HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-11-02 City Council (10)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
5
DATE:NOVEMBER 2, 1998 CMR:404:98
SUBJECT:APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO. TWO TO THE SEWER
CONSTRUCTION AND SERVICE CONTRACT NO. C869 BETWEEN
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND STANFORD UNIVERSITY TO
DEFINE STANFORD’S OBLIGATIONS WITH REGARDS TO
REIMBURSING PALO ALTO FOR COSTS OF INCINERATOR
REHABILITATION AND INCREASE THE ANNUAL ONGOING
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET CAP
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the Mayor to execute Amendmem
No. 2 to the Sewer Construction and Service Contract between the City of Palo Alto and the
Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Urfiversity (Stanford). Amendment No. 2 defines
Stanford’s obligations to reimburse Palo Alto for the future costs of debt service for bond
financing of the incinerator rehabilitation projecL and increases the annual budget cap for
ongoing capital improvements at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP).
BACKGROUND
On February 23, 1998,Council approved a project to rehabilitate the incinerators at the
RWQCP (CMR:141:98). The financial responsibility will be shared by the RWQCP
Partners - the cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos. On March 16, 1998,
Council approved the amendment to the Partners’ Agreement that defines each partner’s
obligations for bond financing the incinerator rehabilitation project, and increased the annual
budget cap for ongoing capital improvements at the RWQCP (CMR: 165:98).
DISCUSSION
Palo Alto’s share includes the obligationsof three subpartners - East Palo Alto, Stanford
University, and Los Altos Hills. Palo Alto has a separate contract with each of the
subparmers. Palo Alto’s contract with Stanford was originally written in 1956, and has been
amended once. Changes to Stanford’s contract are needed for Palo Alto to recover
Stanford’s share of the City’s obligations in the approved Amendment to the Partners’
Agreement. The obligations of East Palo Alto and Los Altos Hills will be addressed in
separate forthcoming staff reports..
CMR:404:98 Page 1 of 2
The proposed amendment will defme Stanford’s obligations to reimburse Palo Alto for the
debt service to pay for the incinerator rehabilitation project, and increase the annual budget
cap for ongoing capital improvements, consistent with the commitments Palo Alto made with
the plant Partners.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funds for the incinerator rehabilitation project will be debt financed.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The recommendation of this. staff report is consistent with the City policies.
TIMELINE
Issuance of bond is anticipated in August 1999.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A Amendment No. 2 to the Sewer Construction and Service Contract between
the City of Palo Alto and the Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University
Attachment B CMR: 141:98
Attachment C CMR:165:98
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
Bill Miks, Manager RWQCP
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CMR:404:98 Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENT A
AMENDMENT NO. TWO TO CONTRACT NO. C869
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES. OF ~THE
LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY
This Amendment No. Two to Contract No. C869 ("Contract")
is entered into -, by and between the CITY OF PALO
.ALTO, a chartered city and a municipal corporation of the State of
California (~City"), and THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND
STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVEKSITY, a body having corporate powers under
the laws of the State of California ("Stanford).
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the parties entered into a Sewer Construction
and Service Agreement (~Contract") on November 30, 1956 and an
addendum thereto on June 9, 1971; and
WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Contract;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms,
conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree:
~. The following ~paragraphs shall be added to
the Agreement to read as follows:
~P.~. !~ipl_ ementation of the Solids FaCilitz
P__~.. The City and Stanford shall approve, in writing, a two-phase
project to rehabilitate the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality
Control Plant incinerators, promptly, upon the execution of this
Amendment No. Two, and to add a dryer for peak loads in
approximately ten (I0) years from the date of execution of this
Amendment No. Two in accordance with the provisions of a three-
volume, spiral-bound Palo Alto~Regional Water Quality Control Plant
Solids Facility Plan, dated May 1997, including-Appendix A and
Appendix B, prepared by CH2M Hill, Inc., consulting engineers,
which is incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof.
Each party shall use best efforts to secure sufficient funding to
pay for its proportionate ~share of work to rehabilitate the
incinerator in a timely manner, and shall defer, temporarily,
separate efforts to secure adequate funding to pay for work to
.rehabilitate the dryer. Each party shall-pay for the cost of
rehabilitating the incinerator in an amount equal to its
proportional share of capacity in the Joint System or portion
thereof, as more fully described in Exhibit ~H", attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference. If Stanford will pay for its
share of the costs of the rehabilitation of the incinerator through
its voluntary participation in the City’s issuance of debt
securities, if any, to finance .the work, then Stanford shall pay to
the City for its share of the City’s debt service in an amount
equal to its proportional share of~capacity in the Joint System."i~~
980810 ayn 0071474
"ParaGraph 22. Capital additions for the replacement of
obsolete or worn-out units, or minor capital additions to improve
the efficiency of the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control
Plant operations, shall not exceed the amount specified for the
base year adjusted, annually, in accordance with the Consumer Price
Index [Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers] (base year 1982-
1984 = i00) for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose CSMA (~CPI"),
published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics ("Index"), most immediately preceding the twelve-month
period beginning in the month of July of each following fiscal year
("Extension Index"), and which shall be compared with the Index
published most immediately preceding the twelve-month period
beginning the July of each preceding fiscal year (~Beginning
Index"). The capital addition amount for the base year is set at
one million nine hundred thousand dollars ($1,900,000.00)."
SECTION 2. Except as herein modified, the Contract and
the addendum thereto shall remain unchanged and in full force and
effect, and they are hereby-ratified and confirmed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly
authorized representatives executed this Amendment No. Two on the
date first above written.
ATTEST CITY OF PAJ~OALTO
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney.
APPROVED:
Assistant City Manager
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR
UNIVERSITY
Name : ~//~.,/~,s,-~,-~/
Title : ."q~’P ,~,~ F,~," "
TaxpayerNo.
Director of Public Works
Director of Administrative
Services
By:
Name:
Title:
Risk Manager
980810 syn 0071474
2
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
(Civil Code ~ 1189)
On~/--//~, 1998, before me, _~,[~ /0 /~/Z~ ;
a Notary .Public ~n and for said County and State, personally
appeared C~V~" ~ 4 ~ ,’J-/-, ~/".,~ ~ ,-~,
personally ~o~ to me or~roved t- -. ~. ~’ ~~o~
evidence to be the person~whose n~e(~ isle s~scribed to the
within inst~ent and ac~owledged to me that h=/o~=,,_~, ....,~= executed
the s~e in-~=,=~,~=/~-/+~q~_~ authorized capacity~), and that by
his~ir signature ~) on the inst~ent the person(s), or the
entity upon behalf of which the person(~) acted, executed the
inst~ent.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Comm #1046159ARY PURLIC CALIFORNIA~I8AN MATEO COUNTYComm E~p~ros D,~C. 12, 1998 ’S~gn~ture of Notar~ ~ublic
980810 syn 0071474
EXHIBIT H
Capacity Rights
and
’Estimated Solids Facility Plan Cash flow Projections
User Agency
Palo Alto
EPASD
Stanford
LAH
Mountain View
Los Altos
TOTALS
MGD*
15.30
3.06
2.11
_0.63
21.1
15.1
3.8
40.0
Capacity
38.2
7.65
5.27
1.57
52.6
37.9
9.5
I 00.0
Estimated Construction and Engineering.
Fee Allocations by Fiscal Year
1998/1999
$ 267,400
$ 53,550
$ 36,890
$ 10,990
$ 368,200
$ .265,300
$ 66,500
700,000
1999/2000
$ 764,000
$. 153,000
$ 105,400
$ 31,400
$ 1,052,000
$ 758,000.
$ 190,000
$ 2,000,000
2000/2001
$ 1,337,000
$ 267,750
$ 184,450
$ 54,950
$ 1,841,000
$ 1,326,500
$ 332,500
$ 3,500,000
* Capacity expressed in A .nnual Average Flow, Million Gallons per Day
ATTACHMENT B
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FEBRUARY 23, 1998 CMR: 141:98
ADOPTION OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION - REGIONAL
WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT, AND APPROVAL OF THE
SOLIDS FACILITY PLAN’S RECOMMENDATION TO
REHABILITATE THE INCINERATORS
REPORT IN BRIEF
The Solids Facility Plan evaluates options and recommends a plan to manage the solid
residue at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). The RWQCP currently uses
two incinerators to bum and reduce the sludge to a manageable amount of ash product for
beneficial reuse. After 26 years of continuous operation, the incinerators have deteriorated
significantly prompting the preparation of the Plan. The Plan examines the environmental,
economic, and operational impact of sludge treatment options and recommends rehabilitation
of the two incinerators immediately, with the addition of a sludge dryer in the future, if
needed.
Certain environmental advocacy groups have serious reservations about the continuation of
sewage sludge incineration. However, following extensive discussions with such groups and
further data-gathering, staff was unable to conclude that other options are environmentally
better..
Staff believes the RWQCP should continue to analyze future options, reevaluate and adopt
a set of long range goals that are responsive to the communities and in context with future
regulations. Major changes in plant design and policy should not be made until long range
goals are complete.
CMR: 141:98 Page 1 of-~
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staffrecommends that Council:
o
Approve the recommendations of the Solids Facility Plan to rehabilitate the sewage
¯ sludge incinerators at the RWQCP immediately, and add a thermal dryer when peak
loading capacity is required, or if pilot testing of a sludge dryer is desired.
Adopt the negative declaration for the recommended project to rehabilitate the
¯ incinerators at the RWQCP immediately, and add a thermal dryer, if needed.
°Direct staff to forward the amendments to the Partners’ Agreements to Partner
agencies for approval.
Direct staff to develop policies .for reducing environmental releases of mercury,
dioxins, polychlorinated biphenols.
4
Direct staff to establish a process for developing long term goals for the RWQCP, and
thenreturn to Council for approval of the process.
BACKGROUND
The RWQCP is required to continuously process all incoming sewage. It currently operates
two incinerators to treat the solid residue (sludge) of the sewage. The sludge is burned and
reduced to a manageable amount of ash suitable for beneficial reuse. The sludge, before
burning, is unsuitable for disposal in landfills. The incinerators are the RWQCP’s only
means to treat and prepare the sludge for proper disposal. The reliability and redundancy of
these incinerators are extremely important to the RWQCP. Concerns with the incinerators
were discussed in earlier staffreports, (CMR:278:96 and CMR:236:97), and are summarized
below.
The first concern is reliability: The incinerators were constructed in 1971 and have become
more and more difficult to keep in operating condition. Large cracks have developed in the
half-inch steel shell, and the chances of both incinerators being down at the same time have
increased to a point of very serious concern. Given the 24ohour per day, 365 day per year
nature of the operation, inability to operate the incinerators would present immediate
emergency conditions and, within 24 hours, human health concerns.
The second concern is redundancy: The wastewater flow going into the RWQCP varies daily
and seasonally. While the two existing incinerators are permitted to operate concurrently to
meet varying flow requirements, this operating mode does not"allow for emergencies or
repairs. Currently, one of the incinerators is so fi’equently under repair that a back-up almost
never exists. The RWQCP is required to provide reliable, uninterrupted service.
