Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2009-06-01 City Council Agenda Packet
1 06/01/09 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. A binder containing supporting materials is available in the Council Chambers on the Friday preceding the meeting. Regular Meeting Council Chambers June 1, 2009 7:00 PM ROLL CALL SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Selection of Candidates to be Inte rviewed for the Utilities Advisory Commission ATTACHMENT 2. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Victor Olivas Upon His Retirement ATTACHMENT 3. Proclamations Recognizing the Community Services Department’s Four Community Star Award Recipients: Expressing Appreci ation to the Friends of Palo Alto Children’s Theatre Expressing Appreciation to DreamCatchers for Outstanding Public Volunteer Service Expressing Appreciation to th e Pal o Alto Rotary Club for Outstanding Public Volunteer Service Expressing Appreciation t o the American Red Cross for Outstanding Public Service 2 06/01/09 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. ATTACHMENTS (4) CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the right to limit the duration or Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 27, 2009 May 4, 2009 May 11, 2009 CONSENT CALENDAR Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members. 4. Adoption of a Resolution Calling a General Municipal Election (GME) of Council Members, Requesting the Services of the Registrar of Voters, and Ordering the Consolidation of Said Election ATTACHMENT 5. Finance Committee Recommendation to Adopt Three Resolutions: 1) Approving Water Supply Agr eement with the Ci ty and County of San Francisco; 2) Approving Palo Alto’s Individual Water Sales Contract with the City and County of San Fr ancisco; and 3) Ad opting Findings for Purposes of the California Environ mental Quality Act in Conne ction with Approval of a Water Supply A greement with the City and County of San Francisco CMR 269:09 and ATTACHMENT 6. Approval of a Sole Source Schedule Order with AssetWorks, Inc. in the Amount of $162,474 for the Acquisition and Purchase of a Fuel Transaction Management System and Related Software Installation Services 3 06/01/09 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. CMR 263:09 and ATTACHMENT 7. Adoption of a Resolution Amendi ng Utilities R ule and Regulatio n 21 (Special Water Utility Regulation) Governing the City’s Water Cross- Connection Control Program CMR 259:09 and ATTACHMENT 8. Approval of a Change Order to the Contract with AJF Builders, Inc. t o add $89,447 for a Total Contract Amo unt of $623,698 for Fire Stations 5 and 8 Improvements – Capital Im provement Program Project PF – 01004 CMR 257:09 and ATTACHMENT 9. Finance Committee Recom mendation to Accept the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2009 ATTACHMENT 10. 2 nd Reading for Ordinance Amending Chapter 5.24 of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code (Requirements to Divert Construction and Demolition Waste from Landfill) to Increase Diversion Rate and Expand Applicability to Projects in Excess of $25,000 (1st Reading May 11, 2009 – Passed 8-0 Morton Absent) AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral Communications shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes per speaker. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 4 06/01/09 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 11. Discussion on Termination of Option Agreements Between the City and Essex Pa rk Boule vard, LL C and Br own-Fairchild Park Investment Company, L.P. for the Purchase of the Properties Located at 2785 Park Boulevard and 2747 Park Boulevard, Respectively and Direction to Pursue Alternative Land Banking Options for Public Safety Building (continued from May 18, 2009) CMR 226:09 and ATTACHMENT PUBLIC HEARINGS 12. Adoption of a Resolution to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to Incorporate the Santa Clara County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Palo Alto Airport (PAO CLUP) by 1) Amending Map L-2 to Include the Airport Influence Area (AIA) Established in the PAO CLUP and 2) Amending the “Land Use” Element to Include Program L-2B and a Supplemental Text Box to Establish a Program for Monitoring Development Within the AIA CMR 262:09 and ATTACHMENT 13. Public Hearing on the Levy of Proposed Asse ssments in Connection With th e P alo A lto Dow ntown Bu siness Improvement District and Adoption of a Re solution Confirming the Report of the A dvisory Board and Levying an Assessment for Fiscal Year 2009-10 in Connection With the Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District. CMR 241:09 and ATTACHMENT 14. Adoption of Two Ordinances: (1) Repealing Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.17, California Energy Code, 2008 Edition; and (2) Repealing Chapter 16.18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.18, Establishing Local Energy Efficiency Standards for Certain Buildings and Improvements Covered by the 2008 California Energy Code (Staff requests item to be continued, by Council Motion, to July 6, 2009) 5 06/01/09 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. ATTACHMENT 15. Initiation of (1) a Zone Change from Neighborhood Commercial (CN) District to Planned Community (PC) District at 2180 El Camino Real (The New College Terrac e Centre) for a Mixed Use P roject Ha ving 61,960 Square Feet of Floor Area Including 8,000 Square Feet of Grocery (Intended for JJ&F Market), 5,580 Square Feet of Other Retail, 14 Affordable One-Bedroom Resident ial Units, 39,980 Square Feet of Office Us e, and Two Level s of Below-Grade and Surface Parking Facilities Providing 227 Spaces, and (2) a Compr ehensive Plan Amendment to Assign the Mi xed Use Land Use Designat ion to a Site Currently Designated as Neighborhood Comme rcial. The Planni ng and Transportation Commission Recommend s Denial of Bot h Requests for Initiation. (Staff requests item to be continued, by Council Motion, to July 13, 2009) *Quasi-judicial ATTACHMENT 16. Adoption of the 2008/09 Community Development Block Grant Annual Action Plan Amendment to the 2005-10 Consolidated Plan to Provide Funding Awards Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 in the Amount of $183,477 (CDBG-R) and Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Use of Community Development Block Grant American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Funds for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 CMR 266:09 and ATTACHMENT REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 17. Adoption of Five Resolutions Relating to the Palo Alto Recycled W ater Project: (1) Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Palo Alto Recycled Wate r Project Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; (2) Resolu tion Establishing a Water Capital Reserve Fund in Accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board’s Requirements for State Revolving Fund Program; (3) Resolution Designating Cer tain Palo Alto Recycled Water Pipeline Project Expenditur es to be Reim bursed by Proceeds From State Revolving Fund; (4) Resolu tion Esta blishing One or More Dedicated Sources of Revenue for Repayment of Funding Pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act Amendments; (5) Resolution Repealing Resolution No. 6 06/01/09 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 8913 and Authorizing the City Manager to Sign and File a Financial Assistance Application and Execute a State Revolving Fund Fina ncial Assistance Agreement in an Amount Not to Exceed $37 Million From the State Water Resourc es Control Board for the Design and Construction of the Palo Alto Recycled Water Pipeline Project CMR 255:09 and ATTACHMENT COUNCIL MATTERS 18. Transmittal and D iscussion o f Report fro m the In dependent Police Auditor Regarding Children’s Theatre Police Investigation CMR 271:09 and ATTACHMENT COUNCIL COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND REPORTS FROM CONFERENCES Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services, or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact 650-329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. *This item is quasi-judicial and subject to Council's Disclosure Policy June 1, 2009 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL City of Palo Alto SUBJECT: Selection of Candidates to be interviewed for the Utilities Advisory Commission Dear Council Members: Enclosed are ten applications submitted for three, three year terms ending June 30, 2012 on the Utilities Advisory Commission. At the Council Meeting on June 1, 2009, the City Council should select the candidates to be interviewed for the Utilities Advisory Commission on a date to be determined. Each Council Member will receive a selection sheet to use for determining who will be chosen for an interview. The applicants are as follows: Name Address Phone Number Alex Ameri 707 Holly Oak Dr Palo Alto 650-855-9870 Kenneth E. Bencala 775 Barron Ave Palo Alto 650-858-2227 William Berry 157 Primrose Way Palo Alto 650-424-9880 Steve Eglash 625 Glenbrook Dr Palo Alto 650-858-1461 Jonathan Foster 1636 Channing Ave Palo Alto 650-325-0187 Marilyn Keller 3476 Waverly St Palo Alto 650-494-9331 Bin Lee 3886 La Donna Ave Palo Alto 408-499-4251 Walter Loewenstein 515 Jefferson Dr Palo Alto 650-324-9266 Arthur Roberts 4202 Manuela Ave Palo Alto 650-948-4622 Stanley Sussman 739 Josina Ave Palo Alto 650-493-2141 Respectfully submitted, Ronna Jojola Gonsalves Deputy City Clerk Enclosures cc: All applicants (without enclosure) Valerie Fong RESOLUTION _______ RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO VICTOR OLIVAS UPON HIS RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Victor Olivas began his employment with the City of Palo Alto on April 4, 1988 and has served in three departments throughout his exemplary 21 year tenure; and WHEREAS, Victor Olivas began his career and served 3 years as a Parking Monitor in the Traffic Division of the Police Department; and WHEREAS, Victor Olivas served for 14 years in the Public Works Department as a Control Account Specialist in the Operations Division providing support for City staff and citizens; and WHEREAS, Victor Olivas has served in the Accounting Division of the Administrative Services Department as an Accounting Specialist since 2005; and WHEREAS, Victor Olivas has worked tirelessly with all City facilities to ensure prompt and accurate processing of cash receipts and has provided valuable assistance and training to other City departments; and WHEREAS, Victor Olivas has reviewed and prepared countless transactions and documents relating to the City’s cash receipts; and WHEREAS, Victor Olivas is recognized by his peers and City staff for being professional, hardworking, dependable and enthusiastic and has consistently been recognized as a team player with a positive attitude and exceptional work ethic. NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby gratefully records and extends its sincere appreciation to Victor Olivas for his dedication and excellent service rendered to the City. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: _____________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ _____________________________ City Manager City Attorney 2 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO VICTOR OLIVAS UPON HIS RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Victor Olivas began his employment with the City of Palo Alto on April 4, 1988 and has served in three departments throughout his exemplary 21 year tenure; and WHEREAS, Victor Olivas began his career and served 3 years as a Parking Monitor in the Traffic Division of the Police Department; and WHEREAS, Victor Olivas served for 14 years in the Public Works Department as a Control Account Specialist in the Operations Division providing support for City staff and citizens; and WHEREAS, Victor Olivas has served in the Accounting Division of the Administrative Services Department as an Accounting Specialist since 2005; and WHEREAS, Victor Olivas has worked tirelessly with all City facilities to ensure prompt and accurate processing of cash receipts and has provided valuable assistance and training to other City departments; and WHEREAS, Victor Olivas has reviewed and prepared countless transactions and documents relating to the City’s cash receipts; and WHEREAS, Victor Olivas is recognized by his peers and City staff for being professional, hardworking, dependable and enthusiastic and has consistently been recognized as a team player with a positive attitude and exceptional work ethic. NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby gratefully records and extends its sincere appreciation to Victor Olivas for his dedication and excellent service rendered to the City. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: June 01, 2009 ATTEST: APPROVED: _____________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ City Attorney _____________________________ City Manager CITY OF PALO ALTO PROCLAMATION Expressing Appreciation to DreamCatchers for Outstanding Public Volunteer Service WHEREAS, Family Resources, in the Cubberley Community Center & Human Services Division, has fruitful relationships with many community non-profits and seeks to facilitate collaborations that benefit our community; and WHEREAS, the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, on the Board of the Family Resources Foundation, identified the need for a free long-term, one-on-one tutoring program serving low income families in the Palo Alto schools; and WHEREAS, with assistance from the Haas Center, Family Resources and the Palo Alto Housing Corporation selected an outstanding intern from Stanford University, Sarah Mummah, to plan and implement a program of free long-term, one-on-one tutoring for Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) students; and WHEREAS, PAUSD Student Services and the PAUSD Adult School supported and enhanced the development, implementation and operation of such a program; and WHEREAS, the entire collaboration resulted in a program called DreamCatchers, which since the Fall 2008, has had resounding success with 25 currently active student/tutor pairs; and WHEREAS, the Cubberley Community Center & Human Services Division wishes to recognize these collaborators for their outstanding efforts that bring us together in response to community needs. NOW, THEREFORE, I, PETER DREKMEIER, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council do hereby honor and commend the outstanding public volunteer service provided by DreamCatchers and records its appreciation as well as the appreciation of the citizens for their public volunteer service and contribution to the City. Presented June 2009 ______________________________ Peter Drekmeier Mayor CITY OF PALO ALTO PROCLAMATION Expressing Appreciation to the Friends of Palo Alto Children’s Theatre WHEREAS, The Friends of Palo Alto Children’s Theatre have publicly advocated and shown their support for Children’s Theatre programming as an important City endeavor to educate and entertain the public in the field of performing arts; and WHEREAS, The Friends of Palo Alto Children’s Theatre have initiated and continued a wide variety of fundraising efforts to support the Children’s Theatre; and WHEREAS The City of Palo Alto and the Friends of Palo Alto Children’s Theatre have joined together to provide increased public awareness through the development and maintenance of the Michael Litfin Video Center, a computer center developed to create a comprehensive database of Children’s Theatre history, create and produce marketing materials, and create video content for all areas of Children’s Theatre programming; and WHEREAS The Friends of Palo Alto Children’s Theatre celebrated the ten year anniversary of the public/private partnership that raised over one million dollars to build the Magic Castle expansion to the Children’s Theatre Facility; and WHEREAS, The Friends of Palo Alto Children’s Theatre have continued their support in promoting and advertising for the Palo Alto Children’s Theatre; and WHEREAS, The Friends of Palo Alto Children’s Theatre have donated their time and efforts to provide public receptions for the Children’s Theatre productions and have continued to celebrate the artistic talents and accomplishments of the young people of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, I, PETER DREKMEIER, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council hereby commends the outstanding public volunteer service provided by the Friends of the Palo Alto Children’s Theatre and records its appreciation as well as the appreciation of the citizens for their public volunteer service and contribution to the City. Presented June 2009 ______________________________ Peter Drekmeier Mayor CITY OF PALO ALTO PROCLAMATION Expressing Appreciation to the American Red Cross for Outstanding Public Service WHEREAS, The American Red Cross provides the Learn to Swim Program through which City of Palo Alto swim instructors teach 1,500 children per year to swim and enjoy the water safely; and WHEREAS, The American Red Cross provides curriculum, equipment and materials to the City of Palo Alto’s Lifeguard Training Aquatics Program. In 2009 more than 150 lifeguards, age 15 and older, were Red Cross certified to ensure a safe aquatic environment in Palo Alto and surrounding communities. Certified lifeguards are trained in lifeguarding skills, CPR for the Professional Rescuer, First Aid, and how to use an Automatic External Defibrillator; and WHEREAS, The American Red Cross provides curriculum, equipment, materials needed to certify Summer Camp Staff in First Aid, and how to use an Epinephrine-Pen annually; and WHEREAS, The American Red Cross and the City of Palo Alto’s Recreation Division partners to provide the American Red Cross Babysitter Training Program, certifying 50-60 babysitters aged 11 to 15 annually; and WHEREAS, The American Red Cross and the City of Palo Alto’s Recreation Division have recently partnered to provide the When I’m in Charge Program helping 8 to 11 year olds be safe if ever they are alone and faced with an emergency. NOW, THEREFORE, I, PETER DREKMEIER, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council hereby commends the outstanding public service provided by the American Red Cross and records its appreciation for contribution of The American Red Cross to the City of Palo Alto. Presented June 2009 ______________________________ Peter Drekmeier Mayor CITY OF PALO ALTO PROCLAMATION Expressing Appreciation to the Palo Alto Rotary Club for Outstanding Public Volunteer Service WHEREAS, The City of Palo Alto and the Rotary Club have teamed up to upgrade residents’ and visitors’ views as they enter city limit “gateways” by installing new colorful landscape renovations and gateway signs; and WHEREAS, The Rotary Club volunteers and City Staff, during October 2008, completed their first “gateway ” landscape renovation at the Menlo/Middlefield Gateway just south of the San Francisquito Creek crossing; and WHEREAS, The Rotary Club volunteers and City Staff, during April 2009, completed their second “gateway” landscape renovation at the intersection of El Camino Real and Alma Street; and WHEREAS, Mike Couch, Palo Alto Rotary Board President said, “This is an outstanding public service project that produces immediate results. Our volunteers’ will be continuing to improve and maintain the sites for at least three years, to guarantee the City’s gateways remain well-kept and attractive to travelers.” NOW, THEREFORE, I, PETER DREKMEIER, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council hereby commends the outstanding public volunteer service provided by the Rotary Club and records its appreciation as well as the appreciation of the citizens for their public volunteer service and contribution to the City. Presented June 2009 ______________________________ Peter Drekmeier Mayor June 1, 2009 THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto, California Subject: General Municipal Election Tuesday, November 3, 2009 Dear Council Members: Attached is a resolution calling for a General Municipal Election of five Council Members, requesting the services of the Registrar of Voters, and requesting the consolidation of said election. The estimated cost of this election is $375,000 for the Council seats. Staff recommends that Council adopt the resolution calling for a General Municipal Election. Respectfully submitted, Donna J. Grider, MMC City Clerk Attachment * * * NOT YET APPROVED * * * 090505 mb 8261035 1 Resolution No. ____ Resolution of the Council of the City Of Palo Alto Calling a General Municipal Election of Council Members, Requesting the Services of the Registrar of Voters, and Ordering the Consolidation of Said Election WHEREAS, Article III, Section 3, of the Palo Alto City Charter requires that a general municipal election for election of council members be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each odd-numbered year, that is, November 3, 2009; and WHEREAS, elections are scheduled to be held on November 3, 2009, in certain school districts and certain special districts in Santa Clara County; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Education Code Section 5342 and Part 3 of Division 10 of the Elections Code, commencing at Section 10400, such elections may be partially or completely consolidated. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Call of Election. A general municipal election is hereby called for the City of Palo Alto to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2009, for the purpose of electing five (5) council members for full terms (four years). SECTION 2. Request to Consolidate. The Council of the City of Palo Alto requests the governing body of any other political subdivision, or any officers otherwise authorized by law, to partially or completely consolidate such elections and the City Council consents to such consolidation. SECTION 3. Request for County Services. Pursuant to Section 10002 of the California Elections Code, the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby requests the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County to permit the Registrar of Voters to render services to the City of Palo Alto relating to the conduct of Palo Alto’s General Municipal and Special Elections which are called to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2009. The services shall be of the type normally performed by the Registrar of Voters in assisting the clerks of municipalities in the conduct of elections including, but not limited to, checking registrations, mailing ballots, hiring election officers and arranging for polling places, receiving absentee voter ballot applications, mailing and receiving absent voter ballots and opening and counting same, providing and distributing election supplies, and furnishing voting machines. SECTION 4. Consolidation of Measures. The Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County is requested to include on the ballots and sample ballots, all qualified measures submitted by the City Council to be ratified by the qualified electors of the City of Palo Alto. * * * NOT YET APPROVED * * * 090505 mb 8261035 2 SECTION 5. Duties of City Clerk. The City Clerk is directed to do all things required by law to effectuate such general municipal election, including but not limited to causing the posting, publication and printing of all notices or other election materials pursuant to the requirements of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the California Elections and Government Codes. SECTION 6. Contract Authority. Subject to approval of the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County of the foregoing request, the City Clerk is hereby authorized to engage the services of the Registrar of Voters of the County of Santa Clara to aid in the conduct of said elections including canvassing the returns of said elections. Further, the Director of Administrative Services is authorized and directed to pay the cost of said services provided that no payment shall be made for services which the Registrar of Voters is otherwise required by law to perform. SECTION 7. Transmittal of Resolution. The City Clerk is directed to submit a certified copy of this resolution to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara. SECTION 8. CEQA. The Council finds that this resolution does not constitute a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act under Public Resources Code section 21065 or CEQA Guidelines section 15378. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: _____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ ____________________________ City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: UTILITIES DATE: JUNE 1,2009 CMR: 269:09 REPORT TYPE: CONSENT SUBJECT: Finance Committee Recommendation to Adopt Three Resolutions: 1) Approving Water Supply Agreement with the City and County of San Francisco; 2) Approving Palo Alto's Individual Water Sales Contract with the City and County of San Francisco; and 3) Adopting Findings for Purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act in Connection with Approval of a Water Supply Agreement with the City and County of San Francisco RECOMMENDATION Staff, the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) and the Finance Committee recommend that Council approve three resolutions: 1. Approving the New Water Supply Agreement between the City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers in Alameda County, San Mateo County and Santa Clara County; 2. Approving Palo Alto's Individual Water Sales Contract with the City and County of San Francisco; and 3. Adopting Findings for Purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act in Connection with Approval of a Water Supply Agreement with the City and County of San Francisco. BACKGROUND On September 11, 2006, Council authorized the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) to negotiate on behalf of the City of Palo Alto for a water services agreement with the City and County of San Francisco (CMR: 341 :06, Resolution # 8638). The governing board of each BA WSCA agency authorized BA WSCA to negotiate on their behalf. BA WSCA has provided quarterly updates on the progress of the negotiations. These reports were provided to the City Council (CMRs 295:07, 341:07, 101:08,231:08,346:08,433:08, and 154:09). On March 30, 2009, the Council received an informational report summarizing the status of the Water Supply Agreement (WSA) as of early March 2009 (CMR: 184:09). At that CMR: 269:09 Page 1 of3 time, there were a few outstanding issues, which have now been resolved and incorporated into the final WSA. On April 28, 2009, the SFPUC voted to: approve the WSA; to authorize the General Manager of the SFPUC to execute the WSA with the Wholesale Customers; and to negotiate and approve the Individual Water Sales Contracts with the Wholesale Customers substantially in the form attached to the WSA. At the May 1, 2009 joint study session with the UAC, Art Jensen, the General Manager of BA WSCA, provided a presentation on the contract elements and answered questions of the Council. DISCUSSION BAWSCA prepared a summary report describing the WSA (Attachment G). Highlights of the WSA, by contract section, are described in the staff report that was reviewed by the Finance Committee on May 19,2009 (CMR: 252:09, Attachment D). COMMITTEE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS On May 19,2009, the Finance Committee voted unanimously (3-0), to recommend that the City Council adopt three resolutions: (a) Approval of the New Water Supply Agreement with San Francisco; (b) Approval of Palo Alto's Individual Water Sales Contract with San Francisco; and (c) Adoption of Findings for Purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act in Connection with Approval of a Water Supply Agreement with San Francisco. In its discussions, the Finance Committee noted that this is a very important contract for the City to enter into and that the May 1 joint UAC/Council study session helped to explain the agreement and answer many of the Commissioners' and Council Members' questions. The notes from the Finance Committee meeting are provided as Attachment J. RESOURCE IMPACT The cost of water under the new WSA is not expected to be significantly different from under the current contract. Costs related to water supply are part of the revenue requirement for the Water Enterprise Fund and are generally recovered from retail water rates set by the Council. There will be no impact to the General Fund due to execution of the WSA. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Approval of the new Water Supply Agreement is not a departure from existing City policy and does not set new City policy. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City and County of San Francisco is the "lead agency" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) with respect both to the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) and the water supply elements incorporated into the new Water Supply Agreement. In that capacity, San Francisco has prepared and certified a seven-volume Program Environmental Impact Report (Final PEIR), and adopted detailed findings related to the environmental effects of the "Phased CMR: 269:09 Page 2 of3 WSIP" approved by the SFPUC ill October 2008, mitigation measures, and overriding considerations. The City, along with the other wholesale customers that are cities or districts may be considered "responsible agencies" under CEQ A with respect to approval of the long term Water Supply Agreement. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15381, a responsible agency has discretionary approval power over a project for which a lead agency has prepared an EIR. The Council finds, via the attached resolution, that the Final PEIR is adequate and that approval of the Water Supply Agreement is within the scope of the WSIP and Final PEIR. ATTACHMENTS A. Resolution Approving the New Water Supply Agreement between the City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers in Alameda County, San Mateo County and Santa Clara County; B. Resolution Approving Palo Alto's Individual Water Sales Contract with the City and County of San Francisco; and C. Resolution Adopting Findings for Purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act in Connection with Approval of a Water Supply Agreement with the City and County of San Francisco. D. CMR: 252:09 (without attachments) Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation to Adopt Three Resolutions: 1) Approval of the New Water Supply Agreement with San Francisco; 2) Approval of Palo Alto's Individual Water Sales Contract with San Francisco; and 3) Adoption of Findings for Purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act in Connection with Approval of a Water Supply Agreement with San Francisco E. Water Supply Agreement between the City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers in Alameda County, San Mateo County and Santa Clara County F. Individual Water Sales Contract with the City and County of San Francisco G. Summary Report on New Water Supply Agreement between the City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers in Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties H. Frequently Asked Questions about the Water Supply Agreement Prepared by BAWSCA I. Excerpted notes from the May 6, 2009 UAC meeting J. Excerpted notes from the May 19, 2009 Finance Committee meeting PREPARED BY: JANE O. RATCHYE r\~ Utilities Assistant DirectJij Resource Management DEPARTMENT HEAD: Director of Utilities CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR: 269:09 Page 3 of3 * * * NOT YET APP~OVED * * * Resolution No. ---Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving Water Supply Agreement with the City and County of San Francisco ATTACHMENT A WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto (City) has purchased water from the City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco) for many years; and WHEREAS, the "Settlement Agreement and Master Water Sales Contract" between the City and San Francisco, which was entered into in 1984, will expire on June 30, 2009; and WHEREAS, the City is a member of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA), which was formed in 2002 pursuant to Water Code Section 81300 et seq. to represent the interests of the communities in Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties that purchase water from San Francisco; and WHEREAS, on September 11, 2006, this Council, by Resolution No. 8638 appointed BA WSCA to represent it in negotiations for a new water supply agreement with San Francisco; and WHEREAS, each of the other 26 entities which are members of BA WSCA similarly delegated negotiating authority to BA WSCA; and WHEREAS, BA WSCA has submitted periodic reports to City on progress during the negotiations and has provided detailed briefings on all significant elements of the Agreement; and WHEREAS, a Water Supply Agreement, in the form negotiated by BAWSCA, was presented to and approved by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission on April 28, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Water Supply Agreement incorporates provisions which accomplish the majority of the goals which the City sought to achieve in a new long-term contractual relationship with San Francisco; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has so recommended. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The "Water Supply Agreement Between the City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers in Alameda County, San Mateo County, and Santa Clara County" dated July 2009 (Agreement) is approved. 1 090511 mb 6050771 * * * NOT YET APPROVED * * * SECTION 2. The City Manager is authorized and directed to sign the Agreement, in the form previously approved by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, on behalf of the City. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager Deputy City Attorney Director of Utilities Director of Administrative Services 2 090511 mb 6050771 ATTACHMENT B * * * NOT YET APPROVED * * * Resolution No. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving Individual Water Sales Contract with the City and County of San Francisco WHEREAS, the Council has previously approved the Water Supply Agreement between the City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers in Alameda County, San Mateo County and Santa Clara County (Agreement); and WHEREAS, the Agreement contemplates that each wholesale customer will also enter into an individual Water Sales Contract (Contract) with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), which will describe the specific service area of each wholesale customer, will identify points of connection between the San Francisco Regional Water System and the wholesale customer's distribution system, and will contain other specialized provisions, if any, required by the unique circumstances of each wholesale customer; and WHEREAS, negotiations between the City and the staff of the SFPUC concerning the Water Sales Contract for the City have been completed satisfactorily, and the City Manager has recommended that the Council approve a Water Sales Contract in the form presented. follows: // // // // /1 1/ II /1 // /1 // // NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as 1 090511 mb 6050770 * * * NOT YET APPROVED * * * SECTION 1. The "Water Sales Contract" between the City and the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through its Public Utilities Commission, in the form presented to the Council including Attachments A through C (Contract), is approved and the City Manager is authorized to execute the Contract on behalf of the City_ INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager Deputy City Attorney Director of Utilities Director of Administrative Services 2 090511 mb 6050770 * * * NOT YET APPROVED * * * Resolution No. --- Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting Findings for Purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act in Connection with Approval of a Water Supply Agreement with the City and County of San Francisco ATTACHMENT C WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto (City) purchases water from the City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco) pursuant to a Settlement Agreement and Master Water Sale Contract entered into in 1984, which will expire on June 30, 2009; and WHEREAS, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC or Commission) operates the Regional Water System which delivers water to communities in Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, as well as to customers within San Francisco; and WHEREAS, engineering reports prepared by and for the SFPUC staff identified serious deficiencies in the Regional Water System which exposed its Bay Area customers to the threat of an extended interruption in water delivery in the event of a major earthquake; and WHEREAS, acting in response to directions from the State Legislature (California Water Code Section 73500 et seq.), in 2002 the SFPUC adopted a Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) to address these deficiencies, ensure the Regional Water System's ability to deliver water meeting Safe Drinking Water Act standards, and otherwise improve the Regional Water System's capabilities of meeting customer needs; and WHEREAS, the San Francisco Planning Department prepared a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of implementing the WSIP and the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA), of which City is a member, reviewed and commented on the draft PEIR; and WHEREAS, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission certified the Final PEIR on October 30, 2008 in its Motion No. 17743, which motion is on file with City; and WHEREAS, on October 30, 2008, the SFPUC reviewed and considered the PEIR prepared for the WSIP, adopted findings required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including a mitigation monitoring and reporting program and a statement of overriding considerations, and approved the WSIP in its Resolution No. 08-0200, which resolution is on file with City; and WHEREAS, on October 30, 2008, the SF PUC also endorsed selected Water Supply Elements for the new Water Supply Agreement, which are consistent with the WSIP evaluated in the Final PEIR, in its Resolution No. 08-0201, which resolution is on file with City; and 1 090511 syn 6050769 WHEREAS, the SFPUC, on April 28, 2009, approved a Water Supply Agreement with its wholesale customers, including City, and recommended that they likewise approve it; and WHEREAS, prior to acting on the Water Supply Agreement and the accompanying individual Water Sales Contract, the City Council desires to make certain findings pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15096. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The City has reviewed the information contained in the Final PEIR that is relevant to its approval of the Water Supply Agreement and has reviewed the CEQA findings contained in SFPUC Resolution No. 08-0200, including the Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which are adopted to the extent they are relevant to the City's decision to approve the Water Supply Agreement. SECTION 2. The SFPUC has already adopted the mitigation measures recommended in the PEIR, has authority to implement the mitigation measures or to seek any required approvals for the mitigation measures, and City has no direct authority to implement the mitigation measures, which may be funded in part with revenues from the Water Supply Agreement. SECTION 3. The City has reviewed and considered the Final PEIR and finds that the Final PEIR is adequate for its use as the decision-making body for its consideration of the Water Supply Agreement and Individual Water Sales Contract. SECTION 4. Approval of the Water Supply Agreement and Individual Water Sales Contract is within the scope of the WSIP and activities evaluated in the Final PEIR. SECTION 5. Since the Final PEIR was finalized, there have been no substantial project changes and no substantial changes in project circumstances that would require major revisions to the Final PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or an increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance that would change the conclusions set forth in the Final PEIR. SECTION 6. City has not identified any feasible alternative or additional feasible mitigation measures within its powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the WSIP would have on the environment; and II II II 2 090511 syn 6050769 SECTION 7. The City Manager will prepare and file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk promptly upon the Council's approving the Water Supply Agreement and an Individual Water Sales Contract with San Francisco. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager Deputy City Attorney Director of Utilities Director of Administrative Services 3 0905 J J syn 6050769 TO: FROM: ATTENTION: DATE: SUBJECT: ATT ACHMENT D n HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: UTILITIES FINANCE COMMITTEE MAY 19,2009 CMR: 252:09 Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation to Adopt Three Resolutions: 1) Approval of the New Water Supply Agreement with San Francisco; 2) Approval of Palo Alto's Individual Water Sales Contract with San Francisco; and 3) Adoption of Findings for Purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act in Connection with Approval of a Water Supply Agreement with San Francisco RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommend that the Finance Committee recommend that Council approve three resolutions: 1. Approving the New Water Supply Agreement between the City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers in Alameda County, San Mateo County and Santa Clara County; 2. Approving Palo Alto's Individual Water Sales Contract with the City and County of San Francisco; and 3. Adopting Findings for Purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act in Connection with Approval of a Water Supply Agreement with the City and County of San Francisco. BACKGROUND Palo Alto's water supply consisted entirely of groundwater provided by the wells it owned and operated until 1937, when the City contracted with San Francisco for a supplemental supply of water. In 1962, after a survey was conducted to determine the water softening cost to Palo Alto water users, the Council decided to purchase all of its water supplies from San Francisco. At that time, a 20-year water supply contract was signed with San Francisco and Palo Alto's wells were placed in standby status. Since then, the wells have been used for several extremely hot days in the 1960's, for two weeks during the San Francisco employees' strike of 1976, and as supplemental supply in 1988 and 1991 during an extended drought. CMR: 252:09 Page 10f6 In 1974, San Francisco raised water rates to its wholesale customers by 20.5 percent but increased San Francisco retail rates by only 14.5 percent. In response, the wholesale customers sought and obtained a Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order barring the rate increase. This decision was affirmed, upon appeal, in 1977. In 1978, plaintiffs filed an Amended and Supplemental Complaint in the action (City oj Palo Alto et al. v. City and County oj San Francisco), which broadened the scope of the complaint into an attack upon the method San Francisco used to charge its wholesale customers for water. After the lawsuit was filed, at the urging of the trial judge, the parties engaged in negotiations to resolve their differences and develop a framework for a new relationship. The Settlement Agreement and Master Water Sales Contract (Master Contract) was signed by all parties in 1984. The lengthy negotiations that extended from the time of the initial action to the successful conclusion was led by the Bay Area Water Users Association (BA WUA), an organization comprising the 28 cities, water districts, and private water utilities that purchase water from San Francisco on a wholesale basis. Each wholesale agency, including Palo Alto, has an individual water supply contract entered into at the same time as the Master Contract. Palo Alto's individual water supply contract describes the service territory, points of connection with San Francisco's regional water system, interties with neighboring systems, and billing and payment details. The term of the Master Contract and Palo Alto's individual water supply contract is 25 years, and expires on June 30, 2009. The Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BA WSCA) was formed in 2003 and is BA WUA's successor organization. BA WSCA member agencies are the same agencies that were members of BA WUA and include all agencies that purchase water from the regional water system owned by the City and County of San Francisco and operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). On September 11, 2006, Council authorized the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) to negotiate on behalf of the City of Palo Alto for a water services agreement with the City and County of San Francisco (CMR: 341 :06, Resolution # 8638). The governing board of each BAWSCA agency authorized BA WSCA to negotiate on their behalf BAWSCA has provided quarterly updates on the progress of the negotiations. These reports were provided to the City Council (CMRs 295 :07, 341 :07, 101 :08, 231 :08, 346:08, 433 :08, and 154:09). The existing Master Contract settled the issues of its time, which were primarily related to cost allocation and the restriction of costs allocated to wholesale agencies to those facilities and services that benefit them. Many other issues were either not settled or not addressed in the Master Contract. The goals that have been expressed by the BA WSCA member agencies can be distilled into BA WSCA's overall goal of ensuring a reliable supply of high quality water at a fair price. DISCUSSION On March 30, 2009, the Council received an informational report summarizing the status of the Water Supply Agreement (WSA) as of early March 2009 (CMR: 184:09). At that time, there CMR: 252:09 Page 2 of6 were a few outstanding issues, which have now been resolved and incorporated into the final WSA. On April 28, 2009, the SFPUC voted to approve the WSA; to authorize the General Manager of the SFPUC to execute the WSA with the Wholesale Customers; and to negotiate and approve the Individual Water Sales Contracts with the Wholesale Customers substantially in the form attached to the WSA. The agenda item for the SFPUC's April 28 meeting (Attachment D) contains a description of the WSA. BAWSCA prepared a summary report describing the WSA (Attachment C). Highlights of the WSA, by contract section, include the following: Article 1. Parties, Effective Date, and Defined Terms • The parties to the WSA are the City and County of San Francisco and the wholesale agencies. Article 2. Term; Amendments During Term • The WSA will be in effect, unless it is extended, for 25 years from July 1,2009 to June 30, 2034. Article 3. Water Supply • Reconfirms the wholesale agencies collective supply assurance of 184 million gallons per day (MGD) as well as the agencies' individual "supply guarantees." The supply guarantees are transferrable between agencies. • Commits the Wholesale Customers to implement water efficiency programs and practices to ensure that the SFPUC is eligible to receive state and federal grants. San Francisco and the Wholesale Customers agree to explore support for water conservation and recycling outside the Bay Area to benefit the Tuolumne River. • San Francisco agrees to deliver water that meets all applicable drinking water standards. This has been the practice historically, but is now in the WSA. • San Francisco agrees to complete the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) by 2015 and requires the SFPUC to maintain the regional water system and submit reports on the status of the system. • San Francisco agrees to operate the regional water system to give priority to water supply over electric power generation. This has been the practice since the 1987-1992 drought, but is now part of the WSA. • In water shortages, the available water will be divided between San Francisco and the Wholesale Customers as agreed to in the Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan (IWSAP). How to divide the water allocated to the Wholesale Customers among them is not part of the WSA so that the Wholesale Customers will need to continue the methodology in the IWSAP, or negotiate an alternate mechanism. • Allows BA WSCA or individual Wholesale Customers to transport, or "wheel" water through the regional water system during water shortage periods subject to water quality considerations. CMR: 252:09 Page 3 of6 Article 4. Implementation of Interim Supply Limitation. • Implements the decision made by the SFPUC when it adopted the WSIP in conjunction with San Francisco's approval of the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the WSIP, with respect to the Interim Supply Limitation in effect until December 31, 2018. The Interim Supply Limitation limits water sales from San Francisco's watersheds to 81 MGD for San Francisco and 184 MGD for the Wholesale Customers for a total limitation of 265 MGD. The WSA requires San Francisco to decide if it will increase the 184 MGD supply assurance by December 31, 2009. • San Francisco must decide how to divide up the Wholesale Customers' 184 MGD Interim Supply Limitation among the Wholesale Customers by December 2010. These allocations are separate and distinct from the 184 MGD supply assurance and the individual supply guarantees discussed in Article 3. • If water usage for the regional water system exceeds the 265 MGD Interim Supply Limitation, then an "environmental enhancement surcharge" will be levied on those agencies (including San Francisco) that exceed their individual limitations. Receipts from the surcharge will be used for environmental restoration or enhancement projects on San Francisco watersheds. Article 5. Wholesale Revenue Requirement • Describes the basis for detennination of the Wholesale Revenue Requirement, the amount of money the Wholesale Customers are required to pay to the SFPUC for ownership, operation, and maintenance of the regional water system. In general, the provisions in this section are the same as those in the current Master Contract, which relate to appropriate allocation of costs for facilities and programs ofthe regional water system. • Establishes the methodology to allocate capital costs for the regional water system. In the current Master Contract, the "utility method" of recovering capital costs is used. This method requires the Wholesale Customers to pay depreciation and a rate of return on the net book value of the assets. The WSA discontinues this method and replaces it with the "cash method" for new assets. In addition, the Wholesale Customers will pay their remaining share of existing assets built and in service as of June 30, 2009, through a series of level payments over 25 years. The cash method requires wholesale customers to pay their share of debt service payments and capital improvements funded from reserves. Article 6. Integration of Wholesale Revenue Requirement with SFPUC Budget Development and Rate Adjustments • Requires the SFPUC to send its proposed annual budget to BAWSCA. This is similar to the requirements in the current Master Contract. • Allows SFPUC to establish wholesale rates to recover the Wholesale Revenue Requirement. This is similar to provisions in the current Master Contract, but includes more coordination and consultation with BA WSCA. • Requires the use of a balancing account for the difference between the amounts charged to Wholesale Customers and the total amount that the Wholesale Customers are required to pay. This is similar to provisions in the current Master Contract, but adds more flexibility so that rates do not fluctuate greatly. CMR: 252:09 Page 4 of6 Article 7. Accounting Procedures; Compliance Audit • Requires maintenance of a rigorous accounting system for SFPUC to implement the calculation of the Wholesale Revenue Requirement and rate setting, similar to the requirements in the current Master Contract. • Provides for an annual compliance audit of the calculation of the Wholesale Revenue Requirement, similar to the requirements in the current Master Contract. Article 8. Other Agreements of the Parties • Delegates administrative tasks to BA WSCA, the representative for the Wholesale Customers. • Commits SFPUC to meet annually with the Wholesale Customers. This is also a provision of the current Master Contract. • Requires that disputes be resolved by mandatory binding arbitration as in the current Master Contract. Article 9. Implementation and Special Provisions Affecting Certain Wholesale Customers • Sets out provisions for certain Wholesale Customers. Palo Alto is not mentioned in this section and the provisions set forth do not apply to the City. COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS On May 6, 2009, the UAC voted unanimously (4-0), to recommend that the City Council: (a) Approve the New Water Supply Agreement between the City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers in Alameda County, San Mateo County and Santa Clara County; and (b) Approve Palo Alto's Individual Water Sales Contract with the City and County of San Francisco as long as it is not significantly different from the template provided as Attachment F to the Water Supply Agreement. In its discussions, the UAC noted that the agreement is an improvement over the current contract, but were concerned about how the Interim Water Supply Limitation would be shared among the Wholesale Customers. The notes from the UAC meeting are provided as Attachment L RESOURCE IMPACT The cost of water under the new WSA is not expected to be significantly different from under the current contract. Costs related to water supply are part of the revenue requirement for the Water Enterprise Fund and are generally recovered from retail water rates set by the Council. There will be no impact to the General Fund due to execution of the WSA. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Approval of the new Water Supply Agreement is not a departure from existing City policy and does not set new City policy. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City and County of San Francisco is the "lead agency" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) with respect both to the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) and CMR: 252:09 Page 5 of6 the water supply elements incorporated into the new Water Supply Agreement. In that capacity, San Francisco has prepared and certified a seven-volume Program Environmental Impact Report (Final PElR), and adopted detailed findings related to the environmental effects of the "Phased WSIP" approved by the SFPUC in October 2008, mitigation measures, and overriding considerations. The City, along with the other wholesale customers that are cities or districts may be considered "responsible agencies" under CEQA with respect to approval of the long term Water Supply Agreement. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15381, a responsible agency has discretionary approval power over a project for which a lead agency has prepared an EIR. The Council finds, via the attached resolution that the Final PEIR is adequate and that approval of the Water Supply Agreement is within the scope of the WSIP and Final PEIR. ATTACHMENTS A. Resolution Approving the New Water Supply Agreement between the City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers in Alameda County, San Mateo County and Santa Clara County; B. Resolution Approving Palo Alto's Individual Water Sales Contract with the City and County of San Francisco; and C. Resolution Adopting Findings for Purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act in Connection with Approval of a Water Supply Agreement with the City and County of San Francisco. D. Water Supply Agreement between the City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers in Alameda County, San Mateo County and Santa Clara County Individual Water Sales Contract with the City and County of San Francisco F. Summary Report on New Water Supply Agreement between the City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers in Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties G. Agenda Item for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission regarding Authorize Water Supply Agreement H. Frequently Asked Questions about the Water Supply Agreement Prepared by BA WSCA I. Excerpted notes from the May 6, 2009 UAC meeting PREPARED BY: ~NE O. RATCHYE '\j.Jtilities Assistant Director, Resource Management DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR: 252:09 .~ VALERI O. -NG Director of Utilities Page 6 of6 WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT between ATTACHMENT E THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO and WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS in ALAMEDA COUNTY, SAN MATEO COUNTY AND SANTA CLARA COUNTY JULY 2009 1840795.8 T ABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 Article 1. Parties, Effective Date, and Defined Terms ........................................................... 1 1.01 Definitions .............................................................................................................. 1 1.02 Parties ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.03 Effective Date ........................................................................................................ 2 Article 2. Term; Amendments During Term ......................................................................... 4 2.01 Term ....................................................................................................................... 4 2.02 Extension and Renewal of Term ............................................................................ 4 2.03 Amendments ........................................................................................................... 5 Article 3. Water Supply ......................................................................................................... 8 3.01 Supply Assurance ................................................................................................... 8 3.02 Allocation of Supply Assurance ............................................................................ 9 3.03 Wholesale Customer Service Areas ..................................................................... 10 3.04 Permanent Transfers ofIndividual Supply Guarantees ....................................... 12 3.05 Restrictions on Resale .......................................................................................... 12 3.06 Conservation; Use of Local Sources; Water Management Charge ..................... 13 3.07 Restrictions on Purchases of Water from Others; Minimum Annual Purchases .............................................................................................................. 14 3.08 Water Quality ....................................................................................................... 14 3.09 Completion of WSIP ............................................................................................ 15 3.1 0 Regional Water System Repair, Maintenance and Operation ............................. 15 3 .11 Shortages .............................................................................................................. 16 3.12 Wheeling of Water from Outside SFPUC System ............................................... 18 3.13 Limits on New Customers ................................................................................... 19 3.14 Measurement of Water ......................................................................................... 21 3.15 New Sources of Water Supply to Maintain Supply Assurance ........................... 22 3.16 New Sources of Water Supply to Increase Supply Assurance ............................ 23 3.17 Westside Basin Conjunctive Use Program .......................................................... 24 Article 4. Implementation of Interim Supply Limitation ..................................................... 27 4.01 Interim Supply Limitation Imposed by SFPUC ................................................... 27 4.02 R~t~il a,nd Wholesale Customer Allocations Under Interim Supply LImItatIon ............................................................................................................. 27 4.03 Transfers of Interim Supply Allocations .............................................................. 27 4.04 Environmental Enhancement Surcharge .............................................................. 28 -1-1840795.8 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 4.05 San Josel Santa Clara Interim Supply Allocation and Process for Page Reduction! Termination ....................................................................................... 30 4.06 San Francisco Decisions in 2018 Regarding Future Water Supply ..................... 31 4.07 Retained Discretion of SFPUC and Wholesale Customers ................................. 32 Article 5. Wholesale Revenue Requirement.. ...................................................................... 34 5.01 Scope of Agreement. ............................................................................................ 34 5.02 General Principles ................................................................................................ 34 5.03 Capital Cost Recovery -Existing Regional Assets .............................................. 36 5.04 Capital CostContribution -New Regional Assets .............................................. 38 5.05 Water Enterprise Operation and Maintenance Expenses ..................................... 40 5.06 Water Enterprise Administrative and General Expenses ..................................... 42 5.07 Water Enterprise Property Taxes ......................................................................... 45 5.08 Hetch Hetchy Enterprise Expenses ...................................................................... 45 5.09 Hetch Hetchy Enterprise Capital Costs ................................................................ 47 5.10 Additional Agreements Related to Financial Issues ............................................ 48 Article 6. Integration of Wholesale Revenue Requirement with SFPUC Budget Development and Rate Adjustments .................................................................... 51 6.01 General ................................................................................................................. 51 6.02 Budget Development ........................................................................................... 51 6.03 Rate Adjustments ................................................................................................. 51 6.04 Rate Structure ....................................................................................................... 53 6.05 Balancing Account ............................................................................................... 54 6.06 Wholesale Revenue Coverage Reserve ............................................................... 56 6.07 Working Capital Requirement ............................................................................. 58 6.08 Wholesale Capital Fund ....................................................................................... 59 Article 7. Accounting Procedures; Compliance Audit.. ....................................................... 61 7.01 SFPUC Accounting Principles, Practices ............................................................ 61 7.02 Calculation of and Report on Wholesale Revenue Requirement... ...................... 62 7.03 Appointment of Compliance Auditor .................................................................. 64 7.04 Conduct of Compliance Audit ............................................................................. 64 7.05 Issuance of Compliance Auditor's Report ........................................................... 67 7.06 Wholesale Customer Review ............................................................................... 67 Article 8. Other Agreements of the Parties .......................................................................... 69 8.01 Arbitration and Judicial Review .......................................................................... 69 -ii-1840795.8 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page 8.02 Attorneys' Fees .................................................................................................... 73 8.03 Annual Meeting and Report ................................................................................. 74 8.04 Administrative Matters Delegated to BA WSCA ................................................. 75 8.05 Preservation of Water Rights; Notice of Water Rights Proceedings ................... 76 8.06 SFPUC Rules and Regulations ............................................................................ 77 8.07 Reservations of, and Limitations on, Claims ....................................................... 77 8.08 Prohibition of Assignment.. ................................................................................. 80 8.09 Notices ................................................................................................................. 80 8.10 Incorporation of Attachments .............................................................................. 81 8.11 Interpretation ........................................................................................................ 81 8.12 Actions and Approvals by San Francisco ............................................................ 81 8.13 Counterparts ......................................................................................................... 82 8.14 Limitations on Damages ...................................................................................... 82 8.15 Force Majeure ...................................................................................................... 82 8.16 No Third-Party Beneficiaries ............................................................................... 83 8.17 Good Faith and Fair Dealing ................................................................................ 83 Article 9. Implementation and Special Provisions Affecting Certain Wholesale Customers ............................................................................................................ 84 9.01 General; Individual Water Sales Contracts .......................................................... 84 9.02 California Water Service Company ..................................................................... 84 9.03 City of Hayward ................................................................................................... 86 9.04 Estero Municipal Improvement District .............................................................. 87 9.05 Stanford University .............................................................................................. 87 9.06 City of San Jose and City of Santa Clara ............................................................. 88 9.07 City of Brisbane, Guadalupe Valley Municipal Improvement District, Town of Hillsborough .......................................................................................... 89 -iii-1840795.8 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS A Definitions B Wholesale Customer Regional Water System Purchases 2007-2008 (Section 1.03) C List of Agencies and Individual Supply Guarantees (Section 3.02) D Procedure for Pro Rata Reduction of Individual Supply Guarantees if Total Use Exceeds 184 MGD (Section 3.02) E Minimum Quantities for Dual Source Agencies (Section 3.07.C) F Sample Individual Water Sales Contract (Section 9.01) G Water Quality Notification and Communications Plan (Section 3.08.B) H Tier 1 Shortage Plan (Section 3.11.C) NOT USED J Water Use Measurement and Tabulation (Section 3.14) K-1 Wholesale Customers' Share of Net Book Value of EXisting Assets (Section 5.03) K-2 Wholesale Customers' Share of the Book Value of Revenue-Funded Capital Expenditures (Section 5.03) K-3 25 Year Payoff Schedule for Existing Rate Base -Water Enterprise Regional Assets and One Direct Wholesale Asset (Section 5.03) K-4 25 Year Payoff Schedule for EXisting Rate Base -Hetch Hetchy Water Assets and Water-Related Portion of Joint Assets (Section 5.03) K-5 Unexpended Appropriations for Revenue-Funded Regional Assets (Section 5.03) L-1 Identification of WSIP Projects as Regional/Retail (Section 5.04) L-2 Certificate of Use of Proceeds (Section 5.04.A) L-3 Annual Report on Expenditures of and Earnings on Proceeds (Section 5.04.A) M-1 Revenue-Funded Capital Additions (Section 5.04.B) M-2 Revenue-FI .. Jnded Capital Annual Reporting Requirements (Section 5.04.8) M-3 Wholesale Revenue-Funded Capital Fund (Section 6.08) N-1 Balancing Account/Rate Setting Calculation Table (Section 6.03A3.a) -IV-1840795.8 N-2 Wholesale Revenue Requirement Schedules (Section 6.03.A.3.b) N-3 Schedule of Projected Water Sales, Wholesale Revenue Requirement and Wholesale Rates (Section 6.03.A.3.c) o Statement of \I'/holesale Revenue RequiremenUChanges in Balancing Account (Section 7.02.B. 1) P Management Representation Letter (Section 7.02.B.5) Q San Jose and Santa Clara Service Areas (Section 9.06) ~v-1840795.8 WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT Introductory Statement Both San Francisco, as the Regional Water System owner and operator, and its Wholesale Customers share a commitment to the Regional Water System providing a reliable supply of high quality water at a fair price, and achieving these goals in an environmentally sustainable manner. Article 1. Parties, Effective Date, and Defined Terms 1.01 Definitions The capitalized terms used in this Agreement shall have the meanings set forth in Attachment A 1.02 Parties The parties to this Agreement are the City and County of San Francisco and such of the following entities (all of which purchase water from San Francisco) as have executed this Agreement: Alameda County Water District California Water Service Company City of Brisbane City of Burlingame City of Daly City City of East Palo Alto City of Hayward City of Menlo Park City of Millbrae City of Milpitas City of Mountain View City of Palo Alto City of Redwood City -1-1840795.8 City of San Bruno City of San Jose City of Santa Clara City of Sunnyvale Coastside County Water District Estero Municipal Improvement District Guadalupe Valley Municipal Improvement District Mid-Peninsula Water District North Coast County Water District Purissima Hills Water District Skyline County Water District Stanford University Town of Hillsborough Westborough Water District The entities listed above which have executed this Agreement shall be collectively referred to as the "Wholesale Customers." 1.03 Effective Date A. Except as provided in subsection C, this Agreement shall become effective only when it has been approved by San Francisco and by each of the entities listed in Section 1.02 and when San Francisco and each of those entities (except for the City of Hayward) have entered into an Individual Water Sales Contract as provided in Section 9.01. B. If San Francisco and all of the entities listed in Section 1.02 approve this Agreement and (except for the City of Hayward) an Individual Water Sales Contract on or before July 1, 2009, the effective date sl1all be July 1,2009. If San Francisco and all of the entities listed in Section 1.02 approve this Agreement and (except for the City of Hayward) an Individual Water Sales Contract after July 1,2009 but on or before September 1,2009, the effective date shall be the date on which the last entity listed in Section 1.02 approves this Agreement and, if required, an Individual Water Sales Contract. C. If by September 1, 2009 this Agreement has been approved by fewer than all of the entities listed in Section 1.02 or fewer than all of such entities (other than the City of Hayward) have entered into an Individual Water Sales Contract, but it has been approved by entities representing at least 75% in number and 75% of the water purchased from SFPUC by -2-1840795.8 all listed agencies during FY 2007-08 (Le., 173.39 MGD), then San Francisco shall have the option to waive the requirement in subsection A that all listed agencies have approved this Agreement and an Individual Water Sales Contract as a condition precedent to this Agreement and any Individual Water Sales Contract becoming effective. San Francisco shall have 60 days from September 1,2009 (Le., until October 31, 2009) within which to decide whether or not to waive the condition. If San Francisco decides to waive the condition, those listed agencies that have approved this Agreement and Individual Water Sales Contract before October 31,2009 will be bound thereby and this Agreement and Individual Water Sales Contracts will become effective as to them, as of the date of San Francisco's waiver. For purposes of determining whether listed agencies that have approved this Agreement represent at least 75% of the water purchased during FY 2007-08, the quantity of water attributable to each listed entity shall be as set forth on Attachment B. D. The provisions of Article 9 that apply to fewer than all Wholesale Customers (Le., Sections 9.02 -9.07) shall not become effective unless San Francisco and the entity to which the section applies have each approved (1) this Agreement, and (2) the underlying Individual Water Sales Contract, unless otherwise provided in Article 9. This provision does not affect the continued enforceability of provisions in those sections that derive from independently enforceable judgments, orders or agreements. -3-1840795.8 Article 2. Term; Amendments During Term 2.01 Term The term ("Term") of this Agreement shall be twenty five (25) years. The Term shall begin on July 1, 2009, regardless of whether the Effective Date is before or after that date, and shall end on June 30, 2034. Except as provided in Article g, the term of all Individual Water Sales Contracts shall also begin on July 1, 2009 and end on June 30, 2034. 2.02 Extension and Renewal of Term A. In December 2031, the SFPUC may provide written notice to the Wholesale Customers that it is willing to extend the Term of this Agreement. Between January 1,2032 and June 30, 2032, any Wholesale Customer may accept the SFPUC's offer to extend the Term by providing a written notice of extension to the SFPUC. If such notices of extension are received from Wholesale Customers representing at least two-thirds in number as of June 30, 2032 and seventy five percent (75%) of the quantity of water delivered by the SFPUC to all Wholesale Customers during fiscal year 2030-31, the Term shall be extended for another five (5) years ("First Extension Term"), through June 30, 2039. No party to this Agreement which does not wish to remain a party during the Extension Term shall be compelled to do so by the actions of other parties under this section. B. In December 2036, the SFPUC may provide written notice to the Wholesale Customers that it is willing to extend the Term of this Agreement. Between January 1, 2037 and June 30, 2037, any Wholesale Customer may accept the SFPUC's offer to extend the Term by providing a written notice of extension to the SFPUC. If such notices of extension are received from Wholesale Customers representing at least two-thirds in number as of June 30, 2037 and seventy five percent (75%) of the quantity of water delivered by the SFPUC to all Wholesale Customers during fiscal year 2035-36, the Term shall be extended for another five (5) years ("Second Extension Term"), through June 30, 2044. No party to this Agreement which does not wish to remain a party during the Extension Term shall be compelled to do so by the actions of other parties under this section. C. After the expiration of the Term, and, if applicable, the Extension Terms, this Agreement may be renewed by mutual consent of the parties, subject to any modifications thereof which may be determined at that time. If fewer than all of the parties desire to renew this Agreement beyond its Term, with or without modifications, the SFPUC and the Wholesale -4-1840795.8 Customers who wish to extend the Agreement shall be free to do so, provided that no party to this Agreement which does not wish to become a party to such a renewed Agreement shall be compelled to do so by the actions of other parties under this section. 2.03 Amendments A. Amendments to Agreement; General 1. This Agreement may be amended with the written consent of all parties. 2. This Agreement may also be amended with the written consent of San Francisco and of Wholesale Customers representing at least two-thirds in number (Le., 18 as of July 1, 2009) and seventy five percent (75%) of the quantity of water delivered by San Francisco to all Wholesale Customers during the fiscal year immediately preceding the amendment. 3. No amendment which adversely affects a Fundamental Right of a Wholesale Customer may be made without the written consent of that customer. Amendments to Article 5 which merely affectthe allocation of costs between City Retail customers on the one hand and Wholesale Customers collectively on the other. and amendments to Articles 6 and 7 which merely alter budgetary, accounting and auditing procedures do not affect Fundamental Rights and may be made with the consent of parties meeting the requirements of Section 2.03.A.2. 4. When an amendment has been approved by San Francisco and the number of Wholesale Customers required in Section 2.03.A.2, San Francisco shall notify each of the Wholesale Customers in writing of the amendment's adoption. Notwithstanding any provision of law or this Agreement, any Wholesale Customer that claims that the amendment violates its Fundamental Rights under Section 2.03.A.3, shall have 30 days from the date San Francisco delivers the notice of its adoption in which to challenge the amendment's validity through a judicial action: If no such action is filed within 30 days, the amendment shall be finally and conclusively deemed to have been adopted in compliance with this section. B. Amendments to Article 9 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 2.03.A.2 and 2.03.A.3, any provision of Article 9 which applies only to an individual Wholesale Customer may be amended with the written concurrence of San Francisco and the Wholesale Customer to which it applies; -5-1840795.8 provided that the amendment will not, directly or indirectly, adversely affect the Fundamental Rights of the other Wholesale Customers. 2. Before making any such amendment effective, San Francisco shall give notice, with a copy of the text of the proposed amendment, to all other Wholesale Customers. The Wholesale Customers shall have 30 days in which to object to the amendment on the ground that it is not permissible under this subsection. If no such objection is received by San Francisco, the proposed amendment shall become effective. If one or more Wholesale Customers object to the amendment, San Francisco, the individual Wholesale Customer with which San Francisco intends to effect the amendment, and the Wholesale Customer(s) which lodged the objection shall meet to discuss the matter. 3. If the dispute cannot be resolved and San Francisco and the Wholesale Customer involved elect to proceed with the amendment, either San Francisco or the Wholesale Customer shall give written notice of such election to each Wholesale Customer that has objected. Any Wholesale Customer that has objected to such amendment shall have 30 days from receipt of this notice within which to commence an action challenging the validity of such amendment, and such amendment shall be deemed effective as of the end of this 30-day period unless restrained by order of court. C. Amendments to Attachments. The following attachments may be amended with the written concurrence of San Francisco and BAWSCA on behalf of the Wholesale Customers: Attachment Name G January 2006 Water Quality Notification and Communications Plan J Water Use Measurement and T abu/ation L-1 Identification of WSIP Projects as Regional/Retail N-1 Balancing AccounURate Setting Calculation Table N-2 Wholesale Revenue Requirement Schedules N-3 Schedule of Projected Water Sales, Wholesale Revenue Requirement and Wholesale Rates P Management Representation Letter -6-1840795.8 Amendments to these attachments shall be approved on behalf of San Francisco by the Commission and on behalf of BAWSCA by its Board of Directors, unless the Commission by resolution delegates such authority to the General Manager of the SFPUC or the Board of Directors by resolution delegates such authority to the General Manager/CEO of BAWSCA. D. Amendments to Individual Water Sales Contracts. Individual Water Sales Contracts described in Section 9.01 may be amended with the written concurrence of San Francisco and the Wholesale Customer which is a party to that Individual Water Sales Contract; provided that the amendment is not inconsistent with this Agreement or in derogation of the Fundamental Rights of other Wholesale Customers under this Agreement -7-1840795.8 Article 3. Water Supply 3.01 SURpl~ Assurance A San Francisco agrees to deliver water to the Wholesale Customers up to the amount of the Supply Assurance. The Supply Assurance is for the benefit of the entities listed in Section 1.02, irrespective of whether or not they have executed this Agreement. Water delivered by San Francisco to Retail Customers shall not be included in the Supply Assurance. Until December 31,2018, the foregoing commitment is subject to Article 4. B. Both the Supply Assurance and the Individual Supply Guarantees identified in Section 3.02 are expressed in terms of daily deliveries on an annual average basis and do not themselves constitute a guarantee by San Francisco to meet peak daily or hourly demands of the Wholesale Customers, irrespective of what those peak demands may be. The parties acknowledge, however, that the Regional Water System has been designed and constructed to meet peak daily and hourly demands and that its capacity to do so has not yet been reached. San Francisco agrees to operate the Regional Water System to meet peak requirements of the Wholesale Customers to the extent possible without adversely affecting its ability to meet peak demands of Retail Customers. This Agreement shall not preclude San Francisco from undertaking to meet specific peak demand requirements of individual Wholesale Customers in their Individual Water Sales Contracts. C. The Supply Assurance is perpetual and shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. Similarly, the Individual Supply Guarantees identified in Section 3.02 and/or the Individual Water Sales Contracts are perpetual and shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement or the I ndividual Water Sales Contracts. D. Notwithstanding the Supply Assurance established by this section, the Individual Supply Guarantees identified in Section 3,02 and the Individual Water Sales Contracts, the amount of water made available by San Francisco to the Wholesale Customers is subject to reduction, to the extent and for the period made necessary by reason of water shortage, Drought, Emergencies, or by malfunctioning or rehabilitation of facilities in the Regional Water System. Any such reduction will be implemented in accordance with Section 3.11. The amount of water made available to the Wholesale Customers may not be reduced, however, merely because the water recycling and groundwater projects which the WSIP envisions to be constructed within San Francisco, or the conservation programs intended to reduce water use -8-1840795.8 by Retail Customers that are included in the WSIP, do not generate the yield or savings (10 MGD combined) anticipated by San Francisco. 3.02 Allocation of Supply Assurance A. Pursuantto Section 7.02 of the 1984 Agreement, a portion of the Supply Assurance has been allocated among 24 of the 27 Wholesale Customers. These Individual Supply Guarantees are also expressed in terms of annual average metered deliveries of millions of gallons per day and are listed in Attachment C. B. Three Wholesale Customers do not have Individual Supply Guarantees. The cities of San Jose and Santa Clara do not have an Individual Supply Guarantees because San Francisco has provided water to them on a temporary and interruptible basis as described in Sections 4.05 and 9.06. The City of Hayward does not have an Individual Supply Guarantee because of the terms of the 1962 contract between it and San Francisco, as further described in Section 9.03. C. If the total amount of water delivered by San Francisco to Hayward and to the Wholesale Customers that are listed on Attachment C exceeds 184 MGD over a period of three consecutive fiscal years (Le., July 1 through June 30), then the Individual Supply Guarantees of those Wholesale Customers listed on Attachment C shall be reduced pro rata so that their combined entitlement and the sustained use by Hayward does not exceed 184 MGD. The procedure for calculating the pro rata reduction in Individual Supply Guarantees is set out in Attachment D. 1. The provisions of this subsection C are not in derogation of the reservation of claims to water in excess of the Supply Assurance which are contained in Section 8.07. Nor do they constitute an acknowledgement by Wholesale Customers other than Hayward that San Francisco is obligated or entitled to reduce their Individual Supply Guarantees in the circumstances described herein. The provisions of this sUbsection C shall, however, be operative unless and until a court determines that its provisions violate rights of the Wholesale Customers derived independently of this Agreement. 2. The foregoing paragrapti is not intended to and shall not constitute a contractual commitment on the part of San Francisco to furnish more water than the Supply Assurance to the Wholesale Customers or a concession by San Francisco that the provisions of this subsection violate any rights of the Wholesale Customers. -9-1840795.8 D. Notwithstanding the reservation of claims contained in Sections 3.02.C and 8.07, it shall be the responsibility of each Wholesale Customer to limit its purchases of water from San Francisco so as to remain within its Individual Supply Guarantee. San Francisco shall not be liable to any Wholesale Customer or be obligated to supply more water to any Wholesale Customer individually or to the Wholesale Customers collectively than the amount to which it or they are otherwise entitled under this Agreement due to the use by any Wholesale Customer of more water than the amount to which it is entitled under this Agreement. E. San Francisco shall install such new connections between the Regional Water System and the distribution system of any Wholesale Customer that are necessary to deliver the quantities of water to which the Wholesale Customer is entitled under this Agreement. San Francisco shall have the right to determine the location of such connections, in light of the need to maintain the structural integrity of the Regional Water System and, where applicable, the need to limit peaking directly off of Regional Water System pipelines by a Wholesale Customer's individual retail customers, the need to ensure that a Wholesale Customer's individual retail customers have access to alternative sources of water in the event of a reduction in San Francisco's ability to provide them with water, and other factors which may affect the desirability or undesirability of a particular location. San Francisco's decisions regarding the location of new connections and the location, size and type of any new meters shall not be reviewable by a court except for an abuse of discretion or failure to provide a Wholesale Customer with connections and meters adequate to deliver the quantity of water to which it is entitled under this Agreement. 3.03 Wholesale Customer Service Areas A. Each of the Individual Water Sales Contracts described in Section 9.01 will contain, as an exhibit, a map of the Wholesale Customer's service area. A Wholesale Customer may not deliver water furnished to it by San Francisco outside the boundary of its service area without the prior written consent of San Francisco, except for deliveries to another Wholesale Customer on an emergency and temporary basis pursuant to Section 3.07.8. B. If a Wholesale Customer wishes to expand its service area, it shall request San Francisco's consent to the expansion and provide information reasonably requested by San Francisco about the amount of water projected to be purchased from San Francisco to meet demand within the area proposed to be added to the service area. -10-1840795.8 C. San Francisco may refuse a Wholesale Customer's request to expand its service area on any reasonable basis. If San Francisco denies a request by a Wholesale Customer to expand its service area, or fails to act on the request for six months after it has been submitted, the Wholesale Customer may challenge San Francisco's denial or delay in court. Such a challenge may be based on the Wholesale Customers' claim, reserved in Section 8.07, that San Francisco is obligated under federal or state law to furnish water, included within its Individual Supply Guarantee, to it for delivery outside its then-existing service area and that it is entitled to enlarge its service area to supply water to such customers. San Francisco reserves the right to contest any such claim on any applicable ground. This subsection does not apply to San Jose and Santa Clara, whose maximum service areas are fixed pursuant to Section 9.06. D. This section will not prevent San Francisco and any Wholesale Customer, other than San Jose and Santa Clara, from agreeing in an Individual Water Sales Contract or an amendment thereto that: • the Wholesale Customer may expand its service area without subsequent San Francisco approval to a definitive size but no larger, or • the Wholesale Customer wiiJ not expand its service area beyond its present limits without San Francisco approval and waiving the provisions of this section with respect to any additional expansion. E. If two or more Wholesale Customers agree to adjust the boundaries of their respective service areas so that one assumes an obligation to serve customers in an area that was previously within the service area of another Wholesale Customer, they may also correspondingly adjust their respective Individual Supply Guarantees. Such adjustments are not subject to the requirements of Section 3.04 and shall require only the consent of San Francisco and the Wholesale Customers involved. so long as the Supply Assurance and the Individual Supply Guarantees of other Wholesale Customers are not affected. Service area boundary adjustments that would result in the expansion of any California Water Service Company service areas are subject to the requirements of Section 9.02.0. Any adjustment of service area boundaries that would result in the supply of water in violation of this Agreement or the Act shall be void. F. San Francisco acknowledges that it has heretofore consented in writing to deliveries of water by individual Wholesale Customers outside their service area boundaries and -11-1840795.8 agrees that nothing in this Agreement is intended to affect such prior authorizations, which remain in full force and effect according to their terms. Such authorizations shall be identified in the Individual Water Sales Contracts. 3.04 Permanent Transfers of Individual Supply Guarantees A. A Wholesale Customer that has an Individual Supply Guarantee may transfer a portion of it to one or more other Wholesale Customers, as provided in this section. B. Transfers of a portion of an Individual Supply Guarantee must be permanent. The minimum quantity that may be transferred is 1/10th of a MGD. C. Transfers of portions of Individual Supply Guarantees are subject to approval by the SFPUC. SFPUC review is limited to determining (1) whether a proposed transfer complies with the Act, and (2) whether the affected facilities in the Regional Water System have sufficient capacity to accommodate delivery of the increased amount of water to the proposed transferee. D. The participants in a proposed transfer shall provide notice to the SFPUC specifying the amount of the Individual Supply Guarantee proposed to be transferred, the proposed effective date of the transfer, wh1ch shall not be less than 60 days after the notice is submitted to the SFPUC, and the Individual Supply Guarantees of both participants resulting from the transfer. The SFPUC may require additional information reasonably necessary to evaluate the operational impacts of the transfer. The SFPUC will not unreasonably withhold or delay its approval; if the SFPUC does not act on the notice within 60 days, the transfer will be deemed to have been approved. E. Within 30 days after the transfer has become effective, both the transferor and the transferee will provide notice to the SFPUC and BAWSCA. By September 30 of each year during the Term, the SFPUC and BAWSCA will prepare an updated Attachment C to refiect transfers occurring during the immediately preceding fiscal year. F. Amounts transferred will remain subject to pro rata reduction under the circumstances described in Section 3.02.C and according to the formula set forth in Attachment D. 3.05 Restrictions on Resale Each Wholesale Customer agrees that it will not sell any water purchased from San Francisco to a private party for resale by such private party to others in violation of the Act. 12-J 840795.8 Each Wholesale Customer also agrees that it will not sell water purchased from San Francisco to another Wholesale Customer without prior written approval of the SFPUC, except on a temporary and emergency basis as permitted in Section 3.07.B.2. The SFPUC agrees that it will not unreasonably withhold its consent to a request by a Wholesale Customer to deliver water to another Wholesale Customer for resale. 3.06 Conservation; Use of Local Sources; Water Management Charge A In order to support the continuation and expansion of water conservation programs, water recycling, and development of alternative supplies within the Wholesale Customers' service areas, the SFPUC will, if requested by BAWSCA, include the Water Management Charge in water bills sent to Wholesale Customers. The SFPUC will deliver al/ Water Management Charge revenue to BAWSCA monthly and shall deliver an annual accounting of Water Management Charge revenue to BAWSCA within 90 days after the end of each fiscal year. The SFPUC's obligations to collect and deliver Water Management Charge revenue to BAWSCA under this subsection are conditioned on BAWSCA's delivery to the SFPUC of an annual report describing the projects and programs on which Water Management Charge funds received from the SFPUC during the previous fiscal year were expended and an estimate of the amount of water savings attributable to conservation programs and of the yield of alternative supplies developed. This report will be due within 180 days after the end of each fiscal year during which Water Management Charge funds were received. B. The SFPUC will work together with BAWSCA to explore ways to support water conservation programs, recycling projects, and conjunctive use alternatives outside the Wholesale Service Area, in particular projects and programs that have the potential to increase both flows in the lower Tuolumne River (downstream of New Don Pedro Reservoir) and water deliveries to the Regional Water System. C. Each Wholesale Customer shalf take all actions within its legal authority related to water conservation that are necessary to insure that the SFPUC (a) remains eligible for (i) state and federal grants and (ii) access to the Drought Water Bank operated by the California Department of Water Resources, as well as other Drought-related water purchase or transfer programs, and (b) complies with future legal requirements imposed on the Regional Water System by the federal government, the State, or any other third party as conditions for receiving funding or water supply. -13-J 840795.8 D. San Francisco and each Wholesale Customer agree that they will diligently apply their best efforts to use both surface water and groundwater sources located within their respective service areas and available recycled water to the maximum feasible extent, taking into account the environmental impacts, the public health effects and the effects on supply reliability of such use, as well as the cost of developing such sources. 3.07 Restrictions on Purchases of Water from Others; Minimum Annual Purchases A. Each Wholesale Customer (except for Alameda County Water District and the cities of Milpitas, Mountain View and Sunnyvale) agrees that it will not contraCt for, purchase or receive, with or without compensation, directly or indirectly, from any person, corporation, governmental agency or other entity. any water for delivery or use within its service area without the prior written consent of San Francisco. B. The prohibition in subsection A does not apply to: 1. recycled water; 2. water necessary on an emergency and temporary basis, provided that the Wholesale Customer promptly gives San Francisco notice of the nature of the emergency, the amount of water that has been or is to be purchased, and the expected duration of the emergency; or 3. water in excess of a Wholesale Customer's Individual Supply Guarantee. C. Alameda County Water District and the cities of Milpitas, Mountain View and Sunnyvale may purchase water from sources other than San Francisco, provided that San Francisco shall require that each purchase a minimum annual quantity of water from San Francisco. These minimum quantities are set out in Attachment E and shall also be included in the Individual Water Sales Contracts between San Francisco and each of these four Wholesale Customers. The minimum purchase requirement in these Individual Water Sales Contracts will be waived during a Drought or other period of water shortage if the water San Francisco makes available to these Wholesale Customers is less than its minimum purchase quantity. 3.08 Water Quality A. San Francisco shall deliver treated water to Wholesale Customers (except Coastside County Water District, which receives untreated water from Crystal Springs and Pilarcitos Reservoirs) that complies with primary maximum contaminant level and treatment -14-1840795.8 technique standards at the regulatory entry points designated in the San Francisco Regional Water System Domestic Water Supply Permit (currently Permit No. 02-04-04P381 0001) issued by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). B. San Francisco will provide notice to the Wholesale Customers in accordance with the Water Quality Notification and Communications Plan (current version dated January 2006), attached hereto as Attachment G. San Francisco will regularly update its plan in consultation with the Wholesale Customers and the CDPH. The next update will be completed one year after the Effective Date and include expanded coverage of secondary maximum contaminant level exceedances and water quality communication triggers. The plan will note that the Wholesale Customers will receive the same notification no later than the San Francisco water system (currently Permit No. 02-04-01 P3810011) except for distribution-related issues. C. San Francisco and the Wholesale Customers will establish a Water Quality Committee. The Water Quality Committee will meet at least quarterly to collaboratively address water quality issues, such as Water Quality Notification and Communications Plan updates, regulatory issues, and water quality planning studies/ applied research. San Francisco and each Wholesale Customer will designate a representative to serve on the committee. There will be a Chair and Vice Chair position for the Water Quality Committee. The Chair and Vice Chair positions will be held by San Francisco and the Wholesale Customers and rotate between them on an annual basis. 3.09 Completion of WSIP San Francisco will complete construction of the physical facilities in the WSIP by December 31, 2015. The SFPUC agrees to provide for full public review and comment by local and state interests of any proposed changes that delay previously adopted project completion dates or that delete projects. The SFPUC shall meet and consult with BAWSCA before proposing to the Commission any changes in the scope of WSIP projects which reduce their capacity or ability to achieve adopted levels of service goals. The SFPUC retains discretion to determine whether to approve the physical facilities in the WSIP until after it completes the CEQA process as set forth in Section 4.07. 3.10 Regional Water System Repair, Maintenance and Operation A San Francisco will keep the Regional Water System in good working order and repair consistent with prudent utility practice. -15-1840795.8 B. San Francisco will submit reports to its Retail and Wholesale Customers on the "State of the Regional Water System," including reports on completed and planned maintenance, repair or replacement projects or programs, by September of every even- numbered year, with reports to start in September 2010. C. San Francisco will cooperate with any audit of the SFPUC's asset management practices that may be initiated and financed by BAWSCA or the Wholesale Customers. BAWSCA may contract with third parties to conduct the audits. San Francisco will consider the findings and recommendations of such audits and will provide a written response indicating agreement with the recommendations, or disagreement with particular recommendations and the reasons why, within 90 calendar days after receipt. D. San Francisco will continue to operate its reservoirs in a manner that assigns higher priority to the delivery of water to the Bay Area and the environment than to the generation of electric power. The SF PUC, as the Regional Water System operator, is solely responsible for making day-to-day operational decisions. 3.11 Shortages A. Localized Water Reductions. Notwithstanding San Francisco's obligations to deliver the Supply Assurance to the Wholesale Customers collectively and the Individual Supply Guarantees to Wholesale Customers individually, San Francisco may reduce the amount of water available or interrupt water deliveries to specific geographical areas within the Regional Water System service area to the extent that such reductions are necessary due to Emergencies, or in order to install, repair, rehabilitate, replace, investigate or inspect equipment in, or perform other maintenance work on, the Regional Water System. Such reductions or interruptions may be imposed by San Francisco without corresponding reductions or interruptions in the amount of water available to SFPUC water users outside the specific geographical area where reductions or interruptions are necessary, if the system's ability to supply water outside the specific geographical area has not been impaired. In the event of such a reduction or interruption, San Francisco will restore the supply of water to the specific geographical area as soon as is possible. Except in cases of Enlergencies (during Which oral notice shall be sufficient), San Francisco will give the affected Wholesale Customer(s) reasonable written notice of such localized reductions or interruptions, the reasons therefor, and the probable duration thereof. -16-18407958 B. System-Wide Shortages and SFPUC Response to Regional Emergencies. Following a major system emergency event, the SFPUC will work closely with its Wholesale Customers to monitor customer demand, including the demand source. In the event that any individual Wholesale Service Area or Retail Service Area customer's uncontrolled distribution system leaks could result in major water waste and endanger the supply provided by the Regional Water System as a whole, flow through some customer connections may need to be temporarily reduced or terminated. SFPUC will work closely with customers to assess the nature of the demand (e.g. fire-fighting versus leakage), so that public health and safety protection can be given top priority. 1. All emergencies that require use of non-potable source water will require use of chlorine, or other suitable disinfectant, if feasible. 2. San Francisco will use its best efforts to meet the seismic reliability and delivery reliability level of service goals adopted by the Commission in conjunction with the WSIP. San Francisco will distribute water on an equitable basis throughout the Regional Water System service area following a regional Emergency, subject to physical limitations caused by damage to the Regional Water System. 3. San Francisco's response to Emergencies will be guided by the then- current version of the ERRP. The SFPUC shall periodically review, and the Commission may amend, the ERRP to ensure that it remains an up-to-date and effective management tool. 4. The SFPUC will give the Wholesale Customers notice of any proposal to amend the ERRP in a manner that would affect them. The notice will be delivered at least thirty days in advance of the date on which the proposal is to be considered by the Commission and will be accompanied by the text of the proposed amendment. C. Shortages Caused by Drought; Acquisition of Dry Year Supplies. Notwithstanding San Francisco's obligations to deliver the Supply Assurance to the Wholesale Customers collectively and the Individual Supply Guarantees to Wholesale Customers individually, San Francisco may reduce the amount of water available to the Wholesale Customers in response to Drought. 1. The Tier 1 Shortage Plan (Attachment H) will continue to be used to allocate water from the Regional Water System between Retail and Wholesale Customers during system-wide shortages of 20% or less. -17-1840795.8 2. San Francisco and the Wholesale Customers may negotiate in good faith revisions to the Tier 1 Shortage Plan to adjust for and accommodate anticipated changes due to demand hardening in the SFPUC's Wholesale and Retail Service Areas. Until agreement is reached, the current Tier 1 Shortage Plan will remain in effect. 3. The SFPUC will honor allocations of water among the Wholesale Customers ("Tier 2 Allocations") provided by BAWSCA or if unanimously agreed to by all Wholesale Customers. If BAWSCA or all Wholesale Customers do not provide the SFPUC with Tier 2 Allocations, then the SFPUC may make a final allocation decision after first meeting and discussing allocations with BAWSCA and the Wholesale Customers. For Regional Water Systerl shortages in excess of 20%, San Francisco shall (a) follow the Tier 1 Shortage Plan allocal';Jns up to the 20% reduction, (b) meet and discuss how to implement incremental reduct' ns above 20% with the Wholesale Customers, and (c) make a final determination of allocat ns above the 20% reduction. After the SFPUC has made the final allocation decision, the Wt "Iesale Customers shall be free to challenge the allocation on any applicable legal or equita'e basis. 4. San Francisco will use its best efforts to identify potential sources of dry year 'Iv ter supplies and establish the contractual and other means to access and deliver those suppliE , in sufficient quantity to meet a goal of not more than 20 percent system-wide shortage in any~ar of the design drought. 5. San Francisco will cooperate with BAWSCA to improve water supply reliability. As an example of such cooperation, San Francisco may invite a representative of BA WSCA to attend and participate in meetings with thi rd parties for development of dry year water supplies. If San Francisco does not invite a BAWSCA representative to attend a specific scheduled meeting, it will promptly (within 30 days of any such meeting) provide BAWSCA with a written or oral report on the meeting, including any decisions reached at it, as well as information about planned subsequent meetings. Progress in securing dry year water supplies will be reported to the SFPUC and the BA WSCA board of directors during the first quarter of each calendar year. 3.12 Wheeling of Water from Outside SFPUC System Subject to the Wheeling Statute, the SFPUC will not deny use of Regional Water System unused capacity for wheeling when such capacity is available for wheeling purposes during -18-1840795.8 periods when the SFPUC has declared a water shortage emergency under Water Code Section 350 if the following conditions are met: A. The transferor pays reasonable charges incurred by the SFPUC as a result of the wheeling, including capital, operation, maintenance, administrative and replacement costs (as such are defined in the Wheeling Statute). B. Wheeled water that is stored in the Regional Water System spills first. C. Wheeled water will not unreasonably: (1) impact fish and wildlife resources in Regional Water System reservoirs; (2) diminish the quality of water delivered for consumptive uses; or (3) increase the risk of exotic species impairing Regional Water System operations. The transferor may at its own expense provide for treatment to mitigate these effects. D. Priority will be given to wheeling by Wholesale Customers or BAWSCA over arrangements for third-party public entities. 3.13 Limits on New Customers A. New Wholesale Customers Prior to December 31,2018. Until December 31, 2018, San Francisco will not enter into contracts to supply water to any entity other than a Wholesale Customer (whether permanent or temporary, firm or interruptible) unless: 1. It completes any necessary environmental review under CEQA of the proposed new wholesale water service obligations as provided in Section 4.07; 2. It concurrently completes any necessary environmental review under CEQA as provided in Section 4,07 and commits to make both San Jose and Santa Clara permanent customers with Individual Supply Guarantees equal to at least 9 MGD; and 3, This Agreement is amended to incorporate any commitments to proposed new wholesale customers and to San Jose and Santa Clara, and to address the effects, if any, of the new customer(s) on water supply reliability, water quality and cost to existing customers of the Regional Water System, B. New Wholesale Customers After December 31,2018. As of January 1, 2019, San Francisco will not enter into contracts to supply water to any entity other than a Wholesale Customer (whether permanent or temporary, firm or interruptible) unless: -19-1840795,8 1. It completes any necessary environmental review under CEQA of the proposed new wholesale water service obligations as provided in Section 4.07; 2. It concurrently completes any necessary environmental review under CEQA as provided in Section 4.07 and commits to make both San Jose and Santa Clara permanent customers with Individual Supply Guarantees equal to at least 9 MGD; 3. Doing so increases the reliability of the Regional Water System; and 4. This Agreement is concurrently amended (a) to reflect that increased reliability by means of an increased commitment by San Francisco to deliver water during Droughts and (b) to address the effects, if any, of the new customer(s) on water supply, water quality and cost to existing customers of the Regional Water System. C. New RetaiJ Customers. San Francisco may enter into new retail water service obligations outside of the City and County of San Francisco: 1. Only in Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Joaquin and Tuolumne Counties; 2. That are within or immediately adjacent to areas in which it currently serves other Retail Customers; and 3. Until the aggregate additional demand represented by the new retail customers reaches 0.5 MGD. The limitations on serving new Retail Customers described in this subsection do not apply to historical obligations to supply water that may be contained in prior agreements between the SFPUC or its predecessor the Spring Valley Water Company, and individual users or property owners located adjacent to Regional Water System transmission pipelines. D. Water Exchanges and Cost Sharing Ag reements with Other Water Suppliers. Subject to completion of necessary environmental review under CEQA, San Francisco may at any time enter inl0 water exchanges or cost sharing agreements with other water suppliers to enhance dry year or normal year water deliveries, provided that San Francisco cannot incur new water service obligations to such other water suppliers unless the requirements for taking on new wholesale customers in subsections A and B above are met. -20-18407958 3.14 Measurement of Water A The parties recognize that continuous and accurate measurement of water deliveries to and from the Regional Water System and maintenance of complete and accurate records of those measurements is necessary (1) for the costs of the Regional Water System to be allocated in accordance with this Agreement, (2) for implementation of other provisions of this Agreement, and (3) for effective operation and maintenance of a water system serving a large urbanized region. 8. It is the responsibility of the SFPUC to obtain and record these measurements. To do so, the SFPUC shall install, maintain and operate measuring and recording equipment at the following locations: (1) inputs to the Regional Water System from aI/ water sources ("System Input Meters"), (2) internal flow meters to support operation of the Regional Water System ("In- Une Meters"), (3) deliveries to the City at the San Francisco-San Mateo County line ("County- Line Meters") and to three reservoirs in San Francisco ("In-City Terminal Reservoir Meters"), (4) deliveries to SFPUC Retail Customers located outside the boundaries of the City, and (5) deliveries to the Wholesale Customers, as described and illustrated in Attachment J. C. The SFPUC shall inspect, test, service, and calibrate the measuring and recording equipment installed at the locations described in subsection 8 and will repair or replace them when necessary, in order to ensure that their accuracy is consistent with specifications provided in Attachment J. D. The SFPUC shall continue to contract with a qualified independent metering consultant to perform periodic inspection, testing, servicing and calibration of the County-Line Meters, the In-City Terminal Reservoir Meters, and the System Input and In-Line Meters described in Attachment J, as well as the portion of the SFPUC's Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system that utilizes the flow signals produced by that measuring and recording equipment. The method, schedule and frequency for calibration and maintenance of the County-Une Meters and the In-City Terminal Reservoir Meters are specified in Attachment J. The SFPUC shall provide copies of the metering consultant's reports to BAWSCA E. System Input Meters measure water deliveries into the Regional Water System from sources such as Hetch Hetchy and the SFPUC's water treatment plants. System Input Meters also measure deliveries from the Regional Water System to outside sources or from -21-1840795.8 such sources to the Regional Water System through interties with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the East Bay Municipal Utility District. In-Line Meters measure internal system flows and are located on the Bay Division Pipelines and other main transmission pipelines. These meters are collectively referred to as the "System Input and In-line Meters." Similar to the County-Line Meters, the System Input and In-Line Meters have secondary metering equipment, such as differential pressure transmitters and flow recorders. The System Input and In-Line Meters, and all associated secondary metering equipment, shall be calibrated and maintained according to the method, schedule, and frequency specified in the Procedures Manual described in subsection G, below. F. The locations of the smaller and more numerous meters described in subsection B (4) and (5) are not illustrated in Attachment J; however, they are also critical in the determination of cost allocations, and accordingly require continued maintenance and calibration. It is the responsibility of the SFPUC to maintain the accuracy of these meters and their secondary metering equipment. G. The SFPUC will prepare a Procedures Manual which will describe in detail the procedures for periodic inspection, testing, servicing and calibration of the measuring and recording equipment described in subsection B. Once the Procedures Manual is completed, the SFPUC and BAWSCA may agree that it should supersede some or all of the requirements in Attachment J regarding the County-Line and the In-City Terminal Reservoir Meters. Unless and until such an agreement is reached and documented, however, the requirements in Attachment J, Section D will continue in force as minimum standards for meter maintenance and calibration of the County-Line and In-City Terminal Reservoir Meters (subject to modification under the circumstances described in Attachment J, Section A.4). H. If BAWSCA and tile SFPUC are unable to agree on the water use calculations required by Attachment J for a particular year, the Wholesale Customers may file a demand for arbitration challenging the SFPUC's determination of the Wholesale Revenue Requirement for that year on the basis of its reliance on disputed water use calculations. Such a challenge must be brought in the manner and within the time specified in Section 8.01. 3.15 New Sources of Water Supply to Maintain Supply Assurance A. Urgent Reductions of Existing Surface Water Supplies. Sudden and unanticipated events may require San Francisco to act promptly to protect the health, safety and -22-1840795& economic well-being of its Retail and Wholesale Customers. Such sudden events include, but are not limited to drought, earthquakes, terrorist acts, catastrophic failures of facilities owned and operated by San Francisco, and other natural or man-made events. If such events diminish San Francisco's ability to maintain the Supply Assurance, San Francisco may increase the Wholesale Revenue Requirement to pay for planning, evaluation and implementation of replacement sources of supply when such needs arise and without the prior approval of the Wholesale Customers. San Francisco will keep the Wholesale Customers informed of actions being taken under this subsection, progress made, and contingency actions the Wholesale Customers may need to consider taking. To the extent appropriate and applicable, San Francisco will act in accordance with Section 3.11 and the ERRP. Nothing in this subsection limits San Francisco's obligations under Section 3.11 to pursue additional sources of supply to augment supplies available during drought. B. Non-Urgent Reductions of Existing Surface Water Supplies. Climate change, regulatory actions and other events may impact San Francisco's ability to maintain the Supply Assurance from its existing surface water supplies, but on timescales long enough to permit San Francisco to collaborate with its Wholesale Customers on how best to address possible impacts to water supply. If such events diminish San Francisco's ability to maintain the Supply Assurance, San Francisco may increase the Wholesale Revenue Requirement to pay for planning, evaluation and implementation of replacement sources of supply when such needs arise and without the prior approval of the Wholesale Customers. San Francisco will keep the Wholesale Customers informed of actions being taken under this subsection, progress made, and contingency actions the Wholesale Customers may need to consider taking. San Francisco will solicit input and recommendations from BAWSCA and the Wholesale Customers, and take those recommendations into consideration. Prior to Commission approval of plans or taking other actions that would impact the Wholesale Revenue Requirement, San Francisco will hold a public hearing to receive written and oral comments. Nothing in this subsection modifies San Francisco's obligation to maintain the ability to provide the Supply Assurance under this Agreement. 3.16 New Sources of Water Suppll( to Increase Suppll( Assurance A. Surface Water Supplies From Existing Watersheds After 2018. The Commission action in SFPUC Resolution Number 08-0200, adopted October 30, 2008 requires certain decisions by San Francisco regarding whether to supply more than 265 MGD from its -23-1840795.8 watersheds following 2018. Such decisions are to be made by December 31, 2018, subject to the exercise of San Francisco's retained CEQA discretion in Section 4.07. San Francisco's future decisions may include an offer to increase the Supply Assurance at the request of some or all of its Wholesale Customers. Costs associated with providing additional water from its eXisting water supplies in San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Tuolumne, and Stanislaus Counties shall be allocated to Wholesale and Retail Customers as described in Article 5. B. New Water Supplies. If San Francisco seeks to develop additional water supplies from new sources to increase the Supply Assurance available to Wholesale Customers, studies and resulting water supply projects will be conducted jointly with BAWSCA under separate agreement(s) specifying the purpose of the projects, the anticipated regional benefits and how costs of studies and implementation will be allocated and charged. Nothing in this Agreement shall seNe as precedent for the allocation of such new supply capital costs between Retail and Wholesale Customers or associated operational expenses, which shall only occur following approval of both parties and amendment of this Agreement, if necessary, under Section 2.03. 3.17 Westside Basin Conjunctive Use Program Subject to completion of necessary CEQA review as provided in Section 4.07, the SFPUC may enter into an agreement with the cities of Daly City and San Bruno and the California Water SeNice Company, South San Francisco SeNice Area ("Participating Pumpers") governing the operation of tile South Westside Basin Conjunctive Use Program ("Program"), a WSIP Project. The Program would produce Regional benefits for all customers of the Regional Water System by making use of available groundwater storage capacity in the Southern portion of the Westside Basin through the supply of additional surface water ("In Lieu Water") to the Paliicipating Pumpers from the Regional Water System, in exchange for a corresponding reduction in groundwater pumping at existing wells owned by the Participating Pumpers. The new groundwater supply that would accrue to storage as a result of delivery of In Lieu Water would then be recovered from the SFPUC basin storage account during water shortages using new SFPUC Regional Program wells operated by the Participating Pumpers and the SFPUC. Program ailnual operations and maintenance expenses and water supplies are expected to be allocated as follows: -24-1840795.8 A. All In Lieu Water delivered to the Participating Pumpers shall be (1) temporary and interruptible in nature and (2) at the sole discretion of the SFPUC based on the total volume of water available to the Regional Water System. B. Allin Lieu Water delivered to the Participating Pumpers shall be considered a delivery of water to storage and shall not be construed to affect or increase the Individual Supply Guarantees of these wholesale customers or to otherwise entitle them to any claim of water in excess of their Individual Supply Guarantees or their Interim Supply Allocations. Furthermore, Environmental Enhancement Surcharges authorized under Section 4.04 will not be applied by the SFPUC to any quantity of In Lieu Water that is delivered to the Participating Pumpers, but will instead be based solely on Participating Pumper water deliveries in excess of their respective Interim Supply Allocations. C. Any operation and maintenance expenses incurred by the Participating Pumpers and the SFPUC that are related to the operation of Regional Program wells and related assets shall be included as Regional pumping expenses under Section 5.05.B and included as part of the Wholesale Revenue Requirement For rate setting purposes, estimated Regional Program operation and maintenance expenses shall be used as set forth in Section 6.01. Operation and maintenance expenses associated with the Participating Pumpers' existing wells that do not provide Regional benefits shall not be included in the Wholesale Revenue Requirement. On a case-by-case basis, the SFPUC may include Participating Pumper existing well operation and maintenance expenses in the Wholesale Revenue Requirement provided that such expenses (1) are solely attributable to Regional Program operations and (2) are not caused by the Participating Pumper's failure to operate and maintain its existing wells in a reasonable and prudent manner consistent with water utility industry standards. D. The SFPUC will audit operation and maintenance expenses submitted by the Participating Pumpers for reimbursement to confirm that such costs were incurred as a result of operating Regional Program wells and related assets. Costs associated with the use of Program facilities for Direct Retail or Direct Wholesale purposes, or that do not otherwise provide Regional benefits, shelll not be included in the Wholesale Revenue Requirement The SFPUC is responsible for resolving disputes with the Participating Pumpers concerning expense allocations. Program expense documentation, including documentation of negotiation and settlement of disputed costs, will be available for review during the Compliance Audit described -25-1840795.8 in Section 7.04. The Wholesale Customers may dispute the SFPUC's resolution of expense allocations through the arbitration provisions in Section 8.01 of this Agreement E. The SFPUC may direct the Participating Pumpers to recover water from the SFPUC basin storage account for any type of shortage referenced in Section 3.11. Water recovered from the SFPUC basin storage account using Regional Program wells may be used for (1) the benefit of all Regional Water System customers; (2) Retail Customers; or (3) one or more of the Participating Pumpers. The Wholesale Revenue Requirement shall only include operation and maintenance expenses incurred due to the operation of Program wells for Regional benefits. F. All water recovered from the SFPUC basin storage account by the Participating Pumpers and by the SFPUC for delivery to Retail Customers during Shortages caused by Drought shall be used to free up a comparable volume of surface water from the Regional Water System for allocation in accordance with the Tier 1 Shortage Plan. G. If the Program is terminated for any reason, including breach of the Program agreement by the Participating Pumpers or SFPUC, or due to regulatory action or legal action, then 1. Any water remaining SFPUC Regional storage account shall be used for the benefit of all customers of the Regional Water System; 2. Outstanding eligible operation and maintenance expenses, including costs incurred during recovery of remaining stored water, will be allocated as provided in this section; and 3. The Wholesale Customers will be credited with their share of proceeds from disposition of Program facilities or reimbursed their share of such capital costs for any Program facilities which are retained by the SFPUC for Direct Retail benefit and not used for the benefit of the Wholesale Customers, on the basis of (a) original cost less depreciation and outstanding related Indebtedness or (b) original cost less accumulated depreciation for revenue funded Regional ~Jrogram facilities. -26-1840795.8 Article 4. Implementation of Interim Supply Limitation. 4.01 Interim Supply Limitation Imposed by SFPUC In adopting the WSIP in Res. No. 08-0200, the Commission included full implementation of all proposed WSIP capital improvement projects to achieve level of service goals relating to public health, seismic safety, and delivery reliability, but decided to adopt a water supply element that includes the Interim Supply Limitation. This article describes how the parties will implement the Interim Supply Limitation imposed by the SFPUC between the Effective Date and December 31,2018. 4.02 Retail and Wholesale Customer Allocations Under Interim Supply Limitation The Interim Supply Limitation is allocated as follows between Retail and Wholesale Customers: Retail Customers' allocation: Wholesale Customers' alJocation: 81 MGD 184 MGD The Wholesale Customers' collective allocation of 184 MGD under the Interim Supply Limitation includes the demand of the cities of San Jose and Santa Clara, whose demand is not included in the Supply Assurance, as provided in Section 3.02.8. By December 31st, 2010, the Commission will establish each Wholesale Customer's Interim Supply Allocation at a public meeting. 4.03 Transfers of Interim Supply Allocations A. Any Wholesale Customer, including Hayward, may transfer a portion of its Interim Supply Allocation to one or more other Wholesale Customers, as provided in this section. All Wholesale Customers are also eligible transferees, including California Water Service Company up to its Individual Supply Guarantee. B. Transfers of a portion of an Interim Supply Allocation must be prospective. The duration of a transfer cannot be less than the balance of the fiscal year. The minimum quantity that may be transferred is 1/10th of a MGD. C. Transfers of portions of Interim Supply Allocations are subject to approval by the SFPUC. SFPUC review is limited to determining (1) whether a proposed transfer complies with -27-1840795.8 the Act, and (2) whether the affected facilities in the Regional Water System have sufficient capacity to accommodate delivery of the increased amount of water to the proposed transferee. D. The participants in a proposed transfer shall provide notice to the SFPUC specifying the amount of the Interim Supply Allocation proposed to be transferred and the proposed effective date of the transfer, which shall not be less than 60 days after the notice is submitted to the SFPUC. The SFPUC may require additional information reasonably necessary to evaluate the operational impacts of the transfer. The SFPUC will not unreasonably withhold or delay its approval; if the SFPUC does not act on the notice within 60 days, the transfer will be deemed to have been approved. E. Within 30 days after the transfer has become effective, both the transferor and the transferee will provide written notice to the SFPUC and BAWSCA. F. Transfers of Interim Supply Allocations shall continue in effect until the earlier of (1) delivery of written notice to the SFPUC by the transfer partiCipants that the transfer has been rescinded or (2) December 31, 2018. 4.04 Environmental Enhancement Surcharge A. Establishment of Environmental Enhancement Surcharge. Beginning with wholesale water rates for fiscal year 2011-2012, and continuing for the duration of the Interim Supply Limitation, the Commission will establish the Environmental Enhancement Surcharge concurrently with the budget-coordinated rate process set forth in Article 6 of this Agreement. The monetary amount of the Environmental Enhancement Surcharge per volume of water, such as dollars per acre-foot, will be equivalent for Retail Customer use in excess of 81 MGD and Wholesale Customer USG in excess of 184 MGD. The Environmental Enhancement Surcharge will be simple to calculate so that Wholesale Customers can estimate potential surcharges for budgeting purposes and establish retail rates within their service areas. B. Application of Environmental Enhancement Surcharge. Beginning in fiscal year 2011·12, the Environmental Enhancement Surcharge will be levied only if and when combined Retail Customer and Wholesale Customer purchases exceed the Interim Supply Limitation of 265 MGD and if the fund described in subsection D below has been established by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. In that event. the Environmental Enhancement Surcharge will apply to Retail Customers for use in excess of 81 MGD and to individual -28-1840795.8 Wholesale Customers for use in excess of their Interim Supply Allocations established by the Commission pursuant to Section 4.02. 1. Environmental Enhancement Surcharges related to the Retail Customers' use in excess of their 81 MGD Retail Customer Allocation will be paid by the SFPUC, and no portion of such surcharges may be allocated to Wholesale Customers. The method of recovering the Environmental Enhancement Surcharges imposed upon Retail Customers shall be within the sole discretion of the SFPUC. 2. Environmental Enhancement Surcharges related to the individual Wholesale Customers' use in excess of their respective Interim Supply Allocations will be paid to the SFPUC by individual Wholesale Customers. C. Collection of Environmental Enhancement Surcharge. Notwithstanding the budget-coordinated rate setting process contemplated in Article 6 of this Agreement, the Environmental Enhancement Surcharge for any given year will be determined retrospectively based on actual annual usage during the fiscal year in excess of the Interim Supply Allocation and paid in equal monthly installments over the remainder of the immediately following fiscal year. D. Establishment of Fund for Environmental Enhancement Surcharge Proceeds. Environmental Enhancement Surcharges paid by the SFPUC and by Wholesale Customers will be placed into a restricted reserve fund. The SFPUC will request the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to establish this fund by ordinance and, if adopted, the fund will be subject to the following restrictions: 1. Interest earnings will stay in the reserve fund. 2. The reserve fund shall (a) be subject to automatic appropriation; (b) require unexpended and unencumbered fund balances to be carried forward from year to year; and (c) not be transferred to the San Francisco General Fund. 3. The reserve fund may be used only for specific environmental restoration and enhancement measures for the Sierra and local watersheds, such 8S those included in the Watershed Environmental Improvement Program. 4. Environmental Enhancement Surcharge proceeds shall be expended in an expeditious manner. Any Environmental Enhancement Surcharge proceeds that remain in -29-1840795.8 the reserve fund as of December 31, 2018 shall be used to cOfTIplete projects previously approved under subsection E. Upon completion of the identified projects, the balance of any unexpended sums in the reserve fund shall be distributed to BAWSCA and the SFPUC in proportion to the total amount of surcharges assessed to the Wholesale and Retail Customers, respectively. E. Use of Environmental Enhancement Surcharge Proceeds. Specific uses of Environmental Enhancement Surcharges will be decided by the SFPUC and BAWSCA General Managers following input from environmental stakeholders and other interested members of the public. If parties are unable to agree, then they will jointly select a third person to participate in making the decision. 4.05 San Josel Santa Clara Interim Supply Allocation and Process for Reductionl Termination. San Francisco will supply a combined annual average of 9 MGD to the cities of San. Jose and Santa Clara through 2018. Water supplied by San Francisco may only be used in the existing defined service areas in the northern portions of San Jose and Santa Clara shown on Attachment Q. San Francisco may reduce the quantity of water specified in this section when it establishes the Interim Supply Allocations for Wholesale Customers in Section 4.02. The establishment of Interim Supply Allocations for San Jose and Santa Clara shall not be considered a reduction of supply within the meaning of this section, provided that the Interim Supply Allocations assigned to San Jose and Santa Clara do not effect a reduction greater than the aggregate average reduction in Individual Supply Guarantees for Wholesale Customers that have such guarantees. The application of Interim Supply Allocations to San Jose and Santa Clara is subject to the following provisions: A. In December 2010 and in each December thereafter through 2017, the SFPUC shall prepare and the Commission shall consider, at a regularly scheduled public meeting, a Water Supply DevelopfTIent Report detailing progress made toward meeting the Interim Supply Limitation by June 30, 2018. B. The annual Water Supply Development Report silall be based on water purchase projections and work plans for achieving the Interim Supply Limitation in the Retail and Wholesale Service Areas. The projections and work plans will be prepared by the SFPUC for -30-1840795.8 the Retail Customers and by BAWSCA for the Wholesale Customers, respectively, and submitted to the Commission in June of each year beginning in 2010. C. If the Commission finds that the projections in the Water Supply Development Report show that the Interim Supply Limitation will not be met by June 30,2018, as a result of Wholesale Customers' projected use exceeding 184 MGD, the Commission may issue a conditional five-year notice of interruption or reduction in supply of water to San Jose and Santa Clara. D. Upon issuance of the conditional notice of interruption or reduction, the SFPUC will prepare a new analysis of water supply that will be utilized by the San Francisco Planning Department in its preparation of any necessary documentation under CEQA pursuant to Section 4.07 on the impacts of interrupting or reducing service to San Jose and Santa Clara. E. Such notice of interruption or reduction will be rescinded if the Commission finds, based upon a subsequent annual Water Supply Development Report, that sufficient progress has been made toward meeting the Interim Supply Limitation or projections show that the Interim Supply Limitation will be met by June 30, 2018. F. In no case shall any interruption or reduction of service to San Jose or Santa Clara pursuant to this section become effective less than two years from the completion of the CEQA process (not including resolution of any appeals or litigation) or five years from the notice, whichever is longer. If the five-year notice is issued after 2013, such interruption or reduction would occur after 2018. G. If deliveries to San Jose and Santa Clara are interrupted, eXisting turnout facilities to San Jose and Santa Clara will remain in place for possible use during emergencies. H. San Francisco and the cities of San Jose and Santa Clara will cooperate with BAWSCA and the Santa Clara Valley Water District in the identification and implementation of additional water sources and conservation measures for the cities' service areas that are relevant to the water supply and the possible offer of permanent status for the two cities by the SFPUC. 4.06 San Francisco Decisions in 2018 Regarding Future Water Supply A. By December 31,2018, San Francisco will have completed any necessary CEQA review pursuant to Section 4.07 that is relevant to making San Jose and Santa Clara -31-1840795.8 permanent customers of the Regional Water System and will decide whether or not to make San Jose and Santa Clara permanent customers of the Regional Water System. San Francisco will make San Jose and Santa Clara permanent customers only if, and to the extent that, San Francisco determines that Regional Water System long term water supplies are available. In the event that San Francisco decides to afford permanent status to San Jose and Santa Clara, this Agreement will be amended pursuant to Section 2.03. B. By December 31,2018, San Francisco will have completed any necessary CEQA review pursuant to Section 4.07 and will decide how much water if any, in excess of the Supply Assurance it will supply to Wholesale Customers from the Regional Water System to meet their projected future water demands until the year 2030, and whether to offer a corresponding increase in the Supply Assurance as a result of its determination. 4.07 Retained Discretion of SFPUC and Wholesale Customers A. This Agreement contemplates discretionary actions that the SFPUC and the Wholesale Customers may choose to take in the future that could result in physical changes to the environment ("Discretionary Actions"). The Discretionary Actions include decisions to: 1. Develop additional or alternate water resources by the SFPUC or one or more Wholesale Customers; 2. I mplement the physical faCilities comprising the WSI P by December 31, 2015; 3. Approve wheeling proposals by Wholesale Customers; 4. Approve new wholesale customers and water exchange or cost sharing agreements with other water suppliers; 5. Provide additional water to San Jose and/or Santa Clara; 6. Offer permanent status to San Jose and/or Santa Clara; 7. Reduce or terminate supply to San Jose and/or Santa Clara; 8. Provide additional water to Wholesale Customers in excess of the Supply Assurance to meet their projected future water demands; and -32-1840795.8 9. Offer a corresponding volumetric increase in the Supply Assurance. The Discretionary Actions may require the SFPUC or Wholesale Customers to prepare environmental documents in accordance with CEQA prior to the SFPUC or the Wholesale Customers determining whether to proceed with any of the Discretionary Actions. Accordingly, and notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, nothing in this Agreement commits the SFPUC or the Wholesale Customers to approve or carry out any Discretionary Actions that are subject to CEQA Furthermore, the SFPUC's or Wholesale Customers' decisions to approve any of these Discretionary Actions are subject to the requirement that San Francisco and each Wholesale Customer, as either a "Lead Agency" (as defined in Section 21067 of CEQA and Section 15367 of the CEQA Guidelines) or a "Responsible Agency" (as defined in Section 21069 of CEQA and Section 15381 of the CEQA Guidelines) shall have completed any CEQA-required environmental review prior to approving a proposed Discretionary Action. B. In considering any proposed Discretionary Actions, the SFPUC and Wholesale Customers retain absolute discretion to: (1) make such modifications to any of the proposed Discretionary Actions as may be necessary to mitigate significant environmental impacts; (2) select feasible alternatives to the proposed Discretionary Actions that avoid significant adverse impacts; (3) require the implementation of specific measures to mitigate the Significant adverse environmental impacts as part of the decision to approve the Discretionary Actions; (4) balance the benefits of the proposed Discretionary Actions against any significant environmental impacts before taking final actions to approve the proposed Discretionary Actions if such significant impacts cannot otherwise be avoided; or (5) determine not to proceed with the proposed Discretionary Actions. -33-1840795.8 Article 5. Wholesale Revenue Requirement 5.01 Scope of Agreement This Article shalf be applicable only to the water rates charged by San Francisco to the Wholesale Customers. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall limit, constrain, or in any way affect the rates which San Francisco may charge for water sold to Retail Customers or the methodology by which such rates are determined. 5.02 General Principles This Article sets forth the method by which the Wholesale Customers' collective share of expenses incurred by the SFPUC in delivering water to them will be determined. This collective share is defined as the "Wholesale Revenue Requirement." A. The SFPUC currently operates several enterprises, including the Water Enterprise, the Wastewater Enterprise, and the Hetch Hetchy Enterprise. B. The Wastewater Enterprise is responsible for treating sewage within San Francisco and provides no benefit to the Wholesale Customers. C. The Hetch Hetchy Enterprise is responsible for storing and transmitting water to the Water Enterprise, generating hydroelectric power and transmitting it to San Francisco, generating electric power within San Francisco, and distributing electricity and steam heat within San Francisco. Its water supply operations provide benefits to the Wholesale Customers. D. The Water Enterprise delivers water to both Retail Customers, which are located both within and outside San Francisco, and to the Wholesale Customers, all of which are located outside San Francisco. , E. This Article implements two general principles as follows: (1) the Wholesale Customers should not pay for expenses of SFPUC operations from which they receive no benefit and (2) the Wholesale Customers should pay their share of expenses incurred by the SFPUC in delivering water to them on the basis of Proportional Annual Use unless otherwise explicitly provided in this Agreement. F. To implement these general principles, the Wholesale Revenue Requirement Will consist of, and be limited to, the Wholesale Customers' shares of the following categories of expense: -34-J 840795.8 1. Capital cost recovery of Water Enterprise Existing Assets, and Hetch Hetchy Enterprise Existing Assets classified as Water-Only and the Water-Related portion of Joint assets (Section 5.03) 2. Contribution to the capital cost of Water Enterprise New Regional Assets (Section 5.04) 3. Water Enterprise operation and maintenance expenses, including power purchased from the Hetch Hetchy Enterprise that is used in the operation of the Water Enterprise (Section 5.05) 4. Water Enterprise administrative and general expenses (Section 5.06) 5. Water Enterprise property taxes (Section 5.07) 6. The Water Enterprise's share of the Hetch Hetchy Enterprise's operation and maintenance, administrative and general, and property tax expenses (Section 5.08) 7. The Water Enterprise's share of the Hetch Hetchy Enterprise's capital cost of New Assets classified as Water-Only and the Water-Related portion of Joint assets (Section 5.09) In each of these cost categories, Direct Retail Expenses will be allocated entirely to Retail Customers. Direct Wholesale Expenses will be allocated entirely to the Wholesale Customers. Regional Expenses will be allocated between Retail Customers and Wholesale Customers as provided in this Article. G. For purposes of establishing the rates to be charged VVholesale Customers, expenses will be based on the budget for, and estimates of water purchases in, the following fiscal year, as provided in Article 6. For purposes of accounting, the Wholesale Revenue Requirement will be determined on the basis of actual expenses incurred and actual water use, as provided in Article 7. H. In addition, rates charged to Wholesale Customers may include the VVholesale Customers' contribution to a Wholesale Revenue Coverage Reserve, as provided in Section 6.06, which is not included in the VVholesale Revenue Requirement itself. -35-1840795.8 5.03 Capital Cost Recovery· Existing Regional Assets A. SFPUC has previously advanced funds to acquire or construct Existing Assets used and useful in the delivery of water to both Wholesale Customers and Retail Customers. The parties estimate that the Wholesale Customers' share of the net book value of these assets, as of the expiration of the 1984 Agreement on June 30, 2009, will be approximately $366,734,424, as shown on Attachment K-1. B. In addition, SFPUC has also previously advanced funds received from Retail Customer revenues to acquire or construct assets included in Construction-Work-In-Progress (CWIP) as of June 30, 2009, The parties estimate that the Wholesale Customers' share of the book value of these revenue funded capital expenditures, as of the expiration of the 1984 Agreement on June 30,2009, will be approximately $15,594,990, as shown on Attachment K-2, The Wholesale Customers shall pay their share of the cost of Existing Assets and revenue- funded CWIP by amortizing the amounts shown on Attachment K-1 and Attachment K-2 over 25 years at an interest rate of 5, 13 percent. The amounts to be included in the Wholesale Revenue Requirement pursuant to this section shall be the sum of the annual principal and interest amounts shown on Attachments K-3 (for Water Enterprise Regional Assets and the one Direct Wholesale Asset) and K-4 (for Hetch Hetchy Enterprise Water-Only Assets and the Water-Related portion [45 percent] of Joint assets) calculated on the basis of monthly amortization of principal as set forth on Attachments K-3 and K-4, C. In addition, the Commission has previously appropriated funds, advanced through rates charged to Retail Customers, for construction of capital projects, Some of these projects are active, and have unexpended balances of appropriated funds that are not included in CWIP as of June 30, 2009, These projects, and the associated balances, are shown on Attachment K-5. Expenditures of funds from these balances during FY 2009-10, FY 2010-11 and FY 2011-12 will be reviewed in FY 2012-13. The SFPUCwil1 prepare a report showing the amount expended in each year on each project and the total expended during all years on all projects that are categorized as Regional or, in the case of Hetch Hetchy Enterprise, are categorized as either Water-Only or Joint. The wholesale share of that total will be determined using the allocation principles in this Agreement based on Proportional Water Use during those three years. The result, plus accrued interest at the rate specified in Section 6,05.8, will be calculated by the S FPUC and its calculation reviewed by the Compliance Auditor as part of the Compliance Audit for FY 2012-13, The audited total win be paid based on a schedule of level annual principal and interest amounts over ten years at an interest rate of 4.00%, calculated on -36- a monthly amortization basis. Allor any portion of the balance maybe prepaid. The first year's payment will be included in the Wholesale Revenue Requirement for FY 2014-15. D. The parties agree that the Wholesale Customers' share of the net book values of Existing Regional Assets as of June 30, 2008 as shown on Attachment K-1 are accurate. The compliance audit conducted on the calculation of the FY 2008-09 Suburban Revenue Requirement required by the 1984 Agreement will determine the actual amounts of depreciation on, and capital additions to, plant in service during that fiscal year. Those amounts will be compared to the corresponding estimates shown on Attachments K-1 and K-2. The differences will be added to or subtracted from the estimated asset values shown on Attachments K-1 and K-2 and the amortization schedules in Attachments K·3 and KA will be recalculated. The wholesale allocation factors shall be fixed at 70.1 % for the Water Enterprise Existing Assets and 64.2% for Hetch Hetchy Enterprise Existing Assets for both the preliminary and final payment schedules. The SFPUC will prepare and provide to the Wholesale Customers revised Attachments K-1 through K-4 based on the Wholesale Customers' share of the net book value of the assets placed in service as of June 30, 2009 used to provide water service to the Wholesale Customers and the net book value of revenue-funded CWIP expended as of June 30,2009. The revised Attachments K-1 through K-4 shall be approved by the General Manager of the SFPUC and the General Manager/CEO of BAWSCA and will be substituted for the original Attachments K-1 through K-4. E. The original Attachments K-1 through KA, based on estimates, shall be used for estimating the Wholesale Revenue Requirement for the fiscal year beginning July 1,2009. The revised Attachments, based on audited actuals, shall be used to determine the actual Wholesale Revenue Requirement for FY 2009-10 and to determine the Wholesale Revenue Requirement(s) in all subsequent years, except as may be provided elsewhere in this Agreement. F. The Wholesale Customers, acting through BAWSCA, may prepay the remaining unpaid Existing Assets principal balance, in whole or in part, at any time without penalty or early payment premium. Any prepayments will be applied in the month immediately following the month in which the prepayment is made and the revised monthly amounl(s) will be used to calculate the Wholesale Revenue Requirement. Any partial prepayments must be in an amount at least equal to $10 million. In the event of a partial prepayment, an updated schedule for the remaining payments shall be prepared reflecting the unpaid balance after prepayment, -37-1840795.8 amortized through the end of FY 2034, calculated as provided in this section. The updated schedule, approved by the General Manager of the SFPUC and the General Manager/CEO of BA WSCA, will be substituted for Attachment K-3 and/or Attachment K-4. 5.04 Capital Cost Contribution -New Regional Assets A. Debt-Funded Capital Additions. The Wholesale Customers shall pay the wholesale share of Net Annual Debt Service for New Regional Assets. The Regional projects in the WSIP are identified in Attachment L-1. 1. The amount of Net Annual Debt Service for New Regional Assets will be determined for each series of Indebtedness issued. Until the proceeds of a particular series are Substantially Expended, the amount attributable to specific projects will be based on the expe,.~ted use of proceeds shown in the "Certificate Regarding Use of Proceeds" executed by the S=PUC General Manager on behalf of the Commission in connection with the sale of the Indet:edness, provided such certificate identifies the use of proceeds at a level of detail equivllent to that shown on Attachment L-2, which is a copy of the certificate prepared for the 2006 Revenue Bonds, Series A. If a certificate does not identify the use of proceeds at that level of detail, the SFPUC General Manager shall prepare and execute a separate certificate whic): does identify the use of proceeds at the level of detail shown on Attachment L-2 and deliver it to BAWSCA within 15 days from the closing of the sale of the Indebtedness. 2. After the proceeds of a series are Substantially Expended, the SFPUC General Manager will prepare and execute a certificate showing the actual expenditure of proceeds at a level of detail equivalent to the initial General Manager certificate. The resulting allocation of Net Debt Service to New Regional Assets for a series of bonds will be used in the fiscal year in which the proceeds have been Substantially Expended and thereafter. Differences between the amount of Net Debt Service paid by Wholesale Customers prior to that year and the amount of Net Debt Service that they should have paid during that time based on the actual expenditure of proceeds will be taken into account in calculation of the balancing account for the fiscal year in which the proceeds were Substantially Expended. The application of the remaining proceeds shall be proportionate to the allocation of the Net Debt Service to New Regional Assets. 3. The Wholesale Customers' share of Net Annual Debt Service for the New Regional Assets that are categorized as Direct Wholesale will be 100 percent (None of the -38-1840795.8 projects in the WSIP are categorized as Direct Wholesale.) The Wholesale Customers' share of Net Annual Debt Service for all other New Regional Assets will be determined each year and will be equal to the Wholesale Customers' Proportional Annual Use. 4. If Indebtedness is issued by the SFPUC to refund the 2006 Revenue Bonds, Series A or to refund any other long-term Indebtedness issued after July 1, 2009, the Net Annual Debt Service attributable to proceeds used for refunding will be allocated on the same basis as the Indebtedness being refunded. 5. The SFPUC will prepare an annual report showing for each issue of Indebtedness and through the most recently completed fiscal year: (1) net financing proceeds available to pay project costs, (2) actual earnings on proceeds, (3) actual expenditures by project. The report shall be substantially in the form of Attachment L-3 and shall be delivered to BAWSCA on or before November 30 of each year, commencing November 2009. 6. In addition to Net Debt Service, Wholesale Customers will pay a proportionate share of annual administrative costs associated with Indebtedness, such as bond trustee fees, credit rating agency fees, letter of credit issuer fees, San Francisco Revenue Bond Oversight Committee fees, etc., but only to the extent such fees are neither paid from proceeds of Indebtedness nor included in SFPUC operation and maintenance or administrative and general expenses. B. Revenue-Funded Capital Additions. The Wholesale Customers shall pay the wholesale share of the appropriation contained in the SFPUC annual budget for each year to be used to acquire or construct New Regional Assets. If such appropriations are reimbursed from proceeds of Indebtedness, the Wholesale Customers will be credited for prior payments made under this Section 5.04.B. The Wholesale Customers' share of the annual appropriation for revenue-funded New Regional Assets that are categorized as Direct Wholesale will be 100 percent. (None of the Repair and Replacement projects in the SFPUC's most recent capital improvement program updated on February 10, 2009, is categorized as Direct Wholesale.) The Wholesale Customers' share of the annual appropriation for all other revenue-funded New Regional Assets will be determined each year and will be equal to the Wholesale Customers' Proportional Annual Use in each fiscal year. The amount appropriated in each fiscal year for the wholesale share of New -39-1840795.8 Regional Assets shall be contributed to the Wholesale Capital Fund described in Section 608 and reported on and administered as shown in that section and Attachments M-1 through M-3. 5.05 Water Enterprise Operation and Maintenance Expenses There are five categories of Water Enterprise Operation and Maintenance Expenses, described below: A. Source of Supply 1. Description: This category consists of the costs of labor, supervision and engineering; materials and supplies; and other expenses incurred in the operation and maintenance of collecting and impounding reservoirs, dams, wells and other water supply facilities located outside San Francisco; watershed protection; water supply planning; and the purchase of water. 2. Allocation: Direct Retail expenses, including water supply planning for Retail operations (such as City Retail water conservation programs), will be assigned to the Retail Customers. Regional expenses will be allocated between Retail Customers and Wholesale Customers on the basis of Proportional Annual Use. Direct Wholesale expenses will be assigned to the Wholesale Customers. (As of the Effective Date there are no Direct Wholesale expenses in the Source of Supply category.) 8. Pumping 1. Description: This category consists of the costs of labor, supervision and engineering; materials and supplies; and other expenses incurred in the operation and maintenance of water pumping plants, ancillary structures and equipment and surrounding grounds; and fuel and power purchased for pumping water. 2. Allocation: Direct Retail expenses will be assigned to the Retail Customers. Regional expenses will be allocated between Retail Customers and Wholesale Customers on the basis of Proportional Annual Use. Direct Wholesale expenses will be assigned to the Wholesale Customers. (As of the Effective Date there are no Direct Wholesale expenses in the Pumping category.) C. Treatment 1. Description: This category consists of the costs of labor, supervision and engineering; materials and supplies and other expenses incurred in the operation and -40-1840795.8 maintenance of water treatment plants and drinking water quality sampling and testing. The cost of water quality testing will not include expenses incurred on behalf of the Wastewater Enterprise. Any remaining costs, after adjusting for the Wastewater Enterprise, will be reduced by the amount of revenue received for laboratory analyses of any type performed for agencies, businesses and/or individuals other than the Water and Hetch Hetchy Enterprises. 2. Allocation: Direct Retail expenses will be assigned to the Retail Customers. Regional expenses will be allocated between Retail Customers and Wholesale Customers on the basis of Proportional Annual Use. Direct Wholesale expenses will be assigned to the Wholesale Customers. (As of the Effective Date there are no Direct Wholesale expenses in the Treatment category.) D. Transmission and Distribution 1. Description: This category consists of the cost of labor, supervision and engineering; materials and supplies; and other expenses incurred in the operation and maintenance of transmission and distribution pipelines, appurtenances, meters (other than those expenses payable by individual Wholesale Customers pursuant to Section 5.10.C.3), distribution reservoirs storing treated water, craft shops and auto shops servicing vehicles used for operation and maintenance of the Regional Water System rather than for Direct Retail facilities, and miscellaneous facilities related to the transmission and distribution of water. 2. Allocation: Direct Retail Transmission and Distribution expenses will be assigned to the Retail Customers. Regional TransmisSion and Distribution expenses will be allocated between Retail and Wholesale Customers on the basis of Proportional Annual Use. Expenses incurred for the operation and maintenance of three terminal reservoirs, Le., Sunset Reservoir (North and South Basins), University Mound Reservoir (North and South Basins), and Merced Manor Reservoir, as well as transmission pipelines delivering water to them, are classified as Regional expenses notwithstanding the location of the reservoirs within San Francisco. Direct Wholesale expenses will be assigned to the Wholesale Customers. (As of the Effective Date the only Direct Wholesale expenses in the Transmission and Distribution category are associated with the Palo Alto pipeline) -41-1840795.8 E. Customer Services 1. Description: This category consists of labor; materials and supplies; and other expenses incurred for meter reading, customer record keeping, and billing and collection for the Water Enterprise. 2. Allocation: Customer Services expenses will be allocated among the Water Enterprise, the Wastewater Enterprise, and Hetch Hetchy Enterprise in proportion to the time spent by employees in Customer Services for each operating department/enterprise. The Water Enterprise's share of Customer Services expense will be allocated 98 percent to the Retail Customers and two percent to the Wholesale Customers, as illustrated on Attachment N- 2, Schedule 1. 5.06 Water Enterprise Administrative and General Expenses Administrative and General expenses consist of the Water Enterprise's share of the cost of general government distributed through the full-cost Countywide Cost Allocation Plan, the services of SFPUC support bureaus, Water Enterprise administrative and general expenses that cannot be directly assigned to a specific operating and maintenance category, and the cost of the Compliance Audit. These four subcategories, and the method by which costs in each are to be calculated and allocated, are as follows: A. Countywide Cost Allocation Plan 1. Description: This subcategory consists of the Water Enterprise's share of the costs of San Francisco general government and other City central service departments which are not directly billed to the Water Enterprise or other operating departments. All San Francisco operating departments are assigned a prorated share of these costs through the full- cost Countywide Cost Allocation Plan (COWCAP) prepared annually by the San Francisco Controller. 2. Allocation: The Water Enterprise's assigned share of central government costs as shown in the annual full-cost COWCAP prepared by the San Francisco Controller, will be allocated between Retail Customers and Wholesale Customers on the basis of the composite percentage of the allocated expenses in the five categories of operation and maintenance expense described in Section 5.05. The composite wholesale percentage shown on Attachment N-2, Schedule 1 is 42.07 percent, derived by dividing the wholesale share of -42-184-0795.8 Operation and Maintenance expenses ($46,573,883) by total Operation and Maintenance expenses ($110,700,133). 8. Services of SFPUC Bureaus 1. Description: This subcategory consists of the support seNices provided to the Water Enterprise by the SFPUC Bureaus, which presently consist of the General Manager's Office, Business SeNices, External Affairs, and Infrastructure Bureau. Business SeNices presently includes Financial SeNices, Information Technology SeNices, Human Resource SeNices, Fleet Management, and Customer SeNices. 2. Allocation: There are three steps involved in determining the Wholesale Customers' share of SFPUC Bureau costs. a. Step One: Bureau expenses which have either been recovered separately or which provide no benefit to Wholesale Customers will be excluded. Examples of Bureau expenses recovered separately include (1) Customer SeNices expenses, which are recovered as provided in Section 5.0S.E, and (2) Infrastructure expenses, which are aSSigned to individual projects and capitalized. An example of a Bureau expense that provldes no benefit to Wholesale Customers is Information Technology SeNices expenses for support of the San Francisco Municipal Railway. In addition, the SFPUC will continue its practice of assigning City Attorney Office expenses charged to the General Manager's Office for projects or lawsuits that relate to only one enterprise directly to that enterprise. For example, costs related to a lawsuit involving the Wastewater Enterprise will not be assigned to the Water Enterprise. b. Step Two: Bureau expenses adjusted as provided in Step One will be allocated among tile Water Enterprise, tile Wastewater Enterprise and tile Hetch Hetchy Enterprise on the basis of the actual salaries of employees in each enterprise or department, as illustrated on Attachment N-2, Schedule 7. c. Step Three: The amount allocated to the Water Enterprise through Step Two will be allocated between Retail Customers and Wholesale Customers on the basis of Proportional Annual Use. -43-1840795.8 C. Water Enterprise Administrative and General 1. Description: This category includes expenses incurred by the Water Enterprise that are not readily assignable to specific operating divisions. This category includes the following expenses: a. Water Administration: This includes the costs of labor and other expenses of the administrative section of the Water Enterprise, supervision and engineering expenses, professional services, travel and training, equipment purchases, and materials and supplies not directly assignable to a specific operating unit. b. Services Provided by Other City Departments: This includes charges of other San Francisco departments directly billed to the Water Enterprise administration by other San Francisco departments for services ordered by the Water Enterprise, such as legal services, risk management, telecommunications, employee relations, purchasing, mail services, and workers compensation claims paid. c. Litigation and Claims Paid: This includes charges incurred for attorney services and claims and judgments paid in litigation arising from the operation of the Water Enterprise. 2. Allocation: In each of these three subcategories, expenses that benefit only Retail Customers will be excluded. For example, the cost of claims and judgments resulting from a break in or leak from pipelines or reservoirs in the Retail Service Area (with the exception of the three terminal reservoirs and pipelines delivering water to them) will be assigned to the Retail Customers. Remaining Water Enterprise Administrative and General expenses will be allocated between Retail Customers and Wholesale Customers on the basis of the composite percentage of allocated operation and maintenance expense categories described in Section 5.05. D. Compliance Audit. The cost of the Compliance Audit described in Section 7.04 will be assigned 50 percent to the Retail Customers and 50 percent to the Wholesale Customers. -44-1840795.8 5.07 Water Enterprise Property Taxes A. Description: This category consists of property taxes levied against property owned by San Francisco located in Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties and used and managed by the SFPUC. B. Allocation: All property taxes paid, net of (1) reimbursements received from lessees and permit holders, and (2) refunds from the taxing authority, are Regional expenses. Net property taxes will be allocated between Retail Customers and Wholesale Customers on the basis of Proportional Annual Use. 5.08 Hetch Hetchy Enterprise Expenses A. Introduction. There are two steps involved in determining the amount of the Wholesale Customers' share of Hetch Hetchy Enterprise expenses. 1. The first step is to determine the Water Enterprise's share of Hetch Hetchy Enterprise operation expenses, maintenance expenses, administrative and general expenses, and property taxes. 2. The second step is to determine the Wholesale Customers' share of expenses allocable to the Water Enterprise. B. Determination of the Water-Related Portion of Hetch Hetchy Enterprise Expenses 1. Operation and Maintenance Expenses: This category consists of the cost of labor, materials and supplies, and other expenses incurred in operating and maintaining Hetch Hetchy Enterprise physical facilities. a. Description: Expenses associated exclusively with the production and distribution of hydroelectric power (e.g., generating plants and power transmission lines and towers, transformers and associated electric equipment, purchased power, wheeling charges, rental of power lines, etc.) are categorized as Power-Only and are allocated to power. Expenses associated exclusively with the operation and maintenance of facilities that serve only tl1e water function (e.g., water transmission pipelines and aqueducts, activities related to compliance with federal and state drinking water qUality laws, etc.) are categorized as Water- Only and are allocated entirely to water. Expenses associated with the operation and maintenance of facilities that serve both the water and power functions (e.g., dams, security -45-1840795.8 programs, etc,) are categorized as Joint and are reallocated as 55 percent Power-Related and 45 percent Water-Related, 2, Administrative and General Exoenses: There are three subcategories of Hetch Hetchy Enterprise Administrative and General expenses. a, Full-Cost Countywide Cost Allocation Plan: This subcategory consists of the cost of San Francisco general government and other City central service departments which are not directly billed to operating departments but allocated through the full- cost Countywide Cost Allocation Plan described in Section 5.06A Costs in this subcategory are classified as Joint, and are reallocated as 55 percent Power-Related and 45 percent Water- Related. b. SFPUC Bureau Costs: This subcategory consists of the expenses described in Section 5,06.B, One hundred percent of Customer Services expenses allocated to the Hetch Hetchy Enterprise are categorized as Power-Only. The remaining amount of Bureau expenses allocated to the Hetch Hetchy Enterprise pursuant to Section 5.06.B will be reallocated between power and water in proportion to the salaries of Hetch Hetchy Enterprise employees aSSigned to each function as shown on Attachment N-2, Schedule 7.1. c, Other Administrative and General: This subcategory includes payments to the United States required by the Act, labor, supervision and engineering and other costs not readily assignable to a specific operation or maintenance function or program. Costs related to power administration (such as long range planning and policy analysis for energy development, administration of power contracts, and administration of work orders to City departments for energy services) are Power-Only costs. Costs related 10 water administration (such as legal and professional services for tile protection of the City's water rights) are Water- Only costs and will be assigned to the Water Enterprise, Costs related to both power administration and water administration (such as general administration, office rents, office materials and supplies, and services of other City departments benefitting to both power and water are Joint administrative and general costs and are reallocated as 55 percent Power- Related and 45 percent Water-Related. 3, .Eroperty Taxes. This category consists of property taxes levied against property owned by San Francisco in Tuolumne, Stanislaus, San Joaquin, and Alameda counties and operated and managed by the Hetch Hetchy Enterprise, -46-1840795.8 Allocation: Property taxes are classified as Joint costs. They will be reallocated as 55 percent Power-Related and 45 percent Water-Related. C. Calculation of Wholesale Customers' Share of Hetch Hetchy Enterprise Expenses. The Water Enterprise's share of Hetch Hetchy Enterprise expenses consist of 100 percent of Water-Only expenses and the Water-Related portion (45%) of Joint expenses. The Wholesale Customers' share of the sum of the Water Enterprise's share of Hetch Hetchy Enterprise expenses determined under subsection B shall be calculated by multiplying that dollar amount by Adjusted Proportional Annual Use. 5.09 Heteh Hetehy Enterprise Capital Costs A. Introduction. Wholesale Customers are also allocated a share of Hetch Hetchy Enterprise capital costs. B. Components of Capital Costs. The components of Hetch Hetchy Enterprise capital costs are as follows: 1. Existing Assets Cost Recovery. The Wholesale Customers' repayment of their share of Hetch Hetchy Existing Assets (Water-Only and the Water-Related portion [45 percent] of Joint assets) is shown on Attachment K-4 accompanying Section 5.03. 2. Debt SeNice on New Assets, The Water Enterprise will be assigned 100 percent of Net Annual Debt SeNice attributable to acquisition and construction of New Hetch Hetchy Enterprise assets that are Water-Only and the Water-Related portion (45 percent) of Net Annual Debt SeNice on New Hetch Hetchy Enterprise Joint assets. The provisions of Section 5,04.A apply to debt seNiee on New Helch Hetchy Enlerprise assets, 3, Revenue-Funded Capital Additions. The Water Enterprise will be assigned 100 percent of capital expenditures from revenues for New Hetch Hetehy Enterprise assets that are Water-Only and the Water-Related portion (45 percent) of such expenditures for new Hetch Hetchy Enterprise Joint assets. The provisions of Section 5.04.8 apply to the payment of New revenue-funded Heteh Hetchy Enterprise assets. C. Calculation of Wholesale Customers' Share of Heteh Hetchy Enterprise Capital Costs. The Wholesale Customers' share of the Net Annual Debt SeNiee and revenue funded capital expenditures determined under subsections B.2 and 3 shall be calculated by multiplying that dollar amount by Adjusted Proportional Annual Use, -47-1840795.8 5.10 Additional Agreements Related to Financial Issues A. Wholesale Customers Not Entitled to Certain Revenues. The Wholesale Customers have no entitlement to any of the following sources of revenue to the SFPUC. 1. Revenues from leases or sales of SFPUC real property. 2. Revenues from the other utility services such as the sale of electric power, natural gas and steam. 3. Revenues from the sale of water to customers and entities other than the Wholes81e Customers. 4. Revenues earned from the investment of SFPUC funds other than funds contributed by the Wholesale Customers to the Wholesale Revenue Coverage Reserve described in Section 6.06 or the Wholesale Capital Fund described in Section 6.08. Wholesale Customers are also entitled to the benefit of earnings on proceeds of Indebtedness (through expenditure on New Regional Assets and/or application to Debt Service) and to interest on the Balancing Account as provided in Section 6.05.B. 5. Revenues not related to the sale of water. B. Wholesale Customers Not Charged with Certain Expenses. The Wholesale Customers will not be charged with any of the following expenses: 1. Capital costs for assets constructed or acquired prior to July 1, 1984 other than Existing Asset costs that are repaid pursuant to Section 5.03. 2. Expenses incurred by the SFPUC for generation and distribution of electric power, including Hetch Hetchy Enterprise Power-Only expenses and the Power-~~elated share of Hetch Hetchy Enterprise Joint expenses. An exception to this is Regional energy costs incurred by the Water Enterprise, for which Wholesale Customers are charged on the basis of Proportional Annual Use. 3. Expenses incurred by SFF'UC in providing water to Retail Customers. 4. Expenses associated with the SFPUC's accruals or allocations for uncollectible Retail Water accounts. -48-1840795.8 5. Attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the Wholesale Customers that a court of competent jur;sdiction orders San Francisco to pay as part of a final, binding judgment against San Francisco as provided in Section 8.03.8.2. 6. Any expenses associated with funding any reserves (other than the required Wholesale Revenue Coverage Reserve described in Section 6.06) accrued and not antiCipated to be paid within one year unless such reserve is established by mutual agreement of the SFPUC and BAWSCA. 7. Any expenses accrued in respect to pending or threatened litigation, damage or personal injury claims or other loss contingencies unless projected to be paid within one year. Otherwise, such expenses will be charged to the Wholesale Customers when actually paid. 8. Any expense associated with installing, relocating, enlarging, removing or modifying meters and service connections at the request of an individual Wholesale Customer. 9. The Retail Customers' portion of any Environmental Enhancement Surcharges imposed to enforce the Interim Supply Limitation set forth in Section 4.04. C. Revenues Not Credited to Payment of Wholesale Revenue Requirement. The following payments by Wholesale Customers, individually or collectively, are not credited as Wholesale revenues for purposes of Section 6.05.8: 1. Payments by individual Wholesale Customers of the Environmental Enhancement Surcharge imposed to enforce the Interim Supply Limitation set forth in Section 4.04. 2. Payments of attorneys' fees and costs incurred by San Francisco that a court of competent jurisdiction orders the Wholesale Customers to pay as part of a final, binding judgment against the Wholesale Customers, as provided in Section 8.03.B.3. 3. Payments by individual Wholesale Customers for installation, relocation, enlargement, removal or modification of meters and service connections requested by, and charged to, a Wholesale Customer. 4. Payments applied to the amortization of the ending balance in the balancing account under the 1984 Agreement, pursuant to Section 6.05A -49-1840795.8 5. Payments of the Water Management Charge which are delivered to BAWSCA pursuant to Section 3.06. 6. Payments directed to the Wholesale Revenue Coverage Reserve pursuant to Section 6.06. 7. Prepayments authorized by Sections 5.03.C and 5.03.F. D. Other 1. The Wholesale Customers will receive a proportional benefit from funds received by the SFPUC from (a) governmental grants, rebates, reimbursements or other subventions, (b) private-sector grants for Regional capital or operating purposes of the Water Enterprise and the Water-Only and Water-related portion of Joint Hetch Hetchy Water Enterprise expenses, or (c) a SFPUC use of taxable bonds. 2. The Wholesale Customers will receive a proportionate benefit from recovery of damages, including liquidated damages, by SFPUC from judgments against or settlements with contractors, suppliers, sureties, etc., related to Regional Water System projects and the Water-Only and Water-Related portion of Joint Hetch Hetchy Enterprise projects. 3. The SFPUC will continue to charge Wholesale Customers for assets acquired or constructed with proceeds of Indebtedness on which Wholesale Customers paid Debt Service during the Term of this Agreement on the "cash" basis (as opposed to the "utility" basis) after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. The undertaking in this Section 5.10.0.3 will survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. -50-J 840795.8 Article 6. Integration of Wholesale Revenue Requirement with SFPUC Budget Development and Rate Adjustments 6.01 General A. The purpose of the ailocation bases set forth in Article 5 is to determine the Wholesale Revenue Requirement for each fiscal year. The Wholesale Revenue Requirement can only be estimated in advance, based on projected costs and water deliveries. These projections are used to establish water rates applicable to the Wholesale Customers. B. After the close of each fiscal year, the procedures described in Article 7 will be used to determine the actual Wholesale Revenue Requirement for that year, based on actual costs incurred, allocated according to the provisions of Article 5, and using actual water delivery data. The amount properly allocated to the Wholesale Customers shall be compared to the amount billed to the Wholesale Customers for the fiscal year, other than those identified in Section 5.10. C. The difference will be entered into a balancing account to be charged to, or credited to. the Wholesale Customers, as appropriate. C. The balancing account shall be managed as described in Section 6.05. 6.02 Budget Development The SFPUC General Manager will send a copy of the proposed SFPUC budget to BAWSCA at the same time as it is sent to the Commission. In addition, a copy of materials submitted to the Commission for consideration at meetings prior to the meeting at which the overall SFPUC budget is considered (including (a) operating budgets for the Water Enterprise and the Hetch Hetclly Enterprise, (b) budgets for SFPUC Bureaus, and (c) capital budgets for tile Water Enterprise and the Hetch Hetchy Enterprise) will also be sent to BAWSCA concurrently with their submission to the Commission. 6.03 Rate Adjustments A. Budget Coordinated Rate Adjustments. Adjustments to the rates applicable to the Wholesale Customers shall be coordinated with the budget development process described in this section except to the extent that Sections 6.03.B and 6.03.C authorize emergency rate increases and drought rate increases, respectively. If the SFPUC intends to increase wholesale water rates during the ensuing fiscal year, it will comply with the following procedures: 1-1840795.8 1. Adjustments to the wholesale rates will be adopted by the Commission at a regularly scheduled meeting or at special meeting, properly noticed, called for the purpose of adjusting rates or for taking any other action under the jurisdiction of the Commission. 2. The SFPUC will send a written notice by mail or electronic means to each Wholesale Customer and to BAWSCA of the recommended adjustment at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of the meeting at which the Commission will consider the proposed adjustment. The notice will include the date, time and place of the Commission meeting. 3. The SFPUC shall prepare and provide to each Wholesale Customer and to BAWSCA the following materials: (a) a table illustrating how the increase or decrease in the Wholesale Revenue Requirement and wholesale rates were calculated, substantially in the form of Attachment N-1, (b) a schedule showing the projected expenses included in the Wholesale Revenue Requirement for the fiscal year for which the rates are being proposed, and supporting materials, substantially in the form of Attachment N-2, and (c) a schedule showing projected water sales, Wholesale Revenue Requirements and wholesale rates for the fiscal year for which rates are being set and the following four years, substantially in the form of Attachment N-3. These materials will be included with the notification required by Section 6.03A2. 4. Rate adjustments will be effective no sooner than thirty (30) days after adoption of the wholesale rate by the Commission. 5. San Francisco will use its best efforts to provide the Wholesale Customers with the information described above. San Francisco's failure to comply with the requirements set forth in this section shall not invalidate any action taken by the Commission (including, but not limited to, any rate increase or decrease adopted). In the event of such failure, the Wholesale Customers may either invoke arbitration, as set forth in Section 8.01, or seek injunctive relief, to compel San Francisco to remedy the failure as soon as is reasonably practical, and San Francisco shall be free to oppose the issuance of the requested judicial or arbitral relief on any applicable legal or equitable basis. The existence of this right to resort to arbitration shall not be deemed to preclude the right to seek injunctive relief. 6. Because delays in the budget process or other events may cause San Francisco to defer the effective date of Wholesale Customer rate adjustments until after the beginning of San Francisco's fiscal year, nothing contained in this Agreement shall require San Francisco to make any changes in the water rates charged to Wholesale Customers effective at -52-1840795.8 the start of San Francisco's fiscal year or at any other specific date, Nothing in the preceding sentence shall excuse non-compliance with the provisions of Section 6.02 and this section. B. Emergency Rate Increases. The Commission may adjust the Wholesale Customers' rates without complying with the requirements of Section 6.03.A in response to an Emergency that damages the Regional Water System and disrupts San Francisco's ability to maintain normal deliveries of water to Retail and Wholesale Customers. In such an Emergency, the Commission may adopt an emergency rate surcharge applicable to Wholesale Customers without following the procedures set forth in this section, provided that any such rate surcharge imposed by the Commission shall be applicable to both Retail and Wholesale Customers and incorporate the same percentage increase for aI/ customers. Any emergency rate surcharge adopted by the Commission shall remain in effect only until the next-budget coordinated rate- setting cycle. C. Drouq ht Rates. If the Commission declares a water shortage emergency under Water Code Section 350, implements the Tier 1 Shortage Plan (Attachment H) described in Section 3.11.C, and imposes drought rates on Retail Customers, it may concurrently adjust wholesale rates independently of coordination with the annual budget process. Those adjustments may be designed to encourage water conservation and may constitute changes to the structure of the rates within the meaning of Section 6.04. The parties agree, however, that, in adopting changes in rates in response to a declaration of water shortage emergency, the Commission shall comply with Section 6.03.A.1 and 2 but need not comply with Section 6.04. B. Drought Rate payments and payments of excess use charges levied in accordance with the Tier 1 Shortage Plan described in Section 3.11.C constitute Wholesale Customer Revenue and count towards the Wholesale Revenue Requirement. The SFPLJC may use these revenues to purchase additional water for the Wholesale Customers fron, the State Drought Water Bank or other willing seller. 6.04 Rate Structure A. This Agreement is not intended and shall not be construed to limit the Commission's right (a) to adjust lhe structure of the rate schedule applicable to the Wholesale Customers (i.e., the relationship among the several charges set out therein) or (b) to add, delete, or change the various charges which make up the rate schedule, provided that neither such charges nor the structure of the rate schedule(s) applicable to the Wholesale Customers shall be arbitrary, unreasonable, or unjustly discriminatory as among said customers. The -53-J 8401958 SFPUC will give careful consideration to proposals for changes in the rate schedule made jointly by the Wholesale Customers but, subject to the limitations set out above, shall retain the sole and exclusive right to determine the structure of the rate schedule. B. If the SFPUC intends to recommend that the Commission adopt one or more changes to the structure of wholesale rates (currently set forth in SFPUC Rate Schedule W-25), it shail prepare and distribute to the Wholesale Customers and BAWSCA a report describing the proposed change(s), the purpose(s) for which it/they are being considered, and the estimated financial effect on individual Wholesale Customers or classes of customers. Wholesale Customers may submit comments on the report to the SFPUC for sixty (60) days after receiving the report. The SF PUC will consider these comments and, if it determines to recommend that the Commission adopt the change(s), as described in the report or as modified in response to comments, the SFPUC General Manager shall submit a report to the Commission recommending specific change(s) in the rate structure. Copies of the General Manager's report shall be sent to all Wholesale Customers and BAWSCA at least thirty (30) days prior to the Commission meeting at which the changes will be considered. C. The SFPUC may recommend, and the Commission may adopt, changes in the structure of wholesale rates at any time. However, the new rate schedule implementing these changes will become effective at the beginning of the following fiscal year. 6.05 Balancing Ac;.fount A. Balancing Account Established Under 1984 Agreement. The amount of credit in favor of San Francisco as of the expiration of the term of 1984 Agreement (June 30, 2009) is not known with certainty as of preparation and execution of this Agreement. It will not be known with certainty until the Compliance Audit for FY 2008-09 is completed and disputes, if any, that the Wholesale Customers or the SFPUC may have with the calculation of the Suburban Revenue Requirement for that fiscal year and for previous fiscal years have been settled or decided by arbitration. The parties anticipate that the amount of the credit in favor of San Francisco as of June 30, 2009 llIay be within the range of $15 million to $20 million. In order to reduce the credit balance due San Francisco under the 1984 Agreement in an orderly manner, while avoiding unnecessary fluctuations in wholesale rates, the parties agree to implement the following procedure. -54-1840795.8 1. In setting wholesale rates for FY 2009-10, SFPUC will include a balancing account repayment of approximately $2 million. 2. In setting wholesale rates for FY 2010-11 and followifl9 years, SFPUC will include a balancing account repayment of not less than $2 million and not more than $5 million annually until the full amount of the balance due, plus interest at the rate specified in Section 6.05.B, is repaid. 3. The actual ending balance as of June 30, 2009 will be determined, by the parties' agreement or arbitral ruling, after the Compliance Audit report for FY 2008-09 is delivered to BAWSCA. That amount, once determined, will establish the principal to be amortized through subsequent years' repayments pursuant to this Section 6.05.A. B. Balancing Account Under This Agreement 1. Operation. After the close of each fiscal year, the SFPUC will compute the costs allocable to the Wholesale Customers for that fiscal year pursuant to Article 5, based on actual costs incurred by the SFPUC and actual amounts of water used by the Wholesale Customers and the Retail Customers. That amount will be compared to the amounts bilfed to the Wholesale Customers for that fiscal year (including any Excess Use Charges, but excluding revenues described in Section 5.1 O.C). The difference will be posted to a "balancing account" as a credit to, or charge against, the Wholesale Customers. Interest shall also be posted to the balancing account calculated by multiplying the amount of the opening balance by the average net interest rate, certified by the Controller as earned in the San Francisco Treasury for the previous fiscal year on the San Francisco County Pooled Investment Account. Interest, when posted, will carry the same mathematical sign (whether positive or negative) as carried by the opening balance. The amount posted to the balancing account in each year shall be added to, or subtracted from, the balance in the account from previous years. The calculation of the amount to be posted to the balancing account shall be included in the report prepared by the SFPUC pursuant to Section 7.02. The opening balance for fiscal year 2009-10 shall be zero. 2. Integration of Balancina Account with Wholesale Rate Setting Process. If the amount in the balancing account is owed to the Wholesale Customers (a positive balance), the SFPUC shall take it into consideration in establishing wholesale rates. However, the SFPUC need not apply the entire amount to reduce wholesale rates for the immediately ensuing -55-1840195.8 year. Instead, the SFPUC may prorate a positive ending balance over a period of up to three successive years in order to avoidl1uctuating decreases and increases in wholesale rates. a. If a positive balance is maintained for three successive years and represents 10 percent or more of the Wholesale Revenue Requirement for the most recent fiscal year, the SFPUC shall consult with BAWSCA as to the Wholesale Customers' preferred application of the balance. The Wholesale Customers shall, through BAWSCA, direct that the positive balance be applied to one or more of the following purposes: (a) transfer to the Wholesale Revenue Coverage Reserve, (b) amortization of any remaining negative balance from the ending balancing account under the 1984 Agreement, (c) prepayment of the existing asset balance under Section 5.03, (d) water conservation or water supply projects administered by or through BAWSCA, (e) immediate reduction of wholesale rates, or (f) continued retention for future rate stabilization purposes. In the absence of a direction from BAWSCA, the SFPUC shall continue to retain the balance for rate stabilization in subsequent years. b. If the amount in the balancing account is owed to the SFPUC (a negative balance), the SFPUC shall not be obligated to apply all or any part of the negative balance in establishing wholesale rates for the immediately ensuring year. Instead, the SFPUC may prorate the negative balance in whole or in part over multiple years in order to avoid fluctuating increases and decreases in wholesale rates. 6.06 Wholesale Revenue Coverage Reserve A. The SFPUC may include in wholesale rates for any fiscal year an additional dollar amount ("Wholesale Revenue Coverage"), which for any fiscal year shall equal the following: 1. The lesser of (i) 25% of the Wholesale Customers' share of Net Annual Debt Service for that fiscal year determined as described in Section 5.04.A, or (ii) the amount necessary to meet the Wholesale Customers' proportionate share of Debt Service coverage required by then-current Indebtedness for that fiscal year, minus 2. A credit for (i) the actual amounts previously deposited in the "Wholesale Revenue Coverage Reserve" (as defined in subsection B below), (ii) accrued interest on tile amounts on deposit in the Wholesale Revenue Coverage Reserve, and (iii) an amount equal to any additional interest that would have accrued on the actual amounts previously deposited in -56-J 8"0795.8 the Wholesale Revenue Coverage Reserve assuming no withdrawals had been made therefrom. B. During each fiscal year, the SFPUC will set aside and deposit that portion of revenue equal to Wholesale Revenue Coverage into a separate account that the SFPUC will establish and maintain, to be known as the "Wholesale Revenue Coverage Reserve." Deposits into the Wholesale Revenue Coverage Reserve shall be made no less frequently than monthly. The Wholesale Revenue Coverage Reserve shall be credited with interest at the rate specified in Section 6.05.B. The SFPUC may use amounts in the Wholesale Revenue Coverage Reserve for any lawful purpose. Any balance in the Wholesale Revenue Coverage Reserve in excess of the Wholesale Revenue Coverage amount as of the end of any fiscal year (as calculated in subsection 6.06(A) above) shall be applied as a credit against wholesale rates in the immediately following fiscal year unless otherwise directed by BAWSCA C. Within 180 days following the later of expiration of the Term or final payment of Debt Service due on Indebtedness issued during the Term to which Wholesale Customers were contributing, SFPUC shall rebate to the Wholesale Customers an amount equal to the Wholesale Revenue Coverage amount in effect for the fiscal year during which the Term expires or the final payment of Debt Service on Indebtedness is made based on each Wholesale Customer's Proportional Annual Use in the fiscal year during which the Term expires or the final payment of debt service on Indebtedness is made. D. SFPUC shall provide a schedule of debt issuance (with assumptions), and the Wholesale Customers' share of Net Annual Debt Service (actual and projected) expected to be included in wholesale rates starting in 2009-10 through the expected completion of the WSIP. The schedule is to be updated annually prior to rate setting. If estimated Debt Service is used in rate setting, the SFPUC must be able to demonstrate that the Water Enterprise revenues will be sufficient to meet the additional bonds test for the proposed bonds and rate covenants for the upcoming year. E. Conditions in the muniCipal bond market may change from those prevailing in 2009. If, prior to expiration of the Term, the SFPUC determines that it would be in the best financial interest of both Retail Customers and Wholesale Customers of the Regional Water System for the Debt Service coverage requirement to be increased in one or more series of proposed new Indebtedness above 1.25%, or for the coverage covenant to be strengthened in -57-1840795.8 other ways, it will provide a written report to BAWSCA. The report will contain (1) a description of proposed covenant(s) in the bond indenture; (2) an explanation of how savings are expected to be achieved (e.g., increase in the SFPUC's credit rating over the then-current level; ability to obtain credit enhancement, etc.); (3) the estimated all-in true interest cost savings; (4) a comparison of the Wholesale Revenue Requirements using the Debt Service coverage limitation in subsection A and under the proposed methodology; and (5) a comparison of the respective monetary benefits expected to be received by both Retail and Wholesale Customers. The SFPUC and BAWSCA agree to meet and confer in good faith about the proposed changes. F. Any increase in Debt Service coverage proposed by the SFPUC shall be commensurate with Proportional Water Use by Retail and Wholesale Customers. If the SF-PUC demonstrates that an increase in Debt Service coverage will result in equivalent percentage reductions in total Wholesale and Retail Debt Service payments over the life of the proposed new Indebtedness, based on Proportional Water Use, BAWSCA may agree to a modification of the Wholesale Revenue Coverage requirement in subsection A. If BAWSCA does not agree to a proposed modification in coverage reqUirements in the covenants for new Indebtedness, SF PUC may nevertheless proceed with the modification and the issuance of new Indebtedness. Any Wholesale Customer, or BAWSCA, may challenge an increase in the Wholesale Revenue Requirement resulting from the modification in Debt Service coverage through arbitration as provided in Section 8.01.A. If the arbitrator finds that the increase in Debt Service coverage (1) did not and will not result in equivalent percentage reductions in total Wholesale and Retail Debt Service payments over the life of the proposed new Indebtedness, based on Proportional Water Use, or (2) was not commensurate with Proportional Water Use, the arbitrator may order the Wholesale Revenue Requirement to be recalculated both retrospectively and prospectively to eliminate the differential impact to Wholesale or Retail Customers, subject to the limitation in Section 8.01.C. 6.07 Working Capital Requirement A. The SFPUC maintains working capital in the form of unappropriated reserves for the purpose of bridging the gap between when the SFPUC incurs operating expenses required to provide service and when it receives revenues from its Retail and Wholesale Customers. The Wholesale Customers shall fund their share of working capital as part of the annual Wholesale Revenue Requirement calculation. The amount of wholesale working capital for which the Wholesale Customers will be responsible will be determined using the 60-day standard formula approach. -58-1840795.8 B. Applying this approach, annual wholesale working capital equals one-sixth of the wholesale allocation of operation and maintenance, administrative and general, and property tax expenses for the Water and Hetch Hetchy Enterprises. Wholesale working capital shall be calculated separately for the Water and Hetch Hetchy Enterprises. C. Each month, the sum of the Water Enterprise and Hetch Hetchy Enterprise working capital components will be compared with the ending balance in the Wholesale Revenue Coverage Reserve to determine if the Wholesale Customers provided the minimum required working capital. If the Wholesale Revenue Coverage Reserve is greater than the total Water Enterprise and Hetch Hetchy Enterprise working capital requirement, the Wholesale Customers will have provided their share of working capital. If the Wholesale Revenue Coverage Reserve is less than the total Water Enterprise and Hetch Hetchy Enterprise working capital requirement, the Wholesale Customers will be charged interest on the difference, which will be included in the adjustment to the Balancing Account under Section 6.05. B for the subsequent fiscal year. 6.08 Wholesale Capital Fund A. The SFPUC currently funds revenue-funded capital projects through annual budget appropriations that are included in rates established for that fiscal year and transferred to a capital project fund from which expenditures are made. Consistent with the San Francisco Charter and Administrative Code, the SFPUC appropriates funds in advance of construction in order to maintain a positive balance in the capital project fund. The capital project fund also accrues interest and any unspent appropriations in excess of total project costs. It is the SF PUC's practice to regularly monitor the capital project fund balance to determine whether a surplus has accumulated, which can be credited against the next fiscal year's capital project appropriation. B. The SFPUC shall establish a comparable Wholesale Revenue-Funded Capital Fund (Wholesale Capital Fund) to enable the Wholesale Customers to fund the wholesale share of revenue-funded New Regional Assets. The Wholesale Capital Fund balance is zero as of ,Iuly 1, 2009. The SFPUC may include in wholesale rates for any fiscal year an amount equal to the wholesale share of the SFPUC's appropriation for revenue funded New Regional Assets for that year, which sum will be credited to the Wholesale Capital Fund. The wholesale share of other sources of funding, where legally permitted and appropriately accounted for under GAAP, -59-1840795.8 will also be credited to the Wholesale Capital Fund, together with interest earnings on the Wholesale Capital Fund balance. C. The SFPUC will expend revenues appropriated and transferred to the Wholesale Capital Fund only on New Regional Assets. The annual capital appropriation included in each fiscal year's budget will be provided to BAWSCA in accordance with Section 6.02 and will take into account the current and projected balance in the Wholesale Capital Fund, as well as current and projected unexpended and unencumbered surplus, as shown on attachment M-1, which will be prepared by the SFPUC each year. D. Commencing on November 30,2010 and thereafter in each fiscal year during the Term, the SFPUC will also provide an annual report to BAWSCA on the status of individual revenue-funded New Regional Assets, substantially in the form of Attachment M-2. E. In order to prevent the accumulation of an excessive unexpended and unencumbered surplus in the Wholesale Capital Fund, the status of the fund balance will be reviewed through the Compliance Audit at five-year intervals, commencing in FY 2014-15. Any excess fund balance (i.e., an accumulated unexpended, unencumbered amount in excess of ten percent (10%) of the wholesale share of total capital appropriations for New Regional Assets during the five preceding years) will be transferred to the credit of the Wholesale Customers to the Balancing Account described in Section 6.05. Attachment M-3 illustrates the operation of this review process, covering FY 2009-10 through FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15 through 2018- 19. F. Three years prior to the end of the Term, the SFPUC and BAWSCA will discuss the disposition of the Wholesale Capital Fund balance at the end of the Term. Absent agreement, any balance remaining in the Wholesale Capital Fund at the end of the Term shall be transferred to the Balancing Account, to the credit of the Wholesale Customers. -60-1840795.8 Article 7. Accounting Procedures; Compliance Audit 7.01 SFPUC Accounting Principles. Practices A. Accounting Principles. San Francisco will maintain the accounts of the SFPUC and the Water and Hetch Hetchy Enterprises in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. San Francisco will apply all applicable pronouncements of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) as well as statements and interpretations of the Financial Accounting Standards Board and Accounting Principles Board opinions issued on or before March 30, 1989, unless those pronouncements or opinions conflict with GASB pronouncements. B. General Rule. San Francisco will maintain the accounting records of the SF PUC and the Water and Hetch Hetchy Enterprises in a format and level of detail sufficient to allow it to determine the annual Wholesale Revenue Requirement in compliance with this Agreement and to allow its determination of the Wholesale Revenue Requirement to be audited as provided in Section 7.04. C. Water Enterprise. San Francisco will maintain an account structure which allows utility plant and operating and maintenance expenses to be segregated by location (inside San Francisco and outside San Francisco) and by function (Direct Retail, Regional and Direct Wholesale), D. Hetch Hetchy Enterprise. San Francisco will maintain an account structure which allows utility plant and operating and maintenance expenses to be segregated into Water Only, Power Only and Joint categories. E. SFPLJC. San Francisco will maintain an account structure which allows any expenses of SFPUC bureaus that benefit only the Wastewater Enterprise, the Power-Only operations of the Hetch Hetchy Enterprise or Retail Customers to be excluded from the Wholesale Revenue Requirement. F. Utility Plant Ledgers. San Francisco will maintain subsidiary plant ledgers for the Water and Hetch Hetchy Enterprises that contain unique identifying numbers for all assets included in the rate base and identify the original cost, annual depreciation, accumulated depreciation, date placed in service, useful life, salvage value if any, source of funding (e.g., bond series, revenues, grants), and classification for purposes of this Agreement. -61-1840795.8 G. Debt. San Francisco will maintain documentation identifying: 1. The portion of total bonded debt outstanding related to each series of each bond issue. 2. The portion of total interest expense related to each series of each bond issue. 3. The use of proceeds of each bond issue (including proceeds of commercial paper and/or other interim financial instruments redeemed or expected to be redeemed from bonds and earnings on the proceeds of financings) in sufficient detail to determine, for each bond issue, the proceeds and earnings of each (including proceeds and earnings of interim financing vehicles redeemed by a bond issue) and the total amounts expended on Direct Retail improvements and the total amounts expended on Regional improvements. H. Changes in Accounting. Subject to subsections A thru G, San Francisco may change the chart of accounts and accounting practices of the SFPUC and the Water and Hetch Hetchy Enterprises. However, the allocation of any expense to the Wholesale Customers that is specified in the Agreement may not be changed merely because of a change in (1) the accounting system or chart of accounts used by SFPUC, (2) the account to which an expense is posted or (3) a change in the organizational structure of the SFPUC or the Water or Hetch Hetchy Enterprises. I. Audit. San Francisco will arrange for an audit of the financial statements of Water and Hetch Hetchy Enterprises to be conducted each year by an independent certified public accountant, appointed by the Controller, in accordance with Generally Accepted Auditing Standards. 7.02 Calculation of and Report on Wholesale Revenue Requirement A. Within five months after the close of each fiscal year, San Francisco will prepare a report showing its calculation of the Wholesale Revenue Requirement for the preceding fiscal year and the change in the balancing account as of the end of that fiscal yem. The first such report will be prepared by November 30,2010 and Will cover fiscal year 2009-10 and the balancing account as of June 30, 2010. -62-1840795.8 B. The report will consist of the following items: 1. Statement of changes in the balancing account for the fiscal year being reported on, and for the immediately preceding fiscal year, substantially in the form of Attachment O. 2. Detailed supporting schedules 8.1 through 8.2 substantially in the form of Attachment N-2. 3. Description and explanation of any changes in San Francisco's accounting practices from those previously in effect. 4. Explanation of any line item of expense (shown on Attachment N-2, schedules 1 and 4) for which the amount allocated to the Wholesale Customers increased by (a) ten percent or more from the preceding fiscal year, or (b) more than $1,000,000. 5. Representation letter signed by the SFPUC General Manager and by other SFPUC financial staff shown on Attachment P, as the General Manager may direct, subject to change in position titles at the discretion of the SFPUC . . C. The report will be delivered to the BAWSCA General Manager by the date identified in Subsection A Once the report has been delivered to BAWSCA, San Francisco will, upon request: 1. Provide BAWSCA with access to, and copies of, ali worksheets and supporting documents used or prepared by San Francisco during its calculation of the Wholesale Revenue Requirement; 2. Make available to BAWSCA all supporting documentation and calculations used by San Francisco in preparing the report; and 3. Promptly provide answers to questions from BAWSCA staff about the report. -63-1840795.8 7.03 Appointment of Compliance Auditor A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide for an annual Compliance Audit by an independent certified public accountant of the procedures followed and the underlying data used by San Francisco in calculating the Wholesale Revenue Requirement for the preceding fiscal year. The annual Compliance Audit shall also determine whether the Wholesale Revenue Requirement has been calculated in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and whether amounts paid by the Wholesale Customers in excess of or less than the Wholesale Revenue Requirement have been posted to the balancing account, together with interest as provided in Section 6.05. B. Method of Appointment. The Controller shall select an independent certified public accountant ("Compliance Auditor") to conduct the Compliance Audit described below. The Compliance Auditor may be the same certified public accountant engaged by the Controller to audit the financial statements of the Water and Hetch Hetchy Enterprises Subject to approval by the Controller and the General Manager of the SFPUC, the Compliance Auditor shall have the authority to engage such consultants as it deems necessary or appropriate to assist in the audit. The terms of this Article shall be incorporated into the contract between San Francisco and the Compliance Auditor, and the Wholesale Customers shall be deemed to be third-party beneficiaries of said contract. 7.04 ,9onduct of Compliance Audit A. Standards. The Compliance Auditor shall perform the Compliance Audit in accordance with Generally Accepted Auditing Standards. In particular, its review shall be governed by the standards contained in Section AU 623 (Reports on SpeCified Elements, Accounts or Items of a Financial Statement) of the AICPA, Professional Standards, as amended from time to time. B. Preliminary Meeting; Periodic Status Reports; Access to Data. Prior to commencing the audit, the Compliance Auditor shall meet with San Francisco and BAWSCA to discuss the audit plan, the procedures to be employed and the schedule to be followed. During the course of the audit, the Compliance Auditor shall keep San Francisco and BAWSCA informed of any unforeseen problems or circumstances which could cause a delay in the audit or any material expansion of the audit's scope. The Compliance Auditor shall be given full -64-1840795.8 access to all records of the SFPUC and the Water and Hetch Hetchy Enterprises that the Auditor deems necessary for the audit. C. Audit Procedures. The Compliance Auditor shall review San Francisco's calculation of the Wholesale Revenue Requirement and the underlying data in order to carry out the purpose ofthe audit described in Section 7.03.A and to issue the report described in Section 7.05. At a minimum, the Compliance Auditor shall address the following: 1. Water Enterprise Operating and Maintenance Expenses. The Compliance Auditor shall review Water Enterprise cost ledgers to determine whether the recorded operating and maintenance expenses fairly reflect the costs incurred, were recorded on a basis consistent with applicable Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and were allocated to the Wholesale Customers as provided in this Agreement 2. Water Enterprise Administrative and General Expenses. The Compliance Auditor shall review Water Enterprise cost ledgers and other appropriate financial records, including those of the SFPUC, to determine whether the recorded administrative and general expenses fairly reflect the costs incurred by or allocated to the Water Enterprise, whether they were recorded on a basis consistent with applicable Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, whether SFPUC charges were allocated to the Water Enterprise in accordance with this Agreement, and whether the amount of administrative and general expenses allocated to the Wholesale Customers was determined as provided by this Agreement. 3. Property Taxes. The Compliance Auditor shall review Water Enterprise cost ledgers to determine whether the amount of property taxes shown on the report fairly reflects the property tax expense incurred by San Francisco for Water Enterprise property outside of San Francisco and whether there has been deducted from the amount to be allocated (1) all taxes actually reimbursed to San Francisco by tenants of Water Enterprise property under leases that require such reimbursement and (2) any refunds received from the taxing authority. The Compliance Auditor also shall determine whether the amount of property taxes allocated to the Wholesale Customers was determined as provided in this Agreement. 4. Debt Service. The Compliance Auditor shall review SFPUC records to determine whether debt service, and associated coverage requirements, were allocated to the Wholesale Customers as provided in this Agreement. -65-1840795.8 5. Amortization of Existing Assets in Service as of June 30, 2009. The Compliance Auditor shall review both Water and Hetch Hetchy Enterprise records to determine whether the payoff amount for Existing Assets allocated to the Wholesale Customers as shown on Attachment K-1 through KA was calculated as provided in Section 5.03 of this Agreement 6. Revenue-Funded Capital Appropriations/Expenditures. The Compliance Auditor shall review San Francisco's calculation of actual expenditures on the wholesale share of revenue-funded New Regional Assets and remaining unexpended and unencumbered project balances in the "Wholesale Capital Fund" described in Section 6.08. to determine whether the procedures contained in that section were followed. 7. Hetch Hetchy Expenses. The Compliance Auditor shall determine whether Hetch Hetchy Enterprise expenses were allocated to the Wholesale Customers as provided in this Agreement. D. Use of and Reliance on Audited Financial Statements and Water Use Data 1. In performing the audit, the Compliance Auditor shall incorporate any adjustments to the cost ledgers recommended by the independent certified public accountant. referred to in Section 7.01.1, which audited the financial statements of the Water and Hetch Hetchy Enterprises. The Compliance Auditor may rely upon the work performed by that independent certified public accountant if the Compliance Auditor reviews the work and is willing to take responsibility for it as part of the compliance audit. 2. In performing the Compliance Audit and issuing its report, the Compliance Auditor may rely on water use data furnished by the Water Enterprise, regardless of whether the VVholesale Customers contest the accuracy of such data. The Compliance Auditor shall have no obligation to independently verify the accuracy of the water use data provided by San Francisco; however, the Compliance Auditor shall disclose in its report any information which came to its attention suggesting that the water use data provided by San Francisco are inaccurate in any significant respect. E. Exit Conference. Upon completion of the audit, the Compliance /\udilor shall meet with San Francisco and BAWSCA to discuss audit fmdings, including (1) any material weakness in internal controls and (2) adjustments proposed by the Compliance Auditor and San Francisco's response (I.e., booked or waived). -66-1840795.8 7.05 Issuance of Compliance Auditor's Report A. San Francisco will require the Compliance Auditor to issue its report no later than nine months after the fiscal year under audit (i.e., March 31 of the following calendar year). The Compliance Auditor's report shail be addressed and delivered to San Francisco and BAWSCA. The report shall contain: 1. A statement that the Auditor has audited the report on the calculation of the Wholesale Revenue Requirement and changes in the balancing account, and supporting documents, prepared by San Francisco as required by Section 7.02. 2. A statement that the audit was conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, and that the audit provides a reasonable basis for its opinion. 3. A statement that in the Compliance Auditor's opinion the Wholesale Revenue Requirement was calculated by San Francisco in accordance with this Agreement and that the change in the balancing account shown in San Francisco's report was calculated as required by this Agreement and presents fairly, in all material respects, changes in and the balance due to (or from) the Wholesale Customers as of the end of the fiscal year under audit. 7.06 Wholesale Customer Review A. One or more Wholesale Customers, or BAWSCA, may engage an independent certified public accountant (CPA) to conduct a review (at its or their expense) of San Francisco's calculation of the annual Wholesale Revenue Requirement and a review of changes in the balancing account B. If a Wholesale Customer or BAWSCA wishes such a review to be conducted it will provide written notice to SFPUC within 30 days of the date the Compliance Auditor's report is issued. The notice will identify the CPA or accounting/auditing firm that will conduct the review and the specific aspects of the Compliance Auditor's report that are the subject of the review. If more than one notice of review is received by the SFPUC, the requesting Wholesale Customers shall combine and coordinate their reviews and select a lead auditor to act on their behalf for the purposes of requesting documents and conducting on-site investigations. C. San Francisco will cooperate with the CPA appointed by a Wholesale Customer or BAWSCA. This cooperation includes making.requested records promptly available, making -67-1840795.8 knowledgeable SFPUC personnel available to timely and truthfully answer the CPA's questions and directing the Compliance Auditor to cooperate with the CPA. D. The Wholesale Customer's review shall be completed within 60 days after the date the Compliance Auditor's report is issued. At the conclusion of the review, representatives of San Francisco and BAWSCA shall meet to discuss any differences between them concerning San Francisco's compliance with Articles 5 or 6 of this Agreement during the preceding fiscal year or San Francisco's calculation of the Wholesale Revenue Requirement for the preceding fiscal year. If such differences cannot be resolved, the dispute shall be submitted to arbitration in accordance with Section 8.01. -68-i840795.8 Article 8. Other Agreements of the Parties 8.01 Arbitration and Judicial Review A. General Principles re Scope of Arbitration. All questions or disputes arising under the following subject areas shall be subject to mandatory, binding arbitration and shall not be subject to judicial determination: 1. the determination of the Wholesale Revenue Requirement, which shall include both the calculations used in the determination and the variables used in those calculations; 2. the SFPUC's adherence to accounting practices and conduct of the Compliance Audit; and 3. the SFPUC's classification of new assets for purposes of determining the Wholesale Revenue Requirement. All other questions or disputes arising under this Agreement shall be subject to judicial determination. Disputes about the scope of arbitrability shall be resolved by the courts. 8. Demand for Arbitration. If any arbitrable question or dispute should arise, any Wholesale Customer or the SFPUC may commence arbitration proceedings hereunder by service of a written Demand for Arbitration. Demands for arbitration shall set forth all of the issues to be arbitrated, the general contentions relating to those issues, and the relief sought by the party serving the Demand. VVithin 45 days after service of a Demand upon it, any Wholesale Customer or the SFPUC may serve a Notice of Election to become a party to tiie arbitration and a Response to the issues set fortt) in the Demand. The Response shall include the party's general contentions and defenses with respect to the claims made in the Demand, and may include any otherwise arbitrable claims, contentions and demands that concern the fiscal year covered by the Demand. If a timely Notice of Election and Response is not filed by any such entity, it shall not be a party to the arbitration but shall nonetheless be bound by the award of the arbitrator. If no party to this Agreement serves a timely Notice of Election and Response, the party seeking arbitration shall be entitled to the relief sought in its Demand for Arbitration without the necessity of further proceedings. Any claims not made in a Demand or Response shall be deemed waived. -69-1840795.8 If a Demand or Notice of Election is made by the SF PUC, it shall be served by personal delivery or certified mail to each Wholesale Customer at the address of such customer as set forth in the billing records of the SFPUC. If a Demand or Notice of Election is made by a Wholesale Customer, service shall be by certified mail or personal delivery to the General Manager, SFPUC, 1155 Market Street, 11 th Floor, San Francisco, California 94103, and to each of the other Wholesale Customers. If arbitration is commenced, the Wholesale Customers shall use their best efforts to formulate a single, joint position with respect thereto. In any event, with respect to the appointment of arbitrators, as hereinafter provided, all Wholesale Customers that take the same position as to the issues to be arbitrated shall jointly and collectively be deemed to be a single party. C. Limitations Period. All Demands For Arbitration shall be served within twelve months of receipt by BAWSCA of the Wholesale Revenue Requirement Compliance Auditor's Report for that year. If a party fails to file a Demand within the time period speCified in this subsection, that party waives all present and future claims with respect to the fiscal year in question. If no such Demand is served within the twelve month period specifIed above, the SFPUC's determination of the Wholesale Revenue Requirement for that year shall be final and conclusive. Whether any particular claim is barred by the twelve month limitations period provided for herein shall be for the arbitrator to determine. Prior to the expiration of the twelve month limitations period, the parties to the dispute may agree by written stipulation to extend the period by up to six additional months. The Arbitrator may order the alteration or recalculation of underlying Water Enterprise and/or Hetch Hetchy Enterprise accounts or asset classifications. Such changes shall be used to c~lculate the Wholesale Revenue Requirement for the fiscal year in dispute and shall also be used to determine future Wholesale ReVenLle Requirements, if otherwise applicable, even though the existing entries in such accounts or the asset classifications, in whole or in part, predate the twelve month period described above, so long as a timely arbitration Demand has been filed in accordance with this subsection. D. Number and Appointment of Arbitrators. All arbitration proceedings under this section shall be conducted by a single arbitrator, selected by the SFPLJC and a designated representative of the Wholesale Customers or each group of Wholesale Customers that take the same position with respect to the arbitration, within 75 days after service of the Demand. If the parties to the arbitration cannot agree on an arbitrator within 75 days, any party may petition -70-1840795.8 the Marin County Superior Court for the appointment of an arbitrator pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.6 (or any successor provision). E. Guidelines for Qualifications of Arbitrators. The Wholesale Customers and the SFPUC acknowledge that the qualifications of the arbitrator will vary with the nature of the matter arbitrated, but, in general, agree that such qualifications may include service as a judge or expertise in one or more of the following fields: public utility law, water utility rate setting, water system and hydraulic engineering, utility accounting methods and practices, and water system operation and management. The parties to the arbitration shall use their best efforts to agree in advance upon the qualifications of any arbitrator to be appOinted by the Superior Court. F. Powers of Arbitrator; Conduct of Proceedings 1. Except as provided in this section, arbitrations under this section shall be conducted under and be governed by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1282,2 through 1284.2 (hereinafter, collectively, "Code sections"), and arbitrators appointed hereunder shall have the powers and duties specified by the Code sections. 2. Within the meaning of the Code sections, the term "neutral arbitrator" shall mean the single arbitrator selected by the parties to the arbitration. 3, Unless waived in writing by the parties to the arbitration, the notice of hearing served by the arbitrator shall not be less than 90 days. 4. The fists of witnesses (including expert witnesses), and the lists of documents (including the reports of expert witnesses) referred to in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1282.2 shall be mutually exchanged, without necessity of demand therefore, no later than 60 days prior to the date of the hearing, unless otherv.iise agreed in writing by the parties to the arbitration. Upon application of any party, or on his or her own motion, the arbitrator may schedule one or more prehearing conferences for the purposes of narrowing and/or expediting resolution of the issues in dispute. Strict conformity to the rules of evidence is not required, except that the arbitrator shall apply applicable law relating to privileges and work product. The arbitrator shall consider evidence that he or she finds relevant and material to the dispute, giving the evidence such weight as is appropriate. The arbitrator may limit testimony to exclude evidence that would be immaterial or unduly repetitive, provided that all parties are afforded the opportunity to present material and relevant evidence. -71-J 840795.8 5. Within thirty days after the close of the arbitration hearing, or such other time as the arbitrator shall determine, the parties will submit proposed findings and a proposed remedy to the arbitrator. The parties may file objections to their adversary's proposed findings and remedy within a time limit to be specified by the arbitrator. The arbitrator shall not base his or her award on information not obtained at the hearing. 6. The arbitrator shall render a written award no later than twelve months after the arbitrator is appointed, either by the parties or by the court, provided that such time may be waived or extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1283.8. 7. The provisions for discovery set forth in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1283.05 are incorporated into and made part of this Agreement, except that: (a) leave of the arbitrator need not be obtained for the taking of depositions, including the depositions of expert witnesses; (b) the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure Section 2034.010 et seq., relating to discovery of expert witnesses, shall automatically be applicable to arbitration proceedings arising under this Agreement without the necessity for a formal demand pursuant to Section 2034.210 and the date for the exchange of expert discovery provided by Sections 2034.260 and 2034.270 shall be not later than 60 days prior to the date for the hearing; and (c) all reports, documents, and other materials prepared or reviewed by any expert designated to testify at the arbitration shall be discoverable. In appropriate circumstances, the arbitrator may order any party to this Agreement that is not a party to the arbitration to comply with any discovery request. 8. For the purposes of allocation of expenses and fees, as provided in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1284.2, if any two or more Wholesale Customers join together in a single, joint position in the ar'bitration, those Wholesale Customers shall be deemed to be a single party. If any Wholesale Customer or customers join together with the SFPUC in a single joint position in the arbitration, those Wholesale Customers and the SFPUC together shall be deemed to be a single party. g. Subject to any other limitations imposed by the Agreement, the arbitrator shall have power to issue orders mandating compliance with the terms of the Agreement or enjOining violations of the Agreement. With respect to any arbitration brought to redress a claimed wholesale overpayment to the SFPUC, the arbitrator's power to award monetary relief -72-1840795.8 shall be limited to entering an order requiring that an adjustment be made in the amount posted to the balancing account for the fiscal year covered by the Demand. 10. All awards of the arbitrator shall be binding on the SFPUC and the Wholesale Customers regardless of the participation or lack thereof by any Wholesale Customer or the SFPUC as a party to the arbitration proceeding. The parties to an arbitration shall have the power to modify or amend any arbitration award by mutual consent. The arbitrator shall apply California law. 8.02 Attorneys' Fees A. Arbitration or Litigation Between San Francisco and Wholesale Customers Arising under the Agreement or Individual Water Sales Contracts. Each party will bear its own costs, including attorneys' fees, incurred in any arbitration or litigation arising under this Agreement or the Individual Water Sales Contracts between San Francisco and the Wholesale Customers. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and subject to the limitations contained herein, the SFPUC may allocate to the Wholesale Customers as an allowable expense, utilizing the composite rate used for allocating other Water Enterprise administrative and general expenses, any attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the SFPUC in connection with arbitration and/or litigation arising under this Agreement and/or the Individual Water Sales Contracts. Attorneys' fees incurred by the SFPUC for attorneys employed in the San Francisco City Attorney's office shall be billed at the hourly rates charged for the attorneys in question by the San Francisco City Attorney's Office to the SFPUC. Attorneys' fees incurred by the SFPUC for attorneys other than those employed in the San Francisco City Attorney's Office shall be limited to the hourly rates charged 10 the SFPUC for attorneys and paralegals with comparable experience employed in the San Francisco City Attorney's office and in no even! shall exceed Ule highest hourly rate charged by any attomey or paralegal employed in the City Attorney's Office to the SFPUC. B. Arbitration or Litigation Outside of Agreement Concerning the SFPUC Water System or Reserved Issues 1. The attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the SFPUC in litigation between San Francisco and one or more of the Wholesale Customers arising from matters outside of the Agreement, including, without limitation, litigation and/or arbitration concerning the issues specifically reserved in the Agreement, shall be allocated between the Retail Customers and the -73-1840795.8 Wholesale Customers utilizing the composite rate used for allocating other Water Enterprise administrative and general expenses. 2. If, in any litigation described in subsection B.1 above, attorneys' fees and costs are awarded to one or more of the Wholesale Customers as prevailing parties, the SF PUC's payment of the Wholesale Customers' attorneys' fees and costs shall not be an allowable expense pursuant to subsection A. 3. If, in any litigation described in subsection B.1, the SFPUC obtains an award of attorneys' fees and costs as a prevailing party against one or more of the Wholesale Customers, any such award shall be reduced to offset the amount of the SFPUC's fees and costs, if any, that have already been paid by the Wholesale Customers in the current or any prior fiscal years pursuant to subsection B.1 and the provisions of Articles 5 and 6 of the Agreement. 4. Nothing contained in this Agreement, including this subsection, shall authorize a court to award attorneys' fees and costs to a prevailing party as a matter of contract and/or the provisions of Civil Code Section 1717, in litigation between San Francisco and one or more of the Wholesale Customers arising from matters outside of the Agreement, including, without limitation, litigation and/or arbitration concerning the issues specifically reserved in the Agreement. C. Attorneys Fees and Costs Incurred by the SFPUC in Connection with the Operation and Maintenance of the SFPUC Water Supply System. All attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the SFPUC in connection with the operation and maintenance of the SFPUC's water supply system shall be allocated between Retail Customers and the Wholesale Customers utilizing the composite rate used for allocating other Water Enterprise administrative and general expenses. 8.03 Annual Meeting and Report A. The parties wish to ensure that the Wholesale Customers may, in an orderly way, be informed of matters affecting the Regional Water System, including matters affectmg the continuity and adequacy of their water supply from San Francisco. For this purpose, the General Manager of the SFPUC shall meet annually with the Wholesale Customers and BAWSCA during the month of February, commencing -74-18407958 February 2010, At these annual meetings, the SFPUC shall provide the Wholesale Customers a report on the following topics: 1. Capital additions under construction or being planned for the Regional Water System, including the status of planning studies, financing plans, environmental reviews, permit applications, etc.; 2 Water use trends and projections for Retail Customers and Wholesale Customers; 3. Water supply conditions and projections; 4. The status of any administrative proceedings or litigation affecting San Francisco's water rights or the SFPUC's ability to deliver water from the watersheds which currently supply the Regional Water System; 5, Existing or anticipated problems with the maintenance and repair of the Regional Water System or with water quality; 6. Projections of Wholesale Revenue Requirements for the next five years; 7. Any other topic which the SFPUC General Manager places on the agenda for the meeting; 8. Any topic which the Wholesale Customers, through BAWSCA, request be placed on the agenda, provided that the SFPUC is notified of the request at least 10 days before the meeting. B. The General Manager of the SFPUC, the Assistant General Manager of the Water Enterprise, and the Assistant General Manager of Business Services-CFO will use their best efforts to attend the annual meetings. If one or more of these officers are unable to atlend, they will deSignate an appropriately informed assistant to atlend in their place. 