Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2019-09-23 City Council Agenda Packet
City Council 1 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. Monday, September 23, 2019 Special Meeting Council Chambers 5:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday 11 days preceding the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. Public comment may be addressed to the full City Council via email at City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Closed Session 5:00-6:00 PM Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 1.CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY-POTENTIAL LITIGATION THIS ITEM HAS BEEN REMOVED 2.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Authority: Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: Cubberley Conveyance Property and Leased Site, 4000 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 147-08-052 and 053 Agency Negotiators: Ed Shikada, Kristen O’Kane, Molly Stump, Terence Howzell, Kiely Nose, David Ramberg, and Sunny Tong Negotiating Parties: City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) REVISED 2 September 23, 2019 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. Study Session 6:00-7:30 PM 3.Study Session Regarding Recycled Water Expansion Opportunities and Potential Regional Treated Wastewater Transfer From the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) to Santa Clara Valley Water District Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 7:30-7:40 PM Oral Communications 7:40-7:55 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Minutes Approval 7:55-8:00 PM 4.Approval of Action Minutes for the September 9, 2019 Council Meeting Consent Calendar 8:00-8:05 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 5.Review and Approval of the Annual Williamson Act Contract Renewals Within Palo Alto City Limits; and Find This Action Exempt From Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Section 15317 (Open Space Contracts or Easements) of the CEQA Guidelines 6.Approval of Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number C18169608 With Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. to Allow Consumer Price Index Increases to all Rates on an Annual Basis for Household Hazardous Waste Management and Emergency Response Services 7.Approval of Amendment Number 2 to Contract Number C15152204 With Questica Inc. for the City's Budgeting Software for Five Additional Years in a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $399,556 Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 8:05-9:30PM Caltrain Business Plan - Direction to Staff Regarding Comments on the Draft Long Range Service Vision (Continued from September 16, 2019)7A. Q&A Q&A 3 September 23, 2019 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. State/Federal Legislation Update/Action Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) 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. 8.Colleagues' Memo From Council Members DuBois and Kou Regarding Affordable Housing Plan to Advance Housing Goals That Address Socio- economic Diversity and Affordability 9:30-10:30 PM MEMO 4 September 23, 2019 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. Additional Information Standing Committee Meetings Sp. Finance Committee Meeting September 24, 2019 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report Proclamation Honoring Cybersecurity Awareness Month Public Letters to Council Set 1 Set 2 City of Palo Alto (ID # 10616) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 9/23/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Recycled Water Study Session Title: Study Session Regarding Recycled Water Expansion Opportunities and Potential Regional Treated Wastewater Transfer from Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) to Santa Clara Valley Water District From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation This is an informational report to facilitate Council Study Session discussion on water reuse opportunities in Palo Alto and a potential regional transfer of treated wastewater effluent. No action by Council will be taken. Executive Summary The Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) is a local source of drought-proof, sustainable water, only a small fraction of which is currently being used for irrigation and toilet flushing. Investments in pipeline expansions and additional treatment facilities would increase the RWQCP’s ability to be a local water source to meet future non-potable and potable demands, and decrease the City of Palo Alto’s (Palo Alto’s) dependence on imported Tuolumne River water. The City of Palo Alto is subject to water supply reductions during droughts. Shortages are expected to become more frequent and more severe in the future as a result of climate change and other changes to the California water system. Both imported water and groundwater are at risk during dry periods. At its August 2018 meeting the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) discussed a business plan for expansion of Palo Alto’s non-potable reuse irrigation network. In October and November 2018, the UAC and Council (Staff Report #9731), respectively, held individual study sessions on high-level wastewater reuse expansion opportunities that included non-potable and potable water reuse opportunities in Palo Alto and a potential treated effluent transfer to Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water). Since then, staff conducted a public meeting on April 30, 2019 to garner additional community feedback and continued to explore expansion opportunities through the Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan), a collaborative project between Palo Alto and Valley Water. Most recently, Palo Alto staff briefed the UAC at the September 4, 2019 meeting where many clarifying questions were answered. City of Palo Alto Page 2 On the following day, September 5, 2019, Valley Water staff briefed the Joint Recycled Water Committee, comprised of Valley Water, Mountain View, Palo Alto and East Palo Alto representatives, on the draft potential agreement terms. Elected officials of all four agencies expressed optimism and general support of the draft terms of the potential agreement. . In parallel, Palo Alto and Valley Water, together with the City of Mountain View, have continued to negotiate the terms of a potential agreement related to a treated effluent transfer to Valley Water, funding for a salt-removal facility in Palo Alto, and related matters. As of the date of this report, negotiations are ongoing. This report provides: 1. A description and draft terms of the potential treated effluent transfer agreement with Valley Water and Mountain View (Attachment B). Under the potential agreement, Valley Water would contribute up to $16 million toward a salt-removal facility to improve the RQWCP’s recycled water quality. Additionally, Palo Alto, Mountain View, and potentially other RWQCP partners (Partners) who agree would provide a long-term flow of treated effluent to be used south of Mountain View, most likely for groundwater recharge, a form of indirect potable reuse (Table 1); and 2. An overview of the results from the Strategic Plan including cost estimates for water reuse “Concept Options” in Palo Alto. The Concept Options address local potable and non-potable uses for the recycled water and could provide between 200- and 6,100- acre feet of water per year at a cost ranging from $2,100 to $8,900 per acre foot (AF).1 The Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report (Attachment C) contains a summary and ranking of the Concept Options based on cost and non-cost criteria. Because a treated effluent transfer to Valley Water reduces Palo Alto’s ability to fully develop some of the Concept Options for local reuse, it is appropriate to consider the treated water effluent transfer agreement with Valley Water in that context. Background Council Policy In November 2016 Council adopted the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) Framework (Staff Report #7304) including four water-specific goals, all of which have implications for water reuse: 1. Utilize the right water supply for the right use; 2. Ensure sufficient water quantity and quality; 3. Protect the Bay, other surface waters, and groundwater; and 4. Lead in sustainable water management. 1 Large volumes of water are often measured in acre-feet (AF); one acre of water one foot deep. One acre-foot is equal to 435.6 hundred cubic feet (CCF) of water or 325,828 gallons. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Two relevant strategies identified in the S/CAP are: 1. Verify ability to meet Palo Alto’s long-term water needs; and 2. Investigate all potential uses of recycled water. Palo Alto’s Current Water Supply Palo Alto receives 100% of its potable water (about 11,000 AF per year or approximately 10 million gallons per day (MGD)) from the City and County of San Francisco’s Regional Water System (RWS), operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). About 85% of the supply on the RWS is from the Tuolumne River with the other 15% sourced from local reservoirs. On August 20, 2018, Council voted unanimously that Palo Alto “express its support for the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) Bay Delta Plan to have 30% to 50% of unimpaired flow in the San Joaquin Valley enter the Delta from February to June and associated Southern Delta salinity objectives” (Staff Report #9510). Adoption of the Bay Delta Plan would reduce the amount of Tuolumne River water available to RWS customers, including Palo Alto, during dry years. The decision to support the Bay Delta Plan reaffirmed Council’s commitment to reduce the City’s dependence on imported water. Water reuse is one of a limited number of water supply alternatives to imported water. Description of the RWQCP Water Resource The RWQCP treats and discharges wastewater collected from the communities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, Stanford University, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and the East Palo Alto Sanitary District. In 2018, the RWQCP treated 19,447 AF of which 96% was discharged to the Lower South San Francisco Bay and 4% was treated further to produce high-quality recycled water for non-potable reuse in Palo Alto and Mountain View. The RWQCP currently has the treatment capacity to produce 5,040 AF per year (4.5 MGD) of non-potable reuse water, or 26% of the total wastewater treated in 2018. However, this water needs to be treated to a higher quality to attract more non-potable reuse customers; irrigators have expressed concern that the salinity of current recycled water produced has negative impacts for sensitive plants such as redwood trees. As a regional plant, only a portion of the total wastewater treated is owned and available for reuse by Palo Alto; this amount equals the volume of wastewater Palo Alto sent to the RWQCP for treatment. In 2018, this was approximately 38% of the total flow or approximately 7,600 AF (2,500 million gallons). More of this wastewater could be used as a local source of sustainable water for Palo Alto but would require investment in additional treatment and transmission infrastructure. Treatment Options One of Palo Alto’s water-specific goals as outlined in the S/CAP is to utilize the right water supply for the right use. Recycled water can be used for various demands based on its level of treatment. Non-potable reuse, such as that for irrigation or toilet flushing, requires more treatment than wastewater that is treated for discharge to the Bay; similarly, potable reuse requires significantly more treatment than non-potable reuse to ensure public safety when City of Palo Alto Page 4 ingesting the water (Figure 1, Table 1, & Attachment A). The additional treatment needed to make the water potable is expensive and unnecessary if the water was to be used to meet irrigation, toilet flushing, or industrial process demands alone. There are different types of potable reuse including indirect and direct potable reuse. Indirect potable reuse involves purifying the water and introducing it to an environmental buffer, such as a groundwater basin, before sending it to the drinking water distribution system. There are several types of direct potable reuse including connecting purified recycled water to a potable water distribution system, and adding purified water to raw water upstream of a water treatment plant. Since Palo Alto does not have a water treatment plant, direct potable reuse in Palo Alto refers to the former. Recent droughts and advances in treatment technologies have driven regulatory development and public support for potable reuse. For example, many water and municipal agencies in southern California are pursuing potable reuse. The City of Los Angeles is pursuing a $2 billion indirect potable reuse project over the next 16 years that would reduce the City’s imported water by 35% and aid in meeting the recently announced goal to recycle all of Los Angeles’ wastewater by 2035.2 Similarly, the City of San Diego is pursuing direct potable reuse projects under the Pure Water San Diego Program that could provide roughly a third of San Diego’s water supply by 2035. While potable reuse is gaining momentum, the regulatory framework currently only exists for indirect potable reuse. Regulations to permit one type of direct potable reuse, adding purified recycled water upstream of a water treatment plant, are anticipated in 2023. There is no timeline for State regulations covering the direct connection of purified recycled water to the potable water distribution system. For that reason, implementation of direct potable reuse in California is not expected for at least 10 years. 2 https://www.lamayor.org/mayor-garcetti-los-angeles-will-recycle-100-city%E2%80%99s-wastewater-2035 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Figure 1: Treatment Requirements for Production of Different Types of Water Reuse City of Palo Alto Page 6 Table 1: Summary of Palo Alto Water Reuse Opportunities TYPE OF WATER REUSE REGIONAL TRANSFER NON-POTABLE REUSE INDIRECT POTABLE REUSE DIRECT POTABLE REUSE BRIEF DESCRIPTION Transfer of treated effluent from the RWQCP to Valley Water for additional treatment and reuse. Enhanced recycled water used for irrigation and commercial uses. Purified water introduced into an environmental buffer, such as a groundwater basin, before being sent to the drinking water distribution system. Purified water introduced directly into the drinking water distribution system. OPPORTUNITIES Delivery of treated effluent to South County in about 10 years Increases use of RWQCP recycled water regionally while limiting City-funded infrastructure No additional enforcement & administrative oversight of Palo Alto users Reduced county-wide reliance on imported water, surface water, and/or groundwater Delivery of non- potable reuse water in 2-5 years Clear regulatory obligations Slightly reduce City reliance on RWS & Tuolumne River water Unlimited uses Utilizes the RWQCP as a larger source of water Clear regulatory obligations No additional enforcement & administrative oversight of users More potential to reduce City reliance on RWS & Tuolumne River water Unlimited uses Utilizes the RWQCP as a larger source of water independent of groundwater use No additional enforcement & administrative oversight of users Significantly reduce City reliance on RWS & Tuolumne River water OBSTACLES Significant amount of water would no longer be available for City use for 76-year contract term; however, opportunity to work with Valley Water to develop alternative source if needed Limited uses per regulations Requires significant pipeline infrastructure and additional capital funds for salt removal Requires significant enforcement & administrative oversight of users Delivery of potable reuse water within 10-20 years Requires significant additional RWQCP treatment processes Requires significant pipeline infrastructure Requires the use of groundwater with different aesthetic properties than current sources Delivery of potable reuse water within 20-40 years Requires significant additional RWQCP treatment processes Requires significant engineered storage Regulations not yet developed Public acceptance City of Palo Alto Page 7 Water Reuse Planning Overview In December 2016, Council approved a contract with RMC Water and Environment (now Woodard & Curran) for the development of the Strategic Plan in collaboration with Valley Water (Staff Report #7024). City staff from the Public Works and Utilities Departments have worked closely with the consulting team and Valley Water to evaluate the most effective water reuse options within Palo Alto as well as within the RWQCP service area. All of the work under the Strategic Plan evaluated how best to implement the water-related sustainability goals adopted by Palo Alto in the December 2017 Sustainability Implementation Plan (Staff Report #8487). In parallel, Valley Water is developing a Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan. One option under consideration is a treated effluent transfer from the RWQCP to Valley Water for further treatment and reuse in other parts of the County. Key terms of that potential contract (still under negotiation) are outlined in this report. Previous UAC and Council Feedback No official action has been taken by the UAC or Council regarding strategic direction for water reuse projects nor has any action been taken regarding a treated effluent transfer. Both the UAC and Council have expressed an interest in direct potable reuse and concerns about losing access to the effluent from the RWQCP for a long period of time. However, cost estimates for the various water reuse options were not provided to the UAC and Council in previous study sessions, and negotiations with Valley Water were preliminary. Palo Alto staff briefed the UAC at the September 4, 2019 meeting where many clarifying questions were answered and two of the seven commissioners expressed cautious support of the potential agreement. On the following day, September 5, 2019, Valley Water staff briefed the Joint Recycled Water Committee, comprised of representatives from Valley Water, Mountain View, Palo Alto and East Palo Alto, on the draft term sheet. Council Members DuBois and Cormack are Palo Alto’s representatives on the Joint Committee; elected officials of all four agencies expressed optimism and general support of the draft terms of the potential agreement. In parallel, Palo Alto and Valley Water, together with the City of Mountain View, have continued to negotiate the terms of a potential agreement related to a treated effluent transfer to Valley Water, funding for a salt-removal facility in Palo Alto, and related matters. Public Feedback Palo Alto hosted a community meeting on April 30, 2019 to solicit input on the preliminary Strategic Plan results. Approximately 30 members of the public attended, and many attendees asked questions and made comments. During the meeting Palo Alto staff requested feedback on whether attendees were interested in expanded non-potable reuse and potable reuse options. Community members expressed interest in reducing reliance on imported water and enhancing water conservation and efficiency to save water for the environment. Community members also expressed concern with the use of the Measure E site for a Valley Water regional purification facility. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Discussion Potential Treated Effluent Transfer Agreement: Tenets The draft potential Recycled Water agreement with Valley Water and Mountain View consists of two main parts described below. 1. Small Salt-Removal Plant at the RWQCP The first part of the potential agreement concerns the funding of a relatively small salt- removal plant at the RWQCP to upgrade the quality of the RWQCP’s current recycled water, used principally for irrigation in Mountain View and Palo Alto. The treated water would also enable Palo Alto to expand its non-potable distribution system and/or provide a first step toward small-scale potable water production for direct or indirect potable reuse in Palo Alto. Valley Water will fund approximately 80% of the cost of the facility, up to a maximum of $16 million (all figures are in 2019 dollars, subject to escalation). Mountain View and Palo Alto will share the remaining cost at a level of 75% and 25% respectively. Assuming a total facility cost of $20 million, Palo Alto’s share will be $1 million to be funded by the water and wastewater utilities. Because the project would likely be financed with a low-interest state revolving fund loan, the rate impact is expected to be minimal (for example, a 0.15% water rate increase if all funding came from the water utility). In the current draft of the term sheet (but not yet agreed to by all parties), Palo Alto would have up to 13 years to construct and commence operation of the facility. If it is decided not to proceed with the Local Plant, the $16 million from Valley Water could be used for other water re-use and related programs. 2. Transfer of Treated Effluent to Valley Water for Use South of Mountain View The second part of the draft potential agreement with Valley Water and Mountain View is a transfer of approximately half of the RWQCP’s treated effluent for reuse south of Mountain View. Valley Water will likely purify the water and use it for groundwater recharge (indirect potable reuse). Eventually, the purified water could be injected directly into Valley Water’s treated water system (direct potable reuse). There are several relevant milestones established in the draft term sheet. Including that Valley Water has 13 years to enable the transfer of treated effluent. Once the effluent transfer commences, Valley Water will compensate the RWQCP Partners $1 million per year to be divided proportionally among the Partners based on the amount of effluent committed by each Partner. Delivery of effluent to Valley Water will be for a term of 63 years, long enough to economically justify the large capital investment and meet Valley Water’s long-term water supply planning objectives. Palo Alto and Valley Water staff are assessing the feasibility of constructing a large purification facility at or near the RWQCP. The two most likely sites are the former Los City of Palo Alto Page 9 Altos Treatment Plant site (now owned by Palo Alto) and a portion of the Measure E site. If Valley Water determines that Palo Alto is the best location for a regional purified water facility, Palo Alto will support those efforts at the local, state, and federal levels, subject to environmental review and absent new extenuating circumstances. The draft term sheet also includes a unique water supply option for Palo Alto and Mountain View. Beginning one year after execution of the agreement, Palo Alto and/or Mountain View may notify Valley Water that additional water is needed. Valley Water will then have 4 years to respond with a proposal. The cost of the water to be paid by the requesting city will include facility costs, commodity costs, any wheeling fees, and the incremental costs incurred by Valley Water to develop the proposal. Palo Alto and/or Mountain View will then have one year to accept or decline the offer. If accepted, Valley Water will have 10 years to deliver the water. If declined, Palo Alto and/or Mountain View will be able to make another request for water 5 years later. The water supply may be purified water from a regional plant or water from some other project. Palo Alto is not limited to this alternative for new water supplies and is investigating other water supply projects through the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency. Groundwater, managed by Valley Water, is currently available as an alternative in the future. Additionally, while the reliability of imported water is in question given climate change and state regulation changes, the SFPUC is required by law to secure supplemental sources of water to augment existing supplies during dry years up to SFPUC’s wholesale contract obligation of 184 million gallons per day. Lastly, some of the Concept Options identified in the Strategic Plan could be implemented in parallel with a treated effluent transfer to Valley Water. Potential Treated Effluent Transfer Agreement: Environmental Benefits Compared to both indirect and direct potable reuse in Palo Alto, expanded reuse in the county via a treated effluent transfer agreement could yield environmental benefits in the relatively near term by keeping a significant amount of RWQCP effluent out of the Bay (another Council- adopted S/CAP goal: “Protect the Bay, other surface waters, and groundwater”) and by meeting critical water supply demands in other parts of the county with a sustainable water supply source, reducing the need for imported water. Valley Water is seeking to develop recycled and purified water to provide for at least 10% of the total County water demands by 2025; to achieve this, Valley Water needs to secure 24,000 AF per year of purified water, enough water to serve 74,000 Santa Clara County households. Locally, Valley Water funding for the small salt- removal plant will enable Mountain View to connect about 60 new commercial irrigation customers to the existing non-potable distribution system. Salinity reduction will also enable Palo Alto to expand its non-potable distribution system or could provide a first step toward small-scale potable water production for direct or indirect potable reuse in Palo Alto, all of which would displace imported Tuolumne River water. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan Results Any water transfer must consider the implications for potential future water reuse projects in Palo Alto and the Partner agency service territories. The results of the Strategic Plan indicate that multiple water reuse opportunities are feasible for Palo Alto to meet both near and long term water demands. Attachment C contains the Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan including figures illustrating initial transmission pipeline alignments for the Concept Options evaluated and cost estimates which are summarized in Table 2; cost estimates represent the cost for individual Concept Options and do not account for any efficiency that may result from combining Concept Options. Near term opportunities, those that could be implemented within five years, include non- potable reuse program expansion projects and satellite treatment for non-potable reuse projects. In contrast, long term opportunities that could be implemented include indirect potable reuse within 10-20 years and direct potable reuse implementation within 20-40 years. It should be noted that the opportunities are not all explicitly distinct from each other; it is possible to pursue a combination of near and long term opportunities. For example, non- potable reuse pipeline expansion Concept Options can be constructed in the near term while subsequent phases of potable reuse Concept Options can be planned and designed for future implementation. City of Palo Alto Page 11 Table 2: Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan Concept Option Cost Estimatesa,b Concept Option Number Brief Description Project Yield (AFY) Capital Cost ($M) Operations & Maintenanc e Cost ($M/year) Unit Cost ($/AF) Non-potable Reuse (NPR) Concept Options A1 Phase 3 Pipeline serving south Palo Alto 800 $47.8 $0.3 $3,400 A2 Phase 3 Pipeline Extended to Foothills & Los Altos Hills 1,100 $63.0 $0.5 $3,400 A3 Phase 3 Pipeline Extended to Foothillls & Los Altos 1,200 $85.1 $0.7 $4,000 A4 Mountain View Long Term Expansion Pipeline 200 $6.2 $0.1 $2,100 A5 Mountain View Long Term Expansion Pipeline Extended to Los Altos 900 $72.6 $0.4 $4,600 A6 East Palo Alto Pipeline 500 $20.7 $0.2 $2,400 Satellite Non-potable Reuse Concept Option B1 Serving south Palo Alto & Los Altos 900 $129.6 $1.4 $8,900 Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) Concept Optionsc C1 IPR serving Palo Alto 5,900 $92.2 $14.8d $3,300 C2 IPR & NPR serving Palo Alto 6,100 $152.1 $16.9d $4,000 C3 IPR & NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline serving Palo Alto 5,900 $198.4 $15.8d $4,400 - Palo Alto Groundwater Usage without IPR 2,500 $37.7 $5.5d $3,000 Direct Potable Reuse Concept Option D1 DPR serving Palo Alto 5,300 $104.6 $8.0 $2,500 aFor comparison, SFPUC (imported water) is currently $1,948/AF and is projected to be $3,000/AF in 2030. bCost estimates are AACE Class 5 for a project definition of 0 – 2% and have an expected accuracy of -20 to 50%. Capital costs are amortized at 3% over 30 years. cProject yield for IPR Concept Options represents half purified water, half groundwater. dOperations and maintenance cost estimates include the Valley Water Groundwater Production Charge. Non-potable Reuse (NPR) Concept Options Strategic Plan non-potable reuse Concept Options evaluated extensions of the current recycled water transmission system to various locations for toilet flushing, irrigation, and industrial process water demands within the RWQCP service area, including south Palo Alto, Los Altos, City of Palo Alto Page 12 Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, and East Palo Alto. Concept Options specifically for Palo Alto evaluated: The Phase 3 Pipeline that would provide approximately 800 AFY of recycled water to south Palo Alto (Concept Option A1), and The Phase 3 Pipeline expanded to provide approximately 1,100 AFY of recycled water to south Palo Alto and additional users in the Palo Alto foothills (Concept Options A2 and A3). Expansions to users in the Palo Alto foothills included pipeline extensions to users in Los Altos Hills (Concept Option A2) and Los Altos (Concept Option A3). Capital cost estimates for the non-potable reuse Concept Options serving Palo Alto users ranged from $47.8 - 85.1 million or $3,400 - 4,000/AF accounting for operations & maintenance (O&M). Satellite Non-potable Reuse Concept Option The Strategic Plan evaluated a satellite treatment Concept Option (Concept Option B1) consisting of a new wastewater treatment facility located in south Palo Alto that would collect and treat wastewater from the surrounding community to provide approximately 900 AFY of recycled water for non-potable reuse in adjacent facilities throughout south Palo Alto and Los Altos. The capital cost estimate of $129.6 million, or $8,900/AF with O&M, suggests that satellite treatment is cost prohibitive, and it is not recommended for further consideration. Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) Concept Options The Strategic Plan evaluated three indirect potable reuse Concept Options that all consist of injecting purified wastewater into the aquifer below Palo Alto, extraction of that purified water mixed with groundwater, and blending with the Palo Alto potable water supply. All three Concept Options would require a purification facility at the RWQCP, transmission pipeline, injection wells, and the routine use of groundwater. The IPR Concept Options differ in their pipeline alignments, amount of purified water injected, and whether or not the pipeline offers non-potable reuse connections. Concept Option C1 provides 5,900 AF of water for indirect potable reuse, half of which consists of groundwater and half purified water. Concept Options C2 and C3 combine indirect potable reuse with meeting non-potable reuse demands. The combined Concept Options would utilize the same transmission pipelines for both reuse demands and therefore provide higher quality recycled water than that needed just for non- potable reuse. Concept Option C2 evaluated an extension of the Phase 3 Pipeline that could feed the injection wells for indirect potable reuse, while Concept Option C3 meets non-potable demands near the best alignment to feed the injection wells. Concept Option C2 indicates that it is feasible to build the Phase 3 Pipeline to meet both near and long term water supply needs. City of Palo Alto Page 13 Capital cost estimates for indirect potable reuse within Palo Alto ranged from $92.2 – 198.4 million or $3,300 – 4,400/AF including O&M. Cost estimates include wellhead treatment of extracted water for iron, manganese, and total dissolved solids such that the quality is comparable to current SFPUC water supplies. For comparison, the Strategic Plan estimates that it would require $37.7 million to install wellhead treatment at the existing emergency groundwater wells to provide 2,500 AFY (or $3,000/AF including O&M and the Valley Water groundwater pumping charge) of groundwater (not purified wastewater) for routine usage in Palo Alto’s water supply. Preliminary studies show the City’s El Camino well is capable of producing 3,000 AFY. Direct Potable Reuse (DPR) Concept Option Lastly, the Strategic Plan evaluated one Concept Option (D1) for direct potable reuse within Palo Alto. Concept Option D1 consists of a purification treatment plant, engineering storage, a short transmission pipeline, and injection of purified water directly into the Palo Alto potable water supply. The capital cost estimate for direct potable reuse within Palo Alto is $104.6 million to provide 5,300 AFY, or $2,500/AF including O&M. Results from the Strategic Plan indicate that Palo Alto could reduce future reliance on imported water by more than 50% by investing in potable reuse or a combination of potable and non- potable reuse (Figure 2). As mentioned previously, it is possible for Palo Alto to combine multiple Concept Options into a water reuse portfolio that would implement both non-potable (near term) and potable (long term) reuse opportunities. More important to note for this discussion is that both indirect and direct potable reuse opportunities within Palo Alto would require the full Palo Alto wastewater allocation and would be incompatible with a regional transfer. The exception to this would be a small-scale direct or indirect potable facility where the costs per unit may vary from what is described here due to economies of scale. As shown in Figure 2, a regional effluent transfer would not reduce Palo Alto’s dependence on imported water. Regionally, however, dependence on imported water would be curtailed. City of Palo Alto Page 14 Figure 2: Potential Impacts to Amount of Palo Alto Imported Water Needed Under Different Water Reuse Opportunities Evaluated Under the Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan (sources: Palo Alto 2015 Urban Water Management Plan & Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan). Concept Option Viability with Treated Effluent Transfer While a long-term treated effluent transfer agreement with Valley Water would reduce the capability for some Concept Options to be fully implemented, other Concept Options could be implemented in parallel with a transfer. The table below indicates which projects are and are not mutually exclusive with an effluent transfer. Generally, a transfer would not preclude non- potable reuse expansion projects. Indirect potable reuse requires expensive pipeline construction and, therefore, a significant amount of water for economies of scale, so those Concept Options would be excluded for the proposed 76 year term of the transfer. Direct potable reuse, on the other hand, could be developed on a pilot scale. Table 3 shows the Concept Options and their viability given a treated effluent transfer agreement. Table 3: Summary of Concept Option Viability with Effluent Transfer Concept Option Number Brief Description Project Yield (AFY) Unit Cost ($/AF) Implement in Addition to Treated Effluent Transfer A1 Phase 3 Pipeline serving south Palo Alto 800 $3,400 Yes A2 Phase 3 Pipeline Extended to Foothills & Los Altos Hills 1,100 $3,400 Yes City of Palo Alto Page 15 A3 Phase 3 Pipeline Extended to Foothillls & Los Altos 1,200 $4,000 Yes A4 Mountain View Long Term Expansion Pipeline 200 $2,100 Yes A5 Mountain View Long Term Expansion Pipeline Extended to Los Altos 900 $4,600 Yes A6 East Palo Alto Pipeline 500 $2,400 Yes B1 Serving south Palo Alto & Los Altos 900 $8,900 Yes C1 IPR serving Palo Alto 5,900 $3,300 No C2 IPR & NPR serving Palo Alto 6,100 $4,000 No C3 IPR & NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline serving Palo Alto 5,900 $4,400 No - Palo Alto Groundwater Usage without IPR 2,500 $3,000 Yes D1 DPR serving Palo Alto 5,300 $2,500 Small scale project possible but cost estimates may vary Next Steps Depending on the direction received, staff will return to the UAC and Council with a recommendation regarding further development of a subset of water reuse Concept Options which will then be included in the City’s overall water supply portfolio plan. If the UAC and Council are supportive of the proposed terms and conditions in the draft term sheet for the effluent transfer agreement, Council approval of the agreement will be sought by the end of 2019. Policy Implications While there is no recommendation at this time, expanding the use of recycled water would be consistent with the Sustainability Climate Action Plan Framework (Staff Report #7304), the Sustainability Implementation Plan (Staff Report #8487), and the Council’s decision to support the Bay Delta Plan. Environmental Review Review of the Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan and draft term sheet for a potential effluent transfer agreement are not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act because the review does not meet the definition of a project under Public Resources Code 21065. Attachments: Attachment A_ReW Reference Sheet Attachment B1 Draft Summary of Key Terms Attachment C_Vol1_RW Strategic Plan Interim Rpt_Body City of Palo Alto Page 16 Attachment C_Vol2_RW Strategic Plan Rpt_Vol2_Appendices Attachment B2 - Draft Agreement Terms_9SEP19 RECYCLED WATER REFERENCE SHEET (last updated 9/7/2016) WATER REUSE OPTIONS NONPOTABLE REUSE is the beneficial reuse of recycled water for irrigation, industrial uses, or other non‐drinking water purposes. POTABLE REUSE is the use of recycled water for potable uses, such as drinking. This recycled water is purified to meet or exceed federal and state drinking water standards. INDIRECT POTABLE REUSE (IPR) refers to the use of recycled water that has been further treated and introduced into an environmental buffer such as a surface water reservoir (through augmentation), or groundwater basin (through recharge), before being used for potable purposes. IPR regulations are specified in Title 22, Chapter 3, Division 4 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). DIRECT POTABLE REUSE (DPR) refers to the use of purified recycled water distributed directly into the raw water supply upstream of a drinking water treatment plant. In California, DPR regulations have not been adopted or specified in the CCR. STATE REGULATIONS TITLE 22 STANDARDS are requirements established by the State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water for the production, distribution, and use of drinking water and recycled water. Recycled water standards are covered under Chapter 3, Division 4 of the California Code of Regulations, which outlines the different levels of treatment required for allowable uses of recycled water. GENERAL TREATMENT PROCESSES STANDARD UNITS MGD – Million Gallons per Day PPM – Parts Per Million mg/L – Milligrams per Liter ALLOWABLE USES Irrigation of: o Parks, playgrounds, schools o Residential & commercial landscapes o Cemeteries o Golf courses o Food crops, orchard, vineyard, pastures o Ornamental nursery & sod farm Impoundments & fish hatcheries Flushing toilets & urinals Decorative fountains Commercial laundries Street cleaning, dust control, soil compaction Boiler feed and cooling towers Flushing sanitary sewers Other uses approved under Title 22 Standards All uses listed under Recycled Water Irrigation of salt‐sensitive species (e.g. Redwoods Trees) Sensitive industrial uses SALINITY TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS) is a measurement of salinity: the amount of salts, ions, and dissolved minerals per volume of water. The RWQCP aims to produce recycled water with a TDS of 600 mg/L and is moving towards developing advanced treatment in collaboration with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the City of Mountain View to produce enhanced water with a TDS of approximately 450 mg/L for use on salt‐sensitive species. All uses listed under Enhanced Water Indirect potable reuse Direct potable Reuse Purified Water TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY DUAL MEDIA FILTRATION (DMF) refers to the removal of particles in the water using two different types of filter media, usually sand and finely granulated anthracite (a type of coal). DMF can remove turbidity and suspended solids as small as 10‐20 microns under high filtration rate conditions. GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON (GAC) is a form of carbon that is processed to be porous, with large surface area for adsorption and used to remove dissolved contaminants. GAC can remove halogenated compounds containing chlorine and fluorine, organic contaminants, odor, and taste. MICROFILTRATION (MF) is an advanced treatment process that removes contaminants from water using semi‐permeable membranes. MF membranes can remove contaminants as small as 0.08 microns such as bacteria. Ultrafiltration (UF) membranes have smaller pore sizes and can remove contaminants as small as 0.005 microns such as viruses and proteins. REVERSE OSMOSIS (RO) is an advanced treatment process that removes dissolved salts and trace contaminants from water. High pressure forces the water through a semi‐permeable membrane, while filtering most contaminants. RO membranes have much smaller pore sizes than microfiltration and ultrafiltration membranes and can remove contaminants as small as 0.0001 microns. RO PERMEATE is the treated water that passes through the RO membrane. RO CONCENTRATE is the by‐product from the RO process. It contains a high concentration of salts and other contaminants from the source water. ADVANCED OXIDATION PROCESS (AOP) is a chemically reactive process that breaks down trace organic contaminants as well as pathogens in the water by oxidation. AOPs typically use hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and ultraviolet (UV) light. SOIL AQUIFER TREATMENT (SAT) is the natural process that occurs when water travels through the ground and is purified by the physical and biological processes that naturally occur in the soil. WATER TYPES AND QUALITY EFFLUENT is the treated water leaving the wastewater treatment plant to be discharged to the San Francisco Bay. At the RWQCP, only some of the effluent is treated further to produce recycled water. RECYCLED or RECLAIMED WATER is wastewater that has undergone secondary or tertiary treatment to allow for beneficial reuse. Recycled water produced at the RWQCP is treated to tertiary standards including disinfection. SECONDARY TREATMENT is a process where dissolved and suspended biological matter (including suspended solids) is removed so that the water may be disinfected and discharged into a stream or river, or used for irrigation at controlled locations. TERTIARY TREATMENT is an additional treatment process beyond secondary treatment, where water is further filtered and disinfected. It can also include treatment processes to remove nitrogen and phosphorus in order to allow discharge into a sensitive ecosystem. ENHANCED RECYCLED WATER is recycled water blended with advanced treated water to support additional uses and reduce total dissolved solids (TDS). ADVANCED TREATED WATER is water that has undergone additional treatment beyond tertiary treatment to reduce salts, nutrients, trace organics and constituents of emerging concern (CECs). Common treatments include microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and advanced oxidation. PURIFIED WATER is recycled water that has undergone further treatment processes and has been verified through monitoring to be safe for augmenting drinking water supplies. Some of these processes include microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and if needed advanced oxidation. SURFACE WATER is water stored in a reservoir typically conveyed from another surface water source via pipelines or aqueducts. RAW WATER is surface or groundwater that has not gone through an approved water treatment process. GRAYWATER is water segregated from a domestic wastewater collection system and reused on site for nonpotable uses, it can come from showers, bathtubs, washing machines, and bathroom sinks, but not toilets or kitchen sinks. BLACKWATER is untreated wastewater from kitchen sinks, toilets, and other polluting activities. Recycled Water Enhanced Recycled Water *Pending DDW Regulations Note: Palo Alto does not currently have a drinking water treatment plant. Current Recycled Water Program Upgraded Recycled Water Program Blend Tank Drinking Water Distribution Wastewater Treatment CURRENT Enhanced Recycled Water Recycled Water Filtration Tertiary Treatment Chlorine Disinfection Effluent Advanced Treated Water Purified Water FUTURE Microfiltration (MF) Advanced Oxidation Process (AOP) Reverse Osmosis (RO) Full Advanced Treatment Source Water Drinking Water Treatment Plant Direct Potable Reuse* Extraction Wells Groundwater Recharge Soil Aquifer Treatment Indirect Potable Reuse GLOSSARY ATTACHMENT C Palo Alto Recycled Water Delivery and Expansion 8/2/2019 PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN PALO ALTO, MOUNTAIN VIEW, AND VALLEY WATER TO ADVANCE RESILIENT WATER REUSE PROGRAMS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY DRAFT Summary of key terms Parties •City of Palo Alto (Palo Alto), City of Mountain View (Mountain View), and Valley Water Minimum Flow Delivery •Valley Water will receive a minimum annual average of 9 MGD of Effluent •Palo Alto and Mountain View may provide additional Effluent when it’s available. Term •Up to 76 years Local Plant •Owned and operated by Palo Alto to produce high quality non-potable recycled water •To be located within the current RWQCP site •Total project capital cost estimated to be $20M •Valley Water to contribute a capital amount of $16M* Regional Program: a regional plant or other Valley Water project •Likely a purified water facility for potable reuse managed by Valley Water •Location: To be determined •Valley Water to pay $200k/year* up to 13 years or until Startup, whichever is earlier •Valley Water to pay $1M/year* initiating at Regional Program Startup for the Effluent** Water Supply Option for PA and/or MV •Palo Alto and/or Mountain View may notify Valley Water of their need of potable and/or non-potable water •Palo Alto may request up to 3.0 MGD and Mountain View may request up to 1.3 MGD for use only within their jurisdictions •Valley Water to provide a water supply option for acceptance by Palo Alto and/or Mountain View •Water supply to be available as early as 16 years after execution of this Agreement •Palo Alto and/or Mountain View will reimburse Valley Water for requested water at cost, based on any facility, commodity, and wheeling fees •Water will be delivered within the Term of this Agreement RWQCP •If Palo Alto intends to sell the RWQCP, Valley Water has first right to purchase it at fair market value •This Agreement shall survive any sale of RWQCP to a third-party Notes: *Amounts to be escalated annually per the Agreement. **Prorated based on actual deliveries Page 1 of 1 Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan Interim Final Report* Prepared by: July 2019 *This report has yet to be accepted by Palo Alto City Council. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Table of Contents FINAL July 2019 i Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... i Chapter 1 Introduction .........................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Background and Purpose of the Recycled Water Strategic Plan ............................1-1 1.2 Organization of this Report ....................................................................................1-4 1.3 Study Area.............................................................................................................1-4 Chapter 2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment ...............................................................2-1 2.1 Recycled Water Uses ............................................................................................2-1 2.2 Non-Potable Uses .................................................................................................2-3 2.3 Indirect Potable Uses ............................................................................................2-7 2.4 Direct Potable Uses ...............................................................................................2-8 2.5 Other Potential Uses Outside of Study Area ..........................................................2-9 Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options .........................................................................3-1 3.1 Summary of Approach ...........................................................................................3-1 3.2 Concept Option Development Process ..................................................................3-1 3.3 Concept Options A: NPR from RWQCP ................................................................3-5 3.4 Concept Option B: NPR from Satellite Location ................................................... 3-21 3.5 Concept Option C: IPR Concept Options ............................................................. 3-24 3.6 Concept Option D: DPR Concept Options ........................................................... 3-33 Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation ......................................................4-1 4.1 Approach for Concept Options Evaluation .............................................................4-1 4.2 Basis of Preliminary Cost Estimate ........................................................................4-1 4.3 Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost Summary .....................................................4-6 4.4 Concept Option Evaluation Non-Cost Criteria ........................................................4-7 4.5 Concept Option Scoring ....................................................................................... 4-18 Chapter 5 Conclusions and Next Steps ..............................................................................5-1 5.1 Conclusions ...........................................................................................................5-1 5.2 Next Steps .............................................................................................................5-4 References .............................................................................................................................5-6 Appendices Appendix A - Non-Potable Demand Assessment Methodology ................................... A Appendix B - Recycled Water Customers and Demand Estimates [Confidential – Not Included] B Appendix C - Potential Uses Considered but Not Included .......................................... C Appendix D - Opinions of Probable Costs ..................................................................... D Appendix E - Concept Option Variations [Confidential – Not Included] ...................... E Appendix F - Cost Per Unit of Water Analyses for Palo Alto, Cal Water, Purissima Hills Water District and East Palo Alto [Confidential – Not Included] .................................. F Appendix G - Funding Matrix .......................................................................................... G Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Table of Contents FINAL July 2019 ii Figures Figure ES-0-1: Potential recycled water uses for both potable and non-potable reuse applications ......................................................................................................................... ii Figure 1-1: Study Area ............................................................................................................ 1-1 Figure 1-2: RWQCP Existing Water Reuse System ................................................................ 1-2 Figure 1-3: Proposed Phase 3 Recycled Water Project ........................................................... 1-3 Figure 1-4: Water Retailers (names indicated in black text)..................................................... 1-6 Figure 2-1: Overview of Non-Potable and Potable Reuse Types ............................................. 2-1 Figure 2-2: Overview of Non-Potable and Potable Reuse Types included in this Recycled Water Strategic Plan .................................................................................................................. 2-2 Figure 2-3: Potential Non-Potable Users in Study Area ........................................................... 2-6 Figure 3-1: Summary of Overall Approach to Strategic Plan Concept Option Development and Assessment ..................................................................................................................... 3-1 Figure 3-2: Alignment for Concept Option A1, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 ................................... 3-7 Figure 3-3: Alignment for Concept Option A2, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills .. 3-9 Figure 3-4: Alignment for Concept Option A3, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos ....................................................................................................................... 3-12 Figure 3-5: Alignment for Concept Option A4, NPR Mountain View ...................................... 3-15 Figure 3-6: Alignment for Concept Option A5, NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos ... 3-18 Figure 3-7: Alignment for Concept Option A6, NPR East Palo Alto and Menlo Park .............. 3-20 Figure 3-8: Alignment for Concept Option B1, NPR Satellite Treatment Plant ....................... 3-23 Figure 3-9: Alignment for Concept Option C1, Palo Alto Dedicated IPR ................................ 3-26 Figure 3-10: Alignment for Concept Option C2, Palo Alto IPR with NPR ............................... 3-29 Figure 3-11: Alignment for Concept Option C3, Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline 3- 32 Figure 3-12: Alignment for Concept Option D1, Palo Alto Dedicated DPR ............................ 3-35 Tables Table ES-0-1: Summary of Demand Potential by Type of Water Reuse ...................................... ii Table ES-0-2: Summary of Concept Options including Yield, Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Capital and O&M Costs ...................................................................................................... iv Table ES-0-3: Ranking of Concept Options by Cost .................................................................... v Table ES-0-4: Ranking of Concept Options by Non-Cost Criteria ................................................ v Table ES-0-5: Ranking Considering Cost and Non-Cost Evaluation Criteria .............................. vi Table 1-1: Summary of Water Supply Sources and Needs...................................................... 1-8 Table 2-1: Summary of Recycled Water Interests ................................................................... 2-3 Table 2-2: Demand Peaking Factors ....................................................................................... 2-5 Table 2-3: Non-Potable Demand Summary ............................................................................. 2-5 Table 2-4: IPR Demand and Groundwater Project Yield Summary ......................................... 2-8 Table 2-5: DPR Demand Estimate Summary .......................................................................... 2-9 Table 3-1: Hydraulic Criteria .................................................................................................... 3-3 Table 3-2: Maximum AWTS Sizes Without Requiring Reverse Osmosis Concentrate Treatment ........................................................................................................................................ 3-5 Table 3-3: Demand and Facility Summary for Concept Option A1, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 .... 3-6 Table 3-4: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option A2, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills ....................................................................................................... 3-8 Table 3-5: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option A3, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos .............................................................................. 3-11 Table 3-6: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option A4, Mountain View ............. 3-14 Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Table of Contents FINAL July 2019 iii Table 3-7: Demand and Facilities Summary of Concept Option A5, NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos ................................................................................................... 3-17 Table 3-8: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option A6, NPR East Palo Alto and Menlo Park .................................................................................................................... 3-19 Table 3-9: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option B1, NPR Satellite Treatment Plant .............................................................................................................................. 3-22 Table 3-10: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option C1, Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 3- 24 Table 3-11: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option C2, Palo Alto IPR with NPR . 3- 28 Table 3-12: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option C3, Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline ................................................................................................... 3-31 Table 3-13: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option D1, Palo Alto Dedicated DPR ...................................................................................................................................... 3-34 Table 4-1: Unit Cost of HDPE Pipe ......................................................................................... 4-4 Table 4-2: Special Crossing Unit Costs ................................................................................... 4-5 Table 4-3: Summary of Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Capital and O&M Costs .................... 4-7 Table 4-4: Concept Option Scores for Water Supply Resiliency .............................................. 4-8 Table 4-5: Concept Option Scores for Public Acceptance ....................................................... 4-9 Table 4-6: Concept Option Scores for Adaptability ................................................................ 4-10 Table 4-7: Concept Option Scores for Level of Agency Coordination .................................... 4-11 Table 4-8: Concept Option Scores for Level of Customer Retrofits/Coordination .................. 4-12 Table 4-9: Concept Option Scores for Regulatory Complexity ............................................... 4-13 Table 4-10: Concept Option Scores for Institutional Complexity ............................................ 4-14 Table 4-11: Concept Option Scores for Regional Perspective ............................................... 4-16 Table 4-12: Concept Option Scores for Social and Economic Benefit ................................... 4-17 Table 4-13: Concept Option Scores for Environmental Benefit .............................................. 4-18 Table 4-14: Non-Cost Criteria Weighting ............................................................................... 4-19 Table 4-15: Non-Cost Ranking .............................................................................................. 4-19 Table 4-16: Ranking of Concept Options by Cost .................................................................. 4-20 Table 4-17: Combined Weighting Including both Cost and Non-Cost Criteria ........................ 4-21 Table 4-18: Combined Ranking Considering Cost at 30% of the Score ................................. 4-21 Table 5-1: Summary of Demand Potential by Type of Water Reuse ........................................ 5-1 Table 5-2: Summary of Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Capital and O&M Costs .................... 5-1 Table 5-3: Recommended Next Steps for Type of Opportunity ............................................... 5-5 Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Table of Contents FINAL July 2019 iv Abbreviations AACE Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering AF Acre feet AFY Acre feet per year AOP Advanced oxidation process AWPF Advanced water purification facility [for potable reuse] AWTS Advanced water treatment system [for enhanced recycled water] CCI Construction cost index CIP Cast iron pipe CIPP Cured in place pipe DDW Division of Drinking Water DIP Ductile iron pipe DPR Direct potable reuse ENR Engineering News Record EPASD East Palo Alto Sanitary District ESDC Engineering services during construction FAT Full advanced treatment gpm Gallons per minute HDD Horizonal directional drill HGL Hydraulic grade line HP Horsepower ID Internal diameter IPR Indirect potable reuse LF Linear feet MF Membrane filtration MGD Million gallons per day MV Mountain View NPR Non-potable reuse OD Outside diameter O&M Operations and maintenance PHWD Purissima Hills Water District psi Pressure per square inch PTGAB Pilot tube guided auger boring RO Reverse osmosis Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Table of Contents FINAL July 2019 v RWQCP Regional Water Quality Control Plant RWMP Recycled Water Master Plan SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TDS Total dissolved solids UV Ultraviolet UWMP Urban Water Management Plan WBSD West Bay Sanitary District Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Executive Summary FINAL July 2019 i Executive Summary The Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan) was undertaken by the City of Palo Alto, in collaboration with Valley Water, to assess drought-proof recycled water expansion opportunities throughout the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) service area (i.e., Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Stanford University, and East Palo Alto Sanitary District) including additional portions of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park not serviced by the East Palo Alto Sanitary District. To aid in future decisions regarding RWQCP recycled water expansion and commitments, Palo Alto, as the owner and operator of the RWQCP, saw a need to assess other RWQCP Partner Agencies’ interests in recycled water. The RWQCP is interested in expanding the recycled water program to help move itself towards becoming a resource recovery facility by providing a drought-proof, sustainable, local water supply, and for recycled water’s potential to help meet future regulatory actions pertaining to discharge limitations. Palo Alto, similar to many of the other RWQCP Partner Agencies’, is subject to water supply reductions during droughts. Shortages are expected to become more frequent and more severe in the future as a result of climate change and other changes to the California water system. Both imported water and groundwater are at risk during dry periods. In order to understand how to best expand the RWQCP recycled water program, a comprehensive and holistic evaluation was needed to reassess the service area needs and acceptance given changes in water supplies and governing regulations. The purpose of the Strategic Plan is to evaluate potential additional uses of recycled water Study Area through the year 2030, to identify recycled water concepts that look beyond individual agency boundaries, and to evaluate previously recommended recycled water projects with new options developed through this Strategic Plan. Types of Water Reuse Considered The Strategic Plan builds off of the work from the 1992 Recycled Water Master Plan (RWMP) to incorporate options for new and different kinds of reuse. Recycled water can be used for various demands based on its level of treatment. Non-potable reuse, such as that for irrigation or toilet flushing, requires more treatment than wastewater that is treated for discharge to the Bay. Similarly, potable reuse requires significantly more treatment than non-potable reuse to ensure public safety when ingesting the water. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Executive Summary FINAL July 2019 ii Figure ES-0-1: Potential recycled water uses for both potable and non-potable reuse applications Note: City of Palo Alto does not have an existing Drinking Water Treatment Plant The potential reuse demand for the various types of water reuse considered in the Strategic Plan is summarized in Table ES 0-1. Table ES-0-1: Summary of Demand Potential by Type of Water Reuse Type of Reuse Annual Average Demand Comments Non-Potable Reuse 4,456 AFY Throughout RWQCP service area, not one specific concept Indirect Potable Reuse 2,800 / 5,900 AFY For City of Palo Alto only Direct Potable Reuse 5,300 AFY For City of Palo Alto only Note: IPR annual average demand reflects volume recharged to the groundwater basin and volume extracted from the groundwater basin Results of Concept Options Development and Analysis Through collaborative development with the RWQCP Partner Agencies, water retailers, and neighboring agencies, 11 concept options (i.e., recycled water expansion opportunities) were developed for detailed analysis in the Strategic Plan. In summary, the concept options could provide between 200 and 6,100 AFY of water supplies at an annual unit cost ranging from $2,100 per AF to $8,900 per AF (see Table ES 0-2). For comparison with other non-water reuse water supplies, potable water from SFPUC is projected Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Executive Summary FINAL July 2019 iii to cost $3,000 per AF in 2030, and groundwater, including wellhead treatment and the Valley Water groundwater pumping charge, is projected to cost $3,000 per AF. 1 To provide a basis for comparison, cost estimates reflect the incremental cost of pursuing each concept option. For the NPR options, the cost estimates include distribution to the end-user. Consistent with the incremental cost methodology, this report does not estimate the total cost of providing the IPR or DPR water to end-users as Palo Alto’s existing potable water distribution system costs are not included in the estimates. The concept options were selected based on cost effectiveness and applicability to solving regional water supply issues. The concept options are divided into four categories: “A” series for centralized non-potable reuse (NPR) concept options “B” concept option for NPR from satellite treatment “C” series for indirect potable reuse (IPR) concept options “D” concept option for direct potable reuse (DPR) The concept options were evaluated for capital and operational costs and scored on a variety of non-cost criteria including water supply resiliency, public acceptance, adaptability, regulatory complexity, and regional perspective. Concept option ranking by cost is included in Table ES 0-3. Concept option ranking by non-cost criteria is included in Table ES 0-4. The summary of weighted ranking of concept options including both cost and non-cost criteria is included in Table ES 0-5. NPR concept options evaluated multiple pipeline extensions throughout the Study Area. Concept Option A2, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills ranks highly because it delivers among the largest volumes of the NPR concept options and strikes a balance between offering regional benefits while requiring few agencies to implement and operate. NPR is challenging for Los Altos and Los Altos Hills because their customers are located furthest from the RWQCP and existing recycled water infrastructure and coordination with the Partner Agencies upstream would be needed. Between the two options to serve Los Altos – Concept Option A3, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos (which builds off of Concept Option A1) and Concept Option A5, NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos (which builds off of Concept Option A4) – Concept Option A3 is preferred due to preliminary costs. Between the two options to serve Los Altos Hills - Concept Option A2, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Concept Option A3, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos – Concept Option A2 is ranked higher. Concept Option A4, NPR Mountain View, was previously recommended in the 2014 Mountain View Recycled Water Feasibility Study, due to its low cost and average non-cost score, was determined to be a reasonable investment compared to the other concept options explored in the Strategic Plan. Currently (July 2019), Mountain View is in the process of updating the 2014 Recycled Water Feasibility Study focusing on extending their existing system to Google and NASA, and across Highway 101; this update may alter the facility needs and costs for Concept Option A4. Concept Option A6, NPR East Palo Alto, is low cost, and the average non-cost score make it a reasonable investment compared to other concept options. The IPR concept options are attractive due to the large amount of water supplied combined with greater ability to repurpose the infrastructure and only one agency required to implement and operate. 1 These are the estimated costs to the City of Palo Alto of purchasing SFPUC water or pumping groundwater and these cost estimates do not include distribution system costs. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Executive Summary FINAL July 2019 iv Concept Option D1, Palo Alto Dedicated DPR delivers the greatest volume of recycled water out of all the concept options, requires only one agency to implement and operate, and does not require infrastructure changes by customers. The notable drawback of Concept Option D1 is the implementation process. Given the lack of established regulations, pursuing a DPR project at this time would require more effort by Palo Alto to establish a process that regulatory agencies will permit. Even when DPR regulations are established, the hurdles that agencies must clear to permit DPR projects will likely be more challenging compared to other recycled water projects. Another challenge will be hiring/training staff to operate the new treatment facilities. The presumed benefit of Concept Option B1, NPR Satellite Treatment Plant was the ability to create a compact recycled water distribution system closer to the customer locations rather than requiring an extensive pipe network extending from the RWQCP. However, in this setting, the preferred location for diverting flows from the sewer system does not correspond to the areas of potential recycled water nor is there land available in the immediate vicinity of the diversion point to site a satellite treatment facility that is cost effective. Table ES-0-2: Summary of Concept Options including Yield, Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Capital and O&M Costs Concept Option Yield (AFY) Capital Cost O&M ($/Y) Unit Cost ($/AF) A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 800 $47.8M $0.29M $3,400 A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills 1,100 $63.0M $0.52M $3,400 A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos 1,200 $85.1M $0.68M $4,000 A4: NPR Mountain View 200 $6.2M $0.1M $2,100 A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 900 $72.6M $0.4M $4,600 A6: NPR East Palo Alto 500 $20.7M $0.15M $2,400 B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant 900 $129.6M $1.37M $8,900 C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 5,900 $92.2M $14.83M $3,300 C2: Palo Alto IPR with NPR 6,100 $152.1M $16.92M $4,000 C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline 5,900 $198.4M $15.78M $4,400 D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 5,300 $104.6M $8.01M $2,500 Note: Costs based on an ENR CCI San Francisco index for June 2018 of 12,015. Costs are consistent with a Class 5 estimate (-20% to +50%) (AACE 2008). Capital costs are amortized at 3% over 30 years. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Executive Summary FINAL July 2019 v Table ES-0-3: Ranking of Concept Options by Cost Rank Score Concept Option 1 5 (<$3,500/AF) A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills A4: NPR Mountain View A6: NPR East Palo Alto C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 2 3 (>$4,000/AF and <$4,500/AF) A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos C2: Palo Alto IPR with NPR C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline 3 2 (>$4,500/AF and <$5,000/AF) A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 4 1 (>$5,000/AF) B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant Table ES-0-4: Ranking of Concept Options by Non-Cost Criteria Rank Score (Maximum = 500) Concept Option 1 291 A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills 2 290 C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 3 289 C2: Palo Alto IPR with NPR 289 C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline 4 286 A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 5 285 A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 285 A4: NPR Mountain View 285 A6: NPR East Palo Alto 6 282 A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos 7 271 B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant 8 269 D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Executive Summary FINAL July 2019 vi Table ES-0-5: Ranking Considering Cost and Non-Cost Evaluation Criteria Rank Concept Option 1 A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 2 A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 A4: NPR Mountain View A6: NPR East Palo Alto 3 D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 4 C2: Palo Alto IPR with NPR 5 A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos 6 C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline 7 A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 8 B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant Next Steps Results of the Strategic Plan indicate that there are multiple water reuse expansion opportunities within the Study Area that agencies could pursue, including NPR, IPR, and DPR. Next steps would include undertaking a variety of activities including: Facilities planning Funding and financing Inter-agency agreements Environmental documentation Reuse permitting Customer and public outreach Note that one of the options being considered by Valley Water’s Countywide Plan, currently under development, is export of water from the RWQCP for potable reuse further south in Santa Clara County, where Valley Water operates recharge ponds. Depending on the outcomes of the Countywide Plan, some of the Concept Options described in this Report may not implementable due to limited supply of recycled water; further evaluation for joint implementation may be required as a next step. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 1 Introduction FINAL July 2019 1-1 Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Background and Purpose of the Recycled Water Strategic Plan The Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan) was undertaken by the City of Palo Alto (Palo Alto), in collaboration with Valley Water (formerly the Santa Clara Valley Water District), to assess recycled water expansion opportunities throughout the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) service area (i.e., Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Stanford University, and East Palo Alto Sanitary District) including additional portions of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park not serviced by the East Palo Alto Sanitary District. The cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, the town of Los Altos Hills, East Palo Alto Sanitary District (EPASD), and Stanford University are known as the RWQCP Partner Agencies. Figure 1-1 shows the boundaries of the RWQCP service area as well as each of the RWQCP Partner Agencies. Figure 1-1: Study Area Source: City of Palo Alto, 2017 Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 1 Introduction FINAL July 2019 1-2 The last comprehensive recycled water planning study for the RWQCP service area was the 1992 Recycled Water Master Plan (RWMP). Since the completion of the RWMP, Palo Alto and Mountain View implemented Phase 2 of the RWQCP’s Regional Recycled Water System, which replaced the deteriorated non-potable recycled water pipeline from Phase 1 and expanded non-potable recycled water service to the Shoreline area of Mountain View (see Figure 1-2). Both Palo Alto and Mountain View have completed individual planning studies looking at opportunities to expand recycled water in their respective service areas. Figure 1-2: RWQCP Existing Water Reuse System In 2008, Palo Alto completed a Recycled Water Facility Plan that recommended a Phase 3 project. The Phase 3 project would expand the non-potable recycled water system to South Palo Alto to serve landscape irrigation demands and potential dual-plumbed systems mainly within the Stanford Research Park area (see Figure 1-3). In the time that it took to certify the Program Environmental Impact Report for the Phase 3 project (2015), the recycled water setting changed. Notably, prolonged drought conditions and notable water shortages in southern California has moved forward public acceptance of potable reuse options and policy makers have begun to question the expansion of non-potable reuse (NPR) systems over long-term potable reuse options, including indirect potable reuse (IPR) and direct potable reuse (DPR). Spurred by the recent drought, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of Drinking Water (DDW) adopted a final version of the Groundwater Replenishments Regulations in 2014, providing a formal pathway for permitting IPR through groundwater augmentation. Regulations for permitting surface water augmentation, another type of IPR, were adopted in 2018. With the passage of Assembly Bill 574, the SWRCB is required to develop regulations for potable reuse through raw water Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 1 Introduction FINAL July 2019 1-3 augmentation, a form of DPR, by 2023. While there is not yet a timeline established for development of potable reuse through treated drinking water augmentation, another form of DPR, several California agencies have begun to investigate this option. Accordingly, this Strategic Plan considers NPR, IPR, and DPR opportunities. Figure 1-3: Proposed Phase 3 Recycled Water Project Source: Woodard & Curran, 2018, Preliminary Design for Phase 3 Recycled Water Distribution System Final Report Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 1 Introduction FINAL July 2019 1-4 In 2014, Mountain View completed a Recycled Water Feasibility Study that recommended near-term extension of recycled water into the NASA Ames Research Center and a longer-term extension south of US-101. These extensions would serve landscape irrigation demands and dual-plumbed systems. Currently (July 2019), Mountain View is in the process of updating the 2014 RWFS focusing on extending their existing system to Google and NASA, and across Highway 101. To aid in future decisions regarding RWQCP recycled water expansion and commitments, Palo Alto, as the owner and operator of the RWQCP, saw a need to assess other RWQCP Partner Agencies’ interests in recycled water. The RWQCP is interested in expanding the recycled water program to help move itself towards becoming a resource recovery facility by providing a drought-proof, sustainable, local water supply, and for recycled water’s potential to help meet future regulatory actions pertaining to discharge limitations. In order to understand how to best expand the program, a comprehensive and holistic evaluation was needed to reassess the service area needs and acceptance given changes in water supplies and governing regulations. Valley Water is also interested in understanding how flows from the RWQCP can support countywide water supply planning and its goal of using recycled and purified water to meet at least 10% (24,000 AFY) of the total county water demand by 2025. Valley Water recently completed a Pure Water Program planning study that looked at opportunities to implement potable reuse projects using water from the San Jose/Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility and the Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant. Valley Water is now developing a Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan to understand recycled water opportunities, including NPR, IPR, and DPR, throughout Santa Clara County. The information from this Strategic Plan will support the Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan and help Valley Water identify wastewater flows that may be available for export from the RWQCP service area to other parts of the county. The purpose of the Strategic Plan is to evaluate potential additional uses of recycled water within the RWQCP service area through the year 2030, to identify recycled water expansion concept options that look beyond individual agency boundaries, and to evaluate previously recommended recycled water projects with new expansion options developed through this Strategic Plan. 1.2 Organization of this Report This report is organized as follows: Chapter 1: Background and Purpose of the Strategic Plan –Background on previous recycled water projects in the Study Area and a description of the wastewater and water agencies in the Study Area Chapter 2: Recycled Water Demand Assessment –Description of allowable recycled water uses and the Study Area market assessment Chapter 3: Project Concept Options –Description of the different recycled water concept options developed under this Strategic Plan Chapter 4: Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation –Summary of the evaluation of the concept options based on cost and non-cost criteria Chapter 5: Conclusions and Next Steps –Summary of the conclusions on the Strategic Plan concept options and next steps to be undertaken if the concept options are to move into implementation 1.3 Study Area The Study Area for the Strategic Plan encompasses the RWQCP service area, shown in Figure 1-1, as well as additional areas in the Cities of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park not served by EPASD. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 1 Introduction FINAL July 2019 1-5 EPASD, which is one of the RWQCP Partner Agencies, covers the majority of East Palo Alto and a small section of Menlo Park. The portions of these cities not served by EPASD are served by West Bay Sanitary District (WBSD), which is a tributary agency to Silicon Valley Clean Water in Redwood City. Currently recycled water infrastructure does not exist in these areas, although both WBSD and Redwood City have looked at opportunities to provide recycled water to these areas. Given the proximity of the RWQCP to East Palo Alto and Menlo Park and water supply shortfalls that existed in these communities when this project was initiated, the Study Area for this project was extended beyond the RWQCP service boundary to include the entirety of East Palo Alto and the northern portion of the Menlo Park Municipal Water’s service area. 1.3.1 Water Supply Agencies The Study Area is served by two water wholesalers and a number of retailers (Figure 1-4 and Table 1-1). The wholesalers are Valley Water and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), and the retailers are Palo Alto, Mountain View, California Water Service Company (Cal Water), Purissima Hills Water District (PHWD), East Palo Alto, Stanford University, Palo Alto Park Mutual Water Company, O’Connor Tract Co-operative Water Company, Federal Government (NASA Ames), and Menlo Park Municipal Water. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 1 Introduction FINAL July 2019 1-6 Figure 1-4: Water Retailers (names indicated in black text) Valley Water distributes potable water to portions of Santa Clara County, which encompasses all but the EPASD portion of the RWQCP service area. Valley Water sells water to 13 retailers including 2 retailers in the Study Area – Mountain View and Cal Water. Valley Water is a special district that was formed to address groundwater overdraft in the county. The water delivered to retailers is a combination of local surface water, imported water from the State Water Project and Central Valley Project and water transfers. As the Groundwater Sustainability Agency for the Santa Clara and Llagas subbasins, Valley Water manages the groundwater in Santa Clara County. Valley Water diverts local surface water as well as imported water to recharge facilities to augment natural groundwater recharge. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 1 Introduction FINAL July 2019 1-7 SFPUC is the water retailer for San Francisco as well as wholesaler to 26 agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area including 6 retailers in the Study Area – Palo Alto, Mountain View, PHWD, East Palo Alto, Stanford University, and Menlo Park Municipal Water. SFPUC’s primary source of water is the Hetch Hetchy watershed of the Tuolumne River. The Tuolumne River is the largest tributary to the San Joaquin River, which feeds into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta. In addition to water purchased from Valley Water and SFPUC, the majority of the Study Area retailers either utilize groundwater or have plans to develop groundwater supplies to meet demand projections. Cal Water and Stanford University currently use groundwater to meet demands. Palo Alto Park Mutual Water Company and the O’Connor Tract Co-operative Water Company rely solely on groundwater. Palo Alto and Mountain View maintain groundwater wells for emergency supply. East Palo Alto has plans to rehabilitate an existing well and develop an additional well for emergency and potential future water supply. Menlo Park Municipal Water has plans to develop groundwater as an emergency supply as well. Stanford University is unique among the water retailers in this area in that its water supplies include local surface water and captured stormwater, which it uses to meet non-potable demands. Groundwater is used to supplement this non-potable system. A review of retailers’ 2015 Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) identified the demand imbalances described herein. Although the planning horizon for the Strategic Plan is through 2030, the water supply shortfalls summarized here go through the UWMPs’ planning horizon of 2040. In normal years, East Palo Alto projected a shortfall by 2040; however, since completion of its 2015 UWMP, East Palo Alto has secured additional SFPUC supplies. During a single dry year, Menlo Park Municipal Water projected shortfalls beginning in 2020, and Mountain View, Cal Water and East Palo Alto projected shortfalls by 2040; however, since completion of its 2015 UWMP and given some major changes in land use policies, Mountain View has updated their projected shortfalls in a single dry year to occurred starting in 2020. During multiple dry years, Mountain View and Menlo Park Municipal Water project shortfall in all years beginning in 2020, and East Palo Alto projected shortfalls in all years given 2040 demands and in the second and third years under 2035 demands. Palo Alto, similar to many of the other RWQCP Partner Agencies’, is subject to water supply reductions during droughts. Shortages are expected to become more frequent and more severe in the future as a result of climate change and other changes to the California water system. Both imported water and groundwater are at risk during dry periods. Table 1-1 summarizes the water supply sources for each city as well as the current uses, projected needs, and the local wastewater agency. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 1 Introduction FINAL July 2019 1-8 Table 1-1: Summary of Water Supply Sources and Needs City Wholesaler Retailer(s) Current/ Planned Groundwater User (Y/N) Projected Water Supply Shortfall1 (Y/N) Current Recycled Water User (Y/N) Wastewater Agency East Palo Alto SFPUC / Self East Palo Alto (SFPUC, groundwater) Palo Alto Park Mutual Water Company (100% groundwater) O’Connor Tract Co- operative Water Company (100% groundwater) Yes Yes (2040) No RWQCP Los Altos Valley Water Cal Water Yes Yes (2040) No RWQCP Los Altos Hills SFPUC PHWD No No No RWQCP Menlo Park SFPUC Menlo Park Municipal Water Yes Yes (2020) No West Bay Sanitary District Mountain View SFPUC & Valley Water Mountain View Yes Yes (2020) Yes RWQCP Palo Alto SFPUC Palo Alto No No Yes RWQCP Stanford University SFPUC Stanford University Yes No No RWQCP 1Projections for single dry year taken from retailer 2015 Urban Water Management Plans except Mountain View which is based on more updated information. 1.3.2 Wastewater Agencies & Current Recycled Water Programs Palo Alto owns and operates the RWQCP, a 39.0 MGD-dry weather capacity wastewater treatment plant for the benefit of the RWQCP Partners. The RWQCP discharges treated effluent to an outfall in Lower South San Francisco Bay and to Renzel Marsh, which ultimately drains to the Lower South San Francisco Bay via Matadero Creek. The RWQCP treats an average of 20 MGD of wastewater. In addition, a portion of RWQCP effluent is further treated at tertiary recycled water facilities located at the RWQCP. The tertiary recycled water facilities have a capacity of 4.5 MGD, though currently production averages 0.6 MGD. The RWQCP has existing agreements with its Partner agencies that provide them with the right to acquire all wastewater by-products, such as recycled water, in the proportion to their percentage of influent flow. Recycled water from the RWQCP is available to Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Stanford University and EPASD through truck-fill stations, while Palo Alto and Mountain View receive recycled water through a purple-pipe distribution system. Palo Alto and Mountain View are the only retailers in the Study Area that currently use recycled water via a purple-pipe distribution system. The RWQCP has committed a peak flow of up to 1.0 MGD to Palo Alto and 3.0 MGD to Mountain View under an agreement that extends until 2060. Palo Alto, Valley Water, and Mountain View partnered in the development of an Advanced Water Purification Feasibility Study and Preliminary/Conceptual Design Report in 2017 to evaluate advanced treatment options for total dissolved solids (TDS) reduction in the RWQCP’s recycled water for use in Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 1 Introduction FINAL July 2019 1-9 irrigating salt-sensitive plants and industrial processes. The Feasibility Study recommended implementation of an Advanced Water Treatment System (AWTS) to provide 1.125 MGD of reverse osmosis treated water, with optional future expanded production reaching 2.25 MGD. The AWTS water will be blended at a 1:1 ratio with tertiary recycled water from the RWQCP to bring salinity levels between 400-500 mg/L TDS, below the Palo Alto goal of 600 mg/L TDS. The Study Area includes a portion of WBSD’s service area. WBSD provides wastewater collection services for Menlo Park, Atherton, and Portola Valley; the portion of East Palo Alto that is not served by EPASD; and areas of Woodside, unincorporated San Mateo County, and unincorporated Santa Clara County. WBSD is currently implementing a satellite recycled water facility in the southern portion of Menlo Park Municipal Water’s service area and is investigating the potential to implement a satellite recycled water facility in the northern portion of Menlo Park. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment FINAL July 2019 2-1 Chapter 2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment 2.1 Recycled Water Uses 2.1.1 Types of Recycled Water There are a variety of types of recycled water, as shown in Figure 2-1, covering both non-potable and potable reuse applications. These types of recycled water can lead to various options for how to implement conceptual projects in a specific setting. The applicability of these types of recycled water in the local setting is described in further detail later in this chapter. Figure 2-1: Overview of Non-Potable and Potable Reuse Types Because there is no suitable reservoir or a raw water treatment facility in the RWQCP service territory, reservoir augmentation and treated water augmentation were not evaluated. Figure 2-2 is an overview of the non-potable and potable options included in this report. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment FINAL July 2019 2-2 Figure 2-2: Overview of Non-Potable and Potable Reuse Types included in this Recycled Water Strategic Plan Currently, the RWQCP produces recycled water that is treated to disinfected tertiary treatment standards and is compliant with Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. This is defined as oxidized, filtered, and disinfected wastewater that meets a median concentration of total coliform requirements < 2.2 MPN/100mL and 5.0-log removal of viruses. This disinfected tertiary recycled water is suitable for all NPR uses considered in this study, which include landscape irrigation, dual plumbing, cooling towers, industrial process water and habitat enhancement. Further details about these non-potable uses, including associated water quality requirements requested by users and examples of potential users in the service area, are outlined in Section 2.2. The methodology used to assess NPR demands is summarized in Section 2.2.2. IPR includes groundwater augmentation, either through percolation ponds or injection wells, where the purified recycled water mixes with the local groundwater and the mixture is extracted through existing or new wells for use in the potable (i.e., drinking) distribution system. IPR also includes reservoir augmentation, which is adding purified recycled water mixed in with local supplies in a reservoir that feeds to a surface water treatment plant, but is not considered in this Strategic Plan because no suitable reservoirs or surface water treatment plants exist proximate to the Study Area. The process to model available groundwater capacity to accept purified recycled water for recharge is included in Section 2.3.2. DPR includes raw water augmentation, which would introduce purified recycled water upstream of a surface water treatment plant, and treated drinking water augmentation, which would introduce the purified recycled water directly to the drinking water distribution system. Raw water augmentation was not considered in this Strategic Plan because there are no surface water treatment plants within the service area of the one agency interested in DPR that also had sufficient information for this evaluation at the Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment FINAL July 2019 2-3 time of this writing (i.e., Palo Alto). The methodology to estimate the amount of water available to direct towards DPR is included in Section 2.4.2. 2.1.2 Interests of the RWQCP Partner Agencies The Strategic Plan team sent out surveys to the RWQCP Partner Agencies and other interested parties to gauge their interest in using recycled water to meet their current and projected demands. These stakeholders were asked about their interest in non-potable as well as potable uses, and the information received was used to inform the development of the concepts within this study. The results of the surveys are summarized in Table 2-1. Table 2-1: Summary of Recycled Water Interests Agency Interested in use of Recycled Water from RWQCP Types of Use of Interest La n d s c a p e I r r i g a t i o n (N P R ) Du a l P l u m b e d T o i l e t F l us h i n g ( N P R ) In d u s t r i a l P r o c e s s Wa t e r ( N P R ) Co o l i n g T o w e r ( N P R ) Ha b i t a t E n h a n c e m e n t (N P R ) Gr o u n d w a t e r Au g m e n t a t i o n ( I P R ) Di r e c t P o t a b l e ( D P R ) City of Palo Alto Yes x x x x x x x City of Mountain View Yes x x x City of Los Altos Yes x x x Town of Los Altos Hills Yes x East Palo Alto Sanitary District Yes x x x x Stanford University No1 x Cal Water Yes x x x City of East Palo Alto Yes x x x x x x x City of Menlo Park Yes x x x x West Bay Sanitary District Yes x x x x x Note: 1. Though Stanford University is not interested in receiving recycled water from the RWQCP, Stanford University is interested in using recycled water generated on-site for dual plumbed toilet flushing. 2.2 Non-Potable Uses 2.2.1 Potential Non-Potable Uses Landscape Irrigation Landscape irrigation sites identified for this study include parks, schools, commercial landscaping, multi- family residential landscaping, cemeteries, and golf courses. Irrigators in the Study Area have historically expressed concern with the salinity content in recycled water and its specific impacts to salt-sensitive species such as Redwood trees. To address these concerns and improve the quality of this water, Palo Alto, in collaboration with Valley Water and Mountain View, is planning to construct an AWTS facility Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment FINAL July 2019 2-4 (see Section 1.3.2) to decrease RWQCP recycled water salinity and improve marketability for landscape irrigation purposes. Dual Plumbing Dual plumbing uses identified for this study include urinal and toilet flushing in existing dual-plumbed buildings and future developments identified in General Plans or Specific Plans where dual plumbing could be incorporated into the design of new commercial, industrial, and institutional buildings as well as multi-family residences. Existing buildings with dual-plumbing systems were included in the demand assessment; however, retrofitting existing buildings was not considered due to the cost and complexity of typical retrofits. Because the majority of the Study Area is built out, there are few opportunities to implement dual- plumbing. East Palo Alto has the greatest potential for new development and redevelopment. This includes plans to redevelop the Ravenswood area to add various commercial and industrial buildings. In addition, various multi-residential developments were considered. To promote dual-plumbing, Palo Alto has adopted an ordinance requiring buildings greater than 10,000 square feet within a designated Recycled Water Use Area to incorporate dual-plumbing (Palo Alto has yet to designate such an area), while Mountain View adopted the same guidelines for buildings greater than 25,000 square feet. Buildings in the planning phase that are anticipated to meet these thresholds were included as potential users. Many buildings currently under construction were approved prior to these ordinances and were not included in the demand assessment. As of this writing, no other dual plumbing or recycled water use ordinances exist within the RWQCP service area. Cooling Tower Cooling tower uses identified for this study include larger commercial and industrial buildings in the Study Area. Like landscape irrigation uses, cooling towers are sensitive to salinity levels in recycled water (as well as ammonia and certain metals). The AWTS (see Section 1.3.2) will make RWQCP recycled water more marketable for cooling tower purposes. Industrial Process Water Industrial process water use identified for this study was limited to one industrial customer in Palo Alto along the Phase 3 project pipeline alignment. The redevelopment in the East Palo Alto Ravenswood area has the potential to include industrial process water demands. However, given the uncertainty of future development plans, these potential industrial demands were not included. Habitat Enhancement Habitat enhancement is a potential non-potable use. While several stakeholders indicated an interest in habitat enhancement opportunities, only two specific concepts were identified: A horizontal levee near the RWQCP; however, because this project would be served with treated effluent without a chlorine residual and using a small dedicated pipeline, this opportunity is considered a potential habitat enhancement project beyond the scope of concept options developed for this study. Byxbee Park in Palo Alto was included in this study. Currently, through a pilot project, Byxbee Park receives recycled water to irrigate vegetated islands (Engelage, 2018). Other Non-Potable Uses Other non-potable uses in the Study Area that did not fall into the specific categories outlined above include street cleaning, car washes, and demands for Boronda Lake at Foothill Park. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment FINAL July 2019 2-5 2.2.2 Non-Potable Market Assessment Site-specific water use estimates were obtained from the partner agencies, as available, including demand estimates for Palo Alto Phase 3 that were recently updated as part of the Palo Alto Phase 3 Business Plan and the Mountain View Recycled Water Feasibility Study. Where site-specific information was not available from the agency, the methodologies described in Appendix A were used to estimate landscape irrigation, dual plumbing, and cooling tower demands. Estimates for other uses were developed as needed on a case by case basis. Peaking factors are summarized in Table 2-2. For potential customers with the largest demand estimates, Palo Alto coordinated with the partner agencies to reach out to these potential customers to further refine the recycled water estimates. 2.2.3 Non-Potable Demand The potential annual average recycled water demand for all non-potable users in the Study Area is 4,456 AFY or 3.98 MGD. These potential users are shown in Figure 2-3. Potential recycled water demand estimates for each non-potable customer, including a breakdown of estimated annual average, maximum day, and peak hour demands, are included in Appendix B. Appendix B includes each potential user’s location, type of use (e.g. landscape irrigation, dual plumbing, industrial process water, cooling tower, etc.), site status (e.g. existing recycled water customer, existing water customer, future customer), Partner Agency, and water retailer. Appendix C contains a discussion of potential uses considered but not included in the Strategic Plan. These appendices are excluded from the public version of this report in compliance with the California Public Records Act, which protects certain utility usage data and customer information from disclosure. The maximum day demand, defined as the average daily demand in July, for all non-potable uses in the service area is 6.84 MGD. The peaking factors used to develop the non-potable maximum day and peak hour demands are summarized in Table 2-2, and annual average and maximum day demands are summarized in Table 2-3. Peaking factors are a ratio of the maximum day or maximum hourly demand to the average day or average hourly demand. The peak maximum day flows were used to size treatment facilities and peak hour demands were used to size pump stations and pipelines. Table 2-2: Demand Peaking Factors Demand Type Peaking Factor Maximum Day Irrigation 1.7 Cooling Tower 2.7 Hourly Irrigation1 3.0 Dual Plumbing 2.0 Cooling Tower 2.0 1. Irrigation hourly peaking factor applies to irrigation users who use water on demand. There are a small number of irrigation customers in the Study Area with on-site water storage where this peaking factor does not apply. Table 2-3: Non-Potable Demand Summary Demand Type Value Annual Average 4,456 AFY (3.98 MGD) Maximum Day 6.84 MGD Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment FINAL July 2019 2-6 Figure 2-3: Potential Non-Potable Users in Study Area Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment FINAL July 2019 2-7 2.3 Indirect Potable Uses 2.3.1 Potential Indirect Potable Uses Indirect potable uses identified for this study focused on groundwater augmentation via injection wells. Due to the densely developed nature of the Study Area and high cost of land, groundwater augmentation via surface spreading is not viable. IPR requires full advanced treatment of recycled water. The conventional full advanced treatment train consists of membrane filtration, reverse osmosis, and an ultraviolet light -advanced oxidation process. These advanced water purification processes are designed to remove or inactivate a spectrum of constituents, including viruses, parasites, N-Nitrosodimethylamine, and 1,4-dioxane. Within East Palo Alto, the potential to use the city’s existing or future wells for IPR extraction was considered. However, after additional discussion regarding injection well siting and uncertainty of the benefit of groundwater augmentation in this area, IPR use in East Palo Alto was not considered further. Groundwater augmentation within the Cal Water service area in Los Altos was also discussed but eliminated from the project concept options analysis. Cal Water’s service area is within the area of the groundwater basins that is actively managed by Valley Water, and groundwater use in this area was deemed to be better addressed through the Valley Water’s countywide efforts rather than through this Strategic Plan. Results from a recently completed Groundwater Assessment, and Indirect Potable Reuse Feasibility Evaluation and Implementation Strategy (IPR Feasibility Evaluation) indicated that IPR within Palo Alto was technically feasible given the current condition of the aquifers in northwestern Santa Clara County and the potential to supplement Palo Alto’s water supply with groundwater. Modeling results from the IPR Feasibility Evaluation and the scenario that was selected to be included in this study’s project concept options are discussed in the following section. 2.3.2 Indirect Potable Reuse Assessment The IPR Feasibility Evaluation (Todd 2018) included a characterization of hydrogeologic conditions in Palo Alto and the surrounding areas. An initial evaluation of the feasibility of increased pumping by Palo Alto was based on historical and contemporary groundwater balances in the area. Subsequently, groundwater modeling was conducted to refine the estimate of groundwater yield available to Palo Alto with and without varying levels of IPR. From the groundwater modeling assessment, one scenario was selected for use in this Strategic Plan as it represented a technically feasible recharge and extraction scenario with no projected adverse impacts, and the volume was deemed conservative and achievable while still providing a substantial volume for use. The selected scenario, referenced as Scenario 4 in the IPR Feasibility Evaluation, includes recharge of 2,800 AFY of fully advanced treated recycled water with Palo Alto extracting 5,900 AFY of augmented groundwater (i.e., mixture of groundwater and injected recycled water) to supplement potable water supplies. 2.3.3 Indirect Potable Demand Based on Scenario 4 of the IPR Feasibility Evaluation, the annual recycled water IPR demand is 2,800 AFY. This converts to a daily demand of 2.5 MGD and is the volume of treated water that can be used for injection purposes. Once injected, the volume of water that can be sustainably extracted from the groundwater basin (or the “Project Yield”) under this scenario is 5,900 AFY (or 5.27 MGD). These demands and yields are summarized in Table 2-4. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment FINAL July 2019 2-8 Table 2-4: IPR Demand and Groundwater Project Yield Summary Demand Type Value Annual Recycled Water Demand (Daily Recycled Water Demand) 2,800 AFY (2.50 MGD) Annual Project Yield (Daily Project Yield) 5,900 AFY (5.27 MGD) These demand and project yield values were adjusted for IPR concept options that included NPR uses. This is further detailed in Section 3.5.3. 2.4 Direct Potable Uses 2.4.1 Potential Direct Potable Uses At the initial stages of this study, Palo Alto, the East Palo Alto Sanitary District, East Palo Alto, and Cal Water all expressed an interest in DPR. Although DPR regulations for both raw water and treated drinking water augmentation are not yet developed, the SWRCB’s DDW released a framework for these regulations in April 2018. This framework considered recycled water used for DPR purposes to be treated by full advanced treatment standards, at a minimum. This framework also included surface water treatment as a necessary component of raw water augmentation. Because there is no dedicated surface water treatment plant in the Study Area, treated drinking water augmentation is considered the only feasible DPR option available at this time. Per anticipated DDW regulations, treated drinking water augmentation (colloquially called a “pipe-to-pipe” approach) requires water to be treated to potable standards at the advanced water treatment plant (AWTP) that would include full advanced treatment plus other treatment processes. For DPR use in Palo Alto, an AWTP would be located at the RWQCP. Meanwhile for DPR use in the East Palo Alto Sanitary District, East Palo Alto, or the Cal Water service area, the AWTP could be located at the RWQCP or a satellite site. AWTP water would then be kept in engineered storage and delivered directly to the potable water distribution system. DPR use in Palo Alto was considered as a project concept option (D1) in this study and is further discussed in Section 3.6. 2.4.2 Direct Potable Reuse Assessment Each partner agency to the RWQCP (including Palo Alto) retains the right to reuse as much recycled water as wastewater that was sent from their agency to the RWQCP for treatment. As such, the amount of potential DPR yield was based on Palo Alto’s share of the RWQCP effluent flow, which is 7.31 MGD or about 36% of the RWQCP’s average annual flow (20.3 MGD, 2010-2018 average). With 1.0 MGD assumed to be dedicated to other recycled water customers in Palo Alto, the available flow estimated to feed a DPR facility is 6.31 MGD. Finally, after accounting for a 25% rejection rate during the treatment process, the amount of produced water for potable consumption was estimated to be 4.73 MGD (average and maximum day are the same in this case such that the DPR facility operates at a constant steady rate). Similarly, this converts to an average annual demand of 5,300 AFY of 4.73 MGD. The development of this DPR demand estimate is summarized in Table 2-5. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment FINAL July 2019 2-9 Table 2-5: DPR Demand Estimate Summary RWQCP Average Annual Flow (2010- 2018) Palo Alto’s Share of RWQCP Effluent Flow Flow Available as DPR Input Flow Produced as DPR Output 20.3 MGD 7.31 MGD 6.31 MGD 4.73 MGD (5,300 AFY) 2.5 Other Potential Uses Outside of Study Area In addition to the Strategic Plan, Valley Water is collaborating with local stakeholders to develop a Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan (Countywide Plan). This effort aims to integrate and expand recycled and purified water as a local and drought-proof water supply throughout Santa Clara County. The plan is projected to be completed by June 2020. Valley Water’s goal is to develop recycled water to provide for at least 10% of the total county demands by 2028 by developing up to 24,000 AFY of additional potable reuse. Valley Water is exploring sourcing water from a variety of wastewater treatment facilities in Santa Clara County. One of the options being considered by the Countywide Plan is export of water from the RWQCP for potable reuse further south in Santa Clara County, where Valley Water operates recharge ponds. Depending on the outcomes of the Countywide Plan, some of the Concept Options described in this Report may not implementable due to limited supply of recycled water; further evaluation for joint implementation may be required. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-1 Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options 3.1 Summary of Approach Figure 3-1 summarizes the process used to develop the Strategic Plan concept options, or expansion opportunities. The approach was to start by incorporating key findings from previous studies, and to then survey and meet with the various agencies to validate previous findings and to confirm future interests. Through a Visioning Workshop, the consultant team aided the agencies in identifying and prioritizing opportunities for recycled water within the study area and to select concept options for further analysis. The consultant team then provided technical development of the concept options and preliminary evaluations which were confirmed with the agencies at an Evaluation Workshop. After completion of the evaluation of the concept options, implementation strategies for each recycled water use type were then defined. Figure 3-1: Summary of Overall Approach to Strategic Plan Concept Option Development and Assessment 3.2 Concept Option Development Process This section summarizes the objectives, screening process, and engineering design criteria used to develop the Strategic Plan concepts considered in the study. 3.2.1 Objectives in Concept Option Development The following objectives guided the development of Strategic Plan Concept Options for the Study Area: 1) Develop Cost Effective Concept Options: To meet this objective, concept options were developed around large potential users as well as dense areas of users. Users with estimated demands greater than 50 AFY were included in at least one of the preliminary concept options presented to stakeholders for screening. The intent was that these customers would serve as anchor customers along an alignment, providing sufficient demand to justify needed infrastructure costs. However, because many of the large users are on the edge of the Study Area, the cost effectiveness of including some of these customers became less certain. While aiming to Demand Assessment •Agency Survey •Meetings with Partners •Previous Studies Visioning Workshop Develop- ment of Concept Options •Sizing Facilities •Developing Costs Evaluation of Concept Options •Non-Cost Criteria Scoring Evaluation Workshop Outreach • Utilities Advisory Committee (Sept. 2018) • Palo Alto City Council Study Session (Nov. 2018) • Pubic Meeting (Apr. 2019) Implemen -tation Strategies Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-2 meet the most demand in each concept option, the distance between customers was also considered such that concept options focused on clusters of users that could be served from a common pipeline. Extensions off the main pipeline generally were not pursued for users with less than 5 AFY of demand. 2) Pursue Regional Solutions: One of the primary goals of the Strategic Plan is to assess whether a regional approach to recycled water projects in the RWQCP service area would result in concept options that are more economically-feasible to implement and multi-beneficial. With this in mind, concept options were developed that incorporated multiple jurisdictions and water retailers to analyze whether this created beneficial outcomes in the Study Area. 3.2.2 Preliminary Concept Options Screening In March 2018, Palo Alto and Valley Water conducted a Visioning Workshop with interested RWQCP Partner Agencies, water retailers, and neighboring agencies. At the workshop, a number of preliminary concept options were presented to the stakeholder group and valuable input received. Through discussion with the stakeholders, some of the concept options were modified, while others were eliminated. Additionally, a concept option looking at satellite treatment for non-potable reuse – versus centralized treatment at the RWQCP – was added. The remainder of this chapter, beginning in Section 3.3, includes a description of each of the concept options evaluated. The concept options are divided into four categories: “A” series for NPR concept options from RWQCP (Section 3.2) “B” concept option for NPR from satellite treatment (Section 3.3) “C” series for IPR concept options (Section 3.4) “D” concept option for DPR (Section 3.5) 3.2.3 Engineering Design Criteria Hydraulic Criteria The criteria used to size the distribution infrastructure for new concept options developed as part of this study are summarized in Table 3-1. In general, the minimum pressure criterion establishes the hydraulic grade line (HGL) required, which in turn helps define pumping requirements. The maximum flow velocity criterion generally governs pipe sizing. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-3 Table 3-1: Hydraulic Criteria Description Value Pipelines Minimum Pressure at Standard Pressurized Customer Connections 40 psi Minimum Pressure at Injection Well Connections1 15 psi Minimum Pressure at Pond Storage Customer Connections 10 psi Maximum Customer Pressure2 120 psi Minimum Pipe Size 6 in Maximum Flow Velocity 5 ft/s Pump Stations Assumed Pumping Efficiency 75% Non-Overloading Horsepower Adjustment 10% Maximum Standard Motor Size, Each Pump 100 hp Notes: 1. Determined to be the minimum required pressure for injection wells, per communication with Sally McCraven, Todd Groundwater. 2. Certain customer demand nodes exceed the maximum pressure criterion at times, which is acceptable to maintain minimum service pressures elsewhere. Customers with high pressures will require a pressure regulating valve on the service line. A spreadsheet was developed to model each concept option’s pipe network and optimized backbone pipe sizes. Each alignment was divided into segments, and peak hour flows for each customer along or downstream of a given segment were aggregated to determine the minimum pipeline diameter needed to convey maximum flows. This model was utilized to check pressure at customer connections and determine each concept option’s pump station sizes. To develop conceptual costs at this planning level, hydraulic head required at the RWQCP to serve the concept options was treated as a separate pump station at the RWQCP location. The potential for integrating this hydraulic capacity to existing facilities at the RWQCP would need to be analyzed upon further development of any concept option. The results for each concept option’s hydraulic analysis, including pipeline and pump station sizing, are summarized in Sections 3.3 to 3.6. Treatment Criteria Palo Alto has committed to delivering 3.0 MGD of enhanced recycled water to Mountain View and 1.0 MGD to Palo Alto for non-potable uses. As discussed in Section 1.3.2, Palo Alto is planning to implement an AWTS to provide 1.125 MGD of reverse osmosis treated water, which will be blended at with RWQCP tertiary recycled water to produce enhanced recycled water with a target TDS level below 600 mg/L. Plans for the AWTS include potential expansion to produce 2.25 MGD of reverse osmosis treated water. In evaluating additional treatment needs for the centralized NPR concept options (“A” series) in this study, it is assumed that the 2.25 MGD AWTS facility will be constructed. If a combination of the AWTS facility and the existing 4.5 MGD granular media filters can be used to meet the total demand for a concept option including the current flow commitments for NPR in Mountain View and Palo Alto while still meeting a 600 mg/L TDS target, additional treatment is not included. As such, the 1:1 blend ratio used in the 2017 Advanced Water Purification Feasibility Study and Preliminary/Conceptual Design Report is not used for this study. Rather, 2.25 MGD AWTS produced water with TDS of 50 mg/L is assumed to be combined with the balance of RWQCP tertiary recycled water needed to meet the concept option demand with TDS of 900 mg/L. Consequently, the final TDS concentration varied depending on the concept option tertiary recycled water demand, however all concept options remained below the 600 mg/L TDS goal. This approach allows the NPR concept options to be consistent with the previously Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-4 completed Feasibility Study while maintaining sufficient operational flexibility to ensure cost effective solutions to meet enhanced recycled water demands. For non-potable uses served from a satellite treatment facility, this study assumes the facility to provide disinfected tertiary treated recycled water and that saline inflow and infiltration is negligible. For IPR, recycled water would be treated to full advanced treatment standards for injection (membrane filtration, reverse osmosis, and an ultraviolet light -advanced oxidation process). In addition, each extraction well is planned to have wellhead treatment per Option 4 of Palo Alto’s 2017 Water Integrated Resources Plan. Option 4 includes treatment for iron, manganese, and TDS at each well site such that the extracted water will be comparable to SFPUC water supplies. Option 4 is the treatment option assumed for this study since this is most comparable to the existing Palo Alto supply and most likely to gain customer acceptance. For DPR, treatment standards were designed to align with guidance provided by the SWRCB in its Proposed Framework for Regulating Direct Potable Reuse in California (April 2018). Also, the SWRCB’s Feasibility Report on Developing Uniform Water Recycling Criteria for DPR indicated that DPR treatment trains should be sourced from tertiary recycled water (defined as any process employed after secondary treatment to further improve water quality). Therefore, the water quality of the influent wastewater for DPR was assumed to be final effluent from the RWQCP; the RWQCP is a tertiary treatment facility that treats all of its wastewater beyond secondary treatment standards. In addition to the steps required to treat recycled water to full advanced treatment standards, the DPR train would include ozone, biologically active filtration, and free chlorine process steps. Reverse osmosis concentrate treatment is included in concept options as necessary to maintain compliance with the RWQCP’s NPDES discharge permit. The 2017 Advanced Water Purification Feasibility Study identified maximum AWTS sizes to comply with the RWQCP’s permit without concentrate treatment under the following scenarios: Scenario 1. All enhanced recycled water: This scenario assumes all of the advanced treated water from the AWTS is blended with tertiary-treated recycled water at a 1:1 ratio and distributed to customers. Scenario 2. All potable reuse: This scenario assumes all of the advanced treated water from the AWTS would be used for potable reuse and no blending with tertiary-treated recycled water would occur. Scenario 3. Enhanced recycled water with additional potable reuse: This scenario assumes implementation of a 2.25 MGD AWTS for enhanced recycled water production (4.5 MGD of total enhanced recycled water capacity) with the remaining advanced water purification facility (AWPF) capacity for potable reuse. Table 3-2 summarizes the findings from the feasibility study which were based on a conservative approach in order to meet the various maximum daily permit limits. The scenarios relevant to this planning effort are Scenarios 1 and 3. The Strategic Plan assumes that the 2.25 MGD enhanced recycled water AWTS will be constructed to meet the RWQCP’s existing commitments to Mountain View and Palo Alto. If any of the NPR concept options were to require additional AWTS treatment capacity, the threshold above which concentrate treatment would be needed is an additional 1.65 MGD of AWTS capacity (for total enhanced recycled water capacity of 7.8 MGD). For the IPR and DPR concept options (which both including reverse osmosis in their treatment trains), the threshold above which concentrate treatment would be needed is 2.5 MGD. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-5 Table 3-2: Maximum AWTS Sizes Without Requiring Reverse Osmosis Concentrate Treatment Maximum AWTS Size (MGD) AWTS for Enhanced Recycled Water Size (MGD) Enhanced Recycled Water Produced (MGD) AWPF for Potable Reuse Size (MGD) Scenario 1: All Enhanced Recycled Water 3.9 -- 7.8 -- Scenario 2: All Potable Reuse 5.8 -- -- 5.8 Scenario 3: Enhanced Recycled Water AWTS of 2.25 MGD with Additional Potable Reuse 4.8 2.25 4.5 2.5 Note: The sizing is based on the RWQCP’s minimum daily flow of 12 MGD. See MNS Advanced Water Purification System Preliminary/Conceptual Design Report, December 2017, for additional details. 3.3 Concept Options A: NPR from RWQCP There are six concept options in the “A” series that contain different pipeline alignments to meet differing NPR demands throughout the Study Area: A1: The Phase 3 Pipeline to south Palo Alto recommended in the 2008 City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Facility Plan and reassessed through the 2018 Phase 3 Business Plan and 2018 Preliminary Design Report. This concept option was included in this study in order to evaluate its feasibility relative to other concept options. A2: Extends the Phase 3 Pipeline (Concept Option A1) to serve additional customers in the Palo Alto Foothills and Los Altos Hills. A3: Extends Concept Option A2 to serve additional customers in Los Altos. A4: Extends the Mountain View Systems in accordance with the Long-Term Expansion Project from the 2014 Mountain View Recycled Water Feasibility Study. This concept option was included in this study in order to evaluate its feasibility relative to other concept options. A5: Extends Concept Option A4 to service customers in Los Altos. A6: Serves existing and future customers in East Palo Alto and Palo Alto and includes sizing facilities for an extension to Menlo Park. 3.3.1 Concept Option A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Concept Option A1 is the Phase 3 Pipeline to south Palo Alto recommended in the 2008 Palo Alto Recycled Water Facility Plan and reassessed through the 2018 Phase 3 Business Plan and 2018 Preliminary Design Report. Facilities for the concept option are summarized in Table 3-3 and shown on Figure 3-2. Notable items from Concept Option A1 are: Customers: Unlike other customers on Phase 3, the anchor customer for this Concept Option relies on groundwater for its water supply and does not currently receive water service from Palo Alto. Pipelines: Build off the existing 30-inch recycled water backbone along Embarcadero Road. Pump Stations: Two - 1) expansion of existing recycled water pump station at the RWQCP; and 2) a booster pump station along the Phase 3 alignment. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-6 Table 3-3: Demand and Facility Summary for Concept Option A1, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Customer Location Number of Users Demand Total (AFY) Palo Alto – Phase 3 109 634 Anchor Customer1 1 167 Total 110 801 Modeled Pipe ID (in) Approximate Length of Pipe (LF) 6 18,500 8 9,000 10 7,200 12 23,200 Total Length (LF) 57,900 Total Length (mi) 11.0 Description Performance Requirements Recycled Water Pump Station Phase 3 Booster Pump Station Required Flow 1,637 gpm 1,408 gpm Discharge Head 200 ft 198 ft Pump Configuration (duty + standby) 2 (duty) 3+1 Pump Motor Rating (each) 100 hp 60 hp Total Installed Motor Horsepower 200 hp 240 hp Notes: 1. Anchor customer is distinguished from the rest of the Phase 3 customers because, unlike others, this customer relies on groundwater for its water supply and does not currently receive water service from Palo Alto. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-7 Figure 3-2: Alignment for Concept Option A1, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-8 3.3.2 Concept Option A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills Concept Option A2 extends the Phase 3 Pipeline in Concept Option A1 to serve additional customers in the Palo Alto Foothills and Los Altos Hills. The Concept Option A2 alignment is shown in Figure 3-3. A summary of the customers included in this concept option and their corresponding demand values and facilities are outlined in Table 3-4. Some notable items for Concept Option A2 are: Customers: Concept Option A2 captures two additional high demand customers and benefits an additional RWQCP partner by including a branch to Los Altos Hills. Pipelines: Build off of the existing 30-inch recycled water backbone in Embarcadero Road. Pump Stations: Four - Expansion of the existing recycled water pump station at the RWQCP and three booster pump stations at optimized locations throughout the alignment. Table 3-4: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option A2, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills Customer Location Number of Users Demand Total (AFY) Palo Alto – Phase 3 109 634 Anchor Customer No. 11 1 167 Anchor Customer No. 2 1 169 Foothills Park 1 75 Los Altos Hills 3 24 Total 115 1069 Modeled Pipe ID (in) Approximate Length of Pipe (LF) 6 55,100 8 8,600 10 5,900 12 1,000 16 8,000 Total Length (LF) 78,600 Total Length (mi) 14.9 Description Performance Requirements Recycled Water Pump Station (PS1) Booster Pump Station #2 (PS2) Booster Pump Station #3 (PS3) Booster Pump Stations #4 (PS4) Required Flow 2,270 gpm 1,887 gpm 268 gpm 161 gpm Discharge Head 178 ft 285 ft 174 ft 588 ft3 Pump Configuration (duty + standby) 3+1 3+1 1+1 2+1 Pump Motor Rating (each) 50 hp 75 hp 20 hp2 20 hp Total Installed Motor Horsepower 200 hp 300 hp 40 hp 60 hp Notes: 1. Required discharge head at Booster Pump Station #4 is notably larger due to the 610-foot elevation increase from its location to the end user (Foothills Park). 2. After assessing the feasibility of other hydraulic configurations (including removing Booster Pump Station #3 and upsizing other booster pump stations), it was determined that including Booster Pump Station #3 at the specified pump motor rating was optimal to meet pressure criteria at nearby customers. 3. Anchor Customer No. 1 is distinguished from the rest of the Phase 3 customers because, unlike other customers on Phase 3, this customer relies on groundwater for its water supply and does not currently receive water service from Palo Alto. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-9 Figure 3-3: Alignment for Concept Option A2, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-10 3.3.3 Concept Option A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos Concept Option A3 extends the Phase 3 Pipeline to serve additional customers in the Palo Alto Foothills, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills to capture some of the highest potential demands as well as create a more regional NPR concept option. The original intent of this concept option was to capture customers within the northern portion of Los Altos by branching off of the proposed Phase 3 pipeline on Arastradero Road, crossing Adobe Creek and ending at Hillview Community Center. However, during development of the proposed alignment, it was determined that crossing to Los Altos from the Alta Mesa Memorial Park region required too much disruption and coordination with private entities. As such, the alignment to Los Altos extends eastward to Briones Park, down El Camino Real, and southwards towards Covington Elementary School, resulting in a longer length of pipeline than initially envisioned. The Concept Option A3 alignment and customer demands are shown in Figure 3-4. A summary of the customers included in this concept option and their corresponding facilities are outlined in Table 3-5. Customers: Serves customers in Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills including Briones Park and Elementary School in Palo Alto. Pipelines: Concept Option A3 would be built off of the 24-inch recycled water pipeline on East Bayshore. In order to meet the additional demands in the Palo Alto Foothills, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills, some of the Phase 3 pipeline segments were upsized for additional capacity. Pump Stations: Five – expansion of the existing recycled water pump station at the RWQCP and four booster pump stations at optimized locations throughout the alignment. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-11 Table 3-5: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option A3, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos Customer Location Number of Users Demand Total (AFY) Palo Alto – Phase 3 109 634 Anchor Customer No. 11 1 167 Briones Park 1 14 Briones Elementary School 1 5 Anchor Customer No. 2 1 169 Foothills Park 1 75 Los Altos 8 143 Los Altos Hills 3 24 Total 125 1231 Modeled Pipe ID (in) Approximate Length of Pipe (LF) 6 65,000 8 32,700 12 3,600 16 9,000 Total Length (LF) 116,200 Total Length (mi) 22.0 Description Performance Requirements Recycled Water Pump Station (PS1) Booster Pump Station #2 (PS2) Booster Pump Station #3 (PS3) Booster Pump Station #4 (PS4) Booster Pump Station #5 (PS5) Required Flow 2,783 gpm 2,399 gpm 268 gpm 161 gpm 454 gpm Discharge Head 204 ft 271 ft 174 ft 588 ft 133 ft2 Pump Configuration (duty + standby) 3+1 4+1 1+1 2+1 2+1 Pump Motor Rating (each) 75 hp 60 hp 20 hp 20 hp3 23d hp Total Installed Motor Horsepower 300 hp 300 hp 40 hp 60 hp 69 hp Notes: 1. Anchor Customer No.1 is distinguished from the rest of the Phase 3 customers because this customer relies on groundwater for its water supply and does not currently receive water service from Palo Alto. 2. Required discharge head at Booster Pump Station #4 is notably larger due to the 610-foot elevation increase from its location to the end user (Foothills Park). 3. After assessing the feasibility of other hydraulic configurations (including removing Booster Pump Station #3 and upsizing other booster pump stations), it was determined that including Booster Pump Station #3 at the specified pump motor rating was optimal in order to avoid exceeding pressure criteria for customers near Booster Pump Station #5. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-12 Figure 3-4: Alignment for Concept Option A3, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-13 3.3.4 Concept Option A4: NPR Mountain View Concept Option A4 is the Mountain View Long-Term Expansion Project from the 2014 Mountain View Recycled Water Feasibility Study (RWFS). This concept option was included in this study to evaluate its feasibility relative to other concept options. Note that the distribution system hydraulic analysis criteria used in the Mountain View RWFS differ slightly from those presented in Table 3-1 but resulting facility sizing would be similar. Also of note, Mountain View is in the process of updating the 2014 RWFS focusing on extending their existing system to Google and NASA, and across Highway 101. The Concept Option A4 alignment and customer demands are shown in Figure 3-5. A summary of the customers included in this concept option and their corresponding facilities are outlined in Table 3-6. Notable items from Concept Option A4 are: Customers: Same as the customers identified in the Mountain View RWFS for the Long-Term Expansion Project continuing to build off of Mountain View’s Phase 2 pipeline. Pump Station: Additional pumping capacity at the Charleston Pump Station and NASA Pump Station to meet peak hour demands for Concept Option A4. Pump Stations The Recommended Project presented in Mountain View RWFS Study consists of three phases: the Short- Term Expansion, the Mid-Term Expansion, and the Long-Term Expansion. The Short-Term and Mid- Term Expansions are constructed or planned to be constructed by 2020, while the construction of the Long-Term Expansion is unscheduled. The total system for all phases of the Mountain View Recommended Project requires two pump stations: one at Charleston Park and one at NASA’s Ames Research Park (NASA Pump Station). The Charleston Park Pump Station was initially sized at 450 hp to meet demands included in the Short-Term and Mid-Term Expansions. To meet the peak hour demand for the Long-Term Expansion, two additional variable frequency drive units with a combined capacity of 100 hp would need to be added to the Charleston Park Pump Station for a total installed horsepower of 550. Additional capacity would need to be installed at the 275-hp NASA Pump Station to meet Long-Term Expansion demands. This includes an additional 25-hp variable frequency drive unit for a total capacity of 300 hp. Storage Tank Sizing As part of the Mid-Term Phase, a storage tank with 1.6 MG capacity was included to meet demands included in all phases of the Recommended Project. This storage facility is sited at NASA’s Ames Research Park and is planned to be constructed. Therefore, the cost of the storage tank is included in the Mid-Term Phase construction and is not considered in the Concept Option A4 cost estimate. Pending the results of the current update to the 2014 RWFS, previous recommendations for sizing of storage and pump stations may be altered. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-14 Table 3-6: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option A4, Mountain View Customer Location Number of Users Demand Total (AFY) Mountain View – Long-Term Expansion 42 216 Total 42 216 Modeled Pipe ID (in) Approximate Length of Pipe (LF) 6 12,200 10 1,500 12 2,500 Total Length (LF) 16,200 Total Length (mi) 3.1 Description Additional Capacity Requirements Charleston Park Pump Station NASA Pump Station Required Flow 900 gpm1 600 gpm2 Pump Configuration (duty only)3 24 14 Pump Motor Rating (each) 50 hp4 25 hp4 Total Installed Motor Horsepower 100 hp (for 550 hp total system capacity)4 25 hp (for 300 hp total system capacity)4 Notes: 1. Calculated as the difference between the total design flow (6,100 gpm; Mountain View RWFS, p. 7-11) and the design flow for the Mid-Term Expansion (5,200 gpm; Mountain View RWFS, p. 7-9). 2. Calculated as the difference between the total design flow (4,300 gpm) and the design flow for the Mid-Term Expansion (3,700 gpm). Both values were found in the Mountain View RWFS, Table 7.4. 3. The Mountain View RWFS installed pump horsepower does not include spare pumping capacity, per the note in Table 7.4. 4. The pumps’ configuration, motor rating, and total installed horsepower are on page 7-11 of the Mountain View RWFS. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-15 Figure 3-5: Alignment for Concept Option A4, NPR Mountain View Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-16 3.3.5 Concept Option A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos Concept Option A5 would serve customers from Concept Option A4 and includes an extension that was considered in the 2014 Mountain View RWFS “Alternative 3”. While initially considered as a long-term extension for the Mountain View system, “Alternative 3” was not included as part of Mountain View’s final Recommended Project to due financial considerations. For the purposes of this study, Concept Option A5 uses that same alignment and customer base, then extends service to Los Altos customers south of Central Expressway to El Camino Hospital and Cooper Park, including the Los Altos Golf & Country Club. The Concept Option A5 alignment and customer demands are shown in Figure 3-6. A summary of the customers included in this concept option and their corresponding facilities are outlined in Table 3-7. Notable items from Concept Option A5 are: Customers: Concept Option A4 with expansion to service additional Mountain View and Los Altos customers. Pump Stations: Two - 1) located at the NASA’s Ames Research Park that serves all users on the Long-Term Expansion alignment and 2) another located at Central Expressway that serves all other users. Storage Tank: Operational volume of 1.2 MG to serve Concept Option A5 users beyond the Long-Term Expansion demands, located at NASA Ames Research Park. Storage Tank Sizing To provide enough supply during peak hours, Concept Option A5 requires a storage tank. The Mountain View RWFS included a “NASA Storage Tank” at the connection between the Mid-Term and Long-Term Expansion alignments, located at NASA’s Ames Research Park. This tank is sized to meet demands through the Long-Term Expansion. Additional storage capacity is required to meet Mountain View and Los Altos demands beyond the Long-Term Expansion users. For planning purposes, this increased capacity requirement was sized and cost as a separate storage tank at the NASA Storage Tank location. The potential for adding this capacity to existing storage facilities at NASA’s Ames Research Park location would need to be evaluated upon further development of this concept option. The storage tank operational volume needed to serve Concept Option A5 users beyond the Long-Term Expansion demands is 1.2 MG. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-17 Table 3-7: Demand and Facilities Summary of Concept Option A5, NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos Customer Location Number of Users Demand Total (AFY) Mountain View – Long-Term Expansion 42 216 Mountain View – Alternative 3 53 274 Additional Mountain View Site 1 12 Los Altos 10 370 Total 106 872 Modeled Pipe ID (in) Approximate Length of Pipe (LF) 6 21,600 8 14,900 10 5,600 16 45,000 Total Length (LF) 87,100 Total Length (mi) 16.5 Storage Tank 1.2 MG Description Performance Requirements NASA Pump Station (PS1) Booster Pump Station #2 (PS2) Required Flow 3,031 gpm 1,799 gpm Discharge Head 190 ft 187 ft Pump Configuration (duty + standby) 3+1 2+1 Pump Motor Rating (each) 75 hp 75 hp Total Installed Motor Horsepower 300 hp 225 hp Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-18 Figure 3-6: Alignment for Concept Option A5, NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-19 3.3.6 Concept Option A6: NPR East Palo Alto and Menlo Park Concept Option A6 would serve customers (including yet to be constructed customers) in East Palo Alto, with facilities sized to extend to areas of developments in Menlo Park that are east of U.S. Highway 101. Menlo Park does not currently use any recycled water and does not own or operate a wastewater treatment facility. Menlo Park has expresses interest in receiving recycled water supplies from other agencies, including Redwood City, West Bay Sanitary District, and Palo Alto’s RWQCP (West Yost, 2017). The Concept Option A6 alignment and customer demands are shown in Figure 3-7. A summary of the customers included in this concept option and their corresponding facilities are outlined in Table 3-8. Notable items from Concept Option A6 are: Customers: Potential demand for Menlo Park was obtained through discussions with Menlo Park and WBSD, both of which have conducted recycled water assessments for this area. Note that East Palo Alto is continuing to see increases in development such that these demand estimates may be lower than actuals. Pipelines: Builds off of the existing 30-inch recycled water backbone along Embarcadero Road. Pump Stations: One – expanded existing recycled water pump station at RWQCP Table 3-8: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option A6, NPR East Palo Alto and Menlo Park Customer Location Number of Users Demand Total (AFY) East Palo Alto 10 145 East Palo Alto – yet to be constructed 17 192 Palo Alto 6 114 Subtotal 33 451 Menlo Park N/A1 250 Total 701 Modeled Pipe ID (in) Approximate Length of Pipe (LF) 6 14,100 8 10,200 10 10,000 Total Length (LF) 34,300 Total Length (mi) 6.5 Description Performance Requirements Recycled Water Pump Station (PS1) Required Flow 1,000 gpm Discharge Head 250 ft Pump Configuration (duty + standby) 2+1 Pump Motor Rating (each) 50 hp Total Installed Motor Horsepower 150 hp Note: 1. The number of users in Menlo Park was not identified as part of the Strategic Plan. The estimated demand is based on discussions with Menlo Park and WBSD. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-20 Figure 3-7: Alignment for Concept Option A6, NPR East Palo Alto and Menlo Park Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-21 3.4 Concept Option B: NPR from Satellite Location 3.4.1 Concept Option B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant Concept Option B1 is a satellite treatment plant that would treat wastewater flows from a more proximate location to recycled water customers compared to the RWQCP. Based on a planning-level assessment of wastewater flow volumes available in the Study Area, the satellite plant would treat wastewater from Los Altos to provide NPR water to customers in Palo Alto and Los Altos. The Concept Option B1 alignment and the locations of the satellite treatment plant and customer demands are shown in Figure 3-8. A summary of the customers included in this concept option and their corresponding facilities are outlined in Table 3-9. Notable items from Concept Option B1 are: Location: The satellite plant could be located at Robles Park in Palo Alto and would treat wastewater from Los Altos. Customers: Customers would be located nearby in Los Altos and in Palo Alto Pump Stations: Four – 1 raw influent pump station to feed wastewater to the satellite plant and three to distribute and boost recycled water to customers Storage: Satellite plant would include 1.4 MG of treated water storage to meet peak hour demands Treatment Facilities A potential site for the satellite facility is Robles Park in Palo Alto. Due to the urban setting of the Study Area, there are limited opportunities to site new treatment facilities. There are no vacant properties in the immediate vicinity of the sewer diversion point. Robles Park was identified as a potential site because it is a public property and has sufficient open space to accommodate the satellite facilities. Although, public use of the treatment plant site would be lost. For purposes of this study, the facilities are assumed to be above ground at Robles Park. Use of Robles Park would also require City Council adoption of a Parks Improvement Ordinance approving any substantial construction or development per Palo Alto Municipal Code 22.08.005. However, if this concept option were to be pursued further, alternative treatment facility siting may be considered, for example purchasing private property closer to the diversion point or siting facilities below ground at Robles Park. Pipelines Concept Option B1’s distribution system would consist of approximately 12.8 miles of pipeline, including 6,000 LF of pipeline to convey influent wastewater flows from the sewer diversion point to the satellite treatment facilities. Pump Stations To meet the pressure criteria, Concept Option B1 includes three pump stations: one at the satellite plant site and two booster pump stations at optimized locations on the Phase 3 alignment and in Los Altos. In addition, a Satellite Influent Pump Station is required to transport raw wastewater flows from the diversion point at the end of the Los Altos sewer system to the satellite treatment facility in Palo Alto. This influent pump station is co-located at the Pump Station #3 site. Storage Tank Sizing In order to meet demands during peak hours, Concept Option B1 requires a storage tank. The storage tank is sized to store the maximum day demands for this concept option (1.4 MG) and is assumed to be sited next to the satellite treatment plant. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-22 Table 3-9: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option B1, NPR Satellite Treatment Plant Customer Location Number of Users Demand Total (AFY) Palo Alto – Phase 32 83 595 Palo Alto – Non-Phase 3 2 28 Anchor Customer No. 11 1 167 Los Altos 5 104 Total 91 894 Treatment (MBR) 1.5 MGD Modeled Pipe ID (in) Approximate Length of Pipe (LF) 6 39,800 8 4,000 10 6,400 12 11,500 16 (influent to satellite plant) 6,000 Total Length (LF) 67,700 Total Length (mi) 12.8 Storage Tank 1.4 MG Description Performance Requirements Satellite Plant Pump Station (PS1) Booster Pump Station 2 (PS2) Booster Pump Station 3 (PS3) Satellite Influent Pump Station (PS4) Required Flow 1,676 gpm 416 gpm 329 gpm 1,979 gpm Discharge Head 252 ft 204 ft 288 ft 75 ft 3 Pump Configuration (duty + standby) 4+1 2+1 2+1 2+1 Pump Motor Rating (each) 40 hp 20 hp 20 hp 2 hp Total Installed Motor Horsepower 200 hp 60 hp 60 hp 6 hp Notes: 1. Anchor Customer No. 1 is distinguished from the rest of the Phase 3 customers because this customer relies on groundwater for its water supply and does not receive water from Palo Alto. 2. These customers represent a subset of Phase 3 alignment customers from Concept Option A1. 3. Required discharge head at the Satellite Influent Pump Station is notably smaller due to the 30-foot elevation decrease from its location to the satellite facility site. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-23 Figure 3-8: Alignment for Concept Option B1, NPR Satellite Treatment Plant Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-24 3.5 Concept Option C: IPR Concept Options 3.5.1 Concept Option C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR Concept Option C1 was developed as Scenario 4 under the IPR Feasibility Evaluation (Todd 2018). Concept Option C1 provides purified water for injection at five injection well sites in Palo Alto. The Concept Option C1 alignment and the locations of injection wells are shown in Figure 3-9. As discussed in Section 2.3.2, the volume of fully advanced treated recycled water that can be used for injection purposes is 2,800 AFY, while the volume of water that can be sustainably extracted from the groundwater basin (or the Project Yield) is 5,900 AFY (a mixture of recycled water and groundwater). These values are summarized in Table 3-10. Notable items from Concept Option C1 are: Treatment: full advanced treatment facilities are assumed to be constructed near the RWQCP on the Measure E site. Use of this site would require Palo Alto voter approval to change the designated use to include treatment facilities. Fully advanced treated recycled water would be injected and mixed into the local groundwater system. Customers: Palo Alto potable water system customers. Pipeline: Dedicated pipeline to bring fully advanced treated recycled water from treatment facilities at the RWQCP to the injection wells. Pump Stations: One – dedicated pump station for purified recycled water at RWQCP Table 3-10: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option C1, Palo Alto Dedicated IPR Customer Location Demand Total (AFY) Project Yield (AFY) Palo Alto - IPR Injection Wells 2,800 5,900 Modeled Pipe ID (in) Approximate Length of Pipe (LF) 6 2,000 8 1,500 10 5,000 12 21,000 Total Length (LF) 29,500 Total Length (mi) 5.6 Description Performance Requirements Purified Recycled Water Pump Station (PS1) Required Flow 1,736 gpm Discharge Head 269 ft Pump Configuration (duty + standby) 2+1 Pump Motor Rating (each) 100 hp Total Installed Motor Horsepower 300 hp Recycled Water Treatment Wellhead Treatment Membrane Filtration, Reverse Osmosis, Advanced Oxidation Process with UV Included to lower iron, manganese, and TDS concentrations Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-25 Treatment Facilities Recycled water from the RWQCP would be treated to full advanced treatment standards for injection. The treatment facilities would be sized to produce 2.5 MGD to meet the daily flow required to be injected into the groundwater basin to achieve 2,800 AFY. This assumes each of the five proposed injection wells is constantly operating and does not account for downtime. The treatment facilities for this concept option are assumed to be sited at Palo Alto’s Measure E Site. The Measure E site is a 10-acre site adjacent to the RWQCP that includes a relatively flat portion that could be suitable for treatment facilities. Use of this site would require Palo Alto voter approval to change the designated use to include treatment facilities. Wellhead treatment is included to lower iron, manganese, and TDS concentrations to make the groundwater quality comparable to Palo Alto’s existing SFPUC supply. Pipelines Concept Option C1’s distribution system would consist of approximately 5.6 miles of pipeline. A dedicated IPR transmission main would be needed to convey fully advanced treated recycled water from the RWQCP to the injection well field while the existing recycled water pipeline would continue to deliver disinfected tertiary recycled water to non-potable demands. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-26 Figure 3-9: Alignment for Concept Option C1, Palo Alto Dedicated IPR Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-27 3.5.2 Concept Option C2: Palo Alto IPR with NPR Concept Option C2 expands upon Concept Option C1 to include service of non-potable demands along or in close proximity to the alignment. Both uses (IPR and NPR) would share a transmission line and consequently, fully advanced treated recycled water would be served to all customers in this concept option despite the additional treatment being unnecessary for NPR. The Concept Option C2 alignment is shown in Figure 3-10. A summary of the customers included in this concept option and their corresponding demands are outlined in Table 3-11. As discussed in Section 2.3.2, the volume of fully advanced treated recycled water that can be used for NPR and injection purposes is 2,800 AFY, while the volume of water that can be sustainably extracted from the groundwater basin (or the Project Yield) is 5,900 AFY (a mixture of recycled water and groundwater). These values are summarized in Table 3-11. Notable items from Concept Option C2 are: Treatment: Full advanced treatment is assumed to be constructed near the RWQCP on the Measure E site. Use of this site would require Palo Alto voter approval to change the designated use to include treatment facilities. Fully advanced treated recycled water would be injected and mixed into the local groundwater system. Customers: Palo Alto potable water system customers and 18 non-potable customers along the pipeline route. Both potable and non-potable customers would receive fully advanced treated recycled water due to use of the same transmission pipeline despite the additional treatment being unnecessary for NPR customers. Pipeline: Dedicated pipeline to bring fully advanced treated recycled water from treatment facilities at the RWQCP to the injection wells will also serve non-potable demands in close proximity (with higher quality fully advanced treated recycled water). Pump Stations: One – dedicated pump station for purified recycled water at the RWQCP. Treatment Facilities RWQCP recycled water will be treated to full advanced treatment standards for injection. Because the potable and non-potable demands will be served from the same pipeline, the treatment facilities must be sized to treat the base flows to the injection wells plus the maximum day demand for the non-potable users. This translates to a total maximum day demand of 2.8 MGD. The treatment facilities for this concept option, which would include reverse osmosis concentrate treatment facilities (see Section 3.2.3), are assumed to be sited at Palo Alto’s Measure E site. Use of this site would require Palo Alto voter approval to change the designated use to include these treatment facilities. Wellhead treatment is included to lower iron, manganese, and TDS concentrations to make the groundwater quality comparable to Palo Alto’s existing SFPUC supply. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-28 Table 3-11: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option C2, Palo Alto IPR with NPR Customer Location Number of Users Demand Total (AFY) Project Yield (AFY) Palo Alto – Non-Phase 3 18 189 189 IPR Injection Wells - 2800 5900 Total 18 3,000 6,100 Modeled Pipe ID (in) Approximate Length of Pipe (LF) 6 11,300 8 5,500 10 3,000 12 2,500 16 19,100 Total Length (LF) 41,400 Total Length (mi) 7.8 Description Performance Requirements Purified Recycled Water Pump Station (PS1) Required Flow 2,334 gpm Discharge Head 265 ft Pump Configuration (duty + standby) 4+1 Pump Motor Rating (each) 60 hp Total Installed Motor Horsepower 300 hp Recycled Water Treatment RO Concentrate Treatment Membrane Filtration, Reverse Osmosis, Advanced Oxidation Process with UV Needed due to total reuse quantity; nanofiltration assumed (MNS, 2017) Wellhead Treatment Included to lower iron, manganese, and TDS concentrations Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-29 Figure 3-10: Alignment for Concept Option C2, Palo Alto IPR with NPR Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-30 3.5.3 Concept Option C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline Concept Option C3 is similar to Concept Option C2 but uses an extension from the Phase 3 Pipeline (Concept Option A1) to serve the injection well sites. Similar to Concept Option C2, fully advanced treated recycled water would be served to all customers (NPR and IPR) in this concept option. Concept Option C3 is unique in that it assumes that the Phase 3 Pipeline for NPR has already been constructed and flows to the injection well field are limited by the excess capacity in the Phase 3 Pipeline during off-peak hours and outside of the peak irrigation season. This concept option mitigates the risk of decreasing NPR demand along the Phase 3 Pipeline and would enable phased implementation with NPR in the near term and IPR in the longer term. The Concept Option C3 alignment is shown in Figure 3-11. A summary of the customers included in this concept option and their corresponding demands are outlined in Table 3-12. The values shown assume the estimated demand for the Phase 3 Pipeline is maintained, which allows for approximately 2,280 AFY to be sent to IPR versus the 2,800 AFY in Concept Options C1 and C2. Correspondingly the project yield (total of recycled water and groundwater) was reduced to 5,000 AFY from 5,900 AFY. Notable items from Concept Option C3: Phasing: Concept Option C3 represents a potential phased implementation with NPR in the near term and IPR in the longer term. Treatment: Full advanced treatment facilities are assumed to be constructed near the RWQCP on the Measure E site. Use of this site would require Palo Alto voter approval to change the designated use to include treatment facilities .AWTS Fully advanced treated recycled water would be injected and mixed into the local groundwater system. Customers: In a future phase, customers on the Phase 3 Pipeline would receive fully advanced treated recycled water through a new dedicated connection from the RWQCP. Both potable and non-potable customers would receive fully advanced treated recycled water due to use of same transmission pipeline despite the additional treatment being unnecessary for NPR customers. Pipeline: Includes the Phase 3 Pipeline (Concept Option A1) and, in a future phase, a new connection from the RWQCP full advanced treatment facilities to Phase 3 and an extension to IPR injection wells. Treatment Facilities Recycled water from the RWQCP would be treated to full advanced treatment standards for injection. Because the potable and non-potable demands would be served from the same pipeline, the treatment facilities must be sized to treat both the flows to the injection wells plus the flows to the non-potable users, or 3.3 MGD. The non-potable demands will be served by nearly potable water. This concept option includes reverse osmosis concentrate treatment (see 3.2.3) that is assumed to be sited at Palo Alto’s Measure E site. Use of this site would require Palo Alto voter approval to change the designated use to include treatment facilities. Wellhead treatment is included to lower iron, manganese, and TDS concentrations to make the groundwater quality comparable to Palo Alto’s existing SFPUC supply. Pump Stations To meet the pressure criteria, Concept Option C3 includes an additional pump station beyond the ones identified for the Phase 3 Pipeline (Concept Option A1). This additional pump station would be at the connection between the Phase 3 Pipeline and the IPR extension pipeline. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-31 Table 3-12: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option C3, Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline Customer Location Number of Users Demand Total (AFY) Project Yield (AFY) Palo Alto – Phase 3 109 634 634 Anchor Customer No. 11 1 167 167 Palo Alto – Non-Phase 3 10 119 119 Palo Alto – IPR Injection Wells - 2,280 5,000 Total 120 3,200 5,900 Modeled Pipe ID (in) Approximate Length of Pipe (LF) 6 20,000 8 12,500 10 9,900 12 48,300 16 900 Total Length (LF) 91,600 Total Length (mi) 17.3 Description Performance Requirements IPR Booster Pump Station (PS1) Recycled Water Pump Station Phase 3 Booster Pump Station Required Flow 2,108 gpm 1,637 gpm 1,408 gpm Discharge Head 302 ft 200 ft 198 ft Pump Configuration (duty + standby) 3+1 2 3+1 Pump Motor Rating (each) 100 hp 100 hp 60 hp Total Installed Motor Horsepower 400 hp 200 hp 240 hp Recycled Water Treatment RO Concentrate Treatment Membrane Filtration, Reverse Osmosis, Advanced Oxidation Process with UV Needed due to total reuse quantity; nanofiltration assumed (MNS, 2017) Wellhead Treatment Included to lower iron, manganese, and TDS concentrations Notes: 1. Anchor Customer No. 1 is distinguished from the rest of the Phase 3 customers because this customer relies on groundwater for its water supply and does not receive water from Palo Alto. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-32 Figure 3-11: Alignment for Concept Option C3, Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-33 3.6 Concept Option D: DPR Concept Options 3.6.1 Concept Option D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR Concept Option D1 uses advanced treated recycled water to directly supplement the potable water supply for customers in Palo Alto. As discussed in Section 2.4, because there is no dedicated surface water treatment plant in the service area, treated drinking water augmentation is the only feasible DPR option available at this time. Treated water would be stored in a purified water tank for 8 hours and delivered to the potable water distribution system. A map showing the approximate alignment and connection points to the potable water system for Concept Option D1 is shown in Figure 3-12. As explained in Section 2.4.2, the demand for DPR (Table 3-13) was based on Palo Alto’s share of the RWQCP effluent flow. Notable items from Concept Option D1: Treatment: Full advanced treatment plus other treatment process facilities are assumed to be constructed near the RWQCP on the Measure E site. Use of this site would require Palo Alto voter approval to change the designated use to include these facilities. Fully advanced treated recycled water would be injected directly into the potable distribution system. Additional monitoring and reporting of treatment performance is anticipated to demonstrate protection of public health. Customers: Palo Alto potable water system customers. Pump Stations: Two pump stations: one to convey fully advanced treated recycled water to storage (Storage Pump Station) and one from the storage to the distribution system (Distribution Pump Station). Pipeline: Connects from treatment facilities to storage and from storage to potable water system at three separate points to add in blending and to match existing potable water system hydraulics. Storage: Engineered storage of 4.75 MG is assumed to be located beneath the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course driving range. Treatment Facilities Consistent with the SWRCB’s Feasibility Report on Developing Uniform Water Recycling Criteria for DPR, the water quality of the influent wastewater for DPR was assumed to be final effluent from the RWQCP (filtered and disinfected secondary effluent). Without specific regulatory requirements, the assumed Advanced Water Purification Facility (AWPF) treatment train is the full advanced treatment train with the additions of ozone-biologically active filtration and free chlorine process steps. In order to comply with the RWQCP discharge limits, facilities to treat the reverse osmosis concentrate would also be part of the AWTP. The AWTP treatment facilities are assumed to be sited at Palo Alto’s Measure E site. Use of this site would require Palo Alto voter approval to change the designated use to include these facilities. Additional monitoring and reporting of treatment performance is anticipated for DPR to demonstrate protection of public health. Concept Option D1 includes additional annual costs to reflect this additional, but undefined by regulations, monitoring. Storage Tank Sizing It is anticipated that an engineered storage buffer will be required between the AWPF and introduction of purified water to the potable distribution system. A potential location for this tank is beneath the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course driving range. A preliminary estimate of the storage tank operational volume needed to serve Concept Option D1 users is 4.75 MG assuming 8 hours of cycling storage (filling, testing, and distributing from three different cells within the storage tank operational volume). Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-34 Table 3-13: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option D1, Palo Alto Dedicated DPR Customer Location Demand Total (AFY) Palo Alto 5,300 Modeled Pipe ID (in) Approximate Length of Pipe (LF) 10 5,000 16 1,700 18 1,400 24 2,600 Total Length (LF) 10,700 Total Length (mi) 2.0 Description Performance Requirements To Storage Pump Station (PS1) Distribution Pump Station (PS2) Required Flow 4,382 gpm 3,285 gpm Discharge Head 31 ft 257 ft Pump Configuration (duty + standby) 3+1 3+1 Pump Motor Rating (each) 15 hp 100 hp Total Installed Motor Horsepower 60 hp 400 hp Recycled Water Treatment RO Concentrate Treatment Ozone, Biologically Active Filtration, Membrane Filtration, Reverse Osmosis, Advanced Oxidation Process with UV, Free Chlorine Needed due to total reuse quantity; nanofiltration assumed (MNS, 2017) Storage 4.75 million gallons Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-35 Figure 3-12: Alignment for Concept Option D1, Palo Alto Dedicated DPR Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-1 Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation 4.1 Approach for Concept Options Evaluation The concept options described in Chapter 3 were evaluated for estimated costs (e.g., capital, annual, unit cost of water) and for non-cost criteria. Section 4.2 describes the basis of the preliminary cost estimates while Section 4.3 presents the cost information by concept option. Section 4.4 describes the non-cost criteria scoring. Section 4.5 provides the evaluation of concept options with weighted scores for cost and non-cost criteria. Each concept option was evaluated for implementation costs (capital, operations, maintenance) based on technical information developed by the consulting team, described in Chapter 3, and using an approach for planning-level costs development discussed in this chapter. Following the implementation cost development, the concept options were evaluated for non-cost related criteria in a collaborative approach using input from agency stakeholders on priorities for the criteria and how to weigh criteria relative to one another. 4.2 Basis of Preliminary Cost Estimate This section provides an overview of the approach and methodology used to develop a preliminary estimate of costs for each concept option developed in this study. The estimated costs represent the Engineer’s opinion based on the current state of development for the project components. Specific information on the unit costs and source for each element is identified in the unit cost spreadsheets that are part of the detailed cost estimate provided in Appendix D. 4.2.1 Cost Estimate Classification The Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International (AACE International) has developed a cost estimate classification system that provides guidelines for applying the general principles of estimate classification to project cost estimates. The five estimate classes are presented in AACE International Recommended Practice No. 56R-08 (Cost Estimate Classification System – As Applied for the Building and General Construction Industries). The guideline establishes a relationship between the project maturity (i.e. project definition as percent of complete definition) and the accuracy and methodology used to produce the cost estimate. Based on the level of project definition, the cost estimates developed for this report are Class 5 as defined by Publication 56R-08. The accuracy range for Class 5 estimates in the Strategic Plan is between 20% below and 50% above estimated bid cost. 4.2.2 Cost Estimating Approach Cost estimates have been developed based on preliminary facility layouts and design criteria for pipeline alignments and pump stations. Construction costs were estimated using unit costs developed from past construction projects, industry cost estimate resources (primarily RSMeans Heavy Construction Cost Data) as well as engineering allowances based on engineering judgement and previous project experience. Operations and maintenance (O&M) costs are based on estimated labor hours, consumables, significant regular O&M activities (e.g. recoating of exposed metallic surfaces) and energy costs. Raw Construction Cost Raw construction costs are estimated by major work or component line item based on a unit cost multiplied by estimated quantity. Unit costs were developed using: RSMeans Heavy Construction Cost Data (RSMeans); Manufacturer’s equipment proposals; and Experience with prior projects and activities of similar size or configuration. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-2 Historic unit cost or out-of-area unit cost information was adjusted to June 2018 dollars for the project vicinity using Engineering News Record’s (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI) and the RSMeans Location Factor. Cost Estimate Benchmark Index The concept options’ preliminary cost estimates presented herein are benchmarked to ENR CCI for San Francisco. The estimate is in June 2018 dollars, with an ENR CCI SF index of 12,015. Construction Cost Allowances and Contingencies From the raw construction cost subtotal, several construction cost factors are applied to develop an estimated total construction cost. The construction cost factors used are listed below. 9% Sales Tax on Materials. Sales tax on materials was estimated as 9.0% (local sales tax) applied to 50% of capital costs (not including General Requirement costs). The assumption is that materials and equipment represent 50% of the raw construction cost. 40% Construction Contingency. The construction contingency is defined as unknown costs due to incomplete engineering during the preliminary design phase and uncertainty about full scope of the project. The contingency is applied to the construction cost subtotal that are estimated as a percentage of defined project costs (i.e. raw construction cost subtotal). As the level of project definition and understanding increases and the level of unknown decreases, the construction contingency typically decreases. For this report, a construction contingency of 40% was applied to the raw construction cost estimates. 10% Market Adjustment Factor. To account for bidding market price increases, a Market Adjustment Factor of 10% has been applied. Capital Cost Allowances 15% Engineering Services (Design) & Administration Services. Engineering services include field investigations (e.g. surveys, geotechnical reports, hazardous materials investigations), final design, contract document development (i.e. plans and specifications), preparation of detailed cost estimates, and project scheduling. Administration costs include Palo Alto’s project management and staff time during construction. An engineering and City administrative services allowance of 15% was applied to the total construction cost. 10% Construction Management. Costs for construction management, including inspection, can vary greatly with project size and complexity and whether the Owner performs this work with in- house staff or through a consultant. A construction management factor of 10% was applied to the total construction cost. 3% Engineering Services During Construction. Engineering services during construction (ESDC) includes submittal and request for information reviews, design clarifications, and startup support services. An ESDC factor of 3% was applied to the total construction cost. Property Acquisition For facilities such as pump stations and satellite treatment located outside of the public right of way or outside the RWQCP, land would need to be purchased or leased. The market rate for the project area was assumed to be $500 per square foot. These land costs were added to a concept option’s total capital cost following the allowances and contingencies. Purchase or lease of land includes RWQCP partner-owned properties. However, in the case of Concept Option D1, Palo Alto Dedicated DPR, which assumes the engineered storage tank is beneath the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course, acquisition of the land is not required since normal golf course operations can resume following construction. In order to account for Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-3 the potential loss of revenue due to construction of this storage facility, an allowance for loss of revenue was applied. This cost was added to total capital cost following all allowances and contingencies. Property acquisition was not included for injection wells since the impact to properties is considered minimal. Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs O&M requirements and annual costs were derived from experience on similar projects, as well as input from Palo Alto. The three components used to develop annual O&M costs were: Labor – Labor costs associated with the water treatment and pump station O&M is calculated on an hourly basis. The required labor hours are estimated based on historical data. The average hourly cost of O&M personnel, which includes all wages and benefits to the operator, is assumed to be $100 per hour. Annual inspection and maintenance for storage tanks were estimated as 1 percent of the total capital costs for that element, while conveyance O&M was based on a cost metric per linear foot of pipeline. Energy – Energy costs for pump stations are a combination of an energy charge (per kWh) and the kWh required input for each pump station in a concept option. Energy costs for treatment are estimated as a combined cost with consumables on a per unit of water basis (cost per MGD). Consumables – Consumables are a major component of operational expenditures and include resources that are intended and expected to be used and replaced routinely. Consumable costs for treatment were estimated on a per unit of water basis (cost per MGD). Consumable costs for pump stations were estimated as a percentage of the raw construction cost. Consumable costs are not applied to the pipeline portion of each concept option. 4.2.3 Wastewater/Recycled Water Treatment Construction Costs Wastewater and recycled water treatment construction costs have been developed for each concept option, where needed, on a per MGD basis. Per MGD cost estimates for membrane bioreactor (MBR) and for the advanced treatment facilities (membrane filtration, reverse osmosis, advanced oxidation process with UV, ozone, biologically active filtration, chlorination) are based on previous project experience. 4.2.4 Pipeline Construction Pipeline construction costs have been developed for each concept option as described in the following sections. Pipeline capital costs include open-cut, special crossing elements, and pipe rehabilitation. Pipeline Construction Cost – Open Cut The pipe material for open cut installation is assumed to be high density polyethylene (HDPE). Based on the estimated pressures within the system and a surcharge allowance, a pressure rating of 200 psi was chosen as a suitable pressure rating for the pipe network. The corresponding dimension ratio resulted in DR 11. A pipeline cost estimating tool was used to generate unit costs for underground pipeline construction for HDPE ranging in size from 8- to 30-inch (nominal diameter) assuming an average of 5-foot depth of cover, in urban settings. The estimating tool uses the following to develop installed unit costs: Historical engineering and bid price data for HDPE pipelines, appurtenances, traffic control, potholing, cathodic protection, excess soil disposal tipping fees, and urban setting production rates. RSMeans unit costs for trench shoring, excavation, backfill, backfill compaction, pavement, grinding and milling, aggregate base, and pavement restoration including valves, haul to disposal, labor/installation, and dewatering. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-4 The tool contains various input parameters including depth of cover, type of trench backfill and source (i.e. import vs. native material), condition of soil (i.e. clean vs. contaminated), percentage of backfill to be imported, amount of traffic control needed (i.e. none, light, or heavy), percentage of alignment requiring dewatering, production rate, and valve and pothole frequency. Using these inputs, the tool estimates the construction quantities related to buried piping (i.e. excavation volume), and subsequently, the associated unit cost per length of pipe. The unit costs are summarized in Table 4-1. Table 4-1: Unit Cost of HDPE Pipe Modeled Pipe Internal Diameter (ID) (in) HDPE DR 11 ID (in) HDPE DR 11 Nominal Outer Diameter (OD) (in) Unit Cost ($/LF) 6 6.96 8 $200 8 8.68 10 $212 10 10.29 12 $254 12 12.92 16 $277 16 16.15 20 $334 18 19.37 24 $381 24 24.22 30 $462 Assumptions: Pipeline is in an urban setting o Asphalt concrete pavement replacement would be the width of the trench plus 6-inches on each side o Heavy traffic control required o One pothole per 100 LF of pipe required Average depth of cover of 5 feet 100% of soil excavated is hauled to a landfill or reused offsite and 100% of soil required for backfill is imported Isolation valves and other appurtenances amount to 20% or the pipeline material costs Production rate is 150-linear feet of pipeline construction per day Note: HDPE pipe sizes are IPS (outside diameter controlled) based on AWWA C906 Pipeline Construction Cost – Special Crossings For special crossings (such as highway and creek crossings), a range of crossing methods was assessed for the preferred crossing method at each location. Following this assessment, Pilot Tube Guided Auger Boring (PTGAB) was considered the default method for all trenchless underground crossings. PTGAB is a costlier method compared to other trenchless techniques and may be required due to the concept option’s smaller pipeline diameters and certain soil conditions in the Study Area. Therefore, it is a conservative basis for the purpose of developing a planning-level cost estimate. PTGAB is favorable in conditions with little to no groundwater; therefore, if further geotechnical investigations identify high groundwater along the pipeline route, another trenchless method should be considered. Each special crossing was evaluated as a potential trenchless underground crossing, but where feasible, crossings were also evaluated for less costly construction methods. Therefore, non-trenchless installation methods were utilized where possible. This was applied when pipeline alignments crossed bridges and box culverts; it was assumed that under these specific conditions, a pipe bridge could be used rather than a trenchless method. Pipe bridges are generally lower cost and allow for reduced permitting efforts and traffic control during construction compared to trenchless methods. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-5 Under the Phase 3 Pipeline design (Woodard & Curran 2018), feasible trenchless construction methods included microtunneling and horizontal directional drilling (HDD). Open cut methods were assumed when the alignment crossed over an existing culvert and there is adequate cover over the box culvert. Table 4-2 summarizes the unit costs used for special crossings. These costs were developed based on a collection of past project experience and unit costs taken from RSMeans. Table 4-2: Special Crossing Unit Costs Element Unit Unit Cost Trenchless Microtunnel Launch Pit Lump sum $300,000 Microtunnel Receiving Pit Lump sum $150,000 Microtunnel Casing and Pipe (36-inch) Linear foot $1,728 HDD (24-inch bore diameter) Linear foot $528 PTGAB (HDPE) 6-inch Linear foot $375 8-inch Linear foot $500 10-inch Linear foot $625 12-inch Linear foot $750 16-inch Linear foot $1,000 20-inch Linear foot $1,250 PTGAB Launch Pit Lump sum $258,000 PTGAB Receiving Pit Lump sum $148,000 Pipe Bridge (DIP, Class 50, Mechanical Joint) 6-inch Linear foot $66 8-inch Linear foot $86 10-inch Linear foot $108 16-inch Linear foot $175 Pipe Bridge Support Lump sum $5,000 Pipeline Construction Cost – Pipe Rehabilitation Pipelines that serve Los Altos Hills under Concept Options A2 and A3 were assumed to convey recycled water via re-lined abandoned PHWD 6- and 8-inch cast iron pipe (CIP) water mains in Purissima Road. The 6- and 8-inch water mains were abandoned in 1995. The condition of the pipes is unknown but was assumed to be in relatively good condition. Under current recycled water demand projections, there is sufficient capacity in the existing pipes. Cured-in-Place-Pipe (CIPP) lining was assumed to be the more practical method of rehabilitation compared to pipe bursting due to the minimal pipe cover depths, which were estimated by PHWD to be approximately three to four feet. The shallow cover could present problems of ground heave and soil displacement if pipe bursting were to take place. CIPP lining costs, for both the 6- and 8-inch mains, were estimated from historical data. Unit costs include closed-circuit television inspection and minor cleaning prior to lining. Advanced cleaning Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-6 mechanisms to address instances of tuberculation and point repair to address structural deficiencies are not included in the cost. 4.2.5 Pump Station Construction Cost Pump station costs for concept options were estimated using a pump cost curve based on each pump station’s total installed motor horsepower. This cost curve is applicable to pump stations of average complexity. The pump cost curve was determined using the following equation: 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 ቆ $ 𝐻𝑜𝑟𝑠𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟ቇ = 17437 ∗ 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐻𝑜𝑟𝑠𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 ି.ଷ Pump station costs for Concept Option A1, Phase 3 Pipeline, including costs for the Phase 3 recycled water pump station and booster pump station were taken from the Phase 3 Preliminary Design Report (Woodard & Curran 2018). Hydropneumatic and Surge Tanks Costs Concept Options with multiple pump stations would benefit from the installation of recycled water tanks, but given the challenge of acquiring land in the Study Area to construct such tanks, hydropneumatic tanks were assumed instead. Hydropneumatic tanks would regulate system pressures to meet demand while acting as a cushion for pumps in series in a closed conduit system. Since the tanks contain both water and air under pressure, they can exert or absorb pressure throughout the system when needed. Costs for surge tanks were also included for some concept options assuming the need to mitigate variations due to rapid changes in flow. A surge analysis would be required to determine the need for surge tanks. The tank costs were estimated from previous experience with projects of similar characteristics and configuration. 4.2.6 Extraction Well Treatment Construction Costs For IPR concept options, wellhead treatment was assumed to be required at all extraction wells. The wellhead treatment capital and O&M costs were developed based on calculations completed for Palo Alto’s 2017 Water Integrated Resources Plan. Wellhead treatment capital costs include reverse osmosis treatment for iron, manganese, and total dissolved solids (Option 4 from the 2000 Long Term Water Supply Study, updated for the 2017 Water Integrated Resources Plan). These wellhead treatment capital costs do not account for land acquisition. Therefore, separate land costs were developed for the Rinconada and Peers wells, which would require additional land to be purchased to locate wellhead treatment facilities. These land costs are also sourced from Palo Alto’s 2017 Water Integrated Resources Plan. In addition to wellhead treatment, O&M costs for extraction wells also included the Valley Water groundwater pumping charge. This cost was based on projected Valley Water rates for groundwater pumping in the Study Area. 4.3 Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost Summary Table 4-3 below provides a summary of probable capital and O&M costs, as well as unit costs, for each developed concept option. Detailed cost estimates are included in Appendix D. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-7 Table 4-3: Summary of Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Capital and O&M Costs Concept Option ID & Name Capital Cost O&M ($/Year) Yield (AFY) Unit Cost ($/AF) A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 $47,800,000 $290,000 800 $3,400 A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills $63,000,000 $520,000 1,100 $3,400 A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos $85,100,000 $680,000 1,200 $4,000 A4: NPR Mountain View $6,200,000 $100,000 200 $2,100 A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos $72,600,000 $400,000 900 $4,600 A6: NPR East Palo Alto $20,700,000 $150,000 500 $2,400 B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant $129,600,000 $1,370,000 900 $8,900 C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR $92,200,000 $14,830,000 5,900 $3,300 C2: Palo Alto IPR and NPR $152,100,000 $16,920,000 6,100 $4,000 C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 $198,400,000 $15,780,000 5,900 $4,400 D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR $104,600,000 $8,010,000 5,300 $2,500 Note: Costs based on an ENR CCI June 2018 SF index of 12,015. Costs are consistent with a Class 5 estimate (- 20% to +50%) (AACE 2008). Capital costs are amortized at 3% over 30 years. 4.4 Concept Option Evaluation Non-Cost Criteria In evaluating concept options, Palo Alto and Valley Water solicited input from stakeholders on factors to consider in addition to cost. The stakeholders aided in developing the list of non-cost criteria and Palo Alto and Valley Water staff participated in the development of scoring rubrics to apply each non-cost criteria to the various concept options. The selected non-cost criteria are: Water Supply Resiliency Public Acceptance Adaptability Level of Agency Coordination Level of Customer Retrofits/Coordination Regulatory Complexity Institutional Complexity Regional Perspective Social and Economic Benefit Environmental Benefit For each criterion, concept options could score up to 5 points. A description of the criteria, the scoring rubric for that criteria, and how each concept option scored with respect to those criteria are described in the following sections. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-8 4.4.1 Water Supply Resiliency This criterion evaluates concept options based on their total potential recycled water demand or amount of water supplied. Concept Options were scored as follows: 5 points: potential demands totaling > 2,000 AFY 4 points: potential demands totaling between 1,501 and 2,000 AFY 3 points: potential demands totaling between 1,001 and 1,500 AFY 2 points: potential demands totaling between 501 and 1,000 AFY 1 point: potential demands totaling ≤ 500 AFY Table 4-4: Concept Option Scores for Water Supply Resiliency Concept Option ID Score Rationale A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 2 800 AFY A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills 3 1,100 AFY A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos 3 1,250 AFY A4: NPR Mountain View 1 200 AFY A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 2 900 AFY A6: NPR East Palo Alto 1 500 AFY B1: NPR Sate Satellite Treatment Plant 2 900 AFY C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 5 2,800 AFY C2: Palo Alto IPR and NPR 5 3,000 AFY C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 5 3,200 AFY D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 5 5,300 AFY Note. For IPR options, the rationale is based on purified recycled water yield. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-9 4.4.2 Public Acceptance Public acceptance criterion gauges the likelihood of potential customers accepting recycled water and continuing to use it for the foreseeable future. Customer acceptance of NPR is assumed to be greater than potable reuse. Public properties, which are mainly owned by agencies that have been engaged in the recycled water planning process, are assumed to be easier to convert to recycled water usage than privately owned properties. For potable reuse options, given initial feedback from members of the Palo Alto Utilities Advisory Commission and City Council at their respective study sessions held in 2018, DPR is assumed to have greater public acceptance than IPR. Concept Options were scored as follows: 5 points: NPR concept options serving public properties only 4 points: NPR concept options including private properties but with customers (or an anchor customer) eager to accept recycled water or where a detailed market assessment has been performed 3 points: NPR including private properties 2 points: DPR concept options 1 point: IPR concept options Table 4-5: Concept Option Scores for Public Acceptance Concept Option ID Score Rationale A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 4 Demands recently refined during pre-design A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills 4 Phase 3 demands recently refined during pre-design. Additional area includes strong anchor A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos 4 Phase 3 demands recently refined during pre-design. Additional area includes strong anchor A4: NPR Mountain View 4 Demands from Mountain View RWFS A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 3 Mountain View demands from RWFS. Demand in Los Altos includes a large private user. A6: NPR East Palo Alto 3 Includes numerous private properties in East Palo Alto B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant 4 Phase 3 demands recently refined during pre-design. Demand in Los Altos is non-potable for public properties only C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 1 IPR C2: Palo Alto IPR and NPR 1 IPR C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 1 IPR D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 2 DPR Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-10 4.4.3 Adaptability Adaptability criterion assesses the potential to repurpose the proposed facilities in case of changes in the demand base. Concept options with the lowest risk of assets being stranded in the future scored highest. The concept options that included both NPR and IPR uses were considered most adaptable. Because the recycled water used for these concept options would be fully-advanced treated water suitable for groundwater injection, if NPR decreased, the water could be redirected to groundwater recharge. After the combined NPR and IPR concept options, the IPR-only concept option was considered the most adaptable given the ability to use the IPR treatment train within the DPR treatment train and repurpose the pipeline to the injection wells for conveyance of DPR water to the drinking water distribution system. IPR and DPR conveyance infrastructure could be repurposed to serve NPR customers if potable reuse for some reason became unacceptable to the community, but the injection wells and the advanced water purification facilities would be stranded assets. The NPR pipelines, which generally consist of smaller diameters than the IPR and DPR concept options, provide fewer repurposing opportunities than the IPR and DPR pipelines. Among the NPR concept options, those with larger diameter pipelines provide more opportunities for future uses. Concept Options were scored as follows: 5 points: NPR/IPR 4 points: IPR only 3 points: DPR or NPR with backbone ≥ 16-inch and non-extensive branching 2 points: NPR with backbone < 16-inch and non-extensive branching 1 point: NPR with extensive branching Table 4-6: Concept Option Scores for Adaptability Concept Option ID Score Rationale A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 2 NPR, pipeline backbone 12-inch A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills 1 NPR, extensive pipeline branches A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos 1 NPR, extensive pipeline branches A4: NPR Mountain View 2 NPR, pipeline ranges from 12- to 6-inch A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 3 NPR, pipeline backbone 6-inch with several long branches following the 16-inch segment A6: NPR East Palo Alto 2 NPR, pipeline backbone ranges from 12- to 10- inch with a few relatively short branches B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant 1 NPR, pipeline branching begins at satellite facility C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 4 IPR only C2: Palo Alto IPR and NPR 5 NPR with IPR C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 5 NPR with IPR D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 3 DPR Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-11 4.4.4 Level of Agency Coordination This criterion reflects the effort required by the lead agency to implement the concept option including design, use permitting, and operating requirements. Centralized NPR concept options were considered preferable to satellite NPR, IPR and DPR, all of which require new treatment processes to operate. DPR, which requires a new classification of treatment operators, was considered the least favorable concept option in this regard. Concept Options were scored as follows: 5 points: Project previously evaluated and supported by community 4 points: NPR serving only lead agency or RWQCP partner owned sites or Project has already gone through public reviews 3 points: NPR serving various sites 2 points: NPR with satellite treatment or IPR 1 point: DPR Table 4-7: Concept Option Scores for Level of Agency Coordination Concept Option ID Score Rationale A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 4 Completed facilities plan and EIR A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills 3 NPR including non-partner sites in Palo Alto and Los Altos Hills A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos 3 NPR including non-partner sites in Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills A4: NPR Mountain View 5 Mountain View prepared to implement project pending current update (July 2019) of RWFS A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 3 NPR including non-partner sites in Los Altos A6: NPR East Palo Alto 3 NPR including non-partner sites in East Palo Alto B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant 2 New satellite treatment facilities C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 2 New treatment facilities for IPR C2: Palo Alto IPR and NPR 2 New treatment facilities for IPR C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 2 New treatment facilities for IPR D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 1 New treatment facilities for DPR Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-12 4.4.5 Level of Customer Retrofits/Coordination Level of customer retrofits/coordination criterion is the effort and improvements required by the customer to use the recycled water. Having no retrofit requirements would be preferred, followed by changing meters for customers who already have a separate irrigation meter. Conversion of existing buildings is the least preferred due to anticipated complications with local public health approvals to verify there are no cross-connections within the retrofitted building. Concept Options were scored as follows: 5 points: No customer retrofits 4 points: Irrigation use only with separate meters 3 points: Irrigation use only, or indoor use limited to future development 2 points: Irrigation and indoor uses within existing buildings 1 point: Indoor uses only within existing buildings Table 4-8: Concept Option Scores for Level of Customer Retrofits/Coordination Concept Option ID Score Rationale A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 2 Includes indoor use for existing Palo Alto customers A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills 2 Includes indoor use for existing Palo Alto customers A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos 2 Includes indoor use for existing Palo Alto customers A4: NPR Mountain View 2 Includes indoor use for existing Mountain View customer A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 2 Includes indoor use for existing Mountain View customer A6: NPR East Palo Alto 3 Includes indoor uses limited to future developments in East Palo Alto B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant 2 Includes indoor use for existing Palo Alto customers C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 5 IPR does not require customer retrofits C2: Palo Alto IPR and NPR 3 NPR limited to irrigation C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 3 Includes indoor use for existing Palo Alto customers D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 5 DPR does not require customer retrofits Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-13 4.4.6 Regulatory Complexity Regulatory complexity criterion is a measure of the precedence of proposed uses of recycled water and permitting required for implementation. As a well-established practice, permitting for NPR will be more streamlined than potable reuse. Permitting for IPR which has established regulations will be less complex than DPR which does not yet have established regulations. Concept Options were scored as follows: 5 points: NPR for irrigation only 4 points: NPR including non-irrigation uses 3 points: IPR only 2 points: NPR with IPR 1 point: DPR only Table 4-9: Concept Option Scores for Regulatory Complexity Concept Option ID Score Rationale A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 4 NPR including non-irrigation uses A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills 4 NPR including non-irrigation uses A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos 4 NPR including non-irrigation uses A4: NPR Mountain View 4 NPR including non-irrigation uses A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 4 NPR including non-irrigation uses A6: NPR East Palo Alto 4 NPR including non-irrigation uses B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant 4 NPR including non-irrigation uses C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 3 IPR C2: Palo Alto IPR and NPR 2 NPR with IPR C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 2 NPR with IPR D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 1 DPR Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-14 4.4.7 Institutional Complexity Institutional complexity criterion reflects the number of local agencies that would be involved in implementation and operation of the concept option. The more favorable concept options were those with fewer agencies involved since institutional complexity increases with the number of agencies involved. Concept Options were scored as follows: 5 points: One local agency 4 points: Two local agencies 3 points: Three local agencies 2 points: Four local agencies 1 point: Five local agencies Table 4-10: Concept Option Scores for Institutional Complexity Concept Option ID Score Rationale A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 5 1 agency: Palo Alto A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills 3 3 agencies: Palo Alto, Los Altos Hills, Purissima Hills Water District A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos 1 5 agencies: Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Cal Water, Purissima Hills Water District A4: NPR Mountain View 5 1 agency: Mountain View A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 3 3 agencies: Mountain View, Los Altos, Cal Water A6: NPR East Palo Alto1 3 3 agencies: Palo Alto, East Palo Alto Sanitary District, East Palo Alto B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant 3 3 agencies: Palo Alto, Los Altos, Cal Water C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 5 1 agency: Palo Alto C2: Palo Alto IPR and NPR 5 1 agency: Palo Alto C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 5 1 agency: Palo Alto D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 5 1 agency: Palo Alto Note: 1. Although the infrastructure for Concept Option A6 is sized for anticipated Menlo Park demands, the short-term project does not require coordination with Menlo Park. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-15 4.4.8 Regional Perspective Regional perspective criterion reflects the number of local agencies benefitting from the implementation of the concept option. In contrast to the institutional complexity criterion, the more favorable concept options were those that included multiple agencies. Concept Options were scored as follows: 5 points: Majority of RWQCP partners, multiple water retailers and multiple wholesalers benefit 4 points: Multiple water retailers and multiple wholesalers benefit 3 points: Multiple water retailers but only one wholesaler benefit 2 points: One water retailer but multiple wholesalers benefit 1 point: One water retailer and one wholesaler benefit Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-16 Table 4-11: Concept Option Scores for Regional Perspective Concept Option ID Score Rationale A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 1 Partner Agency: Palo Alto; Retailers: Palo Alto; Wholesaler: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills 3 Partner Agency: Palo Alto, Los Altos Hills Retailers: Palo Alto, Purissima Hills Water District Wholesaler: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos 4 Partner Agency: Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills Retailers: Palo Alto, Cal Water, Purissima Hills Water District Wholesaler: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Valley Water A4: NPR Mountain View 1 Partner Agency: Mountain View Retailers: Mountain View Wholesaler: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 4 Partner Agency: Mountain View, Los Altos Retailers: Mountain View, Cal Water Wholesaler: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Valley Water A6: NPR East Palo Alto1 3 Partner Agency: East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Palo Alto Retailers: East Palo Alto, Palo Alto Wholesaler: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant 4 Partner Agency: Palo Alto, Los Altos Retailers: Palo Alto, Cal Water Wholesaler: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Valley Water C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 1 Partner Agency: Palo Alto Retailers: Palo Alto Wholesaler: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission C2: Palo Alto IPR and NPR 1 Partner Agency: Palo Alto Retailers: Palo Alto Wholesaler: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 1 Partner Agency: Palo Alto Retailers: Palo Alto Wholesaler: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 1 Partner Agency: Palo Alto Retailers: Palo Alto Wholesaler: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Note: 1. Although the infrastructure for Concept Option A6 is sized for anticipated Menlo Park demands, the short-term project does not directly benefit Menlo Park . Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-17 4.4.9 Social and Economic Benefit Social and economic benefit criterion reflects the benefits of improved water supply reliability. Concept Options were scored as follows: 5 points: Supports a disadvantaged community 4 points: Supports community with projected shortfalls by 2020 in normal years 3 points: Supports community with projected shortfalls by 2020 in dry years 2 points: Supports community with projected shortfalls by 2040 1 point: No projected shortfalls Table 4-12: Concept Option Scores for Social and Economic Benefit Concept Option ID Score Rationale A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 1 No projected shortfalls A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills 1 No projected shortfalls A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos 1 No projected shortfalls A4: NPR Mountain View 2 Mountain View has projected shortfall by 2040 A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 2 Mountain View has projected shortfall by 2040 A6: NPR East Palo Alto 5 East Palo Alto is a disadvantaged community; East Palo Alto and Menlo Park have projected shortfalls B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant 1 No projected shortfalls C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 1 No projected shortfalls C2: Palo Alto IPR and NPR 1 No projected shortfalls C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 1 No projected shortfalls D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 1 No projected shortfalls Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-18 4.4.10 Environmental Benefit Environmental benefit criterion considers the improvement to the RWQCP’s discharge to the San Francisco Bay. NPR diverts more contaminants from Bay discharge, and it is assumed that IPR and DPR will involve discharge of reverse osmosis concentrate with trace organics, nutrients, and trace metals. Concept Options were scored as follows: 5 points: NPR > 999 AFY 4 points: NPR 0 to 999 AFY 3 points: NPR with IPR 2 points: IPR only 1 point: DPR only Table 4-13: Concept Option Scores for Environmental Benefit Concept Option ID Score Rationale A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 4 NPR 800 AFY A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills 5 NPR 1,100 AFY A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos 5 NPR 1,200 AFY A4: NPR Mountain View 4 NPR 200 AFY A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 4 NPR 900 AFY A6: NPR East Palo Alto 4 NPR 500 AFY B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant 5 NPR 900 AFY C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 2 IPR only C2: Palo Alto IPR and NPR 3 NPR with IPR C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 3 NPR with IPR D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 1 DPR only 4.5 Concept Option Scoring 4.5.1 Non-Cost Scoring Palo Alto, Valley Water, and Mountain View, as the Strategic Plan primary stakeholders, weighted the non-cost criteria. Table 4-14 shows the average of the provided weights. Table 4-15 presents the ranking of concept options based on the non-cost criteria alone. Considering only the non-cost criteria, the top scoring concept options are A2, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and the IPR concept options (Concept Options C1- C3) while the lowest scoring concept options are D1, Palo Alto Dedicated DPR and B1, NPR Satellite Treatment Plant. The previously recommended Palo Alto Phase 3 (Concept Option A1) and Mountain View long term project (Concept Option A4) rank in the middle. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-19 Table 4-14: Non-Cost Criteria Weighting Criteria Percent of Non-Cost Score Weighted Maximum Score per Criteria (Maximum score per Criteria being 5) Amount of water supplied 19% 95 Public acceptance 17% 85 Adaptability 10% 50 Level of agency coordination 9% 45 Level of customer retrofits/coordination 5% 25 Regulatory complexity 6% 30 Institutional complexity 9% 45 Regional perspective 8% 40 Social and economic benefit 10% 50 Environmental benefit 7% 35 Total 100% 500 Table 4-15: Non-Cost Ranking Rank Score (Maximum Score = 500) Concept Option 1 291 A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills 2 290 C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 3 289 C2: Palo Alto IPR with NPR 289 C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline 4 286 A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 5 285 A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 285 A4: NPR Mountain View 285 A6: NPR East Palo Alto 6 282 A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos 7 271 B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant 8 269 D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR The IPR concept options are scored well with non-cost criteria due to the large amount of water supplied combined with greater ability to repurpose the infrastructure and only one agency required to implement and operate. Concept Option A2, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills ranks highly because it delivers among the largest volumes of the NPR concept options and strikes a balance between offering regional benefits while requiring few agencies to implement and operate. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-20 Concept Option D1, Palo Alto Dedicated DPR delivers the greatest volume of recycled water out of all the concept options, requires only one agency to implement and operate, and does not require infrastructure changes by customers. The notable drawback of Concept Option D1 is the implementation process. Given the lack of established regulations, pursuing a DPR project at this time would require more effort by Palo Alto to establish a process that DDW will permit. Even when DPR regulations are established, the hurdles that agencies must clear to permit DPR projects will likely be more challenging compared to other recycled water projects. Another challenge will be hiring/training staff to operate the new treatment facilities. The presumed benefit of Concept Option B1, NPR Satellite Treatment Plant was the ability to create a compact recycled water distribution system rather than requiring an extensive network extending from the RWQCP. However, in this setting, the preferred location for diverting flows from the sewer system does not correspond to the areas of potential recycled water nor is there land available in the immediate vicinity of the diversion point to site a satellite treatment facility. As shown in Figure 3-8, Concept Option B1 involves a significant, branched pipe network. 4.5.2 Cost and Non-Cost Scoring Table 4-16 presents the ranking of concept options by cost using the scoring listed herein. Factoring cost in at 30% of the score, concept options were scored as follows: 5 points: < $3,500/AF 4 points: ≥ $3,500/AF and < $4,000/AF 3 points: ≥ $4,000/AF and < $4,500/AF 2 points: ≥ $4,500/AF and < $5,000/AF 1 point: ≥ $5,000/AF Factoring in cost at 30% of the total score was selected after testing for sensitivity to prevent cost from overtaking or from not having an impact on the total non-cost criteria scores. From the sensitivity analysis, weighting cost at 50% yielded similar results to weighting at 30%. Table 4-17 presents the combined weighting of the cost and non-cost criteria together. Table 4-18 presents the ranking of concept options combining the non-cost criteria and estimated costs. Table 4-16: Ranking of Concept Options by Cost Rank Score Concept Option 1 5 A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills A4: NPR Mountain View A6: NPR East Palo Alto C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 2 3 A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos C2: Palo Alto IPR with NPR C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline 3 2 A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 4 1 B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-21 Table 4-17: Combined Weighting Including both Cost and Non-Cost Criteria Criteria Percent of Non-Cost Score (Rounded) Weighted Maximum Score per Criteria (Maximum score per Criteria being 5) Amount of water supplied 13% 67 Public acceptance 12% 61 Adaptability 7% 35 Level of agency coordination 6% 30 Level of customer retrofits/coordination 4% 19 Regulatory complexity 4% 21 Institutional complexity 6% 30 Regional perspective 6% 28 Social and economic benefit 7% 36 Environmental benefit 5% 23 Cost 30% 150 Total 100% 500 Table 4-18: Combined Ranking Considering Cost at 30% of the Score Rank Score (Maximum Score = 500) Concept Option 1 354 A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills 353 C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 2 350 A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 350 A4: NPR Mountain View 350 A6: NPR East Palo Alto 3 339 D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 4 323 C2: Palo Alto IPR with NPR 5 317 A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos 6 293 C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline 7 260 A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 8 220 B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant Factoring in costs at 30% of the score, the top scoring concept options are NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills (Concept Option A2), Palo Alto Dedicated IPR (Concept Option C1), the previously recommended NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 (Concept Option A1) and Mountain View long-term project (Concept Option A4) and the NPR East Palo Alto concept option (Concept Option A6). Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-22 Concept Option D1, Palo Alto Dedicated DPR ranks in the middle. With the greatest amount of water supplied and one of the lowest estimated unit costs, Concept Option D1 scores well for the two most highly weighted evaluation criteria. The attractive cost helps to offset the DPR implementation challenges noted above. Concept Option B1, NPR Satellite Treatment Plant remains solidly at the bottom. As discussed previously, Concept Option B1 requires a significant investment of infrastructure to convey flows from the sewer diversion point to treatment facilities and then to customers. The cost of conveyance infrastructure plus the cost of new treatment facilities including land acquisition are significant and, when factored into the scoring, further reduces the ranking of this concept option relative to the others. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 5 Conclusions and Next Steps FINAL July 2019 5-1 Chapter 5 Conclusions and Next Steps 5.1 Conclusions 5.1.1 Summary of Demands and Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Costs Table 5-1 provides a summary of potential demand by water reuse type considered in this Strategic Plan. The potential market for NPR demands includes the entire RWQCP service area, not one specific concept option. Table 5-2 summarizes the capital, O&M, and unit costs for the various concept options investigated in this Strategic Plan. Table 5-1: Summary of Demand Potential by Type of Water Reuse Type of Reuse Annual Average Demand Comments NPR 4,456 AFY Throughout RWQCP service area IPR 2,800 / 5,900 AFY For Palo Alto only DPR 5,300 AFY For Palo Alto only Note: IPR annual average demand reflects volume recharged to the groundwater basin/ volume extracted from the groundwater basin Table 5-2: Summary of Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Capital and O&M Costs Concept Option Capital Cost O&M ($/year) Unit Cost ($/AF) A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 $47.8M $0.29M $3,400 A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills $63.0M $0.52M $3,400 A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos $85.1M $0.68M $4,000 A4: NPR Mountain View $6.2M $0.1M $2,100 A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos $72.6M $0.4M $4,600 A6: NPR East Palo Alto $20.7M $0.15M $2,400 B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant $129.6M $1.37M $8,900 C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR $92.2M $14.83M $3,300 C2: Palo Alto IPR with NPR $152.1M $16.92M $4,000 C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline $198.4M $15.78M $4,400 D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR $104.6M $8.01M $2,500 Note: Costs based on an ENR CCI San Francisco index for June 2018 of 12,015. Costs are consistent with a Class 5 estimate (-20% to +50%) (AACE 2008). Capital costs are amortized at 3% over 30 years. For comparison with other non-water reuse water supplies, potable water from SFPUC is projected to cost $3,000 per AF in 2030, and groundwater, including wellhead treatment and the Valley Water groundwater pumping charge, is projected to cost $3,000 per AF. 2 To provide a basis for comparison, cost estimates reflect the incremental cost of pursuing each concept option. For the NPR options, the cost estimates include distribution to the end-user. Consistent with the incremental cost methodology, this report does not estimate the total cost of providing the IPR or DPR water to end-users as Palo Alto’s existing potable water distribution system costs are not included in the estimates. 2 These are the estimated costs to the City of Palo Alto of purchasing SFPUC water or pumping groundwater and these cost estimates do not include distribution system costs. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 5 Conclusions and Next Steps FINAL July 2019 5-2 5.1.2 General Conclusions Regarding NPR Concept Options The Strategic Plan determined that there is interest throughout most of the RWQCP service area and neighboring communities in receiving recycled water from the RWQCP for NPR uses. The one Partner Agency that is not interested is Stanford University. Stanford University maintains a diverse water supply portfolio consisting of water from SFPUC, groundwater, local surface water, and captured stormwater. Stanford University does have significant non-potable water demands, but the university does not foresee a need for recycled water from the RWQCP due to the existence of its separate non-potable irrigation water system that meets over 30% of the campus’ water demands (over 80% of irrigation demands). As such the NPR concept options evaluated under this Strategic Plan did not include service to Stanford. The Strategic Plan considered NPR concept options with both centralized treatment at the RWQCP (“A” concept options) and a satellite treatment option (“B” concept option). Of the centralized treatment options, Concept Option A2, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills scored highest both with and without the cost criteria. The unit cost for Concept Option A2 is estimated to be similar to the cost of the previously recommended Concept Option A1, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3. Therefore, should Palo Alto elect to move forward with an NPR project, Concept Option A2 or variants, as shown in Appendix D, should be given additional consideration. An analysis of the cost implications of removing various branches of the base concept option will inform discussions regarding cost sharing between the relevant stakeholders in Palo Alto and Los Altos Hills as well as support rate analyses for Palo Alto and PHWD (the two retailers that would be involved in the concept option). Concept Option A4, NPR Mountain View, was previously recommended in the 2014 Mountain View RWFS, due to its low cost and average non-cost score, was determined to be a reasonable investment compared to the other concept options explored in the Strategic Plan, and during the stakeholder evaluation process, Mountain View staff indicated their commitment to implementing this extension. Concept Option A6, NPR East Palo Alto scored similarly to the Concept Options A1, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 and A4, NPR Mountain View. Concept Option A6 is low cost, and the average non-cost score make it a reasonable investment compared to other concept options. Implementation will require coordination with EPASD, who is the Partner Agency that owns the wastewater flows from East Palo Alto to the RWQCP. Though implementation of the concept option does not require coordination with Menlo Park, if East Palo Alto chooses to move forward with the concept option, Menlo Park’s level of interest should be verified prior to sizing the infrastructure. Appendix E presents variants of Concept Option A6 and the cost implications of including or not including Menlo Park’s demands as well as the benefits of including Palo Alto’s demands. This information can inform cost sharing discussion among the relevant stakeholders in Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, and Menlo Park and support a cost of service analysis for the City of East Palo Alto, the likely recycled water retailer. NPR is challenging for Los Altos and Los Altos Hills because their customers are located furthest from the RWQCP and existing recycled water infrastructure and coordination with the Partner Agencies upstream would be needed. Between the two options to serve Los Altos – Concept Option A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos (which builds off of Concept Option A1) and Concept Option A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos (which builds off of Concept Option A4) – Concept Option A3 is preferred due to preliminary costs. Between the two options to serve Los Altos Hills - Concept Option A2, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills Concept Option A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos – Concept Option A2 is higher ranked. To assist Los Altos and its retailer Cal Water, and to assist Los Altos Hills and its retailer Purissima Hills Water District, in evaluating an extension from the Palo Phase 3 Pipeline, Appendix E presents variants of Concept Options A2 and A3 that can inform cost sharing discussions among the relevant stakeholders and cost of service analyses for Cal Water and Purissima Hills Water District. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 5 Conclusions and Next Steps FINAL July 2019 5-3 Satellite NPR Concept Option B1, NPR Satellite Treatment Plant was included to bridge the gap between the source of recycled water at the RWQCP and customers at the periphery of the RWQCP’s service area. However, the satellite option was found to be impractical for this setting given the mismatch between the ideal sewer diversion point and where demands are concentrated plus the limited availability of land and the cost of acquiring land to construct a new treatment facility in this area. Treatment Both distribution infrastructure and treatment facilities were considered for each of the NPR concept options. Palo Alto has committed to providing enhanced recycled water quality for NPR, meaning water delivered to non-potable customers would be a blend of advanced treated recycled water and disinfected tertiary recycled water to reduce TDS concentration to below 600 mg/L. Assuming implementation of the 2.25 MGD AWTS (which was recommended to provide a 1:1 blend of advanced and tertiary recycled water for the RWQCP’s flow commitments of 3.0 MGD for Mountain View and 1.0 MGD for Palo Alto), each of the centralized NPR concept options presented in this Strategic Plan can independently be implemented without additional treatment facilities. The enhanced recycled water provided for these NPR concept options would have a TDS concentration below the 600 mg/L target threshold based on the RWQCP’s average TDS concentration of approximately 900 mg/L and an anticipated advanced treated recycled water concentration of 50 mg/L. Note that the three highest ranked NPR options (without overlap to other options) are A2, A4 and A6; together these options could all be implemented without triggering the need for reverse osmosis concentrate treatment but would require additional advanced or tertiary treatment facilities to produce enough enhanced recycled water, particularly to meet a 1:1 blend ratio. The City has considered setting a more aggressive goal for the enhanced recycled water of maintaining TDS between 400 to 500 mg/L. Only the Mountain View concept option (Concept Option A4) would meet this goal during peak month demands without additional treatment facilities. 5.1.3 General Conclusions Regarding IPR Concept Options Several of the RWQCP Partner Agencies and Strategic Plan stakeholders expressed interest in IPR. However, Palo Alto is the only agency that is actively investigating this option and that had groundwater data to support development of IPR concept options. The IPR concept options that were considered in the Strategic Plan include a concept option dedicated to providing water to Palo Alto groundwater injection wells (Concept Option C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR), a concept option that captures non-potable uses in the vicinity of the pipeline needed to reach the Palo Alto groundwater injection wells (Concept Option C2: Palo Alto IPR with NPR), and a concept option that builds off of the Palo Alto Phase 3 Pipeline to convey water to the Palo Alto groundwater injection wells (Concept Option C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline). Without considering cost, all three IPR concept options are among the top ranked concept options given the large amount of water they supply and lack of institutional complexity. With cost factored into the scoring, only Concept Option C1, Palo Alto Dedicated IPR remains a top scoring IPR concept option. Implementation of an IPR project would require Palo Alto to incorporate groundwater into its water supply, and Palo Alto is assessing its desire to pursue groundwater use. In some other communities, IPR has generally been seen as a first step towards DPR, gaining customer acceptance of the concept of potable reuse before moving to DPR. However, Palo Alto does not currently use groundwater, and during preliminary study sessions, members of the Utilities Advisory Commission and City Council expressed a preference for DPR over IPR. Given concerns regarding customer acceptance of groundwater quality compared to the existing SFPUC supply, Palo Alto is assumed to provide wellhead treatment at the groundwater extraction wells to lower Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 5 Conclusions and Next Steps FINAL July 2019 5-4 iron, manganese and TDS concentrations. Costs of this treatment were included in each IPR concept option and overall unit costs ranged from $3,300 - $4,400/AF for IPR concept options. For comparison, groundwater use with wellhead treatment and the Valley Water groundwater pumping charge but without any injection of recycled water, is projected to cost $3,000 per AF (in 2018 dollars). Treatment costs also include new full advanced treatment facilities, including reverse osmosis concentrate treatment, as needed, and associated land acquisition costs. Reverse osmosis concentrate treatment is estimated to be needed to ensure compliance with the RWQCP discharge permit for Concept Options C2 and C3 and thus included in the associated cost estimates. 5.1.4 General Conclusions Regarding DPR Concept Option Because DPR regulations are not established, developing DPR concept options and drawing conclusions about the feasibility of DPR requires interpretation of the SWRCB’s Proposed Framework for Regulating Direct Potable Reuse in California. The uncertainty in regulations is reflected in the low score that the Concept Option D1, Palo Alto Dedicated DPR received when considering only the non-cost criteria. However, when factoring in the estimated unit cost of Concept Option D1, which included extensive additional treatment facilities and engineered storage, the concept option rose to the middle of the rankings. Given the significant volume of existing potable supply that could be offset through Concept Option D1, its low estimated unit cost ($2,500/AF), and the presumably greater acceptance of DPR over IPR in this setting, this concept option deserves further evaluation by Palo Alto and refinement as regulations emerge. For comparison, potable water from SFPUC is projected to cost approximately $3,000 per AF in 2030. 5.2 Next Steps Results of the Strategic Plan indicate that there are multiple water reuse expansion opportunities within the Study Area that agencies could pursue, including NPR, IPR, and DPR. The following are general next steps that should be considered for any of the concept options to move forward. Table 5-3summarizes the recommended next steps by each category of water reuse. Note that depending on the outcomes of the Countywide Plan, some of the Concept Options described in this Report may not implementable due to limited supply of recycled water; further evaluation for joint implementation may be required as a next step. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 5 Conclusions and Next Steps FINAL July 2019 5-5 Table 5-3: Recommended Next Steps for Type of Opportunity NPR – Next Steps IPR- Next Steps DPR – Next Steps Facilities Planning Prepare more detailed technical analysis to define facility requirements and to refine cost estimates to a Class 4 level of development (-10% to +30%). Prepare more detailed technical analysis to define facility requirements and to refine cost estimates to a Class 4 level of development (-10% to +30%). Prepare more detailed technical analysis to define facility requirements and to refine cost estimates to a Class 4 level of development (-10% to +30%). Prepare various treatment train options with cost estimates to reflect uncertainty to regulatory requirements for treatment. Funding and Financing Apply for funding and financing options; Appendix G contains a funding and financing matrix describing a variety of options for recycled water projects. At present, these programs apply to all types of water reuse. Develop recycled water rates to be applied to recycled water customers. Apply for funding and financing options; Appendix G contains a funding and financing matrix describing a variety of options for recycled water projects. At present, these programs apply to all types of water reuse. Apply for funding and financing options; Appendix G contains a funding and financing matrix describing a variety of options for recycled water projects. At present, these programs apply to all types of water reuse. Inter-agency Agreements If the NPR project involves more than one of the RWQCP Partners, an inter-agency agreement would be needed. New agreements could be modeled after the existing agreement between Palo Alto and Mountain View for the Phase 2 system. With Valley Water’s role as Groundwater Sustainability Agency, an agreement between Palo Alto and Valley Water is needed for an IPR project. For a DPR project serving Palo Alto only (as described in Concept Option D1), no specific inter-agency agreements are identified at this time. Environmental Documentation NPR concept options could be covered under a new environmental document or possibly an amendment to the Phase 3 Environmental Impact Report, depending on the concept option. Either document should meet the requirements of CEQA, and pending selected funding and financing options, the requirements of CEQA-Plus or NEPA. A new environmental document covering the IPR project would be needed. This document should meet the requirements of CEQA; and, pending selected funding and financing options, the requirements of CEQA-Plus or NEPA. A new environmental document covering the DPR project would be needed. This document should meet the requirements of CEQA; and, pending selected funding and financing options, the requirements of CEQA-Plus or NEPA. Reuse Permitting Covered under Statewide General Order for Recycled Water Use (WQ- 2014-009). Covered under SWRCB regulations, adopted by the State in 2014. There are no established regulations for DPR projects and no proposed timeline for the State to develop DPR regulations for treated drinking water augmentation. Customer and Public Outreach Outreach to specific customers to be served by the NPR project to confirm delivery location, confirm demand, discuss site retrofits, etc. For NPR projects delivering to areas that do not have a mandatory use ordinance in place, customer outreach to encourage customers to sign on to the NPR project. Public outreach to inform Palo Alto customers of changes to source water (i.e. blending in groundwater to the existing SFPUC supplies) should be considered. Public outreach to inform Palo Alto customers of changes to source water (i.e. blending in of DPR water to the existing SFPUC supplies) should be considered. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report References FINAL July 2019 References Anderson, Daren (Division Manager at the City of Palo Alto Open Space and Parks Department). Email to Emmalynne Roy providing details on habitat enhancement water use at Foothill Park’s Boronda Lake. 2018. Association of the Advancement of Cost Engineering International (AACE), 2008. International Recommended Practice No. 56R-08:Cost Estimate Classification System – As Applied for the Building and General Construction Industries. Brown and Caldwell, 1992. Water Reclamation Master Plan for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. April, 1992. California Building Standards Commission, 2011. 2011 CalGreen Green Building Requirements. January, 2011. Carollo, 2014. City of Mountain View Recycled Water Feasibility Study. March, 2014. Engelage, Samantha (Senior Engineer at City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Program). Email to Emmalynne Roy providing details on habitat enhancement water use at Byxbee Park. 2018. City of Mountain View, 2017. Ordinance No. 17.16. Available: https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=21813 City of Palo Alto. 2017. Clean Bay 2017 Pollution Prevention Plan. Available: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56148 City of Palo Alto, 2008. Ordinance No. 5002. Available: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/19503 City of Palo Alto Utilities, 2017. 2017 Water Integrated Resources Plan. January, 2017. City of Palo Alto Utilities, 2016. City of Palo Alto 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June, 2016. MNS, 2017. Advanced Water Purification System Preliminary/Conceptual Design Report. December, 2017. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2018. A Proposed Framework for Regulating Direct Potable Reuse in California. April, 2018. SWRCB, 2016. Investigation on the Feasibility of Developing Uniform Water Recycling Criteria for Direct Potable Reuse. December, 2016. Todd Groundwater, 2018. Groundwater Assessment, and Indirect Potable Reuse Feasibility Evaluation and Implementation Strategy Report. November, 2018. Unites States Green Building Council, 2014. LEED Reference for Building Operations and Maintenance, Version 4. October, 2014. Unites States Green Building Council, 2012. LEED 2009 Water Use Reduction Additional Guidance (Version 7). July, 2012. West Yost Associates, 2017. City of Menlo Park Water Supply Master Plan, Draft. November, 2017. Woodard & Curran, 2018. Preliminary Design for Phase 3 Recycled Water Distribution System Final Report. February, 2018. Appendix A - Non-Potable Demand Assessment Methodology Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Appendix A: Non-Potable Demand Assessment Appendix A: Non-Potable Demand Assessment Landscape Irrigation Landscape irrigation demands were the primary recycled water use identified within the study area. In developing these demands, each customer’s landscaped area was estimated using recent aerial imagery from Google Earth, as well as GIS-compatible aerial imagery. From the aerial review, the percentage of each customer’s site that is landscaped was estimated and applied this percentage to the total parcel area. In addition, recent aerial imagery was used to check that each site’s perceived irrigated space did not include artificial turf. Parcel areas that had artificial turf fields were removed from the total irrigated acreage. In order to calculate demand, an annual average irrigation factor of 3.4 acre-feet per year (AFY) per acre of landscaped area was applied based on: annual evapotranspiration (ETo) of 44.8 inches; total annual precipitation of 15.3 inches; and effective precipitation (Eppt) of 25% of total annual precipitation: 𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑙𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑐 𝐼𝑙𝑙�ℎ𝑐𝑎𝑙�ℎ𝑙𝑙 𝐴𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑙𝑐 [𝐴𝐴𝑌 𝑎𝑐𝑙𝑐]= 𝐴𝑅𝑜 [�ℎ𝑙 𝑦𝑙]−𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑙[�ℎ𝑙 𝑦𝑙] 12 [�ℎ𝑙 𝑐𝑙] = 44.8 �ℎ𝑙 𝑦𝑙−0.25 × 15.3 �ℎ𝑙 𝑦𝑙 12 �ℎ𝑙 𝑐𝑙 =3.4 𝐴𝐴𝑌 𝑎𝑐𝑙𝑐 The ETo and precipitation values are taken from the climate data presented in Palo Alto’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and summarized below in Table 1. Table 1: City of Palo Alto Climate Data Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Standard Monthly Average ETo 1 1.4 1.9 3.4 4.4 5.5 6.0 6.2 5.5 4.4 3.1 1.7 1.3 44.8 Average Rainfall2 (in) 3.2 2.9 2.3 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.7 1.7 2.7 15.3 Source: City of Palo Alto 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Notes: 1. Average ETo data for closest active station (Hayward) reported by CIMIS website http://www.cimis.water.ca.gov/ 2. Average rainfall data for Palo Alto reported by NOAA website http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/ Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Appendix A: Non-Potable Demand Assessment July is the maximum demand month for landscape irrigation, with a maximum day peaking factor of 1.7. This maximum day peaking factor was applied for all landscape irrigation demands throughout the study area. The peak hour landscape irrigation demands were calculated using an hourly peaking factor of 3.0 assuming an 8-hour irrigation window at night. These peaking factors are summarized in Table 5. Dual Plumbing The first step to determining dual-plumbing demands was to estimate the total building square footage. For future developments where site-specific details were not yet known, information was gathered on anticipated building density from developers and architects. If this information was not available, the likely building density was estimated using allowable floor area ratios (FARs) in the development’s respective zoning code. The estimated total building square footage was found with the following calculation: 𝑅𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑙�ℎ𝑙𝑐�ℎ𝑙𝑐 𝐴𝑙𝑐𝑎 [𝑅𝑙 𝐴𝑙] =𝑅𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑙 𝑃𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑐𝑙 𝐴𝑙𝑐𝑎 [𝑅𝑙 𝐴𝑙]∗𝐴𝐴𝑅∗𝐴𝐴𝑅 𝑅𝑐𝑐𝑙𝑐𝑙�ℎ𝑙𝑙 𝐴𝑎𝑐𝑙𝑙𝑙 It was assumed that not all buildings would be calculated to the maximum FAR over the entire parcel area, so a FAR reduction factor of 0.75 was applied to find the most likely building density. Any comments from developers on likely development density were incorporated into the estimate. After determining total building square footage, the total potential daily water demand for urinal and toilet fixtures was determined using the following calculation: 𝑅𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑎�ℎ𝑙𝑦 𝑊𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑙 𝐴𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑙𝑐 [𝐴𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝐴𝑎𝑦] =𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑅𝑎𝑙𝑐 [𝐴𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑙�]∗𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑙�ℎ𝑙𝑙 [𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑙�]∗𝐴𝑙𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑐 𝐴𝑎�ℎ𝑙𝑦 𝑅𝑙𝑐∗𝑁𝑙.