CMR: 141:98 Page 2 of 8
The third concern is pollutant releases: TheRWQCP incinerators are in compliance with
current regulations. However, the existing emission control devices on the incinerators are
outdated and therefore, maximum reduction of pollutants cannot be achieved. The solids
treatment and disposal options are currently heavily regulated, and future regulations are
uncertain. The issues associated with the pollutant releases to air, land, and water from
sludge treatment and disposal continue to be a concern with the public and regulatory
agencies.
These concems prompted the preparation of the Solids Facility Plan(Plan). The Plan
examines the current and future potential regulations, and evaluates the environmental and
economic impact of several options.
DISCUSSION
RWQCP staff and staff from Partner agencies worked as technical advisors in preparing the
Plan. The Plan was developed through two studies, which have been under way since 1994.
The first study evaluated the feasibility of the full realm of technologies for handling the
sludge, and reduced down the number of feasible options. The recommendation of the
feasibility study formed the basis of the second study, the Plan. Two technologies are
considered feasible options besides incineration: sludge digestion and sludge drying. Sludge
digestion is the anaerobic breakdown of sludge in large holding tanks over long periods. The
end product is digested sludge, commonly called biosolids. Sludge drying uses low heat to
evaporate the water out of the sludge without burning the organics. The residue from the
dryer is in the form of pellets. The residue from both processes are typically used on
agricultural land as soil supplement.
Virtually all sewage treatment plants the size of the RWQCP use incineration, digestion, or
drying. In the West, almost all plants use digestion, with land application of the digested
sludge. The RWQCP chose incineration 27 years ago because incineration takes less land
and produces less odor and ~’esidue. Recent studies demonstrate that another advantage of
incineration is that pathogens, and most organic pollutants in the sludge such as
polychlodnated biphenols (PCBs) and organochlorine pesticides (e.g. DDT), are destroyed
in the incinerators. Thus, when the ash from the incinerators is applied to land, it contains
less pollutants than the residue from digestion or drying.
It is difficult to compare the environmental effects of the three options. Staffwas unable to
conclude that one technology is "better" for the environment than another. All options have
certain negative environmental impacts. Each releases, different pollutants to different media
- air, land or water. Incineration produces air pollutants, consumes energy, and does not
preserve the organic material for sludge reuse. Digestion does not destroy organic pollutants,
or dioxin. Dryers cbnsume even more energy and apparently .have never been tested for
dioxin air emissions. The inability to draw conclusions is also due to the difficulty of
comparing different types of environmental releases. The pathways for the final impact
CMR:141:98 -Page 3 of~
resulting from initial pollutant releases are numerous and difficult to trace. All three options
can meet all current environmental, health and safety requirements Therefore, staff focussed
on the following criteria in comparing the options:
Cost
Land use
Visual impact
Potential odor
The table below is the comparison of the three options:
Options
Incinerator Rehab.
Plus Dryer
Total Cost
$11.4 million
Footprint
800 sf> existing
Visual Impact
Low
Odor.
Low
Digesters $29.7 million 45,000 sf> existing High High
$17.2 million Low1500 sf > existingDryers Medium
The incinerator rehabilitation, plus dryer option, will meet the current and the known future
regulations; it is the lowest cost, has the smallestfootprint, least visual impact, and least
odor. Staff, therefore, recommends the project to rehabilitate the incinerators immediately,
and to add the dryer if needed. The project will include three major elements:
1.Repair the existing incinerators to ensure safe and reliable operation.
Relocate the emission control device to outside of the’ incinerator to allow full
utilization of the entire incinerator for combustion. The improved efficiency will
enable a single incinerator to take care of the varying flow most of the time, leaving
one incinerator as a reliable standby. A dryer may be installed, if the City decides to
pilot test the dryer, or when it is needed to help treat the solids.
Replace the existing emission control devices with new state-of-the-art devices to
improve the emission.
The Partners’ staff support City staff’s recommendation and have agreed to participate in a
joint financial plan entailing debt financing: City staffis presently working with the Partners
on the amendment to finance the project. Palo Alto would issue the debt, and Partner
agencies would pay Palo Alto in accordance with the amendment to the Partners’
CMR: 141:98 Page 4 of"-----~
agreements, which is consistent with past capital financing. The draft, amendment was
prepared jointly by Palo Alto’s City Attorney’s office and outside counsel at Jones, Hall, Hill
& White. It incorporates comments from the City’s financial advisor, Stone & Youngberg.
The amendment will be presented to the Council in March 1998.
Many environmental advocacy groups (EAGs) raised the concern that a non-incineration
option may be better for the environment (CMR:356:97). In response to their concerns,
additional data was collected and a Response Study was prepared. Many of the EAGs made
the point that, if the sludge were made substantially cleaner by keeping pollutants out of the
wastewater, non-incineration technologies (principally sludge digestion or sludge drying)
would be better for the environment. The non-incineration option uses less energy, produces
less air emission, and would allow reuse of the organic matter as a soil supplement without
the Current negative side-effect of putting pollutants on the soil as well, if the wastewater is
"cleaner."
While this logic is sound, it depends upon making the sludge cleaner through source control.
Staff investigated the potential for source control of key pollutants (dioxins, mercury,
organochlorine pesticides, polychlorinated biphenols - PCB ) and found that there was no.
reason to assume that .major reductions would occur quickly. Action items for
implementation by Palo Alto were developed, but it is not anticipated that those reductions
will be greater than approximately 20 percent. Thus, non-incineration optiong will continue
to have the draw-back of placing the pollutants on the soil.
For this and other reasons described in the Response Study, staff’s recommendation has not
been changed. Given currently available data, the current pollutant levels in sludge, and the
current ability to evaluate impact on the environment, staff believes this recommendation to
be the appropriate one. However, .it is not at all certain that incineration should be the long
term technology of choice for the RWQCP. Air emissions, high energy use, and failure to
reuse organic matter are features of incineration that raise significant concerns about its long
term use. Therefore, staffis also recommending the development of long term goals to guide
future design work at the RWQCP. Staff is also recommending the development of specific
policies to achieve reductions of releases of mercury, dioxins, and organochlorine pesticides
to the environment. These policies will also assist staff in the long term planning that must
be accomplished for the RWQCP:
ALTERNATIVES TO STA I
If Council does not adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the recommendations, the
RWQCP would continue to attempt to keep the incinerators in operation. Downtime, repair
costs, and safety issues.would continue to escalate. Should an ineineratorfail, the RWQCP
is required by law to repair the incinerator immediately. At that time, the cost of the repair
would almost certainly be. higher than the planned repair, and any work to improve the air
emissions would most likely not be implemented because of the urgency of the situation.
CMR: 141:98 Page 5. of 8
With respect to the alternatives to incineration, both digestion and drying options would
have a significant affect on the environment, odor control, and visual impact. Without full
environmental review by the public, these options cannot be considered as an alternate
project. Therefore, staff would be required to restar~ data gathering, conceptual design and
environmental review. It would be several years before staff could return to Council with
an alternative digestion or drying option.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The capital project is estimated to cost approximately $6.2 million for the rehabilitation of
the incinerators, and $5.2 million for the dryer (in1998 dollars). The attached cash flow
analysis (Attachment B) shows the Partners’ share of a twenty-year bond funding for the
project.
If the rehabilitation is constructed in 1999 it is estimated that the sewer rate impact to the
Palo Alto rate payers will be an increase of less than three percent.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The recommended project is consistent with City policies. The recommendation to establish
a process for determining long term goals will lead to the adoption of new policies.
If approved, the.rehabilitation of the incinerators will proceed immediately at the following
schedule:
Final design .starts
Permitting
Debt financing
Bid
Construction starts
Bond Sale
May 1998
February 1999
May 1999
May 1999
August 1999
Fall 1999
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An environmental check list was prepared for the recommended project (Project). Compared
to the existing incinerators, the check list showed that the Project has no major increase in
impact. The Project will result in better emissions compared to the existing facility. There
will be some temporary impact due to construction activities that will be mitigated. A
Negative Declaration (N.D.) has, therefore, been prepared for the Project.
The N.D. (Attachment A) was distributed and notice was given to the public for review and
comments. The review period started on January 16, 1998 and ended on February 14, 1998.
Staff received some questions related to the details of the design and repair. A pre-design
was performed on the Project prior to the preparation of the N.D. Final design will be
CMK: i 41:98 Page 6 of~
performed upon Council approval of the Project. The final design will include all the details
for the repair and the construction.
A letter was received from the League of Women Voters of Pale Alto. The letter stated that
the incinerator rehabilitation project is probably the appropriate solution at the present time,
and urged the RWQCP to continue to evaluate other options and work on the long range
plan. A copy of the letter is attached (Attachment C). A second letter (Attachment D) was
received from Bay Area Action with the following five suggestions:
1.Develop dioxin reduction policy for the City of Pale Alto, and request neighboring cities
to do the same.
2.Build a solids thermal dryer to pilot test a non-dioxin creating alternative to handling
sewage sludge.
3. Explore alternatives to safely dispose of sludge or ash which contains dioxins.
4.Educate other public agencies and the public about dioxins and .provide information on
how to reduce them.
5. Continue to monitor the influent and effluent from the RWQCP for dioxins.
Staff believes that these suggestions can be addressed in the long-term goals and policy
development process described in gtaffreeommendations 4 and 5.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Initial Study/Negative Declaration
B - 20 year cash flow analysis
C - Letter from the League of Women Voters of Pale Alto.
D - Letter from Bay Area Action
E - November informational booklet
Response Study - A copy is available for review at the Public Works Engineering, 6th floor
counter
PREPARED BY: Bill Miks, Manager Regional Water Quality Control Plant
Phil Bobel, Manager Environmental Complianee Division
CMR:!41:98 -" Page 7 of~---------’~
REVIEWED BY:
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
CITY MANAGER APPRoVAL:_~~~_
~i~ M~ager
CMR: 141:98
Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENT A
Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND)
Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant Solids Facility Plan
City of Palo Alto
o
Project Title: Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (PARWQCP) Solids
Facility Plan
Lead Agency Name and Address:City of Palo Alto,
Public Works Department
Regional Water Quality Control Plant
2501 Embarcadero Way
Paio Alto, California 94303
Contact Person and Phone Number: Daisy Stark, PARWQCP Engineer,
650-329-2598
o Project Location: 2501 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, California
Application Number(s): Not Applicable
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: City of Palo Alto, PuNic Works Department,
Regional Water Quality Control Plant, 2501 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, California,
94303
7.General Plan Designation: Major Institution/Special Facilities ’
8.Zoning: Public Facilities with Site Design overlay (PF(D))
9.Desc.ription of Project:
PARWQCP Background
The Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (PARWQCP) provides advanced
wastewater treatment for Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Stanford University, Los
Altos Hills, and much of East Palo Alto (Figure 1). The Project is located atthe PARWQCP
in the City of Palo Alto at the east end of Embarcadero Way, east of Highway 101 (Figure 2).