8.04 Administratiye Matters Delegated to BAWSCA A The Wholesale Customers hereby delegate the authority and responsibility for performing the following administrative functions contemplated in this Agreement to BAWsCA: -75-J 840795.'8 1. Approval of calculations of Proportional Annual Water Use required by Section 3.14 and Attachment J, "Water Use Measurement and Tabulation"; 2. Approval of amendments to Attachments J and K-3 and K-4, "25-Year Payoff Schedules for Existing Rate Base"; 3. Agreement that the Water Meter and Calibration Procedures Manual to be prepared by the SFPUC may supersede some or all of the requirements in Attachment J, as described in Section 3.14; 4. Conduct of Wholesale Customer review of SFPUC's calculation of annual Wholesale Revenue Requirement/Change in Balancing Account described in Section 7.06; 5. Approval of an adjustment to Wholesale Revenue Coverage as described in Section 6.06. B. A majority of the Wholesale Customers may, without amending this Agreement, delegate additional administrative functions to BAWSCA. To be effective, such expanded delegation must be evidenced by resolutions adopted by the governing bodies of a majority of the Wholesale Customers. C. Unless otherwise explicitly stated, the administrative authority delegated to BAWSCA may be exercised by the General Manager/CEO of BAWSCA, rather than requiring action by the BAWSCA Board of Directors. In addition, the Wholesale Customers may, with the consent of BAWSCA, delegate to BAWSCA the initiation, defense, and settlement of arbitration proceedings provided for in Section 8.01. 8.05 Preservation of Water Rights; Notice of Water Rights Proceedings A. It is the intention of San Francisco to preserve all of its water rights, irrespective of whether the water held under such water rights is allocated under this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as an abandonment, or evidence of an intent to abandon, any of the water rights that San Francisco presently possesses. B. San Francisco shall use its best efforts to give prompt notice to BAWSCA of any litigation or administrative proceedings to which San Francisco is a party involving water rights to the Regional Water System. The failure of San Francisco to provide notice as required by this section, for whatever reason, shall not give rise to any monetary liability. -76-1840795.8 8.06 SFPUC Rules and Regulations The sale and delivery of all water under this Agreement shall be subject to such of the "Rules and Regulations Governing Water Service to Customers" of the Water Enterprise adopted by the Commission, as those rules and regulations may be amended from time to time, as are (1) applicable to the sale and delivery of water to the Wholesale Customers, (2) reasonable, and (3) not inconsistent with either this Agreement or with an Individual Water Sales Contract. The SFPUC will give the Wholesale Customers notice of any proposal to amend the Rules and Regulations in a manner that would affect the Wholesale Customers. The notice will be delivered at least thirty days in advance of the date on which the proposal is to be considered by the Commission and will be accompanied by the text of the proposed amendment. 8.07 Reservations of, and Limitations on, Claims A. General Reservation of Raker Act Contentions. The 1984 Agreement resolved a civil action brought against San Francisco by certain of the Wholesale Customers. Plaintiffs in that action contended that they, and other Wholesale Customers that are municipalities or special districts, were "co-grantees" within the meaning of Section 8 of the Act and were entitled to certain rights, benefits and privileges by virtue of that status. San Francisco disputed those claims. Nothing in this Agreement, or in the Individual Water Sales Contracts, shall be construed or interpreted in any way to affect the ultimate resolution of the controversy between the parties concerning whether any of the Wholesale Customers are "co-grantees" under the Act and, if so, what rights, benefits and privileges accrue to them by reason of that claimed status. B. Claims Reserved but not Assertable During Term or Portions Thereof. The following claims, which San Francisco disputes, are reserved but may not be asserted during the Term (or portions thereof, as indicated): 1. The Wholesale Customers' claim that the Act entitles them to water at cost. 2. The Wholesale Customers' claim that San Francisco is obligated under the Act or state law to supply them with additional water in excess of the Supply Assurance. This claim may not be asserted unless and until San Francisco decides not to meet projected -77-1840795.8 water demands of Wholesale Customers in excess of the Supply Assurance pursuant to Section 4.06. 3. The claim by San Jose and Santa Clara that they are entitled under the Act, or any other federal or state law, to permanent, non-interruptible status and to be charged rates identical to those charged other Wholesale Customers. This claim may not be asserted unless and until San Francisco notifies San Jose or Santa Clara that it intends to interrupt or terminate water deliveries pursuant to Section 4.05. 4. The Wholesale Customers' claim that the SFPUC is not entitled to impose a surcharge for lost power generation revenues attributable to furnishing water in excess of the Supply Assurance. This claim may not be asserted unless and until SFPUC furnishes water in excess of the Supply Assurance during the Term and also includes such a surcharge in the price of such water. 5. Claims by Wholesale Customers (other than San Jose and Santa Clara, whose service areas are fixed) that SFPUC is obligated under the Act or state law to furnish water, within their IndiVidual Supply Guarantee, for delivery to customers outside their existing service area and that Wholesale Customers are entitled to enlarge their service areas to supply those customers. Such claims may be asserted only after compliance with the procedure set forth in Section 3.03, followed by SFPUC's denial of, or failure for six months to act on, a written request by a Wholesale Customer to expand its service area. C. Waived Activities. The Wholesale Customers (and the SFPUC, where specified) will refrain from the following activities during the Term (or portions thereof, as ~ specified): 1. The Wholesale Customers and the SFPUC will not contend before any court, administrative agency or legislative body or committee that the methodology for determining the Wholesale Revenue Requirement (or the requirements for (a) amortization of the ending balance under the 1984 Agreement. or (b) contribution to the Wholesale Revenue Coverage) determined in accordance with this Agreement violates the Act or any other provision of federal law, state law, or San Francisco's City Charter, or is unfair, unreasonable or unlawfuL 2. The Wholesale Customers will not challenge the transfer of funds by the SFPUC to any other San Francisco City department or fund, provided such transfer complies with the San Francisco City Charter. The transfer of its funds, whether or not permitted by the -78-1840795.8 City Charter, will not excuse the SFPUC from its failure to perform any obligation imposed by this Agreement. 3, The Wholesale Customers and the SFPUC will not assert monetary claims against one another based on the 1984 Agreement other than otherwise arbitrable claims arising from the three fiscal years immediately preceding the start of the Term (I.e., FYs 2006-07,2007-08 and 2008-09), Such claims, if any, shall be governed by the dispute resolution provisions of this Agreement, except that the time within which arbitration must be commenced shall be 18 months from delivery of the Compliance Auditor's report. D. Other 1. This Agreement shall determine the respective monetary rights and obligations of the parties with respect to water sold by the SFPUC to the Wholesale Customers during the Term. Such rights and obligations shall not be affected by any judgments or orders issued by any court in litigation, whether or not between parties hereto, and whether or not related to the controversy over co-grantee status, except for arbitration and/or litigation expressly permitted in this Agreement. No judicial or other resolution of issues reserved by this section will affect the Wholesale Revenue Requirement which, during the Term, will be determined exclusively as provided in Articles 5, 6 and 7 of this Agreement. 2, Because delays in the budget process or other events may cause the SFPUC to defer the effective date of changes in wholesale rates until after the beginning of the fiscal year, this Agreement does not require the SFPUC to make changes in wholesale rates effective at the start of the fiscal year or at any other specific date. 3, The Wholesale Customers do not, by executing this Agreement, concede the legality of the SFPUC's establishing Interim Supply Allocations, as provided in Article 4 or imposing Environmental Enhancement Surcharges on water use in excess of such allocations. Any Wholesale Customer may challenge such allocation when imposed and/or such surcharges if and when levied, in any court of competent jurisdiction. 4, The furnishing of water in excess of the Supply Assurance by San Francisco to the Wholesale Customers shall not be deemed or construed to be a waiver by San Francisco of its claim that it has no obligation under any provision of law to supply such water to the Wholesale Customers, nor shall it constitute a dedication by San Francisco to the Wholesale Customers of such water. -79-1840795,8 8.08 Prohibition of Assignment A. This Agreement shall be binding on, and shall inure to the benefit of, the parties and their respective successors and permitted assigns. Each Wholesale Customer agrees that it will not transfer or assign any rights or privileges under this Agreement, either in whole or in part, or make any transfer of all or any part of its water system or allow the use thereof in any manner whereby any provision of this Agreement will not continue to be binding on it, its assignee or transferee, or such user of the system. Any assignment or transfer in violation of this covenant, and any assignment or transfer that would result in the supply of water in violation of the Act, shall be void. B. Nothing in this section shall prevent any Wholesale Customer (except the California Water Service Company and Stanford) from entering into a jOint powers agreement or a municipal or multi-party water district with any other Wholesale Customer (except the two listed above) to exercise the rights and obligations granted to and imposed upon the Wholesale Customers hereunder, nor shall this section prevent any Wholesale Customer (except the two listed above) from succeeding to the rights and obligations of another Wholesale Customer hereunder as long as the Wholesale Service Area served by the Wholesale Customers involved in the succession is not thereby enlarged. 8.09 Notices A. All notices and other documents that San Francisco is required or permitted to send to the Wholesale Customers under this Agreement shall be sent to each and all of the Wholesale Customers by United States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed to each Wholesale Customer at the address to which monthly water bills are mailed by the Water Enterprise. B. All notices or other documents which the Wholesale Customers are required or permitted to send to San Francisco under this Agreement shall be sent by United States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: General Manager San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 1155 Market Street, 11 tn Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 -80-1840795.8 C. Each Wholesale Customer is a member of BAWSCA San Francisco shall send a copy of each notice or other document which it is required to send to all Wholesale Customers to BAWSCA addressed as follows: General Manager/CEO Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency 155 Bovet Road, Suite 302 San Mateo, CA 94402 The failure of San Francisco to send a copy of such notices or documents to BAWSCA shall not invalidate any rate set or other action taken by San Francisco. D. Any party (or BAWSCA) may change the address to which notice is to be sent to it under this Agreement by notice to San Francisco (in the case of a change desired by a Wholesale Customer or BAWSCA) and to the Wholesale Customer and BAWSCA (in the case of a change desired by San Francisco). The requirements for notice set forth in Section 8.01 concerning arbitration shall prevail over this section, when they are applicable. B.10 Incorporation of Attachments Attachments A through Q, referred to herein, are incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement. 8.11 Interpretation In interpreting this Agreement, or any provision thereof, it shall be deemed to have been drafted by all signatories, and no presumption pursuant to Civil Code Section 1654 may be invoked to detenTline the Agreement's meaning. The marginal headings and titles to the sections and paragraphs of this Agreement are not a part of this Agreement and shall have no effect upon the construction or interpretation of any part hereof. 8.12 Actions and Approvals by San Francisco Whenever aelion or approval by San Francisco is required or contemplated by this Agreement, authority to act or approve shall be exercised by the Commission, except if such action is required by law to be taken, or approval required to be given, by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. The Commission may delegate authority to the General Manager in -81-1840795.8 accordance with the San Francisco City Charter and Administrative Code, except for actions that this Agreement requires to be taken by the Commission. 8.13 Counterparts Execution of this Agreement may be accomplished by execution of separate counterparts by each signatory. San Francisco shall deliver its executed counterpart to SA WSCA and the counterpart which each Wholesale Customer executes shall be delivered to San Francisco. The separate executed counterparts, taken together, shall constitute a single agreement. 8.14 Limitations on Damages A. Unless otherwise prohibited by this Agreement, general or direct damages may be recovered for a breach of a party's obligations under this Agreement. No party is liable for, or may recover from any other party, special, indirect or consequential damages or incidental damages, including, but not limited to, lost profits or revenue. No damages may be awarded for a breach of Section 8.17. S. The limitations in subsection A apply only to claims for damages for an alleged breach of this Agreement. These limitations do not apply to claims for damages for an alleged breach of a legal duty that arises independently of this Agreement, established by constitution or statute. C. If damages would be an inadequate remedy for a breach of this Agreement, equitable relief may be awarded by a court in a case in which it is otherwise proper. D. This section does not apply to any claim of breach for which arbitration is the exclusive rernedy pursuant to Section 8.01 A 8.15 Force Majeure A. Excuse from Performance. No party shall be liable in damages to any other party for delay in performance of, or failure to perform, its obligations under this Agreement, including the obligations se1. forth in Sections 3.09 and 4.06, if such delay 01 failure is caused by a "Force Majeure Event." B. Notice. The party claiming excuse shall deliver to the other parties a written . notice of intent to claim excuse from performance under this Agreement by reason of a Force -82-1840795.8 Majeure Event Notice required by this section shall be given promptly in light of the circumstances, and, in the case of events described in (c), (d) or (e) of the definition of Force Majeure Event only, not later than ten (10) days after the occurrence of the Force Majeure Event. Such notice shall describe the Force Majeure Event, the services impacted by the claimed event, the length of time that the party expects to be prevented from performing, and the steps which the party intends to take to restore its ability to perform. C. Obligation to Restore Ability to Perform. Any suspension of performance by a party pursuant to this section shall be only to the extent, and for a period of no longer duration than, required by the nature of the Force Majeure Event, and the party claiming excuse shall use its best efforts to remedy its inability to perform as quickly as possible. 8.16 No "rhird-Partv Beneficiaries This Agreement is exclusively for the benefit of the parties and not for the benefit of any other Person. There are no third-party beneficiaries of this Agreement and no person not a party shall have any rights under or interests in this Agreement. No party may assert a claim for damages on behalf of a person other than itself, including a person that is not a party. 8.17 Good Faith and Fair Dealing San Francisco and the Wholesale Customers each acknowledge their obligation under California law to act in good faith toward, and deal fairly with, each other with respect to this Agreement. -83-1840795.8 Article 9. Implementation and Special Provisions Affecting Certain Wholesale Customers 9.01 General; Individual Water Sales Contracts A. As described in Section 1.03, San Francisco previously entered into Individual Water Sales Contracts with each of the Wholesale Customers. The term of the majority of Individual Water Sales Contracts will expire on June 30, 2009, concurrently with the expiration of the 1984 Agreement. Except as provided below in this Article, each of the Wholesale Customers will execute a new Individual Water Sales Contract with San Francisco concurrently with its approval of the Agreement. B. The Individual Water Sales Contracts will describe the service area of each Wholesale Customer, identify the location and size of connections between the Regional Water System and the Wholesale Customer's distribution system, provide for periodiC rendering and payment of bills for water usage, and in some instances contain additional specialized provisions unique to the particular Wholesale Customer and not of general concern or applicability. A sample Individual Water Sales Contract is provided at Attachment F. The Individual Water Sales Contracts between San Francisco and the Wholesale Customers will not contain any provision inconsistent with Articles 1 through 8 of this Agreement except (1) as provided below in this Article or (2) to the extent that such provisions are not in derogation of the Fundamental Rights of other Wholesale Customers under this Agreement. Any provisions in an Individual Water Sales Contract which are in violation of this section shall be void. 9.02 California Water Service Cg!!lQany A. The parties recognize that the California Water Service Company is an investor- owned utility company and. as such, has no claim to co-grantee status under the Act, which specifically bars private parties from receiVing for resale any water produced by the Hetch Hetchy portion of the Regional Water System. Accordingly, the following provisions shall apply to the California Water Service Company, notwithstanding anything to the contrary elsewhere in this Agreement. B. The total quantity of water delivered by San Francisco to the California Water Service Company shall not in any calendar year exceed 47,400 acre feet. which is the estimated average annual production of Local System Water. If San Francisco develops additional Local System Water after the Effective Date, it may (1) increase the maximum -84-1840795.8 delivery amount stated herein; and (2) increase the Supply Assurance, but not necessarily both. San Francisco has no obligation to deliver water to California Water Service Company in excess of the maximum stated herein, except as such maximum may be increased by San Francisco pursuant to this subsection. The maximum annual quantity of Local System Water set forth in this sUbsection is intended to be a limitation on the total quantity of water that may be allocated to California Water Service Company, and is not an Individual Supply Guarantee for purposes of Section 3.02. The maximum quantity of Local System Water set forth in this subsection is subject to reduction in response to (1) changes in long-term hydrology or (2) environmental water requirements that may be imposed by or negotiated with state and federal resource agencies in order to comply with state or federal law or to secure applicable permits for construction of Regional Water System facilities. San Francisco shall notify California Water Service Company of any anticipated reduction of the quantity of Local System Water set forth in this subsection, along with an explanation of the basis for the reduction. C. Notwithstanding anything in Section B.08 to the contrary, California Water Service Company shall have the right to assign to a public agency having the power of eminent domain all or a portion of the rights of California Water Service Company under any contract between it and San Francisco applicable to any individual district of California Water Service Company in connection with the acquisition by such public agency of all or a portion of the water system of California Water Service Company in such district. In the event of any such assignment of all the rights, privileges and obligations of California Water Service Company under such contract, California Water Service Company shall be relieved of all further obligations under such contract provided that the assignee public agency expressly assumes the obligations of California Water Service Company thereunder. In the event of such an assignment of a portion of the rights, privileges and obligations of California Water Service Company under such contract, California Water Service Company shall be relieved of such portion of such obligations so assigned thereunder provided that the assignee public agency shall expressly assume such obligations so assigned to it. D. Should California Water Service Company seek to take over or otherwise acquire, in whole or in part, tile service obligations of another Wholesale Customer under Section 3.03.E, it will so inform San Francisco at least six months prior to the effective date of the sale and provide information concerning the total additional demand proposed to be served, in order that San Francisco may compare the proposed additional demand to the then-current estimate of Local System Water. In this regard, California Water Service Company has notified -85-1840795.8 the SFPUC that it has reached an agreement to acquire the assets of Skyline County Water District ("Skyline") and assume the responsibility for providing water service to customers in the Skyline service area. California Water Service Company has advised the SFPUC that, on September 18, 2008, the California Public Utilities Commission approved California Water Service Company's acquisition of Skyline. The SFPUC anticipates approving the transfer of Skyline's Supply Guarantee as shown on Attachment C to California Water Service Company and the expansion of California Water Service Company's service area to include the current Skyline service area before the Effective Date of this Agreement All parties to this Agreement authorize corresponding modifications of Attachment C, as well as any of the Agreement's other provisions, to reflect the foregoing transaction without the necessity of amending this Agreement. E. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude San Francisco from selling water to any county, city, town, district, political subdivision, or other public agency for resale to customers within the service area of the California Water Service Company. Nothing in this Agreement shall require or contemplate any delivery of water to California Water Service Company in violation of the Act. F. Nothing in this Agreement shall alter, amend or modify the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the Judgment dated May 25, 1961, in that certain action entitled City and County of San Francisco v. California Water Service Company in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Marin, No. 23286, as modified by the Quitclaim Deed from California Water Service Company to San Francisco dated August 22,1961. The rights and obligations of San Francisco and California Water Service Company under these documents shall continue as therein set forth. 9.03 City of Hayward A San Francisco and the City of Hayward ("Hayward") entered into a water supply contract on February 9, 1962 ("the 1962 contract") which provides, inter alia, that San Francisco will supply Hayward with all water supplemental to sources and supplies of water owned or controlled by Hayward as of that date, in sufficient quantity to supply the total water needs of the service area described on an exhibit to the 1962 contract "on a permanent basis" The service area map attached as Exhibit C to the 1962 contract was amended in 1974 to remove an area of land in the Hayward hills and in 2008 to make minor boundary adjustments identified in SFPUC Resolution No. 08-0035. -86-1840795.8 B. The intention of the parties is to continue the 1962 contract, as amended, in effect as the Individual Water Sales Contract between San Francisco and Hayward. Accordingly, it shall not be necessary for San Francisco and Hayward to enter into a new Individual Water Sales Contract pursuant to this Article and approval of this Agreement by Hayward shall constitute approval of both this Agreement and an Individual Water Sales Contract for purposes of Section 1.03. The 1962 contract, as amended, will continue to describe the service area of Hayward, while rates for water delivered to Hayward during the Term shall be governed by Article 5 hereof. The 1962 contract, as amended, will continue in force after the expiration of the Term. 9.04 Estero MuniCipal Improvement District A. San Francisco and the Estero Municipal Improvement District ("Estero") entered into a water supply contract on August 24,1961, the term of which continues until August 24, 2011 ("the 1961 Contract"). The 1961 Contract provides, inter alia, that San Francisco will supply Estero with all water supplemental to sources and supplies of water owned or controlled by Estero as of that date, in sufficient quantity to supply the total water needs of the service area described on an exhibit to the 1961 Contract. B. The intention of the parties is to terminate the 1961 Contract and replace it with a new Individual Water Sales Contract which will become effective on July 1, 2009. The new Individual Water Sales Contract will describe the current service area of Estero. The Individual Supply Guarantee applicable to Estero shall be 5.9 MGD, rather than being determined as provided in the 1961 Contract. 9.05 Stanford University A. The parties recognize that The Board of Trustees of The Leland Stanford Junior University ("Stanford") operates a non-profit university, and purchases water from San Francisco for redistribution to the academic and related facilities and activities of the university and to residents of Stanford, the majority of whom are either employed by or students of Stanford. Stanford agrees that all water furnished by San Francisco shall be used by Stanford only for domestic purposes and those directly connected with the academic and related facilities and activities of Stanford, and no water furnished by San Francisco shall be used in any area now or hereafter leased or otherwise used for industrial purposes or for commercial purposes other than those campus support facilities that provide direct services to Stanford faculty, students or staff such as the U.S. Post Office, the bookstore and Student Union. -87-1840795.8 \.. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude San Francisco from selling water to any county, city, town, political subdivision or other public agency for resale to Stanford or to customers within the service area of Stanford. 8. Notwithstanding anything in Section 8.08 to the contrary, Stanford shall have the right to assign to a public agency having the power of eminent domain all or a portion of the rights of Stanford under this Agreement or the Individual Water Sales Contract between it and San Francisco in connection with the acquisition by such public agency of all or a portion of Stanford's water system. In the event of any such assignment of all the rights, privileges, and obligations of Stanford under such contract, Stanford shall be relieved of all further obligations under such contract, provided that the assignee public agency expressly assumes Stanford's obligations thereunder. In the event of such an assignment of a portion of the rights, privileges, and obligations of Stanford under such contract, Stanford shall be relieved of such obligations so assigned thereunder, provided that the assignee public agency shall expressly assume such obligations so assigned to it. Nothing in this Agreement shall require or contemplate any delivery of water to Stanford in violation of the Act. 9.06 City of San Jose and City of Santa Clara A. Continued Supply on Temporary, Interruptible Basis. During the term of the 1984 Agreement, San Francisco provided water to the City of San Jose ("San Jose") and the City of Santa Clara ("Santa Clara") on a temporary, interruptible basis pursuant to SFPUC Resolution No. 85-0256. Subject to termination or reduction of supply as provided in Section 4.05 of this Agreement, San Francisco will continue to supply water to San Jose and Santa Clara on a temporary, interruptible basis pending a decision by the Commission, pursuant to Section 4.05.H, as to whether to make San Jose and Santa Clara permanent customers of the Regional Water System. San Francisco will furnish water to San Jose and Santa Clara at the same rates as those applicable to other Wholesale Customers pursuant to this Agreement Water delivered to San Jose and Santa Clara after July 1, 2009 may be limited by the SFPUC's ability to meet the full needs of all its other Retail and Wholesale Customers. The service areas of San Jose and Santa Clara set forth in their Individual Water Sales Contracts may not be expanded using the procedure set forth in Section 3.03. The combined annual average water usage of San Jose and Santa Clara shall not exceed 9 MGD. The allocation of that total -88-1840795.8 amount between San Jose and Santa Clara shall be as set forth in their Individual Water Sales Contracts. B. Reservation of Rights. In signing this Agreement, neither San Jose nor Santa Clara waives any of its rights to contend, in the event that San Francisco (1) elects to terminate or interrupt water deliveries to either or both of the two cities prior to 2018 using the process set forth in Section 4.05, or (2) does not elect to take either city on as a permanent customer in 2018, that it is entiUed to permanent customer status, pursuant to the Act or any other federal or state law. In signing this Agreement. San Francisco does not waive its right to deny any or all such contentions. 9.07 City of Brisbane, Guadalupe Varley Municipal Improvement District. Town of Hillsborough A The parties acknowledge that San Francisco has heretofore provided certain quantities of water to the City of Brisbane ("Brisbane"), Guadalupe Valley Municipal Improvement District ("Guadalupe") and the Town of Hillsborough ("Hillsborough") at specified rates or without charge pursuant to obligations arising out of agreements between the predecessors of San Francisco and these parties, which agreements are referred to in judicial orders, resolutions of the SFPUC and/or the 1960 contracts between San Francisco and Brisbane, Guadalupe and Hillsborough. The parties intend to continue those arrangements and accordingly agree as follows: 1. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to alter, amend or modify the terms of SFPUC Resolution No. 74-0653 or the indenture of July 18, 1908 between the Guadalupe Development Company and the Spring Valley Water Company. 2. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to alter, amend or modify the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Judgment dated May 25, 1961 in that certain action entitled City and County of San Francisco v. Town of Hillsborough in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Marin, No. 23282, as modified by the Satisfaction of Judgment filed October 23, 1961 and the Compromise and Release between Hillsborough and San Francisco dated August 22, 1961. The rights and obligations of Hillsborough under these documents shall continue as therein set forth. 3. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to affect or prejudice any claims, rights or remedies of Guadalupe or of Crocker Estate Company, a corporation, or of Crocker -89-!840195.8 Land Company, a corporation, or of San Francisco, or of their successors and assigns, respectively, with respect to or arising out of that certain deed dated May 22, 1884, from Charles Crocker to Spring Valley Water Works, a corporation, recorded on May 24, 1884, in Book 37 of Deeds at page 356, Records of San Mateo County, California, as amended by that certain Deed of Exchange of Easements in Real Property and Agreement for Trade in Connection Therewith, dated July 29, 1954, recorded on August 4, 1954, in Book 2628, at page 298, Official Records of said San Mateo County, or with respect to or arising out of that certain action involving the validity or enforceability of certain provisions of said deed entitled City and County of San Francisco v. Crocker Estate Company, in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Marin, No. 23281. //I III //I 11/ 11/ 11/ 11/ 11/ 11/ III 11/ //I /II -90-1840795.8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement by their duly authorized officers. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Acting by and through its Public Utilities Commission Edward Harrington General Manager Date: ___________ • 2009 Approved by Commission Resolution No. 09-0069, adopted April 28, 2009 Michael Housh Secretary to Commission Approved as to form: DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney 8y: ______________________ ___ Joshua D. Milstein Deputy City Attorney -91-1840795.8 Attachment A -Definitions "1984 Agreement" refers to the 1984 Settlement Agreement and Master Water Sales Contract between the City and County of San Francisco and certain Suburban Purchasers in San Mateo County, Santa Clara County and Alameda County, which expires on June 30,2009. "Act" refers to the Raker Act, 38 Stat. 242, the Act of Congress, enacted in 1913. that authorized the construction of the Hetch Hetchy system on federal lands. "Adjusted Proportional Annual Use" means the respective percentages of annual water use, as adjusted to reflect deliveries of water by the Hetch Hetchy Enterprise to outside City Retail Customers. The adjustment is calculated each year as described in Section B of Attachment J and is shown on lines 18 and 19 of Table 1 of that Attachment. "Agreement" refers to this Water Supply Agreement, by and among San Francisco and the Wholesale Customers who approve this Agreement in accordance with Section 1.03. "BAWSCA" refers to the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency established pursuant to Division 31 of the California Water Code (Water Code §§81300-81461) or its successor and permitted assigns. "CEQA" refers to the California Environmental Quality Act found at §§21 000 et seq. of the Public Resources Code and the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act found at §§15000 et seq. of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, as amended from time to time. "Commission" means the governing board of the SFPUC, whose members, as of the date of tllis Agreement, are appointed by the Mayor of San Francisco and confirmed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. "Compliance Audit" refers to the annual audit of the Wholesale Revenue Requirement by the Compliance Auditor required by Sections 7.03 through 7.05. "Compliance Auditor" refers to the independent certified public accountant chosen by the San Francisco Controller to conduct each fiscal year's audit of the SFPUC's calculation of the Wholesale Revenue Requirement as provided in Section 7.03.B. Attachment A, Page 1 1840795.8 "Countywide Cost Allocation Plan" refers to the full costs of the Water and Hetch Hetchy Enterprises' prorated share of San Francisco city government expenses that are not directly billed to city departments, as determined by the Controller of the City and County of San Francisco. "Debt Service" means principal and interest paid during a fiscal year on Indebtedness incurred by the SFPUC for the 2006 Revenue Bonds, Series A, and subsequently issued Indebtedness (exclusive of 2006 Revenue Bonds Series B and C), the proceeds of which are used or are scheduled to be used for the acquisition or construction of New Regional Assets or to refund such Indebtedness. "Direct Retail" refers to Regional Water System capital or operating expenditures that are incurred to provide water service solely to Retail Customers. "Direct Wholesale" refers to Regional Water System capital or operating expenditures that are incurred to provide water service solely to one or more Wholesale Customers. "Drought" means a water shortage caused by lack of precipitation, as reflected in resolutions of the Commission calling for voluntary or mandatory water rationing based on evaluation of water stored or otherwise available to the Regional Water System, whether or not the Commission declares a water shortage emergency pursuant to Water Code §§ 350 et seq., as amended from time to time. "Effective Date" refers to the date this Agreement will become effective in accordance with the terms of Section 1.03. "Emergency" means a sudden, non-drought event, such as an earthquake, failure of Regional Water System infrastructure or other catastrophic event or natural disaster that results in an insufficient supply of water available to the Retail or Wholesale Service Areas for basic human consumption, firefighting, sanitation, and fire protection. "Encumbrance" or "Encumber" refers to the process by which the City Controller certifies the availability of amounts previously appropriated by the Commission for specifically identified SFPUC capital projects performed either by third parties or through work orders to other City departments. Attachment A, Page 2 18407958 "Environmental Enhancement Surcharge" means the surcharge to be imposed by the SFPUC on individual parties to this Agreement whose use exceeds their Interim Supply Allocation when the collective use of water by all parties to this Agreement is in excess of the Interim Supply Limitation. "ERRP" refers to a SFPUC document entitled Emergency Response and Recovery Plan: Regional Water System ("ERRpH) dated August 23, 2003, and updated November 2006. "Excess Use Charges" are monthly charges set by the SFPUC, in the form of multipliers, that are applied to the IIV'holesale Customer water rates during times of mandatory rationing if a \Nholesale Customer's water usage is greater than its shortage allocation. Excess Use Charges are further described in Section 4 of the Tier 1 Shortage Plan (Attachment H). "Existing Assets" refers to Regional and Hetch Hetchy Water-Only and Water-Related capital assets plant in service as of June 30, 2009. "Force Majeure Event" means an event not the fault of, and beyond the reasonable control of, the party claiming excuse which makes it impossible or extremely impracticable for such party to perform obligations imposed on it by this Agreement, by virtue of its effect on physical facilities and their operation or employees essential to such performance. Force Majeure Events include (a) an Hact of God" such as an earthquake, flood, earth movement, or similar catastrophic event, (b) an act of the public enemy, terrorism, sabotage, civil disturbance or similar event, (c) a strike, work stoppage, picketing or similar concerted labor action, (d) delays in construction caused by unanticipated negligence or breach of contract by a third party or inability to obtain essential materials after diligent and timely efforts; or (e) an order or regulation issued by a federal or state regulatory agency after the Effective Date or a judgment or order entered by a federal or state court after the Effective Date. "Fundamental Rights" of \Nholesale Customers are their status as parties to this Agreement, their allocation of water recognized in Section 3.02, their protection against arbitrary, unreasonable, or unjustly discriminatory rates provided in Section 6.04, and any specific rights described in Article 9. "Hetch Hetchy Enterprise" refers to Hetch Hetchy Water and Power Enterprise, a SFPUC operating department. Attachment A, Page 3 1840795.8 "Include" and its variants mean "including but not limited to" whenever used in this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is capitalized. "Indebtedness" includes revenue bonds, bond anticipation notes, certificates of participation (excluding certificates of participation towards which SFPUC contributes debt service as an operating expense), and commercial paper. "Individual Water Sales Contract" refers to the contracts between each Wholesale Customer and San Francisco contemplated in Section 9.01 that details customer-specific matters such as location of service connections, service area maps and other matters specific to that customer. "Individual Supply Guarantee" refers to each Wholesale Customer's share of the Supply Assurance, as shown in Attachment C. "Interim Supply Allocation" refers to each Wholesale Customer's share, to be established by the SFPUC pursuant to Section 4.02, of the Interim Supply Limitation. "Interim Supply Limitation" refers to the 265 MGD annual average limitation on water deliveries until December 31,2018 from Regional Water System watersheds imposed by the SFPUC in its approval of the WSIP in Resolution Number 08-0200 dated October 30, 2008. "Joint," when used in connection with Hetch Hetchy Enterprise assets or expenses, refers to assets used or expenses incurred in providing both water supply ("Water-Related") and in the generation and transmission of electrical energy ("Power-Related"). "Local System Water" refers to Regional Water System water supplies developed in San Mateo, Alameda and Santa Clara Counties or otherwise not produced by the Hetch Hetchy Enterprise under rights of way granted by the Raker Act. "MGO" refers to an average flow rate of one million gallons per day over a specific time period, often a year. For example, one MGD is equal to 365 million gallons per year or 1,120 acre feet per year. "Net Annual Debt Service" refers to debt service less payrnents made from proceeds of Indebtedness (e.g., capitalized interest), earnings on bond proceeds (e.g., reserve fund earnings) used to pay Debt Service, and interest paid from renewed commercial paper, or from reserve fund liquidation. Attachment A, Page 4 1840795.8 "New Assets" refers to Regional and Hetch Hetchy Water-Only and Water-Related capital assets added to Regional Water System plant in service after June 30, 2009. "New Regional Assets" refers to New Assets placed in service on or after July 1, 2009 that are used and useful in delivering water to Wholesale Customers. The following four categories comprise New Regional Assets: 1. Water Enterprise Regional Assets 2. Water Enterprise Direct Wholesale Assets 3. Hetch Hetchy Water Only Assets 4. Water-Related portion (45 percent) of Hetch Hetchy Joint Assets "Power-Only," when used with reference to Hetch Hetchy Enterprise capital costs and operating and maintenance expenses, means capital costs and expenses that are incurred solely for the construction and operation of assets used to generate and transmit electrical energy. "Power-Related" refers to the power related portion (55%) of Joint Hetch Hetchy Enterprise assets or expenses. "Prepayment" refers to payments of principal and interest amounts not due in the year the prepayment is made, as described in Section 5.03. "Proportional Annual Use" means the shares of deliveries from the Regional Water System used by City Retail Customers and by the Wholesale Customers in a fiscal year, expressed as a percentage. The percentages of annual use are calculated each year as described in Section B of Attachment J and are shown on lines 10 and 11 of Table 1 of that Attachment. "Proportional Water Use" refers the general principle of allocating Regional Water System costs based on the relative purchases of water by Retail and Wholesale Customers. "Regional," when used with reference to Water Enterprise capital assets and operating expenses, refers to assets and expenses that benefit Wholesale and Regional Customers. "Regional Water System" means the water storage, transmission and treatment system operated by the SF PUC in Tuolumne, Stanislaus, San Joaquin, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco counties, including projects constructed under the WSIP, but excluding Direct Retail and Direct Wholesale assets. Attachment A, Page 5 1840795.8 "Retail Customers" means any customer that purchases water from San Francisco that is not a Wholesale Customer, whether located inside or outside of San Francisco. "Retail Service Area" means the areas where SF PUC sells water to Retail Customers, "Retail Water" means water sold by the SFPUC to its Retail Customers within and outside San Francisco. "San Francisco" refers to the City and County of San Francisco. "SFPUC" refers to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission as an operating department of San Francisco, the General Manager of which reports to the Commission. "SFPUC Bureaus" refers to the portions of the SFPUC that provide support services to the SFPUC Operating Departments, These presently consist of the General Manager's Office, Business Services. and External Affairs. "SFPUC Operating Departments" refers to the Water. Hetch Hetchy and Wastewater Program Enterprises under the control and management of the SFPUC pursuant to the San Francisco Charter. "Substantially Expended": A bond issue series is substantially expended when 98% of the proceeds and investment earnings contributed to the project fund have been expended. "Supply Assurance" means the 184 MGD maximum annual average metered supply of water dedicated by San Francisco to public use in the Wholesale Service Area (not including San Jose and Santa Clara) in the 1984 Agreement and Section 3,01 of this Agreement. "Term" means the 25-year term commencing July 1. 2009. including one or both 5-year extensions authorized by Section 2.02.A and B. "Tier 1 Shortage Plan" refers to the Water Shortage Allocation Plan (Attachment H) adopted by the SFPUC and the Wholesale Customers in conjunction with this Agreement describing the method for allocating water between the SFPUC and the Wholesale Customers collectively for shortages of up to 20% of deliveries from the Regional Water System, as amended from time- to-time. Attachment A, Page 6 ]840795.8 "Water Enterprise" refers to the San Francisco Water Department (SFWD), an SFPUC Operating Department. "Water Management Charge" refers to the charge collected by San Francisco on behalf of BAWSCA for local water resource development in the Wholesale Service Area pursuant to Section 3.06 of this Agreement "Water-Only," when used with reference to Hetch Hetchy Enterprise capital costs and operating and maintenance expenses, means capital costs and expenses that are incurred solely for the construction and operation of assets used to protect water quality or to provide for the delivery of water for consumptive purposes. "Water-Related" refers to the water related portion (45%) of Joint Hetch Hetchy Enterprise assets or expenses. "Water Supply Development Report" refers to the annual report prepared pursuant to Section 4.05, and submitted to the Commission for purposes of estimating whether Regional Water System demand will be within the Interim Supply Limitation by June 30, 2018. "Wheeling Statute" refers to Article 4 of Chapter 11 of the California Water Code, as amended from time to time. "Wholesale Capital Fund" is the account established by the SFPUC for deposit of Wholesale Customer revenue that is used to fund the wholesale share of revenue-funded New Regional Assets, as described in Section 6.08. "Wholesale Customer" or "Customers" means one or more of the 27 water customers identified in Section 1,01 that are contracting for purchase of water from San Francisco pursuant to this Agreement. "Wholesale Revenue Coverage" refers to the additional dollar amount included in wholesale rates each fiscal year that is charged to Wholesale Customers by the SFPUC for their proportionate share of Debt Service coverage under Section 6.06A "Wholesale Revenue Coverage Reserve" refers to the account established by the SFPUC for deposit of Wholesale Revenue Coverage under Section 6.06.B. Attachment A, Page 7 1840795.8 "Wholesale Revenue Requirement" means the calculated Wholesale Customer portion of SFPUC Regional Water System capital and operating costs as determined in accordance with the provisions of Article 5 of this Agreement, formerly called the "Suburban Revenue Requirement" in the 1984 Agreement. "Wholesale Service Area" means the combined service areas of the Wholesale Customers, as delineated on the service area maps attached to each Individual Water Sales Contract. "WSIP" refers to the Water System Improvement Program approved by the Commission in Resolution No. 08-0200 on October 30, 2008, as amended from time to time. Attachment A, Page 8 ]840795.8 ATTACHMENT B WHOLESALE CUSTOMER REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM PURCHASES FY 2007-2008'" (To detennine 75% approval process for Section 1.02) California Water Service Company 37.72 i City of Brisbane 0.23 • City of Burlingame 4.50 City of Daly City 4.49 • City of East Palo Alto 2.16 City of Hayward 19.33 City of Menlo Park 3.69 i City of Millbrae 2.46 City cif Milpitas 6.95 • Clty of Mountain View 10.51 City of Palo Alto 12.72 City of Redwood City 11.01 . City of San Bruno 1.86 City of San Jose 4.80 City of Santa Clara 3.49 • City of Sunnyvale 10.52 Coastside County Water District 2.08 5.51 I 0.40 Estero Municipal Improvement District Guadalupe Valley Municipal Improvement District I Mid-Peninsula Water Distric-t ------........... ~---./----~~-...... --, i North Coast County Water District I Purissima Hills Water District 2.31 Skyline County Water District ! 0.16 . Stanford University 2.31 .... _ .. _------ Town of Hillsborough 3.83 Westborough Water District I 0.95 • Total I 173.39 ·Source: SFPUC Commercial Division Records Note: FY 2007·2008 was a Leap Year with 366 days. 1847951.2 .. ** *** '**** ATTACHMENT C INDIVIDUAL SUPPLY GUARANTEES (1) i Alameda County Water District 6,714,439 California Water Service Company"'" 17,320,807 City of Brisbane 224,435 City of Burlingame 2,553,753 City of Daly City 2,094,386 957,813 of Menlo Park 2,174,231 20 City of Milpitas 4,504,533 • City of Mountain View 6,567,648 i City of Palo Alto 8,331,697 i City of Redwood City 5,333,115 . City of San Bruno 1,583,899 City of Sunnyvale 6,138,122 Coastside County Water District 1,061,453 Estero Municipal Improvement District 2.878,807 i Guadalupe Valley Municipal 254,436 • Improvement District I Mid-Peninsula Wa.ter District 1.898,707 North Coast County Water District 1,872,928 I Purissima Hills Water District 792,832 Skyline County Water District 88,537 Stanford University 1,479,764 Town of Hillsborough 1,995,644 . i Westborough Water District 644,172 Total:"** 79,004,278 L~_ (2) 13.760 35.499 0.460 5.234 4.292 1.963 4.456 3.152 9.232 13.460 17.075 10.930 3.246 12.580 2.175 5.900 0.521 3.891 3.838 1.625 0.181 3,033 4.090 1.320 161.91 100 Cubic feet equals MGD divided by 0.00000204946. Figures in this column are calculated using unrounded MGD values and are more precise than the figures listed in column (2). Includes quantities from Los Trancos County Water District and Palomar Park Water District. . Total does not equal sum of MGD figures due to rounding. Total is not 184 MGD because table does not include the City of Hayward. Cordilleras Mutual Water ASsociation is not a party to this Agreement, but it has its own Supply Assurance of 3,007 hundred cubic feet (CCF). 1844959.3 ATTACHMENT D PROCEDURE FOR PRO·RATA REDUCTION OF WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS' INDIVIDUAL SUPPLY GUARANTEES (SECTION 3.02). The 23 wholesale customers listed on Attachment C have individual Supply Guarantees that total approximately 161.9 MGD. If the amount of water purchased from SFPUC by Hayward exceeds 22.1 MGD for three consecutive fiscal years, the individual Supply Guarantees of each of those 23 wholesale custo'mers will be reduced as described below. STEP ONE: Obtain the average annual excess purchases during the three fiscal year period. For example, assume Hayward uses 25.0 MGO, 24.2 MGO and 26.0 MGO in three consecutive years. The average annual excess use for that period is 2.9 MGD; calculated as follows: STEP TWO: [25.0 MGD + 24.2 MGD + 26.0 MGOJ + 161.9 MGO = 186.9 MGD 3 186.9 MGD -184.0 MGO = 2.9 MGD Allocate the excess purchases among the 23 Wholesale Customers in proportion to each customer's Supply Guarantee as a percentage of the total Supply Guarantees (161.9 MGD as of FY 2009-10). For example, assume that Wholesale Customer A's Supply Guarantee is 12.0 MGD. Wholesale Customer A's percentage share of the total individual supply guarante.es is 0.074, calculated as follows: '12.0 MGO -. -16-'-'-1'-.9-M-'--G-O-::: 0.074 and its share of the excess use is 0.22 MGD, calculated as follows: 2.9 MGD x 0.074 = 0.22 MGD J 86640&.4 STEP THREE: Determine Wholesale Customer's adjusted Supply Guarantee by subtracting the result of Step Two from the Wholesale Customer's Supply Guarantee: 12 MGD -0.22 MGD = 11.78 MGD· * * * * * * * * * * Adjustments will be made at intervals comprised of distinct three-year periods of use by Hayward in excess of 22.1 MGD rather than overlapping periods, For example, assuming that the first adj ustment were to occur in FY 2014-15 (based on use during FY 2011-12, FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14), a second adjustment will not occur earlier tha,n three full fiscal years thereafter (Le., FY 2017-18, based on use by Hayward in FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17). The figures used in the second and subsequent adjustments will reflect previous adjustments. For example, a second adjustment will use 158.9 MGD as the total of individual Supply Guarantees (161.6 MGD- 2.7 MGD :: 158.9 MGD): .For pUI"poses of simplicity, the volumetric units used in the foregoing example are MGD. For actual adjustment calculations, the unit employed will be hundreds of cubic feet ("ccf'), the unit by which the SFPUC measures water deliveries for billing purposes. The procedure described and illustrated above is independent of and unrelated to the establishment by the SFPUC of Interim Supply Limitations described in Article 4. ATTACHMENT 0 Page 2 [866408.4 ATTACHMENT E MINIMUM ANNUAL PURCHASE QUANTITIES (Section 3.07.C) ATTACHMENT F WATER SALES CONTRACT This Contract, dated as of _-'----___ , 2009, is entered ioto by and between the City and County of San Francisco ("San Francisco") and ____________________________ rCustomer"). RECITALS San F:rancisco and the Customer have entered into a Water Supply Agreement ("WSA"), which sets forth the terms and conditions under which San Francisco will continue to furnish water for domestic-and other municipal purposes to Customer and to other Wholesale Customers. The WSA contemplates that San Francisco and each individual Wholesale Customer will enter into an individual contract describing the location or locations at which water will be delivered to each customer by the San Francisco Public Utiljties Commission ("SFPUC"), the customer's service area within which water so delivered is to be sold, and other provisions unique to the individual purchaser. This Water Sales Contract is the individual contract contemplated by the WSA. AGREEMENTS OF THE PARTIES 1. Incorporation of the WSA The terms and conditions of the WSA are incorporated into this Contract as if set forth in full herein. 2. Unless explicitly provided to the contrary in Article 9 of the WSA, the term of this Contract shall be identical to thaI provided in Section _ of the WSA. 1569591.1 3. Service Area Water delivered by San Francisco to the Customer may be used or sold within the service area shown on the map designated Exhibit A attached .hereto. Except as provided in Section of the WSA, Customer shall not deliver or sell any water provided by San Francisco outside of this area without the prior written consent of the General Manager of the SFPUC. 4. Location and Description of Service Connections Sale and delivery of water to Customer will be made through a connection or connections to the SFPUC Regional Water System at the location or locations shown on Exhibit Aattached hereto and with the applicable present account number. description, connection size, and meter size shown on Exhibit B attached hereto. 5. Interties With Other Systems. Customer maintains interties with neighboring water systems at the loca~ion or locations' shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and with the c~nneCtion size(s) as shown on Exhibit C attached hereto .. 6. Billing and Payment S an Francisco shall compute the amounts of water delivered and bill Customer therefor on a monthly basis~ The bill shall show the separate components of the charge (e.g., service. consumption, demand). Customer shall pay the amouRt due within thirty (30) days after receipt of the bill. If Customer disputes the accuracy of any portion of the water bill it shall (a) notify the General Manager of the SFPUC in writing of the specific nature of the dispute and (b) pay the undisputed portion of the bill within thirty (30) days after receipt. Customer shall meet with the General Manager of the SFPUC or a delegate to discuss the disputed portion of the bill. ATTACHMENT F. Page 2 1669591.2 .7'/8.,9 ... Qther Specialized Provisions [Certain Wholesale Customers will require additional provisions in their individual. contracts addressed to issues such as minimum and/or maximum water delivery quantities, prior i;luthorized wheeling arrangements, maximum expansion of the service area, etc. These and other provisions addressing issues unique to the particular Wholesale Customer may be added here, subject to the provisions of Section 9.01 of the WSA] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Contract, to become effective upon the effectiveness of the WSA, by their duly authorized representatives, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Acting by and through its Public Utilities Commission: BY ____ ~------__ --__ --------_ Edward Harrington Generaf Manager NAME OF WHOLESALE CUSTOMER BY _______ ~ ______ --'-___ _ Name: Title: Date: 2009 Date: __ '_, 2009 Note: This attachment is provided for the convenience of the prospective parties to the Water Supply Agreement and associated individual contracts. The format may be modified as desired by San Francisco and Wholesale Customer, SUbject to Section 9.01 of the WSA. ATTACHMENT F, Page 3 1669591.2 ATTACHMENT G VVA.$TfiW~1."'Ef? POWEll Water Quality j\JotificatL)n and Communications Plan Revisiont Ja luary'006 Updated by: Water Quality Engineering Olivia Chen Consultants, Inc. ATTACHl\1ENT H WATER SHORTAGE ALLOCATION PLAl~ This Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan ("Plan") describes the method for allocating water between the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission ("SFPUC") and the Wholesale Customers collectively during shortages caused by drought. The Plan implements a method for allocating water among the individual Wholesale Customers which has been ad,opted by the Wholesale Customers. The Plan includes provisions for transfers, banking, and excess use charges. The Plan applies only when the SFPUC deteI1llii1es that a system-wide water shortage due to drought exists, and all references to "shortages" and ''water shortages" are to be so understood. This Plan was adopted pursuant to Section 7.03(a) of the 1984 Settlement Agreement and Master Water Sales Contract and has been updated to correspond to the terminology used in the June 2009 Water Supply Agreement between the City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers in Alameda CoUnty, San Mateo County and Santa Clara County ("Agreement"). SECTION 1. SHORTAGE CONDITIONS 1.1. Proiected Available SFPUC Water Supply. The SFPUC shall make an annual determination as to whether or not a shortage condition exists. The determination of projected available water supply shall consider, among other things, stored water, projected runoff, water ' acquired by the SFPUC from non-SFPUC sourc~s, inactive storage, reservoir losses, allowance for carryover storage, and water bank balances, if any, described in Section 3. 1.2 Projected SFPUC Purchases. The SFPUC will utilize purchase data, including volUmes of water purchased by the Wholesale Customers and by Retail Customers (as those terms are used in the Agreement) in the year immediately prior to the drought, along with other available relevant information, as a basis for determining projected system-wide water purchases from the SFPUC for the upcoming year. 1.3. Shortage Conditions. The SFPUC will compare the available water supply (Section 1.1) with projected system-wide water purchases (Section 1.2). A shortage condition exists if the SFPUC detennines that the projected available water supply is less than projected system-wide water purchases in the upcoming Supply Year (defined as the period from July 1 through hme 30). When a shortage condition exists, SFPUC will determine whether voluntary or mandatory actions will be required to reduce purchases of SF PUC water to required levels. ' 1.3.1 Voluntary Response. If the SFPUC determines that voluntary actions will be sufficient to accomplish the necessary reduction in water use throughout its service area, the SFPUC and the Wholesale Customers will make good faith efforts to reduce their water pmchases to stay within their annual shortage allocations and associated monthly water use budgets. The SFPUC v.rill not impose excess use charges during periods of voluntary rationing, but may suspend the prospective accwnulation of water bank credits, or impose a ceiling on further accumulation of bank credits, consistent with Section 3.2.] of this Plan. 1857367.3 1.3.2 Mandatory Response. If the SFPUC determines that mandatory actions will be required to accomplish the necessary reduction in water use in the SFPUC service area, the SFPUC may implement excess use charges as set forth in Section 4 of this Plan. 1.4. Period of Shortage. A shortage period commences when the SFPUC determines that a water shortage exists, as set forth in a declaration of water shortage emergency issued by the SFPUC pursuant to California Water Code Sections 350 et seq. Termination of the water shortage emergency will be declared by resolution of the SFPUC. SECTION 2. SHORTAGE ALLOCATIONS 2.1. Annual Allocations between the SFPUC and the Wholesale Customers. The annual water supply available during shortages will be allocated between the SFPUC and the collective Wholesale Customers as 'follows: . I --""" .... Level of System Wide Share o'f Available Water Reduction in Water Use Required SFPUC Share Wholesale Customers Share 5% or less 3,5.5% 64.5% 6% through 10% 36.0% 64.0% 11 % through 15% 37.0% 63,0% 16% through 20% 37.5% 62.5% I The water allocated to the SFPUC shall correspond to the total allocation for all Retail C'ustomers. ' 2.2 Annual Allocations among the Wholesale Customers. The annual water supply allocated to the Wholesale Customers collectively during system wide shortages of20 percent or less will be apportioned among them based on a methodology adopted by all of the Wholesale Customers, as described in Section 3.11(C) of the Agreement. In any year for which the methodology must be applied, the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency ("BAWSCA") will calculate each Wholesale Customer's individual percentage share of the amount of water allocated to the \Vl10lesale Customers collectively pursuant to Section 2.1. Following the declaration or reconfirmation of a water shortage emergency by the SFPUC, BA WSCA will deliver to the SFPUC General Manager a list, signed by the President of BA WSCA' s Board of Directors and its General Manager, showing each Wholesale Customer together with its percentage share and stating that the list has been prepared 'in accordance with the methodology adopted by the Wholesale Customers. The SFPUC shaH allocate water to each Wholesale Customer, as specified in the list. The shortage allocations so established may be transferred as provided in Section of this Plan, If BA WSCA or all Wholesale Customers do not provide the SFPUC with individual allocations, the SFPUC may make a final allocation decIsion after first meeting and discussing allocations with BA WSCA and the Wholesale Customers .. The methodology adopted by the Wholesale Customers utilizes the rolling average of each individual Wholesale Customer's purchases from the SFPUC during the three immediately 2 1857367.3 preceding Supply Years. The SFPUC agrees to provide BA WSCA by November 1 of each year a list showing the amoUnt of water purchased by each \Vholesale Customer during the immediately preceding Supply Year. The list will be prepared using Customer Service Bureau report MGT440 (or comparable official record in use at the time), adjusted as required for any reporting errors or omissions, and' will be transmitted by the SFPU C General Manager or his designee. 2.3. Limited Applicability of Plan to System Wide Shortages Greater Than Twenty Percent. The allocations of water between the SFPUC and the \Vholesale Customers collectively, provided for in Section 2.1, apply only to shortages of20 percent or less. The SFPUC and Wholesale Customers recognize the possibility of a drought occurring which could create system-wide shortages greater than 20 percent despite actions taken by the SFPUC aimed at reducing the probability and severity of water shortages in the SFPUC service area. If the SFPUC determines that a system wide water shortage greater than 20 percent exists, the SFPUC and the \Vholesale Customers agree to meet within 10 days and discuss whether a change is required to the allocation set forth in Section 2.1 in order to mitigate undue hardships that might otherwise be experienced by individual \Vholesale Customers or Retail Customers. Following these discussions, the Tier 1 water allocations set forth in Section 2.1 of this Plan, or a modified version thereof, may be adopted by mutual written consent of the SFPUC and the Wholesale Customers. If the ,SFPUC and Wholesale Customers meet and cannot agree on an appropriate Tier 1 allocation within 30 days of the SFPUC's detennination of water shortage greater than 20 percent, then (1) the provisions of Section 3.11 (C) of the Agreement will apply, unless (2) all of the Wholesale Customers direct in writing that a Tier 2 allocation methodology agreed t6 by them be used to apportion the water to be made available to the Wholesale Customers collectively, in lieu of the provisions of Section 3.11 (C). , The provisions of this Plan relating to transfers (in Section 2.5), banking (in Section 3), and excess use charges (in Section 4) shall continue to apply during system-wide shortages greater than 20 percent. 2.4. Monthly Water Budgets. Within 10 days after adopting a declaration of water shoitage emergency, the SFPUC will determine the amount of Tier 1 water allocated to the WholeSale Customers collectively pursuant to Section 2.1. The SFPUC General Manager, using the Tier 2 allocation percentages shown on the list delivered by BA WSCA pUrsuant to Section 2.2, will calculate each Wholesale Customer's individual annual allocation. The SFPUC General Manager, or his designee, will 'then provide each Wholesale Customer with a proposed schedule of monthly water budgets based on the pattern of monthly water purchases during the Supply Year immediately preceding the declaration of shortage (the "Default Schedule"). Each, Wholesale Customer may, within two weeks of receiving its Default Schedule, provide the SFPUC with an alternative monthly water budget that reschedules its annual Tier 2 shortage allocation over the course of the succeeding Supply Year. If a Wholesale Customer does not deliver an altcnlative monthly water budget to the SFPUC within two weeks of its receipt of the Default Schedule, then its monthly budget for the ensuing Supply Year shall be the Default Schedule proposed by the SFPUC. Monthly Wholesale Customer water budgets will be derived from annual Tier 2 allocations for purposes of accounting for excess use. Monthly Wholesale Customer water budgets shall be adjusted during the year to account for transfers of shortage allocation under Section 2.5 and 3 1857367.3 transfers of banked water under Section 3.4. 2.5. Transfers of Shortage Allocations. Voluntary transfers of shortage allocations between the SFPUC and any Wholesale Customers, and between any Wholesale Customers, will be permitted using the same procedure as that for transfers of banked water set forth in Section 3.4. The SFPUC and BA WSCA shall be notified of each transfer. Transfers of shortage allocations shall be deemed to be an emergency transfer and shall become effective on the third business day after notice of the transf~r has been delivered to the SFPUC. Transfers of shortage allocations shall be in compliance with Section 3.05 of the Agreement. The transferring parties will meet with the SFPUC, if requested, to discuss any effect the transfer may have on its operations. SECTION 3. SHORTAGE WATER BANKING 3.1. Water Bank Accounts. The SFPUC shall create a water bank account for itself and each Wholesale Customer during shortages in conjunction with its resale customer billing process. Bank accounts will account for amounts of water that are either saved or used in excess of the shortage allocation for each agency; the accounts are not used for tracking billings and . payments. When a shortage period is in effect (as defined in Section 1.4), the following provisions for bank credits, debits, and transfers shall be in force. A statement of bank balance for each Wholesale Customer will be included with the SFPUC's monthly water bills. 3.2. Bank Account Credits. Each month, monthly purchases will be compared to the monthly budget for that month.' Any unused shortage allocation by an agency will be credited to that agency's water bank aCGount. Credits will accumulate during the entire shortage period, subject to potential restrictions imposed pursuant to Section 3.2.1. Credits remaining at the end of the shortage period will be zeroed out; no financial or other credit shall be granted for bank~d water. 3.2.1. Maximum Balances. The SFPUC may suspend the prospective accumulation of credits in all accounts. Alternatively, the SFPUC may impose a ceiling on further accumulation of credits in water bank balances based on a uniform ratio of the bank balance to the annual water allocation. In making a decision to suspend the prospective accumulation of water bank credits, the SFPUC shall consider the available water supply as set forth in Section 1.1 of this Plan and other reasonable, relevant factors. 3.3. Account Debits. Each month, monthly purchases will be compared to the budget for that month. Purchases in excess ofmonthJy budgets will be debited against an agency's water b;Ulk account. Bank d.ebits remaining at the end of the fiscal year will be subject to excess use charges (see Section 4). 3.4. Transfers of Banked Water. In addition to the transfers of shortage allocations provided for in Section 2.5, vohmtary transfers of banked water will also be permitted between the SFPUC and anyVlholesale Customer, and among the Wholesale Customers. The volume oftrarisfened water will be credited to the transferee's water bank account and debited against the transferor's water bank account. The transferring parties must notifY the SFPUC and BA WSCA of each transfer in writing (so that adjustments can be made to bank accounts), and will meet with the SFPUC, if requested, to discuss any affect the transfer may have on SFPUC operations. Transfers of banked water shall be .deemed to be an emergency transfer and shall become effective on the third business day after notice of the transfer has been delivered to the SFPUC. 4 1857367.3 If the SFPUC incurs extraordinary costs in implementing transfers, it will give written notice to the transferring parties within ten (10) business days after receipt of notice of the transfer. Extraordinary costs means additional costs directly attributable to accommodating transfers and which are not incurred in non-drought years nor simply as a result of the shortage condition itself Extraordinary costs shall be calculated in accordance with the procedures in the Agreement and shall be subject to the disclosure and auditing requirements in the Agreement. In the case of transfers between Wholesale Customers, such extraordinary costs shall be considered to be expenses chargeable solely to individual. Wholesale Customers and shall be borne equally by the parties to the transfer. In the case of transfers between the SFPUC and a Vlholesale Customer, the SFPUC's share of any extraordinary transfer costs shall not be added to the Wholesale Revenue Requirement. 3.4.1. Transfer Limitations. The agency transferring banked water will be allowed to transfer no more than the accwnulated balance in its bank. Transfers of estimated prospective banked credits and the "overdrafting" of accounts shall not be pennitted. The price of transfer water originally derived from the SFPUC system is to be detennined by the transferring parties and is not specified herein. Transfers of banked water shall be in compliance with Section 3.05 of the Agreement. SECTION 4. WHOLESALE EXCESS USE CHARGES 4.1. Amount of Excess Use Charges. Monthly excess use charges shall be deterrriined by the SFPUC at the time of the declared water shortage consistent with the calendar in Section 6 and in accordance with Section 6.03 of the Agreement. The excess use charges will be in the fonn of multipliers applil;!d to the rate in effect at the time the excess use occurs. The same excess use charge multipliers shall.apply to the Wholesale Customers and all Retail Customers. The excess . use charge multipliers apply only to the charges for water delivered at the rate in effect at the time the excess use occurred. 4.2 Monitoring Suburban Water Use:. During periods of voluntary rationing, water usage greater than a customer's allocation (as determined in Section 2) will be indicated on each SFPUC monthly water bill. During periods of mandatory rationing, monthly and cwnulative water usage greater than a Wholesale Customer's shortage allocation and the associated excess use charges will be indicated on each SFPUC monthly water bill. 4.3. Suburban Excess Use Charge Payments. An annual reconciliation will be made of monthly excess use charges according to .the calendar in Section 6. Annual excess use charges will be calculated by comparing total annual purchases for each Wholesale Customer with its annual shortage allocation (as adjusted for transfers of shortage allocations and banked water, if any). Excess use charge payments by those Wholesale Customers with net excess use will be paid according to the calendar in Section 6. The SFPUC may dedicate excess use charges paid by Wholesale Customers toward the purchase of water from the State Drought Water Bank or other willing sellers in order to provide additional water to the Wholesale Customers. Excess use charges paid by the Wholesale Customers constitute Wholesale Customer revenue arid shall be included within the SFPUC's annual Wholesale Revenue Requirement calculation. 5 185736?3 SECTIONS. GENERAL PROVISIONS GOVERNING WATER SHORTAGE ALLOCA TION PLAN 5.1. Construction of Terms. This Plan is for the sole benefit of the parties and shall not be construed as granting rights to any person other than the parties or imposing obligations on a party to any person other than another party. 5.2. Governing Law. TIris Plan is made W1der and shall be governed by the laws of the State of California .. 5.3. Effect on Agreement. TIris Plan describes the method for allocating water between the SFPUC and the collective Wholesale Customers during system-wide water shortages of20 percent or less. This Plan also provides for the SFPUC to allocate water among the Wholesale Customers in accordance with directions provided by the Wholesale Customers through BAWSCA under Section 2:2, and to implement a program by which such allocations may be voluntarily transferred among the Wholesale Customers. The provisions of this Plan are intended to implement Section 3.11(C) of the Agreement and do not affect, change or modifY . any other section, termor condition of the Agreement. 5.4. Inapplfcability of Plan to Allocation of SFPUC System Water During Non-Shortage Periods. The SFPUC's agreement in this Plan to a respective share of SFPUC system water during years of shortage shall not be construed to provide a basis for the allocation of water between the SFPUC and the Wholesale Customers when no water shortage emergency exists . .5.5. ·Termination. This Plan shall expire at the end of the Term of the Agreement.. The SFPUC and the Wholesale Customers can mutually agree to revise or tenmnate this Plan prior to that date due to changes in the water delivery capability of the SFPUC system, the acquisition of new water supplies, and other factors affecting the availability of water from the SFPUC system during times of shortage. . . SECTION 6. ALLOCATION CALENDAR 6.1. Annual Schedule.· The annual schedule for the shortage allocation process is shown below. This schedule may be changed by the SFPUC to facilitate implementation. . 6 1857367.3 In All Years 1. SFPUC delivers list of annual purchases by each Wholesale Customer during the irrunediately preceding Supply Year 2. SFPUC meets with the Wholesale Customers and presents water supply forecast for the following Supply Year 3. SFPUC issues initial.estimate of available water supply 4. SFPUC announces potential first year of drought (if applicable) 5. SFPUC and Wholesale Customers meet upon request to exchange infonnation'conceming water availability and projected system- wide purchases . 6. SFPUC issues revised estimate of available water supply, and confirms continued potential shortage conditions, if applicable 7. SFPUC issues final estimate of available water supply 8. SFPUC determines amount of water available to Wholesale Customers collectively In Drought Years 9. SFPUC formally declares the existence of water shortage emergency (or end of water shortage emergency, if applicable) under Water Code Sections 350 et. seq. 10. SFPUC declares the need for a voluntary or mandatory response 11. BA WSCA submits calculation to SFPUC of individual Wholesale Customers' percentage shares of water allocated to Wholesale Customers collectively 12. SFPUC determines individual shortage allocations, based on BAWSCA's submittal ofindividual agency percentage shares to SFPUC, and monthly water budgets (Default Schedule) 13. Wholesale Customers submit alternative monthly water budgets (optional) . 14. Final drought shortage allocations are issued for the Supply Year· beginning July 1 through June 30 15. Monthly water budgets become effective 16. Excess use charges indicated on monthly Suburban bills 17. Excess use charges paid by Wholesale Customers for prior year 7 Target Dates November 1 February February I February 1 February I-May 31 March 1 April 15th or sooner if adequate snow course measurement data is available to fonn a robust estimate on available water supply for the coming year. April 15tlt or sooner if adequate snow course measurement data is available to fonn a robust estimate on available water supply for the coming year. Target Dates April 15-31 . April 15-31 April 15-31 April 25~May 10 May 8-May 24 June 1 July 1 August 1 (of the beginning year) through June 30 (of the succeeding-year) August of the succeeding year 1857367.3 ATTACHMENT I NOT USED ATTACHMENT] DEFINITIONS AND FORlvfULAS FOR CALCULATING PROPORTIONAL AN"NUAL WATER USE TABLE OF CONTENTS '" This Attachment contains four sections, three figures, and five tables. Section A: Section B: Section C: Section D: Figure 1: Figure 2: Ffgure 3: Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Water Meters Calculation of Proportional Annual Water Use Data Requirements and Schedule County, Line and In-City Terminal Reservoir Meter Calibration and Maintenance Locations of SFPUCCounty-Line Meters and In-City Teiminal Reservoirs Generalized Sche.ina:tic of Lake Merced P'ump Station Locations of System Input and In-Line Meters Base Usage: and Allocation Rates Locations of SF PUC County-line Meters and In~City Terminal Reservoirs Locations of SFP'ijC System Input and In-line Meters County-line Meters, In-City Terminal Reservoirs and Associated Metering Equipment Meter Calibration and Maintenance Frequency Table 1 presents the format for the water usage and allocation rate calculations for reference and to illustrate the definitions and formulas described in Sections A through C. Tables 2 and 3 list the.meters whose locations are shown on Figures 1 and 3, respectively. Table March 11, 2009 4 identifies the type of meter and associated metering equipment for the. County-line Meters and Terminal Reservoirs. Table 5 identifies ~he meter calibration and maintenance frequency for the meters and equipment listed in Table 4. SECTION A. W A 'fER METERS 1. General The Agreement provides that certainoperatinganCl maintenance expenses and the capital . , cost of certain categories of utility plan.! in service are to be allocated between San Francisco and , I the Wholesale Customers on the basis of proportionate annual usage of the Regional Water I . System. The purPose of this Attachment is to describe the meters) and illustrate the method by which proportionate annual usage wilJ be calculated. 2. Units of Measurement; Rounding, Conversion The SFPUC will compile the usage data required to complete Table 1 annually ... The. , units of measurement and-conventions for converting and rounding will be as follows. , .' '.. ,The data i~ the Tabl~ 1 will be presented, and'the calCuIations ~ont~mplated bfthis ,.' Attachment shown, in Units ofmi1lions Of gallons per day,(mgd), rOU,nded toth~ nearest tenth of an mgd~Percentages (e,g., the City and Wholesale. usage rates) shall be canied to two digits to . . .the right ofthedecimal pointandreduction factors shall be carried to:four digits to the right of the decimal point. Data compiled by,the SFPUC in units of hundreds of cubic feet per year (cd), . shall be converted to ~gd by mu1tipl~ing hundn';ds of cubic, feet'per ye,$: by 0.0000020493 (or' 2.0,493 x 10.6) for non-leap years ilnd 0.0000020437 (or 2.0437 x 1 Q.6) for leap years, ' In i'olinaing, if the rightmost digit dropped is ° through 4, the preceding digit shall be left u~changed; if the rightmost digit dropped i~ 5 through 9, the preceding digit shall be increased by 1. 2 March 1 I, 2009 3. Location of Meters/Gauges The SFPUC presently maintains meters and gauges that have been used to determine the proportionate usage of the Regional Water System, in accordance with' the methods and cal~ulations despribed in Exhibit J to the 1984 contract between San Francisco and the Wholesale Customers. These meters consist of "County-Line Meters," "In-City Terminal Reservoir Meters" and "System Input and In-line Meters" as described in the following subsections. As new capital improvement projects are designed and constructed by the SFPUC, it may be necessary for new meters to be installed to ensure continued accurate detenninations of the proportionate usage of the Regional Water System. "Planned meters" are included in the following subs~ctions where planned. capital improvement projects are likely to require the installation of additional meters. a. County-line Meters The SFPUC presently maintains meters at or near the San Mateo-San Francisco' County line to measure flow through all transmission pipelines entering .the City ("County-line Meters"). The existing and planned County-line Meters 'are listed in Table 2 and shown on Figures 1 and 2. Additional details pertaining to the County-line meters located at the Lake Merced Pump Station, and specifically to water deliveries from the pump station to Sunset Reservoir, Sutro Reservoir, and Lake Merced are provided below. (1) County-Line deliveries to Sunset and Sutro ReservQirs Water delivered to the City through the Sunset Supply Pipeline may be pumped fro~ the Lake Merced Pump Station to either Sunset .Reservoir or Sutro Reservoir located within the City. When water is pumped from the Lake Merced Pump Station to both Sunset and Sutro reservoirs simultaneously, the recording instrumentation on the Sunset and Sutro venturi meters are designed to record flows through both meters. When water is pumped to Sutro Reservoir only (typically utilizing Pump No.4 at the 3 March 11, 2009 Lake Merced Pump Station), the source water is from the Sunset Reservoir (not the County-line), and the direction of flow through the Sunset venturi meter is reversed. Under this pumping scenario, the recording instrumentation on the Sunset and Sutra venturi meters are designed to not record flow on their respective recorders such that the in-City transfer of water between Sunset and Sutro Reservoirs is not included as a County-Ene delivery to the City. Figure 2 provides a generalized schematic of the Lake Merced Pump Station and the typical direction of flow from the County-line, through the pump station. (2) County-line deliveries to Lake Merced In order to raise and maintain water levels in Lake Merced, the·SFPUC occasionally delivers water directly from the Regional Water System to Lake Merced. Deliveri~s from the Regional Water System to Lake Merced are accomplished at the Lake Merced Pump Station. The procedure involves operating valves on the suction side of Sunset Pump No.2 such that water may flow by grav:ity in the Sunset Supply Pipeline, from San Mateo County, across the County-line and into San Francisco, through Lake Merced Pump Station and into the Lake Merced wet well. A 16-inch pipeline connection on the suction side of Sunset Pump No.2 allows for deliveries of water to the wet well (see Figure 2). Water deliveries from the Regional Water System to Lake Merced are considered County-line deliveries and an in-City usage in the calculation of water allocation rates. Water usage by the City includes water deliveries from the SFPUC's "terminal reservoirs." The terminal reservoirs are: I) Sunset Reservoir, 2) University Mound Reservoir, and 3) Merced Manor Reservoir. The terminal reservoirs are shown on Figure L c. System Input and In-Line Meters 4 March 11, 2009 The SFPUC presently measures water flow into and through the Regional System utilizing "System Input and In-Line Meters." The existing and planned System Input and In- Litie Meters are listed in Table 3 and shown on Figure 3. d. w'holesale Customer Meters and City Retail Customer Meters Located Outside theBoundaries of the City The SFPUC presently measures water deliv~ries from the Regional Water System to its Wholesale Customers at various locations where the water delivery systems of the individual W1lOlesale Customers tie into the Regional Water System. The meters at these locations are referred to as the Wholesale Customers' "master meters." The SFPUC also measures water deliveries from the Regional Water System to other customers located outside of the boundaries of the City that are not Wholesale Customers. Water deliveries to the Wholesale Customers and Retail Customers outside the City's boundaries that receive water from the Regional Water System are accounted for by the SFPUC's Customer Service Division as described in Section B. 4. Replacement and Relocation of Meters, Gaug~s, and Recording Devices. The SFPUC presently equips all of its large venturi meters with differential pressure transmitters. The smaller meters utilize other methods and equipment to register and record flows. The SFPUC will maintain the meters, gauges, and recording devices described above in subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) unless and until such meters, gauges, and recording devices are replaced. The SFPUC may replace the meters, gauges, and recorcling devices described above in subsections (a), (b), (c), and Cd) or install new meters, gauges, and recording devices at new locations, provided that such changes do not diminish the accuracy of,the water flow measurements or impair the ability of the SFPUC to separate direct City watei' use from water use'by the wholesale customers. Maintenance and calibration procedures for new or replaced equipment may change. Modified maintenance and calibration procedures for new or replaced equipment will conform to industry standards set forth in A WW A Manual M33, the applicable 5 March 1 J, 2009 standards in the International Society of Automation, and will implement the manufacturer's instructions for maintenance and calibration. The SFPUC will provide BA WSCA with advance written notice of any such changes, together with a brief expIanation of the reasons therefor and a description of the type and location of the replacement. Such notice shall automatically amend the list of meters, gauges, and recording devices set forth above in subsections (a), (b ), (c), and . (d). 5. Recording of Water Flow Data a Flow Data The City shall record and maintain data measuring base water flow throughout the . SFPUC Reg~onal Water System as necessary to detennine proportional annual water usage .. b. Reservoir Data The SFPUC shall record and maintain data measuring the levels of the terminal reservoirs described above in subsection A.3.b and shown on Figure 1 on an hourly basis. Flow values derived from reservoir level readings for all reservoirs.in the SFPUC wholesale system shall be calculated using the tables contained in the SFPUC pUblication "Reservoir Data" (aka "The· Weir Book"), which set forth the relationship between reservoir levels and water volumes, as such tables may be amended from time to time to reflect changes in the volumes of the various reservoirs. The tables to be used initially shall be those from the current edition of The Weir Book. SECTION B. CALCULATION OF PROPORTIONAL ANNUAL USAGE "B'ase rates" means the percentages of allnual SFPUC deliveries attributed to the Wholesale Customers and to City Retail Customers, 6 March 1 I, 2009 The percentage of annual SFPUC metered deliveries attributed to the Wholesale Customers the wholesale base rate) shall be calculated for each fiscal year as described below and illustrated in Table 1. The item numbers listed below correspond to the item numbers listed in Table 1. (1) "Gross San Francisco County line base deliveries" shall equal the total amount. of water flowing into the City's distribution system through transmission pipelines entering the City, as measured by the County-Line Meters described in Section A3.a. and shown on Figures 1 and 2. (2) :'Daly City base deliveries" shall equal the water flowing to Daly City through meter accounts provided downstream of the County-Line meters or through SFPUC's City Distribution Division. At present these accounts are: (a) CSPLllMacdonald Avenue Service (Account number 010084-01- 0) (b) Guttenberg Street Service (Account number 010013-01-3) (c) Carter Street Service (Account numb.ers 284070-01-8 and 284071- 01-6) These accounts represent a portion of tile total deliveries to Daly City. The quantities of water delivered to these fOUI Daly City accounts are reported monthly in Form MGT441 by the SFPUC's Customer Service Division. These comlections to meters are presently located within the City, and thus record water which has already been recorded by the SFPUC's master meters at the County line. So long as this condition continues, Daly City base deliveriesshall be subtracted from "Gross San Francisco County line base deliveries." (3) "Net San Francisco base deliveries" shall equal the result of subtracting "Daly City base deliveries" from "Gross San Francisco County line base deliveries." 7 March 11, 2009 (4) "Other suburban raw water base deliveries" shall equal the sum of all deliveries of raw (untreated) water to customers of the SFPUC located outside the City other than deliveries to the Wholesale Customers. "Other suburban raw water base deliveries" include deliveries of raw water in Alameda and San Mateo Counties to SFPUC Retail Customers, City departments and commissions, and other users affiliated with San Francisco. (5) "Other suburban treated water base deliveries" shall equal the sum of all deliveries of treated water to customers of the SFPUC located outside the City " other than deliveries to the Wholesale Customers. Other suburban treated water base deliveries include deliveries of treated water t6 the SFPUC's Retail Customers in San Mateo, Santa' Clara and Alameda Counties (such as NASA Ames Research Center and LLNL). to City departments and commissions and Dther.users affiliated with San Francisco (such as the San Francisco International .Airport, the San Francisco County Jail, and tenants ofland owned by the City Recreation and Park Department). (6) "Other suburban base deliveries" shall equal the sum of "Other suburban raw water deliveries" and "Other suburban treated water deliveries." The combined amount of ra~ and treated water delivered to suburban entities other than the Wholesale Customers is reported monthly in Form MGT440 by the SFPUC's Customer Service Division, (7) . "Total City base usage" shall equal "Net San Francisco base deliveries" plus "Other suburban base deliveries." (8) "Total wholesale base usage" shall equal the sum of all metered deliveries to the Wholesale Customers measured at their SFPUC master meters (including all deliveries to Daly City which are comprised of deliveries through meters located outside San Francisco and meters located inside San Francisco, deliveries through the latter of which are designated above in paragraph B.1.2 as "Daly City base 8 March 11,2009 deliveries"). The quantity of water delivered to the individual Wholesale Customers, and the combined amount of water delivered to all Wholesale Customers is reported monthly in Fol1l.l MGT440 by the SFPUC's Customer Service Division. (9) "Total systembase usage" shall equal "City base usage" plus "Wholesale base usage." (10) . "Wholesale base rate" shall equal the percentage obtained by dividing "Wholesale base usage" by "Total system base usage." (11) "City base rate" shall equal the percentage obtained by subtracting "Wholesale base rate" from 100 percent. (12). "Base system input" shall equal all amounts of water supplied to the SFPUC Regional Water System, which presently comes from the following sources: March 11, 2009 (a) Hetch Hetchy water as measured at the venturi meters on the 58-inch, 61~ inch, and 78.5-inch San Joaquin Pipeline Nos. 1,2, and 3 near Oakdale. (b) Water supplied by HHWPD to LLNL as measured at the customer meter. Water delivered from the system to LLNL shall be deemed negative in sign for the purpose of determining "Base system input." (c) Hetch Hetchy water pumped from the Alameda siphons to San Antonio Reservoir as measured at the venturi meter on the 60-inch San Antonio pipeline. Water delivered from the system to San Antonio Reservoir shall be deemed negative in sign for the purpose of detennining "Base system input." 9 March 11, 2009 . (d) Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant as measured at the meter on the 78- inch effluent pipeline. (e) . Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant as measured at the venturi meters on the 60-inch and 78-inch effluent pipelines. (f) . Raw water deliveries to all SFPUCRetail Customers outside the City ,boundaries as measured at the customer meter. These deljveries are considered positive for the purposes of Table 1, Currently, raw water deliveries to the system are represented by the following account numbers contained in Fonn MGT440 prepared by the SFPUC's Customer Service Division: 266081·01-7 (Calaveras Nursery) 266081-02-5 (Calaveras Nursery) 264355-01-7 (Caltrans) 266084-02-9 (Color Spot Nursery) 272701·02-0 (Color Spot Nursery) 266069-02-0 (Crystal Springs Golf Course) 266078-02-1 (Dell Franklin) 266078-01-3 (Dells Nursery) 266084-01-1 (Hi-C Nursery) 272701-01-2 (Hi-C Nursery) 284112·01-8 (Hansen Aggregates) 266084-03-7 (Jeff Anhorn Nursery) 272701-03~8 (Jeff Anhorn Nursery) 266079-02-9 (Mission Valley Rock) 281043-01-8 (Mission Valley Rock) 267618~02-3 (Nagata Farms) 267618-01-5 (Nagata Farms) 266090-01 -8 (Naka Nursery) 10 March J 1, 2009 266091-01-6 (Naka Nursery) 266090-02-6 (Naka Nursery) 266091-02-4 (N aka N ursery) 264315-02-9 (Pacific Nurseries) 266076:-01-7 (Sunol Christmas Tree Farm) 266076-02-5 (Sunol Tree Farm) 276095-01-5 (Sunol Valley Golf & Recreation) 266077-02-3 (Ura Farm) 264352-01-4 (Ura, Jo1m) 266075-01-9 (Valley Crest) 268276-01-1 (Valley Crest Nursery) 266093-01-2 (Valley Crest Tree Company). 268426-02-0 (Valley Crest Tree Company) 266075-02-7 (Valley Crest Tree Company) 266093-02-0 (Valley Crest Tree Company) 268276-02~9 (Valley Crest Tree Company) 266082-01-5 (Western Star Nursery) 266089-01-0 (Western Star Nursery) 267254-02-7 (Western Star Nursery) 266082-02-3 (Western Star) . 266089-02-8 (Western Star)· 267254-03-5 (Western Star) (g) Raw water deliveries from Pilarcitos Reservoir and Crystal Springs Reservoir to Coastsid~ County Water District as measured at the customer meters. These deliveries are considered positive for the purposes of Table 1. Currently, raw water deliveries to Coastside County Water I)istrict from both reservoirs are represented under account number 010027-01-9 contained in Form MGT441 prepared by the SFPUC's Customer Service Division: 11 March 11,2009 (h) Crystal Springs Balancing Reservoir. The flow into or out of the Crystal Springs Balancing Reservoir shall be calculated based on the changes in the amounts of water stored in the reservoir. The amounts of water stored shall be determined by the use of water level sensors, ~d the application of water level readings to a water level-storage capacity table. Decreases in storage, which indicate a flow from the Balancing Reservoir into the system, shall be deemed positive in sign. Increases in storage, which . indicate a flow into .the Balancing Reservoir from the system, shall be deemed negative in sign. Over the period of a year, the total flows into. and out of Crystal Springs Balancing Reservoir are nearly equivalent. As such, total sys.tem input from Crystal Springs Reservoir shall be deemed zero for calculating current base rates. (i) Deliveries to Crystal Springs Reservoir as measured by the overflow weir at the Pulgas Pump Station. Deliveries from the system to Crystal Springs Reservoir ("spills") shall be deemed negative in sign for the purpo~e ~f determining "Base system input." (j) Terminal Reservoirs. The "terminal reservoirs" consist of Sunset Reservoir, University Mound Reservoir, and Merced Manor Reservoir, each located within the City of San Francisco. The flow into or out of the terminal reservoirs shall be calculated based on the changes in the amounts of water stored in them. The amounts of water stored shall be deterrnined by the use of water level sensors, and the application of water . . levels to water level-storage capacity tables. Over the period of a year, the total flows into and out of terminal reservoirs are nearly equivalent. As such, total system input from the terminal reservoirs shall be deemed zero for calculating base rates. (k) Other Sources. pther sources of flow into, or from, the Regional Water System, shan be accounted for as "other sources." Examples of other . . 12 sources of system input would include intertie water deliveries between the Regional System and the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and' between the Regional System and the East Bay Mlmicipal Utilities District, and deliveries of raw water from Crystal Springs Reservoir in the event of an emergency. Flows from the system shall be, deemed negative in sign for the purpose of detennining "Base system input." (13) "Total base system input" shall equal the sum of the system inputs from the sources described in paragraph B.1.12 .. (14) "loint system loss reduction factor" shall equal "Total system base usage" divided by "Total base system input." "loint system loss reduction factor" shall not exceed 1.0. (15) "Daly City reduction factor" shall equal "Net San Francisco base deliveries" divided by "Gross San Francisco County line base deliveries." "Daly·City reduction factor" shall not exceed 1.0. (16) "Total suburban base deliveries') shall equal "Other suburban base deliveries" . '. plus "Total wholesale base usage." '!' (17) "Suburban reduction factor" shall equal "Wholesale base usage" divided by "Total suburban ba'ie deliveries!' "Suburban reduction factor" shall not exceed 1.0. (18) "HHWPD Deliveries above Oakdale" shall equal the total amount of water March II, 2009 delivered by the HHWPD to users located above the system input meters in Oakdale. Water users located above the system input meters in Oakdale are . currently represented by Groveland Community Services District and the HHWPD facility at Moccasin. 13 (J9) "HH Reduction Fador" is calculated for the purpose of determining the Wholesale Customers' share of the Hetch Hetchy Assessment. The factor shall equal a fraction, the numerator of which is the total system input measured at the Oakdale meters (Table I, line 12.a) and the denominator of which is the sum of the total system input measured at the Oakdale meters (Table I, line 12.a) plus the total "HHWPD deliveries above Oakdale" (Table I, line 18). SECTION C. DATA REOt.J.IRE1vfENTS AND SCHEDULE 1. Collection and Dissemination of Data The SFPUC presently compiles daily flow data for the County-line' meters, System Input ·and In-Line Meters, and daily reservoir water level data, and provides copies of that data to the Wholesale Customers (throughBA WSCA) on a monthly basis. The SFPUC also provides copies of wholesale "Suburban Resale" and City Retail water usage data to BA WSCA on a monthly basis. Additionru.ly, the SFPUC provides BA WSCA access to flow data for the meters as reported and recorded by the SFPUC's SCADAsystem: The SFPUC shall continue to provide the flow and water usage data described above to BA WSCA on a monthly basis, and shall continue to allow BA WSCA access to the SCADA system data, so that a coordinated effort between the SFPUC and BA WSCA will allow for updating Table 1. of this Attachment annually on a timely basis. It shall continue to be the SFPUC's responsibility to compile the data necessary to update Table 1 of this Attachment annually and the City shaH deliver to BA WSCA, for review and approval, copies of the updated Table 1 by September 15 for the fiscaJ year ending the preceding June 30, as shown by the schedule contained in Section C.3. 14 March I J, 2009 Upon reasonable notice to the General Manager of the SFPUC, BA WSCA shall be given access to all water flow and usage records compiled by the SFPUC, including raw data, at reasonable times during business hours and shall have the right to copy such records and data at its expense. 2. Lack of Data The parties recognize that, because of human error, mechanical failure, orother unplanned events, portions of the data required for the calculation of the usage rates and ratios described in Sections B and C of this Attaclunent occa<;ionally may be unavailable or incorrect. In the event that such data are unavailable Or inaccurate, the SFPUC shall make a reasonable. estimate of the unavailable or incorrect data or use the most accurate alternative data that are available, and substitute the estimate therefor. If the SFPUC uses an estimate of the unavailable or inaccurate data or alternative data, it shall provide BA WSCA with the following: (1) a description of the unavailable or inaccurate data and the estimation or substitution of data used therefor; (2) an explanation of the cause of the missing or inaccurate data and the reasons underlying the SFPUe s estimation or substitution of alternate data; and (3) a statement of how the error or malfunction that caused the unavailability or inaccuracy of the data will be avoided in the future. The SFPUC shall provide this infonnation to BA WSCA upon calculation by the SFPUC of the usage rates and ratios described in this Attachment for the fiscal year in question. 15 March II, 2009 3. Schedule for Completing the Annual Calculations of Water Usage Rates . . . The parties recognize the importance of updating Table I of this Attachment annually in a timely manner, and that historically, doing so has required a coordinated effort between the SFPUC and BA WSCA. To assure timely completion of the annual calculations of water usage rates 'and ratios, fhe parties agree to adhere to the following schedule . . (J) By August 15: The SFPUC shall forward to BA WSCA all data for the fiscal year ending the preceding June 30, necessary to make a determination of the base water usage and base allocation rates.for the Wholesale Customers and the City. (2) By September 15. The City shall deliver to BA WSCA, for review and approval, draft copies of the updated Table 1 for the fiscal year ending the preceding June 30, (3) Between September 15 and October 15. The SFPUC an,d BA WSCA shall reconcile any discrepancies or inaccuracies in the draft calculations of water usage rates and shall reach agreement on a final updated Table 1 for the fiscal year ending the preceding June 30. (4) By November 1. The SFPUC shall deliver to BA WSCA a finalized updated Table 1, . . signed by the SFPUC General Manager, or appropriate designee, representing the water usage rates agreed upon by the SHiUC and BA WSCA, for the fiscal year ended June 30. (5) By November 15. BA WSCA shall return the finalized Table 1 to the SPPUC, counter-signed by the BA WSCA General Manager/CEO. If the SFPUC does not receive the countersigned Table 1 from BA WSCA by November 1:>, it may use the water use data as contained in the Table I delivered pursuant to paragraph (4) above, subject to arbitration as provided in section 8.01 of the Agreement. 16 . March 11,2009 SECTION D. COUNTY LINE AND IN-CITY TER.MINAL RESERVOIR METER CALIBRATION AND MAINTENANCE 1. General This sectIon refers only to the County-Line and In-City Terminal Reservoir Meters. The term "meter(s)" includes the primary meter,itself (most of theprimary meters in the SFPUC's water system are Venturi-type flow meters) as well as any and all of the associated equipment used to measure, record, and transmit flow and water level data. The metering equipment associated with the primary metering device (also referred to as the secondary metering equipment) includes differential pressure transmitters, recorders, telecommunications equipment and the portion of the SFPUC's Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System that is used to transmit flow and water level measurements, from the water meter to the computer terminal that records the measured data. The County-Line and In-City Terminal Reservoir meters, their general locations, a'1d their associated metering equipment are listed in Table 4. 2. Frequency and Type of Work to be Performed The meters, water level sensors, and associated metering equipment are to be inspected, tested, calibrated, and maintained according to the applicable meter calibration and maintenance frequency specified in Table 5. 3, 'Components of the Calibration and Maintenance Work 17 March 1 J, 2009 The SFPUC will contract with an independent metering consultant to perform periodic inspections, testing, servicing and calibrations of the meters and metering equipment for the County-line meters and In-City Terminal Reservoirs. The metering consultant's calibration and maintenance work will include the following components: . • Annual Pitot Tube Tests: Pitot tube flow tests shall be performed once a year on all . . Venturi-type flow meters. See Sections 4.b and 4.c for further detail. • Quarterly Secondary Meter Equipment Testing and Calibration: The secondary metering equipment shall be tested for accuracy and calibrated quarterly at five input levels (0%, 25%, 50%,75% and 100% Qfthe full range of flow). See Section 4.a for further detail. • Cleaning: Clean and remove dust, oils, dirt, etc. from all instruments. • Flushing: Flush and clean.Venturi tube differential pressure (DIP) sensiI!g lines .. • Inspecting: Inspections for mechanical fatigue, leaky pipes and fittings', worn parts, and improper operation of electrical/electronic equipment. • Lubrication: Mechanical parts shall be lubricated as needed. 4. Calibration Procedures The metering consultant shall continue to calibrate and maintain the County-line meters and metering equipment listed in Table 4 in accordance with the frequency of work specified in Table 5. The work includes documenting meter readings and accuracy before and after calibration. Specific tasks to be completed by the metering consultant are as follows: a) Quarterly testing and calibration. The secondary metering equipment shall be tested and calibrated quarterly using NIST Traceable test equipment, and a "dead weight tester." 18 March II, 2009 The system loop error for the secondary metering equipment is determined by connecting its output to the differential pressure transmitter and adjusting the dead weight tester to 5 places over the full range of flow: 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%, while all instruments in the loop are connected. For water level transmitters, provide simulated test head equal to full range of the transmitter being calibrated, comparing the simulated test head to its 4-20 milliamp ~utput signal to determine transmitter error and calibration requirements. The system loop error for the secondary metering equipment may not exceed +/-2%. The individual components of the secondary metering equipment shall also be te~ted at the same 5 input levels and calibrated as necessary to ensure the error of the system and individual components does not exceed +/-2%. b) Annual Pitot Tube Testing and Calibration. Annual Pitot tube testing shall be conducted for a comparison of flow totalized by the Pitot tube test equipment and the totalizer used by the SFPUC for water measurement and billing purposes. Annual Pitot tube flow testing shall be performed on all flow meters for assessment of Venturi error using the Annubar continuous flow method at 22%ofthe pipe radius. Pitot tube flow testing must be conducted continuously for a minimum of 30 minutes per test. The Pitot tube flow tests are fIrst performed before any of the secondary metering , , instruments are calibrated to determine the total ,system error (system consisting of the , primary metering device and secondary metering equipment). Once the total system loop' error has been established, perform secondary loop instrument testing and calibration as per the quarterly testing and calibration procedures described in 4,a above. If the total system error exceeds +/-2% after calibration of the secondary metering equipment, minor adjustments to the differentiai pressure transmitter shall be made to correct (calibrate) the error in the Venturi meter. Repeat Pitot tube testing must be performed after the individual instrument calibration and differential pressure.1ransmitter adjustments have been performed to establish that total system loop error is within +/- 2%. 19 March 1 1, 2009 c) Pitot tube testing shall be conducted at a flow rate representing the typical flow for the . meter (and, if operationally possible, at tllree different flows ranging from a minimum to near maximum capacity flow). d) The metering consultant shall perform the meter testing and calibration procedures utilizing the meter charaCteristic curves (for example, ilie pressure drop vs. flow for a Venturi meter) iliat have been obtained during previous meter calibratiQn and maintenance work. e) During each quarterly site viSit, ilie metering consultant shall inspect, assess and document ilie condition of all metering equipment, including meter, gauges, indicators, recorders, transmitters and other instrumentation, used in the measurement and recording offlow rates and cumulative flow totals and shall document all operational problems with. the calibration instruments and meters during the calibration process. Problems may include air entrainment, leakage, flow disturbance and unstable meter readings. f) Prior to each quarterly site visit, the metering consultant shall review prior calibration records and reports for each meter to determine if previously-identified errors or equipment deficiencies were corrected as previously recommended. g) Each quarter, the metering consultant shall sUbmit a fInal report (See Section 6) containing all of the calibration results for each meter tested and calibrated during ilie quarter. The metering consultant's report shall includ e a narrative description of the work conducted on each meter and meter calibration reports for the individual metering equipment. The quarterly report shall also address deficiencies iliat were not previously corrected according to the recommendations made in the prior report. 5, Calibration Instruments The instrument used for flow testing of the primary meter (Venturi) must meet the accuracy standards required by ilie American Water Works Association (A WWA), and be 20 March J l, 2009 capable of measuring actual flows with an error ofless than +/-2%. If a particular calibration instrument is not rated for accuracy by the A WW A, its accuracy will be determined by reference to its manufacturer's representations as to accuracy. 6. Calibration Reports Within fourteen (14) working days after the beginning of each quarter, the metering consultant shall submit a written progress report of the work performed during the previo.us quarter. Each quarterly report will describe the results of the meter calibrations and any other tasks performed. The report will also include comments regarding any observations of abnormal conditions and any recommendations regarding these meters and their related equipment. The reports must include complete descriptions and status of meters and related equipment, dates and times of service. all calibration specifics, pipeline dimensions, range of flow rates and totalized volumes, before and after error analysis and accuracy levels achieved, testing equipment used, and the narne(s) of the person(s) that performed the work. When appropriate and necessary, the metering consultant shall provide recommendations for improving the accuracy and reliability of the equipment and/or the methods of data collection. If, in the opinion of the metering consultant, the condition of a meter or its associated metering equipment is found to be defective, damaged, or otherwise in need of immediate repair or replacement, t.he metering consultant shall: 1) promptly notify the appropriate SFPUC , . personnel of the problem and recommend a solution to the problem so that the SFPUC can determine how to address it and, 2) include the problem description in its quarterly report. , 21 March 11,2009 " ~ I Locations of SFPUC County-Line Meters and In .. City Terminal Reservoirs FIGURE 1 Marin County Golde~ Gate Bridge Pacific Ocean Lake , Mer~ed San Francisco CITY AND COUNTY San Francisco Bay Lake Merced . Pump Station G) r@,@ ,l----..:IL.f--;;-J-4 OF SAN FRANCISCO 6 - ( See detail ) on Figure 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 A METER 7 8 9 San Pedro .... 11---Valve Lot PIPELINE Sunset SutfO Lake Merced Outfall San Andreas No. 2 Crystal Springs No. 1 Crystal Springs No. 2 San Andreas No. 3 (Planned) RESERVOIR Sunset Reservoir University Mound Reservoir Merced Manor Reservoir H .• ' 0 ; LOCATION Lake Merced Pump StatIon Lake Merced Pump Station Lako Merced Pump Station MILES Junipero Serra (Hwy. 280) South of Belle Ave. PG&E Martin Service Center Yard Tamasco Ct. South of Sunnydale Ave. To be determined LOCATION 26th Avenue. and Ortega University Avenue and Bacon 23rd Avenue and Ocean 1.5 i ~----------------------------------------------------------~ IlIbFoWtfn:17SiF'vWt l!l12!1Qt)ch.hto' W-*' S WET WELL PUMPS (fOR EMERGENCY USE) Outfall Meter . 'Ie_ !U(;'r "8~~'\' Ols~ (;'~ "11/ G<; enters Lake Merced Pump Station from the Sunset supply line (pipeline highlighted in yellow) and is discharged from the Sunset?umps (numbered 1,2. and 3) to Sunset Reservoir located in San FranciSCO, or to the suction side of the S utro ? umps (numbered 4, 5, and 6). S utro ? ump Nos. 5 and 6 are lYpically on standby. Sutro Pump No.4 delivers water from the pump station to S utro Reservoir located in San Francisco. Deliveries from the SFPUC water system to lake Merced are accomplished by gravity through the 16-inch pipeline that connects to the suction side of Sunset Dump No.2. G) Suns(.'t V(.'nturi Meter_ 411' DISCHARGE TO 5UI-lSn SUPPLY LII-lE 48~ sl.J(!~ "IO;Y~ GATE VA.LVE 1'1/0;;;, (TYPICALLY CLOSED)--> SUIlt' '" o ;> 0'" r~ :;::w 0'" -It-~ w '" :z :::> \.U 5 )-.... Q. Q. :::> '" t;:; ~ z '" '" b '" s~,. , Sltpp~;I\';== ___ I w Z ::; : )-, r . z ::1;:::> t·li~e .~ 0 :;::0 ::O~ I·....JU .~'" « ~ z .. " Gi .-------------------------------------------~~ Generalized Schematic of Lake Merced Pump Station m L-____________________________________________________________________ ~ __________________________________________ ~~ I.JlM -, , PlICiff(; Oc>!"" S/J11F~Bay -+- o 2.5 5 aL ........... MILES METER 10 11 ,2 13 '4 1~ 1G 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2' 2. 25 27 28 29 30 31 8 C 0" E PIPELINE San Joaquin Pip.ellna No. 1 toot IRI)\iioO on thl.. map) San Joaquin ptp~in. No. ,. (not _hOWl on tOll ma.p) San Joaquin PlpaJlnl No. 3 (not .nO'lAn on thl.' mAP) 13"" Anroolo Pipolln. Sunol Valley WTP Efflu.nI Cal .... "'. Plpollno I'Mgto" -Boy CI\II",on PlpallllO No. 1 lrvmgton ... Bay ~Vi.on Mpafine No. 1: I"""'ngton .. a.y Di"aion Pipeline WOo 1 INngton ... e~ Ci .... cion PipflLine No. " Pulgu • 80y OMalon Plp."n. No. 1 PuIS" • 80y OI","lon PIp""" No, 2 Putsu .. B~ OiYicion Pipeline No.3 PuIS'" • 80y OI",.lon PIp<lln. N<>. ~ Cry"a! $P'in9' R .. """", OUI/oH Heny Traoy WTP Elllue!>! ....... ot Suppty Hlltry T .... y wrp fJ!\uo!>! • Son Andr ... &lppty Cry.tll :lp<inso -kn Andr_ Pipeline Cryltal Sptlng. Pump Station· SUnol!! Suppty Cryltal Spri"1l" Pump St.rion • CryIItIll Spring. No. l Supply Cryot.I Sp<in9'O lloIancin9 R •• "",oI' Santa Clara Valley WO Intortia Son JO"'luln Plpolln. No, • IPIanne<lj Eu\ 80y MUO 1010111. (Planned) BoY Oivilian Pipeline No. ~ (Planne<l) FIGURE 3 LOCATION Alber. Roed, South oJ Otlkd.a1o in Staol.Leua CoviVy Sime aa Sau\ Joaquin Pip&ll.ne No. '1 same .. san Joaquin Pipeline woo 1 &on Anlonlo Pump allIlon san AnU)nlO Pump Sit.lon SUno! "alley Water Treatment pta.nt Dl'iaeoll Ftoa¥t 10 Fremont Same as Irvington 81ij1,Y OivjaiOf'l Pipelin6 No. 1 Minion Boulevard in frOMOnt $«me u trwngton Bay OlvJaioo PipeUne N.o. l Ha •• lar .A:oad Ii f\.tIgu Valve Lot Same ... Pulga. Bay tlIvloioo Pip.U"" ~. 1 Same •• Pulga. Bay DiYi..to.n P\peiin~ N,o. 1 Sam_ u Pu1tJU Bay 01",1",,00 ~pelln. Woo 1 C<lnlKfa Road no", Ng .. Tompl. Hoay Tr"'Y Walor T" .. "",.n Plo.nl Harry Tracy _r Tre_.n 1'10.0' cryotel Sprin~. PUIJIP Si:lIIion ery.tel Spring, Pump Si:lIIlon ery.tlll $filing" Pump Sterlon ~rw:$8 R.olld near PUlgH Temp!e MilpitM BOI.Jklvard In Milplta,. To be dM«rnined T(I be d.tamtlned To be det..-mlned • l.lw",,,t:e UYN'lnorc ..... 10 .... ~O!jl CGnn.,rtan to ~ $iIf\ Joi.qWn: Plpe}liL).s ..p -.su. ..tt..qUio pj~lIl~ Milteft __ -e#~4 @,@.@/B'I L..Q<:at.d noat o..~ Locations of System Input and In-Line Meters Tabla 1 Base Usage (mgd) and Allocation Rates (1 ) (2) I (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Usage Definition I 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007·08 2008-09 2009-10 I 1. Gross S.F. Co. line B.1 I 79.5 78.3 75.7 2. Daly City portion B.2 I 0.2 0.2 0.2 3. Net S.F. (1-2) I 79.3 78.1 75.5 4. other suburban raw water 8.4 I 0.4 0.5 0.7 5. other suburban treated water 8.5 I 4.1 3.4 3.9 6. Tolal olher suburban (4+5) I 4.5 3.9 4.6 7. Tolal City usage (3+6) I 83.8 82.0 80.1 I 8. Total wholesale usage B.8 I 167.4 164.4 175.8 9. Total system usage (7+8) , 251.2 246.4 255.9 I 10. Wholesale alloe. rate (8/9) I 66.63% 66.72% 68.70% 11. City alloe. rate (100%-10) I 33.37% 33.28% 31.30% I 12a. HHWPD Inpul (Oakdale) B.12 I 194.7 202.6 227.3 12b. Deliveries to LLNL 8.12 I -0.4 -0.9 -0.9 12c. HH to San Ant. Res. 8.12 I -3.8 -1.8 -11.6 12d. Sunol Valley WTP 8.12 I 28.5 29.4 17.6 12~. Harry Tracy WTP 8.12 I 45.2 40.4 41.2 12f. Raw water deliveries 8.12 I 0.4 0.4 0.7 12g. Deliveries to Coastsfde Co. WD 8.12 I 1.8 1.6 2.1 12h. Crys. Sprs. 8al. Res. 8.12 , 0.0 0.0 0.0 121. Spill to CS Res. B.12 , -19.9 -42.6 -37.1 12j. Terminal Reservoirs 8.12 I 0.0 0.0 0.0 12k. Other sources 8.12 I 0.0 1.9 3.8 13. Total system input 8.13 I 246.5 231.0 243.1 I 14. JI. sYs. loss red. fact. (9/13) I 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 15. Daly City red. factor (3/1 ) I 0.9975 0.9974 0.9974 16. Total suburban (6+8) I 171.9 168.3 180.4 17. Suburban red. faclor (8/16) I 0.9736 0.9768 0.9745 Meter 1 2 3 4 5 6 A Meter 7 8 9 Table 2 Locations of SFPUC County-Une Meters and In-City Terminal Reservoirs Pipeline Sunset Sutro Lake Merced Outfall San Andreas No.2 CrYstal Springs No. i Crystal Springs No.2 San Andreas No.3 (Planned) Reservoir Sunset Reservoir University Mound Reservoir Merced Manor Reservoir County·Line Meters Location Lake Merced Pump Station Lake Merced Pump Station Lake Merced Pump Station Junipero Serra (Hv.,ry. 280) South of Belle Ave. PG&E Martin Service Center Yard Tamasco Cl. South of Sunnydale Ave. To be determined In~City Terminal Reservoirs Location 26th Avenue and Ortega University Avenue and Bacon 23rd Avenue and Ocean Meter 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 B C D&E Table 3 Locations of SFPUC System Input and In-Line Meters Pipeline San Joaquin Pipeline No.1 San Joaquin Pipeline No.2 San Joaquin Pipeline No.3 San Antonio Pipeline Sunol Valley WTP Effluent Calaveras Pipeline Irvington -Bay Division Pipeline No.1 Irvington -Bay Division Pipeline No.2 Irvington Bay Division Pipeline No.3 Irvington -Bay Division Pipeline No.4 Pulgas -Bay Division Pipeline No. 1 Purgas...., Bay Division Pipeline No.2 Pulgas -Bay Division Pipeline No.3 Pulgas -Bay Division Pipeline No.4 Crystal Springs Reser/oir Outfall Harry Tracy WTP Effluent -Sunset Supply Harry Tracy WTP Effluent -San Andreas Supply Crystal Springs -San Andreas Pipeline Crystal Springs Pump Station -Sunset Supply· Crystal Springs Pump Station - Crystal Springs No.2 Supply Crystal Springs Balancing Reservoir Santa Clara Valley WD Intertie San Joaquin Pipeline No.4 (Planned) East Bay MUD Intertie (Planned) Bay Division Pipeline NO.5 (Planned) Location Albers Road, South of Oakdale in Stanislaus County Same as San Joaquin Pipeline No. 1 Same as San Joaquin Pipeline NO.1 San Antonio Pump Station San Antonio Pump Station Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant· Driscoll Road in Fremont Same as Irvington Bay Division Pipeline NO.1 Mission Boulevard in Fremont Same as Irvington Bay Division Pipeline No,3 Hassler Road at Pulgas Valve Lot Same as Pulgas Bay Division Pipeline No. 1 Same as Pulgas Bay Division Pipeline No. 1 Same as Pulgas Bay Division Pipeline No.1 Canada Road near Pulgas Temple Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant Crystal Springs Pump Station . Crystal Springs Pump Station Crystal Springs Pump Station Canada Road near Pulgas Temple Milpitas Boulevard in Milpitas To be determined To be determined To be determined TABLE 4 SFPUC COUNTY~LINE METERS, IN-CITY TERMINAL RESERVOIRS, AND ASSOCIATED METERING EQUIPMENT I - • County-Line Meter 1. Sunset Associated Metering Equipment: Meter Type Location 60" Venturi Lake Merced Pum Station • Rosemount DIP transmitter • Honeywell recorder ~~~ ______________ -,~.~~SC_ADA __ -,~~~ __ ~~ __ ~~ __ ~ 2. Sutro 36" Venturi Lake Merced Pum Station Associated Metering Equipment: • Rosemount DIP transmitter • Honeywell recorder • SCADA -_ '-, 3-.-L-a-ke Merced Outfa',-I _-1..1 __ 16" Mag. Meter llake Merced PumStatlOn~-_M. __ --.-.----Associated Metering • Honeywell recorder Equipment: • SCADA 4. San Andreas NQ. 2 I 36" Venturi I Junipero Serra (Hwy. 280) south of Belle Avenue Associated Metering • Yokogawa DIP transmitter Equipment: • NLS display • AGM electronics • Honeywell recorder • SCADA 5. Crystal Springs No.1 144" Venturi 1 PG&E Martin Service Center Yard Assocrated Metering • Yokogawa DIP transmitter Equipment: • NLS display • AGM electronics • Honeywell recorder ~------• SCADA .6. Crystal Springs No.2 -/60" Venturi I T amas'co ct. south of i Sunnydale Avenue Associated Metering • Yokogawa DIP transmitter Equipment • NLS display • AGM electronics • SCADA ---- In·City Terminal Reservoirs 1. Sunset -- J Pressure 126m Avenue and Ortega Transducer Associated Metering • Honeywell recorder E ui ment: ~----r--;.=--SCADA 2. Merced-Manor Pressure Avenue and Ocean Transducer Associated Metering Equipment: • Honeywe~ll-r-ec-'o-rd"""'er • SCADA 1 I I 3. University Mound Pressure Transducer I-University Avenue and Bacon Associated Metering • Honeywell recorder Equipm.:.:e::.:n:.::t: _______ ._S:::.C:::::.A:...:::::.D:....;A _____________ ----I TABLE 5 METER CALIBRATION AND MAINTENANCE FREQUENCY I METER! FREQUENCY WORK TO BE PERFORMED EQUIPMENT (See Work Codes Listed Berow) ! -I Cl I Fl l'N I Quarterly Semi-Annual CA LU -Annual Venturi Meters X X I X I X I (1) i (1) Magnetic Meters I X X I X I !X I (2) I (2) I . (2) I Yokagowa DIP X X X I X I X ! . Transmitters Rosemount DIP [ X I X' I X I X I X I Transmitters Honeywell I X I I X I X I I XI ! Recorders I Water Level Sensors I X I I I X i X I I X I I (Pressure Transducers) I SCADA Electronics j X [ I I X I I ! I [ i AGM Electronics i X I I I X I I I I I . NLS DiQital Displays X , I I X I I I I I Electrostatic 24V DC I I I X I I. I I (;, I I Power SU[lQlies --_. --ASCO Solenoids [ I I X I I X I I (;) [ X I WORK CODES: CA =: CALIBRATE; Cl '" CLEAN; Fl '" FLUSH; IN:: INSPECT; LU:: LUBRICATE; PT .. PITOT TUBE TEST. NOTES: . (1) Inspection and flushing requirements for Venturi meters refer to the pressure tubing from the meier to the differential pressure transmilter. (2) May calibrate using clamp-on meier where conditions allow. Inspection Bnd cleaning requiremenls for magnetic meters refer to the sensors or probes that are inserted through the pipe wall. (3) Adjust voltage if necessary. (4) Replace rubber ware as needed. PT X I ATIACHMENT K-l WHOlESALE CUSTOMERS' SHARE OF NET BOOK VALUE OF EXISTING ASSETS "''''PRElIMINARY· TO BE SUBSTITUTED WITH FINAL 6/30/09 VALUES"" (Section 5.03) Notes Regional System Net Plant as of 6/30/08 (Actual) Less: Projected Depreciation on Regional Assets Plus: Projected FY 2008-09 Capital Additions Projected Regional System Net Plant as of 6/30/09 Plus; Projected Construction Work In Progress (CW!P) as of 6/30/09 Projected Regional System Net Plant and CWIP as of 6/30/09 Allocation Factor: Wholesale Share of Projected Regional System Net Plant as of 6/30/09 Plus: Wholesale Share of Projected CWIP as of 6/30/09 Wholesale Share of Projected Net Plant and CWIP as 6/30/09 I nterest Rate: Term (Yrs): . Monthly PrinCipal & Interest Annual Wholesale Revenue Requirement Amount Notes 1 FAACS 120A Report as of 6/30/08 2 SFPUC Estimate 3 SFPUC Estimate based on projects and amounts as folfows: CUW358 Sunset Reservoir {North Basin) CUW 365 Cross Connection Controls CUW 394 Watershed Land Acqusition Total Additions 4 CWIP based on balance as 6/30/08 plus YTD expenditures (see Attachment K-2) 5 Fixed allocation factors based on dollar weighted 5-year average of J-Table allocation factors (2003-04 through 2007.08) 6 Wholesale share CWIP based on balance as 6/30/08 plus YTD expenditures (see Attachment K-2) Page 1 of 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 Value Water Hetch Hetchy $ 435,639,907 $ 66,135,724 $ (32,526,143) $ {3,598,189) $ 62,771,153 $ $ 465,884,917 $ 62,537,535 $ 16,92.8,503 $ 5,807,023 $ 482,813,420 $ 68,344,558 70.1% 64.2% $ 326,585,327 $ 40,149,098 $ 11,866,881 $ 3,728,109 $ 338,452,207 $ 43,877,206 5.13% 5.13% 25 25 $ 2,004,277 $ 259,836 $ 24,051,326 $ 3,118,033 Water Assets $ 57,382.,744 $ 3,679,415 $ 1,708,994 $ 62,771,153 Total $ 551,157,978 $ 366,734,424 $ 15,594,989 $ 382,329,414 $ 2,264,113 $ 27,169,359 5/6/2009 A TTACHMEW K-2 WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS' SliME Of THE BOOK VA1.UE OF REVENUE <UNO£O CAPITAL EXPENOIl1JRES ".PR£uMINAA.V. TO BE SUBSTITUTED WITH FINAL 6/30/09 VALUES·" ISletlon 5.01) Ul (2) III 14) (5] 161 (7J f81 (9] Project CMP3sot FY 2008.()9 Redut:tion for CW!Pu W~t.r Related Whollsal. NO. proje<:t Oeu::ription Rate C!~n 6/30/08 fxpendttvre, 02A Fundln, ./Jo/O'1 CWIP Share: A. water €nterprhe 1 Relfon~! proJecU CUW]S2 Atameca Cleek FisMer; Joint $ 2.007,607 S 224,»2 2.232,189 $ S CUW3S3 s.eismk; UPfrad.@ Hayward Fault Joinl S 3,129,234 S 1,967,625 5,096,859 $ $ CUWlS4 lOWER CRYS'fAL SPRINGS DAM-REV·5fWD Joint $ 7,046,944 $ 1,086,262 8,13).20. S $ CUW3SS STANDBY POWER fACIt.mE.S Joint $ 3/715~276 $ 6,596,849 S 10,312,125 $ S CUWlS7 Adtt leak .R.epal'-' Joint $ 783 S 1,129 S 1 .. 912 S $ CUW]S9 rvin(fOn T\.mn II Joint $ 21,391,129 $ 5,176,7U $ 26,567,842 $ S CUWl59 Joint $ 7,637,176 $ $ 1,837,176 $ $ CUW351 j(.)int $ 368,057 $ 1,383,959 $ 1,752,016 $ $ CUW361 Joint $ 1,255,545 $ $ 1,255,545 S $ CUW361 pui,al hl;ancing ReUtvolr Joint $ 1,248,002 $ $ 1,24.,002 $ S CUW361 Joint $ 570,119 S S 570,179 $ $ .CUW361 Joint $ 712,921 $ S 712,921 $ $ CUW363 SCAOA Phase II Jo(nt $ 1,335,371 $ 1,138,045 S 3,013,416 S S CUW363 JoInt $ 1,062,050 $ $ 1,062,050 $ $ CUW36S CrOll Connection Conun! Joint $ 3,635,172 $ 541,801 $ 4,182,973 $ $ Capitaliled in fY 200S.{}9 CUW367 H1WTP LT Impr Joint $ 5,011,348 $ 2,479,731 $ 10,491,079 $ $ CUW31:ial joint $ 2J,640,601 $ $ 23,640,601 $ S CUW368 J 80Pl Hydraulic Caj)adty lolnt $ 17,556,905 S 4,200,442 $ 21,757,347 $ $ CUW363 Joint S 2,519,8.47 $ $ 2/579,847 $ $ CUWJ70 Pipeline Readines.s Joint $ S~HO.934· $ 328,070 $ 5,649,OM $ S CUW371 CSPS lind PIpeline Joinl $ 11/420.770 $ 3,672,779 S 15,293,549 S S CUW37l Unlyersity Mound (I'll} Joint S 4,624,961 $ 1.068,147 $ 5,693,128 $ S CUWl73~L JoJnt $ 19,479,341 S 6,023,849 $ 25,503,190 $ $ CUW373 Jo\nt $ 7,199,051 $ $ 7,199,051 S $ CUW3]4 laveras Dim joint S 31,171,669 $ 4,314,430 $ 35,446,099 $ S CUWn4 JoInt $ 2,366,343 $ S 2,365,343 S $ CUW373 CSPl ~2 Joint S 1,453,098 $ 913,369 $ 8,366,.67 S $ CUW379 SAPl n Joint $ 5,723,934 $ 568,34. S .,317,280 $ $ CUW380 SDPt( ~&4 CroJ,JoyeIS joint $ 3,855,357 $ 1,083,888 $ 4,93',245 $ $ CUW3811 Joint $ 5,450;995 $ $ 5~4S0t9gS $ S CUWlS1 J SVWTP Expansion joInt $ 53,222 $ 3,090,520 $ 3,143.142 $ $ CUW381 JoInt $ 97,313 $ $ 97,313 $ $ CUW382 SYWTP Treated Water Renrvoir Joint $ $,799,505 S 575 $ 5,800,080 $ $ CUW3S4 T esla Joint $ 6,102,621 S 7~444,942 $ 13,547,563 $ $ CUW386 SAPS X-CONN£CT 8< PUMP IMP 96A UE8 Joint $ 1.314,491 $ 971,625 $ 2,346,116 S $ CUW388}P£lR Joint $ 896,476 $ I.S41.717 $ 2,538,193 $ $ CUW388 Joil'lt $ 1,331.676 $ $ 1,331,616 $ $ CUW390 Oenlioatlon Pilot Joint $ 115,165 $ S 175,165 S $ CUW391 Sade-niSin Pedro VaJvt. Lou. JoInt S ],964,642 $ 948,589 $ 4,913,231 $ $ CUW392 Procnm Mana,ffm.nt joint $ 2,452,297 S 5,081,444 $ 7,533,741 $ S CUW393 SOPll'4 Condition AlsluJment Joint $ 25,071 $ 294,634 $ 319,105 $ $ CUW394 W .. tJmhed Envfroment impronment JoInt $ 142,924 S 96,027 $ 238,951 $ $ Capitalized in FY 2008-09 CUWIOI SAN ANOREAS pLANT EXPAN5iON.l Joint $ 1'2 S 96,027 $ $ 67,443 CUWlll toWER CRVSTAl5PRINGS DAM·REV-5FWO Joint $ 40,436 $ $ $ 28,346 CUW151 Paden PS lo1nt $ 921 $ 26,760 $ $ 19,404 CUW161 WatorTft!atment facilf'tiel Joint $ 75,801 $ 605 $ $ 53,561 CUW178 SAPS X-CONNECT & PUMP IMP96A UE8 Joint .$ 104,902 $ S S 13,536 CUW202 } Jolflt $ 50,808 $ S $ 35,616 CUW202. Rapt.co PeeP Jotnt $ 285,003 $ 64,256 $ $ 244,831 CUW202 Joillt S 2,355 S $ $ 1,658 CUW127 SCAOA JOInt $ 50,029 $ 2.4tU~274 $ $ 1,114,"'3 CUW3S6 Ntlw CryJ'ta1 Sprines-BYPlIh TUnA!!! Joint $ 13,992,2&>1 $ 5,560,862 S 16.02B,397 $ S 2,470,835 CUW3S8 Sumet. (N) Joint $ 52,494,764 $ 4/887,980 S 55,806,081 S $ 1,105.141 Capit311ud In FY lOO8.{}9 CUW387 Tesla Port .. 1 Disinfection }otn\. $ 2,311,162 S 11,9961 S 1,223,945 $ 1,151,321 $ 307,076 <OW"'j Johu S 45,413 $ $ $ 31)135. CUW135 New Lines and 8'1Pas, V&Ne:J Joint S 153,9S3 $ 610.1~6 $ $ 542,571 CUW13S Joint $ 8,860 $ S S 6,211 CUWI43 Joint $ 5.656 $ S $ 3,965 CUW143 HH W"terTreatm.nl Plan Joint $ 709,972 $ 8,817 S 718,18' $ 503,871 CUW143 Joinl $ 96,192 $ $ 96,292 $ 61,501 CUW 186, S\IWTP IMPROVEMENT PROJfCT-CI'a-5FWO Jo1M $ 3,604 $ $ 3,604 $ 2,525 CUW205 } JoInt $ 4,365 S $ 4,365 S 3,060 CUW206 T4.$11: Portal/Tf1o:m,5h;.ft Emllrgenc'l Ditlnf«1:ton Joint S 28],520 S 5,665 S 289,285 $ 202,789 CUW206 Joint $ 227,004 S $ 227t004 $ 159,130 CUW2l1 Millbraebbs Joint $ 81,856 $ 34,&85 S 116,541 $ 81,695 CUW236 1HSA/5JVH WQ MONITORiNG IMP" Joint $ 152,963 S $ lS2~963 $ 107,221 CO\\l3£6 } joint S 16,513 S $ 1(',513 S 11,:>81 CUW366 HTWTP ST hnprollQments Joint $ 1,398,798 S 5,732,626 7.131/424 $ S CUW366 JoInt S 1,452,901 $ 1,452,901 S S CUW120 WA1U QUALflY PLANNING STUDY Joint $ 577 S $ 577 S 404 CUW164 WATER VULNERASIlflY STUDY·UE8 Joint $ 479 $ $ 479 S 336 CUWI81 STAND.BY roWER FACIliTIES Joint $ 5,905 S S 5,905 S 4,139 CUV!210 Milrbra. AdminidrttiYe Bldg Remodel Joint S 7,803 S nl,553 $ 329,356 $ 230,879 CUW220 Calav.nl D4m Evaluation Joint $ 308,911 S S 308,911 S 216,589 CUW227 W:tteNhed F.,Cilitfe.5 and Fencing JoInt $ 190,552 $ 206,448 $ 397,000 S 218,257 CUW228 Water.shed Road.s Joint S 35B,434 S 85,337 S 443,771 $ 311,083 CUW212 Q"yltaI5ptini.5 Oam Dlsc:tnrie Joint $ 363,823 S S 363,823 S 255,040 CUW 242}oemotftlOn of unu:fe 5u"ucture1 Joint S 311.548 S 22,741 S 334,289 $ 234,337 OJW242 Joint S 315 $ $ 31, $ 121 CUW2Ei1 ftt!lion~l R&R ~Stol"ilee Joint S 175,,694 $ '277~'S8 S 553,652 S 388,110 CUW 262 }RetiOn<i1 RitA ~ Tteatement Joint $ 1,236.895 $ 409,282 S 1,646,177 S 1/153,970 CUW26l . Joint $ 277,383 $ S 277,383 S 194,445 Pale 1 ot 2 5/6/2009 ATTAO<MeNT K·Z WHOlUAlE CUSTOMERS' SHAAE OFntE800K VAtUEOf REVENue FUNOED CAPITAl. EXPENOrruAES "PREliMINARY ~ TO a~ $UBSTTTllleD WNW FIt.lAl6/30/09 VALUES" [2J (I} pro~ect No. Project Os-scription: CUW263lRe&iOnal Fl&R.· Tranunfllion CUW263] CUW360 PLANNING· WSTD Sunol Quarry Resc(\'oin CUW934 BOA/BAW/lJ/Fl/SfWO.cONT PROJ·OPfR fD TOTAl REGIONAl WATER PROJECTS ~tw ?roject1 to be Capitilited fn fV 2008·09 ADJUSTED TOTAl REGIONAl WATER PROJEcT5 Whot • .uie DIrect None B. Hatch Hetch)" Wner &. Power CUH703 Priest Reisrvoir aY"p~n CUH762 SJPl Reparis C CUH766 HH Stevf1ty Improvementli CUH767 Power Tran"fotmel'$ CUH803 Street LICht.! CV HS04 HH Raids CUHB29 HH SCADA C!JH842 Mocca~ln Cot:1;.lges Reno'J1tlons CUHS46 New Moccuin Psfutocl< CUH851 Turb!naG.neldlor R8no .... adons CUH8ER Mocciuin En.fIY Atuorbef CUrl876 Mocciuin Pliont System CUH878 O'SMulneuy Dbthar.errourumn~ River ChJnnellmpr. CUt-l8.9] Meterln, Munt Lo~d CUH893 OI.nv/EleanO( PUmp UPirade CUHB96 Strtlet Li,bU CUH899 canyon Tonne~ Pen$toc-k CUH91S tx; AueumenT/Hun1er1 Point CUH9'25 Pipe Purc:h.ue CUH931 MlcroWOlV~ Replacem~nt CUH932 HH SCAOA CUH82S Obtr/buUofl Syltem CUH941 HHP SCADA Security &: Control EaJ't/O'5hausnu,sy CUH942 otsbaUinUJV Dam Di.charle N~edle V:a:Ne.I CUH943 Rentwabl. £nerg CUH945 SJPL Crouovers CUHS46 FaclUty Maintenance CUH941 Swt.Jinable Energy ACCQlIl1t CUH948 Facility Maintenance ~ Tf'1Insmiulon LInes CUH949 POW Maintenance CUH950 HPH/I(PH/MPH CUH9SS Solar Monitor(ns CUH95G Facility MOlIiotenan,. -G.U valvu CUH9S1 Mocc.utn Corril0n Control CUH9SS: Generation M~tt:rin8 CUH959 MO(c.;uin RtServoirW.aterQuaHty CUH960 Sohlr Power Proj~ct CUH861 MECA Sol.r CUH962 SF ElectrlC31 Reliability CllH964 Watershed L~fl Purchue CUH966 MECA -!}em.and Reduction CUH9£S SFIASCADA CUH9'l1 Newlrd ~ CCSF Trqnml,Ulof! ProJMt CUH912 Load Me t6 ring CUH973 nhuib..rtlof! IUStlHment CUH91S H~tdi Hetl::hy W~t~r R&R CUH91S Helen Hetchy Water R&R CUH97S Hetth Het<:hy Water RltR CUH976 XPH Rewind CUH911 facilrtie:, Maintenance' W,ater CUH918 community Choice Aeg'Te.lation CliH979 Hunt«rs Point Distribution CUH981 Shorr. Power forCruueSbipJ CUH9S6 SEA -foam fffll::iellCl' CUW681 S2S-Golci9n Gate IUH004 Auto ~ .. ihten.1nCe PUH,SOl SF £nvlronn~nt fnergy/Gru n Power P'I'I;A£S Youlh Employment fOTALI1HWP PROJECTS TOTAL COMBJNEO WATER AND HHWP Note~ 1. 5{30/08 CWIP ptf FA"'!5 2. FY 2008..(J9 Exptlldlturlts posted through 3/20/0'9 per FAMI5 3, Whol.,.,}e lh.u~ of CWlP 10.1" ($of:e: Note 5 Attu;hment X .. l) 4. Water Related HHWP CV{IP Includes loO%ofWillterand 45" of J01nt 5, Wholeule sll ... re of CWIP 6.4.2" (.lee Note 5 Attachment 1(~11 6. Fund 2A ,xpf'nditures at"e funded by Seri," 2006A bond proceeds, procHds or comme:rc:i.1 ~plI:r redeefh.d fro11'l1.oo6A proceeds Ind urninCs on n.u:h proceeds, u .ppliclbla. (3J R.lteClan Joint Joint joInt Joi(lt Joint Wate; Joir.t Power Power Joint JoInt loint Power Power Power lolnt JoInt Power Power Powe; Pow!:r Power Water Joint Joint Power Joint Joint Power W<tter Joint Power Power PoWer Power Powtr Wate; Joint Power Water Powe; Power Power Wlt~r Power Pow~' Power power Power Power W.l:ler Join' POWlJr .Iolnt Power .Po......er Power Power 10int Joint pOWer Joint (S«tlan 5,a~) 141 CWIP.u of 6/30/08 (Sf {61 fY 2008-09 Reduction for Expenditures 02A Fundir.iC $ 7511,422 797,659 $ 1,224,09' $ 2,Ul $ ,9,479 (2,2101 998.005 $ 31l,IOO,517 S "",,SOI,57' $379,397,925 S43,073 111)55 31,953 18 9~294 5.,un 961,75~ 446,419 1,433,974 441,226 70,631 1,236,853 122 275,213 48,023 9,672,555 52,613 999,85' 1,053,19S 770,839 5,571 1,926,977 2,690 15,262 23,987,888 47.164 15S,011 261,601 40,506 341,240 926,25.1 15,677 168.076 4,361 17,012 568,79' 21,804 1,668,663 1.'l,667 156,.210 109,797 246,948 239 1,838,396 101,295 !l0,986 lS)U1 (5,33)} 26,369 2,653 75,756 130,:100 516,524 . 887,864 1,417,914 1,049,R78 101,075 552,011 4.105 3,881 66,107 12,964,9]< S 337,08.8,40' $ 97,767,SM $379,397,925 Pace 2ot2 [8J 19} f7} CW'IP aJ 6/30/09 Water Related Who!en.le 1.566,08] 1,224,094 1,513 (940,7361 18,$05,166 1,576,663 16,92S,503 S 47,1li4 S S 308,627 $ S 426,079 S $ S $ '0,506 $ $ 341,240 S S . ,S S S $ :'<3,013 $ $ 1,038,009 $ $ S $ 15,677 $ $ 200,029 $ $ 4,379 S $ 17,012 $ S 57B,08a $ S 26,014 $ $ 2,630,418 S $ 13,667 $ S 3,313,761 $ S $ $ 556,216 $ $ 1,5110,922 $ $ $ $ S S $ $ 239 S $ 2,179,622 S S 171.926 $ $ $ $ VI04,47' $ $ 212 $ $ 275,213 $ $ 159,OO!! $ $ lUll $ $ 10S,3711 $ $ 1,147 $ S 26,359 $ $ 9,675,218 S S 75,7S6 S S S $ S S 1S9,722 S $ 146,313 S $ $ $ $ S $ S S S $ S $ S $ $ 130,100 S 1~887~718 2.471,209 1,820.717 2.458,988 7..690 15,262 4,105 3,882 66,107 36/j52,962 55,458,028 $ $ $ $ $ S $ $ $ $ $ S CWIP Share- 1,097,823 858,090 1,762 1659,456) S 12,972,121 S 1,10051241 S 11,866,881 '11,214 $ 308,627 $ 191,736 $ S $ 153,558 $ S $ S S $ i,055 $ 90,013 $ $ S $ $ S 13,567 S 1,491,192 S $ $ 756,415 $ $ S S 108 S $ S S $ S 275,213 S 71,SS4 S S 109,379 S S $ S 75,756 S S S $ S S $ 5G9t137 S a49,473 $ $ 819,323 S $ $ $ $ 1,847 S 1,147 S 5,807.023 13,626 198,139 123,094 98,584 4,52' ;7,788 8,774 957,346 485 .. 618 69 116,617 45,938 70,221 48,635 365,386 545,362 526,ooS ~186 l,)22 3,728,lQ? 5/6/2009 Water ATrACHMENT K-3 25 YEAR PA YOFF SCHEDULE FOR EXISITING RATE BASE WATER ENTERPRISE REGIONAL ASSETS AND ONE DIRECT WHOLESALE ASSET **PREUMINARY -TO BE SUBSTITUTED WITH FINAL 6/30/09 VALUES" (Section 5.03) Water Assets 6/30/09 Wholesale Share of Net Plant & CWIP (Attachment K-1) 338,452,207 . Interest Rate: ·5.13% Term: 25 Monthly Principal & Interest Calculation: 2,004,277 Annual Wholesale Revenue Requirement: 24,051,326 Fiscal Yr Annual Year End Ending Principal Interest Payment (Wtr) Balance . Jun-l0 6,848,259 17,203,067 24,051,326 331,603,948 Jun-11 7,207,954 16,843,372 24,051,326 324,395,994 Jun-12 7,586,541 16,464,785 24,051,326 316,809,453 Jun-13 7,985,013 16,066,313 24,051,326 308,824,439 Jun-14 8,404,415 15,646,911 24,051,326 300,420,024 Jun-15 8,845,844 15,205,482 24,051,326 291,574,180 Jun-16 9,310,459 14,740,867 24,051,326 282,263,721 Jun-17 9,799,478 14,251,848 24,051,326 272,464,243 Jun-18 10,314,181 13,737,145 24,051,326 262,150,062 Jun-19 10,855,919 13,195,407. 24,051,326 251,294,143 Jun-20 11,426,110 12,625,216 24,051,326 239,868,033 Jun-21 12,026,250 12,025,076 24,051,326 227,841,784 Jun-22 12,657,911 11,393,415 24,051,326 215,183,873 Jun-23 13,322,749 10,728,577 24,051,326 201,861,123 Jun-24 14,022,507 10,028,819 24,051,326 187,838,616 Jun-25 14,759,019 9,292,307 24,051,326 173,079,597 Jun-26 15,534,215 8,517,111 24,051,326 157,545,382 Jun27 16,350,127 7,701,199 24,051,326 141,195,254 Jun-28 17,208,894 6,842,432 24,051,326 123,986,361 Jun-29 18,112,766 5,938,560 24,051,326 105,873,594 Jun-30 19,064,113 4,987,213 24,051,326 86,809,482 Jun-31 20,065,428 3J985,898 24,051,326 66,744,054 Jun-32 21,119,335 2,931,991 24,051,326 45,624,719 . Jun-33 22,228,597 1,822,729 24,05],326 23,396,122 Jun-34 23,396,122 655,204 24,051,326 0 Totals: 338,452,207 262,830,943 601,283J150 Page 1 of 1 5/6/2009 ATIACHMENT K·4 25 YEAR PAYOFF SCHEDULE FOR EXISTING RATE BASE HETCH HETCHY WATER ASSETS AND WATER-RELATED PORTION OF JOINT ASSETS **PRELIMINARY TO BE SUBSTITUTED WITH FINAL 6/30/09 VAlUES** (Section 5.03) Hetch Hetch~ 6/30/09 Wholesale Share of Net Plant & CWIP (Attachment K-1) 43,877,206 Interest Rate: 5.13% Term: 25 Monthly Principal & Interest Calculation: 259,836 Annual Wholesale Revenue Requirement: 3,118,033 Fiscal Yr Annual Year End Ending Principal Interest Payment (HH) Balance Jun-lO 887,814 2,230,219 3,118,033 42,989,393 Jun-11 934,445 2,183,588 3,118,033 42,054,948 Jun-12 983,525 2,134,507 3,118,033 41,071,423 Jun-13 1,035,183 2,082,849 3,118,033 40,036,239 Jun-14 1,089,555 2,028,478 3,118,033 38,946,685 Jun-15 1,146,782 1,971,250 3,118,033 37,799,903 Jun-16 1,207,015 1,911,017 3,118,033 36,592,887 Jun-17 1,270,412 1,847,621 3,118,033 35,322,475 Jun-18 1,337,138 1,780,894 3,118,033 33,985,337 Jun-19 1,407,370 1,710,663 3,118,033 32,577,967 Jun-20 1,481,290 1,636,743 3,118,033 31,096,678 Jun-21 1,559,092 1,558,940 3,118,033 29,537,585 Jun-22 1,640,981 1,477,051 3,118,033 27,896,604 Jun-23 1,727,172 1,390,861 3,118,033 26,169,432 Jun-24 1,817,889 1,300,144 3,118,033 24,351,544 Jun25 1,913,371 1,204,662 3,118,033 22,438,173 Jun-26 2,013,868 1,104,165 3,118,033 20,424,305 Jun-27 2,119,643 998,389 3,118,033 18,304,662 . Jun-28 2,230,974 887,058 3,118,033 16,073,688 Jun-29 2,348,153 769,880 3,118,033 13,725,535 Jun-30 2,471,486 646,546 3,118,033 11,254,048 Jun-31 2,601,298 516,735 3,118,033 8,652,751 Jun-32 2,737,927 380,106 3,118,033 . 5,914,824 Jun-33 2,881,733 236,300 3,118,033 3,033,091 Jun-34 3,033,091 84,941 3,118,033 0 43,877,206 34,073,607 77,950,813 Hetch Hetchy Page 1 of 1 5/6/2009 ATTACHMENT K..s UNEXPENDED APPROPRIATIONS FOR REVENUE-FUNDED REGIONAL ASSETS CONSTRUCTION WORK IN PROGRESS AS OF MARCH 30, 20(}9 , (Seetion 5.1)4) ApploprialiO YTO PTD Available Projed Project Title Fund Tl~e Subfund Classification n Exe .. ndilu .... s Ex~ndilures Encumbrances Balances Notas Water Assets CUW257 WATERSHED PROTECTION 5W AAAACP REGIONAL 1,448,720 29,653 413,529 141,643 893,548 CUW250 WATERSHED TRAILS&RECREATION IMPRO' 5W AAAACP REGIONAL 387,639 9,431 112,689, 6,675 268.275 CUW261 REGIONAL WATER STORAGE RNR -BUDGE15W AAAACP REGIONAL 1,750,000 250,970 526,664 26,667 1,196,648 Annual R&R CUW242· DEMOLITION UNSAfE STRUCTURES 5W AAAACP REGIONAL 1,000,000 22,647 407,820 21,524 570,656 CUW263. CONVEYANCEfTRANSMISSION· BUDGET SW AAAACP REGIONAL 7,825,000 763,603 3.378,543 125,990 4,320,466 Annual R&R CUW264 WATERSHED ROADS· BUDGET sW AAAACP REGIONAL 3,000,000 77.074 1,391.500 162,401 1,446,099 Annual R&R CUW262 TREATMENT FACSrwQ IMPROVE-BUDGET 5W AAAACP REGIONAL 4,801,000 399.073 2,704,204 349,016 1.747,780 Annual MR CUW168 ALAMEDA CREEK FISH RELEASE 5W AAAACP REGIONAL 1,537,398 46,624 1.040,919 152,647 343,832 CUW231 MILLBRAE LAB CAPITAl IMPROVEMENTS 5W AAAACP REGIONAL 770,000 19,119 532,135 0 237,865 CUW227 WATERSHED FENCES/FACIUTES 5W AAAACP REGIONAL 3,000,000 206,222 2,223,776 581,926 194.298 CUW253 FACIUT!ES SECURITY PROJECT 5W AAAACP REGIONAL 5,300,000 73,048 4,146,944 113,124 1,039.931 CUW210 MILLBRAE ADMIN BLDG INTERIM REMODEL 5W AAAACP REGIONAL 2,407,700 264,902 1,935,204 160 472.337 CUW226 WATERSHED ROADS RECONSTRUCTION SW AAAACP REGIONAL 5,170,000 82,992 4,413,061 18,596 736.340 CUW202 SAN ANTONIO PIPELINE EMERGENCY REPJ>5W AAAACP REGIONAL 1,400,000 6,012 1,269,190 61,727 69,063 CUW148 ENVIRON~~ENTAL & REGULATORY COMP 5W AAAACP REGIONAl 3,241,279 0 3,014,995 184,774 41,510 CUW135 NEW LINE & BYPASS VALVES 5W AAAACP REGIONAL 4,829,680 2,103 4,689,067 0 140,613 CUW143 HETCH HETCHY WATER TREATMENT PLAN 5W AAAACP REGIONAL 18,821,529 0 16,452,053 47,947 321,529 CUW161 TREATMENT FACiliTIES IMPROVEMENTS 5W AAAA,CP REGIONAL 15,026,319 334 14,747,873 0 280,446 CUW241 FACILITIES MAINT SUPPORT STRUCTURES 5W AAAACP REGIONAL 5,000,000 B,390 4,98B,662 0 11,118 CUW392 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SERVICES -WSIF 5W AAAACP LOCAUREGIONAl 1,837,000 (98,519) 751,659 71,973 1,013,368 CUW127 INST SCADA SYSTEM SW AAAACP LOCAUREGIONAl 13,156,681 2,481,274 8,653,641 0 4,503,040 CUW710 OCIP PROJECT CONTROL sW AAAACP LOCAUREGIONAl ' 2,497,881 235,706 2,496,959 0 922 TOTAL ALL PROJECTS 104,209,826 4,900,661 82,291,307 2,066,813 19,851,706 LOCAl PROJECTS LOCAL 0 a 0 0 a JOINT LOCAL AND REGIONAL PROJECTS LOCAUREGIONAL 17,491,562 2,618,462 11,902,259 71,973 5,517,330 REGlONAL PROJECTS REGIONAl 86,718,264 2,282,199 70,389.048 1,994,640 14,334,376 TOTAL ALL PROJECTS 104,209,826 4,900,661 82,291,307 2.066,813 19,851,706 Hetch:t Helch~ Assets CUH975 WATER INFRASTRUCTURE-BUDGET 5T AAAACP WATER 9,000.000 1,534,486 2,806,592 3.565.023 2,628,385 CUH964 WATERSHED PROPERTY puRCHASES 5T AAAACP WATER 800,000 75,756 454,756 0 345,244 CUH957 FAC MAINTENANCE·WATER TRANSPORTAT 5T AAAACP WATER 3,400,000 110,986 2,B85.394 209,138 305.,469 CUH703 PRIEST RESERVOIR DIVERSION CHANNEL 5T AAAACP WATER 21,210,344 47,164 20,166,993 0 1,043,351 CUH926 PIPELINE PURCHASE REPLACEMENT PIPE5T AAAACP WATER 159,860 13,667 157,489 0 2,371 CUH762 SAN JOAOUIN PIPELINE REPAIRS 5T AAAACP WATER 41,469,206 255,011 41,215,761 134,652 118,792 CUW687 525 GOLDEN GATE 5T AAAACP JOINT 280,600 4,105 26,437 0 254,163 CUH977 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE -BUDGET 5T AAAACP JOINT 9,300,000 1,049,878 3,578,478 803,231 4,918.290 CUH931 HH MICROWAVE REPLACEMENT 5T AAAACP JOINT 4,767,000 156,270 3,313,761 1,227,242 225,997 CUH941 HH SCADA SECURITY & CONTROL, EAST 5T AAAACP JOINT 2,068,180 246,948 1,680,922 256,196 131,060 CUH804 HETCH-HETCHY ROl'lOS REBUILDING 5T AAAACP JOINT 4,175,027 341,240 3,544,483 113,314 517,230 CUH766 HETON FACILITIES SECURITY IMPROV, 5T AAAACP JOINT 2;086,692 261,601 1,960,366 62,470 63,838 CUH876 MOCCASIN PHONE SYSTEM 5T AAAACP JOINT 1,610,000 15,677 1,528,780 0 81,220 CUH878 O'SHAUGENESSY DIS,REPAIRS 5T AAAACP JOINT· 7,179.009 33,750 7,101,544 9,297 68,068 CUH810 VARIOUS OLD JOB ST AAAACP JOINT 7,613,538 18,690 7,538,034 1,561 74,044 CUH946 FAC MAINTENANCE·SUPPORT STRUCTURE 5T AAAACP JOINT 2,261,454 239 2,273,485 0 7,969 CUH949 RIGHT OF WAY MAINTENANCE 5T AAAACP JOINT 815,000 0 814,208 166 626 TOTAL ALL PROJECTS 118.216,010 4,165,470 101,047,602 6,382,292 10,786,117 POWER PROJECTS POWER 0 0 0 0 0 WATER P".O.'ECTS WATER 76,039,410 2,037,072 87,686,985 3,908,812 4,443,613 JOINT PROJECTS JOINT 42,176,600 2,128,397 33,360.617 2,473,480 6,342,504 TOTAL ALL PROJECTS 118,216,010 4,165,470 101.047,602 5,382.292 10,766,117 lSS156G.2 ATIACHMENT L-1 IDENTIFICATION OF WSIP PROJECTS AS REGIONAL/RETAIL' (Section 5.04) Project Number REGIONAL CUW373 Regional' CUW384 Regional CUW387 Regional CUW352 Regional CUW355 Regional CUW359 Regional CUW370 Regional GUW374 Regional CUW381 Regional CUW382 Regional CUW386 Regional CUW353 Regional CUW363 Regional CUW368 Regional CUW380 Regional CUW389 Regional CUW393 Regional' CUW354 Regional CUW356 Regional CUW357 Regional CUW361 Regional CUW365 Regional CUW366 Regional CUW367 Regional CUW369 Regional CUW371 Regional CUW378 Regional CUW379 Regional CUW390 Regional CUW391 Regional Project Description San Joaquin Region San Joaquin Pipeline System Rehabilitation Tesla Advance Disinfection Tesla Portal Disinfection Sunol Valley Region' Alameda Creek Fishery Enhancement Stand-by Power Various Locations New Irvington Tunnel/Alameda Siphon No.4 Pipeline Readiness Improvements Calaveras Dam Replacement SVWTP 40 mgd Addition SVWTP Finished Water Reservoir San Antonio Pump Station Upgrade Bay Division Region Seismic Upgrade BDPL 3 & 4 SCADA Phase II/Security Upgrades BDPL Reliability Upgrades BDPL 3 & 4 Crossover EBMUD Intertie BDPl 4 Slip line Peninsula Region Lower Crystal Springs Dam Improvement Crystal Springs Bypass Tunnel Adit leak Repairs . Pulgas Balancing Reservoir Rehabilitation arid Improvements Cross Connection Control HTWTP Short Term Improvemetns HTWTP Long Term Improvements Capuchino Valve lot Improvements Crystal Springs/San Andreas Transmission Crystal Springs Pipleine 2 Replacement San Andreas Pipeline 3 Installation Desalination Baden & San Pedro Valve Lots Improvements Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT L-1 IDENTIFICATION OF WSIP PROJECTS AS REGIONAURETAIL (Section 5.04) Project Number CUW358 Regional CUW372 Regional CUW388 Regional CUW392 Regional CUW394 Regional RETAIL CUW307 Local CUW310 Local CUW319 Local . CUW334 Local CUW335 . Local CUW337 Local CUW306 Local CUW309 Local CUW314 Local CUW318 Local CUW320 Local CUW321 Local CUW322 Local CUW323 Local CUW324 Local CUW326 Local CUW326 Local CUW327 Local CUW328 Local CUW329 Local CUW330 Local CUW331 Local CUW332 Local CUW333 Local CUW338 Local CUW339 Local CUW340 Local Project Description San Francisco Region Sunset Reservoir Upgrades -North Basin University Mound Reservoir Upgrades -North Basin System-Wide PEIR Program Management Services Watershed Land Acquisition Reservoirs Summit Reservoir Rehabilitation New Northwest Reservoir Hunters Point Reservoir Rehabilitation Stanford Heights Reservoir Rehabilitation Potrero Heights Reservoir Rehabiliation Sutro Reservoir Rehabilitation Pump SlationsfTanks Cro<;:ker Amazon Pump Station Upgrade Lake Merced Pump Station Upgrade La Grande Tank Upgrade Forest Hill Tank Rehabilitation Forest Hill! Pump Station Upgrade Forest Knoll Pump Station Upgrade Uncoln Park P\Jmp Station Upgrade Alemany Pump Station Upgrade Mount Davidson Pump Station Upgrade Palo Alto Pump Station Upgrade Sktview-AquaVista Pump Station Upgrade Summit Pump Station Upgrade McLaren #1 Tank Rehabilitation Potrero Heights Tank Seismic Upgrade Forest Knoll Tank Seismic Upgrade Lincoln Park Tank Seismic Upgrade McLaren #2 Tank Rehabilitation Mount Davidson Tank Seismic Upgrade La Grande Pump Station Upgrade Potrero Heights Pump Station Upgrade Vista Francisco Pump Station Upgrade Page·2 of 3 · Project Number CUW304 Local CUW308 Local CUW311 Local CUW312 Local CUW313 Local CUW315 Local CUW316 Local CUW301 Local CUW302 Local CUW364 Local CUW303 Local CUW305 Local ATTACHMENT L-1 IDENTIFICATION OF WSIP PROJECTS AS REGIONAL/RETAIL (Section 5.04) Project Description PipelinesNalves North University Mound System Upgrade Motorize Key Valves Sunset Circulation Improvements Lincoln Way Transmission Line Noe Valley Transmission Main. Phase 2 East'West Transmission Main Fulton @ Sixthe Ave Main Replacement Water SupplylWater Quality Groundwater Recycled Water Lawrence-livermore National Laboratory Water Quality Improvements Miscellaneous Vehicfe Service Facility Upgrade Fire Protection at CCD Page 3 of3 ATTACHMENT L-2 03f13/06 $507,815,000 PUBLIC UTILrTlES COMMISSIQN OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OFSAN FRANCISCQ SAN FRANCISCO WATER REVENUE BONDS, .2006 SERIES A $110,065,000 PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMlSSION OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO WATER REVENUE BONDS, 2006 REFUNDING SERIES B CERTIFICATE REGARDING USE OF PROCEEDS The undersigned hereby slates and certifies as follows: (i) The undersigned is the General Manager of the Public Utilities Commission of the City and County of San Francisco (the ·Cqmmlssion"), 'and is authorized to execute this certificate on behalf of the Commission and is knowledgeable with respect to the matters set forth herein. (0) On the date hereof, the Commission is issuing th{,l two series of bonds captioned above (the "2006 Series A Bonds," the "2006 Refunding Series B Bonds" and, together, the "Bonds") pursuant to an Amended and Restated Indenture dated as of Au@ust t, 2002 and the First Supplemental Indenture dated as of March 1, 2006 (collectively, the "!Indenture"), both by and between tlTe Commission .~nd U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the "Trustee"). . (Iii) The Trustee will transfer and deposit the proceeds of the 20.06 Series A Bonds received by the Tf1.1steeon the date hereof as (oIldws: (1) $48,212,528.32 win be deposited in the 2006 Sedes A CapW:iliied Jnterest Account established within the Interest Fund; (2) $15,958,031.25 will be deposited in the 2006 Series A ReserVe Account of the Bond Reserve Fund; (3) $6;;;3,906.09 will be deposited In the 2006 Series A Costs of Issuance Fund; (4) $120,622,352.! 9 will be deJ)osited in lhe 2006 Series A Refunding Fund and transferred pursuant to I(revocable Refunding Instructions of the Commission dated the date hereof; and (5) tbe remaining $338,600,816.86 will be transferred to the Treasurer for deposit to the 2006 SenesA Project Fund. (Iv) The proceeds of the 2006 Series A Bonds transferred pursuant to the Irrevocable Refunding Instructions of the Commission will be used to defease and refund the Commission's Commercial Paper Notes (Water Series) on a current basis. The Notes were issued to finance a portion of the facilities described in Exhibit A hereto. (v) The proceeds of the Bonds deposited in the 2006 Serie.s A Project Fund will be used to finance a portion of the facilities described in Exhibit A hereto. ATTACHMENT L-2 CONTINUED (vi) The Trustee will transfer and deposit the proceeds of the 2006 Refunding Series B Bonds received by the Trustee on the date hereof as follows: (1) $192,498.04 will be deposifed in the 2006 Refunding Series 8 Costs of Issuance Fund; and (2) $1'11,178,241.95 will be deposited iii the 2006 Refunding Series B Refunding Fund. (vii) The proceeds of the Bonds deposited in the 2006 Refunding Series B R'efunding Fund, together with amounts on deposit in the funds and accounts established under the Indenture for the Commission's San Francisco Water Revenue Bonds, 1996 Series A (the "1996 Series A BondsV ) and its San Francisco Water Revenue Bonds, 2001 Series A (the "2001 Series A Bonds"), will be used to refund on an advance basis a portion of the outstanding 1996 Series A Bonds and a portion of the outstanding 2001 Series A Bonds. The portion of the 1996 Serle.s A Bonds being refunded were issued to finance the facilities (the "1996 Project") described in Exhibit B hereto, and the portion of the 2001 Series A Bonds being refunded were used to finance the facilities (the "2001 Projecr) described in Exhibit B hereto. (viii) Exhibit C hereld attached describes (A) each use to be made by any person of the Projecf, the 1996 Project and the 2001 Project other than use by the Commission and other non-federal governmental units and other than use by members of the public generally, and (8) payments (if any) directly or indirectly in respect of such use which are to be made after the date hereof; (ix) Other than as set forth in Exhibit A and Exhibit 8, no portion of the proceeds of the Bonds will be used, directly or indirectly, to make or finance a loan to anypersQn (other than a StSlte or local government unit) or to acquire property which will be s01d or .leased to any person (other than a State or local government unit) on an installment a sale basis excepl as referenced in Exhibit C. (x) The Commission expects to use the ProJect for the purposes referenced and discussed In Exhibit A,. Exhibit 8, Exhibit C and Exhibit D or for ,other governmental purposes of the Commission during the enUre term of the Bonds. , (xi) Set forth on Exhibit D Is the Commission's methodology for determining governmental use and private use with respect to the water enterprise: (xii) To the best knowledge of the undersigned. the above statements are reasonable and there are no other facts, ~stirnates or circumstances. other than those set forth herein. that would materially affest the statements made herein. CapitaHzed terms used but not defined herein have therheanings set forth in the Indenture. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. I have hereunto set my name this 15th day of March, 2006. PUBLIC UTllITffiS-GOMMISSION OF THE CITY AND;;eruNTY,9F SAN FRANCISCO (r ,/ ///' £2 / 8Y:_~-;~~.-"-.-:"",,,,"----:-______ _ 2 // Goneral Manager ATTACHMENT L·2 (CONTINUED) WATER ENTERPRISE REVENUE BOND 2006 SERIES A SUMMARY OF SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS (Section 5.04) Source: Closing Documents (Certificate Regarding Use of Proceeds) Proceeds Principal Plus Premium Minus Underwriter's Discount Minus Insurance Net Proceeds Use of Proceeds Capitalized Interest Fund Bond Reserve Fund Insurance Fund Series A Refunding Fund Series A Project Fund Total Uses Hetch Hetchy Tesla Portal Disinfection Advance Disinfection SJPL Total Hetch Hetchy SF Regional University MoUhd -North Sunset -North Groundwater Recycled Water Total SF Regional SF local Sunol Valley Subregional Calaveras Dam Stand-by Power Pipeline Readiness SAPS Upgrade SVWTP Finished Water Res Irvington Tunnel AI"meda Creek Fishery SVWTP 40 mgd Addition Total Sur:ol Valley Subregional 507,815,000.00 19,109,138.35 (932,940.06) (1,973,563:58) 524,017,634.71 48,212,528.32 15,958,031.25 623,906.09 120,622,352.19} . . 05 338,600,816.86 459,223,169. 524,017,634.71 Commercial Paper Project Fund 251,262.58 1,147,302.42 429,7.14.76 5,611,554.24 4,737,937.28 17,784,667.72 5.418,914.62 24,543,524.38 55,728.10 5,964,279.90 7,525,896.84 28,782,094.16 3,400,973.67 2,963,110.33 1,548,036.76 11,316,958.24 12,530,635.37 49,026,442.63 45,405,787.71 106,407,313.30 9,065,945,51 15,993,818.49 556,398.67 1,207,319.33 649,566.31 4,942,205.69 213,423.44 1,748,134.56 3,317,203.82 7,838,383.18 4,084,139.65 18,247,176.35 656,765.00 1 ,327, 119.00 25,378.75 18,668,821.15 54,778,741.85 Page 1 of 2 T<?tal 1,398,565.00 6,041.269.00 . 22,522.605.00. 29,962,439.00 6,020,008.00 36,307,991.00 6,364.084.00 12,864,995.00 61,557,078.00 151,813,101.01 25,059,764.00 1,763,718.00 5,591,772.00 1,961,558.00 11,155,587.00 22,331,316.00 1,983,884.00 3,499,964.00 73,347,563.00 ATTACHMENT L·2 (CONTINUED) WATER ENTERPRISE REVENUE BOND 2006 SERIES A SUMMARY OF SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS {Section 5.04) Miscellaneous PEIR 3,204,177.44 5,103,872.56 8,308,050.00 PPPCMS Services 2,964,786.31 10,358,811.69 13,32"3,598.00 Watershed Land Acquisition 502,660.00 502,660.00 Total Miscellaneous 6,168,963.75 15,965,344.25 22,134,308.00 LLNL 133.156.60 282,702.40 415,859.00 Bay Division Subregional Seismic Upgrade BDPL 3 & 4 4,758,306.54 16,481,539.46 21,239,846.00 BOPL Reliability 4,360,664.44 40,874,800.56 45,235,465.00 BOPl3 & 4 Crossover 802,494.94 493,817.06 1,296,312.00 SCADA Phase II . 65,497.37 1,247,963.63 1,313,461.00 EBMUD Interne .6,668,90.6.37 4,075,015.63 10,743,922.00 BOPL 4 Silpline 1,219,251.00 1,219,251.00 TGtal Bay Division Subregional 16,655,869.66 64,392,387.34 81,048,257.00 Peninsula Subregional Capuchino Valve Lot 162,584.69 753,779.31 916,364.00 CS/SA Transmission 2,288,853.10 3.448,975.90 5,737,829.00 Adit Leak Repair 255,334.99 1,650,368.01 1,905,703.00 HTWTP Short Term 2,874,763.69 3,582,860.31 6,457,624.00. Cross Connection Control 1,150,559.48 324,549.52 1,475,109.00 CS Bypass Tunnel 2,873,475.22 15,532,584.78 18,406,060.00 . LCS Dam Improvement 931,587.07 3,278,932.93 4,210,520.00 Pulgas Balancing Reservoir 1,218,341.39 2,706,284.61 3,924,626.00 HTwrP Long Term 1,107,185.77 2,549,793.23 3,656,979.00 Baden & San Pedro Valve Lots 60,203.48 2,963,540.52 3,023,744.00 Total Peninsula Subregional 12,922,888.88 36,791,669.12 49,714,558.00 San Francisco Subregional CSPL 2 Replacement 1,269,111.95 5,019,824.05 6,288,936.00 SAPl3 1.492,584.40 1,942.479.60 3,435,064.00 Oesalinat[on 55,618.10 596,473.90 652,092.00 Total San Francisco Subregional 2,817,314.45 7,558,777.55 10,376,092.00 Grand Total 120,622,352.19 . 359,746,902.82 480,369,255.01 Regional 328,140,295.00 Local 152,228,960.01 480,369,255.01 ~rhiS certificate is for illustration only. It was prepared in 20.06 and shown groundwater and recycled water projects as regional instead of local. In addition, it does not reflect expenditures for the portions of regional assets Which in rate base as of June 30, 2008 nor what is expected 10 be added to I rate base through June 30, 2009. For these reasons, the percentages shown :for regional and local projects are not accurate. Page 2 of 2 68.31% 31.69% Project Number AITACHMENT L,] WATER ENTERPRISE REVENUE BONO 2008 SERIES A ANNUAL REPORT ON EXPENDITURES OF AND EARNINGS ON PROCEEDS AS OF JU NE 30, 2009 Project Oe.scrlpllon (Section 5,04 A) Not Financing Proce&ds' Appropriatod Interest Eamlngs% REGIONAL PROGRAM CUW373 Ragional CUW384 Raglonal CUW387 Regional CUW352 Re~ional CUW355 Rogional CUW359 Regional CUW370 Regional CUW374 Ragional CUW361 Raglanal CUW382 Regional CUW386 Regional San Joaquin Region San JOBQuin Pipeline System Rehabilitation Te.sla Advance Disinfoction T eala Portal Disin1eclion Total San Joaquin Region Sunol Valley Region AJameda Creek Fishery Enhancement Siand-by Powel -Various Locations New IrVington Tunnel/Alameda Siphon No.4 Pipeline Readiness Improvements Calaveras Dam Replacament SVWTP 40 mgd Addition SVWTP Finished Water Reservoir San Antonio Pump Station Upgrade Total Sunol Valley Region B.y Division Roglon Seismic Upgrade BDPL 3 & 4 SCADA Phase IUSecurity Upgrades BDPL Raliability Upg",de. 1,398,565 6,041,269 22,522,605 29,962,439 1,983,684 1,763,718 22,331,316 5,591,772 25,059,764 3,499,964 11,155,567 1,961,558 73,347,563 21,234,646 Adjustod Project Funding CUW353 Regional CUW363 Regional CUW368 Regional CUW380 Regional CUW389 Regional CUW393 Ragional BDPL 3 & 4 Crossover EBMtlD Intertie ' BDPL 4 Sliplin. Total Bay Division Region 1,313,461 45,235,465 21,239,846 10,743,922, 1,219,251 100,986,791 /<;r~~ Peninsula Region :j r\ ~ \ l'.y..-!" ..... CUW354 Regional CUW356 Ragional CUW357 Regional CUW361 Regional CUW365 Ragionel CUW366 Raglonal CUW367 Ragional CUW369 Regional CUW371 Regional CUW378 Regional CUW379 Regional CUW390 Regional CUW391 Regional C UW358 Regionel CUW372 Ragional CUW380 Rogional CUW392 Regionel C UW394 Rogionol LOCAL PROGRAM CUW307 Local CUW310 Local CUW319 Local CUW334 Local CUW335 Local CUW337 Local CUW306 Local CUW309, Local CUW314 Local CUW318 Locel CUW320 Local CUW321 Locel CUW322 Local CUW323 Local CUW324 Local Lower Crystal Springs Dam Improvement 4,2JO,(Z9 .~, ,'~.,~"I,):! ~) Cryslal Springs Bypass Tunnel jil1(j6))'lQ _ Adil Loak Rapairs .-, i ",.s\.~,';Io3', Pulgas Balancing Reservoir Rehabilitetion and Improvements , ./:,~ \t \;3;9~.tJ3215'· Cross Connection Control (\ .... , \ '; ',',i~t5,109 HTWT~ Short TefTTllmprovemetns .y::~.\ I ~ \.~ .. "\ 6,457,624 , HlWTP Long Term Improvemenls ",;;::>i" '\:')1 I::>..) ,;.-3,656,979 Capuchlno Valve Lot Improvements .. ;; :(._ \' ;\ g-\. \!;~ 916,364 Ctr-ltal Springs/San Andreas TransmissIon !;.\i":9.~ \.\ \) . .,. 5.737.829 Crystal Springs Piplein. 2 ~.placement (~ 1. l. "'3 ~ \;;) 6,268,936 San Andr~a. Pipeline 3 Installalion f\ ',\i1 ~'(,:/' 3,435,064 Desallna"on ",,.\ • 1 ,\ '~) 652,092 Baden /I San Pedro Valve L<ifS·\riiproy.~m.~tS 3,023,744 Totol Ponlnsul. Raglan \ \\ >::J'.;:;'-60,090,650 Sen Francisco Region \)'I:Y Sunset Reaervoir Upgredes ~ North Basin- University Mound Reservoir Upgradas -North Basin Totar San Francisco Region System-Wide PEIR Progrem Management Servic;es Watershed Land Acquisition . Total System-Wide Total ReQlonal Program Ruervolr.l Summit Reservoir Rehabilitation Hew Northwest Reservoir Hunters Point Reservoir Rehabilitation Stanford Heights Raservoir Rehabilitation Polrero Heights Reservoir Rehabilitation SUlro Reservoir Rehabilitation Total Resorvoirs Pump Stationsn .... nks. Crocker Amazon Pump Station Upgrade Lake Merced Pump Sialion Upgrade Le Grande Tonk Upgrado Foresl Hill Tank Rehabilitation Forest Hilll Pump Station Upgrade Forest Knoll Pump S.lation Upgrade Lincoln Part. Pump Slation UPQrade Alemany Pump Station Upgrade Mount Davidson Pump Station Upgrade Page10'2 6,020,008 36,307,991 42,327,999 8,308,050 13,323,598 502,660 22,134,300 ,328,649,750 Expenditures Thnu 6/J0/09' Remaining aalance Project Number CUW326 Local CUW326 local CUW327 Local CUW328 Local CUW329 Local CUW330 l.ocal CUW331 l.ocal CUW332 Local CUW333' Local CUW336 Local eUW339 Local CUW34O. local CUW304 Local CUW308 Local CUW311 Local eUW3!2 Local CUW313 local CUW31S Local CUW316 Local CUW301 Local CUW302 Local CUW364 Local eUW303 local CUW30S local WATER ENTERPRISE REVENUE BONO 2006 SERIES A ANNUAL REPORT ON EXPENDITURES OF AND EARNINGS ON PROCEEDS AS OF JUNE 30, 2009 Project Description Palo Alto Pump Slalioil Upgrado Skhf1ew-AquaVLsla Pump Station Upgrade Summit Pump Station UpgradB McLaren #1 Tank Rehabilitalion Polrero Height. Tank Seismic Upgrade Fore.1 Knoll r "ok Seismic Upgrade Lincoln Parn Tank Seismic Upgrade Mcleron Ir2 rank Rehabilitalion Mounl OtlVictso" Tank Seismic Upgrade (section 5.04 Al Nel Financing PrOCO$ds' Appropriated Interest earnings" Adju.led Project Fundiftg La Grande Pump Slation Upgrade .~ Potrero /"Ieights Pump StBtion Upgrade ·('4:1 Visla Francisco Pump Slation UpWadB ,"; \ U 'f.\'\~ \~ Total Pump SI.Uonsrr.n~$ ~>-.\\ \' t"" >.~ Pipelin ... N.lv.. '. q rE\\~;··)\>'" Nof1h UnlVorsily Mound Syslem Upgrade I' ) ·.1 \ ' .. j J ;~ ~~~;le£~~~~:~~~~~~:ts .;..-, ( .. ~~r., .. '~\';,\,' .. \:(\:.;:.~)(i ~) .. <~, Noo Valley Transmission Main, Phase 2 _~ EastNVElsl Transmission MaIo ._ . 1,;-.\ \ \. '.;'> Fulton @ Sixlh Ave Main Rsplacamenl r~ :'1\ . 0.) i -~\ ') )~. \ TtoaiPipaiioasNalv8s . . ...... :_,;{.\ 1\ \ \ .. ,,)i.} , .'lll~ -1. \ L) Waler SupplylWater Quality . n \ \.\>;)i \,.1 ~ GrovndWat8f. ·n ~"i (",;I Raeycl~d Wator "t(t "\ u / L9IM&rica~Llv8rmore Natjo~~l1 \~.9~~~ . ~ter Quail!)' Impro"Bmenls Total Water SupplylWator QUI> Iv~'" . \,,'V-- Mi25ceUaoeous Vehicle SerVi"" Facilily Upgrade Fir& Prot&ction at ceo Total Miscall.naoue Tolal Local Program Grand Total Reg;on.1 and Local Programs Percent o{Net Proceeds- Percerit or N.,t Proceed. and Earnings· lNet finandng proceeds available on date 01 issue (i.e. deposit to project fund) 7Cumu!a{ive n&l of arbitrage rebale liability 'CumulatNe 'lfr"",noing $OUrc::&. Substantially Expanded, proooed aUocalions aralhenfixed Page 2 of 2 Expandltures Thru 81JO/09' Rtunaining Balance REVENUE·FUNut:D CAPITAL ADDlTIONS (Section 5.04.8) Subfund: SW CPF WCF -Wholesale Customer Capital Fund (Water) Based on PfOportionate Annual Wablr Deliveries of •.• Project Tit!e CUW262 Regional Water RnR -Treatment Facilities CUW263 Regional Wa1er RnR· Conveyancerrransmission Systems CUW264 Regional Water· Watersheds 1 ROW Management FUW100 Regional Water· Facilities Maintenance CUW261 Regional Water· Storage A FY 2009.10 ApproY1ld Budget" • Total R~ional $ 1,000,000 $ 7,000,000 $ 500,000 $ 3,700,000 B 687% FY 2009·10 Approved Budget· WHOLESALE SHARE $ 687,000 $ 4,809,000 $ 343,500 $ 2,541,900 : Projected 'FAMIS as of July 1, 2009 (Day 1 of New Budget Year) c o E F G=C·O·F Wholesale Customer Capital fund (5W CPF WCF) Total flsca! Year Encumbered Appropnated, Appropriatlon· AU Yean Actual 2009·10 Actua! . But Not Unencumbered All y""",A Expenditures' ExpendituresA Exp&nd6d' Balance'" $ 687,000 $ $ 4,809,000 $ $ 343,500 $ $ 2,541,900 $ $ $ $ $ '$ $ $. $ $ 687,000 $ 4,809,000 $ 343,500 $ 2,541,900 Regional Tota' $ 8,3S1,400 $ 12,200,000 <3:?§:3E) $ 8,381,400 $ • $ ~ .. " ,..,,,. ,,,'" ........ , . Sou",e: • SFPUC Commission Approved Budget, February 2009, Same Format • FAMIS -CIty's Off1cial Financial System of Record REVENUE-FUNDED CAPITAL ADDITIONS (Section 5.04.8) Subfund: 5W CPF WCF -Wholesale Customer Capital Fund (Water) Based on Proportionate Annual Water DoPv.:>ries of ,., Project Title CUW262 Regional Waler RnR • Treatment Facilities CUW263 Regional Water RnR • ConveyanceiTrnnsmission Systems CUW264 Regional Water -Watensheds 1 R OW Management FUW100 'Regional Water· Facilities Maintenance CUW2S1 Regional Water· Storage Regional Tob! FY 2009·10 Approved Budget' • ~eglon.1 1,000,000 $ 7,000,000 $ 500,000 $ 3,700,000 $ $ 1:::,200,000 68.7% . FY 2009·10 Approved Budget· WHOLEiSAlE SHARE $ 687,000 $ 4,809,000 $ 343,500 $ 2,541,900 $ ,'.Proj~ FAMIS.n of June 30, 2010,(l,Bst Day ,of Budget Year) Wholesale Customer Capital Fund (5W C PF WCFJ Total Fiscal Year Encumbered Appropriated, Appropriation. All Years Actual 200$·10 Actual But Not Unencumbered At! Years' Ex~enditures' Exeand IturesA Exeended' Ba!ance'" $ 687,000 $ 235,000 $ 235,000 $ $ 452,000 $ 4.809,000 :; 1,395,000 $ 1,395,000 $ 25,000 $ 3,3'89,000 $' 343,500 $ 115,000 $ 115,000 $ 50,000 $ 178,500 $ 2,541,900· $ 850,000 $ 850,000 $ 123,000 $ 1,568,900 $ 8,381,4()0 $ 198,000 $ 5,688,400 Source; • SFPUC Commission ApprOVe<1 Budget, February 2009, Same Format • FAMIS • City's OHic1a1 Financial System of Record . ~-= or.-~ Shown On Attachment N·2, Schedule 3 Revenue Capital· Actual ExpendltUre1!I , ies to Budget Hearing Materials Shawn on At1:acnmGnt N·2, Schedule 3 ATIACHMENI M-l Page 1 of 2 H ProJeded Expended & Encumbered through 6130/2010 $ 229,000 $ 1,603,000 $ 114,000 $ 847,000 Projected Expended & Encuml1ered through 613012011 $ 409,000 $ 1,589,000 $ 35,500 $ 768,900 I=G·H ProJecbld Surplus' (Shortfall) $ 458,000 $ 3,206,000 $ 229,500 $ 1,694,900 Projected Surplus I !Shortfalll $ 43,000 $ 1,800,000 $ 143,000 $ 800,000 $ 2,802,400 $ 2,786,000 " Shown on Attachoment N-2, Schedu!e 3 Continuing Appropriation Needed for Mulit·Year Revenue F.unded Capital REVENUE-FUNDED CAPTIAL ADDITIONS (Section 5.04.B) Subfund: 5T CPF WCF -Wholesale Customer Capital Fund (Hatch Hetchy) Base~ ot'l ProporUonlte Annual Water Dslill1!riu of " PfoJect TIUe CUH931 HH Micraw ••• Replacemen. CIJH977 HH water R&R ~ Facitffies Maintenance CUH947 SEA ~ Go Solar Incentive Porfact CUH971 AItI!Im.Uve Transmisston Studies CUH976 HH W~tllr R&R ~ P<:nHer Infrastructut"(!, CUH979 H~ntQrl Point Municipal Power CUH9S3 Civic Centar SU&tamebility District CUH9ee General Fund Dept ~ Eneryy Efficiency Re:oewabtelGenereUon TreasUfe bland ImpmV6O"enl Project Enlerprise Fund Dept-Energy EJtlci.enC)' CUH975 HH Water R&R M Water tnfrasl.nJCtUre Toutut'l\l"\e River Watershed Protectlon A FY 2009-10 Approved audljet" • TotAl Realonal 4,000,000 3,500.000 4.000,000 1,000,000 $ 16,700,000 $. 1,090,000 $ 7,365,158 3,501,307 .$ 2,700,000 325,722 5,000,000 2.000.000 B 58.1% FY2009·,O Approved Budget~ 'M-IOLESALE SHARE 1.22',900 $ 1 ,071.766 P $ p • P $ P $ P P P S 'P S 'P $ W 4,083.000 W 1.361.000 Projec!4d FAMIS .. '!I JUiy " 2009 (Day 1 orNe ... Bu<!g<rt Ve.r) C 0 E G;C-D-F Wholuale Cu$1:0rrMI( Ca pita! 'Fund {SW CPF WCFj .otal Fisca.l Yea.r Enc:umbereG App(optia:te4~ ApPT"OJ)rhltion· AU Yaan. Aef,uat 200g...10 Aetua.1 But Not UnencumM:rett AIIY~ulrs:'" Expendttu~~~ ExPt!:04~~s"" E,)(p$ndedA ea~.nc." $ 1,224,900 1,224,800 1,071,788 $ $ $ 1,071,768 $ $ $ $ S 4,083.000 1.361,000 H Proj&ctad Expo&ndad &. Eru;:wmbal"fJd $ through 613012010 400,000 357,000 1,361,000 454,000 $ I=G.}! Projected Surplus J LS""rU.lli ale,900 714,788 Reglon.iT;""l $ 52,152,167 ~ $ 717+01888. 2,296,668 $~S80~o{ $ 1:531,668} s, ;» Source: .. SF PUC ComlT\i$$icn Approved Budset. February 2009, Same Format ~ "FAMIS -Cly's Otrftial Financial System of Recorct • REVENUE-FUNDED CAPTIAL ADDITlONS (Section 5'()4,B) Subfund; 5T CPF WCF • Wholesale Customer Capital Fund (Hetch Hatchy) Based on ProporHonate Anou~1 Water DefiwnA5 <Jf ... P"'jet:l Titi. CUH931 HH Microwav. R~plaeement CUH977 HH Water R&R .. Fadiit\S!$ Maintenanc.e CU!i94 7 SEA -Go Sol:" IncenUve Porjeoct CUH971 AU&maOve Transmission Studle1l CUH976 HH W.IO( R&R • P"""" intrulNeture CUH979 HUnteI'! Point Municipal Power CUH983 Civic Center Sustsinebtllty Dis1net CUH98e General Fuod Dept· Energy Effic.H!ncy Renew.bleJ'Gf!nenrticn n-e&Mlr& l.sfl!'.ll1d Impro~ment Project Enterprise Fund Dept ~ E:I'l9lUY EffIciency CUH975 HH Water R&R -Wi8-ter Infrasttueture Towumne Rj'Jsr Watershed P(oled1on 68.''1' F":' 2009-10 FY 20OS·1Q Approl,/sd Approved· Budget. Suaget'" -WHOLESALE Tatal RUQionaJ SKARE 4,000,000 1.22<.900 3,500,000. 1.071,700 4.000,000 ? $ 1,0<)0.000 P $ 15,700,000 P $ P $ 1,090,000 P $ 7.365.158 ? $ $ 3,501.307 P S $ 2,700,000 P S $ 325,722 P 6.000,000 W 4,063,000 2.000.000 W 1.351.000 les t.c> Budget HQring hlaw,ri.l.- P"'jodl!<! FA,,!.lS as 0(.:,,, ..... 3D, 2'010 '~ot Day o/'BII<!Qet Vear) Y¥'hokls..ale Customer Ci,E:tu.i Fund (SW CPF WCF) Projectod e:.q;..ndell& Total fiscal Ye.ar Enc:umbet"ed Appropn.IIO<I, Etl(;uffi.Pered Projected Appropriation ~ All Yea" Actual 20Q9w10 Actual' aut No" ~nen<pumbeRd through Surpluo/ All Yean."" Exp!ndituresA Exp&nditut'&sA Expended" Salaf\04" 6/3012011 fShoo'll'aln 1.224,900 $ 1,224,900 $ 1,224,_ $ $ 1.071.78S $ 1,071,76a 1,071,78e $ (1) (1) $ S S $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ • • $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 4,063,000 4,083,000 $ 4,083.000 S $ 1.381000 $ 1.381,000 $ 1,381,000 $ RoglonolToIlll $ 52,'82,187 ~ S 7,7+O,6l!8 7,7+0,684 7,740;fB>. c :::::E:l:> $ (1) • Source:-• SFPUC CorniTU~!l:ion Approved 6ud'b""t !:e:~.ary 2009, Same Format ~ Show~n A!1 •• hment ".2, Schedule 6 ~ on At' .. chment N-2, Schodute 6 A FAMIS • Cay's Official Finall(.'..\at SY't9m of Reocoro Rewoue C~pital .. A.c:tl.Iai expenditufe5 Conunu!.ng: Appropriation te.s to Budget Hurin" ,. .. ten.ls NEr6Qt>d for Mu'it~Yeat Shown on AttllchmGot N~2. Sehoch..lle 6 R.¥enu8 Ful'tde:d Captt.R1 ATTACHMENT 101-1 Page 2 ot 2 ATIACHMENT M-2 REVENUE FUNDED CAPITAL ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS (Section 5.046) Part A. Updated Actual Information Through Most Recent Fiscal Year (Due in November) Each year, the SFPUC will provide a report on the status of the regional revenue funded projects with the following information: Project-level information (through close-out) 1 Scope of project 2 Current cost estimate/budget. 3. Expected milestone dates (je~ design, environmental, construction period, close-out, etc.) 4 Contract status 5 Reasons for status changes from prior report. 6 Other information relevant to whether project is on time/on budget. 7 For most recently completed fiscal year and estimated for current year: 8 Total expenditures (capital and operating); amounts paid from other sources. 9 Amount of encumbered and unencumbered appropriations 10 Application of any unused appropriations Wholesale Capital Fund 11 Beginning balance, deposits, capital expenditures (by project), earnings, ending balance. 12 Components of ending balance; wholesale portion of: 13 Appropriated and encumbered 14 Appropriated but unencumbered p~rt B. Proposed Appropriations for Upcoming Year (Due in March) 15 project information, to the extent not provided in Part A 16 Expected funding needs for regional projects 17 Unused or excess appropropriations carried over. 18 Proposed appropriation for upcoming fiscal year. a, Beginn in 9 b alanca b. Transrerto Balancin9 Account Year 1 c. Budgeted appropriation d. EncumbrancelExpenditure Year 2 e. Budgeted appropriation f. Encumbrance/Expenditure Year 3 g. Budgeted appropriation h. EncurnbrancelExpenditure Y~r~ Budgeted apprQpriation j. EncumbrancelExpendlture YearS k. Budgeted appropriation I. Encumbrance/Expenditure m, Subtotal n. Interest earnings (e.g., 3%) 0, Ending fund balance (unencumbered, unexpende< p. Five Year Cumulative Apprcpriations wi interest q. 10% of Cumulative Appropriations wi interest Ending fund batance s. Excess balance transferred to Balancing Account' ATTACHMENT 101·3, WHOLESALE REVENUE·FUNOEO CAPITAL FUNO -BAlJI.NCING ACCOUNT ADJUSTMENT .. EXAMPLE REPORT1NG FORMAT - (Section 6.08) (1 ) (2) (3) (4) (S) (1) (2) (3) (4) FY 2009-10 FY 2010.11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012·13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014\.15 FY 2015·16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017·18 $0 $5,671,414 $8,960,834 $9,569,194 $10,420,781 $11,217,991 $5,498,801 $6,198,022 $6,944,933 $0 ($6,467,533) $8,381,400 $10,697,026 ($2,793,800) ($2,793,800) ($2,793,800) ($3,565,675) ($3,565,675) ($3,565,675) $8,600,470 $11,231,878 ($2,933,490) ($2,933,490) ($2,933,490) ($3,743,959) ($3,743,959) ($3,743,959) $9,240,494 $11,793,471 (S3,080,165) ($3,080,165) ($3,060,165) ($3,931,157) ($3,931,157) $9,702,516 $12,383,145 ($3,234,173) ($3,234,173) ($3,234,173) ($4,127,715) $lQ,167,644 ($3,395,881) .($3,395,881) ($3,395,ll.Bl) $5,587,600 $8,744,594 $9,393,873 $10,123,885 $10,898,206 $5,251,755 $6,025,163 $6,750,702 $7,525,246 $83,814 $216,240 $275,321 $298,896 $319,785 $247,046 $172,859 $194,231 $217,053 $5,671,414 $8,960,834 $9,669,194 $10,420,781 $11,217,991 $5.498,801 $8,198,022 $8,944,933 $7,742,299 $47,504,581 $4,750,458 $11,217,991 . ($6,467,533) "Test Any balance in excess of 10% of the cumulative five·year appropriation total is oredited to the balancing account. (5) (1 ) FY 2018·19 FY 2019·20 $7,742,299 S8,593,037 ($2,574,995) . $13,652,417 ($4,550,806) ($3,931,157) ($4,127,715) ($4,127,715) $13,002,302 ($4,334,101) ($4,334,101) $8,351,628 $6,657,838 $241,409 $228,763 $6,593,037 $8,866,601 $60,180,421 $6,018,042 $8,593,037 ($2,574,995) BALANCING ACCOUNT! RATE SETTING CALCULATION REFERENCE SECTION 6.03.A.3.a Step 1: A. Balancing Account as of June 30, 2007 B. Interest on Balancing Account at Pooled Investment Rate for Fiscal Year C. Wholesale Revenues for Fiscal Year D. Wholesale Revenue Requirement for Fiscal Year E. Settlement Credits or Other Adjustments F. 1984 Agreement Balancing Account Credits G. Balancing Account as of June 3D, 2008 Step 2: A. Balancing Account as of June 3D, 2008 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 ATTACHMENTN-1 Page 1 $12,882,OOO~i:-) $554 000 .~"., ),v-, ~ , . ./ "\"\ ($113,932,OOO) (\"" \ ";) 1,\ $119 224 000 y. ,. , "" v . , (::.: .. ". \ :; i\ \, \ \ $2,448,614 i'.~~ cO) \ >".,:~",/ $0 /" I~-\f~ \\ T, ).) $21,176,614 . ?J{!l \ ~) i)\) " ~ '"'J .. ".;f/ "\\"1 \''1, " B" Interest on Balancing Account at Pooled Investment Rate for Fiscal Year " C. Wholesale Revenues for Fiscal Year r'\ .S· .-\,\\,\~ ~¥t6,61"4 :.--, \\ \'. \ \:'/ $529000 i \ I 1 ~ ;) I \! ! \) , -$123,604,000 D. Wholesale Revenue Requirement for Fiscal Year rG 0\ \ E. Settlement Credits or O!~er Adjustments. . 1(((\ \". ~'. J F. 1984 Agreement BalancIng Account Credits .' ~~\ \~ a !~ j $120.562,000 $21,000 $0 $18,684,6.14 G. Balancing Account as of June 3D, 2009 "" !p\"';"'~i' ~"'\;;.;J " ~ l~"\ q Step 3: "'(? ~ J 4> ~. ;; A. Balancing Accoun~ as of June 30, 2009 / 'oj;';?; ,;~~}?" B, Interest on Balanctng ,I):;:ount at Pooled Investment R,~t~~)~'rSi!.a\ ~~\? C, Wholesale R.evenues for riscal Year . ((1 '\ \' ~ \) D. Wholesale Revenue Requirement for Fiscal Yf~r '\ '~Yre; 'J E. Settlement Credits or Ot,her AdjUstments~/. ~ ~ \; },. "Y;.} F. 1984 Agreement Balancmg Account cf€ili.t-\ ~ ~ G. Balancing Account as of June 3D, 201 ~ \ t 1 j>\? H. Net Change in Wholesale Revenue Co! \\~.c I. Total Revenue Deficiency or Surplus J. Projected Water Sales in Cet K. Deficiency or (Surplus) $ICd " L Deficiency or (Surplus) C,:;( as a Percentage of Revenues 84,621.240 83,205,600 $0 $0 -$127,485,900 $140",994,733 $21,000 $1,997,220 $15,527,053 $4,488,233 $20,015,286 85,920,000 $0.23 15.7% Note: Dollar amounts are for illustrative purposes only. The Parties have not agreed on the amount of the balancing account as of June 30, 2007, revenue requirement for FY 2007-08, settier1'1enl credits for FY 2007-08, and the amount of the balancing account as of June 3D, 2009, BALANCING ACCOUNT I RATE SETTING CALCULATION METHOD OF CALCULATiON REFERENCE SECTION 6.03.A.3.a N The year for which rates are being set N-1 = The current year N·2 = The most recently completed year for which actual results are available' Calculation Method: Step 1 Determine the actual revenue differential for year N-2 Step 2 Step 3 A. Enter the beginning amount of the Balancing Account B. Calculate the interest earnedat the Pooled Investment Account Rate for (A) C. Enter the actual Whp!esale revenues billed D. Enter the Wholesale Revenue Requirement E. Enter settlement credits or adjustments, if any F. Enter carry-over 1984 Agreement credi\s "Owed the City, if any G. Calculate the ending amount of the Ba:ancing Account Determine the projected revenue differentia! for year N-1 A. Enter the beginning amount of the Balancing Account; this is the same amount as G in Step 1 B. Calculate the interest earned at the Pooled Investment Account Rate for (A) C. Enter the actual Wholesale revenues billed D. Enter the Whoiesale Rev~nue Requirement E. Enter settlement credits or adjustments, if any 'F, Enter carry-over 1984 Agreement credits owed the City, if any G. Calculate the ending ~mount of the Balancing Account' Determine the projected revenue differential for year N A. Enter the beginning amount of the Balanc:ng Account; this is the same amount as G in Step 2 B. Calculate the interest earned at the Pooled Investment Account Rate for (A) C. Enter the actual'Wholesale revenues billed D. Enter the Wholesale Revenue Requirement E. Enter settlement credits or adjustments, jf any F, Enter carry-over 1984 Agreement credits owed the City, if any G. Calculate the ending amount of the Balancing Account H. Enter the net change in the Wholesale Revenue Coverage, if applicable I. Calculate the total revenue deficiency 0: surplus (G) + (H) J, Enter the projected water sales to Wholesale Customers in Ccf K. Calculate the required increase in the commodity portion o( the rate by dividing (I) by (J) L. Calculate the required increase in revenues by dividing (I) by (C) ATTACHMENT N·1 Page 2 WHOLESALE ~EV1:NUE ~EQUIREMENT SCHEDULES CALCULATION OFWHOtESALE REVENue R.EQUIR.EMENT FISCAL YEAR 2009-10 REFERENCE ARnCLE 5 ATIACHMENT N-2 SCHEDULE 1 EXPENSE CATEGORY CONTRACT SCHEDULE REFERENCE REFERENCE TOTAL DIRECT DIRECT RETAIL WHOLESALE REGiONAL JOINT EXPENSE ALLOCATION FACTOR WHOLESALE SHARE OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSE: SOURCE OF SUPPLY PUMPING TREATMENT TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS' TOTALO&M COMPOSITE '" (WHOLESALE SHARE fTOTAL O&M) ADMINISTRATIVE AND GENERAL EXPENSES: COWCAP SERVICES OF SF PUC BUREAUS OTHERA&G COMPLIANCE AUOIT TOTALA&G PROPERTY TAXES 5.Q5(A) 5.05(8) 5,05 (C) 5.05 (D) 5.05 (E) 5.06 (C) . 5·06iA) 5.06 (B) 5.06 (C) 5.0S (0) SCI-! e.1 SCH 8.1 SCH6.1 SCH8,1 SCH 8.1 $ $ $ $ $ 14,943.953 $ 4,342,e82 $ 30,445,053 $ 53,416.232 $ 7,552,213 $ :Ii 110,700,133 1,251,062 $ 3,654,000 $ $ 30.163,286 $ 7.401.169 ._$ n 42,569.5!7 (~-i !j (\\\ ~,.!j /,e., S ",\ \\>:\/\\~ SCH8.1 $ 1,2::j8;009j ~ .. \ \\.., .'..\ ~) SCH 1 $.,2f;-<!.6'!iS,91 \ $\ \ 8:17~.l\..24 \~ $ SCH 8.1 ifF 42.9r~4'{7 ~~. ~,OO!!.a91 s SCI-! 8.1. ,~. 11$, \ \2!l,Q.lloo s: ,.' $ -<-"'\ \~I \" 7'/~' .~ \ '\. 5.07. , \ ,SCI 6\' \ ~ 1,417,293 .. '_' \·~'v-.\\\~r~7rf $12.186,315 /"V c;·\ I. \'\ \~ "" CAPITAL COST RECOVERY ..... -\, (\ "'< .' .. ~ '~'\, "" PRE-2009 ASSETS .. \.( t·. ti.Olf., .., \\ 'i~1rT K DEBT SERVICE ON NEW ASSETS 'c\ (, \', "'S:~ (~)\ \~ ~ SCI-! 2 REVENUE FUNDED ASSETS -APPROPRIATED TO WHOLESALE CAPIT~f\1\D\ \ \, . ·;;.04\(8).) -' SCH 3 TOTAL CAPITAL COST RECOV!"RY WHOLESALE SHARE HEICH HETCHY WATER & POWER WHOLESALE REV1:NUE REQUIREMENT . WHOLESALE REV1:NUE COVERAGE' 'Proportional Annual Use (S8..:39%) "" \, \ \ " I •• ,', • \-'\\ \, \ \ \} \ \ .\\!~ \ \,;,.0""" ) \.\" .\ y--S04 \ \\ \7\ 'v';-' . \'" ~, >.~ ",' 'wale' Ente<prise Share of Cu.tomer Aa:ounls Expenses (62% of Tota! Customer Acoounls Expenses) '25% of Whole.ale Share of Debl S~"ice SCH4 ":$"-,. $ ~!l9'lP,~t;'\ \t\NNUAL USE' $ 9,3&4.568 -,~l ,~'C2) \ ANNUAL USE' $ 334.210 __ ' <(--:~ , .. ~ . ~ \-£>.NNUAL USE' $ 20.821,372 r\\ ~ ii2~,~2~\ ANNUAL USE' $ 15.902,690 1,\"bi:\\ ~, ''\~ '0' 2% $ 151,044 '\ .\'\ ~y 1St II $) 67,879.572 46.573,883 . /~J 42.07% $ 1.238.009 COMPOSITE O&M $ 520,857 $ 14,28!l,8S7 ANNUAL USE' $ 9,770,788 $ 8.962,586 COMPOSITE O(!'M $ 3,170,749 $ ioo,ooO 50% $ 100.000 $ 24.667,462 $ 14,162,394 1,417,293 ANNUAL USE' $ 969,287 $ 24.051.326 $ 17.952.931 $ 8.381,400 $ 50,385,657 $ 28.903,512 140.994,7:13 $ 4.488.233 1. WHOLESALE REVENUE REQUIREMENT SCHEDULES WATER ENTERPRISE CAPITAL COST RECOVERY -ANNUAL DeBT SERVICE FISCAL YEAR 2009-10 REFERENCE SECTION 5,04,A ATTACHMENT N·2 SCHEDULE 2 2006 80Nu~e BOND 2009 BOND XXXX BOND XXXX BOND . XXXX BOND XXXX BOND TOTAL ALL ISSUE SERIES ISSUE ALL lSSUE ALL ISSUE ALL ISSUE ALL ISSUE ALL ISSUE ALL OUTST ANDING A SERIES SERIES SERIES SERIES SERIES. SERIES BONDS USE OF BOND PROCEEDS RETAIL PROJECTS REGIONAL PROJECTS 31.61% 68.39% 22,95% 77,05% 19.42% 80,58% XXXX% YY,YY% xx.xX% . PRINCIPAL PAYMENT RETAIL PROJECTS REGIONAL PROJECTS $ $ $ 8,765,000 2,770,617 5,994,384 YV.YY0/c .. --'f\, ? \"\""\'~ )/-.,\ (' '. f~\\ . / ri \. \,\\") :!\'~ '\? \\ "\'\ ~l'\" \,.~\\\ \'" ~ ~V 5.'" .'86 . \" ,,\ \' \\ \ \.h J . INTEREST PAYMENT (GROSS) RETAIL PROJECTS. REGIONAL PROJECTS $ 23,353,388 $ $ 7,382,006 $ $ 15,97i ,382 $ 1.216.338 : ".1" .932 Ii"\" '\'{-\ ' " ,'-p'- 4,285,048 $ 10'91Y'~-j \1 if\. ~\:\:~\ \\\-", \. \ \/ 45 2y1': \. ~ ~ \ \\ • \\ .... \ >, 'J ." t''''. \'. ~\'i, ., \: ,\:::,::.'-" , INTEREST PAYMENT (CAP!TALIZED) RETAIL PROJECTS REGIONAL PROJECTS INTEREST PAYMENT (NED $ RETAIL PROJECTS $ 7,;fa""" REGIONAL PROJECTS )i ~1ill ." n 1 \ TOTAL PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST PAYMs,NT\\ '\\3\ RETAIL PROJECTS (\\ \ \\'§ REGIONAL PROJECTS \\\\ \ _~~95, '\ .~\ JP ;/\\!~\ '5";t~ a.~ '\ ~ Th'J '- .;/> \ _ \ '" \ \ Y "':-,,(2 --I' \.~ \"" .,'" \~a9't1\.~.,:<.'0 -_'/ .~ \ \ "\ \ " " 1 I'-\) "" /.A't ?\ \ \\ \ \ \. $\ ~,'2J'1jl4 ~ • . ,~0~J5~~'e?\ \ \, \ '-.;) 1~~6 ,.' ,"> ~ \ ~2¥\pIB~ \) .\ ,J07 \,!> 5,561,386 1,276,338 4,285,048 68.39% zz.ZZ% PROPORTIONAL ANNUAL USE \\\ \ ,c:>>:Y 68,39% WHOLESALE SHARE \.)./ $ 15,022,387 $ 68.39% 2,930,544 Note: Atlocalion of bond proceeds shown are for illustrative purposes only, Regional projects will not Include bond proceeds used to construct or aC!juire assets capitalized prior to 7/1/09, Regional proJects also will not include in·city groundwater or in-city recycled water prOjects. zz.ZZ% zz,zz% XX-XX%_ YY.YY% $ 8,765,000 $ 2,770,617 $ 5,994,304 $ 85,096,706 $ 19,56'8,875 $ 65,527,831 $ 37,679,774 $ 11,428,961 $ 26,250,813 ZZ.ZZ% ___ • $ 17,952,931 (TO SCHEDULE 1) WHOLESALE REVENuE REQUIREMENT SCHEOULES WATER ENTERPRISE CAPITAL COST RECOVERY. REVENUE FUNDED CAPITAL PROJECTS FISCAL YEAR 2009·10 ATIACHMENT N·2 SCHEDULE 3 REFERENCE SECTION 5,04,8 CUH980 Trsasuie Island Imcroy.r'''"1 Project CUW2S3 Facilities Security CUW260 Local Weier R&R CUWOBS Automated Meter Reading System Total Local CUW202 Replace PreSlressOO Concrete Cylr Pipe CUW261 Regional Water R&R -Storage CUW262 Regional Waler R8.R ,Treal!T1ent Facilities CUW263 Regional Water R8.R Conveyancell'ransmission CUW254 Reglona! Watershed,,!?OW Manegement FUW100 Regional Facilities M~ir;ten.ance Total Regional TOTAl ALL PROJECTS PROJECT APPROPRIATION CLASSIFICATION AlLOCATION FACTOR WHOLESALE SHARE TOTAL ALL YEARS APPROPRIATION ACTUAL FY 2009.10 ACTlJAL ENCUM8ERED, NOT APPROPRIATED, EXPENDITURES EXPENDED UNENCUMBERED ALL YEARS EXPENDITURES _" 'BALANCE 3,800,000 500.000 22,347,520 36,001,000 62,;;48.520 1,000,000 i , O()Q. 00<l 500,000 3,700.000 12,200,000 RETAIL RETAIL RETAIL RETAil REGIONAl REGIONAl REGIONAl REGIONAl REGIONAl REGIONAl 0,0% 0,0% S 0.0% $ 0.0% $ ,,~4:~ $ -$ 'r -,~ \ $ S S -$ r\;~\\ $ $ $ -,.,~"~, \)~ \'.<~ \ \ s s $ ,¥"'-$\~~ ~\l 'f.:, '< \~ \) $ $ -$ . C"-f', ., ~~ $ .", ,\~1 \ \ . \ \'\ 'HV 68,7% $ • s,;' ". '\ -\ ,\ \\J '\,,>Y. S 68.7% $ . t·, \ \ \1 .> t" Jl" -$ 68.7'" $ 68)l .• ~·' ('-\\ a~J>oo V 235.000 S 68.7% $ , 4,e,69~\ $\ '-.;, 4>a~..soo $ 1.395,000 $ e8,7% $t\. \\ ~31,S¥\\~; .. , \~ ;.-MJ,5QO $ 1;5,000 $ r\ f IA~'" '\It1il8~l<400.! ~ B,3al,400 $ 2,595,000 $ s $ 235,000 $ 1.395,000 $ 115.000 $ 850,000 S 2,595,000 $ $ $ $ 25,000 $ 50.000 $ 123,000 $ 198,000 $ 452,000 3,389.000 178.500 1,568.900 5,588,400 74,SMl,520 6B.7~. " ,~~.544.l{D!1i ~\ '" 2.541.900 $ 800.000 $ ~'\ 1 1 \1.\'\'" \ " ... ,.' . t~ )" \ " \ .'\''\ .1. 'f', "V '~'\'\ \$l, ~ ,\&olI'1,4oo $ 8,381,400 $ 2,59S,000 $ 2,595.000 $ 198,000 $ 5,588.400 ~;;_' ~ ~~ \\\.01 !J V (TO SCHEDULE 1) (TO SCHEDULE 1) (TO SCHEDULE 1) /', "\ \ . ; \' ~ ... (' ;~\\ \;),~ \ \ \,> . ,-. ( .. S< \ \ '10 \1i ~\1> . ('I \ \, ~-"" \ \\)/ ...... '1. "\ \ \\'''_ \ \ '\ '1~ .. ... ~ ,>\ l '\ \ \ \ \ ("',) j \;.':. \,"\\\ \\ \\1~'., ' \ \". \, ,-, v ) ,,, }.. ~\ \ ~ \;. .... \~ ... ~:.-/ \ " \ ,-'\\ ' \~,::~)~'/ WHOLESALE REVENUE REQlIlfl,EJ,!ENT SCHEDULES CALCULATION OF WHOLESALE SHAPJ" OF HETCH HETCHY WATER'" POWER FISCAL YEAR 2009-10 REFERENCE ARllCLE 5 EXPENSE CATEGORY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OPERATION MAINTENANCE TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ADMINISTRATIVE AND GENERAL COWCAP SERVICES OF SF PUC BUREAUS OTHERA&G CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS TOTAL ADMINISTRA nVE AND GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES CAPITAl'COST RECOVERY PRE-2009 AsseTS DEBT SERVICE ON NEW ASSETS REVENUE FUNDED ASSETS-APPROPRIA'IONS TO WHOLESALE CAPI'AL FUND TO'AL CAPITAL COST RECOVERY WHOLESALE SHARE OF HETCH HErCHY WATER &. POWeR WHOLESALE RFVENUE COVERAGE' 'Adju.,e<l Proportional Annual U •• (68.39% X 99:50% =68.05%) ~S% of \Nholesal" Sham ofOebl Servlc.e CONTRAC. SCI-IEDULE REFERENCE REFERENCE TOTAL POWER SPECIFIC WATER SPECIFIC JOINT 5,08 B 1 5.08 61 5.08112 5.08 B 2 5,OB B 2 s.o8 B 2 5.08B3 5,09 B 1 S.09 82 5,09 B 3 SCH S.2 S 44,612.220 31,853,985 S 9,557,661 SCH 8.2 $ 16,886,612 5,048,039 S 3,238.622 S 61,480,832 36,902,004 S 12,796,483 3,200.394 8,581,951 11.782,345 SCH 8.2 1,13$.'579 ~ $ .( .• ~,1·~S,5j9·; SCH7 SCHS.2 SCIiB.2 SCH 8.2 8,255.307 5,375,658 2,879,~", i\\ \'. ' " '. 25,581,481 14,913,071 y..36,~0'~':i;" ~i~\:li;<>4Q;. 347.403 $ 3-41.403.$ (, .. 1 i '$\\\ ~:'. \" ... " '. '35,323.770 s 20;~~h ~{~,n\J',bil'91S 452.000.,J :(~,,\~~~\j J)\') '0 -S 456.305 .,\( '" \ f~\~ \) '." t''' . '\ V ) ~ ~ ~ 1~? '''\ "".\ \.) ATT K4 .' ' .. \, .'. \ -... <" ~ :1:';'-") ;~~J, \~\\,\~':>,,\\"S\~) "\:\ \ \ ~" \ \ \(...; j ",' \',\ \ \'. \ ". i,·J \\\\ \\.-;: . \\\V\\ ... / \)\~; ... JOINT ALLOCATION PERCENTAGE 45% WATER- RELATED TOTAL 45l1, r ... \.~\~X\~):,,:ol' 'Y.v\~~ \ \',\\ ",'~ t", ... :~~ \;\';)"'$ \45% $ 512,811 2,879,651 4,820,823 A TTACHhlENT N-2 SCliEDULE4 WHOLESALE WHOLESALE AUOCATIQN F!\CTQR SHARE ~~TICl'W.~$ AQ...UtrEQ~lj,*IoI..'(~ -$ ~Clf'lll:~~"'-""" "'" 7,-11>4,165 4.831.890 12,318,055 348,968 1,959,603 3,280,434 45% 45% "-___ -" <\IU.iS'Il:l)~n~..-.w,. L ____ -'- $ 45% 8,213,085 5,589.004 205.337 ~"'~~ $ 139.732 3,118,033 7.740,888 10,658,721 $ 28,903.512 (TO SCHEDULE 1) WHOLESALE REVENUE REQUIREMENT SCHEDULES HETCH HETCHY CAPITAL COST RECOVERY -ANNUAL DEST SERVICE FISCAL YEAR 2009-10 REFERENCE SECTION 5.09.B.1 ATIACHMENT N-2 SCHEDULE 5 XJOC,{ BOOD -XXXX130ND-XJOO<BDl'll:J ~ONu~OND ---xxxx BOND XXXX BONO TOTAL ALL ISSUE ALL ISSUE All ISSUE All ISSUE All ISSUE All ISSUE All ISSUE ALL OUTSTANDIN SERIES SERIES SERIES SERIES SERIES SERIES SERIES G BONDS USE OF BOND PROCEEDS POWER PROJECTS WATER PROJECTS JOINT PROJECTS PRINCIPAL PAYMENT POWER SHARE WATER SHARE JOINT SHARE XXXX% YY.YYO/O ZLZZ% XX.XXO/O YY.YYO/O ZZ.ZZO/O xx.XX% YY.YY% zz.ZZ% xx.xxYo YY.YY% ZZ.Zz.% XX.XX% YY.YY% ZZ.ZZO/O -{7 :P-~~. ";.. ~~ ... ~11 \. . ,("I J\ \ . ('. '\\\\\\\ \j /_. ' '.\ \. \. J. ,. . / 1',_\\ '\ \'" ,V INTEREST PAYMENT (NET) POWER SHARE WATER SHARE JOINT SHARE TOTAL PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST PAYMENT POWER SHARE ~_ n,.~' \\\ ,\\.VA)" ~ \\ ., \ \. " ",.Jr""~ _ , A~" \\' -,. \ \'J \\}')"-" - •• 0;--;>'-\(~~ f\\t 1\\ \~, \ '-"/ ,/:-li(-_d~~"'. ~\.\~\J1~0 v . (.\ .. i)\Q \\) \\,\~ __ , (\.\ (",)"'\ '\ \. ~ loP " ,,\ \ \\ ~c.. \ \ ,~ ~ WATER SHARE JOINT SHARE WATER RELATED' PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST PAYMENT' ... r, ,\' '.' '\ \\\\\J , '" " " ~"I',,\.~;\ 'II \.JI Water Related = 100 \ >,\ \ \ \ \\ :\' \ \'" .'1 \,$8.05% % of W • \ ;\ \ \' -I . .,,;.'/ - a.er Share + 45' ,\'" . \ ./, " •.. ,./ % of Joint Sha \ \ \y~\ :.-re\ '4\ ,-1) ~.// ADJUSTED PROPORTIONAL ANNUAL USE WHOLESALE SHARE '-:? ./ 68.05% 66,05% 68.05% /\ xx.xxor/\(· .J YY.~"\ _ .. ~v.;!;,X.XX%_ ~~ '\ \>'. VY. YY% .~%.\ \ .) ¥,ZZ% I\{;.\\\ :.) -\\ ."", \~) '.~ ':."~ 6805% 66.05% •••••• (TO SCHEDULE 4) WHoLESAlE REVENUE REQUIREMENT SCHEDULES HETCH HETCHY CAPITAL COS, RECOVERY· REVENue FUNO!:D CAJ>lTAl PROJECTS FISCAL YEAR 200~·10 A.T"TACHMENl N·2 SCHEDULE 6 REFERENCE SECTIO« 5.04..8 CUti931 Hti MICl'1:)Wave Repla~ment CUli977 HH W.t.er R&.R • F:atif~j9S Meiot"nenC9 Tots! Joint CUti!M1 . SSA'-Go SOIIU !r"tCenUve pn)Ject CUH911 AUemQ~v& Tf1Insmi.!aion ShJ<:'i;aa C UH976 HH W~6r R&R • ~r tnrra,,1ru~ure CUH919 Hunters polm MuniCipal ~r ClJH983 CivIc Cants( SUNlnabil~y Ols:rtd: CUHS88 Ge.neral Fund Oapt· En~ E.fficie:nc:y r{en ...... blelGener.rticn Tne.asurtt 'illlli'HI ImproV'llm~m pt'Qject Ent~fl1rise FUM Dept· 'EnetiiY eN'lc[6flC)' TolaJ POW\I\'tI' ClJH975 HH W3ter R&R· Water Inf~ .. truc:tu(1ll Touiumne Riv~r Watershed Prote<:tion lOlalWafer TOTAL AI.!.. WATER RElATED PROJECTS WHOLESALE TOTAl AU. YEARS _____ ============== __ .... ===~S~HAA::E __ APP~~R::QPRLAll0N AC1UAL FY 200S-10AC11JAl ENCUhI8ERED. NOT APPROPRIATED. AI.!.. YEARS EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES EXPENDED UNENCUM6E!'ED 6Al.ANCE APP:%~~'ON CLASSIfiCATION W~~~I:~~D WATEs~TED ALJ.OCATION FACTOR' J/~~~':} -4,000,000 JO!NT 3,500,00\) ..iOINT 4S% 1.800,000 AS% $ I,S75.000 ~"QIlI"QIO!~ ~-.... """ ... """"""'" ......... -1,224.5100 $ (,' .~4~·\$:\ 1.224,900 $ 1.224.90() 1,071,766 S., 'd, 7ue~ 'l;, 1,071,766 $ 1.071788 '.-,6l!l! ' $,,,,-'~ ii :~ f.' 2,296.588 $ 2,296:_ y " ''-' 1. ' '. ,/ ~t.\J~'!LOOIIOIt. (' \.f\'\\~"\''"'' \) -"" $,~ 11 \'\\:\ '\' \:.1 '( ,. 3,37s.o00 1.500,000 '.000,000 POWeR 1,000,000 PO\VER 0% $ 0" 0% ~d.)--""""U,~ ~ ,'t II '\ \,. ~, ;J;~ -... (, \''11' -'0'1\)" 113.700,000 POY"JER POWER 1,090,000 PCV>.'ER 1,:;65,158 POWER 3,501.307 POWER 2.700,000 POiIVER "----c:-::-"'''''S""7:.;22,,,, POV'IER .)6,682.187 ~::-,.~~. \\\ \ '" ~1 .. \ ".il ~aJ~JlKI"~ '.\.\ \ \ '\ ~ ~~i' \', ;"$\\ ',f\ t~· 0'110 $ .;_ ~""\ 'f'\'\ ';. \\,r . 0% $ .-"_,~~\,,,\,,1 \\ '<> K\.I ..... """' ... ~, ........ I , O'!I. $ (~,\ • 1 ~ ~.' \\~UIIF: ....... ~. S , ,>" \ "'" ,$ ~~-\ \ ~.\\ , ,.../~~ .... ~ , . \ ,~ .oS" '<e'/ ,f'~Ve \~' \~ ,J 0% $ . !i':;'~':"''' \' \ "\ :(\' I, ....... "'_,_ 8.000.000 W"SR ;.,~:\ I,d jU-'$\\.~.ooo,OOO __ us "\' ~, .. 4,063.000 $ 4.083,00(J: S 2.000,000 WATER 1'\ \\ \ ..... " $.:' 2.000.000 ~_~~---'. \,,-<!' --8.000,000 ",'.\ '\\ ,\ l. \ .. '\!I $ 8,000.000 \ ) \ \ \ \ '\.:J 1 .... :..'" \\\" \V~ /. ,<}.~>~,. '" ~ $ 1.351,000 5.444,000 $ 5,444,000 7.7oI0,8aa 11.375,000 7,7 . .0,888 96.36.(374 ':-" 4,083,000 S 4,m.aOO 1.361.000 S 1.:WH,OOO 5,444,000 $ 5,444.000 7,740,saa $ 7.7oo,aaa $ (TO SCHEDULE.) (TO SCHEDULE 4) $ (TO SC~EDUL!: 4) WHOlESALE REVENUE REQUIREMENT SCHEDULES SERVICES OF SFPUC BUREAUS -ALLOCATION TO ENTERPRISES FISCAl. YEAR 2009-10 ATTACHMENT N·2 SCHEDULE 7 REfERENCE SECTION 5.05.B ADJUST!:D EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURE S S HETCH HETCHY POWER HETCH HETCHY WATER WATER RETAIL WATER REGIONAL WASTEWATER ,9"'\ /.p\~ rf 11,13% 5,98% 1694'}'0 '( 11'::: -\ \29,59% '/~."'~\ \ ALLOCATION FACTORS (SCHEDULE N-7,l) 36,37% PUCOl General Manager $ PUC1101 BizServ-Adrninistration $ PUC1102 Finance $ PUC1103 ITS' $ PUC110B Human Resources PUC110a Customer Services PUC 12 External Affairs TOTAL $ $ $ $ 7.609,114 $ $ 7,809,114 $ 847,180 $ 453,820 $ ~:,2il,'8)8~~ \ f i,:l!il,548 $ 4,081,981 $ $ 4,081,981 $ 454,478 $ 243,456 $ '-', \ 6ll\, 31'~ \\ '\ 1;2n7,864 $ 8,817;687 $ $ 8,817,687 $ 981,739 $ 525,902 $ " 'q\4\1~, $ ~ 2,609,166 $ 18,048,158 $ (1,835,357) $ 16,212,801 $ 1,805,093 $ 966,95,9:1i \ \\i\'¥£: 4,797,391 $ 7,678,483 $ $' 7,678,483 $ 854,903 $ 457,~58 ,: r. \ \ ",~~ot~.l.:f $ 2,272.074 $ 2,767,682 1,484,749 3,207,280 5,897,123 2,792,914 12,262,428 $ (12,262,428) $ , _ $ _ $ .' \'\ _.. $\ " v· 'I l'#_ $ -$ 3,882,455 $ $ 3,882,455 $ 432,263 $ f" \\'~1\556 ',$", \>/657,637 $ 1,148.824 $ 1,412,175 t'l-~~'-" \; \ .. , \ 34,752,000 $ (12,731,000) $ 48,282,521 $ 5,375,!i56 j$r"'" ,,~:6~>9,S51 \ $'> 8,178,424 $ 14,286,867 $ 17,561,923 (TO SCHED.lJ~'IA) ~<'tO~ t1~,Ut,E!"M/ (TO SCHEDULE 1) (TO SCHEDULE 1) ~ \\.~~\\ • .> 'N-\ '\ JJ', '0 ' .>'\ 't. N \.,J /,', \'1,1{\ , 'Adjustment for Transfer of SCADA Expenditures to T&D Joint (Sl ,730,000) ./ \\ \ \ ~' ..; (\ 'v-. (' \\\ \;. JJ ,..;Y''''\ \ ~~\ \ \ ~ \.~.:.y /;\~ 0'\ ., -1.\ '. \ \ \ .... , «Y,],\ \) .,. '\ I;) \ \> -v ,f.'-",\j;,' ~~ .. \ \ (0-,"".:1 r~/.J> '.\ \ ,\. ,\ .' (;'\': \' \ .... y . ,\",=1 \\ \ \~'\"\\.? n \', , \.0.\ ':, \P ',' \ \ '\ ~ '~\ "",l • . -,,'\ '\;"" 1 ~ f \ J.'\ ~ , \ \\ \ \ '~,~J' \ \\ \.~,\~) \ '\ .v \ \ "p \,:.0 TOTAL $ 7,609,114 $ 4,081,981 $ 8,817,687 $ 16,212,801 $ 7.678,483 $ $ 3,882,455 $ 48,282,521 WHOLESALE REVENUE REQUIREMENT SCHEDULES SERVICES OF SFPUC SUREAUS • ANNUAL SALARIES FISCAL YEAR 2009·10 REFERENCE SECTION S.05.B DEPARTMENTIDIVISION ALLOCA TiON GROUP SALARIES PERCENTAGE HETCH HErCHY POWER WATER JOINT WATER WATER SHARE POWER SHARE ADMINISTRATION (WTR01) RETAil SHARE REGIONAL SHARE' HETC H HETCHY WATER SHARE CDD(WTR03) WATER QUALITY (WTR04) .5% 55% 33.4% 33.3% 33.3% 1 $ 2 $ $ 2 $ 1 $ $ 3 $ 4 $ 2 $ 6,677,939 1,775,910 9,~28,450 4,242,803 5,185,648 1,009,246 336,415 ,.' 336,41~ l·1 3.3~11&' '\~I .. ",,~ \ '\ . y-' \ " \, '. J 3". 17~6 ~i,! \ \ ,i ,.::\\ ,\, '\\ \A \'\ 'A '(\ 4 ,${ \ '(\2,&2.5&9 .) v WATER SUPPL Y & TREATMENT (WTR05) .,;'!.. I, '" \ '''' $\. '18,11>4,889 y..;~\\" \ \} \)\\\) v ,/\; , i ' \ ':>. ,;\,\ 0 NATURAL RESOURCES (WTR06) (~'.'/ <\~~\J \ Y4.,,$ 4,682.073 '~"'''\\\' )' WATE~ RESOURCE PLANNING :::/~ ';>" \ ~\ 1\ \ \ \ \ \;/ $ 1,419,750 WATER CONSERVATION ,~,' ,,;'\\) ,J 1 \\;) \ \\ V 3 $ 355,703 RETAIL WATER RESOUROt! Pj)Af\I~l~ : \ 1_'\) -3 $ REGIONAL SHARE (t)Ei~\.AlrIES). \ \ \\ \} 4 $ 1,064,057 WASTEWATER ,:', \. ". \"<. ~~ .\, \\ \.: .... 5:; 38,757,578 . ' . ' .• SALARIES BY GRO~1" (.'01;lE . :.,' . flETCH HE"('(MiV..7,~QW.I;':ff 1 $ 11,663,587 HETCH HE1'CB, -W):(fER 2 $ 6,355,129 \ \ /' WATER -R8>i'IL 3 $ 18,049,040 WATER-REGIONAL 4 $ 31,529,823 WASTEWATER 5 $ 36,757,578 TOtAL SALARIES $ 106,555,156 6.83% 17.05% 4.39% 0,33% 1.00% 36.37% 11,13% (TO SCHEDULE 7) 5.96% (TO SCHEDULE 7) 16,94% (TO SCHEDULE 7) 29.59% (TO SCHEDULE 7) 36.37% (TO SCHEDULE 7) 100.00% AnACHMENT N-2 SCHEDULE 7.1 WHOLESALE REVENUE REQUIREMENT SCHEDULES CALCULATION OF THE WHOLESALE REVENUE REQUIREMENT FISCAL YEAR 2009·10 ' WATER ENTERPRISE SUMMARY OF OPERATING EXPENSES Retail Operating Expenses Transmission & Distributions $ 30.163,286 $ Adjustments to Transmission & Distribution .:.$ ____ _ $ Adjusted Transmission & Distribution $ 30,163,286 $ Wholesale -$ $ $ Source of Supply $ 1,251,062 $ -$ -=----~-..:...$ -~---$'.1- Regional 23,252,946 ATTACHMENT N·2 SCHEDULE 8,1 Total Adjustments to Source of Supply Adjusi'ed SourCe 'of Supply Pumping Adjustments to Pumping $ 1,251,062 $~' 1 :;; $ 3,854000 t. ~ ; \.; ~$ .... __ 4,_34_2 .. ,_6_8_2 $ 3,854.0J9 ~ .. q'\ " ~\\-:'~) \J, 488,682 $ Adjusted Pumping 4,342,682 ('\, \ \'\ \ ,\,.\\ \\:::~ Treatment $ r-'<.., \ \\ \ $' \ \j \ \.\ ,~-$ 30,445,053 $ Adjustments to Treatment ~_~~ \ \,,:,~' 'f;/ -.!C$ ____ _ 30,445,053 30,445,053 $ 30,445,053 Adjusted Treatment ,,/$)\ \ \1\\ \, \;\ \';,\ $, ,j -$ (''--1.i \\,\~l\\\) Customer Accounts .' ,Y\ l'~~\~'A6'~M $ 151,044 $ -$ 7,552,213 Adjustments to Custome: ~~'SlJ\ : ~ '\) \~ '\ ) ,,,,:;r • "--____ -$ ____ _ Adjusted Customer ~C~fll.)1e.' If\";' ~,~ A:;\: ,401,169 $ 151,044 $ • $ 7,552,213 T""lAdj:"'~ OP~; ~~~ $ 42,669,517 $ 151,044 $ Gener~~'\d~'strat ~rj e co~~~k ~ \ $ $ $ Serv/fe.S\o, aus $ 8,178,424 $ $ \. \\ ' \' Other ~e'n\.:5iY& Administrative Adjustma~ts to General & Administrative Adjusted General & Administrative Compliance Audit Total General & Administrative Property Taxes Total Source: FAMIS/EIS $ $ $ $ $ $ Note: All adjustments to be separately identified above 4,009,891 $ -$ 4,009,891 $ -$ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 12,288,315 $ 100,000 $ $ -$ 54,957,832 $ 251,044 '$ Page 9 of 10 67,879,572 $ 1,238,009 $ 14,286,867 $ 8,962,586 $ 8,962,586 $ $ 110,700,133 1,238,009 22,465,291 12,972,477 12,972,477 200,000 24,487,462 $' 36,875,777 1,417,293 $ 1,417,293 93,784,327 $ 148,993,203 WHOLESALE REVENUE REQUIREMENT SCHEDULES CALCULATION OF THE WHOLESALE REVENUE REQUIREMENT FISCAL YEAR 2009·10 HETCHY HETCHY WATER & POWER SUMMARY OF OPERATING EXPENSES Power Water Operating Expenser; Purchased Power & Wheeling $ 28.953,676 Adjustments to Purchased Power & Wheeling $"'--____ _ Adjusted Purchased Power & Wheeling $ 28.953,676 . Joint Total $ 28.953,676 $ $ 28,9,53':1:(\6 .rA' _.:::~ (/.'j\;."" \ OP~~~~~~I~C Generation $ 2.900.291 $ -$ 3.200,39.;.;4, f\\Soo:~\ Transmission & Distribution $ $ $ (' \$\ \\ \ 1(.\,,\ Water Quality Expense $ $ 9,557,862 $'.. ,.~~;~\ ~~7862 Adjustments to Operations -$ -, i,' . '. c£\"\~ ~ v . Adjusted Operations "'$--2-,9-0-0.-2-91-"'$-----<i'(" I 3.~ ',~~ '\ ~15,658.54 7 \t \:JJ)~' Maintenance \\ \.;::' Hydraulic Generation ~\ '\,)8,581.952 $ Transmission & Distribution ~~ $ Water Quality Expense $ $ Adjustments to Maintenance $ Adjusted Maintenance Total Adjusted Operating Expense Tota~General & Administrative' Property Taxes Total Source: FAMIS/EIS $ $ 5,375,656 $ 12,796,484 $ -$ 2.879,651 $ 347,403 $ $ 8,561,952 $ 11.782.346 $ 1.139,579 $ $ $ -~--------~$---------~$--------$ $ 347,403 $ $ -$ $ 14,913,071,$ 36,070 $ 10,632.340 $ ~----------~$---------- $ 14,913,071 $ 36,070 :$ 10.632,340 $ ,$ 20.636,130,$ 2,915,721 $ 11.771.919 $ $ $ -$ 452,000 $ $ 57.538,136 $ 15,712,205 $ 24,006,265 $ Note: AI! adjustments to be separately identified above 13,660,670 3,359,385 (151,442) 16.866.613 61.480.836 1,139.579 8.255,307 347,403 347,403 25,581,481 25,581,481 35,323,770 452,000 97.256,606 ATTACHMENT N·2 SCHEDULE 8.2 SCHEDULE OF PROJECTED WATER SALES. WHOLESALE Cl.E:VENUE REQUIREMENTS, AND WHOLESALE RATES CONTRACT REFERENCE: ARTiCLE 6.03.A.3 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES SOURCE OF SUPPLY PUMPING TREATMENT TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS TOTAL'OPERA110N AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES ADMINiSTRATIVE AND GENERAL EXPENSES COWCAP SF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OTHERA&G $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ N 9,364,568 334,210 20,821,372 15,902,690 151,044 46,573,884 520,857 9,770,788 3,770,749 N+1 $ $ $ $ ~ $ $ $ $ FISCAL YEAR N+2 $ • $ -$ $ -$ $ N4-3 o ,,~:., ,~~\ '!~;)\ \. ~ _ ~\«"'" ) ,?-" '\ 'J il\ \ '. rt1 $ :f ~\ \;1 II fl-,) \\ 'l. - - -- COMPLIANCE AUDIT ! TOTALADMINISTRATNE AND GENERAL EXPENSES $ -NPl $ ". ) \ 'i\ '~;,."~ itJ>V' :[1$ \ \,d\.1 ",7' $ ~.\"'.$ ''(:~ $ ~A\) -$~-----. PROPERTY TAXES .CAPITAL COST RECOVER':' PRE 2009 ASSETS DEBT SERVICE ON NEW ASSETS REVENUE FUNDED CAPITAL TOTAL CAPITAL COST RECOVERY WHOLESALE SHARE HHW&P WHOLESALE REVENUE REQUiREMENT BALANCING ACCOUNT AS OF JUNE 30 INTEREST ON BALANCING ACCOUNT WHOLESALE REVENUE.S AT EXSITING RATE WHOLESALE EXCESS USE Ci-'Jl.RGES . SETTtEMENT CREDITS AND OTHER ADJUSTMENT$ 1984 AGREEMENT BALANCING ACCOUNT CREDITS WHOLESALE DEBIT SERViCE COVERAGE RESERVE WHOLESALE DEFICIENCY OR CREDIT PERCENT WHOLESALE DEFICIENCY OR CREDIT OF REVENU'ES AND EXCESS USE CHARGES PROJECTED WATER SALES (CCF) WHOLESALE DEFICIENCY OR. CREDIT ($/CCF) PROJECTED WHOLESALE RATE (UNIT COST ($ICCF) PROJECTED SERVICE CHARGE REVEN'UES PROJECTED VOLUME CHARGE REVENUES TOTAL WHOLESALE REVE.NUES $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ is 140 994734 £$ ___ --=-i $ $ -$ $ -$ $ $ (127,485,900) $ $ $ $ -$ $ 21,000 $ $ $ 1,997,220 $ . $ $ 4,488,233 ~$:..-___ ...: $ $ 20.015,287 $ -$ 15.7% 85,920.000 0.23 1.66 $ 4.620,300 $ 142,627,200 $ 147,247,500 0 0 0 $ -$ -$ ! $ $ .1 - $ $ -$ $ - -$ -$ - ! -$ 0 ° 0 0 0 a An ACHMENT N-3 N+4 $ $ $ $ ! $ $ $ $ ! $ $ $ $ ! $ $ 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ ! $ 0 a 0 ATTACHMENT 0 STATEMENT OF WHOLESALE REVENUE REQUIREMENTI CHANGES IN BALANCING ACCOUNT YEAR ENDED JUNE 30 Wholesale Revenue Requirement Calculation: Opera ling and maintenance (O&M) expense: San Francisco Water Enterprise: Source of supply Pumping Purification Transmission and distribution Customer Accounts Total SFWE operating and maintenance Hetcn Hetchy Water and Power (HHWP): Operating expenses Maintenance expenses Total HHWP operating and maintenance Administrative and general (A&G) expenses: COWCAP SFWE HHWP SF Public LitiJities Commission: SFWE HHWP Other A&G SFWE Other A&G -HHwP (Section 7.02.B) FY 2008-09 Allocation to Wholesale Customers $ 9,133,025 $ 325,946 $ 20,437,460 $ 9,350,279 .$ 224,255 .$ 39,470,965 $ 10,359,786 $ 4,526,240 $ 14,886,026 $ $ ?\ f~r~ ~ , . '\' \ ~" .,r·· .. ·~ \ '\ \ $, .'J - Compliance audit ,,/\\ '( \ \\ v', \.$ ',~"I 95,338 Total administrative and general expenses //' ';\ \ ,\ \ \ \ \ " \$ 18.824,396 .' \ ... ~' .. ~ \ \\ \J )': \;~ ' .. "* 1 \ ... \, ; t"" Properly taxes (outside city only): .' " .. '. " h\ \ \ \ ') .... -' SFWE . t"'" ;'\ U i \ .... \, \..\ •. HHWP '. /'\\,,\ \. \ -< ~/V Total property taxes f> \WG.;£., \\ \J \:./ Capita! Cost ,.' ,\) \~ 0 Pre·2oo9 ~~ SFWE ~) HHWP .\ J"Y Debl Service 0 .1 '~'AsseIS SFWE HHWP Revenue Funded Assels SFWE HHWP Total Capital Cost Recovery Tolal Wholesale Revenue Requirement Balancing Accounl July 1 . Interest on adjusted begin,ning balance Who!esale revenues billed Excess use charges billed Wholesale Revenue Coverage Reserve Olher adjustments Settlement adjustments 1984 Agreement Balancing Account Credits Balancing Account June 30 .$ $ $ 964,040 120,923 1,084,963 $ 46,378,941 $ 120,645,291 $ 21,176,614 $ 529.415 $ (123,604,000) $ $ $ $ 21,006 $ $ $ $ FY 2009-10 Allocation to Wholesale Customers 9,364,568 334,210 20,821,372 15,902,690 Difference $ 231,543 $ 8,264 $ 383,912 $ 6,552,411 ~$_~~1,044 $ (73,211) $ 46,573,884 $ 7,102,919 $ 7,484,165 $;f'Z!J75,621) $ 4,831,a~o i-:-)t.,\(05,650 $ 12,316'Of5~\'\':'1 ~,~9,971) ,/;;"\ 1i ~ 'f; \. . ~', ~\l t \ \ . '\,:;', ..... \v . ~ '<C'-$ 8,419 68 $ 186,604 9,770,788 $ 2,308,953 1,959,603 $ (398,019) 3,770,749 $ (4,464,050) 3,280,434 $ 3,280,434 100,000 $ 4,662 19,751,399 $ 927,003 $ 969,287 $ 5,247 $ 139,732 $ 18,809 $ 1,109,019 $ 24,056 $ 24,051,326 $ 3.118,033 $ 17,952,931 $ $ 8,381,400 $ 7,740,688 $ 61,244,378 $14,865,437 $ 140,994,735 $20,349,444 $ $ $ (147,247,500) $ $ 4,488,233 $ $ 21,006 $ 253,694 Attachment P REPRESENTATION LETTER Certification Pursuant to Water Sales Agreement (the Agreement) between the City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco) and certain wholesale customers in the counties of San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda (the Wholesale Customers) effective July 1,2009. Each of the undersigned certifies that: 1. . I have reviewed San Francisco Water Department and Hetch Hetchy Water & Power Department Report on the' Calculation of the Wholesale Revenue Requirement and Statement of Changes in the Balancing Account (the Statement) for the year ended June 30, 200X; Based on my knowledge, this report and Statement do not contain any untrue statements of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements Were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by the report; Based on my knowledge, the Statement and other financial information included in the report, fairly presents in all material respects the proper costs incurred and allocated to the Wholesale Customers in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement. Tbe below certifying officers and r are responsible for establishing and maintaining internal control over financial reporting and have: Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable . assurance regarding the reliabil ity of financial reporting forpurp6ses of the preparation of the Statement. Evaluated the effectiveness of the allocation procedures to ensure compliance with the terms of the Agreement. Attachment P, Page 1 1870057.1 The Statement fully complies with the contractual requirements of the Agreement and fairly presents, in all material respects, the allocation of costs to the Wholesale Customers in accordance with the Agreement. General Manager, SFPUC Date Assistant General Manager & ChiefFinancjal Officer, SFPUC Date Finance Director, SFPUC Date Accounting Manager, SFPUC Date Financial Planning Manager, SFPUC Date Senior Rates Administrator, SFPUC Date Attachment P, Page 2 1870057.1 It ~. it It 19 !t t t t ~ t t • t t ~ 19' ~ t, t , ~ ATTACHMENT Q MAXIMUM SERVICE AREAS ATTACHMENT F WATER SALES CONTRACT This Contract, dated as of July I, 2009, is entered into by and between the City and County of San Francisco, a California chartered municipal corporation ("San Francisco") and the City of Palo Alto, a California chartered municipal corporation ("Customer"). RECITALS San Francisco and the Customer have entered into a Water Supply Agreement ("WSA"), which sets forth the terms and conditions under which San Francisco will continue to furnish water for domestic and other municipal purposes to Customer and to other Wholesale Customers. The WSA contemplates that San Francisco and each individual Wholesale Customer will enter into an individual contract describing the location or locations at which water will be delivered to each customer by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission ("SFPUC"), the customer's service area within which water so delivered is to be sold, and other provisions unique to the individual purchaser. This Water Sales Contract is the individual contract contemplated by the WSA. AGREEMENTOFTHEPARTffiS 1. Incorporation of the WSA The terms and conditions of the WSA are incorporated into this Contract as if set forth in full herein. 2. Term Unless explicitly provided to the contrary in Article 9 of the WSA, the tenn of this Contract shall be identical to that provided in Section 2.01 of the WSA. 3. Service Area Water delivered by San Francisco to the Customer may be used or sold within the service area shown on the map designated Exhibit A attached hereto. Except as provided in Section 8 of this Contract and Section 3.03 of the WSA, Customer shall not deliver or sell any water provided by San Francisco outside of this area without the prior written consent of the General Manager of the SFPUC. San Francisco consents to deliveries to the customers listed on Exhibit D. 4. Location and Description of Service Connections Sale and delivery of water to Customer will be made through a connection or connections to the SFPUC Regional Water System at the location or locations listed, with the applicable present account number, service location, service size, and meter size shown on Exhibit B attached hereto. 090513 syn 6050775 5. Interties With Other Systems Customer maintains interties with neighboring water systems at the location or locations and with the connection size(s) as shown on Exhibit C attached hereto. 6. Billing and Payment San Francisco shall compute the amounts of water delivered and bill Customer therefor on a monthly basis. The bill shall show the separate components of the charge (e.g., service, consumption, demand). Customer shall pay the amount due. within thirty (30) days after receipt of the bill. If Customer disputes the accuracy of any portion of the water bill it shall (a) notify the General Manager of the SFPUC in writing of the specific nature of the dispute and (b) pay the undisputed portion of the bill within thirty (30) days after receipt. Customer shall meet with the General Manager of the SFPUC or a delegate to discuss the disputed portion of the bill. 7. Service to Stanford University Lands The parties recognize that, during the term of this Contract and the WSA, Customer may annex unincorporated lands owned by The Board of Trustees of The Leland Stanford Junior University ("Stanford lands"). Accordingly, Customer's service area shown on Exhibit A attached hereto includes lands that also are included in the service areas of Stanford University as shown on Exhibit A to the Water Sales Contract between San Francisco and The Board of Trustees of The Leland Stanford Junior University. Any sale of water by Customer to Stanford lands annexed by Customer shall be made in compliance with Section 3.03.E ofthe WSA. 8. Service Outside Service Area Customer has delivered, with the approval of San Francisco, limited service to consumers physically located outside the service area shown on Exhibit A attached hereto. San Francisco agrees that Customer may continue to furnish such limited service to these consumers outside the service area. To the best of Customer's knowledge, the name and service address for each such consumer account are set forth on Exhibit D attached hereto. II II II II II II II II 2 090513 syn 605077 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Contract, to become effective upon the effectiveness of the WSA, by their duly authorized representatives. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Acting by and through its Public Utilities Commission By: ___________ --- Edward Harrington General Manager Date: ___________ , 2009 Approved by Corrunission Resolution No. 09-0069, adopted April 28, 2009 Michael Housh Secretary to Corrunission Approved as to form: DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney By: _____________ _ Joshua D. Milstein Deputy City Attomey 090513 syn 6050775 3 CITY OF PALO ALTO By: -------------- Name: James Keene Title: City Manager Date: ___________ , 2009 Approved as to form: Deputy City Attorney Approved as to Content: Director of Utili ties c::J Palo Alto City Boundary Tne City of Palo Alto droatson" 2OM-(I6..3(} 10:44:03 ril,cc--maps\ps$\gis\ad~n\.m9ta\View Md:i) Santa Clara County \ Palo Alto City Boundary This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS -. 0' 8000' ThiS dowment is III gr'api'lfc represen1alion onty of best availabkt sourCQ$. The City ot Palo Alto a'SSUtne& no respOO$lbility for any errom@1989to2008CltyofPaloAlto ExhibitB Location and Description of Service Connections to the SFPUC Regional Water System Service Meter Service Street Service Service Meter Account Connection Address Service Street SuffIx City Size Size 010074011 1 1 JUNIPERO SERRA BL Palo Alto 18 10 010074011 2 1 JUNIPERO SERRA BL Palo Alto 10 010074011 1 700 ARASTADERO RD Palo Alto 24 10 010074011 2 700 ARASTADERO RD Palo Alto 10 010076016 1 500 CALIFOR.~IA AV Palo Alto 16 10 010076016 2 500 CALIFORNIA AV Palo Alto 10 010076016 1 201 ELCAMINO RL Palo Alto 12 8 010076016 2 201 ELCAMINO RL Palo Alto 6 010076016 1 175 EL CAMINO REAL Palo Alto 12 8 O~0513 syn 6050775 Exhibit C Emergency Connections with Other Water Systems Connection With Number Size East Palo Alto 1 6" Mountain View 2 6",6" Stanford 2 8",8" Purissima Hills WD 2 8", 12" 090513 syn 6050775 090514 syn 6050775 ExhibitD Consumers Served Outside the Palo Alto Service Area Boundary 1 14545 MANUELA AVE 2 14619 MANUELA AVE 3 14710 MANUELA AVE 4 14780 MANUELA AVE 5 14840 MANUELA AVE 6 14844 MANUELA AVE 7 14850 MANUELA AVE 8 26140 ROBB RD 9 26000 SCARFF WAY 10 25829 SPRINGHILL RD 11 25845 SPRINGHILL RD 12 25900 SPRINGHILL RD 13 25901 SPRINGHILL RD LOS ALTOS HILLS LOS ALTOS HILLS LOS ALTOS HI LLS LOS ALTOS HILLS LOS ALTOS HILLS LOS ALTOS HILLS LOS ALTOS HILLS LOS ALTOS HILLS LOS ALTOS HILLS LOS ALTOS HILLS LOS ALTOS HILLS LOS ALTOS HILLS LOS ALTOS HILLS 94022 94022 94022 94022 94022 94022 94022 94022 94022 94022 94022 94022 94022 ATTACHMENT G Summary Report on New Water Supply Agreement Between the City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers in Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Prepared for San Francisco Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency By Ray McDevitt and Allison Schutte Hanson Bridgett LLP April 2009 @ HansonBridgett TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1 PART ONE WATER SUPPLy ........................................................................................... 2 A. Quantity ................................................................................................................ 2 B. Reliability .............................................................................................................. 3 C. Shortages ............................................................................................................. 4 D. Water Quality ........................................................................................................ 5 E. Conservation ........................................................................................................ 6 F. Operational Issues ............................................................................................... 6 G. Interim Limit of 184 MGD Through 2018 .............................................................. 7 H. Limits on SFPUC Taking on New Customers ..................................................... 10 I. BAWSCA Involvement in SFPUC Planning for New or Alternate Supplies ........ 10 PART TWO COST ............................................................................................................ 11 A. Overview ............................................................................................................ 11 B. Individual Cost Categories ................................................................................. 13 C. Rates and Balancing Account ............................................................................ 20 D. Accounting and Auditing ..................................................................................... 21 PART THREE ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS ................................................................ 21 A, Term (Section 2.01) ........................................................................................... 21 B. Unanimous PartiCipation Not Necessary (Section 2.02) .................................... 22 C. Amendments to Agreement (Section 2.03) ....................................................... 22 D. Delegation of Administrative Tasks to BAWSCA (Section 8.04) ....................... 22 E. Annual Meeting with SFPUC Senior Management (Section 8.03) .................... 23 F. Dispute Resolution; Limitations on Damages (Section 8.01; Section 8.14) ...... 24 G. Special Provisions for Some AgenCies (Article 9 of Agreement) ....................... 24 -i-1680730.7 SUMMARY REPORT ON NEW WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT INTRODUCTION This report was prepared at the request of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). Its purpose is to provide a summary of the major provisions in the new Water Supply Agreement which BAWSCA has negotiated with representatives of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC or Commission) and which was approved by the Commission on April 28, 2009. In 1984, San Francisco and all of its wholesale customers entered into a "Settlement Agreement and Master Water Sales Contract, n the term of which was 25 years and which will expire on June 30, 2009. This is a lengthy document which was executed in multiple identical counterparts by San Francisco and each of its wholesale customers. It was titled a "Settlement Agreement" because it settled a lawsuit bro~ght by several of the wholesale customers against San Francisco, which is described in the opinion in Palo Alto v. San Francisco (9th Cir. 1977) 548 F.2d 1374, decided by the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit The 1984 Settlement Agreement and Master Water Sales Contract was negotiated by the Bay Area Water Users Association (a less formal predecessor to BAWSCA) with support from attorneys, engineering consultants, municipal financial consultants, and CPAs. A similar approach has been taken in preparation of the new Agreement. In 2006, BAWSCA offered its services as negotiator of the new Agreement. The governing boards of all 27 wholesale customers adopted resolutions delegating that authority and prescribing the parameters of that delegation. BAWSCA has conducted the negotiations with the SFPUC starting in 2007. The negotiating team has been led by Art Jensen, BAWSCA's General Manager/CEO. Mr. Jensen holds a Ph.D. in engineering from Cal Tech and has spent his career consulting for, and managing, urban water agencies. He has been assisted by BAWSCA's staff engineer Nicole Sand kulla, and staff financial analyst John Ummel, as well as 1680730.7 by independent engineering, financial and accounting consultants.' Attorneys at Hanson Bridgett have served as legal counsel to the BAWSCA negotiating team and were the principal drafters of the Agreement. Bud Wendell has provided strategic guidance at critical junctures. The Agreement's Introductory Statement provides that both San Francisco and its wholesale customers "share a commitment to the Regional Water System providing a reliable supply of high quality water at a fair price and achieving these goals in an environmentally sustainable manner." Part One, Sections A, B, C and H of this report cover proviSions in the new Agreement which address water supply reliability. Part One, Section D focuses on the Agreement's provisions related to water quality. Part Two covers the considerable portion of the new Agreement designed to ensure that the capital and operating costs of the regional water system are fairly allocated between San Francisco's retail customers and the wholesale customers. Finally, Part One, Sections E and F.2 summarize provisions in the Agreement explicitly addressing water conservation and use of alternative local sources of water. 2 PART ONE WATER SUPPLY (Articles 3 and 4 of Agreement) A. Quantity 1. SU12l2ly Assurance Reconfirmed. The Agreement reconfirms San Francisco's perpetual commitment to deliver 184 million gallons per day (MGD), on an annual average basis, to the wholesale customers collectively, other than San Jose and Santa Clara (the "Supply Assurance"). It also preserves the wholesale customers' claim that San Francisco Engineering support has been provided by Allan Richards, P.E., with Stetson Engineers. Financial support has been provided by Dan Cox and David Brodsly, both with KNN Financial, and by John Farnkopf, with HF&H Consultants. Assistance on accounting/auditing aspects of the Agreement has been provided by Steve Mayer, CPA, and Jeff Pearson, CPA, with Burr, Pilger & Mayer, LLP. 2 In addition, Part One, Section G describes the mechanics through which the SFPUC intends to implement the Commission's decision in October 2008 to impose a limit on deliveries to 265 MGD through 2018 and to enforce the interim supply limitations assigned to individual agencies through Environmental Enhancement Surcharges. 2 1680730.7 is obligated to provide water over and above the Supply Assurance, as well as San Francisco's denial of that obligation. 2. Allocation of Supply Assurance Incorporated. The Agreement also incorporates and formally reconfirms the allocation of the collective 184 MGD Supply Assurance among the wholesale customers which was effected under the 1984 Contract (partly through triennial "vesting" and then by unanimous agreement of all agencies in 1994). The Agreement includes, as an attachment, a list of the individual "Supply Guarantees" for each of the 24 wholesale customers that currently have one.3 3. Transferability of Supply Guarantees. The Agreement allows wholesale customers to transfer, on a permanent basis, portions of their individual Supply Guarantees among themselves. These transfers are subject to only very limited San Francisco oversight to ensure Raker Act compliance and adequate physical capacity of the San Francisco regional system to deliver the additional water to the transferee agency. B. Reliability 1. WSIP Completion. The Agreement commits San Francisco to complete the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) approved by the Commission in October 2008 by 2015.4 In addition, the Agreement obligates San Francisco to provide full public review and opportunity for wholesale customers to comment on any proposed changes to the WSIP that would delay completion or delete projects. Finally, the staff of the SFPUC will meet and confer 3 These quantified supply guarantees will remain subject to pro rata reduction if and when collective use exceeds 184 MGD due to growth in demand, in order to preserve Hayward's claimed entitlement under its 1962 contract and the overall limit on San Francisco's commitment of 184 MGD. The Agreement will also preserve other agencies' reservation of their right to challenge this reduction. 4 This commitment is conditional on SFPUC's completion of all CEQA analysis and documentation required for the individual facilities that collectively comprise the WSIP. It is also made subject to a "force majeure" clause that excuses both SFPUC and the wholesale customers from delays in performance, or failure to perform, due to "acts of God" and other circumstances not the fault of, and beyond the control of, the affected party that make performance impossible or extremely impracticable. 3 1680730.7 with BAWSCA before proposing to the Commission any changes in scope that would reduce the ability of the regional system to meet level of service goals adopted by the Commission. 2. System Maintenance. The Agreement requires the SFPUC to keep the regional system in good working order and repair, consistent with prudent utility practice. SFPUC will prepare and publish bi-annual reports on the "State of the Regional System," will cooperate with any audits of system repair/maintenance conducted by BAWSCA, will consider the findings of such audits, and will provide responses, including reasons why any audit recommendations were not adopted. 3. "Water First." The Agreement commits the SFPUC to continue its "water first" policy, i.e., operating the Hetch Hetchy reservoirs in a manner that gives higher priority to delivery of water to the Bay Area, and to environmental values, than to electric power generation. It leaves day-to-day operational decisions up to the SFPUC. C. Shortages 1. Drought. The Agreement continues the allocation of water between San Francisco and the wholesale customers which was agreed to in 2000 and memorialized as "Tier Oneil of the Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan. The provisions of the Plan that allow wholesale customers to "bank" drought allocations and to transfer them are continued, while some of the procedures and schedules contained in the Plan have been updated. The "Tier Two" allocation of water among the wholesale customers themselves, scheduled to expire on June 30, 2009, is not made a part of the new Agreement with San Francisco. The SFPUC, however, is obligated to honor any new allocation agreed to by the wholesale customers, either unanimously or through BAWSCA. 2. Disaster. The Agreement requires the SFPUC to distribute water on an equitable basis after an earthquake or other natural disaster. The SFPUC response to disasters is to be guided by the Emergency Response and Recovery Plan (ERRP) adopted by the 4 1680730.7 SFPUC, the fundamental principles of which are incorporated into the Agreement itself. The ERRP is to be periodically reviewed and may be amended by the Commission. SFPUC staff will be required to provide 30 days notice to the wholesale customers of any proposal to amend the ERRP, along with the text of the proposed amendments. 3. localized Reductions. Provisions in the existing 1984 Contract governing localized shortages due to isolated damage or system repairs are continued. 4. Wheeling. The Agreement allows for BAWSCA and/or wholesale customers to "wheel" water from outside sources through the SFPUC regional system during periods of shortage, subject to provisions regarding water quality impacts and cost reimbursement. D. Water Quality 1. Meet Safe Drinking Water Act Standards; Notice. The Agreement commits the SFPUC to deliver treated water meeting federal and state primary drinking water standards: maximum contaminant levels (MCl's) and treatment techniques. The next update of the SFPUC Water Quality Notification and Communication Plan will include expanded coverage of secondary MCl exceedances. The SFPUC will provide notice to wholesale customers of any exceedance concurrently with notice provided to operators of the In-City retail distribution system. 2. Joint Water Quality Committee. A Water Quality Committee will be established, composed of a representative from the SF PUC and from each wholesale customer. The committee will meet at least quarterly to collaboratively address water quality issues. The Committee's Chair and Vice Chair will rotate between SFPUC and the wholesale customers. 5 1680730.7 E. Conservation 1. Wholesale Customers. The Agreement commits the wholesale customers to take actions, within their legal authority, regarding water conservation that are necessary to ensure that the SF PUC remains eligible to receive state and federal grants and other financial assistance and to participate in the State Drought Water Bank. 2. SFPUC Support for BAWSCA Conservation Programs. The Agreement commits the SFPUC to collect a "water management charge," if and when such a charge is established by the BAWSCA board of directors, and to remit those funds to BAWSCA to support regional water conservation measures and development of alternative supplies approved by the BAWSCA board of directors. 3. The "Green Option" to be Explored. The Agreement commits San Francisco to work with BAWSCA to explore ways to support water conservation and recycling in locations outside the Bay Area. This will include a particular focus on agricultural conservationl efficiency projects of the type described in the "Green Option," recommended by BAWSCA in its comments on the Program Environmental Impact Report on the WSIP, which can benefit the Tuolumne River. F. Operational Issues 1. Service Areas. The Agreement continues existing restrictions on sales of water outside wholesale customers' service areas.s It clarifies and continues the existing contract provisions regarding expansion of service areas (SF PUC approval is needed, but cannot be withheld unreasonably) and sales to other wholesale customers (pre-approved in emergencies; otherwise SFPUC approval is needed, but cannot be withheld unreasonably) . . 5 The service area maps will be updated and attached to each agency's new individual Water Sales Contract. (Each wholesale customer has, and will continue to have, two contracts with San Francisco. One is the lengthy Water Supply Agreement which is identical for each agency. The other is a much shorter document that addresses the specifics for each agency: its service area map, connections to the regional water system. interties with neighboring agencies, etc.) 6 1680730.7 2. Use of Local Sources. The Agreement extends the "best efforts" commitment to use of local sources to the SFPUC as well as the wholesale customers. Local sources include surface water, groundwater and available recycled water. The contractual obligation is subject to considerations of economic feasibility and the environmental and water supply reliability impacts of using these local sources. 3. Purchases from Third Parties; "Take or Pay" for Dual Source Agencies. The Agreement continues the prohibition on purchases from other sources if the SFPUC is able and willing to supply all water needed. It also expands exceptions to this prohibition by making it inapplicable to purchases of recycled water. In other words, wholesale customers that do not have direct access to a source of recycled water -i.e., a sewage treatment plant -may purchase from those that do. The Agreement also allows the "dual source" agencies (Alameda County Water District, Milpitas, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale) to continue purchases from other suppliers, such as the California Department of Water Resources and the Santa Clara Valley Water District, subject to a required minimum purchase from SFPUC. These minimum "take or pay" commitments have each been reduced by five percent from current levels. Minimum purchase requirements in San Jose's and Santa Clara's current individual contracts are to be deleted in their new individual contracts. Also, the new Agreement makes clear that wholesale customers are not obligated to purchase water from SFPUC in amounts larger than their individual Supply Guarantees. G. Interim Limit of 184 MGD Through 2018 1. No Decision by SF on Increase in Supply Assurance until 2018. The Agreement recognizes the SFPUC's unilateral decision made last October to defer any consideration of an increase in the 184 MGD Supply Assurance until 2018. It requires the SFPUC to make that decision by December 2018, after completing necessary cost analyses and CEQA evaluation/documentation. The Agreement does not constitute concurrence by 7 1680730.7 wholesale customers in SFPUC's limitation and also preserves the wholesale customers' claim that they are legally entitled to water in excess of 184 MGD. 2. Interim Limit on Sales until 2018. In October 2008, San Francisco independently established a self-imposed limit on sales of water from surface watersheds to 265 MGD until 2018. At the same time. it also established subsidiary limits of (a) 81 MGD for City retail customers and (b) 184 MGD for all 27 wholesale customers, including San Jose and Santa Clara. Another element of this limitation. also adopted by the SFPUC in October 2008, is a schedule for allocating the 184 MGD interim limit among all wholesale customers: those allocations will be decided on by the Commission in December 2010.6 The SFPUC also decided last October that it will enforce these interim limitations through an "environmental enhancement surcharge" to be applied to purchases over 81 MGD (by City retail customers) or over the individual limitations assigned to each of the 27 wholesale customers. if and when total use exceeds 265 MGD. The Agreement recognizes all of these decisions and provides procedural rules for establishing the interim limitations and surcharges and for the use of funds generated by the surcharges. It also allows wholesale customers to transfer portions of these interim limits among themselves, again subject to very limited SFPUC oversight. But it does not constitute wholesale customers' concurrence in the interim limitations themselves and preserves wholesale customers' ability to challenge the limitations assigned to them, and the imposition of surcharges, in court. Some of the mechanics that are included in the Agreement include: • The amount of the environmental surcharge will be established by the SFPUC during the spring of 2011 and the surcharges will become operative in FY 2011-12. B These allocations are entirely distinct from the permanent "Supply Guarantees." For example, they will apply to all 27 agencies, will last only until 2018, and their only purpose is to determine when the surcharge described in the immediately following paragraph in the text will apply. 