Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2011-10-03 City Council Agenda Packet
CITY OF PALO ALTO Special Meeting CITY COUNCIL Council Conference Room October 3,2011 5:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Friday preceding the meeting. 1 October 3, 2011 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Call to Order Closed Session Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 1.CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY-EXISTING LITIGATION Subject: Citizens for Upholding Zoning Regulations v. City of Palo Alto Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 1-07-CV-07836 Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a) Study Session 2.Potential Topics of Discussion for the Joint Study Session Special Meeting With the Historic Resources Board COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3.Study Session and Presentation from Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Staff Regarding the Proposed One Bay Area Grant Program Special Orders of the Day 4.Community Partnership Presentation by the Palo Alto Menlo Park Parents Club 5.Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Parks and Recreation Commission for Three Terms Ending on December 31, 2014 6.Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Storm Drain Oversight Committee for Two Terms Ending on December 31, 2015 2 October 3, 2011 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 7.Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Public Art Commission for One Unexpired Term Ending April 30, 2012 City Manager Comments Oral Communications Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Minutes Approval 8.Council Meetings of July, 25, 2011 August 1, 2011 September 6, 2011 Consent Calendar Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members. 9.Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $205,400 to Capital Improvement Program Project PE-00104 and Approval of Contract with Del Conte's Landscaping, Inc. in the total amount of $754,977 for San Antonio Landscaping Improvement Project –Phase II 10.Transmittal of Final Energy/Compost Feasibility Study and Recommendation to Return to Council with Further Recommendations in November, 2011 11.Approval of a Amendment No. 1 to Contract C11136602 with Alternative Resources, Inc. in the amount of $17,500 for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of $215,258 for the Energy/Compost Feasibility Study 12.Approval of Annual Report of Williamson Act Contracts Within the City of Palo Alto Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral Communications shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes per speaker. 3 October 3, 2011 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 13.PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of an Appeal of an Architectural Review Approval, a Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes, and a Record of Land Use Action (1) Approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration, (2) Upholding the Director's Architectural Review Approval of a Three Story Development Consisting of 84 Residential Units within the Upper Floors, 50,467 s.f. Ground Floor Research and Development area, Subterranean and Surface Parking Facilities, and Offsite Improvements, with Two Concessions Requested under State Government Code 65915 and (3) Approving a Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes on a 2.5 Acre Parcel at 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard (Continued from September 19, 2011) 14.City Clerk’s Report Certifying Sufficiency of the Petition for Three Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in Palo Alto and Direction to Staff to Prepare Resolution Calling Election in November 2012 Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Closed Session Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 15.CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY-EXISTING LITIGATION Subject:M. Beck v. D. Lindsey, et al. Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 1-09-CV-157305 Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a) CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 (one potential case). Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. PUBLIC COMMENTMembers of the Public are entitled to directly address the City Council/Committee concerning any item that is 4 October 3, 2011 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. described in the notice of this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Council/Committee on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council/Committee, but it is very helpful. 5 October 3, 2011 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Supplemental Information Standing Committee Meetings Standing Committee Packets from the City Clerk Standing Committee Packets from the City Clerk Standing Committee Packets from the City Clerk Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings from the City Clerk Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda from the City Clerk Informational Report Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Reconfiguration Project Public Letters to Council Public Letters to Council from the City Clerk City of Palo Alto (ID # 2004) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study SessionMeeting Date: 10/3/2011 October 03, 2011 Page 1 of 1 (ID # 2004) Council Priority: Land Use and Transportation Planning Summary Title: Joint Council/HRB Study Session Title: Potential Topics of Discussion for the Joint Study Session Special Meeting With the Historic Resources Board From:City Manager Lead Department:Planning and Community Environment Below are the potential topics of discussion for the joint meeting with The Historic Resources Board on October 3, 2011 at 6:00 PM. I.Role of Historic Resources Board (HRB) II.Highlights of successfully completed projects reviewed by the HRB III.Current HRB efforts a.Professorville Design Guidelines IV.Future HRB focus items a.Compatible design for historic structures b.Incentives for historic preservation c.Streamlining the historic review process V.Council Questions Prepared By:Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager City of Palo Alto (ID # 2094) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study SessionMeeting Date: 10/3/2011 October 03, 2011 Page 1 of 4 (ID # 2094) Council Priority: Land Use and Transportation Planning Summary Title: VTA Report on One Bay Area Grant Program Title: Study Session and Presentation from Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Staff Regarding the Proposed One Bay Area Grant Program From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council receive and consider the presentation from the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) regarding the One Bay Area Grant Program and provide feedback. Staff will return at a future meeting with a letter response from the City Council to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) regarding the proposed grant program. Executive Summary The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has recommended the development of a new transportation grant program for the fiscal year terms of 2013 through 2015. The proposed One Bay Area Grant Program is intended to provide more flexibility for funds distributed to the region by providing more funds directly to the local congestion management agencies. The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) serves as the congestion management agency for Santa Clara County, distributing federal and state transportation funding to cities and the County. The new program is proposed to be tied to elements of the proposed Sustainable Communities Strategy, including having a compliant housing element. The VTA representative will present an overview of the program and will discuss benefits and shortcomings of the MTC proposal. Background MTC is proposing a new flexible funding program for the FY2013 through 2015 period called the “One Bay Area Grant” program. As proposed, the new program would advance more funding to the various regional congestion management agencies, such as the VTA for Santa Clara County, but would also place restrictions on the distribution of funds per county based on population, Regional Housing Needs Allocations (RHNA), and Planned Development Areas (PDAs). Feedback to MTC on the proposed program is due by October, 2011, so the the VTA has volunteered to present its interepretation of the program to each of the cities in Santa Clara County. Discussion October 03, 2011 Page 2 of 4 (ID #2094) A copy of the proposed One Bay Area Grant Program is included as Attachment A. The VTA presentation is included as Attachment B, and a fact sheet about the program is included as Attachment C. Santa Clara County Funding Distribution Under the current structure, transportation grant funding to the region is typically distributed by MTC to various transportation program elements such as Local Streets & Roads, Regional Bicycle Program, Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC), etc. These programs fund projects such as the Stanford Avenue –El Camino Real Intersection Improvements, preparation of the Bicycle-Pedestrian Plan, various bicycle and pedestrian facilities (bike racks, signage, bike sharing, etc.). The distribution of funds to the different counties from each program element varies based on both fixed distribution and population share. A portion of those funds are distributed by the local congestion management agencies such as the VTA for Santa Clara County. The One Bay Area Grant proposal would change this structure by providing $211M in funding for the 2013-2015 cycle for the various regional congestion management agencies. In Santa Clara County, the VTA would receive $55M based on a 26% population-based formula for the region, an increase of $27M over the normal $28M received by the VTA under the current MTC distribution structure. The table below shows a breakdown of proposed regional funding by County from the One Bay Area Grant program. A majority of the reallocated funding, 70%, would be tied to Priority Development Area programs and is discussed further in this report. One Bay Area Grant Proposal –Proposed County Allocations Allocation Areas County Grant Amount ($M)PDA –70%County Choice - 30% Alameda $42.4 $29.7 $12.7 Contra Costa $31.5 $22.0 $9.4 Marin $6.4 $4.5 $1.9 Napa $4.2 $2.9 $1.2 San Francisco $24.6 $17.2 $7.4 San Mateo $17.2 $12.0 $5.1 Santa Clara $55.3 $38.7 $16.6 Solano $13.8 $9.6 $4.1 Sonoma $13.8 $11.0 $4.7 $211 $147.7 $63.3 Each local congestion management agency would be responsible for the distribution of funds and how that funding would be distributed by the VTA has not yet been decided. One proposal October 03, 2011 Page 3 of 4 (ID #2094) by the VTA would be to continue the current programs already established such as the Bicycle Expenditure Program, Local Streets & Roads, etc. and just increase the funding allocation per program. If the One Bay Area Grant program is approved by MTC, the VTA will work with the various advisory groups to identify an appropriate distribution method for Santa Clara County. Priority Development Area (PDA) Focus The proposed One Bay Area Grant Program proposes that 70% of the available funding be allocated to areas within a Priority Development Area (PDA) of cities and counties. The only PDA in Palo Alto is located in the California Avenue area, though the El Camino Real Corridor and the University Avenue/Downtown area would likely also be candidate areas. Priority Criteria for Grant Funding The One Bay Area Grant Program includes a recommendation that, in order to qualify for funding, a City must meet each of two primary criteria: 1.Supportive Local Transportation and Land Use Policies, including two of four of the following: parking/pricing policies, adopted community risk reduction plans (air quality), affordable housing policies to ensure development does not displace low income housing, and/or adopted bicycle/pedestrian plans and complete streets policy; and 2.An approved housing element, either for the current housing cycle or by not later than September 2014 for the next RHNA cycle (2015-2022). Staff believes that the City could qualify under the first group of criteria, but that requiring a compliant housing element is both problematic and vests too much authority in the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to require compliance. Staff suggests that the City provide comments opposing this component of the Program criteria and perhaps offer other suggestions following the VTA presentation and Council comments. Next Steps Comments to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) are due in October 2011. Based on feedback from the Council, staff will prepare a comment letter for Council approval at the October 17th meeting. Resource Impact The requirement of the MTC One Bay Area Grant Program for an Approved Housing Element may impact the City’s ability to complete for future grant fund programs outside of PDAs if the City does not have an approved housing element by the time the new program goes into effect. Attachments: ·Attachment A: One Bay Area Grant Proposal (PDF) ·Attachment B: VTA Presentation (PDF) ·Attachment C: OneBayAreaGrant Fact Sheet (PDF) October 03, 2011 Page 4 of 4 (ID #2094) Prepared By:Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager TO: MTC Planning Committee / ABAG Administrative Committee DATE: July 8, 2011 FR: Deputy Executive Director, Policy, MTC Executive Director, ABAG RE: OneBayArea Grant — Cycle 2 STP/CMAQ Funding Staff recommends the initial release of the OneBayArea Grant proposal as outlined in this memorandum for public review and discussion. Federal Transportation Funding and Program Policies (Attachment A) Approximately every six years, U.S. Congress enacts a surface transportation act. The current act (SAFETEA) originally scheduled to expire on September 30, 2009 is still in effect through several legislative extensions. The funding provided to our area through this legislation includes Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. In December 2009 the Commission adopted an overall framework directing how approximately $1.4 billion in STP and CMAQ funds were to be allocated over the following six years (2010- 2015). The first three years (Cycle 1) of this period were committed to projects and programs and the overall framework provided policy direction for the second three years (Cycle 2). Staff proposes an alternative to the current Cycle 2 framework that better integrates the region’s federal transportation program with land-use and housing policies by providing incentives for the production of housing with supportive transportation investments. Attachment A summarizes this framework and proposal for Cycle 2. OneBayArea Grant Program As shown in the chart below, over time the county congestion management agencies (CMAs) have been given increased responsibility for project selection for an increasing share of funding coming to the region. MTC Planning Committee/ABAG Administrative Committee: OneBayArea Grant (cont.) July 8, 2011 Page 2 Program and Project Selection Evolves over Past Two Decades For Cycle 2, staff proposes to continue this trend by shifting a larger portion of discretionary federal funding to local jurisdictions for taking on a larger share of the region’s housing production. Further, additional flexibility is proposed for CMAs to address their respective transportation needs. Specifically, the proposal would: Shift more Funding to Locally Managed OneBayArea Grant Program: Dedicate $214 million or roughly 40% of the Cycle 2 funding program to a new OneBayArea Grant. The funding for the OneBayArea Grant is the result of merging many of the programs in the Cycle 2 framework into a single flexible grant program and is roughly a 70% increase in the funding distributed to the counties as compared to the Cycle 2 framework adopted by the Commission. By comparison, the status quo approach for Cycle 2 would result in 22% going to County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) programs down from 30% in Cycle 1 Add Flexibility by Eliminating Program Categories: The One Bay Grant proposal provides additional flexibility under Cycle 2 by eliminating required program categories and combining funding for TLC, Bicycle, Local Streets and Roads Rehabilitation, and Safe Routes to School. See figure illustrating this change on the following page. Project selection will be limited to a degree by the project eligibility limitations of CMAQ which will make up approximately half of the funds that each county will receive. Past Long Range Plan Discretionary Funding Assignments $- $1.0 $2.0 $3.0 $4.0 $5.0 MTC CMAs MTC CMAs MTC CMAs 2001 RTP T 2030 T 2035 Bi l l i o n s Lifeline Bike/Ped TLC LS&R T 20302001 RTP T 2035 MTC Planning Committee/ABAG Administrative Committee: OneBayArea Grant (cont.) July 8, 2011 Page 3 LSR TLC Bike Bicycle, TLC, LSR, SR2S Original Framework $122M Proposed OneBayArea Grant $214M Leverage Outside Funds to Grow Program and Meet More Objectives: Additional opportunities could be sought through other regional programs, other non-federal sources for affordable housing, and other local funds to augment program objectives. As a start, the Air District proposes $6 million from its Regional Transportation for Clean Air (TFCA) Program. TFCA eligibility considerations will be guiding the use of these funds in the overall program. Continue Key Regional Programs: The remaining funding is targeted to continue regional programs such as Regional Operations, Freeway Performance Initiative, and Transit Capital Rehabilitation. Refer to Attachment A-2 for a description of these regional programs. Establish a Priority Conservation Area Planning Program: This new $2 million program element will provide financial incentives for counties with populations under 500,000 for preservation of resource area and farmland, as defined in California Government Code Section 65080.01. Distribution Formula for the OneBayArea Grant (Attachments B, C, D) Staff proposes a distribution formula for OneBayArea Grant funding (Attachment B) that includes housing incentives to support the SCS and promote effective transportation investments that support focused development. In order to ease the transition to this new funding approach, staff is also recommending a 50% population share factor in the formula: 1. Formula to Counties: The proposed distribution formula to the counties includes three components: 50% population, 25% Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for 2007-2014, and 25% actual housing production. This approach provides incentives for both future housing commitments and actual housing production. The fund distribution will be refined using the new RHNA to be adopted by ABAG next spring along with the SCS. The new RHNA being developed, which covers years 2015-2022, places a greater emphasis on city centered growth. As a result, refinements are likely to result in modest MTC Planning Committee/ABAG Administrative Committee: OneBayArea Grant (cont.) July 8, 2011 Page 4 revisions to the funding distribution consistent with these revised development patterns. The proposed OneBayArea Grant formula also uses actual housing data from 1999-2006, and has been capped such that each jurisdiction receives credit for housing up to its RHNA allocation. Subsequent funding cycles would rely on housing production from ABAG’s next housing report to be published in 2013. 2. Priority Development Area (PDA) Minimum: Require that at least 70% of funding be spent on projects in Priority Development Areas (planned, potential and growth opportunity areas). Growth opportunity areas are tentatively considered as PDAs until ABAG completes final PDA designations next fall. See Attachment C for PDA program minimums for each county and Attachment D for a map and a list of the PDAs. Anywhere 30% PDA Restricted 70 % Proposed Funding Minimum to be Spent in PDAs $64M $150M The OneBayArea Grant supports Priority Development Areas while providing flexibility to fund transportation needs in other areas. Performance and Accountability As noted at the outset, housing allocation according to RHNA and housing production will be the primary metric for distributing the OneBayArea Grant funding. In addition, staff recommends the following performance and accountability requirements. 1. Supportive Local Transportation and Land-Use Policies: Staff recommends that local agencies be required to have at least two of the following four policies adopted in order to be eligible for grant funds: a) Parking/pricing policies (e.g. cash out, peak pricing, on-street/off street pricing differentials, eliminate parking minimums, unbundled parking) and adopted city and/or countywide employer trip reduction ordinances b) Adopted Community Risk Reduction Plans (CRRP) per CEQA guidelines c) Have affordable housing policies in place or policies that ensure that new development projects do not displace low income housing MTC Planning Committee/ABAG Administrative Committee: OneBayArea Grant (cont.) July 8, 2011 Page 5 d) Adopted bicycle/pedestrian plan and complete streets policy in general plans pursuant to Complete Streets Act of 2008 2. Approved Housing Element: Also, a HCD-approved housing element consistent with RHNA/SB375 law is a proposed condition for any jurisdiction receiving Cycle 2 OneBayArea grants. This may be met as follows: 1) adoption of a housing element that meets the current RHNA before the new RHNA is adopted, or 2) the adoption of a housing element that meets the new RHNA after its approval early in 2012. Jurisdictions have 18 months after the adoption of the SCS to meet the new RHNA; therefore, compliance is expected and required by September 2014. Any jurisdiction failing to meet either one of these deadlines will not be allowed to receive grant funding. Lastly any jurisdiction without adopted housing elements addressing the new RHNA by September 2014 will be ineligible to receive any funding after Cycle 2 until they have adopted a housing element. Implementation Issues Below are issues to be addressed as we further develop the OneBayArea Grant concept: 1. Federal Authorization Uncertainty: We will need to closely monitor development of the new federal surface transportation authorization. New federal programs, their eligibility rules, and how money is distributed could potentially impact the implementation of the OneBayArea Grant Program as proposed. 2. Revenue Estimates: Staff assumes a steady but modest nominal revenue growth rate of 4% annually. Given the mood of Congress to downsize federal programs, these estimates are potentially overly optimistic if there are significant reductions in STP / CMAQ apportionments over the Cycle 2 time period. Staff recommends continuing to move forward with the conservative revenue assumptions and make adjustments later if needed. Preliminary Timeline and Next Steps Staff recommends the Committees release the OneBayArea Grant proposal for public review. Staff will seek feedback from stakeholder and technical working groups over the next several months. The preliminary timeline for development and approval of the OneBay Area Grant is shown on the next page. MTC MTC MTC 1 Regional Planning *23 26 5 21 26 2 Regional Operations 84 0 74 0 74 0 74 3 Freeway Performance Initiative (FPI)51 0 66 0 66 0 66 4 Transit Capital Rehabilitation *0 0 125 0 125 0 125 5 Local Streets and Roads Rehabilitation*6 94 7 70 3 74 77 6 Climate Initiatives *80 40 25 15 40 7 Regional Bicycle Program *0 20 0 20 0 20 20 8 Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) *51 28 64 32 9 Transportation Oriented Development (TOD) Fund 10000 10 Priority Conservation Area Planning Pilot 2 11 MTC Res 3814 Transit Payback Commitment 6 0 25 0 25 0 25 324 142 426 122 340 214 554 70% 30% 78% 22% 61% 39% 142 30% 122 22% 214 39% * 15 Existing Framework Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Status Quo CMA Grant Attachment A OneBayArea Grant Proposal New Act STP / CMAQ Cycle 2 Draft Funding Proposal June 22, 2011 (amounts in millions $) Cycle 1: $466M (after $54M Carryover) Cycle 2: $548M Air District: $6M One Bay Area Grant* Cycle 2 One Bay Area Cycle 2 Total CMA Block Grant Funding Available: Total Grant Totals: Cycle 2 One Bay Area Cycle 2 Status Quo J:\PROJECT\Funding\T4 - New Act\T4 - STP-CMAQ\T4 Cycle Programming\T4 Second Cycle\Cycle 2 Policy Dev\One Bay Area Grant\[Cycle2 Develop tables.xls]Program Funding 6-22-11 Cycle 1 Block Grant 1) Regional Planning: $21M ($7M per year) for CMA Planning to be distributed to CMAs through OneBayArea Grant. 4) Transit Capital Rehabilitation: 100% Transit Rehab assigned as Regional Transit Rehabilitation, as Transit is network based and regional $20M as CMAQ rather than TE as originally proposed in Framework 8) Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) TLC program eliminated - All TLC funds to OneBayArea grant 5) Local Streets and Roads Rehabilitation $3M for a scaled back PTAP program 6) Climate Initiative: $5M for SFGo in Regional. Eastern Solano CMAQ to Solano TA part of OneBayArea Grant. 102 Air District funding of $6 million adds capacity to suppport OneBay Area Grant. 85 7) Regional Bicycle Program: Attachment A-2: Regional Programs Regional Planning to support planning activities in the region carried out by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the San Francisco Bay Area Conservation and Development commission (BCDC), and MTC. CMAs would access their OneBayArea grant to fund planning activities. Regional Operations: This program includes Clipper, 511, Incident Management and a scaled- back Pavement Technical Assistance Program (PTAP). Freeway Performance Initiative This program emphasizes the delivery of ramp metering projects on the State Highway System throughout the Bay Area to gain the most efficiency out of the existing highway network. Priority Conservation Area Planning: Staff is recommending a new pilot for the development priority conservation area (PCA) plans for counties with populations under 500,000 to ameliorate outward development expansion and maintain their rural character. Transportation for the Livable Communities (TLC) and the Affordable Transportation Oriented Development (TOD) Housing Fund: The bulk of the TLC Program’s funding will shift to the OneBayArea Grant. The remaining funds under MTC’s management are proposed to continue station area planning and/or CEQA assistance to PDAs and support additional investments in affordable housing. Climate Initiatives: The objective of the Climate Initiatives Program launched in Cycle 1 was to make short-term investments that reduce transportation-related emissions and vehicle miles traveled, and encourage the use of cleaner fuels. Through the innovative projects selected and evaluation process, the region is building its knowledge base for the most effective Bay Area strategies for the Sustainable Communities Strategy and next long-range plan. The proposed funding for the Cycle 2 Climate Initiative Program would allow some continuation of these efforts at the regional level and protect a prior commitment to the SFGo project. Transit Capital Rehabilitation: The Commission deferred transit rehabilitation needs from Cycle 1 to Cycle 2 in order to allow more immediate delivery of some of the other programs. The program objective, as in the past, is to assist transit operators to fund major fleet replacements, fixed guideway rehabilitation and other high-scoring capital needs that cannot be accommodated within the FTA Transit Capital Priorities program. MTC Resolution 3814 Transit Payback Commitment: Consistent with the Cycle 2 framework, MTC is proposing to program $25 million to Lifeline, small operators, and SamTrans right-of- way settlement to partially address a commitment originally envisioned to be met with state spillover funds. County 50%-25%-25% (Pop. - RHNA - Housing Production Capped) Status Quo Grant Program Alameda $43.0 $25.4Contra Costa $31.9 $16.6 Marin $6.4 $5.0 Napa $4.2 $2.9 San Francisco $25.0 $11.8 San Mateo $17.4 $11.1 Santa Clara $56.1 $28.1 Solano $14.0 $9.0 Sonoma $16.0 $12.3 Bay Area Total $214.0 $122.1 Difference From Status Quo Grant Program County 50%-25%-25% (Pop. - RHNA - Housing Production Capped) Status Quo Grant Program Alameda $17.7 -Contra Costa $15.3 - Marin $1.5 - Napa $1.3 - San Francisco $13.2 -San Mateo $6.3 -Santa Clara $28.0 - Solano $5.0 - Sonoma $3.7 - Bay Area Total $91.9 - % Change From Status Quo Grant Program County 50%-25%-25% (Pop. - RHNA - Housing Production Capped) Status Quo Grant Program Alameda 70% - Contra Costa 92% - Marin 29% - Napa 45%- San Francisco 112%-San Mateo 57%- Santa Clara 100%- Solano 55%- Sonoma 30%- Bay Area Total 75%- Notes: J:\PROJECT\Funding\T4 - New Act\T4 - STP-CMAQ\T4 Cycle Programming\T4 Second Cycle\Cycle 2 Policy Dev\Block Grant\[Distribution Options.xls]Distrib Overview Status quo program based on framework for Cycle 2 adopted by the Commission and continuation of Cycle 1 county block grant policies. Population data from Department of Finance, US Census 2010 Attachment B PROPOSAL Housing production 1999-2006 is capped at 1999-2006 RHNA thresholds RHNA is based on current 2007-20014 targets Cycle 2 (FYs 2013, 2014, 2015) OneBayArea Grant Distribution Formula Attachment C Apportionment Area County Grant Amount PDA 70% Minimum Anywhere in County Alameda $43.0 $30.1 $12.9 Contra Costa $31.9 $22.4 $9.6 Marin $6.4 $4.5 $1.9 Napa $4.2 $2.9 $1.3 San Francisco $25.0 $17.5 $7.5 San Mateo $17.4 $12.2 $5.2 Santa Clara $56.1 $39.3 $16.8 Solano $14.0 $9.8 $4.2 Sonoma $16.0 $11.2 $4.8 Regional Total $214.0 $149.8 $64.2 PDA Investments for the OneBayArea Grant 50%-25%-25% (Pop.- RHNA - Actual Housing Production Capped) Distribution Allocation Areas PROPOSAL Daly City San Leandro San Jose San Francisco Oakland San Rafael Mountain View Sunnyvale South San Francisco Santa Rosa Santa Clara San Mateo Richmond Redwood City Pleasanton Pittsburg Petaluma Palo Alto Milpitas Hayward Fremont Fairfield Cupertino Concord Berkeley Antioch Alameda Napa Walnut Creek Vallejo Vacaville Union City Santa Clara Alameda San Mateo Contra Costa Marin Sonoma Napa Solano Priority Development Areas Attachment D Source: MTC, June 2011, ABAG 2011 Cartography: MTC GIS/June 2011 Path: C:\WorkSpace\Craig\PDAs.mxd Scale: ½10 2 3in.in. 1 inch = 10 m iles Priority Development Areas Planned Planned/Potential Potential Growth Opportunity Areas Current Alameda County Jursidiction or Area Name PDA Status Alameda Naval Air Station Planned/Potential Northern Waterfront Growth Opportunity Area Albany San Pablo Avenue & Solano Avenue Growth Opportunity Area Berkeley Adeline Street Potential Downtown Planned San Pablo Avenue Planned South Shattuck Planned Telegraph Avenue Potential University Avenue Planned Dublin Downtown Specific Plan Area Planned Town Center Planned Transit Center Planned Emeryville Mixed-Use Core Planned Fremont Centerville Planned City Center Planned Irvington District Planned Ardenwood Business Park Growth Opportunity Area Fremont Boulevard & Warm Springs Boulevard Corridor Growth Opportunity Area Fremont Boulevard Decoto Road Crossing Growth Opportunity Area South Fremont/Warm Springs Growth Opportunity Area Hayward Downtown Planned South Hayward BART Planned South Hayward BART Planned The Cannery Planned Carlos Bee Quarry Growth Opportunity Area Mission Corridor Growth Opportunity Area Livermore Downtown Planned Vasco Road Station Planning Area Potential Newark Dumbarton Transit Oriented Development Potential Old Town MIxed Use Area Potential Cedar Boulevard Transit Growth Opportunity Area Civic Center Re-Use Transit Growth Opportunity Area Attachment D: Priority Development Areas MTC/ABAG Internal Communication/Deliberation June 6, 2011 Oakland Coliseum BART Station Area Planned Downtown & Jack London Square Planned Eastmont Town Center Planned Fruitvale & Dimond Areas Planned MacArthur Transit Village Planned Transit Oriented Development Corridors Potential West Oakland Planned Pleasanton Hacienda Potential San Leandro Bay Fair BART Transit Village Potential Downtown Transit Oriented Development Planned East 14th Street Planned Union City Intermodal Station District Planned Mission Boulevard Growth Opportunity Area Old Alvarado Growth Opportunity Area Alameda County Unincorporated Castro Valley BART Growth Opportunity Area East 14th Street and Mission Boulevard Mixed Use Corridor Growth Opportunity Area MTC/ABAG Internal Communication/Deliberation June 6, 2011 Contra Costa County Jursidiction or Area Name PDA Status Antioch Hillcrest eBART Station Planned Rivertown Waterfront Potential Concord Community Reuse Area Potential Community Reuse Area Potential Downtown BART Station Planning Growth Opportunity Area North Concord BART Adjacent Growth Opportunity Area West Downtown Planning Area Growth Opportunity Area El Cerrito San Pablo Avenue Corridor Planned Hercules Central Hercules Planned Waterfront District Planned Lafayette Downtown Planned Martinez Downtown Planned Moraga Moraga Center Potential Oakley Downtown Potential Employment Area Potential Potential Planning Area Potential Orinda Downtown Potential Pinole Appian Way Corridor Potential Old Town Potential Pittsburg Downtown Planned Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station Planned Railroad Avenue eBART Station Planned Pleasant Hill Buskirk Avenue Corridor Potential Diablo Valley College Potential Richmond Central Richmond Planned South Richmond Planned 23rd Street Growth Opportunity Area San Pablo Avenue Corridor Growth Opportunity Area San Ramon City Center Planned North Camino Ramon Potential MTC/ABAG Internal Communication/Deliberation June 6, 2011 Walnut Creek Walnut Creek: West Downtown Planned Contra Costa County Unincorporated Contra Costa Centre Planned Downtown El Sobrante Potential North Richmond Potential Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station Planned West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee: San Pablo Avenue Corridor Planned/Potential MTC/ABAG Internal Communication/Deliberation June 6, 2011 Marin County Jursidiction or Area Name PDA Status San Rafael Civic Center/North Rafael Town Center Planned Downtown Planned Marin County Unincorporated Urbanized 101 Corridor Potential San Quentin Growth Opportunity Area Napa County Jursidiction or Area Name PDA Status American Canyon Highway 29 Corridor Potential San Francisco County Jursidiction or Area Name PDA Status San Francisco 19th Avenue Potential Balboa Park Planned Bayview/Hunters Point Shipyard/Candlestick Point Planned Downtown-Van Ness-Geary Planned Eastern Neighborhoods Planned Market & Octavia Planned Mission Bay Planned Mission-San Jose Corridor Planned Port of San Francisco Planned San Francisco/San Mateo Bi-County Area (with City of Brisbane) Planned Transbay Terminal Planned Treasure Island Planned Citywide Growth Opportunity Area MTC/ABAG Internal Communication/Deliberation June 6, 2011 San Mateo County Jursidiction or Area Name PDA Status Brisbane San Francisco/San Mateo Bi-County Area (with San Francisco) Potential Burlingame Burlingame El Camino Real Planned Daly City Bayshore Potential Mission Boulevard Potential Citywide East Palo Alto Ravenswood Potential Woodland/Willow Neighborhood Menlo Park El Camino Real Corridor and Downtown Planned Millbrae Transit Station Area Planned Redwood City Downtown Planned Broadway Growth Opportunity Area Middlefield Growth Opportunity Area Mixed Use Waterfront Growth Opportunity Area Veterans Corridor Growth Opportunity Area San Bruno Transit Corridors Planned San Carlos Railroad Corridor Planned San Mateo Downtown Planned El Camino Real Planned Rail Corridor Planned South San Francisco Downtown Planned Lindenville Transit Neighborhood Growth Opportunity Area CCAG of San Mateo County: El Camino Real Planned/Potential MTC/ABAG Internal Communication/Deliberation June 6, 2011 Santa Clara County Jursidiction or Area Name PDA Status Cambell Central Redevelopment Area Planned Winchester Boulevard Master Plan Growth Opportunity Area Gilroy Downtown Planned Los Altos El Camino Real Corridor Growth Opportunity Area Milpitas Transit Area Planned Hammond Transit Neighborhood Growth Opportunity Area McCandless Transit Neighborhood Growth Opportunity Area McCarthy Ranch Employment Center Growth Opportunity Area Midtown Mixed-Use Corridor Growth Opportunity Area Serra Center Mixed-Use Corridor Growth Opportunity Area Tasman Employment Center Growth Opportunity Area Town Center Mixed-Use Corridor Growth Opportunity Area Yosemite Employment Center Growth Opportunity Area Morgan Hill Morgan Hill: Downtown Planned Mountain View Whisman Station Potential Downtown Growth Opportunity Area East Whisman Growth Opportunity Area El Camino Real Corridor Growth Opportunity Area Moffett Field/NASA Ames Growth Opportunity Area North Bayshore Growth Opportunity Area San Antonio Center Growth Opportunity Area Palo Alto Palo Alto: California Avenue Planned Palo Alto: El Camino Real Corridor Growth Opportunity Area Palo Alto: University Avenue/Downtown Growth Opportunity Area San Jose Berryessa Station Planned Communications Hill Planned Cottle Transit Village Planned Downtown "Frame"Planned East Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor Planned Greater Downtown Planned North San Jose Planned West San Carlos and Southwest Expressway Corridors Planned Bascom TOD Corridor Growth Opportunity Area Bascom Urban Village Growth Opportunity Area Blossom Hill/Snell Urban Village Growth Opportunity Area Camden Urban Village Growth Opportunity Area Capitol Corridor Urban Villages Growth Opportunity Area MTC/ABAG Internal Communication/Deliberation June 6, 2011 Capitol/Tully/King Urban Villages Growth Opportunity Area Oakridge/Almaden Plaza Urban Village Growth Opportunity Area Saratoga TOD Corridor Growth Opportunity Area Stevens Creek TOD Corridor Growth Opportunity Area Westgate/El Paseo Urban Village Growth Opportunity Area Winchester Boulevard TOD Corridor Growth Opportunity Area Santa Clara Central Expressway Focus Area Growth Opportunity Area El Camino Real Focus Area Growth Opportunity Area Great America Parkway Focus Area Growth Opportunity Area Lawrence Station Focus Area Growth Opportunity Area Santa Clara Station Focus Area Growth Opportunity Area Tasman East Focus Area Growth Opportunity Area Sunnyvale Downtown & Caltrain Station Planned El Camino Real Corridor Planned Lawrence Station Transit Village Potential East Sunnyvale ITR Growth Opportunity Area Moffett Park Growth Opportunity Area Peery Park Growth Opportunity Area Reamwood Light Rail Station Growth Opportunity Area Tasman Station ITR Growth Opportunity Area VTA Cores, Corridors, and Station Areas (estimate) Potential MTC/ABAG Internal Communication/Deliberation June 6, 2011 Solano County Jursidiction or Area Name PDA Status Benicia Downtown Planned Northern Gateway Growth Opportunity Area Dixon Fairfield Downtown South (Jefferson Street)Planned Fairfield-Vacaville Train Station Potential North Texas Street Core Potential West Texas Street Gateway Planned Rio Vista Suisun City Downtown & Waterfront Planned Vacaville Allison Area Planned Downtown Planned Vallejo Waterfront & Downtown Planned Solano County Unincorporated MTC/ABAG Internal Communication/Deliberation June 6, 2011 Sonoma County Jursidiction or Area Name PDA Status Cloverdale Downtown/SMART Transit Area Planned Cotati Downtown and Cotati Depot Planned Healdsburg Petaluma Central, Turning Basin/Lower Reach Planned Rohnert Park Sonoma Mountain Village Potential Santa Rosa Downtown Station Area Planned Mendocino Avenue/Santa Rosa Avenue Corridor Potential Sebastopol Road Corridor Planned/Potential North Santa Rosa Station Growth Opportunity Area Sebastopol Nexus Area Potential Sonoma Windsor Redevelopment Area Planned Sonoma County Unincorporated 8th Street East Industrial Area Growth Opportunity Area Airport/Larkfield Urban Service Area Growth Opportunity Area Penngrove Urban Service Area Growth Opportunity Area The Springs Growth Opportunity Area J:\PROJECT\Funding\T4 - New Act\T4 - STP-CMAQ\T4 Cycle Programming\T4 Second Cycle\Cycle 2 Policy Dev\Block Grant\[Distribution Options.xls]Distrib Overview Provided by ABAG 6/6/2011 MTC/ABAG Internal Communication/Deliberation June 6, 2011 ONE BAY AREA GRANTONEBAY AREA GRANT UNDERSTANDING THE STP/CMAQ FUNDING CYCLE PRESENTED BY: JOHN RISTOW CHIEF OFFICER, CONGESTION MANAGEMENT DIVISION SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 1 ONE BAY AREA GRANTONE BAY AREA GRANTONE BAY AREA GRANT One Bay Area Grant $211 M 38% Regional Programs $343M 62% ONE BAY AREA GRANT PROGRAM OF STP/CMAQ FUNDS DISTRIBUTION OF THE $211 M TO COUNTIES •The ONE BAY AREA Grant is based on the Federal Surface Transportation Act. •The funds for this grant are the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. •There is a total of more than $550 M over the 3‐year cycle from FY 13 to FY 15. 2 USE OF THE FUNDSUSE OF THE FUNDSUSE OF THE FUNDS AMOUNTS IN MILLIONS $ CYCLE 2 ONE BAY AREA GRANT WHAT THE FUNDS FOR THE CMA PORTION ARE USED FOR MTC SHARE CMA SHARE Regional Planning Projects and programs that support management and administration of CMA planning activities.5 21 Regional Operations 74 0 Freeway Performance Initiative (FPI)66 0 Transit Capital Rehabilitation 125 0 Local Streets and Roads Rehabilitation Projects that relate to Pavement Management, Street Rehabilitation, and Street Reconstruction.3 74 Climate Initiatives Projects and programs that support a reduction of greenhouse gases and provide a reduction of auto users.25 12 Regional Bicycle Program Bicycle Projects including trails and bridges.0 20 Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) Projects that include improvements near transit centers that support the surrounding land uses, for example, streetscape improvements and bicycle and pedestrian projects. 15 85Transportation Oriented Development (TOD) Priority Conservation Area Planning Fund 5 MTC Res. 3814 Transit Payback Commitment 25 0 TOTAL 343 211 62% 38% 3 FACT SHEETFACT SHEETFACT SHEET WHAT IT DOES Expands “Block Grant” concept used for last round of STP/CMAQ (T‐2035) Gives CMAs more programming authority Increases local funding Consolidates Local Streets, TLC/CDT, Bike, and Safe Routes to School projects into one program HOW FUNDS ARE DISTRIBUTED New Formula for Distribution ($56.1 M for Santa Clara County) 50% Population 25% RHNA (2007‐2014) 25% Actual Housing Production (1999‐ 2006) STRINGS New Restrictions At least 70% must be spent in Priority Development Areas (PDAs) & Growth Opportunity Areas (GOAs) 30% can be spent anywhere Can use up to 5% for Priority Conservation Areas Policy Requirements Agencies must have 2 of the following 4 policies 1) Parking/pricing policies 2) Adopted Community Risk Reduction Plans 3) Affordable housing policies or policies that ensure new development does not displace low income housing 4) Adopted bicycle/pedestrian plan and complete streets policies in general plans Agencies must have an approved Housing Element consistent with RHNA/SB 375 5 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL AND VTA STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL AND VTA STAFF SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL AND VTA STAFF RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONS MTC OneBayArea Grant Proposal Feedback and Analysis VTA Staff Recommendation 1. Increases local funding and delegates most of the funding to the CMA level for programming The proposal will increase funding levels for counties that are accepting growth. Strongly supports these program elements. 1. Eliminate program categories Will Add flexibility for local decision‐making.Strongly supports these program elements. 1. MTC retains $15M as the Transit Oriented Development fund This will allow use of limited transportation funds for non‐transportation uses, which is counter to the VTA adopted principles. Suggests Eliminating the program and roll back the funds to the formula distribution. 1. Restricts the resource area preservation funding to counties with less than 500,000 populations Many counties have resource preservation needs. SCC ranks second in rural road mileage and agricultural production. Suggests allowing all Counties to be eligible for the funding or eliminate the program and roll back the funds to the formula distribution. 1. Distribution formula: 50% population, 25% RHNA, 25% actual housing production This will result in approximately 26% of funding to Santa Clara County. Strongly supports the formula as it is consistent with the VTA adopted principles. MTC OneBayArea Grant Proposal Feedback and Analysis VTA Staff Recommendation 1. A minimum of 70% of the funds in each county must be programmed in PDA’s (incl. GOA’s) Many needs are outside of the PDA’s. Transportation projects do not end at the PDA boundaries. The restriction, compounded with the federal aid requirement, will make it even more difficult to fund pavement projects. Define eligible projects as “PDA‐serving” Reduce to 50/50 share Include all PDAs/GOAs 1. Agencies must meet at least two of the four policy requirements Very few jurisdictions can meet the requirements. Some requirements are not relevant or practice. Many need further clarifications. Suggests changes to make these requirements relevant and practical. Remove the policy requirements to the portion of funds spent outside of PDA’s. Request more flexibility from MTC and work with Member Agencies to better define these requirements. 1. Agencies must have an approved Housing Element consistent with RHNA/SB375 Many jurisdictions do not have a housing element approved by the State. The RHNA/SB375 process is experiencing many uncertainties. Include this as one of the four policy requirements as a menu of options rather than a stand‐alone requirement. POLICY LEVEL ISSUES IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION 6 ONE BAY AREA GRANT – FACT SHEET WHAT IT DOES Expands “Block Grant” concept used for last round of STP/CMAQ (T‐2035) Gives CMAs more programming authority Increases local funding Consolidates Local Streets, TLC/CDT, Bike, and Safe Routes to School projects into one program HOW FUNDS ARE DISTRIBUTED New Formula for Distribution ($56.1 M for Santa Clara County) 50% Population 25% RHNA (2007‐2014) 25% Actual Housing Production (1999‐2006) STRINGS New Restrictions At least 70% must be spent in Priority Development Areas (PDAs) & Growth Opportunity Areas (GOAs) 30% can be spent anywhere Can use up to 5% for Priority Conservation Areas Policy Requirements Agencies must have 2 of the following 4 policies 1) Parking/pricing policies 2) Adopted Community Risk Reduction Plans 3) Affordable housing policies or policies that ensure new development does not displace low income housing 4) Adopted bicycle/pedestrian plan and complete streets policies in general plans Agencies must have an approved Housing Element consistent with RHNA/SB 375 SCHEDULE First Release for Public Discussion July 8, 2011 MTC Working Group Discussions July – September First CIP Working Group Discussion July 27, 2011 MTC adopts Cycle 2 approach December 2011 MTC adopts Cycle 2/One Bay Area Grant with Final RHNA #’s March 2012 April 2012 – February 2013 CMAs select projects October 1, 2013 Federal funds become available PAGE 1 MTC One Bay Area Grant Proposal – Summary of Proposal Elements and VTA Staff Recommendations 1. Policy-Level Issues MTC OneBayArea Grant Proposal Feedback and Analysis VTA Staff Recommendation 1.1 Increases local funding and delegates most of the funding to the CMA level for programming The proposal will increase funding levels for counties that are accepting growth. Strongly supports these program elements. 1.2 Eliminate program categories Will Add flexibility for local decision-making. Strongly supports these program elements. 1.3 MTC retains $15M as the Transit Oriented Development fund This will allow use of limited transportation funds for non-transportation uses, which is counter to the VTA adopted principles. Suggests Eliminating the program and roll back the funds to the formula distribution. 1.4 Restricts the resource area preservation funding to counties with less than 500,000 populations Many counties have resource preservation needs. SCC ranks second in rural road mileage and agricultural production. Suggests allowing all Counties to be eligible for the funding or eliminate the program and roll back the funds to the formula distribution. 1.5 Distribution formula: 50% population, 25% RHNA, 25% actual housing production This will result in approximately 26% of funding to Santa Clara County. Strongly supports the formula as it is consistent with the VTA adopted principles. 2. Project Implementation and Program Administration MTC OneBayArea Grant Proposal Feedback and Analysis VTA Staff Recommendation 2.1 A minimum of 70% of the funds in each county must be programmed in PDA’s (incl. GOA’s) Many needs are outside of the PDA’s. Transportation projects do not end at the PDA boundaries. The restriction, compounded with the federal aid requirement, will make it even more difficult to fund pavement projects. Define eligible projects as “PDA-serving” Reduces to 50/50 share Include all PDAs and GOAs 2.2 Agencies must meet at least two of the four policy requirements Very few jurisdictions can meet the requirements. Some requirements are not relevant or practical. Many need further clarifications. Remove the policy requirements to the portion of funds spent outside of PDA’s and GOAs. Suggests changes to make these requirements relevant and practical. Request more flexibility from MTC and work with Member Agencies to better define these requirements. 2.3 Agencies must have an approved Housing Element consistent with RHNA/SB375 Many jurisdictions do not have a housing element approved by the State. The RHNA/SB375 process is experiencing many uncertainties. Include this as one of the four policy requirements as a menu of options rather than a stand-alone requirement. PAGE 2 City of Palo Alto (ID # 1967) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Special Orders of the Day Meeting Date: 10/3/2011 October 03, 2011 Page 1 of 1 (ID # 1967) Summary Title: Palo Alto Menlo Park Parents Title: Community Partnership Presentation by the Palo Alto Menlo Park Parents Club From:City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Prepared By:Erin Perez, Administrative Assistant Department Head:Greg Betts, Director, Community Services City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK October 3, 2011 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Parks and Recreation Commission for Three Terms Ending on December 31, 2014 Six applications have been submitted for three terms, ending on December 31, 2014 on the Parks and Recreation Commission. At the Council Meeting on October 3, 2011, the City Council will select the candidates to be interviewed for the Parks and Recreation Commission, with the interview date to be determined. The applicants are as follows: 1.Stacey Ashlund 2.Tricia Baker 3.Ty Butler 4.Deirdre Crommie 5.Hank Edson 6.Pat Markevitch REPORT PREPARED BY: Ronna Jojola Gonsalves, Deputy City Clerk ATTACHMENTS: ·Ashlund (PDF) ·Baker (PDF) ·Butler (PDF) ·Crommie (PDF) ·Edson (PDF) ·Markevitch (PDF) Department Head:Donna Grider, City Clerk Updated: 9/28/2011 9:24 AM by Ronna Gonsalves Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE , , SEP 22 AM II: It 7 PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION CITY OF PALO ALTO BOARD AND COMMISSION APPLICATION SUBMIT TO: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (6S<» j~9-~S71 Please print or type answers to all questions and place Nt A in those areas that do not apply. Be sure that you fill out the attached supplement and return it with your signed application. NAME: Baker Last Tricia First RESIDENCE 1810 Fulton Street ADDRESS: ~ _____________ _ Street Palo Alto CA 94303 City State Zip Education: HOME PHONE: 650.326.3140 WORK PHONE: 408.596.1609 CELL PHONE: 408.596.1609 EMAIL: tricia71@me.com ~~.e.~ ~~lN6~~lUG)1\\( O~() ~~ U~\VG\C.Srti bYfAlluok)~cun~ ~f()4A1 ~~~~tt1>t)\... (SF t&J~1~~ ~~FtlZ-D (J~\~IT'( List relevant training and experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: Bds/Commissions -702-23 8/26/2011 • Are you a Palo Alto Resident? • Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are board members or commissioners? • Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? • California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? If you answered yes, you may wish to consult with the City Attorney before filing this application at 650-329-2171. • Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto or within two miles of Palo Alto? EMPLOYMENT ;;:~~rc~=:~~oyer Cisco ----------------------------Occupation: o D o D o o o Dir, Engineering (If retired, indicate former occupation) Signature of Applicant Date: 6 September 2011 Bds/Commissions -702-23 8/26/2011 Please Return to: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2571 CITY OF PALO ALTO PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE Name: Tricia Baker Date: 6 September 2Q11 Please print or type your answers to the following questions and submit with your completed application. You may submit additional sheets, if necessary, to complete your answers. 1. Have you attended the following meeting? • Park and Recreation Commission Yes D (tJaie: Sep 'l7,'2C>J I No [8 2. How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Park and Recreation Commission? Community Group: D Palo Alto Weekly: D The Daily Post: 0 Email from City Clerk: D Library Bulletin Board: D FlyerlBookmark: D Other, Please Specify: CEO Chamber, Dan Dykwel 3. Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: Questions answered on separate sheet 4. What is it about the Park and Recreation Commission that interests you? What qualities, experience and expertise would you bring to the Park and Recreation Commission? Bds/Commissions -702-23 8/26/2011 5. How would you see your role as commissioner when recommending policy and working with the Council? If it were necessary to change current roles, how would you approach making such changes? 6. What are the current issues facing the Park and Recreation Commission? 7. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Parks and Recreations Commission achieve? Bds/Commissions -702-23 8/26/2011 TRICIABAKER 1810 Fulton Street • Palo Alto, CA (408) 596-1609 • baker.paloalto@.com 3. Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations During the last decade I have volunteered at diverse organizations, including global, technical and education efforst, from UNESCO and Anita Borg to Habitat for Humanity and Second Harvest. However, my passion for the last five years has been fo~sed on four organizations relating to recreation, education and the environmental interests of Palo Alto. These organizations and my roles include: Canopy (canopy.Qrg) -Volunteer in Tree Planting (E:ast Palo TreEllnitiativ:e),·6ducati<m and Qutreach Canopy is a small environmental nonprofit dedicated to planting and protecting trees in parks, schools, and along streets of Palo Alto and neighboring communities Garden Club of Palo Alto (gardenclubofpaloalto.org) -Active Member and Volunteer for Community Outreach, Conservation and Horticulture GCPC encot!r~ges ~n int~r~~t in gardening, horticulture, ~rti$tic us~ of flowers and plants, conservation of natural resources and allied subjects; to educate the community on these subjects; and to assist in the beautification of public areas of the City of Palo Alto and surrounding communities. Gamble Garden (gamblegarden.org) -Member and Volunteer for Community Day, Garden Tours, Holiday Affair and Teas The Elizabeth Gamble Garden is a non-profit community horticulture foundation serving Palo Alto and surrounding communities. Parents Club of Palo Alto I PAMP (pampclub.org) -Online Community Operations, Moderator and Special Events Volunteer PAMP is a diverse parents organization (3200+ members) with the goal of enriching the lives of families with children through community outreach programs, educational programs, cultural celebrations and knowledge sharing. 4. What is it about the Park and Recreation Commission that interests you? What qualities, experience and expertise would you bring to the Park and Recreation Commission? I am interested in the Park and Recreation Commission in order to serve the City of Palo Alto through community outreach and alignment and by ensuring continued and enhanced community services. Palo Alto is one of the most unique communities due to its natural resources, community facilities, cultural centers and wonderful parks and libraries serving numerous demographics. I am passionate about our community and have a vested interest in it's future due to my 3.5 year old daughter. As part of the Commission I will dedicate my time and contribute my skills including: operations, budgeting, organizing, -teamwork, community engagement, and; policy management. In my professional career as Director of Operations at Cisco, I am a proven expert at managing cross-functional teams in diverse environments to successfully complete mission-critical projects. I'm a pragmatic, focused professional who implements advanced analytical and problem-solving skills to effectively address business, operational, and policy issues. I quickly assess situations and utilize appropriate responses to meet the specific needs of the business requirement at hand. I fully expect to bring these qualities and my experience to the role of Commisioner. In addition to my professional skills and experience, I am a long-term resident of Palo Alto. I initially moved to Palo Alto in 1994 after graduating fran; college at Tflle Ofilia State University. A year ago, we moved to Christmas Tree lane, a tight knit community who celebrates many holidays, including Christmas, through neighborhood solidarity. Finally, my daughter and I, along with my parents who live in Old Palo Alto, enjoy our community resources including, but not limited to: Biking to parks, open spaces including the Baylands, Duck Pond and local farmers markets Attending swim lessons at Rinconada Learning Art at the Art Center Visiting the Mitchell and Children's libraries Taking dance and piano lessons at Cubberly Playing at our neighborhood parks Playing tennis and golf at our local facilities Hiking and running on our local trails .. And, attending local events such as the Black & White aaU, May Fete parade and the annual Art Festival My years of living in Palo Alto provide me with a depth of understanding of the City and it's goals. 5. How would you see your role as commissioner when recommending policy. and working with the Council? My role as Commissioner would be to advise the City Council on matters relating to the Parks and Golf Division and the Recreation, Open Space and Sciences Division. This would include planning and policy suggestions for optimally achieving the goals of the Commision, reviewing state legislative proposals related to the Community Services Division and reviewing the City Manager's proposed budget for improvements and operations. 6. What are the current issues facing the Park and Recreation Commission? The Park and Recreation Commission oversee a broad set of i$$UE;!$, ThE;! top i$$ue$ toct~y inclyd~ Project Safety Net, the Magial Bridge Playground, connections to local parks and recreation areas (including bikeways), the libraries and ensuring alignment to the Master Plan for the Baylands (for example, the Recycling Center) and the related budgets. 7. If appointe~ what specifi«: g.oals would you like to see the Parks and ReCreations Commission achieve? There are many poliCies initiated and underway for which I envision results and impact during my 3-year term. The specific goals I hope to see realized or major milestones achieved include: A. Project Safety Net -I hope to see meaningful results based upon the Teen Programs I Youth Forums. I envision a drop in teens stress, increased number of effective programs for teens (such as The Drop), and increased trust built with our teens and youth based upon our Boards and Youth Council. Finally, I wish to see continuation of the breadth of programs and partnerships for local youth sports programs. B. Magical Bridge Playground -I envision funding complete ($800,000 total), Phase 1 built out and a ribbon cutting ceremony within the three years. This playground could become one of many unique showcases for Palo Alto's parks and recreation facilities. C. Local Partnerships -Many of our programs and events are only made possible through strong partnerships with local businesses and non-profits. I envision a continued and evolved list of community partners, aligned to the goals of the Community Services Division. One of my personal goals (and perhaps extendable to the CommissiOn) is to continuously learn and educate people on how to create beautiful, practical xeroscape environments. This would help keep Palo Alto green, reduce C02 and work towards our community interests for conservation. D. Community Garden -While this is very specific, I envision the Community Garden program being enhanced to become a more valued resource. I'd like to see the plots fully utilized and people donating abundant food to organizations such as Ample Harvest. Partnerships with Gamble Garden and the Garden Club of Palo would help achieve this vision. E. Neighborhood Parks -Our parks are a major draw for families with young children. Recently, individuals in local parents groups have reported deep appreciation for the parks and yet occasional incidents of graffiti, overflowing refuse and needed repairs at local parks. I'd like to end my 3 year term with high quality parks and the utmost pride for our parks and recreation facilities and for being a Commissioner. Strategic Planning Information Technology (IT) Visionary Leadership TRICIA BAKER 1810 Fulton Street· Palo Alto, CA (408) 596-1609 • baker.paloalto@.com CORE COMPETENClES Operations Management Customer Experience Systems Analysis PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Cisco Systems -San Jose, CA (1996-2011) Director, Operations (2004-2011) Problem Solving Training Accomplished Spokesperson Launched highly successful critical best practices and accountability framework with dashboard/ scorecard system that garnered $40,000,000 in cost savings and 20% reduction in customer-found defects and mean-time-to-repair. Directed all activities of Software Quality, Web 2.0 Team of 72 staff and 18 contract reports, managing budget of $25,000,000. Chief of Staff for Executive Vice President I Chief Development Officer (2006-2008) Instrumental in establishment of transformational operational model, increasing effectiveness of Senior Staff. Shaped strategic leadership focus through monthly strategy sessions on critical markets, technology, and business. Concurrent with position as Director, Software Operations. Senior Managgr.. Customer Engineering Services (2001-2004) Led newly created Customer Services Organization, building and directing team of 19 Product Managers, System Architects, Customer Support Engineers, and Lab Administrators. Manager, Systems & Solutions Engineering (1996-2001) Managed Systems & Solutions team to provide technical interface for customers in VoIP services. Built11-person organization to launch first residential broadband telecommunications with service providers. Cirrus Logic -San Jose, CA (1994-1996) Applications Engineer -PicoPower Division ii" Instrumental in Engineering Operations, including development of x86 core logic chip sets (ASICs). Partnered with [ Microsoft, Intel, and Compaq to defme next generation technologies, including Universal Serial Bus (USB), IEEE II 1394 (Firewire), infrared (FIR / SIR), and memory architectures. !I II I EDUCATION Graduate, Executive Program for Growing Companies Stanford University Graduate School of Business Stanford, CA B~c;h~lQr Qf Sc;i~nC;~2 El~c;triC;!ll Engin~~ring The Ohio State University Columbus,OH City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 CONSENT FORM CalifQrnia Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "NQ state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. Read the code, and check only ONE option below: o I Tricia Baker give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have r~aCl ana understand my fights under Goverl'lMent COde Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home OIO_R ___ _ address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. 1810 Fulton Street Address 650.888.6167 Phone baker.paloalto@gmail.com Signature* 6 September 2011 Date *The applicant must have a digital signature or print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. Bds/Commissions -702-23 8/26/2011 CALIFORNIA CODES GOV€RNMEN-"F CODE SEmON-625()~627(}: http://www.leglnfa.ca-.gov 6254.21. (a) No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed offiCial on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual. (b) No person shall knowingly post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official, or of the official's residing spouse or child, on the Internet knowing that person is an elected or appointed official and intending to cause imminent great bodily harm that is likely to occur or threatening to cause imminent great bodily harm to that individual. A violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor. A violation of this subdivision that leads to the bodily injury of the official, or his or her residing spouse or child, is a misdemeanor or a felony. (c) (1) (A) No person, bUSiness, or association shall publicly post or publicly display on the Internet the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official if that offiCial has made a written demand of that person, bUSiness, or association to not disclose his or her home address or telephone number. (B) A written demand made under this paragraph by a state constitutional officer, a mayor, or a Member of the Legislature, a~ cJty q~u,pcR~.,~ra. ~~C!.rct Of. ~.~~is~~, ~1:)~Lio4-q,<t.' ~,~~t.<l",c;QQ!lIg,. '\. t~~.,.~ or f~~ fo,r tl:)~, s.i;lf~~ty q( th~t.,otti~q.~ ~( any personre$lolngat the official's home address. . . . {tl A written demand made under this paragraph by an elected offiCial shall be effective for four years, regardless of whether or not the official's term has expired prior to the end of the four-year period. (D) (i) A person, bUSiness, or association that receives the written demand of an elected or appointed official pursuant to this paragraph shall remove the official's home address or telephone number from public display on the Internet, including information provided to cellular telephone applications, within 48 hours of delivery of the written demand, and shall continue to ensure that this information is not reposted on the same Internet Web Site, subsidiary Site, or any other Internet Web site main4linedtl,v th.~ recipi~nt 9f the Y,(rit1:en d~n:lal;\d. .' (iijAfterreceiving the eiectedor appointedbfflcial's written demand, the person, bUSiness, or association shall not transfer the appointed or eiected offlciai\s 'home address or te'lephone numher to any other person, husiness, or aSSOCiation through any other medium. (Iii) Clause (Ii) shall not be deemed to prohibit a telephone corporation, as defined in Section 234 of the Public Utilities Code, or its affiliate, from transferring the elected or appointed official's home address or telephone number to any person, bUSiness, or association, if the transfer is authorized by federal or state law, regulation, order, or tariff, or necessary in the event of an emergency, or to collect a debt owed by the elected or appointed official to the telephone corporation or its affiliate. (E) For purposes of this paragraph; "publicly post" or "publicly display" means to intentionally communicate or otherwise make available to the general public. (2) An official whose home address or telephone number is made public as a result of a violation of paragraph (l) may bring an action seeking injunctive or declarative relief in any court of competent jurisdiction. If a court finds that a violation has . occurred, it may grant injunctive or declarative relief and shall award the official court costs and reasonable attorney's fees. A fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) may be imposed for a violation of the court's order for an injunction or declarative relief obtained pursuant to this paragraph. (3) An elected or appointed official ma., designate in writing the official's employer, a related governmental entity, or any voluntary professional association of similar officials to act, on behalf of that official, as that official's agent with regard to making a written demand pursuant to this section. A written demand made by an agent pursuant to this paragraph shall include a statement describing a threat or fear for the safety of that official or of any person residing at the official's home address. (d) (1) No person, bUSiness, or association shall soliCit, sell, or trade on the Internet the home address or telephone n4.rn~er o. f al') .. eIEa.c.te'~l' or app.oint~d 0:t'f'.iqq!Wit!l the, iote,nt to c.ct.u.~e. ir:rm ... i.n .. ,~,I')t, gre,Cjt. ~.od. ,Uy. h.a. ,.rmtQ th~, offic!~1 or. tQ an.,'1 Rer~~.Q. residing at the offici a 'shome~ddress. ,.... '. .'. '. . "". ...... . ..., .- (2) Notwithstanding any other law, an offiCial whose home address or telephone number Is soliCited, sold, or traded in violation of paragraph (l) may bring an action In any court of competent jurisdiction. If a jury or court finds that a violation has occurred, it shall award damages to that offiCial In an amount up to a maximum of three times the actual damages but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000). (e) An interactive computer service or access software provider, as defined in Section 230{f) of Title 47 of the United States Code, !i!~~u. n,ot b~ liable und~r this sectionunlesst~ service or prov.ider intends-,t.o abet or cayseimminent great OOEIilyharm ' that is Iikeiy to occur or threatens to cause imminent great bodily harm to an elected or appointed official. (f) For purposes of this section, "elected or appointed official" includes, but is not limited to, all of the following: (l) State constitutional officers, 2) Members of the Legislature, (3) Judges and court commissioners, (4) District attorneys, (5) Public defenders, (6) Members of a city counCil, (7) Members of a board of supervisors, (8) Appointees of the Governor, (9) AppOintees of the Legislature, (10) Mayors, (11) City attorneys, (12) Police chiefs and sheriffs, (13) A public safety offiCial, as defined in Section 6254.24, (14) State administrative law judges, (15) Federal judges and federal defenders, (16) Members of the United States Congress and appointees of the President. (g) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude punishment instead under Sections 69~ 76t or 422 of the Penal Code~ or any other provision of law. Bds/Commissions -702-23 8/26/2011 -CITY OF PALO "l"TO. CA CITY CLERK'S aFfinE j , SEP 21 PH 4: 0 t. PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION CITY OF PALO ALTO BOARD AND COMMISSION APPLICATION SUBMIT TO: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2571 Please print or type answers to all questions and place NI A in those areas that do not apply. Be sure that you fill out the attached supplement and return it with your signed application. NAME: Butler Last Ty First RESIDENCE 755 Forest Avenue ADDRESS:~ ______________________________ _ Street Palo Alto CA City State Education: Bachelor Degree-Landscape Architecture Kansas State University Manhattan, KS 94301 Zip HOME PHONE: 650-485-2733 WORK PHONE: 650-620-9670 CELL PHONE: 704-776-5420 EMAIL: tysbutler@gmail.com List relevant training and experience, certificates or training, licenses, or professional registration: Landscape Architecture degree and have practice 21 years as a Golf Course Architect. Have designed 15 new championship courses around the world, as well renovated/remodeled an additional 7 courses around the United States. , am Regular Member of the American SOCiety of Golf Course Architects. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 • Are you a Palo Alto Resident? • Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are board members or commissioners? • Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? • California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business withthe City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ff you answered yes, you may wish to consult with the City Anorney before filing this application at 650-329-2171. • Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto or within two miles of Palo Alto? EMPLOYMENT D [l] o D D [ZJ D [i] Presentoriastempioyer JMP Golf Design Group Name of Company: ~ Occupation: Senior Project Architect (If retired, indicate former occupation) SIgnature of Applicant Date: 9/27/2011 Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 Please Return to: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2571 elTY-OFPALOALTO PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL OUESTIONNAIRE Name: Ty Butler Date: 9/2712011 Piease print or type your answers to the foiiowing questions and submit with your compieted appHcatlon. You may submit additional sheets, if necessary, to complete your answers. 1. Have you attended-the following meeting? Yes No • Park and Recreation Commission D (Date: _____ ---10) [l] 2. HOw did-yOu Leam-abOuiHievacaney Orime Park tirid-Rooreauon-COriirilissiori? Community Group: 0 Palo Alto Weekly: 0 The Daily Post: 0 Website: Dlfyes, please identify website: ____________ _ Email from City Clerk: D ~ibrary Bulletin Board: 0 Flyer/Bookmark: D Other, please Specify: ________________________ _ 3. Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: • currently donate my time to the Magical Bridge Organization. This is a group wrking toward the design and construction of all inclusive park in Palo Alto. 4; What is it about the park and Recreation commission that interests you? What quaHtles, experience and- expertise would you bring to the Park and Recreation Commission? Since becoming involved with the Magical Bridge I've become more aware of the parks in Pato Aito and the need to maintain and improve all them to a higher standard that should include all users. There are many wonderful parks in Palo Alto i would like to be directly involve in the preservation and improve over the years. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 5. How would you see your role as commissioner when recommending policy and working with the Council? If it were necessary to change current roles, how would you approach making such changes? I would certainly work with Council in a very support role to make the proper decisions that will benefit all residents of Palo Alto with regard to the preservation and improvement of the their parks. 6. What are the current issues facing the Park and Recreation Commission? I am not up to date with the issues, but would look forward to learning as much as I can about the commission and work to help solve these issues in a responsible manner. 7. Ifappoinied, whai specific goais wouid you like to see the Parks and Recreaiions Commission achieve? i would like to see all the parks in Palo Alto be more inclusive for people of all ages with disabilities so that all citizens can fully enjoy the wonderful parks that Palo Alto has to offer. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 CONSENT FORM California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. Read the code, and check only ONE option below: [l] I Ty Butler give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR D I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact info rmation instead. Address ';t6~ -:=t-=t\O-OiZD Em~ ~ 9/Z1/li Signature* Date *The applicant must have a digital signature or print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed Signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 CALIFORNIA CODES GOVERNMENT CODe SECTION 6250-627(): http://www.leginfo.ca.gov 6254.21. (a) No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed offiCial on the Internet without first obtaining the written permisSion of that individual. (b) No person shail knowingiy post the home address or telephone number of any eiected or appointed officiai, or or the official's residing spouse or child, on the Internet knowing that person is an elected or apPOinted offiCial and intending to cause imminent great bodily harm that is likely to occur or threatening to cause imminent great bodily harm to that individual. A violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor. Avioiation of this subdiviSion that leads to the bodily Injury oHlle official; or Ilis or her reSiding spouse or child, is a misdemeanor or a felony. (c) (1) (A) No person, buSiness, or association shall publicly post or publicly display on the Internet the home address or telephone number of any elected or apPOinted offiCial if that offiCial has made a written demand of that person, business, or association to not disciose his or her home address or teiephone number. (6) A written demand made under this paragraph by a state constitutional officer, a mayor, or a Member of the Legislature, a city council, or a board of supervisors shall include a statement describing a threat or fear for the safety of that official or of any person residing at the offIcial's home address. (C) A written demand made under this paragraph by an elected official shall be effective for four years, regardless of whether or not the official's term has expired prior to the end of the four-year period. (D) (i) A person, business, or as~ociation that receives the written demand of an elected oraPPointed official pursuant to this paragraph shall remove the official's home address or telephone number from public display on the Internet, including information provided to cellular telephone applications, within 48 hours of delivery of the written demand, and shall continue to ensure that this information is not reposted on the same Internet Web Site, subsidiary site, or any other Internet Web site maintained by the recipient of the written demand. {ii} After receiving the elected or appointed official's written demand, the person, bUSiness, or association shall not transfer the aPPOinted or elected official's home address or telephone number to any other person, business, or association through any other medium. (iii) Clause (ii) shall not be deemed to prohibit a telephone corporation, as defined in Section 234 of the Public Utilities Code, or its affiliate, from transferring the elected or appointed official's home address or telephone number to any person, business, or association, if the transfer is authorized by federal or state law, regulation, order, or tariff, or necessary in the event of an emergency, or to collect a debt owed by the elected or appointed official to the telephone corporation or its affiliate. (El For purposes of thiS paragraph, "publicly post"or "publicly display" means to intentionally communicate Or otherwise make available to the general public. (2) An official whose home address or telephone number is made public as a result of a violation of paragraph (1.) may bring an action seeking injunctive or declarative relief in any court of competent jurisdiction. If a court finds that a violation has occurred, it may grant injunctive or declarative relief and shall award the offiCial court costs and reasonable attorney's fees. A fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) may be imposed for a violation of the court's order for an injunction or declarative relief obtained pursuant to this paragraph. (3) An elected or appOinted official may deSignate in writing the official's employer, a related governmentaientity, or any voluntary professional association of similar offiCials to act, on behalf of that official, as that official's agent with regard to making a written demand pursuant to this section. A written demand made by an agent pursuant to this paragraph shall include a statement describing a threat or fear for the safety of that official or of any person residing at the official's home address. (d) (1) No person, business, or association shall solicit, sell, or trade on the Internet the home address or telephone number of an elected or appointed offiCial with the intent to cause imminent great bodily harm to the official or to any person residIng at the official's home address. . .. (2-) Notwithstanding any other law, an official whose home address or telephone number is SOlicited, soid, or traded in violation of paragraph (1) may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. If a jury or court finds that a violation has occurred, it shall award damages to that offiCial in an amount up to a maximum of three times the actual damages but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,660). (e) An interactive computer service or access software provider, as defined in Section 230(f) of Title 47 of the United States Code, shall not be liable under this section unless the service or provider intends to abet or cause imminent great bodily harm that is Hkely to occur or threatens to cause imminent great bodily harm to an elected or appointed official. (f) For purposes of this section, "elected or appointed official" includes, but is not limited to, all of the following: (1) State constitutional officers, 2) Members of the Legislature, (3) Judges and court commissioners, (4) District attorneys, (5) Public defendel'$, (6) Members of a city council, (7) Members of a board of supervisors, (8) Appointees of the Governor, (9) Appointees of the Legislature, (10) Mayors, (11) City attorneys, (12) Police chiefs and sheriffs, (13) A public safety offiCial, as defined in Section 6254.24, (14) State administrative law judges, (15) Federal judges and federal defenders, (16) Members of the United States Congress and apPOintees of the President. (g) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude punishment instead under Sections 69, 76, or 422 of the Penal Code, or any other provision of law. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 , .. ": ...... :. . fJ(T~ °t:t~k9lo~F9&~ .fI SEP 22 PH 5: 2. Board or Commission applying for: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION SUBMIT TO: CITY OF PALO ALTO BOARD AND COMMISSION APPLICATION Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2571 .' ... ' ..... Please print or type answers to all questions and place N/A in those areas that do not apply. Be sure that you fill out the attached supplement and return it with your signed application. NAME C~t ort'lyY'\ I'e,. D €,,;rd t'~ HOME PHONE <Q '; C -q~ 1-:? ('-1 S- First Last WORK PHONE ~ ~-------------------- RESIDENCE . P A ADDRESS ____ 4 __ {~ ___ ~_1o~0_(O_·~ __ D __ r_iv_~ _____ u_l_o __ l_tn __ ~C_A ________________ 1_~_s_O_~ __ Street City State Zip Code EDUCATION , ,p Ph b. Lmh1l-V101 c3t;) Urn\!; G~:I it:' ;' SqH·F""t~t1·(.J ~c~ SA:) 8, o 1 ClJ,' I f?-u,d Gol(ej~ J \9 \?3 List relevant training and experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration • • '-".\" "-'''. "'-. ' .. ',,' .... ' ~ ," '. Are you a Palo Alto resident? Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are board members or commissioners? Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? • California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely 1) to engage in business with the City, 2) to provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying . ". , .. ' for?· ." ..... , .. , ..... , .. '.'" .. ,,, ".,. ',' • If you answered yes, you may wish to consult with the City Attorney before filing this application. Please contact the City Attorney's Office at (650) 329-2171 to arrange an appOintment. Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto or within two miles of Palo Alto? If you answered yes, you may wish to consult with the City Attorney before filing this application. Please contact the City Attorney's Office at (650) 329-2171 to arrange an appOintment. EMPLOYMENT Present or last employer: .",,:!. "" c:, •.••• ,: ...• ,,' , .' •. ', . . '" "" " "" ., '. "., .. ,,'," "". ,',' 'd' "." ••••. ',' Nameofcompany:~~CT~·~~n~t_h~~_s~~~~~~~~ __ ~~.~~~A (/"loW (,0,(+ 6: ,Wl..f~t t'(uJs) Occupation: Q.eSe.nf'c.h 2>q~')h l>.t- (If retlre~~ate !r:IOn) , Signature of Applicant: /{7fJ.l1LL~/fd!11/hvLU ~ . . , ... '';, . "NO' ./ City of Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commission Supplemental Questionnaire Deirdre Crommie November 13, 2008 1. I have been serving on the Parks and Recreation Commission since the end of 2007. During that time I have been at every meeting except for one. 2. I learned about the original position through the paper. 3. I have been very active as a volunteer in the community and schools since leaving my job in Biotech (drug discovery), moving to Palo Alto and staying home with my two daughters in June of 200 1. Since that time I have worked primarily in my daughter's schools in Los Altos (Santa Rita Elementary School and Bullis Charter School) as a Music for Minors volunteer, school library head, strategic planning, classroom and field trips volunteer, and most recently as the head of the costume committee for our school play. I joined the Parks and Recreation Committee at the end of 2007 to broaden the scope of my volunteer work in an area of that I feel passionate about. 4. I am interested in the maintenance and use of parkland in Palo Alto, policy issues that relate to the parkland, and in being a liaison between the citizens of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto City Council on topics that relate to the use of parkland and open space, access to parks and open space by alternative modes of transportation (foot, bicycle, boat) and public transit and the health and fitness of the community. I am analytical and like to conduct research on topics at hand. This allows me to make informed and thoughtful decisions. Additionally, I am an enthusiastic user and steward of parklands. I like to go out into the "field" to think about problems facing the Parks and Recreation Commission, and to think about solving the problems from a variety of perspectives. Whether to support continued composting in the Baylands after the closing of the landfill was one of the hardest issues I faced on the Commission. My approach to this problem was to f. Communicate with Parks and Recreation Committees in neighboring communities about shared goals. CITY OF PA~9 ALHarCA CITY CLERK S OP'F1G'g IISEP 19 AM 8: 21 PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION CITY OF PALO ALTO BOARD AND COMMISSION APPLICATION SUBMIT TO: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2571 Please print or type answers to all questions and place NI A in those areas that do not apply. Be sure that you fill out the attached supplement and return it with your signed application. NAME: Edson Last RESIDENCE 2106 Oberlin Street ADDRESS: Hank First HOME PHONE: (415) 728-4268 WORK PHONE: (415) 728-4268 CELL PHONE: (415) 728-4268 Street EMAIL: hank.edson@gmail.com Palo Alto CA 94306 City State Zip Education: List relevant training and experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: J.D., active California bar membership 2011; 5 years experience as court attorney and private firm litigator Credentialed California public school teacher (credential expired) 5 years experience as 4th, 7th and 8th grade public school teacher Former faculty union president 2010 Permaculture Design Certification from the Regenerative Design Institute Bds/Commissions -702-23 8/26/2011 • Are you a Palo Alto Resident? • Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are board members or commissioners? • Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? • California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions ofthe board or commission you are applying for? If you answered yes, you may wish to consult with the" City Attorney before filing this application at 650-329-2171. • Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto or within two miles of Palo Alto? -EMPLOYMENT Present or last employer Keegin Harrison Schoppert Smith & Karner Name of Company: Occupation: D [l] D D Attorney D [l] D (If retired, indicate former occupation) Signature of Applicant f DIgIIIy signed by Hank Edson -Han k Edson J==I.=n;u~··mail=h.n~ v 0ile::2011.09.1611.3B.35-01"00' Date: September 16, 2011 Bds/Commissions -702-23 8/26/2011 ,.. Please Return to: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2571 CITY OF PALO ALTO PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE Name: Hank Edson Date: September 16, 2011 Please print or type your answers to the following questions and submit with your completed application.' You may submit additional sheets, if necessary, to complete your answers. 1. Have you attended the following meeting? Yes No • Park and Recreation Commission D (Date: -__ ---...... ) [Z] 2. How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Park and Recreation Commission? Community Group: D Palo Alto Weekly: D The Daily Post: D Email from City Clerk: D Library Bulletin Board: D FlyerlBookmark: D Other, Please Specify: My father-in-law 3. Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I am a graduate of Stanford. My wife grew up here in Barron Park and her parents and brother and his family live in Palo Alto. My wife and I just purchased a home at 2106 Oberlin Street in College Terrace. We have a fifteen-month-old son we are looking forward to having play sports and engage in all kinds of community activities. Living in foggy San Francisco for the past many years, we often have come down to Palo Alto on weekends to hike and enjoy the parks and sunny weather. It has been a patiently held goal of ours to move down here and we are delighted to finally be here and are looking forward to being active members of the community. 4. What is it about the Park and Recreation Commission that interests you? What qualities, experience and expertise would you bring to the Park and Recreation Commission? As I noted above, one of the most attractive aspects of Palo Alto to my wife and I is the ability to enjoy an active outdoor life. My wife growing up enjoyed Palo Alto Park and Recreation opportunities and enjoyed participating in everything from the local children's theatre to taking pottery classes to swimming in the local pool and on the swim team, etc. Also, I recently finished a year-long permaculture certification cl,ass and am an engaged environmentalist who recently interviewed Richard Louv, best selling author of The Last Child in the Woods and The Nature Principle, books that discuss the need to engage children with nature and outdoor play. Permaculture in its larger outlines is about creating a community culture that is sustainable and healthy. I see the Park and Recreation Commission as an opportunity to contribute to "building the soil" of our local community, as a way to create a healthy environment for children to grow up in, and a way to foster good neighborly relationships among the adult community. Bds/Commissions -702-23 8/26/2011 5. How would you see your role as commissioner when recommending policy and working with the Council? If it were necessary to change current roles, how would you approach making such changes? As an attorney and a former faculty union president, I highly value thoughtful, respectful process and communi~tion and I believe strongly in collaborative methods. I would strive to promote an inclusive approach to policy recommendations that remained flexible while also constantin promoting a long term vision of a healthy, sustainable community environment rich with a wide variety of opportunities for children and the community to be active, interactive, and developing. In terms of changing roles, I am an adaptable person with a diverse skill set. I would find the most constructive path forward and continue to pursue an inclusive, process-focused approach. 6. What are the current issues facing the Park and Recreation Commission? I don't know as I am new to the community. I imagine shrinking state budgets, aging infrastructure, sustainable resource management best practices, impacts of proposed plans such as the High Speed rail corridor, the recent closure of the Palo Alto dump, and evolving liabilities are on the list. 7. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Parks and Recreations Commission achieve? I would like the Parks and Recreation Commission to develop a policy and plan, if it does not already have one, that seeks to foster a community culture of environmental awareness, sustainable resource management, and ways to increase enjoyment, appreciation and stewardship of local ecosystems and environments, particularly with a goal of creating opportunities for children to form a stronger connection with nature as an integrated part of municipal life. Bds/Commissions -702-23 8/26/2011 City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 CONSENT FORM California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. Read the code, and check only ONE option below: [l] I Hank Edson give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. D OI_R ____ _ request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. 2106 Oberlin Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Address (415) 728-4268 Phone hank.edson@gmail.com Email ~. Digitally signed by Hank Edson H a n k E d so n ON:. cn=Hank Edson, 0, OU, email=hank. . I -'. n@gmall.com, c=US cr Date: 201109.1612:01:08 -07'00' Signature* September 16, 2011 Date *The applicant must have a digital signature or print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. Bds/Commissions -702-23 8/26/2011 .. CALIFORNIA CODES GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6250-6270: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov 6254.21. (a) No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual, (b) No person shall knowingly post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official, or of the official's residing spouse or child, on the Internet knowing that person is an elected or appointed official and intending to cause imminent great bodily harm that is likely to occur or threatening to cause imminent great bodily harm to that individual. A violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor. A violation of this subdivision that leads to the bodily injury of the official, or his or her residing spouse or child, is a misdemeanor or a felony. (c) (1) (A) No person, business, or association shall publicly post or publicly display on the Internet the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official if that official has made a written demand of that person, business, or association to not disclose his or her home address or telephone number. (8) A written demand made under this paragraph-by a state constitutional officer, a mayor, or a Member of the Legislature, a city council, or a board of supervisors shall include a statement describing a threat or fear for the safety of that official or of any person residing at the official's home address. (C) A written demand made under this paragraph by an elected official shall be effective for four years, regardless of whether or not the official's term has expired prior to the end of the four-year period. (D) (i) A person, business, or association that receives the written demand of an elected or appointed official pursuant to this paragraph shall remove the official's home address or telephone .number from public display on the Internet, including information provided to cellular telephone applications, within 48 hours of delivery of the written demand, and shall continue to ensure that this information is not reposted on the same Internet Web site, subsidiary site, or any other Internet Web site maintained by the recipient of the written demand. (i1) After receiving the elected or appointed official's written demand, the person, business, or association shall not transfer the appointed or elected official's home address or telephone number to any other person, business, or association through any other medium. (iii) Clause (ii) shall not be deemed to prohibit a telephone corporation, as defined in Section 234 of the Public Utilities Code, or its affiliate, from transferring the elected or appointed official's home address or telephone number to any person, business, or association, if the transfer is authorized by federal or state law, regulation, order, or tariff, or necessary in the event of an emergency, or to collect a debt owed by the elected or appointed official to the telephone corporation or its -affiliate. (E) For purposes of this paragraph, "publicly post" or "publicly display" means to intentionally communicate or otherwise make available to the general publiC. (2) An official whose home address or telephone number is made public as a result of a violation of paragraph (1) may bring an action seeking injunctive or declarative relief in any court of competent jurisdiction. If a court finds that a violation has occurred, it may grant injunctive or declarative relief and shall award the official court costs and reasonable attorney's fees. A fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) may be imposed for a violation of the court's order for an injunction or declarative relief obtained pursuant to this paragraph. (3) An elected or appointed official may deSignate in writing the official's employer, a related governmental entity, or any voluntary professional association of similar officials to act, on behalf of that official, as that official's agent with regard to making a written demand pursuant to this section. A written demand made by an agent pursuant to this paragraph shall include a statement describing a threat-or fear for the safety of that official or of any person residing at the official's home address. (d) (1) No person, buSiness, or association shall solicit, sell, or trade on the Internet the home address or telephone number of an elected or appointed offiCial with the intent to cause imminent great bodily harm to the offiCial or to any person residing at the official's home address. (2) Notwithstanding any other law, an official whose home address or telephone number is solicited, sold, or traded in violation of paragraph (1) may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. If a jury or court finds that a violation has occurred, it shall award damages to that official in an amount up to a maximum of three times the actual damages but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000). (e) An interactive computer service or access software provider, as defined in Section 230(f) of Title 47 of the United States Code, shall not be liable under this section unless the service or provider intends to abet or cause imminent great bodily harm that is likely to occur or threatens to cause imminent great bodily harm to an elected or appointed official. (f) For purposes of this section, "elected or appointed offiCial" includes, but is not limited to, all of the following: (1) State constitutional officers, 2) Members of the Legislature, (3) Judges and court commissioners, (4) District attorneys, (5) Public defenders, (6) Members of a city council, (7) Members of a board of supervisors, (8) Appointees of the Governor, (9) Appointees of the Legislature, (10) Mayors, (11) City attorneys, (12) Police chiefs and sheriffs, (13) A public safety official, as defined in Section 6254.24, (14) State administrative law judges, (15) Federal judges and federal defenders, (16) Members of the United States Congress and appointees of the President. (g) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude punishment instead under Sections 69, 76, or 422 of the Penal Code, or any other provision of law. Bds/Commissions -702-23 8/26/2011 08 NOV 13 Pt'1 2: 14 _ Board or Commission applying for: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION SUBMIT TO: CITY OF PALO ALTO BOARD AND COMMISSION APPLICATION Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2571 Please print or type answers to all questions and place N/A in those areas that do not apply. Be sure that you fill out the attached supplement and return it with your signed application. NAME N\o..( ~Q.Ui\-C'h ~~\-HOME PHONE "'32.\ ·-t_~\( Last --------- First ,JORK PHONE __________ _ RESIDENCE --"? "':> . 0 \ ,. \ _ ADDRESS __ ~_·_~.~\~f~·_M~~~G~O~n~ ____ ~\_~~D~_~~:\o ______________ ~c:~.~A~ _____ q~~~5~ol Street City State . Zip Code EDUCATION List relevant training and experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration • • Are you a Palo Alto resident? Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are board members or commissioners? • Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? • California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely 1) to engage in business with the City, 2) to provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? If you answered yes, you may wish to consult with the City Attorney before filing this application. Please contact the City Attorney's Office at (650) 329-2171 to arrange an appointment. • Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto or within two miles of Palo Alto? If you answered yes, you may wish to consult with the City Attorney before filing this application. Please contact the City Attorney's Office at (650) 329-2171 to arrange an appointment. EMPLOYMENT Present or last employer: NameofCOmpany:~A~\~(/~A~ __ G_o_{~e~o_r_~_\1_'_a_~~ ______ ~ ____ ___ rtA-"\{\tl-Q(UA-CoOrdrlf'CI-+Or Occupation: (If retired, indicate former occupation) Signature of Applicant: _____ --L6:_ ... _,...-1_~ ____ -_-__ Date: _=---t,-+.h--'-IJ;---<, 0L-O-=8=---" __ _ CITY OF PALO ALTO PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Supplemental Questionnaire Please retu rn to: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2571 NAME: _Y_' C(_}_L-bA=-(L---O.r~-=-I),--;.k~h __ _ DATE: _'-/{I !,-,-I"3~/_O_'b _____ _ Please print or type your answers to the following questions and submit with your completed application. You may submit additional sheets, if necessary, to complete your answers. 1. Have you attended the following meetings? • Parks and Recreation Commission Date \a s-\-~r~e" ye,c,,-,j 2. How did you learn about the vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Commission? Community Group _ Newspaper Ad _/' of Employment _ Utility Bill Stuffer _ City Clerk's Office _' _ ' Other (Specify) fllf tt~~~'\ I\~ ~r ,~ See-a,"-J \t.r tv\ CITY OF PALO ALTO PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Supplemental Questionnaire 4. What is it about the Parks and Recreation Commission that interests you? What qualities, experience and expertise would you bring to the Parks and Recreation Commission? , C{ s ~ lovl/lf/l1. ; S5 i O'M -( ,bec.c..cJse..." \ \Jfl. (\. \-,-\0 Co"+ ll\U~ O{\ .-r-l-v P-.-e~f-e&<-'\:~ 011 P, 10 \ 5 \ O~ _ (J'. ~ '".J J.,J \l \'e..--\-o \.0oC'~ 1 6'(\ \.. ---C{OI'l\M.Vh\~ ~ru\c.e.5 ,V ~\ \ uJo l . .....LW -rv\tt\CLS MA.~( ~ C.U\/ aMot\~ U1. 0 - 7. Gonsalves, Ronna From: Sent: To: Subject: Pat Markevitch [pat@magic.com] Monday, September 19, 20119:38 AM Gonsalves, Ronna Re: Parks and Recreation Commission Yes, I am planning on re-applying. Please use my current application. Thanks. Pat On 9/19/11 9:22 AM, Gonsalves, Ronna wrote: > Hello, > > This is a reminder that incumbent applications for the Parks and > Recreation Commission are due on September 22, 2011 at 5:30. If you > are planning on reapplying please let me know. I have your most recent > application on file and can use it if you would like. > > Please let me know whether or not you are planning on reapplying ASAP. > > Thanks! > > Ronna Jojola Gonsalves > > Deputy City Clerk > > City of Palo Alto > > 650-329-2267 > 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK October 3, 2011 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Storm Drain Oversight Committee for Two Terms Ending on December 31, 2015 Two incumbent applications have been submitted for two terms ending on December 31, 2015 on the Storm Drain Oversight Committee. At the Council Meeting on October 3, 2011, the City Council may · select the candidates from the existing pool to be interviewed for the Storm Drain Oversight Committee, with the interview date to be determined, or · direct Staff to include on the next City Council Agenda an item to appoint the two incumbents, or · select to reopen the recruiting process in an effort to increase the applicant pool. The applicants are as follows: 1.Stepheny McGraw 2.Susan Rosenberg REPORT PREPARED BY: Ronna Jojola Gonsalves, Deputy City Clerk ATTACHMENTS: ·McGraw (PDF) ·Rosenberg (PDF) Department Head:Donna Grider, City Clerk Updated: 9/28/2011 9:40 AM by Ronna Gonsalves Page 2 stTY OF PALO ALTO.. CA Sny CLERK'S @f'fICE II SEP 21 PM I: 36 STORM DRAIN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE CITY OF PALO ALTO BOARD AND COMMISSION APPLICATION SUBMIT TO: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2571 Please print or type answers to all questions and place NI A in those areas that do not apply. Be sure that you fill out the attached supplement and return it with your signed application. RESIDENCE ...--;:-r_ ~ ADDRESS: ~303 t V"1~ ~. treet City State Education: HOME PHONE: bS:J . g~ 'c{)..Cf), WORKPHONE~t8:% . Od~ CELLPHO~ :;pg'09~ ~(~ co.A~ ~ £/\eA- List relevant training and experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 • Are you a Palo Alto Resident? • Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are board members or commissioners? • Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? • California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? If you answered yes, you may wish to consult with the City Attorney before filing this . application. Please contact the City Attorney's Office at 650-329-2171 to arrange an appointment. • Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto or within two miles of Palo Alto? EMPLOYMENT D ~ D D D Present or last employer The Hayden Group Name of Company: Business Development Occupation: (Ifretired, indicate former occupation) SignmmeOfAPplicant~~ Date: '1-19· / / Bcls/Conlmissic;ns -702-23 9/13/2011 Please Return to: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2571 CITY OF PALO ALTO STORM DRAIN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE Please print or type your answers to the following questions and submit with your completed application. You may submit additional sheets, if necessary, to complete your answers. 1. Have you attended the following meeting? • Storm Drain Oversight Committee 1'1 (Date: ~~ ) No D 2. How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Storm Drain Oversight Committee? Community Group: D Palo Alto Wee1dy: D The Daily Post: D Website: 0 If yes, please identifY Website: ___________ _ Email from City Clerk: 0' Library Bulletin Board: D FlyerlBookmark: D Other, Please SpecifY:. )0<: \CAe ':;', '5 C)rv).a.. ~[ \ -- 7. Describe your specific education, training or experience in the fields of accounting, engineering, municipal infrastructure planning or water resources, if any. I c.c.:£; d' ~~a~~v~~~,~ 1",~(S w'+h ll.fr.c... .::;, ~ .J)n.C......s: 1.5-5c.J ~ ~~~ wt~ih~~ ~Aio; ~~~ ~U\5~ Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 CONSENT FORM California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. Read the code, and check only ONE option below: o I ~ ive permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's websi e he attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and un erstand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR D I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address Phone Email ~(~ --9+---1-·/--L-2 e--L--<II __ _ ~e~ Date *The applicant must have a digital signature or print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 · CALIFORNIA CODES GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6250-6270: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov 6254.21. (a) No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appOinted official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual. (b) No person shall knowingly post the home address or telephone number of any elected or apPOinted official, or of the official's residing spouse or child, on the Internet knowing that person is an elected or appointed official and intending to cause imminent great bodily harm that is likely to occur or threatening to cause imminent great bodily harm to that individual. A violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor. A violation of this subdivision that leads to the bodily injury of the official, or his or her residing spouse or child, is a misdemeanor or a felony. (c) (1) (A) No person, business, or association shall publicly post or publicly display on the Internet the home address or telephone number of any elected or appOinted official if that official has made a written demand of that person, bUSiness, or association to not disclose his or her home address or telephone number. (6) A written demand made under this paragraph by a state constitutional officer, a mayor, or a Member of the legislature, a city council, or a board of supervisors shall include a statement describing a threat or fear for the safety of that offiCial or of any person residing at the official's home address. (C) A written demand made under this paragraph by an elected official shall be effective for four years, regardless of whether or not the official's term has expired prior to the end of the four-year period. (D) (j) A person, business, or association that receives the written demand of an elected or appOinted official pursuant to this paragraph shall remove the official's home address or telephone number from public display on the Internet, including information provided to cellular telephone applications, within 48 hours of delivery of the written demand, and shall continue to ensure that this information is not reposted on the same Internet Web site, subsidiary site, or any other Internet Web site maintained by the recipient of the written demand. (ii) After receiving the elected or appOinted official's written demand, the person, business, or aSSOCiation shall not transfer the apPOinted or elected official's home address or telephone number to any other person, business, or aSSOCiation through any other medium. (iii) Clause (ij) shall not be deemed to prohibit a telephone corporation, as defined in Section 234 of the Public Utilities Code, or its affiliate, from transferring the elected or appointed official's home address or telephone number to any person, business, or association, if the transfer is authorized by federal or state law, regulation, order, or tariff, or necessary in the event of an emergency, or to collect a debt owed by the elected or appOinted offiCial to the telephone corporation or its affiliate. (E) For purposes of this paragraph, "publicly post" or "publicly display" means to intentionally communicate or otherwise make available to the general public. (2) An official whose home address or telephone number is made public as a result of a violation of paragraph (1) may bring an action seeking injunctive or declarative relief in any court of competent jurisdiction. If a court finds that a violation has occurred, it may grant injunctive or declarative relief and shall award the official court costs and reasonable attorney's fees. A fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) may be imposed for a violation of the court's order for an injunction or declarative relief obtained pursuant to this paragraph. (3) An elected or appOinted official may designate in writing the official's employer, a related governmental entity, or any voluntary professional association of similar officials to act, on behalf of that official, as that official's agent with regard to making a written demand pursuant to this section. A written demand made by an agent pursuant to this paragraph shall include a statement describing a threat or fear for the safety of that official or of any person residing at the official's home address. (d) (1) No person, business, or association shall soliCit, sell, or trade on the Internet the home address or telephone number of an elected or appOinted official with the intent to cause imminent great bodily harm to the official or to any person residing at the official's home address. (2) Notwithstanding any other law, an official whose home address or telephone number is solicited, sold, or traded in violation of paragraph (1) may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. If a jury or court finds that a violation has occurred, it shall award damages to that official in an amount up to a maximum of three times the actual damages but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000). (e) An interactive computer service or access software provider, as defined in Section 230(f) of Title 47 of the United States Code, shall not be liable under this section unless the service or provider intends to abet or cause imminent great bodily harm that is likely to occur or threatens to cause imminent great bodily harm to an elected or appOinted official. (f) For purposes of this section, "elected or appOinted official" includes, but is not limited to, all of the following: (1) State constitutional officers, 2) Members of the Legislature, (3) Judges and court commissioners, (4) District attorneys, (5) Public defenders, (6) Members of a city council, (7) Members of a board of supervisors, (8) ApPOintees of the Governor, (9) Appointees of the Legislature, (10) Mayors, (11) City attorneys, (12) Police chiefs and sheriffs, (13) A public safety official, as defined in Section 6254.24, (14) State administrative law judges, (15) Federal judges and federal defenders, (16) Members of the United States Congress and apPOintees of the President. (g) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude punishment instead under Sections 69, 76, or 422 of the Penal Code, or any other provision of law. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 ClfY Of PALO ALTO. CA (j'tTY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OF PALO ALTO STORMDRAINOVERSIGHTCOMMITTEE '1 SEP 22 PH 2: 2~ Please Return to: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2571 SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE Name: 517 SAf-l ROSt1JB€F9 Date: <] / l q / lJ r I Please print or type your answers to the following questions and submit with your completed application. You may submit additional sheets, if necessary, to complete your answers. 1. Have you attended the following meeting? Yes No • Storm Drain Oversight Committee I '1--1 (Date: _____ --.1) D 2. How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Storm Drain Oversight Committee? Community Group:D Palo Alto Weekly: D The Daily Post: D Website: 0 If yes, please identify Website: ___________ _ Email from City Clerk: D Library Bulletin Board: D FlyerlBookmark: D Other, Please Specify: CuRRe-:r, HEf1Bt:..1( f2£ ~Hhrrra 3. Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: G~t)f1, c..tJ "'re>~F-1Dc:R 1TZa5 rot<-a.-cp,.HJI'-'O ?~T eo -f:..-t+A[R. eLV£ RtGt3e1]J ~RH DRPr-L]V ~J-lHnr£C 4. What is it about the Storm Drain Oversight Committee that interests you? What qualities, experience and expertise would you bring to the Storm Drain Oversight Committee? tt(~~ ()1..J L? LVt J<-t6B~f..J WHHrrrt£j ?A~S~~~ of ~ 1>RAlJ..) k~~17R.£., tlJ \) ~BA-~ ft/~ 'I ftlt<... ~~L P Aero Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 • Are you a Palo Alto Resident? • Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are board members or commissioners? • Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? • California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions ofthe board or commission you are applying for? If you answered yes, you may wish to consult with the City Attorney before filing this application. Please contact the City Attorney's Office at 650-329-2171 to arrange an appointment. • Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto or within two miles of Palo Alto? EMPLOYMENT Present or last employer Name of Company: Signature of Applicant Occupation: D D D (If retired, indicate former occupation) 5. How would you see your role as board member when recommending policy and working with the Council? Ifit were necessary to change current roles, how would you approach making such changes? 6. What are the current issues facing the Storm Drain Oversight Committee? 7. Describe your specific education, training or experience in the fields of accounting, engineering, municipal infrastructure planning or water resources, if any. 8. Describe other personal traits that make you well-qualified to serve on this committee. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 CONSENT FORM California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individuaL" The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. Read the code, and check only ONE option below: D I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR ~ I '5V?/»P &:?~~uest that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. (ti~S-5rAf-'rPRU AvE: 'PALO ,A L1"V ( CiA 74-30{; Address G5"CJ Y-~+ ttftf0 Email Si9~ -Da---"t:-r-!I---Lq-t-) --=--' ,---- *The applicant must have a digital signature or print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 ~WR.H DR.A{~ OV6(Z5ttiW Cof-tl'U1fE~ Bt>frR-D ~fJ Ct3f-iHLSS/OI'J A-f?LLcfWOV p.pS£f-' ff6M{ 5uSA-tJ I tf ;),. 5" SlAf.Jfol<J) AvE ?ALp ACW t CPs q q 30G £b)VCPqzop t"fVI1£: (P'JO Y-~Lf L'tiS S~SA-A./PA @SDI'JLt;JU£T \~1~ 5~ c-~ LJf-Jf,\)6[lSUY [3.:1, CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK October 3, 2011 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Public Art Commission for One Unexpired Term Ending April 30, 2012 Four applications have been submitted for one unexpired term ending on April 30, 2012 on the Public Art Commission. At the Council Meeting on October 3, 2011, the City Council will select the candidates to be interviewed for the Public Art Commission, with the interview date to be determined. The applicants are as follows: 1.Richard Ambrose 2.Julia Nelson-Gal 3.Harriet Stern 4.Arlene Stevens REPORT PREPARED BY: Ronna Jojola Gonsalves, Deputy City Clerk ATTACHMENTS: ·Ambrose (PDF) ·Nelson Gal (PDF) ·Stern (PDF) ·Stevens (PDF) Department Head:Donna Grider, City Clerk Updated: 9/28/2011 9:41 AM by Ronna Gonsalves Page 2 PUBLIC ART COMMISSION CITY OF PALO ALTO BOARD AND COMMISSION APPLICATION SUBMIT TO: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2571 Please print or type answers to all questions and place N/A in those areas that do not apply. All forms must have a digital signature or the applicant must print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. NAME: Ambrose Last Richard First RESIDENCE 2716 Del Monte Ave ADDRESS: ____________________________________ ___ Street EI Cerrito CA 94530 City State Zip Education: BFA, University of Oregon, Studio Art, minor in Art History 1979 MFA, Colorado State University, Studio Art 1981 HOME PHONE: ______________ _ WORK PHONE: 650-321-3891 CELL PHONE: 304-767-4836 EMAIL: executivedirector@pacificartleague.org ---------------- List relevant training and experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: 27 Years of curatorial experience in collections management and acquisitions (through purchases and donations); exhibition and maintenance of public art collections in Colorado, West Virginia, and California. 1984-2011. Board Member, Pueblo Arts Council (CO), 1985-1988. Board Member, Fresno Arts Council (CA), 1990-1993 Vice President, Arts Advocacy, West Virginia 1995-2007, Secured state funding for public art and capital improvements for state-wide arts organizations. Chair, Outdoor Public Art Committee for a 1 million dollar sculpture commission, Clay Center for the Arts and Sciences, Charleston West Virginia, 2006-07. Rocky Mountain Conservatory, Denver CO, Materials Conservation Certificate, 1989. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 • Are you a Palo Alto Resident? • Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are board members or commissioners? • Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? • California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? If you answered yes, you may wish to consult with the City Attorney before filing this application. Please contact the City Attorney's Office at 650-329-. 2171. • Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto or within two miles of Palo Alto? EMPLOYMENT D D [lJ D D [lJ D Present or last employer Name of Company: Pacific Art League Occupation: Executive Director Signature of Applioant' ~M_, ~m~ Date, 9-21-11 LJ~ Q ~ . (If ,,,;,,d, indio"" fonn" o,cupation) ~ ---------------- *The applicant must have a digital signature or print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 Please Return to: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2571 CITY OF PALO ALTO PUBLIC ART COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE Name: Richard Ambrose Date: September 21,2011 Please print or type your answers to the following questions and submit with your completed application. You may submit additional sheets, if necessary, to complete your answers. 1. Have you attended the following meeting? Yes No • Public Art Commission D (Date: _____ ----J.. [l1 2. How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Public Art Commission? The Daily Post: D Community Group: D Palo Alto Weekly: D website:DfYeS, Please Identify: ______________ _ Email from City Clerk: D Library Bulletin Board: D Other, Please Specify: Conversation with Ally Richter FlyerlBookmark: D 3. Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: As Director of the Pacific Art League for the past 22 months, I have worked with a diverse group of artists, educators, art students, art enthusiasts, donors, and businesses. I am a practicing artist and have works in numerous private and public collections. One of the oldest arts organizations in the bay area, the Pacific Art League has represented excellence in arts education and provided art experiences to people of all ages, cultural interests and artistic skill levels. 4. What is it about the Public Art Commission that interests you? What qualities, experience and expertise would you bring to the Public Art Commission? The Public Art Commission and its collecting programs represents the cultural vision of the community and symbolizes public support for artistic creativity and enrichment. I have served on numerous committees in three states that were responsible for granting funds to artists, and arts organizations. I have also provided leadership in the acquisition of public collections, and development of related educational programs at three museums. I understand the critical role of stewardship and the public trust in maintaining the community's cultural assets. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 5. How would you see your role as board member when recommending policy and working with the Council? Ifit were necessary to change current roles, how would you approach making such changes? 1) engage the entire community to assess their interest in public art and to promote the role of public art throughout the community; 2) ensure that all policies and decision-making processes are transparent, adhered to and reflect accountability; 3) adopt best aesthetic practices in selecting art that reflects community roots, identity, and cultural enrichment; 4) be proactive in promoting ongoing support for the arts in the community; and, 5) develop a long term strategic plan for the stewardship of the current collection and for future acquisitions. I would view my role as serving at the pleasure of the Public Art Commission and will be responsive to any change or new direction relevant to that role. 6. What are the current issues facing the Public Art Commission? 1) awareness of the Commission's value to the community and its role in engaging and educating the citizens about the city's cultural assets and accessibility; 2) update its mission and list it on the web site. 3) develop a long term strategic plan that defines the Commission's educational goals and objectives, develops a cohesive collection maintenance and conservation plan, and identifies potential sites to display works of art both on a temporarily and/or permanent basis and, 4) create an overall collection conservation plan, that addresses ongoing maintenance issues that includes a list of objects that need immediate conservation and secure adequate funds to implement the conservation process. 7. What are your feelings about Palo Alto's current inventory/collection of Art in Public Places? What suggestions would you have for increasing the availability of more Art in Public Places? I am familiar with the permanent art installations around the community. However I cannot cannot comment on the bulk of the city's collection that is in storage. The 300 plus collection, that are not site specific, are generally not as accessible to the community and many may not have been exhibited for an extensive period .. The permanent works run the gamut of public art refiecting multiple styles, subject matter and representing unique opportunities to integrate art with the architectural or landscape surroundings. My suggestions are: 1) make the collection more available and accessible to all possible segments of the community; 2) inventory and document the entire collection and have the visual and supporting information on the Commission's web site; 3) partner with local arts organizations, community centers and businesses in the Silicon Valley to showcase the collection; 4) develop a long term acquisition plan based on the strengths and weaknesses of the current collection and 5) determine which works of the existing collection should be recommended for de-accessing based on condition, redundancy and/or not retlecting the overall quality of the collection. 8. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve? 1) develop a short and long term strategic plan to improve the Commission's stewardship of current and future collections, 2) outline future actions to engage artists in creating art at, or for these potential sites; 3) update its collecting policies to ensure adequate funding for acquisitions, exhibition, and care of the collection; 4) conduct an analysis of the existing collection identifying its strengths and weaknesses; 5) create an acquisition/deaccession plan to strengthen the collection; 6) based on available resources become more prudent in collecting art, and 7) make the collection more accessible and have the entire collection on its web site with supporting information. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 CONSENT FORM California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appOinted official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. Read the code, and check only ONE option below: [l] I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR D I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address Phone Email Signature* Date *The applicant must have a digital signature or print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 ,. , .. ''I CALIFORNIA CODES GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6250-6270: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov 6254.21. (a) No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual. . (b) No person shall knowingly post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official, or of the official's residing spouse or child, on the Internet knowing that person is an elected or appointed official and intending to cause imminent great bodily harm that is likely to occur or threatening to cause imminent great bodily harm to that individual. A Violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor. A violation of this subdivision that leads to the bodily injury of the official, or his or her residing spouse or child, is a misdemeanor or a felony. (c) (1) (A) No person, business, or association shall publicly post or publicly display on the Internet the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official if that official has made a written demand of that person, business, or association to not disclose his or her home address or telephone number. (8) A written demand made under this paragraph by a state constitutional officer, a mayor, or a Member of the Legislature, a city council, or a board of supervisors shall include a statement describing a threat or fear for the safety of that official or of any person residing at the official's home address. (C) A written demand made under this paragraph by an elected official shall be effective for four years, regardless of whether or not the official's term has expired prior to the end of the four-year period. (D) (i) A person, business, or association that receives the written demand of an elected or appointed official pursuant to this paragraph shall remove the official's home address or telephone number from public display on the Internet, including information provided to cellular telephone applications, within 48 hours of delivery of the written demand, and shall continue to ensure that this information is not reposted on the same Internet Web site, subsidiary site, or any other Internet Web site maintained by the recipient of the written demand. (ii) After receiving the elected or appointed official's written demand, the person, business, or association shall not transfer the appointed or elected official's home address or telephone number to any other person, business, or association through any other medium. (iii) Clause (ii) shall not be deemed to prohibit a telephone corporation, as defined in Section 234 of the Public Utilities Code, or its affiliate, from transferring the elected or appointed official's home address or telephone number to any person, business, or association, if the transfer is authorized by federal or state law, regulation, order, or tariff, or necessary in the event of an emergency, or to collect a debt owed by the elected or appointed official to the telephone corporation or its affiliate. (E) For purposes of this paragraph, "publicly post" or "publicly display" means to intentionally communicate or otherwise make available to the general public. (2) An official whose home address or telephone number is made public as a result of a violation of paragraph (1) may bring an action seeking injunctive or declarative relief in any court of competent jurisdiction. If a court finds that a Violation has occurred, it may grant injunctive or declarative relief and shall award the official court costs and reasonable attorney's fees. A fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) may be imposed for a violation of the court's order for an injunction or declarative relief obtained pursuant to this paragraph. (3) An elected or appointed official may deSignate in writing the official's employer, a related governmental entity, or any voluntary professional association of similar officials to act, on behalf of that official, as that official's agent with regard to making a written demand pursuant to this section. A written demand made by an agent pursuant to this paragraph shall include a statement describing a threat or fear for the safety of that official or of any person residing at the official's home address. (d) (1) No person, bUSiness, or association shall solicit, sell, or trade on the Internet the home address or telephone number of an elected or appointed official with the intent to cause imminent great bodily harm to the official or to any person residing at the official's home address. (2) Notwithstanding any other law, an official whose home address or telephone number is solicited, sold, or traded in violation of paragraph (1) may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. If a jury or court finds that a violation has occurred, it shall award damages to that official in an amount up to a maximum of three times the actual damages but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000). (e) An interactive computer service or access software provider, as defined in Section 230(f) of Title 47 of the United States Code, shall not be liable under this section unless the service or provider intends to abet or cause imminent great bodily harm that is likely to occur or threatens to cause imminent great bodily harm to an elected or appointed official. (f) For purposes of this section, "elected or appointed official" includes, but is not limited to, all of the following: (1) State constitutional officers, 2) Members of the Legislature, (3) Judges and court commissioners, (4) District attorneys, (5) Public defenders, (6) Members of a city council, (7) Members of a board of supervisors, (8) Appointees of the Governor, (9) Appointees of the Legislature, (10) Mayors, (11) City attorneys, (12) Police chiefs and sheriffs, (13) A public safety official, as defined in Section 6254.24, (14) State administrative law judges, (15) Federal judges and federal defenders, (16) Members of the United States Congress and appointees of the PreSident. (g) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude punishment instead under Sections 69, 76, or 422 of the Penal Code, or any other provision of law. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 GITY OF ·P' .(~ .. CIT y CL£~k pSAo~LtO. C,4 FFIC£ II SfP 23 .,., fin 8: 37 PUBLIC ART COMMISSION CITY OF PALO ALTO BOARD AND COMMISSION APPLICATION SUBMIT TO: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2571 Please print or type answers to all questions and place N/A in those areas that do not apply. All forms must have a digital signature or the applicant must print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. NAME: Nelson-Gal Last RESIDENCE . ADDRESS: 890 Marshall Drive Street Palo Alto City Education: Ca State Julia First 94303 Zip MA, History of Art, I he Omverslty of Michigan, Ann Arbor HOME PHONE: 650-320-8314 WORK PHONE: 415-606-4678 CELL PHONE: 415-606-4678 EMAIL: julianelsongal@gmo Certificate in Museum Practices, The University of Michigan , Ann Arbor BA, Honors History of Art/Psychology, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor List relevant training and eilierience, certificates of trainin~ licenseS or professional re~stration: Art Instructor, City of Pa 0 Alto, GraphiC Arts Wor shop, F; PaCifiC Art eague, Private Art Appraiser, Photo specialist Vice President and Photography Specialist, Butterfield Auctioneers Curatorial Assistant, Photography Department, SFMOMA Director of Education, Friends of Photography, San Francisco and Carmel, CA Curatorial Intern, Photography Department, Art Institute of Chicago Research Assistant, Modern Art Department, Detroit Institute of Arts Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 • Are you a Palo Alto Resident? • Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are board members or commissioners? • Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? • California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? If you answered yes, you may wish to consult with the City Attorney before filing this application. Please contact the City Attorney's Office at 650-329-. 2171. • Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto or within two miles of Palo Alto? EMPLOYMENT D ~ D D Present or last employer Name of Company: Self -----------------------------Occupation: Art Instructor D (If retired, indicate fonner occupation) Signature of Applicant* Date: 9/22/2010 *The applicant must have a digital signature or print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 Please Return to: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2571 CITY OF PALO ALTO PUBLIC ART COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL OUESTIONNAIRE Name: Julia Nelson-Gal Date: 9/22/2010 Please print or type your answers to the following questions and submit with your completed application. You may submit additional sheets, if necessary, to complete your answers. 1. Have you attended the following meeting? Yes No • Public Art Commission D (Date: _____ --.J. ~ 2. How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Public Art Commission? The Daily Post: D Community Group: D Palo Alto Weekly: D website:DIfYeS, Please Identify: ______________ _ Email from City Clerk: D Library Bulletin Board: D Other, Please Specify: Email from Elise DeMarzo FlyerlBookmark: D 3. Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I have been involved in the art community for many years in a variety of capacities. I have listed below those places where I have contributed the most. In addition I have been a volunteer at my schools of my three children, both in San Franicsco and Palo Alto. I have worked on the following Boards during the past twenty years: San Jose Institute of Contemporary Art, San Jose, CA 2004 -2008 FotoForum, SFMOMA, SF, CA, President, 2000 -2003 ArtTable, A group of Professional Women in the Arts, SF, CA San Francisco Camerawork "'_.LL __ 1 ____ 1 __ .1. ______ .1.: ____ 1 r-. ___ -I1 ___ 1""'\ _________ .1. ____ I""\L_.L __ . ____ L __ nr-""'A 4. What is it about the Public Art Commission that interests you? What qualities, experience and expertise would you bring to the Public Art Commission? . I bring the perspective of someone who has worked in both arts administration and as a full-time artist. As an Arts Commissioner I would attempt to wear both hats. As a resident of the City of Palo Alto and the recipient of a City-sponsored studio at Cubberley Center, I am most interested in how Palo Alto's investment in the arts benefits the general public and affects their attitude and future commitment to the arts. Bds/Cornrnissions -702-23 9/13/2011 5. How would you see your role as board member when recommending policy and working with the Council? If it were necessary to change current roles, how would you approach making such changes? 6. What are the current issues facing the Public Art Commission? . 1) Finding effective ways to communicate with the general public about possible art installations. 2) Educating the public to the important role art plays in a culture and why it is important that our community makes art in the community a priority. 3) Ensure that the art that the City commissions, both represents the interests of the community while challenging them. 4) It is also important that a variety of artists are represented in the community. 7. What are your feelings about Palo Alto's current inventory/collection of Art in Public Places? What suggestions would you have for increasing the availability of more Art in Public Places? I love the art that is in our community. I find California Avenue to be vibrant and hope that downtown will have more surprise in the future. Create more projects that encourage the public to partiCipate. The closer they come to the art the more likely they are to appreciate and support it in the future. 8. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve? I would like to see the City find some innovative artists to engage the community in .art projects. I would also like to see the City commission cutting edge pieces, like The Color of Palo Alto. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 CALIFORNIA CODES GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6250-6270: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov 6254.21. (a) No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual. (b) No person shall knowingly post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appOinted official, or of the official's residing spouse or child, on the Internet knowing that person is an elected or appOinted official and intending to cause imminent great bodily harm that is likely to occur or threatening to cause imminent great bodily harm to that individual. A violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor. A violation of this subdivision that leads to the bodily injury of the official, or his or her residing spouse or child, is a misdemeanor or a felony. (cl (1) (A) No person, business, or association shall publicly post or publicly display on the Internet the home address or telephone number of any elected or appOinted official if that official has made a written demand of that person, business, or association to not disclose his or her home address or telephone number. (6) A written demand made under this paragraph by a state constitutional officer, a mayor, or a Member of the Legislature, a city council, or a board of supervisors shall include a statement describing a threat or fear for the safety of that official or of any person residing at the official's home address. (C) A written demand made under this paragraph by an elected official shall be effective for four years, regardless of whether or not the official's term has expired prior to the end of the four-year period. (D) (i) A person, business, or association that receives the written demand of an elected or appOinted official pursuant to this paragraph shall remove the official's home address or telephone number from public display on the Internet, including information provided to cellular telephone applications, within 48 hours of delivery of the written demand, and shall continue to ensure that this information is not reposted on the same Internet Web site, subsidiary site, or any other Internet Web site maintained by the recipient of the written demand. (ii) After receiving the elected or appOinted official's written demand, the person, bUSiness, or aSSOCiation shall not transfer the appOinted or elected official's home address or telephone number to any other person, business, or aSSOCiation through any other medium. (iii) Clause (ii) shall not be deemed to prohibit a telephone corporation, as defined in Section 234 of the Public Utilities Code, or its affiliate, from transferring the elected or appOinted official's home address or telephone number to any person, business, or aSSOCiation, if the transfer is authorized by federal or state law, regulation, order, or tariff, or necessary in the event of an emergency, or to collect a debt owed by the elected or appOinted official to the telephone corporation or its affiliate. (E) For purposes of this paragraph, "publicly post" or "publicly display" means to intentionally communicate or otherwise make availab,le to the general public. (2) An official whose home address or telephone number is made public as a result of a violation of paragraph (1) may bring an action seeking injunctive or declarative relief in any court of competent jurisdiction. If a court finds that a violation has occurred, it may grant injunctive or declarative relief and shall award the official court costs and reasonable attorney's fees. A fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) may be imposed for a violation of the court's order for an injunction or declarative relief obtained pursuant to this paragraph. (3) An elected or appOinted official may designate in writing the official's employer, a related governmental entity, or any voluntary professional association of similar officials to act, on behalf of that official, as that official's agent with regard to making a written demand pursuant to this section. A written demand made by an agent pursuant to this paragraph shall include a statement describing a threat or fear for the safety of that official or of any person residing at the official's home address. (d) (1) No person, business, or association shall solicit, sell, or trade on the Internet the home address or telephone number of an elected or appOinted official with the intent to cause imminent great bodily harm to the offiCial or to any person residing at the official's home address. (2) Notwithstanding any other law, an official whose home address or telephone number is solicited, sold, or traded in violation of paragraph (1) may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. If a jury or court finds that a violation has occurred, it shall award damages to that official in an amount up to a maximum of three times the actual damages but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000). (e) An interactive computer service or access software provider, as defined in Section 230(f) of Title 47 of the United States Code, shall not be liable under this section unless the service or provider intends to abet or cause imminent great bodily harm that is likely to occur or threatens to cause imminent great bodily harm to an elected or appOinted official. (f) For purposes of this section, "elected or appOinted official" includes, but is not limited to, all of the following: (1) State constitutional officers, 2) Members of the Legislature, (3) Judges and court commissioners, (4) District attorneys, (5) Public defenders, (6) Members of a city counCil, (7) Members of a board of supervisors, (8) AppOintees of the Governor, (9) AppOintees of the Legislature, (10) Mayors, (11) City attorneys, (12) Police chiefs and sheriffs, (13) A public safety official, as defined in Section 6254.24, (14) State administrative law judges, (15) Federal judges and federal defenders, (16) Members of the United States Congress and appOintees of the President. (g) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude punishment instead under Sections 69, 76, or 422 of the Penal Code, or any other provision of law. Bds/Cornrnissions -702-23 9/13/2011 City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 CONSENT FORM California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appOinted official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. Read the code, and check only ONE option below: ~ I Julia Nelson-Gal give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR D I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address Phone 9/22/2101 Signature* Date *The applicant must have a digital signature or print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 PUBLIC ART COMMISSION CITY OF PALO ALTO "e'c§tyO ,'~, F PALO All't'! vll Y CLERK'S OF' .u·CA , FleE 1 , S£P 22 AM !: I (J BOARD AND COMMISSION APPLICATION SUBMIT TO: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2571 Please print or type answers to all questions and place Nt A in those areas that do not apply, All forms must have a digital signature or the applicant must print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office: A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted, NAME: Stern Harriet ---------------------~~~------------------Last First ~~~:;; 1675 Middlefield Road . Street Palo Alto CA 94301 City State Zip Education: SA in Art History, Kenyon College, Gambier, OH. 1987 HOME PHONE: 650.485.2334 WORKPHONE: _________________________ _ CELL PHONE: 408.893.5199 EMAIL: jacobeatrice@gmai Graduate studies (1988-90) in Modern Art History, Theory and Criticism (MA pending) School of the Art Institute of Chicago Diploma in Interior Architecture, Inchbald School of Design, London, UK. 2003 List relevant trainintind experience, certificates of training, licenses, or ecrofessional ~istration: Intern, Alrshhorn useum and Sculpture Garden, Dept. of aucatlon, ashlngton D.C. 1987 Jntern, Peggy Guggenheim Collection, Venice, Italy. 1988. Intern, Art Institute of Chicago, 20th Century Art Dept. 1989-90 Teaching Assistant, School of the Art Institute of Chicago 1988-89 Assistant Director, White Pine Gallery, Chicago. 1988-1991 Corporate Art Consultant, Merrill Chase Galleries, Chicago. 1992-95 Corporate Art Consultant, Corporate Artworks, Schaumberg, IL. 1995-96 -_, ~_ ,_ _ _ _ _ _ -- --_ _ ---I ....... 1_ ......... .., • Are you a Palo Alto Resident? • Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are board members or commissioners? • Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? • California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? If you answered yes, you may wish to consult with the City Attorney before filing this application. Please contact the City Attorney's Office at 650-329-. 2171. • Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto or within two miles of Palo Alto? EMPLOYMENT D o D D D o D Present or last employer Name of Company: Corporate Artworks, IL. Occupation: Corporate Art Consultant (If retired, indicate former occupation) Signature of APPliC~ -Date: 2·;;;.-I·~ *The applicant must have a digital signature or print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. I~ Please Return to: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2571 CITY OF PALO ALTO PUBLIC ART COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE Name: Harriet Stern Date: September 21, 2011 Please print or type your answers to the following questions and submit with your completed application. You may submit additional sheets, if necessary, to complete your answers. 1. Have you attended the following meeting? Yes No • Public Art Commission o (Date: _9/_1_5/_1......;1 __ ---.1.) o 2. How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Public Art Commission? Community Group: 0 Palo Alto Weeldy: D The Daily Post: D website:DfYes, Please IdentifY: ______________ _ Email from City Clerk: D Library Bulletin Board: D Flyer/Bookmark: D . Other, Please Specify: __________________ -'--_____ _ 3. Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: My hUSband and I moved overseas for his work in 1996. I have served on committees and boards of various expatriate organizations over the years from chairing the July 4th celebration in Milan, Italy to lots of other volunteer positions: club secretary and treasurer; charity auction co-chair; advertising manager, etc. In Chicago, I was an officer of the Soroptimists, a women's service organization. Since arriving In Palo Alto a year ago, I have been present in my children's school helping often and initiating and running an art project for the 1 st grade. As a family, we seek out community activites regularly and have attended many in Palo Alto and beyond. As was my goal last year, my children feel a part of our local community and identify themselves as citizens of Palo Alto. 4. What is it about the Public Art Commission that interests you? What qualities, experience and expertise would xou bring to the Public Art Commission? Firstly, as a newcomer, I am impressed by the quality and quantity of art throughout the city, especially when contrasted with the lack of art in the private homes I have visited. I was an arts professional in the commercial sector so I appreciate the need of coming in on budget and on time with quality work. As an art consultant I often had· to work with committees to select art for corporate of healthcare environments. More than that though I am passionate about art, I am a continuing learner and observer of . art in public spaces all over the world. I am a firm believer in art for all and desire people have art in their lives, in their homes, around them all the time. It must be a matter of inexperience or lack of exposure when people elect to live without art. I would like to froment the interest of the general public to inspire individuals to expand. T"'!.-:I_ /,... _____ ..! __ .! ___ _ 5. How would you see your role as board member when recommending policy and working with the Council? If it were necessary to chan&e current roles, how would you approach making such changes? As with any commission which is under the auspices ot city government, one has to weigh fiscal responsibility with the goals of that commission; in this case the need and. importance for public art in our community. As a Public Art Commision member, I see my role as recommending arts policy which reflects the changing and dynamic needs . of Palo Alto and its changing and dynamic population. Beloved public art enhances civic unity. The choices we make now will impact generations behind. As for the second part of the question; change is something I have experienced often over the last 15 years by living in six cities on three continents and having two children along the way. I can handle change and feel completely at ease with confronting any situation or new role which arises. 6. What are the current issues facing the Public Art Commission? Without more specific knowledge my best estimation would be in general: engaging the public in the existing collection; making certain that art selected for future installation reflects the community and is perceived as democratically chosen; determining spaces/places for art; breaking out of banality; education and outreach; maintenance (identifying objects and funding thereof); responsible use of public funds; solicitation of private funds/projects. More specifically in the coming years: rolling out' big public art initiatives at the Mitchell Park and Main Libraries and the Palo Alto Art Center with outreach programs which energize, educate, promote civic pride and build community through art. Great public art should reflect our aspirations as well as our history. 7. What are your feelings about Palo Alto's current inventory/collection of Art in Public Places? What suggestions would you have for increasing the availability of more Art in Public Places? Public art in Palo Alto takes many different forms: gateways to avenues such as the multimedia installation at California and EI Camino; large, iconic, highly visible sculpture such as IIAlbuquerquell driven by thousands on Embarcadero every day; "Digital DNA" in a central downtown pedestrian plaza; temporary installations such as . Mildred Howard1s bottle house in front of the Civic Center now; murals and scupltures throughout the city and its parks; more traditional drawings, paintings and photographs hanging in the front lobby. To increase availabilty the PAC must create better public awareness of these collections, as well as pursuing new acquisitions. It would be wonderful to celebrate/re-introduce some of the old favorites after refurbishment with a lively public gathering and education initiative. 8. If a.EPointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve? 1. TO create a master plan of future sites for public art, 2. Use all funds allotted per annum for maintenance or new projects or public programming, including making the. current PAC website more exciting and comprehensive. 3. Use temporary exhibitions as an opportunity in engage individuals in a hands on way. 4. Target specific pieces ~ of art and artists to feature throughout the year to create excitement around and raise public awareness. 5. Enhance the profile of the collection through use of individual jmages such as free postcards in restaurants, a calendar or being featured on civic publications. Permanent outdoor art can be noted on city maps. 6. Seek out private/ corporate support and collaboration. "1""\ _, __ 1..-. ________ . _____ _ City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto/ CA 94301 CONSENT FORM California Government Code Section 6254.21 states/ in part/ "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. Read the code/ and check only ONE option below: D I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR , t/ I I Harriet Stern request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address/ phone numbers/ and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. 250 Hamilton Ave, Palo Alto 94301 Address 650.329.2571 Phone Email ~ Date *The applicant must have a digital signature or print the application/ sign in ink/ and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. ..... , 1-_1 ........ ,_" ... - 07/25/2011 Special Meeting July 25, 2011 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:03 p.m. Present: Burt, Espinosa, Holman, Klein, Price arrived @ 6:48 p.m., Scharff, Shepherd, Yeh Absent: Schmid STUDY SESSION 1. Study Session: on the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s Water System Improvement Program (Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System). Project Manager for the San Francisco Public Utilities Water System Improvement Program, Julie LaBonte, and, General Manager for the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency, Art Jensen, presented updates on the purpose, cost and construction progress of the 81 projects comprising the Program. Also covered was the oversight role of the State and the active role taken by BAWSCA in reviewing and ensuring the proper allocation and assignment of costs and on-time construction schedules for the Program. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 2. Palo Alto Art Center Foundation Contribution to the City in the Amount of $1.25 Million for the Art Center Renovation. Member of the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation Board of Directors, Teri Vershel, spoke on behalf on the Board. She stated that the Foundation had been fundraising and advocating for the Palo Alto Art Center construction and renovation project for many years, and that both the Foundation Staff and City Staff had worked very hard to minimize the costs of the project. She stated that the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation was pleased to present 2 07/25/2011 the City with a check for $1,250,000 to help fund the project. She added that the Foundation was also committed to contributing another $750,000 towards the project. Council Member Price thanked the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation for their donation. Mayor Espinosa stated that the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation was a model for the kind of successful public-private partnerships that the City would like to cultivate. He expressed appreciation for the fundraising efforts, which he stated would ensure a world-class art center in Palo Alto. No action required. 3. Council Direction to Reopen Recruitment for the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and to Communicate to the Two Applicants that their Applications are Still Active. City Clerk, Donna Grider, stated that the City had only received two applications for the ARB vacancy and that it would be prudent to reopen the recruitment. She stated that she had met with Curtis Williams, Director of Planning and Community Environment, to discuss alternative methods of reaching out to the community. She explained that Council also had the option of moving forward with the two current applicants. MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to direct the City Clerk to reopen the recruitment process and communicate to the two applicants that their applications were still active. Council Member Holman stated that Council had taken similar action regarding a vacancy on the Planning and Transportation Committee (PTC), and agreed with Ms. Grider that it was prudent to obtain multiple applications for each vacancy. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Schmid absent CITY MANAGER COMMENTS James Keene, City Manager, reported that the City Clerk’s Office was currently recruiting for a vacancy on the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and on the Library Advisory Commission (LAC). He announced that: 1) The Palo Alto landfill on Embarcadero Road would be closing on at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 28, 2011. After Thursday, Palo Alto residents could dispose of excess garbage and yard trimmings at the Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer Station on Carl Road in Sunnyvale. 2) The Palo Alto winners from the Palo Alto Weekly Best of Reader Poll were the Junior Museum and Zoo for best birthday party, the 3 07/25/2011 Children’s Theatre for best outdoor music venue, and the Palo Alto Art Center for best art gallery. 3) The City had recently installed a vending miser on the soft drink vending machine at the City Hall Café, which would save approximately 40% on vending energy costs by powering down the machine when not in use. The Utilities Department would be offering vending misers to commercial customers free of charge. 5) Police Chief, Dennis Burns, raised $4,000 for the Special Olympics by repelling 38 stories off of the Grand Hyatt in San Francisco. Council Member Burt asked why the PTC recruitment period would only be extended until August 12, 2011, considering that the Council would be at recess until September 6, 2011 and that many members of the community would also be on vacation during that period. Ms. Grider responded that the City Clerk’s Office had applied their standard two-week extension period to the recruitment, but that the extension time could be amended by Council. Council Member Burt suggested that Council extend the PTC recruitment period until one week prior to the September 6th meeting. Council Member Klein stated that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recruitment period should also be extended. Ms. Grider asked for confirmation that Staff was directed to extend both recruitment periods until the week prior to the September 6th meeting. Mayor Espinosa confirmed. Mr. Keene stated that Agenda Item Number 15 had been recommended for continuance to a date uncertain in September. Mayor Espinosa informed the public that there was a possibility that Council would not take action on the Item, but welcomed members of the public to stay and share their thoughts regarding the issue. Council Member Shepherd asked whether Item Number 15 could be reviewed by the Policies and Services Committee (P&S) prior to coming before Council. She stated that the P&S Committee would be a more informal setting for many of the public’s questions and concerns. Mr. Keene stated that Council could determine to send the Item to the P&S Committee for review prior to returning in to Council. Council Member Shepherd stated that the Palo Alto Unified School District had been attempting to reduce their energy consumption, and asked that Staff contact them regarding the vending miser technology. 4 07/25/2011 Mr. Keene stated that Staff would contact them. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. Approval of Minutes June 6, 0211 MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd to approve the minutes of June 6, 2011. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Schmid absent ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ken Horowitz stated that members of the public had complained about the length of Council meetings and had voiced frustration regarding the fact that Items were often considered past eleven o’clock at night. He suggested that Council reduce its size from nine to seven Members in order to shorten the meetings. Winifred Thomas introduced herself as a life-long area resident. She stated that her home was not in Palo Alto, and that she had suffered extreme health problems from her home’s smart meter. She asked Council to research the issue and investigate the health risks which accompany to smart meter installation. Palo Alto International Film Festival Managing Director, Alex Ippolite, stated that Palo Alto was the birthplace of the first film projector and theatre, and the first film ever produced. She explained that the Film Festival was in its first year, and that the biggest challenge had been a lack of appropriate venues. She stated that the Varsity Theatre was a cultural icon, and asked the Council to consider the possibility of its use to promote Palo Alto’s rich film history. Mark Weiss stated that he had addressed Council in 1996 regarding the possibility of leasing the Varsity Theatre. He stated that he worked in the music industry, and felt that the concert business was much more conducive to the success of such a venue than it was fifteen years ago. He suggested several local organizations that could potentially benefit from use of the Theatre. He suggested that Council assist in creating an open dialogue with the landlord, and stated that there could be an opportunity for a public- private partnership which would benefit the community as a whole. Bob Moss thanked Council for putting binding arbitration on the November ballot, despite opposition. 5 07/25/2011 Stephanie Munoz spoke regarding her time living abroad and explained the benefits to living in the United States. CONSENT CALENDAR Council Member Holman advised that she would not participate in Agenda Item Number 8, as she was an employee of the History Museum. MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd to pull Agenda Item No. 10, to become Agenda Item No. 13a. MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to pull Agenda Item No. 13, to become Agenda Item No. 13b. Former Vice Mayor, Jack Morton, spoke regarding Agenda Item Number 6. He asked Council to consider deferment of the Item because of objections from a number of local business located on California Avenue. He stated that the proposed improvements would reduce traffic from four to two lanes, which would have a disastrous impact on the area businesses. He informed Council that the California Avenue businesses had filed a lawsuit against the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. He suggested that Council postpone consideration of the Item until after the August recess, to allow time for an update on the status of the lawsuit before proceeding. MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to approve Agenda Item Nos. 5-9, 11-12. 5. Approval of Extension of the Santa Clara County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement (AVASA) for Third 10-Year Term and the City of Palo Alto's Continued Participation. 6. Approval of a Contract with RBF Consulting in a Total Amount Not To Exceed $350,000 for Design Services for the California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor Project. 7. Resolution 9191 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Restricted Parking Zones Established by Resolution 7659 to Include the Downtown Library Parking Lot and Adjacent Streets in the Coral Zone.” 8. Approval of a Record of Land Use Action approving a Conditional Use Permit for Community Facility Use of the Historic Roth Building at 300 Homer Avenue. 9. Approval of a Recommendation from the Historic Resources Board to Designate 1005 University Avenue as a Category 2 Structure on the City's Historic Inventory and Record of Land Use Action. 6 07/25/2011 10. Approval of Contract Amendment No. Four in the Amount of $258,041 with Group 4 Architecture, Inc for Costs Related to the Design of the Main Library and the Temporary Main Library (PE-11000 and PE- 11012) for a Total Contract Amount Not to Exceed $7,681,751. 11. Budget Amendment Ordinance 5125 in the amount of $3,545,904 for Improvements to the Palo Alto Art Center; Approval of a Contract in the Amount of $5,123,800 with Big D Pacific, Inc., for Improvements to the Palo Alto Art Center; Approval of a Contract in the Amount of $369,920 with Mark Cavagnero Associates for Construction Administration Services and Approval of Contract Amendment 1 for Construction Management Services in the Amount of $344,705 with Nova Partners (PF-07000). 12. Approval of a Contract with West Coast Arborists, Inc. for a Period of One Year for Parks and Facilities Tree Maintenance Services with Funding in the Not-to-Exceed Amount of $172,000. 13. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Approve the Implementation Plan for the Proposed Employee Hotline. MOTION PASSED for Agenda Item Nos. 5-7, 11-12: 8-0 Schmid absent MOTION PASSED for Agenda Item No. 8: 7-0 Holman not participating, Schmid absent AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS 13a. (Former No. 10) Approval of Contract Amendment No. Four in the Amount of $258,041 with Group 4 Architecture, Inc for Costs Related to the Design of the Main Library and the Temporary Main Library (PE- 11000 and PE-11012) for a Total Contract Amount Not to Exceed $7,681,751. Council Member Holman stated that she had requested that the Item be pulled from the Consent Calendar due to her concerns regarding a proposed new road to be built adjacent to the community gardens. She asked that construction of the road be excluded from the project. She stated that the provided site illustrations did not include the community gardens, and that they offered no information regarding the project’s potential impacts to the gardens. She stated that the illustrations did not indicate the location of the road ingress into the Art Center from Embarcadero Road, and asked Staff to verbally provide the missing information. Interim Public Works Director, Mike Sartor, provided an aerial drawing of the site and reviewed the specifics of the location. He stated that the proposal 7 07/25/2011 would include improvements to the Art Center parking lot and creation of a connecting road between the Art Center parking lot and the Main Library. Council Member Holman stated that she understood that the purpose of the project was to improve traffic flow, but that she did not understand how the projects would improve circulation given that the parking lots in question were small and not connected. Mr. Sartor stated that it was not presently possible to drive between parking lots without going back onto the main road, which presented a parking problem when one lot was full. Council Member Holman stated that the buildings were very close together and inquired as to the advantage to driving from one parking lot to another to find a space, as opposed to parking in one lot and walking. Senior Engineer, Karen Bengard, stated that the connection would eliminate the back and forth traffic on Newell Road that occurred when people were searching for parking spaces, but that once parked people could certainly walk between the buildings. Council Member Holman asked whether Staff had considered electronic signage to indicate maximum lot capacity. Ms. Bengard stated that electronic signage was one of the ideas that Staff would consider if the contract amendment moved forward. Council Member Shepherd stated that she had always considered the separation between the parking lots to be a weak element of these public facilities. She explained that her reason for wanting the Item removed from the Consent Calendar was unanswered questions regarding the contract and the escalating price of the project, which had both been adequately answered by Staff. The change order summary was extremely useful for Council because it demonstrated that the escalating project costs were caused by substantial changes to the project itself, and not inadequate anticipation of costs. She asked Staff to continue to update the change order summary and to present the document to Council as the project progressed. She stated that her understanding was that an integrated parking lot could cost $1,000,000, and that the cost would be split between the Art Center and Library budgets. She asked whether the cost would be expensed from the Capital Improvement Projects Funds or whether the project would be funded through donations from the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation. Mr. Sartor stated that the Foundation would not contribute to the project. He explained that Staff had estimated that the cost would be split between the two facilities, and that any expenses not covered by the Main Library project would be taken from the Infrastructure Reserve Fund. 8 07/25/2011 Council Member Klein stated that he lived two blocks from the site and that he was very familiar with the area. He stated that he was concerned about people using the parking lot as a way to avoid the Embarcadero Road traffic light at Newell Road, and asked why it was necessary to have an entrance into the parking lot from Embarcadero Road. He asked whether it would be possible to eliminate the entrance or to open it only for special events. Mr. Sartor acknowledged that it would be possible to either eliminate the entrance from Embarcadero Road or to limit access during specific times. He stated that the Public Works Department would need to coordinate with the Library Staff and the City’s Transportation Official to determine how the closure would affect circulation. Council Member Klein stated that closure of that entrance could also create additional parking spaces. Art Center Director, Karen Kienzle, explained that although the Art Center Staff had observed cars using the Embarcadero Road entrance to avoid the traffic light, the entrance would be advantageous when the Temporary Main Library was located in the Art Center auditorium space. Council Member Klein stated that he would prefer to consider his position after the closure alternatives for the Embarcadero Road entrance had been investigated. Mayor Espinosa explained that during his time as a Member of the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation Board of Directors he had discussed two other issues that were factors in the proposal to connect the parking lots: the creation of a pedestrian interface between the Main Library and the Art Center, and the possibility of the transformation of the Embarcadero Road entrance into the main entrance during the second phase of the Art Center development. Council Member Burt asked for clarification as to why the Item was pulled from the Consent Calendar. He asked whether approval of the Item as proposed would bind the City to a specific design outcome, and what the project’s review process would look like going forward. Mr. Sartor replied that the intent of the Staff recommendation was to have Group 4 Architecture, Inc. present the basic concepts to the Architectural Review Board (ARB), the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC), and the community for review. Staff would then return the proposal to Council for a final decision on whether to proceed with the connectivity project. Council Member Burt suggested that Staff consider implementation of a one- way traffic plan in which the entrance was located on the western most side 9 07/25/2011 and the exit was by the Art Center. He stated that in addition to creating more parking spaces, this solution would increase vehicle and bicycle safety through the elimination of multiple egresses and would decrease the width of the road alongside the gardens. MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Yeh to approve Staff recommendation that Council approves and authorizes the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 4 to contract C09130744 with Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc. in the amount of $258,041, the revised total contract amount is not to exceed $7,681,751 including $7,006,189 for basic services and $675,562 for additional services. Council Member Shepherd stated that she was interested in exploring methods of merging the two parking lots. She commented that she had recently learned that the community gardens were located on excess land that had been set aside to allow for a future Art Center expansion, if needed. She stated that more review would be necessary in order to ensure proper consideration of the layout of all facilities. Vice Mayor Yeh stated that the project was a part of Palo Alto’s larger efforts to renovate all libraries, and that he was pleased to see it moving forward. Council Member Price expressed support for the Staff recommendation, and stated that she would like to see the concerns of the community gardeners properly addressed during the process. Rita Morgan stated that 13 community gardens would be destroyed by the proposed road connection. She stated that if the City wished to reduce costs and stay green, they should forgo the expense of a new road that would demolish gardens. She stated that in 2002 the community gardeners were promised that the Main Library construction would not impact the gardens, and indicated that demolition of the gardens would destroy the gardener’s trust in the City. She suggested that the City would be better served by providing better signage to direct vehicles to the appropriate buildings and to indicate lot capacity. Library Advisory Commissioner, Bob Moss, stated that he had participated in several Library Advisory Commission (LAC) discussions regarding the Main Library parking situation. He stated that the LAC had discussed two driveways which presented problems: the existing driveway between the Art Center and the Library and the proposed road between the Art Center parking lot and the Main Library parking lot. He stated that the existing driveway between the Art Center and the Library was often used by speeders to bypass the Embarcadero Road light, but could be redesigned at a curve to reduce speed and create additional parking spaces. He explained that the LAC had not taken a position on the project due to the fact that 10 07/25/2011 there were very few details available as to the exact location of the proposed road and the impact it would have on the community gardens. Mark Hager praised Council Member Klein’s suggestion of limiting access to the Embarcadero Road entrance. He stated that one of the architects had suggested that if the proposed road were built, it could potentially be designated a limited access road. He stated that as a frequent visitor of the Library, he had rarely encountered problems finding a parking space. He asserted that the benefits of the project did not justify the costs, and that limited access and proper signage could solve the problem. Stephanie Munoz suggested that Council consider allowing people to park cars overnight along the perimeter of the parking lots during the hours that the Art Center and Library were closed. Don Kenyon introduced himself as a community gardener and a supporter of the Art Center and Community Library. He stated that his plot would not be affected by the proposed road. He commented that the road would not only integrate the two facilities, but would eliminate the fire road and create space for additional gardens. He stated that he had sympathy for those who would need to relocate their gardens, but emphasized that the road would be a tremendous improvement for the site and would constitute a net property gain for the community garden. Mayor Espinosa expressed support for the Motion and assured members of the public that Council had not yet made any final decisions regarding the proposal. Council Member Holman expressed support for improvements to the Art Center parking and circulation. She stated that she understood that no decisions had been made, but she felt that the investigation of a scenario in which community gardens would be destroyed was not a good expenditure of funds. She stated that she would not support the Motion, and suggested that the establishment of appropriate signage and improved pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between the sites would be more appropriate. She added that since the Item would be considered by both the ARB and the P&TC, the Parks and Recreation Commission (PARC) should also have an opportunity to provide input. Mr. Sartor stated that the PARC would be included in the process. MOTION PASSED: 7-1 Holman no, Schmid absent 13b. (Former No. 13) Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Approve the Implementation Plan for the Proposed Employee Hotline. 11 07/25/2011 Council Member Burt stated that he had requested that the Item be pulled from the Consent Calendar so that he could obtain clarification regarding the stated purpose of the Hotline. He stated that the Staff Report had included conflicting purposes, and that the wording was unclear. He observed that in some places the stated purpose of the Hotline was to receive employee complaints regarding “fraud, waste and abuse,” but that the term “waste” did not appear in other key areas of the document. He explained that the Policy and Services Committee (P&S) had discussed the Item at length, and had agreed that the term “waste” should be removed due to its subjective nature. Interim City Auditor, Michael Edmonds, agreed with Council Member Burt’s assessment. He stated that as Staff moved forward with the implementation of the Hotline, they would develop much clearer definitions of the terms “fraud,” “waste” and “abuse,” and would provide examples for each. He stated that his expectation was that waste complaints would relate to careless or unnecessary spending and poor use of City resources. Council Member Burt stated that “waste” covered a multitude of issues, and that they were normally considered the responsibility of the City Manager. He explained the eight categories described in the Staff Report as those which the Hotline could investigate were very specific with regards to instances of fraud and abuse, but did not include instances of waste. He explained that the P&S Committee had intended to exclude “waste” from the purview of the Hotline and that he would like to see the term removed completely. Council Member Scharff stated that he had the same thoughts regarding the term “waste.” He stated that the terms “fraud” and “abuse” were very well defined within the eight categories, but that the term “waste” was extremely broad. He stated that the Hotline was a pilot program, and that Council should be mindful of the fact that an anonymous accusation of waste would result in a full investigation of an employee. He stated that it would be wise to start with the eight categories which had already been well defined, and to expand the program in the future if needed. Council Member Price asked whether some of the language was taken from operating hotlines in other communities. Mr. Edmonds answered in the affirmative. He stated that the intent was to create a Waste, Fraud and Abuse Hotline and that Staff would provide specific examples of what constituted “waste.” He assured Council that a simple accusation of waste would not be sufficient to justify an investigation, and that the accusing party would be required to provide substantiating evidence. 12 07/25/2011 Council Member Price stated that it was her expectation that those issues would be addressed during the pilot phase of the program and that there must be an assumption that the employee’s would use the program responsibly. She stated that the report included many measures that would ensure a comprehensive evaluation at the end of the pilot period. Council Member Holman stated that the Motion passed unanimously by the P&S Committee was to “implement the employee only Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Hotline.” She explained that her understanding was that the term “waste, fraud, and abuse” was a term of art, and asked Mr. Edmonds for confirmation of that. Mr. Edmonds replied in the affirmative, and stated that there was overlap between the three areas. Council Member Holman observed that the P&S Committee minutes did not include the Committee Member’s comments regarding the need and applicability of the program, and stated that it was important to note that the program would address areas not covered under any other program. She emphasized that many people are not comfortable coming forward with a complaint without the assurance of anonymity, and that in an organization the size of the City there was likely to be managers who were not open to receiving such complaints. She stated that she was very much in favor of instituting the Hotline and she hoped it would provide a great benefit to the community. Council Member Klein agreed with Council Member Holman that the P&S Committee had not voted to exclude the term “waste,” and that the term “waste, fraud, and abuse” was a term of art. He stated that he felt that the potential benefits of the Hotline had been exaggerated, and that he looked forward to reviewing the results of the pilot program. He stated that the success of the program would rely on the common sense of its administrators, and that Staff should be careful to ensure that it was not used by disgruntled employees as a means of inflicting injury. City Manager, James Keene, stated that public agencies were founded on the democratic principles of transparency and accountability, and that he hoped that the majority of complaints would not require an anonymous hotline to be reported. He asserted that if the majority of complaints required anonymity, it would indicate a larger cultural problem within the organization. He emphasized that it would be a mistake to think that the City required a hotline to manage waste, fraud and abuse issues, and that the Hotline should be viewed as a tool set aside for those rare instances which required anonymity. He stated that he felt that “waste, fraud, and abuse” was not an appropriate term, and that the emphasis should be placed on “fraud,” which was of the most critical concern. He expressed that the City sought to promote the accountability of its employees, and that the pilot 13 07/25/2011 program was created to ensure that the City had a vehicle for those cases that could not have been reported otherwise. MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to approve the implementation plan for establishing an employee only Fraud, Waste and Abuse Hotline on an 18-month pilot basis, with an implementation date of January 1, 2012. Council Member Shepherd expressed support for the pilot program and stated that although she was looking forward to reviewing the data, she would be very pleased if the hotline did not produce any results. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that Staff provide quarterly reports to the Policy and Services Committee. Mr. Keene stated that the presentation of quarterly reports had been included in the Staff Report. Council Member Holman replied that it had not been a part of the Original Motion. She agreed with Mr. Keene that she would like everyone to feel comfortable enough to come forward with complaints, but that in reality most people generally did not. She acknowledged that the Hotline could produce some complaints that were not worth investigating, but maintained that it could also produce some complaints that were very beneficial to the City. She stated that the program had proven successful in other communities and that she fully supported the Motion. AMENDMENT: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to only include fraud and abuse and removing waste from the Hotline. Council Member Burt stated that there was a disparity between the program’s goal and its title, and argued that the term “waste, fraud, and abuse” did not appropriately convey Council’s intent. He stated that the title’s inclusion of the term “waste” introduced unnecessary ambiguity to the purpose of the project, when specific categories to define the scope of the hotline had already been established without reference to “waste.” Council Member Scharff asked for a clarification as to the Staff recommendation. Mr. Edmonds stated that Staff’s recommendation was to approve the implementation plan. Council Member Scharff asked for further clarification regarding the implementation plan. 14 07/25/2011 Mr. Edmonds stated that the implementation plan included five things that needed to be completed prior to the commencement of the pilot program: 1) selection of a third-party vendor to receive complaints 2) development of clear policies and procedures regarding the Hotline 3) development of whistleblower protection policies 4) efforts to inform employees of the Hotline and of their responsibilities to report fraud and abuse, and 5) authorization from Council to implement the Hotline. Council Member Scharff asked whether Staff currently had a definition of the term “waste.” Mr. Edmonds stated that Staff had some general definitions, but that they would need to spend some time to identify what would fall into the different categories of “waste,” “fraud,” and “abuse.” Council Member Scharff inquired as to Staff’s definition of the term “waste,” as opposed to “fraud” or “abuse.” Mr. Edmonds stated that his definition of “waste” would relate to wasteful spending. He stated that the term “waste” could refer to the purchase of unneeded or unnecessarily expensive items or to unnecessary travel expenditures. Council Member Scharff asked whether it would be fair to characterize fraud and abuse as intentional acts, and waste as an act of negligence. Mr. Edmonds stated that he believed Council Member Scharff’s characterization to be correct. He noted that the term “waste” could be applied to a broader number of offences than the terms “fraud” or “abuse,” and that it may not include an illegal act. Council Member Scharff stated that while both fraud and abuse were intentional acts, determining whether an act of waste had occurred would be much more difficult. He asserted that “waste” was subjective, and that different people may have vastly different opinions of what crossed the line into waste. He maintained that although “waste, fraud, and abuse” may be a term of art, “waste” belonged in a different category that the other two terms. Vice Mayor Yeh stated that the City of Oakland had instituted a Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Hotline several years ago. He stated that although he understood the sentiments behind the proposed Amendment, he was reassured by the fact that the complaints received by the Hotline would be reviewed by a committee which would include the City Manager’s office. He stated that he would not support the removal of the term “waste” because unintentional offenses, although perhaps not properly described as outright 15 07/25/2011 fraud, should still be addressed. He remarked that the City Manager had indicated his intent to institute a comprehensive ethics program, and that the two programs would compliment one another. He suggested that the title of the program be changed so that the term “waste” was not the first word. Council Member Price stated that the information provided by Staff, and the fact that further details would be returned to Council for final approval after the implementation plan was completed, gave her confidence in moving forward with the project according to the Staff recommendation. She stated that when Staff returned with the details of the program, Council would have the ability to look at the issue more closely. Council Member Holman stated that the definitions of the terms would be fully explored during the process of the implementation plan, and that it would be premature for Council to eliminate any aspect of the program at this point. Mr. Keene stated that the definition of “waste” could vary depending on individual perspective or values, and that encouraging secrecy regarding those types of disagreements was not good policy. He stated that if the City received a high number of waste complaints, he would take an active role in investigating the issue and would present it to Council. He suggested that the focus should be not only on the detection of waste, but on the vehicle that the City would use for detection. He stated that the City should not encourage non-accountability, and should offer anonymity only in those exceptional situations in which it was necessary. AMENDMENT FAILED: 2-6 Burt, Scharff yes, Schmid absent MOTION PASSED: 7-1 Scharff no, Schmid absent MOTION: Mayor Espinosa moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd to move Agenda Item No. 15 forward to be heard at this time, to become Agenda Item No. 13c. Council Member Burt stated that the Staff recommendation was to continue the Item, and asked whether the Motion would allow consideration of a continuance of the Item or consideration of the Item in substance. City Attorney, Molly Stump, stated that since the Item appeared on the Agenda, Council was required to provide members of the public an opportunity to speak to the Item. She asserted that Council could decide to hear the Item or to accept the Staff recommendation to continue it. Mayor Espinosa stated that the purpose of the Motion was to allow Council to consider the Item out of order on the Agenda. 16 07/25/2011 Council Member Burt asked for confirmation that if the Motion were approved, the Council could still vote to continue the Item. Mayor Espinosa stated that they could. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Price, Schmid absent 13c. (Former No. 15) Approval of an Ordinance Adding Section 9.06.010 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Prohibit Human Habitation of Vehicles (Staff Recommends to Continue This Item to September 2011). MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to refer this Item to the Policy & Services (P&S) Committee. Council Member Burt explained that the environment of a standing committee meeting was more conducive to an open dialogue between Council Members and members of the public. The P&S Committee review of the Item would provide the public a greater opportunity to participate in discussions regarding the issue. Council Member Shepherd explained that while the P&S Committee was a sub-committee of Council, and subject to the Brown Act, there was a much greater opportunity for exchange of ideas between the public and the Council Members. She stated that after speaking with several members of the public regarding the issue, she felt that referral of the Item was the best solution. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that the timing for this to be heard by Policy & Services Committee will be determined by Staff and the Committee Members pursuant to what is in the staff report. Council Member Klein stated that he was in agreement with Council Members Burt and Shepherd that the Item should be referred to the P&S Committee. He explained that it would be a “waste” of both Council’s and the public’s time to engage in any meaningful discussion of the Item prior to committee review. He suggested that public comments on the Item be limited to one minute. Council Member Price stated that the P&S Committee had already set a meeting date for September 13, 2011, and asked Council Member Klein whether he meant to imply that the P&S Committee would not necessarily consider the Item on September 13th. Council Member Klein replied that when the P&S Committee would consider the Item would depend on the staff work required. 17 07/25/2011 Council Member Price asked whether Staff could be prepared to present the Item to the P&S Committee by the September 13th meeting. Mr. Keene replied that he hoped so, and that the recommendation to continue the Item was made in response to requests from the public. He stated that Staff had identified the need for additional community outreach regarding the Item, which would be conducted during Council’s August break. He explained that the only variable he could foresee affecting Council’s ability to consider the Item at the September 2011 P&S Committee meeting would be the effectiveness of the outreach. AMENDMENT: Council Member Price moved, seconded by Council Member Klein to limit each public speaker this evening to 1 minute. AMENDMENT PASSED: 6-2 Espinosa, Holman no, Schmid absent Heiri Schuppisser introduced himself as a Homeless Outreach Specialist who had worked in Santa Clara County for the last 25 years. He explained that this issue affected a lot of lives, and that often times it was safer for people to live in their cars then on the streets. Cindy-Lou Waring stated that she had been a resident of Palo Alto since 1968, and that she was homeless. She explained that although she received social security, she had multiple medical issues and was not able to afford to live anywhere but her car. She explained that she did not feel that shelters were a viable option for her and that her car provided the safest environment. A member of the public introduced himself as a Software Engineer. He stated that he had worked as a software engineer for 25 years, but that after being laid off he was forced to live in an RV. He stated that, as with most people who live in their cars, he did not park in residential areas. He remarked that he had heard that the complaints had come from College Terrace and informed Council that there was a homeless person living in College Terrace who had 11 different vehicles spread throughout the area. He stated that the proposed Ordinance was very harsh and explained that if it were to pass, he would be considered a criminal despite the fact that he had never broken any laws. Stephanie Munoz stated that the proposed Ordinance constituted a denial of rights, and that it was too severe. Kenneth Roman stated that he had attended the previous Council meeting to ask for a delay of the vote, and that he would like to thank Council for being receptive to the requests of the public. He stated that he was working with a group of community members on alternatives for Council consideration. 18 07/25/2011 Greg Schaefer thanked Council for delaying a vote on the Item, for refering it to the P&S Committee, and for committing to speaking with both home- dwellers and car-dwellers regarding the issue. He thanked Staff for reaching out to him to discuss the issue and announced that he would be happy to join any team working to find a mutually beneficial solution. Bruce Kenyan stated that society could not end social ailments by separating the haves from the have-nots, and that a problem did not cease to exist because when it was removed from sight. He stated that the proposed Ordinance would do nothing to fix the homeless problem. Art Tyree stated that he had strong ties to the community, and recommended a program entitled “safe parking” that had been enacted in Santa Barbara. He explained that under the program, several public agencies and churches designated their parking area for overnight use by those who needed to use their vehicles for habitation. He stated that those who used the areas were not free to use the facilities at which they parked or to disturb the neighbors. He explained that it had worked very well in Santa Barbara and had solved what was becoming a widespread problem for the City. Herb Borock stated that when he moved to Palo Alto, the City prohibited parking in residential areas from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m without a hardship permit. He stated that the Ordinance change in 1999 permitted all but oversized vehicles and trailers to park in residential zones. In response, those living in mobile homes, trailers or trucks with camper shells began parking in the commercial zones on Encina Avenue. He explained that in 2003, with the establishment of the Opportunity Health Center on Encina Avenue, the Ordinance was amended to prohibit those vehicles from parking on Encina Avenue. He stated that a return to the pre-1999 Ordinance regulations would solve the problem. Rick Toker thanked Council for continuing the Item and stated that the City would be able to create a better ordinance as a result. Tianay Pulpus introduced herself as a junior at Stanford University. She stated that approximately 30 community members had already joined together to form a Community Cooperation Team for the purpose of developing alternatives that would address the concerns of all parties. She stated that she looked forward to working with Council to find a more acceptable solution than the proposed ban. Chuck Jagoda stated that the Community Cooperation Team was interested in investigating the nature of the complaints. He stated that he lived in his vehicle. He explained that many of the homeless in question had once worked and lived in Palo Alto, and that many still had children that lived in 19 07/25/2011 the City. He stated that he understood why people did not want to have to see the homeless, but that eliminating their presence would not eliminate their existence. Norman Carroll stated that he was not able to locate an official copy of the proposed Ordinance, but that the Ordinance he had obtained looked to be identical to the Sunnyvale Ordinance. He stated that he wished that the City had used the Milpitas Ordinance instead because it solved the problem by permitting the habitation of vehicles exclusively in commercial areas and required the permission of private commercial property owners. Aparna Anarthasubranarian introduced herself as a member of the Stanford Student Group “Night Outreach,” which allowed her to form meaningful relationships with much of the local un-housed population. She was also a member of the Community Cooperation Team and was very excited to see that Council was interested in receiving the community’s input on the issue. Bob Moss suggested that Council consider working with local churches to see if they would be willing to offer their parking lots and/or facilities to house the homeless. Lawrence Garwin stated that the proposed ban would not address the issue of parking availability. He stated that as a former resident of College Terrace, the resident’s main complaint was that many of the cars parked in the neighborhood did not belong to residents. The un-housed population did not use these cars as dwellings, but the non-resident cars did use much of the available parking. He stated that he would oppose a ban on sleeping in vehicles because it would affect not only those who lived in their cars, but also those who occasionally slept in them for short periods of time when it was unsafe for them to drive. Council Member Shepherd explained that Staff was currently coordinating community outreach efforts, after which the Item would be referred to the P&S Committee. She thanked members of the public for their input and for being a part of the solution. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-0 Schmid absent ACTION ITEMS 14. Finance Committee Recommendation for Rate Increases for the FY 2012 Refuse Fund Budget. Interim Public Works Director, Mike Sartor, stated that Council had approved the FY 2012 Budget with a $3,700,000 deficit in the Refuse Fund. He explained that Staff had met with the Finance Committee on July 5, 2011, 20 07/25/2011 and again several weeks later on July 19, 2011, to develop the Staff recommendation for the Item. Assistant Environmental Services Director, Phil Bobel, explained that Staff had mapped out a long-term phased strategy to help the Refuse Fund to achieve a $3,000,000 operating reserve, to ensure that all ratepayer categories paid their actual costs, and to fully implement structural rate changes within the next three to five years. He explained that Staff had also developed a short-term strategy, which was well under way. He stated that the next step in the short-term plan was to begin the Proposition 218 process for approval of new rates with a 45-day notice. He stated that after the Proposition 218 process, Staff would return to Council in September 2011 for approval of rates. The rates would take effect October 1, 2011. He explained that Staff had met several times with the Finance Committee, who had recommended approval of a $1,250,000 loan from the General Fund to the Refuse Fund in order to reduce rate increases and create a viable two- year plan. Another of the Finance Committee recommendations was to continue the approved rate increases from last year for both residential and commercial customers, and to approve an additional residential fixed rate in the amount of $4.62 per month. Solid Waste Program Manager, Brad Eggleston, reviewed the FY 2010 expense actuals for the Refuse Fund, noting that the GreenWaste contract represented approximately 40 percent of all expenses. He stated that the landfill closure would significantly reduce expenses for the Refuse Fund in FY 2013. He explained that the reduction in expenses and the proposed $1,250,000 loan from the General Fund constituted a two-year smoothing strategy that would help minimize the rate increases for FY 2012 and avoid additional rate increases in FY 2013. He stated that in order to achieve those goals, Staff would need to institute a revenue increase in conjunction with the proposed loan. He stated that while Staff proposed to continue the six and nine percent commercial rate increases from the previous year, they had also proposed a residential rate increase in an attempt to address some of the imbalances between the residential and commercial users. He presented three options for the proposed residential rate increase: Option 1: 100 percent variable rate, Option 2: 50 percent variable/50 percent fixed- rate, Option 3: 100 percent fixed rate. He stated that Staff’s recommendation was to approve Option 3, which would ensure that the City would receive the full rate increase amount each month. The Finance Committee already had an opportunity to offer input regarding the Item, and that Staff sought direction from Council. The Recycling Center was located on the landfill site and would need to be removed in order to proceed with the landfill closure. The Finance Committee had directed Staff to prepare a proposal that would eliminate the Recycling Center and retain the Household Hazardous Waste Facility. He informed Council that the proposal would be presented to the Finance Committee in October and would then be presented for Council review. 21 07/25/2011 Council Member Scharff, Finance Committee Chair, noted that the loan would be fully repaid with interest. The purpose of the increase was to eliminate the $3,700,000 deficit in the Refuse Fund, and emphasized that the proposed rate increase would be effective only until the completion of the Cost-of-Service Study, at which point a new rate structure could be put into effect. The proposal did not include any increase to commercial rates because some inequities between residential and commercial users had been discovered through the course of the Cost-of-Services Study. The goal of the proposed increase was to address the inequities, rather than to have to make larger adjustments down the road when the Study was complete. The proposed rate would eliminate the deficit, while still maintaining a large enough price differential between the small and large can to encourage a reduction in waste. Herb Borock observed that the Parks and Recreation Commission (PARC) would be considering an Item related to the Recycling Center at their next meeting, and hoped that the PARC was aware of the work that the Finance Committee had done on this Item. He expressed concern regarding Staff’s recommendation to raise rates before the completion of the Cost-of-Services Study. Lawrence Garwin expressed support for any measure that would encourage people to produce less waste, and the introduction of a bi-monthly pick-up schedule would greatly reduce garbage pick-up costs. He explained that bi- monthly pick-up would shift the majority of costs away from driving and personnel costs, and would allow the City to offer greater incentives to those who produced less waste. David Creemer urged Council to adopt a tiered rate structure, by which a consumer would pay more per gallon for each gallon over an established threshold. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd to approve the Finance Committee and Staff recommendation to: 1. Proceed with plans to retain the FY 2011 rate increases of 6% for residential customers and 9% for commercial customers, and to implement an additional fixed monthly fee of $4.62 for all residential customers to be effective on October 1, 2011; and 2. Establish a loan of $1.25 million from the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve to the Refuse Fund that will be disbursed in FY 2012 and repaid in FY 2013, with interest on the loan to be based on the average yield on the City’s investment portfolio for the loan period; and 22 07/25/2011 3. Proceed with the Proposition 218 public notification process for the rate increases and return to City Council in September 2011 for the Public Hearing and adoption of the new refuse rates. Council Member Shepherd stated that she looked forward to reviewing the Cost-of-Services Study. She stated that the cost of the mini can had been kept artificially low, which had diminished some of the funding that would have helped create a more financially sustainable program. The proposed rate increase was an incremental step towards a more structured billing approach. Council Member Burt asked whether, given that the Item was scheduled to return to the Finance Committee in October, it was the appropriate time to offer input to the Finance Committee Members regarding policy directions. Mr. Sartor stated that the Finance Committee had directed Staff to investigate and present options regarding the Recycling Center. He stated that Staff could also present those options to the Policy and Services Committee. Council Member Burt stated that it was important to create a system which would not duplicate recycling services already offered at the Recycling Center. He noted that both Stanford University and the City maintained their own recycling centers, and inquired as to whether there was some opportunity for collaboration between the two. He was disappointed when the Recycling Center had stopped accepting styrofoam, and asked Staff to bring the issue of discontinued refuse services before Council. He asked what year Council had adopted the zero waste program with increased curbside pick-up. Mr. Bobel stated that the City signed a new contract with GreenWaste in July 2009. Council Member Burt asked whether that was when the City had increased curbside recycling services. Mr. Sartor stated that the increased curbside recycling services were added some time in 2006 or 2007. Council Member Burt stated that when additional curbside services were added, his family was able to decrease from a 32-gallon can to a 20-gallon mini-can, which reduced the size of his monthly bill. He received increased recycling services, while paying approximately 20% less per month than he had four years prior. He added that the public should be made aware of the fact that there had been a change in the types of materials recycled by the City. The City went from recycling high-value materials such as aluminum and glass, to recycling low-value materials. He explained that often times 23 07/25/2011 the City did not receive any money for recycling these materials, but that the program prevented those items from being sent to the landfill. He stated that when many households reduced their can size, and did not see an equal reduction in their monthly bill, they assumed that their bills reflected a higher price per gallon. The issue should be re-framed so that the public could understand that the price per gallon had not increased, but that the City had increased recycling services in addition to decreasing the overall price of the bill. He added that to allow people to think otherwise would continue to breed unnecessary discontent in the community and would do a disservice to Staff. Council Member Shepherd stated that only 6.2% of recyclables were recycled at the Palo Alto Recycling Center, and that the Finance Committee should investigate whether relocation would be financially prudent. She agreed with Council Member Burt’s statement regarding the need for a different type of public discussion, but the City also needed to reevaluate the cost vs. the benefits of refuse pick-up. She stated that the recyclables were not providing increased revenue to the City, and that the costs associated with waste collection and disposal needed to be separated and appropriately compensated. Council Member Holman stated that she was also concerned that the City no longer accepted Styrofoam for recycling, but that she was most concerned by the fact that Styrofoam was still in use. She would like Staff to record Council’s comments and present them to the Finance Committee for consideration. She would also like the Finance Committee to investigate manufacturer take-back policies. She asked whether the policy allowing customers to request an annual collection of all household waste items was still in effect. Mr. Sartor stated that it was, and that if the Recycling Center were to close, Staff might consider the possibility of increasing the frequency with which customers would be permitted to request such collections. Council Member Holman asked whether the collection of household hazardous waste could be incorporated into that program. Mr. Eggleston stated that Staff could explore the possibility, but that under the City’s current contract the only household hazardous waste items that could be picked-up were motor oil and oil filters. Council Member Holman stated that she would like to see an amendment to the contract. Mr. Sartor answered that Staff was considering the possibility of a renegotiation of the Clean Harbors contract for the Household Hazardous 24 07/25/2011 Waste Facility to increase the number of materials accepted. Council Member Holman’s suggestion could be incorporated into a new contract. Council Member Holman stated that she shared Council Member Shepherd’s concerns regarding the cost of curbside collection, and combining trips for some of the vehicles with regular routes throughout the City. She would also be interested in exploring the possibility of instituting bi-monthly collection, whether on a citywide basis or as an option for those families who do not require weekly collection. She would like to avoid charging a fee for collection of recycling. She emphasized that recycling was still waste and that it did still have a considerable impact on the environment, but that it was important for the City to promote it as much as possible. The City should make efforts to educate people as to the impacts of recycling and disposal of other waste. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Schmid absent 15. Approval of Ordinance Adding Section 9.06.010 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Prohibit Human Habitation of Vehicles (STAFF RECOMMENDS TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO SEPTEMBER 2011). 16. Adoption of Two Resolutions (1) Adopting 9192 Utility Rate Schedule E-16 (Unmetered Electric Service), as Amended, Adding a Wireless Facilities Attachment Fee; and (2) Adopting Resolution 9193 the Master License Agreement and Exhibits for the Use of City-Controlled Space on Utility Poles and Streetlight Poles and in Conduits by Wireless Communications Facilities and Related Equipment. Assistant Director of Utilities Engineering, Tomm Marshall, stated that the Master License Agreement was the first step in the installation of wireless antennas on utility infrastructure. He explained that the Resolution to approve the Master License Agreement was a standard contract template for attachment to utility poles and occupancy of conduits and that the Resolution to amend the E-16 Utility Rate Schedule would add a fee for wireless facilities. He stated that the City had previously received three requests from different companies regarding pole attachments for wireless facilities, and that all had cited the need for improved wireless coverage and a demand for 4G services. He emphasized that the City could not legally prohibit access to public rights-of-way, but that it could limit access to poles and conduits for public safety reasons and set reasonable terms for attachment. The Master License Agreement was drafted as a 10-year agreement, with the possibility of one additional 10-year renewal. The Master License Agreement established the procedure, schedule, and fee structure for pole attachments and use of conduits. The amendments to Utility Rate Schedule E-16 would establish a license fee for attachments and conduit occupancy, as well as other related fees which would be subject to voter approval under Proposition 218 or Proposition 26. He informed Council 25 07/25/2011 that pending state and federal legislation regarding pole attachments, if approved, could conflict with the draft Master License Agreement, but that it would be difficult to anticipate the details of the legislation. He explained that under the Municipal Code, the Distributed Antenna System (DAS) Applications would be considered “co-location facilities,” subject only to architectural review. He explained that the facilities would not require a conditional use permit, and would be processed as minor architectural review projects subject to Staff-level review. Director of Planning and Community Environment, Curtis Williams, stated that Staff had been working with some of the wireless communications firms to develop outreach programs that they would implement prior to submitting applications. He explained that Staff had modified the City’s checklist of information required for participating companies, and that they had been compiling comprehensive lists and maps of City facilities to be made available to interested companies. He stated that Staff planned to return a more comprehensive package to Council some time in October or November 2011. Herb Borock stated that a preliminary Architectural Review Board (ARB) hearing would be held regarding an AT&T proposal for design review of their distributed antenna system on August 4, 2011. He stated that AT&T would not be able to move forward with their project without approval of the Item. He stated that the City had been discussing fiber optic applications for over fifteen years, and that the fact that the no implementation plan had come to Council prior to AT&T’s proposal suggested a strong connection between the proposal and the project. He disagreed with the Staff determination that no Conditional Use Permit would be necessary. Lawrence Garwin stated that studies had shown that people responded with elevated heart rates and symptoms of nervousness to the frequencies emitted by wireless signals, and added that he had personally experienced the negative side effects from wireless devices. He urged Council to consider research done in Europe and other countries regarding the issue. Council Member Price stated that the Terms and Terminations section of the Master License Agreement included language allowing amendments to the Agreement in response to future legislative changes. Council Member Scharff asked whether adoption of the Items would allow the City to collect a fee, an action that could be prohibited by future legislation for all Cities without such provisions. Senior Assistant City Attorney, Grant Kolling, confirmed the existence of proposed legislation that would reduce the allowable fee for wireless installation on utility structures. He explained that the legislation would not apply to any contract approved prior to December 31, 2011. 26 07/25/2011 MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Klein to: (1) Adopt a Resolution, approving an amended Utility Rate Schedule E-16, and (2) Adopt a Resolution, approving a standard form Master License Agreement (the “MLA”) and Exhibits for third party access to and use of City–controlled spaces on utility poles and streetlight poles and in conduits for the purpose of providing wireless communications facilities services in Palo Alto, and delegating to the City Manager the authority to sign the standard form MLA. Council Member Scharff stated that having a Master License Agreement was a good idea. He explained that offering the same contract to everyone would create equality amongst the participating companies, would give companies an opportunity to review all aspects of the agreement, and would save a great deal of Staff time. Council Member Klein stated that the Staff report offered a comprehensive explanation of why the approval was necessary, and agreed with Council Member Scharff that the City would not be well served by individual contracts. Council Member Holman agreed that the Master License Agreement was a good idea, but expressed reservations regarding the fee to be assessed to providers. She asked whether the $1,500 could be higher. Mr. Kolling replied that the City could raise the fee, but that State and Federal legislation required it to be reasonable. He noted that the industry standard seemed to be headed toward cost recovery as a maximum fee. Council Member Holman stated that the term “reasonable” was subject to interpretation. She stated that the wireless providers would make a lot of money from the placement of antennae on City infrastructure, and asked why the City should not consider this as a potential revenue stream. Mr. Kolling stated that providers would likely argue that an unreasonable fee would violate federal provisions by prohibiting potential operation within Palo Alto. Council Member Holman stated that although there was a trend towards lowering fees, Palo Alto was a very attractive location. She asserted that a higher fee would better protect the City. Mr. Marshall stated that Staff had explored several methods of collecting fees, and had considered the level of fees already being paid for other sites in Palo Alto. He explained that the proposed fee was similar to the price already being paid to lease these sites from the City. 27 07/25/2011 Ms. Fong stated that the Utilities Department did not want to impede competitive services, and tended to favor a more cost-based approach. Council Member Holman stated that she would like removal of the equipment to be the responsibility of the provider, and that in the event that updated equipment were installed, removal of the old equipment should also be the responsibility of the provider. Mr. Marshall stated that those provisions were already part of the Agreement. Council Member Holman stated that she did not wish to see light poles included in the Agreement. She explained that in some areas of the City, light poles were ornamental. She asked whether Staff would prohibit installation of equipment on light poles in areas such as University Avenue and Christmas Tree Lane. Mr. Williams replied that the City must be careful to avoid any action that could be interpreted as preventing reasonable access to communications providers. He stated that there would be architectural review of the equipment placement, and that the ARB would be reviewing several prototypes of how to address the visual impact of the equipment installation. Council Member Holman asked whether the City’s safety standards were developed in the 1980’s. Mr. Marshall stated that the safety standards with regards to the attachment of wireless antennae had been developed within the past four to five years. He added that there are structural reasons that would prevent antennae from being attached on some of the City’s light poles. He stated that he was not sure what type of safety standards Council Member Holman was referring to. Council Member Holman stated that she was referring to safety standards relating to wireless antenna exposure. Mr. Marshall replied that the safety standards relating to wireless antenna exposure were developed by the Federal Communications Commission in the 1980’s. Vice Mayor Yeh asked whether all conduits used for wireless would be above ground. Mr. Marshall stated that the conduits would be located below ground. Vice Mayor Yeh stated that the Master License Agreement would allow the City to implement a standard process and maintain standard expectations 28 07/25/2011 for all service providers, but noted that underground conduits would require some level of coordination with the Public Works Department. He asked that the document take any necessary collaboration with Staff into consideration. He asked how the City would handle competing service providers. Mr. Marshall stated that the City was considering only the possibility of leasing existing conduits, and not the installation of new conduits. He stated that the City currently leased City-owned conduit to a cable television company, and that there was no preclusion for another party to lease conduit also. Vice Mayor Yeh asked whether the maps that Staff was currently compiling would come before Council for review. He stated that the concentration of electric poles were within residential areas, and asked whether they could be mapped by neighborhood. Mr. Marshall stated that Staff had received a number of applications from different service providers, but that there would likely be more to come. He stated that Staff did not yet have a location for all of the poles, but that they could present what they had to Council. Vice Mayor Yeh stated that a map demonstrating the location of the poles to be used and the service coverage gaps of different providers, would not only help the community to understand the projects, but would help the City to anticipate which future poles would be used. He asked whether Staff had begun work on such a map. Mr. Marshall stated that Staff had not. Mr. Williams stated that Staff was compiling a map as service providers came forward. Staff had encountered some difficulty in obtaining the information from the service providers, as many were reluctant to share proprietary information. Staff had received relatively good information from the companies who had already completed their applications, but that they were still working to get information from those service providers whose applications were in process. Vice Mayor Yeh asked whether the City had the authority to require the service providers to disclose maps of their service coverage. Mr. Kolling stated that there was a provision in the Master License Agreement which would require service providers to provide final, as-built drawings as to where the location of the poles would be. He asked Vice Mayor Yeh whether he had asked if Staff could determine where the poles would go. 29 07/25/2011 Vice Mayor Yeh stated that he was more concerned with how the community and Council would obtain information regarding service coverage gaps. He stated that if Council had that information, they would be better able to reach out and prepare the community for future wireless installations. Mr. Kolling stated that the service providers had indicated an interest in sharing that information with the City. Mr. Marshall stated that Staff had received only the initial installation locations from the service providers, but that there would likely be more in the future. He stated that Staff could provide information regarding the locations that they had received to date, but that they did not have information regarding the provider’s future plans. Vice Mayor Yeh stated that he was not interested in the service provider’s plans, but in whether the City had the legal authority to request submittal of a service coverage map. Mr. Kolling stated that he would need to research the topic and return to Council. Council Member Shepherd stated that she shared Council Member Holman’s concerns regarding the amount of the fee. She would like to see the fee set high enough to both recover all associated costs and to ensure that the City was protected for the duration of the 10-year contract. She stated that as landline usage declined, wireless coverage was becoming more critical. She asked whether the $1,500 fee included street lamp installation. Mr. Marshall answered in the affirmative. Council Member Shepherd asked whether wireless antennae could be installed on traffic lights. Mr. Marshall stated that he did not believe that the City would allow installation on traffic lights due to safety concerns. Council Member Shepherd asked how wireless antennae differed from traffic cameras. Mr. Marshall stated that wireless antennae were fairly large and heavy, and could potentially interfere with the traffic signal. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Schmid absent 30 07/25/2011 17. Stanford University Medical Center Community Benefits Discussion and Appointment of City Representatives to Joint Committee for Community Health and Safety Programs. Council Member Klein advised that he would not participate in the Item, as his wife was a member of the faculty at Stanford University. Deputy City Manager, Steve Emslie, explained that the Staff Report provided a summary of the schedule of payments to the City resulting from approval of the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Development Agreement in June 2011. He stated that the first payment was due at the time of initial permit, estimated for summer 2011. The last two payments were due when the hospital’s foundation permit was pulled in January 2012, and upon occupancy of the first hospital project some time in 2018. He noted that the payments were to be divided into three major categories of funds: the Sustainability Fund ($12,000,000), the Neighborhood Infrastructure Fund ($23,200,000), and the Community Health and Safety Fund ($4,000,000). He stated that approximately $20,000,000 of the Neighborhood Infrastructure Fund was uncommitted, and could be used at Council’s discretion for projects that supported neighborhood infrastructure and other infrastructure needs of the City. He remarked that Council had designated $2,000,000 from the Community Health and Safety Fund to go to Project Safety Net, and that Staff would return after Council’s August break with a Budget Amendment Ordinance and a job description for the creation of a Project Safety Net Coordinator position in the Community Services Department. He stated that Staff’s recommendation was for Council to utilize the Finance Committee in determining the allocation of the funds. He explained that the Finance Committee was well equipped to facilitate conversations within the context of the City’s budgetary priorities and Capital Improvement Projects. Mr. Keene stated that there was no particular urgency regarding the issue. He stated that considering the amount of money that would be needed for Project Safety Net, the $2,000,000 allocation was not an extraordinary sum. He explained that only a portion of the $2,000,000 would be allocated to the new Project Safety Net Coordinator staff position. He stated that one of the reasons that Staff had placed the Item on the Agenda was so that Council could receive an update on the status of the Project Safety Net Coordinator position. Council Member Price observed that although the Staff report stated that the Finance Committee had recommended the designation of $2,000,000 from the Community Health and Safety Fund toward Project Safety Net, the Policies and Services Committee P&S had also reviewed the Item and made a similar recommendation. She asked that Staff correct the information in the Staff Report to include the P&S Committee. She asked whether the 31 07/25/2011 purpose of the Joint Stanford/City Committee for Community Health and Safety Programs was to develop procedures for the utilization of the funds. Mr. Keene stated that Council Member Price was correct, and added that Council may want to use the Joint Committee as a model for the assessment of allocations across all of the Funds. He acknowledged that Council may not use the same appointment technique for each committee, but emphasized the need to establish an allocation process and criteria would be more critical as Council began to make decisions regarding some of the larger Funds. Council Member Price agreed that Council would need an organized approach to defining the policy priorities that would determine the allocation of funds. She stated that although the Staff recommendation was rather broad, it was important to present Council the opportunity to discuss those issues. She emphasized that there was a lot of money at stake, and that it would need to be handled in a careful and responsible manner. She stated that Project Safety Net was an extremely important project, and that she looked forward to discussing it further. Mr. Keene stated that Staff sought direction from Council regarding how to create a process for allocation of the Community Benefit funds. He explained that Staff was not yet ready to present specific alternatives, but that with some direction they could return to Council with a more refined proposal. Council Member Shepherd stated that the strategic planning and vision work that had already been done by the Project Safety Net group was extremely valuable. She asked whether Staff intended to spread out the $2,400,000 fiscal neutrality payment over a number of years. Mr. Keene stated that the plan for the money was to place it in a savings account and allow the interest to grow to a point which could guarantee fiscal neutrality. Council Member Shepherd asked whether Council Member Klein’s participation in determining allocation of funds which had already been received from Stanford would represent a conflict of interest. City Attorney, Molly Stump, stated that Council Member Klein should not participate in the Joint Committee for Community Health and Safety Programs. Council Member Shepherd stated that Council had been asked to offer direction to Staff regarding allocation of Community Benefit funds, and asked whether Council Member Klein would be allowed to participate at some point. 32 07/25/2011 Ms. Stump replied that Council Member Klein’s participation could be further discussed as the project continued, but that he should not participate at the present time. Council Member Shepherd stated that the funds received from Stanford University should not be used for general purposes, such as balancing the annual budget. MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Yeh to accept Staff recommendation to authorize the Mayor to appoint two Council Members to the Joint Stanford/City Committee for Community Health and Safety Programs and provide Staff direction regarding the recommended process for expending Community Benefit funds. Vice Mayor Yeh agreed with Council Member Shepherd that the money should not be used to compensate for budgetary deficits within a given fiscal year, but to establish permanent Funds from which the community could benefit for years to come. Council Member Scharff expressed support for the Motion. He stated that the money should be used in a transformative way to do something positive for the community of Palo Alto. He stated that Council should focus on only the highest impact projects, which would require a great deal of input from the community. He commented that Council should consult the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Task Force for their input regarding projects that could be extremely transformative to the City’s infrastructure. The Council needed to use the money on long-term rather than short-term projects, and that the emphasis should be placed on fiscally sustainable projects. Council Member Burt expressed support for the Motion, but asked for clarification regarding the Joint Committee. He asked whether, once formed, the Joint Committee would be advisory to one of the standing committees or to Council. Mr. Keene replied that the Joint Committee would be advisory to Council. He stated that most likely, the Joint Committee would seek explicit policy direction from Council prior to making any commitments. Council Member Burt stated that it was important to avoid misunderstandings regarding the delegation of authority. He expressed concerns regarding the misconception by some that Project Safety Net Staff would determine how to spend the funds, and asked that any misunderstandings be addressed as soon as possible. He stated that in order to avoid a false sense of authority over final decision making, it was necessary to have open communication and to be very clear from the outset about where the authority would reside. He stated that two of the Funds were primarily policy oriented, and so should be sent to the P&S Committee. 33 07/25/2011 He stated that he would like to hear from the other Council Members regarding which committees should review the Fund allocations. Mr. Keene explained that Staff was still in the very initial stages of the plan, but that they had included Finance Committee review in order to connect the projects to the budget cycle. He assured Council that conversations regarding Project Safety Net programs had been focused on how to create endowment funding that would leverage other money to remain sustainable. He indicated that during Fall 2011, Council might want to move forward with development of some guiding values and principles regarding the use of the funds. Council Member Holman suggested that any advisory committee’s formed to consider the allocation of funds from either the Sustainability Fund or the Neighborhood Infrastructure Fund should include different Council Members than the Joint Committee for Community Health and Safety Programs. She stated that Mr. Keene had indicated that the Joint Committee would seek explicit policy directions from Council prior to making any commitments, and inquired as to what types of commitments the two Council Members would make. Mr. Keene stated that his comments were intended to convey that efforts should be made to avoid a situation in which the Joint Committee Members made commitments without explicit direction from Council. He stated that Staff had recommended the Joint Committee because it was specifically prescribed by the SUMC Development Agreement. He stated that he had assumed that Council would prefer not to delegate full authority to the two Council Members appointed to the Joint Committee, but rather to give them direction prior to making any commitments. Council Member Holman asked why two Council Members would be making commitments, and not the Council as a whole. Mr. Keene stated that Council should be making the final decisions, and that the two Joint Committee Members would need to receive direction from Council. Council Member Burt clarified that the Joint Committee for Community Health and Safety Programs was the only committee specifically referenced in the SUMC Development Agreement. Council Member Holman stated that the Joint Committee had been described as an advisory body, and that she had been unclear as to the intent of Mr. Keene’s comments. She stated that having received clarification, she would support the Motion. 34 07/25/2011 Mayor Espinosa stated that he would like to see Staff provide a timeline, a process, and a list of responsibilities for both the Joint Committee and for the other two Funds. He would like to see those materials presented for review not long after Council’s return from the August break so that everyone was clear early on about how the process would work. He stated that the issues presented a great deal of overlap, and should be reviewed by both the Finance and the P&S Committees. He asserted that prior committee review would allow Council to engage in a broader conversation, and agreed that community input would be very important moving forward. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Klein not participating, Schmid absent 18. Resolution 9194 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 1401 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations to Incorporate a Side Letter with SEIU Local 521 to Extend the Term of the Memorandum of Agreement for One Additional Year, Through June 30, 2012, and Add a Provision for a Flexible Spending Arrangement.” City Manager, James Keene, stated that the proposal would extend the SEIU Local 521 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) until June 30, 2012. If approved, Staff would begin negotiation at the end of the calendar year for the 2012 MOA. He commented that Staff would have placed the Item on the Consent Calendar, but that the 2010 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report had specifically recommended that all cities in the County place labor agreements on the Action Agenda to improve transparency. Acting Assistant Director Human Resources, Marcie Scott, stated that the MOA would apply to 582 full-time equivalent employees working in nearly every City Department. She explained that in late October 2009, the City and SEIU were at impasse and could not agree on a wage and benefit package. As a result, Council implemented significant changes to compensation and made structural changes to pension and medical benefits. She explained that the changes included increased employee pension contributions, reductions in floating holidays, elimination of tuition reimbursement funds, implementation of a medical cost sharing program, and implementation of a second tier pension formula of 2% at 60. She stated that in July 2010 the City and SEIU reached an agreement to maintain those terms and signed a one-year MOA. She explained that a continuance of the same terms for the remainder of the fiscal year would result in an estimated $3,300,000 in savings to the City, plus an additional savings of $750,000. She stated that SEIU had also requested to participate in a Flexible Spending Arrangement (FSA). She explained that an FSA was a benefit program that allowed employees to set aside money each year on a pre-tax basis to use towards qualified medical expenses. She noted that currently only management and professional employees are permitted to participate in an FSA, but the City had agreed to offer participation to 35 07/25/2011 members of the Unit as long as it presented no additional cost to the City. She stated that Staff was currently working on the details of the program to present to SEIU and employees within 120 days of adoption of the Resolution. She acknowledged the continuing contributions that SEIU had made in assisting the City through economically difficult times. MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd to accept Staff recommendation that Council adopt the Resolution amending Section 1401 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations to incorporate a side letter to the Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”) between the City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 to extend the term for one additional year, through June 30, 2012, and add a provision for a Flexible Spending Arrangement (“FSA”) for SEIU employees. Council Member Shepherd stated that she had recently met with SEIU and felt that they had been very accommodating. She was concerned by the inequality of the fact that other more highly paid employee units had not yet experienced the same reductions. Council Member Holman recognized SEIU for partnering with the City to address the current economic challenges. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Schmid absent 19. Adoption of an Ordinance Dissolving the Palo Alto Redevelopment Agency (RDA). City Manager, James Keene, stated that the Item was suggested by Council at a previous meeting. He explained that the RDA was formed approximately 10 years ago, and that although Staff had never used the Agency, the City expended approximately $8-10,000 per year to sustain it. He stated that the California Redevelopment Agency and the League of California Cities were adamantly opposed to the Governors proposal to eliminate community RDAs, and were actively pursuing legal recourse. He stated that the Staff recommendation was to eliminate the RDA. He added that Staff recognized that RDAs had done tremendous work for cities across the state, and emphasized that the recommendation should not be interpreted as a response to State policy decisions. MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to accept Staff recommendation that Council adopt the Ordinance to dissolve the RDA by declaring that there is no further need for the RDA. Council Member Klein stated that the City could make good use of the $8,500 annual savings that would result from the dissolution of the RDA. 36 07/25/2011 Council Member Price asked whether RDA funding could support infrastructure objectives. Administrative Services Director, Lalo Perez, replied that Staff had considered that option prior to reviewing approved State legislation regarding community RDAs. He stated that the benefit to such proposals had been eliminated by State legislation which required cities to pay extremely high amounts in order to maintain their RDAs. He noted that Menlo Park would need to pay approximately $3,500,000 in order to keep their RDA active. Council Member Price stated that the original argument for the use of RDA funding for emergency preparedness had been compelling and asked whether that was still an option. Mr. Perez stated that it was no longer a viable option, due to the costs associated with maintaining the City’s RDA. He stated that the original proposal was a reaction to the fact that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had denied Monterey County’s application for winter storm relief. He stated that he had felt it necessary to retain access to potential emergency funds, but that given the cost of maintaining the RDA, it was no longer practical. Council Member Burt asked whether approval of the Item would prevent opposition to any State decisions regarding the issue. Mr. Keene answered that it would not. Vice Mayor Yeh expressed support for the Motion, and asked whether Staff planned to write-off the $8,500 annual loan. Mr. Perez answered in the affirmative. Council Member Shepherd expressed support for the Motion, and stated that she believed that the cost savings of dissolution would be more than just the annual fee, but would also include Staff time spent on redevelopment projects. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Schmid absent COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council Member Shepherd asked for additional information regarding the Community Gardens, including: their role within the community, history, parameters for maintenance, locations, etc. 37 07/25/2011 Vice Mayor Yeh advised that he was appointed to Assembly Member Gordon’s Local Government Advisory Committee, the purpose of which is to facilitate discussions between City and State government on policies and legislation. Mayor Espinosa reminded Council that the next Council meeting after the Council break would be held on Tuesday, September 6, 2011. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. City of Palo Alto (ID # 1809) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/3/2011 October 03, 2011 Page 1 of 5 (ID # 1809) Summary Title: Award of Contract for San Antonio -Phase II Title: Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $205,400 to Capital Improvement Program Project PE-00104 and Approval of Contract with Del Conte's Landscaping, Inc. in the total amount of $754,977 for San Antonio Landscaping Improvement Project –Phase II From:City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1.Adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) to add funding from the Infrastructure Reserve in the amount of $205,400 (Attachment A) for the San Antonio Landscaping Improvement Project Capital Improvement Program Project PE-00104; 2.Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract with Del Conte’s Landscaping, Inc.(Attachment B) in an amount not to exceed $754,977 for the San Antonio Landscaping Improvement Project Capital Improvement Program Project PE-00104; and 3.Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with Del Conte’s Landscaping, Inc for related, additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $113,247. Background The project addresses the deteriorating condition of roadside planting areas and median islands on San Antonio Avenue between Highway 101 and Middlefield Road. The planting areas and medians are not irrigated and support only sporadic patches of vegetation along with several mature Italian Stone Pine trees. City staff and a consulting arborist initially evaluated the option of retaining the Italian Stone Pines while landscaping the medians and repairing the curbs and road. Different methods of installing irrigation lines with the existing trees protected in place were researched and it was determined that each was potentially destabilizing to the trees. The pines are currently at the end of their useful lifecycle and require significant ongoing maintenance October 03, 2011 Page 2 of 5 (ID # 1809) including branch removal, surface root grinding and extensive sidewalk and road repair. The subsurface roots continue to cause significant damage to the roadway and median curbs, gutters, sidewalk and pavement. The San Antonio Landscaping and Median Project, Phase I, from Middlefield Road to Briarwood Way –1,900 linear feet, was completed in 2009. The project included removal of Italian Stone Pines, installation of irrigation and landscaping; and construction of medians. The San Antonio Landscaping Improvement Project , Phase II will implement much needed improvements to a highly traveled corridor at the City’s southern gateway including removal of 101 deteriorating trees and installation of irrigation and replacement landscaping. This project will complete the entire corridor by implementing improvements for the portion between Highway 101 and Middlefield Road –2,600 linear feet. Funding to reconstruct the medians and to resurface the roadway on San Antonio from Middlefield to Highway 101 will come from the 2009 maximum grant award of $900,000 from the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). In FY 2010, the City Council adopted the San Antonio Landscaping Improvement Project with the intent to complete the landscaping of the San Antonio corridor before the roadway reconstruction using HSIP funds. Discussion Project Description The work to be performed under the contract includes removal of existing trees and replacement with a mix of 120 trees of sustainable deciduous and evergreen plant varieties and installation of understory planting and an automatic irrigation system on San Antonio Avenue between Highway 101 and Middlefield Road. Similar to Phase I, the new trees are sized in 24-inch boxes and will grow quickly in the streetscape environment. The removal of 101 trees include 69 Stone Pines, 2 Aleppo Pines, 1 Canary Island Pine, 2 Silver Dollar Gums, 2 Japanese Black Pine, 2 Carob, 5 Bottlebrush, 1 Camphor, 1 Red Iron Bark, 3 Sycamores, 3 Ash, 3 Holly Oaks, 1 Honey Locust, 1 Brazilian Pepper, 3 Chinese Pistache, 1 Karo and 1 Chinese Elm. The plans were reviewed by the City arborists as well as by Canopy. This project also includes repair of street lighting conduit due to damage from tree roots and removal of contaminated soil due to lead deposited from vehicle exhaust. The project construction is proposed to begin in Fall 2011 and includes the following mitigation measures: §At least one traffic lane must remain open in each direction during the construction hours of 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.; §All trees must be removed and replaced in conformance with the City’s Tree Technical Manual; §Tree removal must take place between the raptor’s non-nesting season between September and March; and October 03, 2011 Page 3 of 5 (ID # 1809) §Number and density of trees planted will be maximized to ensure adequate and sustainable canopy growth over time. Public Outreach and Review Two community meetings were held to discuss this second phase of San Antonio Avenue. A conceptual plan showing proposed landscape improvements were discussed at the first community meeting in April 2010. Initially 87 trees were proposed to be removed with 14 trees in good condition of various species to remain. Based on public input from the meeting, they preferred a new and uniform street tree palette. The plans were revised to remove 101 trees along San Antonio from Highway 101 to Middlefield Road. The second community meeting was held in February 2011 to present the final landscaping plans and to discuss the proposed widening at San Antonio and Middlefield to improve the service level of the intersection and proposed striping and signage changes along San Antonio. The reaction among those in attendance was positive. In June 2010, this project received Architectural Review Board approval and an extension was granted in June 2011. A public outreach plan has been prepared for this project and includes a press release prior to construction, monthly email updates as well as updates to the website to provide milestone updates to the public and additional press releases as necessary. Informational signage for the project will be posted for the duration of construction and outreach door to door with businesses and residents adjacent to the project area. The Public Works Department will coordinate with the Economic Development Manager to minimize possible impacts to the business along this stretch. Project Coordination Through the City’s monthly project coordination meetings, this project was coordinated with gas utility projects in the area which will be completed this fall. This project will be closely coordinated with additional Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects including the 2011 Street Resurfacing Project, Sidewalk Replacement Project and the San Antonio HSIP Median and Resurfacing projects. Staff anticipates receiving Caltrans approval in Fall 2011 to proceed with the median and road construction. The work will be completed in three steps. In the first step, the trees and contaminated soil will be removed, street lights relocated, conduit replaced, stumps removed and irrigation installed.The second step will involve widening at Middlefield followed by the replacement of median curbs, curb and gutter, sidewalks and street repaving. The last step will be to plant the trees and install all landscaping. October 03, 2011 Page 4 of 5 (ID # 1809) Summary of Bid Process Bid Name/Number San Antonio Landscape Improvement Project – Phase II Proposed Length of Project 150 calendar days Number of Bid Packages Mailed to Contractors 18 Number of Bid Packages Mailed to Builder’s Exchanges 7 Total Days to Respond to Bid 35 Pre-Bid Meeting?Yes Number of Company Attendees at Pre-Bid Meeting 7 Number of Bids Received:7 Bid Price Range (base bid plus 3 alternates)From a low of $754,977 to a high of $1,049,955 Bids ranged from a high of $1,049,955 to a low bid of $754,977 and ranged from 7% above to 23% below the engineer’s estimate (Attachment C). Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and found that the bid totaling $754,977 submitted by Del Conte’s Landscaping, Inc.was the lowest and recommends that Del Conte’s Landscaping, Inc. be declared the lowest responsible bidder. Staff recommends awarding the base bid and add alternates #1, #2 and #3 for a contract total of $754,977. Add Alternates #1 and #2 were selected because they include improvements to the frontage median at Transport Road near the gateway and additional understory planting along the landscaping strips. Add alternate #3 provides for additional soil removal and import soil to provide a better soil structure for the new landscaping. The contingency amount of $113,247, which equals 15 percent of the total contract, is requested for related, additional, but unforeseen work which may develop during the project. Due to economic and market conditions in the construction industry; and recognizing that the bid received is 23% below engineer’s estimate, staff is requesting 15% contingency. Additional contingency may be needed due to removal of the contaminated soil if necessary repair of aged electrical conduit, and additional coordination required between the different contractors. The lowest responsible bidder, Del Conte’s Landscaping, Inc,has recently worked with the City on miscellaneous Parks projects. Staff investigated the references and found no significant complaints. Staff also checked with the Contractor's State License Board and found that the contractor has an active license on file. Resource Impact The Budget Amendment Ordinance is necessary to appropriate additional funds of $205,400 from the Infrastructure Reserve to address the longer segment in Phase II and unforeseen soil contamination. The remaining funding is in the Capital October 03, 2011 Page 5 of 5 (ID # 1809) Improvement Project (CIP) Project PE-00104, San Antonio Medians ($682,887) for a total project budget of $888,287. The Infrastructure Reserve balance will decrease from $2,161,763 to $1,956,363. Policy Implications This project is in conformance with City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan and does not represent any changes to existing City policies. Environmental Review In February 2007, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was adopted pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The MND covered the implementation of landscape improvements along the entire length of San Antonio Avenue and its frontages. An addendum was made to this MND in April 2011, in order to include the roadway widening at the intersection of San Antonio and Middlefield Road that will be completed as part of the 2012 Street Resurfacing Project (CMR ID #1634). Attachments: ·A: Budget Amendment Ordinance (DOC) ·B - C12142000_DelConte_SA Landscape Phase2 (PDF) ·C -Bid Summary (PDF) Prepared By:Holly Boyd, Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Interim Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager Attachment A ORDINANCE NO.XXXX ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION OF $204,500 TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) PROJECT PE-00104, SAN ANTONIO MEDIANS The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows: A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 20, 2011 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 2012; and B. D. In fiscal year 2006, Council approved CIP project PE-00104 to provide landscape and median improvements along San Antonio Road; and C. The San Antonio Landscaping and Median Project,Phase I, from Middlefield Road to Alma Street was completed in 2009; and D. In fiscal year 2010, the City Council approved Phase II of the project using Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)funds to implement improvements for the portion of San Antonio Road between Highway 101 and Middlefield Road; and E. The project will include the removal of existing trees, replacement with sustainable deciduous and evergreen plants, and installation of irrigation systems; and F. Community meetings were held to discuss the project and receive public input; and G. Following a bid process, staff recommends that a contract in the amount of $754,977 plus a contingency amount of $113,247, be awarded to Del Conte’s Landscaping Inc for the work; and H. CIP project PE-00104 has available funds of $682,887, requiring additional funding of $204,500 from the Infrastructure Reserve. I. City Council authorization is needed to amend the 2012 budget as hereinafter set forth. SECTION 2.The sum of Two Hundred Four Thousand Five Hundred dollars ($204,500)is hereby appropriated to CIP Project Number PE-00104. SECTION 3.Two Hundred Four Thousand Five Hundred dollars ($204,500) is hereby transferred from the Infrastructure Reserve, leaving a balance of $1,956,363. SECTION 4.A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) covering the implementation of landscape improvements along the entire length of San Antonio Avenue and its frontages was adopted in 2007 pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and amended in April 2011 to include the roadway widening at the intersection of San Antonio and Middlefield Road. SECTION 5. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is required to adopt this ordinance. SECTION 6. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager Director of Public Works Director of Administrative Services CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Contract No. C12142000 City of Palo Alto and Del Conte Landscaping, Inc. PROJECT SAN ANTONIO LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE 2 Rev. August 3, 2010 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS....................................1 1.1 Recitals................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Definitions ...........................................................................................................................1 SECTION 2. THE PROJECT ...................................................................................................1 SECTION 3. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS........................................................................1 LIST OF DOCUMENTS.....................................................................................................................1 3.2 ORDER OF PRECEDENCE ...............................................................................2 SECTION 4. THE WORK.........................................................................................................2 SECTION 5. PROJECT TEAM ................................................................................................2 SECTION 6. TIME OF COMPLETION.....................................................................................3 6.1 Time Is of Essence .............................................................................................................3 6.2 Commencement of Work ...................................................................................................3 6.3 Contract Time......................................................................................................................3 6.4 Liquidated Damages...........................................................................................................3 6.4.1 Entitlement...................................................................................................................3 6.4.2 Daily Amount................................................................................................................3 6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy........................................................................................................3 6.4.4 Other Remedies...........................................................................................................3 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time ..........................................................................................3 SECTION 7. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR ..............................................................2 7.1 Contract Sum ......................................................................................................................2 7.2 Full Compensation..............................................................................................................2 7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work ........................................................................2 7.3.1 Self Performed Work....................................................................................................2 7.3.2 Subcontractors.............................................................................................................2 Rev. August 3, 2010 C12142000_DelConte_SA Landscape Phase2.DOC i SECTION 8. STANDARD OF CARE.......................................................................................2 SECTION 9. INDEMNIFICATION ............................................................................................5 9.1 Hold Harmless.....................................................................................................................5 9.2 Survival................................................................................................................................5 SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION ......................................................................................5 SECTION 11. INSURANCE AND BONDS................................................................................5 SECTION 12. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS.............................................................5 SECTION 13. NOTICES ............................................................................................................6 13.1 Method of Notice.................................................................................................................6 13.2 Notice Recipients................................................................................................................6 13.3 Change of Address.............................................................................................................7 14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes.......................................................................................7 14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes............................................................................................7 14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes.................................................................................................7 14.2.2 Litigation, City Election.................................................................................................7 14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute.......................................................................................8 14.3.1 By Contractor...............................................................................................................8 14.3.2 By City..........................................................................................................................8 14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process ..............................................................................8 14.4.1 Direct Negotiations.......................................................................................................8 14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes.......................................................................................9 14.4.3 Mediation......................................................................................................................9 14.4.4 Binding Arbitration........................................................................................................9 14.5 Non-Waiver........................................................................................................................10 SECTION 15. DEFAULT..........................................................................................................11 15.1 Notice of Default ...............................................................................................................11 15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default.............................................................................................11 SECTION 16. CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES....................................................................11 16.1 Remedies Upon Default ...................................................................................................11 16.1.1 Delete Certain Services .............................................................................................11 16.1.2 Perform and Withhold ................................................................................................11 Rev. August 3, 2010 C12142000_DelConte_SA Landscape Phase2.DOC ii 16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract ..........................................................................11 16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default........................................................11 16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond....................................................................................11 16.1.6 Additional Provisions..................................................................................................12 16.2 Delays by Sureties............................................................................................................12 16.3 Damages to City................................................................................................................12 16.3.1 For Contractor's Default.............................................................................................12 16.3.2 Compensation for Losses ..........................................................................................12 16.5 Suspension by City for Convenience .............................................................................12 16.6 Termination Without Cause.............................................................................................13 16.6.1 Compensation............................................................................................................13 16.6.2 Subcontractors...........................................................................................................13 16.7 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination...........................................................................13 SECTION 17. CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES ..................................................14 17.1 Contractor’s Remedies ....................................................................................................14 17.1.1 For Work Stoppage....................................................................................................14 17.1.2. For City's Non-Payment.............................................................................................14 17.2 Damages to Contractor....................................................................................................14 SECTION 18. ACCOUNTING RECORDS...............................................................................14 18.1 Financial Management and City Access.........................................................................14 18.2 Compliance with City Requests ......................................................................................14 SECTION 19. INDEPENDENT PARTIES................................................................................14 SECTION 20. NUISANCE........................................................................................................15 SECTION 21. PERMITS AND LICENSES...............................................................................15 SECTION 22. WAIVER............................................................................................................15 SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW ...........................................................................................15 SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT ..............................................................................15 SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT.............................................................................15 SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES......................................................................................15 Rev. August 3, 2010 C12142000_DelConte_SA Landscape Phase2.DOC iii Rev. August 3, 2010 C12142000_DelConte_SA Landscape Phase2.DOC iv SECTION 27 NON APPROPRIATION ...................................................................................16 SECTION 28 GOVERNMENTAL POWERS...........................................................................16 SECTION 29 ATTORNEY FEES ............................................................................................16 SECTION 30 SEVERABILITY ................................................................................................16 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on 12th Of September, 2011 (“Execution Date”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and DEL CONTE LANDSCAPING, INC. ("Contractor"), is made with reference to the following: R E C I T A L S: A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City. B. Contractor is a California Corporation duly organized and in good standing in the State of California, Contractor’s License Number 672485. Contractor represents that it is duly licensed by the State of California and has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the obligations set forth in this Construction Contract. C. On 13th Of June, 2011, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the San Antonio Landscaping Improvements Project - Phase 2 (“Project”). In response to the IFB, Contractor submitted a bid. D. City and Contractor desire to enter into this Construction Contract for the Project, and other services as identified in the Bid Documents for the Project upon the following terms and conditions. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings hereinafter set forth and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS. 1.1 Recitals. All of the recitals are incorporated herein by reference. 1.2 Definitions. Capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Construction Contract and/or in the General Conditions. If there is a conflict between the definitions in this Construction Contract and in the General Conditions, the definitions in this Construction Contract shall prevail. SECTION 2 THE PROJECT. The Project is the construction of the San Antonio Landscaping Improvements Project - Phase 2 ("Project"). SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 3.1 List of Documents. The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as “Agreement” or “Bid Documents”) consist of the following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division and are hereby incorporated by reference. 1) Change Orders 2) Field Change Orders 3) Contract 4) Project Plans and Drawings Rev. August 3, 2010 C12142000_DelConte_SA Landscape Phase2.DOC 1 5) Technical Specifications 6) Special Provisions 7) Notice Inviting Bids 8) Instructions to Bidders 9) General Conditions 10) Bidding Addenda 11) Invitation for Bids 12) Contractor's Bid/Non-Collusion Affidavit 13) Reports listed in the Bidding Documents 14) Public Works Department’s Standard Drawings and Specifications dated 2007 and updated from time to time 15) Utilities Department’s Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards dated 2005 and updated from time to time 16) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements 17) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations 18) Notice Inviting Pre-Qualification Statements, Pre-Qualification Statement, and Pre- Qualification Checklist (if applicable) 19) Performance and Payment Bonds 20) Insurance Forms 3.2 Order of Precedence. For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in the preceding section. If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence, the City shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the best interests of the City. SECTION 4 THE WORK. The Work includes all labor, materials, equipment, services, permits, fees, licenses and taxes, and all other things necessary for Contractor to perform its obligations and complete the Project, including, without limitation, any Changes approved by City, in accordance with the Contract Documents and all Applicable Code Requirements. SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM. In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, consultants and contractors to provide professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project. The Project requires that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other members of the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the Project. Rev. August 3, 2010 C12142000_DelConte_SA Landscape Phase2.DOC 2 Rev. August 3, 2010 C12142000_DelConte_SA Landscape Phase2.DOC 3 SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION. 6.1 Time Is of Essence. Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents. 6.2 Commencement of Work. Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed. 6.3 Contract Time. Time is of the essence. Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the City’s Notice to Proceed and shall be completed in two mobilizations; The first mobilization shall be completed within one hundred five (105) calendar days after the commencement date specified in the City’s Notice to Proceed; followed by a second mobilization to be completed forty-five (45) calendar days after the commencement date specified in the City’s second Notice to Proceed. The 60-calendar day maintenance period shall begin after substantial completion of the project is reached, as determined by the City. 6.4 Liquidated Damages. 6.4.1 Entitlement. City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that if Contractor fails to fully and satisfactorily complete the Work within the Contract Time, City will suffer, as a result of Contractor’s failure, substantial damages which are both extremely difficult and impracticable to ascertain. Such damages may include, but are not limited to: (i) Loss of public confidence in City and its contractors and consultants. (ii) Loss of public use of public facilities. (iii) Extended disruption to public. 6.4.2 Daily Amount. City and Contractor have reasonably endeavored, but failed, to ascertain the actual damage that City will incur if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. Therefore, the parties agree that in addition to all other damages to which City may be entitled other than delay damages, in the event Contractor shall fail to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time, Contractor shall pay City as liquidated damages the amount of $500 per day for each Day occurring after the expiration of the Contract Time until Contractor achieves Substantial Completion of the entire Work. The liquidated damages amount is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the amount of damages City will suffer by delay in completion of the Work. 6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy. City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that this liquidated damages provision shall be City’s only remedy for delay damages caused by Contractor’s failure to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. 6.4.4 Other Remedies. City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may have where City’s Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor’s failure to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time. The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and agreed to by Change Order executed by City and Contractor in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR. 7.1 Contract Sum. Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with the Contract Documents the Contract Sum of Seven Hundred Fifty-Four Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy-Seven Dollars ($754,977.00). [This amount includes the Base Bid amount of $652,375 and the Add Alternate No. B Line items 1, 2, 3 total amount of $102,602.00.] 7.2 Full Compensation. The Contract Sum shall be full compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of the Contract Documents, shall cover all Losses arising out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the elements or any unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of the Work until its Acceptance by City, all risks connected with the Work, and any and all expenses incurred due to suspension or discontinuance of the Work. The Contract Sum may only be adjusted for Change Orders issued, executed and satisfactorily performed in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. 7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work. The Contract Sum shall be adjusted (either by addition or credit) for Changes in the Work involving Extra Work or Deleted Work based on one or more of the following methods to be selected by City: 1. Unit prices stated in the Contract Documents or agreed upon by City and Contractor, which unit prices shall be deemed to include Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups permitted by this Section. 2. A lump sum agreed upon by City and Contractor, based on the estimated Allowable Costs and Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markup computed in accordance with this Section. 3. Contractor’s Allowable Costs, plus Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markups applicable to such Extra Work computed in accordance with this Section. Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups set forth herein are the full amount of compensation to be added for Extra Work or to be subtracted for Deleted Work that is attributable to overhead (direct and indirect) and profit of Contractor and of its Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors, of every Tier. When using this payment methodology, Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups, which shall not be compounded, shall be computed as follows: 7.3.1 Markup Self-Performed Work. 10% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be performed by Contractor with its own forces. 7.3.2 Markup for Work Performed by Subcontractors. 15% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be performed by a first Tier Subcontractor. SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE. Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well-supervised personnel. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in a manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project. Rev. August 3, 2010 C12142000_DelConte_SA Landscape Phase2.DOC 2 SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION. 9.1 Hold Harmless. To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and volunteers (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal counsel acceptable to City, from and against any and all Losses arising directly or indirectly from, or in any manner relating to any of, the following: (i) Performance or nonperformance of the Work by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors, of any tier; (ii) Performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub- subcontractors of any tier, of any of the obligations under the Contract Documents; (iii) The construction activities of Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors, of any tier, either on the Site or on other properties; (iv) The payment or nonpayment by Contractor to any of its employees, Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors of any tier, for Work performed on or off the Site for the Project; and (v) Any personal injury, property damage or economic loss to third persons associated with the performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub- subcontractors of any tier, of the Work. However, nothing herein shall obligate Contractor to indemnify any Indemnitee for Losses resulting from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitee. Contractor shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision. Nothing in the Contract Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of indemnity in favor of Contractor against City or any other Indemnitee. 9.2 Survival. The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract. SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, Contractor certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. Contractor acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and will comply with all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS. On or before the Execution Date, Contractor shall provide City with evidence that it has obtained insurance and Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 of the General Conditions. Failure to do so shall be deemed a material breach of this Construction Contract. SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS. City is entering into this Construction Contract based upon the stated experience and qualifications of the Contractor and its subcontractors set forth in Contractor’s Bid. Accordingly, Contractor shall not assign, hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any assignment, hypothecation or transfer without said consent shall be null and void. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Contractor or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if the Contractor is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or co-tenancy shall result in changing the Rev. August 3, 2010 C12142000_DelConte_SA Landscape Phase2.DOC 5 control of Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control means more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity. SECTION 13 NOTICES. 13.1 Method of Notice. All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall be given in writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following: (i) On the date delivered if delivered personally; (ii) On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as hereinafter provided; (iii) On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission; (iv) On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or (iv) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail. 13.2 Notice Recipients. All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Claims) from Contractor to City shall include the Project name and the number of this Construction Contract and shall be addressed to City at: To City: City of Palo Alto City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Copy to: City of Palo Alto Public Works Administration 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Elizabeth Ames Or City of Palo Alto Utilities Engineering 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be provided to the following: Palo Alto City Attorney’s Office 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, California 94303 All Claims shall be delivered personally or sent by certified mail. Rev. August 3, 2010 C12142000_DelConte_SA Landscape Phase2.DOC 6 All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to: City Of Palo Alto Purchasing & Contracts Administration 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto., Ca 94301 Attn: John Montenero 13.3 Change of Address. In the event of any change of address, the moving party shall notify the other party of the change of address in writing. Each party may, by written notice only, add, delete or replace any individuals to whom and addresses to which notice shall be provided. SECTION 14 DISPUTE RESOLUTION. 14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes. Contract Disputes shall be resolved by the parties in accordance with the provisions of this Section 14, in lieu of any and all rights under the law that either party have its rights adjudged by a trial court or jury. All Contract Disputes shall be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process set forth in this Section 14, which shall be the exclusive recourse of Contractor and City for such Contract Disputes. 14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes. 14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes. Contract Disputes shall not include any of the following: (i) Penalties or forfeitures prescribed by statute or regulation imposed by a governmental agency; (ii) Third party tort claims for personal injury, property damage or death relating to any Work performed by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub- subcontractors of any tier; (iii) False claims liability under California Government Code Section 12650, et. seq.; (iv) Defects in the Work first discovered by City after Final Payment by City to Contractor; (v) Stop notices; or (vi) The right of City to specific performance or injunctive relief to compel performance of any provision of the Contract Documents. 14.2.2 Litigation, City Election. Matters that do not constitute Contract Disputes shall be resolved by way of an action filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, and shall not be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process. However, the City reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to treat such disputes as Contract Disputes. Upon written notice by City of its election as provided in the preceding sentence, such dispute shall be submitted by the parties and finally decided pursuant to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process in the manner as required for Contract Disputes, including, without limitation, City’s right under Paragraph 14.4.2 to defer resolution and final determination until after Final Completion of the Work. Rev. August 3, 2010 C12142000_DelConte_SA Landscape Phase2.DOC 7 14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute. 14.3.1 By Contractor. Contractors may commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process upon City's written response denying all or part of a Claim pursuant to Paragraph 4.2.9 or 4.2.10 of the General Conditions. Contractor shall submit a written Statement of Contract Dispute (as set forth below) to City within seven (7) Days after City rejects all or a portion of Contractor's Claim. Failure by Contractor to submit its Statement of Contract Dispute in a timely manner shall result in City’s decision by City on the Claim becoming final and binding. Contractor’s Statement of Contract Dispute shall be signed under penalty of perjury and shall state with specificity the events or circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and the asserted effect on the Contract Sum and the Contract Time. The Statement of Contract Dispute shall include adequate supporting data to substantiate the disputed Claim. Adequate supporting data for a Contract Dispute relating to an adjustment of the Contract Time shall include both of the following: (i) All of the scheduling data required to be submitted by Contractor under the Contract Documents to obtain extensions of time and adjustments to the Contract Time and (ii) A detailed, event-by-event description of the impact of each event on completion of Work. Adequate data to support a Statement of Contract Dispute involving an adjustment of the Contract Sum must include both of the following: (a) A detailed cost breakdown and (b) Supporting cost data in such form and including such information and other supporting data as required under the Contract Documents for submission of Change Order Requests and Claims. 14.3.2 By City. City's right to commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall arise at any time following City's actual discovery of the circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute. City asserts Contract Disputes in response to a Contract Dispute asserted by Contractor. A Statement of Contract Dispute submitted by City shall state the events or circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and the damages or other relief claimed by City as a result of such events. 14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process. The parties shall utilize each of the following steps in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process in the sequence they appear below. Each party shall participate fully and in good faith in each step in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process, and good faith effort shall be a condition precedent to the right of each party to proceed to the next step in the process. 14.4.1 Direct Negotiations. Designated representatives of City and Contractor shall meet as soon as possible (but not later than ten (10) Days after receipt of the Statement of Contract Dispute) in a good faith effort to negotiate a resolution to the Contract Dispute. Each party shall be represented in such negotiations by an authorized representative with full knowledge of the details of the Claims or defenses being asserted by such party in the negotiations, and with full authority to resolve such Contract Dispute then and there, subject only to City’s obligation to obtain administrative and/or City Council approval of any agreed settlement or resolution. If the Contract Dispute involves the assertion of a right or claim by a Subcontractor or Sub-subcontractor, of any tier, against Contractor that is in turn being asserted by Contractor against City (“Pass-Through Claim”), then the Subcontractor or Sub-Subcontractor shall also have a Rev. August 3, 2010 C12142000_DelConte_SA Landscape Phase2.DOC 8 representative attend the negotiations, with the same authority and knowledge as described above. Upon completion of the meeting, if the Contract Dispute is not resolved, the parties may either continue the negotiations or any party may declare negotiations ended. All discussions that occur during such negotiations and all documents prepared solely for the purpose of such negotiations shall be confidential and privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152. 14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes. Following the completion of the negotiations required by Paragraph 14.4.1, all unresolved Contract Disputes shall be deferred pending Final Completion of the Project, subject to City’s right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to require that the Contract Dispute Resolution Process proceed prior to Final Completion. All Contract Disputes that have been deferred until Final Completion shall be consolidated within a reasonable time after Final Completion and thereafter pursued to resolution pursuant to this Contract Dispute Resolution Process. The parties can continue informal negotiations of Contract Disputes; provided, however, that such informal negotiations shall not be alter the provisions of the Agreement deferring final determination and resolution of unresolved Contract Disputes until after Final Completion. 14.4.3 Mediation. If the Contract Dispute remains unresolved after negotiations pursuant to Paragraph 14.4.1, the parties shall submit the Contract Dispute to non-binding mediation before a mutually acceptable third party mediator. .1 Qualifications of Mediator. The parties shall endeavor to select a mediator who is a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years of experience in public works construction contract law and in mediating public works construction disputes. In addition, the mediator shall have at least twenty (20) hours of formal training in mediation skills. .2 Submission to Mediation and Selection of Mediator. The party initiating mediation of a Contract Dispute shall provide written notice to the other party of its decision to mediate. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon a mediator within fifteen (15) Days after the receipt of such written notice, then the parties shall submit the matter to the American Arbitration Association (AAA) at its San Francisco Regional Office for selection of a mediator in accordance with the AAA Construction Industry Mediation Rules. .3 Mediation Process. The location of the mediation shall be at the offices of City. The costs of mediation shall be shared equally by both parties. The mediator shall provide an independent assessment on the merits of the Contract Dispute and recommendations for resolution. All discussions that occur during the mediation and all documents prepared solely for the purpose of the mediation shall be confidential and privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152. 14.4.4 Binding Arbitration. If the Contract Dispute is not resolved by mediation, then any party may submit the Contract Dispute for final and binding arbitration pursuant to the provisions of California Public Contract Code Sections 10240, et seq. The award of the arbitrator therein shall be final and may be entered as a judgment by any court of competent jurisdiction. Such arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the following: .1 Arbitration Initiation. The arbitration shall be initiated by filing a complaint in arbitration in accordance with the regulations promulgated pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 10240.5. Rev. August 3, 2010 C12142000_DelConte_SA Landscape Phase2.DOC 9 .2 Qualifications of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall be approved by all parties. The arbitrator shall be a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years of experience in public works construction contract law and in arbitrating public works construction disputes. In addition, the arbitrator shall have at least twenty (20) hours of formal training in arbitration skills. In the event the parties cannot agree upon an arbitrator, the provisions of California Public Contract Code Section 10240.3 shall be followed in selecting an arbitrator possessing the qualifications required herein. .3 Hearing Days and Location. Arbitration hearings shall be held at the offices of City and shall, except for good cause shown to and determined by the arbitrator, be conducted on consecutive business days, without interruption or continuance. .4 Hearing Delays. Arbitration hearings shall not be delayed except upon good cause shown. .5 Recording Hearings. All hearings to receive evidence shall be recorded by a certified stenographic reporter, with the costs thereof borne equally by City and Contractor and allocated by the arbitrator in the final award. .6 Limitation of Depositions. The parties may conduct discovery in accordance with the provisions of section 10240.11 of the Public Contract Code; provided, however, that depositions shall be limited to both of the following: (i) Ten (10) percipient witnesses for each party and 5 expert witnesses per party. Upon a showing of good cause, the arbitrator may increase the number of permitted depositions. An individual who is both percipient and expert shall, for purposes of applying the foregoing numerical limitation only, be deemed an expert. Expert reports shall be exchanged prior to receipt of evidence, in accordance with the direction of the arbitrator, and expert reports (including initial and rebuttal reports) not so submitted shall not be admissible as evidence. .7 Authority of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall have the authority to hear dispositive motions and issue interim orders and interim or executory awards. .8 Waiver of Jury Trial. Contractor and City each voluntarily waives its right to a jury trial with respect to any Contract Dispute that is subject to binding arbitration in accordance with the provisions of this Paragraph 14.4.4. Contractor shall include this provision in its contracts with its Subcontractors who provide any portion of the Work. 14.5 Non-Waiver. Participation in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall not waive, release or compromise any defense of City, including, without limitation, any defense based on the assertion that the rights or Claims of Contractor that are the basis of a Contract Dispute were previously waived by Contractor due to Contractor’s failure to comply with the Contract Documents, including, without limitation, Contractor’s failure to comply with any time periods for providing notice of requests for adjustments of the Contract Sum or Contract Time or for submission of Claims or supporting documentation of Claims. Rev. August 3, 2010 C12142000_DelConte_SA Landscape Phase2.DOC 10 SECTION 15 DEFAULT. 15.1 Notice of Default. In the event that City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to perform any of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any provision of the Contract Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract. 15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default. Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations under the Contract Documents within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) after receipt of written notice. However, if the breach cannot be reasonably cured within such time, Contractor will commence to cure the breach within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) and will diligently and continuously prosecute such cure to completion within a reasonable time, which shall in no event be later than ten (10) Days after receipt of such written notice. SECTION 16 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 16.1 Remedies Upon Default. If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set forth above in Section 15, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity, including, without limitation, the following: 16.1.1 Delete Certain Services. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete certain portions of the Work, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto. 16.1.2 Perform and Withhold. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage others to perform the Work or portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by Contractor and withhold the cost thereof to City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto. 16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction Contract for as long a period of time as City determines, in its sole discretion, appropriate, in which event City shall have no obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or Contract Time, and shall have no liability to Contractor for damages if City directs Contractor to resume Work. 16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default. City shall have the right to terminate this Construction Contract, in whole or in part, upon the failure of Contractor to promptly cure any default as required by Section 15. City’s election to terminate the Construction Contract for default shall be communicated by giving Contractor a written notice of termination in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract. Any notice of termination given to Contractor by City shall be effective immediately, unless otherwise provided therein. 16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond. City may, with or without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, exercise its rights under the Performance Bond. Rev. August 3, 2010 C12142000_DelConte_SA Landscape Phase2.DOC 11 16.1.6 Additional Provisions. All of City’s rights and remedies under this Construction Contract are cumulative, and shall be in addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity. Designation in the Contract Documents of certain breaches as material shall not waive the City’s authority to designate other breaches as material nor limit City’s right to terminate the Construction Contract, or prevent the City from terminating the Agreement for breaches that are not material. City’s determination of whether there has been noncompliance with the Construction Contract so as to warrant exercise by City of its rights and remedies for default under the Construction Contract, shall be binding on all parties. No termination or action taken by City after such termination shall prejudice any other rights or remedies of City provided by law or equity or by the Contract Documents upon such termination; and City may proceed against Contractor to recover all liquidated damages and Losses suffered by City. 16.2 Delays by Sureties. Without limiting to any of City’s other rights or remedies, City has the right to suspend the performance of the Work by Contractor’s sureties in the event of any of the following: (i) The sureties’ failure to begin Work within a reasonable time in such manner as to insure full compliance with the Construction Contract within the Contract Time; (ii) The sureties’ abandonment of the Work; (iii) If at any time City is of the opinion the sureties’ Work is unnecessarily or unreasonably delaying the Work; (iv) The sureties’ violation of any terms of the Construction Contract; (v) The sureties’ failure to perform according to the Contract Documents; or (vi) The sureties’ failure to follow City’s instructions for completion of the Work within the Contract Time. 16.3 Damages to City. 16.3.1 For Contractor's Default. City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or equity in the event of Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents. 16.3.2 Compensation for Losses. In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents, City shall be entitled to withhold monies otherwise payable to Contractor until Final Completion of the Project. If City incurs Losses due to Contractor’s default, then the amount of Losses shall be deducted from the amounts withheld. Should the amount withheld exceed the amount deducted, the balance will be paid to Contractor or its designee upon Final Completion of the Project. If the Losses incurred by City exceed the amount withheld, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and shall promptly remit same to City. 16.4 Suspension by City for Convenience. City may, at any time and from time to time, without cause, order Contractor, in writing, to suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time, up to an aggregate of fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Time. The order shall be specifically identified as a Suspension Order by City. Upon receipt of a Suspension Order, Contractor shall, at City’s expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs allocable to the Work covered by the Suspension Order. During the Suspension or extension of the Suspension, if any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or, by Change Order, delete the Work covered by the Suspension Order. If a Suspension Order is canceled or expires, Contractor shall resume and continue with the Work. A Change Order will be issued to cover any adjustments of the Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by such suspension. A Suspension Order shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the Work. Rev. August 3, 2010 C12142000_DelConte_SA Landscape Phase2.DOC 12 16.5 Termination Without Cause. City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part or in whole by giving thirty (30) Days written notice to Contractor. The compensation allowed under this Paragraph 16.5 shall be the Contractor’s sole and exclusive compensation for such termination and Contractor waives any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind resulting from termination without cause. 16.5.1 Compensation. Following such termination and within forty-five (45) Days after receipt of a billing from Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 16.5, City shall pay the following to Contractor as Contractor’s sole compensation for performance of the Work : .1 For Work Performed. The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the portion of the Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of termination, less sums previously paid to Contractor. .2 For Close-out Costs. Reasonable costs of Contractor and its Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors for: (i) Demobilizing and (ii) Administering the close-out of its participation in the Project (including, without limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not including attorney or expert fees) for a period of no longer than thirty (30) Days after receipt of the notice of termination. .3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work. 16.5.2 Subcontractors. Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase orders and other contracts permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are consistent with this Construction Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery against Contractor than are afforded to Contractor against City under this Section. 16.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination. Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless the notice directs otherwise, do the following: (i) Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice; (ii) Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities, except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that is not discontinued; (iii) Provide to City a description, in writing no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of the notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms of the original price, any changes, payments, balance owing, the status of the portion of the Work covered and a copy of the subcontract, purchase order or contract and any written changes, amendments or modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine necessary in order to decide whether to accept assignment of or request Contractor to terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract; (iv) Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City elects to accept by assignment and cancel, on the most favorable terms reasonably possible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and (v) Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work already in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project Site or in transit thereto. Rev. August 3, 2010 C12142000_DelConte_SA Landscape Phase2.DOC 13 SECTION 17 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 17.1 Contractor’s Remedies. Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the following: 17.1.1 For Work Stoppage. The Work is stopped for sixty (60) consecutive Days, through no act or fault of Contractor, any Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any Subcontractor, due to issuance of an order of a court or other public authority other than City having jurisdiction or due to an act of government, such as a declaration of a national emergency making material unavailable. This provision shall not apply to any work stoppage resulting from the City’s issuance of a suspension notice issued either for cause or for convenience. 17.1.2 For City's Non-Payment. If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums within ninety (90) Days after receipt of notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the Construction Contract (30) days following a second notice to City of Contractor’s intention to terminate the Construction Contract. 17.2 Damages to Contractor. In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums provided for in Paragraph 16.5.1 above. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole and exclusive compensation and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect and incidental damages, of any kind. SECTION 18 ACCOUNTING RECORDS. 18.1 Financial Management and City Access. Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be necessary for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants during normal business hours, may inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books, estimates, take-offs, cost reports, ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings, receipts, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this Project. Contractor shall retain these documents for a period of three (3) years after the later of (i) final payment or (ii) final resolution of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for such longer period as may be required by law. 18.2 Compliance with City Requests. Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 18 shall be a condition precedent to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor against City and to Contractor's right to receive further payments under the Contract Documents. City many enforce Contractor’s obligation to provide access to City of its business and other records referred to in Section 18.1 for inspection or copying by issuance of a writ or a provisional or permanent mandatory injunction by a court of competent jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such court, without the necessity of oral testimony. SECTION 19 INDEPENDENT PARTIES. Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint venturers of the other party. City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of Contractor or its respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein set forth. Rev. August 3, 2010 C12142000_DelConte_SA Landscape Phase2.DOC 14 Rev. August 3, 2010 C12142000_DelConte_SA Landscape Phase2.DOC 15 SECTION 20 NUISANCE. Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract. SECTION 21 PERMITS AND LICENSES. Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor shall provide, procure and pay for all licenses, permits, and fees, required by the City or other government jurisdictions or agencies necessary to carry out and complete the Work. Payment of all costs and expenses for such licenses, permits, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No other compensation shall be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non-City inspectors or conditions set forth in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies. SECTION 22 WAIVER. A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW. This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California. SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT. The provisions of the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the Construction Contract or Final Completion, including, without limitation, all warranties, indemnities, payment obligations, and City’s right to audit Contractor’s books and records, shall remain in full force and effect after Final Completion or any termination of the Construction Contract. SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES. This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. The Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages in the performance and implementation of the Project, because the City, pursuant to its authority as a chartered city, has adopted Resolution No. 5981 exempting the City from prevailing wages. The City invokes the exemption from the state prevailing wage requirement for this Project and declares that the Project is funded one hundred percent (100%) by the City of Palo Alto. Or The Contractor is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Section 16000 et seq. and Section 1773.1 of the California Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract for this Project from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. Copies of these rates may be obtained at cost at the Purchasing office of the City of Palo Alto. Contractor shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1810, and 1813 of the Labor Code. SECTION 27 NON APPROPRIATION. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Construction Contract are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 28 AUTHORITY. The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. SECTION 29 ATTORNEY FEES. Each Party shall bear its own costs, including attorney’s fees through the completion of mediation. If the claim or dispute is not resolved through mediation and in any dispute described in Paragraph 14.2, the prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provision of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorney’s fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorney’s’ fees paid to third parties. SECTION 30 SEVERABILITY. In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed the date and year first above written. Rev. August 3, 2010 C12142000_DelConte_SA Landscape Phase2.DOC 16 CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ Purchasing Manager City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney APPROVED: ___________________________ Public Works Director CONTRACTOR DEL CONTE LANDSCAPING, INC. By:___________________________ Name:_________________________ Title:________________________ 1 Rev. August 3, 2010 C12142000_DelConte_SA Landscape Phase2.DOC ATTACHMENT C #Base Bid Description Qty Unit Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total 1 Notification 1 Lump Sum $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $1,630.00 $1,630.00 $3,426.00 $3,426.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $446.00 $446.00 $7,180.00 $7,180.00 2 Traffic Control 1 Lump Sum $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $45,000.00 $45,000.00 $18,525.00 $18,525.00 $2,168.00 $2,168.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $203,572.00 $203,572.00 $177,160.00 $177,160.00 3 Mobilization 2 EA $10,000.00 $20,000.00 $75,000.00 $150,000.00 $8,000.00 $16,000.00 $13,125.00 $26,250.00 $4,768.50 $9,537.00 $18,000.00 $36,000.00 $25,676.69 $51,353.38 $5,205.00 $10,410.00 4 Demolish Concrete Circle Planter 3 EA $1,250.00 $3,750.00 $1,000.00 $3,000.00 $2,000.00 $6,000.00 $2,053.00 $6,159.00 $86.67 $260.00 $1,000.00 $3,000.00 $1,212.82 $3,638.46 $685.00 $2,055.00 5 Site Prep, tree & stump removal 103 EA $1,000.00 $103,000.00 $1,150.00 $118,450.00 $1,380.00 $142,140.00 $855.00 $88,065.00 $963.45 $99,235.00 $1,100.00 $113,300.00 $1,211.47 $124,781.41 $980.00 $100,940.00 6 Class I RCRA Soil Excavation and Disposal 15 CY $345.00 $5,175.00 $725.00 $10,875.00 $496.00 $7,440.00 $509.00 $7,635.00 $483.60 $7,254.00 $570.00 $8,550.00 $322.61 $4,839.15 $512.00 $7,680.00 7 Class I Soil Excavation and Disposal 200 CY $173.00 $34,600.00 $275.00 $55,000.00 $298.00 $59,600.00 $197.00 $39,400.00 $358.85 $71,769.00 $245.00 $49,000.00 $252.27 $50,454.00 $258.50 $51,700.00 8 Class II Soil Excavation and Disposal 300 CY $113.00 $33,900.00 $110.00 $33,000.00 $103.00 $30,900.00 $79.00 $23,700.00 $88.78 $26,635.00 $100.00 $30,000.00 $95.81 $28,743.00 $263.00 $78,900.00 9 Topsoil Import and Amendments 1950 CY $55.00 $107,250.00 $40.00 $78,000.00 $46.00 $89,700.00 $49.00 $95,550.00 $45.23 $88,200.00 $48.00 $93,600.00 $40.70 $79,365.00 $38.00 $74,100.00 10 Landscaping 1 Lump Sum $130,000.00 $130,000.00 $66,000.00 $66,000.00 $75,000.00 $75,000.00 $68,300.00 $68,300.00 $69,785.00 $69,785.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $78,935.48 $78,935.48 $58,790.00 $58,790.00 11 60-day Landscape Maintenance 1 Lump Sum $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $4,635.00 $4,635.00 $1,827.00 $1,827.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $2,453.44 $2,453.44 $8,800.00 $8,800.00 12 Irrigation 1 Lump Sum $230,000.00 $230,000.00 $225,000.00 $225,000.00 $186,000.00 $186,000.00 $206,611.00 $206,611.00 $157,558.00 $157,558.00 $239,000.00 $239,000.00 $197,931.03 $197,931.03 $252,800.00 $252,800.00 13 Utility Potholing 30 EA $400.00 $12,000.00 $665.00 $19,950.00 $250.00 $7,500.00 $303.00 $9,090.00 $949.03 $28,471.00 $350.00 $10,500.00 $111.58 $3,347.40 $865.00 $25,950.00 14 Replace Street Light Conduit and Conductors 1500 LF $45.00 $67,500.00 $19.00 $28,500.00 $14.65 $21,975.00 $33.00 $49,500.00 $35.02 $52,526.00 $14.50 $21,750.00 $17.59 $26,385.00 $14.75 $22,125.00 15 N-36 Electric Boxes 20 EA $645.00 $12,900.00 $530.00 $10,600.00 $432.00 $8,640.00 $1,100.00 $22,000.00 $1,167.25 $23,345.00 $450.00 $9,000.00 $485.13 $9,702.60 $565.00 $11,300.00 16 Relocate Street Light & install new foundation 1 Lump Sum $4,400.00 $4,400.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,700.00 $1,700.00 $3,300.00 $3,300.00 $3,502.00 $3,502.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,807.10 $1,807.10 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 17 Install New Double Arm Street Light with Luminaires 1 Lump Sum $4,400.00 $4,400.00 $2,250.00 $2,250.00 $1,900.00 $1,900.00 $3,300.00 $3,300.00 $3,502.00 $3,502.00 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 $2,049.68 $2,049.68 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 18 Remove and Salvage Single Arm Street Light 1 Lump Sum $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $600.00 $600.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,650.00 $1,650.00 $1,751.00 $1,751.00 $500.00 $500.00 $533.64 $533.64 $1,465.00 $1,465.00 19 Project Close-out & As-Builts 1 Lump Sum $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,774.00 $2,774.00 $1,624.00 $1,624.00 $500.00 $500.00 $4,244.88 $4,244.88 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Base Bid Total $854,875.00 $850,475.00 $709,495.00 $678,074.00 $652,375.00 $747,000.00 $874,582.65 $899,755.00 Add Alternate #1 Qty Unit Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total 16 Landscaping and Irrigation at Transport Road Median 1 Lump Sum $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $5,800.00 $5,800.00 $9,260.00 $9,260.00 $5,575.00 $5,575.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $8,190.31 $8,190.31 $11,040.00 $11,040.00 Add Alternate #2 17 Landscaping and Irrigation under Oak Trees in planter strips 1 Lump Sum $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $42,500.00 $42,500.00 $81,000.00 $81,000.00 $40,280.00 $40,280.00 $35,750.00 $35,750.00 $75,000.00 $75,000.00 $35,338.18 $35,338.18 $54,680.00 $54,680.00 Add Alternate #3 18 Remove, dispose and replace one-ft depth of soil 512 CY $168.00 $86,016.00 $115.00 $58,880.00 $123.00 $62,976.00 $128.00 $65,536.00 $119.68 $61,277.00 $86.00 $44,032.00 $128.84 $65,966.08 $165.00 $84,480.00 Alternate Total $131,016.00 $109,380.00 $149,776.00 $115,076.00 $102,602.00 $129,032.00 $109,494.57 $150,200.00 Total Base Bid + Alternates $985,891.00 $959,855.00 $859,271.00 $793,150.00 $754,977.00 $876,032.00 $984,077.22 $1,049,955.00 Base Bid Total $854,875.00 $850,475.00 $709,495.00 $678,074.00 $652,375.00 $747,000.00 $874,582.65 $899,755.00 Add Alt #1 $5,000.00 $8,000.00 $5,800.00 $9,260.00 $5,575.00 $10,000.00 $8,190.31 $11,040.00 Add Alt #2 $40,000.00 $42,500.00 $81,000.00 $40,280.00 $35,750.00 $75,000.00 $35,338.18 $54,680.00 Add Alt #3 $86,016.00 $58,880.00 $62,976.00 $65,536.00 $61,277.00 $44,032.00 $65,966.08 $84,480.00 Grand Total: $985,891.00 $959,855.00 $859,271.00 $793,150.00 $754,977.00 $876,032.00 $984,077.22 $1,049,955.00 Del Conte's Landscaping, INCEngineer's Estimate Elite Landscaping, INC Jensen Corporation Landscape Contractor The Professional Tree Care Co. Suarez & Munoz Construction, INC Park West Landscape, INC Blossom Valley Construction Suarez & Munoz Park West Landscape, Blossom Valley Del Conte's Engineers Estimate Elite Landscaping, INC Jensen Corporation The Professional Tree City of Palo Alto (ID # 2037) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/3/2011 October 03, 2011 Page 1 of 6 (ID # 2037) Summary Title: Final Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal Title: Transmittal of Final Energy/Compost Feasibility Study and Recommendation to Return to Council with Further Recommendations in November, 2011 From:City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council direct staff to submit recommendations for follow up to the Final Energy/Compost Feasibility Study immediately following the availability of results from the November 8, 2011 Ballot Measure E concerning an Energy/Compost Facility in Palo Alto. Executive Summary The City’s consultant, Alternative Resources, Inc. (ARI), has prepared a Final Feasibility Study (Attachment A) for a possible Energy/Compost Facility, as directed by Council in staff report #1632 (Attachment B). The Final Study includes very minor adjustments to the Draft Study which was submitted to Council in staff report #1550 (Attachment C) and fully discussed at the June 27, 2011 Council meeting. Should the voters approve the November 2011 Ballot Initiative which would undedicate parkland for the exclusive use of an Energy/Compost Facility, staff recommends returning to Council with recommended next steps. The analysis and public review to date has been most successful in vetting the original alternatives and suggesting even more promising ones for next steps, either within Palo Alto or elsewhere. While the Study and its cost estimates did not change significantly from the June Draft to the September Final, many changes were made leading up to the June Draft. Background Palo Alto’s Blue Ribbon Compost Task Force (BRTF) recommended to Council that an Anaerobic Digestion Facility be pursued in the vicinity of the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) to manage the City’s yard trimmings, food scraps and wastewater solids (“biosolids”). The exact location of such a facility has been October 03, 2011 Page 2 of 6 (ID # 2037) problematic because of Palo Alto’s urbanized nature, the fact that no land has been specified for such a facility, and the fact that the Landfill has been dedicated as Parkland (Byxbee Park). Following receipt of the BRTF Report, on April 5, 2010 (CMR:165:10, Attachment D), Council directed staff to: 1)Hire a consultant to evaluate Dry Anaerobic Digestion; 2)Prepare an applicable level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) focused on 9- acres of Byxbee Park; 3)Study energy conversion-technologies including Anaerobic Digestion at Palo Alto’s Wastewater Treatment Plant as part of its Long Range Master Plan- Facility Planning process; and 4)Pursue partnering opportunities for organics processing within 20 miles of Palo Alto. Palo Alto hired ARI to conduct the Dry Anaerobic Digestion Study, and staff has been pursuing both nos. 3 and 4 above. An appropriately scoped EIR (No. 2) will be produced at the appropriate time should Palo Alto continue to pursue a Palo Alto Facility. Council members requested that a Preliminary Analysis be completed ahead of the Final Feasibility Study. The Preliminary Analysis was done by ARI and placed on the Palo Alto website on January 26, 2011. Public meetings were held on February 23 and March 9, and City Council conducted a Study Session on March 21. Public comments and Council comments on the Preliminary Analysis of Dry Anaerobic Digestion on the Landfill/Byxbee Park 9-acre site were received at the Council’s Study Session on March 21, 2011. Earlier comments had also been received. ARI prepared a Draft Feasibility Study making a number of changes and additions to the Preliminary Analysis. Discussion Cost Analysis The Final Feasibility Study compares three main alternatives: 1)Dry Anaerobic Digestion (DAD) at the Palo Alto 9-acre site adjacent to the Wastewater Treatment Plant; 2)A combination of a San Jose Dry Anaerobic Digestion site (for food scraps), a Gilroy compost site (for yard trimmings), and the Palo Alto Wastewater Treatment Plant (for wastewater solids, or “biosolids”); and 3)A combination of a Gilroy compost site (for food scraps and yard trimmings) and the Palo Alto Wastewater Treatment Plant (for wastewater solids, or “biosolids”). Several sub-alternatives were explored under each alternative. Results are contained in the Summary Table (Attachment E) and the report itself (Attachment A). October 03, 2011 Page 3 of 6 (ID # 2037) Table 1 contains data from key runs of the economic model developed by the Consultant to estimate the costs of each alternative studied. Four different alternatives are believed to be most representative for comparison and are brought forward in Table 1: Alternative 1a:Dry Anaerobic Digestion for all three organic streams (biosolids, food scraps and yard trimmings) at the 9 acre Palo Alto site. Alternative 1c:Dry Anaerobic Digestion for food scraps and yard trimmings on the 9 acre Palo Alto site and Wet Anarobic Digestion for biosolids at the RWQCP site. Alternative 2a:Dry Anaerobic Digestion for food scraps at the San Jose site, composting of yard trimmings at the Gilroy site, and Wet Anaerobic Digestion at the RWQCP. Alternative 3a:Composting of food scraps and yard trimmings at the Gilroy site and Wet Anaerobic Digestion for biosolids at the RWQCP. The cost analysis is driven by a series of assumptions, including certain policy assumptions that have not yet been made by the Council, such as land rental rates. To address the variability of these assumptions, for each Alternative, three scenarios were analyzed. The three scenarios were based on comments received from the public. The first scenario contains assumptions that favor the construction of a facility within Palo Alto (Alternatives 1a and 1c). The assumptions for this scenario are enumerated at the bottom of the Scenario 1 column in Table 1. Scenario 3 contains assumptions that favor exporting food scraps and yard trimmings outside Palo Alto (Alternatives 2a and 3a), and Scenario 2 contains staff’s suggested assumptions. The assumptions for each are listed in Table 1. Table 1 Energy/Compost Economic Evaluation Net Present Value (NPV) Alternatives Scenario 1 (Local Compost) Scenario 2 (Staff) Scenario 3 (Export Compost) 1a –(PA-DAD)$60 M $73 M $96 M 1c –(PA-Mixed)$111 M $132 M $169 M 2a – (SJ-Food)$94 M $96 M $82 M 3a –(Gilroy based)$89 M $91 M $78 M Assumptions Ownership Public Private Private Financing Below Market Market Rate Market Rate Grant Funds 15%15%0% October 03, 2011 Page 4 of 6 (ID # 2037) Rent $1/Year $108,000/Year $908,000/Year CO2 Adder $20/Ton $20/Ton $0/Ton Contingency ( for export )15%15%0% The lowest (estimated) cost for two of the scenarios, but the alternative least demonstrated, is Alternative 1a, where all three types of organic residuals are placed in separate Dry Anaerobic Digestors in Palo Alto. Adding Wet Anaerobic Digestors for wastewater biosolids makes Alternative 1c more costly, and the highest of the four for all scenarios, but at this planning level of analysis, not altogether non competitive with the export options. However Alternative 1c has been used at more facilities. Of the export alternatives, 2a (sending food scraps to San Jose) and Alternative 3a (composting of food scraps and yard trimmings in Gilroy) are comparable. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Analysis Table 2 contains Greenhouse Gas (GHG) estimates for the four alternatives listed in Table 1: Table 2 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Estimates Alternative CO2 Equilvalents per Year (Metric Tonnes) 1a 13,800 1c 14,200 2a 16,400 3a 15,800 Alternative 1a is estimated to produce the least GHG, with the other Alternatives estimated as shown. Extensive pilot testing would be required for alternative 1a prior to constructing a full scale facility. All four alternatives are more favorable than the City’s “no action” Alternative (Alternative 3) which was estimated to be 22,700 Metric Tonnes/year. Relationship to Palo Alto Climate Action Plan The Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan (CPP) adopted in 2007, set greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals for the City and community.These goals were expanded by the City Council on April 19, 2010.The current mid term goal for 2012 is to reduce the emissions from City operations by 20% and to reduce the combined City and community emissions by 5% from 2005 baseline levels. It should be noted that the City’s operations emissions are only approximately 4% of the combined City and community emissions.The current long-term goal for the combined City and community emissions is 15% by 2020 from 2005 baseline levels.Based on the assumptions in the greenhouse gas analysis done by Ascent environmental (as part of the ARI team), and depending on the alternative analyzed, this project could reduce emissions from City October 03, 2011 Page 5 of 6 (ID # 2037) operations by 15% from 2005 baseline levels.It could reduce community emissions by 1.2-1.4% from 2005 baseline levels. The reductions would almost entirely be the result of retirement of the incinerator and generation of renewable power, and therefore, alternatives that do not involve retirement of the incinerator or that generate less renewable power show correspondingly lower greenhouse gas reductions.This data is being provided because members of the public and Council asked staff to show the GHG reductions relative to the CPP. The Energy/Compost Facility is not in the CPP, nor is the City relying on such a facility to meet the goals of the CPP. The information is provided simply to show the relative scale of the GHG reductions. A detailed analysis is available in Attachment F. Conclusions The alternatives studied to date are close enough in costs that it does not appear warranted to eliminate any of them from further consideration at this time. Should the voters approve the November 2011 Ballot Initiative and establish a location for a Palo Alto Energy/Compost Facility, staff would return to Council and recommend next steps. Other Alternatives The principal comments on the Preliminary Analysis which were not addressed in the Draft Feasibility Study have to do with a more detailed analysis of alternatives which were beyond the scope of this study. Gasification, partnering with others and integrating RWQCP processes more fully with refuse processes were the key comments. A status report on Gasification and partnering was presented in staff report #1550 (Attachment C) and no new developments have occurred. With respect to the RWQCP the Long Range Facilities Planning Process for it continues, and is expected to conclude in the summer 2012. The consultant for that effort (Carollo) has been asked to begin to look at the interface between wastewater solids and organic refuse. Specifically, they will consider the amount and type of food scraps that could be co-digested (or otherwise managed) with wastewater biosolids at the RWQCP site. Should the voters approve the November 2011 Ballot Initiative and establish a location for a Palo Alto Energy/Compost Facility, staff would return to Council and recommend new actions to more fully consider the possibilities of co-managing biosolids and organic refuse. One idea is to utilize the new acreage (should it be approved by voters) for the aerobic finishing step following anaerobic digestion, some or all of which would occur at the RWQCP site. This would require further data gathering. Resource Impact There are no resource impacts because there are no recommendations for further action at this time. Should the voters approve the November 2011 Ballot Initiative and should Council approve studying further alternatives for that site, funding would need to be identified. October 03, 2011 Page 6 of 6 (ID # 2037) Environmental Review The Feasibility Study itself is not a “project” as defined as CEQA and no enviromental review is required at this point in the process. Attachments: ·A -FINAL Palo Alto Feasibility Report w-o Appendices (PDF) ·B -Staff Report 1632 (PDF) ·C -Staff Report 1550 (PDF) ·D -CMR165-10 (PDF) ·E -Summary Table (PDF) ·F -Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (PDF) ·G -Council Presentation (September 19, 2011)(PPT) ·H: Public Letters (PDF) Prepared By:Philip L. Bobel, Interim Asst. PW Director, Engineering Services Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Interim Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager 1784-6 FINAL Energy–Compost Feasibility Study And Environmental Impact Initial Study Prepared For City of Palo Alto Prepared By Alternative Resources, Inc. in Association with Ascent Environmental, Inc., Douglas Environmental, Inc., and Facility Builders & Erectors, Inc. August 30, 2011 (Revised September 20, 2011) i Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................ 1-1 2.0 Executive Summary............................................................................................... 2-1 3.0 Approach............................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 General.......................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Greenhouse Gas Analysis .......................................................................... 3-3 3.3 Economic Analysis...................................................................................... 3-5 3.3.1 Overview.......................................................................................... 3-5 3.3.2 Alternatives and Scenarios Analyzed............................................... 3-6 3.3.3 Assumptions and Inputs................................................................... 3-8 3.3.4 General Information ....................................................................... 3-11 4.0 Results of Study .................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Greenhouse Gas Analysis ......................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Economic Analysis ..................................................................................... 4-2 4.3 Discussion of Project Delivery Options, Financing Options, Grants and Other Funding Opportunities....................................................4-7 4.3.1 Project Delivery Options...................................................................4-7 4.3.1.1 Methods of Project Delivery............................................. 4-7 4.3.1.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Project Delivery Methods................................................. 4-8 4.3.1.3 Project Delivery for Anaerobic Digestion Technology .... 4-12 4.3.2 Financing Options, Grants and Other Funding Opportunities ........ 4-12 4.3.2.1 Public and Private Financing Options ............................ 4-12 4.3.2.2 Grants and Other Funding Opportunities ....................... 4-14 5.0 Next Steps.............................................................................................................5-1 Appendices Appendix A: Request for Information Appendix B: Description of Companies, Technologies Responding to RFI Appendix C: Site Drawing; Site Preparation Requirements and Cost Estimates Appendix D: GHG Model Appendix E: Economic Model Table of Contents (continued) ii Tables Table 2-1: Study Alternatives.......................................................................................... 2-3 Table 2-2: Projections of Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings and Biosolids Quantities......... 2-4 Table 2-3: RFI Respondents........................................................................................... 2-4 Table 2-4: GHG Model Results....................................................................................... 2-7 Table 2-5: Summary of Economic Analyses................................................................... 2-9 Table 3-1: Study Alternatives.......................................................................................... 3-1 Table 3-2: Projections of Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings and Biosolids Quantities......... 3-2 Table 3-3: RFI Respondents........................................................................................... 3-2 Table 3-4: Construction Costs........................................................................................ 3-9 Table 3-5: Operation & Maintenance Costs.................................................................. 3-10 Table 3-6: Renewable Electric Power Generation ........................................................ 3-14 Table 3-7: Inputs for Export Cases............................................................................... 3-15 Table 4-1: GHG Model Results....................................................................................... 4-2 Table 4-2: Summary of Economic Analyses................................................................... 4-4 1-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Palo Alto, California, is currently seeking to determine the best means for managing food scraps, yard trimmings and biosolids. As part of that assessment, it is evaluating the feasibility of developing a dry anaerobic digestion (AD) facility at its landfill to convert food scraps and yard trimmings and potentially biosolids to renewable energy (electricity or fuels) and useable compost. The proposed location for the facility is a nine (9) acre site at the existing City landfill, next to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). The proposed site is on land that the City had dedicated for park use, as part of Byxbee Park, and would, operationally, become part of that park when the landfill closes. An affirmative vote by the electorate will be required to use this site for a dry AD facility. A vote on this matter is scheduled for the November 2011 election. This is a controversial issue within the City. There are advocates for an AD facility and advocates for keeping the land for future park use. The City currently composts yard trimmings at a traditional, open windrow compost facility at the landfill. Residential food scraps are currently mixed with and collected as part of the City’s municipal solid waste, taken to the Sunnyvale SMaRT Station, and transported to and disposed at the Kirby Canyon Landfill in South San Jose. In the future, the City will be initiating curb side collection of source separated residential food waste. Commercial food waste is collected separately, transported to and composted in Gilroy. Biosolids are currently incinerated at the RWQCP. In addition to consideration of dry AD technology, other long term options for management of food scraps and yard trimmings include transport and processing at an out of City AD facility proposed to be built by a private company, Greenwaste, adjacent to the water pollution control plant in San Jose or transport of these materials to the Z-Best compost facilities near Gilroy. Options for management of biosolids include continued incineration at the RWQCP, dry or wet anaerobic digestion at the landfill site, wet anaerobic digestion at the RWQCP and other alternatives being evaluated at the RWQCP site in a parallel study as part of long range planning efforts for that facility. The City estimates that in 2015, the first year that a dry AD facility may be operating, that on average approximately 14,000 tons per year (tpy) of food scraps and 21,000 tpy of yard trimmings will be generated. In addition, approximately 27,000 tpy of biosolids (at 26.5% solids) will be generated at the RWQCP. In an October 2009 report, the City’s Compost Task Force recommended that food scraps and yard trimmings, and potentially the biosolids, be processed by dry anaerobic digestion to produce renewable energy and compost as part of the City’s long term plan for management of these wastes. Biosolids would be handled in a separate dry AD cell from the food waste and yard trimmings. Biosolids would be transported by truck from the RWQCP to the landfill site. One of the next steps identified was conducting a feasibility study to evaluate dry anaerobic digestion technology. After considering the Task Force report, City Council directed that a feasibility study be conducted based on the Task Force recommendations for consideration of dry AD technology. 1-2 This report presents the results of the feasibility study, as conducted by Alternative Resources, Inc. (ARI) in conjunction with City staff at the Department of Public Works. Subconsultants to ARI included: Ascent Environmental, Inc. (for estimates of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG); Douglas Environmental, Inc. (to complete a CEQA Checklist); and Facility Builders & Erectors, Inc. (for completion of site preparation studies). As noted above, the proposed site for the dry AD facility is located at the City landfill, an unlined landfill, on land the City has dedicated for future park use. The site is on Byxbee Park and would, operationally, become part of that park when the landfill closes. A vote by the electorate would be required to use this site for a dry AD facility. A vote on this matter will be taken in November 2011. The City landfill currently receives self haul waste from City residents and is the site of the compost facility for yard trimmings. The landfill will close in 2011. Interim measures will be used by the City for yard trimmings and food scraps until the dry AD facility, or another alternative for long term management, is operational. There is currently a landfill gas collection system, the gas from which could be used with that produced by the dry AD facility to produce energy. The landfill gas is currently used in the afterburner at the RWQCP biosolids incinerator. The City has a municipal utility that provides electricity and natural gas to City customers. The municipal utility may purchase electricity and/or gas produced by the dry AD facility. In addition, the City operates a CNG fueling station for its fleet of vehicles. The CNG station is located within a few miles of the proposed site for the dry AD facility. The City may consider purchase of CNG if it is produced by a dry AD facility. As stated earlier, in parallel with the dry AD feasibility study, the City is conducting long range planning for its RWQCP. Part of that planning includes consideration of options for biosolids management at the RWQCP. Should a new project go forward at the RWQCP, consideration would be given to piping any gas produced at such a new facility to the dry AD facility at the landfill, which could have a common energy production system. This feasibility study is based on information included in the Task Force report, City information, input from interested public groups, the general public, published studies from other locations, as well as information provided in response to a Request for Information (RFI) that was distributed to companies in the anaerobic digestion industry. The RFI process was used to obtain current information from technology suppliers for a dry AD project specific to meeting the City’s needs. The feasibility study is intended to provide information to the City so that it can determine whether a dry AD project is feasible and if it is preferable, or not, when compared to other means of management of yard trimmings and food scraps. Of key interest to the City is a comparison of environmental impacts, including greenhouse gas emissions, and cost. The draft economic and greenhouse gas models were developed as part of this study, and they were made available to the public for review on the City’s web site in December 2010. Further, the draft results of the options considered were provided via the City’s web site in January 2011. In February and March 2011, two public meetings were held to receive 1-3 public comment on these draft results. Extensive written and oral comments were received. In March 2011, the draft results were presented to City Council. Again, extensive comment was received. In April 2011, at DPW staff’s recommendation, City Council approved additional modeling efforts to address City Council and public comments. Further, it was decided to delay preparation of a CEQA Checklist and not make it a part of the draft feasibility report. The draft feasibility report presented the findings of the additional economic analyses. The report was provided to the City in June 2011. It was the subject of public review and City Council review at a meeting on June 27, 2011. Public review continued through the summer of 2011. This final report incorporates public and City Council comments and revises the draft report accordingly. Included in the remainder of this report is an Executive Summary and sections describing the Approach, Results and Next Steps. 2-1 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background The City of Palo Alto, California, is currently seeking to determine the best means for managing food scraps, yard trimmings and biosolids. As part of that assessment, it is evaluating the feasibility of developing a dry anaerobic digestion (AD) facility to convert food scraps and yard trimmings and potentially biosolids to renewable energy (electricity or fuels) and useable compost. The proposed location for the facility is a nine (9) acre site at the existing City landfill next to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). The proposed site is on land that the City has dedicated for park use, as part of Byxbee Park, and would, operationally, become part of that park when the landfill closes. A vote by the electorate would be required to use this site for a dry AD facility. A vote will be taken on this matter in a November 2011 election. This is a controversial issue within the City. There are advocates for an AD facility and advocates for keeping the land for future park use. The City currently composts yard trimmings at a traditional, open windrow compost facility at the landfill. Residential food scraps are currently mixed with and collected as part of the City’s municipal solid waste, taken to the Sunnyvale SMaRT Station, and transported to and disposed at the Kirby Canyon Landfill in South San Jose. In the future, the City will be initiating curb side collection of source separated residential food waste. Commercial food waste is collected separately, transported to and composted in Gilroy. Biosolids are currently incinerated at the RWQCP. In addition to consideration of dry AD technology, other long term options for management of food scraps and yard trimmings include transport and processing at an out of City AD facility proposed to be built by a private company, Greenwaste, adjacent to the water pollution control plant in San Jose or transport of these materials to the Z-Best compost facilities near Gilroy. Options for management of biosolids include continued incineration at the RWQCP, dry or wet anaerobic digestion at the landfill site, wet anaerobic digestion at the RWQCP and other alternatives being evaluated at the RWQCP site in a parallel study as part of long range planning efforts for that facility. The City estimates that in 2015, the first year that a dry AD facility may be operating, that on average approximately 14,000 tons per year (tpy) of food scraps and 21,000 tpy of yard trimmings will be generated. In addition, approximately 27,000 tpy of biosolids (at 26.5% solids) will be generated at the RWQCP. In an October 2009 report, the City’s Compost Task Force recommended that food scraps and yard trimmings, and potentially the biosolids, be processed by dry anaerobic digestion to produce renewable energy and compost as part of the City’s long term plan for management of these wastes. Biosolids would be handled in a separate dry AD cell from the food waste and yard trimmings. Biosolids would be transported by truck from the RWQCP to the landfill site. One of the next steps identified was conducting a feasibility study to evaluate dry anaerobic digestion technology. After considering the Task Force report, City Council directed that a feasibility study be conducted based on the Task Force recommendations for consideration of dry AD technology. 2-2 This report presents the results of the feasibility study as conducted by Alternative Resources, Inc. (ARI) in conjunction with City staff at the Department of Public Works. Subconsultants to ARI included: Ascent Environmental, Inc. (for estimates of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG); Douglas Environmental, Inc. (to complete a CEQA Checklist); and Facility Builders & Erectors, Inc. (for completion of site preparation studies). The City landfill currently receives self haul waste from City residents and is the site of the compost facility for yard trimmings. The landfill will close in 2011. Interim measures will be used by the City for yard trimmings and food scraps until the dry AD facility, or another alternative for long term management, is operational. There is currently a landfill gas collection system, the gas from which could be used with that produced by the dry AD facility to produce energy. The landfill gas is currently used in the afterburner at the RWQCP biosolids incinerator. The City has a municipal utility that provides electricity and natural gas to City customers. The municipal utility may purchase electricity and/or gas produced by the dry AD facility. In addition, the City operates a CNG fueling station for its fleet of vehicles. The CNG station is located within a few miles of the proposed site for the dry AD facility. The City may consider purchase of CNG if it is produced by a dry AD facility. As stated earlier, in parallel with the dry AD feasibility study, the City is conducting long range planning for its RWQCP. Part of that planning includes consideration of options for biosolids management at the RWQCP. Should a new project go forward at the RWQCP, consideration would be given to piping any gas produced at such a new facility to the dry AD facility at the landfill, which could have a common energy production system. This feasibility study is based on information included in the Task Force report, City information, input from interested public groups, the general public, published studies from other locations, as well as information provided in response to a Request for Information (RFI) that was distributed to companies in the anaerobic digestion industry. The RFI process was used to obtain current information from technology suppliers for a dry AD project specific to meeting the City’s needs. The feasibility study is intended to provide information to the City so that it can determine whether a dry AD project is feasible and if it is preferable, or not, when compared to other means of management of yard trimmings and food scraps. Of key interest to the City is a comparison of environmental impacts, including greenhouse gas emissions, and cost. Draft economic and greenhouse gas models were developed as part of this study, and they were made available to the public for review on the City’s web site in December 2010. Further, the draft results of the options considered were provided via the City’s web site in January 2011. In February and March 2011, two public meetings were held to receive public comment on these draft results. Extensive written and oral comments were received. In March 2011, the draft results were presented to City Council. Again, extensive comment was received. In April 2011, at DPW staff’s recommendation, City Council approved additional modeling efforts to address City Council and public comments. Further, to focus on these additional modeling efforts, it was decided to delay preparation of 2-3 a CEQA Checklist and not make it part of the draft feasibility report. The draft report was presented to the City in June 2011. It was the subject of public review and City Council review at a meeting held on June 27, 2011. Public review continued through the summer of 2011. This final report incorporates comments from the public and City Council and makes revisions to the draft report as appropriate. Included in the remainder of this Executive Summary are summary descriptions of the study approach, results and next steps. General Study Approach This feasibility study addresses the economic and environmental issues, including GHG emissions, associated with options to manage the City’s food scraps, yard trimmings and biosolids. Alternatives included in-City options and export options. In-City options identified by the City included dry anaerobic digestion (Dry AD) of food scraps and yard trimmings at a site at the landfill adjacent to the RWQCP. Options for biosolids included dry anaerobic digestion at the landfill site, but in a separate unit from the food scraps and yard trimmings, wet anaerobic digestion at the landfill site or at the RWQCP, and incineration. In addition, the City identified two alternatives for export of food scraps and yard trimmings, to existing or proposed facilities in San Jose and Gilroy. For the export options, the biosolids would either be incinerated or processed via wet anaerobic digestion at the RWQCP. Table 2-1 provides a tabular listing of the alternatives and options. Further evaluation was completed to assess beneficial use of the biogas produced by the Dry and Wet AD processes. Options included generation of electricity and production of natural gas for insertion into the natural gas pipeline. Use of methane gas from the landfill was also considered to supplement the gas produced from the AD processes. Table 2-1. Study Alternatives Alternative 1: In-City Options at Landfill Site Food Scraps Yard Trimmings Biosolids Case 1a Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD (Separate Cell) Case 1b Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD at Landfill Case 1c Dry AD Dry AD Wet Ad at RWQCP Case 1d Dry AD Dry AD Continue Incineration at RWQCP Alternative 2: Export Case 2 Proposed San Jose AD (Zanker) Gilroy Compost (ZBEST) Continue Incineration at RWQCP Case 2a Proposed San Jose AD (Zanker) Gilroy Compost (ZBEST) Wet AD at RWQCP Alternative 3: Export Case 3 Gilroy Compost (ZBEST) Gilroy Compost (ZBEST Continue Incineration at RWQCP Case 3a Gilroy Compost (ZBEST) Gilroy Compost (ZBEST Wet AD at RWQCP 2-4 The City provided estimated projections for the quantity of food scraps, yard trimmings and biosolids for 2015, the first year a Dry AD facility could be operating, and for 2034, the last year for a 20-year planning period. Table 2-2 presents those estimates. Table 2-2. Projections of Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings and Biosolids Quantities (Tons/Year) Food Scraps Yard Trimmings Biosolids Total First year: 2015 14,000 21,000 27,000 62,000 Last Year: 2034 19,000 21,000 34,000 74,000 To obtain representative, current, market-based information for the cost of constructing and operating a Dry AD system, as well as technology specific estimates for GHG emissions, an RFI was prepared and issued in September 2010. The RFI described the sensitivity of the site as part of Byxbee Park and stressed environmental considerations that the respondent was to take into account for facility design and operation, with particular emphasis on needs for odor and noise control and minimizing the visual impact of a facility. All food scrap, yard trimming and biosolids receiving and processing areas were to be fully enclosed with odor control, and any final curing area for the digestate was to be covered, with odor control, or enclosed in a building with odor control. To encourage company participation in the RFI process, particularly to facilitate their providing sensitive cost information, the RFI specified that cost information provided would not be released or identified specifically by company name in this feasibility report or a public meeting. Seven, experienced companies responded to the RFI in November 2010. See Table 2-3. All seven companies have operating, commercial facilities in Europe. A description of each of the companies, their technology and photographs of reference facilities are provided in Appendix B of this report. Table 2-3. RFI Respondents Technology Respondent Axpo-Kompogas St. Engineering Group BEKON Energy Technologies Mustang Renewable Power Ventures Bioferm Energy Systems McGill Compost DRANCO Organic Waste Systems GICON Bienergie GmbH Harvest Power Strabag-Linde KCA Ecocorp Valorga Urbaser 2-5 The technologies offered by the respondents to the RFI represent a broad spectrum of approaches for Dry AD, each having advantages and disadvantages and associated costs. Consequently, the approach taken for the feasibility study was to identify costs representative of the lower cost technologies and those representative of the higher cost technologies. A range of costs was analyzed, “low” and “high”, for each of the alternatives and options identified by the City in Table 2-1. It is likely that the lower cost options would provide a suitable system for the City with the quantities of food scraps and yard trimmings available in the City. The higher cost systems typically become more economically competitive when larger quantities of these materials are available. To supplement the construction and operating costs for Dry AD facilities prepared by the companies responding to the RFI, site preparation work was identified and cost estimates prepared by the ARI team. Site preparation work included landfill excavation, placement of the excavated material on other areas of the landfill, and provision for pilings for a proper foundation considering construction on fill material and the geotechnical properties of the underlying natural sediment of San Francisco Bay. Site preparation cost estimates were prepared specific to facility design requirements provided by companies responding to the RFI. The facility footprints required by the companies varied between approximately 2.5 acres and 9 acres. When considering the results of this feasibility study, it should be recognized that this is a planning level analysis and estimates of GHG emissions and project economics are not firm, fixed figures. To obtain firm, fixed figures it will be necessary to conduct a formal market procurement for the desired facility and services. Approach to Greenhouse Gas Analysis The GHG analysis quantified the annual emissions level associated with all GHG-emitting activities that would occur under each alternative. The first step in this process was the establishment of an “assessment boundary” to determine the type of GHG-emitting activities that were analyzed. Generally, the determination of which GHG-emitting activities were included in the model is consistent with the assessment boundary recommended in the Climate Action Reserve’s Organic Waste Digestion Project Protocol. Any deviations from this guidance relate to the fact that the Climate Action Reserve’s protocol addresses some processes that are not applicable to the City (e.g., manure handling). The types of GHGs emitted by the aforementioned activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Emission levels were estimated for each of these activities using methodologies established by the California Air Resources Board, the California Climate Action Registry, the Climate Action Reserve, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and/or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The levels of GHGs associated with dry anaerobic digestion were based on information provided in the RFI responses. The level of GHGs associated with wet anaerobic digestion and incineration of biosolids were based on information provided by a recent study being performed for the City that evaluates options for handling biosolids from the RWQCP. The GHG model does not differentiate between biogenic and anthropogenic emissions. Emissions of CH4 and N2O were converted to units of carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2-e) 2-6 according to their global warming potential. The CO2-e emissions from all activities under each alternative were tallied to allow for the direct comparison of the alternatives. In addition, emissions associated with the construction of new facilities under each alternative (e.g., dry anaerobic digestion facility, wet anaerobic digestion facility) were estimated and then amortized over the projected operational life of the facility (i.e., 20 years). The emissions were also converted to CO2-e, as needed, and included in the tally for each alternative. The GHG model consists of a system of related worksheets. For transparency, the model indicates the units of every numerical value, the source of the value and/or the calculation used to compute the value. The full GHG model is presented in Appendix D to this report. Results of Greenhouse Gas Analysis The total CO2-e emissions generated under each alternative is summarized in Table 2-4. The total CO2-e emissions are lowest under Alternative 1a, followed by Alternatives 1c and 1b, respectively. Generally, the more organic waste that is subject to anaerobic digestion, the lower the total CO2-e level. The model also indicates that the incineration of biosolids (under Alternatives 1d, 2, and 3) generates a high level of CO2-e emissions relative to other activities included in the model. This is largely due to the fact that the incineration of biosolids is energy-intensive, consuming high levels of natural gas, and because no methane is recovered and then used to produce renewable electricity. For those alternatives that include dry and/or wet anaerobic digestion, the recovered biogas can be used in two beneficial ways. Biogas can be combusted to produce electricity. Electricity produced from biogas would be considered renewable and would displace the consumption of equal amounts of fossil fuel-based electricity from conventional sources, thereby resulting in a GHG reduction. Biogas can also be upgraded to pipeline-quality natural gas and used in place of conventional fossil-fuel based natural gas; however, the combustion of natural gas made from biogas would result in equal levels of GHG emissions as the consumption of fossil-fuel derived natural gas and, thus, no reduction would be achieved. As shown in Table 2-4, the net level of GHG emissions is lower when biogas is used to produce electricity for those alternatives that include some form of anaerobic digestion with biogas recovery. It should be noted that there were no revisions to the results of the greenhouse gas analysis from the draft to final feasibility reports. Approach to Economic Analysis The economic analysis was performed to estimate the costs that could be expected from the use of the technology applications described above for the management of food scraps, yard trimmings and biosolids, and to compare those costs to estimated costs for alternatives based on the export of food scraps and yard trimmings to existing or proposed facilities in San Jose and Gilroy, and to the in-City processing of biosolids by either incineration or wet AD. The analysis projected a tipping fee for the first year of facility operations (2015) and for subsequent years over a 20-year operating period, total life-cycle costs and net present value (NPV) costs for the various alternatives and cases analyzed. 2-7 Table 2-4. GHG Model Results (With Electricity Production) Alternative 1: In-City Options at Landfill Site MT CO2-e/Year Case 1a (All Dry AD – Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Biosolids) 13,831 Case 1b (Dry AD – Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings; Wet AD Biosolids at Landfill) 14,234 Case 1c (Dry AD – Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings; Wet AD Biosolids at RWQCP) 14,207 Case 1d (Dry AD – Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings; Continue Incinerate Biosolids) 21,106 Alternative 2: Export MT CO2-e/Year Alternative 2 (Export Food Scraps to San Jose, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Continue Incinerate Biosolids) 23,329 Alternative 2a (Export Food Scraps to San Jose, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Wet AD Biosolids at RWQCP) 16,430 Alternative 3: Export MT CO2-e/Year Alternative 3 (Export Food Scraps and Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Continue Incinerate Biosolids) 22,716 Alternative 3a (Export Food Scraps and Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Wet AD Biosolids at RWQCP) 15,818 In all cases, capital and operations and maintenance costs were estimated, and then revenues anticipated from sale of products (e.g., electricity, recovered recyclable materials and compost) were subtracted from the total costs to provide a net cost to the City for each option. For the AD cases, based upon the information provided by the RFI respondents, it became apparent that there were two cost groupings, a lower technology cost group and a higher technology cost group. Therefore, it was decided to model both groups of technologies, selecting a representative technology from each group. Further, high and low technology pricing was applied to several cases as described in Table 2-1. Those cases were analyzed for three scenarios, Scenario 1, Scenario 2, and Scenario 3, representing the impact of selected values for key assumptions, including those for ownership, financing, potential grant levels, rent, application of a “carbon cost adder” based on the City’s Climate Action Plan, and application of a contingency on the cost of export. The selected values for those assumptions resulted in variations in cost that were more favorable to anaerobic digestion in Scenario 1 and more favorable to export in Scenario 3. The individual scenarios are described in Section 3.3. In addition to information provided by the RFI respondents and the City, market-based information on factors such as financing approaches and values for products were applied. Preliminary analyses were prepared and reviewed with the City in January through March 2011. Following that review process, and with substantial public input and requests by City Council, the initial analyses were revised, resulting in the analyses that were presented in the draft feasibility report, submitted to the City in June 2011. That report was the subject of public review and City Council review at a City Council meeting held on June 27, 2011. 2-8 Subsequent public review continued during the summer of 2011. This final feasibility report addresses comments received, and revises the draft feasibility report as appropriate. Results of Economic Analysis The economic analyses performed resulted in six sets of model runs, including three Scenarios, 28 individual AD cases for low and high cost AD technologies, and four export cases, a total of 48 model runs. See Table 2-5 below. Recognizing that these are planning level economic analyses, the key findings can be summarized as follows. 1. For Scenario 1, several of the lower cost AD technology cases are less costly than or competitive with export options. Cases 1a (all materials processed via dry AD at the Palo Alto Landfill (PALF)), 1b (food scraps and yard trimmings processed by dry AD at the PALF and biosolids processed by wet AD at the PALF) and 1c (food scraps and yard trimmings processed by dry AD at the PALF and biosolids processed by wet AD at the RWQCP) are less costly than the export Cases 2 and 3 that include the continued incineration of biosolids with a new fluidized bed incinerator constructed in 2030. Case 1a (all materials processed via dry AD at the PALF) is less costly than export Cases 2a and 3a that include biosolids processing via wet AD at the RWQCP. Cases 1b and 1c are somewhat more expensive than export Cases 2a and 3a, but within a competitive range for a planning level analysis. 2. For Scenario 2, lower cost AD technology, all cases except for 1d (that includes food scraps and yard trimmings processed by dry AD at the PALF and continued incineration of biosolids, with a new fluidized bed incinerator constructed in 2030) are less costly than export Cases 2 and 3, and Case 1d is competitive with export Cases 2 and 3; only Case 1a is less costly than export Cases 2a and 3a. Cases 1b- 1d are more costly than Cases 2a and 3a. 3. For Scenario 3, lower cost AD technology, Case 1a is less costly than export Cases 2 and 3, but somewhat more expensive than export Cases 2a and 3a, but competitive for planning level analyses. 4. For Scenarios 1, 2 and 3, for all cases, the higher cost AD technologies present costs which are significantly more expensive than either the lower cost AD technologies or the export cases. 5. The option of continued incineration at the RWQCP using the existing multiple hearth incinerator, then replacing that with a new fluidized bed incinerator in 2030, is a more costly solution than dry or wet anaerobic digestion for treatment of biosolids. . It should be noted that public and City Council comments received at the June 27, 2011 City Council Meeting and subsequent public comments received over the summer of 2011 did not result in any significant changes to the economic results as presented at the June 27th meeting. The only changes were to account for a corrected rent payment (from $103,000 per year to $108,000 per year) for the Scenario 2 cases. This increased the present value costs in Scenario 2, Cases 1a-1d, by $62,311 for each case, less than 0.1%, which does not change the results described above. Table 2-5. Summary of Economic Analyses 2-9 Base Cases Alternative 1 (at Palo Alto Landfill) Year 1 (2015) Tipping Fee ($/ton) Year 20 (2034) Tipping Fee ($/ton) NPV Total Costs Over 20 Years Year 1 (2015) Tipping Fee ($/ton) Year 20 (2034) Tipping Fee ($/ton) NPV Total Costs Over 20 Years Year 1 (2015) Tipping Fee ($/ton) Year 20 (2034) Tipping Fee ($/ton) NPV Total Costs Over 20 Years Low-Cost Range Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Case 1a: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings & Biosolids Dry AD in separate cells @ Palo Alto Landfill (PALF)1 $70 $34 $59,861,995 $87 $53 $73,349,155 $120 $73 $96,226,397 Case 1b: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD, Biosolids Wet AD – all @ PALF $130 $71 $112,541,470 $157 $102 $133,646,188 $209 $138 $170,950,938 Case 1c: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF, Biosolids Wet AD @ RWQCP $129 $71 $111,359,855 $156 $101 $132,185,841 $207 $137 $169,007,164 Case 1d: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF, Biosolids Incinerated @ RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator on line in 2031 $101 $441 $137,096,645 $113 $454 $147,010,013 $129 $459 $154,505,010 High-Cost Range Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Case 1a: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings & Biosolids Dry AD in separate cells @ PALF $239 $137 $202,489,030 $283 $185 $236,505,592 $361 $245 $294,370,715 Case 1b: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD, Biosolids Wet AD – all @ PALF $213 $109 $179,744,473 $254 $156 $211,656,529 $331 $214 $268,294,477 Case 1c: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF, Biosolids Wet AD @ RWQCP $212 $109 $178,943,797 $253 $156 $210,683,346 $329 $213 $267,027,894 Case 1d: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF, Biosolids Incinerated @ RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator on line in 2031 $177 $472 $199,061,822 $206 $502 $221,571,397 $248 $530 $249,502,488 1 Uncertainty remains regarding Case 1a costs, as limited data was available. Consequently, a higher contingency was applied to the construction and operating costs for this case. Table 2-5. Summary of Economic Analyses (continued) 2-10 Base Cases Alternatives 2 & 3 (Export) Year 1 (2015) Tipping Fee ($/ton) Year 20 (2034) Tipping Fee ($/ton) NPV Total Costs Over 20 Years Year 1 (2015) Tipping Fee ($/ton) Year 20 (2034) Tipping Fee ($/ton) NPV Total Costs Over 20 Years Year 1 (2015) Tipping Fee ($/ton) Year 20 (2034) Tipping Fee ($/ton) NPV Total Costs Over 20 Years Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Case 2: Food Scraps to San Jose AD Facility, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy Composting Facility (via SMaRT), Biosolids Incinerated at RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator on line in 2031 $93 $486 $139,527,960 $93 $486 $139,527,960 $72 $455 $116,714,351 Case 3: Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer, Yard Trimmings to SMaRT – then both to Gilroy Composting Facility, Biosolids incinerated at RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator on line in 2031 $89 $477 $134,349,833 $89 $477 $134,349,833 $68 $448 $112,511,650 Alternatives 2a & 3a (Export) Year 1 (2015) Tipping Fee ($/ton) Year 20 (2034) Tipping Fee ($/ton) NPV Total Costs Over 20 Years Year 1 (2015) Tipping Fee ($/ton) Year 20 (2034) Tipping Fee ($/ton) NPV Total Costs Over 20 Years Year 1 (2015) Tipping Fee ($/ton) Year 20 (2034) Tipping Fee ($/ton) NPV Total Costs Over 20 Years Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Case 2a: Food Scraps to San Jose AD Facility, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy Composting Facility (via SMaRT), Biosolids processed by Wet AD at RWQCP $103 $129 $94,316,201 $105 $131 $96,182,258 $92 $107 $81,747,002 Case 3a: Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer, Yard Trimmings to SMaRT – then both to Gilroy Composting Facility, Biosolids processed by Wet AD at RWQCP $98 $121 $89,448,650 $100 $123 $91,314,706 $89 $100 $77,544,302 2-11 Discussion of Project Delivery Options There are many project delivery methods available for developing an AD facility. These methods involve different approaches for ownership, financing, design, construction and operation of the facility. The traditional approach for project development for public works infrastructure has been the “public model” with public ownership, public financing, the “design-bid-build” (DBB) approach for design, bidding and construction activities, and public operation. In the past 20 years, increased interest has grown in alternatives to this traditional public model, particularly for projects that are costly, utilizing new technology that may not have a long “track record”, or technology that is licensed and only available through alternative project delivery options. Such interest has resulted due to the potential opportunities for private financing, lower cost, shorter design and construction schedules, and the ability to shift design, construction and performance risk, where appropriate, from a public entity to a private company. This potential to shift risk for financing and technical and economic performance is particularly attractive for development of AD technologies, which at this time, while operating commercially outside the United States, are only now being constructed or considered for commercialization in the United States. In addition, recent Federal funding options including grants, loans or loan guarantees may only be available to private companies. Based on the consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of the project delivery methods and the current status of AD technology development in the U.S., it is recommended that either the Private Model or the design-build-own-operate-transfer (DBOOT) project delivery method be considered for use for financing, design, construction and operation of an anaerobic digestion technology facility. These are the most advantageous means to provide for development of an AD technology facility as they place financing, design, build and operational responsibility on the private company as well as the responsibilities of ownership. If desired, DBOOT provides a means for public purchase of the conversion technology facility. These are the least risky approaches for the public entity. They provide the protection of guaranteed long-term operating performance at the least technical, environmental and financial risk to the public entity. It also reflects the fact that the public entity does not currently operate AD technology or similar facilities. To put on and train staff to operate and maintain a complex waste management facility, such as an AD facility, may not be an easy undertaking, nor would it be advantageous, at least initially, to accept the risk of facility performance during operations under these circumstances. In addition, the licenses for many AD technologies are held by private companies and use of such technology may only be available through private or DBOOT delivery. Lastly, certain funding opportunities such as under the ARRA and DOE are available only to privately-owned projects. Should the City want to consider a public ownership option, with public financing, as a means to reduce project financing costs, it is recommended that a design-build-operate (DBO) project delivery approach be considered. Although the City will assume debt payment risk with public ownership, a DBO project delivery will provide the benefits of the 2-12 Private Model or DBOOT model regarding private assumption of design, construction and operational responsibility and risk. Financing Options, Grants and Other Funding Opportunities There are two fundamental means of financing an AD project: public or private financing. Section 4.3.2 provides a discussion of these financing options. Also, although it cannot be guaranteed, there may be opportunities to off-set a project’s costs through mechanisms such as grants and low-interest loans from both State and Federal funding sources. As a matter of record, a project in California of a similar nature has this year received a State grant on the order of 20% of the construction cost of a facility. Also, Federal grants up to 30% have been awarded, and in one case up to 50% by U.S. DOE in a matching grant. In addition, by requiring California utilities to increase their “renewable portfolio standard” (the percentage of electric power generated by renewable energy sources) to 33% by 2020, and to provide above-market pricing for the purchase of such power, the recently enacted California Renewable Energy Resources Act provides a significant economic support for renewable energy facilities such as the AD facilities considered in this study. Potential funding sources will warrant consideration as a project is being structured. However, the type of project-specific technical and financial information that is needed to support such consideration is not available at this time. Also, many sources rely on annual State or Federal budgeting, and given current uncertainties regarding both State and Federal budgeting, it is difficult to definitively assess whether such funding will be available at the time (2013) that any of the facilities contemplated by this study would be nearing financing. The in-depth investigation of potential funding sources will become appropriate as a project becomes better defined, and the technology, performance and financial aspects of a project can be matched with the funding opportunities available at that time. For example, the California Energy Commission’s (CEC) priorities for 2011, according to its 2011-2012 investment plan, are transportation and vehicular programs. Whether other energy priorities would be included in plans for later years, and what the funding levels might be, are unknown. Given such uncertainties, for the analyses performed, two potential funding support mechanisms were modeled: public financing (Scenario 1) that would include a low-interest loan I-Bank loan (which is not directly dependent on State budgeting) as a part of the financing structure, and a 15% grant for the public ownership case (Scenario 1) and for one private-ownership case (Scenario 2). Scenario 3 assumed private financing at market rates without the benefit of a grant. Any State or Federal support mechanism would improve the economics of a project and, depending upon the availability and value of any one mechanism, may influence the project delivery approach adopted. Next Steps Should the site at Byxbee Park become available, and the City determine based on the results of this feasibility study that it will further consider anaerobic digestion or another technology for food scraps and yard trimmings, with or without anaerobic digestion or some 2-13 other solution for biosolids at the site or at the RWQCP, it is recommended that the next steps include completing the CEQA checklist and then obtaining firm technical and cost proposals from private companies for the desired facility and services. As part of this effort, firm technical and cost proposals should also be obtained from companies that would offer export options. Obtaining Proposals for in-City and export options will entail definition by the City of the facility concept and/or services, identification of performance specifications, consideration of facility ownership and financing options, as appropriate, and definition of desired business terms and contract principles, all to be made part of a Request for Proposals (RFP). The issuance of an RFP does not obligate the City to pursue a project. Resulting Proposals will provide firm technical and cost information necessary for further comparison of in-City and export options and project consideration. 3-1 3.0 APPROACH 3.1 General This feasibility study addresses the economic and environmental issues, including GHG emissions, associated with options to manage the City’s food scraps, yard trimmings and biosolids. Alternatives included in-City options and export options. In-City options identified by the City included dry anaerobic digestion (Dry AD) of food scraps and yard trimmings at a site at the landfill adjacent to the RWQCP. Options for biosolids included dry anaerobic digestion at the landfill site, but in a separate unit from the food scraps and yard trimmings, wet anaerobic digestion at the landfill site or at the RWQCP, and incineration. In addition, the City identified two alternatives for export of food scraps and yard trimmings, to existing or proposed facilities in San Jose and Gilroy. For the export options, the biosolids would either be incinerated or processed via wet anaerobic digestion at the RWQCP. Table 3-1 provides a tabular listing of the alternatives and options. Further evaluation was completed to assess beneficial use of the biogas produced by the Dry and Wet AD processes. Options included generation of electricity and production of natural gas for insertion into the natural gas pipeline. Use of methane gas from the landfill was also considered to supplement the gas produced from the AD processes. The City provided estimated projections for the quantity of food scraps, yard trimmings and biosolids for 2015, the first year a Dry AD facility could be operating, and for 2034, the last year for a 20-year planning period. Table 3-2 presents those estimates. Table 3-1. Study Alternatives Alternative 1: In-City Options at Landfill Site Food Scraps Yard Trimmings Biosolids Case 1a Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD (Separate Cell) Case 1b Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD at Landfill Case 1c Dry AD Dry AD Wet Ad at RWQCP Case 1d Dry AD Dry AD Continue Incineration at RWQCP Alternative 2: Export Case 2 Proposed San Jose AD (Zanker) Gilroy Compost (ZBEST) Continue Incineration at RWQCP Case 2a Proposed San Jose AD (Zanker) Gilroy Compost (ZBEST) Wet AD at RWQCP Alternative 3: Export Case 3 Gilroy Compost (ZBEST) Gilroy Compost (ZBEST Continue Incineration at RWQCP Case 3a Gilroy Compost (ZBEST) Gilroy Compost (ZBEST Wet AD at RWQCP 3-2 Table 3-2. Projections of Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings and Biosolids Quantities (Tons/Year) Food Scraps Yard Trimmings Biosolids Total First year: 2015 14,000 21,000 27,000 62,000 Last Year: 2034 19,000 21,000 34,000 74,000 To obtain representative, current, market-based information for the cost of constructing and operating a Dry AD system, as well as technology specific estimates for GHG emissions, a Request for Information (RFI) was prepared and issued in September 2010 (a copy of the RFI is included as Appendix A to this report). The RFI described the sensitivity of the site as part of Byxbee Park and stressed environmental considerations that the respondent was to take into account for facility design and operation, with particular emphasis on needs for odor and noise control and minimizing the visual impact of a facility. All food scrap, yard trimming and biosolids receiving and processing areas were to be fully enclosed with odor control, and any final curing area for the digestate was to be covered, with odor control, or enclosed in a building with odor control. To encourage company participation in the RFI process, particularly to facilitate their providing sensitive cost information, the RFI specified that cost information provided would not be released or identified specifically by company name in this feasibility report or a public meeting. Seven, experienced companies responded to the RFI in November 2010. See Table 3-3. All seven companies have operating, commercial facilities in Europe. A description of each of the companies, their technology and photographs of reference facilities are provided in Appendix B. Table 3-3. RFI Respondents Technology Respondent Axpo-Kompogas St. Engineering Group BEKON Energy Technologies Mustang Renewable Power Ventures Bioferm Energy Systems McGill Compost DRANCO Organic Waste Systems GICON Bienergie GmbH Harvest Power Strabag-Linde KCA Ecocorp Valorga Urbaser 3-3 The technologies offered by the respondents to the RFI represent a broad spectrum of approaches for Dry AD, each having advantages and disadvantages and associated costs. The technology approaches include simple, manual systems and highly automated systems, different levels of preprocessing and post AD processing to remove contaminants, batch feed and continuous feed systems, horizontal and vertical digestion chambers, one stage and two stage digestion, mixing systems or not in the AD chamber, methalphic and thermophilic temperature regimes in the digesters, and different methods for curing the digestate to make compost product. As a result of these different technical approaches, the space requirements and costs provided by the companies for constructing and operating the AD systems varied by a large amount; however, the responses fell into two groups-those with a simpler technology, smaller footprint and lower cost, and those with a more automated technology, larger footprint and more costly approach. Consequently, the approach taken for the feasibility study was to identify costs representative of the lower cost technologies and those representative of the higher cost technologies. A range of costs was analyzed, “low” and “high”, for each of the alternatives and options identified by the City in Table 3-1. It is likely that the lower cost options would provide a suitable system for the City with the quantities of food scraps and yard trimmings available in the City. The higher cost systems typically become more economically competitive when larger quantities of these materials are available. To supplement the construction and operating costs for dry AD facilities prepared by the companies responding to the RFI, site preparation work was identified and cost estimates prepared by the ARI team. Site preparation work included landfill excavation, placement of the excavated material on other areas of the landfill, and provision for pilings for a proper foundation considering construction on waste fill material and the geotechnical properties of the underlying natural sediment of San Francisco Bay. Site preparation cost estimates were prepared specific to facility design requirements provided by companies responding to the RFI. The facility footprints required by the companies varied between approximately 2.5 acres and 9 acres. A site drawing is provided in Appendix C, as well as the engineering estimates for site preparation requirements and costs. When considering the results of this feasibility study, it should be recognized that this is a planning level analysis and estimates of GHG emissions and project economics are not firm, fixed figures. To obtain firm, fixed figures it will be necessary to conduct a formal market procurement for the desired facility and services. 