The PARWQCP separates the solid substances from the incoming wastewater (influent)
EAST PALO ALTO
SANITARY DIST.
To San Francisco
WATER QUALITY
CONTROL PLANT
San Francisco Bay
Not To Scale
PALO
ALTO
oooo
~o ~n Jose
PALO ALTO
Figure 1
Service Area
Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
(see Figure 3). The liquid and solid portions are then treated. The treated wastewater is
discharged via an outfall to the San Francisco Bay. The solid substance removed from the
wastewater is called sewage sludge and is treated in the solids facility of the PARWQCP.The
solids facility includes gravity thickeners and belt presses which remove more of the water
from the sludge, two existing incinerators which burn the sludge to an ash product, and an
ash storage silo and bagging system. The ash product is trucked to the Central Valley and
applied to agricultural lands as a soil amendment.
Figure 3
Sirnplified PARWQCP Schematic
PARWQCP
Wastewater
Wastewater
Treatment
Processes
Solids
Incineration
Treated San Francisco
Wastewater Bay
Ash ~. Farmland
A more detailed discussion of the incineration process and the need for the Project is
provided in the following sections of this IS/ND.
4
The Incineration Process and the Need for Project
The Incineration Process
Figure ,4 shows the location of the incineration building at the PARWQCP. The incineration
process, depicted graphically in Figure 5, consists of two multiple-hearth incinerators, each
with two air pollution control device~ to minimize emissions into the atmosphere. The two
incinerators each consist of six hearths (separate chambers) in a vertical column where
natural gas can be used in varying amounts to ignite the residual solids. Currently, the top
hearth in each incinerator is used as an afterburner to bum organic molecules .in the stack gas
and prevent their, release into the environment. In addition, each .incinerator has a wet
scrubber that removes pollutants from the incinerator stack gases.
Need for the Proiect
The PARWQCP incinerators, which have been in service since 1971, have become more and
more difficult to maintain in recent years and require frequent, costly repairs. Equipment
downtime has increased dramatically because of the frequent repairs. The chance of both
inci.nerators being out of service at the same time has increased to the point, of causing
concerns about safe operations of the plant. The wastewater treatment plant must be hble to
continuously process all incoming sewage. Given the 24-hour-per-day, 365-day-per-year
nature of the. operati6n, the inability to operate the incinerators would present immediate
emergency conditions and, within 24 hours, human.health concerns.
Project Goals
The proposed Project involves improvements to the solids facility., and is designed to meet
the following goals:
Repair the two existing incinerators to ensure a safe operating environment.
Improve the efficiency of the incinerators so that only one incinerator needs to operate
at a time, leaving one incinerator as a firm,.reliable standby.
Upgrade the. air pollution control devices to improve the emissions of the incinerators.
5
<o
Figure 5
Current Incinerator Process
Residual
Solids ~
Incinerator
j Atmosphere
Afterburner
Cooling Hearth
Ash
Farmland
Residual
Solids ~
Air Scrubber
Afterburner
Cooling Hearth
Burning
Hearths
Incinerator
The first goal of the proposed Project is to make repairs to the two incinerators that will
eliminate the frequent and costly short’term repairs, greatly reduce .equipment downtime,
and insure a safe operating environment for plant personnel. This will include repair of cracks
that have developed in the half-inch steel shell of the incinerators.
The second goal of the proposed Project is to provide redundancy in the incineration process,
allowing one of the incinerators to be held in reserve as a back up to deal with emergency
situations. The wastewater flow going into the PARWQCP varies daily and seasonally.
While the two existing incinerators are permitted to operate concurrently to meet the varying
7
flow requirements, this operating mode does not allow for emergencies or repairs. Currently,
one of the incinerators is under such frequent .repair that a back-up incinerator almost never
exists and urgent conditions are the norm.
To relieve these urgent .conditions, two Project components are proposed~ The first
component, a mac (separate) afterburner, will be constructed to allow the top hearth to be
used to bum the solids. This will increase the throughput (the amount of solids that can be
handled by one incinerator) and will also reduce the need to run both incinerators
simultaneously. The second component, a solids thermal dryer, will be added if the City
decides to pilot test the dryer or when it is needed to help treat the solids from anticipated
population growth in the PARWQCP service area. The dryer will further reduce the water
content of some of the solids before feeding the solids to the incinerators. The drier solids are
much easier for the incinerator to handle and further decrease the likelihood that both
incinerators would have to be operated simultaneously.
The third goal of the proposed Project is to upgrade the solids facility’s air pollution conu’ol
equipment. This goal will be met with two Project components for each incinerator. First, the
new afterburners, which will help to meet the second goal, will be more efficient than the
current afterburner and will operate at a higher temperature to completely oxidize .the
organics in the stack gas. Second,, new two-stage wet scrubbers will be installed that capture
substantially more gases and particulate matter than the current scrubbers. Figure 6 shows the
improved incineration-system upon completion ofthe Project.
Impact of the Proposed Proiect on PARWQCP Treatment Capacity
The proposed project will not increase the-PARWQCP’s treatment capacity. The incineration
system is a component of the PARWQCP, and a modification to the incineration system
would only cause an increase in the PA!~WQCP capacity if it were currently the only limiting
e0mponent of the plant. The average dry weather flow to the PARWQCP in 1996 was 24
million gallons per day (MGD) from the PARWQCP’s service area of approximate 220,000
Figure 6
Proposed IncineraObn System
Residual
Sol
Incinerator
Atmosphere
2-Stage Scrubber
A.fterbumer
Stack Gas Stack Gas
Cooling Hearth
Residual
Solids ~
Cooling Hearth
Ash
%
%
Burning
Hearths
Farmland
Incinerator
people. The wastewater treatment processe~ (as distinguished from the incineration system
shown in Figure 3) have a design capacity of 38 MGD average dry weather flow, which
could serve a population of approximately 350,000.
By contrast, the incineration system has a current approved maximum capacity of 60 dry tons
per day (DT/D) (30 DT/D per incinerator), with a 1996 usage of approximately 17 DT/D to
serve 220,000 people. The proposed Project will increase the peak capacity of one incinerator
to 32 DT/D. While it could be argued that the capacity of incinerator system would then be
64 DT/D (32 X 2 incinerators), this is not the case for two reasons. First, only one incinerator
would be operated at a time. The purpose of the project components is to insure a back-up
incinerator is ready at all times. Second, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) Permit to Operate for the PARWQCP limits maximum throughput to 60 DT/D.
No modification to that permit is being sought. Therefore, the incinerator system capacity
would remain at 60 DT/D. This system could serve a population as great as approximately
410,000.
The incinerator capacity can support a larger additional population than the available capacity
in the wastewater treatment processes. The incineration system could serve a population as
great as approximately 410,000, while the wastewater treatment process could only serve a
population of approximately 350,000 (see Table I). Therefore, it is the wastewater treatment
Table 1
Current Throughput and Maximum Capaci~,
Wastewater Treatment
Processes
Incineration System
1996 VALUES
Throughput
Average
24 MGD
17 DTD
*Average
Population
220,000
220,000
CURRENT MAXIMUM
CAPACITY
Throughput
Capacity
38 MGD*
60 DTD**
Approximate
Population
350,000
410,000
"60 DTD = Maximum Peak Daily Capacity. Average capacity associated
with this peak capacity used to determine P~opulation Equivalency ~
l0
processes, not the incineration system, that limit the PARWQCP’s capacity. The proposed
Project does not increase the capacity of the PARWQCP. A major capital improvement
project for the wastewater treatment processes and regulatory agency approval would both be
required to increase the capacity of the wastewater.treatment processes and thus increase the
capacity of the PARWQCP. Such a project is unlikely within the next several decades
because the current PARWQCP capacity exceeds current demand by almost 100%, while the
anticipated growth in the service area during the 20-year life of the proposed Project is less
than 10%.
Project Approach
Following are additional details on the proposed Project components.
R.epair of Existing Incinerators
The two incinerators are 18.75 foot diameter, 6-hearth furnaces. The interior of each
incinerator is lined with refractories of firebrick and insulation material, Dewatered solids are
introduced into the furnace for combustion. An ash handling system conveys the ash to a
storage silo. The repair of the incinerators, all taking place within the existing building, will
consist of the .following measures:
Identify hot spots on the steel shell and flaws in the refractory and insulation
Add steel plate patches on the shell
Replace hearths (including flattened hearth) as needed
Repair~t incinerator steel shells
Replace fans and dueting to the stack, incinerator control systems, and furnace draft
control system
Add new sludge feed conveyor
11
Modification of Incineration System
The modification will .increase the efficiency of the existing incinerators and improve air
emissions. It will consist of the following:
Construction of a new structure (possible location shown .on Figure 4) immediately
adjacent to the existing building to house the new air pollution control equipment,
including an external afterburner, Venturi-Pak scrubber, and exhaust ducting. The new
structure will be an 800 square foot addition to the existing 5,300 square foot incinerator
building. It-will be about the same height as the existing building (46 feet), and will be
sheltered from the street and the public by other treatment plant structures and trees
surrounding the plant. The new air pollution control equipment .will provide significant
reductions in emissions compared to current emissions.
Operational changes to use the top hearth as a burning hearth.
Installation of an equalization storage tank. The quantity of dewatered sludg~ to be
incinerated will vary hourly. The ability to temporarily store, or equalize, these variations
will enhance operating results, particularly at peak conditions. A new equalization storage
tank will be constructed adjacent to the south side of the incinerator building as shown on
Figure-4. It will consist of a-steel storage tank with a closed top and mixers. Itwill be 25
feet in diameter and 30 feet tall, providing 100,000 gallons of storage. It will be sized for
the projected average annual day’s sludge production of 18.5 DT/D. The tank will be
vented to the incinerator inlet combustion air to make use of the incinerators’ new air
pollution control equipment. The height of the .tank is lower than the existing incinerator
building and the surrounding structures. It will not be visible from the street or by the
public.
Addition of a Thermal .Dryer
A small thermal dryer unit would be added if the City decides to pilot test the dryer or when a
single incinerator is unable to meet peak loads during the project life (through 2020). The
purpose of the thermal dryer is to increase the dryness of sludge beyond that which can be
12
achieved with the existing beltpress dewatedng. Available incinerator capacity is greater with
drier solids. The sludge dried by the thermal dryer during peak periods would be added to the
remaining dewatered sludge before incineration. The thermal dryer is expected to be operated
only sporadically during peak loading conditions, for a total of about 4 weeks during the
year. This will typically occur during the wet weather months in the winter after periods of
particularly heavy storms.
Thermal drying involves removal of moisture from the solids to a heated air stream. There
are certain issues associated with drying that can be successfully addressed with proper
design and operational procedures. The product from the dryers is organic and very dry,
which can cause dust. Since organic dust can be a source of explosions, thereby creating a
potential safety problem, the system will be designed and constructed with dust handling
systems that bring the level of dust down below the hazardous level and that meet all
applicable safety requirements.