8 1680730.7 • Whether or not to levy the surcharge will be determined after the close of each fiscal year and will apply only if total sales during that year exceeded 265 MGD. • If the 265 MGD threshold is exceeded, then the surcharge will apply only to wholesale customers that purchased more than their interim limitation, and only to quantities in excess of that limitation. The amount due would be determined after the close of each fiscal year (beginning with FY 2011-12) and would be paid in equal monthly installments over the balance of the following fiscal year (beginning with FY 2012-13). • Funds raised by the surcharge will be deposited in a restricted reserve fund, not subject to transfer to the SF General Fund, and will be expended only on environmental enhancement measures in the SFPUC's Sierra and local watersheds. (Surcharges are not due unless and until this restricted reserve fund is established by ordinance of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.) • Specific projects to which the funds will be directed will be decided by SF PUC's General Manager and BAWSCA's General Manager/CEO, after soliciting input from interested members of the public, including environmental groups. 3. Status of San Jose and Santa Clara. The Agreement provides that both cities will remain temporary and interruptible customers until 2018. The maximum amount that the SFPUC will deliver to them collectively until 2018 is 9 MGD. Their interim limitations, described in the preceding section, when assigned in December 2010, may be lower. SF PUC water may be used only within the two cities' existing service areas (the northern portions of each city). • Starting in December 2010, the SFPUC will annually consider a report which will include water demand projections and conservation work plans through 2018. If the SFPUC decides, on the basis of that report, that the 265 MGD limit will not be achieved in 2018, it may issue a conditional notice of reduction, or interruption, in supply to San Jose and Santa Clara. • Deliveries will not be reduced or terminated until the SFPUC has completed the required CEQA process and will not occur for the longer of (1) five years from the notice or (2) two years from completion of the CEQA process. 9 1680730.7 • The SFPUC will decide by December 2018 whether long term supplies are adequate to serve San Jose and Santa Clara, as well as the SF PUC's retail and other wholesale customers and, if so, whether to make the two cities permanent customers. H. Limits on SFPUC Taking on New Customers. Before 2018, San Francisco may not take on any new wholesale customers (1) until it has completed CEQA review, and (2) unless San Jose and Santa Clara are concurrently made permanent customers and the Agreement is amended to accommodate their addition. After 2018, San Francisco may not take on any new wholesale customers (1) until it has completed CEQA review, (2) unless system reliability is improved and (3) unless San Jose and Santa Clara are made permanent customers and the Agreement amended. San Francisco may not take on new retail customers, outside City boundaries, except in areas adjacent to existing retail customers and no more in aggregate than 0.5 MGD additional demand. I. BAWSCA Involvement in SFPUC Planning for New or Alternate Supplies If regulatory or other events impact San Francisco's ability to maintain the Supply Assurance from its existing surface water supplies, it may develop substitute supplies, and will collaborate with the wholesale customers in doing so. If, after 2018, San Francisco elects to increase the Supply Assurance using water from its existing surface water supplies, it may charge the wholesale customers in accordance with the cost allocation provisions of the Agreement. If San Francisco seeks to develop new sources to increase the Supply Assurance, engineering studies and ensuing water supply projects will be conducted jointly with BAWSCA under separate agreements specifying the purpose of the project, anticipated regional benefits, and how costs will be allocated. 10 1680730.7 PART TWO COST (Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Agreement) A. Overview 1. Basic Principles Unchanged. The fundamental cost allocation principles underlying the 1984 Contract are continued in the new Agreement. These include: • Wholesale customers should not pay for SFPUC programs/facilities that are used only in the generationltransmission of electric power or only in the collection/treatment of San Francisco wastewater. • Wholesale customers should not pay for Water Enterprise programs/facilities that benefit only SFPUC's retail water customers, both inside and outside of San Francisco. • Wholesale customers and City retail customers should both pay for costs of building and operating the regional water system, from which they both benefit. • The costs of the regional water system which should be shared include: o The costs of building and operating the water-related facilities in Hetch Hetchy (e.g., the pipelines). o An appropriate share of the costs of building and operating joint facilities in Hetch Hetchy (e.g., the dams). o The costs of building and operating facilities for transmission, storage and treatment of water located in Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo Counties, and the three terminal reservoirs in San Francisco. o An appropriate share of costs incurred inside San Francisco, but that benefit the regional water system (e.g., costs of various SFPUC bureaus that support the operating departments and San Francisco Water Enterprise's own administrative and general costs). • The cost of the regional water system should be divided between the City retail customers and wholesale customers based on their proportionate annual use of water delivered by the Regional Water System. 2. Basic Implementing Rules and Practices Unchanged or Improved. Water usage will be determined by accurate, well-maintained and regularly-calibrated meters. The standards for meter accuracy are now spelled out in the Agreement, as are the procedures and schedules for maintenance and calibration of meters. 11 1680730.7 Costs will be determined by SFPUC's maintaining a system of accounting, consistent with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles as applied to governmental enterprises, that allows for the costs that are properly chargeable to the wholesale customers to be separated from those that are not. The annual amount due from all wholesale customers (the "Wholesale Revenue Requirement") will be determined by applying the Agreement's detailed cost allocation rules to the costs actually incurred, based on actual water usage by City retail and wholesale customers during each fiscal year. That amount will be compared to revenues actually billed to wholesale customers for that year. The difference will be posted to a "balancing account." If wholesale customers were charged more than the amount calculated to have been due, the overcharge will be entered as a credit in the balancing account. Conversely, if wholesale customers were billed less, the undercharge will be recorded in the balancing account and may be recovered in future years' rates. Amounts in the balancing account, whether positive or negative, will earn interest at the same rate as SF's pooled investment funds. 3. Changes in Methodology Primarily Relate to Capital Costs. There have been few changes in calculating and allocating operation and maintenance (lfO&M") costs. More substantial changes have been made in the treatment of administrative and general ("A&G") costs. But these are largely efforts to simplify calculations and are not expected to have a major impact on the Wholesale Revenue Requirement. By contrast, the new Agreement makes significant changes in how wholesale customers contribute to repayment of funds advanced by San Francisco to construct capital assets. The 1984 Contract adopted the "utility method" of recovering capital investments. Under this approach, wholesale customers paid depreciation and a return on the net book value of assets in the rate base. The new Agreement replaces the utility method with the "cash method" on a going-forward basis. Under this method, wholesale customers will pay 12 1680730.7 their proportionate share of SFPUC's annual debt service payments and capital improvements funded out of revenues. The Agreement greatly simplifies the wholesale customers' repayment of their share of assets already built and in service as of June 30, 2009. Instead of calculating the amount due each year, the new Agreement provides for specified level payments over 25 years. The result will be that wholesale customers will have fully paid off their share of the existing "rate base" (about $382 million) in 2034. rather than continuing to pay down the amount due over the assets' useful fives -which in many cases could extend decades past that date. Please see Section B.5 below for a more detailed description of the approach to capital costs in the new Agreement. In addition. the tables which appear at the end of this report. and which are also incorporated into the Agreement itself, illustrate the ,application of the cost allocation rules in Section B as applied to budgeted costs for the next fiscal year (FY 2009-10). B. Individual Cost Categories 1. Operating and Maintenance ("O&M") Expenses. There are five subcategories of O&M expenses: (i) Source of Supply: Regional system costs will continue to be allocated on the basis of annual proportional usage. The Agreement will reaffirm the general principle that the location of facilities determines their classification as City Retail or Regional. This is important since San Francisco plans to construct water recycling and groundwater projects inside the City in the immediate future. Absent negotiated clarity in the Agreement, those facilities could have been asserted to have value for all customers, and their costs (both capital and operating) allocated in part to wholesale customers. The proposed South Westside Groundwater Basin conjunctive use project (in which Cal Water, Daly City and San Bruno are 13 1680730,7 jointly participating with SFPUC) will be considered a Regional project because of the benefits it will provide to the Regional System (Le., all customers) during drought. Oi) Pumping: Costs of operating and maintaining pumping facilities outside San Francisco will continue to be allocated on proportional annual usage. (iii) Purification: Because the treatment plants are located outside the City, all costs associated with them have been, and will continue to be, classified as Regional and allocated on the basis of proportional annual usage. The new Agreement requires that expenses associated with the Water Quality Division's laboratories be fairly allocated between the Wastewater Enterprise and the Water Enterprise, with only the latter being reallocated between City Retail and Regional customers. Also, the costs allocated will be further reduced by revenues received for work done by the laboratories for third party customers. (iv) Transmission and Distribution (''T&D''): The expenses in this category are divided between City Retail and the Regional system based on geographic location with one exception: the three in-City terminal reservoirs are considered components of the regional system. This classification is appropriate and will continue, as will allocation of Regional T&D costs on proportional annual use? (v) Customer Accounts: Currently all SFPUC Customer Accounts expenses are divided 98% to City and 2% to wholesale customers. The new Agreement provides that only the Water Enterprise's share of Customer Accounts will be included; the cost of Customer Accounts for Wastewater and Hetch Hetchy Water and Power will be excluded. The 98/2 percent allocation will continue, applied to that smaller amount. 7 There will be two changes, both requested by the City. Engineering and supervision expenses incurred outside the City, in the Water Supply and Treatment Division, are currently classified as A&G, unlike those incurred inside the City, which are treated as City Distribution Division D&M. BAWSCA has agreed to change the treatment so that these expenses are uniformly classified as D&M, provided that some in-City costs currently classified as Regional A&G are reclassified as City Retail. A similar treatment will apply to vehicle and building maintenance expenses. 14 1680730.7 2. Property Taxes. San Francisco Water Enterprise properties and improvements in Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties are subject to property taxes levied by those counties. The 1984 Contract classifies 100% of these tax payments as Regional and allocates them between City Retail and wholesale customers on the same basis that most O&M expenses are allocated --proportional annual water use. The new Agreement continues this, as well as the focus on net taxes; that is, tax refunds and taxes that are paid by tenants of City properties such as golf courses will be excluded. 3. Administrative and General C'A&G"} Expenses. There are three subcategories within this classification: 0) City Overhead: This category consists of expenses of support services provided by the City's central services departments that are not billed directly to the SFPUC. City overhead is allocated to the City's operating departments through the Countywide Cost Allocation Plan ("COWCAP") prepared by the City Controller. For technical reasons no longer relevant, the parties in 1984 adopted a surrogate dollar amount, inflated each year by the CPI, in lieu of the COWCAP. The current contract allowed the parties to revisit this issue every five years, but both the City and wholesale customers have been satisfied to stay with the annually-inflated "deemed overhead" amount. The reasons for the initial adoption of the surrogate amount no longer apply. Moreover, San Francisco presented data showing that the "deemed overhead" figure had not allowed it to fully recover general City overhead as determined by the Controller and argued for using the actual COWCAP figure in the future. BAWSCA agreed. (ii) SFPUC Bureaus: This subcategory consists of support services provided by the various SF PUC bureaus (e.g., Finance, Information Technology, Human Resources, etc.) to the three operating departments (or "enterprises" as they are now called). The current contract provides that SFPUC will allocate federally reimbursable costs in 15 1680730.7 accordance with an "Indirect Cost Allocation Plan" approved by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Costs that are not federally reimbursable are to be allocated in accordance with a detailed list of metrics. This arrangement is no longer functional. The SFPUC no longer submits an Indirect Cost Allocation Plan to the federal government and hasn't done so for many years. And the allocational metrics specified in the Contract, while reasonable in 1984, are in many cases now out of date. BAWSCA developed an alternative formula which uses a readily-available statistic (salaries of the three operating enterprises) to divide bureau costs among the Water Enterprise, the Wastewater Enterprise, and the Hetch Hetchy Water and Power Enterprise. (iii) Water Enterprise Administrative and General: As a corollary to the change in engineering and supervision expenses and vehicle and building maintenance expenses described above (Section II.B.iv), costs of the City Distribution Division and the Water Supply and Treatment Division previously included in joint A&G are now removed. Remaining A&G expenses are primarily those associated with Water Enterprise administration. In each of these three categories, costs that clearly provide no benefit to the wholesale customers will be identified and excluded. The remaining costs will be divided between City Retail and wholesale customers on one of two formulas. First, costs of COWCAP and Water Enterprise A&G will continue to be allocated between City and wholesale customers based on the composite O&M percentage.s Second, SFPUC Bureau Costs will be divided between City retail and wholesale customers based on proportional annual usage. Some of the changes to the treatment of O&M and A&G costs described above benefit the City; others benefit the wholesale customers. Overail, they are 8 Historically. this formula has assigned between 34-37% of these costs to wholesale customers. With the reduced amount of Customer Accounts costs included in the formula, the wholesale percentage will increase by about 3%-5%. 16 1680730.7 estimated to increase the wholesale customer share of these costs by approximately $500,000 to $1 million annually. 4. Hetch Hetchy Non-Capital Costs. Currently. Hetch Hetchy O&M expenses are identified as water-specific, power-specific, or joint. Wholesale customers pay no part of power-specific costs and less than half of the joint costs. The water-specific costs and 45% of the joint costs are allocated between City and wholesale customers on the basis of proportionate annual water use (with a minor adjustment to reflect sales of water to other customers upstream of the Bay Area). There will be no change to these principles. Administrative and General costs are similarly classified. Water-related costs, including 45% of joint A&G, are again split between City and wholesale customers on the basis of adjusted annual proportionate use. Apart from use of COWCAP, and Simplification of one allocational step, this will continue. Hetch Hetchy's share of Customer Accounts expenses has never been assigned to wholesale customers and will not be under the new Agreement. Property taxes on Hetch Hetchy land and facilities were previously allocated among water, power and joint based on detailed analysis of asset classifications. The new Agreement will simply classify taxes as jOint, with 45% allocated to water, and the wholesale customers' share based on adjusted annual water use. These changes are expected to have a very minor impact on the amount of non-capital Hetch Hetchy costs allocable to the wholesale customers. 5. Capital Costs (i) Existing Assets: Repayment of the wholesale customers' share of existing assets (i.e., those capitalized on or before June 30, 2009) is effectively converted from the utility method to an amortization schedule derived from the utility method, with several modifications: 17 1680730.7 • The current rate base will be replaced by a principal amount due (Le., the wholesale share of the existing assets) excluding the "working capital" allowance, about 15% of annual O&M expenses, which is permitted by the existing Contract. • The current depreciation will be replaced by principal repayments. • Interest will be paid on the outstanding principal, will be fixed at 5.1%, and will be decoupled from the variable equity rate of return allowed by the California Public Utilities Commission --currently about 10%. • Principal and interest will be repaid in equal annual payments over the next 25 years. On both a nominal and present discounted value basis, the payments by wholesale customers for their share of the current rate base (about $382 million including both SFWD and Hetch Hetchy) will be less under this approach than under a continuation of the 1984 Contract methodology. The fixed return also eliminates the fluctuation in payments due to future changes in the equity rate of return allowed by the California Public Utilities Commission.9 (ii) New Assets: Starting with FY 2009-2010, wholesale customers will, like San Francisco retail customers, pay for capital projects on the "cash" basis. This will mean, in practice, that wholesale customers will pay a proportionate share of (1) debt service (Le., payment of principal and interest on SF PUC bonds and commercial paper) related to regional system assets, and will contribute a corresponding share of the SF PUC's "debt service coverage" obligation, and (2) capital projects in the regional system that SFPUC pays for out of revenues on a "pay-as-you-go" basis, rather than from borrowed funds. In order to implement this, the new Agreement continues the existing Contract's method for distinguishing between in-City and Regional assets. But the 9 Revenues raised from retail customers through SFPUC appropriations prior to 2009 for revenue-funded regional projects not actually expended as of June 30, 2009 will be tracked as they are spent during the first three years of the new Agreement. That amount will then be amortized through revel payments over a 10-year period, at 4% interest. 18 1680730.7 allocation of differing percentages of the costs of those assets, based on usage patterns other than annual average use, has been deleted. BAWSCA and SFPUC agreed to eliminate the division of assets into "currenf' and "ultimate" categories and to also eliminate the "maximum hour" and "maximum day" categories. These distinctions were insisted on by San Francisco in 1984 and have added considerable complexity to the calculation of each year's Wholesale Revenue Requirement. Dispensing with them substantially reduces the number of categories of regional system assets and will simplify administration of the new Agreement, without Significantly changing the overall allocation of costs. Debt service "coverage" is the ratio of annual net revenues (and other qualifying funds) to annual debt service payments. Revenue bond indentures typically include a covenant by the issuer to maintain a minimum Debt Service Coverage ("DSC") ratio. The higher the ratio, the more security for repayment is provided to the bondholders, which aids in achieving lower borrowing costs, which in turn benefits all system users. The 2006 Series A Water Revenue Bonds indenture has a 1.25 minimum DSC covenant: net revenues and available fund balances must be at least 1.25 times the annual debt service payment due. The new Agreement includes a proportionate contribution to maintaining required coverage in the calculation of revenues for which wholesale customers are responsible. Wholesale payments in excess of debt service itself will be allocated to a reserve fund balance. Interest earned on the fund will be credited to wholesale customers. The Coverage Reserve is also expected to satisfy wholesale customers' share of the Water Enterprise's working capital requirements. The wholesale customers will also contribute their share (based on annual proportional water use) towards new regional system capital projects paid for out of revenues. SFPUC considers the San Francisco Charter to require that it have funds on hand sufficient to pay for a project before it awards a construction contract. Under the cash method, 19 1680730.7 rates for both San Francisco retail customers and wholesale customers will be set based on annual appropriations fixed by the Commission in its budget, rather than on amounts subsequently expended. As with the debt service coverage issue, wholesale revenues used for revenue-funded capital projects will be transferred to a restricted reserve, interest on which will be credited to the wholesale customers. And at five year intervals, surplus accumUlations in the fund (i.e., those neither spent nor formally encumbered) will be transferred to the wholesale customers' credit in the balancing account. C. Rates and Balancing Account 1. Rates and Rate Structure. The requirements in the current Contract for the SFPUC to provide budget information; an explanation of how rates for the upcoming fiscal year have been calculated, and advance notice of Commission action on rates will all be continued. The current Contract has allowed the SFPUC considerable latitude in establishing the structure of wholesale rates --that is, the relationship among the various components of the rate schedule (e.g., meter service charge, consumption charge, etc.). The Contract did require that the rate structure not be arbitrary, unreasonable or unjustly discriminatory as among the wholesale customers. This same approach is continued in the new Agreement. In addition, the new Agreement also provides for longer advance notice of any proposed changes in rate structure, together with an analysis of how the proposed change would affect different groups of wholesale customers and an ample opportunity for wholesale customers to comment on the proposals before they are presented to the Commission by SFPUC staff. 2. Balancing Account. The new Agreement retains the annual reconciliation between the amount due from wholesale customers (applying the formulas in the Agreement to actual costs and actual water sales) and the amount actually charged to wholesale customers. The difference will then be added to or subtracted from --a "balancing account" which will earn interest and which can be taken into account in setting rates for future years. The 1984 Contract was, in retrospect, overly rigid in requiring the balancing account to be ·zeroed out" as 20 1680730.7 soon as possible, which in turn led to excessive fluctuations in wholesale rates, as one correction created a need for an offsetting correction in a subsequent year. The new Agreement allows far more flexibility in dealing with the annual variances than the 1984 Contract did. For example, "positive" balances (those in favor of the wholesale customers) will in general be held as a rate stabilization account; and "negative" balances (those in favor of SFPUC) may be drawn down over three years rather than one. If a significant positive balance develops and persists for three years, wholesale customers may, through BAWSCA, direct that some or all of the credit be applied to one of several purposes, such as paying off existing assets more quickly. D. Accounting and Auditing The current Contract requires the SFPUC to maintain a rigorous accounting system and to carefully calculate and clearly document each year the annual Wholesale Revenue Requirement. That calculation is then audited by an independent CPA, in accordance with Generally Accepted Auditing Standards, which then issues its own "compliance audit" report. All these protections for wholesale customers will be retained. Some procedural requirements have been simplified, but a new provision has been added requiring SFPUC senior management to personally take responsibility for the SFPUC's calculation of the accuracy of the annual Wholesale Revenue Requirement. PART THREE ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS A. Term (Section 2.01) The new Agreement will have a term of 25 years, running from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2034. It may be extended for one, or two, additional five-year periods with the consent of the SFPUC and wholesale customers representing at least two-thirds in number and seventy- five percent (75%) of wholesale customers' water use. If a wholesale customer does not want 21 1680730.7 to remain a party to the Agreement as extended, it cannot be compelled to do so by the decision of other wholesale customers. B. Unanimous Participation Not Necessary (Section 2.02) The Agreement assumes that all 27 wholesale customers will sign it, as well as an individual water sales contract (with the exception of Hayward, which will continue its 1962 contract in force). However, it does not require 100% participation to become effective. So long as 21 or more wholesale customers, representing collectively 75% or more of water use in 2007-08, have signed both agreements by September 1, San Francisco may waive the requirement of unanimity, at which point the Agreement will become effective for all agencies that have signed .10 C. Amendments to Agreement (Section 2.03) The 1984 Contract is extremely difficult to amend, requiring concurrence by a ~ large super-majority of wholesale customers. BAWSCA agrees with the SFPUC's suggestion that some aspects of the new Agreement should be somewhat easier to amend. However, super-majorities, in terms of both the number of agencies (two-thirds) and the percentage of water purchased (75%), continue to be required to amend basic provisions. Amendments affecting an individual agency's "fundamental rights" under the Agreement cannot be adopted without the approval of that agency. D. Delegation of Administrative Tasks to BAWSCA (Section 8.04) When the 1984 Contract was negotiated, there was no durable, representative organization which could be delegated responsibility to act as agent for contract administration on behalf of the wholesale customers. BAWSCA's predecessor, the Bay Area Water Users Association (BAWUA), was at that point simply an unincorporated association, governed entirely 10 The number necessary to constitute 2/3rds of the total may drop to 20 if California Water Service Company's (Cal Water) acquisition of the assets of Skyline County Water District closes before June 30, 2009, thereby reducing the total number of wholesale customers from 27 to 26. 22 1680730.7 by city and water agency staff. For that reason, the 1984 Contract provided for a variety of administrative decisions to be made by five "Suburban Representatives" --agencies to be chosen by all BAWUA members or, absent a selection, the five largest agencies. In practice, the default option became the rule and for the past 25 years decisions about financial aspects of the contract, including the annual audit of the Wholesale Revenue Requirement, and initiation of arbitration, have been formally made by staff members of the five largest agencies, supported by BAWUA staff and consultants. With BAWSCA's formation in 2002, wholesale customers have available a significantly better alternative to attend to a number oftechnical but important matters, many of which will require oversight and decisions each year. As a regional government agency, whose board of directors is comprised largely of elected officials, and with a capable professional staff, BAWSCA is both durable and well prepared to assume responsibility for many of these administrative tasks. The new Agreement takes advantage of this development by assigning the tasks previously handled by the Suburban Representatives to BAWSCA. It also enables the BAWSCA board of directors to amend several technical attachments to the Agreement, such as those describing the details of water meter maintenance/calibration, and financial reporting. E. Annual Meeting with SFPUC Senior Management (Section 8.03) Annual meetings of SFPUC senior management with the wholesale customers will be continued, covering topics such as water supply conditions and outlook, capital projects under construction and planned, forecasts of wholesale water purchases and rates, etc. The awkward and inaccurate name given to them in the 1984 Contract (Suburban Advisory Group, or "SAG") will be omitted. The new Agreement also establishes other avenues for communication between the SFPUC and the wholesale customers. One is the Water Quality Committee mentioned previously. Another is a commitment by the SFPUC to send representatives to the BAWSCA Technical Advisory Committee, if and when requested. 23 1680730.7 F. Dispute Resolution; Limitations on Damages (Section 8.01; Section 8.14) The existing Contract requires that disputes related to the calculation of the Wholesale Revenue Requirement be resolved through mandatory binding arbitration. This will be continued. The length of time within which arbitration must be initiated has been shortened from 18 months after the delivery of the Compliance Auditor's report to 12 months. Disputes over other matters, such as water supply, may be presented to a court. The Agreement limits all parties' exposure to (as well as their entitlement to) damages for breach of contract to "general damages" -those which are clearly foreseeable. There are no corresponding limits on recovery of tort damages. G. Special Provisions for Some Agencies (Article 9 of Agreement) Article 9 of the 1984 Contract contained provisions for 12 agencies which had one or another unique situation not shared by other wholesale agencies, but important enough to warrant inclusion in the overall Contract to insure that all parties were aware of, and consented to, these particularized arrangements. The reasons for special treatment of several agencies in 1984 (including ACWD, Coastside, and Daly City) no longer exist. However, the new Agreement continues to include individual sections applying to Brisbane/GVMID, Cal Water, Estero Municipal Improvement District, Hayward, Hillsborough, San Jose, Santa Clara and Stanford. The provisions in the sections applicable to Estero and San Jose/Santa Clara merit brief discussion. 1. Estero Municipal Improvement District. Estero's 1961 contract has a term of 50 years, rather than the typical 25 years. As a result, it will not expire until July 1, 2011. Accommodating to this, the 1984 Contract provides that Estero's individual Supply Guarantee will be based on its water purchases from SFPUC in the last calendar year of the old Contract-- i.e.,2010. Estero has proposed an alternative approach to fixing its permanent Supply Guarantee: adopting a fixed amount now, and specifying that amount in the new Agreement, 24 1680730.7 rather than waiting to see what occurs in 2010. The amount proposed is 5.9 MGD, about 0.3 MGD more than Estero's recent use. Substantial support for, and no opposition to, this proposal was voiced at a meeting of the official representatives of the wholesale customers held in mid-March. Accordingly, it is included in the new Agreement. 2. San Jose and Santa Clara. San Jose and Santa Clara have never had individual Supply Guarantees, because of their status as temporary customers. The new Agreement does not provide them Supply Guarantees. It does, however, commit SFPUC to supply them up to 9 MGD through 2018, subject to various contingencies.11 The Water Supply Agreement does not allocate the 9 MGD cap between the two cities. That decision will be made solely by San Jose and Santa Clara; other wholesale customers are not involved. Once made, the decision will be incorporated in each city's individual Water Sales Contract with the SFPUC. * * * * * * * * * * If legal counsel for any of the wholesale customers have questions about this summary report, the new Water Supply Agreement, Individual Water Sales Contracts, or the process by which (and the schedule on which) they are to be considered for approval by each wholesale customer, they should feel free to contact either of the attorneys at Hanson Bridgett whose names appear below. Respectfully submitted, Ray McDevitt 415-995-5010 rmcdevitt@hansonbridgett.com Allison Schutte 415-9095-5823 aschutte@hansQnbridgett.com 11 This commitment does not extend beyond 2018 and does not affect the permanent Supply Guarantees of other wholesale customers. 25 1680730.7 The two following pages are copies of two attachments to the new Water Supply Agreement They are high- level summaries, illustrating the application of the cost- allocation principles in the Water Supply Agreement to a particular year --in this case, FY 2009-10. The first page (Attachment N-2, Schedule 1) shows the calculation of the overall Wholesale Revenue Requirement ($140,994,733), which includes $28,903,512 attributable to the Hetch Hetchy Water and Power Enterprise. This schedule also shows the amount to be contributed to the Wholesale Debt Service Coverage Reserve ($4,488,233) in FY 2009-10. The second page (Attachment N-2, Schedule 4) provides details showing how the $28,903,512 Hetch Hetchy component was calculated. The dollar values and water use percentages shown in these schedules are merely estimates. The schedules are intended to be illustrative, rather than predictive. However, they may be of assistance when reading Part Two of the Summary Report, which describes the Agreement's cost-allocation principles and formulas. 1680730.7 WHOLESALE REVENUE REQUIREMENT SCHEDULES CALCULATION OF WHOLESALE REVENUE REQUIREMENT FISCAL YEAR 20011·10 ATIACHMENT N·! REFERENCE ARTICLE 5 EXPENSE CATEGORY CONTRACT SCHEDULE REFERENCE REFERENCE TOTAL DIRECT DIRECT RETAIL WHOLESALE REGIONAL JOINT EXPENSE ALLOCATION FACTOR OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSE: SOURCE OF SUPPLY PUMPING TREATMENT 5.05 (A) 5.05 (B) 5.05 (C) 5.05(0) 5.05 (E) SCH 8.1 SCHS.1 $ 14,943,953 $ $ 4,342,682 $ 1,251,062 $ ,~~ , "',,","" ',~,~' ' ",.~, « , ",,,.,n , .• '.' ~ "'-\ """~ "",' $ 7,552,213 $ 30,163,286 $ ~", • ~ ~,,~s:? \ \NNUAL USE' TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS· TOTALO&M SCH 81 SCHS.1 SCH6.1 • ',~' ,'" " , .\ ~ 1 'i-'ioi '&"'" ''''' 110,700,133 $ 42,669 ~f(. ~~' ~\r",{,~' ~~. ANNUAL USE' ,'-' ~ ,-$~ ,I 15'e\ \,. \~' 2% M\ '"i /1~ SCH 8 1 .;1"" , \ ' I, ? COMPOSITE % (VIIHOLESALE SHARE I TOTAL O&M) ADMINISTRATIVE AND GENERAL EXPENSES: COWCAP SERVICES OF SFPUC BUREAUS OTHERA&G COMPLIANCE AUDIT 5.06 (C) 5.06 (A) 5.06 (B) 5.06 (C) 5.06 (D) SCH 7 $ l,2illl,00911 fJ"~"'\~\Y; \ \ ./. SCHS1 _ _i'~\ \ \ \.. . \ $.), ,> SCH 81' (( ,97 41;7 'f' f!;i\.. .Vf' $ 1,23S.OO9 #REF! 8,962,586 200,000 CA'" 'COO,",, /"'~\ ,({~~>\ ~~~7 \ j' ,8'91 $ "' .. = " 'CO""" <' L f \ '\ W'''I'' -..J . • ' O"''''''''~''' " \ ~ ,"'" ' '.) , REVENUEFU~ONNEWASSETS Q/~ ~)~;1~~. J / #REFI $ OED ASSET ."", " 'c:J ,~~~\ ""1 ,. ,~'" (. .• ' I . "',,"' , """ TOTAL CAPITAL COST RECOVER RIATEDTOWHOLESALECAPIT~ t~I~'~\*)\~ ~, .' WHOLESALE SH Y "~' \ \'" \~ J "'"' ',""" ,eo ''''""'''"' w \\\ \,.\ \ 'I . "'" TOTALA&G PROPERTY TAXES WHOLESALEREVENUERE ' :<>.TER&PO\l\o£R \ \\,\ \,M \ \\/ 5.04 QUIREMENT \ \. ,~/~ '0 WHOLESALE REVENUE COVERAGE' 'Proportional Annual Use (66.39%) 'water Enterprise Shere at Customer Accounts Expenses (62'11> at Tota! Customer Accounts Expenses) '25% atWilolesale Share of Debt Service SCH4 COMPOSITE O&M ANNUAL USE' COMPOSITE O&M 50% ANNUAL USE' SCHEDUL.E 1 WHOLESALE SHARE $ 9.364,566 $ 334,210 $ 20,821,372 $ 15,902,690 $ 151,044 46,573,883 42.07% $ 520,£!57 #REF! $ 3,770,749 $ 100,000 #REF! $ 969.287 $ 24,051.326 #REF! #REF! #REF! #REFI #REF I #REF! WHOLESALE REVENUE REQU!REMENT SCHEDULES CALCULATION OF WHOLESALE SHARE OF HETCH HETCHV WATI<R & POWER FISCAL YEAR 2009.10 REFERENCE ARnelE S EXPENSE CATEGORY OPERA nON AND MAINTENANCE OPERATION MAJNTENANCE TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ADMINISTRATIVE AND GENERAL COWCAP SERV1CES OF SFPUC BUREAUS OTHERA&G CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE AND GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES CAPITAL COST RECOVERY PRE·200B ASSETS OEBT SERV1CE ON NEW ASSETS REllENUE FUNDED ASSET$-AFF>ROPRIATIONS TO 'M-iOLESALE CAFIT AL FUND TOTAL CAP!TAL COST RECOVERY V>MOLESALE SHARE OF HETCH HETCHY WATER & PO'NEFt WHOLESALE REllENUE COVERAGE' 'Adjusted ProporliOnal Annual Use (58,39% X 99,50% = 68,05%) '225% O'I''Nhole.sa!e Share of Debt ~Mct! CONTRACT SCHEOULE REFERENCE REFERENCE TOTAL PO'NEFt SPECIFIC WATER SPECIFIC JOINT 5,06B1 5.06B 1 5,08 B 2 5,09 B 2 5,08 B 2 5.08 B 2 5,06 83 5,09 B 1 5,09 B 2 5,09 a 3 SCH8,2 SCH 8,2 4-<1,1112,220 $ 16.868/)12 $ 81,480,832 31,883,965 $ 5,048,039 ! 38,902.004 $ 9,557,881 $ 3,200,394 3,238,822 $ 8,581,951 12,796,483 $ 11,782,345 SCH82 $ SCH ~ 1,139,579 $ SCH 9,2 $ #REFI #REFI' S • $ SCH8,2 $ 25,581,481 $ 149 ~#REF' ;( ""'\, .... ,~l'" 347,403 $ ,13,071 $ r '0 #REF! 347,<W3 $ ,p. 36, ~~ #REF':T', ~,~ SCH82 $ /~" 'f\\'f~ 'U,Z' ~~--:' (,:\", ~\j i',}'\;\ J ATIK-4 iI",\~\~~\'\\~\'~ $ 4511,305 SCHS \~~'l'Y? \~~\\~~ SC • \:' \} '\&'" ~<\,,\ 0 ~ ~~'J. JOINT ALLOCATION PERCENTAGE 45% ATTACHMENT N·2 SCHEDULE 4 V>MOLESALE V>MOLESALE ALLOCATION FACTOR SHARE I\OJUa"mO~T\OIIW..~ $ 7,484,165 'f, v,r,' :,«,' ;;;n.ov H'1.II..I$TW~~ $ 4)831,800 ," \ \ v '\"\ $ 12,316,055 45% 45% 45% #REF! 4,820,623 #REF I 205,337 $ .QOJIJSlEO~lION11.l~ $ AD.US'ltO~I't:»W.~ .... ~e~TlQNl.I.~$ 34a,968 #REF! 3,280,434 ~e~TlONoI.l.NN.,Iol.i. .t$ ____ -" ~g~~ #REF! 139,732 3,118,033 #REFI #REFI ilHEF! #REF! [TO SCHEDULE 1) #REFI Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency Frequently Asked Questions about the Water Supply Agreement Between the City and County of San Francisco and ATT ACHMENT H Wholesale Customers in Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties THE AGREEMENT Who are the parties to the Water Supply Agreement? The City and County of San Francisco and the 27 cities, water districts and privately owned water agencies that purchase water from San Francisco on a wholesale basis and distribute it to over 1.7 million residents, 30,000 businesses and thousands of community organizations in Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. These 27 agencies are called "Wholesale Customers." Who negotiated the agreement? All 27 Wholesale Customers that buy water from San Francisco are members of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA), and authorized BAWSCA to negotiate the Agreement with San Francisco on their behalf. What is the purpose of the Water Supply Agreement? To ensure that San Francisco provides a reliable supply of high quality water at a fair price to the customers outside San Francisco. Who has to approve it? The Agreement must be approved by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, which did approve it on April 28, 2009. In addition, it must be approved by the governing body of any Wholesale Customer who wants to participate in the Agreement. How long will the new agreement last? The new Agreement has a term of 25 years. It may be extended for one or two five-year periods with the consent of the SFPUC and Wholesale Customers. Is there an existing agreement? When does it expire? The existing agreement, called the Settlement Agreement and Master Water Sales Contract, was signed in 1984 and expires June 30, 2009. 155 Bovet Road, Suite 302, • San Mateo, CA 94402 • ph 6503493000 • fx 650349 8395 • www.bawsca.org WATER SUPPLY How much water do the agencies outside San Francisco get under this agreement? San Francisco has made a perpetual commitment to provide the 25 permanent Wholesale Customers collectively up to 184 million gallons per day (mgd), on an annual average basis. The cities of San Jose and Santa Clara are not permanent customers and are not included in this amount. The Agreement preserves the Wholesale Customers' claim that San Francisco is obligated to provide water over and above this amount, and San Francisco's denial of that obligation. How much water would San Jose and Santa Clara receive? The cities of San Jose and Santa Clara are currently temporary and interruptible customers of the San Francisco regional water system. They are able to purchase surplus water from San Francisco. These two cities currently purchase a combined total of about 9 mgd. Under the new agreement, San Francisco would provide San Jose and Santa Clara up to 9 mgd until the year 2018, but they would continue to be temporary and interruptible customers. Will the water agencies outside receive as much water as they are projecting to need? No. The agencies will be about 11 mgd short of their projections. In 2004 the 27 Wholesale Customers projected they would need to purchase 195 mgd of water from San Francisco in 2018. This amount of water supplements their use of other sources of water and already includes their commitment to 11 mgd of new water conservation plus 9 mgd of recycled water. In October 2008, San Francisco imposed a limit on sales of water to its Retail and Wholesale Customers of 265 mgd until at least 2018: a limit of 81 mgd on sales to San Francisco Retail Customers, and a limit of 184 mgd on sales to Wholesale Customers. This action leaves the 27 Wholesale Customers 11 mgd short of their projected needs in 2018. For their communities to continue to prosper as planned, they will now have to double the amount of new water conservation and recycled water between now and 2018. Who will provide reliable water supplies for the future of our communities?, BAWSCA and its member agencies are developing a plan to save a total of 22 mgd before 2018 through additional conservation and water recycling and are planning to take on the challenge of preparing a longer-term plan to establish reliable water supplies past 2018. Page 2 of4 WATER SUPPLY, cont'd. Where does San Francisco get its water? San Francisco currently obtains water from watersheds in San Mateo County, Alameda and Santa Clara Counties and the Hetch Hetchy watershed in the Sierra Mountains. An average, 85 percent of the system's water originates in the Sierra Mountains and flows to the Bay Area by gravity, requiring much less energy for pumping than most water systems in the State. Why do agencies outside San Francisco get water from the San Francisco Regional Water System? San Francisco's Hetch Hetchy water system was built with the intent of serving neighboring communities in these counties, and many of the agencies served today supported the Congressional act that permitted the system to be built. If there is a drought. how is the available supply divided between San Francisco's Retail and Wholesale Customers? In the event of a drought, the Agreement includes a provision for allocating water between San Francisco's Retail Customers and the Wholesale Customers as a group. The fonnula requires greater cutbacks to the Wholesale Customers reflecting differences in climate, density and land uses. Does the Agreement specify how water would be allocated among the 27 Wholesale Customers during a drought? No. The allocation of water among the Wholesale Customers will be decided separately. In 2000, the Wholesale Customers approved a plan to allocate their share of water among the 27 agencies. That formula is based on several principles, one of which is that agencies should not be penalized for investing in local water conservation or wastewater recycling. This plan will be reviewed, and revised if necessary, this coming fiscal year. San Francisco is not a party to that plan, so it is not included in the Agreement with San Francisco. On an individual agency basis, how each agency allocates water to its retail customers is up to that agency's governing body, and is not addressed in the Agreement with San Francisco. Page 3 of4 COSTS AND WATER RATES Do customers outside San Francisco subsidize the cost of water for customers inside San Francisco? No. The costs associated with building, operating and maintaining the Regional Water System are shared between San Francisco Retail Customers and the Wholesale Customers based on their proportionate annual use of water from the system. What about the other way? Do customers inside San Francisco subsidize the cost of water for customers outside San Francisco? No. Will the new agreement make the cost of buying water from San Francisco go up? No. Wholesale water rates will not go up because of the Agreement. The wholesale cost of water is projected to increase in order to pay for the seismic upgrades to the regional water system. Those cost increases would occur even if the existing agreement remained in effect. How much will residential water bills outside San Francisco go up because San Francisco is rebuilding the Regional Water System? It depends on where you live and whether your local water agency is undertaking capital improvements or other costs. For a typical household outside San Francisco, the cost of rebuilding the Regional Water System will increase the monthly residential water bill by about $2.50 per month between now and 2015. When is San Francisco going to complete rebuilding the Regional Water System? San Francisco estimates it will complete the Water System Improvement Program by the end of 2015. Who monitors costs and ensures San Francisco honors the provisions of the Agreement? BAWSCA will continue to administer the Agreement on behalf of the water agencies outside San Francisco and their retail customers. Page 4 of4 May 12,2009 ATTACHMENT I EXCERPTS from Draft Minutes of UAC Meeting of May 6, 2009 ITEM 4: ACTION rrEM: Recommendation that the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend that Council Approve 1) the New Water Supply Agreement between San Francisco and Wholesale Customers in Alameda County, San Mateo County and Santa Clara County, and 2) Palo Alto's Individual Water Sales Contract with San Francisco Assistant Director Jane Ratchye stated that the UAC had received a preliminary report at its April meeting when the contract negotiations were almost final and there were only a few unresolved issues. She also referred to the presentation on the contract made by Art Jensen, General Manager of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA), on May 4. Ratchye advised of a correction to the UAC report on page 4 under the summary of Article 5. The sentence in the report: "The WSA continues this method for existing assets, but replaces it with the "cash method" for new assets," should be replaced with the following: "The WSA discontinues this method and replaces it with the "cash method" for new assets. In addition, the Wholesale Customers will pay their remaining share of existing assets built and in service as of June 30, 2009, through a series of level payments over 25 years." Chair Dawes asked if the savings to the wholesale customers with the cash versus the utility method will be significant. Ratchye replied that the savings will be significant because if the utility method were to be continued, the SFPUC would have demanded a 3% higher rate of return than used in the current contract. Chair Dawes asked about the interim supply limitation. Ratchye explained that this limitation is used for the purposes of determining which agencies will be charged an environmental surcharge fee if deliveries exceed 265 million gallons per day (MGD). San Francisco's limit is 81 MGD and the wholesale agency limit is 184 MGD. If the wholesale agencies do not present a plan for how the 184 MGD is split up between the agencies, then, under the contract, San Francisco will split it up by December 2010. Commissioner Waldfogel asked if there was any cap on costs, or if the wholesale agencies just pay their share of the total costs, regardless of what they are. Ratchye said that this is true and is the same as in the current contract, but there are protections in the form of annual audits of expenses. Commissioner Keller asked about the negotiation process for the interim supply limitation. Ratchye replied that the wholesale agencies will need to collectively agree or SFPUC will establish the amounts for each agency. The process will be a contentious issue. In addition, there remain many unknowns with the SFPUC retaining full rate setting authority. Ratchye also explained that the SFPUC has the long-term obligation to provide 184 MGD to BAWSCA agencies. Keller remarked that if a dollar value was determined for the supply assurances, then the goal to reduce water supply would be cleaner. Chair Dawes asked what the value of the review of the budget by BAWSCA is. Ratchye replied that BAWSCA audits the SFPUC's budget and comments on questionable expenses. Commissioner Waldfogel stated that the SRPUC rate-setting process was out of synch with the City's as the information on wholesale rates is not known at the time budgets are developed. Ratchye replied that this is true under the current contract and that the rate stabilization reserve can be used in the event that the original rate estimate is different from the actual rate adopted. Commissioner Keller asked what is referred to in the contract regarding water efficiency. Ratchye explained that this refers to the "green option" that was described in the Program EIR in the SFPUC's WSIP, which would involve investment in agricultural districts that also take water from the Tuolumne River. In this way, some of the saved water could potentially be transferred to the SFPUC regional water system. Commissioner Waldfogel noted that local control is somewhat reduced by the requirement for wholesale customers to join the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) or complete CUWCC's Best Management Practices (BMPs). Ratchye noted that this is true, but it is in most wholesale customers' interest to do this as it is a state requirement to get loans, grants, or access to the State Water Bank in times of water shortage. ACTION: Commissioner Melton made a motion that the UAC recommend that Council approve: 1) the Water Supply Agreement between the City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers in Alameda County, San Mateo County and Santa Clara County, and 2) Palo Alto's Individual Water Sales Contract with San Francisco as long as the Final Individual Water Sales Contract was not substantially different from the template provided in the Attachment F of the Water Supply Agreement. Commissioner Waldfogel seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously (4-0). ATTACHMENT Excerpted Minutes from May 19 Finance Committee Meeting 7. Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation to Adopt Three Resolutions: 1) Approval of the New Water Supply Agreement with San Francisco; 2) Approval of Palo Alto's Individual Water Sales Contract with San Francisco; and 3) Adoption of Findings for Purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act in Connection with Approval of a Water Supply Agreement with San Francisco City Manager Jim Keene noted that the Water Supply Agreement was the subject of an in-depth joint study session with Council and the Utilities Advisory Commission at which Art Jensen, the General Manager of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA), spoke. Chair Burt agreed that the Council has previously had extensive discussion on this agreement. Council Member Schmid asked about the difference between the two numbers in the contract -the supply assurance and the interim supply limitation due to the delivery cap until 2018. He asked if Palo Alto's excess can be sold to another entity. Assistant Director Jane Ratchye indicated that the supply assurance is still in the contract as it was before, but that the Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan that used the supply assurance numbers to calculate the amount of water each agency would get in a drought is not in the contract and will need to be worked out in the future. The other number, the interim supply limitation, is 184 million gallons per day (MGD) for the wholesale agencies, but this number is not yet distributed among the agencies yet. Council Member Schmid asked if the supply assurance can be monetized, or traded to other entities. Ratchye indicated that BAWSCA will be facilitating a process to determine which agencies may be interested in selling or buying excess supply assurances from other agencies. Through that process, the value of one MGD of supply assurance will be discovered. Council Member Schmid asked if we sold some of our excess supply assurance to another agency, would San Francisco sell more water and would it set rates accordingly. Ratchye clarified that such a transaction would be between the two agencies -the buyer and the seller of the supply assurance -and that the wholesale rates for water under the contract would be unaffected. Council Member Klein added that until such a transaction is completed, there is no monetization of the supply assurance. Council Member Schmid noted that selling some of Palo Alto's excess supply assurance could be a good source of revenue. He noted that San Jose uses only a small amount of SFPUC water and may want to purchase more. Keene asked what the time frame is for negotiating these deals. Ratchye replied that Palo Alto has asked BAWSCA to perform the facilitation role and to assist in the negotiation of contracts, but that nothing will occur until the Water Supply Agreements are executed so that work will not begin on this until fiscal year 2010. Council Member Schmid noted that an effective cap-and-trade market would encourage conservation and that this would be a good thing. Council Member Klein noted that this contract is one of the most important actions the Council will take and its effects will last longer than the terms of all the Council members. He added that, although the discussion tonight might appear short, it is the culmination of a long process in which there has been long discussions. MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to recommend that Council approve three resolutions: 1) Approving the New Water Supply Agreement between the City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers in Alameda County, San Mateo County and Santa Clara County; 2) Approving Palo Alto's Individual Water Sales Contract with the City and County of San Francisco; and 3) Adopting Findings for Purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act in Connection with Approval of a Water Supply Agreement with the City and County of San Francisco. MOTION PASSED 3-0 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL \ FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DATE: JUNE 1,2009 CMR:263:09 REPORT TYPE: CONSENT SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A SOLE SOURCE SCHEDULE ORDER WITH ASSETWORKS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $162,474 FOR THE ACQmSITION AND PURCHASE OF A FUEL TRANSACTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND RELATED SOFTWARE INSTALLATION SERVICES RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a sole source purchase order with AssetWorks, Inc. (formerly Maximus, Inc.) in the amount of $162,474 for the purchase of a fuel transaction management system. DISCUSSION Vehicle Replacement Fund Capital Improvement Project VR-06801 authorizes the replacement of the City's existing fuel transaction management system. The system is used to record and archive vehicle and equipment fuel transactions at six City fuel sites: the Municipal Services Center (MSC); Fire Stations 1,2, and 4; the Palo Alto Landfill, and the Palo Alto Golf Course. In addition, the system facilitates the reconciliation of fuel inventories; collects vehicle and equipment utilization data, and secures the City's fuel inventories by restricting fuel access to authorized staff only. The current system, installed in 1999, is functionally and physically obsolete and does not allow Equipment Management to meet long-planned objectives of: fully automated fueling (requiring no user input); interface with the City's existing Veeder-Root fuel inventory and tank: monitor system; and full integration with the existing fleet management software application. In addition to its obsolescence, the system has become increasingly inaccurate and unreliable, and will no longer allow for an accurate accounting of the City's high- value fuel inventory. Since the City spends nearly one million dollars annually on fuel, it is imperative that staff is able to accurately account for fuel usage. The only way to do this is with a robust, reliable fuel management system that is based on current hardware and software. This sole source purchase order provides for installation of new fuel site hardware at the three highest volume fuel sites -the MSC, Fire Station·1 and the Palo Alto Landfill. Software licensing, staff training, and one year of technical support are also included. The remaining three sites (Fire Station 2, Fire Station 4, and the Golf Course) have much lower volumes and can continue to operate on the existing system while staff evaluates the performance of the new system at the three initial sites. The lower-volume sites will be upgraded at a later date. CMR:263:09 Page 1 of3 This is a sole-source purchase conducted in accordance with Section 2.30.900 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Standardization). The determination to standardize on the AssetWorks FuelFocus fuel management system was based on the following factors: • FuelFocus will allow full and seamless integration with our existing FleetFocus fleet management application. Unlike any competing system, FuelFocus will reside in the FleetFocus database, requiring no additional server hardware. Rather than a separate standalone system, it is an upgrade to the City's existing system. • Consolidation of vehicle and employee information within one database; eliminating the need for duplicate data entry. • The availability of real time vehicle utilization and fuel transaction data. Competing systems require the fleet management system to poll the fuel management system for updates. • Reduced requirements for operation and maintenance training; • Consolidation of support contracts. Purchasing a fuel management system from a competing vendor would require two individual service contracts, increasing ongoing costs. Other factors were considered as well, such as staffs previous experience with AssetWorks products. The City has successfully used various versions of the FleetFocus application since 1988. RESOURCE IMPACT Funding for this contract is available in the Capital Improvement Program project VR-06801, Fuel Transaction Management System Replacement. This purchase will not result in any direct cost savings; however, it will improve staff productivity and efficiency by decreasing the amount of staff time spent monitoring fuel inventories and uploading fuel transactions, increasing the accuracy of the fueling data, and increasing the accountability for fuel usage through more accurate inventory reconciliation. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The sole-source purchase of the AssetWorks FuelFocus application is being conducted in accordance with Section 2.30.900 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Standardization). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is categorically exempt from CEQA under Sections 15302 and 15303 of the CEQA guidelines~ ATIACHMENTS Attachment A: Contract CMR:263:09 Page 2 of3 .~ PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR:263:09 KEITH LAHAIE Fleet Manager tLjgJ~ Page 3 of3 ATTACHMENT A AssetWQRKS FuelFocus Order Schedule Date: 05/19/2009 City of Palo Alto This Order Schedule Is issued pursuant to attached Agreements and the parties agree to be bound by the terms therein. AssetWorks, Inc. is a successor in Interest to MAXIMUS, Inc. effective October 1, 2008. The terms and conditions herein replace any terms with AssetWorks, Ino. and shall apply to the purchase desoribed below if this Order form is signed on or by June 15, 2009. Customer Contact Name Mr. Keith laHaie Fleet Manager The City of Palo Alto Equipment Maintenance 3201 East Bayshore Blvd Palo Alto, CA 94303 Phase I FuelFocus deployment- Items to be provided: Summarv Hardware Software Services Shipping Travel Maintenance Total Does not Include tax, assumes all sites are "FMSU ready PMTlme= I Number of Vehicle units---> $ $ $ $ $ $ $- VIB WAF J1708 Dual Input $ Can bus OaDIl Cables $ RFC VlB Fuel Inlet Antenna $ RVB Programmer (1) $ Training on RF vehicle unit Install $ $ Phase I MSC Fire 1 71,838.75 $ 43.918.75 $ 11.818.25 17,490.00 $ 11,205.00 $ 3.790.00 30,675.00 $ 19,650.00 $ 4,425.00 475.00 $ -190.00 $ 95.00 8,330.00 $ 3,330.00 $ 2,500.00 3,498.00 $ 2,241.00 $ 758.00 j32306.75 $ 80534.75 $ 23,384.25 45 hrs 75 I Vehicle RF Hardware! Per unit 12,177.00 $ 162.36 2,250.00 $ 30.00 ...,..-___ --.,,- 1.350.00 $ 18.00 $ 210 1.280.00 $ 1.280.00 2.696.00 19,753.0D Hours 16 Phase I with vehicle units= $ 152,059.75 Tax $ 10,413.63 Total $ 162,473.38 Refuse Tanker $ 16,103.75 $ 2,495.00 $ 6,600.00 $ 190.00 $ 2.500.00 $ 499.00 $ 28,387.75 AssetWorks Order Fonn Page 1 of15 james.schnepp@assetworks.com AssetWQRKS FuelFocus Order Schedule Invoicing Tax Is!!il On Fuel System Go-live Software $ 17,490.00 $ 1,617.83 $ 19,107.83 On Fuel System Go-live Maintenance $ 3,498.00 $ 323.S7 $ 3,821.S7 1st year On Delivery (SO%) Hardware $ 3S,919.38 $ 3,322.54 $ 39,241.92 On Fuel System Go-Live Hardware $ 3S,919.38 $ 3,322.54 $ 39,241.92 On Delivery (50%) Vehicle Units $ 9,876.50 $ 913.58 $ 10,790.08 On Fuel System Go-Live Vehicle Units $ 9,876.50 $ 913.58 $ 10,790.08 Billed monthly as incurred Services $ 30,675.00 $ $ 30,675.00 nottaKoble Billed on delivery Shipping $ 47S.00 $ $ 475.00 nottoKoble As Incurred Travel $ 8,330.00 $ $ 8,330.00 nottaKoble Total $152,059.75 $ 10,413.63 $ 162,473.38 Services are time and materials estimate (actuals will be Invoiced) Travel Is an estimate (acutals will be invoiced) InfoCenter Reporting requres 0 Web Server with MS IJS AssetWorks Order Form Page20f 15 james.schnepp@assetworks.com AssetWQRKS FuelFocus Order Schedule Vehicle Radio Frequency Units (to be installed by the City): Fuel ~CUSTM AssetWorks FuelFocus FMS System City of Palo Alto -RF Vehicle Units WAF Option valid through June 30, 2009 Discounted Discounted Part Description Quantity Price Extended VI8 WAF J170B Dual Input 75 $ 162.36 $ 12,177.00 Canbus OBDII Cables 75 $ 30.00 $ 2,250.00 RVB Programmer 1 $ 1,280.00 $ 1,280.00 RFC VIB Fuel Inlet Antenna 75 $ 18.00 $ 1,350.00 ~J:\~~~~~~~i.'f*'€il\,'~~:gj)m_>t!lii~~I~ilflilil!l!l~l!'lilW.jl!t Training Services 16 $ 168.50 $ 2,696.00 (City will install the RF Units) ~~-.'!.t~,mm!O!ii,~~~Ji1ti'llm'&W~~~~1i'L~~~ o Vehicle Units o $ 19,753.00 does not include Tax AssetWorks Order Form PageS of 15 james.schnepp@assetworks.com AssetWQRKS FuelFocus Order Schedule Fuel ~CUSTM AssetWorks Fuel Focus FMS System City of Palo Alto -MSC WAF Option valid through June SO, 2009 Discounted Discounted Part Description Quantity Price Extended RFC2500 ICU -WAF, 8 Hose No Option 1 $14,052.50 $ 14,052.50 RFC2500 ICU· WAF, 12 Hose No Option 1 $15,592.50 $ 15,592.50 ~ .. "'~i¥j!,%'WID'-liiilW@;@m,li@¥\il~~~~~~~~J!. .. !mtti!!.~-m!~S;j)j~1&lJ WAF Antenna Box (one needed per loca/ion) 1 $ 660.00 $ 660.00 HID Proximity Reader Option 2 $ 385.00 $ 770.00 1~!ii\~,,*~e~ .. llm!)l~Nl¥~W~~ilil$"'''''';'''*''''.\i!''''''''~~ Nozzle Transponders w/cover where applicable 16 $ 236.25 $ 3,780.00 ~!ill!Il.fIMlG*,,~"~m~~~~~~~$it~~~ Fleet Focus Integration Licenses 2 $ 2,495.00 $ 4,9~0.00 per vehicle module -one lime In/egrallon fee InfoCenter Reporting 550 $ 4.40 $ Crystal (Business Objects) XI RAS license 1 $ 2,500.00 $ FuelFocus TLS Interface 1 $ 1,295.00 $ 2,420.00 2,500.00 1,295.00 Works on any TLS System that supports current Veeder Root protocols ril,~~'mMiiG!J!gi~~£iI'1lt~4;:lfi\t''';'!~~~~iiil·'1§1'l:t\il·''a~~aima~~~~1lllIilll Project Management 27 $ 200.00 $ 5,400.00 Hourly Installation Services 32 $ 168.75 $ 5,400.00 Training & Fuel Module Setup Services 24 $ 168.75 $ 4,050.00 Training & InfoCenter Reporting Module Setup Services 24 $ 200.00 $ 4,800.00 Estimated Travel 1 $ 3,330.00 $ 3,330.00 Billed as actual Maintenance & Support· Year One 1 2,241.00 2,241.00 Spare Parts Kit 8 HID 1 $ 6,063.75 $ 6,063.75 ~~~~m~~~m;~~~&l\@i!,'l1iif"~~~~!1 Shipping & Handling 2 $ 95.00 $ 190.00 l~r~w~a~~'$$.1 .. @!.it'!>''i&rM''IW:&'."i.;w*~TI?~~''''_~_I$N%W'lM2~~~~'''3iJMtli>t Project Total Cost $ 80,534.75 does not Include Tax See Installation notes with the SOW AssetWorks Order Form Page 4 of 15 james.schnepp@assetworks.com AssetWQRKS Fuel ~CUSTM Part Description FuelFocus Order Schedule AssetWorks FuelFocus FMS System City of Palo Alto· Fire 1 WAF Option valid through June 30, 2009 QuantilX Discounted Price --Discounted Extended RFC1500 ICU -WAF. 2 Hose No Option 1 $10,298.75 $ 10,298.75 ~~.J!!jl!lJ,il%~<*~~!'1iRBI\!j!!Q~Jli!ll.Mi~t*f@"'i£i1lIi1iI!!~~ WAF Antenna Box (one needed per location) 1 $ 660.00 $ 660.00 HID Proximity Reader Option 1 $ 385.00 $ 385.00 !'iillIlI'.iluli!ilf.~"'lt~iii'i@'i!'f~l'4\1~~~~1>~~~"*'@f.<,\!i0~~Q~JiWii£'~SliI~ Nozzle Transponders w/cover where applicable 2 $ 236.25 $ 472.50 S.~';il-!'i~~,.ili..'\Ik~~'it~~~~~~~ Fleet Focus Integration Licenses 1 $ 2,495.00 $ 2,495.00 per vehicla module -one time integration' fee FuelFocus TLS Interface 1 $ 1,295.00 $ 1,295.00 Works on any TLS System that supports cu"ent Veeder Root protocols ~*@!"'j:!j~~~~~~wm.D~~~~ Project Management 12.0 $ 200.00 $ 2,400.00 Hourly Installation Services Based on rate of $1350.00 per day plus expenses Training & Fuel Module Setup Services Based on rate of $1350.00 per day plus expenses Estimated Travel Billed as actual • Year One Project Total Cost does not include Tax See Installation notes with the SOW AssetWorks Order Form 8 4.0 1 1 1 Page 5 of 15 $ 168.75 $ 1,350.00 $ 168.75 $ 675.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 758.00 758.00 95.00 95.00 $ 23,384.25 james.schnepp@assetworks.com AssetWQRKS Fuel ~CUSTM FuelFocus Order Schedule AssetWorks FuelFocus FMS System City of Palo Alto M Refuse Tanker WAF Option valid through June 3D, 2009 Discounted Discounted Part Description Quantity Price Extended RFC-2500 WAF Mobile Refueler 1 $14,437.50 $ 14,437.50 ~'IiII:lW~~~m!';J)m11~~~'*lk\lli~~,l\¥Mjj!"®jl~ WAF Antenna Box' (oneneededperfocation) 1 $ 660.00 $ 660.00 HID Proximity Reader Option 2 $ 385.00 $ 770.00 ~.jW@W€M'~~-·m-W.l1!gFE\l:'f\!t!ifJiiiliaG$M:Q!\i~&t!f~~ii~l~~~~P~~~ Hand-held PDA (see option below) $ $ Nozzle Transponders w/cover where applicable 1 $ 236.25 $ 236.25 ~ii!!!!!!il$1'a,~-,,~~~~e,wlii£iXW~~~"""iiL"""Ji!i.'*,,*~~ Fleet Focus Integration Licenses 1 $ 2,495.00 $ 2,495.00 per vehIcle module -one time integration fee MobilFocus Licenses perl'IJA Project Management Hourly Installation Services Training & Fuel Module Setup Services Based on rats of $1350.00 per day pIUs expenses Estimated Travel Project Total Cost does notinalude Tax See Installation notes with the SOW AssetWorks Order Form 6.0 16 16 1 1 2 f:~~~~' "-··-h Page60t 15 $ 960.00 $ 200.00 1,200.00 $ 168.75 $ 2,700.00 $ 168.75 $ 2,700.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 499.00 499.00 95.00 190.00 ~ $ 28,387.75 james.schnepp@assetworks.com AssetWI)RKS FuelFocus Order Schedule In the event Customer's business practices require that Customer issue a purchase order number prior to payment of any AssetWorks invoices Issued under this Agreement, then such purchase order number must be entered below. Customer's execution of the Order Form without designating a purchase order number shall be deemed Customer's acknowledgement that no purchase order number is required for payment of invoices hereunder. Purchase Order Number: ____ _ Amount: $ 162A73.3B Attachments: 1. (Attachment 1) Statement of Work AssetWorks Order Form Page 7 of 15 james.schnepp@assetworks.com AssetWQRKS AssetWorks SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT (SLA) This License Agreement applies to all software provided to you by AssetWorks, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("AssetWorks") including software owned by AssetWorks and software owned by other parties that is embedded in software owned by AssetWorks or that is included in hardware provided by AssetWorks. You (CUSTOMER) should carefully read the following terms and conditions before installing the software or using AssetWorks supplied hardware that contains the software. Continuing installation of the software or use of the software or AssetWorks supplied hardware indicates your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this agreement. If you do not agree with the terms and conditions of this agreement, you should not install or use this software. AssetWorks grants to CUSTOMER a non-exclusive, perpetual non-transferable license to make use of the software specified in the proposal (herein "Software") on the CUSTOMER's database servers, and application servers and/or web servers (referred to as the "Enterprise"); You assume responsibility for the selection of the software and/or the software on hardware to achieve your intended results, and for the installation, use and results obtained. 1.lcense CUSTOMER shall have the right to use only one copy or image of the Software for production purposes to manage up to the number of Active Equipment Units identified in the Proposal. "Active Equipment Unit" shall mean any in service unit to which work orders, fuel tickets, or usage tickets are posted. CUSTOMER may increase the number of authorized Active Equipment Units by executing a subsequent Product Schedule and paying in full the applicable fees. Upon signing the subsequent Product Schedule and paying in full the applicable fees, CUSTOMER shall have the right to monitor the revised number of Active Equipment Units as set forth in the subsequent Product Schedule. Customer may make one copy of the software for backup purposes. The backup copy must contain the complete program name, copyright and trademark notices. Backup copies are for your use only and cannot be assigned or transferred to another person or used on another computer. 1. RESTRICTIONS. You cannot sell, rent, lease, loan, transfer, distribute, copy electronically, or transfer any copy or part of this software without prior written consent of AssetWorks and the payment of additional license fees. You cannot modify, translate, disassemble, decompile, or create derivative works of the software or any copy in whole or in part. 3. FEES AND PAYMENT. All fees set forth in AssetWorks' quote are payable by CUSTOMER within thirty (30) days of receipt of invoice FuelFocus Order Schedule 4. NO OTHER RIGHTS. Except as stated herein, this Agreement does not grant you any rights to patents, copyrights, trade secrets, trade names, trademarks, (whether registered or unregistered), or any other rights or franchises in respect to the software and its documentation. 5. TERM. This license is effective until terminated. You can terminate it at any time by destroying the software including all media and documentation and erasing any copies residing on your system. Or, AssetWorks can terminate this License immediately for nonpayment of license fees or if you fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 6. TRANSFER. You cannot transfer, sublicense, or assign the license or the software except as expressly provided in this Agreement. Any attempt otherwise to sublicense, assign or transfer any of the rights, duties, or obligations hereunder is void and will terminate your license. 7. WARRANTY DISCLAIMER/LIMITED WARRANTY. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KI t-·m , EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE USE, PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS OF USING THE SOFTWARE AND ITS DOCUMENTATION IS WITH YOU. SOME STATES DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO THE ABOVE EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. THIS WARRANTY GIVES YOU SPECIFIC LEGAL RIGHTS AND YOU CAN ALSO HAVE OTHER RIGHTS WHICH VARY FROM STATE TO STATE. 8. Limitation of liability In the event of any claim brought by one party against another hereunder, a party will be liable only for actual, direct losses or damages incurred, limited to the amount of fees for which AssetWorks contracted under the quote that is the subject of the claim provided, the claiming party shall be obliged to take reasonable steps to mitigate its losses or damages. Irrespective of the basis of the claim, neither party will be liable for any special, punitive, exemplary, indirect, incidental or consequential damages of any kind, including, without limitation, lost profits or loss of data, even if it has been advised of the possibility of such damages. 10. ACCEPTANCE. By installing the software or using the AssetWorks supplied hardware that contains the software, you acknowledge that you have read this Agreement, understand it and agree to be bound by its terms and conditions. You further agree that it is the complete and exclusive statement of the Agreement between us which AssetWorks Order Form Page B of15 james.schnepp@assetworks.com AssetWQRKS supersedes any proposal or prior agreement, oral, or written, and any other communications between us relating to the subject matter of this Agreement. 11. THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE. If the software is delivered to you pre installed in AssetWorks supplied hardware, then additional license terms and conditions may apply to third party software included in the Assetworks supplied hardware. The additional terms and conditions that apply to such third party software may be included in printed materials delivered with the AssetWorks supplied hardware or in online or electronic documentation included in the AssetWorks supplied hardware. 12. GENERAL. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the state of California. If any provisions of this Agreement shall be held by any court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to the law. the provisions will be enforced to the maximum extent permissible, and the remaining provisions of this Agreement will remain in full force and effect. Neither party will assign or transfer its interest in this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party. You must comply fully with all laws and regulations of the United States and other countries ("Export Laws") to assure that neither the Software. nor any direct products thereof are (1) exported. directly or indirectly, in violation of Export Laws. or (2) are used for any purpose prohibited by FuelFocus Order Schedule Export Laws, Including, without limitation. nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons proliferation. AssetWorks may audit your use of the software. All terms of any order document shall be superseded by this License. You will be entitled to support described in the Maintenance terms set forth below, provided you are current on payments. 13. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS. No other party or company may make any warranty, either express or implied, regarding the software, its merchantability or its fitness for any particular purpose. 14. Notices Addresses: AssetWorks, Inc •. 998 Old Eagle School Rd. -Suite 1215 Wayne, PA 19087 Attn.: John Hines Division President Customer: The City of Palo Alto Equipment Management Division Attn: Mr. Keith laHaie Fleet Manager 3201 East Bayshore Blvd Palo Alto, CA 94303 AssetWorks Order Form Page 9 of 15 james.schnepp@assetworks.com AssetWQRKS FuelFocus Order Schedule ASSElWORKS STANDARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT 1. SERVICES This Agreement shall apply each time Customer engages ASSETWORKS to provide services. All services provided will be described In a ASSETWORKS quotation (see above) or a mutually agreed upon ·Statement of Work" ("SOW") as applicable (hereinafter referred to as "Services"). attached as 'Attachment 1'. 2. TERMS 2.1 Requests for Servicej Quotes and Orders. Customer shall sign and retum this agreement for the initial order for Services. All subsequent orders for Services must specify ASSETWORKS'S quotallon Of any). and reference the Service(s) requested and invoice address. Customer may place orders in writing. by telephone or by facsimile transmission. Telephone orders must be confirmed In writing or by facsimile. All orders are subject to acceptance by ASSETWORKS. 2.2 Prices. The prices charged for Services purchased under this Agreement will be .ASSETWORKS'S then current charges for such services In each ASSETWORKS region or as quoted by ASSETWORKS. If the Services are being performed on a tlme and materials basis, any estimates provided by ASSETWORKS are for planning purposes only. 2.3 Additional Fees; Taxes. Prices are exclusive of all country, prOVincial, state and local sales, use, value added, excise, privilege. franchise and similar taxes. Taxes imposed on ASSETWORKS (other than taxes related to ASSETWORKS' income) In connection with the Services purchased under this Agreement will be paid by Customer and will appear as separate items on ASSETWORKS'S invoices. 2.4 Invoicing and PaymenL Customer's payment terms will be net forty-five (45) days from the date of Invoice. 2.5 Term. This Agreement will begin on the effective date staled above and will continue until terminated in accordance with Its terms. Each SOW will continue for the term stated therein. unless otherwise terminated pursuant to this Agreement. 2.6 Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement by providing at least thirty (30) days prior written nollce to the other. Termination of the Agreement will not terminate any outstanding SOWs and the terms of this Agreement will survive such termination to the extent that such terms are incorporated into any outstanding SOWs. Either party may terminate an individual SOW If the other party commits a material breach of such an agreement and the breach Is not cured within thirty (30) days of receipt of wrltten notice from the Injured party. Termination of one or more SOW will not terminate this Agreement. Upon termination, all rights and obligations of the parties under this Agreement will automatically terminate except for rights of action accruing prior to termination, payment obligations and any obligations that expressly or by implication are intended to survive termination. 3 •. PROPRIETARY RIGHTS ASSETWORKS will retain exclusive ownership In aU deliverables created by ASSETWORKS hereunder and will own all Intellectual property rights, title and interest in any Ideas, concepts, know how, documentation or techniques developed by ASSETWORKS under this Agreement. ASSETWORKS will also retain all intellectual property rights with respect to the tools andlor software that ASSETWORKS uses to deliver the Services. Subject to payment in full for the applicable Services, ASSETWORKS grants Customer a perpetual, non-exclusive, non·transfarable, royalty-free right to use the deliverables solely for Customer's Internal use. 4. EXPORT; REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS Customer acknowledges that the Services sold under this Agreement, which may Include technology and software, are subject to the customs and export control laws and regulations 01 tha United States ("U.S., and may also be subJact to the customs and eKpcrt laws and regulations of the country In which the Services are rendered and/or received. Customer agrees to abide by those laws and regulations. Customer further represents that any software provided by Customer and used as part of the Services contains no encryption or, to the extent that It contains encryption, such software Is approved for export without a license. If Customer cannot make the preceding representation, Customer agrees to provide ASSETWORKS with all of the information needed for ASSETWORKS to obtain export licenses from the United States government and to provide ASSETWORKS with such additional assistance as may be necessary to obtain such licenses. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Customer is solely responsible for obtaining any specific licenses relating to the export of software II a license Is needed. ASSETWORKS may also require export certifications from Customer for Customer prOVided software. ASSETWORKS'S acceptance of any order for Services Is contingent upon the Issuance of any applicable eKport license required by the United States Govemment; ASSETWORKS Is not liable for delays or failure to deliver Services or a product resulting from Customer's failure to obtain such license or to provide such certification. 5. CUSTOMER RESPONSIBILITIES It Is the Customer's responsibility to backup data on Customer's system. ASSETWORKS WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR tOSS OF OR DAMAGE TO DATA OR LOSS OF USE OF ANY COMPUTER OR NETWORK SYSTEMS. Customer acknowledges that ASSETWORKS'S performance and delivery of the Services are contingent upon: (I) Customer providing safe and hazard-free access to its personnel, facilities, equipment. hardware, software, network and Information and (ii) Customer's timely declsion- making, notification of relevant issues or information and granting of approvals andlor permission. Customer will promptly obtain and provide to ASSETWORKS any required licenses, approvals or consents necessary for ASSETWORKS'S performance of the Services. Information disclosed by Customer pursuant to a separate Nondisclosure Agreement ("NDA") Signed by both parties will be protected under the terms of the NDA. Customer acknowledges that any Information or data disclosed or sent to ASSETWORKS that Is not protected under a separate NDA Is not confidential or proprietary to Customer. 6. LIMITED WARRANTY 8. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY 6.1 Limited Warranty. ASSETWORKS WARRANTS THAT SERVICES WILL BE PERFORMED IN A GOOD AND WORKMANLIKE MANNER. EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY STATED IN THE PRECEDING SENTENCE, ASSETWORKS MAKES NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTY RELATING TO THIRD PARTY PRODUCTS OR THIRD PARTY SERVICES; ANY WARRANTY WITH RESPECT TO THE PERFORMANCE OF ANY HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE USED IN CONDUCTING SERVICES; ANY WARRANTY CONCERNING THE RESULTS TO BE OBTAINED FROM THE SERVICES OR THE RESULTS OF ANY RECOMMENDATION ASSETWORKS MAY MAKE; AND,ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES CONCERNING THE PERFORMANCE, MERCHANTABILITY, SUITABILI1Y, NON-INFRINGEMENT OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF ANY OF THE DELIVERABLES OR OF ANY SYSTEM THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY RECOMMENDATION ASSETWORKS MAY PROVIDE. AssetWorks Order Form Page 10 of 15 james.schnepp@assetworks.com AssetWQRKS 6.2 Limitation of LIability. NEITHER CUSTOMER, ASSETWORKS NOR ASSETWORKS'S SUBCONTRACTORS WILL BE LIABLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY ASSETWORKS EVEN IF A PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. ASSETWORKS SHALL NOT HAVE LIABILITY FOR (I) LOSS OF INCOME, PROFIT, OR SAVINGS, WHETHER DIRECT OR INDIRECT, (II) LOST OR CORRUPTED DATA OR SOFTWARE, OR (Ill) PRODUCTS NOT BEING AVAILABLE FOR USE. EXCEPT FOR CLAIMS THAT THE SERVICES (EXCLUDING THIRD PARTY PRODUCTS) CAUSED BODILY INJURY (INCLUDING DEATH) DUE TO ASSETWORKS'S NEGLIGENCE OR WILLFUL MISCONDUCT, ASSETWORKS'S TOTAL LIABILITY ARISING OUT OF, OR IN CONNECTION WITH, ANY SERVICES PURCHASED PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNTS PAID BY CUSTOMER FOR THE SPECIFIC SERVICE(S) GIVING RISE TO SUCH CLAIM DURING THE PRIOR TWELVE MONTH PERIOD. 7. INDEMNIFICATION Customer accepts responsibility for, and agrees to Indemnify and hold ASSETWORKS harmless from, any and all liability, damages, claims or proceedings ariSing out of (I) the failure of CUstomer to obtain the approprIate license, Intellectual property rights, or any other permissions, regulatory certifications or approvals required to support any SOW or ASSETWORKS' performance of the Services, or (II) any Inaccurate representations regardIng the existence of an export license. 8. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 8.1 Assignment; Subcontracting. Unless otherwise provided in the SOW, Customer may not assign thIs Agreement without the prior written consent of ASSETWORKS. ASSETWORKS has the right to hire subcontractors to perform the Services provided that ASSETWORKS shall remain responsible for the performance of Services under this Agreement, or to assign Services to Its affiliates. 8.2 Entire Agreementj Severability. This Agreement (with attachments) Is the entire agreement between ASSETWORKS and Customer with respect to its subject mailer and supersedes all prior oral and written understandings, communications or agreements between ASSETWORKS and Customer. No amendment to or modification of thIs Agreement, In whole or In part, will be valid or bindIng unless it is in wrlHng and executed by FuelFocus Order Schedule authorized representatives of both parties. If any provision of this Agreement is void or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement will remain in full force and will not be terminated. 8.3 Independent Contractor. The parties are independent contractors. Neither party will have any rights, power or authority to act or create an obligation, express or implied, on behalf of another party except as specified In this Agreement. 8.4 FORCE MAJEURE Neither party shall be liable hereunder by reason of any failure or delay In the performance of Its obligations hereunder (except for the payment of money) on account of strlkes, shortages, riots, Insurrection, fires, llood, storm, explOSions, earthquakes, acts of God, war, governmental action, labor conditions, material shortages or any other cause which is beyond the reasonable control of such party. 8.5 DISPUTE RESOLUTION The parties will seek a fair and prompt negollated resolution within ten (10) days of the Initial notice of the dispute. If the dIspute has not been resolved after such time, the parties will escalate the issue to more senior levels. Nothing herein shall prevent either party from seeking a preliminary or permanent Injunction to preserve the status quo or prevent Irreparable harm during the negotiation process or diminish the respective rights of the parties to pursue any and all remedies avallable in law anellor equity at any time. 8.6 Notices. To give notice under this Agreement, the notice must be In wrltlng and sent by postage prepaid first-class mail. receipted courier service, facsimile telecommunication or electronic mall to the address which appears beloW each party's signature below or to such other address as any party shall specify by notice In writing 10 the other party and will be effective upon receipt. 8.7 Section Headings. The section headings contained In this Agreement are Inserted for reference purposes only and shall not affect the meaning or Interpretation of this Agreement. 8.8 Governing Law, JurlsdlcUon and Language. The laws of the State of California will govern this Agreement. 8.9 Limitation Period. Neither party may Institute any aotion In any form arising out of this Agreement more than two {2} years after the cause of aclion has arisen, or in the case of nonpayment, more than two (2) years from Ihe date 01 last payment. 8.10 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed In counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all such counterparts shall together constitute one and the same Instrument. AssetWorks Order Form Page 11 of 15 james.schnepp@assetworks.com AssetWORKS FUELFOCUS MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT - SUPPORT/PARTS A. 1. 2. a. 4. 3. B. 1. 2. BACKGROUND CUSTOMER has purchased FuelFocus products ("Productj from AssetWorks. The FuelFocus System Includes Two Optional Maintenance Components: A. Maintenance: Off-slte, web and telephone support and maintenance ("Maintenance', lor the FuelFocus System and Software. Maintenance Includes bug fixes and telephone support and may Include, II they are made available by AsselWorks, firmware updates and enhancements. B. Parts Warranty Service: A parts warranty without charge for the flrsl twelve (12) months of use from date of acceptance or fifteen (15) months Irom date of shipment, whichever Is shorter. In addition, AssetWorks may offer extended warranty services, as a paid option, alter the Initial warranty. 'rhe purpose of this Agreement Is to set forth the terms ~nd c~ndltlons upon which CUSTOMER has agreed, at Its option, to subscribe to FuelFocus Maintenance from AssetWorks. TERMS AND CONDITIONS Malntenance shall commence immediately upon system go live and acceptance and shall have a term of twelve (12) months. The term shall automatically renew each year thereafter for an additional twelve (12) month period unless terminated as set forth below. Correction of DevlaJlons In the event that the CUSTOMER encounters an error and/or malfunction ("Deviation") in the FuelFocus system, it shall communicate the circumstances and any supporting information to AssetWorks. Upon receipt, AssetWorks will respond as follows: a. In the event that, In the mutual and reasonable opinion of AssetWorks and the CUSTOMER, there exists a DeViation that does not constitute a serious impediment to the normal Intended use of the FuelFocus system, AssetWorks will correct the Deviation b. In the event that, In the mutual and reasonable opinion of AssetWorks and the CUSTOMER, there exists a Deviallon that does constitute a serious impediment to the normal intended use of the FuelFocus system, AsselWorks will take such steps 4. FuelFocus Order Schedule as are reasonably required to correct the Deviation with all due dispatch. Telephone Hotline Assistance AssetWorks. at .lIs expense, shall make available technically qualified personnel to respond to all reasonable telephone requests, Monday through Friday, excluding Slate holidays, during normal bUsiness hours, that may be made by the CUSTOMER relating to the application and operation 01 the Software. At other times such personnel are available by beeper for emergencies. 5. Technical Literature AssetWorks shall make available to the CUSTOMER all technical literature that Is considered by AssetWorks to be relevant to the Fue!Focus system and its use within the scope 01 CUSTOMER's operations. 6. Transmission All Revisions and New Versions will be transmitted to the CUSTOMER via email or posted on our lip site for easy client access at the option of AssetWorks. 7. Equipment. 8. Year One Parts Warranty: AssetWorks shall provide telephone support In accordance with this Agreement on the equipment listed In Appendix A, hereinafter referred to as "Equipment". Equipment Includes all parts on a Core·Return basis: front door panel board, keypad, two line back ill display, CPU board, pump board, cardlkey reader, power supply, Ilash disk, bypass card, heater set, power box, and junction board. AssetWorks shall provide CUSTOMER with replacement parts for all covered Equipment during the term of this Agreement. AssetWorks will dispatch the replacement parts to CUSTOMER's U.S. locations and CUSTOMER will return the reptaced parts (broken parts) to AssetWorks. CUSTOMER will pay AssetWorks the full purchase price of replacement part If the replaced part is not returned to AssetWorks within thirty (30) days of the dispatch of the replacement part. The following repairs are not covered by this replacement service program: repairs necessitated by water, fire, abuse, theft. vandalism, operator error or lack of knowledge, power surges or failure, any condition not encountered during normal operation, tampering or adjusting by persons who do not represent AssetWorks, CUSTOMER's failure to perform normal preventive maintenance as recommended by AssetWorks in Its Installation Manual, accessories attachments or other devices not furnished by AssetWorks, and expendable items such as magnetic card, printer ribbons, fuses, bulbs, and similar Items and supplies, For repairs that are not covered, AssetWorks will provide the services on a time a materials basis. At all times before AssetWorks actually repairs the equipment pursuant to the terms of this section, AssetWorks agrees to provide CUSTOMER with an estimate and shall commence repairs only after receiving written authorization to make such repairs from CUSTOMER. Remote DiagnostiC Access AssetWorks Order Form Page 1~of 15 james.schnepp@assetworks.com AssetWQRKS The CUSTOMER shall provide appropriate access by which AssetWorks may, with the permission of the CUSTOMER, remotely access the FuelFocus system for the purpose of remote diagnostics and support. 9. Proper Use a. The CUSTOMER agrees that all reasonable effort shall be taken to ensure that neither the FuelFocus Hardware of FuelFocus Software are misused. b. In the event that diagnostic assistance Is provided by AssetWorks, which. in the reasonable opinion of AssetWorks and the CUSTOMER, relates to problems not caused by a Deviation In the use of the FuelFocus hardware or software. such assistance shall be at the CUSTOMER's expense. 10. Additional Software Maintenance Fee -Paid Up Ucense In the event the CUSTOMER acquires additional FuelFocus ICU's In addition to that Indicated in Appendix A of this FuelFocus Maintenance Agreement (the "Additional Hardware'" the CUSTOMER shall pay an additional annual Maintenance fee. 11. Other Fees and Expenses for ensite Services On·slte services are not covered by this agreement. If onsite maintenance Is required, CUSTOMER will pay (I) time and material for the labor and (Ii) reasonable travel and living expenses of AssetWorks' employees or agents. AssetWorks shall be billed and paid as the expenses are Incurred. 12. PaymentTerms a. Maintenance: Annual payments for Maintenance will be due in advance of the commencement of the initial one-year term of the Maintenance and each anniversary thereafter. b. Hardware Warranty: Year one from go live (or 15 months from oontract) is Included with the initial purchase. Customer will be offered the option to extend at that time. c. d. AssetWorks reserves the right to change the annual Maintenance fee by prOViding CUSTOMER written notice of the Increase at least thirty (30) days prior to any scheduled renewal date. c. AssetWorks reserves the right to apply a late payment charge of 1.5% per month to amounts outstanding more than thirty (30) days after the dale of the Invoice. 13. Default and Termination a. The CUSTOMER shall have the right to terminate Maintenance upon delivery of written notice at least ninety (90) days prior to any scheduled renewal date. FuelFocus Order Schedule b. AssetWorks may cancel Maintenance in the event that the CUSTOMER does not implement a Mandatory Software Revision within sixty (60) days of receipt thereof or such longer period as AssetWorks may consent to In wrlllng. In the event that CUSTOMER does not Implement a Mandatory Revision within thirty (30) days following receipt of written notice from AssetWorks of CUSTOMER's failure to Implement a Mandatory Revision, AssetWorks may then cancel Maintenance, effective Immediately, by notice In writing to the CUSTOMER. c. In the event of any breach of the terms and conditions of this Agreement by the CUSTOMER, AssetWorks will, by written notice to the CUSTOMER, give the CUSTOMER a period of thirty (30) days within Which to Institute remedies to correct such breach.. In the event that such breach has not been corrected to AssetWorks' satisfaction within said thirty (30) day period, AssetWorks may then cancel Maintenance, effective Immediately, by notice in writing to the CUSTOMER. d. In the event that Maintenance Is terminated by AssetWorks, AssetWorks shall have no continuing obligatlons to the CUSTOMER of any nature Whatsoever with respect to Maintenance. Furthermore, termination by AssetWorks pursuant to the provisions hereof shall be without prejudice to any right or recourse available to AssetWorks, and without prejudloe to AssetWorks' right to collect any amounts, which remain due to It hereunder. 14. Limitation of Liability a. In the event of any claim brought by one party against another hereunder, a party will be liable only for actual, direct losses or damages Incurred (Including cost of cover), limited to the amount of fees paid to AssetWorks for servlcas under this agreement; provided, the claiming party shall be obliged to take reasonable steps to mitigate its losses or damages. b. Irrespective of the basis or theory of the claim, neither party will be liable for any special, punillve, exemplary, Indlreot, Incidental or consequential damages of any kind, Including, without limitation, lost profits or loss of data, even if it has been advised of the possibility of such damages. 15. General Terms a. Neither AssetWorks nor CUSTOMER will assign or transfer' Its interest In this Agreement or any Attachment without the prior written consent of the other party. b. All proviSions of this Agreement, Which by their nature should survive termination of this Agreement, will so survive. c.. No delay or failure by either party to exercise any right hereunder, or to enforce any provision of this Agreement will be oonsldered a waiver thereof. No single waiver will constllute a continuing or AssetWorks Order Form Page 13 of 15 james.schnepp@assetworks.com AssetWQRKS subsequent waiver. To be valid. a 'waiver must be In writing, but need not be supported by consideration. d.. If any provision of this Agreement Is held 10 be illegal, Invalid or unenforceable, In whole or in part, such provision will be modilled 10 the minimum extenl necessary to make it legal, valid and enforceable, and Ihe remaining provisions of this Agreement will not be affected. e. This Agreement, Including Its Interpretallon and enforcement, will be governed by the sUbstanllve laws of the State of California excluding its conflict of laws rules. f. Any communication or notice hereunder must be in writing, and will be deemed given and effective: (I) when delivered personally with proof of receipt; (II) when sent bye-mall; (UI) when delivered by overnight express; or (Iv) three (3) days after the postmark date when mailed by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested and addressed to a party at Its address for notices. Each party's address for notices Is stated below. Such address may be changed by a notice delivered to the other party in accordance with the provisions of this Section. AssetWorks, Inc. 998 Old Eagle School Rd. -Suite 1215 WaYne, PA 19087 Altn.: John Hines Customer: The City of Palo Alto Equipment Management Division Attn: Mr. Keith LaHaie Fleet Manager 3201 East Bayshore Blvd Palo Alto, CA 94303 g. In the event of any dispute ariSing in the performance of this Agreement or any Attachment, AssetWorks and the CUSTOMER will seek to resolVe such dispute AsselWorks Order Form Page 14 of 15 FuelFocus Order Schedule through good faith, amicable discussions and negotiations. Any specitic agreed upon problem escalation procedure will be stated in the related . Attachment. In the event of a conflict between the terms of an Attachment and this Agreement, the Attachment shall control unless otherwise provided In the Attachment. In any action at law or In equity to enforce or Interpret the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party will be entitled to recover Its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, In addition to any other relief ordered by the court. Such fees and costs will include those Incurred In connection with the enforcement of any resulting judgment or order, and any post Judgment order will provide for the right to receive such attorneys' fees and costs. h. Neither party will be liable for any failure to perform or any delay In performing any of lis obligations hereunder when such failure or delay Is due to circumstances beyond Its reasonable control and without Its fault (Force Majeure). Including, without limitation, any natural catastrophe, fire, war, riot, strike, or any general shortage or unavailability of materials, components or transportation facilities, or any governmental action or Inaction. Upon the occurrence of such event of Force Majeure, the affected party will Immediately give notice to the other party with relevant details, and will keep. the other party Informed of related developments. I. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous oral, and all prior written, negotiations, commitments and understandings of the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. This Agreement may not be modified except by a writing executed by both parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto, Intending to be liable bound, have entered Into this Agr~MlR:llve as of the Effective Date. james.schnepp@assetworks.com AssetWQRKS FuelFocus Order Schedule Accepted by Customer: Accepted by AssetWorks, Inc.: ..................... )!/~~ Signature Name Title Title Date Date City Attorney: Signature Name Title Date To expedite shipment and scheduling, please email or fax this signed document and your Purchase Order to Jim Schnepp: Tel: 858.663.7481 Fax: 240.465.7593 james.schnepp@assetworks.com Paper Contracts/PO: AssetWorks, Inc. 998 Old Eagle School Rd. -Suite 1215 Wayne, PA 19087 Attn.: John Hines Division President 610.687.9202 AssetWorks Order Form Page 15 of15 james.schnepp@assetworks.com AssetWORKS Attachment 1-Statement of Work For City of Palo Alto, CA FuelFocus Fuel Management Applications May 4, 2009 AssetWorks Attachment 1· SOW Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Project Task Descriptions -FuelFocus .................................................................................................................... 4 Kick-off Meeting ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 Hardware Procurement .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Hardware Installation .............................................................................................................................................. 4 FuelFocus Configuration and Set-up ...................................................................................................................... 4 Training and InfoCenter Reporting Module Setup Services ................................................................................... 5 Production Cut-over .................................................................................................................. ; ............................ 5 FuelFocus FMS Assumptions ................................................................................................................................ 6 Definition of "FMS Ready" ...................................................................................................................................... 6 Preliminary Schedule .................................................................................................................................................. 7 Assumptions ................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Acceptance Check List ............................................................................................................................................. 10 AssetWorks Attachment 1-SOW 2 AssetWorks is pleased to partner with the City of Palo Alto (Palo Alto) for a successful implementation of the FuelFocus Fuel Management System. This proposal identifies the tasks and estimated costs required for the implementation of the FASuite solution. This Statement of Work is based on AssetWorks' current understanding of the requirements and AssetWorks' previous experience with similar engagements. AssetWorks recommends Palo Alto use AssetWorks' expertise and consulting resources to ensure a timely and cost effective implementation. AssetWorks offers a variety of services ranging from workflow re-engineering to general business and technical consulting. To best facilitate the implementation. AssetWorks urges Palo Alto to formally identify a focal point for each of the critical business groups who will participate in or be affected by the project implementation. This involvement must come from all parties. These focal pOints should be both technically qualified and knowledgeable of their groups' business practices. These individuals will be responsible for spearheading the system configuration, data mapping, and workflow tasks to ensure a feasible and effective production rollout. Circumstances may necessitate changes to the tasks and/or time estimates, at which time AssetWorks and Palo Alto will discuss these changes in good faith at their earliest opportunity. AssetWorks Allachment 1-SOW 3 The following is a description of the tasks associated with the implementation of the FuelFocus® FMS System for FleetFocus Fleet Management customers. Kick-off Meeting The following activities will be ~ccomplished in the Project Kick-off Meeting: • Introduce Project Team • Review Contract Deliverables • Review AssetWorks and Palo Alto's Responsibilities • Review and discuss subcontractor responsibilities and vehicle availability for WAF VIB installation (if included) • Determine installation roll-out procedures • Review any special site considerations such as CNG stations or Tank Monitoring. • Finalize hardware order The Kick-off meeting will be coordinated by the AssetWorks Project Manager. Hardware Procurement AssetWorks will order the hardware identified in the contract, for delivery to the appropriate sites. AssetWorks will place the hardware order based on the agreed models and quantities. AssetWorks estimates the delivery of hardware will be completed in approximately 60 calendar days. Hardware Installation leu Installation Once Palo Alto has confirmed the site is "FMS ready" (see assumptions), AssetWorks will schedule an FMS technician to come on-site and complete installation of the Island Control Unit (ICU). AssetWorks will provide technical services to install the ICU. Sites include MSC, Fire 1 and a Refuse Tanker. The site installation is performed in a fashion to minimize downtime. A roll-out schedule and the sequential order of sites will be discussed at the Kick-Off Meeting. Once AssetWorks has completed the initial site hardware installation, including confirmation of network communications, AssetWorks will initialize the ICU. Palo Alto will process a series of test transactions using the ICU. Palo Alto can then review the results of the test in the test FA database. FuelFocus Configuration and Set-up Installation and Initial Set-up AssetWorks will remotely install and configure software necessary for communication to the FuelFocus ICUs. AssetWorks will also work with Palo Alto to configure the server to ensure necessary network communication to each fuel site. AssetWorks is not responsible for any network or infrastructure installation or configuration. This task will happen once FleetFocus is live in a test environment. Training for FleetFocus and FuelFocus AssetWorks will provide training and assistance to Palo Alto on the set-up ~nd configuration of the data elements required to place the fuel system in operation. This training will Include: • Card Assignments to existing Equipment and Employees, adding additional employees as necessary AssetWorks Attachment 1· SOW 4 • Product set-up and assignments to existing Equipment and Employees, adding additional products as necessary • Setting existing FA Locations to be Fuel Sites, adding additional fuel locations as necessary • Defining Tanks, Pumps, Hoses, and Island Control Units • Establish Polling Schedules (if appropriate) and ICU initialization process AssetWorks will provide remote training as to the use and operation of the system. The following items are covered during the session: • Fuel Orders • Fuel Receipts • Tank Level Reconciliation and Adjustments • Entry of Hose Totalizer Readings Training and InfoCenter Reporting Module Setup Services AssetWorks will provide training on the setup of this module including how to define security settings and report access. In addition, AssetWorks will train Palo Alto resources how to upload and remove custom reports in InfoCenter. AssetWorks will provide direction to Palo Alto in scheduling reports to automatically run and distribute via email. The intended audience for this orientation is Palo Alto Administrators and report writers that will be responsible for managing InfoCenter reports. Up to 5 Palo Alto staff may attend this session. This estimate does not include development or modification of any reports. Production Cut-over As each site is brought on-line, Palo Alto will enter current tank inventory quantities to ensure accurate book quantities exist. The Acceptance Check list will be jointly filled out between AssetWorks and Palo Alto. Once each fuel site has been installed tested and brought on-line, the system will be in full production. AssetWorks Attachment 1-SOW 5 FuelFocus FMS Assumptions • Estimates are based on the site inspections performed, but changes may be required. No permit fees are included. • Site Installation travel expense amount is a not to exceed estimate and will be billed at actual upon completion. • FuelFocus Warranty is one (1) year parts and telephone help desk support. AssetWorks will provide training as listed above. FuelFocus is modular in design with many front panel diagnostic support features. These features generally allow easy system diagnostics and component replacement in the event malfunctions should occur. • Palo Alto is responsible for providing a live LAN connection at the fuel island controllers. • This quote is based on site being "FMS Ready". FMS Ready means that all FMS System pedestals will be mounted to the appropriate location. All conduits will be connected between the FuelFocus Controllers and pumps, junction boxes and breaker panels. All wires will be pulled and left disconnected at each end. See full FMS Ready description below. • Does not include architectural drawings. • Does not include on vehicle hardware installation (does include training). Definition of "FMS Ready" Following represents a checklist of items that need to be performed to comply with "FMS Ready." 1} Construction Requirements -Have an electrical contractor mount the FMS System pedestals and fasten to concrete. 2} Conduit Requirements -Have electrician run a conduit from the master dispensers to pedestal as needed. Our electrical requirements to each FMS Controller are as follows: a. We will need dedicated power from a circuit breaker panel to each FMS Controller. The power for each FMS Controller can be pulled off one circuit breaker. b. We will need a dedicated conduit back to the building from each FMS Controller for communication wiring. These may be looped also. c. We will need one conduit from the pedestal to be terminated in the dispenser electrical junction box. d. We will either need: 1. A second conduit from the pedestal to the pulser junction box in the dispenser, or 2. The pulser junction box in the dispenser piped over to the electrical junction box in the dispenser 3} Cable Requirements -Have electrician pull the following cables -leaving at least three feet extra to extend above the top of the pedestal and as much as possible to fit in the electrical junction box within the dispensers: The items lettered below correspond with the same letter of the conduit above. a. Three 14AWG minimum THHN gas/oil resistant wires for power, neutral, ground to each FMS Controller from breaker panel. Terminate at panel, wire nut FMS System ends and mark breaker. Lock breaker in off position b. Pull whatever cable is appropriate based on client demands and location parameters to ensure a reliable TCP/IP ethernet connectivity at the fuel island. This may be a CAT5 cable, fiber optics or RF Ethernet connectivity. If the TLS Interface option is chosen a four conductor shielded cable 22AWG minimum from TLS System to the FuelFocus Controller is also needed. Short haul modems may be necessary. c. Pull four 14AWG minimum THHN gas/oil resistant wires to each pump/dispenser (eight if it is a two hose pump/dispenser) electrical junction box for control wiring. One of these wires should be white for neutral. d. Pull a four conductor 22AWG minimum shielded cable to the dispenser for pulser communication. 4) Mount and connect Banner Overhead Sensors if applicable (Transits only) 5) Call AssetWorks to schedule a date for final terminations when all of the above is done. Note -all wiring and conduits described above are what are needed for FMS System control only. This document assumes the station and dispensers to be wired already. AssetWorks Attachment 1· SOW 6 The following graph depicts the proposed project plan for this project. AssetWorks and Palo Alto will review and agree on all dates and tasks before the project begins. Please see the complete Microsoft Project document for a complete project plan, including a Gantt chart. AssetWorks resources are scheduled after contract award. AssetWorks Attachment 1· SOW .... ! ~ i ~! Ii ~ -I -: '-'1 fi Ql: + ,.j 7 The following general assumptions apply to this proposal: General 1. Services will be provided on a time and materials basis. The actual hours delivered may be less than or greater than the estimated hours. 2. AssetWorks' consulting estimates do not include installation and/or configuration of any computer hardware and peripheral equipment other than the FuelFocus related hardware components. The end user will be responsible for installing and configuring computer hardware and peripheral equipment such as printers and bar code equipment (if applicable). 3. Palo Alto will have all of the necessary and appropriate personnel at all of the meetings for the purpose of defining the requirements of the system. 4. Palo Alto will appoint a single point of contact for the duration of the project. This person should have project management responsibilities and decision-making authority. This person will be the focal pOint of contact for AssetWorks' Customer Support department. 5. All training sessions will be based on standard application training materials. 6. Palo Alto will implement this solution such that all assets will be in a single production FASuite database. 7. AssetWorks will provide remote and on-site training to Palo Alto (as outlined above) in a classroom environment suitable for training. Palo Alto will be responsible for providing and preparing the training facility. 8. This proposal includes only the interfaces stated in this Statement of Work between FASuite and other systems. AssetWorks will provide estimates for other interfaces as may be required on an as-needed basis. 9. Palo Alto will receive all standard, out-of-the-box reports at no extra cost. 10. This Statement of Work does not include any costs associated with 3rd party vendors or software that may be needed to complete the implementation. 11. Palo Alto commits to training appropriate functional and technical resources as required. 12. Palo Alto is responsible for all manual data entry. Project Management and Risk Factors 13. The Palo Alto project manager will be responsible for obtaining any required authorizations, approvals and/or signoffs by Palo Alto related to project deliverables and projecfprogression in a timeframe in alignment with the project work plan. Delays to this process as well as any Palo Alto tasks not completed within the work plan timeframe will be subject to the Change Order Management process, delayed deadlines, and increased services fees. 14. This Statement of Work does not include the expenses associated with Palo Alto or Palo Alto resources assigned to the project. 15. Palo Alto remains responsible for all integration effort not described in this Statement of Work. 16. The project schedule is contingent upon the timely attainment of several external milestones that are outside the control of AssetWorks. Examples include but are not limited to the acquisition of the requisite software licenses and hardware and the approval of requisite capital appropriation requests as required. AssetWorks Attachment 1-SOW 8 17. Circumstances may necessitate changes to the tasks and/or time estimates, at which time AssetWorks and Palo Alto will discuss these changes in good faith at their earliest opportunity. Infrastructu re 18. Palo Alto will provide a project work area and infrastructure at the centralized implementation location appropriate for the size of the combined Palo Alto/AssetWorks project team. This infrastructure should include desks, chairs, telephones, and workstations with network access to printers and to the applications and implementation databases. 19. System, server, and workstation backups are the responsibility of Palo Alto. This includes the development and execution of the system backups and recovery programs. 20. Palo Alto personnel assume the responsibility for applying software patches. 21. Acquisition, installation,testing, support, and tuning of any additional required application software, hardware, RDBMS, other software, peripherals and communications infrastructure will be the responsibility of Palo Alto.- 22. Palo Alto will be responsible for deploying access to the FASuite system and for providing all supporting software, hardware, and connectivity for the servers. The Web server must use Microsoft liS. 23. The following information technology services are not included in this Statement of Work: network connections; telecommunications network{s); operating system, network and database administration; disaster recovery planning; the acquisition, installation, testing and tuning of any required hardware, operating software, peripherals and communications infrastructure. Palo Alto Resources 24. Assumes all key Palo Alto project team resources will be committed to the project as of the project start date. 25. Assumes Palo Alto will provide the following resources to insure a successful implementation of the products. o Executive Steering Committee -Without proper vision and guidance from a company's executives, many projects fail to reach their desired goals and objectives. The role of the Executive Steering Committee will be to partiCipate in setting the goals and scope of the project and to participate in periodic status meetings with the project team. o Project Manager -A Project Manager will be assigned with appropriate decision-making authority. o Subject Matter Experts -These resources will be considered part of the core project team and will participate in tasks including Project Team training. Often these experts consist of Functional Leads in their respective areas of expertise (e.g., Bus Maintenance), as well as other supporting personnel from the various departments. The resources designated for these roles should have a good working knowledge of how Palo Alto processes are performed and understand the reasons for the current processes. o Technical Experts A team of Technical Experts will be involved in the technical duties that come with a AssetWorks implementation. Examples include a Technical Lead for system administration, database administration, web administration, rinter administration, software n"'lf"I~'" ··<·-_::~i~:~~~·:--F~f:;~·' "-... . --,----.'-'----.-.. --.--. " -", AssetWorks Attachment 1· SOW 9 FuelFocus FMS System Test Plan Island Controller and Dispenser Functionality DESCRIPTION PASS FAIL Validate the system is wired properly by trying to pump fuel on all hoses without entering valid data on the Island Controller with all hoses in AUTO. Should not be able to get fuel on any hose. Validate the system is wired properly by trying to pump fuel on all hoses without entering valid data on the Island Controller with all hoses in BYPASS. Should be able to dispense fuel on all hoses. Validate the system is not cross wired or getting electrical feedback by placing one hose in bypass and testing all others. Hose in bypass should allow fuel all others should not dispense fuel. Repeat on all hoses. Validate a diesel vehicle cannot obtain unleaded fuel. Validate a unleaded vehicle cannot obtain diesel fuel. Validate prompts work as expected. Demonstrate RF reads from a Vehicle Identification Box (VIB) on all hoses using RFWatch Train the client on the following Island Controller Functions: ers Bypass I RFWatch I Hose Watch Reset Hose Supervisor Mode 10 Watch Bypass Switches Power Switch location of Controller UPS location of Controller Network Connections Validate a dispenser will stop fueling when the maximum tank volume set in FleetFocus is reached Validate after pulse timer works AssetWorks Attachment 1-SOW COMMENTS 10 FILL ONE OfTHESE SHEETS OUT FOR EACH ICU AT CLIENTS LOCATIONS: ICUIt: LOCATION: (Record lIehicle # used and gallons dispensed In comment section jor each PASS FAIL Dispense fuel from hose 1. Utilizing Hose Watch, validate proper pulses. Vehicle#: Gallons: Dispense fuel from hose 2. Utilizing Hose Watch, validate proper pulses. Vehicle #: Gallons: Dispense fuel from hose 3. Utilizing Hose Watch, validate proper pulses. Vehicle#: Gallons: ~ from h"" 4. u,m ... Hm. W"'h. "'~,,. P"'PO< P""O<. Vehicle It: Gallons: fuel from hose 5. Utilizing Hose Watch, validate proper pulses. Vehicle #: Gallons: fuel from hose 6. Utilizing Hose Watch, validate proper pulses. VehiCle#: Gallons: fuel from hose 7. Utilizing Hose Watch, validate proper pulses. Vehlcle#: Gallons: Dispense fuel from hose 8. Utilizing Hose Watch, validate proper pulses. Vehicle #: Gallons: Dispense fuel from hose 9. Utilizing Hose Watch, validate proper pulses. Vehicle It: Gallons: Dispense fuel from hose 10. Utilizing Hose Watch, validate proper pulses. Vehicle #: Gallons: Dispense fuel from hose 11. Utilizing Hose Watch, validate proper pulses. Vehicle It: Gallons: Dispense fuel from hose 12. Utilizing Hose Watch, validate proper pulses. Vehicle #: Gallons: Dispense fuel from hose 13. Utilizing Hose Watch, validate proper pulses. Vehicle It: Gallons: Dispense fuel from hose 14. Utilizing Hose Watch, validate proper pulses. Vehicle It: Gallons: Dispense fuel from hose 15. Utilizing Hose Watch, validate proper pulses. Vehicle It: Gallons: Dispense fuel from hose 16. Utilizing Hose Watch, validate proper pulses. Vehicle It: Gallons: .. FuelFocus Application Setup and Training Functlonahty DESCRIPTION PASS FAIL COMMENTS Train client on the following configuration items in FleetFocus: Setup and configuration of Product/Fuel Types Setup and configuration of Pumps Setup and configuration of Tanks Setup and configuration of Facility Codes Setup and configuration of Island Controllers Setup and configuration of Vehicle Fuel Cards ~n of Vehicle Products & Tank Capacity n of Employee Fuel Cards Setup and configuration of Radmin Viewer Setup and configuration of ICU Viewer Setup and configuration ofTecProg Setup and configuration of Manager Bypass Password Setup and configuration of Credit Card Vehicle Setup and ensure Whltellst is rUnning Validate the test transactions are in the application/database Explanation of all files on Island Controller Training on the starting and stopping of controller programs Training on Report Generation in FleetFocus Training on Error Handling Screen/Processing Rejected Transactions AssetWorks Attachment 1-SOW 11 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEP ARMENT: UTILITIES DATE: JUNE 1,2009 CMR: 259:09 REPORT TYPE: CONSENT SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Amending Utilities Rule and Regulation 21 (Special Water Utility Regulation) Governing the City's Water Cross- Connection Control Program RECOMMENDATION Staff requests that the City Council adopt the attached resolution to amend Utility Rule and Regulation 21 (Special Water Utility Regulations) to update the City's Water Cross-Connection rules to comply with the latest California Department of Public Health (CDPH) requirements, and to respond to customer requests for smaller fire services and increase the hydrant meter refundable deposit to match the meter assembly value. BACKGROUND The main purpose of a Cross-Connection Control Program is to prevent contaminants and pollutants from flowing backwards into potable drinking water supplies. The City's Cross- Connection Control Program was started in the late 1980s to comply with requirements of the California Code of Regulations, Title 17 sections 7583 through 7605. Because the City manages the public water supply, it is responsible for implementing the Cross Connection Control Program. The revision to this Utilities Rule and Regulation is needed to comply with CDPH requirements. Staff also updated sections of Rule 21 to respond to customer requests and changing hydrant meter costs. DISCUSSION Rule and Regulation 21 addresses the implementation and execution of the Cross Connection Control Program. Specific areas of the regulation that required updating were: the location of water backflow preventer devices, type of backflow preventers required, hazards to protect against, and responsibility for installation and maintenance of backflow devices. Staff consulted with the CDPH to ensure that the new regulations met their requirements. Due to higher costs of adding cross connection control to fire hydrant meters, Rule 21 was revised to increase the deposit on hydrant meters. Rule 21 addresses customer requests for smaller fire services by reducing the minimum size fire service from 4" to 2". CMR: 259:09 Page 1 of2 RESOURCE IMPACT There are no resource impacts to the City as a result of these language changes. POLICY IMPLICATIONS These recommendations do not represent a change in current City policies. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW These changes to the Rules and Regulations do not meet the definition of a project under Section 21065 of the California Environmental Air Quality Act Guidelines; therefore, no environmental assessment is required. ATTACHMENTS A: Resolution B: Utility Rule and Regulation 21 showing proposed changes PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR: 259:09 ROLAND EKSTRAND -Senior Project sngi~ GREG SCOBY -Engineering Manage~ ~MMARSHALL ~t Director, Utilities Engineering VALEK Page 2 of2 All ACHMENl A NOT YET APPROVED Resolution No. -- Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the City of Palo Alto Utility Rule and Regulation 21 (Special Water Utility Regulation) Governing Cross-Connection Control The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Rule and Regulation 21 (Special Water Utility Regulation) is hereby amended to read as set forth in amended Rule and Regulation 21 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The foregoing Rule and Regulation, as amended, shall become effective on July 1, 2009. Except as specifically amended by this resolution, all existing rules and regulations shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 2. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet the definition of a project under Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, thus no environmental review is required. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager Deputy City Attorney Director of Utilities Director of Administrative Services 090526 syn 6050779 ATTACHMENT B SPECIAL WATER UTILITY REGULATION RULE AND REGULATION 21 A. AUTOMATIC FIRE SERVICE: 1. PURPOSE An automatic fire service connection in 4f-inch to 10-inch size will be furnished only if adequate provisions are made to prevent the use of water for purposes other than fire extinguishing. 2. APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT The Applicant will be required to sign an application for CPAU connection and agree to operate the fire service in accordance with these Rules and Regulations. The applicant, at the applicant's expense, will be required to install an approved backflow protection assembly in accordance with Title 17 of the California Administrative Code and City standards. 3. INSTALLATION CHARGES The Applicant will be required to make payment in advance of construction in accordance with CPAU's applicable Connection Fee rate schedule. 4. QUANTITATIVE CHARGES (A) Water for fires: no charges will be made for water used to extinguish accidental fires. (B) Other: Water used for any purpose other than extinguishing fires or testing or repairing fire extinguishing facilities, shall be paid for under Water Rate Schedule W- 3. Unauthorized water used shall be subject to criminal prosecution as set forth in Water Rate Schedule W-3. 5. VIOLATION OF AGREEMENT If water is used from a fire service in violation of the agreement or of these Regulations, CPAU may, at its option, levy a fine and discontinue and remove a service in addition to charging for the water illegally used. If service is removed, customer will be responsible tor the expense of remova 1 and i n stall ati on of new service before the new service CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council CITY OF PALO ALTO UTI LlTI ES Sheet No. 1 6. OWNERSHIP OF CONNECTION SPECIAL WATER UTILITY REGULATION RULE AND REGULATION 21 (Continued) The service connection and all associated equipment shall be the sole property ofCP AU, and no part of the cost thereof will be refunded to the Applicant. 7. PRESSURE AND SUPPLY CPAU assumes no responsibility for loss or damage because oflack of water or pressure and merely agrees to furnish such quantities and pressures as are available in its general distribution system. The service is subject to shutdowns and variations required by the operation of the water system and system demands. B. FIRE HYDRANTS: 1. USE OF AND DAMAGE OF FIRE HYDRANTS No person or persons, other than those designated and authorized by the proper authority, or by CP AU., shall open any fire hydrant, attempt to draw water from it or in any manner damage or tamper with it. Any violation of this regulation will be prosecuted according to law. (A) The following conditions must be met for a person(s) to draw water from a public fire hydrant: (1) Prior to use at a construction site or for any other purpose, a person must first apply to CPAU for a Fire Hydrant Meter Permit. (2) A deposit of $1.500.00 on the Hydrant Meter, which is supplied by CPAU, will be required. (3) Monthly meter reading cards must be submitted by the permittee to CPAU on a timely basis. (4) Charges to be billed and paid according to CPAU's applicable water service rate schedule for Fire Hydrants. CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Effective ~~~~~~ Sheet No. 2 SPECIAL WATER UTILITY REGULATION RULE AND REGULATION 21 (Continued) (5) All water taken from the fire hydrant must be registered on the hydrant meter. It is illegal to draw water from a hydrant without the hydrant meter attached to record the volumes. (B) Fines and Penalties (1) Any person(s) drawing water from a public fire hydrant who does not meet either of the conditions described in Rule 21 B.l. (A) (1) or Rule 21 B.l (A) (5) shall be subject to criminal prosecution. (2) Failure to submit timely meter reading cards may result in forfeiture of all or part of the Customer deposit. (3) Failure to return the hydrant meter at the end of the appropriate period may result in additional charges of $50.00 per day. (4) Individual or companies who are found in violation of Rule 21 B.l.(A)(1) or Rule 21.B.l(A)(5) on more than one occasion in a three year period may be denied any use of fire hydrant water service. Such Customer may use reclaimed water. 2. MOVING OF FIRE HYDRANTS When a fire hydrant has been installed in the location specified by the proper authority, CP AU has fulfilled its obligation. If a property owner or other party desires a change in the size, type, or location of the hydrant, the owner shall bear all the cost of such changes, without refund. Any change in the location of a fire hydrant must be approved by the proper authority. The cost of relocation shall be as estimated by the Engineering Manager for water- gas-wastewater. This cost estimate must be paid to CP AU before relocation can begin. C. CONTROL VALVES The Customer shall install a suitable valve, as close to the meter location as practicable, the operation of which will control the entire water supply from the service. The operation by the Customer of the Utilities shut-off equipment at the meter is not permitted. CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Effective "-=~~-"-=~~ Sheet No. 3 D. CROSS CONNECTIONS 1. HEALTH REGULATIONS SPECIAL WATER UTILITY REGULATION RULE AND REGULATION 21 (Continued) No physical connection between the potable water supply of the Utility and that of any other water supply source will be permitted except in compliance with the current regulations of the State Department of Public Health contained in Title 17 of the California Administrative Code, Chapter 5, Subchapter 1, Group 4, Sections 7583 through 7604 (hereafter "State Regulations"). 2. UTILITY REQUIREMENTS To comply with the regulation of the State Department of Health Services, the Utility will require installation of University of Southern California's (USC) Foundation for Cross Connection Control approved backflow protection devices. A list of approved devices and other background infcnmation can be found at the Foundation's website: http://www.llsc.edu/dept/fccchr/list.html. The approved backt10w device must be installed on private propeliLat a location within 5 feet of the point of service (property line/meter) approved by the Utility pursuant to State Regulation by, and at the expense of the Customer, before service will be granted or upgraded under any of the following conditions: (A) For single family residential customers an approved reduced pressure principle assemblv (RPPA) backt10w device is required, when an unapproved fresh water supply is already available (not connected to the domestic water supply) from a well, spring, reservoir, or other source. If the Custoiner agrees to abandon this other supply and agrees to remove all pumps and piping necessary for the utilization of this supply, the installation of back flow protective devices will not be required. (B) For commercial or industrial fire services. an RPP A detector backflow device shall be installed for the existing or new water connections for the fire system, alternative backflow devices may be installed only at the direction of the Utilities WOW Senior Proj ect Engineer for customer service. RPP A detector backflow devices shelll he installed on the owner's property adjacent to the point of service within 5 feet of the propeliy line. CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council CITY OF PALO ALTO UTI LlTI ES Effective xx-xx -xxxx Sheet No. 4 SPECIAL WATER UTILITY REGULATION RULE AND REGULATION 21 (Continued) (C) Single and multi family residences that are fire sprinklered ofT the domestic water servic~shall have an approved doqble check assembly installed on the main water service connection. Double check assemblies shall be installed on the owner's prope11y adjacent to the point of service within 5 feet of the property line. (D) ConmlerciaL industrial. retail. and multi-unit housing (more than 4 units in building} ~ater applicants shall install RPP A backflow pr0tection~or all water services including irrigation. The RPPA backf10w preventer shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the point of service within 5 feet of the property line. (E) Existing 'water connections (cQ1.11111ercial, industr!?l or domestic) will be reg uired to install RPPA backflow protection at the customers expense within 90 days of notification when: b}-The 1. ai-S(iltWhere salt water, or water otherwise polluted, is available for industrial or fire protection purposes, or where fresh water hydrants are or may be installed on piers or docks.;.,.-:- 11. (C) Where the premises are now or may be engaged in processes which produce industrial wastes, or where the premises are or may be engaged in handling sewage or any other dangerous substances;-:- llI. (D) Where the circumstances are such that there is special danger of backflow of sewage or other contaminated liquids through plumbing fixtures of water-using or treating equipment, or storage tanks and reservoirs.;.,.~ lV, Elj-Where gray water, stored rainwatt::r, well water, reclaimed water or other unapPLoyed source of water is used for irrigation or toilet Hushing. v. EE)--Where an approved water supply line terminates at a pier head outlet ---which is used to supply vessels at piers or water fronts. These installations shall be located where they will prevent the return of any water from a vessel or any other source into the approved water supply line. VI. Where the customer is engaged in the handling of dangerous or corrosive li.gl,lids, or industrial or process water. (F) Anv water connection will be immediately shut otT if found to be cross connected CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Effective xx-xx-xxxx Sheet No. 5 SPECIAL WATER UTILITY REGULATION RULE AND REGULATION 21 (Continued) anywh~l'~mQI1 the propertv with an llr1?pprovedsource of waterQTgther contCll1ljl1cll1t. (G) Wh~re backflow prevention i§r~quired, the customer shall provide the City with the USC's Foundation for Cross Connection Control approval for the device and have the device certified by a State lice[1,')ed backilowdevice tester bd~2re the \vater 3. PLUMBING CHANGES REQUIRED In special circumstances, where the customer is engaged in the handling of especially dangerous or corrosive liquids, or industrial or process water, the Utility may require the customer to eliminate certain plumbing or piping connections as an additional precaution and as a protection to the backflow preventive devices. In making plumbing connections beyond the backflow prevention device to the service, the customer shall be guided entirely by local or state plumbing ordinances and the state regulations, and not by the Utility. 4. RELIEF VALVE REQUIRED As a protection to the customer's plumbing system, a suitable pressure relief valve must be installed and maintained by the customer, and at the expense of the customer, when backflow prevention devices are used. The relief valve shall be installed between the backflow device and the water heater. 5. BACKFLOW PROTECTION ON ADDITIONAL WATER SUPPLY LINES Whenever backflow protection has been found necessary on a water supply line entering a customer's premises, then any and all water supply lines from the Utility's mains entering such premises, buildings, or structures shall be protected by an approved backflow device in conformance with state regulations, regardless of the use ofthe additional water supply lines. 6. PROTECTION AGAINST INTERSTREET MAIN FLOW Two or more services supplying water from different street mains to the same building structure or premises through which an interstreet main flow may occur shall have an approved backflow device on each water service to be located adjacent to and on the private property side of the respective meter or service lines. CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Effective xx-xx -xxxx Sheet No. 6 SPECIAL WATER UTILITY REGULATION RULE AND REGULATION 21 (Continued) 7. INSPECTION OF BACKFLOW PROTECTIVE DEVICES (A) The reduced pressure assembly, double check valve or other approved baekflo'vV protection devices may be inspected and tested periodically for \valer tightness by--+!w Utility. (B) In addition, the regulations o[tlle State Depm"t111ent of Public Health requires that the owner of any premises on which required back flow preventerscheck valves or other protective devices are installed shall have the device inspected by a certified backflow device tester recognized by the State of Califc)fnia and on file with the City of Palo Alto for water tightness and reliability at least once every year in cOnfCnTI1anCe with the regulations of the State Depmiment of Public Health. The devices shall be serviced annually, overhauled or replaced whenever they are found defective and all expense and responsibilitv for costs ofrepair and maintenance shall be borne by the customer. The annual testing certificates shall be sent to the Water TransmissionDistribution Supervisor/Cross Connection Control Specialist, City of Palo Alto, P.O. Box 10250, Palo Alto, CA 94301 on the anniversary of the device~s initial testing. If the backflow testing certificate is not received within 90 days of notification by the due dateCity, the City may-will remove the water meter. Water service will be restored when the customer provides certification that the back flow device has been tested and approved by a celiified tester, and the customer pays for the re-installation of the meter. ill) The City reserves -the right to perform additional inspection or testing of an v feq uired backtlow protection devices as it deems necessary. 8. DISCONTINUANCE OF SERVICE FOR DEFECTIVE APPARATUS The service of water to any premises may be immediately discontinued by the Utility if any defect is found in the backflow device installations or other protective devices, or if it is found that dangerous unprotected cross connections exist. Service will not be restored until such defects are corrected by and at the expense of the customer. E. IRRIGATION METERS: CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council CITY OF PALO ALTO UTI LlTI ES Effective xx-xx-xxxx Sheet No.7 SPECIAL WATER UTILITY REGULATION RULE AND REGULATION 21 (Continued) Water Service for all new and rehabilitated industrial, commercial, and institutional landscaping and new and rehabilitated multi-family common areas requiring a permit or review by the City shall be provided by a separate irrigation meter. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account and no other utilities will be billed on such accounts. The customer shall pay for the additional service according to rate schedule W-5. F. WASTE OF WATER In the event that waste of water shall be found, due to leaking, defective, or wasteful equipment, the City will notify the customer. If the customer does not take reasonable steps to curb this waste, the City shall have the right, after giving due notice, to discontinue service to the customer until the repairs have been completed on the customer's equipment. G. MAINTENANCE OF THE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 1. CP AU RESPONSIBILITY CPAU will be responsible for the maintenance of the water service from, and including, the water meter located near the street curb to, and including, the water main and the remainder of the system, except that the expense of water maintenance resulting from violation of the Municipal Code, or of these Regulations may be assigned to the user, or CPAU may refuse to perform such maintenance. In easements, CPAU's responsibility is limited to the water mains and water meters. 2. CUSTOMER RESPONSIBILITY The customer will be responsible for replacing services that are not current standard size or a current standard material when building a new structure or constructing additions/remodels that have a value greater than 50% of the current value of the existing structures on the lot. Reconnection to the City water services will only be allowed on current standard services. All other services must be replaced, per the WGWutility Standards, from the main up to and including the water meter box at the fees listed in the Utility fee schedule. The customer will be responsible for maintenance of the on-site water distribution system downstream of the water meter in accordance with the Municipal Code, including the water meter vaults and boxes. It shall be the responsibility of the customer to keep the top of the CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Effective KX-XX-XXXX Sheet No.8 SPECIAL WATER UTILITY REGULATION RULE AND REGULATION 21 (Continued) water meter, vault or box at ground level and clear of vegetation or any other obstruction. If after a 30 day notice from the Utility the customer has not caused the meter, vault, or box to be at ground level and clear of vegetation or obstructions, the Utility will perform the work at the customer expense. The customer will pay the actual cost to the Utility for the work, and such charge shall be added to the customer monthly bill. CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES {End} Effective XX-XX -XXXX Sheet No. 9 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DATE: JUNE 1,2009 REPORT TYPE: CONSENT CMR:257:09 SUBJECT: Approval of a Change Order to the Contract with AJF Builders, Inc. to Add $89,447 for a Total Contract Amount of $623,698 for Fire Stations 5 and 8 Improvements -Capital Improvement Program Project PF - 01004 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council: I. Approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the attached contract change order with AJF Builders, Inc., to add $89,447 to the contrlIDt for It total contract amount of $623,698 for Fire Station 5 and 8 Improvements -Capital Improvement Program ProjectPF -01004. 2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with AJF Builders, Inc., in an additional amount not to exceed $14,000 for related, additional but unforeseen work that may develop during the project. DISCUSSION Background Council approved a contract with AJF Builders, Inc. on December 8, 2008 (CMR:455:08). The work performed under this contract provided for the renovation and seiamic upgrade of Fire Stations 5 and 8. proj ect Description During the course of construction, extensive unforeseen damage was discovered at both fire stations. At Fire Station 5, following the tear-off of the roof, additional dry rot was found beyond that determined in the design phase. Due to these unforeseen conditions, additional repairs were required including beam replacement and repair of rafter tails, eave boards, and glue laminated beams. Within the interior of the structure, there were various concealed conditions that were addressed during construction including plumbing and electrical in walls, and conduit in the slab. During Fire Station 8 demolition, the contractor found animal damage and infestation, and dry rot and mold in the walls. Removal of gypsum board in selected areas, kitchen cabinets, and restroom fixtures was required to determine the cause of the mold problem. Limited mold remediation was completed by an environmental contractor, and further investigation was completed to determine the probable cause. The architect determined that the non-conventional construction method originally used was probable cause for the conditions found. Various improvements to mitigate the potential for future problems Were recommended. These include the installation of exterior paper and siding; replacement of windows and trim; removal of viscuine, insulation and gypsum board; and installation of new insulation and gypsum board. The Qriginal contract contingency funds in the amount of $69,700 were used to address the issues identified at Station 5, and to address limited demolition and cleanup at Station 8. As Station No. 8 is not staffed until July 1, priority was placed on completion of Station 5 to allow occupancy as soon as possible. Additional funds in the amount of $89,447 are now requested for the completion of work at Station 5 and the wark recommended above for Station 8 to allow occupancy before the summer fire season begins. Additional contingency funds of $14,000 are requested for further unforeseen conditions such as dry rot or mold. RESOURCE IMPACT Funds for this work are available in Capital Improvement Program Project PF-OI004 -Fire Station Improvements. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This recommendation does not represent any change to existing City policies. ENViRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15301 as an alteration to an existing facility and no further environmental review is necessary. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Change Order PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL KAREN SMITH Manager, Facilities Maintetlance & Projects I:£j,~ .. GLENN S. ROBERTS Director of Public Works ATTACHMENT A -------------~ .... -.-.-------------~ ... Project Title: Fire Station 5 &8lmp rovements -Construction Project Number: NIA Phase --_ ... _-._---... Contract Number: C1l9129264 Data: 06101109 ....... _--,--- Contractor: AJF Builders Change Order CPACOt#24 Number: , Inc. -- Description of Change Order Background Information: Change Order Justification: During the course of construction, ext -,.-----,,-_._.......--- ensive unforeseen damage was discovered at both Fire Stations 5 and B. Additional repairs were required at Stalion 5 including lails, eave boards, and glue laminated beams. e were various concealed conditions thai were g plumbing and electrical in walis, and conduit ! beam replacement and repair of rafter Within the intenor of the structure, ther addressed during construction includin in the slab. , During Fire Station 8 demolition, the co ntractor found animal damage and infestation, i Removal of gypsum board in selected areas, : : and dry rot and mold in the walls. kitchen cabinets, and restroom fixture S was required to determine the cause of the , mined that the non-conventional construction e cause for the conditions found. Various al for future problems were recommended. lOr paper and siding; replacement of windows on and gypsum board; and Installation of new : mold problem. The architect deter , method originally used was probabl improvements to mitigate the potenti These include the installation of exter" and trim; removal of viscuine, insulati .i.nsulation and 9l'l1sum board ._----- Increase contract with AJF Builders, In C. for the repair of concealed and unforeseen conditions in the amount of $89,447. roeacrlpj.ion of Work to be Station B exterior siding, windows, inte rior insulalion and drywall, restroom . Performed: renovation, and replacement of kitchen cabinets. Station 5 replacement of apparatus , bay light fixtures, plumbing and electric ~-----~----- : Incorporates Field Order Work is described in contractor's pendi al connec:tlons for extractor/d.-!.ry..;,e..;,r. ____ -I ng change order requests #3,4,5,11, 12,24R3, Number(s): . 25 and 26, ,--~---.. ._-----.. Cost Time Change order will: This Change order will: 0 Not change cost a Not change time ! X Increase contract and contingency by $89,447. X Increase time by 48 days a Decrease cost by $ 0 Decrease time by days ! The date of completion liS of this change order is -._--... Note GIL account number (s) here (see GIL #'s below): July 3, 2009. -,- ApPEllolX 8-CONTRACT CHANGE OI!llER PAGE 1 OF3 Contract Change Order City of Palo Alto Department: Public Works Facilities Management Contract Number: C09129624 Basis for change in Cl Unit price(s) X lump sum 1:1 Cost plus % 1:1 Other: -~~" .. ~-- Contract Change Order Form -continued ... __ ..... ... __ ..... The undersigned Contractor approves this Change Order as to the ebunges, if any, in the contract price specified for each Line Item and as to the extension oftime allowed, if any, for completion oftha entire work on account of each Line Item, and agrees to furnish all labor and materials and perform all work necessary to complete any additiooal work specified therein, for the cOIk,ideration stated therein. It is understood that the lime and cosl adj1lstments set forth in this Change Order include full compensation fur any impacts or &Iays asSQciated with-the Line Items addressed in this Change Order. ... --.. ,- Accepted for Contractor: Accepted for City of Palo Alto: .•....... ~ By: Anthony Franceschini By: Karen Smith .. ~-~ .... - Title: President, AJF Builders, Inc. Title: Manager, Facilities Maintenance and Projects . -~ Date: Date: 611/2009 ~ .. ---.- Summary of Amounts Payable Under Contract (For Intemel Purposes Only) Amount of Original Contract $ 464,551,00 Net affect of all Change Orders $ lSI},147.00 Revised Contract Total: $ 623,6911.00 Compare to: I Original Contract Amount: $ 464,551.00 Add: Contract and $ 173,147.00 Contingency: Total Authorized Funding: $ 637,6911.00 Change orders shall not be initiated tor Council-approved contracts If the revised contrect total exceeds the totel authorized funding amount. PAGE20F3 APl'ENlllJ( S...comRACT CIlAHGE OIIDE. Document Preparation By: Karen Smith Title: Manager, Facilities Maintenance and Projects Date : 5/\9/09 City Approval -Required on all change ordere By: Karen Smith Title: Manager, Facilities Maintenance and Projects Date : 06/01109 City Approval-Department Head signature required when any Individual Change Order exceeds $10,000. By: Glenn Roberts TItle: Director ofPnblic Works Date: 06/01109 i\Pl'ENDIX B-CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER CITY OF PALO ALTO Memorandum TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DATE: JUNE 1,2009 CMR:226:09 REPORT TYPE: REPORTS OF OFFICIAL SUBJECT: Discussion on Termination of Option Agreements Between the City and Essex Park Boulevard, LLC and Brown-Fairchild Park Investment Company, L.P. for the Purchase of the Properties Located at 2785 Park Boulevard and 2747 Park Boulevard, Respectively and Direction to Pursue Alternative Land Banking Options for Public Safety Building The above-referenced City Manager's Report (CMR:226:09) was continued from the Council meeting of May 18, 2009. Copies of this report and attachments can be viewed http;llwww.cityofpaloalto.orglknowzone/agendas/council.asp or by contacting Engineering Division, Elizabeth Ames, Senior Engineer at 650-329-2502. iil~ - GLENN S. ROBERTS Director of Public Works on-line at Public Works TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: MAY 18,2009 REPORT TYPE: REPORTS OF OFFICIAL DEP ARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES CMR:226:09 SUBJECT: Discussion on Termination of Option Agreements Between the City and Essex Park Boulevard, LLC and Brown-Fairchild Park Investment Company, L.P. for the Purchase of the Properties Located at 2785 Park Boulevard and 2747 Park Boulevard, Respectively and Direction to Pursue Alternative Land Banking Options for Public Safety Building EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides information leading to a staff recommendation to terminate the land purchase option agreements with Essex Park Boulevard, LLC and Brown-Fairchild Investment Company, L.P. for properties located at 2785 and 2747 Park Boulevard respectively. These properties were to be used for the City's Public Safety Building project but since the downturn in the economy the values of the two properties have dropped dramatically and the City does not have a sound financing plan to fund the project. Instead, staff recommends pursuing an alternative land banking proposal which will allow the City to acquire property in a record low market, but defer larger capital costs until the economy improves. Design on the project has been suspended at the 35% stage. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council authorize: 1. The City Manager to execute the attached Notices of Termination of the Option Agreements (Attachment A) between the City and Essex Park Boulevard, LLC, for the purchase of the property located at 2785 Park Boulevard; and between the City and Brown Fairchild-Park Investment Company, L.P., for the purchase of the property located at 2747 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto and 2. Staff to pursue landbanking options which will generally accommodate the facility needs set forth in the Blue Ribbon Task Force Report approved by the Council in June 2006. BACKGROUND In December 2005, Council directed the Mayor to appoint a community-based Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) to evaluate the need, size, cost and site for a public safety building. In June 2006, the Council accepted and approved the Public Safety Building Blue Ribbon Task Force recommendations to consider a new Public Safety Building totaling 49,600 square feet at the two-parcel, 1.51 acre site located at 2785 Park Boulevard. CMR:226:09 Page 1 On November 17, 2007 (CMR:420:07) Council authorized the City Manager to enter into an Option Agreement to purchase the property from the owner, Essex Park Boulevard, LLC (Essex) for the purchase price of $10,900,000. Structuring the transaction as an option agreement, rather than an outright purchase, allowed the City to secure the property and lock in a price. Terms of the option agreement include a 30-month term which began in November 2007 and terminates in April 2010. The first option payment, in the amount of $436,000 was paid upon execution of the 'Agreement. The second through nineteenth option payments, $36,333 each, are due each month. To date the City has paid a total of $617,665 in option payments on the Essex Property. The option payments are nonrefundable and were to be credited against the total purchase price. The Agreement provides that the City may terminate the option at any time during the option term by providing Essex with a written notice. In February 2008, upon Counsel's direction, staff assembled a peer review team with architectural, construction and development expertise to evaluate the PSB project. The group expressed concern over the single L shaped option's long, inefficient rectangular parking configuration and suggested that acquisition of the adjacent .3 acre parcel located at 2747 Park Boulevard would allow for additional design flexibility and construction cost efficiencies. On May 1, 2008, staff received an offer from the owners of 2747 Park Boulevard, the Brown Fairchild-Park Investment Company, L.P. (Brown), to enter into a sale or option to purchase agreement with the City for the property. On May 12th, the City Council directed staff to proceed with the negotiations for purchase of the property and on May 19, 2008, staff received a letter of intent from Brown to enter into an option to purchase the .3 acre property for the price of $2,732,000. The terms of the option agreement include a 23-month term which began July 2008 and terminates on May 29, 2010. The first payment in the amount of $109,280, made in July 2008, secured the option for one year. The beginning of twelve monthly option payments in the amount of $9,106 is due to begin this July 1,2009. The option payments are nonrefundable, and were to be credited against the total purchase price. The Agreement provides that the City may terminate the option at any time during the option term by providing Brown with a written notice. On July 14, 2008, Council approved a design contract with RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture, Inc. (RDC) to complete the design of the PSB through construction documents. The proposed design is based on the findings of the Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) and Outside Peer Review that recommended a 50,000 sq. ft. new building be built on a 2-parcel site located at 2747 (Brown) and 2785 Park Boulevard (Essex Properties). The design and construction documents were to be completed by summer 2009. In November 2008, the City commissioned an appraisal of the Essex property which concluded that the property had significantly decreased in value. While the City did not re-appraise the smaller Brown property, a comparable decline would be expected. It is difficult to predict whether the commercial market has bottomed as there is still uncertainty created by the high level of vacancies and possibly far more layoffs in the valley. Accordingly, the negotiated option prices are now considerably above market with little likelihood of catching up by the time the City must exercise the options. CMR:226:09 Page 2 of4 DISCUSSION As reported in the First Quarter Fiscal Year 2009 Financial Results Discussion Report to Council on December 16, 2008 (CMR:462:08), the Country continues to deal with its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. And, as reported, the national and local economy is faced with a tight credit market, growing unemployment, weak banks, and a severe housing downturn. The effect on local real estate prices is being felt up and down the peninsula and Palo Alto's market is not immune. As reported by various local real estate agents, appraisers and studies, prices for commercial and residential properties have declined and commercial vacancy rates continue to rIse. As the current option agreements with Essex and Brown are no longer reflective of market conditions and there is little likelihood that the market price will catch up to the option price, staff recommends cancelling both options. Land Banking Alternative In lieu of pursuing a full scale buildout of the Public Safety Building in this economic downturn, an alternative approach is a land banking option. Under this approach, the Council may decide to purchase a property now and if the City's financial position improves, the property could be developed at a later time. Alternatively, if the City's financial position does not improve, the City could elect to sell the property. One advantage to a land banking option, is it could allow the City to recognize interim income from rental of the property. City staff has had preliminary discussions with the owners of the EssexIBrown properties and it appears that they would be willing to consider a substantial price reduction if the City were to acquire the properties now. In addition, staff has identified another site at 3045 Park Boulevard that is currently on the market and which meets the general site parameters identified by the Blue Ribbon Task Force. This site contains an approximate 17,956 square foot building and thus has significant rental income potential. Both EssexIBrown and 3045 Park have indicated a willingness to finance a large part of the purchase price. If Council is interested in pursuing a "land banking" option, staff recommends that Council direct staff to continue to negotiate with the owners of the respective properties and return to Council for consideration of a Purchase Agreement. At that time, Staff would review other long term options for a Public Safety building, such as build out of the Mezzanine floor of the current Public Safety Building and a split facility. Current Project Status Because of the severe economic downturn and its impact on City revenues, it is evident that the fmancing options for the Public Safety Building (PSB) need to be re-evaluated. There is considerable uncertainty surrounding the level of City revenues which is expected to continue at least through year 2010. The City's revised Long Range Financial Forecast shows a deficit of $7.8 million this fiscal yea( and a $10.0 million deficit next fiscal year. Under these conditions, funding the estimated $5.2 million in annual debt service for the PSB land acquisition and construction costs needs to be reassessed. Resources cited in a February 11, 2008 report to the Council (CMR:144:08 with attached CMRs:140:08 and 114:08) to pay debt service will need to be analyzed anew as economic and budget conditions remain volatile. Staff has suspended the PSB project at the 35% design stage in light of the current financial climate. CMR:226:09 Page 3 of4 Police Wing Mezzanine and other alternatives In view of the economic conditions, staff is exploring other options in addition to land banking. There has been some interest in exploring building out the mezzanine level of the existing police wing in the Civic Center. In 2002 staff and the design consultant evaluated the feasibility of this option and concluded it would require major structural work at significant additional cost and would also require temporary facilities for the Police Department during construction. Staff is reviewing this earlier report as well as other downsized options and will report back to Council in the next couple of months. RESOURCE IMPACT The City has expended the following sums on these two properties, 1) DesignlEIR Costs (September 2008 to February 2009) $1,202,667, 2) Option payments to Essex and Brown totaling $726,945 for a grand total of$1,929,612. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This recommendation does not represent a change to existing City policies. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The actions requested in this report do not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Notices of Termination of Option Agreements PREPARED BY: MARTHA MILLER DEPARTMENT HEADS: ~?:[Re7eXA=: GLENN S. ROBERTS LA Director, Administrative Services CITY MANAGER: "5/.(' Page Attachment A ~j~ .. QfJ~~2_~!9 Office of the City Manager May 18,2009 VIA PERSONAL DELIVERY Brown Fairchild-Park Investment Company, L.P. clo Vance Brown Inc. 3197 Park Blvd. Palo Alto, CA 94306 Attn: Loren K. Brown RE: Notice of Termination of Option: 2747 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto Dear Mr. Brown: Pursuant to Section 12.1 of the Option Agreement dated July 22, 2008 between the City of Palo Alto and Brown Fairchild-Park Investment Company, L.P., the City of Palo Alto hereby terminates the Option to purchase the property commonly known as 2747 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto. Very truly yours, James Keene City Manager cc: North American Title Company 090413 jb 0130459 P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2563 650.325.5025 fax VIA PERSONAL DELIVERY Essex Park Boulevard, LLC c/o Essex Property Trust, Inc. 925 East Meadow Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303 Attn: Bruce Knoblock and Jordan E. Ritter ~~~QfJ?~qM~Q Office of the City Manager May 18,2009 RE: Notice of Termination of Option: 2785 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto Dear Messrs. Knoblock and Ritter: Pursuant to Section 12.1 of the Option Agreement dated November 20, 2007 between the City of Palo Alto and Essex Park Boulevard, LLC, the City ofPalo Alto hereby terminates the Option to purchase the property commonly known as 2785 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto. Very truly yours, James Keene City Manager cc: North American Title Company 090413 jb 0130458 p.o. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2563 650.325.5025 fax City of Palo Alto City Manager's Report TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: JUNE 1,2009 TYPE OF REPORT: PUBLIC HEARING DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR: 262:09 SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Santa Clara County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Palo Alto Airport (p AO CL UP) by 1) Amending Map L-2 to include the Airport Influence Area (AlA) established in the P AO CLUP and 2) Amending the "Land Use" Element to include Program L-2B and a supplemental text box to establish a program for monitoring development within the AlA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The State established the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) to ensure orderly growth in the areas around public airports and to accomplish the ALUC established the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CL UP) guidelines. The State placed responsibility for enforcing the guidelines on the local jurisdiction . and as a result, the City and the ALUC are in a partnership to provide this orderly growth. To facilitate the partnership, the State requires that the City's regulations be consistent with the CLUP guidelines and even though Palo Alto's existing regulations are consistent, Palo Alto must demonstrate that consistency by incorporating the P A 0 CL UP into the Comprehensive Plan. Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission both recommend that the Council amend the City's Comprehensive Plan to ensure the consistency of the City's plan with County guidelines. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recomn1end that the City Council adopt a resolution (Attachment F) to amend the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Santa Clara County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Palo Alto Airport (P AO CLUP) (Attachment A) by 1) Amending Map L-2 to include the Airport Influence Area (AIA) established in the PAO CLUP and 2) Amending the "Land Use" Element to include Program L-2B and a supplemental text box to establish a program for monitoring development within the AIA. (Attachments B & C) BACKGROUND In 1971, the County of Santa Clara established the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) to be responsible for the protection of people and property within the vicinity of airports. In 1973, the ALUC adopted a Countywide Comprehensive Land Use Plan (Countywide CLUP) to help provide that protection. CMR:262:09 Page 1 of4 The Countywide CLUP fulfilled its function by regulating non-airport land use and structures in the vicinity of the airport. The Countywide CL UP contained guidelines that limited concentrations of people in areas susceptible to accidents and restricted new structures or activities that would interfere with navigable airspace. The Countywide CLUP included Airport Influence Areas (AlAs) for each airport that identified properties subject to its guidelines. These AlAs encompassed the areas typically over flown by aircraft using each airport. The Countywide CL UP was amended over the years. Then, around 2002, the County began a transition from the single, Countywide CLUP to airport-specific documents that focus on issues related to each individual airport in the County of Santa Clara. As a result of that effort, the ALUC finalized a Draft PAD CLUP in early 2008. In February 2008, ALUC staff began discussions with City staff as well as representatives from neighboring jurisdictions to address concerns and to outline the responsibilities of the City. Between February and August, ALUC staff conducted an outreach meeting with the Joint Community Relations Committee (JCRC) and attended a City Selection meeting, with Council Member Morton, to inform other City-elected officials about the PAD CLUP. On August 11,2008, the ALUC staff held a community outreach meeting in Palo Alto to formally present the proposed PAD CLUP to the local community. At the August meeting, only one issue was raised: Planning and Transportation Commissioner Keller asked for clarification regarding the logistics of implementing a requirement for an avigation easement. Between August and November, the County prepared an Initial Study and issued a Negative Declaration. City staff reviewed the environmental document and concluded it was adequate. On November 19,2008, the County adopted the Negative Declaration (Attachment D) and the PAD CLUP. (Attachment A) DISCUSSION: State law mandates that the City incorporate the PAD CLUP into its Comprehensive Plan within 180 days of the County's adoption date. Proposed Program L-2B (See Attachment C; page L-5) will be implemented in partnership with ALUC in that some projects will be referred to ALUC for review and recommendation. Referrals will be based on the criteria described in the proposed supplemental text (See Attachment C; page L-7). In general, policy events will be mandatory referrals and development proposals will be voluntary referrals. In both cases, the ALUC recommendations will be advisory. As the City's regulations are at least as restrictive as those in the PAD CLUP, it is anticipated that the ALUC's recommendations will not be different from what the City would require, except that the ALUC may recommend an avigation easement (Attachment E) as a condition. The purposes of an avigation easement are: 1) the continuation of the public's right to use the described airspace for flying; and 2) to ensure that prospective property buyers are made aware of the airport and its impacts. Since the ALUC adopted the PAD CLUP, there have been proposals within the AlA. A proposal to remodel the business park at 1840 Embarcadero Road was not referred to the ALUC. A proposal for a new hotel at 1700 Embarcadero Road was a mandatory referral because it would require an amendment to the Zoning Code and to the Comprehensive Plan. If those amendments were not required, the proposed hotel would have been a "voluntary" referral. The ALUC's review of that hotel proposal resulted in a single recommendation-an avigation easement. CMR:262:09 Page 2 of4 COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION On April 29, 2009, the PTC considered staffs PowerPoint presentation (Attachment I) and recommended (6-0-0-1, Commissioner Garber absent) that the City Council adopt the proposed resolution with a modification to the proposed Comprehensive Plan text to further clarify the ALUC referral criteria. This clarification is reflected in Attachment B. The PTC also discussed the following topics in relation to the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments: Effects of possible future changes at the airport: Staff noted that if the management of the airport changed, the proposed Comprehensive Plan text would remain appropriate. However, if the airport were closed completely, then the City would likely amend the Comprehensive Plan again-to delete reference to the PAD CLUP. Determining structure height compliance: The existing elevation of an individual site will be considered when determining whether a proposed building complies with applicable height restrictions. Impact on future flood protection levees and other protective measures that will he developed by the South Bay Shoreline Study: Staff indicated to the PTC that construction of the Hood protection levees would not be a required referral to the ALUC. Subsequent to the PTC meeting, staff identified two segments of the levee system (segments at either end of the runway), that are within the "Approach Surface" as well as the "Runway Protection Zone". The PAD CLUP contains restrictions that apply to these areas. These restrictions apply on account of Federal Aviation Regulations and ALUC regulations and not as a result of incorporating the PAD CLUP into the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Any future flood-control improvements will need to comply with federal, state, and local regulations. In addition to the above discussion topics, a list of questions was submitted by Commissioner Fineberg. Those questions and responses provided at the PTC meeting are attached. (See Attachment J) POLICY IMPLICATIONS The PAD CLUP guidelines are compatible with existing Comprehensive Plan policies that support compatible land uses in the vicinity of the airport. They also reinforce the existing Comprehensive Plan policies by identifying an area subject to airport over flights and serve as notice of potential noise and safety impacts from airport operations. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Negative Declaration for this amendment to the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission's Land Use Plan for Areas Surrounding Santa Clara County Airports was adopted by Santa Clara County on November 19, 2008. (Attachment D). RESOURCE IMPACTS: Incorporating the PAO CLUP into the City'S Comprehensive Plan reduces the potential impact of the PAO CL UP on staff resources. As described earlier, once the City incorporates the PAO CLUP, only certain projects must be referred to the ALUC for review. If the City does not incorporate the PAO CLUP, CMR:262:09 Page 3 of4 the City will be obligated, by State law, to refer all proposals within the AlA-regardless of the type or size. The need to coordinate those additional ALUC referrals would be a greater impact. PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD-REVIEW: CURTIS WILLIAMS Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ATTACHMENTS: A. Santa Clara County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Palo Alto Airport B. Proposed amended Comprehensive Plan Map L-2 showing AlA C. Proposed amended Comprehensive Plan Pages L-5 through L-7 showing new Program L-2B and supplemental text box (reflects PTC recommended modification) D. Negative Declaration E. Proposed Grant of A vigation Easement to the City of Palo Alto F. Proposed Resolution G. PTC staff report of April 29, 2009 (no attachments) H. Excerpt from PTC n1eeting minutes of April 29, 2009 I. PTC Meeting PowerPoint presentation J. Questions submitted by Planning and Transportation Commissioner Fineberg with responses provided at the Planning and Transportation meeting COURTESY COPIES: Palo Alto Airport Working Group (PAA WG) Palo Alto Airport Association Mark Connolly, Santa Clara County Planning Department liaison to the ALUC CMR:262:09 Page 4 of4 .-. &2035(+(16,9(/$1'86(3/$1 6$17$&/$5$ &2817< 3$/2$/72$,53257 $'237(' %\WKH 6$17$&/$5$ &2817< $,53257/$1'86(&200,66,21 6DQ-RVH&DOLIRUQLD 1RYHPEHU 3UHSDUHGE\ :DOWHU%:LQGXV3( $YLDWLRQ&RQVXOWDQW 6DUDWRJD&UHHN'U 6DUDWRJD&DOLIRUQLD $WWDFKPHQW$ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author gratefully acknowledges the review, comments and recommendations provided by John Blair, Bob Sturdivant, and Arthur Knopf in the development of this CLUP. The assistance of James Kiehl, Palo Alto Airport management and the County of Santa Clara is also acknowledged with thanks and appreciation. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .....................................................................................1-1 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE.............................................................................................................1-1 1.2 LEGAL AUTHORITY................................................................................................................1-1 1.3 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY.............................................................................................1-2 1.4 CONTENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN ...............................................1-2 1.5 TECHNICAL REFERENCE DOCUMENT ...............................................................................1-2 2 PALO ALTO AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS...................................................................................2-1 2.1 AIRPORT ROLE.........................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN .......................................................................................................2-1 2.2.1 Existing Airport Facilities....................................................................................................2-4 2.2.2 Future Airport Facilities ......................................................................................................2-5 2.3 AVIATION ACTIVITY..............................................................................................................2-5 2.3.1 Based Aircraft......................................................................................................................2-5 2.3.2 Aircraft Operations..............................................................................................................2-5 2.4 AIRPORT ENVIRONS...............................................................................................................2-9 3 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES.............................................................................3-1 3.1 OVERVIEW................................................................................................................................3-1 3.2 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA..............................................................................3-1 3.3 NOISE RESTRICTION AREA...................................................................................................3-1 3.3.1 Airport Noise Descriptors....................................................................................................3-2 3.3.2 Land Use Compatibility Standards – California..................................................................3-2 3.3.3 Land Use Compatibility Standards - Santa Clara County....................................................3-3 3.3.4 Land Use Compatibility Standards – City of Palo Alto.......................................................3-3 3.3.5 Palo Alto Airport Noise Contours .......................................................................................3-3 3.3.6 Aircraft Operations..............................................................................................................3-3 3.3.7 Impacts on Land Use...........................................................................................................3-6 3.4 HEIGHT RESTRICTION AREA................................................................................................3-8 3.4.1 Primary Surface...................................................................................................................3-8 3.4.2 Approach Surface................................................................................................................3-8 3.4.3 Transitional Surface.............................................................................................................3-8 3.4.4 Horizontal Surface...............................................................................................................3-8 3.4.5 Conical Surface..................................................................................................................3-11 3.4.6 Summary............................................................................................................................3-11 3.5 SAFETY RESTRICTION AREA .............................................................................................3-11 3.5.1 Runway Protection Zone ...................................................................................................3-13 3.5.2 Turning Sector Defined .....................................................................................................3-13 3.5.3 Inner Safety Zone ..............................................................................................................3-13 3.5.4 Turning Safety Zone..........................................................................................................3-13 3.5.5 Outer Safety Zone..............................................................................................................3-13 3.5.6 Sideline Safety Zone..........................................................................................................3-14 3.5.7 Traffic Pattern Zone...........................................................................................................3-14 3.6 OVERFLIGHT RESTRICTION AREA ...................................................................................3-14 3.7 AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREA...............................................................................................3-14 iii 4 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY POLICIES...................................................................................4-1 4.1 LAND USE PLANNING ISSUES..............................................................................................4-1 4.2 JURISDICTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES.................................................................................4-1 4.2.1 Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission............................................................4-1 4.2.2 Affected Local Agencies .....................................................................................................4-3 4.2.3 Airport Owner/Operator Responsibilities............................................................................4-4 4.3 COMPATIBILITY POLICIES....................................................................................................4-4 4.3.1 General Compatibility .........................................................................................................4-4 4.3.2 Noise Compatibility.............................................................................................................4-5 4.3.3 Height Compatibility...........................................................................................................4-5 4.3.4 Tall Structure Compatibility................................................................................................4-7 4.3.5 Safety Compatibility............................................................................................................4-7 4.3.6 Overflight ............................................................................................................................4-9 4.3.7 Reconstruction...................................................................................................................4-10 4.3.8 Infill...................................................................................................................................4-10 5 IMPLEMENTATION.......................................................................................................................5-1 5.1 CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL PLANS AND ZONING.........................................................5-1 5.2 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ...................................................................................................5-1 5.2.1 Airport Overlay Zones.........................................................................................................5-1 5.2.2 Avigation Easements...........................................................................................................5-2 5.2.3 Buyer Awareness Measures.................................................................................................5-3 5.2.4 Methods of Calculating Density and Building Occupancy..................................................5-4 6 BIBLIOGRAPHY..............................................................................................................................6-1 7 APPENDIX A ....................................................................................................................................7-1 8 APPENDIX B.....................................................................................................................................8-1 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 2 - 1 Aviation Activity Forecasts......................................................................................................2-7 Table 3 - 1 Airport Configuration and Runway Use ..................................................................................3-4 Table 3 - 2 Annual Aircraft Operations......................................................................................................3-5 Table 3 - 3 FAR Part 77 Surfaces.............................................................................................................3-10 Table 4 - 1 Noise Compatibility Guidelines...............................................................................................4-6 Table 4 - 2 Safety Zone Compatibility Guidelines.....................................................................................4-8 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Location Map...............................................................................................................................2-2 Figure 2 Airport Layout Plan......................................................................................................................2-3 Figure 3 Palo Alto Typical Aircraft Flight Tracks, Rwy 31.……...…….………..……………………… 2-6 Figure 3 Palo Alto Typical Aircraft Flight Tracks, Rwy 13.……...…….………..……………………… 2-7 Figure 4 General Plan Land Use...............................................................................................................2-10 Figure 5 2022 Aircraft Noise Contours......................................................................................................3-7 Figure 6 FAR Part 77 Surfaces...................................................................................................................3-9 Figure 7 Airport Safety Zones..................................................................................................................3-12 Figure 8 Airport Influence Area...............................................................................................................3-15 vi Section 1 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE This Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) is intended to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of Palo Alto Airport (also referred to as the "Airport" throughout this report) and the aircraft occupants. This CLUP is also intended to ensure that surrounding new land uses do not affect the Airport’s continued operation. This CLUP applies only to those areas within Santa Clara County, and only provides a reference for the use of the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission and San Mateo County agencies, to the extent they wish to use it. Specifically, the CLUP seeks to protect the public from the adverse effects of aircraft noise, to ensure that people and facilities are not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents, and to ensure that no structures or activities adversely affect navigable airspace. The implementation of this CLUP is intended to prevent future incompatible development from encroaching on the Airport and allow for its development in accordance with the current airport master plan. The aviation activity forecast for the Airport was updated to reflect the existing aviation activity and provide at least a 20-year forecast of activity. The updated aviation activity forecast formed the basis for preparation of 2022 aircraft noise contours. The Airport Master Plan and updated aviation activity forecast and available aircraft noise contours formed the basis for preparation of this CLUP. 1.2 LEGAL AUTHORITY The Public Utilities Code of the State of California, Sections 21670 et seq. authorizes each county to establish an Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and defines its range of responsibilities, duties and powers. The Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission is composed of 7 members, two appointed by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, two appointed by the Santa Clara County City Selection Committee, two appointed by a committee composed of the Aviation Director of San Jose International Airport and the Director of the County Roads and Airports Department and one appointed at large by the ALUC. Section 21675 requires the ALUC to formulate and maintain a comprehensive land use plan (CLUP) for the area surrounding each public-use airport within Santa Clara County. A CLUP may also be developed for a military airport at the discretion of the ALUC. The County has four public-use airports, San Jose International, Palo Alto Airport, Reid-Hillview Airport and South County Airport, and one federally owned airport, Moffett Federal Airfield. Palo Alto Airport is defined as a General Aviation Airport (as opposed to an Air Carrier Airport) due to the type of aircraft that use this airport. Section 21675 also specifies that comprehensive land use plans will: (a) …provide for the orderly growth of each public airport and the area surrounding the airport within the jurisdiction of the commission, and will safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general. The commission plan shall include and shall be based on a long-range master plan or an airport layout plan, as determined by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation, that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years. In formulating a land use plan, the commission may develop height restrictions on buildings, may specify use of land, and may determine building standards, including soundproofing adjacent to airports, within the planning area. The comprehensive land use plan shall be reviewed as often as necessary in order to accomplish its purposes, but shall not be amended more than once in any calendar year. 1-1 1.3 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY Legislation passed by the State of California in 1967 mandated the creation of an Airport Land Use Commission in each county that had an airport served by a scheduled airline or operated for use by the general public. In conformance with this legislation the Planning Policy Committee, an existing decision- making body with representation from the 5 cities and the County, was designated to be the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Santa Clara County by the Board of Supervisors and the Select Committee of Mayors. After certification by the California Secretary of State, the Airport Land Use Commission officially came into existence in Santa Clara County in January of 1971. Their first land use policy plan was adopted on June 28, 1973. The 1973 policy plan (the land use plan preceding this Comprehensive Land Use Plan) was amended in 1974 and 1991, and last adopted by the ALUC in September 1992. 1.4 CONTENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN The Comprehensive Land Use Plan contains several major elements: xThe existing and planned-for facilities at the Airport that are relevant to preparing the CLUP; xAppropriate noise, height, and safety restriction policies and land use compatibility standards; xSpecific findings of compatibility or incompatibility with respect to existing land uses, proposed General Plan land uses, or existing zoning controls; and xSpecific actions that need to be taken to make the County of Santa Clara and the cities’ General Plans, Specific Plans, Master Plans and/or Zoning Ordinances consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The CLUP establishes an airport land use planning area, referred to as the Airport Influence Area (AIA), which sets the boundaries for application of ALUC Policy. The CLUP contains the relevant policies and guidelines for land use compatibility and specific findings of compatibility or incompatibility of land uses within the AIA. Of particular interest to the ALUC are areas "not already devoted to incompatible uses" and, more specifically, undeveloped lands within the AIA. The planning effort is focused on identifying these lands because the policies and standards of the plan are intended to control the compatibility of future development in these areas. The CLUP is not intended to define allowable land use for a specific parcel of land, although the plan establishes development standards or restrictions that may limit or prohibit certain types of uses and structures on a parcel. The CLUP is not retroactive with respect to existing incompatible land uses, but discusses actions to be taken when expansion, replacement or other significant changes are made to incompatible land uses. 1.5 TECHNICAL REFERENCE DOCUMENT A separate Technical Reference Library is being maintained by the County of Santa Clara. The Technical Reference Library will contain the major reference documents associated with the land use compatibility planning criteria in this CLUP. The documents will be available for review at Santa Clara County Planning Office. 1-2 Section 2 2 PALO ALTO AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS 2.1 AIRPORT ROLE Palo Alto Airport is geographically located at the northwestern edge of Santa Clara County, on the western shore of the southern portion of San Francisco Bay. The Airport is located on 103 acres of land, at an elevation of 4 feet above mean sea level (at the FAA Airport Reference Point). The Airport is owned by the City of Palo Alto but managed until 2017 by the County of Santa Clara. It is surrounded by the City of Palo Alto on the west and south, San Francisco bay on the north and east and the City of East Palo Alto in San Mateo County on the northwest. The location of the Airport with respect to nearby communities and other airports is illustrated on Figure 1. Palo Alto Airport (the Airport) is the smallest of the General Aviation airports in the county. General Aviation is defined as all aviation other than Air Carrier (commercial passenger flights), Commuter/Air Taxi and Military. While commercial airfreight is also a part of General Aviation, General Aviation activity consists mostly of single-engine and small twin-engine aircraft, typically holding six or fewer people. Palo Alto Airport has a full range of aircraft parking/storage facilities, aircraft fueling facilities and aircraft support operations, commonly known as Fixed Base Operators (FBOs). FBO activities include flight training, aircraft maintenance and repair, and aircraft engine overhaul facilities. The Airport is constrained on three sides by San Francisquito Creek, San Francisco Bay and a bird sanctuary. It also lies in the San Francisquito Creek flood plain and the Airport has flooded in past years. Palo Alto Airport is classified as a General Aviation Reliever Airport. General Aviation Airports are airports that do not have scheduled commercial air-carrier service. General Aviation Airports are the most convenient source of air transportation for about 19 percent of the U.S. population and are particularly important to corporate aircraft, based on the latest publication of the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) (2007-2011). The Palo Alto Airport is listed in the NPIAS and is designated as a reliever airport. Moffett Federal Airfield is the nearest airport to Palo Alto Airport, located 4 miles southeast. Moffett Field is a federally owned airport operated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The nearest public use airport is San Carlos Airport located 8 miles northwest of the Airport. The nearest air- carrier airport is San Jose International Airport, located 11 miles southeast of Palo Alto Airport. Other airports in the vicinity are Hayward Executive Airport located 13 miles to north, San Francisco International located 15 miles northwest, Metropolitan Oakland International Airport located 17 miles north and Reid-Hillview Airport located 17 miles southeast. 2.2 AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN The previous Palo Alto Airport, Airport Master Plan was accepted by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in June 1982. The most recent Airport Layout Plan (ALP), illustrated on Figure 2, delineates the layout of existing Airport facilities as of June 2001. This ALP does not reflect the current airport environment or airport data and is currently being revised. The FAA-approved ALP is used by the FAA for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant funds for eligible construction and development projects. AIP grant funds are dispersed on the basis of a priority based on activity levels. Selected data about the existing Airport facilities and information about its planned development are presented in the following paragraphs. 2-1 EMBARCADERO RD S A N A N T O NIO R D C E N T R A L E X P Y P A G E M I L L R D EL CAM IN O R E A L F O O T H I L L E XP Y O R EG O N E X P Y J U N I P E R O S E RR A BLVD ·|}þ85 (/101 S an t a C l a r a C o untySan M a t eo Cou nty §¨¦280 Figure 1 Palo Alto Airport Location Map SAN I=" RAN ,. A Y AIRPORT DATA AlRI'OtU MEFEA~rc:;:COOE AlIU'O+(]MEFE~~1\lCE1'Of!Q0~ NRP<)t{fELE\lATKif'I (AIlO'oeMlilFlSilRLM) loEllil\.Mw.:<.IlMP.(~~~ N~I'¢t<TMIJln:IUl!INA.I.~ ~;;-j-~= ~"""" ~"""" ~ M"""" 1a."'F(.I.J~ ~"""" 1IDI.IIiI''''IlI1lBilM ~"""" -~"'""" '''''' ~"""" ~"""" ". ~ ~"'""" DRAWING LeGEND ACTI\<ENMFfB.l)MIt:loI:1iT OnlltJllPAVtMl:f(fltl!.ll!lil: DlRrOR{;!<A\l1LR}lID AlRI'O+UI'~~RlYI.JI\E OTtttl'l ~1'IOr1:1m''''' I\VIGArION£NlBoIBtr ItfltI'lNAl"KluI'!!YII'!YI'_I'I.C.'tf • .mI ~"""'" =- N~~ltl.l:llJGtrTa;aINoG~ At'i'IOftuG!n """" 104'OGAAPHICCll'frCl.n> WHLMlDloIIrrllCMIO!IMIU. WA1~IfflM/Cl.U'Em N~1'¢fl.l '-tHl'ltUI'OfQ "1\DIIIQlllleDIr.biOWl'lQ: I\I'L-"'~"""'''glnillll llfiIJ.-ilUl.:l:"'IlI_~U\Ii 1W\,-IY.zy~_ "" ____ 1_++_ IIC=====:::1 ,. == :~:=~::-l'aw ., .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. "" .. 1Il'''-I'\lI~~~ MUNICIPAL ALL-WEAl1-iER WIND ROSE SOURCE: 1IiItJt'f.t\ rl6'kI D*l 1H9-11iilClii ~ 13-31 pnM'd61 97.n ~ wilt! 12 WH (10.5 Kia..) CfGIIII'WiiId compcn«rt.. AIPNOiEs 0~::n=:==I= D..a.aKTlGNI~~¢ffQlNC ®""M:Ij"'nQ;l'MlIIIl'liIJ'lX1M.IONf'~I.¥d"''''' 0 Dto1Iir:!0nII1'01II1'"_ ~ ~ ~ ~ • 1\1J"..~JOo&tollJj.lOl"'llllal_\'WI~(r'o:II7'8.'VII~ .Yfi"'i'l'p.a1 .. I'I:o'1dID"~I.Itu:"",,,~r"""'"l'Chl:i""~ " J ! ~~ SlDiITTBlB'r. Crotty ~ Santa Dim. DRAFT FOR RE.VEWANC COMMENTOI'ILY. SCENIC , H"42E: ~I:J:!D!I MMI.W..RA.TECFCItfiHiE UW. ~o::-"""'l _~ 12DOO RuI'!..ay 11'll!!!"O"::O It ShuU M;:';:od'CIMiI I Sftl1 PALO ALTO AIRPORT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY PALO ALTO, CAUFOANIA AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN 2.2.1 Existing Airport Facilities The existing airfield consists of a single runway, Runway 31-13. The runway has a paved surface 2,443 feet long by 68 feet wide with a 215 foot paved lead-in taxiway on the southwest end and a 240 foot paved overrun on the northwest end and has medium intensity runway lights, and Runway End Identification Lights (REILs) and Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPI-4L) at both ends of the runway. The existing maximum gross weight for single-wheel aircraft using the runways is as follows: Aircraft Maximum Gross Weight (pounds) Runway Gross Weight 31-13 12,500 lbs. Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, defines imaginary surfaces that are used to identify obstructions to air navigation. The following tabular data shows the FAR Part 77 approach slopes, compared with existing obstacle/obstruction controlled approach slopes and other information relative to the controlling obstacle/obstructions based on the latest FAA Form 5010-1, Airport Master Record, for Palo Alto Airport. Controlling Obstacle/Obstruction: Location from Runway Threshold Related to Extended Runway Centerline Runway No. Elevation FAR Part 77 Slope Actual Slope Type of Obstruction Height Above Runway Threshold Location 31 3.8 34:1 6:1 Levee Berm 5 230 ft along the extended runway centerline 13 3.5 20:1 12:1 Levee Berm 8 300 ft along the extended runway centerline The FAA establishes Runway Protection Zones off each runway end to enhance the safety of aircraft operations and the protection of people and property on the ground. The following defines the size of the Runway Protection Zones for each runway. Runway No. Protection Zone Length (feet) Inner Width (feet) Outer Width (feet) 31 Nonprecision 1,000 250 450 13 Visual 1,000 250 450 The FAA requires that the airport sponsor have adequate property interest in the Runway Protection Zones (RPZs) as a condition of receiving certain grants. Most of the Runway Protection Zones for Runway 31 and Runway 13 are outside the Airport boundary but are on state and county owned wetlands. Access to the Airport is from Embarcadero Road on the west side of the Airport, off of U. S. Highway 101. There are two entrance areas to the airfield, one is through the FBO area on the southwest side of the airport and the other is through the County Administration area on the east side of the airport. The aircraft basing areas are located on the south side of the Airport. There are 468 aircraft tiedown spaces, 22 transient tiedown spaces and 85 hangars at the Airport. Airport facilities include a rotating beacon, a lighted windsock and a segmented circle. 2-4 2.2.2 Future Airport Facilities Any change to the airport facilities would have to be approved by the City of Palo Alto. The current Airport Master Plan (AMP) identifies a potential increase of 29 aircraft hangars, which would result in an additional 40 aircraft based at the Airport. The AMP also recommends a new, relocated Helipad, an aircraft wash rack, a replacement General Aviation Terminal building and parking lot, reconfiguration of Taxiway G and relocated tiedowns. 2.3 AVIATION ACTIVITY The noise impact of an airport is a direct result of the number of aircraft operations at that airport and the types of those aircraft. Given this information, and some other factors such as flight tracks and the distribution of flight operations throughout the day and night, computer models can generate a representation of the noise contours around an airport. The generalized flight tracks for the airport are shown in Figure 3. The noise contours created by the computer model reflect the data provided to the program. Thus the activity data, both current and forecasted, needs to be as accurate as possible. The aviation activity data is taken from the November 2002 draft of the Airport Roles and Forecasts, Chapter 2 of the County Airports Master Plan (AMP) adopted by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors on November 19, 2002 and the HMMH Palo Alto Airport Noise Contour report dated February 24, 2006. The Noise Contour Report gives aircraft activity percentages and the AMP provides forecasts of aircraft operations at the Airport through the year 2022. As the CLUP is a 20-year planning document, the existing base year (2001) aviation activity was reviewed and updated aviation activity forecasts were prepared through the year 2022. A summary of the existing and forecast aviation activity is presented in Table 2-1 and discussed in the following paragraphs. 2.3.1 Based Aircraft The AMP forecasts that the number of based aircraft at Palo Alto will increase from 524 in 2001 to 613 by 2022 as shown in Table 2-1. The growth in forecast-based aircraft at the Airport is due in large part to the potential increase in tie downs and hangars planned for the Airport. The mix of aircraft based at the airport is not forecast to change appreciably through 2022. 2.3.2 Aircraft Operations The number of annual aircraft operations at Palo Alto Airport, as presented in Table 2-1, is forecast to increase from an estimated 212,626 operations in the year 2002 to 227,509 operations by the year 2022. These data are taken from the recent Palo Alto Airport Master Plan. The AMP indicates that the mix of operations at the airport is not forecast to change appreciably through 2022. 2.3.2.1 General Aviation Since no commercial passenger (air carrier) operations are forecast for the planning period, general aviation will continue to account for all of the operations at the Airport, increasing from an estimated 212,626 annual operations in 2002 to 227,509 annual operations by 2022. Local Operations. Local operations are performed by aircraft operating in the local traffic pattern and aircraft departing for, or arriving from, local practice areas. These operations include training operations by both aircraft based at the Airport and aircraft from other airports in nearby counties. The local operations include flight training, the activities of based aircraft pilots maintaining their landing skills and activities of itinerant aircraft pilots who come to practice landing at a different airport. Local operations are forecast to remain at about 60 percent of total general aviation aircraft operations over the forecast period and will continue to account for the larger number of general aviation operations at the airport. 2-5 --"-----"-----",-- Runway 13 Typical Flight Paths Figure 3b / Ta b l e 2 - 1 UP D A T E D A V I A T I O N A C T I V I T Y F O R E C A S T S Pa l o A l t o A i r p o r t 20 0 1 – 2 0 2 2 Ba s e Ye a r Fo r e c a s t 20 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 7 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 7 2 0 2 2 GE N E R A L A V I A T I O N B A S E D A I R C R A F T S i n g l e - e n g i n e – p i s t o n S i n g l e - e n g i n e – t u r b i n e M u l t i - e n g i n e – p i s t o n M u l t i - e n g i n e – t u r b i n e H e l i c o p t e r O t h e r ( F a n j e t , q u i e t e r t h a n S t a g e 3 ) To t a l b a s e d a i r c r a f t 48 8 3 2 7 2 4 0 52 4 4 8 8 3 27 2 4 0 5 2 4 5 0 8 5 31 3 6 0 5 5 3 5 1 9 6 33 3 6 0 5 6 6 5 2 5 7 36 5 7 0 5 7 9 5 5 1 8 40 7 7 0 6 1 3 AI R C R A F T O P E R A T I O N S G e n e r a l A v i a t i o n - I t i n e r a n t - L o c a l S u b t o t a l – G e n e r a l A v i a t i o n O p e r a t i o n s A i r T a x i M i l i t a r y H e l i c o p t e r To t a l O p e r a t i o n s 7 4 , 5 3 9 _1 3 5 , 2 1 6 2 0 9 , 7 5 5 8 0 37 0 26 0 2 1 0 , 4 6 5 8 6 , 4 0 4 12 5 , 9 6 0 2 1 2 , 3 6 4 1 1 1 26 0 21 2 , 6 2 6 8 7 , 2 3 9 12 8 , 8 0 5 2 1 6 , 0 4 4 20 0 5 26 0 2 1 6 , 5 0 9 9 0 , 0 4 0 13 0 , 2 0 0 22 0 , 2 4 0 50 0 0 2 6 0 22 1 , 0 0 0 9 0 , 6 9 4 13 1 , 6 0 7 2 2 2 , 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 2 2 3 , 5 6 1 9 0 , 9 9 0 13 4 , 7 5 9 2 2 5 , 7 4 9 1 5 0 0 0 26 0 2 2 7 , 5 0 9 OP E R A T I O N S P E R B A S E D A I R C R A F T 40 2 4 0 6 3 9 2 3 9 0 3 8 6 3 7 1 So u r c e : Pa l o A l t o A i r p o r t M a s t e r P l a n , A i r p o r t R o l e s a n d F o r e c a s t s , H M M H P a l o A l t o A i r p o r t N o i s e C o n t o u r r e p o r t an d Ai r p o r t M a n a g e m e n t 2- 8 2-9 Itinerant Operations. Itinerant operations are conducted by aircraft that takeoff from one airport and land at another airport, or the reverse. They include the operations of aircraft based at the Airport and flights of other aircraft to and from the Airport. The itinerant operations at the Airport include aircraft based on the airport used for personal business, recreational activities and “Angel Flights” for medical services. Itinerant operations are forecast to remain at about 40 percent of total general aviation aircraft operations over the forecast period and will continue to account for the smaller number of aircraft operations at the airport. 2.3.2.2 Air Taxi In 2001 there were 80 Air Taxi operations at the Airport. In 2002 there were 11 Air Taxi operations. In 2006 there were nearly 1600. Air taxi operations include the unscheduled "for hire" operations carrying passengers and cargo to and from the area including any operations by bank couriers or other small package carriers. Based on discussions with persons knowledgeable of the Airport and its activities, Air Taxi operations are forecast to increase to 1500 annual operations in the year 2022. 2.3.2.3 Military Based on discussions with persons knowledgeable of the Airport and its activities, there were no military operations in 2001. The current runway is not suitable for fixed-wing military aircraft. Current military aircraft require runways of greater length than those at the Airport. Military helicopter operations are not expected to contribute in a significant manner to the number of annual airport operations through 2022. 2.3.2.4 Helicopter In past years, there were a number of helicopter operations, mostly associated with medivac of patients destine for Stanford Hospital. Stanford Hospital now has its own helipad and the number of helicopter operations has dropped from prior years to refueling stops only. The number of helicopter operations is estimated to be 260 per year and is included in the airport noise calculations. 2.4 AIRPORT ENVIRONS Figure 4 presents the land use designations within the Airport environs based on the current Santa Clara County 2002 General Plan. The City of Palo Alto is adjacent to and southwest of the Airport and the City of East Palo Alto, located in San Mateo County lies to the northwest of the Airport. The predominant land uses in the Airport environs are wetlands, bay waters, golf driving range, commercial and limited residential. General Plan 0 1.0002.000 '.000 • It:._ --. --Land Use / ~. . --------------Figure 4 -----.----~--.--_ ... ----,_ .. --'l::;I,. ~:;;:.""" .:.:.. .. ~':'".- 3-1 Section 3 3 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES 3.1 OVERVIEW Land use compatibility policies and standards are based on community values, sound technical knowledge, and acceptable analytical methods. These policies and compatibility criteria form the basis for evaluating existing land use compatibility and provide the foundation for the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) policies. These standards focus on the three areas of ALUC responsibility including aircraft noise, the control of objects in navigable airspace, and the safety of persons on the ground and in aircraft. These compatibility criteria are contained in relevant State and Federal statutes and regulations and are discussed in this section. Federal, State and other local agencies have developed and published guidelines for airport land use compatibility planning. Unfortunately, no civilian or military authority has established regulations or statutes that specify a single methodology for mitigating the incompatibilities between an airport and its environs, nor have such incompatibilities been adequately defined. The enabling legislation for the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission offers some guidance while directing the Commission to provide for the orderly growth of the airports and the areas surrounding the airports, and to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airports and the public in general. The legislation further enables the Commission to develop height restrictions on structures, to specify the use of land, to determine building standards, including noise insulation, and to assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of the airports to the extent that the land in the vicinity of the airports is not already devoted to incompatible uses. The Commission is also empowered to coordinate planning at the State, regional and local levels so as to provide for the orderly development of air transportation, while at the same time protecting the public health, safety, and welfare. 3.2 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA The principal source for airport land use compatibility planning is the January 2002 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (2002 Handbook) published by the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (Caltrans). The 2002 Handbook provides guidelines for formulating compatibility criteria and policies for preparing Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUPs). Noise and safety compatibility concepts and issues are presented, and copies of relevant legislation and examples of mitigation measures, such as model noise and avigation easements are included. The 2002 Handbook is available for review at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut/htmlfile/landuse.html and at the Santa Clara County Planning Department office. Note that a local agency is not precluded from establishing land use policies and guidelines that are more restrictive than those described in this CLUP. 3.3 NOISE RESTRICTION AREA Airport noise affects many communities. At certain levels, airport noise can interfere with sleep, conversation, or relaxation. It also may disrupt school and work activities. At even higher levels, airport noise may make outdoor activities impossible and may begin to raise health concerns with respect to hearing loss and stress-related problems. However, hearing damage from airport noise may not be a problem for nearby neighbors because noise levels are simply not of sufficient intensity to cause such damage. An exception to this is the exposure a ground crew member receives during the handling of a jet aircraft. Similarly, medical studies are inconclusive on a cause-and-effect relationship for non-auditory health concerns near airport. A more general conclusion is that noise may have an additive effect for some people with anxieties, ulcers, and tension illness. The amount of annoyance that aircraft noise creates among people living and working in the vicinity of an airport varies on an individual basis. Studies show that a certain percentage of people will continue to be annoyed by aircraft noise at any given noise level, regardless of how low that aircraft noise level may be. All levels of government share responsibility for addressing the airport noise issue. The Federal government establishes noise standards for aircraft as published in Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 36, Noise Standards: Aircraft Type and Airworthiness Certification, and conducts research on noise 3-2 abatement techniques and noise compatibility. The preparation of a special airport noise study under the provisions of FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning, provides technical assistance to the airport operator in planning and implementing a noise compatibility program. The State of California also prescribes noise standards for all airports as defined in Title 21, Airport Noise Standards, of the California Code of Regulations, and sets noise insulation standards for residential structures as defined in Title 24, California Building Standards Code, of the California Building Standards Commission. The airport operator may develop airport noise control programs and enact operational restrictions to control and reduce noise levels in the community. Finally, local governments have the responsibility to limit the exposure of the population to excessive airport noise levels through the land use planning and zoning process. 3.3.1 Airport Noise Descriptors To adequately address the airport noise issue, local governments need a standard way to measure and describe airport noise and establish land use compatibility guidelines. The County of Santa Clara has identified DNL and CNEL as being equivalent measures of noise. Relative to aviation, it is common to use the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) for determining land use compatibility in the community environment. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) descriptor is a method of averaging single-event noise levels over a typical 24-hour day and applying penalties to noise events occurring during the evening (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) and night (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) hours. CNEL is usually defined in terms of average annual conditions, so that the CNEL measured on a given day may be either less than or greater than the annual average. The State of California uses the CNEL descriptor to describe land use compatibility with respect to aircraft noise exposures. CNEL is the noise descriptor standard defined in Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations, Airport Noise Standards, and the standard specified for evaluation of exterior and interior noise impacts in Title 24 of the California Building Standards Commission, California Building Standards Code. The CNEL is identified as one of two noise descriptors used in the preparation of a noise element of a general plan according to guidelines established by the Office of Noise Control, California Department of Health Services (now documented as General Plan Guidelines,Appendix A). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recognizes the CNEL as essentially equivalent to the Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL), which is the basis for FAA recommendations for land use compatibility with respect to aircraft noise described in FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning. The decibel (dB) is the unit of measurement for the magnitude of a sound. A decibel is equal to the logarithm of the ratio of the intensity of the sound to the intensity of an arbitrarily chosen standard sound, specifically a sound just barely audible to an unimpaired human ear (e.g., 55, 60, 65, 70 and 75 dB). 3.3.2 Land Use Compatibility Standards – California Land use compatibility guidelines for airport noise are included in the 2002 Handbook. Amendments to the law enacted in October 1994 mandate the use of these guidelines in the preparation of airport land use plans. These guidelines were originally developed in 1983 after considering State Office of Noise Control (ONC), FAA, and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines together with a review of available airport land use plans. Existing Federal and State laws were reviewed as part of the updated 2002 Handbook. The State ONC criteria established the 55 dB CNEL as a residential threshold value to distinguish normally acceptable from conditionally acceptable situations. The Caltrans guidelines for land use compatibility standards extend below the Federal 65 dB CNEL, as the Federal threshold does not sufficiently explain the annoyance area surrounding general aviation airports. The frequency of operations from some airports, visibility of aircraft at low altitudes and typically lower background noise levels around many general aviation airports are all believed to create a heightened awareness of general aviation activity and potential for annoyance outside of the 65 dB CNEL contour. 3-3 At and above the 60 dB CNEL level, the California Building Code, Section 1208A.8.3 requires an acoustical analysis of proposed residential structures, other than detached single-family dwellings, to achieve an indoor noise level of 45 dB CNEL. The noise attenuating properties of existing types of construction were considered in setting state standards. Typical wood frame construction with drywall interiors provides noise reduction of between 15 and 20 dB. Thus, residential units exposed to outdoors noise in the range between 60 and 65 dB CNEL can be attenuated to achieve the 45 dB CNEL level indoors when built using normal standards of construction. The 2002 Handbook (see Appendix B herein) urges ALUCs to be conservative when establishing noise contours. 3.3.3 Land Use Compatibility Standards - Santa Clara County In the Noise Element of the 1994 Santa Clara County General Plan, the County identified 55 dB DNL as the normally acceptable standard for residential uses. Above 55 dB DNL, residential uses are conditionally acceptable, however the noise exposure is great enough to be of some concern. 3.3.4 Land Use Compatibility Standards – City of Palo Alto In the Natural Environment element of the 1998 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, the City specifies a maximum interior noise level limit of 45 dB Ldn (equilivent to CNEL) and 50 dB SENL for single family residences and multiple family dwellings, and a maximum exterior noise level guideline of 60 Ldn for residences, hotels, motels, schools, libraries, museums, hospitals, meeting halls, personal care, and churches. Specified land uses in areas above these exterior noise levels are permitted after an acoustical analysis of the amount of attenuation necessary to maintain an indoor level of Ldn <=45 dB. Outdoor areas intended for residential recreational use with a noise level above 60 dB LDN are required to reduce noise levels as close to 60 dB Ldn as feasable through project design. 3.3.5 Palo Alto Airport Noise Contours An analysis of annual aircraft operations and related noise levels for Palo Alto Airport was made to prepare CNEL noise exposure maps for this CLUP using current and forecast aircraft operations based on the existing runway configuration. The ALUC has elected to adopt the most conservative (largest) contours from this study for the purposes of this CLUP. The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Integrated Noise Model (INM) Version 6.1 was used to prepare CNEL noise exposure maps based on the FAA aircraft noise level database and airport operational factors described below. The INM software was developed by the FAA and represents the Federally sanctioned and preferred method for analyzing aircraft noise exposure. 3.3.6 Aircraft Operations Aircraft operational factors that can significantly affect overall noise levels as described by CNEL include the aircraft fleet mix, the number of daily operations and the time of day when aircraft operations occur. Runway use factors also significantly influence CNEL values. Trip length can affect aircraft single-event noise levels. An aircraft that is making a local flight may carry less fuel and fewer passengers than that for a long flight and therefore make less noise on departure. The INM software applies corrections to air carrier aircraft takeoff profiles to account for these differences, but makes no corrections to general aviation aircraft takeoff profiles. Aircraft operational assumptions for the Airport were based upon analyses of airport activity provided by the FAA tower and Airport Management. These assumptions are summarized in Tables 3-1 and 3-2. Twin-engine turbine powered business aircraft are represented by the INM CNA441; twin-engine piston aircraft are represented by the INM BEC58P designation. Single-engine turbine powered aircraft are represented by the INM CNA206 and CNA20T designations. The high-performance single-engine propeller aircraft such as the Cessna 210 are represented by the INM GASEPV designation and standard single-engine propeller aircraft are represented by the INM GASEPF and CNA172 designations. Helicopters are represented by the INM B222 designation and are included in the noise calculations. 3-4 Table 3 - 1 AIRPORT CONFIGURATION AND RUNWAY USE Palo Alto Airport 2022 Airport Configuration Runway Configuration: Field Elevation: (Runway High Point) Runway Use: 31-13 4 feet MSL Runway 31 – 90% Runway 13 – 10% Temporal Distribution of Runway Operations Percentage of Use Aircraft Class Day 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Evening 7 p.m. To 10 p.m. Night 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Takeoff and Landing Fixed Wing Aircraft, All 82.5% 15% 2.5% Helicopter 75.0% 20% 5.0% Source: HMMH Palo Alto Airport Noise Contour report and Airport Management 3-5 Table 3 - 2 ANNUAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS Palo Alto Airport 2022 Generalized Aircraft Type Year 2022 Twin-Engine Turboprop (CNA441) 3,562 Twin-Engine Piston (BEC58P) 18,522 Single-Engine, Business Turboprop (CNA20T) 4,987 Single-Engine, Turboprop (CNA206) 45,592 Single-Engine Piston, High Performance (GASEPV) 45,592 Single-Engine Piston, Standard (CNA172) 39,181 Single-Engine Piston, Trainer (GASEPF) 69,813 Helicopters (B222) 260 Gliders 0 Total 227,509 3-6 Descriptions of aircraft flight tracks were developed for use in the INM through discussions with Airport Management and review of the assumptions used for previous descriptions of aircraft operations at the Airport. Based on these data, generalized flight tracks were prepared for use in the noise modeling process to describe areas with a concentration of aircraft overflights. It is recognized that variations in flight paths occur at the Airport and that the tracks used for this analysis are a general representation of those flight tracks. 3.3.6.1 CNEL Noise Exposure Contours The Integrated Noise Model (INM) Version 6.1 was used to prepare CNEL noise exposure contours for the Airport based on the aircraft noise level and operational factors described in the previous sections. User inputs to the INM include the following: xAirport altitude and mean temperature xRunway configuration xAircraft flight track definition xAircraft stage length (not applicable to Palo Alto Airport) xAircraft departure and approach profiles xAircraft traffic volume and fleet mix xFlight track utilization by aircraft types The INM database includes aircraft performance parameters and noise level data for numerous commercial, military and general aviation aircraft classes. When the user specifies a particular aircraft class from the INM database, the model automatically provides the necessary inputs concerning aircraft power settings, speed, departure profile, and noise levels. INM default values were used for all fixed-wing aircraft types. After the model had been prepared for the various aircraft classes, INM input files were created containing the number of operations by aircraft class, time of day and flight track for annual average day aircraft operations and future operations. From these data, the INM produces lines of equal noise levels, i.e. noise contours. The location of these noise contours become less precise with distance from the runway since aircraft do not follow each flight track exactly as defined in the model. However, they are accurate enough to indicate general areas of likely community response to noise generated by aircraft activity and serve as the basis for land use compatibility determinations. 3.3.7 Impacts on Land Use The 60, 65, 70 and 75 dB CNEL noise contours based on the forecast aircraft operations are illustrated on Figure 5 and discussed below. 3.3.7.1 75 dB CNEL Noise Level The 75 dB CNEL aircraft noise contour is completely contained within the Airport boundaries. 3.3.7.2 70 dB CNEL Noise Level The 70 dB CNEL aircraft noise contour is generally contained within the Airport boundaries except for the northwest end of the airport, where it extends about 1900 feet beyond the airport boundary on the extended runway centerline over into the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve in San Mateo County. 3.3.7.3 65 dB CNEL Noise Level The 65 dB CNEL aircraft noise contour extends beyond the airport boundaries in all directions but is over the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course, and the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve in San Mateo County. Noise Contours (CNEL) 55 Cleo c::J 65 CJ 70 2022 Aircraft Noise Contours 0 1, /. Figure 5 _____ . ______ _ ---~ --_ .. _-_.-_-_"' __ J~_ 3-8 3.3.7.4 60 dB CNEL Noise Level The 60 dB CNEL aircraft noise contour extends beyond the airport boundaries in all directions and is over the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve and the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course, except for a portion to the west and northwest that extends about 500 feet west of the Grant Boundary and out along the extended runway center line to about 2300 feet northwest of Bay Road in East Palo Alto in San Mateo County. 3.4 HEIGHT RESTRICTION AREA Airport vicinity height limitations are required to protect the public safety, health, and welfare by ensuring that aircraft can safely fly in the airspace around an airport. This protects both those in the aircraft and those on the ground who could be injured in the event of an accident. In addition, height limitations are required to protect the operational capability of airports, thus preserving an important part of National and State aviation transportation systems. Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, establishes imaginary surfaces for airports and runways as a means to identify objects that are obstructions to air navigation. Each surface is defined as a slope ratio or at a certain altitude above the airport elevation. FAA uses FAR Part 77 obstructions standards as elevations above which structures may constitute a safety problem. Any penetrations of the FAR Part 77 surface are subject to review on a case-by-case basis. If a safety problem is found to exist, FAA may issue a determination of a hazard to air navigation. FAA does not have the authority to prevent the encroachment, however California law can prevent the encroachment if the FAA has made a determination of a hazard to air navigation. The local jurisdiction can establish and enforce height restrictions. The dimensions of the imaginary surfaces vary depending on the type of approach to a particular runway as illustrated on Figure 6 for the Airport based on the ultimate dimensions shown on the Airport Layout Plan. Nonprecision Instrument-Approach runways generally have larger surfaces and flatter approach slopes than visual runways. Table 3-3 tabulates the imaginary surfaces described below. 3.4.1 Primary Surface A surface longitudinally centered along a runway, and extending 200 feet beyond the end of each instrument runway. For Runway 31-13 the width is 500 feet and the primary surface extends 200 feet beyond the ends of the runway. 3.4.2 Approach Surface A surface longitudinally centered on the extended runway centerline, extending outward and upward from each end of the primary surface. An Approach Surface is applied to each end of each runway based upon the type of approach available or planned for that runway end. The inner edge of the Approach Surface is the same width as the Primary Surface and it extends for a length of 5000 feet at a slope of 20:1. Runway 31 Approach Surface has a width of 2000 feet at the outer end and Runway 13 Approach Surface has a width of 1250 feet at the outer end. 3.4.3 Transitional Surface A surface extending outward and upward from the sides of the Primary Surface and from the sides of the Approach Surfaces at a slope of 7 to 1. 3.4.4 Horizontal Surface A horizontal plane 150 feet above the established airport elevation (the highest point of an airport's usable landing area measured in feet above mean sea level), the perimeter of which is constructed by swinging arcs 5,000 feet out for Runway 31-13, from the center of each end of the Primary Surface of each runway and connecting the arcs with tangent lines. Holgh' R .... ~Ian. IF ___ ' s ........ oI) _'_:0 -.-'" • m _""_JI:>O ... -,,.-... -... FAR Part 77 Surfaces Fig ure 6 / 3-10 Table 3 - 3 FAR PART 77 DIMENSIONS Palo Alto Airport Runway____________________________ 31_____ 13_____ Runway Type Nonprecision Visual Primary Surface Length (feet) 2,843 2,843 Width (feet) 500 500 Approach Surface Slope 20:1 20:1 Length (feet) 5,000 5,000 Inner Width 500 500 Outer Width 2,000 1,250 Transitional Surface Slope 7:1 7:1 Horizontal Surface End Radius (feet) 5,000 5,000 Elevation (feet MSL) 154 154 Conical Surface Slope 20:1 20:1 Width (feet) 4,000 4,000 __________________________________ Source: Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77 3-11 3.4.5 Conical Surface A surface extending outward and upward from the periphery of the Horizontal Surface at a slope of 20 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet. 3.4.6 Summary Where imaginary surfaces overlap, such as in the case where the Approach Surface penetrates and continues upward and outward from the Horizontal Surface, the lowest surface is used to determine whether or not an object would be an obstruction to air navigation. Any proposed new construction or expansion of existing structures that would penetrate any of the FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces of the Airport is considered an incompatible land use, unless either the FAA has determined that the proposed structure does not constitute a hazard to air navigation or the Caltrans Aeronautics Program has issued a permit allowing construction of the proposed structure. The FAA has established minimum standards for the determination of hazards or obstructions to aviation. The FAA permits local agencies such as the ALUC to establish more restrictive criteria for determining if the height of a structure creates a safety hazard to aircraft operations. A determination by the FAA or Caltrans that a project does not constitute a hazard to air navigation does not limit the ALUC from determining that a project may be inconsistent under the policies of this CLUP. 3.5 SAFETY RESTRICTION AREA Safety of people on the ground and in the air and the protection of property from airport-related hazards are among the responsibilities of the Airport Land Use Commission. The 2002 Handbook presents guidelines for the establishment of airport safety areas in addition to those established by the FAA. Airport safety zones are established to minimize the number of people exposed to potential aircraft accidents in the vicinity of the Airport by imposing density and use limitations within these zones. Figure 7 illustrates the airport safety zones for Runway 31-13 at the Airport. The safety zones are related to runway length and expected use. The safety zones shown on Figure 7 are based on a runway length of 2443 feet. Aircraft flight tracks are shown on Figure 3. Safety zones shown in San Mateo County are reference only. In addition, the survivability of aircraft occupants in the event of an emergency landing has been shown to increase significantly if the aircraft is able to reach the ground under control of the pilot. As a result, open area requirements are established for the safety zones in addition to density and use requirements. Exposure to potential aircraft accidents diminishes with distance from the airport runways. The safety zones shown below are in descending order of exposure to potential aircraft accidents, with the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) having the highest exposure followed by the Inner Safety Zone (ISZ), Turning Safety Zone (TSZ), Outer Safety Zone (OSZ) and Sideline Safety Zone (SSZ), with the Traffic Pattern Zone (TPZ) having the lowest level of exposure. At airports with displaced runway thresholds, a choice exists to use either the runway threshold (end of pavement) or the displaced threshold to determine the location of the safety zones. This CLUP uses the threshold adopted by the Airport and the FAA for positioning the FAA RPZs, as depicted on the FAA approved Airport Layout Plan, as the basis for positioning the ALUC safety zones. At this airport both RPZs are based on the displaced thresholds and thus the ALUC safety zones are positioned accordingly. The safety zones defined for the Airport are based on the 2002 Handbook guidelines for an airport having a general aviation runway less than 4,000 feet in length. Symmetrical turning zones were used due to some air traffic operating in a traffic pattern on the west side of the airport Safety zones are exclusive in their coverage, and do not overlay each other. Thus land in the RPZ is only in the RPZ, and is not also in the ISZ or TSZ. The order of precedence is, from highest to lowest: RPZ, ISZ, TSZ, OSZ, SSZ and TPZ. If a development project spans more than one safety zone, each part of the project must meet the requirements for the safety zone in which the land for that portion of the project is located. Thus a single building that extends over two safety zones may have differing height and density- of-use requirements for the two parts of the same physical structure. The following safety zones apply to Palo Alto Airport based on guidelines provided in the 2002 Handbook: ----_ ... ----... _--""' ... _----------........ _--... ---.----------. Airport Safety Zones Figure 7 -/ -----.----~-------_ .. _,-_.-r .... __ ... __ ,~_ 3-13 3.5.1 Runway Protection Zone The function of the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) is to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground and aircraft occupants. RPZs should be clear of all objects, structures and activities. At this airport the RPZ as adopted by the airport and the FAA, begins 200 feet out from the runway thresholds. It is a trapezoidal area centered on the extended runway centerline. The size is related to the expected aircraft use and the visibility minimums for that particular runway. xRunway 31-13: The RPZ for Runway 31 is non-standard but FAA approved at 1,000 feet long, with an inner width of 250 feet and an outer width of 450 feet. The RPZ for Runway 13 is 1,000 feet long, with an inner width of 250 feet and an outer width of 450 feet. 3.5.2 Turning Sector Defined Some of the safety zones are bounded by a geometric feature defined as a “Turning Sector”. This feature is constructed as follows: Each runway end has a sector. The radius of these sectors is 3000 ft with the center point located 1000 ft along the runway centerline from the runway threshold towards the opposite end of the runway. The arc for the sector is swung centered on the extended runway centerline. The interior angle of the sector is 30 degrees on each side of the extended runway centerline, or 60 degrees wide. The Turning Sector is defined as the outside bounds of the feature constructed above. There is one Turning Sector for each end of the runway system. 3.5.3 Inner Safety Zone The Inner Safety Zone (ISZ) is located within the Turning Sector boundary described above. The ISZ represents the approach and departure corridors that have the second highest level of exposure to potential aircraft accidents. The ISZ is centered on the runway centerline starting at the apex of the Turning Sector boundary and extends to the outer arc of the Turning Sector boundary. The length of the runway determines the dimensions. xThe ISZ for Runway 31 and 13 is an area 1,000 feet wide, centered between the runways and contained within the Turning Sector. xThe Inner Safety Zone excludes the RPZ and the Primary Surface. 3.5.4 Turning Safety Zone The Turning Safety Zone (TSZ) represents the approach and departure areas that have the third highest level of exposure to potential aircraft accidents. The Turning Safety Zones are defined below. xThe TSZs for Runways 31 and 13 are the four areas within the Turning Sectors outside of the ISZ. xThe Turning Safety Zone areas do not include the RPZ or the ISZ. 3.5.5 Outer Safety Zone The Outer Safety Zone (OSZ) is an area centered on the extended runway centerline starting at the outer end of the Turning Safety Zone (TSZ) and extending away from the runway end. The length of the runway determines the dimensions. xThe OSZ for each end of the runways is a rectangular area 1000 feet wide and 1500 feet long centered on the extended runway centerline, starting at the outer edge of the TSZ and extending away from the runway threshold. 3-14 3.5.6 Sideline Safety Zone The Sideline Safety Zone (SSZ) is an area along side and parallel to the runway. Aircraft do not normally overfly this area, except aircraft losing directional control on takeoff (especially twin-engine aircraft). xThe SSZ for Runway 31-13 is 1000 feet wide centered on the runway centerline and extending along the runway to intercept the Turning Sector boundaries. 3.5.7 Traffic Pattern Zone The Traffic Pattern Zone (TPZ) is that portion of the airport area routinely overflown by aircraft operating in the airport traffic pattern. The potential for aircraft accidents is relatively low and the need for land use restrictions is minimal. The TPZ excludes all other zones described above. xThe perimeter of the TPZ is constructed by swinging arcs of 5,000-foot radius for Runways 31 and 13 from a point 200 feet out from the runway pavement end on the extended centerline and connecting the arcs with a line tangent to these arcs. 3.6 OVERFLIGHT RESTRICTION AREA All areas within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) should be regarded as potentially subject to aircraft overflights. Although sensitivity to aircraft overflights will vary from one person to another, overflight sensitivity is particularly important within residential land uses and certain agricultural uses (open-air turkey farming, etc.). 3.7 AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREA The Airport Influence Area (AIA) is a composite of the areas surrounding the Airport that are affected by noise, height, and safety considerations. The AIA is defined as a feature-based boundary around the Airport within which all development projects must be evaluated by local agencies to determine how the Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan may impact the proposed development. This evaluation is to determine that the development meets the conditions specified for height restrictions, and noise and safety protection to the public. [A.B. 332 (Stats. 2003) to be codified in Public Utilities Code 21674.7 (b)]. The Airport Influence Area (Figure 8) is defined as that portion of Palo Alto east of the Bayshore Freeway bounded by U.S. Highway 101 to San Francisquito Creek along the Palo Alto City boundary to Charleston Slough to Barron Creek back to U.S. Highway 101. In addition, for structures (including antennae) with a height of 500 feet or greater above ground level, the AIA is defined as the entire county. The compatibility of land uses within the AIA should be preserved to the maximum extent feasible with particular emphasis on the preservation of existing agricultural and open space uses. The conversion of land from existing or planned agricultural, industrial, or commercial use to residential uses should be the subject of careful consideration of the potential impacts of aircraft overflights. .-.".. ' .. -:~~-" -, ---u_ -----* -..... .- =::::...-~:-__ AlA e _·... . " ___ " __ _ M_ With Zoning / --'-'" Figure 8 ---------~---------"-'--~-.-._-_._._.- 4-1 Section 4 4 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY POLICIES 4.1 LAND USE PLANNING ISSUES The land use planning criteria for the individual land use planning issues applicable to the Airport are discussed in Section 3.0. Figure 8 presents a composite of the land use planning categories and the criteria that establishes the Airport Influence Area (AIA). The Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Airport address policies based on the following criteria: xNoise Restriction Area. The Noise Restriction Area is defined as the 60 dB CNEL contour, inside which an acoustical analysis is required by the local agency with land use jurisdiction demonstrating how low-density, single-family, duplex and mobile home dwelling units have been designed to meet an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL. xHeight Restriction Area. The Height Restriction Area is to protect the airspace around the Airport. The Horizontal Surface is 150 feet above the Airport elevations, the perimeter of which is constructed by swinging arcs out from the ends of the Primary Surface. The radius of the arc is 5,000 feet for this airport. The Conical Surface extends outward and upward from the periphery of the Horizontal Surface at a slope of 20 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet. The Height Restriction Area is defined as the Approach Surfaces plus the Transitional Surfaces plus the Horizontal Surface plus the Conical Surface. xSafety Restriction Area. The Safety Restriction Area is to provide land use safety with respect to people and property on the ground and the occupants of aircraft. The safety zones applicable to the Airport are defined in Section 3.5 and presented on Figure 7. xOverflight Restriction Area. The Overflight Restriction Area is a composite of the areas surrounding the Airport that are areas affected by noise, height, and safety considerations. All areas within the AIA (Figure 8) should be regarded as potentially subject to aircraft overflights as discussed in Section 3.6. 4.2 JURISDICTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES The policies set forth in this section contain criteria intended to prevent future conflicts between airport operations and surrounding land uses. Implementation of these criteria requires action by the local jurisdictions that have control over the land uses in the Airport Influence Area (AIA) presented on Figure 8. The jurisdictional responsibilities for implementation of the CLUP are described below. In addition, actions that are available to the local jurisdictions are also presented. Implementation of the CLUP will be the responsibility of the County of Santa Clara and the City of Palo Alto for those areas within the AIA under their respective jurisdiction. Note that Policies T-1 and T-2 extend countywide. The Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) will provide policy direction, advice, and technical assistance to the County and the City of Palo Alto as needed to facilitate implementation of the CLUP. 4.2.1 Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission The Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission shall: xAdopt the airport land use policies and the AIA boundary maps. The CLUP and its planning boundary maps shall, upon adoption, be subject to annual review by the ALUC and be updated as required. Amendments to the CLUP document are limited to no more than once per calendar year. 4-2 xReview the General Plan and applicable Specific Plans for the County of Santa Clara and the City of Palo Alto to determine if such plans and regulations are consistent with the policies of this CLUP. Until the ALUC has determined that the General Plans and Specific Plans of the County and city are consistent, or until the County or associated city has overridden the ALUC's determination, all discretionary permits within the AIA shall be referred to the ALUC for a consistency determination. xReview all proposed amendments to the General Plans, Specific Plans, and zoning and building regulations that may affect land use in the AIA. The ALUC shall determine if the proposed amendments are consistent or inconsistent with this CLUP. xReview proposed changes to the Airport Master Plan or Airport Layout Plan or modifications to the aircraft flight tracks, new aircraft noise contours, or any other development that would alter the land use compatibility issues addressed in Section 3.0. The ALUC shall determine if the proposed changes are consistent with this CLUP or if the CLUP requires an amendment. xConsider and comment on local government decisions relating to proposed land use where there is a conflict with ALUC plans and policies. A review of land use issues within the AIA relating to ALUC policies may be requested by any member of the ALUC, or by the owner/operator of the Airport. xCoordinate off-airport land use planning efforts of the cities within the county, the County of Santa Clara and Federal and State agencies concerned with airport land use. xGather and disseminate information relating to airport land use and aircraft noise, height and safety factors that may affect land use. 4.2.1.1 Review of Development Projects Once the ALUC has determined that a local jurisdiction's General Plan and applicable Specific Plans are consistent with the CLUP (or the local jurisdiction has overruled the ALUC and made the required findings of consistency with the purposes stated in Public Utilities Code section 21670), to the extent that these are not mandated referrals the ALUC encourages the local jurisdictions to submit referrals to the ALUC for the following proposed developments: xAny project that requires use of the Infill policies or Reconstruction policy R-3 in order to be deemed consistent with this CLUP. xProposed residential development, including land divisions, consisting of five or more dwelling units or parcels within the AIA. xMajor infrastructure development or improvements (e.g., water, sewer, roads) that would promote urban development within the AIA. xProposed land acquisition by any entity for the purpose of developing a school, hospital, nursing home, library, outdoor theater, or other high-density or low-mobility uses within the AIA. xAny proposal anywhere in the County for construction or alteration of a structure (including antennas) higher than 200 feet above ground level, to verify compliance with FAR 77.13 and ALUC policies. xAny proposed land use action by a city or County planning agencies involving a question of compatibility with the Airport’s activities. For example, creation of a landfill within the AIA would generally meet all height and density requirements, however the tendency of landfills to attract bird activity may create a safety hazard for airport operations. xAny project within the AIA that is voluntarily referred to the ALUC for review by the local agency. 4-3 4.2.1.2 Project Submittals When review of a land use development proposal is required under this CLUP, the referring agency shall provide the following information to the ALUC in addition to the information required by the city or County: xA map, drawn to an appropriate scale, showing the relationship of the project to the Airport’s boundaries and runways, airport safety zones, airport noise contours and the FAA Part 77 Surfaces for the airport. xA detailed site plan showing ground elevations, location of structures, open spaces and the heights of structures and landscaping. xA description of permitted or proposed land uses and restrictions on the uses. xAn indication of the potential or proposed number of dwelling units per acre for residential uses. xThe maximum number of people potentially occupying the total site or portions of the site at any one time. xAny project submitted for airport land use compatibility review for reasons of height-limit issues shall include a copy of the Federal Aviation Administration’s evaluation and reply to proponent’s notification to the FAA using FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration. 4.2.1.3 Review Process The proposed actions referred to in Section 4.2.1.1 shall be referred to the ALUC at the earliest possible time but no later than the time allowed in the applicable statutes and regulations, in order that the ALUC's findings may be considered by the local agency prior to finalizing the proposed action. The ALUC must find a proposal either 1) consistent with the CLUP or 2) inconsistent with the CLUP. Additionally, the ALUC can provide recommendations for changes that would enhance the project's compatibility with the CLUP or the ALUC can state under which conditions the proposal would be consistent. The ALUC must take action on a request for a consistency determination within 60 days of the referral. If the proponent desires to request a delay in determination, the proponent must withdraw the project from consideration and reapply at a later date. If the determination is not made within 60 days (or as extended by proponent’s request), the proposal shall be considered consistent with the CLUP. The ALUC may, at the request of the local jurisdiction or interested party, provide an interpretation of any of the policies found in this CLUP. 4.2.2 Affected Local Agencies To bring their General Plan and Specific Plans into conformity with this CLUP, the ALUC recommends that the affected agencies consider the following: xAdopt the ALUC policies and the AIA boundary maps. xIncorporate the adopted ALUC policies, boundary maps, and land use recommendations into the local agency’s General and/or Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinances. xProvide ongoing review of land uses within the AIA to ensure that land use changes are compatible with ALUC policies and plans. The affected local agency shall work closely with ALUC staff to establish and carry out review coordination with the ALUC. xIncorporate the AIA boundary maps into the local agency’s geographic information system (GIS). 4-4 4.2.2.1 Overrule Notification Process The affected local agencies shall: xNotify the ALUC at least 45 days in advance, of their intent to overrule any ALUC non-consistency determination including a copy of their proposed decision and specific findings. xNotify the ALUC if and when the local agency overrules any ALUC non-consistency determinations. 4.2.3 Airport Owner/Operator Responsibilities To ensure that the ALUC is able to fulfill its statutory responsibilities, Palo Alto Airport management should: xNotify the ALUC of operational or physical changes, such as aircraft flight tracks, airfield configuration, structural development, relocation of facilities, and proposed new and/or updates to planning documents. xNotify the ALUC of any changes that may affect Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 height restriction surfaces or CNEL aircraft noise contours. xProvide CNEL noise contour data including the most recent actual data as well as forecasts covering at least twenty years into the future. 4.3 COMPATIBILITY POLICIES The compatibility of land uses in the vicinity of the Airport will be evaluated for each of the potential land use impact categories in terms of the compatibility guidelines or policies established for each category of concern. The graphic illustrations of each area of concern presented in this CLUP are to be included in the evaluation. The following compatibility policies will be used for ALUC consistency review. 4.3.1 General Compatibility 4.3.1.1 Policies G-1 In the case of conflicting guidelines or policies, the most restrictive guideline or policy shall be applied. G-2 If a project falls into an area within two or more Airport Influence Areas (AIA), the most restrictive conditions from each separate airport shall apply to the project. G-3 The Airport is exempt from the policies of this CLUP for the development of projects on airport property that are directly related to airport operations (examples: terminals, FBOs, fuel storage, passenger and employee parking). The policies of this CLUP apply to all land uses on airport property that are not directly related to airport operations (examples: commercial non-aviation uses, athletic fields). In the case of mixed use, the primary use of the project shall be used to determine if the project is exempt, for example: xA terminal building would be considered related to airport operations even though it also provided retail food and product sales. xA commercial office complex would not be considered related to airport operations even though some of the office space might be used for airport administration. In cases of uncertainty, the ALUC is available to help determine if a land use is or is not directly related to airport operations. This policy does not relieve the Airport of its other obligations to the ALUC, such as providing Airport Master Plan Updates for ALUC review. 4-5 G-4 Local jurisdictions should encourage the conversion of land uses that are currently incompatible with this CLUP to uses that are compatible, where feasible. G-5 Dedication of an avigation easement to the County of Santa Clara shall be required as a condition of approval on all projects located within an Airport Influence Area, other than reconstruction projects as defined in paragraph 4.3.7. All such easements shall be similar to that shown as Exhibit 1 in Appendix A. G-6 Any proposed uses that may cause a hazard to aircraft in flight are not permitted within the AIA. Such uses include electrical interference, high intensity lighting, attraction of birds (certain agricultural uses, sanitary landfills), and activities that may produce smoke, dust, or glare. G-7 All new exterior lighting within the AIA shall be designed so as to create no interference with aircraft operations. Such lighting shall be constructed and located so that only the intended area is illuminated and off-site glare is fully controlled. The lighting shall be arrayed in such a manner that it cannot be mistaken for airport approach or runway lights by pilots. 4.3.2 Noise Compatibility The objective of noise compatibility criteria is to minimize the number of people exposed to frequent and/or high levels of aircraft noise. 4.3.2.1 Policies N-1 The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) method of representing noise levels shall be used to determine if a specific land use is consistent with the CLUP. N-2 In addition to the other guidelines and policies herein, the Noise Compatibility Guidelines presented in Table 4-1 shall be used to determine if a specific land use is consistent with this CLUP. N-3 Noise impacts shall be evaluated according to the Aircraft Noise Contours presented on Figure 5. N-4 No residential construction shall be permitted within the 65 dB CNEL contour boundary unless it can be demonstrated that the resulting interior sound levels will be less than 45 dB CNEL and there are no outdoor patios or outdoor activity areas associated with the residential project. All property owners within the 65 dB CNEL contour boundary who rent or lease their property for residential use shall include in their rental/lease agreement with the tenant, a statement advising that they (the tenants) are living within a high noise area and the exterior noise level is predicted to be greater than 65 dB CNEL. N-5 Residential construction will not be permitted in the area between the 60 dB CNEL contour boundary and the 65 dB CNEL contour boundary unless it can be demonstrated that the resulting interior sound level will be no greater than 45 dB CNEL. N-6 Noise level compatibility standards for other types of land uses shall be applied in the same manner as the above residential noise level criteria. Table 4-1 presents acceptable noise levels for other land uses in the vicinity of the Airport. N-7 Single-event noise levels (SENL) are also to be considered when evaluating the compatibility of highly noise-sensitive land uses such as schools, libraries, outdoor theaters, and mobile homes. Single- event noise levels are especially important in the areas regularly overflown by aircraft, but which may not produce significant CNEL contours, such as the down-wind segment of the traffic pattern, and airport entry and departure flight corridors. 4.3.3 Height Compatibility The objective of height compatibility criteria is to avoid development of land uses, which, by posing hazards to flight, can increase the risk of an accident occurring. 4-6 Table 4 - 1 NOISE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES CNEL LAND USE CATEGORY 55-60 60-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 Residential – low density Single-family, duplex, mobile homes * ** ** ** **** **** Residential – multi-family, condominiums, townhouses * ** ** ** **** **** Transient lodging - motels, hotels * ** ** ** **** **** Schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, nursing homes * ** ** ** **** **** Auditoriums, concert halls, amphitheaters ** ** ** ** **** **** Sports arena, outdoor spectator sports, parking * * ** ** ** **** Playgrounds, neighborhood parks * * ** ** ** **** Office buildings, business commercial and professional * * * ** ** **** Industrial, manufacturing, utilities, agriculture ********* * Generally Acceptable Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. Outdoor activities are not likely to be adversely affected. ** Conditionally Acceptable Specified land uses may be permitted only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Outdoor activities may be adversely affected. **** Unacceptable New construction or development should generally not be undertaken because mitigation is usually not feasible to comply with noise element policies. Outdoor activities are likely to be adversely affected. Source: Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (1998), Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment Element, page N-28 4-7 4.3.3.1 Policies H-1 Any structure or object that penetrates the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, (FAR Part 77) surfaces, as presented in Table 3-3 and illustrated on Figure 6 will be considered an incompatible land use. H-2 Any project that may exceed a FAR Part 77 surface must notify the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as required by FAR Part 77, Subpart B on FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration. (Notification to the FAA under FAR Part 77, Subpart B, is required even for certain proposed construction that does not exceed the height limits allowed by Subpart C of the FARs). 4.3.4 Tall Structure Compatibility Structures of a height greater than 200 feet above ground level can be a special hazard to aircraft in flight. 4.3.4.1 Policies T-1 The applicant for any proposed project anywhere in the County for construction or alteration of a structure (including antennas) higher than 200 feet above ground level shall submit to the FAA a completed copy of FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration. A copy of the submitted form shall be submitted to the Santa Clara County ALUC as well as a copy of the FAA’s response to this form. T-2 Any proposed project anywhere in the County for construction or alteration of a structure (including antennas) higher than 200 feet above ground level shall comply with FAR 77.13(a)(1) and shall be determined inconsistent if deemed to be a hazard by the FAA or if the ALUC determines that the project has any impact on normal aircraft operations or would increase the risk to aircraft operations. 4.3.5 Safety Compatibility The objective of safety compatibility criteria is to minimize the risks associated with potential aircraft accidents. These include the safety of people on the ground and the safety of aircraft occupants. Land uses of particular concern are those in which the occupants have reduced effective mobility or are unable to respond to emergency situations. 4.3.5.1 Policies S-1 These policies and the Safety Zone Compatibility Guidelines presented in Table 4-2 shall be used to determine if a specific land use is consistent with the CLUP. Safety impacts shall be evaluated according to the Airport Safety Zones presented on Figure 7. S-2 Schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and other uses in which the majority of occupants are children, elderly, and/or disabled shall be prohibited within the Runway Protection Zones (RPZs), Inner Safety Zones (ISZs), Turning Safety Zones (TSZs), Sideline Safety Zones (SSZs), and Outer Safety Zones (OSZs) presented in Table 3-2. These uses should also be discouraged in the Traffic Pattern Zones (TPZs). S-3 Amphitheaters, sports stadiums and other very high concentrations of people shall be prohibited within the Runway Protection Zones (RPZs), Inner Safety Zones (ISZs), Turning Safety Zones (TSZs), Sideline Safety Zones (SSZs), Outer Safety Zones (OSZs) and Traffic Pattern Zones (TPZs) presented in Table 4-2. S-4 Storage of fuel or other hazardous materials shall be prohibited in the Runway Protection Zone. Above ground storage of fuel or other hazardous materials shall be prohibited in the Inner Safety Zone and Turning Safety Zone. Beyond these zones, storage of fuel or other hazardous materials not associated with aircraft use should be discouraged. 4-8 Table 4 - 2 SAFETY ZONE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES Safety Zone Maximum Population Density Open Area Requirements Land Use Runway Protection Zone – RPZ -0- (No people allowed) 100 percent (No structures allowed) Agricultural activities, roads, open low- landscaped areas. No trees, telephone poles or similar obstacles. Occasional sort-term transient vehicle parking is permitted. Inner Safety Zone – ISZ Nonresidential, maximum 60 people per acre (includes open area and parking area required for the building’s occupants) 30 percent of gross area open. No structures or concentrations of people between or within 100 feet of the extended runway centerlines. Very low-density residential. 10 acres or more per dwelling unit - Nonresidential uses should be activities that attract relatively few people. No shopping centers, restaurants, theaters, meeting halls, stadiums, multi-story office buildings, labor-intensive manufacturing plants, educational facilities, day care facilities, hospitals, nursing homes or similar activities. No hazardous material facilities (gasoline stations, etc.). Turning Safety Zone - TSZ Nonresidential, maximum 100 people per acre (includes open area and parking area required for the building’s occupants) 20 percent of gross area Minimum dimensions: 300 ft by 75 ft parallel to the runway(s). Very low-density residential, 5 acres or more per dwelling unit. No regional shopping centers, theaters, meeting halls, stadiums, buildings with more than three above ground habitable floors, schools, day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes or similar activities. No hazardous material facilities (gasoline stations, etc.). Outer Safety Zone – OSZ Nonresidential, maximum 100 people per acre (includes open area and parking area required for the building’s occupants) 20 percent of gross area Rural areas - allow residential, 2 acres or more per dwelling unit. Urban areas - allow residential infill to existing density. No regional shopping centers, theaters, meeting halls, stadiums, buildings with more than three above ground habitable floors, schools, large day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes or similar activities. No above ground bulk fuel storage. Sideline Safety Zone - SSZ Nonresidential, maximum 150 people per acre (includes open area and parking area required for the building’s occupants) 30 percent of gross area Residential - 5 acres or more per dwelling unit. No regional shopping centers, theaters, meeting halls, stadiums, buildings with more than three above ground habitable floors, schools, large day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes or similar activities. No above ground bulk fuel storage. Traffic Pattern Zone – TPZ No Limit 10 percent of gross area every one-half mile Residential – No Limit. No sports stadiums or similar uses with very high concentration of people. Source: Based on 2002 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook prepared by the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics 4-9 S-5 In addition to the requirements of Table 4-2, open space requirements, for sites which can accommodate an open space component, shall be established at the general plan level for each safety zone, as individual parcels may be too small to accommodate the minimum-size open space requirement. To qualify as open space, an area must be free of structures, walls, large trees or poles (greater than 4” in diameter) and overhead wires, and have minimum dimensions of at least 75 feet wide by 300 feet long along the normal direction of flight. In addition, a clear path must exist which allows aircraft to reach the open space. Hence, an open area surrounded by structures or trees may not qualify as open space if such obstructions preclude a gliding aircraft from reaching the ground under full control of the pilot. The clustering of development and provision of contiguous landscaping and parking areas will be encouraged to increase the size of open space areas. S-6 The principal means of reducing risks to people on the ground is to restrict land uses so as to limit the number of people who might gather in areas most susceptible to aircraft accidents. A method for determining the concentration of people for various land uses is presented in Section 5.0, Implementation. S-7 The following uses shall be prohibited in all Airport Safety Zones: xAny use which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or amber colors associated with airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport, other than an FAA-approved navigational signal light or visual approach slope indicator. xAny use that would cause sunlight to be reflected towards an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or towards an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach towards a landing at an airport. xAny use which would generate smoke or water vapor, or which would attract large concentrations of birds, or which may otherwise negatively affect safe air navigation within the area. xAny use which would generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to the operation of aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation, communication or navigation equipment. S-8 Structures or trees that would interfere with an aircraft gliding to an emergency landing in a safety zone open area are not permitted. S-9 In exceptional cases a variance can be granted, at the discretion of the ALUC, on the basis of mitigation measures proposed by the applicant which would result in the final project improving the overall safety in the safety zones in comparison to the situation existing prior to the project. An example of such a possible mitigation is the removal of existing incompatible structures in exchange for constructing less incompatible structures. The following conditions must be met for this variance to be granted: a. There must be a clear, demonstrable net improvement in safety. b. The mitigation must provide a permanent improvement in safety. For instance, in the example above, the removed structures could not be replaced by other structures at a later date. 4.3.6 Overflight The objective of the overflight compatibility criteria is to assist those persons who are highly annoyed by overflights or have an above-average sensitivity to aircraft overflights to avoid living in locations where these impacts may occur. 4.3.6.1 Policies O-1 All new projects within the AIA shall be required to dedicate an avigation easement to the County of Santa Clara. The avigation easement shall be similar to that shown as Exhibit 1 in Appendix A. (In September of 2002 Assembly Bill AB2776 was signed into law and became effective on January 1, 2004. This statute requires that as part of the real estate transfer process, the residential property purchaser 4-10 be informed if the property is in an Airport Influence Area and be informed of the potential impacts resulting from the associated airport. This law is not always being followed.) 4.3.7 Reconstruction Reconstruction as used in this CLUP is the rebuilding of a legally established structure located in any of the safety zones, to its original conditions (typically due to a fire, or earthquake damage or destruction). “Original conditions” means the same or lesser footprint, height and intensity of use. Reconstruction projects may be approved under the following policies: 4.3.7.1 Policies R-1 Reconstruction projects that are not subject to a previous avigation easement shall not be required to provide an avigation easement as a condition for approval. R-2 Residential reconstruction projects must include noise insulation to assure interior noise levels of less than 45 dB CNEL. R-3 An application for reconstruction increasing the structure’s internal square footage, footprint square footage, height, and/or intensity of use may be approved if the ALUC determines that such increase will have no adverse impact beyond that which existed with the original structure. However, a project approved under this policy shall require the property owner to provide an avigation easement to the jurisdiction operating the airport, similar to Exhibit 1 in the Appendix. 4.3.8 Infill Infill as used in this CLUP is defined as the development of vacant or underutilized properties located in a safety zone, of less than 0.25 acres in size, in areas that are already substantially developed with uses not ordinarily permitted by the CLUP compatibility criteria. In some circumstances, infill projects may be acceptable if the following criteria are met. 4.3.8.1 Policies I-1 Infill projects must comply with all safety policies and guidelines of this CLUP with the possible exception of the land use density requirements. I-2 Infill projects may be approved if all of the following conditions are met: a) The total contiguous undeveloped land area at this location is less than 0.25 acres in size. Note that this means the total contiguous undeveloped land area, not just the land area being proposed for development. Lots larger than 0.25 acres shall not be considered for infill. b) The site is already surrounded on three sides and a street, or two sides and two streets, by the same land use as that being proposed. c) The ALUC determines that the project will create no adverse impacts beyond those that already exist due to the existing incompatible land uses. d) The property owner shall provide an avigation easement to the jurisdiction operating the airport, similar to Exhibit 1 in the Appendix. Section 5 5 IMPLEMENTATION 5.1 CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL PLANS AND ZONING The California State Aeronautics Act {Public Utilities Code: Division 9, Part 1, Chapter 4, Article 3.5, Section 21670 et seq} places the responsibility for implementing and enforcing this Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) on the local governmental agencies responsible for land use planning within each airport’s Airport Influence Area (AIA). Once the ALUC has adopted a revised (or new) CLUP, and transmitted that CLUP to an affected local agency that local agency is mandated to incorporate the CLUP’s provisions into its General and/or Specific Plan(s) within 180 days {Government Code 65302.3(b)}. Implicitly, the local agency is then required to adopt zoning ordinance(s) that implement the policies of their General/Specific Plan(s). If a local agency decides not to incorporate the CLUP policies verbatim in its General and/or Specific plans, it may overrule portions (or all of) the CLUP if it finds that its General and/or Specific Plans are consistent with the State Aeronautics Act, PUC 21670 et seq. The overrule process requires a two-thirds vote of the local agency’s governing body, supported by specific findings which demonstrate that the plan(s) satisfy the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act {PUC 21670 et seq} and guidance of the state’s Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. During the amendment process and subsequent to adoption of revised General and/or Specific Plan(s) by a local agency, the ALUC is required to promptly review both the draft and final Plan(s) for a CLUP consistency determination {PUC 21676}. 5.2 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS The most fundamental means of assuring compatibility between an airport and surrounding land uses is by the designation of appropriate land uses in local general plans, specific plans, and zoning ordinances. Even with the designation of appropriate land uses, the long-term maintenance of airports and land use compatibility is often difficult to achieve. Land use designations can be limited in the degree of restrictiveness that can be applied. If the land use restrictions eliminate all reasonable economic use of private property, they can be considered an unconstitutional taking and result in inverse condemnation. This is particularly applicable in areas near the ends of the runways where such extreme restrictions may be appropriate. For this reason airport owners/operators are encouraged to purchase the land containing the most restrictive safety zones. Land use designations for an area for different uses than already exist may encourage change in the long term, but it may not eliminate existing incompatible uses. Other actions such as fee simple acquisition or purchase of development rights may be necessary to bring about the changes. 5.2.1 Airport Overlay Zones One way of achieving aviation-oriented land use designations is adoption of an overlay or combining zone. An overlay zone supplements local land use designations by adding specific noise and, often more importantly, safety criteria (e.g., maximum number of people on the site, site design, and open space criteria, height restrictions, etc.) applicable to future development in the AIA. An airport overlay zone has several important benefits. Most importantly, it permits the continued utilization of the majority of the design and use guidelines contained in the existing zones. At the same time, it provides a mechanism for implementation of restrictions and conditions that may apply to only a few types of land uses within a given land use category or zoning district. This avoids the need for a large number of discrete zoning districts. It also enables local jurisdictions to use the policies provided in the CLUP, rather than through redefinition of existing zoning district descriptions. 5-1 The County and cities should consider the following for inclusion in the Airport Overlay District Zone (Airport Safety Overlay Zone): xNoise Insulation Standards - In areas that will potentially be impacted by noise, the Airport Overlay District Zone could be used to assure compliance with the State statutes regarding interior noise levels. The Overlay District Zone could specify the construction techniques necessary to meet the requirements. xHeight Limitations - Restrictions on the height of buildings, antennas, trees, and other objects near the Airport, as defined by Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Subpart C, and regulated by the California Aeronautics Law, can be implemented as part of the Airport Overlay District Zone. xFAA Notification Requirements - The Airport Overlay District Zone also can be used to assure that project developers are informed about the need for compliance with the notification requirements of FAR Part 77. Subpart B of the regulations requires that the proponent of any project that exceeds a specified set of height criteria submit a FAA Form 7460-1 Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration to the FAA prior to commencement of construction. The height criteria associated with this notification requirement are lower than those in FAR Part 77, Subpart C, which define airspace obstructions. The purpose of the notification is to determine if the proposed construction would constitute a potential hazard or obstruction to flight. Notification is not required for proposed structures that would be shielded by existing structures or by natural terrain of equal or greater height, where it is obvious that the proposal would not adversely affect air safety. xMaximum Densities - The principal noise and safety compatibility standards in the CLUP are expressed in terms of dwelling units per acre for residential uses and people per acre for other land uses. These standards can either be included as is in the Airport Overlay District Zone or used to modify the underlying land use designations. For residential land uses, the correlation between the compatibility criteria and land use designations is direct. For other land uses, the implications of the density limitations are not as clear. One step that can be taken by local governments is to establish a matrix indicating whether specific types of land uses are or are not compatible with each of the four compatibility zones. To be useful, the land use categories will need to be more detailed than typically provided by general plan or zoning ordinance land use designations. xOpen Space Requirements - CLUP criteria regarding AIA open space suitable for emergency aircraft landings can be implemented by the Airport Overlay District Zone. These criteria are most effectively carried out by planning at the general or specific plan level, but may also need to be addressed in terms of development restrictions on large parcels. 5.2.2 Avigation Easements Avigation easements are another type of land use control measure available to local jurisdictions. Historically, avigation easements have been used to establish height limitations, prevent other flight hazards, and prevent noise impacts. More recently, they have been used as a form of buyer awareness - the recording of an easement against a property ensures that prospective buyers of the property are informed about the Airport impacts. (See the Appendix for a typical Avigation Easement). An avigation easement applies only to the specific property to which it is attached and it is binding on all subsequent owners of the property. Avigation easements can be obtained either by purchase or by required dedication. xPurchase - Acquisition of avigation easements for a monetary amount is usually done by the Airport owner, which may or may not be the same as the local land use jurisdiction. In most instances, the purchase of avigation easements is limited to property within Runway Protection Zones or elsewhere very close to the Airport’s boundaries where some significant degree of restriction or impact is involved. xDedication - Required dedication of avigation easements is sometimes set as a condition for local jurisdiction approval of a proposed land use development, especially a residential development, in the 5-2 vicinity of an Airport. Generally, when avigation easements are obtained in this manner, they are primarily intended to serve as a comprehensive and stringent form of a buyer awareness measure. A standard avigation easement conveys the following property rights from the owner of the property to the holder of the easement: xOverflight - A right-of-way for free and unobstructed passage of aircraft through the airspace over the property at any altitude above a surface specified in the easement (in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 and/or criteria for terminal instrument procedures). xImpacts - A right to subject the property to noise, vibration, fumes, dust, and fuel particle emissions associated with airport and aircraft activity. xHeight Limits - A right to prohibit the construction or growth of any structure, tree, or other object that would penetrate the acquired airspace. xAccess and Abatement - A right-of-entry onto the property, with appropriate advance notice, for the purpose of removing, marking, or lighting any structure or other object that enters the acquired airspace. xOther Restrictions - A right to prohibit electrical interference, glare, misleading light sources, visual impairments, and other hazards to aircraft from being created on the property. Easements that convey only one or more of these rights are common. An easement containing only the first two rights is usually referred to as an overflight or noise easement. The latter three rights are often collectively called a height-limit or airspace easement. Overflight easements are useful in locations sufficiently distant from an airport where height limits and other restrictions are not a concern. Height- limit easements have most frequently been obtained by purchase of properties close to an airport where restrictions on the height of objects are necessary. Because height-limit easements do not include the overflight easement rights, there is little apparent advantage to obtaining them rather than a complete avigation easement. 5.2.3 Buyer Awareness Measures Buyer awareness is an umbrella category for types of airport/land use compatibility measures whose objective is to ensure that prospective buyers of property in the vicinity of an airport are made aware of the airport's existence and the impacts that the airport activity has on surrounding land uses. Avigation easements are the most definitive form of a buyer awareness measure. Buyer awareness can also be successfully implemented through other types of programs. Two primary methods are deed notices and real-estate disclosure statements. xDeed Notices. Deed notices are statements recorded with the County Clerk-Recorder disclosing that the property is subject to routine overflights and associated noise and other impacts by aircraft operating at a nearby airport. An ideal application of deed notices is as a condition of approval for development of residential land use in airport-vicinity locations where neither noise nor safety are significant factors, but frequent aircraft overflights may be annoying to some people. In addition to being recorded with the deed to a property, the notices should be recorded with parcel maps and any tentative or final subdivision maps. (See the Appendix for a typical Deed Notice). Deed notices are similar to avigation or other aviation-related easements in that they become part of the title to a property and thus are a permanent form of buyer awareness. The distinguishing difference between deed notices and avigation easements is that deed notices only serve as a disclosure of potential overflights, whereas avigation easements convey an identified set of property rights. In locations where height limitations or other land use restrictions are unnecessary, deed notices have the advantage of being less cumbersome to define. Also, they have less appearance of having a negative effect on the value of the property. 5-3 xReal Estate Disclosure Statements.A more comprehensive form of buyer awareness program is to require that information about an Airport Influence Area be disclosed to prospective buyers of all airport-vicinity properties prior to the transfer of title. The advantage of this type of program is that it applies to previously existing land uses as well as to new development. This type of program can be implemented through adoption of a local ordinance requiring real estate disclosure upon the transfer of title or it can be established in conjunction with the adoption of an airport overlay zone. Notification describing the zone and discussing its significance could be formally sent to all local real-estate brokers and title companies. The brokers would be obligated by State law to pass it along to prospective buyers after receiving this information. At a minimum, the area covered by a real estate disclosure program should include the Airport Influence Area as established in the CLUP. The boundary also could be defined to coincide with the boundaries of an airport overlay zone. 5.2.4 Methods of Calculating Density and Building Occupancy The Safety Compatibility Guidelines for non-residential uses limit the persons per acre in certain safety zones. Determining the maximum number of persons likely to occupy a structure is not an exact science, however, the following methods are available to provide a reasonable estimate of how many persons will use a proposed facility. xParking Ordinance. Most jurisdictions have parking regulations, which specify how many parking spaces are required for particular types of uses. Once an assumption is made regarding the number of persons per vehicle, an estimate can be made of the maximum number of persons that could occupy the structure. The assumption of persons per vehicle must be based on the type of use. xNumber of Seats. If the proposed use provides seating for its patrons, such as a restaurant, it is relatively easy to determine the maximum number of people that could occupy the structure. xUniform Building Code. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) specifies a certain number of square feet per occupant that are required for certain uses. This number can be determined through contact with the city or County Building Department. xSimilar Uses. Certain uses may require an estimate based on a survey of similar uses. This method is more difficult but is appropriate for uses, which because of the nature of the use, cannot be reasonably estimated based on parking or square footage. 5-4 Section 6 6 BIBLIOGRAPHY California Building Standards Commission, Title 24,California Building Standards Code, 1998, California Building Code, Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Division IIA, Section 1208A.8, pg. 1-332 California Code of Regulations, Title 21,Public Works, 1998,Division 2.5, Division of Aeronautics, Chapter 6, Noise Standards California Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Program,California Aviation System Plan, 1998 Inventory Element, September 1998 California Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Program,California Aviation System Plan, 1999 Statewide Forecasts,September 1999 County of Santa Clara,General Plan, adopted by the County Board of Supervisors in December 1994. Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc.,Palo Alto Airport Master Plan Update and Business Plan Study, Chapter 2, Airport Roles and Forecasts, prepared for The County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department, 2002 Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc.,Palo Alto Airport Noise Contours (HMMH Project # 297920.016), prepared for The County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department, February 24, 2006 Mead & Hunt,Palo Alto Airport Master Plan Report,December 2006 Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission,Land Use Plan for Areas Surrounding Santa Clara County Airports, Adopted September, 1992 Shutt Moen Associates,California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, prepared for California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, January 2002 State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, General Plan Guidelines, Appendix A, November 1998 (formerly Office of Noise Control Guidelines) U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, AC 150/5300-13,Airport Design, February 1997 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,Integrated Noise Model, Version 6.1, March 2003 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) 2007-2011, September 2006 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Terminal Area Forecasts, FY 2008-2025, July 2007 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Regulations Part 36,Aircraft Type and Airworthiness Certification, 2004 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77,Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, 2004 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Regulations Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning, 2004 6-1 7 APPENDIX A Sample Implementation Documents Some ALUC approvals may require the dedication of Avigation Easements or use of Deed Notices in selected areas around the Airport. Examples might be the dedication of Avigation Easements for any development within the Traffic Pattern Zone, especially within the Safety Zones and Runway Protection Zones. Deed Notices might be more appropriate for development outside the Traffic Pattern Zone but within the Airport Influence Area. Examples of these documents are presented on the following pages. Exhibit 1 – Avigation Easement Exhibit 2 – Deed Notice 7-1 Exhibit 1 Sample Avigation Easement AVIGATION EASEMENT DEED _________________________________________ [list owners of property in exact form as on deed for property] (hereinafter “Grantor”) hereby grant an avigation easement to the County of Santa Clara, a political subdivision in the State of California (hereinafter “Grantee”). The Grantor, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant to the Grantee, its successors and assigns,a perpetual and assignable easement over the following described parcel of land in which the Grantor holds fee title. The property which is subject to this Avigation Easement is located at [insert address and assessor’s parcel number] and is more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein (hereinafter “Property”). The easement conveyed herein (“Avigation Easement”) applies to both the Property and the airspace above an imaginary plane over the Property (hereinafter “Airspace”), which is described as follows: The imaginary plane above the hereinbefore described real property, as such plane is defined by Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations and consists of a plane [describe approach, transition, or horizontal surface]: the elevation of said plane being based upon the official FAA Palo Alto Airport elevation of _____ feet Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), the approximate dimensions of which said plane are described and shown on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The purposes of this Avigation Easement include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) The use and benefit of the public for the continuing right to fly, or cause or permit the flight by any and all persons, or any aircraft, of any and all kinds now or hereafter known, in, through, across, or about any portion of the Property and Airspace; and (2) The right to cause or create, or permit or allow to be caused or created within all space above the existing surface of the Property and any and all Airspace above the Property, such noise, vibration, currents and other effects of air, illumination and fuel consumption as may be inherent in, or may arise or occur from or during the operation of aircraft of any and all kinds, now or hereafter known or used, for navigation of or flight in air; and (3) A continuing right to clear and keep clear from the Property and Airspace any portions of buildings, structures, or improvements of any kinds, and of trees or other objects, including the right to remove or demolish those portions of such buildings, structures, improvements, trees, or other things which extend into or above the Airspace, and the right to cut to the ground level and remove any trees which extend into or above the Airspace; and (4) The right to mark and light, or cause or require to be marked or lighted, as obstructions to air navi- gation, any and all buildings, structures, or other improvements, and trees or other objects which extend into or above the Airspace; and (5) The right of ingress to, passage within, and egress from the Property for the purposes described in subparagraphs (3) and (4) above at reasonable times and after reasonable notice. For and behalf of itself, its successors and assigns, the Grantor hereby covenants with the Grantee, for the direct benefit of the real property constituting the Palo Alto Airport (hereinafter “Airport”), that 7-2 neither the Grantor, nor its successors in interest or assigns will construct, install, erect, place or grow in or upon the Property, nor will they allow, any building structure, improvement, tree or other object to extend into or above the Airspace or constitute an obstruction to air navigation, or to obstruct or interfere with the use of this Avigation Easement. This Avigation Easement shall be deemed both appurtenant to and for the direct benefit of that real property which constitutes the Airport in the County of Santa Clara, State of California; and shall further be deemed in gross, being conveyed to the Grantee for the benefit of the Grantee and to any and all members of the general public who may use Airspace for landing at, taking off from or operating such aircraft in or about the Airport, or in otherwise flying above the Property or through said Airspace. Grantor, together with its successors in interest and assigns, hereby waives its right to legal action against Grantee, its officers, employees, successors, and assigns for monetary damages or other redress due to impacts associated with aircraft operations in the air or on the ground at the Airport, including future increases in the volume or changes in location of said operations. Furthermore, Grantee, its officers, employees, successors, and assigns shall have no duty to avoid or mitigate such damages through physical modifications of airport facilities or establishment or modification of aircraft operational procedures or restrictions. This grant of Avigation Easement shall not operate to deprive the Grantor, its successors or assigns, of any rights which it may have against any air carrier or private operator for negligent or unlawful operation of aircraft. These covenants and agreements run with the land and are binding upon the heirs, administrators, executors, successors and assigns of the Grantor, and, for the purpose of this Avigation Easement, the Property and Airspace hereinabove described constitute the servient tenement and property comprising the Airport is the dominant tenement. DATED: ____________ _________________________________________________ Name: ___________________________________________ _________________________________________________ Name: ___________________________________________ [Note: Signatures of grantors must be notarized.] 7-3 Exhibit 2 Sample Deed Notice The following statement should be included on the deed and recorded by the transferor with the County Clerk-Recorder for any property located within the Airport Influence Area. This statement should also be included on any parcel map, tentative map or final map for subdivision approval for any property within the Airport Influence Area. The Santa Clara County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan identifies Airport Influence Areas. Properties within these areas are routinely subject to overflights by aircraft using the associated airport and, as a result residents may experience inconvenience, annoyance or discomfort arising from the noise or sight of such operations. State law (Public Utilities code sections 21670 et. Seq.) establishes the importance of public use airports to protection of the public interest of the people of the State of California. Residents of property near such airports should therefore be prepared to accept the inconvenience, annoyance or discomfort from normal aircraft operations. Residents also should be aware that the current volume of aircraft activity may increase in the future in response to government needs, Santa Clara County population and/or economic growth. Any subsequent deed conveying this parcel or subdivisions there of shall contain a statement in substantially this form. 7-4 8 APPENDIX B Selected Excerpts California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (January 2002) Establishing Noise Compatibility Policies [Page Summary-8] "Compatibility plans should be based upon the noise contours for the time frame that results in the greatest noise impacts. Usually, this time frame is the long-range future (at least 20 years), but sometimes can be the present or a combination of the two. Also, for busy airports, the capacity of the runway system may be the best representation of potential long-range future activity levels.” [Pages 7-18,19] "State statutes specify that airport land use compatibility plans must be based upon an airport development plan "that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years." Forecasts having the required 20-year time horizon are normally included in airport master plans. The FAA, the Division of Aeronautics, and some regional planning agencies also prepare individual airport forecasts, some extending to 20 years. For the purposes of compatibility planning, however, 20 years may be shortsighted. For most airports, a lifespan of more than 20 years can reasonably be presumed. Moreover, the need to avoid incompatible land use development will exist for as long as an airport exists. Once development occurs near an airport, it is virtually impossible or at least very costly and time consuming to change the land uses to ones which would be more compatible with airport activities In conducting noise analyses for compatibility plans, the long-range time frame is almost always of greatest significance. Barring vast improvements in aircraft noise reduction technology, the growth in aircraft operations expected at most airports will result in larger noise contours. A possible exception to this trend is that, at some airports, planned changes in runway configuration or approach procedures could result in reduction of noise impacts in some portions of the airport environs. In these instances, a combination of current and future noise contours may be the appropriate basis for compatibility planning. Past improvements in aircraft noise reduction technology or, more to the point, the elimination of older, noisier aircraft from the fleet have caused noise contours at some airports to shrink. One result of shrinking contour sizes during the late 1990s was pressure to allow residential and other noise-sensitive development closer to airports. Allowing such development might be reasonable in situations where no potential exists for the contours to expand back to their former size (for example, where policies to limit contour sizes have been adopted). However, whether future technology will again enable significant reduction in noise impacts is uncertain. Thus, looking to the long-range future, the scenario which has the greatest land use planning implications for most airports is that anticipated future growth in airport activity will result in expansion of noise contours. G U I D A N C E The "at least" phrase in the statutory guidelines deserves emphasis. The 20-year time frame should be considered a minimum for compatibility plans. Noise impacts (as well as other compatibility concerns) should be viewed from the longest practical time perspective." 8-1 This page was intentionally left blank Attachment B This page was intentionally left blank L-1 Embracing the New Century VisionStatement Introduction The relationship between land use, urban design, transportation, and economics are empha- sized in the Land Use and Community Design Element. While the 1980-1995 Comprehensive Plan addressed urban design as a separate Plan Element, this Plan recognizes that the design of buildings and surrounding spaces cannot be separated from land use decisions. Urban de- sign considerations appear throughout the Element. The Element also recognizes that land use decisions must be closely integrated with transportation and economic decisions. This is re- flected in the Element’s focus on the physical linkages between different parts of the City and the future role of the City’s business centers. The Land Use and Community Design Element provides a “constitution” for the development of public and private property. It begins by describing the context in which local planning decisions are made, and proceeds with goals, policies, and programs covering a broad range of growth and development topics. The goals, policies and programs are organized into three major sections. The first section—Local Land Use and Growth Management—establishes the limits to urban growth and sets the direction for maintaining the City’s scale and character. The second section—City Structure—presents a new conceptual structure for Palo Alto, organizing the City into Residential Neighborhoods, Centers, and Employment Districts. This section fo- cuses on the way these areas are connected to each other and includes policies and programs for specific geographic areas of the City. The third section—Design of Buildings and Public Spaces—addresses citywide urban design issues, including historic preservation and the de- sign of buildings, civic uses, public ways, public art, and infrastructure. This Element meets the State-mandated requirements for a Land Use Element. It defines the City’s land use categories and includes the proposed Land Use and Circulation Map guiding the development of each property in the City. Four new land use categories—Mixed Use, Transit-Oriented Residential, Village Residential, and Commercial Hotel—have been added since the previous Comprehensive Plan. 2 Land Use and Community Design alo Alto will be a vital, attractive place to live, work, and visit. The elements that make Palo Alto a great community—its neighborhoods, shopping and employment centers, civic uses, open spaces, and natural resources—will be strengthened and enhanced. The diverse range of housing and work environments will be sustained and expanded to create more choices for all income levels. All Palo Alto neighborhoods will be improved, each to have public gathering spaces, essential services and pedestrian amenities, to encourage less reliance on the automobile. See Map L-1 for an aerial view of Palo Alto and its environs P Attachment C L-2 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Planning Context PALO ALTO’S ROLE WITHIN THE REGION Palo Alto is located in the northern part of Santa Clara County, in the portion of the Bay Area known as the Mid-Peninsula. The City shares a boundary with San Mateo County and six cities. Through time, Palo Alto has maintained close and collaborative relationships with adjoining counties and cities. Its officials and citizens have maintained a tradition of leadership in land use, transportation, and environmental planning efforts, both at the local and regional level. These efforts have yielded policies for controlling and managing the region’s growth, protecting open space, and conserving natural resources. Santa Clara County is projected to add more than 233,000 new residents by the year 2010. San Mateo County will add approximately 50,000 residents by the same year. Although only a small portion of this growth will be in Palo Alto, the City is not insulated from the challenges of an increasing population. These challenges can only be faced through cooperative regional plan- ning. Palo Alto will continue to be a partner in this process. The City has long supported Santa Clara County’s General Plan provisions for an “Urban Service Area” to manage urban growth and limit sprawl, as well as the County’s concept of “compact development.” The City’s Plan will help realize the broader County goal of directing growth to appropriate locations within the urban area, particularly along transit corridors and near employment centers. Pacific Ocean 101 280 280 580 880 680 580 101 101 1 580 80 84 85 237 17 680 80 Æ Æ 85 24 Oakland Half Moon Bay San Francisco 87 1 92 Æ San Francisco County San Mateo County Marin C o u n t y Contra C o s t a C o u n t y Alame d a C o u n t y S a n M a t e o C o u n t y Al a m e d a C o u n t y Sa nta Clara County To Santa Cruz & Monterey Alameda C o u n t y 680 Union City Hayward East Palo Alto Los Altos Los Altos Hills Portola Valley Menlo Park San Carlos Woodside Cupertino Milpitas San Mateo BerkeleySausilito Fremont Mountain View Santa Clara Saratoga StevensCreekResevoir CalaverasResevoir SanAntonioResevoir LakeChabot SanLeandroResevoir BrionesResevoir LakeMerced SanAndreasLake UpperCrystalSpringsResevoir Lower CrystalSpringsResevoir Burlingame San Bruno Daly City San Leandro 84 35 35 84 Pacifica Mill Valley Corte Madera Tiboron Richmond El Cerito Alameda Lafayette Walnut Creek Concord Danville To Livermore Dublin San Lorenzo Newark Campbell Stanford University San Francisco Bay Atherton SantaClara County San Mateo County Santa Cruz Co. SearsvilleLake Redwood City Hetch Hetchy Aqu e d u c t Contra C o s t a C o u n t y San JoseN Sunnyvale To Sacramento Palo Alto, shown in black, has a tradition of collaborating with neighboring cities and counties in the Bay Area. The City has taken an active role in addressing regional planning issues. See Map L-2 showing Palo Alto’s Sphere of Influence and Urban Service Area L-3 Embracing the New Century In the 1990s, Palo Alto has worked with neighboring East Palo Alto and Menlo Park on com- mon issues and matters of mutual interest. The three cities participate in a variety of shared economic development, social service, education, public safety, and housing programs. Palo Alto participates with Mountain View, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills in many ways, including fire protection and operation of the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. The City also is an active player in the County’s Congestion Management Program. Some of the most significant opportunities for growth and change in the Palo Alto area are on Stanford University lands. Although the campus itself lies outside the City limits, most of the University’s income-producing lands are within Palo Alto. Stanford owns land outside of Palo Alto as well, extending into unincorporated Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. The commu- nity values the open space amenities afforded by this land but also recognizes the right of the University in using its properties for academic purposes. Agreements about development on unincorporated Stanford lands are captured in an inter-jurisdictional agreement between Stanford, Palo Alto and Santa Clara County. In general, the University supports the concept of compact development and prefers that its future expansion be contained within the current limits of development on the Stanford Campus. The relationship between the City and the University has always been complex and even tense at times. However, there have always been mutual benefits. In recent land use and transporta- tion planning efforts, Palo Alto and Stanford have worked together to plan for the University Avenue Multi-modal Transit Station Area and explore options for expanding the University’s Marguerite Shuttle Bus within the City. These ventures hold promise for the future and will continue to be pursued. EVOLUTION OF THE CITY A university town from the beginning, Palo Alto was incorporated in 1894 on lands purchased and subdivided by Timothy Hopkins. Hopkins, a friend of Leland Stanford, planned the town to serve the newly established Stanford University. The City grew to many times its original size The original Hopkins Tract, also known as University Park, was proclaimed a local Heritage District during Palo Alto’s 1994 Centennial. See Map L-3 showing Stanford University lands within Palo Alto and other jurisdictions L-4 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Over half of Palo Alto’s land area is designated as parks or open space. About one- fourth of the City consists of single family residences. over the next century as land to the south and east was annexed. The town was originally centered around the commercial district along University Avenue. Although this area remains Palo Alto’s central business district, the geographic center of the City has shifted several miles south. The town of Mayfield, about 1-1/2 miles southeast of University Avenue, predated the founding of Palo Alto by 40 years. Mayfield continued to develop as a separate town until its annexation to Palo Alto in 1925. Its main commercial street, California Avenue, became a second business district for the City as the land between Mayfield and Uni- versity Avenue was developed. Today, California Avenue is an active retail and commercial center that retains its small town ambience. Its role as a transit hub and its close proximity to Stanford Research Park give the area citywide significance and will continue to influence its character in the future. Palo Alto saw its greatest expansion during the decade following World War II. The City boundary was expanded south to Mountain View and the City's residential land area virtually doubled. New neighborhood shopping cen- ters like Alma Plaza and Midtown were developed to serve the growing population. This period of expansion coin- cided with the transformation of the City from a “college town” to a world leader in high technology. Most of the City’s office, research, and light industrial areas were an- nexed during the 1950s, including Stanford Research Park, Embarcadero Road northeast of Bayshore, and the West Bayshore/San Antonio Road area. The Stanford Shopping Center was incorporated into the City in 1953. A major portion of Palo Alto—most of it undeveloped— lies west of Foothill Expressway. This area was annexed between 1959 and 1968 and is mostly zoned for open space. Elsewhere, small pockets of residential develop- ment were gradually annexed into the City during the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, closing the borders with Mountain View and Los Altos. The City’s last significant expansions were annexation of the Barron Park neighborhood in 1975 and a large tract of marshland open space in the baylands in 1979. With adoption of the Baylands Master Plan in 1978, urban uses were limited to approximately 200 acres of existing develop- ment along Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road. The remaining 1,700 acres were dedicated for recreation and restoration of marshland wildlife habitat. Today, Palo Alto comprises 16,627 acres, or about 26 square miles. Approximately 40 percent of this area is in parks and preserves and another 15 percent consists of agriculture and other open space uses. The remaining area is nearly completely developed, with single family uses predominating. Less than one percent of the City’s land area consists of vacant, developable land. Land Use Distribution Single Family – 25% Source: The Palo Alto Planning Division (1996) Multiple Family – 4% 7.5% Multi-Family CommercialVacant Vacant – .5% Public Facilities – 4.5% Parks/Preserves/ Open Space – 40.5% R&D/Mfg OS/Controlled Dev/Agriculture Parks/Preserves/OS Single-Family Research & Development/ Limited Manufacturing – 7.5% Open Space/Controlled Development/Agriculture – 15% Public Facilities Commercial – 3% L-5 Embracing the New Century Goals, Policies, and Programs LOCAL LAND USE AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT GOAL L-1:A Well-designed, Compact City, Providing Residents and Visitors with Attractive Neighborhoods, Work Places, Shopping Districts, Public Facilities, and Open Spaces. The amount of urban land in Palo Alto in 2010 will remain essentially the same as it is today, with growth occurring through infill and redevelopment. In a community survey conducted during the Comprehensive Plan process, the community overwhelmingly reaffirmed its com- mitment to the protection of the baylands and foothills. The emphasis on infill brings oppor- tunities for positive change but also the need to protect the qualities that are important to Palo Alto. Extent of Urban Development POLICY L-1: Continue current City policy limiting future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area. The boundary of the urban service area is otherwise known as the urban growth boundary. Retain undeveloped land west of Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra as open space, with allowances made for very low-intensity development consistent with the open space character of the area. Retain undeveloped Baylands northeast of Highway 101 as open space. This is a continuation of existing City policy. Any future expansion of the Stanford Research Park will be in the form of infill development rather than expansion. The City’s Urban Service Area boundary identifies areas that may be developed during the term of this Plan. POLICY L-2: Maintain an active cooperative working relationship with Santa Clara County and Stanford University regarding land use issues. PROGRAM L-1: Maintain and update as appropriate the 1985 Land Use Policies Agreement that sets forth the land use policies of the City, Santa Clara County and Stanford University with regard to Stanford unincorporated lands. PROGRAM L-2A: City staff will monitor Stanford development proposals and traffic conditions within the Sand Hill Road Corridor and annually report to the Planning Com- mission and City Council. PROGRAM L-2B: City staff will review development proposals within the Airport Influence Area to ensure consistency with the guidelines of the Palo Alto Airport Com- prehensive Land Use Plan, and when appropriate, will refer development proposals to the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission for re- view and comment. See Map L-2 for the Urban Service Area boundary and the Urban Growth boundary See also Goal N-1 and associated policies and programs See Land Use Map L-3: Stanford Lands See Santa Clara County General Plan Policies U-ST1 through U-ST 10 regarding county regu- lation of Stanford lands See Land Use Map L-2: for the Airport Influence Area Ne w T e x t f o r p a g e L - 5 Ne w T e x t f o r p a g e L - 5 L-6 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Development Limitations on Unincorporated Stanford Lands A 1985, three-party interjurisdictional agreement with the City, Santa Clara County and Stanford University, identifies the land use polices for lands owned by Stanford and located within unincorporated Santa Clara County. Stanford’s General Use Permit, issued by Santa Clara County, establishes building area, population limits and some mitigation mea- sures for development of the unincorporated lands; and, identifies four sub-areas with special land use controls (See Map L-3). The special area limitations are: Area AArea AArea AArea AArea A (Campus frontage along El Camino Real): No development. Area BArea BArea BArea BArea B (South of Sand Hill Road between Pasteur Drive and Junipero Serra Boulevard): Until 2021 limited to academic and recreation fields and related support facilities. Fac-ulty, staff or student housing may be proposed in a portion along Campus Drive West. ArArArArArea Cea Cea Cea Cea C (West of Junipero Serra between Alpine Road and Deer Creek): Low-intensity academic uses that are compatible with the open space qualities of the area. Development of any struc- ture over 5,000 square feet requires a use permit from the County. Development for income producing purposes, or sale or lease for nonacademic purposes, would require annexation to the City. Area DArea DArea DArea DArea D (Arboretum area along Palm Drive and the Oval): No development. See Santa Clara County General Plan Policies R-LU68 and R-LU69 regarding Academic Reserve and Open Space designation See Santa Clara County General Plan Policies C- GD1, C-GD2, R-GD2 and R-GD6 regarding development in rural unincorporated areas L-7 Embracing the New Century See Santa Clara County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Palo Alto Airport Development Limitations on Lands Within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) The Santa Clara County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Palo Alto Airport (PAO CLUP) provides guidelines to ensure compatible non-airport land use and development within the Airport Influence Area (AIA). These guidelines limit concentrations of people in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents and restrict new structures and activities that would interfere with navigable space. They were adopted into the City's Comprehensive Plan in 2009. Applicability • The PAO CLUP guidelines do not apply to existing development. • All new development must be consistent with the PAO CLUP guidelines for land use and development. Consistency Review Key PAO CLUP maps and tables provide guidance for project review: • For determining if a proposed use is compatible with regard to safety, refer to: 1. The “Airport Safety Zone Map” which divides the AIA into zones based on the level of danger from airport activities. (Page 3-12) 2. The “Safety Zone Compatibility Guidelines” table, which shows what land uses are allowed in the each safety zone. (Page 4-8) • For determining if a proposed use is compatible with regard to noise, refer to: 1. The “2022 Aircraft Noise Contours” map, which divides the AIA into zones based on the level of noise from airport activities. (Page 3-7) 2. The “Noise Compatibility Guidelines” table, which shows what land uses are allowed in each noise zone. (Page 4-6) • For determining if a proposed building meets the height limits, refer to: 1. The “FAR Part 77 Surfaces” map, which shows graduated contours radiating from the runway. Each contour indicates the maximum allowable structure height within the contour area. (Page 3-9) ALUC Review •The City may refer any proposal to the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commis- sion (ALUC) for review and recommendation. • Certain types of proposals must be referred to the Santa Clara County ALUC for review. • The Santa Clara County ALUC may recommend that the City require the subject prop- erty owner to grant an avigation easement (to the City of Palo Alto) as a condition for obtaining an entitlement or building permit. • The Santa Clara County ALUC comments are advisory. See Land Use Map L-2: for the Airport Influence Area See Program L-2B Mandatory referrals include: 1. Airport Master Plans or amendments 2. Comprehensive Plans or amendments 3. Specific Plans or amendments 4. Zoning /Building Codes or amend- ments 5. Non-airport development projects that require a change to the Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Plan Voluntary referrals include: 1. Major infrastructure improvements that would promote urban development. 2. Non-airport development projects that do not require a change to the Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Plan but involve: five or more dwelling units, high-density uses, or low-mobility uses, a structure over 200 feet high, or an increase to the existing square footage of 50% or more. Begin New Text for page L-7 End New Text for page L-7 CLUP Criteria for referring proposals (within the AIA) to the ALUC for review: L-8 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan . Maintain and Strengthen City Character POLICY L-3: Guide development to respect views of the foothills and East Bay hills from public streets in the developed portions of the City. Palo Alto’s backdrop of forested hills to the southwest and San Francisco Bay to the northeast is a character-defining element of the City. Views of the hills can be seen from many City streets. They provide a sense of enclosure and a reminder of the City’s proximity to open space and the natural environment. Views from the baylands are equally striking, taking in the Bay, the East Bay hills, and the Santa Cruz Mountains. These visual connections are part of what makes Palo Alto attractive. The design and siting of new buildings should take into account impact on views, and should frame existing views of the hills, where possible. POLICY L-4: Maintain Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto’s desirable qualities. The City’s neighborhoods are varied in character and architectural style, reflecting the stages of the City’s development as well as the range of incomes and tastes of its residents. POLICY L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. Scale is the relationship of various parts of the environment to each other, to people, and to the limits of perception. It is what establishes some neighborhoods or streets as pedestrian- oriented and others as automobile-oriented. In older portions of Palo Alto, the grid of City The traditional form and scale in much of Palo Alto contributes to the City’s reputation as a desirable place to live and work. See Map L-4 for locations of major view corridors and viewsheds L-9 Embracing the New Century blocks, small rectangular parcels, and narrow streets establishes a pattern that is generally pleasant for the pedestrian. The pattern is reinforced by streets that are lined with trees, residential buildings set back behind front gardens, and buildings typically one to three stories in height. In the newer portions of Palo Alto—those areas built after 1950—street patterns and building placement are oriented primarily to the automobile user. In the newer commercial areas, buildings are usually set behind parking lots located along the street, and landscaping sometimes provides a visual buffer for the motorist. PROGRAM L-3: Maintain and periodically review height and density limits to discourage single uses that are inappropriate in size and scale to the surrounding uses. The Citywide fifty foot height limit has been respected in all new development since it was adopted in the 1970's. Only a few exceptions have been granted for architectural enhance- ments or seismic safety retrofits to noncomplying buildings. POLICY L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible. PROGRAM L-4: Review and change zoning regulations to promote gradual transitions in the scale of development where residential districts abut more intense uses. PROGRAM L-5: Establish new performance and architectural standards that minimize nega- tive impacts where land use transitions occur. PROGRAM L-6: Revise the City’s Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and Service Commercial (CS) zoning requirements to better address land use transitions. Since CN and CS zones are frequently located next to residential areas, development standards are particularly important to ensure compatibility and reduce negative impacts on adjacent land uses. POLICY L-7: Evaluate changes in land use in the context of regional needs, overall City welfare and objectives, as well as the desires of surrounding neighborhoods. Commercial Growth Limits POLICY L-8: Maintain a limit of 3,257,900 square feet of new non-residential development for the nine planning areas evaluated in the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study, with the understanding that the City Council may make modifications for specific properties that allow modest additional growth. Such additional growth will count towards the 3,257,900 maximum. Not only will the area devoted to urban development remain constant, but new non-residential growth from 1989 forward will be limited to just over 3.25 million square feet. The total non-residential development in the city in 1996 is in the range of 25 million square feet. This amount of growth was determined by the Citywide 1989 Land Use and Transportation Study See Map L-6 showing commercial growth monitoring areas L-10 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and was largely implemented through commercial downzoning. This growth limit will be ob- served citywide for the term of this Plan. Traffic will be monitored to ensure that the intent of the limit is being achieved, though it is recognized that traffic counts are affected by both residential and non-residential growth and also by auto use behavior. PROGRAM L-7: Establish a system to monitor the rate of non-residential development and traffic conditions related to both residential and non-residential develop- ment at key intersections including those identified in the 1989 Citywide Study and additional intersections identified in the Comprehensive Plan EIR. If the rate of growth reaches the point where the citywide development maximum might be reached, the City will reevaluate development policies and regulations. PROGRAM L-8: Limit new non-residential development in the Downtown area to 350,000 square feet, or 10 percent above the amount of development existing or approved as of May 1986. Reevaluate this limit when non-residential development approvals reach 235,000 square feet of floor area. PROGRAM L-9: Continue to monitor development, including the effectiveness of the ground floor retail requirement, in the University Avenue/Downtown area. Keep the Planning Commission and City Council advised of the findings on an annual basis. Mixed Use Areas POLICY L-9: Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes that mixed use environments can be interesting and dy- namic. A new mixed use land use classification has been created to encourage this type of development in the future. This represents a change from past attitudes that sought to separate different uses from each other as a means of protecting property values, public safety, and the quality of life. With proper guidance such concerns can be addressed, allowing a more vital urban environment to be created. Parts of the South of Forest Area (SOFA) and the California Avenue/Ventura Area (Cal-Ventura) have an established pattern of mixed use, with service commercial, light industrial, and hous- ing in both areas. Continued mixing of land uses is encouraged. These areas are among the few in the City that are well-suited for light industrial, automotive, and business support services. Many of these uses should be allowed to continue in the future, augmented by new develop- ment including multifamily housing. The proximity of these areas to transit and services makes them excellent locations for both housing and commercial uses. PROGRAM L-10: • Create and apply the following four new Mixed Use zoning standards: A “Live/Work” designation that permits individuals to live on the same site where they work by allowing housing and other uses such as office, retail, and light industrial to co-exist in the same building space; and “Retail/ See Goal L- 7 and related Policies and Programs on Historic Character 1 INITIAL STUDY Environmental Checklist and Evaluation for Santa Clara County File Number: N/A Date: 10/31/2008 Project Type: Land Use Plan / Public APN(s): Multiple Project Location / Address Property located within Airport Influence Area of South County (San Martin) and Palo Alto Airports. Map Amendment for County CLUP for SJC Runway 11-29 Safety Zone definition GP Designation: Multiple Owner’s Name County of Santa Clara. Various within Airport A.I.A’s. Zoning:Multiple Applicant’s Name: Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission Urban Service Areas: PALO ALTO Project Description The Project is an amendment to the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission’s Land Use Plan for Areas Surrounding Santa Clara County Airports (Land Use Plan) and is undertaken pursuant to the ALUC’s authority under Public Utilities Code § 21670 et seq. The amendments include: (1) The adoption of two new airport-specific Comprehensive Land Use Plans (“CLUPs”), for South County (San Martin) Airport and Palo Alto Airport; and (2) a Map amendment of the County-wide CLUP to correct the South Safety Zone Map for runway 11-29 at San Jose International Airport to reflect a reduction in width and length in the south Safety Zone. (1) Adoption of the South County /San Martin Airport and Palo Alto Airport CLUPs- The new South County and Palo Alto Airport CLUPs (hereafter referred to as “CLUPs”) are intended to be comprehensive, self-contained CLUPs for each Airport. They include several new policies that are associated with the following map modifications: • ALUC referral boundaries ("Airport Influence Areas" or "AIAs") • 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL Noise Contours • FAA, FAR Part 77 Surfaces Map • Airport Safety Zones The purpose of the CLUPs is to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airports and those who use the airports. The CLUPs are established to protect the public from the adverse effects of small aircraft. Specifically, the CLUPs policies ensure that development adjacent to public-use airports in Santa Clara County is not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents, and ensure that no structures or activities adversely affect navigable airspace. The implementation of the CLUPs is intended to prevent future incompatible development from encroaching on the Airports and to allow for development in accordance with the current Airport Master Plan for each Airport. In formulating the CLUPs, the ALUC establishes policies for the regulation of land use, building height, safety, and noise exposure within areas adjacent to each of the public airports in the County. The four maps (AIA, Noise Contours, FAR Part 77 and Safety Zones,) are used by the ALUC to determine the applicability of ALUC policies and compatibility between new uses and airport operations in terms of noise and safety. The purpose of each of these maps that have new associated policies are described in the following: Attachment D 2 South County (San Martin) Airport referral boundary (AIA) – The Airport Influence Area (AIA) defines the area in which the ALUC policies and procedures apply in South County. When the County of Santa Clara chooses to amend its General Plan, adopt or amend any specific plans, zoning ordinances, or building regulations, that would affect property within the AIA, the County must first refer the proposed action to the ALUC. Voluntary referrals can also be made for other types of actions/projects that may be impacted by the airport operations, such as Building Site Approval, Use Permits or Subdivisions. The new AIA area has been reduced in size by 90.5 acres, from 6118.1 to 6027.6 total acres. The new AIA has been mapped to follow property line boundaries at the northwest and southwest corner of the AIA to eliminate uncertainty in determining if a property will fall within the zone. Palo Alto Airport referral boundary (AIA) – The Airport Influence Area (AIA), defines the area in which the ALUC policies and procedures apply in the Palo Alto Area. The proposed Palo Alto Airport CLUP does not change the area of the AIA. South County (San Martin) Airport 55, 60, 65, and 70 dBA CNEL Noise Contours – These maps delineate the predicted Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) in decibels as a result of airport operations at South County Airport. If a project is referred to the ALUC and is within the 55, 60, 65, or 70 dBA CNEL Noise Contours, the applicable noise policies from the CLUP would be used to review the application. The principal source for calculation of the proposed Noise Contours is the FAA modeling software, which forecasts the annual airport operations. Also, the 2002 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, which is published by the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, incorporates established Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) guidelines for noise standards. The new adopted maps will include a 65 and 70 dBA CNEL contour, which was not previously used. The existing CLUP only uses a 55 and 60 dBA CNEL Noise Contour. The existing 55 dBA CNEL is approximately 400 acres. The existing 60 dBA CNEL is approximately 153 acres. The new 55 dBA CNEL includes 1085.7 total acres, which is a net increase of approximately 685 acres. The new 60 dBA CNEL is 402.6 acres for an approximate increase of 240 acres. The new 65 dBA CNEL is 153 acres and the new 70 dBA CNEL is 59.4 acres, which only encompasses airport property and highway 101. Palo Alto Airport 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL Noise Contours – Like the South County noise contours, these maps delineate the predicted Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) boundary in decibels as a result of airport operations at Palo Alto Airport. If a project is referred to the ALUC and is within the 55, 60, 65, or 70 dBA CNEL Noise Contours, the applicable noise policies would apply. Like the South County Airport, the principal source for the proposed Noise Contours is the 2002 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The existing Noise Contours are based on 1995/1996-forcast conditions and use 55, 60, 65, 70 and 75 dBA CNEL Noise Contours. The new adopted maps will only include up to a 70 dBA CNEL Noise Contour, because the 75 dBA CNEL is entirely located on airport property. Therefore, no development other than projects on airport property would be affected by the 75 dBA CNEL. According to County ALUC files, there are no calculated areas within the existing Noise Contours for Palo Alto Airport. This is likely due to the small size of those contours and their location within the Baylands Conservation lands as well as airport property. The new 55 dBA CNEL is 2851.78 acres (including the “bubble” area west of the airport). The new 60 dBA CNEL is 750.7 acres. The new 65 dBA CNEL is 211.0 acres and the 70 dBA CNEL is 107.4 acres. South County and Palo Alto Airport FAA, FAR Part 77 Surfaces Map - Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, establishes imaginary surfaces for airports and runways as a means to identify objects that are obstructions to air navigation. Each surface is defined as a slope-ratio, or at a certain altitude above the airport elevation, measured at Mean Sea Level (MSL). Projects located within the AIA are evaluated for consistency with the FAR Part 77 height restrictions. 3 This is an FAA map that is updated as necessary as a result of changes in the airport runway(s). It is not a County or ALUC map. The current CLUPs are using an outdated version of the FAA maps. In 2007, the ALUC adopted a CLUP amendment to incorporate by reference, the FAA maps currently in effect for each Airport in the County to avoid the necessity of County-wide CLUP amendments each time the FAA updates the map as a result of changes to the runways. Palo Alto and South County Airport Safety Zones – Airport safety zones are established to minimize exposure to potential airplane hazards. Both the Palo Alto and South County CLUPs use the threshold adopted by the FAA for positioning the Runway Protection Zones. These areas are depicted on the FAA approved Airport Layout Plans for each airport. Furthermore, the safety zones defined for the Airports are based on the guidance for General Aviation Airports with runways less than 4,000 feet in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (January 2002) adopted by the State of California, Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (“2002 Handbook”) pursuant to Public Utilities Code § 21674.7. The following describes these safety zones, which are the same for both CLUPs, and represented by Figure 7 in both CLUPs: Runway Protection Zone The function of the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) is to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground and aircraft occupants. RPZs should be clear of all objects, structures and activities. The RPZ as adopted by the airport and the FAA and begins 200 feet from the ends of the runways. It is a trapezoidal area centered on the extended runway centerline. The size is related to the expected aircraft use and the visibility minimums for that particular runway. Turning Sector Defined A geometric feature defined as a “Turning Sector” bound by some of the safety zones. This feature is constructed as follows: Each runway end has a sector, which is bounded on the inside by the extended runway centerline. The radius of these sectors is 3,000 feet with the center point located 1,000 feet along the runway centerline from the runway threshold towards the opposite end of the runway. The arc for the sector is swung away from the opposite runway. The interior angle of the sector is 30 degrees from the extended runway centerline. The two closest turning sector center-points are connected with a straight line and a tangent line that connects the two associated arcs. The Turning Sector is defined as the outside bounds of the feature constructed above. There is one Turning Sector for each end of the runway system. Inner Safety Zone The Inner Safety Zone (ISZ) is located within the Turning Sector boundary described above. The ISZ represents the approach and departure corridors that have the second highest level of exposure to potential aircraft accidents. The ISZ is centered on the line midway between the runway centerlines starting at the apex of the Turning Sector boundary and except as noted below, extends to the outer arc of the Turning Sector boundary. The length of the runway determines the dimensions. 4 Turning Safety Zone The Turning Safety Zone (TSZ) represents the approach and departure areas that have the third highest level of exposure to potential aircraft accidents. Outer Safety Zone The Outer Safety Zone (OSZ) extends out from the Turning Sector arc. The OSZ is a rectangular area centered on the line midway between the extended runway centerlines starting at the outer end of the Turning Sector arc. The length of the runway determines the dimensions. The OSZ for ends of the runways is a rectangular area 1,300 feet wide and 1,500 feet long at the center, centered on the line midway between the extended runway centerlines, starting at the outer edge of the ISZ and extending away from the runway threshold. Sideline Safety Zone The Sideline Safety Zone (SSZ) is an area along side and parallel to the runways. This area is not normally overflown by aircraft except by aircraft losing directional control on takeoff (especially twin-engine aircraft). Traffic Pattern Zone The Traffic Pattern Zone (TPZ) is within other portions of the airport area that are routinely overflown by aircraft. The potential for aircraft accidents is relatively low and the need for land use restrictions is minimal. The TPZ excludes all other zones described above. For both airports, the TPZ is the surface area underlying the FAR Part 77 Horizontal Surface. The perimeter of the TPZ is constructed by swinging arcs of 5,000 feet out for the runways from a point 200 feet out from each runway pavement end on the extended centerline and connecting the arcs with lines tangent to these arcs. As all safety zones are within the AIA, all general plan amendments, rezoning, specific plans, or modifications to building regulations for affected properties within the safety zones, would be required to be reviewed by the ALUC for consistency with the safety policies in the CLUPs. 5 In summary, the Safety Zones for South County and Palo Alto Airports have increased in area as a consequence of applying the recommendations contained in the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The Noise Contours for South County and Palo Alto Airports have increased in area to reflect the forecast number of aircraft operating at each airport as stated in the current Airport Master Plans for each Airport. The AIA has been reduced at South County Airport, but has remained unchanged at Palo Alto Airport. Also, incorporated into the Amendments is a non-airport-specific CLUP amendment. This amendment is as follows: (2) Map Amendment for the South Safety Zone dimensions for runway 11-29 at San Jose International Airport: - The ALUC amended the County-wide CLUP in 2005 to include map updates as a result of the lengthening of runways at San Jose International Airport. In that update, the ALUC approved the original 5,000-foot by 1,500-foot south safety zone for Runway 11-29. However, the text, which describes the dimensions of the Safety Zones remained unchanged stating a dimension of 990 feet wide by 3,960 feet long. The ALUC finds that the larger Safety Zone map should not have been re-adopted in the CLUP mapping update in 2005 and is proposing an amendment of the County-wide CLUP to revise the map of the San Jose International Airport for the south Safety Zone of runway 11-29 back to 3,960 feet long by 990 feet wide. 6 The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology / Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use Noise Population / Housing Public Services Resources / Recreation Transportation / Traffic Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance None DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ________________________________________ Signature ___________________________ Date Mark J Connolly_____________________________ Printed name ___________________________ For 7 Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses The environmental setting consists of three of the public use airports in Santa Clara County (Palo Alto, San Jose International, South County Airport), and areas surrounding these airports. With respect to Palo Alto Airport, the surrounding land uses are the Baylands Conservation Area and a small area developed with commercial properties immediately east of Highway 101 on Embarcadero Road. With respect to South County Airport, the surrounding area includes residential property with small areas of publicly owned property, with Highway 101 bordering the Airport to the east. Land Uses surrounding the Southern area of San Jose International Airport are mostly commercial properties immediately southwest and a mixture of medium density residential and commercial properties to the south across Interstate 880/17. Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) There are no responsible agencies for this project. The affected airports are within the jurisdiction of the County of Santa Clara, the City of San Jose and the City of Palo Alto. These jurisdictions may need to amend their General Plans to be consistent with the proposed CLUPs (if inconsistent). CalTrans Division of Aeronautics has an advisory role. Pursuant to federal regulations, the FAA adopts maps that are incorporated by reference in both the County-wide CLUP and the Palo Alto and South County CLUPs. 8 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS A. AESTHETICS IMPACT WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact SOURCES a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 2,3,4, 6a,17f b) Substantially damage scenic resources along a designated scenic highway? 3, 6a, 17f c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 2,3 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 3,4 e) If subject to ASA, be generally in non- compliance with the Guidelines for Architecture and Site Approval? 11 f) If subject to Design Review, be generally in non-compliance with the Guidelines for Design Review Approval? 3,4,12 g) Be located on or near a ridgeline visible from the valley floor? 2,17n DISCUSSION: Approval of the project, including the modifications to the Palo Alto and South County (San Martin) Airport AIA, 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL contours, FAR Part 77, and Safety Zones maps, will not have any potential impacts to aesthetic resources. MITIGATION: None Required. B. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. IMPACT WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact SOURCE a) Convert 10 or more acres of farmland classified as prime in the report Soils of Santa Clara County to non-agricultural use? 3,23,24,26 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use? 9,21a c) Conflict with an existing Williamson Act Contract? 1 d) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 3,4,26 9 DISCUSSION: Approval of the project will not have any potential significant impacts to agricultural resources. There are numerous Agricultural properties surrounding South County Airport, including many Williamson Act parcels within the Airport Influence Area. There are no agricultural properties within the Palo Alto Airport Influence Area. Overall, use of land within the Palo Alto and South County (San Martin) Airport AIA’s for agricultural purposes is not inconsistent with the CLUP. MITIGATION: None Required C. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. IMPACT WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact SOURCE a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 5,28 b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 5,29 c) 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 thresholds for ozone precursors)? 5,29 d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 5,29 e) Create objectionable odors or dust affecting a substantial number of people? 5,21, 29, 47 DISCUSSION: Approval of the project, including the modifications to the Palo Alto and South County (San Martin) Airport AIA, 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL contours, FAR Part 77, and Safety Zones maps, will not have any potentially significant air quality impacts, because it will have no direct or indirect impact on emission sources. MITIGATION: None Required 10 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACT WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact SOURCES 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? 1, 7, 17b, 17o, b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? 3,7, 8a, 17b, 17e, 33 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) or tributary to an already impaired water body, as defined by section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 3, 7, 17n, 32 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 1,7, 17b, 17o e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? 3,4 f) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources: i) Tree Preservation Ordinance [Section C16]? 1,3,31 ii) Wetland Habitat [GP Policy, R-RC 25-30]? 3, 8a iii) Riparian Habitat [GP Policy, R-RC 31-41]? 3, 8a, DISCUSSION: Approval of the project, including the modifications to the Palo Alto and South County (San Martin) Airport AIA, 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL contours, FAR Part 77, and Safety Zones maps, will not have any potential impacts on any biological resources. The project does not foster development or other activities that could impact species or their habitat. MITIGATION: None Required 11 E. CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACT WOULD THE PROJECT YES NO Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact SOURCE a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? 3, 16, 19, 40, 41 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? 3, 19, 40, 41, c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 2,3,4,,40,41 d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 2, 40,41 e) Change or affect any resource listed in the County Historic Resources Database? 16 DISCUSSION: Approval of the project, including the modifications to the Palo Alto and South County (San Martin) Airport AIA, 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL contours, FAR Part 77, and Safety Zones maps, will not have any potential impacts to cultural resources. The project does not foster development or other activities that would impact cultural resources. MITIGATION: None Required F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS IMPACT WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact SOURCE a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 6, 17L, 43 ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 6, 17c,18b iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 6, 17c, 17n, 18b iv) Landslides? 6, 17L, 118b b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 6, 2, 3 12 c) 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? 2, 3, 17c, 23, 24, 42 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the report, Soils of Santa Clara County, creating substantial risks to life or property? 14,23, 24, e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 3,6, 23,24, f) Cause substantial compaction or over-covering of soil either on-site or off-site? 3, 6 g) Cause substantial change in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? 2, 3, 6, 42 DISCUSSION: Approval of the project, including the modifications to the Palo Alto and South County (San Martin) Airport AIA, 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL contours, FAR Part 77, and Safety Zones maps, will not have any potential impacts to geology and soils because it does not foster development or other land disturbance activities. MITIGATION: None Required G. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACT WOULD THE PROJECT YES NO Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact SOURCE a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 1, 3, 4, 5 b) 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? 2, 3, 5 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 1/4 mile of an existing or proposed school? 46 d) Be 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 it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 47 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan referral area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, or in the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in 3, 22a 13 the project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 5, 48 g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 4 h) Provide breeding grounds for vectors? 1, 3, 5 i) Proposed site plan result in a safety hazard (i.e., parking layout, access, closed community, etc.)? 3 j) Involve construction of a building, road or septic system on a slope of 30% or greater? 1, 3, 17n k) Involve construction of a roadway greater than 20% slope for a distance of 300' or more? 1, 3, 17n DISCUSSION: One of the main purposes of the CLUPs is to help decision makers avoid making land-use decisions that could possibly increase safety hazards for people residing or working in or around the airport. Adoption of the CLUPs reduces the risk of airport related hazards within vicinity of the airport. Therefore, approval of the project, including the modifications to the Palo Alto and South County (San Martin) Airport AIA, 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL contours, FAR Part 77, and Safety Zones maps, will not have any potentially significant impacts on Hazards and Hazardous Materials. MITIGATION: None Required H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IMPACT WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact SOURCE a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 34, 36 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? 3, 4 c) Substantially alter the 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? 3, 17n d) Substantially alter the existing drainage 3 14 pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Note policy regarding flood retention in watercourse and restoration of riparian vegetation for West Branch of the Llagas.) e) Create or contribute increased impervious surfaces and associated runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 1, 3, 5, 36, 21a f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1, 3, 5 g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 3, 18b, 18d h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 3, 18b, 18d i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 2, 3, 4 j) Be located in an area of special water quality concern (e.g., Los Gatos or Guadalupe Watershed)? 4, 6a, k) Be located in an area known to have high levels of nitrates in well water? 4 l) Result in a septic field being constructed on soil where a high water table extends close to the natural land surface? 3 m) Result in a septic field being located within 50 feet of a drainage swale; 100 feet of any well, water course or water body or 200 feet of a reservoir at capacity? 1, 3 DISCUSSION: Approval of the project, including the modifications to the Palo Alto and South County (San Martin) Airport AIA, 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL contours, FAR Part 77, and Safety Zones maps, will not have any potential impacts to hydrology and water quality, because it does not foster development or other activities that would affect ground water or drainage/runoff. MITIGATION: None Required I. LAND USE IMPACT WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact SOURCE a) Physically divide an established community? 2, 4 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with 8a, 9, 18a 15 jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with special policies: i) San Martin &/or South County? 1, 3, 8a, 20 ii) Los Gatos Specific Plan or Lexington Watershed? 1, 3, 8a, 22c iii) New Almaden Historical Area/Guadalupe Watershed? 1, 8a iv) Stanford? 8a, 21 v) City of Morgan Hill Urban Growth Boundary Area? 8a, 17a vi) West Valley Hillsides Preservation Area? 1, 8a DISCUSSION: Approval of the project, including the modifications to the Palo Alto and South County (San Martin) Airport AIA, 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL contours, FAR Part 77, and Safety Zones maps, will not have any potentially significant land use impacts In developing the CLUPs, the ALUC and County staff have worked closely with the City of Palo Alto and reviewed County policies. The policies included in the CLUP will not be in conflict with any policies or regulations after the City of Palo Alto and County of Santa Clara amend their General Plans, if necessary and in accordance with the State law, Public Utilities Code Section 21679.5. Each of the two CLUPs include the City of Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara General Plan Land Use and Zoning maps for reference to current Land Use designations and Zoning around the Airport. In order to maintain consistent land use between the CLUP policies and the City and County General Plans, State law requires that within 180 days upon receipt of an ALUC plan amendment; the City and County shall amend their General Plan to be consistent with the CLUP. The areas in which it is reasonably foreseeable that the City or the County may need to make amendments after approval of the ALUC CLUPs are the following: 1. Ordinance requiring avigation easements throughout the AIA (Policy G-5 of the CLUP) 2. Ordinance requiring rental tenant notification of the proximity to the airport throughout the AIA. (Policy N-4 of the CLUP) 3. Ordinance requiring max 45 dB interior for residential reconstruction within the CNEL Noise Contours. (Policy R-2 of the CLUP) 4. Specific General Plan land use restrictions to reflect the RPZ, ISZ and TSZ requirements (Table 4-2 of the CLUP, safety compatibility guidelines). As discussed below under Section K (Population and Housing), the project will not displace growth or otherwise directly or indirectly result in any other adverse land use impacts. Items 1-3 above will not conflict with any applicable land use plans. Item number four above will involve inclusion of the following safety policies within the respective safety zones: 16 Safety Zone Maximum Population Density Open Area Requirements Land Use Runway Protection Zone – RPZ -0- (No people allowed) 100 percent (No structures allowed) Agricultural activities, roads, open low- landscaped areas. No trees, telephone poles or similar obstacles. Occasional short-term transient vehicle parking is permitted. Inner Safety Zone – ISZ Nonresidential, maximum (60 people Palo Alto, 40 people for South County) per acre (includes open area and parking area required for the building’s occupants) 30 percent of gross area open. No structures or concentrations of people between or within 100 feet of the extended runway centerlines. Very low-density residential. 10 acres or more per dwelling unit - Nonresidential uses should be activities that attract relatively few people. No shopping centers, restaurants, theaters, meeting halls, stadiums, multi-story office buildings, labor-intensive manufacturing plants, educational facilities, day care facilities, hospitals, nursing homes or similar activities. No hazardous material facilities (gasoline stations, etc.). Turning Safety Zone - TSZ Nonresidential, maximum (100 people in Palo Alto, 80 people for South County), per acre (includes open area and parking area required for the building’s occupants) 20 percent of gross area Minimum dimensions: 300 ft by 75 ft parallel to the runway(s). Very low-density residential, 5 acres or more per dwelling unit. No regional shopping centers, theaters, meeting halls, stadiums, buildings with more than three above ground habitable floors, schools, day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes or similar activities. No hazardous material facilities (gasoline stations, etc.). Outer Safety Zone – OSZ Nonresidential, maximum (100 people for Palo Alto, 80 people for South County) per acre (includes open area and parking area required for the building’s occupants) 20 percent of gross area Rural areas - allow residential, 2 acres or more per dwelling unit. Urban areas - allow residential infill to existing density. No regional shopping centers, theaters, meeting halls, stadiums, buildings with more than three above ground habitable floors, schools, large day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes or similar activities. No above ground bulk fuel storage. Sideline Safety Zone - SSZ Nonresidential, maximum (150 people for Palo Alto, 100 for South County) per acre (includes open area and parking area required for the building’s occupants) 30 percent of gross area Residential - 5 acres or more per dwelling unit. No regional shopping centers, theaters, meeting halls, stadiums, buildings with more than three above ground habitable floors, schools, large day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes or similar activities. No above ground bulk fuel storage. Traffic Pattern Zone – TPZ No Limit 10 percent of gross area every one-half mile Residential – No Limit. No sports stadiums or similar uses with very high concentration of people. Amendment of the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County General Plans to include these safety policies will bring the respective General Plans into consistency with the ALUC CLUPs. Therefore, approval of the project, including the modifications to the Palo Alto and South County (San Martin) Airport AIA, 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL contours, FAR Part 77, and Safety Zones maps, will not have any potential land use impacts. 17 MITIGATION: None Required J. NOISE IMPACTS WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact SOURCE a) Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 8a, 13, 22a, 45 b) Result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 13 c) Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1, 2, 5 d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1, 2, 5 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan referral area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, or private airstrip would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1, 5, 22a DISCUSSION: One of the primary purposes of the CLUPs is to avoid locating noise-sensitive receptors near airports and reduce noise impacts for persons occupying areas surrounding the Airports. In January 1992, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors approved an FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) for Palo Alto Airport and forwarded it to the FAA for review. South County Airport has never had an FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program (NCP), due to the limited potential for adverse noise impacts in the rural area surrounding the Airport. The NCP forecasts a reduction in the CNEL noise contours if the policies recommended in the NCP are implemented. However, following the recommendations in the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics 2002 Handbook, the proposed Palo Alto CLUP uses more conservative NCP 2007 noise contour information, while the South County CLUP uses the noise contours calculated from the number of aircraft operations included in the last adopted Airport Master Plan for South County Airport. 18 SOUTH COUNTY NOISE EXPOSURE The 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL noise contours based on the 2022 forecast aircraft operations are illustrated on Figure 5 of the South County CLUP (attached) and discussed below: The 70 dBA aircraft noise contour is completely contained within the Airport boundaries and doesn’t affect privately owned land. The 65 dB CNEL aircraft noise contour is completely contained within the Airport boundaries except to the northwest where it extends into the County Maintenance Yard and to the east side of the airport, where it extends east of the freeway by about 400 feet to the on ramp from the CHP inspection station. The 60 dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour is mostly on airport or public property and extends from the CHP inspection station toward Masten Avenue, past Church Avenue, then to the northern hangars along Murphy Avenue. This contour then continues northwest just east of Llagas Creek, north to just north of where the creek turns west, then crosses Murphy Avenue to the intersection of Sycamore and San Martin Avenues, then south along Sycamore Avenue to just northwest of the CHP inspection station. The land east of Highway 101 is generally commercial and rural residential properties and the land northwest of the airport is generally rural residential. The 55 dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour is generally bounded by Llagas Avenue on the east, northwest to about 1000 feet northwest of the Middle Avenue, Highway 101 intersection, then southeast along Sycamore Avenue to the west bend in the Little Llagas Creek then to the end of Mammini Court, crossing San Martin Avenue midway between Mammini Court and Columbet Avenue, then to Little Llagas Creek at Moreno Court, then along the creek to the intersection with Llagas Creek up Llagas creek to along Llagas Avenue. The majority of the land between the 60 dB and the 55 dB contours is rural residential. PALO ALTO NOISE EXPOSURE The 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL noise contours based on the 2022 forecast aircraft operations are illustrated on Figure 5 (attached) of the Palo Alto CLUP and discussed below. The 70 dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour is generally contained within the Airport boundaries except for the northwest end of the airport, where it extends about 1900 feet beyond the airport boundary on the extended runway centerline over into the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve in San Mateo County. The 65-dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour extends beyond the airport boundaries in all directions and covers the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course, and the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve in San Mateo County. The 60-dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour extends beyond the airport boundaries in all directions and covers the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve and the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course, except for a portion to the west and northwest that extends about 500 feet west of the Grant Boundary and out along the extended runway center line to about 2300 feet northwest of Bay Road in East Palo Alto in San Mateo County. 19 The 55-dBA extends beyond the airport boundaries and includes a secondary contour east of the airport, where the 55 dBA CNEL is bounded between both 60 dBA CNEL contours over the Baylands (see figure 5). The contour extends west into the Cities of East Palo Alto and Palo Alto, the north into Menlo Park and unincorporated San Mateo County. Then as the contour moves east it is entirely located over the Baylands, and South the contour extends into unincorporated Santa Clara County Baylands area. The northern area of the contour remains in unincorporated Santa Clara County Baylands area, until it connects back to the City of Palo Alto along the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course. It should be noted that where exposed to noise at or above the 60-dB CNEL level, the California Building Code, Section 1208A.8.3 requires an acoustical analysis of proposed residential structures, other than detached single-family dwellings, to achieve an indoor noise level of 45-dB CNEL. Therefore, the 55-dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour is inconsequential and is included in the CLUPs as a reference. Although the City of Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara have outdoor noise standards, exterior noise levels at 55-dBA are not a significant noise impact. Projects referred to the ALUC that are within the noise contours of these CLUPs would be reviewed for consistency with the noise policies in the respective CLUP. If the adopted thresholds are exceeded, projects located within the respective CNEL Noise Contours receive recommended mitigation for noise attenuation to reduce the affect of airplane noise on the subject properties. Policy N-4 for the proposed Palo Alto and South County CLUP states: No residential construction shall be permitted within the 65 dBA CNEL contour boundary unless it can be demonstrated that the resulting interior sound levels will be less than 45 dBA CNEL and there are no outdoor patios or outdoor activity areas associated with the residential project. All property owners within the 65 dBA CNEL contour boundary who rent or lease their property for residential use shall include in their rental/lease agreement with the tenant, a statement advising that they (the tenants) are living within a high noise area and the exterior noise level is predicted to be greater than 65 dBA CNEL. Policy N-5 for the proposed Palo Alto and South County CLUP states: Residential construction will not be permitted in the area between the 60 dB CNEL contour boundary and the 65 dB CNEL contour boundary unless it can be demonstrated that the resulting interior sound level will be no greater than 45 dB CNEL. Commercial or industrial uses are deemed generally acceptable in the 60-65dBA CNEL Contour boundaries, but noise attenuation is suggested. High-occupancy uses such as churches, libraries, schools and auditoriums are generally unacceptable. There are no existing high occupancy uses such as schools or libraries that partially lie within the 60 dBA CNEL Noise Contour around Palo Alto Airport. The closest use may be the instance of the Palo Alto Golf Course Driving range being used at full capacity. Intermittent noise from aircraft could possibly disrupt some golf school or lesson activities. However, given the intensity of that use, the noise disruption would be a less than significant impact because it is a recreational use. At South County Airport the predominant uses are rural residential and agricultural. However, churches may be allowed with a Use Permit within the area of the 55, 60 and 65 dBA CNEL noise contours. There are also commercial stables that host a variety of animals and agricultural 20 events as well as animal kennels with medium to high occupancy. However, the CLUP would only affect new uses within these noise contours and any subsequent development or redevelopment would include a recommendation for noise insulation. Overall, the adoption of the CLUPs and associated maps do not create noise; rather reflect on- going noise exposure for areas surrounding the airports and act to protect the receptors from that noise exposure. Also, the new noise contours serve as a beneficial impact to the communities by discouraging new residential and other noise-sensitive uses such as churches, schools, libraries and auditoriums, in areas with high noise levels adjacent to public use airports. Approval of the project, including the modifications to the Palo Alto and South County (San Martin) Airport AIA, 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL contours, FAR Part 77, and Safety Zones maps, will not have any negative noise impacts. MITIGATION: None Required K. POPULATION AND HOUSING IMPACT WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact SOURCE a) Induce substantial growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 1, 3, 4, 54, 55 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1, 2, 3, 4 DISCUSSION: Approval of the project would not induce growth, nor would it displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people. This discussion concerns possible direct and indirect “growth inducing impacts” or secondary effects associated with potentially displacing new development within the new AIA, CNEL and Safety Zones to other areas, which could thus result in secondary environmental impacts (air quality, transportation, agriculture). A project could displace development and induce growth in the surrounding environment if it would create barriers to population growth in a certain areas that currently allow new development to occur. The Airport Land Use Commission serves as a policy making body for lands around County Airports, and makes land use consistency determinations for certain types of land use approvals which occur within its referral area, also known as the Airport Influence Area (AIA). This includes the review of modifications to a local agency’s general plan, any specific plans, zoning ordinances, or building regulations, which would affect property within the AIA. If the ALUC 21 determines that a project or policy under its review is inconsistent with the policies contained in its Land Use Plan, including policies applicable to noise and safety, the referring agency may only approve the project if it overrides the ALUC’s determination by a 2/3 vote of the entire legislative body. Theoretically, if an ALUC referral boundary (AIA) was to significantly expand in size, or the policies within the existing AIA were to become significantly ore restrictive, it could affect a substantial portion of land and subsequent determinations of inconsistency by the ALUC on new projects or policies could potentially displace new development that would otherwise occur within the affected zones. However, in the case of both proposed CLUPs, no expansion of the AIAs is proposed. In fact, the AIA for South County Airport is being reduced in size. In order to evaluate the possibility for this occurrence in association with the proposed project, GIS maps were prepared to identify the affected areas and compared the amount of land that could be affected by the adoption of the CLUPs. Specifically, the amount of vacant land with in the Airport AIAs was obtained to determine the reasonably foreseeable land that could be developed to determine if development could be displaced. As previously stated, the CLUPs do not affect existing development. These maps and analysis are discussed below: ALUC Referral Boundaries (AIA): Figure 8 of the CLUPs shows the AIA with the City and County Zoning designations within the AIA. The total amount of land affected by the new ALUC Referral boundary for South County Airport is 6027.6 acres, which has a reduction of 90.5 acres in the area from 6118.1 acres within the AIA. At Palo Alto Airport, there is no change to the area of the AIA. The inclusion the AIA in the CLUPs does not, by itself, have any potential for displacement effects because the proposed CLUP does not include any policies that would preclude or significantly discourage any land uses simply based on their location within the AIA. 55, 60, 65, and 70 dBA CNEL Noise Contours: Figure 5, the Noise Contour maps, delineate the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) boundary of the respective decibels as a result forecast operations at the Airports. The calculation is reflective of the 2022 Aircraft Noise Contours for both of the proposed CLUPs. The proposed new maps will include 55,60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL Noise Contour for both CLUPs. The following is an analysis of the areas covered at each Airport by the proposed Noise Contours: South County Airport: At South County Airport, the 70 dBA aircraft noise contour is completely contained within the Airport boundaries. Similarly, the 65 dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour is completely contained within the Airport boundaries except to northwest where it extends into the County Maintenance Yard and to the east side of the airport, where it extends east of the freeway by about 400 feet to the on ramp from the CHP inspection station. The proposed 70 dBA CNEL Noise Contour encompasses 59.4 Acres. The new 65 dBA CNEL Noise Contour is 153.0 Acres. Because both of these noise contours are located either on Airport property, County property or Freeway right- of-ways, there is no ability for noise policies for these noise contours to displace development. The 55, 60 and part of the 65-dBA CNEL contours are located outside the Airport property. If a project is referred to the ALUC and is within the 55, 60 or 65 dBA CNEL Noise Contours, the applicable noise policies would apply to protect citizens from the impacts of aircraft noise. 22 With regard to the 55 and 60 dBA Noise Contours, the new 55 dBA CNEL includes 1,085.7 acres. The old 55dBA CNEL encompasses approximately 410 acres for a net increase of 675 acres. However, since the California Building Code, Section 1208A.8.3 requires an acoustical analysis of proposed residential structures, other than detached single-family dwellings, to achieve an indoor noise level of 45 dB, the ability for the any noise policies for the 55dBA CNEL contour to displace housing and cause secondary impacts is a less than significant impact. The new 60 dBA CNEL Noise Contour encompasses 402.6 acres. The old 60 dBA CNEL Noise Contour is approximately 160 acres, for a net increase of 242 acres. Analysis of the Santa Clara County General Plan designations in place at the time of the South County CLUP adoption shows that a majority of the properties located within the area of the noise contours are already developed with Medium/Low density residential uses. An analysis was prepared by the County of Santa Clara to calculate the amount of vacant land, which would be affected by the new CNEL contours. Based on the analysis, there is a total of approximately 301 acres of vacant land that could be developed within the noise contours, which could potentially be affected by the modification of the ALUC maps. The majority of which is Santa Clara Valley Water District land, State owned land or Airport owned property. An example of how the expanded noise contours affect physical building proposals is outlined in table 4-1 of the South County Airport CLUP. Although the area of the noise contours increases, the noise contours by themselves do not displace development, they just require noise mitigation. Palo Alto Airport: At Palo Alto, the 70 dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour is generally contained within the Airport boundaries except for the northwest end of the airport, where it extends about 1900 feet beyond the airport boundary on the extended runway centerline over into the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve in San Mateo County, and encompasses 108 acres. However, the 65-dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour extends beyond the airport boundaries in all directions but is over the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course, and the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve in San Mateo County. The 60 and 65 dBA CNEL contours are located outside the Airport properties. If a project is referred to the ALUC and is within the 60 or 65 dBA CNEL Noise Contours, the applicable noise policies would apply to protect citizens from the impacts of aircraft noise. The new 65 dBA CNEL noise contour encompasses 211 acres, for a net increase of 51 acres. The new 60 dBA CNEL Noise Contour is 750.7 acres, for a net increase of approximately 230 acres. Both of the 55-dBA CNEL noise contours encompass 2851.78 (secondary contour between the 60 dBA contour). Analysis of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan designations in place at the time of the CLUP adoption shows that almost all of the properties in the expanded Noise contours are located within the Baylands Conservation area, which is a Nature Preserve area. The exception being a small area on Embarcadero Road to the west of the airport between highway 101, which is designated Commercial and Research / Office Park, which is already developed. However, a very slight corner of the 55 dBA CNEL encroaches within area. The remainders of the noise contours are located within San Mateo County to the north or Santa Clara County Baylands areas to the south. Similar to the South County CLUP, policies for the 55 dBA CNEL do not affect Commercial areas. 23 An analysis was prepared by the County of Santa Clara to calculate the amount of vacant land that would be affected by the new CNEL contours surrounding Palo Alto Airport. The definition of “vacant” land, as indicated by Assessor’s records, is that land which has a land value and improvement value of $0. Based on the analysis, there is no vacant land that can be developed within the expanded area that could be affected by the modification of the ALUC maps, because all the vacant land is Baylands Conservation land. Although the area of the noise contours increases, the noise contours by themselves do not displace development, they just require noise mitigation. FAR Part 77: The FAR Part 77 map is a Federal Aviation Administration map that identifies objects that are potential obstructions to navigation. The ALUC uses the map to establish guidelines for the height of structures around the airport. The FAR Part 77 map itself has no impacts on population and housing. Safety Zones: As shown in figure 7, the proposed Safety Zones are physically very different than the existing safety zones in the County-wide CLUP. This is the result of the Caltrans- Division of Aeronautics 2002 Handbook, and guidelines that encourage CLUPs to provide more detailed safety zones. An example of how the expanded safety zones affect physical building proposals is outlined in table 4-2 of both of the CLUPs. The table provides maximum density and open space requirements for land uses within the safety zones, rather than prohibiting specific uses within the safety zones, with the exception of the Runway Protection Zone. Pages 3-13 to 3-14 of the CLUPs outline the definitions of the safety zones. The safety zones use symmetrical areas and are exclusive in their coverage. In other words the land in the Turning Safety Zone does not include land within the Inner Safety Zone. The total amount of land affected by the proposed safety zones compared to the area of the existing safety zones is outlined in the analysis below: South County Airport: Traffic Pattern = 2,514.5 Acres excluding other safety areas. (Total of all other safety zones except Traffic Pattern Zone 283.2 Acres). Overall, there is a total of 2,797.7 acres of Safety Zone area. Total of Existing Safety Zone is approximately 240 acres (Note that approximately 18 acres of new Safety Zone area is located on airport property). Palo Alto Airport: The Traffic Pattern Zones and the Sideline Safety Zones are smaller than South County Airport because the runway is shorter. However, all other safety zones are the same size. Traffic Pattern = 2,048 Acres (Total of all other safety Zones except Traffic Pattern Zone 117 Acres), for an overall total of 2,165 acres. Total Existing Safety Zones = 120.5 ac*. 24 (* Note there is no North Safety Zone in the existing Palo Alto CLUP because the area is within the Jurisdiction of the County of San Mateo, where the Santa Clara County ALUC policies do not apply). Although for Palo Alto, some of the safety zone area is located within San Mateo County, there is a total of 360.5 acres of existing safety zone area between both airports, whereas, the combined area of the new safety zone area for both airports is 5,595.4 acres. San Jose International Airport runway 11-29 At San Jose International Airport, the reduction in the area of the south safety zone for runway 11-29 from 5000 feet long by 1,500 feet wide to 3,960 feet long to 990 feet wide has no population displacement impacts. Summary & Analysis: Airport Influence Areas (AIAs) The intent of the adoption of the CLUPs is not to displace development, but to develop policies for compatible development in areas surrounding the airports. The north portion of the AIA for the Palo Alto Airport follows San Francisco Creek and the Santa Clara/ San Mateo County line. The majority of land surrounding the Palo Alto Airport cannot be developed, because most of the land is located within the Palo Alto Baylands conservation area. The proposed CLUP has no proposed change to the size of the AIA. In the case of South County Airport, there is a mixture of developed and undeveloped land. The total amount of land affected by the new ALUC AIA for South County Airport is 6027.6 acres, which is a reduction of 90.5 acres in the area from 6118.1 acres in the current County-wide CLUP. The inclusion the AIA in the CLUPs does not, by itself, have any potential for displacement effects because the proposed CLUP does not include any policies that would preclude or significantly discourage any land uses simply based on their location within the AIA. Since existing development is not be affected by the implementation of the CLUPs, residential infill development within the AIAs in the form of additions or new dwellings, will only trigger an Avigation Easement on the property, not restrictions on development. An Avigation Easement is simply an easement to convey to property owners that airplanes will be flying overhead. There are no new lands that could be potentially affected by the adoption of the new CLUPs, as there could be if the ALUC was proposing to increase the size of the AIAs. In the case of both of the proposed CLUPs for South County and Palo Alto, a majority of the vacant land that can be developed within the AIA’s falls outside of the CNEL noise contours and Safety Zones where no development prohibitions apply. Within these areas (the majority of lands affected through the map modifications), ALUC policies are limited to height restrictions consistent with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) FAR Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces, and the recordation of Avigation Easements. As such, the possibility of influencing development and the displacement of new growth in this area is minimal. There is no increase to the size of the AIA for South County and Palo Alto Airports. The amount of new lands within the ALUC AIA as a percentage of total acreage within the City of Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara is minimal. As such, the influence of ALUC policies on land use development and population growth in general in these jurisdictions would not be significant. CNELs 25 All of the CNEL Noise Contours have increased in size from what is in the current County-wide CLUP for both Airports. The increase in the size of the CNEL noise contours is a result of two possible factors; One is due to a more precise modeling of the average noise measurements than was previously available. The other is use of more recent forecast of aircraft operations. There is 301 acres of vacant land within all four Noise Contours that encompass 1,700 acres at South County Airport. However, all of the vacant land within these Noise Contours is owned by the Santa Clara Valley Water District, State or by the Airport itself. Therefore, the increase in Noise Contour area for both Airports has no negative affects on land that can be developed. There is a total of 3,921.5 new acres of Noise contours at Palo Alto Airport, with no technical vacant land due to the Baylands conservation area. Overall, the potential to displace development in the areas is less than significant. This is because the CLUP policies only affect noise mitigation for new development. Also, the increase in area of the CNEL Noise Contours as a percentage of total acreage within the City of Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara is minimal. SAFETY ZONES South County Airport: There are four new Turning Safety Zones (TSZ), two new Runway Protection Zones (RPZ), two new Inner Safety Zones (ISZ), two new Outer Safety Zones (OSZ) and two new Sideline Safety Zones (SSZ) that have a total of 231 acres of vacant land within them. When including the Traffic Pattern Zone, there is a total of 473 acres of vacant land that includes all of the CLUP safety Zones. The current South County Airport Safety Zones are approximately 120 acres at the end of each runway for a total of approximately 240 acres and are only comprised of an Inner and Outer Safety Zone area. The Turning Safety Zones CLUP policies allow for 80 people per acre for non-residential development, and very low-density residential development of five dwelling units per acre. The County of Santa Clara General Plan designations in this area is entirely Rural Residential, with the exception of the south west corner which is designated Other open Public Lands. This is land owned by the Santa Clara Valley Water District and used for drainage or percolation ponds. All of the vacant land within the TSZs is public, or Airport owned property. Overall, the County General Plan and Zoning designations are more restrictive than the CLUP policies with respect to height, with the exception of the area, which is designated Transportation on Airport property. The area of land designated Transportation extends well beyond the airport boundaries beyond San Martin Avenue to the north and down to Church Avenue to the south. The Land Use designation of Transportation includes policies for the affordace of future vehicle and aircraft transportation needs. However, this area has a County Zoning designation of A-20 (Agriculture, with a 20 acre minimum). Within the A-20 Zoning District, single family homes could be built, where the South County CLUP would not allow this on the Airport, within the Sideline Safety Zones or Runway Protection Zones. The Runway Protection Zones, located to the north and south of the runway currently have no structural encroachments. The proposed CLUP policies state that this is a “No Build Zone. The Airport owns this land. Therefore, there is no potential for housing to be displaced in this area and is a less than significant impact to Population and housing. 26 In the Inner Safety Zones all of the vacant land is owned by either by the Airport or the County. Although the CLUP policies are more restrictive than the General Plan and Zoning designations, the land cannot be developed because it is also under ownership of the airport or the County. Therefore, the potential of the project to displace development on the area is a less-than- significant impact. In the Sideline Safety Zones, very low density residential uses are allowed at 5 acres or more per dwelling unit according to the CLUP. However, no regional shopping centers, theaters, meeting halls, stadiums, buildings with more than three above ground habitable floors, schools, large day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes or similar activities are allowed. Also, no above ground bulk fuel storage is allowed. In the Case of South County, all of the land within the SSZ is either owned by the airport, or located on Highway 101. Therefore, there is no functional ability for development in this area. Thus, the potential to displace development in this area is less than significant. Within the Traffic Pattern Safety Zone Boundary, there is 242 acres of vacant land. There are six separate County General Plan designations within this zone including Major Public Facilities where a County Government Center is located west of Monterey Road between Church and San Martin Avenue, which has three to four sports fields. Also, at the corner of Highland Avenue and Monterey Road there is a South Valley Medical Center. The South County CLUP states that No sports stadiums or similar uses with very high concentration of people are allowed. Although the proposed CLUP may be more restrictive than the County General Plan, these developments exist and are not affected by the new CLUP policies. All of the other County General Plan designations are more restrictive in terms of density and allowed uses than the proposed South County CLUP policies. Therefore, the potential to displace development in this area is less than significant. Palo Alto Airport: For the Palo Alto Airport, there are also four new Turning Safety Zones (TSZ), two new Runway Protection Zones (RPZ), two new Inner Safety Zones (ISZ), two new Outer Safety Zones (OSZ) and two new Sideline Safety Zones (SSZ). The land within the Santa Clara County portion of the AIA for Palo Alto Airport is either developed in a commercial / office park area on Embarcadero Road to the west of the airport, or is within the Baylands Conservation area and cannot be developed. Only a small portion of the southwest Turning Safety Zones (TSZ) encroached into the commercial / office park area on Embarcadero Road. The rest of the area is located within the Traffic Pattern Zone (TPZ), which has no limit on Residential population density and does not allow sports stadiums or similar uses with very high concentration of people. CLUP policies for the TSZ allow for 100 people per acre for non-residential development, and very low-density residential development of five dwelling units per acre (in the event of mixed-use development). If a large mixed-use project was proposed in this isolated area, the project could be in conflict with the Palo Alto Airport CLUP, but that cannot be predicted. Overall, the City of Palo Alto General Plan and Zoning are more restrictive than the CLUP policies Therefore, the potential to displace development in this area is less than significant. 27 San Jose International Airport: The ALUC is proposing a map amendment for the South Safety Zone dimensions for runway 11- 29 at San Jose International Airport. This amendment will reduce the size of the safety zone map, so there will be no potential displacement impacts. MITIGATION: None Required L. PUBLIC SERVICES IMPACT WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire Protection? 1, 3, 5 ii) Police Protection? 1, 3, 5 iii) School facilities? 1, 3, 5 iv) Parks? 1, 3, 5 v) Other public facilities? 1, 3, 5 DISCUSSION: Approval of the project, including the modifications to the Palo Alto and South County (San Martin) Airport AIA, 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL contours, FAR Part 77, and Safety Zones maps, will not have any potential impacts to public services. MITIGATION: None Required M. RESOURCES AND RECREATION IMPACT WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact SOURCE a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state? 1, 2, 3, 6, 44 b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site as delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? 1, 2, 3, 6,8a c) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and 1, 2, 4, 5 28 regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? d) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 1, 3, 4, 5 e) Be on, within or near a public or private park, wildlife reserve, or trail or affect existing or future recreational opportunities? 17h, 21a f) Result in loss of open space rated as high priority for acquisition in the “Preservation 20/20” report? 27 DISCUSSION: Approval of the project, including the modifications to the Palo Alto and South County (San Martin) Airport AIA, 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL contours, FAR Part 77, and Safety Zones maps, will not have any potential impacts on recreational facilities or mineral resources. MITIGATION: None Required N. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC IMPACT WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact SOURCE a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio, or congestion at intersections)? 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 49, 53 b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 6, 49, 50, 53 c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 5, 6, 7, 53 d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 3, 5, 6,7, 53 e) Result in inadequate emergency access ? 1, 3, 5, 48, 53 f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 52, 53 g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 8a, 21a h) Not provide safe access, obstruct access to nearby uses or fail to provide for future street right of way? 3, 6, 7, 53 29 DISCUSSION: Approval of the project, including the modifications to the Palo Alto and South County (San Martin) Airport AIA, 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL contours, FAR Part 77, and Safety Zones maps, will not have any potential transportation or traffic related impacts. MITIGATION: None Required O. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS IMPACT WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact SOURCE a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 1, 3, 5, b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1, 3, 5, 21a, 38 c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1, 3, 5 d) Require new or expanded entitlements in order to have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project? 1, 3, 5, 21, e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 1, 3, 5 f) Not be able to be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 1, 3, 5 g) Be in non-compliance with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 5, 6 h) Employ equipment which could interfere with existing communications or broadcast systems? 1, 3, 5 DISCUSSION: Approval of the project, including the modifications to the Palo Alto and South County (San Martin) Airport AIA, 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL contours, FAR Part 77, and Safety Zones maps, will not have any potential impacts to utilities or service systems. MITIGATION: None Required 30 P. MANDATORY FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE IMPACT WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact SOURCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 1 to 53 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? 1 to 53 c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1 to 53 DISCUSSION: In looking at cumulative impacts on other jurisdictions, the Palo Alto CLUP “influences“ San Mateo County in terms of the FAA FAR Part 77 Surfaces map and the 55 and 60 dBA Noise Contour. However, the ALUC has no influence in neighboring Counties. Therefore, adoption of the project does not create any cumulatively considerable impacts in San Mateo County. Overall, the implementation of the project will not trigger any mandatory findings of significance. EARLIER ANALYSIS 1) Earlier Analysis Used: n/a 2) Impacts Adequately Addressed: n/a 3) Mitigation Measures: n/a Initial Study Source List* 1. Environmental Information Form 2. Field Inspection 3. Project Plans 4. Planner’s Knowledge of Area 5. Experience With Other Projects of This Size and Nature 6. County Expert Sources: Geologist, Fire Marshal, Roads & Airports, Environmental Health, Land Development Engineering, Parks & Recreation, Zoning Administration, Comprehensive Planning, Architectural & Site Approval Committee Secretary 7. Agency Sources: Santa Clara Valley Water District, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Midpeninsula Openspace Regional District, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, CA Dept. of Fish & Game, Caltrans, U.S. Army Core of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Public Works Depts. of individual cities, Planning Depts. of individual cities, 8a. Santa Clara County (SCC) General Plan 8b. The South County Joint Area Plan 9. SCC Zoning Regulations (Ordinance) 10. County Grading Ordinance 11. SCC Guidelines for Architecture and Site Approval 12. SCC Development Guidelines for Design Review 13. County Standards and Policies Manual (Vol. I - Land Development) 14. Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code [1994 version] 15. Land Use Database 16. Santa Clara County Heritage Resource (including Trees) Inventory [computer database] 17. GIS Database a. SCC General Plan Land Use, and Zoning b. Natural Habitat Areas & Riparian Plants c. Relative Seismic Stability d. Archaeological Resources e. Water Resources & Water Problems f. Viewshed and Scenic Roads g. Fire Hazard h. Parks, Public Open Space, and Trails i. Heritage Resources j. Slope Constraint k. Serpentine soils l. State of California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, and County landslide & fault zones m. Water Problem/Resource n. USGS Topo Quad, and Liquefaction o. Dept. of Fish & Game, Natural Diversity Data p. FEMA Flood Zones Base Map Overlays & Textual Reports (GIS) 18. Paper Maps a. SCC Zoning b. Barclay’s Santa Clara County Locaide Street Atlas c, Color Air Photos (MPSI) d. Santa Clara Valley Water District - Maps of Flood Control Facilities & Limits of 1% Flooding e. Soils Overlay Air Photos f. “Future Width Line” map set 19. CEQA Guidelines [Current Edition] Area Specific: San Martin, Stanford, and Other Areas San Martin 20a.San Martin Integrated Design Guidelines 20b.San Martin Water Quality Study 20c.Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Santa Clara County & Santa Clara Valley Water District Stanford 21a. Stanford University General Use Permit (GUP), Community Plan (CP), Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 21b. Stanford Protocol and Land Use Policy Agreement Other Areas 22a.ALUC Land Use Plan for Areas Surrounding Airports [1992 version] 22b.Los Gatos Hillsides Specific Area Plan 22c.County Lexington Basin Ordinance Relating to Sewage Disposal Soils 23.USDA, SCS, “Soils of Santa Clara County 24.USDA, SCS, “Soil Survey of Eastern Santa Clara County” Agricultural Resources/Open Space 25. Right to Farm Ordinance 26. State Dept. of Conservation, "CA Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model" 27. Open Space Preservation, Report of the Preservation 2020 Task Force, April 1987 [Chapter IV] Air Quality 28. BAAQMD Clean Air Plan (1997) 29. BAAQMD Annual Summary of Contaminant Excesses & BAAQMD, “Air Quality & Urban Development - Guidelines for Assessing Impacts of Projects & Plans” [1999] Biological Resources/ Water Quality & Hydrological Resources/ Utilities & Service Systems" 30. Site-Specific Biological Report 31. Santa Clara County Tree Preservation Ordinance Section C16 32. Clean Water Act, Section 404 33. Riparian Inventory of Santa Clara County, Greenbelt Coalition, November 1988 34.CA Regional Water Quality Control Board, Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Region [1995] 35. Santa Clara Valley Water District, Private Well Water Testing Program [12-98] 36. SCC Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program, Urban Runoff Management Plan [1997] 37.County Environmental Health / Septic Tank Sewage Disposal System - Bulletin “A” 38.County Environmental Health Department Tests and Reports Initial Study Source List* 39.Calphotos website: http://www.elib.cs.berkeley.edu/photos Archaeological Resources 40.State Archaeological Clearinghouse, Sonoma State University 41. Site Specific Archaeological Reconnaissance Report Geological Resources 42. Site Specific Geologic Report 43.State Department of Mines and Geology, Special Report #42 44. State Department of Mines and Geology, Special Report #146 Noise 45. County Noise Ordinance Hazards & Hazardous Materials 46.Section 21151.4 of California Public Resources Code 47. State Department of Toxic Substances, Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List 48. County Office of Emergency Services Emergency Response Plan [1994 version] Transportation/Traffic 49. Transportation Research Board, “Highway Capacity Manual”, Special Report 209, 1995. 50. SCC Congestion Management Agency, “2000 Monitoring and Conformance report” 51. Official County Road Book 52. County Off-Street Parking Standards 53. Site-specific Traffic Impact Analysis Report 54. San Jose General Plan 55. San Jose Vacant Land Inventory, July 2004 *Items listed in bold are the most important sources and should be referred to during the first review of the project, when they are available. The planner should refer to the other sources for a particular environmental factor if the former indicate a potential environmental impact. Board of Supervisors: Blanca Alvarado, Donald F. Gage, Pete McHugh, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss County Executive: Pete Kutras. Jr. County of Santa Clara Department of Planning and Development Planning OfficeCounty Government Center, East Wing, 7th Floor 70 West Hedding Street San Jose, California 95110-1705 (408) 299-5770 FAX (408) 288-9198 www.sccplanning.org Notice of Extended Comment Period for an Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration Per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this notice has been prepared to inform you that the following project will not have a significant effect on the environment. File Number TAZ APN(s)Date N/A N/A Multiple 11/4/2008 Project Name Project Type Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendments Land Use Plan / Public Owner Applicant County of Santa Clara. Various within Airport A.I.A’s. Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission Project Location The environmental setting consists of three of the public use airports in Santa Clara County (Palo Alto, San Jose International, South County Airport), and areas surrounding these airports. With respect to Palo Alto Airport, the surrounding land uses are the Baylands Conservation Area and a small area developed with commercial properties immediately east of Highway 101 on Embarcadero Road. With respect to South County Airport, the surrounding area includes residential property with small areas of publicly owned property, with Highway 101 bordering the Airport to the east. Land Uses surrounding the Southern area of San Jose International Airport are mostly commercial properties immediately southwest and a mixture of medium density residential and commercial properties to the south across Interstate 880. Project Description The Project is an amendment to the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission’s Land Use Plan for Areas Surrounding Santa Clara County Airports (Land Use Plan) and is undertaken pursuant to the ALUC’s authority under Public Utilities Code § 21670 et seq. The amendments include: (1) The adoption of two new airport-specific Comprehensive Land Use Plans (“CLUPs”), for South County (San Martin) Airport and Palo Alto Airport; and (2) a Map amendment of the County-wide CLUP to correct the South Safety Zone Map for runway 11-29 at San Jose International Airport to reflect a reduction in width and length in the south Safety Zone. (1) Adoption of the South County /San Martin Airport and Palo Alto Airport CLUPs- The new South County and Palo Alto Airport CLUPs (hereafter referred to as “CLUPs”) are intended to be comprehensive, self-contained CLUPs for each Airport. They include several new policies that are associated with the following map modifications: • ALUC referral boundaries ("Airport Influence Areas" or "AIAs") • 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL Noise Contours • FAA, FAR Part 77 Surfaces Map • Airport Safety Zones The purpose of the CLUPs is to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airports and those who use the airports. The CLUPs are established to protect the public from the adverse effects of small aircraft. Specifically, the CLUPs policies ensure that development adjacent to public-use airports in Santa Clara County is not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents, and ensure that no structures or activities adversely affect navigable airspace. The implementation of the CLUPs is intended to prevent future incompatible development from encroaching on the Airports and to allow for development in accordance with the current Airport Master Plan for each Airport. In formulating the CLUPs, the ALUC establishes policies for the regulation of land use, building height, safety, and noise exposure within areas adjacent to each of the public airports in the County. The four maps (AIA, Noise Contours, FAR Part 77 and Safety Zones,) are used by the ALUC to determine the applicability of ALUC policies and compatibility between new uses and airport operations in terms of noise and safety. The purpose of each of these maps that have new associated policies are described in the following: South County (San Martin) Airport referral boundary (AIA) – The Airport Influence Area (AIA) defines the area in which the ALUC policies and procedures apply in South County. When the County of Santa Clara chooses to amend its General Plan, adopt or amend any specific plans, zoning ordinances, or building regulations, that would affect property within the AIA, the County must first refer the proposed action to the ALUC. Voluntary referrals can also be made for other types of actions/projects that may be impacted by the airport operations, such as Building Site Approval, Use Permits or Subdivisions. The new AIA area has been reduced in size by 90.5 acres, from 6118.1 to 6027.6 total acres. The new AIA has been mapped to follow property line boundaries at the southwest corner of the AIA to eliminate uncertainty in determining if a property will fall within the zone. Palo Alto Airport referral boundary (AIA) – The Airport Influence Area (AIA), defines the area in which the ALUC policies and procedures apply in the Palo Alto Area. The proposed Palo Alto Airport CLUP does not change the area of the AIA. South County (San Martin) Airport 55, 60, 65, and 70 dBA CNEL Noise Contours – These maps delineate the predicted Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) in decibels as a result of airport operations at South County Airport. If a project is referred to the ALUC and is within the 55, 60, 65, or 70 dBA CNEL Noise Contours, the applicable noise policies from the CLUP would be used to review the application. The principal source for calculation of the proposed Noise Contours is the FAA modeling software, which forecasts the annual airport operations. Also, the 2002 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, which is published by the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, incorporates established Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) guidelines for noise standards. The new adopted maps will include a 65 and 70 dBA CNEL contour, which was not previously used. The existing CLUP only uses a 55 and 60 dBA CNEL Noise Contour. The existing 55 dBA CNEL is approximately 400 acres. The new 55 dBA CNEL includes 1085.7 total acres, which is a net increase of approximately 685 acres. The existing 60 dBA CNEL is approximately 153 acres. The new 60 dBA CNEL is 402.6 acres for an approximate increase of 240 acres. The new 65 dBA CNEL is 153 acres and the new 70 dBA CNEL is 59.4 acres, which only encompasses airport property and highway 101. Palo Alto Airport 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL Noise Contours – Like the South County noise contours, these maps delineate the predicted Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) boundary in decibels as a result of airport operations at Palo Alto Airport. If a project is referred to the ALUC and is within the 55, 60, 65, or 70 dBA CNEL Noise Contours, the applicable noise policies would apply. Like the South County Airport, the principal source for the proposed Noise Contours is the 2002 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The existing Noise Contours are based on 1995/1996-forcast conditions and use 55, 60, 65, 70 and 75 dBA CNEL Noise Contours. The new adopted maps will only include up to a 70 dBA CNEL Noise Contour, because the 75 dBA CNEL is entirely located on airport property. Therefore, no development other than projects on airport property would be affected by the 75 dBA CNEL. According to County ALUC files, there are no calculated areas within the existing Noise Contours for Palo Alto Airport. This is likely due to the small size of those contours and their location within the Baylands Conservation lands as well as airport property. The new 55 dBA CNEL is 2851.78 acres (including the “bubble” area west of the airport). The new 60 dBA CNEL is 750.7 acres. The new 65 dBA CNEL is 211.0 acres and the 70 dBA CNEL is 107.4 acres. Acreage of existing CNELs have never been prepared for Palo Alto Airport. South County and Palo Alto Airport FAA, FAR Part 77 Surfaces Map - Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, establishes imaginary surfaces for airports and runways as a means to identify objects that are obstructions to air navigation. Each surface is defined as a slope-ratio, or at a certain altitude above the airport elevation, measured at Mean Sea Level (MSL). Projects located within the AIA are evaluated for consistency with the FAR Part 77 height restrictions. This is an FAA map that is updated as necessary as a result of changes in the airport runway(s). It is not a County or ALUC map. The current CLUPs are using an outdated version of the FAA maps. In 2007, the ALUC adopted a CLUP amendment to incorporate by reference, the FAA maps currently in effect for each Airport in the County to avoid the necessity of County-wide CLUP amendments each time the FAA updates the map as a result of changes to the runways. Palo Alto and South County Airport Safety Zones – Airport safety zones are established to minimize exposure to potential airplane hazards. Both the Palo Alto and South County CLUPs use the threshold adopted by the FAA for positioning the Runway Protection Zones. These areas are depicted on the FAA approved Airport Layout Plans for each airport. Furthermore, the safety zones defined for the Airports are based on the guidance for General Aviation Airports with runways less than 4,000 feet in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (January 2002) adopted by the State of California, Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (“2002 Handbook”) pursuant to Public Utilities Code § 21674.7. The following describes these safety zones, which are the same for both CLUPs, and represented by Figure 7 in both CLUPs: Runway Protection Zone The function of the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) is to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground and aircraft occupants. RPZs should be clear of all objects, structures and activities. The RPZ as adopted by the airport and the FAA and begins 200 feet from the ends of the runways. It is a trapezoidal area centered on the extended runway centerline. The size is related to the expected aircraft use and the visibility minimums for that particular runway. Turning Sector Defined A geometric feature defined as a “Turning Sector” bound by some of the safety zones. This feature is constructed as follows: Each runway end has a sector, which is bounded on the inside by the extended runway centerline. The radius of these sectors is 3,000 feet with the center point located 1,000 feet along the runway centerline from the runway threshold towards the opposite end of the runway. The arc for the sector is swung away from the opposite runway. The interior angle of the sector is 30 degrees from the extended runway centerline. The two closest turning sector center-points are connected with a straight line and a tangent line that connects the two associated arcs. The Turning Sector is defined as the outside bounds of the feature constructed above. There is one Turning Sector for each end of the runway system. Inner Safety Zone The Inner Safety Zone (ISZ) is located within the Turning Sector boundary described above. The ISZ represents the approach and departure corridors that have the second highest level of exposure to potential aircraft accidents. The ISZ is centered on the line midway between the runway centerlines starting at the apex of the Turning Sector boundary and except as noted below, extends to the outer arc of the Turning Sector boundary. The length of the runway determines the dimensions. Turning Safety Zone The Turning Safety Zone (TSZ) represents the approach and departure areas that have the third highest level of exposure to potential aircraft accidents. Outer Safety Zone The Outer Safety Zone (OSZ) extends out from the Turning Sector arc. The OSZ is a rectangular area centered on the line midway between the extended runway centerlines starting at the outer end of the Turning Sector arc. The length of the runway determines the dimensions. The OSZ for northwest ends of the runways is a rectangular area 1,300 feet wide and 1,500 feet long at the center, centered on the line midway between the extended runway centerlines, starting at the outer edge of the ISZ and extending away from the runway threshold. Sideline Safety Zone The Sideline Safety Zone (SSZ) is an area along side and parallel to the runways. This area is not normally overflown by aircraft except by aircraft losing directional control on takeoff (especially twin-engine aircraft). Traffic Pattern Zone The Traffic Pattern Zone (TPZ) is within other portions of the airport area that are routinely overflown by aircraft. The potential for aircraft accidents is relatively low and the need for land use restrictions is minimal. The TPZ excludes all other zones described above. For both airports, the TPZ is the surface area underlying the FAR Part 77 Horizontal Surface. The perimeter of the TPZ is constructed by swinging arcs of 5,000 feet out for the runways from a point 200 feet out from each runway pavement end on the extended centerline and connecting the arcs with lines tangent to these arcs. Currently, the safety zones for Palo Alto and South County Airports are two areas rectangular in shape, at each end of the runway. Both the north and south safety areas encompass a total of 283.6 acres at each airport. The combined area of the new safety zone area is 3,241 acres, for a net increase of 2,957.4 acres. As all safety zones are within the AIA, all general plan amendments, rezoning, specific plans, or modifications to building regulations for affected properties within the safety zones, would be required to be reviewed by the ALUC for consistency with the safety policies in the CLUPs. Also, incorporated into the Amendments is the following non-airport-specific CLUP amendment: (2) Map Amendment for the South Safety Zone dimensions for runway 11-29 at San Jose International Airport: - The ALUC amended the County-wide CLUP in 2005 to include map updates as a result of the lengthening of runways at San Jose International Airport. In that update, the ALUC approved the original 5,000-foot by 1,500-foot south safety zone for Runway 11-29. However, the text, which describes the dimensions of the Safety Zones remained unchanged, stating a dimension of 990 feet wide by 3,960 feet long. Purpose of Notice The purpose of this notice is to inform you that the County Planning Staff has recommended that a Negative Declaration be approved for this project. County of Santa Clara Planning Staff has reviewed the Initial Study for the project, and based upon substantial evidence in the record, finds that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment. The public comment period was originally for 20 days beginning on October 3rd, 2008 running through October 26, 2008. To give the public additional time to comment, the ALUC has extended the comment period to November 19, 2008 at 5:00PM. A public hearing for the proposed project is tentatively scheduled for the Airport land Use Commission on November 19, 2008 at 6:00PM in the County Government Center; 70 West Hedding Street, San Jose, CA 95110. It should be noted that the approval of a Negative Declaration does not constitute approval of the project under consideration. The decision to approve or deny the project will be made separately. Public Review Period: Begins: October 31, 2008 Ends: November 19, 2008 Public Comments regarding the correctness, completeness, or adequacy of this negative declaration are invited and must be received on or before the end of the review period listed above. Such comments should be based on specific environmental concerns. Written comments should be addressed to the County of Santa Clara Planning Office, County Government Center, 70 W. Hedding Street, San Jose, CA 95110, Tel: (408) 299-5770. Oral comments may be made at the hearing. A file containing additional information on this project may be reviewed at the Planning Office under the file number appearing at the top of this form. For additional information regarding this project and the Negative Declaration, please contact Mark J. Connolly at (408) 299-5786. The Negative Declaration and Initial Study may be viewed at the following locations: (1) Santa Clara County Planning Office, 70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, 7th Floor, San Jose, CA 95110 (2) Planning Office Website www.sccplanning.org (Environmental Documents under “Find it Fast”) (3) Gilroy, Morgan Hill, Palo Alto and San Jose Public Library-Rose Garden Branch Other Agencies sent a copy of this document Caltrans Division of Aeronautics ( Courtesy Only), Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, San Mateo County, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Gilroy and Morgan Hill Prepared by: Mark J. Connolly __________________________ ________ Signature Date Approved by: Rob Eastwood, Senior Planner, AICP __________________________ ________ Signature Date This page was intentionally left blank 090331 gk 0073121 RECORDED AT NO CHARGE IN ) ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT ) CODE § 6103 AT THE REQUEST ) OF, AND WHEN RECORDED, RETURN ) TO: ) ) CITY OF PALO ALTO/Real Estate ) 250 Hamilton Avenue ) Palo Alto, CA 94301 ) ____________________________________)___________________________________SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE ONLY GRANT OF AVIGATION EASEMENT 1. FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, [insert the name/names] (“GRANTOR”), does hereby grant to the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a chartered municipal corporation of the State of California, its successors and assigns (“GRANTEE”), a perpetual and assignable easement (the “Avigation Easement”) in and over the real property described in Section 2 below (the "Real Property"), in which GRANTOR holds fee title, and a right-of-way for the free and unrestricted passage of aircraft of any and all kinds now or hereafter known, in, through, across and about the airspace above the surface of the plane above the Real Property described below (the "Airspace"). 2. The Real Property, which is the subject of this GRANT OF AVIGATION EASEMENT, is all that Real Property in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, as more particularly described in Exhibit A, as follows: [insert street address and legal description (or the assessor’s parcel number) of the Real Property] Street Address: _____________________________________________________ APN: ____________________________________________________________ Other: ____________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 3. The Avigation Easement applies to both the Real Property and the airspace above an imaginary plane over the Real Property (the “Airspace”), which is described, as follows: Attachment E 090331 gk 0073121 The imaginary plane above the Real Property, as such plane is defined by Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations and consists of a plane [describe approach, transition, or horizontal surface]: the elevation of the plane being based upon the official FAA Palo Alto Airport elevation of _______ feet Above Mean Sea Level (“AMSL”), the approximate dimensions of which the plane are described and shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 4. The purposes of this Avigation Easement include, but are not limited to, the following: a. The use and benefit of the public, for the continuing right to fly, or cause or permit the flight by any and all persons, or any aircraft, of any and all kinds now or hereafter known, in, through, across, or about any portion of the Real Property and the Airspace; and b. The right to cause or create, or permit or allow to be caused or created within all space above the existing surface of the Real Property and any and all the Airspace above and laterally adjacent to the Real Property, such noises, vibrations, currents and other effects of air, illumination and fuel consumption as may be inherent in, or may arise or occur from or during the operation of aircraft of any and all kinds, now or hereafter known or used, for navigation of or flight in air; and c. A continuing right to clear, and keep clear from the Real Property and the Airspace any portions of building, structures, or improvements of any and all kinds, and of trees or other objects, including the right to remove or demolish those portions of such buildings, structures, improvements, trees or other things which extend into or above the Airspace, and the right to cut to the ground level and remove any trees which extend into or above the Airspace; and d. The right to mark and light, or cause or require to be marked or lighted, as obstructions to air navigation, any and all buildings, structures, or other improvements, and trees or other objects, which extend into or above the Airspace; and e. The right of ingress to, passage within, and egress from the Real Property for the purposes described in subparagraphs "c" and "d" above at reasonable times and after reasonable notice. 5. GRANTOR, for and on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns, hereby covenants (or covenant) with GRANTEE for the direct benefit of the real property constituting the Palo Alto Airport (the “Airport”), described in Section 6 below, as follows: a. GRANTOR, its successors in interest or assigns, will not construct, install, erect, place, grow in or around the Real Property, or permit or allow any building, 090331 gk 0073121 structure, improvement, tree, or other object on the Real Property to extend into or above the Airspace or right-of-way, or to constitute an obstruction to air navigation, or to obstruct or interfere with the use of this Avigation Easement; and b. GRANTOR, its successors in interest or assigns, will not hereafter use or permit the use of the Real Property in such a manner as to create electrical or electronic interference with radio communication or radar operation between the Federal Aviation Administration control tower upon the Airport and any aircraft. 6. This Avigation Easement shall be deemed both appurtenant to and for the direct benefit of the real property that constitutes the Palo Alto Airport in the County of Santa Clara, State of California; and the Avigation Easement shall further be deemed in gross, being conveyed to GRANTEE for the benefit of GRANTEE and any and all members of the general public who may use the Airspace and right-of-way for landing at, taking off from, or operating such aircraft in or about the Airport, or in otherwise flying above the Real Property or through the Airspace. 7. GRANTOR, together with its successors in interest and assigns, hereby waives its rights to legal action against GRANTEE, its appointed officials, officers, employees, successors, and assigns for monetary damages or other redress due to impacts associated with aircraft operations in the air or on the ground at the Airport, including future increases in the volume or changes in location of those operations. Furthermore, GRANTEE, its appointed officials, officers, employees, successors, and assigns shall have no duty to avoid or mitigate such damages through physical modifications or Airport facilities or the establishment or modification of aircraft operational procedures or restrictions. This grant of Avigation Easement shall not operate to deprive GRANTOR, its successors in interest or assigns, of any rights which it may from time to time have against any air carrier or private aircraft operator for the negligent or unlawful operation of aircraft. 8. These covenants and agreements run with the land and are binding upon the heirs, administrators, executors, successors and assigns of GRANTOR, and for the purpose of this Avigation Easement, the Real Property and the Airspace and right-of-way described above constitute the servient tenement and the real property comprising the Palo Alto Airport is the dominant tenement. (GRANTOR) 090331 gk 0073121 By: Name: __________________________________________ Dated: __________________________________________ By: Name: __________________________________________ Dated: __________________________________________ 090331 gk 0073121 ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Civil Code Section 1189 STATE OF ) ) ss COUNTY OF ) On before me, , a notary (date) (name and title of officer) public, personally appeared , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary's Signature 090331 gk 0073121 EXHIBIT A Description of Real Property 090331 gk 0073121 EXHIBIT B (See Section 3 of Avigation Easement; Show Real Property and Elevation Limits) This page was intentionally left blank NOT YET APPROVED 090514 jb 0073138 1 Resolution No. _______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to Incorporate the Santa Clara County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Palo Alto Airport WHEREAS, the Airport Land Use Commission of the County of Santa Clara (the “County”) adopted the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Palo Alto Airport (the “Airport Plan”) on November 19, 2008; and WHEREAS, California law requires that the City of Palo Alto (the “City”) to ensure that the City’s Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the Airport Plan within 180 days of the County’s adoption of Airport Plan; and WHEREAS, on April 29, 2009, the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended that the City Council amend the Land Use Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan as set forth below; and WHEREAS, upon consideration of the recommendation, the Council desires to amend the City’s Comprehensive Pan, as hereinafter set forth; The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the public interest, health, safety and welfare of Palo Alto and the surrounding region require the amendment of the Land Use Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, as set forth in Section 2. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby amends the Land Use Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan in the following ways: (a) by adding the Airport Influence Area (the “AIA”), established in the Airport Plan, to Map L-2; (b) by adding Program L-2B, which establishes a development review process for projects within the AIA; and (c) by adding a supplemental text box that provides information to implement the program. // // // // // Attachment F NOT YET APPROVED 090514 jb 0073138 1 SECTION 3. A Negative Declaration for the amendment to the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Areas Surrounding Santa Clara County Airports was adopted by the Santa Clara County on November 19, 2008. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager Senior Asst. City Attorney Director of Planning and Community Environment Attachment G TO: FROM: PLANNING & TRANSPORTA TION DIVISION STAFF REPORT PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Gloria Humble Senior Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: Apri129,2009 SUBJECT: Recommendation to City Council for Adoption of a Resolution to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Santa Clara County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Palo Alto Airport (PAO CLUP) by 1) Amending Map L-2 to include the Airport Influence Area (AIA) established in the PAO CLUP and 2) Amending the "Land Use" Element to include Program L-2B and a supplemental text box to establish a program for monitoring development within the AIA. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution (Attachment F) to amend the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Santa Clara County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Palo Alto Airport (PAO CLUP) by 1) Amending Map L-2 to include the Airport Influence Area (AIA) established in the PAO CLUP and 2) Amending the "Land Use" Element to include Program L-2B and a supplemental text box to establish a program for monitoring development within the AIA. (Attachments B & C) BACKGROUND: In 1971, the County of Santa Clara established the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) to be responsible for the protection of people and property within the vicinity of airports. In 1973, the ALUC adopted a Countywide Comprehensive Land Use Plan (Countywide CLUP) to help provide that protection. The Countywide CL UP fulfilled its function, not by regulating the airport-that is the role of the FAA and Airport Master Plans-but rather, by regulating non-airport land use and structures in the vicinity of the airport. The Countywide CLUP contained guidelines that limited concentrations of people in areas susceptible to accidents and restricted new structures or activities that would interfere with navigable airspace. The Countywide CL UP included Airport Influence Areas (AlAs) for each airport that identified properties subject to its guidelines. These City of Palo Alto Page 1 1 AIAs encompassed the areas typically over flown by aircraft using each airport. The Countywide CL UP was amended in the 1990s. Then, around 2002, the County began a transition from the single, Countywide CLUP to airport-specific documents that focus on issues related to each individual airport. As a result of that effort, the ALUC fmalized a Draft PAD CLUP in 2008. On August 11, 2008, the County held a Community Outreach Meeting in the Palo Alto City Council chambers and presented the proposed PA D CLUP. On November 19, 2008, the County adopted the PAD CLUP. (Attachment A) DISCUSSION: Staff recommends that proposed specific amendments be adopted to incorporate the PAD CLUP into the Comprehensive Plan in order to comply with State law which mandates that the City incorporate the PAD CLUP into its Comprehensive Plan within 180 days of the County's adoption date. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments implement the PAD CLUP guidelines and procedures in three ways: 1. The AIA Comprehensive Plan on Map L-2 identifies subject properties (Attachment B) 2. Comprehensive Plan Program L-2B establishes a development review process for projects within the AIA. (Attachment C; page L-5) 3. The proposed supplemental Comprehensive Plan text box provides information to implement the program. (Attachment C; page L-7) hnplementation of the program will be supported by the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The City may refer any project to them for review and recommendation. In fact, certain projects are "mandatory" referrals. (See Attachment C; page L-7 for referral criteria.) The ALUC will review referred proposals for consistency with the PAD CLUP guidelines and nlake recommendations to the City regarding implementation of the PAD CLUP guidelines for specific projects. The ALUC recommendations are advisory. As the City's land use and development regulations within the AIA are at least as restrictive as those of the CLUP, it is anticipated that the ALUC will not make recommendations on land use compatibility or building height that are different from what the City would already require. However, the ALUC may recommend that the City require the subject property owner to grant an avigation easement (to the City of Palo Alto) (Attachment E) as a condition for obtaining an entitlement or building permit. The primary purpose of such an A vigation Easement is the continuation of the public's right to use the described airspace for flying. Another purpose of such an A vigation Easement is to ensure that prospective buyers of property in the vicinity of an airport are made aware of the airport's existence and the impacts that the airport activity has on surrounding land uses. Since the ALUC adopted the PAD CLUP, there have been development proposals within the AIA. A proposal to remodel the business park at 1840 Embarcadero Road did not require ALUC review. A proposal for a new hotel at 1700 Embarcadero Road, was a mandatory referral to the ALUC because it would require an amendment to the Zoning Code and to the Comprehensive City of Palo Alto Page 2 Plan. Had it not required those amendments, the proposed hotel would have been an "encouraged" referral. (See Attachment C; page L-7 for referral criteria.) The ALUC review of that hotel proposal resulted in a single recommendation-that the City require an avigation easement as a condition of the building permit. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Incorporation of the PAG CLUP into the Comprehensive Plan implements the guidelines of the PAG CLUP which are compatible with existing Comprehensive Plan policies that support compatible land uses in the vicinity of the airport. They also reinforce the existing Comprehensive Plan policies by identifying an area subject to airport overflights and serve as notice of potential noise and safety impacts from airport operations. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Negative Declaration for this amendment to the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission's Land Use Plan for Areas Surrounding Santa Clara County Airports was adopted by Santa Clara County on November 19, 2008. (Attachment D). ATTACHMENTS: A. Santa Clara County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Palo Alto Airport B. Proposed amended Comprehensive Plan Map L-2 showing AIA C. Proposed amended Comprehensive Plan Pages L-5 through L-7 showing new Program L- 2B and supplemental text box D. Negative Declaration E. Proposed Grant of A vigation Easement to the City of Palo Alto F. Proposed Resolution COURTESY COPIES: Palo Alto Airport Working Group (P AA WG) Palo Alto Airport Association Prepared by: Gloria Humble, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Catherine Siegel, Advance Planning Manager Curtis Williams, Interim Director City of Palo Alto Page 3 This page was intentionally left blank PLANNING& TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES ==================MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26====================== City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 1 of 19 Wednesday, April 29, 2009 1 Special Meeting at 6:00 PM 2 Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor 3 250 Hamilton Avenue 4 Palo Alto, California 94301 5 6 ROLL CALL:6:10 PM78Commissioners: Staff:9 Daniel Garber – Chair (absent for 1) Julie Caporgno, Chief Plan. & Trans. Official 10 Samir Tuma – V-Chair Melissa Tronquet, Assistant City Attorney 11 Susan Fineberg Amy French, Current Planning Manager 12 Karen Holman Gloria Humble, Senior Planner 13 Arthur Keller Russ Reich, Senior Planner 14 Lee I. Lippert Zariah Betten, Admin. Assoc. 15 Fabio Rosati 16 17 AGENDIZED ITEMS: 1819 1.Santa Clara County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Palo Alto Airport 20 2.2180 El Camino Real (The New College Terrace Centre) 21 3.Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Continued to a date certain of May 13, 2009 2223 Vice-Chair Tuma: Welcome to the April 29, 2009 Special Meeting of the Planning and 24 Transportation Commission starting at six o’clock this evening. Would the Secretary like to call 25 the roll, please? Thank you. 2627 Chair Garber will be joining us for the second item. Hopefully we will get through the first item 28 by about seven o’clock so he is planning on being here around seven to start with that. 2930 This is the point in the agenda where there is an opportunity for the public to speak to any items 31 not on the agenda during Oral Communications. Seeing no cards we will go directly to item one. 3233 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda 34 with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a 35 speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and 36 Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 37 minutes38 Attachment H City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 2 of 19 1 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items 2 added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. 3 4 Vice-Chair Tuma: Actually we do have a change to the agenda. Item number three will be 5 continued to May 13, 2009. That was noted in the agenda and that item will not be heard this 6 evening. 7 8 Item number one is a recommendation to City Council for adoption of a resolution to amend the 9 Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Santa Clara County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for 10 Palo Alto Airport by 1) Amending the Map L-2 to include the Airport Influence Area established 11 in the PAO CLUP and 2) Amending the “Land Use” Element to include Program L-2B and a 12 supplemental text box to establish a program for monitoring development within the AIA. Staff, 13 you have a presentation. 14 15 NEW BUSINESS 16 Public Hearing: 17 18 1. Santa Clara County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Palo Alto Airport: 19 Recommendation to City Council for Adoption of a Resolution to Amend the 20 Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Santa Clara County Comprehensive Land Use Plan 21 for Palo Alto Airport (PAO CLUP) by 1) Amending Map L-2 to include the Airport 22 Influence Area (AIA) established in the PAO CLUP and 2) Amending the “Land Use” 23 Element to include Program L-2B and a supplemental text box to establish a program for 24 monitoring development within the AIA. 25 26 Ms. Julie Caporgno, Chief Planning and Transportation Official: Thank you Vice-Chair Tuma. 27 I want to introduce Gloria Humble who is Senior Planner in the Planning Department. She will 28 give a PowerPoint presentation to go over what the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Palo 29 Alto Airport is and how it affects our Comprehensive Plan and the expectations of that. 30 31 Also, in audience tonight we have Mark Connolly from Santa Clara County Planning 32 Department and he is Staff to the Airport Land Use Commission, ALUC, which you will see 33 peppered throughout the Staff Report. 34 35 Before Gloria begins her presentation I just want to stress what the item is. It is a stated 36 mandated protection plan primarily, to insure that new development in the vicinity of airports 37 will not be impacted by airport use. So it directed at new development and doesn’t effect any 38 existing development, any of the lands that are currently in use in the vicinity of the airport. This 39 does not affect those. 40 41 I think at places tonight you have received comments that were received from Commissioner 42 Fineberg. I think most of the issues that she addressed in her comments will be addressed in the 43 presentation. We will kind of go over those at the end just to make sure that everything was 44 touched on, with that I will turn it over to Gloria. 45 46 City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 3 of 19 Ms. Gloria Humble, Senior Planner: I just wanted to make sure that everybody was familiar with 1 these terms because I will be using the. The ALUC is the Airport Land Use Commission and 2 tonight we will be talking about the Airport Land Use Commission of Santa Clara County. The 3 CLUP is the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and tonight we will be talking about the CLUP for 4 the Palo Alto Airport. Then another important term is the AIA, which is the Airport Influence 5 Area. 6 7 For better or for worse I have divided this information into four topics. When you see the red 8 you will know I am moving to another topic. So the first topic will be a little bit of background 9 and the relationship between the ALUC, the CLUP, and the City. 10 11 The state established the ALUC to provide orderly growth in the areas surrounding public 12 airports. To accomplish this task the ALUC wrote the CLUP. The CLUP contains guidelines 13 that concern themselves with land use and development specifically with regard to noise, safety, 14 height, and overflight. Now the state also placed the responsibility for enforcing these guidelines 15 with the local jurisdiction. As a result the City and the ALUC are in a partnership to provide this 16 orderly growth. To facilitate the partnership the state requires that the City’s regulations be 17 consistent with the CLUP. Either through good luck or good planning Palo Alto’s existing 18 regulations were already consistent with the CLUP guidelines. However, we still need to meet 19 the letter of the law and therefore we must take certain steps to tangibly establish and 20 demonstrate that state required consistency. 21 22 New topic. What action are we taking? We are going to adopt a resolution to amend the 23 Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the CLUP. This is recommendation is based on the CLUP 24 Section 4.2.2, which prescribes how to establish and demonstrate the state required consistency. 25 Very briefly there are about two steps. One is to incorporate the Airport Influence Area and the 26 CLUP policies, then two to provide ongoing review. 27 28 So step one we can accomplish with the three changes to the Comprehensive Plan, i.e., adding 29 the AIA to the Map, adding Policy L-2B, and adding some supplemental text that will help future 30 users of the document to know how interact with both the CLUP and the ALUC. Then that 31 second step for establishing state required consistency is to provide ongoing review, which leads 32 us to our next topic, the Review Process. 33 34 We talk about the review, the guidelines, the referrals, and I probably should have added 35 navigation easement there because that is kind of a standalone topic. So as described earlier the 36 City is in a partnership with the ALUC and the CLUP Section 4.2.1.3 talks a little bit about this. 37 The role of the ALUC is to advice the City. The City will refer a proposal to the ALUC, they 38 will review it for consistency with the guidelines, and they will advise the City as to whether or 39 not they find it to be consistent. If not, they may advise the City as to how they think it can be 40 made consistent. They may even advise the City as to how a consistent proposal could be made 41 yet more compatible with the guidelines. As we have stated their role is advisory, however, the 42 City is still obligated to ensure that both policy changes and new development are consistent 43 with the CLUP guidelines. 44 45 City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 4 of 19 Next we will talk a little bit about the review, the actual review. We start out by defining what 1 properties are affected and those properties are defined by the Airport Influence Area, the AIA. 2 We have added this to our GIS and this is what is being added to the Comprehensive Plan Map. 3 You can see it is a feature based boundary line. So it is following a creek here, a land end, and 4 now the County boundary line, and here it is following Charleston Slew, and then here it is 5 following 101. One thing that is interesting is this little area over here, this little developable 6 area part of which we just annexed is not included in the AIA. 7 8 The next interesting slide to look at and this is right out of the CLUP and it affects the 9 development potential are the safety zones. They radiate from the runway. Everything radiates 10 from the runway, the intensity of all the restrictions. So this little green thing here is the runway 11 and these colorful lines represent different zones. So there will be a corresponding table to this 12 map that says within this zone you can have these land uses, and that is based on safety. In other 13 words, the closer you get to the runway the more safety concerns are a factor in the development 14 and land use choices. By the way, as drawn in the County boundary line here to kind of 15 accentuate that some of these safety zones are in San Mateo County and you will see that they 16 have actually dotted them on the map that they publish. I think I will let Mark, if you have some 17 questions about how this CLUP affects San Mateo County I think I would be better of letting 18 Mark address that. So as soon as I am done here I will make him available. 19 20 These are the noise contours. Again, they radiate from the runway and the development 21 potential is going to be based on how close it is to the runway and what noise contour it falls in. 22 I have not prepared these to the noise contour map in the Comprehensive Plan but I do know that 23 at this gross level I wouldn’t be surprised that there might be a slight difference. If push came to 24 shove and there was a major development proposal and sound was a factor I don’t think you 25 would use this kind of gross information anyhow. You would do a site specific noise analysis if 26 that was going to be a CEQA factor or a development factor even per these regulations. 27 28 These are the height contours I will call them. I am not quite sure they are contours. Again, they 29 radiate from the runway and this provides a good opportunity to see how our regulations are 30 more restrictive than the CLUP regulations. For example, here is the runway, by the time you 31 get to this yellow line here the CLUP allows your building to be 100 feet tall. So I don’t think 32 any developers have to worry about this. 33 34 Now we talk a little bit about the referrals and Section 4.2.1 of the CLUP also talks about this. 35 There are going to be some required referrals. In general those are going to be policy changes 36 that affect the area, the AIA. For example, anything to do with airport master plan, changes to 37 the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning or Building regulations, specific plans that affect the AIA, and 38 then development proposal that involve a change to any of those policy documents like a hotel 39 that requires a zone change. 40 41 Section 4.2.1 also talks about encouraged referrals, which include major infrastructure 42 improvements that would promote urban development, residential units of more than five units, 43 high density uses like theaters or low-mobility uses hospitals, structures over 200 feet, and 44 finally proposals that proposals that increase the existing square footage by 50 percent. I think 45 you will find that last one isn’t explicitly described in the CLUP, Section 4.2.1, but I have had 46 City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 5 of 19 conversations with County Staff, the liaison to the CLUP actually the ALUC, and we have come 1 to the conclusion that the interpretation of encouraged referrals will include proposal that 2 increase the existing square footage by 50 percent. 3 4 Staff expects that the ALUC will not make recommendations that differ from what the City 5 would already have required, remember the height limits are so much more allowing, with the 6 exception of what they call a navigation easement. The ALUC may well recommend that a 7 navigation easement be included as a condition of approval for a project. We have never had a 8 policy regarding those before. If a navigation easement is a condition of approval for a proposal 9 then the City will be responsible for making sure that that easement is recorded. To that end, the 10 City Attorney’s Office has developed the proposed navigation easements that are attached to 11 your Staff Report and Staff will use the same procedure that we currently use for recording 12 public utility easements when they are required as a condition of approval. 13 14 New Topic, Admin Stuff. For example, the public outreach that led us to here, the 15 environmental review that led us to here, and the findings to make the decision we are about to 16 make. Regarding public outreach there were several meetings, mailings, and newspaper ads. I 17 guess it started February 8, 2008. I think it started earlier than that but we have records of a 18 February 8 meeting with City Staff. There was a JRC meeting at the Baylands. There was a 19 City selection meeting, and then an outreach meeting right here in the Chambers on August 11. 20 By the way, at that meeting the only issue that was raised was by Commissioner Keller, which 21 was he was asking about the logistics of implementing the navigation easement requirement. So 22 hopefully what I just said explained that for you. 23 24 Vice-Chair Tuma: Gloria, what is JRC? 25 26 Ms. Humble: Joint Community Relations Committee, JCRC. 27 28 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, thank you. 29 30 Ms. Humble: The environmental review. When the County adopted the CLUP they did an 31 initial study and adopted a Negative Declaration. At that time the City of Palo Alto participated 32 in review of those environmental documents. The City was at that time satisfied that the analysis 33 was adequate. Now, having participated in that review Palo Alto is entitled to tier or that County 34 adopted Negative Declaration rather than perform a separate analysis. So if the Planning 35 Commission and the City Council determine that they are satisfied with that analysis we will be 36 able to tier off the County’s Negative Declaration. 37 38 Finally, the findings for this Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The incorporation of the CLUP 39 policies into the Comprehensive Plan is based on public interest, health, safety, and welfare. The 40 policies served to further ensure that appropriate development in this area with special risks will 41 be appropriate. It also serves to provide notice of the special risks in this area. This basis is 42 reflected in Section 1 of the proposed resolution, which is Attachment F. That’s it. 43 44 Ms. Caporgno: Can I add something? 45 46 City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 6 of 19 Vice-Chair Tuma: Please. 1 2 Ms. Caporgno: I mentioned at the beginning that we had distributed Commissioner Fineberg’s 3 comments and we had not. I checked with Zariah. So I will read them into the record. What she 4 had asked I think most of them have been addressed with the presentation but she may want to 5 follow up after when open up the questions from the Commission. 6 7 Her first question was please describe involvement of the public, City Staff, Planning 8 Commission, or Council with the CLUP before it was adopted by the County. It was public 9 feedback from the August 11, 2008 community outreach meeting. I think Gloria addressed that 10 in her presentation. The second one was the airport is located in a northeastern edge of Santa 11 Clara County not northwestern as stated in Attachment A of the CLUP. I think maybe the 12 County would debate that but that is part of the County document. Three, what are the Airport 13 Influence Area boundaries for the CLUP specifically? Does it include the area at the end of San 14 Antonio Avenue? She gives examples of City services, the animal shelter along East Bayshore 15 and Embarcadero Road at East Bayshore. If any of these areas are in the AIA then will the 16 adoption of the CLUP by Palo Alto impact any of the proposed development in ways that have 17 not already been discussed? I think we showed the different boundaries and there is nothing. 18 19 Commissioner Fineberg: I’m sorry, City services yard was within the boundary. So my question 20 there is if that got redeveloped as a car dealership are we okay however that gets changed? 21 22 Ms. Caporgno: Yes, I think the process that we have identified -- there is nothing exceptional to 23 the process. So those processes are satisfactory. 24 25 The noise contour map, Figure 5, how does the new map on page 3-6 compare with the current 26 noise map used in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan? Then she asked about the Negative 27 Declaration on page 19, and it discusses noise impacts. First of all, the noise contour map as 28 Gloria pointed out may be a little bit off in the Comprehensive Plan. We are going to update 29 those because they are ten years old number one, and number two, they are very general. So any 30 development coming in for that general area we would require a noise analysis to make sure of 31 what the noise impacts would be. Again, this plan is a protection plan it is not a plan that is 32 going to develop anything. So I think from the standpoint of what they did in the analysis and 33 the Negative Declaration Staff feels very comfortable with that analysis. 34 35 Number five, has the City reviewed or approved the proposed navigation easement? The City 36 Attorney prepared the document. 37 38 Would adoption of the CLUP impact flood protection, levees, and other protection measures that 39 will be developed by the South Bay Shoreline Study? Not to our knowledge, and the only thing 40 that would happen I believe, maybe the County Staff may want address this, but if there is some 41 sort of restoration if there is something that would somehow create some sort of impact that 42 would have to be addressed separately as that project was undertaken. 43 44 Then, per the Negative Declaration, the 65 dB CNEL aircraft noise contour covers the Palo Alto 45 Baylands nature preserve in San Mateo County. Does the preserve include San Mateo County 46 City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 7 of 19 land? Yes it does. Does the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan govern San Mateo County land? No 1 it doesn’t. How does one reconcile a 65 dB noise level with dedicated parkland outdoor use? 2 Again, the contour is addressing new development not what is on the ground. This is again a 3 protection plan and maybe it is not ideal that we have a preserve in an area that is so noisy but 4 that is an existing condition. 5 6 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, thanks. Just to remind the public at this point we don’t have any cards 7 from the public. So if anybody is inclined to speak on this item you could submit a card. 8 9 Julie, was there anything specifically that you wanted the gentleman from the County to speak to 10 or is he here to answer questions if we have them? 11 12 Ms. Caporgno: He is here to answer any questions that you might have of him. 13 14 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, great. Commissioners, questions for Staff, we can do questions and 15 comments at the same time if you would like. Commissioner Lippert. 16 17 Commissioner Lippert: Just a couple of technical questions. The elevations that we are talking 18 about here I know that they are outside what our development regulations would be and in fact 19 they are much higher in some areas. Are they based on the land? The topography out there 20 really varies significantly. Is it based on a set elevation or is it set on the height off the elevation 21 at a target property? So for instance if there is a plan for a hotel where Ming’s is and it is in that 22 area, would it have to be off of the elevation at grade at the Ming’s site or would it be off of an 23 elevation say at the runway? 24 25 26 Mark Connolly, County of Santa Clara Planning Department, and Staff to the Airport Land Use 27 Commission: Good evening Commissioners. First I want to commend Gloria and the Palo Alto 28 Staff a very good presentation and a lot of hard staff work they put through to do this amendment 29 and get this going forward this far. It is a tremendous job. 30 31 To answer your question Commissioner Lippert, the contours you are talking about are actually 32 from an FAA map called an FAA FAR Part 77 Services. It is an FAA map it is not even an 33 ALUC map. It is based on MSL, Mean Sea Level. So your question about is it based off grade 34 at some particular site or a runway or something like that, everything goes from the runway and 35 you have a set mean sea level of that runway and then all the elevations are mean sea level. So 36 for a round number if you had a 100-foot development and it was at exactly the same as the 37 airport runway, you would look at those contours and say the 100-foot contour is exactly equal 38 with the height of the building. So in that case you would have mean sea level and grade being 39 the same. Then given the different topographies you also mentioned you have to add or subtract 40 given height. You can’t really make policies off something like that. What you do is you base it 41 off of mean sea level, something you know. So that is how we figure out if you have an 42 obstruction to navigation and air space there. That is really the only way you can do it accurately 43 and develop policies. 44 45 City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 8 of 19 Commissioner Lippert: So as we have global warming and the polar icecaps melt and the bay 1 begins to rise those buildings are going to appear much lower. 2 3 Mr. Connolly: Well, if we get different information from the feds that the mean sea level has 4 changed we will have to re-lay all these maps you see here, yes. 5 6 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. I guess one last question is let’s say at some point the County 7 cedes the airport, they decide that they don’t want to continue with the airport, does this 8 amendment to the Comprehensive Plan then get removed from the Comprehensive Plan or does 9 it remain in perpetuity if the airport was say abandoned? 10 11 Ms. Caporgno: I believe that it would still remain in place because there is an airport out there. 12 So it is a state requirement for airports as opposed to who is actually managing the airport. 13 14 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, but if the airport were to go away let’s say at some point the lease 15 with the County runs out or whoever is leasing it at the time and the City decides they want to 16 redevelop it as additional parkland. Does the CLUP remain in place or is it removed from our 17 Comprehensive Plan? 18 19 Ms. Caporgno: I would assume we would remove it at that time. 20 21 Commissioner Lippert: Would we have to take action to do that? 22 23 Ms. Caporgno: We would have to amend the Comprehensive Plan. 24 25 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, thank you. 26 27 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Fineberg followed by Holman. 28 29 Commissioner Fineberg: As a follow up to Commissioner Lippert’s question if the airport 30 control changed from the County to the City of Palo Alto would the navigation easement 31 properly also then vest to the City of Palo Alto or do we need to structure some sort of transfer 32 anticipating if the airport does transfer? 33 34 Ms. Melissa Tronquet, Assistant City Attorney: I think it already is with the City. The City will 35 record it. So it is any new development that takes place in that area the easement would be a 36 condition of approval for that development. So the process for getting the easement executed 37 and recorded would be through the City anyway. 38 39 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so that would be a seamless change then. Great. The one 40 question I did have, and thank you Julie for reading them into the record. On the South Bay 41 Shoreline Study that moves ahead over the next 40 years there are going to be some flood 42 protections put in buy the Army Corp and about ten other federal, state, county, and city 43 agencies. As those proceed there is a possibility of some levees that would raise the height to 44 provide tidal flood protection. Are those levees that are currently there in a location that if they 45 are rebuilt, if they are five or ten feet higher, will that be prohibited by the location of the current 46 City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 9 of 19 runway or is that small amount of height on those outboard levees is it known that that will be 1 okay? 2 3 Mr. Connolly: I can take that, sure. Commissioner Fineberg the answer to your question is if 4 any of those levees are located in what we call the runway protection zone, which is the first 5 safety zone that you see immediately off the runways. Nothing can be higher than the initial 6 surface of that runway. So they would not be able to increase those. But remember, the CLUP 7 only affects proposed development. So if they are there and they don’t increase the height of 8 them and they are just doing base levee protection or dredging or something like that then that 9 wouldn’t matter. More importantly I think what you have is they had this issue with the Sea 10 Scout Building when they were looking at doing development to that and moving it around. The 11 infrastructure, so if you had cranes out there, if you had tall pieces of equipment, those would 12 probably have to go through the FAA and certainly would have to go through the FAA to get a 13 no hazard determination, and probably get airplane FAA lights on top of them, the red lights that 14 sort of blink intermittently. So the equipment is probably the bigger issue there. Talking about a 15 levee you figure where the mean sea level is and not tremendously higher so that is probably not 16 the biggest issue. 17 18 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. We do know that the levees are not currently at an adequate 19 height. That is why the entire eastern portion of Palo Alto is in an AE8 Special Flood Zone. 20 They do need to be raised three, maybe five feet. So the question is are they in a location within 21 that range where they would be prohibited or are those levees outside? I ask that because 22 blocking the ability to provide flood protection and the safety and preservation of property is 23 huge. So we need to understand that if amending our Comprehensive Plan means we can’t fix 24 the flood issues. That is huge. If we know that the levees are beyond, and you will have to 25 forgive me but my packet maps were black and white and fuzzy, so I can’t get any sense of 26 where those distances and boundaries are from what we have. 27 28 Mr. Connolly: Right. Let me first address your first point. The CLUP is intended to provide for 29 two things. Number one is land use around the airport. Secondary to that is we want to make 30 sure that those using the airport, it is a public use airport, we want to make sure that it is safe for 31 them as well. So unless a levee provided some kind of an obstruction to that aviation safety it 32 wouldn’t be an issue. I don’t see the ALUC or this CLUP policy trying to stop levee protection, 33 certainly that is a bigger land use issue that is a bigger problem. 34 35 The second thing you might remember from the presentation that Gloria gave was the only 36 mandatory projects that have to go to the ALUC are General Plan Amendments, rezonings, 37 specific plans, and then changes to the Building Code. So if this was a remediation project 38 ALUC would never know about it. It would come down to these general plan policies that the 39 City is putting in place and hereby adopting this CLUP. The City would actually have the onus 40 of going through and making sure that all of this was accurate and wasn’t an obstruction to 41 aviation safety. So I don’t think you are going to have the problem but by taking the action and 42 making the recommendation hopefully you will make tonight the City would be put in a position 43 to be able to ensure that safety and that there won’t be any conflicts with the levee restoration. 44 45 City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 10 of 19 Ms. Caporgno: I think the way we are interpreting this is a levee is not perceived as a 1 development project. A levee is protection project. The intent of this whole plan again is if you 2 were going to build a building protecting the building or even if the levee were going to be hit by 3 a plane I don’t think the levee is going to be at that height, or if there were going to be people in 4 the vicinity and it is so close to the airport you don’t want to have a safety issue with the 5 increased population. A levee is also a protection element for that area. I don’t see there to be 6 any conflict. 7 8 Ms. Humble: When I was working on the Baylands Master Plan and touring the Baylands with 9 the ranger I think that the levees right at the airport runway, the closest ones, are not really flood 10 protection – not really what they were depending on for flood protection from the Bay. What I 11 have noticed is as soon as you get this far from the runway you can be 29 feet high. 12 13 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. 14 15 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Holman followed by Commissioner Keller. 16 17 Commissioner Holman: Just a couple things. Why is the LTP site not included in the AIA? Is it 18 because of the acquisition? 19 20 Ms. Humble: I was actually at the meeting when they decided not to revisit that boundary line 21 but I don’t really know the reason why. 22 23 Commissioner Holman: Is there any difficulty if we decided we did want to? There is no 24 harm/no foul if we do I would presume. So could we amend the map to include that area if there 25 is not a good reason not to? 26 27 Ms. Humble: It would probably have to start at the County. 28 29 Mr. Connolly: I can answer that question. It actually would, this has to start with the ALUC. 30 That boundary line wasn’t changed because the ALUC in going forward and developing this 31 CLUP didn’t feel that we needed to expand the boundary. That is a boundary that has been there 32 for 20 or 30 years. So didn’t really feel like that was an area that was close enough to the airport 33 development that any subsequent development there would necessitate having to increase the 34 AIA. Really what that would do is increase the area in which the ALUC would have its policies 35 effective. So that is an area that was so far south already it just wasn’t deemed to be that 36 important to include in there. 37 38 To answer your question you couldn’t adopt a different Airport Influence Area than the CLUP 39 because you wouldn’t have policies to back you up. 40 41 Ms. Caporgno: However, the City in evaluating development can be more stringent than the 42 plan that the ALUC has put forward and that we are incorporating. So we can protect that area if 43 that is important to the City. There is nothing that prevents us from doing that. 44 45 City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 11 of 19 Commissioner Holman: Thank you for that. Kind of a clarification and follow up to 1 Commissioner Lippert’s question. The relationship between any action tonight and the future 2 user or tenant at the airport is moot, right? 3 4 Ms. Caporgno: Can you repeat that? 5 6 Commissioner Holman: The relationship between any actions tonight or recommendations 7 tonight and should there be a change of tenant or use at the airport is really moot and unaffected 8 by what we are doing tonight. 9 10 Ms. Caporgno: There would have to be an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan if that were to 11 occur. If it affected what you are approving tonight, hopefully approving. 12 13 Commissioner Holman: A couple of other little things here. Page L-7 and new text for L-7. 14 One thing I was not 100 percent clear on is this whole section is not language written by the City 15 but this is the language that is picked up from the CLUP, is that correct? 16 17 Ms. Humble: It is reworked it is not an exact quote. 18 19 Commissioner Holman: The reason I ask for that clarity, if you can tell me what might be 20 different, is because the encouraged referrals list. It mentions structures over 200 feet high and 21 that is not consistent with the rest of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan with the 50 foot height 22 limit. 23 24 Ms. Humble: Are you suggesting that we impose an even greater … I think that would be like 25 the other thing that Julie mentioned. We would have to do that on top of what the CLUP is 26 requiring. We would have to say in addition to what the CLUP is requiring we are saying that 27 buildings that are only 50 feet high would have to go to the ALUC. Is that what you mean? 28 29 Commissioner Holman: I guess what I am interested in is that there seems to be an anticipation 30 of projects that we would consider or entertain that would be 200 feet high and it is that kind of 31 anticipation that I am questioning. 