𝑙𝑐 𝐴𝑅𝐴𝑙 + 𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑅𝑎𝑙𝑐 [𝐴𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑙�]∗𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑙�ℎ𝑙𝑙 [𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑙�]∗𝐴𝑙𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑐 𝑅𝑙𝑎𝑙𝑙�ℎ𝑐𝑙𝑙 𝐴𝑎�ℎ𝑙𝑦 𝑅𝑙𝑐∗𝑁𝑙.𝑙𝑐 𝑅𝑙𝑎𝑙𝑙�ℎ𝑐𝑙𝑙 𝐴𝑅𝐴𝑙 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) are defined as the occupants who spend at least 40 hours per week (8 hours per day) in the building. Transient FTEs represent occupants that do not utilize the building services on a regular basis, such as visitors, customers, or delivery persons. The number of FTEs and Transient FTEs were estimated from the total building footprint square footage and the space type metrics outlined in Table 2. Space types for existing buildings were determined based on known information about the site. Future developments were categorized as “General Office,” “Service,” “R&D or Laboratory,” “Hotel,” or “Mixed Use High” based on developer input and zoning descriptions. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Appendix A: Non-Potable Demand Assessment Table 2: Space Type Default Occupancy Numbers Space Type Gross Square Feet per Occupant – FTE Gross Square Feet Per Occupant – Transient FTE General Office 250 0 Retail, general 550 130 Service (e.g. financial, auto) 600 130 Restaurant 435 95 Grocery Store 550 115 Medical Office 225 330 R&D or Laboratory 400 0 Warehouse, distribution 2500 0 Warehouse, storage 20000 0 Hotel 1500 700 Education, daycare 630 105 Educational, K–12 1300 140 Education, postsecondary 2100 150 Mixed Use Corridor1 480 90 Mixed Use High2 460 80 Source: LEED Reference for Building Operations and Maintenance, Version 4Error! Reference source not found.. Appendix 2-Table 1. Default Occupancy Numbers. Notes: 1. Developed based on zoning description, which averages General Office, Retail, Service, Restaurant, and Grocery Store occupancy numbers. 2. Developed based on zoning description, which averages General Office, Retail, Service, Restaurant, Grocery Store, and R&D/Laboratory occupancy numbers. Water fixture metrics that were used for flow rate, duration and average daily use are summarized in Table 3. Table 3: Water Fixture Metrics Fixture Type Flow Rate1 (gallons/flush) Duration (flush) Avg Daily Use – FTE1 Avg Daily Use – Transient FTE2 Urinals 0.5 1 2 0.4 Toilet (Water Closet) 1.28 1 2 0.5 Notes: 1. Source: 2011 CalGreen Green Building Requirements. (Table 13C.5.303.2.2). 2. Source: LEED 2009 Water Use Reduction Additional Guidance (Version 7). Table 1. Non-residential Default Fixture Uses. IKEA and the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center are the two customers in the service area known to have dual plumbing. Since IKEA’s site-specific meter data was not available, its demands were estimated using the methodology outlined above. For the Mitchell Park facilities, the demand was taken Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Appendix A: Non-Potable Demand Assessment from the Phase 3 Business Plan in which it was assumed that 30% of the water measured by the site’s W4 meter is used for toilet flushing that could be converted to recycled water. In order to adjust each site’s total daily water demand to an annual average demand, the daily demand was multiplied by the customer’s assumed number of days of operation. The values used for days of operation for different customer types are summarized in Table 4. Table 4: Days of Operation Space Type Days of Operation Retail, general 365 Hotel 365 Mixed Use High 365 General Office 260 Service (e.g. financial, auto) 260 R&D or Laboratory 260 The peak hour dual-plumbing demands were calculated using an hourly peaking factor of 2.0, assuming the average occupancy of the buildings is 12 hours during the day. Peaking factors are summarized in Table 5. Cooling Towers Demands for cooling towers included customers previously identified as having cooling towers and customers assumed to have cooling towers through review of building characteristics. In addition, certain future developments were identified as potential cooling tower users through specific conversations with developers and architects. The magnitude of cooling tower demand was determined using the following equation: 𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑙�ℎ𝑙𝑐 𝑅𝑙𝑙𝑐𝑙 𝐴𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑙𝑐 (𝐴𝐴𝑌)=𝑅𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑙�ℎ𝑙𝑐�ℎ𝑙𝑐 𝐴𝑙𝑐𝑎 [𝑅𝑙 𝐴𝑙] 330 [𝑅𝑙 𝐴𝑙 𝑅𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑐 𝐿𝑙𝑎𝑐]∗4.1 ∗0.02 [𝐴𝐴𝑌 𝑅𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑐 𝐿𝑙𝑎𝑐] This demand calculation was based on historical cooling tower use data from southern California, adjusted for the climate in Palo Alto. The historical data from several office buildings in Burbank, California showed about 330 square feet per ton of cooling tower load and about .02 AF of water use per ton of cooling tower load. This resulted in an average cooling tower water demand of 0.073 AF per 1,000 square feet of building area. This demand metric was then adjusted to Palo Alto’s climate using Cooling Degree Days – the number of degrees that a day’s average temperature is above 65F (which is assumed to be when air conditioning is needed), summed over an entire year. Since Burbank has approximately 4.1 times as many CDDs as Palo Alto, the Burbank cooling tower use factor was divided by 4.1 to yield a cooling tower use factor of 0.018 AF per 1,000 square feet for the Palo Alto area. This factor was applied to all developments assumed to have cooling towers in the service area. Based on the total number of cooling degree days per month in Palo Alto, August is the maximum demand month for cooling tower demands, with a maximum day peaking factor of 2.7. The peak hour cooling tower Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Appendix A: Non-Potable Demand Assessment demands were calculated using an hourly peaking factor of 2.0, assuming the average occupancy of the buildings is 12 hours during the day. These peaking factors are summarized in Table 5. Table 5: Demand Peaking Factors Demand Type Peaking Factor Maximum Day Irrigation 1.7 Cooling Tower 2.7 Hourly Irrigation 3.0 Dual Plumbing 2.0 Cooling Tower 2.0 Appendix B - Recycled Water Customers and Demand Estimates [Confidential – Not Included] Appendix C - Potential Uses Considered but Not Included Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Appendix C: Users Considered but Eliminated Appendix C: Users Considered but Eliminated Appendix A identifies potential non-potable recycled water customers throughout the Strategic Plan study area whereas this appendix identifies customers that were considered but not included in the study. The 1992 Palo Alto Recycled Water Master Plan (RWMP) was used as the starting point for identifying potential recycled water demands. Additional uses were then identified through review of available recycled water feasibility studies, Urban Water Management Plans, General and Specific Plans and aerials of the study area. The City and District then reached out to the Regional Water Quality Control Plan (RWQCP) Partner Agencies and other stakeholders to verify if the customers identified in their areas could realistically be expected to accept recycled water and whether additional customers should be considered. Customers from the 1992 RWMP that are not included in this Strategic Plan include: • East Palo Alto Greenhouses – In the 1990s there were a number of functioning greenhouses in East Palo Alto, but now there are not many greenhouses known to be operating in the area. Those that are still operating are not anticipated to have significant demand. • Medians and Streetscapes – The State Water Resources Control Board has proposed regulations prohibiting the irrigation of ornamental turf in publicly owned medians and streetscapes (i.e. the landscaped area between the street and sidewalk). The prohibition includes recycled water irrigation systems unless the system was installed prior to 2018. While irrigation of trees within medians and streetscapes are exempt from the proposed regulation, the default assumption for the Strategic Plan was not to include medians and streetscapes unless stakeholders provided information confirming the type of vegetation and associated water use for specific areas. Stakeholders suggested that medians along Foothill Expressway be considered. However, through field investigations, Palo Alto determined that the portion of Foothill Expressway in its service area is not irrigated and verification of irrigation of the portion within Los Altos could not be obtained. As such, Foothill Expressway was dropped from further consideration. • Gate of Heaven Cemetery – This customer, though previously identified as a potential customer in Los Altos’s service area, was found to be within Cupertino’s service area. Additional customers considered but not included: • Cooley Landing Park – Recycled water is currently being trucked to this East Palo Alto park to support the establishment period for new native landscaping. Following the establishment period there will be no irrigation demand. • East Bayshore Redevelopment - East Palo Alto staff noted that the area along East Bayshore has potential for significant multi-family residential redevelopment. However, there were no specific redevelopment plans, and the City indicated it would probably not pursue dual-plumbing for residential use. • East Palo Alto Neighborhood Gardens and Sports Fields – Through review of aerials of East Palo Alto, a number of sizeable gardens and what looked like communal sports fields in between Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Appendix C: Users Considered but Eliminated residences were identified. East Palo Alto city staff indicated that these are temporary uses that sprung up on vacant lots. When the building moratorium in East Palo Alto is lifted, the City expects that these sites will be developed. • Edith Park – This park in Los Altos Hills was recently redone to minimize irrigation needs. • Gateway District Retail Center Redevelopment – This potential redevelopment area was in review in East Palo Alto’s General Plan, but East Palo Alto city staff noted there are no specific plans for redevelopment of this area. • Los Altos Redevelopment along El Camino – The majority of redevelopment will occur in the next few years. Because the City currently does not require installation of recycled water infrastructure for new developments, incorporating recycled water use within these buildings seems unlikely. • Ravenswood Family Health Center – This facility in East Palo Alto is dual-plumbed. However, review of the facility’s plans showed that the dual-plumbing was for on-site rain capture and not designed to have recycled water incorporated. • San Antonio Redevelopment – This redevelopment area in Mountain View received conditions of approval prior to Mountain View’s dual-plumbing ordinance and, as a result, is not dual-plumbed for recycled water. • Single Family Residences – Los Altos Hills and Purissima Hills Water District (PHWD) indicated interest in working with large residential irrigators in Los Altos Hills to convert to recycled water use. Review of potential residences focused on parcels along Purissima Road and Fremont Road where PHWD identified the potential to repurpose abandoned or soon to be abandoned potable water pipelines for recycled water distribution. In these areas the residences averaged less than 1 acre-foot per year (AFY) of total water consumption. These volumes are not considered significant enough for residences to willingly undertake conversion of their irrigation systems plus the regulatory complexity involved with using recycled water at single family residences. • Sobrato Phase I – Construction for this site in East Palo Alto, which is also known as Amazon I, was already underway at the time of the demand assessment and was determined not to include purple pipe for recycled water. • Stanford Shopping Center – The General Manager of Stanford Shopping Center contacted the City at the start of the Strategic Planning process inquiring about the possibility of extending recycled water infrastructure to the shopping center. Through subsequent discussions, the shopping center indicated potential for both irrigation use as well as dual-plumbing use in future buildings. However, estimated demands were not provided. Appendix D - Opinions of Probable Costs A1 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Capital Costs General Requirements Mobilization Applied to all capital costs 10% $2,265,933 Traffic Control Applied to all capital costs 4% $906,373 Treatment MBR 0.0 MGD 17,200,000$ $0 Ozone 0.0 MGD 360,000$ $0 BAC 0.0 MGD 323,000$ $0 MF/UF system 0.0 MGD 1,317,000$ $0 RO System 0.0 MGD 1,586,000$ $0 RO Concentrate Treatment 0.0 MGD 1,510,000$ $0 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0.0 MGD 470,000$ $0 Free Chlorine 0.0 MGD 271,000$ $0 Chemicals (Storage and Use) 0.0 MGD 134,000$ $0 Sitework/Piping/Structures 0.0 MGD 3,427,000$ $0 Conveyance High-Density Urban Pipeline, HDPE 6 Inch 0 LF 186$ $0 8 Inch 18,494 LF 200$ $3,699,008 10 Inch 9,029 LF 212$ $1,914,318 12 Inch 6,873 LF 254$ $1,747,873 16 Inch 22,301 LF 277$ $6,178,938 18 Inch 0 LF 290$ $0 20 Inch 0 LF 334$ $0 24 Inch 0 LF 381$ $0 30 Inch 0 LF 462$ $0 Repurposing Pipe 6 Inch 0 LF 55$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0 Sheeting and Shoring (Open Cut)3% of Open Cut Pipeline Cost 3% $406,204 Microtunneling Tunnel and Casing (36")800 LF 1,728$ $1,382,400 Jacking Shaft 3 EA 300,000$ $900,000 Receiving Shaft 3 EA 150,000$ $450,000 Horizontal Directional Drilling 24 Inch Bore Diameter 350 LF 528$ $184,800 PTGAB 6 Inch 0 LF 375$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 500$ $0 10 Inch 0 LF 625$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 750$ $0 16 Inch 0 LF 1,000$ $0 20 Inch 0 LF 1,250$ $0 Jacking Shafts 0 EA 258,000$ $0 Receiving Shafts 0 EA 148,000$ $0 Pipe Bridge Pipe Bridge Support 8 LF 5,000$ $40,000 Pipe Bridge Pipe 6 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 86$ $0 10 Inch 0 LF 108$ $0 12 Inch 65 LF 139$ $9,049 16 Inch 0 LF 175$ $0 Potholing 579 EA 500$ $289,560 Cathodic Protection 3% of Pipeline Installation Cost 3% $506,178 Customer Services (no meter replacement) 62 EA 10,000$ $620,000 Customer Services (with meter replacement) 132 EA 15,000$ $1,980,000 Planter Box (Housing Pipe on Bridge Sidewalk) 6 CY 2,000$ $12,000 Planter Box (Installation Labor)8 Day 4,000$ $32,000 Pump Stations Pump Station #1 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #2 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #3 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #4 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #5 0 -$ $0 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 1 LS 1,389,000$ $1,389,000 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 1 LS 918,000$ $918,000 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #1 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #2 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #3 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #4 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #5 0 Gal -$ $0 Storage Tank Storage Tank 0.0 1,500,000$ $0 Underground Construction 0.0 LS 1,000,000$ Injection Well 0 EA 1,000,000$ $0 Extraction Wellhead Treatment Hale 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Rinconada 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Peers 0 AFY 3,353$ $0 El Camino 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Eleanor 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Library 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 3,326,000$ $0 Subtotal $25,832,000 Sales Tax 9%$1,020,000 Construction Cost Subtotal $26,852,000 Market Adjustment Factor 10%$2,685,000 Construction Contingency 40%$10,741,000 Construction Cost Total $40,300,000 Engineering and Admin Services (Design)15%$4,028,000 Construction Management 10% $2,685,000 Engineering Services During Construction 3%$806,000 Property Acquisition (Property Only)0 SQ FT 500$ $0 Property Acquisition (House on Property) 0 SQ FT 1,000$ $0 Rinconada Land Cost 0 LS 4,500,000$ $0 Peers Land Cost 0 LS 7,000,000$ $0 On-Time Fee 0 LS 75,000$ Total Capital Cost $47,800,000 Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby MG Applied to half of capital costs (not including General) Concept Option: A1 Page 1 of 22 A1 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost O&M Costs (Annual) Advanced Water Treatment MBR 0 MGD 560,000$ $0 Ozone 0 MGD 93,000$ $0 BAC 0 MGD 131,000$ $0 MF/UF system 0 MGD 342,000$ $0 RO System 0 MGD 574,000$ $0 RO Concentrate Treatment 0 MGD 226,000$ $0 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0 MGD 73,000$ $0 Free Chlorine 0 MGD 32,000$ $0 Chemicals 0 MGD 121,000$ $0 Labor for Treatment (no MBR)0 1,040 hrs/MGD 100$ $0 Labor for MBR 0 1,040 hrs/year 100$ $0 Monitoring 0 $/year 1,000,000$ $0 Conveyance LF $0.78 $44,942 Pump Stations Consumables Equipment 1% $0 Mechanical 1% $0 Electrical/Instrumentation 1% $0 Electricity Requirement Energy Charge 444,385 kWh/year 0.15$ $66,658 Labor Costs Total No. Operators 0 No. Average Annual Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours Total Operator Hours per Year 0 Hours 99.81$ $0 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 1 LS 96,000$ $96,000 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 1 LS 81,000$ $81,000 Storage Tanks Annual O&M 1% $0 Injection Wells Annual O&M 0 EA 15,000$ $0 Extraction Wells Groundwater Pumping Charge 0 AFY 1,960$ $0 Hale Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 265$ $0 Rinconada Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 263$ $0 Peers Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 224$ $0 El Camino Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Eleanor Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Library Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 242$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 100,000$ $0 Total O&M Costs ($/yr)$290,000 Annualized Costs ($ / Year) Annualized Capital Costs ($/Year)One payment per year, spread over Project Life $2,439,000 Annual O&M Costs $290,000 Total Annualized Cost $2,729,000 Deliveries of Recycled Water Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF)$3,400 Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Pipeline - Average Annual Operator Hours per 800 AFY Concept Option: A1 Page 2 of 22 A2 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Capital Costs General Requirements Mobilization Applied to all capital costs 10% $2,987,744 Traffic Control Applied to all capital costs 4% $1,195,097 Treatment MBR 0.0 MGD 17,200,000$ $0 Ozone 0.0 MGD 360,000$ $0 BAC 0.0 MGD 323,000$ $0 MF/UF system 0.0 MGD 1,317,000$ $0 RO System 0.0 MGD 1,586,000$ $0 RO Concentrate Treatment 0.0 MGD 1,510,000$ $0 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0.0 MGD 470,000$ $0 Free Chlorine 0.0 MGD 271,000$ $0 Chemicals (Storage and Use) 0.0 MGD 134,000$ $0 Sitework/Piping/Structures 0.0 MGD 3,427,000$ $0 Conveyance High-Density Urban Pipeline, HDPE 6 Inch 0 LF 186$ $0 8 Inch 50,383 LF 200$ $10,077,166 10 Inch 8,600 LF 212$ $1,823,362 12 Inch 5,500 LF 254$ $1,398,705 16 Inch 1,000 LF 277$ $277,070 18 Inch 0 LF 290$ $0 20 Inch 7,115 LF 334$ $2,375,058 24 Inch 0 LF 381$ $0 30 Inch 0 LF 462$ $0 Repurposing Pipe 6 Inch 2,200 LF 55$ $120,839 8 Inch 1,850 LF 66$ $121,540 Sheeting and Shoring (Open Cut)3% of Open Cut Pipeline Cost 3% $478,541 Microtunneling Tunnel and Casing (36")820 LF 1,728$ $1,416,960 Jacking Shaft 3 EA 300,000$ $900,000 Receiving Shaft 3 EA 150,000$ $450,000 Horizontal Directional Drilling 24 Inch Bore Diameter 350 LF 528$ $184,800 PTGAB 6 Inch 0 LF 375$ $0 8 Inch 236 LF 500$ $118,025 10 Inch 0 LF 625$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 750$ $0 16 Inch 0 LF 1,000$ $0 20 Inch 0 LF 1,250$ $0 Jacking Shafts 2 EA 258,000$ $516,000 Receiving Shafts 2 EA 148,000$ $296,000 Pipe Bridge Pipe Bridge Support 56 LF 5,000$ $280,000 Pipe Bridge Pipe 6 Inch 431 LF 66$ $28,252 8 Inch 0 LF 86$ $0 10 Inch 50 LF 108$ $5,424 12 Inch 0 LF 139$ $0 16 Inch 65 LF 175$ $11,387 Potholing 746 EA 500$ $372,750 Cathodic Protection 3% of Pipeline Installation Cost 3% $593,614 Customer Services (no meter replacement) 62 EA 10,000$ $620,000 Customer Services (with meter replacement) 137 EA 15,000$ $2,055,000 Planter Box (Housing Pipe on Bridge Sidewalk) 6 CY 2,000$ $12,000 Planter Box (Installation Labor)8 Day 4,000$ $32,000 Pump Stations Pump Station #1 200 7,444$ $1,488,839 Pump Station #2 300 6,433$ $1,929,951 Pump Station #3 40 13,288$ $531,505 Pump Station #4 60 11,483$ $688,978 Pump Station #5 0 -$ $0 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 1,389,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 918,000$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #1 9,100 Gal 29$ $266,555 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #2 8,500 Gal 30$ $258,258 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #3 2,900 Gal 41$ $117,657 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #4 700 Gal 45$ $31,202 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #5 0 Gal -$ $0 Storage Tank Storage Tank 0.0 1,500,000$ $0 Underground Construction 0.0 LS 1,000,000$ Injection Well 0 EA 1,000,000$ $0 Extraction Wellhead Treatment Hale 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Rinconada 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Peers 0 AFY 3,353$ $0 El Camino 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Eleanor 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Library 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 3,326,000$ $0 Subtotal $34,060,000 Sales Tax 9%$1,344,000 Construction Cost Subtotal $35,404,000 Market Adjustment Factor 10%$3,540,000 Construction Contingency 40%$14,162,000 Construction Cost Total $53,200,000 Engineering and Admin Services (Design)15%$5,311,000 Construction Management 10% $3,540,000 Engineering Services During Construction 3%$1,062,000 Property Acquisition (Property Only)0 SQ FT 500$ $0 Property Acquisition (House on Property) 0 SQ FT 1,000$ $0 Rinconada Land Cost 0 LS 4,500,000$ $0 Peers Land Cost 0 LS 7,000,000$ $0 On-Time Fee 0 LS 75,000$ Total Capital Cost $63,000,000 Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby MG Applied to half of capital costs (not including General) Concept Option: A2 Page 3 of 22 A2 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost O&M Costs (Annual) Advanced Water Treatment MBR 0 MGD 560,000$ $0 Ozone 0 MGD 93,000$ $0 BAC 0 MGD 131,000$ $0 MF/UF system 0 MGD 342,000$ $0 RO System 0 MGD 574,000$ $0 RO Concentrate Treatment 0 MGD 226,000$ $0 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0 MGD 73,000$ $0 Free Chlorine 0 MGD 32,000$ $0 Chemicals 0 MGD 121,000$ $0 Labor for Treatment (no MBR)0 1,040 hrs/MGD 100$ $0 Labor for MBR 0 1,040 hrs/year 100$ $0 Monitoring 0 $/year 1,000,000$ $0 Conveyance LF $0.78 $58,100 Pump Stations Consumables Equipment 1% $46,393 Mechanical 1% $46,393 Electrical/Instrumentation 1% $46,393 Electricity Requirement Energy Charge 794,111 kWh/year 0.15$ $119,117 Labor Costs Total No. Operators 4 No. Average Annual Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours Total Operator Hours per Year 2,080 Hours 99.81$ $207,610 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 96,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 81,000$ $0 Storage Tanks Annual O&M 1% $0 Injection Wells Annual O&M 0 EA 15,000$ $0 Extraction Wells Groundwater Pumping Charge 0 AFY 1,960$ $0 Hale Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 265$ $0 Rinconada Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 263$ $0 Peers Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 224$ $0 El Camino Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Eleanor Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Library Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 242$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 100,000$ $0 Total O&M Costs ($/yr)$520,000 Annualized Costs ($ / Year) Annualized Capital Costs ($/Year)One payment per year, spread over Project Life $3,214,000 Annual O&M Costs $520,000 Total Annualized Cost $3,734,000 Deliveries of Recycled Water Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF)$3,400 Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Pipeline - Average Annual Operator Hours per 1,100 AFY Concept Option: A2 Page 4 of 22 A3 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Capital Costs General Requirements Mobilization Applied to all capital costs 10% $4,033,005 Traffic Control Applied to all capital costs 4% $1,613,202 Treatment MBR 0.0 MGD 17,200,000$ $0 Ozone 0.0 MGD 360,000$ $0 BAC 0.0 MGD 323,000$ $0 MF/UF system 0.0 MGD 1,317,000$ $0 RO System 0.0 MGD 1,586,000$ $0 RO Concentrate Treatment 0.0 MGD 1,510,000$ $0 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0.0 MGD 470,000$ $0 Free Chlorine 0.0 MGD 271,000$ $0 Chemicals (Storage and Use) 0.0 MGD 134,000$ $0 Sitework/Piping/Structures 0.0 MGD 3,427,000$ $0 Conveyance High-Density Urban Pipeline, HDPE 6 Inch 0 LF 186$ $0 8 Inch 60,148 LF 200$ $12,030,275 10 Inch 32,577 LF 212$ $6,906,936 12 Inch 3,550 LF 254$ $902,801 16 Inch 5,500 LF 277$ $1,523,885 18 Inch 0 LF 290$ $0 20 Inch 8,115 LF 334$ $2,708,868 24 Inch 0 LF 381$ $0 30 Inch 0 LF 462$ $0 Repurposing Pipe 6 Inch 2,200 LF 55$ $120,839 8 Inch 1,850 LF 66$ $121,540 Sheeting and Shoring (Open Cut)3% of Open Cut Pipeline Cost 3% $722,183 Microtunneling Tunnel and Casing (36")820 LF 1,728$ $1,416,960 Jacking Shaft 3 EA 300,000$ $900,000 Receiving Shaft 3 EA 150,000$ $450,000 Horizontal Directional Drilling 24 Inch Bore Diameter 350 LF 528$ $184,800 PTGAB 6 Inch 0 LF 375$ $0 8 Inch 236 LF 500$ $118,025 10 Inch 0 LF 625$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 750$ $0 16 Inch 0 LF 1,000$ $0 20 Inch 0 LF 1,250$ $0 Jacking Shafts 2 EA 258,000$ $516,000 Receiving Shafts 2 EA 148,000$ $296,000 Pipe Bridge Pipe Bridge Support 87 LF 5,000$ $435,000 Pipe Bridge Pipe 6 Inch 566 LF 66$ $37,101 8 Inch 123 LF 86$ $10,631 10 Inch 50 LF 108$ $5,424 12 Inch 50 LF 139$ $6,961 16 Inch 65 LF 175$ $11,387 Potholing 1,122 EA 500$ $560,750 Cathodic Protection 3% of Pipeline Installation Cost 3% $845,358 Customer Services (no meter replacement) 62 EA 10,000$ $620,000 Customer Services (with meter replacement) 147 EA 15,000$ $2,205,000 Planter Box (Housing Pipe on Bridge Sidewalk) 6 CY 2,000$ $12,000 Planter Box (Installation Labor)8 Day 4,000$ $32,000 Pump Stations Pump Station #1 300 6,433$ $1,929,951 Pump Station #2 300 6,433$ $1,929,951 Pump Station #3 40 13,288$ $531,505 Pump Station #4 60 11,483$ $688,978 Pump Station #5 69 10,920$ $753,446 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 1,389,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 918,000$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #1 11,200 Gal 25$ $285,278 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #2 10,500 Gal 27$ $280,820 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #3 2,900 Gal 41$ $117,657 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #4 700 Gal 45$ $31,202 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #5 1,900 Gal 42$ $80,542 Storage Tank Storage Tank 0.0 1,500,000$ $0 Underground Construction 0.0 LS 1,000,000$ Injection Well 0 EA 1,000,000$ $0 Extraction Wellhead Treatment Hale 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Rinconada 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Peers 0 AFY 3,353$ $0 El Camino 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Eleanor 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Library 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 3,326,000$ $0 Subtotal $45,976,000 Sales Tax 9%$1,815,000 Construction Cost Subtotal $47,791,000 Market Adjustment Factor 10%$4,779,000 Construction Contingency 40%$19,116,000 Construction Cost Total $71,700,000 Engineering and Admin Services (Design)15%$7,169,000 Construction Management 10% $4,779,000 Engineering Services During Construction 3%$1,434,000 Property Acquisition (Property Only)0 SQ FT 500$ $0 Property Acquisition (House on Property) 0 SQ FT 1,000$ $0 Rinconada Land Cost 0 LS 4,500,000$ $0 Peers Land Cost 0 LS 7,000,000$ $0 On-Time Fee 0 LS 75,000$ Total Capital Cost $85,100,000 Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby MG Applied to half of capital costs (not including General) Concept Option: A3 Page 5 of 22 A3 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost O&M Costs (Annual) Advanced Water Treatment MBR 0 MGD 560,000$ $0 Ozone 0 MGD 93,000$ $0 BAC 0 MGD 131,000$ $0 MF/UF system 0 MGD 342,000$ $0 RO System 0 MGD 574,000$ $0 RO Concentrate Treatment 0 MGD 226,000$ $0 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0 MGD 73,000$ $0 Free Chlorine 0 MGD 32,000$ $0 Chemicals 0 MGD 121,000$ $0 Labor for Treatment (no MBR)0 1,040 hrs/MGD 100$ $0 Labor for MBR 0 1,040 hrs/year 100$ $0 Monitoring 0 $/year 1,000,000$ $0 Conveyance LF $0.78 $87,864 Pump Stations Consumables Equipment 1% $58,338 Mechanical 1% $58,338 Electrical/Instrumentation 1% $58,338 Electricity Requirement Energy Charge 1,040,732 kWh/year 0.15$ $156,110 Labor Costs Total No. Operators 5 No. Average Annual Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours Total Operator Hours per Year 2,600 Hours 99.81$ $259,513 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 96,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 81,000$ $0 Storage Tanks Annual O&M 1% $0 Injection Wells Annual O&M 0 EA 15,000$ $0 Extraction Wells Groundwater Pumping Charge 0 AFY 1,960$ $0 Hale Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 265$ $0 Rinconada Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 263$ $0 Peers Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 224$ $0 El Camino Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Eleanor Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Library Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 242$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 100,000$ $0 Total O&M Costs ($/yr)$680,000 Annualized Costs ($ / Year) Annualized Capital Costs ($/Year)One payment per year, spread over Project Life $4,342,000 Annual O&M Costs $680,000 Total Annualized Cost $5,022,000 Deliveries of Recycled Water Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF)$4,000 Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Pipeline - Average Annual Operator Hours per 1,250 AFY Concept Option: A3 Page 6 of 22 A4 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Capital Costs General Requirements Mobilization Applied to all capital costs 10% $0 Traffic Control Applied to all capital costs 4% $0 Treatment MBR 0.0 MGD 17,200,000$ $0 Ozone 0.0 MGD 360,000$ $0 BAC 0.0 MGD 323,000$ $0 MF/UF system 0.0 MGD 1,317,000$ $0 RO System 0.0 MGD 1,586,000$ $0 RO Concentrate Treatment 0.0 MGD 1,510,000$ $0 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0.0 MGD 470,000$ $0 Free Chlorine 0.0 MGD 271,000$ $0 Chemicals (Storage and Use) 0.0 MGD 134,000$ $0 Sitework/Piping/Structures 0.0 MGD 3,427,000$ $0 Conveyance High-Density Urban Pipeline, HDPE 6 Inch 0 LF 186$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 200$ $0 10 Inch 0 LF 212$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 254$ $0 16 Inch 0 LF 277$ $0 18 Inch 0 LF 290$ $0 20 Inch 0 LF 334$ $0 24 Inch 0 LF 381$ $0 30 Inch 0 LF 462$ $0 Repurposing Pipe 6 Inch 0 LF 55$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0 Sheeting and Shoring (Open Cut)3% of Open Cut Pipeline Cost 3% $0 Microtunneling Tunnel and Casing (36")0 LF 1,728$ $0 Jacking Shaft 0 EA 300,000$ $0 Receiving Shaft 0 EA 150,000$ $0 Horizontal Directional Drilling 24 Inch Bore Diameter 0 LF 528$ $0 PTGAB 6 Inch 0 LF 375$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 500$ $0 10 Inch 0 LF 625$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 750$ $0 16 Inch 0 LF 1,000$ $0 20 Inch 0 LF 1,250$ $0 Jacking Shafts 0 EA 258,000$ $0 Receiving Shafts 0 EA 148,000$ $0 Pipe Bridge Pipe Bridge Support 0 LF 5,000$ $0 Pipe Bridge Pipe 6 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 86$ $0 10 Inch 0 LF 108$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 139$ $0 16 Inch 0 LF 175$ $0 Potholing 0 EA 500$ $0 Cathodic Protection 3% of Pipeline Installation Cost 3% $0 Customer Services (no meter replacement) 0 EA 10,000$ $0 Customer Services (with meter replacement) 0 EA 15,000$ $0 Planter Box (Housing Pipe on Bridge Sidewalk) 0 CY 2,000$ $0 Planter Box (Installation Labor)0 Day 4,000$ $0 Pump Stations Pump Station #1 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #2 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #3 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #4 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #5 0 -$ $0 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 1,389,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 918,000$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #1 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #2 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #3 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #4 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #5 0 Gal -$ $0 Storage Tank Storage Tank 0.0 1,500,000$ $0 Underground Construction 0.0 LS 1,000,000$ Injection Well 0 EA 1,000,000$ $0 Extraction Wellhead Treatment Hale 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Rinconada 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Peers 0 AFY 3,353$ $0 El Camino 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Eleanor 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Library 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 1 LS 3,326,000$ $3,326,000 Subtotal $3,326,000 Sales Tax 9%$150,000 Construction Cost Subtotal $3,476,000 Market Adjustment Factor 10%$348,000 Construction Contingency 40%$1,390,000 Construction Cost Total $5,300,000 Engineering and Admin Services (Design)15%$521,000 Construction Management 10% $348,000 Engineering Services During Construction 3%$104,000 Property Acquisition (Property Only)0 SQ FT 500$ $0 Property Acquisition (House on Property) 0 SQ FT 1,000$ $0 Rinconada Land Cost 0 LS 4,500,000$ $0 Peers Land Cost 0 LS 7,000,000$ $0 On-Time Fee 0 LS 75,000$ Total Capital Cost $6,200,000 Total installed HP, including standby MG Applied to half of capital costs (not including General) Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Concept Option: A4 Page 7 of 22 A4 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost O&M Costs (Annual) Advanced Water Treatment MBR 0 MGD 560,000$ $0 Ozone 0 MGD 93,000$ $0 BAC 0 MGD 131,000$ $0 MF/UF system 0 MGD 342,000$ $0 RO System 0 MGD 574,000$ $0 RO Concentrate Treatment 0 MGD 226,000$ $0 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0 MGD 73,000$ $0 Free Chlorine 0 MGD 32,000$ $0 Chemicals 0 MGD 121,000$ $0 Labor for Treatment (no MBR)0 1,040 hrs/MGD 100$ $0 Labor for MBR 0 1,040 hrs/year 100$ $0 Monitoring 0 $/year 1,000,000$ $0 Conveyance LF $0.78 $0 Pump Stations Consumables Equipment 1% $0 Mechanical 1% $0 Electrical/Instrumentation 1% $0 Electricity Requirement Energy Charge - kWh/year 0.15$ $0 Labor Costs Total No. Operators 0 No. Average Annual Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours Total Operator Hours per Year 0 Hours 99.81$ $0 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 96,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 81,000$ $0 Storage Tanks Annual O&M 1% $0 Injection Wells Annual O&M 0 EA 15,000$ $0 Extraction Wells Groundwater Pumping Charge 0 AFY 1,960$ $0 Hale Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 265$ $0 Rinconada Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 263$ $0 Peers Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 224$ $0 El Camino Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Eleanor Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Library Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 242$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 1 LS 100,000$ $100,000 Total O&M Costs ($/yr)$100,000 Annualized Costs ($ / Year) Annualized Capital Costs ($/Year)One payment per year, spread over Project Life $316,000 Annual O&M Costs $100,000 Total Annualized Cost $416,000 Deliveries of Recycled Water Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF)$2,100 Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Pipeline - Average Annual Operator Hours per 200 AFY Concept Option: A4 Page 8 of 22 A5 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Capital Costs General Requirements Mobilization Applied to all capital costs 10% $3,443,427 Traffic Control Applied to all capital costs 4% $1,377,371 Treatment MBR 0.0 MGD 17,200,000$ $0 Ozone 0.0 MGD 360,000$ $0 BAC 0.0 MGD 323,000$ $0 MF/UF system 0.0 MGD 1,317,000$ $0 RO System 0.0 MGD 1,586,000$ $0 RO Concentrate Treatment 0.0 MGD 1,510,000$ $0 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0.0 MGD 470,000$ $0 Free Chlorine 0.0 MGD 271,000$ $0 Chemicals (Storage and Use) 0.0 MGD 134,000$ $0 Sitework/Piping/Structures 0.0 MGD 3,427,000$ $0 Conveyance High-Density Urban Pipeline, HDPE 6 Inch 0 LF 186$ $0 8 Inch 21,500 LF 200$ $4,300,241 10 Inch 14,500 LF 212$ $3,074,272 12 Inch 5,500 LF 254$ $1,398,705 16 Inch 0 LF 277$ $0 18 Inch 0 LF 290$ $0 20 Inch 44,714 LF 334$ $14,925,980 24 Inch 0 LF 381$ $0 30 Inch 0 LF 462$ $0 Repurposing Pipe 6 Inch 0 LF 55$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0 Sheeting and Shoring (Open Cut)3% of Open Cut Pipeline Cost 3% $710,976 Microtunneling Tunnel and Casing (36")0 LF 1,728$ $0 Jacking Shaft 0 EA 300,000$ $0 Receiving Shaft 0 EA 150,000$ $0 Horizontal Directional Drilling 24 Inch Bore Diameter 0 LF 528$ $0 PTGAB 6 Inch 0 LF 375$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 500$ $0 10 Inch 122 LF 625$ $76,266 12 Inch 0 LF 750$ $0 16 Inch 0 LF 1,000$ $0 20 Inch 114 LF 1,250$ $142,530 Jacking Shafts 2 EA 258,000$ $516,000 Receiving Shafts 2 EA 148,000$ $296,000 Pipe Bridge Pipe Bridge Support 61 LF 5,000$ $305,000 Pipe Bridge Pipe 6 Inch 92 LF 66$ $6,031 8 Inch 240 LF 86$ $20,744 10 Inch 91 LF 108$ $9,871 12 Inch 0 LF 139$ $0 16 Inch 172 LF 175$ $30,132 Potholing 870 EA 500$ $435,225 Cathodic Protection 3% of Pipeline Installation Cost 3% $736,597 Customer Services (no meter replacement) 0 EA 10,000$ $0 Customer Services (with meter replacement) 106 EA 15,000$ $1,590,000 Planter Box (Housing Pipe on Bridge Sidewalk) 0 CY 2,000$ $0 Planter Box (Installation Labor)0 Day 4,000$ $0 Pump Stations Pump Station #1 300 6,433$ $1,929,951 Pump Station #2 225 7,135$ $1,605,408 Pump Station #3 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #4 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #5 0 -$ $0 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 1,389,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 918,000$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #1 12,200 Gal 24$ $288,554 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #2 7,200 Gal 33$ $235,789 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #3 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #4 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #5 0 Gal -$ $0 Storage Tank Storage Tank 1.2 1,500,000$ $1,800,000 Underground Construction 0.0 LS 1,000,000$ Injection Well 0 EA 1,000,000$ $0 Extraction Wellhead Treatment Hale 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Rinconada 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Peers 0 AFY 3,353$ $0 El Camino 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Eleanor 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Library 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 3,326,000$ $0 Subtotal $39,255,000 Sales Tax 9%$1,550,000 Construction Cost Subtotal $40,805,000 Market Adjustment Factor 10%$4,081,000 Construction Contingency 40%$16,322,000 Construction Cost Total $61,300,000 Engineering and Admin Services (Design)15%$6,121,000 Construction Management 10% $4,081,000 Engineering Services During Construction 3%$1,224,000 Property Acquisition (Property Only)0 SQ FT 500$ $0 Property Acquisition (House on Property) 0 SQ FT 1,000$ $0 Rinconada Land Cost 0 LS 4,500,000$ $0 Peers Land Cost 0 LS 7,000,000$ $0 On-Time Fee 0 LS 75,000$ Total Capital Cost $72,600,000 Total installed HP, including standby MG Applied to half of capital costs (not including General) Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Concept Option: A5 Page 9 of 22 A5 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost O&M Costs (Annual) Advanced Water Treatment MBR 0 MGD 560,000$ $0 Ozone 0 MGD 93,000$ $0 BAC 0 MGD 131,000$ $0 MF/UF system 0 MGD 342,000$ $0 RO System 0 MGD 574,000$ $0 RO Concentrate Treatment 0 MGD 226,000$ $0 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0 MGD 73,000$ $0 Free Chlorine 0 MGD 32,000$ $0 Chemicals 0 MGD 121,000$ $0 Labor for Treatment (no MBR)0 1,040 hrs/MGD 100$ $0 Labor for MBR 0 1,040 hrs/year 100$ $0 Monitoring 0 $/year 1,000,000$ $0 Conveyance LF $0.78 $68,908 Pump Stations Consumables Equipment 1% $35,354 Mechanical 1% $35,354 Electrical/Instrumentation 1% $35,354 Electricity Requirement Energy Charge 668,276 kWh/year 0.15$ $100,241 Labor Costs Total No. Operators 2 No. Average Annual Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours Total Operator Hours per Year 1,040 Hours 99.81$ $103,805 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 96,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 81,000$ $0 Storage Tanks Annual O&M 1% $18,000 Injection Wells Annual O&M 0 EA 15,000$ $0 Extraction Wells Groundwater Pumping Charge 0 AFY 1,960$ $0 Hale Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 265$ $0 Rinconada Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 263$ $0 Peers Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 224$ $0 El Camino Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Eleanor Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Library Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 242$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 100,000$ $0 Total O&M Costs ($/yr)$400,000 Annualized Costs ($ / Year) Annualized Capital Costs ($/Year)One payment per year, spread over Project Life $3,704,000 Annual O&M Costs $400,000 Total Annualized Cost $4,104,000 Deliveries of Recycled Water Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF)$4,600 Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Pipeline - Average Annual Operator Hours per 900 AFY Concept Option: A5 Page 10 of 22 A6 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Capital Costs General Requirements Mobilization Applied to all capital costs 10% $980,415 Traffic Control Applied to all capital costs 4% $392,166 Treatment MBR 0.0 MGD 17,200,000$ $0 Ozone 0.0 MGD 360,000$ $0 BAC 0.0 MGD 323,000$ $0 MF/UF system 0.0 MGD 1,317,000$ $0 RO System 0.0 MGD 1,586,000$ $0 RO Concentrate Treatment 0.0 MGD 1,510,000$ $0 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0.0 MGD 470,000$ $0 Free Chlorine 0.0 MGD 271,000$ $0 Chemicals (Storage and Use) 0.0 MGD 134,000$ $0 Sitework/Piping/Structures 0.0 MGD 3,427,000$ $0 Conveyance High-Density Urban Pipeline, HDPE 6 Inch 0 LF 186$ $0 8 Inch 14,100 LF 200$ $2,820,158 10 Inch 10,200 LF 212$ $2,162,592 12 Inch 10,000 LF 254$ $2,543,100 16 Inch 0 LF 277$ $0 18 Inch 0 LF 290$ $0 20 Inch 0 LF 334$ $0 24 Inch 0 LF 381$ $0 30 Inch 0 LF 462$ $0 Repurposing Pipe 6 Inch 0 LF 55$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0 Sheeting and Shoring (Open Cut)3% of Open Cut Pipeline Cost 3% $225,775 Microtunneling Tunnel and Casing (36")0 LF 1,728$ $0 Jacking Shaft 0 EA 300,000$ $0 Receiving Shaft 0 EA 150,000$ $0 Horizontal Directional Drilling 24 Inch Bore Diameter 0 LF 528$ $0 PTGAB 6 Inch 0 LF 375$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 500$ $0 10 Inch 0 LF 625$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 750$ $0 16 Inch 0 LF 1,000$ $0 20 Inch 0 LF 1,250$ $0 Jacking Shafts 0 EA 258,000$ $0 Receiving Shafts 0 EA 148,000$ $0 Pipe Bridge Pipe Bridge Support 0 LF 5,000$ $0 Pipe Bridge Pipe 6 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 86$ $0 10 Inch 0 LF 108$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 139$ $0 16 Inch 0 LF 175$ $0 Potholing 343 EA 500$ $171,500 Cathodic Protection 3% of Pipeline Installation Cost 3% $232,549 Customer Services (no meter replacement) 17 EA 10,000$ $170,000 Customer Services (with meter replacement) 16 EA 15,000$ $240,000 Planter Box (Housing Pipe on Bridge Sidewalk) 0 CY 2,000$ $0 Planter Box (Installation Labor)0 Day 4,000$ $0 Pump Stations Pump Station #1 150 8,256$ $1,238,474 Pump Station #2 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #3 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #4 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #5 0 -$ $0 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 1,389,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 918,000$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #1 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #2 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #3 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #4 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #5 0 Gal -$ $0 Storage Tank Storage Tank 0.0 1,500,000$ $0 Underground Construction 0.0 LS 1,000,000$ Injection Well 0 EA 1,000,000$ $0 Extraction Wellhead Treatment Hale 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Rinconada 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Peers 0 AFY 3,353$ $0 El Camino 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Eleanor 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Library 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 3,326,000$ $0 Subtotal $11,177,000 Sales Tax 9%$441,000 Construction Cost Subtotal $11,618,000 Market Adjustment Factor 10%$1,162,000 Construction Contingency 40%$4,647,000 Construction Cost Total $17,500,000 Engineering and Admin Services (Design)15%$1,743,000 Construction Management 10% $1,162,000 Engineering Services During Construction 3%$349,000 Property Acquisition (Property Only)0 SQ FT 500$ $0 Property Acquisition (House on Property) 0 SQ FT 1,000$ $0 Rinconada Land Cost 0 LS 4,500,000$ $0 Peers Land Cost 0 LS 7,000,000$ $0 On-Time Fee 0 LS 75,000$ Total Capital Cost $20,700,000 Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby MG Applied to half of capital costs (not including General) Concept Option: A6 Page 11 of 22 A6 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost O&M Costs (Annual) Advanced Water Treatment MBR 0 MGD 560,000$ $0 Ozone 0 MGD 93,000$ $0 BAC 0 MGD 131,000$ $0 MF/UF system 0 MGD 342,000$ $0 RO System 0 MGD 574,000$ $0 RO Concentrate Treatment 0 MGD 226,000$ $0 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0 MGD 73,000$ $0 Free Chlorine 0 MGD 32,000$ $0 Chemicals 0 MGD 121,000$ $0 Labor for Treatment (no MBR)0 1,040 hrs/MGD 100$ $0 Labor for MBR 0 1,040 hrs/year 100$ $0 Monitoring 0 $/year 1,000,000$ $0 Conveyance LF $0.78 $27,152 Pump Stations Consumables Equipment 1% $12,385 Mechanical 1% $12,385 Electrical/Instrumentation 1% $12,385 Electricity Requirement Energy Charge 201,615 kWh/year 0.15$ $30,242 Labor Costs Total No. Operators 1 No. Average Annual Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours Total Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours 99.81$ $51,903 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 96,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 81,000$ $0 Storage Tanks Annual O&M 1% $0 Injection Wells Annual O&M 0 EA 15,000$ $0 Extraction Wells Groundwater Pumping Charge 0 AFY 1,960$ $0 Hale Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 265$ $0 Rinconada Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 263$ $0 Peers Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 224$ $0 El Camino Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Eleanor Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Library Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 242$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 100,000$ $0 Total O&M Costs ($/yr)$150,000 Annualized Costs ($ / Year) Annualized Capital Costs ($/Year)One payment per year, spread over Project Life $1,056,000 Annual O&M Costs $150,000 Total Annualized Cost $1,206,000 Deliveries of Recycled Water Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF)$2,400 Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Pipeline - Average Annual Operator Hours per 500 AFY Concept Option: A6 Page 12 of 22 B1 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Capital Costs General Requirements Mobilization Applied to all capital costs 10% $4,956,940 Traffic Control Applied to all capital costs 4% $1,982,776 Treatment MBR 1.5 MGD 16,125,000$ $24,000,000 Ozone 0.0 MGD 360,000$ $0 BAC 0.0 MGD 323,000$ $0 MF/UF system 0.0 MGD 1,317,000$ $0 RO System 0.0 MGD 1,586,000$ $0 RO Concentrate Treatment 0.0 MGD 1,510,000$ $0 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0.0 MGD 470,000$ $0 Free Chlorine 0.0 MGD 271,000$ $0 Chemicals (Storage and Use) 0.0 MGD 134,000$ $0 Sitework/Piping/Structures 0.0 MGD 3,427,000$ $0 Conveyance High-Density Urban Pipeline, HDPE 6 Inch 0 LF 186$ $0 8 Inch 39,500 LF 200$ $7,900,443 10 Inch 4,000 LF 212$ $848,075 12 Inch 6,000 LF 254$ $1,525,860 16 Inch 11,500 LF 277$ $3,186,305 18 Inch 0 LF 290$ $0 20 Inch 6,000 LF 334$ $2,002,860 24 Inch 0 LF 381$ $0 30 Inch 0 LF 462$ $0 Repurposing Pipe 6 Inch 0 LF 55$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0 Sheeting and Shoring (Open Cut)3% of Open Cut Pipeline Cost 3% $463,906 Microtunneling Tunnel and Casing (36")0 LF 1,728$ $0 Jacking Shaft 0 EA 300,000$ $0 Receiving Shaft 0 EA 150,000$ $0 Horizontal Directional Drilling 24 Inch Bore Diameter 350 LF 528$ $184,800 PTGAB 6 Inch 0 LF 375$ $0 8 Inch 179 LF 500$ $89,519 10 Inch 0 LF 625$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 750$ $0 16 Inch 0 LF 1,000$ $0 20 Inch 0 LF 1,250$ $0 Jacking Shafts 0 EA 258,000$ $0 Receiving Shafts 0 EA 148,000$ $0 Pipe Bridge Pipe Bridge Support 14 LF 5,000$ $70,000 Pipe Bridge Pipe 6 Inch 123 LF 66$ $8,063 8 Inch 0 LF 86$ $0 10 Inch 0 LF 108$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 139$ $0 16 Inch 0 LF 175$ $0 Potholing 677 EA 500$ $338,260 Cathodic Protection 3% of Pipeline Installation Cost 3% $486,295 Customer Services (no meter replacement) 62 EA 10,000$ $620,000 Customer Services (with meter replacement) 139 EA 15,000$ $2,085,000 Planter Box (Housing Pipe on Bridge Sidewalk) 0 CY 2,000$ $0 Planter Box (Installation Labor)0 Day 4,000$ $0 Pump Stations Pump Station #1 200 7,444$ $1,488,839 Pump Station #2 60 11,483$ $688,978 Pump Station #3 60 11,483$ $688,978 Pump Station #4 6 26,306$ $157,836 Pump Station #5 0 -$ $0 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 1,389,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 918,000$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #1 6,800 Gal 33$ $227,638 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #2 5,500 Gal 36$ $197,127 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #3 1,400 Gal 43$ $60,621 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #4 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #5 0 Gal -$ $0 Storage Tank Storage Tank 1.5 1,500,000$ $2,250,000 Underground Construction 0.0 LS 1,000,000$ Injection Well 0 EA 1,000,000$ $0 Extraction Wellhead Treatment Hale 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Rinconada 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Peers 0 AFY 3,353$ $0 El Camino 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Eleanor 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Library 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 3,326,000$ $0 Subtotal $56,509,000 Sales Tax 9%$2,231,000 Construction Cost Subtotal $58,740,000 Market Adjustment Factor 10%$5,874,000 Construction Contingency 40%$23,496,000 Construction Cost Total $88,200,000 Engineering and Admin Services (Design)15%$8,811,000 Construction Management 10% $5,874,000 Engineering Services During Construction 3%$1,762,000 Property Acquisition (Property Only)50,000 SQ FT 500$ $25,000,000 Property Acquisition (House on Property)0 SQ FT 1,000$ $0 Rinconada Land Cost 0 LS 4,500,000$ $0 Peers Land Cost 0 LS 7,000,000$ $0 On-Time Fee 0 LS 75,000$ Total Capital Cost $129,600,000 Total installed HP, including standby MG Applied to half of capital costs (not including General) Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Concept Option: B1 Page 13 of 22 B1 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost O&M Costs (Annual) Advanced Water Treatment MBR 2 MGD 540,000$ $810,000 Ozone 0 MGD 93,000$ $0 BAC 0 MGD 131,000$ $0 MF/UF system 0 MGD 342,000$ $0 RO System 0 MGD 574,000$ $0 RO Concentrate Treatment 0 MGD 226,000$ $0 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0 MGD 73,000$ $0 Free Chlorine 0 MGD 32,000$ $0 Chemicals 0 MGD 121,000$ $0 Labor for Treatment (no MBR)0 1,040 hrs/MGD 100$ $0 Labor for MBR 2 1,040 hrs/year 100$ $104,000 Monitoring 0 $/year 1,000,000$ $0 Conveyance LF $0.78 $53,279 Pump Stations Consumables Equipment 1% $30,246 Mechanical 1% $30,246 Electrical/Instrumentation 1% $30,246 Electricity Requirement Energy Charge 550,080 kWh/year 0.15$ $82,512 Labor Costs Total No. Operators 4 No. Average Annual Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours Total Operator Hours per Year 2,080 Hours 99.81$ $207,610 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 96,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 81,000$ $0 Storage Tanks Annual O&M 1% $22,500 Injection Wells Annual O&M 0 EA 15,000$ $0 Extraction Wells Groundwater Pumping Charge 0 AFY 1,960$ $0 Hale Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 265$ $0 Rinconada Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 263$ $0 Peers Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 224$ $0 El Camino Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Eleanor Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Library Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 242$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 100,000$ $0 Total O&M Costs ($/yr)$1,370,000 Annualized Costs ($ / Year) Annualized Capital Costs ($/Year)One payment per year, spread over Project Life $6,612,000 Annual O&M Costs $1,370,000 Total Annualized Cost $7,982,000 Deliveries of Recycled Water Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF)$8,900 Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Pipeline - Average Annual Operator Hours per 900 AFY Concept Option: B1 Page 14 of 22 C1 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Capital Costs General Requirements Mobilization Applied to all capital costs 10% $3,353,169 Traffic Control Applied to all capital costs 4% $1,341,268 Treatment MBR 0.0 MGD 17,200,000$ $0 Ozone 0.0 MGD 360,000$ $0 BAC 0.0 MGD 323,000$ $0 MF/UF system 2.5 MGD 1,317,000$ $3,300,000 RO System 2.5 MGD 1,586,000$ $4,000,000 RO Concentrate Treatment 0.0 MGD 1,510,000$ $0 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 2.5 MGD 470,000$ $1,200,000 Free Chlorine 0.0 MGD 271,000$ $0 Chemicals (Storage and Use) 2.5 MGD 134,000$ $340,000 Sitework/Piping/Structures 2.5 MGD 3,427,000$ $8,600,000 Conveyance High-Density Urban Pipeline, HDPE 6 Inch 0 LF 186$ $0 8 Inch 2,000 LF 200$ $400,023 10 Inch 1,500 LF 212$ $318,028 12 Inch 5,000 LF 254$ $1,271,550 16 Inch 20,500 LF 277$ $5,679,935 18 Inch 0 LF 290$ $0 20 Inch 0 LF 334$ $0 24 Inch 0 LF 381$ $0 30 Inch 0 LF 462$ $0 Repurposing Pipe 6 Inch 0 LF 55$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0 Sheeting and Shoring (Open Cut)3% of Open Cut Pipeline Cost 3% $230,086 Microtunneling Tunnel and Casing (36")0 LF 1,728$ $0 Jacking Shaft 0 EA 300,000$ $0 Receiving Shaft 0 EA 150,000$ $0 Horizontal Directional Drilling 24 Inch Bore Diameter 0 LF 528$ $0 PTGAB 6 Inch 0 LF 375$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 500$ $0 10 Inch 0 LF 625$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 750$ $0 16 Inch 458 LF 1,000$ $458,096 20 Inch 0 LF 1,250$ $0 Jacking Shafts 1 EA 258,000$ $258,000 Receiving Shafts 1 EA 148,000$ $148,000 Pipe Bridge Pipe Bridge Support 0 LF 5,000$ $0 Pipe Bridge Pipe 6 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 86$ $0 10 Inch 0 LF 108$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 139$ $0 16 Inch 0 LF 175$ $0 Potholing 295 EA 500$ $147,290 Cathodic Protection 3% of Pipeline Installation Cost 3% $250,732 Customer Services (no meter replacement) 0 EA 10,000$ $0 Customer Services (with meter replacement) 0 EA 15,000$ $0 Planter Box (Housing Pipe on Bridge Sidewalk) 0 CY 2,000$ $0 Planter Box (Installation Labor)0 Day 4,000$ $0 Pump Stations Pump Station #1 300 6,433$ $1,929,951 Pump Station #2 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #3 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #4 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #5 0 -$ $0 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 1,389,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 918,000$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #1 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #2 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #3 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #4 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #5 0 Gal -$ $0 Storage Tank Storage Tank 0.0 1,500,000$ $0 Underground Construction 0.0 LS 1,000,000$ Injection Well 5 EA 1,000,000$ $5,000,000 Extraction Wellhead Treatment Hale 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Rinconada 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Peers 0 AFY 3,353$ $0 El Camino 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Eleanor 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Library 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 3,326,000$ $0 Subtotal $38,226,000 Sales Tax 9%$1,509,000 Construction Cost Subtotal $39,735,000 Market Adjustment Factor 10%$3,974,000 Construction Contingency 40%$15,894,000 Construction Cost Total $59,700,000 Engineering and Admin Services (Design)15%$5,960,000 Construction Management 10% $3,974,000 Engineering Services During Construction 3%$1,192,000 Property Acquisition (Property Only)20,000 SQ FT 500$ $10,000,000 Property Acquisition (House on Property)0 SQ FT 1,000$ $0 Rinconada Land Cost 1 LS 4,500,000$ $4,500,000 Peers Land Cost 1 LS 7,000,000$ $7,000,000 On-Time Fee 0 LS 75,000$ Total Capital Cost $92,200,000 Total installed HP, including standby MG Applied to half of capital costs (not including General) Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Concept Option: C1 Page 15 of 22 C1 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost O&M Costs (Annual) Advanced Water Treatment MBR 0 MGD 560,000$ $0 Ozone 0 MGD 93,000$ $0 BAC 0 MGD 131,000$ $0 MF/UF system 3 MGD 342,000$ $860,000 RO System 3 MGD 574,000$ $1,400,000 RO Concentrate Treatment 0 MGD 226,000$ $0 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 3 MGD 73,000$ $180,000 Free Chlorine 0 MGD 32,000$ $0 Chemicals 3 MGD 121,000$ $300,000 Labor for Treatment (no MBR)3 1,040 hrs/MGD 100$ $260,000 Labor for MBR 0 1,040 hrs/year 100$ $0 Monitoring 0 $/year 1,000,000$ $0 Conveyance LF $0.78 $23,320 Pump Stations Consumables Equipment 1% $19,300 Mechanical 1% $19,300 Electrical/Instrumentation 1% $19,300 Electricity Requirement Energy Charge 342,958 kWh/year 0.15$ $51,444 Labor Costs Total No. Operators 1 No. Average Annual Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours Total Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours 99.81$ $51,903 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 96,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 81,000$ $0 Storage Tanks Annual O&M 1% $0 Injection Wells Annual O&M 5 EA 15,000$ $75,000 Extraction Wells Groundwater Pumping Charge 5,900 AFY 1,960$ $11,564,000 Hale Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 265$ $0 Rinconada Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 263$ $0 Peers Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 224$ $0 El Camino Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Eleanor Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Library Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 242$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 100,000$ $0 Total O&M Costs ($/yr)$14,820,000 Annualized Costs ($ / Year) Annualized Capital Costs ($/Year)One payment per year, spread over Project Life $4,704,000 Annual O&M Costs $14,820,000 Total Annualized Cost $19,524,000 Deliveries of Recycled Water Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF)$3,300 Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Pipeline - Average Annual Operator Hours per 5,900 AFY Concept Option: C1 Page 16 of 22 C2 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Capital Costs General Requirements Mobilization Applied to all capital costs 10% $4,213,006 Traffic Control Applied to all capital costs 4% $1,685,202 Treatment MBR 0.0 MGD 17,200,000$ $0 Ozone 0.0 MGD 360,000$ $0 BAC 0.0 MGD 323,000$ $0 MF/UF system 2.8 MGD 1,317,000$ $3,700,000 RO System 2.8 MGD 1,586,000$ $4,400,000 RO Concentrate Treatment 0.9 MGD 1,510,000$ $1,400,000 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 2.8 MGD 470,000$ $1,300,000 Free Chlorine 0.0 MGD 271,000$ $0 Chemicals (Storage and Use) 2.8 MGD 134,000$ $370,000 Sitework/Piping/Structures 2.8 MGD 3,427,000$ $9,600,000 Conveyance High-Density Urban Pipeline, HDPE 6 Inch 0 LF 186$ $0 8 Inch 11,000 LF 200$ $2,200,124 10 Inch 5,500 LF 212$ $1,166,103 12 Inch 3,000 LF 254$ $762,930 16 Inch 2,500 LF 277$ $692,675 18 Inch 0 LF 290$ $0 20 Inch 18,500 LF 334$ $6,175,485 24 Inch 0 LF 381$ $0 30 Inch 0 LF 462$ $0 Repurposing Pipe 6 Inch 0 LF 55$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0 Sheeting and Shoring (Open Cut)3% of Open Cut Pipeline Cost 3% $329,920 Microtunneling Tunnel and Casing (36")0 LF 1,728$ $0 Jacking Shaft 0 EA 300,000$ $0 Receiving Shaft 0 EA 150,000$ $0 Horizontal Directional Drilling 24 Inch Bore Diameter 0 LF 528$ $0 PTGAB 6 Inch 0 LF 375$ $0 8 Inch 160 LF 500$ $80,017 10 Inch 0 LF 625$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 750$ $0 16 Inch 0 LF 1,000$ $0 20 Inch 619 LF 1,250$ $773,912 Jacking Shafts 3 EA 258,000$ $774,000 Receiving Shafts 3 EA 148,000$ $444,000 Pipe Bridge Pipe Bridge Support 19 LF 5,000$ $95,000 Pipe Bridge Pipe 6 Inch 170 LF 66$ $11,143 8 Inch 0 LF 86$ $0 10 Inch 0 LF 108$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 139$ $0 16 Inch 0 LF 175$ $0 Potholing 414 EA 500$ $207,245 Cathodic Protection 3% of Pipeline Installation Cost 3% $342,552 Customer Services (no meter replacement) 0 EA 10,000$ $0 Customer Services (with meter replacement) 25 EA 15,000$ $375,000 Planter Box (Housing Pipe on Bridge Sidewalk) 0 CY 2,000$ $0 Planter Box (Installation Labor)0 Day 4,000$ $0 Pump Stations Pump Station #1 300 6,433$ $1,929,951 Pump Station #2 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #3 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #4 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #5 0 -$ $0 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 1,389,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 918,000$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #1 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #2 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #3 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #4 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #5 0 Gal -$ $0 Storage Tank Storage Tank 0.0 1,500,000$ $0 Underground Construction 0.0 LS 1,000,000$ Injection Well 5 EA 1,000,000$ $5,000,000 Extraction Wellhead Treatment Hale 983 AFY 2,937$ $2,887,865 Rinconada 983 AFY 2,937$ $2,887,865 Peers 983 AFY 3,353$ $3,296,834 El Camino 983 AFY 4,538$ $4,462,774 Eleanor 983 AFY 4,538$ $4,462,774 Library 983 AFY 4,538$ $4,462,774 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 3,326,000$ $0 Subtotal $70,489,000 Sales Tax 9%$2,907,000 Construction Cost Subtotal $73,396,000 Market Adjustment Factor 10%$7,340,000 Construction Contingency 40%$29,358,000 Construction Cost Total $110,100,000 Engineering and Admin Services (Design)15%$11,009,000 Construction Management 10% $7,340,000 Engineering Services During Construction 3%$2,202,000 Property Acquisition (Property Only)20,000 SQ FT 500$ $10,000,000 Property Acquisition (House on Property)0 SQ FT 1,000$ $0 Rinconada Land Cost 1 LS 4,500,000$ $4,500,000 Peers Land Cost 1 LS 7,000,000$ $7,000,000 On-Time Fee 0 LS 75,000$ Total Capital Cost $152,100,000 Total installed HP, including standby MG Applied to half of capital costs (not including General) Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Concept Option: C2 Page 17 of 22 C2 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost O&M Costs (Annual) Advanced Water Treatment MBR 0 MGD 560,000$ $0 Ozone 0 MGD 93,000$ $0 BAC 0 MGD 131,000$ $0 MF/UF system 3 MGD 342,000$ $950,000 RO System 3 MGD 574,000$ $1,600,000 RO Concentrate Treatment 1 MGD 226,000$ $210,000 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 3 MGD 73,000$ $200,000 Free Chlorine 0 MGD 32,000$ $0 Chemicals 3 MGD 121,000$ $340,000 Labor for Treatment (no MBR)3 1,040 hrs/MGD 100$ $290,000 Labor for MBR 0 1,040 hrs/year 100$ $0 Monitoring 0 $/year 1,000,000$ $0 Conveyance LF $0.78 $32,816 Pump Stations Consumables Equipment 1% $19,300 Mechanical 1% $19,300 Electrical/Instrumentation 1% $19,300 Electricity Requirement Energy Charge 453,458 kWh/year 0.15$ $68,019 Labor Costs Total No. Operators 1 No. Average Annual Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours Total Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours 99.81$ $51,903 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 96,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 81,000$ $0 Storage Tanks Annual O&M 1% $0 Injection Wells Annual O&M 5 EA 15,000$ $75,000 Extraction Wells Groundwater Pumping Charge 5,900 AFY 1,960$ $11,564,000 Hale Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 983 AFY 265$ $260,797 Rinconada Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 983 AFY 263$ $258,689 Peers Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 983 AFY 224$ $220,625 El Camino Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 983 AFY 256$ $251,497 Eleanor Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 983 AFY 256$ $251,783 Library Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 983 AFY 242$ $238,429 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 100,000$ $0 Total O&M Costs ($/yr)$16,920,000 Annualized Costs ($ / Year) Annualized Capital Costs ($/Year)One payment per year, spread over Project Life $7,760,000 Annual O&M Costs $16,920,000 Total Annualized Cost $24,680,000 Deliveries of Recycled Water Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF)$4,000 Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Pipeline - Average Annual Operator Hours per 6,100 AFY Concept Option: C2 Page 18 of 22 C3 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Capital Costs General Requirements Mobilization Applied to all capital costs 10% $6,472,618 Traffic Control Applied to all capital costs 4% $2,589,047 Treatment MBR 0.0 MGD 17,200,000$ $0 Ozone 0.0 MGD 360,000$ $0 BAC 0.0 MGD 323,000$ $0 MF/UF system 3.3 MGD 1,317,000$ $4,400,000 RO System 3.3 MGD 1,586,000$ $5,300,000 RO Concentrate Treatment 1.0 MGD 1,510,000$ $1,500,000 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 3.3 MGD 470,000$ $1,600,000 Free Chlorine 0.0 MGD 271,000$ $0 Chemicals (Storage and Use) 3.3 MGD 134,000$ $440,000 Sitework/Piping/Structures 3.3 MGD 3,427,000$ $11,000,000 Conveyance High-Density Urban Pipeline, HDPE 6 Inch 0 LF 186$ $0 8 Inch 19,994 LF 200$ $3,999,025 10 Inch 12,529 LF 212$ $2,656,383 12 Inch 9,873 LF 254$ $2,510,803 16 Inch 47,801 LF 277$ $13,244,223 18 Inch 0 LF 290$ $0 20 Inch 0 LF 334$ $0 24 Inch 0 LF 381$ $0 30 Inch 0 LF 462$ $0 Repurposing Pipe 6 Inch 0 LF 55$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0 Sheeting and Shoring (Open Cut)3% of Open Cut Pipeline Cost 3% $672,313 Microtunneling Tunnel and Casing (36")800 LF 1,728$ $1,382,400 Jacking Shaft 3 EA 300,000$ $900,000 Receiving Shaft 3 EA 150,000$ $450,000 Horizontal Directional Drilling 24 Inch Bore Diameter 350 LF 528$ $184,800 PTGAB 6 Inch 0 LF 375$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 500$ $0 10 Inch 0 LF 625$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 750$ $0 16 Inch 160 LF 1,000$ $160,033 20 Inch 0 LF 1,250$ $0 Jacking Shafts 1 EA 258,000$ $258,000 Receiving Shafts 1 EA 148,000$ $148,000 Pipe Bridge Pipe Bridge Support 8 LF 5,000$ $40,000 Pipe Bridge Pipe 6 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 86$ $0 10 Inch 0 LF 108$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 139$ $0 16 Inch 65 LF 175$ $11,387 Potholing 916 EA 500$ $457,860 Cathodic Protection 3% of Pipeline Installation Cost 3% $785,141 Customer Services (no meter replacement) 62 EA 10,000$ $620,000 Customer Services (with meter replacement) 142 EA 15,000$ $2,130,000 Planter Box (Housing Pipe on Bridge Sidewalk) 6 CY 2,000$ $12,000 Planter Box (Installation Labor)8 Day 4,000$ $32,000 Pump Stations Pump Station #1 400 5,800$ $2,320,102 Pump Station #2 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #3 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #4 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #5 0 -$ $0 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 1 LS 1,389,000$ $1,389,000 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 1 LS 918,000$ $918,000 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #1 5,800 Gal 35$ $204,714 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #2 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #3 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #4 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #5 0 Gal -$ $0 Storage Tank Storage Tank 0.0 1,500,000$ $0 Underground Construction 0.0 LS 1,000,000$ Injection Well 5 EA 1,000,000$ $5,000,000 Extraction Wellhead Treatment Hale 833 AFY 2,937$ $2,447,343 Rinconada 833 AFY 2,937$ $2,447,343 Peers 833 AFY 3,353$ $2,793,927 El Camino 833 AFY 4,538$ $3,782,012 Eleanor 833 AFY 4,538$ $3,782,012 Library 833 AFY 4,538$ $3,782,012 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 3,326,000$ $0 Subtotal $92,822,000 Sales Tax 9%$3,769,000 Construction Cost Subtotal $96,591,000 Market Adjustment Factor 10%$9,659,000 Construction Contingency 40%$38,636,000 Construction Cost Total $144,900,000 Engineering and Admin Services (Design)15%$14,489,000 Construction Management 10% $9,659,000 Engineering Services During Construction 3%$2,898,000 Property Acquisition (Property Only)30,000 SQ FT 500$ $15,000,000 Property Acquisition (House on Property)0 SQ FT 1,000$ $0 Rinconada Land Cost 1 LS 4,500,000$ $4,500,000 Peers Land Cost 1 LS 7,000,000$ $7,000,000 On-Time Fee 0 LS 75,000$ Total Capital Cost $198,400,000 Total installed HP, including standby MG Applied to half of capital costs (not including General) Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Concept Option: C3 Page 19 of 22 C3 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost O&M Costs (Annual) Advanced Water Treatment MBR 0 MGD 560,000$ $0 Ozone 0 MGD 93,000$ $0 BAC 0 MGD 131,000$ $0 MF/UF system 3 MGD 342,000$ $1,100,000 RO System 3 MGD 574,000$ $1,900,000 RO Concentrate Treatment 1 MGD 226,000$ $220,000 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 3 MGD 73,000$ $240,000 Free Chlorine 0 MGD 32,000$ $0 Chemicals 3 MGD 121,000$ $400,000 Labor for Treatment (no MBR)3 1,040 hrs/MGD 100$ $350,000 Labor for MBR 0 1,040 hrs/year 100$ $0 Monitoring 0 $/year 1,000,000$ $0 Conveyance LF $0.78 $71,588 Pump Stations Consumables Equipment 1% $23,201 Mechanical 1% $23,201 Electrical/Instrumentation 1% $23,201 Electricity Requirement Energy Charge 466,792 kWh/year 0.15$ $70,019 Labor Costs Total No. Operators 1 No. Average Annual Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours Total Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours 99.81$ $51,903 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 1 LS 96,000$ $96,000 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 1 LS 81,000$ $81,000 Storage Tanks Annual O&M 1% $0 Injection Wells Annual O&M 5 EA 15,000$ $75,000 Extraction Wells Groundwater Pumping Charge 5,000 AFY 1,960$ $9,800,000 Hale Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 833 AFY 265$ $221,014 Rinconada Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 833 AFY 263$ $219,228 Peers Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 833 AFY 224$ $186,970 El Camino Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 833 AFY 256$ $213,133 Eleanor Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 833 AFY 256$ $213,376 Library Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 833 AFY 242$ $202,059 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 100,000$ $0 Total O&M Costs ($/yr)$15,780,000 Annualized Costs ($ / Year) Annualized Capital Costs ($/Year)One payment per year, spread over Project Life $10,122,000 Annual O&M Costs $15,780,000 Total Annualized Cost $25,902,000 Deliveries of Recycled Water Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF)$4,400 Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Pipeline - Average Annual Operator Hours per 5,900 AFY Concept Option: C3 Page 20 of 22 D1 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Capital Costs General Requirements Mobilization Applied to all capital costs 10% $3,772,451 Traffic Control Applied to all capital costs 4% $1,508,980 Treatment MBR 0.0 MGD 17,200,000$ $0 Ozone 4.7 MGD 360,000$ $1,700,000 BAC 4.7 MGD 323,000$ $1,500,000 MF/UF system 4.7 MGD 1,317,000$ $6,200,000 RO System 4.7 MGD 1,586,000$ $7,500,000 RO Concentrate Treatment 1.2 MGD 1,510,000$ $1,900,000 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 4.7 MGD 470,000$ $2,200,000 Free Chlorine 4.7 MGD 271,000$ $1,300,000 Chemicals (Storage and Use) 0.0 MGD 134,000$ $0 Sitework/Piping/Structures 0.0 MGD 3,427,000$ $0 Conveyance High-Density Urban Pipeline, HDPE 6 Inch 0 LF 186$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 200$ $0 10 Inch 0 LF 212$ $0 12 Inch 5,000 LF 254$ $1,271,550 16 Inch 0 LF 277$ $0 18 Inch 0 LF 290$ $0 20 Inch 500 LF 334$ $166,905 24 Inch 1,400 LF 381$ $533,568 30 Inch 2,600 LF 462$ $1,202,422 Repurposing Pipe 6 Inch 0 LF 55$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0 Sheeting and Shoring (Open Cut)3% of Open Cut Pipeline Cost 3% $59,161 Microtunneling Tunnel and Casing (36")0 LF 1,728$ $0 Jacking Shaft 0 EA 300,000$ $0 Receiving Shaft 0 EA 150,000$ $0 Horizontal Directional Drilling 24 Inch Bore Diameter 0 LF 528$ $0 PTGAB 6 Inch 0 LF 375$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 500$ $0 10 Inch 0 LF 625$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 750$ $0 16 Inch 0 LF 1,000$ $0 20 Inch 1,200 LF 1,250$ $1,500,313 Jacking Shafts 1 EA 258,000$ $258,000 Receiving Shafts 1 EA 148,000$ $148,000 Pipe Bridge Pipe Bridge Support 0 LF 5,000$ $0 Pipe Bridge Pipe 6 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 86$ $0 10 Inch 0 LF 108$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 139$ $0 16 Inch 0 LF 175$ $0 Potholing 107 EA 500$ $53,500 Cathodic Protection 3% of Pipeline Installation Cost 3% $97,008 Customer Services (no meter replacement) 0 EA 10,000$ $0 Customer Services (with meter replacement) 0 EA 15,000$ $0 Planter Box (Housing Pipe on Bridge Sidewalk) 0 CY 2,000$ $0 Planter Box (Installation Labor)0 Day 4,000$ $0 Pump Stations Pump Station #1 60 11,483$ $688,978 Pump Station #2 400 5,800$ $2,320,102 Pump Station #3 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #4 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #5 0 -$ $0 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 1,389,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 918,000$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #1 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #2 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #3 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #4 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #5 0 Gal -$ $0 Storage Tank Storage Tank 4.8 1,500,000$ $7,125,000 Underground Construction 1.0 LS 1,000,000$ Injection Well 0 EA 1,000,000$ $0 Extraction Wellhead Treatment Hale 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Rinconada 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Peers 0 AFY 3,353$ $0 El Camino 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Eleanor 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Library 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 3,326,000$ $0 Subtotal $43,006,000 Sales Tax 9%$1,698,000 Construction Cost Subtotal $44,704,000 Market Adjustment Factor 10%$4,470,000 Construction Contingency 40%$17,882,000 Construction Cost Total $67,100,000 Engineering and Admin Services (Design)15%$6,706,000 Construction Management 10% $4,470,000 Engineering Services During Construction 3%$1,341,000 Property Acquisition (Property Only)50,000 SQ FT 500$ $25,000,000 Property Acquisition (House on Property)0 SQ FT 1,000$ $0 Rinconada Land Cost 0 LS 4,500,000$ $0 Peers Land Cost 0 LS 7,000,000$ $0 On-Time Fee 1 LS 75,000$ Total Capital Cost $104,600,000 Total installed HP, including standby MG Applied to half of capital costs (not including General) Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Concept Option: D1 Page 21 of 22 D1 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost O&M Costs (Annual) Advanced Water Treatment MBR 0 MGD 560,000$ $0 Ozone 5 MGD 93,000$ $440,000 BAC 5 MGD 131,000$ $620,000 MF/UF system 5 MGD 342,000$ $1,600,000 RO System 5 MGD 574,000$ $2,700,000 RO Concentrate Treatment 1 MGD 226,000$ $280,000 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 5 MGD 73,000$ $350,000 Free Chlorine 5 MGD 32,000$ $150,000 Chemicals 0 MGD 121,000$ $0 Labor for Treatment (no MBR)5 1,040 hrs/MGD 100$ $490,000 Labor for MBR 0 1,040 hrs/year 100$ $0 Monitoring 1 $/year 1,000,000$ $1,000,000 Conveyance LF $0.78 $6,434 Pump Stations Consumables Equipment 1% $30,091 Mechanical 1% $30,091 Electrical/Instrumentation 1% $30,091 Electricity Requirement Energy Charge 718,547 kWh/year 0.15$ $107,782 Labor Costs Total No. Operators 2 No. Average Annual Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours Total Operator Hours per Year 1,040 Hours 99.81$ $103,805 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 96,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 81,000$ $0 Storage Tanks Annual O&M 1% $71,250 Injection Wells Annual O&M 0 EA 15,000$ $0 Extraction Wells Groundwater Pumping Charge 0 AFY 1,960$ $0 Hale Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 265$ $0 Rinconada Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 263$ $0 Peers Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 224$ $0 El Camino Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Eleanor Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Library Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 242$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 100,000$ $0 Total O&M Costs ($/yr)$8,010,000 Annualized Costs ($ / Year) Annualized Capital Costs ($/Year)One payment per year, spread over Project Life $5,337,000 Annual O&M Costs $8,010,000 Total Annualized Cost $13,347,000 Deliveries of Recycled Water Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF)$2,500 Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Pipeline - Average Annual Operator Hours per 5,300 AFY Concept Option: D1 Page 22 of 22 Appendix E - Concept Option Variations [Confidential – Not Included] Appendix F - Cost Per Unit of Water Analyses for Palo Alto, Cal Water, Purissima Hills Water District and East Palo Alto [Confidential – Not Included] Appendix G - Funding Matrix Page 1 of 4 Summary of Potential Recycled Water Funding Opportunities – Updated March 13, 2019 Program Administering Agency Funding Type CEQA/ NEPA Required? Program Purpose Eligible Uses Eligibility Requirements Due Date & Future Rounds Funding Amounts & Terms Cost Share Priority Determination / Critical Factors Title XVI Water Reuse & Reclamation Grant Program - Construction U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) Grant CEQA and NEPA Construction of water recycling treatment and conveyance facilities. Planning, design, construction (can include prior costs) A Title XVI Feasibility Study must be submitted to Reclamation for review and approval prior to submitting a construction application. Project must receive congressional authorization in order to receive construction grant funding. Most recent round was due in Summer 2018. Next round anticipated spring 2019 The total amount of available funds varies each year. The 2018 FOA included $34M for Title XVI. Historically, there has been a max of ~$4M per applicant, though the new administration has favored funding fewer projects with larger awards per project. Maximum grant award of 25% of the total project costs or $20 million, whichever is less. Grant funding is provided over multiple applications submitted on an annual basis until the project is complete or the total federal cost share has been provided. Typically limited to 3 years of costs per application. 