Also, the dried’ sludge product is initially hot. If it is placed directly into a storage hopper,
there is a potential for heat buildup, which may eventually cause the pellets to catch fire.Two
measures will be included to reduce the fire hazard. First, the pellets will be cooled before
being placed in storage to reduce the fire hazard. Second, nitrogen padding of the storage
hopper air space can also be implemented as a means to reduce the fire hazard.
The proposed thermal dryer uses indirect drying, in which fuel is eombusted in a boiler to
produce steam or in a thermal oil heater to heat oil. The steam or heated oil is passed through
an indirect dryer, where hollow metal disks or paddles are heated from the inside and conduct
heat to the solids on the. outside of the paddles.
The thermal drying facility can be located inside or outside the existing sludge incinerator
building. A site just north of and adjacent to the existing incinerator bullding, as shown in
Figure 4, has been identified for an outside location. Conveyors will be installed to transport
13
the dewatered solids to the thermal drying system from the belt presses and to return the dried
solids to the incinerator. Also, for odor control, the foul air created during the thermal drying
process will be discharged to the incinerator inlet air stream as part of the inlet combustion
air. This air eventually flows to the incinerator air emissions control system and helps in fuel
savings in incinerator operations since it is heated. The dryer unit includes abatement
equipment for the boiler, which bums natural gas to heat the dryer. If the outdoor location is
selected, the facility will be lower in height than the existing incinerator building and other
surrounding structures. It will be sheltered from the street and the public by other treatment
plant structures and trees surrounding the plant.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Requirements
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that potential significant
environmental effects of a project proposed by a public agency be identified and disclosed to
the public. A significant effect on the environment is generally defined as a "substantial or
potentially substantial adverse change in the physical environment." "Environment" means
the physical conditions, including both natural and man-made conditions, that exist within
the area affected by a proposed project. . ~
The environmental assessment for the proposed project has identified no significant
environmental effects. A Negative Declaration must include a written statement briefly
explaining why a proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect when
compared to the existing environment. It must include a description of the project and
location, identification of the project proponent, and proposed finding of no Significant effect.
It must also include a copy of the Initial Study checklist that justifies the finding of no
significant effect. This Negative Declaration contains all of the required information.
14
11.Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Agency .:~.!. ¯
State/Regional Agencies
Bay Area Air Quality Management
District
San Francisco Bay Regional Waler
Quality Control Board
City of Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto Public Works
Department .
City of Palo Alto Department of
Planning and Community ’
Development
City of Palo Alto Architectural
Review Board
City of Palo Alto Fire’ Department
Other Local Agencies
City .of Mountain View
City of Los Altos
East Palo Alto Sanitary District
Town of Los Altos Hills
iPermits/Issue
Authority to Construct (A/C) and Permit to
Operate(P/O) - if grandfather statusis not maintained,
then will be needed (existing facility attained
grandfather status because it was constructed before
1972, and will retain this status as long as it is not
modified in a manner that results in an air emission
increase of a regulated pollutant or the repair costs are
not greater than 50% of the capital cost of a new
incinerator)
Clean Water Act: 40 CFR Part 503 Rules--proposed
revisions to CWA Part 503 will be incorporated into
the existing NPDES Permit; will require Continuous
Emissions Monitoring for CO and NOx along with
existing requirements for Total Hydrocarbons by 2000
Grading and Drainage Review
Building Use Permit
Site and Design Review
Architectural Review
Hazardous Materials Disclosure Checklist/Inspection
.Approval and Funding
Approval and Funding
App’roval and Funding
Approval and Funding
15
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project as
indicated by the checldist on the foIlow~ng pages.
[]Land Use and Planning
[]Population and Housing
~g]Geologic PrOblems
[] Water
[] Air Quality
[] Transportation/Circulation
I’-I Biol0gieal Resources
[] Energ’y and Mineral Resources
[] Hazards
[] Noise
ElMandatory Findings of
Significance
[]Public Services
[]Utiliiies and Service Systems
[]Aesthetics
[]Cultural Resources
[]Recreation
16
Determination:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find .that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the
environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if
the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
Project Planner
Director of Planning & Community Environment
Date
Date
17
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cities in the parentheses following each question. A
"No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact
simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture
zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well
as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-
specific screening analysis).
7)
All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
¯ cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
"Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is
made, an EIK is required.
"Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation.measures from Section
XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).
Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist.
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages-where the statement is
substantiated. See the sample question below. A source list should be attached, and other sources used
or individuals comaeted should be cited in the discussion.
This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones.
18
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:.
a)
b)
c)
!1.
d)
e)
a)
b)
c)
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project?
Be incompatible with. existing land use in the
vicinity?
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community?
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
~umulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections?
l’nduce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
Displace existing housing, esl~ciaily affordable
housing?
IlL GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal
result in or expose people to potential impacts
involving:
a) Fault rupture?
b) Seismic ground shaking?
Sources
1,2
3
3
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigatibn
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact NO
Impact
19
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e) Landslides or mudflows?
f) Erosion, changesin topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land?
h) Expansive soils?
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
Sources
3
3
1,3
3
3
.1,3
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a)Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runofI?.
h)
d)
Exposure of people or proper~y to water related
hazards-such as flooding?
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface.water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)?
Changes in the amount of surface waier in any water
body?
Changes in currents, or’the course or direction of
water movements?
Chang’~ in the quantity of ground waters,’ either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability?
g)
h)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
Impacts to groundwater quality?
l
l
20
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for pt~blic water supplies?
V. AIR QUALITY. Would thc proposal:
a)Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality viola.tion?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors?
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CII~CULATION. Would
the proposal result in:
a) increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b)Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
c)Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. ¯Would the
proposal result in impacts to:
a)Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds)?
So u rces
l
i
1
1
1,2
!,2
1,2
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
NO
Impact
21
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
b)
c)
viii.
a)
b)
c)
LoCally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.).’?
Wetland habitat (e.g. marshl riparian and vernal
pool)?
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
Use non-renewable resources in a Wasteful and
inefficient manner?
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the.region
and the residents of the State?
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a)
b)
)
d)
e)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited to:
oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The creation of any heali’h hazard or potential health
hazards?
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards?
Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees?
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
’ a) increasesin existing noise levels?
Sources
1
I
1,2
I
¯ PotentiallySignificant
Impact
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact Impact
22
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
XI.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any ofihe following areas
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services?
XlI.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would
the proposal result in a need fo~, new systems or
supplies, or substantial alterations to the following
a) .Power or natural gas?
b) Communications systems?
c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage?,
f) Solid waste disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies?
XIlI. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect.’?
Sources
I
I
!
1
|
1
I
1
!
1
i
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated’
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impacl
23
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
c) Create light or glare?
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) DistUrb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ......
c) ’Affect historical resources?
d)Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e)Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
X’V. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
xVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a)Does the project have Ihe potential’’to degrad’e the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
Sources
l
l
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially.
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
24
b)Does the project have the. potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
c).Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)
d)Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
XVII.EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(C)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should
identify the following on attached.sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. -
b)Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursua.nt tot he applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measured based on the earlier analysis.
c)Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Negative Declarations: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
address site-specifiC conditions for the project.
XVIII. SOURCE REFERENCES
!
2
4
Palo Alto Regional water Quality.Control Plant, Solids Facility Plan, May 1997
Paio Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1980- ! 995
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Environmental lmpactRepon, .December 1996
Voice mail message from Jim Gilliland (City of Palo Alto) regarding zoning, on June 24, 1997
Voice mail message from Jim Gilliland (City of Palo Alto) regarding zoning, on June 26, 1997
25
IXX. EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES
la
Ib
[c
Id
le
’II a
The proposed project is consistent with the existing Major Institution/Special Faciliiies general plan designation of the
PARWQCP and the Public Facilities with Site Design Overlay (PF(D)) zoning. The PARWQCP site is bordered on the
west by one- and two-story office buildings, on the south by the City. landfill, on the east by the Bay and BayIands
Nature Preserve, and on the north by the Palo Alto Airport. The Pal0 Alto Golf Course is also located just west of the
airpon. Much of the PARWQCP site is screened from these land uses by trees along its perimeter. However, tile access
road to the landfill runs directly along the east plant boundary, so some PARWQCP facilities, such as the fixed
rcactors, arc clcarly visible. The proximity to the airport places height restrictions on the treatment facilities. The lop
of the existing incinerators are generally considered the maximum height allowed.
The proposed project does not conflict with any applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with
jurisdiction over the project.
The proposed project would not be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity. Modifications to PARWQCP
facilities would be limited to the existing treatment plant site.
The proposed project would not impact agricultural resources or operations.
The proposed project h~,s no impact on the physical arrangement of any established communities.
The proposed project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. See .discussion for
Issue 11 b below.
II b
[lc
.i’l b
III c
The proposed project will not induce growth directly or indirectly. See discussion on pages 5 to 7 of the attached
project description.
The proposed project is limited tO the existing treatment plant site and would not displace any existing housing.
The proposed project is not located on a fault and would not result in or expose people to fault rupture.
The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan designates the project area to be prone to violent shaking in the event of a major
e.anhquake. This shaking could cause significant damage tostructures if not properly designed or constructed. A
geotechnical report for the project will be prepared and the recommended design measures identified in that report will
be incorporated into the project.
Liquefaction can occur when loose, saturated, relatively clean cohesionless soils are subjected to ground vibrations.
The project area is situated adjacent to the San Francisco Bay and is underlain in pan by Bay mud, an organic clay
which is soft and compressible. Sand lenses are !nterspersed throughout the Bay mud; these lenses carry groundwater in
the vicinity of the Bay and, during seismicevents, have the potential to liquefy. According to’the City of Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan, the site has a high liquefaction potential. The geotechnieal investigation to be prepared for the
project will identify appropriate design measures that will be incorporated into the project to address liquefaction
issues.
111 d
111 e
111 f
!il g
I11 h
lll i
IVa
The proposed project would not result in or expose people to seiche, Tsunami, or volcanic hazard.
The proposed project would not result in or expose people to.landslides or mudflows.
The proposed project would not result in or expose people to erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions
from excavation, grading, or fill.
The proposed project would not result in or expose people to subsidence of land.
The proposed project would not result in ~’r expose people to potential impacts from expansive soils.
No unique geologic or physical features e.xist at the project site, so the proposed project would’ not result in or expose
people to potential impacts from unique geologic or physical features. ¯
The proposed project would be constructed on currently paved ground and would not add paved area. Hence the
proposed project would not result in,any changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of
IXX. EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES
IVb
IVc
IVd
IVe
1\1 f
lVg
IVh
IV i
Vb
Va
surface runoff.
The treatment plant site is in a flood zone; as designated by FEMA. However, the proposed project would not"resuh in
any additional exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding. All applicable FEMA
requirements will be met.
The air pollution control equipment in the proposed project would recycle trace amounts of metals from the scrubber
back to the treatment plant headworks. Witl~ the addition of scrubber water treatment there will be no increase in
metals in the wastewater discharged to the Bay and the adjacent Baylands Nature Preserve The wastewater discharged
will still meet permit requirements for metals.