32 33 Ms. Caporgno: I don’t think that is the case at all. It is just that they made an interpretation of 34 the requirement that a project of that height, if there were one, they would encourage referral so 35 we put it in here. Our City Staff doesn’t envision that that will occur that there will ever be a 36 need for that. That is part of the process for the County and so that is what we are identifying 37 here. I realize it is a little bit misleading because it sounds like something like that could occur 38 and we are not envisioning that. If there is a whole change in the City’s processes or policy it is 39 covered as far as what would be referred to the ALUC or encouraged to be referred to the 40 ALUC. 41 42 Commissioner Holman: So I want to stick with this just for a moment because you heard me say 43 before that language and written words are very important and do tend to influence perhaps one’s 44 thinking. So I am a little concerned with this language that is here. So is it possible that we 45 City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 12 of 19 could change that 200 feet to a different number this evening without having to send it back to 1 the County? I understand what you are saying but. 2 3 Ms. Caporgno: I think you can because again this is something that is coming that is 4 encouraging referral it is not mandating referral. So if you want to change that, if you want to 5 recommend as part of your recommendation to Council that the language be changed that could 6 be done. 7 8 Mr. Connolly: If I could interject for just one moment. The City of Palo Alto’s rules would 9 trump the ALUC. So even though there might be a number here that is 100 or 200 feet, what the 10 City of Palo Alto allows if that is more restrictive, and in this case the general plan and zoning 11 rules are more restrictive, that would trump any kind of a guideline. This is just meant to be a 12 guideline I think, just an example of a project that might be what we call a minor project referral, 13 just a voluntary referral. 14 15 Commissioner Holman: I do understand that but again because of my previous point and here it 16 is even under encouraged referrals not even mandatory referrals so I am troubled by that kind of 17 inclusion. Julie? 18 19 Ms. Caporgno: I guess I am not quite sure of what you suggest for how it would be changed. I 20 think what I am understanding you to say is it is implying that there is going to be this type of 21 development and that is a concern for you. Is that correct? 22 23 Commissioner Holman: It is implying that it might encourage or be in anticipation of this kind 24 of project. You understand. You got the point. 25 26 Vice-Chair Tuma: Were you going to move onto another point? There were a couple of 27 Commissioners that indicated they had follow ups to that particular point. If you are not done 28 with that go right ahead. 29 30 Commissioner Holman: I had one last one but go right ahead. 31 32 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Lippert and then Commissioner Fineberg. 33 34 Commissioner Lippert: Just sort of reading between the lines and understanding where you are 35 going I think is for instance if the City Utility decided it was ideal area within the boundary to 36 put in a wind farm for instance and there was a limitation of 200 feet they could do that but if it 37 is lesser than that it would be a new structure, it wouldn’t be like an antenna or something like 38 that, would that be permitted? 39 40 Ms. Caporgno: Again, this is just what we refer to them. So we would be making the decision 41 as to whether or not we were going to approve any of this type of development. It is just if 42 somebody proposed something what is the cutoff for referral to the ALUC as opposed what is 43 something that the City – and it is not even a requirement it would just be encouraged at that 44 height that it be referred to them so they could comment. The City would not be obligated to do 45 City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 13 of 19 it nor obviously is the City going to anticipate that it would be approving that type of 1 development. 2 3 Vice-Chair Tuma: Let me just ask a question of Mark from the County. Is the 200 foot that is 4 across the entire County that is not just simply the City of Palo Alto? 5 6 Mr. Connolly: No, that was just an example. It has nothing to do with any zoning rule or 7 general plan height, anything like that. 8 9 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. 10 11 Mr. Connolly: The next one in the bullet there, the 50 percent, is meant to be a square footage 12 limitation. So if you had a building and you doubled it size that is something that the ALUC 13 encourages a referral from. Really, the reason there is you are probably not going to end up with 14 an increase of significant height of something like that you are probably going to end up with 15 something just necessitating a navigation easement. Something that the County would use and 16 the subsequent occupants of that structure would use as an acknowledgement tool that there are 17 going to be airplanes flying over their head. So when a new person takes over the building they 18 know there are going to be airplanes around there and it cuts down a lot of times on a lot of noise 19 complaints that you get. 20 21 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, thanks. Commissioner Fineberg, you had a follow up as well? 22 23 Commissioner Fineberg: Yes. Understanding that these are intended to be criteria for 24 encouraging referrals and that Commissioner Holman’s concern is that they be viewed as 25 possible entitlements I am wondering if rather than changing the criteria we could either include 26 a footnote or an extra bracketed item something like referral criteria are not to be viewed as 27 entitlements or maybe some way to word it in a way that it is absolutely clear-cut that it is simply 28 criteria for referral not an entitlement, not development criteria. Does that make sense? 29 30 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Commissioner Holman, you have a couple more? 31 32 Commissioner Holman: Just one other thing for clarity. Review by the City, for the record 33 where will the City review procedures be identified and when? I know it is not here. 34 35 Ms. Caporgno: Well, anything out of the Baylands in this area would be Site and Design so it 36 would go through our Site and Design process if there was any sort of development proposed. 37 So those are already in place. We wouldn’t identify – I guess we could put some reference in 38 here if that would make the Commission more comfortable that it would go through that process. 39 40 Commissioner Holman: That’s all. Thank you. 41 42 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Keller, a few questions. Just to beat an already dead horse so 43 to speak, a change to the airport operator has no effect on what we are doing? A change to the 44 airport use, for example if it were no longer to be an airport, would require its own change to the 45 Comprehensive Plan in order to implement the use being no longer an airport use. Therefore, in 46 City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 14 of 19 concert with changing the airport use to a non-airport use we would also remove the references 1 to the CLUP. Is that correct? 2 3 Ms. Caporgno: That is correct. That would be considered probably a clean up to the 4 Comprehensive Plan as far as removal of the references to the CLUP. 5 6 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. My next question is I believe that you were going to offer us 7 information about the fact that this Airport Influence Area extends beyond the boundaries of 8 Santa Clara County into San Mateo County. Perhaps you can tell us a little bit about that. Let 9 me just identify a few questions that you can address. First were representatives of San Mateo 10 County or East Palo Alto participating in the development of the CLUP? Do San Mateo County 11 and/or East Palo Alto enforce its own version of the CLUP requirements? 12 13 Mr. Connolly: Thank you, Commissioner Keller. Yes, the County of San Mateo is involved in 14 this. This airport is what we call a joint use airport. It unfortunately has the onus of having a 15 county line going through the northern end of the runway. So where you saw in the safety zones, 16 in fact I can probably show you that. So the northern area there north is going to your left on this 17 map. Everything that is dotted there is actually in San Mateo County. The ALUC policies only 18 affect Santa Clara County just like the City of Palo Alto’s policies and general plan and zoning 19 only apply to the City of Palo Alto. So what we did here is create a document that included 20 those safety zones so it would make it easy for the County of San Mateo to adopt this very same 21 plan because it is within everybody’s best interest to adopt a plan like this that is updated with 22 nice new safety zones, and noise contours, and safety and noise policies to afford for the 23 betterment of everybody using the airport and the people that use the land around it. 24 25 So to answer your second question, yes we included in fact the first meeting we had here with 26 the Planning Staff we invited County of San Mateo ALUC Staff, and City of East Palo Alto 27 Planning Staff. If you look at the area there it really does affect the City of East Palo Alto quite 28 substantially they have that whole redevelopment area there to the east and the west of 101 there. 29 We got very little comments from them, which leads me to answering your third question of is it 30 their responsibility to implement their own? 31 32 It is going to be their responsibility when the County of San Mateo ALUC adopts a very similar 33 document. Right now they have something called CCAG, they operate in a COG they don’t 34 have the money to put into this. They have other airports and other priorities. So they don’t 35 have the money to do this right now so we tried to make this as easy as possible for them when 36 they do get to that point. When they get to the point of adopting a CLUP like this they will have 37 to go through the same general plan amendment. I suspect, and I am not portraying myself as a 38 planner for San Mateo County or East Palo Alto here, but I think they have a significant amount 39 of amendment that this would require to adopt these policies unlike the City of Palo Alto. There 40 just isn’t that much because it is mostly Baylands conservatory out there near Palo Alto Airport 41 for the City of Palo Alto. 42 43 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Now, this is a great map to show because on that map that 44 you are showing up there the butterfly wings on the left if you will and the dark blue or purple to 45 City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 15 of 19 the left, am I correct in the statement that that region is in land that is not within the City of Palo 1 Alto but is actually owned by the City of Palo Alto? Is that the Faber tract? 2 3 Ms. Humble: Ravenswood Preserve. 4 5 Commissioner Keller: Is that owned by the City of Palo Alto or owned by somebody else? 6 7 Ms. Humble: Owned by the City of Palo Alto. 8 9 Commissioner Keller: So we own that land. It is San Mateo County. Is it actually in East Palo 10 Alto or unincorporated? 11 12 Ms. Humble: I did know this but I would have to check my Baylands Master Plan. I can’t say 13 for sure. Our rangers are there managing it but they have no legal authority there. 14 15 Commissioner Keller: Okay. So the issue is that at least for this particular map, the safety zone 16 is at least within land that Palo Alto controls. The height contours are maybe a different story. 17 The noise contours are a different story for East Palo Alto. Okay, thank you. 18 19 I agree with Commissioner Lippert’s concern about the height issue and the potential for sea 20 level rise. I agree with Commissioner Fineberg’s comments about the levee height. What is 21 interesting to me is the height of the landfill and I am assuming that the height of the landfill is 22 already such that it is sufficiently away from the contours to not have a problem. That the 23 proposed closure and capping of the landfill is not going to cause any problem for the height 24 contours. 25 26 Mr. Connolly: I am not actually familiar with where that is. Maybe Gloria could show me 27 where that is and we could look at the Part 77 Map. 28 29 Vice-Chair Tuma: If you could indicate on mike where she is pointing to, Mark. 30 31 Mr. Connolly: Yes, so what she is looking at there is the outer boundary of the 154-foot contour 32 level. So this is above mean sea level. That outer one there means that a structure from sea level 33 would not penetrate this surface until it was 154 above mean sea level. Picture this as a football 34 field or a sports stadium where the runway is the field and these contours go out in a conical 35 fashion in a circle all the way around. Now the two middle ones are the same. The space that 36 you see between the real tight contours closest to the runway and then that first buildable sort of 37 racetrack those are the same mean sea level. You just get higher the further you go out. This is a 38 map again just used by the ALUC. The ALUC uses this more as an identifier for height 39 obstructions. The FAA uses this to issue no hazard determinations. So they use it as just an 40 indicator, a trigger if you will, of what might be an obstruction to aviation safety. 41 42 If you had a landfill in the corner over there and you were going to cap it, just throw dirt on 43 there, sort of reclaim it, remediate it. If you from mean sea level didn’t do anything that would 44 increase the height of that landfill more than 150 feet above mean sea level you wouldn’t have an 45 issue and you wouldn’t be an obstruction to aviation safety. 46 City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 16 of 19 1 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I sure hope that the landfill is not going to be over 154 feet. 2 With respect to the mandatory referrals and the encourage referrals, are those things for changes 3 that are within the AIA boundary? Let’s suppose for discussion sake that the height limit of 200 4 feet were changed to 100 feet and Stanford Hospital were to build maybe some project that was 5 over 100 feet. Would that be referred even though it is outside the AIA? 6 7 Mr. Connolly: NO AUDIBLE ANSWER 8 9 Commissioner Keller: Well, then in some sense the lead in to this mandatory and encouraged 10 referrals at least from my reading doesn’t make clear that these are limited to changes that affect 11 areas within the AIA. 12 13 Also there is an error on the reference to the Airport Safety Map which is it says the key PAO 14 CLUP maps and tables provide guidance for the project review for determining if a proposed use 15 is compatible with respect to safety, refer to the Airport Safety Zone Map. It is not on page 3-2 it 16 is on page 3-12 of the CLUP. 17 18 So Vice-Chair Tuma suggests that it say development limitations on lands within the Airport 19 Influence Area. However, I do think it is useful to put that as a lead in for the mandatory 20 referrals included. What is interesting is those two sections there sort of stand on their own, 21 there is no lead in into that. So some language for example, Santa Clara County standard referral 22 criteria for developments or changes within the Airport Influence Area are, and then you have 23 those two columns. I think that would handle the problem with the fact that there is no lead in to 24 what these lists are and second, would make clear that these are the criteria by the Santa Clara 25 County Airport Land Use Commission. So it indicates it is their standard criteria and not the 26 City of Palo Alto’s criteria. I think that would mean that the 200-foot issue should not be 27 confused with the Palo Alto criteria. 28 29 So let me ask one final question and then I am going to make a motion. My final question is a 30 compound question. There are CLUPs for San Jose International Airport, for Palo Alto Airport, 31 and for Reed Hillview Airport. I think there is one in south county somewhere like in Gilroy or 32 something like that. Is there currently a CLUP for Moffett Field Airport? 33 34 Mr. Connolly: Let me explain how this works. This is the answer to the bi-fold question from 35 the state. The state lets Airport Land Use Commissions, which are required to be in every 36 county in the State of California, PUC mandates this. You can provide protection for these 37 airports one of two ways. You can take this approach, which is an airport specific land use plan, 38 CLUP, or ALUC can have an overall countywide CLUP. What the ALUC is doing in an effort 39 to better afford for the specific land use issues of every airport we are going through and we are 40 cleaning up all of the airports in the County of Santa Clara and developing airport specific 41 CLUPs for them. Certainly the issues at Palo Alto Airport are very different than San Jose 42 International. So we are currently in the process of doing a San Jose International CLUP right 43 now. So that is what this is before you. 44 45 City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 17 of 19 The San Jose International CLUP is much bigger undertaking and it is not unlike something you 1 might have at Moffett Field. The problem for the ALUC is Moffett Field is federal airport. The 2 state mandates that the ALUC only provide protection for public use airports. So that is the 3 federal government’s. We are looking with County Council to advise us if it would be 4 appropriate to even put together a land use plan in the eventuality that maybe Moffett’s 5 regulations were changed or maybe the federal government turned it back over to maybe a public 6 use airport with the increased needs as a result of overcrowding of Oakland Airport and SFO. 7 We are looking at possibly doing that. Right now the state law says that the ALUC has no 8 purview to do that. 9 10 Commissioner Keller: Let me just follow that up with one related thing, which is some people 11 have proposed that high-speed rail go along 101 and presumably would have to go over the 12 overpasses. So you would have the surface of 101, you would have the overpasses, and then 20 13 some feet above that you would have the top of rail. Then so many feet above that you would 14 have the catenary’s wires there. Would you anticipate that there may be an issue with respect to 15 either Moffett Field where this not going to be a CLUP or with respect to the San Jose 16 International Airport that such a high structure would be problematic for high-speed rail going 17 over 101? 18 19 Vice-Chair Tuma: Excuse me before you answer that Commissioner Keller, I think we are 20 getting a bit far a field for the issue that is before us tonight. I think the question is interesting 21 but certainly Moffett Field is not within the AIA and it is not within the bounds of what we are 22 discussing. So I think perhaps if you are interested in discussion about that maybe that could 23 happen outside the confines of this meeting. 24 25 Commissioner Keller: Well, if it is a quick answer perhaps he can give it and leave it at that. 26 27 Mr. Connolly: Well, maybe I can relate Commissioner Keller’s question to a relationship to the 28 Palo Alto Airport. So say the corridor went along 101 and you did have the increased height of 29 the railway and the wires and the support structures and that did increase taller than any 30 development that could take place in the City of Palo Alto. That is something that ALUC is 31 already familiar with that has happened at Reed Hillview Airport. The VTA light rail is going 32 right along Tully and across Capital Expressway there and that exact same thing is happening. 33 What happened there is VTA came to the ALUC and we did the same analysis and it ended up 34 being okay. So I would anticipate the same kind of thing if it happened at Palo Alto Airport. 35 Whether it be Caltrain or VTA or whoever is taking the lead agency role at that point would be 36 doing their homework and would come before the ALUC to get a good determination of safety 37 on that. 38 39 Commissioner Keller: Thank you very much. So if I may make a motion? 40 41 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. I do have one question of Staff that I think may be relevant to this. 42 43 Commissioner Keller: Sure, why don’t I defer until after you ask your question. 44 45 City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 18 of 19 Vice-Chair Tuma: The question is that in the presentation, Gloria, you referred to the City of 1 Palo Alto’s ability to tier off the County’s Negative Declaration. The County is obviously the 2 lead agency here. In making a recommendation for Council to take an action are we adopting the 3 Negative Declaration? How is what we are doing here tonight impacting or not impacting the 4 Negative Declaration? 5 6 Mr. Connolly: Do you want me to answer that, Staff? 7 8 Ms. Caporgno: I think that the Negative Declaration has already been approved by the County. 9 Unless the Commission has an issue with the Negative Declaration you are not expected to adopt 10 it because it is already an approved document. 11 12 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, thanks. So with that I will close the public hearing and I do believe we 13 have a motion from Commissioner Keller. 14 15 MOTION 16 17 Commissioner Keller: Thank you Vice-Chair Tuma. I move that we recommend the Staff 18 recommendation with the following two amendments the text for page L-7. The first amendment 19 is to correct the error referring to Airport Safety Zone Map is page 3-12 not 3-2. The second is 20 that a line appear after the fourth bullet under ALC review and before Mandatory Referrals and 21 Encourage Referrals include the line, “Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission, 22 ALUC, standard referral criteria are as follows:” 23 24 Vice-Chair Tuma: Is there a second? 25 26 SECOND 27 28 Commissioner Holman: Second. 29 30 Vice-Chair Tuma: Seconded by Commissioner Holman. Commissioner Keller, do you wish to 31 speak to your motion? 32 33 Commissioner Keller: I don’t need to say anything other than it would be useful when we do the 34 revision of the next update of the Comprehensive Plan that we actually include the maps in the 35 Comprehensive Plan when it gets published in 2010 instead of nearly referring to them. It would 36 be easier and more user-friendly to not have to refer to an external document. That is in the 37 long-term or not so long-term when we update this. 38 39 I also would like to thank Staff Member Gloria Humble for an excellent presentation. It was 40 very easy to follow and figure out what the issues are. Thank you. 41 42 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Holman, do you wish to speak to your second? 43 44 Commissioner Holman: Only one little thing besides commending Gloria Humble for a VGSR 45 since this an item of so many acronyms, a very good Staff Report. Your base of knowledge in 46 City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 19 of 19 the projects you bring forward to us and your obvious engagement with them is always 1 impressive and very much appreciated. So high marks. That’s it. 2 3 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Lippert, do you have comment? 4 5 Commissioner Lippert: I have a friendly amendment here. I believe that the CLUP and the 6 Airport Influence Area should be made appendixes to the Baylands Master Plan where they 7 influence that document. 8 9 Commissioner Keller: Does Staff have any comments about that? 10 11 Ms. Caporgno: Since the item before you is really the Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan if 12 that is something that the Commission recommends then the next time we amend the Baylands 13 Master Plan we can incorporate that. But as part of this process that is really outside the purview 14 of what we are doing right now I think. 15 16 Commissioner Lippert: How would you recommend that be structured? I know that the 17 Baylands Master Plan has lengthy history that is very important. In fact the City Council and the 18 Parks and Recreation Commission have come and said how valuable that document is in terms of 19 documenting all influences on the Baylands. So what I would hate is for this document, which is 20 important in terms of the Airport Influence Area and particularly the heights as well as the noise 21 in particular. 22 23 Ms. Humble: Every map that you have seen here tonight are in the Baylands Master Plan now. 24 25 Commissioner Lippert: Great. 26 27 MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, with Chair Garber absent) 28 29 Vice-Chair Tuma: Great. With that Commissioners, are we ready to vote? All those in favor of 30 the motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? That passes unanimously with Chair Garber not 31 participating. With that we will take a three-minute break to shuffle the parties and we will come 32 back and go into item two. Thank you. 33 34 Chair Garber: For the record, Secretary, Chair Garber is back in the Chair. This is item number 35 two, 2180 El Camino Real. The initiation of 1) a zone change from Neighborhood Commercial 36 District to Planned Community District for a mixed use project having 61,960 square feet of 37 floor area including 8,000 square feet of grocery, intended for JJ&F Market, 5,580 square feet of 38 other retail, 14 affordable one-bedroom residential units, 39,980 square feet of office use, for a 39 total floor area ratio of 1.23:1 inclusive of 1.06 nonresidential FAR, and two levels of below-40 grade parking facilities and surface parking facilities providing 227 parking spaces on the 41 property, and 2) a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to assign the Mixed Use land use 42 designation, allowing for a 1.15:1 nonresidential FAR, to a site currently designated as 43 Neighborhood Commercial. Would the Staff care to make a presentation? 44 45 This page was intentionally left blank 1 PowerPoint Presentation to the Planning & Transportation Commision on Wednesday, April 29, 2009 Adoption of a Resolution to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Santa Clara County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Palo Alto Airport (PAO CLUP) The State established the ALUC, to provide for orderly growth within areas surrounding public airports. To accomplish their task, the ALUC wrote the CLUP. The PAO CLUP contains guidelines for new land use and development within the area surrounding the Palo Alto Airport--specifically with regard to noise, safety, height, and overflight. Some acronyms that are used through out this presentation are... The presentation is divided into 4 sections. This first section will provide some back- ground about the relationship between the ALUC, the CLUP, and the City. Attachment I Attachment I 2 The State placed responsibility for enforcing the guidelines on the local jurisdiction. As a result, the City and the ALUC are in a part- nership to provide for this orderly growth. To facilitate the partnership, the State requires that the City’s regulations be consistent with the CLUP guidelines. Palo Alto’s existing regulations were already consistent with the CLUP guidelines. However, to meet the letter of the law, the City must take certain steps to, tangibly, establish and demonstrate this consistency. The next topic will clarify what those steps are and what action is being recommend. The action being recommended is to adopt a resolutoin to amend the Comp Plan to incorpo- rate the PAO CLUP. 3 The recommendation is based on Section 4.2.2 of the PAO CLUP which prescribes how to establish and demonstrate the state-required consistency. Very briefly, the steps are: 1. Incorporate the AIA and CLUP policies into City regulations 2. Provide ongoing review Step 1 will be accomplished by ... Adding the AIA to Map L-2 Adding Policy L-2B 4 Also, this supplemental text is being added to help future uses of the Comprehensive Plan. It describe how to use the CLUP and interact with the ALUC. The 2nd step for establishing the state- required consistency is to provide ongoing review.... The 3rd topic...the ALUC Review Process. The next several slides will pertain to: - the role of the ALUC in the Review, - the actual PAO CLUP guidelines (including avigation easements) - mandatory versus voluntary review. 5 The role of the ALUC is to advise the City. The City refers a proposal to the ALUC. They review it for consistency with the guidelines. They advise the City whether or not they find it to be consistent. If not, they may advise the City as to how they think it can be made consistent. They may even advise the City as to how they think a consistent proposal can be made yet more compat- ible. As stated earlier, their role is advisory; however, the City is obligated to ensure that both policy changes and any new development are consistent with the CLUP guidelines. The CLUP guidelines and the ALUC review are applicable only to NEW development and only to proposals WITHIN the AIA. The AIA boundary follows the San Francisquito Creek, the City boundary, Charleston Slough, and Highway 101. The developable area east of the Charleston Slough which includes the Former LATP Site is not included. The CLUP guidelines, against which proposals are reviewed, are fairly well expressed in key maps and tables in the CLUP. For example, the Safety Zone Map describes zones that radiate from the runway. Each zone has different level of risk. A correspond- ing table in the CLUP lists the land uses that are allowed in each of the zones. 6 In general, proposals involving policies that affect the AIA are “Required Referrals”. For example: - Anything to do with the Airport Master Plan - Changes to the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, or Building Regulatins that affect the AIA. - Also any Specific plans that that affect the AIA. - And finally, any development proposals that involve a change to any of the policy documents listed above e.g., a project that requires a zone change. Like the Safety Zone map, the Noise Contour Map also has a corresponding table that describes the allowable, or compatible land uses for each noise level. Like the Safety Zone map, the height limits are most severe at the runway and lessen as they radiate outward. 7 “Encouraged, or voluntary, referrals” include: - Major infrastructure improvements that would promote urban development - New residential development of 5+ units - High density uses e.g., hospitals and theaters. - Low mobility uses e.g., senior housing - Structures over 200 ft high - Proposals that increase existing square footage by 50% The last section of the presentation covers some of the Administrative procedures associated with the the adoption of the CLUP e.g., the public outreach and environmental review that got us to where we are now, and the findings for taking the next step--to amend the Comp Plan. Staff expects that the ALUC will not make recom- mendations that differ from what the City would already have required--.with the exception of aviga- tion easements. Prior to incorporating the CLUP guideines, the City had no policy regarding avigation easements. If an avigation easement is a condition of approval for a proposal, then, then City staff will be respon- sible for making sure that easement is recorded 8 When the County adopted the CLUP they did an Initial Study and adopted a Negative Declaration. And, at that time, the City of Palo Alto participated in the review of those environmental documents. The City was satisfied that the analysis was adequate. Having participated in that review, Palo Alto is now entitled to tier off the County’s adopted Negative Declaration rather than perform a separate analysis. The Public Outreach for the CLUP was conducted by the ALUC staff. It began in early 2008 and included multiple meetings with city staff, elected officials, community groups, and special interest groups. For the August 11, Community Outreach Meeting, noticies were sent in the mail, and ads were placed in the newspapers. It was held here in the Council Chambers. The only issue that was raised at that meeting was about the logistics of implmenting a requirement for an avigation easement. The incorporation of the CLUP policies into the Comprehensive Plan is based on public interest, health, safety, and welfare. The policies: 1. Serve to further ensure appropriate development in an area with special risks and 2. Serve to provide notice of those special risks. 4 Questions submitted by Planning and Transportation Commissioner Fineberg on Wednesday, April 29, 2009. 1) Please describe involvement of the public, City Staff, PTC, and/or Council with the CLUP before it was adopted by the County. What was public feedback from the Aug 11, 2008 Community Outreach Meeting?In February, 2008, ALUC staff began discussions with City staff as well as representatives from neighboring jurisdictions to address concerns and to outline the responsibilities of the City. Between February and August, ALUC staff conducted an outreach meeting with the Joint Community Relations Committee (JCRC) and attended a City Selection meeting, with Council Member Morton, to inform other city-elected officials about the PAO CLUP. On August 11, 2008, the ALUC staff held a community outreach meeting in Palo Alto to formally present the proposed PAO CLUP to the local community. At the August meeting, only one issue was raised: Planning and Transportation Commissioner Keller asked for clarification regarding the logistics of implementing a requirement for an avigation easement. 2) The airport is located at the northeastern edge of Santa Clara County (NOT northwestern) as stated in Attachment A: CLUP, section 2.1 paragraph 1, first sentence.ALUC staff has indicated that they believe the PAO CLUP description is accurate. Attachment J 3) What are the Airport Influence Area (AIA) boundaries for the CLUP? Specifically, does it include the areas at the end of San Antonio Avenue (Google daycare, ex-Los Altos water treatment plant), the city services yard and animal shelter along E. Bayshore, and Embarcadero Road at East Bayshore. If any of these areas are within the AIA, then will adoption of the CLUP by Palo Alto impact any of the proposed developments in ways that have not already been discussed? (Maps in packet are small, black and white so I can’t discern boundary areas.) The AIA boundary is feature based and (in a clockwise direction) follows San Francisquito Creek, the City Boundary, Charleston Slough, and Highway 101. The area east of the Charleston Slough, including the Google daycare and former LATP site, is not included in the AIA. The Municipal Services Center and Animal Shelter are within the AIA; however, the PAO CLUP guidelines will not impose new development restrictions. 4) Noise contour map (Figure 5) How does the new map 3.3.6.1 on page 3-6 compare with the current noise map used in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan? Please discuss Neg. Dec. page 19 2nd paragraph. The two noise contour maps are similar but not congruent. In general, the PAO CLUP map implies more intense noise and reflects a 10- year difference in age. In some places the PAO CLUP contours extend several hundred feet farther out than the corresponding contours of the Comprehensive Plan map. These maps indicate general noise levels but individual development proposals would be required to prepare site-specific noise analysis. Regarding the Negative Declaration, this paragraph explains that requirements for sound-reduction construction techniques are required when the exposure is over 60db. Since the PAO CLUP is meant to communicate development requirements, it needn’t to show contours less than 60db because they don’t trigger construction or development requirements. 5) Has the City Attorney reviewed / approved the proposed Avigation Easement Deed? Any comments? The Attorney’s Office drafted the proposed avigation easement. 6) Will adoption of the CLUP impact flood protection levees and other protective measures that will be developed by the South Bay Shoreline Study? The flood protection levees would not be a required referral to the ALUC. (Also see “COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION” section of the CMR.) 7) Per the Neg. Dec., page 18, the 65-dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour covers the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve in San Mateo County? Does the preserve include San Mateo County land? If so, does the Palo Alto Comp Plan govern San Mateo County land? The following excerpt from the Baylands Master Plan 2008 responds to these three questions: “What we now call the Faber Tract is part of the 230 acres of Palo Alto Baylands [Nature Preserve] within East Palo Alto/San Mateo County…. Although the Palo Alto rangers are responsible for trail maintenance, weed control, and resource management, they cannot issue citations for law violations outside of Palo Alto. For this and other reasons, the City has a cooperative agreement with the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service to “patrol” the Faber-Laumeister tract as part of the Don Edwards Wildlife Refuge complex. There is no cost to the City for this service.” How does one reconcile a 65 dBA noise level with dedicated parkland outdoor use? Land use and land use compatibility in the Palo Alto Baylands has been debated for over 50 years. When the City adopted the original Baylands Master Plan in 1979, it recognized the existence of the urbanized portion of the Baylands and established policies to contain that urbanization. Also, in the 1970s, the City revised the Airport Master Plan to disallow what was, at that time, an approved plan for expansion in order to limit further impacts, including noise, on the natural and recreation areas of the Baylands TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL ATTN: POLICY & SERVICES COMMITTEE FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER DATE: MAY 12,2009 CMR: 241-09 REPORT TYPE: DISCUSSION REPORT SUBJECT: Recommendation for Council Approval of the City's Legislative Action Program Manual RECOMMENDATION Staff requests Committee input and recommendation to Council for approval the City's Legislative Action Manual, with particular emphasis on providing further definition of the Council's role in the City's legislative program. BACKGROUND On March 2,2009, Council approved the Legislative Guidelines and 2009 Priorities and referred further discussion of Legislative Program implementation to the Policy and Services Committee. Each year, staff plans to return to Council with a list of more specific priorities for the legislative issues facing the City during that year. The guiding principles will serve as the overarching framework for the City's legislative actions. These principles are broad enough to allow staff the flexibility to take action on legislative items that do not specifically fall under one of the more specific priorities approved by Council each year. This flexibility is important to give the City the opportunity to state its position when the legislative timeframe does not allow time to return to Council. DISCUSSION The objective of the City of Palo Alto legislative action program is to keep the City Council, community and staff fully advised of proposed legislation with a potential impact upon the City. Attached is the City's Legislative Action Program Manual which provides the Council, community and staff with the structure of the program. Listed below is the table of contents: Policy Statement City Council Priorities CMR: 241-09 Page lof3 Overall Guiding Principles 2009 Legislative Priorities Internal Coordination of the Legislative Action Program The Role of the City Council The Role of the City Manager's Office The Role of the Departments Guidelines for Evaluating Legislation Legislative Advocacy Lobbying Methods Guidelines for Letter Writing Procedure for City Council meetings with other Elected Representatives Federal Legislative Timeline California State Senate Legislative Timeline 2009 City Council Timeline Staff requests feedback from the Policy and Services Committee on each section of the manual with a focus on the role of Council members in the City's legislative process. Additionally, staff would like feedback from the Committee on other roles Council members might play during the legislative process. This manual is a starting place upon which staff intends to build the legislative program. Over the course of the next six months, Staff may revisit this manual and recommend further changes based on experience with the recommended policies and procedures. The legislative action program will be reviewed annually at the December Policy and Services Committee meeting. Council will review the committee's recommendation in January. The Council has ultimate responsibility for determining the position the City shall take on legislative issues. As detailed in the manual, Council's specific responsibilities include: o Conduct an annual review and update of legislative priorities o Establish legislative priorities, taking into account the Council priorities adopted each year o Consider legislative issues brought to the Council's attention by staff, citizens, organizations and others and determine what, if any, position the City should take o Determine Council positions on resolutions proposed for adoption by the League of California Cities and the National League of Cities o Suggest areas for staff action concerning legislation o Assume an active advocacy role with legislators on behalf of the City Economic Stimulus Update The City Manager's Office has recently created a citywide Legislative Committee with representatives from all departments. The committee's main focus at this time is the activity associated with grant applications for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act CARRA). The City was awarded four grants through the stimulus bill specifically from the U.S. Departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, and Justice totaling $2,075,022. City departments reviewed the ARRA and determined that there were five additional grant opportunities, which the City is pursuing. These are with the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security, Justice, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Additional details about the City'S stimulus activities can be found at www.cityofpaloalto.org/recovery. CMR: 241-09 Page 2 of3 Federal Appropriation Update As mentioned in the March 2, 2009 staff report, the City is pursuing Federal Appropriations through the Congress. Staff was recently informed by Congresswoman Anna Eshoo that she will submit the Palo Alto Art Center Building, Clara Drive Storm Drain Improvements and the San Francisquito Creek Feasibility Study as three of her funding priorities. The City is grateful for Congresswoman Eshoo's support and looks forward to her visit with Council on Monday May 11,2009. RESOURCE IMPACT The legislative action program will help increase the effectiveness of lobbying activities by Council and staff. Effective lobbying efforts may potentially result in funding or appropriations for City projects. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The City's legislative action program manual specifically will help ensure a robust legislative program. This will strengthen the City's position in working with State and Federal departments as well as elected representatives. Finally, it will increase the transparency of the City'S legislative program. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A discussion of the City'S Legislative Program does not constitute a project under section 15061 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines; therefore, no environmental assessment is required. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Legislative Action Program Manual PREPARED BY: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR: 241-09 WE E RECREATIO SUPERVISOR ON ASSIGNMENT IN CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE Page 3 of3 Attachment A Legislative Action Program Manual Policy Statement The objective of the City of Palo Alto legislative action program is to keep the City Council, community and staff fully advised of proposed legislation with a potential impact upon the City. It is the City's general policy to take timely and effective action in support of or opposition to proposed legislation affecting Palo Alto at the County, State, Federal levels. In addition the City, where appropriate, will take the initiative to seek introduction of new legislation beneficial to Palo Alto and other local government entities. City Council Priorities The groundwork for the City's legislative strategy is the Council's priorities. • Economic Health of the City of Palo Alto • Civic Engagement for the Common Good • Environmental Protection Overall Guiding Principles • Protect local revenue sources and prevent unfunded mandates a Oppose Federal or State legislation, policies and budgets that have negative impacts on services, revenues and costs. Ensure that legislation, policies and budgets do not detract from Palo Alto's ability to draw on local revenue sources. • Protect and increase local government discretion a. Ensure that legislation, policies and budgets retain or increase, but never decrease, the amount of local discretion held by the City and protect local decision making. Oppose legislation, policies and budgets that reduce the authority and/or ability of local government to determine how best to effectively operate local programs, services and activities. • Protect and increase funding for specific programs and services a. Support County, State and Federal funding for local service by maximizing existing funding levels and seeking alternative funding for programs. Promote increases in the allocation of funds to cities and flexibility in distribution. 2009 Legislative Priorities 1. Support the Public Works Department and State Assemblymember Ira Ruskin's Office in proposing legislation for new composting technology. 2. Seek funding through the Federal appropriations process for High Speed Broadband Network (Fiber to the Premises), Citywide Emergency Vehicle Preemption, Palo Alto Art Center Building, Clara Drive Storm Drain Improvements and the San Francisquito Creek Flood Damage Reduction Project. I 3. Seek grant funding through State and Federal departments, given the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, based upon the priority project list adopted by Council earlier this year. 4. Advocate with State and Fecteral representatives for the City's stimulus grant applications as well as the City'S regular Federal appropriations requests. 5. Maintain and support the Utilities Department Legislative Program, which preserves and enhances local flexibility in the control and oversight of matters impacting utility programs and rates for City customers. Contents Internal Coordination of the Legislative Action Program p.4 The Role of the City Council p. 4 The Role ofthe City Manager's Office p.5 The Role of the Departments p. 5 Guidelines for Evaluating Legislation p. 6 Legislative Advocacy p. 7 Lobbying Methods p. 8 Guidelines for Letter Writing p. 10 Procedure for City Council meetings with other Elected Representatives p. 14 Federal Legislative Timeline p. 14 California State Senate Legislative Timeline 2009 p. 15 City Council Timeline p. 15 2 Proposed Legislation Basic Steps in the City's Legislative Action Program 4* 1 2 City Council City Manager's Office 5 Departments and Divisions 3 6 4* 3 Legislative Body Internal Coordination of the Legislative Action Program The basic steps in the City's legislative action program are illustrated in the accompanying diagram (above). 1. Legislation is brought to the City's attention by several means: the League of California Cities, the National League of Cities, Council Members, City staff, citizens, professional or governmental newsletters, legislators, the legislative tracking service, etc. 2. The City Manager's Office reviews the proposed legislation (the bill text) and, if warranted, requests assistance from one or more departments. Departments are urged to take the initiative to identify legislation of importance to the City and not wait for the City Manager's Office to ask for their involvement. 3. The Department evaluates the bill for its impact upon Palo Alto, recommends a position and potential action, and drafts a statement or letter for use by the City Manager's Office, as appropriate. 4. At this juncture, action can proceed in either oftwo ways: a. If the Council has previously adopted a policy directly relevant to the legislation, the City Manager's Office proceeds to prepare a letter for the Mayor's signature. b. If the Council policy relative to the legislation does not exist, or if the issue is politically controversial, or if there is significant local interest in the issue, the proposed legislation is referred to Council. (See Legislative Advocacy) 5 .. The Council will consider the information provided in a staff report, determine its position on the legislation and provide direction to staff. 6. The City Manager's Office coordinates the lobbying activities according to Council direction through this policy and procedure manual. The Role of the Council The City Council has ultimate responsibility for determining the position the City shall take on legislative issues. Council positions applicable to legislation accumulate over the years and require periodic reevaluation to assure they are still relevant to the City's needs and interests. The Council generally takes positions only on issues that are of relevance to the City of Palo Alto. The Council's specific responsibilities include: • Conduct an annual review and update oflegislative priorities • Establish legislative priorities, taking into account the Council priorities adopted each year • Consider legislative issues brought to the Council's attention by staff, citizens, organizations and others and determine what, if any, position the City should take • Determine Council positions on resolutions proposed for adoption by the League of California Cities and the National League of Cities • Suggest areas for staff action concerning legislation • Assume an active advocacy role with legislators on behalf of the City 4 The Role of the City Manager's Office The City Manager's Office is the central coordinator of the City's legislative program. The responsibilities and activities of the office include the following: • Ensure the consistency of legislative policy throughout the City • Serve as a clearinghouse and record keeper for all legislative activity occurring with the City • Coordinate contacts and communications with legislators and staff • Coordinate the evaluation of proposed legislation that may affect the City • Disseminate information on legislation of interest to departments and division within the City • Encourage suggestions from other departments concerning subjects for legislative action • Provide feedback to departments on progress oflegislation of interest • Keep Council informed on the status of the City'S legislative action program • Recommend priorities for legislative action, in order to avoid diminishing the effectiveness ofthe City's lobbying activities· • Plan, coordinate, and facilitate lobbying activities by Council Members and City staff. • Maintain legislative files (bill texts, correspondence, records of lobbying activity, background information, Council policies) • Serve as liaison to the League of California Cities, National League of Cities, and other organizations and jurisdictions concerning legislative activities • Coordinate the annual review of legislative positions and preparation of the City's legislative platform The Role of Departments The participation of various departments within the City is essential to the success of the Legislative Action Program. The program requires departments to take responsibility for identifying, evaluating and monitoring legislation that relates to their functional areas. The program must be cooperative and interactive. Effective lobbying and testimony depends on factual data concerning the impacts and implications of proposed legislation upon the City's operations, services, and finances. The responsibilities of the departments include the following: • Inform the Manager's Office of legislative issues of importance to the City • Designate a key contact within the department or division who will be responsible for coordinating the evaluation of legislation and monitoring those legislative issues of direct significance to the department. Continue to monitor bills as they progress through the Legislature or Congress • Establish a system within the department for assuring that requests for legislation evaluation are responded to promptly • Draft letters and provide analysis of legislation as requested by City Manager's Office 5 / • Maintain a legislative file with the department to assure consistency of policy recommendations • Establish mechanisms within the department for accessing direct information on legislation, e.g. computer networks, newsletters, etc • Network with other cities, agencies, professional organizations, etc. to gain background information and broader perspective on legislative issues • Suggest organizations, individuals, publications, and other legislators who may be allies in lobbying the City's position on certain legislation • Become acquainted with the League of California Cities staff person with responsibility for issues related to the department • Understand and adhere to the City's Legislative Advocacy Policy. Consult the Manager's Office if there are questions. • Annually, provide to the Manager's Office the department's recommendations for the ensuing year's legislative platform. This shall include: 1) a review of existing positions, 2) statements of underlying policies and principles, and 3) priorities related to specific legislative issues. Guidelines for Evaluating Legislation Several resources are available to departments that can enable them to identify proposed legislation and track its progress. The League of California Cities and National League of Cities publications contain information on Congressional legislation. Departments can also subscribe to legislative announcements through professional associations as well as State and Congressional websites. Bills often are amended several times in the course traveled between introduction and final approval. Analyses and letters expressing the City's position should always be based on the latest version. When reviewing the bill text, do not rely solely on the Legislative Counsel's Digest; read the entire bill. The bill will contain the new or amended language proposed for the California Code. If the department wishes to compare the proposed language with the actual language of existing law, and does not have the relevant code (Government Code, Vehicle Code, Election Code, Revenue and Taxation Code, etc.) in the department, contact the City Attorney's Office with questions. If the bill is later amended, language that is deleted will be lined out and new proposed language will be shown in italics. Proper timing is vital in the legislative process. The City's views on a bill are of value only if they reach a legislator or committee before they vote on a bill. Departments should provide the City Manager's Office with information on bills of importance to the City as soon as they are aware of them. A Citywide perspective Often, proposed legislation will have the potential for affecting more than one department. Not always will the impact be the same. While the proposal may be beneficial from the perspective of one department, it may have negative impacts for another department. It is essential that these differences be reconciled and a common 6 citywide position is determined. The City Manager's Office will work with Departments to reconcile differences. Stating the City'S position Departments should be aware of policies and programs contained in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan which relate to their area of responsibility. The City Manager's Office can verify if the League of California Cities or National League of Cities has taken a position on a bill. The most effective arguments in lobbying a bill are those which contain hard data about the effects on the City's operations and services. If the bill has potential significant effects for the City, it is well worth the time spent to assemble the examples and cost figures. The best criticism is that which contains suggestions for improvement. If there is little likelihood of defeating a bill the City opposes, indicate what could be changed to make it more palatable. Legislators and their staffs are more receptive to communications which offer concrete ideas. If the department recommendation is to support, oppose, or amend a bill, it is important to draft the body of a letter that the City Manager's Office can use in writing to the legislators. The Manager's Office will put the letter in final form and send it to the appropriate committees, legislators, etc. A copy of the finalized letter will be routed to the evaluating department for its records. Legislative Advocacy The Council is the official voice of the City of Palo Alto. The final authority for determining the position that shall be taken by the City on proposed legislation rests with the Council. Process: (Taken from CMR: 315:02) 1. Two Councilmembers draft a Council Colleagues Memorandum to refer a ballot measure or legislative issue to the Policy and Services Committee for review. 2. Staff generates an informational report for the Policy and Services Committee summarizing the ballot measure or legislative issue. This report will include an analysis of City policy as it relates to the item, if applicable. It will also indicate if the League of California Cities has taken a position on the issue. 3. The item is agendized for the Policy and Services Committee meeting. 4. The Policy and Services Committee reviews and discusses the ballot measure or legislative issue at the meeting. S. When evaluating ballot measures or legislative issues, Councilmembers should determine if the issues are consistent with the current adopted legislative priorities and the following guidelines, including, but not limited to: a. Protect local revenues b. Protect/increases local government discretion c. Protects/increases funding for specific programs or services 7 d. Supports key programmatic goals e. Prevents unfunded mandates f. Is consistent with existing City policy g. Has a direct impact upon the City 6. Policy and Services Committee members vote on the propositions and/or legislative issue that the Committee determines are consistent with the City's interests. 7. If the vote is unanimous, the matter is forwarded to the Council as consent calendar item. 8. If a timeliness issue exists, the item will referred to Council without minutes, and a one page executive summary will be provided. If no timeliness issue exists, the item will be referred with minutes in the usual manner. Signature on communication regarding legislation. Letters and other communications expressing the City's position on legislation will customarily bear the signature of the Mayor, particularly when the legislation relates to areas of Comprehensive Plan policies and programs, other Council adopted policies, issues of Council interest, and fiscal matters. If the legislation's principal impact is on the City's operating procedures, the communication may be signed by the City Manager. In these instances, it may increase the effectiveness of the communication tQ, have it co-signed by the head of the department most directly affected. In order to keep the Council and others informed of all City communications on legislation, copies of the letters will be are distributed in the Council agenda packet. Independent lobbying by City personnel. City employees are not to lobby in the name of the City of Palo Alto unless the activity has been approved by the department head and City Manager has been informed in advance of the activity. City advisory commissions and committees. City employees who are staff or liaison to Council-appointed advisory commissions and committees should encourage the bodies to bring to the attention of the Council proposed legislation upon which they recommend the Council take a position. The Palo Alto Municipal Code (Section 2.22.060(t)) authorizes the Human Relations Commission to adopt independent positions on legislation, provided the City Council has not taken an official position with respect to the legislation. All legislative letters sent by the HRC and its task forces shall be copied for the City Council. Lobbying Methods Listed here are a number of ways to inform and persuade legislators and others of the City's position on proposed legislation. 8 Departmental participation in the planning and implementation of many of these activities is desirable and important. Departments should let the City Manager's Office know oftheir interest and suggestions for lobbying bills they have evaluated. Letters to • The authors of proposed legislation • The City's elected representatives in the State Legislature and Congress • The Chair and members of legislative committees • The Governor or President If the letter is being sent within three working days of the scheduled committee hearing of floor vote, the letter will be faxed or emailed. All records of faxes, mailings, e-mail, will be maintained by the City Manager's Office. Telephone calls • Phone calls are useful for discussing with legislative staff the content and implications of a bill and for suggesting amendments or language clarification. However, many committees' rules prevent them from counting phone calls as a legitimate expression of a City's position on a bill. Pro and con positions are recorded only if they are received in writing. Meetings with Palo Alto's elected representatives either in the district or in Sacramento and Washington. • It is the Council's practice to invite legislators representing Palo Alto to an annual meeting to discuss all issues of importance to the City during that legislative session. • Councilmembers are encouraged to attend legislative days set by the National League of Cities and League of California Cities. Resolutions • The Council is sometimes asked to adopt a resolution expressing its position on a bill. Resolutions are frequently sought by organizations as an indication of widespread support for a position, but they are less effective than letters when communicating directly with a legislator. Testimony • Testifying in person at a legislative committee hearing provides an opportunity to present the City's position and respond to questions. The City Manager, the Mayor, a Councilmember, or the staff person with particular expertise in the subject assumes the responsibility. 9 Editorial support from newspapers serving Palo Alto community • Staff member must seek approval from Manager's Office before submitting editorials in newspapers. Press Conferences • Press conferences are called by the Mayor and Councilmembers and are staged in a location relevant to the issues being lobbied. Any press conference should be coordinated with the City Manager's Office. Coalitions with other jurisdictions • These alliances are not limited to governmental bodies, but extend to all segments of the broader community that can similarly be affected by the legislation, e.g. business, nonprofit organization, environmental groups, etc. Registered lobbyists are retained by the City when their specific skills and expertise are required. Guidelines for Letter writing • Concentrate on the letter content, rather than format. The City Manager's Office will produce the final letter, addressing it to the proper legislators or committees and securing the appropriate signature. The process can be expedited if the originating department provides the draft of the letter electronically. • At the very start of the letter, indicate the bill number or title that is the subject of the letter. • A short concise letter is generally more effective than a lengthy treatise. (Several short letters will carry more weight than one long letter; if there are many good arguments for supporting or opposing a bill, provide them all to the Manager's Office but in a form where they can be selectively used in several communications. ) • Provide specific examples of the impact of the legislation upon Palo Alto, e.g. estimated cost or savings, effect upon taxpayers and residents, relationship to the City's policies, programs, charter, etc. • Think of examples that may be particularly newsworthy. • Relate, when feasible, to the effect the proposed legislation may have upon the legislator's constituents. • If advice is needed on what aspects of the legislation can most successfully be lobbied, or what kind of information is most needed by the legislators, it is useful to talk to. the staff of the League of California Cities, of the Legislature's Committees, or of the individual legislators. The Manager's Office can provide contact names and phone numbers. 10 ATTACHED: Exhibit 1: Sample Federal Letter Exhibit 2: Sample State Letter Procedure for City Council meetings with other elected representatives • At direction of Council, the other Elected Representative, or the City Manager, staff will schedule a meeting with the representative • The City Manager will seek agenda items from the Mayor and Council • Staff from the City Manager's Office will obtain agenda items from Departments and staff in the representatives office • Agenda for the meeting will be published by City Clerk Federal Legislative Timeline February: Appropriation applications due to Congressional offices March: National League of Cities Conference City meetings with Congressional Representative AprillMay/June: Tour of project areas with Congressional staff Letters of support from Mayor and Council June to September: Track appropriations requests California State Legislative Timeline 2009 Jan. 1 Statutes take effect Jan. 5 Legislature reconvenes Jan. 10 Budget must be submitted by Governor Jan. 30 Last day to submit bill requests to the Office of Legislative Counsel Feb. 27 Last day for bills to be introduced Apr. 2 Spring Recess begins at end of this day's session Apr. 13 Legislature reconvenes from Spring Recess May 1 Last day for policy committees to hear and report to Fiscal Committees fiscal bills introduced in their house May 15 Last day for policy committees to hear and report to the Floor non-fiscal bills introduced in their house May 22 Last day for policy committees to meet prior to June date May 29 Last day for fiscal committees to hear and report to the Floor bills introduced in their house (J.R. 61 (a)(5)). Last day for fiscal committees to meet prior to June 8 (J.R. 61 (a)(6)). June 1 - 5 Floor Session only. No committee may meet for any purpose June 5 Last day for bills to be passed out of the house ·of origin June 8 Committee meetings may resume June 15 Budget must be passed by midnight 11 July 10 Last day for policy committees to meet and report bills July 17 Summer Recess begins at the end of this day's session, provided Budget has been enacted Aug. 17 Legislature reconvenes from Summer Recess Aug. 28 Last day for fiscal committees to meet and report bills to the Floor Aug. 31-Sept. 11 Floor Session only. No committees, other than conference committees and Rules Committee, may meet for any purpose Sept. 4 Last day to amend bills on the Floor Sept. 11 Last day for each house to pass bills Interim Study Recess begins at end of this day's session Oct. 11 Last day for Governor to sign or veto bills passed by the Legislature on or before Sept. 11 and in the Governor's possession after Sept. 11 City Council Timeline Councilmembers and staff are encouraged to attend Federal and State legislative days as scheduled throughout the year. Below is a timeline for Council review ofthe legislative program. December January February March June September Policy & Services Committee reviews past year's legislative action program Staff Report or Study Session reviewing Legislative Program and Manual along with Utilities Legislative Priorities after Council Retreat Review of Federal Appropriations Submittals through staff report on Consent Calendar Council trip to Washington D.C. Staff Report Update on status of Appropriations Staff Report Update on status of Legislative Program 12 Sample Federal Letter: April 27, 2009 The Honorable Anna Eshoo Member of Congress 205 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Re: City of Palo Alto -Transportation Reauthorization Priorities Dear Congresswoman Eshoo: Exhibit 1 On behalf of the City of Palo Alto, I would like to thank you for your assistance in helping us meet the transportation needs of our community. It is my understanding that Congress is in the initial stages of considering legislation to reauthorize the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of the 21 st Century (SAFETEA-LU). To this end, I write in full support of the City of Palo Alto's top two priorities for the transportation reauthorization bill: (1) the Charleston Corridor Safety Improvement Project and (2) Highway 101 Pedestrian and Bicycle OvercrossinglUndercrossing. ~ Charleston Corridor Safety Improvement Project Charleston Road is a four-lane undivided arterial roadway which carries 15,000 vehicles daily. The corridor serves eleven schools and numerous residential neighborhoods as well as major employment centers including the Stanford Research Park and San Antonio lBayshore area. The City Council authorized staff to prepare a corridor plan in 2003, approved initiation of a striping trial of the improvements in 2006 and authorized staff to seek funding for the implementation of the permanent traffic safety and streetscape improvements in 2008. The project will: • Maintain existing travel time on the corridor to minimize diversion to other residential streets; reduce accidents on the corridor; • Improve conditions for pedestrian and bicycle travel; • Improve the quality of life on the corridor; and • Enhance visual amenities along the corridor. Specifically, federal funding will be used to design and construct the permanent traffic safety and streetscape improvements along the 1.3 mile segment of Charleston Road between Fabian Avenue and EI Camino Real (State Highway 82) in Palo Alto. The project includes both small and large scale improvements such as curb ramps, curb and gutter, sidewalks and asphalt overlay within the public right-of-way to provide safety, and aesthetic improvements. The improvements will primarily focus on enhancing conditions for pedestrian and bicycle travel given the high volume of school commute traffic in the area, as well as traffic calming to make the corridor Exhibit 1 more livable for residents and reduce impacts on the environment caused by congestion. The Charleston Corridor Safety Improvement Project is estimated to cost $5,711,000. A breakdown of the financing plan for the project is outlined below: -City Traffic Impact Fees $700,000 -City Capital Improvement Program $400,000 -State TDA Article 3 Funds $200,000 -Federal contribution (77%) $4,411,000 ~ Highway 101 Pedestrian and Bicycle Overcrossing/Undercrossing Project Currently, the only year-round alternative to a new grade separated bicycle/pedestrian crossing of Highway 101 is the existing San Antonio Road interchange at Highway 101. This is a very high speed overcrossing that is not suitable for pedestrian and bicycle travel. Only the most expert bicyclists would consider using it; average cyclists, families, children would not. The Highway 101 Pedestrian and Bicycle OvercrossingfUndercrossing project will provide a safe, reliable pedestrian and bicycle overpass/underpass to the frontage roads east and west of the freeway. The project is identified in the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 2035 plan list of countywide priority bicycle projects and will provide a connection to the San Francisco Bay Trail as well as access to regional employment and recreation areas. Specifically, the federal funds will be used to conduct a feasibility study, conceptual design, and environmental study for the construction of a new pedestrianlbicycle grade separated crossing of Highway 101 in Palo Alto to provide connectivity from residential and commercial areas in south Palo Alto to the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve, Shoreline and East Bayshore business parks, and the regional Bay Trail network of 240 bike trails along the San Francisco Bay shoreline. The project will be located in Palo Alto in the Highway 101 corridor north of the San Antonio Road interchange. The Highway 101 Pedestrian and Bicycle OvercrossinglUndercrossing project is estimated to cost $6,048,000. A breakdown of the financing plan for the project is outlined below: -City General Fund & VT A Bicycle Expenditure Program $1,200,000 -Federal Contribution (80%) $4,848,000 The City has engaged in a public participation process by creating a stakeholder working group for Charleston Corridor Safety Improvement Project. This group includes members of the local neighborhood associations, school representatives, and other stakeholders. If the City acquires federal funding for the project, staff will continue to work with the working group. Additionally, staff will hold several public meetings to provide an opportunity for comment. Furthermore, the City Council's Exhibit 1 Architectural Review Board, an advisory committee, will review the project. With respect to the Highway 101 Pedestrian and Bicycle OvercrossinglUndercrossing Project, this is a priority for City's Parks and Recreation Commission and a subcommittee is working with the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee to ensure stakeholder input. The Commission will discuss this project at future meetings which require public notice. Finally, the City Council will approve any scope of service or contract for these projects. The public will have an opportunity to provide comment at each of these public meetings. Again, thank you for your continued support of our community. We look forward to working with you and your staff as the transportation reauthorization bill moves through the legislative process. Sincerely, Peter Drekmeier Mayor Cc: Jim Keene, City Manager Palo Alto City Councilmember Sample State Letter: February 26, 2009 Honorable Joe Simitian 11 th District State Capitol, Room 2080 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Senator Simitian: Exhibit 2 The City of Palo Alto strongly supports Senate Bill 346 by Senator Kehoe which would restrict the use of copper and other toxic materials in vehicle brake pads. Copper is toxic to phytoplankton, the base of the aquatic food chain, and has been shown to adversely impact salmon sensory organs, potentially compromising their ability to return to spawning streams and avoid predators. Palo Alto and other local governments are required by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits to control copper discharges to creeks, estuaries and the ocean. Brake pads are the largest single source of copper to waterways and have been estimated to contribute as much as 35% of the copper reaching San Francisco Bay. Local governments are not able to effectively control brake dust and legislative action is the only viable alternative. Palo Alto staff initiated the Brake Pad Partnership, a collaborative group of government staff, brake pad manufacturers and environmentalists, to work out a solution to the brake pad issue. The problem has been studied, quantified, and the participants all now agree that an orderly phase-out of copper is in everyone's best interest. Brake pad manufacturers support legislative requirements because, without them, less responsible manufacturers could continue to sell high copper brake pads in California. Environmentalists are supporting a legislative approach because of impacts of copper on ecosystems, and because the bill would also address lead and asbestos, which still appear in brake pads, sold by less responsible manufacturers. We anticipate that Senate Bill 346 will come before your Environmental Quality Committee and encourage your support and leadership. Controlling this key source of copper is of critical importance and represents the culmination of hard work by Palo Alto staff and others. Phil Bobel our Manager of Environmental Compliance within the City's Public Works Department would like to meet with you. It would be our preference to meet with you in Palo Alto. He will be in touch with your office to schedule a meeting. Thank you for your energetic leadership on so many important environmental issues such as this bill. Sincerely, Peter Drekmeier Mayor Cc. Palo Alto Councilmembers James Keene, City Manager CITY OF PALO ALTO Memorandum TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: JUNE 1,2009 14 SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF TWO ORDINANCES: 1) REPEALING CHAPTER 16.17 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE AND AMENDING TITLE 16 TO ADOPT A NEW CHAPTER 16.17, CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, 2008 EDITION; AND 2) REPEALING CHAPTER 16.18 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE AND AMENDING TITLE 16 TO ADOPT A NEW CHAPTER 16.18, ESTABLISHING LOCAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS COVERED BY THE 2008 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE Staff requests that this item be continued to July 6, 2009 to accommodate the availability of the City's Energy Code consultant. LARRY I. P ,E Chief Building Official Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment TO: FROM: DATE: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER JUNE 1,2009 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR: 266:09 REPORT TYPE: PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: Adoption of the 2008/09 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Annual Action Plan Amendment to the 2005-10"Consolidated Plan to Provide Funding Awards Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 in the Amount of $183,477 (CDBG-R) and Adoption of a Resolution of the Council Approving the Use of CDBG-R Funds EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Council action is requested to amend the City's CDBG 2008/09 Annual Action Plan in order for the City to receive an additional $183,477 in CDBG funding that is available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of2009 (Recovery Act). The grant progranl under this title is commonly referred to as the CDBG Recovery (CDBG-R) program. The purpose of CDBG- R activities should primarily be economic development, housing, infrastructure and other public facility activities that will quickly spur further economic investment, increased energy efficiency and job creation or retention. Per regulations specific to the CDBG-R program, the City must amend the 2008/09 Action Plan approved last year and provide citizens the opportunity to comment on any proposed changes. This Amendment to the 2008/09 Action Plan is intended to provide detailed information on the proposed changes relating to the Recovery Act award. The City may provide funding in three program activity areas: public service (a maximum of 15% of the grant), City grant administration (a maximum of 10%) and capital projects (remainder of grant allocation) and is proposing funding allocations of $27,500, $18,347 and $137,630 respectively. Funding for public service activities and administration is not required by ARRA or CDBG-R and any excess funds in either funding category may be allocated to capital projects. CMR: 266:09 10f6 The CDBG Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) met on Wednesday, May 13,2009, to review applications submitted for CDBG-R funding. Staff and the CAC concur in reconunending funding for the following activities: Public Service Shelter Network -Haven Family House Administration City of Palo Alto, Plmming Division CapitallRehabilitation ' Palo Alto Housing Corp -Plum Tree Apts Palo Alto Housing Corp -California Park Apts A venidas -Senior Center Stevenson House -Senior Housing TOTAL RECOMMENDATION Staff and the CAC recommend that the City Council: $27,500 $18,347 $36,382 $ 6,601 $60,547 $34,100 $183,477 1. Allocate CDBG-R funding as described in the draft 2008/09 Action Plan Amendment and adopt the attached Resolution. 2. Authorize staff to submit the 2008/09 Action Plan Amendment to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by the June 5, 2009 deadline. 3. Authorize the City Manager or designee, on behalf of the City, to execute the 2008/09 Action Plan Amendment for CDBG-R funds and any other necessary documents concerning the application, and to otherwise bind the City with respect to the application , and commitment of funds. BACKGROUND The City Council approved the 2008/09 CDBG Annual Action Plan of the 2005-2010 CDBG Consolidated Plan on May 5, 2008 and it was subsequently approved by HlTD. The 2008/09 Annual Action Plan described the activities to be funded with CDBG funds in Fiscal Year 2009 to address priority housing and non-housing community development needs and to affirmatively further fair housing. On February 17,2009, the Recovery Act was approved appropriating an additional $1 billion in CDBG-R funds for 2008/09. HUD announced shortly thereafter that Palo Alto would receive $183,477 in CDBG-R entitlement funds, and on May 6, 2009, HUD announced that entitlement grantees must submit a substantial amendment to the program year 2008 CDBG action plan to HUD by June 5, 2009. In order to expedite the process, HlTD shortened the normal30-day public review and comment period to seven days and waived the public hearing requirement. CMR: 266:09 20f6 DISCUSSION All 2009/1 0 CDBG applicants were contacted by phone and e-mail requesting submittal of CDBG- R applications by May 11,2009. The Citizens' Advisory Committee met on Wednesday, May 13, 2009, to review and consider six public service applications, one administration application and five capital/rehabilitation project applications. Applications were reviewed by the CAC and staff relative to CDBG national objectives and CDBG-R criteria. CDBG-R considerations included: • Maximization of job creation and economic benefit by investing in projects that will provide long-term benefits; • Expenditure of CDBG-R funds in a timely manner by giving priority to projects that can award contracts based on bids within 120 days from the date the funds are made available; • Utilization of CDBG-R funds for discrete, stand-alone activities whenever possible; • Promotion of energy conservation, smart growth, green building technologies or reduced pollution emissions; • Certification that the funds principally benefit low income families; and • Use of U.S. produced iron, steel and manufactured goods for construction. -Public comments on the draft Action Plan amendment were solicited from May 15 through May 31,2009, in an advertisement published in the Palo Alto Weekly, in a posting on the City's website and by placing copies for public review at the Downtown Library, the City's Development Center and in the Planning and Community Environment Department. No comments were received on the draft Action Plan amendment during the review period. The following table summarizes the funding requests and recommendations for the use of CDBG- R. 2008/09 CDBG-R FUNDING APPLICATION REQUESTIRECOMMENDATION TABLE JUNE 1,2009 Public Service Applications Name of Project Title CDBG-R 08/09 09/10 Recommendations Agency Funding Funded Funded Staff and CAC Request 1. Shelter Haven Family $27,500 Yes No $27,500 Network House 2. Catholic Long-Term Care -0- Charities Ombudsman $5,000 Yes Yes 3. Emergency -0- Housing Palo Alto $7,500 Yes No Consortium HOMES 4. Palo Alto SRO Resident $41,000 Yes Yes -0- CMR: 266:09 30f6 Housing Corp. Support Services 5. Support Domestic $2,500 No Yes -0-(Funding Network for Violence activity proposed is Battered Services ineligible) Women 6. Inn Vision the Opportunity $27,500 Yes Yes -0- Way Home Center TOTAL $111,000 $27,500 150/0 Cap $27,521 Planning and Administration Applications Name of Project Title CDBG-R 08/09 09/10 Recommendations Agency Funding Funded Funded Staff CAC Request 7. City of Palo CDBG-R Program $18,347 Yes Yes $18,347 Alto-Administration Planning Division TOTAL $18,347 $18,347 10% Cap $18,347 Capital Project Applications Name of Agency Project Title CDBG-R Recommendations Funding Staff and CAC Request 8. Palo Alto Housing Plum Tree Apartments -$36,382 $ 36,382 Corporation Window Replacement/Exterior Repaint 9. Palo Alto Housing CalifoTIlia Park -Concrete Corporation Sidewalk Repair & $12,149 $ 6,601 Replacement 10. Lytton Gardens Bathtub Cut-downs $33,555 -O- Il. Avenidas Kitchen Repairs & Energy $60,547 $ 60,547 Efficient Upgrades 12. Stevenson House Sewer Pipe System Repair $34,100 $ 34,100 TOTAL $176,733 $137,630 $137,609 CDBG-R funds TOTAL: $183,477 $183,477 CNIR: 266:09 40f6 Staff and the CAC utilized the HUD criteria outlined above for guidance in the selection process. The City received requests for $111,000 in public service activities but only $27,521 can be funded within the 15% cap. It was detemlined that Shelter Network's proposal met the HUb criteria better than the other activities proposed. With the incorporation of energy conservation workshops and mandatory free home energy audits for residents transitioning into permanent housing, the proposal best fit the environmental goal of energy conservation and utilization of green building technologies compared to all other public service activities. The City received five requests for $176,733 in capital projects. Three proposals were recommended to be funded in full. One proposal was recommended to be partially funded. Lytton Garden's project proposal was not recommended to be funded as the request could not be tied to promoting energy conservation nor was it a discrete stand alone project. RESOURCE IMPACT CDBG-R funds are a one-time only funding source from the Federal Recovery Act of2009. There is no impact on the City's General Fund. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The actions recommended in this report are consistent with the 2005-2010 Consolidated Plan which implement the City's adopted Land Use and Natural Environment Elements' policies supporting a sustainable environment. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW City Council approval of the 2008/09 Action Plan amendment and adoption of the associated Resolution for CDBG-R fund distribution are exempt for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because allocation of funding is not considered a project under CEQA guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) and NEPA 24 CFR 58.34(a)(4) and the proposed public service and administrative activities will not have a physical impact or result in any physical changes to the environment. The capital projects proposed are also categorically excluded activities under CEQA Section 15301, Existing Facilities and NEPA 24 CFR 58.35 that allows repairs and rehabilitation to facilities that do not increase the size, density or change of use of the structures. PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR: 266:09 KAT ARX CDBG Planner ~W'~~ CURTIS WILLIAMS, Interim Director ___ ~ __ ing and Community E ironment ~r! NE 50f6 ATTACHMENTS A. Resolution B. Draft Amended 2008/09 Annual Action Plan Cc: Citizens Advisory Committee CDBG-R Applicants CMR: 266:09 60f6 ATTACHMENT A NOT YET APPROVED Resolution No. --- Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Use of Community Development Block Grant American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Funds for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 WHEREAS, on May 9, 2005, the Palo Alto City Council approved and adopted a document entitled "Consolidated Plan", which identified and established the Palo Alto housing and non-housing community development needs, objectives, and priorities for the period of July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2010; and WHEREAS, the 2008-09 Action Plan, the annual update to the Consolidated Plan, was subjected to public review and commentary during the period of March 25, 2008 through April 25, 2008; and WHEREAS, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law 111-005 was approved on February 17, 2009, appropriating $1 billion to carry out the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG-R) program under Title I of the Housing and Community Developn1ent Act of 1974; and WHEREAS, the potential uses of CDBB-R funds were evaluated in light of the needs and objectives identified in the Consolidated Plan and criteria required under Notice of Program Requirements for Community Development Block Grant Program Funding Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and are reflected in the recomn1endations and comments of the Citizens Advisory Committee and other interested citizens; and WHEREAS, the CDBG-R program requires the amendment of the 2008-09 annual Action Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a publicly noticed public hearing on June 1, 2009, on the proposed uses of the CDBG-R funds; and WHEREAS, CDBG-R funds allocated to the City amending the 2008-09 Annual Action Plan are proposed to implement the following programs; NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The uses of CDBG-R funds for fiscal year 2008-09 are hereby approved and authorized for the following programs: 1 090520 syn 0120355 NOT YET APPROVED Name of Program Amount 1. Shelter Network. Haven Family House -$ 27,500 Public service activity providing transitional housing for homeless families with children. 2. City of Palo Alto. Department of Planning $ 18,347 and Community Environment -CDBG-R program administration for the City. 3. Stevenson House. Capital Improvement $ 34,100 Project -Sanitary sewer repairs serving low-income seniors. 4. Palo Alto Housing Corp. Plum Tree Apartments. $ 36,382 Energy efficient window and door replacement and exterior painting serving families in affordable housing. 5. Palo Alto Housing Corp. California Park Apartments. $ 6,601 Concrete sidewalk repairs serving families in affordable housing. 6. A venidas. Senior Center -Kitchen repairs and $ 60,547 energy efficient upgrades benefiting low-income senior citizens. TOTAL $183,477 SECTION 2. The total amount set forth under Section 1 of this resolution represents the proposed allocation of $183,477 in CDBG-R funds, from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for fiscal year 2008-09. SECTION 3. The City staff is hereby authorized to submit the amendment to the 2008-09 annual Action Plan update and appropriate forms to HUD for the fiscal year 2008-09 CDBG-R funds, and such money shall be spent as set forth in this resolution. The Mayor, City Manager and any other designated City staff or officials are hereby authorized to execute such application forms and any other necessary documents to secure these funds. II II II 2 090520 syn 0120355 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 4. The City Council hereby finds that the fiscal year 2008-09 CDBG-R program authorized under Section 1 of this resolution is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However, the Council further authorizes and directs City staff to conduct certificates that may be required, under CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for each project under the fiscal year 2008-09 CDBG-R program prior to the release of funds for any such proj ect. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: CDBG Coordinator 090520 syn 0120355 3 APPROVED: Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment Director of Administrative Services ATTACHMENTB CITY OF PALO ALTO Housing and Community Development DRAFT 2008/09 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN AMENDMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT 2009 (CDBG-R) FUNDS Public Review Period May 15, 2009 -May 21, 2009 Prepared by Department of Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Curtis Williams, Interim Director For Information, please contact: Kathy Marx, CDBG Planner Planning Division, City of Palo Alto, (650) 329-2428 or kathy.marx@cityofpaloalto.org SI USTED REQUIERE ASISTENCIA EN ESPANOL SOBRE INFORMACION RELACIONADA AL PROGRAMA DE SUBSIDIOS GLOBALES PARA EL DESAROLLO COMMUNITARIO (CDBG) DEL ACTA DE RECUPERACION Y REINVERSION AMERICANA DEL 2009, POR FAVOR COMUNIQUESE CON GUISELLE PEREZ MARCANDO AL (650) 329-2339. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Executive Summary The City's Annual Action Plan for the program year 2008/09 was approved by the City Council on May 5, 2008 and subsequently approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Action Plan serves as the City's application for federal funds under HUD's formula grant programs. The approved 2008/09 Annual Action Plan described the eligible activities that the City intended to undertake to address the needs and implement the strategies identified in the City's Consolidated Plan for the period July 1,2005 to June 30, 2010. It described the activities to be funded with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in fiscal year 2008/09 to address priority housing and non-housing community development needs and to affirnlatively further fair housing choice. The 2008/09 Annual Action Plan was amended on March 2, 2009, to authorize a pre- award from HUD for $300,000 in funding from next fiscal year's (2009/10) CDBG grant allocation for the land acquisition of Palo Alto Housing Corporation's Tree House affordable housing project at 488 W. Charleston Rd. in Palo Alto; and to authorize the reallocation of $80,000 in excess program income or previously allocated, but unspent, CDBG funding to Inn Vision to fill an urgent financial gap in shelter and homeless services at the Opportunity Center in Palo Alto and the Clara-Mateo Alliance Shelter in Menlo Park during program year 2008/09. Both of those amended activities addressed the priority housing and community development needs identified in the Consolidated Plan, and met the required HUD national objective of benefitting low-and moderate-income persons. On February 17,2009, Title XII of Division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law 111-005, (Recovery Act) was approved appropriating $1 billion to carry out the CDBG program under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 on an expedited basis. The grant program under this title is commonly referred to as the CDBG Recovery (CDBG-R) program. In order to expedite the use of these funds for their requested purpose the Secretary has waived certain CDBG requirements and specified alternative requirements except for requirements related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards and the environment. Funding available under the Recovery Act has clear purposes to stimulate the economy through measures that modernize the nation's infrastructure, improve energy efficiency and expand educational opportunities and access to health care. In implementing the Recovery Act, Federal agencies are undertaking unprecedented measures to ensure transparency and accountability in the use of the funds. Relative to the CDBG-R program, HUD desires that CDBG-R grantees carefully evaluate proposed projects for consistency with these goals. The full range of CDBG activities is available to grantees but HUD strongly suggests that grantees incorporate consideration of the public perception of the intent of the Recovery Act in the identification and selection of projects 2 for CDBG-R funding including the identification of discrete projects and the perception ofCDBG-R funding as a long-term investment rather than short-term. The City received $183,477 in CDBG-R funding and is proposing to amend the 2008/09 Annual Action Plan in the following ways: Public Service Shelter Network -Haven Family House Administration City of Palo Alto, Dept. of Planning CapitallRehabilitation Palo Alto Housing Corp -Plum Tree Apts Palo Alto Housing Corp -California Park Apts A venidas -Senior Center Stevenson House -Senior Housing TOTAL $27,500 $18,347 $36,382 $ 6,601 $60,547 $34,100 $183,477 According to CDBG regulations specific to the CDBG-R program, the City must amend its' 2008/09 Action Plan providing citizens notice of, and the opportunity to comment on, any proposed changes. This Amendment to the 2008/09 Action Plan is intended to provide detailed information on the proposed changes relating to the Recovery Act award. The Draft Action Plan Amendment was available for review by the general public and other interested parties for a 7-day period beginning on May 15,2009 and ending on May 21, 2009. Interested parties were encouraged to submit comments on the proposed amendments to the 2008/09 Annual Action Plan during the public review period or to comment at the public hearing described below. Public Hearing The Palo Alto City Council held a public hearing on June 1, 2009 to review and adopt the 2008/2009 Annual Action Plan Amendment of the 2005-2010 Consolidated Plan for CDBG Recovery Act funds. The Public Hearing was held at 7 :00 p.m. in City Hall, Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto. Amended Activities In accordance with CDBG-R requirements provided in Docket No.FR-5309-N-01 the City proposes the following activities and projects including: 3 i. A paper copy of the CDBG-R assisted activities HUD electronic spreadsheet is attached. 11. A description of how the distribution and uses of the CDBG-R funds for each of these proposed activities/projects is meeting the requirements of Title XII of Division A and Section 1602 of the Recovery Act of each activity is included. iii. A description of how the use ofCDBG-R funds for each activity or project will maximize job creation and economic benefit. IV. An estimation of the number of full-and part-time jobs created and retained by the activity or project. v. A description of how the activity or project will promote energy conservation, smart growth, green building technologies or reduced pollution emissions. Public Service Activities Haven Family House, 260 Van Buren Rd., Menlo Park, CA -$27,500 Shelter Network of San Mateo County, Michele Jackson, Executive Director, 650-685- 5880 x21 The Haven Family House is requesting CDBG-R funds to provide transitional housing for displaced and homeless families with children. Real estate foreclosures have affected the lower end of the rental market significantly in Palo Alto. When the property owner loses a residence to a bank foreclosure, if that property is rented out, even an employed tenant can easily become homeless as the rental deposit and last nl0nth's rent that is typically paid up front is often lost. Shelter Network proposes to provide mid-term transitional housing at Haven Family House and services (employment search assistance, health care referrals, financial planning and life skills workshops, as necessary) for homeless Palo Alto families meeting the obligation of low-income criteria. The City of Palo Alto CDBG Citizens' Advisory Committee (CAC) is also requesting the incorporation of an energy conservation workshop and a free home energy audit upon a resident's transition to permanent housing. CDBG-R funding for this activity proposes to retain one full-time case manager at Haven Family House. The transitional services provided promote economic growth by assisting persons with employment searches, mandatory savings and financial planning. A by- product of maintaining diversity within a community by encouraging and helping . community members to learn to maintain their own residences in an environmentally conscientious manner is smart-growth. It also assists the business community in providing a work force that does not have to come from outside of the general geographic area eliminating long-distance commuting. Administration Activity City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA -$18,347 Cathy Siegel, Advanced Planning Manager, 650-329-2108 Ten percent of the CDBG-R award may be utilized for planning and administration costs. In order to reimburse the City for such costs related to the administration of this federal program the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment is requesting $18,347. 4 There are multiple components of the CDBG-R process that will utilize City staff time and other non-salary expenses in order to facilitate the CDBG-R process and administer the grant award. Quarterly reporting requirements to HUD and stand alone contract administration for each activity and program to grant subawardees and subcontractors in order to maintain financial oversight and meet the Recovery Act goal of transparency and to ensure that the public funds are expended responsibly throughout the life of CDBG-R program are exanlples of additional planning and administration costs that will be incurred on behalf of the City. It is an economic benefit to utilize City staff to administer the program. They are familiar with local needs and existing programs and can facilitate the CDBG-R process in the most expeditious and cost-saving manner. Utilizing staff at the local level also has sustainable benefits that relate to future monitoring of activities within a discrete geographic area not requiring extended travel. The City maintains 1.2 full time employees to administer the regular CDBG program. These permanent positions will be retained. The costs associated with the administration of the regular program are never fully covered by the annual CDBq awards. Approximately 32% of the costs of administering the regular CDBG program are paid for through the City's General Fund. Therefore, the City is requesting CDBG-R funding to offset the costs of this additional work load. Capital/Rehabilitation Projects Plum Tree Apartments, 3020 -3038 Emerson Ave., Palo Alto, CA-$36,382 Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC), Georgina Mascarenhas, Director of Property Management, 650-321-9709 The PAHC is requesting $19,294 for the replacement of existing single-paned with metal framed windows and sliding doors with new dual-paned thermal windows and sliding doors in five units of the multi-family residential affordable housing apartment property benefiting 30 residents of whom 100% are low or very-low income. Additionally PAHC is requesting $17,088 in order to repaint both 5-unit buildings within the complex due to prior repairs, the proposed window replacement and the deteriorating condition of the existing exterior paint benefiting a total of 60 residents of whom all are low or very-low income. Palo Alto's CDBG CAC requested that the paint utilized be a new environmentally sensitive product that focuses on green building. Both projects will have long-term economic investment and environmental benefits by maintaining an existing structure, reducing the CQst of heating and cooling individual units equating to a financial savings for tenants who are some of those most impacted by the recession and reducing the carbon footprint relative to the reduced natural gas consumption. Additionally there is an emphasis on utilizing products that comply with green building technologies presently available. It is estimated that 4 construction employees will be utilized during the time of the proposed rehabilitation. 5 California Park Apartments -2301 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA -$6,601 Palo Alto Housing Corporation, Georgina Mascarenhas, Director of Property Management, 650-321-9709 The P AHC requested $12,149 for concrete sidewalk repair and replacement. The City's CDBG CAC recommended funding this project at $6,601 in order to capture the remainder of the CDBG-R award to the n1aximun1 extent allowed (upon approval of other projects funded at the full request). It was determined that this capital/rehabilitation project could be scaled down to fit the funding available. California Park is an affordable housing property for low-income families. The project would benefit all 200 low income residents in the 45 affordable housing units on site. The project would have long term economic benefits relating to the sustainability of the property by continuing to maintain and enhancing the life of the complex. The CDBG CAC recommends that all new concrete utilized on the site be permeable, allowing the percolation of water through the product, thereby reducing surface water runoff and pollution of local waterways. It is estimated that 4 construction employees will be utilized at the time of rehabilitation. Senior Center -450 Bryant St., Palo Alto, CA-$60,547 A venidas, Lisa Hendrickson, President, 650-289-5440 A venidas is requesting CDBG-R funding for kitchen repairs and energy efficient upgrades at the senior center. The kitchen is utilized daily by La Comida de California that prepares and serves 150 lunches on site in addition to preparing meals for delivery to the Stevenson House, a 120 unit residential facility for low-income Palo Alto senior ) citizens. The kitchen improvements proposed include: 1) replacement of cooler/refrigerator compressor cooling equipment; 2) replacement of a range with a code compliant model; 3) elimination of a non-compliant garbage disposal and modify the existing sink; 4) replacement of a failing convection oven with an energy efficient model; and 5) replacement of a small energy inefficient under-counter refrigerator. The proposed project will establish a long-term investment in a public facility that provides services to a clientele of senior citizens of whom at least 70% are of low or moderate incomes. The economic benefit will be a cost reduction in utilities and the employment of an estimated total of 8 to 12 construction workers during the rehabilitation process. The environmental benefit will be the energy conservation and reduction of pollution emissions by the utilization of a new compressor and the elimination of garbage disposal system that contributes to solid waste in the sewer system. Stevenson House -455 E. Charleston Rd, Palo Alto, CA-$34,1 00 Palo Alto Senior Housing Project, Inc., dba Adlai E. Stevenson House, Thams Pamilla, Director, 650-494-1944xI2 The Stevenson House is requesting CDBG-R funding for emergency sewer repairs for deteriorated and clogged sewer pipes connected to bathrooms and kitchens within residential units. The requested funds will be utilized to correct the most impacted 6 portions of the sewer lines. The Stevenson House has 120 units housing 130 residents of whom a minimum of70% are low income. The proposed project is requested in order to provide immediate environmental health benefits to the senior residents of the complex and reduction of ground pollution from pipe erosion. It also serves a population that is highly impacted by the recession if they were to be displaced due to health, life and safety concerns at their apartment homes. The average age of the Stevenson House population is 81. The project will employ two plumbers (construction) until completion. All activities/projects proposed can award contracts based on bids within 120 days from the date the funds are nlade available from HUD and can be completed within the timeframe outlined in HlTD guidelines. Public Comment Citizens or other interested parties were encouraged to call the City of Palo Alto's CDBG program administrator, Kathy Marx, at 650-329-2428, email at kathy.marx@cityofpaloalto.org or write to Kathy Marx, City of Palo Alto, Department of Planning and Community Environment, PO Box 10250, Palo Alto, CA 94303 for additional information. Copies of the draft amendment were available for review at the Palo Alto City Hall (250 Hamilton Ave. Planning Dept. Fifth Floor.); Palo Alto Downtown Library (270 Forest Ave.); and Palo Alto Development Center (285 Hamilton Ave.). A copy of the Amendment was also posted on the City of Palo Alto website: cityofPaloalto.orgidepts.lplnlcdbgldefault.asp . SI USTED REQUIERE ASISTENCIA EN ESPANOL SOBRE INFORMACION RELACIONADA AL PROGRAMA DE SUBSIDIOS GLOBALES PARA EL DESAROLLO COMMUNITARIO (CDBG) DEL ACTA DE RECUPERACION Y REINVERSION AMERICANA DEL 2009, POR FAVOR COMUNIQUESE CON GUISELLE PEREZ MARCANDO AL (650) 329-2339. There were no public comments received during the May 15 through May 21, 2009, review period regarding the draft amendment to the 2008/09 Annual Action plan. 7 APPENDIX A Spreadsheet for Reporting Proposed CDBG-R Activities CDBG-R Activity Data Spreadsheet Jurisdiction/Grantee Name: City of Palo Alto, Calfiornia CD8G-R Fomula Grant Amount: $183,477 Family House City of Palo Alto -Planning and Administration Palo Alto Housing Corporation California Park Apartments Palo Alto Housing Corporation Plum Tree Apartments Avenidas -Senior Center Stevenson House Senior Housing OBGA Public Service Activity: Provide transitional housing and services for homeless palol5 (Public Services Alto families General) IClintele Administrative costs for CD8G-R program management and project delivery costs associated with bringing projects to completion 121A Capital Project: Window & sliding door replacement with energy efficient models in 5 units of an affordable family housing complex & exterior repaint of entire 10 unit comolex 1148 Capital Project: Concrete sidewalk repair and replacement at a 45 unit affordable family housing complex 1148 Capital Project: Kitchen repairs and energy efficient upgrades serving low income seniors 13A Capital Project: Sanitary sewer repair and replacement for selected units within a 120 unit affordable senior housing facility 1148 1 570.206 Low/Mod Housing Low/Mod Housing Low/Mod Limited Clientele Low/Mod Housing $36,382 6,601 $60,547 $34,100 5/21/20091:58 PM j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j APPENDIXB Certifications 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CERTIFICATIONS (1) Affirmatively furthering fair housing. The jurisdiction will affirmatively further fair housing, which means that it will conduct an analysis to identify impediments to fair housing choice within the jurisdiction, take appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any impediments identified through that analysis, and maintain records reflecting the analysis and actions in this regard. (2) Anti-displacement and relocation plan. The jurisdiction will comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4601), and implementing regulations at 49 CFR part 24; and it has in effect and is following a residential anti-displacement and relocation assistance plan required under section 104(d) of the housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, in connection with any activity assisted with funding under CDBG-R. (3) Drug Free Workplace. The jurisdiction will or will continue to provide a drug-free workplace by: 1. Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition; 2. Establishing an ongoing drug-free awareness program to inform employees about- (a) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace; (b) The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace; ( c) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; and (d) The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace; 3. Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the grant be given a copy of the statement required by paragraph 1; 4. Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph 1 that, as a condition of employment under the grant, the employee will - (a) Abide by the terms of the statement; and (b) Notify the employer in writing of his or her conviction for a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring in the workplace no later than five calendar days after such conviction; 5. Notifying the agency in writing, within ten calendar days after receiving notice under subparagraph 4(b) from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction. Employers of convicted employees must provide notice, including position title, to every grant officer or other designee on whose grant activity the convicted employee was working, unless the Federal agency has designated a central point for the receipt of such notices. Notice shall include the identification number( s) of each affected grant; 6. Taking one of the following actions, within 30 calendar days of receiving notice under subparagraph 4(b), with respect to any employee who is so convicted: (a) Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination, consistent with the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; or 1 (b) Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency; 7. Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of paragraphs 1,2,3,4, 5 and 6. (4) Anti-lobbying. To the best of the jurisdiction's knowledge and belief: 1. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of it, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any F ederalloan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement; 2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, it will complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions; and 3. It will require that the language of paragraph 1 and 2 of this anti-lobbying certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. (5) Authority of Jurisdiction. The jurisdiction possesses the legal authority to carry out the programs for which it is seeking funding, in accordance with applicable HUD regulations and other program requirements. (6) Consistency with Plan. The housing activities to be undertaken with CDBG-R funds are consistent with its consolidated plan. (7) Section 3. The jurisdiction will comply with section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701u), and implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 135. (8) Community development plan. The jurisdiction certifies that the consolidated housing and community development plan identifies housing and community development needs and specifies both short-term and long-term community development objectives that have been developed in accordance with the primary objective of the statute authorizing the CDBG program. (9) Following a plan. The jurisdiction is following a current consolidated plan that has been approved byHUD. (10) Use offunds. The jurisdiction has developed activities so as to give the maximum feasible priority to activities that will benefit low-and moderate-income families or aid in the prevention of slums or blight. Additional activities may be included that are designed to meet other community development needs having particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community where other financial resources are not available to meet such needs It has complied with the following criteria: 2 1. Maximum Feasible Priority. With respect to activities expected to be assisted with CDBG-R funds, it certifies that it has developed its Action Plan so as to give maximum feasible priority to activities which benefit low and moderate income families or aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight. The Action Plan may also include activities which the grantee certifies are designed to meet other community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community, and other financial resources are not available); 2. Special Assessments. The jurisdiction will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public improvements assisted with CDBG-R funds by assessing any amount against properties owned and occupied by persons of low-and moderate-income, including any fee charged or assessment made as a condition of obtaining access to such public improvements. However, if CDBG-R funds are used to pay the proportion of a fee or assessment attributable to the capital costs of public improvements (assisted in part with CDBG-R funds) financed from other revenue sources, an assessment or charge may be made against the property with respect to the public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG-R funds. The jurisdiction will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public improvements assisted with CDBG-R funds, unless CDBG- R funds are used to pay the proportion of fee or assessment attributable to the capital costs of public improvements financed from other revenue sources. In this case, an assessment or charge may be made against the property with respect to the public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG-R funds. In addition, with respect to properties owned and occupied by moderate-income (but not low-income) families, an assessment or charge may be made against the property with respect to the public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG-R funds if the jurisdiction certifies that it lacks CDBG-R or CDBG funds to cover the assessment. (11) Excessive Force. The jurisdiction certifies that it has adopted and is enforcing: (1) a policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non-violent civil rights demonstrations; and (2) a policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location that is the subject of such non-violent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction. (12) Compliance with anti-discrimination laws. The CDBG-R grant will be conducted and administered in conformity with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d), the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601-3619), and implementing regulations. (13) Compliance with lead-based paint procedures. The activities concerning lead-based paint will comply with the requirements of part 35, subparts A, B, J, K, and R of this title. (14) Compliance with laws. The jurisdiction will comply with applicable laws. (15) Compliance with ARRA. The jurisdiction will comply with Title XII of Division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. (16) Project selection. The jurisdiction will select projects to be funded, by giving priority to projects that can award contracts based on bids within 120 days from the date the funds are made available to the recipient, and that will ensure maximum job creation and economic benefit. (17) Timeliness of infrastructure investments. When the jurisdiction uses CDBG-R funds for infrastructure investments, the grantee will give preference to quick-start and finish activities, including a goal to use at least 50 percent of the funds for activities within 120 days of enactment of the Recovery Act. 3 (18) Buy American provision. The jurisdiction will ensure that all iron, steel and manufactured goods used in construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance of a public building or public work project assisted with CDBG-R funds under the Recovery Act must be produced in the United States unless the Secretary finds that: (1) the requirement is inconsistent with public interest; (2) those goods are not reasonably available or produced in sufficient quantity in the U.S.; (3) or the use of the goods will increase the project cost by more than 25 percent. (19) Appropriate use of funds for infrastructure investments. The Governor, mayor, or other chief executive, as appropriate certifies, that any infrastructure investments have received the full review and vetting required by law and that the chief executive accepts responsibility that the infrastructure investment is an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. Alternatively, a grantee's chief elected official certifies that infrastructure investments will receive the full review and vetting required by law and that the chief executive accepts responsibility that the infrastructure investment is an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. (20) 70% ofCDBG-R for LMI. The aggregate use ofCDBG-R funds shall principally benefit persons of low and moderate income in a manner that ensures that at least 70 percent of the grant is expended for activities that benefit such persons over the life of the CDBG-R grant. Signature/Authorized Official Date Title 4 APPENDIXC Standard Form SF -424 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 *1. Type of Submission: *2. Type of Application * If Revision, select appropriate letter(s) o Preapplication ~ New ~ Application Continuation *Other (Specify) 0 Changed/Corrected Application D Revision 3. Date Received: 4. Applicant Identi'fier: 5a. Federal Entity Identifier: *5b. Federal Award Identifier: B08MC060020 State Use Only: 6. Date Received by State: I 7. State Application Identifier: 8. APPLICANT INFORMATION: *a. Legal Name: City of Palo Alto *b. Employerrraxpayer Identification Number (EINrrIN): *c. Organizational DUNS: 94-6000389 959938929 d. Address: *Street 1: PO Box 10250 Street 2: *City: Palo Alto County: *State: CA Province: *Country: Santa Clara *Zip / Postal Code 94303 e. Organizational Unit: Department Name: Division Name: Planning and Community Environment Planning f. Name and contact information of person to be contacted on matters involving this application: Prefix: Ms. *First Name: Cathy Middle Name: *Last Name: Siegel Suffix: Title: Organizational Affiliation: *Telephone Number: 650-329-2108 Fax Number: 650-329-2154 *Email: cathy.siegel@cityofpaloalto.org OMB Number: 4040-0004 Expiration Date: 0113112009 Version 02 Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 *9. Type of Applicant 1: Select Applicant Type: C. City or Township Government Type of Applicant 2: Select Applicant Type: Type of Applicant 3: Select Applicant Type: *Other (Specify) *10 Name of Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 11. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 14.253 CFDA Title: Community Development Block Grant -Recoverv Act (CDBG-R) *12 Funding Opportunity Number: Funding Under ARRA of 2009 *Title: 13. Competition Identification Number: Title: 14. Areas Affected by Project (Cities, Counties, States, etc.): City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara within the State of California *15. Descriptive Title of Applicant's Project: OMB Number: 4040-0004 Expiration Date: 0113112009 Version 02 The City of Palo Alto's Community Development Block Grant Program relative to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (CDBG-R) Substantial Amendment of the 2008/09 annual Action Plan Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 16. Congressional Districts Of: OMB Number: 4040-0004 Expiration Date: 0113112009 Version 02 *a. Applicant: 14th Congressional District *b. Program/Project: 14th Congressional District 17. Proposed Project: *a. Start Date: 6/5/2009 *b. End Date: 9/30/2012 18. Estimated Funding ($): *a. Federal 183,477 *b. Applicant *c. State *d. Local *e. Other *f. Program Income *g. TOTAL 183,477 *19. Is Application Subject to Review By State Under Executive Order 12372 Process? D a. This application was made available to the State under the Executive Order 12372 Process for review on __ D b. Program is subject to E.O. 12372 but has not been selected by the State for review. ~ c. Program is not covered by E. O. 12372 *20. Is the Applicant Delinquent On Any Federal Debt? (If "Yes", provide explanation.) DYes ~ No 21. *8y signing this application, I certify (1) to the statements contained in the list of certifications** and (2) that the statements herein are true, complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I also provide the required assurances** and agree to comply with any resulting terms if I accept an award. I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or claims may subject me to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties. (U. S. Code, Title 218, Section 1001) ~ ** I AGREE ** The list of certi'fications and assurances, or an internet site where you may obtain this list, is contained in the announcement or agency specific instructions Authorized Representative: Prefix: Mr. Middle Name: *Last Name: Keene Suffix: *Title: City Manager *Telephone Number: 650-329-2563 * Email: james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org *Signature of Authorized Representative: Authorized for Local Reproduction *First Name: James I Fax Number: 650-325-5025 I *Date Signed: Standard Form 424 (Revised 10/2005) Prescribed by OMB Circular A-I02 j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j APPENDIXD Checklist j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j CDBG-R Substantial Amendment Grantee Checklist For the purposes of expediting review, HUD asks that applicants submit the following checklist along with the CDBG-R Substantial Amendment, Spreadsheet for Reporting Proposed CDBG-R Activities, and SF-424. Contents of a CDBG-R Action Plan Substantial Amendment Jurisdiction(s): City of Palo Alto, California CDBG-R Contact Person: Cathy Lead Agency Siegel Jurisdiction Web Address: Address: 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo http://www.cityofopaloalt09.orgldeptslplnlcdbgldefault.aspAlto.CA 94301 Telephone: 650-329-2108 Fax: 650-329-2154 Email: cathy.siegel@cityofpaloalto.org The elements in the substantial amendment required for the CDBG recovery funds are: A. SPREADSHEET FOR REPORTING PROPOSED CDBG-RA CTIVITIES Does the submission contain a paper copy of the Spreadsheet for Reporting Proposed CDBG-R Activities? Yes[8J NoD Verification found on page ~ Does the submission include an electronic version of the Spreadsheet for Reporting Proposed CDBG-R Activities sent to the email box CDBG-R@hud.gov? Yes[8J NoD Date Spreadsheet was emailed: 6/2/09 Does the Spreadsheet for Reporting Proposed CDBG-R Activities include, for each activity: • amount of funds budgeted for each activity, including CDBG-R funds, any additional Recovery Funds used and total activity budget, Yes[8J NoD Verification found on page(s) 4-7 • the Eligibility citation (eligibility regulatory cite or HCDA cite), Yes[8J NoD Verification found on page(s) ~ • the CDBG national objective citation, Yes[8J NoD Verification found on page(s) ~ 5 B. CDBG-R INFORMATION BY ACTIVITY Does the submission contain information by activity describing how the grantee will use the funds, including: • a narrative for each activity describing how CDJ3G-R funds will be used in a manner that maximizes job creation and economic benefit, Yes[8J NoD Verification found on page(s) 4-7 • projected number of jobs created for each activity, Yes[8J No Verification found on page(s) 4-7 • whether an activity will promote energy efficiency and conservation, Yes[8J NoD Verification found on page( s) 4-7 • the name, location, and contact information for the entity that will carry out the activity, Yes[8J NoD Verification found on page( s) 4-7 • evidence that no more than 10% of the grant amount will be spent on administration and planning, Yes[8J ·NoD Verification found on page (s) J • evidence that no more than 15% of the grant amount will be spent on public services, Yes[8J NoD Verification found on page (s) J • evidence that at least 70% of the grant amount will benefit persons of low and moderate income, Yes[8J NoD Verification found on page (s) 1 C. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Was the proposed action plan amendment published via the jurisdiction's usual methods and on the Internet for no less than 7 calendar days of public comment? Yes[8J NoD. Verification found on page(s) 1 Is there a summary of citizen comments included in the final amendment? Yes[8J NoD Verification found on page(s) 1 D. CERTIFICATIONS The following certifications are complete and accurate: (1) Affirmatively furthering fair housing (2) Anti-displacement and relocation plan (3) Drug-free Workplace (4), Anti-lobbying (5) Authority of jurisdiction (6) Consistency with plan Yes[J Yes[J Yes[J Yes[J Yes[J Yes[J NoD No NoD NoD NoD NoD 6 (7) Section 3 (8) Community development plan (9) Following a plan (10) Use of Funds (11) Excessive Force (12) Compliance with anti-discrimination laws (13) Lead-based paint procedures (14) Compliance with laws (15) Compliance with ARRA (16) Project selection (17)·Timeliness of infrastructure investments (18) Buy American provision (19) Appropriate use of funds for infrastructure investments (20) 70% of CDBG-R for LMI Optional Certification (21) Urgent Need D. STATE CERTIFICATIONS The following certifications are complete and accurate: (1) Affirmatively furthering fair housing (2) Anti-displacement and relocation plan (3) Drug-free Workplace (4) . Anti-lobbying (5) Authority of State (6) Consistency with plan (7) Section 3 (8) Community development plan (9) Consultation with Local Governments (10) Use of Funds (11) Excessive Force (12) Compliance with anti-discrinlination laws (13) Compliance with laws (14) Compliance with ARRA (15) Project selection (16) Timeliness of infrastructure investments (17) Buy American provision (18) Appropriate use of funds for infrastructure investments (19) 70% of CDBG-R for LMI Optional Certification (20) Urgent Need YeslZ] YeslZ] YeslZ] Yes YeslZ] YeslZ] YeslZ] YeslZ] YeslZ] YeslZ] Yesl2S] YeslZ] YeslZ1 YeslZ] YesD NoD NoD No NoD NoD NoD NoD No No NoD NoD NoD NoD NoD NolZ1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: UTILITIES DATE: JUNE 1,2009 CMR: 255:09 REPORT TYPE: REPORTS OF OFFICIALS SUBJECT: Adoption of Five Resolutions Relating to the Palo Alto Recycled Water Project: (1) Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; (2) Resolution Establishing a Water Capital Reserve Fund in Accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Requirements for State Revolving Fund Program; (3) Resolution Designating Certain Palo Alto Recycled Water Pipeline Project Expenditures to be Reimbursed by Proceeds From State Revolving Fund; (4) Resolution Establishing One or More Dedicated Sources of Revenue for Repayment of Funding Pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act Amendments; (5) Resolution Repealing Resolution No. 8913 and Authorizing the City Manager to Sign and File a Financial Assistance Application and Execute a State Revolving Fund Financial Assistance Agreement in an Amount Not to Exceed $37 Million From the State Water Resources Control Board for the Design and Construction of the Palo Alto Recycled Water Pipeline Project EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Palo Alto Recycled Water Project would expand the recycled water distribution system to serve additional customers in Palo Alto. The project has the potential to replace a significant part of potable water demands with recycled water for nonpotable needs such as irrigation and, in the future, interior uses such as toilet and urinal flushing and in industrial processes and cooling towers. The City has completed the environmental review of the project and this report recommends that Council adopt the environmental document supporting the project, the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (Final MND). The Final MND is a tiered document within the scope of the 1995 Program EIR for the Water Reclamation Master Plan. The Final MND lists the mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the document and includes the response to comments received during the public review of the Draft MND. CMR: 255:09 Page 1 of 11 Since the cost of the project is high, staff has pursued outside funding, in the fonn of grants and loans. Due to the potential to receive Federal stimulus funds made available to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), additional project activities are required over the next few months. This report requests Council approval of resolutions in order to apply for SWRCB funds. Applying for the funds does not commit the City to proceed with the project. A recommendation to proceed will be presented to Council at a later date. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council adopt the following resolutions required by the State Water Resources Control Board for applying for grant or loan funds for the Palo Alto Recycled Water Project: 1. Adopting the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (Final MND) for the City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and 2. Establishing a water capital reserve fund in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's requirements for the State Revolving Fund Program; 3. Designating certain Palo Alto Recycled Water Pipeline Project expenditures to be reimbursed by proceeds from the State Revolving Fund; 4. Establishing one or more dedicated sources of revenue for repayment of funding pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act Amendments; and 5. Authorizing the City Manager or designee to sign and file a financial assistance application and execute a State Revolving Fund Financial Assistance Agreement in an amount not to exceed $37 million from the State Water Resources Control Board for the design and construction of the Palo Alto Recycled Water Pipeline Project. BACKGROUND Palo Alto completed a Water Reclamation Master Plan (Master Plan) for the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) in 1992. Council adopted the accompanying Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) in 1995 (CMR 217:95). The Master Plan and the PEIR evaluated the development of a regional water reuse system that could ultimately provide service to the entire RWQCP service area. Benefits of the program include reduced effluent discharge from the R WQCP into San Francisco Bay and reduced reliance on potable water deliveries from the Hetch Hetchy system. The Master Plan presents a phased approach to the expansion of treatment, distribution, storage and use of recycled water. Phase 1 of the regional recycled water system has been in operation since 1980. It serves the Palo Alto Golf Course, Greer Park, the Emily Renzel Marsh, the Duck Pond, and the RWQCP. Phase 2 of the expansion, the Mountain View Recycled Water project, is under construction and is scheduled to be online by spring 2009. This proposed project, Phase 3, is the next increment of the RWQCP's ongoing expansion of its regional recycled water system and includes the construction of recycled water pipeline and associated facilities to provide an alternative water supply for non-potable uses. The project would initially serve approximately 900 acre-feet per year (AFY) of recycled water, mostly to customers in the Stanford Research Park Area. Future extensions could serve Stanford CMR: 255:09 Page 2 of 11 University and Los Altos Hills, as well as create a loop by making a second connection to the Phase 2 Mountain View Project. The predominant use of recycled water for the proposed project is landscape irrigation. Some uses, such as commercial and light industrial cooling towers or for toilet flushing inside buildings, could also be included at a later date. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers the State Revolving Fund (SRF) program. The SRF program has a fixed amount of funds available each fiscal year and provides loans to agencies on a first-come-first-served basis. Under this program, eligible projects can apply for loans with interest rates that are roughly half of the State General Obligation Rate. These favorable terms help lower total project costs. As part of the process to eventually apply for an SRF loan, applicants must prepare a Recycled Water Facility Plan and accompanying environmental documents for the project. In March 2007, the City applied for and received a planning grant for the preparation of a Facility Plan and accompanying environmental document from the SWRCB through the Regional Water Recycling Facilities Planning Grant Program for the Phase 3 project. The Facility Plan was completed in December 2008, and, in January 2009, the SWRCB approved the Final Facilities Plan for the Palo Alto Phase 3 project. On April 27, 2009, the Council received the completed Facilities Plan for the project (CMR: 203:09). According to the December 2008 Facility Plan, the total estimated cost for the project is $33.5 million in capital costs and $200,000 per year in operations and maintenance (O&M) costs. 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, or a unit cost of $2,700 per AF. This cost is significantly higher than the current cost of high quality potable water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) of $623 per AF and the projected costs of SFPUC water in FY 2019 of about $1,600 per AF. Staff will be presenting Council with a thorough discussion of the costs and benefits of the project in the near future and a recommendation on whether to proceed with the project. It is anticipated this analysis will incorporate the additional regulatory and economic factors that need to be considered over the life of the project in addition to SFPUC potable water comparisons. Given the cost challenges of the project, staff is actively pursuing all potential sources of funds, including those from the federal and state governments as well as from local or regional partners. If a zero interest loan for the project could be obtained from the SWRCB, then the effective annual cost, including O&M costs, would be about $1.32 million, resulting in a unit cost of recycled water of$1,460 per AF. If grant funds, or other outside funding, were received, the cost to Palo Alto would be reduced, further improving the cost-effectiveness of the project. DISCUSSION Mitigated Negative Declaration A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Project. The MND is a tiered document within the scope of the 1995 Program EIR and identifies the potential impacts associated with the Palo Alto project and provides project-specific mitigation measures. CMR: 255:09 Page 3 of 11 Proposed Project The proj ect is comprised of three main structural elements (proposed pipeline, booster pump station with generator, and pump station at the RWQCP) and the Adaptive Management Program addressing recycled water usage. The proposed project would involve the construction of approximately 5 miles of 12-to 18-inch pipes, a 1,500 square-foot booster pump station, approximately 5 miles of lateral pipelines to over 50 use sites, and a pump station at the RWQCP. The proposed pipeline consists of the backbone pipeline and offshoots, or lateral pipelines. The proposed backbone pipeline alignment would begin with a connection point to the Mountain View Project near the intersection of East Bayshore Road and Corporation Way and make its way through the City to Hillview Avenue and Arastradero Road. Pipeline construction would typically require a minimum of one lane of traffic and the adjacent shoulder, resulting in a construction corridor approximately 20 feet to 30 feet wide. The proposed pipeline laterals, and portions of the pipeline would also pass through uses designated as Major Institution/Special Facilities. This land use designation provides for institutional, academic, governmental, and community service uses and lands that are either publicly owned or operated as non-profit organizations. The proposed pipelines would be buried and would not affect any surface land uses. The proposed booster pump station would be located at 2700 EI Camino Real (Mayfield Soccer Fields), a site designated as Multi-Family Residential. The proposed booster pump station would be located within lands that allow such facilities with appropriate use permits. The RWQCP pump station site is designated as Major Institution/Special Facility in the Palo Alto 1998 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Public Involvement The City has actively included stakeholders in recycled water related project planning. This involvement included preparation of the PEIR for the Recycled Water Master Plan in 1995, stakeholder workshops for the RWQCP's Long Term Goals Study (LTGS) preparation between 2000 and 2002, stakeholder workshops for the Mountain View Recycled Water Project facility planning in 2004, public meetings as part of Initial Study/ Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) preparation for the Mountain View Project, and surveys of potential customers for the Palo Alto Recycled Water Market Assessment in 2006. Stakeholder involvement for this phase of the project has included: • Facility managers meeting on June 13, 2007. Facility managers manage a customer's utilities, such as energy use (electric and gas), water use, and wastewater. The Facility managers meeting included employees of large businesses such as Roche, Hewlett Packard and Varian, as well as public facilities such as parks (primarily for water use and irrigation). The facility managers are typically responsible for maintaining and operating irrigation systems and cooling towers on their properties. The facility managers were given an overview of the project and were given the opportunity to ask questions and make comments regarding the project. Comments received have been incorporated into this IS/MND. CMR: 255:09 Page 4 of 11 • Public scoping meeting for the proposed Project on September 18,2007. All interested members from the public were welcome to attend. The City specifically invited the LTGS stakeholders, who represent a wide range of environmental and socioeconomic interests of the communities, and the facility managers to attend and participate in the meeting. Announcements for the meeting were published in the Palo Alto Daily News and Palo Alto Weekly. A comment form was made available at the public scoping meeting for the public to send comments to the City and to be added to the mailing list for the Project. The project mailing list is used to send updates and notices about the Project. Comments received at the scoping meeting have been incorporated into this ISIMND. • Public participation meeting on April 6, 2009. A public meeting was held to discuss and receive comments on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. The notice for the meeting was published in the Palo Alto Daily News on March 13th, 2009 and was also noticed on the City'S webpage. No comments were received at the meeting. • Public comments on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City received seven comment letters from the following stakeholders on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration: o Canopy o Santa Clara Valley Water District o State of California (Department of Transportation, Department of Toxic Substances Control, and State Water Resources Control Board) o Stanford University Real Estate Office o Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority The commenters provided input on numerous issues related to Biological Resources, Water Quality, Hydrology, Hazardous Materials, Traffic and Cultural Resources. The City has responded to comments with adjustments to the language in the Final MND when the comments warranted such a change. The Draft MND, the Response to Comments document and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program collectively comprise the Final MND (Attachment F). Potential tree and vegetation issues associated with using recycled water for irrigation purposes were the subject of concern for several commenters. The concerns were focused on the water quality of the recycled water, particularly the "salinity", or Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) content of the recycled water. These concerns were also addressed and are discussed in the following section. Irrigation Management The 1995 PEIR identified and discussed issues related to a regional recycled water program. The PEIR evaluated the potential impacts associated with recycled water use on soils, vegetation and plants. Note that mitigation measures in the PEIR reduce potential salinity impacts to a level of insignificance. CMR: 255:09 Page 5 of 11 Mitigation Measure (MM) 3.2-2: Reclaimed water users shall apply reclaimed water in quantities sufficient to leach accumulated salts through the root zone, shall monitor the effect of the reclaimed water on landscape vegetation over time, and shall take additional mitigation measures as necessary. The PEIR discusses implementation strategies that would fulfill the requirements of MM 3.2-2 and provides guidance on best irrigation water management practices that should be used and include the following activities: • Provide proper training and information regarding recycled water use (provided by the R WQCP to all recycled water use site managers); • Apply appropriate quantities of irrigation water to ensure leaching and maintain adequate surface drainage by recycled water use site managers; • Monitor the health and appearance of vegetation being irrigated with recycled water to identify any adverse effects (e.g., reduction in growth or plant death) by recycled water use; and • Implement other measures as needed, including, for example, one or more of the following: o Irrigate affected areas during nighttime hours; o Add soil amendments to the soil or the reclaimed water; o Replace salt-intolerant plants with salt-tolerant species; o Blend the reclaimed water with potable water or non-potable groundwater. In the 2009 MND, staff revisited the section on salinity in the original 1995 PEIR to reflect the current information related to this issue. Staff investigations did not reveal evidence that the use of recycled water during the fourteen years since the publication of the PEIR resulted in significant impacts to soils or vegetation for the numerous projects that have been delivering recycled water during that time frame. However, staff recognized in the MND that there are increased onsite management options (best management practices, or BMPs) to manage poor performance of certain trees irrigated with recycled water (primarily Redwood trees). The PEIR and MND found that the current salinity levels present in the recycled water are within a reasonable range in terms of suitability for irrigating trees, including Redwood trees, but that poor soils or poor drainage could lead to an accumulation of salts. (The PEIR identified soils within the project area as "good/fair" for recycled water irrigation). The project description in the MND includes an Adaptive Management Program (Program) that will be implemented as part of the project and adds further detail to the implementation strategies contained in the PEIR. The Program is comprised of steps and triggers that are summarized as follows: I. A site-specific baseline landscape conditions report will be completed for each site prior to connecting to the recycled water delivery system. Site characteristics will be recorded to determine baseline conditions of each site prior to recycled water application. 2. Monitoring of each site will occur each year for signs of tree decline on protected or street trees. A list of triggering criteria will be developed to identify signs of decline. 3. An extensive landscape study will be performed if a qualified professional determines it is necessary to do so to determine if observable decline is attributable to recycled water use. CMR: 255:09 Page 6 of 11 4. Best Management Practices (BMPs) are identified that will be implemented, if necessary, to address decline. These BMPs are a series of options that include site remediation choices and also include replacement of affected trees with more salt tolerant species or species better suited to the site. The Program is designed to address a complex issue and highlights many policy level questions related to appropriate uses of potable water, the changes that may be necessary to adapt to a water constrained world, and the policy decisions related to promoting a sustainable urban forest with emphasis on native species with higher recycled water tolerance. A key issue going forward will be planting trees and vegetation which are native to, or compatible with, the microclimates and soil conditions in the project area. Redwood trees, for example, are not native to the area and are both drought intolerant and typically require intensive management to attempt to maintain them in an environment they are not suited for. Therefore, the BMPs include the option of changing out non-natives over time. As the population increases in California, it appears likely that very high quality potable water supplies such as from the Hetch Hetchy regional water system will not be available for landscape irrigation at some point in the future. Although the mitigation measures described in the PEIR and the Program included in the MND fully address salinity concerns, potential recycled water users do have two additional options: First, the salinity strategies in the PEIR and the MND Program can and should be implemented ahead of recycled water application when baseline monitoring so indicates. Since the actual irrigation with recycled water will not occur for three years (and possibly longer), this time can and should be used to take preventative action where appropriate. Commenters raised the issue of not wanting to wait for signs of decline before acting. Since time is available, the envisioned baseline sampling can be conducted early on and used to make decisions on BMPs ahead of recycled water application where users believe such action is appropriate. Individual site owners are in the best position to make decisions related to the benefits and costs of maintaining onsite Redwood trees and similarly salt-sensitive species. Second, if, based on baseline or other data, users feel that the BMPs will not be sufficient in certain situations, they can request an exemption from the requirement to apply recycled water to Redwood trees or similarly salt-sensitive species. On April 28, 2008, Council adopted an ordinance to promote the use of recycled water (CMR 203:08, Ordinance No.5002) for irrigation, toilet and urinal flushing and trap priming. Section 16.12.050 of the Ordinance establishes an exemption process, as follows: "Requests for an exemption or adjustment may be made consistent with state law and shall be based on the finding by the Director of Public Works that the use of recycled water demonstrates an adverse effect to the applicant's landscaping installed prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified herein". The exemption process is an appropriate forum for property owners to establish that the record demonstrates the use of recycled water would harm Redwood trees or similarly salt-sensitive species at specific sites. The exemption process can be utilized to deal with the Redwood tree concern and the concern for similar species and landscaping. CMR: 255:09 Page 7 of 11 Lastly, staff anticipates that the RWQCP's efforts to reduce salinity levels in the recycled water will, in time, reduce the salinity level of the recycled water to a level comparable with the levels of other local groundwater sources (Attachment H). The RWQCP is working with its partner agencies to eliminate the infiltration of saline water wherever possible. Funding Application to the State Water Resources Control Board On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. Under the Clean Water SRF program, the SWRCB will receive approximately $280 million in additional funds. The bill language requires that states use at least 50 percent of the funding for additional subsidization, including principal forgiveness, negative interest loans and grants. There are no matching or cost-share requirements. Projects must be on a State priority list and must be ready to proceed to construction within 12 months of the date of enactment (February 17,2009). Since the project is already on the SRF project priority list, has a Final Facility Plan and is in the process of obtaining City Council approval of the environmental document, the project is in a small group of projects that are ready to apply for a SRF loan with the ARRA subsidy and meet the February 17,2010 construction deadline. The next step in the loan process is the submission of the following resolutions, which are part of the requirements ofthe SWRCB SRF loan process: 1. Capital Reserve Fund Resolution (Attachment B) The SRF program requires that the City establish a capital reserve fund for future rehabilitation of the project. Through the Capital Reserve Fund Resolution, Council agrees to utilize the existing Water Capital Reserve Fund for rehabilitation of the project in the future. 2. Reimbursement Resolution (Attachment C) The SRF program requires the City to advance funds to pay for certain tasks associated with the project, such as planning and design, which are eligible allowances and would be reimbursed by the SRF loan. Through the Reimbursement Resolution, Council will designate a maximum of $37 million in advance funding for expenditures, which shall be reimbursed by proceeds from the SRF for the construction of the project. 3. Dedicated Revenue Resolution (Attachment D) Section 603 of the Federal Clean Water Act Amendments requires each financing recipient to establish one or more dedicated sources of revenue for SRF assistance. The Dedicated Revenue Resolution dedicates the recycled water rates from customers in the plant's service area for the repayment of the SRF loan for the construction of the project. 4. Authority to Apply and Execute SRF Financial Agreement Resolution (Attachment E) On March 16, 2009, Council authorized the City Manager to apply for the SRF loan in an amount not to exceed $37 million for the design and construction of the project (CMR:162:09). Following this, the SWRCB informed staff that the Resolution to submit the CMR: 255:09 Page 8 ofll SRF Application could no longer be bifurcated from the Resolution to Execute the Agreement, as was previously done for the Mountain View Project. The current Resolution repeals the first Resolution (Resolution #8913, CMR: 162:09) and will authorize the City Manager or his designee to submit the application and, following Council approval of a funding strategy and final construction contract for the project, execute the SRF financial assistance agreement and any amendments with the SWRCB. The ARRA funds administered by the SWRCB represent a great opportunity to secure funds to proceed with the project. However, the tight timelines required to receive these funds present a challenge that will necessitate expedited action by staff and the Council. NEXT STEPS Council adoption of the Final MND and approval of these resolutions does not complete the SWRCB process. There are several remaining steps in the loan process and Council will be making decisions on the remaining steps before the SRF Financing Agreement can be secured. Staff is continuing the effort to secure a low interest SRF Financing Agreement with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act attributes that could significantly reduce project costs. This effort requires an expedited project schedule but preserves Council's discretion on various matters. The SWRCB will not execute any loan contract until the remaining steps are completed, and only after Council awards and executes a contract for the construction of the project. Staff is currently evaluating the economics of the project and developing the funding strategy for implementation of the project. Staff will develop a recommendation on whether to proceed with the project. Staffs recommendation will be discussed by the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) at its June 3rd meeting. Following this, staff will return to Council with a recommendation on the project in early July. If Council adopts the MND and approves the project, staff will submit the MND to the SWRCB for their review and inclusion in the SRF Application package. Anticipated Project Schedule Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration by Council Recommendation on Approval to Proceed with Project from UAC Council action on Approval to Proceed with Project Preliminary funding commitment from SWRCB Council Approval of Construction Contract RESOURCE IMPACT June 1,2009 June 3, 2009 July 6,2009 July 2009 Fall 2009 No new additional funds are associated with the approval of the MND or are required to submit the adopted resolutions to the SWRCB. Applying for SRF funds does not obligate the City to proceed with the project. The resource impact of proceeding with the project will be evaluated at the time that Council approval to proceed with the project is requested. CMR: 255:09 Page 9 of 11 POLICY IMPLICATIONS Continuing the exploration of expanded recycled water use in Palo Alto is consistent with Council policy. The Council has supported this goal through approval of the Water Integrated Resources Plan (WIRP) Guidelines in December 2003 [CMR:547:03], specifically, WIRP Guideline #3: Actively participate in development of cost-effective regional recycled water plans. Council's Sustainability Policy supports the development of recycled water, specifically in the Policy's statement to "reduce resource use and pollution in a cost-effective manner while striving to protect and enhance the quality of the air, water, land, and other natural resources." The City'S Comprehensive Plan contains Natural Environment Goal N-4: Water resources that are prudently managed to sustain plant and animal life, support urban activities and protect public health and safety. Specifically, Program N-26 addresses the use of recycled water: Implement incentives for the use of drought-tolerant landscaping and recycled water for landscape irrigation. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City of Palo Alto prepared a PEIR in 1995 to assess the environmental impacts associated with a regional recycled water program. The PEIR contained mitigation measures designed to reduce the regional recycled water program impacts to a less than significant level (Attachment G). The City's Recycled Water Project is within the scope of the Master Plan and the environmental effects of this expansion were examined, at a programmatic level, in the PEIR. To ensure that the project would not create new impacts not fully examined in the PEIR, the City'S Planning and Community Environment Department has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project. The MND is a tiered document, within the scope of the PEIR and addresses project-specific impacts for the Palo Alto project. The NIND does not identify significant impacts associated with project activities that were not previously discussed in the PEIR. The MND does include mitigation measures in the areas of Biology and Transportation/Traffic that reduce any potential impacts to a less than significant level. Some comments were submitted on the issue of salinity impacts on redwood trees and other vegetation. This issue was adequately addressed in the PEIR, which included mitigation measures to address such impacts. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, subdivision (c)(3), the City incorporated these mitigation measures (in the form of the Adaptive Management Program described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration) into the project. Because this potential impact was already addressed and mitigated as part of the PEIR, there was no need for the Mitigated Negative Declaration to further analyze this issue or provide additional mitigation for it. CMR: 255:09 Page 10 of 11 The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requires recipients of grants and loans to formally approve project related environmental documents. A Resolution adopting the MND for the recycled water project (Attachment A) will be part of the Application to the SWRCB for the SRF loan. ATTACHMENTS A. Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act B. Resolution to establish a water capital reserve fund in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's requirement of the State Revolving Fund Program for the design and construction of the Palo Alto Recycled Water Pipeline C. Resolution designating certain Palo Alto Recycled Water Pipeline Project expenditures to be reimbursed by proceeds from the State Revolving Fund D. Resolution establishing one or more dedicated sources of revenue for repayment of funding pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act Amendments Resolution authorizing the City Manager to apply for and execute a State Revolving Fund Financial Assistance Agreement in an amount not to exceed $37 million from the State Water Resources Control Board for the design and construction of the Palo Alto Recycled Water Pipeline Project F. Final MND with Response to Comments and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan G. Ordinance No. 5002 -CMR 203:08 Adoption of an Ordinance to Promote the Use of Recycled Water H. Chart of RWQCP Recycled Water Annual Average Total Dissolved Solids 1. CMR 217:95 -Wastewater Reclamation Program-Findings and Recommendations J. Table 1-1 Impact and Mitigation Summary from 1995 Program EIR PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR: 255:09 NICOLAS PROCOS ~senior Resource Planner ANE O. RA TCHYE ... Utilities Assistant Director, Resource Management VALE~ Director of Utilities ~~\N~4~ CURTIS WILLIAMS Director of Planning and Community Environment Page 11 ofl1 NOT YET APPROVED Resolution No. ---Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ATT ACHMENT A WHEREAS, Palo Alto completed a Water Reclamation Master Plan for the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) in 1992. The Master Plan evaluated the development of a regional water reuse system that could ultimately provide service to the entire RWQCP service area. Benefits of the program include reduced effluent discharge from the RWQCP into San Francisco Bay, reduced reliance on potable water deliveries from the Hetch Hetchy system, and a drought proof supply of water; and WHEREAS, in 1995, the Council adopted the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the Master Plan pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000 et seq.; and WHEREAS, the City circulated the PEIR for public comment from August 12, 1994 through September 26, 1994. A public hearing was held on December 14, 1994 before the Planning Commission. The City approved the PEIR on April 24, 1995 and filed a Notice of Determination on May 3, 1995 (State Clearinghouse # 1995100277); and WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project (Project) is within the scope of the Master Plan and the environmental effects of this expansion were examined, at a programmatic level, in the PEIR. The Project would involve the construction of approximately 5 miles of 12 to 18 inch pipe to deliver approximately 900 acre-feet per year of recycled water for landscape irrigation within the City of Palo Alto and to the Stanford Research Park; and WHEREAS, to ensure that the Project would not create new effects that were not fully examined in the PErR, the City as the lead agency for the Project has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000 et seq. The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was released for a 30-day public comment period on March 19, 2009. A public meeting to hear public input on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was held on April 6, 2009; and WHEREAS, while the PEIR was prepared to address the impacts associated with a regional recycled water system, the Mitigated Negative Declaration is a tiered document from the PEIR that addresses project specific impacts of the Palo Alto Recycled Water project; and 1 090528 syn 6050762 NOT YET APPROVED WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the project description, environmental checklist fonn, mitigation summary and monitoring and reporting plan, and appendices is attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution and by this reference incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the infonnation contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including comments received and the responses to those comments; and WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the City and the city environmental consultants and reflects their independent judgment and analysis. There is no substantial evidence on the basis of the record as a whole that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment; and NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. The Mitigation Summary and Monitoring and Reporting Plan included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration attached as Exhibit A is hereby approved and adopted. SECTION 2. Findings. The City Council finds that the Project described in the MND is within the scope of the program approved in the PEIR, and that the PEIR adequately describes the activity for the purposes of CEQA. Some comments were submitted on the issue of the impacts of salinity in the recycled water on redwood trees and other vegetation. The Council finds that issue was adequately addressed in the PEIR, which included mitigation measures to address such impacts. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15168, subdivision (c)(3), the City incorporated these mitigation measures (in the fonn of the Adaptive Management Program described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration) into the Project. Because this potential impact was already addressed and mitigated as part of the PEIR, the Council further finds that there was no need for the Mitigated Negative Declaration to further analyze this issue or provide additional mitigation for it. SECTION 3. Adoption and Project ApprovaL The City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA and adopts and approves it. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15168, subdivisions (c)(4) and (d)(3), the Mitigated Negative Declaration documents how the Project will not have any site-specific or other significant, unmitigated environmental impacts which were not already adequately described and addressed in the PEIR. The City Council hereby approves the Project, including the recommended project alignment, as described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City Council has reviewed and considered the infonnation contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, staff reports, oral and written testimony given at public meetings on the proposed Project and all other matters deemed material and relevant before considering the Project for approval. 2 090528 syn 6050762 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 4. No Recirculation Required. The City Council finds that no new significant information has been received that requires recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Deputy City Attorney City Manager Director of Utilities 3 090528 syn 6050762 NOT YET APPROVED Resolution No. --- Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing a Water Capital Reserve Fund in Accordance With the State Water Resources Control Board's Requirements for the State Revolving Fund Program ATTACHMENT 8 WHEREAS, on June 1, 2009 the CITY OF PALO ALTO (the "Agency") will consider adoption of a resolution authorizing the City Manager to apply for a State Revolving Fund (SRF) Financial Assistance Agreement to fund all or a portion of the cost of Palo Alto Recycled Water Pipeline Project (Project); and WHEREAS, the State Water Resources Control Board requires, as a condition of approval of the financial assistance, the establishment of a Capital Reserve Fund for future expansion, major repair or replacement costs for the Project: NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. A dedicated Water Capital Reserve Fund exists, and SECTION 2. Said Water Capital Reserve Fund shall be administered, by the Agency, as required by the "Policy For Implementing The State Revolving Fund For Construction of Wastewater Treatment Facilities" adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board on February 16, 1995 and last amended on September 22,2005. SECTION 3. In 1995, the Council adopted a Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the Water Reclamation Master Plan for the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000 et seq. A Notice of Determination was filed on May 3, 1995. The City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project (Project) is within the scope of the Master Plan and the II II II 1 090528 syn 6050764 NOT YET APPROVED environmental effects of this Project were examined, at a programmatic level, in the PEIR. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been completed pursuant to CEQA to address project- specific impacts of the Project and will be considered for adoption by the City Council on June 1, 2009. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Deputy City Attorney 090528 syn 6050764 Mayor APPROVED: City Manager Director of Utilities Director of Administrative Services 2 NOT YET APPROVED Resolution No. --- Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Designating Certain Palo Alto Recycled Water Pipeline Project Expenditures to be Reimbursed By Proceeds from State Revolving Fund ATTACHMENT C WHEREAS, the CITY OF PALO ALTO (the "Agency") desires to finance the costs of constructing and/or reconstructing certain public facilities and improvements relating to its water and wastewater system including a recycled water pipeline, certain treatment facilities, and other infrastructure (the "Project"); WHEREAS, the Project would involve the construction of approximately 5 miles of 12 to 18 inch pipe to deliver approximately 900 acre-feet per year of recycled water for landscape irrigation within the City of Palo Alto and to the Stanford Research Park. The Project is an expansion of the existing Regional Water Quality Control Plant Water Reuse Program; and WHEREAS, the Agency intends to finance the construction and/or reconstruction of the Project or portions of the Project with moneys ("Project Funds") provided by the State of California, acting by and through the State Water Resources Control Board (the "Water Board"); WHEREAS, the Water Board may fund the Project Funds with proceeds from the sale of obligations the interest upon which is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes (the "Obligations"); WHEREAS, prior to either the issuance of the Obligations or the approval by the Water Board of the Project Funds the Agency desires to incur certain capital expenditures (the "Expenditures") with respect to the Project from available moneys of the Agency; WHEREAS, the Agency has determined that those moneys to be advanced on and after the date hereof to pay the Expenditures are available only for a temporary period and it is necessary to reimburse the Agency for the Expenditures from the proceeds of the Obligations; NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The Agency hereby states its intention and reasonably expects to reimburse Expenditures paid prior to the issuance of the Obligations or the approval by the Water Board of the Project Funds. SECTION 2. The reasonably expected maximum principal amount of the Project Funds is $37,000,000. 1 090528 syn 6050763 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 3. This resolution is being adopted no later than 60 days after the date on which the Agency will expend moneys for the portion of the Project costs to be reimbursed with Project Funds. SECTION 4. Each Expenditure by the Agency will be of a type properly chargeable to a capital account under general federal income tax principles. SECTION 5. To the best of our knowledge, this Agency is not aware of the previous adoption of official intents by the Agency that have been made as a matter of course for the purpose of reimbursing expenditures and for which tax-exempt obligations have not been issued. SECTION 6. This resolution is adopted as official intent of the Agency in order to comply with Treasury Regulation §1.150-2 and any other regulations of the Internal Revenue Service relating to the qualification for reimbursement of Project costs. SECTION 7. In 1995, the Council adopted a Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the Water Reclamation Master Plan for the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. (CEQ A) and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000 et seq. A Notice of Determination was filed on May 3, 1995. The City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project (Project) is within the scope of the Master Plan and the environmental effects of this Project were examined, at a programmatic level, in the PEIR. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been completed pursuant to CEQA to address project-specific impacts of the Project and will be considered for adoption by the City Council on June 1,2009. II II II II II II II II II II II 2 070130 syn 6050763 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 8. All the recitals in this resolution are true and correct and this Agency so finds, determines and represents. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Deputy City Attorney 070130 syn 6050763 Mayor APPROVED: City Manager Director of Utilities Director of Administrative Services 3 NOT YET APPROVED Resolution No. --- Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing One or More Dedicated Sources of Revenue for Repayment of Funding Pursuant to The Federal Clean Water Act Amendments ATTACHMENT D WHEREAS, the CITY OF PALO ALTO (the "Agency") desires to finance the costs of constructing and/or reconstructing certain public facilities and improvements relating to its water and wastewater system, including a recycled water pipeline, certain treatment facilities and other infrastructure (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Project would involve the construction of approximately 5 miles of 12 to 18 inch pipe to deliver approximately 900 acre-feet per year of recycled water for landscape irrigation within the City of Palo Alto and to the Stanford Research Park. The Project is an expansion of the existing Regional Water Quality Control Plant Water Reuse Program; and WHEREAS, the Agency intends to finance the construction and/or reconstruction of the Project or portions of the Project with moneys ("Project Funds") provided by the State of California, acting by and through the State Water Resources Control Board (the "Water Boards"); and WHEREAS, Section 603(d)(l)(C) of the Federal Clean Water Act Amendments require each financing recipient to establish one or more dedicated sources of revenue for State Revolving fund (SRF) financial assistance; and WHEREAS, Revenue will be considered dedicated when the municipality passes a resolution committing a source of funds for repayment; and NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The City of Palo Alto hereby dedicates the following source of revenue (City of Palo Alto Water Utilities Operating Fund, specifically recycled water rates to be collected from recycled water customers in the Regional Water Quality Control Plant's service area) to repayment of any and all State Revolving Fund financing for the Project. This dedicated source of revenue shall remain in effect until such financing is fully discharged unless modification or change of such dedication is approved in writing by the State Water Resources Control Board. SECTION 2. In 1995, the Council adopted a Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the Water Reclamation Master Plan for the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (R WQCP) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources 090528 syn 6050761 NOT YET APPROVED Code section 21000 et seq. (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000 et seq. A Notice of Determination was filed on May 3, 1995. The City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project (Project) is within the scope of the Master Plan and the environmental effects of this Project were examined, at a programmatic level, in the PEIR. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been completed pursuant to CEQA to address project-specific impacts of the Project and will be considered for adoption by the City Council on June 1,2009. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Deputy City Attorney 090528 syn 6050761 Mayor APPROVED: City Manager Director of Utilities Director of Administrative Services 2 NOT YET APPROVED Resolution No. --- Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing Resolution No. 8913 and Authorizing the City Manager to Sign and File a Financial Assistance Application and Execute a State Revolving Fund Financial Assistance Agreement in An Amount Not to Exceed Thirty-Seven Million Dollars From the State Water Resources Control Board for the Design and Construction of the Palo Alto Recycled Water Project ATTACHMENT E WHEREAS, the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (PARWQCP) operates a recycled water facility to treat wastewater prior to discharge; and WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto is investigating expansion of the existing recycled water distribution system to serve customers within the City of Palo Alto; and WHEREAS, the State Water Resources Control Board provides low-interest financial assistance funding through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program for construction of publicly-owned wastewater treatment facilities, local sewers, sewer interceptors, water reclamation facilities, as well as expanded use projects such as implementation of nonpoint source (NPS) projects or programs, development and implementation of estuary Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans, and storm water treatment; and WHEREAS, the State Water Resources Control Board presently has financial assistance funding available in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) program to provide low-interest funding for construction to assist in funding the costs of the Palo Alto Recycled Water Pipeline project (the Project). WHEREAS, the Project is currently on the SRF Priority list, has a Final Facility Plan and staff will be seeking Council approval of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration in June 2009; and WHEREAS, the Project is in a position to apply for SRF financial assistance with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act attributes that could substantially reduce overall project costs; and WHEREAS, the Project may qualify for principal forgiveness so that the cost to the City to design and construct the project would be zero, and the SRF financial assistance would function as a grant; WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Palo Alto authorized staff's submission of an application for the SRF financial assistance on March 16, 2009, via Resolution No. 8319. 1 090528 syn 6050765 NOT YET APPROVED WHEREAS, City of Palo Alto staff has reviewed the application for State Revolving Fund financial assistance funding and other supporting information for the Project and has determined that the Project complies with the Water Resource Fund Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the State Water Resource Control Board has requested a modification to Resolution No. 8913 to incorporate the City Manager's ability to negotiate and execute a financing agreement and to certify disbursements on the City's behalf; and NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Resolution No. 8913 is hereby repealed. SECTION 2. The Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager or his designee to sign and file, for and on behalf of the City of Palo Alto, a financial assistance application with the State Water Resources Control Board in an amount not to exceed thirty- seven million dollars ($37,000,000.00) for the design and construction of the Project. SECTION 3. The City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to negotiate and, following Council approval of a funding strategy and final construction contract for the Project, execute a financial assistance agreement and any amendments thereto, for and on behalf of the City of Palo Alto, from the State Water Resources Control Board. SECTION 4. The City of Palo Alto hereby agrees and authorizes the City Manager or his designee to certify that the City has and will comply with all applicable state and federal statutory and regulatory requirements related to any federal and state financial assistance received. SECTION 5. The City of Palo Alto hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute a financing agreement with the State Water Board and any amendments or change orders thereto, and to certify disbursements on behalf of the City of Palo Alto. SECTION 4. In 1995, the Council adopted a Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the Water Reclamation Master Plan for the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000 et seq. A Notice of Determination was filed on May 3, 1995. The City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project (Project) is within the scope of the Master Plan and the 2 090528 syn 6050765 NOT YET APPROVED environmental effects of this Project were examined, at a programmatic level, in the PEIR. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been completed pursuant to CEQA to address project- specific impacts of the Project and will be considered for adoption by the City Council on June 1, 2009. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Deputy City Attorney 090528 syn 6050765 3 Mayor APPROVED: City Manager Director of Utilities Director of Administrative Services City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Response to Comments Document RMC IMlter am:Ehvironmml May 2009 ATT ACHMENT F 1. I ntrod uction 1.1 Purpose of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration This report has been prepared to accompany the Public Draft ISIMND for the Palo Alto Recycled Water Project. The Public Draft IS/MND identified the 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 ISIMND and makes revisions to the Public Draft ISIMND, as necessary, in response to these comments. Together with the Public Draft ISIMND, this document constitutes the Final ISIMND for the proposed project. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the proposed project and is included in this document as AppendixA. The Final ISIMND consists of the following: (a) The Public Draft ISIMND; and (b) Response to Comments document containing the following: • Comments received on the Public Draft ISIMND. • A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Public Draft ISIMND. • The response of the lead agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. • Any other information added by the lead agency. 1.2 Environmental Review Process The Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) and its 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 ] 995 (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 Master Plan Program EIR addressed the environmental effects of the overall Water Reuse Program. The Master Plan Program EIR is a tiering document for all subsequent phases of the project, and provided analysis of the issues common to all of the phases. Tiering is the coverage of general matters in broader EIRs with subsequent narrower environmental document incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues specific to follow-up environmental document. The Master Plan Program EIR was certified and the project was approved on April 24, ] 995. On March 19, 2009, the City of Palo Alto (lead agency) released the Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Public Draft ISIMND for public review (State Clearinghouse No. 2009302065). The Public Draft ISIMND evaluates project-specific impacts of the Palo Alto Recycled Water Project, Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 1 Response to Comments Document which is the next phase of the Recycled Water Master Plan. The public review and comment period on the Public Draft ISIMND began on March 19,2009 and closed on April 17,2009. The City of Palo Alto City Council is scheduled to consider adopting the Final ISIMND (a finding that the ISIMND complies with the requirements of CEQA) at a regularly scheduled Council meeting on June 1,2009. Following the Final IS/MND adoption, the City Council may proceed with consideration of project approval actions. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15072, the City provided a Notice of Intent notifying the public of the publication of the Public Draft ISIMND. Additional notification was provided through the publication of a notice in the Palo Alto Weekly on March 13, 2009. During the 30-day public comment period, a public comment meeting was held on April 6, 2009 to discuss the proposed project and receive comments on the Public Draft ISIMND. The date, time, and place of the meeting were initially identified in the publication in the Palo Alto Weekly on March 13, 2009. A public meeting sign-in sheet was passed around at the meeting and is included in this document as Appendix B. One person attended the meeting. No comments were made at the meeting. 1.3 Report Organization Chapter 2 of this Response to Comments on the Public Draft ISIMND 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 1 below) and the order of the comments. For example, the first comment in the letter from the California Department of Transportation is 1-1. Revisions to the Public Draft ISIMND are made as a staff-initiated change or in response to commenters. Text revisions are formatted in revision fashion: strikeouts indicate removed text and underlines indicate new text. Table 1-2 lists all persons and organizations that submitted comments on the Public Draft ISIMND 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. Table 1: Comment Letters Number I Comment Author, Title and Affiliation Comment Letter Lisa Carboni, District Branch Chief, Local Government Intergovernmental Review,California Department of Transportation .... 2 Patrick Lee, Project Manager, Brownfield and Environmental Restoration ..E~()gral11.L.C::.ClHf2mi~. D~PI'.!'!rn~'?l}tgLT9~ig.§.ubs1an~l).g()E1trol 3 i Catherine Martineau, Executive Director, CANOPY ~;;'H=m~",~"~'~~~ __ W"~,whW,,,,"H»0»,"m""'''' """', "'''"",,,,',<,,,,,,, . " ___ .'.'.'''''''' _ .. . '""' . _ m ¥ _ • 4 I Usha Chatwani, Associate Civil Engineer, Community Projects Review . Unit, Santa Clara Valley Water District 5 James Hockenberry, Environmental Scientist, State Water Resources Control Board Division of Financial Assistance .. . 6 . Roy Molseed, Senior Environmental Planner, Santa Clara Valley T ransportati()n Authority 7 William 1. Phillips, Senior Associate Vice President, and Jim Inglis, Director of Desi n & Construction, Stanford Universit Real Estate Office. Date April 8, 2009 April 14, 2009 ApriIJ~L~QQ9 April 15, 2009 April 16, 2009 April 16, 2009 April 17, 2009 Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Response to Comments Document 2. Individual Comments and Responses Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 3 Response to Comments Document U.£JC ftA.ll\,.LCIi'~.l V.I' 1. J:V\.1"l,::,rVK18 1.1.Vl''II 111 GRAND AVENUE P. O. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510) 622-5491 FAX (510) 286-5559 TTY 711 April 8, 2009 ! J."; 0;;;",,;(,,7 .• ' .. ,., , APR 1 0 2009 Ms. Clare Campbell City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton A venue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Ms. Campbell: U(;t)(,., "c , , . GOrnn-Rlr\" .: 1[i1~; and ,ironment 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 kad:agency, the City of Palo Alto, is responsible for.al;Lprojectmitigation, including any needed improvements to state highways. The project's fair sJ;are contribution, financing, .. scheduling, implementation responsibilitIes 'and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed forall 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 pernlit process·as required; see the end of this letter for more infonnation regarding the encroachment pennit 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 ROWand there is an inadvertent archaeological or burial discovery, all construction within 50 feet of the find shall cease in compliance with CEQA, PRC 50:245, and D.epartment Standllfd Environmental Reference (SER} Chapter 2 (at http://ser.qot.ca.gov,). The Departmypt's CulturalR~source St.udies, Office, District 4; shall be inmi~c.iiately contact~d at (51O)286 .. 56~8.A staff arcQlJ,eolO,gist, will evaluate the finds within one business day,after contact. . . "Caltrans improves mobility across Califomia" ---. --------r---- 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'ofPermits 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/pennits/ Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please call Jose L. Olveda of my staff at (510) 286-5535. I!:'&wu~ hv LISA CARBONI District Branch Chief Local Development -Intergovernmental Review c. Scott Morgan (State Clearinghouse) "Caltrans improves mobility across California" Comment Letter 1 -California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Response to Comment 1-1 The City acknowledges its responsibility for all project mitigation. Potential impacts and mitigation measures related to traffic that may apply to the Caltrans right-of-way are discussed in the Transportation and Traffic Section on pages 86 to 92 of the Public Draft ISIMND. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared and is a condition of approval for a project. Pursuant to CEQA, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring are discussed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that has been prepared for the proposed project. As stated on page 25 of the Public Draft ISIMND, a Caltrans encroachment permit will be obtained prior to project construction. The City will comply with all requirements of the encroachment permit process and will work with Caltrans prior to the submittal of the permit to address any Caltrans concerns. As discussed on page 24 of the Public Draft ISIMND, one of the City's environmental commitments is to prepare a Traffic Control Plan as part of the project. The development of this Plan would provide the opportunity for the City to work with Caltrans directly regarding the traffic control measures that would be necessary within Cal trans right-of- way, thus ensuring that the Department's concerns would be addressed. All relevant permits will be obtained prior to project construction. Response to Comment 1-2 Environmental commitments integrated into the Project to protect Cultural Resources are discussed on page 20 of the Public Draft ISIMND. The Public Draft ISIMND states that "in accordance with CEQA Section 15064.5, if cultural resources are encountered during Project- related excavations, construction shall be halted or diverted to allow an archaeologist an opportunity to assess the resource." This is measure is consistent with the Caltrans measure. Refer to Response to Comment 5-3 for the revised first paragraph under Protection of Cultural Resources (on page 20 of the Public Draft ISIMND), which clarifies potential action taken should cultural resources be encountered during construction ofthe proposed project. Response to Comment 1-3 Refer to Response to Comment 1-1 above. Potential permits required for the proposed project are listed on page 25 of the Public Draft IS/MND. The City would obtain a Transportation Permit if the Project would require movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles on State roadways. In response to this comment, the Caltrans Transportation Permit has been added to the list of potential permits required for the proposed project on page 25. The fifth bullet on page 25 of the Public Draft ISIMND is revised as follows: • Caltrans Encroachment Permit and Transportation Permit; Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 4 Response to Comments Document " I ..:~ --.. I e Department of Toxic Substances Control Linda S, Adams Secretary for Environmental Protection April 14,2009 Ms. Clare Campbell Maziar Movas. saghi, Acting Director " le,.l ~ . 700 Heinz Avenue Race\ V Wschwarzenegger Berkeley, California 94710-2721"' . Governor A~R 15'1.009 i o~ Planning Departme~tv Env,ronment &commuml Palo Alto Department Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Dear Ms. Campbell: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study IMitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project (SCH # 2009032065). As you may be aware, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) oversees the cleanup of sites where hazardous substances have been released pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.8. As a potential Responsible Agency, DTSC is submitting comments to ensure that the environmental documentation prepared for this project to address the California· Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) adequately addresses any remediation which may· be required to address any hazardous substances release. The proposed project consists of installation of a recycled water pipeline, a booster station and a pump station at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) for the City of Palo and represents the next increment of the RWQCP's ongoing expansion of its regional·recycled water system. The project would involve the c6nstruction of approximately five miles of 12 to 18-inch recycled water pipelines. Soil excavation is expected. DTSC recommends that the historical uses of the area where construction activities will occur be discussed in the Initial Study IMitigated Negative Declaration. If the historical use of the area may have caused releases of hazardous substances, DTSC strongly. recommends that soil sampling be conducted. If sampling indicates that release of hazardous substances has occurred; impacts associated with construction activities should be addressed in the Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration. If the construction activities include the need for excavation of contaminated soil, the Initial Study IMitigated Negative Declaration should include: (1) an assessment of air impacts 'and health impacts associated with the excavation activities; (2} identification of any applicable local standards which may be exceeded by the excavation activities, * Printed on Recycled Paper I Ms. Clare Campbell April 14, 2009 Page Two including dust levels and noise; (3) transportation impacts from the removal or remedial activities; and (4) risk of upset should there be an accident at the Site. . Please contact me at (510) 540-3847 if you have any questions. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely. Patrick Lee Project Manager Brownfield and Environmental Restoration Program Berkeley Office cc: Governor's Office of Planning, and Research State Clearinghouse . P. O. Box 3044 Sacramento. California 95812-3044 Guenther Moskat CSQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control P.O. Box 806 . Sacramento, California 95812~0806 Comment Letter 2 -California Department of Toxic Substances Control Response to Comment 2-1 As discussed on page 67 of the Public Draft ISIMND, a search was conducted of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, including Federal Superfund Sites National Priorities List (NPL), State Response Sites, Voluntary Cleanup Sites, and School Cleanup Sites. Results of this search are provided in Appendix E of the Public Draft ISIMND and include the name, type, status, and location of all sites located in the vicinity of the proposed alignment and pump stations. The pipeline would be constructed within roadways and would not cross any sites on the DTSC list of hazardous materials. As discussed on page 67 of the Public Draft ISIMND, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment beyond the existing impacts of the hazardous materials sites and thus impacts are less than significant. The Public Draft ISIMND has adequately addressed this issue and has disclosed the results of the search in Appendix E. In addition, the City has included environmental commitments for the proper disposal of contaminated soil and/or groundwater and preparation and implementation of the Health and Safety and Hazardous Materials Management and Spill Prevention and Control Plans as part of the proposed project. These measures are discussed on pages 20 and 21 of the Public Draft ISIMND. In addition, Best Management Practices for construction/post-construction activities to control and minimize the potential contribution of pollutants to storm water runoff from these areas have been incorporated into the proposed project and are discussed on pages 21 and 22 of the Public Draft ISIMND. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 5 Response to Comments Document Staff Catherine Martineau Executive Director Sharon Kelly Program Director Anwyn Hurxthal Development Mgr. Board of Directors Susan Rosenberg Chair Marty Deggeller Vice-Chair James Cook Treasurer Roy C. Leggitt, III Secretary Matthew Bahs Faye Brown Urban K. Cummings Susan Ellis Dave Muffly Brooks Nelson Forest Preston, III Advisory Committee Tony Ca rrasco Anne Draeger Herb Fong Patricia Foster Carroll Harrington Joe Hirsch Leannah Hunt Carol Jansen Jeanne Kennedy John McClenahan Mary MCCullough Scott McGilvray Betty Meltzer Nancy Peterson Carolyn Reller Jane Stocklin Lanie Wheeler Lauren Bonar Swezey CANOPY is a Palo Alto based nonprofit advocate for the urban forest and works to educate, inspire and engage the community as stewa rds of you ng and mature trees. April 14, 2000 City of Palo Alto Ms. Clare Campbell Project Planner Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Ms. Campbell, Thank you for giving us an opportunity to comment on the City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration dated March 18,2009. The following are Canopy's comments, most of which were communicated to the Palo Alto Utilities Advisory Commission at their April 1, 2009 meeting. We feel that the Mitigated Negative Declaration does not address the effect that the proposed distribution of recycled water might have on the Palo Alto urban forest. 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. These aesthetic, environmental, and social benefits translate into measurable economic payback for the investment made in the forest by the community. While Canopy is very aware of the water restrictions our communities are likely to face in the context of population growth, climate change, and the imperative to protect California's natural environment from which the bulk of our water comes from, and while Canopy supports water conservation efforts, this particular project raises some concerns and questions. The main problem associated with using recycled water for landscape irrigation is that this water typically contains high level of salts. Plants, unlike humans, cannot eliminate these salts and the accumulation of salts in the root area can be very detrimental to trees. 3921 East Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 t: 650964 611 0 f: 650 964 6173 canopy.org Ms. C. Campbell 4/14/09 Page 2 of3 Recycled water produced by the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant has been used for several years in some Palo Alto parks and was used during the last drought for street tree irrigation. It resulted in the decline and loss of many trees. There are other documented examples of the negative impact of recycled water on trees in the Bay Area. Canopy actually advocates planting drought tolerant and climate appropriate species that will eventually lead to a more sustainable forest. We currently are working with City staff on an urban forest master plan and tree list that will address this priority. However, in the meantime, we have a valuable mature forest composed in part of species that need irrigation in the summer to survive and continue to dispense their benefits. Because experts such as Nelda Matheny and Jim Clark of HortScience(l) warn that the outcome of recycled water irrigation projects depends on the complex interaction of several factors including the quality of the recycled water, the nature of soils, the species being irrigated, the method of irrigation, the availability of dual irrigation systems and the region's rainfall patterns, Canopy sees this proposed project as inherently risky and recommends that the risk be assessed before going forward. In particular, questions such as the following need to be answered: How many trees are present in the target area? How many of these are protected by the City of Palo Alto tree ordinance? How many are street or other public trees? How many are Coast redwoods? (most susceptible to salt damage) How many are drought tolerant? What is the nature of soils in the target area? What is the estimated value of the investment made in these trees? What is the replacement value of these trees? What is the value of the ecosystem services provided by these trees annually? Once an assessment of the value of these trees and the annual value of their benefits is made then the City will be in a better position to make a decision on whether the community is willing to take the risk of losing part of this asset and yearly payback it provides. Canopy recognizes the efforts made in the Mitigated Negative Declaration to include an Adaptive Management Program to address potential problems caused by the use of recycled water. Canopy 3921 East Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 t: 650 964 6110 f: 650 964 6173 canopy.org Ms. C Campbell 4/14/09 Page 3 of3 However, we have two problems with this plan: We believe that the assessment should come before the construction of the project, not after it is built Canopy is also concerned with the cost of implementing the mitigation program for 14 years as this aspect of the project is not addressed in the Estimated Cost section of the City of Palo Alto Recycled Facility Plan document dated December 2008. In addition it is unclear who will bear the responsibility for, and financial burden of the implementation of the mitigation program. Thank you for your attention to these comments. Best regards, JM~t~ / . Catherine Martineau Executive Director (1) Matheny, N., and J. R. Clark. 1998. Managing landscape using recycled water. In: The Landscape Below Ground II. D. Neely and G. Watson, ed. International Society of Arboriculture. Champaign 11. Canopy 3921 East Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 t: 650 964 611 0 f: 650 964 6173 canopy.org Comment Letter 3 -Canopy Response to Comment 3-1 As described on page 17 of the Public Draft MND, "The City of Palo Alto recognizes that the community tree canopy on private and public property is highly valued for its aesthetic qualities and environmental benefits. To maximize the use of recycled water for irrigation in combination with responsibly maintaining the urban forest canopy, the City has developed the Adaptive Management Program (Program) ... The Program will be implemented to avoid the potential effects of the recycled water use on protected and street trees ... " The City also would be required to comply with its Tree Ordinance (Chapter 8.10, Tree Preservation and Management Regulations) and the Tree Technical Manual, to achieve the City's tree preservation goals and natural resource conservation goals. As such, the Project would not only address specific issues associated with the use of recycled water on regulated trees (Le., protected, street, and designated treesY within the City, but would also indirectly address the effects of recycled water use on the City's urban forest. Section A. Aesthetics of the Public Draft ISIMND, discusses the potential for visual effects on City-designated scenic routes and view corridors from the application of recycled water as irrigation. As described on page 39, "[b]ecause the project integrates the Adaptive Management Program in addressing potential effects of recycled water use on trees, adverse effects on protected and street trees would be avoided." Response to Comment 3-2 The total dissolved solids (TDS) levels were 25 percent higher in the early 1990's (around 1200 PPM) and have declined since that time. As discussed on page 76 of the Public Draft ISIMND, "[i]t is estimated that [rehabilitation of the sewer collection system] and III [Inflow and Infiltration program] would reduce the TDS of the reclaimed water from 900 mg/l [milligram per liter] (1.35 dS/m [decisiemenlmeterD to approximately 700 mg/l (1.09 dS/m)." Although there is some evidence of potential impacts on trees from the use of recycled water, these impacts have not been conclusively shown; and such potential tree impacts were fully addressed in the Master Plan Program ErR. As described on pages 73 of the Public Draft ISIMND, "[t]he City's review did not determine conclusively that recycled water use was responsible for the decline of trees, although recycled water represents a change in irrigation strategy that could pose challenges for specific tree species, particularly Redwoods and possibly other trees requiring favorable acidic soil conditions for health. However, there have been reports of decline in redwoods throughout California in landscapes irrigated with both potable and recycled water (Downer 2004 as cited in HortScience, Inc 2005)." The Public Draft ISIMND recognizes there are a variety of factors that could contribute to the decline/loss of redwood and other salt-intolerant trees, including water quality, salt-sensitivity of plants, soil characteristics, and irrigation management (pages 73 and 74 of the Public Draft MND). Also noted in the Public Draft ISIMND are other agents that may also lead to decline of redwood trees, including climatic factors, fungal pathogens, and other diseases. Response to Comment 3-3 The City acknowledges Canopy's concerns about the use of recycled water as an irrigation source and its view that recycled water application is a risk. To reduce the perceived risk of using recycled water, the City has developed a proactive, precautionary strategy intended to address potential issues, if any, that may arise from the use of recycled water as irrigation on regulated 1 Protected, street, and designated trees are defined on pages 22 and 23 of the Public Draft ISIMND. Palo Alto Recycled Water Page 6 Response to Comments Document trees. This strategy is the Adaptive Management Program outlined on pages 17 -19 of the Public Draft ISIMND. The Program, which considers the City's Tree Ordinance and Tree Technical Manual, has been integrated into the Project such that it would be an essential component and would engage all Participants to be attentive to the protection of an important resource. The intent of the Program is to avoid any adverse effects to these trees through the process of identifYing the baseline conditions, monitoring annually, and taking appropriate action(s) as needed if any signs of decline symptoms were to appear. The framework of the Adaptive Management Program includes a Tree and Soil Conditions Monitoring Plan and Best Management Practices. The components of the Tree and Soil Conditions Monitoring Plan include the Site-Specific Baseline Landscape Conditions Reports, triggers/criteria, and monitoring. As described above, one of the components of the Tree and Soil Condition Monitoring Plan is a site-specific Baseline Landscape Conditions Report that would be developed to determine the existing conditions of individual sites. Specifically, "[tJhe report will include a field spot check of site characteristics by a qualified professional (e.g., consulting or registered arborist or horticulturist). Site characteristics include soil type, site drainage, number of existing trees that will be irrigated, number of protected trees, and health of existing trees. Photos of the existing site conditions will be included in the report with the findings of site conditions. This report will establish the existing conditions such that any changes in the health of the irrigated trees can be observed and, as needed, studied." The report, as outlined, would answer many of the questions that are identified by the commenter. The Baseline Landscape Conditions Report would be developed by the Participants (I.e., the City and its recycled water users) prior to connection to the Recycled Water system. The questions raised by the Commenter related to investment and replacement value of the trees are more properly addressed by the City's Tree Ordinance and the Tree Technical Manual. Because the City values its natural resources, it has established relevant regulations to protect regulated trees (I.e., protected trees, street trees and designated trees). The City's Tree Technical Manual establishes the "specific technical regulations, standards and specifications necessary to implement the Tree Ordinance ... and to achieve the City's tree preservation goals and natural resource conservation goals" (page 22 of the Public Draft MND). For example, Section 3.00 of the Tree Technical Manual outlines requirements associated with the removal and replacement of regulated trees. The question related to the "value of the ecosystem services provided by these trees" is beyond the scope of this Project. This question would be more appropriately addressed by the Urban Forest Master Plan that Canopy is currently developing with the City. Other components of the Tree and Soil Condition Monitoring Plan include triggers/criteria, monitoring, and an Extensive Landscape Study. As described on page 18 of the Public Draft ISIMND, "[t]he triggers would consist of a specific list of decline symptoms that can be observed and further studied as needed to determine whether the symptoms are attributable to recycled water use or other water-quality independent causes." Monitoring activities, which "provide the opportunity to observe changes in site-specific conditions before long-term decline effects result," would occur on an annual basis. The Plan also includes an Extensive Landscape Study that could be implemented to further study the cause of observable tree declines if they occur at individual properties. Response to Comment 3-4 The City acknowledges Canopy's concerns regarding the timing and cost of the Adaptive Management Program implementation. The Public Draft ISIMND has outlined the framework of the Program, but has not yet developed it in fulL The Program and its components (Tree and Soil Condition Monitoring Plan and Best Management Practices) would be refined in consultation Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page? Response to Comments Document with a qualified professional (Le., consulting or registered arborist or horticulturalist) based on the most current information available at the time of its preparation. The formulation of the Program would be expected to occur in parallel with design of the project, prior to construction of the recycled water facilities. Site-specific, Baseline Landscape Condition Reports would occur at individual sites thereafter, but prior to connection to the recycled water system, as customers are registered. The implementation of the Program, including annual monitoring and actions associated with the BMPs has to occur during the life of the project, so to assess the response of the regulated trees to the use of recycled water. The cost of a project is not typically considered in the environmental evaluation. As such, the cost of developing and implementing the Adaptive Management Program was not identified in the Public Draft IS/MND. To respond to the commenter's questions, a discussion of responsibility and costs is provided here. It is anticipated that approximately $30,000 would be needed for the development of the Program by a registered arborist or horticulturalist; this cost will be borne by the City. The cost of the site-specific Baseline Landscape Conditions Reports (as outlined in the Program) will also be the responsibility of the City and will be included in the revised Operations and Maintenance (O&M) estimates that City Staff will submit to the Council on July 6, 2009 as part of project approval. The O&M estimate for the baseline landscape conditions reports, which is currently being determined, would be based on either the hiring of a standing consultant contracted to the City to perform the baseline studies over the 2-to 3-year time period leading up to projected recycled water deliveries or the retention of a part/full time City-employed Horticulturist. Individual site owners will be responsible for conducting and paying for the annual self certification that will be submitted to the City over the course of the 14-year monitoring period. Presumably, individual site owners have existing staff that currently maintain landscapes within the existing properties, thus minimizing the financial burden associated with hiring new staff to perform this task. The City does not anticipate issues related to recycled water use that cannot be addressed by the Adaptive Management Program, the RWQCP's efforts to reduce saltwater infiltration, and the exemption process in the existing Recycled Water Ordinance.2 If issues arise (i.e., decline symptoms are identified), corrective actions determined on a case-by-case basis will be the responsibility of individual site owners. Given that these issues are not anticipated and cannot be predicted without active monitoring that occur during recycled water use, such costs are not identified here. The City Council will consider the overall cost of the project when it takes action on adopting the Final ISIMND and approving the project. 2 On April 28, 2008, Council adopted an ordinance to promote the use of recycled water (CMR 203:08, Ordinance No.5002) for irrigation, toilet and urinal flushing and trap priming (also Chapter 16.12, Recycled Water, ofthe City of Palo Alto Municipal Code). Section 16.12.050 of the Ordinance establishes an exemption process, as follows: "Requests for an exemption or adjustment may be made consistent with state law and shall be based on the finding by the Director of Public Works that the use of recycled water demonstrates an adverse effect to the applicant's landscaping installed prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified herein." The exemption process is an appropriate forum for propelty owners to establish that the record demonstrates the use of recycled water would harm Redwood trees or similarly salt -sensitive species at specific sites. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 8 Response to Comments Document April 15, 2009 Mr. Nicolas Procos City of Palo Alto Utilities City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Pato Alto, CA 94301 File: 31644 Various Subject: Recycled Water Facility Plan and Initial StudylDraft Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Mr. Nicolas: 5750 ALMADEN EXPWY SAN JOSE, CA 95118-3686 TELEPHONE (408) 265-2600 FACSIMILE (40B) 266·0271 www.vatleywoter.org AN EQUAL OPPORTUNiTY EMPLOYeR It was brought to our attention on April 7'h, 2009, that the Palo Alto Recycled Water Facility Plan (Plan) and associated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (Neg Dec) were avaflable for review during this period that ends on April 17'h, 2009. The District staff reviewed the subject documents and following are our comments, District Policies The District encourages the use of recycled water to ensure water supply availability and sustainability to the community. Recycled water is a water supply that can be environmentally responsible, locally controlled, and available independent of the weather. Recognizing these benefits, the District Board has set policy to promote recycled water throughout Santa Clara County. Plan page x and elsewhere: The Plan inaccurately summarizes District Board Ends Policy E- 2.1.7 as stating "specifically that water recycling accounts for 5 and 10 percent of total water use in Santa Clara County in 2010 and 2020, respectively". While these are policy targets for recycled water, the policy states that the expansion of recycled water will be linked to community needs, planning documents, and other policies such as aggressively protecting the groundwater basins from contamination and the threat of contamination. lmportant policies related to the expansion of recycled water include: o E-2.1.6. The groundwater basins are aggressively protected from contamination and the threat of contamination. o E-2.1.7, Water recycling is expanded within Santa Clara County in partnership with the community, consistent with the District's Integrated Water Resources Plan (fWRP). reflecting its comparative cost assessments and other Board policies. o E-2.1.7.1. Target 2010, water recycling accounts for five percent of total water use in Santa Clara County. o E-2.1.7.2, Target 2020, water recycling accounts for ten percent oftotal water use in Santa Clara County. The mission of the Santa Claro Valley Water District is a healthy, sofe and enhanced quolity of living in Santa Clara County through wafershed stewardship and comprehensive management of water resources in a practical, cost-effective and environmentally sensilive manner. (.) Mr. Nicolas Procos Page 2 April 15, 2009 Salinity Management Plan page 3-12,13; Neg Dec page 22: The salinity management discussion in the Plan is limited to salinity impacts on redwood trees and how these impacts can be reduced, When describing salinity management strategies, the Plan states "Salinity has been a concern for potential Palo Alto recycled water users as well as Phase 1 and 2 customers, particularly as it relates to redwood trees", Salinity management strategies listed in the Plan include leaching salts below the root zone by apply a large volume of water that carries salts accumulated in the root zone further down into the soil profile, and increasing irrigation frequency, The Neg Dec states 'There is potential for the salts to build up in the soil as a result of recycled water use and the potential increase of salinity of groundwater. As part of the RWQCP's regional recycled water program, salinity management strategies have been identified and wilf be implemented as part of the proposed Project." The discussion of strategies and BMPs in the Plan defer to the City of Palo Alto RWQCP Water Reuse Program, The emphasis on salinity impacts to redwood trees and the reliance on the RWQCP strategies for meeting salinity management are inadequate, This Plan needs to assess long-term salinity impacts on the groundwater basin, not just impacts on redwood trees, Although the salinity strategies listed may benefit redwood trees, the potential impact to groundwater is not discussed. As stated on page 22 of the Neg Dec, recycled water permits typically require that irrigation rates match the evapo-transpiration rates of the plants being irrigated, which appears to be in direct conflict with the salinity management strategies listed in the Plan on page 13. These inconsistencies should be reconciled, and the salinity management strategies adjusted to address groundwater impacts as well. Groundwater Protection Plan page 3-4, 3-14, Neg Dec page 68,71-74,77: As stated on page 3-4 of the Plan, the water quality needs were assessed based on operational rather than regulatory concerns. On page 3- 14, the Plan states "Although impacts on groundwater beneficial uses associated with the recommended recycled water uses are anticipated to be insignificant, they should be considered during project implementation, .. " The Neg Dec rates the potential to degrade water quality as less than significant impact, and states that because of the limited amount of water anticipated to leach into the groundwater, this potential salt migration would not adversely impact groundwater quality from a public health standpoint This supposition is not supported with analysis in the document and is based on the adherence of the proposed project to all appropriate Title 22 to protect the public health. The District believes that the threshold of significance for groundwater protection should be based on the State Water Resources Control Board's Anti-degradation Policy rather than compliance with Title 22. The current RWQCP system supplies recycled water for irrigation to areas that are afforded some groundwater protection from the existence of a confining low permeability layer (often referred to as the confined zone area). The expansion of this system included in the Plan would provide recycled water to irrigation uses in the groundwater recharge area and areas upgradient of the recharge area, In 2004, the District completed an Advanced Recycled Water Treatment Mr. Nicolas Procos Page 3 April 15, 2009 Feasibility Study, Results showed that. compared to local surface water and groundwater, local tertiary treated recycled water is generally higher in total organic carbon, total dissolved solids, nitrate, phosphate, disinfection by-products (including THMs and NOMA), and some anthropogenic compounds, The study also foul')d that slight to moderate impacts to groundwater resources could be caused in certain areas of the groundwater basin if recycled water is used for irrigation, Neither the Plan nor the Neg Dec adequately discusses the potential of groundwater degradation from expanding recycled water use in the recharge area, The City should include a more thorough assessment of the potential for groundwater degradation based on the Anti- degradation Policy as well as the other goals and policies mentioned on page x, If that assessment finds the potential for degradation, adequate mitigation measures and BMPs should be identified in the Plan. Potential prohibitions to consider should include (but not be limited to) the following: o No recycled water used for irrigation shall be applied during periods of rainfall or when soils are saturated such that runoff occurs. o No recycled water used for irrigation shall be allowed to escape to areas outside the designated use area by surface flow or by airborne spray. o No recycled water used for irrigation shall be applied above the eva po-transpiration rate of the landscape. The Plan states that the impacts of recycled water on groundwater should be considered during project implementation. The potential for impacts to groundwater should be assessed in the Plan and Neg Dec, with appropriate mitigation measures defined in the Neg Dec. District Role in the Plan The acknowledgements in the Plan state that the Plan "represents a collaborative effort between the City of Palo Alto, RMC Water and Environment, and local stakeholders (Regional Water Quality Control Plant, SCVWD, and City of Palo Alto Utilities customers)." We thank you for generous acknowledgement and take the opportunity to clarify our role in the Plan. The District provided data during the Plan development but was not a party in the preparation of the Plan, Project Benefits to the District Plan page x and elsewhere: The Plan identifies potential benefits to the District from the Project as "Reduces dependence on imported potable water (Central Valley Project) for non~potabJe uses by progressing toward meeting countywide recycled water goals established in Policy E- .2.1.7; Prepares for regionalization of recycled water service, which allows for more operational flexibility." The Plan identifies as a benefit to the State Water Resources Control Board Nicolas Procos Page 4 April 15, 2009 (SWRCB) of "Benefits the Bay-Delta water system by aiding SCVWD to meet their countywide recycled water use policy." The District disagrees with this characterization of District benefits from this Project. The identified project area is within the City of Palo Alto, which currently relies exclusively on SFPUC Hetch-Hetchy project water for its potable water use. As such, this project will not reduce District imported water needs from the Central Valley Project or any other District imported water source. The second identified benefit to the District is unclear and needs to be better defined before the District can determine jf it is a valid District benefit. The project does reduce the City of Palo Alto's needs for imported water from the SFPUC. It is not clear if the reduction in Palo Alto's demand from the SFPUC translates to a benefit to the Bay-Delta; but the project as defined does not benefit the Bay-Delta through reduction in District imported water needs. Permits and Approvals The proposed alignment of the recycied water pipeline would cross three creeks -two crossings over Adobe Creek, one crossing over Barron Creek, and two crossings over Matadero Creek. Page 25 of the Neg Dec states that the proposed Recycled water Pipeline may be within SCVWD, SFPUC, ....... easements. The document identifies the need for obtaining permits for construction across creeks. The document must also state that in addition to the encroachment permits from the District for construction work within the District right of way in compliance with the District's Water Resources Protection Ordinance, an easement from the Santa Clara Valley Water District may be required to construct the pipeline within the District right of way. Abandoned Wells In order to protect groundwater quality and in accordance with District Ordinance 90-1, all existing wells (monitoring or supply wells) affected by this project need to be identified and properly registered with the District, and shall either be maintained or destroyed in accordance with the District's standards. Destruction of any well and the construction of any new wells, including monitoring wells, requires a permit from the District prior to construction. I can be reached either by phone at (408) 265~2607, extension 2731 or bye-mail at uchatwanl@valleywater.org with any further questions. Please refer to District file No. 31644 on any future correspondence. Sincerely, j}~ C~, Usha Chatwani, Associate Civil Engineer Community Projects Review Unit cc: C. Elias, S. Tippets, S. Ahmadi,S. Judd, P. John, H. Ashktorab, M. Sliva, V. De La Piedra, U. Chatwani, File 31644_51888uc04-15 Comment Letter 4 -Santa Clara Valley Water District The City appreciates the District's comments on the Facility Plan for the proposed project dated December 2008. It should be noted that the Facility Plan is a standalone document that is not part of the Public Draft IS/MND and was not subject to public review required under CEQA. Thus, this Response to Comments document responds only to those comments associated with the Public Draft ISIMND. The City will address comments on the Facility Plan directly with the District. Response to Comment 4-1 This comment is in reference to the Facility Plan, not the Public Draft IS/MND. As discussed above, the City will address comments on the Facility Plan directly with the District. Response to Comment 4-2 All water used in irrigation contains dissolved salts in varying types and quantities, and these salts are carried into the soil with the water whenever it is used. Subsequent use of the water by the plants leads to the concentration of salts in the soil. A portion ofthe salts that accumulate in soil from prior irrigations can be removed (leached) below the rooting depth if more irrigation water infiltrates the soil than is used by the plant; alternatively, the leaching can occur as a result of the percolation of winter-time precipitation. As noted in the Public Draft ISIMND, leaching is one of the corrective actions that can be implemented as part of the Adaptive Management Program to address salinity issues associated with redwood trees. Leaching of salts can add to the salt balance of an underlying groundwater body; therefore, the ability of that groundwater basin to "absorb" the leached salts must also be considered when using recycled water for irrigation over long periods of time. The proposed project involves the application of recycled water at agronomic rates over the Confined Zone of the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater subbasin. If salt accumulation occurs in shallow soils such that additional (non-seasonal) leaching is required, the recycled water may be applied at rates slightly higher than agronomic rates in order to provide the necessary leaching. Groundwater quality impacts from both the natural and artificial leaching of salts are anticipated to have minimal affects on the underlying aquifers. In the portion of Palo Alto where recycled water application is anticipated to occur, the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater subbasin is divided into two aquifer zones, separated by a low permeability aquitard. This aquitard minimizes the downward movement of constituents from the Upper Aquifer to the Lower Aquifer and therefore, will also minimize the potential movement of salts f)'om the Upper Aquifer down to the Lower Aquifer, the primary zone used for water supply. As indicated by a regional groundwater gradient from the hills towards the San Francisco Bay, there is regular groundwater movement in the Upper Aquifer driven by precipitation percolation that will aid in keeping upgradient salinity concentrations lower and move salts in the Upper Aquifer zone generally towards San Francisco Bay. Response to Comment 4-3 The Public Draft IS/MND has provided an adequate evaluation of water quality effects on public health associated with potential impact to groundwater (see pages 72 to 73). As noted in the comment, the current RWQCP system supplies recycled water for irrigation to areas that are afforded some groundwater proteetion from a confining low permeability layer. Increased distribution of recycled water will be solely on the east side of Highway 280, completely over the Confined Zone as shown in Figure 7 -"Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin" of the document A Comprehensive Groundwater Protection Evaluation for the South San Francisco Bay Basins (San Francisco Bay RWQCB, 2003). This figure, attributed to the Santa Clara Valley Water Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 9 Response to Comments Document District (SCVWD), is attached. According to this figure, the Forebay Zone in the Palo Alto area is located completely west of Highway 280, and therefore the proposed expanded recycled water project will have little impact to the Lower Aquifer as a result of the confining low permeability layer that defines the Confined Zone. This conclusion is consistent with that reached in the SCVWD's report entitled Advanced Recycled Water Treatment Feasibility Project (2004) which stated that "In the [Santa Clara Valley Groundwater] Subbasin, almost all of the existing recycled water use is over the confined zone and less concern is warranted here" and is anticipated to be true for other conservative constituents such as chloride. For nitrates, the application of recycled water at agronomic rates will allow for the uptake of nitrate (and related nitrogen constituents) by the plants. When combined with user modifications to account for the additional nutrients (i.e. reducing fertilizer use to account for the nitrogen present in recycled water), the potential downward migration of nitrates will be minimized. Finally, there is the potential that recycled water will contain disinfection by-products and other emerging contaminants. While the fate and transport of these constituents in the vadose zone and water table aquifers is not fully understood, initial studies (such as the one conducted at the University of California, Riverside by Xu et. al. 2008) indicate that soil aquifer treatment does appear to occur when recycled water is used for turfgrass irrigation. Additionally, per the District's analysis in the Advanced Recycled Water Treatment Feasibility Project (2004), "[i]n general, most of the other potential contaminants of concern, (Nitrate, TOC and other Emerging Contaminants), reviewed are of 'Insignificant (0)' to 'Slight (1)' concern in the confined zones of the [Santa Clara Valley Groundwater] Subbasin ... " due to the low volume applied (relative to all applied water basin-wide) and the low to moderate and inconsistent levels of emerging contaminants in the recycled water. The City agrees with the potential prohibitions recommended by the SCVWD as set forth in this comment and that they should be considered as conditions for use of recycled water for irrigation in Palo Alto. Page 72 of the Public Draft ISIMND has already identified the following prohibition: "Prohibition of the over-application or any direct runoff of applied recycled water (recycled water would be applied to landscaped areas at agronomic rates to meet the evapotranspiration requirements, which minimizes surface runoff)." Based on the discussion above, an assessment based on the Anti-degradation Policy (i.e., Water Resources Control Board's Resolution 68-16: State of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality of Waters in California) is not warranted. However, to address the District's concerns regarding the quality of the groundwater basin, the following bullet has been added to the end of the Adaptive Management Program discussion on page 19, as follows: • The City will coordinate with Santa Clara Valley Water District to monitor water quality in the groundwater basin to assess any potential changes associated with project use of recycled water. Monitoring activities will be coordinated with the future salinity and nutrient management plan, to be developed for the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin in accordance with the State Recycled Water Policy (adopted in 2009). Response to Comment 4-4 This comment is in reference to the Facility Plan, not the Public Draft ISIMND. As discussed above, the City will address comments on the Facility Plan directly with the District. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 10 Response to Comments Document 5 o 5 r--- to Miles -----1 Location of Oross,..Seclion A-AI Santa OlaraGroundwate.r Figure 7: Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin (Source: Santa Clara Valley Water District) Response to Comment 4-5 This comment is in reference to the Facility Plan, not the Public Draft IS/MND. As discussed above, the City will address comments on the Facility Plan directly with the District. Response to Comment 4-6 The City acknowledges that an easement to construct the proposed pipeline within the District's right-of-way in compliance with the District's Water Resources Protection Ordinance may be required. In addition, if wells are affected by this project, the City would maintain/destroy wells in accordance with the District's standards and obtain necessary permits. In response to this comment, a District easement and permit for construction/destruction of wells have been added to the list of potential permits required for the proposed project. The second bullet on page 25 of the Public Draft IS/MND is revised as follows: • Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) -permit for construction across creeks / flood control channels, easement to construct the pipeline in SCVWD right-of-way and a permit prior to construction for destruction of any well or construction of any new well, including monitoring wells. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 12 Response to Comments Document State Water Resources Control Board Linda S. Adams Secretary for Environmental Protection APR 1 6 2009 Ms. Clare Campbell City of Palo Alto Division of Financial Assistance 10011 Street· Sacramento, California 95814' (916) 341·5700 FAX (916) 341-5707 Mailing Address: P,O. Box 944212 • Sacramento, California' 94244-2120 Internel Address: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Ms, Campbell: Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS/MND) FOR THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY); PALO ALTO RECYCLED WATER PROJECT (PROJECT); SANTA CLARA COUNTY; CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND (CWSRF) . NO. C-06-5171-110; STATE CLEARINGHOUSE (SCH NO. 2009032065) We understand the City is, pursuing CWSRF financing for the proposed 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 for the environmental document to be prepared for the. Project. . Please provide us with the following documents applicable to the proposed Project: (1) Two copies of the Draft and Final IS/MND, (2) the resolution adopting the MND and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and making California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings, (3) all comments received during the review period and the City response to those comments, (4) the adopted MMRP, and (5) the Notice of Determination filed with the Governor's Office of Planning and Research. In addition, we would appreciate notice of any hearings or meetings held regarding environmental review of any projects to be funded by the State Water Board. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 21081.6, the Lead Agency (in this case, the City) is required to adopt a MMRP along with the MND to ensure compliance with required mitigation measures during project implementation. The City has listed a number of mitigation commitments listed in the Project Description section. Under CEQA, the City must adopt actual mitigation measures that are feasible, enforceable, and capable of being monitored under an MMRP. If the City decides to pursue CWSRF financing, the City must include relevant mitigation measures in any areas of potential adverse impacts from Project construction or operation. The City has indicated potential impacts in the areas of Biological Resources and Traffic. These mitigation measures could also be included as part of the financing agreement between the State Water Board and the City if funding is provided to complete the proposed Project. The CWSRF Program is partially funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and requires additional "CEQA-Plus" environmental documentation and review. Three information sheets are included that further explain the environmental review process and some additional federal requirements in the CWSRF program. In addition, an environmental form is included for the City to submit should it pursue State Water Board funding. The State Water Board can 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 funding commitment for California Environmental Protection Agency o Recycled Paper Ms. Clare Campbell -2 -APR 162009 the proposed Project For further information on the CWSRF program please contact Ms. Michelle L. Jones at (916) 341-6983. It is important to note that prior to a CWSRF funding commitment, projects are subject to provisions of the Federal Endangered Species Act and must obtain approval from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and/or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for any potential effects to special status species. Please be advised that the State Water Board can consult with USFWS, and/or NMFS on behalf of the City regarding all federal special status species the Project has the potential to impact jf the Project is to be funded under 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 on-site, in the surrounding areas, or in the service area. Please identify applicable conservation measures to reduce such effects. Page 48 of the IS/MND states "Where access was limited or prohibited surveys were conducted from fence lines and/or by aerial photo interpretation." Please list the areas that were inspected by fence lines and/or aerial photo interpretation and explain why access to these sites was limited. Also, page 49 states "trenchless construction techniques will be used to install the pipeline at creek crossings." Please clarify the trench less technique (i.e., microtunneling, or suspension along the bridge) that will be used by the Project for creek crossings. Also, identify any mitigation measures, or permits required for the selected trenchless construction technique. Page 62 states that potential impacts to cultural resources "would be minimized through the implementation of the environmental commitments outlined in the Project Description and as a result, the impact is considered less than significant." The environmental commitments that will be implemented to protect cultural resources, on page 20, states that "if cultural resources are encountered during Project-related excavations, construction shall be halted or diverted to allow an archeologist an opportunity to assess the resource." Please note that mitigations need to be specific and enforceable. Additional federal requirements pertinent to the Project under the CWSRF Program include the following: A. Compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Act): Ust any birds that are protected under this Act that may be impacted by the Project, and identify conservation measures to minimize such impacts. B. Air Quality Act: Identify air quality stUdies that may have been done for the Project. For those, Projects in non-attainment areas subject to maintenance plans: • Provide emission data for each criteria pollutant for which the area has been designated non-attainment or maintenance; and • Provide a summary of the emissions that are expected from both the construction and operation of the Project for each criteria pollutant in a non-attainment or maintenance area. California Environmental Protection Agency o Recycled Paper . Ms. Clare Campbell 3 - APR 1 6 2009 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 Implementation Plan for air quality: • Quantitatively indicate how the proposed capacity increase was calculated using population projections. C. Protection of Wetlands: Identify whether or not the Project or construction activities will impact stream, flood control channels, or wetlands. D. Coastal Zone Management Act: Identify whether or not the proposed Project is in the Coastal Zone. Thank you once again for the opportunity to review the City's environmental document. If you have any questions regarding my comments, please feel free to contact me at (916) 341-5686, or by email atihockenberrv@waterboards.ca.gov . . Sincer~. . . I .. I A f (J 0iJl\\iA--~ ..J James Hockenberry Environmental Scientist Enclosures (4) cc: State Clearinghouse wlo enclosures (Re: SCH# 2009032065) P. O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 California Environmental Protection Agency o Recycled Paper Comment Letter 5 -State Water Resources Control Board Response to Comment 5-1 The City will provide the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) with the required fonns, notices and documents. A MMRP has been prepared that includes all proposed mitigation measures identified in the Public Draft IS/MND. Refer to Appendix A for the completed MMRP. The City acknowledges ~hat prior to a Clean Water State Revolving Fund funding commitment, projects are subject to provisions of the Federal Endangered Species Act and must obtain approval from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service. Potential effects of the project on federally-listed threatened, endangered, or candidate species are discussed in the Biological Resources Section on pages 47 to 53 of the Public Draft IS/MND and mitigation measures are provided to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Refer to Response to Comment 7-7 for further discussion of mitigation measures related to biological resources. Response to Comment 5-2 The following is a list of locations along the proposed pipeline alignment, alignment options and laterals where access for the biological resources field survey was restricted due to the presence of fences; most of properties are private and thus could not be entered. • Fabian Way and Adobe Creek -The creek was fenced off and there were no trespassing signs posted. • Middlefield Road and Adobe Creek The creek was fenced off and there were no trespassing signs posted. • Cowper Street between Maureen A venue and Kipling Street - A SCVWD fence blocked the entrance to creek. • Cowper Street and Matadero Creek - A SCVWD fence blocked the entrance to creek. • Alma Street from EI Dorado A venue to Page Mill Road -A fence was located along the south side of Alma Street separating the roadway from the Caltrans Railroad tracks. • Deer Creek Road south of Hillview Avenue A fence was located along the roadway separating the road from open space on the north side of Deer Creek Road. • South California A venue -There was a SCVWD fence on the creek on the east side of the South California A venue lateral. • The west side of the Page Mill Road lateral was fenced along the roadway. • The southwest comer of Arastradero Road and Page Mill Road was fenced off and the area looked to consist of open space and a garden. As described in Table 4 of the Public Draft IS/MND (page 17), all the creek crossings would be either constructed with the pipe attached to the side or in the roadway on the bridge, or through a trenchless pipeline construction technique. The specific technique to be used to install the pipeline at each location has not been detennined and will be detennined as part of project design. Of the creek crossings that may be required, only the crossing at Adobe Creek across US 101 may be completed through a trench less technique. There are several trenchless pipeline construction techniques that could be employ, including horizontal directional drilling, microtunneling, and jack-and-bore. A brief description of these methods is identified below. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 13 Response to Comments Document • Horizontal directional drilling (HDD) is a process that uses a laser-guided and remotely- controlled boring machine and auger that is driven from a sending pit to a receiving pit. The drill bit is affixed on an articulating head at the lead end of the auger shaft; this articulating head provides the directional capability. As the auger shaft is driven forward, additional lengths of shaft are added at the sending pit until the drill bit daylights in the receiving pit. Material and equipment to be used would include a drilling rig and auger controls, shafts, pipe, fuser, excavator, trucks, and slurry handling containers. The work areas around the pits require adequate space to accommodate auger separation and associated equipment and slurry waste management practices. The sending pit area requires a 100-foot-square work area to accommodate drilling equipment, support equipment, and a sump for drilling slurry. Sump areas are required to contain the drilling slurry/fluids used during the HDD process and to capture the slurry/fluid once the initial hole is completed. HDD involves the use of drilling slurry as a drilling lubricant. The slurry is commonly a bentonite fluid; bentonite is a fine clay material. • Microtunneling is a process that uses a laser-guided and remotely-controlled boring machine that is driven from a sending pit to a receiving pit by means of a hydraulic jack. As the tunneling machine is driven forward, jacking pipe is added into the pipe string. The temporary sending and receiving bore pits will be about 15 feet deep. The jacking pit will require an open excavation of 15 feet by 40 feet. The receiving pit will require a 12- by 25-foot excavation. Microtunneling may involve the use of drilling fluid or bentonite slurry, a fine clay material, as a drilling lubricant. • Jack-and-bore is a multi-stage tunneling process consisting of constructing a temporary horizontal jacking platform and a starting alignment track in an entrance pit at a desired elevation. The pipe is then jacked by manual control along the starting alignment track with simultaneous excavation of the soil being accomplished by a rotating cutting head in the leading edge ofthe product's annular space. The ground up soil (spoil) is transported back to the entrance pit by helical wound auger flights rotating inside the pipe. Jack-and- bore typically provides limited tracking and steering as well as limited support to the excavation face. The analysis of potential impacts in the Public Draft ISIMND evaluates all trenchless techniques that may be used for construction. Therefore, no new mitigation measures would be required for the selected technique. Likewise, the permitting requirements would be the same for all techniques. Response to Comment 5-3 To be proactive about protecting sensitive resources, the City has incorporated into the Public Draft ISIMND environmental commitments into the project, including that associated with cultural resources. The cultural resources commitment shown on page 20 of the Public Draft ISIMND is enforceable. It identifies the standard methods for addressing cultural resources in the event that they are discovered during construction activities. In response to the commenter, the standard commitement has been clarified to be more specific. The following clarification of potential action taken should cultural resources be encountered has been added to the Public Draft IS/MND. The first paragraph on page 20 of the Public Draft ISIMND is revised as follows: In accordance with CEQA Section 15064.5, if cultural resources are encountered during Project- related excavations, construction shall be halted or diverted to allow an archaeologist an opportunity to assess the resource. The archaeologist will recommend what action, if any, is warranted. Measures might include preserving in situ the archaeological resource or an Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 14 Response to Comments Document 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. Response to Comment 5-4 The Public Draft IS/MND complies with all additional federal requirements pertinent to the project under the CWSRF Program. A. Birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) are listed on pages 52 and 53 of the Public Draft IS/MND and in Appendix C Biological Resources. Mitigation measures to minimize potential impacts are identified and presented on pages 57 and 58 of the Public Draft ISIMND. B. Construction and operational emissions for the proposed project were calculated using the lJRBEMIS model. Emissions generated by the proposed project would be less than significant based on Bay Area Air Quality District Thresholds of Significance, which take into account Federal criteria for air emissions. The quantified levels of emissions would be less than thresholds applied under the General Conformity Rule and, therefore, correspond with federal de minimis levels. In addition, greenhouse gases were calculated for the proposed project and it was determined that the project "would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change associated with GHG emissions." The air quality analysis is provided on pages 42 to 46 of the Public Draft ISIMND and the greenhouse gas discussion is provided on pages 96 to 98 of the Public Draft ISIMND. C. Protection of Wetlands is discussed on pages 53 and 54 of the Public Draft ISIMND and mitigation is provided on pages 58 and 59 of the Public Draft ISIMND. Best Management Practices for wetlands, which are environmental commitments of the Project, are listed on page 21 of the Public Draft ISIMND. D. The proposed project is not in the Coastal Zone. As stated on page 79 of the Public Draft ISIMND, " ... the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project area." Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 15 Response to Comments Document B4/16/2B09 13:44 4083215787 VTA ENVIRON PLAN PAGE B2/B3 'f SAM'. <LARA ~ Valley TransportatlDn AuthDrlty April J 6, 2009 City of Palo Alto Plauning Department P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto) CA 94303 Attention: 'Clare Campbell SUbject: Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Dear Ms. Campbell: Sauta Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VT A) staff have reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration for 5 miles of recycled water pipeline and pump stations in central Palo Alto. We have the following comments. Traffic Control Plan VTA requests the opportunity to review the full traffic control plans when they become available in order to determine if there are potential impacts to CMP facilities during constru.ction. We also recommend a media campaign to notify the public about the duration of the construction, lane closures, and potential detour routes. We recommend prohibiting construction before 9 a.m. and after 3 p,m. since the peak hour traffic on some of the CMP facilities in the area statts around 3.pm. Impacts to aus SeQdce Mitigation measure TRA~ 1 requires that damaged road surfaces be returned to pre-construction conditions or better. We assume this includes bus stop facilities also. Once the final pipeline route is determined) VTA would like to revi~ it to detennine which bus routes and bus stops will be impacted. VIA Conta&lI If construction involves cutting through 8. VT A pee bus stop pavement pad, a Cons1rUction Access Permit will be required and the project should include this requirement in the Special Conditions of the contract. The contractor should be directed to contact Debbie Dionne, Permits and Utility Loca.ting Services. at (408) 321-5824. 3331 N!lllh Flnl Slnel • San Jose, CA 95134.1906 • Admlnlslrallon 408.32U555 • ClIslomer Service 408.321.2300 94/16/2009 13:44 4883215787 VTA ENVIRON PLAN PAGE B3/83 <, City of Palo Alto . April 16, 2009 Page 2 If temporary relocation of bus stops is needed. the contractor should contaot Steve NewgreD. it (408) 952-4106 at least 72 hours in advance. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project If you have any questions, please call me at (408) 321.-5784. (l01h{ Roy Molseed Senior Environmental Planner RM:kh cc: Samantha Swart, VIA PA.0901 Comment Letter 6 -Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Response to Comment 6-1 Comment noted. The Traffic Control Plan will be made available for review by VTA when it becomes available. Notification requirements will be included in the Traffic Control Plan as appropriate. The construction schedule for the proposed project is discussed on page 14 of the Public Draft ISIMND. Construction would occur between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday on arterial and collection streets in order to maintain compliance with the City'S Traffic Control Requirements. Construction other than on arterial and collection streets would occur between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. Construction would occur between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Saturday for all construction areas. The City will consider limiting the construction hours on CMP facilities to 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. if deemed necessary and feasible. Response to Comment 6-2 Mitigation Measure TRA-I includes bus stop facilities in "damaged road surfaces". The final pipeline route will be available for review by VT A. Response to Comment 6-3 Comment noted. The City acknowledges that a VTA Construction Access Permit may be required if construction involves cutting through a VT A PCC bus stop pavement pad. The II th bullet is added on page 25 of the Public Draft IS/MND as follows: • Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority -Construction Access Permit if construction involves cutting through a VT A PCC bus stop pavement pad. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 16 Response to Document April 17, 2009 Ms. Valerie Fong City of Palo Alto Utilities 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 STANFORD UNIVERSITY Re: Initial StudyfMitigated Negative Declaration for Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Dear Ms. Fong: Stanford University appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Palo Alto's Recycled Water Project. Stanford supports efforts to decrease potable water use using water resources efficiently, implementing water conservation measures, and incorporating water-efficient infrastructure into new facilities. However, the draft ISIMND presents several serious concerns regarding the environmental impacts that would result from Palo Alto's Recycled Water Project. Stanford's major concern relates to the adverse effects on trees due to the increased salinity in the irrigation water. As the ISIMND recognizes, recycled water contains more salt than typical irrigation water derived from potable supplies and this increased salt content can adversely affect trees such as coastal redwoods that are sensitive to salinity. Unfortunately, the ISIMND declines to make a significance finding on this critical issue. Given the importance of redwood trees to the City's urban landscape and to the appearance and value of the Stanford Research Park in particular (which the Recycled Water Project is designed to serve), the IS!N.fND should include a finding on whether the impact on trees from using high salinity irrigation water is significant. As discussed below, we believe the facts show that this is a significant impact. The ISIMND includes an Adaptive Management Program that is designed to detect and respond to adverse effects on trees, but there are significant concerns as to whether this program will adequately protect redwoods and other trees after they have already been exposed over time to high salinity irrigation water. The program also defers analysis of adverse impacts to a future date, and it is not clear whether the program is feasible given the extent and expense of the future studies that would be required. STANFORD REAL ESTATE OFFICE 2755 Sand Hill Road, Suite 100 • Menlo Park, CA 94025 'T: 650.926.0300' F: 650.854.9268 RE: Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration for Palo Alto Recycled Water Project April 17,2009 Page 2 Stanford's second concern relates to the facilities that the City plans to install at the Mayfield Soccer Fields. The IS/MND states that there will be no significant impacts resulting from these facilities based on the fact that the Project will be subject to the City's design review process in the future. The ISIMND should include a complete evaluation now of the aesthetic and land use impacts associated with locating Project facilities at the Mayfield Soccer Fields, and of any mitigation measures necessary to lessen those impacts, instead of deferring this evaluation to a future process that will only occur after the City has already approved the Project. Finally, the ISIMND relies on deferred mitigation for impacts to biological resources. The IS/MND should clarify the specific measures that will be used, so that their effectiveness can be fully evaluated before the Project is approved. Each of these concerns is discussed separately below. Stanford looks forward to working cooperatively with the City to resolve these issues. A. The Impacts Resulting from Increased Salinity Warrant a Finding of Significance and a More Complete Environmental Evaluation As the ISIMND recognizes, "[ r]ecycled water is characteristically higher in alkaline salts than typical irrigation water derived from potable supplies and may cause decline in acidic favoring tree species." ISIMND at p. 73. The ISIMND explains that even after inflow and infiltration controls to reduce the intrusion of salty groundwater into the sewer collection system, recycled water from the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant would have a total dissolved solids of 700 milligrams per liter, as compared to 100- 300 mgll in the existing water supply. ld. at pp. 73, 76. The ISIMND further explains that a recent study "found that Palo Alto recycled water was the most saline recycled water studied." Id. at p. 75, fn.14 (citing Oster 2009). The ISIMND further recognizes that salts can build up in poorly drained soils. As the ISIMND explains: [SJalt buildup in poorly drained soil may create a long-tenn inability of the soil to absorb and provide water availability to the tree roots .... Because salts are not absorbed by the vegetation or broken down in the subsurface, they have the potential to build up in the root zone in poody drained soils and affect tree health. Id. at 73. In turn, soils with higher silt and clay content are more affected by salt buildup than other soils, because they are less well drained. See id. at p. 75 ("soils with higher silt and clay content are more affected by water quality than other soils"). For this reason, HortScience has recommended that "[uJse of recycled water should be avoided in areas of poor drainage, since those areas cannot be leached." Nelda Matheny and James R. Clark, Designing Landscapes Using Recycled Water (dated Nov. 17,2005) at p. 2. STANFORD REAL ESTATE OFFICE 2755 Sand Hill Road, Suite 100 • Menlo Park, CA 94025 'T; 650.926.0300 • F: 650.854.9268 RE: Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration for Palo Alto Recycled Water Project April 17, 2009 Page 3 This is a significant issue for the Stanford Research Park. Based on Stanford's experience with various projects at the Stanford Research Park, subsurface conditions consist of predominately moderately to highly expansive clays overlying interbedded layers of sands and clays, with the sand layers tending to contain clayey or silty fmes, In other words, the soils at the Stanford Research Park are the types of soil that are susceptible to salt buildup. Additionally, the ISIMND recognizes that certain tree species, such as coastal redwoods, are particularly sensitive to salinity. See, e.g., IS/MND at p. 75 (coastal redwoods are sensitive to total soil·water salinity regardless of the type of salt causing the salinity). HortScience explains generally that, as irrigation water is applied to soils, some of the salts in the water remain in the soiL "As these salts accumulate in the soil, plant toxicity may occur. Salt toxicity is first expressed as stunting of growth and yellowing of foliage. Burning of the edge ofleaves and defoliation usually occurs. In severe cases, plants are killed." Matheny and Clark, Designing Landscapes Using Recycled Water, at p. 2. Further, as Oster's recent study points out, "Coastal redwood is the primary plant species of concern. Observed leafburn and tree death have been associated with irrigation with recycled water, indicating coastal redwood is very sensitive to salinity, sodium, chloride or a combination of all three." Oster 2009, at p. 1. The 2007 study by Barnes et al. similarly explains: Sodium and chloride, two of the main constituents in the treated recycled water, have been suspected of causing the decline of redwood trees in the California South Bay Area where this water has been used to irrigate public landscapes such as parks and golf courses. Symptoms noted on some redwoods irrigated with recycled water include leaf necrosis and in severe cases, branch and whole tree death. Barnes et aI. 2007, at p. 2. The study concludes that "[t]he response of Sequoia sempervirens 'Aptos Blue' to the salinity treatments in this study indicates a cleat increase in detrimental effect with increasing treatment concentration." ld. at p. 26 (emphasis added). In an email communication to Stanford, Nelda Matheny of HortScience summarizes the problem as follows: [M]y experience with redwoods is that they are very sensitive to salts and usually begin to show toxicity symptoms within one to years of its application. Redwoods must be irrigated frequently because they have no drought tolerance. Each irrigation adds salt, and over time the salts in the soil accumulate to damaging concentrations. I have observed mature redwoods significantly damaged after 3 years of irrigation with recycled water. Email communication from Nelda Matheny to Jim Inglis (Apr. 17,2009). In addition to redwoods, HortSciences has identified a number of other salt sensitive plant species, such STANFORD REAL ESTATE OFFICE 2755 Sand Hill Road, Suite 100 • Menlo Park, CA 94025 'T: 650.926.0300 • F: 650.854.9268 RE: Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration for Palo Alto Recycled Water Project April 17,2009 Page 4 as Japanese maple, crape myrtle, southern magnolia, London plane, wisteria, etc., which may be harmed by use of recycled water. Matheny and Clark, Designing Landscapes Using Recycled Water, Table 3. The Stanford Research Park contains many redwoods and other plant species that could be negatively affected by high salinity irrigation water. Not surprisingly, the IS/MND recognizes that when trees are exposed to increased stress by an environmental change such as irrigation with recycled water with a higher salt content, "they may exhibit signs of decline." ISIMND at p. 75. The IS/MND further recognizes that "increased salt content in the recycled water and poor drainage could affect the biological health, appearance (dieback), or mortality of existing protected, street, and designated trees." ld. The ISIMND, however, declines to make a finding of significance regarding this impact, based on the statement that there is no definitive correlation between recycled water use and the decline in redwood trees. ld. at p. 74. Stanford does not believe this is a correct statement given the current state of the scientific evidence, which shows that increased salt content in irrigation water can have significant adverse effects on redwood trees. In any case, to the extent there are any disputes, uncertainties or unresolved issues in the scientific record, the matter should be resolved through the full EIR process, not through the adoption of a Negative Declaration. The IS/MND contains an Adaptive Management Program that is designed to detect and respond to adverse impacts to trees, but there are several concerns regarding the program's effectiveness and feasibility. First, the program is not proven and it is unclear whether the measures in the program will be effective. As explained in Oster's recent study, "[ w lith even the best management, excess salinities may not be preventable." Oster 2009, at p, Ii. As Nelda Matheny ofHortSciences explains: I do not think that it is possible to maintain healthy redwoods with recycled water containing high concentration of sodium and chloride using conventional techniques and water-conserving irrigation schedules. It may be possible with adjustments to management practices such as leaching, abundant inigation, and application of amendments to help leach salts. These modifications have yet to be tested in field applications. Email communication from Nelda Matheny to Jim Inglis (Apr. 17,2009) (emphasis added). For this reason, HortSciences recommends avoiding use of recycled water with salt sensitive species such as coastal redwoods. HortSciences recommends that if salt sensitive plantings cannot be avoided, irrigation of these plantings should use "separate systems providing potable water." Matheny and Clark, Designing Landscapes Using Recycled Water; at p. 5 & Table 3. Another recent publication on the use of recycled water for irrigation similarly explains that plant species should be selected that are more tolerant to salinity, as several tree species "did not grow well using reclaimed water, mainly because of the relatively high salinity leveL" Laosheng Wu et aI, Safe STANFORD REAL ESTA1E OffiCE 2755 Sand Hill Road, Suite 100 • Menlo Park, CA 94025 'T: 650.926.0300 • F: 650.854.9268 RE: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Palo Alto Recycled Water Project April 17,2009 Page 5 Application o/Reclaimed Water in the Southwestern United States (March 2009) (UC peer reviewedlPublication 8357), at p. 17. Another problem is that the Adaptive Management Program is designed to address salinity impacts only after redwoods and other landscaping have been exposed over time to high salinity irrigation water and adverse impacts have been observed. But by that time, the program may be too late to reverse the negative effects. As Oster's recent study notes, "[ s ]ince salinity damage to trees is difficult to reverse, it may be that a reduction in salinity of the applied water, once recycled water has been used for several years, will not be effective in saving trees." Oster 2009, at p. ii. Third, the program is based on future studies that are designed to determine whether the impacts on trees from high salinity irrigation water are adverse, how adverse those impacts are, and how the impacts will be mitigated. The ISIMND should not defer the evaluation of these important Project issues to a future date. Fourth, the program requires an expensive set of baseline, monitoring and landscape studies --all leading to a potential end result of ceasing recycled water use due to adverse effects on landscaping, or replacing trees that have died as a result of such adverse effects with salt tolerant species. This raises the question of who will pay for the studies and how they will be implemented --and more broadly whether the Adaptive Management Program would be an effective, cost-effective and feasible mitigation program to address the impacts on trees of high salinity irrigation water. A final concern with the analysis of salinity impacts is that the IS/MND does not evaluate the effects on creeks and biological resources, such as federally protected species, resulting from runoff of high salinity irrigation water. Matadero Creek mns through the Stanford Research Park site and the creek supports habitat for federally listed species. The ISIMND should fully evaluate these impacts in order to provide the public and the City with a complete and accurate picture of the Project's effects on the environment due to increased salinity. In sum, while Stanford fully supports the goal of reducing potable water use, this Project presents serious concerns in terms of its salinity impacts on trees and wildlife. The widespread death of redwood trees resulting from high salinity irrigation water would have a profound negative affect on the vitality and value of the Stanford Research Park, one of the nation's leading business parks. More importantly for CEQA purposes, the widespread loss of redwood trees would have a variety of significant environmental ramifications --including severe aesthetic impacts resulting from the loss of valued urban canopy; significant effects on the City's natural biological environment; conflicts with land use plans and policies that call for the protection of trees; and reduced absorption of C02, thereby leading to increased contributions to global climate change. STANFORD REAL ESTATE OFFICE 2755 Sand Hill Road, Suite 100 • Menlo Park, CA 94025 ·T: 650.926.0300 • F: 650.854.9268 RE: Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration for Palo Alto Recycled Water Project April 17, 2009 Page 6 B. The Aesthetic and Land Use Compatibility Impacts Resulting from the Booster Pump Station and Back-up Generator Warrant Further Evaluation in the ISIMND The ISIMND states that the visual character of the Mayfield Soccer Fields would be maintained, based on the fact that the booster pump station would be constructed underground and any aboveground structures "would go through architectural review during the design phase of the project and would satisfy the requirements of the Architectural Review Board." ISIMND at p. 39. But the architectural review process would not occur until after the City has approved the Project. Any impacts from an aesthetic or land use compatibility perspective associated with above-ground structures at the Mayfield Soccer Fields (including a back-up generator as well as any above-ground facilities needed to provide security or access) should be evaluated now as part of the CEQA review for this Project, instead of being deferred to a future process following Project approval. C. The ISIMND Should Clarify the Mitigation Measures for Impacts to Biological Resources To address the Project's impacts on biological resources) the ISIMND relies on several mitigation measures that are deferred. For example, the ISIMND provides that if red- legged frogs or western pond turtles are identified, the appropriate resources agency (the U.S, Fish & Wildlife Agency or the California Department ofFish & Game) will be consulted to detennine the extent of potential impacts and "to identify measures necessary to avoid, minimize, and mitigate these impacts, such as obtaining an incidental take permit (for CRLF) or developing an exclusion or relocation program." IS/MND at p. 57. It is not clear, however, what the mitigation measures will be and whether such measures (when they are developed) will be effective. Similarly, with respect to impacts on nesting birds, the ISIMND provides that if active nests are encountered, "species- specific measures shall be prepared by a qualified biologist) in coordination with the CDFG and other appropriate agencies." ld. Further, with respect to impacts on California clapper and black rails, the IS/MND states that upon the completion of surveys, "survey results shall be submitted to the USFWS and CDFG for a final decision on the possibility of doing work during the breeding season." ld. at p. 58. It would be helpful for the ISIMND to provide more specificity on the biological mitigation that would be implemented, D. Conclusion Stanford recognizes the challenges that our community faces in securing an adequate water supply and the clitical importance of water conservation for our community's future. Stanford is committed to water-saving practices and infrastructure throughout its planning and operations, This particular Project, however, raises several concerns that STANFORD REAL ESTA1E OFFICE 2755 Sand Hill Road, Suite 100 • Menlo Park, CA 94025 'T: 650.926.0300 • F: 650.854.9268 RE: Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration for Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Aprill?,2009 Page? warrant a more thorough evaluation, so that the public and the City can make an informed evaluation of the Project's adverse impacts on the environment; as compared to its benefits. We appreciate your consideration of these comments. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, William T. Phillips -l;~ ~ Senior Associate Vice President Director of Design & Construction Attachments STANFORD REAL ESTA 1E OFFICE 2755 Sand Hill Road, Suite 100 • Menlo Park, CA 94025 ·T: 650.926.0300 • F: 650.854.9268 Jim Inglis From: Sent: To: Nelda Matheny [Nelda@hortscience.com] Friday, April 17, 2009 8:13 AM Jim Inglis Subject: recycled water Hi Jim, Page 1 of 1 ---------------_._-------- I'm only in the office for a few minutes, so I haven't had time to put much together for you. Attached is a short manuscript about some of the issues with using recycled water in landscapes. As I mentioned on the phone, my experience with redwoods is that they are very sensitive to salts and usually begin to show toxicity symptoms within one to two years of its application. Redwoods must be irrigated frequently because they have no drought tolerance_ Each irrigation adds salt, and over time the salts in the soil accumulate to damaging concentrations. I have observed mature redwoods significantly damaged after 3 years of irrigation with recycled water. I do not think that is it possible to maintain healthy redwoods with recycled water containing high concentrations of sodium and chloride using conventional techniques and water-conserving irrigation schedules. It may be possible with adjustments to management practices such as leaching, abundant irrigation, and application of amendments to help leach salts. These modifications have yet to be tested in field applications_ As for coast live oak, it is quite tolerant of salt. Coast live oak can be maintained in a healthy condition when irrigated with recycled water. In general, drought tolerant species that require only infrequent irrigation are well suited for recycled water. Feel free to share this information and my opinions with others. Nelda Nelda Matheny HortScience, Inc. 2150 Rheem Dr., Suite A, Pleasanton CA 9254840211 4/17/2009 DESIGNING LANDSCAPES USING RECYCLED WATER by Nelda Matheny and James R. Clark HortScience, Inc. 2150 Rheem Dr., Suite A Pleasanton CA 84588 9254840211 Use of recycled water for landscape irrigation is increasing as supplies of potable water become limited. Recycled water can be an abundant source of inexpensive water or in some cases, the only source available for irrigation. Recycled water usually contains higher concentrations of some salts than potable (drinking) water. The maximum concentration of the salts is regulated by the state. However, those regulations are aimed at human and wildlife tolerances, not plant tolerances. Some plants are more sensitive to salts than animals and may be damaged when irrigated with water containing moderate to high salts. Assessing recycled water quality Water may contain ions or salts that are toxic to certain plants. While good quality water is suitable for use for irrigation of most any plant, poor quality water may inhibit plant growth or reduce health. For recycled water, the quality depends on the components of the water entering the treatment path, as well as the type of use before treatment. For instance, recycled water from municipal sources in which water softeners are used has a higher level of sodium than the water entering the system. During sewage treatment many of the inorganic compounds including salts and heavy metals are retained. Salts can be removed from recycled water through the process of reverse osmosis, although that is an advanced treatment that is not normally performed for water used in landscape irrigation. The quality of a given recycled water source may vary through the year. In California, the quality of recycled water usually is better during the rainy season (winter) than during the periods of summer and fall drought. Water quality data may be requested from the treatment facility, or sample may be collected and analyzed by a laboratory. When requesting water quality data from the treatment facility ask for the range in measurements in addition to the annual averages normally reported. Water quality reports usually emphasize constituents of concern for human health. In some cases additional testing may need to be performed. In the context of landscape irrigation, water quality refers to the presence and concentration of: total salts (TOS, ECw) as well as several specific ions (GI, Na, 8), bicarbonate, pH, trace elements and nutrients (N, P, K) (Table 1). Guidelines for interpreting water quality data are provided in Table 2. 1 Adapted from Matheny, N., and J. R. Clark. 199B. Managing landscape using recycled water. In: The Landscape Below Ground II. D. Neely and G, Watson, ed. International Society of Arboriculture. Champaign IL. ©HortScience. Inc. Designing Sites Using Recycled Water HortScience, Inc., Nov. 17, 2005 Page 2 Table 1: Constituents of recycled water that affect landscape plants and soils (After Pettigrove and Asano 1985) Constituent Measured Parameter Reason for Concern Dissolved inorganics Total dissolved solids Excessive salinity may damage some (TDS); electrical plants. Specific ions such as chloride, conductivity (Ecw); specific sodium, boron are toxic to some plants elements (Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, Sodium may pose soli permeability B) problems. Hydrogen ion activity pH The pH of water affects metal solubility (e.g. Fe, Mn, Zn, AI) as well as alkalinity of soils. Heavy metals Nutrients Residual chlorine Suspended solids Specific elements (e.g. Cd, Zn, Ni, Hg) Nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium _ Free and combined chlorine. Suspended solids Some heavy metals accumulated in the environment and are toxic to plants. Primary concern is for plants with high levels that are ingested by animals, N, P and K are essential nutrients for plant growth, and their presence normally enhances the value of water for irrigation. When discharged into the aquatic enVironment, Nand P can lead to the growth of undesirable aquatic life. When discharged in excessive amounts on land, N can lead to the pollution of groundwater. Excessive amounts of free available CI (.0.05 mg/L C12) may cause leaf·tip burn and damage sensitive plants. However, most chlorine in recycled water is in a combined form, which does not cause plant damage. Excessive amounts of suspended solids cause plugging in lrrigati()n sYS}..€::c.m.:..:.s::..:. __ Designing Sites Using Recycled Water HortScience, Inc., Nov. 17,2005 Page 3 Table 2: Interpretive guidelines for water quality for landscape irrigation. Species vary in tolerance to waler quality. The poorer the water, the more severe are restrictions on species use. (After Pettygrove and Asano, 1985) Parameter Salinity TDS, mg/I ECw, dS/m or mmho/cm Permeabilitya SAR Specific ion toxicitl Boron (B) (mg/I) Chloride (CI) Surface irrigation (mg/I) Sprinkler irrigation (mg/l) Sodium Surface irrigation (SAR) Sprinkler irrigation (mg/l) Miscellaneous effects Nitrogen (Total-N, mgll) Bicarbonate (HC03) Sprinkler irrigatIon pH Residual chlorine Sprinkler irrigation (mg/l) Water quality for landscape irrigation Good Fair <450 <07 6 <0.5 <140 <100 <3 <70 <5 <90 <1.0 450-2000 07-3.0 6-9 0.5-1.0 140-350 >100 3-9 >70 5-30 90-500 Normal range 6.5-8.4 1.0-5.0 >2000 >3.0 >9 >1.0 >350 >9 >30 >500 >5.0 a Permeability affects infiltration rate of water into the soil. Evaluate using ECw and SAR together. At a given SAR, infiltration rate increases as salinity (ECw) increases. b Plant sensitivity to specific ions varies widely. Total salts. Salinity is the most important measure of water quality for landscape plants. It is expressed as total dissolved solids (TDS) and electrical conductivity (ECw)' When water is applied to SOils, some of the salts in the water (notably Na, CI and 8) remain in the soil. As these salts accumulate in the soil, plant toxicity may occur. Salt toxicity is first expressed as stunting of growth and yellowing of foliage, Burning of the edge of the leaves and defoliation usually follows. In severe cases, plants are killed. The degree of the problem depends on the sensitivity of the plant to salts and the concentration of the accumulated salts in the soil. Specific ion toxicity. While salinity expresses the total salt content, 11: will not adequately identify potential toxicities from specific ions. Chloride (CI), sodium (Na) and boron (B) concentrations in recycled water can and often do cause injury to sensitive plants. Boron in particular must be evaluated independently of other salts. It is toxic in such low concentrations «1 ppm), that its presence will not be reflected in the general salinity measurement. Designing Sites Using Recycled Water HortScience, Inc, Nov. 17,2005 Page 4 Sodium and chloride concentrations are particularly important if irrigation will be supplied by sprinkler. Plants will absorb both ions through their foliage. Toxicity through foliar absorption will occur at much lower concentrations than through soil absorption, particularly under high evapotranspiration conditions. The toxicity symptoms of the specific ions are often difficult to distinguish from each other. Leaf chlorosis and marginal burning are typical. Necrosis associated with boron is often black in color and may appear as small spots near the leaf margin. As with salinity. plant tolerance to individual ions is highly species-specific. Some plants, like Indian hawthorn (Raphiolepis indica), can tolerate boron in excess of 7 ppm. Others like photinia (Photinia x Frasen) are injured at 05 ppm. Furthermore, a plant may be relatively tolerant of boron, but highly sensitive to chloride. Little information is available to help develop lists of sensitivity of plants to specific ions. The landscape manager must rely primarily on experience and observation. Sodium adsorption ratio. In addition to affecting plants directly. sodium can have negative effects on soil structure. It may cause dispersion of soil aggregates if present in high concentrations. This decreases both drainage and soil aeration which may cause plant decline and death. Soils high in clay are particularly susceptible to breakdown of aggregates by sodium. Sodium hazard to soils is usually assessed from the sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), a value calculated from the sodium, calcium and magnesium concentrations. However, the permeability problems that can be caused by a high SAR can be partially offset by salts in the water. A more accurate measure of potential problems in irrigation water is the adjusted sodium adsorption ratio (adj RNa) calculated from the salinity, bicarbonate, calcium, sodium and magnesium concentrations of the water. Bicarbonate. Bicarbonate affects plants through its influence on pH and interaction with sodium. High bicarbonate can cause iron chlorosis symptoms in plants. Water high in bicarbonate. carbonate and calcium and/or magnesium can result in a white precipitate forming on foliage under sprinkler irrigation. Irrigation hardware is also susceptible to damage from bicarbonates. The preCipitates can clog drip emitters. When bicarbonate combines with calcium or magnesium in soils, calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate preCipitate out. Consequently the SAR of the soil increases, and permeability to water may become a problem. The bicarbonate hazard to soils can be evaluated by calculating the residual sodium carbonate (RSC). The RSC is the sum of the carbonate and bicarbonate ions minus the sum of calcium and magnesium ions. Water with an RSC>2.5 meqll can develop permeability problems. Heavy metals. Heavy metals are rarely present in water in sufficient quantities to be directly toxic to plants. However, most metals become tied up in the soil and their concentrations increase over time. Water quality criteria take the accumulation of the elements with many years of irrigation into account, and provide maximum concentrations with long-term use in mind. Effluent derived from domestic sources does not usually have problems with trace elements. Nutrients. One of the advantages of using recycled water for landscape irrigation is that it contains plant nutrients and reduces Ihe needs for application of fertilizer. Nitrogen (NH4• N03). phosphorus (P20s) and sulfur (S04) are the constituents of greatest benefit. Their concentrations are considered when evaluating recycled water to determine fertilization needs (Harivandi, 1988). Recycled water usually contains most of the micronutrients needed by plants. A negative aspect of this fertility involves storage of recycled water. Ponded nutrient-laden water develops algae and other aquatic weed problems more rapidly that potable water. Designing Sites Using Recycled Water HortScience, Inc .• Nov. 17. 2005 Page 5 Designing and managing landscapes irrigated with recycled water The potentiaf problems to plants and soils can be minimized in a variety of ways, including both management and design. All of the management techniques require monitoring soil chemical and moisture characteristics, as well as plant responses. The main concerns are salinity and pH .. In addition, monitor water quality regularly because constituents can vary seasonally. When designing new landscapes that will be irrigated with recycled water consider the following in the design: 1. Determine what the salt content of the recycled water will be. Check with the recycled water provider for a water analysis to determine concentrations of sodium, boron, and chloride. You may be able to access this information on the water agency's web site. 2. Avoid using salt-sensitive species. A list of species often damaged when irrigated with recycled water is provided in Table 3. If saft sensitive plantings cannot be avoided, irrigate on separate systems providing potable water. 3. Identify and solve drainage problems prior to planting. Good drainage is essential to using recycled water. Acljusting finish grades, eliminating hardpans and improving soil structure are methods to improve drainage. 4. Evaluate soil characteristics before planting. Soils should be tested for chemical and physical characteristics prior to planting to evaluate their suitability for irrigation with recycled water. Unfavorable conditions such as high sodium or chloride should be treated before planting to the. extent possible. When managing sites irrigated with recycled water, consider the following: 1. Minimize salt accumulation in the root zone. Minimizing salt accumulation is important to both avoid leaf burn and to avoid salt stress that can predispose plants to other problems. It is accomplished by leaching with heavy irrigations to flush accumulated salts below the roots. Annual rains may be adequate to maintain soil salinity within tolerable levels in some cases (heavy rainfaU, well- drained soil). Where soils are heavier, leaching with good quality water may be needed during the growing season to lower salt levels. Use of recycled water should be avoided in areas with poor drainage, since those areas cannot be leached. 2. Lower sodium concentrations in solis. If sodium concentrations become too high, drainage is impaired. Incorporating calcium (in the form of gypsum) into the soil and leaching can reclaim soil structure. Routine light applications of gypsum may be advantageous to avoid sodium problems. 3. Decrease fertilizer applications. Because recycled water contains significant amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, applications of fertilizer can be reduced and in some instances, eliminated. 4. Increase irrigation frequency. Irrigation with recycled water should occur more frequently to dilute soil solutes, avoid water stress and minimize toxicity. 5. Moderate soil pH. Most plants tolerate a wide range in soil pH. As the pH of the soil begins to rise, however, acid-requiring plants may develop iron deficiency. Should chlorosis symptoms develop. the soil pH could be lowered by applying sulfur, or individual plants can be fertilized with iron to alleviate symptoms. 6. Monitor plant health. Additional stress factors caused by salts should be considered in the park's pest management program. Plant health must be monitored closely to identify stress-related problems that may develop. Some Designing Sites Using Recycled Water HortScience, Inc., Nov. 17,2005 Page 6 examples are bark beetles (Ips) on pines (Pinus), borers on alder (Alnus), and canker (Seridium cardinale) on cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa). 7. Monitor soil chemical changes. Soil conditions should be monitored through sampling programs to identify need leaching or other soil treatments. In most cases, soils should be sampled at the beginning and end of the irrigation period. Recycled water can be an abundant, cost-effective source for irrigation. The landscape designers and managers should consider the quality of the water, soil chemical and physical conditions and sensitivity of landscape species to water constituents when planning and managing landscapes irrigated with recycled water. Literature Cited Harivandi. Ali. 1988. Irrigation water qua/i1y and turf grass management. Calif. Turfgrass Culture. 38(3,4):1-4. Pettygrove, G. and T. Asano. 1985. Irrigation with Reclaimed Municipal Wastewater-A Guidance Manual. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, ML Designing Sites Using Recycled Water HortScience, Inc., Nov. 17,2005 Pagel Table 3: Landscape species prone to damage when irrigated with water having moderate to high salt concentrations. Scientific name Acer japonica A/nus rhombifolia Alnus cordata Betula pendula Camelia jamponica Celtis sinensis Cinnamomun camphora Citrus spp. Clivia miniata Clytostoma callistegioides Cymbidium spp. Dicksonia antarctica Dietes iridioides Enobotrya japonica Escalfonia x exoniensis 'Fradesii' Eucalyptus ficifolia Euca/yptus nicolii Eucalyptus sideroxylon Euryops pectinatus Fragaria chi/oensis Gardenia angusta Geijera parv/flora Ginkgo bi/oba Howea fosteriana Hydrangea macrophylia /lex comuta 'Burford ii' Lagers/roemia indica Liquidambar styraciflua Liriope muscar! Lophostemon conferta (Tristania) Magnolia grandiflora Michelia champaca Morus alba Musa spp. Nandma domestica Nephrolepis spp. Philodendron Phoenix robe/enii Photinia fraseri Pinus thunberg;; Pinus torreyana Platanus x acer/folia Podocarpus graci/ior Podocarpus henkelii Podocarpus macrophyl/us Prunus cerasifera 'Atropururea' Prunus iIIicifolia Iyonii Quercus rubra Rhododendron sp. Rosa cultivars Common name Japanese maple White alder Italian alder European white birch Camelia Chinese hackberry Camphor Orange, lemon Clivia Violet trumpet vine Orchid Tasmamian tree fern Fortnight lily Loquat Escallonia Red-flowering gum Peppermint gum Red iron bark Euryops False strawberry Gardenia Australian willow Maidenhair tree Kantiapalm Hydrangea Burford hofly Crape myrtle Sweetgum Big blue lily turf Brisbane box Southern magnolia Charnpaca Mulberry Banana Heavenly bamboo Sword fern Philodendron Pygmy date palm Photinia Japanese black pine Torrey pine London plane Fern pine Long-leafed yellow wood Yew pine Purple leafed plum Catalina cherry Red oak Rhododendron Rose Designing Sites Using Recycled Water HortScience, Inc., Nov. 17, 2005 Page 8 Table 3: Landscape speci.es prone to damage when irrigated with water having moderate to high salt concentrations, continued. Scientific name Sequoia sempervirens Sarcococca ruscifolia Spathodea campanulata Sophora japonica Tabebuia sp. Tibouchina urvilleana Tifia cordata Viburnum tinus Wisteria sinensis Xylosma congestum lamia furfuracea lelkova serrata Common name Coast redwood Sweet box African tulip tree Japanese pagoda tree Trumpet tree Princess flower Little-leaf linden Viburnum Wisteria Xylosma Cardboard palm Zelkova -------------------------------------- Comment Letter 7 -Stanford University Response to Comment 7 ~1 The City acknowledges Stanford University's concerns about the use of recycled water as an irrigation source for certain types of trees and the effects of such use on the appearance and value of the Stanford Research Park. Responses to the University's individual concerns are provided below. Response to Comment 7-2 As described on page 1 of the Public Draft ISIMND, and reiterated in Section 1.2 of this Response to Comments document, the Palo Alto R WQCP and its member agencies prepared the Water Reclamation Master Plan for the Palo Alto R WQCP in 1992 and the accompanying Final Program EIR in 1995 (CH2MHill, 1995). The two main goals of the Master Plan were to: "1) reduce demand on drinking water supplies by providing recycled water suitable for non-potable uses and 2) reduce metal discharge and improve overall water quality to the San Francisco Bay in part by reducing wastewater discharge to the bay." 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 Master Plan Program EIR addressed the environmental effects of the overall Water Reuse Program and included a focused, project-level review of one specific project the Foothill Main Project. "The Foothill Main Project would have established an initial distribution system running from the RWQCP to the Santa Cruz Mountain foothills, a storage reservoir in the foothills southwest of Stanford University, and the use of recycled water for landscape irrigation at Stanford, several city parks, and a highway interchange. The project was never built." Because the proposed project is one phase of the Master Plan, this Public Draft ISIMND tiers from the Master Plan Program EIR. Section 3.3, Salinity, soils, and Vegetation of the Master Plan Program ErR evaluates potential impacts to soils and vegetation from salinity and other reclaimed (recycled) water constituents at the proposed water use sites as a result of recycled water use as landscape irrigation. As indicated on page 3-13 of the Master Plan Program EIR, "there are no established numerical standards for determining whether the salinity in reclaimed water would cause significant environmental impacts as a result of using the water for landscape irrigation. The deleterious effects of using irrigation water with high salinity concentrations are usually seen through substantially diminished plant growth and possibly plant mortality. These effects are typically mitigated through water management programs and the replacement of less salt-tolerant species with more -salt tolerant species, such that the visual appearance of the landscape is not substantially altered. The periodic replacement of less salt-tolerant vegetation to more salt-tolerant species is typically not considered in itself to be a significant impact, as long as the salt-tolerant species remain healthy and are an aesthetically pleasing component of the landscape." Because of the lack of numeric thresholds, the Master Plan Program EIR identified qualitative thresholds for the following constituents: salinity, sodium, chloride, boron, and bicarbonate. The project evaluated impacts for both the Foothill Main Program as well as at a program level of detail. The conclusions are similar, as described below. The Master Plan Program ErR concluded that there would be beneficial, no, or less-than- significant impacts for the following associated with recycled water use: Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 17 Response to Comments Document • By using reclaimed water for landscape irrigation (which contains nutrients), the quantities of chemical fertilizers needed to maintain desirable vegetative growth would be reduced. As such, this would be a beneficial effect; • With the indicated electrical conductivity of the recycled water from the RWQCP, there would be little or no impact on the soils from sodium; • Due to their very low concentrations, constituents other than total salinity and sodium, including trace metals, would have no short-or long-term impacts on soils; and • The concentrations of boron and bicarbonate are not high enough to cause significant impacts on turf grasses or landscape plantings. The Master Plan Program EIR concluded potentially significant but mitigable impacts for the following: • The recycled water salinity concentration was determined not high enough to prevent the use of the reclaimed water for landscape irrigation, although it is high enough to potentially cause adverse impacts to some vegetation (e.g., reduction in growth and/or undesirable appearance from leaf damage). "Based on the available data, only very sensitive landscape species are likely to be affected. If such effect is realized to an unacceptable point, these species can be replaced with more tolerant species, which has been shown to be an acceptable mitigation measure and is a common practice in reclaimed water irrigation program" (page 3-19 of the Master Plan Program EIR). It was concluded that some degree of special management would be required in using the recycled water to control the effects of salinity and chloride on soils and vegetation and that with implementation of best management practices (BMPs) all of the impacts would be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Pages 3-20 and 3-21 of the Master Plan Program EIR identify Mitigation Measure 3.2-1, which would reduce potentially significant impacts to a level of Insignificance. The measure would require the following: • that recycled water users apply recycled water in quantities sufficient to leach accumulated salts through the root zone; • that recycled water users monitor the effects of the recycled water on landscape vegetation over time; • that recycled water users take additional actions as necessary: o adequate leaching can be accomplished by regularly applying about 15 to 20 percent more water than the evapotranspiration requirement of the turf during normal irrigation, applying two or three extra heavy irrigations during non-wet years; o providing good subsurface and surface drainage; and o employment of appropriate management practices. • Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 further states that the implementation of best irrigation water management practices should incorporate the following activities: o Provide proper training and information regarding recycled water use (provided by the RWQCP to all recycled water use site managers; Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Response to Comments Document o Apply appropriate quantities of irrigation water to ensure leaching and maintain adequate surface drainage by recycled water use site managers; o Monitor the health and appearance of vegetation being irrigated with recycled water to identifY any adverse effects (e.g., reduction in growth or plant death) by recycled water use site ground keepers; and o Implement other measures as needed, including, for example, one or more of the following: • • • Irrigate affected areas during nighttime hours; Add soil amendments to the soil or the reclaimed water; Replace salt-intolerant plants with salt-tolerant species; • Blend the reclaimed water with potable water or nonpotable groundwater. It should be noted that when the evaluation was completed in the early 1990s, the salinity of the recycled water, as represented by its electrical conductivity, or EC, was much higher than the levels that will be delivered during implementation of the proposed project (previously 1.6 mmho/cm compared to 1.09 dS/m = 1.09 mmho/cm). Similarly, the sodium and chloride levels have reduced since the early 1990s. The effects of recycled water use for irrigating landscape vegetation were addressed in the Master Plan Program EIR, as described above. The project as previously analyzed in the Master Plan Program ElR, with the elevated concentrations of salinity, sodium, and chloride compared to the concentrations of the current recycled water, were determined to be potentially significant, but would be reduced to a level of insignificance with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 of the Master Plan Program EIR. Because the Master Plan Program EIR has adequately addressed this issue, a project-specific EIR would not need to be prepared to reevaluate this issue. The City has taken the information provided in the Master Plan Program EIR and the adopted mitigation measure that would reduce potential effects of recycled water use to a level of insignificance and integrated them into the Project Description as an Adaptive Management Program (further described below and in the response to Comment 7-3). The framework of the Adaptive Management Program is consistent with Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 of the Master Plan Program EIR. In addition, the City has provided more up-to-date information regarding salinity and redwood trees. However, the conclusions of these studies would not change the conclusions regarding this impact. Since the certification and approval of the Master Plan Program EIR, some new infonnation has been developed regarding the use of recycled water on redwood trees. Because the City is concerned about its regulated trees\ it has developed a project that proactively addresses public concern and discloses the scientific data available regarding the issue of recycled water use for irrigation. As described on page 73 of the Public Draft ISIMND, "City staff investigated public concerns regarding the use of recycled water when applied globally as the primary source of irrigation for existing trees. The City's review did not determine conclusively that recycled water use was responsible for the decline of trees, although recycled water represents a change in irrigation strategy that could pose challenges for specific tree species, particularly Redwoods and possibly other trees requiring favorable acidic soil conditions for health." Due to the lack of definite correlation that linked the decline and/or loss of trees to recycled water use, the lack of "quantitative thresholds to evaluate the effects of recycled water use from this project on redwood 3 Regulated Trees identified in the Tree Technical Manual include the following: protected trees, street trees and designated trees. Please see the response to Comment 7-3 for definitions of these trees. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 19 Response to Comments Document trees and the multitude of factors that can contribute to such declines of redwood trees," this impact was not found to be significant. In response to the commenter's concern about subsurface conditions of Stanford lands, it should be further noted that soils throughout the project area were classified in terms of their suitability to receive recycled water. As stated on page 3-12 of the Master Plan Program EIR, "(t]he classification scheme considered five soil characteristics as criteria, including surface permeability, subsurface permeability, root penetration, occurrence of high water table, and occurrence of alkali, all of which relate to the ability of the soil to carry salts in the irrigation water below the root zone. Using these criteria, the Master Plan identified and mapped areas with three soils classes, including good ("no problem anticipated"); fair ("may require some special management practices in some cases"); and very poor ("difficulties anticipated, very likely required management practices and some sites may be unsuitable")." " ... Most of the entire program area (Stanford Research Park included] covers soils classified as either good or fair for reclaimed water irrigation by Master Plan. A relatively narrow band of soils at the northeastern border of the program area, bordering the San Francisco Bay, was the only area with soils identified as very poor for water irrigation" (page 3-12 of the Master Plan Program EIR). As part of public disclosure, the Public Draft ISIMND acknowledges the variety of factors that can contribute to the health of redwood trees. This includes water quality, salt-sensitivity of plants in the landscape, soil characteristics, and irrigation management. In addition, other agents that can cause decline in redwood trees include climatic factors, fungal pathogens, and other diseases. "Redwood trees are native to cool, foggy coastal areas in forest situations where the conditions differ drastically from those planted in the Bay Area landscape" (page 74 of the Public Draft ISIMND). As such, they may be sensitive to salinity. It should be noted that "there have been reports of decline in redwoods throughout California in landscapes irrigated with both potable and recycled water (Downer 2004 as cited in HortScience, Inc 2005)" (page 73 of the Public Draft ISIMND) Given this information, the correlation between decline of redwood trees and the use of recycled water is unclear. As concluded by Barnes et al., 2007 (p. 27), "it is clear that redwoods can tolerate EC values in the range typical for recycled waters if irrigation is properly managed." Given the reasons described above, a separate EIR would not need to be prepared. The issue was adequately analyzed in the Master Plan Program EIR, and further addressed in the Public Draft ISIMND. The Public Draft IS/MND has also integrated into its project description an Adaptive Management Program that is consistent with the Master Plan Program ErR Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 that was adopted to reduce the potential effects of recycled water use to a level of insignificance. No change in the discussions of salinity and recycled water effects to redwood trees are warranted in the Public Draft ISIMND. Thus, by including the Adaptive Management Program, the City is complying with CEQ A Guideline Section lS168(c)(3), which requires incorporation of prior mitigation measures into later activities. It should be noted that the State Water Resources Control Board adopted a statewide Recycled Water Policy on February 3,2009 to establish uniform requirements for the use of recycled water. As stated in the policy, "(t]he State Water Board finds that the use of recycled water in accordance with this Policy, that is, which supports the sustainable use of groundwater andlor surface water, which is sufficiently treated so as not to adversely impact public health or the environment and which ideally substitutes for use of potable water, is presumed to have a beneficial impact. Other public agencies are encouraged to use this presumption in evaluating the impacts of recycled water projects on the environment as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)." It should also be noted that although the Policy encourages Palo Alto Recycled Project Response to Document public agencies to presume the beneficial effect of recycled water, the Public Draft ISIMND for this project does not make that assumption. Rather, it provides disclosure of the issue related to recycled water use and integrates a proactive and precautionary approach that addresses concerns if they materialize. To further allay the commenter's concern about the potential effects of recycled water use on its trees, the City will propose to modifY Chapter 16.12, Recycled Water, of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code that requires the use of recycled water for landscape irrigation, such that recycled water is not mandated for use on Redwood trees. The change will allow individual users to decide whether to take the "risk" described by the Commenter. This approach was taken in Phase 2 of the Master Plan Program in Mountain View. Response to Comment 7-3 To show the City's commitment to preserve the community's tree canopy, the City has taken a proactive, precautionary approach to avoid potential effects, if any, that could occur associated with the use of recycled water. "As described on page 17 of the Public Draft ISIMND, "[t]o maximize the use of recycled water for irrigation in combination with responsibly maintaining the urban forest canopy, the City has developed the Adaptive Management Program (Program)." The Program is described on pages 17 19 of the Public Draft ISIMND and its components reiterated in the response to Comment 3-3 above. The Program is designed such that it can be adapted to address any potential issues that may arise. Due to the differing conditions of the recycled water service area, a management approach that has a set framework but allows for flexibility in responding to site-specific conditions is appropriate. The annual monitoring required as part of the project would allow for continuous observation/inspection of changes that may occur from baseline conditions at individual sites during the life of recycled water irrigation. Although the Program has not yet been developed in full, it is the intent of the City to work with a consulting or registered arborist or horticulturalist to develop the details of a plan that is feasible and can be implemented by the Participants (City and recycled water users). The details of the Program will include Best Management Practices that can be implemented in the event any triggers (e.g., symptoms of decline) are observed. This adaptive approach would allow for multi-tier responses to the changed condition, such as adjustments to the irrigation strategy, modifications to the drainage systems, modifications of the landscape palette, or even the ultimate cessation of recycled water irrigation application as needed if decline symptoms appear. It should be noted that the Adaptive Management considers both the City's Tree Ordinance and the Tree Technical Manual to guide the protection of the City's trees. The goal of the Program would be to protect regulated trees identified in the City's Tree Ordinance, including the following: • Protected Trees: All Coast Live Oak, Quercus agrifolia, Valley Oak, Quercus lobata trees that are 11.5-inches or greater in diameter (36-inches in circumference measured at 54- inches above natural grade) and Coast Redwood, Sequoia sempervirens trees that are 18- inches or greater in diameter (57-inches in circumference measured at 54-inches above natural grade) and Heritage Trees, individual trees of any size or species designated as such by City Council per the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 8.10. • Street Trees: All trees growing within the street right-of-way (publicly-owned), outside of private property. In some cases, property lines lie several feet behind the sidewalks. A permit from the Public Works Department is required prior to any work on or within the dripline of any 'street tree' per PAMC Section 8.04. • Designated Trees: All trees, when associated with a development project, that are specifically designated by the City to be saved and protected on a public or private property which is subject to a discretionary development review per PAMC Section 18.76. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 21 Response to Comments Document To more specifically respond to the commenter's statement "that the Adaptive Management Program is designed to address salinity impacts only after redwoods and other landscaping have been exposed over time to high salinity irrigation water and adverse impacts have been observed" (p. 5), the City would like to clarify that there would be sufficient time prior to implementation of the project (i.e., before recycled water use is initiated) for Participants to perform any necessary, preventative actions (as appropriate) to prepare for receiving recycled water. Implementation of the project is anticipated to take at least two to three years, but the development of the Adaptive Management Program could start right away. Since time is available, the envisioned baseline assessment (i.e., site-specific Baseline Conditions Report) could be conducted early on so that Participants can make individual decisions on whether any of the BMPs identified in the Program should be implemented ahead of recycled water application. This would address the commenter's issue of not wanting to wait for signs of decline before acting appropriately. If, based on baseline conditions report or other data, Participants feel that the BMPs will not be sufficient in certain situations, they can request an exemption (Section 16.12.050 of the Ordinance) from the requirement to apply recycled water to Redwood trees or similarly salt- sensitive species. The exemption process is an appropriate forum for property owners to establish that the record demonstrates the use of recycled water would harm Redwood trees or similarly salt-sensitive species at specific sites. The exemption process can be utilized to deal with the Redwood tree concern and the concern for similar species and landscaping. Staff anticipates that the RWQCP's efforts to reduce salinity levels in the recycled water will, in time, reduce the salinity level of the recycled water to that comparable to the best local groundwater. Currently, saline groundwater is entering sewer lines and increasing salinity levels in the recycled water. The R WQCP is working with its partner agencies to eliminate the infiltration of saline water wherever possible. As part of Program development, the issue of responsibility and cost to implement the Program will be determined (see also Comment 3-4). As an emphasis, it should be noted that the Program incorporates a precautionary approach to avoid potential impacts, if any, that may result from recycled water use. Response to Comment 7-4 The use of recycled water is not anticipated to affect creeks and other biological resources, such as federally protected species, resulting from runoff of high salinity irrigation water. DPH requirements that are applicable to the proposed Project to protect public health would be also be relevant to protect creeks and biological resources. The general requirements included in Title 22, Article 4, Section 60310 -Use Area Requirements focus on application and management specifications for various water uses. As identified on page 72 of the Public Draft IS/MND, one of the general requirements is as follows: "Prohibition of the over-application of any direct runoff of applied recycled water (recycled water would be applied to landscaped areas at agronomic rates to meet evapotransporation requirements, which minimizes surface runoff). It should be noted that page 3-17 of the Master Plan Program EIR states that "a leaching fraction of approximately 20 percent can typically ensure adequate leaching. This level of leaching fraction can be maintained without excessive surface runoff." As such, runoff of high salinity irrigation water and subsequent effects on receiving water bodies and other biological resources are not anticipated. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 22 Response to Comments Document Response to Comment 7·5 As described on page 17 of the Public Draft MND, "The City of Palo Alto recognizes that the community tree canopy on private and public property is highly valued for its aesthetic qualities and environmental benefits" and thus incorporated the Adaptive Management Program into the project. The purpose of the Program is to prevent such an instance by taking appropriate actions when first signs of symptoms occur. The incorporation of the Program is intended to avoid effects of recycled water on visual and biological resources (see pages 38 to 39, and 55 of the Public Draft IS/MND). As such, Project implementation would not conflict with land use plans and policies that call for the protection of trees. Participants would still be required to comply with the Tree Ordinance and the Tree Technical Manual in preserving protected trees andlor replacing non-protected, street trees. Therefore, the City does not anticipate the widespread death of redwood trees resulting from the use of recycled water. Response to Comment 7·6 While the Public Draft ISIMND adequately evaluates the project's effects on the visual environment, once the Project is approved, additional CEQA review will be completed as part of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) process. Projects within the City that follow the Architectural Review Board (ARB) process would result in a less-than-significant impact. The ARB is charged with design review of all new construction, and changes and additions to commercial, industrial and multiple-family projects. Relevant goals and purposes of ARB include: • Promote orderly and harmonious development of the City • Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other. The ARB Application Review Process is rigorous and first requires City staff review of the project for compliance with City standards and consistency with the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance, Architectural Review Board Ordinance, and other regulations and guidelines. Thereafter, ARB considers the project at a public hearing to approve the Project, approve the project with conditions, continue the project to another ARB meeting, or deny the project. The ARB process is applied consistently for all projects within the City with standards that ensure the protection of the visual character of the City. As such, further evaluation, if required, will be completed during the ARB process. Response to Comment 7-7 As noted in the Public Draft IS/MND, page 49, trenchless construction would be used to install the pipeline at creek crossings, thereby avoiding impacts to habitat for California red-legged frog (CRLF) and western pond turtle (WPT). However, some in-channel work may be needed for the pipeline crossing at Adobe Creek due to the limited accessibility of the side of the overpass to which the pipeline would attach. This location has been evaluated and the potential for occurrence of CRLF and WTP is considered low because then channel is unvegetated and concrete-lined. Nevertheless Mitigation Measure BIO-l requires that construction of the crossing be limited to the dry season when flows are reduced and CRLF and WTP are unlikely to be present. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 also would require preconstruction surveys be conducted if in-channel work is needed at Adobe Creek, and lays out procedures to be followed in the unlikely event that either CRLF or WTP are found in the construction area. Thus, the mitigation is clear on the measures that would be employed by specifically identifying that either an exclusion or relocation program would be implemented in coordination with the appropriate resources agency. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 23 Response to Comments Document Mitigation that includes removal and exclusion is generally standard practice, which was included by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in their Programmatic Biological Opinion for impacts to California red-legged frog (USFWS 1999). The mitigation measure for the protection of nesting birds has been identified. While it is correct that the Public Draft IS/MND states that species specific measures would be developed in consultation with appropriate agencies, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 specifically describes the actions that would be included. As noted on page 57 of the Public Draft IS/MND, "At a minimum, construction activities in the vicinity of nests shall be deferred until the young have fledged and an exclusion buffer zone shall be established. CDFG typically recommends a minimum exclusion buffer of 25 feet for songbird nests, and 200 to 500 feet for raptor nests, depending on the species and location. The perimeter of the nest-setback zone shall be fenced or adequate demarcated with staked flagging at 20-foot intervals, and construction personnel shall be restricted from the area." The mitigation measure goes on to identify reporting requirements. As such, this measure provides specific mitigation for nesting birds. Regarding mitigation for California clapper rails and black rails, specific mitigation is provided in Mitigation Measure BIO-4. For example, conducting construction outside of the breeding season or starting construction prior to the breeding season to prevent birds from establishing nests in surrounding habitat are included as part of the mitigation measure. If it is not feasible to conduct work according to this schedule, then preconstruction surveys would be completed. If, based on the survey, USFWS and CDFG do not agree that work can be conducted during the breeding season, then construction of the portion of the pipeline east of US-1 0 1 would not start until after the end of the breeding season. As such, mitigation measures for biological resources have not been deferred. Clear, implementable mitigation measures are presented in the Public Draft ISIMND. These mitigation measures are included in the MMRP that is a condition of approval for the proposed project. No changes to the mitigation measures are necessary. Response to Comment 7-8 The City has adequately disclosed and evaluated potential issues associated with implementation of the proposed project. The City has incorporated into the Project an Adaptive Management Plan and as relevant, included mitigation measure to address such issues. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Response to Comments Document 3. IS/MND Revisions Staff-Initiated Text Changes The following changes in the text of the Public Draft ISIMND were made by City of Palo Alto staff. Clapper Rail Mitigation Section D, Biological Resources, of the Public Draft ISIMND evaluates the potential for clapper and black rails to occur within the project area and identifies survey requirements in Mitigation Measure BIO-4 to address potential impacts. Specifically, it states that "protocol-level surveys are only necessary during the installation of the pipeline east of US-lO 1" but does not callout specific requirements for the proposed pump station at the RWQCP. A staff-initiated change has been made to clarify this mitigation. As discussed on page 51 of the Public Draft ISIMND, "[p ]otential foraging and nesting habitat for clapper rails does not occur in much of the study area. However, the RWQCP is located within the Baylands Preserve, which contains northern coastal salt marsh habitat that supports potential habitat for clapper rails. There are several occurrences of clapper rail recorded in the CNDDB within a five-mile radius of the Project...the potential for construction-related activities to adversely affect clapper rails is considered low given the existing levels of human-related disturbances [e.g., operation of the RWQCP, and foot and bicycle traffic on nearby trails] in the Project vicinity, but the USFWS and CDFG typically recommend surveys be conducted for projects within 700 ft of potential nesting habitat to avoid disturbance of clapper rails during the nesting season (Browning, 2006)." Because the potential for construction-related activities to adversely affect clapper rails is considered low given the existing levels of human-related disturbances, it should be clarified that although protocol-level surveys are not required for the proposed pump station at the RWQCB, a pre-construction survey for clapper rails would be needed during the nesting season if construction occurred within 700 feet of potential clapper rail nesting habitat, and construction did not begin before the start of the nesting season. Revisions to Mitigation BIO-4 are shown below. BIO-4: Avoid disturbing nesting California clapper and black rails during the installation ofthe pipeline in alignment Option 1 or alignment Option 2 east ofUS-lOl and construction ofthe pump station at the RWQCP. To avoid substantial adverse effects to nesting California clapper rails and black rails, installation of alignment Option 1 or alignment Option 2 east of US-I Oland construction of the pump station at the RWQCP should either be conducted outside of the breeding season for clapper rails (in general, February 1st through August 31st) or construction activities east ofUS-IOI and at the RWQCP site should be started prior to the breeding season and disturbance activities continued throughout the spring to prevent birds from establishing nests in surrounding habitats. This would prevent abandonment of eggs or young that could occur if nesting establishes prior to construction activities. If this is not feasible, a qualified biologist shall conduct the following: 1) protocol-level surveys for clapper rails (following methods outlined in the Draft Survey Protocol: California Clapper Rail (Rallus longistrostris obsoletus)(USFWS 2000) for Option 1 or 2 pipeline alignments east of US-lOI; 2) pre-construction survey for the California Clapper Rail for construction at the proposed RWOCP within 700 feet of potential nesting habitat; and 3) pre- construction surveys for Califol11ia black rail to determine presence or absence of rail breeding activity in the vicinity of the Project. A qualified biologist is an individual who has experience conducting protocol-level surveys for California clapper rails, and experience surveying for Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 25 Response to Comments Document California black rails using a standardized tape call-back response protocol. Prior to commencement of the surveys for Option 1 or 2 pipeline alignments east of US-1 0 1, the biologist shall prepare a brief letter report describing the survey design and submit it to the USFWS (for California clapper rail only) and CDFG for review and approval. Upon the completion of the surveys, survey results shall be submitted to the USFWS and CDFG for a final decision on the possibility of doing work during the breeding season for the clapper and black rail. Protocol-level surveys are only necessary during the installation of the pipeline east of US-1 01. If construction activities east of US-10 1 are conducted outside the breeding season, no surveys would be necessary. Additional Footnote The following footnote is added to page 73 of the Public Draft ISIMND, as footnote 12, All subsequent footnotes would be renumbered accordingly. City staff investigated~ub1ic concerns regarding the use of recycled water when applied globally as the primary source of irrigation for existing trees,. The City's review did not determine conclusively that recycled water use was responsible for the decline of trees, although recycled water represents a change in irrigation strategy that could pose challenges for specific tree species, particularly Redwoods and possibly other trees requiring favorable acidic soil conditions for health. 12 "Mr. Dockter et al. Fall 2008 reconnaissance of recycled water sites in four cities. Various degrees of tree decline (redwoods and other conifers) symptomatic of recycled water use in poorly drained soils were observed. October 28, 2008 sites: Pac Trust, 2000 Wyatt Dr, Santa Clara. Washington Wilson School; 1840 Benton, Santa Clara. Present were, Dave Dockter, Environmental Planner, Barrie Coate (Barrie Coate & Associates), Michael Santos CHortScience, Inc.), Brian Bagley, (The Villages Golf & Country Club Facilities). Catherine Martineau, (Canopy Director), Susan Rosenberg, (Canopy Board Member). October 29,2008, Mr. Dockter reviewed the Greer Park, Palo Alto site. November 1, 2008 Mr. Dockter reviewed the sites at Fairchild Imaging 1801-1851 McCarthy Boulevard, Milpitas and 1215 Borregas Drive, Sunnyvale." Changes in Response to Public Comments The following changes have been made in response to comments from the public. Please refer to the individual comments for the explanation of the change. 1. The following revisions have been made to the Potential Permits and Approvals Required section on page 25 of the Public Draft ISIMND o Caltrans -Encroachment Permit and Transportation Permit; o Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) -permit for construction across creeks I flood control channels, easement to construct the pipeline in SCVWD right-of-way and a permit prior to construction for destruction of any well or construction of any new well, including monitoring wells. o Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority -Construction Access Permit if construction involved cutting through a VT A PCC bus stop pavement pad. 2. First paragraph on page 20 of the Public Draft IS/MND is revised as follows: In accordance with CEQA Section 15064.5, if cultural resources are encountered during Project-related excavations, construction shall be halted or diverted to allow an Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 26 Response to Comments Document archaeologist an opportunity to assess the resource. The archaeologist will recommend what action, if anv, is warranted. 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. 3. A third bullet item has been added to the end of the Adaptive Management Program on page 19 of the Public Draft ISIMND to address groundwater issues. The City will coordinate with Santa Clara Valley Water District to monitor water quality in the groundwater basin to assess any potential changes associated with project use of recycled water. Monitoring activities will be coordinated with the future salinity and nutrient management plan, to be developed for the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin in accordance with the State Recycled Water Policy (adopted in 2009). Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 27 Response to Comments Document References California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region. 2003. A Comprehensive Groundwater Protection Evaluation for the South San Francisco Bay Basins. May. Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2004. Advanced Recycled Water Treatment Feasibility Project. August. State Water Resources Control Board. 1968. Resolution 68-16: State of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality of Waters in California. Xu, J., W. Chen, L. Wu, R. Green and A.C. Chang. 2008. Leaching of Pharmaceutical and Personal Care Products (PPCPs) and Disinfection By-Products (DBPs) in Turfgrass Soils Irrigated with Reclaimed Water. University of California, Riverside, Department of Environmental Sciences. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 28 Response to Comments Document Appendix A -Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program May 2009 The following is a summary of mitigation measures integrated into the project which are adequate to reduce all potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level. The MMRP is organized in a table format, keyed to each significant impact and each mitigation measure incorporated into the project The tables following each measure provide a breakdown of how mitigation measures would be implemented, who would be responsible, and when it would occur. They consist of four column headings which are defined as follows: • Implementation Procedure: If needed, this column provides additional information on how the mitigation measure will be implemented. • Monitoring and Reporting Actions: This column contains an outline of the appropriate steps to verifY compliance with the mitigation measure. • Monitoring Responsibility: This column contains an assignment of responsibility for the monitoring and reporting tasks. • Monitoring Schedule: The general schedule for conducting each monitoring and reporting task, identifYing where appropriate both the timing and frequency of the action. A. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIO-l: Creek Protection. The following measures would be implemented to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects to California red-legged frogs (CRLF) and Western pond turtles (WPT), and their habitats prior to and during the installation of the sections of pipeline crossing Adobe Creek at US-lOI, Matadero Creek at Hillview Avenue, and Barron Creek at Miranda Avenue. These measures are not applicable to Adobe Creek at Middlefield Road as no suitable habitat is present. • A SWPPP that complies with the statewide General Permit administered by the California State Water Resources Control Board for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) shall be developed and implemented to protect the 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) Best Management Practices (BMP) shall be prescribed in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and erosion and sediment control material included in the SWPPP shall be celtified as weed free. • Construction activities associated with the installation of the sections of pipeline crossing Adobe Creek at US-JOI, Matadero Creek at Hillview Avenue, and Barron Creek at Miranda Avenue shall be limited to the dry season (in general, between June 15th through October 15th) when flows are reduced and CRLF and WPT are least likely to be present. • A qualified biologist shall conduct a worker education program prior to the onset of construction activities associated with the installation of the sections of pipeline crossing Adobe Creek at US- 101, Matadero Creek at Hillview A venue, and Barron Creek at Miranda Avenue. Construction workers shall be briefed on, at a minimum, a description of the CRLF and WPT and their habitats, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve CRLF and WPT for the Project, and the boundaries within which the creek crossing may be accomplished. A fact sheet conveying this information shall also be prepared for distribution to the workers. • A qualified biologist shall be retained to monitor the construction activities associated with the installation of the sections of pipeline crossing Adobe Creek at US-lO 1, Matadero Creek at Hillview A venue, and Barron Creek at Miranda A venue. The biologist shall have expertise in the areas of CRLF and WPT biology and ecology, amphibian and reptiles/habitat relationships, and biological monitoring. The biologist shall also monitor performance of construction site management practices for the purpose of identifYing and recommending measures to avoid any condition that could adversely affect CRLF and WPT or their habitat. The City and their contractor, upon notification from the biologist, shall halt activities causing the condition affecting CRLF and WTP or their habitat. Work shall only resume with approval from the biologist. • Food and food-related trash items associated with construction workers shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the work area to deter potential predators. • All staging areas and fueling and maintenance of vehicles and other equipment shall occur at least 60 feet from any riparian habitat, creek, or other water body to ensure that habitat contamination does not occur from such activities. IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING AND ! MONITORING MONITORING PROCEDURE REPORTING ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY SCHEDULE The Director of the Utilities The Director of Planning and Director of Planning and Prior to and during Department incorporates into Community Environment Community Environment construction. contractor sped fications the reviews contractor requirement to prepare and specifications. Retain a copy implement a SWPPP. of the SWPPP in the Project file and at the construction : site. The Director of the Utilities The Director of Planning and Director of Planning and Prior to construction Department includes Community Environment Community Environment construction period limitations reviews construction and other requirements in specifications. contractor specifications and procedures. Qualified biologist appointed The Director of Planning and Director of Planning and Prior to construction by the Director of the Utilities Community Environment. Community Environment Department conducts a worker All worker education education program informing program material is included workers about location of in the Project file. CRLF and WPT habitats, general habitat conservation measures, and allowable boundaries for the creek crossing. Contractor implements Sign-off by qualified Director of Planning and During construction measures in the program. biologist that measures are rommllnitv Environment 'U1~ Retain and allaJifi~d IllUlllLUI I BIO-2: Conduct surveys for CRLF and WPT prior to the installation of the section of pipeline crossing Adobe Creek at Hwy 101, and avoid impacts to CRLF and WPT, if present. If the Adobe Creek crossing at Hwy 101 requires in-channel work, a qualified biologist shall conduct pre- construction surveys following standard visual encounter techniques to confinn presence or absence of CRLFs and WPTs in the work area. At minimum, the biologist shall be familiar with distinguishing physical characteristics of all the life stages of the CRLF, and identifYing WPTs. The biologist shall conduct at least one day and one night survey within one week of construction activities. Surveys shall be conducted, at minimum, 300 feet (ft) up-and downstream of the creek crossing. With the exception of compliance with Measure BIO-l, if no individual CRLFs or WPTs are encountered, no further mitigation would be required. However, if CRLFs and/or WTPs are found, construction activities shall be postponed and the appropriate resources agency (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] for CRLF and California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG] for WPT) shall be consulted to determine the extent of potential impacts to CRLFs and/or WPTs and to identifY measures necessary to avoid, minimize, and mitigate these impacts, such as obtaining an incidental take penni! (for CRLF) or developing an exclusion and relocation program. IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING Al'ID MONITORING I MONITORING PROCEDURE REPORTING ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY SCHEDULE The Director of the Utilities Director of Planning and Director of Planning and Prior to construction Department retains a qualified Community Environment. Community Environment biologist to conduct a prc-Retain pre-construction· construction survey (day and . survey results in the Project night). . file. If CRLF and/or WPTs are Director of Planning and Director of Planning and Prior to construction. encountered during the survey, Community Environment. Community Environment postpone construction Retain records of activities and contact the communication and decisions appropriate resource agency. in the Project file. The qualified biologist Director of Planning and Director of Planning and Prior to construction. implements measures required • Community Environment. Community Environment by Resource Agencies. Reports identifYing that the measures have been completed retain in the Project file. BIO-3: Avoid disturbing nesting birds. To avoid disturbance to nesting common yellowthroat and other migratory birds and raptors (e.g., American kestrel, northern harrier, white-tailed kite), one of the following measures shall be implemented: • Conduct the installation of the proposed aligrrment, alignment options, laterals, and the construction of pump station during the non-breeding season (September 1st through January 31st); OR • Conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting birds if construction activities are to take place during the nesting season (in general, February 1st through August 31st). Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than three days prior to the onset of construction activities to confinn presence or absence of active nests in the Project vicinity. The extent of the area to be surveyed shall be determined by the biologist considering (1) the nature of the construction activities, (2) the existing level of human-related disturbances, and (3) the availability of suitable nesting habitat in the Project vicinity. If active nests are encountered, species-specific measures shall be prepared by a qualified biologist, in coordination with the CDFG and other appropriate agencies, and implemented to prevent direct loss or abandonment of the active nest. At a minimum, construction activities in the vicinity of nests shall be deferred until the young have fledged and an exclusion buffer zone shall be established. CDFG typically recommends a minimum exclusion buffer of 25 feet for songbird nests, and 200 to 500 feet for raptor nests, depending on the species and location. The perimeter of the nest-setback zone shall be fenced or adequately demarcated with staked flagging at 20-foot intervals, and construction personnel shall be restricted from the area. A survey report by the qualified biologist verifying that the young have fledged shall be submitted to City for review and concurrence of the City is required prior to initiation of construction activities within the nest-set-back zone. IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING AND MOMTORING MONITORING PROCEDURE REPORTING ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY SCHEDULE The Director ofthe Utilities Director of Planning and Director of Planning and Prior to construction Department includes Community Environment Community Environment construction period limitations reviews contractor and requirements in contractor specifications. specifications and procedures to avoid disturbance to nesting common yellowthroat and other migratory birds and raptors. If construction activities are Director of Planning and Director of Planning and Prior to construction planned during the nesting Community Environment. Community Environment season, the Director ofthe Retain pre-construction Utilities Department retains a survey results in the Project qualified biologist to conduct file. a pre-construction survey. If active nests are encountered Director of Planning and Director of Planning and Prior to construction. during the survey, the Community Environment. Community Environment qualified biologist prepares Retain records of species-specific measures, in communication and decisions coordination with CDFG. in the Project file. Contractor implements Sign-off by qualified Director of Planning and During construction appropriate avoidance biologist that measures are Community Environment measures if construction implemented. Retain and qualified biologist activities occur during the monitoring reports in Project breeding season. file. BIO-4: Avoid disturbing nesting California clapper and black rails during the installation of the pipeline in alignment Option 1 or alignment Option 2 east of US-lOt and construction of the pump station at the RWQCP. To avoid substantial adverse effects to nesting California clapper rails and black rails, installation of alignment Option 1 or alignment Option 2 east of US-I Oland construction of the pump station at the RWQCP should either be conducted outside of the breeding season for clapper rails (in general, February 1 st through August 31st) or construction activities east of US-lO 1 and at the R WQCP site should be started prior to the breeding season and disturbance activities continued throughout the spring to prevent birds from establishing nests in surrounding habitats. This would prevent abandonment of eggs or young that could occur if nesting establishes prior to construction activities. If this is not feasible, a qualified biologist shall conduct the following: 1) protocol-level surveys for clapper rails (following methods outlined in the Draft Survey Protocol: California Clapper Rail (Rallus longistrostris obsoletus)(USFWS 2000) for Option 1 or 2 pipeline alignments east of US-l 01; 2) pre-construction survey for the California Clapper Rail at the proposed RWQCP within 700 feet of potential nesting habitat; and 3) pre-construction surveys for California black rail to determine presence or absence of rail breeding activity in the vicinity of the Project. A qualified biologist is an individual who has experience conducting protocol-level surveys for California clapper rails, and experience surveying for California black rails using a standardized tape call-back response protocoL Prior to commencement of the surveys for Option 1 or 2 pipeline alignments east of US-101, the biologist shall prepare a briefletter report describing the survey design and submit it to the USFWS (for California clapper rail only) and CDFG for review and approval. Upon the completion of the surveys, survey results shall be submitted to the USFWS and CDFG for a final decision on the possibility of doing work during the breeding season for the clapper and black rail. Protocol-level surveys are only necessary during the installation of the pipeline east of US-IO 1. If construction activities east of US-l 0 1 are conducted outside the breeding season, no surveys would be necessary. If construction activities are planned during the breeding season, the Director ofthe Utilities Department retains a qualified biologist to contact USFWS regarding survey protocols and conduct pre- construction surve s. Contractor implements relevant measures, if necessary, in the program if construction activities occur during the breeding season. Director of Planning and Community Environment. Retain all records of communication with USFWS / CDFG and pre-construction survey results in the Pr~ject file. i Sign-off by qualified biologist that measures are implemented. Retain monitoring reports in Project file. Director of Planning and Community Environment Director of Planning and Community Environment and qualified biologist ORING SCHEDULE Prior to construction During construction BIO-5: Conduct protocol-level Burrowing owl (BUOW) surveys prior to the installation of the pump station proposed at the RWQCP, and avoid impacts to owls, if present, during project construction. A qualified biologist shall conduct a protocol-level survey for burrowing owl following the methods outlined in the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. A survey for owls shall be conducted during the breeding season at the RWQCP site (in general, February 1st through August 31st, peaking between April 15th and July 15th). If no owls are observed using the site during the breeding season surveys, winter surveys shall be conducted. Winter surveys shall be conducted between December 1st and January 31 st, during the period when wintering owls are most likely to be present, if necessary. A complete owl survey consists of four site visits, on separate days and during weather that is conducive to observing owls outside their burrows. If no owls are found during the breeding or winter season surveys, no further mitigation shall be required, provided construction activities or destruction of suitable burrows commence within 30 days of the date of the last survey. Otherwise, a pre-construction survey for owls shall be conducted no more than 30 days prior to the onset of construction activities. If surveys confin11 presence of owls on the site, mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the proposed project, in coordination with CDFG, to avoid and/or minimize impacts to burrowing owls, their burrows and foraging habitat on the site. The following measures shall be taken into consideration: 1) occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the nesting season, unless a qualified biologist approved by the CDFG verifies through non-invasive methods that either: a) the owls have not begun egg-laying and incubation; or b) that the juveniles from those burrows are foraging independently and capable of independent survival; 2) to offset the loss of foraging and burrow habitat on the project site, a minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat per pair or unpaired resident bird, shall be acquired and permanently protected; 3) when destruction of occupied burrows is unavoidable, existing unsuitable burrows shall be enhanced (e.g., enlarged or cleared of debris) or new burrows shall be created (e.g., installing artificial burrows) at a minimum ratio of 1:1 on protected lands; 4) if owls must be moved away from the disturbance area, passive relocation techniques shall be used rather than trapping; and 5) the project sponsor shall provide funding for long-term management and monitoring of the protected lands. IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING AND MONITORING MONITORING PROCEDURE REPORTING ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY SCHEDULE Qualified biologist appointed Qualified biologist. Retain Qualified biologist. Prior to construction. by the Director of the Utilities results of the survey in Department conducts Project file. protocol-level burrowing owl surveys. If surveys confirm presence of Director of Planning and Director of Planning and Prior to construction owls on the site, mitigation Community Environment Community Environment measures, prepared in reviews contractor and qualified biologist coordination with CDFG, shall specifications. Retain records be incorporated into the of communication and construction specifications. decisions in the Project file. Contractor implements Sign-off by qualified Director of Planning and During construction mitigation measures. biologist that measures are Community Environment implemented. Retain and qualified biologist monitoring reports in Project file. BIO-6: Protection of Sensitive Communities. The following measures would be implemented prior to the onset of construction activities associated with the installation of alignment Option 1 or alignment Option 2 and the laterals adjacent to sensitive natural communities (e.g., northern coastal salt water marsh, coastal freshwater marsh, willow riparian habitat) to avoid potential adverse affects to these communities. • The limits of work shall be clearly delineated on all construction plans and silt fencing and/or construction fencing shall be installed around the work area, where extending beyond hardscaped areas. A qualified biologist shall monitor the fence installation and the fencing, at a minimum once per week, to ensure that the fence remains intact and functional, and that no encroachment has occurred into adjacent sensitive communities. • A qualified biologist shall brief construction workers on the location of sensitive communities that shall be preserved and the importance of avoidance. • Encroachment into adjacent commwlities shall be prohibited by construction workers, and storage of materials or equipment shall be prohibited in these areas. • In accordance with the SWPPP to be prepared for the Project, appropriate erosion and sediment control, and non-sediment pollution control (i.e., sources of pollution generated by construction equipment and material) BMPs shall be implemented to protect sensitive habitat adjacent to the Project. Erosion and sediment control material included in the SWPPP shall be certified as weed free. IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING ~"'ID MONITORING MONITORING PROCEDURE REPORTING ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY SCHEDULE The Director of the Utilities Director of Planning and Director of Planning and Prior to construction Department includes Community Environment Community Environment construction limitations and reviews contractor requirements in contractor specifications. specifications and procedures. Qualified biologist appointed Qualified biologist. Record Qualified biologist. Prior to construction. by the Director of the Utilities of communication retain in Department briefs workers on Project file. the location and avoidance of sensitive communities. Contractor installs fencing. Sign-offby qualified Director 0 f Planning and Prior to construction biologist that measures are Community Environment implemented. Retain and qualified biologist monitoring reports in Project tile. Qualified biologist inspects Sign-off by qualified Director of Planning and During construction construction sites. biologist that measures are Community Environment implemented. Retain and qualified biologist monitoring reports in Project file. BIO-7: State and Federal Permits. If in-channel work is necessary for the Adobe Creek crossing at Hwy 101 in alignment Option 1, federal and state authorization will be obtained prior to the onset of construction activities. Prior to the onset of construction activities, a Department of the Army 404 Permit application shall be submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), an Application for 401 Water Quality Certification and/or Report of Waste Discharge shall be submitted to the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (R WQCB), and a Lake or Streambed Alternation Notification shaH be submitted to the CDFG for impacts to Adobe Creek at U8-101. These permits must be obtained before the project is implemented. Mitigation measures associated with these permits may include minimization measures such as implementation of construction site management practices (i.e., erosion and sediment control measures) and seasonal work restrictions. Impacts to potentially jurisdictional features shall not occur until the permits are received from the appropriate regulatory agencies, or correspondence is received from the agencies indicating that a permit is not required. lfin-channel work is required for Adobe Creek at Hwy 101 in Alignment Option I, the Director ofthe Utilities Department obtains relcvant ermits. Director of Planning and Community Environment. Retain all permits in the Project file. MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY Director of Planning and Community Environment MONITORING SCHEDULE Prior to and during construction Director of the Utilities Director of Planning and Director of Planning and Prior to construction Department incorporates into Community Environment Community Environment construction specifications reviews construction permit requirements. specifications. Contractor implements permit Sign-off by qualitied Director of Planning and During construction requirements. biologist that requirements Community Environment and are implemented. Retain qualified biologist monitoring reports in Project file. B. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC TRA-l: Return Roads to Pre-construction Condition. Following construction, the City shall ensure that road surfaces that are damaged during construction are returned to their pre-construction condition or better. IMPLEl\-tENTA TION PROCEDURE The Director of the Utilities Department includes road restoration requirements in contractor specifications. Contractor restores road surfaces to pre-construction condition. TRA-2: Detours. MOl\1TORING A REPORTING ACTI Director of Planning and Community Environment reviews construction specifications. Retain monitoring report in the project file. Director of Planning and Community Environment Director of Planning and Community Environment 1\10NITORING SCHEDULE Prior to construction After construction! final inspection. During construction, the City shall use detour signing for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians on alternate access streets when temporary full street closure is required. IMPLEl\-1ENTATION MONITORING AND MONITORING MONfTORING PROCEDURE REPORTING ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY SCHEDULE The Director of the Utilities • Director of Planning and Director of Planning and Prior to construction Department includes road • Community Environment Community Environment restoration requirements in reviews construction contractor specifications. specifications. Contractor installs detour Retain monitoring report in Director of Planning and During construction signage if full street closure the project file. Community Environment occurs. Appendix 8 -Public Meeting Sign-In Sheet ~l ~e ("-""'-lUGe JS1ibW-@) ~~~ 12~-OZ.LV . ~(!ttJ h (L6j ~(0 u City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Initial Study I Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2009 City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment California Environmental Quality Act DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Date: March 19,2009 Project Name: Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Application Nos.: Not Applicable Address of Project: Various Applicant: City of Palo Alto Utilities Owner: City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Project Location and Description: Project Location The project site is located in Central Palo Alto; Stanford University. Project Description The Project consists of the installation of a recycled water pipeline, a booster pump station, and a pump station at the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) for the City of Palo Alto and represents the next increment of the R WQCP' s ongoing expansion of its regional recycled water system. The proposed Project would involve the construction of approximately 5 miles of 12 to 18-inch recycled water pipelines, a booster pump station, approximately 5 miles of lateral pipelines to over 50 use sites, and a pump station at the RWQCP. The Project would initially serve approximately 900 AFY of recycled water, mostly to the Stanford Research Park Area. Future extensions could serve Stanford University and Los Altos Hills, as well as provide a loop by making a second connection to the Phase 2 Mountain View Project. The predominant use of recycled water for this Project is landscape irrigation. Some industrial use, such as commercial and light industrial cooling towers, could also be included at a later date. Palo Alto Water Project Page 1 StudylMitigated Negative Declaration II. DETERMINATION In accordance with the City of Palo Alto's procedures for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project located in Central Palo Alto and Stanford University could have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of that study, the City makes the following determination: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. X Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the project and, therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. The attached initial study incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required for the project. In addition, the following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project: Mitigation Measures Creek Protection BIO-l: Creek Protection. The following measures would be implemented to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects to California red-legged frogs (CRLF) and Western pond turtles (WPT), and their habitats prior to and during the installation of the sections of pipeline crossing Adobe Creek at US-l 0 1, Matadero Creek at Hillview Avenue, and Barron Creek at Miranda Avenue. These measures are not applicable to Adobe Creek at Middlefield Road as no suitable habitat is present. • A SWPPP that complies with the statewide General Permit administered by the California State Water Resources Control Board for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) shall be developed and implemented to protect the 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) Best Management Practices (BMP) shall be prescribed in the Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and erosion and sediment control material included in the SWPPP shall be certified as weed free. • Construction activities associated with the installation of the sections of pipeline crossing Adobe Creek at US-I01, Matadero Creek at Hillview A venue, and Barron Creek at Miranda A venue shall be limited to the dry season (in general, between June 15th through October 15th) when flows are reduced and CRLF and WPT are least likely to be present. • A qualified biologist shall conduct a worker education program prior to the onset of construction activities associated with the installation of the sections of pipeline crossing Adobe Creek at US-101, Matadero Creek at Hillview A venue, and Barron Creek at Miranda A venue. Construction workers shall be briefed on, at a minimum, a description of the CRLF and WPT and their habitats, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve CRLF and WPT for the Project, and the boundaries within which the creek crossing may be accomplished. A fact sheet conveying this information shall also be prepared for distribution to the workers. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 2 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration • A qualified biologist shall be retained to monitor the construction activities associated with the installation of the sections of pipeline crossing Adobe Creek at US-lO 1, Matadero Creek at Hillview A venue, and Barron Creek at Miranda A venue. The biologist shall have expertise in the areas of CRLF and WPT biology and ecology, amphibian and reptileslhabitat relationships, and biological monitoring. The biologist shall also monitor performance of construction site management practices for the purpose of identifYing and recommending measures to avoid any condition that could adversely affect CRLF and WPT or their habitat. The City and their contractor, upon notification from the biologist, shall halt activities causing the condition affecting CRLF and WTP or their habitat. Work shall only resume with approval from the biologist. • Food and food-related trash items associated with construction workers shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the work area to deter potential predators. • All staging areas and fueling and maintenance of vehicles and other equipment shall occur at least 60 feet from any riparian habitat, creek, or other water body to ensure that habitat contamination does not occur from such activities. Protection of California red-legged frogs and Western Pond Turtle BIO-2: Conduct surveys for CRLF and WPT prior to the installation of the section of pipeline crossing Adobe Creek at Hwy 101, and avoid impacts to CRLF and WPT, if present. If the Adobe Creek crossing at Hwy 101 requires in-channel work, a qualified biologist shall conduct pre- construction surveys following standard visual encounter techniques to confirm presence or absence of CRLFs and WPTs in the work area. At minimum, the biologist shall be familiar with distinguishing physical characteristics of all the life stages of the CRLF, and identifYing WPTs. The biologist shall conduct at least one day and one night survey within one week of construction activities. Surveys shall be conducted, at minimum, 300 feet (ft) up-and downstream of the creek crossing. With the exception of compliance with Measure BIO-l, if no individual CRLFs or WPTs are encountered, no further mitigation would be required. However, if CRLFs andlor WTPs are found, construction activities shall be postponed and the appropriate resources agency (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] for CRLF and California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG] for WPT) shall be consulted to determine the extent of potential impacts to CRLFs andlor WPTs and to identify measures necessary to avoid, minimize, and mitigate these impacts, such as obtaining an incidental take permit (for CRLF) or developing an exclusion and relocation program. Protection of Nesting Birds BIO-3: Avoid disturbing nesting birds. To avoid disturbance to nesting common yellowthroat and other migratory birds and raptors (e.g., American kestrel, northern harrier, white-tailed kite), one of the following measures shall be implemented: • Conduct the installation of the proposed alignment, alignment options, laterals, and the construction of pump station during the non-breeding season (September 1st through January 31st); OR • Conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting birds if construction activities are to take place during the nesting season (in general, February 1st through August 31st). Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than three days prior to the onset of construction activities to confirm presence or absence of active nests in the Project vicinity. The extent of the area to be surveyed shall be determined by the biologist considering (1) the nature of the construction activities, (2) the existing level of human-related disturbances, and (3) the availability of suitable nesting habitat in the Project vicinity. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 3 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration If active nests are encountered, species-specific measures shall be prepared by a qualified biologist, in coordination with the CDFG and other appropriate agencies, and implemented to prevent direct loss or abandonment of the active nest. At a minimum, construction activities in the vicinity of nests shall be deferred until the young have fledged and an exclusion buffer zone shall be established, CDFG typically recommends a minimum exclusion buffer of 25 feet for songbird nests, and 200 to 500 feet for raptor nests, depending on the species and location. The perimeter of the nest-setback zone shall be fenced or adequately demarcated with staked flagging at 20-foot intervals, and construction personnel shall be restricted from the area. A survey report by the qualified biologist verifying that the young have fledged shall be submitted to City for review and concurrence of the City is required prior to initiation of construction activities within the nest-set-back zone. Protection of California clapper and black rails BIO-4: Avoid disturbing nesting California clapper and black rails during the installation of the pipeline in alignment Option 1 or alignment Option 2 east of US-lOl and construction of the pump station at the RWQCP. To avoid substantial adverse effects to nesting California clapper rails and black rails, installation of alignment Option 1 or alignment Option 2 east ofUS-lOI and construction of the pump station at the RWQCP should either be conducted outside of the breeding season for clapper rails (in general, February 1st through August 31st) or construction activities east of US-l Oland at the R WQCP site should be started prior to the breeding season and disturbance activities continued throughout the spring to prevent birds from establishing nests in surrounding habitats. This would prevent abandonment of eggs or young that could occur if nesting establishes prior to construction activities. If this is not feasible, a qualified biologist shall conduct protocol-level surveys for clapper rails (following methods outlined in the Draft Survey Protocol: California Clapper Rail (Rallus longistrostris obsoletus)(USFWS 2000) and pre-construction surveys for California black rail to determine presence or absence of rail breeding activity in the vicinity of the Project. A qualified biologist is an individual who h;::lS experience conducting protocol-level surveys for California clapper rails, and experience surveying for California black rails using a standardized tape call-back response protocol. Prior to commencement of the surveys, the biologist shall prepare a brief letter report describing the survey design and submit it to the USFWS (for California clapper rail only) and CDFG for review and approval. Upon the completion of the surveys, survey results shall be submitted to the USFWS and CDFG for a final decision on the possibility of doing work during the breeding season for the clapper and black rail. Protocol-level surveys are only necessary during the installation of the pipeline east ofUS- 101. If construction activities east of US-l 01 are conducted outside the breeding season, no surveys would be necessary. BIO-S: Conduct protocol-level Burrowing owl eBUOW) surveys prior to the installation of the pump station proposed at the RWQCP, and avoid impacts to owls, if present, during project construction. A qualified biologist shall conduct a protocol-level survey for burrowing owl following the methods outlined in the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. A survey for owls shaH be conducted during the breeding season at the RWQCP site (in general, February 1 st through August 31 st, peaking between April 15th and July 15th). If no owls are observed using the site during the breeding season surveys, winter surveys shall be conducted. Winter surveys shall be conducted between December 1 st and January 31 st, during the period when wintering owls are most likely to be present, if necessary. A complete owl survey consists of four site visits, on separate days and during weather that is conducive to observing owls outside their buTI'ows. If no owls are found during the breeding or winter season surveys, no further mitigation shall be required, provided construction activities or destruction of suitable burrows commence within 30 days of the date of the last survey. Otherwise, a pre-construction survey for owls shall be conducted no more than 30 days prior to the onset of construction activities. Palo Water Project Page 4 IHHJL;;a",uNegative Declaration If surveys confirm presence of owls on the site, mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the proposed project, in coordination with CDFG, to avoid andlor minimize impacts to burrowing owls, their burrows and foraging habitat on the site. The following measures shall be taken into consideration: 1) occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the nesting season, unless a qualified biologist approved by the CDFG verifies through non-invasive methods that either: a) the owls have not begun egg-laying and incubation; or b) that the juveniles from those burrows are foraging independently and capable of independent survival; 2) to offset the loss of foraging and burrow habitat on the project site, a minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat per pair or unpaired resident bird, shall be acquired and permanently protected; 3) when destruction of occupied burrows is unavoidable, existing unsuitable burrows shall be enhanced (e.g., enlarged or cleared of debris) or new burrows shall be created (e.g., installing artificial burrows) at a minimum ratio of 1: 1 on protected lands; 4) if owls must be moved away from the disturbance area, passive relocation techniques shall be used rather than trapping; and 5) the project sponsor shall provide funding for long-term management and monitoring of the protected lands. Protection of sensitive communities BIO-6: Protection of Sensitive Communities. The following measures would be implemented prior to the onset of construction activities associated with the installation of alignment Option 1 or alignment Option 2 and the laterals adjacent to sensitive natural communities (e.g., northern coastal salt water marsh, coastal freshwater marsh, willow riparian habitat) to avoid potential adverse affects to these communities. • The limits of work shall be clearly delineated on all construction plans and silt fencing andlor construction fencing shall be installed around the work area, where extending beyond hardscaped areas. A qualified biologist shall monitor the fence installation and the fencing, at a minimum once per week, to ensure that the fence remains intact and functional, and that no encroachment has occurred into adjacent sensitive communities. • A qualified biologist shall brief construction workers on the location of sensitive communities that shall be preserved and the importance of avoidance. • Encroachment into adjacent communities shall be prohibited by construction workers, and storage of materials or equipment shall be prohibited in these areas. • In accordance with the SWPPP to be prepared for the Project, appropriate erosion and sediment control, and non-sediment pollution control (Le., sources of pollution generated by construction equipment and material) BMPs shall be implemented to protect sensitive habitat adjacent to the Project. Erosion and sediment control material included in the SWPPP shall be certified as weed free. State amtFederal Permits BIO-7: State and Federal Permits. If in-channel work is necessary for the Adobe Creek crossing at Hwy 101 in alignment Option 1, federal and state authorization will be obtained prior to the onset of construction activities. Prior to the onset of construction activities, a Department of the Army 404 Permit application shall be submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), an Application for 401 Water Quality Certification andlor Report of Waste Discharge shall be submitted to the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and a Lake or Streambed Alternation Notification shall be submitted to the CDFG for impacts to Adobe Creek at US-lO 1. These permits must be obtained before the project is implemented. Mitigation measures associated with these permits may include minimization measures such as implementation of construction site management practices (i.e., erosion and sediment control measures) and seasonal work restrictions. Impacts to potentially jurisdictional features shall not occur until the permits are received from the appropriate regulatory agencies, or correspondence is received from the agencies indicating that a permit is not required. Palo Alto Recyclcd Water Project Page 5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Restoration of Roads TRA-l: Return Roads to Pre-construction Condition. Following construction, the City shall ensure that road surfaces that are damaged during construction are returned to their pre-construction condition or better. TRA-2: Detours. During construction, the City shall use detour signing for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians on alternate access streets when temporary full street closure is required. 3/18/09 Prepared by Project Planner Date Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Declaration TABLE OF CONTENTS City a/Palo Alto ................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................. 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND ....................................................................... 1 Project Overview ..................................................................................................................... 1 Background ............................................................................................................................. 1 Stakeholder Involvement ........................................................................................................ 3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND NEED ...................................................................................... 4 Need for Project ...................................................................................................................... 4 Project Objectives ................................................................................................................... 4 EXISTING FACILITIES ............................................................................................................ 4 Regional Plant ......................................................................................................................... 4 Current Sites With Recycled Water Use ................................................................................. 7 PROPOSED PROJECT .............................................................................................................. 7 Pipelines .................................................................................................................................. 7 Booster Pump Station .............................................................................................................. 9 RWQCP Pump Station .......................................................................................................... 14 Potential Sites for Recycled Water Use ................................................................................ 14 Schedule and Construction Methods ......................................................................................... 14 Equipment / Staging .............................................................................................................. 17 Adaptive Management Program ........................................................................ : .................. 17 Environmental Commitments ................................................................................................... 19 Dust Control .......................................................................................................................... 19 Protection of Cultural Resources .......................................................................................... 20 Storage, Handling, and Use of Hazardous Materials in Accordance with Applicable Laws ............................................................................................................................................... 20 Proper Disposal of Contaminated Soil and/or Groundwater ................................................ 20 Health and Safety and Hazardous Materials Management and Spill Prevention and Control Plans ...................................................................................................................................... 21 Emergency Access Strategies ............................................................................................... 21 Best Management Practices .................................................................................................. 21 Compliance with CCR Title 22 and Local Legislation ......................................................... 22 Public Outreach and Education ............................................................................................. 22 Compliance with the Tree Technical Manual ....................................................................... 22 Compliance with Local Noise Ordinance ............................................................................. 23 Power Generator Design/Noise ............................................................................................. 24 Traffic Control Plan .............................................................................................................. 24 Potential Permits and Approvals Required ............................................................................... 25 Alternatives to the Proposed Project ......................................................................................... 25 Pipeline Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 25 CEQA Compliance .................................................................................................................... 32 Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page i Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORJ.\1 ...................................................................... 33 A. AESTI-IETICS .............................................................................................................. 37 B. AGRlCULTURAL RESOIJRCES ............................................................................... 41 C. AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................ 42 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 46 E. C1JL TURAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................... 59 F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY .................................................................... 63 G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ........................................................ 65 H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................................. 68 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING ................................................................................... 78 J. MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................ 80 K. NOISE .......................................................................................................................... 80 L. POPULATION AND HOUSING ................................................................................ 83 M. PlJ~LIC SERVICES .................................................................................................... 84 N. RECREATION ............................................................................................................. 85 O. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ....................................................................... 86 P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 93 Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ..................................................... 95 Report Preparation ............................................................................................................. 99 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: R WQCP Ongoing Expansion Phases .............................................................................. 2 Figure 2: Proposed Project Facilities .............................................................................................. 5 Figure 3: RWQCP Service Area ..................................................................................................... 7 Figure 4: Proposed Booster Pump Station Location on Proposed Pipeline Alignment.. .............. 10 Figure 5: Proposed Booster Pump Station Site ............................................................................. 1 1 Figure 6: Sample Booster Pump Station Layout 1 ........................................................................ 12 Figure 7: Sample Booster Pump Station Layout 2 ........................................................................ 13 Figure 8: Proposed RWQCP Pump Station Location ................................................................... 15 Figure 9: Recycled Water Users .................................................................................................. .26 Figure 10: Alternative Analysis Reaches ...................................................................................... 27 Figure 11: Reach 1 Alignment Alternatives ................................................................................. 28 Figure 12: Reach 2 Alignment Alternatives ................................................................................. 29 Figure 13: Reach 3 Alignment Alternatives ................................................................................. 30 Figure 14: Reach 4 Alignment Alternatives ................................................................................. 31 Figure 15: Regional Map .............................................................................................................. 34 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Proposed Backbone Pipeline Alignment .......................................................................... 8 Table 2: Booster Pump Station Preliminary Design Criteria ........................................................ l1 Table 3: RWQCP Pump Station Preliminary Design Criteria ...................................................... 14 Table 4: Construction Methods at Creek and Road Crossings ..................................................... 17 Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page ii Initial Stud.y/Mitigalcd Negative Declaration Table 5: Proposed Pipeline Alignment ......................................................................................... 88 Table 6: ISININD Authors ............................................................................................................. 99 Appendix A -Potential Recycled Water users Appendix B Emissions Calculations Appendix C -Biological Resources Appendix D -Cultural Resources Appendix E Hazardous Materials Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page iii Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration List of Abbreviations AFY BAAQMD BAWSCA BUOW Cal/OSHA CAP CDFG CEQA CFR City CMU CNDDB CNPS CPAU CRLF CWA CY dB dBA DPM ElR ft gpd gpm hp IS/MND Ldn LTGS acre-feet per year San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency burrowing owl California Occupational Safety and Health Administration Clean Air Program California Department of Fish and Game California Environmental Quality Act Code of Federal Regulations City of Palo Alto concrete masonry unit California Natural Diversity Database California Native Plant Society City of Palo Alto Utilities California red legged frog Clean Water Act cubic yards decibel A weighted decibel diesel particulate matter Environmental Impact Report feet gallons per day gallons per minute horsepower Initial Studyl Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration average 24-hour noise level Long Term Goal Study Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page iv Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration MBTA mgd MRZ NDMA NEPA NMFS NPDES OSHA PG&E psi PUE ROG ROW RWQCB RWQCP SAA SCVWD SFPUC SWPPP SWRCB TDH THMs US-lOt USACE USFWS UV WPT Migratory Bird Treaty Act million gallons per day mineral resource zone N -Nitrosodimethy lamine National Environmental Policy Act National Marine Fisheries Service National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Occupational Safety and Health Administration Pacific Gas and Electric pound per square inch Public Utility Easement reactive organic gas right of way California Regional Water Quality Control Board Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant streambed alteration agreement Santa Clara Valley Water District San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan State Water Resources Control Board total dynamic head Trihalomethanes U.S. Highway 101 US Army Corps ofJ.JHr;,H, .... ,." US Fish and Wildlife Service ultraviolet western pond turtle Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page v Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration This page left blank intentionally. Mu<lY/NlItIgatectNegative Declaration PROJECT DESCRIPTION This chapter provides a description of the proposed Palo Alto Recycled Water Project (Project), which consists of the installation of a recycled water pipeline, a booster pump station, and a pump station at the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) for the City of Palo Alto (Palo Alto or the City). PROJECT OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND The following sections provide a brief overview of the proposed Project, a description of the project background, and a discussion of stakeholder involvement. Project Overview This Project is the next increment of the RWQCP's ongoing expansion of its regional recycled water system. Phase 1 has been in operation since 1980 and serves the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course, Greer Park, the Emily Renzel Marsh, and the RWQCP. Construction of Phase 2 (Mountain View Recycled Water project) began in the summer of2007 and is expected to be complete in early 2009. The proposed Project (Phase 3) would be sponsored by the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU). It would initially serve approximately 900 acre-feet per year (AFY) of recycled water, mostly to customers in the Stanford Research Park Area. Future extensions could serve Stanford University and Los Altos Hills, as well as create a loop by making a second connection to the Phase 2 Mountain View Project. The predominant use of recycled water for the proposed Project is landscape irrigation. Some industrial use, such as commercial and light industrial cooling towers, could also be included at a later date. Figure 1 provides an overview of the proposed alignment and pipe laterals within the context of the RWQCP's ongoing recycled water expansion. Please refer to Figure 2 Project Facilities for a detailed view of the proposed Project including the proposed alignment, laterals, alignment options and pump stations. Background Palo Alto's Water Reuse Program began in the early 1980s with the delivery of recycled water to Shoreline Golf Links. The system was substantially modified to include the Palo Alto Municipal Golf course, Greer Park, and the Renzel Marsh. Palo Alto then completed a Water Reclamation 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 Palo Alto RWQCP developed the Master Plan in conjunction with its member agencies to address two main goals: 1) reduce demand on drinking water supplies by providing recycled water suitable for non-potable uses and 2) reduce metal discharge and improve overall water quality to the San Francisco Bay in part by reducing wastewater discharge to the bay. The Master Plan includes a phased approach to the expansion of treatment, distribution, storage, and use of recycled water. The Program EIR 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 AHo, Los Altos Hills, part of Menlo Park, as well as Stanford University. The Program EIR addressed the environmental effects of the overall Water Reuse Program and included a focused, project-level review of one specific project the Foothill Main Project. The Foothill Main Project would have established an initial distribution system running from the RWQCP to the Santa Cruz Mountain foothills, a storage reservoir in the foothills southwest of Stanford University, and the use of recycled water for landscape irrigation at Stanford, several city parks, and a highway interchange. The project was never built. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 1 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Figure 1: RWQCP Ongoing Expansion Phases The Program EIR acknowledged that the Foothill Main Project might or might not be the first project implemented and indicated that no specific arrangements or commitments with potential users had been made. However, by providing project-level CEQA analysis of that project, the Program EIR provided detailed analysis of a potential project that could be representative of the overall Water Reuse Program in terms of the environmental setting affected, the nature and potential for significant impact, and the appropriate types of mitigation. In December 2001, the RWQCP published a Long-Term Goals Study (LTGS) Report that concluded a one-year, stakeholder driven effort to develop long-term goals for the RWQCP. Water recycling was identified as a key priority for the RWQCP. In addition, developing recycled water activities was considered as a key means to achieve a number of the other long-term goals such as improving water supply reliability, providing a dependable, locally controlled water source, and reducing reliance on imported water. Funding opportunities from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) triggered the RWQCP decision in May 2003 to move forward with Phase 2 of the of the Palo Alto RWQCP's ongoing expansion of its regional recycled water system, the Mountain View/Moffett Field Area Reclaimed Water Pipeline Proj ect (Mountain View Project). The Mountain View Project is one of the projects identified in the 1992 Master Plan. In 2004, the Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 2 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration RWQCP completed a facilities plan (RMC, 2004) and initiated design for the Mountain View Project. Design for the Mountain View Project was completed in early 2007. The Mountain View Project will replace an existing deteriorating pipeline to Shoreline Golf Course in Mountain View and extend the pipeline to serve the Mountain View-Moffett Field area. The pipeline replacement will restore the golf course connection and will provide recycled water services to the Shoreline community. Construction for the Mountain View Project began in the summer of 2007. Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course, the RWQCP, Emily Renzel Marsh, and Greer Park are the existing major users of recycled water. The Mountain ViewlMoffett Field Area Reclaimed Water pipeline is sized to serve future users in the City of Palo Alto via several connections at Embarcadero Road and Bayshore Avenue, at Greer Park, and at San Antonio Road. In 2006, CPAU completed a Recycled Water Market Survey Report (RMC, 2006) as a preliminary effort to determine potential locations of recycled water use within the City of Palo Alto. The objectives of the study were to review and update the list of potential recycled water users in the City of Palo Alto and to update the proposed Project cost estimate for the delivery of recycled water to the City of Palo Alto and future expansions. The Project included site investigations, market analysis, conceptual Project design, and preparation of a financing and revenue plan. The market survey estimated a total city-wide recycled water demand of 1,870 acre-feet per year (AFY), excluding Stanford University, and recommended an alignment that would convey water from the R WQCP through the City of Palo Alto, with a target customer base at the Stanford Research Park. The proposed Project would supply recycled water to the Stanford Research Park area. Stakeholder Involvement The City, through the RWQCP, has actively included stakeholders in recycled water related projects. This involvement included EIR preparation for the Recycled Water Master Plan in 1992, stakeholder workshops for the LTGS preparation between 2000 and 2002, stakeholder workshops for the Mountain View Recycled Water Project facility planning in 2004, public meetings as part of Initial Study/ Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) preparation for the Mountain View Project, and surveys of potential customers for the Palo Alto Recycled Water Market Assessment in 2006. Stakeholder involvement for this Project has included: • Facility managers meeting on June 13, 2007. Facility managers are staff who manage a property's utilities, such as energy use (electric and gas), water use, and wastewater. The Facility managers meeting included employees of large businesses such as Roche, Hewlett Packard and Varian, as well as public facilities such as parks (primarily for water use and irrigation). The managers are typically responsible for maintaining and operating irrigation systems and cooling towers on their properties. The facility managers were given an overview of the Project and were given the opportunity to ask questions and make comments regarding the Project. Comments received have been incorporated into this IS/MND. • Public scoping meeting for the proposed Project on September 18, 2007. All interested members from the public were welcome to attend. The City specifically invited the LTGS stakeholders, who represent a wide range of environmental and socioeconomic interests of the communities, and the facility managers to attend and participate in the meeting. Announcements for the meeting were published in the Palo Alto Daily News and Palo Alto Weekly. A comment form was made available at the public scoping meeting for the public to send comments to the City and to be added to the mailing list for the Project. The Project mailing list is used to send updates and notices about the Project. The Project description is posted on the City of Palo Alto website. Comments received at the scoping meeting have been incorporated into this IS/MND. Additional involvement is planned in the future, including another meeting with facility managers. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 3 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND NEED Need for Project Recycled water use is expanding in the South San Francisco Bay Area. Key goals of the City of Palo Alto, the RWQCP and its partners, and other stakeholders such as the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), are water supply management and improving protection of the San Francisco Bay by reducing the discharge of wastewater that could impact the sensitive Bay environment. A recycled water project within the City of Palo Alto would assist in achieving these goals. Project Objectives The primary objective of extending the recycled water pipeline into Palo Alto would be to allow the City to maximize recycled water as a supplemental water source, and would achieve the following: (l) Improve potable water supply reliability by conserving drinking water, currently used for irrigation and other non-potable uses, for potable purposes; (2) Provide a dependable, locally controlled non-potable water source; (3) Secure a non-potable water source that will be available even in droughts to serve irrigation and other non-potable uses; and (4) Reduce reliance on imported water. In addition, the Project would help RWQCP and its partners further conserve the San Francisco Bay by reducing the wastewater constituent mass loadings I to the Bay. Finally, the Project would provide the following benefits to the community: • • • • An alternative water supply for irrigation during droughts when potable water use is restricted; Beneficially reuse the wastewater generated by the City; Reduce future potable water supply infrastructure costs to the City; and Uphold state guidelines and policies relative to recycled water, including the California Water Code, Section 13510, and Section 461. EXISTING FACILITIES Regional Plant The RWQCP is located on the San Francisco Bay in the northeastern portion of the City of Palo Alto. Jt provides treatment and disposal of wastewater services to the cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View and Los Altos, the Town of Los Alto Hills, the East Palo Alto Sanitation District, and Stanford University, known collectively as the RWQCP Partners. Figure 3 shows the RWQCP service area. The RWQCP has a design average dry-weather flow capacity of39 mi1lion gallons per day (mgd) and a current flow of about 23 mgd. Although the disinfected effluent from the RWQCP predominantly discharged to the San Francisco Bay through an effluent outfall is treated to the disinfected secondary-23 2 recycled water level, the RWQCP has a 4 mgd recycled water facility that filters and disinfects the effluent to meet the requirements for tertiary treated water). The RWQCP has completed design of the ultra-violet (UY) disinfection facilities, which will increase the 1 Mass loading refers in this case to the net influx of chemical constituents entering the Bay. 2 See CCR Title 22 for a definition of secondary-23 recycled water. 3 Specifically the RWQCP treats effluent to meet the requirements for disinfected tertiary recycled water "unrestricted use" as defined in California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title Sections 60301 through 60355. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 4 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Proposed Alignment Pipe Lateral Alignment Options -Option 1 -Option 2 -Option 3 RiVer N A 411 Proposed Pump Station This page left blank intentionally. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 6 Initial StudyIMitigated Negative Do;!Claration recycled water production capacity to 6.45 mgd with the ability to further increase capacity to S.6 mgd in the future. Construction of the UV facilities is scheduled to start in June 2009 and be substantially completed in Fall 2010. Figure 3: RWQCP Service Area Current Sites With Recycled Water Use Recycled water is currently used at the RWQCP, the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course, Emily Renzel Marsh, and Greer Park in Palo Alto, and is also trucked to construction sites throughout the region for dust control. PROPOSED PROJECT The Palo Alto Recycled Water Project proposes the construction of a recycled water pipeline and associated facilities to provide an alternative water supply for non-potable uses. The proposed Project would involve the construction of approximately 5 miles of 12-to IS-inch pipes, an up to 1,500 square-foot booster pump station, approximately 5 miles of lateral pipelines to over 50 use sites, and an up to 1,600 square-foot pump station at the RWQCP. The pipeline alignment consists of a proposed alignment and three alignment options, as shown on Figure 2. The Project would initially serve approximately 900 AFY of recycled water, mostly to the Stanford Research Park Area. Future extensions could serve Stanford University and Los Altos Hills, as well as provide a loop by making a second connection to the Phase 2 Mountain View Project. The predominant use of recycled water for this Project is landscape irrigation. Some industrial use, such as commercial and light industrial cooling towers, could also be included at a later date. Pipelines The proposed pipeline consists of the backbone pipeline and offshoots, or lateral pipelines. The pipeline would be located in urban areas, along existing road rights-of-ways (see Figure 2). The proposed backbone pipeline alignment would begin with a connection point to the Mountain View Project near the intersection of East Bayshore Road and Corporation Way. The pipeline would be constructed using trench less techniques under US- Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 7 lnitial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 101, and would run along Fabian Way to East Meadow Drive where it would cross Adobe Creek. The pipeline would run along East Meadow Drive across Middlefield Road, and then continue along East Meadow Drive, Cowper Street, and EI Dorado Avenue to Alma Street, along Alma Street to Page Mill Road, and along Page Mill Road to EI Camino Real. The pipeline would continue across EI Camino Real, along Page Mill Road to Hanover Street, and along Hanover Street and Hillview A venue to Arastradero Road. Three pipeline alignment options would potentially replace segments of the proposed backbone pipeline alignment depending on constructability and design considerations. Roads included in the backbone pipeline alignment, including the options, are detailed in Table I and described below. Pipeline Alignment Option I would start from the new connection point to the Mountain View Project at the intersection of US-l Oland Adobe Creek, and would run along Adobe Creek. The pipeline would cross Adobe Creek on an existing bridge where it would run along West Bayshore Road and connect to the proposed pipeline alignment at Fabian Way. This option would replace the proposed pipeline alignment from the proposed East Bayshore Road and Corporation Way connection to Fabian Way. Pipeline Alignment Option 2 would begin at Colorado Avenue and US-lO 1 and would follow Colorado Avenue to connect to the proposed alignment at Alma Street. This option would replace the proposed alignment from the Adobe CreeklUS-l 0 1 connection up to the intersection of Colorado Avenue and Alma Street. Pipeline Alignment Option 3 would begin at the proposed alignment at the corner of Page Mill Road and EI Camino Real. The pipeline would connect to Hansen Way through the Palo Alto Square parking lot if a Public Utility Easement (PUE) could be obtained, or construction would take place on EI Camino Real. The pipeline would run along Hansen Way and use an existing PUE as a ROW through the parking lot connecting Hansen Way and Hanover Street. Alignment Option 2 would connect to the proposed alignment at Hanover Street. This option would replace the proposed alignment along Page Mill Road from EI Camino Real to Hanover Street, and along Hanover Street to Hillview A venue. A summary of the proposed alignment and alignment options, including roadway crossings and construction methods, is provided in Table 1 below. Further information on the pipeline can be found in Section 1.6 Schedule and Construction Methods. Lateral pipeline alignments would run along existing side streets from the proposed alignment or alignment options to serve individual users as shown in Figure 2. Table 1: Proposed Backbone Pipeline Alignment Alignment is on Starting Cross Street Ending Cross Street Construction Method at Roadwa ' Crossings ~~osed Alignment Under US-I0 1 E. Bayshore Rd. at Fabian Way Trenchless under 101 I Corporation Way Fabian Way West Bayshore Road East Meadow Drive Open-Cut Open-Cut; Potential East Meadow Drive Fabian Way Cowper Street trenchless section across Adobe Creek Bridge i Open-Cutl; Potential Cowper Street East Meadow Drive EI Dorado A venue trenchless2 sections across Barron Creek Bridge and Matadero Creek Bridge EI Dorado Avenue Cowper Street Alma Street ! Open-Cut Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page Mill Road Alma Street Hanover Street Mill Road Hanover Street Hanover Street Hillview Avenue Arastradero Road Open-Cut; Potential trenchless section under railroad crossing; Potential trenchless section under EI Camino Real Open-Cut; Potential trench less section across SFPUC Easement and Foothill Road Trenchless under 101 Open-Cut Alma Street Open-Cut I • Hanson Way Open-Cut Hanover Street Open-Cut I The open-cut construction method involves long, narrow excavations in the ground to accommodate the placement of the pipelines. 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. Booster Pump Station A booster pump station would be constructed as part of the proposed Project to maintain a minimum delivery pressure of 65 pounds per square inch (psi) for the end users. Due to the change in elevation between the RWQCP and the end users on Hillview A venue (approximately 180 feet) and other sources of head loss4 in the pipeline, the pumps at the RWQCP cannot provide adequate pressure to convey water to the end users. Installing a booster pump station in Palo Alto along the alignment is a cost effective way to maintain minimum delivery pressure to customers. Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the proposed pump station location and aerial photograph of the surrounding area. 4 The head or pressure lost by water flowing in a pipe or channel, caused by the roughness ofthe pipe or channel walls. Palo Alto Recycled Water Page 9 Negative Declaration Figure 4: Proposed Booster Pump Station Location on Proposed Pipeline Alignment The proposed booster pump station would be located at 2700 El Camino Real, on the southeast comer of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real intersection at the Mayfield Soccer Fields (see Figures 4 and 5). The site is on the proposed alignment and located in a strategic area for delivering recycled water to the majority of demands along the pipeline. The park is Stanford property that is leased to the City of Palo Alto and has recently been refurbished with new fields. The proposed booster pump station would be constructed below grade at the site due to the prominent visual location and to avoid impacts to the existing park uses. The pump station would have a peak flow rate of 2,860 gallons per minute (gpm). This would require a total installed horsepower (hp) of 400 hp, including standby pumps. The pump station footprint would be approximately 50-ft x 30-ft (1,500 square feet ([sq. ft.]). Two sample booster pump station layouts are provided in Figure 6 and Figure 7. The booster pump station has not been designed and the layouts are provided only for reference. In addition to the booster pump station, a back-up generator may be installed at a later date if the recycled water is supplied for industrial use in the future. The back-up generator would be a stationary unit that would operate at greater than 50 hp. The back-up generator would only operate on a temporary basis under emergency conditions (e.g., outage). In the event that back-up generator is built, diesel fuel would be stored onsite. Fuel would be stored within double-walled concrete containers that prevent leakage. Likely, both the generator and storage would be bounded by a fence or structure (for security) and architectural treatment would be applied to integrate its fas:ade with sUlTounding uses. As adequate clearance would be needed for access to the facilities, the overall dimensions of the fenced area/structure could be up to 11 b x 7 b x 8 feet (length x width x height). The proposed generator facility would be designed to minimize noise. The proposed aboveground facility would require architectural review during the design phase of the project and would satisfy the requirements of the Architectural Review Board. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 10 StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Figure 5: Proposed Booster Pump Station Site Mayfield Soccer Fields Southwest corner of the Page Mill Road and EI Camino Real intersection Table 2 shows the preliminary design criteria established for the needed booster pump station. Table 2: Booster Pump Station Preliminary Design Criteria Peak Hour Flow ratel Peak Flow Total Dynamic Head (TDH) Required Total Installed horsepower (approximate) Pump Station Footprint Backup Power Generator Notes 400 hp including standby pumps , Approximately 50-ft x 30-ft : May be required for reliability for industrial/commercial demands 1. Demands presented for the booster pump station include only irrigation users located on the proposed alignment downstream of the pump station. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 11 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration " ~ ~~lo~I------~--- Palo Alto Recycled Water Figure 6: Sample Booster Pump Station Layout 1 I I I I VAIMBl£ IF1wluEHcY 0IIMlI! I I ,,1!i" IIOTCR~ CDIIDI RECYCLED WATER PROJECT SAMPLE BOOSTER PUMP STATION LAYOUT Iii 1'~'~rra> S1i£.E'fNO Of X l'RQJfiCf NO 008419 £V.rn MAS£lt zooa Page 12 Initial StudyIMitigated Negative Declaration Figure 7: Sample Booster Pump Station Layout 2 _ AYMJat. ro~ POIDtIW.. Ml.I!lE _ -.rm:s b ~ CHfCK wv...V£ I I -.-a.E.~~ IIKll1lIItIIII'I"ROI. COlIER i I I!I ~Ii L"_" __ "" ____ """""""""""L' ___ --''--___ -'-___ --'-____ '--_____ --' ___________ ----' gu.~"10 1-1-------1 Palo Alto Recycled Water Project RECYCLED WATER PROJECT H(wtUIM) suuroo Of x SAMPLE BOOSTER PUMP STATION LAYOUT WITH OPTION FOR POTENTlAL FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS flWU'.Cf}«.i CO-B.009 DAn: ~IDilOOll Page 13 Initial M,t,,,,,t,,,; Negative Declaration RWQCP Pump Station Additional pumping capacity would be necessary at the R WQCP to achieve the minimum pressure criteria at the Phase 2 connection point during peak flows to accommodate the Palo Alto Project. The Phase 2 Project planning study and hydraulic model assumed that adequate pumping capacity would be available at the RWQCP to maintain minimum delivery pressure for its end users. The RWQCP has since designed a pump station at the facility to deliver 6.24 million gallons per day (MGD) of recycled water flows to Phase 2 users. These pumps, currently under construction, were not designed to provide capacity for the proposed Project during peak flow conditions. A hydraulic analysis of the 2-mile long pipeline from the RWQCP to the connection point determined that the Project would need additional pumping capacity to impart approximately 230 ft of TDH to match the hydraulic grade line established by the Phase 2 pumps during peak hour flow conditions, and to achieve the minimum delivery pressure of93 psi at the connection point. To achieve this additional pumping capacity, additional pumps would be needed at the RWQCP. Table 3 shows the preliminary design criteria established for the needed pumping capacity. A pump station could require a footprint of up to 40-ft x 42-ft and would be up to l2-ft tall. The pump station would be enclosed or covered and would be located within the areas shown in Figure 8. This structure has not been designed but is subject to the City's design review to address all aesthetic concerns. Table 3: RWQCP Pump Station Preliminary Design Criteria Description Criteria ~Total pU~jJstation capacity Peak Flow TDH Required Total Installed PP. (apprmdmat~) Pum Station Foot rint Potential Sites for Recycled Water Use 4:~ m&d (},~W.gpm) 230 ft 350 hp 40-ft x 42-ft x 12-ft The Palo Alto Project would serve approximately 97 users, delivering approximately 900 AFY or an average of 0.8 mgd. Non-residential landscape irrigation would be the largest use of recycled water for the Palo Alto Project. Irrigation would occur primarily during the night (between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.) to maximize water use efficiency and minimize public contact. Other uses could include industrial and commercial use if added at a later date. A complete list of potential uses and potential recycled water users is provided in Appendix A. Schedule and Construction Methods Construction is tentatively scheduled to start in spring 2010 and would last approximately one year. Pipeline construction would typically require a minimum of one lane of traffic and the adjacent shoulder and/or bike lane (if they exist), resulting in a construction corridor approximately 20 feet to 30 feet wide. It is expected that the open trench construction within paved roadways would proceed at the rate of approximately 100 feet per day, with an overall work zone of 300 to 600 feet in length. Construction would occur for a relatively brief period of time at anyone location along the pipeline alignment, at most a few days. Construction would occur between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday on arterial and collection streets in order to maintain compliance with the City's Traffic Control Requirements. Construction other than on arterial and collection streets would occur between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. Construction would occur between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Saturday for all construction areas. Trenchless construction methods would be used for selected roadway and creek crossings. Trenchless construction methods minimize the area of surface disruption required for pipeline installation and include: jack and bore, micro-tunneling, directional drilling, and tunneling techniques. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 14 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Figure 8: Proposed RWQCP Pump Station Location Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 15 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Hanging pipelines on existing bridge structures is another potential trenchless approach. Crossings where trenchless construction techniques would be implemented are shown in Table 4. 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 two Adobe Creek crossings. The first crossing is at the connection point to the Mountain View Project at the intersection of US-l Oland Adobe Creek. The pipeline would run from the connection point at the intersection of US-I Oland Adobe Creek, under US-I 0 1 via trenchless techniques or along the north side of Adobe Creek attached to the side of the underpass wall, then cross over Adobe Creek attached to the south side of the West Bayshore bridge and into the West Bayshore roadway after crossing the creek. The second crossing is on East Meadow Drive near US 101. The pipeline would be attached to the existing East Meadow Drive bridge on the downstream side of the bridge or installed in the roadway on the bridge. • Barron Creek. The alignment crosses Barron Creek on Cowper Street, where Cowper turns into a bridge over Barron Creek which flows in a concrete channeL The pipeline would either be installed attached to the downstream side of the bridge or installed in the roadway on the bridge. A lateral pipeline would be constructed at Miranda A venue using trenchless techniques. • Matadero Creek. There are two Matadero Creek Crossings. At the crossing at Cowper Street, Cowper turns into a bridge over Matadero Creek which flows in a concrete channeL The pipeline would either be installed attached to the downstream side of the bridge or installed in the roadway on the bridge. At the crossing at Hillview Avenue, Matadero Creek flows through a 12-foot wide box culvert below the roadway. The pipeline would be installed in the roadway, above the culvert. A trenchless railroad crossing would occur on Page Mill Road between Alma Street and Park Boulevard. Another trenchless crossing may occur on Hillview A venue at the intersection of Foothill Expressway to cross a San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) right-of-way (ROW). All pipeline construction would occur within public roadways. An easement from California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) would be required to construct the pipeline across and along US-lO 1. An easement from Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) would be required to cross all creeks. This includes easements in order to install a hanging pipe on the west and south side of bridges for two crossings of Adobe Creek. The booster pump station would be constructed on leased property at the Mayfield Soccer Fields. The pump station would be an underground facility and would be approximately 50 feet x 30 feet. The construction footprint for the pump station at the Mayfield Soccer Fields would be approximately 0.25 acres. The pump station proposed at the RWQCP would occur entirely within existing City property. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 16 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Table 4: Construction Methods at Creek and Road Crossings Location I Crossing I Construction Method Adobe Creek Barron Creek Matadero Creek Page Mill Road Hillview A venue Equipment I Staging US 101 East Meadow Drive Cowper Street Cowper Street Hillview Avenue Railroad crossing between Alma Street and Park Boulevard : intersection of Foothill Expressway Foothill Expressway Trenchless or attached to existing overpass/bridge Installed on the downstream side of the bridge or installed in the roadway on the bridge Installed attached to the downstream side of the bridge or installed in the roadway on the bridge. Lateral pipeline trenchless crossing on Miranda Ave. Installed attached to the downstream side of the bridge or installed in the roadway on the bridge Installed in the roadway Trenchless Open-cut or Trenchless Open-cut or Trenchless Installation of the pipeline would require, but is not limited to, the following equipment: excavator, backhoe, front-end loaders, pavement saw, dump trucks, diesel generator, water tank, water truck, flat-bed truck, compactors, double transfer trucks for soil hauling, concrete trucks, and paving equipment (as needed). Equipment and vehicle staging would be accommodated either at each construction site (pipeline and pump station sites), or at a centralized staging area. Adaptive Management Program The City of Palo Alto recognizes that the community tree canopy on private and public property is highly valued for its aesthetic qualities and environmental benefits. To maximize the use of recycled water for irrigation in combination with responsibly maintaining the urban forest canopy, the City has developed the Adaptive Management Program (Program). The Program, as outlined below, is a component of the Project and participation is required of all users of recycled water. The Program will be implemented to avoid the potential effects of the recycled water use on protected and street trees and consists of the following components: Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 17 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration • Tree and Soil Condition Monitoring Plan. A tree and soil condition monitoring plan will be developed for use at each user site. The Plan will include analysis required to determine the baseline conditions of the user site, track the effects of recycled water on trees, and determine the triggers for implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs). The Plan will be developed in consultation with a qualified professional (i.e., consulting or registered arborist or horticulturalist) and based on the most current information available. The plan will consist of the following framework. • Site-specific, Baseline Landscape Conditions Report: Prior to connection to the recycled water supply, the City and its recycled water users (collectively referre.d to as Participants) will develop a site-specific, baseline landscape conditions report to be filed with the City's Utilities Department. The report will include a field spot check of site characteristics by a qualified professional (e.g., consulting or registered arborist or horticulturist). Site characteristics include soil type, site drainage, number of existing trees that will be irrigated, number of protected trees, and health of existing trees. Photos of the existing site conditions will be included in the report with the findings of site conditions. This report will establish the existing conditions such that any changes in the health of the irrigated trees can be observed and, as needed, studied. • Triggers/Criteria: The Participants will consult with a qualified professional to determine the list of triggers that would initiate implementation of BMPs for protected and street trees. The triggers would consist of a specific list of decline symptoms that can be observed and further studied as needed to determine whether the symptoms are attributable to recycled water use or other water-quality independent causes. • Monitoring: The Participants will conduct annual inspections of the tree and soil conditions at the irrigation sites for a minimum of 14 years. Monitoring will consist of spot-checking the site characteristics (same as those identified for the baseline report) for any decline symptoms identified as part of the Tree and Soil Condition Monitoring Plan. If no decline symptoms are shown, then no additional actions will be required. If decline symptoms have been identified and are determined to be attributable to recycled water use based on the criteria established in the Plan, then the Participants will implement appropriate BMPs. Monitoring activities provide the opportunity to observe changes in site-specific conditions before long-term decline effects result. • Extensive Landscape Study: In the event that a qualified professional determines that a more extensive landscape study at an individual property is needed to determine the cause of observable tree decline, then such a study will be conducted. The extensive study, prepared by a qualified professional, will include an inventory of landscape species present, description of soil texture, structure and root development throughout its profile, and laboratory analysis of representative soil samples collected through the profile. A report of the findings and recommendations for corrective action if the decline symptoms are attributable to recycled water use (as specified in the Tree and Soil Conditions Monitoring Plan) will be prepared. The report will be filed with the CPAU and forwarded to the appropriate Participants (Parks, Public Works (PW) Operations, private tenant or landowner). The recommendations for the project can include the following: • Determine the need for drainage treatments; • Evaluate irrigation system performance to identifY locations of insufficient or excessive application; Identify modifications needed to the irrigation system, assess need to convert to drip irrigation, and evaluate efficacy of installing injection equipment; • Install soil moisture monitors to maintain appropriate soil moisture; Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 18 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration • Design an irrigation schedule based on real-time evapotranspiration and data from soil moisture monitors that will maintain a moist soil; • Determine gypsum application volume and frequency; • Determine appropriate drainage system andlor leaching program for the site and establish limits of existing irrigation system; • Establish a monitoring program for soil sampling. Leaching programs and gypsum applications need to be adjusted to respond to results of the analyses. • Best Management Practices. The BMPs will focus on specific management methods to address potential decline symptoms attributed to recycled water use as determined by the Tree and Soil Monitoring Plan. The BMPs will be tied specifically to the triggers/criteria developed in consultation with a qualified professional. The BMPs can include, but are not limited to the corrective actions outlined below. These actions, which will be implemented by the Participants, are not presented in order of sequence. • Leach salts below the root zone: apply a large volume of water that carries salts accumulated in the root zone farther down into the soil profile. This method requires well draining soils; • Apply Gypsum: displaces sodium on clay particles so the sodium can be leached below the root zone. Gypsum is a chemical amendment; • Increase Irrigation: increase irrigation frequency to maintain moisture in the soil, to avoid salts from concentrating; • ModifY soil drainage to allow leaching, by physical manipulation, addition of manufactured drainage systems andlor other methods as technology becomes available; • ModifY irrigation system: avoid wetting foliage during application as plants are more sensitive to sodium and chloride when water is applied to the foliage compared to the soil; • Allow decline of existing trees but replace deceased trees with salt-tolerant tree species or species more suitable to the site. The ratio of replacement will be based on the requirements established in the Tree and Soil Condition Monitoring Plan; and • Cease recycled water irrigation of the affected property and replace with potable water. Environmental Commitments Dust Control During all phases of construction, the following dust control procedures shall be implemented: • Water all active construction sites at least twice daily; • Cover all trucks having soil, sand, or other loose material or maintain at least two feet freeboard on all trucks; • Apply water as necessary, or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; • Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites; • Sweep daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried illtO adjacent streets; • Water twice daily or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed soil stockpiles; and Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 19 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved areas to 15 miles per hour (mph). Protection of Cultural Resources In accordance with CEQA Section 15064.5, if cultural resources are encountered during Project-related excavations, construction shall be halted or diverted to allow an archaeologist an opportunity to assess the resource. 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 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 to contact 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 of inadvertent destruction." To achieve this goal, it is recommended that the construction personnel on the Project 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 fail ure thereof. 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 relevant and applicable federal, state, and local laws. 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. 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 shall be identified. A contingency plan to dispose of any contaminated soil or groundwater will be developed through consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies. If dewatering or hydrostatic testing of the pipeline is to occur during Project construction, the water will be discharged to the City's wastewater treatment plant rather than released into any drainage system, which would require prior approval from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 20 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Health and Safety and Hazardous Materials Management and Spill Prevention and 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. 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 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. Emergency Access Strategies In conjunction with the Traffic Control Plan for the Project, comprehensive strategies for maintaining emergency access shall be developed. Strategies shall include, but not be limited to, maintaining steel trench plates at the construction sites to restore access across open trenches and identification of alternate routing around construction zones. Also, police, fire, and other emergency service providers shall be notified of the timing, location, and duration of the construction activities and the location of detours and lane closures. Best Management Practices The City shall require contractors to file a Notice of Intent with the R WQCB indicting 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 California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook (ESA, 2003) and/or the Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures (ESA, 2003). 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 construction process to ensure control of potential water pollution sources. Erosion and sedimentation control practices typically include: • Limiting construction to dry-weather months; • 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); • Equipment maintenance shall be performed 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. Drainage from all work sites shall be directed away from any water bodies or wetlands where feasible; • Prevent erosion of uplands and sedimentation of creeks, tributaries, and ponds; Palo Alto Recycled Water Project 21 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration • Minimize creek bank instability; • Prevent flooding; and • Return grades to preconstructed contours. A SWPPP that complies with the statewide General Permit administered by the California State Water Resources Control Board for the NPDES 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 (Le., 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 certified as weed free. In addition, the Project shall comply with R WQCB regulations and standards to maintain and improve the quality of both surface water and groundwater reserves. There is the potential for the salts to build up in the soil as a result of recycled water use and the potential increase of salinity of groundwater. As part of the RWQCP's regional recycled water program, salinity management strategies have been identified and will be implemented as part ofthe proposed Project. Compliance with CCR Title 22 and Local Legislation The proposed Project shall be designed and operated in accordance with the applicable requirements of California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22 and any other local legislation that is currently effective or may become effective as it pertains to recycled water. As proposed, the Project shall provide high quality recycled water to users. All landscape irrigation systems shall be operated in accordance with the requirements of Title 22 of the CCR, any other local legislation that is currently effective or may become effective as it pertains to recycled water and any reclamation permits issued by the San Francisco RWQCB. Reclamation permits typically require that irrigation rates match the evapotranspiration rates of the plants being irrigated. Irrigation will not occur within 50 feet of any domestic supply wells. Public Outreach and Education Signs will be posted at parks irrigated with recycled water that notifY people about the use of recycled water. The City will participate in public outreach and education efforts to inform local communities of the use of recycled water and the potential effects as well as benefits of recycled water. 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 trees5 to a less than significant level. Construction projects within the tree protection zone (TPZ) of Regulated Trees6 are required to implement protective practices prior to and during construction. The City would be required to retain a certified arborist to 5 Typical negative impacts identified in the City's Tree Technical Manual include the following: I) mechanical injury to roots, trunk or branches; 2) compaction of soil, which degrades the functioning roots and inhibits the development of new ones and restricts drainage, which desiccates roots and enables water mold fungi to develop; 3) changes in existing grade which can cut or suffocate roots; 4) alteration of the water table -either raising or lowering; 5) microclimate change, exposing sheltered trees to sun or wind; and 6) sterile soil conditions, associated with stripping off topsoil. 6 Regulated Trees identified in the Tree Technical Manual include the following: • Protected Trees: All Coast Live Oak, Quercus agrifolia, Valley Oak, Quercus lobata trees that are 1l.5-inches or greater in diameter (36-inches in circumference measured at 54-inches above natural grade) and Coast Redwood, Sequoia Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 22 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 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. 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. Compliance with Local Noise Ordinance 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. o The sign shall read as follows: CONSTRUCTION HOURS FOR RESIDENTIAL (OR NON-RESIDENTIAL) PROPERTY (Includes Any and All Deliveries) MONDAY -FRIDA y. ....... 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.7 sempervirens trees that are l8-inches or greater in diameter (57-inches in circumference measured at 54-inches above natural grade) and Heritage Trees, individual trees of any size or species designated as such by City Council per the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 8.10. • Street Trees: All trees growing within the street right-of-way (publicly-owned), outside of private property. In some cases, property lines lie several feet behind the sidewalks. A permit from the Public Works Department is required prior to any work on or within the dripline of any 'street tree' per PAMC Section 8.04. • Designated Trees: All trees, when associated with a development project, that are specifically designated by the City to be saved and protected on a public or private property which is subject to a discretionary development review per PAMC Section 18.76. 7 Construction of the proposed Project would occur between the hours of9 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday on arterial and collection streets in compliance with City's Traffic Control Requirements. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 23 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration SA TURDA y. ........ 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. SUNDA Y/HOLIDA YS ........ Construction prohibited. Power Generator Design/Noise Where the generator facility would be constructed aboveground, a detailed analysis of the buildings' sound isolations will be conducted by a qualified acoustical consultant during the engineering design phase of the project for the site. 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. Traffic Control Plan The City's Transportation Section will 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 will show specific methods for maintaining traffic flows to minimize construction impacts on parking. There are several schools in the vicinity of the Project. These areas will be looked at 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 or night construction) 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; • 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 will 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. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 24 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Potential Permits and Approvals Required The proposed facilities would be sited on leased land, within existing easements and through City and County lands (primarily streets). Portions of the pipeline may be within SCVWD, SFPUC and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) easements. It is anticipated that permits / approvals will be required from the following agencies: • City of Palo Alto: Encroachment and Street Work Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Site and Design Review, and Architectural Review; • Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) permit for construction across creeks / flood control channels; • San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB): NPDES permit for construction activities and preparation of SWPPP; • San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD): Permit to Construct; authority to construct and permit to operate back-up power generator; • Caltrans Encroachment Permit; • CallOSHA -Underground Classification for tunnels; • California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) -streambed alteration agreement (SAA) (although all creek crossings would be constructed with trenchless methods, a CDFG SAA may be required); • San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) potential construction near the San Francisco Bay shoreline; • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)-Department of the Army 404 Permit; and • San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board 401 Water Quality Certification and/or Report of Waste Discharge/ Alternatives to the Proposed Project The proposed Project may use federal funding, and thus would require compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). An Environmental Assessment (EA) under NEPA requires a brief description of the alternatives to the proposed action per Section 102(2)(E) of NEPA. In anticipation of the pursuit offederal funding for the proposed Project, alternatives are discussed below. Pipeline Alternatives A high-level review was conducted of alternative alignments for the Palo Alto recycled water pipeline. The purpose of the alternative analysis was to identify a backbone alignment that is cost-effective, serves the largest potential recycled water demand, and that has minimal utility, traffic, and constructability issues. The locations of the potential recycled water users within the Project focus area are shown on Figure 9. As shown in the figure, the greatest concentration of recycled water demand is located in the Stanford Research Park area of Palo Alto. The goal of the alternatives analysis was to develop backbone pipeline alignments to serve this largest concentration of users. Laterals to users located off the backbone alignment would be added after the backbone alignment was identified. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 25 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Figure 9: Recycled Water Users Estimated Average Recycled Water Usage (AFY) 0 N .. 1·9 A • 10-24 25-100 Source: Recycled Water Market Survey Report (RMC, 2006) For the purpose of this alternatives evaluation, the recycled water pipeline was divided into four separate reaches, as delineated on Figure 10, each with unique alignment considerations. Pipeline alignments were analyzed for each reach to identify the most appropriate alignment for the area. Three reaches included several conceptual alignment alternatives (only one backbone alignment was identified for Reach 4). Four alternatives are identified for Reach 1, four alternatives for Reach 2, two for Reach 3, and one for Reach 4. Palo Alto Reeycled Water Projeet Page 26 Tnitial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Figure 10: Alternative Analysis Reaches The sections below present the alternatives considered on a reach-by-reach basis. For a given reach, each alternative is described and illustrated on a map. The comparison criteria include raw construction cost, demand serviced, and general implementation issues such as traffic, utility, and constructability. Based on these criteria, a preferred conceptual alignment was recommended for each reach. A proposed alignment and viable alternatives were then identified for the length ofthe pipeline. Palo Alto Recycled Water Page 27 Declaration Reach 1 (see Figure 11): From connection point at Mountain View Recycled Water Pipeline at US-lOI and Adobe Creek to Middlefield Road. Alternative IA -From connection point at intersection of US-l 01 and Adobe Creek along Adobe Creek; across Adobe Creek on existing bridge; along W. Bayshore Rd, Fabian Way; across Adobe Creek; along E. Meadow Drive to Middlefield Rd. Alternative 1B -From new connection point at intersection of E. Bayshore Rd and US-l 0 1 by micro-tunneling across US-lOI; along Fabian Way; across Adobe Creek; along E. Meadow Drive to Middlefield Rd. Alternative IC -From connection point at intersection of US-lOl and Adobe Creek across Adobe Creek on pipeline bridge to be constructed; along W. Bayshore Rd; along Fabian Way; across Adobe Creek; along E. Meadow Drive to Middlefield Rd. Alternative ID -From new connection point at intersection of US-lOl and Matadero Creek; along Matadero Creek to Middlefield Rd. Figure 11: Reach 1 Alignment Alternatives Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 28 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Reach 2 (see Figure 12): From Middlefield Road to EI Camino Real. Alternative 2A -Along E. Meadow Drive, Alma St to Page Mill Rd; along Page Mill Rd to El Camino Real. Alternative 2B -Along E. Meadow Drive, Cowper St and EI Dorado Ave to Alma St; along Alma St to Page Mill Rd; along Page Mill Rd to El Camino Real. Alternative 2C -Along E. Meadow Drive, W. Meadow Drive, El Camino Way, El Camino Real to Hansen Way. Alternative 2D Along Matadero Creek to Alma St; along Alma St to Page Mill Rd; along Page Mill Rd to EI Camino Real (only compatible with Alternative ID). Figure 12: Reach 2 Alignment Alternatives Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page Negative Declaration Reach 3 (see Figure 13): From El Camino Real to Hanover Street. Alternative 3A -From and across El Camino Real, along Page Mill Rd to Hanover St. Alternative 3B -From El Camino Real, along Hansen Way to Hanover St, through private property. (Only Works with Alternative 2C). Figure 13: Reach 3 Alignment Alternatives Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 30 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Reach 4 (see Figure 14): From Hanover Sf. to Arastradero Road. Alternative 4A Along Hanover St. and Hillview Ave., across Foothill Expressway, to Arastradero Road. Figure 14: Reach 4 Alignment Alternatives Proposed Pipeline Alignment Based on the criteria of recycled water demand served, utility, traffic, and constructability issues, and cost- effectiveness the proposed pipeline alignment was selected based on Alternatives IB, 2B, 3A, and 4A. The proposed Project is defined earlier in this document and shown in Figure 2. Alternative Backbone Pipeline Alignment For the purpose of environmental review, alternative backbone pipeline alignments were also included as alignment options should problems arise with the proposed alignment. The alignment options are defined earlier in this document and shown in Figure 2. The alignment options are based on the alternative analysis process and include the following: • Alignment Option 1, based on Alternative lA. From connection point at intersection of US-l Oland Adobe Creek, the pipeline would be located along Adobe Creek, under the US-l 0 1 overpass. The pipeline would then run along West Bayshore Rd and connect to the proposed alignment at Fabian Way. • Alignment Option 2, based on Alternative ID and 2D. Through coordination meetings with the SCVWO after the alternative analysis process, Alternatives 10 and 20 were modified due to construction issues along Matadero Creek. Alignment Option 2 begins at Colorado A venue and US-l Oland would follow Colorado Avenue to connect to the proposed alignment at Alma Street. PaJo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 31 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration • Alignment Option 3, based on Alternative 3B. Alignment Option 3 would run along Hansen Way and use an existing PUE as a ROW through the parking lot connecting Hansen Way and Hanover Street. Alignment Option 2 would connect to the proposed alignment at Hanover Street. The alternatives discussed in this section were considered, but dismissed on the basis of constructability, feasibility, cost, and because none of the alternatives resulted in fewer environmental impacts than the proposed Project and alignment options. The impacts ofthe alternatives discussed above are the same as the impacts of the proposed Project due to the similar area and construction methods proposed. Please refer to the impact analysis for the proposed Proj ect below for a discussion of impacts. CEQA Compliance In compliance with Section 15000 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Palo Alto is the Lead Agency for compliance with the CEQA environmental review process for the Recycled Water Project. The City has conducted the CEQA process, including the preparation and circulation of this IS/MND, to provide to the public and Responsible and Trustee Agencies reviewing this project, information about the project's potential effects, both beneficial and adverse, on the local and regional environment. This Draft IS/MND was prepared in compliance with Section 15070 to 15075 of CEQA Guidelines of 1970 (as amended), and California Administrative Code, Title 14, Division, Chapter 3. In accordance with Section 15070, an MND shall be prepared if the following criteria are met: • There is no substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment; or • Where there may be a potentially significant effect, revisions to the Project would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. In accordance with Section 15073 of the CEQA Guidelines, the document is being circulated to local, state, and federal agencies and to interested organizations and individuals who may wish to review and comment on the report. The 30-day public comment period is from March 19,2009 to April 17,2009. Written comments may be forwarded to: Clare Campbell City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 650-617-3191 Clare.Campbell@CityofPaloAlto.org Supporting documentation listed in Section 4, References and Sources, is available for review during regular business hours at: City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Civic Center, 5th Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 (650) 329-2441 Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 32 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. PROJECT TITLE Palo Alto Recycled Water Project 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94303 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Clare Campbell, Planner City of Palo Alto 650-617-3191 4. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS City of Palo Alto Utilities 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Contact: Nicolas Procos, (650) 329-2114 5. APPLICATION NUMBER Not Applicable 6. PROJECT LOCATION The proj ect site is located in the northern section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara County, west of U.S. Highway 1 I) 1, as shown on Figure 15, Regional Map. The proposed alignment would begin with a connection point to the Mountain View Project near the intersection of East Bayshore Road and Corporation Way. The pipeline would be constructed using trenchless techniques under US-lOl, and would run along Fabian Way to East Meadow Drive where it would cross Adobe Creek again. The pipeline would run along East Meadow Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 33 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Drive across Middlefield Road, and then continue along East Meadow Drive, Cowper Street, and El Dorado Avenue to Alma Street, along Alma Street to Page Mill Road, and along Page Mill Road to El Camino Real. The pipeline would continue across El Camino Real, along Page Mill Road to Hanover Street, and along Hanover Street and Hillview A venue to Arastradero Road. The pipeline would run along side streets on lateral alignments from the proposed alignment or alignment options to serve individual users. Figure 2 in the Project Description shows the proposed pipeline alignment and the pipeline alignment options. These pipeline alignment options would potentially replace segments of the proposed alignment depending on constructability and design considerations. The proposed booster pump station would be located at the Mayfield Soccer Fields, 2700 El Camino Real, along the pipeline within the Project area. The proposed RWQCP pump station would be located at the RWQCP (2501 Embarcadero Way), which is within the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve, on the easterly side of Embarcadero Way. Figure 15: Regional Map Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 34 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The Project would pass through a variety of land use designations. The proposed pipeline alignments (backbone and lateral) would traverse primarily land uses designated as Single Family Residential and Research / Office Park as identified in the Palo Alto 1998 2010 Comprehensive PlanS. Portions of the pipeline would also pass through uses designated as Major Institution / Special Facilities. This land use designation provides for institutional, academic, governmental, and community service uses and lands that are either publicly owned or operated as non-profit organizations. The proposed pipelines would be buried and would not affect any surface land uses. The proposed booster pump station would be located at 2700 EI Camino Real (Mayfield Soccer Fields) and is designated as Multi-Family Residential. The proposed booster pump station would be located within lands that allow such facilities with appropriate use permits. The RWQCP pump station site is designated as Major Institution/Special Facility in the Palo Alto 1998 -2010 Comprehensive Plan. 8. ZONING The pipeline alignments (backbone and lateral) would pass through a variety of zoning designations, including ROLM, Single-Family Residence District (R-l), Low Density Multiple- Family Residence District (RM-15), Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence District (RM- 30), PF, Two Family Residence District (R-2), Commercial Neighborhood District (CN), GM, Planned Community District (PN), Commercial Services District (CS), and RP. The pipeline would be located within the street right-of-ways and would not conflict with the existing zone districts. The proposed booster pump station at Mayfield Soccer Fields would be located on land zoned Public Facilities (PF) with an AS3 Combining Overlay District. The base PF zone district is designed to accommodate governmental, public utility, educational, and community service or recreational facilities. The proposed booster pump station, a utility facility use, requires a Conditional Use Permit to operate in the PF zone district. The RWQCP pump station site is zoned PF (D), Public Facilities with a Site and Design overlay. 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY The Palo Alto Recycled Water Project (Project) proposes the construction of recycled water pipeline and associated facilities to provide an alternative water supply for non-potable uses. The project is comprised of three main structural elements (proposed pipeline, booster pump station with generator, and pump station at the RWQCP) and the Adaptive Management Program addressing recycled water usage. The proposed Project would involve the construction of approximately 5 miles of 12-to 18-inch pipes, a 1,500 square-foot booster pump station, approximately 5 miles of lateral pipelines to over 50 use sites, and an up to 1,600 square-foot pump station at the RWQCP. The proposed pipeline consists of the backbone pipeline and offshoots, or lateral pipelines. The proposed backbone pipeline alignment would begin with a connection point to the Mountain View Project near the intersection of East Bayshore Road and Corporation Way and make its way through the City to Hillview Avenue and Arastradero Road. Three pipeline alignment options would potentially replace segments of the proposed backbone pipeline alignment depending on constructability and design considerations. Pipeline construction would typically require a minimum of one lane oftraffic and the adjacent shoulder, resulting in a construction corridor approximately 20 feet to 30 feet wide. The proposed pipeline laterals, and 8 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan identifies Single Family Residential as uses including one dwelling unit on each lot as well as conditional uses requiring permits such as churches and schools. Palo Alto Recycled Water 35 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration pipeline alignment options are discussed in more detail in the Project Description of this document and are shown on Figure 2. A booster pump station and generator would be constructed on the southeast comer of Page Mill Road and EI Camino Real intersection at Mayfield Soccer Fields. The pump station would have a peak flow rate of 2,860 gpm. This would require a total installed horsepower (hp) of 400 hp, including standby pumps. The pump station footprint would be approximately 50-ft x 30-ft (1,500 sq. ft.). A back-up generator may be installed at a later date if the recycled water is supplied for industrial use in the future. The pump station would be constructed below grade while the generator would be an above grade structure. The proposed booster pump station and back-up generator are described in more detail in the Project Description of this document. A new up to 1,600-square foot pump station would also be constructed at the RWQCP to deliver water into the Palo Alto recycled water system. The RWQCP is located within the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve, on the easterly side of Embarcadero Way. Preliminary design criteria established for the pump station shows that the pump station would require a footprint of roughly 40-ft x 42-ft. Total pump station capacity would be 3,310 gpm and would provide approximately 230 feet of total dynamic head at the station. The total installed horsepower of the pump station would be approximately 350 hp. The design and siting of the pump station would comply with both the Baylands Master Plan (2008) and the Santa Clara County's Airport Master Plan (2006) for the Palo Alto Airport. The project also includes the Adaptive Management Program that is implemented to avoid any potential effects of recycled water use on protected and street trees. The program consists of the preparation and implementation of a Tree and Soil Condition Monitoring Plan and Best Management Practices. The "recycled water service area" refers to the area that would be served by the project (Le., where recycled water would be used for irrigation). It is anticipated that the Project would initially serve approximately 900 AFY of recycled water, mostly to the Stanford Research Park Area. Future extensions could serve Stanford University and Los Altos Hills, as well as provide a loop connecting to the Phase 2 Mountain View Project. The predominant use of recycled water for this Project is landscape irrigation. Some industrial use, such as commercial and light industrial cooling towers, could also be included at a later date. The term "study area" is used throughout this document and includes the proposed alignment and laterals, alignment options, the pump station locations, as well as the extent ofthe area anticipated to be disturbed during construction. 10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING The Project is located within the City of Palo Alto and is in an urban area with commercial, residential, and industrial land uses as well as open space. Surrounding land uses are designated in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Land Use map as Single Family Residential, Multiple Family Residential, Public Park, School District Lands, Major Institution / Special Facilities, Neighborhood Commercial, Service Commercial, Light Industrial, and Research / Office Park. The RWQCP, where a pump station would be located, is within the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve. Surrounding uses include light manufacturing, office, and recreation (adjacent to Byxbee Recreation Area and near the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course). The Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 36 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Baylands allows for passive recreational uses such as trails for walking, biking, and bird watching. A small-scale airport operated by the County of Santa Clara (Palo Alto Airport) is located north of the RWQCP. 11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES • San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) -for crossing of Bay Division pipelines; • City of Palo Alto: Encroachment and Street Work Pennit, Conditional Use Pennit, Site and Design Review, and Architectural Review; • Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) -for construction across creeks / flood control channels; • San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB): NPDES pennit for construction activities and preparation of SWPPP; • San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD): Permit to Construct; authority to construct and penn it to operate back -up power generator; • Caltrans -Encroachment Permit; • CallOSHA -Underground classification for tunnels; • California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) -streambed' alteration agreement (SAA) (although all creek crossings would be constructed with trenchless methods, a CDFG SAA may be required); • San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) potential construction near the San Francisco Bay shoreline; • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Department of the Army 404 Pennit; and • Regional Water Quality Control Board 401 Water Quality Certification and/or Report of Waste Discharge. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included. A. AESTHETICS Isupp","n.Info, .... tiOn Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than Resources Significant Significant Significant Issues Unless Impact . Would the project: Mitigation Incorporated a) Substantially degrade the existing visual ~ character or quality of the site and its 1 surroundings? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 1,2 ~ public view or view corridor? Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 37 StudylMitigated Negative Declaration No Impact I Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than Resources Significant Significant Significant Issues Unless Impact Would the project: Mitigation Incorporated c) Substantially damage scenic resources, y" including, but not limited to, trees, rock 1,2,4,52 outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan 1,2 policies regarding visual resources? , e) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or I y" nighttime views in the area? ±) Substantially shadow public open space 1,2 (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21? DISCUSSION: The Palo Alto Recycled Water Project (Project) proposes the construction of a recycled water pipeline and associated facilities to provide an alternative water supply for non-potable uses. It is anticipated that during construction the project may create visual impacts, but due to the temporary nature of those effects, they would be less than significant. All components of the project that are seen from public views and create a permanent physical change, such as pipelines that will not be buried, new structures, or landscape changes, require design review (Architectural Review) by the City. The purpose of the design review is to promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other. The requirements of the design review reduce the Project's visual impacts to a less-than-significant level. As a preventative measure, the Project also includes the Adaptive Management Program (Program). This Program would assist the City and users of recycled water with specific protocol to follow in order to monitor and evaluate vegetation changes that may be caused by the use of recycled water. With this Program in place, the effects of using recycled water inappropriately and potentially causing visual effects to the City's urban tree canopy would be addressed. a) Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed Project would be visible and would involve temporary impacts to aesthetic resources. Potential temporary impacts would include open trenches and the presence of construction equipment and materials. Existing landscaped vegetation and trees could also be damaged andlor removed during project construction. However, construction impacts would be temporary and are considered to be less than significant. Once built, the pipeline facilities would be buried underground or suspended under or along the side of existing bridges. The City of Palo Alto would repair any damage to roads and revegetate any disturbed landscaping. Implementation of such repairs and revegetation would ensure that the potential for short-term construction impacts would not become long-term visual impacts. The City has a practice of imposing a 5-year moratorium on cutting newly paved streets, with appropriate exceptions. Although not established for this reason, the moratorium indirectly limits visual impacts that could occur from continuous construction activities along anyone roadway segment. The Project is expected to be constructed beginning in 2010. No trench work would occur on streets that have been paved within the 5 years prior to construction unless an exception Palo Alto Recycled Water Projeet 38 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration No Impact y" y" is needed and an agreement can be reached to allow for that exception. Where exceptions to the 5-year moratorium would be granted, impacts on public views from multiple construction activities along roadway segments would be considered less than significant due to the temporary and continuously-moving nature of construction activities. Visual character would be maintained at the proposed Mayfield Soccer Fields site, since the booster pump station would be constructed underground. Aboveground structures associated with the pump station and landscape changes would go through architectural review during the design phase ofthe project and would satisfy the requirements of the Architectural Review Board. Permanent changes to the visual condition of the R WQCP would result from construction of the pump station at the RWQCP. However, the pump station would be consistent with existing conditions at the plant. Electricity poles, paved roads, dirt roads, and existing facilities at the RWQCP are part of the scenic environment. The pump station would be shielded from public view by the existing vegetation, approximately 50 to 75 feet tall growing along the perimeter of the fenced RWQCP property. The pump station would be located within the developed RWQCP site, and although located in a passive park/nature preserve, the project would not interfere significantly with the park or impact the natural setting. The pump station would comply with the requirements of both the Baylands Master Plan and Santa Clara County's Airport Master Plan for the Palo Alto Airport. The pump station would be required to go through a Site and Design Review during the design phase of the project to ensure compliance with the City's regulations. Trees could be removed during construction activities; however, tree removal would comply with the City's Municipal Code to ensure that protected trees would remain on the project site and any designated trees removed would be replaced according to the Tree Canopy Replacement Formula, Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.30. Street trees would be replaced with species determined by PW Operations. The City would comply with the Tree Technical Manual regarding the avoidance, removal, and replacement of trees. Compliance with the Manual's practices would ensure that potential visual related impacts associated with tree removal would be less than significant. The project area includes the City-designated scenic route9 and view corridor in both directions along Page Mill Road (for the proposed alignment and pipe lateral), scenic route along Foothill Expressway (for the pipe lateral), major view corridors (looking south) along East Meadow Drive (proposed alignment), and other areas with extensive landscaping (e.g., the Palo Square area along Option 3 consists of extensively-planted, mature, coast Redwood protected trees per the Palo Alto Municipal Code 8.10). In areas where the existing site conditions are of poor quality, protected and street trees may be more sensitive to i1Tigation by recycled water (due to the higher levels of salts in the recycled water which can accumulate in the root zone due to the soil type and poor drainage). Under this scenario, the salt content in the recycled water could affect the health, and thus, the appearance of existing trees. Decline of substantial number of protected trees in the Page Mill scenic route or other extensively landscaped areas could change the City's visual character and quality. However, because the project integrates the Adaptive Management Program in addressing potential effects of recycled water use on trees, adverse effects on protected and street trees would be avoided. Please refer to Section H, Hydrology and Water Quality for a discussion of effects from recycled water use and to the Project Description for a discussion of the Adaptive Management Program. As stated above, the proposed project would go through Site and Design review during the design phase of the project and would satisfy the requirements of the City. The proposed pump station at 9 Scenic Routes. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Land Use and Community Design Features, Map L-4. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 39 StudylMitigated Negative Declaration the RWQCP would comply with the requirements of both the Baylands Master Plan and Santa Clara County's Airport Master Plan for the Palo Alto Airport. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed Project components are not located in or near any scenic vistas and therefore would not have an impact on a scenic vista. The Proposed pipelines would be buried underground causing no permanent changes in the visual condition of the Project area. Due to the sensitive aesthetic nature of the Mayfield Soccer Fields site, the pump station would be constructed underground at this site. The existing snack and restroom building in the center of the fields is surrounded by a grove of mature designated treesJO that must be avoided, including the special rooting area beneath the surface pavers. The proposed generator associated with the booster pump station at the Mayfield Soccer Fields and the proposed pump station at the RWQCP would be the only aboveground structures associated with the proposed Project. These aboveground buildings would go through Site and Design / architectural review during the design phase of the project and would satisfy the requirements of the City and the Architectural Review Board. Alteration of public views at the sites of the above-ground facilities would be less than significant and no specific mitigation measures are required. Please refer to item a) above for a discussion of recycled water use and its effects on public views and view corridors. c) Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed Project is not located near or within a state scenic highway; US-lO 1 is not designated as a Scenic Highway in the vicinity of the Project area (ESA, 2003). Therefore, the proposed Project would not damage scenic resources, including but not limited to rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Please refer to item a) above for a discussion of recycled water use and its effects on the City's scenic resources. d) No Impact. The proposed Project would not violate any existing Comprehensive Plan policies regarding visual resources. The proposed Project would be constructed within existing roadways and/or utility corridors within commercial, industrial, and residential zonings within the City. For this reason, no impact is expected. The pump station proposed at the RWQCP would be consistent with existing conditions at the plant. The pump station would comply with the requirements of both the Baylands Master Plan and Santa Clara County's Airport Master Plan for the Palo Alto Airport. In addition, the project would include an Adaptive Management Program to address the effects of recycled water lise on to ensure that scenic qualities of the City are preserved. Please refer to Section H, Hydrology and Water Quality for a discussion of effects from recycled water use and to the Project Description for a discussion of the Adaptive Management Program. e) Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Nighttime construction activities are not anticipated. As described in the Project Description, construction would occur between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday on arterial and collection streets in order to maintain compliance with the City's Traffic Control Requirements. Construction other than on arterial and collection streets would occur between the hours of8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. Construction would occur between 9 a.m. and 10 The existing grove of mature sycamore trees was the subject of previous entitlement, and includes a special engineered soil mix for rooting beneath the pavers. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 40 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 6 p.m. on Saturday for all construction areas. However, if nighttime construction was to occur, it would be within the commercial section of the pipeline where traffic constraints might limit daytime construction. The Mayfield Soccer Fields pump station would be underground. Proposed above-ground facilities would not require substantial lighting. These aboveground buildings constructed as part of the Project would go through Site and Design / Architectural review during the design phase of the project and would satisfy the requirements of the City and the Architectural Review Board. Lighting conditions would not change at the RWQCP as a result of the proposed project. The impact would be less than significant. f) No Impact. The proposed Project would not substantially shadow public open space (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. from September 21 to March 21. As stated above, the proposed Project would be constructed within existing roadways and/or utility corridors within commercial, industrial, and residential zonings within the City. For this reason, no impact is expected. Mitigation Measures: None Required B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared 1,5 pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 1,2,5 c) use, or a Williamson Act contract? Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or 1 nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? DISCUSSION: a) No Impact. The proposed Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use. The proposed Project would be constructed within existing roadways and/or utility corridors within commercial, industrial, and residential zonings within the City or on Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 41 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Impact ../ ../ ../ City owned or leased property. No farming or agriculture takes place within the Project area. As a result, the proposed Project would not affect agricultural practices and/or convert any farmland to non-agricultural usage. No mitigation is required or necessary. b) No Impact. The proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. As stated above, the proposed Project would be constructed within existing roadways and/or utility corridors within commercial, industrial, and residential zonings within the City. No farming or agriculture takes place within the Project area. As a result, the proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning and/or a Williamson Act Contract No mitigation is required or necessary. c) No Impact. As mentioned above, the proposed Project would be constructed within existing roadways and/or utility corridors within commercial, industrial, and residential zonings within the City or on City owned or leased property. Therefore, the proposed Project would not involve changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, would result in the conversion of farmland or agricultural practices to non-agricultural use. No mitigation is required or necessary. Mitigation Measures: None Required c. AIR QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation ofthe applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay 1,4 y" Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation indicated by the following: .... _ ...... L Direct andlor indirect operational emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air y" Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 1,6 criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day andlor 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides (NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and fine particulate matter of less than 10 microns in diameter (PMlO); II. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations exceeding the State y" Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine 1 parts per million (ppm) averaged over eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling, which would be performed when a) project CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day or 100 tons per year; or b) project traffic Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 42 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration No Impact Issues and Supporting Information Res~urcesrources Potentially Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated would impact intersections or roadway I links operating at Level of Service (LOS) D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to D, E or F; or c) project would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10% or more)? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the ~ project region is non-attainment under an 1,6,4 applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels e) f) of toxic air contaminants? 1 i. Probability of contracting cancer for the 1 Maximally Exposed Individual (MEl) exceeds 10 in one million ii. Ground-level concentrations of non-1 carcinogenic T ACs would result in a hazard index greater than one (1) for the MEl Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 1 Not implement all applicable construction 1 emission control measures recommended in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines? DISCUSSION: The proposed Project includes excavation activities and construction that would generate fugitive dust and other criteria pollutants. Construction contract provisions would include a dust abatement program as outlined in the Project Description. Daily combustion emission impacts from construction vehicles would not be significant due to the relatively small scale of the Project. Criteria pollutant emissions from these emission sources would incrementally add to regional atmospheric loading of ozone precursors during the construction period. Emissions calculations for construction and operation of the proposed Project are included in Appendix B. a) Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed Project is located within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the regional agency empowered to regulate air pollutant emissions from stationary sources in the Bay Area. BAAQMD regulates air quality through its permit authority over most types of stationary emission sources and through its planning and review process. The Project site is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. This Basin is currently designated "non-attainment" for the state I-hour Palo Alto Ke,cvcledWater Declaration No I Impact ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ozone standard. To meet planning requirements related to this standard, the BAAQMD developed a regional air quality plan, the Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Program (CAP), the BAAQMD's most recent triennial update of the 1991 Clean Air Plan. A significant impact would occur if a project conflicted with the plan by not mirroring assumptions of the plan regarding population growth and vehicle-miles-traveled. The proposed Project would accommodate popUlation growth because the Project would provide recycled water, making potable supplies more available, and thus increasing the overall supply of water. However, because growth in the City of Palo Alto is controlled by the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan), the new water supply as a result of the proposed Project is not expected to result in increased development. The proposed Project would not generate new operational vehicle trips. Pump station maintenance would be completed as part of the regular maintenance trips that are already occurring in the Project area. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct with implementation of the 2000 CAP, and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. With respect to project conformity with the federal Clean Air Act, the Project's potential emissions are below minimum thresholds and are below 10 percent of the area's inventory specified for each criteria pollutant designated non-attainment or maintenance for the Bay Area. As such, further general conformity analysis is not required. b) Less-than-Significant Impact. The entire San Francisco Bay Area is currently designated "non-attainment" for the state PMw and PM2.5 standards, the state 1-hour and the national 8- hour ozone standards. The Bay Area is in "attainment" or "unclassified" with respect to the ambient air quality standards. As part of the effort to reach attainment of these standards, the BAAQMD has established thresholds of significance for several criteria air pollutants associated with both the construction and operation of projects. Specifically, a project is considered to have a significant regional air quality impact if it would result in an increase in emissions of 80 pounds per day of PM IO, reactive organic gases (ROG), or nitrogen oxides (NOx). ROG and NOx are both ozone precursors. Construction activities at the Project site would begin in the spring of 2010 and continue into the winter of 2010, and would include excavation and grading activities. For a discussion of construction haul trips during excavation activities refer to Section 2.16 Transportation and Traffic. Overall construction work would require the use of various types of mostly diesel- powered equipment, including bulldozers, wheel loaders, excavators, and various kinds of trucks. Construction activities typically result in emissions of particulate matter, usually in the form of fugitive dust from activities such as trenching and grading. Emissions of particulate matter vary day to day, depending on the level and type of activity, silt content of the soil, and the prevailing weather. In the absence of a dust control plan, construction activities may result in significant quantities of dust on a temporary and intermittent basis during the construction period. BAAQMD's approach to analyses of construction impacts as noted in their BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines is to emphasize implementation of effective and comprehensive control measures rather than detailed quantification of emissions. Construction and operation emissions calculations are included in Appendix B. With implementation of these dust control measures, described in the Project Description, the Project's construction-related dust impacts would be less than significant. Construction activities would also result in the emission of other criteria pollutants from equipment exhaust and construction-related vehicular activity. Emission levels for construction activities would vary depending on the number and types of equipment, duration of use, operation schedules, and the number of construction workers. While emissions of ROG and NOx from these sources would incrementally add to the regional atmospheric Palo Alto Recycled Water Project 44 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration loading of ozone precursors during Project construction, these emissions are included in the emission inventory that is the basis for regional air quality plans. As such, construction emissions are not expected to impede attainment or maintenance of ozone standards in the Bay Area, and the Project's impact related to construction-vehicle emissions would be less than significant Once operational, emission sources resulting from Project operations would be associated with regular maintenance and inspection work. The potential back-up generator that may be installed at a later date could also result in emissions. However, this back-up generator would only operate on a temporary basis, and thus would not contribute significantly to project emissions. Construction and operation emissions calculations are included in Appendix B. Operational impacts would be considered less than significant No mitigation is required. c) Less-than-Significant Impact. As stated above, the proposed Project would be located within the Bay Area Air Basin, which does not meet state and federal health-based air quality standards for the state PMlO and PM2.5 standards, the state I-hour, and the national 8-hour ozone standards. The BAAQMD is active in establishing and enforcing air pollution control rules and regulations in order to attain all state and federal ambient air quality standards and to minimize public exposure to airborne toxins and nuisance odors. Air emissions would be generated during construction of the proposed Project, which could increase criteria air pollutants, including PMJO• However, construction activities would be temporary and would incorporate the implementation of a dust control plan. As mentioned above, upon completion of construction activities, emission sources resulting from Project operations would be associated with regular maintenance and inspection work. Given the limited number of trips that would be required, only limited emissions would be generated; these emissions would be expected to be well below BAAQMD guidelines. The potential back-up generator that may be installed at a later date could also result in emissions. However, this back-up generator would only operate on a temporary basis and thus would not contribute significantly to project emissions. Construction and operation emissions calculations are included in Appendix B. The proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria air pollutants, and the Project impacts would be less than significant No mitigation is required. d) Less-than-Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors within the vicinity of the project area include schools, hospitals, and residences. Diesel emissions would result both from diesel- powered construction vehicles and any diesel trucks associated with Project operation. The potential back-up generator that may be installed at a later date could also result in emissions. However, this back-up generator would only operate on a temporary basis and thus would not contribute significantly to project emissions. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) has been classified by the California Air Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant for the cancer risk associated with long-term (i.e., 70 years) exposure to DPM. Given that construction would occur for a limited amount of time, that only a limited number of diesel trucks would be associated with operation of the Project, and that the potential back-up generator, if installed, would only operate on a temporary basis, localized exposure to DPM would be minimaL As a result, the cancer risks from the Project associated with diesel emissions over a 70-year lifetime are minimal. Therefore, the impacts related to DPM would be less than significant. Likewise, as noted above, with the implementation of a dust control plan, the Project would not result in substantial emissions of any criteria air pollutants either during construction or operation. Therefore, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors, including residents in the Project vicinity, to substantial pollutant concentrations. With the implementation of the dust control measures described in the Project Description, impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. The probability of contracting Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 45 StudylMitigated Negative Declaration a) cancer from Project construction and/or operation for the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEl) would be very low and would not exceed 10 in one million. Ground-level concentrations of non-carcinogenic T ACs would not result in a hazard index greater than one for the MEL The RWQCP pump station would be located in the Baylands, within a nature preserve, where there are no residential uses and only limited commercial uses nearby. The pump station and related construction are not anticipated to expose sensitive receptors to TACs. e) Less-than-Significant Impact. During construction of the proposed Project, the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on site could create minor odors. These odors are not likely to be noticeable beyond the immediate area, and would be temporary in nature. Furthennore, the proposed Project would not include development of any uses of recycled water that are associated with objectionable odors. Given the extent to which the recycled water is treated, odors are not expected to be a problem at or near water use sites, at or near the pump station (which would underground or at the RWQCP), or in the event of a pipeline rupture. Therefore, odor impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. £) No Impact. All applicable construction emission control measures recommended in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines would be implemented for the proposed Project. Mitigation Measures: None Required D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially I Less Than Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on 1,2,7,8, any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, 9, 10, 11, ../ or special status species in local or regional 12, 13, plans, policies, or regulations, or by the 14, 15, California Department of Fish and Game or 16, 17 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural 1,2,7,8, community identified in local or regional plans, 9,10,11, policies, regulations, including federally 12, 13, ../ protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 14, 15, of the Clean Water Act (including, but not 16, 17 limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? c) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife 1,2,7,8, species or with established native resident or 9,10,11, ../ migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use 12, 13, of native wildlife nursery sites? 14, 15, 16, 17 Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 46 Initial StudyfMitigated Negative Declaration No Impact Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree 1,2,7,8, preservation policy or as defined by the City of 9, 10, 11, ../ Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance 12, 13, (Municipal Code Section 8.10)? 14, 15, 16, 17, 52 e) Conflict with any applicable Habitat 1,2,7,8, Conservation Plan, Natural Community 9,10, 11, ../ Conservation Plan, or other approved local, 12, 13, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 14,15, 16,17 DISCUSSION: Biological Resources Setting With the exception of creek crossings and critical roadway crossings, the proposed pipeline alignment, alignment options, and lateral pipes would be installed using standard open trench construction techniques. Trenchless construction techniques (i.e., attaching to the side of existing structures, installing in roadways on bridges, or microtunneling) would be used to install the sections of pipeline crossing creeks that lie in the proposed alignment, alignment options, and laterals, as well as the section of pipeline crossing US-lO 1 at Corporation Way in the proposed alignment. Water quality effects to regulated trees and the Adaptive Management Program are discussed in item d below. In general, the proposed alignment, alignment options, booster pump station, and RWQCP pump station are located within existing roadways and/or disturbed areas (i.e., utilities right-of-ways, landscaped areas). Vegetation within these areas is generally limited to non-native grasses (turf and weedy vegetation) and a mix of native and ornamental trees and shrubs. The surrounding area is primarily urban and suburban in character, consisting predominantly of commercial, industrial, and residential uses. Scattered throughout this area are a variety of ruderal and urban habitats such as City parks (e.g., Hoover Park, Mitchell Park), athletic playing fields (e.g., Stanford/Palo Alto Community Playing Fields), roadway medians and shoulders, and landscaped grounds. The San Francisco Bay and its associated northern coastal salt marsh and coastal freshwater marsh habitats in the Palo Alto Baylands Natural Preserve (BayJands Preserve) occur to the northeast of the proposed Project, with a portion of the project site within the BayJands Preserve. Also, several creeks (e.g., Adobe Creek, Barron Creek, Matadero Creek) occur in the Project vicinity, portions of which support riparian habitat. The majority of the creeks that lie in the proposed alignment, alignment options, and lateral alignments are concrete-lined and/or culverted. a) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Christopher A. Joseph & Associates (CAJA) conducted a one-day reconnaissance-level field survey of the study area on September 19,2007. The purpose of this field survey was to assess the existing conditions of the study area, including characterizing and delineating the vegetation communities and wildlife habitats in the study area and evaluating the potential for these communities to support special-status plant and animal species, and to evaluate the potential impacts of the Palo Alto i""~'Y\"i"U Water Project Page 47 StudylMitigated Negative Declaration • proposed Project on those special-status species potentially occurring in the study area. In general, the survey was conducted by car where the pipeline alignments lie within roadways and by foot where the alignments and pump station locations lie within disturbed areas. Where access was limited or prohibited surveys were conducted from fence lines and/or by aerial photo interpretation. Prior to conducting the field survey, a list of special-status plants (Table I in Appendix C) and a list of special-status animals (Table 2 in Appendix C) that are known to occur or have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the study area were developed. These lists were based on review of available background information pertaining to biological resources in the vicinity of the study area. Information that was reviewed includes (1) the California Department of Fish and Game's (CDFG) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFG, 2007), (2) the California Native Plant Society's (CNPS) Electronic Inventory (CNPS, 2007), (3) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) list of federal and endangered species that occur in or may be affected by projects in the Palo Alto and Mountain View U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 ~ Minute Quads (USFWS 2007); and (5) the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (Palo Alto, 2007). Each plant and animal species was then evaluated during the field survey for their potential for occurrence in the study area. Species rated as having a "medium" or "high" potential for occurrence or identified as "present" (refer to Table 1 and Table 2 in Appendix C) are discussed further below. Plants and animals rated as having "no" or "low" potential for occurrence are not discussed because these species are not likely to occur in the study area due to the fact that (1) the general habitat and/or micro-habitat requirements for the species are not present; (2) the species distribution does not include the study area; (3) the quality of the habitat in the study area likely precludes the species or discourages use of the habitat by the species; and/or (4) the species was not detected during the field survey; however, exceptions are California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus), California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis), and other migratory birds and raptors. These species are discussed due to the proximity of potential habitat within the Baylands Preserve and/or creek corridors east of the study area, and to the potential for construction-related activities to disturb these species, if present; although the potential is considered low given the existing levels of human-related disturbances (e.g., foot and bicycle traffic on the San Francisco Bay Trail and vehicular traffic on East Bayshore Road) in the surrounding area. Special-Status Plants Based on review of available background information, 60 special-status plants have been documented in the vicinity of the study area (Table 1 in Appendix C). Of these, 51 species have "no" potential and 9 have "low" potential for occurrence in the study area. No special- status plants have been identified as having a "medium" or "high" potential for occurrence or as "present" in the study area. The majority of the study area is hardscaped or landscaped, or has been previously disturbed by construction and operation of existing development, and is now dominated by non-native vegetation. Because ofthe level of disturbance and dominance of non-native vegetation, the study area is not likely to support any of the special-status plants evaluated and, therefore, the proposed Project is not expected to result in impacts to special- status plant species. A number of special-status plants listed in Table 1 of Appendix C could occur in habitats east of the study area. However, these habitats would not be disturbed by the proposed Project. Additionally, measures prescribed in item b) below would avoid impacts to those special-status plant species potentially occurring in adjacent habitats. Special-Status Animals Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 48 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Twenty-nine special-status animals have been documented in the vicinity of the study area (Table 2 in Appendix C). Of these species, 22 have "no" potential, 3 have "low" potential, and 21 have "medium" potential for occurrence in the study area, and 2 have been identified as "present". As discussed above, only those special-status species rated as having a "medium" potential for occurrence (burrowing owl (Athene cunicularialJ and salt marsh common yellow throat [Geothlypis trichas sinuosa]) and identified as "present" (California red-legged frog (Ran a aurora draytonii] and western pond turtle [Actinemys marmorata]) in the study area, as well as California clapper rail, California black rail, and other migratory birds and raptors are discussed in more detail below. Amphibians & Reptiles California red-legged frog California red-legged frog (CRLF) is federally-listed as threatened and is state designated as a species of special concern. CRLFs occur in different habitats depending on their life stage, the season, and weather conditions. They typically use a variety of aquatic (e.g. ephemeral ponds, intermittent streams, seasonal wetlands, springs, seeps, perennial creeks, artificial ponds, marshes, dune ponds, lagoons), riparian, and upland habitats. The common factor among habitats where CRLFs occur is the association with a permanent water source, ideally free of non-native predators (USFWS, 2002). Although CRLFs are largely absent from urban and suburban settings (Bulger, 2002), potential habitat is present in the study area within Matadero Creek at Hillview Avenue. Potential habitat is also present east of the study area within Matadero Creek and Adobe Creek downstream of East Bayshore Road and within Barron Creek downstream of Miranda Avenue. The other reaches of the creeks that lie in the proposed alignment, alignment options, and lateral alignments do not provide potential habitat for CRLF, as these reaches are unvegetated, concrete-lined and/or culverted, and are separated from potential upstream and downstream habitat by other reaches that similarly have been channelized and/or placed in culverts. Several occurrences of CRLF are recorded in the CNDDB within a five-mile radius of the study area, including an occurrence that encompasses the proposed alignment along Hillview Avenue at Matadero Creek. Tadpoles, juveniles, and adults have been observed in Matadero Creek between the Old Page Mill Road Bridge and Foothill Boulevard and in Deer Creek from the Matadero Creek confluence to Arastradero Road (CDFG, 2007). As discussed above, trenchless construction techniques will be used to install the pipeline at creek crossings. With the exception of the section of pipeline crossing Adobe Creek at US- 101 in alignment Option 1 (where some in-channel work may be needed), use of such techniques would avoid disturbance to the creeks and their associated riparian habitat, where present, thereby, avoiding direct impacts (e.g., harassment, injury, mortality) to CRLFs. However, installation of the sections of the pipeline crossing Matadero Creek at Hillview A venue and Barron Creek at Miranda A venue in the proposed alignment could result in indirect impacts (e.g., temporal loss of habitat due to increased levels of human disturbance, decreased water quality due to unintentional releases of construction materials into the creek) to CRLF, in areas supporting suitable habitat for CRLFs, due to the proximity of potential habitat upstream and/or downstream of these crossings. Mitigation Measure BIO-l would be implemented prior to and during the installation of the sections of pipeline crossing Matadero Creek at Hwy 101, Matadero Creek at Hillview Avenue, and Barron Creek at Miranda A venue to avoid indirect impaets to CRLFs, if present. Installation of the section of pipeline crossing Adobe Creek at US-l Olin alignment Option 1 may require some in-channel work due to the limited accessibility of the side of the overpass Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 49 StudylMitigated Negative Declaration to which the pipeline would attach. Although the potential for occurrence of CRLFs at this location is considered to be low because of the existing conditions (i.e., unvegetated, concrete-lined channel), there is potential for construction activities to result in direct and indirect impacts to CRLFs due to the proximity of potential habitat downstream. Mitigation Measure BIO-l and Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would be implemented prior to and during the installation of the section of pipeline crossing Adobe Creek at US-WI to avoid substantial adverse affects to CRLFs and thus the impact would be less than significant. Western Pond Turtle Similar to the CRLF, the western pond turtle (WPT) is associated with a variety of aquatic habitats, both permanent and intermittent, including rivers, creeks, small lakes and ponds, marshes, irrigation ditches, and reservoirs. Although WPTs spend much of their lives in water, they require terrestrial habitats for nesting. They also may overwinter (meaning a period of reduced or no activity during the winter which may include periods of a hibernation-like state of reduced physiological activity) on land and may spend part of the warmest months in aestivation (meaning an inactive state that individuals enter in the hottest weeks of the year) on land. The WPT is designated as a species of special concern by the CDFG. Potential habitat for WPTs occurs within portions of the creeks that lie in and adjacent to the study area, including those identified as supporting potential habitat for CRLFs. Also, several occurrences of turtles have been recorded in the CNDDB within the Project vicinity. The data on occurrence of CRLFs in Matadero Creek between Old Page Mill Road Bridge and Foothill Boulevard and in Deer Creek from the Matadero Creek confluence to Arastradero Road also includes observations of WPTs (CDFG, 2007). Similar to CRLFs, installation of the sections of pipeline crossing Matadero Creek at Hillview Avenue and Barron Creek at Miranda A venue in the proposed alignment could result in indirect impacts to WPTs. Also, the installation of the section of pipeline crossing Adobe Creek at Hwy 101 in alignment Option 1 could result in direct and indirect impacts to WPTs. Mitigation Measure BIO-I would be implemented prior to and during the installation of the sections of pipeline crossing Matadero Creek at US-WI, Matadero Creek at Hillview Avenue, and Barron Creek at Miranda A venue to avoid indirect impacts to WPTs, if present. Mitigation Measure BIO-l and Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would be implemented prior to and during the installation of the section of pipeline crossing Adobe Creek at US-l 0 1 to avoid indirect and direct impacts to WTPs. Birds Salt Mash Common Yellowthroat Salt marsh common yellowthroat is designated a species of special concern by the CDFG. This species inhabits thick, tangled vegetation, particularly in wet areas. In Santa Clara County, common yellowthroat is a regular breeder and is fairly common in the fall, winter, and spring, and common in the summer (Bousman, 2005). Nesting sites for common yellowthroat may be over water, in emergent aquatic vegetation, dense shrubs, or other dense growth. Nests are typically on or near (within 10 centimeters [4 inches]) the ground. The nesting season generally extends from early April to mid-July, with peak activity in May and June. The study area does not support potential nesting habitat for common yellowthroat. However, common yellowthroat may occasionally forage in the study area, particularly east of East Bayshore Road in the vicinity of alignment Option 1 and alignment Option 2, and Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 50 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration potential nesting habitat is present in the marsh and riparian habitats within the Baylands Preserve. There are several occurrences of common yellowthroat recorded in the CNDDB within a five mile-radius of the study area, including one of five breeding pairs from 1985 at the end of Mayfield Slough, at the junction with Matadero Creek, and one of two breeding pairs from 1985 at Adobe Creek just east ofUS-IOI (CDFG 2007). Because of the presence of potential foraging habitat in the study area and the proximity of potential nesting habitat to the Project, construction-related activities (e.g., noise and vibration from construction equipment, increased human activities) associated with installation of the pipeline in alignment Option 1 or alignment Option 2 east of US-I 0 I could adversely affect nesting common yellowthroats, if present; although this potential is considered low given the existing levels of human-related disturbances in Project vicinity. Mitigation Measure B10-3 would be implemented prior construction activities associated with installation of the pipeline in aligrunent Option I or alignment Option 2 east of US-l 0 I to avoid substantial adverse effects to common yellowthroats. California Clapper Rail California clapper rail is federaUy-and state-listed as endangered. The clapper rail is a year- round resident of the San Francisco Bay associated with salt and brackish marshes traversed by tidal sloughs. In the South and Central San Francisco Bay, clapper rails typically inhabit salt marshes dominated by pickleweed (Saiicornia virginica) and cordgrass (Spartina foliasa). Nesting begins in late March, peaking in late-April and May, and extends into early July. Potential foraging and nesting habitat for clapper rails does not occur in much of the study area. However, the RWQCP is located within the Baylands Preserve, which contains northern coastal salt marsh habitat that supports potential habitat for clapper rails. There are several occurrences of clapper rail recorded in the CNDDB within a five-mile radius of the Project. As discussed above, the potential for construction-related activities to adversely affect clapper rails is considered low given the existing levels of human-related disturbances in the Project vicinity, but the USFWS and CDFG typically recommend surveys be conducted for projects within 700 ft of potential nesting habitat to avoid disturbance of clapper rails during the nesting season (Browning, 2006). Mitigation Measure BIO-4 would be implemented to avoid substantial adverse effects to clapper rail, if present. California Black Rail Similar to the California clapper rail, the California black rail inhabits tidal marshes, but it can also occur in freshwater wetlands. The black rail is state-listed as threatened and its occurrence in Santa Clara County is very rare or casual in the fall and winter (Bousman 2005). Black rails nest in high portions of salt marshes, shallow freshwater marshes, wet meadow, and flooded grassy vegetation. Most nesting areas are vegetated by fine-stemmed emergent plants, rushes, grasses, or sedges. Nesting sites in coastal California are characterized by taller vegetation, greater vegetation coverage and height of alkali heath (Frankenia grandi/alia), higher insect abundance, and lower amphipod abundance. In general, the nesting season for the black rail extends from February through August, peaking in early May. There are records indicating that black rail nest in the South San Francisco Bay, but these records are old and it is believed that this species may have disappeared from this area as a breeding species (Evens, 1999/2000). Black rails do occur in the South San Francisco Bay during the winter months. Because evidence is lacking as to where wintering rails in the South Bay go during the breeding season (Evens, 1999/2000), as well as proof (e.g., Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 51 StudylMitigated Negative Declaration vocalizations heard or observations recorded) of presence in the South Bay during the breeding season (Bartes, 2006), black rails could still be nesting in the South San Francisco Bay. Black rails are rarely heard calling and even more rarely seen. As with clapper rails, the potential for construction-related activities east of Hwy 101 to adversely affect black rails is considered low given the existing levels of human disturbance in the Project vicinity. However, Mitigation Measure BIO-4 would be implemented to avoid substantial adverse effects to black rail, if present. Burrowing Owl Burrowing owl (BUOW) is designated a species of special concern by the CDFG. It is a resident of open habitats (e.g., annual and perennial grasslands and deserts and arid scrub lands with bare ground or low-growing vegetation) and requires burrows for protection, cover, and nesting. BUOWs typically use burrows made by fossorial mammals, such as California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beechyi) or American badger (Taxidea taxus), but will also use man-made structures (e.g., culverts, concrete, asphalt, wood piles). BUOWs may use a site for breeding, wintering, foraging, and/or migration stopovers, and show moderate to high site fidelity (Le., re-using general areas and even particular burrows year after year). Depending on the location, the nesting season occurs between February 1st and August 31st. The study area provides potential foraging and nesting habitat for BUOWs, particularly within the grassland habitat on the site proposed for the pump station at the R WQCP. The grassland habitat in the vicinity of the pipeline lateral off the southern end of the backbone alignment on Hillview A venue, and the ruderal habitat east of the San Francisco Bay Trail and East Bayshore Parkway also provide habitat for BUOWs; however, the potential for occurrence within these habitats is considered low given the existing conditions (lack of burrow donors and/or intensity of human-related disturbances). There are several occurrences of BUOW recorded in the CNDDB within a five-mile radius of the study area. Although no individual owls or evidence of owl use (e.g., white-wash, pellets, prey remains) were observed on the site at the RWQCP during a September 2006 field survey, BUOWs could use the burrows on the site and, if present, could be adversely affected by installation of pump station for the proposed project. Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would be implemented prior to the onset of construction activities to avoid substantial adverse effects to BUOW. Other Migratory Birds and Raptors In addition to the bird species discussed above, habitats in the Project vicinity, particularly the northern coastal salt marsh, coastal freshwater marsh, and willow riparian habitats east of the study area, support potential nesting habitat for other migratory birds and raptors, such as Alameda song sparrow (Melospiza melodia pusillula), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), western meadowlark (Sturn ella neglecta), white-tailed kite (Elan us leucurus), and yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia brewsteri). Also, the roadway overpasses and recreational bridges crossing creeks in the study area support potential nesting habitat for those species that attach their nests to structures, such as cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota). Although only some of these species are protected by the CDFG and/or USFWS, the majority, if not all, are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBT A). With a few exceptions, most birds are considered migratory under the MBT A. The MBT A prohibits taking, killing, possessing, transporting, and importing of migratory birds, parts of migratory birds, and their eggs and nests, except when specifically authorized by the Department of Interior. As used in the act, the term "take" is defined as meaning, "to pursue, hunt, capture, collect, kill or attempt to Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 52 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect or kill, unless the context otherwise requires." Disturbances that cause nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort or loss of habitat upon which these birds depend would be in violation of the MBT A, as well as other state and federal regulations for those species specifically protected by these agencies. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would be implemented prior to Project construction to avoid substantial adverse effects to other nesting migratory birds and raptors. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-I, BIO-2, BIO-3, and BIO-4 would reduce potential adverse effects to special-status animal species to a less than significant level. b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Existing vegetation communities and wildlife habitats in the study area were characterized during a one-day reconnaissance- level field survey on September 19,2007. Prior to conducting the field survey, a review of available background information was conducted pertaining to sensitive natural communities in the Project vicinity, including the USFWS National Wetland Inventory Maps (Mountain View and Palo Alto 7 :h Minute Quads), the CNDDB (a five mile search radius from the study area), and the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (Palo Alto 2007). Based on the background review, the vegetation communities and wildlife habitats identified in the study area during the field survey were evaluated to determine if they are considered sensitive by local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS. Methods similar to those for the pipeline and the booster pump station at Mayfield Soccer Fields were used to determine if the vegetation communities and wildlife habitats identified on the site proposed for the pump station at the RWQCP are considered sensitive by local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS. Although there are several sensitive natural communities documented as occurring in the vicinity of the RWQCP (e.g., northern coastal salt marsh, serpentine bunchgrass, valley oak woodland), the site proposed for the installation of the pump station does not support any of these communities or habitats. Consequently, the installation of the pump station for the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. Several sensitive natural communities are documented as occurring in the Project vicinity, including (but not limited to) northern coastal salt marsh, valley oak woodland, and serpentine bunchgrass. With the exception of the creeks (reaches of Adobe Creek, Barron Creek, and Matadero Creek), which will be further discussed under item c), and the riparian habitat along Matadero Creek at Hillview A venue and Barron Creek at Miranda A venue, the study area does not support any of the other sensitive communities documented in the Project vicinity. However, a number of these communities occur adjacent to the study area. Northern coastal salt marsh and coastal freshwater marsh are present within the Baylands Preserve, and willow riparian is present along Adobe Creek downstream of East Bayshore Road. Also, Matadero Creek upstream of Hillview A venue, Barron Creek downstream of Miranda A venue and near the intersection of Hillview A venue and Arastradero Road support riparian habitat that is contiguous to that in the study area. Although there are trees along the north bank of Adobe Creek at Middlefield Road, these are not considered "riparian vegetation". The creek is concrete-lined in this reach and the vegetation is associated with the adjacent parking lot. The Project would not result in direct impacts (e.g., removal or damage) to the riparian habitat in the study area, as trenchless construction techniques would be used to install the sections of pipeline crossing Matadero Creek at Hillview A venue and Barron Creek at Miranda A venue. However, the riparian habitat could be indirectly impacted by the adjacent construction activities, such as inadvertent damage from equipment or vehicle staging or Palo Alto Recycled Water Y' """10''''"'''' Negative Declaration construction site runoff. Also, the sensitive communities within the Baylands Preserve and creek corridors downstream of East Bayshore Road could be indirectly impacted by construction activities associated with the installation of alignment Option I, alignment Option 2, and the RWQCP pump station. While the RWQCP is located within the Baylands Preserve, the pump station site consists of disturbed land and construction would be confined to that area. Measures prescribed above in item a) would avoid indirect impacts to the riparian habitat along Matadero Creek at Hillview A venue and along Barron Creek at Miranda Avenue. Mitigation Measure BIO-6 would be implemented to avoid indirect impacts to sensitive natural communities within the Baylands Preserve and creek corridors downstream of East Bayshore Road. As mentioned in the discussion above, the reaches of Adobe Creek, Barron Creek, and Matadero Creek that lie within the study area are considered sensitive and are potentially subject to regulation by the u.s. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). These features are also subject to regulation by the RWQCB under Section 401 of the CW A, and the CDFG under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. With the exception of the Adobe Creek crossing at US-IOI in alignment Option I, the installation of the pipeline and construction of the booster pump station would not result in direct impacts (Le., placement of dredge or fill material) to potentially jurisdictional waters. Installation of the proposed alignment, alignment options, and the laterals would be completed using trenchless construction techniques. Also, construction of the booster pump station would not result in impacts to potentially jurisdictional waters, as no potential jurisdictional waters or wetland are present at the proposed location. Except for the Adobe Creek Crossing at US-I 0 1, the project would not have any direct impacts to these potentially jurisdictional waters, since as the pipeline, as stated above, would be installed using trenchless construction techniques. Construction activities associated with the installation of the sections of pipeline at creek crossings could result in indirect impacts (e.g., decreased water quality) to potentially jurisdictional waters. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-6 would ensure that potentially jurisdictional waters would not be indirectly impacted by construction activities. Although the installation of the section of pipeline crossing Adobe Creek at Hwy 101 in alignment Option 1 would be installed using trenchless construction techniques, some in- channel work may be necessary due to the limited accessibility of the side of the overpass to which the pipeline would attach. If in-channel work is necessary, jurisdictional waters could be temporarily impacted by the placement offill material. Mitigation Measure BIO-7 would be implemented to avoid substantial adverse effects to jurisdictional waters. No federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act are present on the site proposed for the pump station at the RWQCP. c) Less-than-Significant Impact. Although portions of the study area likely serve as travel routes for wildlife species adapted to urban and suburban environments as they move within their home ranges in search for food, cover, and other needs, installation of the proposed alignment, alignment options, lateral pipes, and construction of the booster pump station would not substantially interfere with the movement of these species. Construction of the proposed Project would result in temporary and permanent impacts to habitats that are already frequently disturbed andlor developed. Additionally, the Project would not impede the use of any native wildlife nursery site. The site proposed for the pump station at the R WQCP is not within a known movement corridor for wildlife species and does not support habitat considered to be suitable for a native wildlife nursery site. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 54 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration d) Less than Significant Impact. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (Palo Alto 2007) and the Palo Alto Municipal Code provide protection to biological resources within the City's limits. The City's Comprehensive plan defines policies for protecting creeks and riparian areas, wetlands, urban forest, and wildlife. Implementation of measures prescribed in items a), b), and c) above would ensure conformance with local regulations. Regulated trees (protected trees, street trees growing within the street right-of-way, and designated trees) could be removed during the construction of the booster pump station and as such could conflict with the City's Municipal Code and the Tree Technical Manual. Any necessary tree removal would occur on City owned land, PUB, or on leased or private property (e.g., Mayfield Soccer Fields). Protected trees would remain. Designated trees would be protected or replaced according to the Tree Canopy Replacement Formula, Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.30, and street trees would be replaced with species determined by PW Operations. Tree removal of non-protected trees could occur on City owned land, PUE, private property (e.g., Mayfield Soccer Fields), or leased land. The City must comply with the Tree Technical Manual regarding the removal and replacement of trees. Compliance with the Manual's practices would ensure that potential conflicts would be considered less than significant. The installation of the proposed alignment, alignment options, and laterals at creek crossings could require work within SCVWD's jurisdiction. Such activities would conflict with the SCVWD's Water Resources Protection Ordinance (Ordinance 06-1). Prior to the onset of construction activities, an encroachment permit application shall be submitted to the SCVWD. Modification or use of facilities andlor easements within SCVWD jurisdiction shall not occur until the permit is received, or correspondence is received indicating that a permit is not required. All Coast Live Oak, Valley Oak, and Coast Redwood of specific diameters, and Heritage Trees are protected under the PAMC Section 8.10 (Tree Ordinance). Protected trees are located throughout the proposed recycled water service area. In areas where the existing site conditions are of poor quality, particularly areas with poor drainage, protected trees may be more sensitive to irrigation by recycled water (due to the higher levels of salts in the recycled water which can accumulate in the root zone due to the soil type and poor drainage). Under this scenario, the salt content in the recycled water could result in the decline of the biological health of protected trees. However, because the project integrates an Adaptive Management Program in addressing potential effects of recycled water use on trees, adverse effects on protected trees would be avoided. Please refer to Section H, Hydrology and Water Quality for a discussion of effects on trees from recycled water use and to the Project Description for a discussion of the Adaptive Management Program. Installation of the pump station at the RWQCP would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. The pump station would comply with the requirements of both the Baylands Master Plan and Santa Clara County's Airport Master Plan for the Palo Alto Airport. The trees on the site proposed for the pump station at the RWQCP are not protected by City of Palo Alto's Municipal Code Chapter 8.10. e) No Impact. No Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other local or regional plans have been adopted within the City, which encompasses the study area; therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no specific mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures: Palo Alto Recycled Water Project 55 Negative Declaration The following mitigation measures address the potential impacts of the Project to biological resources within or adjacent to the study area. Implementation of these measures would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. BIO-l: Creek Protection. The following measures would be implemented to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects to CRLFs and WPTs, and their habitats prior to and during the installation of the sections of pipeline crossing Adobe Creek at US-lOI, Matadero Creek at Hillview A venue, and Barron Creek at Miranda Avenue. These measures are not applicable to Adobe Creek at Middlefield Road as no suitable habitat is present. • A SWPPP that complies with the statewide General Permit administered by the California State Water Resources Control Board for the NPDES shall be developed and implemented to protect the water quality of the creeks that lie in the study area. Appropriate erosion and sediment control and non-sediment pollution control (Le., 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 certified as weed free. • Construction activities associated with the installation of the sections of pipeline crossing Adobe Creek at US-lOI, Matadero Creek at Hillview Avenue, and Barron Creek at Miranda Avenue shall be limited to the dry season (in general, between June 15th through October 15th) when flows are reduced and CRLF and WPT are least likely to be present. • A qualified biologist shall conduct a worker education program prior to the onset of construction activities associated with the installation of the sections of pipeline crossing Adobe Creek at US- 101, Matadero Creek at Hillview Avenue, and Barron Creek at Miranda Avenue. Construction workers shall be briefed on, at a minimum, a description of the CRLF and WPT and its habitats, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve CRLF and WPT for the Project, and the boundaries within which the creek crossing may be accomplished. A fact sheet conveying this information shall also be prepared for distribution to the workers. • A qualified biologist shall be retained to monitor the construction activities associated with the installation of the sections of pipeline crossing Adobe Creek at US-IO 1, Matadero Creek at Hillview A venue, and Barron Creek at Miranda A venue. The biologist shall have expertise in the areas of CRLF and WPT biology and ecology, amphibian and reptiles/habitat relationships, and biological monitoring. The biologist shall also monitor performance of construction site management practices for the purpose of identifying and recommending measures to avoid any condition that could adversely affect CRLF and WPT or their habitat. The City and their contractor, upon notification from the biologist, shall halt activities causing the condition affecting CRLF and WTP or their habitat. Work shall only resume with approval from the biologist. • Food and food-related trash items associated with construction workers shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the work area to deter potential predators. • All staging areas and fueling and maintenance of vehicles and other equipment shall occur at least 60 feet from any riparian habitat, creek, or other water body to ensure that habitat contamination does not occur from such activities. BIO-2: Conduct surveys for CRLF and WPT prior to the installation of the section of pipeline crossing Adobe Creek at Hwy 101, and avoid impacts to CRLF and WPT, if present. If the Adobe Creek crossing at Hwy 101 requires in-channel work, a qualified biologist shall conduct pre- construction surveys following standard visual encounter techniques to confirm presence or absence of CRLFs and WPTs in the work area. At minimum, the biologist shall be familiar with distinguishing Palo Alto Recycled Watcr Project Page 56 Initial StudylMitigatcd Negative Declaration physical characteristics of all the life stages of the CRLF, and identifying WPTs. The biologist shall conduct at least one day and one night survey within one week of construction activities. Surveys shall be conducted, at minimum, 300 ft up-and downstream of the creek crossing. With the exception of compliance with Measure BIO-l, if no individual CRLFs or WPTs are encountered, no further mitigation would be required. However, if CRLFs and/or WTPs are found, construction activities shall be postponed and the appropriate resources agency (USFWS for CRLF and CDFG for WPT) shall be consulted to determine the extent of potential impacts to CRLFs and/or WPTs and to identify measures necessary to avoid, minimize, and mitigate these impacts, such as obtaining an incidental take permit (for CRLF) or developing an exclusion and relocation program. BIO-3: Avoid disturbing nesting birds. To avoid disturbance to nesting common yellowthroat and other migratory birds and raptors (e.g., American kestrel, northern harrier, white-tailed kite), one of the following measures shall be implemented: • Conduct the installation of the proposed alignment, alignment options, laterals, and the construction of pump station during the non-breeding season (September 1st through January 31st); OR • Conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting birds if construction activities are to take place during the nesting season (in general, February 1st through August 31st). Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than three days prior to the onset of construction activities to confirm presence or absence of active nests in the Project vicinity. The extent of the area to be surveyed shall be determined by the biologist considering (1) the nature of the construction activities, (2) the existing level of human-related disturbances, and (3) the availability of suitable nesting habitat in the Project vicinity. If active nests are encountered, species-specific measures shall be prepared by· a qualified biologist, in coordination with the CDFG and other appropriate agencies, and implemented to prevent direct loss or abandonment of the active nest. At a minimum, construction activities in the vicinity of nests shall be deferred until the young have fledged and an exclusion buffer zone shall be established. CDFG typically recommends a minimum exclusion buffer of 25 feet for songbird nests, and 200 to 500 feet for raptor nests, depending on the species and location. The perimeter of the nest-setback zone shall be fenced or adequately demarcated with staked flagging at 20-foot intervals, and construction personnel shall be restricted from the area. A survey report by the qualified biologist verifying that the young have fledged shall be submitted to City for review and concurrence of the City is required prior to initiation of construction activities within the nest-set-back zone. BIO-4: Avoid disturbing nesting California clapper and black rails during the installation of the pipeline in alignment Option 1 or alignment Option 2 east of US-101 and construction of the pump station at the RWQCP. To avoid substantial adverse effects to nesting California clapper rails and black rails, installation of alignment Option 1 or alignment Option 2 east of US-lO 1 and construction of the pump station at the RWQCP should either be conducted outside of the breeding season for clapper rails (in general, February 1st through August 31st) or construction activities east of US-lOl and at the RWQCP site should be started prior to the breeding season and disturbance activities continued throughout the spring to prevent birds from establishing nests in surrounding habitats. This would prevent abandonment of eggs or young that could occur if nesting establishes prior to construction activities. If this is not feasible, a qualified biologist shall conduct protocol-level surveys for clapper rails (following methods outlined in the Draft Survey Protocol: California Clapper Rail (Rallus longistrostris obsoletus)(USFWS 2000) and pre- construction surveys for California black rail to determine presence or absence of rail breeding activity in Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 57 StudylMitigated Negative Declaration the vicinity of the Project. A qualified biologist is an individual who has experience conducting protocol- level surveys for California clapper rails, and experience surveying for California black rails using a standardized tape call-back response protocol. Prior to commencement of the surveys, the biologist shall prepare a brief letter report describing the survey design and submit it to the USFWS (for California clapper rail only) and CDFG for review and approval. Upon the completion of the surveys, survey results shall be submitted to the USFWS and CDFG for a final decision on the possibility of doing work during the breeding season for the clapper and black rail. Protocol-level surveys are only necessary during the installation of the pipeline east ofUS-lOl. If construction activities east ofUS-lOl are conducted outside the breeding season, no surveys would be necessary. BIO-5: Conduct protocol-level BUOW surveys prior to the installation of the pump station proposed at the RWQCP, and avoid impacts to owls, if present, during project construction. A qualified biologist shall conduct a protocol-level survey for burrowing owl following the methods outlined in the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. A survey for owls shall be conducted during the breeding season at the RWQCP site (in general, February 1st through August 31st, peaking between April 15th and July 15th). If no owls are observed using the site during the breeding season surveys, winter surveys shall be conducted. Winter surveys shall be conducted between December 1st and January 31st, during the period when wintering owls are most likely to be present, if necessary. A complete owl survey consists of four site visits, on separate days and during weather that is conducive to observing owls outside their burrows. If no owls are found during the breeding or winter season surveys, no further mitigation shall be required, provided construction activities or destruction of suitable burrows commence within 30 days of the date of the last survey. Otherwise, a pre-construction survey for owls shall be conducted no more than 30 days prior to the onset of construction activities. If surveys confirm presence of owls on the site, mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the proposed project, in coordination with CDFG, to avoid and/or minimize impacts to burrowing owls, their burrows and foraging habitat on the site. The following measures shall be taken into consideration: 1) occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the nesting season, unless a qualified biologist approved by the CDFG verifies through non-invasive methods that either: a) the owls have not begun egg-laying and incubation; or b) that the juveniles from those burrows are foraging independently and capable of independent survival; 2) to offset the loss of foraging and burrow habitat on the project site, a minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat per pair or unpaired resident bird, shall be acquired and permanently protected; 3) when destruction of occupied burrows is unavoidable, existing unsuitable burrows shall be enhanced (e.g., enlarged or cleared of debris) or new burrows shall be created (e.g., installing artificial burrows) at a minimum ratio of 1:] on protected lands; 4) if owls must be moved away from the disturbance area, passive relocation techniques shall be used rather to trapping; and 5) the project sponsor shall provide funding for long-term management and monitoring of the protected lands. BIO-6: Protection of Sensitive Communities. The following measures would be implemented prior to the onset of construction activities associated with the installation of alignment Option 1 or alignment Option 2 and the laterals adjacent to sensitive natural communities (e.g., northern coastal salt water marsh, coastal freshwater marsh, willow riparian habitat) to avoid potential adverse affects to these communities. • The limits of work shall be clearly delineated on all construction plans and silt fencing and/or construction fencing shall be installed around the work area, where extending beyond hardscaped areas. A qualified biologist shall monitor the fence installation and the fencing, at a minimum once per week, to ensure that the fence remains intact and functional, and that no encroachment has occurred into adjacent sensitive communities. • A qualified biologist shall brief construction workers on the location of sensitive communities that shall be preserved and the importance of avoidance. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 58 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration • Encroachment into adjacent communities shall be prohibited by construction workers, and storage of materials or equipment shall be prohibited in these areas. • In accordance with the SWPPP to be prepared for the Project, appropriate erosion and sediment control, and non-sediment pollution control (Le., sources of pollution generated by construction equipment and material) BMPs shaH be implemented to protect sensitive habitat adjacent to the Project. Erosion and sediment control material included in the SWPPP shaH be certified as weed free. BIO-7: State and Federal Permits. Ifin-channel work is necessary for the Adobe Creek crossing at Hwy 101 in alignment Option 1, federal and state authorization will be obtained prior to the onset of construction activities. Prior to the onset of construction activities, a Department of the Army 404 Permit application shall be submitted to the USACE, an Application for 401 Water Quality Certification and/or Report of Waste Discharge shall be submitted to the San Francisco RWQCB, and a Lake or Streambed Alternation Notification shall be submitted to the CDFG for impacts to Adobe Creek at US-I0 1. These permits must be obtained before the project is implemented. Mitigation measures associated with these permits may include minimizations measures such as implementation of construction site management practices (i.e., erosion and sediment control measures) and seasonal work restrictions. Impacts to potentially jurisdictional features shall not occur until the permits are received from the appropriate regulatory agencies, or correspondence is received from the agencies indicating that a permit is not required. E. CULTURAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated • a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural 1,2, 18- resource that is recognized by City Council 38,57 ..;-resolution? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 1,2,lS-'..;-significance of an archaeological resource 38,57 pursuant to 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 1,2, IS- paleontological resource or site or unique 38, 57 ..;-geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those 1,2, 18-../' interred outside offorrnal cemeteries? 38,57 e) Adversely affect a historic resource listed or 1,2, 18- eligible for listing on the National and/or 38,57 ..;-California Register, or listed on the City's Historic Inventory? f) Eliminate important examples of major periods 1,2, 18- I ..;-of Cali fomi a history or prehistory? 38, 57 Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 59 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration DISCUSSION: Cultural Resources Setting Records Search Records searches of pertinent survey and site data were conducted at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University by William Self Associates (WSA). The initial record searches (File No. 07-0362, 07-1299) covered the entire project area and a one-quarter mile radius adjacent thereto. A later record search (File No. 07-1326) was conducted at the request of Cookie Him of the Division of Financial Assistance, at the State Water Resources Control Board, upon an initial review of the report for the purpose of examining the archaeological potential of closely associated areas located between the proposed routes of the pipeline backbone and laterals. Previous surveys, studies and archaeological records were accessed as they pertained to the project area. The record search included a review of the California Inventory of Historic Resources (1976), the Historic Property Directory (Office of Historic Preservation current computer list), NWIC records of archaeological sites and surveys, GLO Plats, historic maps, and other pertinent historic data available at the NWIC for Santa Clara County. Although no previously recorded archaeological sites exist within the proposed project area, the records search indicated that 11 previously recorded archaeological sites and one previously recorded isolate are located within Y4-mile of the project area (see Table 2-1 in Appendix D), and four sites are in the added areas between and around the proposed pipeline backbone and lateral options (see Table 2-2 in Appendix D). Survey Methods A field reconnaissance of the proposed Palo Alto Recycled Water Project (see Appendix D) was conducted on September 17, 2007 by WSA Staff Archaeologist, Melinda Hickman, M.A. Due to the extensive development in the APE, a windshield survey was conducted. As the APE is centered almost entirely on roadways paved in concrete, a windshield survey was considered suitable for this reconnaissance. This method of surveying involves traveling through the APE in order to search for standing historic structures and undeveloped parcels of land that may exhibit evidence of buried cultural resources. The proposed pump station at the RWQCP is situated in an area within which WSA Project Director, Eric Strother, M.A. RP A, conducted a pedestrian survey on October 30, 2006, as part of another project at the RWQCP. The results of this survey are being used for the current proposed project due to its applicability. All areas identified as being potentially sensitive for cultural materials were examined for the presence of historic or prehistoric site indicators. Historic site indicators include, but are not limited to foundations, fence lines, ditches, standing buildings, objects or structures such as sheds, or concentrations of materials at least 50 years in age, such as domestic refuse (glass bottles, ceramics, toys, buttons or leather shoes), or refuse from other pursuits such as agriculture (e.g., metal tanks, farm machinery parts, horse shoes) or structural materials (e.g., nails, glass window panes, corrugated metal, wood posts or planks, metal pipes and fittings, etc.). Prehistoric site indicators include, but are not limited to areas of darker soil with concentrations of ash, charcoal, bits of animal bone (burned or unburned), shell, flaked stone, ground stone, or even human bone. No historic or prehistoric cultural resources were observed within the APE. Native American Consultation WSA contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by letter on August 31, 2007, requesting information on sacred lands and a contact list of local tribal representatives or most likely Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 60 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration descendents (MLD). A response was received from the NAHC on September 14, 2007 noting, "A record search of the sacred land tile has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area." The letter also provided a list of Santa Clara County Native American Contacts. Due to the potentially sensitive nature of previously unrecorded prehistoric cultural resources that could be encountered in the project area, WSA contacted the local Native American representatives to solicit comment on the project's environmental documentation. On September 18, 2007, WSA Staff Archaeologist Melinda Hickman contacted by letter each of the listed Native American Contacts, explaining the nature of the project and soliciting comments and any additional information the individuals might have regarding cultural resources in the project area. No response to the letter solicitations was received. On October 2, 2007, WSA placed follow-up telephone calls to all of the individuals on the contact list. All solicited comments are reported in Appendix D. Sample consultation letters are provided in Appendix D. On October 23, 2006, on behalf of another project at the RWQCP that also encompassed the area of the proposed pump station, WSA had contacted the NAHC by letter, requesting information on sacred lands and a contact list of local tribal representatives or MLD. The results of that request are being used for this project due to their applicability. A response to the October 23rd request was received from the NAHC on October 27, 2006, noting, "A record search of the sacred land file has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area." The letter also provided a list of Santa Clara County Native American Contacts. Due to the potentially sensitive nature of previously unrecorded prehistoric cultural resources that could be encountered in the project area, WSA contacted the local Native American representatives to solicit comment on the project's environmental documentation. WSA Project Manager Eric Strother contacted by letter each of the listed Native American Contacts, explaining the nature of the project and soliciting comments and any additional information the individuals might have regarding cultural resources in the project area. No responses to the consultation letters were received. On November 28, 2006, and again on November 29, 2006, WSA placed follow-up telephone calls to all of the individuals on the contact list. Messages were left when possible. No responses to the phone calls were received. All solicited comments are reported in Appendix D. Sample consultation letters are provided in Appendix D. Geoarchaeologicallnvestigation Mr. David Devries, Principal and Soils Scientist of Mesa Technical, Berkeley, California, prepared a geoarchaeological analysis of the Project area. The purpose of the study was to evaluate archaeological sensitivity for buried cultural features, within soils and sediments to be disturbed by Project-related construction activity. The Geoarchaeologicai Investigation, provided in appendix D, describes the archaeological sensitivity for each of the mqjor soil types within the Project area. These soil types include basin soils, recent/fan and floodplain soils, upland soils, terrace soils, and older alluvial fan soils. Basin soils comprise a large part of the APE (40-50 percent of the Project area) and are mapped on low ground in close proximity to the Bay. All are on formerly wet or seasonally wet grassland that is now diked, drained, and reclaimed. The archaeological potential of these deposits would be lower than for more recent fan deposits, because the food rich Bay would have been at a greater distance, and thus the land would have been less likely to have been occupied on a sustained basis. Approximately 30 percent of the APE is mapped as recent/fan and floodplain soils. These soils developed on recent alluvial fan material, near the distal edges of their fans, from sandstone and shale sediments. Their relatively fine texture indicates a low energy depositional environment, thus favoring the undisturbed burial of any cultural features that happen to be present. In particular, the investigation Palo Alto Recycled Water Pr~ject Page6l Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration concluded that areas comprised of Zamora soils are archaeologically sensitive, especially near Barron Creek and Matadero Creek, given the presence of stable land surfaces in close proximity to the creeks. Older fan soils lie exposed along the western edge of the Santa Clara Valley, where they have not been buried by recent fan sediments. The archaeological potential of these soils is identified as low, not only because of their age, but also because of the clay-like, very firm, sticky, and very plastic properties of the subsoil, which would make habitation or use difficult and unpleasant for much ofthe year. Small areas of upland soils are mapped within the APE, which consist of shallow residual soils developed on bedrock. The upland soils are on hillsides, with areas of rock outcrops. Erosion is a constant factor in keeping these soils shallow, and genetically young. The archaeological potential for deeply buried sites is low; artifacts are more likely to be at the surface, perhaps chronologically mixed and concentrated, as the matrix of fine soil material washes downslope, leaving a residuum of relatively heavy cultural materials in place. Soils located along stream terraces have a high potential for harboring buried archaeological sites, because recent (first terrace) soils are often flat, dry, easy to dig, and very near to the water of their parent stream. Unlike alluvial fans and floodplains, they do not occupy broad swaths of the landscape, so the high cultural potential is concentrated within a relatively small area, and limited to a small fraction of the Project area. a-t) Less-than-Significant Impact. The two records searches conducted in support of the Cultural Resources Report indicated that no National or State listed historical or prehistorical sites occur within the project APE. Ten previously recorded archaeological sites and one previously recorded isolate are located within 1f4-mile of the Project area thereby indicating a potential for encountering previously unrecorded cultural resources. The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change to any previously recorded historical or archaeological resources, but portions of the project are located within areas of archaeological sensitivity. In addition to the records search and site survey, the NAHC was contacted by letter on August 31, 2007 requesting information on sacred lands and a contact list of local tribal representatives or MLD. Responses were received from the NAHC on September 14, 2007 noting, "A record search of the sacred land file has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area." On October 23, 2006, on behalf of another project at the RWQCP that also encompassed the area of the proposed pump station, WSA had contacted the NAHC by letter, requesting information on sacred lands and a contact list oflocal tribal representatives or MLD. The results of that request are being used for this project. A response to the October 23rd request was received from the NAHC on October 27, 2006, noting, "A record search of the sacred land file has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area." Although the records search, windshield survey, and consultation with Native Americas failed to indicate the presence of human remains within the vicinity of the project, the subsurface excavation required for construction of the project could potentially disturb or destroy previously undiscovered archaeological resources or human remains from both prehistoric and historic time periods, if they are present. However, this impact would be minimized through the implementation of the environmental commitments outlined in the Project Description and, as a result, the impact is considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 62 Initial StudylMitigated Negative DecIaration F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map ~ issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a 4,39,34, known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, 41,42 ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 2,4,39, ~ 34,41, 42 iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including .2,4,39, ~ liquefaction? • 34,41, 42 iv) Landslides? 2,4,39, ~ 34,41, 42 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of 1,4 ~ topsoil? c) Result in substantial siltation? 1,4 ~ d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 2,4,39, unstable, or that would become unstable as a 34,41, ~ result of the project, and potentially result in 42 on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in ~ Table I 8-1-B of the Uniform Building Code 1,2,4, (1994), creating substantial risks to life or 39,34, property? 41,42 f) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste 1 ~ water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? g) Expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the 2,4,39, ~ use of standard engineering design and seismic 34,41, I safety techniques? 42 DISCUSSION: a) Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not expose people to substantial adverse risks of loss, injury, or death from fault rupture, strong seismic groundshaking or Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 63 Initial StudylMitigatcd Negative Declaration related ground failure since the proposed Project does not include construction of habitable structures. Risk of pipeline rupture is low, and would not result in substantial adverse risk to people in the Project area. The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo "Earthquake Fault Zone" for fault rupture hazard, and the potential for fault rupture to damage the pipeline is considered low (ESA, 2003). Areas of the project site are classified as having a high liquefaction potential. The pipeline alignments are located near reclaimed tidal bay lands and an area classified as having a high liquefaction potential. The proposed pipeline alignments and pump station at the Mayfield Soccer Fields would not be within the reclaimed tidal baylands area; however, the RWQCP pump station would be located within the Baylands Nature Preserve, which is in an area classified as having high liquefaction potential. Adherence to generally accepted construction practices would ensure that potential liquefaction impacts are less than significant. Landslide potential is considered low due to the flat terrain at the Project site. Extreme earth movement could impact the integrity of the proposed Project as the result of pipeline rupture. Because the pipeline is located within a previously graded, engineered, and developed area, potential for ground failure is considered to be low. b,c) Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction activities involving soil disturbance, such as excavation, stockpiling, and grading would result in increased erosion, sedimentation and siltation to surface waters. Substantial erosion is considered unlikely because of the relatively small scale of earthmoving activities necessary for Project implementation. Implementation of standard engineering erosion-control techniques described in the Project Description would ensure that potential impacts to water quality are less than significant. d) Less-than-Significant Impact. The pipeline alignment is located in an area that would experience very strong to violent shaking in the event of a major earthquake along the San Andreas or Hayward Fault. With proper engineering, the construction and operation of the proposed Project is not expected to result in any significant adverse short-or long-term impacts related to geology, soils, or seismicity. e) No Impact. The proposed pipeline alignment, laterals, and pipeline options, are not located in expansive soils as defined by the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The existing RWQCP facilities in the vicinity ofthe proposed RWQCP pump station site are supported on piles and the boring log for construction of the fixed film reactors at the RWQCP indicates bay mud. The presence of bay mud indicates the likely presence of expansive soils as defined by the UBC. If necessary, the proposed pump station would be constructed on piles to reduce the potential impacts of expansive soils. f) No Impact. No septic tanks are proposed for the Project. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. g) No Impact. The proposed project would not expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques. With proper engineering, the construction and operation of the proposed Project is not expected to result in any significant adverse short-or long-term impacts related to geology, soils, or seismicity. Mitigation Measures: None required. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 64 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Issues and Supporting Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Information Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Would the project: Mitigation Incorporated a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, 1,4,43 ../ or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable 1,4,43 ../ upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or 1,43 ../ waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Construct a school on a property that is subject 1,43 to hazards from hazardous materials ../ contamination, emissions or accidental release? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list ../ of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant 1,2,43 to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been 1,44 ../ adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety 1,44 ../ hazard for people residing or working the project area? h) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response 1,2 ../ plan or emergency evacuation plan? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk ofloss, injury, or death involving wildland 1,2 ../ fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? j) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment from existing hazardous materials 1 ../ contamination by exposing future occupants or users of the site to contamination in excess of soil and ground water cleanup goals developed for the site? Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 65 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration DISCUSSION: a) Less-than-Significant Impact. Operation of the proposed Project would not involve the routine transportation, use, storage, and/or disposal of hazardous materials. However, construction of the proposed Project could temporarily increase the transport of materials generally regarded as hazardous that are used in construction activities. It is anticipated that limited quantities of miscellaneous hazardous substances, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluids, paint, and other similar materials would be brought onto the Project site, used, and stored during the construction period. The types and quantities of materials to be used could pose a risk to the public and/or the environment. In addition, construction of the proposed Project could result in the exposure of construction workers and residents to potentially contaminated soils due to improper removal of existing hazardous materials on site andlor leakage from the underground storage tanks (USTs) that could potentially be in the area or other historic releases of hazardous materials to soil or groundwater in the area. As discussed in the Project Description, hazardous materials will be stored, handled and used in accordance with applicable laws. Contaminated soil and/or groundwater will be disposed of properly. As part of the proposed Project, a Health and Safety Plan and a Hazardous Materials Management and Spill Prevention and Control Plan will be developed and implemented. Potential impacts are considered to be less than significant. No mitigation is required. In the event that a back-up generator is built at the proposed booster pump station location (at Mayfield Soccer Fields), diesel fuel would be stored onsite. Fuel would be stored within double-walled concrete containers that prevent leakage. Because the facility would be used during emergencies, it would not require the routine transport, use, or disposal of diesel fuel. As such, the operation of the generator would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment and impacts would be considered less than significant. b) Less-than-Significant Impact. The construction of the proposed Project could create an additional significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. As with all construction activities, the potential exists for accidents to occur, which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. As discussed in the Project Description, hazardous materials will be stored, handled and used in accordance with applicable laws. Contaminated soil and/or groundwater will be disposed of properly. As part of the proposed Project, a Health and Safety Plan and a Hazardous Materials Management and Spill Prevention and Control Plan will be developed and implemented. Potential impacts are considered to be less than significant Hazardous materials releases due to the operation of the proposed project are not anticipated. No mitigation is required. c) Less-than-Significant Impact. Three schools (El Carmelo Elementary School, Fairrneadow Elementary School, Jane L. Stanford Middle School]) are located within one-quarter mile of the proposed pipeline alignment. In addition, other facilities used by children, including the soccer fields located on a site previously occupied by Mayfield School (the school has not existed for 30 plus years), Cubberly Community Center, and Mitchell Park Community Center and Library are located nearby. Schools in the project vicinity also include Gunn High School and Jordan Junior High School. Although construction activities would require the use of some hazardous materials, due to the short duration and limited extent of construction activity, the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials associated with Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 66 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration construction activities to affect nearby school children would be considered less than significant. No mitigation is required. d) No Impact. The project does not propose to construct a school on a property that is subject to hazards from hazardous materials contamination, emissions or accidental release. As a result, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. e) Less-than-Significant Impact. A search was conducted of the Department of Toxic Substances Control list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 including Federal Superfund Sites National Priorities List (NPL), State Response Sites, Voluntary Cleanup Sites, and School Cleanup Sites. The proposed Project is located near a number of State Response Sites, and one Evaluation Site. A list of sites within the City of Palo Alto is presented in Appendix E. The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment beyond the existing impacts of the hazardous materials sites. As a result, the impact is considered less than significant. £) Less-than-Significant Impact. The RWQCP is located approximately 1,000 feet south of the Palo Alto Airport. Construction and/or operation of the proposed Project, including the pump station at the RWQCP, would not adversely affect the airport or airport operations, including, noise, take-offs, landings, flight patterns, safety, light, navigation, or communications between aircraft and the control tower within the Project area. The proposed pump station would comply with all requirements of the Santa Clara County's Airport Master Plan for the Palo Alto Airport. As a result, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. g) No Impact. The proposed Project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. As a result, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. h) Less-than-Significant Impact. During construction, installation of pipelines along roadways could block access to nearby roadways for emergency vehicles. In conjunction with the Traffic Control Plan for the Project, comprehensive strategies for maintaining emergency access shall be developed (see Project Description). As part of the emergency access strategies, police, fire, and other emergency service providers would be notified of the timing, location, and duration of the construction activities and the location of detours and lane closures. Potential impacts during construction are considered to be less than significant. Once construction is completed, operation of the proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. i) No Impact. The proposed Project would not be located in an area where there is the risk of wildland fire. Therefore there is no potential to expose people or structures to a significant risk ofloss, injury or death involving wildland fires. j) No Impact. The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment from existing hazardous materials contamination by exposing future occupants or users of the site to contamination in excess of soil and ground water cleanup goals developed for the site. The proposed project consists of a pipeline that would be constructed within existing roadways and/or utility corridors within commercial, industrial, and residential zonings within the City and pwnp stations associated with pipeline operation. These facilities would not house occupants or be used by the general public. As part of the proposed Project, a Health and Safety Plan and a Hazardous Materials Management and Spill Prevention and Control Plan will be developed and implemented. Thus there would be no impact. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 67 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Measures: None required. H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources I Potentially Potentially I Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless , Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Violate any water quality standards or waste 1,4,45, discharge requirements? 51,53, ~ 54,55, 56 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater ~ recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering ofthe local groundwater table level (e.g., the production 1,2,4 rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the 1,4,45 ~ alteration ofthe course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial i erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the 1,4,45 ~ alteration ofthe course ofa stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned 1,4,45 ~ stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? It) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 11,4, 45 ~ g) Place housing within a lOO-year flood hazard ! I area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard 1 ~ Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a IOO-year flood hazard area 1,2 structures which would impede or redirect ~ flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk I ofloss, injury or death involve flooding, 1,2 including flooding as a result ofthe failure of a I ~ levee or dam or being located within a lOO-year i I Palo Alto Recycled Water Page 68 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially I Potentially I Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated flood hazard area? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mud flow? 1 ../ k) Result in stream bank instability? 1,2 ../ DISCUSSION: Setting The general hydrogeologic setting underlying the entire Project area is a broad system of coalescing alluvial fans that extend from the range fronts west of the Proj ect area to the present shoreline of the Bay to the east. The sediments were deposited by streams flowing from surrounding mountains into the Santa Clara Valley and comprise the regional aquifers and aquitards (Le., deposits through which water does not readily flow) within the basin. The basin fill is generally more fine-grained near the Bay, and the coarsest sediments are usually near the range front in abandoned stream channels or near the apex of an alluvial fan. Groundwater occurs under both confined (under an aquitard that restricts percolation of water directly from the surface) and unconfined conditions (no aquitard over the groundwater) within the Project area. Groundwater movement is generally toward the Bay in both shallow and deep aquifers (i.e., water- bearing deposits). There is a downward vertical component of flow between adjacent coarse-grained deposits caused by regional groundwater pumping. Recharge of the aquifers occurs mainly along the mountain front where rainfall, streamflow, and deep percolation of applied water infiltrate the land surface. The alluvial deposits beneath the Stanford area are 700 to more than 900 feet thick beneath the present channel of the San Francisquito Creek, which runs near Stanford University to the southwest of the project area. Sediments are characterized by lenticular beds of poorly sorted gravel, sand, silt, and clay that are variable in thickness and grain size within short distances. The local aquifers and aquitards do not appear to be continuous over short distances; however, regionally the discontinuous sand bodies interfinger to form a predominantly sandy zone that can be recognized throughout large areas. Data suggest that near Stanford there is a shallow aquifer above about 150 feet below ground surface (bgs) and a deeper aquifer system below this depth. There are up to three fine-grained clay layers that impede vertical movement of groundwater at about 150, 200, and 300 feet bgs. The aquitards tend to thicken and become more laterally continuous toward the Bay. All of the production wells in the area draw most of their water from the deeper aquifer system, which is the zone below 300 ft bgs. The City of Palo Alto owns ten production wells, five of which have been abandoned. Stanford University owns four production wells, one of which has been abandoned. Stanford University, which is located near the project area, is located near the apex of the San Francisquito Creek alluvial fan. The primary constituents of concern in the RWQCP's recycled water with regard to groundwater quality are inorganic salt ions, considered collectively as total dissolved solids (TDS). Although a variety of subsurface investigations have been performed throughout the project area, most of these investigations have been conducted under the purview of the R WQCB as the result of underground petroleum storage tank releases, and most of the data collected are for petroleum hydrocarbons. Based on the inorganic lVU'.l);''''OU Negative Declaration ! water quality data that were obtained for the Palo Alto RWQCP Wastewater Reclamation Program Draft EIR, deep aquifer TDS concentrations appear to range from approximately 400 to 600 mg/I. These TDS concentrations are generally representative of groundwater within the Project area for both deep and shallow aquifers, and may be higher than concentrations actually present in more shallow groundwater (CH2MHill 1995). Hydrology The proposed pipeline alignment lies within two different flood zones as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). These zones are described below. Zone AE. (Base Flood Elevations determined). The elevation of the base flood (Le., IOO-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), or, for AO zones, where the IOO-year flood will be less than a foot deep. All of Palo Alto has been detennined to be subject to some risk of flooding, and it is inaccurate to say that a given property is "not in a flood zone" simply because it is not in a Special Flood Hazard Area. Zone X covers most of the area within which project facilities would be located. 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-lOl and the proposed pump station site at the RWQCP are located in Zone AE. This area includes the pipeline alignments east of 101 and alignments along Fabian Way, East Meadow Drive, Matadero Creek and Colorado Avenue, as well as the RWQCP. Storm water Pollution and Regulation Stonnwater runoff channeled into Matadero Creek and other creeks within the Project area carries pollutants, including sediments, motor oil, car exhaust, chemicals, eroded soil, detergents, paints, and any other discarded material carried through the stonn drain system. These sediments and pollutants build up and contribute to the degradation of the Bay's water quality and biological health. Water quality is regulated by the federal NPDES Program, which controls and reduces pollutants to water bodies from point and nonpoint discharges. The NPDES program is administered within the Project area by the San Francisco Bay R WQCB. Projects disturbing more than one acre of land during construction are required to file a notice of intent to be covered under the State NPDES General Construction Permit for discharges of Stonnwater associated with construction activity. In order to receive a permit for proposed Project construction activities, the City would be required to propose measures that are consistent with the State General Construction Permit and with the RWQCB's recOlmnendations and policies. Discussion During construction, standard erosion control techniques would be implemented, as described in the Project Description, to ensure any construction-related water quality impacts are less than significant. Operation of the Project would be conducted in accordance with all applicable federal and state requirements, as discussed in the Project Description, thereby mitigating any potential operational-related water quality impacts. Project implementation would not affect any Wild and Scenic River designated waterways. Installation of the proposed pipeline would not substantially alter the drainage patterns in the Project vicinity because of the relatively small amount of impermeable surfaces that would be installed. Additionally, all paved surfaces will be regraded and paved per their original fonn and all unpaved surfaces will be regraded and revegetated per their original form. The proposed Project would not place housing within the IOO-year flood hazard area as defined by the FEMA. Palo Alto Recycled Project Page 70 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration a) Less-than-Significant Impact. Operation of the proposed Project would be conducted in accordance with all applicable federal and state requirements. The major federal legislation governing the water quality aspects of the proposed Project is the Clean Water Act, as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987. The State of California's Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (Division 7 of the California Water Code) provides the basis for water quality regulation within California. The SWRCB administers water rights, water pollution control, and water quality functions throughout the state, while the nine RWQCBs conduct planning, permitting, and enforcement activities. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act designates the SWRCB responsible for formulating and adopting state policy for water recycling, while the California Department of Public Health (DPH) is responsible for establishing uniform statewide reclamation criteria to ensure that the use of recycled water would not be detrimental to public health. Recycled water regulations were published by the California Department of Health Services (DHS), which was the agency in charge of establishing reclamation criteria before DPH was formed. Water Quality effects on Public Health There are no federal standards governing water recycling and reuse in the United States, although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has sponsored the preparation of Guidelines for Water Reuse (ESA, 2003). Many states, including California, have developed water recycling regulations. In all cases, the regulations have been established with the objective of protecting public health and allowing for the safe use of recycled water. The DPH established water quality criteria, treatment process requirements, and treatment reliability criteria for reclamation operations, which are set forth in Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3, of the CCR. The RWQCB has responsibility for reviewing proposed recycled water projects, and for issuing water recycling requirements through the RWQCB's permitting process. DPH has the responsibility for reviewing proposed water recycling projects, and for providing comments and/or recommendations to the RWQCB. Water Quality effects on Public Health associated with direct exposure to recycled water: The existing Title 22 Water Recycling Criteria address treatment requirements for three types of recycled water uses: Landscape Irrigation, Recreational Impoundments, and Industrial Uses. The treatment requirements are intended to protect public health based on the expected degree of human contact with recycled water under each type of use. Treatment requirements are expressed as treatment process requirements (e.g., bio-oxidation, coagulation) as well as performance standards (e.g., disinfection standards and contaminant reduction). The existing Title 22 standards are among the most stringent standards in the world for public health protection, and are about 100 times more stringent than comparable standards established by the World Health Organization. Since the adoption of Title 22 in 1978, the use of recycled water for non-potable (not fit to drink) uses has expanded throughout the state and is projected to continue to grow over the next several decades. Under Title 22, the RWQCP's tertiary recycled water qualifies for "unrestricted reuse", which allows the highest allowable uses, including landscape irrigation and use in recreational impoundments. To be used as a source supply for this designation, the recycled water shall be at all times adequately oxidized, coagulated, clarified, filtered, and disinfected water. To be considered adequately disinfected, the median number of coliform organisms in the recycled water may not exceed a Most Probable Number (MPN) of2.2 per 100 milliliters over a seven-day period. The DPH has also produced specific requirements applicable to recycled water use areas receiving recycled water that meets Title 22 Water Recycling Criteria. The requirements that Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 71 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration are applicable to the proposed Project to protect public health are contained in Title Article 4, Section 60310 Use Area Requirements. The requirements focus on application and management specifications for various recycled water uses, including general use requirements, landscape irrigation requirements, impoundment requirements, and agricultural reuse area guidelines. General requirements include: • Posting signs to inform the public in areas where recycled water is in use; • Confining recycled water to authorized use areas; • Restricting irrigation of disinfected tertiary recycled water within 50 feet of any domestic water supply well; • Use of purple recycled water distribution and transmission system piping to indicate that it contains recycled water; • Prohibition of the over-application or any direct runoff of applied recycled water (recycled water would be applied to landscaped areas at agronomic rates to meet the evapotranspiration requirements, which minimizes surface runoff); and • Other requirements designed to ensure that recycled water use does not adversely affect public health. The City of Palo Alto receives potable drinking water from the SFPUC regional system. SFPUC water is currently treated with chlorarnines for disinfection. Not as widespread as the use of chlorine, the use of chloramines as a disinfectant in drinking water has occurred for many years. Although a weaker disinfectant than chlorine, chloramines are generally more stable, especially in distribution systems. Chloramines generally do not react as readily with organic matter in the treated water supplies, dramatically reducing the potential formation of disinfection by-products (DBPs). The chloramines used in the disinfection of the SFPUC's water do not survive the addition of sewage and treatment by the City of Palo Alto and thus will not persist in the recycled water. The recycled water would be disinfected for distribution and there would be residual chlorine in the distributed recycled water maintained through the addition of sodium hypochlorite at the RWQCP. Water Quality effects on Public Health associated with potential impact to groundwater: Nitrates in the recycled water are readily taken up by plants when recycled water is applied at agronomic rates, as required. No significant amount of nitrates would therefore be transported through the root zone into the soil column and into the groundwater. Salts may potentially leach into the groundwater during the wet season or in case of over- irrigation (for "flushing" purposes for example). Because of the limited amount of water (and therefore salt amounts) anticipated to leach into the groundwater, this potential salt migration would not adversely affect groundwater quality from a public health standpoint. Metals are not absorbed by the vegetation or broken down in the subsurface and thus can accumulate in the soil and may potentially leach into the groundwater during the wet season or in case of over-irrigation. However, metals are present in recycled water in such minute quantities that, if this migration were to occur, the concentrations would be extremely low, if even detectable, and would not adversely affect groundwater quality from a public health standpoint. Recycled water could potentially contain trace amounts of pharmaceutical compounds such as antibiotics, steroids, antidepressants, pain killers, estrogen and other hormones (endocrine disruptors). These compounds can pass through the body unmetabolized or partially Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 72 Initial StudyIMitigated Negative Declaration metabolized, and can be present in domestic wastewater in the range of a few parts per billion to a few parts per trillion. These and other compounds are collectively known within the water industry as "micropollutants", and are not presently regulated at the federal, state or local level, although their environmental fate, transport, and health effects are the subject of on-going research. Current treatment methods (including physical, chemical and biological processes) at the RWQCP remove some pharmaceutical compounds and micropollutants from the wastewater. These compounds may be present in the recycled water at minute concentrations, near or below current analytical detection limits. The presence of trace amounts of these compounds in the recycled water would not adversely affect landscape irrigation or any other proposed uses of the recycled water within the Project area. Natural processes, such as biological and photo-degradation at or below the ground surface will further break down residual contamination. Residual traces of chemicals, if any, will not adversely affect groundwater quality. With recycled water applied at agronomic rates, it is unlikely that the minute quantities of these compounds, if present, could migrate through the soil and into groundwater. If this migration were to occur, the concentrations would be extremely low, if even detectable. Adherence of the proposed Project to all appropriate Title 22 requirements would ensure that potential impacts to water quality or public health would be less than significant. Water Quality effects on Regulated TreesllRecycled water is characteristically higher in alkaline salts than typical irrigation water derived from potable supplies and may cause decline in acidic favoring tree species. Additionally, salt buildup in poorly drained soil may create a long-term inability of the soil to absorb and provide water availability to the tree roots. Recycled water from the RWQCP would have estimated total dissolved solids (TDS) of700 milligrams per liter (mg/I), after the RWQCP and its partners implement targeted high- TDS water inflow and infiltration reduction projects; this compares to TDS of 100 mg/l to 300 mg/l in existing water supply. Because salts are not absorbed by the vegetation or broken down in the subsurface, they have the potential to build up in the root zone in poorly drained soils and affect tree health. City staff investigated public concerns regarding the use of recycled water when applied globally as the primary source of irrigation for existing trees. The City's review did not determine conclusively that recycled water use was responsible for the decline of trees, although recycled water represents a change in irrigation strategy that could pose challenges for specific tree species, particularly Redwoods and possibly other trees requiring favorable acidic soil conditions for health. However, there have been reports of decline in redwoods throughout California in landscapes irrigated with both potable and recycled water (Downer 2004 as cited in HortScience, Inc 2005). HortScience conducted an independent study for the City of Palo Alto RWQCP to evaluate the effects of the RWQCP's recycled water on redwood trees in the Mountain ViewlMoffett area. The study evaluated redwood trees at five sites based on the factors identified below (2005): • Water quality: In general, the poorer quality the water, the more likely plants will be injured; 11 Regulated Trees include Protected, Street, and Designated trees as defined in the Project Description (in the discussion regarding the Tree Technical Manual). Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 73 Declaration • Salt-sensitivity of plants in the landscape: Plants vary widely in their tolerance to salts. Salts and boron sensitive plants have less tolerance to use of recycled water than do more salt tolerant species. • Soil characteristics: As a rooting environment, the soil holds the water and elements for root uptake. Some constituents in recycled water can have negative effects on the soil as they concentrate over time. Three soil characteristics are of key importance including chemical attributes of the soils (concentration of salts and existing pH), texture of the soil (fine [clay] vs. coarse [sandy soils]) and the soil drainage (whether salts can be leached). • Irrigation method and frequency: Plants are more sensitive to sodium and chloride toxicity when the water is applied to the foliage as opposed to the soil. The study found that the response of an existing landscape to irrigation with recycled water depends on the degree to which soil will become affected and the tolerance of plant materials to salts and specific ions (HortScience, Inc 2005). The reports states that "[t]he work to date has not fully answered why redwoods have been affected while other landscape species and some redwoods were largely unaffected. There appeared to be relationships among soil moisture, rooting depth, and tree condition. Trees in good condition were in better-watered sites and had deeper roots than trees in poor condition. This suggests that irrigation management is an important contributing factor. Soil texture and structure are also likely important because of their effects on water movement through the soils and root development" (HortScience, Inc 2005). The study also found that there are other agents that can cause decline in redwood trees. Existing and potential problems with redwood trees independent of irrigation water quality and the factors described above (HortScience Inc. 2005) include the following: • Climatic factors: Redwood trees are native to cool, foggy coastal areas in forest situations where the conditions differ drastically from those planted in the Bay Area landscape. Rather than moisture in the air and soil, redwood trees planted in Bay Area landscapes experience prolonged periods of warm, dry weather, low rainfall and infrequent fog. These conditions promote physiological stress. • Fungal pathogens: For example, Cylindrocarpon found in redwoods in the South Bay is known to cause root rot, although none have bcen reported as exclusive redwood pathogens. • Other diseases: Other diseases that have caused decline in redwood trees include Botryosphaeria canker, Phytophthora root rot, and Armillaria root rot. In addition, the insect pest, Aspidotus nerri, mayor may not contribute to redwood tree decline. There is not a definitive correlation between recycled water use and decline in redwood trees. Thus, the HortScience study concludes that recycled water may be used for landscape irrigation in the Mountain View/Moffett area as long as site management and possibly water quality adjustments are implemented. In 2005, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) engaged researchers from the University of California to investigate soil and plant constraints on the quality of recycled water, and proposc water qualities and management practices that would enable sustainable use of those waters (Oster 2009). Paio Alto Recycled Watcr Project Page 74 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Three studies were conducted as part of the SCVWD-funded research effort, and the findings were released at a workshop on February 17, 2009 12 • Researchers acknowledged that the factors that determine effects on coast redwood trees are those identified in the 2005 HortScience study: water quality, site conditions, irrigation method and frequency, and plant tolerances and requir~ents (Matheny 2009). The major findings of the three projects were summarized in the Solutions Project Report, A Cooperative Investigation by the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the City of Mountain View and South Bay Water Recycling. The findings are as follows (Oster 2009): • Coastal redwoods are sensitive to total soil-water salinity independent of the type of salt causing the salinity. The goal of sustainable water management for redwoods would be to maintain soil-water salinity levels in the root zone between 1 and 2 decisiemenlmeter (dS/m) 13 and to allow levels to approach 3 dS/m with caution and intensive monitoring of both the soil and the leaf bum of redwood trees. • Considerable excess water over that consumed by the plants will need to be applied for the long-term, sustainable irrigation of redwoods. 14 • Careful water management will need to be applied (e.g., apply water beneath the tree canopy, monitor the soil water content in the root zone, apply sufficient water to maintain soil water contents at targeted levels, periodically adjust the crop coefficient so that the targeted soil water contents are achieved, etc.) • As needed, application of gypsum to increase salinity and reduce sodium levels in the soil, which would improve infiltration rates. In their study of the tolerance of coast redwood to sodium and chloride, Barnes et. al (2007) found that if proper leaching is not employed to carry the salts out of the root zone, even at relatively low conductivity, salt can accumulate in the soil profile. The study concludes that "it is clear that redwoods can tolerate EC [electrical conductivity15] values in the range typical for recycled waters if irrigation is properly managed." Beaudette and Singer (2007) evaluated a subset of Santa Clara County soils for susceptibility to structural degradation from irrigation. They found that "soils that were the most sensitive to low EC solutions had the lowest sand content and highest CEC [cation exchange capacity] 16. Soils that were the least sensitive to low EC solutions had the highest sand content and lowest CEC." In other words, soils with higher silt and clay content are more affected by water quality than other soils. To maintain soil structure, infiltration rate, and 12 These studies included: 1) a survey of soil salinity using electromagnetic induction at Shoreline Links and Villages Golf Course to bench mark existing salinity conditions; 2) soil studies to determine the impacts of water quality on soil hydraulic properties; and 3) plant studies to determine the salt tolerance of coastal redwood (Oster 2009). 14 Oster found that Palo Alto recycled water was the most saline recycled water studied. The leaching fractions required to obtain the soil-water salinities between 2 and 3 dS/m range from 0.05 to greater than 0.4 depending on whether redwood responses to the soil-water salinities in the upper portion ofthe root zone or the whole root zone. 15 Electrical conductivity is a measure of a material's ability to conduct an electric current. Electrical conductivity is commonly measured as a decisiemen/meter (dS/m) and approximates to 640 ppm of salt. Current Palo Alto recycled water measures approximately 1.35 dS/m. Inflow and Infiltration reduction projects could reduce the electrical conductivity to 1.09 dS/m. 16 Cation exchange capacity (CEC) is the capacity ofa soil for ion exchange of positively charged ions between the soil and the soil solution Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 75 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration percolation rate of soils with accumulated salts, careful site specific management will need to be employed. 17 No standards have yet been established for boron, sodium, and chloride in redwood tissues or salts in irrigation water. Lacking quantitative thresholds to evaluate the effects of recycled water use from this project on redwood trees and the multitude of factors that can contribute to such declines of redwood trees, such declines cannot be solely and directly linked to irrigation with recycled water. As such, a CEQA detennination is not made for this specific issue area. The discussion in this document provides a disclosure of the most up-to-date information on the possible effects of recycled water use on trees and the strategy that can avoid substantial decline of the City-designated protected and street trees. Precautionary Strategies. The project proposes to irrigate existing trees within the City that grow on a variety of public and private properties (e.g., in medians, planter-strip right-of-way areas, adjacent residential, commercial and Stanford Research Park lease areas) with recycled water. Certain soil conditions in the Palo Alto area are not suitable for many tree species. When such trees are exposed to increased stress by an environmental change (i.e., global recycled water use or prolonged drought) they may exhibit signs of decline. The City recognizes that many factors can contribute to this decline and that the increased salt content in the recycled water and poor drainage could affect the biological health, appearance (dieback), or mortality of existing protected, street, and designated trees (Dockter 2009). To address this potential scenario, the City intends to be proactive by implementing an Adaptive Management Program. As part of this strategy, the City will implement a Tree and Soil Monitoring Plan and BMPs to address adverse effects by site remediation or replacement of existing species with species better suited to the area. The Adaptive Management Program is described in detail in the Project Description. In addition to the Tree and Soil Condition Monitoring Plan that is part of the Adaptive Management Program, the RWQCP and its partners are actively addressing the issue of salinity in its recycled water as part of the City ofP&lo Alto RWQCP Water Reuse Program. Strategies identified under the program consist of the following: • The Inflow and Infiltration (III) program. Much of the salinity in the recycled water the RWQCP produces is due to salty groundwater infiltrating into the sewer collection system. Palo Alto and Mountain View are looking into rehabilitating the worst of these sewer pipes, which will reduce salt water infiltration into the sewers. It is estimated that and III program would reduce the TDS of the reclaimed water from 900 mg/l (1.35 dSlm) to approximately 700 mg/l (1.09 dSlm). 17 "Sodium can alter the physical and chemical properties of soils causing long-term damage to its structure and management." (Shainberg and Singer, 1990 as referenced in Beaudette and Singer 2007) "Larger sodium fractions in the soil solution and on the soil's exchange complex lead to increased soil swelling and dispersion ... Swelling can be caused both by high levels of sodium, and by low total salt concentrations. In the case of a sodic soil [a soil that contains sodium levels high enough to adversely impact soil structure and crop production], the monovalent sodium ion on the exchange complex causes clay platelets to move apart. Jfthe conditions which caused the soils to swell are modified (either the sodium levels are lowered or total electrolyte levels raised), it is possible that soils may go through the reverse process, dewatering or shrinking. Because the original particle associations and orientations are retained, soil shrink-swell is a reversible process. In contrast, dispersion is an irreversible process where re- flocculation of soil particles does not result in the original particle associations and orientations. Dispersion is the condition of separated soil particles and is also affected by sodium and electrolyte concentration." (Beaudette and Singer 2007). Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 76 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration b) No Impact. The City of Palo Alto receives potable drinking water from the SFPUC regional system. Use of tertiary recycled water would reduce dependence on SFPUC water. The proposed project would not require any groundwater withdrawals or involve substantial construction of impermeable surfaces such that groundwater recharge would be reduced. Therefore, the project would not result in any adverse effects to groundwater resources. c,d,e) No Impact. The proposed pipeline would be installed within existing roadways and connected to existing pipelines. Project implementation would not affect any Wild and Scenic River designated waterways. Ground cover or surface pavement above installed pipelines would be restored after construction to maintain existing drainage patterns. The Project would add minimal additional impervious surface through the installation of above-ground structures (RWQCP pump station and structure for the generator). However, the volume of runoff produced by this additional pavement is not significant relative to the overall volume of local runoff. The pump station locations would be designed to direct runoff to the local storm water system, thereby alleviating the potential for flooding and/or erosion. Use of BMPs during construction would minimize the potential for flooding or erosion during construction. Therefore, the installation of the proposed pipeline and above-ground structures would not substantially alter the existing drainage patterns in the Project vicinity because of the relative small amount of additional impermeable surfaces that would be installed as result of Project implementation and the restoration of disturbed landscape areas. Overall, storm drainage conditions would not be expected to change; therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on existing flood conditions. f) Less-than-Significant Impact. Without mitigation, earthmoving activities associated with pipeline construction would contribute to soil erosion and subsequent degradation in water quality. Implementation of standard erosion control techniques during Project construction activities, as discussed in the Project Description, would ensure potential water quality impacts are less than significant. Construction activities of one acre or more are subject to the permitting requirements of the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit). The Project sponsor must submit a Notice of Intent to the San Francisco RWQCB prior to the Permit requires the preparation and implementation of a formal SWPPP which must be prepared before construction begins. The SWPPP includes specifications for BMPs implemented during Project construction to control sedimentation or pollution concentration in storm water runoff, and defines conditions for complying with the SWRCB NPDES permit requirements. Implementation of the SWPPP starts with the commencement of construction and continues through Project completion. Upon completion of the Project, the sponsor must submit a Notice of Termination to the RWQCB to indicate that the construction is complete. g,h,i) No Impact. Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies to prepare floodplain assessments for actions located within or affecting floodplains; and similarly, Executive Order 11990 places similar requirements for actions in wetlands. As previously noted, structures within FEMA Flood Zone X areas are not considered to be at substantial risk of flooding. Most of the Project area is located within Zone X. Part of the Project area is located in FEMA Flood Zone AE. Within the Project implementation corridor, 110 adverse impacts relative to flooding are anticipated. The Project does not propose homes or other above-grade structures to be constructed within the lOa-year floodplain and does not include structures that would impede or redirect flood flows. The proposed booster pump station would not be within the lOa-year floodplain. Project design of above-ground structures, including the pump station at the RWQCP, would include site grading and repaving so as to not impede or PaIo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 77 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration I redirect flood flows. There are no dams in the vicinity of the project, so there would be no risk of inundation from dam failure. Therefore, no impacts relative to flooding are anticipated. j) No Impact. The Project area is not subject to seiches, tsunamis, or mudflows, and no impacts are anticipated. k) Less than Significant Impact. Construction activities involving soil disturbance, such as excavation, stockpiling, and grading would result in increased erosion, sedimentation and siltation to surface waters. Substantial erosion that could lead to stream bank instability is considered unlikely because of the relatively small scale of earthmoving activities necessary for Project implementation. Implementation of standard engineering erosion-control techniques, as discussed in the Project Description, would ensure potential impacts stream bank stability are less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. I. LAND USE AND PLANNING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially I Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation ! Incorporated a) Physically divide an established community? 1 ~ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with 1,2,3, ~ jurisdiction over the project (including, but not 45 limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? • c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 11,2 conservation plan or natural community ~ conservation plan? ~ .. d) Substantially adversely change the type or intensity of existing or planned land use in the 1,2 ~ area? e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with 1, 2, 3, I the general character of the surrounding area, 45 I ~ including density and building height? f) Conflict with established residential, 1,2,3 recreational, educational, religious, or scientific ~ uses of an area? I g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or • 1, 5 Iv" farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to I non-agricultural use? DISCUSSION: Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 78 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration I ! I a) No Impact. The proposed Project would not physically divide an established community. The proposed Project is located in Santa Clara County, within the City limits of Palo Alto. The proposed pipeline would be constructed within existing roadways and/or utility corridors within commercial, industrial, and residential zonings within the City. The Mayfield Soccer Fields pump station site is on Stanford property that is leased to the City. The proposed pump station at the RWQCP would be located entirely within the existing RWQCP property Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a disruption, physical division, or isolation of existing residential or open space areas. As a result, no impacts are likely or anticipated. b) No Impact. The proposed Project would be constructed on land leased by or owned by the City of Palo Alto. The proposed pipeline would be constructed within existing roadways and/or utility corridors within commercial, industrial, and residential zonings within the City. The proposed locations for the pump stations are located on City owned or leased land in the following zones as defined in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan: mUltiple family housing (Mayfield Soccer Fields Site) and Major Institution/Special Facility (RWQCP). The project would require Architectural Review / Site and Design review during the design phase to satisfY the requirements of the Architectural Review Board and the City. In addition, a conditional use permit would be required for the booster pump station site. Compliance with these relevant City regulations would ensure that the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project area. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. c) No Impact. The proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. As stated above, the proposed Project would be constructed within existing roadways and/or utility corridors within commercial, industrial, and residential zonings within the City. For this reason, no impact is expected. d,e,f) No Impact. The proposed project would not substantially, adversely change the type or intensity of existing or planned land use in the area, be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with the general character of the surrounding area, including density and building height, or conflict with established residential, recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of an area. As stated above, the proposed Project would be constructed on land leased by or owned by the City of Palo Alto, and within existing roadways and/or utility corridors within commercial, industrial, and residential zonings within the City. For this reason, no impact is expected. g) No Impact. As stated in the Agricultural Resources section of this IS/MND, the proposed Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. The proposed Project would be constructed within existing roadways and/or utility corridors within commercial, industrial, and residential zonings within the City or on City owned or leased property. No farming or agriculture takes place within the Project area. As a result, the proposed Project would not affect agricultural practices and/or convert any farmland to non- agricultural usage. No mitigation is required or necessary. Mitigation Measures: None Required Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 79 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration J. lVIINERAL RESOURCES I Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources I Potentially Potentially Less Than ! NoImpact I Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the 1,2,46 region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- iI, 2, 46 I important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan I or other land use plan? DISCUSSION: a) No Impact. The proposed Project site is not located on a site that is identified as a significant source of mineral resources. Specifically, the proposed Project is not located in an area identified as containing mineral resources classified MRZ-2 by the State geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. As a result, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources; therefore, no impact is expected. No mitigation is required. b) No Impact. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan does not identifY any locally important mineral resources or recovery sites in the proposed Project area. Further, as discussed in (a), the proposed Project would be unlikely to result in the loss of availability of a mineral resource deposit that has been identified as a mineral resource of value. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures: None Required K. NOISE ../ ../ I Issues and Supporting Information Resources ! Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ! a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the ../ local general plan or noise ordinance, or 1,2, 47 I applicable standards of other agencies? I ! b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibrations or ground 1,2 ../ borne noise levels? _ ....... c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels 1,2 ../ existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in I ambient noise levels in the project vicinity 1,2 Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 80 Initial StudyIMitigated Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact I Significant Significant Significant I Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated above levels existing without the project? ~ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been 1,44 ~ adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1) F or a proj ect within the vicinity of a private ! airstrip, would the project expose people 1,2 ~ residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to I increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an 1,47 ~ existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB? • h) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area, thereby causing the 1,47 ~ Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB? i) Cause an increase of3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area where the Ldn 1,47 ~ currently exceeds 60 dB? j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential 1,47 ~ development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB? k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other 1,47 ~ rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or '--... greater? I) Generate construction noise exceeding the ~ daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors 1,47 by 10 dBA or more? DISCUSSION: a, g-l) Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed Project is located in a commercial and residential area with potential sensitive receptors, and within a nature preserve where there are no residential receptors and only limited commercial, industrial, and recreational uses nearby. The nearest existing sensitive receptors to the Project site are residences along the proposed pipeline alignment. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan indicates that major sources of noise throughout the Project area are primarily streets with high traffic volumes. Other major sources of noise within the Project area are trains. Ambient noise measurements were not taken for the purpose of this ISIMND. However, according to Map N-3 of the Comprehensive Plan, Noise Exposure Contours, ambient noise levels, measured as Ldn, in the prqject area range from 60 decibels (dBA) in residential, commercial and light industrial areas to 70 dBA along major thoroughfares. The construction and/or operation of the proposed project would not result in significant noise impacts because the project would comply with the City noise regulations. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration The proposed Project has the potential to generate noise during the construction phase through the use of equipment and construction vehicle trips. Construction activities would be temporary in nature, and related noise impacts would be short-term. For construction, the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 9.10, Noise, states that 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 out- side the structure at a distance as close to 25 feet from the equipment as possible. Construction of the proposed Project would generate temporary and intermittent noise. Peak noise levels generated by most types of construction equipment would be around 80 dBA within 50 feet, although depending on the type of equipment used could produce noise levels in excess of 90 dBA within 50 feet, for short periods of time. Noise levels would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of use of various pieces of construction equipment. Back-up beepers associated with trucks and equipment used for material loading and unloading at the staging area would generate significantly increased noise levels over the ambient noise environment in order to be discernable and protect construction worker safety as required by OSHA (29 CFR 1926.60 I and 29 CFR 1926.602). Residences in the vicinity of the work areas would thus be exposed to these elevated noise levels. Construction activities associated with the pump station at the RWQCP would not exceed ambient noise levels, as the R WQCP is an industrial area with elevated noise levels due to plant operation. Construction equipment noise would be minimized during project construction by muffling and shielding intakes and exhaust on construction equipment (per the manufacturers' specifications) and by shrouding or shielding impact tools. All equipment would have sound- control devices no less effective than those provided by the manufacturer.. In addition, the City would require in construction specifications that the contractor place all stationary noise generating construction equipment as far away as possible from sensitive receptors or in an orientation minimizing noise impacts (e.g., behind existing barriers or storage piles). Construction would occur between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday on arterial and collection streets in order to maintain compliance with the City's Traffic Control Requirements. Construction other than on arterial and collection streets would occur between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. Construction would occur between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Saturday for all construction areas. Compliance with the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Noise Ordinance would ensure that impacts related to construction noise would be less than significant. For operation aside from construction, the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 9.10 Noise states that for commercial and industrial property, no person shall produce, suffer, or allow to be produced by any machine or device, or any combination of same, on commercial or industrial property, a noise level more than eight dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. (Ord. 4634 § 2 (part), 2000) Policy N-41 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan states that a project should be considered to cause a significant degradation of the noise environment ifit would cause the average 24-hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by 5.0 dB or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB or if it would cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area, where it would cause the Ldn to exceed 60 dB or where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB. Operation of the proposed pipeline and laterals would not result in noise impacts. The pipeline would be buried underground, and thus would not create noise. Operation of the pump station along the alignment (at Mayfield Soccer Fields) would not increase ambient noise because it would be located underground. For aboveground structures Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 82 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration a) associated with the pump station, all building openings, including air ventilation, would employ acoustical rated louvers and silencers as appropriate to reduce noise propagation to the outside of the building. Motor noise from the proposed pump station at the R WQCP would be negligible given the existing ambient noise from other facilities already in operation at the site Compliance with the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Noise Ordinance and design of the pump station to meet the City's noise standards would ensure that impacts related to operational noise are less-than-significant. b) Less-than-Significant Impact. Operation of the proposed Project would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or noise impacts. Construction of the proposed Project could likely result in minor and temporary increases in ground borne vibration or noise, however, construction activities would be temporary. Compliance with the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Noise Ordinance and design of the pump stations to meet the City's noise standards would ensure that impacts associated with the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or groundborne noise levels would be less than significant. c) Less-than-Significant Impact. Once constructed, operation of the pipeline would not result in noise impacts. The pump station at the Mayfield Soccer Fields site would be underground, and the booster pump station at the R WQCB would be in an enclosed building designed to meet the City's noise standards. Pumps and associated electrical mechanical components would be enclosed within a building constructed of CMU or other structurally sound-isolated construction materials. All building openings, including air ventilation, would employ acoustical rated louvers and silencers as appropriate to reduce noise propagation to the outside of the building. Thus the impact will be less than significant. d) Less-than-Significant Impact. Project construction activities may lead to a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity. Compliance with the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Noise Ordinance would ensure that temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity would be less than significant. e) Less-than-Significant Impact. The Palo Alto Airport is located across Embarcadero Road from the RWQCP. The existing airport noise exposure at the RWQCP would remain unchanged. There are no residences in the area of the RWQCP pump station site and workers at the project site are not expected to be exposed to excessive noise levels from airport noise. As a result, the impact would be less than significant and no specific mitigation is required. f) No Impact. The Project is not located within the immediate vicinity of a private airstrip and would not affect any aircraft operations. No impact is expected. Mitigation Measures: None Required L. POPULATION AND HOUSING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Induce substantial population growth in an ./ area, either directly (for example, by proposing 1,45,49, new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for 50 Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 83 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of 1 I v" replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers ofpeopJe, I 1 necessitating the construction of replacement v" housing elsewhere? d) Create a substantial imbalance between 1 v" employed residents and jobs? e) Cumulatively exceed regional or local 1 Iv" population projections? I DISCUSSION: a-e) No Impact. The proposed Project is in response to a need to improve water supply management and reliability, and improve the San Francisco Bay by reducing the discharge of substances that could impact the sensitive Bay environment The proposed Project would not displace existing housing, involve construction of new housing, create imbalance between employed residents and jobs, or exceed regional or local population projections. As a result, the proposed Project is anticipated to have no impacts. Mitigation Measures: None Required M. PUBLIC SERVICES Issues and Supporting Information Resources I Sources I Potentially Potentially Less Than ~No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation WOuldthe project result in substantial adverse Incol'Porated physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any ofthe public services: a) Fire protection? 1 v" ........... - b) Police protection? 1 v" c) Schools? 1 :j' Palo Alto """.;;v"",u Water Project Page 84 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Parks? I ../ e) Other public facilities? I ../ DISCUSSION: a-e) No Impact. The proposed Project would not change the existing demands for public services (e.g., fire and police protection, schools, parks). The Project is in response to a need to improve water supply management and reliability, and improve the San Francisco Bay by reducing the discharge of substances that could impact the sensitive Bay environment. As a result, the proposed Project is anticipated to have no impacts. Mitigation Measures: None Required N. RECREATION Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or 1 ../ other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or 1 vi" expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? DISCUSSION: a-b) No Impact. The proposed Project would not change the existing demands on recreational facilities. The Project is in response to a need to improve water supply management and reliability, and improve the San Francisco Bay by reducing the discharge of substances that could impact the sensitive Bay environment. Parking for recreation at Mayfield Soccer Fields would be temporarily impacted by construction activities in the parking lot where the underground pump station would be located (see the discussion in Transportation and Traffic below). However, construction would be temporary and recreation activities on the fields would not be impacted. The use of existing recreational facilities in the vicinity of the RWQCP would not be impacted by the proposed project. The pump station would comply with the requirements of the Baylands Master Plan. As a result, the proposed Project is anticipated to have no impacts. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 85 StudylMitigated Negative Declaration I Mitigation Measures: None Required O. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially • Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impaet Mitigation Ineorporated a) Cause an increase in traffic which is ~ substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., 1,2,4,45 result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, ~ a level of service standard established by the 1 county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels 1,44 ~ or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a ~ design feature (e.g., sharp curves or 1,45,48,49 dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,45,48,49 ~ i t) Result in inadequate parking capacity? I ~ 1,45,48,49 g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ~ programs supporting alternative 1,45,48,49 transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit & bicycle facilities)? h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS) ~ D and cause an increase in the average 1,45,48,49 stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more and the critical volume!capacity ratio (VIC) value to increase by 0.01 or more? i) Cause a local intersection already operating at 1,45,48,49 LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average ~ stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more? ! j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate 1,45,48,49 from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause ~ critical movement delay at such an intersection already operating at LOS F to increase by four' seconds or more and the critical VIC value to increase by 0.01 or more? Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 86 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially I Less Than I No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact :vtitigation Incoroorated k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F or contribute traffic in excess of 1 % of 1,45,48,49 ../ segment capacity to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F? I) Cause any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential 1,45,48,49 ../ Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more? m) Cause queuing impacts based on a comparative analysis between the design ../ queue length and the available queue storage 1,45,48,49 capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are not limited to, spillback queues at project access locations; queues at tum lanes at intersections that block through traffic; queues at lane drops; queues at one intersection that extend back to impact other intersections, and spillback queues on ramps. n) Impede the development or function of 1,45,48,49 1../ planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities? 0) Impede the operation of a transit system as a 1,45,48,49 ../ result of congestion? p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1,45,48,49 ../ DISCUSSION: Pipeline installation activities would temporarily disrupt transportation and circulation patterns in the vicinity of the Project. Table 5 shows roadways affected by the project and construction methods at roadway crossings. The Project could significantly affect roadway segments and intersections on all pipeline segments if the construction zone were to reduce the travel width during peak: traffic periods. Potential conflicts along the major pipeline route as well as along the lateral routes could occur between construction traffic and bicyclists and pedestrians. Traffic is generally heavy along Alma Street and Mill Road. The intersection of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real is a major traffic intersection, as is the intersection of Hillview Avenue and Foothill Expressway. Temporary effects on traffic could increase the potential for accidents, emergency access, displacement of on-street parking, and disruptions to transit service. The City has a practice of imposing a 5-year moratorium on cutting newly paved streets, with appropriate exceptions. No trench work would occur on streets that have been paved within the 5 years prior to construction unless an exception is needed and an agreement can be reached to allow for the exception. The implementation of a Traffic Control Plan, which is described in the Project Description, and implementation of the mitigation measures identified below would ensure that all traffic impacts are mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 87 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Table 5: Proposed Pipeline Alignment Alignment is on: Starting Cross Street Ending Cross Street Construction Method at Road"ay Crossings Proposed Alignment Under US-I 0 1 E. Bayshore Rd. Fabian Way Trenchless under 101 Fabian Way West Bayshore Road East Meadow Drive Open-Cut ! Open-Cut; East Meadow Drive Fabian Way Cowper Street Potential trenchless section across Adobe Creek Bridge Open-Cut; Cowper Street East Meadow Drive EI Dorado Avenue Potential trenchless sections across Barron Creek and Matadero Creek EI Dorado A venue Cowper Street Alma Street Open-Cut Alma Street EI Dorado A ven ue Page Mill Road Open-Cut Open-Cut; Potential trenchlessl section Page Mill Road Alma Street Hanover Street under railroad crossing; Potential trenchless section under EI Camino Real I Hanover Street Page Mill Road Hillview A venue Open-Cut Open-Cut; Hillview A venue Hanover Street Arastradero Road Potential trenchless section across SFPUC Easement and Foothill Expressway ~ ......... Pipeline Alignment Option 1 Adobe Creek US-1OI West Bayshore Road i Trenchless under 101 West Bayshore Road Adobe Creek Fabian Way Open-Cut Pipeline Alignment Option 2 Colorado A venue US-101 Alma Street Open-Cut . Pipeline Alignment Option 3 i EI Camino Real Page Mill Road Hanson Way Open-Cut Palo Alto Square Parking Hanson Way Hanover Street I Open-Cut I All the bndge crossmgs would be trenchless (constructed WIth the pIpe attached to SIde ofbndge) or Installed m the bridge in a trench. The construction method has not been finalized. Neither method would require work to be done in the creeks. Palo Alto Recycled Water Page 88 Initial Negative Declaration • I a,b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed alignment and alignment options would be installed within roadway rights-of-way using standard open-cut trenching techniques by means of speed shoring or trench box bracing. Traffic-generating construction activities related to pipeline installation would consist of the daily arrival and departure of construction workers to the work site; trucks hauling equipment and materials to the work site daily; and the hauling of excavated spoils from, and import of new fill to, each work site. Each pipeline construction crew would consist of an estimated 10 workers. Construction equipment used for pipeline construction would include backhoes, front-end loaders, dump trucks, flatbed delivery trucks, cranes, compactors, concrete trucks, and paving equipment. Based on the estimated crew size, and assuming some overlap in construction activities at the work site, construction worker trips traveling to and from the work site are not anticipated to exceed 10 round trips (20 one-way trips) per day. This would not be substantial relative to background traffic conditions. Project-generated trips would fall within the daily fluctuations of traffic volumes for nearby roadways. Therefore, this short-term increase in vehicle trips would not significantly affect level of service and traffic flow on roadways. Pipeline construction would typically require a minimum of one lane of traffic and the adjacent shoulder, resulting in a construction corridor approximately 20 feet to 30 feet wide. It is expected that the open trench construction within paved roadways would proceed at the rate of approximately 100 feet per day, with an overall work zone of 300 to 600 feet in length. Typical roadway excavations encompass a single lane and part of the shoulder and/or bike lane, should they exist, although full road closures may be required along narrower streets (e.g., EI Dorado and Cowper streets). However, impacts would be relatively brief at anyone location along the pipeline alignment, at most a few days. The City of Palo Alto would repair any damage to the road due to construction. The City has a practice of imposing a 5-year moratorium on cutting newly paved streets, with appropriate exceptions. No trench work would occur on streets that have been paved within the 5 years prior to construction unless an exception is needed and an agreement can be reached to allow for that exception. If paving occurs farther into the future, the effect of the moratorium will be reevaluated to determine whether roads that are included in the proposed Project have been recently paved at that time. The construction footprint for the booster pump station at the Mayfield Soccer Fields would be approximately 0.25 acres. The final proposed pumping facility would be approximately 50 feet by 30 feet. The RWQCP pump station would require a footprint of roughly 40 feet x 42 feet. It is estimated that up to 100 cubic yards (CY) of trench spoils would be hauled off-site daily, and 95 CY of new fill would be imported daily. Using an average haul load of 10 CY per truck, this would amount to up to 21 truck haul round trips (42 one-way trips) generated per work day. Accounting for the delivery of pipes and other construction components (which would be shipped on demand to the Project site throughout the construction period), the total number of off-site construction truck trips would be approximately 22 round trips (44 one- way trips) per work day and not typically during the peak periods. These additional trips include material (pipes) delivery approximately twice a week, fuel shipments once a day, and maintenance trucks that would come by once a week. This would not be substantial relative to background traffic conditions. Project-generated trips would fall within the daily fluctuations of traffic volumes for nearby roadways. Therefore, this short-term increase in vehicle trips would not significantly affect level of service and traffic flow on roadways. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 89 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration The proposed pipeline would follow within and/or cross several roadways. The exact placement of the pipeline in the roadways is not known at this time, but regardless of where it would be installed, pipeline installation activities would temporarily disrupt existing transportation '611d circulation patterns in the vicinity. Impacts would include direct disruption of traffic flows and street operations. Pipeline installation would result in a reduction in travel lanes and on-street parking. Pipe installation work within and/or across high traffic volume arterials could significantly affect traffic flow and operation at these locations. The Project would affect roadway segments and intersections on the pipeline alignment during construction. Limiting construction to off-peak times, returning roads to pre-construction conditions (Mitigation Measure TRA-I) and implementing a traffic control plan, which is described in the Project Description would ensure that traffic impacts are less than significant. There are several schools in the vicinity of the Project. These areas will be looked at more closely to determine whether the traffic control plan is appropriate or if additional measures are needed specific to school areas. c) No Impact. The proposed Project does not involve use of air transit, nor is it expected to cause any change in air traffic patterns. No impact is expected and no mitigation is required. d) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The Project would not change the configuration (alignment) of area roadways, and would not introduce types of vehicles that are not already traveling on area roads. However, heavy equipment operating adjacent to or within road right-of-way would increase the risk of accidents, as could the increased congestion resulting from lane and/or road closures. Potential conflicts also could occur between construction traffic and bicyclists and pedestrians and there is also potential for an increase in accidents resulting from limited lines of sight due to construction. The contractor will prepare and implement a traffic control plan in accordance with professional engineering standards prior to construction, including compliance with roadside safety protocols, so as to reduce the risk of accident. Specific requirements that may be included in the traffic control plan are identified in the Project Description. Thus, implementation of the traffic control plan would ensure temporary increases in the potential for accidents would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure TRA-l would ensure that roads are returned to their pre-construction condition or better. There are several schools in the vicinity of the Project. These areas will be looked at more closely to determine whether the Traffic Control Plan is appropriate or if additional measures are needed specific to school areas. e) Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed Project would have temporary effects on traffic flow due to lane/road closures and added truck traffic during construction which could result in delays for emergency vehicle access in the vicinity of the Project or restriction to adjacent land uses. Through the development of the traffic control plan and comprehensive strategies for maintaining emergency access (described in the Project Description), the contractor will establish methods for maintaining traffic flow in the Project vicinity and minimizing disruption to emergency vehicle access along the construction route. If proper detours are not provided for streets that may require closure during construction activities, significant impacts could occur. Identification of detours (see Measure TRA-2), in addition to implementing a traffic control plan and emergency access strategies (described in the Project Description) would ensure that traffic impacts are less than significant. There are several schools in the vicinity of the Project. These areas will be looked at more closely to determine whether the traffic control plan is appropriate or if additional measures are needed specific to school areas. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 90 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration f) Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed Project would create limited new, temporary parking demand for construction workers and construction vehicles as the crew moves along the installation alignment. The Project would not require a substantial number of construction workers along the construction alignment; therefore, the number of parking spaces required would not be substantial. If certain alignment options are selected, existing on-street parking may be temporarily displaced. However, given the proposed rate of new pipe installation, impacts to on-street parking would be relati vely brief at anyone location along the alignment. Some parking at the Mayfield Soccer Fields would be temporarily lost by the construction activities in the parking lot where the underground pump station would be located. The construction area would be fenced off from the rest of the parking area for safety and security purposes and would not be usable during construction. Because these disruptions would be of limited duration and the parking area surrounding the permanent footprint of the pump station would be restored to its pre-construction condition, the impact would be considered less than significant. The City's Utilities Department will work with the Parks and Recreation division to ensure coordination of construction activities to minimize loss of parking at the Mayfield Soccer Fields. Construction of the proposed pump station at the R WQCP would create a temporary parking demand for construction workers and construction vehicles at the plant. The RWQCP has an existing staging area with sufficient parking spaces for construction projects. Through development of the traffic control plan, the construction contractor would establish methods for minimizing construction effects on parking. Specific requirements that may be included in the traffic control plan are identified in the Project Description. Implementation of the traffic control plan would ensure potential impacts associated with potential temporary displacement of parking would less than significant. There are several schools in the vicinity of the Project. These areas will be looked at more closely to determine whether the traffic control plan is appropriate or if additional measures are needed specific to school areas. g) Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not cause a demand for alternative transportation. In addition, the proposed Project would have no long-term impact on alternative transportation facilities. Construction could temporarily impact buses accessing bus stops along the proposed construction corridor. Bus stops would be temporarily moved and signs would be posted at the temporary bus stops. This could result in an impact to ort- street parking as several spots could become the 'new' temporary bus stop. However, given the proposed rate of new pipe installation, impacts to alternative transportation would be relatively brief at anyone location along the alignment. h-m) Less-than-Significant Impact. As stated in checklist item a,b) above, traffic-generating construction activities related to pipeline installation would consist of the daily arrival and departure of construction workers to the work site; trucks hauling equipment and materials to the work site daily; and the hauling of excavated spoils from, and import of new fill to, each work site. Each pipeline construction crew would consist of an estimated 10 workers. Construction equipment used for pipeline construction would include backhoes, front-end loaders, dump trucks, flatbed delivery trucks, cranes, compactors, concrete trucks, and paving equipment. Based on the estimated crew size, and assuming some overlap in construction activities at the work site, construction worker trips traveling to and from the work site are not anticipated to exceed 10 round trips (20 one-way trips) per day. The total number of off- site construction truck trips would be approximately 22 round trips (44 one-way trips) per work day. These additional trips include material (pipes) delivery approximately twice a week, fuel shipments once a day, and maintenance trucks that would come by once a week. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 91 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration This would not be substantial relative to background traffic conditions. Project-generated trips would fall within the daily fluctuations of traffic volumes for nearby roadways. Therefore, this short-term increase in vehicle trips would not significantly affect level of service and traffic flow on roadways. The Project would affect roadway segments and intersections on the pipeline alignment during construction. Limiting construction to off-peak times and implementing a traffic control plan, which is described in the Project Description, would ensure that traffic impacts are less than significant. There are several schools in the vicinity of the Project. These areas will be looked at more closely to determine whether the Traffic Control Plan is appropriate or if additional measures are needed specific to school areas. Refer to checklist item a,b) for additional discussion. n) Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not impede the development or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities. The proposed Project would have temporary effects due to lane closures during construction which could result in detours for pedestrian and bicycle flow and use of temporary facilities in the vicinity of the Project during the construction period. Through the development of the traffic control plan, the contractor will establish methods for maintaining pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the Project vicinity and minimizing disruption to these facilities along the construction route. Implementation the Traffic Control Plan would also ensure potential impacts associated with temporary effects on planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities would be less than significant. There are several schools in the vicinity of the Project. These areas will be looked at more closely to determine whether the Traffic Control Plan is appropriate or if additional measures are needed specific to pedestrian and bicycle facilities near school areas. 0) Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed Project would have no long-term impact on operation of a transit system as a result of congestion. Construction could temporarily impact buses accessing bus stops along the proposed construction corridor. Bus stops would be temporarily moved and signs will be posted at the temporary bus stops. This could result in an impact to on-street parking as several spots could become the 'new' temporary bus stop. However, given the proposed rate of new pipe installation, impacts to alternative transportation would be relatively brief at anyone location along the alignment. p) No Impact. The proposed Project would not increase safety risks. Mitigation Measures: With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, potential temporary impacts are considered to be less than significant. TRA-l: Return Roads to Pre-construction Condition. Following construction, the City shall ensure that road surfaces that are damaged during construction are returned to their pre-construction condition or better. TRA-2: Detours. During construction, the City shall use detour signing for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians on alternate access streets when temporary full street closure is required. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 92 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than I No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact : Mitigation Incorporated a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality 1,4,45 ../ Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or ../ expansion of existing facilities, the 1,4,45 construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new ../ storm water drainage facilities or expansion 1,4,45 of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements 1,4,45 ../ and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may 1,4,45 ../ serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider'S existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the 1 ../ project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes 1 and regulations related to solid waste? ../ h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration 1 of a public facility due to increased use as a ../ result of the project? DISCUSSION: Project operation would not result in any exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements, since the use of recycled water would be in accordance with Title 22 and the RWQCB-issued NPDES permit. The project would include construction of an underground pump station at the Mayfield Soccer Fields site and a pump station at the RWQCP, but would not increase the need for additional off-site storm water drainage facilities. No wastewater would be generated, so no impacts would occur concerning the regional wastewater treatment facilities. No long-term waste generation would be associated with the Project, and the construction contractor would be required to comply with all pertinent regulations regarding the disposal of solid waste. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 93 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration . a) No Impact. The Project is limited to construction and operation of a recycled water pipeline, an associated booster pump station, and a pump station at the RWQCP. Pipeline and pump station operation and use of recycled water would be in accordance with Title 22 and the RWQCB-issued NPDES permit. Waste Discharge Requirements for use of recycled water would detail any wastewater treatment and monitoring requirements held by the RWQCP. Therefore, Project implementation would not result in any exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements. b) No Impact. The proposed Project consists of distribution pipelines, an associated booster pump station, and a pump station at the RWQCP. The Project is proposed in order to provide for the beneficial use of recycled water within the City of Palo Alto and provides benefits to both wastewater and water resources management, through provision of a disposal mechanism and providing a reliable irrigation supply source. c) Less-than-Significant Impact. Ground cover above distribution pipelines would be restored to prior existing conditions. In addition, the use and amount of irrigation water would not increase due to change in source of water. Therefore, the Project would not increase the need for additional off-site storm water drainage facilities. d) No Impact. The Project does not require entitlements; therefore, no impacts would occur. e) No Impact. The proposed Project is limited to distribution facilities and associated pump stations and would not generate wastewater for treatment. Therefore, no adverse effects on the regional wastewater treatment facilities are anticipated f) No Impact. Solid waste generation would be limited to construction activities, and would not affect available solid waste disposal capacity in the region. No long-term solid waste generation would be associated with the Project. g) No Impact. The contractor would be required to comply with all pertinent regulations regarding the disposal of solid waste generated by construction activities; therefore, no impacts would occur. h) No Impact. The proposed Project would not result in a substantial physical deterioration of a public facility due to increased use. The proposed Project is limited to distribution facilities and associated pump stations and would not add significant use to a public facility. Therefore, no impacts would occur, Mitigation Measures: None Required Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 94 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, ../ substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or 1,2, 7, 18 wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively ../ considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" 1,4, 7, 18, means that the incremental effects of a 45,49 project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects 4,45,49 which will cause substantial adverse effects ../ on human beings, either directly or indirectly? DISCUSSION: a) Less-than-Significant Impact. During construction activities, the proposed project has the potential to adversely affect the environmental resources in the vicinity of the project However, all potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with the mitigation measures included as part of this Initial Study. The reduction of discharge would have a beneficial impact on the South Bay. b) Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed Project involves the installation of a recycled water pipeline to serve existing irrigation needs at parks, schools and businesses. Recycled water would also be used for dust control. The proposed Project would contribute to cumulative impacts in conjunction with other projects in the area but these impacts would not be significant. The Master Plan EIR evaluated multiple phases the recycled water program. Temporary (construction-related) impacts to water quality, air quality, traffic, and noise would be mitigated through construction BMPs to prevent storm water runoff, excessive noise and air emissions, and traffic delays. Also, projects in the area would not be constructed in the same time period, which would also minimize impacts. Proposed alignments were identified based upon available roadway routes, and would not result in a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations or low-income popUlations. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 95 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration The proposed Project would impact traffic along the pipeline alignment during the construction period. Other projects within the City in the project area could have a cumulative effect on traffic. The contribution to traffic from the proposed project would not be considerable. Global Climate Change Less-than Significant-Impact. The potential effect of greenhouse gas CGHG) emissions 18 on global climate change is an emerging issue that warrants discussion under CEQA. Unlike the pollutants discussed in the Air Quality section that may have regional and local effects, GHGs have the potential to cause global changes in the environment. In addition, GHG emissions do not directly produce a localized impact, but may cause an indirect impact if the local climate is adversely changed by its cumulative contribution to a change in global climate. Individual projects contribute relatively small amounts of GHGs that when added to all other greenhouse gas producing activities around the world result in increases in these emissions that have led many to conclude is changing the global climate. However, no threshold has yet been established for what would constitute a cumulatively considerable increase in GHGs for individual development projects. The State of California has taken several actions that help to address potential global climate change impacts. Although not originally intended to reduce GHG emissions, California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 6: California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, was first established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 describes how global climate change will impact the environment in California. The impacts described in AB 32 include changing sea levels, changes in snow pack and availability of potable water, changes in storm flows and flood inundation zones, and other impacts. The list of impacts included in AB 32 may be considered substantial evidence of environmental impacts requiring analysis in CEQA documents. AB 32 focuses on reducing GHG emissions in California. The GHG emissions reductions found in AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05, signed in June 2005, are consistent with the climate stabilization models produced by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These climate stabilization models show that if GHG emissions are reduced to the levels shown in Executive Order 8-3-05, the climate will stabilize at approximately a 2 degree Celsius rise, ave11ing the worst impacts associated with global climate change. GHG as defined under AB 32 include: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. AB 32 requires the California Air Resources Board (ARB), the State agency charged with regulating statewide air quality, to adopt rules and regulations that would achieve GHG emissions equivalent to statewide levels in 1990 by 2020. In June 2008, the California's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issued an interim Technical Advisory on the role of CEQA in addressing climate change and GHGs. As part of the advisory, OPR asked ARB staff to recommend a method for setting statewide thresholds of significance for GHG emissions, to encourage consistency and uniformity in the CEQA analysis for GHG emissions throughout the state. ARB is currently developing recommended 18 GHGs as defined under AB 32 include: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 96 Initial StudyfMitigated Negative Declaration statewide interim thresholds of significance for GHGs that may be adopted by local agencies for their own use. On October 24, 2008, ARB released the Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal on the Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act. The proposal, which is currently undergoing public review, focuses on common project types that, collectively, are responsible for substantial GHG emissions -specifically, industrial, residential, and commercial projects. The report proposes a quantitative threshold of 7,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year (MTC02e/year) for operational emissions (excluding transportation) associated with industrial projects, and performance standards for construction and transportation emissions. ARB staff intends to make its final recommendations on thresholds in 2009, but currently no quantitative, significant criterion has been adopted for determining impact significance. According to the OPR interim. Technical Advisory, in the absence of clearly defined thresholds for GHG emissions, CEQA requires that lead agencies disclose and mitigate such emissions to the extent feasible whenever the lead agency determines that the project contributes to a significant, cumulative climate change impact. The advisory recommends identifying and quantifying, to the extent possible, GHG emissions, assessing the significance of the impact, and identifying alternatives or mitigation measures to reduce impact significance, as appropriate. In the absence of adopted significance thresholds for GHG emissions, the following discussion is provided to disclose the potential effects of the proposed Project (from both construction and operation) on global climate change. The Project would generate GHGs during construction and ongoing operations. During construction, the operation of heavy construction equipment during trenching and pipeline installation would be the primary source of GHGs. However, these emissions would in effect be temporary and would cease upon completion of construction. For that reason and given the relatively small-scale of construction, the Project is not expected to result in a net increase in GHG emissions that would significantly delay or hinder the State's ability to meet the reduction targets contained in California Governor's Executive Order S-3-05 and the impact is considered less than significant. However, given that ARB is currently recommending mandatory performance standards for construction activities, the Project will include the following measures that will help reduce the Project's GHG emissions: • The contractor shall reduce emissions through any of the following options or others that achieve reduction in overall emissions: use late-model engines, low-emission diesel products or alternative fuels (e.g., Lubrizol, Puri NOx, biodisel fuel) in all heavy duty off-road equipment. • The contractor shall minimize idling time to 10 minutes for all heavy-duty equipment when not engaged in work activities, including on-road haul trucks while being loaded or unloaded onsite. • A City-approved Solid Waste Diversion and Recycling Plan (or such other documentation to the satisfaction of the City) will be in place prior to project construction. The Plan shall demonstrate the diversion from landfills and recycling of all nonhazardous, salvageable and re-useable wood, metal, plastic and paper products during construction and demolition activities. The Plan or other documentation shall include the name of the waste hauler, their assumed destination for all waste and recycled materials, and the procedures that will be followed to ensure implementation of this measure. Following construction and with commencement of recycled water deliveries, the Project's operation is expected to generate minor quantities of GHG emissions over the long-term. The primary sources of GHG emissions would be associated with periodic vehicle trips for Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 97 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration maintenance and new electrical load associated with operation of the pump stations. Assuming the most-conservative operational scenario in which the pumping stations are operated 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, the calculated GHG emissions would be approximately 1240 MTC02e/year19, less than the interim thresholds for industrial projects proposed by ARB. Further, ongoing operations and maintenance vehicle trips would generate negligible GHG emissions and are not expected to deviate from baseline conditions. The operation of the pump stations is estimated to have a net electric usage increase over current pumping operations for potable water delivery to the future recycled water customers. However, the electric load associated with the Project would take power from the City of Palo Alto electric utility (CPAU). Although electricity usage could increase as a result of project use, CPAU has made a significant commitment to purchase renewable "green" energy supplies and expects that the recycled water system would benefit from current efforts to increase supplies from resources with reduced GHG footprints. The Project could also subscribe to a CPAU commercial green pricing rate schedule so that there is no cumulative GHG increase contribution from the Project20• From a regional and statewide perspective, recycled water projects offer flexibility in reducing the need to pump potable water from distant locations for local deliveries. Considering the nexus between energy use and water delivery in California, recycled water projects could play an increasing role in future attempts to reduce both GHG emissions and energy consumption associated with any additional water deliveries. Given the overwhelming scope of global climate change, it is not anticipated that a single development project would have an individually discernable effect on global climate change (e.g., that any increase in global temperature or rise in sea level could be attributed to the emissions resulting from one single development project). Rather, it is more appropriate to conclude that the GHG emissions generated by the proposed Project would combine with emissions across the state, nation, and globe to cumulatively contribute to global climate change. In an effort to make a good faith effort at disclosing environmental impacts and to conform with the CEQA Guidelines [§16064(b)], it is the City's position that, based on the nature and size of this project, the proposed Project would not impede the state's ability to reach the emission reduction limits/standards set forth by the State of California by Executive Order S- 3-05 and AB 32. For these reasons, this Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change associated with GHG emissions. As such, impacts are considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Required 19 The calculations are based on emission factors derived from the California Climate Action Registry PowerfUtility Protocol Public Reports (as of June 2008) and the Emissions from California Air Resources Board, Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 1990 2004 (November l7,2007). The emissions factors are based on PG&E's utility specific verified electricity C02 Emissions factors for 2004. These calculations, presented in Appendix B, are estimates of expected project emissions from the new pump station operation only, including carbon dioxide and methane generation, the combination of which are representative ofGHG emissions. 20 Palo Alto Green is a voluntary renewable energy program that allows customers to offset their energy use by paying a premium on their utility bill. The money is collected by the City to buy Renewable Energy Credits which in turn fund renewable energy projects statewide. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 98 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Report Preparation Report Authors Table 6: IS/MND Authors Authors Role I Backuroulld Y cars RMC Water and Environment 222 Sutter Street, Suite 700 San Francisco,CA 94108 Mike Matson, P .E. Senior Technical Advisor BS, Civil Engineering, University of Cali~()I"l'1il;l, Berkeley 22 . ........... , .... . Helene Kubler, P.E. Erin Bibeau Kevin P.E. Robin Cort Leslie Dumas, P.E. Suet Chau Proj ect Manager, QA/QC Environmental Lead J.>r()J~ct Engineer , Technical Review , Hydrology and Water Quality, Traffic Environmental Planner Ch~topher~~ . ..J{)~~epltand Associates Aindrea Jensen William Self Associates Eric Strother Cultural Resources Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 99 , BS, Environmental Engineering, Toulouse, France MS, Environmental Engineering, Stallford Universi!)" California 7 , BA, Environmental Policy, Colby College MES, Masters in Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa B~b~a 8 BS, Civil Engineering, University of Virginia MS, Environmental Engineering, Universi!y()fCaliforniGl'I3~rkeley 3 BS, Biology, Stetson University Ph.D., Ecology, State University of New York at Stony Brook , BS, Civil Engineering, Virginia . Polytechnic Institute and State University MS, Civil Engineering, University of California,I3erkeley BA, Environmental Science, University of California,fjerkeley BS Wildlife Management, Humbold! State Universi!y ... ~~~,.~~. , BA, Anthropology, California State University, Chico MA, Anthropology, California State Universi , Ha ward 25 21 11 7 10 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration SOURCE REFERENCES 1. Project Team's knowledge of the site and the proposed project 2. City of Palo Alto. 2007. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. July 17,2007. 3. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 -Zoning Ordinance 4. Environmental Science Associates. 2003. Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant Recycled Water Pipeline Project Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prepared for the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant. October 2003. 5. California Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Internet website: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/index.htm. Accessed on December 3, 2006. 6. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Assessing the Impacts of Projects and Plans, December 1999. Internet website: http://www.baaqmd.gov/plnlceqalceqa_guide.pdf. Accessed on December 2, 2006. 7. Field reconnaissance conducted by a biologist from Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, September 19,2007 8. California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG). 2007. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Rarefind [CD-ROM], Wildlife Habitat Data Analysis Branch, California Department ofFish and Game. Sacramento: California. 9. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). August 16,2007. Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that Occur in or May be Affected by Projects in the Palo Alto (428B) USGS 7.5 Y:z Minute Quad. Sacramento (CA): Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. Accessed on September 13,2007 from http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/ssp lists. 10. Bartens, Debra. December 5, 2006. Personal Communication with Debra Bartens, Palo Alto Baylands Preserve. Phone conversation with Aindrea Jensen. 11. Bousman, W. G. 2005. A Checklist of the Birds of Santa Clara County, California. Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society. April 2005. 12. Browning, James. September 1,2006. Personal Communication James Browning, Biologist, USFWS. Phone conversation with Aindrea Jensen. 13. Bulger, J. B., Norman J. Scott Jr., and Richard B. Seymour. 2002. Terrestrial activity and conservation of adult California red-Ieggedfrogs Rana aurora draytonii in coastalforests and grasslands. Biological Conservation 110(2003) 85-95. 14. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2007. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v7- 07c). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento. Accessed on September 13,2007 from http://cnps.orglinventory. 15. Evens,J. 1999/2000. Mystery of the marsh: the California black rail. TidelineVoI19No.41-3. Available from http://www.fws.gov/desfbay/ArchiveslRail/BlackRail.htm. 16. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. viii + 173 pp. 17. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Draft Survey Protocol: California Clapper Rail (Rallus longistrostris obsoletus ). 18. Field reconnaissance conducted by William Self Associates Senior Archaeologist, Eric Strother, M.A., RPA., September 17, 2007 Palo Alto Recycled Water Page 100 lVlH,'l:S'''!OU N,,,,,,tivp Declaration 19. California State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). 2006 Historic Property Directory. Data File for Santa Clara County, September 18, 2006, page 38. California Department of Parks and Recreation. 20. California State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). 1976. California Inventory of Historic Resources. California Department of Parks and Recreation. 21. California State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). 1989. Survey of Surveys. California Department of Parks and Recreation. 22. California State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). 1990 California Historical Landmarks. California Department of Parks and Recreation. 23. California State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). 1992 Caltfornia Points of Historical Interest. California Department of Parks and Recreation. 24. California State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). 2006. California Register of Historical Resources. California Department of Parks and Recreation. 25. Kroeber, A. L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology of the Smithsonian Institution. Bulletin 78, Washington. 26. Kyle, D.E. 1990. Historic Spots in California, 4th Edition. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, Ca. 27. Letter from the Native American Heritage Commission, August 31, 2007. 28. Levy, R. S. 1978a. Costanoan. In Handbook of North American Indians, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 485-495. vol. 8: California, W. C. Sturveyant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 29. Levy, R. S. 1978b. Eastern Miwok In Handbook of North American Indians, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 398- 413. vol. 8: California, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 30. Moratto, M. J. 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. 31. National Park Service. 2006. National Register of Historic Places. Washington, DC. 32. Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System. 2006. Cultural Resource Record Search (File No. 06-335). Requested by William Self Associates, Inc., Orinda, California, October 23,2006. 33. Fredrickson, D. A. 1973. Spatial and Cultural Units in Central California Archaeology. In Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California: Essays by James A. Bennyhoff and David A. Fredrickson, edited by R. Hughes, Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research F aGility 15. Berkeley. 34. Toulouse, Julian Harrison. 1971. Boule Makers and Their Marks. Thomas Nelson Inc., New York. 35. General Land Office Plat Map (GLO). 1883. T55 R2W Mount Diablo Base Meridian. Rancho Rinconada del Arroyo de San Francisquito Plat Map 36. General Land Office Plat Map (GLO). 1861. Confirmed to Heirs of Maria Antonia Mesa. 37. Thompson and West. 1876. Historical Atlas Map of Santa Clara County, California. San Francisco. United States Geologic Survey (USGS) 38. Thompson and West. 1899. Palo Alto Quadrangle Topographic Map (reprinted in 1906). 39. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Page 101 Initial StUidy/lVlitiigatled Negative Declaration 40. Hart, E.W. and Bryant, W.A. Fault-rupture hazard zones in California: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 1997 (revised). Internet website: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmglpubs/sp/SP42.pdf. Accessed on December 3, 2006. 41. California Department of Conservation California Geological Survey. Seismic Hazard Zones -Mountain View Quadrangle. Official Map Released: October 18, 2006. Accessed on-line at http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmplhtml/pdCmaps_no.html on December 3,2006. 42. Required compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBq Standards for Seismic Safety and Windload 43. California Department of Toxic Substances Control. DTSC's Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List). Internet website: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm. Accessed on December 3, 2006. 44. Palo Alto Airport Master Plan Report, December 2006 45. RMC Water and Environment. Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant Disinfection Facility Plan Report. June 2007. Prepared for the City of Palo Alto. 46. Stinson, M. C., M. W. Manson, J. J. Plappert. Mineral Land Classification Map: Aggregate Resources Only- Alameda and Santa Clara Counties. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1982. 47. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Noisefrom Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. December 1971. 48. CH2MHill, Inc. "Final Environmental Impact Report Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant Wastewater Reclamation Program." April 1995. 49. RMC Water and Environment. 2004. "Final Report Mountain View/Moffett Field Area Water Reuse Project, Regional Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study." State Water Resources Control Board Water Recycling Project No. 3212-010. Prepared for Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant. March 2004. 50. RMC Water and Environment. 2006. City of Palo Alto -Recycled Water Market Survey Report Final Report. July 2006. 51. HortScience, Inc. Evaluation of Use of Recycled Water on Redwoods in the Mountain View I Moffett Area. January 2005. 52. City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. Tree Technical Manual, City of Palo Alto Standards & Specifications, Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8.10.030. June 2001. 53. Dockter, Dave. City of Palo Alto Arborist/Landscape Advisor. Personal Consultation. January 2009. 54. Oster, -J.D. Irrigation with Recycled Water in Santa Clara County: Limitations and Potentials, 2009. 55. Barnes, Corey S., L.R. Oki, and R.Y. Evans. Determining the Tolerance of Coast Redwood, Sequoia Sempervirens 'Aptos Blue' to Sodium and Chloride, 2007. 56. Beaudette, B.M. and M.J. Singer, Evaluation of Local Soils for Susceptibility to Structural Degradation from Irrigation, 2007. 57. William Self Associates, Cultural Resources section for the Palo Alto Recycled Water Facility Project ISIMND. March 2009. Palo Alto Recycled Water Page 102 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration APPENDIX A POTENTIAL FUTURE USERS Palo Alto Recycled Water Facility Plan Demand Analysis Potential Customer Location Alta Mesa Memorial Park 695 Arastradero Rd f"=---Roche Bioscience 3431 Hillview Ave Hewlett Packard 3000 Hanover St Agilent Technologies 3500 Deer Creek Rd VA Palo Alto Health Care 3801 Miranda Ave ~bberley Community Center 4000 Middlefield Rd Hewlett Packard 1501 Page Mill Rd VM Ware (formerly Stanford & Hines) 3401 Hillview Ave Gunn Senior High School 780 Arastradero Rd Mitchell Park 600 E. Meadow Dr DPIX 3406 Hillview Ave Clark Park Old Trace Road Terman Park 655 Arastradero Rd Genencor International, Inc 925 Page Mill Rd CPI 811 Hansen Way Lockheed Missiles & Space 3251 Hanover St Varian, Inc. 3120 Hansen Wy Stanford & Hines Interest 6()O Hansen Way Equity Office Properties 4001 Miranda Ave Stanford & Hines Interest 925 Page Mill Rd Dow Jones & Co 901 California Ave EPRI 3420 Hillview Ave Hoover Park 2901 Cowper St Beckman Instruments 1050 Page Mill Rd Palo Alto Research Center 3333 Coyote Hill Rd Robles Park 4116 Park Blvd F=>age Mill Rd Prop, Inc 1801 Page Mill Rd SAP Labs, Inc 3410 Hillview Ave Wilson/S/G/R 650 Page Mill Rd Tibco Software Inc 3301 Hillview Ave ,- Primary Type of Use irrigation irrigation, commercial irrigation, commercial irrigation irrigation irrigation irrigation, commercial irrigation irrigation irrigation irrigation, commercial irrigation irrigation irrigation irrigation_ irrigation commercial irrigation irrigation irrigation irrigation jrriQation irrigation irrigation irrigation irrigation irrigation irrigation irrigation irrigation Annual Average Demand On-Site Retrofit I Irrigation Annual Estimate System Conversion Demand (AFY) (MGD) Required 92.9 0.083 Yes 76.7 0.068 Yes --- 58.8 0.052 Yes -----40.5 0.036 Yes 37.7 0.034 Yes 29.4 0.026 Yes 29.2 0.026 Yes ----~------ 29.2 0.026 Yes 26.1 0.023 Yes ~_.25.7 0.023 Yes -21.0 0.019 Yes 20.0 0.018 Yes 19.9 0.018 Yes 19.2 0.017 Yes 18.5 0.016 Yes 15.3 0.014 Yes --- 13.8 0.012 Yes 13.6 0.012 Yes 13.3 0.012 Yes 12.8 0.011 Yes 12.7 0.011 Yes .. -J 12.7 ---0.011 Yes 12.6 0.011 Yes --- 12.2 0.011 Yes - 11.8 0.011 Yes 11.5 0.010 Yes 11.3 0.010 Yes -_.-------- 11.2 0.010 Yes -------10.9 0.010 Yes 10.4 0.009 Yes Stanford Hospital and Clinics -------~~ Yes 2670 Hanover St irrigation 9.6 0.009 -~ ~-~ Palo Alto Square 3000 EI Camino Real irrigation 9.1 0.008 Yes Agilent Technologies 1601 California Ave irrigation 8.6 .~~~ O.OOB Yes ----~ Yes DNAX Research Institute 901 S. California Ave. irrigation B.3 0.007 Ramos Park 800 E. Meadow Dr irrigation I ~- 7.6 0.007 IYes SAP Labs, Inc 3473 Deer Creek Rd irrigation 7.4 0.007 Yes Jane L Stanford Middle School 480 E. Meadow Dr irrigati()rl 7.3 0.007 Yes ----.- Xerox COIP 3400 Hillview Ave ir~igation 7.2 0.006 Yes Alza 1501 California Ave irrigation, commercial 6.6 0.006 Yes .- Page Mill Center 1530 Page Mill Rd irrigation 6.6 0.006 Yes f-----'" ~ ~~~~ ----~ Carramerica Reality Corp 3075 Hansen Wy irrigation 6.4 0.006 Yes Lockheed Missiles & Space 3176 Porter Dr irrigation 6.3 0.006 Yes EI Carmelo Elementary School 3024 Bryant St irrigation 6.2 0.006 Yes ()ur Lady of the Rosary School/Church 3290 Middlefield Rd irrigation 6.2 0.006 Yes Wilson/S/G/R 950 P§lg~ Mill Rd inrigCition 6.1 0.005 Yes ~ .. Matadero Creek 3172 Porter Dr irrigation 5.6 0.005 Yes ~-~ ~c CV Therapeutics, Inc. 1651 Page Mill Rd irrigation 5.1 0.005 Yes 495 Java Drive Assoc 1001 Page Mill Rd irrigation, commercial 5.0 0.004 Yes ------- Marcus & Millichap, Inc. 777 California Ave irrigation 5.0 0.004 Yes Trinet Essential 1661 Page Mill Rd irrigation 4.6 0.004 Yes ---- Pkwy Ore/Pg Mill 16~0 Page Mill Rd irrigation 4.3 0.004 Yes 340 Portage Housing 340 Portage irrigation 4.2 0.004 Yes Jane L Stanford Middle School 500 E. Meadow Dr irrigation 4.1 0.004 Yes EPRI 3412 Hillview Ave irrigation 4.0 0.004 Yes ~-~ Stanford & Hines Interest 3150 Porter Dr irrigation 3.6 0.003 Yes ~;~ C& J Management 3165 Porter Dr irrigation 3.3 0.003 Yes Stanford & Hines Interest 3421 Hillvew Ave irrigation 3.1 0.003 Yes U!liversity Club of PA 3277 Miranda Ave irrigation 3.0 0.003 Yes Cameron Park 2101 Wellesley St irrigation 2.9 -0.003 Ye~_ - Mozart Development 3300 Hillview Ave irrigation 2.B 0.003 Yes Stanford Hospital and Clinics 2690 Hanover St ir~igation 2.B 0.002 Yes Varian Medical Systems -~-~ 3100 Hansen Wy irrigation 2.6 0.002 Yes Foothills Club 3351 Miranda Ave irrigation 2.6 0.002 Yes Stanford & Hines Interest 3170 Porter Dr irrigation 2.4 0.002 Yes Simpson Thacher & Bartlet 3330 Hillview Ave irrigation 2.3 0.002 Yes ~-~ ~-~ ECI Deer Creek LLC 3408 Hillview Ave irrigation 2.3 0.002 Yes !iV:E3ops.com Inc 3340 Hillview Ave irrigation ----_ ~.:3_ ~ _~O.OO~ _ Yes ~~--... -.---~--~---.. -- Paine Webber, Inc 775 Page Mill Rd irrigation 2.1 0.002 Yes .- Legato Systems 3210 Porter Dr ir£igation 2.0 0.002 Yes [Werry Park 2100 Dartmouth St irrigation 2.0 0.002 Yes Tibco Software Inc 4015 Miranda Ave irrigation 2.0 0.002 [Yes 'NYSE ._. 845 Page Mill Rd irrigation 1.9 0.002 Yes -_. Mitchell Park 3800 Middlefield Rd irrigation 1.9 0.002 Yes Hewlett Packard 3200 Hillview Ave irrigation 1.9 0.002 Yes Stanford & Hines Interest 3180 Porter Dr irrigation 1.8 0.002 Yes ECI Deer Creek LLC 3495 Deer Creek Rd irrigation 1.8 0.002 Yes -~ Weisshaar Park 2298 Dartmouth St irriga!ion 1.7 0.002 Yes ._. Fairmeadow Elementary School 490 E. Meadow Dr irrigation 1.6 0.001 Yes Pkwy Cal/Birch 2771 Birch St irrigation 1.6 0.001 Yes Hewlett Packard 3215 Hillview Ave irrigation 1.6 0.001 Yes CNF Transportation Inc 3240 Hillview Ave irrigation 1.6 0.001 Yes Cprognostics 900 Hansen Wy irrigation 1.5 0.001 Yes .. Wilson/S/G/R 601 California Ave irrigation 1.5 0.001 Yes l=Tr1negan, Henderson LLP •.. .-_ .. _- 700 Hansen Way irrigation 1.5 0.001 Yes Nanosys, Inc 2625 Hanover St irrigation 1.4 0.001 Yes -=-----:--. Parkway 370 Grant Ave irrigation 1.4 0.001 Yes ~ 850 Assoc C/O WSJ Prop 850 Hansen Wy irrigation 1.2 0.001 Yes Mayfield Park 2302 Wellesley St irrigation 1.0 0.001 Yes VMWare Inc 3305 Hillview Ave irrigation 1.0 0.001 Yes ~. Parks Dept 900 Arastradero Rd irrigatiol'l 0.8 0.001 Yes - Cooley Godward LLP 3175 Hanover St irrigation 0.8 0.001 IYes r-:,-' 1290 Page Mill Rd irrigation 0.7 0.001 Yes Carten -Trust Tibco Software Inc 3303 Hillview Ave irrigation 0.7 0.001 IYes f---.. -- Mitchell Park Library 3700 Middlefield Rd irrigation 0.7 0.001 Yes Fire Station 2675 Hanover St irrigation 0.7 0.001 1)'1 _~ - 1101 E Meadow Housing 1101 E. Meadow Dr irrigation 0.6 0.001 Yes 2450-2500 EI Camino Housing 2450 EI Camino Real irrigatLon 0.6 0.001 IYes ._. Wilson/S/G/R 975 Page Mill Rd irrigation 0.6 0.000 Yes f---. ---- Pkwy Cal/Birch 480 California Ave irrigation 0.5 0.000 IYes ~~ldPark 2300 Wellesley St irrigation 0.5 0.000 Yes Marcus & Millichap, Inc. 2626 Hanover St irrigation 0.5 0.000 Yes _. ~rian Medical Systems 3450 Hillview Ave irrigation 0.5 0.000 Yes Pkwy Aras 1055 Arastradero Rd irrigation 0.5 0.000 Yes rpkwy Ore/Pg Mill ._. 130 Sheridan Ave irrigation _~4-__ .JLOQL_ .'fe_s _. _____ . ___ -~""---------... ~ Tibco Software Inc 3307 Hillview Ave irrigation 0.4 0.000 Yes ----- Stanford Univ 1454 Page_Mill Rd irrigation 0.4 0.000 Yes Pkwy EI Camino 3101 EI Camino Real irrigation 0.4 0.000 Yes Wells Fargo Bank, NA 505 California Ave irrigation 0.3 0.000 Yes .----- Fire Station 3600 Middlefield Rd irrigation O.~ 0.000 Yes RWI Group 835 Page Mill Rd irrigation 0.3 0.000 Yes ~ .. 94.0 E Meadow Housing 940 E. Meadow Dr irri9~tiol1 0.3 0.000 Yes 2701 EI Camino housing 2701 EI Camino Real irrigation 0.3 0.000 Yes Pkwy Cal/Birch 2600 Birch St irrigation 0.3 0.000 Yes Equity Office Properties 4005 Miranda Ave irrigation 0.2 0.000 Yes ---- Pennie & Edmonds LLP 3300 Hillview Ave irrigation 0.2 0.000 Yes City of Palo Alto 475 Cambridge Ave irrigation 1~0.2 0.000 Yes R R Donnelley Financial 855 California Ave irrigation 0.2 0.000 Yes Nanosys, Inc 2627 Hanover St irri9~tion 0.2 0.000 Yes I-c-.. Pkwy Alma/Fairmdw 3615 Alma St irrigation 0.2 0.000 Yes ~.--2400 Hanover St _0:2 Yes Avery Construction irrigation 0.000 ----P~wy EI Camino 2501 EI Camino Real irrigation 0.2_ 0.000 Yes I:l~wy Park Blvd 3490 Park Blvd irrigation 0.1 0.000 Yes Pkwy Cal/Birch 394 California Ave irrigation 0.1 0.000 Yes Substation 1151 E. Meadow Dr irrigation 0.1 0.000 Y, -----a.aoo--Dow Jones & Co 1701 Page Mill Rd irrigation 0.1 Yes Pkwy Cal/Birch 444 California Ave irrigCition 0.1 0.000 Yes .- Substation 3297 Park Blvd irrigation 0.1 0.000 Yes Parkway 3360 Park Blvd irrigation 0.0 0.000 Yes Substation 3620 Middlefield Rd irrigation 0.0 0.000 Yes Substation 800 Hansen Way irrigation 0.0 0.000 Yes _.. . 3625 Alma St irrigation 0.0 0.000 Yes Pkwy Alma/Falrmdw i-0.000 .. - Varian Medical Systems 3075 Hansen Wy irrigation 0.0 Yes Space Systems Loral 3825 Fabian Way commercial 0.0 0.000 Yes ----- 1451-1601 California Housing 1451 California commercial 0.0 0.000 Yes 969 0.86 This page left intentionally blank APPENDIX B EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS RMe Project: Aspect: Estimate T Constants Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Air Quality Calculations Level Total Volume of Excavation/Disturbance Total Area of Excavation/Distrubance Mont"s, construction Days, ccnstruction 979,230 ftA3 173,230 ftA2 11.8 354 olume 36.268 CY 3.98 ae Djstrubed Emissions ractor Emissions per Emissions Emissions per Construction Equipment Emissions (ydA3) Igmlyd3) Emissions (kg) day (kg/day) (Ibs) day (lbs/day) Heali)' and Ught Duty Construction Equipment PM 10 CO ROG NOx SOx 35601 2.2 35601 138 35601 9.2 35601 42,4 35601 4.6 Area of Excavation! Length of 78 0.22 173 4913 13.88 10831 328 0.93 722 1509 4.26 3328 164 0.46 381 Disturbance Disturbance Emissions Emissions Emissions Exposed Soil Emissions (ac) (days) (Ibs/ae/day) (Ibs/day) (Ibs) PM 10 due -to ConstruetiOriActivities 51 Ibs per acre per day 3.98 354 51 203 71600 This conservatively assumes that the entire area of excavation is exposed all at once Average 0.49 30.60 2.04 9,40 1.02 Gallons of Average Average Annual Average Fuel Burned EmiSSions factor Annuat El'nissions per Emissions Emissions per Emissions due to operation (gal) (gm/gal) Emissions (kg) <lay (kg/day) (Ibs) day (Ibslday) Backup Power Generator for booster pump station PM 10 CO ROG NOx SOx Booster pump station assumptions: hours use per yea r gallons per hour gallons per year 413012008 10: 39 AM Cales based on assumptions below and Reali)' andT[gfi[ Duly Construction Equipment 359 8 2.9 0.01 6.3 359 511 183.2 0.50 404.0 359 34 12.2 0.03 26.9 359 157 56.3 0.15 124.1 359 17 6.1 0.02 13.4 22 16.3 358.6 hrs gallhr gallyr assume 2 days of use (2x8hrs) + monthly testing (12x.5hr) SD230-16T3 230kW John Deere Page 1 of 1 0.02 1.11 0.07 034 004 Date: February 26, 2008 Project Number. 0038-009 Prepared by: K. Smith BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1996 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1996 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1996 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1996 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1996 EPA standards from BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1996 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1996 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1996 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1996 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1996 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1996 AQ calcs Palo Alto RW Pump GHG Emissions New Pump Station 400 HP/hr = 298.28 KWh Total Annual KWh ::: Totallbs/C02/year= Total metric tons/C02/year= Totallbs/CH4/year ::: Total metric tons/CH4/year= Project Total MTC02e/yr Assumptions Pumps run via electrical grid 1 HP/hr = 0.7457 KWh 400 HP pump Operations assumed 24/7 0.5662 Ibs/C02 emitted per KWh 2,204.62 Ibs = 1 metric ton 0.000029 Ibs/CH4/KWh (2) Source(s): 2548504.32 1442963.146 654.5178516 73.90662528 0.033523521 1241.76302 WPCF Pump Improvements 350 HP/hr = 260.995 KWh Total Annual KWh = Totallbs/C02/year= Total metric tons/C02/year= Totallbs/CH4/year ::: Total metric tons/CH4/year::: (1) California Climate Action Registry Power/Utility Protocol Public Reports (as of June 2008). http://www.dimateregistry.org/CARROT/public/reports.aspx 2286316.2 1294512.232 587.1815698 66.3031698 0.030074648 (2) Emissions from California Air Resources Board, Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 1990 -2004 (November 17, 2007 version), available on line at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. Consumption data from California Energy Commission, http://www.energy.ca.gov This page left intentionally blank APPENDIX C BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 'cientific Nart1t.! CcmmonName canthomintha duttonii San Mateo thom~mint canthamintha lonceniola Santa Clara thorn~ming Ilium peninsuiare vaT. Franciscan onion msiru:kia /unaris Ibent·flowe",.! fiddleneck rctostaphy/os tmdersonii I Santa Cruz manzanira rCfostaphylw montartJensis 1 Montam manzanita Tabid Special~Sutus Plants Evaluated for Potentiai to Occur wlthin tbe Study Area. SensitivitvlRe2Ulatorv Statust Regulatory Status CllFG Sensitivity Rank CNllllB CNP FESA ! CESA I Global State List IB,II FE SU List42 List 18,2 05T2 S2.2 1 List IB,21 02 S2.2 1 List IB,21 G2 52? 1 List IB,21 G2 52,2 Genera) Habitat haparral, valley and foothill rasslandlserpentinite ismontane woodland, valley and foothill jgrasslandlclay. vo~canjc, often serpentinite ICoastal bluff scrub, cismonlllllc woodland, I valley and foothill grassland I ISroadlcafed upland forest, chaparral, North Coast coniferous forest/openings, edges IChaparrai (maritime), coastal scrub Blooming fuWl Apr-Jun Mar-Jun May-11m Mar~Jun I Nov-Apr Jan-Mar Elevation ~ 50-300 No 80-1200 No 100-300 Low 3-500 Low 60-730 No 150-500 No Dis("llssion pf Potential Although grassland habitat is present in thl.: vicinity ofthc ral off the southern cnd of the backbone alignment Avenue and at the location proposed for the racilitic! at the Regional Plant, San Mateo thorn~mint occurrence is belicvoo to be extitpate.d . The srudy area does not supp<>rt habita15 this species typically inhabits, southom IW' ,mm,w Avenue, this area appear, to (e,g., mowed. foot traffic) and the vegc:ta1lon predominanteiy non-natiw grasses and herbs. There arc no recorded occurrences of this species in the CNDDB within a ti mile radius of the pipeline alignment The study area does not support habitats this species typically inhabits. The study area docs not support habitats this specilJs typically inhabits. Additionally, the study area IS below the elevation range occupied by Montara manzanita. This species is known from only approximately 10 occurrences in San Mat4.."'O COUIlt); 1,2,3 2,3,4 I 1.2 ;ot.~ti'l fo~n isdentific Name ICommon Name Genera) Habitat Discussion of Potential Source' Occurrence CNPS The study area docs not support habila1s this species typically !Arctostaphylos regismonrana IKings Mountain manzanita I List IB.21 IBroadleafe<! upland for .. ~ chaparral. Northl I I linhabits. Additionally, the study area is below the devation G2 S2.2 Coast coniferous forestlgrnnitic or lan·Apr 305·730 No range occupied by this spec.i1w'S. The nearest recorded occurrenc~ 1,2.3 sandstone of Kings Mountain manzanIta in thl.; CNDOB to the pipdinc alignment is approximately fivt! miles to the northwcdt h the marshlands cast of the study area support po[~nti ~traga/us pycnostachyus var. I_SIal m.",h milk-vetch I List IB.21 ICoastai dunes (mesic). coastal scrub, I I habitat, the study an::a docs not support this habitat or other G21'2 S2.2 marshes and swamps (coastal salt, Apr-Oct 0-30 N. habitats coastal. marsh milk~veh;h typically inhabits. f)'Cnostochyus streamside.) Additionally, there are no l'\.."COrded occummces of this species theCNDDB Although there are OliO recordl.!d o«:ummce of alkali llulk~vetct ~stragalus tene!' var tenef' lalkaIj milk-vetch 1 List IB.21 Iplayas. valley and foothill grassland (adobel in the CNDDB that encompasses the study arc~ these GlT! SI.I Mar-Jun 0-60 Low OCCurrences are possibJ)' extirpatA;d, Also, the habitat within thd i. 2, 3, 4 clay), vernal pools/alkalIne study area included in the mappjng ofthes!! occurrences is mostly urban and/or rudcraJ, Although grassland habitat is prescnt at the location proposed fl the additional facilities at the Regional Plant, this area is fairly ~triplex depf'cssc/ Ibrittlcscale I List IB.21 IChenopod scrub. mcadows and seeps, I I Idisturbed ..,d the vegetation is limited 10 predominanlcly non- G2Q Sl.l playas. valley and foothill grassland. vernal May~Oc[ 1-320 No native grasses and herbs. Additionally, this species was not pools/alkaline, clay observed during the 2006 ficld survcy. There arc no recorded occummces ofthjs species in the CNDDB within a five mile: radius of the Regional Planl. Although grassland habitat is prescnt in the vicinity of the pipeline lateral off the southern ,--nd of thc backbone aiig on Hillview Avenue and at the ioca1:1on proPOSt,,'!l for the IChcnopod scrub. meado,,~ and ""'ps, I additional facilities at the R.:giooaJ Plant, San Joaquin spcarscaJ J.!triplex joaquiniana ISan Joaquin spearscale 1 UstlB.21 G2 S2.l playas. and valley and foothill Apr-Oct l·g35 N. is presumed extirpated in Santa Clam Count51. AdditjonaHy, thr.!1 1,2 grassland habitat in th.: study areaeithcr appli!ars to be frequent! disturbed (e,g., mowed, foot traffic) or is known to be (e.g., weed~\\lhacked. grazed), and the vcg~tation is limited to predominantcly non-native grasses and herbs. No alkalinli! Although grassland habitat is prr;:sent in the vicinity of the I pipeline lateral off the southern end of the backbonli! alignm>!lU I I on HilIvlew Avenue and atth~ location proposed forme Calochortus umbel/crus IOakland star·tulip I List4.2 I G3 S3.2 Mar~May 100-700 No additional facilities at the Regional Plant. this dther appears 10: • frequently disturbed (e.g" mowed. foot traffic) Of is known to b (e.g., weed~whacked. grazed), and the vegetation is limited to preciominanrely non-native grasses and herbs. No s.:rpcntinite soils/substrates are prus~nt at these locations eith.:;r, 'ompanula exigua Chaparral (rocky, .snally o:rpentinite) No The study areadOt."S not support habitats this species typical I) 2,5 inhabits. -~~ -----~~-~~ ~ ~~ ----- Sensitivin::/Re:uJatoD: Statu§l .'leiPAtine Nam. Common Name CDFG Sen.itivity Rank General Habitat Blooming ~ Potentia) for Discussion of PQtential ~ Regulatory Status CNDDB Period (meters) Occurrenc,? ;;.&5 FESA CESA Global State .. - Although there are multiple extant occurrences of Congdon's tarplant recorded in the CNDDB within five miles of the study area4 and grassland habitar is present in the vicinity of the pipeline :lateral offthc southern t!'nd of the backbone alignment on Hillview A\'cnue and at the location propoSi!d fur the Centromadia patryi ssp. congdonii Congdon's tarplant List IB.2 G4T3 53.2 Valley and foothill grns.land (alkaline) May-Oct 1·230 No additional facilities at the R£:gional Plant, this hab.itat either 1,2,3,4 (Nov) appears to be mquemiy disturbed {c.g .• mowed, foot traffic) or is known to be (e.g., wccd-v.'hacked, grazed), and the-vegetation is iimitl."d to predominantely non-nativl! gmsS\:s and herbs Additionally> no alkaline soHs/substra.tcs are prescnt at these locations and this species v,:as not observed during CAlA's reconnaissance-IeIWel surveys. ----- ChorizelntM cuspidala vat. Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal The study area docs not support habitats this species typically San Francisco Bay spineflower List IB.2 021'2 S2.2 Apl'Jul (Aug) 3·215 No inhabits. AdditlonaHy, this species is not known from Santa I cuspldala prairie> coastal scrub/sandy Clara Count1. ..- Chaparral (maritime), Cismontane The study area does not support habitats this speck"S typically Chorizanthe robusta Vat. rabusla robust splneflower ListlB.1 FE G2T1 SU woodland (openings), Coastal dunes, Apr·Sep 3·300 No inhabits, Additionally, this species is pn:sulned extirpated from 2 Coasllll scrublsandy or gravelly Santa CI"" CountY .. -1-... -.. -.. -~. .- Although grassland habitat is pres\!l1t in the vicinity of the pipeline lateral off the southern ald of the backbone alignmenl on Hillview Avenue and at the location proposed for the additional facilities at the Regional Plant. fountain thistle is Chaparral (openings), cismontane known frorn only five occurrence in the vicinity of CrystaJ irSIum fOMnale vat.jontinate fountain thistle ListlB.I FE CE G2Tl SI.I woodland, valley and fuothill Jun-Oct 90~175 No Springs Reservoi". Additionally, the grassland habilal in the 1.2 grassland/serpentinite seeps study area either appears to be fiequcntly disturbed (e.g., mowed,. foot traffic) or is known to be (e,g., weed-whacked, grazed), and the vegetation is limited 10 prcdominantely ncn- native grasses and herbs, No scrpentinin: soilslsubstrattls are present at these locations either . ~. . ~. '---.~ . ~ ... ~ . 1-. Lost thistle is presumed extirpated in Santa Clara Count5' This :irsium praeteriens lost thistle List lA GX SX unknown Jun-Jul 0·100 No species is known from onJy two collections from Palo Alto {last 1,2,3,4 in 1901); perhaps represents a. Ci1!o-ual introduction from thl,) Old WorldS .~. Clarkia breweri Brewcrs clarkia List 4.2 03 S3.2 Chaparral. cismontane woodland, coastal Apr-Iun 215·1000 No The study area does not support habitats this species typIcally 5 ~otU:n serpentioite inhabits. -~ .. ~-(Apr)M'y. ._ .. f-----~ .. The study area docs not support habitats this species typically Clarkia concinna ssp. aulomixa Santa Clara red ribbons List 4.3 05'11'2' S3.3 Chapanal, cismontane woodland Jun.{JuIL_ 90~1500 No inhabits, 5 . ~. . ~ . t--.. ~ . _ .. ~ t----. CoJlin'lia mullica/or San Francisco collinsia List IB.2 G2 S2.2 Closed-cone coniferous fon:st, coastal Mar·May 3()·250 No The study an:a does not support habitats this s~cies typical!:; 1,2,3,4 serub1sometimes serpentinite inhabits. ----- , Although the marshlands east ofthc stud)' area support suitable babitat and there are n."'COrd~d occurrences of Point Reyes bied's Cordykrn/hus maritimus ssp. Point Rt::yt::s bird's~beak List IB.2 G4rr2 S2.2 ~rshes and swamps (coastal salt) Jun.()ct ()·lO No beak in the CNDDB within a five mile radius ofthl! study an,::a 1,2,3,4 ~Jurlris this speiccs is presumed extirpated in Santa Clara Count? Additionally, the study an:a does not support habilats this speci typically inhabits, Lower montane coniferous forest, north _ .. ~ f-----. Cypripediumfascicu/atum clustered tady's-sHpper List 4.2 G4 S3.2 dout coniferous forestlusually serpentInite Mar· Aug 100·2435 No The study area d~ not support habitats this spccil:s t) plcaIl) 5 i seeps and streambanks inhabits. -----!Delphinium calijornicum ssp. Chapanal (openings), cismontanc woodlan The study area does not support habitats this species typicall~ 'nterius Hospital Canyon larkspur List IB.2 031'2? 52' (mesic) Apr-Jun 230·1095 No inhabits. 5 SensitivitylRei,YlatQD:: Statusl --------- l.clentil1c Name CDFG Sensitivity Rank Blooming ~ Potential for Source ~ Common Name Regulatory Status General Habitat Discussion of Potential :l'mDB Period ~ CNPS FESA CESA Global State Potential habitat occurs along portions of Barron Creek and Bwadleafed upland forest, dosed-conc Matadero Creek that IiI.': in the study atl!a, Additionally. there is Dirru occldehtalis .. vestem leatheTWood List IB.2 G2G3 5253 coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontanl.': Jan-Mar (Ap') 50-395 Low recorded occurrence ofwesrem Jcathcrwood in the CNDDS 1,2,3,4 woodland. North Coast conifetOLm forust. approximately one mile nonhw~st of the pipdjnc aiignmeiir I riparian fore1., riparian woodland/mesic However, this species was not observed during CAJA's reconnaissanccMlevcl survey, AlthQugh grassJand habitat lS pn."SCnt tn the vicinity of the pipeline lateral off the southr;::m cnd of the batkbool.': alignment on Hillview Avenue, this area appears to be frequcntly disturbe Mogonum luteolum va:, canirrum Tiburon buckwheat List 3.2 05T3Q 53.2 Chaparral. coastal prairie. vailey and Jun-Sl,.':p 10-500 No (e.g,. mowed, foot traffic) and the vegetation is limited to 1 foothiU grassland/serpentinite pre<iominantcly non-native.: grasses and h.erbs. No seIpl!nlinitc soils/substrates is presefll at this location either. Additionally, there an~ no occurrences of Tiburon buckwh~at in the CNDDB within a five mile radius ofthl! pip.:line a1ignme~l Urriogonum nudum var. derurf'enJ' Chaparral. cismontane WOOdland, lower The !i."'tudy area does not support habitats this species typically Ben Lemond buckwheat Lb11Rl 051'2 52.1 montane coniferous fOrest {maritime Jun-Oct 50-800 No 1,2 ponderosa pine sandhdls)/sandy inhabits. ---~~~~------ Cisrnontane woodland {often serpentinite, The study area does not support habitats this speci<..-s typically jE,riophyllum loti/ohum San Mateo wooHy sunflower List IB.I FE CE 01 51.1 May-Jun 45-150 No inhabits, San Mak."O wool! y sunt10wcr is known from two extar 1, Oti roadcuts) occurrences in San Mateo Count}~. I£ryngium aristulatum var. hooveri Hoover's button--ceiery List IB.I 051'2 S2.1 Vemalpools Jul 0-45 No The study area docs not support habitats this sp~cil:s typically 1,2,3,4 inhabits, Although grassland habitat is present in the viciniLy ofth~ pipeline lateral off the southl:rn end of the backbone alignmt!nt on Hillview Avenue, Hiltsbrougb chocolatcd lily is fl.':striclcd to Cismontane woodland. valIey and foothill the Hillsborough arei, Additionally, the grassland habitat is firitillaria bijlora var, ineziana Hillsborough cbooolau lily List IB.l OIQTIQ SI.! grassland/serpentinite Mar~Apr 150-150 No frequently disturbed (Io:,g., mowed. foot traffic) and dl\:" I vegetation is limited to prodominantel y non-native grasses and herbs, No serpentinite soiis/substraa--s an; present at tllis locatio either and the :'1Udy area is below the elevation range occupied by Hillsborough chocolate lily. Although th\! grassland habitat in the vicinity oflhl; pipeline lateral oft'the southern end oftht:: backbone alignment on Hillview Avenue and at the location proposed for thlo: additional Cismontane wood1. coastal prairie, facilities at the Rl.o.gional Plant appear CO be or arc fn:qucndy disturbed (e.g., mowed, \wl.':d~whacl;.ed, foot trnffic) and the ritilJaria Ii/iacea fragrant fritillary ListlR2 02 52.2 ooas:tal scrub, vaHey and foothiU Feb-Apr 3-410 Low vegetation is limited to predominantely non·native grasses and 1,1,3 .grasshmd/oftcn serpentinite herbs, marginal habitat for fragrant fitillary is present at thcSl:: location. The nearest recorded occurrence of this $p\.!dcs in the CNDDB is approxiJl\atdy three mii!:s west of the pipeline alignment. -~- SensitivityfRegulatory Statu~ SdentificNJmJJt ICQmmOD Name Regulatory Status CDFG Sensitivity Rank CND B CNPS FESA CESA Global 1 State 'esperolinon conges1t1m IMarin wcstern flax I List IB.ll IT I CT I G2 52.1 'vim slrobilirJQ jLoma Prieta hoim l.iS! IB.2 G2 S2.1 fsthenia c;onjugens Cant ... Costa goldfields LiS! lB. I I FE GI Sl.l ,thyrus jepSOnii var, jepsonil I Delta lui. pea I liS! IB.21 051'2 52.2 'ssingia arachnQidea I Cr~./stal Springs Icssingia I List IB.21 Gl S1.2 General Habitat I Blooming I ~ I Potentjal for hd2lI !.!!Wwl ~ !Chaparral, valley and foothill grassiand/5('Irpentinite ICismon!llnc woodland, piay.lS (alkaline), valley and foothill grassland, vemal pools/mesic I~:~~~~)and swamps (freshwater and Cismonta.ne woodland. coastal scrub. Vallei land fOothill grassland/serpentinite, often roadsides Apr~Jul Mar-Jun May·)ul (Sep) Apr·Jon lul-Oct 5·310 No 30~860 Low 0-470 No 0-4 No 1·880 No 60·200 No Discussion Qf Potential I~ land San Mateo counties'. Additionallv. the J<IllSsland habl"" 1,1 1,2 I, the marshlands cast of the study area ~uppOrt suitable habitat fur this spc:cics, the study area docs not support this habitat, Additionally, then: an:: no known populations in Santa CI .... CoWltY. The study area does not support habitats this species typically 1,2 inhabits, Although grassland habitat is prescnt in the vicinity oftffi; pipeline lateral off the southern end ofthc backbone alignment on Hillview Avenue, Crystal Springs kssingia is: kno, .. "n only Ifrom seven occurrences ncar Cl)'stal Springs Reservoir, San Mateo --~;;iti-;ib:!~C:2.!!latoa Statusl PM •••• ' 'M CDFG Sensitivity Rank Blooming Elevation 1~,.;··tlRc Name Common N.me Regulatory Status General Habitat 0,., •• ,"",,' Discussion of PotentiaJ Sourci Period ~ CNDDB CNPS FESA CESA Global Stat. ----- Although grassland habitat is present in the vieinityofth~ pipeline lateral off the southern end ofth.: backbone alignment on Hillview A venue and at the location proposed for the Broadleafed upland forest. coastal scrub, additional tacihties at the Regional Plant. these areas either ~ssingia holaleuca woolly-headed lessingia List 3 -03'/ 53 lower montane coniferous forest, valley an Jun-Ocr 15-305 Low appear to be frequently disturbed (e,g., mowed, foot traffic) or 1,2 foothill grassland/clay, serpentinite are know to be (e.g., weed-whacked, grazed) and the vegetation is limIted to predominant.:ly non~natiw grasses and OOth't TIus species was nOt obscnll!d during CAJA's feconnaissane;:~It:vd surveys. -------- Broadleafed upland forest. closed~cone Although the marshlands cast of the study area support suitabl~ coniferous rorest, coasta1 prairie, coastal habitat for this spcci~s, the study area docs not support this ilium 11'I(]ritimum coOS: lily ListlB,I 02 S2.l scrub, marshes and swamps (freshwater), May-Aug 5-335 No habitat. Additionally, there are no known populations in Santa I North Coast coniferous forest/sometimes Clara County roadside -----------------f..---- I The study area does not support habitats this speck~ typically lupinus eximius San Mateo tree lupine List 3.2 02Q 52.2 Chapamd, coastal scrub Apr-Jul 90-550 No inhabits. Additionally. San Mateo tree lupint! is known only I from San Mateo County and, possibly, Sonoma Cound', -------- I Although there are multiple occurrences of arcuate bush mallo\ ... ~aJaco/hamnus arcuotus arcuate bush mallow UstIB.2 G2Q S2.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland Apr-Scp 15-355 No ~rded in the CNDDB within a five mjle radIus of the pipdin 1,2, > alignment''", the study area does not support habitats this species typically inhabits, ------ Although riparian habitat is present along portions of the crooks ~aJacothamnus davidsonii Chaparral. cismontane woodland, coastal (Barron Creek and Matadcro Cr..:ck) that lie in the study area an Davidson's bush mallow List lB.2 Gl S!.l Iun-Jan 185-855 No there is a recorded occurrene;: oftlus species in the CNDDB 1,2,3 scrub, rparian woodland within five miles oflhe pipeline aJignmcdt thu study area is below the elevation range occupied by Davidon's bursh mallow, --------\--------..... jMalacolhamnus haJiii Hall's bush mallow List 1B,2 GIQ 51.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub May-Sop 1[1-760 No The study area docs not support habjtats this species typcially 1,2 inhabits, Although grassland habitat is present in the vicinity of the pipeline lateral off the southern end of the backbone alignment on Hillview A venUe and at the location propOsed for ttw Broadlcafed upland forest. chapalTal, additional facilities at the R¢gional PJant, these areas either 'Micropus amphibolus Mt. Diablo cottonweed List 3.2 03 53.21 cismontane woodland. valley and foothill Mar-May 45-&25 Low appcarto be frequently disturbed (e,g., mowed. fuottraffic) Of 1,2 grassland/rocky are know to be (e.g., weed-whacked, grazt."d) and v1".'gctation is limited to predominanteiy non-native grasses and herbs. Additionally. there are no recorded occurrences of this species iJ the CNDDS within a five mile radius of the study are! ~onardeJJa antonina ssp, anfonina The study area does not support habitats this species t},ptcaHy San Antonio Hills monardclla List> G4T3Q S3? Chapaml, CismonllU1e woodland Jun-Aug 500-1000 No inhabits. Additionally, it is below tk elevation range OIXupit:'d 2 I.. .. _L. by the species, $ensitivi!yfRe&ulatgQ: Sta1!!~1 :cientiflC Name lCoIDmon Name CNPS 'Onardella villosa ssp. globose lrobust mooardella I List1B.21 G51'2 ravarretia mysersii ssp, myer!lii lpincusltiofl navam..'!ia I List IB.II GITI 'ediculan~" dudleyi /Dudley's lousewort I List1B.21 I CR I G2 'efUacJwefa bel/idiflora whitc~rayed pentachacta List IB.ll FE CE GI 'e':lderidia gairdneri ssp, gairdneri IGairdner's yampah I List4.2 I GSTI 'iperio candida lwhite~flowered rein orchid I List 3 I G3G4 State S2.2 Sll S2.2 SLI S3,2 S3.2 Gener'al Habitat ~ Period upland forest (cpooiogs), I I Ichaparral (openings), cismontane . Jun-Jul (Au ) woodland. coastal scrub, valley and foothdl g grassland IVemal pOOls/ofico acidk Chaparral (maritime), cismontanc I Iwoodland, North Coast coniferous forest, valley and foothill grassland Cismontane woodland. valley and foothill grassland (oficn "q>entinite) Broadleafcd upland fores~ ehaparral, coastal prairie, valley and foothill grassland( vernal pools/vernally mesic Broadleafed upland forcs~ Lower montane coniferous forest. North Coast coniferous I forest/sometimes serpentinite May Apr-Jun Mar-May Jun-Oct May-Sop I Discussion of Potential I Source' grassland habitat is present in the vicinity ofthl.! llcral off the sou~m end of the backbone alignment on Hillview Avenue and at the location proposed for the I ladditiOIllll facilities at the Ikgion.1 Plant, these areas either appear to be rrequently disturbed (e.g,. mowed, foot traffic) or 100-91S Low are kno'm to be (e.g., vlced-whackl.'O, graz~d) and wgetation is! 1,2,3 Hmited to predominantely non~na1ive gnlSSt:s and herbs. & -"-' ~ ••• H... tudy area 15 sJightly 1x;low thl.! elevation rangl ;::cies. There n~st reoord0d occurrrencc of the CNDDB to the pipclin~ alignment is southwest The study area d(X;s not support habitats this s~cies typicaU y 20-330 No linhabits. Pincushion navarTl.'tia is known from fcv,{cr than 20 occurrences in Amador. Calaccra, Mcr~"d, Placer, and 1,2 Sacramento oountic~. habitat is pre:St:nt in the vicinity of the the southen on Hillview Avtmue and at the additional facilities at the: Regional Plant.. Dudley's IOU$cwort is Iknown only from Monterey, San Luis Obisp,,-and San Marco 60-900 No countiess. Additionally, thiS sp!.."CJes is known from fewer than 14 1,2 occurrences within these counties. Tht grassland habitat in the be frequently disturbed (e.g., m(M'cd. foot ) be (e.g., w\lt.ld-whacked, grazed), and limited to predominantely non-native grasses and 35-620 No 0-365 No 30-1310 I No SensitiYit:i/Re~ulatg!J: StAtui ,;n, iCommoo Na, CDt'G Sensitivity Rank ~ Elevation Potential for ~ Regulatory Sta tus General Habitat DistussioD of Potential NOD!! (meters) Occurrgll,i CNPS FESA CESA Global State IPlagiobolhrys cNorisianus var. Chaparr.d, coastal prairie, coastal The study area docs not support habitats this spt1cics typicallY jchorisianus COOMs' popcorn~flower List IB.2 G311Q SU scrub/mesic Mar·Jun 15·160 No inhabits, Additionally, Choris' popcorn~flower is known from I i only Santa Cruz. San Francisco, and San Mateo CQunti0S ----- Although the marshland habitat east of the study area supports Plagjohcthrys g/ab.r Meadows and seeps (alkaline), marshes ane suitable habitat for this 5,,*,,'1:il.")s, the study area docs not support hairll."SS popcorn-flower List lA GH 5H Mar·May 15·180 No habitats hairless popcom~tlowcrtypica11y inhabits. Additionall~, 1,2 swamps (coastal salt) this spccies is p!\!sumed extinct in Alameda, Mann, San Benito, and Santa Cl .... countid. --------------'----. Although thc marshlands east ofthc study arl:a support suitable habitat and there ar¢ n,;cordcd. oc(""Um::nc¢s of sitmdl:f-Ica\'()d lPolamogelon fili/ormis slender-leaved pondweed List 2.2 05 SIS2 Marshes and swamps (assorted shallow May~Jul lO0-2,150 No pondwecd in the CNDDB within a mde of the study .rei, the 1,2, l. 4 freshwater) study area is below the devation range OC\:upied by this $pcci~s. Additionally, this species is presum~d <xtirpawd in Santa Clara County5 !----"" Although grassland habitat IS present in the vicinity of~ i pipeline lateral ottthe southern end of me backbonl: aJignmcnt Cismontane woodland. north coast on HillView A venue and at the location propos!!d for the !Rammculus lubbli Lobb's aquatic buttercup Lisc4.2 04 53.2 conIferous forest, valley and foothill Feb·May 15,410 No additional facilities al the Regional Plant. ~ areas either 5 gmssJand. vernal pools/mesic appear to be freqml'ntly disturbed (e.g., mowed, foot traffic) or are kno.,.\, to be (e.g., weed-whacked, grazed) and vegetation is limited to predomjnantely non-native grasses and herbs Additionally, mesic conditions an; not present ",,- Although grnssland habitat is present in the vicinity of the pipeline lateral off the southern end of the backbone alignment on Hillview Avenu<. San francisco campion is known from Coastal blufl'serub, chaparnJ, coastal Mar-lun fewer than 20 OCCUIronCl:S in Santa Cruz, San Francisco, San $ilene venu;ul1da ssp. YereCftnda San }o'rancisco campion Li,t IB.2 05T2 82.2 prairie. coastal scrub, vaIley and foothill (Aug) 30-645 No Ma!eo~ and Sutter countie~ Additionally. thl,! grassland habitat I grassland/sandy at this location appears to be frequcntly disturbed (0.,8" mowi!d, foot traffic) and the vc:gctation is limited to predominantcly non native grasses and hem. No sandy sods/substrates an: present at this location either. f", ,,,-,, 1- Although grassland habitat is present at the location proposed ~ the additional facilities at !.he ~gional Plant, this area is fairly Streptanthus albidus ssp. most beautifuJ jewel~flo\ver List IB2 02T2 S22 Chaparral. cismontane woodland, valley (Mar) Apr, 94·I,OOn No disturbed and tht: vegetation is hmi~d to predominantdy non~ 2 peramoenus and foothill grassland/serpentinite Sep (<k,) native grasses and herbs. Additionally, there an: no recorded occurrences of this species within a five mile radius ofthc study area4 ,,,-f "-,, Although the marshlands cast of the study area support suitable iuaeda califomica California seabJite List lB.! FE 01 Sl.I Marshes and swamps (coastal salt) lul·<kt 0-15 No habitat for Ca1ifomia seablite, the study area does not. Califom' L2 seablite was fonnerly known from San Francisco Bay Arl:a; however, it has been extirpated by deVt!lopmen1:. ------,,------- Trijolium depauperawm Vat. ,jSal,ne clover Marshes and swamps. valley and foothill Although the marshland habitat east of thl: study area supports rydrophilum Li>t IB2 0511'1 S2.2? grassland (mesic, alkaline), vernal pools Apr~Jun 0·300 No s.uitable habitat for this spt..oocics. tfu: study area does not support I habitats saline clover typically inhabits. SensitivitJ:/Re~latoo: Status! ICommon Name CDFG Sensitivity RJtnk General Habitat Blooming Elevatinn Potential for I Source~ ~cientific N(J,m~ Regulatory Status Discussioll of Potential CNDDB PeFiod l!!!.m!:n Occurrenci CNPS I FESAICESA Global State f--~~~~ I r Although the-re is grassland habitat In the vicinity of the pipelirl lateral off the southern end of the backbonl! alignrne-nt on Hiilview Ave-nue and at the location proposed for the additional facilities at the Regional Plant and there are recorded occurrences of this species in the CNOOB ,capcr-tiuitcd 1ropidocarpum capparldeum lcapt.'f~fruitcd tropidocarpum I List IB.!I 01 SI.1 IValleyand roQthili grassland (alkaline hillsj Mar-Apr 1 1-455 No Itropidocarpum is pre-sumed extirpated in Alame-da, Contra I 1,2,3,4 anta Clara, and fe/MIme N:' SensitivityJRe:ulato!l: Statusl EleVAtion Potential fOT CDFG SenSitivity Rank General Habitat Blooming Discussion of Potential Source:>' Cpmmop Name Regulatory Status CNDD8 Period (meters) Occurrencel __ CNPS _I FESA~ CESA.1 _Global _.L~._ --------------~ ---- I SensitivitylRcgulatory Status Codes: FD = FodC'rn11y dc1isted {monitored for 5 years} Gt/S! .;: ExucmeIy endang.:red: less than 6 viable clement oecurrena,'S (EOs) OR less than 1,000 individuals OR less than 2,000 a.c:tl!s: G2IS2 e;:: Endangered: 6-20 EOs OR 1,OOO~3,OOO individuals OR 2,000-10,000 acres; G3-1S3 = Restricted range, rare: 21-80 EOs OR 3,OOO~IO,OOO indivtduals OR 10,000- 50,000 acres; G41S4 = Apparently sccut\!