3.2 Greenhouse Gas Analysis The GHG analysis quantified the annual emissions level associated with all GHG-emitting activities that would occur under each alternative. The first step in this process was the establishment of an “assessment boundary” to determine the type of GHG-emitting activities that were analyzed. Generally, the determination of which GHG-emitting activities were included in the model is consistent with the assessment boundary recommended in the Climate Action Reserve’s Organic Waste Digestion Project Protocol. Any deviations from this guidance relate to the fact that the Climate Action Reserve’s protocol addresses some processes that are not applicable to the City (e.g., manure handling). 3-4 Specifically, the assessment boundary of the GHG model begins after the local collection of food scraps, yard trimmings, and biosolids. This is because these collection activities would be performed in the same manner under all the alternatives being analyzed (i.e., including curbside collection and hauling from local residences and businesses) and also occur, under existing conditions. Other activities within the assessment boundary include the following, where applicable: additional hauling of yard trimmings and food scraps after local collection in the City, dewatering of biosolids at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant, transport of biosolids to a dry or wet anaerobic digester (by truck or pump), operation of dry and/or wet anaerobic digesters, composting of organic material after digestion and/or without digestion, incineration of biosolids and associated ash disposal, hauling of compost to retailers, and hauling of contaminants and residuals to the appropriate landfill. The end of the assessment boundary includes the final consumption of any energy produced with the organic wastes, as well as any displacement of GHG-emitting, fossil fuel- based energy. The end of the assessment boundary also includes the distribution of compost products made from the organic wastes to local retailers, if applicable. Activities outside the assessment boundary of the GHG model include those drilling, refining, and distribution of fossil fuels (e.g., diesel and CNG used in truck hauling, natural gas used for incineration) and the manufacturing of haul trucks and capital equipment (e.g., pumps, digesters). The GHG model also does not include reductions in GHG emissions associated with the replacement of nitrogen-based fertilizers with compost produced from the City’s organic wastes. Worksheet 2 of the GHG model presents which particular GHG-emitting activities occur under each alternative. All GHG emission estimates were based on waste throughput levels projected for the year 2015 (i.e., 14,000 tpy of food scraps, 21,000 tpy of yard trimmings, and 27,000 tpy of biosolids). Generally, the emissions would adjust proportionally to changes in the waste throughput during subsequent years. The types of GHGs emitted by the aforementioned activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Emission levels were estimated for each of these activities using methodologies established by the California Air Resources Board, the California Climate Action Registry, the Climate Action Reserve, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and/or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The levels of GHGs associated with dry anaerobic digestion were based on information provided in the RFI responses. The level of GHGs associated with wet anaerobic digestion and incineration of biosolids were based on information provided by a recent study being performed for the City that evaluates options for handling biosolids from the RWQCP. The GHG model does not differentiate between biogenic and anthropogenic emissions. Emissions of CH4 and N2O were converted to units of carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2-e) according to their global warming potential. The CO2-e emissions from all activities under each alternative were tallied to allow for the direct comparison of the alternatives. 3-5 In addition, emissions associated with the construction of new facilities under each alternative (e.g., dry anaerobic digestion facility, wet anaerobic digestion facility) were estimated and then amortized over the projected operational life of the facility (i.e., 20 years). The emissions were also converted to CO2-e, as needed, and included in the tally for each alternative. The GHG model consists of a system of related worksheets. For transparency, the model indicates the units of every numerical value, the source of the value and/or the calculation used to compute the value. Generally, each individual worksheet in the GHG model represents one of the GHG-emitting activities that would occur under at least one of the alternatives. Each worksheet is numbered to allow for ease of navigation. Blue text on each worksheet indicates the next GHG-emitting activity that applies to each alternative, as well as the corresponding worksheet. The full GHG model is presented in Appendix D. 3.3 Economic Analysis 3.3.1 Overview The economic analysis was performed to estimate the costs that could be expected from the use of the technology applications described above for the management of food scraps, yard trimmings and biosolids, and to compare those costs to estimated costs for alternatives based on the export of food scraps and yard trimmings to existing or proposed facilities in San Jose and Gilroy. The analysis projected a first year tipping fee for the first year of facility operations (2015), tipping fees for each year thereafter for a 20-year operating period, total life-cycle costs and net present value (NPV) costs for the various alternatives and cases analyzed. In all cases, capital and operations and maintenance costs were estimated, then revenues anticipated from sale of products (e.g., electricity, recovered recycled materials and compost) were subtracted from the total costs to provide a net cost to the City for each option. For the dry AD cases, based upon the information provided by the RFI respondents, it became apparent that there were two cost groupings, a lower technology cost group and a higher technology cost group. Therefore, it was decided to model both groups of technologies, selecting a representative technology from each group. Further, high and low technology pricing was applied to several cases as described in Table 2-1. Those cases were analyzed for three scenarios, Scenario 1, Scenario 2, and Scenario 3, representing the impact of selected values for key assumptions, including those for ownership, financing, potential grant levels, rent, application of a “carbon cost adder” based on the City’s Climate Action Plan, and application of a contingency on the cost of export. The selected values for those assumptions resulted in variations in cost that were more favorable to anaerobic digestion in Scenario 1 and more favorable to export in Scenario 3. The individual scenarios are described in Section 3.3. In addition to information provided by the RFI respondents and the City, market-based information on factors such as financing approaches and values for products were applied. Individual cost and revenue factors would change over time, and depending on the factor, would be 3-6 affected by either inflation, increases in throughput, or both, as shown in the economic proformas in Appendix E. Preliminary analyses were prepared and reviewed with the City in January through March 2011. Following that review process, and with substantial public input and requests by City Council, the initial analyses were revised, resulting in the analyses presented in the draft feasibility report presented to the City in June 2011. Following a review of the draft feasibility report by the public and City Council at a meeting on June 27, 2011, and subsequent public review during the summer of 2011, a final feasibility report was prepared addressing those comments. The results are presented in this final feasibility report. 3.3.2 Alternatives and Scenarios Analyzed With the differentiation between higher cost technology and lower cost technology pricing levels established, the following alternatives and cases were defined: Alternative 1(In-City Options for Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings and Biosolids) Four cases were defined for Alternative 1, all including the development of AD facilities and, in one case, including biosolids incineration. Case 1a - - Food scraps, yard trimmings and biosolids would be processed by dry AD at a facility at the Palo Alto Landfill (PALF). The facility would have separate processing cells for food scraps/yard trimmings and biosolids. All AD gas produced would be processed at the PALF site. Case 1b - - Food scraps and yard trimmings would be processed by dry AD. Biosolids would be processed separately by wet AD. Both processes would be located at the PALF site. All AD gas produced would be processed at the PALF site. Case 1c - - Food scraps and yard trimmings would be processed by dry AD in a facility located at the PALF site. Biosolids would be processed in a wet AD facility located at the Palo Alto regional water quality control plant (RWQCP). All AD gas produced would be processed at the PALF site. Case 1d - - Food scraps and yard trimmings would be processed by dry AD in a facility at the PALF site. Biosolids would be incinerated at the existing RWQCP multiple hearth incinerator, with ash transported to and disposed of at the Kettleman Hills Landfill. Further, the existing incinerator would be replaced by a new fluidized bed incinerator in 2030. 3-7 Alternatives 2 and 2a (Export of Food Scraps and Yard Trimmings. Biosolids incinerated at the RWQCP or processed at a new, Wet Anaerobic Digestion Facility at the RWQCP) Two cases were defined. Food scraps would be transported to and processed at the planned new San Jose AD facility (“Zanker”). Yard trimmings would be transported to the SMaRT facility and, from there, transported to and processed at the Gilroy composting facility (“ZBest”). Biosolids would be managed differently, as follows: Case 2 - - Biosolids would be incinerated at the RWQCP, with ash transported to and disposed of at the Kettleman Hills Landfill. The existing incinerator would be replaced by a new fluidized bed incinerator in 2030. Case 2a - - Biosolids would be processed at a new wet AD facility located at the RWQCP. Alternatives 3 and 3a (Export of Food Scraps and Yard Trimmings. Biosolids incinerated at the RWQCP or processed at a new, Wet Anaerobic Digestion Facility at the RWQCP.) Two cases were defined. Food scraps would be transported to the San Jose transfer facility, then transported to and processed at the Gilroy composting facility (“ZBest”). Yard trimmings would be transported to SMaRT, then transported to and processed at the Gilroy composting facility (“ZBest”). Biosolids would be managed differently, as follows: Case 3 - - Biosolids would be incinerated at the RWQCP, with ash transported to and disposed of at the Kettleman Hills Landfill. The existing incinerator would be replaced by a new fluidized bed incinerator in 2030. Case 3a - - Biosolids would be processed at a new wet AD facility located at the RWQCP. The Alternatives were further categorized by defining three project scenarios, influenced by specific factors regarding ownership and financing, the cost of rent for the use of the site, the impact of the potential CO2 “carbon cost adder” as described in the City’s Climate Action Plan, and whether the export cases would include a contingency on assumed costs: Scenario 1 assumed - - public ownership and financing (with a below market I- Bank loan up to a capped amount of $10,000,000 combined with market rate tax- exempt financing for the balance); a 15% grant on construction costs; no rent charged for the use of the PALF site; costs for the CO2 “carbon adder” ($20 per ton of CO2 equivalent emissions in 2007) , and, a 15% contingency added to the assumed costs for export of food scraps and yard trimmings to out-of-City processing facilities. 3-8 Scenario 2 assumed - - private ownership and financing at market-set interest rates; a 15% grant on construction costs; PALF site rent set at $108,000/year; costs for the CO2 “carbon adder” ($20 per ton of CO2 equivalent emissions in 2007) and, a 15% contingency added to the assumed costs for export of food scraps and yard trimmings to out-of-City processing facilities. Scenario 3 assumed - - private ownership and financing at market-set interest rates; no grants for construction; PALF site rent set at $908,000/year; no CO2 “carbon adder” costs; and, no contingency added to the assumed costs for export of food scraps and yard trimmings to out-of-City processing facilities. 3.3.3 Assumptions and Inputs The principal inputs and assumptions discussed below were applied. Capital, construction and operating costs Through the RFI process, several technology contractors provided construction and operations costs estimates. While the costs can be considered reasonable estimates for comparative purposes, they should not be considered indicative of formally proposed prices that would result from a City-sponsored competitive procurement and should not be considered commitments on behalf of the companies. The cost estimates were provided in current dollars, then escalated to the assumed construction year, 2013. Costs for a wet AD facility and for the prospective fluidized bed incinerator that would be constructed in 2030 were developed by Carollo Engineers, Inc. as part of their effort for future planning for the RWQCP The construction cost estimates applied are included in Table 3-4. Annual operating costs include the costs for the annual operations and maintenance of the facility, including facility and equipment repair and replacement. The cost estimates were provided in 2010 dollars, and then escalated to the assumed first year of operation, 2015. Costs for items such as residuals transportation and disposal were separately calculated (see General Information, below). The operating costs applied are as provided by the RFI respondents or Carollo Engineers, as appropriate. The operation and maintenance cost estimates applied are included in Table 3-5. 3-9 Table 3-4. Construction Costs ($$ Millions) Case Facility Feedstock 2013 Cost (Higher Cost) 2013 Cost (Lower Cost) 1a Dry AD @ PALF Food scraps, yard trimmings, biosolids $108.6 $39.9 (1) 1b Dry AD @ PALF Food scraps, year trimmings $66.3 $28.4 Wet AD @ PALF Biosolids $40.3 $40.3 1c Dry AD @ PALF Food scraps, year trimmings $66.7 $28.3 Wet AD @ RWQCP Biosolids $39.4 $39.4 1d Dry AD @ PALF Food scraps, year trimmings $66.7 $26.6 1d, 2, 3 Multiple-Hearth Incinerator @ RWQCP Biosolids Existing/no additional cost Existing/no additional cost 1d, 2, 3 Fluidized Bed Incinerator @ RWQCP Biosolids $314.8 ($2030) $314.8 (2030) 2a, 3a Wet AD @ RWQCP Biosolids $39.4 $39.4 (1) Uncertainties remain regarding the construction cost provided for Case 1a due to limited data. Consequently a larger contingency (30%) was applied to the construction cost for Case 1a as compared to the other cases (15%). 3-10 Table 3-5. Operation & Maintenance Costs Case Facility 2015 Cost (Higher Cost) 2015 Cost (Lower Cost) 1a Dry AD @ PALF $8,140,307 $2,743,042 (1) 1b Dry AD @ PALF; Wet AD @ PALF $5,694,922 $4,288,598 1c Dry AD @ PALF; Wet AD @ RWQCP $5,683,124 $4,276,800 1d Dry AD @ PALF; incineration @ RWQCP $6,965,874 $5,237,005 2 Export to San Jose (food scraps), Gilroy (yard trimmings); biosolids incineration @ RWQCP (2) $5,795,634 $5,795,634 3 Export to Gilroy (food scraps, yard trimmings); biosolids incineration @ RWQCP (2) $5,505,615 $5,505,615 2a Export to San Jose (food scraps), Gilroy (yard trimmings); biosolids wet AD @ RWQCP (2) $6,369,577 $6,369,577 3a Export to Gilroy (food scraps, yard trimmings); biosolids wet AD @ RWQCP (2) $6,079,589 $6,079,589 (1) As with capital costs for this case, uncertainties remain regarding the operating costs provided, due to limited data. Consequently, a contingency of 15% was used for Case 1a as compared to 10% for the other cases. (2) Assuming 15% contingency on export costs. Capital costs also include the costs for financing. Both public and private ownership approaches were analyzed. For public ownership under Scenario 1, it was assumed that the facility would be financed through a combination of a below-market California I-Bank loan and tax-exempt revenue bonds. Because individual I-Bank loans are limited to $10 million per project, it was assumed that the balance of the financing required for each option would be tax-exempt revenue bond debt. A blended rate that reflects the combination of these two financing sources was applied, with the I-Bank loan priced at 3.50% and the remaining tax-exempt debt at 5.00%. For Scenario 1, it was also assumed that the City would be eligible for a grant equal to 15% of total facility construction costs. As is customary in revenue bond financings, the tax-exempt portion also included capitalized interest during the assumed two year construction period and a conservative 15% factor to account for financing costs and the establishment of a debt 3-11 service reserve fund (which would earn interest annually and be applied to pay debt service in the final year of debt amortization). For private ownership under Scenarios 2 and 3, it was assumed that the private developer would need to provide equity and/or grant funds, in effect as a “down payment” for a financing. Given current market conditions, the total “down payment” requirement was set at 30%. For Scenario 3, it was assumed that all of that amount would be funded through equity provided by the developer. For Scenario 2, it was assumed that the “down payment” would be a combination of equity (15%) and a construction grant (15%). This difference is important in that the developer would expect to earn a rate of return on its equity, which would represent a cost to the project. Thus, the lower the amount of equity required, the lower will be the annual cash needed for a return on that equity. Assuming improved conditions over time, a lower equity requirement might be achievable, which would reduce overall financing costs and tipping fees. It was assumed that tax-exempt private activity debt would be used, and that that would carry an interest rate of 5.25%. This represents a 0.25% premium over governmental purpose tax-exempt bonds to reflect the private ownership of the project. The owner’s equity was assumed to have a targeted return of 25% pre-tax (as modeled, the cash flow associated with equity includes both the return of the equity invested and the return - - profit - - on the equity invested). As with the public ownership cases, the private ownership approach assumed a two year capitalized interest period and a 15% factor for financing costs and a debt service reserve fund. For all cases, a 20-year debt amortization period with level annual “mortgage-style” debt service (principal and interest) was assumed. Actual financial market conditions and project structures at the time of a financing would affect aspects such as the debt/equity ratio, equity rate-of-return requirements, financing “soft costs,” interest rates and the term of the financing. 3.3.4 General Information General information required for the economic analysis included the following modeling assumptions: inflation rate, discount rate, cost basis year, operations starting year, study period and facility capacity/waste throughput assumptions. Inflation Rate: Inflation rates were used to escalate costs from 2010 dollars to future dollars. The Consumer Price Index-based inflation rates applied were based upon recent experience. For construction, the inflation rate applied was 3.90%, as derived from Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Indices data for the 1999-2010 period for San Francisco. For operations costs, the inflation rate applied was 2.40%. This rate was derived based upon US Department of Labor Statistics consumer price index data (US cities average) for the preceding 12 years. This rate was used to escalate O&M costs to the first year of operations (2015), then to escalation those costs each year throughout 3-12 the 20-year study period. The escalation of specific costs, the residue tipping fees at the Kirby Canyon landfill and the costs for the CO2 “carbon adder,” were escalated at 3.00%/year and 5.00%/year, respectively, as stipulated by the City based on contract and the City Climate Action Plan. Discount Rate: The discount rate is used to calculate net present value (NPV) costs. NPV can be a useful analytical tool for comparing alternatives, in that it presents the total costs of a project over the project's life span (in this case, over a 20-year study period) in current dollars. Because NPV is used to compare potential costs to the City for various alternatives, the discount rate for NPV calculation was set at the City’s cost of capital for tax-exempt revenue bonds (which was assumed to be 5.00%), rather than any potential contractor's cost of capital. Cost Basis Year: The cost basis year is 2010. All companies participating in the RFI process presented cost estimates in 2010 dollars. Operations Starting Year: The economic model is based on the assumption that waste acceptance and facility operations would begin in 2015, accounting for estimated times for procurement, permitting, design/construction, and startup activities. Study Period: The study period was assumed to be 20 years of waste processing and facility operations, as the term for a service contract between the City and a contractor. A term of 20 years is a common industry practice for these types of projects. Waste Throughputs: Three feedstocks were assumed, as follows, based upon Year 1 and Year 20 estimates provided by the City, reflecting projected increases in the generation of individual waste flows: Waste Year 1 TPY Annual Increase Year 20 TPY Food scraps 14,000 1.79% 19,000 Yard trimmings 21,000 0% 21,000 Biosolids 27,000 1.30% 34,000 Total 62,000 - - 74,000 Site Lease Costs: In response to the conclusions presented in the October 2010 Hulberg & Associates appraisal report on prospective alternative costs for the lease of the site, three site lease cost options were analyzed: Scenario 1, no costs ($1) for the use of the site; Scenario 2, site lease costs of $108,000/year; and Scenario 3, site lease costs of $908,000/year. Residue Costs: In all cases, whether as residuals from AD processing or ash from biosolids incineration, a certain amount of residual materials would result 3-13 that would require disposal via landfilling. For the modeling performed, the following residual disposal cost assumptions were applied: – It was assumed that the residuals produced from AD processing would be disposed of at the Kirby Canyon Landfill, at a cost that would include transportation, tipping fee and the landfill tax. The Year 1 costs applied were: transportation ($11/ton), tipping fee ($41/ton), landfill tax ($20.57/ton). – It was assumed that incinerator ash would be disposed of at Kettleman Hills Landfill, at a cost of $226,003 (Year 1). Electricity: All of the scenarios and alternatives analyzed assume that the energy product of the facilities would be electricity. Table 3-6 summarizes estimated electricity production (kWh/year) and average electricity production (kWh/ton of materials received for processing). Differences in electricity production are inherent in different technologies. In all cases, the electricity produced was assumed to be renewable power that would be sold at renewable energy pricing levels. The price estimate (assuming a levelized price) estimated by the City for the power (including both energy and capacity components) was $14.264/MWh or $0.14264/kWh. Since initial analysis did not show an appreciable difference in the costs to a project between electricity and gas sales, the final analyses did not assess the potential to produce and sell biogas, but focused on electricity sales. Other Products: In addition to electric power, the other products generated included compost from AD processing of food scraps and yard trimmings, and from biosolids. The compost produced from food scraps and yard trimming was assumed to have a sale value of $30/ton. The compost produced from biosolids was assumed to have no sale value, and therefore, no revenue to a project. Cases 2, 2a, 3 and 3a The input data regarding the export components of these cases, the current incineration costs and the costs for a new fluidized bed biosolids incinerator, as assumed for Cases 2 and 3, were provided by the City. (Note that for Cases 2a and 3a, the added cost for a stand alone power generation facility must be accounted for with the wet AD facility, since the opportunity to use the power generation system for the dry AD system, as was included in Case 1c, was not available, In Case 1c, gas from the wet AD system was combined with that from the dry AD system in a single power generation system. For planning level analysis purposes for Cases 2a and 3a, it was assumed that the resulting added costs for the stand alone power generation system were offset by the anticipated electric revenues from that system. For economic modeling, the wet AD costs for Cases 2a and 3a were assumed to be the same as those applied to Case 1c, with the wet AD facility located at the RWQCP, and no electricity revenues were assumed for wet AD for Cases 2a and 3a. Therefore, added costs for the stand alone power generation system and associated electric revenues were not shown in the proformas for Cases 2a and 3a.) The costs for export options are shown in Table 3-7. 3-14 Table 3-6. Renewable Electric Power Generation (Alternative 1 Cases) Case Generation (kWh/Year) Generation (kWh/Ton) Higher Cost Cases 1a 16,021,455 (1) 258 1b 8,412,083 401 1c 8,412,083 401 1d 8,412,083 401 Lower Cost Cases 1a 10,138,590 164 1b 11,989,155 193 1c 11,989,155 193 1d 6,188,490 177 (1) It appears that the respondent misinterpreted the data provided in the RFI, in effect doubling the amount of food scraps and yard trimmings available, resulting in this particularly high power generation estimate. 3-15 Table 3-7. Inputs for Export Cases Alternative 2 Food scraps transportation to San Jose AD facility, 2010 ($/ton) $2.60 Food scraps processing at San Jose AD facility, 2010 ($/ton) $85.00 Yard trimmings transportation to SMaRT, 2010 ($/ton) $2.00 Yard trimmings transport to and processing at Gilroy composting facility, 2010 ($/ton) $26.00 Biosolids incineration (multiple hearth incinerator), 2010 ($/year) $2,159,440 Biosolids incineration (fluidized bed incinerator), 2030 (construction cost) $314,784,895 Biosolids incineration (fluidized bed incinerator), 2031 (operations cost, $/year) $4,465,406 Alternative 3 Food scraps transportation to San Jose AD transfer facility, 2010 ($/ton) $2.60 Food scraps transport to and process at Gilroy composting facility, 2010 ($2010) $70.00 Yard trimmings transportation to SMaRT, 2010 ($/ton) $2.00 Yard trimmings transport to and processing at Gilroy composting facility, 2010 ($/ton) $26.00 Biosolids incineration (fluidized bed incinerator), 2030 (construction cost) $314,784,895 Biosolids incineration (fluidized bed incinerator), 2031 (operations cost, $/year) $4,465,406 Cases 2a & 3a Biosolids wet AD at RWQCP 2013 construction year, food scraps and yard trimmings same as Alternatives 2 and 3 above $39,349,806 Biosolids wet AD at RWQCP operations cost, 2015 ($/year), food scraps and yard trimmings same as Alternatives 2 and 3 above $1,678,134 4-1 4.0 RESULTS OF STUDY 4.1 Greenhouse Gas Analysis The total CO2-e emissions generated under each alternative is summarized in Table 4-1 and on worksheet 1 (Bottom Line) of the GHG model. This text summarizes the annual mass of CO2-e emissions associated with the handling of all three waste types – food scraps, yard trimmings, and wastewater biosolids – under each alternative. As shown in Table 4-1, and worksheet 1, the total CO2-e emissions are lowest under Alternative 1a, followed by Alternatives 1c and 1b, respectively. Generally, the more organic waste that is subject to anaerobic digestion, the lower the total CO2-e level. The model also indicates that the incineration of biosolids (under Alternatives 1d, 2, and 3) generates a higher level of CO2-e emissions relative to other activities included in the model. This is largely due to the fact that the incineration of biosolids is energy-intensive, consuming high levels of natural gas, and because no methane is recovered and then used to produce renewable electricity. Detailed emission estimates for biosolids incineration are shown on worksheet 17 of the model. For those alternatives that include dry and/or wet anaerobic digestion, the recovered biogas can be used in two beneficial ways. Biogas can be combusted to power a turbine that produces electricity. Electricity produced from biogas would be considered renewable and would displace the consumption of equal amounts of fossil fuel-based electricity from conventional sources, thereby resulting in a GHG reduction. Biogas can also be upgraded to pipeline-quality natural gas and used in place of conventional fossil-fuel based natural gas; however, the combustion of natural gas made from biogas would result in equal levels of GHG emissions as the consumption of fossil-fuel derived natural gas and, thus, no reduction would be achieved. This is indicated in worksheet 1 which shows that the net level of GHG emissions is lower when biogas is used to produce electricity for those alternatives that include some form of anaerobic digestion with biogas recovery. Detailed calculations for energy production are shown on worksheet 16. It should be noted that there were no revisions to the results of the greenhouse gas analysis from the draft to final feasibility reports. 4-2 Table 4-1. GHG Model Results (With Electricity Production) Alternative 1: In-City Options at Landfill Site MT CO2-e/Year Case 1a (All Dry AD – Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Biosolids) 13,831 Case 1b (Dry AD – Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings; Wet AD Biosolids at Landfill) 14,234 Case 1c (Dry AD – Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings; Wet AD Biosolids at RWQCP) 14,207 Case 1d (Dry AD – Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings; Continue Incinerate Biosolids) 21,106 Alternative 2: Export MT CO2-e/Year Alternative 2 (Export Food Scraps to San Jose, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Continue Incinerate Biosolids) 23,329 Alternative 2a (Export Food Scraps to San Jose, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Wet AD Biosolids at RWQCP) 16,430 Alternative 3: Export MT CO2-e/Year Alternative 3 (Export Food Scraps and Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Continue Incinerate Biosolids) 22,716 Alternative 3a (Export Food Scraps and Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Wet AD Biosolids at RWQCP) 15,818 4-3 4.2 Economic Analysis The economic analyses performed resulted in six sets of model runs, including three Scenarios, 28 individual AD cases, and four export cases, a total of 48 model runs. The results are summarized in Table 4-2. In summary, the results are as follows: 1. As described below, and primarily for Scenarios 1 and 2, several of the lower cost AD cases are, at the planning level, competitive with export options. Because of the limited information available, an application of a 30% contingency factor on construction costs was assumed for Case 1a (as compared to 15% for Cases 1b, 1c and 1d) for dry AD and a 15% contingency factor was assumed for Case 1a for operations and maintenance (as compared to 10% for Cases 1b, 1c and 1d) for dry AD. Case 1a is defined as food scraps, yard trimmings and biosolids processed by dry AD at a facility at the Palo Alto Landfill, with separate processing cells for food scraps/yard trimmings and biosolids. For Scenario 1, several of the lower cost AD technology cases are less costly than or competitive with export options. Cases 1a (all materials processed via dry AD at the PALF), 1b (food scraps and yard trimmings processed by dry AD at the PALF and biosolids processed by wet AD at the PALF) and 1c (food scraps and yard trimmings processed by dry AD at the PALF and biosolids processed by wet AD at the RWQCP) are less costly than the export Cases 2 and 3 that include the continued incineration of biosolids with a new fluidized bed incinerator constructed in 2030. Case 1a (all materials processed via dry AD at the PALF) is less costly than export Cases 2a and 3a that include biosolids processing via wet AD at the RWQCP. Cases 1b and 1c are somewhat more expensive than export Cases 2a and 3a, but within a competitive range for a planning level analysis. For Scenario 2, all cases except for 1d (that includes food scraps and yard trimmings processed by dry AD at the PALF and continued incineration of biosolids, with a new fluidized bed incinerator constructed in 2030) are less costly than export Cases 2 and 3, and Case 1d is competitive with export Cases 2 and 3; only Case 1a is less costly than export Cases 2a and 3a. Cases 1b-1d are more costly than Cases 2a and 3a. For Scenario 3, Case 1a is less costly than export Cases 2 and 3, but somewhat more expensive than export Cases 2a and 3a, but competitive for a planning level analysis. 2. For Scenarios 1, 2 and 3, for all cases, the higher cost AD technologies present costs which are significantly more expensive than either the lower cost AD technologies or the export cases. 3. The option of continued incineration at the RWQCP using the existing multiple hearth incinerator, then replacing that with a new fluidized bed incinerator in 2030, is a more costly solution than dry or wet anaerobic digestion for treatment of biosolids. Table 4-2. Summary of Economic Analyses 4-4 Base Cases Alternative 1 (at Palo Alto Landfill) Year 1 (2015) Tipping Fee ($/ton) Year 20 (2034) Tipping Fee ($/ton) NPV Total Costs Over 20 Years Year 1 (2015) Tipping Fee ($/ton) Year 20 (2034) Tipping Fee ($/ton) NPV Total Costs Over 20 Years Year 1 (2015) Tipping Fee ($/ton) Year 20 (2034) Tipping Fee ($/ton) NPV Total Costs Over 20 Years Low-Cost Range Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Case 1a: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings & Biosolids Dry AD in separate cells @ Palo Alto Landfill (PALF)2 $70 $34 59,861,995 $87 $53 $73,349,155 $120 $73 $96,226,397 Case 1b: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD, Biosolids Wet AD – all @ PALF $130 $71 $112,541,470 $157 $102 $133,646,188 $209 $138 $170,950,938 Case 1c: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF, Biosolids Wet AD @ RWQCP $129 $71 $111,359,855 $156 $101 $132,185,841 $207 $137 $169,007,164 Case 1d: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF, Biosolids Incinerated @ RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator on line in 2031 $101 $441 $137,096,645 $113 $454 $147,010,013 $129 $459 $154,505,010 High-Cost Range Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Case 1a: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings & Biosolids Dry AD in separate cells @ PALF $239 $137 $202,489,030 $283 $185 $236,505,592 $361 $245 $294,370,715 Case 1b: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD, Biosolids Wet AD – all @ PALF $213 $109 $179,744,473 $254 $156 $211,656,529 $331 $214 $268,294,477 Case 1c: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF, Biosolids Wet AD @ RWQCP $212 $109 $178,943,797 $253 $156 $210,683,346 $329 $213 $267,027,894 Case 1d: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF, Biosolids Incinerated @ RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator on line in 2031 $177 $472 $199,061,822 $206 $502 $221,571,397 $248 $530 $249,502,488 2 Uncertainty remains regarding Case 1a costs, as limited data was available. Consequently, a higher contingency was applied to construction and operating costs for this case. Table 4-2. Summary of Economic Analyses (continued) 4-5 Base Cases Alternatives 2 & 3 (Export) Year 1 (2015) Tipping Fee ($/ton) Year 20 (2034) Tipping Fee ($/ton) NPV Total Costs Over 20 Years Year 1 (2015) Tipping Fee ($/ton) Year 20 (2034) Tipping Fee ($/ton) NPV Total Costs Over 20 Years Year 1 (2015) Tipping Fee ($/ton) Year 20 (2034) Tipping Fee ($/ton) NPV Total Costs Over 20 Years Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Case 2: Food Scraps to San Jose AD Facility, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy Composting Facility (via SMaRT), Biosolids Incinerated at RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator on line in 2031 $93 $486 $139,527,960 $93 $486 $139,527,960 $72 $455 $116,714,351 Case 3: Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer, Yard Trimmings to SMaRT – then both to Gilroy Composting Facility, Biosolids incinerated at RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator on line in 2031 $89 $477 $134,349,833 $89 $477 $134,349,833 $68 $448 $112,511,650 Alternatives 2a & 3a (Export) Year 1 (2015) Tipping Fee ($/ton) Year 20 (2034) Tipping Fee ($/ton) NPV Total Costs Over 20 Years Year 1 (2015) Tipping Fee ($/ton) Year 20 (2034) Tipping Fee ($/ton) NPV Total Costs Over 20 Years Year 1 (2015) Tipping Fee ($/ton) Year 20 (2034) Tipping Fee ($/ton) NPV Total Costs Over 20 Years Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Case 2a: Food Scraps to San Jose AD Facility, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy Composting Facility (via SMaRT), Biosolids processed by Wet AD at RWQCP $103 $129 $94,316,201 $105 $131 $96,182,258 $92 $107 $81,747,002 Case 3a: Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer, Yard Trimmings to SMaRT – then both to Gilroy Composting Facility, Biosolids processed by Wet AD at RWQCP $98 $121 $89,448,650 $100 $123 $91,314,706 $89 $100 $77,544,302 4-6 4. All cases are sensitive to financing assumptions. Today, with the exception of internal private financing, private financing and ownership, even when grant funds are assumed, is likely a more costly approach for project development. However, private financing and ownership also presents the least risk to the City; i.e., the City is not responsible for debt service payments. In the context of a formal competitive procurement, it is possible that prevailing market conditions at the time of the procurement would result in more favorable private financing results. 5. All cases are sensitive to site rent payment assumptions. For example, while the Scenario 2 cases assumed a site rent of $108,000/year, which added about $1.75/ton to the cost for Scenario 2 cases, the Scenario 3 cases assumed a site rent of $908,000/year, which added nearly $15/ton to the cost for Scenario 3 cases. It can be concluded for Scenario 1 that the economic analysis indicates a sufficiently favorable comparison of several of the lower cost AD technology cases (Cases 1a, 1b, and 1c) to the export cases to support securing firm pricing proposals for both AD options and export options; thereby, allowing a more definitive comparison of alternatives. For Scenario 2, Case 1a provides a similar competitive comparison to export options It should be noted that public and City Council comments received at the June 27, 2011 City Council Meeting and subsequent public comments received over the summer of 2011 did not result in any significant changes to the econmic results as presented at the June 27th meeting. The only changes were to account for a corrected rent payment (from $103,000. per year to $108,000. per year) for the Scenario 2 cases. This increased the present value costs in Scenario 2, Cases 1a-1d, by $62,311 for each casel, less than 0.1%, which does not change the results described above. 4-7 4.3 Discussion of Project Delivery Options, Financing Options, Grants and Other Funding Opportunities 4.3.1 Project Delivery Options Project delivery methods, their advantages and disadvantages, and recommendations regarding AD technology projects are presented below. 4.3.1.1 Methods of Project Delivery There are many project delivery methods available for developing an AD facility. These methods involve different approaches for ownership, financing, design, construction and operation of the facility. The traditional approach for project development for public works infrastructure has been the “public model” with public ownership, public financing, the “design-bid-build” (DBB) approach for design, bidding and construction activities, and public operation. In the past 20 years, increased interest has grown in alternatives to this traditional public model, particularly for projects that are costly, utilizing new technology that may not have a long “track record”, or technology that is licensed and only available through alternative project delivery options. Such interest has resulted due to the potential opportunities for private financing, lower cost, shorter design and construction schedules, and the ability to shift design, construction and performance risk, where appropriate, from a public entity to a private company. This potential to shift risk for financing and technical and economic performance is particularly attractive for development of AD technologies, which at this time, while operating commercially outside the United States, are only now being constructed or considered for commercialization in the United States. In addition, recent Federal funding options including grants, loans or loan guarantees may only be available to private companies. Public Model With traditional design-bid-build, the public entity contracts with an engineer to design the project, prepare bid specifications and, typically, oversee construction, and with a separate contractor(s) to construct the project. The public entity is responsible for directing the separate contractors and assuring overall project coordination. Operation can be either public or private. The most utilized alternative project delivery methods for public infrastructure (with the public model) include design-build (DB), design-build-operate (DBO) and design- build-own-operate-transfer (DBOOT). DB and DBO methods allow public ownership and financing for the facility, but the approach for designing and constructing the facility changes from the traditional “design-bid-build” approach to design-build or design-build-operate. With DB and DBO, the responsibility for designing, bidding and constructing the facility is vested in a single entity, responsible to its public client for overall system performance. With DB, operation of the facility can be public or put out under separate contract to a private entity. With DBO, operation of the facility is the responsibility of the private DBO company. With both DB and DBO, 4-8 financing and ownership are by the public client. With the DBOOT approach, a private entity assumes project development risk and provides private financing along with design, construction and operation of the facility. Initially, the private entity owns the facility. At the end of a specified term, ownership of the facility would be transferred to the public entity and the public entity would be responsible for continued operation of the facility, either by public employees or through a private operating contract. Private Model The private model is another alternative to traditional DBB. With the private model, a private entity is responsible for project development, financing, designing, constructing and operating the facility. The private entity owns the facility and provides a service to the public; i.e., receives and processes municipal solid waste for a fee. Unlike the DBOOT approach, ownership is not transferred to the public entity at some agreed to time. 4.3.1.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Project Delivery Methods Design-Bid-Build Method The key advantages of using the DBB method include its acceptance by public officials, its wide use, and the opportunity for control it provides the public entity in directing design; i.e., making design decisions, approving the design, and establishing equipment and facility specifications. Public officials are familiar and experienced with its procedures, from procurement of the design engineer through project design, bidding and construction; have practices and documents in place to facilitate future use of this delivery method; are knowledgeable of the companies that provide the services needed; and are generally comfortable in its application. Also, many public entities feel strongly that their communities are better served by their having the ability to control design to the extent allowed by this delivery method. Disadvantages of DBB include the potential for: higher overall project cost due to the requirement to bid to a prescribed design (i.e., little latitude by contractors to select and implement alternative designs that may also do the job at less cost and/or improve facility performance); a longer project completion schedule, and the inefficiencies in communication and job completion with separate responsibility for design and construction; reduced work quality due to the requirements during bidding to accept the “low bid” for construction; increased cost risk since there is no guarantee by a single party of a fixed price for design and construction; the potential for an increase in the number of change orders, claims, or disputes since there is no single party accepting the risk for both design and construction; and longer project design and construction schedules since construction cannot commence until design is 100% complete and bidding completed; and increased public exposure to risk associated with non-performance (i.e., there is no single point of guarantee for facility price, the schedule for completion and facility performance). Again, this higher risk posture results primarily because there is no single point of company responsibility for design and construction as there are separate contracts for design 4-9 and construction between the public entity and the responsible companies. If something doesn’t work properly regarding price, schedule, or performance, the potential exists for the designer to point to the construction contractor for poor performance and for the construction contractor to point to poor design. Resulting disputes must be resolved by the public entity and ultimately may lead to the public entity paying to “fix” the problem, and dispute resolution procedures may cause schedule delays. The public entity will be responsible for long-term facility performance during operations, unless a private operating contract is let. In such a case, however, since it would not have participated in design or construction, the private operator may not be willing to accept operating performance risk to the extent desired by the public entity, or it may do so, but at a higher cost than might be possible with DBO or DBOOT. It should be noted that both the advantages and disadvantages cited above have been noted by those that practice in this field. As a result, variations to DBB have developed. They include Construction Manager at Risk, in which the Construction Manager assumes responsibility for subcontractors during construction; and Design/Construction Manager at Risk in which the public entity retains a single party for design and to manage construction. Neither of these methods, however, reaches the level of private contractor responsibility inherent in DB, DBO, or DBOOT methods of project delivery discussed below. Design-Build, Design-Build-Operate, and Design-Build-Own Operate-Transfer Methods The key advantages of using the DB, DBO or DBOOT method include the following: they provide for integration of design and construction and, in the case of DBO and DBOOT, operation activities, which facilitates communication, efficiency of performance and reduces the potential for oversights; they use a performance- based specification in procurement which allows consideration of alternative designs, which can result in lower project cost for equivalent performance; they provide the ability to select a contractor based on criteria other than just low cost (for example the qualifications or risk sharing profiles offered by individual proposers), which reduces the potential for reduction in project quality; they offer the potential for lower overall project cost due to flexibility in design, a shorter design and construction schedule and more efficient completion of work resulting from one point of management for integrated services and more efficient communication; they reduce the number of potential change orders, claims, and disputes since there is one party responsibility for design and construction; they allow a shorter overall schedule for design, and a guaranteed price and schedule for design and construction, and for DBO and DBOOT, for operations; and they provide a guarantee for project performance. In addition to DB and DBO advantages, DBOOT also provides for private financing and ownership of the facility, and the shifting of the risks inherent in both to the private owner. DBOOT also provides for the sale of the facility to the public client at an agreed to date. DB, DBO, and DBOOT project delivery allow contracting with companies that have a substantial management, financial and technical resource base, both nationally and internationally. Such expertise can be helpful in research, planning, trouble-shooting, training, regulatory 4-10 review and optimization, particularly for AD technologies only now being introduced commercially in the United States. In the case of DBO and DBOOT, private operations also allows for a long-term (typically up to 20 years, and in some cases longer) performance guarantee and substantial operations cost and performance risk being passed on to the private operator, including maintenance, repair and replacement, staffing, staff training, staff licensing and certification, labor negotiations, compliance with performance specifications, meeting environmental permit and safety requirements, and, with the general exception of unforeseen circumstances, such as acts of God or changes in law, price risk. Typically, in a private operations contract, the private operator is paid a fixed annual service fee (or fixed unit price, such as $/ton) with adjustment allowed for inflation. This feature of private operations provides the benefit of predictable future costs specified by contract, which assists community financial planning and budgeting. With DBOOT, the service fee is also typically subject to escalation by an inflation index. Other benefits of DBO and DBOOT project delivery include less need for day-to-day public management of operations, allowing the public entity to focus its efforts on long range planning and implementing those projects necessary for meeting public needs. Financial benefits of DBO and DBOOT include the private entity’s bearing of the cost and risk associated with some or all of the up-front project development activities, such as permitting. DBOOT provides for private financing of the facility. Either DB or DBO project delivery may also provide the option for private financing (with initial private ownership) of the design and construction of the facility or improvements thereto, with permanent “take out” financing by the public client (and transfer of ownership to the public sector) upon completion and acceptance of the facility or improvements and, with DBO, private financing of capital improvements to the operating facility over time. Disadvantages of DB, DBO and DBOOT include: diminished control over approval of detailed design decisions since the project is based on performance based procurement specifications (although design review can be conducted by the public entity with DB, DBO or DBOOT project delivery); and if there is not public oversight, the potential for diminished quality in work during design and construction of the facility. For DBO and DBOOT, disadvantages also include: without public oversight, the potential for inadequate maintenance and upkeep of facilities during operation; the potential for a reduction in the level of service, if the operation’s contractor is not adequately monitored; the lack of flexibility in providing service with public employees when and where one wants to do so to meet a public need; the potential for reduced competition for designing and constructing future capital improvements to the facility, as others may perceive that the operator has a competitive edge in bidding such work; and in some instances, resistance by the public and organized labor to private operations of public infrastructure. This resistance to private 4-11 operations by the public and organized labor can lead to difficult decision making by elected officials. Those practicing DB, DBO and DBOOT project delivery (both public entities and the private DB, DBO and DBOOT companies) have developed means to mitigate the disadvantages cited above. Those means include: developing a strong, protective contract which includes provisions for liquidated damages for nonperformance and contract termination for provisions that include the right to termination for default and can include the right to termination for convenience; provision of substantial financial security by the company to ensure compliance with contract standards; providing for rigorous public and independent engineering and financial oversight of contractor services to ensure that performance standards are met over the full term of the contract; conducting regular and unannounced facility inspections; insisting on regular reporting (monthly, quarterly and annually) and daily communication; and if there is a transition from public to private operation, providing offers of employment to public employees at wages and benefits equivalent to those they enjoyed while public employees. Suitable contracts and procedures have been developed and are readily available for consideration and use by those public entities that select DB, DBO and DBOOT project delivery. With DB there may be some companies that are unwilling to provide their license to use the technology to a public operator. That might also be the case with DBO and DBOOT, if the public entity is to become the public operator, after an initial term of private operation. Discussions with technology providers would be necessary to determine which providers would make use of their technology subject to private operation. In addition, with DB and DBO with public ownership, use of Federal funding assistance with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and through Department of Energy (DOE) is not possible. Private Model Delivery Method The key advantages of the private model are full risk assumption by the private company for the project’s success, including the technical, environmental, performance and cost risk of project development, financing (and assumption of debt payment responsibility), design and construction and operation, and all necessary activities to provide service. The private model presents the least number of obstacles for rights for use of a particular technology, as the private company has licensing rights which may only be available through private ownership. As noted earlier, the private model also offers the opportunity to seek Federal funding assistance through ARRA and DOE. The disadvantages include the loss of public ownership and control of key municipal infrastructure, and likely higher costs for service. Generally, the cost of capital for private financing, including the cost of equity participation, is higher than that which could be expected under public financing and ownership (which then would increase overall project costs). Moreover, other options (such as DBO and DBOOT) can offer a similar level of design, construction, schedule, performance and cost risk protection to the public sector. A major difference is that with the private model, the 4-12 public entity is not obligated to make debt service payments, but must agree to a service contract for purchase of services. 4.3.1.3 Project Delivery for Anaerobic Digestion Technology Based on the consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of the project delivery methods presented above and the current status of AD technology development in the U.S., it is recommended that either the Private Model or the DBOOT project delivery method be considered for use for financing, design, construction and operation of an anaerobic digestion technology facility. These are the most advantageous means to provide for development of an AD technology facility as they place financing, design, build and operational responsibility on the private company as well as the responsibilities of ownership. If desired, DBOOT provides a means for public purchase of the conversion technology facility. These are the least risky approaches for the public entity. They provide the protection of guaranteed long-term operating performance at the least technical, environmental and financial risk to the public entity. It also reflects the fact that the public entity does not currently operate AD technology or similar facilities. To put on and train staff to operate and maintain a complex waste management facility, such as an AD facility, may not be an easy undertaking, nor would it be advantageous, at least initially, to accept the risk of facility performance during operations under these circumstances. In addition, the licenses for many AD technologies are held by private companies and use of such technology may only be available through private or DBOOT delivery. Lastly, certain funding opportunities such as under the ARRA and DOE are available only to privately-owned projects. Should the City want to consider a public ownership option, with public financing, as a means to reduce project financing costs, it is recommended that a DBO project delivery approach be considered. Although the City will assume debt payment risk with public ownership, a DBO project delivery will provide the benefits of the Private Model or DBOOT model regarding private assumption of design, construction and operational responsibility and risk. 4.3.2 Financing Options, Grants and Other Funding Opportunities 4.3.2.1 Public and Private Financing Options The two fundamental means of financing an AD project are public financing and ownership and private financing and ownership. Public Financing and Ownership Under public financing and ownership, a public agency such as the City would finance the project and own the project as a public asset. The project could be revenue-based and financed with revenue bonds, resulting in an “off balance sheet” transaction to the public sector. Public financing would usually result in the lowest 4-13 cost of capital, since upwards to 100% of project costs could be financed with tax- exempt debt. Publicly-owned projects might also be eligible for State and/or Federal supports such as grants or loan guarantees. Public ownership enables the greatest public sector control over technology, design and construction standards and requirements. Public ownership that follows an implementation approach such as DB or DBO can include strong cost and performance guarantees from the contractor. Revenue sharing arrangements can be structured into an approach such as DBO with public ownership. The structure can provide for public sector step-in or contractor replacement rights in the event of contractor breach or default. No purchase option is required to assure permanent public sector ownership. However, public ownership creates a greater exposure to the public sector to ownership (debt payment responsibility) and operations performance and cost risks than does private ownership. Private Ownership and Financing As with public ownership and financing, private ownership and financing would be “off balance sheet” to the public entity and could include strong contractor cost and performance guarantees. It could also include an option for the public sector to purchase the project, as well as revenue sharing arrangements. As with public- ownership, privately owned projects may be eligible for State and/or Federal support such as grants or loan guarantees. Most importantly, the private owner would bear the risks of ownership. The public sector would be protected against the financial consequences of the worst case scenario, the financial or technical failure of the project. For example, many publicly- sponsored projects that are based on private financing and ownership now require the private ownership to post security that will guarantee the demolition and removal of a facility in the event of a default that leads to contract termination. However, a private owner may resist extensive public sector control over technology, design and construction elements. Most importantly, private financing typically results in a higher cost of capital than does public financing. Although a private financing can include tax-exempt debt, that debt would carry a somewhat higher interest rate than would customary tax- exempt municipal revenue bonds. Moreover, the debt providers (lenders) in private financings usually require an equity investment (a “down payment”) on the part of the private owner (see the financing discussion in Section 3.3, above). Equity is considered higher-risk capital than is debt and, as such, is significantly more expensive. For example, while in today’s financial climate long-term tax-exempt bonds may carry interest rates in the 5.00% to 5.25% range, equity will carry a rate- of-return requirement (analogous to an interest rate) in the range of 15% to 25%. This requirement becomes even more onerous because, in today’s climate, lenders 4-14 might require an equity “down payment” of up to 30%. Thus, even though the debt interest rate may be attractive, a substantial portion of the overall private financing structure might need to consist of expensive equity. An alternative to this type of equity financing is for a private company to fund the project from internal funds or from an existing banking relationship. This can reduce or eliminate the high cost of equity financing. 4.3.2.2 Grants and Other Funding Opportunities Given State and Federal policies and incentives, particularly for the development of renewable energy sources, there may be opportunities to off-set a project’s costs through mechanisms such as grants and low-interest loans. Also, by requiring California utilities to increase their “renewable portfolio standard” (the percentage of electric power generated by renewable energy sources) to 33% by 2020, and to provide above-market pricing for the purchase of such power, the recently enacted California Renewable Energy Resources Act provides a significant economic support for renewable energy facilities such as the conversion technology facilities considered in this study. In California, potential pertinent funding sources include the California Energy Commission (CEC), which provides grants to renewable energy projects (primarily to private parties) and the Infrastructure State Revolving Loan Program (I-Bank), which provides below-market low interest loans to public entities. Favorable pricing for renewable energy under the California Renewable Energy Resources Act acts as a financial support to renewable energy facilities. Another financing avenue is the use of tax-exempt private activity bonds, which enable private borrowers (such as CT facility developers) to borrow money at tax-exempt rates, avoiding higher cost commercial financing, for projects. In California, private activity bonds are issued by the California Pollution Control Financing Authority, California Statewide Communities Development Authority and California Industrial Development Financing Advisory Commission. At the Federal levels, one of the most accessible programs is the loan guarantee program of the US Department of Energy, which provides guarantees on loans to privately developed and owned renewable energy projects. Other Federal agencies that provide financing support include the Department of Commerce/Economic Development Administration (which provides loans and grants to projects in economically-depressed areas) and the Department of Agriculture (which provides grants and loan guarantees to renewable energy projects which do not necessarily need to be located in agricultural areas). As an example of the grant potential, a project in California of a similar nature has this year received a State grant on the order of 20% of the construction cost of a facility. Also, Federal grants up to 30% have been awarded, and in one case up to 50% by U.S. DOE in a matching grant. In addition, as discussed above, the recently enacted California Renewable Energy Resources Act provides a significant economic support for renewable energy facilities such as the AD facilities considered in this study. 4-15 Potential funding sources will warrant consideration as a project is being structured. However, the type of project-specific technical and financial information that is needed to support such consideration is not available at this time. Also, many sources rely on annual State or Federal budgeting, and given current uncertainties regarding both State and Federal budgeting, it is difficult to definitively assess whether such funding will be available at the time (2013) that any of the facilities contemplated by this study would be nearing financing. The in-depth investigation of potential funding sources will become appropriate as a project becomes better defined, and the technology, performance and financial aspects of a project can be matched with the funding opportunities available at that time. For example, the CEC’s priorities for 2011, according to its 2011-2012 investment plan, are transportation and vehicular programs. Whether other energy priorities would be included in plans for later years, and what the funding levels might be, are unknown. Given such uncertainties, for the analyses performed, two potential funding support mechanisms were modeled: public financing (Scenario 1) that would include a low- interest loan I-Bank loan (which is not directly dependent on State budgeting) as a part of the financing structure, and a 15% grant for the public ownership case (Scenario 1) and for one private-ownership case (Scenario 2). Scenario 3 assumed private financing at market rates without the benefit of a grant. Any State or Federal support mechanism would improve the economics of a project and, depending upon the availability and value of any one mechanism, may influence the project delivery approach adopted. 5-1 5.0 NEXT STEPS Should the site at Byxbee Park become available, and the City determine based on the results of this feasibility study that it will further consider anaerobic digestion or another technology for food scraps and yard trimmings, with or without anaerobic digestion or some other solution for biosolids at the site or at the RWQCP, it is recommended that the next steps include completing the CEQA checklist and then obtaining firm technical and cost proposals from private companies for the desired facility and services. As part of this effort, firm technical and cost proposals should also be obtained from companies that would offer an export option. Obtaining Proposals for in-City and export options will entail definition by the City of the facility concept and/or services, identification of performance specifications, consideration of facility ownership and financing options, as appropriate, and definition of desired business terms and contract principles, all to be made part of a Request for Proposals (RFP). The issuance of an RFP does not obligate the City to pursue a project. Resulting Proposals will provide firm technical and cost information necessary for further comparison of in-City and export options and project consideration. APPENDICES Appendix A: Request for Information Appendix B: Description of Companies, Technologies Responding to RFI Appendix C: Site Drawing; Site Preparation Requirements and Cost Estimates Appendix D: GHG Model Appendix E: Economic Model City of Palo Alto (ID # 1632) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 6/27/2011 June 27, 2011 Page 1 of 6 (ID # 1632) Summary Title: Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal Title: Transmittal of Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study to Council and Opportunity for Council Direction on Completing Final Feasibility Study From:City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council review the attached Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study and direct staff to submit a Final Feasibility Study in early October 2011 as planned. Executive Summary The City’s consultant, Alternative Resources, Inc. (ARI), has prepared a Draft Feasibility Study for a possible Energy/Compost Facility, as directed by Council in staff report #1550 (Attachment A). The attached Draft Feasibility Study (Attachment B) addresses many, but not all, of the public and Council comments received on the Preliminary Analysis prepared by ARI. Staff recommends that Council review the Draft Study and direct staff to submit the Final Feasibility to Council in early October 2011. Should the voters approve the November 2011 Ballot Initiative and establish a location for a Palo Alto Energy/Compost Facility, staff would return to Council with recommended supplemental actions to address additional alternatives, some of which are outside the current scope. These supplemental actions would address the co- management of biosolids, food scraps and yard trimmings. The analysis and public review to date has been most successful in vetting the original alternatives and suggesting even more promising ones for next steps, either within Palo Alto or elsewhere. Background Palo Alto’s Blue Ribbon Compost Task Force (BRTF) recommended to Council that an Anaerobic Digestion Facility be pursued in the vicinity of the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (Plant) to manage the City’s yard trimmings, food scraps and wastewater solids (“biosolids”). The exact location of such a facility has been problematic because of Palo Alto’s urbanized nature, the fact that no land has been specified for such a facility, and the fact that the Landfill has been dedicated as June 27, 2011 Page 2 of 6 (ID # 1632) Parkland (Byxbee Park). Following receipt of the BRTF Report, on April 5, 2010 (CMR:165:10, Attachment C), Council directed staff to: 1)Hire a consultant to evaluate Dry Anaerobic Digestion; 2)Prepare an applicable level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) focused on 9- acres of Byxbee Park; 3)Study energy conversion-technologies including Anaerobic Digestion at Palo Alto’s Wastewater Treatment Plant as part of its Long Range Master Plan- Facility Planning process; and 4)Pursue partnering opportunities for organics processing within 20 miles of Palo Alto. Palo Alto hired ARI to conduct the Dry Anaerobic Digestion Study, and staff has been pursuing both nos. 3 and 4 above. An appropriately scoped EIR (No. 2 above) will be produced at the appropriate time should Palo Alto continue to pursue a Palo Alto Facility. Council members requested that a Preliminary Analysis be completed ahead of the full Feasibility Study. The Preliminary Analysis was done by ARI and placed on the Palo Alto website on January 26, 2011. Public meetings were held on February 23 and March 9, and City Council conducted a Study Session on March 21. Discussion Public comments and Council comments on the Preliminary Analysis of Dry Anaerobic Digestion on the Landfill/Byxbee Park 9-acre site were received at the Council Study Session on March 21, 2011. Earlier comments had also been received. ARI has prepared a Draft Feasibility Study making the following changes and additions to the Preliminary Analysis: 1)Including additional “export” (non-Palo Alto site) alternatives in which Wet Anaerobic Digestion is used in place of incineration at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). 2)Lifting the Net Present Value (NPV) analysis from the detailed analysis to the summary tables. 3)Including the replacement costs of the wastewater solids (biosolids) incinerator in those alternatives involving the incinerator. 4)Conducting more runs of the economic and greenhouse gas models, providing new data points with respect to the following input parameters: a.Land Rent Value b.Greenhouse Gas Value (“CO2 Adder”) c.Interest Rate for Loans d.Contingency Amount e.Amount of any Grants 5)Summarizing the data such that Council can determine whether to complete the June 27, 2011 Page 3 of 6 (ID # 1632) Feasibility Study or forego further work at that time. Cost Analysis The Draft Feasibility Study compares three main alternatives: 1)Dry Anaerobic Digestion (DAD) at the Palo Alto 9-acre site adjacent to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. 2)A combination of a San Jose Dry Anaerobic Digestion site (for food scraps), a Gilroy compost site (for yard trimmings), and the Palo Alto Wastewater Treatment Plant (for wastewater solids, or “biosolids”). 3)A combination of a Gilroy compost site (for food scraps and yard trimmings) and the Palo Alto Wastewater Treatment Plant (for wastewater solids, or “biosolids”). Several sub-alternatives were explored under each alternative. Results are contained in the Summary Table (Attachment D) and the report itself (Attachment B). Table 1 contains data from key runs of the economic model developed by the Consultant to estimate the costs of each alternative studied. Four different alternatives are believed to be most representative for comparison and are brought forward to Table 1: Alternative 1a:Dry Anaerobic Digestion for all three organic streams (biosolids, food scraps and yard trimmings) at the 9 acre Palo Alto site. Alternative 1c:Dry Anaerobic Digestion for food scraps and yard trimmings on the 9 acre Palo Alto site and Wet Anarobic Digestion for biosolids at the Wastewater Plant site. Alternative 2a:Dry Anaerobic Digestion for food scraps at the San Jose site, composting of yard trimmings at the Gilroy site, and Wet Anaerobic Digestion at the Wastewater Plant. Alternative 3a:Composting of food scraps and yard trimmings at the Gilroy site and Wet Anaerobic Digestion for biosolids at the Wastewater Plant. The cost analysis is driven by a series of assumptions, including certain policy assumptions that have not yet been made by the Council (such as land rental rates). To address the variability of these assumptions, for each Alternative, three scenarios were analyzed. The three scenarios were based on comments received from the public. The first scenario contains assumptions that favor the construction of a facility within Palo Alto (Alternatives 1a and 1c). The assumptions for this scenario are enumerated at the bottom of the Scenario 1 column in Table 1. Scenario 3 contains assumptions that favor exporting food scraps and yard trimmings outside Palo Alto (Alternatives 2a and 3a), and Scenario 2 contains staff’s suggested assumptions. The assumptions for each are listed in Table 1. June 27, 2011 Page 4 of 6 (ID # 1632) Table 1 Energy/Compost Economic Evaluation Net Present Value (NPV) Alternatives Scenario 1 (Local Compost) Scenario 2 (Staff Scenario 3 (Export Compost) 1a –(PA-DAD)$59 M $72 M $96 M 1c –(PA-Mixed)$111 M $133 M $169 M 2a – (SJ-Food)$94 M $94 M $82 M 3a –(Gilroy based)$89 M $89 M $78 M Assumptions Ownership Public Private Private Financing Below Market Market Rate Market Rate Grant Funds 15%15%0% Rent $1/Year $108,000/Year $908,000/Year CO2 Adder $20/Ton $20/Ton $0/Ton Contingency ( for export )15%15%0% The lowest (estimated) cost for two of the scenarios, but the alternative least demonstrated, is Alternative 1a, where all three types of organic residuals are placed in separate Dry Anaerobic Digestors in Palo Alto. Adding Wet Anaerobic Digestors for wastewater biosolids makes Alternative 1c more costly, and the highest of the four for all scenarios, but at this planning level of analysis, not altogether non competitive with the export options. However Alternative 1c has been used at more facilities. Of the export alternatives, 2a (sending food scraps to San Jose) and Alternative 3a (composting of food scraps and yard trimmings in Gilroy) are comparable. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Analysis Table 2 contains Greenhouse Gas (GHG) estimates for the four alternatives listed in Table 1: Table 2 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Estimates Alternative CO2 Equilvalents per Year (Metric Tonnes) 1a 13,800 1c 14,200 2a 16,400 3a 15,800 June 27, 2011 Page 5 of 6 (ID # 1632) Alternative 1a is estimated to produce the least GHG, with the other Alternatives estimated as shown. Extensive pilot testing would be required for alternative 1a prior to constructing a full scale facility. All four alternatives are more favorable than the City’s “no action” Alternative (Alternative 3) which was estimated to be 22,700 Metric Tonnes/year. Relationship to Palo Alto Climate Action Plan The Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan adopted in 2007, set greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals for the City and community.These goals were expanded by the City Council on April 19, 2010.The current mid term goal for 2012 is to reduce the emissions from City operations by 20% and to reduce the combined City and Community emissions by 5% from 2005 baseline levels. It should be noted that the City operations emissions are only approximately 4% of the combined City and community emissions.The current long term goal for the combined City and Community emissions is 15% by 2020 from 2005 baseline levels.Based on the assumptions in the greenhouse gas analysis done by Ascent environmental (as part of the ARI team), and depending on the alternative analyzed, this project could reduce emissions from City operations by 15% from 2005 baseline levels.It could reduce community emissions by 1.2-1.4% from 2005 baseline levels. The reductions would almost entirely be the result of retirement of the incinerator and generation of renewable power,and therefore alternatives that do not involve retirement of the incinerator or that generate less renewable power show correspondingly lower greenhouse gas reductions.This data is being provided because members of the public and Council asked staff to show the GHG reductions relative to the City’s Climate Protection Plan. The Energy/Compost facility is not in the Plan, nor is the City relying on such a facility to meet the goals of the Plan. The information is provided simply to show the relative scale of the GHG reductions. A detailed analysis is available in Attachment E. Conclusions The Alternatives studied to date are close enough in costs that it does not appear warranted to eliminate any of them from further consideration at this time. Therefore, staff is recommending completing the Feasibility Study in early October as planned. Should the voters approve the November 2011 Ballot Initiative and establish a location for a Palo Alto Energy/Compost Facility, staff would return to Council and recommend a new course of action, addressing more alternatives, which were outside the current scope. Other Alternatives The principal comments on the Preliminary Analysis which were not addressed in the Draft Feasibility Study have to do with a more detailed analysis of alternatives which were beyond the scope of this study. Gasification, partnering with others, and integrating Wastewater Plant processes more fully with refuse processes were the key ones. A status report on Gasification and partnering was presented in Staff Report #1550 (Attachment A) and no new developments have occurred. With respect to the June 27, 2011 Page 6 of 6 (ID # 1632) Wastewater Plant the Long Range Facilities Planning Process for it continues, and is expected to conclude in the summer of 2012. The Consultant for that effort (Carollo) has been asked to begin to look at the interface between wastewater solids and organic refuse. Specifically they will consider the amount and type of food scraps that could be co-digested (or otherwise managed) with wastewater biosolids at the wastewater Plant site. Should the voters approve the November 2011 Ballot Initiative and establish a location for a Palo Alto Energy/Compost Facility, staff would return to Council and recommend new actions to more fully consider the possibilities of co-managing biosolids and organic refuse. One idea is to utilize the new acreage (should it be approved by voters) for the aerobic finishing step following anaerobic digestion, some or all of which would occur at the Plant site. This would require further data gathering. Resource Impact Preparing the Final Feasibility Study as planned will not require additional funds. Council has previously approved funding for ARI to complete this task as part of the existing contract with ARI. Should the voters approve the November 2011 Ballot Initiative and establish a location for a Palo Alto Energy/Compost Facility, and should Council approve studying further alternatives for that site, funding would need to be identified. Environmental Review The Feasibility Study itself is not a “project” as defined as CEQA and no enviromental review is required at this point in the process. Attachments: ·A -Staff Report 1550 with attachments (PDF) ·B -Draft Palo Alto Feasibility Study w-o Appendices (PDF) ·C -CMR:165:10 (PDF) ·D -Summary Table (PDF) ·E -Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (PDF) ·F -Council Presentation -June 27, 2011 (PPT) ·G -Public Letter to Council (PDF) Prepared By:Philip L. Bobel, Interim Asst. PW Director, Engineering Services Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Interim Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager City of Palo Alto (ID # 1550) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 4/11/2011 April 11, 2011 Page 1 of 4 (ID # 1550) Summary Title: Council direction on Energy/Compost Study Title: Request for Council Direction on Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study due to Council in June 2011 From:City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council direct staff to: 1)Submit a Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study on an Energy/Compost Facility in early June 2011, based upon the Preliminary Analysis submitted to Council on March 21, 2011, and Council and Public Comments. 2)Present a manageable number of scenarios in the Draft Feasibility Study containing a range of input values which reflect the range of comments received. Executive Summary Staff is recommending that Council direct staff to submit a Draft Feasibility Study on an Energy/Compost Facility in early June 2011, as envisioned in the established schedule for the City’s consultant, Alternative Resources, Inc. (ARI). This will provide Council with a draft study reflecting Council and public comments. This will provide Council the opportunity to terminate the work at that point should Council determine that an Energy/Compost Facility in Palo Alto does not need further study at that time. Background Palo Alto’s Blue Ribbon Compost Task Force recommended to Council that an Anaerobic Digestion Facility be pursued in the vicinity of the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (Plant) to manage the City’s yard trimmings, food scraps and wastewater solids (“biosolids”). The exact location of such a facility has been problematic because of Palo Alto’s urbanized nature, the fact that no land has been specified for such a facility, and the fact that the Landfill has been dedicated as Parkland (Byxbee Park). Following receipt of the Compost Task Force Report, on April 5, 2010 (CMR:165:10, Attachment A), Council directed staff to: 1)Hire a consultant to evaluate Dry Anaerobic Digestion; 2)Prepare an applicable level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) focused on 9- April 11, 2011 Page 2 of 4 (ID # 1550) acres of Byxbee Park; 3)Study energy conversion-technologies including Anaerobic Digestion at Palo Alto’s Wastewater Treatment Plant as part of its Long Range Master Plan-Facility Planning process; and 4)Pursue partnering opportunities for organics processing within 20 miles of Palo Alto. Palo Alto hired ARI to conduct the Anaerobic Digestion Study, and staff has been pursuing Nos. 3 and 4 above. An appropriately scoped EIR (No. 2 above) will be produced at the appropriate time should Palo Alto continue to pursue a Palo Alto Facility. Council members requested that a Preliminary Analysis be completed ahead of the full Feasibility Study. The Preliminary Analysis was done by ARI and placed on the Palo Alto website on January 26, 2011. Public meetings were held on February 23 and March 9,and public comments have been received in writing and at the meetings. City Council conducted a Study Session on March 21 and staff indicated it would return to Council for further direction on April 11, 2011. Discussion Public comments and Council comments on the Preliminary Analysis of Dry Anaerobic Digestion on the Landfill/Byxbee Park 9-acre site were received at the Council Study Session on March 21, 2011. Earlier comments had also been received. Staff has analyzed those comments and has planned to prepare a Draft Feasibility Study in June based upon the Preliminary Analysis and the comments received. Should Council direct staff to continue the Draft Feasibility Study, staff would make the following changes and additions to the Preliminary Analysis: 1)Include additional “export” (non-Palo Alto site) alternatives in which Wet Anaerobic Digestion is used in place of incineration at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). 2)Lift the Net Present Value (NPV) analysis from the detailed analysis to the summary tables. 3)Include the replacement costs of the wastewater solids (biosolids) incinerator in those alternatives involving the incinerator. 4)Conduct more runs of the economic and greenhouse gas models, providing new data points with respect to the following input parameters: a.Land Rent Value b.Greenhouse Gas Value (“CO2 Adder”) c.Interest Rate for Loans d.Contingency Amount e.Amount of any Grants 5)Summarize the data such that Council can determine whether to complete the Feasibility Study or forego further work at that time. In summarizing the data (in No. 5 above) for the Draft Feasibility Study in June, staff April 11, 2011 Page 3 of 4 (ID # 1550) will assist Council in efforts to determine alternatives with the greatest environmental benefits at the lowest costs. A manageable number of scenarios will be presented to reflect a range of perspectives. All alternatives will assume that the current RWQCP Multiple Hearth Incinerator must be replaced at some point. Other Comments Staff’s above proposal modifying the Preliminary Analysis does not address all comments received. Some comments would require substantially more time and funding. Examples include: 1)A new alternative to combine biosolids and food scraps in wet anaerobic digesters and then combine the digestate with yard trimmings, using some combination of the RWQCP site and the Landfill/Byxbee park site; 2)Full integration of the Energy/Compost Feasibility study and the Long Range Facilities Planning for the RWQCP; and 3)Consideration of gasification and other high temperature conversion technologies in Palo Alto. Initiative It is likely that a Citizen Initiative to undedicate Parkland for an Energy/Compost Facility will appear on the November 2011 Ballot in Palo Alto. Several points related to the Feasibility Study can be made: 1)The Initiative does not require construction of a facility, but only allows it. City Council would ultimately decide whether a facility is constructed. 2)The Initiative contains a provision allowing Council to re-dedicate the site as parkland after 10 years, if some or all of the area is not used for an Energy/Compost Facility. 3)The Initiative does not exclusively focus on Dry Anaerobic Digestion and would allow other “equally environmentally protective” technology alternatives. The Preliminary Analysis focuses on Dry Anaerobic Digestion. Neither the Preliminary Analysis nor the Draft Feasibility Study was scoped to provide a quantitative analysis of all technologies which may be “equally environmentally protective”. Resource Impact The additional work described to prepare the June Draft Feasibility Study will require additional funds. Those funds are being taken from other future tasks in the ARI contract so that the schedule can be adhered to and the Draft produced in June. Specifically, the work to prepare the California Envrionmental Quality Act (CEQA) Initial Study will be delayed to allow the more critical work to be completed. Should it be decided to ultimately complete the CEQA Initial Study, a contract amendment will be prepared and submitted to Council for approval. This contract ammendment would require additional funding, but is not the subject of this CMR. April 11, 2011 Page 4 of 4 (ID # 1550) Environmental Review The Feasibility Study itself is not a “project” as defined by CEQA and no environmental review is required at this point in the process. Attachments: ·Attachment A: CMR:165:10 (PDF) ·Attachment B: Public Comment Letters (PDF) Prepared By:Philip L. Bobel, Manager, Environmental Compliance Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Interim Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager On August 6, 2007, Council directed staff to develop a work plan to explore options to keep compo sting in Palo Alto. A work plan for a composting feasibility study was presented and approved by Council on January 22, 2008 (CMR: 116:08). Staff prepared the feasibility study and presented the results of the study on April 28, 2008 (CMR:219:08). At that point Council directed staff to table the issue until the Baylands Master Plan update was approved and to get the input of the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC). On December IS, 2008 (CMR:470:08) and January 12, 2009 (CMR: 116:09), Council further discussed the composting issue and made a decision to convene a citizen-based Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) to further examine the composting question. At that time, Council specifically directed the BRTF to avoid parkland location options. On October 19, 2009, the BRTF presented its results and recommendations to Council (CMR:402:09). The lead site recommended by the BRTF would have had resulted in potential impacts on the Palo Alto Airport operations, as expressed to Council. Therefore, Council directed staff to further examine the other alternatives and return to Council. The motion from October 19, 2009 consisted ofthe following directives: 1) Accept the September 9, 2009 Palo Alto Compost Task Force Final Report (Report) submitted by the Compost Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF); 2) Direct Staff to implement the short term recommendations for CUl'l'ent compost operations contained in the BRTF Report as modified by the Staff response; 3) Request Staff to retum with analysis and recommendation of whether to incorporate an interim solution of aerobic static pile composting or consider off site composting on an interim basis; 4) Staff to evaluate the two options (Embarcadero Road/Airport site and 5-6 acres in the northwest corner of the current landfill site) on the locations; 5) Staff to consider an option of partnering with another city or cities; 6) Staff to consider whether there are other locations on Embarcadero Way that could work, this would take no more than 90 days; 7) Location of any facility would not have any negative impact on the Palo Alto Airport, its operations, finances, and relationship with the FAA or Santa Clara County; 8) Staff to work closely with the airport community in the development of any proposals, and 9) Staff to take into consideration the Airport Business Plan being developed. In a separate action, Council adopted a statement of intent to proceed toward an anaerobic compo sting system, at an unspecified location. Since the last Council action on composting, staff held a public meeting with airport stakeholders at West Valley Flying Club Meeting Room on November 4,2009. Minutes from that meeting are included as Attachment A and further documented the negative impacts of a site on Airport property. Staff also held a public meeting to discuss the expected recommendations of this staff report at Cubberley Community Center, Room A-6 on December 9, 2009. Notes from that public meeting are included as Attachment B. In addition, staff presented information (and answered questions) to the Council in a study session on March 8,2010. CMR:165:10 Page 2 of6 DISCUSSION Short-term Recommendations Staff has implemented all of the short-tenn recommendations for current compost operations contained in the BRTF Report as modified by the staff response (Directive No.2, above). The analysis of aerated static pile (ASP) composting within Palo Alto or off site composting as interim solutions (Directive No.3, above) is contained in Attachment D. Staff concludes that an ASP facility is too expensive and that there is no site that could be ready in time to serve as an interim facility. Therefore the current interim plan of taking yard trimmings to the Z-Best Gilroy facility should continue to be the shortcterm approach, JlPon closure of the Palo Alto Compost Facility. Loeal Siting Options Evaluation of three pennanent siting options (the Embarcadero Road/Airport site, the northwest comer of the eurrent landfill Byxbee Park site, and private properties along Embarcadero Way), is also summarized in Attachment C, consistent with Directives No. 4 and 6, above. After furthereonsultation with the Airport community, staff concludes that the Embareadero Roadl Airport site would negatively impact that community and proposes no further work on that site in confonnance with Directive No.7, ahove. With respect to the possible sites along Embarcadero Way referenced in Directive No.6, staff concludes that procurement of sufficient property would be too expensive and potentially disruptive for the existing land .owners and tenants .. The site closest to the RWQCP entrance is a self-storage facility with numerous individual tenants. In addition there would be neighborhood compatibility hurdles with utilizing the properties on the west side of Embarcadero Way. With respect to the construction of an Anaerobic Digestion facility in the northwest comer of the current landftlllByxbee Park site, staff concludes that a detailed Feasibility Study would have to be conducted by an engineering consultant to detennine costs and fully evaluate impacts. Projected cost data obtained by Staff from venders has not been verified and is not sufficient for final decision making. An Anaerobic Digestion facility is consistent with the October 19, 2009 Council direction and with the recommendations of the Compost Blue Ribbon Task Force. However, given the key constraint (site is on dedicated parkland) of the landfilllByxbee Park site, staff does not recommend moving forward with the Feasibility Study until and unless the constraintis removed (Recommendation No.1, above). A Feasibility Study of this magnitude is best completed in conjunction with an Enviromnental Impact Report so that appropriate mitigations are identified and incorporated into the project design. The total estimated cost of this detailed analysis would exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars. This is a staff estimate based on experience with the formerly proposed Enviromnental Services Center (ESC) at nearly the same location on Byxbee Park. Regional O)2portunities Additionally, staff is actively exploring conversion technology options with the otherSMaRT® Station partner cities, as well as opportunities to send organic materials to potential new privately developed anaerobic digestion facilities. Regiollal opportunities for anaerobic or other advanced processing are preliminary, but emerging quickly. Several jurisdictions in the area are begiuning to express interest and explore their CMR16S:10 Page 3 of6 abilities to build and operate regional facilities to provide organics processing in the future. Currently no firm commitments exist, but opportunities for collaboration eould be pursued by the City as they are identified. For example, the City's SMaRT® Station partners, Mountain View and Sunnyvale, both have adopted zero waste goals. In addition, the City has an established relationship with them in owning and operating a transfer and processing facility through 2021. Both of these cities have an immediate interest in developing or using conversion technology to meet their waste reduction goals and would likely be potential partners to build and operate an anaerobic digestion or other conversion facility. The primary private sector processing OPP011unity available in the near term is a facility being developed by GreenWaste Recovery, Inc (Green Waste). GreenWaste, along with their business partner from Germany, KOMPOFERM, have formed a subsidiary company called Zero Waste Energy Development Company, Inc. (Zero Waste Energy). They are in the fmal planning stages of designing a IS0,000-ton per year anaerobic digester in San Jose located approximately 12 miles from Palo Alto. In September 2009, the City of San Jose and Zero Waste Energy executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding their intent to develop lease terms for use of approximately 40 acres of a closed landfill site loeated beside the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant· for a biogas facility. The first phase of the processing site, 50,000 tons per year, is anticipated to be ready for operation as soon as late 2011. Initially, the processing plant anticipates taking a blend of food scraps and yard trimmings from jurisdictions to produce biofuel and compost. GreenWaste is the collection and processing provider for the City of Palo Alto's solid waste, recyclables, yard trimmings, and food scraps. Staff has had preliminary discussions with GreertWaste about utilizing this facility for the City'S food scrap tonnage, and some or all of our yard trimmings. Finally, staffhas also met with another company, Harvest Power, that is also pursuing development of a regional AD facility for the south bay area. Harvest Power has not identified any specific faeility location yet. Regional Water Quality Control Plant Master Plan Under the existing adopted Capital Improvement Project (CIP) WQ-IOOOl, staffwill soon be procuring consultant services to prepare a Master Plan for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. The draft scope of work requests an analysis of energy conversion technologies (including anaerobic digestion) that might be suitable replacements for biosolids incineration in the future. The Master Plan Work is scheduled to begin later this year. Feedstocks and End Products Regardless of whether the City pursues partnership with a private firm or a regional conversion technology facility, it is important to nnderstand our various feedstocks and what end products are to be produced and marketed. A feedstock is the raw waste material that would be proeessed and includes food waste, sewage biosolids, yard trimmings, and soiled paper. A single technology may not be best for the various organic material feedstocks that exist in Palo Alto. For example, certain feedstocks require greater vector and odor control than others. Certain feedstocks may also affect the marketability of any end product compost material due to concentrations of metals, fecal coliform bacteria, and other contaminants. These issues will CMR165:10 Page 4 of6 continue to guide the City into a solution that will best serve Palo Alto's needs for the long term. Because of the upcoming Master Plan and the various prospects for new regional facilities, it is not yet clear whether a joint venture with other communities, a processing contract with a private facility, an anaerobic digestion facility at the RWQCP, or some combination of the aforementioned are in the City's best interests. Therefore, staff is recommending continuing to explore advanced tecImoiogies at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant and at Regional locations in the South Bay area, as expressed in Recommendations 2 and 3 above. Commercial Garbage Disposal Moratorimn On January 12, 2009 Couucil passed a motion containing the following provision: "The City shall suspend accepting commercial garbage at the Palo Alto dump while awaiting City Council action on the recommendations ofthe BRTF." Staff interprets this provision to mean that it is to recommence acceptance of commercial garbage upon further action by Council on the compo sting issue. Staff is seeking Council confirmation of this interpretation through Recommendation No.4, above. Follow-up to Study Session on March 8, 20 I 0 Attachment D contains further staff responses to questions and comments raised at the Study Session on March 8,2010, including the potential early conversion oflandfill Phases IIA and lIB to park use. As a follow-up to the community· response at the Council Study Session on March 8, 2010, Council may wish to provide specific direction to staff about conducting a scientific random voter survey regarding the Byxbee Park site option. This survey would gage resident sentiment about the possible undedication of a portion of Byxbee Park for an organic material processing and energy generation facility. Similar voter surveys have been performed about other issues for less than $25,000. Staff could therefore procure these polling services using unspent Refuse Fund operating budget for program and project consultants. Survey questions and language could be referred to the Policy and Services Committee if the Council moves to proceed with this type of community outreach. Attachment E is an aerial map from the Study Session presentation that shows two City-owned areas of the Baylands that are not currently dedicated as parkland. These areas could potentially be swapped for land within the current Byxbee Park. A potential survey could also gage voter sentiment towards such a land swap idea. RESOURCE IMPACT There. is no additional resource impacts associated with the recommendations in this report beyond what has already been anticipated in the Council adopted Zero Waste Operations Plan (CMR:123:07). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The staff recommendations in this report do not constitute a "project" as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CMR165:1O PageS of6 A) Plllllose: Meeting Summary 1114/09 CompostlAirport Public Meeting (4:00-5:30 pm -Palo Alto Airport) ATTACHMENT A To explore potential sites for organics material management which would have "no imp!j.ct" on the Palo Alto Airport (per I 0/19109 direction from the Palo Alto Council.) B) Attendees: Airport Community Members Chuck Byer Harry Hirschman Ralph Britton Pat Roy Larry Shapiro Michael Baum C) Summary: Former Compost Task Force Members Bob Wenzlau Emily Renzel Palo Alto City Staff Cara Silver Steve Emslie Phil Bobel The group brainstormed and identified impacts to the Palo Alto Airport associated with seven (7) different location configurations of Organics Material Management (OMM) facilities. (See D. below for details). There appear to be three configurations which are likely to have no impact on the Airport (with several qualifiers noted in Part D). 1. Locating. the OMM on Embarcadero Way (currently privately owned buildings) .. 2. Locating the OMM on the Los Altos Treatment Plant (LA TP) site and locating the municipal operations planned for the LATP site on Embarcadero Way (currently privately owned buildings). D) Identification ofImpacts on the Airport: 1. Locating OMM on the current Landfill site. and swawing aWfoximately 10 acres of the North Runway site (22 acres total) as dedicated parkland. Thus, a I b acre strip of the North Runway site, the eastern half, would become parkland. The group assumed that the dedication itself would involve no physical changes; that any physical changes would be a separate action involving separate analysis. IMPACTS: No impacts tq the Airport were identified as long as the following points were reCognized and addressed: Page I u; lPWDIADMINIKAREN\CMRI040510i 165-10 C ompC31lng Resp.nselAlltlChmenC A.doc ATTACHMENT A' a. The FAA must be consulted for any rules they may have. Their approval may be needed, b. Sufficient "buffer" must be allowed adjacent to the runway for aircraft wingspan. c, The new Parkland (North Runway site) would have to have restricted access to prevent people and animals from entering. d. The existing levee must be maintained. In fact, it may need to be augmented in light of sea level rise. e, There may be a habitat mitigation area at the north end of the North Runway site which must be maintained. 2. Locating OMM on Embarcadero Road/Airport site and relocating Ailll0rt facilities per the 9/09/09 memo from Barney, et all to PA Council. This option would move the Heliport and Terminal to avoid impacts from the OMM in the southeastern corner of the Airport. IMPACTS: The following impacts on the Airport were identified: a. The changes to the layout of Airport operations are major and funding would be needed. Both the amount and source of funds would be issues. b. Cost of moving Embarcadero Road and resurfacing (at a minimum) of the Airport access road would be impacts. c. New location of the Heliport is not safe due to incoming fixed wing traffic and proximity to fuel storage. d, Negative visual impacts to the Airport would occur. e .. ' All of the negative impacts identified in the Task Force Report associated with the Embarcadero Road/Airport site would apply. 3. Locating OMM at the LATP site and move the activities plarmed for the LATP site to the Embarcadero Road/Airport site and relocate Airport facilities per the 9/09/09 memo from Barney, et all to the P A Council. IMPACTS: The negative impacts listed as 2.a -2.d above would also apply to this concept. 4. Locating OMM on land riow occupied by privately owned buildings on one or both sides of Embarcadero Way. IMPACTS: The following issues would have to be addressed and mayor may not turn out to be actual impacts on the Airport: a. The potential for a bird attraction hazard would have to be investigated. Page 2 U:IPWDIADMfNlKAREMCMRI0405fOIf65·fO Com posting ResponselAltachmenCA.doc ATTACHMENT A b. A· 1,200 foot distance would have to be achieved with respect to yard waste. c. A 1 mile distance would have to be achieved for food waste. 5. Locating the OMM at the LATP site and locate the activities planned for the LATP site where the privately owned buildings on one or both sides of Embarcadero Way are now. IMPACTS: No impacts on the Airport were identified, assuming that there were no bird attraction issues from the operations that would be located on Embarcadero Way. 6. Locating the OMM at the LA TP site and locate the activities planned for the LATP site on the North Runway site. IMPACTS: The following impacts on the Airport were identified: a. FAA approval would be needed b. Access would have to be provided which does not exist, creating safety Issues. c. Oversight of contractors and City staff would have to be addressed. d. Bird attraction would have to be addressed. 7. Separate the OMM activities, locating only the curing piles (possible aerated static piles) on the North Runway site. IMPACTS: The following impacts on the Airport were identified: a. Access which does not now exi1;t would have to be provided, creating safety issues. b. The bird attraction issue would have to be addressed. c. FAA approval would be needed. 8. Locating the OMM on the Landfill site and creating offsetting parkland (approximately 10 acres) at the North Runway site. IMPACTS: There is no guarantee that the FAA will accept dedicating 20 acres as "Parkland" and thereby reducing the available Palo Alto airpark land by 20%. Until further clarification is gained on this item, it should not be included in the "no airport impact" category. Page 3 U:\PWD\ADMINlKAREMCMR\0405JO\J65~1O Compos{ing RespanseiAUachmen(A doc ATTACHMENTB On 12/9/09 City Staff presented its preliminary thinking in response to Council's 10/19/09 directives. The responses will undergo more work, and likely be presented to Council on 2/1/10. Staff sought, and received, feedback on the following concepts: 1. Interim Aerated Static Piles: Staff is unlikely to recommend this due to cost, length of time to bring on line, and lack of an authorized site. (The interim (post 2012) "fallback" is the Z-Best (Gilroy) compost facility). 2. Long Term Sites in Palo Alto: a. Airport Site Staff is unlikely to recommend this due to impacts on the Airport and the Council directive to have "no Impact" on the Airport. b. Embarcadero Way Site Staff is unlikely to recommend this due to high cost of purchasing landlbuildings. c. Landfill CByxbee) Site . Sfaff is unlikely to recommend conducting a feasibility/environmental study at this time due to uncertain availability of the site and the high cost of a . feasibility/environmental study. 3. Areas to Pursue: a. Nearby Sites » Staff will pursue taking organics to a new anaerobic digestion facility likely to open as soon as 2010 in San Jose (Greenwaste, Zanker Road). approx. 12.5 miles from the Embarcadero/101 interchange ( Note: Much closer than Z- Best which is 53 miles ). » Staff will purs.ue the possibility of an energy recovery facility at the SMaRT Station in Sunnyvale, although it is just an idea at this point. b. Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) Master Planning » Staff will consider anaerobic digestion and other energy recovery possibilities at the RWQCP as the Master Planning gets underway in 2010. (Not able to handle yard trimmings, or all food waste within the RWQCP, however.) The following feedback was received at the meeting; Comments from Public On Palo Alto Staff Presentation at 12/09/09 Public Meeting ATTACHMENTB' Individual members of the public suggested that the following thoughts (or ansVjers to questions) be included in the report back to City Council on (or about) 211/10: I. Indicate that there is citizen support (as well as citizen opposition) to an organics management. facility on the landfill (Byxbee) site. 2. The City's Solid Waste Management Plan filed with the County would have to be revised if a new Palo Alto Compost Facility were to be developed. 3. The regional situation with respect to organics management should be discussed. 4. For Aerated Static Piles (ASP) and Anaerobic Digestion (AD), the extent to which operating facilities exist should be discussed. S. The emerging responses to the Santa Barbara RFP should be summarized to show what technologies are actually being proposed by bidders there. 6. The quality of the food scraps processed at Z-Best (Gilroy) should be mentioned as it is apparently contaminated with plastics and other non-food material. 7. The quality of biosolids should be discussed with the "hazardous waste" issue and the "long term build-up" issues described. 8. The schedule for developing Greenwaste's Zanker Road facility should be explored to determine why it is happening so much faster than Staffs estimation of a Palo Alto facility schedule. . . 9. A resident "Initiative" would shorten the schedule by eliminating one of the two ErRs shown on the Palo Alto Staff schedule. 10. The Waste Management Board management staff were much more optimistic about a .Palo Alto schedule and should be consulted. 11. Wh~n will Greenwaste's .Zanker Road facility be able to take yard trimmings and biosolids? 12. What has the experience to date been of taking commercial food waste in Palo Alto in Palo Alto? 13. The process outputs (e.g., energy, compost) of an organics processing facility should be fully considered as a decision is made on the type of process. 14. The sensitivity of the facility location to noise, light,. traffic, dust and pollutants should be described. 15. Drawings showing what the various site locations would look like should be presented. 16. Make it clear that the "Landfill site" is on "Byxbee Park". 3/111 0 ATTACHMENTC Staff Evaluation Follow-up to Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) Recommendations For Developing an Organics Processing Facility Within The City of Palo Alto n Staff analysis and recommendation for developing an interim Aerated Static Pile (ASP) composting operation within Palo Alto versus adopting the Zero Waste Operations Plan of sending yard trimmings to SMaRT/ZBest. . The advantages of the City developing an ASP composting facility in Palo Alto after the existing composting facility closes are mainly: reduced greenhouse gas vehicle emissions through a closer destination facility; and that the City could control the facility and add other organic wastes to the process (biosolids, food scraps, etc). Control of the facility and organic wastes that could be processed could allow the City to implement residential curbside collection of food scraps in their green waste carts. Disadvantages of the City developing its own facility in the interim are the high cost of developing an ASP operation ($3 million initial capital investment); and the fact that there is no land readily available for the placement of an ASP facility in the intermediate term. Staff does not believe that the $3 million investment for an ASP Facility developed on any existing City-oWned property is warranted because of the interim nature of the ASP (Council has prioritized Anaerobic Digestion) and because there is no readily available site for the facility. 2) Evaluation of Three Potential Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Facility Sites. Site #1 Other Unspecified Locations Along Embarcadero Road Staff focused primarily on the existing commercial properties along Embarcadero Way for this portion ofthe evaluation. Five properties ranging in size from I to almost 4 acres were evaluated by the Real Estate Division of the Administrative Services Department. Table 1 below summarizes the potential acquisition costs for these properties. The properties' layout in relation to the Airport and the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) is shown in Figure 1. If only the three properties along the east side of Embarcadero Way are considered, acquisition costs could range between $8.2 to $13.7 million for these 3.15 acres ofland. It is very unlikely that even just these three properties would be easy to acquire. Eminent Domain would likely be necessary. One of these three properties houses California Self Storage and another is currently leased by Victor Aviation Services. Only the property at the comer of Embarcadero Road appears to be vacant at the time of this report. It contains a two-story structure for research and development and offices. Staff does not recommend pursuing the acquisition of these properties for an organics processing facility. Page I of 8 3/1/1 0 AITACHMENTC Table 1: ROUGH ACOUISITION ESTIMATES FOR EMBARCADERO WAY PROPERTIES High Mid Low Street Number APN Acres $100/sf $80/sf $60/sf Facts Sold 7/06 lor approx. WEST 1880 008-03-027 1.19 $5,183,640 $4,146,912 $3,110,184 $4,250,000 recently refurbIshed ~ avail SIDE for lease 2440 008-03-072 3.95 $17,206,200 $13,764,960 $10,323,720 Newer R&D Sites - several vacancies ! 1900 008-03-071 1.14 $4,965,840 $3,972,672 $2,979,504 Olo.r building - available for lease EAST Older building -• SIDE 2415 008-03-030 1 $4,356,000 $3,484,800 $2,613,600 currently leased i 2425 008-03-068 1,01 $4,399,560 $3,519,648 $2,639,736 Self storage facmty Totals 5,14 $22,389,840 $17,911,872 $13,433,904 COMPARABLE DATA: 2525 E, Bayshore Road -1,44 acres, same age bldg -Comp Value per Real Quest $6,250,000 -Sold 4/2006 $4,200,000 1010 Corporation Way -Currently for sale -21 ,500 sl, Bldg, Office/R&D, Vacant, 1,10 ac lot size -for sale price $5,300,000'" $246,51/51 CONDEMNATION COSTS CONSIDERATIONS (assume +30% to above mid range flgure): Courts must find that: 1) public Interest and necessity require the project; 2) the project is compatible with the greatest public good and least private Injury; and 3) the property is necessary for the project Costs to consider: Fair market value, plus attorney fee$, appraisal fees, relocation expenses, payment for business fixtures, equipment and good will, and if leased possibly relocation andlor tenants leasehold interest to be compensated, . NOTES and ABBREVIATIONS: East Side parcels represent the lots next to RWQCP APN: Assessor's Parcel Number sf: Square Feet Page 2 of8 3/1!1 0 ATTACHMENTC Site #3 Northwest Corner of Current Landfill Site (Byxbee Park) Staff has conceptually developed a 4.7 acre grading plan (Figure 2) at the Northwest comer of the landfill adjacent to the PAR WQCP that might be large enough for a large AD facility that could accommodate the City's entire organic waste throughput. The grading plan incorporates dedicated park acreage from the area adjacent to the PARWQCP fenceline (facing the landfill) and overlying approximately 2 acres of the existing landfill. Implementing this conceptual grading plan would mean raising the grades of the existing land adjacent to the landfill approximately 5 feet to approximately 15 feet above mean sea level (MSL). This conceptual site would partially overlie the landfill final contours approved by the landfill architect (Hargreaves Associates, April 2008). If an AD building were developed on this site then the top of a building could be as high as 40 feet above MSL -lower than the highest elevations ofthe landfill that are 60 feet above MSL. Permits and Approvals Permitting an AD facility at the Northwest corner of the landfill would involve CEQA, State permits and local approvals and voter approval to undedicate a portion of Byxbee Park. This entire development process would be expected to take 7 or 8 years to complete (See timeline Figure 3). Because this site overlies the landfill and because this site would probably require two EIRs and a vote to undedicated parkland, the schedule for development of a large AD facility would be expected to take three to four years longer than a site that did not have these land use issues. • An Environmental Impact Report (ElR) would be required. It is likely that two EIRs may be required - a programmatic EIR to support the vote to undedicate the parkland and later, a design level EIR that would support the permits and approvals; • A new or revised solid waste facility permit would be necessary; • A new Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Facility Pennit would likely be required. A new high technology organics facility with emissions control would meet the BACT standards (Best Achievable Control Technology). • New or revised Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) will probably be required from the Regional Water Quality Control Board since the proposed operation would be sited partiallyi'on the landfill. Flatter grades overlying the landfill can be permitted as long as an 'effective system for diverting surface drainage and preventing ponding is designed in accordanee'with California Code of Regulations Title 27 Section 21090 (b)(1 )(B). • Local permits and approvals would inelude revising the Baylands Master Plan, Planning/Site & Design Review approvals, voter approval to undedicate parkland etc. Page 40f8 31111 0 ATTACHMENTC • The City would need to modifY the landfill's post-closure plan to reflect this continued operation on the closed landfill. Also, a facility operations layer and drainage features would need to be designed and constructed to protect the landfill's cap. • An amendment to the landfill lease with the State Lands Commission would be necessary for the improvements. Other Impacts Sino;:e the proposed facility can be incorporated into the PARWQCP, the existing landscape screen trees would need to be removed and new landscaping improvements would need to be installed at the perimeter of the new facility. Access to Byxbee park could still be available via the existing parking lot. Some trails planned at the north end of the landfill would need to be rerouted to avoid the new facility. Maintenance of the park/landfill could still be undertaken. Development Costs Hilary Gans from the Blue Ribbon Task Force completed and presented to Council a preliminary cost estimate of $ 13.75 million for an Anaerobic Digestion (AD) w/ Energy Recovery system that is large enough to handle the City's yard trimmings and some food waste. This capital cost estimate includes the cost of a specialized building, gas collection system and electricity genenitjng equipment but did not include the cost of an asphalt operating surface or materials handling equipment cost since the City (\lready owns all the necessary heavy equipment required to run a c~mposting system. The cost' per ton calculation to process the City'S organics would depend on what type of facility is developed, what type of organic wastes would be managed at the facility and what throughput of tonnage would be possible. A consultant feasibility study would need to be performed before these costs could be accurately developed. 3) Evaluation of Other Options Figure 4 presents timelines for two recommended courses of action: 1) study the feasibility of developing energy recovery facilities for biosolids and limited foodwaste during the upcoming RWQCI' Master Planning project, and 2) pursue partnering opportunities with SMaRT and/or private ventures building nearby anaerobic digestion facilities. Page 5 of 8 3/30/10 ATIACHMENTD Staff Memo Follow-up to Council Questions from Study Session on March 8, 2010 Council Email Ouestion: The Composting [Blue Ribbon Task Force] Report was originally paired with a Colleagues memo on Early Opening of Portions of Byxbee Park. This complementary item was amended and passed on Nov 2, 2009. It was stated at that meeting that this item on the Early Opening would return 'quickly'. Will it be on the Agenda on AprilS along with the Composting Report? The COUNCIL MOTION from November 2,2009 stated: 1) Direct Staff to work with the Parks and Recreation Cormnission and Hargreaves and Associates to develop fmal park design goals for Phase II of Byxbee Park including provision to access and views and return j.o Council with a proposed impl()lUentation budget, and 2) Direct Staff to take the necessary steps to open the completed and approved landfill area (Phase II AlB in the Baylands Master Plan) to the public as interim open space by the end of 2011 or sooner; 3) Amended to direct Staff to report back to Council with an estimated budget for the work in both parts of the Motion in a timely manner. Staff Response: The attached Table 1 outlines the steps necessary to prepare closed Landfill Phase IIA and Phase lIB for early public access. Staff will begin adding clean soil to low areas in the previously closed sections within the next few months (weather permitting) in order to fulfill the post-closure responsibility of addressing settlement. Most ofthe top-deck areas have settled one to two feet. (or more) within the last several years. The current goal is to accept and spread enough clean soil to bring the closed sections up to the original designed grades of these already capped landfill areas. The proposed FY 2011 budget for the Landfill Closure (CIP RF-llOO 1) has been adjusted to provide $600,000 for the work required to prepare Phase IIA and Phase IIB for public access. This will include: changes to the environmental control systems (leachate and landfill gas collection piping) to place piping and well heads underground, minor grading and improvements to site access roads, and removal of perimeter fencing. The Refuse Fund budget does not include money to prepare final park design goals in conjunction with Hargreaves and the Parks & Recreation Commission, final park design (which should include Phase lIC), nor final park construction. Staff believes it would be more efficient and cost effective to bury the piping system underground when the Phase lIC closure is completed because there will be the efficiency of earth moving equipment and a single contractor to mobilize rather than administering two discrete projects successively. If Council decides to initiate the early opening of Phase IlA and Phase lIB and to bear the extra expense, it would prohably only speed up the potential to open these areas by about one year earlier than if the work was combined with the closure construction on Phase lIC. It is also not clear yet how the park-related improvements will be funded. Page 1 of5 TABLE 1 BYXBEE PARK -PHASE IIA & PHASE liB CLOSED LANDFILL PREPARATION WORK I ESTIMATED TAS.q DESCRIPTION STATUS COST SOURCE OF FUNDS TIME LINE 1 IAdjust the setUed surface with new topsoil to raise the IN $50,000 PWD -Refuse: Landfill Complete by October 201 0 finished grade back to the permitted elevations PROGRESS Operations IRevegetate surface following settlement remediation IN PWD -Refuse: Landfill 2 IPROGRESS $25,000 Operations Complete by December 2010 I Seek Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) approval for I PLANNED I PWD -Refuse: staff-level Complete by December 2010 3 (assuming no permitting "early" public access to Phase IIA & Phase liB task hurdles) 4 I Design, plan and permit changes to environmental control PLANNED $50,000 PWD -RefuSe: Closure Pending FY 2011 Budget systems (leachate and landfiU gas collection piping) reserve (CIP RF-11 001) 5 I Modify environmental control systems to place piping and PLANNED $500,000 PWD -Refuse: Closure I Pending FY 2011 Budget well heads underground reserve (CIP RF-11001) 6 IMinor greding and improvementof site access roads I PLANNED $25,000 IPWD -Refuse: Closure reserve (CIP RF-11001) IPending FY 2011 Budget 7 I Remove perimeter' fencing IPLANNED $25,000 PWD -Refuse: Closure I reserve (CIP RF-11001) Pending FY 2011 Budget I Prepare Final Park Design Goals in conjunction with I PLANNED ICSD: ??? »- 8 $25,{)00 Pending Council action ~ Hargreaves and the Parks & Recreation Commission ('J ::c 9 I Final Park Design (including Phase IIC) IPLANNED $470,000 ICSD: ??1 IPending Council action a;:: ~ 10 I Final Park Construction (including Phase IIC) IPLANNED I $4,700,000 leSD: 1?? IPending Council action .., " 3/30/10 ATTACHMENTD Study Session Question: Refuse fund has right to parkland until June 30, 2011 future use would require $3.7 million annual payment? Is that built into the numbers? Staff Response: CMR 104:07 established the following rent schedule for both the active and closed portions of the landfill: City of Palo Alto I Landfill Rent Schedule Rent Payment (Smoothing Rent Charged Schedule) 2004-05 7420925 4,288,747 2005-06 7420925 4288747 2006-07 7420,925 4,288,747 .2007-08 7420,925 4,288,747 2008-09 7,420,925 4,288,747 2009-10 7420925 4,288,747 2010-11 7420,925 4,288747 2011-12 0 4,288,747 2012-13 0 2,094,332 . 2013-14 0 2,094,331 2014-15 0 2,094331 2015-16 0 2,094,331 2016-17 0 2,094,331 2017-18 0 2,094,331 2018-19 0 2,094331 2019-20 0 2,094,331 2020-21 0 881,851 This rent schedule encompasses the entire landfill area (approximately 100 acres of both active and closed). The amount of rent attributable to the piece of land being considered for composting would be proportionally less. The current annual rent payment for the entire landfill is approximately $4.3 Million. If the Refuse Fund occupies any portion of Byxbee Park for a longer period than contemplated in the rent schedule, the schedul~ would have to be re-adjusted. The schedule was based on the information available at the time that assumed a projected landfill closure on June 30, 2011. The schedule adopted by the Council in 2007 contained a number of Council-directed policies, including: (1) the Refuse Fund should be paying the General Fund for use of the inactive portion until it is formally converted to park use; (2) the rent attributable to Page 3 of5 3/30/10 ATTACHMENT D the inactive portion should be less than fair market rent since the Refuse Fund is not actively using the property and (3) the rent payments should be amortized over time so that Refuse rates are not substantially impacted. The current economy which has led to less commercial dumping at the landfill together with the temporary City Council imposed commercial dumping moratorium may result in a slightly later landfill closure date. The City is in the process of determining whether there is a need for further refining this rental schedule al).d whether there is a need for an updated appraisal. Study Session Question: If there is a de-aunexation of the parkland, the parkland will take on the value of commercial properties around it. Refuse Fund would have a liability for approximately that amount? Staff Response: If the parkland is de-alUlexed and the Refuse Fund continues to utilize the property for Refuse purposes (including composting), the Refuse Fund would be responsible for the payment of rent. The rent would be based on the highest and best use which is most likely research and development/industrial use. Study Session Question: Concerned about buffer betWeen industrial activities and parkland - will there be an EIR to estimate the impact on Parkland? Staff Response: Yes, an ErR for a compost project would address land use compatibility and related aesthetic issues. The zoning ordinance governing the new use could also prescribe appropriate setbacksl buffer zones. Study Session Question: 90% solution email by Bryan Long -can his solution be part of the April 5 discussion? For reference, the recommendations in Bryan Long's 90% solution email are: I. Improve collection rates of our new commerciaVmultifamily food waste collection program, and implement a residential food scrap collection program. Utilize Z-Best or other regional facility to compost or digest these food wastes for the time being. 2. After landfill closure, divert yard trimmings to Z-Best or other regional composting facility, and 3.. Direct RWQCP staff to incorporate alternatives for anaerobic digestion ofbiosolids and Palo Alto's food scrap collections into their comprehensive [Master 1 plan. Direct staff to consider yard trimmings as well, but as a secondary priority and only if it does not significantly increase the cost or lengthen the timeframe required. Page 4 of5 3i30/10 ATTACHMENTD Staff Response: Staffs recommendation is largely in line with what is referred to as the 90% solution. The upcoming RWQCP Master Plan will include an analysis of options for managing the biosolids that are currently incinerated. The analysis ofbiosolids options won't constitute a full "Feasibility Study". However it will include site specific cost and revenue estimates, general environment impact analysis and life cycle estimates of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Taking some food waste ",ill be analyzed, but it is very unlikely that anything close to all the P A food waste could be handled within the RWQCP footprint. It is important to note that the RWQCP is funded 35% by Palo Alto and 65% by its other Partners. Therefore, expenditures (including planning) for waste streams generated by only Palo Alto would have to be funded by 100% Palo Alto funds .. Major Capital Improvement Projects at the RWQCP also require approval by the Partner City Councils in addition to the Palo Alto City Council. Study Session Concerns: Numerous questions posed by Council at the study session related to the size, cost, operations, buffer zones, and environmental impacts of an anaerobic digestion facility. Staff Response: These types of questions are best answered through a detailed feasibility study combined with a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) so that all mitigation measures can be identified and properly estimated for cost. The cost of such a detailed study would exceed $250,000. Previously a similar effort for the project known as the Environmental Services Center (ESC) would have cost over $400,000 (CMR 125:05). The largest portion of the proposed ESC was the composting area. Because no readily available site has been identified, staff does not recommend moving forward with a full scale feasibility study for anaerobic digestion at this time. Page 5 of5 Sources New York Times, April 12, 2010, "Europe Finds Clean Energy in Trash, but US Lags". <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/science/earth/13trash.html> P. Ozge Kaplan, US EPA, "Is It Better to Bum or Bury Waste for Clean Electricity Generation", Environmental Science and Technology, 2009, 43, 1711-1717. CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES ARE MOVING AHEAD Experiments with conversion technologies are proliferating in California Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority 2 The SVSW A has been working on a redesign of their landfill operations since the spring of 2007 through a committee made up of members from the county and five cities. The committee have done a number of site visits and made a major shift in eml'hasis about a year ago. They renamed themselves the Conversion Technology Committee, and moved from considering recycling and anaerobic digesters to investigating true conversion technologies. They have just selected Plasco Energy Group, a Canadian firm, to build a plasma arc converter that will recycle and reuse 98% of their municipal waste. Sources www.SVSWA.org Look especially at the Salinas Valley Committee's timeline; it shows the evolution of their thinking and contains references to a series of reports that were prepared along the way. It also includes a presentation made in September 2009 that outlines the criteria used to select Plasco over Urbanaser. http://www.svswa.org/pdf/CT/2009-11- 19%20BD%20Meeting%20Recomemdations.pdf> http://www.plascoenergygroup.com/2011/02/salinas-valley-solid-waste- authority-chooses-plasco-energy-group/ www.Plascoenergygroup.com Santa Barbara County Following an open three-year process, four cities and the county of Santa Barbara are in the final stages of selecting a firm to run a new conversion technology center at the county landfill. The final RFP set very high standards for recycling rates, clean energy output from waste streams, zero waste goals, low GHG emissions, and low prices for ratepayers. Among the eight firms that were initially pre-qualified to bid were two firms .' focused on anaerobic digesters. Neither of these anaerobic digestion firms is among the four finalists. The authority is now deciding between two finalists, including Plasco. Sources www.conversiontechologystudy.com (look especially at the news site that tracks the evolution of the project over the last three years and the full RFP that sets the detailed criteria for the applicants). Contact: County Public Works Deputy Director MarkSchleich (805) 882-3600 Los Angeles County The LA County Board of Supervisors recently unanimously approved a series of conversion technology initiatives (April 20, 2010). This included funding for an immediate demonstration project and an identification and preparation of up to ten sites throughout the county for conversion technology plants. The Board concluded that conversion technologies would: --prevent the release of methane from landfill gas --provide substantial clean energy in place of fossil fuels --avoid trucking waste long distances --be cost competitive with other alternatives, and --use public/private, partnerships to save money. ' Sources www.SoCaIConversion.org (Check out the conference they put on September 23, 2010 "The Long-term Promise of Conversion Technology". The website lists the presenters and provides the power point slides for two of the presentations; they promise to have videos of the others up soon). www.CleanLA.com 3 Minor,8eth From: Sent: To: Subject: Grider, Donna SUl1day, April 03, 2011 8:32 PM Council, City FW: a green city Attachments: Conversion technologies March 2011.doc Please note attached from Council Member Schmid. Donna J. Grider, MMC City Clerk City of Palo Alto 650-329-2226 ~ Think Before You Printl ----------Forwarded message ---------- From: <gregschmid@sbcglobal.net> Date: Wed, Mar 30,2011 at 12:09 PM Subject: a green city To: sid espinosa <sidespinosa@gmail.com> Sid, Page 1 of 1 I just wanted to be sure that you had a copy of my latest information about regional green solutions for the problem we're dealing with in the Baylands and a list of relevant websites. I have shared this with Jim and Phil. Greg SID ESPINOSA Mayor, City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 617-3100 x3619 Sid.Espinosa@cityofpaloalto.org Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com!SidEspinosa Connect on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com!pages!Sid-Espinosa-Mayor-City-of-Palo-Alto!173437449350158 4/412011 Minor, Beth From: david.bubenik [david.bubenik@HomerAvenue.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 11 :05 AM To: Council, City; Renzel, Emily Subject: The proposed anerobic garbage digester factory in Byxbee Park 6 April 2011 To: The Palo Alto City Council From: David Bubenik, Homer Avenue, Palo Alto Concerning: "Garbage to Energy" in Byxbee Park Honorable Councilmembers Page 1 of2 CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFfiCE 11 APR!""6 AM II: 51 Last year, the City Council committed to spend $198,000 on a "feasibility study" of a proposed anaerobic digestion/power generating facility sited in Byxbee Park. It did not, however, make a fonnal finding that Palo Alto needed to have its very own facility. Hence there was no compelling reason to spend this scarce city money on the study. Now the money leak has more than doubled. The incomplete ARI study has encouraged a zealous citizens group to initiate a special election with an estimated $300,000+ price tag. At this point the City of Palo Alto is committed to spend over a half million dollars in preparations to acquire a facility which it has never established that it needs. It gets even worse. For the future, the preliminary ARI analysis gives a varied menu of options to spend varied millions of dollars per year on .this-I have considered the word carefully-boondoggle. Why? What good (let alone compelling), responsible fiscal justification is there? The situation is analogous to a homeowner committing to a financing plan for a new jet ski, avoiding considering that he has no need to own a jet ski himself. All this while the homeowner is having problems paying for basic budget items, and has deferred re-roofing and repainting his house. But... ah, to have the first jet ski on the block ... As I pointed out in my prior letter on this topic, more cost-effective alternatives for green investment exist. San Jose is already underway constructing a regional garbage digesting facility Palo Alto could utilize. Our city ought to be providing access to transport its wastes by rail, the greenest option, right now while an opportunity exists. Rationalizing our city's traffic flow patterns around a minimum emissions objective will improve both our carbon footprint and establish national leadership in reducing general pollution, without being a permanent money sink. Or we can continue this course. We can build a sizable factory of our very own that will blight our prime bayfront park like an oil refinery while providing, on the books if not in reality, about 1 % of our electrical energy consumption, at a continuing cost of millions of dollars per year. Please take the responsible course: Thank ARI for its useful insights, pay them what they're owed, and close down this ill-begotten scheme before it costs our cash-strapped city ever more money that it doesn't have . . 4/6/2011 Don't follow Brer Rabbit's unfortunate example. Let go of this Tar Baby while we can. Sincerely, David Bubenik 420 Homer Avenue Palo Alto 4/6/2011 / Page 2 of2 ÿþ 1784-5 DRAFT Energy–Compost Feasibility Study And Environmental Impact Initial Study Prepared For City of Palo Alto Prepared By Alternative Resources, Inc. in Association with Ascent Environmental, Inc., Douglas Environmental, Inc., and Facility Builders & Erectors, Inc. June 8, 2011 i Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................ 1-1 2.0 Executive Summary............................................................................................... 2-1 3.0 Approach............................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 General.......................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Greenhouse Gas Analysis .......................................................................... 3-3 3.3 Economic Analysis...................................................................................... 3-5 3.3.1 Overview...........................................................................................3.5 3.3.2 Alternatives and Scenarios Analyzed................................................3.6 3.3.3 Assumptions and Inputs................................................................... 3-8 3.3.4 General Information ....................................................................... 3-10 4.0 Results of Study .................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Greenhouse Gas Analysis ......................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Economic Analysis ..................................................................................... 4-2 4.3 Discussion of Project Delivery Options, Financing Options, Grants and Other Funding Opportunities....................................................4-5 4.3.1 Project Delivery Options...................................................................4-5 4.3.1.1 Methods of Project Delivery............................................. 4-5 4.3.1.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Project Delivery Methods................................................. 4-6 4.3.1.3 Project Delivery for Anaerobic Digestion Technology .... 4-10 4.3.2 Financing Options, Grants and Other Funding Opportunities ........ 4-11 4.3.2.1 Public and Private Financing Options ............................ 4-11 4.3.2.2 Grants and Other Funding Opportunities ....................... 4-12 5.0 Next Steps.............................................................................................................5-1 Appendices Appendix A: Request for Information Appendix B: Description of Companies, Technologies Responding to RFI Appendix C: Site Drawing; Site Preparation Requirements and Cost Estimates Appendix D: GHG Model Appendix E: Economic Model Table of Contents (continued) ii Tables Table 2-1: Study Alternatives.......................................................................................... 2-3 Table 2-2: Projections of Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings and Biosolids Quantities......... 2-4 Table 2-3: RFI Respondents........................................................................................... 2-4 Table 2-4: GHG Model Results....................................................................................... 2-7 Table 2-5: Summary of Economic Analyses................................................................... 2-9 Table 3-1: Study Alternatives.......................................................................................... 3-1 Table 3-2: Projections of Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings and Biosolids Quantities......... 3-2 Table 3-3: RFI Respondents........................................................................................... 3-2 Table 3-4: Construction Costs........................................................................................ 3-8 Table 3-5: Operation & Maintenance Costs.................................................................... 3-9 Table 3-6: Renewable Electric Power Generation ........................................................ 3-13 Table 3-7: Inputs for Export Cases............................................................................... 3-14 Table 4-1: GHG Model Results....................................................................................... 4-1 Table 4-2: Summary of Economic Analyses................................................................... 4-3 1-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Palo Alto, California, is currently seeking to determine the best means for managing food scraps, yard trimmings and biosolids. As part of that assessment, it is evaluating the feasibility of developing a dry anaerobic digestion (AD) facility at its landfill to convert food scraps and yard trimmings and potentially biosolids to renewable energy (electricity or fuels) and useable compost. The proposed location for the facility is a nine (9) acre site at the existing City landfill, next to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). The proposed site is on land that the City had dedicated for park use, as part of Byxbee Park, and would, operationally, become part of that park when the landfill closes. An affirmative vote by the electorate will be required to use this site for a dry AD facility. A petition has been filed for such a vote in the November 2011 election. This is a controversial issue within the City. There are advocates for an AD facility and advocates for keeping the land for future park use. The City currently composts yard trimmings at a traditional, open windrow compost facility at the landfill. Residential food scraps are currently mixed with and collected as part of the City’s municipal solid waste, taken to the Sunnyvale SMaRT Station, and transported to and disposed at the Kirby Canyon Landfill in South San Jose. In the future, the City will be initiating curb side collection of source separated residential food waste. Commercial food waste is collected separately, transported to and composted in Gilroy. Biosolids are currently incinerated at the RWQCP. In addition to consideration of dry AD technology, other long term options for management of food scraps and yard trimmings include transport and processing at an out of City AD facility proposed to be built by a private company, Greenwaste, adjacent to the water pollution control plant in San Jose or transport of these materials to the Z-Best compost facilities near Gilroy. Options for management of biosolids include continued incineration at the RWQCP, dry or wet anaerobic digestion at the landfill site, wet anaerobic digestion at the RWQCP and other alternatives being evaluated at the RWQCP site in a parallel study as part of long range planning efforts for that facility. The City estimates that in 2015, the first year that a dry AD facility may be operating, that on average approximately 14,000 tons per year (tpy) of food scraps and 21,000 tpy of yard trimmings will be generated. In addition, approximately 27,000 tpy of biosolids (at 26.5% solids) will be generated at the RWQCP. In an October 2009 report, the City’s Compost Task Force recommended that food scraps and yard trimmings, and potentially the biosolids, be processed by dry anaerobic digestion to produce renewable energy and compost as part of the City’s long term plan for management of these wastes. Biosolids would be handled in a separate dry AD cell from the food waste and yard trimmings. Biosolids would be transported by truck from the RWQCP to the landfill site. One of the next steps identified was conducting a feasibility study to evaluate dry anaerobic digestion technology. After considering the Task Force report, City Council directed that a feasibility study be conducted based on the Task Force recommendations for consideration of dry AD technology. 1-2 This report presents the results of the feasibility study, as conducted by Alternative Resources, Inc. (ARI) in conjunction with City staff at the Department of Public Works. Subconsultants to ARI included: Ascent Environmental, Inc. (for estimates of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG); Douglas Environmental, Inc. (to complete a CEQA Checklist); and Facility Builders & Erectors, Inc. (for completion of site preparation studies). As noted above, the proposed site for the dry AD facility is located at the City landfill, an unlined landfill, on land the City has dedicated for future park use. The site is on Byxbee Park and would, operationally, become part of that park when the landfill closes. A vote by the electorate would be required to use this site for a dry AD facility. A petition for such a vote in a November 2011 election has been filed. The City landfill currently receives self haul waste from City residents and is the site of the compost facility for yard trimmings. The landfill will close in 2011. Interim measures will be used by the City for yard trimmings and food scraps until the dry AD facility, or another alternative for long term management, is operational. There is currently a landfill gas collection system, the gas from which could be used with that produced by the dry AD facility to produce energy. The landfill gas is currently used in the afterburner at the RWQCP biosolids incinerator. The City has a municipal utility that provides electricity and natural gas to City customers. The municipal utility may purchase electricity and/or gas produced by the dry AD facility. In addition, the City operates a CNG fueling station for its fleet of vehicles. The CNG station is located within a few miles of the proposed site for the dry AD facility. The City may consider purchase of CNG if it is produced by a dry AD facility. As stated earlier, in parallel with the dry AD feasibility study, the City is conducting long range planning for its RWQCP. Part of that planning includes consideration of options for biosolids management at the RWQCP. Should a new project go forward at the RWQCP, consideration would be given to piping any gas produced at such a new facility to the dry AD facility at the landfill, which could have a common energy production system. This feasibility study is based on information included in the Task Force report, City information, input from interested public groups, the general public, published studies from other locations, as well as information provided in response to a Request for Information (RFI) that was distributed to companies in the anaerobic digestion industry. The RFI process was used to obtain current information from technology suppliers for a dry AD project specific to meeting the City’s needs. The feasibility study is intended to provide information to the City so that it can determine whether a dry AD project is feasible and if it is preferable, or not, when compared to other means of management of yard trimmings and food scraps. Of key interest to the City is a comparison of environmental impacts, including greenhouse gas emissions, and cost. The draft economic and greenhouse gas models were developed as part of this study, and they were made available to the public for review on the City’s web site in December 2010. Further, the draft results of the options considered were provided via the City’s web site in January 2011. In February and March 2011, two public meetings were held to receive 1-3 public comment on these draft results. Extensive written and oral comments were received. In March 2011, the draft results were presented to City Council. Again, extensive comment was received. In April 2011, at DPW staff’s recommendation, City Council approved additional modeling efforts to address City Council and public comments. Further, it was decided to delay preparation of a CEQA Checklist until the draft feasibility report was prepared. This draft report presents the findings of these most recent analyses. Subsequent to this draft report, and based on City Council and public review and comment, a final report will be prepared. Included in the remainder of this report is an Executive Summary and sections describing the Approach, Results and Next Steps. 2-1 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background The City of Palo Alto, California, is currently seeking to determine the best means for managing food scraps, yard trimmings and biosolids. As part of that assessment, it is evaluating the feasibility of developing a dry anaerobic digestion (AD) facility to convert food scraps and yard trimmings and potentially biosolids to renewable energy (electricity or fuels) and useable compost. The proposed location for the facility is a nine (9) acre site at the existing City landfill next to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). The proposed site is on land that the City has dedicated for park use, as part of Byxbee Park, and would, operationally, become part of that park when the landfill closes. A vote by the electorate would be required to use this site for a dry AD facility. A petition has been filed for such a vote in the November 2011 election. This is a controversial issue within the City. There are advocates for an AD facility and advocates for keeping the land for future park use. The City currently composts yard trimmings at a traditional, open windrow compost facility at the landfill. Residential food scraps are currently mixed with and collected as part of the City’s municipal solid waste, taken to the Sunnyvale SMaRT Station, and transported to and disposed at the Kirby Canyon Landfill in South San Jose. In the future, the City will be initiating curb side collection of source separated residential food waste. Commercial food waste is collected separately, transported to and composted in Gilroy. Biosolids are currently incinerated at the RWQCP. In addition to consideration of dry AD technology, other long term options for management of food scraps and yard trimmings include transport and processing at an out of City AD facility proposed to be built by a private company, Greenwaste, adjacent to the water pollution control plant in San Jose or transport of these materials to the Z-Best compost facilities near Gilroy. Options for management of biosolids include continued incineration at the RWQCP, dry or wet anaerobic digestion at the landfill site, wet anaerobic digestion at the RWQCP and other alternatives being evaluated at the RWQCP site in a parallel study as part of long range planning efforts for that facility. The City estimates that in 2015, the first year that a dry AD facility may be operating, that on average approximately 14,000 tons per year (tpy) of food scraps and 21,000 tpy of yard trimmings will be generated. In addition, approximately 27,000 tpy of biosolids (at 26.5% solids) will be generated at the RWQCP. In an October 2009 report, the City’s Compost Task Force recommended that food scraps and yard trimmings, and potentially the biosolids, be processed by dry anaerobic digestion to produce renewable energy and compost as part of the City’s long term plan for management of these wastes. Biosolids would be handled in a separate dry AD cell from the food waste and yard trimmings. Biosolids would be transported by truck from the RWQCP to the landfill site. One of the next steps identified was conducting a feasibility study to evaluate dry anaerobic digestion technology. After considering the Task Force report, City Council directed that a feasibility study be conducted based on the Task Force recommendations for consideration of dry AD technology. 2-2 This report presents the results of the feasibility study as conducted by Alternative Resources, Inc. (ARI) in conjunction with City staff at the Department of Public Works. Subconsultants to ARI included: Ascent Environmental, Inc. (for estimates of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG); Douglas Environmental, Inc. (to complete a CEQA Checklist); and Facility Builders & Erectors, Inc. (for completion of site preparation studies). The City landfill currently receives self haul waste from City residents and is the site of the compost facility for yard trimmings. The landfill will close in 2011. Interim measures will be used by the City for yard trimmings and food scraps until the dry AD facility, or another alternative for long term management, is operational. There is currently a landfill gas collection system, the gas from which could be used with that produced by the dry AD facility to produce energy. The landfill gas is currently used in the afterburner at the RWQCP biosolids incinerator. The City has a municipal utility that provides electricity and natural gas to City customers. The municipal utility may purchase electricity and/or gas produced by the dry AD facility. In addition, the City operates a CNG fueling station for its fleet of vehicles. The CNG station is located within a few miles of the proposed site for the dry AD facility. The City may consider purchase of CNG if it is produced by a dry AD facility. As stated earlier, in parallel with the dry AD feasibility study, the City is conducting long range planning for its RWQCP. Part of that planning includes consideration of options for biosolids management at the RWQCP. Should a new project go forward at the RWQCP, consideration would be given to piping any gas produced at such a new facility to the dry AD facility at the landfill, which could have a common energy production system. This feasibility study is based on information included in the Task Force report, City information, input from interested public groups, the general public, published studies from other locations, as well as information provided in response to a Request for Information (RFI) that was distributed to companies in the anaerobic digestion industry. The RFI process was used to obtain current information from technology suppliers for a dry AD project specific to meeting the City’s needs. The feasibility study is intended to provide information to the City so that it can determine whether a dry AD project is feasible and if it is preferable, or not, when compared to other means of management of yard trimmings and food scraps. Of key interest to the City is a comparison of environmental impacts, including greenhouse gas emissions, and cost. Draft economic and greenhouse gas models were developed as part of this study, and they were made available to the public for review on the City’s web site in December 2010. Further, the draft results of the options considered were provided via the City’s web site in January 2011. In February and March 2011, two public meetings were held to receive public comment on these draft results. Extensive written and oral comments were received. In March 2011, the draft results were presented to City Council. Again, extensive comment was received. In April 2011, at DPW staff’s recommendation, City Council approved additional modeling efforts to address City Council and public comments. Further, to focus on these additional modeling efforts, it was decided to delay preparation of 2-3 a CEQA Checklist until the draft feasibility report was prepared. This draft report presents the findings of these most recent analyses. Subsequent to this draft report, and based on City Council and public review and comment, a final report will be prepared. Included in the remainder of this Executive Summary are summary descriptions of the study approach, results and next steps. General Study Approach This feasibility study addresses the economic and environmental issues, including GHG emissions, associated with options to manage the City’s food scraps, yard trimmings and biosolids. Alternatives included in-City options and export options. In-City options identified by the City included dry anaerobic digestion (Dry AD) of food scraps and yard trimmings at a site at the landfill adjacent to the RWQCP. Options for biosolids included dry anaerobic digestion at the landfill site, but in a separate unit from the food scraps and yard trimmings, wet anaerobic digestion at the landfill site or at the RWQCP, and incineration. In addition, the City identified two alternatives for export of food scraps and yard trimmings, to existing or proposed facilities in San Jose and Gilroy. For the export options, the biosolids would either be incinerated or processed via wet anaerobic digestion at the RWQCP. Table 2-1 provides a tabular listing of the alternatives and options. Further evaluation was completed to assess beneficial use of the biogas produced by the Dry and Wet AD processes. Options included generation of electricity and production of natural gas for insertion into the natural gas pipeline. Use of methane gas from the landfill was also considered to supplement the gas produced from the AD processes. Table 2-1. Study Alternatives Alternative 1: In-City Options at Landfill Site Food Scraps Yard Trimmings Biosolids Case 1a Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD (Separate Cell) Case 1b Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD at Landfill Case 1c Dry AD Dry AD Wet Ad at RWQCP Case 1d Dry AD Dry AD Continue Incineration at RWQCP Alternative 2: Export Case 2 Proposed San Jose AD (Zanker) Gilroy Compost (ZBEST) Continue Incineration at RWQCP Case 2a Proposed San Jose AD (Zanker) Gilroy Compost (ZBEST) Wet AD at RWQCP Alternative 3: Export Case 3 Gilroy Compost (ZBEST) Gilroy Compost (ZBEST Continue Incineration at RWQCP Case 3a Gilroy Compost (ZBEST) Gilroy Compost (ZBEST Wet AD at RWQCP The City provided estimated projections for the quantity of food scraps, yard trimmings and biosolids for 2015, the first year a Dry AD facility could be operating, and for 2034, the last year for a 20-year planning period. Table 2-2 presents those estimates. 2-4 Table 2-2. Projections of Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings and Biosolids Quantities (Tons/Year) Food Scraps Yard Trimmings Biosolids Total First year: 2015 14,000 21,000 27,000 62,000 Last Year: 2034 19,000 21,000 34,000 74,000 To obtain representative, current, market-based information for the cost of constructing and operating a Dry AD system, as well as technology specific estimates for GHG emissions, an RFI was prepared and issued in September 2010. The RFI described the sensitivity of the site as part of Byxbee Park and stressed environmental considerations that the respondent was to take into account for facility design and operation, with particular emphasis on needs for odor and noise control and minimizing the visual impact of a facility. All food scrap, yard trimming and biosolids receiving and processing areas were to be fully enclosed with odor control, and any final curing area for the digestate was to be covered, with odor control, or enclosed in a building with odor control. To encourage company participation in the RFI process, particularly to facilitate their providing sensitive cost information, the RFI specified that cost information provided would not be released or identified specifically by company name in this feasibility report or a public meeting. Seven, experienced companies responded to the RFI in November 2011. See Table 2-3. All seven companies have operating, commercial facilities in Europe. A description of each of the companies, their technology and photographs of reference facilities are provided in Appendix B of this report. Table 2-3. RFI Respondents Technology Respondent Axpo-Kompogas St. Engineering Group BEKON Energy Technologies Mustang Renewable Power Ventures Bioferm Energy Systems McGill Compost DRANCO Organic Waste Systems GICON Bienergie GmbH Harvest Power Strabag-Linde KCA Ecocorp Valorga Urbaser 2-5 The technologies offered by the respondents to the RFI represent a broad spectrum of approaches for Dry AD, each having advantages and disadvantages and associated costs. Consequently, the approach taken for the feasibility study was to identify costs representative of the lower cost technologies and those representative of the higher cost technologies. A range of costs was analyzed, “low” and “high”, for each of the alternatives and options identified by the City in Table 2-1. It is likely that the lower cost options would provide a suitable system for the City with the quantities of food scraps and yard trimmings available in the City. The higher cost systems typically become more economically competitive when larger quantities of these materials are available. To supplement the construction and operating costs for Dry AD facilities prepared by the companies responding to the RFI, site preparation work was identified and cost estimates prepared by the ARI team. Site preparation work included landfill excavation, placement of the excavated material on other areas of the landfill, and provision for pilings for a proper foundation considering construction on fill material and the geotechnical properties of the underlying natural sediment of San Francisco Bay. Site preparation cost estimates were prepared specific to facility design requirements provided by companies responding to the RFI. The facility footprints required by the companies varied between approximately 2.5 acres and 9 acres. When considering the results of this feasibility study, it should be recognized that this is a planning level analysis and estimates of GHG emissions and project economics are not firm, fixed figures. To obtain firm, fixed figures it will be necessary to conduct a formal market procurement for the desired facility and services. Approach to Greenhouse Gas Analysis The GHG analysis quantified the annual emissions level associated with all GHG-emitting activities that would occur under each alternative. The first step in this process was the establishment of an “assessment boundary” to determine the type of GHG-emitting activities that were analyzed. Generally, the determination of which GHG-emitting activities were included in the model is consistent with the assessment boundary recommended in the Climate Action Reserve’s Organic Waste Digestion Project Protocol. Any deviations from this guidance relate to the fact that the Climate Action Reserve’s protocol addresses some processes that are not applicable to the City (e.g., manure handling). The types of GHGs emitted by the aforementioned activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Emission levels were estimated for each of these activities using methodologies established by the California Air Resources Board, the California Climate Action Registry, the Climate Action Reserve, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and/or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The levels of GHGs associated with dry anaerobic digestion were based on information provided in the RFI responses. The level of GHGs associated with wet anaerobic digestion and incineration of biosolids were based on information provided by a recent study being performed for the City that evaluates options for handling biosolids from the RWQCP. The GHG model does not differentiate between biogenic and anthropogenic emissions. Emissions of CH4 and N2O were converted to units of carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2-e) 2-6 according to their global warming potential. The CO2-e emissions from all activities under each alternative were tallied to allow for the direct comparison of the alternatives. In addition, emissions associated with the construction of new facilities under each alternative (e.g., dry anaerobic digestion facility, wet anaerobic digestion facility) were estimated and then amortized over the projected operational life of the facility (i.e., 20 years). The emissions were also converted to CO2-e, as needed, and included in the tally for each alternative. The GHG model consists of a system of related worksheets. For transparency, the model indicates the units of every numerical value, the source of the value and/or the calculation used to compute the value. The full GHG model is presented in Appendix D to this report. Results of Greenhouse Gas Analysis The total CO2-e emissions generated under each alternative is summarized in Table 2-4. The total CO2-e emissions are lowest under Alternative 1a, followed by Alternatives 1c and 1b, respectively. Generally, the more organic waste that is subject to anaerobic digestion, the lower the total CO2-e level. The model also indicates that the incineration of biosolids (under Alternatives 1d, 2, and 3) generates a high level of CO2-e emissions relative to other activities included in the model. This is largely due to the fact that the incineration of biosolids is energy-intensive, consuming high levels of natural gas, and because no methane is recovered and then used to produce renewable electricity. For those alternatives that include dry and/or wet anaerobic digestion, the recovered biogas can be used in two beneficial ways. Biogas can be combusted to produce electricity. Electricity produced from biogas would be considered renewable and would displace the consumption of equal amounts of fossil fuel-based electricity from conventional sources, thereby resulting in a GHG reduction. Biogas can also be upgraded to pipeline-quality natural gas and used in place of conventional fossil-fuel based natural gas; however, the combustion of natural gas made from biogas would result in equal levels of GHG emissions as the consumption of fossil-fuel derived natural gas and, thus, no reduction would be achieved. As shown in Table 2-4, the net level of GHG emissions is lower when biogas is used to produce electricity for those alternatives that include some form of anaerobic digestion with biogas recovery. Approach to Economic Analysis The economic analysis was performed to estimate the costs that could be expected from the use of the technology applications described above for the management of food scraps, yard trimmings and biosolids, and to compare those costs to estimated costs for alternatives based on the export of food scraps and yard trimmings to existing or proposed facilities in San Jose and Gilroy, and to the in-City processing of biosolids by either incineration or wet AD. The analysis projected a tipping fee for the first year of facility operations (2015) and for subsequent years over a 20-year operating period, total life-cycle costs and net present value (NPV) costs for the various alternatives and cases analyzed. 2-7 Table 2-4. GHG Model Results (With Electricity Production) Alternative 1: In-City Options at Landfill Site MT CO2-e/Year Case 1a (All Dry AD – Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Biosolids) 13,831 Case 1b (Dry AD – Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings; Wet AD Biosolids at Landfill) 14,234 Case 1c (Dry AD – Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings; Wet AD Biosolids at RWQCP) 14,207 Case 1d (Dry AD – Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings; Continue Incinerate Biosolids) 21,106 Alternative 2: Export MT CO2-e/Year Alternative 2 (Export Food Scraps to San Jose, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Continue Incinerate Biosolids) 23,329 Alternative 2a (Export Food Scraps to San Jose, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Wet AD Biosolids at RWQCP) 16,430 Alternative 3: Export MT CO2-e/Year Alternative 3 (Export Food Scraps and Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Continue Incinerate Biosolids) 22,716 Alternative 3a (Export Food Scraps and Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Wet AD Biosolids at RWQCP) 15,818 In all cases, capital and operations and maintenance costs were estimated, and then revenues anticipated from sale of products (e.g., electricity, recovered recyclable materials and compost) were subtracted from the total costs to provide a net cost to the City for each option. For the AD cases, based upon the information provided by the RFI respondents, it became apparent that there were two cost groupings, a lower technology cost group and a higher technology cost group. Therefore, it was decided to model both groups of technologies, selecting a representative technology from each group. Further, high and low technology pricing was applied to several cases as described in Table 2-1. Those cases were analyzed for three scenarios, Scenario 1, Scenario 2, and Scenario 3, representing the impact of selected values for key assumptions, including those for ownership, financing, potential grant levels, rent, application of a “carbon cost adder” based on the City’s Climate Action Plan, and application of a contingency on the cost of export. The selected values for those assumptions resulted in variations in cost that were more favorable to anaerobic digestion in Scenario 1 and more favorable to export in Scenario 3. The individual scenarios are described in Section 3.3. In addition to information provided by the RFI respondents and the City, market-based information on factors such as financing approaches and values for products were applied. Preliminary analyses were prepared and reviewed with the City in January through March 2011. Following that review process, and with substantial public input and requests by City Council, the initial analyses were revised, resulting in the analyses that are presented in this report. 2-8 Results of Economic Analysis The economic analyses performed resulted in six sets of model runs, including three Scenarios, 28 individual AD cases for low and high cost AD technologies, and four export cases, a total of 48 model runs. See Table 2-5 below. Recognizing that these are planning level economic analyses, the key findings can be summarized as follows. 1. For Scenario 1, several of the lower cost AD technology cases are less costly than or competitive with export options. Cases 1a (all materials processed via dry AD at the Palo Alto Landfill (PALF)), 1b (food scraps and yard trimmings processed by dry AD at the PALF and biosolids processed by wet AD at the PALF) and 1c (food scraps and yard trimmings processed by dry AD at the PALF and biosolids processed by wet AD at the RWQCP) are less costly than the export cases 2 and 3 that include the continued incineration of biosolids with a new fluidized bed incinerator constructed in 2030. Case 1a (all materials processed via dry AD at the PALF) is less costly than export cases 2a and 3a that include biosolids processing via wet AD at the RWQCP. Cases 1b and 1c are also competitive with export cases 2a and 3a, although somewhat more expensive. 2. For Scenario 2, all cases except for 1d (that includes food scraps and yard trimmings processed by dry AD at the PALF and continued incineration of biosolids, with a new fluidized bed incinerator constructed in 2030) are less costly than export cases 2 and 3, and case 1d is competitive with export cases 2 and 3; only case 1a is less costly than or competitive with export cases 2a and 3a. 3. For Scenario 3, case 1a is competitive with export cases 2 and 3, but somewhat more expensive that export cases 2a and 3a. 4. For Scenarios 1, 2 and 3, for all cases, the higher cost AD technologies present costs which are significantly more expensive than either the lower cost AD technologies or the export cases. 5. The option of continued incineration at the RWQCP using the existing multiple hearth incinerator, then replacing that with a new fluidized bed incinerator in 2030, is a more costly solution than dry or wet anaerobic digestion for treatment of biosolids. Discussion of Project Delivery Options There are many project delivery methods available for developing an AD facility. These methods involve different approaches for ownership, financing, design, construction and operation of the facility. The traditional approach for project development for public works infrastructure has been the “public model” with public ownership, public financing, the “design-bid-build” (DBB) approach for design, bidding and construction activities, and public operation. In the past 20 years, increased interest has grown in alternatives to this traditional public model, particularly for projects that are costly, utilizing new technology that may not have a long “track record”, or technology that is licensed and only available through alternative project delivery options. Such interest has resulted due to the potential Table 2-5. Summary of Economic Analyses 2-9 Base Cases Alternative 1 (at Palo Alto Landfill) Year 1 (2015) Tipping Fee ($/ton) Year 20 (2034) Tipping Fee ($/ton) NPV Total Costs Over 20 Years Year 1 (2015) Tipping Fee ($/ton) Year 20 (2034) Tipping Fee ($/ton) NPV Total Costs Over 20 Years Year 1 (2015) Tipping Fee ($/ton) Year 20 (2034) Tipping Fee ($/ton) NPV Total Costs Over 20 Years Low-Cost Range Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Case 1a: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings & Biosolids Dry AD in separate cells @ Palo Alto Landfill (PALF)1 $69 $32 $58,568,589 $86 $50 $71,993,438 $120 $73 $96,226,397 Case 1b: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD, Biosolids Wet AD – all @ PALF $130 $71 $112,537,531 $157 $102 $133,759,937 $209 $138 $170,950,938 Case 1c: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF, Biosolids Wet AD @ RWQCP $129 $71 $111,355,915 $155 $101 $133,119,590 $207 $137 $169,007,164 Case 1d: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF, Biosolids Incinerated @ RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator on line in 2031 $101 $441 $137,096,645 $113 $453 $146,947,702 $129 $459 $154,505,010 High-Cost Range Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Case 1a: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings & Biosolids Dry AD in separate cells @ PALF $238 $135 $201,195,623 $281 $183 $235,149,874 $361 $245 $294,370,715 Case 1b: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD, Biosolids Wet AD – all @ PALF $213 $109 $179,740,533 $254 $156 $211,590,278 $331 $214 $268,294,477 Case 1c: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF, Biosolids Wet AD @ RWQCP $212 $109 $178,939,857 $253 $155 $210,617,095 $329 $213 $267,027,894 Case 1d: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF, Biosolids Incinerated @ RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator on line in 2031 $177 $472 $199,061,822 $206 $502 $221,509,086 $248 $530 $249,502,488 1 Uncertainty remains regarding Case 1a costs, limited data Table 2-5. Summary of Economic Analyses (continued) 2-10 Scenario 1 & 2 Scenario 3 Alternatives 2 & 3 (Export) Year 1 (2015) Tipping Fee ($/ton) Year 20 (2034) Tipping Fee ($/ton) NPV Total Costs Over 20 Years Year 1 (2015) Tipping Fee ($/ton) Year 20 (2034) Tipping Fee ($/ton) NPV Total Costs Over 20 Years Case 2: Food Scraps to San Jose AD Facility, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy Composting Facility (via SMaRT), Biosolids Incinerated at RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2031 $93 $486 $139,527,960 $72 $455 $116,714,351 Case 3: Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer, Yard Trimmings to SMaRT – then both to Gilroy Composting Facility, Biosolids incinerated at RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2031 $89 $477 $134,349,833 $68 $448 $112,511,650 Alternatives 2a & 3a (Export) Year 1 (2015) Tipping Fee ($/ton) Year 20 (2034) Tipping Fee ($/ton) NPV Total Costs Over 20 Years Year 1 (2015) Tipping Fee ($/ton) Year 20 (2034) Tipping Fee ($/ton) NPV Total Costs Over 20 Years Case 2a: Food Scraps to San Jose AD Facility, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy Composting Facility (via SMaRT), Biosolids processed via Wet AD @ RWQCP $103 $129 $94,312,261 $92 $107 $81,747,002 Case 3a: Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer, Yard Trimmings to SMaRT – then both to Gilroy Composting Facility, Biosolids processed via Wet AD @ RWQCP $97 $121 $89,266,458 $89 $100 $77,544,302 2-11 opportunities for private financing, lower cost, shorter design and construction schedules, and the ability to shift design, construction and performance risk, where appropriate, from a public entity to a private company. This potential to shift risk for financing and technical and economic performance is particularly attractive for development of AD technologies, which at this time, while operating commercially outside the United States, are only now being constructed or considered for commercialization in the United States. In addition, recent Federal funding options including grants, loans or loan guarantees may only be available to private companies. Based on the consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of the project delivery methods and the current status of AD technology development in the U.S., it is recommended that either the Private Model or the design-build-own-operate-transfer (DBOOT) project delivery method be considered for use for financing, design, construction and operation of an anaerobic digestion technology facility. These are the most advantageous means to provide for development of an AD technology facility as they place financing, design, build and operational responsibility on the private company as well as the responsibilities of ownership. If desired, DBOOT provides a means for public purchase of the conversion technology facility. These are the least risky approaches for the public entity. They provide the protection of guaranteed long-term operating performance at the least technical, environmental and financial risk to the public entity. It also reflects the fact that the public entity does not currently operate AD technology or similar facilities. To put on and train staff to operate and maintain a complex waste management facility, such as an AD facility, may not be an easy undertaking, nor would it be advantageous, at least initially, to accept the risk of facility performance during operations under these circumstances. In addition, the licenses for many AD technologies are held by private companies and use of such technology may only be available through private or DBOOT delivery. Lastly, certain funding opportunities such as under the ARRA and DOE are available only to privately-owned projects. Should the City want to consider a public ownership option, with public financing, as a means to reduce project financing costs, it is recommended that a design-build-operate (DBO) project delivery approach be considered. Although the City will assume debt payment risk with public ownership, a DBO project delivery will provide the benefits of the Private Model or DBOOT model regarding private assumption of design, construction and operational responsibility and risk. Financing Options, Grants and Other Funding Opportunities There are two fundamental means of financing an AD project: public or private financing. Section 4.3.2 provides a discussion of these financing options. Also, although it cannot be guaranteed, there may be opportunities to off-set a project’s costs through mechanisms such as grants and low-interest loans from both State and Federal funding sources. As a matter of record, a project in California of a similar nature has this year received a State grant on the order of 20% of the construction cost of a facility. Also, Federal grants up to 30% have been awarded, and in one case up to 50% by U.S. DOE in a matching grant. In addition, by requiring California utilities to increase their “renewable portfolio standard” (the 2-12 percentage of electric power generated by renewable energy sources) to 33% by 2020, and to provide above-market pricing for the purchase of such power, the recently enacted California Renewable Energy Resources Act provides a significant economic support for renewable energy facilities such as the AD facilities considered in this study. Potential funding sources will warrant consideration as a project is being structured. However, the type of project-specific technical and financial information that is needed to support such consideration is not available at this time. Also, many sources rely on annual State or Federal budgeting, and given current uncertainties regarding both State and Federal budgeting, it is difficult to definitively assess whether such funding will be available at the time (2013) that any of the facilities contemplated by this study would be nearing financing. The in-depth investigation of potential funding sources will become appropriate as a project becomes better defined, and the technology, performance and financial aspects of a project can be matched with the funding opportunities available at that time. For example, the California Energy Commission’s (CEC) priorities for 2011, according to its 2011-2012 investment plan, are transportation and vehicular programs. Whether other energy priorities would be included in plans for later years, and what the funding levels might be, are unknown. Given such uncertainties, for the analyses performed, two potential funding support mechanisms were modeled: public financing (Scenario 1) that would include a low-interest loan I-Bank loan (which is not directly dependent on State budgeting) as a part of the financing structure, and a 15% grant for the public ownership case (Scenario 1) and for one private-ownership case (Scenario 2). Scenario 3 assumed private financing at market rates without the benefit of a grant. Any State or Federal support mechanism would improve the economics of a project and, depending upon the availability and value of any one mechanism, may influence the project delivery approach adopted. Next Steps Should the site at Byxbee Park become available, and the City determine based on the results of this feasibility study that it will further consider anaerobic digestion or another technology for food scraps and yard trimmings, with or without anaerobic digestion or some other solution for biosolids at the site or at the RWQCP, it is recommended that the next steps include completing the CEQA checklist and then obtaining firm technical and cost proposals from private companies for the desired facility and services. As part of this effort, firm technical and cost proposals should also be obtained from companies that would offer export options. Obtaining Proposals for in-City and export options will entail definition by the City of the facility concept and/or services, identification of performance specifications, consideration of facility ownership and financing options, as appropriate, and definition of desired business terms and contract principles, all to be made part of a Request for Proposals (RFP). The issuance of an RFP does not obligate the City to pursue a project. Resulting Proposals will provide firm technical and cost information necessary for further comparison of in-City and export options and project consideration. 