The proposed project would not change the amount of surface water in any water body.
The proposed project would not change currents or the course or direction of water movements.
The proposed project would not change the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals,
or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability.
The proposed project would not alter the direction or rate of flow of groundwater.
The proposed project would not result in impacts to groundwater quality.
The proposed project would not result in substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for
public water supplies.
Construction-related emissions, such as dust (fine paniculate mar~er, PM,0), vehicle exhaust, and equipment exhaust are
expected to occur at the facility for a period of up to 6 months. Minimal dust emissions are anticipated since the facility
has paved roads and conti’olled speed limits, and major demolition and grading would not occur. Some excavation will
be required to pour the foundation for the project facility, but minimal dust emissions are expected because the
construction area is relatively small (800 square feet for air pollution control equipment, about .500 square feet for the
equalization basin).
Basic dust control measures, such as watering active construction areas and water sweeping all paved access roads,
parking lots, and staging areag, will be required by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to
reduce any potential dust emissions. Applying effective and comprehensive control measures during project
construction would prevent violations of any air standards.
There will be no net increase in emissions, as compared with current emission levels based on recent source test data.
Table 1 at the end of this checklist summarizes the current and future emissions associated with this project.
The project will be designed with a new air emissidns abatement system that will handle emissions from the
incinerator, thermal solids dryer, scum handling system, and feed sludge equalization tank. The Solids Facility Plan
describes in greater detail the. air emissions abatement system. The proposed system will be more efficient and capable
of handling the projected solids increase, and will improve existing air emissions by reducing, on the average, metals
by .54 percent, criteria pollutants by 48 percent, and dioxins/furans by .99 percent from current emission levels.
The project does not require an increase in track pick-ups for ash. Therefore, there will be no increased truck traffic
emissions beyond what is currently occurring.
With operation of the new emissions abatement technology and implementation of dust control measures during
construction, the project would meet all current and known potential future air quality requirements and no significant
air quality impacts would occur.
Because the project site is not Iocaied near sensitive receptors and no net increases in air emissions would occur based
on current source test data and future emission estimates, there will be no pollutant exposure to sensitNe receptors.
Sensitive receptors include schools, daycare centers, hospitals, and nursing homes. The PARWQCP staffwill adhere to
27
iXX. EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES
Vd
VI a
VI b
VI c
proper abatement equipment installation (including scheduled Shuidown of incinerators during ins(allation), testing, and
operating procedures to minimize any potential air emission impacts to workers in the light industrial businesses near
the project site.
The project does not include the addi’tion or modi~cation of major heat. or moisture sources and would not result in a
significant alteration of air movement, moisture, temperature, or other climatic changes.
"Tl~’e dryer, which wouldonly be operated only occasionally (typically maximum 4 weeks per year), is the only ~ew --
potential odor source, but is not expected to create an impact. The project will be designed to handle odor sources (i.e.,
dryer, scum handling, and feed tank) by venting the exhaust directly to the incinerator inlet air. There it will be
combusted and then sent 1o the incinerator emissions abatement system for added destruction of combustion by-
products. Because of this configuration, the potential for odor outside of the abatement system will not be creatcd.
Therefore, no additional odors will be released beyond current operating conditions. Objectionable odors are not
expected to occur.
Facility consiruction will have a less than’significant impact on traffic. Tl~e number of trucks to haul solids by-products
(ash) will be the same as the current number, which is one truck per week. Traffic related to construction activities are
expected to be similar to the traffic that occurs during annual mainte~aance and rehabilitation of the Plant’s existing
systems. This could include up to 8-10 workers enteringthe site per day and a limited number of trucks delivering
concrete, other materials, and equipment to the site. Traffic impacts from construction would be less than significant.
The proposed project does not contain any transportation design" features and would not result in hazards to safety from
design features such as sharp curves o.r dangerous intersections.
Project construction activities and operations at PARWQCP Wohld not inierfere with emergency access or access to
nearby uses, nor are they expected to interfere with emergency access at the PARWQCP.
VI d PARWQCP currently has adequate parking capacitY,’ and would not add any additional employees as a result of t’hc
project. Parking needs for construction activities would not exceed current parking needs for rehabilitation and
maintenance activities
Vie
Vl f
Vl g
Vll a
Vil b
VII c
VII d
Facilities at PARWQCP would not be expanded outside the current plant boundaries and wouid not be"a hazard to
9edestrians or bicyclists. There are no pedestrian or bicycle paths within the PARWQCP.
The"project does not conflict ’~vith City’ of Palo Alto adopted policies supporting alternative transportation.
The project Would have no impacts on rail or’waterborne traffic. Traffic at the adjacent"airport would not be impacted
by the project construction or operation. Nopart of the rehabilitation or expansion would .be greater in height than the
existing incinerators, which are considered the maximum height allowable to avoid impacting airport traffic.
The proposed project will ’result’in a 99.9% decrease in dioxin and furan emissions, an average 54 percent decrease in
metals air-emissions, and an average48 percent decrease in criteria pollutant emissions compared to current emissions,
resulting in a project benefit. As a result, no impacts to endangered, threatened, or rare species in the adjacent marshes
are expected.
The proposed project would require the removai of~he or ~vo eucalyptus trees next’ to the incinerator on the
PARWQCP site. However, these trees are not heritage trees and they are less than 20 years old, They will need to be
removed with or without this project, since they pose a fire hazard due to their proximity, to the incinerator chimney,
and the tree roots are invasi~ze and have the potential to damage building foundations, pipes, and high voltage conduits.
The proposed project would not result in impacts to Io~allydesignated natural communities such as oak forest or
coastal habitat.
The incinerator abatement air scrubber would recycle trace amou’~ts of metals removed from the air stream back to the
~lant headworks. Use of scrubber water treatment to precipitate, concentrate, and remove metals from the recycle water
will result in no increase in metals in the wastewater discharged to the Bay and the adjacent, Baylands Nature Preserve.
This’is a mitigation measure to prevent discharge of the metals to air or water. The wastewater discharged will still
28
IXX. EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES
meet permit requirement~"for metals. As a result, no impacts to Wetland habitat are expected.
VII e
VII1
VIII
Vlll c
IX a
The proposed project would be located on the existing PARWQCP site and would not result in impacts to wildlife
dispersal or migration corridors.
The proposed project would not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans.
Through the rehabilitation measures, the proposed project would result in greater fuel ef~ciency (i.e., less fuel use per
unit of sludge processed) compared to current efficiency. The proposed project would not use non-renewable resources
in a wasteful and inefficient manner.
The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future
value to the region and to the residents of the State.
The thermal dryer may present a small risk of accidental explosion or fire. However, the proposed project would be
designed with safety measures including proper dust handling systems to reduce explosion potential, and nitrogen
padding of the storage hopper air space to reduce fire hazard. With these design measures, the potential impacts are
expected to be less than significant.
IX b The proposed project would not interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plans.
IX c
1X d
The proposed project will result in a 99.9% decrease in dioxin and furan emissions, an average 54 percent decrease in
metals air emissions, and an average 48 percent decrease in criteria pollutant emissions compared to current emissions
fi:om the incinerators, resulting in a project benefit. As a result, the project will result in no new impacts to health. ’
Neither the proposed project nor th~ PARWQCP create metals; any metals emissions result from metals in the plant
influent. However, the metals, primarily mercury, that would be removed by scrubber water treatment discussed in
Vlld may need to be recycled or handled as a hazardous waste. Amounts that.would be removed would be small and
are estimated to bc approximately 0. [ Ib/year for the lightest metals and approximately 30 lb/year of the heaviest
metals. Metals resulting from scrubber water treatment would be handled properly in accordance with all applicable
and stringent local, state, and federal regulations that govern the use, storage, and disposal of such materials. As a
result, no significant impacts are expected.
Xb
Xl~
XI b The proposed project would not affect or result in a need for new ~r altered police protection services.
XI c The proposed project would not ’affect or result in a need for new ’or altered"schools.
Xld
IX e The proposed project area does not contain flammable brush~ grass, or’trees, and the proposed project would not
,ncrease fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees.
X a The proposed project may result in short-term increases in existing noise levels associated with c.onstruction activities.
However, the impacts are expected to be minor and not noticeably different than current noise associated with
rehabilitation and maintenance activities. No sensitive receptors are located near the project area. Therefore, impacts
to existing noise levels are expected to be less than significant.
The proposed project would not result in exposure of people to severe noise levels.
The proposed project would not affect or result in a need for new or altered’fire protection services.
The proposed project consists of rehabilitation and modifications to a public facility (a portion of the PARWQCP).
The rehabilitation and modifications are expected to improve the operations and reduce the maintenance needs of the
solids handling facility. As a result, the proposed project would not affect or result in a need for new or altered
maintenance of public facilities.
XI e The proposed project would not affect or result in a need for any other new or altered governmental services.
XII a The proposed project would not result in a need for new systems or supplies of or substantial alterations tO power or
natural gas utilities.
29
IXX. EXfiLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES ..
Xil b The’proposed project would not result in a need for new sy~’tems or supplies of or substantial alterat’ions to
XII c
XII d
XII e
XII f
XII g
XIII a
XIII b
Xlll c
XIVa
XIV b
XIV c
XIV d
XIVe
XV.a
XV b
communications systems.
The proposed project would not result in a need for n~w"systems or supplies of or substantial alterations to locai or
regional water treatment or distribution facilities.
The.proposed project would not result in a need for new Systems or supplies of Or substantial alterations to sewer or --
septic tanks. "
The proposed project would not result in a need for new systems or supplies of or substantial alterations to storm water
drainage.
The proposed project would not result in a need for new systems or supplies of or Substantial aherations tO solid waste
disposal.
The proposed project Would not result in a need for new systems or supplies of or substantial alterations to local or
regional water supplies.
The proposed project would not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway.
The proposed project would not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The new facilities would be within the
existing plant boundaries and would not be visible to the general public. New structures would be attached or adjacent
to existing structures, would match existing exteriors, would be the same as or lower in height than the existing
structures, and would be sheltered from view by other existing structures in the plant and by trees that surround the
plant:
The proposed project would not create light or glare.
The proposed project would be located on ihe existing PARWQCP site and would not disturb paleontological
resources.
J The proposed project would be located on the existing PARWQCP site and would not disturb archaeological resources.
Th~ proposed project would be located on the existing PARWQCP site and would not affect historical resources.
The proposed project would not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values.
The proposed project would not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area’.
The proposed project would not eliminate any ’existing parks or ’recreational facilities and would not induce growth in
the region. As a result, the proposed project would not increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities.
The proposed project would not affect existing recreational oppbrtunities.