~ some factors exist to cause some concern such as narrow habitat or continued threats; OJ/55 = Demorumably secure~ contmonly found throughout its historic range~ OnTn = Subspecies receive a T-rank attach~ to the G~rank, Grank reflects the condition of the entire species and T-rank reflects the global situation of just the subspecit:s; m-USH:: All sites historical, the element has not been seen for at least 20 year~ but suitable habitat exi$1s; GX!SX:: AU site cxtirpated, this element is extinct in the wild (0.1 """ very thrl!atcncd, 0"2:::: threatened, 0.3 = no current throats known) List California.. but more conunon elsewhere~ LIst 3 = Plants about which more information is needed: List 4 = Limited dIstribution (.1 = Seriously endang\.':rud in California I: of oceurrer.C¢S threatenedlhigh degrece ofimmediacy ofthreatJ~ 2 = Fairly endangered. in California [2(J~8o<'/ooccurrences threatened]; .3 Not very endangered in California l<20"/n of occummces threatcm .. -d or no current threats known!) 1 Potential for Occurrene<:: "no" = species listed as having "'no" potentia) for oecurrence in the project area are those speeies for which:(l) there is no suitilile habitat present in the project area (i.e., habitats in the project area are unsuitable for the species requirements le.g., foraging. breeding, cover, substrate. elevation, hydrology. plant community. disturbance regime> etc,}); and/or (2) the project arua has been surveyed during the proper time of year with negative results for the species; "low" ~ specics listed as having a "Iow" potential for occurrence in the projL"Ct area are those spl.!'Cil!s for which: (I) then; arc no known records of OC{;UJ1'ence in the vicinity of the project area; andlor (2) there IS marginal or vcry limited suitable habitat present in the project area: "medium!! ;;; spccros listed as having a '''medium''' potential for occurrence in the project area are those species for wbich: (1) there arc known records of occurrence in the vicinity of the project area; andlor (2) there is marginal suitable habitat present in the project area; "high" = species listed as having a "high" potential for occurrence in the project area are those species fur which: (1) there are known records of occurrence in the vicinity oftm:: project area (there are many records andlor records in close pro~imity); andlor (2) there is suitable habitat present in the project ma; "present" ;;; species lisb:d as .... present" in the project ma are those species for which: (1) the species was/has been observed in thc project area. l Sour",,: 1 ~ Search of lb. California Native Plant Society'S On-line Inventory (CNPS 2007) of the Palo Alto (4288) USGS 7.5-Minute Quad and the eight surrounding qllllds (Cupertino 1421DJ, L. HOIld.!429Dj, Mountain View [428A], Mindego Hi1l1428CL Ncwarl< 1447DI, Redwood Pomt 1447q San M3lcO 1448DJ, and Woodside [429A]); 2 ~ Search of the California Native Plant Soeietys On-line Inventory (CNPS 2007) of the MOWltaln View (428A) USGS 75-Minute Quad and the eight surrounding quad, (Cupertino [428D), Miipi1lls (4278), Mind.go tliIl1428C], Ncwarl< 144 7DI, Nile" [446C[. Palo Alto [428BJ. Redwood Point [447C), and San Jose West [427C]; 3 "" Seateh of the California Natura! Diversity Database (Biogeographic Data Branch, California DepamtlentofFish and Game 2007) QCcum:nces within a five mite radiupqmline alignment; 4::::: Search of the California Natural Diversity Database (Biogeographic Data Branch, California Department of Fish and Game 2007) occurrences within a five mile radius of the location proposed for the additional facilities at the Regional Plant; ,5 = Review of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. 4 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2007. California Natural Diversity Databasu (CNODB) Rarefine fCD _ROM]. Wildlife Habitat Data Analysis Branch, California Dl!partmt:nt of Fish and Game. Sacramento: California. ~ California Native Plant Society. 2007, Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online r;:dition, v7-07a). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento. AcceSSl.--ci on January 19, 2007 from hnp:IJenps.org/invenrDry Table 2 Special-Status AnimaJs Evaluated for Potential to Occur within the Study Area. I Common Name General Habitat Pg!ential {or Dis.::ussion of Pot~ntial lentifu: Name ~ CESA Coastal mountains near San Francisco Bay. in the fog-belt of steep north facing slopes thar receive little direct sunlight :Found near proliftc growths of the larval food plant. stonecrop (,'.;eJ;ml sparhllii/o/illm ). which i. Blow growning sueculant_ Stonecrop is \ \Th. study ar .. does not,upPor! habitat this species typically nllcphrys mossii bayensis ISan Bruno elfin butterlly I FE I G30m I 81 I associated with rocky outcrops thaloccur al 900 to 1.075 foot No inhabits. Additionally, It is bclow the elevation range I 3,4 elevation. Adult food plants not fully determined; Montara occupied by the species Mountain colonies are suspected to use Montara Mountain manzanita (Arctostaphylos monlaraensis ) and huckleberry (Vaccil1ltml ovatum) Shallow, serpentine-derivt:d soils in natlve grasslands supporting Although there is a recorded occurrence of Bay checkerspot bay checken;pot butterlly I IT G5Tl 81 parval host plants, dwarf pllllltain (Plantago ",,,-10 ) or purple No butterliy in the CN~DB approximaedy four mil .. west of the I U, 4, 5 owl's clover (Castilleja den:.iflora or CasliJlt'ja cxserla). pIpelIne alIgnment , the study area does not support babItat this species typically inhabits. Vernal pOOl tadpole FE G2G3 S2S3 Inhabits vernal pools containing dear to highly turbid water, No The study area does not support habitats this species typically shrimp ranging in si~ in the Central Valley and San Francisco Bay Area. inhabits_ "i"tt':", "W_dlihl' ,.;;,".1 i"',h"$i!I!, Ranges from Mexico to at ll!8St Alaska in marine waters, and forages in estuaries and bays ranging from San Francisco Bay to esc sc' G3 5182 IBnbsh Columbia Currently believed to spa"" regualarlyin the I No poe study area does not supprt habitats this species typically green sturgeon Fr' Rogue River, Klamath Rjver Basln. and the Sacramento River inhabits_ Spawning IS known to occur infrequently in the Umpqua river and is suspected to occur, to an unmo"," extent, in the South Fork of the Trini!)' River and the Eel River. Brackish shallow lagoons and lower stream reaches where the Prefer a sand substrate tidewater goby CSC FE OJ S2S3 I~"P~'~" .v, u,~~ .... uu, ~~ ,uund on rocky, mud. and silt No IThe study area does not support habitats this species typically substrates as well. Found in ..... -aters with salinity levels from 0 to 42 ppt. temperature levels from 8: to 25 degrees Celsius. and water depths from 25 to 200 centimeters_ Bay upstream through the Delta in Contra Costa. The study area is outside of the delta smelt's distribution (delta tronspacijlcus Idelt.smelt IT CT Gl 81 1~1<Ullento, San Joaquin, Solano, and Yolo counties. Delta smelt No smelt are endemic to the upper San Francisco Estuary) and it __ I~. --found at salinities> 10 ppt. :MOst often at salinitles < 2 does not support habilat this s~ies typically inhabits, populations from Punta Gorda in northem and including the San Lorenro River in central. California, as well as populations in tributaries to San Francisco Bay, excluding the Sacramento-San Joaquin River system. as well The study area does nol support habitat this species typically I coho salmon -Central las four artificial propagation programs: the Don Clausen fish inhabits; channalization and other flood control projects have IOncorhynchus kisutch C8C FE CE' G4 52? Hatchery Captive Broodstock Program, Scott CreeklKing Fisher No drastically reduced flsh habitat in the creeks (Le., Adobe 3,4 California coa;1 ESU Flats Conservation Program, Scott Creek Captive Broodstock Creek, Ba.rroo. Creek, and Matadero Creek) within the study Program, and the Noyo River Fish Station Egg-Take Program. area' Spawn in cool. clt:N streams featuring: suitabie gravel size, depth, and current velocity. Streamside vegetation and cover area essential fur steelhead fry survivaL Name IContmonName mykiss I.teelhead -Central Valley I IT I GlT2Q I S2 mykiss IT I G5T2Q I 82 l!oncorhynchus Isllawytscha ST G5TlQ SI Ioncorhynchus lShawytscha FE SE G5TIQ SI IT G2G3 S2S3 IIRl'mn m~l"nrn drayronii red-legged frog CSC IT G4T2T3 S2S3 General Hllgital populations below natural and manmade in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and excluding steelhead from San Francisco and San It'aDlO Days and their tributaries, as weJl as two artiCJal propagation I ---------.• L -"-leman NFH and Feather River Hatchery Spa'M1 in cooL. clear streams featuring suitable nd current velocity, Streamside vegetation and fur steelhead fry sUIVlvaL and manmade I Valley \.-reeK• ana an unnamea mDutary to Contel13 :Slough (commonly referred to as Red Top Creek), excluding the open oak woodlands; necessary hahitat _ :Jude ground squirrel or gopher burro'WS for I underground retreats, and breeding ponds such as seasonal vernal lX'oIs or slow-moving streams that do nOl support fish or frog populations. and foothills in or near permanent sources of deep water shrubby or emergent riparian vegetation (may disperse and after periods of rain). Requires 11-20 weeks of water for larval development. Potential fgr Or.c:urrence1 No Low No No Present Illi< "'''Q''Ml'<> tential I~~~.~;~:rea is outside of the Centra) Valley sfeelheaus of tidal gates at the mouth ofMatadero and Adobe rally preclude the passage of steelhead, the gates lare ~ically closed d~rin~ the upstream migration periods AAA ... __ ~ll •• channaltwlon and other flood control projects reduced fish habitat in the creeks within the area is outside of the Central Valley steelhead's upstream of culvert crossing and dO'MlStream of East Adobe Creek downstream of East Bay,hore BatI'On Creek upstream and downstream of Mrandu Foothill Expressway. Additionally, there are recorded occurrences of (,RLF in the C'NDDB wrtllln radius of the study area, including one occurrence the pipeline backbone along HiUview at Matadero Creek' l,4 I 3,4,5 3, 3,4 2,3,4, 1,2,3,4, Name marmorafa pond turtle Isharp-shinned hawk cunicu/aria owl iBrach,Yramphu$ marmomlUs murrelet CSC CSC (nesting) esc (burowing sites) G3G4 S3 G5 S3 G4 S2 IT CE (nesting) (nesting) G3G4 Sl Genera1 Habitat permanent or nearly permanenl bodies of water and areas for basking such as panially submerged rocks or floating vegetatIon mats or open mud banks. open woodland, coniferous, mixed, or deciduous. coniferous in more northern mountrunous portion of ery habitat is boreal forest YOWl£. dl.'.:nse, mixed Or lconiferous woodlands are preferred for nesting. Migrates through along ridges, lakeshores, and coastlines. grasslands,. especially prairie, plains, and savanna, lIn open areas such as vacant lots near human habitation or airports, and roosting in burrow dug by mamma!, or by owl (rarely). near-shore; nests inland along coast from Eureka to Oregon or and from Half Moon Say to Santa Cruz. Generally nests IOld-growth forests, characterized by large trees, multiple canopy ~rs. and moderate to high canopy closure. In California, nests tvoica1ly found in coastal redwood and Doug!as~fir forest. are located close enough to the marine environment for the to fly to and from nest sites Potential for OccuTrencel Present No Medium N. Discussion of Potential habitat for _tern pond trutle (WPT) area within Matadero Creek upstream :ui vert crossing and downstream of East Bayshore IRoad, Adobe Creek downstream of East Bayshore Road, and ~ upstream and do\HllStream of Miranda Avenue Expressway. Addit recorded occurrences of WPT in Bayshore Parkway, the study area does not support !potential foraging or nesting habitat for this species. Burrows during CAJA's reconnaissance-level survey in at the Regional Plant in 2006 and in the east of the San Francisco Bay Trai) and East way in 2007; however. no evid¢noo of BUOW No burro\NS or burrow donors (i,e" fossorial were observed in the grassland habitat in the the pipeline larera! off the southern end of the alignment on Hillview Avenue, There are multiple occurrences of BUOW in the CNDDB within a five radius of the study area?, SourceJ 2.5 1,2 Cc>mmonName ~-~r= I ~tDB Gl.bal~ State nivosus I western snowy plover esc Fr G4D 82 (nesting) esc G5 S3 (nesting) petechia brewsteri Iyeliow warbler CSC GST3? 82 (nesting) lrichas sinuosa common esc GS12 S2 General Habitat roast population breeds primarily on coastal beaches from Washington to southern Baja California" Mexico. Breeds 'above the high ridelme on coastal beaches, sand spits, !dune-baoked beaches, sparsely~v.getated dunes, beach", at creek and river mouths, and salt pans at lagoons and estuaries. In winter. I !lIlIIIY .fthe beaches used for nesting as well as on vdlere they do not nest,. in man-made salt ponds, and on flats. mellllows, grasslands, and cultivated fields. Perches on l"'vWW V' on stumps or posts. Nests on the ground, conunonJy near low shrubs, in tall weeds or reeds, sometLmes in bog; or on .~-_&'1~ ... ,",._1.., above water, or on knoll of dry ground. or on ground near water, or on dry marsh vegetation. in lowland and riparian woodlands dominated by I ICOttonwoods (populus sp.), alders (Alnus sp.), or willows (Salix sp.), and other small trees and schrubs typical of low. open-canopy woodland dense growth ofvegetarion associated with moist lenvironments, Inhibits freshwater marshes, coastal swales, SWllrllTlV riparian thickets, brackish marshes, salt marshes, and disturb«! weed fields and grasslands that border soggy Psmmtill for Discussion of Potential I SJwru' ~l Although snO'W)' plover is a regular breeder in Santa Clara County~ it is a very rare or casual species throughout the No y~e. The study area does not support habitat this species I 1,2,3 typically inhabits; however, there are multiple recorded occcurrencesofsnowy plover in the CNDDB Within a five mile radius of the study area7• of northern hamer in Santa Clara COWlty is fairly the fall, winter, and spring. and common in the . Additionally, this species is a regular breeder in the county. Although the study area does not support potenita! N. foraging or nesting habitat, the marshland areas east of the 1,2 study area provide potential habitat There are nlultlple rel.'Orded occurrences of northern harrier in the (NDDS within ,.. 'f: mile radius of the study arei. Additionally, this species observed during CAJA's reconn81ssance-ievel field survey 2007 foraging in the adjacenT marshlands. is a neotropical migrant and occurrence of this .,.y ......... " ... in Santa Clara County is very rare or casual in the fall land winter, Wlcommon in the spring and summer IU Although No the study area does not suPPOrt potential nesting habitat for Medium 2,5 Name Name ~ black rail FP CT om Sl mclodia pusilhda IAla.meda song sparrow CSC GST2? S2? langtrostris obsoletus clapper rail FP FE CE G5Tl 51 g..'i'temula altliIJanlm browni least tem FP G4T2T3 S2S3 General Habitat of salt marshes bordering south arm of the San Francisco ·ted to areas affected by tides where flow is unimpeded although levees hosting upland plants (e.!\C. coyote wris pilularis ], California wild rose [Rosa I. and willows [Salix spp.]) are used occasionally. trion tolerated may be: continuous mats of vegetation (Salicornia spp.) marshes and seaside chaparral, travel in channels created by water flow and runways mammals. bays and lagoons, nesting on the adjacent open sandy dunes, or disturbed sites. Nesting IS hmited to colonies in IIlcisoo Bay. Sacramento River delta. and areas along San Luis ObiSpO County to San Diego County. Potential for Occurrence1 N. Distussion of Potentia) sparrow a regular breeder and common throughout the in Santa Clara COtUltylO Although the study area does upport potential nesting habitat, the marshland areas east study alea provide potential nesting and foraging There are multiple occurrences of song sparrow in the within a five mile radius of the study area' I Occurrence of least tern in the spring and fall is very rare or and in the summer is rarelO Although the study area Source"' 1,2,5 1,2,5 :U,4, "support habit.t this species typically inhabits. tiler. I 1,2,3,4 recorded oc.ccurrences of least tern in the CNDDB IWlthln a five mile radius of the study area? Name bal CSC G5 rav1l.'entris Isalt marsh h"""'" mouse I FP FE CE GIG2 vagrans halicoeres I:;:'_~:::-~' wandering CSC G4T1 laxus IAmerican badger CSC GS I SensirivitylRegulalory Status Codes· FESA: Federal Endangered Species Act of 1972 as amended FE; Federally listed as Endangered; FT ~ Federally listed as Threatened; FD ~ Federally delisted (monitored fur 5 years) CESA: California Endangered Species Act CE ~ State listed as Endangered; CT ~ Stale listed as Threatened; CR ~ Stale listed as Rare CNDDB' Caljfornia Natural Diyer~itv Database S3 and grasslands, often neat rocky outcropS and water. I 1 ..... ~u .. .uJ' roosts in rock crevice or building.l~ often in cave, tree ,.. mine, etc .. Prefers narrow crevices In caves as hibernation only in the I11aI>hesofCorte Madera. Richmond, and South Bay. Critiatliy dependent on dense cover and tat is pickleweed. Seldom foW1d in cordgrass or SIS2 1 .... " .. _. V\,l.\j;.a.;><.> (Scirpus maril.imus) In marshes \\,-ith an upper zone • , , halophytes (salt-tolerant plants), mice use this escape the higher tides, and may even spend a of their lives there, Mice also move into the during the highest winrer tides. SI IInhabits tidal salt marsh plains above cordgrass zone, moist, fower pickteweed~dominated marsh. with abundant invertebrates, tidal a.nd flood escape habitat in the South San Francisco Bay. open areas and may also frequent brushlands with little , Although badger may prefer habitats lh1th more for digging burro'M>, which are used for dens, escape, S4 land predation. the hard-baked earth in the middleofan unpaved stacie. When inactive, occupies underground are elliptical shaped and eight or more inches in ~ ~2 Low No No Low Discussion of Potentia) supports marginal foraging habitat for this ,articularly in the vicinity of Matadero Creek of Hanover Street and downstream of Hwy iO 1, IAdobe Creek downstream of Hwy 101, Batton Creek in the vicinity of Miranda Avenue and Foothili Expressway, and at 1,2 the site proposed for the additional fadlilies at the RegionaJ dditionally, individuals could use the trees in and to the study area for day and night roosts, however, intensity of humarHeia1ed disturbances in the vicinity of study area likely discourages the usc by bats. The study area does not support habitat this species typically inhabits; however, there are multiple recorded occurrences of salt rnarth harvest mouse in the CNDDB within a five mile II 2 J 4 radius of the study area"!, "lhe closest occurrence is withm 600 "" feet east ofHwy 101 and Maladero Creek (i.e., easl of alignment option 2). salt marsh VoIOndering shrew in the CNDDB 1 within a five mile I 1,2 fadi us of th~ study area Although there are multiple recorded occurrences of badger in the CNDDB witrun a five mile radius of the study area1, these occurrences are from the early 1980s and no badger burrows were observed in the sfudy area during C AJA 's recoruwssa level surveys. Additionally, the intensIty of human-related disturbances in the vicinity of the study area likely discourages ~,--of the grassland and MIera! habitAts in the study area GIISI ~ Extremely endangered: less than 6 viable element occurrences (EO,) OR less than 1.000 individuals OR less than 2,000 acres; G21S2 = Endangered: 6-20 EO, OR 1,000-3,000 indlviduals OR 2,000-10,000 acres; G3/SJ = Restricted range, rare: 21·80 EOs OR 3,000-10,000 individuals OR 10,000-50,000 acres; O4/S4 Apparently secure; some factors ex.ist to cause some concern such as narrow habitat or continued threats; G51S5 = Demonstrably secure~ commonly found throughout its historic tange~ OnTn = Subspecies r~eive aT-rank attached to tb~ (i-rank, Grank reflt!:cts the condition of the entire species and T-rank reflects the global situation of'just the subspecies~ GHlSH "'" All sites historical. the element has not been seen for at least 20 year, but suitable habitat exists~ GX!SX "'" AU site extirpated, this element is extinct in the wild (O"i :::: very threatened, 0.2 = threatened" OJ "'" no current threats known) CDFG: Cal ifornia Department ofFish and Game CSC = Species of Special Concern; FP ~ Fully Protected ";:;;;;;;;;' ;!~f;:'>;;}~'i!; "~'iii:::;;; y status' t:;cietdifte Name CQmmonName Reguilltory Status C[)FG Sensitivity Rank ~I rn;;1~ Q!Q!)B !;!~!!eral H!!.!liUIS Potential for Occurrencl Di§cussion of Pgt~ntial ~J _<:;Iobal I State 2 PotentiaJ for Occurrence: "no" "" species listed as having 'no" potential for occurrence in the project area are those species for 'Which:(l) there is no suitable habitat present in the project area (i.e., habitats in the project area are unsuitable for the species requirements [e.g .• foraging. breeding, cover, substrate. elevation. hydrology, plant community, disturbance regime, etc,])~ andfor (2) the project area has been surveyed during th~ proper time of year with negative results for the species; "loW' "" species listed as having a "low" potential for occurrence in the project area are those species for v.hich: (1) there are no kr,.o\W records of occurrence in the vicinity of the project area; and/or (2) there is marginal or very limited suitable habitat present in the project area; 'lmedium" ;:;; specles listed as having a "medium" potential for occurrence in the project area are those species for which: (1) there are knO'WTI records of occurrence in the vicinity of the project area; and/or (2) there is marginal suitable habitat present in the project area; "high" = species listed as having a "high" potential ror occurrence in the project area are those species for whIch: (I) there are known records of occurrence in the vicinity of the project area (there are many records and/or records in close proximity); and/or (2) there is suitable habitat present in the project area; Jlpresent" =: species listed as "present" in the projec1 area are those species for which: (1) the species wasIhas been observed in the project area !l Source: 1 :;:: Search of the California Natural Diversity Database (Biogeographic Data Branch, California Department ofFish and Game 2(07) occurrences within a five mile radius ofpipeJine aJjgnment; 2:;:: Search of the CalifornJa Natural Diversity Database (Biogeographic Data Branch, California Department ofFish and Game 2001) occurrences within a five mile radius of the site proposed for the additional facilities at the Regional Plant; 3 """ Review of the U.s. Fish.and Wildlife Service Sacramento Office's list of FederaJ Endangered and Threatened Species that Occw in or may be Affected by Projects in the Mountain View (428A) USGS 7.5-Minute Quad: 4 = Review of the U$, Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento Office's list of Federal Endangered and Threatened Sped", that Occur in or may be Affected by Projects in the Palo AltO (428B) USGS 7,5-Minute Quad; 5 ~ Review of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 4SC refers to the Species of Concern list established by NMFS effective 15 Apr. 2004. The SC designation refers to the north DPS which includes spawningpOpuiations north of the Eel River (inclusive) "The FT designation refers to the southem DPS which includes all spa\l\lOingpopuatlions south of the Eel River. 'CESA listing is limited to coho salmon south of San Francisco Bay , California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG), 2007, California Natural Divmity Database (CNDDB) Raeefine [CD_ROM], Wildlife Habitat Data Analysis Branch, California Department ofFish and Game Sacramento: CalifOrnia. • Salsbery, David, Senior Fisheries Biologist, Santa Clara Valley Water District San Jose, California. September 21, 2007 -phone oonversarion with Aincirea Iensen, 9 Leidy. RA. US. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of stee!headlrainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary> California Center for Ecosystem Management.and Restoration. Oakland. C'A "Bousman, WG 2005, A Checklist of the Birds of San III Clara County, California. Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, April 2005, " Evens, I, 199912000, Mystery of the marsh: the Califumia black mil, Tide/ine Vol 19 No.4 1-3, Available from http://www,!\,,,,gov/des!bay/ArchiveslRailiBlack_RlULhtm · CH RISTOPH ER A. JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES Plann MEMORANDITM To: Erin Darling, Environmental Scientist From: Aindrea Jensen, CAJA Senior Biologist Date: November 9, 2007 Subject: Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Additional Facilities -Biological Resources Section of ISIMND As requested Christopher A. Joseph & Associates (CAJA) has completed the biological resources impact analysis for the installation of the additional facilities (pump station and storage tank) proposed at the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (Regional Plant) for the Palo Alto Recycled Water Project (proposed project). This memo is intended to provide RMC Water and Environment with the information necessary to incorporate the site proposed for the additional facilities at the Regional Plant into the Biological Resources section of the Initial Study (IS)lMitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that CAJA prepared and submitted to RMC on October 3, 2007 (revised October 23, 2007). The information is grouped below into major subsections consistent with those in the Biological Resources section of the IS/MND previously completed for the proposed project. Setting Overview The site proposed for the additional facilities at the Regional Plant to be included in the "study area" previously defined in the Setting Overview subsection on page 2 of the Biological Resources section of the ISIMND for the proposed project is behind the existing Maintenance Building & Warehouse and below the intersection of Embarcadero Road and Byxbee Park Entrance Road. This area is less than one-acre in extent and is fairly disturbed. It was landscaped in the 1970s when the Regional Plant was built to visually screen the facility from the traveling public on Embarcadero Road and Byxbee Park Entrance Road.l Since then plant species typically adapted to disturbed environments have colonized the site. In order to manage the vegetation, the site is weed- whacked andlor grazed.2 Existing vegetation consists of non-native grasses and herbs and a mix of native and non- native trees and shrubs. Various land uses surround the site, including (but not limited to) major institution/special facilities (palo Alto Municipal Airport), public parks (Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course), and commerciaL The San Francisco Bay and its associated northern coastal salt marsh and coastal freshwater marsh habitats in the Palo Alto Baylands Natural Preserve (Baylands Preserve) occur to the east of the site directly beyond Byxbee Park Entrance Road. Discussion a) CAJA completed a one-day reconnaissance-level field survey of the site proposed for the installation of the additional facilities at the Regional Plant on September 11,2006. This survey was completed in preparation of the environmental document for the Ultraviolet (UV) Disinfection Facility Project, as the site proposed for the Palo Alto Recycled Water Project at the Regional Plant is the same site that was initially proposed for the UV Disinfection Facility Project. The former project has since been relocated to another site within the Regional Plant? CAJA also completed a windshield survey of the site on September 26, 2007. The purpose of the Personal Communication. Daisy Stark (City of Palo Alto). September II, 2006. Field meeting with Shannon Lucas (CAJA staff). Personal Communication. Daisy Stark (City of Palo Alto). September II, 2006. Field meeting with Shannon Lucas (CAJA staff). Personal Communication. Marilyn Bailey (RAtC Water and Environment, Inc.). November 8, 2007. Phone conversation with Aindrea Jensen (CAJA staff). 179 H Street. Petaluma. CA 94952 Phone 707 283-4040. Fax 707 283-4041. E-mail info@cajaeir.com • Web www.cajaeir.com Los Angeles. Santa Clarita. Agoura Hills. Petaluma. Oakland. Mammoth Lakes 5 6 CHRISTOPHER A. JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES September 2006 survey was to assess the existing conditions and to evaluate potential impacts to biological resources from site development. The September 2007 survey was to verifY that the existing site conditions have not substantially changed from those observed in 2006. Prior to conducting the 2006 field survey, CAJA developed a list of special-status plant and animal species that are known to or have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the site. This list was based on CAJA's reviewed available background information pertaining to the biological resources in the vicinity of the site including (but not limited to) (1) the Department ofFish and Game's (CDFG) Natural Diversity Database (CNDDBt; (2) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) list of federal endangered and threatened species that occur in or may be affected by projects in the Palo Alto (428B) and Mountain View (428A) US. Geological Service (USGS) 7.S-Minute Quadrangles5; and (3) the California Native Plant Society's (CNPS) Electronic Inventorl. Each species was then evaluated during the field survey for their potential for occurrence on the site. For the purposes of this analysis, CAJA updated this species list based on a more recent review (November 8, 2007) of the databases and official lists. Because the majority of the special-status plants and animals documented in the vicinity of the Regional Plant are included in Table I and Table 2 of the Biological Resources section of the ISIMND previously completed for the proposed project, these tables were revised to incorporate (l) species that were not identified in the background review for the pipeline alignment options or the booster pump station locations and (2) reference to the site proposed for the additional facilities at the Regional Plant (refer to attached tables). Although the total number of special-status species evaluated for their potential for occurrence in the study area were increased and the rating of the potential for occurrence for some of the species were changed as a result of including the site at the Regional Plant in the analysis, only one additional special-status species (burrowing owl [Athene cunicularia]) needs to be incorporated into the Biological Resources section of the IS/MND for the proposed project. Also, the text of the introductory paragraphs for the special-status plant and animal discussions need to be revised to reflect the changes in number of species evaluated and their rating for occurrence in the study area. Refer to the following subsections. Special-Status Plants Five additional special-status plant species (brittlescale [Atriplex depressa], robust spineflower [Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta], San Antonio Hills monardella [Monardella anton ina ssp. antonina], white-flowered orchid [Piperia candida], and most beautiful jewel-flower [Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus]) were incorporated into Table 1. Including these species a total of 60 special-status plants have been documented in the vicinity of the study area. The text of the introductory paragraph for the special-status plant discussion in Biological Resources section of the ISIMND should be revised as follows: Based on CAJA 's review of available background information,:£. special-status plants have been documented in the vicinity of the study area (Fable 1). Of these, 47-51 species have "no" potential and eighE nine have "low" potential for occurrence in the study area ... Similar to the habitats within the pipeline alignment options and the booster pump station locations for the proposed project, the habitats within the site proposed for the additional facilities at the Regional Plant are not California Department of Fish and Game. 2006 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Rarefind [CD-ROM}, Wildlife Habitat Data Analysis Branch, California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento: California U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. November 15, 2006. Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that Occur in or may be Affected by Project in the Mountain View (428A) and Palo Alto (428B) U.SG.S 712 Minute Quadrangles. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife. Accessed November 15, 2006. Available from http://www.fivs.gov/sacramento/es/ssp_lists California Native Plant Society. November 15, 2006. Inventory of rare and endangered plants of California. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento. Accessed November 15, 2006. Available from http://cnps.web.aplus.netlcgi-binlinvlinventory.cgi 179 H Street. Petaluma. CA 94952 Phone 707283-4040 • Fax 707 283-4041 • E-mail info@cajaeir.com • Web www.cajaeir.com Los Angeles. Santa Clarita. Agoura Hills. Petaluma. Oakland. Mammoth Lakes CHRISTOPHER A. JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES likely to support any of the special-status plants evaluated because ofthe level of disturbance and dominance of non-native vegetation. Special-Status Animals No additional special-status animals were incorporated into Table 2. However, the ratings of the potential for occurrence for some of the species changed as a result of including the site proposed for the additional facilities at the Regional Plant in the study area. The most notable change is burrowing owl (BUOW). BUOW was previously considered to have a "low" potential for occurrence in the study and is now considered to have a "medium" potential. The text of the introductory paragraph for the special-status animal discussion in the Biological Resources section of the ISIMND should be revised as follows: ... Of these species, :JJ have "no" potential, three have "low H potential, and ene two htm have "medium" potential for occurrence in the study area, and two have been identified as "present" ... As discussed above, only those special-status species rated as having a "medium" potential for occurrence (Qurrowing owl [Athene cunicularial and salt marshcommon yellow throat [Geothlypis trichas sinuosa]) and identified as "present" (California red-Ieggedfrog [Rana aurora draytonii] and western pond turtle [Actinemys marmorata]) in the study area, as well as California clapper rail, California black rail, and other migratory birds and raptors are discussed in more detail below ... Also, a discussion of BUOW and measures to avoid impacts to this species should be incorporated in the Biological Resources section ofthe ISIMND for the proposed project. Refer to the discussions provided below. Birds Burrowing Owl Burrowing owl (BUOW) is designated a species of special concern by the CDFG. It is a resident of open habitats (e.g., annual and perennial grasslands and deserts and arid scrublands with bare ground or low-growing vegetation) and requires burrows for protection, cover, and nesting. BUOWs typically use burrows made by fossorial mammals, such as California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beechyz) or American badger (Taxidea taxus), but will also use man-made structures (e.g., culverts, concrete, asphalt, wood piles). BUOWs may use a site for breeding, wintering, foraging, and/or migration stopovers and show moderate to high site fidelity (Le., re-using general areas and even particular burrows year after year). Depending on the location, the nesting season occurs between February 1 st and August 31 st. The study area provides potential foraging and nesting habitat for BUOWs, particularly within the grassland habitat on the site proposed for the additional facilities at the Regional Plant. The grassland habitat in the vicinity of the pipeline lateral off the southern end of the backbone alignment on Hillview Avenue and the ruderal habitat east of the San Francisco Bay Trail and East Bayshore Parkway also provide habitat for BUOWs; however, the potential for occurrence within these habitats is considered low given the existing conditions (lack of burrow donors and/or intensity of human-related disturbances). There are several occurrences of BUOW recorded in the CNDDB within a five-mile radius of the study area. Although no individual owls or evidence of owl use (e.g., white-wash, pellets, prey remains) were observed on the site at the Regional Plant during CAJA's September 2006 field survey, BUOWs could use the burrows on the site and, if present, could be adversely affected by installation of additional facilities for the proposed project. Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would be implemented prior to the onset of construction activities to avoid substantial adverse effects to burrowing owl. b) Methods similar to those described in the Biological Resources section of the ISIMND previously completed for the proposed project were used to determine if the vegetation communities and wildlife habitats identified on the site proposed for the additional facilities at the Regional Plant are considered sensitive by local or 179 H Street. Petaluma. CA 94952 Phone 707 283-4040. Fax 707 283-4041 • E-mail info@cajaeir.com • Web www,cajaeir.com Los Angeles. Santa Clarita. Agoura Hills. Petaluma. Oakland. Mammoth Lakes CHRISTOPHER A. JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS. Although there are several sensitive natural communities documented as occurring in the vicinity of the Regional Plant (e.g., northern coastal salt marsh, serpentine bunchgrass, valley oak woodland), the site proposed for the installation of the additional facilities does not support any of these communities or habitats. Consequently, the installation of the additional facilities for the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. c) No federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act are present on the site proposed for the additional facilities at the Regional Plant. d) The site proposed for the additional facilities at the Regional Plant is not within a known movement corridor for wildlife species and does not support habitat considered to be suitable for a native wildlife nursery site. e) Installation of the additional facilities at the Regional Plant would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. The trees on the site proposed for the additional facilities at the Regional Plant are not protected by City of Palo Alto's Municipal Code Chapter 8.10. 1) The site proposed for the additional facilities at the Regional Plant is not located within an area covered by a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Mitigation Measures In addition to Mitigation Measnre BIO-S outlined below for BUOW, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 and Mitigation Measure BIO-4 in the Biological Resources section of the ISIMND previously completed for the proposed project should be implemented to reduce potentially significant impacts to California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus), California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis), and other migratory birds and raptors on and/or in the vicinity of the site proposed for the additional facilities at the Regional Plant. Also, the text of these later mitigation measures should be revised to incorporate reference to the site at the Regional Plant. Mitigation Measure BIO-S: Conduct protocol-level BUOW survey prior to the installation of the additional facilities proposed at the Regional Plant and avoid impacts to owls, if present, during project construction. A qualified biologist shall conduct a protocol-level survey for burrowing owl following the methods outlined in the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines 7. A survey for owls shall be conducted during the breeding season (in general, February lSI through August 3 IS" peaking between April 151h and July 15th). If no owls are observed using the site during the breeding season surveys, winter surveys shall be conducted. Winter surveys shall be conducted between December 1 st and January 31 s" during the period when wintering owls are most likely to be present, if necessary. A complete owl survey consists of four site visits, on separate days and during weather that is conducive to observing owls outside their burrows. If no owls are found during the breeding or winter season surveys, no further mitigation shall be required, provided construction activities or destruction of suitable burrows commence within 30 days of the date of the last survey. Otherwise, a pre-construction survey for owls shall be conducted no more than 30 days prior to the onset of construction activities. If surveys confirm presence of owls on the site, mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the proposed project, in coordination with CDFG, to avoid and/or minimize impacts to burrowing owls, their burrows and foraging habitat on the site. The following measures shall be taken into consideration: 1) occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the nesting season, unless a qualified biologist approved by the CDFG verifies through non- invasive methods that either: a) the owls have not begun egg-laying and incubation; or b) that the juveniles from California Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1993. Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. 179 H Street. Petaluma. CA 94952 Phone 707283-4040. Fax 707 283-4041 • E-mail info@cajaeir.com • Web www.cajaeir.com Los Angeles. Santa Clarita. Agoura Hills. Petaluma. Oakland. Mammoth Lakes CHRISTOPHER A. JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES Research those burrows are foraging independently and capable of independent survival; 2) to offset the loss of foraging and burrow habitat on the project site, a minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat per pair or unpaired resident bird, shall be acquired and permanently protected; 3) when destruction of occupied burrows is unavoidable, existing unsuitable burrows shall be enhanced (e.g., enlarged or cleared of debris) or new burrows shall be created (e.g., installing artificial burrows) at a minimum ratio of 1: I on protected lands; 4) if owls must be moved away from the disturbance area, passive relocation techniques shall be used rather to trapping; and 5) the project sponsor shall provide funding for long-term management and monitoring of the protected lands. Summary In summary, installation of the additional facilities at the Regional Plant for the proposed project could adversely affect special-status animals, including BUOW, California clapper rail, California black rail, and other migratory birds and raptors. However, implementation of Mitigatiou Measures BIO-3, BIO-4, and BIO-S would reduce potentially significant impacts to these sensitive species to a less-than-signijicant level. No sensitive plants or vegetation communities or jurisdictional wetlands or waters would be adversely affected by the installation of the additional facilities at the Regional Plant. Also, the additional facilities would not interfere with or impede the use of wildlife movement corridors or nursery sites. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding our analysis for the site proposed for the additional facilities at the Regional Plant for the proposed project or incorporating this analysis into the previously completed Biological Resources section of the ISIMND. 179 H Street. Petaluma. CA 94952 Phone 707 283-4040. Fax 707 283-4041 • E-mail info@cajaeir.com • Web www,cajaeir,com Los Angeles. Santa Clarita. Agoura Hills. Petaluma. Oakland. Mammoth Lakes This page left intentionally blank APPENDIX D CULTURAL RESOURCES Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): V. CULTURAL RESOURCES --Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §IS064.S? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to § IS064.S? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? CULTURAL SETTING Potentially Significant Im12act o o o o Less Than Significant With Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incor12oration Im12Qcr Impact o o o o o o o o Evidence gathered from archaeological sites in the region (Fredrickson 1973; Moratto 1984) indicates that this part of Santa Clara County is known to have been occupied, at least intermittently, for the past 6,000 years or longer. Decades of archaeological investigation indicate that a discrete archaeological entity based on the intensive use of shellfish, a subsistence strategy reflected in both coastal and bay shore midden deposits, thrived in the Bay Area (Moratto 1984). The ethnographic inhabitants of the area at the time of historic contact with Europeans were the Ohione or Costanoan group of Native Americans, who are known to have established villages in the project vicinity (Kroeber 1925; Levy 1978a, b). The groups inhabiting these discrete villages were independent political entities, each occupying specific territories defined by physiographic features. Access to the natural resources of the territories was controlled by each group. Although each group had one or more permanent villages, their territory contained numerous smaller camp sites used as needed during a seasonal round of resource exploitation. Mission Santa Clara, founded in 1777, controlled much of the land in the Santa Clara Valley (approximately 80,000 acres) until secularization in the 1830s. Mission lands were used primarily for the cultivation of wheat, com, peas, hemp, flax, and linseed, and for grazing cattle, horses, sheep, pigs, goats, and mules. By the late 1840s, the Santa Clara Valley drastically changed in the wake of the U.S. victory of the Mexican -American War (1846-1848), and the gold rush of 1849. Open land used for Palo Alto Recycled Water Project MND 2-1 WSA/203213 agricultural purposes and cattle ranching under Mexican rule, was now home to newly arrived American settlers and "squatters" who were quick to take possession of the fertile valley. Leland Stanford was a business man who in 1852 moved from New York to Sacramento. He earned a fortune which allowed him to gain political office as Governor. Following his time as governor, he concentrated his efforts in successfully building the first transcontinental railroad with the Central Pacific Railroad. This company was later merged with Southern Pacific Railroad. In 1870, Stanford purchased the Rancho San Francisquito, which includes portions of modem day Palo Alto. On this land, which he named Palo Alto, he established a farm dedicated to breeding pedigree race horses. In 1884, Stanford's only son died at the age of sixteen. As a memorial to him, Stanford established a university which was opened for classes in 1891. Today, Stanford University is one of the most prestigious private universities on the West Coast (Hoover et al. as cited in Kyle 1990: 418-419). The oldest parts of Palo Alto were once called Mayfield and College Terrace. ·In 1867, Mayfield was established as a town although the first school house dates to 1855. The town is named after one of the early farms owned by Sarah Wallis, who was the first president of the California Suffrage Association. Subsequent to its founding, Mayfield earned a reputation for the thirteen unruly saloons in town. Stanford disapproved of alcohol and used his influence to modifY that reputation. He convinced an associate, T. Hopkins, to purchase a 740 acre tract ofland and prohibit the sale of alcohol on the property. In 1894, the town was incorporated and became known as Palo Alto, to which Mayfield was annexed in 1925. In 1889, the area between Stanford University and Mayfield was settled. Originally it was called University Terrace but later was subsumed into the growing City of Palo Alto (Hoover et al. as cited in Kyle 1990: 420). In the twentieth century, Palo Alto benefited from technological growth in Silicon Valley. Currently, the city continues to be an economic center for the technology industry. Xerox, Amazon.com, Lockheed Martin, and Hewlett-Packard are major technology firms that maintain offices in Stanford Research Park. DISCUSSION Records searches of pertinent survey and site data were conducted at the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University (NWIC). The records were accessed by using the Palo Alto and Mountain View USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps, Township 6 South, Range 2 West, and Township 6 South, Range 3 West in Santa Clara County. The initial record searches (File No. 07- 0362, 07-1299) covered the entire project area and a one-quarter mile radius adjacent thereto. A later record search (File No. 07-1326) was conducted at the request of Cookie Him of the Division of Financial Assistance, at the State Water Resources Control Board, upon an initial review of the report for the purpose of examining the archaeological potential of closely associated areas located between the proposed routes of the pipeline backbone and laterals. Previous surveys, studies and archaeological site records were accessed as they pertained to the project area. The record search included a review of the California Inventory of Historic Resources (1976), the Historic Property Directory (Office of Historic Preservation current computer list), NWIC records of archaeological sites and surveys, GLO Plats, historic maps, and other pertinent historic data available at the NWIC for Santa Clara County. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project MND 2-2 WSA!203213 Although no previously recorded archaeological sites exist within the proposed project area, the records search indicated that 11 previously recorded archaeological sites and one previously recorded isolate are located within Y4-mile of the project area (Table 2-1), and four sites are in the added areas between and around the proposed pipeline backbone and lateral options (Table 2-2). A total of 49 cultural resources studies have been conducted, including 15 studies within some portion of the project area (Table 2-3), 25 studies have been conducted within )4-mile of the project area (Table 2-4), and 9 studies in the added areas between and around the proposed pipeline backbone and lateral options (Table 2-5). Site # CA-SCL-3 CA-SCL-708 CA-SCL-585 CA-SCL-622 TABLE 2-1 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN 114 MILE OF THE PROJECT AREA Description .. , . . ... Prehistoric occupation site composed of dark friable soil with shell, fire cracked rock (FCR), bone and lithic material. The site is bisected by Matadero Creek and is estimated to be 1O,000m2, and more than 120cm deep. Artifacts noted include flaked and ground stone tools (mortars and projectile points), one charm stone, whole Olivella beads and fractions and abalone shell pendants. Two prehistoric features observed at the site , include a lens of shell and a possible hearth composed of a deposit of FCR • and baked clay. Prehistoric occupation site composed of dark midden deposits. Archaeological matrix is interlaced with shell (oyster, bay mussel and horn snails), fire-cracked rock (FCR) and one chert flake. CA-SCL-708 is located at the intersection of Louis Road and Colorado A venue. The site covers an area of over 900 m2 but the depth of deposits remains unknown Prehistoric occupation site composed of black midden deposits located on the southeast bank of Matadero Creek. Artifacts types recovered consisted of shell and shell beads, grinding stones and pestles, chert cores and other unspecified lithic materials. Three human burials were also encountered and excavated. This was a salvage investigation conducted in 1985. Site boundaries were never determined due to construction constraints. Prehistoric occupation site composed of dark midden deposits approximately 90 cm deep. The site is located on Emerson Street in Palo Alto between Oregon Expressway and Colorado Street. The site covers an area 85 meters in length by 15+ meters in width. Artifact types observed in the matrix include shell (oyster, horn snail and mussel), FCR, faunal bone and Franciscan chert flakes. ! Prehistoric occupation site composed of ~ark midden deposit. The site is Reference Bocek 1985 Bocek 1990b Bocek and Rutherford 1985 Bocek 1987b [ ' estimated to be approximately 216,000 m . The depth of this site remains CA ...... -... S ..... C .. _L_-_6_24_L.:::un:...:r::.:e~co..::r..::d==ed==.:.:.:N:...:0_art_ifi_ac_t_s_w_e_r_e _re_c_o_v_er_e_d_o_r_e_n_co_u_n_t_er_e_d_b_u_t _ec_o_fi_ac_t_s_in_th_e---L __ E_n_gl_an_d_l_9_87_---1 form of FCR, shell (specifically Cerithidea) and crab claws were observed in the matrix. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project MND 2-3 WSAf203213 CA-SCL-628 CA-SCL-630 CA-SCL-631 CA-SCL-632 CA-SCL-716 CA-SCL-3-1 (ISO 3) Prehistoric occupation site composed of dark friable soils and several concentrations of chipped stone. Artifacts recovered on the surface include chipped stone cores, flakes and tool fragments. Various types of shell (including Olivella, oyster and hom snail) were also observed at the site. The site covers an area of 4,500 m2 while the depth remains unrecorded. It is suggested this site may be contiguous with CA-SCL-3 but this is undeterminable because Foothill expressway was built between the two. Prehistoric lithic scatter composed of nodules of untested chert, chert core fragments, reduction flakes and FCR. Site function was determined to be a lithic quarry due to lithic material in all stages of reduction. The site covers an area of approximately 250 m2• The depth of the site remains undetermined. The site is located on the north slope of Coyote Hill just south of Co ote Hill Road. Prehistoric lithic scatter composed of chert cores, flakes and tools. Due to the lack of untested cores, site function was determined to be a lithic workshop. One possible feature was encountered but remains unexcavated and could be the result of historic or modem activity. The site is located on the summit of Coyote Hill (proximal to CA-SCL-630 and CA-SCL-632) and covers an area of approximately 100 m2• Prehistoric lithic scatter composed of tested and untested chert cobbles, chert cores, reduction flakes and utilized flakes. Site function was determined to be a lithic quarry due to lithic material in all stages of reduction. The site is located on the southeast slope of Coyote Hill (proximal to CA-SCL-630 and CA-SCL-63l) and covers an area of approximately 15,000 m2• The extent of buried deposits remains unknown. Prehistoric occupation site composed of deposits of dark midden. Artifacts present in the matrix include shell (oyster, hom snails, bay mussel and abalone), FCR, baked clay, ash lumps, faunal bone complimented by Franciscan and Monterrey chert flakes. The site is located on the west bank of Matadero Creek; the highest concentration of material is at the street address of 717 Chimalus Drive. The area and depth of site remain unrecorded. Naturally occurring surface scatter of Franciscan chert located on the lower slope of the south side of Coyote Hill. One Franciscan chert core and two flakes were observed in the scatter of cobbles. This was designated the Arastradero Chert Source. TABLE 2-2 CULTURAL RESOURCES IN AREAS BETWEEN PIPELINE , A large, shallow midden containing shell, FCR, faunal bone, and human CA-SCL-597 ' remains. The site is located on the 700 block ofFlorales Drive, South Palo i Alto, between Solana and Amaranta Streets. Very large prehistoric midden and probable habitation site containing FCR, cerithidea, ostrea, flaked lithics, groundstone. Partially disturbed at time of Bocek 1987c Bocek 1987d Bocek 1987e Bocek 1987f Bocek 1991 Bocek and Martinez 1985 Bocek 1986b CA-SCL-600 recording by modem residential construction. Full extent of site uncertain, Van Zandt 1986 but generally located south of intersection of Alma Street and West Charleston Road in Palo Alto. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project tvlND 2-4 WSA/203213 I A large area of dark friable midden soil containing utilized flake tools made of Franciscan and Monterey Banded chert, faunal bone, shell, FCR, and CA -SCL-616 • charcoal. The site is located to the west of a paved bike path built on an old Southern Pacific right of way, which crosses Matadero Creek north of a V A hospital and south of Gunn High School. I CA-SCL-707 Survey # A badly disturbed earth midden containing shell and FCR. Heavily impacted by residential and road construction. The site is located at the I intersection of Alma Expressway and Adobe Creek, north-northeast of the . intersection of Alma Expressway and Rengstorff A venue, i TABLE 2-3 CULTURAL RESOURCE STUDIES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA Date ! ••. :". '" Author ..................... .. ,.' ' Title Bocek 1987a Bocek 1990a '. .'. Santa Clara County Historic Property Survey Report, Oregon-Page Mill S-004883 1977 Expressway Intersection Improvements at EI Camino Transportation Agency Real, Palo Alto, CA S-005023 1982 Cartier, Robert I Cultural Resources Evaluation for a Parcel for land at • 3860 Middlefield Road in the City of Palo Alto, .. County of Santa Clara .,. S-008420 1981a Cartier, Robert Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Peter Coutts Hill project, Stanford University, County of Santa Clara Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Matadero Creek S-009442 1987 Cartier, Robert Flood Control Project in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara Technical Report of Cultural Resources Studies for S-011396 1989 BioSystems Analysis, Inc the Proposed WTG-WEST, Inc. Los Angeles to San Francisco and Sacramento, California, Fiber Optic Cable Project Hatoff, Brian, Barb Voss, Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed S-017993 1995 Sharon Waechter, Stephen Wee, and Vance Bente Mojave Northward Expansion Project S-022605 1999 • Cartier, Robert Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Sprint PCS Mitchell Park Project at 3600 Middlefield Road in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara Final Cultural Resources Inventory Report for Williams Communications, INC. Fiber Optic Cable S-022978 2000 Avina, Mike System Installation Project, San Francisco to Santa • Clara, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara I Counties, Addendum 1 S-025159 2002 N d I k' J h d M' h 11 St I Archaeological Investigations for the 2950 West a 0 s I, 0 n, an IC e e . B h R d W' I C .. S' CA CI . • ays ore oa, Ire ess ommumcatlOns lte, ~r2U7H I Holson, John, Cordelia Sutch, ! Cultum} Rosou"" Roport fo< Son Bruno., Moun"in I S-025174 2002 and Stephanie Pau .. View Internodal Level 3 Fiber Optics Project in San ! Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, California S-027709 2003 Losee, Carolyn Cultural Resources Analysis for Cingular BA-351-02 Mayfield Station #2 Site (letter report) S-027908 2003 Environmental Science Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant I Associates Reuse Pipeline, Cultural Resources Inventory Report Nelson, Wendy, Tammara I Archaeological Inventory for the Caltrain S-029657 2002 Norton, Larry Chiea, and I Electrification Program Alternative in San Francisco, Reinhard Pribish San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, California Palo Alto Recycled Water Project MND 2-5 WSA/203213 I S-029698 S-033697 . SurveY#' S-004201 S-004279 S-006051 S-008589 S-008728 S-014246 S-014973 S-014974 S-OI4975 S-015928 S-016137 S-01669l S-017518 I S-OI8047 I S-020483 2005 ThaI, Erika ent Shelter, PG&E City of Palo Alto! SF- , 1080 Colorado A venue, Palo Alto, CA. 2007 Martorana, Dean Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant Reuse Pipeline, Santa Clara County, California: Date 1997 1976 1983 1981 1949 1992 1993 Cultural Resources Invento TABLE 2-4 CULTURAL RESOURCE STUDIES WITHIN ¥.t-MILE OF THE PROJECT AREA ,i'Author / "i i'",;,," C, " •• . ... Title' " . Anonymous Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed Palo Alto Yacht Harbor Expansion. Riley, Lynn Archaeological Reconnaissance, Proposed Site of Sanitary Land Fill, Santa Clara County, California Archaeological Reconnaissance and Records Search Clark, Mathew for the Proposed Bryan Canyon/Kaiser Permanente Solid Waste Landfill Access and Transfer Stations Cultural Resource Evaluation ofthe Terman School Cartier, Robert Low-cost Housing Project near Arastradero and Pomona Avenue in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara i Caldwell, Warren Wendell i The Archaeology of the Stanford-Palo Alto Region Archaeological Resource Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Veterans Administration Medical Center Project in the City of Management Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara PG&E Archaeology,S limited scale tests along the Hammett, Julia proposed pipeline trench crossing of Matadero Creek (letter report) 1992 Hammett, Julia Archaeological Concerns Related to Lockheed's Toxic ! Substances Control Program (letter report) 1992 Bennett, J.M. Stanford Segment of Line 1091132; Cultural Resources Testing of Site CA-SCL-628 (letter report) 1994 ,Wizorek, Julie.C., and Jon I Reddington Matadero Creek Project, Archaeological Testing Program, Phase 11 ! Archaeological Field Inspection of the Page Mill 1994 i Holman, Miley Road and Foothill Road Expressway Improvement Project, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California Cartier, Robert, Julie C. Cultural Resource Evaluation ofthe Adobe Creek 1994 Wizorek, and Kim Holanda Project in the County of Santa Clara 1975 Jackson, Thomas L. An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Junipero I Serra Boulevard Study (letter report) I I 994b Holman, Miley P. Archaeological Field Inspection of the Palo Alto Golf . Course, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California. Cultural Resources Assessment, Pacific Bell Mobile 1998a Price, Barry A. Services Facility SF-530-03,Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California (letter report) Palo Alto Recycled Water Project lvlND 2-6 WSAI203213 i Psota, Sunshine I Review of Historic Resources for Site SF-142-02, 711 S-020910 I 1998 ! Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, CA • (50001 84/98) (letter report) f Cultural Resources Survey of the Point to Point Web S-022704 2000 Ballard, Hannah • TV Service Connection, Santa Clara County (letter • report) Record Search Results for Sprint Spectrum's Personal S-023888 2001 Losee, Carolyn Communication Series (PCS) Wireless "Long's Drugs" Site (Ref# SF33XC572F) (letter report) Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey and S-026045 2000 Carrico, Richard, Theodore Inventory Report for the Metromedia Fiberoptic Cable Cooley, and William Eckhardt Project, San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles Basin Networks Cultural Resources in the Area ofthe Trail S-027020 2003 Jones, Laura Alignments Under Study by Santa Clara County in the Stanford Trails Supplemental Environmental Impact I Report Archaeological File Study of the 90 I San Antonio S-028669 2004a I Holman, Miley P. Road Project Area, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California Nextel Communications Wireless S-02923I 2000 BiIlat, Lorna • Telecommunications Service Facility-Santa Clara . County, Nextel Site No. (CA-017IA) 1 Page Mill i Road (letter report) Nextel Communications Wireless S-029233 n.d. Billat, Lorna Telecommunications Service Facility-Santa Clara County, Nextel Site No. (CA-087IA)1 Oregon EJg)resswaYiIetter r~ort) I Cultural Resources Analysis for Cingular Wireless S-030233 2004a . Losee, Carolyn Site BA -350-02, "California A venue Cal train Station", Palo Alto, California (letter report) Cultural Resource Study ofthe Middlefield & S-033281 2005 Supernowicz, Dana E. Meadow Dr. (Achieve School) Project, Cingular I Wireless Site No. SCFCCA2074F, 3860 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, Santa Cou®,-, California 94303 TABLE 2-5 CULTURAL RESOURCE STUDIES IN AREAS BETWEEN PIPELINE AND LATERAL OPTIONS ~I))~ %-lVIILE) Survey # .'1 Date I····· .• ::'. Author .. ; . l"'> .•.•. <' ......r Title: ~'< ! Archaeological Survey Report, 04-SCL-1O 1, Portions 8345 1980 Melandry, Mara of P.M. 38.3/52/5, Improvements to Route 101 i between Route 17 and Embarcadero Road 10077 1988 Cartier, Robert, and Glory Anne I Archaeological Excavation at CA-SCL-600 on Adobe Laffey • Creek in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara Garaventa, Donna, Rebecca L. Cultural Resources Assessment for 1990 General Plan 12528 1991 Anastasio, Stuart A. Guedon, Update, City of Mountain View, Santa Clara County, Sondra Jarvis, Lisa A. Pujol, California J Steven 1. Rossa 16394 1994 Basin Research Associates, Inc. Recorded Archaeological Resources in Santa Clara CouIlty, California Palo Alto Recycled Water Project MND 2-7 WSA/203213 I 1998a I Price, Barry A. ! Cultural Resources Assessment, Pacific Bell Mobile 20343 • Services Facility SF-619-05, Palo Alto, San Mateo County Sawyer, Izaak, Laurie Pfeiffer, Archaeological Survey along Onshore Portions of the 22657 2000 Karen Rasmussen, Judy Global West Fiber Optic Cable Project Berryman • Completion of Archaeological Subsurface Augering at 25271 2001 Holman, Miley the Hiatt Rickey'S Hotel Project, 4129 EI Camino Real, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County (letter report) 28906 2004b Losee, Carolyn Cultural Resource Analysis for Cingular Wireless Site SF-971-01 "Block Buster" Palo Alto (letter report) I 2003 Historic Property Survey Report, Mission Bells 32250 Lapin, Philippe Project, State Route 82/Interstate 101, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, California Native American Consultation WSA contacted the Native American Reritage Commission (NARC) by letter on August 31, 2007, requesting information on sacred lands and a contact list of local tribal representatives or most likely descendents (MLD). A response was received from the NARC on September 14, 2007 noting, "A record search of the sacred land file has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area." The letter also provided a list of Santa Clara County Native American Contacts. Due to the potentially sensitive nature of previously unrecorded prehistoric cultural resources that could be encountered in the project area, WSA contacted the local Native American representatives to solicit comment on the project's environmental documentation. On September 18, 2007, WSA Staff Archaeologist Melinda Rickman contacted by letter each of the listed Native American Contacts, explaining the nature of the project and soliciting comments and any additional information the individuals might have regarding cultural resources in the project area No response to the letter solicitations was received. On October 2, 2007, WSA placed follow-up telephone calls to all of the individuals on the contact list. All solicited comments are reported in Appendix A. Sample consultation letters are also provided in Appendix A. In early 2009, it was decided that a pump station is needed at the existing RWQCP as part of this proposed project. On October 23, 2006, on behalf of another project at the RWQCP that also encompassed the area of the pump station, WSA had contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NARC) by letter, requesting information on sacred lands and a contact list of local tribal representatives or most likely descendents (MLD).The results of that request are being used for this addition to the current project. A response to the October 23rd request was received from the NAHC on October 27,2006, noting, "A record search of the sacred land file has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area." The letter also provided a list of Santa Clara County Native American Contacts. Due to the potentially sensitive nature of previously unrecorded prehistoric cultural resources that could be encountered in the project area, WSA contacted the Palo Alto Recycled Water Project MND 2-8 WSA/203213 I i ! local Native American representatives to solicit comment on the project's environmental documentation. WSA Project Manager Eric Strother contacted by letter each of the listed Native American Contacts, explaining the nature of the project and soliciting comments and any additional information the individuals might have regarding cultural resources in the project area. No responses to the consultation letters were received. On November 28, 2006, and again on November 29, 2006, WSA placed follow-up telephone calls to all of the individuals on the contact list. Messages were left when possible. No responses to the phone calls were received. All solicited comments are reported in Appendix A. Sample consultation letters are provided in Appendix A. Geoarchaeological Background Mr. David Devries, Principal and Soils Scientist of Mesa Technical, Berkeley, California, prepared the following report on the geoarchaeological analysis of the Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Area. As discussed above, in early 2009, it was decided that a pump station is needed at the existing RWQCP as part of this proposed project. The RWQCP project area lies within a mile of Devries' study area, and is situated entirely on several feet of historic fill (at least) described as Made land [Ma] on the soil survey map, which is "areas consisting of a fill of earth and refuse over Alviso soil material or over Tidal Marsh" (Gardner et aI, 1958). Alviso Clay (An) is discussed in Devries' report (summarized below). Tidal Marsh soil (Ta), is "areas periodically covered by the tide and on which a rank herbaceous growth normally occurs," and "having practically no agricultural value". These two soils are very similar, both being flooded by sea water during high tides. As a result, Devries' assessment of Alviso Clay (below) applies equally to the Tidal Marsh soil. WSA has, therefore, concluded that Devries' original geoarchaeological analysis adequately addresses the soil types beneath the fill (or Made land) on which the additional project facilities are proposed at the RWQCP. The purpose of this study is to evaluate archaeological sensitivity for buried cultural features, within soils and sediments to be disturbed by construction activity. This report is based upon review of the older Santa Clara Area soil survey (Gardner et ai, 1958), mapped just before WWII, and more recent geotechnical reports by various authors for specific building sites within the Area of Potential Effect (APE). Early reconnaissance soil surveys, from about 1900-1920, and the first series of more detailed county soil surveys, such as Gardner's, are outstanding sources because oftheir emphasis upon the collection of primary data: the geomorphology, field observations, and detailed profile descriptions were obtained by Bureau of Soils and Soil Conservation Service career professionals who worked outdoors most of the time, in that era before Bay Area landscapes had been reshaped for urban use, before marshy areas had been completely diked and drained, natural levees and stream terraces destroyed, and sinuous drainages channelized. Such long term, labor intensive, precise field work by teams of experts is now expensive and rare, aside from the fact that original geomorphology may be unidentifiable on the present day, graded urban landscape. Since these soils were mapped, there has been much evolutionary change to the taxonomic and descriptive language that we use to discuss the soils. Yet, the soil physical and chemical attributes Palo Alto Recycled Water Project MND 2-9 WSA/203213 remain constant, though our perspective upon and interpretations ofthe raw data change. Gardner's pre-WWII soil mapping work was published with agricultural applications in mind, especially for the management of Santa Clara Valley's famed orchard crops. Yet the soil properties his team recorded are quite relevant to today's archaeological sensitivity interpretations, especially properties such as soil horizon colors, textures, pedogenetic relationships, and drainage. Geographically, the Palo Alto APE for cultural resources includes an approximately 2 mile by 4 mile area of southeastern Palo Alto, stretching northeast from the hills just south of Stanford University to the Bayhore Freeway, US-IOI. Geomorpho\ogically, the Palo Alto APE is similar to other urban landscapes ringing the central and south parts of San Francisco Bay, in that rolling foothills give way to broad swaths of older, then younger alluvial fan aprons, cut by recent streams which have eroded the uplands and older fans, then have deposited channel sands and gravel, shifted course, and built terraces, levees, and extensive floodplains along their descent to San Francisco Bay. A large part of the APE, 40-50%, has been mapped on low ground near the Bay as one of three types of heavy textured, poorly drained soils, members of the Clear Lake, Sunnyvale, or Alviso series. All are on formerly wet, or seasonally wet grassland that now has been diked, drained, and reclaimed. These soils are less affected by high water tables now, since drainage ditches or tile drains have been installed. Also, pumping for urban use, and formerly for agricultural irrigation, has lowered the local water table. The Clear Lake soils, on the upper rim of the basin, are highest in elevation and least affected by salt or lime accumulation. They probably represent former freshwater floodplain deposits. The Alviso soils occur on the lowest ground nearest the Bay, formerly tidal marsh, and are affected by sodium and other salts throughout their profiles. The Sunnyvale soils are intermediate, having more marly lime than the Clear Lake soils, but not so high sodium levels as the Alviso soils. Clear Lake clay, 0-1 % slopes. (Cm) In the study area, the Clear Lake clay occurs on nearly level ground in the highest topographic position of the basin rim soils, as stated above. Areas of Clear Lake soil are adjacent to young, well drained alluvial fan soils on the topographic high side, and adjacent to wetter, marine affected soils on the low side. Some soil properties relevant to the assessment of archaeological potential are the following: The Clear Lake clay has an A-C horizonation that has developed within deep alluvial deposits. These deposits have a montmorillonitic (shrinking-swelling) clay minerology and the soil developed from these deposits has a vertisolic (self-churning) taxonomic classification. The parent materials of today's Clear Lake clay accumulated slowly and steadily, probably as an alternating combination of freshwater floodplain deposits from creeks of the alluvial fans, and marine transgressive deposits from the Bay. Yet the xeric climate and lack of a year round high water table allowed the montmorillonitic soil minerals to dry and shrink each summer, resulting in deep, wide cracks. The cracks partially filled with surface soil each summer, then swelled shut again with the onset of the winter rains, as the soil minerals again absorbed water. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project MND 2-10 WSA 1203213 The A-C pattern of Clear Lake soil horizonation, and lack of a B horizon, thus does not reflect frequent episodes of deposition, as on an alluvial fan, but rather the constant top to bottom churning of the soil, making an undifferentiated mass of the top four feet. Blocks and prisms of soil slid against each other with each wetting and drying episode, forming smooth slickenside surfaces and destroying any stratigraphic integrity that subsurface cultural deposits may have once had. The Clear Lake soils are wet for nearly half the year, and thus not good sites for permanent camps, though being adjacent to wetter marshland, they may have been used for temporary hunting or fishing camps during the summer. Their massive structure, extremely hard dry consistence, and very sticky, plastic nature when wet, would have made them unappealing or impossible to dig for storage pits or burials. They are unlikely to have been used for those purposes, with well drained soils of better tilth so close at hand. We would rate the Clear Lake soils as having a low potential to contain buried features associated with sustained, long term occupation. While the the gentle, low energy environment of sedimentation would be very favorable to the undisturbed burial of whatever artifacts might be present as a result of seasonal use, subsequent cracking and shifting of the soil mass during wet-dry cycles would tend to destroy the features, and/or their stratigraphic relationships. Seasonal use artifacts might be present especially near locations where freshwater creeks flow into tidal wetlands. Alviso clay, 0-1 % slopes. (An) The Alviso clay occurs on level ground in a lower topographic position than the Clear Lake or Sunnyvale basin soils. Areas of Alviso soil are adjacent to the heavy textured Sunnyvale soil on the topographic high side, and adjacent to tidal marshlands on the low side. Some soil properties relevant to the assessment of archaeological potential are the following: The parent material of the Alviso clay is fine textured alluvium, similar to the parent material of the other basin soils in the study area. However, the source of the Alviso parent material is more likely to have been suspended mud from the Bay than alluvium from the hills above Palo Alto. The soil minerology is described as mixed rather than montmorillonitic, reflecting more diverse source rocks than those which contributed sediment to the Clear Lake soil. The Alviso soils do not shrink and swell to the degree that the Clear Lake soils do, so the vertisolic churning of the A horizon is absent. Furthermore, the Alviso clay has a saline water table at 2-3 feet depth, which limits vegetation to salt tolerant grasses and pickleweed, and keeps the entire profile moist or wet at most times. The consistently damp soil conditions and low energy environment of aggradation favor the development of buried A horizons, resulting in A-C-Ab-2C. .. paleosolic profiles. The A-C pattern of Alviso soil horizonation, and lack of a B horizon, reflects frequent episodes of deposition, without sufficient time for eluviation of clay to form a B horizon. The Alviso soils are wet or damp nearly all the time, and thus not good sites for sustained, semi-permanent camps. Just as with the Clear Lake clay, their heavy texture and hard, sticky, plastic nature would have made them unappealing or impossible to dig for storage pits or burials. Except as noted in the paragraph entitled "shell midden," below, we would rate the Alviso soils as having a low potential to contain buried features associated with sustained, long term occupation. However, lacking the Clear Lake's vertisolic churning, the gentle, low energy environment of sedimentation would be very favorable to the undisturbed burial of whatever artifacts might be present as a result of seasonal use. Again, seasonal use artifacts might be present especially near locations where freshwater creeks flow into tidal wetlands. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project MND 2-11 WSA 12032 13 Sunnyvale clay, 0-1 % slopes. (Sx) The Sunnyvale clay is mapped on large areas of level ground in an intermediate topographic position between the Clear Lake soils on the high side, and the Alviso soils on the low side. It is a black, calcareous clay. Like the Alviso and Clear Lake soils, the Sunnyvale soil developed from fine textured floodplain alluvium in a low energy depositional environment. However, since the soil is wetter than the Clear Lake, and drier than the Alviso, the Sunnyvale has unique properties: its mixed minerology reduces the seasonal cracking, swelling, churning tendencies of basin rim soils like the Clear Lake, and its drier topographic position than the Alviso makes the Sunnyvale soil relatively rich in lime (CaC03) but mostly leached free of sodium, the more soluble salt. The intermediate soil wetness regime and heavy texture makes the Sunnyvale a grassland or prairie soil, a mollisol. The high organic matter content near the surface (from the grass roots) and high calcium content throughout tend to flocculate the clay and promote a granular, workable soil tilth, except during summer, for longer periods than on the Clear Lake soils. Gardner reports occasional gravel in some locations, deep in the subsoil or in parent material. This would seem to indicate that the Sunnyvale in places overlays Zamora or Dublin fan deposit soils at depths of only 5-7 feet. Pedologically, the Sunnyvale clay and its underlying sediments have a high potential to contain buried paleosols, reflecting either the gentle depositional environment of the floodplain, or the more energetic environment of the lower alluvial fans. On and within these paleosols, archaeological sites undoubtedly exist, so the archaeological potential is high. However, considering the vast areas mapped to Sunnyvale soil, and the very small percentage of this area to be disturbed within the APE, the chances of actually encountering a site are low. Shell Midden The Alviso and Sunnyvale soils are mapped on large areas of bayside flood plain, characterized by late Holocene alluvium deposited in a gentle, low energy, aggradational environment. Such a sedimentation regime is ideal for the intact burial of archaeological features, despite the fact that the obdurate soil texture and poor drainage make the presence of such archaeological features unlikely within the greatest part of the land so mapped. However, invisible to us today, either because of historic agricultural land leveling, and subsequent urban usage, or because of being covered with a thin veneer of recent flood sediment, there are bound to be small areas of buried landforms such as former stream levees or low dunes, on land near the present or former bay shore. These areas have a high archaeological potential to contain midden deposits, because of offering dry soil within a fish and game rich marsh, sometimes with permanent fresh water nearby, as, for example, at the Berkeley shellmound at the mouth of Strawberry Creek. So it is appropriate to say that most areas of the Alviso and Sunnyvale soils have low potential, except for small areas near former creek channels, and near former dunes. Such areas could be very shallowly buried, and unmapped on soil surveys, as they are covered by a thin layer of fine textured recent sediment that is undistinguishable from the Sunnyvale or Alviso surfaces. Deeper Levels Scattered geotechnical data exist for that part of the APE located on basin soils, showing gravel deposits at depth. Soil report 1-13 (William F. Jones, Inc.; 1980) has logged at least 3 feet of sand Palo Alto Recycled Water Project MND 2-12 WSA/203213 and gravel below 18 feet of black silty clay, at boring # 1, with similar results in borings #2 and #3. Soil report 1-34 (Berlogar, Long & Associates; 1981) has logged peaty silty clay over clay with caliche to 19 feet, then sandy clay with gravel below, in boring #2. Likewise, soil report 1183 (Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants; 2006) logs sand and gravel lenses at depths from 16 to 38 feet in 3 borings; while soil report 2-83 (J.V. Lowney & Associates; 1988) has logged lenses of well graded sand at 17-19 feet. We interpret these to be indicative of mid Holocene or earlier fan deposits, from a time when water levels in the Bay were much lower, and the fans originating in the uplands to the southwest extended farther to the northeast. The peat and caliche within the boring indicate a subaerial depositional environment. The archaeological potential of these deposits would be lower than for more recent fan deposits, because the food rich Bay would have been at a greater distance, and thus the land would have been less likely to have been occupied on a sustained basis. Conversely, there are probably deeply buried shell middens along former bay shore, below tidal mudflats, well out from this project's APE, on land now flooded. Recent Fan & Floodplain Soils Approximately 30% of the APE surface soil has been mapped as either Dublin clay, Dublin clay loam, or Zamora clay loam. These soils developed on recent alluvial fan material, near the distal edges of their fans, from sandstone and shale sediments. The degree of profile development is low. These soils have Bt horizons, but only barely, probably indicating an age not greater than mid- Holocene. Their relatively fine texture indicates a low energy depositional environment, thus favoring the undisturbed burial of any cultural features that happen to be present. Their geographic position adjacent to the Clear Lake basin soils, and the shapes of some map units, is suggestive of interfingering sediment deposits, with non-vertisolic Dublin and Zamora soils developing in one place (favoring preservation of cultural features), and churning, vertisoIic Clear Lake soils developing at the surface nearby (favoring destruction of any archaeological record). These radical differences in soil behavior exist because of differing minerology and shrink-swell potential in the parent material. The Dublin soils are associated with small watersheds and intermittent streams, whereas the Zamora soils are associated with the larger watersheds and higher energy streams such as Stevens Creek, San Francisquito Creek, and Permanente Creek. Dublin clay, 1-3% slopes (Dh); Dublin clay, 3-6% slopes (Dg); Dublin clay loam, 1-3% slopes (DI) The Dublin series is mapped on gently sloping ground in an intermediate topographic position between the Clear Lake soils on the low side, and the Milpitas and Ohmer soils on terraces to the southwest. The Dublin is a black, nonca1cru;eous, heavy textured soil of fans and floodplains associated with small watersheds, the rounded grassy foothills of the urban fringe, rather than the mountainous uplands. The surface horizons crack upon drying, and thus would be likely to destroy stratigraphic relationships of artifacts formerly at the ground surface. However, the soils chum to a lesser degree than the Clear Lake soils; the lower Dublin horizons are more permeable, more friable, and better drained than the Clear Lake clay. While we would assign a high probability of the Dublin soils having buried paleosols, because of a high organic matter content and a rapidly aggrading geomorphological position, we would estimate the potential for deeply buried sites to be low, because of the rare or intermittent water supply in these small watersheds. For areas of the Palo Alto Recycled Water Project MND 2-13 WSA/203213 Dublin soils adjacent to Zamora soils, the potential for deeply buried sites would be greater, of moderate probability, because Zamora landforms are more likely to be near a permanent stream. Zamora gravelly clay loam, 1-3% slopes (Ze); Zamora silty clay loam, 1-3% slopes (Zf); Zamora clay loam, 0-6% slopes (Za) The Zamora series, like the Dublin, is mapped on gently sloping recent fans and floodplains. Zamora soils are old enough to show slight illuviation of clay in the B horizons, but not so old as to pre-date the possibility of human cultural usage. They are probably younger than mid-Holocene in age. The Zamora parent sediments were transported to their fan, floodplain, and low terrace positions by the area's larger streams, draining watersheds in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Indeed, the prevalent fan soils mapped by Gardner are combinations of Zamora (A-Bt-C), Yolo (A-C), and Sorrento (A-Ck) soil types, reflecting typical patterns of fan building, as the runoff wanders over the fan surface, and areas presently covered by gravelly or sandy deposits are then buried by finer material, silty clay loam and clay, as the channel shifts away. Over time, Bt horizonation develops on the less frequently flooded sediments. Zamora soils can present a very complicated three dimensional volume, a vertical APE that may show several buried surfaces, or none, depending upon the frequency and violence of the fan building storm events. Zamora soils are moderately well drained, and would most of the time have a drier surface than the adjacent (to the northeast) Clear Lake clay. The archaeological sensitivity ofthe Zamora soils is high, especially near Barron Creek and Matadero Creek, where the Zamora presence on both sides of the waterway indicates both a stable channel and long term stable land surfaces. Upland soils Small areas of upland soils are mapped withing the APE, in the Vallecitos, Gaviota, and Los Trancos series: Vallecitos clay loam, 20-35% slopes (Va); Gaviota loam, 20-35% slopes (Gk); Los Trancos stony clay, 10-35% slopes (Lg). These are shallow, residual soils developed on bedrock. The Vallecitos soil has an A-Bt-R horizonation, with hard, partially metamorphosed sedimentary rock at about 19" depth. The textural B horizon has developed directly from the weathering of the parent material, rather than from eluviation of clay from A to B horizons. The Gaviota loam has an A-R horizonation, with hard sandstone at 15"-25" depth. The Los Trancos soil developed from basic igneous rock, and is only 3"-10" deep. As with the Vallecitos soil, the fine texture results from the chemical weathering of the parent material into montmorillonitic clay minerals, rather than from long term, stable landscape processes such as gradual translocation of clay from A to B horizon. The upland soils are on hillsides, with areas of rock outcrops. Erosion is a constant factor in keeping these soils shallow, and genetically young. The archaeological potential for deeply buried sites is low; artifacts are more likely to be at the surface, perhaps chronologically mixed and concentrated, as the matrix of fine soil material washes downslope, leaving a residuum of relatively heavy cultural materials in place. We have also found on similar soils that bioturbation has thoroughly churned the cultural artifacts, if present, and there are likely to be isolated artifacts now resting directly on bedrock, that were once at the surface. Terrace soils Surrounding the upland soils in the southern and western parts of the APE are well developed stream terrace soils of the Ohmer and Milpitas series. Soils of stream terraces would seem to have a Palo Alto Recycled Water Project MND 2-14 WSAI203213 high potential for harboring buried archaeological sites, because recent (first terrace) soils are often flat, dry, easy to dig, and very near to the water of their parent stream. And unlike alluvial fans and floodplains, they do not occupy broad swaths of the landscape, so the high cultural potential is concentrated within a relatively small area. Yet not all terrace soils have a high archaeological potential, for reasons of age, drainage, or the presence of superior locations nearby. The Milpitas and Ohmer soils are moderately old, and both have impaired drainage because of claypan subsoils. The Milpitas soil especially has poor drainage, and is often saturated after winter rains. Milpitas loam, 3-10% slopes (Mg); Ohmer clay loam, 3-10% slopes (Oa); Ohmer Clay loam, 10-20% slopes (Oc) The Milpitas soils have an easily worked loamy surface horizon overlying, quite abruptly, a clay Bt horizon of more reddish color. This Bt horizon overlies sandy or gravelly alluvium, in some places partially consolidated, that is, becoming cemented with silica or iron in solution. The clay subsoil is a well developed Bt horizon, its sharp upper boundary, thickness, color, and substantially higher clay content (as compared to the A horizon) indicating a long period of landscape stability and soil development. The Ohmer soils are slightly less pronounced in their degree of development. Ohmer soils are darker in color at the surface, with a slightly less compact Bt subsoil. These soils are probably older than mid-Holocene, but the Milpitas soils appear to be older than the Ohmer soils, perhaps of early Holocene age. Despite their ideal geomorphic position, we would estimate the potential for deeply buried archaeological sites to be low in the Milpitas soil areas, because of their age. Since the Ohmer soils are less well developed, thus younger, we would estimate a higher probability of a Holocene paleosol buried beneath today's profile, and thus assign a moderate archaeological potential to the Ohmer soils. Older Fan soils Large areas of older fan soils lie exposed along the northeast foot of the uplands at the western edge of the Santa Clara Valley, where they have not been buried by recent fan sediments now mapped as Yolo, Zamora, and Dublin soils. Small areas of the Pleasanton and San Ysidro series are mapped within the project APE. Older fan soils, just as the older terrace soils described above, have well developed B horizons resulting from long periods oflandscape stability. Pleasanton gravelly loam, 1-3% slopes (Po); Pleasanton loam, 1-3% slopes (Ps)j Pleasanton loam, 3-10% slopes (Pr)j San Ysidro loam, 1-2% slopes (Sb) The Pleasanton soils are characterized by a thick A horizon, a loam to clay loam increase in texture from A to the rather deep Bt horizon, a slight reddening of color from A to Bt, and a "clear" boundary along the upper Bt transition, rather than an "abrupt" horizon boundary. These properties indicate moderate soil development, as opposed to strong or extreme development. The Pleasanton soils probably have a younger than mid-Holocene history. Their archaeological potential would be moderate on the west, where they border the Zamora and Dublin soils, but high in the east part of the APE, where they border San Antonio Creek. The San Ysidro soils have a strongly developed profile: a loam A horizon makes an "abrupt" transition to a clay Bt with columnar structure, bleached column tops, and continuous clay films bridging pores and coating peds. The C horizon is strongly calcareous; some of this lime is segregated. On a fan surface, these properties would Palo Alto Recycled Water Project MND 2-15 WSA/203213 indicate an older, very stable landscape history, probably early Holocene. On a valley floor, the strong profile development may indicate not only old age, but a long term regime of winter ponding and long periods of wetness after every rain. The archaeological potential of these soils is low, not only because of their age, but also because of the clayey, very firm, sticky, and very plastic properties of the subsoil, which would make habitation or use difficult and unpleasant for much of the year. Better, drier soils of the Ohmer and Milpitas series are close by, and would be preferentially favored. Survey Methods A field reconnaissance of the proposed Palo Alto Recycled Water Project (Appendix B, Figure 1) was conducted on September 17, 2007 by WSA Staff Archaeologist, Melinda Hickman, M.A. Due to the extensive development in the APE, a windshield survey was conducted. As the APE is centered almost entirely on roadways paved in concrete, a windshield survey was considered suitable for this reconnaissance. This method of surveying involves traveling through the APE in order to search for standing historic structures and undeveloped parcels of land that may exhibit evidence of buried cultural resources. The pump station that was proposed in early 2009 is situated in an area within which WSA Project Director, Eric Strother, M.A. RP A, conducted a pedestrian survey on October 30, 2006 for another proposed project at the RWQCP. The results of his survey are being used for the current proposed project. All areas identified as being potentially sensitive for cultural materials were examined for the presence of historic or prehistoric site indicators. Historic site indicators include, but are not limited to foundations, fence lines, ditches, standing buildings, objects or structures such as sheds, or concentrations of materials at least 50 years in age, such as domestic refuse (glass bottles, ceramics, toys, buttons or leather shoes), or refuse from other pursuits such as agriculture (e.g., metal tanks, farm machinery parts, horse shoes) or structural materials (e.g., nails, glass window panes, corrugated metal, wood posts or planks, metal pipes and fittings, etc.). Prehistoric site indicators include, but are not limited to areas of darker soil with concentrations of ash, charcoal, bits of animal bone (burned or unburned), shell, flaked stone, ground stone, or even human bone. No historic or prehistoric cultural resources were observed within the APE. Results ofthe Field Survey The survey will be discussed in order of pipe backbone and laterals, the three alignment options for the proposed pipeline, the booster pump station at Mayfield Soccer Fields, and finally the RWQCP. Pipe Backbone The APE for the pipe backbone consists of land developed for both residential and commercial use (see Appendix B, Figure 2). No undeveloped parcels ofland were encountered during the survey of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project MND 2-16 WSAI203213 the background right of way (ROW). In general, the APE east of Alma StreetlPark Boulevard is residential, while the sections west of this road are commercial. The commercial area consists primarily of office buildings with landscaping of grasses and trees. The eastern half of the pipe backbone is primarily residential. This section of the APE includes Fabian Way, East Meadow Drive, Cowper Street, EI Dorado Avenue and EI Carmelo Avenue (Appendix C, Photos 1 and 2). This residential area contains single-family homes on parcels with landscaped grass lawns. Commercial office buildings comprise the far eastern section of East Meadow Road Gust west of Highway 101). Due to the density of development and paved streets in this section of the pipe backbone, no cultural resources were observed. The western half of the pipe backbone is primarily commercial, composed of office buildings, a city park and complexes of buildings for various law and technology firms (Appendix C, Photos 3 and 4). This section of the APE includes Alma Street, Page Mill Road, EI Camino Real, Hansen Way, Hanover Street, California A venue, Hillview A venue and Miranda A venue. Similar to the eastern section of the pipe backbone, no cultural resources were observed due to the nature of the grass and tree cover that are the result of modern landscaping. Pipe Laterals A total of 10 areas of pipe laterals are included in the APE (Appendix B, Figure 2). These include areas on Middlefield Road, the far western section of East Meadow Road, st. Claire Drive, EI Carmelo Avenue, El Camino Real, Porter Drive, Hansen Way, Hanover Street, California Avenue, the parking lot between two office building, the southern portion of Page Mill Road, a landscaped green space between Hillview A venue and Deer Creek Road, Foothill Expressway, and Arastradero Road. The pipe lateral to be located on Middlefield Road is situated in a landscaped residential area where no cultural material was observed. The pipe lateral proposed on the eastern section of East Meadow Drive was also in a residential area where no cultural material was observed. A pipe lateral will be put in on St. Claire Drive; this is a residential area where no cultural material was observed. The pipe lateral on EI Carmelo A venue is the final pipe lateral in the residential area; no cultural material was observed on EI Carmelo A venue. The easternmost pipe lateral in the commercial area runs southeast from the intersection of EI Camino Real and Page Mill Road to the intersection of EI Camino Real and Hansen Way (Appendix B, Figure 2). At this intersection, the pipe will turn and continue southwest along Hansen Way to the bend in the road. The area on which this pipe lateral would lie is strictly commercial, with paved roads and landscaped green areas. This pipe lateral runs the same direction as alignment option three (see below). No cultural material was observed on this pipe lateral route. Another pipe lateral is proposed for a paved parking lot between two office buildings on Page Mill Road between EI Camino Real and Hansen Way. This parking lot was completely paved and no cultural material was observed. An additional pipe lateral will be placed on Hanover Street (the section northwest of Page Mill Road) and will continue south onto California Avenue. The portion of this pipe lateral on Hanover Street is located in a commercial district with office buildings. However, as this pipe lateral turns on to California A venue, the area changes to residential (Appendix C, Photo 5). No cultural material was observed in this section. This section of California Palo Alto Recycled Water Project MND 2-17 WSA12032!3 Avenue contains single-family homes with landscaped yards. No cultural material was observed in this area. A pipe lateral is proposed for the southernmost section of Page Mill Road within the APE. At the intersection of Page Mill Road and Porter Drive, the pipe turns east and continues until it terminates at the intersection of Porter Drive and Hanover Street (Appendix B, Figure 2). This section of pipe lateral continues through a developed commercial area. No cultural material was observed on this section of pipe lateral. An additional pipe lateral is proposed between Coyote Hill Road and Arastradero Road. This area is also commercial, containing office buildings with landscaped green spaces. No cultural material was observed in this area. The final proposed pipe lateral will run southeast from the intersection of Hillview Avenue and Foothill Expressway to the intersection of Foothill Expressway to Arastradero Road. At this intersection, the lateral turns and continues east along Arastradero Road where it passes Georgia A venue and terminated at the intersection of Arastradero Road and Willmar Drive (Appendix C, Photo 6). The majority of this pipe lateral will run through commercial property, while a small area is residential. The commercial area consists of the Palo Alto Veterans Affairs Hospital and Henry M. Gunn High School; the commercial area runs along the Foothill Expressway and continues along Arastradero Road. The easternmost finger of this pipe lateral, on Arastradero Road between Georgia Avenue and Willmar Drive, is residential on the west side of the street, while the east is Alta Mesa Cemetery. No cultural material was observed along this pipe lateral. Alignment Option One The APE of alignment option one begins at the intersection of East Bayshore Road and US-I0l. The APE continues along Fabian Way, then crosses Adobe Creek and proceeds onto East Meadow Drive to Middlefield Road (Appendix B, Figure 2). The western section of East Meadow Drive contains single family homes. At the intersection of East Meadow Drive and East Meadow Circle, the neighborhood changes from residential to commercial. The area of Fabian Way within the APE of alignment option one was also office buildings (Appendix C, Photo 7). Adobe Creek was observed during the survey. It has been channelized with concrete. No cultural material was observed within alignment option one. Alignment Option Two Alignment option two begins at the intersection of US 101 and Matadero Creek and travels southwest along Matadero Creek to Alma Street (Appendix B, Figure 2). The entire area of alignment option two is developed with either single-family homes or businesses. At Alma Street, the option two alignment continues northwest until it intersects Page Mill Road. Matadero Canal is located in this area of the APE. During the survey, the canal was dry. The canal was lined with concrete and no cultural material was observed in its vicinity (Appendix C, Photo 8). Matadero Creek is located in a residential area of single family homes, and runs between the fenced backyards. At Alma Street, alignment option two continues northwest The northeast side of Alma Street is composed of single family homes, while the southwest side of the street is office buildings. No cultural material was observed within the APE of alignment option two. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project MND 2-18 WSAf203213 Alignment Option Three Alignment option three includes a portion of EI Camino Real Gust south of Page Mill Road) and continues onto Hansen Way (Appendix C, refer to Photo 4). This portion of the APE is developed as a commercial area and includes office buildings with landscaped green areas of grass and trees. All land within alignment option three was developed. No cultural material observed within alignment option three. Alignment Option Four The proposed route of alignment option four runs along Colorado A venue from US Hwy 101 to Cowper Street where the street jogs west for one block (Appendix B, Figure 2 and Appendix C, Photo 9). This option follows the jog and continues along Colorado Avenue where it terminates at Alma Street. For the most part, Colorado Avenue is a residential area with the exception of the intersection of Colorado A venue and Middlefield Road. This intersection has commercial properties, such as a strip mall, a convenience store and a bank. The land on Colorado Avenue immediately surrounding this intersection changes to residential. These portions of the APE include up-scale single family homes with landscaped yards and ornamental trees and shrubs. All of Colorado A venue is paved in concrete. No cultural material was observed or encountered on the proposed route for alignment option four. Booster Pump Station at Mayfield Soccer Fields A booster pump station will be required adjacent to the western half of the pipe backbone. The booster pump station is located on the southeastern comer of the intersection of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real at the Mayfield Soccer Fields (Appendix C: Photo 10). The booster pump station location was inspected during the survey. No cultural material was observed at this location. Regional Water Quality Control Plant At the time of the field survey, the RWQCP was mostly (approximately 75%) paved and developed. Several standing buildings associated with the RWQCP facility were located at the plant. However, no historic buildings remain at the plant (50 years or older) and no cultural resources were observed in the paved area. The proposed project location in the northeast sections of the RWQCP was covered with dry grasses and weeds. Thick chaparral including Manzanita and Coyote Brush characterized the eastern and northeastern boundary of the plant, while the remaining portions of the project area were relatively open (Appendix C: Photos 11-14). Ground visibility was approximately 50%. Eucalyptus trees were observed in the northwest portion of the project area. A hand trowel was used to scrape back vegetation so that surface soils could be examined. Soil observed on the surface consisted of gravelly, silty clay that was yellowish-brown in color. The topography of the project area differed from that of the surrounding area. Imported fill deposited on the project area created a mounded, sloping terrain. Smaller dump piles of soil, some containing concrete, were observed in several areas. Modem debris was also observed throughout the project area, including bottle glass, plastic, and newspaper. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project lYfND 2-19 WSAi203213 Numerous pieces of highly fragmented historic debris, including ceramic plates, bottle glass, flat clear glass, ceramic tiles and pipe, were observed on the surface of the unpaved areas, particularly in the northern and northwestern portions of the plant. Artifacts collected include nine pieces of bottle glass from seven individual bottles, two sherds of ceramic tile, two fragments of flat glass, and three ceramic sherds, representing at least two pieces of kitchenware. It is clear from the fragmentary bottle glass that at least three of the bottles were machine-made. The first is represented by a single basal fragment with a partial embossed maker's mark (possibly a large diamond) and a portion of the circular seam often left by fully automatic bottle machines. The fragment is amber and likely came from a beer or similar beverage bottle. The second fragment, a clear basal piece, belonged to a small round bottle with a diameter of approximately I 7/8 in. A portion of the "diamond and 0" Owens-Illinois logo is visible on the base (with a '2' to the right of the mark and a '1' below it). Owens-Illinois operated in Toledo, Ohio, and this mark is typical of the period between 1929 and 1954 (Toulouse 1971:403). A separate partial mark, which includes an '8' in the central portion of the base, is also visible. The third bottle displaying evidence of its manufacturing technique is represented by two light cobalt blue fragments, which make up a substantial portion of the bottle's short neck and finish. The bottle was machine-made and the finish is externally threaded and would have been used with a threaded screw cap. The remaining bottles are represented by non-diagnostic body fragments in cobalt, clear, and amber. Two pieces of flat glass are also present. One piece includes two distinct layers of glass, one clear and one opaque white ("milk" glass). Its use is unknown. The first of the two ceramic tile sherds collected is 5116 in. thick with a buff body and white glaze. The second piece is 9/16 inches thick and has a reddish body with many small inclusions. Both green and black glaze is apparent on one side, and a maker's mark has been stamped on the reverse ('S ... / TILE'). A ceramic sherd with blue-on-white decoration was collected, as well as two sherds with green and pink decoration. All belong to small vessels, such as saucers or small bowls. Although only one of the artifacts collected contained a diagnostic maker's mark, the entire collection is consistent with the 1929-1954 date of manufacture attributed to that artifact. The R WQCP is located on fill. The sloped and mounded topography suggests that soil was moved from other areas within the RWQCP property, possibly related to facility expansion over the years. It is likely that the fragmentary historic artifacts found within the project area represent inclusions in the soils that were imported to the project area as a result of the filling process. It is also possible that the artifacts originated from the sanitary landfill, located adjacent and south of the R WQCP. The historic artifacts observed within the project area do not represent a discrete feature, however, it is possible that sub-surface historic features exist within the project area There is no surficial or archival data to suggest the presence of historic resources and their presence is considered unlikely. Although the R WQCP is located on historic fill, it is located within an area that was once marshy and that could have been attractive to prehistoric inhabitants in light of the proximity to brackish and fresh water resources. Although there is no surficial or archival data to indicate such, it is possible, but not likely, that prehistoric cultural resources exist beneath the layer of historic fill that comprises the project area. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project MND 2-20 WSA/203213 Standards of Significance CRITERIA OF SIGN1FICANCE Both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) guidelines require that the proposed project take into consideration the potential effect of the undertaking on cultural resources. In accordance with CEQA and NHP A regulations and requirements, if the project area has not been previously surveyed, or if surveyed and/or documented inadequately, a qualified archaeologist must then conduct a survey of all project components as a means of identifYing and assessing the potential impact of the project on known or predicted cultural resources. Site significance criteria are those contained in CEQA Section 15064.5 and in 36 CFR 60.4. CEQA contains provisions relative to preservation of historic (and prehistoric) cultural sites. Section 15126.4 of CEQA directs public agencies to "avoid damaging effects" on an archeological resource whenever feasible. If avoidance is not feasible, the importance of the site shall be evaluated to determine impact and develop mitigation measures. CEQA Section 15064.5 states: Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852) including the following: (A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; (B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (C) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or (D) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Similarly, the National Register of Historic Places criteria (contained in 36 CFR 60.4) are used to evaluate resources when complying with NHP A Section 106. Those criteria state that eligible resources comprise: ... districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and that (a) are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or (b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or (c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (d) that have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important to history or prehistory. The National Register of Historic Places was established to recognize resources associated with the country's history and heritage. Guidelines for nomination are based on significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture if present in resources that possess integrity oflocation, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project MND 2-21 WSA/203213 Potential Impacts and Recommended Measures Although the project area is located on land that has been developed, much of it is located within proximity to marshlands, creeks, and tributaries. This would have been attractive to prehistoric inhabitants, in light of the proximity to brackish and fresh water resources. Although there are no surficial or archival data to indicate such, it is possible, that prehistoric cultural resources exist beneath the surface within the project area. As with the potential for prehistoric cultural resources, there is no surficial or archival data to suggest the presence of historic resources, and their presence is considered unlikely. Nevertheless, ground-disturbing activities have the potential to directly impact unidentified cultural resources. Should such unidentified resources be encountered, Recommended Measure CR-l would ensure impacts to them are less-than-significant level. Measure CR-l: In accordance with CEQA Section IS064.S, if cultural resources are encountered during project-related excavations, construction shall be halted or diverted to allow an archaeologist an opportunity to assess the resource. 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. Although the record search and survey of the project area failed to indicate the presence of human remains within the vicinity of the proposed project, the subsurface excavation required for construction of the project could potentially disturb or destroy previously undiscovered human remains from both prehistoric and historic time periods, if they are present. This is considered a less than significant impact with the implementation of Recommended Measure CR-2. Measure CR-2: Section 70S0.S(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 70S0 .S(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 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 S097.98 ofthe Public Resources Code. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project MND 2-22 WSA1203213 The County Coroner, upon recogmzmg the remains as being of Native American ongm, is responsible to contact the Native American Heritage Commission 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 of inadvertent destruction." To achieve this goal, it is recommended that the construction personnel on the project be instructed as to the potential for discovery of cultural or human remains, and both the need for proper and timely reporting of such finds, and the consequences of failure thereof. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project MND 2-23 WSA/203213 References Cited: Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants 2006 Report of January 13, 2006 to Standard Pacific Homes re Echelon subdivision, Palo Alto, California. City of Palo Alto file no. 1183. Berlogar, Long & Associates 1981 Report of March 4, 1981 re Baylands Bike Path, Palo Alto, California. Job no. 869-90. City of Palo Alto file no. 1-34. California State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources. California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1989 Survey of Surveys. California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1990 California Historical Landmarks. California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1992 California Points of Historical Interest. California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2006 Historic Property Directory. Data File for Santa Clara County, September 18,2006, page 38. California Department of Parks and Recreation. California State Office of Historic Preservation 2006 California Register of Historical Resources. California Department of Parks and Recreation. Fredrickson, D. A. 1973 Spatial and Cultural Units in Central California Archaeology. In Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California: Essays by James A. Bennyhoff and David A. Fredrickson, edited by R. Hughes, Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 15. Berkeley. Gardner, R.A., F.F. Harradine, et al. 1958 Soil Survey of the Santa Clara Area, California. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with University of California Agricultural Experiment Station. Series 1941, No. 17, issued June 1958. Washington D.C., Government Printing Office. J. V. Lowney & Associates 1988 Report of October, 1988 re Ford Aerospace Building, Palo Alto, California. Project no. 686-1. City of Palo Alto file no. 2-83. Kyle, D.E. 1990 Kroeber, A. L. 1925 Historic Spots in California, 4th Edition. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, Ca. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology ofthe Smithsonian Institution. Bulletin 78, Washington. Palo Alto Recycled Water Project MND 2-24 WSA/203213 Levy, R. S. 1978a Costanoan. In Handbook of North American Indians, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 485-495. vol. 8: California, W. C. Sturveyant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1978b Eastern Miwok. In Handbook of North American Indians, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 398-413. vol. 8: California, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Moratto, M. J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. National Park Service 2006 National Register of Historic Places. Washington, DC. Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System 2006 Cultural Resource Record Search (File No. 06-335). Requested by William Self Associates, Inc., Orinda, California, October 23, 2006. Toulouse, Julian H. 1971 Bottle Makers and Their Marks. Thomas Nelson, New York, NY. William F. Jones, Inc. 1980 Report of May 27,1980 to the Carl Holvick company, re Smith Property Office Building (now 3805 E. Bayshore Road), Palo Alto, California. File no. 180052.1. City of Palo Alto file no. 1-13. Maps: General Land Office Plat Map (GLO) 1883 T55 R2W Mount Diablo Base Meridian. Rancho Rinconada del Arroyo de San Francisquito Plat Map 1861 Confirmed to Heirs of Maria Antonia Mesa. Thompson and West 1876 Historical Atlas Map of Santa Clara COW1ty, California. San Francisco. United States Geologic Survey (USGS) 1899 Palo Alto Quadrangle Topographic Map (reprinted in 1906). Palo Alto Recycled Water Project MND 2-25 WSA/203213 Appendix A Native American Contact Information WSA Consultants in Archaeology and Historic Preservation www.williolmself.wm August 31, 2007 Native American Heritage Commission 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSES:r;kIElv'T OF THE PALO ALTO RECYCLED Jf<11ER PROJECT (PROJECl). PALO AL1V. SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA De1r Native American Heritage Conmlission: William Self Associates, Inc. (WSA) has been contracted by Rl'\lfC to conduct a cultural resources assessment for the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant's expansion of its regional recycled water system in the City of Palo Alto. The project area is located within an ullsectioncd portion of Township 6S. Range 2W, in Santa Clara COUllty. as depicted on the attached map. We bring this project to the attention of the Native American Heritage Conunission with the desire to obtain, from your office, pertinent infommtion reg'lrding prehistoric, historic and/or ethnographic land use and sites of Native American traditional or cultural value that might be known to exist within the project vicinity, as depicted in the Sacred Lands database or other tiles. We would also appreciate obtaining a list of interested Native American tribal entities or individuals for the project area. We have made contact with the California HistOlical Resources Information System at Sonoma State University to review their files as part of the background research 011 the project. We would appreciate a response, at your earliest convenience, should you have infonuation relative to this request. Should you have any questions, 1 can be reached at (925) 253-9070. Thanks again tor your assistance. Sincerely, WILLIAM SIU;I<' ASSOCIATES, INC. James M. Allan, Ph.D., RPA Vice-President Attachment William Self Associates, 1nc. E-mail: ,y~elJ@:Wi1Jj;UlJl;dfj;QIJJ CORl'ORATE OFFI(;E: San Francls() Bay Area PO 80)( 2192. 61 A VCllida de Orinda Orinda CA 94563 Phone: 925·253-9010; 925·254·3553 lax 09(13;2007 11:2u FAl 918 657 3390 ~AHC Jakld Kehl 720 North 2nd Street Patterson , CA 95363 jakki@bigvalley.net (209) 892-2436 (209) 892~2435 • Fax Amah MutsunTribal Band Valentin Lopez, Chairperson 3015 Eastern Ave, #40 Sacramento ,CA 95821 vIQpez®amahmutsun.Ofg (916) 481-5785 Amah MutsunTribaf Band Edward Ketchum 35867 Yosemite Ave Davis , CA 95616 aerieways@aotcom AmahlMutsun Tribal Bana Native American Contacts Santa Clara County September 12, 2007 AmahiMutsun Tribal Band Irene ZWierlein. Chairperson Ohlone/Costanoan 789 Canada Road OhloneiCostanoan Woodside , CA 94062 amah_mutsun@yahoo.com (650) 851-7747 -Home (650) 851 .. 1489 -Fax Indian Canyon Mutsun Sand of Costanoan Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson Ohlone/Costanoan P.O. Box 28 OhlonelCostanoan Hollister , CA 95024 ams@garlic.com 831-631-4238 Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Say Area Rosemary Cambra, Chairperson Ohione/Costanoan PO Box 360791 Ohlone I Costanoan Northem Walley Yokuts Milpitas , CA 95036 muwekma@muwekma.org 409-434-1668 40Q..434~1673 Michelle Zimmer, Cultural Resource Coordinator The Ohlone Indian Tribe Andrew Galvan POBox 3892 OhionelCostanoan Clear Lake I CA 95422 408-3754281 this 11&11& curront only !IS of the date Qf ihl& document. PO Box 3152 Mission San Jose. CA 94539 chochenyo@AOLcom (510) 656-0787 -Voice (510) 882-0527 -Cell (510) 681-9393 -Fax Ohlone/Costanoan BayMiwok Plains Miwok Patwin Distribution (It tb1911Gt does not rellflYe any person of GU!tutory t$GpOnstlllllty M (IefiMd In Sectlon 1050.5 of tl'le Health and S6fMY Code, $eotIon 5097.94 (If ttI$ Public IlUourcell Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Raso_ Code. This IIGt Is oniy aPJ',lllcabie for cofIfacUng lOCal N$tIve Amoricans with reoard to cultum! resoun:etJ fOrtfte propoBlld j'Iafo AtID RIIcycIIId WOlf ptOjeet, Slinta ClMl County. 09:1S/2007 11:20 FAX 916 657 5.39a NARC Native American Contacts Santa Clara County September 12, 2007 Trina Marine Ruano Family Ramona Garibay, Representative 16010 Halmar Lane Ohlone/Costanoan Lathrop • CA 95330 Bay Miwok 510-300-5971 -cell Plains Miwok Patwin Thls list Is current only as of the date of this dO¢umel'lt tllstributlon (If thlallst does not rell(.!VI!) ttnv person of statutory reGpo/l$lblllty;!l$ defined 111 See-tlon 7'050.5 01 the Health and SOfcty Cooo. $OC1lon 5097.94 I1f the PublIC Aesourees Code ilnd Swtfoo 5007.00 Of th* Public R~ Oode. Thls list Is only applicable for contactlnsllocal Nlrtlve AmettcatUl with regard to c;ultural nl6OUl"OOS for the proposed Palo Alto Recyc;1ed WQ1()( proJect. Santa Clam Oounty. l4lo0.) WSA September 18, 2007 Jakki Kchl 720 North 2nd Street Patterson, CA 95363 Consultants in Re: Proposed Palo Alto Recycled Water Project, Santa Clara County Dear Ms. Kehl, and Historic Preservation William Self Associates, Inc. (WSA) has been contracted by RMC to conduct a cultural resources assessment for the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant's expansion of its regional recycled water system in the City of Palo Alto. The project area is located within an unsectiol1cd portion of Township 6S, Range 2W, in Santa Clara County, as dt.-picted on the attached map. A record search of the sacred land file conducted by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. However, the NAHC provided your name as a person who may have knowledge of sllch resources in the project area. WSA, on behalf of RMC and the RWQPC, would appreciate receiving any comments you may have regarding cultural resources or sacred sites issues within the immediate project area. If you could provide your comments in writing to the address below. or call our Native American coordinator, Mr. Eric Strother, we will make sure the comments are provided to the R WQPC as part of the environmental assessment of the project. Thanks for your assistance. Sincerely, Attachment P.O. Box 2192 61d Avenida de Orinda Orinda CA 94563 William Self ASSOCiates, Inc. Phone: 925-253-9070 Fax: 925-254-3553 Email;jlllllln(i9williamselfllSsoc.com Native American Contact Jakki Kehl Michelle Zimmer AmahlMutsun Tribal Band Valentin Lopez Amah Mutsun Tribal Band Irene Zwierlein AmahlMutsun Tribal Band Edward Ketchum Amah Mutsun Tribal Band Ann Marie Sayers Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan Rosemary Cambra Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe Andrew Galvan The Ohlone Indian Tribe Ramona Garibay Trina Marine Ruano Family Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Record of Native American Contacts and Comments Addresses withheld to protect privacy DATE OF Response Date of NOTIFICATION to Letter Phone Comments LETTER (Date) Contact 9/18/07 No 10/02/07 Would like more info on project Response (Le. results of record search, map Letter of area and project description) 9/18107 No 10/02/07 Stated a high number of burials Response were encountered in this area of Letter Palo Alto and is likely to recommend construction monitoring and a Native American Monitor 9/18/07 No 10/02/07 Stated this project is out of his Response tribal area Letter 9/18/07 No 10/02/07 Left Message Response Letter 9/18/07 No 10/02/07 No phone number provided Response Letter 9118/07 No 10102/07 Likely will recommend Response construction monitoring and a Letter Native American Monitor, asked to be notified when earth movement begins and suggested Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve as a possible re-interment site for human remains (if needed) 9/l8/07 No 10102/07 No answer or means to leave a Response message Letter 9118/07 No 10102/07 Likely will recommend Response construction monitoring and a Letter Native American Monitor 9/18/07 No 10/02/07 Phone number was out of service Response Letter AppendixB: Maps of Project Area Project Vicinity Map WSA Figure 1 RMC Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Palo Alto, CA ~ ..... V:<>S((.uad~ WSA Project Location and Site Plan Map 0,,25 0.,5 1.5 _ _ Miles Palo Alto R""ycied Water Project Palo Alto, CA Appendix C Photographs Photo 1: Alignment of the pipe backbone at Cowper Street from the intersection of St. Claire Drive and Cowper Street view east. Photo 2: Alignment of pipe backbone at EI Dorado Avenue at the intersection of EI Dorado Avenue and Cowper Street view west. Photos 1 and 2 RMC Water & Environment Palo Alto Recycled Water Palo Alto, California Photo 3: Pipe backbone at Hillview Avenue between Hanover Street and Foothill Expressway view north. Photo 4: Pipe backbone/alignment option three at EI Camino Real at the intersection ofEI Camino Real and Hansen Way view north. Photos 3 and 4 RMC Water & Environment Palo Alto Recycled Water Palo Alto, California Photo 5: Pipe lateral route proposed for California Avenue view east. Photo 6: Pipe lateral route at the intersection of Arastradero Road and Georgia A venue view west. Photos 5 and 6 RMC Water & Environment Palo Alto Recycled Water Palo Alto, California Photo 7: Alignment option one at the intersection of East Meadow Road and Fabian Way view north. Photo 8: Alignment option two at Matadero Creek and Cowper Street view southwest. Photos 7 and 8 RMC Water & Environment Palo Alto Recycled Water Palo Alto, California Photo 9: Alignment option four and the intersection of Colorado Avenue and Louis Road view southwest. Photo 10: Booster Pump Station location at El Camino Real and Page Mill Road, view north. Photos 9 and 10 RMC Water & Environment Palo Alto Recycled Water Palo Alto, California Survey Photo 11: Northeast section of the RWQCP, view to the west. Survey Photo 12: Northeast section of the RWQCP, view to the southwest. Photos 11 and 12 RMC Water & Environment Palo Alto Recycled Water Palo Alto, California Survey Photo 13: Northeast section of the RWQCP, view to the south. Survey Photo 14: Northeast section of the RWQCP, view to the east Photos 13 and 14 RMC Water & Environment Palo Alto Recycled Water Palo Alto, California APPENDIX E HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EnviroStor Database Page 1 of 1 EnviroStor Database -I:1ACK_"[QJ;Nv:tRQS"[QR.HOME REPORT TIPS STATUS: All Statuses r~()l SEARCH CRITERIA: PALO ALTO, FEDERAL SUPERFUND SITES (NPL), STATE RESPONSE SITES, VOLUNTARY CLEANUP SITES, SCHOOL CLEANUP SITES PROJECT SEARCH RESULTS 15 RECORDS FOUND EXPORT TO EXCEL PAGE 1 OF 1 SITE NAME SlLE .. T'iI".E SIAIIJ.S ADDRESS. CITY ZlE .c.o.u.NIY 11EliCJ~.!E.nQN STATE CERTIFIED I OPERATION & 3180 HANOVER PALO SANTA AYDIN ENERGY MAINTENANCE LAND USE 94304 RESPONSE RESTRICTIONS STREET ALTO CLARA COHERENT INC STATE CERTIFIED I OPERATION & 3210 PORTER DR PALO 94304 SANTA RESPONSE MAINTENANCE ALTO CLARA HEWLETT PACKARD STATE REFER: RWQCB 1501 PAGE MILL ROAD PALO 94304 SANTA RESPONSE ALTO CLARA HEWLETT PACKARD STATE CERTIFIED I OPERATION & 3215 PORTER DRIVE PALO 94304 SANTA BUILDING 15 RESPONSE MAINTENANCE ALTO CLARA HEWLETT PACKARD STATE CERTIFIED I OPERATION & CORNER OF PAGE MILL PALO SANTA BUILDINGS 28A, B, AND RESPONSE MAINTENANCE RD AND PORTER ALTO 94304 CLARA C DRIVE HEWLETT-PACKARD (620-FEDERAL 620-640 PAGE MILL PALO SANTA SUPERFUND -REFER: RWQCB 94304 640 PAGE MILL ROAD) LISTED ROAD ALTO CLARA HILLVIEW PORTER STATE CERTIFIED I OPERATION & HILLVIEW AVENUE AND PALO 94304 SANTA PLUME RESPONSE MAINTENANCE PORTER DRIVE ALTO CLARA LOCKHEED MISSILES AND STATE CERTIFIED I OPERATION & 3170 PORTER DRIVE PALO 94304 SANTA SPACE CO BLDG 255 RESPONSE MAINTENANCE ALTO CLARA SMITHKLlNE AND FRENCH STATE CERTIFIED I OPERATION & 3400 HILLVIEW PALO 94304 SANTA LABORATORIES RESPONSE MAINTENANCE AVENUE ALTO CLARA SYNTEX STATE CERTIFIED I OPERATION & 3300 HILLVIEW AVE PALO 94304 SANTA RESPONSE MAINTENANCE ALTO CLARA TELEDYNE MEC STATE CERTI FlED I OPERATION & 3165 PORTER DR PALO 94304 SANTA RESPONSE MAINTENANCE ALTO CLARA TELEDYNE SINGER STATE CERTIFIED I OPERATION & 3176 PORTER DRIVE PALO 94304 SANTA RESPONSE MAINTENANCE ALTO CLARA VARIAN STATE CERTIFIED I OPERATION & 611 HANSEN WAY PALO 94304 SANTA RESPONSE MAINTENANCE ALTO CLARA WATKINS JOHNSON STATE CERTIFIED I OPERATION & 3333 HILLVIEW PALO 94304 SANTA COMPANY (SRP) RESPONSE MAINTENANCE AVENUE ALTO CLARA ZOECON/RHONE-FEDERAL EAST SAN POULENEC SUPERFUND -REFER: RWQCB 1990 BAY ROAD PALO 94303 MATEO LISTED ALTO DfSCLAIMER PLEASE EMAIL US WIlli YOUR SUGGESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS 0.1171875 seconds http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?crnd=search&city=palo%20aito&zip... 10/11/2007 ORDINANCE NO. 5002 . ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADDING CHAPTER 16.12 (RECYCLED WATER) TO TITLE 16 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO REQUIRE THE USE OF RECYCLED WATER FOR IRRlGATION, TOILET AND URINAL FLUSIDNG AND TRAP PRIMING The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: ATTACHMENT G SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: (a) Potable water is one of our most precious natural resources and is becoming increasingly scarce in the semiarid State of California (b) The use of treated, nonpotable water for construction, toilet and urinal flushing and irrigation will increase the amount of potable water available for other uses in the City. The City of Palo Alto is dedicated to conserving the potable water supply, and this Chapter will assist in preserving this precious conunodity. (c) Recycled water is. a sustainable water source that reduces potable water consumption and is not subject to rationing during drought. After careful study, the City Council has determined that recyCled water shall be used within the boundaries of Recycled Water Project Areas for construction, toilet and urinal flushing and irrigation purposes whenever it is available and beneficial to the customer. (d) In adopting this program, the Council has balanced the needs of all water users and through this ,implementation strategy will allow water users sufficient flexibility to meet their potable and nonpotable water needs. // /I 1/ II II II II II 1 080S 14 syn 60S0416 SECTION 2. A new Chapter 16.12 is hereby added to Title 16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows: SectioDS: 16.12.010 16.12.015 16.12.020 16.12.025 16.12.030 16.12.035 16.12.040 16.12.045 16.12.050 16.12.055 16.12.060 16.12.065 16.12.070 16.12.010 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) 080514 syn 6050416 Definitions. CHAPTER 16.12 RECYCLED WATER Compliance with state and local regulations. Converting existing potable water users to recycled water for irrigation. Converting existing potable water users to recycled water for toilet and urinal f flushing and trap priming. New construction; recycled water for irrigation. New construction; recycled water for toilet and urinal flushing and trap priming. Recycled water permit required. Recycled water pennit conditions; verification of compliance. Exemptions and adjustments. Appeals. Failure to comply with this chapter. Monitoring. . Severability DefiDitioDs. "Dual plumbing" means a system of two sets of water pipes, one for recycled water for toilets and urinals and one for potable water for other interior uses. "F1oortrap priming" means the practice of adding water to traps beneath floor drains to ensure a barrier from sewer gas. . "Identified Customers" are entities purchasing water from the City of Palo Alto who are adjacent to a recycled water pipeline shown in a Final Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Plan. Identified customers do not include single family residences. "Recycled water' means wastewater treated by the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant that meets State requirements for reuse. "Recycled Water Permit" means a permit issued by the City Manager or hislher designee to allow a customer to use recycled water at its facility. "Recycled Water Project Area" means a geographical area of the City designated by resolution of City Council as an area where recycled water will be served. 2 16.12.015 Compliance with state an-d local reglJlationtt. All users of recycled water shall comply with the California De?artment of Public Health regulations contained in Title 17 and Tide 22 of the California Code of Regulations, and with the Palo Alto Water Reuse Rules and Regulations for the use of recycled water. 16.12.020 Converting existing potable water users to recycled water for irrigatlon. ,Within the boundaries of any Recycled Water Project Area. Identified Customers who are notified by mail by the City shall use recycled water for irrigation when available. Any such notification shall include the (;onditions of llSC, pricing, and construct.ion -schedule for the City's recycled water pipeline and the connections to it. ' 16.12~025 Converting existing potable water users (with existing dual plumbing) to recycled water for toilet and urinal flushing and floor trap priming. For facilities with existing dual plumbing within the boundaries of any Recycled Water Project Area. Identified Customers shall use recycled water when it is available following notification by mail by the City that a conversion to recycled water for toilet and urinal flushing and floor trap priming purposes is required. Any such notification shall include the conditions of use, pricing, jUld construction schedule for the City' 5 pipeline and the connections to it. 16.12.030 (a) New construdioD;recycled water use for irrigation. All applications for land use permits, building permits and other discretionary actions for projects other than single family homes. within the boundaries of any Recycled Water Project Area, filed after the adoption of this ordinance, shaH include the following: (1) Plans demonstrating that recycled water will be used, when available, for all irrigation. (2) Consideration of plants suitable for irrigation with recycled water. (3) The installation of the on-site infrastructure necessary to connect the irrigation system to the City's recycled water supply when it becomes available. (b) All applications for land use pennits. building pennits and other discretionary actions for projects other than single family homes. in geographic areas not within the boundaries of a Recycled Water Project Area, where the total landscape area exceeds 1500 square feet, filed after the adoption of this ordinance, shall include the following: Og0514 syn60S0416 (1) Plans demonstrating that recycled water will be used, when available, for all irrigation. (2) Consideration of plants suitable for irrigation with recycled water. 3 (3) The installation of on-site infrastructure necessary to connect the site' s irrigation system to the City's recycled water supply when it becomes available. 16.12.035 New eonstrudiofl; recycled water use for toilet and urina] flushing and floor trap priming. (a) All applications for building pennits for new or remodeled buildings or groups of buildings within the boundaries of a Recycled Water Project Area, filed after the adoption of this ordinance, where the building square footage total, including both the original square footage and any addition, is greater than 10,000 square feet or where installation of 25 or more toilets and urinals is proposed, shall" incorporate dual plwnbing in the design of the facility to allow the use of recycled water, when it becomes available, for flushing toilets and urinals and priming floor traps. Dual plwnbing requirements shaH not apply to single family homes. (b) All applications for building pennits for new or remodeled buildings or groups of buildings in geographic areas not witWn the boundaries of a Recycled Water Project Area, filed after the adoption of this ordinance, where the·building square footage total, including both the original square footage and any addition, is greater than 100,000 square feet or where installation of 100 or more toilets and urinals is proposed, shall incorporate dual plumbing in the design of the facility to allow the use of recycled water, when it becomes available, for flushing toilets and urinals and priming floor traps. Dual plumbing requirements shall not apply to single family homes. (c) When dual plumbing requirements are triggered by remodeling, only those restroom facilities located within the remodel project area shall be required to incorporate dual plumbing. 16.12.040 Recycled Water Permit required. Upon Written notification pursuant to Sections 16.12.020 and 16.12.025 that recycled water is available and must be used, the recycled water customer shall obtain a Recycled Water Pennit by submitting a Recycled Water Pennit application, which shall include plans detailing the recycled and potable water distribution systems at the facility. A City representative shall review the plans and conduct a field inspection before the Recycled Water Penn it is issued. The applicant m,ust make any required changes as directed by the City before a Recycled Water Pennit may be issued. 16.12.045 Recycled water permit conditions; verification of compliance. The recycled water permit shall specify the requirements for the applicant's use of recycled water based on the Water Reuse Rules and Regulations adopted pursuant to 16.12.015, and shall require compliance with the California Department of Public Health regulations contained in Title 17 and Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations and with any additional requirements specified by the State Water Resources Control Board. Recycled water shall not be 4 080514 syn 6050416 f supplied to a facility until inspection by a City representative determines that the applicant is in . compliance with the pennit conditions. 16.12.050 ExemptiOI:tJ and adjustments. An application for an exemption or an adjustment to the requirements of this chapter shall be made to the Director of Public Works or hislher designee. Requests for an exemption or adjustment may be made consistent with state law and shall be based on the finding by the Director of Public Works that the use of recycled water demonstrates an adverse effect to the applicant's landscaping installed prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified herein. The Din~ctor of Public Works may ;:Uso COlisidcr any additional fadors, iududing any spcdnl costs or hardships which may be created by the use of recycled water. A written detemlination will be made on all requests for exemptions or adjustments within ten (10) business days and mailed to the applicant. If the exemption or adjustment is not granted, the applicant must fully comply with the requirements of this section. 16.12.055 Appeals. Denial of any application for an exemption and/or adjustment to the provisions of recycled water use may be appealed to the City Manager or hislher designee, whose decision shall be final. An application for appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk in writing within ten (10) business days after the Director of Public Works' decision and shall state the specific , grounds for the appeaL The City Manager or hislher designee shall hear the appeal within sixty (60) calendar days after the appeal has been filed with the City Clerk and shall issue a written decision within thirty (30) days. 16.12.060 Failure to comply with this chapter. In addition to existing penalties in state and local law'for violation of the provisions of this chapter, the City Manager or hislher designee may assess the following penalties, subject to the appeal provisions set forth above: (a) A water service surcharge of fifty percent (50%) of the general water service rate, as set forth in Utility Rate Schedule, for each billing period during which potable water is use.d:fot. i.rri3auon. (b) Continued use of potable water for inigation, after a written warning by the City Manager or hislher designee, may result in the discontinuation of water service supplied for irrigation by the City of Palo Alto following a noticed hearing. A charge as set forth in the City's administrative fee schedule shall be paid prior to the reactivation or restoration of water service. (c) Any use of recycled water in a manner contrary to the provisions of this title, is hereby declared to be a nuisance and may be abated in the manner provided for the abatement of nuisances in Chapter 9.56 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 5 O!OS 14 syn 6050416 16.12.065 Monitoring. Representatives of the City and the San Francisco Bay Regional. Water Quality Control Board shall be authorized to enter, the premises of any recycled water user to carry out inspections and monitoring to assure compliance with this chapter and applicable state of California regulations. 16.12.070 Severability. If any provision or clause of this chapter is held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions of this dU.lpter, and clauses of this (~hapter are declared to he severable. SECTION 3. The Council hereby finds this ordinance is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Sections 15307 and 15308 of the CEQA Guidelines (exempting actions taken by regulatory agencies for the protection of natural resources and the environment), and pursuant to Sections 13554 and 13552.4 of the California Water Code (exempting projects which involve the repiping, redesign, or use of recycled water necessary to comply with a requirement to use recycled water for toilet and urinal flushing or residential landscaping). II /I /I. /I II II II II II II II /I II 6 080514 syn60S0416 SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: April 28, 2008 May 12, 2008 BARTON, BURT, DREKMEIER, ESPINOSA, KISHIMOTO, KLEIN, MORTON, SCH.MID, YEH APPROVED AS TO FORM: ( ~'c! 'W. 801"lwL 15;puty ty Attorney 7 080514 syn 6050416 -..J -C) E -t/) "C .- 0 CI) "C (1) .2= 0 t/) .!!! 0 CG -0 I- 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 RWQCP Recycled Water Annual Average Total Dissolved Solids: 1993 ~ 2008 (short and long term projections included) Estimated TDS in 5-10 years if salt water infiltration fully agency resources O+------------,------------~------------,_------------r_----------~------~ 1990 1995 2000 2005 Year 2010 2015 ::x:---I --I ::x:- C"> :::::c :s:: rn ::z: --I ::::x:: TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: BEQUEST ATTACHMENT I City of Palo Alto City Manager's Report H0NORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS APRIL 24, 1995 C.MR:217:95 WASTEWATER RECLAMATION PROGRAM M_ FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS This staff report requests that CoUncil certify the Wastewater Reclamation Environmental . Impact Report (EIR), but suspend the implementation of the projects included in theEIR .. It also requests that Council adopt a new Reclamation Policy. . In view of the uncertainties with respect to the need. for additional reclamation, it is recommended that the existing reclaimed water program not be expanded at this time. Future evaluation of the individuat projects in the EIR would be triggered by the conditions outlined in the Reclamation Policy of this rq>art. The Planning Commission has taken public comments and reviewed and approved the draft EIR as adequate under CEQA .. CMR:547:93, October 21, 1993, referred the wastewater reclamation program to the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAci for study· and recommendations. The reconimendation and the Reclamation Policy have been reviewed and approved by the UAC. Staff will bring back individual projects for review by the UAC and Council if and when an evaluation is triggered . . RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that Council: 1. Certify that the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been completed in compliance· with CEQA. and that it reflects the independent judgment of the Council. 2. Suspend iJnplementation of any of the projects studied in the EIR, and instead adopt a Reclamation Policy which includes continuation of the existing reclaimed water CMR:217:9S Page 1 of 11 . program and monitoring of the conditions that would trigger the future evaluation of the projects studied in the EIR. 3. Direct that at such time as staff believes that conditions exist which would trigger further evaluation of the projects, staff will submit s~ch information to the Utilities Advisory Commission for its review and recommendationS prior to submittal of the matter to the Council. 4. Direct staff to inform the UAC, and initiate the appropriate evaluations on any such triggered project, and submit the evaluations for review by the UAC and Council. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The City is firmly committed to protect the environment, using the most viable and cost effective approach. The Reclamation Policy is a· new policy which embodies this. commitment. The Reclamation Policy is consistent with the Watershed Management approach which ~ for the re-consideration of water quality standards, prior to individual project decisions, where the water q~ality standards are factors in the decision making process. The Reclamation Policy enumerates the conditions that would trigger future evaluation of the individual projects included in the EIR. The Reclamation Policy is consistent with the State policy, the Basin Plan for the Bay Area communities,and Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan. Adoption. of the Reclamation Policy would allow the City to monitor and initiate future evaluations as needed. EXECUTIVE SlI\\fMARY This staff report provides the policy recommendations on the ~ogram.. The Program planning was initiated by the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) as a . requirement of the partner cities to serve two objectives: . 1. To reduce metals discharge to the Bay in order to meet the mass limit of the RWQCP discharge permit, and 2. To supplement the water supply. In 1994, the RWQCP met the permitted mass limits as a result of the combined efforts of source control, in-plant reduction, and the .~xisting reclamation. However, the RWQCP cannot guarantee future compliance for two reasons. First, the permit limits are being re- evaluated and may change. Second, the RWQCPoperated under very favorable low-flow conditions in 1994, which may change in the future. Therefore, it is necessary to keep the reclamation program expansion as an option for future re-evaluation. Another factor to consider is th~ concentration limit, which is also in the RWQCP permit. Reclamation reduces only the mass discharge and will not. reduce the discharge CMR:217:95 . Page 2 of 11 concentration. The concentration limit is also being re-evaluated at this time. More information will be available in the future for the evaluation on the need for' additional reclamation. From the wastewater discharge perspective, no further reclamation project is recommended at this time, but it is necessary to establish a policy which will enable reclamation as an option for future permit compliance if needed. From the water supply perspective, current water demand is below the City's supply capacity. The Utilities Department Integrated Resource Plan identified reclamation as one of several alternatives to supplement the future water supply. Although future demand may ex.ceed the City's supply, a recent market survey does not indicate substantial demand for reclaimed water. Therefore, no reclamation project is recommended at this time. However,the City should include reclamation as aD. option for future water supply evaluation. The proposed Reclamation Policy sets the following guidelines: . 1. The RWQCP will maintain the current reclamation projects (Shoreline Park, Greer Park, Palo Alto Golf Course, and water truck hydrants) . . 2. Evaluation of the projects covered in the EIR cOuld.be triggered by the following conditions: • Changes in the RWQCP discharge permit requirements • Increased mass loading to the RWQCP, • Requests by partner agencies or'other local agencies • Availability of federal or other funds • Supply side issues FISCAL IMPACT The Program poses no fiscal impact to the current fiscal year since no project is recommended for implementation at this time. The fiscal impacts of the Program will be addressed when, and if, a project under the Program is submitted for approval in the future. . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT An environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared in accordance with CEQA. The EIR found no un-mitigable impact. The Utilities Advisory Commission has reviewed and commented on,the draft EIR. A public hearing was held on December 14, 1994 before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has taken public comments, and reviewed and approved the draft EIR as adequate under CEQA. A copy of the transcript of the public hearing is attached to this staff report. The final EIR is also being submitt~ concurrently to Council for certification. CMR:217:95 Page 3 ofll ATfACHMENTS Transcript of the Dec. 14,1994 public bearing Final Wastewater Reclamation EIR PREPARED BY: William D. Miks, Manager, Water Quality Control PlaIit J J. J. ,. DEPARTMENT HEAD REvmw:_-f!).~~I--~~~~ __________ _ CITY MANAGER APPROV AL: __ ~.j..-:~~~I-£-=~ ... " ........ !......-__ _ CMR:217:95 Page 4 of 11 City of Palo Alto City Manager's Report· SUBJECT: RWQCP Wastewater Reclamation Program _. Findings . and Recommendations . RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that Council: " 1. Certify the fInal Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been completed in compliance with CEQA, . and that it reflects the independent judgment of the Council. 2. Suspend implementation of any of the projects studied in the EIR, and instead adopt a Reclamation Policy which inclUdes continuation of the existing reclaimed water . program and momtoring of the conditions that would trigger the future evaluation of the projects studied in the EIR. . 3. Direct that at such time as staff believes that conditions exist which would trigger further evaluation of the projects, staff will submit such infonnation to the Utilities Advisory Commission for itS review and recommendations prior to sulnntttaI of the matter to the Council. 4. Direct staff to inform the UAC and initiate the appropriate evaluations on the trigger project and submit the eval1;18-tions for review by the UAC and Council. BACKGROUND . The Reclamation Program (Program) planning was initiated by the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) as a requirement of the partner cities to serve two objectives: 1. To reduce metals discharge to the Bay in order to meet the mass limit of the RWQCP discharge permit requirement, and 2. J'o supplement the water supply. The RWQCP discharge permit contains amass limit and a concentration limit on each pollutant. Among the pollutants,. the RWQCP has the greatest difficulty in meeting the . permit limitS for copper .. The RWQCPreduces its metals discharge through the combined efforts of source control, 'in-plant reduction, and reclamation. Source control reduces the concentration and, consequently, the mass of the metals in the influent to the plant. In~ CMR:217:9S Page 5 of 11 plant reduction reduces the.concentration and the mass prior to discharge; however, the reduction efficiency is dependent"on the loading of the plant. Reclamation diverts the plant discharge for reuse and, hence, reduces the mass;· but this has no effect on the discharge concentration. In 1994, the RWQCP met the mass limit for copper as a result of the combined efforts of source control, in-plant reduction and existing ~eclamation projects. However, the RWQCP cannot guarantee future compliance for two reasons. First, the permit limits are b~ing re-evaluated, and future requirements are not yet certain. Second, the RWQCP operated under very favorable conditions in 1994 --near record low flow, and, consequently, at a record high in-plant reduction efficiency. These favorable conditions may change in the future. The City needs to ensure that reclamation projects are available as an option for future compliance. To meet the concentration limit, the RWQCP launched a very aggressive source control program. In 1994, the RWQCP achieved a record high in-plant metals reduction effiCiency. Despite these efforts, the RWQCP has not been able to meet the copper concentration limit. The RWQCP continues to seek alternatives that will reduce the copper concentration. For as long as the concentration limit is more stringent than the mass limit, additional reclamation would not ensure full compliance. However, the concentration limit is also being re-evaluated at this time. More Information will be available in the future for the evaluation of the need for additional reclamation. From the discharge perspective, further reclamation projects are not recommended at this time. It is recommended that the . . . proposed policy be adopted to enumerate the conditions that would trigger future re- evaluation. From the watersupply perspective, the City's water demand is currently below its supply capacity. The Utilities Department conducted a study to evaluate supply-side and demand- side alternatives for the future water supply. The study, titled the Integrated Resource Plan, identified reclamation as one of several alternatives to supplement future water supply. Although it is anticipated that future water supply will be limited and more costly, a recent market survey does not indicate substantial demand for reclaimed water. Hence,· ~o project is recommended at this time. However, future water supply requirements may trigger further evaluation of reclamation projects in the Program. The City should include reclamation as an option for future water supply evaluation. POLICY IMPUCATIQNS The City is frr:nlJ.y committed to protect the environment using lbe most viable and cost effective approach. The Reclamation Policy is a new policy which embodies this commitment. The Reclamation Policy is consistent with the Watershed Management approach· which calls for the re-consideration of water quality standards, prior to individual project decisions where the water quality standards are factors in the decision making CMR:217:95 Page 6 of 11 process. The Reclamation Policy enumerates the conditions that would trigger future evaluation of the individual projects included in the EIR. The Reclamation Policy is consistent with the State policy , the Basin Plan for the Bay Area· communities, and Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan. Adoption of the Reclamation Policy would allow the City to monitor and initiate future evaluations as needed. DISCUSSION There are five conditions that would trigger future evaluation to implement the projects under the Program. They are: ·1. Changes in the.RWQCP discharge permit requirements The Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) issues the RWQCP a discharge permit wlrich sets the limits on the Plant's discharge. The permit includes a total annual mass limit for each metal, as well as a concentration limit. The Regional Board has been directed by the State Board to reconsider the limits, using the best scientific information in establishing the basis of the limits. The Regional Board is in the process of revising the limits on copper discharge. At this time, it is uncertain what the copper mass and concentration limits will be. The RWQCP continues to seek new source control opportunities, but has not found sufficient new control measures to bring the RWQCP to compliance with the current copper concentration limit requirement. Therefore, RWQCP personnel are working cooperatively to ensure that the permit limits are re-evaluated by the Regional Board. Discussions with the Regional Board have been initiated in order· to establish reasonable concentration and mass permit limits that can be met and are responsive to the environmental needs. A letter from Mayor Simitian to the Chair of the Regional Board reinforced the City's request that the permit limits be reconsidered. The City is urging the Board to utilize the methodology recently used for New York . Harbor, which resulted in an increase in the copper limits for the City of New York and surrounding communities. When the Regional Board's re-evaluation is complete, and at the conclusion of the permit negotiation, more information will be available to determine whether additional reclamation projects will be needed to. meet the ultimate mass permit limit. At that time, the individual reclamation projects will be re-evaluated in light of the outcome of the negotiation .. 2. Increased mass loading to the RWQCP The Plant's metals discharge is .influenced by the flow, the concentration, and the removal efficiency through the Plant. The current flow through the Plant is near record low (23 mgd). Because of the low flow, the RWQCP is able to achieve CMR:217:95 Page 7 of 11 record high removal efficiency. Efficiency is typically inversely proportional to flow. In addition to decreasing removal efficiencies, high flows also bring more pollutants to the plant. Therefore, if the flow through the plant increases in the future, the mass loading would increase. Th~ RWQCP is permitted for 39 mgd,.and is obligated to the Partner cities to treat up to 39 mgdwithout permit violations. 3. Requests frQm partner agencies or other local agencies The cities of Menlo Park and Mountain View.have both expressed their desire for reclaimed water. The City of Menlo Park has conducted its market survey and is evaluating the economics of the Program that would benefit Menlo Park. It is possible that a reclaimed water project which benefits a partner agency woule). present no, or very little, fmancial impact to the City. . 4 . Availability of federal or other funds . Implementation of all the projects under the Program is estimated to increase the City's wastewater rate by approximately 11 percent and the water rate by 3 percent. Currently, there are no federal grant funds available for reclamation projects. However, a proposed bill in the Congress would provide 55 percent federal funding . for reclamation projects from the federal government. The first of Palo Alto's four reclamation projects is. included in this proposed bill. If this funding becomes . available, the economic impact to the City would be reduced by half. 5. Water supply issues From the perspective of the water utility, the value of reclaimed water is determined by comparing it to water from the wholesale supplier and to other supply-side and demand-side options. This analysis requir~s making assumptions about such things as the likelihood of drought, projected wholesale water costs and availability, and any additional costs required for the implementation of reclaimed water. Even if the water utility paid the same rate for reclaimed water as it pays San Francisco Water Department (SFWD) for potable water, this accounts for less than 25 percent· of the total reclamation project costs. Therefore, in order for water. supply issues to drive a reconsideration of reclaimed water, things wotild have to· change markedly. This section lists those issues which may lead to increases in the value of teclaimed water from a water supply perspective. . a. Water supply availability shortages The City's main water supplier, the SFWD,.may be forced to reduce its "safe yield" estimate for its system, due to unfavorable outcomes in a number of cases before regulatory review now and in the future. These cases include FERC relicensing of the Don Pedro Dam, State Water Resources Control Board review of water rights following the Bay-Delta accord, and any other. review of water rights or obligations of water diverters. Although SFWD would act to purchase .water to meet ·its CMR:217:9S Page 80f 11 obligations and the needs of its wholesale customers, it is conceivable that the price of the water would be extremely high and even competitive with reclamation. Short-term water shortages such as those due. to lack of precipitation or runoff, as experienced in the past, are also likely in the future. A more severe or longer term shortage than the 1986-1992 period is possible and may lead to a higher value for reclaimed water, which is always available ~egardless of drought conditions. b. RegUlatory or legislative initiative Regulators or legislators may require the use of reclaimed water for certain end uses as a condition of using water, retaining water rights or maintainins diversion facilities. Under this scenario, economic justification from a water. supply perspective would be superfluous. c. Advanced treatment for potable reuse Regulators are constantly updating the water quality requirements of reclaimed water and designating appropriate end uses for waters of various qualities.· At the same time, advances are befug made in treatment technologies and costs . . Ultimately, reclaimed water could be certified for direct potable reuse. . In that eventuality, a separate pipeline would not be required and the economics of reclaimed water may be favorable. Policy . . In view of the uncertainties with respect to the objectives of the Program, the following policies are recommended as a ro3.d map to the future implementation of the Program. I. The RWQCP will maintain the existing reclamation efforts. Although additional reclamation projects are not recommended at this. time, the existing reclamation projects are vital to the RWQCP's ability in meeting the current mass discharge limit requirement. Any reduction in the RWQCP's efforts to reduce metals discharge will be viewed unfavorably by the Regional Board and the environmental groups. If the existing reclaimed water system requires repair or replacement, the repair or replacement would be done in light of the Program requirements. n. Future evaluation of the projects under the Program could be triggered by any of the following conditions: 1. The City will evaluate the reclamation projects when the Regional Board completes its re-evaluation of the discharge limits, and at the conclusion of the permit negotiation. CMR:217:9S Page 9 Qf 11 · . 2. The City will evaluate the individual projects if the mass loading to the RWQCP increases substantially in the future. 3. The City will evaluate an individual project, if a request with an attractive financial arrangement is made by partner agencies or other local agencies for a reclamation project. 4. The ~ity will evaluate individual reclamation projects if federal or other funding becomes available. 5. The City will evaluate individual reclamation projects in the event of a severe or long-term water supply shortage. 6. The City will evaluate individual reclamation projects if regulators mandate the use of reclaimed water. 7. The City will evaluate further use of reclaimed water if reclaimed water quality becomes suitable for direct potable use. ALTERNATIVES From the wastewater side, the RWQCP continues to search for source coritrol alternatives. So far, additional source control measures have .not been identified that would ensure compliance. Construction of additional treatment process at tbe RWQCP does not appear to be an acceptable alternative from a cost perspective or an environmental protection perspective. Further discussion.of alternatives is included in the Environmental Impact Report, From the water supply side, the City has many alternatives to reclamation. The 1993 Integrated Resource Plan identified the.various alternatives. FISCAL IMPACT The Program poses no fIScal impact to the current fiscal year, since no project is recommended for implementation at this time. The impacts of the individual projects will be addressed when and if a project is s~bmitted for approval in the future. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT An environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared in accordance with CEQA. The EIR found no un-mitigable impact. The Utilities Advisory Commission has reviewed and commented on the draft EIR. A public hearing was held on December 14, 1994 before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has taken public comments, reviewed, and approved the draft EIR as adequate under CEQA. Thefmal EIR is being submitted concurrently to Council for certification. CMR:217:95 Page 10 of 11 STEPSFQLLO~GAPPROVAL Upon adoption of the reclamation policy, staff will monitor the trigger events. Staff will report to the U AC and Council the occurrence of any event that would necessitate the evaluation of the reclamation project(s), and request UAC review and Council approval prior. to implementation of any project. CMR:217:95 . Page 11 of 11 Table 1~1 Impact and Mitigation Summary Palo Alto Wastewater Reclamation Program DEIR Note: All impacts shown here would be mitigable to Insignificance through incorporation of the corresponding mitigation measures into the proposed project. Environmental Category 3.2 SaUnity, Solis. and Vegetation Detailed discussions of impacts and mitigation are provided in Chapter 3. Potentially Slgnlncant Impact Foothill Main Proled 3.%-1. Several constituents found in the reclaimed water produced by the Regional Plant ~ blah enough to have the potential to cause slanificant impacts to solis and vegetation at Foothill Maln Project use sites as a result of applying the reclaimed water for landscape In'lgation. Proarall'! 3.1-1. Several constituenta found in the reclaimed water produced by the Regional Plant arc high enough to have the potential to cause aignificant impacta to .oila and vogetation at potential Wutewater Reclamation Proaram use sites as a result of applying the reclaimed water for landscape irrigation. Mltllation Measures Footbm Mall Protect 3.%-1. Reclaimed water users shall apply reclaimed water in quantities sufficient to leach accumulated salts through the root zone, shall monitor the affects of the reclaimed water on landscape vegetation over time. and shall take additional mitigation measures as necessary. Proaram . 3.%-%. Reclaimed water users shall apply reclaimed water in quantities sufficient to leach accumulated salts through the root zone, shall monitor the effects of the reclaimed wlter on landscape vegetation over time, and shall take additional mitigation measures as necessary. :J:> --I --I :J:> C":) I :s:: rn :z: --I Co- • ..-.•• r-. Table 1-1 Impact and Mitigati()D Summary Palo Alto Wastewater Reclamation Program DEIR Note: AU impacts shown here would be mitigabte to insignifacance through incorporation of the-corresponding mitigation measures into the proposed project. Detailed discussions of impacts and mitigation are provided in Chapter 3. Environmental Category 3.3 Groundwater Quality Potentially Significant Impact Foothill Main ProJect Impact 3.3-1. The use of reclaimed water for landscape irrigation under the Foothill Main Project could potentially result in a significant increll8c in the concentfations of TDS and chloride in the groundwater at one Of more of the water use sites. Procram Impact 3.3-1. The use of reclaimed water for landscape irrigatlon under the Wastewater Reclamation Program could potentlally result in a significant increase in the concentrations of TDS and chloride in the groundwater at one or more of the water use sites. :sPOIooi3OC2.WPS Mitigation Measures Foothill Main Prolect MItigation Measure 3.3-1. The Regional Plant retain the services of a qualified hydrogeologlst and shall establish a groundwater monitoring program for selected Foothm Main Project skes at which reclaimed water is used for landscape irrigation. This monitoring program shall be capable of identifying increases in TDS and/or chloride concentrations downgradicnt of the use sites as a result of reclatmed water use. If substantial increases in downgradient TDS and/or chloride concentrations are observed, the Regional Plant shall take additlonallteps, with the advice of the hydrogeologist. to reduce those constituent concentrations to acceptable levels. Program Mitigation Measure 3.3-1. The. Regional Plant retain the services of a qualified hydrogeotogist and shalt establish a groundwater monitoring program for selected Wastewater Reclamation Program sites at which reclaimed water is used for landscape irrigation. This monitoring program shall be capable of identifying Increases in TDS and/or chloride concentrations downgradient of the use sites as a result of reclalmed water use. If substantial Increases in downgradient TDS and/or chloride concentrations are observed, the Regional Plant shall take additional steps. with the advice of the hydrogeologist. to reduce those constituent concentrations to acceptable levels. i I .j ,I I Table 1 .. 1 Impact and MItigation Summary ·Palo Alto Wastewater Reclamation Program DEIR Note: All impacts shown here would be mitigable to insignificance through incorporation of the corresponding mitigation measures into the proposed project. Detailed discussions of impacts and mitigation are provided in Chapter 3. Environmental Category 3.12 CUltural Resources 3.t3 Aesthetics Potentially SigniFicant Impad Footblll Main Prolect 3.12-1. Construction of the reclaimed water storage rescl1Ioir at the Page Mill Quarry site could result in significant impacts to known and/or unknown archaeological resources. Proamm 3.11-1 .. Construction of future Wastewater Reclamation Program pipelines and/or resel1loin through open. undisturbed afeB!! or along streets or pipeline corridors bordered closely by historic properties could result .in significant impacts to prehistoric and/or historic cultural resources. depending on the site-specific conditions at the construction site. Promm 3.13-1. Construction of future Wastewater Reclamation Program resel1loir(s) in open, undisturbed areas. areas used heavily by recreatlonists. or ateB!! surrounded by residences. could result in significant impacts to the visual environment, depending on the site-specific conditions at the site and the specifications of the re5Cl1Ioir. SfQtOO13OC~.WP' Mitigation Measures Foothill Main Project 3.12-1. The existing archaeological site near the Page Mill Quarry resel1loir site shall be fenced and placed off-limits to aU construction activities, and an archaeologist shall be present during all excavation activities occurring in the immediate vicinity of Matadero Creek (from Old Page Mill Road to the resel1loir site). froaram 3.11-1. If and when additional pipeline routes and/or reservoir sites are selected. additional review shall be performed and measures Incorporated into the project to reduce potentially significant impacts to leS!l-than-signifieant levels. PrOlmm 3.1)-1. If and when additional reservoir sites are selected. additional review shall be performed and measures shall be incorporated into the project to reduce potentially slgnficant impacts to less-than-significant levels. -. •••• ··.··.·11 Table 1-1 Impact and Mitigation Summary Palo Alto Wastewater Reclamation Program DEIR Note: All impacts shown here would be mitigable. to insignificance through incorporation of the corresponding mitigation me8llures into the proposed project. Detailed discussions of Impacts and mitigation are provided in Chapter 3. Environmental Category 3.6 Biological Resources Potentially Slgnlncant Impact Foothill Main Proleet 3.6-1. Construction of the proposed Foothill Main Project pipeline could result in root damage to approximately 23 native trees. varying in dbh up to 40 inches. along Stanford Avenue between Bowdoin Street and Junlpero Serra Boulevard and at the Page Mill Quany Reservoir site. 3.6-2. Construction activities at the Page Mill Quarry reservoir site could tesult in adverse. erosion-related impacts to aquatlt; life residing in Matadero Creek and impacts to the trees comprising the riparian corridor along the creek. 3.6-3. Construction of the proposed Foothill Main Project pipeline could temporarily adversely affect approximately 250 square feet of a drainage swale that crosses the construction zones adjacent to Junipero Serra Boulevard. Protram 3.6-4. Construction of future Wastewater Reclamation Pro,ram pipelines through open, undisturbed areas or along streets or pipeline corridors bordered closely by vegetation could adversely affect native oak trees or other sensitive species within or adjacent to those pipeline routes. . SFOIOOI3OC1.WP'. Mitigation Measures 'oothOI Msdn Prolect 3.6-1. The Regional Plant or its contractor shall develop an Oak Protection and Replacement Mitigation Plan for the replacement of the native trees that would be removed or damaged during construction. 3.6-2. The Regional Plant or its contractor shall control construction- related erosion into Matadero Creek, based on the Erosion Control Plan identified in Mitigation Me8llure 3.4.1, Section 3.4 of this DBlR, and shall replace my oak trees within 1110 Matadero Creek riparian corridor removed as a result of construction activities. 3,6·3. The potentlalloss of stomwater quality enhancement values shall be mitigated by· measures to restore the swale to its condition prior to construction. rrocram 3.6-4. If any future program pipeUne routes would be located in proximity to native ttees, populations of threatened or endangered plant species, or vegetation potentially supporting threatened or endangered wildlife species, the Regional Plant shall retain the services of a qualified biologist to survey the areas potentially affected and identify steps to ensure the adequate protection of the resource. Protection measures shall include. but not necessarily be limited to. the establishment of buffer zones or the replacement of lost vegetation according to standards found acceptable by the CDFG . Table 1-1 Impact and Mitigation Summary Palo Alto Wastewater Reclamation Program DEIR Note: All impacts shown here would be mitigable to insignificance through incorporation of the Corresponding mitigation measures into the proposed project. Environmental Category 3.6 Biological Resources (continued) Detailed discussions of impacts and mitigation are provided in Chapter 3. Potentially Slgnlneant Impact Program 3.'·5. Construction activities at future Wastewater Reclamation Program reservoir sile(I). If any are developed. could result in advene impacts to nearby plant andlor animal communities or wildlife habitats depending on the site-specific conditions at th~ reservoir site. 3.6-6. Tho use of reclaimed water for marsh enhancement projects near the San Francisco Bay and/or construction of tho proj~1 compoiJ.ents could result in adverse impacts to the aquatic lire at or near the manh, depending on the sensitivity of that . aquatic life to constituentl in the reclaimed water and the construction actlvitles Rquired. Mitigation Measures Proaram 3.'.5. If and when an additional reservoir site is selected, and if that reservoir site would be located In proximity to native trees, populations of threatened or endangered plant species. or vegetation potentiaUy supportinS threatened or endangered wildlife species, the Regional Plant shall retain the services of a qualified biologist to survey the proposed site and identify steps to ensure the adequate protection of the resoUrte. Protection measures shall include. but not necessarily be limited to. the establishment of buffor zones or the replacement of tost vegetation according to standards found acceptable by the CDFG. 3.6-6. If and when a marsh enhancement project is proposed, the Realonal Plant sball retain the services of a qualified biologist to survey the proposed site and Identify ItepS to ensure the adequate protection of vegetation and wildlife within the marsb. This assessment shan include an evaluation of the potential for water quality and aquatic Ufe impacts as a result of usinS the m::lalmed water and the potential for construction-related impacts. Protection measures shall include. but not necealarily be limited to. avoidance of the resource potontlally affected, limited uac of the reclaimed water (or other .appropriatc water management practices), the establishment of buffer zones, or the replacement of lost vcsctation according to standards found acceptable by the CDFO. Table 1-1 Impact and Mitigation Summary Palo Alto Wastewater Reclamation Program DEIR Note; All impactll shown here would be mitigable to insignificance through incorporation of the corresponding mitigation measures into the proposed project. Detailed discussions of impacts and mitigation are provided in Chapter 3. Environmental Category Potentlany S_plncant Impact 3.11 I Foothill Main Prolett Traffic and 3.U-I. Closure of the bike lane in one direction of Embarcadero Circulation Road (cast of Highway 101) may result in a temporary significant impact. 3.11-2. Lane closure on Bast Bayshore Road may result in temporary significlUlt impacts from detours and may block bicycle flow along this roadway. '" 3.11-3. Lane closure on West Bayshore Road may result in temporary significant impacts from detours and may block bicycle . flow along this roadway. 3.11-4. Pipeline construction on Channing Avenue may temporarily block pedestrian and/or bus access to bus stops. 3.U-S. Lane closure on Newell Road may result in temporary significant impacts from detours. . SFOIOOI3OC:2.WP.5. Mlttgatlon Measures foothill Main Protect 3.11·1. The Regional Plant or its contractor shall maintain bike travel through the construction site along Embarcadero Road (east of Highway 101) by providing a temporary alternative bike lane through that area. 3.11-2. Use flaggers to control traffic along East Bayshore Road during lane closures between Bmbarcadero Road (east of Highway 101) and Laura Lane and provide a temporary alternative bike lane in the area. 3.11-3. Use naggers to control traffic along West 8ayshore Road during lane closures between the Highway 101 crossing and Bmbarcadero Road (west of Highway 101) and provide a temporary alternative bike lane in the area. ' 3.11-4. Coordinate with the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency to relocate bus stops along Channing Avenue during construction. as required to provide uninterrupted service. 3.U .. s. Use flaggers to coDtrol traffic along Newell Road during lane closures near Rinconada Park and the cultural center and library complex • Table 1-1 Impact and Mitigation Summary Palo Alto Wastewater Reclamation Program DEIR Note: All impacts shown here would be mit1lable to insignificance throulh incorporation of the conesponding mitigation measures into the proposed project. EnvIronmental Category 3.11 Traffic and Circulation (continued) Detailed discussions of impacts and mitigation arc provided in Chapter 3. Potentially Slgnlncant linpad 'ooth'" Main Prolect 3.U..6, The proposed crossing of Embarcadero Road at Newell Road could result in temporary significant impacts to traffic flow on Embarcadero, 3.U-7. The proposed crossing of HI Camino Real at Stanford Avenue could result in temporary signiDcant impac!s to traffic Dow on El Camino Real. 3.U"'. Lane closure on Stanford Avenue may result In temporary significant impacts from detours, l.Il-9. The proposed crossing of Junipero Serra Boulevard at Stanford Avenue could remit in temporary significant impacts to traffic flow and bicycle flow on Junipero Serra Boulevard. Proanun 3.n~tO. Bike and traffic lane closures as a result of future pipeline construction ac'tivitlet could result in temporary significant adverse impacts to tramc and ~irculation. 3.U-n. Pipeline construction within roadways on future piPeline routes may block pedestrian and/or bus access to bus stops. Mltlgatlon Measures Foothill Main Pmlecl 3.U..6, Implement a tane closure strategy for the Embarcadero Road crossing that limits the number of lanes closed at any given time and prevents closures during peak: traffic periods. 3.11-7. Implement a lane closure strategy for the El Camino Real crossing that limits the number of lanes closed at any given time and . prevents closures during peale traffic periods. 3,11-8. Use Oaggers to control traffic along Stanford Avenue during lane closures between Amherst Street and Junipero Serra Boulevard. 3,U-9. Implement a lane ctosure strategy for the JUDipero Serra Boulevard crossing that limits tbe number of lanes closed at any siven time and prevents closures during peak traffic periods. In addition, a temporary alternative bike lane will be provided in the area. Proanun l.U·10. The Regional Plant or Its contractor shall maintain bike and vchicle travel through the construction sites by providing temporary alternative bike and vehk:le lanes through those areas and through the Incorporation of additional measures into the project, such as the use of nllgers and off-peak construction houn, to meet all regulatory requirements and e~sure adequate traffic movement. 3.U-U. Coordinate with the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency and/or other appropriate transportation agencies to relocate bus stops along roadways during construction. as required to provide uninterrupted service . • • • • -.-.-• ..--~ .,.-.. ~ ~ .. ~.' ···8If··..::2':j~~· CITY OF PALO ALTO Memorandum TO: CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE DATE: JUNE 1,2009 CMR: 271:09 SUBJECT: Transmittal and Discussion of Report from the Independent Police Auditor Regarding Children's Theatre Police Investigation Attached is a copy ofthe Independent Police Auditor's report by Michael Gennaco on his review of the Palo Alto Police Department's Children's Theatre Criminal Investigation. I received a copy of this report late Wednesday and have placed it on the Council agenda for discussion June I. There has been only an initial review by staff at this point and the report has yet to be fully reviewed by the relevant Department Directors. Most of the principals involved in this episode have retired but I have asked current staff to refrain from public comment on the report, pending review and discussion with the Council in your public meeting on Monday. Given the importance of this matter to the Council and your direction to engage the Independent Auditor in review of this event, the Council and the· community deserve that staff commentary first takes place in your public forum at the Council meeting on Monday. Mr. Gennaco, the Independent Police Auditor and author of the report, will be attending the Council meeting on Monday. City staff takes the report and its recommendations seriously. As you know, a number of changes in City financial management practices in Community Services and Administrative Services have already been instituted. I plan to review the report, your comments and any direction you provide with our staff and establish specific follow up actions that I will share with Council in a subsequent report. Page 10fl I I I I I I I I I I I I INDEPENDENT POLICE AUDITOR'S REVIEW OF THE PAPD CHILDREN'S THEATRE CRIMINAL INVESTIGA TION May, 2009 Prepared by Michael Gennaco OIRGroup 323-890-5425 www.laoir.com INTRODUCTION On June 18, 2007 the Children's Theatre ("CT") in Palo Alto was burglarized. Officers from the Palo Alto Police Department responded and began a criminal investigation into the burglary. As with any other burglary investigation, the employees of the Theater were asked to identify missing items. Several days later, PAPD was informed that pursuant to an investigation being conducted by another law enforcement agency, traveler's checks made out to employees of the Children's Theatre had been recovered. Eventually, additional traveler's checks were located and presented to PAPD from another source. The traveler's checks that were located had not been reported by the CT employees as missing from the burglary. As a result, suspicions were raised about actions of certain of the CT employees. As a result, the tenor of the Police Department's investigation transformed from a routine burglary investigation to suspicions of fraud and embezzlement on behalf of certain CT employees. A detective was assigned full time to the investigation to attempt to determine whether financial crimes had been committed by any of the suspected CT employees. As a result of the PAPD investigator's initial investigation, search warrants were eventually applied for and obtained for CT offices, residences of certain CT employees, and storage lockers maintained by the CT. In addition, judicial authority was also obtained to search lockers maintained by the Friends of the Theatre, a non-profit group formed to support the CT. After the search warrants were obtained and as the search warrants for the CT were being executed, the targeted CT employees were visited at work and asked to travel to the police station for interviews. In the meantime, PAPD personnel were assigned to search the remaining targeted locations. In order to effectuate the search of the CT, the theatre was closed. At that time, the investigation drew Significant attention from the citizens of Palo Alto and local media. As the investigation proceeded, questions and concerns were raised by the community about the nature of the investigation. The investigation eventually concluded with a public announcement that no criminal charges would be filed against the targeted CT employees. At the same time, a redacted version of the lengthy investigative report was voluntarily released by PAPD. Rather than resolve issues, the closing of the criminal case and the release of the report only served to heighten concern about the criminal investigation itself. As a result, your Council requested that the Independent Police Auditor conduct a review of the investigation to assess the decisions made by PAPD officials as the investigation progressed and offer any recommendations for reforms to address issues arising out of that assessment. Please consider this report as the IPA response to that request. 1 DISCUSSION I. IPA's Assessment Protocol It was not the intent of IPA to lire investigate" the investigation in any formal sense. However, in order to ascertain the thoughts, theories, and steps of the investigation, it became important to talk with those involved or connected with the investigation. In the same way, targets of the investigation and actual and potential witnesses to the investigation had important perspectives to provide on these salient issues. Finally, it was critical to review the investigative report and related materials in order to address issues that arose after the investigation became overt. During this analysis, the IPA was able to gain the cooperation of each of these important sources of information save one. Unfortunately, the former and now retired Detective Supervisor assigned to lead the criminal investigation for P APD declined to speak with the IPA regarding his mindset and investigative decision making. While that individual's participation in this process would certainly have provided another important perspective, the cooperation from PAPD and City officials as well as those directly and indirectly impacted by the criminal investigation provided the IPA inquiry a wealth of information and perspectives from which to asses~ the matter. II. Answers to Questions Presented The following questions were presented to the IPA for consideration: Question 1: Based on the information initially presented, was it appropriate to initially proceed with a criminal investigation? Answer 1: Perhaps, but for the reasons delineated below, better alternatives existed that could have eventually obviated the need for a criminal investigation. Moreover, as detailed below, the Department may not have been appropriately equipped to conduct a criminal investigation of the sort envisioned. Question 2: Did the conduct ofthe criminal investigation follow accepted practices? Answer 2: The conduct of the criminal investigation was lacking in several dimensions as detailed below. Question 3: Were internal and public communications accurate and consistent with the evidence obtained and accepted practices? Answer 3: The decision about what information to release and when to release it deserves to be revisited for future occurrences. 2 The review also requested recommendations for reforms which are included at the end of this document. To further flesh out the answers to the questions presented above, it is important to discuss relevant aspects of investigative decision making as the matter progressed. III. The Decision by PAPD to Pursue an Embezzlement Investigation Certainly, PAPD's initial response to the burglary ofthe CT was appropriate and professional. Moreover, when additional information was received about the recovered traveler's checks, additional inquiry was appropriate about whether irregularities were being undertaken by employees of the CT. While the failure to report the missing traveler's checks to the responding burglary investigators could have been a simple failure to remember to report them, a more sinister interpretation could have been, and clearly was formulated by PAPD personnel. This interpretation was buttressed by the admittedly "strange accounting" practices for expense reimbursement in place for CT employees. As a result of these suspicions, the focus of the criminal investigation shifted from one of commercial burglary to one of financial embezzlement. When the investigative focus ' shifted, a detective supervisor took over responsibility of the investigation. At that time, some efforts were made to develop a "paper trail" through requests for documents from City officials and financial institutions. However, most of the resource dedication at this juncture of the investigation consisted of interviews with various city officials and other individuals familiar with City procedures and the financial workings of the CT. The point at which suspicion began to shift from that of a commercial burglary to a potential embezzlement investigation was a pivotal moment in the case. At that point, the Department was faced with various options besides the path taken, namely, the decision to move ahead on its own with a criminal embezzlement investigation: • The Department could have recommended that an independent audit be conducted of the CT's "strange accounting" practices, reimbursement requests, contracts, dealings with the Friends, and other assorted monetary dealings. • The Department could have considered referring the matter to an outside agency. • The Department could have requested an early consult with the District Attorney's Office. In retrospect, either of these options, or a combination thereof, may have been the road better taken. If the Department had worked with City leaders to request an independent audit, a disCiplined professional group could have been tasked to identify irregularities. A methodical paper trail could have been developed by persons trained, experienced, and equipped to "follow the money" and then assess how the CT accounted for 3 its expenses, requests for resources and reimbursements, as well as any evidence of undue financial gain. Once such an audit was completed, the information elicited from that assessment could then have been used to revisit whether a criminal investigation was warranted, and if so, what the scope of that investigation should be. Alternatively, the audit's results could have indicated that a criminal investigation was not appropriate but that CT financial practices were in need of clear reform and/or that the audit results suggested potential violations of City policy indicating an internal administrative investigation was necessary. The only real potential disadvantage of conducting an audit of this sort was that it could "tip off' those involved in potential criminal wrongdoing. While there is certainly a likelihood that those guilty of criminal activity might be placed on guard with any overt financial review, it is much more difficult to cover the tracks offinancial crimes cases than other crimes. The paper trail is difficult to erase, particularly in these days of computer databases and electronic storage and any real effort to destroy evidence often places the perpetrator in peril of being caught not for the crime itself but for the criminal "cover up". In addition, if there is any concern about records being destroyed during an audit, protective mechanisms can be devised to lessen the likelihood of such occurring. Finally, those suspected of criminal activity can be interviewed before the audit is begun, "locking them in" to statements before they are aware of the suspicions against them. The hand off to an outside agency also has inherent advantages over continued local control. First, an outside agency may have more expertise and resources at its behest. It is undisputed that the resources eventually dedicated by PAPD to this investigation placed a significant strain on the Department's other law enforcement responsibilities. Second, an outside agency will not be potentially subject to attacks from the community of partiality, i.e., that the "iconic" status of the CT and its managers caused PAPD to either pursue that icon with too much or too little zeal. An outside agency is better insulated from both ongoing and subsequent criticism that the local law enforcement agency may suffer, i.e., that a local law enforcement agency cannot be impartial in determining the appropriate degree of investigative energy to be deployed because of its closeness to the situation and the persons and organizations targeted for investigation. In fact, when PAPD determined to continue on with the case, it clearly did recognize from the outset that it was investigating an organization and individuals which were seen by many as pillars of the community. That recognition raised concern from PAPD managers that a tepid investigation might be viewed as an unwillingness to investigate robustly those entities and may have resulted in conscious or subconscious overcompensation regarding the vigor with which the investigation was conducted. In any event, outside agencies are certainly more immune from charges of partiality, either in favor or against the subjects of potential criminal activity. 4 For financial crimes cases, early and frequent discussion with the prosecuting agency is a desirable and important feature. White collar crimes are usually complex and unique and discussion with the prosecutorial entity regarding the necessary evidence and potential defenses is a discussion that should be had early on in the life of an investigation. I n this case, PAPD eventually did bring the District Attorney's Office into a substantive discussion but by then much investigative work had already been conducted.1 As a result, the ability for the District Attorney to meaningfully counsel PAPD regarding the strength of the evidence, the potential existence of significant defenses, and appropriate investigative strategies was significantly diminished. In sum, while PAPD cannot be faulted for its decision to proceed with a criminal investigation based on the information initially available, it is mindful for future cases to be aware that other options exist. That being said, the decision for PAPD to move forward with a criminal investigation was not in and of itself inappropriate. It is quite likely that the decision not to proceed with a criminal investigation would also have subjected the Department to criticism, as it has regarding recent alleged acts of City employees in another department that were not investigated criminally. Nonetheless, and as explained further below, the execution of the criminal investigation was problematic in several regards. IV. The Assignment of the Investigation to a Detective with No Apparent Formal Financial Crimes Training By opting not to avail itself of these alternative paths, the Department was left to its own devices, resources, and abilities to pursue the investigation. In this case, a veteran police detective supervisor assigned himself to the case, with his supervisors' approval, and was largely responsible for the shape and path of the investigation. Unfortunately, while this individual had a wealth of experience and detective work in other criminal arenas, his experience in working financial crimes case was not nearly as robust. Even more importantly, this individual who quarterbacked the investigation may not have received any formal financial crimes training in his years as a police officer. For financial crimes in particular, training in how to conduct such investigations is criticaL The assignment of an officer to investigate this complex financial case with no significant formal training in the 1 While there was at least one telephone conversation about the matter with other District Attorney representatives earlier on in the investigation, the understanding from this review was that the first substantive meet to consider the state of the evidence with a representative of the District Attorney's Governmental Integrity Unit occurred in November of 2007, after the investigation had been well underway. It should also be noted that the investigative report reflects a telephone conversation between the lead PAPD investigator and a representative in the District Attorney's Office. While the report reflects support from the DA representative for a ctriminal investigation it also recommends conducting an audit, a recommendation apparently not carried forward by the investigator. 5 area was an unfortunate decision that likely worked to the disadvantage ofthe resulting investigation. v. The Import of Interviews of City Employee Witnesses As the criminal investigation progressed, numerous City employees were interviewed in an effort to divine City policies regarding reimbursement procedures, approval requirements for contracts, how excess property was to be handled, and the like. While there is no evidence of dissembling by those witnesses, the focus on "appropriate" procedures did not sufficiently consider what procedures and processes had been "de facto" tolerated over years and years of operation. In other words, the investigation failed to sufficiently pursue and assess how City officials had been aware of, allowed, and endorsed procedures that may have been against the letter of City policy but were both implicitly and explicitly authorized for years. For example, one focus of the criminal investigation was the allowance by CT managers of the Friends to sell costumes that had been created with City funds. The criminal investigators interviewed City officials and learned that in order to conduct such a transaction, the CT managers would have needed to obtain authorization for the transaction at the highest levels of City governance. However, the investigation also learned that the decision to begin a costume sale did not originate from the current CT managers and targets of the criminal investigation. Most importantly, the investigation also learned that the costume sales had been occurring openly and with at least implicit authorization for years, a fact fatal to any successful criminal prosecution. The failure to recognize the import of this information was a significant shortcoming of the investigation. This recognition failure also appears in the investigative report prepared in this matter. For example, the report discusses an incident in which a City employee allegedly discovered a "misappropriation" by the CT Director at which time he informed the Director to cease the activity but she did not do so. The witness further indicated that he then requested an audit be conducted of CT operations but that because of a friendship with the Director, the audit did not occur. The report however, fails to recognize the import of this exchange. If "misappropriation" is in fact going on and the City indeed became aware yet took no action to learn more about the actions, an embezzlement criminal action cannot survive years later. Later in the report, a witness is reputed to have told the investigator that the CT Director admitted that she was aware of policy but failed to follow it. The witness further indicated, according to the report, the Director failed to follow the policy, her supervisor failed to follow the policy, and the staff of the witness failed to follow the policy. Again, the import of this statement is apparently not recognized by the investigator. The unchecked policy violations that immediate supervisors and other City staff became aware of and 6 chose to do nothing about provide a strong defense to the CT Director with regard to potential criminal charges. From a review of the evidence, it appears that with regard to every other allegation of criminality, the City's awareness, authorization, and/or tolerance of the actions of CT managers was devastating to any viable criminal prosecution of the acts being investigated. In other words, the City's awareness, toleration, and endorsement of the various financial undertakings by CT authorities provided a complete defense to the criminal charges being considered. The failure of the investigation to fully understand the import of this potential defense and learn the depth of any such authorization over the years is a fatal flaw. VI. The Search of the Children's Theater, Personal Residences, and Interview of CT Officials After the interviews of the City officials and other witnesses had been undertaken and some financial documents had been collected, the investigation proceeded to another phase. At this point, affidavits were prepared by the investigative team requesting judicial authority to search the CT office, residences of CT officials, lockers of the CT and CT officials, and lockers maintained by the Friends. While the application for the search warrants was approved by the judge, there is some question about the appropriateness of the affidavits. The affidavits only contain evidence indicative of guilt and do not iterate the potential defenses of prior authorization exemplified in the proceeding section. In addition, it was learned during this review that rather than seek counsel and authorization from the Deputy District Attorney of the Government Integrity Unit who had been previously consulted, the affidavits were apparently presented for review to a Deputy District Attorney unfamiliar with the investigation. As a result, the sifting mechanism role often assumed by the District Attorney's Office was compromised as a result of the initial consulting Deputy District Attorney not having the opportunity to review the search warrant applications. Once the search authorization was obtained, a plan was devised that while the search of the numerous locations was underway, the subjects of the criminal investigation would be interviewed. It has been suggested that in order to ensure that the CT employees would be found at work, recommendations from persons outside the Police Department that the search of the CT be conducted while the theatre programs were on hiatus were not accepted. In any event, while there were apparent attempts to conduct the search at the CT in a way to shield children participants from the law enforcement activity, the success of these efforts is still open to considerable debate. As the search and interview operation progressed, it became apparent that the plan to interview all CT subject employees and all of the search locations was impracticable. As a result, padlocks were placed on several of the search sites and they were searched several 7 ., , .. days later. More problematic, while the lead subject did agree to be interviewed and was interviewed for several hours, two other subjects of the investigation were not interviewed. The failure of the Department to interview these two individuals on the date of the search resulted in them never being interviewed as part of the criminal investigation. Accordingly, the inability of the Departmentto take advantage of their availability on the date of the search resulted in critical information, namely the account of two of the subjects of the criminal investigation not being available to that investigation. VII. The Processing of Evidence Obtained During the Search The search of the CT office, the storage spaces, and residences of the subjects of the investigation resulted in a raft of documents and other materials. The sheer number of materials seized overwhelmed the resources available for the investigation. As a result, a significant portion of the materials collected were not analyzed by investigators and the depth of the import of some documents was not realized. The investigative report itself admits that not all of the seized documents were analyzed during the criminal investigation. Subsequent to the closure of the criminal investigation, other interested parties have actually identified documents seized by the investigators that contain Significantly exculpatory information. Costume Sales The following documents were retrievable pertaining to the costume sales issue: • A 2002 memorandum to the City Manager from the CT Director requesting authorization to donate costumes to the Friends. The approval signature lines include representatives of Finance, the Director of Community Services, the Director of Arts and Culture, and the Assistant City Manager. Both the Director of Arts and Culture and Assistant City Manager's signatures are identifiable. • A 2004 memorandum to the same effect with similar approval signatures. [Apparently, no costume sale was held in 2003.] • An email message in 2006 from the City Community Services Director to Department Heads setting out new disposal procedures for department surplus property. • An email message in 2006 from the CT Costume Supervisor to the CT Director requesting direction on whether she needed to fill out a surplus property form for approval before discarding damaged costumes and the new procedures on how to provide costumes to the Friends for sale. The CT Director than forwards these questions on to an Administrative Services employee. 8 • A return email in 2006 from the Administrative Services Deputy Director to the Children's Theater Director indicating that the request had been passed on the City Attorney and City Auditor for feedback given newly instituted policies and procedures. The email indicates that if there are any issues that need vetting, he would do so. • An email message in 2006 from the CT Costume Supervisor to staff detailing a list of discards for either the Friends costume sale, the EPA job reentry program, or to be thrown away. • Several follow up emails in 2006 from the CT Costume Supervisor updating CT staff on additional information regarding costumes to be donated or discarded. • An email from the Administrative Services Manager to the CT Director indicating that current practice is "consistent with the new policy and procedures". • A flyer announcing the 2006 costume sale by the Friends of the Theatre to be held in the Ballroom at the Lucie Stern Community Center. The above documents indicate that the CT Costume Supervisor was made aware of the new policies for handling surplus property instituted in 2006 and asked her supervisor whether current practices of donating to the Friends [which had been authorized in 2002], the EPA job reentry program, or throwing damaged costumes away was still acceptable. The CT director forwarded on to the Administrative Services Deputy Director the questions raised by the CT Costume Supervisor and received a response indicating that he would forward the question to the City Attorney and City Auditor and that if the current procedures needed to be revised, he would let CT staff know. In the meantime, the CT Costume Supervisor dutifully kept track of costumes to be allocated waiting for an answer from the City. The group of documents finishes with a flyer announcing the fall 2006 sale of costumes by the Friends. This trail of documents demonstrates the existence of an overt practice before 2006 of allowing costume sales to be donated to the Friends. When discard practices were due to be changed in 2006, CT Staff dutifully asked the City whether their practices also needed to be changed. After hearing from the Administrative Services Director that the current poliCies were consistent with the new policy, later that year the costume sale was held. Surely, the City was placed on notice about the costume sales in 2006 and could have caused the CT to change their practices at that time had it desired. The evidence also shows intent on behalf of CT to comply with any new practices and a search for direction from City supervisors on how to proceed. The existence of this group of documents is most likely fatal to any potential prosecution for the sale of costumes by CT staff in that it demonstrates both City authorization and awareness of the costume sale procedures and 9 the intent by CT staff to follow any new procedures regarding surplus sales instituted by the City. Agreements for Special Performances The following documents were retrievable pertaining to the agreements for special performances: • A 1988 agreement between the Friends and the Children's Theater whereby the Friends will hold fund raising events for the CT. • A 1996 agreement between the Friends and the Children's Theater whereby the Friends will receive funds from the Children's Theater in exchange for volunteer help provided by the funds with the understanding that all funds to the Friends will be used for the benefit of the CT program. The contract is apparently signed by someone from the City Manager's, Risk Manager, Purchasing and Contract Administration Departments. • A 1997 agreement to the same effect. • A 1998 agreement and purchase order to the same effect. • A 1999 agreement and purchase order to the same effect. • A 2000 agreement to the same effect. • A 2002 agreement and purchase order to the same effect. The above documents first illustrate a years long practice of contractual arrangements between the CT and the Friends. The documents are accompanied by receipts showing payment in support of the contract. Some of the agreements have empty boxes on approval signature lines for various City entities. On the other hand, some of the agreements do have approval signatures for City entities, including the City Manager's Office. (There was no evidence put forward in the criminal investigation that these signatures were not actual signatures of the various department representatives.) While the existence of these contracts may be contrary to City ordinance and should have been vetted and approved by both the City Attorney's Office and possibly City Council, the evidence of the contracts and accompanying purchase orders indicates City knowledge, tolerance, and apparent authorization for the CT staff to enter into such contracts. The fact that the City paid on the contracts is further evidence for CT staff to believe that they were authorized to continue to enter into such contracts. The failure of the City to correct this belief likely provides a complete defense to CT staff to any criminal prosecution focusing on the execution of "illegal" contracts. 10 Inquiry Whether the Friends Could Pay CT Staff Expenses The following documents exemplify CT Staff inquiring of City officials whether certain actions are permissible: • An email from the CT director to her supervisor regarding whether the Friends could pay for CT staff to attend a music festival in Atlanta. The email asks that the supervisor check into this and ends: "We want to be sure we don't end up doing something that is deemed unacceptable or can be considered a gift." • A forwarding email from the supervisor to the City Attorney's Office requesting an opinion. • An opinion from the City Attorney's Office authorizing the request and indicating: "The employees attending need not report the value of the travel OR worry about the gift limits." Again, this email chain is indicative of CT staff seeking approval to not violate City policy and requesting and receiving assurances from the City Attorney that they are not doing so. Requests for Other Financial Adjustments The following documents exemplify the looseness with which financial accounts are "adjusted" with the full knowledge and cooperation of City staff: • An email "ok" to the CT director from City staff to "adjust" an account from the Community Theater to the Children's Theatre because of a mistake made by City staff. • An em'ail from the CT Director to her supervisors requesting authorization to transfer funds from an overspent account because of mistaken charges to that account and a list of the various mistaken charges. A reply email authorizing the request for transfers. • An email from a City official authorizing the juggling of moneys from various accounts. The emails above suggest issues regarding the moving of monies among contracts and accounts and "mistakes" by both City and CT staff regarding the charging of expenses to wrong accounts. However, the emails also are indicative of CT Staff bringing to the City's attention such mistakes, requesting authorization to adjust accounts, and receiving such authorization. The above emails are tip offs to faulty and insufficiently monitored accounting. They also, however, provide an excellent defense to any criminal charge of embezzlement. 11 A fact soon learned by the criminal investigators and documented in their investigative report is the disarray of record keeping and documents seized from the various sites. While that disarray is indicative of poor recordkeeping, the disarray is not consistent with the investigator's criminal theory; namely, the existence of a group of crafty criminals carefully counting the days in which the traveler's checks could be cashed free of detection from the City. Rather the more accurate picture painted by what the investigators found when they searched the office and other locations was a "rat pack" collection of materials in disarray that proVide no particular sense of purpose, but that contained a good deal of exculpatory information for those with the stamina, acumen, and resources to sort the documents out. The failure of the investigation to possess sufficient resources to process the seized materials and gain understanding from them caused a good deal of exculpatory material not to be sufficiently considered by the criminal investigation. Moreover, the gestalt of what was learned the day of the search about the recordkeeping style of the subj ects of the investigation was not consistent with the theory promoted in favor of criminal prosecution. VIII. The Determination Not to Interview Certain Witnesses The actions of the Friends, a non-profit support group of the CT, became a centerpiece to some of the alleged criminal activity. At some point, the investigator declined to interview the Friends witnesses due to their having obtained counsel and a stated view that, as a result, those interviews would have been unhelpful to the investigation. However, investigations should seek out all potential sources of relevant information. The mere fact that a witness has retained counsel does not mean that the witness account will not be helpful to the investigation. Moreover, an investigator should not equate exculpatory information with unhelpful information. In many ways, the plumbing of information tending to exonerate criminal subjects is more important than incriminating evidence. A full examination of potentially exculpatory information is essential for investigators and prosecutors to determine whether a crime has been committed and the earlier such information is accessed and analyzed the better. Any concern that the attorney will be able to strategically gain knowledge about the details of the investigation can be mitigated by the careful development and asking of questions. Finally, the mere fact that a witness has retained counsel does not necessarily mean the witness will be unhelpful; particularly in financial crimes investigations the wise counsel of an attorney instructing the witness of the need for honesty will often result in more truthful information being provided to the investigator than less. According to the investigative report, another witness to the investigation was not interviewed due to "scheduling conflicts". Such scheduling conflicts should not have 12 prevented the investigator from obtaining information from this witness. The import of this investigation and the potential consequences to the City and the subjects of the investigation demanded a greater effort to obtain any relevant information this witness could provide. Sometimes grave illness, an ability to locate a witness, great distances, and non-cooperation can justify the failure to obtain information from a witness; the Report however, only points to "scheduling conflicts" as a reason for this investigative lead not to have been pursued. The failure of the investigation to fully explore the authorization provided CT managers to conduct the activities that were the focus of the investigation, the decision not to interview Friends witnesses and another witness because of scheduling issues, and the failure to fully assess documents that supported an "authorization" defense all point to the investigation's tendency to ignore facts that suggested a crime may not have been committed. This failure to evaluate exculpatory information is apparent throughout this criminal investigation. For example, the original suspicion cast on CT staff stemmed from their failure to report the missing traveler's checks in the original burglary report. However, as learned later in the fall, the CT staff also failed to list $17,000 worth of video projectors as missing during the burglary. This fact tends to suggest a reassessment that the failure to report the missing traveler's checks may have been more demonstrative of poor inventory tracking by CT staff rather than a calculated attempt to shield them from public purview. As new facts become available, an investigator must reassess the viability of a criminal prosecution and retain the flexibility to discard original suspicions. Moreover, complete witness statements must be obtained and analyzed for evidence helpful and harmful to the criminal investigative theory; certain witness statements cannot be selectively "shoehorned" to fit the theory while others are discarded. A robust investigation develops and seeks all of the facts; those helpful to show gUilt as well as those pointing toward innocence. An investigation that fails to pursue all the relevant facts is not a complete investigation. These concepts are well recognized by the PAPD. In its Report Writing Manual, it explicitly states: "Normally facts which tend to minimize or disprove the subject's guilt should be documented in your report." It is apparent that in this case, the investigative report did not fully subscribe to this principle. IX. The Role of the City Manager In the Investigation Numerous allegations were raised about the City Manager's role in the criminal investigation. This review revealed no significant evidence that the City Manager improperly directed the police investigation, including which witnesses to interview or how to proceed with the investigation. 13 X. Public Comments from PAPD During an Ongoing Investigation At times, police officials commented publicly about the pending criminal investigation. For example, at one pOint, a witness who had been interviewed by the investigation reported to the media about his account of the interview. In response, the Department contested the witness' account of the interview by referring to the tape recorded witness interview. While it is sometimes difficult to stand mute while a witness is contesting the integrity of an ongoing investigation, the better practice is to hold comment until the investigation has taken its course. To do otherwise, is to potentially compromise a pending investigation. XI. The Preparation of the Investigative Report From the inception of the financial crimes investigation, a narrative report was prepared by the lead investigator. In several respects, the report lacks the dispassionate qualities expected of police reports. First, the report is an amalgam of facts, theories, and conjecture. While summaries of interviews and investigative tasks provide a helpful road map to the investigation and are appropriately part of a report, investigative reports should be free of conjecture, inferences, and investigative theories. In addition, extraneous information and un attributed and irrelevant statements and acts regarding the subjects of the investigation should not be included in the official report. For example, unless a connection can be shown, the fact that CT managers may have gone on expensive trips are not appropriate for inclusion into a police report. Finally, the use of first names when referring to some of the witnesses detracts from the profeSSionalism expected of police reports. These concepts are recognized and accepted by PAPD. In the Department's Report Writing Manual, it is noted that tta police report should be written using facts, not conclusions or opinions. Avoid making inferences about what something means, and instead just stick to reporting facts." It is apparent that the report eventually released by the investigator in the CT investigation did not always subscribe to these admonitions. XII. The Statute of Limitations Issue The Statute of Limitations issue and the failure of the investigation to recognize how a prosecution was time barred is worthy of further comment. Crimes such as embezzlement have provisions for extending the ordinary three year statute of limitations to the time at which the scheme is discovered or should have reasonably been discovered. This legal extension exists so that persons who successfully conceal their financial crimes can be held criminally accountable when those crimes are discovered. 14 However, in the instant case, the extension of the statute of limitations was not available since each of the acts investigated had been conducted openly by each of the subjects. In other words, the weight of the evidence was that the CT employees did little, if anything, to hide their actions or cover their tracks. As exemplified above, numerous communications were discoverable among the seized materials demonstrating overt submissions and questions by the subjects to City authorities regarding each of the type of transactions investigated. The City was placed on clear notice regarding the actions that became the subject of the criminal investigation, yet little action was taken to address or sanction the activities. To the contrary, many of the actions were authorized, and thus, there was no basis for the tolling of the statute of limitations in this case. XIII. The Stolen Traveler's Checks: Lack of Conversion As noted above, the criminal investigation was instigated when stolen traveler's checks were recovered by a neighboring agency. Those checks became the starting point of the ensuing criminal investigation. However, as eventually pointed out by the District Attorney, because the checks had never been" converted" by the subject employees of the CT, an essential element to the misappropriation charge was arguably missing. The investigation apparently learned this fact very late in the investigative process. An earlier consult with the District Attorney could well have educated the PAPD investigation of this fact farther upstream and curtailed the need to criminally investigate these transactions since a key element of the crime being investigated might never be provable. XIV. The Decision to Close the Investigation and Release a Redacted Investigative Report At some point, PAPD revisited the Deputy District Attorney and was told definitively that there was no case in support of criminal prosecution. However, rather than quietly close the investigation, the decision was made to release a redacted copy of the investigative report to the public. This controversial decision was not without some logic. First, after the investigation became known in the community, there was considerable pressure from the media, the general public, and elected officials to provide information about the criminal investigation. Second, it was expected that should the City decide not to release the report, media outlets and other community entities would seek access to the report through a Public Records Act request, and the City might well be required to release the report should it attempt to shield it from public purview. As a result of these concerns, but contrary to the advice of the Deputy District Attorney, the report was released. Once released, the report did serve the purpose of transparency. In fact, and ironically, much of the tumult and criticism raised by concerned community members about the criminal investigation came from exposure and access to the information contained in the report --information that might not have been available if 15 the report had not been released. Accordingly, the release of the report did better inform the public about the nature of the criminal investigation. On the other hand, various aspects of the report made its release problematic. First, unlike situations in which criminal investigations result in charges being filed, in this case no charges were filed. Accordingly, activities about targets of the investigation that were not subject to criminal prosecution were detailed in a report for all to see. While such a release might be appropriate and helpful to subjects who are exonerated by the criminal investigation, what made the release of the report in this case particularly problematic was the continued insistence by PAPD authorities that the subjects of the investigation had actually committed the criminal acts alleged. A PAPD press statement accompanying the release of the report indicated that there was evidence of "significant instances of serious financial misconduct and other possible criminal activity." The release of the report was not accompanied by a clean bill of exoneration by investigative authorities, rather, the Department continued to maintain that criminal acts had been committed but that technicalities such as the statute of limitations were the only reason these subjects could not be brought to answer in a criminal prosecution. The combination of the release of the report and the use of information in the report to continue to assert that the criminal subjects actually committed criminal acts is problematic. This is particularly so in this matter in which complete defenses available to the subjects of the investigation may exist but are not fully set out in the report. And it is inaccurate to assert that the subjects committed the alleged criminal activity but that prosecution was not available because of the technical defense of the statute of limitations. In this case, the real defense of authorization meant that no criminal actions had been committed by the subjects . . Finally, the way in which the report was prepared did not lend itself to public release. As noted above, the report was an amalgamation of facts, witness summaries, investigative tasks, as well as investigative theories, unsupported inferences, and conjecture. Moreover, because the investigation was not focused on cataloguing and collecting exculpatory evidence, such evidence is not prominently featured in the police report. In short, the way in which the report was prepared led to justifiable criticism ofthe report when it was released. CONCLUSIONS This review is not intended to render judgment on the gUilt or innocence of the subjects of this investigation. The decision by the District Attorney not to file charges has already answered that question. Rather, this review is intended to provide an analysis as to why the investigation took the path it did and suggest areas for reflection and reform. However, it would be remiss to not indicate that there was no evidence from this review 16 that indicated malice on behalf of anyone affiliated with the investigation, either from the Police Department or the City. While miscalculations were made during this investigation, they can be attributable to the milieu in which the suspicions arose and a lack of training and expertise rather than a calculated plan to investigate and attempt to prosecute certain individuals, exculpatory evidence notwithstanding. In addition, the poor recordkeeping, laxity of controt intermixing between public and private entities, poor and outdated financial practices for reimbursement of CT employees, and the toleration of these arrangements by City officials that went outside the bounds of appropriate checks and balances presented a perplexing fact set that was left for PAPD authorities to attempt to sort out. As it turned out and for the reasons elicited above, a criminal prosecution was not viable. However, had both CT employees and City oversight officials been more attentive over the years to these administrative financial matters farther upstream, the trauma wrought on the City and its community by the resulting criminal investigation could have well been avoided. With regard to the way financial matters were handled by the CT, the City and its employees, this review found no heroes. The "system" set up decades earlier by which CT employees could seek reimbursement was an outdated relic that should have been reformed years ago. Saddled with such a system, the CT employees did a poor job of ensuring appropriate reimbursement, at times seeking multiple reimbursements for the same expenses and then at times not seeking reimbursement at all for legitimate expenses. There were no effective "checks and balances" to the reimbursement system and the arrangement was permitted to bounce around unregulated and largely unmonitored for years and years. While there were some attempts over the years during the evaluation process to message the CT Director of the need to improve accounting practices, there was no significant follow up to ensure that the accounting practices were, in fact, improved. The same can be said with regard to the relationship between the CT and the Friends. Monies and resources were permitted to slosh between the two entities with very little questioning of whether the transactions were appropriate and consistent with City policies. Because the entities were seen as working together for the common good, persons in positions of authority not only tolerated the arrangement but at times endorsed and authorized it, sometimes contrary to City policy. As a result, when the police began to be exposed to this "crazy accounting system", suspicions were raised that persons were stealing city monies. Instead of seeking the answers through an audit or consulting with an expert, the Police Department decided to go it alone with a lead investigator not trained in the niceties of financial crimes investigations. The resulting criminal investigation inevitably was destined to make mistakes as detailed above. The mistakes of the criminal investigation were made available to all when the investigative report was released for public scrutiny. 17 It cannot be dispute9. by the managers of the CT that legitimate expenditures and reimbursements did not always match up. It also cannot be divined the degree to which CT employees may have "benefited" from the discrepancies, if at all. On the other hand, the financial records are in such disarray that the CT employees may be owed further monies for expense reimbursements not sought. While these discrepancies are disconcerting, the way in which the City failed to monitor, regulate, and reform the system left any potential criminal case dead upon arrival. Many in Palo Alto would agree that there are heroes with regard to the years of good work of the CT. Once the investigation became overt, CT supporter have been concerned that the financial irregularities uncovered that ended up not being prosecutable not detract from the positive experiences the CT provided youngsters in Palo Alto. In fact, because the energies of the CT managers were almost exclusively focused on providing this service, the financial issues of keeping track of money and operating according to Hoyle unfortunately took a back seat. The positive aspect of the attention drawn to this affair is that state of the art financial systems will replace the anachronistic ones and appropriate controls will ensure that the CT's financial recordkeeping will not jump the rails in the future. , SYSTEMIC RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Allegations of financial crimes are often fraught with complexity. Accordingly, it is recommended that in future cases, the Police Department should consult early with the District Attorney regarding the structure, form, and strategies of the criminal investigation. 2. In consultation with the District Attorney, the Department should determine whether an independent financial audit should be requested before a financial crimes investigation is begun in earnest. 3. In similar cases, the Police Department should consider the advantages of referring the investigation to an outside agency. 4. Investigators assigned to lead financial crimes investigations should have training and experience in the conduct of financial crimes investigations. 5. Ongoing criminal investigations should not be tried in a public forum and the Department should refrain from substantive public comment during a pending criminal investigation. 6. In cases in which no charges have been filed, the City should consider the advisability and appropriateness of releasing related police reports, taking into account any legal reqUirements that may mandate release. 18 7. Police reports should not include conjecture and investigative theories; the Department should ensure that its detectives receive appropriate training about compiling appropriate police reports consistent with the Departmenfs current Report Writing Manual. 8. Training should also be provided to Departmental staff on the need to search for and document both evidence showing guilt as well as evidence indicative of innocence consistent with the Departmenfs Report Writing Manual. 19