3-1 3.0 APPROACH 3.1 General This feasibility study addresses the economic and environmental issues, including GHG emissions, associated with options to manage the City’s food scraps, yard trimmings and biosolids. Alternatives included in-City options and export options. In-City options identified by the City included dry anaerobic digestion (Dry AD) of food scraps and yard trimmings at a site at the landfill adjacent to the RWQCP. Options for biosolids included dry anaerobic digestion at the landfill site, but in a separate unit from the food scraps and yard trimmings, wet anaerobic digestion at the landfill site or at the RWQCP, and incineration. In addition, the City identified two alternatives for export of food scraps and yard trimmings, to existing or proposed facilities in San Jose and Gilroy. For the export options, the biosolids would either be incinerated or processed via wet anaerobic digestion at the RWQCP. Table 3-1 provides a tabular listing of the alternatives and options. Further evaluation was completed to assess beneficial use of the biogas produced by the Dry and Wet AD processes. Options included generation of electricity and production of natural gas for insertion into the natural gas pipeline. Use of methane gas from the landfill was also considered to supplement the gas produced from the AD processes. The City provided estimated projections for the quantity of food scraps, yard trimmings and biosolids for 2015, the first year a Dry AD facility could be operating, and for 2034, the last year for a 20-year planning period. Table 3-2 presents those estimates. Table 3-1. Study Alternatives Alternative 1: In-City Options at Landfill Site Food Scraps Yard Trimmings Biosolids Case 1a Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD (Separate Cell) Case 1b Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD at Landfill Case 1c Dry AD Dry AD Wet Ad at RWQCP Case 1d Dry AD Dry AD Continue Incineration at RWQCP Alternative 2: Export Case 2 Proposed San Jose AD (Zanker) Gilroy Compost (ZBEST) Continue Incineration at RWQCP Case 2a Proposed San Jose AD (Zanker) Gilroy Compost (ZBEST) Wet AD at RWQCP Alternative 3: Export Case 3 Gilroy Compost (ZBEST) Gilroy Compost (ZBEST Continue Incineration at RWQCP Case 3a Gilroy Compost (ZBEST) Gilroy Compost (ZBEST Wet AD at RWQCP 3-2 Table 3-2. Projections of Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings and Biosolids Quantities (Tons/Year) Food Scraps Yard Trimmings Biosolids Total First year: 2015 14,000 21,000 27,000 62,000 Last Year: 2034 19,000 21,000 34,000 74,000 To obtain representative, current, market-based information for the cost of constructing and operating a Dry AD system, as well as technology specific estimates for GHG emissions, a Request for Information (RFI) was prepared and issued in September 2010 (a copy of the RFI is included as Appendix A to this report). The RFI described the sensitivity of the site as part of Byxbee Park and stressed environmental considerations that the respondent was to take into account for facility design and operation, with particular emphasis on needs for odor and noise control and minimizing the visual impact of a facility. All food scrap, yard trimming and biosolids receiving and processing areas were to be fully enclosed with odor control, and any final curing area for the digestate was to be covered, with odor control, or enclosed in a building with odor control. To encourage company participation in the RFI process, particularly to facilitate their providing sensitive cost information, the RFI specified that cost information provided would not be released or identified specifically by company name in this feasibility report or a public meeting. Seven, experienced companies responded to the RFI in November 2011. See Table 3-3. All seven companies have operating, commercial facilities in Europe. A description of each of the companies, their technology and photographs of reference facilities are provided in Appendix B. Table 3-3. RFI Respondents Technology Respondent Axpo-Kompogas St. Engineering Group BEKON Energy Technologies Mustang Renewable Power Ventures Bioferm Energy Systems McGill Compost DRANCO Organic Waste Systems GICON Bienergie GmbH Harvest Power Strabag-Linde KCA Ecocorp Valorga Urbaser 3-3 The technologies offered by the respondents to the RFI represent a broad spectrum of approaches for Dry AD, each having advantages and disadvantages and associated costs. The technology approaches include simple, manual systems and highly automated systems, different levels of preprocessing and post AD processing to remove contaminants, batch feed and continuous feed systems, horizontal and vertical digestion chambers, one stage and two stage digestion, mixing systems or not in the AD chamber, methalphic and thermophilic temperature regimes in the digesters, and different methods for curing the digestate to make compost product. As a result of these different technical approaches, the space requirements and costs provided by the companies for constructing and operating the AD systems varied by a large amount; however, the responses fell into two groups-those with a simpler technology, smaller footprint and lower cost, and those with a more automated technology, larger footprint and more costly approach. Consequently, the approach taken for the feasibility study was to identify costs representative of the lower cost technologies and those representative of the higher cost technologies. A range of costs was analyzed, “low” and “high”, for each of the alternatives and options identified by the City in Table 3-1. It is likely that the lower cost options would provide a suitable system for the City with the quantities of food scraps and yard trimmings available in the City. The higher cost systems typically become more economically competitive when larger quantities of these materials are available. To supplement the construction and operating costs for dry AD facilities prepared by the companies responding to the RFI, site preparation work was identified and cost estimates prepared by the ARI team. Site preparation work included landfill excavation, placement of the excavated material on other areas of the landfill, and provision for pilings for a proper foundation considering construction on waste fill material and the geotechnical properties of the underlying natural sediment of San Francisco Bay. Site preparation cost estimates were prepared specific to facility design requirements provided by companies responding to the RFI. The facility footprints required by the companies varied between approximately 2.5 acres and 9 acres. A site drawing is provided in Appendix C, as well as the engineering estimates for site preparation requirements and costs. When considering the results of this feasibility study, it should be recognized that this is a planning level analysis and estimates of GHG emissions and project economics are not firm, fixed figures. To obtain firm, fixed figures it will be necessary to conduct a formal market procurement for the desired facility and services. 3.2 Greenhouse Gas Analysis The GHG analysis quantified the annual emissions level associated with all GHG-emitting activities that would occur under each alternative. The first step in this process was the establishment of an “assessment boundary” to determine the type of GHG-emitting activities that were analyzed. Generally, the determination of which GHG-emitting activities were included in the model is consistent with the assessment boundary recommended in the Climate Action Reserve’s Organic Waste Digestion Project Protocol. Any deviations from this guidance relate to the fact that the Climate Action Reserve’s protocol addresses some processes that are not applicable to the City (e.g., manure handling). 3-4 Specifically, the assessment boundary of the GHG model begins after the local collection of food scraps, yard trimmings, and biosolids. This is because these collection activities would be performed in the same manner under all the alternatives being analyzed (i.e., including curbside collection and hauling from local residences and businesses) and also occur, under existing conditions. Other activities within the assessment boundary include the following, where applicable: • additional hauling of yard trimmings and food scraps after local collection in the City, • dewatering of biosolids at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant, • transport of biosolids to a dry or wet anaerobic digester (by truck or pump), • operation of dry and/or wet anaerobic digesters, • composting of organic material after digestion and/or without digestion, • incineration of biosolids and associated ash disposal, • hauling of compost to retailers, and • hauling of contaminants and residuals to the appropriate landfill. The end of the assessment boundary includes the final consumption of any energy produced with the organic wastes, as well as any displacement of GHG-emitting, fossil fuel- based energy. The end of the assessment boundary also includes the distribution of compost products made from the organic wastes to local retailers, if applicable. Activities outside the assessment boundary of the GHG model include those drilling, refining, and distribution of fossil fuels (e.g., diesel and CNG used in truck hauling, natural gas used for incineration) and the manufacturing of haul trucks and capital equipment (e.g., pumps, digesters). The GHG model also does not include reductions in GHG emissions associated with the replacement of nitrogen-based fertilizers with compost produced from the City’s organic wastes. Worksheet 2 of the GHG model presents which particular GHG-emitting activities occur under each alternative. All GHG emission estimates were based on waste throughput levels projected for the year 2015 (i.e., 14,000 tpy of food scraps, 21,000 tpy of yard trimmings, and 27,000 tpy of biosolids). Generally, the emissions would adjust proportionally to changes in the waste throughput during subsequent years. The types of GHGs emitted by the aforementioned activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Emission levels were estimated for each of these activities using methodologies established by the California Air Resources Board, the California Climate Action Registry, the Climate Action Reserve, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and/or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The levels of GHGs associated with dry anaerobic digestion were based on information provided in the RFI responses. The level of GHGs associated with wet anaerobic digestion and incineration of biosolids were based on information provided by a recent study being performed for the City that evaluates options for handling biosolids from the RWQCP. The GHG model does not differentiate between biogenic and anthropogenic emissions. Emissions of CH4 and N2O were converted to units of carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2-e) according to their global warming potential. The CO2-e emissions from all activities under each alternative were tallied to allow for the direct comparison of the alternatives. 3-5 In addition, emissions associated with the construction of new facilities under each alternative (e.g., dry anaerobic digestion facility, wet anaerobic digestion facility) were estimated and then amortized over the projected operational life of the facility (i.e., 20 years). The emissions were also converted to CO2-e, as needed, and included in the tally for each alternative. The GHG model consists of a system of related worksheets. For transparency, the model indicates the units of every numerical value, the source of the value and/or the calculation used to compute the value. Generally, each individual worksheet in the GHG model represents one of the GHG-emitting activities that would occur under at least one of the alternatives. Each worksheet is numbered to allow for ease of navigation. Blue text on each worksheet indicates the next GHG-emitting activity that applies to each alternative, as well as the corresponding worksheet. The full GHG model is presented in Appendix D. 3.3 Economic Analysis 3.3.1 Overview The economic analysis was performed to estimate the costs that could be expected from the use of the technology applications described above for the management of food scraps, yard trimmings and biosolids, and to compare those costs to estimated costs for alternatives based on the export of food scraps and yard trimmings to existing or proposed facilities in San Jose and Gilroy. The analysis projected a first year tipping fee for the first year of facility operations (2015), tipping fees for each year thereafter for a 20-year operating period, total life-cycle costs and net present value (NPV) costs for the various alternatives and cases analyzed. In all cases, capital and operations and maintenance costs were estimated, then revenues anticipated from sale of products (e.g., electricity, recovered recycled materials and compost) were subtracted from the total costs to provide a net cost to the City for each option. For the dry AD cases, based upon the information provided by the RFI respondents, it became apparent that there were two cost groupings, a lower technology cost group and a higher technology cost group. Therefore, it was decided to model both groups of technologies, selecting a representative technology from each group. Further, high and low technology pricing was applied to several cases as described in Table 2-1. Those cases were analyzed for three scenarios, Scenario 1, Scenario 2, and Scenario 3, representing the impact of selected values for key assumptions, including those for ownership, financing, potential grant levels, rent, application of a “carbon cost adder” based on the City’s Climate Action Plan, and application of a contingency on the cost of export. The selected values for those assumptions resulted in variations in cost that were more favorable to anaerobic digestion in Scenario 1 and more favorable to export in Scenario 3. The individual scenarios are described in Section 3.3. In addition to information provided by the RFI respondents and the City, market-based information on factors such as financing approaches and values for products were applied. Individual cost and revenue factors would change over time, and depending on the factor, would be 3-6 affected by either inflation, increases in throughput, or both, as shown in the economic proformas in Appendix E. Preliminary analyses were prepared and reviewed with the City in January through March 2011. Following that review process, and with substantial public input and requests by City Council, the initial analyses were revised, resulting in the analyses that are presented in this report. 3.3.2 Alternatives and Scenarios Analyzed With the differentiation between higher cost technology and lower cost technology pricing levels established, the following alternatives and cases were defined: Alternative 1(In-City Options for Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings and Biosolids) Four cases were defined for Alternative 1, all including the development of AD facilities and, in one case, including biosolids incineration. Case 1a - - Food scraps, yard trimmings and biosolids would be processed by dry AD at a facility at the Palo Alto Landfill (PALF). The facility would have separate processing cells for food scraps/yard trimmings and biosolids. All AD gas produced would be processed at the PALF site. Case 1b - - Food scraps and yard trimmings would be processed by dry AD. Biosolids would be processed separately by wet AD. Both processes would be located at the PALF site. All AD gas produced would be processed at the PALF site. Case 1c - - Food scraps and yard trimmings would be processed by dry AD in a facility located at the PALF site. Biosolids would be processed in a wet AD facility located at the Palo Alto regional water quality control plant (RWQCP). All AD gas produced would be processed at the PALF site. Case 1d - - Food scraps and yard trimmings would be processed by dry AD in a facility at the PALF site. Biosolids would be incinerated at the existing RWQCP multiple hearth incinerator, with ash transported to and disposed of at the Kettleman Hills Landfill. Further, the existing incinerator would be replaced by a new fluidized bed incinerator in 2030. Alternatives 2 and 2a (Export of Food Scraps and Yard Trimmings. Biosolids incinerated at the RWQCP or processed at a new, Wet Anaerobic Digestion Facility at the RWQCP) Two cases were defined. Food scraps would be transported to and processed at the planned new San Jose AD facility (“Zanker”). Yard trimmings would be transported to the SMaRT facility and, from there, transported to and processed at the Gilroy composting facility (“ZBest”). Biosolids would be managed differently, as follows: 3-7 Case 2 - - Biosolids would be incinerated at the RWQCP, with ash transported to and disposed of at the Kettleman Hills Landfill. The existing incinerator would be replaced by a new fluidized bed incinerator in 2030. Case 2a - - Biosolids would be processed at a new wet AD facility located at the RWQCP. Alternatives 3 and 3a (Export of Food Scraps and Yard Trimmings. Biosolids incinerated at the RWQCP or processed at a new, Wet Anaerobic Digestion Facility at the RWQCP.) Two cases were defined. Food scraps would be transported to the San Jose transfer facility, then transported to and processed at the Gilroy composting facility (“ZBest”). Yard trimmings would be transported to SMaRT, then transported to and processed at the Gilroy composting facility (“ZBest”). Biosolids would be managed differently, as follows: Case 3 - - Biosolids would be incinerated at the RWQCP, with ash transported to and disposed of at the Kettleman Hills Landfill. The existing incinerator would be replaced by a new fluidized bed incinerator in 2030. Case 3a - - Biosolids would be processed at a new wet AD facility located at the RWQCP. The Alternatives were further categorized by defining three project scenarios, influenced by specific factors regarding ownership and financing, the cost of rent for the use of the site, the impact of the potential CO2 “carbon cost adder” as described in the City’s Climate Action Plan, and whether the export cases would include a contingency on assumed costs: Scenario 1 assumed - - public ownership and financing (with a below market I- Bank loan up to a capped amount of $10,000,000 combined with market rate tax- exempt financing for the balance); a 15% grant on construction costs; no rent charged for the use of the PALF site; costs for the CO2 “carbon adder” ($20 per ton of CO2 equivalent emissions in 2007) , and, a 15% contingency added to the assumed costs for export of food scraps and yard trimmings to out-of-City processing facilities. Scenario 2 assumed - - private ownership and financing at market-set interest rates; a 15% grant on construction costs; PALF site rent set at $108,000/year; costs for the CO2 “carbon adder” ($20 per ton of CO2 equivalent emissions in 2007) and, a 15% contingency added to the assumed costs for export of food scraps and yard trimmings to out-of-City processing facilities. Scenario 3 assumed - - private ownership and financing at market-set interest rates; no grants for construction; PALF site rent set at $908,000/year; no CO2 “carbon adder” costs; and, no contingency added to the assumed costs for export of food scraps and yard trimmings to out-of-City processing facilities. 3-8 3.3.3 Assumptions and Inputs The principal inputs and assumptions discussed below were applied. Capital, construction and operating costs Through the RFI process, several technology contractors provided construction and operations costs estimates. While the costs can be considered reasonable estimates for comparative purposes, they should not be considered indicative of formally proposed prices that would result from a City-sponsored competitive procurement and should not be considered commitments on behalf of the companies. The cost estimates were provided in current dollars, then escalated to the assumed construction year, 2013. Costs for a wet AD facility and for the prospective fluidized bed incinerator that would be constructed in 2030 were developed by Carollo Engineers, Inc. as part of their effort for future planning for the RWQCP The construction cost estimates applied are included in Table 3-4. Table 3-4. Construction Costs ($$ Millions) Case Facility Feedstock 2013 Cost (Higher Cost) 2013 Cost (Lower Cost) 1a Dry AD @ PALF Food scraps, yard trimmings, biosolids $108.6 $39.9 (1) 1b Dry AD @ PALF Food scraps, year trimmings $66.3 $28.4 Wet AD @ PALF Biosolids $40.3 $40.3 1c Dry AD @ PALF Food scraps, year trimmings $66.7 $28.3 Wet AD @ RWQCP Biosolids $39.4 $39.4 1d Dry AD @ PALF Food scraps, year trimmings $66.7 $26.6 1d, 2, 3 Multiple-Hearth Incinerator @ RWQCP Biosolids Existing/no additional cost Existing/no additional cost 1d, 2, 3 Fluidized Bed Incinerator @ RWQCP Biosolids $314.8 ($2030) $314.8 (2030) 2a, 3a Wet AD @ RWQCP Biosolids $39.4 $39.4 (1) Uncertainties remain regarding the construction cost provided for Case 1a due to limited data. Consequently a larger contingency (30%) was applied to the construction cost for Case 1a as compared to the other cases (15%). Annual operating costs include the costs for the annual operations and maintenance of the facility, including facility and equipment repair and replacement. The cost estimates were provided in 2010 dollars, and then escalated to the assumed first year of operation, 2015. Costs for items such as residuals transportation and 3-9 disposal were separately calculated (see General Information, below). The operating costs applied are as provided by the RFI respondents or Carollo Engineers, as appropriate. The operation and maintenance cost estimates applied are included in Table 3-5. Table 3-5. Operation & Maintenance Costs Case Facility 2015 Cost (Higher Cost) 2015 Cost (Lower Cost) 1a Dry AD @ PALF $8,140,307 $2,743,042 (1) 1b Dry AD @ PALF; Wet AD @ PALF $5,694,922 $4,288,598 1c Dry AD @ PALF; Wet AD @ RWQCP $5,683,124 $4,276,800 1d Dry AD @ PALF; incineration @ RWQCP $6,965,874 $5,237,005 2 Export to San Jose (food scraps), Gilroy (yard trimmings); biosolids incineration @ RWQCP (2) $5,795,634 $5,795,634 3 Export to Gilroy (food scraps, yard trimmings); biosolids incineration @ RWQCP (2) $5,505,615 $5,505,615 2a Export to San Jose (food scraps), Gilroy (yard trimmings); biosolids wet AD @ RWQCP (2) $6,369,577 $6,369,577 3a Export to Gilroy (food scraps, yard trimmings); biosolids wet AD @ RWQCP (2) $6,079,589 $6,079,589 (1) As with capital costs for this case, uncertainties remain regarding the operating costs provided, due to limited data. Consequently, a contingency of 15% was used for Case 1a as compared to 10% for the other cases. (2) Assuming 15% contingency on export costs. Capital costs also include the costs for financing. Both public and private ownership approaches were analyzed. • For public ownership under Scenario 1, it was assumed that the facility would be financed through a combination of a below-market California I-Bank loan and tax-exempt revenue bonds. Because individual I-Bank loans are limited to $10 million per project, it was assumed that the balance of the financing required for each option would be tax-exempt revenue bond debt. A blended rate that reflects the combination of these two financing sources was applied, with the I-Bank loan priced at 3.50% and the remaining tax-exempt debt at 3-10 5.00%. For Scenario 1, it was also assumed that the City would be eligible for a grant equal to 15% of total facility construction costs. As is customary in revenue bond financings, the tax-exempt portion also included capitalized interest during the assumed two year construction period and a conservative 15% factor to account for financing costs and the establishment of a debt service reserve fund (which would earn interest annually and be applied to pay debt service in the final year of debt amortization). • For private ownership under Scenarios 2 and 3, it was assumed that the private developer would need to provide equity and/or grant funds, in effect as a “down payment” for a financing. Given current market conditions, the total “down payment” requirement was set at 30%. For Scenario 3, it was assumed that all of that amount would be funded through equity provided by the developer. For Scenario 2, it was assumed that the “down payment” would be a combination of equity (15%) and a construction grant (15%). This difference is important in that the developer would expect to earn a rate of return on its equity, which would represent a cost to the project. Thus, the lower the amount of equity required, the lower will be the annual cash needed for a return on that equity. Assuming improved conditions over time, a lower equity requirement might be achievable, which would reduce overall financing costs and tipping fees. It was assumed that tax-exempt private activity debt would be used, and that that would carry an interest rate of 5.25%. This represents a 0.25% premium over governmental purpose tax-exempt bonds to reflect the private ownership of the project. The owner’s equity was assumed to have a targeted return of 25% pre-tax (as modeled, the cash flow associated with equity includes both the return of the equity invested and the return - - profit - - on the equity invested). As with the public ownership cases, the private ownership approach assumed a two year capitalized interest period and a 15% factor for financing costs and a debt service reserve fund. For all cases, a 20-year debt amortization period with level annual “mortgage-style” debt service (principal and interest) was assumed. Actual financial market conditions and project structures at the time of a financing would affect aspects such as the debt/equity ratio, equity rate-of-return requirements, financing “soft costs,” interest rates and the term of the financing. 3.3.4 General Information General information required for the economic analysis included the following modeling assumptions: inflation rate, discount rate, cost basis year, operations starting year, study period and facility capacity/waste throughput assumptions. • Inflation Rate: Inflation rates were used to escalate costs from 2010 dollars to future dollars. The Consumer Price Index-based inflation rates applied were based upon recent experience. For construction, the inflation rate applied was 3.90%, as derived from Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost 3-11 Indices data for the 1999-2010 period for San Francisco. For operations costs, the inflation rate applied was 2.40%. This rate was derived based upon US Department of Labor Statistics consumer price index data (US cities average) for the preceding 12 years. This rate was used to escalate O&M costs to the first year of operations (2015), then to escalation those costs each year throughout the 20-year study period. The escalation of specific costs, the residue tipping fees at the Kirby Canyon landfill and the costs for the CO2 “carbon adder,” were escalated at 3.00%/year and 5.00%/year, respectively, as stipulated by the City based on contract and the City Climate Action Plan. • Discount Rate: The discount rate is used to calculate net present value (NPV) costs. NPV can be a useful analytical tool for comparing alternatives, in that it presents the total costs of a project over the project's life span (in this case, over a 20-year study period) in current dollars. Because NPV is used to compare potential costs to the City for various alternatives, the discount rate for NPV calculation was set at the City’s cost of capital for tax-exempt revenue bonds (which was assumed to be 5.00%), rather than any potential contractor's cost of capital. • Cost Basis Year: The cost basis year is 2010. All companies participating in the RFI process presented cost estimates in 2010 dollars. • Operations Starting Year: The economic model is based on the assumption that waste acceptance and facility operations would begin in 2015, accounting for estimated times for procurement, permitting, design/construction, and startup activities. • Study Period: The study period was assumed to be 20 years of waste processing and facility operations, as the term for a service contract between the City and a contractor. A term of 20 years is a common industry practice for these types of projects. • Waste Throughputs: Three feedstocks were assumed, as follows, based upon Year 1 and Year 20 estimates provided by the City, reflecting projected increases in the generation of individual waste flows: Waste Year 1 TPY Annual Increase Year 20 TPY Food scraps 14,000 1.79% 19,000 Yard trimmings 21,000 0% 21,000 Biosolids 27,000 1.30% 34,000 Total 62,000 - - 74,000 • Site Lease Costs: In response to the conclusions presented in the October 2010 Hulberg & Associates appraisal report on prospective alternative costs for the lease of the site, three site lease cost options were analyzed: Scenario 1, no 3-12 costs ($1) for the use of the site; Scenario 2, site lease costs of $108,000/year; and Scenario 3, site lease costs of $908,000/year. • Residue Costs: In all cases, whether as residuals from AD processing or ash from biosolids incineration, a certain amount of residual materials would result that would require disposal via landfilling. For the modeling performed, the following residual disposal cost assumptions were applied: – It was assumed that the residuals produced from AD processing would be disposed of at the Kirby Canyon Landfill, at a cost that would include transportation, tipping fee and the landfill tax. The Year 1 costs applied were: transportation ($11/ton), tipping fee ($41/ton), landfill tax ($20.57/ton). – It was assumed that incinerator ash would be disposed of at Kettleman Hills Landfill, at a cost of $226,003 (Year 1). • Electricity: All of the scenarios and alternatives analyzed assume that the energy product of the facilities would be electricity. Table 3-6 summarizes estimated electricity production (kWh/year) and average electricity production (kWh/ton of materials received for processing). Differences in electricity production are inherent in different technologies. In all cases, the electricity produced was assumed to be renewable power that would be sold at renewable energy pricing levels. The price estimate (assuming a levelized price) estimated by the City for the power (including both energy and capacity components) was $14.264/MWh or $0.14264/kWh. Since initial analysis did not show an appreciable difference in the costs to a project between electricity and gas sales, the final analyses did not assess the potential to produce and sell biogas, but focused on electricity sales. • Other Products: In addition to electric power, the other products generated included compost from AD processing of food scraps and yard trimmings, and from biosolids. The compost produced from food scraps and yard trimming was assumed to have a sale value of $30/ton. The compost produced from biosolids was assumed to have no sale value, and therefore, no revenue to a project. Cases 2, 2a, 3 and 3a The input data regarding the export components of these cases, the current incineration costs and the costs for a new fluidized bed biosolids incinerator, as assumed for Cases 2 and 3, were provided by the City. The wet AD costs for Cases 2a and 2b were the same as those applied to Case 1c, with the wet AD facility located at the RWQCP. Those costs are as follows: 3-13 Table 3-6. Renewable Electric Power Generation (Alternative 1 Cases) Case Generation (kWh/Year) Generation (kWh/Ton) Higher Cost Cases 1a 16,021,455 (1) 258 1b 8,412,083 401 1c 8,412,083 401 1d 8,412,083 401 Lower Cost Cases 1a 10,138,590 164 1b 11,989,155 193 1c 11,989,155 193 1d 6,188,490 177 (1) It appears that the respondent misinterpreted the data provided in the RFI, in effect doubling the amount of food scraps and yard trimmings available, resulting in this particularly high power generation estimate. 3-14 Table 3-7. Inputs for Export Cases Alternative 2 Food scraps transportation to San Jose AD facility, 2010 ($/ton) $2.60 Food scraps processing at San Jose AD facility, 2010 ($/ton) $85.00 Yard trimmings transportation to SMaRT, 2010 ($/ton) $2.00 Yard trimmings transport to and processing at Gilroy composting facility, 2010 ($/ton) $26.00 Biosolids incineration (multiple hearth incinerator), 2010 ($/year) $2,159,440 Biosolids incineration (fluidized bed incinerator), 2030 (construction cost) $314,784,895 Biosolids incineration (fluidized bed incinerator), 2031 (operations cost, $/year) $4,465,406 Alternative 3 Food scraps transportation to San Jose AD transfer facility, 2010 ($/ton) $2.60 Food scraps transport to and process at Gilroy composting facility, 2010 ($2010) $70.00 Yard trimmings transportation to SMaRT, 2010 ($/ton) $2.00 Yard trimmings transport to and processing at Gilroy composting facility, 2010 ($/ton) $26.00 Biosolids incineration (fluidized bed incinerator), 2030 (construction cost) $314,784,895 Biosolids incineration (fluidized bed incinerator), 2031 (operations cost, $/year) $4,465,406 Cases 2a & 3a Biosolids wet AD at RWQCP 2013 construction year, food scraps and yard trimmings same as Alternatives 2 and 3 above $39,349,806 Biosolids wet AD at RWQCP operations cost, 2015 ($/year), food scraps and yard trimmings same as Alternatives 2 and 3 above $1,678,134 4-1 4.0 RESULTS OF STUDY 4.1 Greenhouse Gas Analysis The total CO2-e emissions generated under each alternative is summarized in Table 4-1 and on worksheet 1 (Bottom Line) of the GHG model. This text summarizes the annual mass of CO2-e emissions associated with the handling of all three waste types – food scraps, yard trimmings, and wastewater biosolids – under each alternative. As shown in Table 4-1, and worksheet 1, the total CO2-e emissions are lowest under Alternative 1a, followed by Alternatives 1c and 1b, respectively. Generally, the more organic waste that is subject to anaerobic digestion, the lower the total CO2-e level. The model also indicates that the incineration of biosolids (under Alternatives 1d, 2, and 3) generates a higher level of CO2-e emissions relative to other activities included in the model. This is largely due to the fact that the incineration of biosolids is energy-intensive, consuming high levels of natural gas, and because no methane is recovered and then used to produce renewable electricity. Detailed emission estimates for biosolids incineration are shown on worksheet 17 of the model. For those alternatives that include dry and/or wet anaerobic digestion, the recovered biogas can be used in two beneficial ways. Biogas can be combusted to power a turbine that produces electricity. Electricity produced from biogas would be considered renewable and would displace the consumption of equal amounts of fossil fuel-based electricity from conventional sources, thereby resulting in a GHG reduction. Biogas can also be upgraded to pipeline-quality natural gas and used in place of conventional fossil-fuel based natural gas; however, the combustion of natural gas made from biogas would result in equal levels of GHG emissions as the consumption of fossil-fuel derived natural gas and, thus, no reduction would be achieved. This is indicated in worksheet 1 which shows that the net level of GHG emissions is lower when biogas is used to produce electricity for those alternatives that include some form of anaerobic digestion with biogas recovery. Detailed calculations for energy production are shown on worksheet 16. Table 4-1. GHG Model Results (With Electricity Production) Alternative 1: In-City Options at Landfill Site MT CO2-e/Year Case 1a (All Dry AD – Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Biosolids) 13,831 Case 1b (Dry AD – Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings; Wet AD Biosolids at Landfill) 14,234 Case 1c (Dry AD – Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings; Wet AD Biosolids at RWQCP) 14,207 Case 1d (Dry AD – Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings; Continue Incinerate Biosolids) 21,106 Alternative 2: Export MT CO2-e/Year Alternative 2 (Export Food Scraps to San Jose, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Continue Incinerate Biosolids) 23,329 Alternative 2a (Export Food Scraps to San Jose, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Wet AD Biosolids at RWQCP) 16,430 Alternative 3: Export MT CO2-e/Year Alternative 3 (Export Food Scraps and Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Continue Incinerate Biosolids) 22,716 Alternative 3a (Export Food Scraps and Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Wet AD Biosolids at RWQCP) 15,818 4-2 4.2 Economic Analysis The economic analyses performed resulted in six sets of model runs, including three Scenarios, 28 individual AD cases, and four export cases, a total of 48 model runs. The results are summarized in Table 4-2. In summary, the results are as follows: 1. As described below, and primarily for Scenarios 1 and 2, several of the lower cost AD cases are, at the planning level, competitive with export options. Because of the limited information available, an application of a 30% contingency factor on construction costs was assumed for Case 1a (as compared to 15% for Cases 1b, 1c and 1d) for dry AD and a 15% contingency factor was assumed for Case 1a for operations and maintenance (as compared to 10% for Cases 1b, 1c and 1d) for dry AD. Case 1a is defined as food scraps, yard trimmings and biosolids processed by dry AD at a facility at the Palo Alto Landfill, with separate processing cells for food scraps/yard trimmings and biosolids. • For Scenario 1, several of the lower cost AD technology cases are less costly than or competitive with export options. Cases 1a (all materials processed via dry AD at the PALF), 1b (food scraps and yard trimmings processed by dry AD at the PALF and biosolids processed by wet AD at the PALF) and 1c (food scraps and yard trimmings processed by dry AD at the PALF and biosolids processed by wet AD at the RWQCP) are less costly than the export cases 2 and 3 that include the continued incineration of biosolids with a new fluidized bed incinerator constructed in 2030. Case 1a (all materials processed via dry AD at the PALF) is less costly than export cases 2a and 3a that include biosolids processing via wet AD at the RWQCP. Cases 1b and 1c are also competitive with export cases 2a and 3a, although somewhat more expensive. • For Scenario 2, all cases except for 1d (that includes food scraps and yard trimmings processed by dry AD at the PALF and continued incineration of biosolids, with a new fluidized bed incinerator constructed in 2030) are less costly than export cases 2 and 3, and case 1d is competitive with export cases 2 and 3; only case 1a is less costly than or competitive with export cases 2a and 3a. • For Scenario 3, case 1a is competitive with export cases 2 and 3, but somewhat more expensive that export cases 2a and 3a. 2. For Scenarios 1, 2 and 3, for all cases, the higher cost AD technologies present costs which are significantly more expensive than either the lower cost AD technologies or the export cases. 3. The option of continued incineration at the RWQCP using the existing multiple hearth incinerator, then replacing that with a new fluidized bed incinerator in 2030, is a more costly solution than dry or wet anaerobic digestion for treatment of biosolids. Table 4-2. Summary of Economic Analyses 4-3 Base Cases Alternative 1 (at Palo Alto Landfill) Year 1 (2015) Tipping Fee ($/ton) Year 20 (2034) Tipping Fee ($/ton) NPV Total Costs Over 20 Years Year 1 (2015) Tipping Fee ($/ton) Year 20 (2034) Tipping Fee ($/ton) NPV Total Costs Over 20 Years Year 1 (2015) Tipping Fee ($/ton) Year 20 (2034) Tipping Fee ($/ton) NPV Total Costs Over 20 Years Low-Cost Range Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Case 1a: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings & Biosolids Dry AD in separate cells @ Palo Alto Landfill (PALF)2 $69 $32 $58,568,589 $86 $50 $71,993,438 $120 $73 $96,226,397 Case 1b: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD, Biosolids Wet AD – all @ PALF $130 $71 $112,537,531 $157 $102 $133,759,937 $209 $138 $170,950,938 Case 1c: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF, Biosolids Wet AD @ RWQCP $129 $71 $111,355,915 $155 $101 $133,119,590 $207 $137 $169,007,164 Case 1d: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF, Biosolids Incinerated @ RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator on line in 2031 $101 $441 $137,096,645 $113 $453 $146,947,702 $129 $459 $154,505,010 High-Cost Range Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Case 1a: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings & Biosolids Dry AD in separate cells @ PALF $238 $135 $201,195,623 $281 $183 $235,149,874 $361 $245 $294,370,715 Case 1b: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD, Biosolids Wet AD – all @ PALF $213 $109 $179,740,533 $254 $156 $211,590,278 $331 $214 $268,294,477 Case 1c: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF, Biosolids Wet AD @ RWQCP $212 $109 $178,939,857 $253 $155 $210,617,095 $329 $213 $267,027,894 Case 1d: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF, Biosolids Incinerated @ RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator on line in 2031 $177 $472 $199,061,822 $206 $502 $221,509,086 $248 $530 $249,502,488 2 Uncertainty remains regarding Case 1a costs, limited data Table 4-2. Summary of Economic Analyses (continued) 4-4 Scenario 1 & 2 Scenario 3 Alternatives 2 & 3 (Export) Year 1 (2015) Tipping Fee ($/ton) Year 20 (2034) Tipping Fee ($/ton) NPV Total Costs Over 20 Years Year 1 (2015) Tipping Fee ($/ton) Year 20 (2034) Tipping Fee ($/ton) NPV Total Costs Over 20 Years Case 2: Food Scraps to San Jose AD Facility, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy Composting Facility (via SMaRT), Biosolids Incinerated at RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2031 $93 $486 $139,527,960 $72 $455 $116,714,351 Case 3: Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer, Yard Trimmings to SMaRT – then both to Gilroy Composting Facility, Biosolids incinerated at RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2031 $89 $477 $134,349,833 $68 $448 $112,511,650 Alternatives 2a & 3a (Export) Year 1 (2015) Tipping Fee ($/ton) Year 20 (2034) Tipping Fee ($/ton) NPV Total Costs Over 20 Years Year 1 (2015) Tipping Fee ($/ton) Year 20 (2034) Tipping Fee ($/ton) NPV Total Costs Over 20 Years Case 2a: Food Scraps to San Jose AD Facility, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy Composting Facility (via SMaRT), Biosolids processed via Wet AD @ RWQCP $103 $129 $94,312,261 $92 $107 $81,747,002 Case 3a: Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer, Yard Trimmings to SMaRT – then both to Gilroy Composting Facility, Biosolids processed via Wet AD @ RWQCP $97 $121 $89,266,458 $89 $100 $77,544,302 4-5 4. All cases are sensitive to financing assumptions. Today, with the exception of internal private financing, private financing and ownership, even when grant funds are assumed, is likely a more costly approach for project development. However, private financing and ownership also presents the least risk to the City; i.e., the City is not responsible for debt service payments. In the context of a formal competitive procurement, it is possible that prevailing market conditions at the time of the procurement would result in more favorable private financing results. 5. All cases are sensitive to site rent payment assumptions. For example, while the Scenario 2 cases assumed a site rent of $108,000/year, which added about $1.75/ton to the cost for Scenario 2 cases, the Scenario 3 cases assumed a site rent of $908,000/year, which added nearly $15/ton to the cost for Scenario 3 cases. It can be concluded for Scenario 1 that the economic analysis indicates a sufficiently favorable comparison of several of the lower cost AD technology cases (Cases 1a, 1b, and 1c) to the export cases to support securing firm pricing proposals for both AD options and export options; thereby, allowing a more definitive comparison of alternatives. For Scenario 2, Case 1a provides a similar competitive comparison to export options. 4.3 Discussion of Project Delivery Options, Financing Options, Grants and Other Funding Opportunities 4.3.1 Project Delivery Options Project delivery methods, their advantages and disadvantages, and recommendations regarding AD technology projects are presented below. 4.3.1.1 Methods of Project Delivery There are many project delivery methods available for developing an AD facility. These methods involve different approaches for ownership, financing, design, construction and operation of the facility. The traditional approach for project development for public works infrastructure has been the “public model” with public ownership, public financing, the “design-bid-build” (DBB) approach for design, bidding and construction activities, and public operation. In the past 20 years, increased interest has grown in alternatives to this traditional public model, particularly for projects that are costly, utilizing new technology that may not have a long “track record”, or technology that is licensed and only available through alternative project delivery options. Such interest has resulted due to the potential opportunities for private financing, lower cost, shorter design and construction schedules, and the ability to shift design, construction and performance risk, where appropriate, from a public entity to a private company. This potential to shift risk for financing and technical and economic performance is particularly attractive for development of AD technologies, which at this time, while operating commercially outside the United States, are only now being constructed or considered for commercialization in the United States. In addition, recent Federal funding options including grants, loans or loan guarantees may only be available to private companies. 4-6 Public Model With traditional design-bid-build, the public entity contracts with an engineer to design the project, prepare bid specifications and, typically, oversee construction, and with a separate contractor(s) to construct the project. The public entity is responsible for directing the separate contractors and assuring overall project coordination. Operation can be either public or private. The most utilized alternative project delivery methods for public infrastructure (with the public model) include design-build (DB), design-build-operate (DBO) and design- build-own-operate-transfer (DBOOT). DB and DBO methods allow public ownership and financing for the facility, but the approach for designing and constructing the facility changes from the traditional “design-bid-build” approach to design-build or design-build-operate. With DB and DBO, the responsibility for designing, bidding and constructing the facility is vested in a single entity, responsible to its public client for overall system performance. With DB, operation of the facility can be public or put out under separate contract to a private entity. With DBO, operation of the facility is the responsibility of the private DBO company. With both DB and DBO, financing and ownership are by the public client. With the DBOOT approach, a private entity assumes project development risk and provides private financing along with design, construction and operation of the facility. Initially, the private entity owns the facility. At the end of a specified term, ownership of the facility would be transferred to the public entity and the public entity would be responsible for continued operation of the facility, either by public employees or through a private operating contract. Private Model The private model is another alternative to traditional DBB. With the private model, a private entity is responsible for project development, financing, designing, constructing and operating the facility. The private entity owns the facility and provides a service to the public; i.e., receives and processes municipal solid waste for a fee. Unlike the DBOOT approach, ownership is not transferred to the public entity at some agreed to time. 4.3.1.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Project Delivery Methods Design-Bid-Build Method The key advantages of using the DBB method include its acceptance by public officials, its wide use, and the opportunity for control it provides the public entity in directing design; i.e., making design decisions, approving the design, and establishing equipment and facility specifications. Public officials are familiar and experienced with its procedures, from procurement of the design engineer through project design, bidding and construction; have practices and documents in place to facilitate future use of this delivery method; are knowledgeable of the companies that provide the services needed; and are generally comfortable in its application. Also, 4-7 many public entities feel strongly that their communities are better served by their having the ability to control design to the extent allowed by this delivery method. Disadvantages of DBB include the potential for: higher overall project cost due to the requirement to bid to a prescribed design (i.e., little latitude by contractors to select and implement alternative designs that may also do the job at less cost and/or improve facility performance); a longer project completion schedule, and the inefficiencies in communication and job completion with separate responsibility for design and construction; reduced work quality due to the requirements during bidding to accept the “low bid” for construction; increased cost risk since there is no guarantee by a single party of a fixed price for design and construction; the potential for an increase in the number of change orders, claims, or disputes since there is no single party accepting the risk for both design and construction; and longer project design and construction schedules since construction cannot commence until design is 100% complete and bidding completed; and increased public exposure to risk associated with non-performance (i.e., there is no single point of guarantee for facility price, the schedule for completion and facility performance). Again, this higher risk posture results primarily because there is no single point of company responsibility for design and construction as there are separate contracts for design and construction between the public entity and the responsible companies. If something doesn’t work properly regarding price, schedule, or performance, the potential exists for the designer to point to the construction contractor for poor performance and for the construction contractor to point to poor design. Resulting disputes must be resolved by the public entity and ultimately may lead to the public entity paying to “fix” the problem, and dispute resolution procedures may cause schedule delays. The public entity will be responsible for long-term facility performance during operations, unless a private operating contract is let. In such a case, however, since it would not have participated in design or construction, the private operator may not be willing to accept operating performance risk to the extent desired by the public entity, or it may do so, but at a higher cost than might be possible with DBO or DBOOT. It should be noted that both the advantages and disadvantages cited above have been noted by those that practice in this field. As a result, variations to DBB have developed. They include Construction Manager at Risk, in which the Construction Manager assumes responsibility for subcontractors during construction; and Design/Construction Manager at Risk in which the public entity retains a single party for design and to manage construction. Neither of these methods, however, reaches the level of private contractor responsibility inherent in DB, DBO, or DBOOT methods of project delivery discussed below. Design-Build, Design-Build-Operate, and Design-Build-Own Operate-Transfer Methods The key advantages of using the DB, DBO or DBOOT method include the following: they provide for integration of design and construction and, in the case of DBO and DBOOT, operation activities, which facilitates communication, efficiency of performance and reduces the potential for oversights; they use a performance- 4-8 based specification in procurement which allows consideration of alternative designs, which can result in lower project cost for equivalent performance; they provide the ability to select a contractor based on criteria other than just low cost (for example the qualifications or risk sharing profiles offered by individual proposers), which reduces the potential for reduction in project quality; they offer the potential for lower overall project cost due to flexibility in design, a shorter design and construction schedule and more efficient completion of work resulting from one point of management for integrated services and more efficient communication; they reduce the number of potential change orders, claims, and disputes since there is one party responsibility for design and construction; they allow a shorter overall schedule for design, and a guaranteed price and schedule for design and construction, and for DBO and DBOOT, for operations; and they provide a guarantee for project performance. In addition to DB and DBO advantages, DBOOT also provides for private financing and ownership of the facility, and the shifting of the risks inherent in both to the private owner. DBOOT also provides for the sale of the facility to the public client at an agreed to date. DB, DBO, and DBOOT project delivery allow contracting with companies that have a substantial management, financial and technical resource base, both nationally and internationally. Such expertise can be helpful in research, planning, trouble-shooting, training, regulatory review and optimization, particularly for AD technologies only now being introduced commercially in the United States. In the case of DBO and DBOOT, private operations also allows for a long-term (typically up to 20 years, and in some cases longer) performance guarantee and substantial operations cost and performance risk being passed on to the private operator, including maintenance, repair and replacement, staffing, staff training, staff licensing and certification, labor negotiations, compliance with performance specifications, meeting environmental permit and safety requirements, and, with the general exception of unforeseen circumstances, such as acts of God or changes in law, price risk. Typically, in a private operations contract, the private operator is paid a fixed annual service fee (or fixed unit price, such as $/ton) with adjustment allowed for inflation. This feature of private operations provides the benefit of predictable future costs specified by contract, which assists community financial planning and budgeting. With DBOOT, the service fee is also typically subject to escalation by an inflation index. Other benefits of DBO and DBOOT project delivery include less need for day-to-day public management of operations, allowing the public entity to focus its efforts on long range planning and implementing those projects necessary for meeting public needs. Financial benefits of DBO and DBOOT include the private entity’s bearing of the cost and risk associated with some or all of the up-front project development activities, such as permitting. DBOOT provides for private financing of the facility. Either DB or DBO project delivery may also provide the option for private financing (with initial private ownership) of the design and construction of the facility or improvements thereto, 4-9 with permanent “take out” financing by the public client (and transfer of ownership to the public sector) upon completion and acceptance of the facility or improvements and, with DBO, private financing of capital improvements to the operating facility over time. Disadvantages of DB, DBO and DBOOT include: diminished control over approval of detailed design decisions since the project is based on performance based procurement specifications (although design review can be conducted by the public entity with DB, DBO or DBOOT project delivery); and if there is not public oversight, the potential for diminished quality in work during design and construction of the facility. For DBO and DBOOT, disadvantages also include: without public oversight, the potential for inadequate maintenance and upkeep of facilities during operation; the potential for a reduction in the level of service, if the operation’s contractor is not adequately monitored; the lack of flexibility in providing service with public employees when and where one wants to do so to meet a public need; the potential for reduced competition for designing and constructing future capital improvements to the facility, as others may perceive that the operator has a competitive edge in bidding such work; and in some instances, resistance by the public and organized labor to private operations of public infrastructure. This resistance to private operations by the public and organized labor can lead to difficult decision making by elected officials. Those practicing DB, DBO and DBOOT project delivery (both public entities and the private DB, DBO and DBOOT companies) have developed means to mitigate the disadvantages cited above. Those means include: developing a strong, protective contract which includes provisions for liquidated damages for nonperformance and contract termination for provisions that include the right to termination for default and can include the right to termination for convenience; provision of substantial financial security by the company to ensure compliance with contract standards; providing for rigorous public and independent engineering and financial oversight of contractor services to ensure that performance standards are met over the full term of the contract; conducting regular and unannounced facility inspections; insisting on regular reporting (monthly, quarterly and annually) and daily communication; and if there is a transition from public to private operation, providing offers of employment to public employees at wages and benefits equivalent to those they enjoyed while public employees. Suitable contracts and procedures have been developed and are readily available for consideration and use by those public entities that select DB, DBO and DBOOT project delivery. With DB there may be some companies that are unwilling to provide their license to use the technology to a public operator. That might also be the case with DBO and DBOOT, if the public entity is to become the public operator, after an initial term of private operation. Discussions with technology providers would be necessary to determine which providers would make use of their technology subject to private operation. In addition, with DB and DBO with public ownership, use of Federal funding assistance with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and through Department of Energy (DOE) is not possible. 4-10 Private Model Delivery Method The key advantages of the private model are full risk assumption by the private company for the project’s success, including the technical, environmental, performance and cost risk of project development, financing (and assumption of debt payment responsibility), design and construction and operation, and all necessary activities to provide service. The private model presents the least number of obstacles for rights for use of a particular technology, as the private company has licensing rights which may only be available through private ownership. As noted earlier, the private model also offers the opportunity to seek Federal funding assistance through ARRA and DOE. The disadvantages include the loss of public ownership and control of key municipal infrastructure, and likely higher costs for service. Generally, the cost of capital for private financing, including the cost of equity participation, is higher than that which could be expected under public financing and ownership (which then would increase overall project costs). Moreover, other options (such as DBO and DBOOT) can offer a similar level of design, construction, schedule, performance and cost risk protection to the public sector. A major difference is that with the private model, the public entity is not obligated to make debt service payments, but must agree to a service contract for purchase of services. 4.3.1.3 Project Delivery for Anaerobic Digestion Technology Based on the consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of the project delivery methods presented above and the current status of AD technology development in the U.S., it is recommended that either the Private Model or the DBOOT project delivery method be considered for use for financing, design, construction and operation of an anaerobic digestion technology facility. These are the most advantageous means to provide for development of an AD technology facility as they place financing, design, build and operational responsibility on the private company as well as the responsibilities of ownership. If desired, DBOOT provides a means for public purchase of the conversion technology facility. These are the least risky approaches for the public entity. They provide the protection of guaranteed long-term operating performance at the least technical, environmental and financial risk to the public entity. It also reflects the fact that the public entity does not currently operate AD technology or similar facilities. To put on and train staff to operate and maintain a complex waste management facility, such as an AD facility, may not be an easy undertaking, nor would it be advantageous, at least initially, to accept the risk of facility performance during operations under these circumstances. In addition, the licenses for many AD technologies are held by private companies and use of such technology may only be available through private or DBOOT delivery. Lastly, certain funding opportunities such as under the ARRA and DOE are available only to privately-owned projects. 4-11 Should the City want to consider a public ownership option, with public financing, as a means to reduce project financing costs, it is recommended that a DBO project delivery approach be considered. Although the City will assume debt payment risk with public ownership, a DBO project delivery will provide the benefits of the Private Model or DBOOT model regarding private assumption of design, construction and operational responsibility and risk. 4.3.2 Financing Options, Grants and Other Funding Opportunities 4.3.2.1 Public and Private Financing Options The two fundamental means of financing an AD project are public financing and ownership and private financing and ownership. Public Financing and Ownership Under public financing and ownership, a public agency such as the City would finance the project and own the project as a public asset. The project could be revenue-based and financed with revenue bonds, resulting in an “off balance sheet” transaction to the public sector. Public financing would usually result in the lowest cost of capital, since upwards to 100% of project costs could be financed with tax- exempt debt. Publicly-owned projects might also be eligible for State and/or Federal supports such as grants or loan guarantees. Public ownership enables the greatest public sector control over technology, design and construction standards and requirements. Public ownership that follows an implementation approach such as DB or DBO can include strong cost and performance guarantees from the contractor. Revenue sharing arrangements can be structured into an approach such as DBO with public ownership. The structure can provide for public sector step-in or contractor replacement rights in the event of contractor breach or default. No purchase option is required to assure permanent public sector ownership. However, public ownership creates a greater exposure to the public sector to ownership (debt payment responsibility) and operations performance and cost risks than does private ownership. Private Ownership and Financing As with public ownership and financing, private ownership and financing would be “off balance sheet” to the public entity and could include strong contractor cost and performance guarantees. It could also include an option for the public sector to purchase the project, as well as revenue sharing arrangements. As with public- ownership, privately owned projects may be eligible for State and/or Federal support such as grants or loan guarantees. 4-12 Most importantly, the private owner would bear the risks of ownership. The public sector would be protected against the financial consequences of the worst case scenario, the financial or technical failure of the project. For example, many publicly- sponsored projects that are based on private financing and ownership now require the private ownership to post security that will guarantee the demolition and removal of a facility in the event of a default that leads to contract termination. However, a private owner may resist extensive public sector control over technology, design and construction elements. Most importantly, private financing typically results in a higher cost of capital than does public financing. Although a private financing can include tax-exempt debt, that debt would carry a somewhat higher interest rate than would customary tax- exempt municipal revenue bonds. Moreover, the debt providers (lenders) in private financings usually require an equity investment (a “down payment”) on the part of the private owner (see the financing discussion in Section 3.3, above). Equity is considered higher-risk capital than is debt and, as such, is significantly more expensive. For example, while in today’s financial climate long-term tax-exempt bonds may carry interest rates in the 5.00% to 5.25% range, equity will carry a rate- of-return requirement (analogous to an interest rate) in the range of 15% to 25%. This requirement becomes even more onerous because, in today’s climate, lenders might require an equity “down payment” of up to 30%. Thus, even though the debt interest rate may be attractive, a substantial portion of the overall private financing structure might need to consist of expensive equity. An alternative to this type of equity financing is for a private company to fund the project from internal funds or from an existing banking relationship. This can reduce or eliminate the high cost of equity financing. 4.3.2.2 Grants and Other Funding Opportunities Given State and Federal policies and incentives, particularly for the development of renewable energy sources, there may be opportunities to off-set a project’s costs through mechanisms such as grants and low-interest loans. Also, by requiring California utilities to increase their “renewable portfolio standard” (the percentage of electric power generated by renewable energy sources) to 33% by 2020, and to provide above-market pricing for the purchase of such power, the recently enacted California Renewable Energy Resources Act provides a significant economic support for renewable energy facilities such as the conversion technology facilities considered in this study. In California, potential pertinent funding sources include the California Energy Commission (CEC), which provides grants to renewable energy projects (primarily to private parties) and the Infrastructure State Revolving Loan Program (I-Bank), which provides below-market low interest loans to public entities. Favorable pricing for renewable energy under the California Renewable Energy Resources Act acts as a financial support to renewable energy facilities. Another financing avenue is the use of tax-exempt private activity bonds, which enable private borrowers (such as CT facility developers) to borrow money at tax-exempt rates, avoiding higher cost 4-13 commercial financing, for projects. In California, private activity bonds are issued by the California Pollution Control Financing Authority, California Statewide Communities Development Authority and California Industrial Development Financing Advisory Commission. At the Federal levels, one of the most accessible programs is the loan guarantee program of the US Department of Energy, which provides guarantees on loans to privately developed and owned renewable energy projects. Other Federal agencies that provide financing support include the Department of Commerce/Economic Development Administration (which provides loans and grants to projects in economically-depressed areas) and the Department of Agriculture (which provides grants and loan guarantees to renewable energy projects which do not necessarily need to be located in agricultural areas). As an example of the grant potential, a project in California of a similar nature has this year received a State grant on the order of 20% of the construction cost of a facility. Also, Federal grants up to 30% have been awarded, and in one case up to 50% by U.S. DOE in a matching grant. In addition, as discussed above, the recently enacted California Renewable Energy Resources Act provides a significant economic support for renewable energy facilities such as the AD facilities considered in this study. Potential funding sources will warrant consideration as a project is being structured. However, the type of project-specific technical and financial information that is needed to support such consideration is not available at this time. Also, many sources rely on annual State or Federal budgeting, and given current uncertainties regarding both State and Federal budgeting, it is difficult to definitively assess whether such funding will be available at the time (2013) that any of the facilities contemplated by this study would be nearing financing. The in-depth investigation of potential funding sources will become appropriate as a project becomes better defined, and the technology, performance and financial aspects of a project can be matched with the funding opportunities available at that time. For example, the CEC’s priorities for 2011, according to its 2011-2012 investment plan, are transportation and vehicular programs. Whether other energy priorities would be included in plans for later years, and what the funding levels might be, are unknown. Given such uncertainties, for the analyses performed, two potential funding support mechanisms were modeled: public financing (Scenario 1) that would include a low- interest loan I-Bank loan (which is not directly dependent on State budgeting) as a part of the financing structure, and a 15% grant for the public ownership case (Scenario 1) and for one private-ownership case (Scenario 2). Scenario 3 assumed private financing at market rates without the benefit of a grant. Any State or Federal support mechanism would improve the economics of a project and, depending upon the availability and value of any one mechanism, may influence the project delivery approach adopted. 5-1 5.0 NEXT STEPS Should the site at Byxbee Park become available, and the City determine based on the results of this feasibility study that it will further consider anaerobic digestion or another technology for food scraps and yard trimmings, with or without anaerobic digestion or some other solution for biosolids at the site or at the RWQCP, it is recommended that the next steps include completing the CEQA checklist and then obtaining firm technical and cost proposals from private companies for the desired facility and services. As part of this effort, firm technical and cost proposals should also be obtained from companies that would offer an export option. Obtaining Proposals for in-City and export options will entail definition by the City of the facility concept and/or services, identification of performance specifications, consideration of facility ownership and financing options, as appropriate, and definition of desired business terms and contract principles, all to be made part of a Request for Proposals (RFP). The issuance of an RFP does not obligate the City to pursue a project. Resulting Proposals will provide firm technical and cost information necessary for further comparison of in-City and export options and project consideration. APPENDICES Appendix A: Request for Information Appendix B: Description of Companies, Technologies Responding to RFI Appendix C: Site Drawing; Site Preparation Requirements and Cost Estimates Appendix D: GHG Model Appendix E: Economic Model On August 6, 2007, Council directed staff to develop a work plan to explore options to keep compo sting in Palo Alto. A work plan for a composting feasibility study was presented and approved by Council on January 22, 2008 (CMR: 116:08). Staff prepared the feasibility study and presented the results of the study on April 28, 2008 (CMR:219:08). At that point Council directed staff to table the issue until the Baylands Master Plan update was approved and to get the input of the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC). On December IS, 2008 (CMR:470:08) and January 12, 2009 (CMR: 116:09), Council further discussed the composting issue and made a decision to convene a citizen-based Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) to further examine the composting question. At that time, Council specifically directed the BRTF to avoid parkland location options. On October 19, 2009, the BRTF presented its results and recommendations to Council (CMR:402:09). The lead site recommended by the BRTF would have had resulted in potential impacts on the Palo Alto Airport operations, as expressed to Council. Therefore, Council directed staff to further examine the other alternatives and return to Council. The motion from October 19, 2009 consisted ofthe following directives: 1) Accept the September 9, 2009 Palo Alto Compost Task Force Final Report (Report) submitted by the Compost Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF); 2) Direct Staff to implement the short term recommendations for CUl'l'ent compost operations contained in the BRTF Report as modified by the Staff response; 3) Request Staff to retum with analysis and recommendation of whether to incorporate an interim solution of aerobic static pile composting or consider off site composting on an interim basis; 4) Staff to evaluate the two options (Embarcadero Road/Airport site and 5-6 acres in the northwest corner of the current landfill site) on the locations; 5) Staff to consider an option of partnering with another city or cities; 6) Staff to consider whether there are other locations on Embarcadero Way that could work, this would take no more than 90 days; 7) Location of any facility would not have any negative impact on the Palo Alto Airport, its operations, finances, and relationship with the FAA or Santa Clara County; 8) Staff to work closely with the airport community in the development of any proposals, and 9) Staff to take into consideration the Airport Business Plan being developed. In a separate action, Council adopted a statement of intent to proceed toward an anaerobic compo sting system, at an unspecified location. Since the last Council action on composting, staff held a public meeting with airport stakeholders at West Valley Flying Club Meeting Room on November 4,2009. Minutes from that meeting are included as Attachment A and further documented the negative impacts of a site on Airport property. Staff also held a public meeting to discuss the expected recommendations of this staff report at Cubberley Community Center, Room A-6 on December 9, 2009. Notes from that public meeting are included as Attachment B. In addition, staff presented information (and answered questions) to the Council in a study session on March 8,2010. CMR:165:10 Page 2 of6 DISCUSSION Short-term Recommendations Staff has implemented all of the short-tenn recommendations for current compost operations contained in the BRTF Report as modified by the staff response (Directive No.2, above). The analysis of aerated static pile (ASP) composting within Palo Alto or off site composting as interim solutions (Directive No.3, above) is contained in Attachment D. Staff concludes that an ASP facility is too expensive and that there is no site that could be ready in time to serve as an interim facility. Therefore the current interim plan of taking yard trimmings to the Z-Best Gilroy facility should continue to be the shortcterm approach, JlPon closure of the Palo Alto Compost Facility. Loeal Siting Options Evaluation of three pennanent siting options (the Embarcadero Road/Airport site, the northwest comer of the eurrent landfill Byxbee Park site, and private properties along Embarcadero Way), is also summarized in Attachment C, consistent with Directives No. 4 and 6, above. After furthereonsultation with the Airport community, staff concludes that the Embareadero Roadl Airport site would negatively impact that community and proposes no further work on that site in confonnance with Directive No.7, ahove. With respect to the possible sites along Embarcadero Way referenced in Directive No.6, staff concludes that procurement of sufficient property would be too expensive and potentially disruptive for the existing land .owners and tenants .. The site closest to the RWQCP entrance is a self-storage facility with numerous individual tenants. In addition there would be neighborhood compatibility hurdles with utilizing the properties on the west side of Embarcadero Way. With respect to the construction of an Anaerobic Digestion facility in the northwest comer of the current landftlllByxbee Park site, staff concludes that a detailed Feasibility Study would have to be conducted by an engineering consultant to detennine costs and fully evaluate impacts. Projected cost data obtained by Staff from venders has not been verified and is not sufficient for final decision making. An Anaerobic Digestion facility is consistent with the October 19, 2009 Council direction and with the recommendations of the Compost Blue Ribbon Task Force. However, given the key constraint (site is on dedicated parkland) of the landfilllByxbee Park site, staff does not recommend moving forward with the Feasibility Study until and unless the constraintis removed (Recommendation No.1, above). A Feasibility Study of this magnitude is best completed in conjunction with an Enviromnental Impact Report so that appropriate mitigations are identified and incorporated into the project design. The total estimated cost of this detailed analysis would exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars. This is a staff estimate based on experience with the formerly proposed Enviromnental Services Center (ESC) at nearly the same location on Byxbee Park. Regional O)2portunities Additionally, staff is actively exploring conversion technology options with the otherSMaRT® Station partner cities, as well as opportunities to send organic materials to potential new privately developed anaerobic digestion facilities. Regiollal opportunities for anaerobic or other advanced processing are preliminary, but emerging quickly. Several jurisdictions in the area are begiuning to express interest and explore their CMR16S:10 Page 3 of6 abilities to build and operate regional facilities to provide organics processing in the future. Currently no firm commitments exist, but opportunities for collaboration eould be pursued by the City as they are identified. For example, the City's SMaRT® Station partners, Mountain View and Sunnyvale, both have adopted zero waste goals. In addition, the City has an established relationship with them in owning and operating a transfer and processing facility through 2021. Both of these cities have an immediate interest in developing or using conversion technology to meet their waste reduction goals and would likely be potential partners to build and operate an anaerobic digestion or other conversion facility. The primary private sector processing OPP011unity available in the near term is a facility being developed by GreenWaste Recovery, Inc (Green Waste). GreenWaste, along with their business partner from Germany, KOMPOFERM, have formed a subsidiary company called Zero Waste Energy Development Company, Inc. (Zero Waste Energy). They are in the fmal planning stages of designing a IS0,000-ton per year anaerobic digester in San Jose located approximately 12 miles from Palo Alto. In September 2009, the City of San Jose and Zero Waste Energy executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding their intent to develop lease terms for use of approximately 40 acres of a closed landfill site loeated beside the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant· for a biogas facility. The first phase of the processing site, 50,000 tons per year, is anticipated to be ready for operation as soon as late 2011. Initially, the processing plant anticipates taking a blend of food scraps and yard trimmings from jurisdictions to produce biofuel and compost. GreenWaste is the collection and processing provider for the City of Palo Alto's solid waste, recyclables, yard trimmings, and food scraps. Staff has had preliminary discussions with GreertWaste about utilizing this facility for the City'S food scrap tonnage, and some or all of our yard trimmings. Finally, staffhas also met with another company, Harvest Power, that is also pursuing development of a regional AD facility for the south bay area. Harvest Power has not identified any specific faeility location yet. Regional Water Quality Control Plant Master Plan Under the existing adopted Capital Improvement Project (CIP) WQ-IOOOl, staffwill soon be procuring consultant services to prepare a Master Plan for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. The draft scope of work requests an analysis of energy conversion technologies (including anaerobic digestion) that might be suitable replacements for biosolids incineration in the future. The Master Plan Work is scheduled to begin later this year. Feedstocks and End Products Regardless of whether the City pursues partnership with a private firm or a regional conversion technology facility, it is important to nnderstand our various feedstocks and what end products are to be produced and marketed. A feedstock is the raw waste material that would be proeessed and includes food waste, sewage biosolids, yard trimmings, and soiled paper. A single technology may not be best for the various organic material feedstocks that exist in Palo Alto. For example, certain feedstocks require greater vector and odor control than others. Certain feedstocks may also affect the marketability of any end product compost material due to concentrations of metals, fecal coliform bacteria, and other contaminants. These issues will CMR165:10 Page 4 of6 continue to guide the City into a solution that will best serve Palo Alto's needs for the long term. Because of the upcoming Master Plan and the various prospects for new regional facilities, it is not yet clear whether a joint venture with other communities, a processing contract with a private facility, an anaerobic digestion facility at the RWQCP, or some combination of the aforementioned are in the City's best interests. Therefore, staff is recommending continuing to explore advanced tecImoiogies at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant and at Regional locations in the South Bay area, as expressed in Recommendations 2 and 3 above. Commercial Garbage Disposal Moratorimn On January 12, 2009 Couucil passed a motion containing the following provision: "The City shall suspend accepting commercial garbage at the Palo Alto dump while awaiting City Council action on the recommendations ofthe BRTF." Staff interprets this provision to mean that it is to recommence acceptance of commercial garbage upon further action by Council on the compo sting issue. Staff is seeking Council confirmation of this interpretation through Recommendation No.4, above. Follow-up to Study Session on March 8, 20 I 0 Attachment D contains further staff responses to questions and comments raised at the Study Session on March 8,2010, including the potential early conversion oflandfill Phases IIA and lIB to park use. As a follow-up to the community· response at the Council Study Session on March 8, 2010, Council may wish to provide specific direction to staff about conducting a scientific random voter survey regarding the Byxbee Park site option. This survey would gage resident sentiment about the possible undedication of a portion of Byxbee Park for an organic material processing and energy generation facility. Similar voter surveys have been performed about other issues for less than $25,000. Staff could therefore procure these polling services using unspent Refuse Fund operating budget for program and project consultants. Survey questions and language could be referred to the Policy and Services Committee if the Council moves to proceed with this type of community outreach. Attachment E is an aerial map from the Study Session presentation that shows two City-owned areas of the Baylands that are not currently dedicated as parkland. These areas could potentially be swapped for land within the current Byxbee Park. A potential survey could also gage voter sentiment towards such a land swap idea. RESOURCE IMPACT There. is no additional resource impacts associated with the recommendations in this report beyond what has already been anticipated in the Council adopted Zero Waste Operations Plan (CMR:123:07). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The staff recommendations in this report do not constitute a "project" as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CMR165:1O PageS of6 A) Plllllose: Meeting Summary 1114/09 CompostlAirport Public Meeting (4:00-5:30 pm -Palo Alto Airport) ATTACHMENT A To explore potential sites for organics material management which would have "no imp!j.ct" on the Palo Alto Airport (per I 0/19109 direction from the Palo Alto Council.) B) Attendees: Airport Community Members Chuck Byer Harry Hirschman Ralph Britton Pat Roy Larry Shapiro Michael Baum C) Summary: Former Compost Task Force Members Bob Wenzlau Emily Renzel Palo Alto City Staff Cara Silver Steve Emslie Phil Bobel The group brainstormed and identified impacts to the Palo Alto Airport associated with seven (7) different location configurations of Organics Material Management (OMM) facilities. (See D. below for details). There appear to be three configurations which are likely to have no impact on the Airport (with several qualifiers noted in Part D). 1. Locating. the OMM on Embarcadero Way (currently privately owned buildings) .. 2. Locating the OMM on the Los Altos Treatment Plant (LA TP) site and locating the municipal operations planned for the LATP site on Embarcadero Way (currently privately owned buildings). D) Identification ofImpacts on the Airport: 1. Locating OMM on the current Landfill site. and swawing aWfoximately 10 acres of the North Runway site (22 acres total) as dedicated parkland. Thus, a I b acre strip of the North Runway site, the eastern half, would become parkland. The group assumed that the dedication itself would involve no physical changes; that any physical changes would be a separate action involving separate analysis. IMPACTS: No impacts tq the Airport were identified as long as the following points were reCognized and addressed: Page I u; lPWDIADMINIKAREN\CMRI040510i 165-10 C ompC31lng Resp.nselAlltlChmenC A.doc ATTACHMENT A' a. The FAA must be consulted for any rules they may have. Their approval may be needed, b. Sufficient "buffer" must be allowed adjacent to the runway for aircraft wingspan. c, The new Parkland (North Runway site) would have to have restricted access to prevent people and animals from entering. d. The existing levee must be maintained. In fact, it may need to be augmented in light of sea level rise. e, There may be a habitat mitigation area at the north end of the North Runway site which must be maintained. 2. Locating OMM on Embarcadero Road/Airport site and relocating Ailll0rt facilities per the 9/09/09 memo from Barney, et all to PA Council. This option would move the Heliport and Terminal to avoid impacts from the OMM in the southeastern corner of the Airport. IMPACTS: The following impacts on the Airport were identified: a. The changes to the layout of Airport operations are major and funding would be needed. Both the amount and source of funds would be issues. b. Cost of moving Embarcadero Road and resurfacing (at a minimum) of the Airport access road would be impacts. c. New location of the Heliport is not safe due to incoming fixed wing traffic and proximity to fuel storage. d, Negative visual impacts to the Airport would occur. e .. ' All of the negative impacts identified in the Task Force Report associated with the Embarcadero Road/Airport site would apply. 3. Locating OMM at the LATP site and move the activities plarmed for the LATP site to the Embarcadero Road/Airport site and relocate Airport facilities per the 9/09/09 memo from Barney, et all to the P A Council. IMPACTS: The negative impacts listed as 2.a -2.d above would also apply to this concept. 4. Locating OMM on land riow occupied by privately owned buildings on one or both sides of Embarcadero Way. IMPACTS: The following issues would have to be addressed and mayor may not turn out to be actual impacts on the Airport: a. The potential for a bird attraction hazard would have to be investigated. Page 2 U:IPWDIADMfNlKAREMCMRI0405fOIf65·fO Com posting ResponselAltachmenCA.doc ATTACHMENT A b. A· 1,200 foot distance would have to be achieved with respect to yard waste. c. A 1 mile distance would have to be achieved for food waste. 5. Locating the OMM at the LATP site and locate the activities planned for the LATP site where the privately owned buildings on one or both sides of Embarcadero Way are now. IMPACTS: No impacts on the Airport were identified, assuming that there were no bird attraction issues from the operations that would be located on Embarcadero Way. 6. Locating the OMM at the LA TP site and locate the activities planned for the LATP site on the North Runway site. IMPACTS: The following impacts on the Airport were identified: a. FAA approval would be needed b. Access would have to be provided which does not exist, creating safety Issues. c. Oversight of contractors and City staff would have to be addressed. d. Bird attraction would have to be addressed. 7. Separate the OMM activities, locating only the curing piles (possible aerated static piles) on the North Runway site. IMPACTS: The following impacts on the Airport were identified: a. Access which does not now exi1;t would have to be provided, creating safety issues. b. The bird attraction issue would have to be addressed. c. FAA approval would be needed. 8. Locating the OMM on the Landfill site and creating offsetting parkland (approximately 10 acres) at the North Runway site. IMPACTS: There is no guarantee that the FAA will accept dedicating 20 acres as "Parkland" and thereby reducing the available Palo Alto airpark land by 20%. Until further clarification is gained on this item, it should not be included in the "no airport impact" category. Page 3 U:\PWD\ADMINlKAREMCMR\0405JO\J65~1O Compos{ing RespanseiAUachmen(A doc ATTACHMENTB On 12/9/09 City Staff presented its preliminary thinking in response to Council's 10/19/09 directives. The responses will undergo more work, and likely be presented to Council on 2/1/10. Staff sought, and received, feedback on the following concepts: 1. Interim Aerated Static Piles: Staff is unlikely to recommend this due to cost, length of time to bring on line, and lack of an authorized site. (The interim (post 2012) "fallback" is the Z-Best (Gilroy) compost facility). 2. Long Term Sites in Palo Alto: a. Airport Site Staff is unlikely to recommend this due to impacts on the Airport and the Council directive to have "no Impact" on the Airport. b. Embarcadero Way Site Staff is unlikely to recommend this due to high cost of purchasing landlbuildings. c. Landfill CByxbee) Site . Sfaff is unlikely to recommend conducting a feasibility/environmental study at this time due to uncertain availability of the site and the high cost of a . feasibility/environmental study. 3. Areas to Pursue: a. Nearby Sites » Staff will pursue taking organics to a new anaerobic digestion facility likely to open as soon as 2010 in San Jose (Greenwaste, Zanker Road). approx. 12.5 miles from the Embarcadero/101 interchange ( Note: Much closer than Z- Best which is 53 miles ). » Staff will purs.ue the possibility of an energy recovery facility at the SMaRT Station in Sunnyvale, although it is just an idea at this point. b. Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) Master Planning » Staff will consider anaerobic digestion and other energy recovery possibilities at the RWQCP as the Master Planning gets underway in 2010. (Not able to handle yard trimmings, or all food waste within the RWQCP, however.) The following feedback was received at the meeting; Comments from Public On Palo Alto Staff Presentation at 12/09/09 Public Meeting ATTACHMENTB' Individual members of the public suggested that the following thoughts (or ansVjers to questions) be included in the report back to City Council on (or about) 211/10: I. Indicate that there is citizen support (as well as citizen opposition) to an organics management. facility on the landfill (Byxbee) site. 2. The City's Solid Waste Management Plan filed with the County would have to be revised if a new Palo Alto Compost Facility were to be developed. 3. The regional situation with respect to organics management should be discussed. 4. For Aerated Static Piles (ASP) and Anaerobic Digestion (AD), the extent to which operating facilities exist should be discussed. S. The emerging responses to the Santa Barbara RFP should be summarized to show what technologies are actually being proposed by bidders there. 6. The quality of the food scraps processed at Z-Best (Gilroy) should be mentioned as it is apparently contaminated with plastics and other non-food material. 7. The quality of biosolids should be discussed with the "hazardous waste" issue and the "long term build-up" issues described. 8. The schedule for developing Greenwaste's Zanker Road facility should be explored to determine why it is happening so much faster than Staffs estimation of a Palo Alto facility schedule. . . 9. A resident "Initiative" would shorten the schedule by eliminating one of the two ErRs shown on the Palo Alto Staff schedule. 10. The Waste Management Board management staff were much more optimistic about a .Palo Alto schedule and should be consulted. 11. Wh~n will Greenwaste's .Zanker Road facility be able to take yard trimmings and biosolids? 12. What has the experience to date been of taking commercial food waste in Palo Alto in Palo Alto? 13. The process outputs (e.g., energy, compost) of an organics processing facility should be fully considered as a decision is made on the type of process. 14. The sensitivity of the facility location to noise, light,. traffic, dust and pollutants should be described. 15. Drawings showing what the various site locations would look like should be presented. 16. Make it clear that the "Landfill site" is on "Byxbee Park". 3/111 0 ATTACHMENTC Staff Evaluation Follow-up to Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) Recommendations For Developing an Organics Processing Facility Within The City of Palo Alto n Staff analysis and recommendation for developing an interim Aerated Static Pile (ASP) composting operation within Palo Alto versus adopting the Zero Waste Operations Plan of sending yard trimmings to SMaRT/ZBest. . The advantages of the City developing an ASP composting facility in Palo Alto after the existing composting facility closes are mainly: reduced greenhouse gas vehicle emissions through a closer destination facility; and that the City could control the facility and add other organic wastes to the process (biosolids, food scraps, etc). Control of the facility and organic wastes that could be processed could allow the City to implement residential curbside collection of food scraps in their green waste carts. Disadvantages of the City developing its own facility in the interim are the high cost of developing an ASP operation ($3 million initial capital investment); and the fact that there is no land readily available for the placement of an ASP facility in the intermediate term. Staff does not believe that the $3 million investment for an ASP Facility developed on any existing City-oWned property is warranted because of the interim nature of the ASP (Council has prioritized Anaerobic Digestion) and because there is no readily available site for the facility. 2) Evaluation of Three Potential Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Facility Sites. Site #1 Other Unspecified Locations Along Embarcadero Road Staff focused primarily on the existing commercial properties along Embarcadero Way for this portion ofthe evaluation. Five properties ranging in size from I to almost 4 acres were evaluated by the Real Estate Division of the Administrative Services Department. Table 1 below summarizes the potential acquisition costs for these properties. The properties' layout in relation to the Airport and the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) is shown in Figure 1. If only the three properties along the east side of Embarcadero Way are considered, acquisition costs could range between $8.2 to $13.7 million for these 3.15 acres ofland. It is very unlikely that even just these three properties would be easy to acquire. Eminent Domain would likely be necessary. One of these three properties houses California Self Storage and another is currently leased by Victor Aviation Services. Only the property at the comer of Embarcadero Road appears to be vacant at the time of this report. It contains a two-story structure for research and development and offices. Staff does not recommend pursuing the acquisition of these properties for an organics processing facility. Page I of 8 3/1/1 0 AITACHMENTC Table 1: ROUGH ACOUISITION ESTIMATES FOR EMBARCADERO WAY PROPERTIES High Mid Low Street Number APN Acres $100/sf $80/sf $60/sf Facts Sold 7/06 lor approx. WEST 1880 008-03-027 1.19 $5,183,640 $4,146,912 $3,110,184 $4,250,000 recently refurbIshed ~ avail SIDE for lease 2440 008-03-072 3.95 $17,206,200 $13,764,960 $10,323,720 Newer R&D Sites - several vacancies ! 1900 008-03-071 1.14 $4,965,840 $3,972,672 $2,979,504 Olo.r building - available for lease EAST Older building -• SIDE 2415 008-03-030 1 $4,356,000 $3,484,800 $2,613,600 currently leased i 2425 008-03-068 1,01 $4,399,560 $3,519,648 $2,639,736 Self storage facmty Totals 5,14 $22,389,840 $17,911,872 $13,433,904 COMPARABLE DATA: 2525 E, Bayshore Road -1,44 acres, same age bldg -Comp Value per Real Quest $6,250,000 -Sold 4/2006 $4,200,000 1010 Corporation Way -Currently for sale -21 ,500 sl, Bldg, Office/R&D, Vacant, 1,10 ac lot size -for sale price $5,300,000'" $246,51/51 CONDEMNATION COSTS CONSIDERATIONS (assume +30% to above mid range flgure): Courts must find that: 1) public Interest and necessity require the project; 2) the project is compatible with the greatest public good and least private Injury; and 3) the property is necessary for the project Costs to consider: Fair market value, plus attorney fee$, appraisal fees, relocation expenses, payment for business fixtures, equipment and good will, and if leased possibly relocation andlor tenants leasehold interest to be compensated, . NOTES and ABBREVIATIONS: East Side parcels represent the lots next to RWQCP APN: Assessor's Parcel Number sf: Square Feet Page 2 of8 3/1!1 0 ATTACHMENTC Site #3 Northwest Corner of Current Landfill Site (Byxbee Park) Staff has conceptually developed a 4.7 acre grading plan (Figure 2) at the Northwest comer of the landfill adjacent to the PAR WQCP that might be large enough for a large AD facility that could accommodate the City's entire organic waste throughput. The grading plan incorporates dedicated park acreage from the area adjacent to the PARWQCP fenceline (facing the landfill) and overlying approximately 2 acres of the existing landfill. Implementing this conceptual grading plan would mean raising the grades of the existing land adjacent to the landfill approximately 5 feet to approximately 15 feet above mean sea level (MSL). This conceptual site would partially overlie the landfill final contours approved by the landfill architect (Hargreaves Associates, April 2008). If an AD building were developed on this site then the top of a building could be as high as 40 feet above MSL -lower than the highest elevations ofthe landfill that are 60 feet above MSL. Permits and Approvals Permitting an AD facility at the Northwest corner of the landfill would involve CEQA, State permits and local approvals and voter approval to undedicate a portion of Byxbee Park. This entire development process would be expected to take 7 or 8 years to complete (See timeline Figure 3). Because this site overlies the landfill and because this site would probably require two EIRs and a vote to undedicated parkland, the schedule for development of a large AD facility would be expected to take three to four years longer than a site that did not have these land use issues. • An Environmental Impact Report (ElR) would be required. It is likely that two EIRs may be required - a programmatic EIR to support the vote to undedicate the parkland and later, a design level EIR that would support the permits and approvals; • A new or revised solid waste facility permit would be necessary; • A new Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Facility Pennit would likely be required. A new high technology organics facility with emissions control would meet the BACT standards (Best Achievable Control Technology). • New or revised Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) will probably be required from the Regional Water Quality Control Board since the proposed operation would be sited partiallyi'on the landfill. Flatter grades overlying the landfill can be permitted as long as an 'effective system for diverting surface drainage and preventing ponding is designed in accordanee'with California Code of Regulations Title 27 Section 21090 (b)(1 )(B). • Local permits and approvals would inelude revising the Baylands Master Plan, Planning/Site & Design Review approvals, voter approval to undedicate parkland etc. Page 40f8 31111 0 ATTACHMENTC • The City would need to modifY the landfill's post-closure plan to reflect this continued operation on the closed landfill. Also, a facility operations layer and drainage features would need to be designed and constructed to protect the landfill's cap. • An amendment to the landfill lease with the State Lands Commission would be necessary for the improvements. Other Impacts Sino;:e the proposed facility can be incorporated into the PARWQCP, the existing landscape screen trees would need to be removed and new landscaping improvements would need to be installed at the perimeter of the new facility. Access to Byxbee park could still be available via the existing parking lot. Some trails planned at the north end of the landfill would need to be rerouted to avoid the new facility. Maintenance of the park/landfill could still be undertaken. Development Costs Hilary Gans from the Blue Ribbon Task Force completed and presented to Council a preliminary cost estimate of $ 13.75 million for an Anaerobic Digestion (AD) w/ Energy Recovery system that is large enough to handle the City's yard trimmings and some food waste. This capital cost estimate includes the cost of a specialized building, gas collection system and electricity genenitjng equipment but did not include the cost of an asphalt operating surface or materials handling equipment cost since the City (\lready owns all the necessary heavy equipment required to run a c~mposting system. The cost' per ton calculation to process the City'S organics would depend on what type of facility is developed, what type of organic wastes would be managed at the facility and what throughput of tonnage would be possible. A consultant feasibility study would need to be performed before these costs could be accurately developed. 3) Evaluation of Other Options Figure 4 presents timelines for two recommended courses of action: 1) study the feasibility of developing energy recovery facilities for biosolids and limited foodwaste during the upcoming RWQCI' Master Planning project, and 2) pursue partnering opportunities with SMaRT and/or private ventures building nearby anaerobic digestion facilities. Page 5 of 8 3/30/10 ATIACHMENTD Staff Memo Follow-up to Council Questions from Study Session on March 8, 2010 Council Email Ouestion: The Composting [Blue Ribbon Task Force] Report was originally paired with a Colleagues memo on Early Opening of Portions of Byxbee Park. This complementary item was amended and passed on Nov 2, 2009. It was stated at that meeting that this item on the Early Opening would return 'quickly'. Will it be on the Agenda on AprilS along with the Composting Report? The COUNCIL MOTION from November 2,2009 stated: 1) Direct Staff to work with the Parks and Recreation Cormnission and Hargreaves and Associates to develop fmal park design goals for Phase II of Byxbee Park including provision to access and views and return j.o Council with a proposed impl()lUentation budget, and 2) Direct Staff to take the necessary steps to open the completed and approved landfill area (Phase II AlB in the Baylands Master Plan) to the public as interim open space by the end of 2011 or sooner; 3) Amended to direct Staff to report back to Council with an estimated budget for the work in both parts of the Motion in a timely manner. Staff Response: The attached Table 1 outlines the steps necessary to prepare closed Landfill Phase IIA and Phase lIB for early public access. Staff will begin adding clean soil to low areas in the previously closed sections within the next few months (weather permitting) in order to fulfill the post-closure responsibility of addressing settlement. Most ofthe top-deck areas have settled one to two feet. (or more) within the last several years. The current goal is to accept and spread enough clean soil to bring the closed sections up to the original designed grades of these already capped landfill areas. The proposed FY 2011 budget for the Landfill Closure (CIP RF-llOO 1) has been adjusted to provide $600,000 for the work required to prepare Phase IIA and Phase IIB for public access. This will include: changes to the environmental control systems (leachate and landfill gas collection piping) to place piping and well heads underground, minor grading and improvements to site access roads, and removal of perimeter fencing. The Refuse Fund budget does not include money to prepare final park design goals in conjunction with Hargreaves and the Parks & Recreation Commission, final park design (which should include Phase lIC), nor final park construction. Staff believes it would be more efficient and cost effective to bury the piping system underground when the Phase lIC closure is completed because there will be the efficiency of earth moving equipment and a single contractor to mobilize rather than administering two discrete projects successively. If Council decides to initiate the early opening of Phase IlA and Phase lIB and to bear the extra expense, it would prohably only speed up the potential to open these areas by about one year earlier than if the work was combined with the closure construction on Phase lIC. It is also not clear yet how the park-related improvements will be funded. Page 1 of5 TABLE 1 BYXBEE PARK -PHASE IIA & PHASE liB CLOSED LANDFILL PREPARATION WORK I ESTIMATED TAS.q DESCRIPTION STATUS COST SOURCE OF FUNDS TIME LINE 1 IAdjust the setUed surface with new topsoil to raise the IN $50,000 PWD -Refuse: Landfill Complete by October 201 0 finished grade back to the permitted elevations PROGRESS Operations IRevegetate surface following settlement remediation IN PWD -Refuse: Landfill 2 IPROGRESS $25,000 Operations Complete by December 2010 I Seek Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) approval for I PLANNED I PWD -Refuse: staff-level Complete by December 2010 3 (assuming no permitting "early" public access to Phase IIA & Phase liB task hurdles) 4 I Design, plan and permit changes to environmental control PLANNED $50,000 PWD -RefuSe: Closure Pending FY 2011 Budget systems (leachate and landfiU gas collection piping) reserve (CIP RF-11 001) 5 I Modify environmental control systems to place piping and PLANNED $500,000 PWD -Refuse: Closure I Pending FY 2011 Budget well heads underground reserve (CIP RF-11001) 6 IMinor greding and improvementof site access roads I PLANNED $25,000 IPWD -Refuse: Closure reserve (CIP RF-11001) IPending FY 2011 Budget 7 I Remove perimeter' fencing IPLANNED $25,000 PWD -Refuse: Closure I reserve (CIP RF-11001) Pending FY 2011 Budget I Prepare Final Park Design Goals in conjunction with I PLANNED ICSD: ??? »- 8 $25,{)00 Pending Council action ~ Hargreaves and the Parks & Recreation Commission ('J ::c 9 I Final Park Design (including Phase IIC) IPLANNED $470,000 ICSD: ??1 IPending Council action a;:: ~ 10 I Final Park Construction (including Phase IIC) IPLANNED I $4,700,000 leSD: 1?? IPending Council action .., " 3/30/10 ATTACHMENTD Study Session Question: Refuse fund has right to parkland until June 30, 2011 future use would require $3.7 million annual payment? Is that built into the numbers? Staff Response: CMR 104:07 established the following rent schedule for both the active and closed portions of the landfill: City of Palo Alto I Landfill Rent Schedule Rent Payment (Smoothing Rent Charged Schedule) 2004-05 7420925 4,288,747 2005-06 7420925 4288747 2006-07 7420,925 4,288,747 .2007-08 7420,925 4,288,747 2008-09 7,420,925 4,288,747 2009-10 7420925 4,288,747 2010-11 7420,925 4,288747 2011-12 0 4,288,747 2012-13 0 2,094,332 . 2013-14 0 2,094,331 2014-15 0 2,094331 2015-16 0 2,094,331 2016-17 0 2,094,331 2017-18 0 2,094,331 2018-19 0 2,094331 2019-20 0 2,094,331 2020-21 0 881,851 This rent schedule encompasses the entire landfill area (approximately 100 acres of both active and closed). The amount of rent attributable to the piece of land being considered for composting would be proportionally less. The current annual rent payment for the entire landfill is approximately $4.3 Million. If the Refuse Fund occupies any portion of Byxbee Park for a longer period than contemplated in the rent schedule, the schedul~ would have to be re-adjusted. The schedule was based on the information available at the time that assumed a projected landfill closure on June 30, 2011. The schedule adopted by the Council in 2007 contained a number of Council-directed policies, including: (1) the Refuse Fund should be paying the General Fund for use of the inactive portion until it is formally converted to park use; (2) the rent attributable to Page 3 of5 3/30/10 ATTACHMENT D the inactive portion should be less than fair market rent since the Refuse Fund is not actively using the property and (3) the rent payments should be amortized over time so that Refuse rates are not substantially impacted. The current economy which has led to less commercial dumping at the landfill together with the temporary City Council imposed commercial dumping moratorium may result in a slightly later landfill closure date. The City is in the process of determining whether there is a need for further refining this rental schedule al).d whether there is a need for an updated appraisal. Study Session Question: If there is a de-aunexation of the parkland, the parkland will take on the value of commercial properties around it. Refuse Fund would have a liability for approximately that amount? Staff Response: If the parkland is de-alUlexed and the Refuse Fund continues to utilize the property for Refuse purposes (including composting), the Refuse Fund would be responsible for the payment of rent. The rent would be based on the highest and best use which is most likely research and development/industrial use. Study Session Question: Concerned about buffer betWeen industrial activities and parkland - will there be an EIR to estimate the impact on Parkland? Staff Response: Yes, an ErR for a compost project would address land use compatibility and related aesthetic issues. The zoning ordinance governing the new use could also prescribe appropriate setbacksl buffer zones. Study Session Question: 90% solution email by Bryan Long -can his solution be part of the April 5 discussion? For reference, the recommendations in Bryan Long's 90% solution email are: I. Improve collection rates of our new commerciaVmultifamily food waste collection program, and implement a residential food scrap collection program. Utilize Z-Best or other regional facility to compost or digest these food wastes for the time being. 2. After landfill closure, divert yard trimmings to Z-Best or other regional composting facility, and 3.. Direct RWQCP staff to incorporate alternatives for anaerobic digestion ofbiosolids and Palo Alto's food scrap collections into their comprehensive [Master 1 plan. Direct staff to consider yard trimmings as well, but as a secondary priority and only if it does not significantly increase the cost or lengthen the timeframe required. Page 4 of5 3i30/10 ATTACHMENTD Staff Response: Staffs recommendation is largely in line with what is referred to as the 90% solution. The upcoming RWQCP Master Plan will include an analysis of options for managing the biosolids that are currently incinerated. The analysis ofbiosolids options won't constitute a full "Feasibility Study". However it will include site specific cost and revenue estimates, general environment impact analysis and life cycle estimates of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Taking some food waste ",ill be analyzed, but it is very unlikely that anything close to all the P A food waste could be handled within the RWQCP footprint. It is important to note that the RWQCP is funded 35% by Palo Alto and 65% by its other Partners. Therefore, expenditures (including planning) for waste streams generated by only Palo Alto would have to be funded by 100% Palo Alto funds .. Major Capital Improvement Projects at the RWQCP also require approval by the Partner City Councils in addition to the Palo Alto City Council. Study Session Concerns: Numerous questions posed by Council at the study session related to the size, cost, operations, buffer zones, and environmental impacts of an anaerobic digestion facility. Staff Response: These types of questions are best answered through a detailed feasibility study combined with a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) so that all mitigation measures can be identified and properly estimated for cost. The cost of such a detailed study would exceed $250,000. Previously a similar effort for the project known as the Environmental Services Center (ESC) would have cost over $400,000 (CMR 125:05). The largest portion of the proposed ESC was the composting area. Because no readily available site has been identified, staff does not recommend moving forward with a full scale feasibility study for anaerobic digestion at this time. Page 5 of5 Palo Alto, California May 31, 2011 Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Summary of Tipping Fee Projections Scenarios Alternatives (All Scenarios) Scenario 1 1. Alternative 1 1. Public ownership and financing (below market I-Bank loan Case 1a - - Food scraps, yard trimmings and biosolids processed by dry anaerobic digestion (AD) at a combined with market-rate tax-exempt financing). facility at the Palo Alto Landfill (PALF) site. Separate AD cells for food scraps/yard trimmings and bisolids 2. 15% grant on construction costs assumed. All AD gas processed at PALF. 3. No site rent cost included. Case 1b - - Food scraps and yard trimmings processed by dry anaerobic digestion, biosolids processed by wet anaerobic 4. Costs for CO2 "carbon adder" included.digestion; all at a facility at the PALF site. All AD gas processed at PALF. 5. 15% contingency added to cost of export options. Case 1c - - Food scraps and yard trimmings processed by dry anaerobic digestion at a facility at the PALF, biosolids processed by wet anaerobic digestion at the Palo Alto wastewater treatment plant (RWQCP). All AD gas processed at PALF. Case 1d - - Food scraps and yard trimmings processed by dry anaerobic digestion at a facility at the PALF. Food scraps Scenario 2 and yard trimmings gas only processed at PALF. Biosolids incinerated at RWQCP, with ash transported to/disposed of at Kettleman Hills Landfill. Existing incinerator replaced by new fluidized bed incinerator in 2030. 1. Private ownership and financing at market rate. 2. 15% grant on construction costs assumed.2. Alternatives 2 and 2a 3. $108,000/year site rent cost included. 4. Costs for CO2 "carbon adder" included.Case 2 - - Food scraps taken to and processed at new San Jose AD facility (Zanker). Yard trimmings taken to SMaRT, 5. 15% contingency added to cost of export options. transferred to and processed at Gilroy composing facility (ZBest). All biosolids incincerated at RWQCP. Existing incinerator replaced by fluidized bed incinerator in 2030. Biosolids incinerator ash transported to and disposed of at Kettleman Hills Landfill. Existing incinerator replaced by new fluidized bed incinerator in 2030. Scenario 3 Case 2a - - Same as Case 2, except biosolids processed via wet AD facility at RWQCP. 1. Private ownership and financing at market rate.3. Alternatives 3 and 3a 2. No construction grant assumed. 3. $908,000/year site rent cost included. Case 3 - - Food scraps taken to San Jose transfer facility, transferred to and processed at Gilroy composting facility (ZBest). 4. No CO2 "carbon adder" costs included.Yard trimmings taken to SMaRT, transferred to and processed at Gilroy composting facility (ZBest). All biosolids incinerated 5. No contingency added to cost of export options. at RWQCP. Existing incinerator replaced by fluidized bed incinerator in 2030.Biosolids incinerator ash transported to and disposed of at Kettleman Hills Landfill. Existing incinerator replaced by new fluidized bed incinerator in 2030. Case 3a - - Same as Case 3, except biosolids processed via wet AD facility at RWQCP. Alternative Resources, Inc. City of Palo Alto, California Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Summary of Projections May 31, 2011 Base Cases Year 1 (2015) Year 20 (2034) NPV Total Costs Year 1 (2015) Year 20 (2034) NPV Total Costs Year 1 (2015) Year 20 (2034) NPV Total Costs Alternative 1 (At PALF) Tipping Fee Tipping Fee Over 20 Years Tipping Fee Tipping Fee Over 20 Years Tipping Fee Tipping Fee Over 20 Years ($/Ton)($/Ton)($/Ton)($/Ton)($/Ton)($/Ton) Low-Cost Range Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Case 1a $69 $32 $58,568,589 $86 $50 $71,993,438 $120 $73 $96,226,397 Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings & Biosolids Dry AD In Separate Cells @ Palo Alto Landfill (PALF)Uncertainty remains regarding Case 1a costs, limited data. Uncertainty remains regarding Case 1a costs, limited data. Uncertainty remains regarding Case 1a costs, limited data. Case 1b $130 $71 $112,537,531 $157 $102 $133,759,937 $209 $138 $170,950,938 Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings Dry AD Biolsolids Wet AD - - All @ PALF Case 1c $129 $71 $111,355,915 $155 $101 $133,119,590 $207 $137 $169,007,164 Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings Dry AD @ PALF Biosolids Wet AD @ RWQCP Case 1d $101 $441 $137,096,645 $113 $453 $146,947,702 $129 $459 $154,505,010 Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings Dry AD @ PALF Biosolids Incinerated @ RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2030 High-Cost Range Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Case 1a $238 $135 $201,195,623 $281 $183 $235,149,874 $361 $245 $294,370,715 Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings & Biosolids Dry AD In Separate Cells @ Palo Alto Landfill (PALF) Case 1b $213 $109 $179,740,533 $254 $156 $211,590,278 $331 $214 $268,294,477 Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings Dry AD Biolsolids Wet AD - - All @ PALF Case 1c $212 $109 $178,939,857 $253 $155 $210,617,095 $329 $213 $267,027,894 Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings Dry AD @ PALF Biosolids Wet AD @ RWQCP Case 1d $177 $472 $199,061,822 $206 $502 $221,509,086 $248 $530 $249,502,488 Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings Dry AD @ PALF Biosolids Incinerated @ RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2030 Alternative Resources, Inc.Page 2 of 3 City of Palo Alto, California Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Summary of Projections May 31, 2011 Scenarios 1 & 2 Scenario 3 Year 1 (2015) Year 20 (2034) NPV Total Costs Year 1 (2015) Year 20 (2034) NPV Total Costs Alternatives 2 & 3 (Export)Tipping Fee Tipping Fee Over 20 Years Tipping Fee Tipping Fee Over 20 Years ($/Ton)($/Ton)($/Ton)($/Ton) Case 2 - - Food Scraps to San Jose AD Facility, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy Composting Facility (via SMaRT)$93 $486 $139,527,960 $72 $455 $116,714,351 Biosolids Incinerated at RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2030 Case 3 - - (Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer, Yard Trimmings to SMaRT - Then Both to Gilroy Composting Facility $89 $477 $134,349,833 $68 $448 $112,511,650 Biosolids Incinerated at RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2030 Year 1 (2015) Year 20 (2034) NPV Total Costs Year 1 (2015) Year 20 (2034) NPV Total Costs Alternatives 2a & 3a (Export)Tipping Fee Tipping Fee Over 20 Years Tipping Fee Tipping Fee Over 20 Years ($/Ton)($/Ton)($/Ton)($/Ton) Case 2a - - Food Scraps to San Jose AD Facility, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy Composting Facility (via SMaRT)$103 $129 $94,312,261 $92 $107 $81,747,002 Biosolids Processed via Wet AD @ RWQCP Case 3a - - Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer, Yard Trimmings to SMaRT - Then Both to Gilroy Composting Facility $97 $121 $89,266,458 $89 $100 $77,544,302 Biosolids Processed via Wet AD @ RWQCP Alternative Resources, Inc.Page 3 of 3 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 REPORT OVERVIEW ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED Green Waste Processing:Ownership Structure: Yard Trimmings Food Scraps Biosolids Dry Anaerobic Digester Wet Anaerobic Digester 1a Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A 1b Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1c Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1d Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 3 (Base Case) Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A 3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public OVERVIEW OF CITY OF PALO ALTO CLIMATE REPORTING Municipal Emissions Community Emissions Global Emissions In this analysis, global emissions represent the emissions savings included in the analysis done by Ascent Environmental as part of the Energy / Compost Feasibility Study. It is based on the draft analysis released January 24, 2011. That analysis was intended to be global in scope and included all GHG impacts, regardless of whether they were included in a reporting protocol. This analysis assesses the impact of a new dry and/or wet anaerobic digester on the greenhouse gas emissions of the City of Palo Alto (as reported through the California Climate Action Register (CCAR)) and the Palo Alto community (as reported under the ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability reporting protocol). In addition, it summarizes the impact of the project on global greenhouse gas emissions, which can be different from the reportable emissions. The source for the quantity of emissions associated with the various project alternatives is a comprehensive greenhouse gas analysis done by Ascent Environmental titled "Energy/Compost Feasibility Study, Greenhouse Gas Projections," May 27, 2011. Alternative Municipal or City emissions represent the carbon emitted by City operations. The City has tracked its emissions to-date by reporting voluntarily through the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR). When this analysis shows the impact of anaerobic digestion on City emissions the numbers are based on the CCAR reporting protocols. Among other things these protocols require the City to include emissions from waste processing facilities run by the City, regardless of where the waste comes from. It requires the City to exclude operations run by a contractor (such as waste hauling, in the case of Palo Alto). If the anaerobic digester were operated by a private company, its emissions would not be included in a CCAR report. They would, however, be included in community emissions reporting, or in a separate comprehensive analysis of the global impact of the project. It should be noted that the City is migrating its reporting to The Climate Registry (TCR), an organization that tracks emissions over a wider geographic area. TCR reporting protocols are very similar to CCAR protocols. Community emissions represent the carbon emitted by the community, including emissions from community power consumption, vehicle use, and the emissions associated with waste generated by the community. The community's 2005 emissions were assessed in the Climate Protection Plan and are considered a baseline against which to measure progress. This baseline has been revised since 2005, and there may be future revisions. This analysis uses the most recent published revised baseline. The "'ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability" protocols are a commonly used protocol for assessing community emissions, and this analysis conforms to those protocols. There can be some overlap between community and municipal emissions. For example, if the City operates a waste handling operation that handles the community's waste, it would be counted in both municipal and community emissions. The community emissions would only include the emissions generated by the community's share of the waste. Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 1 of 13 Jon Abendschein Resource Planner Utilities Department Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 Global Emissions Savings (Anthropogenic) (12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)- 1a 1b 1c 1d 2 2a 3 (Base Case) 3a Al t e r n a t i v e Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr) Global Anthropogenic Emissions Savings by Source (12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)- 1a 1b 1c 1d 2 2a 3 (Base Case) 3a Al t e r n a t i v e Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr) Replacing biosolids incineration with digestion Generating green power Other Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 2 of 13 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 Change in Reported City Govt. Emissions (Anthropogenic)* (12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)-2,000 1a - Public 1a - Private 1b - Public 1b - Private 1c - Public 1c - Private 1d - Public 1d - Private 2 2a 3 3a Al t e r n a t i v e Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr) City Direct Emissions (Scope 1)City Indirect Emissions (Scope 2) *Some emissions sources are included in both the community and local government inventories, meaning the sum of the local and community emissions for an alternative may be greater than its actual global savings Reduction in Reportable GHG Emissions by Source - City* (12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)-2,000 1a - Public 1a - Private 1b - Public 1b - Private 1c - Public 1c - Private 1d - Public 1d - Private 2 2a 3 3a Al t e r n a t i v e Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr) Replacing Biosolids Incineration with A/D Generating Green Power Other *Some emissions sources are included in both the community and local government inventories, meaning the sum of the local and community emissions for an alternative may be greater than its actual global savings Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 3 of 13 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 Change in Reported Community Emissions (Anthropogenic)* (12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)-2,000 1a 1b 1c 1d 2 2a 3 (Base Case) 3a Al t e r n a t i v e Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr) Community Direct Emissions (Scope 1)Community Indirect Emissions (Scope 2) Community: Other Emissions (Scope 3) *Some emissions sources are included in both the community and local government inventories, meaning the sum of the local and community emissions for an alternative may be greater than its actual global savings Reduction in Reportable GHG Emissions by Source - Community* (12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)-2,000 1a 1b 1c 1d 2 2a 3 (Base Case) 3a Al t e r n a t i v e Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr) Replacing biosolids incineration with digestion Generating green power Other *Some emissions sources are included in both the community and local government inventories, meaning the sum of the loca and community emissions for an alternative may be greater than its actual global savings Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 4 of 13 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 Reduction in Reportable GHG Emissions - City (% of 2005 Baseline)* -5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 1a - Public 1a - Private 1b - Public 1b - Private 1c - Public 1c - Private 1d - Public 1d - Private 2 2a 3 3a Al t e r n a t i v e Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr) *Based on the revised baseline presented in CMR 194:10, April 19, 2010. This baseline is subject to future revisions based on changing reporting protocols. Reduction in Reportable GHG Emissions - Community (% of 2005 Baseline)* -0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% 1a 1b 1c 1d 2 2a 3 (Base Case) 3a Al t e r n a t i v e Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr) *Based on the revised baseline presented in CMR 194:10, April 19, 2010. This baseline is subject to future revisions based on changing reporting protocols. Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 5 of 13 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 Impact on Climate Inventories (MT CO2-e / yr) Alternative Yard Food Biosolids Dry AD Ownership Wet AD Ownership City Direct Emissions (Scope 1) City Indirect Emissions (Scope 2) Community Direct Emissions (Scope 1) Community Indirect Emissions (Scope 2) Community: Other Emissions (Scope 3) Not reported: Construction Emissions & Green Power From SJ Digester (Alt. 2/2a) Global* 1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A 435 961 1,676 (4,946) - 27 (3,450) 1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A 1 (180) 1,676 (4,946) - 27 (3,450) 1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 434 961 1,631 (4,946) 436 39 (3,047) 1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 274 812 1,631 (4,946) 436 39 (3,047) 1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 434 935 1,604 (4,946) 436 39 (3,074) 1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 274 785 1,604 (4,946) 436 39 (3,074) 1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A 4,674 1,393 6,227 (2,402) 184 21 3,930 1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 4,515 1,244 6,227 (2,402) 184 21 3,930 2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 4,515 1,344 5,859 - 787 (1,001) 5,645 2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 274 885 1,266 (2,545) 1,000 (983) (1,368) 3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A 4,515 1,344 5,859 - 751 - 6,610 3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public 274 885 1,266 (2,545) 980 17 (388) Alternative Yard Food Biosolids Dry AD Ownership Wet AD Ownership Other Biogenic Emissions Global* 1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A - 17,279 1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A - 17,279 1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public - 17,279 1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public - 17,279 1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public - 17,279 1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public - 17,279 1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A - 19,791 1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A - 19,791 2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2,313 20,300 2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 2,313 17,797 3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A - 18,716 3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public - 16,205 Alternative Yard Food Biosolids Dry AD Ownership Wet AD Ownership Other Global* 1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A 27 13,829 1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A 27 13,829 1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 39 14,232 1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 39 14,232 1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 39 14,206 1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 39 14,206 1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A 21 23,721 1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 21 23,721 2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 1,313 25,945 2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1,330 16,429 3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A -25,326 3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public 17 15,817 17,682 13,503 1,178 15,887 17,682 12,810 1,178 15,187 20,075 9,793 17,582 11,977 3,571 12,170 1,078 14,355 3,598 12,197 1,104 14,382 3,598 11,806 (179)14,009 City Community 15,466 6,893 16,18718 15,077 17,279 15,077 17,261 15,077 17,261 5,783 7,968 6,163 11,823 11,823 18 11,823 18 2,203 18 14,008 2,203 ANTHROPOGENIC ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO PROCESSING OF YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS BIOGENIC ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO PROCESSING OF YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Community Biogenic Emissions City Biogenic Emissions *The sum of the community, local government, and "other" emissions categories does not match the "Global" category due to the fact that certain waste-handling emissions are counted in both the City and Community emissions categories TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO PROCESSING OF YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Total Emissions Total Emissions Total Emissions 2,203 - Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 6 of 13 Jon Abendschein Resource Planner Utilities Department Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 Impact on Climate Inventories (MT CO2-e / yr) Alternative Yard Food Biosolids Dry AD Ownership Wet AD Ownership 1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A 1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A 1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A 1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A 3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public Alternative Yard Food Biosolids Dry AD Ownership Wet AD Ownership 1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A 1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A 1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A 1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A 3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public Alternative Yard Food Biosolids Dry AD Ownership Wet AD Ownership 1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A 1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A 1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A 1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A 3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public ANTHROPOGENIC ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO PROCESSING OF YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS BIOGENIC ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO PROCESSING OF YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS *The sum of the community, local government, and "other" emissions categories does not match the "Global" category due to the fact that certain waste-handling emissions are counted in both the City and Community emissions categories TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO PROCESSING OF YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS City Direct Emissions (Scope 1) City Indirect Emissions (Scope 2) Community Direct Emissions (Scope 1) Community Indirect Emissions (Scope 2) Community: Other Emissions (Scope 3) Not reported: Construction Emissions & Green Power From SJ Digester (Alt. 2/2a) Global* (4,081) (383) (4,183) (4,946) (751) 27 (10,060) (4,514) (1,524) (4,183) (4,946) (751) 27 (10,060) (4,082) (383) (4,228) (4,946) (315) 39 (9,657) (4,241) (532) (4,228) (4,946) (315) 39 (9,657) (4,082) (409) (4,255) (4,946) (315) 39 (9,684) (4,241) (559) (4,255) (4,946) (315) 39 (9,684) 159 49 368 (2,402) (567) 21 (2,680) - (100) 368 (2,402) (567) 21 (2,680) - - - - 36 (1,001) (965) (4,241) (459) (4,593) (2,545) 249 (983) (7,978) --- - - - - (4,241) (459) (4,593) (2,545) 229 17 (6,998) Other Biogenic Emissions Global* - (1,437) - (1,437) - (1,437) - (1,437) - (1,437) - (1,437) - 1,074 - 1,074 2,313 1,583 2,313 (919) -- - (2,512) Other Global* 27 (11,497) 27 (11,497) 39 (11,094) 39 (11,094) 39 (11,121) 39 (11,121) 21 (1,605) 21 (1,605) 1,313 619 1,330 (8,897) -- 17 (9,510)(16,504) 6,749 (16,504) 6,028 -- (100) (1,327) - (730) (16,605) 5,422 2,393 (3,512) (16,578) 5,422 (14,111) 3,237 3,237 (17,861) 5,440 (14,085) 3,237 9,293 City Community (14,084) (730) (11,805) 8,573 -- 10,368 2,185 (1,110) - 1,074 8,183 (11,805) 10,368 (9,620) 8,183 Community Biogenic Emissions (9,620) 8,183 (11,823) 10,386 City Biogenic Emissions (9,620) (11,805) - (11,805) Change in Emissions Change in Emissions Change in Emissions Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 7 of 13 Jon Abendschein Resource Planner Utilities Department Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 INDIRECT (SCOPE 2) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from Digester Alternative 1a - Public DAD Ownership Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - - RWQCP 1 - - - 26 - - - - Solid Waste Facilities 136 - - 298 1,141 - - 1,926 277 Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - - Alternative 1a - Private DAD Ownership Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - - RWQCP 1 - - - 26 - - - - Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - - Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - - Alternative 1b - Public DAD Ownership Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - - RWQCP - - - 274 1,018 - - - 18 Solid Waste Facilities 136 - - 24 150 - - 1,926 259 Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - - Alternative 1b - Private DAD Ownership Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - - RWQCP - - - 274 1,018 - - - 18 Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - - Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - - DIRECT EMISSIONS (SCOPE 1) OPTIONAL EMISSIONS (BIOGENIC) MUNICIPAL EMISSIONS (BASED ON CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION REGISTRY CATEGORIES) Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 8 of 13 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 INDIRECT (SCOPE 2) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from Digester DIRECT EMISSIONS (SCOPE 1) OPTIONAL EMISSIONS (BIOGENIC) MUNICIPAL EMISSIONS (BASED ON CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION REGISTRY CATEGORIES) Alternative 1c - Public DAD Ownership Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - - RWQCP - - - 274 991 - - - 18 Solid Waste Facilities 136 - - 24 150 - - 1,926 259 Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - - Alternative 1c - Private DAD Ownership Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - - RWQCP - - - 274 991 - - - 18 Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - - Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - - Alternative 1d - Public DAD Ownership Buildings/Facilities - - - - (22) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (67) - - - - RWQCP - 4,515 - - 1,344 9,207 2,616 - - Solid Waste Facilities 136 - - 24 150 - - 1,926 259 Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (8) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (3) - - - - Alternative 1d - Private DAD Ownership Buildings/Facilities - - - - (22) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (67) - - - - RWQCP - 4,515 - - 1,344 9,207 2,616 - - Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - - Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (8) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (3) - - - - Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 9 of 13 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 INDIRECT (SCOPE 2) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from Digester DIRECT EMISSIONS (SCOPE 1) OPTIONAL EMISSIONS (BIOGENIC) MUNICIPAL EMISSIONS (BASED ON CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION REGISTRY CATEGORIES) Alternative 2 Buildings/Facilities - - - - - - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - - - - - - RWQCP - 4,515 - - 1,344 9,207 2,616 - - Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - - Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - - - - - - Water Delivery - - - - - - - - - Alternative 2a Buildings/Facilities - - - - (23) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (71) - - - - RWQCP - - - 274 991 - - - 18 Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - - Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (8) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (3) - - - - Alternative 3 Buildings/Facilities - - - - - - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - - - - - - RWQCP - 4,515 - - 1,344 9,207 2,616 - - Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - - Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - - - - - - Water Delivery - - - - - - - - - Alternative 3a Buildings/Facilities - - - - (23) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (71) - - - - RWQCP - - - 274 991 - - - 18 Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - - Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (8) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (3) - - - - Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 10 of 13 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 INDIRECT (SCOPE 2) OTHER (SCOPE 3) Food/Yard Waste Disposal, In-town, City-owned Food/Yard Waste Disposal, In-town, Contractor Biosolids Disposal, In-town, City-owned Biosolids Disposal, In-town, Contractor Reduction in Emissions from Community Power Use Food/Yard Waste Disposal, Out of town, Contractor Alternative 1a - Public DAD Ownership 1,574 74 28 (4,946)- Alternative 1a - Private DAD Ownership -1,648 28 (4,946)- Alternative 1b - Public DAD Ownership 309 30 1,292 (4,946)436 Alternative 1b - Private DAD Ownership -338 1,292 (4,946)436 Alternative 1c - Public DAD Ownership 309 30 1,266 (4,946)436 Alternative 1c - Private DAD Ownership -338 1,266 (4,946)436 Alternative 1d - Public DAD Ownership 309 59 5,859 (2,402)184 Alternative 1d - Private DAD Ownership -368 5,859 (2,402)184 Alternative 2 --5,859 -787 Alternative 2a --1,266 (2,545) 1,000 Alternative 3 --5,859 -751 Alternative 3a --1,266 (2,545)980 Alternative 1a only. Included in "Food/Yard Waste Disposal, In-town, Contractor" and "In-town, City-owned" column DIRECT EMISSIONS (SCOPE 1) COMMUNITY EMISSIONS (BASED ON ICLEI PROTOCOL) Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 11 of 13 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 Alternative 1a - Public DAD Ownership Alternative 1a - Private DAD Ownership Alternative 1b - Public DAD Ownership Alternative 1b - Private DAD Ownership Alternative 1c - Public DAD Ownership Alternative 1c - Private DAD Ownership Alternative 1d - Public DAD Ownership Alternative 1d - Private DAD Ownership Alternative 2 Alternative 2a Alternative 3 Alternative 3a Waste Disposal, Contractor, In-town Waste Disposal, Contractor, Out of town Waste Disposal, City-owned Biosolids Disposal, City-owned Biogenic Emissions Associated with Green Power 3,166 - 2,203 - 11,910 5,369 - - - 11,910 - 3,166 2,185 18 11,910 2,185 3,166 - 18 11,910 - 3,166 2,185 18 11,910 2,185 3,166 - 18 11,910 - - 2,185 11,823 5,783 2,185 - - 11,823 5,783 - 6,163 - 11,823 - - 9,339 - 18 6,127 - 6,893 - 11,823 - - 10,059 - 18 6,127 BIOGENIC EMISSIONS (NOT REPORTED) COMMUNITY EMISSIONS (BASED ON ICLEI PROTOCOL) Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 12 of 13 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 Replacing Biosolids Incineration with A/D Generating Green Power Other Replacing Biosolids Incineration with A/D Generating Green Power Other Replacing Biosolids Incineration with A/D Generating Green Power Other Alternative 1a - Public DAD Ownership*(5,126) (206)869 (5,832) (4,946) 897 (5,832) (4,946) 718 Alternative 1a - Private DAD Ownership*(5,832) (206)-(5,832) (4,946) 897 (5,832) (4,946) 718 Alternative 1b - Public DAD Ownership (4,567) (206)309 (4,567) (4,946)24 (4,567) (4,946) (144) Alternative 1b - Private DAD Ownership (4,567) (206)-(4,567) (4,946)24 (4,567) (4,946) (144) Alternative 1c - Public DAD Ownership (4,593) (206)309 (4,593) (4,946)24 (4,593) (4,946) (144) Alternative 1c - Private DAD Ownership (4,593) (206)-(4,593) (4,946)24 (4,593) (4,946) (144) Alternative 1d - Public DAD Ownership -(100)309 -(2,402) (199)-(2,402) (278) Alternative 1d - Private DAD Ownership -(100)--(2,402) (199)-(2,402) (278) Alternative 2 ----36 -(1,001)36 Alternative 2a (4,593) (106)-(4,593) (2,545) 249 (4,593) (3,545) 161 Alternative 3 --------- Alternative 3a (4,593) (106)-(4,593) (2,545) 229 (4,593) (2,545) 140 ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS BY SOURCE *For Alternative 1a, 44.8% of the dry anaerobic digester emissions are allocated to biosolids. The allocation is based on tons of material going into the dry anaerobic digester over the life of the project GLOBALCOMMUNITYCITY Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 13 of 13 Municipal Emissions: Scope 1 City Government operations – fuel use and fugitive emissions Municipal Emissions: Scope 2 Power used in City Government operations Community Emissions: Scope 3 Emissions from community waste processed outside the community Community Emissions: Scope 1 a) Emissions from community waste processed inside the community b) In-city vehicle miles driven (If waste handling is City owned) (If waste handling is City owned) Categories of Reportable Emissions Affected by the Anaerobic Digester Project Community Emissions: Scope 2 Emissions from community power consumption Each scenario in the Energy / Compost Feasibility Study affects one or more of these categories. Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 REPORT OVERVIEW ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED Green Waste Processing:Ownership Structure: Yard Trimmings Food Scraps Biosolids Dry Anaerobic Digester Wet Anaerobic Digester 1a Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A 1b Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1c Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1d Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 3 (Base Case) Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A 3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public OVERVIEW OF CITY OF PALO ALTO CLIMATE REPORTING Municipal Emissions Community Emissions Global Emissions In this analysis, global emissions represent the emissions savings included in the analysis done by Ascent Environmental as part of the Energy / Compost Feasibility Study. It is based on the draft analysis released January 24, 2011. That analysis was intended to be global in scope and included all GHG impacts, regardless of whether they were included in a reporting protocol. This analysis assesses the impact of a new dry and/or wet anaerobic digester on the greenhouse gas emissions of the City of Palo Alto (as reported through the California Climate Action Register (CCAR)) and the Palo Alto community (as reported under the ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability reporting protocol). In addition, it summarizes the impact of the project on global greenhouse gas emissions, which can be different from the reportable emissions. The source for the quantity of emissions associated with the various project alternatives is a comprehensive greenhouse gas analysis done by Ascent Environmental titled "Energy/Compost Feasibility Study, Greenhouse Gas Projections," May 27, 2011. Alternative Municipal or City emissions represent the carbon emitted by City operations. The City has tracked its emissions to-date by reporting voluntarily through the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR). When this analysis shows the impact of anaerobic digestion on City emissions the numbers are based on the CCAR reporting protocols. Among other things these protocols require the City to include emissions from waste processing facilities run by the City, regardless of where the waste comes from. It requires the City to exclude operations run by a contractor (such as waste hauling, in the case of Palo Alto). If the anaerobic digester were operated by a private company, its emissions would not be included in a CCAR report. They would, however, be included in community emissions reporting, or in a separate comprehensive analysis of the global impact of the project. It should be noted that the City is migrating its reporting to The Climate Registry (TCR), an organization that tracks emissions over a wider geographic area. TCR reporting protocols are very similar to CCAR protocols. Community emissions represent the carbon emitted by the community, including emissions from community power consumption, vehicle use, and the emissions associated with waste generated by the community. The community's 2005 emissions were assessed in the Climate Protection Plan and are considered a baseline against which to measure progress. This baseline has been revised since 2005, and there may be future revisions. This analysis uses the most recent published revised baseline. The "'ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability" protocols are a commonly used protocol for assessing community emissions, and this analysis conforms to those protocols. There can be some overlap between community and municipal emissions. For example, if the City operates a waste handling operation that handles the community's waste, it would be counted in both municipal and community emissions. The community emissions would only include the emissions generated by the community's share of the waste. Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 1 of 45 Jon Abendschein Resource Planner Utilities Department Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 Global Emissions Savings (Anthropogenic) (12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)- 1a 1b 1c 1d 2 2a 3 (Base Case) 3a Al t e r n a t i v e Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr) Global Anthropogenic Emissions Savings by Source (12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)- 1a 1b 1c 1d 2 2a 3 (Base Case) 3a Al t e r n a t i v e Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr) Replacing biosolids incineration with digestion Generating green power Other Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 2 of 45 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 Change in Reported City Govt. Emissions (Anthropogenic)* (12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)-2,000 1a - Public 1a - Private 1b - Public 1b - Private 1c - Public 1c - Private 1d - Public 1d - Private 2 2a 3 3a Al t e r n a t i v e Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr) City Direct Emissions (Scope 1)City Indirect Emissions (Scope 2) *Some emissions sources are included in both the community and local government inventories, meaning the sum of the local and community emissions for an alternative may be greater than its actual global savings Reduction in Reportable GHG Emissions by Source - City* (12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)-2,000 1a - Public 1a - Private 1b - Public 1b - Private 1c - Public 1c - Private 1d - Public 1d - Private 2 2a 3 3a Al t e r n a t i v e Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr) Replacing Biosolids Incineration with A/D Generating Green Power Other *Some emissions sources are included in both the community and local government inventories, meaning the sum of the local and community emissions for an alternative may be greater than its actual global savings Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 3 of 45 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 Change in Reported Community Emissions (Anthropogenic)* (12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)-2,000 1a 1b 1c 1d 2 2a 3 (Base Case) 3a Al t e r n a t i v e Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr) Community Direct Emissions (Scope 1)Community Indirect Emissions (Scope 2) Community: Other Emissions (Scope 3) *Some emissions sources are included in both the community and local government inventories, meaning the sum of the local and community emissions for an alternative may be greater than its actual global savings Reduction in Reportable GHG Emissions by Source - Community* (12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)-2,000 1a 1b 1c 1d 2 2a 3 (Base Case) 3a Al t e r n a t i v e Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr) Replacing biosolids incineration with digestion Generating green power Other *Some emissions sources are included in both the community and local government inventories, meaning the sum of the local and community emissions for an alternative may be greater than its actual global savings Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 4 of 45 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 Reduction in Reportable GHG Emissions - City (% of 2005 Baseline)* -5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 1a - Public 1a - Private 1b - Public 1b - Private 1c - Public 1c - Private 1d - Public 1d - Private 2 2a 3 3a Al t e r n a t i v e Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr) *Based on the revised baseline presented in CMR 194:10, April 19, 2010. This baseline is subject to future revisions based on changing reporting protocols. Reduction in Reportable GHG Emissions - Community (% of 2005 Baseline)* -0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% 1a 1b 1c 1d 2 2a 3 (Base Case) 3a Al t e r n a t i v e Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr) *Based on the revised baseline presented in CMR 194:10, April 19, 2010. This baseline is subject to future revisions based on changing reporting protocols. Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 5 of 45 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 Impact on Climate Inventories (MT CO2-e / yr) Alternative Yard Food Biosolids Dry AD Ownership Wet AD Ownership City Direct Emissions (Scope 1) City Indirect Emissions (Scope 2) Community Direct Emissions (Scope 1) Community Indirect Emissions (Scope 2) Community: Other Emissions (Scope 3) Not reported: Construction Emissions & Green Power From SJ Digester (Alt. 2/2a) Global* 1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A 435 961 1,676 (4,946) - 27 (3,450) 1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A 1 (180) 1,676 (4,946) - 27 (3,450) 1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 434 961 1,631 (4,946) 436 39 (3,047) 1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 274 812 1,631 (4,946) 436 39 (3,047) 1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 434 935 1,604 (4,946) 436 39 (3,074) 1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 274 785 1,604 (4,946) 436 39 (3,074) 1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A 4,674 1,393 6,227 (2,402) 184 21 3,930 1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 4,515 1,244 6,227 (2,402) 184 21 3,930 2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 4,515 1,344 5,859 - 787 (1,001) 5,645 2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 274 885 1,266 (2,545) 1,000 (983) (1,368) 3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A 4,515 1,344 5,859 - 751 - 6,610 3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public 274 885 1,266 (2,545) 980 17 (388) Alternative Yard Food Biosolids Dry AD Ownership Wet AD Ownership Other Biogenic Emissions Global* 1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A - 17,279 1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A - 17,279 1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public - 17,279 1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public - 17,279 1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public - 17,279 1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public - 17,279 1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A - 19,791 1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A - 19,791 2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2,313 20,300 2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 2,313 17,797 3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A - 18,716 3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public - 16,205 Alternative Yard Food Biosolids Dry AD Ownership Wet AD Ownership Other Global* 1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A 27 13,829 1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A 27 13,829 1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 39 14,232 1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 39 14,232 1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 39 14,206 1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 39 14,206 1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A 21 23,721 1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 21 23,721 2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 1,313 25,945 2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1,330 16,429 3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A -25,326 3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public 17 15,817 *The sum of the community, local government, and "other" emissions categories does not match the "Global" category due to the fact that certain waste-handling emissions are counted in both the City and Community emissions categories TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO PROCESSING OF YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Total Emissions Total Emissions Total Emissions 2,203 - 2,203 ANTHROPOGENIC ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO PROCESSING OF YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS BIOGENIC ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO PROCESSING OF YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Community Biogenic Emissions City Biogenic Emissions 18 2,203 18 14,008 11,823 11,823 18 11,823 18 15,077 17,279 15,077 17,261 15,077 17,261 5,783 7,968 6,163 15,466 6,893 16,187 3,598 11,806 (179) 14,009 City Community 3,598 12,197 1,104 14,382 3,571 12,170 1,078 14,355 20,075 9,793 17,582 11,977 17,682 12,810 1,178 15,187 17,682 13,503 1,178 15,887 Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 6 of 45 Jon Abendschein Resource Planner Utilities Department Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 Impact on Climate Inventories (MT CO2-e / yr) Alternative Yard Food Biosolids Dry AD Ownership Wet AD Ownership 1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A 1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A 1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A 1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A 3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public Alternative Yard Food Biosolids Dry AD Ownership Wet AD Ownership 1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A 1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A 1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A 1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A 3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public Alternative Yard Food Biosolids Dry AD Ownership Wet AD Ownership 1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A 1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A 1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A 1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A 3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public *The sum of the community, local government, and "other" emissions categories does not match the "Global" category due to the fact that certain waste-handling emissions are counted in both the City and Community emissions categories TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO PROCESSING OF YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS ANTHROPOGENIC ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO PROCESSING OF YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS BIOGENIC ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO PROCESSING OF YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS City Direct Emissions (Scope 1) City Indirect Emissions (Scope 2) Community Direct Emissions (Scope 1) Community Indirect Emissions (Scope 2) Community: Other Emissions (Scope 3) Not reported: Construction Emissions & Green Power From SJ Digester (Alt. 2/2a) Global* (4,081) (383) (4,183) (4,946) (751)27 (10,060) (4,514) (1,524) (4,183) (4,946) (751)27 (10,060) (4,082) (383) (4,228) (4,946) (315)39 (9,657) (4,241) (532) (4,228) (4,946) (315)39 (9,657) (4,082) (409) (4,255) (4,946) (315)39 (9,684) (4,241) (559) (4,255) (4,946) (315)39 (9,684) 159 49 368 (2,402) (567)21 (2,680) - (100) 368 (2,402) (567)21 (2,680) ----36 (1,001)(965) (4,241) (459) (4,593) (2,545)249 (983)(7,978) --- - - - - (4,241) (459) (4,593) (2,545)229 17 (6,998) Other Biogenic Emissions Global* -(1,437) -(1,437) -(1,437) -(1,437) -(1,437) -(1,437) -1,074 -1,074 2,313 1,583 2,313 (919) -- -(2,512) Other Global* 27 (11,497) 27 (11,497) 39 (11,094) 39 (11,094) 39 (11,121) 39 (11,121) 21 (1,605) 21 (1,605) 1,313 619 1,330 (8,897) -- 17 (9,510) Change in Emissions Change in Emissions Change in Emissions City Biogenic Emissions (9,620) (11,805) - (11,805) Community Biogenic Emissions (9,620)8,183 (11,823)10,386 8,183 (11,805)10,368 (9,620)8,183 10,368 2,185 (1,110) -1,074 (730) (11,805)8,573 -- 9,293 City Community (14,084)3,237 (17,861)5,440 (14,085)3,237 (16,578)5,422 (14,111)3,237 (16,605)5,422 2,393 (3,512) (100)(1,327) -(730) (16,504)6,749 (16,504)6,028 -- Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 7 of 45 Jon Abendschein Resource Planner Utilities Department Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 INDIRECT (SCOPE 2) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from Digester Alternative 1a - Public DAD Ownership Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - - RWQCP 1 - - - 26 - - - - Solid Waste Facilities 136 - - 298 1,141 - - 1,926 277 Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - - Alternative 1a - Private DAD Ownership Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - - RWQCP 1 - - - 26 - - - - Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - - Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - - Alternative 1b - Public DAD Ownership Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - - RWQCP - - - 274 1,018 - - - 18 Solid Waste Facilities 136 - - 24 150 - - 1,926 259 Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - - Alternative 1b - Private DAD Ownership Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - - RWQCP - - - 274 1,018 - - - 18 Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - - Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - - DIRECT EMISSIONS (SCOPE 1) OPTIONAL EMISSIONS (BIOGENIC) MUNICIPAL EMISSIONS (BASED ON CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION REGISTRY CATEGORIES) Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 8 of 45 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 INDIRECT (SCOPE 2) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from Digester DIRECT EMISSIONS (SCOPE 1) OPTIONAL EMISSIONS (BIOGENIC) MUNICIPAL EMISSIONS (BASED ON CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION REGISTRY CATEGORIES) Alternative 1c - Public DAD Ownership Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - - RWQCP - - - 274 991 - - - 18 Solid Waste Facilities 136 - - 24 150 - - 1,926 259 Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - - Alternative 1c - Private DAD Ownership Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - - RWQCP - - - 274 991 - - - 18 Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - - Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - - Alternative 1d - Public DAD Ownership Buildings/Facilities - - - - (22) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (67) - - - - RWQCP - 4,515 - - 1,344 9,207 2,616 - - Solid Waste Facilities 136 - - 24 150 - - 1,926 259 Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (8) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (3) - - - - Alternative 1d - Private DAD Ownership Buildings/Facilities - - - - (22) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (67) - - - - RWQCP - 4,515 - - 1,344 9,207 2,616 - - Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - - Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (8) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (3) - - - - Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 9 of 45 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 INDIRECT (SCOPE 2) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from Digester DIRECT EMISSIONS (SCOPE 1) OPTIONAL EMISSIONS (BIOGENIC) MUNICIPAL EMISSIONS (BASED ON CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION REGISTRY CATEGORIES) Alternative 2 Buildings/Facilities - - - - - - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - - - - - - RWQCP - 4,515 - - 1,344 9,207 2,616 - - Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - - Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - - - - - - Water Delivery - - - - - - - - - Alternative 2a Buildings/Facilities - - - - (23) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (71) - - - - RWQCP - - - 274 991 - - - 18 Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - - Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (8) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (3) - - - - Alternative 3 Buildings/Facilities - - - - - - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - - - - - - RWQCP - 4,515 - - 1,344 9,207 2,616 - - Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - - Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - - - - - - Water Delivery - - - - - - - - - Alternative 3a Buildings/Facilities - - - - (23) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (71) - - - - RWQCP - - - 274 991 - - - 18 Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - - Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (8) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (3) - - - - Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 10 of 45 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 INDIRECT (SCOPE 2) OTHER (SCOPE 3) Food/Yard Waste Disposal, In-town, City-owned Food/Yard Waste Disposal, In-town, Contractor Biosolids Disposal, In-town, City-owned Biosolids Disposal, In-town, Contractor Reduction in Emissions from Community Power Use Food/Yard Waste Disposal, Out of town, Contractor Alternative 1a - Public DAD Ownership 1,574 74 28 (4,946)- Alternative 1a - Private DAD Ownership -1,648 28 (4,946)- Alternative 1b - Public DAD Ownership 309 30 1,292 (4,946)436 Alternative 1b - Private DAD Ownership -338 1,292 (4,946)436 Alternative 1c - Public DAD Ownership 309 30 1,266 (4,946)436 Alternative 1c - Private DAD Ownership -338 1,266 (4,946)436 Alternative 1d - Public DAD Ownership 309 59 5,859 (2,402)184 Alternative 1d - Private DAD Ownership -368 5,859 (2,402)184 Alternative 2 --5,859 -787 Alternative 2a --1,266 (2,545) 1,000 Alternative 3 --5,859 -751 Alternative 3a --1,266 (2,545)980 Alternative 1a only. Included in "Food/Yard Waste Disposal, In-town, Contractor" and "In-town, City-owned" column DIRECT EMISSIONS (SCOPE 1) COMMUNITY EMISSIONS (BASED ON ICLEI PROTOCOL) Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 11 of 45 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 Alternative 1a - Public DAD Ownership Alternative 1a - Private DAD Ownership Alternative 1b - Public DAD Ownership Alternative 1b - Private DAD Ownership Alternative 1c - Public DAD Ownership Alternative 1c - Private DAD Ownership Alternative 1d - Public DAD Ownership Alternative 1d - Private DAD Ownership Alternative 2 Alternative 2a Alternative 3 Alternative 3a Waste Disposal, Contractor, In-town Waste Disposal, Contractor, Out of town Waste Disposal, City-owned Biosolids Disposal, City-owned Biogenic Emissions Associated with Green Power 3,166 - 2,203 - 11,910 5,369 - - - 11,910 - 3,166 2,185 18 11,910 2,185 3,166 - 18 11,910 - 3,166 2,185 18 11,910 2,185 3,166 - 18 11,910 - - 2,185 11,823 5,783 2,185 - - 11,823 5,783 - 6,163 - 11,823 - - 9,339 - 18 6,127 - 6,893 - 11,823 - - 10,059 - 18 6,127 BIOGENIC EMISSIONS (NOT REPORTED) COMMUNITY EMISSIONS (BASED ON ICLEI PROTOCOL) Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 12 of 45 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 Replacing Biosolids Incineration with A/D Generating Green Power Other Replacing Biosolids Incineration with A/D Generating Green Power Other Replacing Biosolids Incineration with A/D Generating Green Power Other Alternative 1a - Public DAD Ownership*(5,126) (206)869 (5,832) (4,946) 897 (5,832) (4,946) 718 Alternative 1a - Private DAD Ownership*(5,832) (206)-(5,832) (4,946) 897 (5,832) (4,946) 718 Alternative 1b - Public DAD Ownership (4,567) (206)309 (4,567) (4,946)24 (4,567) (4,946) (144) Alternative 1b - Private DAD Ownership (4,567) (206)-(4,567) (4,946)24 (4,567) (4,946) (144) Alternative 1c - Public DAD Ownership (4,593) (206)309 (4,593) (4,946)24 (4,593) (4,946) (144) Alternative 1c - Private DAD Ownership (4,593) (206)-(4,593) (4,946)24 (4,593) (4,946) (144) Alternative 1d - Public DAD Ownership -(100)309 -(2,402) (199)-(2,402) (278) Alternative 1d - Private DAD Ownership -(100)--(2,402) (199)-(2,402) (278) Alternative 2 ----36 -(1,001)36 Alternative 2a (4,593) (106)-(4,593) (2,545) 249 (4,593) (3,545) 161 Alternative 3 --------- Alternative 3a (4,593) (106)-(4,593) (2,545) 229 (4,593) (2,545) 140 ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS BY SOURCE *For Alternative 1a, 44.8% of the dry anaerobic digester emissions are allocated to biosolids. The allocation is based on tons of material going into the dry anaerobic digester over the life of the project GLOBALCOMMUNITYCITY Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 13 of 45 INDIRECT EMISSIONS CALCULATION Alt 1a Alt 1b Alt 1c Alt 1d Alt 2 Alt 2a Alt 3a Emissions rate for unspecified power (TCR) MT CO2-e/kWh 0.0003101 0.0003101 0.0003101 0.0003101 0.0003101 0.0003101 0.0003101 Emissions rate for unspecified power (CPP) MT CO2-e/kWh 0.0004043 0.0004043 0.0004043 0.0004043 0.0004043 0.0004043 0.0004043 Unspecified CPAU power replaced by A/D power kWh 12,745,063 12,745,063 12,745,063 6,188,490 6,556,573 6,556,573 Other power replaced by A/D power kWh 2,475,396 2,475,396 Total emissions saved (TCR)MT CO2-e (3,953) (3,953) (3,953) (1,919) (2,033) (2,033) Total emissions saved (CPP)MT CO2-e (5,152) (5,152) (5,152) (2,502) (2,651) (2,651) Biogenic emissions for A/D power (CPAU) MT CO2-e 11,910 11,910 11,910 5,783 6,127 6,127 Biogenic emissions for A/D power (Outside) MT CO2-e 2,313 2,313 - Wholesale Power Purchases (CY 2015)MWh 1,004,019 1,004,019 1,004,019 1,004,019 1,004,019 1,004,019 Emissions savings rate (TCR)MT CO2-e/MWh (0.0039) (0.0039) (0.0039) (0.0019) (0.0020) (0.0020) Emissions savings rate (CPP)MT CO2-e/MWh (0.0051) (0.0051) (0.0051) (0.0025) (0.0026) (0.0026) Additional biogenic emissions MT CO2-e/MWh 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0058 0.0061 0.0061 Emissions savings not included in TCR or CPP MT CO2-e 1,001 1,001 Emissions rate for unspecified power (TCR) calculation: CO2 CH4 N2O Annual total output emissions rates lb/MWh 681 0.0283 0.0062 2010 EPA eGrid emissions rate (CAMX) Global warming potential lbCO2-e / lb 1 21 310 Emissions rate lb CO2-e/MWh 681 0.5941 1.9313 Emissions rate MT CO2-e/MWh 0.3090 0.0003 0.0009 Emissions rate for unspecified power (TCR) MT CO2-e/kWh 0.0003101 Emissions rate for unspecified power (CPP) calculation: Rate used by CPAU for avoided emissions lb/MWh 891 Emissions rate for unspecified power (CPP) MT CO2-e/kWh 0.0004043 REDUCTION IN EMISSIONS FOR ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION Municipal Emissions (TCR) Alt 1a Alt 1b Alt 1c Alt 1d Alt 2a Alt 3a Emissions savings rate (TCR) MT CO2-e/MWh (0.003937) (0.003937) (0.003937) (0.001912) (0.002025) (0.002025) Reported 2009 Savings: Consumption Alt 1a Alt 1b Alt 1c Alt 1d Alt 2a Alt 3a kWh MT CO2-e MT CO2-e MT CO2-e MT CO2-e MT CO2-e MT CO2-e Buildings/Facilities (Reported CY2009)11,555,596 (45) (45) (45) (22) (23) (23) Process/Fugitive Emissions (Reported CY2009)35,201,985 (139) (139) (139) (67) (71) (71) Street Lights / Traffic Signals (Reported CY2009)4,098,015 (16) (16) (16) (8) (8) (8) Water Delivery (Reported CY2009)1,483,049 (6) (6) (6) (3) (3) (3) Community Emissions (CPP) Savings: Alt 1a Alt 1b Alt 1c Alt 1d Alt 2a Alt 3a MT CO2-e MT CO2-e MT CO2-e MT CO2-e MT CO2-e MT CO2-e Community emissions (4,946) (4,946) (4,946) (2,402) (2,545) (2,545) REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Fugitive CO2 from Digester Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from digester Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 26 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck 1 By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 136 Digester power consumption 1,141 Fugitive emissions (CO2)277 Fugitive emissions (CH4)298 Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 1,926 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 1A (PUBLIC DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 1A (PUBLIC DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Contractor, Anthropogenic, In‐ town Contractor, Biogenic, In‐town Contractor, Anthropogenic, Out of town Contractor, Biogenic, Out of town Construction 27 30 3,166 36 8 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Fugitive CO2 from Digester Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from digester Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 26 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck 1 By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 1A (PRIVATE DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 1A (PRIVATE DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Contractor, Anthropogenic, In town Contractor, Biogenic, In town Contractor, Anthropogenic, Out of town Contractor, Biogenic, Out of town Construction 27 30 136 1,141 277 298 1,926 3,166 36 8 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Fugitive CO2 from Digester Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from digester Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump 27 Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 136 Digester power consumption 150 Fugitive emissions (CO2)259 Fugitive emissions (CH4)24 Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 0 Digester power consumption 991.3 Fugitive emissions (CO2)18 Fugitive emissions (CH4)274 Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 1,926 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 1B (PUBLIC DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 1B (PUBLIC DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Contractor, Anthropogenic, In town Contractor, Biogenic, In town Contractor, Anthropogenic, Out of town Contractor, Biogenic, Out of town Construction 21 17 30 392 3,166 36 8 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Fugitive CO2 from Digester Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from digester Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump 27 Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 0 Digester power consumption 991.3 Fugitive emissions (CO2)18 Fugitive emissions (CH4)274 Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 1B (PRIVATE DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 1B (PRIVATE DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Contractor, Anthropogenic, In town Contractor, Biogenic, In town Contractor, Anthropogenic, Out of town Contractor, Biogenic, Out of town Construction 21 17 30 136 150 259 24 1,926 392 3,166 36 8 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Fugitive CO2 from Digester Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from digester Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 136 Digester power consumption 150 Fugitive emissions (CO2)259 Fugitive emissions (CH4)24 Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 0 Digester power consumption 991.3 Fugitive emissions (CO2)18 Fugitive emissions (CH4)274 Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 1,926 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 1C (PUBLIC DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 1C (PUBLIC DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Contractor, Anthropogenic, In town Contractor, Biogenic, In town Contractor, Anthropogenic, Out of town Contractor, Biogenic, Out of town Construction 21 17 30 392 3,166 36 8 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Fugitive CO2 from Digester Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from digester Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 0 Digester power consumption 991.3 Fugitive emissions (CO2)18 Fugitive emissions (CH4)274 Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 1C (PRIVATE DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 1C (PRIVATE DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Contractor, Anthropogenic, In town Contractor, Biogenic, In town Contractor, Anthropogenic, Out of town Contractor, Biogenic, Out of town Construction 21 17 30 136 150 259 24 1,926 392 3,166 36 8 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Fugitive CO2 from Digester Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from digester Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 26 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 136 Digester power consumption 150 Fugitive emissions (CO2)259 Fugitive emissions (CH4)24 Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 1,926 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas 2,732 Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)2,616 Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)1,783 Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)9,207 Incinerator / ash collection power consumption 1,318 Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 1D (PUBLIC DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 1D (PUBLIC DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Contractor, Anthropogenic, In town Contractor, Biogenic, In town Contractor, Anthropogenic, Out of town Contractor, Biogenic, Out of town Construction 21 30 184 21 8 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Fugitive CO2 from Digester Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from digester Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 26 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas 2,732 Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)2,616 Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)1,783 Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)9,207 Incinerator / ash collection power consumption 1,318 Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 1D (PRIVATE DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 1D (PRIVATE DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Contractor, Anthropogenic, In town Contractor, Biogenic, In town Contractor, Anthropogenic, Out of town Contractor, Biogenic, Out of town Construction 21 30 136 150 259 24 1,926 184 21 8 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Fugitive CO2 from Digester Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from digester Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 26 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas 2,732 Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)2,616 Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)1,783 Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)9,207 Incinerator / ash collection power consumption 1,318 Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 2 DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 2 DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Contractor, Anthropogenic, In town Contractor, Biogenic, In town Contractor, Anthropogenic, Out of town Contractor, Biogenic, Out of town Construction 302 54 60 104 9 770 148 184 5,289 27 3 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Fugitive CO2 from Digester Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from digester Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 0 Digester power consumption 991.3 Fugitive emissions (CO2)18 Fugitive emissions (CH4)274 Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 2A DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 2A DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Contractor, Anthropogenic, In town Contractor, Biogenic, In town Contractor, Anthropogenic, Out of town Contractor, Biogenic, Out of town Construction 17 302 54 60 104 9 770 148 5,289 392 3,166 42 3 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Fugitive CO2 from Digester Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from digester Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 26 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas 2,732 Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)2,616 Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)1,783 Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)9,207 Incinerator / ash collection power consumption 1,318 Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 3 DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 3 DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Contractor, Anthropogenic, In town Contractor, Biogenic, In town Contractor, Anthropogenic, Out of town Contractor, Biogenic, Out of town Construction 308 228 184 6,893 27 4 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Fugitive CO2 from Digester Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from digester Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 0 Digester power consumption 991 Fugitive emissions (CO2)18 Fugitive emissions (CH4)274 Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 3A DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 3A DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Contractor, Anthropogenic, In town Contractor, Biogenic, In town Contractor, Anthropogenic, Out of town Contractor, Biogenic, Out of town Construction 17 308 228 6,893 392 3,166 48 4 Yard Trimm Food Scraps Biosolids Yard Trimm Food Scraps Biosolids Yard Trimm Food Scraps Biosolids Yard Trimm Food Scraps Biosolids Summary of Processing Method DAD @ landfill WAD @ landfill WAD @ RWQCP Incineratio n @ RWQCP Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 21,000 14,000 27,000 21,000 14,000 27,000 21,000 14,000 27,000 21,000 14,000 27,000 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 5 NA NA NA Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 NA NA NA NA NA 17 NA NA 17 NA NA NA Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 26 3 NA 26 3 NA 26 3 NA 26 3 NA Dewatering Biosolids 8 NA NA 26 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 26 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump) By truck 9 NA NA 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA By pump 10 NA NA NA NA NA 27 NA NA NA NA NA NA Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 11, 12 0 NA NA NA Digester power consumption 11, 12 991 NA NA NA Fugitive emissions (CO2)11, 12 18 NA NA NA Fugitive emissions (CH4)11, 12 274 NA NA NA Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 13 NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA 0 NA NA NA Digester power consumption 13 NA NA NA NA NA 991 NA NA 991 NA NA NA Fugitive emissions (CO2)13 NA NA NA NA NA 18 NA NA 18 NA NA NA Fugitive emissions (CH4)13 NA NA NA NA NA 274 NA NA 274 NA NA NA Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 NA NA NA NA Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas 17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2,732 Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2,616 Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1,783 Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 9,207 Incinerator / ash collection power consumption 17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1,318 Hauling of ash to landfill 17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 184 Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 NA NA NA NA NA 392 NA NA 392 NA NA NA Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 NA NA 3,166 NA NA 3,166 NA NA 3,166 NA NA NA Hauling Compost to End Users 22 15 15 15 NA Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 NA NA NA NA Subtotal, by feedstock 4,498 4,901 4,874 17,866 INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 6,127 6,127 6,127 NA Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 ‐2,650 ‐2,650 ‐2,650 NA Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 1,225 1,225 1,225 NA Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 1,783 1,783 1,783 NA Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 2,762 2,762 2,762 NA Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 ‐2,762 ‐2,762 ‐2,762 ‐2,607 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) 150 259 2424 136 150 259 24 14,207 23,722 13,578 19,195 19,168 26,545 7,474 21 1,926 1,926 8 21 8 136 150 Alternative 1d Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Applicable Sheet Number(s) Alternative 1a Alternative 1b Alternative 1c 21 259 6,072 2,607 ‐2,607 ‐2,501 ‐2,607 1,157 5,856 7,448 2,573 20,440 ‐2,501 2,607 1,157 DAD @ landfill 2,573 ‐2,501 21 21 21 1,926 5,783 5,783 2,573 8 21 1,926 2,573 7,071 8 5,783 DAD @ landfillDAD @ landfill 136 150 259 24 136 2,573 2,607 2,342 ‐2,501 13,831 14,234 1,157 2,573 5,783 21 2,342 2,342 2,342 1,157 5,783 2,607 2,607 5,856 1,157 1,157 ‐2,501 2,573 5,783 2,573 5,783 5,783 ‐2,501 5,856 6,072 2,607 ‐2,607 2,607 2,607 2,607 ‐2,607 2,607 6,072 DAD @ landfill 2,342 ‐2,501 1,157 2,342 5,856 ‐2,501 2,342 1,157 2,342 2,607 6,072 ‐2,607 Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids 8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump) By truck 9 By pump 10 Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 11, 12 Digester power consumption 11, 12 Fugitive emissions (CO2)11, 12 Fugitive emissions (CH4)11, 12 Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 13 Digester power consumption 13 Fugitive emissions (CO2)13 Fugitive emissions (CH4)13 Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas 17 Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)17 Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)17 Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)17 Incinerator / ash collection power consumption 17 Hauling of ash to landfill 17 Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Applicable Sheet Number(s) Yard Trimm Food Scraps Biosolids Yard Trimm Food Scraps Biosolids Yard Trimm Food Scraps Biosolids Yard Trimm Food Scraps Biosolids Composti ng @ Z‐ Best DAD @ Zanker Incinerati on @ RWQCP Composti ng @ Z‐ Best DAD @ Zanker WAD @ RWQCP Composti ng @ Z‐ Best Composti ng @ Z‐ Best Incinerati on @ RWQCP Composti ng @ Z‐ Best Composti ng @ Z‐ Best WAD @ RWQCP 21,000 14,000 27,000 21,000 14,000 27,000 21,000 14,000 27,000 21,000 14,000 27,000 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 17 NA NA NA NA NA 17 259 43 NA 259 43 NA 259 49 NA 259 49 NA NA NA 26 NA NA NA NA NA 26 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 991 NA NA NA NA NA 991 NA NA NA NA NA 18 NA NA NA NA NA 18 NA NA NA NA NA 274 NA NA NA NA NA 274 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 148 NA NA 148 NA NA 148 80 NA 148 80 NA NA NA 2,732 NA NA NA NA NA 2,732 NA NA NA NA NA 2,616 NA NA NA NA NA 2,616 NA NA NA NA NA 1,783 NA NA NA NA NA 1,783 NA NA NA NA NA 9,207 NA NA NA NA NA 9,207 NA NA NA NA NA 1,318 NA NA NA NA NA 1,318 NA NA NA NA NA 184 NA NA NA NA NA 184 NA NA NA 5,289 NA NA 5,289 NA NA 5,289 1,604 NA 5,289 1,604 NA NA NA NA NA NA 392 NA NA NA NA NA 392 NA NA NA NA NA 3,166 NA NA NA NA NA 3166 22 4 NA 22 4 15 22 4 NA 22 11 15 2 0.2 NA 2 0.2 NA NA NA 17,866 4,874 17,866 4,874 NA 6,127 NA 6,127 NA ‐2,650 NA ‐2,650 NA 1,225 NA 1,225 NA 1,783 NA 1,783 NA 2,762 NA 2,762 NA ‐2,762 NA ‐2,762 7,466 NA NA NA NA 7,466 NA NA 7,466 NA NA NA 15,349 ‐1,043 8,165 Alternative 3a 4 7,466 12,340 NA NA 15,818 NA 8,079 463 937 1,043 11,640 2,313 ‐1,000 16,430 104 9 770 6,766 Alternative 2a 54 60 54 60 104 9 NA 25,32628,811 1,157 937 1,043 1,043 18,828 Alternative 3 770 4 NA 25,326 7,4606,766 2,313 ‐1,000 Alternative 2 25,945 24,633 937 1,157 1,043 NA 463 6,766 NA‐1,043 7,460 NA NA 25,326 NA 2,313 NA NA 1,043 NA 6,766 2,313 7,460 7,460 8,165 NA 937 ‐1,000 8,079 1,043 NA ‐1,000 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Fugitive CO2 from Digester Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from digester Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 X Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck X By pump X Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment X Digester power consumption X Fugitive emissions (CO2)X Fugitive emissions (CH4)X Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment X Digester power consumption X Fugitive emissions (CO2)X Fugitive emissions (CH4)X Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 X Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas X Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)??? Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)X Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)X Incinerator / ash collection power consumption X Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year) Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester Wet Anaerobic Digester Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press) Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump) By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food) Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility Composting Biosolids Digestate Hauling Compost to End Users Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER S Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO Contractor, Anthropogenic, In town Contractor, Biogenic, In town Contractor, Anthropogenic, Out of town Contractor, Biogenic, Out of town OTHER X X X (SOME)X (SOME) X X X X X X (SOME)X (SOME) X (SOME)X (SOME) Replacing biosolids incineration with digestion Generating green power Other 1a (10,060) (5,832) (4,946) 718 1b (9,657) (4,567) (4,946) (144) 1c (9,684) (4,593) (4,946) (144) 1d (2,680) - (2,402) (278) 2 (965) - (1,001) 36 2a (7,978) (4,593) (3,545) 161 3 (Base Ca - - - - 3a (6,998) (4,593) (2,545) 140 Global Emissions Savings (Anthropogenic) Global Anthropogenic Emissions Savings by Source Community Direct Emissions (Scope 1) Community Indirect Emissions (Scope 2) Community: Other Emissions (Scope 3) Replacing biosolids incineration with digestion (4,183) (4,946) (751)(5,832) (4,228) (4,946) (315)(4,567) (4,255) (4,946) (315)(4,593) 368 (2,402) (567)- - - 36 - (4,593) (2,545) 249 (4,593) - - - - (4,593) (2,545) 229 (4,593) Community Anthropogenic EChange in Reported Community Emissions (Anthropogenic) Reduction in Reportable GHG Emissions - Generating green power Other (% of 2005 Baseline)* (4,946) 897 1.3% (4,946) 24 1.3% (4,946) 24 1.3% (2,402) (199) 0.3% - 36 0.0% (2,545) 249 0.9% - - 0.0% (2,545) 229 0.9% Emissions Savings by Source ENERGY/COMPOST DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 2011 Attachment F Introduction p Council and Public comments have been addressed in a new “Draft Feasibility Study”. p “Scenarios”have been developed to deal with different assumptions suggested by the Public and Council Members. p New data on cost and greenhouse gasses is available. p At the preliminary planning level, none of the four key alternatives should be screened out as infeasible. Council Direction p Hire Consultant/Evaluate Dry Anaerobic Digestion p Prepare applicable level EIR focused on 8- 9 acres of Byxbee Park p Study energy-conversion technologies at Palo Alto Wastewater Plant as part of Facilities Planning p Pursue partnering opportunities for organics within 20 miles of Palo Alto Current Organics Management and Plans p Food Scraps n Commercial: Aerobic Composting near Gilroy (Greenwaste Facility) n Residential: Not yet Source Separated p Yard Trimmings n Current: Palo Alto Aerobic Composting Facility n In 2012: Aerobic Composting near Gilroy (Greenwaste Facility) p Wastewater Solids (“Biosolids”) n Incinerated at Palo Alto Wastewater Plant n Alternatives being studied via Long Range Facilities Planning Process and Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Managing Palo Alto’s Source Separated Organics (Food, Yard and Wastewater Solids) Feasibility Study Schedule p 1/26/11 –Preliminary Analysis Released p Public Meetings and Comment Period p 3/21/11 –Council Study Session p 4/11/11 –Council Direction p Early June –Draft Feasibility Study p 6/27/11 –Council Direction p Late September –Final Feasibility Study p Early October –Council Meeting Alternatives 1.Palo Alto a)Dry Anaerobic Digestion (all three materials) c)Dry Anaerobic Digestion (food and yard) Wet Anaerobic Digestion for Biosolids at RWQCP 2.San Jose Food in Dry Anaerobic Digestion in San Jose Yard in Aerobic Composting in Gilroy Biosolids in Wet Anaerobic Digestion at RWQCP 3.Gilroy Food and Yard in Aerobic Composting in Gilroy Biosolids in Wet Anaerobic Digestion at RWQCP Public and Council Comments (Doable by Early June) (From 4/11 Council Meeting) p Incinerator Replacement Costs p Net Present Value p Land Rent p CO2 “Adder” p Loan Interest Rate and Type of Financing p Contingency Amount p Grant Amounts Public and Council Comments (Not Doable by Early June) (From 4/11 Council Meeting) p New Combined Alternative (9-acre site and RWQCP) p Full integration of RWQCP Planning and Energy/Compost Feasibility Study p Consideration of gasification and other high temperature conversion technologies Scenarios/Assumptions 0%15%15%Export Contingency $0/Ton$20/Ton$20/TonCO2Adder $908K/Yr$108K/Yr$1/YrRent 0%15%15%Grant Funding Market Rate Market Rate Below Market Financing PrivatePrivatePublicOwnership 32 (Staff)1 Scenarios Assumptions Results (Scenario 2 –Staff) $893a)Gilroy (Partial) $94 2a)San Jose (Partial) $72 $103 Avg $133 1a)Palo Alto –Dry 1c)Palo Alto –Dry and Wet Net Present Value (Millions of $) Alternatives Cost Conclusions At the preliminary planning level, none of the four preceding alternatives should be screened out as infeasible. Next Steps 1.Final Feasibility Study– Late September 2011 2.Informational Staff Report to Council– Early October 2011 3.Vote on Ballot Initiative– Early November 2011 4.Recommendations to Council for Next Steps–December 2011 SUPPORTING SLIDES Greenhouse Gas Results 15,8003a)Gilroy (Partial) 16,4002a)San Jose (Partial) 13,800 14,200 1a)Palo Alto –Dry 1c)Palo Alto –Dry and Wet Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Tons of CO2 Equivalents/Yr) Alternatives Greenhouse Gas/Climate Action Plan Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (CAP) 1.2 –1.4%15%5% % of Community CO2 Emissions 15%-20% % of City Operations CO2 Emissions PA Anaerobic Digestion Projected Reduction 2020 CAP Goal 2012 CAP Goal (% Reduction from 2005 Base) Energy Conversion Technologies p Anaerobic Digestion p Gasification p Pyrolysis p Incineration (Fluidized Bed replacing Multiple Hearth) Regional Partnering (within 20 miles) p Greenwaste (ZWED) [NEW] n Dry Anaerobic Digestion/North San Jose p Food Scraps n City of San Jose/Harvest Power [NEW] p Gasification/North San Jose p Wastewater Solids/Wood n Sunnyvale-Palo Alto-MV/SMaRT Station [No Plans for Conversion Technologies at this time.] June 27, 2011 1784-6 Alternative 1: In-City Options at Landfill Site Food Scraps Yard Trimmings Biosolids Case 1a Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD (Separate Cell) Case 1b Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD at Landfill Case 1c Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD at RWQCP Case 1d Dry AD Dry AD Continue Incineration at RWQCP Alternative 2: Export Case 2 Proposed San Jose AD (Zanker) Gilroy Compost (ZBEST) Continue Incineration at RWQCP Case 2a Proposed San Jose AD (Zanker) Gilroy Compost (ZBEST) Wet AD at RWQCP Alternative 3: Export Case 3 Gilroy Compost (ZBEST) Gilroy Compost (ZBEST) Continue Incineration at RWQCP Case 3a Gilroy Compost (ZBEST) Gilroy Compost (ZBEST) Wet AD at RWQCP 21 Study Scenarios Input Assumption Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Ownership Public Private Private Financing Public Private Private Financing Rate Below Market Market Rate Market Rate Grants 15%15%0% Site Rent (Annual)$1 $108,000 $908,000 Carbon Adder Cost Yes Yes No Contingency on Export Options 15%15%0% 22 Food Scraps Yard Trimmings Biosolids Total First year: 2015 14,000 21,000 27,000 62,000 Last Year: 2034 19,000 21,000 34,000 74,000 23 Alternative 1: In-City Options at Landfill Site MT CO2-e/Year Case 1a (All Dry AD –Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Biosolids)13,831 Case 1b (Dry AD –Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings; Wet AD Biosolids at Landfill)14,234 Case 1c (Dry AD –Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings; Wet AD Biosolids at RWQCP)14,207 Case 1d (Dry AD –Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings; Continue Incinerate Biosolids)21,106 Alternative 2: Export MT CO2-e/Year Alternative 2 (Export Food Scraps to San Jose, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy ; Continue Incinerate Biosolids)23,329 Alternative 2a (Export Food Scraps to San Jose, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Wet AD Biosolids at RWQCP)16,430 Alternative 3: Export MT CO2-e/Year Alternative 3 (Export Food Scraps and Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Continue Incinerate Biosolids)22,716 Alternative 3a (Export Food Scraps and Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Wet AD Biosolids at RWQCP)15,818 24 Summary of Economic Analyses: Lower Cost AD Technology Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 NPV Total Costs over 20 Years Case 1a:Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings & Biosolids Dry AD in separate cells @ Palo Alto Landfill (PALF) Uncertainty remains regarding Case 1a costs, limited data $58,568,589 $71,993,438 $96,226,397 Case 1b:Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD, Biosolids Wet AD –all @ PALF $112,537,531 $133,759,937 $170,950,938 Case 1c:Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF, Biosolids Wet AD @ RWQCP $111,355,915 $133,119,590 $169,007,164 Case 1d: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF, Biosolids Incinerated @ RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator on line in 2031 $137,096,645 $146,947,702 $154,505,010 Alternatives 2 & 3 (Export/Incineration)NPV Total Costs over 20 Years Case 2:Food Scraps to San Jose AD Facility, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy Composting Facility (via SMaRT), Biosolids Incinerated at RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2031 $139,527,960 $139,527,960 $116,714,351 Case 3:Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer, Yard Trimmings to SMaRT –then both to Gilroy Composting Facility, Biosolids incinerated at RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2031 $134,349,833 $134,349,833 $112,511,650 Alternatives 2a & 3a (Export/Wet AD)NPV Total Costs over 20 Years Case 2a:Food Scraps to San Jose AD Facility, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy Composting Facility (via SMaRT), Biosolids processed via Wet AD @ RWQCP $94,312,261 $94,312,261 $81,747,002 Case 3a:Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer, Yard Trimmings to SMaRT –then both to Gilroy Composting Facility, Biosolids processed via Wet AD @ RWQCP $89,266,458 $89,266,458 $77,544,302 25 Summary of Economic Analyses: Higher Cost AD Technology Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 NPV Total Costs over 20 Years Case 1a:Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings & Biosolids Dry AD in separate cells @ PALF $201,195,623 $235,149,874 $294,370,715 Case 1b:Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD, Biosolids Wet AD –all @ PALF $179,740,533 $211,590,278 $268,294,477 Case 1c:Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF, Biosolids Wet AD @ RWQCP $178,939,857 $210,617,095 $267,027,894 Case 1d: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF, Biosolids Incinerated @ RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator on line in 2031 $199,061,822 $221,509,086 $249,502,488 Alternatives 2 & 3 (Export/Incineration)NPV Total Costs over 20 Years Case 2:Food Scraps to San Jose AD Facility, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy Composting Facility (via SMaRT), Biosolids Incinerated at RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2031 $139,527,960 $139,527,960 $116,714,351 Case 3:Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer, Yard Trimmings to SMaRT –then both to Gilroy Composting Facility, Biosolids incinerated at RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2031 $134,349,833 $134,349,833 $112,511,650 Alternatives 2a & 3a (Export/Wet AD)NPV Total Costs over 20 Years Case 2a:Food Scraps to San Jose AD Facility, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy Composting Facility (via SMaRT), Biosolids processed via Wet AD @ RWQCP $94,312,261 $94,312,261 $81,747,002 Case 3a:Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer, Yard Trimmings to SMaRT –then both to Gilroy Composting Facility, Biosolids processed via Wet AD @ RWQCP $89,266,458 $89,266,458 $77,544,302 26 Summary Findings Economic Analyses —Scenario 1: Case 1a Lower Cost AD Technology is less costly than export options, Cases 1b and 1c are less costly than exportwith incineration, but, although somewhat higher in cost, competitive with export options with Wet AD —Scenario 2: Case 1a Lower Cost AD Technology is less costly than export options, Cases 1b and 1c are approximately same cost as export with incineration, more costly than export with wet AD —Scenario 3: Case 1a Lower Cost AD Technology is more costly than export with Wet AD of biosolids, but less costly than export with incineration —For all Scenarios, Higher Cost AD Technology is more costly than export cases. —Continued Incineration of Biosolids with existing incineration, then replacing it with a fluid bed incinerator in 2030, is more costly than Dry or Wet AD of biosolids.27 Project Delivery Options —DBOO(T) –Private ownership and financing; private design, construction, operation —DBO –Public ownership and financing; private design, construction, operation —DBB –Public ownership and financing; City responsible for design, construction, operation 28 Next Steps Should Site become available and City decides to further consider AD, other technologies: —Complete CEQA checklist —Obtain Firm Technical and Price Proposals for City and Export Options (performance-based RFP process; does not commit City) —Review Proposals, Compare Options, Determine Course of Action 29 Minor, Beth From: Sent: To: Emily Renzel [Marshmama2@att.net] Wednesday, June 22, 2011 8:48 AM Council, City Subject: AD statistics remind me of Mark Twain June 22, 2011 Mayor Espinosa & Members of the City Council: Page 1 ofl You now have before you purported costs for three Scenarios and eight Options. It's enough to make your head spin. So what is REAL, consistent with existing policy, and what is not so real? And, if you think YOU have problems, imagine the problems for voters in November. Clearly all of this shows how statistics can be manipulated for any outcome. This whole idea began as a way to reduce our carbon footprint. You were told that the City would reduce its carbon footprint by 12,000 metric tons per year. The differences now range from -1,034 to plus 2223 metric tons per year depending on which options and scenarios. Is it really worth a $50 million gamble for that small reduction in carbon? You were told that profits from this project could provide money to complete Byxbee Park. The Enterprise Funds cannot make a profit. The only ''profit'' would be rent to the General Fund for the use of the land. And all eight of the Scenario 1 options offer NO RENT! The Scenario 2 options have a rent at 1111 th of the current rent on the very same land. That rent is based on an appraisal with not one single Palo Alto comparable --Oakland, San Jose, Morgan Hill, yes---Palo Alto, no. The General Fund collects rents from at least 49 properties used by Enterprise Funds. A major purpose of Enterprise Funds was to recover the market value of General Fund Assets. Without these rents and other recovered costs, the General Fund would be broke. You were told that this needed to be co-located with the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. Only those options that use Dry Anaerobic Digestion for all three organic streams benefit from co-location. You have already heard from one of the vendors that they could not handle all of the sewage sludge with dry anaerobic digestion. That would effectively eliminate Option 1 a. You were told that our sewage sludge incinerator is Palo Alto's dirty little secret. No matter what happens, there will be improvements made at the Sewage Plant -either a cleaner incinerator or wet anaerobic digestion. Most likely it would be the latter as it has the lowest carbon footprint and one of the lowest net present values of costs. This is a bogus issue. All the Scenario 1 options include Public Financing at below market interest. That's pretty optimistic and so is the idea of a 15% grant -- since many oft4e grants are available only to private entities. A "carbon adder" has been used to guarantee that over time the AD will look more favorable than the export options. According to staff, it is a "cost item for C02 equivalents ... added to remove externalities for the purposes of decision making .. .!t is not a cost we have to pay anybody and therefore would not be added to the Refuse Rates." In other words, it pads the statistics. It also has a growth of 5% per year while all other costs are escalated at 2.4% per year. The base year is 2007, not 2011, so the $20/ton carbon adder grows to $30/ton by 2015 and to $78. 14/ton by 2035. Tell the ratepayers you are deciding on a $50 million project based on this fiction. Finally, a 15% contingency was added to the Export Options in addition to the normal inflation rates. Our hauling contract specifies costs/ton and so does the SMaRT Station agreement. Why would we add a contingency to a service we are purchasing except to pad the figures? The acreage in the Initiative cuts into already landfi11ed areas 50 feet high. To save costs, that huge amount of material will be dumped on top ofByxbee Park, destroying the contours carefully planned by Hargreaves to make a nice park and also meet State landfill standards. If the material has to be hauled to another landfill, both costs and GHG figures would rise significantly. The AD proposal is destructive to the long-planned park, risky, and will be very costly. Sincerely, Emily M. Renzel, Coordinator, Baylands Conservation Committee 6122/2011 City of Palo Alto (ID # 1550) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 4/11/2011 April 11, 2011 Page 1 of 4 (ID # 1550) Council Priority: {ResProject:ClearLine} Summary Title: Council direction on Energy/Compost Study Title: Request for Council Direction on Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study due to Council in June 2011 From:City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council direct staff to: 1)Submit a Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study on an Energy/Compost Facility in early June 2011, based upon the Preliminary Analysis submitted to Council on March 21, 2011, and Council and Public Comments. 2)Present a manageable number of scenarios in the Draft Feasibility Study containing a range of input values which reflect the range of comments received. Executive Summary Staff is recommending that Council direct staff to submit a Draft Feasibility Study on an Energy/Compost Facility in early June 2011, as envisioned in the established schedule for the City’s consultant, Alternative Resources, Inc. (ARI). This will provide Council with a draft study reflecting Council and public comments. This will provide Council the opportunity to terminate the work at that point should Council determine that an Energy/Compost Facility in Palo Alto does not need further study at that time. Background Palo Alto’s Blue Ribbon Compost Task Force recommended to Council that an Anaerobic Digestion Facility be pursued in the vicinity of the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (Plant) to manage the City’s yard trimmings, food scraps and wastewater solids (“biosolids”). The exact location of such a facility has been problematic because of Palo Alto’s urbanized nature, the fact that no land has been specified for such a facility, and the fact that the Landfill has been dedicated as Parkland (Byxbee Park). Following receipt of the Compost Task Force Report, on April 5, 2010 (CMR:165:10, Attachment A), Council directed staff to: April 11, 2011 Page 2 of 4 (ID # 1550) 1)Hire a consultant to evaluate Dry Anaerobic Digestion; 2)Prepare an applicable level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) focused on 9- acres of Byxbee Park; 3)Study energy conversion-technologies including Anaerobic Digestion at Palo Alto’s Wastewater Treatment Plant as part of its Long Range Master Plan-Facility Planning process; and 4)Pursue partnering opportunities for organics processing within 20 miles of Palo Alto. Palo Alto hired ARI to conduct the Anaerobic Digestion Study, and staff has been pursuing Nos. 3 and 4 above. An appropriately scoped EIR (No. 2 above) will be produced at the appropriate time should Palo Alto continue to pursue a Palo Alto Facility. Council members requested that a Preliminary Analysis be completed ahead of the full Feasibility Study. The Preliminary Analysis was done by ARI and placed on the Palo Alto website on January 26, 2011. Public meetings were held on February 23 and March 9,and public comments have been received in writing and at the meetings. City Council conducted a Study Session on March 21 and staff indicated it would return to Council for further direction on April 11, 2011. Discussion Public comments and Council comments on the Preliminary Analysis of Dry Anaerobic Digestion on the Landfill/Byxbee Park 9-acre site were received at the Council Study Session on March 21, 2011. Earlier comments had also been received. Staff has analyzed those comments and has planned to prepare a Draft Feasibility Study in June based upon the Preliminary Analysis and the comments received. Should Council direct staff to continue the Draft Feasibility Study, staff would make the following changes and additions to the Preliminary Analysis: 1)Include additional “export” (non-Palo Alto site) alternatives in which Wet Anaerobic Digestion is used in place of incineration at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). 2)Lift the Net Present Value (NPV) analysis from the detailed analysis to the summary tables. 3)Include the replacement costs of the wastewater solids (biosolids) incinerator in those alternatives involving the incinerator. 4)Conduct more runs of the economic and greenhouse gas models, providing new data points with respect to the following input parameters: a.Land Rent Value b.Greenhouse Gas Value (“CO2 Adder”) c.Interest Rate for Loans d.Contingency Amount e.Amount of any Grants 5)Summarize the data such that Council can determine whether to complete the Feasibility Study or forego further work at that time. April 11, 2011 Page 3 of 4 (ID # 1550) In summarizing the data (in No. 5 above) for the Draft Feasibility Study in June, staff will assist Council in efforts to determine alternatives with the greatest environmental benefits at the lowest costs. A manageable number of scenarios will be presented to reflect a range of perspectives. All alternatives will assume that the current RWQCP Multiple Hearth Incinerator must be replaced at some point. Other Comments Staff’s above proposal modifying the Preliminary Analysis does not address all comments received. Some comments would require substantially more time and funding. Examples include: 1)A new alternative to combine biosolids and food scraps in wet anaerobic digesters and then combine the digestate with yard trimmings, using some combination of the RWQCP site and the Landfill/Byxbee park site; 2)Full integration of the Energy/Compost Feasibility study and the Long Range Facilities Planning for the RWQCP; and 3)Consideration of gasification and other high temperature conversion technologies in Palo Alto. Initiative It is likely that a Citizen Initiative to undedicate Parkland for an Energy/Compost Facility will appear on the November 2011 Ballot in Palo Alto. Several points related to the Feasibility Study can be made: 1)The Initiative does not require construction of a facility, but only allows it. City Council would ultimately decide whether a facility is constructed. 2)The Initiative contains a provision allowing Council to re-dedicate the site as parkland after 10 years, if some or all of the area is not used for an Energy/Compost Facility. 3)The Initiative does not exclusively focus on Dry Anaerobic Digestion and would allow other “equally environmentally protective” technology alternatives. The Preliminary Analysis focuses on Dry Anaerobic Digestion. Neither the Preliminary Analysis nor the Draft Feasibility Study was scoped to provide a quantitative analysis of all technologies which may be “equally environmentally protective”. Resource Impact The additional work described to prepare the June Draft Feasibility Study will require additional funds. Those funds are being taken from other future tasks in the ARI contract so that the schedule can be adhered to and the Draft produced in June. Specifically, the work to prepare the California Envrionmental Quality Act (CEQA) Initial Study will be delayed to allow the more critical work to be completed. Should it be decided to ultimately complete the CEQA Initial Study, a contract amendment will be prepared and submitted to Council for approval. This contract ammendment would April 11, 2011 Page 4 of 4 (ID # 1550) require additional funding, but is not the subject of this CMR. Environmental Review The Feasibility Study itself is not a “project” as defined by CEQA and no environmental review is required at this point in the process. ATTACHMENTS: ·Attachment A CMR165-10 (PDF) Prepared By:Philip L. Bobel, Manager, Environmental Compliance Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Interim Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager On August 6, 2007, Council directed staff to develop a work plan to explore options to keep compo sting in Palo Alto. A work plan for a composting feasibility study was presented and approved by Council on January 22, 2008 (CMR: 116:08). Staff prepared the feasibility study and presented the results of the study on April 28, 2008 (CMR:219:08). At that point Council directed staff to table the issue until the Baylands Master Plan update was approved and to get the input of the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC). On December IS, 2008 (CMR:470:08) and January 12, 2009 (CMR: 116:09), Council further discussed the composting issue and made a decision to convene a citizen-based Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) to further examine the composting question. At that time, Council specifically directed the BRTF to avoid parkland location options. On October 19, 2009, the BRTF presented its results and recommendations to Council (CMR:402:09). The lead site recommended by the BRTF would have had resulted in potential impacts on the Palo Alto Airport operations, as expressed to Council. Therefore, Council directed staff to further examine the other alternatives and return to Council. The motion from October 19, 2009 consisted ofthe following directives: 1) Accept the September 9, 2009 Palo Alto Compost Task Force Final Report (Report) submitted by the Compost Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF); 2) Direct Staff to implement the short term recommendations for CUl'l'ent compost operations contained in the BRTF Report as modified by the Staff response; 3) Request Staff to retum with analysis and recommendation of whether to incorporate an interim solution of aerobic static pile composting or consider off site composting on an interim basis; 4) Staff to evaluate the two options (Embarcadero Road/Airport site and 5-6 acres in the northwest corner of the current landfill site) on the locations; 5) Staff to consider an option of partnering with another city or cities; 6) Staff to consider whether there are other locations on Embarcadero Way that could work, this would take no more than 90 days; 7) Location of any facility would not have any negative impact on the Palo Alto Airport, its operations, finances, and relationship with the FAA or Santa Clara County; 8) Staff to work closely with the airport community in the development of any proposals, and 9) Staff to take into consideration the Airport Business Plan being developed. In a separate action, Council adopted a statement of intent to proceed toward an anaerobic compo sting system, at an unspecified location. Since the last Council action on composting, staff held a public meeting with airport stakeholders at West Valley Flying Club Meeting Room on November 4,2009. Minutes from that meeting are included as Attachment A and further documented the negative impacts of a site on Airport property. Staff also held a public meeting to discuss the expected recommendations of this staff report at Cubberley Community Center, Room A-6 on December 9, 2009. Notes from that public meeting are included as Attachment B. In addition, staff presented information (and answered questions) to the Council in a study session on March 8,2010. CMR:165:10 Page 2 of6 DISCUSSION Short-term Recommendations Staff has implemented all of the short-tenn recommendations for current compost operations contained in the BRTF Report as modified by the staff response (Directive No.2, above). The analysis of aerated static pile (ASP) composting within Palo Alto or off site composting as interim solutions (Directive No.3, above) is contained in Attachment D. Staff concludes that an ASP facility is too expensive and that there is no site that could be ready in time to serve as an interim facility. Therefore the current interim plan of taking yard trimmings to the Z-Best Gilroy facility should continue to be the shortcterm approach, JlPon closure of the Palo Alto Compost Facility. Loeal Siting Options Evaluation of three pennanent siting options (the Embarcadero Road/Airport site, the northwest comer of the eurrent landfill Byxbee Park site, and private properties along Embarcadero Way), is also summarized in Attachment C, consistent with Directives No. 4 and 6, above. After furthereonsultation with the Airport community, staff concludes that the Embareadero Roadl Airport site would negatively impact that community and proposes no further work on that site in confonnance with Directive No.7, ahove. With respect to the possible sites along Embarcadero Way referenced in Directive No.6, staff concludes that procurement of sufficient property would be too expensive and potentially disruptive for the existing land .owners and tenants .. The site closest to the RWQCP entrance is a self-storage facility with numerous individual tenants. In addition there would be neighborhood compatibility hurdles with utilizing the properties on the west side of Embarcadero Way. With respect to the construction of an Anaerobic Digestion facility in the northwest comer of the current landftlllByxbee Park site, staff concludes that a detailed Feasibility Study would have to be conducted by an engineering consultant to detennine costs and fully evaluate impacts. Projected cost data obtained by Staff from venders has not been verified and is not sufficient for final decision making. An Anaerobic Digestion facility is consistent with the October 19, 2009 Council direction and with the recommendations of the Compost Blue Ribbon Task Force. However, given the key constraint (site is on dedicated parkland) of the landfilllByxbee Park site, staff does not recommend moving forward with the Feasibility Study until and unless the constraintis removed (Recommendation No.1, above). A Feasibility Study of this magnitude is best completed in conjunction with an Enviromnental Impact Report so that appropriate mitigations are identified and incorporated into the project design. The total estimated cost of this detailed analysis would exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars. This is a staff estimate based on experience with the formerly proposed Enviromnental Services Center (ESC) at nearly the same location on Byxbee Park. Regional O)2portunities Additionally, staff is actively exploring conversion technology options with the otherSMaRT® Station partner cities, as well as opportunities to send organic materials to potential new privately developed anaerobic digestion facilities. Regiollal opportunities for anaerobic or other advanced processing are preliminary, but emerging quickly. Several jurisdictions in the area are begiuning to express interest and explore their CMR16S:10 Page 3 of6 abilities to build and operate regional facilities to provide organics processing in the future. Currently no firm commitments exist, but opportunities for collaboration eould be pursued by the City as they are identified. For example, the City's SMaRT® Station partners, Mountain View and Sunnyvale, both have adopted zero waste goals. In addition, the City has an established relationship with them in owning and operating a transfer and processing facility through 2021. Both of these cities have an immediate interest in developing or using conversion technology to meet their waste reduction goals and would likely be potential partners to build and operate an anaerobic digestion or other conversion facility. The primary private sector processing OPP011unity available in the near term is a facility being developed by GreenWaste Recovery, Inc (Green Waste). GreenWaste, along with their business partner from Germany, KOMPOFERM, have formed a subsidiary company called Zero Waste Energy Development Company, Inc. (Zero Waste Energy). They are in the fmal planning stages of designing a IS0,000-ton per year anaerobic digester in San Jose located approximately 12 miles from Palo Alto. In September 2009, the City of San Jose and Zero Waste Energy executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding their intent to develop lease terms for use of approximately 40 acres of a closed landfill site loeated beside the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant· for a biogas facility. The first phase of the processing site, 50,000 tons per year, is anticipated to be ready for operation as soon as late 2011. Initially, the processing plant anticipates taking a blend of food scraps and yard trimmings from jurisdictions to produce biofuel and compost. GreenWaste is the collection and processing provider for the City of Palo Alto's solid waste, recyclables, yard trimmings, and food scraps. Staff has had preliminary discussions with GreertWaste about utilizing this facility for the City'S food scrap tonnage, and some or all of our yard trimmings. Finally, staffhas also met with another company, Harvest Power, that is also pursuing development of a regional AD facility for the south bay area. Harvest Power has not identified any specific faeility location yet. Regional Water Quality Control Plant Master Plan Under the existing adopted Capital Improvement Project (CIP) WQ-IOOOl, staffwill soon be procuring consultant services to prepare a Master Plan for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. The draft scope of work requests an analysis of energy conversion technologies (including anaerobic digestion) that might be suitable replacements for biosolids incineration in the future. The Master Plan Work is scheduled to begin later this year. Feedstocks and End Products Regardless of whether the City pursues partnership with a private firm or a regional conversion technology facility, it is important to nnderstand our various feedstocks and what end products are to be produced and marketed. A feedstock is the raw waste material that would be proeessed and includes food waste, sewage biosolids, yard trimmings, and soiled paper. A single technology may not be best for the various organic material feedstocks that exist in Palo Alto. For example, certain feedstocks require greater vector and odor control than others. Certain feedstocks may also affect the marketability of any end product compost material due to concentrations of metals, fecal coliform bacteria, and other contaminants. These issues will CMR165:10 Page 4 of6 continue to guide the City into a solution that will best serve Palo Alto's needs for the long term. Because of the upcoming Master Plan and the various prospects for new regional facilities, it is not yet clear whether a joint venture with other communities, a processing contract with a private facility, an anaerobic digestion facility at the RWQCP, or some combination of the aforementioned are in the City's best interests. Therefore, staff is recommending continuing to explore advanced tecImoiogies at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant and at Regional locations in the South Bay area, as expressed in Recommendations 2 and 3 above. Commercial Garbage Disposal Moratorimn On January 12, 2009 Couucil passed a motion containing the following provision: "The City shall suspend accepting commercial garbage at the Palo Alto dump while awaiting City Council action on the recommendations ofthe BRTF." Staff interprets this provision to mean that it is to recommence acceptance of commercial garbage upon further action by Council on the compo sting issue. Staff is seeking Council confirmation of this interpretation through Recommendation No.4, above. Follow-up to Study Session on March 8, 20 I 0 Attachment D contains further staff responses to questions and comments raised at the Study Session on March 8,2010, including the potential early conversion oflandfill Phases IIA and lIB to park use. As a follow-up to the community· response at the Council Study Session on March 8, 2010, Council may wish to provide specific direction to staff about conducting a scientific random voter survey regarding the Byxbee Park site option. This survey would gage resident sentiment about the possible undedication of a portion of Byxbee Park for an organic material processing and energy generation facility. Similar voter surveys have been performed about other issues for less than $25,000. Staff could therefore procure these polling services using unspent Refuse Fund operating budget for program and project consultants. Survey questions and language could be referred to the Policy and Services Committee if the Council moves to proceed with this type of community outreach. Attachment E is an aerial map from the Study Session presentation that shows two City-owned areas of the Baylands that are not currently dedicated as parkland. These areas could potentially be swapped for land within the current Byxbee Park. A potential survey could also gage voter sentiment towards such a land swap idea. RESOURCE IMPACT There. is no additional resource impacts associated with the recommendations in this report beyond what has already been anticipated in the Council adopted Zero Waste Operations Plan (CMR:123:07). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The staff recommendations in this report do not constitute a "project" as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CMR165:1O PageS of6 A) Plllllose: Meeting Summary 1114/09 CompostlAirport Public Meeting (4:00-5:30 pm -Palo Alto Airport) ATTACHMENT A To explore potential sites for organics material management which would have "no imp!j.ct" on the Palo Alto Airport (per I 0/19109 direction from the Palo Alto Council.) B) Attendees: Airport Community Members Chuck Byer Harry Hirschman Ralph Britton Pat Roy Larry Shapiro Michael Baum C) Summary: Former Compost Task Force Members Bob Wenzlau Emily Renzel Palo Alto City Staff Cara Silver Steve Emslie Phil Bobel The group brainstormed and identified impacts to the Palo Alto Airport associated with seven (7) different location configurations of Organics Material Management (OMM) facilities. (See D. below for details). There appear to be three configurations which are likely to have no impact on the Airport (with several qualifiers noted in Part D). 1. Locating. the OMM on Embarcadero Way (currently privately owned buildings) .. 2. Locating the OMM on the Los Altos Treatment Plant (LA TP) site and locating the municipal operations planned for the LATP site on Embarcadero Way (currently privately owned buildings). D) Identification ofImpacts on the Airport: 1. Locating OMM on the current Landfill site. and swawing aWfoximately 10 acres of the North Runway site (22 acres total) as dedicated parkland. Thus, a I b acre strip of the North Runway site, the eastern half, would become parkland. The group assumed that the dedication itself would involve no physical changes; that any physical changes would be a separate action involving separate analysis. IMPACTS: No impacts tq the Airport were identified as long as the following points were reCognized and addressed: Page I u; lPWDIADMINIKAREN\CMRI040510i 165-10 C ompC31lng Resp.nselAlltlChmenC A.doc ATTACHMENT A' a. The FAA must be consulted for any rules they may have. Their approval may be needed, b. Sufficient "buffer" must be allowed adjacent to the runway for aircraft wingspan. c, The new Parkland (North Runway site) would have to have restricted access to prevent people and animals from entering. d. The existing levee must be maintained. In fact, it may need to be augmented in light of sea level rise. e, There may be a habitat mitigation area at the north end of the North Runway site which must be maintained. 2. Locating OMM on Embarcadero Road/Airport site and relocating Ailll0rt facilities per the 9/09/09 memo from Barney, et all to PA Council. This option would move the Heliport and Terminal to avoid impacts from the OMM in the southeastern corner of the Airport. IMPACTS: The following impacts on the Airport were identified: a. The changes to the layout of Airport operations are major and funding would be needed. Both the amount and source of funds would be issues. b. Cost of moving Embarcadero Road and resurfacing (at a minimum) of the Airport access road would be impacts. c. New location of the Heliport is not safe due to incoming fixed wing traffic and proximity to fuel storage. d, Negative visual impacts to the Airport would occur. e .. ' All of the negative impacts identified in the Task Force Report associated with the Embarcadero Road/Airport site would apply. 3. Locating OMM at the LATP site and move the activities plarmed for the LATP site to the Embarcadero Road/Airport site and relocate Airport facilities per the 9/09/09 memo from Barney, et all to the P A Council. IMPACTS: The negative impacts listed as 2.a -2.d above would also apply to this concept. 4. Locating OMM on land riow occupied by privately owned buildings on one or both sides of Embarcadero Way. IMPACTS: The following issues would have to be addressed and mayor may not turn out to be actual impacts on the Airport: a. The potential for a bird attraction hazard would have to be investigated. Page 2 U:IPWDIADMfNlKAREMCMRI0405fOIf65·fO Com posting ResponselAltachmenCA.doc ATTACHMENT A b. A· 1,200 foot distance would have to be achieved with respect to yard waste. c. A 1 mile distance would have to be achieved for food waste. 5. Locating the OMM at the LATP site and locate the activities planned for the LATP site where the privately owned buildings on one or both sides of Embarcadero Way are now. IMPACTS: No impacts on the Airport were identified, assuming that there were no bird attraction issues from the operations that would be located on Embarcadero Way. 6. Locating the OMM at the LA TP site and locate the activities planned for the LATP site on the North Runway site. IMPACTS: The following impacts on the Airport were identified: a. FAA approval would be needed b. Access would have to be provided which does not exist, creating safety Issues. c. Oversight of contractors and City staff would have to be addressed. d. Bird attraction would have to be addressed. 7. Separate the OMM activities, locating only the curing piles (possible aerated static piles) on the North Runway site. IMPACTS: The following impacts on the Airport were identified: a. Access which does not now exi1;t would have to be provided, creating safety issues. b. The bird attraction issue would have to be addressed. c. FAA approval would be needed. 8. Locating the OMM on the Landfill site and creating offsetting parkland (approximately 10 acres) at the North Runway site. IMPACTS: There is no guarantee that the FAA will accept dedicating 20 acres as "Parkland" and thereby reducing the available Palo Alto airpark land by 20%. Until further clarification is gained on this item, it should not be included in the "no airport impact" category. Page 3 U:\PWD\ADMINlKAREMCMR\0405JO\J65~1O Compos{ing RespanseiAUachmen(A doc ATTACHMENTB On 12/9/09 City Staff presented its preliminary thinking in response to Council's 10/19/09 directives. The responses will undergo more work, and likely be presented to Council on 2/1/10. Staff sought, and received, feedback on the following concepts: 1. Interim Aerated Static Piles: Staff is unlikely to recommend this due to cost, length of time to bring on line, and lack of an authorized site. (The interim (post 2012) "fallback" is the Z-Best (Gilroy) compost facility). 2. Long Term Sites in Palo Alto: a. Airport Site Staff is unlikely to recommend this due to impacts on the Airport and the Council directive to have "no Impact" on the Airport. b. Embarcadero Way Site Staff is unlikely to recommend this due to high cost of purchasing landlbuildings. c. Landfill CByxbee) Site . Sfaff is unlikely to recommend conducting a feasibility/environmental study at this time due to uncertain availability of the site and the high cost of a . feasibility/environmental study. 3. Areas to Pursue: a. Nearby Sites » Staff will pursue taking organics to a new anaerobic digestion facility likely to open as soon as 2010 in San Jose (Greenwaste, Zanker Road). approx. 12.5 miles from the Embarcadero/101 interchange ( Note: Much closer than Z- Best which is 53 miles ). » Staff will purs.ue the possibility of an energy recovery facility at the SMaRT Station in Sunnyvale, although it is just an idea at this point. b. Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) Master Planning » Staff will consider anaerobic digestion and other energy recovery possibilities at the RWQCP as the Master Planning gets underway in 2010. (Not able to handle yard trimmings, or all food waste within the RWQCP, however.) The following feedback was received at the meeting; Comments from Public On Palo Alto Staff Presentation at 12/09/09 Public Meeting ATTACHMENTB' Individual members of the public suggested that the following thoughts (or ansVjers to questions) be included in the report back to City Council on (or about) 211/10: I. Indicate that there is citizen support (as well as citizen opposition) to an organics management. facility on the landfill (Byxbee) site. 2. The City's Solid Waste Management Plan filed with the County would have to be revised if a new Palo Alto Compost Facility were to be developed. 3. The regional situation with respect to organics management should be discussed. 4. For Aerated Static Piles (ASP) and Anaerobic Digestion (AD), the extent to which operating facilities exist should be discussed. S. The emerging responses to the Santa Barbara RFP should be summarized to show what technologies are actually being proposed by bidders there. 6. The quality of the food scraps processed at Z-Best (Gilroy) should be mentioned as it is apparently contaminated with plastics and other non-food material. 7. The quality of biosolids should be discussed with the "hazardous waste" issue and the "long term build-up" issues described. 8. The schedule for developing Greenwaste's Zanker Road facility should be explored to determine why it is happening so much faster than Staffs estimation of a Palo Alto facility schedule. . . 9. A resident "Initiative" would shorten the schedule by eliminating one of the two ErRs shown on the Palo Alto Staff schedule. 10. The Waste Management Board management staff were much more optimistic about a .Palo Alto schedule and should be consulted. 11. Wh~n will Greenwaste's .Zanker Road facility be able to take yard trimmings and biosolids? 12. What has the experience to date been of taking commercial food waste in Palo Alto in Palo Alto? 13. The process outputs (e.g., energy, compost) of an organics processing facility should be fully considered as a decision is made on the type of process. 14. The sensitivity of the facility location to noise, light,. traffic, dust and pollutants should be described. 15. Drawings showing what the various site locations would look like should be presented. 16. Make it clear that the "Landfill site" is on "Byxbee Park". 3/111 0 ATTACHMENTC Staff Evaluation Follow-up to Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) Recommendations For Developing an Organics Processing Facility Within The City of Palo Alto n Staff analysis and recommendation for developing an interim Aerated Static Pile (ASP) composting operation within Palo Alto versus adopting the Zero Waste Operations Plan of sending yard trimmings to SMaRT/ZBest. . The advantages of the City developing an ASP composting facility in Palo Alto after the existing composting facility closes are mainly: reduced greenhouse gas vehicle emissions through a closer destination facility; and that the City could control the facility and add other organic wastes to the process (biosolids, food scraps, etc). Control of the facility and organic wastes that could be processed could allow the City to implement residential curbside collection of food scraps in their green waste carts. Disadvantages of the City developing its own facility in the interim are the high cost of developing an ASP operation ($3 million initial capital investment); and the fact that there is no land readily available for the placement of an ASP facility in the intermediate term. Staff does not believe that the $3 million investment for an ASP Facility developed on any existing City-oWned property is warranted because of the interim nature of the ASP (Council has prioritized Anaerobic Digestion) and because there is no readily available site for the facility. 2) Evaluation of Three Potential Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Facility Sites. Site #1 Other Unspecified Locations Along Embarcadero Road Staff focused primarily on the existing commercial properties along Embarcadero Way for this portion ofthe evaluation. Five properties ranging in size from I to almost 4 acres were evaluated by the Real Estate Division of the Administrative Services Department. Table 1 below summarizes the potential acquisition costs for these properties. The properties' layout in relation to the Airport and the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) is shown in Figure 1. If only the three properties along the east side of Embarcadero Way are considered, acquisition costs could range between $8.2 to $13.7 million for these 3.15 acres ofland. It is very unlikely that even just these three properties would be easy to acquire. Eminent Domain would likely be necessary. One of these three properties houses California Self Storage and another is currently leased by Victor Aviation Services. Only the property at the comer of Embarcadero Road appears to be vacant at the time of this report. It contains a two-story structure for research and development and offices. Staff does not recommend pursuing the acquisition of these properties for an organics processing facility. Page I of 8 3/1/1 0 AITACHMENTC Table 1: ROUGH ACOUISITION ESTIMATES FOR EMBARCADERO WAY PROPERTIES High Mid Low Street Number APN Acres $100/sf $80/sf $60/sf Facts Sold 7/06 lor approx. WEST 1880 008-03-027 1.19 $5,183,640 $4,146,912 $3,110,184 $4,250,000 recently refurbIshed ~ avail SIDE for lease 2440 008-03-072 3.95 $17,206,200 $13,764,960 $10,323,720 Newer R&D Sites - several vacancies ! 1900 008-03-071 1.14 $4,965,840 $3,972,672 $2,979,504 Olo.r building - available for lease EAST Older building -• SIDE 2415 008-03-030 1 $4,356,000 $3,484,800 $2,613,600 currently leased i 2425 008-03-068 1,01 $4,399,560 $3,519,648 $2,639,736 Self storage facmty Totals 5,14 $22,389,840 $17,911,872 $13,433,904 COMPARABLE DATA: 2525 E, Bayshore Road -1,44 acres, same age bldg -Comp Value per Real Quest $6,250,000 -Sold 4/2006 $4,200,000 1010 Corporation Way -Currently for sale -21 ,500 sl, Bldg, Office/R&D, Vacant, 1,10 ac lot size -for sale price $5,300,000'" $246,51/51 CONDEMNATION COSTS CONSIDERATIONS (assume +30% to above mid range flgure): Courts must find that: 1) public Interest and necessity require the project; 2) the project is compatible with the greatest public good and least private Injury; and 3) the property is necessary for the project Costs to consider: Fair market value, plus attorney fee$, appraisal fees, relocation expenses, payment for business fixtures, equipment and good will, and if leased possibly relocation andlor tenants leasehold interest to be compensated, . NOTES and ABBREVIATIONS: East Side parcels represent the lots next to RWQCP APN: Assessor's Parcel Number sf: Square Feet Page 2 of8 3/1!1 0 ATTACHMENTC Site #3 Northwest Corner of Current Landfill Site (Byxbee Park) Staff has conceptually developed a 4.7 acre grading plan (Figure 2) at the Northwest comer of the landfill adjacent to the PAR WQCP that might be large enough for a large AD facility that could accommodate the City's entire organic waste throughput. The grading plan incorporates dedicated park acreage from the area adjacent to the PARWQCP fenceline (facing the landfill) and overlying approximately 2 acres of the existing landfill. Implementing this conceptual grading plan would mean raising the grades of the existing land adjacent to the landfill approximately 5 feet to approximately 15 feet above mean sea level (MSL). This conceptual site would partially overlie the landfill final contours approved by the landfill architect (Hargreaves Associates, April 2008). If an AD building were developed on this site then the top of a building could be as high as 40 feet above MSL -lower than the highest elevations ofthe landfill that are 60 feet above MSL. Permits and Approvals Permitting an AD facility at the Northwest corner of the landfill would involve CEQA, State permits and local approvals and voter approval to undedicate a portion of Byxbee Park. This entire development process would be expected to take 7 or 8 years to complete (See timeline Figure 3). Because this site overlies the landfill and because this site would probably require two EIRs and a vote to undedicated parkland, the schedule for development of a large AD facility would be expected to take three to four years longer than a site that did not have these land use issues. • An Environmental Impact Report (ElR) would be required. It is likely that two EIRs may be required - a programmatic EIR to support the vote to undedicate the parkland and later, a design level EIR that would support the permits and approvals; • A new or revised solid waste facility permit would be necessary; • A new Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Facility Pennit would likely be required. A new high technology organics facility with emissions control would meet the BACT standards (Best Achievable Control Technology). • New or revised Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) will probably be required from the Regional Water Quality Control Board since the proposed operation would be sited partiallyi'on the landfill. Flatter grades overlying the landfill can be permitted as long as an 'effective system for diverting surface drainage and preventing ponding is designed in accordanee'with California Code of Regulations Title 27 Section 21090 (b)(1 )(B). • Local permits and approvals would inelude revising the Baylands Master Plan, Planning/Site & Design Review approvals, voter approval to undedicate parkland etc. Page 40f8 31111 0 ATTACHMENTC • The City would need to modifY the landfill's post-closure plan to reflect this continued operation on the closed landfill. Also, a facility operations layer and drainage features would need to be designed and constructed to protect the landfill's cap. • An amendment to the landfill lease with the State Lands Commission would be necessary for the improvements. Other Impacts Sino;:e the proposed facility can be incorporated into the PARWQCP, the existing landscape screen trees would need to be removed and new landscaping improvements would need to be installed at the perimeter of the new facility. Access to Byxbee park could still be available via the existing parking lot. Some trails planned at the north end of the landfill would need to be rerouted to avoid the new facility. Maintenance of the park/landfill could still be undertaken. Development Costs Hilary Gans from the Blue Ribbon Task Force completed and presented to Council a preliminary cost estimate of $ 13.75 million for an Anaerobic Digestion (AD) w/ Energy Recovery system that is large enough to handle the City's yard trimmings and some food waste. This capital cost estimate includes the cost of a specialized building, gas collection system and electricity genenitjng equipment but did not include the cost of an asphalt operating surface or materials handling equipment cost since the City (\lready owns all the necessary heavy equipment required to run a c~mposting system. The cost' per ton calculation to process the City'S organics would depend on what type of facility is developed, what type of organic wastes would be managed at the facility and what throughput of tonnage would be possible. A consultant feasibility study would need to be performed before these costs could be accurately developed. 3) Evaluation of Other Options Figure 4 presents timelines for two recommended courses of action: 1) study the feasibility of developing energy recovery facilities for biosolids and limited foodwaste during the upcoming RWQCI' Master Planning project, and 2) pursue partnering opportunities with SMaRT and/or private ventures building nearby anaerobic digestion facilities. Page 5 of 8 3/30/10 ATIACHMENTD Staff Memo Follow-up to Council Questions from Study Session on March 8, 2010 Council Email Ouestion: The Composting [Blue Ribbon Task Force] Report was originally paired with a Colleagues memo on Early Opening of Portions of Byxbee Park. This complementary item was amended and passed on Nov 2, 2009. It was stated at that meeting that this item on the Early Opening would return 'quickly'. Will it be on the Agenda on AprilS along with the Composting Report? The COUNCIL MOTION from November 2,2009 stated: 1) Direct Staff to work with the Parks and Recreation Cormnission and Hargreaves and Associates to develop fmal park design goals for Phase II of Byxbee Park including provision to access and views and return j.o Council with a proposed impl()lUentation budget, and 2) Direct Staff to take the necessary steps to open the completed and approved landfill area (Phase II AlB in the Baylands Master Plan) to the public as interim open space by the end of 2011 or sooner; 3) Amended to direct Staff to report back to Council with an estimated budget for the work in both parts of the Motion in a timely manner. Staff Response: The attached Table 1 outlines the steps necessary to prepare closed Landfill Phase IIA and Phase lIB for early public access. Staff will begin adding clean soil to low areas in the previously closed sections within the next few months (weather permitting) in order to fulfill the post-closure responsibility of addressing settlement. Most ofthe top-deck areas have settled one to two feet. (or more) within the last several years. The current goal is to accept and spread enough clean soil to bring the closed sections up to the original designed grades of these already capped landfill areas. The proposed FY 2011 budget for the Landfill Closure (CIP RF-llOO 1) has been adjusted to provide $600,000 for the work required to prepare Phase IIA and Phase IIB for public access. This will include: changes to the environmental control systems (leachate and landfill gas collection piping) to place piping and well heads underground, minor grading and improvements to site access roads, and removal of perimeter fencing. The Refuse Fund budget does not include money to prepare final park design goals in conjunction with Hargreaves and the Parks & Recreation Commission, final park design (which should include Phase lIC), nor final park construction. Staff believes it would be more efficient and cost effective to bury the piping system underground when the Phase lIC closure is completed because there will be the efficiency of earth moving equipment and a single contractor to mobilize rather than administering two discrete projects successively. If Council decides to initiate the early opening of Phase IlA and Phase lIB and to bear the extra expense, it would prohably only speed up the potential to open these areas by about one year earlier than if the work was combined with the closure construction on Phase lIC. It is also not clear yet how the park-related improvements will be funded. Page 1 of5 TABLE 1 BYXBEE PARK -PHASE IIA & PHASE liB CLOSED LANDFILL PREPARATION WORK I ESTIMATED TAS.q DESCRIPTION STATUS COST SOURCE OF FUNDS TIME LINE 1 IAdjust the setUed surface with new topsoil to raise the IN $50,000 PWD -Refuse: Landfill Complete by October 201 0 finished grade back to the permitted elevations PROGRESS Operations IRevegetate surface following settlement remediation IN PWD -Refuse: Landfill 2 IPROGRESS $25,000 Operations Complete by December 2010 I Seek Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) approval for I PLANNED I PWD -Refuse: staff-level Complete by December 2010 3 (assuming no permitting "early" public access to Phase IIA & Phase liB task hurdles) 4 I Design, plan and permit changes to environmental control PLANNED $50,000 PWD -RefuSe: Closure Pending FY 2011 Budget systems (leachate and landfiU gas collection piping) reserve (CIP RF-11 001) 5 I Modify environmental control systems to place piping and PLANNED $500,000 PWD -Refuse: Closure I Pending FY 2011 Budget well heads underground reserve (CIP RF-11001) 6 IMinor greding and improvementof site access roads I PLANNED $25,000 IPWD -Refuse: Closure reserve (CIP RF-11001) IPending FY 2011 Budget 7 I Remove perimeter' fencing IPLANNED $25,000 PWD -Refuse: Closure I reserve (CIP RF-11001) Pending FY 2011 Budget I Prepare Final Park Design Goals in conjunction with I PLANNED ICSD: ??? »- 8 $25,{)00 Pending Council action ~ Hargreaves and the Parks & Recreation Commission ('J ::c 9 I Final Park Design (including Phase IIC) IPLANNED $470,000 ICSD: ??1 IPending Council action a;:: ~ 10 I Final Park Construction (including Phase IIC) IPLANNED I $4,700,000 leSD: 1?? IPending Council action .., " 3/30/10 ATTACHMENTD Study Session Question: Refuse fund has right to parkland until June 30, 2011 future use would require $3.7 million annual payment? Is that built into the numbers? Staff Response: CMR 104:07 established the following rent schedule for both the active and closed portions of the landfill: City of Palo Alto I Landfill Rent Schedule Rent Payment (Smoothing Rent Charged Schedule) 2004-05 7420925 4,288,747 2005-06 7420925 4288747 2006-07 7420,925 4,288,747 .2007-08 7420,925 4,288,747 2008-09 7,420,925 4,288,747 2009-10 7420925 4,288,747 2010-11 7420,925 4,288747 2011-12 0 4,288,747 2012-13 0 2,094,332 . 2013-14 0 2,094,331 2014-15 0 2,094331 2015-16 0 2,094,331 2016-17 0 2,094,331 2017-18 0 2,094,331 2018-19 0 2,094331 2019-20 0 2,094,331 2020-21 0 881,851 This rent schedule encompasses the entire landfill area (approximately 100 acres of both active and closed). The amount of rent attributable to the piece of land being considered for composting would be proportionally less. The current annual rent payment for the entire landfill is approximately $4.3 Million. If the Refuse Fund occupies any portion of Byxbee Park for a longer period than contemplated in the rent schedule, the schedul~ would have to be re-adjusted. The schedule was based on the information available at the time that assumed a projected landfill closure on June 30, 2011. The schedule adopted by the Council in 2007 contained a number of Council-directed policies, including: (1) the Refuse Fund should be paying the General Fund for use of the inactive portion until it is formally converted to park use; (2) the rent attributable to Page 3 of5 3/30/10 ATTACHMENT D the inactive portion should be less than fair market rent since the Refuse Fund is not actively using the property and (3) the rent payments should be amortized over time so that Refuse rates are not substantially impacted. The current economy which has led to less commercial dumping at the landfill together with the temporary City Council imposed commercial dumping moratorium may result in a slightly later landfill closure date. The City is in the process of determining whether there is a need for further refining this rental schedule al).d whether there is a need for an updated appraisal. Study Session Question: If there is a de-aunexation of the parkland, the parkland will take on the value of commercial properties around it. Refuse Fund would have a liability for approximately that amount? Staff Response: If the parkland is de-alUlexed and the Refuse Fund continues to utilize the property for Refuse purposes (including composting), the Refuse Fund would be responsible for the payment of rent. The rent would be based on the highest and best use which is most likely research and development/industrial use. Study Session Question: Concerned about buffer betWeen industrial activities and parkland - will there be an EIR to estimate the impact on Parkland? Staff Response: Yes, an ErR for a compost project would address land use compatibility and related aesthetic issues. The zoning ordinance governing the new use could also prescribe appropriate setbacksl buffer zones. Study Session Question: 90% solution email by Bryan Long -can his solution be part of the April 5 discussion? For reference, the recommendations in Bryan Long's 90% solution email are: I. Improve collection rates of our new commerciaVmultifamily food waste collection program, and implement a residential food scrap collection program. Utilize Z-Best or other regional facility to compost or digest these food wastes for the time being. 2. After landfill closure, divert yard trimmings to Z-Best or other regional composting facility, and 3.. Direct RWQCP staff to incorporate alternatives for anaerobic digestion ofbiosolids and Palo Alto's food scrap collections into their comprehensive [Master 1 plan. Direct staff to consider yard trimmings as well, but as a secondary priority and only if it does not significantly increase the cost or lengthen the timeframe required. Page 4 of5 3i30/10 ATTACHMENTD Staff Response: Staffs recommendation is largely in line with what is referred to as the 90% solution. The upcoming RWQCP Master Plan will include an analysis of options for managing the biosolids that are currently incinerated. The analysis ofbiosolids options won't constitute a full "Feasibility Study". However it will include site specific cost and revenue estimates, general environment impact analysis and life cycle estimates of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Taking some food waste ",ill be analyzed, but it is very unlikely that anything close to all the P A food waste could be handled within the RWQCP footprint. It is important to note that the RWQCP is funded 35% by Palo Alto and 65% by its other Partners. Therefore, expenditures (including planning) for waste streams generated by only Palo Alto would have to be funded by 100% Palo Alto funds .. Major Capital Improvement Projects at the RWQCP also require approval by the Partner City Councils in addition to the Palo Alto City Council. Study Session Concerns: Numerous questions posed by Council at the study session related to the size, cost, operations, buffer zones, and environmental impacts of an anaerobic digestion facility. Staff Response: These types of questions are best answered through a detailed feasibility study combined with a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) so that all mitigation measures can be identified and properly estimated for cost. The cost of such a detailed study would exceed $250,000. Previously a similar effort for the project known as the Environmental Services Center (ESC) would have cost over $400,000 (CMR 125:05). The largest portion of the proposed ESC was the composting area. Because no readily available site has been identified, staff does not recommend moving forward with a full scale feasibility study for anaerobic digestion at this time. Page 5 of5 Sources New York Times, April 12, 2010, "Europe Finds Clean Energy in Trash, but US Lags". <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/science/earth/13trash.html> P. Ozge Kaplan, US EPA, "Is It Better to Bum or Bury Waste for Clean Electricity Generation", Environmental Science and Technology, 2009, 43, 1711-1717. CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES ARE MOVING AHEAD Experiments with conversion technologies are proliferating in California Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority 2 The SVSW A has been working on a redesign of their landfill operations since the spring of 2007 through a committee made up of members from the county and five cities. The committee have done a number of site visits and made a major shift in eml'hasis about a year ago. They renamed themselves the Conversion Technology Committee, and moved from considering recycling and anaerobic digesters to investigating true conversion technologies. They have just selected Plasco Energy Group, a Canadian firm, to build a plasma arc converter that will recycle and reuse 98% of their municipal waste. Sources www.SVSWA.org Look especially at the Salinas Valley Committee's timeline; it shows the evolution of their thinking and contains references to a series of reports that were prepared along the way. It also includes a presentation made in September 2009 that outlines the criteria used to select Plasco over Urbanaser. http://www.svswa.org/pdf/CT/2009-11- 19%20BD%20Meeting%20Recomemdations.pdf> http://www.plascoenergygroup.com/2011/02/salinas-valley-solid-waste- authority-chooses-plasco-energy-group/ www.Plascoenergygroup.com Santa Barbara County Following an open three-year process, four cities and the county of Santa Barbara are in the final stages of selecting a firm to run a new conversion technology center at the county landfill. The final RFP set very high standards for recycling rates, clean energy output from waste streams, zero waste goals, low GHG emissions, and low prices for ratepayers. Among the eight firms that were initially pre-qualified to bid were two firms .' focused on anaerobic digesters. Neither of these anaerobic digestion firms is among the four finalists. The authority is now deciding between two finalists, including Plasco. Sources www.conversiontechologystudy.com (look especially at the news site that tracks the evolution of the project over the last three years and the full RFP that sets the detailed criteria for the applicants). Contact: County Public Works Deputy Director MarkSchleich (805) 882-3600 Los Angeles County The LA County Board of Supervisors recently unanimously approved a series of conversion technology initiatives (April 20, 2010). This included funding for an immediate demonstration project and an identification and preparation of up to ten sites throughout the county for conversion technology plants. The Board concluded that conversion technologies would: --prevent the release of methane from landfill gas --provide substantial clean energy in place of fossil fuels --avoid trucking waste long distances --be cost competitive with other alternatives, and --use public/private, partnerships to save money. ' Sources www.SoCaIConversion.org (Check out the conference they put on September 23, 2010 "The Long-term Promise of Conversion Technology". The website lists the presenters and provides the power point slides for two of the presentations; they promise to have videos of the others up soon). www.CleanLA.com 3 Minor,8eth From: Sent: To: Subject: Grider, Donna SUl1day, April 03, 2011 8:32 PM Council, City FW: a green city Attachments: Conversion technologies March 2011.doc Please note attached from Council Member Schmid. Donna J. Grider, MMC City Clerk City of Palo Alto 650-329-2226 ~ Think Before You Printl ----------Forwarded message ---------- From: <gregschmid@sbcglobal.net> Date: Wed, Mar 30,2011 at 12:09 PM Subject: a green city To: sid espinosa <sidespinosa@gmail.com> Sid, Page 1 of 1 I just wanted to be sure that you had a copy of my latest information about regional green solutions for the problem we're dealing with in the Baylands and a list of relevant websites. I have shared this with Jim and Phil. Greg SID ESPINOSA Mayor, City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 617-3100 x3619 Sid.Espinosa@cityofpaloalto.org Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com!SidEspinosa Connect on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com!pages!Sid-Espinosa-Mayor-City-of-Palo-Alto!173437449350158 4/412011 On August 6, 2007, Council directed staff to develop a work plan to explore options to keep compo sting in Palo Alto. A work plan for a composting feasibility study was presented and approved by Council on January 22, 2008 (CMR: 116:08). Staff prepared the feasibility study and presented the results of the study on April 28, 2008 (CMR:219:08). At that point Council directed staff to table the issue until the Baylands Master Plan update was approved and to get the input of the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC). On December IS, 2008 (CMR:470:08) and January 12, 2009 (CMR: 116:09), Council further discussed the composting issue and made a decision to convene a citizen-based Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) to further examine the composting question. At that time, Council specifically directed the BRTF to avoid parkland location options. On October 19, 2009, the BRTF presented its results and recommendations to Council (CMR:402:09). The lead site recommended by the BRTF would have had resulted in potential impacts on the Palo Alto Airport operations, as expressed to Council. Therefore, Council directed staff to further examine the other alternatives and return to Council. The motion from October 19, 2009 consisted ofthe following directives: 1) Accept the September 9, 2009 Palo Alto Compost Task Force Final Report (Report) submitted by the Compost Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF); 2) Direct Staff to implement the short term recommendations for CUl'l'ent compost operations contained in the BRTF Report as modified by the Staff response; 3) Request Staff to retum with analysis and recommendation of whether to incorporate an interim solution of aerobic static pile composting or consider off site composting on an interim basis; 4) Staff to evaluate the two options (Embarcadero Road/Airport site and 5-6 acres in the northwest corner of the current landfill site) on the locations; 5) Staff to consider an option of partnering with another city or cities; 6) Staff to consider whether there are other locations on Embarcadero Way that could work, this would take no more than 90 days; 7) Location of any facility would not have any negative impact on the Palo Alto Airport, its operations, finances, and relationship with the FAA or Santa Clara County; 8) Staff to work closely with the airport community in the development of any proposals, and 9) Staff to take into consideration the Airport Business Plan being developed. In a separate action, Council adopted a statement of intent to proceed toward an anaerobic compo sting system, at an unspecified location. Since the last Council action on composting, staff held a public meeting with airport stakeholders at West Valley Flying Club Meeting Room on November 4,2009. Minutes from that meeting are included as Attachment A and further documented the negative impacts of a site on Airport property. Staff also held a public meeting to discuss the expected recommendations of this staff report at Cubberley Community Center, Room A-6 on December 9, 2009. Notes from that public meeting are included as Attachment B. In addition, staff presented information (and answered questions) to the Council in a study session on March 8,2010. CMR:165:10 Page 2 of6 DISCUSSION Short-term Recommendations Staff has implemented all of the short-tenn recommendations for current compost operations contained in the BRTF Report as modified by the staff response (Directive No.2, above). The analysis of aerated static pile (ASP) composting within Palo Alto or off site composting as interim solutions (Directive No.3, above) is contained in Attachment D. Staff concludes that an ASP facility is too expensive and that there is no site that could be ready in time to serve as an interim facility. Therefore the current interim plan of taking yard trimmings to the Z-Best Gilroy facility should continue to be the shortcterm approach, JlPon closure of the Palo Alto Compost Facility. Loeal Siting Options Evaluation of three pennanent siting options (the Embarcadero Road/Airport site, the northwest comer of the eurrent landfill Byxbee Park site, and private properties along Embarcadero Way), is also summarized in Attachment C, consistent with Directives No. 4 and 6, above. After furthereonsultation with the Airport community, staff concludes that the Embareadero Roadl Airport site would negatively impact that community and proposes no further work on that site in confonnance with Directive No.7, ahove. With respect to the possible sites along Embarcadero Way referenced in Directive No.6, staff concludes that procurement of sufficient property would be too expensive and potentially disruptive for the existing land .owners and tenants .. The site closest to the RWQCP entrance is a self-storage facility with numerous individual tenants. In addition there would be neighborhood compatibility hurdles with utilizing the properties on the west side of Embarcadero Way. With respect to the construction of an Anaerobic Digestion facility in the northwest comer of the current landftlllByxbee Park site, staff concludes that a detailed Feasibility Study would have to be conducted by an engineering consultant to detennine costs and fully evaluate impacts. Projected cost data obtained by Staff from venders has not been verified and is not sufficient for final decision making. An Anaerobic Digestion facility is consistent with the October 19, 2009 Council direction and with the recommendations of the Compost Blue Ribbon Task Force. However, given the key constraint (site is on dedicated parkland) of the landfilllByxbee Park site, staff does not recommend moving forward with the Feasibility Study until and unless the constraintis removed (Recommendation No.1, above). A Feasibility Study of this magnitude is best completed in conjunction with an Enviromnental Impact Report so that appropriate mitigations are identified and incorporated into the project design. The total estimated cost of this detailed analysis would exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars. This is a staff estimate based on experience with the formerly proposed Enviromnental Services Center (ESC) at nearly the same location on Byxbee Park. Regional O)2portunities Additionally, staff is actively exploring conversion technology options with the otherSMaRT® Station partner cities, as well as opportunities to send organic materials to potential new privately developed anaerobic digestion facilities. Regiollal opportunities for anaerobic or other advanced processing are preliminary, but emerging quickly. Several jurisdictions in the area are begiuning to express interest and explore their CMR16S:10 Page 3 of6 abilities to build and operate regional facilities to provide organics processing in the future. Currently no firm commitments exist, but opportunities for collaboration eould be pursued by the City as they are identified. For example, the City's SMaRT® Station partners, Mountain View and Sunnyvale, both have adopted zero waste goals. In addition, the City has an established relationship with them in owning and operating a transfer and processing facility through 2021. Both of these cities have an immediate interest in developing or using conversion technology to meet their waste reduction goals and would likely be potential partners to build and operate an anaerobic digestion or other conversion facility. The primary private sector processing OPP011unity available in the near term is a facility being developed by GreenWaste Recovery, Inc (Green Waste). GreenWaste, along with their business partner from Germany, KOMPOFERM, have formed a subsidiary company called Zero Waste Energy Development Company, Inc. (Zero Waste Energy). They are in the fmal planning stages of designing a IS0,000-ton per year anaerobic digester in San Jose located approximately 12 miles from Palo Alto. In September 2009, the City of San Jose and Zero Waste Energy executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding their intent to develop lease terms for use of approximately 40 acres of a closed landfill site loeated beside the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant· for a biogas facility. The first phase of the processing site, 50,000 tons per year, is anticipated to be ready for operation as soon as late 2011. Initially, the processing plant anticipates taking a blend of food scraps and yard trimmings from jurisdictions to produce biofuel and compost. GreenWaste is the collection and processing provider for the City of Palo Alto's solid waste, recyclables, yard trimmings, and food scraps. Staff has had preliminary discussions with GreertWaste about utilizing this facility for the City'S food scrap tonnage, and some or all of our yard trimmings. Finally, staffhas also met with another company, Harvest Power, that is also pursuing development of a regional AD facility for the south bay area. Harvest Power has not identified any specific faeility location yet. Regional Water Quality Control Plant Master Plan Under the existing adopted Capital Improvement Project (CIP) WQ-IOOOl, staffwill soon be procuring consultant services to prepare a Master Plan for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. The draft scope of work requests an analysis of energy conversion technologies (including anaerobic digestion) that might be suitable replacements for biosolids incineration in the future. The Master Plan Work is scheduled to begin later this year. Feedstocks and End Products Regardless of whether the City pursues partnership with a private firm or a regional conversion technology facility, it is important to nnderstand our various feedstocks and what end products are to be produced and marketed. A feedstock is the raw waste material that would be proeessed and includes food waste, sewage biosolids, yard trimmings, and soiled paper. A single technology may not be best for the various organic material feedstocks that exist in Palo Alto. For example, certain feedstocks require greater vector and odor control than others. Certain feedstocks may also affect the marketability of any end product compost material due to concentrations of metals, fecal coliform bacteria, and other contaminants. These issues will CMR165:10 Page 4 of6 continue to guide the City into a solution that will best serve Palo Alto's needs for the long term. Because of the upcoming Master Plan and the various prospects for new regional facilities, it is not yet clear whether a joint venture with other communities, a processing contract with a private facility, an anaerobic digestion facility at the RWQCP, or some combination of the aforementioned are in the City's best interests. Therefore, staff is recommending continuing to explore advanced tecImoiogies at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant and at Regional locations in the South Bay area, as expressed in Recommendations 2 and 3 above. Commercial Garbage Disposal Moratorimn On January 12, 2009 Couucil passed a motion containing the following provision: "The City shall suspend accepting commercial garbage at the Palo Alto dump while awaiting City Council action on the recommendations ofthe BRTF." Staff interprets this provision to mean that it is to recommence acceptance of commercial garbage upon further action by Council on the compo sting issue. Staff is seeking Council confirmation of this interpretation through Recommendation No.4, above. Follow-up to Study Session on March 8, 20 I 0 Attachment D contains further staff responses to questions and comments raised at the Study Session on March 8,2010, including the potential early conversion oflandfill Phases IIA and lIB to park use. As a follow-up to the community· response at the Council Study Session on March 8, 2010, Council may wish to provide specific direction to staff about conducting a scientific random voter survey regarding the Byxbee Park site option. This survey would gage resident sentiment about the possible undedication of a portion of Byxbee Park for an organic material processing and energy generation facility. Similar voter surveys have been performed about other issues for less than $25,000. Staff could therefore procure these polling services using unspent Refuse Fund operating budget for program and project consultants. Survey questions and language could be referred to the Policy and Services Committee if the Council moves to proceed with this type of community outreach. Attachment E is an aerial map from the Study Session presentation that shows two City-owned areas of the Baylands that are not currently dedicated as parkland. These areas could potentially be swapped for land within the current Byxbee Park. A potential survey could also gage voter sentiment towards such a land swap idea. RESOURCE IMPACT There. is no additional resource impacts associated with the recommendations in this report beyond what has already been anticipated in the Council adopted Zero Waste Operations Plan (CMR:123:07). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The staff recommendations in this report do not constitute a "project" as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CMR165:1O PageS of6 A) Plllllose: Meeting Summary 1114/09 CompostlAirport Public Meeting (4:00-5:30 pm -Palo Alto Airport) ATTACHMENT A To explore potential sites for organics material management which would have "no imp!j.ct" on the Palo Alto Airport (per I 0/19109 direction from the Palo Alto Council.) B) Attendees: Airport Community Members Chuck Byer Harry Hirschman Ralph Britton Pat Roy Larry Shapiro Michael Baum C) Summary: Former Compost Task Force Members Bob Wenzlau Emily Renzel Palo Alto City Staff Cara Silver Steve Emslie Phil Bobel The group brainstormed and identified impacts to the Palo Alto Airport associated with seven (7) different location configurations of Organics Material Management (OMM) facilities. (See D. below for details). There appear to be three configurations which are likely to have no impact on the Airport (with several qualifiers noted in Part D). 1. Locating. the OMM on Embarcadero Way (currently privately owned buildings) .. 2. Locating the OMM on the Los Altos Treatment Plant (LA TP) site and locating the municipal operations planned for the LATP site on Embarcadero Way (currently privately owned buildings). D) Identification ofImpacts on the Airport: 1. Locating OMM on the current Landfill site. and swawing aWfoximately 10 acres of the North Runway site (22 acres total) as dedicated parkland. Thus, a I b acre strip of the North Runway site, the eastern half, would become parkland. The group assumed that the dedication itself would involve no physical changes; that any physical changes would be a separate action involving separate analysis. IMPACTS: No impacts tq the Airport were identified as long as the following points were reCognized and addressed: Page I u; lPWDIADMINIKAREN\CMRI040510i 165-10 C ompC31lng Resp.nselAlltlChmenC A.doc ATTACHMENT A' a. The FAA must be consulted for any rules they may have. Their approval may be needed, b. Sufficient "buffer" must be allowed adjacent to the runway for aircraft wingspan. c, The new Parkland (North Runway site) would have to have restricted access to prevent people and animals from entering. d. The existing levee must be maintained. In fact, it may need to be augmented in light of sea level rise. e, There may be a habitat mitigation area at the north end of the North Runway site which must be maintained. 2. Locating OMM on Embarcadero Road/Airport site and relocating Ailll0rt facilities per the 9/09/09 memo from Barney, et all to PA Council. This option would move the Heliport and Terminal to avoid impacts from the OMM in the southeastern corner of the Airport. IMPACTS: The following impacts on the Airport were identified: a. The changes to the layout of Airport operations are major and funding would be needed. Both the amount and source of funds would be issues. b. Cost of moving Embarcadero Road and resurfacing (at a minimum) of the Airport access road would be impacts. c. New location of the Heliport is not safe due to incoming fixed wing traffic and proximity to fuel storage. d, Negative visual impacts to the Airport would occur. e .. ' All of the negative impacts identified in the Task Force Report associated with the Embarcadero Road/Airport site would apply. 3. Locating OMM at the LATP site and move the activities plarmed for the LATP site to the Embarcadero Road/Airport site and relocate Airport facilities per the 9/09/09 memo from Barney, et all to the P A Council. IMPACTS: The negative impacts listed as 2.a -2.d above would also apply to this concept. 4. Locating OMM on land riow occupied by privately owned buildings on one or both sides of Embarcadero Way. IMPACTS: The following issues would have to be addressed and mayor may not turn out to be actual impacts on the Airport: a. The potential for a bird attraction hazard would have to be investigated. Page 2 U:IPWDIADMfNlKAREMCMRI0405fOIf65·fO Com posting ResponselAltachmenCA.doc ATTACHMENT A b. A· 1,200 foot distance would have to be achieved with respect to yard waste. c. A 1 mile distance would have to be achieved for food waste. 5. Locating the OMM at the LATP site and locate the activities planned for the LATP site where the privately owned buildings on one or both sides of Embarcadero Way are now. IMPACTS: No impacts on the Airport were identified, assuming that there were no bird attraction issues from the operations that would be located on Embarcadero Way. 6. Locating the OMM at the LA TP site and locate the activities planned for the LATP site on the North Runway site. IMPACTS: The following impacts on the Airport were identified: a. FAA approval would be needed b. Access would have to be provided which does not exist, creating safety Issues. c. Oversight of contractors and City staff would have to be addressed. d. Bird attraction would have to be addressed. 7. Separate the OMM activities, locating only the curing piles (possible aerated static piles) on the North Runway site. IMPACTS: The following impacts on the Airport were identified: a. Access which does not now exi1;t would have to be provided, creating safety issues. b. The bird attraction issue would have to be addressed. c. FAA approval would be needed. 8. Locating the OMM on the Landfill site and creating offsetting parkland (approximately 10 acres) at the North Runway site. IMPACTS: There is no guarantee that the FAA will accept dedicating 20 acres as "Parkland" and thereby reducing the available Palo Alto airpark land by 20%. Until further clarification is gained on this item, it should not be included in the "no airport impact" category. Page 3 U:\PWD\ADMINlKAREMCMR\0405JO\J65~1O Compos{ing RespanseiAUachmen(A doc ATTACHMENTB On 12/9/09 City Staff presented its preliminary thinking in response to Council's 10/19/09 directives. The responses will undergo more work, and likely be presented to Council on 2/1/10. Staff sought, and received, feedback on the following concepts: 1. Interim Aerated Static Piles: Staff is unlikely to recommend this due to cost, length of time to bring on line, and lack of an authorized site. (The interim (post 2012) "fallback" is the Z-Best (Gilroy) compost facility). 2. Long Term Sites in Palo Alto: a. Airport Site Staff is unlikely to recommend this due to impacts on the Airport and the Council directive to have "no Impact" on the Airport. b. Embarcadero Way Site Staff is unlikely to recommend this due to high cost of purchasing landlbuildings. c. Landfill CByxbee) Site . Sfaff is unlikely to recommend conducting a feasibility/environmental study at this time due to uncertain availability of the site and the high cost of a . feasibility/environmental study. 3. Areas to Pursue: a. Nearby Sites » Staff will pursue taking organics to a new anaerobic digestion facility likely to open as soon as 2010 in San Jose (Greenwaste, Zanker Road). approx. 12.5 miles from the Embarcadero/101 interchange ( Note: Much closer than Z- Best which is 53 miles ). » Staff will purs.ue the possibility of an energy recovery facility at the SMaRT Station in Sunnyvale, although it is just an idea at this point. b. Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) Master Planning » Staff will consider anaerobic digestion and other energy recovery possibilities at the RWQCP as the Master Planning gets underway in 2010. (Not able to handle yard trimmings, or all food waste within the RWQCP, however.) The following feedback was received at the meeting; Comments from Public On Palo Alto Staff Presentation at 12/09/09 Public Meeting ATTACHMENTB' Individual members of the public suggested that the following thoughts (or ansVjers to questions) be included in the report back to City Council on (or about) 211/10: I. Indicate that there is citizen support (as well as citizen opposition) to an organics management. facility on the landfill (Byxbee) site. 2. The City's Solid Waste Management Plan filed with the County would have to be revised if a new Palo Alto Compost Facility were to be developed. 3. The regional situation with respect to organics management should be discussed. 4. For Aerated Static Piles (ASP) and Anaerobic Digestion (AD), the extent to which operating facilities exist should be discussed. S. The emerging responses to the Santa Barbara RFP should be summarized to show what technologies are actually being proposed by bidders there. 6. The quality of the food scraps processed at Z-Best (Gilroy) should be mentioned as it is apparently contaminated with plastics and other non-food material. 7. The quality of biosolids should be discussed with the "hazardous waste" issue and the "long term build-up" issues described. 8. The schedule for developing Greenwaste's Zanker Road facility should be explored to determine why it is happening so much faster than Staffs estimation of a Palo Alto facility schedule. . . 9. A resident "Initiative" would shorten the schedule by eliminating one of the two ErRs shown on the Palo Alto Staff schedule. 10. The Waste Management Board management staff were much more optimistic about a .Palo Alto schedule and should be consulted. 11. Wh~n will Greenwaste's .Zanker Road facility be able to take yard trimmings and biosolids? 12. What has the experience to date been of taking commercial food waste in Palo Alto in Palo Alto? 13. The process outputs (e.g., energy, compost) of an organics processing facility should be fully considered as a decision is made on the type of process. 14. The sensitivity of the facility location to noise, light,. traffic, dust and pollutants should be described. 15. Drawings showing what the various site locations would look like should be presented. 16. Make it clear that the "Landfill site" is on "Byxbee Park". 3/111 0 ATTACHMENTC Staff Evaluation Follow-up to Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) Recommendations For Developing an Organics Processing Facility Within The City of Palo Alto n Staff analysis and recommendation for developing an interim Aerated Static Pile (ASP) composting operation within Palo Alto versus adopting the Zero Waste Operations Plan of sending yard trimmings to SMaRT/ZBest. . The advantages of the City developing an ASP composting facility in Palo Alto after the existing composting facility closes are mainly: reduced greenhouse gas vehicle emissions through a closer destination facility; and that the City could control the facility and add other organic wastes to the process (biosolids, food scraps, etc). Control of the facility and organic wastes that could be processed could allow the City to implement residential curbside collection of food scraps in their green waste carts. Disadvantages of the City developing its own facility in the interim are the high cost of developing an ASP operation ($3 million initial capital investment); and the fact that there is no land readily available for the placement of an ASP facility in the intermediate term. Staff does not believe that the $3 million investment for an ASP Facility developed on any existing City-oWned property is warranted because of the interim nature of the ASP (Council has prioritized Anaerobic Digestion) and because there is no readily available site for the facility. 2) Evaluation of Three Potential Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Facility Sites. Site #1 Other Unspecified Locations Along Embarcadero Road Staff focused primarily on the existing commercial properties along Embarcadero Way for this portion ofthe evaluation. Five properties ranging in size from I to almost 4 acres were evaluated by the Real Estate Division of the Administrative Services Department. Table 1 below summarizes the potential acquisition costs for these properties. The properties' layout in relation to the Airport and the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) is shown in Figure 1. If only the three properties along the east side of Embarcadero Way are considered, acquisition costs could range between $8.2 to $13.7 million for these 3.15 acres ofland. It is very unlikely that even just these three properties would be easy to acquire. Eminent Domain would likely be necessary. One of these three properties houses California Self Storage and another is currently leased by Victor Aviation Services. Only the property at the comer of Embarcadero Road appears to be vacant at the time of this report. It contains a two-story structure for research and development and offices. Staff does not recommend pursuing the acquisition of these properties for an organics processing facility. Page I of 8 3/1/1 0 AITACHMENTC Table 1: ROUGH ACOUISITION ESTIMATES FOR EMBARCADERO WAY PROPERTIES High Mid Low Street Number APN Acres $100/sf $80/sf $60/sf Facts Sold 7/06 lor approx. WEST 1880 008-03-027 1.19 $5,183,640 $4,146,912 $3,110,184 $4,250,000 recently refurbIshed ~ avail SIDE for lease 2440 008-03-072 3.95 $17,206,200 $13,764,960 $10,323,720 Newer R&D Sites - several vacancies ! 1900 008-03-071 1.14 $4,965,840 $3,972,672 $2,979,504 Olo.r building - available for lease EAST Older building -• SIDE 2415 008-03-030 1 $4,356,000 $3,484,800 $2,613,600 currently leased i 2425 008-03-068 1,01 $4,399,560 $3,519,648 $2,639,736 Self storage facmty Totals 5,14 $22,389,840 $17,911,872 $13,433,904 COMPARABLE DATA: 2525 E, Bayshore Road -1,44 acres, same age bldg -Comp Value per Real Quest $6,250,000 -Sold 4/2006 $4,200,000 1010 Corporation Way -Currently for sale -21 ,500 sl, Bldg, Office/R&D, Vacant, 1,10 ac lot size -for sale price $5,300,000'" $246,51/51 CONDEMNATION COSTS CONSIDERATIONS (assume +30% to above mid range flgure): Courts must find that: 1) public Interest and necessity require the project; 2) the project is compatible with the greatest public good and least private Injury; and 3) the property is necessary for the project Costs to consider: Fair market value, plus attorney fee$, appraisal fees, relocation expenses, payment for business fixtures, equipment and good will, and if leased possibly relocation andlor tenants leasehold interest to be compensated, . NOTES and ABBREVIATIONS: East Side parcels represent the lots next to RWQCP APN: Assessor's Parcel Number sf: Square Feet Page 2 of8 3/1!1 0 ATTACHMENTC Site #3 Northwest Corner of Current Landfill Site (Byxbee Park) Staff has conceptually developed a 4.7 acre grading plan (Figure 2) at the Northwest comer of the landfill adjacent to the PAR WQCP that might be large enough for a large AD facility that could accommodate the City's entire organic waste throughput. The grading plan incorporates dedicated park acreage from the area adjacent to the PARWQCP fenceline (facing the landfill) and overlying approximately 2 acres of the existing landfill. Implementing this conceptual grading plan would mean raising the grades of the existing land adjacent to the landfill approximately 5 feet to approximately 15 feet above mean sea level (MSL). This conceptual site would partially overlie the landfill final contours approved by the landfill architect (Hargreaves Associates, April 2008). If an AD building were developed on this site then the top of a building could be as high as 40 feet above MSL -lower than the highest elevations ofthe landfill that are 60 feet above MSL. Permits and Approvals Permitting an AD facility at the Northwest corner of the landfill would involve CEQA, State permits and local approvals and voter approval to undedicate a portion of Byxbee Park. This entire development process would be expected to take 7 or 8 years to complete (See timeline Figure 3). Because this site overlies the landfill and because this site would probably require two EIRs and a vote to undedicated parkland, the schedule for development of a large AD facility would be expected to take three to four years longer than a site that did not have these land use issues. • An Environmental Impact Report (ElR) would be required. It is likely that two EIRs may be required - a programmatic EIR to support the vote to undedicate the parkland and later, a design level EIR that would support the permits and approvals; • A new or revised solid waste facility permit would be necessary; • A new Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Facility Pennit would likely be required. A new high technology organics facility with emissions control would meet the BACT standards (Best Achievable Control Technology). • New or revised Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) will probably be required from the Regional Water Quality Control Board since the proposed operation would be sited partiallyi'on the landfill. Flatter grades overlying the landfill can be permitted as long as an 'effective system for diverting surface drainage and preventing ponding is designed in accordanee'with California Code of Regulations Title 27 Section 21090 (b)(1 )(B). • Local permits and approvals would inelude revising the Baylands Master Plan, Planning/Site & Design Review approvals, voter approval to undedicate parkland etc. Page 40f8 31111 0 ATTACHMENTC • The City would need to modifY the landfill's post-closure plan to reflect this continued operation on the closed landfill. Also, a facility operations layer and drainage features would need to be designed and constructed to protect the landfill's cap. • An amendment to the landfill lease with the State Lands Commission would be necessary for the improvements. Other Impacts Sino;:e the proposed facility can be incorporated into the PARWQCP, the existing landscape screen trees would need to be removed and new landscaping improvements would need to be installed at the perimeter of the new facility. Access to Byxbee park could still be available via the existing parking lot. Some trails planned at the north end of the landfill would need to be rerouted to avoid the new facility. Maintenance of the park/landfill could still be undertaken. Development Costs Hilary Gans from the Blue Ribbon Task Force completed and presented to Council a preliminary cost estimate of $ 13.75 million for an Anaerobic Digestion (AD) w/ Energy Recovery system that is large enough to handle the City's yard trimmings and some food waste. This capital cost estimate includes the cost of a specialized building, gas collection system and electricity genenitjng equipment but did not include the cost of an asphalt operating surface or materials handling equipment cost since the City (\lready owns all the necessary heavy equipment required to run a c~mposting system. The cost' per ton calculation to process the City'S organics would depend on what type of facility is developed, what type of organic wastes would be managed at the facility and what throughput of tonnage would be possible. A consultant feasibility study would need to be performed before these costs could be accurately developed. 3) Evaluation of Other Options Figure 4 presents timelines for two recommended courses of action: 1) study the feasibility of developing energy recovery facilities for biosolids and limited foodwaste during the upcoming RWQCI' Master Planning project, and 2) pursue partnering opportunities with SMaRT and/or private ventures building nearby anaerobic digestion facilities. Page 5 of 8 3/30/10 ATIACHMENTD Staff Memo Follow-up to Council Questions from Study Session on March 8, 2010 Council Email Ouestion: The Composting [Blue Ribbon Task Force] Report was originally paired with a Colleagues memo on Early Opening of Portions of Byxbee Park. This complementary item was amended and passed on Nov 2, 2009. It was stated at that meeting that this item on the Early Opening would return 'quickly'. Will it be on the Agenda on AprilS along with the Composting Report? The COUNCIL MOTION from November 2,2009 stated: 1) Direct Staff to work with the Parks and Recreation Cormnission and Hargreaves and Associates to develop fmal park design goals for Phase II of Byxbee Park including provision to access and views and return j.o Council with a proposed impl()lUentation budget, and 2) Direct Staff to take the necessary steps to open the completed and approved landfill area (Phase II AlB in the Baylands Master Plan) to the public as interim open space by the end of 2011 or sooner; 3) Amended to direct Staff to report back to Council with an estimated budget for the work in both parts of the Motion in a timely manner. Staff Response: The attached Table 1 outlines the steps necessary to prepare closed Landfill Phase IIA and Phase lIB for early public access. Staff will begin adding clean soil to low areas in the previously closed sections within the next few months (weather permitting) in order to fulfill the post-closure responsibility of addressing settlement. Most ofthe top-deck areas have settled one to two feet. (or more) within the last several years. The current goal is to accept and spread enough clean soil to bring the closed sections up to the original designed grades of these already capped landfill areas. The proposed FY 2011 budget for the Landfill Closure (CIP RF-llOO 1) has been adjusted to provide $600,000 for the work required to prepare Phase IIA and Phase IIB for public access. This will include: changes to the environmental control systems (leachate and landfill gas collection piping) to place piping and well heads underground, minor grading and improvements to site access roads, and removal of perimeter fencing. The Refuse Fund budget does not include money to prepare final park design goals in conjunction with Hargreaves and the Parks & Recreation Commission, final park design (which should include Phase lIC), nor final park construction. Staff believes it would be more efficient and cost effective to bury the piping system underground when the Phase lIC closure is completed because there will be the efficiency of earth moving equipment and a single contractor to mobilize rather than administering two discrete projects successively. If Council decides to initiate the early opening of Phase IlA and Phase lIB and to bear the extra expense, it would prohably only speed up the potential to open these areas by about one year earlier than if the work was combined with the closure construction on Phase lIC. It is also not clear yet how the park-related improvements will be funded. Page 1 of5 TABLE 1 BYXBEE PARK -PHASE IIA & PHASE liB CLOSED LANDFILL PREPARATION WORK I ESTIMATED TAS.q DESCRIPTION STATUS COST SOURCE OF FUNDS TIME LINE 1 IAdjust the setUed surface with new topsoil to raise the IN $50,000 PWD -Refuse: Landfill Complete by October 201 0 finished grade back to the permitted elevations PROGRESS Operations IRevegetate surface following settlement remediation IN PWD -Refuse: Landfill 2 IPROGRESS $25,000 Operations Complete by December 2010 I Seek Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) approval for I PLANNED I PWD -Refuse: staff-level Complete by December 2010 3 (assuming no permitting "early" public access to Phase IIA & Phase liB task hurdles) 4 I Design, plan and permit changes to environmental control PLANNED $50,000 PWD -RefuSe: Closure Pending FY 2011 Budget systems (leachate and landfiU gas collection piping) reserve (CIP RF-11 001) 5 I Modify environmental control systems to place piping and PLANNED $500,000 PWD -Refuse: Closure I Pending FY 2011 Budget well heads underground reserve (CIP RF-11001) 6 IMinor greding and improvementof site access roads I PLANNED $25,000 IPWD -Refuse: Closure reserve (CIP RF-11001) IPending FY 2011 Budget 7 I Remove perimeter' fencing IPLANNED $25,000 PWD -Refuse: Closure I reserve (CIP RF-11001) Pending FY 2011 Budget I Prepare Final Park Design Goals in conjunction with I PLANNED ICSD: ??? »- 8 $25,{)00 Pending Council action ~ Hargreaves and the Parks & Recreation Commission ('J ::c 9 I Final Park Design (including Phase IIC) IPLANNED $470,000 ICSD: ??1 IPending Council action a;:: ~ 10 I Final Park Construction (including Phase IIC) IPLANNED I $4,700,000 leSD: 1?? IPending Council action .., " 3/30/10 ATTACHMENTD Study Session Question: Refuse fund has right to parkland until June 30, 2011 future use would require $3.7 million annual payment? Is that built into the numbers? Staff Response: CMR 104:07 established the following rent schedule for both the active and closed portions of the landfill: City of Palo Alto I Landfill Rent Schedule Rent Payment (Smoothing Rent Charged Schedule) 2004-05 7420925 4,288,747 2005-06 7420925 4288747 2006-07 7420,925 4,288,747 .2007-08 7420,925 4,288,747 2008-09 7,420,925 4,288,747 2009-10 7420925 4,288,747 2010-11 7420,925 4,288747 2011-12 0 4,288,747 2012-13 0 2,094,332 . 2013-14 0 2,094,331 2014-15 0 2,094331 2015-16 0 2,094,331 2016-17 0 2,094,331 2017-18 0 2,094,331 2018-19 0 2,094331 2019-20 0 2,094,331 2020-21 0 881,851 This rent schedule encompasses the entire landfill area (approximately 100 acres of both active and closed). The amount of rent attributable to the piece of land being considered for composting would be proportionally less. The current annual rent payment for the entire landfill is approximately $4.3 Million. If the Refuse Fund occupies any portion of Byxbee Park for a longer period than contemplated in the rent schedule, the schedul~ would have to be re-adjusted. The schedule was based on the information available at the time that assumed a projected landfill closure on June 30, 2011. The schedule adopted by the Council in 2007 contained a number of Council-directed policies, including: (1) the Refuse Fund should be paying the General Fund for use of the inactive portion until it is formally converted to park use; (2) the rent attributable to Page 3 of5 3/30/10 ATTACHMENT D the inactive portion should be less than fair market rent since the Refuse Fund is not actively using the property and (3) the rent payments should be amortized over time so that Refuse rates are not substantially impacted. The current economy which has led to less commercial dumping at the landfill together with the temporary City Council imposed commercial dumping moratorium may result in a slightly later landfill closure date. The City is in the process of determining whether there is a need for further refining this rental schedule al).d whether there is a need for an updated appraisal. Study Session Question: If there is a de-aunexation of the parkland, the parkland will take on the value of commercial properties around it. Refuse Fund would have a liability for approximately that amount? Staff Response: If the parkland is de-alUlexed and the Refuse Fund continues to utilize the property for Refuse purposes (including composting), the Refuse Fund would be responsible for the payment of rent. The rent would be based on the highest and best use which is most likely research and development/industrial use. Study Session Question: Concerned about buffer betWeen industrial activities and parkland - will there be an EIR to estimate the impact on Parkland? Staff Response: Yes, an ErR for a compost project would address land use compatibility and related aesthetic issues. The zoning ordinance governing the new use could also prescribe appropriate setbacksl buffer zones. Study Session Question: 90% solution email by Bryan Long -can his solution be part of the April 5 discussion? For reference, the recommendations in Bryan Long's 90% solution email are: I. Improve collection rates of our new commerciaVmultifamily food waste collection program, and implement a residential food scrap collection program. Utilize Z-Best or other regional facility to compost or digest these food wastes for the time being. 2. After landfill closure, divert yard trimmings to Z-Best or other regional composting facility, and 3.. Direct RWQCP staff to incorporate alternatives for anaerobic digestion ofbiosolids and Palo Alto's food scrap collections into their comprehensive [Master 1 plan. Direct staff to consider yard trimmings as well, but as a secondary priority and only if it does not significantly increase the cost or lengthen the timeframe required. Page 4 of5 3i30/10 ATTACHMENTD Staff Response: Staffs recommendation is largely in line with what is referred to as the 90% solution. The upcoming RWQCP Master Plan will include an analysis of options for managing the biosolids that are currently incinerated. The analysis ofbiosolids options won't constitute a full "Feasibility Study". However it will include site specific cost and revenue estimates, general environment impact analysis and life cycle estimates of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Taking some food waste ",ill be analyzed, but it is very unlikely that anything close to all the P A food waste could be handled within the RWQCP footprint. It is important to note that the RWQCP is funded 35% by Palo Alto and 65% by its other Partners. Therefore, expenditures (including planning) for waste streams generated by only Palo Alto would have to be funded by 100% Palo Alto funds .. Major Capital Improvement Projects at the RWQCP also require approval by the Partner City Councils in addition to the Palo Alto City Council. Study Session Concerns: Numerous questions posed by Council at the study session related to the size, cost, operations, buffer zones, and environmental impacts of an anaerobic digestion facility. Staff Response: These types of questions are best answered through a detailed feasibility study combined with a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) so that all mitigation measures can be identified and properly estimated for cost. The cost of such a detailed study would exceed $250,000. Previously a similar effort for the project known as the Environmental Services Center (ESC) would have cost over $400,000 (CMR 125:05). The largest portion of the proposed ESC was the composting area. Because no readily available site has been identified, staff does not recommend moving forward with a full scale feasibility study for anaerobic digestion at this time. Page 5 of5 Palo Alto, California August 30, 2011 Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Summary of Tipping Fee Projections Scenarios Alternatives (All Scenarios) Scenario 1 1. Alternative 1 1. Public ownership and financing (below market I-Bank loan Case 1a - - Food scraps, yard trimmings and biosolids processed by dry anaerobic digestion (AD) at a combined with market-rate tax-exempt financing). facility at the Palo Alto Landfill (PALF) site. Separate AD cells for food scraps/yard trimmings and bisolids 2. 15% grant on construction costs assumed. All AD gas processed at PALF. 3. No site rent cost included. Case 1b - - Food scraps and yard trimmings processed by dry anaerobic digestion, biosolids processed by wet anaerobic 4. Costs for CO2 "carbon adder" included. digestion; all at a facility at the PALF site. All AD gas processed at PALF. 5. 15% contingency added to cost of export options. Case 1c - - Food scraps and yard trimmings processed by dry anaerobic digestion at a facility at the PALF, biosolids processed by wet anaerobic digestion at the Palo Alto wastewater treatment plant (RWQCP). All AD gas processed at PALF. Case 1d - - Food scraps and yard trimmings processed by dry anaerobic digestion at a facility at the PALF. Food scraps Scenario 2 and yard trimmings gas only processed at PALF. Biosolids incinerated at RWQCP, with ash transported to/disposed of at Kettleman Hills Landfill. Existing incinerator replaced by new fluidized bed incinerator in 2030. 1. Private ownership and financing at market rate. 2. 15% grant on construction costs assumed.2. Alternatives 2 and 2a 3. $108,000/year site rent cost included. 4. Costs for CO2 "carbon adder" included. Case 2 - - Food scraps taken to and processed at new San Jose AD facility (Zanker). Yard trimmings taken to SMaRT, 5. 15% contingency added to cost of export options. transferred to and processed at Gilroy composing facility (ZBest). All biosolids incincerated at RWQCP. Existing incinerator replaced by fluidized bed incinerator in 2030. Biosolids incinerator ash transported to and disposed of at Kettleman Hills Landfill. Existing incinerator replaced by new fluidized bed incinerator in 2030. Scenario 3 Case 2a - - Same as Case 2, except biosolids processed via wet AD facility at RWQCP. 1. Private ownership and financing at market rate.3. Alternatives 3 and 3a 2. No construction grant assumed. 3. $908,000/year site rent cost included. Case 3 - - Food scraps taken to San Jose transfer facility, transferred to and processed at Gilroy composting facility (ZBest). 4. No CO2 "carbon adder" costs included. Yard trimmings taken to SMaRT, transferred to and processed at Gilroy composting facility (ZBest). All biosolids incinerated 5. No contingency added to cost of export options. at RWQCP. Existing incinerator replaced by fluidized bed incinerator in 2030.Biosolids incinerator ash transported to and disposed of at Kettleman Hills Landfill. Existing incinerator replaced by new fluidized bed incinerator in 2030. Case 3a - - Same as Case 3, except biosolids processed via wet AD facility at RWQCP. City of Palo Alto, California Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Summary of Projections August 30, 2011 Base Cases Year 1 (2015)Year 20 (2034)NPV Total Costs Year 1 (2015)Year 20 (2034)NPV Total Costs Year 1 (2015)Year 20 (2034)NPV Total Costs Alternative 1 (At PALF)Tipping Fee Tipping Fee Over 20 Years Tipping Fee Tipping Fee Over 20 Years Tipping Fee Tipping Fee Over 20 Years ($/Ton)($/Ton)($/Ton)($/Ton)($/Ton)($/Ton) Low-Cost Range Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Case 1a $70 $34 $59,861,995 $87 $53 $73,349,155 $120 $73 $96,226,397 Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings & Biosolids Dry AD In Separate Cells @ Palo Alto Landfill (PALF)Uncertainty remains regarding Case 1a costs, higher contingency applied. Uncertainty remains regarding Case 1a costs, higher contingency applied. Uncertainty remains regarding Case 1a costs, higher contingency applied. Case 1b $130 $71 $112,541,470 $157 $102 $133,646,188 $209 $138 $170,950,938 Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings Dry AD Biolsolids Wet AD - - All @ PALF Case 1c $129 $71 $111,359,855 $156 $101 $132,185,841 $207 $137 $169,007,164 Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings Dry AD @ PALF Biosolids Wet AD @ RWQCP Case 1d $101 $441 $137,096,645 $113 $454 $147,010,013 $129 $459 $154,505,010 Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings Dry AD @ PALF Biosolids Incinerated @ RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2030 High-Cost Range Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Case 1a $239 $137 $202,489,030 $283 $185 $236,505,592 $361 $245 $294,370,715 Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings & Biosolids Dry AD In Separate Cells @ Palo Alto Landfill (PALF) Case 1b $213 $109 $179,744,473 $254 $156 $211,656,529 $331 $214 $268,294,477 Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings Dry AD Biolsolids Wet AD - - All @ PALF Case 1c $212 $109 $178,943,797 $253 $156 $210,683,346 $329 $213 $267,027,894 Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings Dry AD @ PALF Biosolids Wet AD @ RWQCP Case 1d $177 $472 $199,061,822 $206 $502 $221,571,397 $248 $530 $249,502,488 Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings Dry AD @ PALF Biosolids Incinerated @ RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2030 Alternative Resources, Inc.Page 1 of 2 City of Palo Alto, California Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Summary of Projections August 30, 2011 Scenarios 1 & 2 Scenario 3 Year 1 (2015)Year 20 (2034)NPV Total Costs Year 1 (2015)Year 20 (2034)NPV Total Costs Alternatives 2 & 3 (Export)Tipping Fee Tipping Fee Over 20 Years Tipping Fee Tipping Fee Over 20 Years ($/Ton)($/Ton)($/Ton)($/Ton) Case 2 - - Food Scraps to San Jose AD Facility, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy Composting Facility (via SMaRT)$93 $486 $139,527,960 $72 $455 $116,714,351 Biosolids Incinerated at RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2030 Case 3 - - (Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer, Yard Trimmings to SMaRT - Then Both to Gilroy Composting Facility $89 $477 $134,349,833 $68 $448 $112,511,650 Biosolids Incinerated at RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2030 Scenario 1 Scenario 3 Year 1 (2015)Year 20 (2034)NPV Total Costs Year 1 (2015)Year 20 (2034)NPV Total Costs Alternatives 2a & 3a (Export)Tipping Fee Tipping Fee Over 20 Years Tipping Fee Tipping Fee Over 20 Years ($/Ton)($/Ton)($/Ton)($/Ton) Case 2a - - Food Scraps to San Jose AD Facility, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy Composting Facility (via SMaRT)$103 $129 $94,316,201 $92 $107 $81,747,002 Biosolids Processed via Wet AD @ RWQCP Case 3a - - Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer, Yard Trimmings to SMaRT - Then Both to Gilroy Composting Facility $98 $121 $89,448,650 $89 $100 $77,544,302 Biosolids Processed via Wet AD @ RWQCP Scenario 2 Case 2a - - Food Scraps to San Jose AD Facility, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy Composting Facility (via SMaRT)$105 $131 $96,182,258 Biosolids Processed via Wet AD @ RWQCP Case 3a - - Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer, Yard Trimmings to SMaRT - Then Both to Gilroy Composting Facility $100 $123 $91,314,706 Biosolids Processed via Wet AD @ RWQCP Alternative Resources, Inc.Page 2 of 2 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 REPORT OVERVIEW ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED Green Waste Processing:Ownership Structure: Yard Trimmings Food Scraps Biosolids Dry Anaerobic Digester Wet Anaerobic Digester 1a Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A 1b Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1c Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1d Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 3 (Base Case) Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A 3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public OVERVIEW OF CITY OF PALO ALTO CLIMATE REPORTING Municipal Emissions Community Emissions Global Emissions In this analysis, global emissions represent the emissions savings included in the analysis done by Ascent Environmental as part of the Energy / Compost Feasibility Study. It is based on the draft analysis released January 24, 2011. That analysis was intended to be global in scope and included all GHG impacts, regardless of whether they were included in a reporting protocol. This analysis assesses the impact of a new dry and/or wet anaerobic digester on the greenhouse gas emissions of the City of Palo Alto (as reported through the California Climate Action Register (CCAR)) and the Palo Alto community (as reported under the ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability reporting protocol). In addition, it summarizes the impact of the project on global greenhouse gas emissions, which can be different from the reportable emissions. The source for the quantity of emissions associated with the various project alternatives is a comprehensive greenhouse gas analysis done by Ascent Environmental titled "Energy/Compost Feasibility Study, Greenhouse Gas Projections," May 27, 2011. Alternative Municipal or City emissions represent the carbon emitted by City operations. The City has tracked its emissions to-date by reporting voluntarily through the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR). When this analysis shows the impact of anaerobic digestion on City emissions the numbers are based on the CCAR reporting protocols. Among other things these protocols require the City to include emissions from waste processing facilities run by the City, regardless of where the waste comes from. It requires the City to exclude operations run by a contractor (such as waste hauling, in the case of Palo Alto). If the anaerobic digester were operated by a private company, its emissions would not be included in a CCAR report. They would, however, be included in community emissions reporting, or in a separate comprehensive analysis of the global impact of the project. It should be noted that the City is migrating its reporting to The Climate Registry (TCR), an organization that tracks emissions over a wider geographic area. TCR reporting protocols are very similar to CCAR protocols. Community emissions represent the carbon emitted by the community, including emissions from community power consumption, vehicle use, and the emissions associated with waste generated by the community. The community's 2005 emissions were assessed in the Climate Protection Plan and are considered a baseline against which to measure progress. This baseline has been revised since 2005, and there may be future revisions. This analysis uses the most recent published revised baseline. The "'ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability" protocols are a commonly used protocol for assessing community emissions, and this analysis conforms to those protocols. There can be some overlap between community and municipal emissions. For example, if the City operates a waste handling operation that handles the community's waste, it would be counted in both municipal and community emissions. The community emissions would only include the emissions generated by the community's share of the waste. Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 1 of 13 Jon Abendschein Resource Planner Utilities Department Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 Global Emissions Savings (Anthropogenic) (12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)- 1a 1b 1c 1d 2 2a 3 (Base Case) 3a Al t e r n a t i v e Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr) Global Anthropogenic Emissions Savings by Source (12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)- 1a 1b 1c 1d 2 2a 3 (Base Case) 3a Al t e r n a t i v e Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr) Replacing biosolids incineration with digestion Generating green power Other Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 2 of 13 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 Change in Reported City Govt. Emissions (Anthropogenic)* (12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)-2,000 1a - Public 1a - Private 1b - Public 1b - Private 1c - Public 1c - Private 1d - Public 1d - Private 2 2a 3 3a Al t e r n a t i v e Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr) City Direct Emissions (Scope 1)City Indirect Emissions (Scope 2) *Some emissions sources are included in both the community and local government inventories, meaning the sum of the local and community emissions for an alternative may be greater than its actual global savings Reduction in Reportable GHG Emissions by Source - City* (12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)-2,000 1a - Public 1a - Private 1b - Public 1b - Private 1c - Public 1c - Private 1d - Public 1d - Private 2 2a 3 3a Al t e r n a t i v e Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr) Replacing Biosolids Incineration with A/D Generating Green Power Other *Some emissions sources are included in both the community and local government inventories, meaning the sum of the local and community emissions for an alternative may be greater than its actual global savings Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 3 of 13 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 Change in Reported Community Emissions (Anthropogenic)* (12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)-2,000 1a 1b 1c 1d 2 2a 3 (Base Case) 3a Al t e r n a t i v e Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr) Community Direct Emissions (Scope 1)Community Indirect Emissions (Scope 2) Community: Other Emissions (Scope 3) *Some emissions sources are included in both the community and local government inventories, meaning the sum of the local and community emissions for an alternative may be greater than its actual global savings Reduction in Reportable GHG Emissions by Source - Community* (12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)-2,000 1a 1b 1c 1d 2 2a 3 (Base Case) 3a Al t e r n a t i v e Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr) Replacing biosolids incineration with digestion Generating green power Other *Some emissions sources are included in both the community and local government inventories, meaning the sum of the loca and community emissions for an alternative may be greater than its actual global savings Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 4 of 13 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 Reduction in Reportable GHG Emissions - City (% of 2005 Baseline)* -5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 1a - Public 1a - Private 1b - Public 1b - Private 1c - Public 1c - Private 1d - Public 1d - Private 2 2a 3 3a Al t e r n a t i v e Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr) *Based on the revised baseline presented in CMR 194:10, April 19, 2010. This baseline is subject to future revisions based on changing reporting protocols. Reduction in Reportable GHG Emissions - Community (% of 2005 Baseline)* -0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% 1a 1b 1c 1d 2 2a 3 (Base Case) 3a Al t e r n a t i v e Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr) *Based on the revised baseline presented in CMR 194:10, April 19, 2010. This baseline is subject to future revisions based on changing reporting protocols. Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 5 of 13 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 Impact on Climate Inventories (MT CO2-e / yr) Alternative Yard Food Biosolids Dry AD Ownership Wet AD Ownership City Direct Emissions (Scope 1) City Indirect Emissions (Scope 2) Community Direct Emissions (Scope 1) Community Indirect Emissions (Scope 2) Community: Other Emissions (Scope 3) Not reported: Construction Emissions & Green Power From SJ Digester (Alt. 2/2a) Global* 1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A 435 961 1,676 (4,946) - 27 (3,450) 1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A 1 (180) 1,676 (4,946) - 27 (3,450) 1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 434 961 1,631 (4,946) 436 39 (3,047) 1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 274 812 1,631 (4,946) 436 39 (3,047) 1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 434 935 1,604 (4,946) 436 39 (3,074) 1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 274 785 1,604 (4,946) 436 39 (3,074) 1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A 4,674 1,393 6,227 (2,402) 184 21 3,930 1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 4,515 1,244 6,227 (2,402) 184 21 3,930 2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 4,515 1,344 5,859 - 787 (1,001) 5,645 2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 274 885 1,266 (2,545) 1,000 (983) (1,368) 3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A 4,515 1,344 5,859 - 751 - 6,610 3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public 274 885 1,266 (2,545) 980 17 (388) Alternative Yard Food Biosolids Dry AD Ownership Wet AD Ownership Other Biogenic Emissions Global* 1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A - 17,279 1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A - 17,279 1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public - 17,279 1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public - 17,279 1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public - 17,279 1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public - 17,279 1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A - 19,791 1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A - 19,791 2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2,313 20,300 2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 2,313 17,797 3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A - 18,716 3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public - 16,205 Alternative Yard Food Biosolids Dry AD Ownership Wet AD Ownership Other Global* 1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A 27 13,829 1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A 27 13,829 1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 39 14,232 1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 39 14,232 1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 39 14,206 1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 39 14,206 1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A 21 23,721 1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 21 23,721 2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 1,313 25,945 2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1,330 16,429 3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A -25,326 3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public 17 15,817 17,682 13,503 1,178 15,887 17,682 12,810 1,178 15,187 20,075 9,793 17,582 11,977 3,571 12,170 1,078 14,355 3,598 12,197 1,104 14,382 3,598 11,806 (179)14,009 City Community 15,466 6,893 16,18718 15,077 17,279 15,077 17,261 15,077 17,261 5,783 7,968 6,163 11,823 11,823 18 11,823 18 2,203 18 14,008 2,203 ANTHROPOGENIC ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO PROCESSING OF YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS BIOGENIC ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO PROCESSING OF YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Community Biogenic Emissions City Biogenic Emissions *The sum of the community, local government, and "other" emissions categories does not match the "Global" category due to the fact that certain waste-handling emissions are counted in both the City and Community emissions categories TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO PROCESSING OF YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Total Emissions Total Emissions Total Emissions 2,203 - Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 6 of 13 Jon Abendschein Resource Planner Utilities Department Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 Impact on Climate Inventories (MT CO2-e / yr) Alternative Yard Food Biosolids Dry AD Ownership Wet AD Ownership 1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A 1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A 1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A 1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A 3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public Alternative Yard Food Biosolids Dry AD Ownership Wet AD Ownership 1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A 1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A 1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A 1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A 3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public Alternative Yard Food Biosolids Dry AD Ownership Wet AD Ownership 1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A 1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A 1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A 1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A 3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public ANTHROPOGENIC ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO PROCESSING OF YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS BIOGENIC ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO PROCESSING OF YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS *The sum of the community, local government, and "other" emissions categories does not match the "Global" category due to the fact that certain waste-handling emissions are counted in both the City and Community emissions categories TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO PROCESSING OF YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS City Direct Emissions (Scope 1) City Indirect Emissions (Scope 2) Community Direct Emissions (Scope 1) Community Indirect Emissions (Scope 2) Community: Other Emissions (Scope 3) Not reported: Construction Emissions & Green Power From SJ Digester (Alt. 2/2a) Global* (4,081) (383) (4,183) (4,946) (751) 27 (10,060) (4,514) (1,524) (4,183) (4,946) (751) 27 (10,060) (4,082) (383) (4,228) (4,946) (315) 39 (9,657) (4,241) (532) (4,228) (4,946) (315) 39 (9,657) (4,082) (409) (4,255) (4,946) (315) 39 (9,684) (4,241) (559) (4,255) (4,946) (315) 39 (9,684) 159 49 368 (2,402) (567) 21 (2,680) - (100) 368 (2,402) (567) 21 (2,680) - - - - 36 (1,001) (965) (4,241) (459) (4,593) (2,545) 249 (983) (7,978) --- - - - - (4,241) (459) (4,593) (2,545) 229 17 (6,998) Other Biogenic Emissions Global* - (1,437) - (1,437) - (1,437) - (1,437) - (1,437) - (1,437) - 1,074 - 1,074 2,313 1,583 2,313 (919) -- - (2,512) Other Global* 27 (11,497) 27 (11,497) 39 (11,094) 39 (11,094) 39 (11,121) 39 (11,121) 21 (1,605) 21 (1,605) 1,313 619 1,330 (8,897) -- 17 (9,510)(16,504) 6,749 (16,504) 6,028 -- (100) (1,327) - (730) (16,605) 5,422 2,393 (3,512) (16,578) 5,422 (14,111) 3,237 3,237 (17,861) 5,440 (14,085) 3,237 9,293 City Community (14,084) (730) (11,805) 8,573 -- 10,368 2,185 (1,110) - 1,074 8,183 (11,805) 10,368 (9,620) 8,183 Community Biogenic Emissions (9,620) 8,183 (11,823) 10,386 City Biogenic Emissions (9,620) (11,805) - (11,805) Change in Emissions Change in Emissions Change in Emissions Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 7 of 13 Jon Abendschein Resource Planner Utilities Department Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 INDIRECT (SCOPE 2) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from Digester Alternative 1a - Public DAD Ownership Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - - RWQCP 1 - - - 26 - - - - Solid Waste Facilities 136 - - 298 1,141 - - 1,926 277 Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - - Alternative 1a - Private DAD Ownership Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - - RWQCP 1 - - - 26 - - - - Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - - Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - - Alternative 1b - Public DAD Ownership Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - - RWQCP - - - 274 1,018 - - - 18 Solid Waste Facilities 136 - - 24 150 - - 1,926 259 Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - - Alternative 1b - Private DAD Ownership Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - - RWQCP - - - 274 1,018 - - - 18 Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - - Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - - DIRECT EMISSIONS (SCOPE 1) OPTIONAL EMISSIONS (BIOGENIC) MUNICIPAL EMISSIONS (BASED ON CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION REGISTRY CATEGORIES) Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 8 of 13 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 INDIRECT (SCOPE 2) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from Digester DIRECT EMISSIONS (SCOPE 1) OPTIONAL EMISSIONS (BIOGENIC) MUNICIPAL EMISSIONS (BASED ON CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION REGISTRY CATEGORIES) Alternative 1c - Public DAD Ownership Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - - RWQCP - - - 274 991 - - - 18 Solid Waste Facilities 136 - - 24 150 - - 1,926 259 Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - - Alternative 1c - Private DAD Ownership Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - - RWQCP - - - 274 991 - - - 18 Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - - Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - - Alternative 1d - Public DAD Ownership Buildings/Facilities - - - - (22) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (67) - - - - RWQCP - 4,515 - - 1,344 9,207 2,616 - - Solid Waste Facilities 136 - - 24 150 - - 1,926 259 Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (8) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (3) - - - - Alternative 1d - Private DAD Ownership Buildings/Facilities - - - - (22) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (67) - - - - RWQCP - 4,515 - - 1,344 9,207 2,616 - - Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - - Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (8) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (3) - - - - Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 9 of 13 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 INDIRECT (SCOPE 2) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from Digester DIRECT EMISSIONS (SCOPE 1) OPTIONAL EMISSIONS (BIOGENIC) MUNICIPAL EMISSIONS (BASED ON CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION REGISTRY CATEGORIES) Alternative 2 Buildings/Facilities - - - - - - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - - - - - - RWQCP - 4,515 - - 1,344 9,207 2,616 - - Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - - Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - - - - - - Water Delivery - - - - - - - - - Alternative 2a Buildings/Facilities - - - - (23) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (71) - - - - RWQCP - - - 274 991 - - - 18 Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - - Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (8) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (3) - - - - Alternative 3 Buildings/Facilities - - - - - - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - - - - - - RWQCP - 4,515 - - 1,344 9,207 2,616 - - Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - - Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - - - - - - Water Delivery - - - - - - - - - Alternative 3a Buildings/Facilities - - - - (23) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (71) - - - - RWQCP - - - 274 991 - - - 18 Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - - Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (8) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (3) - - - - Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 10 of 13 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 INDIRECT (SCOPE 2) OTHER (SCOPE 3) Food/Yard Waste Disposal, In-town, City-owned Food/Yard Waste Disposal, In-town, Contractor Biosolids Disposal, In-town, City-owned Biosolids Disposal, In-town, Contractor Reduction in Emissions from Community Power Use Food/Yard Waste Disposal, Out of town, Contractor Alternative 1a - Public DAD Ownership 1,574 74 28 (4,946)- Alternative 1a - Private DAD Ownership -1,648 28 (4,946)- Alternative 1b - Public DAD Ownership 309 30 1,292 (4,946)436 Alternative 1b - Private DAD Ownership -338 1,292 (4,946)436 Alternative 1c - Public DAD Ownership 309 30 1,266 (4,946)436 Alternative 1c - Private DAD Ownership -338 1,266 (4,946)436 Alternative 1d - Public DAD Ownership 309 59 5,859 (2,402)184 Alternative 1d - Private DAD Ownership -368 5,859 (2,402)184 Alternative 2 --5,859 -787 Alternative 2a --1,266 (2,545) 1,000 Alternative 3 --5,859 -751 Alternative 3a --1,266 (2,545)980 Alternative 1a only. Included in "Food/Yard Waste Disposal, In-town, Contractor" and "In-town, City-owned" column DIRECT EMISSIONS (SCOPE 1) COMMUNITY EMISSIONS (BASED ON ICLEI PROTOCOL) Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 11 of 13 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 Alternative 1a - Public DAD Ownership Alternative 1a - Private DAD Ownership Alternative 1b - Public DAD Ownership Alternative 1b - Private DAD Ownership Alternative 1c - Public DAD Ownership Alternative 1c - Private DAD Ownership Alternative 1d - Public DAD Ownership Alternative 1d - Private DAD Ownership Alternative 2 Alternative 2a Alternative 3 Alternative 3a Waste Disposal, Contractor, In-town Waste Disposal, Contractor, Out of town Waste Disposal, City-owned Biosolids Disposal, City-owned Biogenic Emissions Associated with Green Power 3,166 - 2,203 - 11,910 5,369 - - - 11,910 - 3,166 2,185 18 11,910 2,185 3,166 - 18 11,910 - 3,166 2,185 18 11,910 2,185 3,166 - 18 11,910 - - 2,185 11,823 5,783 2,185 - - 11,823 5,783 - 6,163 - 11,823 - - 9,339 - 18 6,127 - 6,893 - 11,823 - - 10,059 - 18 6,127 BIOGENIC EMISSIONS (NOT REPORTED) COMMUNITY EMISSIONS (BASED ON ICLEI PROTOCOL) Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 12 of 13 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 Replacing Biosolids Incineration with A/D Generating Green Power Other Replacing Biosolids Incineration with A/D Generating Green Power Other Replacing Biosolids Incineration with A/D Generating Green Power Other Alternative 1a - Public DAD Ownership*(5,126) (206)869 (5,832) (4,946) 897 (5,832) (4,946) 718 Alternative 1a - Private DAD Ownership*(5,832) (206)-(5,832) (4,946) 897 (5,832) (4,946) 718 Alternative 1b - Public DAD Ownership (4,567) (206)309 (4,567) (4,946)24 (4,567) (4,946) (144) Alternative 1b - Private DAD Ownership (4,567) (206)-(4,567) (4,946)24 (4,567) (4,946) (144) Alternative 1c - Public DAD Ownership (4,593) (206)309 (4,593) (4,946)24 (4,593) (4,946) (144) Alternative 1c - Private DAD Ownership (4,593) (206)-(4,593) (4,946)24 (4,593) (4,946) (144) Alternative 1d - Public DAD Ownership -(100)309 -(2,402) (199)-(2,402) (278) Alternative 1d - Private DAD Ownership -(100)--(2,402) (199)-(2,402) (278) Alternative 2 ----36 -(1,001)36 Alternative 2a (4,593) (106)-(4,593) (2,545) 249 (4,593) (3,545) 161 Alternative 3 --------- Alternative 3a (4,593) (106)-(4,593) (2,545) 229 (4,593) (2,545) 140 ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS BY SOURCE *For Alternative 1a, 44.8% of the dry anaerobic digester emissions are allocated to biosolids. The allocation is based on tons of material going into the dry anaerobic digester over the life of the project GLOBALCOMMUNITYCITY Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 13 of 13 Municipal Emissions: Scope 1 City Government operations – fuel use and fugitive emissions Municipal Emissions: Scope 2 Power used in City Government operations Community Emissions: Scope 3 Emissions from community waste processed outside the community Community Emissions: Scope 1 a) Emissions from community waste processed inside the community b) In-city vehicle miles driven (If waste handling is City owned) (If waste handling is City owned) Categories of Reportable Emissions Affected by the Anaerobic Digester Project Community Emissions: Scope 2 Emissions from community power consumption Each scenario in the Energy / Compost Feasibility Study affects one or more of these categories. Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 REPORT OVERVIEW ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED Green Waste Processing:Ownership Structure: Yard Trimmings Food Scraps Biosolids Dry Anaerobic Digester Wet Anaerobic Digester 1a Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A 1b Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1c Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1d Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 3 (Base Case) Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A 3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public OVERVIEW OF CITY OF PALO ALTO CLIMATE REPORTING Municipal Emissions Community Emissions Global Emissions In this analysis, global emissions represent the emissions savings included in the analysis done by Ascent Environmental as part of the Energy / Compost Feasibility Study. It is based on the draft analysis released January 24, 2011. That analysis was intended to be global in scope and included all GHG impacts, regardless of whether they were included in a reporting protocol. This analysis assesses the impact of a new dry and/or wet anaerobic digester on the greenhouse gas emissions of the City of Palo Alto (as reported through the California Climate Action Register (CCAR)) and the Palo Alto community (as reported under the ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability reporting protocol). In addition, it summarizes the impact of the project on global greenhouse gas emissions, which can be different from the reportable emissions. The source for the quantity of emissions associated with the various project alternatives is a comprehensive greenhouse gas analysis done by Ascent Environmental titled "Energy/Compost Feasibility Study, Greenhouse Gas Projections," May 27, 2011. Alternative Municipal or City emissions represent the carbon emitted by City operations. The City has tracked its emissions to-date by reporting voluntarily through the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR). When this analysis shows the impact of anaerobic digestion on City emissions the numbers are based on the CCAR reporting protocols. Among other things these protocols require the City to include emissions from waste processing facilities run by the City, regardless of where the waste comes from. It requires the City to exclude operations run by a contractor (such as waste hauling, in the case of Palo Alto). If the anaerobic digester were operated by a private company, its emissions would not be included in a CCAR report. They would, however, be included in community emissions reporting, or in a separate comprehensive analysis of the global impact of the project. It should be noted that the City is migrating its reporting to The Climate Registry (TCR), an organization that tracks emissions over a wider geographic area. TCR reporting protocols are very similar to CCAR protocols. Community emissions represent the carbon emitted by the community, including emissions from community power consumption, vehicle use, and the emissions associated with waste generated by the community. The community's 2005 emissions were assessed in the Climate Protection Plan and are considered a baseline against which to measure progress. This baseline has been revised since 2005, and there may be future revisions. This analysis uses the most recent published revised baseline. The "'ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability" protocols are a commonly used protocol for assessing community emissions, and this analysis conforms to those protocols. There can be some overlap between community and municipal emissions. For example, if the City operates a waste handling operation that handles the community's waste, it would be counted in both municipal and community emissions. The community emissions would only include the emissions generated by the community's share of the waste. Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 1 of 45 Jon Abendschein Resource Planner Utilities Department Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 Global Emissions Savings (Anthropogenic) (12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)- 1a 1b 1c 1d 2 2a 3 (Base Case) 3a Al t e r n a t i v e Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr) Global Anthropogenic Emissions Savings by Source (12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)- 1a 1b 1c 1d 2 2a 3 (Base Case) 3a Al t e r n a t i v e Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr) Replacing biosolids incineration with digestion Generating green power Other Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 2 of 45 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 Change in Reported City Govt. Emissions (Anthropogenic)* (12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)-2,000 1a - Public 1a - Private 1b - Public 1b - Private 1c - Public 1c - Private 1d - Public 1d - Private 2 2a 3 3a Al t e r n a t i v e Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr) City Direct Emissions (Scope 1)City Indirect Emissions (Scope 2) *Some emissions sources are included in both the community and local government inventories, meaning the sum of the local and community emissions for an alternative may be greater than its actual global savings Reduction in Reportable GHG Emissions by Source - City* (12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)-2,000 1a - Public 1a - Private 1b - Public 1b - Private 1c - Public 1c - Private 1d - Public 1d - Private 2 2a 3 3a Al t e r n a t i v e Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr) Replacing Biosolids Incineration with A/D Generating Green Power Other *Some emissions sources are included in both the community and local government inventories, meaning the sum of the local and community emissions for an alternative may be greater than its actual global savings Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 3 of 45 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 Change in Reported Community Emissions (Anthropogenic)* (12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)-2,000 1a 1b 1c 1d 2 2a 3 (Base Case) 3a Al t e r n a t i v e Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr) Community Direct Emissions (Scope 1)Community Indirect Emissions (Scope 2) Community: Other Emissions (Scope 3) *Some emissions sources are included in both the community and local government inventories, meaning the sum of the local and community emissions for an alternative may be greater than its actual global savings Reduction in Reportable GHG Emissions by Source - Community* (12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)-2,000 1a 1b 1c 1d 2 2a 3 (Base Case) 3a Al t e r n a t i v e Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr) Replacing biosolids incineration with digestion Generating green power Other *Some emissions sources are included in both the community and local government inventories, meaning the sum of the local and community emissions for an alternative may be greater than its actual global savings Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 4 of 45 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 Reduction in Reportable GHG Emissions - City (% of 2005 Baseline)* -5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 1a - Public 1a - Private 1b - Public 1b - Private 1c - Public 1c - Private 1d - Public 1d - Private 2 2a 3 3a Al t e r n a t i v e Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr) *Based on the revised baseline presented in CMR 194:10, April 19, 2010. This baseline is subject to future revisions based on changing reporting protocols. Reduction in Reportable GHG Emissions - Community (% of 2005 Baseline)* -0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% 1a 1b 1c 1d 2 2a 3 (Base Case) 3a Al t e r n a t i v e Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr) *Based on the revised baseline presented in CMR 194:10, April 19, 2010. This baseline is subject to future revisions based on changing reporting protocols. Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 5 of 45 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 Impact on Climate Inventories (MT CO2-e / yr) Alternative Yard Food Biosolids Dry AD Ownership Wet AD Ownership City Direct Emissions (Scope 1) City Indirect Emissions (Scope 2) Community Direct Emissions (Scope 1) Community Indirect Emissions (Scope 2) Community: Other Emissions (Scope 3) Not reported: Construction Emissions & Green Power From SJ Digester (Alt. 2/2a) Global* 1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A 435 961 1,676 (4,946) - 27 (3,450) 1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A 1 (180) 1,676 (4,946) - 27 (3,450) 1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 434 961 1,631 (4,946) 436 39 (3,047) 1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 274 812 1,631 (4,946) 436 39 (3,047) 1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 434 935 1,604 (4,946) 436 39 (3,074) 1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 274 785 1,604 (4,946) 436 39 (3,074) 1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A 4,674 1,393 6,227 (2,402) 184 21 3,930 1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 4,515 1,244 6,227 (2,402) 184 21 3,930 2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 4,515 1,344 5,859 - 787 (1,001) 5,645 2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 274 885 1,266 (2,545) 1,000 (983) (1,368) 3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A 4,515 1,344 5,859 - 751 - 6,610 3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public 274 885 1,266 (2,545) 980 17 (388) Alternative Yard Food Biosolids Dry AD Ownership Wet AD Ownership Other Biogenic Emissions Global* 1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A - 17,279 1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A - 17,279 1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public - 17,279 1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public - 17,279 1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public - 17,279 1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public - 17,279 1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A - 19,791 1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A - 19,791 2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2,313 20,300 2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 2,313 17,797 3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A - 18,716 3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public - 16,205 Alternative Yard Food Biosolids Dry AD Ownership Wet AD Ownership Other Global* 1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A 27 13,829 1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A 27 13,829 1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 39 14,232 1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 39 14,232 1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 39 14,206 1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 39 14,206 1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A 21 23,721 1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 21 23,721 2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 1,313 25,945 2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1,330 16,429 3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A -25,326 3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public 17 15,817 *The sum of the community, local government, and "other" emissions categories does not match the "Global" category due to the fact that certain waste-handling emissions are counted in both the City and Community emissions categories TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO PROCESSING OF YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Total Emissions Total Emissions Total Emissions 2,203 - 2,203 ANTHROPOGENIC ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO PROCESSING OF YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS BIOGENIC ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO PROCESSING OF YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Community Biogenic Emissions City Biogenic Emissions 18 2,203 18 14,008 11,823 11,823 18 11,823 18 15,077 17,279 15,077 17,261 15,077 17,261 5,783 7,968 6,163 15,466 6,893 16,187 3,598 11,806 (179) 14,009 City Community 3,598 12,197 1,104 14,382 3,571 12,170 1,078 14,355 20,075 9,793 17,582 11,977 17,682 12,810 1,178 15,187 17,682 13,503 1,178 15,887 Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 6 of 45 Jon Abendschein Resource Planner Utilities Department Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 Impact on Climate Inventories (MT CO2-e / yr) Alternative Yard Food Biosolids Dry AD Ownership Wet AD Ownership 1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A 1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A 1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A 1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A 3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public Alternative Yard Food Biosolids Dry AD Ownership Wet AD Ownership 1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A 1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A 1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A 1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A 3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public Alternative Yard Food Biosolids Dry AD Ownership Wet AD Ownership 1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A 1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A 1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A 1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A 3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public *The sum of the community, local government, and "other" emissions categories does not match the "Global" category due to the fact that certain waste-handling emissions are counted in both the City and Community emissions categories TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO PROCESSING OF YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS ANTHROPOGENIC ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO PROCESSING OF YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS BIOGENIC ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO PROCESSING OF YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS City Direct Emissions (Scope 1) City Indirect Emissions (Scope 2) Community Direct Emissions (Scope 1) Community Indirect Emissions (Scope 2) Community: Other Emissions (Scope 3) Not reported: Construction Emissions & Green Power From SJ Digester (Alt. 2/2a) Global* (4,081) (383) (4,183) (4,946) (751)27 (10,060) (4,514) (1,524) (4,183) (4,946) (751)27 (10,060) (4,082) (383) (4,228) (4,946) (315)39 (9,657) (4,241) (532) (4,228) (4,946) (315)39 (9,657) (4,082) (409) (4,255) (4,946) (315)39 (9,684) (4,241) (559) (4,255) (4,946) (315)39 (9,684) 159 49 368 (2,402) (567)21 (2,680) - (100) 368 (2,402) (567)21 (2,680) ----36 (1,001)(965) (4,241) (459) (4,593) (2,545)249 (983)(7,978) --- - - - - (4,241) (459) (4,593) (2,545)229 17 (6,998) Other Biogenic Emissions Global* -(1,437) -(1,437) -(1,437) -(1,437) -(1,437) -(1,437) -1,074 -1,074 2,313 1,583 2,313 (919) -- -(2,512) Other Global* 27 (11,497) 27 (11,497) 39 (11,094) 39 (11,094) 39 (11,121) 39 (11,121) 21 (1,605) 21 (1,605) 1,313 619 1,330 (8,897) -- 17 (9,510) Change in Emissions Change in Emissions Change in Emissions City Biogenic Emissions (9,620) (11,805) - (11,805) Community Biogenic Emissions (9,620)8,183 (11,823)10,386 8,183 (11,805)10,368 (9,620)8,183 10,368 2,185 (1,110) -1,074 (730) (11,805)8,573 -- 9,293 City Community (14,084)3,237 (17,861)5,440 (14,085)3,237 (16,578)5,422 (14,111)3,237 (16,605)5,422 2,393 (3,512) (100)(1,327) -(730) (16,504)6,749 (16,504)6,028 -- Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 7 of 45 Jon Abendschein Resource Planner Utilities Department Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 INDIRECT (SCOPE 2) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from Digester Alternative 1a - Public DAD Ownership Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - - RWQCP 1 - - - 26 - - - - Solid Waste Facilities 136 - - 298 1,141 - - 1,926 277 Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - - Alternative 1a - Private DAD Ownership Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - - RWQCP 1 - - - 26 - - - - Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - - Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - - Alternative 1b - Public DAD Ownership Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - - RWQCP - - - 274 1,018 - - - 18 Solid Waste Facilities 136 - - 24 150 - - 1,926 259 Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - - Alternative 1b - Private DAD Ownership Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - - RWQCP - - - 274 1,018 - - - 18 Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - - Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - - DIRECT EMISSIONS (SCOPE 1) OPTIONAL EMISSIONS (BIOGENIC) MUNICIPAL EMISSIONS (BASED ON CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION REGISTRY CATEGORIES) Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 8 of 45 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 INDIRECT (SCOPE 2) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from Digester DIRECT EMISSIONS (SCOPE 1) OPTIONAL EMISSIONS (BIOGENIC) MUNICIPAL EMISSIONS (BASED ON CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION REGISTRY CATEGORIES) Alternative 1c - Public DAD Ownership Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - - RWQCP - - - 274 991 - - - 18 Solid Waste Facilities 136 - - 24 150 - - 1,926 259 Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - - Alternative 1c - Private DAD Ownership Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - - RWQCP - - - 274 991 - - - 18 Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - - Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - - Alternative 1d - Public DAD Ownership Buildings/Facilities - - - - (22) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (67) - - - - RWQCP - 4,515 - - 1,344 9,207 2,616 - - Solid Waste Facilities 136 - - 24 150 - - 1,926 259 Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (8) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (3) - - - - Alternative 1d - Private DAD Ownership Buildings/Facilities - - - - (22) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (67) - - - - RWQCP - 4,515 - - 1,344 9,207 2,616 - - Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - - Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (8) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (3) - - - - Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 9 of 45 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 INDIRECT (SCOPE 2) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from Digester DIRECT EMISSIONS (SCOPE 1) OPTIONAL EMISSIONS (BIOGENIC) MUNICIPAL EMISSIONS (BASED ON CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION REGISTRY CATEGORIES) Alternative 2 Buildings/Facilities - - - - - - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - - - - - - RWQCP - 4,515 - - 1,344 9,207 2,616 - - Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - - Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - - - - - - Water Delivery - - - - - - - - - Alternative 2a Buildings/Facilities - - - - (23) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (71) - - - - RWQCP - - - 274 991 - - - 18 Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - - Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (8) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (3) - - - - Alternative 3 Buildings/Facilities - - - - - - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - - - - - - RWQCP - 4,515 - - 1,344 9,207 2,616 - - Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - - Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - - - - - - Water Delivery - - - - - - - - - Alternative 3a Buildings/Facilities - - - - (23) - - - - Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (71) - - - - RWQCP - - - 274 991 - - - 18 Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - - Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (8) - - - - Water Delivery - - - - (3) - - - - Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 10 of 45 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 INDIRECT (SCOPE 2) OTHER (SCOPE 3) Food/Yard Waste Disposal, In-town, City-owned Food/Yard Waste Disposal, In-town, Contractor Biosolids Disposal, In-town, City-owned Biosolids Disposal, In-town, Contractor Reduction in Emissions from Community Power Use Food/Yard Waste Disposal, Out of town, Contractor Alternative 1a - Public DAD Ownership 1,574 74 28 (4,946)- Alternative 1a - Private DAD Ownership -1,648 28 (4,946)- Alternative 1b - Public DAD Ownership 309 30 1,292 (4,946)436 Alternative 1b - Private DAD Ownership -338 1,292 (4,946)436 Alternative 1c - Public DAD Ownership 309 30 1,266 (4,946)436 Alternative 1c - Private DAD Ownership -338 1,266 (4,946)436 Alternative 1d - Public DAD Ownership 309 59 5,859 (2,402)184 Alternative 1d - Private DAD Ownership -368 5,859 (2,402)184 Alternative 2 --5,859 -787 Alternative 2a --1,266 (2,545) 1,000 Alternative 3 --5,859 -751 Alternative 3a --1,266 (2,545)980 Alternative 1a only. Included in "Food/Yard Waste Disposal, In-town, Contractor" and "In-town, City-owned" column DIRECT EMISSIONS (SCOPE 1) COMMUNITY EMISSIONS (BASED ON ICLEI PROTOCOL) Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 11 of 45 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 Alternative 1a - Public DAD Ownership Alternative 1a - Private DAD Ownership Alternative 1b - Public DAD Ownership Alternative 1b - Private DAD Ownership Alternative 1c - Public DAD Ownership Alternative 1c - Private DAD Ownership Alternative 1d - Public DAD Ownership Alternative 1d - Private DAD Ownership Alternative 2 Alternative 2a Alternative 3 Alternative 3a Waste Disposal, Contractor, In-town Waste Disposal, Contractor, Out of town Waste Disposal, City-owned Biosolids Disposal, City-owned Biogenic Emissions Associated with Green Power 3,166 - 2,203 - 11,910 5,369 - - - 11,910 - 3,166 2,185 18 11,910 2,185 3,166 - 18 11,910 - 3,166 2,185 18 11,910 2,185 3,166 - 18 11,910 - - 2,185 11,823 5,783 2,185 - - 11,823 5,783 - 6,163 - 11,823 - - 9,339 - 18 6,127 - 6,893 - 11,823 - - 10,059 - 18 6,127 BIOGENIC EMISSIONS (NOT REPORTED) COMMUNITY EMISSIONS (BASED ON ICLEI PROTOCOL) Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 12 of 45 Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions City of Palo Alto 5/31/2011 Replacing Biosolids Incineration with A/D Generating Green Power Other Replacing Biosolids Incineration with A/D Generating Green Power Other Replacing Biosolids Incineration with A/D Generating Green Power Other Alternative 1a - Public DAD Ownership*(5,126) (206)869 (5,832) (4,946) 897 (5,832) (4,946) 718 Alternative 1a - Private DAD Ownership*(5,832) (206)-(5,832) (4,946) 897 (5,832) (4,946) 718 Alternative 1b - Public DAD Ownership (4,567) (206)309 (4,567) (4,946)24 (4,567) (4,946) (144) Alternative 1b - Private DAD Ownership (4,567) (206)-(4,567) (4,946)24 (4,567) (4,946) (144) Alternative 1c - Public DAD Ownership (4,593) (206)309 (4,593) (4,946)24 (4,593) (4,946) (144) Alternative 1c - Private DAD Ownership (4,593) (206)-(4,593) (4,946)24 (4,593) (4,946) (144) Alternative 1d - Public DAD Ownership -(100)309 -(2,402) (199)-(2,402) (278) Alternative 1d - Private DAD Ownership -(100)--(2,402) (199)-(2,402) (278) Alternative 2 ----36 -(1,001)36 Alternative 2a (4,593) (106)-(4,593) (2,545) 249 (4,593) (3,545) 161 Alternative 3 --------- Alternative 3a (4,593) (106)-(4,593) (2,545) 229 (4,593) (2,545) 140 ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS BY SOURCE *For Alternative 1a, 44.8% of the dry anaerobic digester emissions are allocated to biosolids. The allocation is based on tons of material going into the dry anaerobic digester over the life of the project GLOBALCOMMUNITYCITY Data Source: Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas Projections Ascent Environmental 5/27/2011 Page 13 of 45 INDIRECT EMISSIONS CALCULATION Alt 1a Alt 1b Alt 1c Alt 1d Alt 2 Alt 2a Alt 3a Emissions rate for unspecified power (TCR) MT CO2-e/kWh 0.0003101 0.0003101 0.0003101 0.0003101 0.0003101 0.0003101 0.0003101 Emissions rate for unspecified power (CPP) MT CO2-e/kWh 0.0004043 0.0004043 0.0004043 0.0004043 0.0004043 0.0004043 0.0004043 Unspecified CPAU power replaced by A/D power kWh 12,745,063 12,745,063 12,745,063 6,188,490 6,556,573 6,556,573 Other power replaced by A/D power kWh 2,475,396 2,475,396 Total emissions saved (TCR)MT CO2-e (3,953) (3,953) (3,953) (1,919) (2,033) (2,033) Total emissions saved (CPP)MT CO2-e (5,152) (5,152) (5,152) (2,502) (2,651) (2,651) Biogenic emissions for A/D power (CPAU) MT CO2-e 11,910 11,910 11,910 5,783 6,127 6,127 Biogenic emissions for A/D power (Outside) MT CO2-e 2,313 2,313 - Wholesale Power Purchases (CY 2015)MWh 1,004,019 1,004,019 1,004,019 1,004,019 1,004,019 1,004,019 Emissions savings rate (TCR)MT CO2-e/MWh (0.0039) (0.0039) (0.0039) (0.0019) (0.0020) (0.0020) Emissions savings rate (CPP)MT CO2-e/MWh (0.0051) (0.0051) (0.0051) (0.0025) (0.0026) (0.0026) Additional biogenic emissions MT CO2-e/MWh 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0058 0.0061 0.0061 Emissions savings not included in TCR or CPP MT CO2-e 1,001 1,001 Emissions rate for unspecified power (TCR) calculation: CO2 CH4 N2O Annual total output emissions rates lb/MWh 681 0.0283 0.0062 2010 EPA eGrid emissions rate (CAMX) Global warming potential lbCO2-e / lb 1 21 310 Emissions rate lb CO2-e/MWh 681 0.5941 1.9313 Emissions rate MT CO2-e/MWh 0.3090 0.0003 0.0009 Emissions rate for unspecified power (TCR) MT CO2-e/kWh 0.0003101 Emissions rate for unspecified power (CPP) calculation: Rate used by CPAU for avoided emissions lb/MWh 891 Emissions rate for unspecified power (CPP) MT CO2-e/kWh 0.0004043 REDUCTION IN EMISSIONS FOR ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION Municipal Emissions (TCR) Alt 1a Alt 1b Alt 1c Alt 1d Alt 2a Alt 3a Emissions savings rate (TCR) MT CO2-e/MWh (0.003937) (0.003937) (0.003937) (0.001912) (0.002025) (0.002025) Reported 2009 Savings: Consumption Alt 1a Alt 1b Alt 1c Alt 1d Alt 2a Alt 3a kWh MT CO2-e MT CO2-e MT CO2-e MT CO2-e MT CO2-e MT CO2-e Buildings/Facilities (Reported CY2009)11,555,596 (45) (45) (45) (22) (23) (23) Process/Fugitive Emissions (Reported CY2009)35,201,985 (139) (139) (139) (67) (71) (71) Street Lights / Traffic Signals (Reported CY2009)4,098,015 (16) (16) (16) (8) (8) (8) Water Delivery (Reported CY2009)1,483,049 (6) (6) (6) (3) (3) (3) Community Emissions (CPP) Savings: Alt 1a Alt 1b Alt 1c Alt 1d Alt 2a Alt 3a MT CO2-e MT CO2-e MT CO2-e MT CO2-e MT CO2-e MT CO2-e Community emissions (4,946) (4,946) (4,946) (2,402) (2,545) (2,545) REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Fugitive CO2 from Digester Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from digester Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 26 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck 1 By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 136 Digester power consumption 1,141 Fugitive emissions (CO2)277 Fugitive emissions (CH4)298 Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 1,926 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 1A (PUBLIC DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 1A (PUBLIC DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Contractor, Anthropogenic, In‐ town Contractor, Biogenic, In‐town Contractor, Anthropogenic, Out of town Contractor, Biogenic, Out of town Construction 27 30 3,166 36 8 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Fugitive CO2 from Digester Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from digester Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 26 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck 1 By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 1A (PRIVATE DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 1A (PRIVATE DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Contractor, Anthropogenic, In town Contractor, Biogenic, In town Contractor, Anthropogenic, Out of town Contractor, Biogenic, Out of town Construction 27 30 136 1,141 277 298 1,926 3,166 36 8 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Fugitive CO2 from Digester Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from digester Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump 27 Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 136 Digester power consumption 150 Fugitive emissions (CO2)259 Fugitive emissions (CH4)24 Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 0 Digester power consumption 991.3 Fugitive emissions (CO2)18 Fugitive emissions (CH4)274 Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 1,926 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 1B (PUBLIC DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 1B (PUBLIC DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Contractor, Anthropogenic, In town Contractor, Biogenic, In town Contractor, Anthropogenic, Out of town Contractor, Biogenic, Out of town Construction 21 17 30 392 3,166 36 8 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Fugitive CO2 from Digester Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from digester Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump 27 Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 0 Digester power consumption 991.3 Fugitive emissions (CO2)18 Fugitive emissions (CH4)274 Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 1B (PRIVATE DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 1B (PRIVATE DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Contractor, Anthropogenic, In town Contractor, Biogenic, In town Contractor, Anthropogenic, Out of town Contractor, Biogenic, Out of town Construction 21 17 30 136 150 259 24 1,926 392 3,166 36 8 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Fugitive CO2 from Digester Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from digester Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 136 Digester power consumption 150 Fugitive emissions (CO2)259 Fugitive emissions (CH4)24 Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 0 Digester power consumption 991.3 Fugitive emissions (CO2)18 Fugitive emissions (CH4)274 Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 1,926 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 1C (PUBLIC DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 1C (PUBLIC DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Contractor, Anthropogenic, In town Contractor, Biogenic, In town Contractor, Anthropogenic, Out of town Contractor, Biogenic, Out of town Construction 21 17 30 392 3,166 36 8 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Fugitive CO2 from Digester Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from digester Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 0 Digester power consumption 991.3 Fugitive emissions (CO2)18 Fugitive emissions (CH4)274 Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 1C (PRIVATE DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 1C (PRIVATE DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Contractor, Anthropogenic, In town Contractor, Biogenic, In town Contractor, Anthropogenic, Out of town Contractor, Biogenic, Out of town Construction 21 17 30 136 150 259 24 1,926 392 3,166 36 8 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Fugitive CO2 from Digester Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from digester Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 26 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 136 Digester power consumption 150 Fugitive emissions (CO2)259 Fugitive emissions (CH4)24 Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 1,926 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas 2,732 Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)2,616 Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)1,783 Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)9,207 Incinerator / ash collection power consumption 1,318 Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 1D (PUBLIC DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 1D (PUBLIC DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Contractor, Anthropogenic, In town Contractor, Biogenic, In town Contractor, Anthropogenic, Out of town Contractor, Biogenic, Out of town Construction 21 30 184 21 8 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Fugitive CO2 from Digester Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from digester Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 26 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas 2,732 Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)2,616 Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)1,783 Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)9,207 Incinerator / ash collection power consumption 1,318 Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 1D (PRIVATE DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 1D (PRIVATE DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Contractor, Anthropogenic, In town Contractor, Biogenic, In town Contractor, Anthropogenic, Out of town Contractor, Biogenic, Out of town Construction 21 30 136 150 259 24 1,926 184 21 8 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Fugitive CO2 from Digester Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from digester Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 26 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas 2,732 Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)2,616 Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)1,783 Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)9,207 Incinerator / ash collection power consumption 1,318 Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 2 DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 2 DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Contractor, Anthropogenic, In town Contractor, Biogenic, In town Contractor, Anthropogenic, Out of town Contractor, Biogenic, Out of town Construction 302 54 60 104 9 770 148 184 5,289 27 3 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Fugitive CO2 from Digester Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from digester Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 0 Digester power consumption 991.3 Fugitive emissions (CO2)18 Fugitive emissions (CH4)274 Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 2A DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 2A DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Contractor, Anthropogenic, In town Contractor, Biogenic, In town Contractor, Anthropogenic, Out of town Contractor, Biogenic, Out of town Construction 17 302 54 60 104 9 770 148 5,289 392 3,166 42 3 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Fugitive CO2 from Digester Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from digester Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 26 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas 2,732 Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)2,616 Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)1,783 Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)9,207 Incinerator / ash collection power consumption 1,318 Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 3 DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 3 DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Contractor, Anthropogenic, In town Contractor, Biogenic, In town Contractor, Anthropogenic, Out of town Contractor, Biogenic, Out of town Construction 308 228 184 6,893 27 4 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Fugitive CO2 from Digester Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from digester Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 0 Digester power consumption 991 Fugitive emissions (CO2)18 Fugitive emissions (CH4)274 Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 3A DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) ALTERNATIVE 3A DETAIL CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Contractor, Anthropogenic, In town Contractor, Biogenic, In town Contractor, Anthropogenic, Out of town Contractor, Biogenic, Out of town Construction 17 308 228 6,893 392 3,166 48 4 Yard Trimm Food Scraps Biosolids Yard Trimm Food Scraps Biosolids Yard Trimm Food Scraps Biosolids Yard Trimm Food Scraps Biosolids Summary of Processing Method DAD @ landfill WAD @ landfill WAD @ RWQCP Incineratio n @ RWQCP Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 21,000 14,000 27,000 21,000 14,000 27,000 21,000 14,000 27,000 21,000 14,000 27,000 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 5 NA NA NA Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 NA NA NA NA NA 17 NA NA 17 NA NA NA Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 26 3 NA 26 3 NA 26 3 NA 26 3 NA Dewatering Biosolids 8 NA NA 26 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 26 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump) By truck 9 NA NA 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA By pump 10 NA NA NA NA NA 27 NA NA NA NA NA NA Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 11, 12 0 NA NA NA Digester power consumption 11, 12 991 NA NA NA Fugitive emissions (CO2)11, 12 18 NA NA NA Fugitive emissions (CH4)11, 12 274 NA NA NA Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 13 NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA 0 NA NA NA Digester power consumption 13 NA NA NA NA NA 991 NA NA 991 NA NA NA Fugitive emissions (CO2)13 NA NA NA NA NA 18 NA NA 18 NA NA NA Fugitive emissions (CH4)13 NA NA NA NA NA 274 NA NA 274 NA NA NA Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 NA NA NA NA Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas 17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2,732 Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2,616 Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1,783 Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 9,207 Incinerator / ash collection power consumption 17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1,318 Hauling of ash to landfill 17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 184 Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 NA NA NA NA NA 392 NA NA 392 NA NA NA Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 NA NA 3,166 NA NA 3,166 NA NA 3,166 NA NA NA Hauling Compost to End Users 22 15 15 15 NA Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 NA NA NA NA Subtotal, by feedstock 4,498 4,901 4,874 17,866 INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 6,127 6,127 6,127 NA Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 ‐2,650 ‐2,650 ‐2,650 NA Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 1,225 1,225 1,225 NA Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 1,783 1,783 1,783 NA Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 2,762 2,762 2,762 NA Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 ‐2,762 ‐2,762 ‐2,762 ‐2,607 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) 150 259 2424 136 150 259 24 14,207 23,722 13,578 19,195 19,168 26,545 7,474 21 1,926 1,926 8 21 8 136 150 Alternative 1d Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Applicable Sheet Number(s) Alternative 1a Alternative 1b Alternative 1c 21 259 6,072 2,607 ‐2,607 ‐2,501 ‐2,607 1,157 5,856 7,448 2,573 20,440 ‐2,501 2,607 1,157 DAD @ landfill 2,573 ‐2,501 21 21 21 1,926 5,783 5,783 2,573 8 21 1,926 2,573 7,071 8 5,783 DAD @ landfillDAD @ landfill 136 150 259 24 136 2,573 2,607 2,342 ‐2,501 13,831 14,234 1,157 2,573 5,783 21 2,342 2,342 2,342 1,157 5,783 2,607 2,607 5,856 1,157 1,157 ‐2,501 2,573 5,783 2,573 5,783 5,783 ‐2,501 5,856 6,072 2,607 ‐2,607 2,607 2,607 2,607 ‐2,607 2,607 6,072 DAD @ landfill 2,342 ‐2,501 1,157 2,342 5,856 ‐2,501 2,342 1,157 2,342 2,607 6,072 ‐2,607 Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids 8 Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump) By truck 9 By pump 10 Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 11, 12 Digester power consumption 11, 12 Fugitive emissions (CO2)11, 12 Fugitive emissions (CH4)11, 12 Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 13 Digester power consumption 13 Fugitive emissions (CO2)13 Fugitive emissions (CH4)13 Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas 17 Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)17 Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)17 Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)17 Incinerator / ash collection power consumption 17 Hauling of ash to landfill 17 Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Applicable Sheet Number(s) Yard Trimm Food Scraps Biosolids Yard Trimm Food Scraps Biosolids Yard Trimm Food Scraps Biosolids Yard Trimm Food Scraps Biosolids Composti ng @ Z‐ Best DAD @ Zanker Incinerati on @ RWQCP Composti ng @ Z‐ Best DAD @ Zanker WAD @ RWQCP Composti ng @ Z‐ Best Composti ng @ Z‐ Best Incinerati on @ RWQCP Composti ng @ Z‐ Best Composti ng @ Z‐ Best WAD @ RWQCP 21,000 14,000 27,000 21,000 14,000 27,000 21,000 14,000 27,000 21,000 14,000 27,000 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 17 NA NA NA NA NA 17 259 43 NA 259 43 NA 259 49 NA 259 49 NA NA NA 26 NA NA NA NA NA 26 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 991 NA NA NA NA NA 991 NA NA NA NA NA 18 NA NA NA NA NA 18 NA NA NA NA NA 274 NA NA NA NA NA 274 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 148 NA NA 148 NA NA 148 80 NA 148 80 NA NA NA 2,732 NA NA NA NA NA 2,732 NA NA NA NA NA 2,616 NA NA NA NA NA 2,616 NA NA NA NA NA 1,783 NA NA NA NA NA 1,783 NA NA NA NA NA 9,207 NA NA NA NA NA 9,207 NA NA NA NA NA 1,318 NA NA NA NA NA 1,318 NA NA NA NA NA 184 NA NA NA NA NA 184 NA NA NA 5,289 NA NA 5,289 NA NA 5,289 1,604 NA 5,289 1,604 NA NA NA NA NA NA 392 NA NA NA NA NA 392 NA NA NA NA NA 3,166 NA NA NA NA NA 3166 22 4 NA 22 4 15 22 4 NA 22 11 15 2 0.2 NA 2 0.2 NA NA NA 17,866 4,874 17,866 4,874 NA 6,127 NA 6,127 NA ‐2,650 NA ‐2,650 NA 1,225 NA 1,225 NA 1,783 NA 1,783 NA 2,762 NA 2,762 NA ‐2,762 NA ‐2,762 7,466 NA NA NA NA 7,466 NA NA 7,466 NA NA NA 15,349 ‐1,043 8,165 Alternative 3a 4 7,466 12,340 NA NA 15,818 NA 8,079 463 937 1,043 11,640 2,313 ‐1,000 16,430 104 9 770 6,766 Alternative 2a 54 60 54 60 104 9 NA 25,32628,811 1,157 937 1,043 1,043 18,828 Alternative 3 770 4 NA 25,326 7,4606,766 2,313 ‐1,000 Alternative 2 25,945 24,633 937 1,157 1,043 NA 463 6,766 NA‐1,043 7,460 NA NA 25,326 NA 2,313 NA NA 1,043 NA 6,766 2,313 7,460 7,460 8,165 NA 937 ‐1,000 8,079 1,043 NA ‐1,000 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL Applicable GHG model Sheet Number(s) Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity CO2 from Sludge Cake Combustion CO2 from Landfill Gas Combustion Fugitive CO2 from Digester Mobile Combustion Stationary Combustion Process Emisions Fugitive Emissions Purchased Electricity Composting Digestate Fugitive CO2 from digester Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 X Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10 By truck X By pump X Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment X Digester power consumption X Fugitive emissions (CO2)X Fugitive emissions (CH4)X Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13 Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment X Digester power consumption X Fugitive emissions (CO2)X Fugitive emissions (CH4)X Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 X Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17 Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas X Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)??? Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)X Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)X Incinerator / ash collection power consumption X Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 Hauling Compost to End Users 22 Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16 Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year) Summary of Processing Method Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year) Feedstock Processing Activities Construction, Amortized Dry Anaerobic Digester Wet Anaerobic Digester Operations Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press) Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump) By truck By pump Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment Digester power consumption Fugitive emissions (CO2) Fugitive emissions (CH4) Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food) Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru) Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O) Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2) Incinerator / ash collection power consumption Hauling of ash to landfill Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility Composting Biosolids Digestate Hauling Compost to End Users Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill Subtotal, by feedstock INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids) Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year) Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year) CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER S Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO Contractor, Anthropogenic, In town Contractor, Biogenic, In town Contractor, Anthropogenic, Out of town Contractor, Biogenic, Out of town OTHER X X X (SOME)X (SOME) X X X X X X (SOME)X (SOME) X (SOME)X (SOME) Replacing biosolids incineration with digestion Generating green power Other 1a (10,060) (5,832) (4,946) 718 1b (9,657) (4,567) (4,946) (144) 1c (9,684) (4,593) (4,946) (144) 1d (2,680) - (2,402) (278) 2 (965) - (1,001) 36 2a (7,978) (4,593) (3,545) 161 3 (Base Ca - - - - 3a (6,998) (4,593) (2,545) 140 Global Emissions Savings (Anthropogenic) Global Anthropogenic Emissions Savings by Source Community Direct Emissions (Scope 1) Community Indirect Emissions (Scope 2) Community: Other Emissions (Scope 3) Replacing biosolids incineration with digestion (4,183) (4,946) (751)(5,832) (4,228) (4,946) (315)(4,567) (4,255) (4,946) (315)(4,593) 368 (2,402) (567)- - - 36 - (4,593) (2,545) 249 (4,593) - - - - (4,593) (2,545) 229 (4,593) Community Anthropogenic EChange in Reported Community Emissions (Anthropogenic) Reduction in Reportable GHG Emissions - Generating green power Other (% of 2005 Baseline)* (4,946) 897 1.3% (4,946) 24 1.3% (4,946) 24 1.3% (2,402) (199) 0.3% - 36 0.0% (2,545) 249 0.9% - - 0.0% (2,545) 229 0.9% Emissions Savings by Source ENERGY/COMPOST FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY SEPTEMBER 2011 Attachment G Introduction p Council and Public comments have been addressed in a new “Final Feasibility Study”. p “Scenarios”have been developed to deal with different assumptions suggested by the Public and Council Members. p New data on cost and greenhouse gasses is available. p At the preliminary planning level, none of the four key alternatives should be screened out as infeasible. Council Direction p Hire Consultant/Evaluate Dry Anaerobic Digestion p Prepare applicable level EIR focused on 8- 9 acres of Byxbee Park p Study energy-conversion technologies at Palo Alto Wastewater Plant as part of Facilities Planning p Pursue partnering opportunities for organics within 20 miles of Palo Alto Current Organics Management and Plans p Food Scraps n Commercial: Aerobic Composting near Gilroy (Greenwaste Facility) n Residential: Not yet Source Separated p Yard Trimmings n Current: Palo Alto Aerobic Composting Facility n In 2012: Aerobic Composting near Gilroy (Greenwaste Facility) p Wastewater Solids (“Biosolids”) n Incinerated at Palo Alto Wastewater Plant n Alternatives being studied via Long Range Facilities Planning Process and Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Managing Palo Alto’s Source Separated Organics (Food, Yard and Wastewater Solids) Feasibility Study Schedule p 1/26/11 –Preliminary Analysis Released p Public Meetings and Comment Period p 3/21/11 –Council Study Session p 4/11/11 –Council Direction p Early June –Draft Feasibility Study p 6/27/11 –Council Direction p September –Final Feasibility Study Alternatives 1.Palo Alto a)Dry Anaerobic Digestion (all three materials) c)Dry Anaerobic Digestion (food and yard) Wet Anaerobic Digestion for Biosolids at RWQCP 2.San Jose Food in Dry Anaerobic Digestion in San Jose Yard in Aerobic Composting in Gilroy Biosolids in Wet Anaerobic Digestion at RWQCP 3.Gilroy Food and Yard in Aerobic Composting in Gilroy Biosolids in Wet Anaerobic Digestion at RWQCP Scenarios/Assumptions 0%15%15%Export Contingency $0/Ton$20/Ton$20/TonCO2Adder $908K/Yr$108K/Yr$1/YrRent 0%15%15%Grant Funding Market Rate Market Rate Below Market Financing PrivatePrivatePublicOwnership 32 (Staff)1 Scenarios Assumptions Results (Scenario 2 –Staff) $913a)Gilroy (Partial) $962a)San Jose (Partial) $73 $103 Avg $132 1a)Palo Alto –Dry 1c)Palo Alto –Dry and Wet Net Present Value (Millions of $) Alternatives Cost Conclusions At the preliminary planning level, none of the four preceding alternatives should be screened out as infeasible. Next Steps 1.Vote on Ballot Initiative– Early November 2011 2.Recommendations to Council for Next Steps–December 2011 SUPPORTING SLIDES Greenhouse Gas Results 15,8003a)Gilroy (Partial) 16,4002a)San Jose (Partial) 13,800 14,200 1a)Palo Alto –Dry 1c)Palo Alto –Dry and Wet Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Tons of CO2 Equivalents/Yr) Alternatives Greenhouse Gas/Climate Action Plan Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (CAP) 1.2 –1.4%15%5% % of Community CO2 Emissions 15%-20% % of City Operations CO2 Emissions PA Anaerobic Digestion Projected Reduction 2020 CAP Goal 2012 CAP Goal (% Reduction from 2005 Base) Energy Conversion Technologies p Anaerobic Digestion p Gasification p Pyrolysis p Incineration (Fluidized Bed replacing Multiple Hearth) Regional Partnering (within 20 miles) p Greenwaste (ZWED) [NEW] n Dry Anaerobic Digestion/North San Jose p Food Scraps n City of San Jose/Harvest Power [NEW] p Gasification/North San Jose p Wastewater Solids/Wood n Sunnyvale-Palo Alto-MV/SMaRT Station [No Plans for Conversion Technologies at this time.] September 2011 1784-6 Energy/Compost Facility Final Feasibility Study Alternative 1: In-City Options at Landfill Site Food Scraps Yard Trimmings Biosolids Case 1a Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD (Separate Cell) Case 1b Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD at Landfill Case 1c Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD at RWQCP Case 1d Dry AD Dry AD Continue Incineration at RWQCP Alternative 2: Export Case 2 Proposed San Jose AD (Zanker) Gilroy Compost (ZBEST) Continue Incineration at RWQCP Case 2a Proposed San Jose AD (Zanker) Gilroy Compost (ZBEST) Wet AD at RWQCP Alternative 3: Export Case 3 Gilroy Compost (ZBEST) Gilroy Compost (ZBEST) Continue Incineration at RWQCP Case 3a Gilroy Compost (ZBEST) Gilroy Compost (ZBEST) Wet AD at RWQCP 19 Study Scenarios Input Assumption Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Ownership Public Private Private Financing Public Private Private Financing Rate Below Market Market Rate Market Rate Grants 15%15%0% Site Rent (Annual)$1 $108,000 $908,000 Carbon Adder Cost Yes Yes No Contingency on Export Options 15%15%0% 20 Food Scraps Yard Trimmings Biosolids Total First year: 2015 14,000 21,000 27,000 62,000 Last Year: 2034 19,000 21,000 34,000 74,000 21 Alternative 1: In-City Options at Landfill Site MT CO2-e/Year Case 1a (All Dry AD –Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Biosolids)13,831 Case 1b (Dry AD –Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings; Wet AD Biosolids at Landfill)14,234 Case 1c (Dry AD –Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings; Wet AD Biosolids at RWQCP)14,207 Case 1d (Dry AD –Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings; Continue Incinerate Biosolids)21,106 Alternative 2: Export MT CO2-e/Year Alternative 2 (Export Food Scraps to San Jose, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy ; Continue Incinerate Biosolids)23,329 Alternative 2a (Export Food Scraps to San Jose, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Wet AD Biosolids at RWQCP)16,430 Alternative 3: Export MT CO2-e/Year Alternative 3 (Export Food Scraps and Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Continue Incinerate Biosolids)22,716 Alternative 3a (Export Food Scraps and Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Wet AD Biosolids at RWQCP)15,818 22 Summary of Economic Analyses: Lower Cost AD Technology Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 NPV Total Costs over 20 Years Case 1a:Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings & Biosolids Dry AD in separate cells @ Palo Alto Landfill (PALF) Uncertainty remains regarding Case 1a costs, limited data $59,861,995 $73,349,155 $96,226,397 Case 1b:Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD, Biosolids Wet AD –all @ PALF $112,541,470 $133,646,188 $170,950,938 Case 1c:Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF, Biosolids Wet AD @ RWQCP $111,359,855 $132,185,841 $169,007,164 Case 1d: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF, Biosolids Incinerated @ RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator on line in 2031 $137,096,645 $147,010,013 $154,505,010 Alternatives 2 & 3 (Export/Incineration)NPV Total Costs over 20 Years Case 2:Food Scraps to San Jose AD Facility, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy Composting Facility (via SMaRT), Biosolids Incinerated at RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2031 $139,527,960 $139,527,960 $116,714,351 Case 3:Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer, Yard Trimmings to SMaRT –then both to Gilroy Composting Facility, Biosolids incinerated at RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2031 $134,349,833 $134,349,833 $112,511,650 Alternatives 2a & 3a (Export/Wet AD)NPV Total Costs over 20 Years Case 2a:Food Scraps to San Jose AD Facility, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy Composting Facility (via SMaRT), Biosolids processed via Wet AD @ RWQCP $94,316,201 $96,182,258 $81,747,002 Case 3a:Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer, Yard Trimmings to SMaRT –then both to Gilroy Composting Facility, Biosolids processed via Wet AD @ RWQCP $89,448,650 $91,314,706 $77,544,302 23 Summary of Economic Analyses: Higher Cost AD Technology Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 NPV Total Costs over 20 Years Case 1a:Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings & Biosolids Dry AD in separate cells @ PALF $202,489,030 $236,505,592 $294,370,715 Case 1b:Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD, Biosolids Wet AD –all @ PALF $179,744,473 $211,656,529 $268,294,477 Case 1c:Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF, Biosolids Wet AD @ RWQCP $178,943,797 $210,683,346 $267,027,894 Case 1d: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF, Biosolids Incinerated @ RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator on line in 2031 $199,061,822 $221,571,397 $249,502,488 Alternatives 2 & 3 (Export/Incineration)NPV Total Costs over 20 Years Case 2:Food Scraps to San Jose AD Facility, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy Composting Facility (via SMaRT), Biosolids Incinerated at RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2031 $139,527,960 $139,527,960 $116,714,351 Case 3:Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer, Yard Trimmings to SMaRT –then both to Gilroy Composting Facility, Biosolids incinerated at RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2031 $134,349,833 $134,349,833 $112,511,650 Alternatives 2a & 3a (Export/Wet AD)NPV Total Costs over 20 Years Case 2a:Food Scraps to San Jose AD Facility, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy Composting Facility (via SMaRT), Biosolids processed via Wet AD @ RWQCP $94,316,201 $96,182,258 $81,747,002 Case 3a:Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer, Yard Trimmings to SMaRT –then both to Gilroy Composting Facility, Biosolids processed via Wet AD @ RWQCP $89,448,650 $91,314,706 $77,544,302 24 Summary Findings Economic Analyses —Scenario 1: Case 1a Lower Cost AD Technology is less costly than export options, Cases 1b and 1c are less costly than exportwith incineration, but, although somewhat higher in cost, competitive with export options with Wet AD —Scenario 2: Case 1a Lower Cost AD Technology is less costly than export options, Cases 1b and 1c are approximately same cost as export with incineration, more costly than export with wet AD —Scenario 3: Case 1a Lower Cost AD Technology is competitive but more costly than export with Wet AD of biosolids, but less costly than export with incineration —For all Scenarios, Higher Cost AD Technology is more costly than export cases. —Continued Incineration of Biosolids with existing incineration, then replacing it with a fluid bed incinerator in 2030, is more costly than Dry or Wet AD of biosolids.25 Project Delivery Options —DBOO(T) –Private ownership and financing; private design, construction, operation —DBO –Public ownership and financing; private design, construction, operation —DBB –Public ownership and financing; City responsible for design, construction, operation 26 Next Steps Should Site become available and City decides to further consider AD, other technologies: —Complete CEQA checklist —Obtain Firm Technical and Price Proposals for City and Export Options (performance-based RFP process; does not commit City) —Review Proposals, Compare Options, Determine Course of Action 27 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and Council of the City of Palo Alto II SEP 28 AM II: 34 From: Tom Jordan, 474 Churchill Ave, Palo Alto CA 9430~ Re: 10/3/11 Council Agenda -Transmittal ofthe Final Report on the Energy/Compost Feasibility Study etc. --Item_ On 10/3 the only business item is to "receive" the Final Report, but the vitally important task that night is to question ARI and the Department of Public Works ("DPW") as to whether the data the Report provides concerning Case la is reliable. This is vitally important because it is the Case la data that is being used to sell this project. If the Case la data is not reliable, the entire project should be abandoned, and the upgrading of the Regional Water Quality Control Plant ("RWQCP") alone should be pursued by the City. There are real savings there, having nothing to do with dry AD. I say that the Case la data in the Report is not reliable-not even close -because (1) Case la assumes that handling wet biosolids from the RWQCP by the dry AD process will achieve 80% to 90% of its economic benefit even though no municipal waste plant in the entire world -not one -uses dry AD to handle such wet material, (2) if no such benchmark plant exists anywhere in the world, how reliable can the Report's data be regarding its cost (Caltrans has built many many bridges, yet the cost of the Bay Bridge is running more than double the Caltrans estimate) and (3) the fact there are hundreds or thousands of municipal waste plants around the world and not one has used the Case la process indicates either that it does not even work (which is what the president of Harvest Power advised you in his letter to th~ City attached to a CMR earlier this year.) or that it is too costly (What else can it indicate? Has PA really come up with the best of all processes that no one else has even tried? How clever we are!). I have no doubt that ARI did its best with the Case la estimates (it is, after all, what it was hired to do) and may now, unwisely, try to claim that data is reliable. Hopefully not, but pride is a powerful -at times too powerful --driver. It is clear that the Case la data cannot be based on eXisting proven data, because none exists, and, therefore, it is built only on assumptions and conjecture. The Report does state on Powerpoint slide 23 "UNCERTAINTY REMAINS REGARDING CASE la COSTS, LIMITED DATA" -an understatement if there ever was one. It is not important if ARI insists that Case la data is reliable. A reasonable mind has enough information now to reach its own conclusion. If the Council majority persists in wasting further time and public money on this, the Market Place, that place of unavoidable truth, will prove them wrong. And what will we do then? And who will pay? City of Palo Alto (ID # 2019) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/3/2011 October 03, 2011 Page 1 of 2 (ID # 2019) Summary Title: Amendment ARI Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Title: Approval of a Amendment No. 1 to Contract C11136602 with Alternative Resources, Inc. in the amount of $17,500 for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of $215,258 for the Energy/Compost Feasibility Study From:City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract amendment (Attachment A) with Alternative Resources Inc., (ARI) in the amount of $17,500 for the Energy/Compost Feasibility Study (Study) for a total contract amount of $215,258. Background On April 5, 2010, Council directed staff to initiate a feasibility study for an Energy/Compost Facility in Palo Alto. Council approved a contract with ARI to conduct the Study (CMR:333:10) on August 2, 2010. Discussion The Draft Feasibility Study for the Energy/Compost Facility was submitted to Council on June 27, 2011 (Staff Report No. 1632) and the Final Study is near completion. While the initial funding ($197,758) was sufficient to complete the Study, all of that funding was used in completing the report with no funds remaining for the consultant to answer questions and concerns about the study. The funds budgeted for this purpose were used earlier in the process to answer concerns and make revisions precipitated by the extraordinary amount of public comment received. In order to answer questions and concerns about the final document, it is anticipated that $17,500 will be needed. If all of this money is not needed, it will not be spent. However, public interest is again increasing as the related ballot initiative to undedicate parkland approaches. It is anticipated that the Final Study will trigger a new wave of public interest, questions and comments. Resource Impact The $17,500 for this amendment is available from existing funds in the FY 2012 October 03, 2011 Page 2 of 2 (ID # 2019) Wastewater Treatment Fund operating budget. The original $197,758 came from three sources: Wastewater Treatment Fund, the Electric Fund Calaveras Reserve, and the Refuse Fund. The Wastewater Treatment Fund is being used for this amendment because the recent questions and concerns have focused on the relationship between the potential Energy/Compost facility and the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Policy Implications There are no policy implications associated with this amendment. Environmental Review A feasibility study is not subject to the environmental review requirements under Section 15262 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Attachments: ·A -Amendment 1 (ARI Contract C11136602)(PDF) ·B -CMR-333-10 ARI Original Contract C11136602 (PDF) Prepared By:Philip L. Bobel, Interim Asst. PW Director, Engineering Services Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Interim Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO . Cll136602 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND Alternative Resources , Inc . This Amendment No .1 to Contract No . Cl1136602 ("Contract") is entered into , by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO , a charter city and a municipal corporation of the State of California ("CITY"), and Alternative Resources, Inc., a corporation in the State of Massachusetts, located at 1732 Main Street, Concord, Massachusetts, 01742 -3837 ("CONTRACTOR"). R Eel TAL S : WHEREAS , the Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of preparation of a f'easibility Study for a Dry Anaerobic Digestion Facility; 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 : SEC'I'lON 1 . Section 4 o f the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows : "Section 4 . NOT TO EXCEED COMPSNSATION . The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit "A", including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed two hundred fifteen thousand two hundred fifty-eight d ollars ($215,258)." SECTION 2 . The following exhibit to the Contract is hereby amended to read as set forth in the attachment to this Amendment , wh ich is incorporated in full by this reference : a . Exhibit "A" entitled "Scope of Services". SECTION 3 . Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract , including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto , shall remain i n full force and effect . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the first above wr itten . 1 110906 sm 010 duly date CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C11136602 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK The project is to prepare a Feasibility Study for a Dry Anaerobic Energy/Compost Facility in the City of Palo alto, California. The facility would recover energy from methane derived from dry anaerobic digestion of food scraps, yard trimmings, and, possibly wastewater biosolids. The chief residual from the processes would be compost. The Feasibility Study would include an economic, greenhouse gas, and environmental impact analysis. An Initial Study (CEQA Checklist) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act will also be prepared. (Further California Environmental Quality Act work may be performed through a Contract Amendment.) Several suboptions will be studied. The costs, impacts, and benefits will be compared to a “no action” alternative and to the alternative of a similar processing facility located outside of Palo Alto, but within 20 miles. The location of the Palo Alto facility would be immediately southeast of the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant on an 8-9 acre site. BACKGROUND The City of Palo Alto currently handles organic residuals in the following ways: 1. Yard trimmings are composted at the Palo Alto landfill site in uncovered windrows; 2. Residential food scraps are disposed of with the garbage and landfilled in South San Jose; 3. Commercial food scraps are increasingly being source separated and composted near Gilroy, CA, with the remainder being landfilled in South San Jose; and 4. Wastewater Biosolids are dewatered and incinerated at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant in Palo Alto. The 8-9 acre site described above is currently on dedicated Parkland. The site would have to be undedicated by a vote of the residents before an Energy/Compost Facility could be constructed. A number of other approvals and permits would also be needed. However, this Scope of Services does not include working on these approval processes. The City already operates its own gas and electric utilities, which are potential users of gas or energy generated by an anaerobic digestion facility. The electric enterprise fund has been directed to procure 33% of its electric supply from renewable sources by 2015. The gas enterprise fund is investigating opportunities to supply some load using biogas. The City also fuels a portion of its vehicle fleet with compressed natural gas, which is another potential use for biogas generated by the facility. PROJECT APPROACH The Consultant will evaluate and compare three basic alternatives: Alternative 1: A new dry anaerobic digestion facility adjacent to the Palo Alto Wastewater Treatment Plant. Alternative 2: A similar Regional Facility adjacent to the San Jose Wastewater Treatment Plant Alternative 3: The current facilities and plans which Palo Alto has arranged for its organics residuals following closure of the Palo Alto Landfill. The City will provide much of the data for the analysis of Alternatives 2 and 3. The majority of the Consultants work will be on Alternative1. There are two sites involved in Alternative 1, the 8-9 acre Landfill site just Southeast of the Wastewater Treatment Plant, and the Wastewater CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C11136602 Treatment Plant itself. Therefore, there will be subalternatives to Alternative 1 as follows: Sub-options to Alternative1: 1a) A new dry anaerobic digestion for yard, food and biosolids on the landfill site (biosolids in separate cells). 1b.) Dry anaerobic digestion for yard, food and wet anaerobic digestion for biosolids on the landfill site. 1c.) Dry anaerobic digestion for yard and food on the landfill site and wet anaerobic digestion for biosolids on the Wastewater Plant site. 1d.) Dry anaerobic digestion for yard and food waste and no methane production from the biosoids. The analysis of all four sub-options of Alternative 1 will assume that a common methane energy recovery facility will be located on the Landfill site. The analysis of all main options and sub- options will include: 1. A financial analysis; 2. A life-cycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions; and 3. An analysis of environmental and other impacts. The analysis of the wastewater anaerobic digestion process in Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 will be performed through a separate, parallel study: The Wastewater Long Range Planning process. The firm selected for that study will provide the evaluation of wet anaerobic digestion to the Consultant. Following submittal of Preliminary Analysis (Task 4), City will consider whether other alternatives should be considered as well. For example, it may become apparent that an alternative of a somewhat larger or smaller site would better accommodate a cost effective option, and be within the intent of the Council April 5, 2010 Directive to staff. CONSULTANT SERVICES TASK 1: Development of Detailed Workplan The Consultant will develop a draft detailed Workplan and attend a kick-off meeting in Palo Alto with City representatives. The draft Workplan will be available for review prior to the meeting. Other goals of the kick-off meeting will be to review the draft Workplan and schedule, to establish the City’s goals, objectives and expectations for the Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Initial Study, and to establish lines of communication. TASK 2: Community Scoping for Feasibility Study and for Environmental Review The Consultant will attend a community meeting arranged by the City to solicit input on the Feasibility Study and Environment Impact Initial Study. In addition to gathering information from the public on the Feasibility Study, a primary purpose of the community scoping meeting will be to identify key community concerns regarding the project’s potential environmental effects. The CEQA environmental review process will be described, as necessary, and the opportunities for the public to participate in the environmental review process will be identified. Following the meeting, City comments will be incorporated into and a final Workplan will be issued. CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C11136602 TASK 3: Preparation of Draft Preliminary Financial and Greenhouse Gas Analysis The Consultant will develop a financial model to evaluate each of the four (4) sub-options of Alternative 1. Using budgetary cost estimates supplemented with additional information such as estimated financing costs, the Consultant will calculate annual costs per ton and the total present value cost over the life cycle for each sub-option. The economic model will be constructed to enable the analysis of alternative project development scenarios (for example, private ownership and operation compared to publically-financed design/build/operate implementation), as well as the impact of potential grant and funding sources. In addition, the economic model will provide for consideration of the potential cost-savings associated with the prevailing tax exempt market should the City own the energy/compost facility. The preliminary financial model will be submitted to the City for review. Key environmental parameters will be considered in preparing the draft preliminary evaluation. The key environmental parameters will be identified through consultation with the City, through the community scoping meeting input, and based on the professional experience of the project team. The key environmental parameters will be presented in a data management system format. The greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis will discuss the current state of the science (e.g., Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s [IPCC] Fourth Assessment Report) along with applicable regulatory framework and relevant guidance (e.g., Assembly Bill [AB] 32, recently adopted CEQA Guideline amendments and Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s [BAAQMD] Air quality Guidance and GHG Thresholds of Significance). Specifically, as required by Senate Bill 97, the CEQA Guidelines were revised on December 30, 2009, to address GHG emissions under CEQA; this analysis will comply with these newly adopted guidelines along with those adopted by BAAQMD on June 2, 2010. The following analysis will be conducted for all alternatives and sub-options. For project-generated construction-related emissions, the Urban Emissions Model (URBEMIS) will be used to estimate increases in GHGs (e.g., heavy-duty construction equipment exhaust). This modeling will be based on BAAQMD-recommended input parameters, project-specific construction data (e.g., size of disturbed ground area, construction phasing schedule), and URBEMIS default settings. URBEMIS, the BAAQMD GHG Model (BGM), and methods from the California air Resources Board (ARB) will be used to estimate direct project-generated operational-related emissions of GHGs for mobile, stationary, and area source types (e.g., vehicle trips associated with facility employees and material collection and delivery). This modeling will be based on BAAQMD- recommended input parameters, project-specific operational data (e.g., type and size of the proposed facility, operational schedule), default settings, and project specific traffic data (e.g., overall trip generation and vehicle miles traveled [VMT]). Other applicable quantification methods, emissions factors, and assumptions protocols from, but not limited to, the Western Climate Initiative, IPCC, California Climate Action Registry’s General Reporting Protocol, and ARB will be used to estimate long-term operational-related indirect source emissions. These types of facilities are not a covered sector under ARB regulation for the mandatory reporting of GHG emissions; however, aspects of the digester offset quantification protocol may apply. CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C11136602 Additionally, though mandatory reporting would not be required or utilization of the digester offset protocol, quantification methods selected for this project will rely on ARB requirements and default emission factors, where applicable to this exact facility type, as stated in the regulation for usability in the future and substantiation of approach for legal defensibility. This analysis will also address the GHG emissions (e.g., lifecycle) from the alternate fates (e.g., composting, land filling, and incinerating) of the wastes by virtue of the collection of these wastes for use with regards to the proposed project. Increases in GHGs will be compared to applicable thresholds and mitigation measures prepared as needed that clearly identify timing, responsibility, and performance standards. A two-tiered approach will be used to assess the project’s potential generation of GHGs and its incremental contribution to the cumulative effect resulting from emission of the GHGs as follows: (1) the potential for project-generated GHG emissions to have a significant impact on the environment and (2) the potential for the project to conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The amount of GHGs determined in this analysis (and associated impacts) will be presented in a data management system. TASK 4: Preparation of Final Preliminary Financial and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Based on the City’s comments from review of the preliminary financial and greenhouse analysis, a final preliminary analysis will be submitted to the City. This will include a working model in Excel format that will allow the City to test a change in clearly identified variables to assess the impact on life-cycle cost and greenhouse gas emissions. TASK 5: Preparation of Draft Feasibility Study and California Environmental Quality Act Checklist The Consultant will assist the City in presenting the preliminary financial analysis to the Community and City Council. In consultation with the City, comments and suggestions received from these presentations will be incorporated into a draft feasibility report which will be prepared to succinctly compile the results of the work performed. The report will include an overview, introduction, waste analysis, conversion technology facility description, and economic analysis. The introduction will include a description of the project planning and history, system elements, and participants. The waste analysis section of the report will include an overview of the existing solid waste management system in the City as well as summarizing available information on waste generation, composition of yard trimmings, food scraps, and biosolids, and waste flow control provisions. Site regulatory and permitting considerations will be included with descriptions of the technologies responding to the request-for-information described in Task 8. The economic analysis section of the report will include a discussion of scope and methods, capital and operation and maintenance costs estimates (including staffing estimates), financing considerations, and life-cycle cost analysis with sensitivities. Following presentation of the Preliminary Analysis to the community and the City Council, the Consultant will prepare a Draft CEQA Initial Study (CEQA Checklist). The Consultant will coordinate with City of Palo Alto staff and the project team members to identify the elements to be included in the Initial Study project description. The project description will focus on the changes anticipated with implementation of the Feasibility Study. Depending upon the alternative approach selected by the City, the key considerations will likely include the odor and CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C11136602 traffic generating potential of the proposed Dry Anaerobic Energy/Compost Facility and its compatibility with Byxbee Park users, biological resources, and the nearby municipal airport. The Environmental Checklist Form will be completed with explanations for each response for the proposed project. The level of analysis and degree of impact will vary depending on the environmental impacts anticipated from the proposed project. An administrative draft Initial Study will be prepared for review by City staff and the project team members. The Initial Study will be revised based on the comments received on the administrative draft documents. The completed document will be presented to the City for public distribution. TASK 6: Preparation of Final Feasibility Study, California Environmental Quality Act Checklist, and Workplan for Completion of California Environmental Quality Act Analysis The Consultant will assist the City in presenting the draft Feasibility Study to the Community and to City Council. Comments and suggestions received from these presentations will be incorporated, in consultation with the City, into a final Feasibility Study. Feedback gathered during the City Council meeting will be used to finalize the Initial Study including any information presented regarding potential environmental effects or suggested mitigation strategies. The administrative draft Initial Study will be revised based on the comments received during the City Council meeting. The completed document will be submitted to the City. TASK 7: Preparation of Workplan for Complete California Environmental Quality Act Analysis Following completion of the Initial Study, the Consultant will confer with the City and the project team regarding the appropriate level of CEQA review for the Feasibility Study (i.e., Program EIR, Project-level EIR, or Focused EIR). Based on the direction provided by the City, the Consultant will prepare a work plan for the preparation of the environmental review document identified by the City as being appropriate for the Feasibility Plan. CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C11136602 TASK 8: Analysis of Energy Generation from Methane Four (4) sub-options for Alternative 1 will be evaluated for anew dry anaerobic facility at the landfill site. These options are in the following matrix: Sub-option Anaerobic Digestion System Yard Trimmings Food Scraps Biosolids Dry X X X (separate cell) 1 a) Wet -- -- -- Dry X X -- 1b) Wet -- -- X Dry X X -- 1c) Wet -- -- X (wastewater treatment plant site) Dry X X -- 1d) Wet -- -- -- The Consultant will prepare a request-for-information (RFI) document for selected technology companies, requesting cost and performance data for each of the sub-options identified above. The Consultant understands that cost and performance data for the wet anaerobic digestion or biosolids will be provided by another firm selected by the City for the facility planning process associated with the wastewater treatment facility (i.e., the Long Range Facilities Plan). The RFI will include an introduction, discussion of general conditions, schedule, submission of information requirements, and qualification information. The RFI approach will enable the Consultant to solicit project-specific information and will enable the responding companies to incorporate their current thinking regarding both technology and business postures in their responses. The Consultant’s database will also be used to compare the cost and performance data received from the technology companies through the RFI process for reasonableness. Adjustments will be made to cost and performance data input to the economic model, as deemed necessary. Based on the response to the RFI and the Consultant’s experience and judgment, the quantity of biogas generated in each of the four (4) sub-options will be estimated. The quantity of landfill gas available from the Palo Alto landfill will be considered in a separate sensitivity analysis and a recommendation made as to whether landfill gas should be incorporated into the sub-options. The methane-rich gas produced from the dry anaerobic digestion process can be used in a variety CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C11136602 of electrical generation equipment including: internal combustion engines, gas turbines, gas turbines in a combined cycle configuration, or fuel cells. The methane-rich gas can also be upgraded for production of compressed natural gas or pipeline quality natural gas. A common methane energy recovery system will be adopted by the Consultant for the analysis of the four (4) sub-options. This selection will be made based on the Consultant’s experience and the responses to the RFI received from technology companies. The Consultant will also investigate grant and funding opportunities that could result in either a lower overall amount of borrowing or a lower cost of capital. These include, among others, Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBS), Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds (QECBs), Tax Credit Bonds, United States Department of Energy (USDOE) grants, and loan guarantees. Additional funding opportunities may be available through various State-administered programs. In addition, the Consultant will analyze the advantages and disadvantages of public and private models for project delivery, considering ownership, risk sharing for performance and cost, financing options and opportunities for grants and low interest loans available on a State and Federal basis for different methods of project delivery. These methods include both public and private models; design-build (DB), design-build-operate (DBO) and design-build-own-operate- transfer (DBOOT). A preliminary site engineering analysis will be conducted for the landfill site including consideration of access, space requirements, rough grading requirements, foundation considerations, and interconnection of utilities. The City will provide the Consultant with a quantity estimate of cubic yards of in-place refuse that will need to be relocated from the site. The City will also provide the Consultant copies of previous geotechnical investigations performed on and adjacent to the landfill site. A conceptual site layout drawing will be prepared indicating the arrangement and location of the facility on the site. The drawing will be compatible with the City’s GIS system. If facility information is available in sufficient detail to depict plan and side views, additional drawings will be prepared depicting a three dimensional view of the facility. TASK 9: Project Management The Consultant will meet with the City monthly to review progress and establish priorities for work to be conducted the following month. It is anticipated that these meetings will be conducted both in person, as needed, and by teleconference. TASK 10: Additional Services Ascent Environmental-GHG Model: Additional runs of the GHG model to accommodate: transport and processing of yard trimmings at the Z-Best compost facility in Gilroy instead of the AD facility in San Jose; eliminating biosolids from consideration thereby anaerobically digesting food scraps and yard trimmings only; and additional model adjustments and runs to account for changes in the assumptions for wet anaerobic digestion of biosolids, production of pipeline quality gas and site preparation. Attendance at an additional meeting with City Council, not anticipated in the original scope. CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C11136602 Alternative Resources Inc.-Additional runs of the Economic Model to address: eliminating biosolids from consideration thereby anaerobically digesting food scraps and yard trimmings only; increasing future costs for continued incineration of bisosolids; applying a contingency for export options for Alternatives 2 and 3; and to include up to two other sensitivity analyses as may result from public review and comment on the draft economic analyses. TASK 11: Response to Public Comments and Inquiries Consultant will answer questions and concerns from Council and the public regarding the Final Feasibility Report. Public interest is again increasing as the related ballot initiative to undedicate parkland approaches. It is anticipated that the Final Report will trigger a new wave of public interest, questions and comments. Further, immediately before and following the ballot initiative, questions from the Council and the public will be raised on next steps following the November 8 vote. Consultant will assist the City in assembling information concerning potential next steps. TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DATE: AUGUST 2, 2010 CMR:333:10 REPORT TYPE: CONSENT SUBJECT: Approval of a Contract with Alternative Resources Inc. in the Total Amount not to Exceed $197,758 for Energy/Compost Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Initial Study RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract (Attachment A) with Alternative Resources Inc., in the total amount of $197,758 for the Energy/Compost Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Initial Study. This amount includes $179,758 for basic services and $18,000 for additional services. BACKGROUND On April 5, 2010 Council directed staff to initiate a feasibility study for dry anaerobic digestion in Palo Alto. The final approved motion consisted of the following points: 1. Direct staff to initiate the process to hire a consultant to conduct a feasibility study and appropriate-level environmental review for a dry anaerobic digestion facility on 8 to 9 acres ofByxbee Park adjacent to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant; 2. Continue the moratorium on commercial waste acceptance at the Palo Alto Landfill; and 3. Provide an interim report to Council regarding the economics of the feasibility study options. A history of events leading up to the Council action on April 5, 2010 is detailed in CMR 165: 1 O. Prior to solicitation, the draft scope of work and time line for the feasibility study and environmental impact analysis was included in informational CMR:251:1O on May 24, 2010. DISCUSSION The result of the project will be a detailed feasibility study for a dry anaerobic energy facility in Palo Alto with the appropriate level of environmental impact review. The study will examine a facility that would recover energy from methane derived from dry anaerobic digestion from feedstocks consisting of food scraps, yard trimmings, and, possibly wastewater biosolids. Besides energy, the primary end product from the processes would be a marketable soil amendment material similar to finished compost. CMR:333.10 Page 10f4 An Initial Study Checklist pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will be prepared as early as possible during the study. Further CEQA "work may be performed as appropriate following the Initial Study Checklist. The location of the Palo Alto facility would be immediately southeast of the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant on an 8 to 9 acre site per Council direction. Several project alternatives relating to the different possible feedstocks will be examined during the study. The costs, impacts, and benefits will be compared to a "no action" alternative and to the alternative of a similar processing facility located outside of Palo Alto, but within 20 miles. The proposed contract timeline for the overall study is included as Exhibit "B" in Attachment A. The first major task that will be performed by the Consultant is the facilitation of at least one community scoping meeting for the 'study. This public scoping session will collect ideas and concerns for the project to help guide the rest of the study. This will be especially helpful for costing out suggested environmental mitigation proposals. One such proposal is that the facility includes a green roof system that integrates with the closed landfill cap. A follow-up suggestion indicated that the Byxbee Park recreational trail system needs to· be cOl'lSidered in the design. Staff will present the results of the initial community meeting to the Parks and Recreation Commission tentatively scheduled for September 28,2010. The second major task will be the preparation of a preliminary economic analysis of the proposed facility funding and operating scenarios. The economic analysis will examine the project with and without a rent payment for use of the City-owned land. It will also include the economics of greenhouse gas (GHG) carbon credits and renewable energy credits. Lastly, it will present the ecoriomics in two main ways. The first would be in terms of the total overall costs and benefits to the City of Palo Alto and the partners of the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. The second way would be in terms of costs and benefits'to the individual enterprise funds and general fund (if applicable). Staff expects to present a draft of the preliminary economic report to Council in early 2011. The Tmal preliminary economic analysis would be presented by spring of 20 11 for further Council action and direction on the overall project. During the budget process in spring 2011, staff would initiate a formal capital improvement project (CIP) for the proposed facility depending on the outcome of future Council actions. Staff expects that an additional budget for the consultant beyond the initial contract award will be required to continue the project at that point. The contract with Alternative Resources Inc. is for study purposes only and does not constitute a design contract. This feasibility study together with the preliminary environmental impact assessment can then be used by Council to make further decisions regarding a future project. A full appropriate-level environmental impact report would then be performed through a contract amendment for additional services depending on future Council action. CMR:333.10 Page 2 of4 ummaryo o ICI Ion ocess S fS r ·tat" Pr Proposal DescriptionlNumber Energy/Compost Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Initial Study (RFP #136602) Proposed Length of Project 15 months Number of Proposals Mailed 34 Total Days to Respond to Proposal 21 Pre-Proposal Meeting? Yes Number of Companies at Pre- Proposal Meeting on June 9, 2010 18 Number of Proposals Received: 7 1. Institute for Environmental Management Palo Alto, CA 2. Alternative Resources Inc. Concord,MA 3. WorleyParsons Group, Inc. Martinez, CA 4. DRS Corporation Americas San Francisco, CA 5. HDR Engineering, Inc. San Francisco, CA 6. Golder Associates, Inc. Sunnyvale, CA 7. Carollo Engineers, Inc. Walnut Creek, CA Range of Proposal Amounts $179,785 to $348,000 Submitted An evaluation committee consisting of 3 staff members from Public Works evaluated the written proposals. Three firms were selected for interviews. An expanded evaluation committee consisting of 5 staff members from Public Works and Utilities then unanimously selected Alternative Resources Inc. as the top proposer after interviewing them and the 2 other finalists on July 1,2010. Alternative Resource Inc. is a small research firm with strong experience studying waste conversiop-technologies, including dry anaerobic digestion. Alternative Research Inc. was selected because they had the most direct experience analyzing similar potential facilities in the United States for government clients. The firm (and its sub-consultants) showed the most detailed understanding of the work which is needed in Palo Alto's situation. Their approach for data collection for dry anaerobic digestion was extremely well-organized, and they recognized the need to be fully transparent with respect to all data and analysis. Other firm's proposals were good, but not quite as strong. RESOURCE IMPACT Funding for this study is comprised of $75,000 from Refuse Fund operating budget for landfill contract services in fiscal year 2010-11; $47,758 from the Wastewater Treatment Fund; and $75,000 from the Electric Fund Calaveras Reserve. (Approval from Council to use $75,000 from the Calaveras Reserve is required and is the subject of a separate, companion City Manager's Report (CMR:323:10) also on the August 2, 2010 Council Agenda. This expendIture has been reviewed by the Utilities Advisory Commission and is recommended for approval. CMR:333.10 Page 3 of4 ATTACHMENT A CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C11136602 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ENERGY/COMPOST FEASIBILITY STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT INITIAL STUDY This AGREEMENT is entered into on this day of August, 2010, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("CITY"), and AL TERNATNE RESOURCES, INC., a corporation in the State of Massachusetts, with offices located at 1732 Main Street, Concord, MA 01742-3837 ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to conduct a Feasibility Study for a Dry Anaerobic Digestion facility for organic residuals ("Project") and desires to engage a consultant to prepare the Feasibility Study in connection with the Project ("Services"). B. CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services. C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit "A", attached to and made a part ofthis Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, this Agreement, the parties agree: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in Exhibit "A" in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY. SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through January 31,2012 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is ofthe essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULT ANT shall complete the Services within the term ofthis Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit "B", attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY's Professional Services Rev. January II, 2010 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C11136602 agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT. SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit "A", including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed one hundred seventy-nine thousand seven hundred fifty-eight dollars ($179,758). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed one hundred ninety-seven thousand seven hundred fifty-eight dollars ($197,758). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit "C-l", entitled "HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE," which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit "C". CONSULT ANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit "A". SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT's billing rates (set forth in Exhibit "C-l "). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT's payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City's project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULT ANT's supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULT ANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, ifpermitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar know ledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itselfinformedofand in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all 2 Professional Services Rev. January II, 2010 \\CC-TERRA\jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP136602 Energy-Compost Feasibility Study\Contract CI1136602 ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES.doc CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI1136602 charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the perfonnance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSULT ANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors, omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction ofthe Project. This obligation shall survive tennination of the Agreement. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. Ifthe total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%) of the CITY's stated construction budget, CONSULT ANT shall make recommendations to the CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in perfonning the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee ofthe CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULT ANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the perfonnance of any of CONSULTANT's obligations hereunder without the prior written consent ofthe city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval ofthe city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. Notwithstanding Section 11 above, CITY agrees that sub consultants may be used to complete the Services. The sub consultants authorized by CITY to perfonn work on this Project are: 1. Douglas Environmental 2. Ascent Environmental 3. Facility Builders & Erectors CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any sub consultants and for any compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a sub consultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add sub consultants only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign James Binder as the Principal to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and as the project manager to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the 3 Professional Services Rev. January 11, 2010 \\CC-TERRA \jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFPI36602 Energy-Compost Feasibility Study\Contract C 11136602 ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES.doc CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: Cl1136602 Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the app~intment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY's project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY's request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. The City's project manager is Phil Bobel, Public Works Department, Environmental Compliance Division, 2501 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: 650-329-2285. The project manager will be CONSULTANT's point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution ofthe Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor ofthe CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term ofthis Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT's records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. O[Option A applies to the following design professionals pursuant to Civil Code Section 2782.8: architects; landscape architects; registered professional engineers and licensed professional land surveyors.] 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law , CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an "Indemnified Party") from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements ("Claims") that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. ~ [Option B applies to any consultant who does not qualify as a design professional as dermed in Civil Code Section 2782.8.] 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted bylaw, CONSULTANT shall 4 Professional Services Rev. January 11,2010 \\CC-TERRA \jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFPI36602 Energy-Compost Feasibility Study\Contract Cl I 136602 ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES.doc CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: Cl1136602 protect, indemnify, defend and hold hannless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an "Indemnified Party") from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements ("Claims") resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance or nonperformance by CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT's services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver ofthe right of indemnification. The provisions ofthis Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination ofthis Agreement. SECTION 17. W AIYERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation ofthe same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term ofthis Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution ofthis Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY's Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification, CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY's Purchasing Manager during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be 5 Professional Services Rev. January 11,2010 \\CC-TERRA \jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFPI36602 Energy-Compost Feasibility Study\Contract Cll136602 ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES.doc CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: Cl1136602 construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The city manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 19 .2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereofto CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY , CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, ifthis Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULT ANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT's services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise ofhislher discretion 19.5 . No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager 6 Professional Services Rev. January 11,2010 \\CC-TERRA \iarreol\PURCHDOC\sAP Bids and Proposals\RFP'RFP136602 Energy-Compost Feasibility Study\Contract C 11136602 ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES.doc CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: Cl1136602 To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULT ANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULT ANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY ; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State ofCalifomia. 21.3. Ifthe Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a "Consultanf' as that term is defined by the Regulations ofthe Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set ·forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because ofthe race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENT ALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the City's Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at the city's Purchasing Department which are incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of the City's Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or compo sting waste. In particular, Consultant shall comply with the following zero waste requirements: • All printed materials provided by Consultant to City generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by the City's Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of30% or greater post-consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks. • Goods purchased by Consultant on behalf of the City shall be purchased in 7 Professional Services Rev. January 11,2010 \\CC-TERRA\jarreol\PURCHDOC\sAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFPI36602 Energy-Compost Feasibility Study\Contract C 11136602 ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES.doc CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: Cl1136602 accordance' with the City's Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Office. • Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by the Consultant, at no additional cost to the City, for reuse or recycling. Consultant shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION 24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter ofthe City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty ( a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion ofthe fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This Section 24.8 shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. 24.2. The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf oftheir respective legal entities. SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 25.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions ofthis Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys' fees paid to third parties. 25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. 25.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 25.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. 8 Professional Services Rev. January 11, 2010 \\CC-TERRA\jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP136602 Fnergy-Compost Feasibility Study\Contract CII136602 ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES.doc CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: Cl1136602 25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part ofthis Agreement. 24.10 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, City shares with CONSULT ANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section l798.8l.5( d) about a California resident ("Personal Information"), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security ofthe system or in the security ofthe Personal Information. CONSULT ANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City's express written consent. 24.11 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement. 9 Professional Services Rev. January 11, 2010 \ \CC-TERRA \jarreo]\PURCHDOC\sAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP 136602 Energy-Compost Feasibility Study\Contract C 11136602 ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES.doc CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C1113(;602 CITV OF PALO ALTO ••••• " ... ",", "mN='''",MV.~N.'''·'''''-''M'''''''¥~ ......................... " ••••• MW ••• ".~~ •• uu=.muNm ... ~'N.' City Manager (Required for contracts over $85,0(0) f)utchnsing Manager (Reqllired for contracts over $25,000) Contracts Administrator (Required for contr.:tctsunder $25,0(0) AI>Pf{OVED AS '1'0 FORM: Senior AssistantCity Attorney Attachments: EXIIIBIT "A": SCOPE OF WORK EXHIBIT ('If': EXHIBIT "C": SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE COMPENSA'[,!ON EXHIBIT "(,-1": EXIHBlT "[),,: SCHEDULE OF RATES INSURANCE REQUl.REMEN'rS HJ Prnfc$siomd iknkc'S Rc'. JlIm:ury I L 201 () ,\t (·.IT1H(YpJ!t{'ol\PUR01DOC\SAI' Bid~ and l'rup"'i(\h,HfI'\RI-PI16li()2 Fnrrgy,CHmp<>sl Fc,tSII,ilily Stujy\C':.nh'il'l C Il.366m At ITI':",,\ I IV!' RJ'SOURCFS.(hw ' CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: Cl1136602 EXHIBIT" A" SCOPE OF SERVICES GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK The project is to prepare a Feasibility Study for a Dry Anaerobic Energy/Compost Facility in the City of Palo Alto, California. The facility would recover energy from methane derived from dry anaerobic digestion of food scraps, yard trimmings, and, possibly wastewater biosolids. The chief residual from the processes would be compost. The Feasibility Study would include an economic, greenhouse gas, and environmental impact analysis. An Initial Study (CEQA Checklist) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act will also be prepared. (Further California Environmental Quality Act work may be performed through a Contract Amendment.) Several sub options will be studied. The costs, impacts, and benefits will be compared to a "no action" alternative and to the alternative of a similar processing facility located outside of Palo Alto, but within 20 miles. The location of the Palo Alto facility would be immediately southeast of the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant on an 8-9 acre site. BACKGROUND The City of Palo Alto currently handles organic residuals in the following ways: 1. Yard trimmings are composted at the Palo Alto landfill site in uncovered windrows; 2. Residential food scraps are disposed of with the garbage and landfilled in South San Jose; 3. Commercial food scraps are increasingly being source separated and composted near Gilroy, CA, with the remainder being landfilled in South San Jose; and 4. Wastewater Biosolids are dewatered and incinerated at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant in Palo Alto. The 8-9 acre site described above is currently on dedicated Parkland. The site would have to be undedicated by a vote ofthe residents before an Energy/Compost Facility could be constructed. A number of other approvals and permits would also be needed. However, this Scope of Services does not include working on these approval processes. The City already operates its own gas and electric utilities, which are potential users of gas or energy generated by an anaerobic digestion facility. The electric enterprise fund has been directed to procure 33% of its electric supply from renewable sources by 2015. The gas enterprise fund is investigating opportunities to supply some load using biogas. The City also fuels a portion of its vehicle fleet with compressed natural gas, which is another potential use for biogas generated by the facility PROJECT APPROACH The Consultant will evaluate and compare three basic alternatives: Alternative 1: A new dry anaerobic digestion facility adjacent to the Palo Alto Wastewater Treatment Plant. Alternative 2: A similar Regional Facility adjacent to the San Jose Wastewater Treatment Plant Alternative 3: The current facilities and plans which Palo Alto has arranged for its organics residuals following closure of the Palo Alto Landfill. The City will provide much of the data for the analysis of Alternatives 2 and 3. The majority of the Consultants work will be on Alternative 1. There are two sites involved in Alternative 1, the 8-9 acre Landfill site just Southeast of the Wastewater Treatment Plant, and the Wastewater I Professional Services Rev. January 11,2010 \\CC-TERRA\jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP136602 Energy-Compost Feasibility Study\Contract CII136602 ALTERNA TlVE RESOURCES.doc CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: Cl1136602 Treatment Plant itself. Therefore, there will be sub alternatives to Alternative I as follows: SUb-options to Alternative I: la.) A new dry anaerobic digestion for yard, food and biosolids on the landfill site (biosolids in separate cells). lb.) Dry anaerobic digestion for yard, food and wet anaerobic digestion for biosolids on the landfill site. 1c.) Dry anaerobic digestion for yard and food on the landfill site and wet anaerobic digestion for biosolids on the Wastewater Plant site. 1d.) Dry anaerobic digestion for yard and food waste and no methane production from the biosolids. The analysis of all four sUb-options of Alternative 1 will assume that a common methane energy recovery facility will be located on the Landfill site. The analysis of all main options and sub- options will include: 1. A financial analysis; 2. A life-cycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions; and 3. An analysis of environmental and other impacts. The analysis of the wet anaerobic digestion process in Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 will be performed through a separate, parallel study: the Wastewater Long Range Planning process. The firm selected for that study will provide the evaluation of wet anaerobic digestion to the Consultant. Following submittal of Preliminary Analysis (Task 4), City will consider whether other alternatives should be considered as well. For example, it may become apparent that an alternative of a somewhat larger or smaller site would better accommodate a cost effective option, and be within the intent of the Council April5, 2010 Directive to staff. CONSULTANT SERVICES TASK 1: Development of Detailed Workplan The Consultant will develop a draft detailed Workplan and attend a kick-off meeting in Palo Alto with City representatives. The draft Workplan will be available for review prior to the meeting. Other goals of the kick-off meeting will be to review the draft Workplan and schedule, to establish the City's goals, objectives and expectations for the Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Initial Study, and to establish lines of communication. TASK 2: Community Scoping for Feasibility Study and for Environmental Review The Consultant will attend a community meeting arranged by the City to solicit input on the Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Initial Study. In addition to gathering information from the public on the Feasibility Study, a primary purpose of the community scoping meeting will be to identify key community concerns regarding the project's potential environmental effects. The CEQA environmental review process will be described, as necessary, and the opportunities for the public to participate in the environmental review process will be identified. Following the meeting, City comments will be incorporated into and a final Workplan will be issued. 2 Professional Services Rev. January 11,2010 \\CC· TERRA \jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP136602 Energy-Compost Feasibility Study\Contract Cll136602 ALTERNA TIVE RESOURCES.doc CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C11136602 TASK 3: Preparation of Draft Preliminary Financial and Greenhouse Gas Analysis The Consultant will develop a financial model to evaluate each of the four (4) SUb-options of Alternative 1. Using budgetary cost estimates supplemented with additional infonnation such as estimated financing costs, the Consultant will calculate annual costs per ton and the total present value cost over the life cycle for each sub-option. The economic model will be constructed to enable the analysis of alternative project development scenarios (for example, private ownership and operation compared to publically-financed design/buildloperate implementation), as well as the impact of potential grant and funding sources. In addition, the economic model will provide for consideration of the potential cost-savings associated with the prevailing tax exempt market should the City own the energy/compost facility. The preliminary financial model will be submitted to the City for review. Key environmental parameters will be considered in preparing the draft preliminary evaluation. The key environmental parameters will be identified through consultation with the City, through the community scoping meeting input, and based on the professional experience ofthe project team. The key environmental parameters will be presented in a data management system format. The greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis will discuss the current state of the science (e.g., Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's [IPCC] Fourth Assessment Report) along with applicable regulatory framework and relevant guidance (e.g., Assembly Bill [AB] 32, recently adopted CEQA Guideline amendments and Bay Area Air Quality Management District's [BAAQMD] Air Quality Guidance and GHG Thresholds of Significance). Specifically, as required by Senate Bill 97, the CEQA Guidelines were revised on December 30,2009, to address GHG emissions under CEQA; this analysis will comply with theses newly adopted guidelines along with those adopted by BAAQMD on June 2, 2010. The following analysis will be conducted for all alternatives and SUb-options. For project-generated construction-related emissions, the Urban Emissions Model (URBEMIS) will be used to estimate increases in GHGs (e.g., heavy-duty construction equipment exhaust). This modeling will be based on BAAQMD-recommended input parameters, project-specific construction data (e.g., size of disturbed ground area, construction phasing schedule), and URBEMIS default settings. URBEMIS, the BAAQMD GHG Model (BGM), and methods from the California Air Resources Board (ARB) will be used to estimate direct project-generated operational-related emissions of GHGs for mobile, stationary, and area source types (e.g., vehicle trips associated with facility employees and material collection and delivery). This modeling will be based on BAAQMD- recommended input parameters, project-specific operational data (e.g., type and size of the proposed facility, operational schedule), default settings, and project specific traffic data (e.g., overall trip generation and vehicle miles traveled [VMTD. Other applicable quantification methods, emissions factors, and assumptions protocols from, but not limited to, the Western Climate Initiative, IPCC, California Climate Action Registry's General Reporting Protocol, and ARB will be used to estimate long-tenn operational-related indirect source emissions. These types of facilities are not a covered sector under ARB regulation for the mandatory reporting of GHG emissions; however, aspects of the digester offset quantification protocol may apply. 3 Professional Services Rev. January 11, 2010 \\CC-TERRA\jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP136602 Energy-Compost Feasibility Study\Contract CI 1 136602 ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES.doc CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C11136602 Additionally, though mandatory reporting would not be required or utilization ofthe digester ~ffset protocol, quantification methods selected for this project will rely on ARB requirements and default emission factors, where applicable to this exact facility type, as stated in the regulation for usability in the future and substantiation of approach for legal defensibility. This analysis will also address the GHG emissions (e.g., lifecycle) from the alternate fates (e.g., compo sting, land filling, and incinerating) of the wastes by virtue of the collection of these wastes for use with regards to the proposed proj ect. Increases in GHGs will be compared to applicable thresholds and mitigation measures prepared as needed that clearly identify timing, responsibility, and performance standards. A two-tiered approach will be used to assess the project's potential generation of GHGs and its incremental contribution to the cumulative effect resulting from emissions ofGHGs as follows: (1) the potential for project-generated GHG emissions to have a significant impact on the environment and (2) the potential for the project to conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The amount ofGHGs determined in this analysis (and associated impacts) will be presented in a data management system. TASK 4: Preparation of Final Preliminary Financial and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Based on the City's comments from review ofthe preliminary financial and greenhouse analysis, a final preliminary analysis will be submitted to the City. This will include a working model in Excel format that will allow the City to test a change in clearly identified variables to assess the impact on life-cycle cost and greenhouse gas emissions. TASK 5: Preparation of Draft Feasibility Study and California Environmental Quality Act Checklist The Consultant will assist the City in presenting the preliminary financial analysis to the Community and City Council. In consultation with the City, comments and suggestions received from these presentations will be incorporated into a draft feasibility report which will be prepared to succinctly compile the results of the work performed. The report will include an overview, introduction, waste analysis, conversion technology facility description, and economic analysis. The introduction will include a description ofthe project planning and history, system elements, and participants. The waste analysis section of the report will include an overview of the existing solid waste management system in the City as well as summarizing available information on waste generation, composition of yard trimmings, food scraps, and biosolids, and waste flow control provisions. Site regulatory and permitting considerations will be included with descriptions of the technologies responding to the request-for-information described in Task 8. The economic analysis section of the report will include a discussion of scope and methods, capital and operation and maintenance cost estimates, financing considerations, and life-cycle cost analysis with sensitivities. Following presentation ofthe Preliminary Analysis to the community and City Council, the Consultant will prepare a Draft CEQA Initial Study (CEQA Checklist). The Consultant will coordinate with City of Palo Alto staff and the project team members to identify the elements to be included in the Initial Study project description. The project description will focus on the changes anticipated with implementation of the Feasibility Study. Depending upon the alternative approach selected by the City, the key considerations will likely include the odor and 4 Professional Services Rev. January 11,2010 \\CC-TERRA\jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP136602 Energy-Compost Feasibility Study\Contract CII136602 ALTERNATNE RESOURCES.doc CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: Cl1136602 traffic generating potential ofthe proposed Dry Anaerobic Energy/Compost Facility and its compatibility with Byxbee Park users, biological resources, and the nearby municipal airport. The Environmental Checklist Form will be completed with explanations for each response for the proposed project. The level of analysis and degree of impact will vary depending on the environmental topic. Mitigation measures will be developed, when necessary, to minimize environmental impacts anticipated from the proposed project. An administrative draft Initial Study will be prepared for review by City staff and the project team members. The Initial Study will be revised based on the comments received on the administrative draft document. The completed document will be presented to the City for public distribution. TASK 6: Preparation of Final Feasibility Study, California Environmental Quality Act Checklist, and Workplan for Completion of California Environmental Quality Act Analysis The Consultant will assist the City in presenting the draft Feasibility Study to the Community and to City Council. Comments and suggestions received from these presentations will be incorporated, in consultation with the City, into a final Feasibility Study. Feedback gathered during the City Council meeting will be used to finalize the Initial Study including any information presented regarding potential environmental effects or suggested mitigation strategies. The administrative draft Initial Study will be revised based on the comments received during the City Council meeting. The completed document will be submitted to the City TASK 7: Preparation ofWorkplan for Complete California Environmental Quality Act Analysis Following completion of the Initial Study, the Consultant will confer with the City and the project team regarding the appropriate level of CEQA review for the Feasibility Study (i.e., Program EIR, Project-level EIR, or Focused EIR). Based on the direction provided by the City, the Consultant will prepare a work plan for the preparation of the environmental review document identified by the City as being appropriate for the Feasibility Plan. 5 Professional Services Rev. January 11,2010 \\CC-TERRA\jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFPI36602 Energy-Compost Feasibility Study\Contract CI I 136602 ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES.doc CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: Cl1136602 TASK 8: Analysis of Energy Generation from Methane Four (4) sub-options for Alternative 1 will be evaluated for a new dry anaerobic facility at the landfill site. These options are in the following matrix: " Anaerobic Yard Sub-option Digestion System Trimmings Food Scraps Biosolids Dry X X X 1 a) (separate cell) Wet ------ Dry X X -- I b) Wet ----X Dry X X -- I c) X Wet ----(wastewater treatment plant site) X X -- I d) Dry ------ Wet The Consultant will prepare a request-for-information (RFD document for selected technology companies, requesting cost and performance data for each of the sub-options identified above. The Consultant understands that cost and performance data for the wet anaerobic digestion or biosolids will be provided by another firm selected by the City for the facility planning process associated with the wastewater treatment facility (i.e., the Long Range Facilities Plan). The RFI will include an introduction, discussion of general conditions, schedule, submission of information requirements, and qualification information. The RFI approach will enable the Consultant to solicit project-specific information and will enable the responding companies to incorporate their current thinking regarding both technology and business postures in their responses. The Consultant's database will also be used to compare the cost and performance data received from the technology companies through the RFI process for reasonableness. Adjustments will be made to cost and performance data input to the economic model, as deemed necessary. Based on the response to the RFI and the Consultant's experience and judgment, the quantity of biogas generated in each of the four (4) sub-options will be estimated. The quantity oflandfill ~ gas available from the Palo Alto landfill will be considered in a separate sensitivity analysis and a recommendation made as to whether landfill gas should be incorporated into the sub-options. 6 Professional Services Rev. January 11,2010 \\CC-TERRA\jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP136602 Energy-Compost Feasibility Study\Conlract CII136602 ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES.doc CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C11136602 The methane-rich gas produced from the dry anaerobic digestion process can be used in a variety of electrical generation equipment including: internal combustion engines, gas turbines, gas turbines in a combined cycle configuration, or fuel cells. The methane-rich gas can also be upgraded for production of compressed natural gas or pipeline quality natural gas. A common methane energy recovery system will be adopted by the Consultant for the analysis of the four (4) sub-options. This selection will be made based on the Consultant's experience and the responses to the RFI received from technology companies. The Consultant will also investigate grant and funding opportunities that could result in either a lower overall amount of borrowing or a lower cost of capital. These include, among others, Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBS), Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds (QECBs), Tax Credit Bonds, United States Department of Energy (USDOE) grants, and loan guarantees. Additional funding opportunities may be available through various State-administered programs. In addition, the Consultant will analyze the advantages and disadvantages of public and private models for project delivery, considering ownership, risk sharing for performance and cost, financing options and opportunities for grants and low interest loans available on a State and Federal basis for different methods ofproject delivery. These methods include both public and private models; design-build (DB); design-build-operate (DBO) and design-build-own-operate- transfer (DBOOT). A preliminary site engineering analysis will be conducted for the landfill site including consideration of access, space requirements, rough grading requirements, foundation considerations, and interconnection of utilities. The City will provide the Consultant with a quantity estimate of cubic yards of in-place refuse that will need to be relocated from the site. The City will also provide the Consultant copies of previous geotechnical investigations performed on and adjacent to the landfill site. A conceptual site layout drawing will be prepared indicating the arrangement and location of the facility on the site. The drawing will be compatible with the City's GIS system. If facility information is available in sufficient detail to depict plan and side views, additional drawings will be prepared depicting a three dimensional yiew of the facility. TASK 9: Project Management The Consultant will meet with the City monthly to review progress and establish priorities for work to be conducted the following month. It is anticipated that these meetings will be conducted both in person, as needed, and by teleconference. 7 Professional Services Rev. January 11,2010 \\CC-TERRA\jarreoI\PURCHDOC\sAP Bids and Proposa\s\RFP\RFP136602 Energy-Compost Feasibility Study\Con1ract CI 1 136602 ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES.doc CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: Cl1136602 EXHIBIT "B" SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed. Milestones 1. Community Scoping meeting (City to lead) 2. Consultant Draft of Preliminary Financial/Greenhouse Gas Analysis 3. Revised Draft Preliminary Financial/Greenhouse Gas Analysis 4. Community meetings on Draft Preliminary Financial/Greenhouse Gas Analysis 5. FincH Preliminary Financial/Greenhouse Gas Analysis 6. Consultant Draft of Feasibility Study and California Environmental Quality Act Initial Study (California Environmental Quality Act Checklist). 7. Revised Draft Feasibility Study and California Environmental Quality Act Checklist 8. Community Meetings 9. Final Feasibility Study and Draft Workplan for Completion of California Environmental Quality Act documentation. 10. Final Workplan for Completion of California Environmental Quality Act documentation Completion fromNTP September 15,2010 December 3, 2010 January 24,2011 February 2011 March 15,2011 June 15,2011 July 30,2011 August 2011 September 30, 2011 October 30, 2011 Professional Services Rev. January 11, 2010 \\CC-TERRA\jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP136602 Energy-Compost Feasibility Study\Contract CI I 136602 ALTERNA TlVE RESOURCES.doc CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: Cl1136602 EXHIBIT "C" COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULT ANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as exhibit C-l up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit "A" ("Basic Services") and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $179,758.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the maximum compensation shall not exceed $197,758.00. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. CONSULT ANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. The CITY's manager may approve in writing the transfer of bud get amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $179,758.00 and the total compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $18,000.00. BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT Task 1 $3,460 (Development of Detailed Workplan) Task 2 $5,640 (Community Scoping for Feasibility Study and for Environmental Review) Task 3 $34,367 (preparation of Draft Preliminary Financial and Greenhouse Gas Analysis) Task 4 $18,456 (Preparation of Final Preliminary Financial and Greenhouse Gas Analysis) Task 5 $41,242 (preparation of Draft Feasibility Study and California Environmental Quality Act Checklist) Task 6 $16,996 (preparation of Final Feasibility Study, California Environmental Quality Act Checklist, and Workplan for Completion of California Environmental Quality Act Analysis) Task 7 $5,025 (preparation ofWorkplan for Complete California Environmental Quality Act Analysis) 1 Professional Services Rev. January 11,2010 \\CC-TERRA\jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP136602 Fnergy-Compost Feasibility Study\Contract CIl136602 ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES. doc CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: Cl1136602 Task 8 $38,472 (Analysis of Energy Generation from Methane) Task 9 $8,200 (project Management) Sub-total Basic Services $171,858 Reimbursable Expenses $7,900 Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $179,758 Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $18,000 Maximum Total Compensation $197,758 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be reimbursed at reasonable, actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto's policy for reimbursement of travel and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees. B. Long distance telephone cellular phone, facsimile transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost. All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $2,500.00 shall be approved in advance by the CITY's project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULT ANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY's project manager's request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description ofthe scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT's proposed maximum cOIppensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-l. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by 2 Professional Services Rev. January 11,2010 \\CC-TERRA \jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP 136602 Energy-Compost Feasibility Study\Contract C 11136602 ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES.doc CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C11136602 the CITY's manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement Work required because the following conditions are not satisfied or are exceeded shall be considered as additional services: • Meetings, testing or design services not covered in Basic Services 3 Professional Services Rev. January 11,2010 \\CC-TERRA \jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFPI36602 Energy-Compost Feasibility Study\Contract Cl I 136602 ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES.doc CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: Cl1136602 EXHIBIT "C-l" HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE POSITION ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES, INC. Principal / Proj ect Manager Energy Consultant Financial Analyst Conversion Technology Specialist Anaerobic Digestion Specialist Air Quality Specialist Word Processing DOUGLAS ENVIRONMENTAL Douglas Brown Susan Alves Phil Bernard Lois Montes Word Processing/Graphics ASCENT ENVIRONMENTAL Honey Walters Austin Kerr Heather Phillips ASCENT ENVIRONMENTAL JerryGunn Scott Supernaugh I HOURLY RATE $205 $175 $170 $144 $132 $125 $45 $160 $115 $95 $80 $75 $150 $115 $115 $150 $150 Professional Services Rev. January 11,2010 \\CC-TERRA \jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFPI36602 Energy-Compost Feasibility Study\Contract CI1136602 ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES.doc CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: Cl1136602 EXHIBIT "D" INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TOTHE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WlmAM BEST'S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY'S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AS SPECIFIED BELOW· , , MINIMUM LIMITS REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT EACH YES YES YES YES YES YES OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE WORKER'S COMPENSATION STATUTORY EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY STATUTORY BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 LIABILITY COMBINED. BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 -EACH PERSON $1,000,000 $1,000,000 -EACH OCCURRENCE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 DAMAGE, COMBINED PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUB CONSUL TANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY'S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO "ADDITIONAL INSUREDS" A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B. CROSS LIABILITY Professional Services Rev. January 11,2010 \\CC-TERRA\jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP136602 Energy-Compost Feasibility Study\Contract CII136602 ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES.doc CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: Cl1136602 THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO: PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 2 Professional Services Rev. January 11,2010 \\CC-TERRA\jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and ProposaIs\RFP\RFP136602 Fnergy-Compost Feasibility Study\Contract Cll136602 ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES. doc City of Palo Alto (ID # 2087) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/3/2011 October 03, 2011 Page 1 of 3 (ID # 2087) Summary Title: Williamson Act 2011 Title: Approval of Annual Report of Williamson Act Contracts Within the City of Palo Alto From:City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council review the Williamson Act Properties Report for Calendar Year 2011 (Attachment A), approve the renewal of 19 contracts, and direct staff to file the current list of Williamson Act properties with the appropriate agencies. Background The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly known as the Williamson Act, is a state program to discourage agricultural lands from being converted urban uses. The program provides property tax relief to owners of agricultural land who agree to limit the use of their property to agricultural or other approved compatible uses. On July 24, 1974, the City of Palo Alto adopted Ordinance No. 2663 to establish rules for both establishing and administering Williamson Act contracts for Palo Alto properties. Highlights of the rules regarding administration of established contracts include: ·Contracts limit the allowable uses of the property to what is described in the contract. ·Contracts remain in place when a property is sold and new owners are subject to the same use restrictions. ·Contracts are for 10-year terms and have a renewal date of January 1. ·Each year—at least 80 days prior to that renewal date—the Council reviews the contracts and, at that time, may initiate a notice of nonrenewal for any contract or approve a notice of nonrenewal submitted by a landowner. If the Council takes such action then that contract does not renew on January 1 and terminates nine years later. ·Under certain conditions, the Council may also approve a landowner’s request to cancel a contract. ·Contracts, for which the Council has not approved a notice of nonrenewal or a cancellation, automatically renew for another 10-year term each January 1. Discussion October 03, 2011 Page 2 of 3 (ID # 2087) The attached report and map (Attachments A & B), describe the parcels that were under contract during calendar year 2011. No notices of nonrenewal have been received since the last report. At this time, the Council may initiate a notice of nonrenewal for any contract and have that notice take effect this year. If the Council does not initiate any notices of nonrenewal at this time, and approves the attached list, then this list will be filed in the City Clerk’s Office and the information will be forwarded to the appropriate agencies. For example, under the California Open Space Subvention Act (OSSA), the City is entitled to partial replacement of local property tax revenue foregone by participating in the Williamson Act. Planning staff will file the information with the State Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. Then, on January 1, 2012, nineteen contracts will renew for another 10-year term. Historically, the City of Palo Alto had been receiving approximately $1,000 a year in subvention payments; however, recent legislation has resulted in the essential suspension of state funding for these payments. Assembly Bill X4 was enacted on July 24, 2009 and resulted in a total subvention allowance of $1,000 for all participating counties.As a result of this bill, Palo Alto received $0.03 in subventions for fiscal year 2009-10.On October 19, 2010 Senate Bill 863 provided a one-time allocation of $10,000,000 for the program and an option for participating cities and counties to recapture 10% of the benefits provided by the contracts; however, on March 24, 2011, Senate Bill SB80 eliminated these provisions. The most recent legislation, Assembly Bill 1265, passed on July 15, 2011 again allows participating cities and counties to recapture 10% of the benefits; however, implementation of this provision is generally only cost effective for cities and counties that have significant acreage under contract. Despite this suspension of subvention payments, the California Department of Conservation’s Williamson Act Program is still in place, and participating cities and counties are required to fill out and submit applications for an Open Space Subvention Act payment per Government Code section 16144 which states: "On or before October 31 each year, the governing body of each county, city, or city and county shall report to the Secretary of the Resources Agency the number of acres of land under its regulatory jurisdiction which qualify for state payments pursuant to the various categories enumerated in Section 16142, together with supporting documentation as the secretary by regulation may require.” Notes have been added to the attached report and map to clarify that, although the Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club is under Williamson Act contract, no tax benefits accrue to the owners. Although a golf course is a permitted use, only golf courses that are open to the public and charge minimal green fees are eligible for tax benefits. Policy Implications The recommended action implements Ordinance 2663 regarding the administration of the Williamson Act for Palo Alto properties. The Williamson Act in general complies with the land use policies of the Comprehensive Plan and specifically supports Goal L-1 regarding growth management as well as Policy L-1 regarding the extent of urban development. Environmental Review October 03, 2011 Page 3 of 3 (ID # 2087) The recommended action is ministerial and pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)(3), is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that this action of approving the attached report does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Resource Impacts No resource impacts would result from the recommended action. Attachments: ·Attachment A : Williamson Act Report of Properties Under Contract in 2011 (PDF) ·Attachment B: Williamson Act Map of Properties Under Contract as of 2011 (JPG) Prepared By:Gloria Humble, Senior Planner Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager Williamson Act Properties Report for Calendar Year 2011 On the following pages is a list of the 23 Palo Alto properties that were enrolled in the Williamson Act during the calendar year of 2011. About the Williamson Act About this List/Report The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly known as the Williamson Act is a state program to discourage agricultural lands from being converted urban uses. The program provides property tax relief to owners of agricultural land who agree to limit the use of their property to agricultural or other approved compatible uses. On July 24, 1974, the City of Palo Alto adopted Ordinance No. 2663 to establish rules for both establishing and administering Williamson Act contracts for Palo Alto properties. Highlights of the rules regarding administration of established contracts include: Contracts limit the allowable uses of the property to what is described in the contract. Contracts remain in place when a property is sold and new owners are subject to the same use restrictions. Contracts are for 10-year terms and have a renewal date of January 1. Each year—at least 80 days prior to that renewal date—the Council reviews the contracts and, at that time, may initiate a notice on nonrenewal for any contract or approve a notice of nonrenewal submitted by a landowner. If the Council takes such action then that contract does not renew on January 1 and terminates 9 years later. Under certain conditions, the Council may also approve a landowner's request to cancel a contract. Contracts, for which the Council has not approved a notice of nonrenewal or a cancellation, automatically renew for another 10-year term each January1. 19 contracts will renew on January 1, 2012 if the Council approves this report. 4 contracts will not renew because Notices of Nonrenewal have been approved. See individual records for termination dates. Note: One of the 19 contracts does not include tax benefits. Although the Palo Alto Hills Golf Course is under contract the use is not eligible for tax benefits--see notes for this parcel. 9/20/2011 Page 1 of 7S:\PLAN\PLADIV\Current Planning\Data Files\Williamson Act\2011 Will Renew on January 1, 2012 Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club at 3000 Alexis Drive Although this property is under contract, there are no tax benefits.A golf course may only be eligible for tax benefits if it is open to the public and charges minimal green fees. Prime Owner: 1 Assessed Value: Land Class: 5/1/1973Contract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club, Inc., 3000 Alexis Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94304 Acreage: General Notes: 119.92 182-35-035APN: 2009:$1,311,253.00 2010:$1,308,145.00 Value Notes: 4279Resolution No: 2011:$1,317,995.00 No address; adjacent to Country Club at 3000 Alexis Drive Prime Owner: 2 Assessed Value: Land Class: 5/1/1973Contract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club, Inc., 3000 Alexis Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94304 Acreage: General Notes: 5.52 182-35-008APN: 2009:$47,581.00 2010:$47,468.00 Value Notes: 4279Resolution No: 2011:$47,825.00 Open Space land adjacent to the Arastradero Preserve Prime Owner: 3 Assessed Value: Land Class: UnknownContract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301 Acreage: General Notes: 11.42 182-33-014APN: 2009:$0.00 2010:$0.00 Value not assessed because owned by public/quasi public agencyValue Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2011:$0.00 9/20/2011 Page 2 of 7S:\PLAN\PLADIV\Current Planning\Data Files\Williamson Act\2011 El Camino Park (west of Palo Alto Ave to the creek) Prime Owner: 4 Assessed Value: Land Class: UnknownContract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: Leland Stanford Jr., Univ. Board of Trustees, P.O.Box 10250, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Acreage: General Notes: 0.72 12031001APN: 2009:$8,492.00 2010:$8,492.00 The City of Palo Alto leases this land for public use; however, it is privately owned.Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2011:$8,492.00 El Camino Park (east of Palo Alto Ave to University Ave) Prime Owner: 5 Assessed Value: Land Class: UnknownContract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: Leland Stanford Jr., Univ. Board of Trustees, P.O.Box 10250, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Acreage: General Notes: 10.00 120-31-009APN: 2009:$118,153.00 2010:$118,153.00 The City of Palo Alto leases this land for public use; however, it is privately owned.Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2011:$118,153.00 No address; on Page Mill Road; below Foothill Open Space Preserve Non Prime Owner: 6 Assessed Value: Land Class: UnknownContract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: Richard D. Guhse Trustee, 37 Babras Court, Hollister, CA 95023 Acreage: General Notes: 20.01 351-05-043APN: 2009:$923.00 2010:$923.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2011:$923.00 3837 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, 94304 Non Prime Owner: 7 Assessed Value: Land Class: UnknownContract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: David P. and Cynthia Lautzenheiser Trustee, 3837 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94022 Acreage: General Notes: 10.00 minus 1 acre for Homesite = 9.00 351-05-042APN: 2009:$364,727.00 2010:$363,863.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2011:$366,599.00 9/20/2011 Page 3 of 7S:\PLAN\PLADIV\Current Planning\Data Files\Williamson Act\2011 3845 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, 94304 Non Prime Owner: 8 Assessed Value: Land Class: 2/16/1976Contract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: Judith A. Block Trustee, 412 Webster St., Palo Alto, CA 94301 Acreage: General Notes: 8.72 minus 1 acre for Homesite = 7.72 351-05-024APN: 2009:$47,937.00 2010:$47,823.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2011:$48,180.00 3849 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, 94306 Non Prime Owner: 9 Assessed Value: Land Class: UnknownContract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: Jeffrey A. and Mary L. Thomas, 3849 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94022 Acreage: General Notes: 10.00 351-05-050APN: 2009:$1,376,623.00 2010:$1,373,360.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2011:$1,350,000.00 3855 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, 94306 Non Prime Owner: 10 Assessed Value: Land Class: UnknownContract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: Patrick K. Suppes, 599 College Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Acreage: General Notes: 10.00 351-05-049APN: 2009:$476,091.00 2010:$474,962.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2011:$478,538.00 3865 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, 94304 Non Prime Owner: 11 Assessed Value: Land Class: UnknownContract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: Grace Carland Trustee, 3865 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94022 Acreage: General Notes: 10.00 minus 1 acre for Homesite = 9.00 351-05-048APN: 2009:$32,925.00 2010:$32,847.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2011:$33,091.00 9/20/2011 Page 4 of 7S:\PLAN\PLADIV\Current Planning\Data Files\Williamson Act\2011 3875 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, 94304 Non Prime Owner: 12 Assessed Value: Land Class: UnknownContract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: Richard D. Kniss Trustee & Et Al, 1985 Cowper Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Acreage: General Notes: 10.00 351-05-047APN: 2009:$461.00 2010:$461.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2011:$461.00 3885 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, 94304 Non Prime Owner: 13 Assessed Value: Land Class: UnknownContract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: William W. and Sharon T. Luciw Trustee, 3885 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94022 Acreage: General Notes: 8.45 minus 1 acre for Homesite = 7.45 351-05-046APN: 2009:$955,168.00 2010:$952,905.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2011:$900,000.00 3895 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, 94304 Non Prime Owner: 14 Assessed Value: Land Class: UnknownContract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: Lawrence Markosian, 635 Wildwood Lane, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Acreage: General Notes: 10.00 minus 1 acre for Homesite = 9.00 351-05-045APN: 2009:$232,376.00 2010:$231,826.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2011:$233,568.00 3905 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, 94304 Non Prime Owner: 15 Assessed Value: Land Class: UnknownContract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: Arthur Michelson Trustee, 3492 Murdoch Court, Palo Alto, CA 94022 Acreage: General Notes: 6.43 minus 1 acre for Homesite = 5.43 351-05-044APN: 2009:$1,032,466.00 2010:$1,030,019.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2011:$1,037,775.00 9/20/2011 Page 5 of 7S:\PLAN\PLADIV\Current Planning\Data Files\Williamson Act\2011 4201 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, 94304 Non Prime Owner: 16 Assessed Value: Land Class: UnknownContract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: Bruce A Leak, 4201 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94022 Acreage: General Notes: 11.31 minus 1 acre for Homesite = 10.31 351-25-015APN: 2009:$1,462,726.00 2010:$1,459,262.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2011:$1,470,236.00 5061, 5065, 22601 Skyline Blvd Non Prime Owner: 17 Assessed Value: Land Class: 3/6/1973Contract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: Irene V. Fogarty Trustee & Et Al, 1009 Rosewood Ave., San Carlos, CA 94070 Acreage: General Notes: 139.59 minus 1 acre for Homesite = 138.59 351-12-006APN: 2009:$34,563.00 2010:$34,499.00 Value Notes: 4707Resolution No: 2011:$34,699.00 22601 Skyline Blvd, Palo Alto, 94306 Non Prime Owner: 18 Assessed Value: Land Class: UnknownContract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: Harvey D. Jr. and Pamela K. Loucks Trustee, Rt 2 Box 332, La Honda, CA 94020 Acreage: General Notes: 10.39 351-12-062APN: 2009:$509.00 2010:$509.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2011:$509.00 No address; adjacent to 22601 Skyline Blvd Non Prime Owner: 19 Assessed Value: Land Class: UnknownContract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: Harvey D. Jr. and Pamela K. Loucks Trustee, Rt 2 Box 332, La Honda, CA 94020 Acreage: General Notes: 12.35 minus 1 acre for Homesite = 11.35 351-12-063APN: 2009:$291,245.00 2010:$290,556.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2011:$292,738.00 9/20/2011 Page 6 of 7S:\PLAN\PLADIV\Current Planning\Data Files\Williamson Act\2011 Will Not Renew on January 1, 2012 because a Notice of Nonrenewal has been approved Open Space within Foothill Open Space Preserve Non Prime Owner: 1 Assessed Value: Land Class: 2/27/1979Contract Start: Notice of Nonrenewal approved on 10/6/2008; contract will terminate on 12/31/2017Contract Status: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 Acreage: General Notes: 27.34 351-04-031APN: 2009:$0.00 2010:$0.00 Value not assessed because owned by public/quasi public agencyValue Notes: 5657 and 5658Resolution No: 2011:$0.00 Open Space within the Montebello Open Space Preserve Non Prime Owner: 2 Assessed Value: Land Class: 2/28/1973Contract Start: Notice of Nonrenewal approved on 10/6/2008; contract will terminate on 12/31/2017Contract Status: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 Acreage: General Notes: 8.74 351-12-043APN: 2009:$0.00 2010:$0.00 Value not assessed because owned by public/quasi public agencyValue Notes: 4706Resolution No: 2011:$0.00 Open Space within the Montebello Open Space Preserve Non Prime Owner: 3 Assessed Value: Land Class: 2/26/1975Contract Start: Notice of Nonrenewal approved on 10/6/2008; contract will terminate on 12/31/2017Contract Status: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 Acreage: General Notes: 10.72 351-25-014APN: 2009:$0.00 2010:$0.00 Value not assessed because owned by public/quasi public agencyValue Notes: 5067Resolution No: 2011:$0.00 Open Space within the Montebello Open Space Preserve Non Prime Owner: 4 Assessed Value: Land Class: 2/28/1973Contract Start: Notice of Nonrenewal approved on 10/6/2008; contract will terminate on 12/31/2017Contract Status: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 Acreage: General Notes: 24.00 minus 1 acre for Homesite = 23.00 351-06-017APN: 2009:$0.00 2010:$0.00 Value not assessed because owned by public/quasi public agencyValue Notes: 4708Resolution No: 2011:$0.00 9/20/2011 Page 7 of 7S:\PLAN\PLADIV\Current Planning\Data Files\Williamson Act\2011 City of Palo Alto (ID # 1982) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 10/3/2011 October 03, 2011 Page 1 of 13 (ID # 1982) Summary Title: Park Plaza Architectural Review and Tentative Map Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of an Appeal of an Architectural Review Approval, a Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes, and a Record of Land Use Action (1) Approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration, (2) Upholding the Director's Architectural Review Approval of a Three Story Development Consisting of 84 Residential Units within the Upper Floors, 50,467 s.f.Ground Floor Research and Development area, Subterranean and Surface Parking Facilities, and Offsite Improvements, with Two Concessions Requested under State Government Code 65915 and (3) Approving a Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes on a 2.5 Acre Parcel at 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard (Continued from September 19, 2011) From:City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation 1. Staff and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Architectural Review (AR) application for the project. 2. The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommends denial of the Tentative Map for 84 residential condominiums and Research and Development (R&D) purposes and denial of the MND. 3.Staff recommends approval of the Tentative Map. The Council is requested to act on (1) the environmental document (Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration), (2) the Architectural Review application, and (3) the Tentative Map. The motion for a decision should include the totality of the project. Supplemental Information This item was continued from the September 19, 2011 Council agenda. Some attachments to the September 19 CMR were replaced with corrected attachments, and other attachments were added for this CMR, as follows: ·The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) minutes are provided as Attachment E ; October 03, 2011 Page 2 of 13 (ID # 1982) ·The Tentative Map image (Attachment R) is now a complete image and a larger paper copy of the map is included in the Council plan sets; ·The Architectural Review Board minutes (Attachment G) are the correct version that had been provided to the PTC; ·Councilmember questions and staff responses are provided as Attachment N; ·Attachments O through R are supplemental documents referred to in Attachment N. Councilmember Scharff had requested an excerpt of the Lapkoff PAUSD study (Attachment O), the Parking Study (Attachment P), and the Transportation Demand Management program (Attachment Q); ·Appellant comments and Residents' Comments received on or following September 19 are addressed by staff responses in Attachments S and T, respectively; ·Documents referred to in Attachments S and T are provided as Attachment U (along with any additional public comments received between the September 19, 2011 Council packet and the October 3, 2011 Council packet). Alternatives The following alternatives are outlined for Council consideration, given the mixed recommendations from PTC, ARB and staff: A.Approve the project with additional conditions of approval related to hazardous materials and monitoring. Approval Findings and Conditions are contained within the Record of Land Use Action (ROLUA, Attachment A). The ROLUA has been updated and clarified in response to comments by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and minor clerical errors have been corrected in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. B.Deny the project, based on findings supported in the record before the Architectural Review Board, Planning and Transportation Commission and/or the City Council, and direct staff to prepare changes to the ROLUA for denial to return for Council adoption at a future meeting. C.Direct the applicant to pursue the project as a Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) rezoning and return to the PTC for review of the rezone, prior to final Council action. In the event that the City Council decides to deny the applications, staff recommends that the Council explain the general basis for such denial and then continue the hearing, in order to allow staff to prepare detailed proposed supporting findings which the Council could consider at a subsequent meeting. Executive Summary The Park Plaza project is a three story, mixed-use building on a vacant 2.5 acre site approved through the Architectural Review process and appealed for Council review. Reasons for the appeal are summarized in this report and the appeal letter is attached. The requested project entitlements also include a Tentative Map for condominium purposes to create 84 condominium units including 17 below market rate units on two upper floors and October 03, 2011 Page 3 of 13 (ID # 1982) 50,467 square feet of ground floor Research and Development space, with subterranean and surface parking facilities. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared and circulated and responses to comments were included in an updated MND (Attachment C) that was provided for the final ARB review. The project site is (1) within the General Manufacturing Zone District and the Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development area, (2) listed as a housing opportunity site in the City’s Housing Element of the 1998 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, (3) within walking distance of the California Avenue Train Station, (4) next to the CalTrain/Joint Powers Board right of way, and (5) situated above the Hewlett-Packard/Varian Plume (within the COE groundwater plume). The history of the applicant’s efforts to development the site with a mixed use building extends back more than seven years and includes five separate applications for planning entitlements, and two lawsuits. The history is further detailed in this report and in Attachment H, which provides a project timeline. The ARB and staff have recommended approval of the Architectural Review application and MND, and the Planning and Transportation Commission has recommended denial of both the MND and Tentative Map, based on potential for contamination from vapor intrusion, the use of housing density bonus law concessions, and incompatibility of the residential use. The Regional Water Quality Control Board, the agency with oversight of environmental protection measures for any development above the COE plume, has approved the approach to ameliorate potential vapor intrusion. The approved approach includes the placement of a full vapor barrier with active ventilation, as well as air monitoring in the garage. Following the PTC meeting, the applicant has also offered to provide indoor air monitoring in the residential units. The City Council options include approval (recommended by staff and the ARB), denial (recommended by the PTC), or directing revisions to the project or to require a zone change to PTOD. Background Project History This project has an extensive history. The applicant has proposed housing, including Below Market Rate (BMR) units and R&D use, on the site for many years. Prior Council action included: 1.Rejection of a 2004 Planned Community application for a larger project on the site; 2.Initiation of PTOD rezoning on the site in September 2006; however, the PTOD rezoning was set aside following item 3; 3.Approval of an almost identical project on the site in 2006, conditioned upon provision of 20% BMR units. The Council’s final approval of the previous project was, however, overturned as a result of a lawsuit filed by the appellant in this case. October 03, 2011 Page 4 of 13 (ID # 1982) This project and entitlement process for this project is particularly complex due to: ·the site’s designation as a housing site in the City’s Comprehensive Plan Housing element, which appears in conflict with the underlying zoning of General Manufacturing (GM), which does not allow residential use, ·the site’s location directly adjacent to Caltrain and within the Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) area, which encourages primarily residential development, ·the site’s proximity above a toxic groundwater plume, ·the use of State Housing Density Bonus Law (Government Code 65915-65918) to obtain two ministerial “concessions” for residential use and a 1.5:1 floor area ratio, based on the provision of 20% BMR units, and ·a history of changes to the zoning on the site and uses allowed in the GM zone. Further site history is provided in Attachment H, and brief summaries of ARB and PTC actions on past and current applications are also provided therein. A later section of this report conveys the ARB and PTC recommendations and key issues of concern with respect to the current applications. Grounds for the appeal of the Director’s Architectural Review (AR) approval and more detail about the AR and Tentative Map applications are summarized later in this report and in attached documents. Project Description The Park Plaza project is a three-story, mixed-use building proposed to be located on a single parcel within the General Manufacturing (GM) Zone District and Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Area, abutting the Caltrain/JPB right of way and within 2,000 feet (walking distance) of the Cal Ave. Caltrain station. The site is adjacent to another GM zoned site which is occupied at present by the Akins auto body shop and office. The 84 residential units would be located on two upper floors within 104,971 square feet, and include 17 below market rate housing units distributed in a configuration as noted in the attached PTC staff report. The applicant had initially intended to rent all of the residential units, but provide for eventual future conversion to ownership units. Most recently, however, the applicant has stated his intention to sell all of the residential units initially rather than renting the units. The draft Below Market Rate Housing Agreement requires below market rates for the 17 residential BMR units for a period of 59 years from initial occupancy. A subterranean parking garage and courtyard parking lot would provide a total of 302 parking spaces; nine of the courtyard spaces would be placed within “landscape reserve”. The project includes a 22% reduction in parking requirements, since the project site is near the California Avenue CalTrain station and the parking facilities would be shared by the occupants of the residential units and R&D space. Off-site improvements include a 139 foot long left turn stacking lane on Park Boulevard onto Page Mill Road, sidewalk “bulb-outs” and street trees. Corridors are provided on upper floors next to the CalTrain corridor to mitigate train noise for upper floor residential occupants. The October 03, 2011 Page 5 of 13 (ID # 1982) building is designed around a central courtyard, which allows for light and air for the occupants facing the courtyard. The proposed building height is 40 feet, with a tower at the corner of Page Mill Road and Park Boulevard that would exceed 40 feet. The applicant’s proposal includes R&D use within 50,467 square feet of space on the ground floor, intended for minor incidental research and using only limited quantities of chemicals regulated by building and fire codes. MND mitigation measures ensure the ground floor R&D use would not result in unmitigated health hazards for the residential occupants. The applicant has not stated any intention to lease the R&D space to bio-medical research use, which is not regulated by building and fire codes; however, this was not explicitly stated in the project description. The applicant has recently stated that he would like an allowance for use of the Levels 1 and 2 (but not levels 3 and 4) of biological materials, though staff has included a condition of approval to restrict biological materials to the Level 1 only (level one biological materials include minor non-infectious viruses such as non-human viruses and the common cold). Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Staff believes the revised MND is fully compliant with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure the project will address the PTC’s identified safety concerns, and to provide additional clarification and approval conditions -but no additional mitigation measures -in the MND and Record of Land Use Action (ROLUA). Architectural Review (AR) Application The Director of Planning and Community Environment approved the AR application July 12, 2011, following ARB reviews and recommendation. Additional background information related to the AR application is included in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A), attached staff reports (PTC report as Attachment D and ARB report as Attachment F), and meeting minutes (PTC meeting minutes as Attachment E and ARB meeting minutes as Attachment G). Tentative Map The proposed Tentative Map is to subdivide one existing parcel to establish 84 residential condominium units on the two upper floors and Research and Development use on the ground floor. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R’s) for maintenance and general upkeep of this development are required to be submitted and reviewed prior to submittal of a Final Map. The Tentative Map includes information on the existing parcels and onsite conditions. City staff has determined that the Tentative Map application is in compliance with zoning, subdivision, and other codes and ordinances. The map contains all information and notations required to be shown on a Tentative Map. The required findings, adjusted following the PTC review, are included in the Record of Land Use Action. Pursuant to the State Subdivision Map Act, the required findings are stated in the negative such that if any of the findings are made the map shall be denied. Staff believes none of the findings can be made to require denial of the map, so it must be approved if the AR October 03, 2011 Page 6 of 13 (ID # 1982) application is also approved. The AR application was submitted first, in September, 2008, and the Tentative Map application was submitted in October, 2010 following the initial ARB hearing for this application. The condominium map is, in staff’s opinion, consistent with the AR project and with all applicable regulations for subdivisions per the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Board and Commission Review and Recommendation Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) Review The PTC has authority to review the Tentative Map and the associated MND. The Commission voted 4-2-1 to deny the map and the MND. The August 24, 2011 PTC staff report and minutes are attached for Council consideration, as Attachments D and E, respectively. The PTC members voting against the project expressed concern about the public process with regard to Government Code 65915-65918 concessions, the location of R&D below residential uses and potential health problems for building occupants, the adjacency of the site to Caltrain and the auto body shop, and the MND findings related to unknown long-term impacts of the toxic plume on project residents. The dissenting PTC members proposed a substitute motion (that failed) supporting the staff recommendation including minor modifications to the ROLUA and MND as well as a prohibition on biohazards in the R&D space. These members noted that it was not fair to change the “goal posts” (review process) for the project, that the area was experiencing rapid change in land use, that the project aligns with PTC goals for the area, and that the development site was in a pivotal position to link Fry’s to the California Avenue area. Tentative Map Findings #3 and #6 have been adjusted by staff following the PTC review to address some of their comments, and corrections were made to the ROLUA and MND regarding the housing inventory yield and PAUSD estimated student generation. No new mitigation measures or adjustments to mitigation measures are required. At the hearing, the only public testimony was provided by the appellant for the Architectural Review approval, Robert Moss. Mr. Moss’ letter to the PTC is attached to this report (within Attachment U). Mr. Moss stated there was no reason for housing adjacent to Caltrain in the GM zone, no reason for mixed use with R&D use, and asserted that he is seeking Senator Simitian’s support for replacement of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the oversight agency on groundwater issues for development within the City of Palo Alto. Mr. Moss stated his belief that the RWQCB is out of compliance with general practices for health and safety, and referred to the MEW superfund site in Mountain View, which is subject to review by the EPA as the oversight agency on groundwater issues. The PTC members questioned the City’s environmental consultant, George Burwasser, who October 03, 2011 Page 7 of 13 (ID # 1982) noted that the MND was subject to the same analysis as would be required for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Mr. Burwasser explained that the mitigation measures are considered quite conservative, that the RWQCB is the agency with jurisdiction over this site, and that indoor air quality monitoring was not the most effective means of assessing impacts. ARB Review and Appeal On July 7, 2011, the ARB reviewed the development plans and recommended approval on a 3-2 vote. The two previous ARB public hearings on this application are described in attached staff reports. The appellant cites various reasons for the appeal in his letter (Attachment B): ·Concern about the project’s appearance, including the color scheme, and belief the project would not be pedestrian friendly; o Response: The ARB recommended the project following detailed review of the color scheme and pedestrian amenities along the two street frontages. ·Concern with overflow parking and cumulative traffic impacts; o Response: A parking study was prepared to demonstrate time-of-day parking for the different land uses, and document that the reduced parking request is justified and that shared spaces will be available to accommodate the parking demand. A Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) program indicating measures to be implemented and enforced to encourage use of transit or other non-vehicular transportation modes for residents and employees of the site was also required to obtain the Director’s approval of the reduction. A TDM program was prepared by Fehr and Peers and submitted to the City. ·Concern that the applicant was “given a building permit” before the first ARB hearing on the project. o Response: This is not accurate. The applicant submitted an application for a building permit for plan check for the 2006 approval and an outside plan checker (Veritas) reviewed for building code compliance -but due to the lawsuit, no further action was taken by the City. ·Concern that a 10 foot rear setback should be provided next to Caltrain right of way to allow landscaping on the property rather than within the Caltrain right of way, and further modification of the building’s rear wall to enhance mitigation for Caltrain noise and vibration impacts. o Response: Precedents for residential units and mixed use projects along Caltrain right of way exist up and down the San Francisco Peninsula as well as in Palo Alto. Palo Alto Central is one such mixed use development (though there is a “frontage road” along the tracks). A noise study was prepared for the Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan EIR for the PTOD area rezoning presented to the PTC and approved by Council in 2006. The study provided techniques for buildings October 03, 2011 Page 8 of 13 (ID # 1982) along Caltrain right of way to reduce noise reflection. The techniques included use of absorptive materials, articulation and avoidance of sustained flat surfaces over 100 feet. The project employs these techniques. ·Concern about operation of the ventilation system during a power failure, the need for city emergency services and a belief that additional mitigation measures are needed at the level required by the EPA in other jurisdictions, to ensure residents are protected from vapor intrusion from the groundwater plume. o Response: This issue is addressed extensively in the “key issues” report section. ·Belief that the R&D is not needed to make the housing on the site economically viable. o Response: The applicant supplied a letter in the fall of 2006 noting that R&D space reduces the cost of the housing development since (a) it would cost less to build than residential space and (b) would generate more income per square foot (at an estimated 14.5% return) than the residential (at an estimated 1.4% return). ·Concern that Fire Department will not provide the necessary oversight over the use of hazardous materials in the space. o Response: The City’s Fire staff provided comment during the project review and MND process with respect to their anticipated oversight of the low level of hazardous materials potentially to be used in the proposed R&D space. During the PTC meeting, a concern regarding oversight of the use of biological materials was raised. Staff suggests a condition of approval requiring the applicant to exclude from leases the use of Levels 2, 3, or 4 biological materials in the R&D space. The condition of approval has been added to the ROLUA in the event the Council wishes to limit the R&D tenancy in this manner. ·Belief that the project violates Comprehensive Plan Policies and will exacerbate the jobs-housing imbalance and will not be compatible with the neighborhood. o Response: The project has been reviewed for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and CEQA and related findings are set forth in the ROLUA. ·Concern about school impacts. o Response: As noted in the MND and in this staff report, the Lapkoff study estimates a yield of 29 students from the project. Staff notes that some of Mr. Moss’s objections are not related to architectural review criteria. Key Issues a.Groundwater Contamination The toxic groundwater “plume” under the project site extends from the Stanford Research Park October 03, 2011 Page 9 of 13 (ID # 1982) across Caltrain and Alma Street, and is known as the California-Olive-Emerson (COE) plume (map provided in Attachment U). Mitigation measures in the MND are designed to address potential impacts from “vapor intrusion” and include a full vapor barrier and active ventilation system, as well as other protocol measures. These provisions were approved by the agency responsible for oversight of this issue in Palo Alto, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A majority of PTC members, however, did not consider the measures to be adequate or felt that considerable risk remained. The PTC also appeared to be concerned about the lack of indoor air monitoring in the residential units. Following the PTC meeting, in response to concerns about vapor intrusion, the applicant has offered to collect baseline samples on a one-time basis in all four floors of the structure (upper floors and ground floor in addition to the already stipulated air monitoring by RWQCB in the garage and riser ports). Staff has added such a condition to the ROLUA (though not as an additional mitigation measure for the MND, as the technical analysis did not find a significant impact). Staff notes that many existing housing developments have been constructed above the California Olive Emerson (COE) plume, which has been known since 1981. Two examples are the applicant’s projects at 200 Sheridan Avenue (Sheridan Plaza, 30 units plus a cafe) and 345 Sheridan Avenue (Mayfield, 83 units), both of which are served by below grade parking garages. A copy of the City’s plume map is provided as an attachment to the MND. The MEW (Middlefield, Ellis, Whisman) Study Area in Mountain View was cited by Mr. Moss as having higher level of vapor intrusion protection. It is staff’s understanding that the MEW area projects are often approved by the EPA with the full vapor barrier and passive or active ventilation systems designed very similar to the system proposed at 195 Page Mill Road. The applicant has provided a report (Attachment K) detailing his environmental consultant’s contact with an EPA representative confirming current building standards and testing protocol regarding the MEW area. There is recent precedent in Palo Alto for construction of residential units above a toxic groundwater plume. The Campus for Jewish Life (CJL) project in Palo Alto included senior housing on a podium above a more recently discovered toxic groundwater plume, the source of which had yet to be determined at the time that project was going through entitlements. In the CJL project, the groundwater “table” was much closer to the surface, such that any below grade parking would have intruded into the groundwater table. The solution in that case was to construct parking facilities above grade and thereby minimize the risk associated with construction of residential units above that toxic plume. b.Housing Density Bonus Law The City may not compel below market rate units for rental housing projects due to recent case law (Palmer v. Los Angeles). The applicant has now decided to sell the units as condominiums, however, which would require that 12.6 BMR units (15%) be provided. The applicant proposes that 20% (17 units) of the residential units to be sold at below market rates. The 20% BMR unit October 03, 2011 Page 10 of 13 (ID # 1982) proposal allows for two “concessions” via State Housing Density Bonus Law (GC 65915-65918), and the concessions are viewed as essentially ministerial. The first concession is the residential use itself, which is not otherwise allowed in the GM zone, although the site is identified for housing in the City’s Housing Element. The second concession is a floor area ratio of 1.5, which is 1.0 greater than the GM zone allows, and is comprised of 1.02 residential floor area and 0.48 commercial floor area. Were the site zoned PTOD, a 1.25 floor area ratio would be permitted, with 1.0 for residential and .25 for commercial use including R&D use. The additional residential area is requested to be granted for housing units allowed per the Housing Element, and the applicant has stated that the R&D floor area is needed to reduce the cost of the housing component. The applicant supplied staff with a statement to this effect. The City Council approved this project in 2006 with similar concessions, in fact requiring the 20% BMR set-aside to justify the concessions, though the prior approval was for an all-rental residential project. Staff believes that, based on that action and the minimum deviation from PTOD limitations, the same application to this project is warranted. A draft ordinance regarding State housing law concessions for Palo Alto has been prepared but has been on hold while staff recruited a new senior housing planner. This position was filled in early August, and a study session regarding the ordinance and issue is being scheduled for the PTC in October. c.Zoning and Land Use of Project Site In September 2005, Council eliminated the “B” overlay on General Manufacturing (GM) zoned sites, thereby eliminating residential use of GM zoned sites with the exception of those, including the project site, identified as housing sites in the City’s Housing Element. The City’s Housing Site Inventory included this site for housing at up to 40 units per acre (as is proposed). State housing law requires that the City approve housing on the site or else identify alternative housing sites to provide sufficient units to remain in compliance with the Housing Element. On September 11, 2006, Council initiated a rezoning of the project site to PTOD, though an application for a similar project on the site had just been recommended by the ARB for approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director). On November 20, 2006, the City Council approved the project. However, following a writ of mandate filed by the appellant in 2007, the Council approval was nullified because a revised CEQA document prepared by staff to address Council revisions in that case was not re-circulated. The writ required a new application to be submitted. The judgment, however, supported the City’s approval of the use of housing density bonus law “concessions” and did not concur with the appellant’s objections regarding groundwater mitigations. The RM-40 standards had formerly been applied to the residential portion of the 2006 project because the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element proposed an RM-40 zoning for the site (and the adjacent sites which together formed a 3.92 acre potential housing site (“Site 8-11”) as listed on the inventory). In 2010, the RM-40 standards for height, setbacks, lot coverage, and October 03, 2011 Page 11 of 13 (ID # 1982) daylight plane were, however, deemed as not applicable to the project by the City’s outside counsel, given the “new” application. One option for the Council (Alternative C) would be to direct the applicant to proceed back to the PTC with the same project, but under a request for Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) zoning. This would help at least clarify the land use confusion by allowing mixed use development at a similar density and floor area ratio and minimizing deviations requiring housing law “concessions”. Timeline Item Date Action AR Application Submittal September 22, 2008 Environmental Review Tentative Map Submittal October 5, 2010 Environmental Review ARB Review 12/09, 5/11, 7/11 Recommended, 3-2 PCE Director Action July 12, 2011 Approval of MND and AR Appeal July, 25, 2011 Set Council date 9/19/11 PTC Review August 24, 2011 Not recommended, 4-2-1 Council Review September 19,2011 Resource Impacts The proposed project will generate additional General Fund revenues in the form of development impact fees and additional property taxes, sales taxes, and utility user taxes. One-time development impact fees are estimated at $3,513,669. This includes parkland dedication fees estimated at $2,934,231 due to the condominium proposal, plus library and community facility fees, and the Citywide transportation impact fee. Additional annual revenues would include property taxes, sales taxes, and utility user taxes. The owner estimates that after the improvements are complete, the property will be valued at $50 million, which is $40 million more than its current assessed value. This represents a $37,000 increase in annual City property tax revenues. Furthermore, the residents of the property, along with the employees in the Research and Development portions of the building, are expected to make purchases that will add an estimated $16,000 in annual sales tax revenues, as well as approximately $15,000 in additional utility user tax revenues to City coffers. That brings the total estimated annual revenue impact to $68,000. On the expenditure side, the project would add 84 new residential units -with a combined total of 152 bedrooms -to the City housing stock. This will create new demands for City services such as community services, planning, police and fire. While quantification of the expenses for an individual project is difficult to project due to the incremental nature of service delivery costs, staff notes that development impact fees for Community Services and the Library Departments are designed to cover the incremental facility needs of the new residents. Similarly, service fees in Utilities, Community Services and Planning are designed to recoup October 03, 2011 Page 12 of 13 (ID # 1982) operating expenses associated with, for example, the delivery of utility services, classes, sports programs, plan reviews, and project permits. Police and Fire services to the Palo Alto community, however, are paid by the General Fund, as are Public Works (roadway and drainage improvements) and general government services. Although the incremental impacts of this project alone are not expected to require additional General Fund staffing, when all recently approved projects come on line, the cumulative impact may require additional staffing for services. Policy Implications Staff believes that the proposed project and subdivision are consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The residential and “Research and Development” use of the development are consistent with the associated land use designation of General Manufacturing with the Housing Element opportunity site designation, with the Transit Oriented Residential designation for the area, and with the PTOD overlay. More information about Comprehensive Plan compliance is included in the August 24, 2011 PTC staff report and compliance with specific Comprehensive Plan policies is outlined in the ROLUA. Environmental Review The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was tentatively approved prior to the Architectural Review (AR) approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment for this project. It was determined that the project could have potentially significant aesthetic, noise, traffic, and hazardous materials impacts. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is included as Attachment C. The document was available for public review and comment during a 30-day inspection period beginning May to June 2011 and clarifications were made prior to the final ARB review and Director’s action on the MND. The groundwater contamination issue is outlined in greater detail above under the PTC review and the “Key Issues” discussion. Attachments: ·Attachment A: Record of Land Use (DOC) ·Attachment B: Architectural Review Appeal by Robert Moss (PDF) ·Attachment C: Mitigated Negative Declaration (DOC) ·Attachment D: P&TC Staff Report August 24, 2011 (DOC) ·Attachment E: PTC meeting minutes August 24, 2011 (DOC) ·Attachment F: ARB Staff Report July 7, 2011 (DOC) ·Attachment G: ARB Meeting Minutes July 7, 2011 (DOC) ·Attachment H: Background Information/History (DOC) ·Attachment I: PCE Director Approval letter July 12, 2011 (DOC) ·Attachment J: Park Plaza Mitigation Monitoring Program (DOC) October 03, 2011 Page 13 of 13 (ID # 1982) ·Attachment K: Applicant's supplemental information regarding Vapor Intrusion (PDF) ·Attachment L: Applicant's response to Robert Moss Appeal Letter (PDF) ·Attachment M: Correspondence (PDF) ·Attachment N: Responses to Council Questions (PDF) ·Attachment O: Lapkoff and Gobalet Palo Alto Unified School District Study (PDF) ·Attachment P: Fehr and Peers parking studies (Excerpts of Appendices L and J of MND Reference Studies and Documents (PDF) ·Attachment Q: Transportation Demand Management Program(PDF) ·Attachment R: Tentative Map (PDF) ·Attachment S: Appellant's Recent Email and Staff Reponses (DOC) ·Attachment T: Residents' Pre-9/19 Emails and Staff Reponses (DOC) ·Attachmen U: COE Plume Map and Letters to PTC and ARB (PDF) ·Attachment V: Herb Borock Letters (PDF) Prepared By:Amy French, Current Planning Manager Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager 1 Action No. 2011-xx RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 195 PAGE MILL ROAD/2865 PARK BOULEVARD (PARK PLAZA): APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, TENTATIVE MAP [10PLN-00344] AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW [08PLN-00295](HOHBACH REALTY COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, APPLICANT) On October 3, 2011, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration and ‘Tentative Map for Park Plaza for 50,467 square feet of R&D Space and 84 Residential Condominium Units’ on a single parcel (approximately 2.5 acres) and affirmed the July 12, 2011 Architectural Review approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment to allow: (1) 84 residential condominium units on the 2nd and 3rd floor of a new 3-story mixed use building (Park Plaza) with subterranean and surface parking facilities, including 17 below market rate residential condominium units, and indoor residential common areas on the two upper floors including structural elements of the second and third floors, all utility lines serving the second and third floors, the elevators, stairways comprising 106,320 square feet of interior floor area; and common areas within the residential entry level lobbies, residential outdoor deck and pool area, roof area and trash chutes and trash areas; and (2) the land area underneath and surrounding the new three story mixed use building (Park Plaza) including landscaping and interior courtyard with surface parking for 17 vehicles and 9 vehicles in “landscape reserve” for future use as needed, first floor building area comprising 50,467 square feet for research and development use and allowing for residential use via easements of elevators and stairs, trash chute, utilities and structural elements; one level of below grade parking accessed from Park Boulevard for 276 vehicles and 87 class I bicycle storage lockers with easements allowing for residential use of associated vehicle and bicycle parking spaces, stairs, elevators and trash areas and utilities; and (3) the new 3-story mixed use building and associated on-site and off- site improvements as recommended by the Architectural Review Board and approved on July 12, 2011 by the Director of Planning and Community Environment; and making the following findings, determinations and declarations: SECTION 1. Background.The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A.On September 22, 2008, Harold Hohbach of Hohbach Realty Company Limited Partnership (Applicant) submitted an application [08PLN-00296] for Environmental Review, Architectural Review (AR) with State mandated housing density development concessions for additional floor area (1.0:1) and residential use within the GM zone, based upon 2 inclusion of below market rate housing pursuant to state affordable housing incentive law (CGC 65915-65918), for a new mixed use, 3 story building and associated on-site and off-site improvements, replacing a one story building of 50,468 square feet on a 2.52 acre (2.4 net acre) site at 195 Page Mill Road fronting Park Boulevard and Page Mill Road. B.The application for Architectural Review [08PLN-00296] was analyzed pursuant to requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared by the City’s environmental consultant (Atkins, the firm formerly known as PBS&J, Inc) and circulated for public comment between April 24, 2009 and May 25, 2009, including distribution through the State Clearinghouse. Public comments were received from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the IS/MND was revised and circulated in November 2009. Mr. Robert Moss commented on the document, particularly objecting to the analysis and mitigations dealing with groundwater contamination. C.On December 3, 2009, the ARB considered the AR application and public comments and continued its review to a date uncertain to allow the applicant to modify the plans. D.On October 5, 2010, the Applicant submitted the Tentative Map application [10PLN-00344] for condominium purposes but not involving the merger of parcels. The merging of the parcels had been approved previously via the City’s Certificate of Compliance process. The Tentative Map application was submitted prior to the preparation of environmental review documents and subsequent public hearings on the AR application. E.On February 22, 2011, the applicant submitted a letter to address storage and hazardous materials use by possible R&D tenants in the Park Plaza project, requesting City approval of such storage and use in limited quantities, identifying safeguards related to storage, rated walls, protected openings and ventilation systems. The IS/MND was revised and circulated on May 5, 2011, including distribution by the State Clearinghouse, for a public comment period ending June 7, 2011. F.On May 19, 2011, prior to the end of the comment period, the ARB held a public hearing and continued their review to a date uncertain to allow for the completion of the public comment period and to allow the applicant to address their comments. Three sets of public comments on the revised IS/MND were received, from Robert Moss, Roger Papler of the RWQCB, and Herb Borock. A City Public Works staff member also provided additional verbiage for the document to reflect updated regulations. The City’s consultant (Atkins) prepared responses addressing the comments by Mr. Moss and Mr. Papler and, along with Public Works staff edits, these were incorporated into the annotated IS/MND dated June 29, 2011 and uploaded to the City’s website in materials for the third ARB hearing on July 7, 2011. The third set of public comments (Borock) pertained to the Below Market Rate housing 3 with respect to CEQA review and the Tentative Map, and were provided to the ARB at places, acknowledged in staff’s oral presentation to the ARB, and provided to the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission). G.On July 7, 2011, the ARB recommended, on a 3-2 vote, approval of the project plans, subject to staff conditions of approval and additional conditions of approval contained in this Record of Land Use Action. H.On July 12, 2011, the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) received the ARB recommendation, tentatively approved the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and approved the AR application. Findings and conditions of approval recommended by the ARB were incorporated into the AR approval (and have been incorporated into this ROLUA). Notices of the Director’s decision were mailed, but a Notice of Determination was not filed with the County of Santa Clara, because a timely appeal of the Director’s decision was received. I.Following AR approval of the Park Plaza development project by the Director, the Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes [application 10PLN-00344] was advertised for public hearing and consideration by the Planning and Transportation Commission. J.On July 25, 2011, the Director’s decision on the AR application (application 08PLN-00295) was appealed. K.On August 9, 2011, the Applicant submitted a revised Tentative Map with only the title changed, to “Tentative Map for ‘Park Plaza’ for 50,467 square feet of R&D Space and 84 Residential Condominium Units” (formerly titled “Tentative Map for ‘Park Plaza’ for R&D purposes and Residential Condominium Purposes”). The title change is considered a legal clarification of the purposes of the Tentative Map rather than a substantive change to the project. L.On August 24, 2011, the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended, on a 4-2-1 vote, that the City Council deny the Tentative Map application based upon Findings #3 and #6, and noting the MND findings to be inadequate in that the location of housing in the GM zone would be injurious to public health, the unknown impacts from the spread of the toxic plume would be detrimental to health and safety, concern over the adjacency of the R&D to residential use, and the lack of monitoring of long-term health in occupied spaces. SECTION 2.Environmental Review.The background regarding the Environmental review is provided in Section 1. The City Council has approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Tentative Map, and has upheld the Director’s decision on the AR application. a Notice of Determination will be filed with the County of Santa Clara. 4 SECTION 3.Project Approval Findings The approval findings for the project are set forth below: 3A. Tentative Map Findings. A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Vesting Tentative Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California Government Code Section 66474): 1.That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451: This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The site does not lie within a specific plan area and is consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. The land use designation in the area of the subdivision is Light Industrial and the zoning designation is GM. The proposed mixed use development is consistent with the land use and zoning designations of the site, since the site is designated for housing in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan Housing Element contains a Housing Sites Inventory (Appendix A) which references the project site (2.5 Acres) as among the parcels comprising the 3.92 Acre Housing Site #8-11) as likely to provide housing units at the RM-40 zoning density (40 units/acre) with a “minimum dwelling unit yield” of 120 housing units for the entire Site #8-11. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Definitions provides for use of a Transit Oriented Residential land use designation that considers sites within 2,000 feet of the California Avenue multi-modal transit station as able to accommodate densities up to 50 units per acre. The project site is within the boundaries of the City’s Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District area, which enables property owners to request a PTOD zoning designation on to allow for higher density residential housing on industrial parcel within a walk-able distance of the California Avenue Caltrain station. Though the applicant has not requested PTOD project zoning for the parcel, the proposed uses are consistent with the permitted land uses in a PTOD zone. 2.That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans: This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The Tentative Map is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies and programs for land use/housing (Policies L-7, L-31, Programs L-31, H-3 and H-5), Below Market Rate housing (Policy H-2 and programs H-1, H-3 and H-38), sustainable design (Goal H-5, Policies H-25, N-47 N-48 and Program H- 69), transit-orientation (Policy and Program T-1), open space/amenities (Policies N-15 and N-22), and noise (Policies N-39, N-40, N-42). The AR findings cited in Subsection 3B of this ROLUA include additional comprehensive plan policies B-2, L-5, L-48, L-49, L-75 and T-19 as applicable to the approval of the mixed use building. 5 In addition, Tentative Map (10PLN-00344) is not inconsistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: (1) Policy L-1: Limiting future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area; (2) Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities; (3) Policy H-4: Encourage mixed use projects as a means of increasing the housing supply while promoting diversity and neighborhood vitality; (4) Policy H-12: Encourage, foster and preserve diverse housing opportunities for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households; (5) Policy N-41: When a proposed project is subject to CEQA, the noise and impact of the project on existing residential land uses should be evaluated in terms of the increase in existing noise levels and potential for adverse community impact, regardless of existing background noise levels. This mixed-use project is an in-fill development that will provide housing diversity and encourage neighborhood vitality. The site’s location is not adjacent to low density residential uses and multi- story office buildings are located within the immediate vicinity of the subject site. The project does not constitute an abrupt change in scale and density from adjacent uses. Since the residential condominiums will be located adjacent to CalTrain right of way and two public streets, above Research and Development land use,and adjacent to land zoned for light industrial uses, the environment experiences moderate to high levels of noise. However, the building design was subject to environmental review for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan noise policies and the attenuation of noise is required per Mitigation Measure #7 (contained within the AR approval conditions in this ROLUA), which specifically cites Comprehensive Plan policy N-39 compliance for the building interiors. The exterior area within the courtyard will be buffered from Caltrain and street noise by the building walls, which would also serve as noise-attenuating walls to control parking noise generated within the courtyard. The project includes soundproofing materials and STC rated windows to address the JPB/Caltrain proximity. Deliveries and trash pickup would be limited by the City’s regulations designed to minimize noise impacts. 3.That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development: This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The site is suitable for subdivision into condominiums for both the market rate and below market rate housing units approved via the AR process and can accommodate the proposed mixed-use, infill development. The site is adjacent to established commercial development, and the entire area is within the Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) area, which allows mixed use with predominantly residential us. Adjacent sites include: (1) the Akins auto body shop and an office on the adjacent GM (AD) zoned parcel, (2) the office building on the 8.5 Acre ROLM zoned parcel at 395 Page Mill Road across Park Boulevard (where Research and Development is a permitted use and where a Conditional Use Permit is required for either a mixed use project with multiple family residential units), (3) the office building on the opposite 6 corner, a GM zoned parcel between Page Mill and Oregon Expressway, and (4) the GM zoned property across Page Mill Road from the site and formerly considered by the City of Palo Alto for an emergency services building and considered for multiple family residential development in prior years. The site is relatively flat and regular in shape. The site is close to the California Caltrain station and is currently served by water, gas, wastewater, electric, and communication services. The site also has standard access for emergency service delivery. 4.That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development: This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The purpose of the Tentative Map is to create 50,467 square feet of Research and Development space and 84 residential units. The density reflected in the subdivision is consistent with the Housing Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density and with State density bonus law, is allowed additional floor area above the development standard for the GM zone as a concession. The site’s location within walking distance of a transit station and proposed shared parking facilities will allow the proposed density, subject to Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) implementation per Mitigation Measure #9 (TDM is required prior to building permit issuance and subject to review after occupancy). The development would be accessed from a public street and the warning system required to be implemented per Mitigation Measure #8 will eliminate potential conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists at the entrance to the underground garage. 5.That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat: This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The project is an infill site surrounded by development and in a light industrial district. The new development would occur within the footprint of the pre-existing development, which previously consisted of light industrial buildings and surface parking areas. The project’s Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration state that there are no significant impacts to existing sensitive wildlife and plants. 6.That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems:This finding can not be made in the affirmative. With implementation of Mitigation Measures #4 and #6, addressing groundwater contamination and proximity of the research and development use to the residential use, the subdivision would not be likely to cause serious public health problems. These mitigation measures, prepared by the City’s environmental consultants and reviewed multiple times, were ultimately approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the agency having jurisdiction over measures addressing development above toxic groundwater. The project is designed to provide access for emergency 7 services, will supply necessary utility services, such as sanitation, and is designed per City and State standards to ensure public safety. The applicant’s proposal does not include R&D condominiums so the owner is retaining control over the entire R&D space with tenant leases. The use and storage of other nominal hazardous materials (typically including but not limited to print shops, boutique dry cleaners, dental offices and labs, small fabrication shops (like IDEO) for prototype products, including small scale machine shops, or medical prosthetics) would be subject to standard protocols and safety measures of the Building and Fire Code Regulations. Pursuant to Conditions of Approval herein, the R&D tenant leases will include stipulation that biological materials levels 2 through 4 will be excluded from the ground floor R&D space. 7.That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The subdivision of the existing parcel will not conflict with easements of any type, in that the subdivision is compatible with the emergency vehicle access and any utility easements that would be required to serve the proposed developments. 3B. Architectural Review Findings: The project is consistent with all relevant Architectural Review findings in PAMC Section 18.76.020(d) including the following: 1. The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project would satisfy specific Comprehensive Plan programs, policies and goals, including: ·Policy B-2:Support a strong interdependence between existing commercial centers and the surrounding neighborhoods as a way of encouraging economic vitality; ·Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale; ·Policy L-31: Develop the Cal-Ventura area as a well-designed mixed used district with diverse land uses with two-to three- story buildings; ·Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces; 8 ·Policy L-49:Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human-scale details and massing; ·Policy L-75: Minimize the negative physical impacts of parking lots. Locate parking lots behind buildings or underground wherever possible; ·Policy T-1:Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use; and ·Policy T-19: Improve and add attractive, secure bicycle parking at both public and private facilities, including multi-modal transit stations, on transit vehicles, in City Parks, in private developments, and at other community destinations. The project is a mixed-use development in the Cal-Ventura area, including for sale housing and research and development uses. The conditions of approval contained within Section 7 of this Record of Land Use Action reflect the conditions that were attached as Attachment C to ARB staff report dated July 7, 2011, modified in accordance with Architectural Review Board recommendations on July 7, 2011, for the Director’s action on July 12, 2011, will ensure a high quality design and compatibility with adjacent and nearby uses. 2.The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site. The three-story building will be located in a General Manufacturing zone district where a variety of architectural styles and masses are found. The proposed building would add mass and establish a new architectural presence on a visible site at the corner of Page Mill Road and Park Boulevard. The new building would be taller and longer than the buildings on adjacent sites, but will nevertheless be compatible with these buildings. 3.The design is appropriate to the function of the project. Research and development and residential uses, are located on separate floors, which provides a needed separation from both uses. Both elevators and stairs provide access to each floor. A central courtyard would provide at grade parking as well as landscaped open space and private balconies for the dwelling units (with the exception of two units that would not have balconies) for the occupants of the building. 5.The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different land uses; The project would be physically separated from the residential zones located on the opposite side of Alma Street by a four-lane street and the Joint 9 Powers Board (Caltrain) right-of-way. Aside from this physical separation, the proposed project would be located in an area, which has buildings in various architectural styles and masses. The project would serve as a focal point when one approaches Park Boulevard from Page Mill Road. 6.The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site; The project has been be reviewed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department and the Public Works Department to ensure compatibility with improvements. The proposed project would include street improvements to be funded and implemented by the applicant. The proposed street improvements would not interfere with proposed plans to establish Park Boulevard as a ‘bike boulevard.’ 7. The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order an provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community. The proposed project has clearly defined area of residential and R&D uses.The main approach to the building would be from Park Boulevard and would lead into an open landscaped courtyard that is mostly surrounded by the building. The site has sufficient bike secured and public bicycle parking facilities for residents, employees and visitors. The upper two floors, consisting of residential units and includes amenities such as a swimming pool and a meeting room, and show facilities for the R&D use at the first floor level. The units that would be most impacted by passing trains on the adjacent JPB railway property would be buffered by a hallway access to the units so that balconies for these units would face the central courtyard. 8.The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures. A minimum of 20% (20,994 square feet) of the lot area must be developed as permanently maintained usable open space, measured on the ground floor only. The proposed project would include approximately 23.5% (26,556 square feet) of the site as usable open space. Each unit would (with the exception of two units) have a private balcony of at least 50 square feet. Although PAMC Section 18.13.040 generally requires at least 50 sq. ft. of private open space per unit, PAMC Section 18.13.040(e)(2)(B) allows the 50 sq. ft. per unit to be added to the common usable open space. Proposed at 16,636 sq. ft., the amount of common usable open space is well above the minimum required 4,200 sq. ft. of common usable open for all 84 dwelling units. The central courtyard would include landscaping and amenities such as benches for use by both visitors and occupants of the project. 9.Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project and the same are compatible with the project’s design concept. This finding can be made in the affirmative 10 in that sufficient well-designed amenities are proposed in the project that would be compatible with the project design as described herein. 10.Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. Vehicles will enter the site from Park Boulevard to access both the at-grade and below grade parking facilities. The project would include a warning device to alert pedestrians of cars exiting the parking garage. Bicyclists will have access to bicycle parking (both rack and lockers) in the courtyard. Each unit will have private storage in the below grade parking garage that also can be used for bike parking. Pedestrians may enter the site from the courtyard entrance on Park Boulevard or from the parking lot. Access is available to all floors via a staircase or elevators in the buildings interior. 12.The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are an appropriate expression of the design and function and are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions. The building materials would include stucco and metal panels for the exterior walls. The interior of the courtyard would have decorative landscaping, interlocking pavers, decorative paving, and a fountain. A landscaped strip adjacent to the building would be located behind the sidewalk along both Page Mill Road and Park Boulevard. 13.The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable functional environment and whether the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site. The proposed landscaping for the project would bring plants, shrubs, and trees to a relatively barren site, and the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the building on the site in that the amount or types of planting do not overwhelm, but support the building design as conditioned. 14.Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety, which would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance. The Planning Arborist has reviewed all plant materials, with final approval of street trees in the purview of the Public Works Department. The proposed water- conserving irrigation system and any final list of plant materials would be evaluated in conjunction with the building permit. 15.The design is energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy elements including but not limited to: The project is required to meet the City’s Green Building requirements. The project’s 11 sustainable design strategies include energy-efficient building systems and drought-tolerant plants. (ARB findings #4 and #11 would not apply to this project.) In conclusion, all of the applicable Architectural Review findings for Application 08PLN-00000-00295 can be made in the affirmative, subject to meeting the conditions of approval as modified by the ARB on July 7, 2011, and approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. SECTION 4.Tentative Map Approval Conditions.Tentative Map application 10PLN-00344 is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) Sections 21.12 and 21.20 and the California Government Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions of approval herein, to allow for 84 residential condominiums on the second and third floor of the three story mixed use building, with associated common areas for residential use, and easements allowing for residential site access, utilities and structure within the ground floor, subterranean garage, and use of the interior courtyard and parking area. A copy of this Tentative Map is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Conditions of Tentative Map approval are as follows: PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING SERVICES CONDITIONS 1.The applicant shall remove and replace the sidewalk, curb, and gutter along the project’s frontages.In addition, the applicant shall resurface the street frontages of the project, full-width, 2- inch grind and overlay.These improvements shall be shown on the off- site improvement plans and reviewed and approved prior to the approval of the final map. 2.No grading or building permits shall be issued prior to the recordation of the final map and subdivision agreement. 3.A Grading and Excavation Permit issued by the CPA Building Inspection Division is required for the proposed project.Any grading permit issued in conjunction with a phased project implementation plan will only authorize grading and storm drain improvements.Other site utilities may be shown on the grading plan for reference only, and should be so noted.No utility infrastructure should be shown inside the building footprint.Installation of these other utilities will be approved as part of a subsequent Building Permit application. 4.The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property.The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application.A Storm Drainage Fee adjustment on the applicant’s monthly City utility bill will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building 12 Inspection Division.The impervious area calculation sheets and instructions are available from Public Works Engineering. 5.Any and all easements required for utility or other purposes shall be shown on the tentative map. 6.The applicant is required to paint the “No Dumping/Flows to Matadero Creek” logo in blue color on a white background, adjacent to all storm drain inlets.Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598.A deposit may be required to secure the return of the stencil.Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. Include maintenance of these logos in the Hazardous Materials Management Plan,if such a plan is part of this project. 7.A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site.All truck routes shall conform with the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. A handout describing these and other requirements for a construction logistics plan is available from Public Works Engineering. 8.The applicant shall obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works Engineering for pedestrian protection on the public sidewalk and or construction proposed in the City right-of-way.Sec. 12.08.010.A detailed site-specific soil report prepared by a licensed soils or geo-technical engineer must be submitted which includes information on water table and basement construction issues.This report shall identify the current groundwater level, if encountered, and by using this and other available information, as well as professional experience, the engineer shall estimate the highest projected ground- water level likely to be encountered in the future.Measures must be undertaken to render the basement waterproof and able to withstand all projected hydrostatic and soil pressures.No pumping of ground water is allowed.In general, however, Public Works Engineering recommends that structures be constructed in such a way that they do not penetrate existing or projected ground water levels. 9.No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 10.The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP's) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared for the project. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, 13 paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains.(PAMC Chapter 16.09). 11.All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. 12.The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the finalization of this permit.All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off.Similarly, all as-builts, on-site grading, drainage and post-developments BMP’s shall be completed prior to sign-off. 13.A curb ramp for the disabled will be required at each project corner. 14.A Subdivision Agreement is required to secure compliance with condition of approval and security of improvements onsite and offsite.No grading or building permits will be issued until Final or Parcel Map is recorded with County Recorder. 15.The subdivider shall post a bond prior to the recording of the final parcel or subdivision map to guarantee the completion of the “on” and “off” site condition(s) of approval. The amount of the bond shall be determined by staff of the Planning, Utilities and Public Works Departments. 16.The project subdivision includes significant complexity involving, final map and coordination of infrastructure design and construction.Developer shall appoint a Project Manager to coordinate with City, Public Works and Utility, engineering staff.Public Works will conduct daily and longer-term communication with appointed project manager in order to facilitate timely review and approval of design and construction matters. 17.DEWATERING: Basement excavations may require dewatering during construction.Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering.Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system.The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level.We recommend a piezometer to be installed in the soil boring. The contractor must determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using the piezometer or by drilling an exploratory hole if the deepest excavation will be within 3 feet of the highest anticipated groundwater level.If groundwater is within 3 feet of the deepest excavation, a drawdown well dewatering system must be used, or alternatively, the contractor can excavate for the basement and hope not to hit groundwater, but if he does, he must immediately stop all work and install a drawdown well system before he continues to excavate.Public Works may require the water to be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals 14 during dewatering.If testing is required, the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for the contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Permit for Construction in the Public Street (“street work permit”).The applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain approval of the plan during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be required to obtain a street work permit prior to dewatering.Public Works has a standard dewatering plan sheet that can be used for this purpose and dewatering guidelines are available on Public Works’ website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=272 6. Alternatively, the applicant must include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the site plan. PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CONDITIONS. 18.The applicant has requested two concessions from the City under the State Density Bonus Law. Prior to approval of the Final Map, Applicant must comply with State Density Bonus Law and the City’s Below Market Rate Housing Ordinance, as applicable, by deed restricting 20%, or 17, of the approved housing units to be affordable in accordance with City regulations and GC 65915-918. This deed restriction shall be in a form acceptable to the City and an agreement to that effect shall be recorded in conjunction with recording of the Final Map. 19.The applicant shall fund and implement a 139’ left turn stacking lane as shown and approved in conjunction with the Architectural Review project plans. SECTION 5.Final Map Approval. The Final Map submitted for review and approval by the City Council of the City of Palo Alto shall be in substantial conformance with the Tentative Map prepared by Mission Engineers, Inc. titled “Tentative Map for Park Plaza for 50,467 square feet of Research & Development Space and 84 Residential Condominium Units” consisting of one page, dated August _, 2011 and received on August __, 2011 (title recently changed from “Tentative Map for Park Plaza for R&D Purposes and Residential Condominium Purposes” dated 9-27-10 map received October 5, 2010), except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 4. Within two years of the approval date of the Tentative Map, the subdivider shall cause the subdivision or any part thereof to be surveyed, and a Final Map, as specified in Chapter 21.08, to be prepared in conformance with the Tentative Map as conditionally approved, and in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Section 21.16 and submitted to the City Engineer (PAMC Section 21.16.010[a]). 15 SECTION 6.Architectural Review Approval.The Architectural Review application for a new 3-story mixed-use building (Park Plaza) and associated on-site and off-site improvements, as recommended by the Architectural Review Board and approved on July 12, 2011 by the Director of Planning and Community Environment, includes the granting of two concessions pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915-65918: (1) to allow residential use in GM ‘General Manufacturing’ zone, and (2) to exceed the allowable FAR.The Architectural Review project is 84 residential units in 106,320 square feet of floor area on the 2nd and 3rd floors, including 17 below market rate residential units, plus lobbies, an outdoor deck and a pool area; parking facilities located within a subterranean garage providing 276 automobile spaces and 87 class I bicycle storage lockers, and uncovered parking spaces at the first floor level providing 17 vehicles and 9 vehicles in “landscape reserve” for future use as needed and bicycle parking (# class I lockers and # racks); and 50,467 square feet of first floor area for research and development use. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Hoover Associates titled “Park Plaza 2865 Park Blvd. 195 Page Mill Road”, dated June 28, 2011, reviewed by the Architectural Review Board, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in this Record of Land Use Action. A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Development. The conditions of approval in Section 7 shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. SECTION 7.Architectural Review Approval Conditions. PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CONDITIONS Planning Division 1.The plans submitted for building permit shall reflect changes to the plans dated June 28, 2011, presented to the ARB on July 7, 2011 and further conditioned with ARB approval as follows: (A)The ALT drawings in the plan set reviewed by the ARB on July 7, 2011 (reflecting the alternate tower design) shall be removed from plans submitted for building permit. (B)As shown in the June 28, 2011 plan set conditionally approved by ARB on July 7, 2011, colors shall be mocked up (brush-out sample areas) on the building following construction for ARB subcommittee review (arranged by the ARB liaison following contact by the applicant that the mockup is in place). (C)The accent wall parapets shall have 24” returns. (D)Sun shades shall be provided on upper floor residential windows on three sides (Park Blvd, Page Mill Road, and side facing the adjacent parcel (Akins). (E)The Planting Plan (Plan Sheet L2.1) shall indicate V-1 vine species as ‘Pink Jasmine’ per applicant’s July 6, 2011 letter 16 reviewed by the ARB. (F)Prior to building permit submittal, the applicant shall submit the following details for ARB subcommittee review: i.The upper floor window sunshade details; ii.The light fixture cut sheets and locations; iii.Fence details; iv.Perspective views of the tower from both street frontages with tower lid details to ensure design integrity on all four sides of the tower 2.Additional Conditions regarding R&D space and air quality testing: a. Biological materials within the R&D space shall be restricted to Biological Level One (non-infectious) materials; no Biological Level Two through Four biological materials shall be permitted within the R&D space and tenant lease(s) shall reflect this prohibition; b. Applicant or applicant’s successor shall implement the proposed collection of baseline samples of air quality on a one-time basis on all four floors (basement and above grade floors) of the project, not later than 90 days following final inspection approval for the project, to the Planning Director, along with a report from a qualified environmental consultant comparing the results with required State or Federal standards, whichever is applicable. If any sample indicates violation of applicable air quality standards, remedial measures must be taken to correct the violation accordingly prior to occupancy of any residential unit. 3.The project is required to comply with PAMC 16.14 for green building. Building permit plans shall include compliance with the Multifamily Greenpoint Rated Checklist for the residential portion of the project and the California Green Building Code Checklist –as locally amended to require Tier 2 –for the R&D portion of the project. 4.The project is required to comply with PAMC 16.12.030 for recycled water infrastructure. Building permit plans shall include the on-site infrastructure necessary to connect the site’s irrigation system to the city’s recycled water supply when it becomes available. Plans shall demonstrate that recycled water will be used when available, and include consideration for plants that are recycled water tolerant. 5.The project at 195 Page Mill Road has over 100 toilets, which triggers the City’s requirement to install dual-plumbing for toilet flushing, in addition to the use of recycled water in the landscape. Please visit the following link for more information on the recycled water ordinance. www.cityofpaloalto.org/les 6.Conditions related to the pending application for Tentative Map may be added to this development project in conjunction with Council action on the Tentative Map. Generally, Final Map approval 17 and recordation must be completed prior to the issuance of building permits. 7.If during excavation and construction activities, any archaeological or human remains are encountered, construction shall cease and the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease immediately until a Native American descendant, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning. 8.To the extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees, consultants and agents (the “indemnified parties) from against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 9.Development Impact Fees in the estimated amount of $3,513,669.00 (includes parkland dedication in-lieu fee associated with condominiums contingent upon Council approval of proposed Tentative Map) shall be paid prior to building permit issuance. This amount includes $2,934,231.07 for parkland dedication in-lieu fee (given the condominium proposal rather than rental units –this fee is paid instead of the parks fee), $142,864.93 for community center fees, $45,276.00 for library fees and $391,297 for the Citywide transportation impact fee (TIF). The fee estimates were based on an assumption of an existing commercial building at 50,467 square feet which had existed on the property until 2007, resulting in no requirement for housing fees and no additional associated parks, community center, library fees, nor Citywide TIF for the commercial portion of the project. The final fee amount will be determined based upon impact fee rates in place at the time of building permit issuance. 10.The following mitigation measures specified in the adopte Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be followed: MM-1:Implementation of ARB Recommendations Any Architectural Review conditions of approval, with respect to the design of the proposed project, shall be incorporated into the final design by the applicant. 18 MM-2:Indoor Air Filtration A central HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) shall be installed that includes high efficiency filters for particulates (MERV-13 or higher). The system should operate to maintain positive pressure within the building interior to prevent infiltration of outdoor air indoors. MM-3:Protection of Nesting Birds The applicant shall abide by all provisions of Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game Code and Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) as published in the Federal Register (Vol. 70, No. 49; March 15, 2005). Although there is no vegetation on the project site that may contain nesting birds, there may be nesting birds in existing vegetation abutting the proposed project site (e.g., in the Caltrain property). To protect any nesting birds, the proposed project may avoid construction during the nesting period. Alternatively, a qualified wildlife biologist (to be hired by the applicant) shall conduct a survey for nesting birds that are covered by the MBTA and/or Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game Code in the vicinity of the project site. This survey shall cover all areas that would be disturbed as a result of construction related activities during the nesting period, and shall include a “buffer zone” (an area of potential sensitivity, beyond the bounds of the proposed project construction area) which shall be determined by the biologist based on his or her professional judgment and experience. This buffer zone may include off-site habitat. This biological survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the commencement of construction activities. The wildlife biologist shall provide a report to the City promptly, detailing the findings of the survey. No construction shall be conducted until this report has been provided to the City and the City has authorized in writing the commencement of construction activities in accord with the biologist’s findings. If nesting birds that are covered by the MBTA and/or Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game Code are discovered within the buffer zone, the report shall specify the locations of the nests and shall establish an appropriate construction buffer zone around the nest location(s). Nests containing birds that are covered by the MBTA and/or Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game Code discovered on site or at off-site locations shall not be disturbed, and construction shall not occur within the appropriate construction buffer zone until a qualified wildlife biologist determines that the young have fledged and left the nest. 19 MM-4:Protocol for Management of On-site Contamination a)A formal dewatering plan (Construction Dewatering Contingency Plan) shall be prepared, consistent with Mitigation Measure MM-6 in Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality of this Initial Study and consistent with the City’s Construction Dewatering System Plan Preparation Guidelines and Dewatering from Construction Sites and In-ground Utilities Maintenance Manual. This plan shall be prepared and submitted for final approval by the City’s Public Works Department prior to issuance of City permits. The applicant shall provide information in the plan regarding the lateral and vertical distances to existing groundwater contamination plumes and an analysis of the potential impacts to those plumes caused by construction activity on the project property, including the use of dewatering sumps or wells under the proposed underground parking structure. Prior to submission to the City, this information shall be submitted to the RWQCB for approval that the proposed work on the subject property, including any use of dewatering sumps or dewatering wells would not have an adverse impact on the current and future cleanup effort of the HP-Varian or COE plumes. The approval shall be submitted to the City’s Public Works Department with the plan and shall verify that dewatering sumps or dewatering wells, if proposed, would not alter the path of the groundwater contamination plume(s) and could not result in 1)bringing groundwater contamination to the project site or 2)a possible future exposure of the public on the project site to groundwater contaminants. The plan shall identify testing and analysis methods, and treatment, if necessary, for disposal into the storm drain system to ensure compliance with the City’s Municipal NPDES permit. Sufficient personnel and material shall be provided by the applicant to implement the plan, should groundwater be encountered by the excavation. b)The applicant shall provide ready access to the project site for the City Building Official, or a third party hired by the Building Official, at the owner's expense, that specializes in the monitoring of activities related to excavation and design features during project construction at sites with contaminated soil and groundwater, to inspect and enforce implementation of the Soil Management Plan prepared by Tucker Engineering addressing the procedures and precautions to be used for the proper containment, profiling, movement, exportation of soil, etc. during the excavation and construction period. 