Table 1: Current and Future Emissions, PARWQCP Incinerator Rehabilitation
Pollutant Curr~nt Emissions
0h/day)
Criteria Pollutants
Carbon monoxide
¯ Nitrous Oxides
Sulfur oxides
THC
Particulate matter
Volatile Organic Carbons
Hazardous Air Pollutants
Dioxin
Furors
I 16.98
87.96
52.99
2.16
16.2
0.54
2.34 x 10"8
1.03 X 10"7
Metals
Arsenic 4.51 x I0"3
Beryllium 4.33 x 10-6
Cadmium 1.53 x 10-2
Chromium 2.34 x 10-3
Copper I °23 x 10-2
Manganese 9.01 x 10-3
Mercury 4.15 x i 0-2
Nickel 2.34 x 10"3
Selenium 8.47 x 10-3
Zinc 6.49 x 10"1
Emission’~ After incinerat~,~~~ ......
Rehabilitation
(Ib/day)
22.64
37.07
1.55
1.45
12195
0.53
2.17 x 10"i’l
9.50 x 10"11
3.48 x 10-3
3.98 x 10-6
4.11 x 10"3
5.37 x 10-4
1.18 x 10.2
3.52 x 10-4
4.05 x 10.2
2.96 x 10-4
3.69 x 10-4
1.64 x 10"1
Aulhority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087,
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080(¢). 21080.1.21080,3. 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 21094, 21151;
Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); i.eonoffv. Monterey Board of Supcrvisor~, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (I 990)
31
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT C
February 4, 1998
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Mayor Rosenbaum and members of the City Council:
The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto supports comprehensive measures to
provide maximum protection to human health and the environment from the adverse
effects of hazardous materials. Because certain hazardous materials are associated
with the treatment and disposal of sewage sludge, we have some concerns about the
proposal to repair and improve the existing sewage sludge incinerators at the Palo
Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant.
The proposed solution to the problem of how to handle the sludge from sewage
treatment when the present incinerators are on the verge of breaking down, may not
be the best solution from an environmental perspective, but when space requirements,
time, and cost are considered, it is probably the appropriate solution at the present
time.
We are concerned that the performance figures presented in the EIR are estimates and
projections that may have no relation to how the rehabilitated incinerators, with the
addition of an afterburner and new scrubbers, will actually work. If you approve this
proposal, we believe it is imperative that you include a .regular and frequent monitoring
program to ensure that the system is working as well or better than advertised.
Although the dryer is included in the negative declaration, it appears that the addition
of this dryer needs more study to avoid safety problems and will not be added to the
system unless volume makes it necessary. However, there is a possibility that the
addition of such a dryer could act as a pilot project for possible elimination of the
incinerators in the future. Thisidea should be considered in deliberations over a long
range plan.
The repaired system and the existing treatment plant are expected to last less than
twenty years. In the context of planning for major changes, that. is not a long time. It is
not necessary to wait twenty years to make changes; the establishment of long range
environmental goals and the search for more effective ways to recycle the sludge
should be an ongoing process. We encourage you to instruct the staff of the Regional
Water Quality Control Plant to begin now to work on a long range plan for waste water
management that will meet the needs of the area in an environmentally friendly way.
We commend Phil Bobel and his staff for the efforts they.made to meet with local
citizens to try to address the concerns of those who are worried about the effects of
incineration. Dioxin production is. a major concern. The staff was able to show that so
much dioxin comes into the plant in the waste water (from toilet paper, laundry water,
human waste, etc.) that the proposed system will actually reduce the total.dioxin level,
even though some new dioxins will likely be produced in the incinerator. We hope this
reduction will be true.
The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto believes that the public has the right to
know the potentially harmful effects of materials they encounter in the home, the
workplace and the community, and so encourages you to help educate them in ways
to reduce toxins in waste water. We also encourage you to include citizens in the
planning and. decision-making processes of hazardous material management.
Sincerely,
Ruth Lacey Geri Stewart
Co-Presidents, League of Women Voters of Pal0 Alto
cc:Phil Bobel, Managerl Environmental Compliance Division, PARWQCP
Daisy Stark, Engineer, PARWQCP
6.~o.32z.z994
Schools Grou~
Paid Alto City.Council
City, Hall
2.50 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
PEOPLE FOR Tilt t NVII ONM| NT
Feb. 13, 1998 .’ "\
Dear City Council,,,
On February 23, Paid Alto’ City Council i’s scheduled to consider the "WQCp Solids Management l~roject.’’ Bay Area A~tion and
r.~ ~aumber of other local environmental groups it{ conjuction with City staff, have been reviewing the proposed plan to, repair.the,
incinerators at th6 Paid Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). According tO reports prepared for the RWQCP, as
w~ell as numerous other supporting documents, there are serious health and environmental cqne~erns’associated With dioxins
contained in both the influent and effluent of the plant that need the due consideration of the Council before theft make a decisibn
about this project, r .. ....
.According to "Dioxins Source Identification," a report written for the RWQCP in ~ept. 1997, dioxin~ enter the RWQCP through
the following sources: laundry graywater, storm water, human waste, shower water, and toilet paper. The, incineration of the..:
sludge destroys some of the dioxins coming into tile plant, but also creates more in the burning process: The city staff estimates
that the incinerators release hal[as many dioxins ihto the environment as come into the plant from the above mentioned soui’ces;
!~owever, there is a high level of uncertainty .of how marly dioxins re-form after being released into th~ air, which may~skew~ this
~proximation. Dioxins are also released from the incinerators through the water effluefit and through tl~e ash.The water effluent
pollutes the bay, and the ash is shipped to the Central Valleyand used in agriculture, thus completing the circle of. c~ntaminating
our food supply.. ~ ." ..
Dioxins are a highly toxic by-product created frbm the production and incineration’of"chlorine-containing products;suctl as
0rganochlorine pesticides, polyvinyl chloride’(PVC) plastics, and polychlorinaled biphenyls (PCBs),’’t Dioxins are dangerous to,
humans and wildlife because they bioaccumulate in fatty, tissue. "In humans, dioxins have been shown to cause cancer, weaken ~
tile .immune system, and interfere with the endocrine system, which is responsible for making hormones needed to regulate bodily
functions, including sexual development and fertility."~ We highly recommend that the council teviewthis document hs well as ¯
tlle."Dioxins Pollution Prevention Plan," which was prepared .for the RWQCP in October 1997 before the.Feb;’23 council .... ."
meeting. Both docurhents eihcidate the necessity to reduce the amount of dioxins gbing to and coming fromthe RW~CP, ’
In addition to tile sources of di~xins directly affecting the RWQCP,~9% of dioxins emitted locally come from diesel-fueled’
motor vehicles, and another 15% from residential wood burning. Although these sources fall outsid~ the scope of the.WQCIi
Solids Management Project, we request that the council take a comprehensive apprnaeh to addressing how to reduce the amount
ofxlioxins in our environment. Some suggested approaches are as ,follows:’ "’ ’ "
~ Develop a dioxins reduet}on policy for the.City.of Paid.. Alto,. and request..., neighboring cities to do the sameBuild a solids thermal dryer tO pilot test a non-dtoxm creating alternattve to handling sewage sludge
: Explore alternatives to safely dispos~ ofsludg~ or’ash which contain d, ioxins ., "
Educate other p~bli~ agencies and the public abou’t~dioxins and provide information how to ~:eduee them ,.
¯Cohtinue to monitor the influent ahd effluent from the RWQCP for.dioxins , ,,
Please give this serious issue your full consideration.
Thank you’,
Susan Stansbury ¯
I~ay Area,Action.
Executive Director
~ EIP Associates. 1997. DioxinsSource ldentificatio’n
~ Ibid,
City
ATTACHMENT C
City of Pal Alto
Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MARCH 16, 1998 CMR:165:98
APPROVAL OF ADDENDUM NO. 6 TO THE WATER QUALITY
CONTROL PLANT PARTNERS’ BASIC AGREEMENT TO:
INCREASE THE ANNUAL ONGOING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
BUDGET CAP; DEFINE PARTNER OBLIGATIONS WITH
REGARDS TO REIMBURSING PALO ALTO FOR COSTS FOR
INCINERATOR REHABILITATION
Following Council’s direction to proceed with the financial planning for the rehabilitation
of the RWQCP’s incinerators, staff is submitting Addendum No.6 to the Partners’ agreement
for Council’s approval.
The RWQCP partners (the cities of Palo Alto; Mountain View, and Los Altos) are
responsible for financing the project. The financial advisor and Partners’. staff recommend
that the project be bond funded to spread the cost to ratepayers over a number of years. The
City of Palo Alto will be the lead agency in issuing the debt. The addendum to the Parmers’
agreement is needed prior to bond sale to clarify the financial obligations among the Partner
¯ agencies.
The addendum also increases the cap for the ongoing capital improvement budget. The
existing cap is ambiguous and is based on the original value of the RWQCP. The capital
improvement program will continue to be reviewed by the Partner agencies prior to approval
by Palo Alto City Council.
CMR: 165:98 Page 1 of’~-"-’-~
Staff recommends that Council:
Direct staff to proceed with the necessary steps to obtain bond financing for
rehabilitating the incinerators at the Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). Bond
financing would occur concurrently with the beginning of construction, approximately
August 1999. Prior to the bond sale, staff will retum to Council for approval of the
bond documents.
Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute Addendum No. 6 to the Basic Partners
Agreement between the City of Palo Alto, the City of Mountain View, and the City of
Los Altos. Addendum No. 6 increases the annual budget cap for ongoing capital
improvements, and defines Parmer obligations to reimburse Palo Alto for the future
costs of debt service for bond financing of RWQCP incinerator rehabilitation project.
BACKGROUND
The City disposes of solid wastes treated by the RWQCP by means of incineration. In May
1996 (CMR.:278:96), staff reported to Council that a recent study.had concluded "the
incinerators (at the Plant) have reached the end of their economic life, and that major
rehabilitations are required if the RWQCP is to continue with incineration."
Council approved staff’s selection of the consulting firms CH2M Hill andKennedy Jeneks
to prepare a Solids Facility Plan (Plan) for .the RWQCP, The Plan examined the issues and
solutions for continued use of incineration, and evaluated other technologies that replace
incineration.
In May 1997, staff returned to Council (CMR:236:97) with the results of the Plan. The Plan
was approved by Council, and included:
¯A two-phase project to rehabilitate the existing incienerators immediately, and in ten
years potentially add a dryer for peak loads if and when needed.
Direction for staff to proceed with financial planning to implement the incinerator
rehabilitation.
Direction to obtain Partners’ approval of the necessary addendum to the existing
Partners’ agreement and financial package needed to implement the Plan.
The Partners’ Agreement was ~originally written in 1968, and has been amended five times
to date. Changes are needed to clarify various financial-obligations now that the City of Palo
Alto is preparing to rehabilitate the RWQCP.
CMR: 165:98 Page 2 of---’-’-’-"~
Staffmet several times with the Partner agencies staffto discuss the funding of the project,
and has obtained the.advice of a financial advisor, Stone and Youngberg. The financial
advisor and Palo Alto’s outside counsel attended two meetings with the Partner agencies’
staff.
Given the size of the improvements, and the need to spread the cost to ratepayers over a
number of years, and given the varying levels of wastewater financial reserves currently
available to the different Partner cities, staff recommends that the improvements be bond
funded. As has been done in a previous debt issuance in early 1980, staff recommends that
the City of Palo Alto, as the operator of the RWQCP, be the lead agency in issuing the debt.
