTIAL (OR NON- RESIDENTIAL) PROPERTY (Includes Any and All Deliveries) MONDAY - FRIDAY........8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. SATURDAY.........9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. SUNDAY/HOLIDAYS........Construction prohibited. Item a Have the potential to expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? -- Pump Station Design/Noise For the pump station at the Mayfield Soccer Fields, a detailed analysis of the buildings’ sound isolation would be conducted by a qualified acoustical consultant during the engineering design phase of the project. A post- construction field sound measurement shall be conducted by an acoustical consultant to verify that the project operational noise standards are in compliance with relevant City noise standards. City of Palo Alto and its contra ctors City of Palo Alto 1. Document completion of acoustical analysis and incorporation of measures in design. 2. Verify that operational noise levels are in compliance with City noise standards. 1. Design 2. Post-Construction 1.________ 2.________ Item c Have the potential to create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? -- See Noise Item a above Item d Have the potential to create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above -- See Noise Item a above 38 levels existing without the project? Item g Have the potential to cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB? -- See Noise Item a above Item h Have the potential to cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB? -- See Noise Item a above Item i Have the potential to cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB? -- See Noise Item a above Item j Result in indoor noise levels for residential development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB? -- See Noise Item a above Item k Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other rooms in areas with an -- See Noise Item a above 39 exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater? Item l Generate construction noise exceeding the daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors by 10 dBA or more? -- See Noise Item a above Items a, c, d, g, h, i, j, k, l Have the potential to expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Have the potential to create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Have the potential to create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Have the potential to cause the average 24 hour noise level NOI-2 Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Noise Control Measures to Reduce Construction Noise. The City shall incorporate into contract specifications all of the following measures: • Impact equipment (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for project construction will be hydraulically or electrically powered whenever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. However, where use of pneumatically powered tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust would be used. This muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves would be used where feasible, and this could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures will be used such as drilling rather than impact equipment whenever feasible. • Wherever possible, sonic or vibratory pile drivers will be used instead of impact pile drivers. If sonic or vibratory pile drivers are not feasible, acoustical enclosures will be provided as necessary to reduce noise levels. Engine and pneumatic exhaust controls on pile drivers will be required as necessary to ensure that exhaust noise from pile driver engines are minimized to the City of Palo Alto and its contra ctors City of Palo Alto 1. Confirm requirement is included in plans and specifications. 2. Document contractor has complied with plans and specifications. 1. Design. 2. Construction 1.________ 2.________ 40 (Ldn) to increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB? Have the potential to cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB? Have the potential to cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB? Result in indoor noise levels for residential development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB? Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater? extent feasible. Where feasible, pile holes will be pre-drilled to reduce potential noise and vibration impacts. • All equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best available noise control techniques (including mufflers, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds) and be maintained in good operating condition to minimize construction noise impacts. All internal combustion engine-drive equipment shall be fitted with intake and exhaust mufflers which are in good condition. • Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. In practice, this would mean turning off equipment if it would not be used for five or more minutes. • Stationary noise-generating construction equipment, such as air compressors and generators, shall be located as far as possible from homes and businesses. • Staging areas shall be located as far as feasibly possible from sensitive receptors. 41 Generate construction noise exceeding the daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors by 10 dBA or more? Items a, c, d, g, h, i, j, k, l Have the potential to expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Have the potential to create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Have the potential to create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Have the potential to cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by NOI-3 Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Pre-Construction Notification. Prior to construction, written notification to residents within 500 feet of the proposed facilities undergoing construction shall be provided, identifying the type, duration, and frequency of construction activities. Notification materials shall also identify a mechanism for residents to register complaints with the City if construction related noise impacts should occur. City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto 1. Confirm written notifications are sent to residents within 500 feet of the construction area. 1. Pre-construction 1.________ 42 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB? Have the potential to cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB? Have the potential to cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB? Result in indoor noise levels for residential development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB? Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater? 43 Generate construction noise exceeding the daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors by 10 dBA or more? Items a, c, d, g, h, i, j, k, l Have the potential to expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Have the potential to create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Have the potential to create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Have the potential to cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or NOI-3 Mitigation Measure NOI-3: Design of the Pump Station to Reduce Noise. To ensure the proposed pump station complies with the City’s noise standards, structure openings, including air ventilation would employ acoustical rated louvers, silencers, or other noise-reduction devices, as appropriate, to reduce noise propagation to the outside of the building. City of Palo Alto and its contra ctors City of Palo Alto 1. Confirm requirements are included in plans and specifications. 2. Confirm construction complies with design requirements. 1. Design 2. Construction 1.________ 2.________ 44 more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB? Have the potential to cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB? Have the potential to cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB? Result in indoor noise levels for residential development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB? Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater? 45 Generate construction noise exceeding the daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors by 10 dBA or more? TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Item a Have the potential to exceed the capacity of the existing circulation system, based on an applicable measure of effectiveness (as designated in a general plan policy, ordinance, etc.), taking into account all relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? -- See Hazards and Hazardous Materials Item h above for Traffic Control Plan Item a Have the potential to exceed the capacity of the existing circulation system, based on an applicable measure of effectiveness (as designated in a general plan policy, ordinance, etc.), taking into account -- Restoration of Roads to Pre-construction Condition. Following construction, the City shall ensure that road surfaces, bicycle routes, and bus stop facilities that are damaged during construction are returned to their pre- construction condition or better. City of Palo Alto and its contra ctors City of Palo Alto 1. Confirm requirements are included in plans and specifications. 2. Confirm completion of road restoration. 1. Design 2. Post-construction 1.________ 2.________ 46 all relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Item b Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? -- See Hazards and Hazardous Materials Item h above for Traffic Control Plan and Transportation and Traffic Item a Items a, b Have the potential to exceed the capacity of the existing circulation system, based on an applicable measure of effectiveness (as designated in a general plan policy, ordinance, etc.), taking into account all relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to TRA-2 Mitigation Measure TRA-1: CMP Facilities. The City shall work with VTA to determine when peak hour traffic starts on Page Mill Road, a CMP facility. If peak hour traffic starts around 3 p.m. on this road, then the City shall prohibit construction on this roadway after 3 p.m. City of Palo Alto and its contra ctors City of Palo Alto 1. Document consultation with VTA. 2. Confirm appropriate requirement is included in plans and specifications. 3. Document contractor has complied with plans and specifications. 1. Design 2. Design 3. Construction 1.________ 2.________ 3.________ 47 intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Item d Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? -- See Hazards and Hazardous Materials Item h above for Traffic Control Plan Item e Result in inadequate emergency access? -- See Hazards and Hazardous Materials Item h above for Traffic Control Plan Item f Have the potential to result in inadequate parking capacity that impacts traffic circulation and air quality? -- See Hazards and Hazardous Materials Item h above for Traffic Control Plan 48 Item f Have the potential to result in inadequate parking capacity that impacts traffic circulation and air quality? TRA-2 Mitigation Measure TRA-2: Coordinate construction with Businesses. To reduce the disruption of business from the temporary reduction of parking, the City shall coordinate with individual businesses on the timing of construction. City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto 1. Document coordination with businesses. 1. Pre-construction 1.________ Item g Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit & bicycle facilities)? -- See Hazards and Hazardous Materials Item h above for Traffic Control Plan Item n Impede the development or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities? -- See Hazards and Hazardous Materials Item h above for Traffic Control Plan Item o Impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion? -- See Hazards and Hazardous Materials Item h above for Traffic Control Plan Appendix B – Public Meeting Sign-In Sheet SIGN-IN PALO ALTO RECYCLED WATER PROJECT Public Meeting Palo Alto, CA – May 19, 2015 NAME AFFILIATION ADDRESS PHONE or EMAIL Karin North, Watershed Protection Manager City of Palo Alto RWQCP 2501 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2104 Karin.North@cityofpaloalto.org Phil Bobel, Assistant Public Works Director City of Palo Alto RWQCP 2501 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Phil.Bobel@cityofpaloalto.org Jane Ratchye, Assistant Director of Utilities City of Palo Alto Utilities 1007 Elwell Court, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Jane.Ratchye@cityofpaloalto.org Karla Daily, Senior Resources Planner City of Palo Alto Utilities 1007 Elwell Court, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Karla.Daily@cityofpaloalto.org Walter Passmore, Urban Forest Manager City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto 94301 Walter.Passmore@cityofpaloalto.org Matt Krupp City of Palo Alto RWQCP 2501 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Matt.Krupp@cityofpaloalto.org Julie Weiss City of Palo Alto RWQCP 2501 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Julie.Weiss@cityofpaloalto.org Dave Richardson RMC Water and Environment 2175 North California Blvd, Suite 315, Walnut Cree, CA 94596 drichardson@rmcwater.com Sue Chau RMC Water and Environment 101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1850, San Francisco, CA 94104 schau@rmcwater.com Trish Mulvey Public Citizen -- -- City of Palo Alto Public Meeting: Recycled Water EIR Adobe South, Mitchell Park Community Center, 3700 Middlefield Rd Thursday, May 21, 2015 6:00 PM -8:00' PM Name Association Email Addressr~ 1. " - C� 1 2 3. ,.-.� 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. *(Check box if you would like to be included on our Recycled Water e it distribution list.)