75% cost share 1 Project must receive congressional approval. Website https://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/title/index.html Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Subset of Title XVI U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) Grant CEQA and NEPA Construction of water recycling treatment and conveyance facilities for projects that have a Title XVI Feasibility Study completed, but are not congressionally authorized. Similar to Title XVI: planning, design, construction (including prior costs) A Title XVI Feasibility Study must have already been submitted to Reclamation for review and approval and the project must have a Determination of Feasibility from Reclamation Reclamation appears to intend three rounds of funding – the first was in 2017, the second was in 2018, and a third to be released shortly after announcement of Round 2 awards – anticipated in spring 2019. $50M total has been allocated under WIIN. $10M released in first FOA, $20M released in second FOA, $20M anticipated for third FOA. Maximum grant award of 25% of the total project costs. Typically limited to 3 years of costs per application. 75% cost share 1 Competitive program, but will only get more competitive as additional agencies submit their Feasibility Studies. Better to get money early and keep going back. Website A specific funding website has not been developed. For reference, visit: https://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/title/index.html Page 2 of 4 Program Administering Agency Funding Type CEQA/ NEPA Required? Program Purpose Eligible Uses Eligibility Requirements Due Date & Future Rounds Funding Amounts & Terms Cost Share Priority Determination / Critical Factors Drought Response Program – Drought Resiliency Projects Reclamation Grant CEQA and NEPA Increase the reliability of water supply; improve water management; implement systems to facilitate the voluntary sale, transfer or exchange of water; and provide benefits for fish, wildlife, and the environment to mitigate impacts caused by drought. Construction, tool development to improve water management, installation of data collecting devices, improving habitat. Proposed resiliency project should improve ability of water managers to deliver water during a drought. Based on most recent FOA, project cannot be part of a congressionally authorized Title XVI Project. Must demonstrate that project is supported by an existing drought contingency plan; quantify benefits during droughts; address urgent needs and severe drought impacts. Anticipate FOA in December 2018, with applications due February 2019 $8.3M was awarded in 2018 FY2019 budget TBD Funding Group I: up to $300,000 for projects that can be completed within 2 years Funding Group II: up to $750,000 for larger projects that can be completed within 3 years 50% cost share 4 Competitiveness would be evaluated if and when another FOA is released based on project status and scoring criteria. Status of next round is unknown. Website https://www.usbr.gov/drought/ Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Implementation Grant Program California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Grant CEQA Only Identify and implement projects and programs that increase regional self-reliance, reduce conflict, and manage water to concurrently achieve social, environmental, and economic objectives. Planning, design, land acquisition, legal fees, environmental documentation, environmental mitigation, construction/ implementation, construction administration Project must be included on the project list of an IRWM Region’s IRWMP. Palo Alto is within the San Francisco Bay IRWM Region and thus, the project must be in its IRWMP. Prop 1 – Round 1 is underway; local call for projects closed Nov. 16, 2018 FY20/21: Round 2 Implementation Grant Solicitation anticipated City submitted a project in Fall 2018 for Round 1; currently awaiting selection for inclusion in regional application. $58.5M for the 2 rounds of implementation funding in the SF Funding Area, which includes the entire SF Bay Area IRWM Region and a portion of the East Contra Costa IRWM Region. ($65M is allocated to SF Funding Area, $6.5M to be allocated to DAC Involvement.) $22.75M anticipated available in each round for non-DAC implementation projects 50% cost share 3 Limited funding available for competitive area. Participate in SF Bay Area IRWM process. Ultimately, up to SF Bay Area project prioritization and selection process as to which projects are included in an application Website https://water.ca.gov/Work-With-Us/Grants-And-Loans/IRWM-Grant-Programs or Bay Area IRWM Program: http://bayareairwmp.org/ Page 3 of 4 Program Administering Agency Funding Type CEQA/ NEPA Required? Program Purpose Eligible Uses Eligibility Requirements Due Date & Future Rounds Funding Amounts & Terms Cost Share Priority Determination / Critical Factors Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) loan program State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Loan CEQA+ (includes CEQA and select federal crosscutters, i.e., not full NEPA) Construction of publicly- owned facilities including wastewater treatment, local sewers, sewer interceptors, water reclamation and distribution, stormwater treatment, and combined sewers. Planning, design, construction, construction management, mitigation measures (can include prior planning/design costs). Construction costs incurred prior to executing funding agreement NOT eligible for reimbursement. Must either provide proof of submitted UWMP, proof of CUWCC MOU, or copy of Water Conservation Program for State Board approval. Letter of 2015 UWMP approval from DWR required prior to executing financing agreement. Applications are continuously accepted, though the State Board now implements a deadline of December 31 and a scoring system to be added to the Fundable List. Projects must first get on Fundable Project List before applications will be reviewed. May be as long as 2 years from application submittal to contract Typically, there is $200M-$300M available; Water recycling projects are given priority. Interest rate is ½ of the General Obligation Rate at the time of award (SRF i=1.9% for this year). Financing term up to 30 years. There is no maximum financing amount for a project / agency. 0% 2 Program is very popular. Application review can be up to 12 months, so financial forecast could change by the time an application is prepared, submitted, and reviewed. Highest scoring projects will be “corrective”, or address drinking water or Delta water quality; help implement a climate change action plan or address multiple water quality issues; and those with both a complete application and at least 90% design/specs Website https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/srf/ Water Recycling Funding Program (WRFP) Construction Grants SWRCB Loans & Grant CEQA+ (includes CEQA and select federal crosscutters, i.e., not full NEPA) Promote beneficial use of recycled water to augment fresh water supplies in CA by supporting water recycling projects and research. Planning, design and construction, including reasonable costs to provide emergency backup water supply for a recycled water system; pilot projects for new potable reuse (can include prior planning/design costs). Construction costs incurred prior to executing funding agreement NOT eligible for reimbursement. Apply through CWSRF program. Applications are continuously accepted, though the State Board now implements a deadline of December 31 and a scoring system to be added to the Fundable List. Projects must first get on Fundable Project List before applications will be reviewed. May be as long as 2 years from application submittal to contract Prop 1 provided $625M for planning and construction of water recycling projects; however, this funding has been exhausted. Future allocations to the WRFP are possible, though currently TBD. Project could receive $15M or 35% of project costs for construction, whichever is less. Offers 1% financing for recycled water projects through CWSF N/A 2 By applying for CWSRF, the City will automatically be applying for any available grant funding under the umbrella CWSRF program. Website https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/water_recycling/ Page 4 of 4 Program Administering Agency Funding Type CEQA/ NEPA Required? Program Purpose Eligible Uses Eligibility Requirements Due Date & Future Rounds Funding Amounts & Terms Cost Share Priority Determination / Critical Factors Infrastructure SRF (ISRF) Loan Program California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (I-Bank) Loan Application does not consist of environmental portion; however, CEQA would be required prior to construction Construction and/or repair of publicly-owned wastewater collection and treatment systems. Architectural, engineering, financial and legal services, plans, specifications, admin expenses, land acquisition, construction, machinery/equipment Project complete construction within 2 years of financing approval. Must have applied for all required permits. Applications are continuously accepted. Loans typically awarded three months after application submittal ISRF Program funding is available in amounts ranging from $50,000 to $25M, with loan terms of up to 30 years. Pre-payment of loan not allowed until Year 13 of loan N/A 5 Projects must demonstrate job creation, though this is only a small piece of the application. Loan terms not as good as other programs, and there are penalties to early repayment Website http://www.ibank.ca.gov/infrastructure-state-revolving-fund-isrf-program/ Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) USEPA Loan CEQA and NEPA Construction of wastewater conveyance and treatment projects, drinking water treatment and distribution projects, desalination, and water recycling projects Planning, preliminary engineering, design, environmental review, revenue forecasting, construction, land acquisition, capitalized interest Federal assistance may not exceed 80% of project costs. Letters of Interest accepted during selection periods. FY 2018 solicited letters of interest from April-July 2018. 62 Letters of Interest applied for $9.1B; 39 projects selected to apply for $5B in loans $5B was available in 2018. Minimum project size for large communities (population > 25,000) is $20M; for small communities is $5M. Interest rate greater or equal to U.S. Treasury rate of similar maturity, based on the weighted average life of the loan. Loans for 35 years or useful life of project, whichever is less. WIFIA received a 2- year $100M reauthorization at end of 2018. 51% non- WIFIA; (up to 80% of project costs can be covered by federal funds, using a combinati on of programs) 6 Non-refundable application fees of $25,000 (small communities) or $100,000 (>25,000 people). Total fees: $250K-$500K plus possibly additional fees for administration of loan. Low funding amount available. National program. Better local/state options. Website https://www.epa.gov/wifia DRAFT September 9, 2019 1 PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN PALO ALTO, MOUNTAIN VIEW, AND THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT TO ADVANCE RESILIENT WATER REUSE PROGRAMS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY WORKING DRAFT This Agreement to Advance Resilient Water Reuse Programs in Santa Clara County (Agreement) is entered into on ________________[date] by the City of Palo Alto (“Palo Alto”), the City of Mountain View (“Mountain View”), and the Santa Clara Valley Water District (“Valley Water”). RECITALS A. WHEREAS, the governing bodies of Palo Alto, Mountain View and Valley Water (collectively, the Parties) have established policy goals for long term sustainability, which include maintaining effective use of existing infrastructure, lowering the carbon footprint of energy use, deploying water use efficiency programs, capturing local storm water, managing groundwater basins, and expanding use of recycled water; and B. WHEREAS, the Parties have long-standing responsibilities and services to supply water to their customers in Santa Clara County (County) under both normal and drought conditions; and C. WHEREAS, the Parties seek to develop locally reliable water supply sources to offset supplies of water that would otherwise have to be imported via the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and its tributaries, including the Tuolumne River and other mountain streams; and D. WHEREAS, the Parties together are finalizing the Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan to inform their respective policy makers of opportunities in the north- west portion of Santa Clara County, including Palo Alto and Mountain View, for groundwater recharge, further recycled water development, and deployment of highly purified wastewater to supplement drinking water; and E. WHEREAS, increasing the use of Recycled Water decreases contaminants discharged to San Francisco Bay where harm to wildlife can occur; and F. WHEREAS, Valley Water has established a goal that at least 10 percent of total County water demands be supplied by recycled water by 2025; and G. WHEREAS, decreasing the salinity of the treated wastewater from the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) through further treatment will allow it to be used on more types of flora, especially redwood trees, thereby increasing its overall use, and further reducing the need to import water from mountain streams including the Tuolumne River; and DRAFT September 9, 2019 2 H. WHEREAS, decreasing the salinity in Recycled Water used for irrigation keeps that salt out of the soil and ultimately out of the groundwater; and I. WHEREAS, the Parties recognize that well-purposed and managed partnerships can serve the public interest more effectively than their individual efforts to develop and manage water supplies; and J. WHEREAS, the Parties desire to cooperate to achieve the most cost effective, environmentally beneficial utilization of treated wastewater in the County. AGREEMENT DEFINITIONS Designated Representatives: Employees or officials designated in writing by each of the respective Parties to serve as representatives for purposes of this Agreement. In the absence of such written notice, the Designated Representatives shall be the Valley Water Chief Executive Officer, the Mountain View City Manager, and the Palo Alto City Manager. Dispute Resolution Procedure: The alternative dispute resolution process to be used for disputes arising out of this Agreement. The procedure is set forth in more detail in Article 26 below. Effluent: Tertiary treated wastewater from the RWQCP meeting National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements. Effluent Transfer Option: Valley Water’s option to secure Effluent, as described in Article 13 of this Agreement. Enhanced Recycled Water: Non-potable water produced by the Local Plant which is blended with Recycled Water from the RWQCP. Local Plant: A salinity removal unit to produce 1.25 MGD Enhanced Recycled Water for the RWQCP service area, for initial use within Palo Alto and Mountain View service areas. MGD: million gallons per day. Minimum Flow Delivery: an annual average of 9 MGD of Effluent to be supplied by the RWQCP to Valley Water, consistent with Appendix 1. Parties: The City of Palo Alto (“Palo Alto”), the City of Mountain View (“Mountain View”), and the Santa Clara Valley Water District (“Valley Water”). Recycled Water: Effluent that is treated to meet Title 22 regulations for non-potable water. Regional Plant: A purification treatment facility capable of treating Effluent flows of 9 MGD or greater for the purpose of regional water supply benefit. DRAFT September 9, 2019 3 Regional Program: Valley Water’s program to derive benefits from the Effluent under the terms of this Agreement. Remaining Funds: Funds available for use by the RWQCP Partners pursuant to Article 6(f). Responsible Agencies: Responsible Agencies are agencies other than the lead agency, that have some discretionary authority for carrying out or approving a project, as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act and its associated regulations. RWQCP: The Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant. RWQCP Partners: The cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View and Los Altos; the Town of Los Altos Hills; the East Palo Alto Sanitary District and Stanford University. RWQCP Partner Agreements: Agreements between Palo Alto and one or more of the RWQCP Partners regarding provision of Effluent to Valley Water for its Regional Program. RWQCP Service Area: RWQCP Service Area includes the cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos; the service area of the East Palo Alto Sanitary District; the Town of Los Altos; and Stanford University. Startup: The point in time when Valley Water begins to receive regular Effluent flows. If at the Regional Plant, Startup will occur following initial testing and commissioning. Startup can alternatively mean the point in time when Valley Water begins to pay for the Effluent as part of its Regional Program, pursuant to this Agreement. Water Supply Option: Palo Alto’s and Mountain View’s option to secure additional water supply as described in Article 21 of this Agreement. SECTION A - General Provisions 1. Term. This Agreement shall be in effect upon execution by the Parties. The Term of the Agreement shall be 43 years from date of execution; however, if Valley Water exercises its Effluent Transfer Option as described in Section C, the Term of this Agreement shall be extended to 63 years from Startup, for a maximum of 76 years. 2. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by the Parties as follows: a. Termination by Valley Water. Valley Water may terminate [Section C] this Agreement at its sole discretion by providing Palo Alto and Mountain View with at least five years’ written notice if Valley Water has commenced receiving Effluent pursuant to Section C of this Agreement or at least one years’ written notice if Valley Water has not commenced receiving Effluent. However, Valley Water’s termination date shall not occur before eighteen years from the date of execution of this Agreement. DRAFT September 9, 2019 4 b. Termination by Palo Alto or Mountain View. [Proposed language to be provided – to include force majeure occurrences such as if compliance with the Agreement would result in a violation of state/federal law or regulatory permits; also to include if Valley Water does not utilize the Effluent within 23 years, consistent with Article 14.b. 3. Governance. A joint committee comprised of elected officials from Valley Water, Palo Alto and Mountain View will be established to review and accept updates on the design, construction, operation and regulatory compliance of the Local Plant and the Regional Plant if the Regional Plant is located in Palo Alto. If the Regional Plant is not located in Palo Alto then the aforementioned committee will operate only with respect to the Local Plant. The committee’s role will be advisory to staff and governing bodies of the Parties. SECTION B - Local Plant 4. Local Plant Beneficiaries The Parties agree that the Local Plant will be developed by Palo Alto and operated for the benefit of Recycled Water customers of Palo Alto, Mountain View, and potentially other RWQCP Partners. However, Palo Alto and Mountain View shall ensure that funding from Valley Water shall only be used to benefit users in Santa Clara County. 5. Local Plant Ownership, Operation and Maintenance, and Location The Parties agree that Palo Alto shall own the Local Plant and be responsible for its design, construction, operation, maintenance, ultimate decommissioning, and site restoration. The Local Plant shall be located within the RWQCP site. The Parties to this Agreement anticipate that Palo Alto will be the Lead Agency and Valley Water and Mountain View will be Responsible Agencies under CEQA/NEPA for a Local Plant. Any legally mandated environmental review shall be completed prior to approval and development of the Local Plant. The Parties shall work together to facilitate compliance under CEQA (and NEPA if applicable) for the development of the Local Plant. As part of this process, the Parties agree to provide timely notice, review, and responses. 6. Local Plant Capital Costs a. Valley Water’s Contribution: The Local Plant capital cost is estimated to be $20 Million. Valley Water’s contribution shall be $16 Million (2019 dollars), escalated annually based on Valley Water’s Yield-to-Maturity Rate as published in Valley Water’s Quarterly Performance Reports to the Board of Directors for the fourth quarter of each fiscal year, hereinafter referred to as “$16 Million”. Valley Water’s $16 Million contribution towards the Local Plant and, if applicable, other projects described in sub-Article 6(f), in conjunction with the Annual Option DRAFT September 9, 2019 5 Payments set forth in Article 7, shall constitute full and final consideration for its right to secure the Minimum Flow Delivery. b. Subject to Article 6.d, Palo Alto’s and Mountain View’s combined capital contribution shall be the difference between the actual cost of the Local Plant and Valley Water’s contribution. c. Any federal grant funding sought by Palo Alto or Mountain View, or both, for the Local Plant shall not include the San Jose Area Water Reclamation and Reuse Program under the Title XVI Program. The benefits of any grant funding for the Local Plant shall be split by Palo Alto and Mountain View as determined by a separate agreement between Palo Alto and Mountain View. d. Should the construction low bid, or any other circumstance, drive the Local Plant total project cost above the $20 Million estimate, Palo Alto and/or Mountain View may elect to cover the increase (above Valley Water’s $16 Million contribution) themselves, without an additional contribution from Valley Water. If Palo Alto and/or Mountain View are unable to identify a funding source or secure low interest rate loans to sufficiently cover costs above the $20 Million total project cost estimate, Palo Alto and/or Mountain View may request to meet and confer with Valley Water to potentially modify this Agreement. However, absent such a modification to the Agreement, Valley Water’s contribution shall be limited to $16 Million. e. If Palo Alto and Mountain View elect not to proceed with and/or complete construction of the Local Plant within 13 years of execution of this Agreement, they shall provide written notice to Valley Water and they shall still receive the $16 Million contribution from Valley Water so long as such funds are allocated and utilized consistent with the provisions of sub-Articles 6(f) and 6(g). f. In the unlikely event the Local Plant is not constructed, any portion of the Valley Water contribution of $16 Million not utilized for the capital of the Local Plant, defined as Remaining Funds, will be available for other projects, specified below. Palo Alto and Mountain View will consult with all RWQCP Partners in developing a plan for expending the Remaining Funds and notify Valley Water prior to expenditure of Remaining Funds. Remaining Funds will be allocated by Palo Alto for projects specified below that benefit all RWQCP Partners that have committed their Effluent to Valley Water for the term of this Agreement. However, the projects specified below must be located within Santa Clara County (for compliance with the District Act). Eligible projects for receipt of the Remaining Funds shall be, in order of preference: i. Recycled Water facilities at the RWQCP and/or owned and operated by a RWQCP Partner. DRAFT September 9, 2019 6 ii. Other water supply projects, including but not limited to water conservation capital projects, owned and operated by a RWQCP Partner. g. The valid time frame for any expenditure of funds for reimbursement pursuant to this Article 6 shall extend from the date of execution of this Agreement to eighteen (18) years from the date of execution. Within this time frame, Palo Alto must present to Valley Water all invoices for expenditure of funds by itself and other RWQCP Partners pursuant to this Article. Valley Water shall not reimburse any invoices presented beyond 18 years from the date of execution of this Agreement. h. Monthly, Palo Alto shall invoice Valley Water for project costs expended pursuant to this Article 6, including documentation of work performed by itself and any other RWQCP Partner. Invoices shall not include RWQCP Partners’ staff costs and administrative overhead. Valley Water shall pay such valid Palo Alto invoices within thirty days of receiving them. 7. Annual Option Payments Prior to Startup of Regional Plant a. Amount of Payment. Valley Water agrees to pay to Palo Alto $200,000 per year (2019 dollars) (“Annual Option Payment”) from the date of execution of this Agreement by the Parties, to culminate (a) June 1, 2033, or (b) at Startup, whichever occurs first. The amount of the Annual Option Payment shall be increased annually based on the annual average (previous twelve months) of the CPI-All Items for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, California area published by the United States Department of Labor-Bureau of Labor Statistics (https://data.bls.gov/PDQWeb/cu), beginning on the first anniversary of the execution of this Agreement. b. Timing of Payment. Valley Water shall provide the Annual Option Payment to Palo Alto by June 1 of each year beginning June 1, 2020. c. Allocation of Payment. i. Fifty percent (50%) of the Annual Option Payment will be allocated to Palo Alto and Mountain View. ii. Palo Alto will distribute the remaining 50% of the Annual Option Payment to the RWQCP Partners (other than Palo Alto and Mountain View) that have committed their Effluent for the term of this Agreement by January 31 of the year that the Annual Option Payment is made. If no other RWQCP Partners commit their Effluent by January 31 of that year, this 50% of the Annual Option Payment will be allocated to Palo Alto and Mountain View. iii. Palo Alto shall ensure that the Annual Option Payments are utilized for water supply or water reuse related projects in the RWQCP Service Area. DRAFT September 9, 2019 7 8. Reverse Osmosis Concentrate Produced by the Local Plant Palo Alto is responsible for securing any necessary changes in its National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to accommodate reverse osmosis concentrate discharge from the Local Plant to receiving waters under the jurisdiction of federal and state agencies. 9. Local Plant Naming and Tours a. Valley Water reserves the right to name the Local Plant, including signage on site. Signage may be subject to approval by the appropriate Palo Alto decision maker or body, of which will not be unreasonably withheld. b. With 48-hour advance notice to the RWQCP plant manager or his/her designee, designated Valley Water personnel may lead tours of the Local Plant by Valley Water employees or members of the public. Valley Water-led tours shall be subject to prior and ongoing review by the RWQCP plant manager or his/her designee to ensure that the tours are conducted safely and with minimal disruption to other RWQCP activities, and that parking of private vehicles by tour attendees is consistent with RWQCP requirements. Valley Water will submit a plan or program for tours of the Local Plant for the RWQCP plant manager’s review and approval, and shall conduct tours consistently with the approved plan or program. 10. On-site Research at the Local Plant Valley Water may desire to conduct research work on treatment processes at the Local Plant, including installation of pilot test equipment. Valley Water-managed research teams may include personnel from RWQCP Partners, universities, private companies engaged in research, or other research laboratories. Palo Alto agrees that it will make its best effort to enable research at the Local Plant and to not unreasonably deny or constrain Valley Water proposals to conduct such research. Valley Water agrees to share results of such research with Parties, upon request. Such research work will not significantly disrupt operation of the Local Plant or the RWQCP, nor result in significantly decreased flows, RWQCP upsets, or permit violations. 11. Term of Local Plant Operation Palo Alto agrees to operate the Local Plant for a continual period of at least 30 years, unless the Parties agree to cease operations sooner. SECTION C - Effluent Delivery to Valley Water 12. Effluent Transfer Option a. Valley Water shall have the right to exercise an exclusive Effluent Transfer Option to secure from Palo Alto and Mountain View (or from the RWQCP DRAFT September 9, 2019 8 Partners in aggregate) a Minimum Flow Delivery of an annual average of 9 million gallons per day (MGD)(10,000 AFY), as described in Appendix 1, of Effluent. Valley Water’s exercise of this Effluent Transfer Option shall be subject to CEQA review. Valley Water may elect to develop a Regional Plant to receive and treat such Effluent or may instead receive the Effluent for development of other beneficial use in Santa Clara County as part of its Regional Program. b. This Agreement shall not bind or commit Valley Water to any definite course of action with respect to the Effluent Transfer Option and shall not restrict Valley Water from considering any alternatives, including a no-action alternative, or requiring any feasible mitigation measures when considering whether to receive Effluent delivery. 13. Timing of Valley Water’s Effluent Transfer Option a. Valley Water’s period to exercise the Effluent Transfer Option and to accomplish Startup extends for thirteen years from the date of full execution of this Agreement. Valley Water may exercise the Effluent Transfer Option by written notification by its Designated Representative to the Designated Representatives of Palo Alto and Mountain View. Before Startup, as needed, Valley Water and Palo Alto will work together to determine and provide adequate Effluent for testing and commissioning purposes. b. Notwithstanding Article 13 (a), Valley Water may elect to defer acceptance of the Effluent as part of its Regional Program until after Startup. However, at any time after Startup, if Valley Water has not begun taking the Effluent, any Party may request to meet and confer to determine an alternative use of the Effluent. After 10 years from Startup, if the Parties have not agreed to amend this Agreement and Valley Water has not begun taking the Effluent, Section C of the Agreement shall terminate. 14. Effluent to Valley Water if Valley Water Exercises its Effluent Transfer Option a. The Minimum Flow Delivery is defined as 9 million gallons per day (MGD) of annual average flow of Effluent that will be secured by Valley Water, predicated upon Valley Water exercising its Effluent Transfer Option, from Startup through the Term of this Agreement, consistent with the parameters described in Appendix 1. During the planning and/or design phases of the Regional Program, Valley Water may identify one or more other Effluent flow parameters required for operation of the Regional Program. In this case, these flow parameters shall be developed consistent with RWQCP data provided by Palo Alto, and Appendix 1 will be updated accordingly with approval by Palo Alto’s and Valley Water’s Designated Representatives. b. Palo Alto shall ensure that the Effluent meets all applicable federal and state water quality standards. If operational changes are anticipated at the RWQCP that could adversely affect the quality of Effluent, Palo Alto DRAFT September 9, 2019 9 will provide notice to Valley Water and will work in good faith to minimize potential impacts to Regional Program. c. Palo Alto and Mountain View will take certain actions to increase the volume of Effluent delivered to Valley Water during water supply shortages such as droughts, described as follows: i. Palo Alto will use best efforts to temporarily modify operations to maximize the volume of Effluent delivered to Valley Water, while complying with all legal and federal, state, and local regulatory requirements and completing any legally mandated environmental review. Such modifications may include temporary decreases to environmental flows. ii. Palo Alto and Mountain View will implement the appropriate stages of their Water Shortage Contingency Plans and will use best efforts to reduce non-critical use of non-potable Recycled Water. d. Palo Alto will make good faith efforts to sign separate agreements with other RWQCP Partners to commit their shares of Effluent for delivery to Valley Water for a period consistent with the Term of this Agreement. Good faith efforts include sending letters to the appropriate representatives of the RWQCP Partners within 3 months of execution of this Agreement. If one or more of the other RWQCP Partners does not commit their Effluent, Palo Alto and Mountain View will ensure that the Minimum Flow Delivery will be met. e. Each year following Startup, Palo Alto and/or Mountain View will notify Valley Water by November 30 to determine what, if any, amount of Effluent will be available to deliver to Valley Water in excess of the Minimum Flow Delivery in the following fiscal year and to describe any conditions that may apply to such delivery. On an annual basis, by November 30, any commitments for delivery in excess of the Minimum Flow Delivery for the upcoming fiscal year shall be made in writing by the Designated Representatives of Mountain View and/or Palo Alto. f. At any time, the Parties’ Designated Representatives may determine that more Effluent is available beyond the Minimum Flow Delivery for a definitive number of years in the future within the Term of this Agreement. The Parties agree they will consider such increases at the request of any Party, and this Agreement may be amended to implement such increases. g. Subject to Article 14(a)-(c), Mountain View shall at all times receive sufficient Effluent to receive a minimum supply of 2.5 MGD of Enhanced Recycled Water and Palo Alto shall at all times receive a minimum supply of 1.0 MGD of Enhance Recycled Water This supply shall supersede Mountain View and Palo Alto’s obligation to meet Valley Water’s Minimum Flow Delivery. DRAFT September 9, 2019 10 15. Regional Plant Location a. If Valley Water pursues a Regional Plant as part of its Regional Program, it is the preference of the Parties to locate the Regional Plant in Palo Alto. As such, Valley Water and Palo Alto shall evaluate the feasibility of all potential locations in Palo Alto, including: within the fence line of the RWQCP; at the Measure E site; or a yet to be determined location. If it is determined by Valley Water that it is not feasible or economical to locate the Regional Plant in Palo Alto, the Effluent may be conveyed for reuse by Valley Water to another location. The point of delivery of the Effluent to Valley Water shall be at the RWQCP, or another location mutually agreed between Valley Water and Palo Alto. b. If Valley Water notifies Palo Alto that it intends to locate a Regional Plant in Palo Alto, Palo Alto shall cooperate with Valley Water in identifying ways to accommodate a Regional Plant to the maximum extent possible within the boundary of the RWQCP or adjacent to the RWQCP boundary pending siting evaluation results. Palo Alto will also cooperate with Valley Water as it explores siting an appropriate sized water tank, to balance inbound fluctuating flows and produce a steady flow for treatment. Valley Water shall negotiate with Palo Alto to share costs between Palo Alto and Valley Water for use of the RWQCP site, including modification of existing facilities. c. In the event that Valley Water determines that the Measure E site adjacent to the RWQCP facility is the best location for a Regional Plant, and no extenuating circumstances (including, but not limited to, any environmental impacts identified through CEQA review) have been identified by Palo Alto, Palo Alto’s staff will recommend to Palo Alto Council that the Council place a measure on the ballot to allow this use. If a Regional Plant is located, at least in part, on the Measure E site, Valley Water may lease the land from Palo Alto at a rate based on the then-current zoning, anticipated to be for “public facilities.” A separate lease agreement may be required subject to approval by the Palo Alto City Council or Designated Representative. d. Palo Alto and Mountain View agree to process expeditiously, in accordance with regular city processes, Valley Water’s complete non-discretionary permit applications for a Regional Plant. 16. Regional Plant and/or Conveyance Facilities Ownership, Capital, Operation and Maintenance Costs Subject to Valley Water exercising the Effluent Transfer Option, Valley Water may own and construct a Regional Plant and conveyance facilities to and from the Regional Plant (preliminary cost of $300 Million based on a comparison of like projects), or conveyance facilities to take the Effluent elsewhere. Valley Water will be responsible for all capital and O&M costs for a Regional Plant and conveyance facilities. DRAFT September 9, 2019 11 17. Other Development Commitments by the Parties a. In the event that a Regional Plant is to be located in Palo Alto, Palo Alto shall support Valley Water’s chosen development and operation & maintenance (O&M) approach for the Regional Plant. Approaches under consideration by Valley Water include, but are not limited to, a design-build method with Valley Water responsibility for O&M; or a public-private partnership in which, for example, Valley Water may partner with one or more private entities to provide financing, design, construction, and O&M. b. Additionally, in the event that Valley Water notifies Palo Alto and Mountain View that it intends to develop a Regional Plant in Palo Alto, Palo Alto and Mountain View shall provide, when requested by Valley Water, written support to State and federal agencies to which Valley Water seeks grant funding or low-interest loans for the Regional Plant, and city staff shall participate in meetings with State and federal agencies for these purposes. c. The Parties to this Agreement anticipate that Valley Water will be the Lead Agency and Palo Alto and Mountain View will be Responsible Agencies under CEQA/NEPA for a Regional Plant. Any legally mandated environmental review shall be completed prior to approval and development of the Regional Plant. The Parties shall work together to facilitate compliance under CEQA (and NEPA if applicable) for the development of the Regional Plant. As part of this process, the Parties agree to provide timely notice, review, and responses. 18. Annual Payments for Effluent a. Upon Startup, Valley Water will pay Palo Alto $1,000,000 per year for the Minimum Flow Delivery, consistent with Articles 13 through 15 and Appendix 1, during the Term of this Agreement. Valley Water shall make payments on a fiscal year basis (July – June). Following Startup, Valley Water’s first payment shall be prorated based on Effluent received or, if Effluent deliveries have not started, shall be based on the Minimum Flow Delivery. Valley Water’s payments will be made by August 31 for the preceding fiscal year. Palo Alto will allocate these funds to RWQCP Partners that have committed their Effluent to Valley Water by January 31 proportionally based on the RWQCP Partner’s share of the total Effluent committed through the Term of this Agreement. The $1,000,000 annual amount referred to in this Section shall be in 2019 dollars, adjusted July 1 of each year by the annual average (previous 12 months) of the CPI-All Items for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, California area published by the United States Department of Labor-Bureau of Labor Statistics (https://data.bls.gov/PDQWeb/cu). b. Valley Water’s payments for Effluent pursuant to this Article shall continue through the Term of this Agreement unless (Section C of) the Agreement is DRAFT September 9, 2019 12 terminated earlier subject to Article 2. If (Section C of) the Agreement is terminated, Valley Water’s payment for Effluent in the year it is terminated shall be prorated based on the termination date and the proportion of days lapsed in the fiscal year. c. If implementation of the Regional Program is deferred pursuant to Article 14 (b) and, during that period of deferral, Palo Alto incurs incremental wastewater treatment costs to meet new NPDES requirements, Valley Water shall pay Palo Alto a proportion of the annual operation and maintenance costs, not capital costs, for such incremental wastewater treatment based on the percentage of Minimum Flow Delivery relative to the total volume of wastewater effluent produced over that period. However, Valley Water’s obligation to pay for annual operation and maintenance costs under this Sub-Article shall not begin until the five-year anniversary of Startup and shall cover the period after that date. Palo Alto shall invoice Valley Water, detailing the basis of the costs for the preceding year, after the end of the sixth year after Startup and each year thereafter until Valley Water begins to take delivery of Effluent or until (Section C of) the Agreement is terminated pursuant to Article 2. Valley Water’s obligation to pay such costs shall be capped at $150,000 per year (in 2019 dollars, adjusted July 1 of each year by the annual average (previous 12 months) of the CPI-All Items for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, California area published by the United States Department of Labor-Bureau of Labor Statistics (https://data.bls.gov/PDQWeb/cu)). d. To the extent that Effluent is delivered in excess of the Minimum Flow Delivery, consistent with Appendix 1, Valley Water’s payment to Palo Alto shall increase by a prorated amount. If the quantity of Effluent made available to Valley Water falls below the Minimum Flow Delivery in a year, the payment for that year shall be prorated accordingly. e. If the amount of Effluent Valley Water requests, up to the Minimum Flow Delivery, is not met, the Parties shall meet and confer for the purpose of identifying and implementing feasible solutions to any supply shortfall, including the potential to extend the Term of the Agreement to make up for lost Effluent delivery. 19. Reverse Osmosis Concentrate Produced by a Regional Plant in Palo Alto In the event that a Regional Plant is located in Palo Alto, Palo Alto shall evaluate operating strategies and make best efforts to accomplish any necessary changes in its NPDES permit to accommodate reverse osmosis concentrate discharge from the Regional Plant to receiving waters under the jurisdiction of federal and state regulators. Palo Alto staff shall include Valley Water staff in its planning and negotiations with the regulators. To the extent that discharge of the reverse osmosis concentrate to receiving waters via Palo Alto’s wastewater outfall is not feasible and acceptable to the regulators, Valley Water shall evaluate and implement alternative reverse osmosis concentrate management measures acceptable to Palo Alto, if within the Palo Alto’s DRAFT September 9, 2019 13 jurisdiction. Valley Water shall pay the costs of treating the reverse osmosis concentrate to meet applicable state and federal requirements of and any alternative reverse osmosis concentrate management measures. The Parties acknowledge that a separate agreement may be needed to address management of reverse osmosis concentrate. 20. Water Supply Option for Palo Alto and Mountain View a. Beginning one year from execution of this Agreement, at their discretion, Palo Alto or Mountain View or both shall each have an opportunity to provide Valley Water a notification of the need for additional water to meet demands in their respective service areas. The written notification shall include the amount of potable and/or non-potable water requested, up to the following maximum amounts: Palo Alto may request an annual average of up to 3.0 MGD and Mountain View may request an annual average of up to 1.3 MGD. The notification may also include an indication of a maximum cost for the water in the first year. Valley Water will make its best effort to develop a proposal that includes at least one supply within that maximum cost for the first year. b. Within three (3) months of receiving the written notification from Palo Alto and/or Mountain View, Valley Water will provide an estimate of the incremental costs to Valley Water to prepare a proposal for the requested water. Palo Alto and/or Mountain View will respond to Valley Water’s cost estimate within four (4) months. After receiving written approval from Palo Alto and/or Mountain View accepting the estimated cost for Valley Water to do so, Valley Water will have up to four (4) years from receipt of the original request to prepare a water supply proposal to Palo Alto and/or Mountain View. Parties will meet periodically as requested by any Party during this four (4) year period to discuss the request and the proposal being developed. Valley Water’s proposal will include a description of the water supply, including the cost, payment schedule, and any conditions related to the supply to the requester (Palo Alto and/or Mountain View). Valley Water will submit quarterly cost invoices for its work in preparing the proposal and Palo Alto/Mountain View will reimburse Valley Water within 30 days. c. Valley Water’s cost estimate in its proposal shall be limited to Valley Water’s costs, including all costs associated with the water supply, such as but not limited to: facility costs, commodity costs, and any wheeling fees. Valley Water shall not be required to subsidize the cost of the water in order to meet this maximum cost. The proposal shall include or allow for subsequent increases in cost after the first year based upon Valley Water’s costs. d. The requester (Palo Alto and/or Mountain View) will have up to twelve (12) months from receiving Valley Water’s proposal to provide written notification that they accept or decline this proposal, unless a shorter time period is one of the conditions required by Valley Water. For example, a shorter time frame may be required if Valley Water’s proposal involves a fleeting opportunity with third parties in which a commitment is needed in less than 12 months. In the event DRAFT September 9, 2019 14 that Valley Water prepares a proposal with a time period for acceptance of less than 12 months, it shall also, with Palo Alto’s and/or Mountain View’s concurrence, proceed to develop a proposal for which the acceptance time period is up to twelve (12) months. e. If Palo Alto and/or Mountain View does not accept Valley Water’s proposal, starting 5 (five) years from declining the previous opportunity, Palo Alto and/or Mountain View may reinitiate the process as described in Article 20(a)-(d). This sequence of proposals and potential denials, including the five (5) year period between the denial and the next request, can be repeated throughout the Term of the Agreement. Notwithstanding the minimum five-year interval between a proposal declined by Palo Alto and/or Mountain View and a subsequent opportunity to request a proposal, Valley Water shall not unreasonably deny a request by Palo Alto and/or Mountain View to develop a proposal for them after a period of less than five years since they declined a prior Valley Water proposal. f. If Palo Alto and/or Mountain View accepts Valley Water’s proposal, Valley Water will have up to ten (10) years from the acceptance date to begin delivery of the water to the requester (Palo Alto and/or Mountain View) at cost. All water provided by Valley Water may only be utilized by Palo Alto and/or Mountain View within their service areas and Valley Water’s obligation to provide the water to Palo Alto and/or Mountain View expires at the end of the Term of this Agreement or an agreed upon date. The Parties shall develop detailed terms and conditions for Valley Water’s water supply delivery to them in a separate agreement, and shall provide environmental documentation to support CEQA findings, for approval by Parties’ governing bodies prior to commencement of delivery of water to them under this Article. Such separate agreement may have a term that extends beyond the Term of this Agreement and may include additional conditions dependent upon the Effluent transfer. g. If Valley Water determines Startup of the Regional Program will not occur within thirteen (13) years of execution of this Agreement and Parties have not agreed to further extend this timeline, Palo Alto and Mountain View shall no longer have the ability to request a potable and/or non-potable water supply from Valley Water. 21. Mutual Benefits of this Agreement Through execution of this Agreement, Parties agree to commit funding and resources to advance a locally controlled, drought resilient supply that improves water supply reliability and assists in maintaining local groundwater basins, to the benefit of all Parties. Additionally, the Parties seek to develop reliable water supply sources to minimize supplies of water that would otherwise have to be imported via the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and its tributaries, including the Tuolumne River and other mountain streams. 22. Notifications DRAFT September 9, 2019 15 Palo Alto and Valley Water shall notify all RWQCP Partners of the execution of this Agreement within 30 days of its execution. SECTION D – SALE OF RWQCP OR THE REGIONAL PLANT DURING TERM 23. Sale of RWQCP During Term of Agreement Palo Alto agrees that it shall not sell or attempt to sell the RWQCP to any third-party unless Valley Water is first offered the right to purchase the RWQCP at fair market value to be determined by an independent third-party consultant qualified in the wastewater and/or water industry. Valley Water shall have six months after a fair market value has been determined to consider this purchase, and Palo Alto may only pursue the sale to third parties following the expiration of this six-month period or receipt of Valley Water’s written notice that it does not intend to purchase the RWQCP. Upon Valley Water’s expression of intent to purchase the RWQCP, Palo Alto shall provide Valley Water with an additional twelve months to complete any financing necessary for the purchase. 24. Assumption of Agreement Obligations upon Third-Party Sale of the RWQCP The provisions of Section C herein (Effluent Delivery to Valley Water), shall survive any sale of the RWQCP to a third-party during the Term, and Palo Alto shall include as an express condition in the sale of the RWQCP to a third-party the requirement that the third party assume the obligations of this Agreement for the remainder of the Term. Valley Water shall constitute a third-party beneficiary to any agreement between Palo Alto and a third-party for the sale of the RWQCP. 25. Sale of Regional Plant Valley Water agrees that if a Regional Plant is located in Palo Alto and if Valley Water decides to cease its operation of the Regional Plant, it shall not sell or attempt to sell the Regional Plant to any third-party unless Palo Alto is first offered the right to purchase the Regional Plant at fair market value to be determined by an independent third-party consultant qualified in the wastewater and/or water industry. Palo Alto shall have six months after a fair market value has been determined to consider this purchase, and Valley Water may only pursue the sale to third parties following the expiration of this six-month period or receipt of Palo Alto’s written notice that it does not intend to purchase the Regional Plant. Upon Palo Alto’s expression of intent to purchase the Regional Plant, Valley Water shall provide Palo Alto with an additional twelve months to complete any financing necessary for the purchase. SECTION E 26. Dispute Resolution Procedure DRAFT September 9, 2019 16 The process by which the Parties will attempt in good faith to resolve any dispute arising out of or relating to this Agreement, which will be undertaken promptly and initially by representatives of the Parties in the following manner: a) If a dispute should arise, an authorized representative for each of the Parties will meet or teleconference within fourteen (14) calendar days of written notification of the dispute to resolve the dispute. Prior to such meeting or teleconference, the Party bringing the dispute will draft and submit to the other Parties a written description, including any factual support, of the disputed matter. After receiving this written description, the other Parties will provide a written response to such written description within a reasonable period of time. b) If no resolution of the dispute occurs at this meeting or teleconference, the issue will be elevated to an executive-level manager of each Party (i.e. executive level manager for Valley Water and Assistant City Manager or higher-level executive for Palo Alto and Mountain View). Each Party’s executive-level manager will meet or teleconference as soon as practical, but, in no event, later than twenty one (21) calendar days after the matter has been referred to them, with the initial meeting to occur at a location to be selected by the Parties. c) If the dispute remains unresolved after forty five (45) calendar days from their receipt of the matter for resolution, and any necessary Party is not willing to continue negotiations, the Parties agree to submit the dispute to nonbinding mediation. d) If the Parties are not able to agree on a mediator, any necessary Party may request the American Arbitration Association or other acceptable mediation service to nominate a mediator. The Parties will share the cost of the mediator equally. e) In the event mediation is unsuccessful, any Party may pursue other remedies available at law including filing an action in Santa Clara County Superior Court. 27. Audit. Valley Water shall have the right to conduct audits of Palo Alto and Mountain View to ensure that the funds paid by Valley Water under this Agreement are being used in accordance with all restrictions set forth in this Agreement. Palo Alto and Mountain View shall cooperate with any such audit and shall provide records requested by Valley Water within a reasonable amount of time. CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK September 23, 2019 The Honorable City Council Attention: Finance Committee Palo Alto, California Approval of Action Minutes for the September 9, 2019 Council Meeting Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes. ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment A: 09-09-2019 DRAFT Action Minutes (PDF) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 5 Special Meeting September 9, 2019 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:06 P.M. Present: Cormack, DuBois, Filseth; Fine participating remotely; Kniss, Kou, Tanaka Public Art Commission: Gordon, Klaus, Miyaji, Ross, Shen Absent: Migdal (PAC), Taylor (PAC) Study Session 1. Joint Meeting With the Public Art Commission - Discussion of Accomplishments and Future Initiatives. NO ACTION TAKEN Special Orders of the Day 2. Appointment of one Candidate to the Architectural Review Board for an Unfinished Term Ending December 15, 2020. First Round of voting for one position on the Architectural Review Board with an unfinished term ending December 15, 2020. Voting For: Steven Eichler DuBois, Filseth, Kou Voting For: Grace Lee Cormack, Fine, Kniss, Tanaka Voting For: Amie Neff Voting For: Curtis Smolar Voting For: Shri Chawla Jessica Brettle, Assistant City Clerk, announced that Grace Lee with 4 votes was appointed to the Architectural Review Board. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 5 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 09/09/2019 MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Mayor Filseth to hear Agenda Item Number 9- “Policy and Services Committee Recommends the City Council Accept the Status Updates of the Audits…” before Agenda Item Number 8. MOTION PASSED: 6-1 Cormack no Minutes Approval 3. Approval of Action Minutes for the August 12 and August 19, 2019 Council Meetings. MOTION: Mayor Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Cormack to approve the Action Minutes for the August 12 and August 19, 2019 Council meetings. MOTION PASSED: 6-0 Kniss absent Consent Calendar MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Cormack to approve Agenda Item Numbers 5-7. 4. Adoption of a Resolution Amending Utilities Rules and Regulations 2 (Description and Abbreviations), 3 (Description of Utility Services), 4 (Application of Service), 7 (Deposits), 8 (Access to Premises), 9 (Disconnection, Termination and Restoration of Service), 13 (Shortage of Supply and Interruption of Service), 15 (Metering), 16 (Line Extension), 18 (Utility Service and Facilities on Customer Premises), 20 (Special Electric Utility Regulations), 21 (Special Water Utility Regulations), 22 (Special Gas Utility Regulations), 23 (Special Wastewater Utility Regulations), 24 (Special Refuse Service Regulations), 25 (Special Storm and Surface Water Drainage Utility Regulations), and 29 (Net Energy Metering Service, Billing and Interconnection). 5. Approval of Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number C17165774 With UtiliWorks Consultants LLC., in the Amount of $232,785 Over Three- years for Phase II Consulting Services to Assist the City in Procuring Advanced Metering Infrastructure and Associated Systems and Services to Implement Smart Grid Systems, Including $31,168 for Additional Services, for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $263,953. 6. Approval of Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number Contract S17166321 With Soudi Consultants, Inc. for Electric Utility Engineering DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 5 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 09/09/2019 Services, Adding $80,000 to Year 3 of the Three-year Term, for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $330,000. 7. Approval of Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number C16160578 With Public Safety Innovation (PSI) to add $100,000 for a new Not-to- Exceed Amount of $350,000 to Provide Additional Services to the Office of Emergency Services for Critical Communications Support. MOTION PASSED: 6-0 Kniss absent Action Items 9. Policy and Services Committee Recommends the City Council Accept the Status Updates of the Audits of the Citywide Cash Handling and Travel Expense; Cable Franchise and Public, Education and Government (PEG) Fees; Continuous Monitoring: Overtime; Continuous Monitoring: Payments Audit; and Inventory Management. MOTION: Mayor Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to accept the status updates of the Audits of the Citywide Cash Handling and Travel Expense; Cable Franchise and Public, Education, and Government (PEG) Fees; Continuous Monitoring: Overtime; Continuous Monitoring: Payments Audit; and Inventory Management. MOTION PASSED: 6-1 Tanaka no City Council took a break from 6:34 P.M. to 6:46 P.M. 8. Revised Recommendations for City Council Direction on Establishment of a Rail Blue Ribbon Commission to Advise the City Council on the Selection, Funding, and Support for Grade Separation Projects, and Possible Further Direction on the Role and Structure of the Expanded Citizen Advisory Panel (Continued From August 19, 2019). MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Mayor Filseth to: A. Continue the XCAP meetings with improved focus; B. Direct Staff to begin the process of establishing a Rail Blue Ribbon Committee (RBRC), which would be authorized to make recommendations to Council, by the beginning of 2020; and C. Return to City Council with a Staff Report related to the establishment of the RBRC by the end of December 2019. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 5 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 09/09/2019 SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Cormack to: A. Continue the XCAP and authorize the XCAP to appoint a Chair and Co- Chair, take votes to make recommendations and provide updates to Council; B. Reiterate the April Motion and allow additional alternatives to be studied including: i. Allow the XCAP to brainstorm some alternatives such as at Embarcadero, Meadow, and Charleston; ii. Ensure the trench alternative minimizes construction impacts; C. Have the XCAP present preferred alternatives by April 30, 2020; D. Direct Staff to refine scope, purpose and timeline for an RBRC to focus on regional cooperation and funding and bring it back to Council prior to April 30, 2020; and E. Direct Staff to continue to work with VTA, Caltrain, Stanford and others on potential funding sources. INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion a new Part B. iii. “Rank alternatives using consensus criteria.” INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to amend the Motion Part D. to change April 30, 2020 to December 1, 2019. INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to amend the Motion Part E. to state “Staff and Council…” MOTION WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part A. “…no less than bi-monthly…” INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part A. “…help shape the agendas…” DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 5 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 09/09/2019 INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part D. “…community awareness and engagement…” INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part D. “…and surveys…” INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to amend the Motion new Part B. iii. to say “established” instead of “consensus.” SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Cormack to: A. Continue the XCAP and authorize the XCAP to appoint a Chair and Co- Chair, to help shape the agendas, take votes, make recommendations, and provide no less than bi-monthly updates to Council; B. Reiterate the April Motion and allow additional alternatives to be studied including: i. Allow the XCAP to brainstorm some alternatives such as at Embarcadero, Meadow, and Charleston; ii. Ensure the trench alternative minimizes construction impacts; iii. Rank alternatives using established criteria; C. Have the XCAP present preferred alternatives by April 30, 2020; D. Direct Staff to refine scope, purpose and timeline for an RBRC to focus on community awareness and engagement, and surveys, regional cooperation and funding and bring it back to Council prior to December 1, 2019; and E. Staff and Council to continue to work with VTA, Caltrain, Stanford and others on potential funding sources. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:37 P.M. City of Palo Alto (ID # 10546) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/23/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Williamson Act Contract Renewal (2019) Title: Review and Approval of the Annual Williamson Act Contract Renewals Within Palo Alto City Limits; and Find This Action Exempt From Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Section 15317 (Open Space Contracts or Easements) of the CEQA Guidelines From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Development Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Find that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15317; and 2. Review and approve the renewal of Williamson Act contracts listed in Attachment A. Background The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly known as the Williamson Act, is a state program that discourages agricultural lands from being converted to urban uses, preserves open space, and promotes efficient urban growth patterns. Under the California Land Conservation Act Program (Williamson Act), private landowners can voluntarily restrict their land to agricultural and compatible open-space land uses under a minimum ten-year rolling term contracts administered by the jurisdictions. In return, the State assesses the restricted parcels for property taxes at a rate consistent with their actual use or generated income, rather than potential market value. The program provides property tax relief to owners of agricultural land who agree to limit the use of their property to agricultural or other approved compatible uses. City of Palo Alto Page 2 On July 24, 1974, the City of Palo Alto adopted Ordinance No. 2663 to institute rules for both establishing and administering Williamson Act contracts for Palo Alto properties. Among other things, the rules regarding administration of established contracts limit the allowable uses of the property to what is described in the contract and provide that the contract remains in place when a property is sold, ensuring that the new owners are subject to the same use restrictions. The contracts are for a rolling ten-year term with a renewal date of January 1 each year, at which time one year is added to the contract term. The term would remain a total of ten years unless either party provides notice of non-renewal. Every year, at least 80 days prior to the January 1 renewal date, the City Council reviews the contracts and, at that time, may initiate a notice of non-renewal for any contract or approve a notice of non-renewal submitted by a landowner. If the Council takes such action, then that contract does not renew on January 1 and terminates ten years later. Under certain conditions, the Council may also approve a landowner’s request to cancel a contract. Contracts, for which the Council has not approved a notice of non-renewal or a cancellation, automatically renew for the ten-year term each January 1. Discussion The Williamson Act Property Report for the calendar year 2019 (Attachment A) includes information on the 23 existing parcels in Palo Alto currently under contract, as well as parcels undergoing the process of non-renewal. Attachment A lists the parcels’ 2019 assessed land values, acreages, and the land class (prime and non-prime land). A map showing the locations of these individual parcels has been prepared for reference and is included as Attachment B. Properties under Contract Renewal There are 23 properties renewing their contract with the City of Palo Alto for another ten- year term starting from January 1, 2020. Of the 23 contracts, the privately operated Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club is not eligible for tax benefits. Although this golf course is a permitted use, only golf courses that are open to the public and charge minimal green fees are eligible for tax benefits. A total of 350 acres of land are under Williamson Act contracts in the City of Palo Alto. Approximately 42 percent of this land (147 acres) is defined as prime land with a Class I or Class II natural resource conservation service rating. Class I or II lands are considered to have the features to sustain long-term agricultural production. Private individuals own about 70 percent of the land under contract. Stanford University Board of Trustee owns City of Palo Alto Page 3 another 27 percent while the City of Palo Alto owns the remainder. The 2016 California Land Conservation Act Status Report (Link: 2016 California Land Conservation Act Status Report) published in December 2016 provides the detail of the land enrollment under the California Land Conservation Act throughout the state of California. Properties under Contract Non-Renewal No applications for Williamson Act contract non-renewal were filed with the City between October 2018 and August 2019. At present, there are two parcels, previously approved for non-renewal by the City Council in 2014 and 2016, that are with in the ten-year process of termination. The two parcels will reach the end of their remaining terms on December 31, 2024 and 2026 respectively. (see Attachment A for parcel details). The California Department of Conservation’s Williamson Act Program requires participating cities and counties to complete and submit applications for an Open Space Subvention Act payment per Government Code section 16144. The code states: "On or before October 31 each year, the governing body of each county, city, or city and county shall report to the Secretary of the Resources Agency the number of acres of land under its regulatory jurisdiction which qualify for state payments pursuant to the various categories enumerated in Section 16142, together with supporting documentation as the secretary by regulation may require.” While the State no longer provides meaningful subvention payments to local agencies, this reporting requirement remains in the law. Resource Impacts The State of California bases property tax assessment for Williamson Act parcels on a rate consistent with the actual land use or generated income, rather than its potential market value. Because of this method of assessment, the City does not receive market value tax revenue for these properties. Based on data collected from the County Assessor’s Office, the City would have received approximately $15,425 in tax revenue if the parcels were not under Williamson Act contracts. Historically, the City received approximately $1,000 a year in subvention payments from the State to partially offset the foregone revenue. However, during the recession, the State suspended funding for these payments. In 2011, Assembly Bill 1265 allowed participating cities and counties to recapture ten percent (10%) of the benefits; however, the implementation of this provision is generally only cost effective for cities and counties that have significant acreage under contract. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Policy Implications The recommended action implements Ordinance No. 2663 regarding the administration of the Williamson Act for Palo Alto properties. The Williamson Act program complies with the goals of the Natural Environment Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Natural Environment Element encourages protection, and conservation of Palo Alto’s open space, natural resources and ecosystems. Program N1.3.1 of Goal N-1 specifically supports preservation of Palo Alto’s Williamson Act agricultural preserves. Environmental Review The proposed project is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15317 (Open Space Contracts or Easements) of the CEQA Guidelines. Attachments: Williamson Act Property Data 2019_Attachment A (PDF) Williamson Act Parcels Map 2019_Attachment B (PDF) Page 1 of 3 Number APN Street Name Full Address Owner Name Williamson Act Land Ownership Zoning Acreage after Deducting Homesite Exclusion Homesite Exclusion Land Class Contract Start Date Contract Status Assessed Land Value 20191 Assessed Land Value 20181 Assessed Land Value 20171 1 120-31-0012 El Camino Real 103 El Camino Real Leland Stanford Jr., Univ. Board of Trustees Stanford University Land PF 0.72 No acreage deducted Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $11,621 $11,040 $11,040 2 120-31-0092 El Camino Real 103 El Camino Real Leland Stanford Jr., Univ. Board of Trustees Stanford University Land PF 10.00 No acreage deducted Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $161,684 $153,600 $153,600 3 142-16-052 Coyote Hill Road No Street Number Leland Stanford Jr., Univ. Board of Trustees Stanford University Land AC (D)36.02 One acre deducted for homesite Non Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $15,587 $14,808 $14,808 4 142-16-057 Coyote Hill Road No Street Number Leland Stanford Jr., Univ. Board of Trustees Stanford University Land AC( D)15.33 One acre deducted for homesite Non Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $8,594 $8,165 $8,165 5 142-16-064 Deer Creek Road No Street Number Leland Stanford Jr., Univ. Board of Trustees Stanford University Land AC( D)4.04 One acre deducted for homesite Non Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $2,652 $2,520 $2,520 6 142-16-065 Deer Creek Road No Street Number Leland Stanford Jr., Univ. Board of Trustees Stanford University Land AC( D)16.70 One acre deducted for homesite Non Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $9,315 $8,850 $8,850 7 142-16-069 Coyote Hill Road No Street Number Leland Stanford Jr., Univ. Board of Trustees Stanford University Land AC( D)12.48 One acre deducted for homesite Non Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $7,094 $6,740 $6,740 8 182-33-0143 Arastradero Rd 1525 Arastradero Rd City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Land PF 11.42 No acreage deducted Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $0 $0 $0 9 182-35-008 Alexis Dr Alexis Dr Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club, Inc. Private Ownership OS 5.52 No acreage deducted Prime 5/1/1973 Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $54,992 $53,846 $52,791 10 182-35-035 Alexis Dr 3000 Alexis Dr Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club, Inc. Private Ownership OS 119.92 No acreage deducted Prime 5/1/1973 Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $1,513,719 $1,484,039 $1,454,941 List of Parcels Under Williamson Act Contract to Renew on January 1, 2020 ATTACHMENT A Page 2 of 3 Number APN Street Name Full Address Owner Name Williamson Act Land Ownership Zoning Acreage after Deducting Homesite Exclusion Homesite Exclusion Land Class Contract Start Date Contract Status Assessed Land Value 20191 Assessed Land Value 20181 Assessed Land Value 20171 11 351-05-024 Page Mill Rd 3845 Page Mill Rd Judith A. Block Trustee Private Ownership OS 7.72 One acre deducted for homesite Non Prime 2/16/1976 Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $55,410 $54,309 $53,254 12 351-05-042 Page Mill Rd 3837 Page Mill Rd David P. and Cynthia Lautzenheiser Trustee Private Ownership OS 9.00 One acre deducted for homesite Non Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $421,128 $412,854 $404,770 13 351-05-043 Page Mill Rd No Street Number Richard D. Guhse Trustee Private Ownership OS 19.01 No acreage deducted Non Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $1,263 $1,200 $1,200 14 351-05-044 Page Mill Rd 3905 Page Mill Rd Michael R. Lowry Private Ownership OS 5.43 One acre deducted for homesite Non Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $192,956 $189,173 $185,464 15 351-05-045 Page Mill Rd 3895 Page Mill Rd Marc and Lesley Wilkinson Private Ownership OS 9.00 One acre deducted for homesite Non Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $1,103,904 $1,082,259 $1,061,039 16 351-05-046 Page Mill Rd 3885 Page Mill Rd William W. and Sharon T. Luciw Trustee Private Ownership OS 7.45 One acre deducted for homesite Non Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $1,102,725 $1,081,089 $1,059,900 17 351-05-047 Page Mill Rd 3875 Page Mill Rd Richard D. Kniss Trustee & Et Al Private Ownership OS 10.00 No acreage deducted Non Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $631 $600 $600 18 351-05-048 Page Mill Rd 3865 Page Mill Rd Grace Carland Trustee Private Ownership OS 9.00 One acre deducted for homesite Non Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $38,094 $37,330 $36,609 19 351-05-049 Page Mill Rd 3855 Page Mill Rd Patrick K. Suppes Private Ownership OS 10.00 No acreage deducted Non Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $549,600 $538,824 $528,259 20 351-12-062 Skyline Blvd 5061 Skyline Blvd Rogers Noah Private Ownership OS 10.39 No acerage deducted Non Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $216,175 $662 $662 Page 3 of 3 Number APN Street Name Full Address Owner Name Williamson Act Land Ownership Zoning Acreage after Deducting Homesite Exclusion Homesite Exclusion Land Class Contract Start Date Contract Status Assessed Land Value 20191 Assessed Land Value 20181 Assessed Land Value 20171 21 351-12-063 Skyline Blvd 5065 Skyline Blvd Robert Schulte Trustee Et al Private Ownership OS 11.35 One acre deducted for homesite Non Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $507,794 $497,838 $488,077 22 351-12-066 Skyline Blvd 2287 Skyline Blvd Robert Schulte Trustee Et al Private Ownership OS -0.76 No acreage deducted Non Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $27 $25 $25 23 351-25-015 Page Mill Rd 4201 Page Mill Rd Bruce A Leak Private Ownership OS 10.31 One acre deducted for homesite Non Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $1,688,974 $1,655,780 $1,623,362 24 351-12-006 Skyline Blvd 1405 Skyline Blvd Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District OS 138.59 Non Prime 2/26/1973 Contract Terminates 12/31/24 25 351-05-050 Page Mill Rd 3849 Page Mill Rd Jeffrey A. and Mary L. Thomas Private Ownership OS 10 Non Prime 2/7/1977 Contract Terminates 12/31/26 Source: City of Palo Alto, Williamson Act Parcel Database 2019. Note1 Santa Clara County Assessors Office, Website: https://www.sccassessor.org/index.php/all-situs-search?SFrom=all&SType=all&STab=address&addValue= Note2 The City of Palo Alto leases this land for public use; however, it is privately owned. Note3 Value not assessed because land is owned by public agency. List of Parcels undergoing Non-Renewal Process Arastradero Lake Felt Lake Boronda Lake 351-12-006 351-05-050 HeritagePark Foothills Park Los Trancos Open Space Preserve Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Upper Stevens Creek Canyon County Park Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve Long Ridge Open SP Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve Coal Creek Open Space Preserve Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve Foothill Open Space Preserve Arastradero Preserve Cameron Park Weisshaar Park Mayflield Park Peers Park El Palo Alto Park Lytton Plaza CogswellPlaza Scott Park Kellogg Park Bol Park Rinconada Park Bowden Park Johnson Park Eleanor Pardee Park Boulware Park Terman Park Robles Park Monroe Park Mitchell Park D Jesus Ramos Park Hoover Park Greer Park Baylands Atheletic Byxbee Park Bowling Green Henry Seale Park Sarah Wallis Park Werry Park Juana Briones Park Esther Clark Park WilliamsPark Stanford/Palo Alto Community Playing Fields San Antonio Rd 280 B o ule v ard Alameda de las Pulgas Sa nd Hi l l R o a d 2 8 0 Junipe r o Serra Boulevard P a ge Mi l l Road Ar a s t ra d er o R o a d El Cami n o R e a l San Antonio Avenue Cha r l e s t o n R o a d G 5 M o n t e B e l l o R o a d MoodyRoad A l t a m on t Roa d Oregon Expr e ssway Middlefie l d R oad Univers 1 0 1 Al m a Street l A l p i n e R o a d Foothill Expre s s w a y H i g h w a y 2 8 0 Lo s Trancos Road Hi llvi e w East Bayshore West Bayshore Fabian El Monte R oad Sand Hill Road Road MillPage Skyline Emb a rca der o R o a d StanfordUniversity Park Mountain View Los AltosLos Altos Hills Santa Clara County San Mateo County Portola Valley El Camino Park This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Williamson Act Parcels Under Contract for 2018 Parcels with Non Renewal Notices Appproved 0'7000' Williamson Act Parcels 2019 CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O RATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto ATTACHMENT B City of Palo Alto (ID # 10557) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/23/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Amendment No. 1 to Contract C18169608 with Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. Title: Approval of Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number C18169608 With Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. to Allow Consumer Price Index Increases to all Rates on an Annual Basis for Household Hazardous Waste Management and Emergency Response Services From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Amendment No. 1 (Attachment A) to Contract No. C18169608 (Attachment B) with Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. (Clean Harbors) to allow for annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) increases to all rates listed in the contract for Household Hazardous Waste Management and Emergency Response Services. Background Palo Alto’s Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) program began in 1983, when Palo Alto became the second jurisdiction in the state to provide residential collection of household hazardous wastes in response to community concerns about toxic wastes in the environment. The HHW program now provides public education on the safe use and alternatives to HHW products, has weekly collection available at the HHW Station, and provides for storage and disposal. The HHW program reduces the release of chemicals from HHW to storm drains, landfill, and the sanitary sewer. The City has contracted for household hazardous waste services since the 1980s. Clean Harbors or their subsidiaries have operated the program for over twenty years. On February 12, 2018, Council approved the current Contract with Clean Harbors for household hazardous waste management and 24 hour emergency response services (CMR 8687). Clean Harbors operates the HHW Station and collects waste such as household cleaners, paint, batteries, fluorescent light bulbs and pesticides from Palo Alto residents every Saturday and the first Friday of each month. They package and store the waste according to regulatory requirements and waste CITY OF PALO ALTO City of Palo Alto Page 2 compatibility and ship it to the appropriate treatment, storage, or disposal facility for end of life management. Discussion Prior contracts for household hazardous waste services had allowed for standard annual CPI increases on pricing and rates. Due to an oversight, the current Contract entered into with Clean Harbors on February 12, 2018 did not specify that annual CPI increases would apply during the term of the Contract. Amendment One (Attachment A) to the Contract (Attachment B) will allow the annual CPI increases on pricing and rates during the Contract term, which was staff’s intent at the time the Contract was approved. The exact CPI increases to be applied will be assessed in years two and three of the Contract and will be retroactive to the first day of the second contract year, starting February 12, 2019. The CPI increase for year two of the Contract is 3.7% according to the April 2019 index for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA, urban wage earners and clerical workers per the Department of Labor. An estimated retroactive amount of $5,292.32 would be due for services provided from February 12, 2019 through August 31, 2019. No additional funds are required to be added to the Contract since the anticipated annual CPI increases were initially included in the overall Contract not-to-exceed amount of $990,000 for three years, which is valid through January 28, 2021. Resource Impact This amendment will require no additional appropriation of funds as the overall contract not- to-exceed amount of $990,000 for three years accounted for annual CPI increases. Sufficient funding for these expenses was included as part of the FY 2020 Adopted Budget. Any additional funding required in subsequent years is subject to City Council approval of future budgets. Policy Implications This amendment does not represent any change to existing City policies. Environmental Review This amendment does not require environmental review. Attachments: • Attachment A - Amendment - Partially Executed • Attachment B - Contract C18169608, Clean Harbors Environmental Serivces Inc. 1 Revision July 20, 2016 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. C18169608 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED This Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C18169608 (“Contract”) is entered into September 16th, 2019 by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. a Massachusetts Corporation, located at 101 Commercial Street, San Jose, CA 95112, Telephone Number: 408-431-5000 (“CONTRACTOR”). R E C I T A L S A.The Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of Household Hazardous Waste Program (HHW) and 24 Hour (On-Call) Emergency Spill Clean Up Response Service. B.The parties wish to amend the Contract to allow the compensation to be adjusted by a percentage equal to the change in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers for the San Francisco-Oakland- San Jose area, published by the United States Department of Labor Statistics (CPI). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this refer-ence: a.Exhibit “C” entitled “Schedule of Fees, Revised 9/16/2019”. SECTION 2. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. DocuSign Envelope ID: 7DFB41D3-AC5D-444B-8F9B-0F862760BC6D Attachment A 2 Revision July 20, 2016 CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney or designee CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. Officer 1 By: Name: Title: Officer 2 By: Name: Title: DocuSign Envelope ID: 7DFB41D3-AC5D-444B-8F9B-0F862760BC6D Marc McReynolds Senior Vice President, West Region Assistant Secretary Michael McDonald CDocuSigned by: ~~74FD City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 28 Rev. February 8, 2017 EXHIBIT C SCHEDULE OF FEES CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR according to the following rate schedule. The maximum amount of compensation to be paid to CONTRACTOR, including both payment for services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed the amounts set forth in Sections 5 and 6 of the Agreement. Any services provided or hours worked for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to CITY. SEE FEE SCHEDULE FOR COMPENSATION PAGES 28-A THROUGH 28-T DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 The fee schedule attached hereto shall apply during the first year of the term of the Agreement. Thereafter, CONTRACTOR’s compensation rates shall be adjusted annually effective on the commencement of the 2nd year, as follows: Each unit price, hourly rates, and fee, as set forth the attached fee schedule, shall be adjusted by a percentage equal to the change in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers for the San Francisco-Oakland- San Jose area, published by the United States Department of Labor Statistics (CPI), published most immediately preceding the commencement of the applicable contract year, compared with the CPI published for the prior year. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall CONTRACTOR’s compensation rates be increased by an amount exceeding five percent of the rates effective during the immediately preceding contract year. REVISED 9/16/2019 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7DFB41D3-AC5D-444B-8F9B-0F862760BC6D Fe e De s c r i pti o n Pr i c e 1 St a n d a r d 6 per s o n c r e w - L u m p s u m p f o r s t a f f a n d PE R E V E N T $1,97 4 . 0 0 Di s c o u n t o r a d d i t i o n per c h e m i s t a d d e d o r s u b t r a c t e d $ 3 6 4 . 0 0 Di s c o u n t o r a d d i t i o n per t e c h n i c i a n a d d e d o r $ 2 9 4 . 0 0 Di s c o u n t o r a d d i t i o n per s u r v e yor a d d e d o r s u b t r a c t e d $ 2 5 9 . 0 0 2 St a n d a r d 4 per s o n c r e w - L u m p s u m p f o r s t a f f a n d PE R E V E N T $ 9 9 0 . 0 0 Di s c o u n t o r a d d i t i o n per c h e m i s t a d d e d o r s u b t r a c t e d $ 2 6 0 . 0 0 Di s c o u n t o r a d d i t i o n per t e c h n i c i a n a d d e d o r $ 2 1 0 . 0 0 Di s c o u n t o r a d d i t i o n per s u r v e yor a d d e d o r s u b t r a c t e d $ 1 8 5 . 0 0 3 D o o r T o D o o r P r o gra m - $ 3 5 . 0 0 Un i t p r i c e s f o r p a c k a g i n g , t r a n s p o r t i n g , a n d d i s p o s a l Fe e W a s t e D e s c r i p t i o n M a n a g e m e n t M e t h o d 5 g a l l o n 2 0 g a l l o n 3 0 g a l l o n 5 5 C Y B o x 4 L a t e x P a i n t R e c y c l e LF B 3 5 O i l B a s e d P a i n t Re c y c l e LP T P Fu e l S u b s t i t u t i o n $ 3 6 . 0 0 $ 7 2 . 0 0 $ 9 0 . 0 0 $ 1 2 0 . 0 0 FB 1 In c i n e r a t i o n FB 1 7 F l a m m a b l e L i q u i d s - P o i s o n s o r T o x i c s In c i n e r a t i o n $ 6 6 . 0 0 $ 1 3 2 . 0 0 $ 1 6 5 . 0 0 $ 2 2 0 . 0 0 LC C R D Fu e l S u b s t i t u t i o n In c i n e r a t i o n $ 5 9 . 5 1 $ 1 1 9 . 0 2 $ 1 4 8 . 7 7 $ 1 9 8 . 3 6 $ 4 9 5 . 0 0 LP T N Al t e r n a t i v e M e t h o d Re c y c l e $ 1 3 . 0 0 $ 2 3 . 0 0 $ 2 7 . 0 0 $ 3 0 . 0 0 D2 3 La n d f i l l $ 1 3 . 0 0 $ 2 3 . 0 0 $ 2 7 . 0 0 $ 3 0 . 0 0 CB P Re c y c l e $ 1 3 . 0 0 $ 2 3 . 0 0 $ 2 7 . 0 0 $ 3 0 . 0 0 D2 3 La n d f i l l $ 1 3 . 0 0 $ 2 3 . 0 0 $ 2 7 . 0 0 $ 3 0 . 0 0 CB P Fu e l S u b s t i t u t i o n In c i n e r a t i o n $ 9 0 . 0 0 $ 1 2 6 . 0 0 $ 1 5 7 . 0 0 $ 2 1 0 . 0 0 $ 5 9 5 . 0 0 LC C R Q Al t e r n a t i v e M e t h o d In c i n e r a t i o n $ 6 0 . 0 0 $ 1 2 0 . 0 0 $ 1 5 0 . 0 0 $ 1 7 5 . 0 0 CC R K La n d f i l l $ 6 7 . 0 0 $ 1 1 3 . 0 0 $ 1 4 3 . 0 0 $ 1 5 0 . 0 0 CB P 13 P C B L i g h t B a l l a s t In c i n e r a t i o n $ 1 5 6 . 6 0 $ 3 1 3 . 2 0 $ 3 9 1 . 5 0 $ 5 2 2 . 0 0 CH B I In c i n e r a t i o n D8 0 I Re c y c l e D8 0 B La n d f i l l $ 1 0 5 . 0 0 $ 2 1 0 . 0 0 $ 2 6 3 . 0 0 $ 3 5 1 . 0 0 CH B L 15 P o i s o n / T o x i c S o l i d s In c i n e r a t i o n $ 6 6 . 0 0 $ 1 3 2 . 0 0 $ 1 6 5 . 0 0 $ 2 2 0 . 0 0 $ 7 7 0 . 0 0 LC C R C 16 F l u o r e s c e n t L a m p s T u b e s Re c y c l e Pr i c e P e r L i n e a r F o o t : $ 0 . 1 4 CF L 1 17 C o m p a c t F l u o r e s c e n t L i g h t s Re c y c l e Pr i c e P e r P o u n d : $ 3 . 2 5 CF L 8 18 C o m p a c t F l u o r e s c e n t L i g h t s ( u - s h a p e d , o t h e r ) R e c y c l e Pr i c e P e r Po u n d : $ 3 . 2 5 CF L 2 ,4, 5 , 6 , 7 Re c y c l e In c i n e r a t i o n $ 5 9 . 5 1 $ 1 1 9 . 0 2 $ 1 4 8 . 7 7 $ 1 7 5 . 0 0 $ 4 2 5 . 0 0 LP T N Wa s t e U n i t P r i c e s PA I N T C A R E N O C O S T T O T H E C I T Y PA I N T C A R E N O C O S T T O T H E C I T Y 6 F l a m m a b l e L i q u i d s ( b u l k ) HH W G E N E R A T E D H A Z A R D O U S W A S T E M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M F E E S C H E D U L E La b o r S e t u p a n d M o b i l i z a t i o n / D e m o b i l i z a t i o n P r i c e s Mo b i l i z a t i o n , S e t - up , D e m o b i l i z a i t o n f o r f a c i l i t y c o l l e c t i o n e v e n t s ( Sa t u r d a y Ev e n t s ) Mo b i l i z a t i o n , S e t - up , D e m o b i l i z a i t o n f o r f a c i l i t y c o l l e c t i o n e v e n t s ( Fr i d a y Ev e n t s ) 8 F l a m m a b l e S o l i d s 9 E m p t y S t e e l C a n s 10 E m p t y G a s o l i n e C o n t a i n e r s ( 5 g a l . o r l e s s ) 11 Ae r o s o l C a n s ( p a r t i a l l y f u l l ) C o r r o s i v e , F l a m m a b l e o r Po i s o n s 12 C o n t a m i n a t e d D e b r i s ( a b s o r b e n t s / s o l i d s w i t h hy d r o c a r b o n s ) 14 N o n - P C B L i g h t B a l l a s t 19 P a i n t R e l a t e d M a t e r i a l Ch a p t e r 8 - P r o p o s a l C o s t S h e e t s & R a t e s 3$ * ( $ Oc t o b e r 1 0 , 2 0 1 7 & 9 ) * # * 5 $ Do c u S i g n E n v e l o p e I D : F 1 2 B B 4 2 F - D B 1 A - 4 8 5 D - B 6 8 2 - 6 C C D 9 E E 7 F 4 E 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7DFB41D3-AC5D-444B-8F9B-0F862760BC6D - -- - - -- - Tr e a t m e n t / N e u t r a l i z a t i o In c i n e r a t i o n $ 5 7 . 9 4 $ 1 1 5 . 8 8 $ 1 4 4 . 8 6 $ 1 9 3 . 1 4 LC C R A / B Tr e a t m e n t / N e u t r a l i z a t i o In c i n e r a t i o n $ 5 7 . 9 4 $ 1 1 5 . 8 8 $ 1 4 4 . 8 6 $ 1 9 3 . 1 4 LC C R A / B Tr e a t m e n t / N e u t r a l i z a t i o In c i n e r a t i o n $ 6 2 . 6 4 $ 1 2 5 . 2 8 $ 1 5 6 . 6 0 $ 2 0 8 . 8 0 LC C R O Tr e a t m e n t / N e u t r a l i z a t i o Al t e r n a t i v e M e t h o d $ 6 2 . 6 4 $ 1 2 5 . 2 8 $ 1 5 6 . 6 0 $ 2 0 8 . 8 0 LC C R O 24 P r o p a n e C y l i n d e r s ( u p t o 1 p o u n d s ; a n d , i n c l u d i n g R e c y c l e $ 1 4 8 . 7 7 $ 1 9 8 . 3 6 $ 5 . 5 7 LC Y 1 - C Y L E 25 P r o p a n e C y l i n d e r s - B B Q S i z e ( u p t o 5 0 p o u n d s ) R e c y c l e Pr i c e P e r T a n k : $ 1 1 . 1 5 LC Y 1 - C Y S M O R C Y M E Re c y c l e $ 1 5 6 . 6 0 $ 3 1 3 . 2 0 $ 3 9 1 . 5 0 $ 5 2 2 . 0 0 LB D 1 In c i n e r a t i o n La n d f i l l Re c y c l e $ 1 9 0 . 0 0 LB B G B In c i n e r a t i o n La n d f i l l Re c y c l e In c i n e r a t i o n La n d f i l l Re c y c l e In c i n e r a t i o n La n d f i l l Re c y c l e In c i n e r a t i o n La n d f i l l Re c y c l e In c i n e r a t i o n La n d f i l l Re c y c l e In c i n e r a t i o n La n d f i l l Re c y c l e In c i n e r a t i o n La n d f i l l Re c y c l e In c i n e r a t i o n La n d f i l l 23 A s b e s t o s L a n d f i l l $ 4 2 . 8 6 $ 8 5 . 7 1 $ 1 0 7 . 1 4 $ 1 4 2 . 8 6 $ 5 0 0 . 0 0 C N I A 24 M e r c u r y Re c y c l e $ 2 5 0 . 0 0 $ 4 8 6 . 0 0 LC H G 2 / 4 In c i n e r a t i o n $ 1 7 2 . 0 0 LR C T D / L R C T Q Tr e a t m e n t / N e u t r a l i z a t i o Re c y c l e In c i n e r a t i o n $ 6 6 . 0 0 $ 1 3 2 . 0 0 $ 1 6 5 . 0 0 $ 2 2 0 . 0 0 LC C R C Fu e l S u b s t i t u t i o n Ot h e r $ 6 6 . 0 0 $ 1 3 2 . 0 0 $ 1 6 5 . 0 0 $ 2 2 0 . 0 0 LC C R C 28 C y a n i d e In c i n e r a t i o n $ 1 7 2 . 8 0 LR C T B 29 P o l y c h l o r i n a t e d B i p h e n y l s In c i n e r a t i o n $ 1 5 6 . 6 0 $ 3 1 3 . 2 0 $ 3 9 1 . 5 0 $ 5 2 2 . 0 0 LC H S I 20 I n o r g a n i c A c i d s o r B a s e s 21 O r g a n i c A c i d s o r B a s e s 22 O x i d i z e r S o l i d s 23 O x i d i x e r L i q u i d s 26 Z i n c C a r b o n / A l k a l i n e ( U n i v e r s a l W a s t e B a t t e r i e s ) 27 L i t h i u m ( U n i v e r s a l W a s t e B a t t e r i e s ) 28 L i t h i u m - R e c h a r g a b l e s ( U n i v e r s a l W a s t e B a t t e r i e s ) CA L L 2 R E C Y C L E N O C H A R G E T O T H E C I T Y 29 N i c k e l C a d m i u m ( U n i v e r s a l W a s t e B a t t e r i e s ) CA L L 2 R E C Y C L E N O C H A R G E T O T H E C I T Y 30 N i c k e l M e t a l H y d r i d e ( U n i v e r s a l W a s t e B a t t e r i e s ) CA L L 2 R E C Y C L E N O C H A R G E T O T H E C I T Y 31 N i c k e l Z i n c ( U n i v e r s a l W a s t e B a t t e r i e s ) CA L L 2 R E C Y C L E N O C H A R G E T O T H E C I T Y 32 L e a d A c i d ( w h o l e ) ( U n i v e r s a l W a s t e B a t t e r i e s ) CA L L 2 R E C Y C L E N O C H A R G E T O T H E C I T Y 33 Le a d A c i d ( b r o k e n o r l e a k i n g ) ( U n i v e r s a l W a s t e Ba t t e r i e s ) CA L L 2 R E C Y C L E N O C H A R G E T O T H E C I T Y 34 Se a l e d L e a d - A c i d ( g e l c e l l ) ( U n i v e r s a l W a s t e Ba t t e r i e s ) CA L L 2 R E C Y C L E N O C H A R G E T O T H E C I T Y 25 W a t e r R e a c t i v e W a s t e s 26 P h o t o D e v e l o p e r 27 P h o t o F i x e r Ch a p t e r 8 - P r o p o s a l C o s t S h e e t s & R a t e s 3$ * ( % Oc t o b e r 1 0 , 2 0 1 7 Do c u S i g n E n v e l o p e I D : F 1 2 B B 4 2 F - D B 1 A - 4 8 5 D - B 6 8 2 - 6 C C D 9 E E 7 F 4 E 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7DFB41D3-AC5D-444B-8F9B-0F862760BC6D Re c y c l e $ 1 2 8 . 0 0 A31 Fu e l S u b s t i t u t i o n $ 3 6 . 0 0 $ 7 2 . 0 0 $ 9 0 . 0 0 $ 1 2 0 . 0 0 FB 1 Ot h e r Re c y c l e $ 1 2 3 . 7 5 $ 1 6 5 . 0 0 CO F La n d f i l l Re c y c l e $ 1 4 5 . 0 0 B3 5 Ot h e r 33 F l a r e s / F u s e e s ( a u t o m o t i v e ) I n c i n e r a t i o n $ 1 2 5 . 0 0 CA X I 34 F l a r e s ( m a r i n e ) In c i n e r a t i o n C B C D i s pos a l P r i c e P e r F l a r e : A99 X 35 F i r e E x t i n g u i s h e r s Re c y c l e $ 2 7 . 3 0 e a LC Y 2 - C Y L E La n d f i l l Re c y c l e $ 6 1 . 1 0 e a LC Y 2 - C Y S M La n d f i l l Re c y c l e $ 6 8 . 9 0 e a LC Y 2 - C Y M E La n d f i l l Re c y c l e $ 1 3 2 . 6 0 e a LC Y 2 - C Y L G La n d f i l l In c i n e r a t i o n $ 6 6 . 0 0 $ 1 3 2 . 0 0 $ 1 6 5 . 0 0 $ 2 2 0 . 0 0 D2 0 X La n d f i l l 37 E x p i r e d o r u n w a n t e d m e d i c a t i o n s ( n o c o n t r o l l e d su b s t a n c e s ) In c i n e r a t i o n $ 6 6 . 0 0 $ 1 3 2 . 0 0 $ 1 6 5 . 0 0 $ 2 2 0 . 0 0 RX H Z / L C C R C Fe e Wa s t e D e s c r i pti o n Ma n a gem e n t M e t h o d 5 gal l o n 2 0 gal l o n 3 0 gal l o n 5 5 C Y B o x 38 C o m p r e s s e d g a s c y l i n d e r s ( r e f r i g e r a n t g a s e s [ f r e o n ] ; ox y g e n [ u s e d f o r w e l d i n g o r s o l d e r i n g ] ; c a r b o n d i o x i d e [C O 2 c a r t r i d g e s ] ; m a c e ; p e p p e r s p r a y ) . Re c y c l e $ 2 7 . 3 0 LC Y 2 - C Y L E In c i n e r a t i o n $ 5 2 . 5 0 LC Y 4 - C Y L E In c i n e r a t i o n $ 1 4 8 . 7 5 LC Y 6 - C Y L E Re c y c l e $ 6 1 . 1 0 LC Y 2 - C Y S M In c i n e r a t i o n $ 5 8 . 7 5 LC Y 4 - C Y S M In c i n e r a t i o n $ 2 7 6 . 2 5 LC Y 6 - C Y S M Re c y c l e $ 6 8 . 9 0 LC Y 2 - C Y M E In c i n e r a t i o n $ 7 2 . 5 0 LC Y 4 - C Y M E In c i n e r a t i o n $ 3 5 1 . 0 0 LC Y 6 - C Y M E Re c y c l e $ 1 3 2 . 6 0 LC Y 2 - C Y L G In c i n e r a t i o n $ 1 3 1 . 2 5 LC Y 4 - C Y L G In c i n e r a t i o n $ 5 9 5 . 0 0 LC Y 6 - C Y L G 39 A m m o n i a S o l u t i o n s In c i n e r a t i o n $ 5 7 . 9 4 $ 1 1 5 . 8 8 $ 1 4 4 . 8 6 $ 1 9 3 . 1 4 LC C R B Fu e l S u b s t i t u t i o n $ 8 9 . 6 4 $ 1 5 0 . 1 2 $ 1 8 7 . 9 2 $ 2 5 0 . 5 6 LF B 1 In c i n e r a t i o n $ 6 6 . 0 0 $ 1 3 2 . 0 0 $ 1 6 5 . 0 0 $ 2 2 0 . 0 0 LC C R D Fu e l S u b s t i t u t i o n $ 5 7 . 0 0 $ 1 1 4 . 0 0 $ 1 4 2 . 5 0 $ 1 9 0 . 0 0 LC C R / F B 5 In c i n e r a t i o n $ 5 9 . 5 1 $ 1 1 9 . 0 2 $ 1 4 8 . 7 7 $ 1 7 5 . 0 0 LP T N 42 N o n - S p e c i f i e d C o r r o s i v e L i q u i d s Tr e a t m e n t / N e u t r a l i z a t i o $ 8 9 . 6 4 $ 1 3 2 . 8 0 $ 1 6 6 . 3 2 $ 2 2 1 . 4 0 43 Em e r g e n c y R e s p o n s e s a n d T a n k e r T r u c k B u l k S p e c i f y M e t h o d 43 a O i l y W a t e r ( N o n - P C B ) T r e a t m e n t / N e u t r a l i z a t i o D i s p o s a l P r i c e P e r G a l l o n : $ 0 . 9 0 A32 43 b O i l y W a t e r ( P C B C o n t a m i n a t e d ) In c i n e r a t i o n Di s p o s a l P r i c e P e r G a l l o n : $ 2 . 5 9 DH L I 43 c S o l i d s a n d S u r c h a r g e s ( i f a p p l i c a b l e ) Pr i c e P e r E v e r y P e r c e n t S o l i d s : s e e b e l o w 30 U s e d M o t o r O i l 31 U s e d O i l F i l t e r s 32 U s e d A n t i f r e e z e 35 a F i r e E x t i n g u i s h e r - L e c t u r e S i z e 35 b F i r e E x t i n g u i s h e r - S m a l l S i z e 35 c F i r e E x t i n g u i s h e r - M e d i u m S i z e 35 d F i r e E x t i n g u i s h e r - L a r e g e S i z e 36 S h a r p s 41 N o n - S p e c i f i e d F l a m m a b l e o r C o m b u s t i b l e S o l i d s 38 a C o m p r e s s e d g a s c y l i n d e r s - l e c t u r e s i z e 38 b C o m p r e s s e d g a s c y l i n d e r s - s m a l l 38 c C o m p r e s s e d g a s c y l i n d e r s - m e d i u m 38 d C o m p r e s s e d g a s c y l i n d e r s - l a r g e 40 N o n - S p e c i f i e d F l a m m a b l e o r C o m b u s t i b l e L i q u i d s Ch a p t e r 8 - P r o p o s a l C o s t S h e e t s & R a t e s 3$ * ( & Oc t o b e r 1 0 , 2 0 1 7 Do c u S i g n E n v e l o p e I D : F 1 2 B B 4 2 F - D B 1 A - 4 8 5 D - B 6 8 2 - 6 C C D 9 E E 7 F 4 E 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7DFB41D3-AC5D-444B-8F9B-0F862760BC6D 43 d T a n k e r C l e a n o u t a n d S u r c h a r g e s ( i f a p p l i c a b l e ) Ta n k e r C l e a n o u t P e r E v e n t P r i c e : 2 6 2 . 5 0 n o n PC B & 8 5 0 . 7 8 No t e s : 43 c S o l i d s a n d S u r c h a r g e s S c h e d u l e A3 2 - O i l y W a t e r ( N o n - P C B ) S o l i d s S u r c h a r g e s 5. 0 0 % – 1 9 . 9 9 % = a d d i t i o n a l $ 0 . 1 6 / g a l 20 . 0 0 % – 2 9 . 9 9 % = a d d i t i o n a l $ 0 . 2 6 / g a l > 3 0 . 0 0 % = c a s e b y c a s e DH L I - O i l y W a t e r ( P C B - C o n t a m i n a t e d ) S o l i d s S u r c h a r g e s 5. 0 0 % – 1 0 . 0 0 % = a d d i t i o n a l $ 0 . 1 7 / g a l 10 . 0 1 % – 1 5 . 0 0 % = a d d i t i o n a l $ 0 . 3 3 / g a l 15 . 0 1 % – 2 0 . 0 0 % = a d d i t i o n a l $ 0 . 4 9 / g a l > 2 0 . 0 0 % = c a s e b y c a s e Su p p l i e s & M a t e r i a l s f o r w a s t e m a n a g e d t h r o u g h v a r i o u s E P R p r o g r a m s , u n l e s s E P R r e i m b u r s e s C l e a n H a r b o r s f o r s u p p l i e s a n d m a t e r iaCo s t + 2 0 % CE S Q G r a t e s w i l l b e m u t u a l l y n e g o t i a t e d b e t w e e n t h e C i t y a n d C l e a n H a r b o r s d u r i n g c o n t r a c t n e g o t i a t i o n . (1 ) L a b o r a n d e q u i p m e n t f o r a l l e m e r g e n c y r e s p o n s e s e r v i c e s ( i n c l u d i n g t a n k e r ) s h a l l b e c h a r g e d a t t i m e a n d m a t e r i a l s p u r s u a n t to c o n t r a c t o r ' s s u b m i t t e d r a t e Ch a p t e r 8 - P r o p o s a l C o s t S h e e t s & R a t e s 3$ * ( ' Oc t o b e r 1 0 , 2 0 1 7 Do c u S i g n E n v e l o p e I D : F 1 2 B B 4 2 F - D B 1 A - 4 8 5 D - B 6 8 2 - 6 C C D 9 E E 7 F 4 E 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7DFB41D3-AC5D-444B-8F9B-0F862760BC6D Description UOM Price (USD) FIELD PERSONNEL Field Technician HR $61.00 Equipment Operator HR $78.00 Foreman HR $78.00 Chemist HR $99.00 Supervisor HR $106.00 Lead Chemist HR $126.00 Project Manager HR $130.00 Site Safety Officer HR $146.00 TECHNICAL PERSONNEL Field Inspector HR $84.00 Mechanic HR $103.00 Welder HR $103.00 Field Engineer/Scientist/Geologist HR $110.00 Senior Engineer/Scientist/Geologist HR $124.00 Professional Engineer/LSP HR $130.00 ADMINISTRATIVE/MANAGERIAL PERSONNEL On Site Administration HR $71.00 Emergency Response Coordinator HR $135.00 General Manager HR $175.00 PER DIEM / SUBSISTENCE Per Diem / Subsistence DAY $211.00 HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS Box Truck HR $70.00 Dump Truck, 10 Wheel HR $85.00 High Powered Vacuum Truck/Cusco HR $161.00 Region: US SOUTHWEST Rate Category Type: Emergency Response Rates Currency Code: USD Executed on: 10/9/2017 6:56:24 PM “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Regional Rate Sheet ER Rates 3$*(( DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2DocuSign Envelope ID: 7DFB41D3-AC5D-444B-8F9B-0F862760BC6D Description UOM Price (USD) Rolloff Straightjob HR $84.00 Rolloff Two Can Trailer HR $87.00 Skid Mounted Vacuum System HR $70.00 Tractor Only, No Trailer HR $65.00 Tractor w/Box Van HR $84.00 Tractor w/Dump Trailer HR $91.00 Tractor w/Flatbed/Lowbed Trailer HR $87.00 Tractor w/Liquid Transporter HR $100.00 Tractor w/Rolloff Trailer HR $87.00 Tractor w/Vacuum Trailer HR $106.00 Vactor with Jet Rodder HR $161.00 Vacuum Truck, Straight HR $87.00 Wet/Dry High Powered Vacuum Truck/Guzzler HR $161.00 HYDRO EXCAVATION SERVICES Hydrovac - Single Drive with Operator & Helper HR $271.00 Hydrovac - Tandem Drive with Operator & Helper HR $300.00 Hydrovac - Tri-Drive with Operator & Helper HR $300.00 Working Boiler / Heating Charge HR $65.00 LIGHT DUTY TRUCK/RESPONSE EQUIPMENT Emergency Response Van HR $87.00 Pickup/Van/Car/Crew Cab HR $22.00 Spill Trailer DAY $295.00 Stake Body/Utility Truck HR $38.00 Utility / Support Trailer DAY $201.00 PRESSURE WASHING EQUIPMENT 1000psi Pressure Washer DAY $103.00 2-D Rotating Nozzle - 10K HR $67.00 2000psi Pressure Washer DAY $112.00 2500psi Hot Water Pressure Washer DAY $351.00 2500psi Pressure Washer DAY $122.00 3000psi Hot Water Pressure Washer DAY $387.00 Executed on: 10/9/2017 6:56:24 PM “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Regional Rate Sheet ER Rates 1"(&' DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2DocuSign Envelope ID: 7DFB41D3-AC5D-444B-8F9B-0F862760BC6D Description UOM Price (USD) High Pressure Blaster - 10,000 PSI 30-40 GPM (350, 450) HR $73.00 High Pressure Blaster - 40,000 PSI 6 GPM - UHP Pump (200) HP HR $170.00 High Pressure Blaster - 40,000 PSI 7-12 GPM - UHP Pump (305)HR $170.00 High Pressure Blaster -20,000 PSI 0-20 GPM - HP Pump (305) HR $144.00 Nozzle - 3D Rotating - 10K, 20-80 GPM HR $88.00 PUMPING/TRANSFERRING PUMPS Drum Loader DAY $177.00 Pump - Centrifugal, 2 in DAY $113.00 Pump - Diesel Lister, 3 in DAY $159.00 Pump - Double Diaphragm, 1 in DAY $100.00 Pump - Double Diaphragm, 2 in DAY $141.00 Pump - Double Diaphragm, 2 in, Chemical DAY $187.00 Pump - Double Diaphragm, 3 in DAY $159.00 Pump - Double Diaphragm, 3 in, Chemical DAY $207.00 Pump - Double Diaphragm, 4 in DAY $218.00 Pump - Electric Drum DAY $112.00 Pump - Electric Submersible, 2 in DAY $89.00 Pump - Electric Submersible, 3 in DAY $112.00 Pump - Electric Submersible, 4 in DAY $164.00 Pump - Hand DAY $36.00 Pump - Hydraulic Transfer, 4 in HR $36.00 Pump - Hydraulic Transfer, 6 in HR $270.00 Pump - Trash, 4 in DAY $294.00 MARINE RESPONSE EQUIPMENT Airboat, Single Engine DAY $1236.00 Airboat, Twin Engine DAY $3605.00 Boat/Workskiff without Motor DAY $146.00 Brush Skimmer DAY $824.00 Containment Boom - 10" Per Foot Per Day FT $1.83 Containment Boom - 18" Per Foot Per Day FT $2.05 Containment Boom - 24" Per Foot Per Day FT $2.65 Executed on: 10/9/2017 6:56:24 PM 3$*(* “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Regional Rate Sheet ER Rates DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2DocuSign Envelope ID: 7DFB41D3-AC5D-444B-8F9B-0F862760BC6D Description UOM Price (USD) Containment Boom - 36" Per Foot Per Day FT $2.97 Drum Skimmer (24in-36in) DAY $646.00 Drum Skimmer, Double Barrel DAY $979.00 Hydraulic Power Pack for Skimmer DAY $227.00 Landing Craft (LCM), 26ft-29ft DAY $979.00 Landing Craft (LCM), 30ft-34ft DAY $1236.00 Landing Craft (LCM), 35ft-45ft DAY $1854.00 PFD Life Vest DAY $27.00 PFD Survival Suit / Cold Weather Survival Work Suits DAY $81.00 Power Barge Boat, 26ft-30ft DAY $1133.00 Power Barge Boat, 30ft-42ft DAY $2060.00 Power Workboat, Fast Response, 12-14ft DAY $307.00 Power Workboat, Fast Response, 15-17ft DAY $367.00 Power Workboat, Fast Response, 18-22ft DAY $614.00 Power Workboat, Fast Response, 23-26ft DAY $773.00 Power Workboat, Fast Response, 27-36ft DAY $979.00 Rigid Hull Inflatable (RIB) (18ft-22ft) DAY $809.00 Rope Mop - 4" (Per Foot) FT $31.00 Rope Mop - 9" (Per Foot) FT $39.00 Rotating Disc Skimmer Unit DAY $840.00 Skim Pack Skimmer DAY $167.00 Skimmer - C24H Hydraulically Powered Rope Mop Wringer DAY $670.00 Skimmer - C29H Hydraulically Powered Rope Mop Wringer DAY $901.00 Skimmer - CV-46H Hydraulically powered Vertical Mop Wringer DAY $798.00 Skimmer, Duck Bill DAY $29.00 Skimming Vessel (Marco/JBF or Equivalent) 28-30ft DAY $5639.00 Skimming Vessel Belt Drive Replacement EA $1341.00 Weir Skimmer Unit DAY $178.00 FIELD ANALYTICAL 4 Gas/5 Gas Meter DAY $183.00 Bailer & Sampling Equipment DAY $62.00 Draeger Air Monitoring Pump DAY $81.00 Explosion/Oxygen Meter DAY $130.00 Executed on: 10/9/2017 6:56:24 PM “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Regional Rate Sheet ER Rates 3$*(+ DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2DocuSign Envelope ID: 7DFB41D3-AC5D-444B-8F9B-0F862760BC6D Description UOM Price (USD) Geiger Counter Meter DAY $162.00 Hydrogen Cyanide Meter DAY $134.00 Interface Probe DAY $130.00 Lumex RA915+ Mercury Vapor Analyzer DAY $528.00 Mercury Vapor Analyzer DAY $270.00 Particulate Meter, Mini Ram or equivalent DAY $130.00 Personal Air Pump Meter DAY $62.00 pH Meter DAY $62.00 PID Meter DAY $130.00 Well Purging/Sampling Pump DAY $62.00 HOSES/PIPE Hose - Chemical, 2 in X 20 ft DAY $38.00 Hose - Chemical, 3 in X 20 ft DAY $53.00 Hose - Chemical, 4 in X 20 ft DAY $69.00 Hose - Flex, 4 in, per ft FT $2.83 Hose - Flex, 6 in, per ft FT $3.61 Hose - Lay Flat, 2 in X 25ft DAY $28.00 Hose - Lay Flat, 4 in X 25 ft DAY $62.00 Hose - Lay Flat, 6 in X 25 ft DAY $81.00 Hose - Suction, 2 in X 25 ft DAY $32.00 Hose - Suction, 3 in X 25 ft DAY $43.00 Hose - Suction, 4 in X 25 ft DAY $62.00 Hose - Suction, 6 in X 25 ft DAY $90.00 Wash Hose, 1/2in x 50ft DAY $18.00 EARTH MOVING EQUIPMENT Backhoe Loader, 1 Yard Bucket HR $81.00 Bobcat Loader/Mini Excavator HR $80.00 Excavator, 20-30 Ton HR $103.00 Fork Attachment for Bobcat Loader DAY $60.00 Loader, 2-3 Yard Bucket HR $79.00 Mini Excavator HR $80.00 Sweeper Attachment for Bobcat Loader DAY $146.00 Executed on: 10/9/2017 6:56:24 PM “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Regional Rate Sheet ER Rates 3$*(, DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2DocuSign Envelope ID: 7DFB41D3-AC5D-444B-8F9B-0F862760BC6D Description UOM Price (USD) PNEUMATIC POWER TOOLS 3/4in Drill, Rotary Hammer DAY $94.00 Jackhammer, 40Lb DAY $67.00 Jackhammer, 60Lb DAY $84.00 Jackhammer, 90Lb DAY $101.00 Pneumatic Chipping Gun DAY $108.00 Steel Nibbler, Pneumatic DAY $135.00 GAS POWERED TOOLS Brush Cutter/Power Broom DAY $126.00 Chain Saw DAY $126.00 Cutoff Saw (Demo) DAY $135.00 ELECTRIC POWER TOOLS 1/2in Drill, Electric DAY $44.00 Circular Saw, Electric DAY $62.00 Mercury Vacuum DAY $212.00 Reciprocating Saw (Sawzall), Electric DAY $81.00 Wet Vacuum (Shop Vac) DAY $44.00 SITE SUPPORT 100 HP boiler unit HR $103.00 15 Gal HEPA Vacuum DAY $177.00 150,000 BTU Portable Heater DAY $280.00 2 CU YD self dumping hopper DAY $4.43 2,000 - 2,900 Gal Poly Storage Tank DAY $81.00 20,000 Gal Frac Tank DAY $167.00 3,000 - 3,900 Gal Steel Storage Tank DAY $28.00 300 - 500 Gal Poly Storage Tank DAY $42.00 4,000 - 6,000 Gal Poly Storage Tank DAY $99.00 Air Compressor 175-185 CFM DAY $280.00 Air Compressor 8-10 CFM DAY $125.00 ATV, 4X4 or 4X6 DAY $377.00 Carbon Filter System DAY $256.00 Executed on: 10/9/2017 6:56:24 PM “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Regional Rate Sheet ER Rates 3$*(- DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2DocuSign Envelope ID: 7DFB41D3-AC5D-444B-8F9B-0F862760BC6D Description UOM Price (USD) Decon Pool, 10ft x 10ft DAY $155.00 Decon Pool, 20ft x 100ft DAY $464.00 Decon Pool, 25ft x 50ft DAY $309.00 Decontamination Trailer DAY $188.00 Dewatering Box DAY $177.00 Drum Vacuum, Pneumatic DAY $188.00 Dump Trailer (Trailer Only, Staged on Site) DAY $76.00 Eyewash Station DAY $55.00 Frac Tank, Double Walled DAY $200.00 Generator - 12K Watt DAY $258.00 Generator - 4,000 Watt DAY $143.00 Generator - 5,000 Watt DAY $162.00 Generator - 8,000 Watt DAY $188.00 Halogen Spotlight DAY $108.00 Incident Command Unit DAY $1615.00 Intermodal Container DAY $33.00 Intrinsically Safe Drop Light DAY $108.00 Light Stand DAY $108.00 Light Tower w/Generator DAY $539.00 Manlift DAY $258.00 Office Trailer DAY $118.00 On-site Van Trailer (Tractor not included) DAY $207.00 Personnel Staging Tent, 10x10 ft, Purchased EA $180.00 Personnel Staging Tent, 20' x 30' DAY $155.00 Pump - Trash, 2 in DAY $112.00 Pump - Trash, 3 in DAY $129.00 Rolloff Container with Metal lid DAY $24.00 Rolloff Container with Tarp & Bows DAY $21.00 Sea Container / Conex / Tool Crib, 20 ft. DAY $31.00 Secondary Containment Unit DAY $42.00 Skid Mounted Liquid Phase Carbon System (10GPM) DAY $70.00 Tank Trailer/Transporter, No Tractor (For Storage Only) DAY $469.00 Traffic Cone/Barricade Unit DAY $1.55 Executed on: 10/9/2017 6:56:24 PM “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Regional Rate Sheet ER Rates 3$*(. DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2DocuSign Envelope ID: 7DFB41D3-AC5D-444B-8F9B-0F862760BC6D Description UOM Price (USD) Utility/Cross Terrain Vehicle (Mule/Gator) DAY $323.00 Vacuum Box, Watertight DAY $112.00 SPECIALTY EQUIPMENT Antiviral Disinfectant Fogger DAY $180.00 Auger, Manual DAY $67.00 Compactor DAY $67.00 Confined Space Entry Gear (Retrieval & Rescue Equip) DAY $375.00 Cutting Torch/Acetylene Torch DAY $124.00 DBI/Rogliss Tripod DAY $67.00 Digital Camera DAY $89.00 Drum Crusher, Portable DAY $469.00 Drum Tilter, Mechanical DAY $177.00 Electric Auger DAY $76.00 Electric Blower DAY $90.00 Explosion Proof Pneumatic Fan Blower DAY $90.00 Fiber Optic Camera HR $60.00 Fiber Optic Camera Truck HR $153.00 Forklift, 2,000Lb Capacity DAY $431.00 Forklift, 6,000Lb Capacity (High Reach / Lull) DAY $464.00 Plasma Cutting Torch DAY $244.00 Remote Drum Opener, Pnuematic DAY $1228.00 Sand Blaster and Hose HR $30.00 Transit Set DAY $129.00 Walk Behind Concrete Saw DAY $235.00 RESPIRATORY PROTECTION 2 Man Breathing System DAY $297.00 4 Man Breathing System DAY $377.00 Acid Cartridges PAIR $30.00 Asbestos Cartridges PAIR $31.00 Breathing Air Hose, 100ft DAY $108.00 Chlorine Cartridges PAIR $30.00 Mercury Cartridges PAIR $56.00 Executed on: 10/9/2017 6:56:24 PM “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Regional Rate Sheet ER Rates 3$*(/ DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2DocuSign Envelope ID: 7DFB41D3-AC5D-444B-8F9B-0F862760BC6D Description UOM Price (USD) MSA Chemical Cartridge EA $31.00 Negative Air Machine (Blower w/ HEPA filter) DAY $270.00 Organic Vapor Cartridges (No Dust) PAIR $30.00 Organic Vapor/Dust Combination Cartridges PAIR $53.00 Respirator, Full Face DAY $33.00 Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) DAY $270.00 PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (PER PERSON PER CHANGE OUT) Level A w/ResponderPlus Suit/Changeout EA $979.00 Level B w/CPF2 or Polytyvec/Changeout EA $206.00 Level B w/CPF3 or Saranex Suit/Changeout EA $258.00 Level B w/CPF4 or Barricade Suit/Changeout EA $309.00 Level C w/CPF1,2 or Polytyvec/Changeout EA $62.00 Level C w/CPF3 or Saranex Suit/Changeout EA $77.00 Level C w/CPF4 or Barricade Suit/Changeout EA $124.00 Modified Level D (Tyvec, Gloves and Boots) EA $31.00 CHEMICAL PROTECTIVE GARMENTS Chemrel Suit, Level C EA $82.00 Kappler CPF1 Suit (Blue) EA $35.00 Kappler CPF2 Suit (Grey) EA $58.00 Kappler CPF2 Suit w/Strapped Seams (Grey) EA $97.00 Kappler CPF3 Suit w/Hood & Boots (Tan) EA $131.00 Kappler CPF3 Suit w/Hood & Strapped Seams (Tan) EA $165.00 Kappler CPF4 Suit w/Hood & Boots (Green) EA $136.00 Nomex Suit and Hood EA $57.00 Polycoated Rain Gear, 22mil EA $19.00 Tyvec, Polycoat HD/BT EA $19.00 Tyvec, Saranex EA $59.00 Tyvec, White EA $23.00 HAND PROTECTION 14in Neoprene Gloves PAIR $13.39 14in Nitrile Gloves PAIR $13.39 Executed on: 10/9/2017 6:56:24 PM “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Regional Rate Sheet ER Rates 3$*(0 DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2DocuSign Envelope ID: 7DFB41D3-AC5D-444B-8F9B-0F862760BC6D Description UOM Price (USD) Cotton Winter Glove Liners PAIR $6.18 Cut Resistant Gloves PAIR $30.00 Gloves - 12 in PVC PAIR $11.33 Gloves - 18 in PVC PAIR $12.46 Gloves - Leather PAIR $8.24 Latex Gloxes BOX $14.00 Puncture Resistant Gloves PAIR $35.00 Silver Shield Gloves PAIR $35.00 FOOT PROTECTION Disposable Boot Covers (Chicken Boots) PAIR $12.88 Non Steel Toe Chest Waders - Purchased PAIR $232.00 Steel Toe Hip Boots - Purchase PAIR $165.00 Steel Toe Knee Boots PAIR $82.00 HEAD / FACIAL PROTECTION 16oz Eyewash EA $23.00 Bottled Water / Stress Relief (Case) CA $26.00 Earplugs PAIR $1.98 Face/Splash Shield EA $23.00 First Aid Kit, 25 Person EA $85.00 DOT SHIPPING CONTAINERS 1 Cubic Yard Supersac 13H2/Y/06 EA $84.00 10 Gal / 40 Litre Fiber Drum EA $41.00 110 Gal Steel Drum, Reconditioned 1A2/Y400S EA $469.00 16 Gal / 70 L Closed Poly Drum EA $63.00 16 Gal / 70 L Poly Drum 1H2/Y56/S EA $66.00 16 Gal Fiber Drum EA $30.00 18x18x24in Nonhazardous Pathological Waste Box EA $10.30 20 Gal / 80 Litre Fiber Drum EA $35.00 20 Gal / 80 Litre Poly Drum (1H2/Y56/S) EA $103.00 275G / 1100 L Poly TOTE, DOT Rated EA $283.00 275G / 1100 L Recondition Poly TOTE, DOT Rated EA $235.00 Executed on: 10/9/2017 6:56:24 PM “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Regional Rate Sheet ER Rates 3$*(1 DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2DocuSign Envelope ID: 7DFB41D3-AC5D-444B-8F9B-0F862760BC6D Description UOM Price (USD) 30 Gal / 120 Litre Closed Poly Drum 1H1/Y1.8/100 EA $80.00 30 Gal / 120 Litre Closed Steel Drum, New 1A1/Y1.6/200 EA $97.00 30 Gal / 120 Litre Closed Steel Drum, Reconed 1A1/Y1.4/100 EA $92.00 30 Gal / 120 Litre Fiber Drum 1G/X56/S EA $53.00 30 Gal / 120 Litre Poly Drum 1H2/Y142/S EA $87.00 30 Gal / 120 Litre Steel Drum, New 1A2/Y1.4/100 EA $114.00 30 Gal / 120 Litre Steel Drum, Reconditioned 1A2/Y1.2/100 EA $82.00 4ft Fluorescent Tube Box 4G/Y275 EA $26.00 5 Gal / 20 Litre Closed Poly Drum 1H1/Y1.8/170 EA $30.00 5 Gal / 20 Litre Closed Steel Drum 1A1/Y1.8/300 EA $35.00 5 Gal / 20 Litre Poly Drum 1H2/Y1.5/60 EA $23.00 5 Gal / 20 Litre Steel Drum 1A2/Y1.8/100 EA $35.00 5.5 Gal / 20 L Steel Drum 1A2/Y23/S EA $23.00 55 G / 205 L Closed Steel Drum, Recon 1A1/Y1.4/100 (17-E) EA $45.00 55 G / 205 L Steel Drum, Reconditioned 1A2/Y1.2/100 (17-H) EA $68.00 55 Gal / 205 L Stainless Steel Drum, Reconditioned EA $260.00 55 Gal / 205 Litre Closed Poly Drum 1H1/Y1.8/150 EA $103.00 55 Gal / 205 Litre Closed Poly Drum 1H1/Y1.8/150, Recycled EA $101.00 55 Gal / 205 Litre Closed Steel Drum, New 1A1/Y1.8/300 EA $100.00 55 Gal / 205 Litre Fiber Drum 1G/Y190/S EA $58.00 55 Gal / 205 Litre Open Head Poly, Reconditioned Drum 1H2/Y2 EA $98.00 55 Gal / 205 Litre Poly Drum 1H2/Y237/S EA $153.00 55 Gal / 205 Litre Steel Drum, New 1A2/Y1.5/100 EA $113.00 85 Gal / 320 Litre Steel Drum, New 1A2/X400/S EA $237.00 85 Gal / 320 Litre Steel Drum, Recycled 1A2/X400/S EA $201.00 8ft Fluorescent Tube Box 4G/Y275 EA $28.00 95 Gal Poly Drum 1H2/Y318/S (Overpack) EA $278.00 95 Gal Poly Drum, Recycled 1H2/Y318/S (Overpack) EA $276.00 Drum 15 Gal / 60 Litre Poly (1H2/Y1.8/100) EA $73.00 Drum Liners EA $23.00 Drum Rings/Bolts/Gaskets EA $30.00 Dump Trailer Poly Liner EA $99.00 Filter/Liner for Filter Box EA $367.00 Executed on: 10/9/2017 6:56:24 PM “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Regional Rate Sheet ER Rates 3$*(2 DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2DocuSign Envelope ID: 7DFB41D3-AC5D-444B-8F9B-0F862760BC6D Description UOM Price (USD) Flexbin, 1 Cubic Yard Flexbin 11G/Y/2022/1122 EA $159.00 Flexbin, Cubic Yard Box for Non-Haz Waste EA $103.00 Flexbin/Cubic Yard Box Liner EA $30.00 Fluorescent Bulb Tubes, 4ft 100 bulb capacity BOX2 $63.00 Fluorescent Bulb Tubes, 8ft 100 bulb capacity BOX2 $91.00 Hazardous Waste Labels EA $1.34 Labels - DOT EA $1.55 Pathological Waste Bag EA $6.28 Poly Bags, 6mil, per Roll EA $175.00 Poly Sheet, 6mil 20ft x 100ft EA $118.00 Rolloff Poly Liner EA $80.00 Vacbox Liner/Bladder EA $793.00 Waste Wrangler EA $193.00 ABSORBENT MATERIALS Absorbent Boom, 3in x 4ft EA $8.24 Absorbent Boom, 5in x 10ft x 4/Bale BALE $159.00 Absorbent Boom, 8in x 10ft x 4/Bale BALE $254.00 Absorbent Pad (101 Grade) 100/bale BALE $131.00 Absorbent Roll, 38in x 144ft EA $186.00 Absorbent Rug, 36in x 300ft EA $309.00 Absorbent Sweep, 17in x 100ft BALE $164.00 Activated Carbon for Water treatment systems LBS $3.19 Corn Cob Absorbent 40lb / 18 kg bag BAG $18.00 HGX Absorbent (Mercury absorbent) LBS $21.00 Oil Snare, on a Line, 50ft EA $100.00 Poly Absorbent, 20 lb / 23 kg BAG $108.00 Rags, 50 lb / 23 kg BOX $63.00 Speedi Dry BAG $12.36 SPI Solidification Particulate (Oil Bond) LBS $20.00 SPI Waterbond LBS $16.00 Vermiculite 4 cuft BAG $48.00 Executed on: 10/9/2017 6:56:24 PM “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Regional Rate Sheet ER Rates 3$*(3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2DocuSign Envelope ID: 7DFB41D3-AC5D-444B-8F9B-0F862760BC6D Description UOM Price (USD) DEGREASERS & NEUTRALIZING AGENTS 142 Solvent GAL $11.33 Antifreeze, Concentrate GAL $5.97 Antiviral Disinfectant Solution GAL $46.00 Capsur GAL $175.00 Cirtic Acid Solution, 15% GAL $7.21 Citrus Cleaner Degreaser GAL $63.00 Hydrated Lime, 50 lb / 23 kg BAG $8.24 Hydrochloric Acid LBS $3.71 Penetone Degreaser GAL $34.00 Pink Stuff Degreaser GAL $23.00 Simple Green Degreaser GAL $35.00 Soda Ash, 100 lb / 45 kg BAG $54.00 Sodium bisulfate 50 lb / 23 kg BAG $125.00 Sodium Hypochlorite, 15% (Bleach) GAL $9.27 SAMPLING AND LAB SUPPLIES 8oz Sample Jars EA $14.42 CHLOR'N'OIL Test Kit 0-50ppm PCB EA $40.00 CHLOR-D-TECT 4000 Test Kit (Halogens) EA $30.00 Draeger Tube EA $30.00 pH Paper, 1-14/Roll EA $18.00 Sample Tube EA $18.00 MARINE EQUIPMENT 1/2in Nylon Rope FT $1.03 1/2in Poly Rope FT $0.52 3/8in Poly Rope FT $0.41 3/8in Unguarded Galvanized Chain FT $7.21 Anchor, 18Lb EA $141.00 PFD Deck Suit EA $696.00 PFD Safety Light EA $30.00 Executed on: 10/9/2017 6:56:24 PM “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Regional Rate Sheet ER Rates 3$*(4 DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2DocuSign Envelope ID: 7DFB41D3-AC5D-444B-8F9B-0F862760BC6D Description UOM Price (USD) HAND TOOL/CONSTRUCTION ACCESSORIES 16in Street Broom EA $36.00 24in Floor Broom EA $36.00 3 Gal Pump Spray Bottle EA $56.00 3/8in Manilla Rope FT $0.52 3/8in Manilla Rope Coil, 600ft EA $170.00 3in Long Handle Scraper EA $24.00 3in Scraper EA $15.00 Caution Tape/Roll EA $58.00 Chemical Tape/Roll EA $53.00 Deck/Scrub Brush EA $19.00 Disposable Hand Pump/Syphon Pump EA $35.00 Duct Tape/Roll EA $12.36 Extension Cord, 50ft EA $58.00 Fence Stakes EA $9.37 Fence, SILT 100ft EA $147.00 Flat Shovel EA $33.00 Garden Hoe EA $31.00 Garden Rake EA $31.00 Pitch Fork EA $103.00 Plastic Shovel EA $57.00 Sawzall Blade EA $35.00 Shrink Wrap ROL $49.00 Snow Fence/Safety Fence, 100ft EA $79.00 Spaded Shovel EA $36.00 Squeegee EA $38.00 WASTE MATERIAL APPROVAL Profile Approval Fee (No Sample) EA $75.00 Sample & Profile Approval Fee EA $150.00 MISCELLANEOUS Acetylene Bottle EA $46.00 Executed on: 10/9/2017 6:56:24 PM “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Regional Rate Sheet ER Rates 3$*(5 DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2DocuSign Envelope ID: 7DFB41D3-AC5D-444B-8F9B-0F862760BC6D Description UOM Price (USD) Breathing Air Bottle Refill EA $31.00 Collection Jar for Mercury Vacuum EA $45.00 Filter Bags - 25 Micron Nominal EA $9.27 Filtration Bag for Mercury Vacuum EA $30.00 Hand Cleaner EA $34.00 Misc. Handtools DAY $50.00 Rolloff Bow EA $43.00 Rolloff Tarp EA $431.00 Executed on: 10/9/2017 6:56:24 PM “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Regional Rate Sheet ER Rates 3$*(6 DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2DocuSign Envelope ID: 7DFB41D3-AC5D-444B-8F9B-0F862760BC6D NOTES&RQGLWLRQV6SHFLILFWR(PHUJHQF\5HVSRQVH6HUYLFHV: All labor, equipment, materials and services outlined in this Schedule of Rates will be invoiced at the rates listed, regardless of Clean Harbors' method of acquisition. Any items not described in this Schedule of Rates which are acquired by Clean Harbors shall be invoiced at Clean Harbors' cost plus a markup of thirty-five percent (35%). (Unless otherwise specified, these rates are not valid for response to Infectious Agents/Biologicals.) The Schedule of Rates includes the cost of Clean Harbors’ basic medical monitoring program. Any special medical monitoring required by the client or the nature of the work will be added to the project scope and the client will invoiced at cost plus a markup listed above. Lodging and subsistence for Clean Harbors personnel and our subcontractors in the field are included in a per diem charge per person per day when working more than 30 miles from the employee's normal operations center and when overnight accommodations are required. The rate is outlined in the labor section of this document. When overnight accommodations are not required but work exceeds 12 hours, $40.00 per day per person may apply to cover meals and incidentals. At its sole discretion, Clean Harbors will determine the level of protection required for each project. Level A, B, C or D personal protection and safety packages will be invoiced at the rates shown in the Schedule of Rates. Clean Harbors' personnel and equipment will be charged portal-to-portal (mobilization and demobilization included). Services provided prior, during and/or subsequent to actual project site activities will also be charged at the Hourly Rate. This includes, but is not limited to, time taken by personnel to decontaminate and re-don protective clothing and equipment that is billed as part ofthe project. Clean Harbors' normal employee workday is 7:00 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday. Other work hours must be agreed to in writing in advance. No more than eight (8) hours of straight time will be billed for one person for one day. All time will be based upon a 24 hour day. All hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in the normal workday, as described above, as well as all hours worked all day Saturday are considered overtime and will be billed at 1.5 times the applicable straight time rate for all billable personnel. Sunday and Holidays are considered premium time and will be billed at 2.0 times the applicable straight time rate for all billable personnel. Holidays are the legally observed United States Federal Holidays plus the day after Thanksgiving. When local laws or regulations recognize additional holidays or when local laws or regulations define premium hours in excess of this definition, Clean Harbors will invoice in accordance with local laws or regulations. All emergency call-outs (i.e., less than 24-hour notice) will be subject to a minimum four (4) hour response charge or $2000.00 minimum charge, whichever is greater. Minimum charges do not apply to Transportation and Disposal. Charges for Safety Plans are assessed on all projects involving OSHA regulated substances or when required by the Customer or other Agency. In some instances a Site Safety Officer charge will apply per hour to create and administer the Safety Plan. A variable Energy and Security Recovery Fee (that fluctuates with the DOE national average diesel price), will be applied to the total invoice, excluding sales tax. Unless specifically notated, these rates do not apply to any projects with Prevailing Wage requirements. Any Prevailing Wage rates will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Equipment billed on an hourly basis will be billed a minimum of four hours upon activation. For equipment with only Daily Rates, a day will be charged up to 12 hours. No more than 2 Daily Rates will apply per calendar day. For boats and other marine equipment, Daily Rates will apply regardless of the hours used per day. Unless specifically notated in the equipment description, all equipment rates are un-operated. All waste disposal from project and or response activities will be charged additionally to the rates lists herein. A Waste Document Preparation Fee of $125 per day will apply to any work generating waste. The fee includes labels, manifests/bills of lading and profiles. Standby charges will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Clean Harbors guarantees to hold prices firm for 60 days. Executed on: 10/9/2017 6:56:24 PM “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Regional Rate Sheet ER Rates 3$*(7 DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2DocuSign Envelope ID: 7DFB41D3-AC5D-444B-8F9B-0F862760BC6D DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 1 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. February 8, 2017 Attachment B CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C18169608 GENERAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into on the 12th day of February, 2018, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and Clean Harbors Environmental Services, INC., a Massachusetts Corporation, located at 101 Commercial Street, San Jose, CA 95112, Telephone Number: 408-431-5000 (“CONTRACTOR”). In consideration of their mutual covenants, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. SERVICES. CONTRACTOR shall provide or furnish the services (the “Services”) described in the Scope of Services, attached at Exhibit A. Optional On-Call Provision (This provision only applies if checked and only applies to on-call agreements.) Services will be authorized by CITY, as needed, with a Task Order assigned and approved by CITY’s Project Manager. Each Task Order shall be in substantially the same form as Exhibit A-1. Each Task Order shall designate a CITY Project Manager and shall contain a specific scope of work, a specific schedule of performance and a specific compensation amount. The total price of all Task Orders issued under this Agreement shall not exceed the amount of Compensation set forth in Section 5 of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall only be compensated for work performed under an authorized Task Order and CITY may elect, but is not required, to authorize work up to the maximum compensation amount set forth in Section 5. 2. EXHIBITS. The following exhibits are attached to and made a part of this Agreement: “A” - Scope of Services “A-1” – On-Call Task Order (Optional) “B” - Schedule of Performance “C” – Schedule of Fees “D” - Insurance Requirements CONTRACT IS NOT COMPLETE UNLESS ALL INDICATED EXHIBITS ARE ATTACHED. 3. TERM. DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 2 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. February 8, 2017 Attachment B The term of this Agreement is from February 12, 2018 to February 11, 2021 inclusive, subject to the provisions of Sections Q and V of the General Terms and Conditions. 4. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. CONTRACTOR shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to CONTRACTOR, and if applicable, in accordance with the schedule set forth in the Schedule of Performance, attached at Exhibit B. Time is of the essence in this Agreement. 5. COMPENSATION FOR ORIGINAL TERM. CITY shall pay and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept as not-to-exceed compensation for the full performance of the Services and reimbursable expenses, if any: The total maximum lump sum compensation of dollars ($ ); OR The sum of dollars ($ ) per hour, not to exceed a total maximum compensation amount of dollars ($ ); OR A sum calculated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth at Exhibit C, not to exceed a total maximum compensation amount of Nine Hundred Thousand dollars ($900,000). CONTRACTOR agrees that it can perform the Services for an amount not to exceed the total maximum compensation set forth above. Any hours worked or services performed by CONTRACTOR for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth above for performance of the Services shall be at no cost to CITY. CITY has set aside the sum of Ninety Thousand dollars ($90,000) for Additional Services. CONTRACTOR shall provide Additional Services only by advanced, written authorization from the City Manager or designee. CONTRACTOR, at the CITY’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONTRACTOR’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services. Compensation shall be based on the hourly rates set forth above or in Exhibit C (whichever is applicable), or if such rates are not applicable, a negotiated lump sum. CITY shall not authorize and CONTRACTOR shall not perform any Additional Services for which payment would exceed the amount set forth above for Additional Services. Payment for Additional Services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement. • • DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 3 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. February 8, 2017 Attachment B 6. COMPENSATION DURING ADDITIONAL TERMS. CONTRACTOR’S compensation rates for each additional term shall be the same as the original term; OR CONTRACTOR’s compensation rates shall be adjusted effective on the commencement of each Additional Term. The lump sum compensation amount, hourly rates, or fees, whichever is applicable as set forth in section 5 above, shall be adjusted by a percentage equal to the change in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers for the San Francisco-Oakland- San Jose area, published by the United States Department of Labor Statistics (CPI) which is published most immediately preceding the commencement of the applicable Additional Term, which shall be compared with the CPI published most immediately preceding the commencement date of the then expiring term. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall CONTRACTOR’s compensation rates be increased by an amount exceeding five percent of the rates effective during the immediately preceding term. Any adjustment to CONTRACTOR’s compensation rates shall be reflected in a written amendment to this Agreement. 7. CLAIMS PROCEDURE FOR “9204 PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS”. For purposes of this Section 7, a “9204 Public Works Project” means the erection, construction, alteration, repair, or improvement of any public structure, building, road, or other public improvement of any kind. Public Contract Code Section 9204 mandates certain claims procedures for Public Works Projects, which are set forth in “Appendix Claims for Public Contract Code Section 9204 Public Works Projects”. This project is a 9204 Public Works Project and is required to comply with the claims procedures set forth in Appendix , attached hereto and incorporated herein. OR This project is not a 9204 Public Works Project. 8. INVOICING. Send all invoices to CITY, Attention: Project Manager. The Project Manager is: Elise Sbarbori, Public Works Department, Environmental Services Division, 3201 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: (650) 496- 6980. Invoices shall be submitted in arrears for Services performed. Invoices • • • DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 4 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. February 8, 2017 Attachment B shall not be submitted more frequently than monthly. Invoices shall provide a detailed statement of Services performed during the invoice period and are subject to verification by CITY. CITY shall pay the undisputed amount of invoices within 30 days of receipt. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. ACCEPTANCE. CONTRACTOR accepts and agrees to all terms and conditions of this Agreement. This Agreement includes and is limited to the terms and conditions set forth in sections 1 through 7 above, these general terms and conditions and the attached exhibits. B. QUALIFICATIONS. CONTRACTOR represents and warrants that it has the expertise and qualifications to complete the services described in Section 1 of this Agreement, entitled “SERVICES,” and that every individual charged with the performance of the services under this Agreement has sufficient skill and experience and is duly licensed or certified, to the extent such licensing or certification is required by law, to perform the Services. CITY expressly relies on CONTRACTOR’s representations regarding its skills, knowledge, and certifications. CONTRACTOR shall perform all work in accordance with generally accepted business practices and performance standards of the industry, including all federal, state, and local operation and safety regulations. C. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in the performance of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR and any person employed by CONTRACTOR shall at all times be considered an independent CONTRACTOR and not an agent or employee of CITY. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to complete the work required under this Agreement. D. SUBCONTRACTORS. CONTRACTOR may not use subcontractors to perform any Services under this Agreement unless CONTRACTOR obtains prior written consent of CITY. CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible for directing the work of approved subcontractors and for any compensation due to subcontractors. E. TAXES AND CHARGES. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for payment of all taxes, fees, contributions or charges applicable to the conduct of CONTRACTOR’s business. F. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONTRACTOR shall in the performance of the Services comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders. DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 5 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. February 8, 2017 Attachment B G. PALO ALTO MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE. CONTRACTOR shall comply with all requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 4.62 (Citywide Minimum Wage), as it may be amended from time to time. In particular, for any employee otherwise entitled to the State minimum wage, who performs at least two (2) hours of work in a calendar week within the geographic boundaries of the City, CONTRACTOR shall pay such employees no less than the minimum wage set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.030 for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the City of Palo Alto. In addition, CONTRACTOR shall post notices regarding the Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.060. H. DAMAGE TO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY. CONTRACTOR shall, at its sole expense, repair in kind, or as the City Manager or designee shall direct, any damage to public or private property that occurs in connection with CONTRACTOR’s performance of the Services. CITY may decline to approve and may withhold payment in whole or in part to such extent as may be necessary to protect CITY from loss because of defective work not remedied or other damage to the CITY occurring in connection with CONTRACTOR’s performance of the Services. CITY shall submit written documentation in support of such withholding upon CONTRACTOR’s request. When the grounds described above are removed, payment shall be made for amounts withheld because of them. I. WARRANTIES. CONTRACTOR expressly warrants that all services provided under this Agreement shall be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner in accordance with generally accepted business practices and performance standards of the industry and the requirements of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR expressly warrants that all materials, goods and equipment provided by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement shall be fit for the particular purpose intended, shall be free from defects, and shall conform to the requirements of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR agrees to promptly replace or correct any material or service not in compliance with these warranties, including incomplete, inaccurate, or defective material or service, at no further cost to CITY. The warranties set forth in this section shall be in effect for a period of one year from completion of the Services and shall survive the completion of the Services or termination of this Agreement. J. MONITORING OF SERVICES. CITY may monitor the Services performed under this Agreement to determine whether CONTRACTOR’s work is completed in a satisfactory manner and complies with the provisions of this Agreement. K. CITY’S PROPERTY. Any reports, information, data or other material (including copyright interests) developed, collected, assembled, prepared, or caused to be prepared under this Agreement will become the property of CITY without DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 6 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. February 8, 2017 Attachment B restriction or limitation upon their use and will not be made available to any individual or organization by CONTRACTOR or its subcontractors, if any, without the prior written approval of the City Manager. L. AUDITS. CONTRACTOR agrees to permit CITY and its authorized representatives to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years from the date of final payment, CONTRACTOR’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONTRACTOR agrees to maintain accurate books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for at least three (3) following the terms of this Agreement. M. NO IMPLIED WAIVER. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY shall operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. N. INSURANCE. CONTRACTOR, at its sole cost, shall purchase and maintain in full force during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described at Exhibit D. Insurance must be provided by companies with a Best’s Key Rating of A-:VII or higher and which are otherwise acceptable to CITY’s Risk Manager. The Risk Manager must approve deductibles and self-insured retentions. In addition, all policies, endorsements, certificates and/or binders are subject to approval by the Risk Manager as to form and content. CONTRACTOR shall obtain a policy endorsement naming the City of Palo Alto as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy. CONTRACTOR shall obtain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled or materially reduced in coverage or limits until after providing 30 days prior written notice of the cancellation or modification to the Risk Manager. CONTRACTOR shall provide certificates of such policies or other evidence of coverage satisfactory to the Risk Manager, together with the required endorsements and evidence of payment of premiums, to CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement and shall throughout the term of this Agreement provide current certificates evidencing the required insurance coverages and endorsements to the Risk Manager. CONTRACTOR shall include all subcontractors as insured under its policies or shall obtain and provide to CITY separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor that meet all the requirements of this section. The procuring of such required policies of insurance shall not operate to limit CONTRACTOR’s liability or obligation to indemnify CITY under this Agreement. O. HOLD HARMLESS. To the fullest extent permitted by law and without limitation by the provisions of section N relating to insurance, CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents from and against any and all demands, claims, injuries, DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 7 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. February 8, 2017 Attachment B losses, or liabilities of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss and including without limitation all damages, penalties, fines and judgments, associated investigation and administrative expenses and defense costs, including, but not limited to reasonable attorney’s fees, courts costs and costs of alternative dispute resolution), arising out of, or resulting in any way from or in connection with the performance of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR’s obligations under this Section apply regardless of whether or not a liability is caused or contributed to by any negligent (passive or active) act or omission of CITY, except that CONTRACTOR shall not be obligated to indemnify for liability arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of CITY. The acceptance of the Services by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section survive the completion of the Services or termination of this Agreement RESPONDER IMMUNITY: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, it is understood and agreed by the parties that Contractor will at all times under this Agreement retain any exemption or limitation from liability ("Responder Immunity") pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (FWPCA) 33 U.S.C.A. 1251 et seq., the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, as amended (OPA-90) 33 U.S.C.A. 2701 et seq., and any other applicable Federal, state or local law, regulation or ordinance which provides such responder immunity. Operation of such immunity shall be suspended if Contractor is grossly negligent or engages in willful misconduct. For purposes of this indemnity, "gross negligence" shall not be deemed to include (a) Contractor's lack of available equipment or personnel, or (b) failure of Contractor's equipment. P. NON-DISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONTRACTOR certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONTRACTOR acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. Q. WORKERS' COMPENSATION. CONTRACTOR, by executing this Agreement, certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 8 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. February 8, 2017 Attachment B provisions of that Code, and certifies that it will comply with such provisions, as applicable, before commencing and during the performance of the Services. R. TERMINATION. The City Manager may terminate this Agreement without cause by giving ten (10) days’ prior written notice thereof to CONTRACTOR. If CONTRACTOR fails to perform any of its material obligations under this Agreement, in addition to all other remedies provided by law, the City Manager may terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice of termination. Upon receipt of such notice of termination, CONTRACTOR shall immediately discontinue performance. CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR for services satisfactorily performed up to the effective date of termination. If the termination is for cause, CITY may deduct from such payment the amount of actual damage, if any, sustained by CITY due to CONTRACTOR’s failure to perform its material obligations under this Agreement. Upon termination, CONTRACTOR shall immediately deliver to the City Manager any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other material or products, whether or not completed, prepared by CONTRACTOR or given to CONTRACTOR, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials shall become the property of CITY. S. ASSIGNMENTS/CHANGES. This Agreement binds the parties and their successors and assigns to all covenants of this Agreement. This Agreement shall not be assigned or transferred without the prior written consent of CITY. No amendments, changes or variations of any kind are authorized without the written consent of CITY. T. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. In accepting this Agreement, CONTRACTOR covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of this Contract. CONTRACTOR further covenants that, in the performance of this Contract, it will not employ any person having such an interest. CONTRACTOR certifies that no CITY Officer, employee, or authorized representative has any financial interest in the business of CONTRACTOR and that no person associated with CONTRACTOR has any interest, direct or indirect, which could conflict with the faithful performance of this Contract. CONTRACTOR agrees to advise CITY if any conflict arises. U. GOVERNING LAW. This contract shall be governed and interpreted by the laws of the State of California. V. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement, including all exhibits, represents the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the services that may be the subject of this Agreement. Any variance in the exhibits does not affect the validity of the Agreement and the Agreement itself controls over any conflicting DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 9 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. February 8, 2017 Attachment B provisions in the exhibits. This Agreement supersedes all prior agreements, representations, statements, negotiations and undertakings whether oral or written. W. NON-APPROPRIATION. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Contract are no longer available. This Section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Contract. X. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONTRACTOR shall comply with CITY’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at CITY’s Purchasing Division, which are incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONTRACTOR shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of CITY’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, CONTRACTOR shall comply with the following zero waste requirements: • All printed materials provided by CONTRACTOR to CITY generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double- sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by CITY’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks. • Goods purchased by Contractor on behalf of CITY shall be purchased in accordance with CITY’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including, but not limited to, Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Division’s office. • Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by CONTRCATOR, at no additional cost to CITY, for reuse or recycling. CONTRACTOR shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. Y. AUTHORITY. The individual(s) executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 10 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. February 8, 2017 Attachment B Z. PREVAILING WAGES This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages in the performance and implementation of the Project in accordance with SB 7, if the contract is not a public works contract, if contract does not include a public works construction project of more than $25,000, or the contract does not include a public works alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance (collectively, ‘improvement’) project of more than $15,000. OR Contractor is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Section 16000 et seq. and Section 1773.1 of the California Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract for this Project from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). Copies of these rates may be obtained at the Purchasing Division’s office of the City of Palo Alto. Contractor shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of all sections, including, but not limited to, Sections 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1782, 1810, and 1813, of the Labor Code pertaining to prevailing wages. AA.DIR REGISTRATION. In regard to any public work construction, alteration, demolition, repair or maintenance work, CITY will not accept a bid proposal from or enter into this Agreement with CONTRACTOR without proof that CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors are registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) to perform public work, subject to limited exceptions. City requires CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of SB 854. CITY provides notice to CONTRACTOR of the requirements of California Labor Code section 1771.1(a), which reads: “A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of this section for an • DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 11 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. February 8, 2017 Attachment B unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contractor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded.” CITY gives notice to CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors that CONTRCATOR is required to post all job site notices prescribed by law or regulation and CONTRACTOR is subject to SB 854-compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR. CITY requires CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of Labor Code section 1776, including: Keep accurate payroll records, showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by, respectively, CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors, in connection with the Project. The payroll records shall be verified as true and correct and shall be certified and made available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the principal office of CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors, respectively. At the request of CITY, acting by its project manager, CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors shall make the certified payroll records available for inspection or furnished upon request to the project manager within ten (10) days of receipt of CITY’s request. [For state- and federally-funded projects] CITY requests CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors to submit the certified payroll records to the project manager at the end of each week during the Project. If the certified payroll records are not produced to the project manager within the 10-day period, then CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors shall be subject to a penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker, and CITY shall withhold the sum total of penalties from the progress payment(s) then due and payable to CONTRACTOR. Inform the project manager of the location of CONTRACTOR’s and its listed subcontractors’ payroll records (street address, city and county) at the commencement of the Project, and also provide notice to the project manager within five (5) business days of any change of location of those payroll records. • DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 12 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. February 8, 2017 Attachment B BB. CONTRACT TERMS. All unchecked boxes do not apply to this Agreement. In the case of any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the exhibits hereto or CONTRACTOR’s proposal (if any), the Agreement shall control. In the case of any conflict between the exhibits hereto and CONTRACTOR’s proposal, the exhibits shall control. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. Officer 1 By Name _Michael McDonald Approved as to form: City Attorney or Designee Title_SVP General Counsel Officer 2 (Required for Corp. or LLC) By NamMearc McReynolds Title_Senior Vice President Ed Shikada for James Keene GOocuSigned by: £ .I St.v'.i-a.la FWCA19CCC804F9, IJlOocuSigned by: L ~~o F~v\-blJs DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 13 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. February 8, 2017 Attachment B EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES The City of Palo Alto currently provides a comprehensive program for Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) management. The various HHW programs operate out of the HHW Station (HHWS) which is located at 2501 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303. The HHWS consists of specially designed storage sheds, reuse cabinets, and a drive-through unloading area. Contract staff shall operate the HHWS during the weekly collection events. Contract staff shall package, store, and transport HHW offsite for proper recycling, reuse, or disposal. In addition, the scope of work requires the Contractor to provide for 24-hour hazardous waste emergency spill response services on an as-needed basis. A. SCOPE OF WORK a. General Requirements and Provisions i. The Contractor shall operate and manage the City’s HHW Station collection events, Conditional Exempt Small Quantity Generators (CESQG) program, door-to-door HHW pickups, including all HHW collected through those events and programs; provide equipment and materials for event setup; provide staff and materials to place signage and cones; and collect, segregate, pack, and store HHW at the HHW Station. The Contractor shall also provide 24-hour hazardous waste emergency spill response services on as as-needed-basis. ii. The Contractor shall collect and package all HHW, universal wastes, and hazardous waste for transportation to state and federal approved Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) and for shipping or transporting to current and future extended product responsibility (EPR) programs which provide disposal of HHW (Examples: PaintCare, Call2Recycle, and Thermostat Recycling Corporation). The Contractor shall perform all services related to this scope of work in compliance with all applicable laws, permits and regulations including but not limited to: Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Palo Alto’s Permanent Facility Permit and Permit by Rule conditions, applicable California Health and Safety Code requirements, CCR Title 8 (Cal OSHA) and Code of Federal Regulations Title 49 (DOT) sections as well as any other federal, state or local regulations relating to HHW collection, transportation and disposal activities. iii. The Contractor shall designate a Project Coordinator to act as a contact for the coordination and execution of the Contractor's activities. The Contractor's Project Coordinator shall be authorized DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 14 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. February 8, 2017 Attachment B to act on behalf of the Contractor in all matters pertaining to the contract and shall have sufficient knowledge of all aspects of the Contractor's business and the requirements of this contract. iv. The Contractor shall collect and manage HHW for the various HHW programs, transport HHW, and manage the disposal of HHW. Upon the Contractor's acceptance of wastes identified for removal, transportation, management and disposal under this contract, the Contractor shall undertake title to, and ownership of, including risk of loss and all other incidents of ownership of such wastes except where the generator is responsible by law. v. Contractor shall be responsible for preparing and maintaining any and all necessary plans, licenses or other mandatory documents as required by federal, state or local laws, regulations, and ordinances, including but not limited to, health and safety plans, contingency plans and site operations plans. The Contractor shall provide to the City copies of all plans, licenses or other mandatory documents prepared for the operation of the City’s HHW Programs prior to beginning any work. vi. Contractor shall package, consolidate, store and transport offsite the following HHW when accumulation limits have been reached or when necessary: 1. HHW collected by Contractor during the HHW Station collection events for residential program; 2. HHW from CESQGs collected by Contractor; 3. HHW collected by Contractor from the door to door program; and, 4. HHW from RWQCP programs collected by City staff. vii. The Contractor shall provide copies of transportation documents such as but not limited to uniform hazardous waste manifests, non- hazardous waste manifest, bills of lading, land disposal restrictions, certificates of destruction, closed copies of documents listed above, and 303 Summary Reports, for any hazardous waste shipped to a TSDF or EPR associated entity for proper disposal or recycling. viii. Under these HHW programs, Contractor shall collect from City residents and CESQGs all HHW, with the exception of: 1. Electronic waste 2. Radioactive wastes 3. Infectious waste and bio-hazardous wastes (containing body tissues or fluids) 4. Controlled substances DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 15 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. February 8, 2017 Attachment B 5. Explosive wastes 6. Marine flares 7. Fireworks 8. Ammunition 9. Large gas cylinders 10. Other gas cylinders not listed as acceptable* * Generally acceptable gas cylinders include propane (small, BBQ size), MAPP, isobutane/propane, butane, helium, and refrigerants (Freon). ix. All personnel handling hazardous waste shall be trained in hazardous waste management and have the training as specified in 22 CCR 66264.16, including the use of personal protective safety equipment, and emergency response equipment and procedures as required under applicable state and federal laws and regulations. x. The Contractor shall use the City’s permanent EPA Generator Identification Number for the manifesting of wastes collected under all HHW Programs. For emergency spill cleanup services the Contractor shall use the Santa Clara County Temporary EPA Generator Identification Number. b. Documentation i. The Contractor shall prepare, provide and maintain all documentation, certificates and records as required by applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations and the City. All documentation shall be filled out clearly, correctly and legibly. Documentation submittals for all work shall include but not be limited to: 1. bills of lading or non-hazardous waste manifests 2. hazardous waste manifests and continuation sheets 3. labpack inventory sheets 4. land disposal restriction notifications 5. hazardous waste profiles 6. certificates of destruction, decontamination, disposal and/or recycling 7. monthly and annual CalRecycle 303 forms 8. inventory of items moved to reuse cabinets 9. event summary reports. ii. Copies of the documentation listed above as well as any other documents required by the City's Program Manager shall be furnished to the City's Program Manager at the time of waste shipment or at a time as agreed by the City. Copies of any manifest attachments shall be provided to the City’s Program DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 16 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. February 8, 2017 Attachment B Manager at the time of transport of waste. iii. The Contractor shall furnish to the City’s Program Manager closed originals of all uniform hazardous (and non-hazardous) waste manifests signed by a duly authorized representative of the receiving TSDF within thirty (30) calendar days of waste shipment. iv. The Contractor shall, at all times during the transportation, storage, and disposal of wastes know the location, condition and status of each item being managed. The Contractor shall make such information available in written progress reports to the City's Program Manager upon request. The progress reports shall include a listing of items removed, referenced by an appropriate identification number and uniform hazardous waste manifest number and a description of the location and status of wastes on date of the written progress report. v. The Contractor shall indicate “Emergency Response” on all relevant documents, including manifests, for any transportation or disposal in connection with hazardous waste emergency response services for incidents occurring within the jurisdictional borders of the City. The Contractor shall also include on the manifest a relevant address of the spill location. vi. Following each waste removal or when waste is shipped to the appropriate TSDF, the Contractor shall provide summary reports listing and sorted by hazardous waste manifest number and by DOT hazard class, and shall include the following information for each drum collected: 1. name of HHW (e.g. Flammable Liquids); 2. unique drum ID number; 3. container type/size, quantity; 4. estimated actual quantity of wastes (in pounds exclusive of container and absorbent 5. for solids and gallons for liquids); and 6. TSDF profile number (if applicable); 7. subtotals of the number of drums and weight/volume of wastes for each manifest; 8. DOT hazard class and the total number of drums; and 9. weight/volume of wastes for all hazard classes. vii. If required by the City’s Program Manager, the Contractor shall perform reconciliation of manifests including preparation of a letter of explanation for any shipping or manifest discrepancies. DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 17 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. February 8, 2017 Attachment B viii. The Contractor shall provide City staff with the CalRecycle Form 303 (waste quantities with management methods used) collected for each of the HHW programs (residential permanent facility events, CESQG program, door to door collection program, and RWQCP collection program) for each fiscal year during the term of the Agreement. The Contractor shall provide the completed Form 303 covering the previous FY (July 1 through June 30) to the City no later than 45 days prior to the due date of Form 303 to the State. The City shall prepare and submit the official City of Palo Alto HHW Program CalRecycle 303 forms. c. Spill Prevention and Clean Up i. The Contractor shall use appropriate methods, equipment and practices required by all federal, state and local laws and regulations as well as industry recommended and approved methods, equipment and practices to ensure that no discharges, releases, spills or leakage occurs during the packaging, loading, transportation, storage and disposal of wastes to be managed under this Agreement. In the event of an accidental spill (by or from a resident, City staff, or Contractor) the Contractor is responsible for having supplies (brushes, absorbent, cleaners, etc.,) on site to properly clean up the spill. ii. In the event of a discharge, release, spill or leakage of hazardous wastes during packaging, loading, transportation, storage or disposal of wastes to be managed under this Agreement, the Contractor shall take appropriate and immediate action to protect human health and the environment. The Contractor shall, at no expense to the City, be fully responsible for, and take appropriate and immediate action to remediate and clean-up any such discharge, release, spill or leakage in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. For small spills the Contractor is responsible for having supplies (brushes, absorbent, cleaners, etc.,) on site to remediate and clean-up any such discharge, release, spill, or leakage. iii. If during loading and transportation on City property, there is a discharge, release, spill, or leak of hazardous waste the City shall direct the actions taken. The Contractor shall compensate the City for any costs incurred for response to any discharge, release, spill or leakage of hazardous wastes occurring on City property during loading, packaging and/or transportation activities caused by Contractor negligence. iv. The Contractor shall immediately notify the City's Program DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 18 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. February 8, 2017 Attachment B Manager in person or by telephone should any accident or incident occur which results in any discharge, release, spill or leakage which involves any wastes to be managed under this Agreement. The Contractor shall make all notifications and reporting to the appropriate regulatory or emergency response agencies as required under federal, state and local laws and regulations in the event of a discharge, release, spill or leakage of hazardous wastes during transportation, storage or disposal of wastes to be managed under this Agreement. v. If requested by the City, the Contractor shall furnish the City's Program Manager with a detailed written report describing any discharge, release, spill or leakage of hazardous wastes during transportation, storage or disposal of wastes to be managed under this Agreement that required notification to the City or any federal, state and local regulatory or emergency response agency. vi. The HHW drop-off events take place outdoors. The Contractor shall protect the collection area from any runoff of residual materials from garbage bins, collection area, or spills. Contractor shall develop a plan to use for inclement weather to protect against any runoff of HHW materials from garbage bins, the collection area, or accidental spills. d. HHW Station Collection Events. The City’s HHW Station collection events are permitted under a Permanent Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility Permit (PHHWFP). The events are held at 2501 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto every Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and on the first Friday of the month from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. (excluding holidays). i. The Contractor shall staff and operate the HHW Station collection. The Contractor shall be responsible for: 1. Event preparation; 2. Tear down and clean-up in accordance with Title 22 regulations, as amended, in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations; 3. Provide all staff, labor, materials, tools and equipment for handling, identification, profiling, packaging, labeling, marking, placarding, manifesting, loading, transportation, and final disposal of collected hazardous wastes. 4. Supply sufficient traffic cones to identify entrance lane at the entrance to the HHW Station at the end of Embarcadero Way. ii. Conduct all activities and operate collection events in accordance DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 19 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. February 8, 2017 Attachment B with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations, and the health and safety, contingency and operation plans prepared by the Contractor and approved by the Program Manager. iii. The Contract shall staff the collection events with personnel in sufficient numbers and expertise. iv. During the collection events the Contractor shall recycle all clean containers, boxes, and other materials to the extent possible and place them into the recycling bin. The City’s Zero Waste Staff shall provide training to the Site Supervisor on what materials can be recycled. The Site Supervisor shall be responsible for training their staff on what materials can be recycled. v. For each scheduled event, the City shall provide the following: 1. HHW program advertisement; 2. additional signage; 3. survey forms; 4. literature for survey takers to distribute to event participants; and 5. debris bins for disposal of recyclables and non-hazardous wastes. vi. The City reserves the right to increase, decrease or modify the number of staff as may be deemed necessary or expedient by the City’s Program Manager. e. PaintCare Program. The Contractor shall collect, segregate, store, and dispose of approved paints and paint-related products through PaintCare at no cost to the City. i. The Contractor is responsible for obtaining an agreement with PaintCare to have paint and paint-related items managed through the PaintCare Program. ii. The Contractor shall arrange with PaintCare to collect, store, manage, and have disposed of approved paint related items. iii. The Contractor shall provide at least a 30 cubic yard roll off bin or other bin approved by the City to store approved PaintCare related items. Prior to the bin reaching capacity the Contractor shall arrange for the bin to be emptied or replaced with a new empty bin. iv. The cost of managing, transporting, and recycling PaintCare related products shall not be charged to the City. DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 20 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. February 8, 2017 Attachment B v. The Contractor may transport the waste or may use an approved PaintCare transporter. The City shall not be charged any fees associated with managing eligible PaintCare related items. f. Call2Recycle (Battery Take Back Program). Contractor shall use Call2Recycle to dispose of rechargeable batteries. Batteries accepted by Call2Recycle include lithium rechargeables, nickel cadmium, nickel metal halide, nickel zinc, lead acid (whole), lead acid (leaking and broken), and sealed lead acid (gel cell). i. Contractor shall follow the requirements of Call2Recycle for sorting, packaging, and sending batteries to Call2Recycle. ii. The Contractor shall setup an account with Call2Recycle or use an existing City account to recycle batteries. iii. The Contractor shall not charge the City for shipping costs for approved Call2Recycle batteries. g. Thermostat Recycling Corporation (Thermostat Take Back Program). The Thermostat Recycling Corporation (TRC) is a non-profit organization that manages the collection and proper disposal of mercury-containing thermostats. The Contractor shall use TRC to dispose of thermostats that contain mercury. i. The Contractor shall setup an account with TRC or use an existing City account to recycle thermostats. ii. Contractor shall follow the requirements of TRC for sorting, packaging, and sending mercury containing thermostats to TRC. iii. The Contractor shall not charge the City for TRC associated shipping costs. h. Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator Program. The City accepts, at the HHW Station, hazardous waste from businesses that generate less than 220 pounds per month. These businesses are known as Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators (CESQG). The business must be located in the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (PARWQCP) service area. The participating Cities include Palo Alto, Mountain View, Stanford, East Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills. The Contractor shall operate and be responsible for the CESQG Program, under which it shall provide for the appropriate handling, packaging, transportation, and disposal of hazardous wastes generated by CESQGs in the PARWQCP service area. Collection of CEQSG hazardous waste generally occurs after 11:00am on Saturday’s or at a time agreed upon by the City. DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 21 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. February 8, 2017 Attachment B i. The Contractor shall permit participating and qualified businesses to deliver wastes by appointment with the Contractor to the HHW Station. 1. The Contractor shall verify the CESQG business status, waste type and waste quantities generated. 2. The Contractor is responsible for obtaining the business name, address, and phone number of each participating CESQG. ii. The Contractor shall provide an appointment system for signing up CESQG’s. As part of the appointment system the Contractor shall at a minimum provide: 1. The Contractor shall provide information and assistance to the CESQG. 2. Contractor shall provide a toll free telephone number and email dedicated to the Palo Alto CESQG appointments. iii. The Contractor shall properly manage any CESQG wastes. iv. Contractor shall return all calls from CESQGs within two business days and shall be responsible to the CESQG using the program. v. CESQG waste shall be combined with the permanent HHW Station program’s waste to minimize the number of containers transported for disposal. vi. The Contractor shall set up a payment system for CESQGs. The Contractor is authorized to collect fees on a cost-recovery basis for services rendered at the time of delivery of the wastes to the HHW Station. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for recovering all CESQG Program fees and costs from the Program participants. vii. The Contractor shall be solely responsible to maintain all records required by local, state, and federal laws, ordinances, and regulations, including but not limited to. 1. The Contractor shall provide separate Form 303 for CESQG program for the fiscal years the contract is in effect. 2. The Contractor is responsible for providing the business hazardous waste generator identification numbers and permits (as applicable). 3. The Contractor shall provide a copy of the fees charged and collected including copies of proof of payment (i.e. checks, visa, cash). 4. The Contractor shall provide all state and federal land DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 22 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. February 8, 2017 Attachment B disposal restriction notification forms for hazardous waste subject to land disposal restrictions. 5. The Contractor shall provide hazardous waste profiles required by TSDFs and other waste/recycling facilities; and 6. The Contractor shall provide all bills of lading for non- hazardous wastes collected and managed through the CESQG Program. viii. The Contractor shall retain all CESQG records and make available for inspection, review, and audit by representatives of the PARWQCP jurisdiction during normal business hours throughout the term of the Agreement for a period of three (3) years following the expiration or termination of the Agreement for any reason. ix. The Contractor shall provide a monthly event summary report and submit to the Program Manager within one (1) week after each CESQG Program collection event. Each report shall include, at a minimum, the following: 1. CESQG contact information. 2. Copy of all payment records from the CESQG to the Contractor. 3. Type, amount, and quantity of waste accepted for disposal. x. The Contractor shall be responsible for preparing and maintaining any and all necessary plans, licenses or other mandatory documents required for the CESQG Program by regulatory agencies, federal, state or local laws, ordinances or regulations, including but not limited to, health and safety plans, contingency plans and site operations plans. The City shall provide such reasonable assistance to the Contractor as it may request. The Contractor shall provide to the Program Manager copies of all plans, licenses or other mandatory documents prepared for the operation of the CESQG Program xi. The Contractor shall solely assume: 1. Responsibility for transporting of, including arranging for transportation of all wastes managed under the CESQG Program hereunder; 2. Arranger status for the disposal of all wastes collected and managed under the CESQG Program hereunder; and 3. Operator status for all wastes collected and managed through the CESQG Program hereunder. The City expressly disclaims any responsibility or liability for tracking of participating businesses, including waste quantities and types. DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 23 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. February 8, 2017 Attachment B To the extent permitted by law, the City disclaims any responsibility, liability, or status in connection with the CESQG Program under the Agreement. The City assumes no title to nor ownership of the wastes collected, transported, recycled or disposed of through the CESQG Program. The City shall not be deemed a transporter, disposer, operator or generator for, such wastes collected and managed under the CESQG Program except as may be established by law. In addition, the City disclaims any responsibility or liability for arrangement of delivery, collection, transportation, recycling or disposal of such wastes collected and managed under the CESQG Program hereunder. i. Door-To-Door Collection for Residents with physical limitations in Palo Alto The Contractor shall operate the City’s door to door collection program for residents with physical limitations. The service generally operates on the First Saturday collection event days (alternate times and days may be arranged upon approval from City staff) and services those individuals such as seniors and physically limited residents who may have difficulty attending the HHW collection events due to medical reasons. City staff shall ensure residents are eligible for the program and shall route the contact information to Contractor. The Contractor shall contact the residents and schedule an appointment to collect the waste. All HHW collected from the physically limited residents shall be combined with and stored at the permanent facility. The Contractor shall document the waste types and quantities collected. j. 24-Hour Emergency Response Services In the event of a hazardous materials or waste incident (abandoned waste, spill, leak, etc.) that requires services beyond those that the City is capable of providing internally, the Contractor shall provide emergency response services. The Contractor’s contact information can be obtained from the City’s Program Manager. The Contractor shall provide the following services: i. Upon notification from the City the Contractor shall respond within 4 hours of notification. ii. The Contractor shall furnish a vacuum tanker services or a mini- guzzler vacuum service for pumping of underground tanks and utility vaults (may involve PCB contaminated wastes). iii. The Contractor shall furnish personnel and materials and/or equipment for waste containment. iv. The Contractor shall provide spill clean-up and site decontamination. DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 24 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. February 8, 2017 Attachment B v. The Contractor shall provide as needed Hazcat identification of unknowns. vi. The Contractor shall package, transport, and dispose of any hazardous waste. vii. The Contractor shall provide proper shipping documents such as hazardous waste manifest, bill of lading, or non-hazardous waste manifest. viii. The Contractor shall provide to the Project Manager a 24-hour emergency contact telephone numbers and notification procedures for requesting emergency response services. Upon notification by the Program Manager or his designee, the Contractor shall mobilize appropriate personnel, materials and equipment to respond to incidents to provide emergency response services. Waste collected during the emergency response shall be immediately disposed by the Contractor. k. Operations Plan. The Contractor shall supply an Operations Plan tailored for the City of Palo Alto HHW, Door-To-Door, and CESQG Programs. The Operation Plan(s) shall include, at a minimum, detailed descriptions of the following: i. Organization of staffing and a description of duties of each staff member; ii. Contingency Plan training including first aid, implementation procedures, use of safety, containment and clean-up equipment; iii. Safety procedures, supplies, materials and equipment to be furnished for operations, safety, and contingencies; iv. Site setup procedures; v. Reuse item screening, cleaning, inventory and management; vi. Waste acceptance and handling procedures including screening, unloading, identification, classification, and segregation; vii. Procedures for packaging and consolidation of collected wastes; viii. Documentation and inventory control procedures including procedures for drum inventory and content control, labeling, manifesting and associated paperwork. ix. Procedures for identification of unknowns; x. Procedures for management of unacceptable or unusually DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 25 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. February 8, 2017 Attachment B hazardous wastes; and, xi. Procedures for site clean-up and restoration. xii. Supplies, materials and equipment to be furnished for Contingency Plan implementation; xiii. Procedures for emergencies including spills, fire, explosions, injuries, natural disasters, etc.; xiv. Procedures for notifying outside emergency response agencies and regulatory agencies including identification of agencies that may potentially be notified; xv. Procedures for dealing with inclement weather; and xvi. Communication procedures. The Contractor shall be responsible for supplying an updated Operation Plans(s) to the City within (2) two weeks of any major changes in procedures or personnel. END OF SCOPE DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 26 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. February 8, 2017 Attachment B EXHIBIT “A-1” GENERAL SERVICES TASK ORDER Contractor hereby agrees to perform the work detailed below in accordance with all the terms and conditions of the Agreement referenced in Item 1A below. All exhibits referenced in Item 8 are incorporated into the Agreement by this reference. The Contractor shall furnish the necessary facilities, professional, technical and supporting personnel required by this Task Order as described below. CONTRACT NO. C18168609 DATE Purchase Requisition No. 1A. MASTER AGREEMENT NUMBER 1B. TASK ORDER NO. 2. CONTRACTOR 3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: START: COMPLETION: 4 TOTAL TASK ORDER PRICE: $ BALANCEREMAINING IN MASTER AGREEMENT $ 5. BUDGET CODE: COST CENTER COST ELEMENT WBS/CIP PHASE 6. CITYPROJECTMANAGER’SNAME/DEPARTMENT 7. DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES MUST INCLUDE: WORK TO BE PERFORMED SCHEDULE OF WORK BASIS FOR PAYMENT & FEE SCHEDULE DELIVERABLES REIMBURSABLES (with “not to exceed” cost) 8. ATTACHMENTS: A: Scope of Services B: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- I hereby authorize the performance of I hereby acknowledge receipt and acceptance the work described above in this Task Order. of this Task Order and warrant that I have authority to sign on behalf of Contractor. APPROVED: APPROVED: CITY OF PALO ALTO CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. BY: Name Title Date BY: Name Title Date DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 27 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. February 8, 2017 Attachment B EXHIBIT B SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONTRACTOR shall perform the Services as needed by the CITY during the three year contract term in accordance with the Scope of Services set forth in Exhibit A as agreed with by the City’s Project Manager. DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 28 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. February 8, 2017 Attachment B EXHIBIT C SCHEDULE OF FEES CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR according to the following rate schedule. The maximum amount of compensation to be paid to CONTRACTOR, including both payment for services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed the amounts set forth in Sections 5 and 6 of the Agreement. Any services provided or hours worked for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to CITY. SEE FEE SCHEDULE FOR COMPENSATION PAGES 28-A THROUGH 28-T Chapter 8-Proposal Cost Sheets & Rates PAGE 28-A October 10, 2017 DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 EXHIBIT C HHW GENERATED HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FEE SCHEDULE Labor Setup and Mobilization/Demobilization Prices Fee Description Price 1 Mobilization, Set- up, Demobilizaiton for facility collection events (Saturday Events) Standard 6 person crew - Lump sump for staff and PER EVENT $1,974.00 Discount or addition per chemist added or subtracted $ 364.00 Discount or addition per technician added or $ 294.00 Discount or addition per surveyor added or subtracted $ 259.00 2 Mobilization, Set- up, Demobilizaiton for facility collection events (Friday Events) Standard 4 person crew - Lump sump for staff and PER EVENT $ 990.00 Discount or addition per chemist added or subtracted $ 260.00 Discount or addition per technician added or $ 210.00 Discount or addition per surveyor added or subtracted $ 185.00 3 Door To Door Program - $ 35.00 Waste Unit Prices Unit prices for packaging, transporting, and disposal LFB3 LPTP FB1 FB1 LCCRD LPTN D23 CBP D23 CBP LCCRQ CCRK CBP CHBI D80I D80B CHBL LCCRC CFL1 CFL8 CFL2,4, 5, 6, 7 LPTN Fee Waste Description Management Method 5 gallon 20 gallon 30 gallon 55 CY Box 4 Latex Paint Recycle PAINTCARE NO COST TO THE CITY 5 Oil Based Paint Recycle PAINTCARE NO COST TO THE CITY 6 Flammable Liquids (bulk) Fuel Substitution $ 36.00 $ 72.00 $ 90.00 $120.00 Incineration 7 Flammable Liquids - Poisons or Toxics Incineration $ 66.00 $132.00 $165.00 $220.00 8 Flammable Solids Fuel Substitution Incineration $ 59.51 $119.02 $148.77 $198.36 $ 495.00 Alternative Method 9 Empty Steel Cans Recycle $ 13.00 $ 23.00 $ 27.00 $ 30.00 Landfill $ 13.00 $ 23.00 $ 27.00 $ 30.00 10 Empty Gasoline Containers (5 gal. or less) Recycle $ 13.00 $ 23.00 $ 27.00 $ 30.00 Landfill $ 13.00 $ 23.00 $ 27.00 $ 30.00 11 Aerosol Cans (partially full) Corrosive, Flammable or Poisons Fuel Substitution Incineration $ 90.00 $126.00 $157.00 $210.00 $ 595.00 Alternative Method 12 Contaminated Debris (absorbents/solids with hydrocarbons) Incineration $ 60.00 $120.00 $150.00 $175.00 Landfill $ 67.00 $113.00 $143.00 $150.00 13 PCB Light Ballast Incineration $156.60 $313.20 $391.50 $522.00 14 Non-PCB Light Ballast Incineration Recycle Landfill $105.00 $210.00 $263.00 $351.00 15 Poison/Toxic Solids Incineration $ 66.00 $132.00 $165.00 $220.00 $ 770.00 16 Fluorescent Lamps Tubes Recycle Price Per Linear Foot: $ 0.14 17 Compact Fluorescent Lights Recycle Price Per Pound: $ 3.25 18 Compact Fluorescent Lights (u-shaped, other) Recycle Price Per Pound: $ 3.25 19 Paint Related Material Recycle Incineration $ 59.51 $119.02 $148.77 $175.00 $ 425.00 DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 Chapter 8-Proposal Cost Sheets & Rates PAGE 28-B October 10, 2017 LCCRA/B LCCRA/B LCCRO LCCRO LCY1-CYLE LCY1-CYSM OR CYME LBD1 LBBGB CNIA LCHG2/4 LRCTD/ LRCTQ LCCRC LCCRC LRCTB LCHSI 20 Inorganic Acids or Bases Treatment/Neutralizatio Incineration $ 57.94 $115.88 $144.86 $193.14 21 Organic Acids or Bases Treatment/Neutralizatio Incineration $ 57.94 $115.88 $144.86 $193.14 22 Oxidizer Solids Treatment/Neutralizatio Incineration $ 62.64 $125.28 $156.60 $208.80 23 Oxidixer Liquids Treatment/Neutralizatio Alternative Method $ 62.64 $125.28 $156.60 $208.80 24 Propane Cylinders (up to 1 pounds; and, including Recycle $148.77 $198.36 $ 5.57 25 Propane Cylinders - BBQ Size (up to 50 pounds) Recycle Price Per Tank: $ 11.15 26 Zinc Carbon/Alkaline (Universal Waste Batteries) Recycle $156.60 $313.20 $391.50 $522.00 Incineration Landfill 27 Lithium (Universal Waste Batteries) Recycle $190.00 Incineration Landfill 28 Lithium - Rechargables (Universal Waste Batteries) Recycle CALL2RECYCLE NO CHARGE TO THE CITY Incineration Landfill 29 Nickel Cadmium (Universal Waste Batteries) Recycle CALL2RECYCLE NO CHARGE TO THE CITY Incineration Landfill 30 Nickel Metal Hydride (Universal Waste Batteries) Recycle CALL2RECYCLE NO CHARGE TO THE CITY Incineration Landfill 31 Nickel Zinc (Universal Waste Batteries) Recycle CALL2RECYCLE NO CHARGE TO THE CITY Incineration Landfill 32 Lead Acid (whole) (Universal Waste Batteries) Recycle CALL2RECYCLE NO CHARGE TO THE CITY Incineration Landfill 33 Lead Acid (broken or leaking) (Universal Waste Batteries) Recycle CALL2RECYCLE NO CHARGE TO THE CITY Incineration Landfill 34 Sealed Lead-Acid (gel cell) (Universal Waste Batteries) Recycle CALL2RECYCLE NO CHARGE TO THE CITY Incineration Landfill 23 Asbestos Landfill $ 42.86 $ 85.71 $107.14 $142.86 $ 500.00 24 Mercury Recycle $250.00 $486.00 25 Water Reactive Wastes Incineration $172.00 Treatment/Neutralizatio 26 Photo Developer Recycle Incineration $ 66.00 $132.00 $165.00 $220.00 27 Photo Fixer Fuel Substitution Other $ 66.00 $132.00 $165.00 $220.00 28 Cyanide Incineration $172.80 29 Polychlorinated Biphenyls Incineration $156.60 $313.20 $391.50 $522.00 DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 Chapter 8-Proposal Cost Sheets & Rates PAGE 28-C October 10, 2017 A31 FB1 COF B35 CAXI A99X LCY2-CYLE LCY2-CYSM LCY2-CYME LCY2-CYLG D20X RXHZ/LCCRC LCY2-CYLE LCY4-CYLE LCY6-CYLE LCY2-CYSM LCY4-CYSM LCY6-CYSM LCY2-CYME LCY4-CYME LCY6-CYME LCY2-CYLG LCY4-CYLG LCY6-CYLG LCCRB LFB1 LCCRD LCCR/FB5 LPTN A32 DHLI 30 Used Motor Oil Recycle $128.00 Fuel Substitution $ 36.00 $ 72.00 $ 90.00 $120.00 Other 31 Used Oil Filters Recycle $123.75 $165.00 Landfill 32 Used Antifreeze Recycle $145.00 Other 33 Flares/Fusees (automotive) Incineration $125.00 34 Flares (marine) Incineration CBC Disposal Price Per Flare: 35 Fire Extinguishers 35a Fire Extinguisher - Lecture Size Recycle $ 27.30 ea Landfill 35b Fire Extinguisher - Small Size Recycle $ 61.10 ea Landfill 35c Fire Extinguisher - Medium Size Recycle $ 68.90 ea Landfill 35d Fire Extinguisher - Larege Size Recycle $132.60 ea Landfill 36 Sharps Incineration $ 66.00 $132.00 $165.00 $220.00 Landfill 37 Expired or unwanted medications (no controlled substances) Incineration $ 66.00 $132.00 $165.00 $220.00 Fee Waste Description Management Method 5 gallon 20 gallon 30 gallon 55 CY Box 38 Compressed gas cylinders (refrigerant gases [freon]; oxygen [used for welding or soldering]; carbon dioxide [CO2 cartridges]; mace; pepper spray). 38a Compressed gas cylinders - lecture size Recycle $ 27.30 Incineration $ 52.50 Incineration $148.75 38b Compressed gas cylinders - small Recycle $ 61.10 Incineration $ 58.75 Incineration $276.25 38c Compressed gas cylinders - medium Recycle $ 68.90 Incineration $ 72.50 Incineration $351.00 38d Compressed gas cylinders - large Recycle $132.60 Incineration $131.25 Incineration $595.00 39 Ammonia Solutions Incineration $ 57.94 $115.88 $144.86 $193.14 40 Non-Specified Flammable or Combustible Liquids Fuel Substitution $ 89.64 $150.12 $187.92 $250.56 Incineration $ 66.00 $132.00 $165.00 $220.00 41 Non-Specified Flammable or Combustible Solids Fuel Substitution $ 57.00 $114.00 $142.50 $190.00 $ 665.00 Incineration $ 59.51 $119.02 $148.77 $175.00 $ 425.00 42 Non-Specified Corrosive Liquids Treatment/Neutralizatio $ 89.64 $132.80 $166.32 $221.40 43 Emergency Responses and Tanker Truck Bulk Specify Method 43a Oily Water (Non-PCB) Treatment/Neutralizatio Disposal Price Per Gallon: $ 0.90 43b Oily Water (PCB Contaminated) Incineration Disposal Price Per Gallon: $ 2.59 43c Solids and Surcharges (if applicable) Price Per Every Percent Solids: see below DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 Chapter 8-Proposal Cost Sheets & Rates PAGE 28-D October 10, 2017 43d Tanker Cleanout and Surcharges (if applicable) Tanker Cleanout Per Event Price: 262.50 non PCB & 850.78 Notes: (1) Labor and equipment for all emergency response services (including tanker) shall be charged at time and materials pursuant to contractor's submitted rate 43c Solids and Surcharges Schedule A32 - Oily Water (Non-PCB) Solids Surcharges 5.00% – 19.99% = additional $0.16/gal 20.00% – 29.99% = additional $0.26/gal > 30.00% = case by case DHLI - Oily Water (PCB-Contaminated) Solids Surcharges 5.00% – 10.00% = additional $0.17/gal 10.01% – 15.00% = additional $0.33/gal 15.01% – 20.00% = additional $0.49/gal > 20.00% = case by case Supplies & Materials for waste managed through various EPR programs, unless EPR reimburses Clean Harbors for supplies and materi Cost +20% CESQG rates will be mutually negotiated between the City and Clean Harbors during contract negotiation. I I DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 Regional Rate Sheet Region: US SOUTHWEST Rate Category Type: Emergency Response Rates Currency Code: USD Description UOM Price (USD) FIELD PERSONNEL Field Technician HR $61.00 Equipment Operator HR $78.00 Foreman HR $78.00 Chemist HR $99.00 Supervisor HR $106.00 Lead Chemist HR $126.00 Project Manager HR $130.00 Site Safety Officer HR $146.00 TECHNICAL PERSONNEL Field Inspector HR $84.00 Mechanic HR $103.00 Welder HR $103.00 Field Engineer/Scientist/Geologist HR $110.00 Senior Engineer/Scientist/Geologist HR $124.00 Professional Engineer/LSP HR $130.00 ADMINISTRATIVE/MANAGERIAL PERSONNEL On Site Administration HR $71.00 Emergency Response Coordinator HR $135.00 General Manager HR $175.00 PER DIEM / SUBSISTENCE Per Diem / Subsistence DAY $211.00 HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS Box Truck HR $70.00 Dump Truck, 10 Wheel HR $85.00 High Powered Vacuum Truck/Cusco HR $161.00 “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Executed on: 10/9/2017 6:56:24 PM ER Rates PAGE 28-E DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 Regional Rate Sheet Description UOM Price (USD) Rolloff Straightjob HR $84.00 Rolloff Two Can Trailer HR $87.00 Skid Mounted Vacuum System HR $70.00 Tractor Only, No Trailer HR $65.00 Tractor w/Box Van HR $84.00 Tractor w/Dump Trailer HR $91.00 Tractor w/Flatbed/Lowbed Trailer HR $87.00 Tractor w/Liquid Transporter HR $100.00 Tractor w/Rolloff Trailer HR $87.00 Tractor w/Vacuum Trailer HR $106.00 Vactor with Jet Rodder HR $161.00 Vacuum Truck, Straight HR $87.00 Wet/Dry High Powered Vacuum Truck/Guzzler HR $161.00 HYDRO EXCAVATION SERVICES Hydrovac - Single Drive with Operator & Helper HR $271.00 Hydrovac - Tandem Drive with Operator & Helper HR $300.00 Hydrovac - Tri-Drive with Operator & Helper HR $300.00 Working Boiler / Heating Charge HR $65.00 LIGHT DUTY TRUCK/RESPONSE EQUIPMENT Emergency Response Van HR $87.00 Pickup/Van/Car/Crew Cab HR $22.00 Spill Trailer DAY $295.00 Stake Body/Utility Truck HR $38.00 Utility / Support Trailer DAY $201.00 PRESSURE WASHING EQUIPMENT 1000psi Pressure Washer DAY $103.00 2-D Rotating Nozzle - 10K HR $67.00 2000psi Pressure Washer DAY $112.00 2500psi Hot Water Pressure Washer DAY $351.00 2500psi Pressure Washer DAY $122.00 3000psi Hot Water Pressure Washer DAY $387.00 “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Executed on: 10/9/2017 6:56:24 PM ER Rates PAGE 28-F DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 Regional Rate Sheet Description UOM Price (USD) High Pressure Blaster - 10,000 PSI 30-40 GPM (350, 450) HR $73.00 High Pressure Blaster - 40,000 PSI 6 GPM - UHP Pump (200) HP High Pressure Blaster - 40,000 PSI 7-12 GPM - UHP Pump HR $170.00 HR $170.00 “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Executed on: 10/9/2017 6:56:24 PM PAGE 28-G ER Rates (305) High Pressure Blaster -20,000 PSI 0-20 GPM - HP Pump (305) HR $144.00 Nozzle - 3D Rotating - 10K, 20-80 GPM HR $88.00 PUMPING/TRANSFERRING PUMPS Drum Loader DAY $177.00 Pump - Centrifugal, 2 in DAY $113.00 Pump - Diesel Lister, 3 in DAY $159.00 Pump - Double Diaphragm, 1 in DAY $100.00 Pump - Double Diaphragm, 2 in DAY $141.00 Pump - Double Diaphragm, 2 in, Chemical DAY $187.00 Pump - Double Diaphragm, 3 in DAY $159.00 Pump - Double Diaphragm, 3 in, Chemical DAY $207.00 Pump - Double Diaphragm, 4 in DAY $218.00 Pump - Electric Drum DAY $112.00 Pump - Electric Submersible, 2 in DAY $89.00 Pump - Electric Submersible, 3 in DAY $112.00 Pump - Electric Submersible, 4 in DAY $164.00 Pump - Hand DAY $36.00 Pump - Hydraulic Transfer, 4 in HR $36.00 Pump - Hydraulic Transfer, 6 in HR $270.00 Pump - Trash, 4 in DAY $294.00 MARINE RESPONSE EQUIPMENT Airboat, Single Engine DAY $1236.00 Airboat, Twin Engine DAY $3605.00 Boat/Workskiff without Motor DAY $146.00 Brush Skimmer DAY $824.00 Containment Boom - 10" Per Foot Per Day FT $1.83 Containment Boom - 18" Per Foot Per Day FT $2.05 Containment Boom - 24" Per Foot Per Day FT $2.65 DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 Regional Rate Sheet Description UOM Price (USD) Executed on: 10/9/2017 6:56:24 PM ER Rates PAGE 28-H Containment Boom - 36" Per Foot Per Day FT $2.97 Drum Skimmer (24in-36in) DAY $646.00 Drum Skimmer, Double Barrel DAY $979.00 Hydraulic Power Pack for Skimmer DAY $227.00 Landing Craft (LCM), 26ft-29ft DAY $979.00 Landing Craft (LCM), 30ft-34ft DAY $1236.00 Landing Craft (LCM), 35ft-45ft DAY $1854.00 PFD Life Vest DAY $27.00 PFD Survival Suit / Cold Weather Survival Work Suits DAY $81.00 Power Barge Boat, 26ft-30ft DAY $1133.00 Power Barge Boat, 30ft-42ft DAY $2060.00 Power Workboat, Fast Response, 12-14ft DAY $307.00 Power Workboat, Fast Response, 15-17ft DAY $367.00 Power Workboat, Fast Response, 18-22ft DAY $614.00 Power Workboat, Fast Response, 23-26ft DAY $773.00 Power Workboat, Fast Response, 27-36ft DAY $979.00 Rigid Hull Inflatable (RIB) (18ft-22ft) DAY $809.00 Rope Mop - 4" (Per Foot) FT $31.00 Rope Mop - 9" (Per Foot) FT $39.00 Rotating Disc Skimmer Unit DAY $840.00 Skim Pack Skimmer DAY $167.00 Skimmer - C24H Hydraulically Powered Rope Mop Wringer DAY $670.00 Skimmer - C29H Hydraulically Powered Rope Mop Wringer DAY $901.00 Skimmer - CV-46H Hydraulically powered Vertical Mop Wringer DAY $798.00 Skimmer, Duck Bill DAY $29.00 Skimming Vessel (Marco/JBF or Equivalent) 28-30ft DAY $5639.00 Skimming Vessel Belt Drive Replacement EA $1341.00 Weir Skimmer Unit DAY $178.00 FIELD ANALYTICAL 4 Gas/5 Gas Meter DAY $183.00 Bailer & Sampling Equipment DAY $62.00 Draeger Air Monitoring Pump DAY $81.00 Explosion/Oxygen Meter DAY $130.00 “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 Regional Rate Sheet Description UOM Price (USD) Executed on: 10/9/2017 6:56:24 PM ER Rates PAGE 28-I Geiger Counter Meter DAY $162.00 Hydrogen Cyanide Meter DAY $134.00 Interface Probe DAY $130.00 Lumex RA915+ Mercury Vapor Analyzer DAY $528.00 Mercury Vapor Analyzer DAY $270.00 Particulate Meter, Mini Ram or equivalent DAY $130.00 Personal Air Pump Meter DAY $62.00 pH Meter DAY $62.00 PID Meter DAY $130.00 Well Purging/Sampling Pump DAY $62.00 HOSES/PIPE Hose - Chemical, 2 in X 20 ft DAY $38.00 Hose - Chemical, 3 in X 20 ft DAY $53.00 Hose - Chemical, 4 in X 20 ft DAY $69.00 Hose - Flex, 4 in, per ft FT $2.83 Hose - Flex, 6 in, per ft FT $3.61 Hose - Lay Flat, 2 in X 25ft DAY $28.00 Hose - Lay Flat, 4 in X 25 ft DAY $62.00 Hose - Lay Flat, 6 in X 25 ft DAY $81.00 Hose - Suction, 2 in X 25 ft DAY $32.00 Hose - Suction, 3 in X 25 ft DAY $43.00 Hose - Suction, 4 in X 25 ft DAY $62.00 Hose - Suction, 6 in X 25 ft DAY $90.00 Wash Hose, 1/2in x 50ft DAY $18.00 EARTH MOVING EQUIPMENT Backhoe Loader, 1 Yard Bucket HR $81.00 Bobcat Loader/Mini Excavator HR $80.00 Excavator, 20-30 Ton HR $103.00 Fork Attachment for Bobcat Loader DAY $60.00 Loader, 2-3 Yard Bucket HR $79.00 Mini Excavator HR $80.00 Sweeper Attachment for Bobcat Loader DAY $146.00 “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 Regional Rate Sheet Description UOM Price (USD) “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Executed on: 10/9/2017 6:56:24 PM ER Rates PAGE 28-J PNEUMATIC POWER TOOLS 3/4in Drill, Rotary Hammer DAY $94.00 Jackhammer, 40Lb DAY $67.00 Jackhammer, 60Lb DAY $84.00 Jackhammer, 90Lb DAY $101.00 Pneumatic Chipping Gun DAY $108.00 Steel Nibbler, Pneumatic DAY $135.00 GAS POWERED TOOLS Brush Cutter/Power Broom DAY $126.00 Chain Saw DAY $126.00 Cutoff Saw (Demo) DAY $135.00 ELECTRIC POWER TOOLS 1/2in Drill, Electric DAY $44.00 Circular Saw, Electric DAY $62.00 Mercury Vacuum DAY $212.00 Reciprocating Saw (Sawzall), Electric DAY $81.00 Wet Vacuum (Shop Vac) DAY $44.00 SITE SUPPORT 100 HP boiler unit HR $103.00 15 Gal HEPA Vacuum DAY $177.00 150,000 BTU Portable Heater DAY $280.00 2 CU YD self dumping hopper DAY $4.43 2,000 - 2,900 Gal Poly Storage Tank DAY $81.00 20,000 Gal Frac Tank DAY $167.00 3,000 - 3,900 Gal Steel Storage Tank DAY $28.00 300 - 500 Gal Poly Storage Tank DAY $42.00 4,000 - 6,000 Gal Poly Storage Tank DAY $99.00 Air Compressor 175-185 CFM DAY $280.00 Air Compressor 8-10 CFM DAY $125.00 ATV, 4X4 or 4X6 DAY $377.00 Carbon Filter System DAY $256.00 DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 Regional Rate Sheet Description UOM Price (USD) “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Executed on: 10/9/2017 6:56:24 PM ER Rates PAGE 28-K Decon Pool, 10ft x 10ft DAY $155.00 Decon Pool, 20ft x 100ft DAY $464.00 Decon Pool, 25ft x 50ft DAY $309.00 Decontamination Trailer DAY $188.00 Dewatering Box DAY $177.00 Drum Vacuum, Pneumatic DAY $188.00 Dump Trailer (Trailer Only, Staged on Site) DAY $76.00 Eyewash Station DAY $55.00 Frac Tank, Double Walled DAY $200.00 Generator - 12K Watt DAY $258.00 Generator - 4,000 Watt DAY $143.00 Generator - 5,000 Watt DAY $162.00 Generator - 8,000 Watt DAY $188.00 Halogen Spotlight DAY $108.00 Incident Command Unit DAY $1615.00 Intermodal Container DAY $33.00 Intrinsically Safe Drop Light DAY $108.00 Light Stand DAY $108.00 Light Tower w/Generator DAY $539.00 Manlift DAY $258.00 Office Trailer DAY $118.00 On-site Van Trailer (Tractor not included) DAY $207.00 Personnel Staging Tent, 10x10 ft, Purchased EA $180.00 Personnel Staging Tent, 20' x 30' DAY $155.00 Pump - Trash, 2 in DAY $112.00 Pump - Trash, 3 in DAY $129.00 Rolloff Container with Metal lid DAY $24.00 Rolloff Container with Tarp & Bows DAY $21.00 Sea Container / Conex / Tool Crib, 20 ft. DAY $31.00 Secondary Containment Unit DAY $42.00 Skid Mounted Liquid Phase Carbon System (10GPM) DAY $70.00 Tank Trailer/Transporter, No Tractor (For Storage Only) DAY $469.00 Traffic Cone/Barricade Unit DAY $1.55 DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 Regional Rate Sheet Description UOM Price (USD) “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Executed on: 10/9/2017 6:56:24 PM ER Rates PAGE 28-L Utility/Cross Terrain Vehicle (Mule/Gator) DAY $323.00 Vacuum Box, Watertight DAY $112.00 SPECIALTY EQUIPMENT Antiviral Disinfectant Fogger DAY $180.00 Auger, Manual DAY $67.00 Compactor DAY $67.00 Confined Space Entry Gear (Retrieval & Rescue Equip) DAY $375.00 Cutting Torch/Acetylene Torch DAY $124.00 DBI/Rogliss Tripod DAY $67.00 Digital Camera DAY $89.00 Drum Crusher, Portable DAY $469.00 Drum Tilter, Mechanical DAY $177.00 Electric Auger DAY $76.00 Electric Blower DAY $90.00 Explosion Proof Pneumatic Fan Blower DAY $90.00 Fiber Optic Camera HR $60.00 Fiber Optic Camera Truck HR $153.00 Forklift, 2,000Lb Capacity DAY $431.00 Forklift, 6,000Lb Capacity (High Reach / Lull) DAY $464.00 Plasma Cutting Torch DAY $244.00 Remote Drum Opener, Pnuematic DAY $1228.00 Sand Blaster and Hose HR $30.00 Transit Set DAY $129.00 Walk Behind Concrete Saw DAY $235.00 RESPIRATORY PROTECTION 2 Man Breathing System DAY $297.00 4 Man Breathing System DAY $377.00 Acid Cartridges PAIR $30.00 Asbestos Cartridges PAIR $31.00 Breathing Air Hose, 100ft DAY $108.00 Chlorine Cartridges PAIR $30.00 Mercury Cartridges PAIR $56.00 DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 Regional Rate Sheet Description UOM Price (USD) “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Executed on: 10/9/2017 6:56:24 PM ER Rates PAGE 28-M MSA Chemical Cartridge EA $31.00 Negative Air Machine (Blower w/ HEPA filter) DAY $270.00 Organic Vapor Cartridges (No Dust) PAIR $30.00 Organic Vapor/Dust Combination Cartridges PAIR $53.00 Respirator, Full Face DAY $33.00 Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) DAY $270.00 PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (PER PERSON PER CHANGE OUT) Level A w/ResponderPlus Suit/Changeout EA $979.00 Level B w/CPF2 or Polytyvec/Changeout EA $206.00 Level B w/CPF3 or Saranex Suit/Changeout EA $258.00 Level B w/CPF4 or Barricade Suit/Changeout EA $309.00 Level C w/CPF1,2 or Polytyvec/Changeout EA $62.00 Level C w/CPF3 or Saranex Suit/Changeout EA $77.00 Level C w/CPF4 or Barricade Suit/Changeout EA $124.00 Modified Level D (Tyvec, Gloves and Boots) EA $31.00 CHEMICAL PROTECTIVE GARMENTS Chemrel Suit, Level C EA $82.00 Kappler CPF1 Suit (Blue) EA $35.00 Kappler CPF2 Suit (Grey) EA $58.00 Kappler CPF2 Suit w/Strapped Seams (Grey) EA $97.00 Kappler CPF3 Suit w/Hood & Boots (Tan) EA $131.00 Kappler CPF3 Suit w/Hood & Strapped Seams (Tan) EA $165.00 Kappler CPF4 Suit w/Hood & Boots (Green) EA $136.00 Nomex Suit and Hood EA $57.00 Polycoated Rain Gear, 22mil EA $19.00 Tyvec, Polycoat HD/BT EA $19.00 Tyvec, Saranex EA $59.00 Tyvec, White EA $23.00 HAND PROTECTION 14in Neoprene Gloves PAIR $13.39 14in Nitrile Gloves PAIR $13.39 DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 Regional Rate Sheet Description UOM Price (USD) “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Executed on: 10/9/2017 6:56:24 PM ER Rates PAGE 28-N Cotton Winter Glove Liners PAIR $6.18 Cut Resistant Gloves PAIR $30.00 Gloves - 12 in PVC PAIR $11.33 Gloves - 18 in PVC PAIR $12.46 Gloves - Leather PAIR $8.24 Latex Gloxes BOX $14.00 Puncture Resistant Gloves PAIR $35.00 Silver Shield Gloves PAIR $35.00 FOOT PROTECTION Disposable Boot Covers (Chicken Boots) PAIR $12.88 Non Steel Toe Chest Waders - Purchased PAIR $232.00 Steel Toe Hip Boots - Purchase PAIR $165.00 Steel Toe Knee Boots PAIR $82.00 HEAD / FACIAL PROTECTION 16oz Eyewash EA $23.00 Bottled Water / Stress Relief (Case) CA $26.00 Earplugs PAIR $1.98 Face/Splash Shield EA $23.00 First Aid Kit, 25 Person EA $85.00 DOT SHIPPING CONTAINERS 1 Cubic Yard Supersac 13H2/Y/06 EA $84.00 10 Gal / 40 Litre Fiber Drum EA $41.00 110 Gal Steel Drum, Reconditioned 1A2/Y400S EA $469.00 16 Gal / 70 L Closed Poly Drum EA $63.00 16 Gal / 70 L Poly Drum 1H2/Y56/S EA $66.00 16 Gal Fiber Drum EA $30.00 18x18x24in Nonhazardous Pathological Waste Box EA $10.30 20 Gal / 80 Litre Fiber Drum EA $35.00 20 Gal / 80 Litre Poly Drum (1H2/Y56/S) EA $103.00 275G / 1100 L Poly TOTE, DOT Rated EA $283.00 275G / 1100 L Recondition Poly TOTE, DOT Rated EA $235.00 DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 Regional Rate Sheet Description UOM Price (USD) “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Executed on: 10/9/2017 6:56:24 PM ER Rates PAGE 28-O 30 Gal / 120 Litre Closed Poly Drum 1H1/Y1.8/100 EA $80.00 30 Gal / 120 Litre Closed Steel Drum, New 1A1/Y1.6/200 EA $97.00 30 Gal / 120 Litre Closed Steel Drum, Reconed 1A1/Y1.4/100 EA $92.00 30 Gal / 120 Litre Fiber Drum 1G/X56/S EA $53.00 30 Gal / 120 Litre Poly Drum 1H2/Y142/S EA $87.00 30 Gal / 120 Litre Steel Drum, New 1A2/Y1.4/100 EA $114.00 30 Gal / 120 Litre Steel Drum, Reconditioned 1A2/Y1.2/100 EA $82.00 4ft Fluorescent Tube Box 4G/Y275 EA $26.00 5 Gal / 20 Litre Closed Poly Drum 1H1/Y1.8/170 EA $30.00 5 Gal / 20 Litre Closed Steel Drum 1A1/Y1.8/300 EA $35.00 5 Gal / 20 Litre Poly Drum 1H2/Y1.5/60 EA $23.00 5 Gal / 20 Litre Steel Drum 1A2/Y1.8/100 EA $35.00 5.5 Gal / 20 L Steel Drum 1A2/Y23/S EA $23.00 55 G / 205 L Closed Steel Drum, Recon 1A1/Y1.4/100 (17-E) EA $45.00 55 G / 205 L Steel Drum, Reconditioned 1A2/Y1.2/100 (17-H) EA $68.00 55 Gal / 205 L Stainless Steel Drum, Reconditioned EA $260.00 55 Gal / 205 Litre Closed Poly Drum 1H1/Y1.8/150 EA $103.00 55 Gal / 205 Litre Closed Poly Drum 1H1/Y1.8/150, Recycled EA $101.00 55 Gal / 205 Litre Closed Steel Drum, New 1A1/Y1.8/300 EA $100.00 55 Gal / 205 Litre Fiber Drum 1G/Y190/S EA $58.00 55 Gal / 205 Litre Open Head Poly, Reconditioned Drum 1H2/Y2 EA $98.00 55 Gal / 205 Litre Poly Drum 1H2/Y237/S EA $153.00 55 Gal / 205 Litre Steel Drum, New 1A2/Y1.5/100 EA $113.00 85 Gal / 320 Litre Steel Drum, New 1A2/X400/S EA $237.00 85 Gal / 320 Litre Steel Drum, Recycled 1A2/X400/S EA $201.00 8ft Fluorescent Tube Box 4G/Y275 EA $28.00 95 Gal Poly Drum 1H2/Y318/S (Overpack) EA $278.00 95 Gal Poly Drum, Recycled 1H2/Y318/S (Overpack) EA $276.00 Drum 15 Gal / 60 Litre Poly (1H2/Y1.8/100) EA $73.00 Drum Liners EA $23.00 Drum Rings/Bolts/Gaskets EA $30.00 Dump Trailer Poly Liner EA $99.00 Filter/Liner for Filter Box EA $367.00 DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 Regional Rate Sheet Description UOM Price (USD) “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Executed on: 10/9/2017 6:56:24 PM ER Rates PAGE 28-P Flexbin, 1 Cubic Yard Flexbin 11G/Y/2022/1122 EA $159.00 Flexbin, Cubic Yard Box for Non-Haz Waste EA $103.00 Flexbin/Cubic Yard Box Liner EA $30.00 Fluorescent Bulb Tubes, 4ft 100 bulb capacity BOX2 $63.00 Fluorescent Bulb Tubes, 8ft 100 bulb capacity BOX2 $91.00 Hazardous Waste Labels EA $1.34 Labels - DOT EA $1.55 Pathological Waste Bag EA $6.28 Poly Bags, 6mil, per Roll EA $175.00 Poly Sheet, 6mil 20ft x 100ft EA $118.00 Rolloff Poly Liner EA $80.00 Vacbox Liner/Bladder EA $793.00 Waste Wrangler EA $193.00 ABSORBENT MATERIALS Absorbent Boom, 3in x 4ft EA $8.24 Absorbent Boom, 5in x 10ft x 4/Bale BALE $159.00 Absorbent Boom, 8in x 10ft x 4/Bale BALE $254.00 Absorbent Pad (101 Grade) 100/bale BALE $131.00 Absorbent Roll, 38in x 144ft EA $186.00 Absorbent Rug, 36in x 300ft EA $309.00 Absorbent Sweep, 17in x 100ft BALE $164.00 Activated Carbon for Water treatment systems LBS $3.19 Corn Cob Absorbent 40lb / 18 kg bag BAG $18.00 HGX Absorbent (Mercury absorbent) LBS $21.00 Oil Snare, on a Line, 50ft EA $100.00 Poly Absorbent, 20 lb / 23 kg BAG $108.00 Rags, 50 lb / 23 kg BOX $63.00 Speedi Dry BAG $12.36 SPI Solidification Particulate (Oil Bond) LBS $20.00 SPI Waterbond LBS $16.00 Vermiculite 4 cuft BAG $48.00 DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 Regional Rate Sheet Description UOM Price (USD) “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Executed on: 10/9/2017 6:56:24 PM ER Rates PAGE 28-Q DEGREASERS & NEUTRALIZING AGENTS 142 Solvent GAL $11.33 Antifreeze, Concentrate GAL $5.97 Antiviral Disinfectant Solution GAL $46.00 Capsur GAL $175.00 Cirtic Acid Solution, 15% GAL $7.21 Citrus Cleaner Degreaser GAL $63.00 Hydrated Lime, 50 lb / 23 kg BAG $8.24 Hydrochloric Acid LBS $3.71 Penetone Degreaser GAL $34.00 Pink Stuff Degreaser GAL $23.00 Simple Green Degreaser GAL $35.00 Soda Ash, 100 lb / 45 kg BAG $54.00 Sodium bisulfate 50 lb / 23 kg BAG $125.00 Sodium Hypochlorite, 15% (Bleach) GAL $9.27 SAMPLING AND LAB SUPPLIES 8oz Sample Jars EA $14.42 CHLOR'N'OIL Test Kit 0-50ppm PCB EA $40.00 CHLOR-D-TECT 4000 Test Kit (Halogens) EA $30.00 Draeger Tube EA $30.00 pH Paper, 1-14/Roll EA $18.00 Sample Tube EA $18.00 MARINE EQUIPMENT 1/2in Nylon Rope FT $1.03 1/2in Poly Rope FT $0.52 3/8in Poly Rope FT $0.41 3/8in Unguarded Galvanized Chain FT $7.21 Anchor, 18Lb EA $141.00 PFD Deck Suit EA $696.00 PFD Safety Light EA $30.00 DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 Regional Rate Sheet Description UOM Price (USD) “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Executed on: 10/9/2017 6:56:24 PM ER Rates PAGE 28-R HAND TOOL/CONSTRUCTION ACCESSORIES 16in Street Broom EA $36.00 24in Floor Broom EA $36.00 3 Gal Pump Spray Bottle EA $56.00 3/8in Manilla Rope FT $0.52 3/8in Manilla Rope Coil, 600ft EA $170.00 3in Long Handle Scraper EA $24.00 3in Scraper EA $15.00 Caution Tape/Roll EA $58.00 Chemical Tape/Roll EA $53.00 Deck/Scrub Brush EA $19.00 Disposable Hand Pump/Syphon Pump EA $35.00 Duct Tape/Roll EA $12.36 Extension Cord, 50ft EA $58.00 Fence Stakes EA $9.37 Fence, SILT 100ft EA $147.00 Flat Shovel EA $33.00 Garden Hoe EA $31.00 Garden Rake EA $31.00 Pitch Fork EA $103.00 Plastic Shovel EA $57.00 Sawzall Blade EA $35.00 Shrink Wrap ROL $49.00 Snow Fence/Safety Fence, 100ft EA $79.00 Spaded Shovel EA $36.00 Squeegee EA $38.00 WASTE MATERIAL APPROVAL Profile Approval Fee (No Sample) EA $75.00 Sample & Profile Approval Fee EA $150.00 MISCELLANEOUS Acetylene Bottle EA $46.00 DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 Regional Rate Sheet Description UOM Price (USD) “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Executed on: 10/9/2017 6:56:24 PM ER Rates PAGE 28-S Breathing Air Bottle Refill EA $31.00 Collection Jar for Mercury Vacuum EA $45.00 Filter Bags - 25 Micron Nominal EA $9.27 Filtration Bag for Mercury Vacuum EA $30.00 Hand Cleaner EA $34.00 Misc. Handtools DAY $50.00 Rolloff Bow EA $43.00 Rolloff Tarp EA $431.00 DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 Regional Rate Sheet “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Executed on: 10/9/2017 6:56:24 PM ER Rates PAGE 28-T NOTES/ Conditions Specific to Emergency Response Services: 1) All labor, equipment, materials and services outlined in this Schedule of Rates will be invoiced at the rates listed, regardless of Clean Harbors' method of acquisition. Any items not described in this Schedule of Rates which are acquired by Clean Harbors shall be invoiced at Clean Harbors' cost plus a markup of thirty-five percent (35%). (Unless otherwise specified, these rates are not valid for response to Infectious Agents/Biologicals.) The Schedule of Rates includes the cost of Clean Harbors’ basic medical monitoring program. Any special medical monitoring required by the client or the nature of the work will be added to the project scope and the client will invoiced at cost plus a markup listed above. 2) Lodging and subsistence for Clean Harbors personnel and our subcontractors in the field are included in a per diem charge per person per day when working more than 30 miles from the employee's normal operations center and when overnight accommodations are required. The rate is outlined in the labor section of this document. When overnight accommodations are not required but work exceeds 12 hours, $40.00 per day per person may apply to cover meals and incidentals. 3) At its sole discretion, Clean Harbors will determine the level of protection required for each project. Level A, B, C or D personal protection and safety packages will be invoiced at the rates shown in the Schedule of Rates. 4) Clean Harbors' personnel and equipment will be charged portal-to-portal (mobilization and demobilization included). Services provided prior, during and/or subsequent to actual project site activities will also be charged at the Hourly Rate. This includes, but is not limited to, time taken by personnel to decontaminate and re-don protective clothing and equipment that is billed as part of the project. 5) Clean Harbors' normal employee workday is 7:00 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday. Other work hours must be agreed to in writing in advance. No more than eight (8) hours of straight time will be billed for one person for one day. All time will be based upon a 24 hour day. 6) All hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in the normal workday, as described above, as well as all hours worked all day Saturday are considered overtime and will be billed at 1.5 times the applicable straight time rate for all billable personnel. 7) Sunday and Holidays are considered premium time and will be billed at 2.0 times the applicable straight time rate for all billable personnel. Holidays are the legally observed United States Federal Holidays plus the day after Thanksgiving. When local laws or regulations recognize additional holidays or when local laws or regulations define premium hours in excess of this definition, Clean Harbors will invoice in accordance with local laws or regulations. 8) All emergency call-outs (i.e., less than 24-hour notice) will be subject to a minimum four (4) hour response charge or $2000.00 minimum charge, whichever is greater. Minimum charges do not apply to Transportation and Disposal. 9) Charges for Safety Plans are assessed on all projects involving OSHA regulated substances or when required by the Customer or other Agency. In some instances a Site Safety Officer charge will apply per hour to create and administer the Safety Plan. 10) A variable Energy and Security Recovery Fee (that fluctuates with the DOE national average diesel price), will be applied to the total invoice, excluding sales tax. 11) Unless specifically notated, these rates do not apply to any projects with Prevailing Wage requirements. Any Prevailing Wage rates will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. 12) Equipment billed on an hourly basis will be billed a minimum of four hours upon activation. For equipment with only Daily Rates, a day will be charged up to 12 hours. No more than 2 Daily Rates will apply per calendar day. For boats and other marine equipment, Daily Rates will apply regardless of the hours used per day. 13) Unless specifically notated in the equipment description, all equipment rates are un-operated. 14) All waste disposal from project and or response activities will be charged additionally to the rates lists herein. A Waste Document Preparation Fee of $125 per day will apply to any work generating waste. The fee includes labels, manifests/bills of lading and profiles. 15) Standby charges will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. 16) Clean Harbors guarantees to hold prices firm for 60 days. DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 29 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. February 8, 2017 INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS EACH OCCURRENC E AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 - EACH PERSON $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, - EACH OCCURRENCE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 DAMAGE, COMBINED YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 30 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. February 8, 2017 C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE AT THE FOLLOWING URL: https://www.planetbids.com/portal/portal.cfm?CompanyID=25569. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B. CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. VENDORS ARE REQUIRED TO FILE THEIR EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE AND ANY OTHER RELATED NOTICES WITH THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AT THE FOLLOWING URL: HTTPS://WWW.PLANETBIDS.COM/PORTAL/PORTAL.CFM?COMPANYID=25569 OR HTTP://WWW.CITYOFPALOALTO.ORG/GOV/DEPTS/ASD/PLANET_BIDS_HOW_TO.ASP EXHIBI DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 T D Page 1 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE (MM/DD/YYYY) 01/16/2018 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCER Willis of Massachusetts, Inc. c/o 26 Century Blvd P.O. Box 305191 Nashville, TN 372305191 USA CONTACT NAME: PHONE 1-877-945-7378 (A/C, No, Ext): FAX 1-888-467-2378 (A/C, No): E-MAIL certificates@willis.com ADDRESS: INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC # INSURER A :ACE American Insurance Company 22667 INSURED Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. and its Affiliates 42 Longwater Drive Norwell, MA 02061 INSURER B :ACE Property & Casualty Insurance Company 20699 INSURER C :Indemnity Insurance Company of North Ameri 43575 INSURER D : INSURER E : INSURER F : COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER:W5111648 REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE ADDL INSD SUBR WVD POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFF (MM/DD/YYYY) POLICY EXP (MM/DD/YYYY) LIMITS A COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY Y HDOG27872189 11/01/2017 11/01/2018 EACH OCCURRENCE $ 2,000,000 CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR DAMAGE TO RENTED PREMISES (Ea occurrence) $ 500,000 XCU Contractual MED EXP (Any one person) $ 5,000 PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ 2,000,000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 4,000,000 POLICY PRO- LOC JECT OTHER: PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $ 4,000,000 $ AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $ 5,000,000 (Ea accident) A ANY AUTO Y ISAH2509718A 11/01/2017 11/01/2018 BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ OWNED AUTOS ONLY SCHEDULED AUTOS NON-OWNED AUTOS ONLY BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $ HIRED AUTOS ONLY MCS-90 PROPERTY DAMAGE (Per accident) $ $ B UMBRELLA LIAB EXCESS LIAB OCCUR CLAIMS-MADE G4682586A 001 11/01/2017 11/01/2018 EACH OCCURRENCE $ 10,000,000 AGGREGATE $ 10,000,000 DED RETENTION $0 $ C WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Y / N ANYPROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE No OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? (Mandatory in NH) If yes, describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below N / A WLRC64620940 (AOS) 11/01/2017 11/01/2018 PER STATUTE OTH- ER E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $ 2,000,000 E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $ 2,000,000 E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $ 2,000,000 A Workers Compensation WLRC64620939 (AZ, CA, MA) 11/01/2017 11/01/2018 E.L. Each Accident $2,000,000 & Employers Liability E.L. Disease -Pol Lmt $2,000,000 Per Statute E.L. Disease Each Emp $2,000,000 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required) Scope of Work: All Operations of the Insured. SEE ATTACHED CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION City of Palo Alto Attn: Saira Cardoza 2501 Embarcadero Way Palo Alto, CA 94303-3326 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ACORD 25 (2016/03) © 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD SR ID: 15542784 BATCH: 571909 DocuSign Envelope ID: F12BB42F-DB1A-485D-B682-6CCD9EE7F4E2 AGENCY CUSTOMER ID: LOC #: ADDITIONAL REMARKS SCHEDULE Page 2 of 2 AGENCY Willis of Massachusetts, Inc. NAMED INSURED Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. and its Affiliates 42 Longwater Drive Norwell, MA 02061 POLICY NUMBER See Page 1 CARRIER See Page 1 NAIC CODE See Page 1 EFFECTIVE DATE:See Page 1 ADDITIONAL REMARKS THIS ADDITIONAL REMARKS FORM IS A SCHEDULE TO ACORD FORM, FORM NUMBER: 25 FORM TITLE:Certificate of Liability Insurance The City of Palo Alto, its Council Members, Officers, Agents, and Employees are named as Additional Insureds for General Liability and Auto Liability as their interests may appear if required by written contract but only with respect to liability arising out of operations of the Named Insured. INSURER AFFORDING COVERAGE: ACE American Insurance Company NAIC#: 22667 POLICY NUMBER: COO G27416603 003 EFF DATE: 11/01/2017 EXP DATE: 11/01/2018 TYPE OF INSURANCE: LIMIT DESCRIPTION: LIMIT AMOUNT: Contractor's Pollution Liability Each Claim $10,000,000 All Claims $10,000,000 SIR $250,000 INSURER AFFORDING COVERAGE: ACE American Insurance Company NAIC#: 22667 POLICY NUMBER: COO G27416603 003 EFF DATE: 11/01/2017 EXP DATE: 11/01/2018 TYPE OF INSURANCE: LIMIT DESCRIPTION: LIMIT AMOUNT: Professional Liability Each Claim $10,000,000 All Claims $10,000,000 SIR $250,000 ACORD 101 (2008/01) © 2008 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD SR ID: 15542784 BATCH: 571909 CERT: W5111648 City of Palo Alto (ID # 10618) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/23/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approve a 5 Year Extension to Questica Inc for Budget Software (Amendment #2) Title: Approval of Amendment Number 2 to Contract Number C15152204 With Questica Inc., for the City's Budgeting Software for Five Additional Years, in a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $399,556 From: City Manager Lead Department: IT Department Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the attached Amendment No. 2 (Attachment A) to contract no. C15152204 with QUESTICA INC., for budgeting software, to extend the term by 5 years, and to increase the total contract compensation by $399,556, which includes $369,556 for software maintenance and support over the five-year term as well as $30,000 for optional on-call professional services (for example, for as-needed customizations), bringing the total contract amount to $1,059,024 over the ten-year period. Background In June 2014, the City Council approved a contract with Questica Inc. to implement a best-in- class budget software system. This system is used to develop the City’s annual operating and capital budgets, municipal fee schedule, long range financial forecast, labor cost modeling, performance management reporting, and financial budget to actual reports. This contract is necessary to continue using this critical software, receiving updates and patches to the software, and technical support for the Questica system licensed under this contract. The existing license and support contract expired on June 30, 2019 (contract C15152204, CMR 4516, as amended to a site license in CMR 5350). Discussion This amendment includes maintenance and support with an annual price escalation, totaling $369,556 over the five-year term. It also includes optional on-call professional services in the amount of $30,000 over the five-year term, for a total not to exceed amount of $399,556. Annual costs are detailed in Attachment A. City of Palo Alto Page 2 A solicitation would be impractical and unavailing at this time as the Questica budgeting software system is meeting the City’s needs, is performing as desired, and was selected originally through a competitive solicitation process. Going out to competitive solicitation, rather than renewing this contract for a system that is working well for the City at this time, would require business process overhauls and database reconstruction, and may hinder the timely and efficient development and maintenance of the City’s budgeting process, where no need for a new system is indicated. For these reasons, staff is requesting an exemption from competitive solicitation as being impractical and unavailing under PAMC 2.30.360(b)(2). Resource Impact The funds for the payment of the first year of this contract amendment are budgeted in the IT Technology Fund and were approved in the FY 2020 Adopted Budget. Funding for future years of the contract is subject to the annual appropriation of funds. Environmental Review Approval of this contract does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); therefore, no Environmental Assessment is required. Attachments: ATTACHMENT A: Amendment NO. 2 to Contract NO. C15152204 Between the City of Palo Alto and QUESTICA INC. Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. C15152204 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND QUESTICA INC. This Amendment No. 2 (this “Amendment”) to contract no. C15152204 (the “Contract” as defined below) is entered into as of September 16, 2019, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and QUESTICA INC., an Ontario Corporation, located at 980 Fraser Drive, Suite 105, Burlington, Ontario, Canada (“CONSULTANT”). CITY and CONSULTANT are referred to collectively as the “Parties” in this Amendment. R E C I T A L S A. The Contract (as defined below) was entered into by and between the Parties hereto for the provision of a budget software system, support and maintenance, as detailed therein. A. The Contract was amended by Amendment No. 1 (as below) to add the CONSULTANT’s performance management module to the Contract’s scope of services, as detailed therein. B. The Parties now wish to amend the Contract in order to extend the term of the Contract, as detailed in this Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the Parties agree: SECTION 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Amendment: a. Contract. The term “Contract” shall mean Contract No. 15152204 between CONSULTANT and CITY, dated July 1, 2014, as amended by Amendment No.1 to C15152204 between CONSULTANT and CITY. b. Other Terms. Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract. SECTION 2. Section 1, “Scope of Services,” of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows: “CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in Exhibit “A” (and as summarized in Exhibit “C”) in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY. DocuSign Envelope ID: 633F6FA7-6311-414C-B9BE-D4517F1AEB0B Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Optional On‐Call Provision (This provision only applies if checked and only applies to agreements with on‐call services.) CONSULTANT shall also provide On‐Call Professional Services on an as‐needed basis, to be authorized by CITY, in CITY’s sole discretion, with a Task Order assigned and approved by CITY’s Project Manager up to the not‐to‐exceed amount provided for such services in Section 4 (“Not to Exceed Compensation”). Each Task Order shall be in substantially the same form as Exhibit “A‐1” (“Professional Services Task Order”). Each Task Order shall designate a CITY project manager (if different from the CITY project manager in this Agreement), and shall contain a specific proposed scope of work, schedule of performance and compensation amount (in accordance with Exhibit C, “Compensation”). CONSULTANT’s hourly rate for On‐Call Professional Services is specified in Exhibit C‐1. The total price of all Task Orders issued under this Agreement shall not exceed the amount of compensation set forth for On‐Call Professional Services in Exhibit C (“Compensation”) of this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall only be compensated for work performed under an authorized Task Order, and CITY may elect, but is not required, to authorize On‐Call Professional Services up to the maximum compensation amount set forth for such services in Exhibit C (“Compensation”).” SECTION 3. Section 2, “Term,” of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows: “The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through June 30, 2024, unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.” SECTION 4. Section 4, “Not to Exceed Compensation,” of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows: “The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for the licenses and performance of Services described in Exhibit “A” (“Scope of Services”), Section 1 (“Scope of Services”), and as summarized in Exhibit “C” (“Compensation”), shall not exceed the maximum amounts specified in Exhibit “C”. In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for such services shall not exceed $29,968, as detailed in Exhibit “C”. In the event On‐Call Professional Services are authorized (per Section 1), the total compensation for such services shall not exceed $30,000, as detailed in Exhibit “C”. The applicable hourly rate schedules are set forth in Exhibit “C” and in Exhibit “C‐1” (“Hourly Rate Schedule”). Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. “Additional Services” shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit “A” or Section 1. For clarity, On‐Call Professional Services provided pursuant to Section 1 shall not constitute Additional Services, provided that the amount for such On‐Call Professional Services does not exceed the maximum amount provided for such services in Exhibit C.” DocuSign Envelope ID: 633F6FA7-6311-414C-B9BE-D4517F1AEB0B Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 SECTION 5. The CITY’s project manager under to Section 13, “Project Management” of the Contract is hereby replaced as follows: “The City's project manager is Kayla Shapiro, Administrative Services Department, Office of Management and Budget, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: 650‐329‐2260.” SECTION 6. The following exhibits to the Contract are hereby amended or added, as indicated below, to read as set forth in the attachments to this Amendment, which are hereby incorporated in full into this Amendment and into the Contract by this reference: a. Exhibit “A‐1” entitled “Professional Services Task Order”, ADDED. b. Exhibit “C” entitled “Compensation”, AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS. c. Exhibit “C‐1” entitled “Hourly Rate Schedule”, AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS. d. Exhibit “F” entitled “Information Privacy Policy”, ADDED. e. Exhibit “G” entitled “Vendor Cybersecurity Terms and Conditions”, ADDED. SECTION 7. Legal Effect. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 8. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are terms of this Amendment and are fully incorporated herein by this reference. (SIGNATURE BLOCK FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE.) DocuSign Envelope ID: 633F6FA7-6311-414C-B9BE-D4517F1AEB0B Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment effective as of the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager (Contract over $85k) APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney or designee QUESTICA INC. Officer 1 By: Name: Title: Officer 2 (Required for Corp. or LLC) By: Name: Title: Attachments: Exhibit A‐1: “Professional Services Task Order” (Added) Exhibit C: “Compensation” (Amended, Replaces Previous) Exhibit C‐1: “Hourly Rate Schedule” (Amended, Replaces Previous) Exhibit F: “Information Privacy Policy” (Added) Exhibit G: “Vendor Cybersecurity Terms and Conditions” (Added) DocuSign Envelope ID: 633F6FA7-6311-414C-B9BE-D4517F1AEB0B TJ Parass CEO and President Director of Finance Mike Fricke Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 EXHIBIT “A‐1” PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER In accordance with the Agreement (as defined in Item 1A below) and CONTRACTOR and the CITY agree that CONTRACTOR will perform the work detailed in this Task Order as detailed herein and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement. This Task Order and all exhibits referenced in Item 7 below are incorporated into the Agreement by this reference. CONTRACTOR shall furnish the necessary facilities, professional, technical and supporting personnel required to perform this Task Order as described herein. 1A. CONTRACT NO. CONTRACT ISSUE DATE 1B. TASK ORDER NO. 1C. TASK ORDER ISSUE DATE 2. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: START: COMPLETION: 3. TOTAL TASK ORDER PRICE: $__________________ BALANCE REMAINING IN AGREEMENT $__________________________________ 4. BUDGET CODE: _______________ COST CENTER_______________ COST ELEMENT______________ WBS/CIP___ _______PHASE___ 5. CITY PROJECT MANAGER’S NAME/DEPARTMENT_________________________________________ 6. DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES MUST INCLUDE: WORK TO BE PERFORMED SCHEDULE OF WORK BASIS FOR PAYMENT & FEE SCHEDULE DELIVERABLES REIMBURSABLES (with “not to exceed” cost) 7. ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TASK ORDER: A: Scope of Services B (if any):_____________________ SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Task Order to be executed by their duly authorized representatives. CITY OF PALO ALTO I hereby authorize the performance of the work described in this Task Order and I warrant that I have the authority to sign on behalf of the CITY. APPROVED: BY:__________________________________ Name ________________________________ Title_________________________________ Date _________________________________ CONTRACTOR I hereby agree to enter into this Task Order for CONTRACTOR to perform the work described herein and I warrant that I have the authority to sign on behalf of CONTRACTOR. APPROVED: BY:__________________________________ Name ________________________________ Title_________________________________ Date _________________________________ DocuSign Envelope ID: 633F6FA7-6311-414C-B9BE-D4517F1AEB0B Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 EXHIBIT C – “COMPENSATION” Scope Description of Services Cost (NTE) Payment Schedule Implementation (cost of all professional services required for installation, implementation, data conversion, application development, training, and the first year’s warranty, maintenance, and support as well as any applicable license costs.) Licenses: Site License (ALL YEARS) $160,000.00 $43,000 at Contract Signing $43,000 at start of training $15,000 execution of 1st contract amdt $59,000 System Go‐Live of Budget Sys. Implementation Services: planning & analysis, installation, data load & verify, accounting integration, training, project management per Exhibit A. $129,600.00 $25,920 each (x 5) as outlined below** Maintenance* and Hosting (Year 1) $10,080.00 Contract Signing (July 1, 2014) SUBTOTAL $299,680.00 ‐‐ Annual maintenance* (Year 2) Annual Maintenance ($57,500) and Hosting ($10,080) $67,580.00 One year after contract signing Annual maintenance* (Year 3) Annual Maintenance ($57,500) and Hosting ($10,080) $67,580.00 Two years after contract signing Annual maintenance* (Year 4) Annual Maintenance ($57,500) and Hosting ($10,080) $67,580.00 Three years after contract signing Annual maintenance* (Year 5) Annual Maintenance ($57,500) and Hosting ($10,080) $67,580.00 Four years after contract signing Custom Report Development 250 hours at $170 per hour $42,500.00 Upon acceptance of the report Performance Management Module Implementation and Training 100 hours at $170 per hour $17,000.00 As training is delivered SUBTOTAL ‐ LICENSES (ALL YEARS) & SERVICES (YEARS 1‐5) $629,500.00 ‐‐ 10% Contingency (“Additional Services” per Agrt § 4) $29,968.00 30 days after an approved invoice SUBTOTAL NOT‐TO‐EXCEED COMPENSATION FOR LICENSES (ALL YEARS) & SERVICES (YEARS 1‐5) $659,468.00 ‐‐ Annual maintenance* (Year 6) Annual Maintenance & Hosting (Year 5 amount x 1.03) $69,607.40 Five years after contract signing Annual maintenance* (Year 7) Annual Maintenance & Hosting (Year 6 amount x 1.03) $71,695.62 Six years after contract signing Annual maintenance* (Year 8) Annual Maintenance & Hosting (Year 7 amount x 1.03) $73,846.49 Seven years after contract signing Annual maintenance* (Year 9) Annual Maintenance & Hosting (Year 8 amount x 1.03) $76,061.88 Eight years after contract signing Annual maintenance* (Year 10) Annual Maintenance & Hosting (Year 9 amount x 1.03) $78,343.74 Nine years after contract signing On‐Call Professional Services (Years 6‐ 10)150 hours at $200 per hour (via Task Order per Agrt § 1) $30,000.00 Upon approved Task Order & invoice SUBTOTAL NOT‐TO‐EXCEED COMPENSATION FOR YEARS 6‐10 $399,555.13 ‐‐ TOTAL NOT‐TO‐EXCEED COMPENSATION OF THE AGREEMENT (ALL YEARS) $1,059,023.13 ‐‐ * “Maintenance” and “Annual maintenance” include technical support. DocuSign Envelope ID: 633F6FA7-6311-414C-B9BE-D4517F1AEB0B Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 EXHIBIT C – “COMPENSATION” (CONTINUED) **Payment Schedule for Implementation Services: 1. $25,920 due earlier of 60 days from contract signing or completion of data import 2. $25,920 due earlier of 120 days from contract signing or start of training 3. $25,920 due earlier of 150 days from contract signing or completion of data integration 4. $25,920 due earlier of 210 days from contract signing or Go‐Live 5. $25,920 due 60 days after Go‐Live DocuSign Envelope ID: 633F6FA7-6311-414C-B9BE-D4517F1AEB0B Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Exhibit C‐1 HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE Project Manager ‐ $200/hr Consultant ‐ $200/hr Trainer ‐ $200/hr Developer ‐ $200/hr Report Writer ‐ $200/hr On‐Call Professional Services – $200/hour DocuSign Envelope ID: 633F6FA7-6311-414C-B9BE-D4517F1AEB0B POLICY S The City persons i consisten §§ 6250 personal ordinary These m federal a including 1798.79. of these business federal a goals and Identifiab Informat third par Protecte Persona California reference PURPOSE The City pertainin collected services other in contracto collected regulatio Informat TATEMENT of Palo Alto in Palo Alto. nt with the p 6270, to (including, course and easures are and Californ g, without l 8(b), 1798.8 provisions d in a mann and Californ d objectives ble Informat tion of perso rty under co ed Critical ally Identify a Civil Code e. E y, acting in ng to person d by a variet provided by nformation ors. The City d by the Ci ons and pro tion is collect o (the City In promotin provisions of take appro without lim d scope of c generally o nia laws, th imitation, t 80(e), 1798. do not apply er which p ia laws. The , to ensure tion, Protect ons doing b ontract to th Infrastructu ying Informa e sections, its govern s who do bu y of means, y the City,p portals ma y is commit ity. The Cit ocedures,a ted, stored a INFORMATI ) strives to ng the qualit f the Califor opriate meas mitation, fin conducting t bserved by he Citys ru he provision 81.5, 1798.8 to local gov romotes the e objective o the ongoing ted Critical In usiness with he City to pr ure Informa ation (coll referred to mental and usiness with including,w persons acce intained by tted to prot ty acknowle and industry and utilized ON PRIVACY o promote a ty of life of t nia Public R sures to saf nancial) info the Citys b federal, stat les and reg ns of Califo 82(e), 1798. vernment ag e privacy o of this Polic g protection nfrastructur h the City an rovide servic ation, Per ectively, th o above, an d proprietar or receive s without limit essing the C y the City tecting the p edges feder y best pra in complian POLICY Y POLICY and sustain these person ecords Act, feguard the ormation o business as te and local gulations, a ornia Civil C .83(e)(7), an gencies like t f personal cy is to desc of the Pers re Informatio nd receiving ces. The te rsonally Ide he Informa nd are inco ry capacitie services from tation, from Citys websit s staff and privacy and al and Cali ctices are ce with app Y AND PROC Revised a superior q ns, it is the p California G security an f persons, a local gove l authorities nd industry Code §§ 179 nd 1798.92(c the City, the information cribe the Cit sonal Inform on and Perso g services fr rms Person entifiable In ation) are orporated in es, collects m the City. T m persons ap te, and pers d/or author security of fornia laws dedicated t licable laws. CEDURES 1 6 : December quality of lif policy of the Government nd privacy o collected in ernment ag s and reflect y best prac 98.3(a), 179 c). Though s City will con , as reflecte tys data sec mation, Perso onally Identi om the City nal Informat nformation defined in n this Polic the Inform he Informat pplying to re sons who a rized third the Inform , policies,r to ensuring . 64/IT 2017 fe for e City, Code of the n the ency. ted in tices, 98.24, some nduct ed in curity onally ifying y or a tion, and n the cy by ation ion is eceive ccess party ation rules, g the Exhibit FDocuSign Envelope ID: 633F6FA7-6311-414C-B9BE-D4517F1AEB0B POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1 64/IT Revised: December 2017 The goals and objectives of the Policy are: (a) a safe, productive, and inoffensive work environment for all users having access to the Citys applications and databases; (b) the appropriate maintenance and security of database information assets owned by, or entrusted to, the City; (c) the controlled access and security of the Information provided to the Citys staff and third party contractors; and (d) faithful compliance with legal and regulatory requirements. SCOPE The Policy will guide the Citys staff and, indirectly, third party contractors, which are by contract required to protect the confidentiality and privacy of the Information of the persons whose personal information data are intended to be covered by the Policy and which will be advised by City staff to conform their performances to the Policy should they enjoy conditional access to that information. CONSEQUENCES The Citys employees shall comply with the Policy in the execution of their official duties to the extent their work implicates access to the Information referred to in this Policy. A failure to comply may result in employment and/or legal consequences. EXCEPTIONS In the event that a City employee cannot fully comply with one or more element(s) described in this Policy, the employee may request an exception by submitting Security Exception Request. The exception request will be reviewed and administered by the Citys Information Security Manager (the ISM). The employee, with the approval of his or her supervisor, will provide any additional information as may be requested by the ISM. The ISM will conduct a risk assessment of the requested exception in accordance with guidelines approved by the Citys Chief Information Officer (CIO) and approved as to form by the City Attorney. The Policys guidelines will include at a minimum: purpose, source, collection, storage, access, retention, usage, and protection of the Information identified in the request. The ISM will consult with the CIO to approve or deny the exception request. After due consideration is given to the request, the exception request disposition will be communicated, in writing, to the City employee and his or her supervisor. The approval of any request may be subject to countermeasures established by the CIO, acting by the ISM. MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE This Policy will supersede any City policy, rule, regulation or procedure regarding information privacy. RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITY STAFF Exhibit FDocuSign Envelope ID: 633F6FA7-6311-414C-B9BE-D4517F1AEB0B POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1 64/IT Revised: December 2017 A. RESPONSIBILITY OF CIO AND ISM The CIO, acting by the ISM, will establish an information security management framework to initiate and coordinate the implementation of information security measures by the Citys government. The Citys employees, in particular, software application users and database users, and, indirectly, third party contractors under contract to the City to provide services, shall by guided by this Policy in the performance of their job responsibilities. The ISM will be responsible for: (a) developing and updating the Policy, (b) enforcing compliance with and the effectiveness of the Policy; (c) the development of privacy standards that will manifest the Policy in detailed, auditable technical requirements, which will be designed and maintained by the persons responsible for the Citys IT environments; (d) assisting the Citys staff in evaluating security and privacy incidents that arise in regard to potential violations of the Policy; (e) reviewing and approving department specific policies and procedures which fall under the purview of this Policy; and (f) reviewing Non Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) signed by third party contractors, which will provide services, including, without limitation, local or cloud based software services to the City. B. RESPONSIBILITY OF INFORMATION SECURITY STEERING COMMITTEE The Information Security Steering Committee (the ISSC), which is comprised of the Citys employees, drawn from the various City departments, will provide the primary direction, prioritization and approval for all information security efforts, including key information security and privacy risks, programs, initiatives and activities. The ISSC will provide input to the information security and privacy strategic planning processes to ensure that information security risks are adequately considered, assessed and addressed at the appropriate City department level. C. RESPONSIBILITY OF USERS All authorized users of the Information will be responsible for complying with information privacy processes and technologies within the scope of responsibility of each user. D. RESPONSIBILITY OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) MANAGERS The Citys IT Managers, who are responsible for internal, external, direct and indirect connections to the Citys networks, will be responsible for configuring, maintaining and securing the Citys IT networks in compliance with the Citys information security and privacy policies. They are also responsible for timely internal reporting of events that may have compromised network, system or data security. Exhibit FDocuSign Envelope ID: 633F6FA7-6311-414C-B9BE-D4517F1AEB0B POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1 64/IT Revised: December 2017 E. RESPONSIBILITY OF AUTHORIZATION COORDINATION The ISM will ensure that the Citys employees secure the execution of Non Disclosure Agreements (NDA), whenever access to the Information will be granted to third party contractors, in conjunction with the Software as a Service (SaaS) Security and Privacy Terms and Conditions. An NDA must be executed prior to the sharing of the Information of persons covered by this Policy with third party contractors. The Citys approach to managing information security and its implementation (i.e. objectives, policies, processes, and procedures for information security) will be reviewed independently by the ISM at planned intervals, or whenever significant changes to security implementation have occurred. The CIO, acting by the ISM, will review and recommend changes to the Policy annually, or as appropriate, commencing from the date of its adoption. GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR INFORMATION PRIVACY A. OVERVIEW The Policy applies to activities that involve the use of the Citys information assets, namely, the Information of persons doing business with the City or receiving services from the City, which are owned by, or entrusted to, the City and will be made available to the Citys employees and third party contractors under contract to the City to provide Software as a Service consulting services. These activities include, without limitation, accessing the Internet, using e mail, accessing the Citys intranet or other networks, systems, or devices. The term information assets also includes the personal information of the Citys employees and any other related organizations while those assets are under the Citys control. Security measures will be designed, implemented, and maintained to ensure that only authorized persons will enjoy access to the information assets. The Citys staff will act to protect its information assets from theft, damage, loss, compromise, and inappropriate disclosure or alteration. The City will plan, design, implement and maintain information management systems, networks and processes in order to assure the appropriate confidentiality, integrity, and availability of its information assets to the Citys employees and authorized third parties. B. PERSONAL INFORMATION AND CHOICE Except as permitted or provided by applicable laws, the City will not share the Information of any person doing business with the City, or receiving services from the City, in violation of this Policy, unless that person has consented to the Citys sharing of such information during the conduct of the Citys business as a local government agency with third parties under contract to the City to provide services. Exhibit FDocuSign Envelope ID: 633F6FA7-6311-414C-B9BE-D4517F1AEB0B POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1 64/IT Revised: December 2017 C. METHODS OF COLLECTION OF PERSONAL INFORMATION The City may gather the Information from a variety of sources and resources, provided that the collection of such information is both necessary and appropriate in order for the City to conduct business as a local government agency in its governmental and proprietary capacities. That information may be gathered at service windows and contact centers as well as at web sites, by mobile applications, and with other technologies, wherever the City may interact with persons who need to share such formation in order to secure the Citys services. The Citys staff will inform the persons whose Information are covered by this Policy that the Citys web site may use cookies to customize the browsing experience with the City of Palo Alto web site. The City will note that a cookie contains unique information that a web site can use to track, among others, the Internet Protocol address of the computer used to access the Citys web sites, the identification of the browser software and operating systems used, the date and time a user accessed the site, and the Internet address of the website from which the user linked to the Citys web sites. Cookies created on the users computer by using the Citys web site do not contain the Information, and thus do not compromise the users privacy or security. Users can refuse the cookies or delete the cookie files from their computers by using any of the widely available methods. If the user chooses not to accept a cookie on his or her computer, it will not prevent or prohibit the user from gaining access to or using the Citys sites. D. UTILITIES SERVICE In the provision of utility services to persons located within Palo Alto, the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department (CPAU) will collect the Information in order to initiate and manage utility services to customers. To the extent the management of that information is not specifically addressed in the Utilities Rules and Regulations or other ordinances, rules, regulations or procedures, this Policy will apply; provided, however, any such Rules and Regulations must conform to this Policy, unless otherwise directed or approved by the Council. This includes the sharing of CPAU collected Information with other City departments except as may be required by law. Businesses and residents with standard utility meters and/or having non metered monthly services will have secure access through a CPAU website to their Information, including, without limitation, their monthly utility usage and billing data. In addition to their regular monthly utilities billing, businesses and residents with non standard or experimental electric, water or natural gas meters may have their usage and/or billing data provided to them through non City electronic portals at different intervals than with the standard monthly billing. Exhibit FDocuSign Envelope ID: 633F6FA7-6311-414C-B9BE-D4517F1AEB0B POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1 64/IT Revised: December 2017 Businesses and residents with such non standard or experimental metering will have their Information covered by the same privacy protections and personal information exchange rules applicable to Information under applicable federal and California laws. E. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE The Information that is collected by the City in the ordinary course and scope of conducting its business could be incorporated in a public record that may be subject to inspection and copying by the public, unless such information is exempt from disclosure to the public by California law. F. ACCESS TO PERSONAL INFORMATION The City will take reasonable steps to verify a persons identity before the City will grant anyone online access to that persons Information. Each City department that collects Information will afford access to affected persons who can review and update that information at reasonable times. G. SECURITY, CONFIDENTIALITY AND NON DISCLOSURE Except as otherwise provided by applicable law or this Policy, the City will treat the Information of persons covered by this Policy as confidential and will not disclose it, or permit it to be disclosed, to third parties without the express written consent of the person affected. The City will develop and maintain reasonable controls that are designed to protect the confidentiality and security of the Information of persons covered by this Policy. The City may authorize the Citys employee and or third party contractors to access and/or use the Information of persons who do business with the City or receive services from the City. In those instances, the City will require the Citys employee and/or the third party contractors to agree to use such Information only in furtherance of City related business and in accordance with the Policy. If the City becomes aware of a breach, or has reasonable grounds to believe that a security breach has occurred, with respect to the Information of a person, the City will notify the affected person of such breach in accordance with applicable laws. The notice of breach will include the date(s) or estimated date(s) of the known or suspected breach, the nature of the Information that is the subject of the breach, and the proposed action to be taken or the responsive action taken by the City. H. DATA RETENTION / INFORMATION RETENTION Exhibit FDocuSign Envelope ID: 633F6FA7-6311-414C-B9BE-D4517F1AEB0B POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1 64/IT Revised: December 2017 The City will store and secure all Information for a period of time as may be required by law, or if no period is established by law, for seven (7) years, and thereafter such information will be scheduled for destruction. I. SOFTWARE AS A SERVICE (SAAS) OVERSIGHT The City may engage third party contractors and vendors to provide software application and database services, commonly known as Software as a Service (SaaS). In order to assure the privacy and security of the Information of those who do business with the City and those who received services from the City, as a condition of selling goods and/or services to the City, the SaaS services provider and its subcontractors, if any, including any IT infrastructure services provider, shall design, install, provide, and maintain a secure IT environment, while it performs such services and/or furnishes goods to the City, to the extent any scope of work or services implicates the confidentiality and privacy of the Information. These requirements include information security directives pertaining to: (a) the IT infrastructure, by which the services are provided to the City, including connection to the City's IT systems; (b) the SaaS services providers operations and maintenance processes needed to support the IT environment, including disaster recovery and business continuity planning; and (c) the IT infrastructure performance monitoring services to ensure a secure and reliable environment and service availability to the City. The term IT infrastructure refers to the integrated framework, including, without limitation, data centers, computers, and database management devices, upon which digital networks operate. Prior to entering into an agreement to provide services to the City, the Citys staff will require the SaaS services provider to complete and submit an Information Security and Privacy Questionnaire. In the event that the SaaS services provider reasonably determines that it cannot fulfill the information security requirements during the course of providing services, the City will require the SaaS services provider to promptly inform the ISM. J. FAIR AND ACCURATE CREDIT TRANSACTION ACT OF 2003 CPAU will require utility customers to provide their Information in order for the City to initiate and manage utility services to them. Federal regulations, implementing the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (Public Law 108 159), including the Red Flag Rules, require that CPAU, as a covered financial institution or creditor which provides services in advance of payment and which can affect consumer credit, develop and implement procedures for an identity theft program for new and existing accounts to detect, prevent, respond and mitigate potential identity theft of its customers Information. Exhibit FDocuSign Envelope ID: 633F6FA7-6311-414C-B9BE-D4517F1AEB0B POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1 64/IT Revised: December 2017 CPAU procedures for potential identity theft will be reviewed independently by the ISM annually or whenever significant changes to security implementation have occurred. The ISM will recommend changes to CPAU identity theft procedures, or as appropriate, so as to conform to this Policy. There are California laws which are applicable to identity theft; they are set forth in California Civil Code § 1798.92. NOTE: Questions regarding this policy should be referred to the Information Technology Department, as appropriate. Recommended: __________________________________ ________________ Director Information Technology/CIO Date Approved: ___________________________________ _________________ City Manager Date Exhibit FDocuSign Envelope ID: 633F6FA7-6311-414C-B9BE-D4517F1AEB0B City of Palo Alto Information Security Document Version: V2.7 Doc: InfoSec 110 EXHIBIT G VENDOR CYBERSECURITY TERMS AND CONDITIONS This Exhibit shall be made a part of the City of Palo Alto’s Professional Services Agreement or any other contract entered into by and between the City of Palo Alto (the “City”) and QUESTICA INC. (the “Consultant”) for the provision of Software as a Service services to the City (the “Agreement”). In order to assure the privacy and security of the personal information of the City’s customers and people who do business with the City, including, without limitation, vendors, utility customers, library patrons and other individuals and businesses, who are required to share such information with the City, as a condition of receiving services from the City or selling goods and services to the City, including, without limitation, the Software as a Service services provider (the “Consultant”) and its subcontractors, if any, including, without limitation, any Information Technology (“IT”) infrastructure services provider, shall design, install, provide, and maintain a secure IT environment, described below, while it renders and performs the Services and furnishes goods, if any, described in the Statement of Work, Exhibit B, to the extent any scope of work implicates the confidentiality and privacy of the personal information of the City’s customers. The Consultant shall fulfill the data and information security requirements (the “Requirements”) set forth in Part A below. A “secure IT environment” includes: (a) the IT infrastructure, by which the Services are provided to the City, including connection to the City's IT systems; (b) the Consultant’s operations and maintenance processes needed to support the environment, including disaster recovery and business continuity planning; and (c) the IT infrastructure performance monitoring services to ensure a secure and reliable environment and service availability to the City. “IT infrastructure” refers to the integrated framework, including, without limitation, data centers, computers, and database management devices, upon which digital networks operate. In the event that, after the Effective Date, the Consultant reasonably determines that it cannot fulfill the Requirements, the Consultant shall promptly inform the City of its determination and submit, in writing, one or more alternate countermeasure options to the Requirements (the “Alternate Requirements” as set forth in Part B), which may be accepted or rejected in the reasonable satisfaction of the Information Security Manager (the “ISM”). Part A. Requirements: The Consultant shall at all times during the term of any contract between the City and the Consultant: (a) Appoint or designate an employee, preferably an executive officer, as the security liaison to the City with respect to the Services to be performed under this Agreement. (b) Comply with the City’s Information Privacy Policy: DocuSign Envelope ID: 633F6FA7-6311-414C-B9BE-D4517F1AEB0B City of Palo Alto Information Security Document Version: V2.7 Doc: InfoSec 110 (c) Have adopted and implemented information security and privacy policies that are documented, are accessible to the City and conform to ISO 27001/2 – Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) Standards. See the following: http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=42103 http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=50297 (d) Conduct routine data and information security compliance training of its personnel that is appropriate to their role. (e) Develop and maintain detailed documentation of the IT infrastructure, including software versions and patch levels. (f) Develop an independently verifiable process, consistent with industry standards, for performing professional and criminal background checks of its employees that (1) would permit verification of employees’ personal identity and employment status, and (2) would enable the immediate denial of access to the City's confidential data and information by any of its employees who no longer would require access to that information or who are terminated. (g) Provide a list of IT infrastructure components in order to verify whether the Consultant has met or has failed to meet any objective terms and conditions. (h) Implement access accountability (identification and authentication) architecture and support role‐based access control (“RBAC”) and segregation of duties (“SoD”) mechanisms for all personnel, systems, and software used to provide the Services. “RBAC” refers to a computer systems security approach to restricting access only to authorized users. “SoD” is an approach that would require more than one individual to complete a security task in order to promote the detection and prevention of fraud and errors. (i) Assist the City in undertaking annually an assessment to assure that: (1) all elements of the Services’ environment design and deployment are known to the City, and (2) it has implemented measures in accordance with industry best practices applicable to secure coding and secure IT architecture. (j) Provide and maintain secure intersystem communication paths that would ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the City's information. (k) Deploy and maintain IT system upgrades, patches and configurations conforming to current patch and/or release levels by not later than one (1) week after its date of release. Emergency security patches must be installed within 24 hours after its date of release. (l) Provide for the timely detection of, response to, and the reporting of security incidents, including on‐going incident monitoring with logging. (m) Notify the City within one (1) hour of detecting a security incident that results in the unauthorized access to or the misuse of the City's confidential data and information. (n) Inform the City that any third party service provider(s) meet(s) all of the Requirements. (o) Perform security self‐audits on a regular basis and not less frequently than on a quarterly basis, and provide the required summary reports of those self‐audits to the ISM on the annual anniversary date or any other date agreed to by the Parties. (p) Accommodate, as practicable, and upon reasonable prior notice by the City, the City’s performance of random site security audits at the Consultant’s site(s), including the site(s) of a third party service provider(s), as applicable. The scope of these audits will extend to the Consultant’s and its third party service provider(s)’ awareness of security policies and DocuSign Envelope ID: 633F6FA7-6311-414C-B9BE-D4517F1AEB0B City of Palo Alto Information Security Document Version: V2.7 Doc: InfoSec 110 practices, systems configurations, access authentication and authorization, and incident detection and response. (q) Cooperate with the City to ensure that to the extent required by applicable laws, rules and regulations, the Confidential Information will be accessible only by the Consultant and any authorized third party service provider’s personnel. (r) Perform regular, reliable secured backups of all data needed to maximize the availability of the Services. (s) Maintain records relating to the Services for a period of three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement and in a mutually agreeable storage medium. Within thirty (30) days after the effective date of expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement, all of those records relating to the performance of the Services shall be provided to the ISM. (t) Maintain the Confidential Information in accordance with applicable federal, state and local data and information privacy laws, rules, and regulations. (u) Encrypt the Confidential Information before delivering the same by electronic mail to the City and or any authorized recipient. (v) Unless otherwise addressed in the Agreement, shall not hold the City liable for any direct, indirect or punitive damages whatsoever including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profits, arising out of or in any way connected with the City’s IT environment, including, without limitation, IT infrastructure communications. Part B. Alternate Requirements: DocuSign Envelope ID: 633F6FA7-6311-414C-B9BE-D4517F1AEB0B City of Palo Alto (ID # 10649) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/16/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: Grade Separations Summary Title: Recommendation to Comment on the Caltrain Business Plan Long Range Service Vision Title: Caltrain Business Plan - Direction to Staff Regarding Comments on Draft Long Range Service Vision From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff recommends Council discussion and direction on submittal of a comment letter in response to Caltrain’s staff recommendations for the Caltrain Business Plan and its Long Range Service Vision. Background The City Council conducted a study session on the developing Caltrain Business Plan on May 13, 2019 (Report #10335). Since that time, Caltrain staff has released a Draft Recommendation for Caltrain’s Long Range Service Vision. The summary report is attached. Specific recommendations are provided beginning on page 14 of the report, and exerpted here: CALTRAIN’S LONG RANGE SERVICE VISION – DRAFT LANGUAGE The following is the specific, draft “Service Vision” language that the JPB would be asked to consider for adoption in October. This language will be reviewed and revised based on input from the Board and comments received through stakeholder and public outreach. 1) Caltrain’s Long Range Service Vision directs the railroad to plan for a substantially expanded rail service that will address the local and regional mobility needs of the corridor while supporting local economic development activities. When fully realized, this service will provide; A. A mixture of express and local Caltrain services operated in an evenly spaced, bidirectional pattern City of Palo Alto Page 2 B. Minimum peak hour frequencies of; • 8 trains per hour per direction on the JPB- owned corridor between Tamien Station in San Jose and San Francisco, extended to Salesforce Transit Center at such time as the Downtown Extension is completed • 4 trains per hour per direction between Blossom Hill and Tamien Stations, subject to the securing of necessary operating rights • 2 trains per hour per direction between and Gilroy and Blossom Hill Stations, subject to the securing of necessary operating rights C. Off-peak and weekend frequencies of between 2 and 6 trains per hour per direction north of Blossom Hill and hourly between Gilroy and Blossom Hill, with future refinements to be based on realized demand D. Accommodation of California High Speed Rail trains, in accordance with the terms of existing and future blended system agreements between the JPB and the California High Speed Rail Authority E. Delivery of these services will occur through the incremental development of corridor projects and infrastructure to be further defined through individual planning process, feasibility studies and community engagement. At this time, such infrastructure is conceptually understood to include; i. Investments in rail systems including a new, high performance signal system ii. Station modifications including platform lengthening, level boarding, and investments in station access facilities and amenities to support growing ridership and improve customer experience iii. New and modified maintenance and storage facilities in the vicinity of both terminals as well as the expansion of the electrified Caltrain fleet iv. A series of short, 4-track stations and overtakes at various points throughout the corridor v. Completion of key regional and state partner projects including 1. The Downtown Extension to the Salesforce Transit Center 2. The reconstruction of Diridon Station and surrounding rail infrastructure 3. The reconstruction and electrification of the rail corridor south of Control Point Lick to the Gilroy Station 4. Additional improvements to allow for the operation of High Speed Rail service between Gilroy and San Francisco 5. The substantial grade separation of the corridor as well as safety upgrades to any remaining at-grade crossings, undertaken in a coordinated strategic manner driven by the desires of individual local jurisdictions as well as legal requirements associated with any proposed 4-track segments. 2) Caltrain’s Long Range Service Vision further directs the railroad to continue its consideration of a potential “higher” growth level of service in the context of major regional and state rail planning. Specifically, the Long Range Service Vision directs the railroad to; A. Work with regional and state partners to study and evaluate both the feasibility and desirability of higher levels of service in the context of major regional and state rail initiatives including planning related to the Dumbarton Rail Corridor, the 2nd Transbay Crossing, the potential for expanded ACE and Capitol Corridor services, and ongoing City of Palo Alto Page 3 planning for the California High Speed Rail system. B. To take certain actions to consider and, where feasible, not preclude such higher levels of service as they specifically relate to; i. The planning of rail terminals and related facilities ii. The sale or permanent encumbrance of JPB land iii. The design of grade separations in areas where 4-track segments may be required iv. The sizing of future maintenance facilities and storage yards C. To return to the board with a recommendation regarding any formal expansion of the Long Range Service Vision at such a time as clear regional and state policy and funding commitments are in place and the feasibility of such an option on the corridor has been confirmed 3) Finally, Caltrain’s Long Range Service Vision directs the railroad to periodically reaffirm the Vision to ensure that it continues to provide relevant and useful guidance to the railroad. Such reaffirmations should occur; A. At a regular intervals of no less than 5 years B. In response to significant changes to JPB or partner projects that materially influence the substance of the Long Range Service Vision In addition to the Summary Memo, Caltrain staff has released a presentation and Organizational Assessment Report. These documents and additional information is available at https://www.caltrain2040.org/long-range-service-vision/. Caltrain staff has indicated they plan to present the Long Range Service Vision to the Joint Powers Board for adoption at its October meeting, potentially on October 3rd. Discussion Through discussion at the Caltrain Local Policy Maker Group (LPMG) meetings, it appears clear that while many communities would like to advance grade separation projects, primary interests at this time focus on increased frequency and quality of Caltrain service. This puts Palo Alto in a somewhat unique position of grappling with the complex and difficult issues associated with grade separations ahead of many communities along the Caltrain corridor. Caltrain has to date been actively involved with grade separations in San Mateo County, largely funded through San Mateo County Measure A. With Santa Clara County Measure B now providing funds for Caltrain grade separations in Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale, the need and issues associated with funding and organizational arrangements between Caltrain, VTA, and the cities are now becoming acute. In addition, the Service Vision analysis indicates that under either Moderate or High Growth Scenarios the existing two-track railway must be expanded to four tracks in northern Santa Clara County. The Moderate Growth Scenario describes the need for a four track station in either Palo Alto or Mountain View, and the High Growth Scenario describes the need for four tracks configured as either a four track station or a longer City of Palo Alto Page 4 passing section in Palo Alto or Mountain View. Very little detail is available on the physical requirements for four-track segments. Impacts in Palo Alto could therefore be significant given the constrained right-of-way at the California Avenue Station and Alma Street, as well as sensitive adjacent residential land uses. Caltrain staff has indicated that their current position regarding the need to plan for four tracks on ongoing grade separation planning is that grade separations “should not preclude” future expansion to four tracks. The specific effect on grade separation plans in Palo Alto will therefore likely develop over time, as depending on the timing of Palo Alto’s grade separation decisions coincide with Caltrain’s decisions and next steps on its service vision, funding strategies, and organizational evolution. There is the potential that Caltrain may in the future take the position that its interest in a four-track segment delays, precludes, or increases the cost of grade separations in Palo Alto. These considerations raise the question of Palo Alto’s position regarding the Caltrain Long Range Service Vision. Options for the City Council could range among the following, as examples: a. that Caltrain’s Long Range Service Vision must recognize that it is dependent on grade separations acceptable to the affected communities; b. that Caltrain must commit to addressing grade separations prior to adopting a Long Range Service Vision; or, c. that Caltrain must conduct a feasibility study of passing tracks in North Santa Clara County before adopting a Long Range Service Vision. As currently drafted, the Caltrain staff recommendation addresses grade separations under point 1.E.v.5: E. Delivery of these services will occur through the incremental development of corridor projects and infrastructure to be further defined through individual planning process, feasibility studies and community engagement. At this time, such infrastructure is conceptually understood to include… v. Completion of key regional and state partner projects including… 5. The substantial grade separation of the corridor as well as safety upgrades to any remaining at-grade crossings, undertaken in a coordinated strategic manner driven by the desires of individual local jurisdictions as well as legal requirements associated with any proposed 4-track segments. As this language essentially aligns with the second option “a” above, the City Council may direct staff to communicate Palo Alto’s support for the Long Range Service Vision as currently drafted. Staff would work with the Mayor and Councilmember Kou, Palo Alto’s representative on the Caltrain Local Policy Maker Group (LPMG), to communicate this position. Alternatively, the City Council may consider advocating that Caltrain make a more direct City of Palo Alto Page 5 commitment to grade separations as a part of the Long Range Service Vision. The Caltrain staff recommendation suggests that next steps will be to consider the organizational changes necessary to advance the Service Vision. In the near term, these issues will likely be intertwined with decisions to seek voter approval for funding of Caltrain operations as well as capital needs. As a specific example of near-term issues, VTA has indicated it will not bond Measure B funds for grade separations. This leaves cities with the prospect of taking on the responsibility for bonding hundreds of millions of dollars or delaying project implementation until tax proceeds accumulate. Council direction for a greater commitment to grade separations could include Caltrain participation in the financing of grade separation projects. Based on the current state of grade separation planning in Palo Alto as well as these regional issues, staff recommends that the City Council consider a position of general support for the Caltrain Long Range Service Vision conditional on its commitment to immediately initiate a feasibility study of four-track segments in North Santa Clara County and exploration of participation in financing Measure B grade separation projects. Timeline, Resource Impact, Policy Implications Caltrain staff has indicated plans to present the Long Range Service Vision for Caltrain Board adoption in October. City Council direction on comments would enable Palo Alto’s interests to be specifically considered during the Board’s deliberations. Environmental Review The submittal of comments on the Caltrain Business Plan is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments: • Attachment A: Caltrain BP Service Vision Summary Memo The following memo supplements the PowerPoint presentation provided to the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board at their August meeting. It provides a high level summary of the service planning and business case analysis completed as part of the Caltrain Business Plan to date and explains the importance of choosing a “Long Range Service Vision” at this stage in the planning process. The memo then describes staff’s draft recommendation for the Long Range Service Vision and explains why staff has recommended this specific vision relative to other options considered. Finally, the memo includes a narrative description of the recommended Vision and a draft of the precise language that the Board would be asked to consider for adoption in October, pending revisions or changes based on input received from the Board and through outreach planned in August and September. The Caltrain Business Plan is an expansive planning process that has been ongoing for more than a year. A major focus of the plan has been to develop analysis of different long range service options for Caltrain and to weigh the costs, revenues, benefits and impacts of these options through a detailed “Business Case” analysis. At this stage of the Business Plan process, Caltrain staff has developed and evaluated three distinct “growth scenarios” that provide illustrative options for how the Caltrain Service could grow by 2040. Based on this analysis, staff has now developed a single, recommended “Long Range Service Vision” for consideration and potential adoption by the Board. Choosing a “Long Range Service Vision” is an important milestone in the Business Plan process. Having a clearly articulated goal for the quantity and type of service that the railroad aspires to provide in the future will provide staff with the critical guidance needed to complete the Business Plan. Once adopted, the Long Range Service Vision will create a framework that allows staff to “work backwards” from 2040, developing analysis showing how the Vision can be phased, funded and implemented over time. This analysis will be conducted in the fall of 2019 with a goal of completing the Business Plan by early 2020. A REGIONAL VISION BUILT ON REGIONAL INVESTMENTS Selection of a Long Range Service Vision will also allow Caltrain staff to engage efficiently and constructively in the development of other long range plans and projects throughout the region. This is particularly important since the Caltrain corridor interfaces with many different local, state and regional transportation systems and investments. While the Long Range Service Vision is fundamentally focused on Caltrain, the Vision must account for and integrate a vast array of transportation projects that have been planned by corridor cities and regional and state partner agencies. Key projects that directly influence Caltrain’s corridor and long range service ambitions include; • California’s High Speed Rail System • The Downtown Extension to the Salesforce Transit Center • The rebuilding of Diridon Station in San Jose • Multiple grade separation projects planned and contemplated by corridor cities The Caltrain Business Plan and Caltrain’s Long Range Vision have been deliberately developed to integrate and build on all of these projects. One of the goals of the 2040 Vision is to build a “big tent” that shows how all of the investments currently being planned in the corridor can fit together as part of a cohesive whole, with expanded Caltrain service further enhancing their value and importance. It is important to note at the outset, that these regional and partner projects also drive a significant portion of the overall investment costs that are considered within the Long Range Service Vision. Figure 1 shows the total set of capital investments that have been included in the “baseline” growth scenario, broken down by major source. Figure 1- Capital Investments Included in the “Baseline” 2040 Growth Scenario All costs have been adjusted to 2018 dollars The costs shown in Figure 1 total to $22.1 billion in 2018 dollars and are divided into three categories; • Caltrain Work Underway: Including electrification and other major capital projects that are already in progress • Investments Planned and Proposed by Caltrain Partners: Including major terminal projects like the Downtown Extension (DTX) and Diridon Project as well as High Speed Rail Investments and those grade separations that are already actively being planned by local jurisdictions. While all of these projects are in active stages of planning, most are substantially unfunded. • New Caltrain Investments to Support the Baseline Growth Scenario: This category includes the essential investments that the Caltrain believes will be needed by 2040 to support the baseline level of blended service. Examples include additional electrified rolling stock (to fully electrify the fleet and expand all consists to 8-car trains), level boarding, expanded storage and maintenance facilities and additional grade crossing improvements. These projects are not funded. These costs have been used as the basis, or “baseline,” for looking at the incremental investment that would then be required to achieve the higher levels of Caltrain service contemplated in the “moderate” and “high” growth scenarios. Much of the technical work of the Caltrain Business Plan over the past year has been focused on the development and refinement of three illustrative “Growth Scenarios,” each representing a different option for the kind of service that Caltrain could provide in 2040 given different levels of supporting investment. The three scenarios include a “baseline” level of service (consistent with Caltrain’s prior long range planning and the regional and partner projects discussed above) and two additional scenarios that consider what it might look like if Caltrain were to further expand service (the “moderate” and “high” growth scenarios). Although illustrative, these growth scenarios where developed at a high level of detail through an extensive service planning process (diagramed in Figure 2). Details of each of these scenarios are shown in Figure 3 and can also been reviewed in the accompanying presentation and on the project website, www.caltrain2040.org. Figure 2 – Growth Scenario Development Process Figure 3 – Growth Scenario Detail The process to develop the different growth scenarios evaluated in the Caltrain Business Plan was conducted in a highly transparent and collaborative manner. Throughout the development of the Growth Scenarios, Caltrain staff have met on a monthly basis to share information and discuss findings with a technical team of partner agency staff (the Project Partner Committee) as well as with corridor local jurisdiction staff (the City and County Staff Group) and corridor elected officials (the Local Policy Maker Group). Additionally, the project team has held quarterly stakeholder meetings with a Stakeholder Advisory Group representing over 90 different organizations and has held multiple rounds of one on one meetings with every city in the corridor. The team also developed customized “booklets” for each city, showing the impacts and benefits of different growth scenarios on their jurisdiction. All told, Caltrain staff have presented Business Plan materials at over 150 stakeholder meetings during the course of the last year. The detailed illustrative growth scenarios developed through the service planning process were used to model ridership, specify and estimate the costs of required capital investments, and to model detailed operating costs. These outputs were then used as the basis for developing a “Business Case” analysis of each scenario. The Business Case analysis is a structured framework that helps analyze and weigh the costs and benefits of the different options. The analysis examines five areas, each of which is presented in detail in the accompanying presentation and is discussed briefly in this memo. Figure 4 – Areas of the Business Case Analysis SERVICE COMPARISION The service comparison section of the business case looks at the key service, and service-related qualities of the different scenarios and compares them on a head to head basis. The accompanying presentation provides a detailed analysis. In general, the quality of service across the options as measured by various metrics improves as the level of train service and investment increase. Conversely, however, the increased service included in the “high growth” scenario requires the construction of extensive 4-track segments in the corridor – complex infrastructure that has the potential to drive significant community impacts. A detailed service comparison is provided in the accompanying presentation and a summary table of key metrics is shown in Figure 5. Figure 5 – Summary of Key Comparative Service Metrics FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Detailed capital cost estimates for each scenario, building incrementally off of the “baseline” investments described previously were developed for the moderate and high growth scenarios. Figure 6 shows the baseline investment described previously, profiled over time, with the incremental additional investment required to achieve the “moderate” or “high” growth scenarios shown as an additional increment. Figure 6 – Total Capital Investment by Scenario All costs have been adjusted to 2018 dollars Figure 7 shows the projected 2040 annual operating and maintenance costs for each of the scenarios (in 2018 dollars). Figure 7 – Total Operating Costs by Scenario Finally, Figure 8 shows the net present value of total operating costs and projected revenues projected over the 2018-2070 period (the lifecycle timeframe of key investments included in each of the scenarios) along with the average fare box recovery rate across that same period. Additional financial analysis and metrics are reported in the accompanying presentation. Figure 8 – Net Present Value of Total Operating Costs and Revenues by Scenario, 2018-2070 CALTRAIN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS The Business Plan team also developed a series of analyses examining the economic impact of the different growth scenarios on Caltrain riders. This analysis considers the various ways that improved Caltrain service could directly benefit riders, monetizes these benefits and compares them to costs. This analysis is done on a marginal basis against the baseline scenario meaning that calculations are based on the incremental costs and benefits of the “moderate” or “high” growth scenarios relative to the baseline. Costs included in the analysis have also been “allocated” meaning that the overall costs of shared investments (eg projects that serve multiple purposes or benefit multiple users beyond just Caltrain) have been proportioned so as to fairly weigh Caltrain “costs” against Caltrain “benefits.” Calculations are performed for the period between 2040 and 2070, when each growth scenario is assumed to be fully operational. Figure 9 shows directly calculated benefits while Figure 10 shows the net present value of monetized benefits weighed against the value of incremental, allocated costs. Figure 9 –Estimated Incremental Economic Benefits to Caltrain Users Relative to Baseline, 2040-2070 Figure 10 – Net Present Value and Benefit / Cost Ratio of Caltrain User Benefits Weighed Against Allocated Costs, 2040-2070 REGIONAL ANALYSIS The Business Plan team also developed analysis and qualitative discussion of a number of “regional” benefits that would result based on different levels of investment in the Caltrain system. These benefits accrue to a general population and not just users of the system. These regional benefits are described in detail in the accompanying presentation and are summarized in Figure 11 below Figure 11 – Summary of Regional Benefits FLEXIBILITY AND UNCERTAINTY Finally, the Business Plan team considered the degree of flexibility and uncertainty inherent in the growth scenarios examined. The detailed service plans developed in each scenario are “illustrative,” not definitive and much work remains both within and beyond the Business Plan process to examine specific service patterns and service levels at individual stations. Additionally, all of the 2040 growth scenarios have been developed in a way that includes and integrates regional projects like High Speed Rail, the Downtown Extension and the rebuilding of Diridon Station. These projects are in various stages of planning and design but all currently lack the funding. There is a great deal of potential uncertainty regarding the timeframe in which they will be delivered and the final form they may ultimately take. Similarly, while larger regional visions for a greatly expanded, integrated rail network are ongoing there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty around how and when these concepts may ultimately manifest. The issues of service flexibility and uncertainty around regional projects are particularly relevant in the context of understanding where overtake infrastructure may be required. The location and extent of required overtake infrastructure is highly sensitive to what service is being accommodated. This especially true in the “High growth” scenario where the large volume of blended train traffic creates a need for long overtakes used by multiple different operators. The “moderate” growth scenario has over take infrastructure needs that are more modest and can be planned for more discretely. Finally, this section of the presentation also discusses a number a series of initial financial sensitivity tests to understand how key business metrics associated with the different growth scenarios may vary in response to changing conditions. SUMMARY AND BASIS FOR RECCOMENDATION Caltrain staff has developed a draft recommendation for the Long Range Service Vision. This recommended Vision is described in detail below, but, as it relates to the options studied, the recommendation is that Caltrain adopt and pursue a Vision compatible with the “moderate” growth scenario while also taking a series of steps to plan for and not preclude the potential realization of the “high growth” scenario. The extensive analysis conducted during the Business Plan process has shown that there a strong demand for expanded Caltrain service and the business case analysis conducted as part of the plan has shown that there is a clear case, based in economic and regional benefits, for pursuing a Vision that goes beyond the baseline levels of service previously contemplated. While the high growth option generates the greatest ridership and expanded regional benefits, it also comes at a higher cost and carries significantly higher levels of uncertainty and potential for community impacts. Therefore, based on the assembled evidence, staff has developed a recommendation that would direct Caltrain to pursue a service vision consistent with the “moderate” scenario while retaining the ability to expand to a level consistent with the “high growth” scenario at such time as demand warrants or the region has made the policy and funding commitments to pursue a larger, integrated rail system. DESCRIBING THE VISION The Long-Range Service Vision for Caltrain provides a world class service that is tailored to the future needs of our local communities, the region and the state. It responds to and integrates the committed and planned investments in the Caltrain corridor to deliver the greatest value to the public and region, while maintaining the flexibility to respond as local and regional needs develop. The Key Features of the Service Vision Include: • Fast and frequent all day (every day) service • Total peak hour frequencies of 8 Caltrain trains per direction • Faster, all day baby bullet service with express service every 15 minutes • Significantly increased off-peak and weekend service levels • User friendly, show up and go service with easy to understand schedules • Increased Capacity • Provides the capacity to triple today’s ridership, serving nearly 180,000 people a day • Adding more than 5 freeway lanes worth of regional capacity • Regional Connectivity • End to end service- connecting Gilroy to downtown San Francisco (all day, both ways) • Comprehensive local service providing coverage to every community • Regular service making transfers and connections easier and more predictable Major Additional Benefits The Vision will bring huge benefits beyond direct improvements to service. Once complete, the Vision will deliver; • 1.3 million hours of travel time savings for existing and new Caltrain riders every year as compared to the baseline scenario • 300 million vehicle miles not traveled every year as compared to the baseline scenario • $40.8 billion in regional economic output created by ongoing capital and operating investments • By 2040 Caltrain service will add between $25 and $37 billion in property value premiums to residential and office properties within 1 mile of stations. (This analysis is conservative and excludes San Francisco as well as commercial, non-office properties for which estimates could not be reliably developed) • The Vision will result in a reduction of nearly 2 million metric tons of CO2 as well as other air quality improvements Ready to Grow with the Region • The Vision has been designed to integrate and add value to the many local, regional and state investments that are being planning in the Caltrain corridor. These include projects like grade separations, major improvements to terminal infrastructure and stations in San Francisco and San Jose, and the integration of the state’s high speed rail system. • The vision also anticipates the ongoing role of Caltrain in a regional rail network that in addition to high speed rail could include a new rail service in the Dumbarton corridor, a second transbay crossing, service to the Monterey peninsula and ongoing improvements to service on Capital Corridor and ACE. • As part of the Business Plan process, staff evaluated how the service and infrastructure contemplated in the recommended Vision could scale up to an even “higher” level of growth that would allow for up to 16 trains per hour per direction and even greater regional integration and further expansion of rail. At this time, there is still a great deal of uncertainty around the future of regional rail and Caltrain does not feel that we can independently recommend moving forward with a maximum growth approach given the high costs and potential for extensive community impacts. • Instead, we are recommending a “do not preclude” approach that would allow for this future growth to proceed once key regional decisions and funding commitments are in place. In practice, this would mean limiting the sale or encumbrance of certain JPB land, accounting for the possibility of more trains when we do terminal and facility planning, and considering the potential need for 4 tracks as certain grade separations are designed. At the same time, Caltrain will actively participate in evolving regional conversations and will help the region and the state evaluate the feasibility and benefits of an expanded and integrated rail network. If the region is truly prepared to move forward with a full regional rail expansion Caltrain will be ready. Capital Costs • Achieving the Vision will also be costly- the total range of all projects contemplated to achieve the Vision from Gilroy to San Jose include up to $25 billion (this includes roughly $2.5 billion of Caltrain investments already paid for and underway). o The significant majority of this cost is driven by projects that are being planned by corridor partners (DTX in San Francisco, grade separations all along the corridor, the potential cost of the Diridon Station project, and HSR improvements- collectively account for more than $16 billion of the total). o The goal of the Vision is to help knit these projects together and to add value to all of them by providing greatly improved Caltrain service. Direct Caltrain investments contemplated (beyond the existing projects already underway) total to roughly $6.5 billion) • New sources of funding will clearly be required to address this level of need- including to even come close to achieving the baseline. The $22 million a year contributed by member agencies to the capital budget is not going to be sufficient to do any of this. Operating Costs • Projected 2040 operating annual costs for the Vision are $373.1 million a year in current dollars (compared to about $135 million in 2018). By way of comparison, achieving a “baseline” level of growth would cost about $265 million a year in 2040 • Financial projections show that the efficiency of the system will remain high- we are projecting an average farebox recovery ratio of 75% (holding today’s fare levels constant with inflation). Nonetheless, the need for subsidy will grow as the size of the system increases. Caltrain may need as much as $90 million a year in operating subsidy (compared to the roughly $36 million in subsidy it receives today- $30 million of which come from local member agencies). As the business plan continues we will be exploring ways to further increase system efficiency and generate additional revenues that would offset the need for direct subsidy. Nonetheless, new funding is clearly needed. Incremental Improvements • The Vision is not one project- it can be implemented incrementally over time with improvements to service and capacity delivered along the way. During the remainder of the Business Plan Caltrain will work to identify key incremental steps that can be delivered in the near- and medium term timeframes. • We don’t need to wait until 2040- the first major improvement in service is coming soon. Electrification, in 2022 is the first step and will mark a substantial step forward towards the realization of this vision with significant service improvements throughout the corridor. CALTRAIN’S LONG RANGE SERVICE VISION – DRAFT LANGUAGE The following is the specific, draft “Service Vision” language that the JPB would be asked to consider for adoption in October. This language will be reviewed and revised based on input from the Board and comments received through stakeholder and public outreach. 1) Caltrain’s Long Range Service Vision directs the railroad to plan for a substantially expanded rail service that will address the local and regional mobility needs of the corridor while supporting local economic development activities. When fully realized, this service will provide; A. A mixture of express and local Caltrain services operated in an evenly spaced, bi- directional pattern B. Minimum peak hour frequencies of; • 8 trains per hour per direction on the JPB-owned corridor between Tamien Station in San Jose and San Francisco, extended to Salesforce Transit Center at such time as the Downtown Extension is completed • 4 trains per hour per direction between Blossom Hill and Tamien Stations, subject to the securing of necessary operating rights • 2 trains per hour per direction between and Gilroy and Blossom Hill Stations, subject to the securing of necessary operating rights C. Off-peak and weekend frequencies of between 2 and 6 trains per hour per direction north of Blossom Hill and hourly between Gilroy and Blossom Hill, with future refinements to be based on realized demand D. Accommodation of California High Speed Rail trains, in accordance with the terms of existing and future blended system agreements between the JPB and the California High Speed Rail Authority E. Delivery of these services will occur through the incremental development of corridor projects and infrastructure to be further defined through individual planning process, feasibility studies and community engagement. At this time, such infrastructure is conceptually understood to include; i. Investments in rail systems including a new, high performance signal system ii. Station modifications including platform lengthening, level boarding, and investments in station access facilities and amenities to support growing ridership and improve customer experience iii. New and modified maintenance and storage facilities in the vicinity of both terminals as well as the expansion of the electrified Caltrain fleet iv. A series of short, 4-track stations and overtakes at various points throughout the corridor v. Completion of key regional and state partner projects including 1. The Downtown Extension to the Salesforce Transit Center 2. The reconstruction of Diridon Station and surrounding rail infrastructure 3. The reconstruction and electrification of the rail corridor south of Control Point Lick to the Gilroy Station 4. Additional improvements to allow for the operation of High Speed Rail service between Gilroy and San Francisco 5. The substantial grade separation of the corridor as well as safety upgrades to any remaining at-grade crossings, undertaken in a coordinated strategic manner driven by the desires of individual local jurisdictions as well as legal requirements associated with any proposed 4-track segments. 2) Caltrain’s Long Range Service Vision further directs the railroad to continue its consideration of a potential “higher” growth level of service in the context of major regional and state rail planning. Specifically, the Long Range Service Vision directs the railroad to; A. Work with regional and state partners to study and evaluate both the feasibility and desirability of higher levels of service in the context of major regional and state rail initiatives including planning related to the Dumbarton Rail Corridor, the 2nd Transbay Crossing, the potential for expanded ACE and Capitol Corridor services, and ongoing planning for the California High Speed Rail system. B. To take certain actions to consider and, where feasible, not preclude such higher levels of service as they specifically relate to; i. The planning of rail terminals and related facilities ii. The sale or permanent encumbrance of JPB land iii. The design of grade separations in areas where 4-track segments may be required iv. The sizing of future maintenance facilities and storage yards C. To return to the board with a recommendation regarding any formal expansion of the Long Range Service Vision at such a time as clear regional and state policy and funding commitments are in place and the feasibility of such an option on the corridor has been confirmed 3) Finally, Caltrain’s Long Range Service Vision directs the railroad to periodically reaffirm the Vision to ensure that it continues to provide relevant and useful guidance to the railroad. Such reaffirmations should occur; A. At a regular intervals of no less than 5 years B. In response to significant changes to JPB or partner projects that materially influence the substance of the Long Range Service Vision City of Palo Alto COLLEAGUES MEMO September 23, 2019 Page 1 of 3 (ID # 10548) DATE: September 23, 2019 TO: City Council Members FROM: Council Member Kou, Council Member DuBois SUBJECT: Colleagues' Memo From Council Members Dubois and Kou Regarding Affordable Housing Plan to Advance Housing Goals That Address Socio-Economic Diversity and Affordability Goal: Palo Alto has a long history of affordable and diverse housing programs including inclusionary housing. We recommend prioritizing actions consistent with previously adopted housing goals to address diversity in housing options. Issue and background: In November 2017, City Council directed Staff to outline the process, priorities and staff resources to study and implement a number of specific proposals outlined in a Colleagues Memo to address housing production, affordability and preservation in Palo Alto. In addition, City Council directed Staff to explore strategies to assist community-based workers such as PAUSD and City Staff to reside in Palo Alto. In 2018 and early 2019, City Council enacted an ordinance making city-wide amendments to the zoning code that grant developers major new incentives and a streamlined approval process to build dense new housing, especially in transit, walkable areas such as Downtown, California Avenue and portions of El Camino Real. While these changes incentivize new market rate housing, there are areas that have not been addressed to produce affordability within the extremely low (0-30% Area Median Income (AMI)), very low (31-50% AMI), and low (51-80% AMI) income limits. Recommendation: We are proposing that we direct staff to address the following affordable housing items and that Council discuss and prioritize these efforts. We have listed them in our proposed priority order: 1.Applying/implementing an inclusionary Below Market Rate (BMR) program for rental units (Palmer Fix) Evaluate and recommend inclusionary percentage in the range of fifteen to twenty five percent of the units in rental residential developments with over 5 units (make same as ownership) must be affordable. Consider specifying income level requirements as well (percentage at each income range) Based on state law, affordable September 23, 2019 Page 2 of 3 (ID # 10548) rental units would remain affordable for at least 55 years; could come in phases if possible to implement Palmer Fix quickly. 2. Increase development impact fees to $64 per square feet for commercial projects; explore leveraging recent nexus studies including Palo Alto’s and Santa Clara County’s study for the Stanford General Use Permit application to contain costs and time for an updated nexus study; 3. Clarify/update our ordinances to ensure that when density bonuses are applied to mixed use projects the bonus is focused on the housing portion to the extent legally permissible. Evaluate and recommend inclusionary percentage in the range of 20-25% of density bonus is applied to the project; 4. Explore feasibility of in-lieu fees or off-site replacement if existing residential units are removed from the housing stock; 5. Explore protections and regulations in low density zoning such as cottage cluster developments and existing duplexes in the R-1, R-2 RMD and commercial districts to preserve “missing middle housing” and preserve transitions between R1 and higher density; and 6. Explore citywide protections and regulations to prevent existing housing to be converted to commercial/hotel use. Staff should bring individual items back to council when ready rather than as a package. Items such as the Palmer Fix and Impact fees should come as soon as possible. Other items should be referred to the Planning and Transportation Committee. Resource Impact: Many of the recommendations included in the Colleagues Memo represents work previously directed by City Council to Staff. Updates to the BMR housing program are currently underway. It is anticipated that a draft consultant report will be presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission in October and draft ordinance by the end of 2019. The City Council would review the ordinance early in 2020. This study explores the feasibility of extending the inclusionary housing program to rental housing projects and possible adjustments to the inclusionary percentage, currently set at 15%. To consider revising the impact fees, Staff would need to engage an economic consultant to update the nexus study previously prepared in late 2015. The recommendation for clarification on the density bonus law and how it is applied to mixed use projects will require legal analysis and ordinance development through the Planning and Transportation Commission. The remaining recommendations address various circumstances to preserve existing housing. The recommendation to propose an in-lieu fee or require off-site construction for displaced housing units is similar to direction to staff received to explore implementing a ‘no-net-loss’ September 23, 2019 Page 3 of 3 (ID # 10548) housing policy. Staff is only in the very beginning stages of this work effort, which will also require planning and legal coordination. This policy analysis is anticipated to extend into 2020. Protections for low density zoning is similar to a Housing Work Plan item seeking to develop protections for cottages and duplexes in the R1 and R2 districts and mixed use zones. This policy analysis is related to work already completed establishing a minimum unit density in multi-family zones and touches on recent legislation being considered by the state to permit fourplexes in single family residential zones. Further effort on this task, however, is not currently resourced. Establishing regulations to prevent housing units from converting to commercial or hotel uses requires some study, including legal analysis, and would likely require some form of waiver process where required to comply with state or federal law. Advancing either of these items now may delay other policy initiatives currently underway or planned. City Council discussion on these recommendations would provide staff clearer direction on its interests, priorities and expected outcomes. City of Palo Alto (ID # 10653) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 9/23/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Cybersecurity Awareness Month Proclamation Title: Proclamation Honoring Cybersecurity Awareness Month From: City Manager Lead Department: IT Department Attachments: • Attachment A: Proclamation Honoring Cybersecurity Awareness Month Proclamation Cybersecurity Awareness Month – October 2019 WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto recognizes it plays a vital role in identifying, protecting and responding to cyber threats that may have a significant impact on security and privacy; and WHEREAS, critical infrastructure sectors are increasingly reliant on information systems to support financial services, energy, telecommunications, utilities, health care and emergency response systems; and WHEREAS, the “Stop.Think.Connect.™” Campaign is designated as the National Public Awareness Campaign implemented through a coalition of private companies, nonprofit and government organizations and academic institutions, aimed at increasing the understanding of cyber threats and empowering the American public to be safer and more secure online; and WHEREAS, in support of the Cybersecurity Framework, and to better assist businesses and government entities in addressing cyber threats, the Center for Internet Security/Multi-State ISAC, the Council on Cybersecurity, the Governors’ Homeland Security Advisors Council and public and private sector entities have developed a campaign to promote good cyber hygiene through actionable guidance for government and businesses, and to promote innovation, strengthen cybersecurity investment and enhance resilience across all sectors; and WHEREAS, maintaining the security of cyberspace is a shared responsibility in which each of us has a critical role to play by being aware of computer security essentials that will improve the security of the City of Palo Alto’s information infrastructure and the economy; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the National Cybersecurity Alliance have declared October as National Cybersecurity Awareness Month, where all citizens are encouraged to visit the “Stop.Think.Connect.” Campaign website (https://www.dhs.gov/stopthinkconnect) and put that knowledge into practice in their homes, schools, workplaces, and businesses. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Eric Filseth, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council do hereby proclaim that the City of Palo Alto officially supports National Cybersecurity Awareness Month and the National Public Awareness Campaign “Stop.Think.Connect.™” Presented: September 23, 2019 _____________________________ Eric Filseth Mayor