This approach was unanimously agreed to by the staff from all Partner agencies. Staff
anticipates selling bonds prior to construction, approximately May 1999. Palo Alto has
sufficient funds in its Wastewater Treatment Fund reserve for the design itself, and will be
reimbursed from bond proceeds later. The attached Addendum requires that the Partner
agencies reimburse Palo Alto for their share of the bond costs, including the fi’ont design
costs, over the life of the bonds. The approximate cost for the design is $700,000, and is
included in the proposed FY 1998-99 capital budget for the Wastewater Treatment Fund.
In order to clarify the financial obligations among all Partner agencies, staffhas worked with
theCity Attorney’s Office and outside counsel toamend the current Partner’s agreement.
That addendum is attached to this report and is being submitted to Council for approval.
Staff from the other Partner agencies are. also taking this addendum to their respective
Councils concurrently.
Major provisions of the addendum include the following:
The revision of the annual capital improvement budget cap for ongoing repair and
replacement. It will now be set ata ba~e level of $1.9 million for 1998-99, and will be
adjusted annually by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The existing cap is ambiguous,
and is based on the original value of the RWQCP. This change is needed to provide for
more budget flexibility in the future.
The annual capital improvement program will continue to be reviewed by staff from
each Partner agency prior to submission to the Palo Alto City Council.
Authorization for the City of Palo Alto to implement the Solids Facility Plan, including
rehabilitation of the incinerators. Each Partner city is responsible to pay Palo Alto for
its proportionate share of the rehabilitation.
Authorization for the City of Palo Alto to issue debt to pay for the rehabilitation, and
requiring the Partners to pay Palo Alto for their proportionate share of the debt service.
CMR: 163:"98 . _Page 3 of’---~
Because Palo Alto will issue the debt, it must covenant in its bond documents to raise
sufficient revenues to meet annual debt service requirements. All of the requirements
below are legal commitments that the Partners are making to each other, and are
consistent with the legal commitments Palo Alto will have to make in its bond
documents in order to issue debt.
a)In order to protect the City of Palo Alto, and to reassure potential investors, the
Partner agencies are required by this addendum to raisesewer revenues sufficient
to pay their share of the debt service to Palo Alto in the future. These
clarifications will make the debt less risky to investors, and therefore will help the
City of Palo Alto obtain the highest rating it can get for the bonds. This will lower
the interest rate, and therefore will lower the financing costs for the bonds. Based
on discussions with Stone and Youngberg, staff expects that the bonds can be sold
at around a double A rating.
b)Specifies that while the bonds are to be issued by Palo Alto, the Partners will
reimburse Palo Alto annually for an amount equal to their share of the debt
service.
c)Defines the annual Partner obligations to Palo Alto as special obligations payable
"solely from the. net revenues, of the Partners’ sewer systems. (The obligations
are therefore not general obligations of the Partner cities).
d)States that the obligations of Mountain View and Los Altos are unconditional until
the time that debt service is paid off.
e)Obligates the cities of Mountain View and Los Altos to collect sufficient sewer
revenues to pay for .at leastl,25 times the annual debt service requirement.
Clarifies that for as long as this debt is still outstanding, no party may issue sewer
bonds for its own City that are superior in credit obligation to this debt obligation.
Parity debt, Or debt equal in stature to creditors to this debt may be issued
provided that the Partner city continues to collect revenues at least 1.25 times its -
total level of debt service. Clarifies that revenue growth due to sewer expansions
by Partner cities, such as a new development, may be counted towards the.revenue
requirement of 1.25 times debt service.
Clarifies that neither Mountain View nor Los Altos are liable for each other’s
obligations to Palo Alto.
~ESOURCE IM P A_C__T_
Funds for the capital improvements are being proposed in the 1998-99 Wastewater Treatment
capital improvement budget. 1998-99 funding includes $700,000 for design, and future
years’ capital budgets will include construction dollars. Those dollars and design costs, will
CMR: 165:98 Page 4 of 5
be reimbursed out of bond proceeds in approximately August 1999. Capital expenditures for
design and construction are estimated to cost a total of approximately $6.2 million.
On February 23, 1998, Council approved the Negative Declaration and the project to
rehabilitate the RWQCP’s incinerators, CMR: 141:98.
Attached is a rough timeline for the project:
City Councils of Partner cities approve addendum
Palo Alto awards design contract
Final design completed
Sell bonds
Begin construction
Finish construction on incinerators
March 1998
April 1998
February 1999
August 1999
August 1999
August 2001
pOLICY IMPLICATIONS
The recommendation of this staff report is consistent with City policies,
ATTACHMENTS
Addendum No. 6 to Basic Agreement
PREPARED BY:Bill Miks,.Manager RWQCP
Jim Steele, Manager Investments and Debt
DEPARTMENT HEAD: Glenn S. berts, Director Works
Melissa Acting of Administrative Services
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
JUNE
City Manager
CMR: 165:98 Page 5 of"~
ADDENDUM NO. 6 TO BASIC AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO, THE C~TY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
~ THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS FOR ACQUISITION,
CONSTRUCTION ~ PLAINTENANCE OF A JOINT SEWER
SYSTEM
This Addendum No.’ 6 to ~asic Agreement is made and
entered into on _ , 1998, by and among the CITY
OF PALO ALTO ("Palo Alto"), the CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW ("Mountain
View"), and the CITY OF LOS ALTOS ("Los Altos") (individually,
"Party", and collectively, the "Parties"), all municipal
corporations under the laws of the State of California.
i. The Parties have entered into an agreement for the
acquisition,-construction, and maintenance of a joint sewer system
("Joint sewer,’), executed on October I0, 1968, and as amended from
time to time ("Basic Agreement"). The Basic Agreement has been
amended five timeslon 1977, 1980, 1985, 1990 and 1992, respec~.ively
(collectively, "Addenda").
2. Palo Alto is the administrator of the Jofnt Sewer
and is responsible for capital additions. Under the Basic
Agreement and Addenda thereto, capital additions for the
replacement of obsolete or worn-out units or minor capital
additions to improve the efficiency of the plBnt operations shall
not ~xceed two percent (2%) of the ~otal capital investment in any
one year, except with the prior written approval of the Parties
hereto.
3. .The Solids Management Study’of June 1995 prepared by
Carollo Engineers c~ncluded that the incineration facility needs ~o
be rebuilt or r~placed. The Solids Facility Plan of May 1997
prepared by CH2M H~LL recommended a two-phase projec~ to rebuild
the existing incineration facility portion of the Joint sewer. The
Parties desire to implement the recommended project, and,
accordingly, hereby revise the Basic Agreement and ~he Addenda
thereto, to provide for the rehabilitation of ~he incinerator
facility portion of the Joint System, and ~ricrease~ the total
Capita! investment in capital additions.
NOW, THEREFOR£, in consideration of the terms, conditions
and covenants set forth in this Addendum No. ~ to Basic Agreement,
the Basic Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
~¢TION ~, Subparaeraoh 8(e) is hereby am_nd..d in its
entirety to read as follows:
CON.~ TR UCT T
(e) Capital additions for the replacement of obsolete or
worn-out units, or minor capital additions to improve the
efficiency of the plant operations, shall not excee~ the amount
specified for the base year adjusted annually, in accordance with
the Consumer Price Index-Urban Wage Earners and Clerica! Workers
for the SanFrancisco-Oakland-SKn Jose area ("CpI") . The base year
shall be fiscal year 1998-1999. The capital addition amoun~ for
the base year is set at 1.9 million dollars. The CPI for the
t~.;e!ve (12) months prior to Jul.yof each fiscal year shall be used
to calculate the adjusted .capital addition cost. for the following
f.lscal year."
$~[~_T_~. Paragraph 36 is hereby added to the Basic
Agreement to read as follows:
"36~ IMPLEMENTAT~ON~.[ THE ~QLIDS FA~I.LTTY PLAN. PALO
ALTO, MOUNTAIN VIEW, and LOS ALTOS approve a two-phase project to
immediately rehabilitate the incinerators as soon as possible an~
add a dryer for peak loads in approximately ten (I0) years
accordance with the Solids Facility. Plan prepared by CH2M Hill,
consulting engineers. The funding for the incinerator
rehabilitation will be developed as soon as possible by each of the
Pa~£ies, while the ~funding for the dryer w±ll be deferred until
needed.’ As determined by each Party, each Party shall proceed to
pay for ~he rehabilitation of the incinerators in proportion as the
parti’es own capacity, in the Joint System or portion thereof as
shown in Exhibit "H". If the Parties intend to defray the costs of
rehabilitation through Palo Alto’s issuance of debt for the
rehabilitation, the Parties shall pay to Palo Alto their
Proportionate Share of Debt Service in accordance with Addendum 4
of the Basic Agreement, as revised by Se=tion 3 of this Addendum
,SECTION~. Section 5 of Addendum 4 to the Basic
Agreement is hereby amended, in its entirety to read as follows:
"(a) ~_~initions, For purposes of this Section 5, the
followin~ capitalized terms shall have the meanings set for£h
below.
0o3 i 9 i ~
’Bond Documents’~ means the bond resolutions, indentures,
t~’ust agreements, installment sale agreeme|%ts or other dozuments
under whJ.ch Bonds are issued.
’Bonds’ means bonds, installment sale agreements or other
obligacions already issued or to be issued by the City of Palo Alto
to finance improvements, additions or extensions to the Joint
System, payable from th~ ’Net Revenues’, as defined in ths Bond
Documents.
’Debt Service’ means, for any period in question, the sum
of the debt service on the Bonds due and payable in such period.
’Gross Revenues’ means all gross income and revenue
received by either Mo~ntain View or Los Altos from the ownership
and operation of its Sewer System~ including° without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, (a) all income, ren~s, rates, fees,
connection fees, charges or other moneys derJ.ved from th~ services,
facilities and commodities sold, furnished or supplied through the
facilities of its Sewer System, (b) reserves on deposit in the
sewer Utility enterprise fund of Mountain View or Los Altos, as
appropriate, including unrestricted cash avaiiable and (c) the
earnings on and income derived fromthe investment of such income,
re~%~s, rates, fees, charges or other moneys to the extent that the .
use of such earnings and income is limited by or pursuant to the
law to its Sewer System (including interest earnings on reserves);
provided, however, ~hat the term ’Gross Revenues’ shall not.include
customors’ deposits or any other deposits subject to refund until
such deposits have become the property of Mbuntain View or Los
Altos, as appropriate.
’Joint System’ has the. meaning given to said term in the
Basic Agreement.
’Net Revenues’ means Gross Kevenues less Operation and
Maintenance Expenses.
’Op~ratlon and Maintenance ~xpenses’ means all expenses
and costs of management, operation, maintenance and repair of a
Sewer System, but excluding debt service or other similaz payments
on Parity Debt or other obligations and depreciation and
obsolescence charges or reserves ~therefor and amortization of
intangibles or other bookkeeping entries of a similar nature, and
any exp~nse classified as discretionary by Mountain View .or Los
Altos to theoperation of its- S~wcr System.
4
’Parity Debt’ means bonds, indebtedness oi o~h_r~ ~
obligations (including leases and installment sale agocements)
hereafter issue4~or incurred by Mountain View or Los Altos and
secured by a pledge o£ anl .lien on Net Revenues equally and ratably
with Mountain View°s or Los Altos’s P~oportionate Share of Debt
Service.
¯’Party’ means the City of Palo Alto, Mountain View or Los
Altos. ’Parties’ ~,.eans the Cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View and
Los Altos.
’Proportionate Share’ has the meaning given to said term
in the Basic AHreement.
’Sewer System, means any and all properties and assets,
real and personal, aangible and intangible, of Mountain Vie~ or Los
Altos, ~now or hereafter existing’ used or pertaining to the
disposal or reuse of wastewater, including sewage treatment plants,
intercepting and collecting sewers, outfall sewers, force mal,]s,
pumping stations~ ejectorstations, pipes, valves, machinery and
all othe~ appurtenances necessary, useful or convenient for the
collec~ion, treatment, purification or disposal of sewage, and any
necessary lands, rights of way and other real or personal property
useful in connection therewith, and all additions, extensions,
expansions, improvements and betterments thereto and equippings
thereof.
’Subordinate Debt’ means indebtedness or other
obligations (including leases and ins~allment sale agreements)
hereafter issued or incurred by Mountain View or LOS Altos and
secured by a pledge of and lien on Net Revenues subordinate to the
obligation of Mountain View or Los Altos to pay its Proportionate
Share of Debt Service.
"(b) Issuan¢~._O~ Bonds by Pa I. c’’~s.of Mounta~n__V~Altos.
Palo Alto has issued Bonds to finance the Joint system,
and expects to issue Bonds in the future to finance improvements to
the’Joint System.. Under the Bond Documents, Palo Alto is obligated.
to pay 100% of th~ Debt Service. In consideration of the issuance
and payment of the Bonds by Palo Alto to finance the Joint System,
Mountain View and Los Altos agree to pay their proportionate Share
of-Debt Service, payable solely from NetRevenues, as hereinafter
proyided.
5
Mountain View’s and Los Altos’s obligation to pay their
P~oportionate Share of Debt Service shall be a special obligation
l~.mited solely to Net Revenues. Under no circumstances shall
~<ountain View or Los Altos be required to’ advance any moneys
derived from any source ~f income other than the Net ~evcnues an~
other sources specifically identified here~n for the payment of
their Proportionate Share of Debt Service, nor shall any other
funds or prcperty of Mountain View or Los Altos be liable for the
payment of their Proportionate Share of Debt Service.
The obligation of Mountain View and Los Altos to pay
their Proportionate Share of Debt Service from Net Revenues and to
perfor~& and observe the other agreements contained herein shal! be
absolute and unconditional and shall not be subjec~ to any defense
. or any right of set-off, counterclaim or recoupment arising out of
any breach of a Party of any obligation to another Party or
otherwise with respect to either of thei~ Sewer systems, whether
hereunder or otherwise, or out of indebtedness or.liability at any
time owing to Mountain View or Los Altos by another Party. ,Until
such time as all of the Debt Service shall have been fully paid or
prepaid, Mountain view and Los Altcs (a) will not suspend, abate,
or discontinue any payments provided for herein, (b) will perform
and observe all other agreements contained in this Agreement, and
(c) w~.ll not terminate this Agreement for any cause, including,
without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the occurrence of
any acts or circumstances ~hat may constit~te failure of
consideration, eviction or constructive eviction, destruction of or
damage to their Sewer Systems, the taking by eminent domain of
title to cr temporary use of any or all of either of their Sewer
Systems, commercial frus.tration of purpose, any change in the tax
or other laws of theUnited States of America or of the State oz’
any political subdivision of either thereof or any failure of a
Party to perform~ and observe any agreement, whether express or
i,~plied, or any duty, liability or obligation arising out of or
connected with this Agreement.
(i) Pledge of Net Revenues. Moun£ain View and Los
Altos hereby agree that the payment oftheir .Proportionate Share of
Debt Service shall be secured.by a pledge, charge and first and
prior lien upon their Net Revenues, and Net Revenues sufficient~to
pay their Proportionate Share of Debt Service as the s&me becomes
due and payable are hereby pledged, charged, assigned, transferred
and. set over by Lcs Altos anJ Mountai:~ View to Palo Alto and its
assigns for the purpose of securing pay~en~ of their Proportionate
6
Share of Debt Service. The Net Revenues shall constitute a trust
fund for the security and payment .o£ Mountain View’s and Los
Aitos’s Proportiorla%e Share of Debt Service,
(ii) Release [rom Lien. Following the payments by
~-:.-..untain View and Los Altos to Pale Alto of their P~’opo~’tionate
Si~nre of Debt Service, Net Revenues in excess of amounts requit’ed
for the payment of such Proportionate Share of Debt Service, in
that Fiscal Year, shall be released from .the lien of this Agreement
and shall be available for any lawful purpose of Mountsin View or
Los Altos, as applicable.
" (d) Ra~.e Covenant.
Mountain View and Los Altos hereby covenant that they
shall pr. escribe, revise and collect such charges fol" the services
and facilities of their respective Sewer Systems which, after
allowances for contingencies and error in the~ estim.ates, shall
produce Gross Revenues su£ficient’ in each Fiscal Year to provide
Net ReveI~ues equal to 1.25 times ’(i) their Proportionate Share of
D=~bt Service coming due and payable during such Fiscal Year, and
(ii) all payments required with respect ~o Parity Debt.
" (e)~Q~ure .Obligations Secured by Net’._
(i) No Obligations Superior to Debt Service.
order to protect further the ava~labil±ty of the Net Revenues and
the security for the Debt Service, Mountain View and Los Altos
hereby agree that they shall not, so long as any Bonds are
Outstanding, issue or incur any obligations payable from Gross
Revenues or Net Revenues superior to their obligation to pay their
Proportionate Share of Debt Service.
(ii) Parity Debt. Mountain View and Los Altos.--
further covenant that, except for obligations issued or incurred to
refund any obligations secured by Net Revenues, they shall not
issu~ or incur any Parity Debt unless:
(A)The Party proposin9 to issue the
Parity Debt is not in default under
the terms of this Agreement; and
(B)Net Revenues, calculated on sound
accounting principles, as shown by the
books of the Party proposing to issue
the Parity Debt, for the laiest Fiscal
Year or any more recent twelve (12)
month period selectel by the Party
proposing to issue the Parity Debt
ending not more than sixty (60) days
prior to the adoption of the
resolution pursuant to which
instrument such Pagity Debt is issued
or incurred, as shown by the book~ of
the Party proposing to .issue the
Parity Debt, shall have amounted to at
least 1.25 times such Party’s ma×im\Im
Proportionate Share of Debt Service,
plus, maximum annual debt service on
such Party’s Parity Debt coming due
and payable in any future Fiscal Year’.
(iii) Adjustment to Net Revenues. Either or both
of the following ~tems may be added to such Net Revenues fo)~~ the
purpose of applying ~he .restriction contained in subsection (ii) (B)
of this subsection (e):
An allowance for revenues from any
additions to or improvements or
extensions of the Sewer System to be
constructed with the proceeds of snch
additional obligations, and also for
Net Revenues from any such additions,
improvements or extensions which have
been constructed from any source of
funds but which, during all or any
part.of suoh Fiscal Year, were not in
service, all in an amount equal to
estimated additional average annual
Net Revenues to be derived from such
additions, improvements and extensions
for ~he first 36-month period
following issuance of the proposed
Parity Debt, all as shown by the
certificate or opinion of a qualified
independent consultant e~ployed by
Mountain View or Los Altos, as
appropriate.
An allowance for earnings arising from
any increase in the charges made for
8
service from the Sewer System which
has become effective prior to the
incurring of such additional
obligations but which, during all or
any part of such Fiscal Year, was not
in effect, in an amount eq~]al to 100%
of the amount by which the Net
Revenues would have been increased if
such increase in charges had been in
effect during the whole of suc|~ Fiscal
Year and any period prior to the
incurring of suc|~ additional
obligations, as shown by the
certificate or opinion of a qualified
independent consultant employed by
Mountain View or Los Altos, as
appropriate, or upon the mutual
agreement of Zhe o~her parties.
(iv) Subordinate Debt. Mountain View and Los Altos
may iss~,eor incur Subordinate Debt so long as it is not in default
hereunder or under any Parity Debt.
The Parties agree that they shall comply with provisions
of the Constitution and laws of the State of California, ancluding
specifically Article X~IIC and Article XIIID of the California
Constitution. In the event a P~rty fails to comply with the
foregoing covenant, any other Par~y may bring an.action against the
Party in breach, a~d seek all remedies available at law or in
equity, including spaci£ic performance.
Neither Mountain View nor Los Altos shall be liable for
the debts or obligations of another Party pursuant to this Section
5,.and nothing coz%tained in this Section 5 is intended, nor shall
it be interpreted, to create joint and several liability of
Mountain View or Los Altos."
~-¢-T~!_~, Except as herein. modified,, the Basic
Agreement and all Addenda thereto’ shall remain unchanged., and they
are herebyratified and confirmed.
//
:i1
//
//
IN WITNESS ~.H,.,,EO~, the parties have by their duly
authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date
first above written.
ATTEST :C~TY OF PALO ALTO
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FOR24:
Mayor
Senior Asst. City Attorney
APPROVED:
Assistant City Manager
Director of Public Works
ActinH Director of
Administrative Services
Kisk Manager
ATTEST:
CITY OF MOD’NTAIN VIEW
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM~
City Attorney
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO CO~TTENT:
Public ServicesDirectcr
i0
FINANCIAL APPROVALs
Finance and Administrative
Services Director
ATTEST:CITY OF LOS ALTOS
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO CONTEN~. :
City Attorney Director of Public Works
CERTIFXCATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
(Civil Code § 1189)
STATE OF ..)
)as.
COUNTY OF )
On _, before me, ,
a notary public in and for said County, ¯ personally appeared
, personally known to me
(or proved to me on. the basis of satisfactory evidenze) to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument,
and acknowledsed to me that he/she/they executed the same
his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their
si~nature(s) on t~he instrument the person(s), or the entity upon
behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
980304 lac 00.~!91~
11
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
(civil Code § 1189)
STATE OF )
COUNTY OF
On ., before me,
a notary public in and for said County, personally appeared
, personally known to me
(or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person!s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument,
and acknowledged, to me that he/she/they executed the same in
his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their
signature(s) on the instrument £he persgn(s), or the entity
behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed "the instrument.
WIT~ESS my hand and official seal.
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
(Civil Code ~ 1189)
STATE OF )
COUNTY OF )
On , be fore me, , .
a notary public in and for said County, personally appeared
, personally known to me
(or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument,
~nd acknowledged~ to me that he/she/they executed ~he Same in
his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/therr
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon
behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WETNESS my hand and official seal.
13