20 c)The applicant shall provide ready access to the project site for the third party inspection service, which would report to the City and be financed by the applicant to inspect and enforce implementation of the Remedial Risk Management Plan (RRMP), including implementation of the Site Health and Safety Plan; contaminated soil sampling, excavation, and management; the dewatering contingency plan; reporting requirements; land use covenant and environmental restrictions; long term monitoring, inspections, contingencies, and enforcement. d)The applicant shall file documentation with the RWQCB, the third party inspection service reporting to the City and financed by the applicant, and the City for final approval of the completion of the excavation, including soil sampling results within 60 days following the completion of excavation. e)Prior to issuance of the occupancy permit the applicant shall file documentation from an independent consultant specializing in vapor mitigation system design and installation for final approval by the third party inspection service reporting to the City and financed by the applicant confirming that each component (collection pipes, transmission pipes, inlets, risers, vents, etc.) of the vapor intrusion mitigation system (VIMS) has been installed in accordance with the recommendations of the Vapor Mitigation System and Monitoring Plan, and includes the installation of a full vapor barrier, which shall be a 60-mil thick, spray-applied membrane below the elevator shafts, stairwells, pipe chases, and entire floor-slab, as part of the active vapor collection and venting system (i.e., driven by electric fans at the effluent end of the VIMS riser pipes and enhanced by outside air entering through inlet vents) to be installed in the building to mitigate potential soil vapor intrusion. f)The applicant shall file documentation with the RWQCB and the City for final approval by the third party inspection service reporting to the City and financed by the applicant of installation of the VIMS, initial garage air sampling results, and the startup sub-slab vapor-riser monitoring results, with vapor-riser monitoring reports submitted as required by the RRMP, within 60 days following the completion of building construction. g)The applicant shall comply with contingencies regarding vapor monitoring to protect against potential vapor 21 intrusion which would involve additional remediation if the results of the first six (monthly) monitoring events indicate any cause for concern. If the VIMS is operating correctly, monitoring would continue quarterly until vapor concentrations were reduced to 50 percent of the RWQCB ESLs and annually thereafter. If the third party inspection service determines that the VIMS is not functioning adequately, the system is required to be redesigned (under the supervision of the third party inspection service) for more effective removal of VOCs. Monitoring would continue until VOC concentrations were demonstrated to be maintained below the commercial ESLs, as recommended by the RWQCB. h)The applicant shall condition the lease agreements with each R&D tenant proposing to use hazardous materials to stipulate that the storage and use of hazardous materials within their space would not exceed the limits set by Tables 2703.1.1(1), (2), and (3) Maximum Allowable Quantity Per Control Area of Hazardous Materials Posing a Physical Hazard, 2010 California Fire Code, Title 24, Part 9, Chapter 27, Section 2703.1.1. The space for each R&D tenant proposing to use hazardous materials shall be constructed as a separate compartment with one-hour rated walls, protected common openings, and separate ventilation systems. i)The applicant shall condition the lease agreements with each R&D tenant proposing to use hazardous materials to stipulate that the tenant shall comply with the City’s Hazardous Materials Reporting Requirements and shall prepare and file with the Fire Department, as appropriate, a Hazardous Materials Management Plan or a Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement providing sufficient information on how and where hazardous materials are handled by the business to allow fire, safety, health, and other appropriate personnel to prepare adequate emergency responses to potential releases of the hazardous materials. j)Monitoring wells encountered during site preparation or excavation shall be reported immediately to the RWQCB for its decision regarding proper abandonment or abandonment and replacement by the applicant. Work shall stop in proximity to the well(s) until the decision of the RWQCB is implemented. The applicant shall file documentation with the RWQCB and the City for final approval by the City Building Official, or a third party hired by the Building Official, at the owner's expense, that specializes in the monitoring of activities related to excavation and design features 22 during project construction at sites with contaminated soil and groundwater,of proper abandonment or abandonment and replacement of any affected wells. MM-5: Grading and Drainage Plan The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan for the proposed project, for City approval prior to the issuance of a grading, excavation, or building permit. This grading and drainage plan shall comply with Engineering Design Standards for storm drain facilities, shall be designed to convey the 10-year storm flow, and shall reflect the recommendations of the Joe Crosby and Associates Geotechnical Report, dated May 10, 2004. MM-6:Construction Dewatering Plan A construction dewatering plan shall be prepared consistent with Chapter 33 of the 2007 California Building Code, and shall be submitted to the City in association with all proposed sub-grade garage excavation activities prior to issuance of a grading, excavation or building permit. The applicant shall include the dewatering plan in the permit plan set submitted for approvals for any excavation activities on the project site. The plan shall provide a system that would remove silt and other pollutants from this water and place clean water into the City storm drain system. The applicant shall secure current data on the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using piezometers, or by drilling exploratory holes, if the deepest excavation would be less than four feet above the highest anticipated groundwater level. Should dewatering be necessary (i.e., if excavation would occur within four feet above the highest anticipated groundwater level and the piezometer investigation revealed the presence of free groundwater within four feet above that highest anticipated groundwater level), the applicant shall secure City permits associated with the placement of dewatering equipment or actual dewatering and excavation activities on the project site or the abutting public right- of-way prior to beginning excavation. Upon installation, the dewatering system shall reflect BMPs that ensure the water discharged would be of appropriate quality. The installation shall be approved by a City field inspector prior to the commencement of construction water discharge to the storm drain. Extracted groundwater shall be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. Testing shall be performed by an independent testing firm hired by the Building Official, at the owner's expense. Any dewatering to occur in the public right-of-way shall be 23 subject to review and approval by the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department. MM-7:Indoor Noise Minimization The project shall include design features as specified in the project noise assessment to reduce the indoor noise levels to meet the interior noise standards prescribed by the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Policy N-39. MM-8:Pedestrian Warning System A vehicle exiting/pedestrian warning system shall be installed for the underground parking garage driveway to eliminate potential conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists. MM-9:Transportation Demand Management Plan A Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) program shall be implemented as approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The TDM shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits and shall include a shared parking analysis based on the number of assigned parking spaces, and may incorporate (but shall not be limited to) such features as: developer-sponsored subsidized transit passes for residents and employees, a transportation coordinator, convenient displays of alternative travel options, and unbundling of parking, if such features are determined to be adequately effective by the Director of Planning and Community Environment in reducing parking demand. The TDM program shall be subject to further review after building occupancy pursuant to PAMC 18.52.050(d)(3) and (4). Housing Condition 11.Applicant has requested two concessions from the City under the State Density Bonus Law. Prior to approval of the Tentative Map, Applicant must comply with State Density Bonus Law and the City’s Below Market Rate Housing Ordinance, as applicable, by deed restricting 20%, or 17, of the approved housing units to be affordable pursuant to State law and City below-market rate policy. This deed restriction shall be in a form acceptable to the City and an agreement to that effect shall be recorded in conjunction with recording of the Final Map. Transportation Division 12.The plans, ‘Exhibit A,’ include public street improvement plans which are to be funded and implemented by the owner in conjunction with this project, and shall be completed prior to final occupancy approval. 24 13.The short term (plaza level) bicycle racks should be inverted-U type racks, or other approved by transportation staff. 14.The new curb shown would be acceptable.(Maintain 5 foot bike lane and 10.5 foot travel lanes throughout frontage). 15.Accessible parking spaces shall be 18 feet long. 16.Parking spaces that are adjacent to walls have a minimum width requirement of 9’-0”.A substandard stall, especially without the additional backup space would not be acceptable toward the parking requirement.The City of Palo Alto no longer allows new spaces to be designated for compact cars. 17.The following measures shall be incorporated during construction: ·All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily. ·All trucks hauling soil, sand, and loose materials shall be covered or shall retain at least two feet of freeboard. ·All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site shall be swept and watered daily. ·A plan shall be submitted for the recovery/recycling of demolition waste and debris before the issuance of a demolition permit. ·Streets shall be swept daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. ·The approved Logistics Plan for work in the right-of-way shall be strictly followed. ·Qualified contractors should be used to identify and properly dispose ACM and lead-based paint materials if encountered. Planning Arborist Landscape Plans 18.The building permit plan set shall include a detailed landscape and irrigation plan encompassing on-and off-site plantable areas out to the curb as approved by the Architectural Review Board.A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations and a statement of design intent shall be submitted for the project.A licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant will prepare these plans, to include: (a) All existing trees (if applicable) identified both to be retained and removed including street trees. (b) Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations. (c)Irrigation schedule and plan. (d)Fence locations. (e) Lighting plan with photometric data. (f) Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. (g) All new trees planted within 25 the public right-of-way shall be installed per Public Works (PW) Standard Planting Diagram #603 or 604 (include on plans), and shall have a tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. (h) Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. (i) Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees.For trees, PW Detail #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball.Bubblers shall not be mounted inside an aeration tube.The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Irrigation in the right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards. (j) The Landscape Plan shall ensure the backflow device is adequately obscured with the appropriate screening to minimize visibility (planted shrubbery is preferred, painted dark green, decorative boulder covering acceptable; wire cages are discouraged). 19.Mandatory Landscape Architect (LA) Inspection Verification to the City: The LA of record shall verify the performance measurements are achieved with a separate letter of verification to City Planning staff, in addition to owner’s representative for the following: Tree and Shrub Planting Specifications, including delivered stock, meets Standards in the CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.30-3.50. Girdling roots and previously topped trees are subject to rejection. 20.The groundcover species in the planter strips, where star jasmines and geranium varieties are proposed shall be replaced with a variety of carpet rose plants. During Construction 21.TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 22.GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 26 Prior to Occupancy 23.LANDSCAPE INSPECTION. The Planning Department shall be in receipt of written verification that the Landscape Architect has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and that they are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. 24.PLANNING INSPECTION. Prior to final sign off, contractor or owner shall contact the city planner (650-329-2441) to inspect and verify Special Conditions relating to the conditions for structures, fixtures, colors and site plan accessories. Post Construction 25.MAINTENANCE.All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2001 or current version).Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. PUBLIC WORKS -OPERATIONS TREES 26.Page Mill Road and Park Boulevard: Utilize city-approved Silva Cell soil planter (approx. 30-inch depth) beneath the new sidewalk from corner to corner. Utilities shall be allowed to pass thru the planters. Provide automatic irrigation using a solar smart controller with two bubblers per tree. Utilize Public Works Planting Detail #604. Beneath each tree planting site, auger two 4-6” diameter drain holes 3 ft deep below the bottom of the planter basin soil and backfill with medium sand (0.25 to 0.5 mm) or fine gravel. 27.For the Park Boulevard frontage, the proposed landscape plan shall be revised to show: (1) five 24-inch box Hornbeam trees in place of the five Australian Willow trees, and (2) the planting locations of the proposed two London Plane (‘Columbia’ variety rather than ‘Yarwood’) street trees closest to the adjacent property at 3845 Park Boulevard shall be shifted one foot further back from the curb (this may require a slight modification to the sidewalk design to accommodate sufficient planting areas for the ne street trees). 28.Provide automatic irrigation using a solar smart controller with two bubblers per tree. Utilize Public Works Planting Detail #604. Beneath each tree planting site, auger two 4-6” diameter drain holes 3ft deep below the bottom of the planter basin soil and backfill with medium sand (0.25 to 0.5 mm) or fine gravel. Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all street trees utilizing PW Detail #513. 27 29.The final landscape and irrigation shall be subject to review and approval by the Public Works Operation Division prior to issuance of building permits. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING SERVICES 30.OFFSITE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The City will determine which offsite public improvements will be required for this project, potentially including, but not limited to: new utility services; new sidewalk, curb, gutter, planter strip and street trees; grinding, repaving, reconfiguring and restriping the full width of the City streets adjacent to the site; and street signage. Special sidewalk treatments must be approved by Public Works. The offsite improvement plans must be submitted to Public Works for review. Construction of the offsite public improvements will be authorized by a Street Work Permit. 31.BONDS: The developer shall post performance and payment bonds prior to the issuance of the Street Work Permit for the offsite public improvements. The developer shall submit a cost estimate of the offsite improvements, which the City will review and use to determine the acceptable dollar amount of the bonds. 32.BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 33.BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. Public Works will not allow any of the shoring system to remain in the public right-of-way after construction is complete except tiebacks. 34.DEWATERING: Basement excavations may require dewatering during construction.Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering.Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed.Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level.We recommend a piezometer to be installed in the soil boring. The contractor must determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using the piezometer or by drilling an exploratory hole if the 28 deepest excavation will be within 3 feet of the highest anticipated groundwater level. If groundwater is within 3 feet of the deepest excavation, a drawdown well dewatering system must be used, or alternatively, the contractor can excavate for the basement and hope not to hit groundwater, but if he does, he must immediately stop all work and install a drawdown well system before he continues to excavate.Public Works may require the water to be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering.If testing is required, the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for the contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. (A)Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Permit for Construction in the Public Street (“street work permit”).The applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain approval of the plan during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be required to obtain a street work permit prior to dewatering.Public Works has a standard dewatering plan sheet that can be used for this purpose and dewatering guidelines are available on Public Works’ website.Alternatively, the applicant must include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the site plan. 35.GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that demonstrates proper drainage of the site. Additionally, if the applicant will be connecting onsite storm drains to the city’s storm drain system, he must provide calculations demonstrating that post-development discharge of run-off will be no more than pre-development runoff, otherwise, he may be required to provide onsite detention. 36.GRADING PERMIT: The site plan must include a table providing the cubic yardage of dirt being cut and filled outside of the building footprint. If the total is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. An application and plans for a grading permit are submitted to Public Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. 37.SWPPP:The proposed development will disturb more than one acre of land. Accordingly, the applicant will be required to comply with the State of California’s General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. This entails filing a Notice of Intent to Comply (NOI), paying a filing fee, preparing and implementing a site specific storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that addresses construction- stage BMP’s for storm water quality protection, and conducting 29 monitoring and sampling of storm water and non-storm water discharges from the site during construction per the requirements of the General Permit. Effective, September 2, 2011, the SWPPP shall be implemented by a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) retained by the applicant. The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. Also, include the City's standard "Pollution Prevention -It's Part of the Plan" sheet in the building permit plan set. Copies are available from Public Works at the Development Center. 38.IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 39.C.3: This project will trigger the California Regional Water Quality Control Board’s revised provision C.3 for storm water regulations (incorporated into the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 16.11) that apply to land development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. The City’s regulations require that the project incorporate a set of permanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to protect storm water quality. The applicant will be required to identify, size, design and incorporate permanent storm water pollution prevention measures (preferably landscape-based treatment controls such as biotreatment planters, bioswales, filter strips, and permeable pavers rather than mechanical devices that require long-term maintenance) to treat the runoff from a specified “water quality storm” prior to discharge to the municipal storm drain system. If the project does not receive its final discretionary approval from the City prior to December 1, 2011, the applicant must also comply with the Low Impact Development (LID) requirements for storm water treatment, as specified in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.11.030(c). Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a certification by a qualified third party reviewer acceptable to the City that the design of the project complies with the requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. Within 45 days of installation of the required storm water treatment measures, a qualified third party reviewer acceptable to the City shall provide written certification that the treatment measures are constructed or installed in accordance with the approved plans. The applicant must designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City. No final occupancy permit shall be 30 issued until such third party certification and maintenance agreement are provided to Public Works Engineering. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. There is currently a $350 C.3 plan check fee that will be collected upon submittal for a grading or building permit. 40.AS-BUILTS: At the conclusion of the project, applicant shall provide digital as-built plans of all improvements constructed in the public right-of-way or easements in which the City owns an interest. A digital copy of the subdivision map shall also be provided. All files should be delivered in AutoCad drawing format. For each CD delivery, a simple digital text file will need to accompany the files. This is called a Metadata file and will include the date of the file, the coordinates used, the source of the data, the company name and contact information, along with the technician who prepared them. 41.BUILDING PERMIT SIGN-OFF: The Public Works Inspector shall sign-off the building permit. Activities that must be completed prior to this sign-off include: 1) all off-site improvements, 2) all on-site grading and storm drain improvements, 3) all post-construction storm water pollution control measures (including third-party certification [within 45 days of installation] that the measures are installed in accordance with the approved plans), 4) entering into and recording a maintenance agreement for the C.3 measures, and 5) submittal of as-built record drawings for improvements in the public right-of-way. PUBLIC WORKS WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE 42.(PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040 Discharge of Groundwater). The project is located in an area of suspected or known groundwater contamination with Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). If groundwater is encountered then the plans must include the following procedure for construction dewatering: Prior to discharge of any water from construction dewatering, the water shall be tested for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using EPA Method 601/602 or Method 624. The analytical results of the VOC testing shall be transmitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) 650-329-2598. Contaminated ground water that exceeds state or federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm drain system or creeks.If the concentrations of pollutants exceed the applicable limits for discharge to the storm drain system then an Exceptional Discharge Permit must be obtained from the RWQCP prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer system. If the VOC concentrations exceed the toxic organics discharge limits contained in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (16.09.040(m)) a 31 treatment system for removal of VOCs will also be required prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. Additionally, any water discharged to the sanitary sewer system or storm drain system must be free of sediment. 43.(PAMC 16.09.180(b)(11) Carwash Required). New Multi-family residential units and residential development projects with 25 or more units shall provide a covered area for occupants to wash their vehicles. A drain shall be installed to capture all vehicle wash waters and shall be connected to an oil/water separator prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer system. The oil/water separator shall be cleaned at a frequency of at least once every six months or more frequently if recommended by the manufacturer or the Superintendent. Oil/water separators shall have a minimum capacity of 100 gallons. The area shall be graded or bermed in such a manner as to prevent the discharge of storm water to the sanitary sewer system. 44.(PAMC 16.09.080 Industrial Waste Discharge Permit). Industrial dischargers must submit an application for an industrial waste discharge permit no later than sixty days in advance of commencing discharge. 45.(PAMC 16.09.180(b)(9) Covered Parking). Drain plumbing for parking garage floor drains must be connected to an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system 46.(PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled Facilities). New buildings and residential developments providing centralized solid waste collection, except for single-family and duplex residences, shall provide a covered area for a dumpster. The area shall be adequately sized for all waste streams and designed with grading or a berm system to prevent water runon and runoff from the area. 47.(PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) Architectural Copper). On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper granule containing asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt, provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory. 32 48.(PAMC 16.09.175(k) (2) Loading Docks). (i)Loading dock drains to the storm drain system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. (ii) Where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are handled or used within the loading dock area, a drain to the storm drain system shall not be allowed. A drain to the sanitary sewer system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. The area in which the drain is located shall be covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading. Appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent shall be provided for all rainwater contacting the loading dock site. 49.(PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC). Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. 50.(PAMC 16.09.205 Cooling Towers). No person shall discharge or add to the sanitary sewer system or storm drain system, or add to a cooling system, pool, spa, fountain, boiler or heat exchanger, any substance that contains any of the following: (1)Copper in excess of 2.0 mg/liter; (2)Any tri-butyl tin compound in excess of 0.10 mg/liter; (3)Chromium in excess of 2.0 mg/liter. (4)Zinc in excess of 2.0 mg/liter; or (5)Molybdenum in excess of 2.0 mg/liter. The above limits shall apply to any of the above-listed substances prior to dilution with the cooling system, pool, spa or fountain water. A flow meter shall be installed to measure the volume of blowdown water from the new cooling tower. Cooling systems discharging greater than 2,000 gallons per day are required to meet a copper discharge limit of 0.25 milligrams per liter. 51.(PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper Piping). Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and short lengths of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not practical.The plans must specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing. 33 52.(PAMC 16.09.175(j) Traps Below Laboratory Sinks). Sewer traps below laboratory sinks shall be made of glass or other approved transparent materials to allow inspection and to determine frequency of cleaning. Alternatively, a removable plug for cleaning the trap may be provided, in which case a cleaning frequency shall be established by the Superintendent. In establishing the cleaning frequency, the Superintendent shall consider the recommendations of the facility. The Superintendent will grant an exception to this requirement for areas where mercury will not be used; provided, that in the event such an exception is granted and mercury is subsequently used in the area, the sink trap shall be retrofitted to meet this requirement prior to use of the mercury. 53.(PAMC 16.09.175(a) Floor Drains).Interior (indoor) floor drains to the sanitary sewer system may not be placed in areas where hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, industrial wastes, industrial process water, lubricating fluids, vehicle fluids or vehicle equipment cleaning wastewater are used or stored, unless secondary containment is provided for all such materials and equipment 54.(PAMC 16.09.175(i) Laboratory Sinks).Laboratory countertops and laboratory sinks shall be separated by a berm which prevents hazardous materials spilled on the countertop from draining to the sink. 55.(PAMC 16.09.180(b)(1) and 16.09.105 Segregated Plumbing and Sampling Locations). The owner of every new commercial and industrial building or portion thereof shall cause the building to be constructed so that industrial waste is segregated, by means of separate plumbing, from domestic waste prior to converging with other waste streams in the sanitary sewer system. For the purposes of this section only, the term "new" shall also include change to a use that requires plumbing for industrial waste. Establishments from which industrial wastes are discharged to the sanitary sewer system shall provide and maintain one or more sampling locations or metering devices or volume and flow measuring methodologies or other sampling and measuring points approved by the Superintendent which will allow the separate measuring and sampling of industrial and domestic wastes. Unless otherwise approved by the Superintendent, domestic and industrial waste shall be kept completely separated upstream of such sampling locations and/or measuring points. Establishments that are billed for sewer service on the basis of sewage effluent constituents shall provide a suitable means for sampling and/or measurement of flow to determine billing constituents in accordance with the utilities rules and requirements. Sampling locations shall be so located that they are safe and accessible to the Superintendent at any reasonable time during which discharge is occurring. 34 56.(16.09.180(12) Mercury Switches). Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps. 57.(PAMC 16.09.205(a) Cooling Systems, Pools, Spas, Fountains, Boilers and Heat Exchangers). It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems, pools, spas, fountains boilers and heat exchangers to the storm drain system. 58.(PAMC 16.09.165(h) Storm Drain Labeling). Storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No dumping -Flows to Bay," or equivalent. 59.Undesignated Retail Space: (PAMC 16.09) Newly constructed or improved buildings with all or a portion of the space with undesignated tenants or future use will need to meet all requirements that would have been applicable during design and construction. If such undesignated retail space becomes a food service facility the following requirements must be met: Food Service Establishment (FSE) Project: A. Grease Control Device (GCD) Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.075 & cited Bldg/Plumbing Codes 1.The plans shall specify the manufacturer details and installation details of all proposed GCDs. (CBC 1009.2) 2.GCD(s) shall be sized in accordance with the 2007 California Plumbing Code. 3.GCD(s) shall be installed with a minimum capacity of 500 gallons. 4.GCD sizing calculations shall be included on the plans. See a sizing calculation example below. 5.The size of all GCDs installed shall be equal to or larger than what is specified on the plans. 6.GCDs larger than 50 gallons (100 pounds) shall not be installed in food preparation and storage areas. Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health prefers GCDs to be installed outside. GCDs shall be installed such that all access points or manholes are readily accessible for inspection, cleaning and removal of all contents. GCDs located outdoors shall be installed in such a manner so as to exclude the entrance of surface and stormwater. (CPC 1009.5) 7.All large, in-ground interceptors shall have a minimum of three manholes to allow visibility of each inlet piping, baffle (divider) wall, baffle piping and outlet piping. The plans shall clearly indicate the number of proposed manholes on the GCD. The Environmental Compliance Division of Public Works Department may authorize variances which allow GCDs with less than three manholes due to manufacture available options or adequate visibility. 8.Sample boxes shall be installed downstream of all GCDs. 9.All GCDs shall be fitted with relief vent(s). (CPC 1002.2 & 1004) 35 10.GCD(s) installed in vehicle traffic areas shall be rated and indicated on plans. B. Drainage Fixture Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.075 & cited Bldg/Plumbing Codes 11.To ensure all FSE drainage fixtures are connected to the correct drain lines, each drainage fixture shall be clearly labeled on the plans. A list of all fixtures and their discharge connection, i.e. sanitary sewer or grease waste line, shall be included on the plans. 12.A list indicating all connections to each proposed GCD shall be included on the plans. This can be incorporated into the sizing calculation. 13.All grease generating drainage fixtures shall connect to a GCD. These include but are not limited to: a.Pre-rinse (scullery) sinks b.Three compartment sinks (pot sinks) c.Drainage fixtures in dishwashing room except for dishwashers shall connect to a GCD d.Examples: trough drains (small drains prior to entering a dishwasher), small drains on busing counters adjacent to pre-rinse sinks or silverware soaking sinks e.Floor drains in dishwashing area and kitchens f.Prep sinks g.Mop (janitor) sinks h.Outside areas designated for equipment washing shall be covered and any drains contained therein shall connect to a GCD. i.Drains in trash/recycling enclosures j.Wok stoves, rotisserie ovens/broilers or other grease generating cooking equipment with drip lines k.Kettles and tilt/braising pans and associated floor drains/sinks 14.The connection of any high temperature discharge lines and non-grease generating drainage fixtures to a GCD is prohibited. The following shall not be connected to a GCD: a.Dishwashers b.Steamers c.Pasta cookers d.Hot lines from buffet counters and kitchens e.Hand sinks f.Ice machine drip lines g.Soda machine drip lines h.Drainage lines in bar areas 15.No garbage disposers (grinders) shall be installed in a FSE. (PAMC 16.09.075(d)). 16.Plumbing lines shall not be installed above any cooking, food preparation and storage areas. 17.Each drainage fixture discharging into a GCD shall be individually trapped and vented. (CPC 1014.5) 36 C. Covered Dumpsters, Recycling and Tallow Bin Areas PAMC, 16.09.075(q)(2) 18.New buildings constructed to house FSEs shall include a covered area for all dumpsters, bins, carts or container used for the collection of trash, recycling, food scraps and waste cooking fats, oils and grease (FOG) or tallow. 19.The area shall be designed and shown on plans to prevent water run-on to the area and runoff from the area. 20.Drains that are installed within the enclosure for recycle and waste bins, dumpsters and tallow bins serving FSEs are optional. Any such drain installed shall be connected to a GCD. 21.If tallow is to be stored outside then an adequately sized, segregated space for a tallow bin shall be included in the covered area. D. Large Item Cleaning Sink, PAMC 16.09.075(m)(2)(B) 22.FSEs shall have a sink or other area drain which is connected to a GCD and large enough for cleaning the largest kitchen equipment such as floor mats, containers, carts, etc. Recommendation: Generally, sinks or cleaning areas larger than a typical mop/janitor sink are more useful. E. GCD sizing criteria and an example of a GCD sizing calculation (2007 CPC) Sizing Criteria:GCD Sizing:Drain Fixtures DFUs Total DFUs GCD Volume (gallons)Pre-rinse sink 4 8 5003 compartment sink 3 21 7502 compartment sink 3 35 1,000Prep sink 3 90 1,250Mop/Janitorial sink 3 172 1,500Floor drain 2 216 2,000Floor sink 2 Example GCD Sizing Calculation Note:·All resubmitted plans to Building Department which include FSE projects shall be resubmitted to Water Quality. ·It is frequently to the FSE’s advantage to install the next size larger GCD to allow for more efficient grease discharge prevention and may allow for longer times between Quantity Drainage Fixture & Item Number DFUs Total 1 Pre-rinse sink, Item 1 4 4 1 3 compartment sink, Item 2 3 3 2 Prep sinks, Item 3 & Floor sink, Item 4 3 6 1 Mop sink, Item 5 3 3 1 Floor trough, Item 6 & tilt skillet, Item 7 2 2 1 Floor trough, Item 6 & steam kettle, Item 8 2 2 1 Floor sink, Item 4 & wok stove, Item 9 2 2 4 Floor drains 2 8 1,000 gallon GCD minimum sized Total:30 37 cleaning. There are many manufacturers of GCDs which are available in different shapes, sizes and materials (plastic, reinforced fiberglass, reinforced concrete and metal) ·The requirements will assist FSEs with FOG discharge prevention to the sanitary sewer and storm drain pollution prevention. The FSE at all times shall comply with the Sewer Use Ordinance of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The ordinances include requirements for GCDs, GCD maintenance, drainage fixtures, record keeping and construction projects. UTILITIES ENGINEERING –WATER GAS WASTEWATER 60.Master metering of water or gas is subject to the approval of the city of Palo Alto utilities Assistant Director of Customer Service. Gas master metering is subject to the following conditions of the Palo Alto Utilities Rules and Regulation 15: MASTER METERING: Separate premises, even though owned by the same Customer, will not be supplied water, gas, and/or electric through the same meter (i.e. master meter), except as provided herein. i.RESIDENTIAL Customers for which water, gas, and electric master-metering was installed prior to December 31, 1982, may continue to obtain service at a single Point of Delivery through a single metering installation for two or more single-family dwelling units in the same building or for two or more multi- family dwelling buildings, provided such buildings are adjacent to each other on an integral parcel of land undivided by a public highway, street, or railway. Requests for master-metered multi-family residential service subsequent to December 31, 1982, will be evaluated and approved if central space conditioning is acceptable to CPAU. Developments with such central systems will continue to qualify for master metering. (B)NONRESIDENTIAL (C)CPAU need not serve premises directly, but shall provide master-metered gas service, where any of the following conditions are met: (D)The building will contain central heating, air conditioning, or central domestic hot water and can be shown (using accepted methods of calculation) to be more energy efficient and at a more favorable cost-benefit ratio than would be the case if individual metering were installed. 38 i.(B) The building is designed to be subdivided or modified after construction to meet changing space needs of a number of tenants. 61.Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit the existing water/wastewater fixture unit loads (and building as-built plans to verify the existing loads) to determine the capacity fee credit for the existing load. If the applicant does not submit loads and plans they may not receive credit for the existing water/wastewater fixtures. 62.The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect the gas service and meter including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after the gas service and meters have been disconnected and removed. 63.The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application -load sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). Utility applications/Load sheets or preliminary loads need to be submitted early in the process so utilities can review the impact on existing WGW mains. 64.The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. 65.The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water supply. 66.The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 67.Sewer drainage piping serving fixtures located below the next upstream sewer main manhole cover shall be protected by an approved backwater valve per California Plumbing Code 710.0. The upstream sewer main manhole rim elevation shall be shown on the plans. 68.Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 39 69.Flushing of the fire system to sanitary sewer shall not exceed 30 GPM. Higher flushing rates shall be diverted to a detention tank to achieve the 30 GPM flow to sewer. 70.Sewage ejector pumps shall meet the following conditions: (1) The pump(s) be limited to a total 100 GPM capacity or less; (2) The sewage line changes to a gravity flow line at least 20’ upstream of the City clean out. (3) The tank and float is set up such that the pump run time not exceed 20 seconds each cycle. 71.The applicant's engineer shall submit flow calculations and system capacity study showing that the on-site and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Field testing will be required to determined current flows and water pressures on existing water main. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The applicant will be required to perform, at his expense, a flow monitoring study of the existing sewer mains to determine the remaining capacity.The report must include existing peak flows or depth of flow based on a minimum monitoring period of seven continuous days or as determined by the senior wastewater engineer. The study shall meet the requirements and the approval of the WGW engineering section. No downstream overloading of existing sewer main will be permitted. 72.For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department two copies of the installation of water and wastewater utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance with the utilities department design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work, method of construction and the manufacture's literature on the materials to be used for approval by the utilities engineering section. The applicant's contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the improvement plan and other submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. 73.The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with the installation of the new utility service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The approved relocation of services, meters, 40 hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 74.Each unit, parcel or place of business shall have its own water service, gas meter and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 75.A separate water meter and backflow preventer shall be installed to irrigate the approved landscape plan. Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account and no other water service will be billed on the account. The irrigation and landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards. 76.An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) shall be installed for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 77.An approved RP detector valve shall be installed for the existing or new water connections for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (if the applicant intends to have an alternate source of water available for irrigation or toilet flushing, i.e. reclaimed water or gray water, an approved reduced pressure detector assembly will be required for the fire service). Double check detector check valves shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line. Show the location of the double detector check assembly on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the City connection and the assembly. 78.All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. 79.All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilties procedures. UTILITIES ENGINEERING ELECTRICAL DEPARTMENT 41 80.New sanitary sewer line on Page Mill Road shall not be placed under the proposed transformers. The applicant shall resubmit the site plan with either a new location for the pad-mounted transformers, or reroute the new sanitary sewer line such that there is proper clearance between the sanitary sewer line and the electric facilities. Locations for pad-mounted transformers shall be submitted to the Utilities Department for approval. WGW Utilities requires a minimum of 5 feet radial separation between electric conduits and WGW conduits. 81.A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans must be included with all building permit applications involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included with the preliminary submittal. 82.The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. In addition, the owner shall grant a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property as required by the City. 83.Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 84.All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. 85.Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines must be coordinated with the Electric Utility. Additional fees may be assessed for the reinforcement of offsite electric facilities. 86.Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. 42 87.All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at a depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. 88.The Applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Applicant shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 89.The customer is responsible for installing all on-site substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code requirements and no ½-inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer’s expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant. 90.All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. 91.The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. 92.These are only preliminary comments and should not be considered as final review or approval for the project. Utilities Engineering will provide detailed comments as well as cost estimate when plans are submitted to the Building Department for review and approval. The City recommends customers/developers to contact Utilities Engineering (650- 566-4533/4516) and obtain Utilities Standards and Requirements prior to finalizing plans. 43 93.For any questions regarding the above project, feel free to contact me at ext.4533. BUILDING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO PERMIT APPLICATION 94.Any tenant space used for storage, use or handling of hazardous materials shall be designed as a separate control area in accordance with the Building Code, including one- hour fire separation, independent ventilation, and any fume hood or process exhaust shall be independently ducted in accordance with the Mechanical Code to the roof. 95.No Group H occupancies will be allowed on site. 96.The proposed new building shall be assigned a single Park Boulevard address. 2901 Park Blvd. shall be used since it coincides with the location of the proposed main entrance. 97.The plans submitted for the building permit shall include the full scope of the construction including all site development, utility installations, architectural, structural, electrical, plumbing and mechanical work associated with the proposed project. 98.The entire project is to be included under a single building permit and shall not be phased under multiple permits except that interior improvements of the commercial tenant spaces may be built under separate permits. 99.The design of building components that are not included in the plans submitted for building permit and are to be “deferred” shall be limited to as few items as possible. The list of deferred items shall be reviewed and approved prior to permit application. 100.The commercial tenant spaces located below the second floor 3 hour occupancy separation shall be limited to S3, A3, B, and M occupancies per UBC Section 311.2.2.1. Other occupancies, such as, F, H, A2.1, R1 and E, shall not be permitted. 101.A maximum of 4 control areas are permitted in the entire building. The quantities of hazardous materials stored and used by all the future tenants of the B occupancy R&D areas shall be maintained below maximum allowable. 102.The plans submitted for the building permit shall include an allowable floor area calculation that relates the mixed occupancies to type or types of construction. 44 103.The portion of the building where the pool is located shall be provided with an exit stair enclosure. Horizontal exits may only be used for 50% of the required exits. 104.The location of the building’s electrical service shall require prior approval by the Building Division and shall be located at an exterior location or in a room or enclosure accessible directly form the exterior. 105.All sleeping rooms in the apartment units below the fourth floor shall be provided with egress windows. The windows shall open into a public street, public alley, yard or exit court (these terms are defined in the 1997 Uniform Building Code). 106.Exit discharge from the stair enclosures to the public way shall be configured so that the path is entirely outside the building through courts or yards that are open to the sky. The plan submitted with the Planning applications indicates the exit path to the public way leading below the bridges created by the upper floors. 107.The plans submitted with the permit application shall include the complete design for disabled access and exiting for the entire site, building entrances and basement parking garage. Disabled access features and exiting within the unimproved commercial areas may be deferred to future tenant improvement permits. 108.The parking garage is proposed to contain 275 total parking spaces. For that number of total spaces, CBC Table 11B-6 requires that at least 7 handicap parking spaces. 109.An acoustical analysis shall be submitted and the plans shall incorporate the report’s recommendations needed to comply with the sound transmissions requirements in CBC Appendix Chapter 12. FIRE DEPARTMENT 110.Install a NFPA 13 fire sprinkler, NFPA 14 standpipe (below grade parking through roof levels) and NFPA 72 fire alarm system. Separate permit is required for the fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems. The underground fire service line requires separate applications to the Fire Prevention Bureau, the Public Works Department and the Water/Gas/Wastewater Section of the Utilities Department. Fire sprinkler control valves and water flow switches are required per building level. 45 111.Elevator car shall be sized for Fire Department gurney access requirements based on gurney dimensions of 24 in. x 84 in. plus a minimum of two emergency response personnel. 112.When the Main Electrical Shutoff is located in the interior of the building, an exterior shunt trip or other approved means of emergency shutoff shall be provided. Please contact the Building Div. For details. 113.All sprinkler drains, including those for floor control valves and inspector’s test valves, as well as the main drain, shall not discharge within the building. Water discharged from these points shall be directed to an approved landscape location or to the sanitary sewer system. (2002NFPA13, Sec. 8.15.2.4.4) NOTE: Please check with Roland Ekstrand in Utilities for maximum flow capacity of sanitary sewer in the area. 114.An approved access walkway shall be provided to each egress/rescue window. 115.The Applicant shall provide Opticom traffic signal preemption equipment and reimbursement for cost of installation for the Page Mill Road/El Camino Real intersection. 116.Site address to be posted at the main access to the property. 8. Provide at least 1 stairway to roof. Provide fixed ladder/roof hatch at top of other stairwell enclosures. PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS -RECYCLING 117.Owner shall comply with all City recycling and garbage collection requirements. Please contact Andrew Shelton, of Greenwaste Recovery Inc. at 650-799-8720 for further information on these requirements. SECTION 9: Terms of Approval.If the Architectural Review Approval granted herein is not used within one year of the date of City Council approval, or within two years of this approval upon Director’s extension of the AR, the approval shall become null and void, pursuant to PAMC Section 18.77.090. SECTION 10.Indemnity Clause.To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”)from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of the 46 litigation.The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: ______________________________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM _______________________________________ City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: Project plans prepared by Hoover Associates dated June 28, 2011 and Tentative Map prepared by Mission Engineers, Inc titled “Tentative Map for ‘Park Plaza’ for 50,467 square feet of R&D space and 84 Residential Condominium Units” dated August __, 2011 (title revised from plans dated September 27, 2010, no other changes). 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -1 - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 1.Project Title:Park Plaza 2.Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Palo Alto –Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 3.Contact Person and Phone Number: Lata Vasudevan Contract Planner (650) 329-2630 4.Project Location:195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, California 5.Application Number(s):08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00344 6.Project Sponsor (Applicant):Hohbach Realty Company Limited Partnership 29 Lowery Drive Atherton, CA 94027 7.Property Owner:Hohbach Realty Company Limited Partnership 29 Lowery Drive Atherton, CA 94027 8.General Plan Designation: Light Industrial 9.Zoning: GM –General Manufacturing 10.Description of the Project: Project Site The proposed Park Plaza project (“proposed project”) site is at 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, in the "General Manufacturing" (GM) zoning district. The project site is bounded by Park Boulevard, Page Mill Road, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) propertyand 3405 Park Boulevard. The project site consists of one parcel (APN 132-32-054), which is approximately 2.52 acres (gross) and 2.41 acres (net). An 11-foot street easement extends along the southwest property line adjacent to Park Boulevard. The Caltrain railway property defines the northeast project site propertyline. Alma Street parallels the Caltrain right-of-way, and multiple family residences face Alma Street along the northeast side. Page Mill Road defines the northwest boundary of the project site and a vacant Formatted:Not Highlight 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -2 - lot is across Page Mill Road. Adjacent uses include railroad tracks, automobile body shop, automobile sales and service, offices occupied by AOL and subtenants, and law offices. The project site currently is vacant. Previous development at the site included buildings which were demolished on, or about, August 2007. The project site presently is leased by K.J.Woods Construction Company, Inc. for use as a construction materials staging and operations area for a sewer line replacement project for the City of Palo Alto. Proposed Land Uses The proposed project would include research and development (R&D) and residential uses. The total building size would be 157,387 square feet, including 50,467 square feet of R&D space on the ground floor, and 106,920 square feet of residential space on the second and third floors. The residential space would contain 84 dwelling units: 20 one- bedroom units, 60 two-bedroom units, and 4 three-bedroom units. Seventeen of the units (20 percent) would be designated as Below Market Rate (BMR) dwelling units. The applicant has requested that the Cityapply ‘concessions’ (to grant two exceptions from development standards) in exchange for providing 20 percent BMR units, pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65915 et seq. (explained in the Land Use and Housing section of this Initial Study). A subterranean parking garage would provide 274 vehicle parking spaces. Surface parking would add 19 spaces and an additional 9 parking spaces would be available in a landscape reserve. Site improvements related to the R&D and residential uses, such as site landscaping, would be constructed as part of the proposed project. The proposed project site is identified on the Housing Sites Inventory in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan as a potential housing site to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Although housing is not generally allowed in the GM zone in which the proposed project would be constructed, housing is allowed by right because the site is on the Housing Sites Inventory. State Housing Element law prohibits a city from reducing or barring housing on an inventory site unless compensating sites are designated or all housing needs are met. Parking Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC)Section 15.42.040, a total of 388 parking spaces would be required for the proposed project. PAMC 18.52.050 allows an applicant to request parking reductions for various circumstances; combined parking adjustments amounting to no more than 30 percent of the total parking demand otherwise required are permitted subject to approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The applicant is requesting a reduction for joint use (shared) parking facilities and a reduction for proximity housing near transit facilities such as the Caltrain and bus lines. After applying these two reductions, the applicant’s required parking for the proposed uses would be 265 spaces. The proposed project would provide 302 spaces on the site, including 274 spaces in a subterranean parking garage, 19 at-grade spaces, and 9 in landscape reserve. Entrance to the underground parking facility would be from Park Boulevard at about the midpoint of the building. The proposed project would be consistent with parking standards upon approval of the parking adjustments provided for joint-use facilities and proximity to transit. Bicycle parking facilities would be provided as part of each dwelling unit’s private storage area in the parking garage. Public bicycle parking would be provided at ground level adjacent to the courtyard. Landscaping 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -3 - The proposed landscaping plan would include a fountain near the “at-grade” vehicle entrance to the courtyard, a landscaped interior courtyard with decorative paving, and new landscaping on both Park Boulevard and Page Mill Road. A combination of coast redwoods and Canary Island pines are proposed to be planted adjacent to the rear of the building in the Caltrain/Joint Powers Board (JPB) property to soften the appearance of the rear façade. However, the applicant only has a month-to-month lease for a 10 foot wide strip of JPB land along the rear property line; therefore tree planting and maintenance cannot be guaranteed in the event the JPB needs the 10 foot wide strip for other purposes related to rail corridor improvements. Street Improvements The Transportation Impact Analysis completed in 20091 found that vehicle queues on northbound Park Boulevard, resulting from project traffic, could cause minor increases in average delay at the Park Boulevard/Page Mill Road intersection. Although these delays would not constitute a significant impact, the applicant has proposed to fund and implement a 130-foot left turn pocket lane at the intersection of Park Boulevard/Page Mill Road to facilitate left turns. Following installation of this improvement, the intersection would function at a Level of Service (LOS)A, without the need for a signal. The intersection would continue to be controlled with a two-way stop sign along Page Mill Road. Additionally, the updated Transportation Impact Analysis completed in 20102found that the proposed project would contribute to delay at the of El Camino Real/Page Mill Expressway intersection in the PM Peak Hour. However, the delay is just under the level that would constitute a significant impact. Furthermore, it will probably be alleviated by future mitigation measures that will be implemented as part of other nearbyprojects, such as the installation of traffic adaptive signal technology at all intersections in the El Camino Real corridor as part of the Stanford SUMC project. Please refer to Section XV, Transportation/Traffic. Approvals Required Approval of the proposed project would consist of the following entitlements: (1) Architectural Review approval following hearing(s) bythe Architectural Review Board (ARB) pursuant to the requirements of PAMC 18.76.020, (2) two concessions pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65915 et seq.and, (3)a tentative and final subdivision map to create residential condominium units. With 20 percent of the residential units designated as BMR units, the applicant has submitted a proposal requesting two concessions pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65915 et seq. One requested concession is to allow the proposed project to provide housing in the GM zone as a mixed-use development. The other requested concession is to allow a total proposed project floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.5 where the GM zoning (and Industrial land use designation) only permits an FAR of 0.5. Approval of these two concessions is integral to the proposed project. Apart from the requested concessions, all zoning requirements are met. For the purposes of this environmental analysis, approval of the proposed project is presumed to include approval of the two requested concessions. 1 Fehr & Peers. Final Supplemental Report, Park Plaza Transportation Impact Analysis, April 2009. 2 Fehr & Peers. Final Supplemental Report, Park Plaza Transportation Impact Analysis,October 2010. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -4 - 11.Cumulative Scenario: There are three foreseeable projects that have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the proposed project. These are: ·High Speed Rail. The High Speed Rail Authority is proposing a High Speed Train (HST) extending from San Jose to San Francisco. As proposed, the HST project would add electrified high speed trains along the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board’s (JPB) property adjacent to the 195 Page Mill Road project site. The exact HST design and alignment of the segment that would run adjacent to the propose project has not been finalized. However, to date, possible alternatives include the HST project running at-grade, where the trains run at street level, or in a trench. ·Birch Plaza. This project is a new, three-story building at the Birch Plaza, located on the corner of Birch Street and Grant Avenue (approximately 0.25 miles from 195 Page Mill Road). This project has been approved in concept along with a Mitigated Negative Declaration and rezoning of the site bythe City Council. The proposed development, now scheduled for ARB review, includes underground parking, commercial space at ground floor level and eight residential units on level two and three. The developer is Hohbach RealtyCompany Limited Partnership. ·385 Sherman Avenue Mixed-Use Project. This project would include a new, three-story building over 55,000 square feet at 385 Sherman Avenue (approximately 0.3 miles from 195 Page Mill Road). The first and second floors would be allocated for office and commercial uses, while the third and fourth floors would be for residential uses. There would be two levels of underground parking. This project has an incomplete project application, which has been delayed from further processing for over a year now. The developer is MF Sherman LLC. 12.Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Location Zone District Existing Use North PF –Public Facility Railroad Tracks East GM (AD) General Manufacturing –Automobile Dealership Combining District Auto sales and service South GM General Manufacturing Offices (AOL and sub tenants) Southwest GM General Manufacturing Law Offices West GM General Manufacturing Vacant 12.Other public agencies whose approval is required: Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) because of possible presence of contaminated groundwater below the site. 13.Date Prepared: May 5, 2011 (Clarifications shown annotated herein were added on June 29, 2011 in Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality; and, the June 29, 2011 responses prepared by the City’s environmental consultant (Atkins) to comments made by Robert Moss and Roger Papler are noted as Reference Document P, available for review on the City’s website and provided in the ARB packet). 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -5 - Additional clarifications added August 26, 2011 in response to Planning and Transportation Commission statements and on September 27, 2011 to note the correct file number. 14. Environmental Document Preparers: Atkins (formerly PBS&J) 475 Sansome Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, California 94111 (415) 362-1500 Carolina Morgan, MS –Project Manager George Burwasser, PG –Senior Scientist Rodney Jeung, AICP, Senior Group Manager Alice Tackett, Senior Scientist, (Hydrologist) Geoffrey Hornek, Senior Scientist (Air Quality) Jackie Ha, Word Processing and Graphics Anthony Ha, Word Processing and Graphics Brad Lane, AICP, Senior Transportation Planner 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -6 - ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentiallyaffected by this project as indicated by the checklist on the following pages: X Aesthetics X Hydrology/Water Quality X Transportation/Traffic Agriculture Resources X Land Use/Planning Utilities/Service Systems X Air Quality Mineral Resources X Mandatory Findings of Significance X Biological Resources X Noise Cultural Resources Population/Housing Geology/Soils Public Services X Hazards & Hazardous Materials Recreation 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.X 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 "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATIONpursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ____________________________________________________________ Curtis Williams Date Director of Planning and Community Environment 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -7 - EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1)A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites 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). 2)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. 3)Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4)“Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With 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 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5)Earlier analysis 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 (3) (D)]. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify 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 pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures 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. 6)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. 7)Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a projects environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a)the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b)the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -8 - CHECKLIST SOURCE REFERENCES: 1.Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Adopted July 20, 1998 2.Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) 3.Communication with Project Planner, Lata Vasudevan, and reliance on her general knowledge of the project and area of proposed development 4.Park Plaza Plans, Hoover Associates Architects, August 2009 5.BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, April 1996 (updated 12/99) 6.Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, Palo Alto Quadrangle, Effective July 1,1974 7.State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List 8.Park Plaza Apartments TIA, Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., June 2004 9.City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Division 10.City of Palo Alto Transportation Division 11.City of Palo Alto Fire Department, December 12, 2008 12.City of Palo Alto Utilities Department 13.Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 16 (Building Regulations) 14.Hart, E.W., and W.A. Bryant, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps, California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42, Interim Revision, 2007 15.2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2, United States Geological Survey, Open File Report 2007-1437, April 2008, pages 66 and 74, http://www.scec.org/ucerf/, Online Version updated April 15,2008 16.Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Liquefaction Hazard Map for Palo Alto/Stanford -Scenario: 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, http://www.abag.ca.gov/cgi-bin/pickmapliq.pl, last modified March2,2005 17.California Geological Survey, Seismic Hazard Zones Palo Alto Quadrangle Official Map, released October 18, 2006 18.Jo Crosby and Associates, Report of the Geotechnical Investigation for the planned Park Plaza Apartment Complex with a Multipurpose R/D Building, Page Mill Road and Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, California, May 10, 2004 19.Stellar Environmental Solutions, Inc. (SES, Inc.), Site Investigation and Remedy Report, Proposed Development, 195 Page Mill Road & 2865 Park Boulevard, Park Plaza Project, Palo Alto, California, July 2,2008 20.Geologist’s knowledge of project area topography and soils from previous work on more than 40 local projects within 5 miles of proposed development site 21.State of California Department of Conservation “Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program” on-line at http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Documents/fmmp2006_11_17.pdf (accessed December 12, 2008) 22.Environmental Scientist’s evaluation of site-specific technical reports, review of published reports and local agency websites, and familiarity with investigation and cleanup of contaminated sites in San Francisco Bay Area and Central Valley. 23.Critical Coastal Areas Program, California’s Critical Coastal Areas State of the CCAs Report, Matadero Creek CCA #88, June 2006. website: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/nps/Web/cca_pdf/sfbaypdf/CCA88MataderoCreek.pdf (accessed on December 10, 2008) 24.Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Plan, Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Program, Monitoring and Assessment Summary Report, Santa Clara Basin Creeks 2002-2007, September 2007, pp.iv, 26-29, and 34. website: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/records/region_2/2008/ref2414.pdf (accessed December 10, 2008) 25.Santa Clara Valley Water District, Groundwater Conditions 2001, Figure 2-4 District In-Stream and Off-Street Recharge Facilities, July 2002, p.15. website: http://www.valleywater.org/media/pdf/GWCondtions2001.pdf (accessed December 10, 2008) 26.Municipal NPDES Permit Provision C.3.c.i.3, “Significant Redevelopment Projects” 27.Association of Bay Area Governments, ABAG Geographic Information Systems: Earthquake Preparedness; Interactive ABAG (GIS) Maps Showing Dam Failure Inundation;Hazard Maps, DamFailure Inundation Areas, June 2004. website: http://gis.abag.ca.gov (accessed December 8, 2008) 28.Treadwell & Rollo, Vapor Mitigation System –Monitoring Plan (Revision 1) Park Plaza Development 195 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California, June 2,2008 Formatted:Portuguese (Brazil) 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -9 - 29.Hoover Associates, ArchitectureŸPlanningŸInteriors, Park Plaza, 2865 Park Boulevard, 195 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA, Architectural Review Board Resubmittal, March 29,2011 30.California Department of Fish and Game., Natural Diversity Database –RareFind: Version 3.1.0. Data updated November 30, 2008. 31.A list of common “Heritage Trees” can be found on the City’s website: http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/ environment/news/details.asp?NewsID=179&TargetID=64. 32.City of Palo Alto,2005 Urban Water Management Plan, December, 2005. 33.California Integrated Waste Management Board, Jurisdiction Profile for City of Palo Alto, available at: http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/Juris/JurProfile1.asp?RG=C&JURID=362&JUR=Palo+Alto, accessed on: December 14, 2008. 34.California Integrated Waste Management Board, Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates for Industrial Establishments, available at: http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/WASTECHAR/WasteGenRates/Industrial.htm, accessed on: December 14, 2008. 35.Russell Reiserer, Solid Waste Manager, City of Palo Alto Solid Waste Manager, electronic communication with PBS&J, March 12, 2008. 36.Other checklist items, as referenced. 37.City of Palo Alto, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report 2006-2007, Annual Report on City Government Performance, Chapter 3 –Fire, January 2008. 38.State of California Department of Conservation “Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program” on-line at http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Documents/fmmp2006_11_17.pdf (accessed December 12, 2008) 39.City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.23.090 Performance Criteria for Multiple Family, Commercial, Manufacturing and Planned Community Districts: Air Quality on-line at http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/?f=templates&fn=default.htm (accessed December 12, 2008) 40.Environmental Protection Agency “Design Solutions for Vapor Intrusion and Indoor Air Quality,” on-line at http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/facts/vapor_intrusion.pdf (accessed December 12, 2008) 41.California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, 2008. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15064.5 42.California Public Resources Code, Chapter 2.6, Section 21084.1 43.U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR 60 44.U.S. National Park Service, 2008. National Register Information System (federal database of historic properties). Accessed online December 12, 2008 at: http://www.nr.nps.gov/; Office of Historic Preservation, California State Parks, 2008. California Register of Historic Places. Accessed online December 12, 2008 at: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ default.asp?page_id=21387; City of Palo Alto, 2008. Palo Alto Historic Inventory. Accessed online December 12, 2008 at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3504 45.California Geological Survey, 2006. Geologic Map of California, 1:250,000 scale 46.City of Palo Alto. Section 3.8, Cultural Resources, SUMC Facilities Replacement and Renewal and Stanford Shopping Center Expansion Draft EIR. Publication Date: May 20, 2010. 47.California Government Code, Section 65915, Density Bonuses. No update information available. 48.Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., Acoustical Study, Park Plaza: 101 Page Mill Road/2865 Park Boulevard Proposed Mixed-Use. June 2004. 49.Rosen, Goldber, Der & Lewitz, Inc. Draft Noise and Vibration Analysis of California High-Speed Rail at 195 Page Mill Road Mixed-Use Project, Palo Alto, CA. RGDL Project# 10-067. January 2011. 50.Palo Alto Fire Department, http://www.pafd.org/profile/index.html, accessed December 12, 2008. 51.City of Palo Alto, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report 2006-2007, Annual Report on City Government Performance, Chapter 3 –Fire, January 2008. 52.Dan Firth, Fire Marshal, Palo Alto Fire Department, electronic communication April 13, 2008. 53.Agreement between the County of Santa Clara and American Medical Response –West for Pre-hospital Emergency Medical Care and Transport Services, http://www.sccemsagency.org/SCC/docs/Emergency%20Medical%20Services %20(DEP)/attachments/5.11%20AMR%20Agreement%20-%20Complete.pdf, page 10, accessed May 8, 2008. 54.Palo Alto Architectural Review Board, 2006. Action No.2006-10 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -10 - 55.Treadwell & Rollo,Vapor Mitigation System –Monitoring Plan (Revision 1), Park Plaza Development, 195 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California, June 2,2008. Revised October 27,2009 as Vapor Mitigation System –Monitoring Plan (Revision 2), Park Plaza Development, 195 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California REFERENCE PLANS –APPENDICES A.Project Location B.Proposed Floor Plans (all levels) C.Proposed Elevations REFERENCE STUDIES AND DOCUMENTS –AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW, UPON REQUEST These reference studies and documents are on file for public review, upon request, at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment, 250 Hamilton Avenue, as part of the 195 Page Mill Road project files. These documents also are available for review on the City’s website, at http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/depts/pln/default.asp D.Design and Narrative for the Passive Soil Venting System, Treadwell & Rollo, July 2, 2008 E.Site Health and Safety Plan, Tucker Engineering, May 27, 2008 F.Soil Management Plan, Tucker Engineering, May 29, 2008 G.Remedial Risk Management Plan, Stellar Environment Solutions, Inc. (SES, Inc.), July 2, 2008 H.Geotechnical Report, Jo Crosby and Associates, May 10, 2004 I.Site Investigation and Remedy Report, Stellar Environmental Solutions, Inc. (SES, Inc.), July 2, 2008 J.Transportation Impact Assessment, Fehr & Peers, May 2006. K.Final Supplemental Report, Park Plaza Transportation Impact Analysis, Fehr & Peers April 2009. L.ParkPlaza Mixed-Use Project Trip Generation and Off-Street Parking Analysis, Fehr & Peers. October 16, 2009. M.ParkPlaza Transportation Impact Analysis, Final Supplemental Report, Fehr & Peers, Rosen, October 2010. N.Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., Acoustical Study, Park Plaza: 101 Page Mill Road/2865 Park Boulevard Proposed Mixed-Use, May 26, 2004, June 28, 2004, and September 26, 2005. O.Noise and Vibration Analysis of California High-Speed Rail at 195 Page Mill Road Mixed-Use Project, Palo Alto, CA, Rosen, Goldber, Der & Lewitz, Inc. RGDL Project# 10-067. January 2011. P.Responses to Comments from Mr. Bob Moss and Mr. Roger Papler Q.Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic Research, Inc. District-wide Enrollment Forecasts PAUSD, December 8, 2010 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -11 - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated* Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I.AESTHETICS. Would the project: a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?1, 3, 4 X b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 1, 3 X c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?1, 3, 4 X d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?1, 3, 4 X a)Single family residential uses are on Olive Avenue, approximately 300 feet south of the project site, and multiple family residential uses are on Park Boulevard, approximately 200 feet southeast of the project site. No scenic resources are featured in views from these locations. Other multiple-family residential uses are approximately 200 feet northeast of the project site on the northeastern side of Alma Street. On clear days, the Santa Cruz Mountains are faintly visible to the west from Alma Street.Under existing conditions, these views are partially obstructed by intervening structures and by vegetation along the Caltrain/JPB propertyon the southwest side of Alma Street. Views from this residential area are considered moderately sensitive to alteration or obstruction because views are a component of the existing neighborhood character. Trees proposed by the applicant of 195 Page Mill Road to be planted in the JPB right of way are desired to remain with implementation of the HST project, to provide partial screening of 195 Page Mill from Alma Street. However, the applicant’s agreement with the JPB for planting of trees is on a month-to-month lease. It is not assured that this existing vegetation will remain following development along the rail corridor related to the High Speed Train project. Construction of the proposed project would increase massing in the foreground of views from Alma Street. To break up the massing of the building along the Caltrain propertyand reduce view obstruction from Alma Street, particularly since vegetation on the westerly edge of the JPB property is not assured, City staff suggested massing guidelines and landscape design for the eastern (rear) frontage which have been incorporated in the design of the proposed project. The second and third floor levels have facades at varying setbacks from the rear property line to minimize the perception of massing. The first floor R&D level, which would not be as visible as the second and third floor as viewed from Alma Street, would nonetheless be partially covered with the proposed vines on trellises along the rear façade. In the event that the trees proposed by the applicant in the JPB right –of-way are removed, the rear façade would still have trellised vines to soften its appearance. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -12 - There are no other views from residential areas, public open spaces, or other sensitive vantage points that could be altered or obstructed as a result of the proposed project. Consequently, with application of Mitigation Measure MM-1, the proposed project would haveless-than-significant impacts on scenic vistas. b)The project site does not contain distinctive architectural elements, topographical features, or other scenic resources. Consequently, the proposed project would have no impact on scenic resources. c)The visual character surrounding the project site is generally suburban, characterized by moderate development density. An overpass for Oregon Expressway is approximately 300 feet north of the project site. Office and commercial uses to the south and west of the project site are characterized by solid massing surrounded by surface parking lots and landscaping. Residential uses to the east and southwest of the project site are low to moderate density, characterized by one-to three-story buildings with open space setbacks along front and side facades. Vegetation in the vicinity of the project site is formal and includes landscaped beds and street trees. At a height of approximately39 feet, with architectural elements at a maximum height of approximately 43 feet and an approximately 60 foot tall corner tower element, the proposed design would generallyconform to the massing and setback pattern established by surrounding uses. Building massing, fenestration, rooftop mechanical systems, and architectural details of a proposed building should be designed within the context of the immediate office/industrial neighborhood while respecting the nearby residential neighborhoods. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Policy L-48 states:3 Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human-scale details and massing. To ensure that the proposed project would comply with this policyand fit the surrounding visual setting, the City requires project review by the City’s Architectural Review Board (ARB),4 which may make recommendations for revisions to a proposed project design. The ARB is an advisory board to the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) who considers the ARB’s recommendations and bases his decision to grant Architectural Review approval on the findings stated in PAMC 18.76.050(d). If the Director’s decision is appealed, the City Council reviews the project and decides whether to grant Architectural Review approval. The proposed project plans are substantially the same as an earlier project that was reviewed and recommended for approval by the ARB in July 2007, and although new design revisions may be required as conditions of Architectural Review Approval for this project, the substantial similarities between the two projects generally indicates that the proposed project would result in less-than- significant impacts on visual character. With application of Mitigation Measure MM-1, the proposed project would have less-than-significant impacts on visual character. d)The primary sources of light and glare in the daytime are reflections from glass facades and light colored surfaces. Although a small amount of glare could be expected during the daytime, it would be similar to that created byother nearby buildings. No unusual sources of daytime glare from the project would be expected. 3 City of Palo Alto, 1998. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element. 4 City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, 2004. Architectural Review, Section 18.76.020 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -13 - Residences along Alma Street are considered to be sensitive to nighttime light and glare. Architectural drawings do not indicate a large number of windows or lighting sources on the rear elevation facing Alma Street; at the time of the ARB’s prior approval of the proposed project, the ARB required that the applicant submit a photometric plan to ensure that lighting levels are appropriate for the site and not detrimental to the surrounding land uses. The photometric plan was reviewed and approved at the ARB hearings held in 2007. The same photometric drawing is presented in conjunction with this proposed project design. Consequently, the proposed project would have less-than-significant impacts on light and glare. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -14 - Residual Impact:Less than significant with mitigation Mitigation Measures: MM-1:Implementation of ARB Recommendations AnyArchitectural Review conditions of approval, with respect to the design of the proposedproject, shall be incorporated into the final design by the applicant. Cumulative Analysis Cumulative projects in the vicinity of the proposed project involve the construction of the HST project. As proposed, the HST project would add electrified high speed trains along the Peninsula Corridor JPB property adjacent to the 195 Page Mill Road project site. Changes to, or intensification of, rail activity along the right-of-way are not anticipated to affect the 195 Page Mill Road project in any way. The exact HST design and alignment of the segment that would run adjacent to the propose project has not been finalized. However, to date, possible alternatives include the HST project running at-grade, where the trains run at street level, or in a trench. The HST project would primarily result in physical changes to the public right-of-way, consistent with existing transportation infrastructure. The improvements would have minimal effects on the visual character as viewed from the proposed project because either possible alternative (at grade or trench) would not introduce new vertical elements. As such, the continuity of existing streetscapes would be maintained. Though the trees proposed bythe applicant of 195 Page Mill Road to be planted in the JPB right-of-wayare desired to remain with implementation of the HST project, to provide partial screening of 195 Page Mill from Alma Street, the applicant’s agreement with the JPB for planting of trees is on a month-to-month lease. As such, the applicant is proposing trellised vines on the façade so that if the proposed trees in the JPB right- of-way were to be removed, there would still be vegetation to soften the appearance of the first floor rear façade. The two other multi-family residential developments proposed in the vicinity of the 195 Page Mill Road project site would introduce mixed-used development, so 195 Page Mill would not be the only such development type. The proposed project would be subject to MM-1 described above. MM-1 calls for the incorporation of potential conditions of approval with respect to the design of the proposed project, Overall, both the HST and the mixed-used development projects are not expected to adversely affect the visual character of the area of the proposed project,or result in a substantial change in the area’s land use character, substantially damage scenic resources, or create a new source of substantial light or glare. Cumulative impacts to visual character would therefore be less than significant. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -15 - Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated* Less Than Significant Impact No Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? 3, 21 X b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?1, 3 X c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use. 3 X a-c)The proposed project site is in a developed urban area and not in an area of “Prime Farmland,” “Unique Farmland,” or “Farmland of Statewide Importance” as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency.5 The site is not zoned for agricultural use and is not regulated by the Williamson Act. Consequently, the proposed project would have no impact on agricultural resources. Residual Impact:No impact Mitigation Measures:None required Cumulative Analysis The proposed project would not be located in an area defined as “Prime Farmland”“Unique Farmland,” or “Farmland of Statewide Importance” as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency.6 Therefore, it would not contribute to cumulative impacts on agricultural resources. No other foreseeable projects, including the HST and the two mixed-used residential projects, would have impacts on agricultural resources. Consequently, the proposed project, in addition to other foreseeable projects, would have no cumulative impacts. 5 State of California Department of Conservation “Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program” on-line at http://www.conservation.ca.gov/ dlrp/fmmp/Documents/fmmp2004_11_17.pdf (accessed December 12, 2008) 6 State of California Department of Conservation “Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program” on-line at http://www.conservation.ca.gov/ dlrp/fmmp/Documents/fmmp2004_11_17.pdf (accessed December 12, 2008) 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -16 - Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated* Less Than Significant Impact No Impact III.AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.Would the project: a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?3, 5 X b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?3, 5 X c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 5 X d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?1, 3 X e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 1, 3 X a-c)Air quality is monitored, evaluated, and regulated by federal, state, and regional regulatory agencies, including the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The EPA, CARB, and the BAAQMD develop rules and/or regulations to attain the goals or directives imposed by legislation. Both state and regional regulations may be more, but not less, stringent than federal regulations. The CARB establishes state ambient air quality standards and motor vehicle emission standards, conducts research, and oversees the activities of regional Air Pollution Control Districts and Air Quality Management Districts. Ambient air qualitystandards are established for criteria pollutants, which include ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter, and lead. Reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) are regulated as criteria air pollutants because they are precursors to ozone formation. With regard to particulate matter, air quality standards have been adopted for suspended particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) as well as for smaller respirable particles that are 2.5 microns in diameter or less (PM2.5). Under existing conditions, the San Francisco Bay Area air basin, which includes the Cityof Palo Alto, is designated as non-attainment for ozone under both state and federal standards and non-attainment for PM10 under state standards, meaning that the Bay Area does not meet the air quality standards for these air pollutants. The City of Palo Alto uses the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for air quality impacts. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -17 - Construction Impacts The proposed project would involve grading, paving, and landscaping which would have the potential to cause localized dust-related impacts resulting in increases in airborne particulate matter (PM10). Dust-related impacts are considered potentially significant but according to the BAAQMD can be mitigated with the application of standard dust control measures. Although there are no sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the project site (closest residences are 200 feet away), the project would be subject to City Building Department regulations that require approval of adequate dust abatement plans for construction activities prior to the issuance of a building permit.7 The dust abatement plan requirements would be required to comply with the BAAQMD guidance regarding dust control measures, thereby reducing the potential for significant air quality impacts relating to demolition and construction of the project to less than significant. Emissions of NOX and ROG would be generated from operation of construction equipment. Construction projects using typical construction equipment which temporarily emit ozone precursors are alreadyincluded in the emission inventories of state-and federally-required air plans. Consequently, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on attainment and maintenance of air quality standards. Operational Impacts Operational emissions would stem primarily from motor vehicle trips associated with the proposed project. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines provide suggestions for screening potential air quality impacts for different land uses. The BAAQMD considers residential projects greater than 510 apartment units, office projects greater than 280,000 gross square feet, retail development greater than 87,000 gross square feet, and other projects which would generate 2,000 or more daily vehicle trips to result in potentially significant vehicular emissions. Vehicular emissions are the primary source of air qualityimpacts associated with these developments. As described in the Transportation/Traffic section of this Initial Study, the project would result in approximately 1,143 net new daily vehicle trips. Because the proposed project would generate less than 2,000 new daily vehicle trips, it does not exceed the BAAQMD’s screening or threshold levels for development that could result in adverse air qualityimpacts. Consequently, the proposed project would have less-than-significant impacts on vehicular emissions. ·Sensitive receptors are defined as children, elderly, or ill people who can be affected adversely by air pollutants. The proposed project includes construction of residential uses, which are considered a sensitive receptor. Project impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors could include on-site and off-site effects as described below. On-site Impacts As described in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section, a Site Investigation and Remedy Report was prepared which indicates that the project site is in an area where there is known contamination of the soil and groundwater with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and petroleum hydrocarbon. Because of this contamination, the proposed project, which includes residential uses, would be at potential risk for vapor intrusion to the building. The Regional Water QualityControl Board (RWQCB) has confirmed that because the measured soil gas concentrations exceed the RWQCB’s Environmental Screening Level (ESL), without mitigation, the project would be at risk for potential vapor intrusion into indoor air. 7 City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.23.090 Performance Criteria for Multiple Family, Commercial, Manufacturing and Planned Community Districts: Air Quality on-line at http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/?f=templates&fn=default.htm (accessed December 12, 2008) 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -18 - Vapor intrusion is the entry of VOCs to indoor air from underlying contamination, such as may be present in the soil and/or groundwater at the project site. VOCs can disperse easily into small air spaces in soil and underneath structures, such as through foundation cracks, holes in concrete floors, and small gaps around pipes and utility lines. Some vapors, such as VOCs, may enter structures at low contamination levels, and building ventilation systems are used to prevent harmful vapor buildup. VOCs may or may not have a noticeable odor and may be present at levels posing acute or chronic health risks. According to the EPA, steps can be taken before site redevelopment to prevent vapor intrusion.8 Some examples of prevention include ensuring that VOC contamination is removed from the site (and sent to a proper treatment and disposal facility); preventing upward contaminant migration with an impermeable barrier such as a clay cap; and venting soil gas to outdoor air before it can reach indoor spaces. At sites where the source of contamination cannot be completely eliminated through removal, other solutions to vapor intrusion problems can be implemented. Building techniques that serve to provide a vapor barrier between interior spaces and soil (or groundwater) can be combined with structures that provide an escape route for soil vapor to vent to the atmosphere rather than into indoor air. Some ventilation systems operate effectively without the use of energy (passive systems), while others may need connection to a power supply (active systems). It should be noted for indoor air quality monitoring that thepresence of VOCs in indoor air may not necessarily be a result of vapor intrusion because there often is a background or pre-existing level of VOC contamination present from chemical use in the building or from ambient air. As such, it is often difficult to distinguish between contamination attributable to vapor intrusion and contamination from background levels. As noted in Section VII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Initial Study, the proposed project would implement Mitigation Measure MM-4, which would require the inclusion of a full vapor barrier and the installation of an active vapor collection and venting system underneath the building to mitigate potential soil vapor intrusion, and a monitoring plan to verify positive air flow and monitor for VOCs.9 Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-4 would reduce the potential for on-site impacts from VOCs to on-site residential and commercial uses to less than significant. Off-site Impacts The project is adjacent to a rail line and to commercial and automotive service uses, and not immediately adjacent to housing or other sensitive receptors. The proposed R&D and residential land uses would not create substantial toxic air contaminant (TAC) concentrations in the area. City development standardsand specific conditions required by the PAMC for project operations would reduce potential negative air quality impacts of the project to nearby sensitive receptors to less than significant. Increases in traffic from the proposed project would contribute to localized CO emissions. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines recommends that CO emissions should be estimated when vehicle emissions of CO would exceed 550 pounds or when project traffic would impact intersections operating at Level of Service (LOS)D or worse.As shown in Section XV, Transportation/Traffic, of this Initial Study, the proposed project would 8 Environmental Protection Agency “Design Solutions for Vapor Intrusion and Indoor Air Quality,” on-line at http://www.epa.gov/ swerosps/bf/facts/vapor_intrusion.pdf (accessed December 12, 2008) 9 Treadwell and Rollo, Design and Narrative for the Passive Soil Venting System, June 2, 2008 (available for review on the City’s website as Appendix D of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment) 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -19 - generate approximately 116 net new AM peak hour trips and 131 net new PM peak hour trips each day. Using the intersection with the highest traffic volume, the Foothill Expressway/Page Mill Expressway intersection, a simplified CALINE4 screening model developed by the BAAQMD was used to calculate CO concentrations with implementation of the proposed project. The resulting concentrations were below the federal and state 1-hour standards of 35 ppm and 20 ppm, respectively, and the 8-hour standard of 9 ppm for both state and federal. Because the proposed project would not exceed CO standards, it is considered to have a less-than-significant impact on localized CO emissions at intersections affected by project traffic. Consequently, the proposed project would have less-than-significant impacts on long-term CO emissions. ·The proposed project would consist of commercial and residential uses and an underground parking garage. These uses do not typically create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The proposed project is not expected to create objectionable odors when the project is complete. Consequently, the proposed project would have no impact related to the creation of objectionable odors. Residual Impact:Less than significant with mitigation Mitigation Measures:See MM-4 under Section VII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Cumulative Analysis A cumulative TAC screening analysis was performed to evaluate cumulative TAC exposures to future residents of the proposed project. The analysis is in accord with the screening methodology specified in California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality (CEQA) Guidelines.10 The TAC modeling included all substantial roadways and permitted stationary TAC sources within a 1000-foot zone of influence around the project site, specified by the guidelines. Roadway sources included Alma Street and the Oregon Expressway, which qualify as substantial sources in that theycarry 10,000 or more vehicles per day. A list of permitted stationary sources and their TAC emissions in Santa Clara County was provided by the BAAQMD and a subset of permitted sources within 1000 feet of the project site was identified using this list. Table 1, below, shows the estimated cancer risks, chronic non-cancer hazard indices, and PM2.5 concentrations on the project site for each source, the cumulative effects from all sources, and comparisons with the BAAQMD cumulative TAC significance thresholds. Since by far the largest portion of the cumulative TAC cancer risk is due to particulate TAC emissions from the traffic on Alma Street and the Oregon expressway, Mitigation Measure MM-2 below would reduce cumulative TAC health impacts to the future residents of the proposed project to less than significant through inclusion in the proposed design features of the project’s ventilation system. Residual Impact:Less than significant with mitigation 10 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. June 2010. website: http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA- GUIDELINES/Updated-CEQA-Guidelines.aspx, Accessed February 8, 2011. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -20 - Mitigation Measure: MM-2:Indoor Air Filtration A central HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) shall be installed that includes high efficiency filters for particulates (MERV-13 or higher). The system should operate to maintain positive pressure within the building interior to prevent infiltration of outdoor air indoors. Table 1 Cumulative Screening Analysis Results of TAC Emissions within 1000 Feet of the Project Site TAC Source Cancer Risk (Chance per Million) Non-Cancer Hazard Index PM2.5 Concentration (•g/m3) Roadways Oregon Expressway 69.0 0.050 0.23 lma Street 57.0 0.040 0.19 Permitted Stationary Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Dept. (13265) 2.98 0.006 0 SPRINT, Environ. Health & Safety (16847)a 1.6b 0.001b 0.003b Akins Body Shop, Inc (17770)0 0 0 VikingMotor Body (12140)0 0 0 Google, Inc (19056)0 0 0 Courthouse (19698)a 3.5c 0.001c 0.006c Total Cumulative 134 0.01 0.43 BAAQMD Threshold 100 10.0 0.8 Significant?Yes No No Source:PBS&J, 2011 Notes: a.BAAQMD records indicate that these TAC sources are emergency diesel-powered generators. b.An adjustment factor of 0.12 has been applied to the BAAQMD baseline values to account for TAC dispersion over the 500-foot distance separating this source and the project site. c.An adjustment factor of 0.04 has been applied to the BAAQMD baseline values to account for TAC dispersion over the 1000-foot distance separating this source and the project site 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -21 - Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated* Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IV.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Have substantial adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 30 X b)Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? 1 X c)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 1 X d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 1 X e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 30, 31 X f)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? 1 X a)The project site is in an area that includes an automobile body shop and repair, automobile sales and service, office buildings and vacant land zoned as General Manufacturing (GM). Residential uses are north, east, and southwest of the project site. Virtually all of the natural vegetation at the project site (and surrounding properties) has been replaced by development and ornamental landscaping. Connectivityto natural areas is non-existent, as the project site is surrounded byother urban development and roadways. There is no natural surface water on or adjacent to the project site. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -22 - A query of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) RareFind Report revealed historic occurrences of four special-status species within the immediate vicinity (one mile) of the project site. ·Alameda song sparrow (Melospiza melodia pusillula) –State Species of Special Concern ·California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) –Federally Threatened, State Species of Special Concern ·Santa Cruz kangaroo rat (Dipodomys venustus venustus) –CNDDB Ranking of G4S1 ·Franciscan onion (Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum) –CNPS List 1B.2 Although these historic occurrences are within one mile of the project site, all natural vegetation at the project site and surrounding properties has been replaced by urban development and ornamental landscaping.Connectivity to natural areas is non-existent, and there is no natural surface water on or adjacent to the project site. There is no viable habitat on or adjacent to the project site to support any of these identified sensitive species. Consequently, the proposed project would have no impact related to special-status species. b, c)Virtually all of the natural vegetation at the project site and surrounding properties has been replaced by urban development and ornamental landscaping. Connectivity to natural areas is non-existent; the project site is surrounded by other development and roadways. There is no natural surface water on or adjacent to the project site, nor are there federally protected wetlands or riparian habitat on or adjacent to the project site.Consequently, the proposed project would have no impactrelated to a sensitive natural community or federally protected wetlands. d)The pre-existing structures on the project site were demolished and all vegetation was removed in August 2007, prior to submittal of the application for the proposed project. The site was used as a construction materials staging and operations area for a nearby Caltrain project at the California Avenue train station and is leased by K.J.Woods Construction Company, Inc. for use as a construction staging area for a sewer line replacement project for the City of Palo Alto. There are two trees adjacent to the rear of the property on a site leased by Sprint Corporation, on the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board property. These trees are not proposed for removal and are not protected trees pursuant to the City of Palo Alto Tree Ordinance (PAMC 8.10). Nonetheless, the proposed project could result in disturbances to nesting birds in these trees. Nesting birds, their nests, and eggs are fully protected by the State Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5) and the Migratory Bird TreatyAct of 1918 (MBTA). Destruction of a nest would be a violation of these regulations, and would be a significant impact. The magnitude of impact would depend on the species affected. Mitigation Measure MM-3, detailed below, would reduce impacts to nesting birds to a less-than-significant level through avoidance of construction activities during the nesting period, or though the completion of focused surveys for nesting birds if construction cannot be avoided during the nesting period. e)The proposed project would not result in the removal of trees and landscaping vegetation. As described in Section IV d), above, all landscaping and trees at the project site have been removed. None of the trees previously on the site included those protected under PAMC 8.10 (Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -23 - Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), and “Heritage Trees”).11 Consequently, the proposed project would have no impact related to conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. f)There are no natural communities and no natural habitats located on the project site that would be protected byan approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan; virtually all of the natural vegetation on the project site and surrounding properties has been replaced by urban development and ornamental landscaping. Connectivity to natural areas is non-existent; the project site is surrounded by other development and roadways. There is no natural surface water on or adjacent to the project site. Consequently, the proposed project would have no impact related to conflicts with the provisions of an approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Residual Impact:Less than significant with mitigation Mitigation Measures: MM-3:Protection of Nesting Birds The applicant shall abide by all provisions of Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game Code and Migratory Bird TreatyAct of 1918 (MBTA) as published in the Federal Register (Vol.70, No.49; March 15, 2005). Although there is no vegetation on the project site that may contain nesting birds, there may be nesting birds in existing vegetation abutting the proposed project site (e.g., in the Caltrain property). To protect any nesting birds, the proposed project may avoid construction during the nesting period. Alternatively, a qualified wildlife biologist (to be hired by the applicant) shall conduct a survey for nesting birds that are covered by the MBTA and/or Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game Code in the vicinity of the project site. This survey shall cover all areas that would be disturbed as a result of construction-related activities during the nesting period, and shall include a “buffer zone” (an area of potential sensitivity, beyond the bounds of the proposed project construction area) which shall be determined by the biologist based on his or her professional judgment and experience. This buffer zone may include off-site habitat. This biological survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the commencement of construction activities. The wildlife biologist shall provide a report to the City promptly detailing the findings of the survey. No construction shall be conducted until this report has been provided to the City and the Cityhas authorized in writing the commencement of construction activities in accord with the biologist’s findings. Cumulative Analysis The proposed project would have minimal impacts on biological resources found in the area. The foreseeable projects in the vicinity of the proposed project, including the HST and the two mixed-used projects, in addition to the proposed project, would also have minimal effects on the biological resources because they 11 A list of common “Heritage Trees” can be found on the City’s website: http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/environment/news/details.asp? NewsID=179&TargetID=64 (accessed December 14, 2008) 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -24 - would not impact special-status species, sensitive natural community or federally protected wetlands, conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and/or conservation plans. In the event that vegetation contains nesting birds is found on the project site, MM-3, as described above, would reduce the incremental biological impact to less than significant levels. MM-3 calls for the protection of nesting birds during construction by avoiding construction during the nesting season and by conducting a biological survey. Consequently, cumulative impacts to biological resources would be less than significant. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -25 - Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated* Less Than Significant Impact No Impact V.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 15064.5?1 X b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5?1 X c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?1 X d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?1 X a)The project site is not included on the City of Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory, the California Register of Historic Landmarks, or the National Register of Historic Places.12 There are no existing structures at the project site, although this site was formerly developed. The site is not associated with anysignificant events in history, broad patterns of events, or people. Consequently, the proposed project would have no impact on historic resources according to the standards of the CEQA Guidelines and applicable laws and regulations. b, d)The Palo Alto area was inhabited by indigenous people for many centuries prior to the arrival of the first Europeans. Archaeological resources and/or human remains have been found on occasion within the City. Discoveries of the “Stanford Man” skeleton near San Francisquito Creek indicate a human presence in Palo Alto as early as 7,600 years ago.13 Over 50 archaeological surveys have been conducted in Palo Alto in association with specific projects, but no systematic citywide survey aimed at locating all sites has been undertaken. There may still be undiscovered archaeological resources in many parts of the City. Such resources are most likely to occur near the original locations of streams and springs and northeast of El Camino Real near old tidelands.14 Nonetheless, it should not be assumed that sites of archaeological resources are limited to these areas. The archaeological sensitivity map in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan identifies the project site as an area of “moderate sensitivity” for archeological resources because of the site’s proximityto the San Francisco Baylands and nearby creeks.15 The 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update EIR16 specified mitigation states: 12 U.S. National Park Service, 2008. National Register Information System (federal database of historic properties). Accessed online December12,2008 at: http://www.nr.nps.gov/; Office of Historic Preservation, California State Parks, 2008. California Register of Historic Places. Accessed online December 12, 2008 at: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=21387; City of Palo Alto, 2008. Palo Alto Historic Inventory. Accessed online December 12, 2008 at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3504 13 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998. Land Use Element, p. L-39 14 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998. Land Use Element, p. L-39 15 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998. Land Use Element, Map L-8 16 City of Palo Alto, 1998. 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update EIR, p. 352 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -26 - The areas shall be subject to surface survey and/or subsurface probing if (a) the area is unimproved land, (b) the project will entail excavation more than five feet below the existing grade on unimproved land, or (c) mass grading is anticipated for large commercial, transportation, or utility projects. The project would entail excavation of one level of underground parking to a depth of 15.4 feet. The project site was developed previously and subsurface disturbance probably extended to a depth of at least 5 feet. Consequently, subsurface probing for archeological artifacts probably would be ineffective and is not considered necessary prior to construction of the proposed project. If approved, the project would contain conditions of approval in the form of instructions in the case of the discovery of any cultural resources during construction. The following standard condition would reduce potential impacts to a less-than- significant level. If any archaeological or human remains are encountered during grading and construction activities, construction shall cease and the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease immediately until a Native American descendant, appointed bythe Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning. The Director of Planning and Community Environment will decide the significance of an archaeological discovery and necessary mitigation measures. With application of this standard condition, impacts associated with the residual potential that Native American artifacts could be uncovered and destroyed during construction of the proposed project would be less than significant. No humanremains have been encountered at the project site, and it is unlikelythat human remains would be encountered during ground-disturbing activities. Human burials, apart from being potential archaeological resources, have specific provisions for treatment in Section 5097 of the California Public Resources Code and Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054 of the California Health and Safety Code. If unanticipated human remains are discovered during construction, the applicant would be required to comply with those regulations. With application of the standard condition indicated above, impacts associated with the disturbance of human remains would be less than significant. c)The entire Bay Area is considered to be rich in paleontological resources, and there have been significant finds in Palo Alto. Paleontological resources found in the City include a large mastodon tusk in the bank of San Francisquito Creek, the upper limb of a giant bison, and individual skeletal elements. Although a review of the Geologic Map of California suggests that there is limited potential for the occurrence of fossils at the project site,17subsurface prehistoric creek beds containing paleontological resources have been found within a one-mile radius.18 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update EIR do not address paleontological resources specifically, but the mitigation specified in the Comprehensive Plan Update EIR for moderatelysensitive archeological resource areas also can be applied to 17 California Geological Survey, 2006. Geologic Map of California, 1:250,000 scale 18 City of Palo Alto. Section 3.8, Cultural Resources, SUMC Facilities Replacement and Renewal and Stanford Shopping Center Expansion Draft EIR. Unpublished as of date of Notice of Completion for the proposed project 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -27 - paleontological resource areas. As with archeological resources, subsurface probing for fossils in previously disturbed ground probablywould be ineffective and is not considered necessaryprior to construction of the proposed project. If approved, the project would contain conditions of approval in the form of instructions in the case of the discovery of any paleontological resources during construction. The following standard condition would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. If any paleontological resources are encountered during grading and construction activities, construction shall cease and the Director of Planning and CommunityEnvironment’s office shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. The Director of Planning and Community Environment will decide the significance of any paleontological discovery and necessary mitigation measures, using City staff or outside consultants paid for by the applicant. With application of this standard condition, impacts on paleontological resources would be less than significant. Residual Impact:Less than significant Mitigation Measures:None required Cumulative Analysis Because the Palo Alto area was inhabited by indigenous people for many centuries prior to the arrival of the first Europeans, archaeological resources and/or human remains have the potential to be present in the vicinity of the proposed project. Archaeological resources are unique and non-renewable members of finite classes, and all adverse effects or negative impacts erode a dwindling resource base. Federal, State, and local laws protect archaeological resources in most instances. The following standard condition would reduce potential impacts of the proposed project to a less-than-significant level. If any archaeological or human remains are encountered during grading and construction activities, construction shall cease and the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease immediately until a Native American descendant, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning. The Director of Planning and CommunityEnvironment will decide the significance of an archaeological discovery and necessary mitigation measures using Citystaff or outside consultants paid for bythe applicant. With implementation of this standard condition, cumulative impacts on cultural resources as a result of the proposed project, in addition to other foreseeable projects, would be less than significant. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -28 - Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated* Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VI.GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i)Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to California Geological Survey Special Publication 42. 1, 6, 13, 14 X ii)Strong seismic groundshaking?1, 6, 13, 15 X iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?1, 6, 13, 16, 17 X iv)Landslides? 1, 13, 19, 20 X b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?1, 13 X c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 1, 13, 18, 19 X d)Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Section 1802.3.2 of the 2007 California Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? 1, 13, 18, 19 X a)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 19, 20 X A geotechnical report, dated May 10, 2004, was prepared by Jo Crosby and Associates. A copy of the geotechnical report is available for review on the City’s website as Appendix H of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. A site investigation and remedy report dated July2, 2008 was prepared by SES,Inc. and included a vapor mitigation system and monitoring plan prepared by Treadwell & Rollo, dated June 2, 2008. A copy of the site investigation report and the Treadwell & Rollo report are available for review on the City’s website as Appendix I and Appendix D, respectively, of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -29 - a)i.The entire state of California is geologically active. The City of Palo Alto is in the San Andreas Fault System, which is approximately 44 miles wide in the Bay Area -an area that is very seismically active. The San Andreas Fault, long considered one of the major seismic risks in California, passes though the City approximately 5.5 miles southwest of the project site. The project site is not in a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no known faults trend toward or cross the project site. Consequently, the proposed project is not expected to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects caused by the rupture of a known fault. Although fault rupture is very unlikely, it is theoretically possible, given the large number of fault traces in the San Andreas Fault System. No structure for human occupancymay knowingly be built across the trace of an active or potentiallyactive fault and the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 provides for special seismic design considerations if developments are planned in areas adjacent to active or potentially active faults.19 All new construction, including the proposed project, must comply with the provisions of Title 16 (Building Regulations) of the PAMC, which is based on the most current (2010) California Building Code (CBC). The CBC regulations account for the proximityof projects to earthquake faults. The Municipal Building Regulations are directed at reducing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake. Consequently, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to potential fault rupture. ii.The Comprehensive Plan states that the San Andreas Fault is capable of producing a Magnitude 8.4 earthquake that would cause very violent groundshaking in much of Palo Alto. Historically, the Bay Area has experienced large, destructive earthquakes in 1838, 1868, 1906, and 1989. The faults considered most likely to produce large earthquakes in the area include the San Andreas, San Gregorio, Hayward, and Calaveras faults. The San Gregorio fault is approximately 18 miles southwest of the site. The Hayward and Calaveras faults are approximately 12 and 16 miles northeast of the site, respectively. In the future, the subject property will experience groundshaking during moderate and large magnitude earthquakes along the San Andreas or other active Bay Area fault zones. The Working Group On California Earthquake Probabilities, a panel of experts convened periodicallyto estimate the likelihood of future earthquakes based on the latest science and information, concluded there is about a 63 percent mean probability for at least one earthquake of Magnitude 6.7 or larger in the Bay Area before 2032.20 The San Andreas Fault has the second highest likelihood of generating a large earthquake in the Bay Area, estimated as a 21 percent mean probability of a Magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake by 2032; the Hayward fault has the highest likelihood of generating a similar event (31 percent). Development of the proposed project would be required to comply with construction standards and seismic design criteria contained in the 2010 CBC. Chapter 16 of the Building Code deals with Structural Design requirements governing seismically resistant construction, including (but not limited to) factors and coefficients used to establish seismic site class and seismic occupancy category for the soil/rock at the building location and the proposed building design. Chapter 18 of the Building Code includes (but is not limited to) requirements for foundation and soil investigations (Section 1802); excavation, grading, and fill (Section 1803); allowable load-bearing values of soils (Sections 1804); and the design of footings, foundations, and slope clearances (Section 1805), retaining walls (Section 1806), and pier, pile, driven, and cast-in-place foundation support systems (Sections 1808, 1809 &1810). Chapter 33 of the Building Code includes (but is not limited to) requirements for safeguards at work sites 19 Hart and Bryant,2007 20 2007 Working Group,2008 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -30 - to ensure stable excavations and cut or fill slopes (Section 3304). Appendix J of the Building Code includes (but is not limited to) grading requirements for the design of excavations and fills (Sections J106 &J107) and for erosion control (Section J110). Although the potential for seismic groundshaking to occur at the project site is unavoidable, the risk of excessive, permanent damage to the buildings is anticipated to be relativelyminor because the structural design would be required to adhere to 2010 CBC standards. Consequently, groundshaking hazards are considered a less-than-significant impact. iii.The goal of Policy N-51 of the Comprehensive Plan is to “Minimize exposure to geologic hazard, including slope stability, subsidence, and expansive soils, and seismic hazards including ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and land sliding.” Because the project site is in a seismicallyactive region, there is a potential for seismic-related ground failure at the site. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Earthquake Liquefaction Hazard Map shows that the potential for liquefaction at the project site is moderate to high and the California Geological Survey (CGS) Seismic Hazard Zone Map indicates the site is in an area where liquefaction investigation would be required.21,22 Chapter 18 of the Building Code requires that before construction of a proposed project, a site-specific soils report must be prepared that identifies any potentially unsuitable soil conditions (such as expansive, liquefiable, or compressible soils) and contains appropriate recommendations for foundation type and design criteria, including provisions to reduce the effects of expansive soils. The recommendations made in the soils report for ground preparation and earthwork are required by the BuildingCode to be incorporated in the construction design. The soils evaluations must be conducted by registered soil professionals, and the measures to eliminate inappropriate soil necessaryconditions must be applied. The City requires the excavation plans and specifications be reviewed for approval by the City Engineer (which may include further review and approval of a licensed geotechnical engineer) prior to issuance of an excavation and grading permit. The City requires the construction plans and specifications be reviewed for approval by the Building Division prior to issuance of a building permit. Overseeing compliance with the approved permit is the responsibility of the City’s Building Division and is conducted through site visits and contractor reports. The May 10,2004 Jo Crosbyand Associates geotechnical report documents the investigations performed and presents the required information and recommendations in the sections entitled, ‘Underground Parking Excavation, Foundations, Retaining Walls, and Slab-on-Grade’. The Cityinspectors would verify implementation consistent with the Crosby report or consistent with updated recommendations of a licensed geotechnical engineer, based on conditions found at the time of excavation or construction. Through application of these recommendations and compliance with the Building Code, risk from seismic events, including liquefaction, would be reduced to an acceptable level for a seismically active area. Consequently, seismic-related ground failure hazards are considered a less-than-significant impact. iv.The project site is about 27 feet above mean sea level and has no discernible slope. Because the project site is not a steep or unstable slope and does not have an irregular surface, natural slope instability is not a concern. Construction of the proposed project would involve removal of existing surface material and underlying fill and soil materials for the excavation of one level of underground parking to the depth of 21 ABAG, 2005 22 California Geological Survey, 2006 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -31 - 15.4 feet below ground surface (bgs). Excavation wall stability would be regulated by Chapter 33 of the CBC, as adopted into the PAMC. Consequently, because of the required code compliance of the grading activities, there would be no impact from landslide hazard. b)No other changes to the site topography would occur as a result of the proposed project. Grading activity would be limited to the soil removal for the construction of the underground-parking garage. Nonetheless, earth-disturbing activities associated with project construction have the potential to increase erosion if proper sedimentation and erosion control methods are not in place during construction. Section J110 of Appendix J of the 2010 CBC, as adopted by the City, contains requirements for the design of erosion control systems. Because one of the major effects of loss of topsoil is sedimentation in receiving waters, erosion control standards are set by the RWQCB through administration of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process for storm drainage and construction site discharge. The NPDES permit requires implementation of nonpoint source control of runoff through the application of a number of Best Management Practices (BMPs). These BMPs are designed to reduce the amount of constituents, including eroded sediment, that enter streams and other water bodies. The City has incorporated the Municipal NPDES Permit conditions into its Urban Runoff Management Plan and Municipal Code, including numeric sizing criteria for pollutant removal treatment systems. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for individual projects greater than one acre, as required bythe RWQCB, must describe the stormwater BMPs (structural and operational measures) that would control the quality (and quantity) of stormwater runoff. The City’s Public Works Department is responsible for reviewing the SWPPP and the NPDES-required BMPs and notifying the applicant of omissions prior to issuance of a grading permit. A project-specific Soil Management Plan (SMP) has been developed for the excavation and construction phases of project implementation (see Appendix G of the SES, Inc.2008 report; the SMP also is available for review on the City’s website as Appendix F of this Initial Study or upon request at the Cityof Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment). The City requires the SMP be reviewed for approval by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. Overseeing compliance with the approved permit is the responsibilityof the City’s Division of Building Inspection and is conducted through site visits and contractor reports. Soil erosion potential after construction would be controlled by implementation of approved landscape and irrigation plans. Although some potential forerosion exists, the risk of uncontrolled erosion and sedimentation is anticipated to be relatively minor because the SWPPP and BMPs would be required to adhere to the standards set by the NPDES Permit and Appendix J, Grading, 2010 CBC standards. A final grading and drainage plan for the project would be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. The combined application of standard grading, drainage, and erosion control measures, as part of the approved grading and drainage plan, and the recommendations from the Geotechnical Report is expected to maintain anygrading-related impacts at a less–than-significant level. Consequently, erosion hazard is considered a less-than-significant impact. Erosion and sedimentation issues are addressed more fully in Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Initial Study. c, d)At the south corner of the site, the ground surface is a thin veneer of topsoil underlain by dark brown to black silty clay extended to a depth of 10 feet below the ground surface (bgs). The claygrades downward 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -32 - into a 2-foot-thick layer of clayey sand, below which is 9 feet of light brown silty clay extending from 13 to 22 feet bgs. At least 2 feet of water-bearing sandy gravel is below the light brown silty clay.23 On the southeast side of the site, gravelly clay (probably fill) extends to a depth of 5 feet bgs. The fill is underlain by clayey fine sand to 14 feet bgs. Below the clayey fine sand is clayey silty gravel extending to 24 feet bgs. The gravel unit contains a blue-green discoloration and fuel odor at the groundwater interface between 21 and 22 feet bgs.24 At the north corner of the site the ground surface is about 2 feet of gravel base course (structural fill placed on areas to be paved) underlain by2.5 feet of dark brown silty clay. The clay is underlain byat least 7.5 feet of light brown silty gravel containing brick fragments, indicating the entire sequence is fill.25 The clays are soft and plastic; the sand is firm except where the clay content is high; and the gravel compact with clasts less than an inch in diameter.26 Expansion potential is expected to be quite variable from one of these geologic units to another, but plastic clays tend to be more expansive than sand or gravel. The geotechnical investigation recommended removal and recompaction or replacement of existing fills unsuitable for foundation support. Building on unsuitable soils would have the potential to create future liquefaction, subsidence, or collapse problems leading to building settlement and/or utility line disruption. When weak soils are replaced or re-engineered specifically for stability prior to use, these potential effects can be reduced to an acceptable level or eliminated. An acceptable degree of soil stability can be achieved for expansive or compressible soils by incorporation of soil treatment programs (replacement, grouting, compaction, drainage control, etc.) in the excavation and construction plans to address site-specific soil conditions. The City requires the excavation plans and specifications be reviewed by the Public Works Department (which may include further review and approval by a licensed geotechnical engineer, hired by the City at the applicant’s expense) prior to issuance of an excavation and grading permit. Overseeing compliance with the approved permit is the responsibility of the City’s Building Division and Public Works Department and is conducted through site visits and contractor reports. The identification and treatment of expansive soils would be required to comply with the provisions of Chapter 18 of the CBC, which specifies the requirements for foundation and soil investigations; excavation, grading, and fill; and the design of footings and foundations.Consequently, the potential effects of expansive soils on the foundation of the proposed project would be a less-than-significant impact. At the time of drilling by SES, Inc. (December 2007), groundwater was encountered in the three previously described areas of the site between 20 and 24 feet bgs. Along the southwest side of the site groundwater was encountered between 24 and 32 feet bgs. Groundwater flow direction as indicated byprevious investigations is north-northeast, toward the Oregon Expressway-Page Mill Road underpass pumping station, which is discharged into Matadero Creek. Water table contours provided bySecor for Hewlett-Packard-Varian (HP- Varian) in June 2006 (reproduced in SES,Inc., 2008) indicated the water table in the south corner of the site was about 12 to 13 feet above sea level (about 16 to 15 feet bgs), dropping to about 9 to 10 feet above sea 23 SES, Inc., 2008, p. 6 24 SES, Inc., 2008, p. 6 25 SES, Inc., 2008, p. 6 26 SES, Inc., 2008, p. 6 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -33 - level (about 18 to 17 feet bgs) in the north corner of the site.27 As described in Section VII.a,b), Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Initial Study, groundwater at the project site is in a partially confined condition because the deep claylayer acts as an aquitard (material that substantially reduces the transmission of water). This is a factor in explaining the various groundwater levels encountered at the project site and a cause of water rising in the boreholes. Damaging liquefaction can occur at depth if the water table is within about 50 feet bgs in pockets of fine- grained, uniformly sized sand, such as can exist in the alluvial deposits underlying the project site: conditions such as depth to water table, uniformityof grain size, and mix of grain size can varydramatically within alluvium. The combination of saturation and grain-size conditions conducive to liquefaction do not appear to exist in the near surface materials investigated at the project site. The City requires the excavation plans and specifications be reviewed for approval by the City’s Public Works Department (which may include further review and approval of a licensed geotechnical engineer hired by the City at the applicant’s expense) prior to issuance of an excavation and grading permit. Overseeing compliance with the approved permit is the responsibilityof the City’s Public Works Department and Building Division and is conducted through site visits and contractor reports. The identification and treatment of potentially liquefiable soils would be required to comply with the provisions of Chapter 18 of the CBC. Consequently, the potential effect of soils that could liquefy and/or spread laterally would be a less-than -significant impact. The depth of excavation for the removal of existing fill and soil materials and the construction of the underground parking level are projected to extend to 15.4 feet bgs. During the past two years of site investigation by Secor and SES,Inc., the water table has been below this level, but it is subject to fluctuation with rainfall, landscaping, and drainage.28 As such, there is a possibility the excavation could encounter groundwater. If groundwater were encountered during project excavation, dewatering of the pit might be necessary. The dewatering would be required to comply with Chapter 33 of the CBC, which specifies the safety requirements to be fulfilled for sitework, including the protection of adjacent structures from damage during excavation. This protection includes the prevention of subsidence of pavement or foundations caused by dewatering. As a condition of project approval, the City may require a dewatering plan that would be reviewed for approval by the City’s Public Works Department (which may include further review and approval of a licensed geotechnical engineer hired by the City at the applicant’s expense) prior to issuance of an excavation and grading permit (see Mitigation Measure MM-3 in Section VII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Mitigation Measure MM-5 in Section VIII,Hydrology and Water Quality of this Initial Study). Overseeing compliance with the approved permit is the responsibility of the City’s Public Works Department and the Building Division and is conducted through site visits and contractor reports. Compliance with these requirements would ensure the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact associated with soil or slope instability related to subsidence, liquefaction, or collapsible soils. e)The project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative waste-water disposal systems. Sewer mains are available to the site and would be used for wastewater disposal. Consequently, there would be no impact related to the capability of the soil to support septic tanks or alternative disposal systems. Residual Impact:Less than significant. Implementation of the construction techniques and recommendations contained in (a) the Geotechnical Report by Jo Crosby & Associates, dated May10, 2004, (b) 27 SES, Inc., 2008, p.8 28 SES, Inc., 2008, p. 1 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -34 - the Site Investigation and RemedyReport bySES,Inc., dated July2,2008 (including the Soil Management Plan by Tucker Engineering, dated May 29,2008, (c) the Health and SafetyPlan by Tucker Engineering, dated May 29,2008, and (d) the Vapor Mitigation System – Monitoring Plan (Revision 1) byTreadwell & Rollo, dated June 2, 2008) would be required by the City’s Municipal Code, the RWQCB, the Air Resources Board, and/or the Santa Clara ValleyWater District. The City’s Public Works Department and Building Division would review the project applications and supporting documentation for compliance with the Municipal Code prior to issuing permits for excavation or construction. Overseeing compliance with the approved permits with respect to special issues described herein related to hazards would be the responsibility of a qualified consultant (a third party inspection service) retained by the City at the applicant’s expense. Overseeing compliance with approved permits in other respects is the responsibility of the City’s Building Official or a third party hired by the Building Official, at the owner's expense, that specializes in the monitoring of activities related to excavation and design features during project construction at sites with contaminated soil and groundwater. Implementation of the recommendations contained in these reports and the review bythe City of Palo Alto would maintain geological impacts at a less-than-significant level. As a condition of project approval, the Citywould require a dewatering plan prior to issuance of an excavation permit (see Mitigation Measure MM-4 in Section VII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Mitigation Measure MM-6 in Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality), which would ensure that geological impacts remain at a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measures: None required. As explained in the preceding paragraph, the project’s inclusion of the geotechnical, site remediation, soil management, health and safety, and vapor intrusion mitigation and monitoring recommendations is required bythe City, the RWQCB, and/or the SCVWD. As a consequence of these legal requirements being part of the project design, the respective geology and soils impacts would be rendered less than significant. As a condition of project approval, the City would require a dewatering plan prior to issuance of an excavation permit (see Mitigation Measure MM-4 in Section VII,Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Mitigation Measure MM-6 in Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality). Cumulative Analysis The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts resulting from geologic hazards is generally site-specific, because each project site has a different set of geologic considerations that would be subject to specific site-development and construction standards. As such, the potential for cumulative impacts to occur is geographically limited for most geology and soils impact analyses. Locally, the two mixed-used development projects would be in the same geologic unit (Holocene floodplain deposits) as the 195 Page Mill Road project, although not on adjacent parcels. Floodplain deposits are unconsolidated and highly variable over short distances, making each parcel a site-specific case. The HST project would occupy the Caltrain corridor adjacent to the 195 Page Mill Road project site. Irrespective of the vertical profile of the HST project (tunnel, trench, and/or embankment), it would be physically and structurally isolated from surrounding development. It also would be founded in the same geologic unit as the 195 Page Mill Road project. In general, similar nearby projects on floodplain deposits would react similarly to geologic forces 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -35 - and they would be expected to have similar impacts on the geologic unit, but the reaction and impacts at one site would not contribute to, or multiply, the effects at the other sites. The safety of the adjacent HST project construction and operation would be regulated by the State of California through the Authority and by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the federal agency responsible for the safetyof construction and operation of all rail systems in the country. The Authority and the FRA would require the HST project to adhere to the regulations set bythe FRA’s Track SafetyStandards (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 213) and the construction standards and material specifications recommended in the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association’s Manual for Railway Engineering, therebyensuring that the structural stability of the HST project would not affect or be effected by adjacent or nearby development (i.e., would not cumulate with other projects). In common with the rest of California, Palo Alto is in a seismically active area and is subject to risk of damage to persons and property as a result of seismic groundshaking. Building in California is strictly regulated by the CBC, as adopted and enforces by each jurisdiction, to reduce risks from seismic events to the maximum extent possible. New buildings and facilities in the City are required to be sited and designed in accordance with the most current geotechnical and seismic guidelines and recommendations to reduce the risk of fault rupture. With adherence to the Building Code and related plans, regulations, and design and engineering guidelines and practices, the project would not make a cumulativelyconsiderable contribution to any potential cumulative impact arising from fault rupture. Therefore, the project’s cumulative impact would be less than significant. Impacts associated with potential geologic hazards related to groundshaking and seismic-related ground failure also could occur at individual building sites, but these effects would be site-specific, and impacts would not be compounded by additional development. Individual projects must complywith the provisions of all applicable codes and regulations and building plans must conform to the most current seismic safety design guidelines set forth in the CBC. Therefore, each project, including the proposed project, would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any potential cumulative impacts of strong seismic groundshaking. Therefore, the project’s cumulative impact would be less than significant. Additionally, development of other cumulative projects in the vicinity of the proposed project site could similarly expose soil surfaces and further alter soil conditions. However, the proposed project and other cumulative projects must be in compliance with applicable Building Code and NPDES permit requirements. As part of the NPDES permit requirements, it would implement and maintain the BMPs required by individual project SWPPPs. As such, the project’s contribution to any potential cumulative impact related to soil erosion would have a less than cumulatively considerable. As with seismic groundshaking impacts, the geographic context for analysis of impacts on development from unstable soil conditions, including landslides, liquefaction, subsidence, collapse, expansive or corrosive soils, or soils incapable of supporting alternative wastewater disposal systems, is site-specific. Because all development projects would be required to implement appropriate design and construction measures, each project, including the proposed project, would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any potential soil instability. The project’s cumulative impact would be less than significant. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -36 - Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated* Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 18, 19, 28, 29 X b)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 18, 19, 28, 29 X c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 1 X d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 18, 19, 28, 29 X e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 1 X f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? 1 X g)Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 11 X h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 11 X A geotechnical report, dated May 10, 2004, was prepared by Jo Crosby and Associates. A copy of the geotechnical report is available for review on the City’s website as Appendix H of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. A site investigation and remedy report dated July2, 2008 was prepared by SES,Inc. and included a vapor mitigation system and monitoring plan prepared by Treadwell & Rollo, dated June 2, 2008. A copy of the site investigation report and the Treadwell & Rollo report are available for review on the City’s website as Appendix I and Appendix D, respectively, of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -37 - a, b) As explained in the Project Description, the proposed project would include the construction of a three story building containing R&D space on the ground floor, two upper levels of residential units, and one level of underground parking. Construction Excavation for the subterranean level would reach a depth no more than 15.4 feet below the ground surface (bgs).29 A groundwater plume containing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) was detected at the project site in the first water-bearing unit (a partially confined aquifer) at least 20 feet bgs.30 Residual VOCs were detected in the soil vapor31 between 15 and 16 feet bgs.32 Levels of trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), cis-1,2-dichlorethylene (cis-1,2-DCE), and total extractable hydrocarbons-diesel to gasoline range (TEHd, TEHg) in the groundwater exceeded the regulatory Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for a Drinking Water Resource, but onlyTEHg exceeded the ESL for a Non-drinking Water Resource.33 Of the VOCs detected in the soil-vapor, TCE, PCE, and 1,1-dichlorethylene (1,1-DCE) exceeded their respective ESLs.34 According to the site investigation and remedyreport, the VOCs originate from an off-site upgradient source known as the Hewlett-Packard-Varian (HP-Varian) plume. The chlorinated VOCs detected in the plume beneath the project site are the same compounds associated with the HP-Varian plume, which is known to extend as far as the Caltrain easement, adjacent to the project site on the northeast, and beyond Page Mill Road, adjacent to the project site on the northwest.35 Groundwater remediation and monitoring systems are in operation at several sites associated with the sources contributing to the HP-Varian plume including 611 Hansen Way (overseen by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control), 1501 Page Mill Road, and the California-Olive-Emerson (COE) plume at 640 and 395 Page Mill Road and 601 South California Street (all overseen by the RWQCB).36 The closest of the upgradient remediation sites is 395 Page Mill Road about 500 feet south-southeast of the project site. In June 2009, Hewlett-Packard’s groundwater remediation consultant field checked the location of HP- Varian monitoring wells relative to the staked location of the proposed excavation at the project site to verify that the wells would not be affected by the excavation. No wells are on the propertyof the proposed project. One well is 2.5 feet outside the property line of the project site and another well is16 feet outside the property line. The wells would be protected from damage during excavation by the shoring to be used at the perimeter of the site to protect the Sprint building adjacent to the project site. All earth-moving equipment would be confined to the project site.37 29 a) Hoover, 2008, ss. C2, A3.3 b) SES, Inc., 2008, p. 1 30 SES, Inc., 2008, pp. 4, 6, 10, 17, 18 31 Soil vapor is the gas that is held in pore spaces between soil particles. It can originate from volatilizing hydrocarbon seeping into the soil from a contaminated groundwater plume. 32 SES, Inc., 2008, p. 22 33 SES, Inc., 2008, pp. 10, 11 34 SES, Inc., 2008, pp. 14, 16 35 SES, Inc. 2008, pp. 17-19, 23, 29 36 Electronic mail post –From: Janet Naito (California Department of Toxic Substances Control) Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 9:20 AM To: Lata Vasudevan (City of Palo Alto) Cc: Laura Kaweski (Department of Toxic Substances Control); Michelle Puljiz (Department of Toxic Substances Control); Roger Papler (Regional Water Quality Control Board) Subject: Park Plaza Project (SCH# 2009042104) 37 James R. Janz, Sideman & Bancroft, LLP, letter to Lata Vasudevan, Contract Planner, City of Palo Alto, June 5, 2009 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -38 - The SES, Inc., 2008 site investigation associated the hydrocarbon contamination with former on-site sources: an underground fuel storage tank that was closed formallywith regulatory approval; and the former subsurface drain area near borehole B-06, between 2891 Park Boulevard and the Caltrain easement because most of those residual hydrocarbons are in the form of low concentrations of the longer chain diesel-type extractable (versus volatile) grade and are not considered to be of environmental concerns from a health risk perspective.38 The chlorinated VOCs from the HP-Varian plume are the risk drivers for vapor intrusion. Because of the distribution of VOCs in the site soils, the RWQCB indicated there was no basis to conclude whether there was or was not residual soil contamination at the site and approved the site investigation and remedy report based on the inclusion of soil-qualityscreening during site investigation in lieu of further pre-excavation soil investigation.39 The RWQCB considers the existence of elevated levels of VOCs to indicate the probable presence of VOC soil sources under the northeast half of the site.40 Because the data show that residual petroleum hydrocarbons in the project site soils samples were below current regulatory ESLs, SES,Inc. did not expect hydrocarbons to interfere with future site development in terms of associated risk or exposure. Nonetheless, contaminated groundwater from the underlying plume probably will persist for years, although it will diminish gradually with continued remediation. Because the base of the foundation for the proposed project would be about 5 feet above the confined aquifer affected by the plume, there would be no direct contact with contaminated groundwater, but vapor disseminating through the soil could enter the building. Because there remains some possibility that groundwater could be encountered during the excavation, the City may require, as a condition of project approval, a dewatering plan that would be reviewed for approval bythe City’s Public Works Department (which may include further review and approval by a licensed geotechnical engineer, hired by the City at the applicant’s expense) prior to issuance of an excavation and grading permit (see Mitigation Measure MM-4 in Section VII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Mitigation Measure MM-6 in Section VIII, Hydrologyand Water Quality, of this Initial Study). Overseeing compliance with the approved permit is the responsibility of the City’s Public Works Department and Building Division, either directly through site visits and contractor reports, or through licensed third-party investigators hired by the City at the applicant’s expense. Excavated soil contamination in the vicinity of the subsurface drain, former underground fuel storage tank (UFST), and possible sources above the water table would be examined to the depth of 15.4 feet bgs (the base of the proposed excavation) during excavation activities. If hydrocarbon contamination were indicated, these soils would be segregated for potential further testing and remediation, as needed.41 Although the site investigation and remedy report concluded there was no known onsite source area generating VOC contamination, the soil-vapor samples analyzed by SES,Inc. indicated some VOCs 38 SES, Inc., 2008, p. 1 39 San Francisco Bay Region, California Regional WaterQuality Control Board, Approval of Site Investigation and Remedy Report, and Requirements for Reports for Park Plaza Mixed Use Development at 195Page Mill Road and 2685 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, July 3, 2008, File No.43S1107 (RWP), pp. 1 & 2. This Approval remains current per telephone communication from Roger W.Papler, PG7741, SFBRWQCB Engineering Geologist to GeorgeJ.Burwasser, PG 7151, ATKINS Senior Geologist, January 21, 2011. 40 Electronic mail post –From: Roger Papler (Regional Water Quality Control Board) Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 1:04 PM To: Lata Vasudevan (City of Palo Alto) Cc: Harold Hohbach (Hohbach Enterprises); Cecil Felix; (Regional Water Quality Control Board) John Wolfenden; (Regional Water Quality Control Board) Stephen Hill (Regional Water Quality Control Board) Subject: Park Plaza / PA: Comments -MND (21April09) 41 SES, Inc., 2008, p. 20 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -39 - appeared to be contaminating the soil through sorption onto low-permeable clay particles when the VOCs volatized upward from the underlying plume.42 The distribution of VOC contamination in the groundwater did not vary significantly across the project site, but the VOC distribution in the soil vapor showed a two- fold magnitude variation across the site, being higher under the northeast half of the site and lower under the southwest half.43 Because of this distribution, the RWQCB indicated there was no basis to conclude whether there was or was not residual soil contamination at the site. The groundwater under the site of the proposed project flows north-northeast toward the Oregon Expressway-Page Mill Road underpass. Groundwater was encountered on the project site between 20 and 24 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs) in Boreholes GW-01 and GW-06, at 22 feet bgs in Borehole GW-04, between 24 and 28 feet bgs in Borehole GW-05, and between 28 and 32 feet bgs in Borehole GW-07. (For groundwater information, see Figure 2 on page 3 of the SES,Inc. 2008 report, available for review on the City’s website as Appendix I of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment.) Partially confined aquifer conditions appear to exist under the southeast portion of the project site, as indicated by groundwater rising in Borehole GW-04 to 14 feet bgs and in Borehole GW-07 to 12 feet bgs.44 Unless penetrated by excavation or boreholes, the confining clay layer extending down to 22 feet bgs in Borehole GW-04 and 28 feet bgs in Borehole GW-07 prevents water in the underlying portion of the aquifer from rising toward the ground surface. To prevent the excavation from extending into the contaminated groundwater, lateral soil nailing or shallow bracing would be used to stabilize the excavation walls and would not extend below 20 feet bgs. For soil nailing, the excavation walls, which would be no more than 15.4 feet deep, would be stabilized using wire mesh facing covered with gunnite and welded or plated to soil nails drilled and grouted at least 20 feet laterally (i.e., approximately parallel to the ground surface) into the excavation walls. For excavation bracing, a soldier pier and timber shoring system placed no deeper than 20 feet bgs and probably involving tiebacks drilled and grouted laterally into the excavation walls would be used to support the excavation walls, which would be no more than 15.4 feet deep.45 During the past two years of site investigation by Secor (at the upgradient HP-Varian VOC plume) and SES,Inc. (at the project site), the water table generally has been 20 feet bgs or lower, under partially confined aquifer conditions. There is a steep hydraulic gradient toward the northwest, in the directionof the Oregon Expressway-Page Mill Road underpass pump station. In 2007, during the installation of groundwater and soil vapor investigation borings at the project site, groundwater encountered at 22 feet bgs rapidly rose to approximately 14 feet bgs in one boring, and to 12 feet bgs in another.46 This indicates that confined aquifer conditions are present, at least in certain portions of the site, and that groundwater is under hydrostatic pressure. As such, it is possible that excavation could not only intercept groundwater, but that the removal of clay materials during excavation could cause groundwater levels to rise to levels that would begin to fill the excavation area. Four potential effects could result from contaminated groundwater being 42 SES, Inc. 2008, pp. 22 & 23 43 SES, Inc. 2008, pp. 17 & 18 44 SES, Inc., 2008, pp.6 &23 45 Crosby, 2004, p. 7 46 SES, Inc., 2008, p. 17. This report is available for review on the City’s website as Appendix I of this Initial Study or upon request at the Cityof Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -40 - unexpectedly drawn toward or into the excavated area. If contaminated groundwater were to rise into the excavation area, this could present (1) a health hazard for construction workers on site, through direct contact or inhalation of VOCs and hydrocarbons (especially worker inhalation hazard related to excavation of soils containing trapped VOCs); (2) an inhalation health hazard for other people near the site. In addition, (3)excavation that intercepts groundwater or causes groundwater to rise could affect the effectiveness of the VOC plume remediation system by altering flow characteristics, or (4) it could cause soil vapors to migrate. From a geotechnical perspective, groundwater entering the excavation could affect the stability of the side walls of the excavation. Excavation of the soil on the northeast half of the site where site investigation revealed higher levels of VOCs could pose inhalation hazards to construction workers and other people near the project site. During soil removal, airborne contaminants in the form of residual VOCs trapped in the soil could be released. The use of respiratoryprotection byconstruction workers, as described in the Health and Safety Plan, could be necessary if air monitoring indicated contaminant concentrations had reached the action level and would reduce the potential exposure to an acceptable level. Compliance with the requirements of OSHA's Respiratory Protection Standard whenever respirators were used would be mandatory. This means the use of protective outerwear and air-purifying respirators with appropriate cartridges (i.e., wearing Tyvek suits and half mask respirators equipped with N-95 cartridges) until testing results showed airborne VOC concentrations were consistently below the California permissible exposure limit. A Jobsite Safety Coordinator (hired by the applicant) would be responsible for monitoring the proper implementation of respiratory protection and ensuring appropriate cartridges, filters, outerwear, etc. were used. All employees working onsite would be trained and informed about safe practices for working around VOC-contaminated ground.47 To prevent or reduce exposure of unauthorized personnel (i.e., the public and workers not specifically assigned to tasks on a restricted portion of the project site) to safety and chemical hazards during excavation and grading, site control would be enforced strictly for this project. During periods of excavation and general grading in the northeast half of the site, an exclusion zone would be set using fencing and signs (or equivalent physical indicators) that indicate only authorized personnel were permitted to enter. Necessary traffic controls (e.g., perimeter fence, signs, barriers, and street closures) would be established periodicallyas necessary keep the public (pedestrians and traffic) away from the job site.48 Dust and VOC vapor controls, construction and transportation equipment decontamination, stormwater pollution controls, and dewatering treatment (if necessary) would be implemented to prevent exposure of workers at the site, the public, and receiving waters to VOCs in soil or groundwater.49 To prevent worker-exposure to contaminated soil, procedures and precautions to be used in the proper profiling, movement, and exportation of the soil are outlined in the Soil Management Plan, prepared by Tucker Engineering. Excavation procedures would include soil testing for the presence of hydrocarbons and 47 Tucker Engineering, May 28, 2008, Site-Specific Health &Safety Plan, pp. 32 & 33, Section 10 Respiratory Protection Program. This report is available for review on the City’s website on the City’s website as Appendix E of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. 48 Tucker Engineering, May 28, 2008, Site-Specific Health &Safety Plan, p. 13, 3.1 Site Controls. This report is available for review on the City’s website on the City’s website as Appendix E of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. 49 SES, Inc., 2008, pp. 32 –35 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -41 - contacting trained personnel to determine the need for additional testing and remediation if items out of the ordinarywere identified. As described in the Health and SafetyPlan, prepared byTucker Engineering, if soil were encountered that was judged to be out of the ordinary, odorous, or to contain subterranean debris, the area of discovery would be quarantined and all excavation activities would be stopped until soil and/or vapor analysis could be completed and the City approved the continuation of excavation activities.50 Operation To prevent VOC soil-vapor intrusion from the contaminated aquifer or the site of the former UFST, an active soil venting system and a full vapor barrier would be installed beneath the underground parking level. The vapor collection system would consist of perimeter inlet vents below the parking level feeding a horizontal network of solid and perforated pipes installed in a layer of sharp gravel or crushed rock. The horizontal grid would connect to vertical risers (solid pipes) extending the full height of the building and properly vented above the roofline.51 The active vaporintrusion mitigation system (VIMS) would be driven byelectric fans at the effluent end of the VIMS riser pipes and enhanced byoutside air entering through ten inlet vents. To ensure the system functioned as intended, its performance would be monitored by a third party inspection service (a licensed HVAC engineer specializing in VIMS) at the applicant’s expense and reporting to the RWQCB and the City.52,53 . Based on modeling performed byTreadwell & Rollo in June, 2008, the under-slab VOC concentrations were calculated to be reducible bythree to five orders of magnitude (factors of 10) through the diluting effect of fresh air entering the under-slab layer by way of perimeter inlet vents. The diluted VOC vapors would pass through the horizontal network of collection pipes and be released safely through the riser pipes. The maximum TCE and PCE concentrations detected in soil-vapor at this site were 150,000 micrograms per cubic meter (•g/m3) and 40,000 •g/m3, respectively. The ESLs for TCE and PCE in commercial or industrial land uses are 4,100 •g/m3 and 1,400 •g/m3, respectively. Consequently, a three-fold reduction in under-slab VOC concentrations provided by the passive venting system would reduce the VOC concentrations below the ESLs.54 The full vapor barrier would be a 60-mil-thick, spray-applied membrane below the elevator shafts, stairwells, pipe chases, and entire floor-slab. The efficacy of partial and full vapor barrier systems against potential vapor intrusion is addressed in project-related correspondence with the RWQCB55(the agency of jurisdiction 50 Tucker Engineering, May 29,2008, Soil Management Plan for Park Plaza, (SES, Inc., 2008, Appendix G –Excavation-Related Workplans: Health & Safety Plan, and Soil Management Plan), pp. 4, 5. The SES, Inc. report is available for reviewon the City’s website as AppendixI of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. 51 Treadwell & Rollo, 2009, Vapor Mitigation System –Monitoring Plan (Revision 2), Park Plaza Development, 195 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California, available for review on the City’s website as Appendix D of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. 52 Treadwell & Rollo, 2008 (SES, Inc., 2008, Appendix E), pp. 2, 3. The SES, Inc. report is available for reviewon the City’s website as Appendix I of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. 53 Treadwell & Rollo, 2008 (SES, Inc., 2008, Appendix E), pp. 2, 3. The SES, Inc. report is available for reviewon the City’s website as Appendix I of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. 54 Treadwell & Rollo, 2009, Vapor Mitigation System –Monitoring Plan (Revision 2), Park Plaza Development, 195 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California, available for review on the City’s website as Appendix D of this Initial Study or upon request at the City ofPalo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. 55 Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region. Approval Letter of Site Investigation and Remedy Report, and Requirement for Reports for Park Plaza Use Development at 195 Page Mill Road and 2685 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -42 - over vapor intrusion remediation systems on the proposed project site).56 In April 2008 the RWQCB expressed doubts about the efficacy of partial barriers (under vertical components of the building, but not under the entire floor-slab). In July 2008 the RWQCB determined that the passive VIMS previously described appeared to address soil vapor issues below the proposed new development adequately, noted no need for the addition of mechanical ventilation (HVAC) systems to the VIMS, but was silent on the issue of the partial barrier. Subsequent correspondence continued the debate without resolution. In October 2009 the applicant proposed a full vapor barrier beneath the building, with an active venting system.57 Project-related correspondence with RWQCB addresses the level of enforceabilityof the Risk Management Plan requirements for operation and maintenance of the VIMS. As the RWQCB determined, the applicant has committed financial resources to employing a third party inspection service to be responsible for inspecting the site and submitting the required information to the RWQCB. As indicated in the Enforcement of Remedial Risk Management Measures section of Appendix H of the SES,Inc. 2008 report (available for review on the City’s website as Appendix G of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment), enforcement would be implemented by annual inspections of the VIMS by the third party inspection service to assure that the VIMS continued to operate as designed until sub-slab soil gas levels were below RWQCB ESLs bya factor of two. Building permit review bythe City of Palo Alto would ensure future building permits do not compromise the stipulations specified in MM-4. Section 3401.2 of the CBC requires that all devices required by the CBC be maintained in conformance with the CBC, and allows the building inspector to re-inspect buildings to determine compliance. As presented in Appendix E,58 contingencies include vapor monitoring to protect against potential vapor intrusion and evaluation of additional mitigation if the results of the first six (monthly) monitoring events indicate any cause for concern. If the VIMS is operating correctly, monitoring would continue quarterly until vapor concentrations were reduced to 50 percent of the RWQCB Commercial ESLs and annually thereafter.59 If testing indicated the VIMS was not reducing VOC concentrations to levels below the thresholds set by the RWQCB, the system would need to be redesigned (under the supervision of the third party inspection service) for more effective removal of VOCs. Monitoring would continue until VOC concentrations were demonstrated to be maintained below the commercial ESLs, as recommended by the RWQCB. Appendix I of the SES,Inc. 2008 report consists of a Financial Assurance Letter that specifically documents committed financial resources for maintaining the VIMS and repairing the VIMS elements in case of damage from vandalism or the slab cracking because of ground settlement and other unanticipated events.60 This Financial Assurance has been reconfirmed and updated by the applicant as of February 10, 2011.61 56 Project-related correspondence with the RWQCB is included in the City of Palo Alto’s proposed project files, maintained by the Planning and Community Environment Department. Copies of these documents are available, upon request, for public review. 57 Treadwell & Rollo, Vapor Mitigation System –Monitoring Plan (Revision 1), Park Plaza Development, 195 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California, June 2,2008. Revised October 27,2009 as Vapor Mitigation System –Monitoring Plan (Revision2), Park Plaza Development, 195 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California 58 Trucker Engineering, Site Health and Safety Plan, May 27, 2008. 59 Electronic mail post -From: Roger W. Papler, PG7741 (Regional Water Quality Board) Sent: Tuesday, February3, 2009 3:56 PM To: Bob G. Moss (Barron Park Association Foundation); John Wolfenden (Regional Water Quality Board) Subject: Re: Park Plaza -195 PMR: Comments on BPAF RTCs. 60 Electronic mail post -From: Roger W. Papler, PG7741 (Regional Water Quality Board) Sent: Tuesday, February3, 2009 3:56 PM To: Bob G. Moss (Barron Park Association Foundation); John Wolfenden (Regional Water Quality Board) Subject: Re: Park Plaza -195 PMR: Comments on BPAF RTCs 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -43 - Assuming construction period protection from contaminated soil and groundwater beneath the project site would be implemented as part of the proposed project, the possible exposure of the public or the environment to the routing, transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials related to construction is considered a less-than-significant impact. Nonetheless, the possibility exists that contaminated groundwater or soil could be encountered during the construction period, so reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials is considered a potentially significant impact. However, Mitigation Measures MM-4 and MM-6, in Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality, would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. The project could involve the use or storage of hazardous materials in connection with the R&D uses proposed at the site.62 The lease agreement with each R&D tenant would stipulate that the storage and use of hazardous materials within their space would not exceed the limits set by Table 3-D, Exempt Amounts of Hazardous Materials Representing a Physical Hazard, 2010 CBC.63 (This table has been superseded by Tables 2703.1.1(1), (2), and (3) Maximum Allowable Quantity Per Control Area of Hazardous Materials Posing a Physical Hazard, 2010 California Fire Code, Title 24, Part 9, Chapter 27, Section 2703.1.1. The 264 hazardous materials listed on the old Table 3-D fall into one or more of the categories on the current Tables 2703.1.1(1), (2), or (3).64) Additionally, each R&D tenant space would be constructed as a separate compartment with one-hour rated walls, protected common openings, and separate ventilation systems.65 The City has Hazardous Materials Reporting Requirements (posted on the City’s website) based on the model Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance (HMSO) developed in 1982 and adopted byall cities and the county in Santa Clara County in 1983. The HMSO established the quantities of 55 gallons (liquids), 500 pounds (solids), or 200 cubic feet (compressed gases) for a specific hazardous material as the threshold for filing a Hazardous Materials Management Plan (HMMP) and Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement (HMIS). Below the threshold, a facility could file a Short Form HMMP (now called a Registration Form). For new construction, the City’s Fire Department (the regulatory entity for the use and handling of hazardous materials) uses the general quantities of 10 gallons, 100 pounds, or 200 cubic feet as thresholds of nominal use, below which no specific permits or special construction would be required; above these levels, the thresholds in Chapter 27 of the California Fire Code would be applied on a site-specific case-by-case basis, with permits and special construction required for use levels above those specified in the model HMSO.66 (Certain exceptions include any quantity of gases regulated under the Toxic Gas Ordinance, which must be reported on the HMIS. Other hazardous materials below the reporting threshold may be required to be 61 Financial Assurance Letter from Harold C. Hohbach, President, Hohbach Reality Company Limited Partnership, to California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, Attention Roger Papler, re Park Plaza Project (Water Board Case # 43S1107/CA), February 10,2011. 62 Richard B. Campbell, AIA, Hoover Associates Architecture. Letter to Gordon Simpkinson, Acting Fire Marshall, City of Palo Alto. February 22, 2011. 63 Richard B. Campbell, AIA,Hoover Associates Architecture. Letter to Gordon Simpkinson, Acting Fire Marshall, City of Palo Alto. February 22, 2011. 64 International Code Council. http://publicecodes.citation.com/st/ca/st/b300v10/st_ca_st_b300v10_27_sec003_par001.htm. Website accessed by GeorgeJ.Burwasser, PG 7151, ATKINS Senior Geologist. April 13, 2011. 65 Richard B. Campbell, AIA, Hoover Associates Architecture. Letter to Gordon Simpkinson, Acting Fire Marshall, City of Palo Alto. February 22, 2011. 66 Gordon Simpkinson, Acting Fire Marshall, City of Palo Alto. Telephone communication with George J. Burwasser, PG 7151, PBS&J Senior Geologist. April 13, 2011. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -44 - reported if they present an unusual hazard, such as water reactive materials, or materials that are highlytoxic, radioactive, carcinogenic or explosive.67) Assuming operational period protection from contaminated soil and groundwater beneath the project site would be implemented as part of the proposed project, the possible exposure of the public or the environment to the soil-and groundwater-related contamination is considered a less-than-significant impact. Compliance on the part of future tenants with the Fire Department’s requirements related to the handling of hazardous materials in connection with R&D at the site is intended to reduce the possible exposure of the public or the environment to the routing, transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials to a less-than- significant level. Nonetheless, the possibility that reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials could occur is considered a potentially significant impact. However, Mitigation Measures MM-4 would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. c)There are no existing or proposed schools within one-quarter mile of the project site.68 Consequently, there would be no impact related to the project’s potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. d)The 2004 geotechnical report prepared by Jo Crosbyand Associates did not identify toxic materials on the property; however, the report states that a toxic plume of contaminated groundwater underlies the site. A Site Investigation and RemedyReport prepared bySES, Inc, dated July 2, 2008, which included continuous sampling of the boreholes for geologic logging, but not for laboratory analysis, indicates a groundwater plume containing VOCs was detected at the project site in the first water-bearing unit (a partiallyconfined aquifer) at least 20 feet bgs.69 This groundwater contamination was considered to be caused by historic discharges from nearby electronic manufacturing plants. The toxic plume has been known to exist since at least 1981 and is commonly referred to as the HP-Varian plume and the COE plume. The extent of the plume and its contaminants are well known and documented, and a number of developments have been built in the area, including residential uses, over this plume.70 The Fire Department’s Environmental Protection Coordinator reviewed the 2004 Crosbygeotechnical report and concluded the project could proceed without anysignificant negative impacts from the toxic plume. The Fire Department would require that any groundwater encountered during construction be sampled and analyzed for contaminants and properly disposed. Before any further work could proceed, the applicant would be required to obtain confirmation from the RWQCB that the construction and site activity would not result in exposure of construction workers or the public to those contaminants.71 That confirmation was issued on July 3,2008, on the assumption the SES, Inc. report was correct that the contaminated groundwater plume would not be intersected by the project excavation, but contained the reservation that there was no basis to conclude that there was or was not residual soil contamination at the site based on the 67 Hazardous Materials Reporting Requirements, March 2003. City of Palo Alto website accessed by George J.Burwasser, PG7151, PBS&J Senior Geologist. April 13, 2011. 68 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Adopted July 20, 1998, Land Use and Circulation Map, revised December, 2003 69 SES, Inc., 2008, pp. 4, 6, 10, 17, and 18 70 Steve Emslie, Former Director of Planning and Community Environment, Emily Harrison, Assistant City Manager, September 27, 2004, Memo to City Council from City Manager, Department of Planning & Community Environment, Recommendation for Denial of Request by Court House Plaza Company for Development of a Property at 195Page Mill Road and 2825, 2865, 2873, 2891, and 2901 Park Boulevard 71 Emslie and Harrison, 2004 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -45 - lack of laboratory analysis of the continuous soil cores of the boreholes.72 The RWQCB concluded the existence of elevated levels of VOCs under the northeast half indicated the probable presence of VOC soil sources at the site.73 The 2008 site investigation and remedy report bySES,Inc. examined the soil and groundwater conditions at the project site and, in collaboration with Treadwell &Rollo and Tucker Engineering, developed construction and operational period protections to accommodate the existence of plume and soil-vapor safely. The SES,Inc. 2008 report contained a dewatering contingencyplan. In the event the excavation encountered groundwater the Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health and the RWQCB would be contacted immediately by the applicant. Any purged groundwater would be containerized onsite, sampled for profiling, and disposed of offsite at a certified recycling facility. In the case that groundwater should need to be dewatered, the groundwater would be containerized on site, and an appropriate National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit obtained prior to treatment and discharge.74 Nonetheless, because the possibility exists that contaminated groundwater or soil could be encountered during the construction period, the impact is considered less than significant with mitigation.Mitigation Measures MM-4, below, and MM-6, in Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality, would be made conditions of project approval, thereby reducing the impact to a less-than-significant level. e, f)The project site is not within two miles of either a public or private use airport. No impact would occur. g)The project would not adversely affect pedestrian, vehicular, or rail circulation patterns in the vicinityof the project. As described in Section XV.d), Transportation/Traffic, of this Initial Study, the project has been reviewed by the City’s Fire Department and Transportation Division to determine whether it would substantially increase hazards or result in inadequate emergency access. An unsignalized, 130-foot left turn pocket lane on Park Boulevard at the Page Mill Road intersection and a 24-foot roadwaywidth on the Page Mill Road extension would be provided by the applicant to facilitate two-way traffic and emergency response vehicle access. Mitigation Measure MM-8, in Section XV, Transportation/Traffic, would provide a pedestrian/vehicles warning system for the underground garage entrance/exit. There would be no access to the Caltrain property from the project site and Caltrain maintains a locked gate to close off the driveway provided for access to its propertyfrom the street. Consequently, there would be no impact on emergency response access, evacuation operations, or pedestrian/vehicle safety. h)The project is in a developed area and would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No impact would occur. 72 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, Bruce H. Wolfe, Executive Officer, July3,2008, letter to Hohbach Realty Company Limited Partnership, Approval of Site Investigation and Remedy Report, and Requirement for Reports for Park Plaza Mixed Use Development at 195 Page Mill Road and 2685 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County. This Approval remains current per telephone communication from Roger W.Papler, PG7741, SFBRWQCB Engineering Geologist to George J.Burwasser, PG 7151, PBS&J/ATKINS Senior Geologist, January 21, 2011. 73 Electronic mail post –From: Roger Papler, May 21, 2009 1:04 PM. 74 SES,Inc., 2008, Appendix H –Remedial Risk Management Plan, p. 4. The SES, Inc. report is available for review on the City’s website as Appendix I of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -46 - Residual Impact:Less than significant with mitigation Mitigation Measures: MM-4:Protocol for Management of On-site Contamination a) A formal dewatering plan (Construction Dewatering ContingencyPlan) shall be prepared, consistent with Mitigation Measure MM-6 in Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality of this Initial Study and consistent with the City’s Construction Dewatering System Plan Preparation Guidelines and Dewatering from Construction Sites and In-ground Utilities Maintenance Manual. This plan shall be prepared and submitted for final approval by the City’s Public Works Department prior to issuance of Citypermits. The applicant shall provide information in the plan regarding the lateral and vertical distances to existing groundwater contamination plumes and an analysis of the potential impacts to those plumes caused by construction activity on the project property, including the use of dewatering sumps or wells under the proposed underground parking structure. Prior to submission to the City, this information shall be submitted to the RWQCB for approval that the proposed work on the subject property, including any use of dewatering sumps or dewatering wells would not have an adverse impact on the current and future cleanup effort of the HP-Varian or COE plumes. The approval shall be submitted to the City’s Public Works Department with the plan and shall verify that dewatering sumps or dewatering wells, if proposed, would not alter the path of the groundwater contamination plume(s) and could not result in 1)bringing groundwater contamination to the project site or 2)a possible future exposure of the public on the project site to groundwater contaminants. The plan shall identify testing and analysis methods, and treatment, if necessary, for disposal into the storm drain system to ensure compliance with the City’s Municipal NPDES permit. Sufficient personnel and material shall be provided by the applicant to implement the plan, should groundwater be encountered by the excavation. b) The applicant shall provide readyaccess to the project site for the CityBuilding Official, or a third party hired by the Building Official, at the owner's expense, that specializes in the monitoring of activities related to excavation and design features during project construction at sites with contaminated soil and groundwater, to inspect and enforce implementation of the Soil Management Plan prepared by Tucker Engineering addressing the procedures and precautions to be used for the proper containment, profiling, movement, exportation of soil, etc. during the excavation and construction period. c) The applicant shall provide ready access to the project site for the third party inspection service, which would report to the City and be financed by the applicant to inspect and enforce implementation of the Remedial Risk Management Plan (RRMP), including implementation of the Site Health and Safety Plan; contaminated soil sampling, excavation, and management; the dewatering contingency plan; reporting requirements; land use covenant and environmental restrictions; long term monitoring, inspections, contingencies, and enforcement. d) The applicant shall file documentation with the RWQCB, the third partyinspection service reporting to the City and financed by the applicant, and the City for final approval of the completion of the excavation, including soil sampling results within 60 days following the completion of excavation. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -47 - e)Prior to issuance of the occupancypermit the applicant shall file documentation from an independent consultant specializing in vapor mitigation system design and installation for final approval bythe third party inspection service reporting to the Cityand financed bythe applicant confirming that each component (collection pipes, transmission pipes, inlets, risers, vents, etc.) of the vapor intrusion mitigation system (VIMS) has been installed in accordance with the recommendations of the Vapor Mitigation System and Monitoring Plan, and includes the installation of a full vapor barrier, which shall be a 60-mil thick, spray-applied membrane below the elevator shafts, stairwells, pipe chases, and entire floor-slab, as part of the active vapor collection and venting system (i.e., driven by electric fans at the effluent end of the VIMS riser pipes and enhanced by outside air entering through inlet vents) to be installed in the building to mitigate potential soil vapor intrusion. f)The applicant shall file documentation with the RWQCB and the City for final approval bythe third party inspection service reporting to the City and financed by the applicant of installation of the VIMS, initial garage air sampling results, and the startup sub-slab vapor-riser monitoring results, with vapor-riser monitoring reports submitted as required by the RRMP, within 60 days following the completion of building construction. g)The applicant shall comply with contingencies regarding vapor monitoring to protect against potential vapor intrusion which would involve additional remediation if the results of the first six (monthly) monitoring events indicate any cause for concern. If the VIMS is operating correctly, monitoring would continue quarterly until vapor concentrations were reduced to 50 percent of the RWQCB ESLs and annually thereafter. If the third party inspection service determines that the VIMS is not functioning adequately, the system is required to be redesigned (under the supervision of the third party inspection service) for more effective removal of VOCs. Monitoring would continue until VOC concentrations were demonstrated to be maintained below the commercial ESLs, as recommended by the RWQCB. h)The applicant shall condition the lease agreements with each R&D tenant proposing to use hazardous materials to stipulate that the storage and use of hazardous materials within their space would not exceed the limits set by Tables 2703.1.1(1), (2), and (3) Maximum Allowable Quantity Per Control Area of Hazardous Materials Posing a Physical Hazard, 2010 California Fire Code, Title 24, Part 9, Chapter 27, Section 2703.1.1. The space for each R&D tenant proposing to use hazardous materials shall be constructed as a separate compartment with one-hour rated walls, protected common openings, and separate ventilation systems. i)The applicant shall condition the lease agreements with each R&D tenant proposing to use hazardous materials to stipulate that the tenant shall comply with the City’s Hazardous Materials Reporting Requirements and shall prepare and file with the Fire Department, as appropriate, a Hazardous Materials Management Plan or a Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement providing sufficient information on how and where hazardous materials are handled by the business to allow fire, safety, health, and other appropriate personnel to prepare adequate emergency responses to potential releases of the hazardous materials. j)Monitoring wells encountered during site preparation or excavation shall be reported immediately to the RWQCB for its decision regarding proper abandonment or abandonment and replacement by the 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -48 - applicant. Work shall stop in proximity to the well(s) until the decision of the RWQCB is implemented. The applicant shall file documentation with the RWQCB and the City for final approval bythe CityBuilding Official, or a third party hired by the Building Official, at the owner's expense, that specializes in the monitoring of activities related to excavation and design features during project construction at sites with contaminated soil and groundwater, of proper abandonment or abandonment and replacement of any affected wells. Cumulative Analysis The geographic context for the analysis of risks associated with hazardous materials impacts generally are localized and site-specific, with the exception of those resulting from transportation of hazardous materials. Because these risks generally are site-specific, the cumulative context for the analysis varies, depending on the threshold being analyzed. For example, cumulative impacts associated with the transportation of hazardous materials would be analyzed for development along the transportation route, whereas the context for the use of hazardous materials would be limited to the area immediately surrounding a project site. Cumulative impacts associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment also would be limited to a specific project site and the immediately surrounding properties. Cumulative impacts associated with emergency response would be limited to development in the vicinity of emergency access routes. The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts related to the routine transport of hazardous materials during construction of the 195 Page Mill Road project is the major access routes for the project vicinity, which would include El Camino Real, Page Mill Road, Alma Street, and Oregon Expressway. Cumulative development along these routes in the vicinity of the project would include all past and present development, representing the baseline conditions for evaluation of cumulative impacts, including the two mixed-use development projects and the HST. Construction of cumulative projects could result in generation and transport of hazardous wastes such as asbestos from friable building materials, lead-based paint on building surfaces, chemicals in lighting fixtures, chemicals dissolved in groundwater, and hazardous materials such as fuel, solvents, and lubricants. In addition, previously unknown contamination, possibly the result of improper disposal or housekeeping activities, may be discovered when structures are demolished. Cumulative development could expose construction workers to health or safety risks through exposure to hazardous materials, although the individual workers potentially affected would vary from project to project. At the state level, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) administers laws and regulations related to hazardous waste and hazardous substances. The RWQCB enforces laws and regulations governing releases of hazardous substances and petroleum pursuant. In particular, the RWQCB focuses on all petroleum releases and those hazardous substance releases that may impact groundwater or surface water. Consequently, many past projects would have complied with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Compliance with applicable regulations and guidelines pertaining to hazardous materials would ensure that cumulative impacts from construction activities would be less than significant. Cumulative development in the area could handle or dispose of hazardous materials in such a way as to pose a risk from upset or accident. It is possible that cumulative development could expose residents and construction workers to contaminated soil or groundwater, even if required investigations are performed. Compliance with the regulations pertaining to construction monitoring would reduce the 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -49 - likelihood of such incidents. Consequently,cumulative impacts from upset or accident caused by construction activities at would be less than significant. Cumulative projects may find it necessary to dewater some sites to facilitate construction. Groundwater from dewatering and/or cleanup activities must meet specific treatment standards before being discharged to the storm drainage system. Any groundwater proposed for discharge from a project site into the San Francisco Bay watershed must meet strict water quality standards established by the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan as defined by the RWQCB, and may have to be treated before discharge into the Bay to avoid potential degradation of the Bay’s water quality. Furthermore, dischargers are required to meet stringent monitoring standards established by the RWQCB to assure compliance under this permitting system. Compliance with these regulations pertaining to dewatering discharge would ensure that cumulative impacts from construction activities would be less than significant. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -50 - Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated* Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 2, 9, 18, 19, 22-27 X b)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 9, 18, 19, 22- 27 X c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? 2, 9, 18, 19, 22-27 X d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? 2, 9, 18, 19, 22-27 X e)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 2, 9, 18, 19, 22-27 X f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?2, 9, 12, 18, 19, 22- 27 X g)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 4, 18, 19, 23- 27 X h)Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? 18, 19, 23-27 X i)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 18, 19, 23-27 X j)Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?1, 2, 18, 19, 23-27 X 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -51 - A geotechnical report, dated May 10, 2004, was prepared by Jo Crosby and Associates. A copy of the geotechnical report is available for review on the City’s website as Appendix H of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. A site investigation and remedy report dated July2, 2008 was prepared by SES, Inc. and included a vapor mitigation system and monitoring plan prepared by Treadwell & Rollo, dated July 2, 2008 and revised October 27,2009. A copy of the site investigation report and the Treadwell & Rollo report are available for review on the City’s website as Appendix I and Appendix D, respectively, of this Initial Study or upon request at the Cityof Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. a, e)The 2.5-acre project site is in the Matadero Creek watershed, which comprises approximately 14 square miles. Matadero Creek originates near the town of Los Altos Hills and flows northeast through the City of Palo Alto and unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County. Downstream of U.S. Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway), the creek discharges into the Palo Alto Flood Basin, which flows to San Francisco Bay.75 Water quality in Matadero Creek is monitored at four locations; the monitoring location closest to the proposed project site is at Park Boulevard. For the most recent sampling period, water quality sampling results for Matadero Creek sites generally met applicable water quality criteria.76 Water quality standards and waste discharge requirements that are applicable to the proposed project are established in the Water QualityControl Plan for San Francisco Bay(Basin Plan)77prepared by the RWQCB in compliance with the federal CWA and the State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the NPDES permits issued by the RWQCB in accordance with the Clean Water Act, which incorporates Basin Plan objectives. All point and non-point discharges (including urban runoff) must comply with the identified water quality objectives and the concentrations of contaminants in the discharges must be controlled, either through NPDES permits or waste discharge requirements. Two components of the proposed project are subject to separate NPDES requirements: construction and operation. Although the RWQCB is ultimately responsible for ensuring discharges from development in the City comply with conditions in the permits, which are summarized below, the Cityof Palo Alto is required by the terms of its NPDES Municipal Permit to review and regulate stormwater discharges from development sites. The City requires the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) required by the NPDES Construction General Permit be reviewed by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. Overseeing conformance to the SWPPP is the responsibilityof the Public Works Department, or a third party hired by the Public works Department, at the owner's expense, that specializes in the monitoring of activities related to water quality and water discharge requirements. Construction Land development activity in the City is regulated under a NPDES General Permit for stormwater discharge associated with construction activity.Stormwater runoff from construction sites that disturb one acre or more must be covered under the State’s General Permit and must be managed by a Storm Water Pollution 75 Critical Coastal Areas Program, California’s Critical Coastal Areas State of the CCAs Report, Matadero Creek CCA #88, June 2006. website: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/nps/Web/cca_pdf/sfbaypdf/CCA88MataderoCreek.pdf (accessed December 10, 2008) 76 Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Plan, Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Program, Monitoring and Assessment Summary Report, Santa Clara Basin Creeks 2002-2007, September 2007, pp. iv, 26-29, 34 website: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ water_issues/programs/tmdl/records/region_2/2008/ref2414.pdf (accessed December 10, 2008) 77 Beneficial uses for Matadero Creek identified in the Basin Plan are cold fresh water habitat, fish migration, recreation (water contact and non-water contact), fish spawning, warm fresh water habitat, and wildlife habitat. Matadero Creek is included on the EPA-approved 2006 federal EPA’s Section 303(b) Clean Water Act List of Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed by USEPA Approved Total Maximum Daily Loads. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -52 - Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A SWPPP describes measures to control or minimize pollutants from entering stormwater during the construction stage. Developers of projects that disturb one acre or more must file a Notice of Intent with RWQCB Region 2 to obtain coverage under the General Permit. The General Permit requires the applicant to develop a SWPPP that addresses both grading/erosion impacts and non-point source pollution impacts of the development project and sampling/monitoring requirements. Because the proposed project site exceeds one acre, an appropriate SWPPP would be required prior to the start of construction of the proposed project. Operation 77 local agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area, referred to as Dischargers, share a common NPDES Municipal Permit, known locally as the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). To reduce pollution in urban runoff to the maximum extent practicable, the Dischargers have incorporated regulatory, monitoring, and outreach measures aimed at improving the water quality of San Francisco Bay and local streams into their local land use policies and ordinances. The MRP includes provisions for New and Redevelopment Performance Standards in Permit Provision C.3. This provision requires that each Discharger adopt a permit-associated Urban Runoff Management Plan that contains performance standards and supporting documents to address the post-construction and construction phase impacts of new and redevelopment projects on stormwater quality. The City has incorporated the MRP’s Provision C.3 requirements into its Urban Runoff Management Plan and Municipal Code Chapter 16.11, including numeric sizing criteria for pollutant removal treatment systems and others. Construction Impacts Construction of the proposed project would involve soil-disturbance such as excavation, trenching, grading, and compacting. Stockpiled soils could be stored at the site temporarily. One of the major effects of soil disturbance at construction sites is sedimentation in receiving waters from stormwater runoff, which can be caused by erosion of exposed soils. Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.28, as adopted by the City, contains requirements for the design of erosion control systems. These requirements implement NPDES permit process for storm drainage and construction site discharge. The NPDES permit requires implementation of nonpoint source control of runoff through the application of a number of Best Management Practices (BMPs). These BMPs are designed to reduce the amount of constituents, including eroded sediment, that enter streams and other water bodies. A SWPPP must be prepared that describes the stormwater BMPs (structural and operational measures) that would control the quality (and quantity) of stormwater runoff. The City is responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance with the SWPPP and BMPs. There are known VOC contaminants in groundwater and soil vapor at the site, and possibly VOCs and hydrocarbons in the soil. Excavation and stockpiling of soils could generate dust or eroded materials containing VOCs or hydrocarbons which could result in adverse environmental effects during construction. For example, contaminated soils could be directly carried in stormwater runoff and discharged to Matadero Creek, or soil containing contaminants could be tracked off-site with construction or transportation equipment onto public roadways, from which stormwater containing contaminants could enter storm drain systems/creeks elsewhere in the watershed. If dewatering were necessary, the Citytypicallywould require discharge to the storm drain system, and soil/sediment in extracted water could contain contaminants. This latter issue is evaluated in greater detail in Item f), below. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -53 - To address the potential for these activities to adversely affect water quality or violate water quality standards, a project-specific Soil Management Plan (SMP) has been developed for the excavation and construction phases of project implementation. The Soil Management Plan was submitted to the RWQCB in July 2008 as part of the SES,Inc. Site Investigation and RemedyReport (available for review on the City’s website as Appendix I of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment) and has been approved.78 The SMP provides the procedures and protocols for handling and disposal of soil excavated during construction activities. A Remedial Risk Management Plan (RRMP) has been prepared that establishes procedures and protocols for managing soil and groundwater contaminants during construction. The RRMP is included in Appendix H of the SES,Inc.2008 report and is available for review on the City’s website as Appendix G of this Initial Studyor upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. As identified in the SMP, dust control measures would be used to prevent nuisance dust and dust containing VOCs or hydrocarbons from migrating offsite. Although the primary purpose of dust control is to protect human health and comply with air district requirements, dust control measures also would reduce the potential for dust to settle in areas where materials could be captured in stormwater runoff and discharged to the drain system and Matadero Creek. The SMP requires implementation of stormwater pollution controls such as berms, silt fences, and straw bale barriers around catch basins and storm drain inlets, which are consistent with NPDES BMPs. The City requires that the SMP be reviewed by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. Overseeing compliance of the SMP is the responsibilityof the Public Works Department, or a third party hired by the Public Works Department, at the owner's expense, that specializes in the monitoring of activities related to excavation and design features during project construction at sites with contaminated soil and groundwater. If contaminated soils were found, the soils would be managed appropriately by segregating them into separate piles in a designated area onsite and covering the piles with plastic sheeting until additional testing was completed. The stockpiles would be managed in accordance with the SWPPP and the SMP. This would reduce the potential for soils (regardless of whether contaminants are present or not) to be washed into storm drains and enter the creek. To prevent cross-contamination, construction equipment and transportation vehicles that contact exposed native soils would be decontaminated prior to leaving the site. Wash water from decontamination would be collected and managed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and monitored by trained personnel. According to the Site Health and SafetyPlan (which is a part of the Site Investigation and Remedy Report prepared by SES,Inc.), decontamination water would be required to be placed in drums or holding tanks. The stored water would be sampled for chemicals, the results of which would determine how the water should be disposed. The water used for on-site dust control would have to meet NPDES permit requirements for such use and for any subsequent discharge to the storm drain. If the water were found not to meet the permit requirements, it would either be treated on-site or removed. In either case, no discharges to the storm drain exceeding adopted standards would be permitted. This measure would reduce the potential for contaminants to be transported off-site and possiblyenter runoff from roadways, and would ensure proper disposal. 78 “Approval of Site Investigation and Remedy Report, and Requirement for Reports for Park Plaza Mixed Use Development at 195 Page Mill Road and 2685 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County,” letter from Bruce H. Wolfe, Executive Officer, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region to Harold Hohbach, Hohbach Realty Company Limited Partnership, Atherton, CA, July 3, 2008. This Approval remains current per telephone communication from Roger W.Papler, PG7741, SFBRWQCB Engineering Geologist to GeorgeJ.Burwasser, PG 7151, PBS&J/ATKINS Senior Geologist, January 21, 2011. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -54 - Under existing regulation, (Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.28), the City requires the submittal of a final grading and drainage plan for the proposed project, for City approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The application of standard grading, drainage, and erosion control measures as part of the approved grading and drainage plan, and implementation of the recommendations from the Geotechnical Report prepared by Jo Crosby and Associates (available for review on the City’s website as Appendix H of this Initial Studyor upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and CommunityEnvironment), would reduce the potential for construction site runoff to cause erosion or siltation that could degrade water quality. These erosion control measures are incorporated into this document as Mitigation Measure MM-4. Implementation of the required NPDES SWPPP and the Soil Management Plan and Remedial Risk Management Plan, as monitored and enforced during construction by the City of Palo Alto, would ensure compliance with stormwater quality standards. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-4 would ensure compliance with the measures in the plans, thus reducing impacts to a less-than-significant level. Operational Impacts After completion of the construction, soils exposed during construction would be covered by buildings, pavement, hardscape, and City-approved landscape and irrigation plans. Implementation of the post- construction BMPs required by the City would reduce the potential for eroded materials to be conveyed to the drainage system and Matadero Creek; however, stormwater runoff from new impervious surfaces could contain other pollutants. Pollutants associated with the operational phase of the proposed project could include nutrients, oil and grease, metals, organics, pesticides, and gross pollutants (including bacteria) in stormwater runoff. Nutrients that may be present in post-construction stormwater include nitrogen and phosphorous resulting from fertilizers applied to landscaping, degradation of organic material (e.g., leaves on pavement and sidewalks), and atmospheric deposition. Excess nutrients can reduce water quality by promoting excessive and/or a rapid growth of aquatic vegetation, which reduces water clarity and causes oxygen depletion. Oil and grease can enter stormwater from vehicle leaks, traffic, and maintenance activities. Metals can collect on impervious surfaces through atmospheric deposition and machine (e.g., cars) wear, which are then washed off to the storm drain system during storm events. Metals also can enter stormwater runoff if there is a direct interaction between bare metal surfaces and stormwater (e.g., bare metal roofs, gutters, downspouts, and other structures, if used). Several existing regulations and design conditions would limit the proposed project’s potential effects on degradation of surface water quality from post-construction stormwater runoff. The proposed project would be subject to Provision C.3 of the MRP, the City of Palo Alto Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP) and City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11, which require incorporation of permanent stormwater quality BMPs, to the maximum extent practicable. The proposed project is categorized as a Significant Redevelopment Project per PAMC Chapter 16.11.79 Significant Redevelopment Projects are required to implement appropriate source control and site design measures and to design and implement stormwater treatment measures, to reduce the discharge of stormwater pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.11.030 requires permanent stormwater pollution prevention measures that reduce the water quality impacts of stormwater runoff from the entire site for the life of the project. Furthermore, stormwater treatment measures proposed as part of a project's permanent stormwater pollution prevention measures must be designed inaccordance with the hydraulic sizing criteria detailed in 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -55 - Municipal Code Section 16.11.030. This ensures that such devices are designed to adequately treat stormwater runoff and to sufficiently remove pollutants from stormwater runoff. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or other discretionary permit for a Significant Redevelopment Project, the project applicant is required to submit a certification by a qualified third party reviewer acceptable to the Citythat the design of the project complies with the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. Permanent stormwater qualityBMPs would reduce the potential for introduction of pollutants in stormwater runoff, as well as treat stormwater runoff to remove pollutants. Typical operational BMPs in the SWPPP would include, but are not necessarily limited to, controlling roadwayand parking lot contaminants, cleaning parking lots on a regular basis, rainwater harvesting, use of pervious pavement materials or green roofs, use of landscaping that minimizes irrigation and runoff, promotes surface infiltration, and minimizes the use of pesticides and fertilizers, incorporating peak-flow reduction and infiltration features (such as biotreatment systems, grass swales, infiltration trenches, and grass filter strips) into landscaping, and implementing educational programs. These practices would reduce or remove pollutants sources from the proposed project and reduce the potential for off-site transport to Matadero Creek. Site design measures to minimize impervious land coverage, maximize infiltration (where appropriate and protective of groundwater), and provide detention or retention as part of landscaping, where feasible, are required by MRP Permit Provision C.3.b.Source controls are required to limit pollution generation, discharge, and runoff as appropriate (MRP Provision C.3.c.), including measures to discourage pesticide use (MRP Provision C.9). Municipal Code Section 16.09.106 prohibits the discharge of any domestic, industrial, or hazardous waste into storm drains, gutters, creeks, or the San Francisco Bayand requires a spill response plan to clean up materials that may be deposited on surfaces exposed to rainfall and stormwater runoff. These requirements reduce the potential for direct discharge of waste and hazardous materials into the storm drain system and Matadero Creek. Furthermore, all refuse areas are required to be covered and designed to prevent water run-on to the area and runoff from the area. These practices prevent stormwater runoff contact with areas that are likelyto contain pollutants and off-site transport of polluted runoff water. Limiting the amount of pollutants generated, discharged, and susceptible to contact with stormwater runoff reduces the amount of pollutants that can be transported to receiving waters and cause or contribute to water quality degradation. All plans and construction are subject to inspection and approval bythe City’s Public Works Department, which ensures that selected BMPs are adequate for the expected pollutants in stormwater runoff from the proposed project. Architectural Review and Building Permit review and conditions of approval would ensure that the proposed project incorporates sufficient stormwater qualityBMPs. Because no final building or occupancy permit would be issued without the written certification of the City Engineer or designee that the requirements of Chapter 16.11 have been satisfied, planned BMPs would be implemented effectively. Long-term operations and maintenance of BMPs is required by the MRP and Municipal Code (Section 16.11.040). As a condition of approval, the City’s Public Works Department may require the applicant establish a self-monitoring and reporting program to ensure all permanent stormwater pollution prevention measures are in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 16.11 (Section 16.11.050). This is intended to ensure the long-term effectiveness of the measures implemented. Prior to issuance of grading permits and building permits, the City would ensure that the proposed project met all construction and post-construction NPDES permit requirements. This would ensure the proposed 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -56 - project would not violate water quality objectives or waste discharges requirements. In turn, this would reduce the potential for the proposed project to discharge pollutants in stormwater. Consequently, impacts would be less than significant. b)The project area is not in an in-stream or off-stream groundwater recharge area or near any artificial recharge areas.79 The proposed project site contains a thin veneer of topsoil over a silty clay and clayey sand to a depth of approximately 20 feet bgs or greater. Water-bearing sandy gravel is at least 20 feet bgs. Results of soil investigations show a confined aquifer with a confining clay layer. Because of the confining layer, the site does not present substantial groundwater recharge potential under existing conditions. The site originally contained several buildings and paved surfaces; the buildings have been removed as an earlier part of the proposed project. Although the proposed project would redevelop the site and increase the amount of impervious surfaces compared to existing conditions, this would not affect recharge potential adversely because there is no significant recharge potential at the site. There would be no impact. Water for the project site would be supplied from existing resources, as described in Section XVI.c), Utilities and Service Systems, of this Initial Study. Groundwater resources would not need to be developed to serve the proposed project. Consequently, the proposed project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table; there would be no impact. c)There is no natural surface water on or adjacent to the project site, and there is no discernible slope. The project site was previously developed with buildings and pavement, from which stormwater runoff was conveyed by curbed street gutters to paved parking areas, which ultimately discharge to San Francisco Bay through Matadero Creek. Stormwater from the proposed project site is currently conveyed through a City pipeline to Matadero Creek. The segment of Matadero Creek between Alma Street/Oregon Expressway and two pumping stations near the Bay is a concrete-lined channel that can convey 100-year flood flows (a flood that has a one percent chance of happening in a year). The SCVWD operates and maintains the drainage channel. The proposed project would not modify an existing natural or engineered drainage channel that could be a source of erosion or siltation in local waterways and, consequently, there would be no impact. See Section VIII.a, e), above, for additional analysis of potential erosion and siltation effects during construction and operation of the project and for description of the measures that would be implemented by the proposed project to reduce erosion and siltation. d)Stormwater from the project site is conveyed through a pipeline to Matadero Creek, which drains to San Francisco Bay. The segment of Matadero Creek between Alma Street/Oregon Expresswayand two pumping stations near the Bay is a concrete-lined channel that can convey100-year flood flows (a flood that has a one percent chance of happening in a year). If the proposed project were approved and developed, stormwater would continue to be conveyed through the storm drainage system to Matadero Creek. The existing partially developed condition of the approximately 2.5-acre site consists of roughly85 percent impervious surface, as a result of the continued presence of preexisting building slabs, compaction of the 79 Santa Clara Valley Water District, Groundwater Conditions 2001, Figure 2-4 District In-Stream and Off-Stream Recharge Facilities, July 2002, p.15, website: http://www.valleywater.org/media/pdf/GWCondtions2001.pdf. (accessed December 10, 2008) 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -57 - surface soils, slowly draining soils, and water returned to the atmosphere by evaporation. The proposed project would cover the entire project site and would be contain an underground parking level. Approximately 11.6 percent of the site would be landscaped, rendering the surface of the site about 90 percent impervious. This increase in the impervious area, from 85 percent to 90 percent, would potentially increase the flow rate of runoff that would occur under small, frequent flood events. The City of Palo Alto is responsible for the maintenance of, and improvements to, the storm drainage system serving the project area. This includes the review and approval of drainage plans for projects that would connect to the City’s storm drain system. The applicant has prepared a preliminary grading and drainage plan for the proposed project. A final grading and drainage plan would be required before building permits would be issued. This final plan would be required to show the existing and proposed spot elevations or contours of the site and demonstrate the proper conveyance of storm water to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system. Existing drainage patterns, including accommodation of runoff from adjacent properties, would be required to be maintained. Downspouts and site drainage features would be required to be shown on this plan. As a general practice in the City of Palo Alto, the Public Works Department encourages developers to keep stormwater on site, as much as feasible, bydirecting runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas on the site. This standard practice would be expected to applyto the proposed project. The preliminary drainage plans indicate that 11.6 percent of the site (11,906 square feet) would be landscaped using planting areas, and the remainder of the site would be hardscape drained to the City’s storm drainage system. Prior to being issued a grading permit, the applicant must submit a final drainage plan to the City of Palo Alto, for approval, to ensure compliance with Engineering Design Standards for storm drain facilities, which requires that all new facilities be designed to convey the 10-year storm flow. Under the proposed project design, there would be a potential increase in the runoff rate for small-to medium-sized storm events (a less than 2-year through 10-year storm event) that occur with greater frequency. The increase in flow rates for less than 10-year storm events would not increase the 100-year flood-flow rates or alter flood-flow conveyance capacity. During the larger events, rainfall saturates even natural soils, rendering them effectively impervious, so increased imperviousness often has little effect on flows during extreme events.80,81 Recent improvements to the reach of Matadero Creek to which the project site drains through the City storm drain system, would ensure 100-year flood flow capacity. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-4, the proposed project would not exceed the capacityof drainage systems or increase flooding potential on-site or off-site. Consequently, impacts would be less than significant. f)Groundwater under the proposed project site flows north-northeast toward the Oregon Expressway-Page Mill Road underpass. Groundwater was encountered on the project site between 20 and 24 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs) in Boreholes GW-01 and GW-06, at 22 feet bgs in Borehole GW-04, between 24 and 28 feet bgs in Borehole GW-05, and between 28 and 32 feet bgs in Borehole GW-07. (For groundwater information, see Figure 2 on page 3 of the SES, Inc., 2008 report, available for review on the 80 Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative, Watershed Management Plan: Volume I: Watershed Characteristics Report Unabridged 2003 Revision, Chapter 4 Land Use in the Santa Clara Basin, Revised August 2003, p. 4-10, www.valleywater.org/_wmi/related_report/wcr2003r.cfm 81 San Francisquito Creek Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Flood and Erosion Control Task Force, Reconnaissance Investigation Report of San Francisquito Creek, December 1997, p. 17 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -58 - City’s website as Appendix I of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment). Partially confined aquifer conditions appear to exist under the southeast portion of the project site, as indicated by groundwater rising in Borehole GW-04 to 14 feet bgs and in Borehole GW-07 to 12 feet bgs.82 Unless penetrated byexcavation or boreholes, the confining clay layer extending down to 22 feet bgs in Borehole GW-04 and 28 feet bgs in Borehole GW-07 prevents water in the underlying portion of the aquifer from raising toward the ground surface. No groundwater was encountered at the project site shallower than 20 feet bgs. A groundwater plume containing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) is present in the first water-bearing unit (the confined aquifer). According to the site investigation and remedy report, the VOCs originate from off-site upgradient sources known as the HP- Varian plume and the COE plume (see Section VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials, ofthis Initial Study). Groundwater remediation and monitoring systems are in operation at several sites associated with the sources contributing to the plume including 611 Hansen Way, 1501, 640, and 395 Page Mill Road, and 601 South California Street.83 The site investigation and remedy report concluded the VOC contamination at the project site was not generated from an onsite source, but from the volatilization of VOCs from the underlying plume.84 The VOC distribution in the soil vapor is two orders of magnitude higher under the northeast half of the site and much lower under the southwest half.85 Nonetheless, the RWQCB considers the distribution of elevated levels of VOCs to indicate the probable presence of VOC soil sources under the northeast half of the site (see Section VII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Initial Study, and the SES,Inc, 2008 report, which is available for review on the City’s website as Appendix I of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment).86 The depth of excavation for the removal of existing fill and soil materials, and the depth to which construction of the underground parking level is projected to extend, is 15.4 feet bgs. As previously described, a groundwater plume containing VOCs is present in the first water-bearing unit (the confined aquifer) at least 20 feet bgs, and soil vapors are present in soils at shallower depths. Residual VOCs and hydrocarbons may occur in low-permeability claysoils. As described above (Section VIII.a,e, Hydrology and Water Quality) a Soil Management Plan and Risk Management Plan have been prepared for the proposed project. These Plans identify specific precautions and actions that must be implemented to ensure proper testing, removal, stockpiling, on-site use, and/or transport of contaminated soils. As described in Section VII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Initial Study, a project-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) and project-specific Soil Management Plan (SMP) have been developed for the excavation and construction phases of project implementation (see Appendix G of the SES,Inc.,2008 report; the HASP and SMP are available for review on the City’s website as Appendix E and Appendix F, respectively, or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment).The Cityrequires the HASP and SMP be reviewed by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. Overseeing compliance of the SMP is the responsibility of the Building Official, or a third party hired by the Building Official, at the owner's expense, that specializes in the monitoring of activities related to excavation and design features during project construction at sites with contaminated soil and groundwater. 82 SES, Inc., 2008, pp. 6 and23 83 Electronic mail post –From: Janet Naito, June 01, 2009 9:20 AM. 84 SES, Inc. 2008, pp. 22 and 23 85 SES, Inc. 2008, pp. 17 and 18 86 Electronic mail post –From: Roger Papler, May 21, 2009 1:04 PM. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -59 - Part of the approval process also includes approval of the plans by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the SCVWD. Adherence to the procedures detailed in these plans, during excavation and construction activities, would provide the required protection for workers at the site as well as for residents and visitors in the vicinity of the site. Consequently, the existence of contaminated soil and groundwater beneath the project site is considered a less-than-significant impact. During the past two years of site investigation by Secor (at the upgradient HP-Varian VOC plume) and SES,Inc. (at the project site), the water table generally has been 20 feet bgs or lower, under partially confined aquifer conditions. There is a steep hydraulic gradient toward the northwest, in the direction of the Oregon Expressway-Page Mill Road underpass pump station. In 2007, during the installation of groundwater and soil vapor investigation borings at the project site, groundwater encountered at 22 feet bgs rapidly rose to approximately 14 feet bgs in one boring, and to 12 feet bgs in another.87 This indicates that confined aquifer conditions are present, at least in certain portions of the site, and that groundwater is under hydrostatic pressure. As such, it is possible that excavation could not only intercept groundwater, but that the removal of clay materials during excavation could cause groundwater levels to rise into the excavation area. Four potential effects could result from contaminated groundwater being unexpectedly drawn toward or into the excavated area. If contaminated groundwater were to rise into the excavation area, this could present: (1) a health hazard for construction workers on site, through direct contact or inhalation of VOCs and hydrocarbons (see Section VII.a,b, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of this Initial Study for an explanation of worker inhalation hazard related to excavation of soils containing trapped VOCs); (2) an inhalation health hazard for other people near the site; (3) an impact on the effectiveness of the VOC plume remediation system by altering flow characteristics; and/or (4) it could cause soil vapors to migrate. Dewatering of the excavation, with treated discharge to the portion of the City’s storm drain system that discharges to Matadero Creek, could be necessary. Open pit groundwater dewatering is not allowed by the City, and dewatering is only permitted from April through October because there is inadequate capacityin the City storm drain system to convey water in excess of stormwater runoff during the wet season (November through March). The City’s Public Works Department onlyallows drawdown well groundwater dewatering. If groundwater is less than four feet below the deepest expected excavation, which is a possibility at the project site, a drawdown well dewatering system must be used. The disposal of extracted groundwater contaminated with VOCs, if not properly tested and managed, could degrade water quality, along with possibly causing violations of water quality standards. The aforementioned water quality impact would be addressed, in part, through existing regulatory mechanisms administered bythe City. These standard regulatory mechanisms establish procedures that must be followed for construction dewatering. The timing of these standard requirements –which specifythat the depth to groundwater must be determined immediately prior to excavation if the deepest excavation will be within four feet of the highest anticipated groundwater level –maynot provide sufficient data in advance to address issues at the project site. Specifically, the standard requirements would not address (a) the variations in subsurface hydrogeological conditions across the site, (b) how the groundwater plume could be affected by dewatering, and (c) the approach to testing and removing contaminated groundwater in the event groundwater is unexpectedly encountered or drawn towards the excavation. Consequently, under standard 87 SES, Inc., 2008, p. 17 and Appendix D. The SES, Inc. report is available for review on the City’s website as Appendix I of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -60 - regulatory conditions, the proposed project could affect groundwater and possibly surface water quality. Therefore, the proposed project could have an adverse water quality effect, if additional measures were not implemented. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-5, a Construction Dewatering ContingencyPlan, would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by ensuring that contaminated groundwater is properly identified and managed, and that the proposed project would thereby achieve compliance with NPDES permit requirements and adopted water quality standards. g, h)The project site is not in a 100-year flood hazard area, so housing would not be affected, and the proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows.88 There would be no impact. i)The project site is not in an area identified bythe Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) as subject to potential dam failure inundation.89 There would be no impact. j)The project site is not in an area that would be subject to tsunami or seiche. The site has no discernible slope, and there are no hillsides that could be a source of mudflows. There would be no impact. Residual Impact:Less than significant with mitigation Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure MM-4, in Section VII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Initial study shall be implemented to limit hydrological impacts related to the underlying contaminated groundwater plume, and potential groundwater mingling with hazardous materials or adverse impacts to existing monitoring wells on site. MM-5: Grading and Drainage Plan The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan for the proposed project, for City approval prior to the issuance of a grading, excavation, or building permit. This grading and drainage plan shall comply with Engineering Design Standards for storm drain facilities, shall be designed to conveythe 10-year storm flow, and shall reflect the recommendations of the Joe Crosby and Associates Geotechnical Report, dated May10, 2004. This report is available for review on the City’s website as Appendix H of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. MM-6:Construction Dewatering Plan A construction dewatering plan shall be prepared consistent with Chapter 33 of the 2010 California Building Code, and shall be submitted to the Cityin association with all proposed sub-grade garage excavation activities prior to issuance of a grading, excavation or building permit. The applicant shall include the dewatering plan in the permit plan set submitted for approvals for anyexcavation activities on the project site. The plan shall provide a system that would remove silt and other pollutants from this water and place clean water into the City storm drain system. 88 Project site is located in Zone X –Area of 500-year flood. FEMA FIRM Panel 0603480005E, June 2, 1999 89 Association of BayArea Governments, ABAG Geographic Information Systems: Earthquake Preparedness; Interactive ABAG (GIS) Maps Showing Dam Failure Inundation; Hazard Maps, Dam Failure Inundation Areas, June 2004. website: http://gis.abag.ca.gov. Accessed December 8, 2008 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -61 - The applicant shall secure current data on the depth to groundwater immediatelyprior to excavation by using piezometers, or bydrilling exploratoryholes, if the deepest excavation would be less than four feet above the highest anticipated groundwater level. Should dewatering be necessary (i.e., if excavation would occur within four feet above the highest anticipated groundwater level and the piezometer investigation revealed the presence of free groundwater within four feet above that highest anticipated groundwater level), the applicant shall secure City permits associated with the placement of dewatering equipment or actual dewatering and excavation activities on the project site or the abutting public right-of-way prior to beginning excavation. Upon installation, the dewatering system shall reflect BMPs that ensure the water discharged would be of appropriate quality. The installation shall be approved by a City field inspector prior to the commencement of construction water discharge to the storm drain. Extracted groundwater shall be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. Testing shall be performed by a third party hired bythe Building Official, at the owner's expense, that specializes in the monitoring of activities related to excavation and design features during project construction at sites with contaminated soil and groundwater. Any dewatering to occur in the public right-of-way shall be subject to review and approval bythe City of Palo Alto Public Works Department. Cumulative Analysis The geographic context for the analysis of hydrology and water quality cumulative impacts often is site- specific because each project site has a different set of physical considerations limiting development and construction. Locally, nearby projects would include the two mixed-use developments and the HST. Even when the pollutants and sediments generated by each individual project are minor, the additive effect of cumulative development in a watershed could have an adverse impact on the receiving water bodies, in this case, Matadero Creek and San Francisco Bay. Because the extent of hydrology effects can vary, the geographic context for each impact criterion is identified separatelyfor each cumulative impact explanation. With respect to cumulative effects on water quality associated with construction, all future development in the City (which is in the San Francisco BayBasin and contains a portion of the Matadero Creek Watershed) would be required to conform to applicable NPDES permits’ waste discharge requirements (WDRs) issued by the RWQCB. This includes requirements set forth by the Construction General Permits, Wastewater Discharge Permits, and General Permits (for certain types of construction dewatering), including Provision C.3 of the Municipal NPDES Permit, and the City Municipal Code, which require incorporation of permanent stormwater quality BMPs, to the maximum extent practicable. To obtain coverage under these permits, cumulative development projects would be required to implement construction BMPs similar to those recommended for the proposed project. Thereby, construction impacts of each project on water quality would be rendered less than significantand there would be no combining of effects to produce cumulative impacts. Construction activities could alter the drainage pattern of the individual development sites, but off-site, each drains to the municipal storm drainage system and this would not be altered. Cumulative alteration of the drainage patterns of the watersheds in the Basin would therefore be considered significant and adverse; however, each local project’s contribution to this cumulative impact would not be considerable, because 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -62 - overall, the each would retain the existing drainage pattern at the project site and would not alter the location or flow rate at the discharge point from the project site. This impact would be less than significant. Construction and operation of cumulative development projects has the potential to exceed the capacity of storm drain systems if maintenance and improvement are not ongoing. As local development has increased, the 100-year flood flow conveyance capacityof the Matadero Creek system has been increased. If necessary, individual projects may be required to provide on-site treatment and retention capacity to alleviate cumulative effects. As a result of this maintenance and planning, the cumulative impact on the capacityof storm drain systems would be less than significant. Cumulative development in the watershed, including the two mixed-use development and the HST, has the potential to contribute to violations of water quality standards or WDRs. Lower San Francisco BayBasin, the receiving water body, has noted impairments for chlordane, dichlro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), dieldrin, dioxin compounds, exotic species, furan (specific organic) compounds, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).90 Additional development could exacerbate existing pollutant concentrations, resulting in a potentially significant impact. However, future development in the City (which is in the San Francisco Bay Basin and contains a portion of the Matadero Creek Watershed) would be required to use the storm drainage system infrastructure and conform to Provision C.3 of the Municipal NPDES Permit, the Cityof Palo Alto URMP, and the City Municipal Code, which require incorporation of permanent stormwater quality BMPs, to the maximum extent practicable. Consequently, the overall effect on water quality would be less than significant. 90 US EPA, 2007. 2006 CWA Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments, June 28, 2007. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -63 - Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated* Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a)Physically divide an established community?3 X b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1, 2, 3 X c)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?1 X a) The project site is in an area that includes railroad tracks, automobile bodyshop and repair, automobile sales and service, offices occupied by AOL and sub-tenants, law offices, and vacant land zoned as General Manufacturing (GM). Residential uses are north, east, and southwest of the project site. Park Boulevard forms the southwest property line; the Caltrain property defines the northeast property line; and Page Mill Road defines the northwest boundary. The project would not involve the creation of physical barriers, such as walls or new roadways,which could result in a physical division of this existing land use pattern. Existing land use connectivity and circulation routes between the project site and its environs would be maintained. Consequently, the proposed project would have no impact related to physical division of an established community. b) The proposed project would be subject to the requirements of several plans and policies, including the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan, Housing Element, and the Municipal Code (especially the Zoning Ordinance). A description of the proposed project’s compliance with applicable land use and planning policies is provided below. Comprehensive Plan Policies91 Seven planning policies in the Comprehensive Plan would be applicable to the proposed project. Policy L-5:Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Policy L-49:Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human-scale details and massing. 91 Relevant policies fromCity of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998, Land Use and Transportation Elements 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -64 - Policy L-50:Encourage high quality signage that is attractive, appropriate for the location and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs. Policy T-1:Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use. Policy T-19:Improve and add attractive, secure bicycle parking at both public and private facilities, including multi-modal transit stations, on transit vehicles, in City parks, in private developments, and at other community destinations. Policy T-22:Improve amenities such as seating, lighting, bicycle, parking, street trees, and interpretive stations along bicycle and pedestrian paths and in City parks to encourage walking and cycling and enhance the feeling of safety. To ensure that the proposed project would complywith Comprehensive Plan design and planning policies, the City requires review of the proposed project by the ARB. The ARB is an advisory board to the Director of Planning and Community Environment who considers the ARB’s recommendations and bases his decision to grant Architectural Review approval on the Architectural Review findings stated in PAMC 18.76.050(d), which implement the Comprehensive Plan design and planning policies. With application of Mitigation Measure MM-1, which involves mandatory incorporation of the conditions of Architectural Review approval in the final project design (see Section I,Aesthetics,of this Initial Study), the project would be consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies. Consequently, the proposed project would have less-than-significant impacts related to conflicts with Comprehensive Plan policies. Land Use and Zoning Designations The project site is designated for Light Industrial land uses in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.92 The Light Industrial land use designation allows wholesale and storage warehouses and the manufacturing, processing, repairing, and packaging of goods. Compatible residential and mixed-use projects, with an FAR up to 0.5 may be developed in Light Industrial areas.93 At the project site, this allowable FAR equates to a maximum floor area of 52,485 square feet. The project site is in the General Manufacturing (GM) zoning district in the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance.94 The GM district provides for light manufacturing, research, and commercial service uses. Office uses are limited in order to maintain the district as a desirable location for manufacturing uses. GM zoning does not allow residential uses. Nonetheless, the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the project site for residential uses and recommends that High-Density Multiple-Family Residential District (RM-40) zoning be applied to the project site.95 Although the Comprehensive Plan allows residential uses at the project site and the Housing Element designates the site for housing, the RM-40 zoning recommended by the Housing Element has not been adopted for the project site as of the date of publication of this Initial Study and therefore, the City is applying the designated GM zoning standard. Table 2 shows applicable development regulations for the GM district. 92 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998. Land Use and Circulation Map 93 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998. Land Use Element, p. L-12 94 City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 18.20, Office, Research and Manufacturing Districts, last updated 2005 95 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998. Housing Element, p. 15-16 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -65 - As shown in Table 2, the proposed project would comply with all development requirements for the GM district except for the following items: (1) the maximum FAR requirement and (2) the proposed residential use comprised of 84 dwelling units. State housing law provides incentives and exemptions that promote the development of housing on sites not currently zoned for residential uses, assuming that residential uses would be appropriate for the land use setting. The applicant has requested concessions from the City under California Government Code Section 65915-65918,96 which amended the State density bonus program and became effective on January 1,2005. The law requires cities to offer incentives or concessions to encourage the construction of affordable housing (allowances for mixed use, increased FAR or height, reductions in parking, setbacks, open space, etc.) based on the percentage of affordable units in a development. ·One incentive or concession is to be granted for projects with at least 10 percent of the total units for lower income households; ·Two incentives or concessions are to be granted for projects that include at least 20 percent of the total units for lower income households; ·Three incentives or concessions are to be granted for projects that include at least 30 percent of the total units for lower income households. With 20 percent of the units (17 units) designated as BMR units, the applicant has requested two concessions as part of the proposed project, as indicated in the project description. ·One concession is to allow the proposed project to provide housing in the GM zone as a mixed-use development. Approval of mixed-use in connection with the housing project is specifically identified as a permissible concession under Government Code Section 65915(1) if the non-residential use will reduce the cost of the housing development. In this case, the non-residential use, as previously established at the project site, reduces the cost of the housing. ·The additional concession is to allow for an overall FAR of 1.5. whereas the GM district onlypermits an FAR of 0.5. The additional FAR is necessary to retain the previously-existing non-residential uses without decreasing the number of residential units, thus keeping within the purpose and intent of the State statute and the City’s desire to retain light industrial uses in the GM zoning district. 96 California Government Code, Section 65915, Density Bonuses 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -66 - Table 2 GM Zoning District Development Regulations Development Regulations Feature Proposed Project GM District Conforms? Minimum Site Area 104,971 sq. ft. NR1 N/A Minimum Site Width 451.67 ft.NR N/A Minimum Site Depth 212.67 ft.NR N/A Front Setback: (Park Boulevard) 8.67 ft. (1st floor) 7.33 ft. 2nd /3rd floors)NR N/A Street Side Setback (Page Mill Road) 6.67 ft. (1st floor) 5.33 ft. (2nd/3rd floors)NR N/A Side Interior Setback 10 ft. (1st floor) 5 ft. (2nd/3rd floors)NR N/A Rear Setback 0 ft.NR N/A Floor Area Ratio 1.5 0.5 No; concessions requested2 Maximum density 84 units3 NR N/A Site Coverage Building Overhangs 50,467 sq. ft. (48 %) 11,493 sq. ft. (11 %)NR N/A Building Height (maximum)4 59.25 ft. (65 ft. max. at architectural element/mechanical feature) 50 ft.Yes Parking Spaces5 302 388 Yes Accessible Parking 9 spaces 8 spaces Yes Bicycle Parking6 112 112 Yes Source:City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 18.20, Office, Research and Manufacturing Districts. Last updated 2005; and Chapter 18.13, Multiple Family Residential Districts. Last updated 2007. Project design provided by Court House Plaza Limited Partnership, 2011. Notes: 1.NR = No requirement2.FAR would be 0.48 for R&D component and 1.02 for residential component. 3.The applicant has requested concessions from the City for the proposed FAR and for the proposed mixed-used development which includes dwelling units in the GM zone pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915-65918. 4.An additional 15 ft is allowed for mechanical equipment and architectural features pursuant to PAMC Section 18.40.090. 5.Assumes a maximum 20 percent reduction for joint use (shared) facilities and a maximum 20 percent reduction for housing near transit, with a combined parking reduction not to exceed 30 percent. This reduction is granted at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The 302 proposed parking spaces include spaces proposed in the landscape reserve. 6.It is assumed that the project sponsor would be responsible for meeting the requirements for bicycle parking for residential as well as R&D uses. Total required bicycle parking would be 112 spaces. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -67 - The proposed project could not be approved as designed without the stated concessions; therefore, the concessions are a prerequisite to the approval of the project. There would be no remaining conflicts with applicable zoning or land use designations following approval of the concessions. Consequently, the proposed project would have less-than-significant impacts with respect to land use and zoning designations. c) There are no applicable habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans that pertain to the project site. Consequently, the proposed project would have no impact with respect to any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Residual Impact:Less than significant with mitigation Mitigation Measures:See MM-1, under Section I, Aesthetics (above). Cumulative Analysis The foreseeable future projects in the vicinity of the proposed project include the HST and two mixed-use developments. These projects, as well as the proposed project, would be subject to applicable City plans and policies set forth by the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.97 Such cumulative development would not be expected to result in a substantial adverse change in the area’s land use character or divide an established community. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant adverse changes in the area’s land use character or divide an established communityand would not contribute to significant cumulative land use impacts. Consequently, the proposed project would have no cumulative impact related to land uses and land use planning. 97 Relevant policies from City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998, Land Use and Transportation Elements. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -68 - Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated* Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 1, 3 X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 1, 3 X a, b)The project site is not in a designated mineral resource recovery sector. Consequently, the proposed project would have no impact with respect to access to known mineral resources. Residual Impact:No impact Mitigation Measures:None required Cumulative Analysis The proposed project would not impact mineral resources, directly or indirectly. Therefore, would not contribute to cumulative mineral resource impacts. Consequently, the proposed project, in addition to other foreseeable projects, would have no impact with respect to access to known mineral resources. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -69 - Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated* Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a)Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 1, 2 X b)Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?1, 2 X c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1, 2 X d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1, 3 X e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1, 3 X f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1, 3 X Sound is created when objects vibrate, resulting in air pressure variations characterized by their amplitude (loudness) and frequency (pitch). The standard unit of sound amplitude is the decibel (dB), which describes the mechanical energy contained in the pressure variations. The pitch of the sound is related to the frequency of the pressure variation. The human ear’s sensitivity to sound is frequency- dependent. A sound level meter (SLM) is used to measure sound amplitude. To correlate such measurement data with sound amplitude as the human ear perceives it, an A-weighting filter is used by the SLM. A-weighting de-emphasizes low-frequencyand very high-frequency sound in a manner similar to the human ear. If A-weighting has been applied by an SLM, the abbreviation dBA is used when the sound level is reported. The use of A-weighting is required by most local General Plans, as well as federal and state regulatory agencies (e.g. Caltrans, EPA, OSHA and HUD). Most commonly, noise is defined as “unwanted” sound. All quantitative descriptors used to report environmental sound levels recognize the strong correlation between the high acoustical energycontent of a sound (i.e., its loudness and duration) and the disruptive effect it is likely to have when experienced bya listener. Because environmental sound levels fluctuate over time, most such descriptors average the sound levels over the time of exposure, and some add “penalties” during the times of day when intrusive sound would be considered more disruptive by those exposed to it. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -70 - The most commonly used descriptors are: ·Equivalent EnergyLevel (Leq) is the constant noise level that would deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear of a listener as the actual time-varying noise would deliver over the same exposure time. No “penalties” are added to any noise levels during the exposure time; Leq would be the same regardless of the time of day during which the noise occurred. ·Day-Night Average Level (Ldn) is a 24-hour average Leq with a 10 dBA “penalty” added to noise levels during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for increased sensitivity that people tend to have to nighttime noise. Because of this penalty, the Ldn would always be higher than its corresponding 24- hour Leq (e.g., a constant 60 dBA noise over 24 hours would have a 60 dBA Leq, but a 66.4 dBA Ldn). Vibration is mechanical energy radiated through the ground by a vibrating object. The amplitude of the ground motion caused by vibrating source is specified in vibration decibels (VdB). Ground borne vibration background levels are typicallynear 50 VdB or below, which are not perceptible by humans. In contrast, at 100 VdB, structural damage can occur in susceptible buildings. The Comprehensive Plan provides the following criteria for determining whether noise levels would cause a significant environmental impact. Policy N-39:Encourage the location of land uses in areas with compatible noise environments. Use the guidelines in the table “Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment” to determine compatibility. ·The guideline for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas is an Ldn of 60 dB. This level is a guideline for the design and location of future development and a goal for the reduction of noise in existing development. However, 60 Ldn is a guideline, which cannot necessarily be reached in all residential areas within the constraint of economic or aesthetic feasibility. This guideline will be primarily applied where outdoor use is a major consideration (e.g., backyards in single familyhousing developments and recreational areas in multiple family housing projects). Where the City determines that providing an Ldn of 60 dB or lower outdoors is not feasible, the noise level in outdoor areas intended for recreational use should be reduced to as close as the standard as feasible through project design. ·The indoor noise level as required by the State of California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 25) must not exceed an Ldn of 45 dB in multiple family dwellings. This indoor criterion shall also apply to new single family homes in Palo Alto. ·Interior noise levels in new single familyand multiple familyresidential units exposed to an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater should be limited to a maximum instantaneous noise level of 50 dB in the bedrooms. Maximum instantaneous noise levels in other rooms should not exceed 55 dB. The Cityof Palo Alto provides protection from “excessive, unnecessary, and unreasonable noises” through the Noise Ordinance, Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC)9.10. PAMC 9.10.060 identifies an exception to the City’s noise limits for construction on residential properties that occurs between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Monday through Friday, and from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Saturday, provided that no individual piece of equipment produces a noise level exceeding 110 dBA at a distance of 25 feet and that the 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -71 - noise level at any point outside of the property line would not exceed 110 dBA. Construction is prohibited completely on Sundays and holidays. Control of noise generated from construction truck traffic is provided in PAMC 10.48 that details truck routes and requires that projects follow standard construction techniques and best management practices, including the development of a Construction Management Plan, which would identify measures to reduce construction noise. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has noise and vibration impact criteria for assessing conventional transit systems such as Caltrain. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has similar noise and vibration criteria for assessing the impact of the high-speed train (HST) systems, including the one currentlyproposed in California. Since the project under consideration is mixed-use commercial/residential building, not a new transit system, Cityand State standards for noise and vibration would normally be used to assess its impacts instead of the FTA or FRA criteria. However, neither the City’s Comprehensive Plan nor the State’s Title 25 Standards set thresholds for acceptable vibration levels in residences. Thus, for this project, the vibration impact criteria of the FRA (which are essentially the same as those of the FTA) were used to assess the vibration impacts of Caltrain on the project, and the cumulative vibration impacts of combined operation of Caltrain and HST on the project. a, c) Noise sensitive receptors are those areas that are more sensitive to ambient noise levels than other areas, such as residences, schools, and hospitals. The proposed project, with 84 residential units, would be considered a sensitive receptor. The two major sources of noise in the vicinity of the project site are motor vehicle traffic (primarilyon Alma Street to the north of the site) and railroad operations (Caltrain commuter trains and freight trains on the adjacent tracks). Other noise is produced bythe dailyactivities that take place in the area. The Noise Element of the Comprehensive Plan recommends a maximum of 60 dBA Ldn for exterior residential uses (or, where 60 dBA Ldn or lower is not feasible, as close to this standard as feasible in outdoor areas intended for recreational use), and the State of California mandates a maximum of 45 dBA Ldn for residential interior living spaces in multi-family buildings. The California Building Code requires that mechanical ventilation be provided for every room exposed to an exterior noise level of 60 dBA Ldn. According to the project noise assessment conducted by Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. (June 2004), existing noise levels on-site are due primarily to vehicular traffic and railroad operations. The daily average noise levels on site ranged from 74 dBA Ldn at the portion of the site closest to the Caltrain line to 65 dBA Ldn near Page Mill Road and Park Boulevard, where the influence of motor vehicle traffic is dominant. The average on-site maximum instantaneous noise level (Lmax) from train pass-bys is 95 dBA.98 With on-site noise levels ranging from 65 dBA Ldn to 74 dBA Ldn, the proposed project would be located on a site exceeding the ideal maximum outdoor noise level of 60 dBA Ldn recommended in the General Plan for residential uses. However, current project plans call for a rectangular building having an interior courtyard with a solid outer wall and an interior hallway facing the Caltrain right-of-way. Thus, none of the 98 Rosen, Goldber, Der & Lewitz, Inc. Draft Noise and Vibration Analysis of California High-Speed Rail at 195 Page Mill Road Mixed-Use Project, Palo Alto, CA. RGDL Project# 10-067. January 2011. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -72 - residential units would have windows facing Caltrain and the windows of all the units would be acoustically rated to assure that interior levels attain the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the State’s Title 25 standards.99 The City’s Comprehensive Plan indicates that if the exterior noise level is greater than 60 dBA Ldn, then Lmax generated by repetitive, commonly occurring events should be maintained at 50 dBA in bedrooms and 55 dBA in other rooms. The project noise assessment determined that the average on-site Lmax from train pass-bys is 95 dBA. It also stated that the project structure’s exterior wall facing Caltrain would have a minimum STC-50 rating (i.e., that noise from exterior sources penetrating this wall would be reduced byat least 50 dBA). Thus, Lmax would not exceed 50 dBA in bedrooms and 55 dBA in other rooms. Mitigation Measure MM-7, below, would reduce project long-term (Ldn) and short-term (Lmax) interior noise impacts to a less-than-significant level through inclusion in the proposed project of design features specified in the project noise assessment. The project’s three-story building façade would block the propagation of Caltrain noise into its exterior courtyard, which would very likely be used for recreational purposes by the future residents. The project noise assessment estimates that noise levels within the courtyard would be below 60 dBA Ldn and, therefore, be in compliance with the City’s Policy N-39. Impacts would be less than significant. The project building facade could also reflect some of the train noise, potentiallyincreasing noise levels in the residential neighborhood east of the Caltrain tracks. This potential was evaluated by using the findings of a noise study done for the Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development Combining District (PTOD) overlay.100 That studyindicated that in order to reflect a substantial fraction of noise from a nearbysource, a building would have to be high and long with a continuous, flat surface of acoustically non-absorbent material; when all these conditions occur, the maximum effect expected would be a 3 dBA increase from the noise level produced by that source alone in the absence of the reflecting surface.101 The proposed project would be slightly larger than the two-story buildings that previously occupied the project site (which were demolished in August 2007) and would include articulations in the façade so as not to present a continuous, flat surface to Caltrain. Also, the proposed building would be 60 feet from the nearest Caltrain track, thereby decreasing the effective surface area that train noise could reflect from, and increasing the distance the reflected noise would travel to reach the eastern neighborhood; both factors would decrease the intensity of such reflected noise. Finally, the PTOD noise study found that motor vehicle traffic on Alma Street was the dominant noise source affecting the eastern neighborhood, not Caltrain. Thus, the noise level increase in the eastern neighborhood from the reflected train noise in the presence of substantial traffic background noise would be less than it would be if noise from Caltrain alone was affecting the neighborhood. All these facts support the conclusion that train noise reflected from the project structures would have a less-than– significant impact in the eastern neighborhood. 99 Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., Park Plaza, Palo Alto CA, Acoustical Review of Project Revisions, September 26, 2005. This report is available for review on the City’s website as Appendix M of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. 100 EIP Associates, Evaluation of the Potential for Train Noise Reflection near the California Avenue Caltrain Station in Palo Alto, April 2006 101 EIP Associates, April 2006, p. 8 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -73 - The proposed project would generate traffic that would increase noise levels along area roadways.As noted in the traffic study, the proposed project would generate approximately 577 net new daily trips, with 40 net new AM peak hour trips and 56 net new PM peak hour trips.102 All these motor vehicle trips would disperse among the streets affording access to the project site. Thus, the number of project-related vehicles on any street would be minimal compared to its existing traffic volume. The proposed project would not generate noise in excess of standards established in the Comprehensive Plan and Noise Ordinance, a less-than- significant impact. b, d)Construction of the project would temporarily increase current noise and vibration levels in the vicinity of the project site. Typical noise and vibration sources would include mechanical equipment associated with excavation, removal of pavement, and construction vehicles. Operation of construction equipment could generate noise exceeding the Citynoise standards. According to the City’s Noise Ordinance, construction activities are exempt from City noise standards during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday, provided that noise levels do not exceed 110 dBA at 25 feet. The proposed project would be required to comply with the construction requirements of the Noise Ordinance. All construction truck traffic would be required to conform to the City of Palo Alto Trucks and Traffic Ordinance (10.48) that details truck routes; this would help reduce noise impacts to off-site residential neighborhoods. Because construction activities would be restricted to the daytime hours and required to complywith the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, the proposed project would have less-than- significant impacts related to construction noise. Because construction activities would not include pile driving and would be several hundred feet distant from the nearest vibration-sensitive receptors, the proposed project would have less-than-significant impacts related to construction vibration. Existing vibration levels produced by Caltrain operations were measured as part of the study conducted by Charles M. Salter Associates at the project site. The measured levels indicate that vibration from train pass- bys range from about 65 VdB to 71 VdB.103 According to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), vibration levels at residential uses should not exceed 75 VdB for occasional events (defined as between 30 to 70 vibration events per day, which best fits the frequency of Caltrain’s current train operations) to avoid vibration impacts. The project site has a maximum vibration level of 71 VdB, which is less than the FTA standard. Consequently, vibration impacts to the proposed residential uses would be less than significant. e, f)The project site is not in an airport land use plan or in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Consequently, no impact related to exposure to excessive airport or airstrip noise would occur. 102 a) Fehr and Peers, 2006. Park Plaza Transportation Impact Assessment, p. 19 b) Fehr and Peers, 2009. Park Plaza Mixed Use Project Trip Generation and Off-Street Parking Analysis, p. 1. October 16, 2009 These reports are available for review on the City’s website as Appendices J, K, and L of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. 103 Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz, Inc, Noise and Vibration Analysis of California High-Speed Rail at 195 Page Mill Road Mixed-Use Project Palo Alto, CA (Administrative Draft), January 14, 2011. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -74 - Residual Impact:Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure: MM-7:Indoor Noise Minimization The project shall include design features as specified in the project noise assessment to reduce the indoor noise levels to meet the interior noise standards prescribed by the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Policy N-39. Cumulative Analysis An assessment of HST noise and vibration impacts on the proposed project was conducted by Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz, Inc.104 Using the FRA methodology, the estimated Ldn at the setback of the proposed building from the HST alone would be 74 dBA Ldn, assuming that the tracks will be at-grade. If the tracks were in a deep trench then there would be additional acoustical shielding from the edge of the trench, which could reduce the HST noise levels by about 15 dBA to 59 dBA Ldn. To estimate the cumulative noise level of both the HST and Caltrain operations in the corridor, the Caltrain noise level determined in the project noise assessment (i.e., 74 dBA Ldn at the setback of the project buildings) was combined with the HST noise level. Thus, the total noise level from the two sources would be 77 dBA Ldn. The Lmax from HST pass-bys with the track at-grade is expected to be 90 dBA.105 A residential noise exposure of 77 dBA Ldn would be “Unacceptable” under the City’s Comprehensive Plan Noise Compatibility Guidelines, which state that residential development should generally not be undertaken because “mitigation is usually not feasible to comply with noise element policies.” However, the project includes an acoustically rated (STC-50) exterior wall and an interior corridor along the railroad side of the building to buffer residential units from direct exposure to train noise. Although the exterior noise level is considered “Unacceptable” according to the Comprehensive Plan, with the proposed design it wouldachieve the City and State’s 45 dBA Ldn indoor noise standard and the Citystandard limiting Lmax to 50/55 dBA in residential bed/other rooms with sound-rated construction and mechanical ventilation. Thus, cumulative interior noise impacts on the project would be less than significant. The primaryoutdoor use area for the project is its central courtyard. Since this area would be protected from Caltrain and HST railroad noise bythe acoustical shielding provided bythe building itself, it would meet the City’s “Normally Acceptable” exterior noise level of 60 dBA Ldn. Thus, cumulative exterior noise impacts on the project would be less than significant. Using FRA methodology, the estimated vibration level would be 78 VdB at the second floor of the building where residences would be located. At the first floor commercial uses, the vibration level would be about 80 VdB. This 78 dBA vibration level at the nearest residential units would exceed the FRA impact threshold of 72 VdB for frequent train pass-bys; the vibrations would be distinctly perceptible by the residents. Thus, a reduction of 8 VdB at ground level would be necessary to reach the FRA threshold. 104 Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz, Inc. Draft Noise and Vibration Analysis of California High-Speed Rail at 195 Page Mill Road Mixed-Use Project, Palo Alto, CA. RGDL Project# 10-067. January 2011 105 Email communication from Harold Goldberg, Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz, Inc, February 4, 2011. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -75 - Vibration reduction techniques of known effectiveness are much more easilyimplemented by new rail transit facilities than bynew residential buildings. The FRA endorses three different track construction techniques (i.e., floating-slab track bed, ballast mats and resilientlysupported ties) for reducing ground borne vibration by10 to 15 dB, while providing no information on measures that can be used in specified building types. The proposed building reduces vibration levels to the 72 VdB threshold because it uses a heavy concrete underground parking structure floor with concrete spread footings and a concrete podium for the ceiling of the first floor R&D level with a metal stud construction for the second and third floor residential units.. Mitigation Measure MM-7, above, would reduce the cumulative vibration impacts of Caltrain and HST operations to a less-than-significant level through inclusion in the proposed project of design features specified in a vibration assessment that would guarantee attainment of FRA criteria. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -76 - Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated* Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XII. POPULATION ANDHOUSING. Would the project: a)Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 1 X b)Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?1 X c)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?1 X a)The project site is identified on the Housing Sites Inventory in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan as a potential housing site to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Although housing is not generally allowed in the GM zone in which the project site is situated, housing is allowed by right because the site is on the Housing Sites Inventory. The State Housing Element law prohibits a city from reducing its housing potential on a site unless compensating sites are designated or all housing needs are met. Approximately 20 percent of the units of the proposed project would be designated as BMR units, helping meet the City’s responsibility of adding 610 very low to moderate income residential units to its housing stock. According to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, the population of Palo Alto was 58,598 in 2000 and is projected to increase to 62,880 by 2010. By adding 84 units to the housing stock, the proposed project would contribute to population growth in the area. With an average household size of 2.24 persons, the proposed project would generate a population increase of approximately 188 people; however, the project site is included as a Housing OpportunitySite in the Housing Element, and the population increase has been anticipated. This incremental increase in population generated bythe proposed project would be less than significant. b)The project site previously contained structures consisting of 50,468 square feet of commercial and R&D space. The proposed project consists of a new three-story building that includes 50,467 square feet of R&D space on the ground floor, and two levels of residential apartments, totaling 84 units (106,920 square feet) on the second and third story. Because there was no housing (residential uses) on the site, the proposed project would result in no impact related to displacing existing housing units. c)The proposed project would included the conversion of a vacant 50,468-square-foot commercial and R&D space into a three-story building that includes 50,467 square feet of R&D space on the ground floor, and two levels of residential apartments, totaling 84 units (106,920 square feet) on the second-and third-story. Because the project site is vacant, the proposed project would create no impact related to displacing people. Residual Impact:Less than significant Mitigation Measure:None 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -77 - Cumulative Analysis The proposed project would increase housing in the City of Palo Alto. However, this increase is considered to be minimal, and therefore, negligible. Additionally, because there was no housing on the proposed site, the proposed project would result in no impacts to existing housing. Lastly, the proposed project would have no impact related to displacement of people because the proposed project would construct a new building on a site that is currently vacent. Therefore, the proposed project, in combination with other foreseeable projects, would not contribute to cumulative impacts associated with population increase, displacement of existing housing units and displacement of people. As such, cumulative impacts are less than significant. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -78 - Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated* Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: ·Fire protection?·Police protection? ·Schools?·Parks? ·Other public facilities? 3, 37 X a)Public service impacts are assessed in the context of the 1995 appellate court decision Goleta Union School District v. The Regents of the University of California. The decision held that an increase in demand for public services, such as additional staff or lengthier response times, could lead to potentially significant environmental impacts only if constructing or expanding a new facilitywas required and the construction or operation of the facility might adversely affect the air, water, noise, or other aspects of the physical environment. Consequently, increases in public service demand alone do not constitute a significant environmental effect. If significant effects are identified, the affected service provider would determine appropriate mitigation. Fire Protection and Emergency Services The Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFD) provides fire and emergency services to the City of Palo Alto and Stanford Universityyear-round and serves Los Altos Hills during summer months when the risk of wildfire is greater. Between 2006 and 2007, eight PAFD stations served about 75,000 residents in a service area of approximately 50 square miles.106 The PAFD serves a daytime population of over 125,000 people, which includes a large number of employees from high-technology businesses and Stanford University.107 Between 2006 and 2007, the PAFD had a total of 103 full-time firefighters: a staffing ratio of 1.21 firefighters per 1,000 residents served.108 The PAPD’s ratio of daytime population to firefighters is approximately 0.73 firefighters per 1,000 people. Each fire station provides services to approximately 9,375 City residents. According to the PAFD, “the number of residents served per fire station has increased by two percent over five years, but is still substantially below the number served per fire station in some other local jurisdictions.”109 PAFD personnel are organized into four functional areas: (1)EmergencyResponse; (2)Environmental and SafetyManagement; (3)Training and Personnel 106 Palo Alto Fire Department, http://www.pafd.org/profile/index.html, accessed December 12, 2008 107 Palo Alto Fire Department, http://www.pafd.org/profile/index.html, accessed December 12, 2008 108 City of Palo Alto, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report 2006-2007, Annual Report on City Government Performance, Chapter 3 –Fire, January 2008 109 City of Palo Alto, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report 2006-2007, Chapter 3, 2008 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -79 - Management; and (4)Records and Information Management.110 The PAFD does not evaluate its level of service by staffing ratio goals; instead, service goals are set bythe percent of calls that are responded to under a specified response time goal.111 The Department’s average response time goal is to respond to 90 percent of fire emergencies and emergencymedical requests for service within 8 minutes and to respond to 90 percent of paramedic calls for service within 12 minutes. Emergency medical requests are more life-threatening calls that necessitate ambulance life support (ALS) transportation. Paramedic calls are calls that are less serious and that include basic life support (BLS) transportation. During the 2006-2007 fiscal year, the PAFD responded to 87 percent of fire emergency calls within its response time goal, 92 percent of emergency medical calls within its response time goal, and 97 percent of paramedic calls within the response time goals.112 Consequently, the PAFD met its percentage goal for responding to calls under its response time goal for emergency medical and paramedic calls, but not for fire emergency calls. From 2006 to 2007, the PAFD responded to 7,236 calls for service, of which 55 percent were medical related; 18 percent were false alarms; 5 percent were service calls; 3 percent were fire related; 3 percent were hazardous conditions related; and 17 percent were other types of emergencies.113 The average response time of the PAFD was 5 minutes 48 seconds for fire calls and 5 minutes 17 seconds for emergency medical calls.114 The PAFD is the primary 911 ambulance service provider to the City of Palo Alto, Stanford Campus, and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC). American Medical Response (AMR) is the 911 ambulance system provider in Santa Clara County. AMR provides back up ambulance service to the PAFD’s ambulance system and responds into the PAFD service area when all of the City of Palo Alto’s ambulance resources are committed to other emergency calls. Although the PAFD met their percentage goal for responding to medical emergency and paramedic calls within their percentage of calls responded to under their specified response time, the PAFD reported that they receive a number of medical response calls per year to which they cannot respond.115 All of these calls are handled by AMR. The contract between AMR and the County of Santa Clara does not legally require AMR to respond to ambulance calls within the City of Palo Alto.116 Also, AMR response times in Palo Alto tend to be longer than that of PAFD’s response times.117 Consequently, there is a deficiency in the medical response services provided to the City of Palo Alto. This deficiency would not be substantially exacerbated by the proposed project because, even when fullyoccupied, the project site would represent only a small portion of the total demand for emergency response services. 110 Palo Alto Fire Department, http://www.pafd.org/profile/index.html, accessed December 12, 2008 111 City of Palo Alto, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report 2006-2007, Chapter 3, 2008 112 City ofPalo Alto, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report 2006-2007, Chapter 3, 2008 113 City of Palo Alto, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report 2006-2007, Chapter 3, 2008 114 City of Palo Alto, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report 2006-2007, Chapter 3, 2008 115 Dan Firth, Fire Marshal, Palo Alto Fire Department, electronic communication April 13, 2008 116 Agreement between the County of Santa Clara and American Medical Response –West for Pre-hospital Emergency Medical Care and Transport Services, http://www.sccemsagency.org/SCC/docs/Emergency%20Medical%20Services%20(DEP)/attachments/5.11%20AMR% 20Agreement%20- %20Complete.pdf, page 10, accessed May 8, 2008 117 Dan Firth, Fire Marshal, Palo Alto Fire Department, electronic communication, April 13, 2008 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -80 - As a part of the PAFD’s budgetary and review processes, the PAFD evaluates the realignment of response districts to determine whether they can increase their response time capabilities, which could allow the PAFD to respond to more calls and do so in less time. The district boundaries determine the areas in which a particular station responds to calls. The project site is in a developed urban area that is already served by fire stations, ambulance service, and infrastructure. The demand for fire protection and emergency response services from the R&D component of the project would not exceed demand from previous office/R&D facilities (now demolished). The demand for fire protection services generated by the residential component of the project would represent a small portion of the City of Palo Alto’s total fire protection demand. Therefore, the proposed project would not necessitate the construction of new fire protection facilities or infrastructure. If deemed necessary by the City of Palo Alto, development fees could be required pursuant to approval of the development permit to offset the project’s contribution to cumulative demand for fire protection facilities. Consequently, all fire protection impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. Police Protection The Palo Alto Police Department (PAPD) provides law enforcement services to the Cityof Palo Alto. As of the 2006-2007 fiscal year, PAPD staff included a total of 164 full-time employees, with 93 sworn officers, including 1 chief, 2 captains, 6 lieutenants, 14 sergeants, 19 agents, and 51 officers.118 The PAPD has 30 marked vehicles and 9 motorcycles.119 The PAPD has one central station at 275 Forest Avenue, which serves the entire City of Palo Alto; however, the PAPD is planning to move into a new Public Safety Building in 2011, which would be across the street from the project site. This new building would have capacity for approximately the same number of officers as the current station and increased capacity for 52 patrol vehicles.120 Because the daytime population in Palo Alto increases from approximately 61,200 to 125,000, the current staffing ratio of police officers per 1,000 people fluctuates between 0.66 during daytime hours and 1.34 during nighttime hours.121 Population numbers differ from those in the previous Fire Protection and Emergency Services discussion because the PAPD and PAFD have different service areas. The PAPD does not measure its service goals with staffing ratios; instead, service goals are determined through the percentage of emergency calls that are responded to within a target time and the average response time for urgent calls. PAPD categorizes calls requiring police response as “emergency”, “urgent”, and “non-emergency”.122 Emergencycalls include crimes in progress that are life-threatening or that may involve substantial loss of property. These calls include major injury accident calls and medical calls, such as for heart attacks. Urgent calls include suspicious activityin progress or requests to respond to emergencies that occurred within the last hour, but that are not currently in progress. Non- emergency calls include noise complaints and other non-crime related issues. 118 City of Palo Alto 2006-07 Adopted Budget 119 City of Palo Alto, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report 2006-2007, Annual Report on City Government Performance, Chapter 6 –Police, January 2008 120 City of Palo Alto, Palo Alto Public Safety Building Project Final EIR, July 11, 2007 121 City of Palo Alto, Police, http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/depts/pol/default.asp, accessed December 12, 2008. 122 City of Palo Alto, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report 2006-2007, Chapter 6, 2008 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -81 - The PAPD received 60,079 calls in the 2006-2007 fiscal year. The average response time for emergency calls was 5 minutes 8 seconds, the average response time for urgent calls was 7 minutes 24 seconds, and the average response time for non-emergency calls was 19 minutes 26 seconds.123 These response times include dispatch times.The PAPD estimates that 96 percent of the emergency calls were dispatched within 60 seconds of receipt of the call: the target is 95 percent within 60 seconds.124 The PAPD goal for response to an emergency call is to respond to 90 percent of emergency calls within 6 minutes. In the 2006-2007 fiscal year, the PAPD responded to 73 percent of emergency calls within 6 minutes and, therefore, did not meet the goal. The PAPD measures goals for responding to urgent calls by average response times and not percentage of calls responded to within a response time goal. The average response time goal for urgent calls is 10 minutes.125 The PAFD met the average response time goal for urgent calls with an average response time of 7 minutes 24 seconds. During the same time period 95 percent of non-emergency calls were responded to within 60 minutes. According to the PAPD, non- emergencycalls generallyare routine or report-type calls that can be handled as time permits. As such, during the 2006-2007 fiscal year, PAPD’s average response time goals were met for urgent calls; however, the goal for emergency calls was not met. The project site is in a developed urban area adjacent to the future Public Safety Building. The demand for police protection from the R&D component of the project would not exceed demand from previous office/R&D facilities (now demolished). The demand for police protection services generated by the residential component of the project would represent a small portion of the City of Palo Alto’s total police protection demand. Facilities are being updated to address future service demand projections and improve service ratios. Consequently, all police protection impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. Schools The Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) serves the Cityof Palo Alto and portions of the Cityof Los Altos Hills. PAUSD includes 12 elementary schools (kindergarten through grade five), 3 intermediate schools (grades six through eight), and 2 high schools (grades nine through twelve). Other schools and programs in the PAUSD include a pre-school program, a self-supporting adult school, a school for the hearing impaired, the Children’s Hospital School at the Lucille Packard Children’s Hospital, and a summer school.126 In 2006, PAUSD employed approximately 646 teachers, providing a ratio of one teacher for every 17.5 students.127 Enrollment in the PAUSD is approaching capacity. According to the City of Palo Alto’s Board of Education, in the 2008-2009 school year, elementaryschools have room for an additional 123 students, middle schools have room for 95 students, and high schools have room for 239 students. Therefore, PAUSD schools’ classroom capacitycan accommodate approximately 457 additional students. Based on the PAUSD student generation rates(Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic Research, Inc. (Lapkoff Forecast) 123 City of Palo Alto, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report 2006-2007, Chapter 6, 2008 124 City of Palo Alto, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report 2006-2007, Chapter 6, 2008 125 City of Palo Alto, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report 2006-2007, Chapter 6, 2008 126 Palo Alto Unified School District, http://pausd.org/parents/schools_sites/index.shtml, accessed December 12, 2008 127 The staffing ratio is calculated based on 2006 student enrollment of 11,329 as reported by the Palo Alto Unified School District, Agenda,Regular Meeting, September 23, 2008 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -82 - page 20), an apartment unit yields 0.15 student, a stacked condominium yields 0.25 student,and a BMR multifamily residential unit yields 0.7 student. With 67 stacked condominiums at a 0.25 yield factor yielding 16.6 students, and 17 BMR MFUs at a 0.7 yield factor yielding 11.9 units, a total of 28.57 students are estimated to be generated from the development. The Initial Study/MND acted upon by the Director of Planning and Community Environment on July 12, 2011 contained estimates of 0.276 elementary students per residential unit, 0.088 middle school students, and 0.095 high school students, with an estimate that the proposed project would generate 23 elementary students, 7 middle school students, and 8 high school students (38 students, whereby the Lapkoff Forecast estimates 29 students). Student enrollment associated with the proposed project would be within existing capacity. Consequently, the impact of the proposed project on schools would be less than significant. Other Public Facilities Impact fees to address effects on community centers, parks and libraries were adopted bythe Palo Alto City Council in March of 2002. Prior to receiving a building permit, the project applicant would be required to pay a one-time development impact fee for communitycenters and libraries. The fee would be used to offset impacts on community centers, parks and library facilities as a result of this project. Subdivision of the property for ownership of the residential units would require parkland dedication/in lieu fees to be paid by the applicant for such subdivision. With payment of fees,the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on other public facilities. Residual Impact:Less than significant Mitigation Measures:None required Cumulative Analysis Each public service provider must plan to accommodate growth within its service area under cumulative conditions. The proposed project, in addition to other foreseeable projects, would not exceed growth projections for the area. As such, the proposed project, in addition to other foreseeable projects, would result in a less-than-significant impact on public services as they would be accommodated in the cumulative demand for services. Deleted: (Stanford Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects EIR, page 4.12-26) 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -83 - Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated* Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIV. RECREATION. a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 1, 3, 4 X b)Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 1, 3, 4 X a, b)The City of Palo Alto follows the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) Standards as guidelines for determining parkland needs. These standards recommend that a city of the size and densityof Palo Alto should provide 2 acres of parkland for every1,000 residents. The proposed project would generate 188 additional residents at the project site, but would not be expected to generate additional workers at the project site (as compared with the preexisting R & D use, and as described previously in Section XII, Population and Housing, of this Initial Study). Based on the NRPA Standards, the addition of 188 residents to the project site would generate a demand for 0.19 acres of parkland. The impact fees adopted by the City of Palo Alto would address development effects on parks. The increased demand on parkland, resulting from the proposed project, would be addressed bythe project applicant’s payment of a one-time development impact fee prior to issuance of a building permit. As determined by the Palo Alto City Council in March, 2002, the fee would offset impacts on park facilities as a result of this project and would reduce the proposed project’s parkland impacts to less than significant. Residual Impact:Less than significant Mitigation Measures:None required Cumulative Analysis As described above, the proposed project would generate 188 additional residents at the project site. The addition of 188 residents to the project site would generate a demand for 0.19 acres of parkland. The increased demand on parkland, resulting from the proposed project, would be addressed by the project applicant’s payment of a one-time development impact fee prior to issuance of a building permit. As determined by the Palo Alto City Council in March, 2002, the fee would offset impacts on park facilities as a result of this project, and would reduce the proposed project’s parkland contribution impacts to less than cumulative considerable. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -84 - Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated* Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC.128 Would the project: a)Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 1, 8, 10 X b)Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 1, 8, 10 X c)Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 3 X d)Substantially increase hazards caused by a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 3, 4, 8,10 X e)Result in inadequate emergency access? 11 X f)Result in inadequate parking capacity?3, 8, 10 X g)Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 1, 3, 8,10 X a, b)A transportation impact analysis for the proposed project was prepared by Fehr & Peers in May 2006, updated in October 2009, and updated again in October 2010 using the guidelines of the City of Palo Alto and the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), which is the congestion management agency for Santa Clara County. Although five additional projects have been proposed since the application for the proposed project was submitted and the original IS/MND was published,129 the traffic model accounts for the growth proposed under these projects, so none of the new projects, alone or in combination, would exceed the growth projections of the traffic model. Intersection Level of Service Standards Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative description of an intersection’s performance based on the average delay per vehicle. LOS is classified into six grades, ranging from A, which indicates free-flow or excellent conditions with short delays, to F, which indicates congested or overloaded conditions with extremely long delays. LOS A, B, and C are considered excellent to satisfactory service levels for most signalized and unsignalized intersections. The City of Palo Alto considers LOS D to be the lowest acceptable LOS at 128 Unless otherwise cited, information in this section is from Fehr and Peers, 2006. Park Plaza Transportation Impact Assessment. This report is available for review on the City’s website as Appendix J of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. 129 Electronic mail from Palo Alto City Planner, Lata Vasudevan, to PBS&J, November 13, 2008. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -85 - intersections in the City, except for those intersections designated as regional Congestion Management Plan (CMP) intersections regularlymonitored bythe City and the VTA. The lowest acceptable LOS for regional CMP intersections is LOS E. Table 3 Level of Service Descriptions LOS Description Average Control Delay (in seconds) A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle lengths. < 10.0 B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths.> 10.0 to 20.0 C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. > 20.0 to 35.0 D Operations with longer delays caused by a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. This is the City’s baseline LOS standard. > 35.0 to 55.0 E Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay for regional CMP intersections. > 55.0 to 80.0 F Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. > 80.0 Source: VTA, CMP Traffic Level of Service Analysis Guidelines, 2003; and Transportation Research Board, HighwayCapacity Manual, 2000. The project analysis assumed that the proposed project would have a significant impact on intersection LOS if it would: ·Cause a local intersection to deteriorate below LOS D; ·Cause a local intersection alreadyoperating at LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average control delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more, and the critical volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase by 0.01 or more; ·Cause a regional CMP intersection to deteriorate from an LOS E or better to LOS F; ·Cause a regional CMP intersection already operating at LOS F to deteriorate in the average control delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more, and the critical volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase by 0.01 or more; 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -86 - Intersection Level of Service –Existing and Baseline Conditions130 Existing peak-hour volumes, lane configurations, and signal phasing/timing plans according to the City of Palo Alto Annual Traffic Monitoring Report were used to calculate the service levels for the following study intersections: ·Foothill Expressway/ Page Mill Road ·Hanover Street/ Page Mill Road ·El Camino Real/ Page Mill Road ·Oregon Expressway/ Middlefield Road ·El Camino Real/Charleston Road The new traffic counts at Page Mill Road/Park Boulevard were used to calculate the levels at this unsignalized intersection. The Foothill Expressway/Page Mill Road intersection operates at a marginal LOS E during the PM peak hour, with traffic volumes nearing the capacity of the signalized intersection. The Oregon Expressway/Middlefield Road intersection also operates at marginal LOS E during the PM peak hour. The remaining study intersections operate at LOS D or better during both peak hours. Background traffic volumes were estimated by determining the projected growth in turning movement volumes for AM and PM peak hour conditions from the Citywide Traffic Model. The Citywide Traffic Model reflects reasonable buildout conditions of the City of Palo Alto and incorporates all future approved projects and regional background traffic growth (growth unrelated to the proposed project). Background traffic growth will result in the Foothill Expressway/Page Mill Road intersection degrading from LOS D to LOS E conditions during the AM peak hour. The intersection of El Camino Real/Page Mill Road is projected to degrade from LOS D to LOS F during both AM and PM peak hour conditions. The Oregon Expressway/Middlefield Road intersection is projected to degrade from LOS D to F during the AM peak hour, and from LOS E to F during the PM peak hour. Intersection Levels of Service –With Project Conditions The amount of traffic that would be generated by the proposed project in the AM and PM peak hours was estimated based on trip rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE’s) Trip Generation, Seventh Edition, 2003. The LOS analysis incorporated a trip reduction factor based on the fact that the project would include mixed residential and non-residential uses. According to the City’s standards, the 130 The revised IS/MND incorporates the findings of a TIA preparedin July 2007 for the proposed Palo Alto Public Safety Building, a project that would be constructed on the parcel immediately north of the project site, if approved. The LOS conditions reported in the project TIA were compared to LOS conditions reported in the Public Safety Building TIA by Fehr and Peers Associates pursuant to preparation of this revised IS/MND. The Fehr & Peers April 2009 Supplemental Report details the findings of this comparison. (This report is available for review of the City’s website as Appendix K of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment.) It was determined that, based on the City of Palo Alto significance criteria, the proposed project would not significantly impact any of the six study intersections (Foothill Expressway/page Mill Expressway; Hanover Street/Page Mill Expressway; El Camino Real/Page Mill Expressway; Oregon Expressway/Middlefield Road; Park Boulevard/Page Mill Road; El Camino Real/Charleston Road/Arastradero Road) under year 2010 or 2015 AM and PM Peak Hour conditions. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -87 - project mayassume a three percent reduction in the total estimated number of apartment-generated trips for such projects. Because the proposed project contains residential and employment facilities within 2,000 feet of a Caltrain Station, reductions of nine percent and three percent are allowed, respectively, for these uses. For the purpose of the proposed project,no trip reduction was used for proposed project residents that would work in the R&D space. The use of the above trip reduction factors would reduce the daily and peak hour project trip generation by approximately 6.5 percent. The proposed project would generate 1,143 net new weekday daily trips, 116 net new AM peak-hour trips (72 inbound/44 outbound) and 131 net new PM peak- hour trips (48 inbound/83 outbound). The distribution of new project trips was estimated based on existing travel patterns in the vicinity of the project site and the relative locations of complementary land uses in the area (such as employment areas, shopping and educational facilities). Trips generated bythe proposed project were assigned to the roadway system and added to baseline traffic volumes to estimate AM and PM peak hour volumes. The results of the LOS analysis for the project indicate that project-generated traffic would result in the degradation of operations from LOS E to F at the intersection of Foothill Expressway and Page Mill Expressway in the PM peak hour. LOS for all other intersections would remain the same. Data and calculations are provided in Tables 2 and 3 of the project transportation impact analysis (see Appendix M of this Initial Study). Impacts at all intersections would be less than significant. Residential Street Segment Analysis The proposed project’s impacts on the local residential streets Olive Avenue and Sheridan Avenue were evaluated based on significance criteria developed by the City of PaloAlto. These criteria state that a project would have a significant impact on a residential street if the project would cause any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic Infusion of Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more on a local or collector residential street. Based on the Cityof Palo Alto significance criteria used in the 2007 through 2009 TIAs for the Public Safety Building and the proposed project, the proposed project would not cause the TIRE index to increase by0.1 or more on Olive Avenue or Sheridan Avenue. Therefore, the project would have no impact on the nearby relevant local or collector streets. Freeway Level of Service Existing freeway LOS conditions were estimated for the project based on VTA’s 2002 Monitoring and Conformance Report. Based on the monitored freeway segment densities, all mixed-flow lanes and HOV lanes operate at acceptable LOS during the AM peak hour. During PM peak hour conditions, the mixed- flow lanes of southbound US 101 are near capacity and result in LOS F conditions from Embarcadero Road to San Antonio Road. According to CMP guidelines, freeway segments to which a proposed development is projected to add trips equal to one percent or more of the freeway segment’s existing capacity must be evaluated. Segments of US 101 were reviewed to determine if a substantial amount of project traffic would be added to these freeway segments. The project would add traffic equivalent to less than one percent of each freeway segment’s capacity. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on any of the freeway segments. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -88 - c)The project will not result in a change to air traffic patterns. No impact would occur. d, e) The project design features have been reviewed by the City Fire Department and Transportation Division to determine whether the proposed project would substantially increase hazards or result in inadequate emergency access. To reduce vehicle queues on northbound Park Boulevard, the proposed project would fund and implement an unsignalized, 130-foot left turn pocket lane on Park Boulevard at the Page Mill Road intersection. The existing circulation on the Page Mill Road extension would be maintained by providing a 24-foot roadway width that would facilitate bothtwo-way traffic and emergencyresponse vehicles. The two project driveways on Park Boulevard would operate at acceptable conditions during both the AM and PM peak hour conditions. Vehicles entering and exiting the site could pose hazards to pedestrians walking along sidewalks on the periphery of the site. Mitigation Measure MM-8, below, would reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles to a less than significant level. f)Pursuant to PAMC 15.42.040, the proposed project would require a total of 379 parking spaces. The proposed project would provide 302 parking spaces onsite, including 19 at-grade spaces, 274 spaces in a subterranean parking garage, and 9 spaces in a landscape reserve. Entrance to the underground facility would be from Park Boulevard at about the midpoint of the building. PAMC Section 18.52.050 allows a project applicant to request parking reductions for various circumstances; combined parking adjustments amounting to no more than 30 percent of the total parking demand otherwiserequired are permitted, subject to approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The applicant is requesting a reduction for joint use (shared) parking facilities and a reduction for housing near transit facilities such as Caltrain and bus lines. After applying these two deductions, the applicant’s required parking for the proposed uses would be 265 spaces. The project would provide 302 spaces, including the spaces in landscape reserve and has requested a reduction of 86 spaces (approximately 22 percent) with respect to the baseline parking threshold of 388 parking spaces. If the applicant’s request were approved, the project would be in conformance with applicable parking requirements. Pursuant to PAMC Section 18.52.050(d), approval of the parking reductions would be subject to review and approval of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program as required under Mitigation Measure MM-9. The TDM Program addressing the provisions of PAMC Section 18.52.050(d)(2)–(4) would be reviewed by the Director of Planning and Community Environment for completeness. Upon implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-9, parking impacts would be less than significant. g)The proposed project would comply with all applicable plans and policies pertaining to alternative transportation. The project would not generate ridership that would exceed the capacityof nearby VTA bus services or the Caltrain. The project would not obstruct existing bike lanes, and the number of bicycle parking spaces that would be supplied at the project site would be in conformance with zoning code requirements. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact with respect to alternative transportation plans and policies. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -89 - Residual Impact:Less than significant with mitigation Mitigation Measures: MM-8:Pedestrian Warning System A vehicle exiting/pedestrian warning system shall be installed for the underground parking garage driveway to eliminate potential conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists. MM-9:Transportation Demand Management Plan A Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) program shall be implemented as approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The TDM shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits and shall include a shared parking analysis based on the number of assigned parking spaces, and may incorporate (but shall not be limited to) such features as: developer-sponsored subsidized transit passes for residents and employees, a transportation coordinator, convenient displays of alternative travel options, and unbundling of parking, if such features are determined to be adequately effective by the Director of Planning and CommunityEnvironment in reducing parking demand. The TDM program shall be subject to further review after building occupancy pursuant to PAMC 18.52.050(d)(3) and (4). Cumulative Analysis The projected increases in traffic volumes between 2012 and 2015 will result in the intersection of Foothill Expressway and Page MillExpressway degrading from LOS E to F during both the AM and PM peak hours, the intersection of Hanover Street and Page Mill Expressway degrading from LOS D to E during both the AM and PM peak hours, and the intersection of El Camino Real, Charleston Road,and Arastradero Road degrading from LOS D to E in the PM peak hour. Also, for the intersection of El Camino Real and Page Mill Expressway, the LOS would remain at F but the critical volume to capacityratio will increase by 0.009 and the critical seconds of delay will increase by 3.9 seconds during the PM peak hour. Based on the City of Palo Alto significance criteria used in the 2007 through 2009 for the Public Safety Building and the proposed project, the project’s contribution to this impact wouldbe less than cumulatively considerable. The proposed project is subject to a Citywide Transportation Impact Fee. The project applicant would pay Traffic Impact Fees to the City of Palo Alto, based on the increased land use and adopted fee structure to improve mobility for all travel modes throughout the City. Also, several future improvements are planned for study intersections as part of mitigation measures identified for other projects in the vicinityof 195 Page Mill Road. These future improvements will result in improved traffic operations at several study intersections. In particular, as part of the traffic mitigation for the Stanford University Medical Center project,131 traffic adaptive signal technology is planned to be implemented at several of the intersections in the El Camino Real corridor, including the intersection of El Camino Real and Page Mill Expressway. 131 City of Palo Alto, Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement, Final Environmental Impact Report –Volume 1, January 2011. Table3.3-4 SUMC Project Contribution for All Study Intersections, page 3-174. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -90 - The current transportation analysis assumes a 12 percent reduction in vehicle trips generated by the project, due to its proximityto the Palo Alto Caltrain station. The HST project has a “potential” stop at the Palo Alto Caltrain station. If HST were to be developed, and if it were to stop in Palo Alto, then this would result in shorter transit travel times from Palo Alto to San Francisco, and San Jose. Shorter transit travel times could, in turn, translate into an even higher percentage of project trips being made bytransit, and a greater reduction in vehicle trips (it would also depend on many other factors, for example the relative cost to make a trip by HST). Therefore, based on the current information available, it is anticipated that the cumulative transportation impacts attributable to the project might be even less with the implementation of HST. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -91 - Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated* Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?32 X b)Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 32 X c)Require or result in the construction of new storm-water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 32 X d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 32 X e)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 32 X f)Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 33,34, 35 X g)Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?33 X a)See Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Initial Study, regarding wastewater treatment requirements of the SF Bay Area RWQCB. This impact would be less than significant. b, d)The City is a part of a “Settlement Agreement and Master Water Sales Contract (Master Contract)” executed in 1984, with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), which provides 184 million gallon per day (MGD) to the SFPUC's wholesale customers (subject to reduction in the event of drought, water shortage, earthquake, other acts of nature, or rehabilitation and maintenance of the system). The City’s total water supply was 15,676 acre-feet (AF) in 2005, while its demand was 13,714 AF. The plant is projected to demand 13,477 AF in 2030, with a supply of 15,456 AF. The City currently uses less than its allocated amount of water from the SFPUC, and is not expected to exceed its water allocation through 2030,taking into account increases in City population through build-out consistent with its comprehensive plan. The water supply is sufficient for current demand, and for future demand projections. The water supply of the City is sufficient to serve the proposed project; this impact would be less than significant. b, e)The proposed project would be served by the Palo Alto Water Quality Control Plant (PARWQCP). The PARWQCP has a treatment capacity of up to 39 MGD. In 2005, wastewater flows were approximately 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -92 - 25 MGD. The plant is projected to treat 30 MGD in 2030, taking into account increases in City population through build-out consistent with its comprehensive plan. The plant capacity is sufficient for current loads and for future load projections; there are no plans for expansion. The wastewater treatment provider has capacity to serve the proposed project; this impact would be less than significant. c)See Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Initial Study regarding the potential for expansion of existing storm-water drainage facilities. This impact would be less than significant. f)According the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), each resident in the City generates approximately one pound of waste per day. Based on this figure, and the estimate the proposed project would generate approximately 188 persons, the residential portion of the proposed project would generate approximately 188 pounds of waste per day, or 68,620 pounds (34 tons) of waste per year; however, this number would be expected to slightlyless, because the residential portion of the proposed project would be multi-family residential, which typically produces less waste than single-family residential units. According the CIWMB, the waste generation rate for industrial uses is approximately62.5 pounds per 1,000 square feet of floor area, per day. As the industrial portion of the proposed project would include 50,467 sf of industrial use, the industrial portion of the proposed project would generate approximately3,154 pounds of waste per day, or 1,151,278 pounds (576 tons) of waste per year. The proposed project is estimated to create approximately 610 tons of solid waste a year; however, Public Resources Code Section 41780 (California Integrated Waste Management Act) requires that at least 50 percent of this waste be diverted from landfills. If the proposed project were to divert the minimum required amount of its solid waste (50 percent), the increase of 305 tons per year from the proposed project would be about 0.2 percent of the 195,273 tons of solid waste generated bythe City in 2006. KirbyCanyon Landfill (the City’s landfill -closing in 2011) and Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer (SMART) recycling center currently have enough capacityto accommodate this increase in solid waste. From 2006 to 2007, the SMART Station had, on average, 21 percent of its permitted dailycapacity remaining. The SMART Station received an average dailytonnage of 1,188 tons, or about 79 percent of its 1,500-ton permitted daily capacity from 2006 to 2007. Impacts as a result of the proposed project on landfill capacity would be less than significant. g)The proposed project would be required to comply with the following State and local regulations governing solid waste: California Integrated Waste Management Act State and local agencies are required to implement a waste management program in their jurisdiction. In particular, Public Resources Code Section 41780 mandates that 50 percent of solid waste be diverted from landfills by encouraging reuse, reduction, and recycling. Zero Waste Strategic Plan On November 15, 2004, the City Council directed Citystaff to prepare a Zero Waste Strategic Plan for the community. The goal of the plan is to reduce the amount of waste going to landfills by90 percent or more. The plan, adopted in October 2005, identifies the key objectives and strategies needed to reach zero waste including both reducing the creation of waste through policies and incentives designed to eliminate waste at 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -93 - the source and maximizing recycling through expanded collection programs, processing facilities, education, outreach, and technical assistance. According to the CIWMB, the City of Palo Alto currently has: 1) Residential Curbside Recyclable Collection, 2) Residential Curbside Greenwaste Collection, and 3) Residential Curbside Household Hazardous Waste Collection. Participation in the City’s Zero Waste Strategic Plan would ensure compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act. Because the City has a sufficient diversion capacity to ensure compliance with State and local statutes, regulations, and plans related to solid waste, the proposed project would have no impact. Residual Impact:Less than significant Mitigation Measures:None required Cumulative Analysis Because the proposed project would not adversely impact storm water conditions, it would not contribute to cumulative storm water impacts.Further, the proposed project would not substantiallyimpact water supply. Existing service provision plans in the City of Palo Alto address anticipated growth in the region and therefore would not have a significant cumulative effect on water.The proposed project would not substantially impact wastewater services in the project area because existing service plans address anticipated growth in the region.Therefore, the proposed projects, in addition to other foreseeable projects (such as the two mixed-use developments and the HST), would not have a significant cumulative effect on wastewater facilities.Finally, proposed project would not substantially impact solid waste services in the project area. The existing service provision plans address service provision for anticipated growth in the region. Therefore, the proposed project, in addition to other foreseeable projects, would not have a significant cumulative effect on solid waste facilities.Overall, the proposed project would not contribute cumulatively to utility and service system impacts, and impacts would be less than significant. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -94 - Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated* Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 36 X b)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)? 36 X c)Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 36 X a)Air, soil, and water pollution, wasteful consumption of resources, alteration of hydro-geological cycles, and/or substantial noise generation have the potential to degrade environmental quality. As explained throughout this document, the proposed project would not have significant impacts with respect to these issues: ·The proposed project would not generate substantial emissions or noise during construction or operation.Refer to Air Quality and Noise sections for further discussion. ·The proposed land uses would not use substantial quantities of hazardous materials, and activities associated with the project would comply with regulatory policies pertaining to the handling and transport of hazardous materials, minimizing the risk of release. Refer to Hazards and Hazardous Materials section for further discussion. ·Stormwater runoff from the project site, and the non-point source pollution associated with it, would be controlled through best management practices. Refer to Hydrologyand Water Quality section for more detailed explanation. ·The proposed project would not result in the wasteful consumption of resources, such as water and energy. Refer to Utilities section for more detailed explanation. The proposed project would not substantially reduce habitat or contribute to the decline of species populations. As a previously developed site with minimal vegetative cover, the project site does not support sensitive habitat. Connectivity to intact natural habitat is poor, because the project site is surrounded by other existing development and roadways. There is no natural surface water on or adjacent to the project 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -95 - site, nor are there federally protected wetlands or riparian habitat. Impacts to nesting birds, which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty, would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. As explained in the Cultural Resources section, there are no historic buildings or structures on the project site. There is limited potential that archaeological or paleontological resources could be buried beneath the surface; because the site was previously developed, it is unlikely that such resources would be encountered during construction. Mitigation is provided to ensure that impacts on such resources would be less than significant. b)Impacts associated with cumulative development are described in applicable topic sections, as summarized below: ·Cumulative development is likely to result in an increase in population and demand for school capacity. Refer to Public Services section for more detailed explanation. ·The projected increases in traffic volumes between 2012 and 2015 will result in the Foothill Expressway/Page Mill Expressway intersection degrading from LOS E to F during both the AM and PM peak hours, the intersection of Hanover Street and Page Mill Expressway degrading from LOS D to E during both the AM and PM peak hours, and the intersection of El Camino Real, Charleston Road, and Arastradero Road degrading from LOS D to E in the PM peak hour. Although these cumulative impacts would be significant, the project’s contributions to both cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. c)Certain types of physical and environmental effects have the potential to adversely affect human health, safety, and/or qualityof life. Although several topics analyzed in the IS/MND describe the potential for the proposed project to expose humans to such effects, all impacts would be less than significant (mitigation is noted where applicable): ·The proposed project would not expose residents, employees, and visitors to significant hazards, such as geologic hazards, flooding, hazards associated with proximity to an airport, or wildland fires. Refer to Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Hazards and Hazardous Materials sections for more detailed explanation. ·The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial air and noise emissions. Interior noise levels would be reduced through mitigation. Refer to Air Quality and Noise sections for more detailed explanation. ·The proposed project would not expose residents, employees, and visitors to soil or water pollution. Although residual petroleum hydrocarbons have been detected in soil samples at the project site, contamination is below current regulatory ESLs. Vapors from a contaminated groundwater plume known to be below the project site could enter the proposed building; however, a vapor barrier would be installed and a subsurface vapor collection and venting system would be constructed and monitored to prevent soil-vapor intrusion. Soils removed during construction would be segregated for further testing and remediation, as needed. Refer to Hazards and Hazardous Materials section for more detailed explanation. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -96 - ·The proposed project would not adversely impact the City’s ability to provide adequate utilities, public services or recreational facilities. Refer to Utilities and Service Systems, Public Services, and Recreation sections for more detailed explanation. Therefore, the proposed project would not have environmental effects, which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Impacts would be less than significant. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -97 - Global Climate Change Impacts Global climate change is the alteration of the Earth’s weather including its temperature, precipitation, and wind patterns. Global temperatures are affected by naturally occurring atmospheric and anthropogenic gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. These gases allow sunlight into the Earth’s atmosphere, but prevent radiant heat from escaping from the atmosphere, which is known as the “greenhouse” effect. The world’s leading climate scientists have reached consensus that global climate change is underway and that human activity is a contributing factor. Twenty agencies at the international, national, state, and local levels are considering strategies to control emissions of gases that contribute to global warming. There is no comprehensive strategy that is being implemented on a global scale that addresses climate change; however, in California a multiagency“Climate Action Team”, has identified a range of strategies and the Air Resources Board, under Assembly Bill (AB)32, has been designated to adopt the main plan for reducing California's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by January 1, 2009, and regulations and other initiatives for reducing GHG emissions by January1, 2011. AB 32 requires achievement by2020 of a statewide GHG emissions limit equivalent to 1990 emissions, and the adoption of rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emissions reductions. By 2050, the state plans to reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. Although the State of California has established programs to reduce GHG emissions, there are no established standards for gauging the significance of GHG emissions.Neither CEQA nor the CEQA Guidelines provide any methodology for analysis of GHGs. Given the “global” scope of global climate change, the challenge under CEQA is for a Lead Agency to translate the issue down to the level of a CEQA document for a specific project in a way that is meaningful to the decision making process. Under CEQA, the essential questions are whether a project creates or contributes to an environmental impact or is subject to impacts from the environment in which it would occur, and what mitigation measures are available to avoid or reduce the impacts. The proposed project would generate GHGs primarily through electricity generation and use and the creation of vehicle trips. Efforts to reduce the project’s GHG emissions by reducing electricitydemand and reducing vehicle trips and miles, therefore, should be implemented. The proposed project would conform to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and other policies to reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled. Given the overwhelming scope of global climate change, it is not anticipated that a single development project would have an individually discernable effect on global climate change (e.g., that any change in global temperature or sea level could be attributed to the GHG emissions resulting from one single development project). Rather, it is more appropriate to conclude that the GHG emissions generated by the proposed project would combine with emissions across the state, nation, and globe to cumulatively contribute to global climate change. Declaring whether a GHG emission impact is significant implies some knowledge of incremental effects that is several years away, at best. To determine whether the proposed project would have a significant impact on global climate change is speculative,particularly given the fact that there are no existing numerical thresholds against which to measure an impact. To make a good faith effort at disclosing environmental impacts and to conform with the CEQA Guidelines [Section 16064(b)], it is the City’s position that, based on the nature and size of this development project; its location in an established urban area served by existing infrastructure (rather than a greenfield site); and the transit oriented nature of the project’s nominal percentage increase in GHG emissions, the proposed project would not impede the State of California’s ability to reach the emission reduction limits and standards set forth by the by Executive Order S-3-05 and AB 32. Over the long term, regional planning agencies expect that intensifying land uses near transit would lead to reduced dependence on the automobile and increased 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -98 - transit ridership, thereby reducing vehicular emissions. If this reasoning is borne out, this project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change associated with GHG emissions. The project is required to follow the California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen) as amended locally to require Tier 2 items as mandatory for the non-residential component of the building. The Build It Green Green Point Rated checklist may be used for the residential component of the building.132 Implementation of these green building strategies is considered a good faith effort to reduce the proposed project’s impact on climate change. Consequently, to the best of our knowledge, the proposed project would result in less- than-significant global climate change and cumulative impacts. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS INITIAL EVALUATION/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED MAY 6, 2011, PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS PARK PLAZA (08PLN-00000- 00281 AND 10PLN-00000-00344), PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN. ___________________________________________________ Applicant's Signature Date 132 California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -99 - Summary of Mitigation Measures MM-1:Implementation of ARB Recommendations AnyArchitectural Review conditions of approval, with respect to the design of the proposed project, shall be incorporated into the final design by the applicant. MM-2:Indoor Air Filtration A central HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) shall be installed that includes high efficiency filters for particulates (MERV-13 or higher). The system should operate to maintain positive pressure within the building interior to prevent infiltration of outdoor air indoors. MM-3:Protection of Nesting Birds The applicant shall abide by all provisions of Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game Code and Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) as published in the Federal Register (Vol.70, No.49; March 15, 2005). Although there is no vegetation on the project site that may contain nesting birds, there may be nesting birds in existing vegetation abutting the proposed project site (e.g., in the Caltrain property). To protect any nesting birds, the proposed project may avoid construction during the nesting period. Alternatively, a qualified wildlife biologist (to be hired by the applicant) shall conduct a survey for nesting birds that are covered by the MBTA and/or Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game Code in the vicinity of the project site. This survey shall cover all areas that would be disturbed as a result of construction related activities during the nesting period, and shall include a “buffer zone” (an area of potential sensitivity, beyond the bounds of the proposed project construction area) which shall be determined by the biologist based on his or her professional judgment and experience. This buffer zone may include off-site habitat. This biological survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the commencement of construction activities. The wildlife biologist shall provide a report to the City promptly, detailing the findings of the survey. No construction shall be conducted until this report has been provided to the City and the City has authorized in writing the commencement of construction activities in accord with the biologist’s findings. If nesting birds that are covered by the MBTA and/or Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game Code are discovered within the buffer zone, the report shall specifythe locations of the nests and shall establish an appropriate construction buffer zone around the nest location(s). Nests containing birds that are covered by the MBTA and/or Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game Code discovered on site or at off-site locations shall not be disturbed, and construction shall not occur within the appropriate construction buffer zone until a qualified wildlife biologist determines that the young have fledged and left the nest. MM-4:Protocol for Management of On-site Contamination a)A formal dewatering plan (Construction Dewatering ContingencyPlan) shall be prepared, consistent with Mitigation Measure MM-6 in Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality of this Initial Study and consistent with the City’s Construction Dewatering System Plan Preparation Guidelines and 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -100 - Dewatering from Construction Sites and In-ground Utilities Maintenance Manual. This plan shall be prepared and submitted for final approval by the City’s Public Works Department prior to issuance of Citypermits. The applicant shall provide information in the plan regarding the lateral and vertical distances to existing groundwater contamination plumes and an analysis of the potential impacts to those plumes caused by construction activity on the project property, including the use of dewatering sumps or wells under the proposed underground parking structure. Prior to submission to the City, this information shall be submitted to the RWQCB for approval that the proposed work on the subject property, including any use of dewatering sumps or dewatering wells would not have an adverse impact on the current and future cleanup effort of the HP-Varian or COE plumes. The approval shall be submitted to the City’s Public Works Department with the plan and shall verify that dewatering sumps or dewatering wells, if proposed, would not alter the path of the groundwater contamination plume(s) and could not result in 1)bringing groundwater contamination to the project site or 2)a possible future exposure of the public on the project site to groundwater contaminants. The plan shall identify testing and analysis methods, and treatment, if necessary, for disposal into the storm drain system to ensure compliance with the City’s Municipal NPDES permit. Sufficient personnel and material shall be provided by the applicant to implement the plan, should groundwater be encountered by the excavation. b)The applicant shall provide readyaccess to the project site for the CityBuilding Official, or a third party hired by the Building Official, at the owner's expense, that specializes in the monitoring of activities related to excavation and design features during project construction at sites with contaminated soil and groundwater, to inspect and enforce implementation of the Soil Management Plan prepared by Tucker Engineering addressing the procedures and precautions to be used for the proper containment, profiling, movement, exportation of soil, etc. during the excavation and construction period. c)The applicant shall provide ready access to the project site for the third party inspection service, which would report to the City and be financed by the applicant to inspect and enforce implementation of the Remedial Risk Management Plan (RRMP), including implementation of the Site Health and Safety Plan; contaminated soil sampling, excavation, and management; the dewatering contingency plan; reporting requirements; land use covenant and environmental restrictions; long term monitoring, inspections, contingencies, and enforcement. d)The applicant shall file documentation with the RWQCB, the third partyinspection service reporting to the City and financed by the applicant, and the City for final approval of the completion of the excavation, including soil sampling results within 60 days following the completion of excavation. e)Prior to issuance of the occupancypermit the applicant shall file documentation from an independent consultant specializing in vapor mitigation system design and installation for final approval bythe third party inspection service reporting to the Cityand financed bythe applicant confirming that each component (collection pipes, transmission pipes, inlets, risers, vents, etc.) of the vapor intrusion mitigation system (VIMS) has been installed in accordance with the recommendations of the Vapor Mitigation System and Monitoring Plan, and includes the installation of a full vapor barrier, which shall be a 60-mil thick, spray-applied membrane below the elevator shafts, stairwells, pipe chases, and entire floor-slab, as part of the active vapor collection and venting system (i.e., driven by electric 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -101 - fans at the effluent end of the VIMS riser pipes and enhanced by outside air entering through inlet vents) to be installed in the building to mitigate potential soil vapor intrusion. f)The applicant shall file documentation with the RWQCB and the City for final approval by the third party inspection service reporting to the City and financed by the applicant of installation of the VIMS, initial garage air sampling results, and the startup sub-slab vapor-riser monitoring results, with vapor-riser monitoring reports submitted as required by the RRMP, within 60 days following the completion of building construction. g)The applicant shall comply with contingencies regarding vapor monitoring to protect against potential vapor intrusion which would involve additional remediation if the results of the first six (monthly) monitoring events indicate any cause for concern. If the VIMS is operating correctly, monitoring would continue quarterly until vapor concentrations were reduced to 50 percent of the RWQCB ESLs and annually thereafter. If the third party inspection service determines that the VIMS is not functioning adequately, the system is required to be redesigned (under the supervision of the third party inspection service) for more effective removal of VOCs. Monitoring would continue until VOC concentrations were demonstrated to be maintained below the commercial ESLs, as recommended by the RWQCB. h)The applicant shall condition the lease agreements with each R&D tenant proposing to use hazardous materials to stipulate that the storage and use of hazardous materials within their space would not exceed the limits set by Tables 2703.1.1(1), (2), and (3) Maximum Allowable Quantity Per Control Area of Hazardous Materials Posing a Physical Hazard, 2010 California Fire Code, Title 24, Part 9, Chapter 27, Section 2703.1.1. The space for each R&D tenant proposing to use hazardous materials shall be constructed as a separate compartment with one-hour rated walls, protected common openings, and separate ventilation systems. i)The applicant shall condition the lease agreements with each R&D tenant proposing to use hazardous materials to stipulate that the tenant shall comply with the City’s Hazardous Materials Reporting Requirements and shall prepare and file with the Fire Department, as appropriate, a Hazardous Materials Management Plan or a Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement providing sufficient information on how and where hazardous materials are handled by the business to allow fire, safety, health, and other appropriate personnel to prepare adequate emergency responses to potential releases of the hazardous materials. j)Monitoring wells encountered during site preparation or excavation shall be reported immediately to the RWQCB for its decision regarding proper abandonment or abandonment and replacement by the applicant. Work shall stop in proximity to the well(s) until the decision of the RWQCB is implemented. The applicant shall file documentation with the RWQCB and the City for final approval bythe CityBuilding Official, or a third party hired by the Building Official, at the owner's expense, that specializes in the monitoring of activities related to excavation and design features during project construction at sites with contaminated soil and groundwater, of proper abandonment or abandonment and replacement of any affected wells. MM-5: Grading and Drainage Plan 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -102 - The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan for the proposed project, for City approval prior to the issuance of a grading, excavation, or building permit. This grading and drainage plan shall comply with Engineering Design Standards for storm drain facilities, shall be designed to conveythe 10-year storm flow, and shall reflect the recommendations of the Joe Crosby and Associates Geotechnical Report, dated May 10, 2004. MM-6:Construction Dewatering Plan A construction dewatering plan shall be prepared consistent with Chapter 33 of the 2007 California Building Code, and shall be submitted to the Cityin association with all proposed sub-grade garage excavation activities prior to issuance of a grading, excavation or building permit. The applicant shall include the dewatering plan in the permit plan set submitted for approvals for anyexcavation activities on the project site. The plan shall provide a system that would remove silt and other pollutants from this water and place clean water into the City storm drain system. The applicant shall secure current data on the depth to groundwater immediatelyprior to excavation by using piezometers, or bydrilling exploratoryholes, if the deepest excavation would be less than four feet above the highest anticipated groundwater level. Should dewatering be necessary (i.e., if excavation would occur within four feet above the highest anticipated groundwater level and the piezometer investigation revealed the presence of free groundwater within four feet above that highest anticipated groundwater level), the applicant shall secure City permits associated with the placement of dewatering equipment or actual dewatering and excavation activities on the project site or the abutting public right-of-way prior to beginning excavation. Upon installation, the dewatering system shall reflect BMPs that ensure the water discharged would be of appropriate quality. The installation shall be approved by a City field inspector prior to the commencement of construction water discharge to the storm drain. Extracted groundwater shall be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. Testing shall be performed by an independent testing firm hired bythe Building Official, at the owner's expense. Any dewatering to occur in the public right-of-way shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department. MM-7:Indoor Noise Minimization The project shall include design features as specified in the project noise assessment to reduce the indoor noise levels to meet the interior noise standards prescribed by the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Policy N-39. MM-8:Pedestrian Warning System A vehicle exiting/pedestrian warning system shall be installed for the underground parking garage driveway to eliminate potential conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists. MM-9:Transportation Demand Management Plan A Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) program shall be implemented as approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The TDM shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits and shall include a shared parking analysis based on the number of assigned parking spaces, and may incorporate (but shall not be limited to) such 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -103 - features as: developer-sponsored subsidized transit passes for residents and employees, a transportation coordinator, convenient displays of alternative travel options, and unbundling of parking, if such features are determined to be adequately effective by the Director of Planning and CommunityEnvironment in reducing parking demand. The TDM program shall be subject to further review after building occupancy pursuant to PAMC 18.52.050(d)(3) and (4). City of Palo Alto Page 1 PLANNING &TRANSPORTATION DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM:Amy French DEPARTMENT:Planning and Acting Chief Planning Official Community Environment DATE:August 24, 2011 SUBJECT:195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard [10-PLN-00344]: Request by Hohbach Realty Company for approval of a Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes to create: (1) 84 residential units on the two upper floors (106,320 sq.ft.) including 17 below market rate housing units;(2) common areas associated with these residential units and (3) ground floor (50,467 sq.ft.) Research and Development use and subterranean garage to remain owned by the developer, subject to easements for utilities, support and access for the benefit of the residential condominium portion of the building. Zone: GM. Environmental Assessment:An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared and was tentatively approved by the Director on July 12, 2011 in conjunction with the application for Architectural Review (AR), in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Record of Land Use Action (ROLUA), enclosed as Attachment A and proposed Tentative Map (Attachment I) for condominium purposes, to create 84 residential condominium units and common areas within the upper floors at 195 Page Mill Road/2865 Park Boulevard. The Commission’s recommendations should be specific to the highlighted findings and actions related to the map and Mitigated Negative Declaration shown in Attachment A, Section 3A (map findings on pages 3-6) and Section 4 (map approval conditions on pages 9-13). BACKGROUND The action requested of the Commission is to provide a recommendation to approve the Tentative Map (Attachment I). Background information related to the Park Plaza development project’s details and history has been included within the draft Record of Land Use Action, which contains findings and conditions of approval for Council action on the Tentative Map as City of Palo Alto Page 2 well as on the Architectural Review (AR) application, since a timely appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s decision by Mr. Robert Moss was received on July 25, 2011. The attached Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment D) addresses both the proposed development project and the tentative map. Scope of Commission Review The scope of the Commission’s review for the purposes of this Tentative Map application is limited to the “design” and “improvement” of the proposed subdivision. In this context, the terms “design” and “improvement” are defined in the Subdivision Map Act as follows: "Design" means: (1) street alignments, grades and widths; (2) drainage and sanitary facilities and utilities, including alignments and grades thereof; (3) location and size of all required easements and rights-of-way; (4) fire roads and firebreaks; (5) lot size and configuration; (6) traffic access; (7) grading; (8) land to be dedicated for park or recreational purposes; and (9) other specific physical requirements in the plan and configuration of the entire subdivision that are necessary to ensure consistency with, or implementation of, the general plan or any applicable specific plan as required pursuant to Section 66473.5 (Government Code, section 66418). (a) "Improvement" refers to any street work and utilities to be installed, or agreed to be installed, by the subdivider on the land to be used for public or private streets, highways, ways, and easements, as are necessary for the general use of the lot owners in the subdivision and local neighborhood traffic and drainage needs as a condition precedent to the approval and acceptance of the final map thereof. (b) "Improvement"also refers to any other specific improvements or types of improvements, the installation of which, either by the subdivider, by public agencies, by private utilities, by any other entity approved by the local agency, or by a combination thereof, is necessary to ensure consistency with, or implementation of, the general plan or any applicable specific plan. (Government Code, section 66419) The design and improvement of the subdivision should be distinguished from the design of the approved structures to be located within the subdivision. The AR site and floor plans and elevations (Attachment J) are provided to the Commission for information. The conceptual street improvement plans that accompanied the AR application are provided for Commission review, since the public right-of-way designs are also a part of the map process. Public right-of- way improvement plans are required to be submitted to Public Works Engineering Services staff following Tentative Map approvals and prior to Final Map review and approval by Council. The required improvement plans would need to be consistent with the right of way improvements that were shown in the AR plan set approved in concept by the Director but now subject to Council action on appeal. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Architectural Review On July 7, 2011, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommended approval, on a 3-2 vote, of the Park Plaza development project following the ARB’s third public hearing. Comments on the Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were received during the hearing and verbatim minutes are being prepared because of the appeal. Previous ARB hearings on this application were held on May 19, 2011, and December 3, 2009. The ARB’s recommended conditions included a requirement for the applicant to present several design details to a two member subcommittee of the ARB. On July 12, 2011, the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) with Initial Study, Attachment D, prior to approving the Architectural Review application. The site plan and elevations (Attachment J) are provided to allow the Commission to understand how the overall project now going to City Council for action relates to the Tentative Map application. Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.77.070 (d)(3), the Director’s July 12, 2011 AR decision (Attachment C) would have become effective on July 27, 2011. Since an appeal of the AR was received, however, the Council will now be presented with the AR appeal in conjunction with the Tentative Map. The Initial Study (IS) /MND is subject to review by the City Council along with the Director’s AR approval and Tentative Map. Additional background information providing further project description and detailing the ARB consideration of the project is available in the ARB staff reports, which are provided to the Commissioners and can be found on the City’s website at www.cityofpaloalto.org/know zone/ARB/agendas (by meeting date). Verbatim minutes of the July 7, 2011 ARB hearing were prepared for the Council hearing and are also provided to Commissioners (Attachment G). The November 3, 2009 ARB report provides background on the previous AR application recommended by the ARB and acted upon by City Council in 2006. The previous Park Plaza project also included 84 residential units but had fewer bedrooms (134 bedrooms compared to the 152 bedrooms of the current project) with a different distribution (38 one-bedroom units, 42 2-bedroom units, and 4 3-bedroom units for a total of 134 bedrooms). Tentative Map The Discussion section below contains the project description and other specifics with regard to the current Tentative Map application. A Tentative Map for condominium purposes for the 2006 Park Plaza development project was brought forward to the Commission on June 13, 2007 and a hearing was conducted. Due to a tie vote (3-3-1), no recommendation was made to Council. Minutes of the Commission hearing are attached to this report (Attachment F). The previous map reviewed by the Commission (but never by City Council) was also for 84 residential condominiums, but the research and development space was to be subdivided into 11 commercial condominiums (whereas the current map retains the entire ground floor as a single property owner with no subdivision thereof proposed). The map was never considered by the Council due to the litigation, which invalidated the project approval. City of Palo Alto Page 4 The previous map was viewed by the Commission as being inconsistent with the Park Plaza “rental” project approved by City Council in 2006. The applicant has, since that time, obtained a Certificate of Compliance to merge the three parcels (approved February 8, 2010 and recorded July 1, 2010). Therefore, the map now before the Commission does not include the merging of underlying parcels, only the condominium configuration. The current map for condominium purposes is also consistent with the scope of the AR application and IS/MND reviewed by the ARB and approved by the Director, now subject to Council action on appeal. A related challenge for the Commission was that separate environmental reviews were prepared for the sequential applications, due to the timing of the subsequent tentative map submittal. There was confusion regarding how the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s ongoing review of the mitigation for the development project was related to the second environmental document prepared for the map. The Initial Study/Negative Declaration prepared for the map application referred to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that had been adopted in 2006 by Council for the appealed development project. In 2007, Robert Moss brought a writ of mandate action in Superior Court, challenging the MND and Council decision for the 2006 Architectural Review approval. While the court upheld the City’s decisions regarding Architectural Review and the application of the Density Bonus Law, the court found that the MND should have been re-circulated because the City adjusted a mitigation measure in the MND following the initial Council meeting (November 20) but prior to the final Council meeting (December 11). The result was that the Council’s decision on the project was nullified and the map application was then no longer applicable. DISCUSSION Project Description The proposed Tentative Map is for Research and Development and condominium purposes for the Park Plaza development. The parcel’s gross area is 109,941 square feet (2.52 acres), while the net area is 104,972 square feet (2.4 acres) excluding the street easement area. The Tentative Map drawings are in conformance with the requirements set forth in Title 21 (Subdivisions), Chapter 21.12 (Tentative Maps), and Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). The Tentative Map is consistent with the approved Architectural Review application, and includes information on the existing parcel and onsite conditions. Improvement plans for the sidewalk, street trees, and other public right of way improvements would be reviewed by the City’s Public Works Engineer and other staff prior to submittal of a Final Map. The approved ARB plan set includes a 139’ left turn stacking lane on Park Boulevard to facilitate left turns onto Park Boulevard. This will be funded and implemented by the applicant; a condition of approval to this effect has been added to the Tentative Map approval conditions (Condition 19). The developer intends to rent the 84 residential units as apartments, but wants to provide for the possible future conversion of the residential units to condominiums. This Tentative Map, along with a Final Map and recording thereof with the County of Santa Clara, would allow for the City of Palo Alto Page 5 future conversion of the rental units to condominium units. A description of how the residential units could be structured as condominiums is set forth in the letter prepared by the applicant’s attorney (Attachment B). Condominium Configuration The 84 residential units (initially rental but potential condominium) would be located on the two upper floors, which would have a total floor area of 106,320 square feet. The 84 units would include 17 Below Market Rate (BMR) units, further described later in this report. The 84 residential units would include 20 one-bedroom/one bath units, 60 two-bedroom/two bath units, and four three bedroom/two bath units for a total of 152 bedrooms. The three bedroom units are shown located at the building corners facing Park Boulevard on the floor plans. There are 30 two-bedroom units and 10 one-bedroom units on each floor, facing the courtyard and outer building faces. The units on the east side of the project, the side facing the Caltrain/JPB right of way,. are buffered from train noise by a corridor. The windows and private balconies of those units face the interior courtyard. All but two of the residential units would have private balconies and all residents would also have use of the building amenities (pool, gym, etc.). There are four elevators and four stairwells (near each building corner) to provide access to the ground floor and the subterranean parking garage. The ground floor commercial space would contain 50,467 sq. ft. of floor area for Research and Development use, and would remain owned by the developer –a condominium unit would not be created for the ground floor space by itself. The subterranean garage and land, along with the ground floor space, would remain under the developer’s ownership. In the event of conversion, the future residential condominium owners would have an undivided interest (legal, fee title) in the “common areas” of the entire building –including features within the first floor area and basement –namely, the elevators, stairways, first floor entry level lobbies, and easements for utilities and structural elements, trash chutes and associated trash areas –and the upper floor common areas such as the pool. The applicant intends to maintain the residential units as rental units as long as he owns the property. The areas remaining within ownership of the developer at grade and below grade needed for use by the residential occupants would have easements recorded to facilitate future residential condominium owner use. This would include the parking garage and driveways, ground floor plaza and surface parking area, landscaped areas, trash collection areas, elevators and stair areas, utility facilities and structural elements. The surface parking area within the interior courtyard area would provide 17 improved vehicle parking spaces and 9 “landscape reserve” spaces (for potential future conversion to vehicle parking spaces). The below grade parking garage would provide a total of 276 vehicle spaces. Access to both surface and below grade parking facilities would be via driveways from Park Boulevard. Bicycle lockers for each residential unit are shown in the below grade parking facility. Bicycle lockers for use by the R&D building tenants are shown adjacent to the R&D building, near the at-grade driveway entrance to the visitor parking located at the surface level and would be screened from direct view from the Park Boulevard public right of way. City of Palo Alto Page 6 BMR Units and Housing Concessions The 17 Below Market Rate (BMR) housing units are required to meet the City’s requirement to be of similar size and quality as the market rate units. The two concessions pursuant to housing density bonus law (Govt. Code Section 65915-65918) granted as a part of the AR approval were based upon the provision of 20% of the overall number of units as Below Market Rate units for low and very-low income tenants. The two housing concessions were related to a) allowing mixed use in the GM zone, and b) allowing an FAR to exceed 0.5 in the GM zone. The proposed BMR units include four one-bedroom units, three of which would be designated for very low-income occupants, and one of which would be designated for low-income occupants. The proposal includes 13 two-bedroom BMR units, five of which would be designated for very low-income occupants and eight of which would be designated for low- income occupants. The BMR agreement will be finalized prior to the approval of the Final Map. SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES City staff has determined that the Tentative Map application is in compliance with zoning, subdivision, and other codes and ordinances.The map contains all information and notations required to be shown on a Tentative Map (per PAMC Sections 21.12.040).The findings allowing for Council approval of the map are included in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). Pursuant to the State subdivision Map Act, the required findings are stated in the negative such that if any of the findings are made the map shall be denied. Staff believes none of the findings can be made to require denial of the map, so it must be approved. The subdivision findings and action on the map and MND are highlighted for Commission action in Attachment A. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposed subdivision is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The “Research and Development” commercial use of the development is consistent with the associated land use designation of Light Industrial use. The residential use of the site is consistent with the City’s Housing Element which includes this parcel on the Housing Sites Inventory as a site for high density residential housing. The mixed use and residential emphasis is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of “Transit Oriented Residential” land use in proximity to the California Avenue Caltrain station. TIMELINE Upon recommendation by the PTC, the project application will be forwarded to City Council for final action on the Tentative Map, tentatively scheduled for September 19, 2011. The City Council would consider the ARB appeal in conjunction with the Tentative Map on that date. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Initial Study/Draft MND for the Park Plaza project was circulated prior to the ARB recommendation and the Director’s tentative decision and included the proposal for the Tentative Map for condominium purposes. The document was circulated for 30 days for public review and comment. The end of public comment period was June 7, 2011. Comments were received from City of Palo Alto Page 7 three interested parties (Mr. Robert Moss, Mr. Herb Borock, and Mr. Roger Papler of the Regional Water Quality Control Board). The IS/MND (Attachment D) was clarified by the City’s environmental consultants to address the comments made by Mr. Moss and Mr. Papler, regarding groundwater contamination issues. No additional impacts were identified, nor were additional mitigation measures proposed; therefore, the document was not required to be re- circulated. Mr. Borock’s letters are included within Public Correspondence attached to this report (Attachment H). The primary issue of concern was the mitigation of potential groundwater contamination underlying the site, particularly with respect to the residential use. Mitigation proposed included both a vapor barrier underlying the entire building garage footprint and “active” ventilation to assure any such vapors are dissipated away from the building. Monitoring is also required to determine if any future additional actions might be appropriate. Of greatest significance, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has approved the mitigation, and the Board staff as well as the City’s environmental consultants find the adopted mitigation to be a conservative approach. A secondary issue raised was the use of hazardous materials allowed on the first floor, below residential units. The levels of materials allowed would be stipulated in the R&D tenant lease agreement and would be minimal, in nominal quantities that would not exceed limits cited in the MND nor require the Fire Department to label or inspect the facilities, though reporting per the City’s Hazardous Materials Reporting Requirements may be required for certain substances even if quantities are below the reporting threshold. The tenant would have to file a registration form (aka Short Form Hazardous Materials Management Plan) but no specific permits would be required below nominal use thresholds (10 gallons liquid, 100 pounds solids or 200 cubic feet compressed gas) per the City’s Fire Department staff. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A:Draft Record of Land Use Action including Conditions of Approval Attachment B:Applicant’s Letter dated August 10, 2011 on Condominium Strategy* Attachment C:Director’s Architectural Review Approval Letter dated July 12, 2011 Attachment D:Initial Study/MND (Commissioners and Libraries only and available online at www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/planning.asp Attachment E:ARB Reports without Attachments (Commissioners and Libraries only and available online at www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/planning.asp Attachment F:June 13, 2007 PTC Meeting Minutes (Commissioners and Libraries only) Attachment G:July 7, 2011 ARB Meeting Minutes (Commissioners and Libraries only) Attachment H:Public Correspondence Attachment I:Tentative Map (Commissioners and Libraries only)* Attachment J:ARB Approved Site and Floor Plans/Elevations (Commissioners and Libraries only)* *Prepared by Applicant City of Palo Alto Page 8 COURTESY COPIES: Harold Hohbach Jim Janz Bob Moss Herb Borock PREPARED BY: Amy French, Acting Chief Planning Official DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: ______________ Curtis Williams, Director City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 1 of 28 Wednesday, August 24, 20111 6:00 PM, El Camino Real Design Room2 Downtown Library3 270 Forest Avenue4 Palo Alto, California 943015 6 ROLL CALL:6:05 pm7 8 PTC Commissioners:Staff:9 Samir Tuma –Chair Curtis Williams, Planning Director10 Lee Lippert –V-Chair (absent)Donald Larkin, Sr. Assist. City Attorney11 Daniel Garber Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official12 Susan Fineberg Gil Candelaria, Parking Consultant13 Eduardo Martinez Amy French, Current Planning Manager14 Arthur Keller Zariah Betten, Admin. Assoc. III15 Greg Tanaka16 17 AGENDIZED ITEMS:18 19 1.Selection of Chair and Vice Chair20 2. Parking Program Study Session 21 3.195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard22 4.Topics of Discussion for the Joint Council/PTC Meeting of September 19, 201123 ______________________________________________________________________________24 3.195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard*: Request by Hohbach Realty Company 25 for approval of a Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes to create: 1) 84 residential 26 units on the two upper floors (106,320 sq.ft.) including 17 below market rate housing 27 units; 2) common areas associated with these residential units and; 3) ground floor 28 (50,467 sq.ft.) Research and Development use and subterranean garage to remain owned 29 by the developer,subject to easements for utilities, support and access for the benefit of 30 the residential condominium portion of the building. Zone: GM. Environmental 31 Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been 32 prepared and was tentatively approved by the Director on July 12, 2011 in conjunction 33 with the application for Architectural Review (AR), in accordance with the California 34 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The PTC is requested to review and recommend the 35 Mitigated Negative Declaration with respect to the Tentative Map.36 37 Chair Tuma: We will have a presentation from the applicant for 15 minutes and then we will go 38 to public comment and closing comments and then we will come back to the commission. 39 Welcome.40 41 Amy French, Current Planning Manager: Thank you. The Park Plaza project is a three story 42 mixed use building to be located on a single parcel comprised of 2.52 acres in gross lot area at 43 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard. On September 19th the City Council will be 44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 2 of 28 requested to review the Mitigated Negative Declaration, prepared with the help of a consultant 1 who is here in the audience tonight, the Architectural Review Application which has been 2 appealed by a member of the audience as well, and the tentative map before you tonight, which 3 is for 84 residential condominium units on the upper floors of the building, the lower or ground 4 floor being the research and development space and that would be retained by the owner. The 5 tentative map would allow for future potential conversation of what is initially intended to be 6 residential rental units to ownership units.7 8 The R&D space is 50,467 square feet on the ground floor and the residential area is 104,971 9 square feet in the upper floors. 17 below market rate housing units are among the units. The 10 configuration of the condominium units is noted on page 5 of the staff report. There is a 11 subterranean parking garage as well as a surface parking lot, and the offsite improvements 12 include street trees, bulb-outs and a left turn stacking lane on Park Blvd. to take you left onto 13 Page Mill. 14 15 The project includes concessions granted under state Density Bonus Law (Government Code 16 65915, Senate Bill 1818) because 20% of the residential units would be affordable to low and 17 very low income residents. The two concessions requested under Senate Bill 1818 in this case 18 are an allowance of the mixed use where residential is not permitted otherwise within the GM 19 zone district and additional floor area beyond that allowed in the GM zone district. The FAR of 20 the residential component is a 1.02 whereas the research and development component is a 0.5 or 21 a 0.48. The Architectural Review Approval by the director was following the Architectural 22 Review Board public hearing. That was the third public hearing and there was a 3-2 vote. As I 23 noted it has been appealed. The appellant had forwarded a letter this weekend to the 24 Commission, so I imagine you all received that.25 26 Boardmembers Young and Lew are attending the meeting tonight to represent the ARB’s views 27 on the project. The Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for this 28 project and went to the ARB and did include the tentative map as a part of the project. So, the 29 last time this Commission reviewed a tentative map on this site, it had been in 2007 following 30 the Architectural Review Board and then council approval of a project. There were two separate 31 environmental documents for that project and there were also for that project merging of separate 32 parcels into the one site. This time you have one parcel that had been merged through a 33 certificate of compliance project. So this time you have one parcel being subdivided for the 34 purpose of condominiums and there is just one ground floor space rather than 11 condominium 35 R&D spaces as you had seen last time in 2007 for the previous project.36 37 The MND does address the potential impacts of vapor intrusion from the toxic groundwater 38 plume to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Quality Review Board which is the agency 39 having jurisdiction over this non-federal project in Palo Alto. There is also a nominal level of 40 materials to be stored in association with R&D use. Our MND also addresses the mitigation of 41 those potential health hazards for the residential tenants. 42 43 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 3 of 28 The Planning Commission is asked to consider the initial study Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 for the project because of the associated Tentative Map, which is within your review purview. 2 The city’s process does require Architectural Review of development projects prior to 3 Commission review of associated vesting tentative maps and that’s for good reason. Non-4 vesting tentative maps are not required to go through ARB before Planning Commission but in 5 this case the Architectural Review application was submitted first in 2008. It was followed in 6 2010 with the Tentative Map, so we had gone with ARB and here we are following ARB at the 7 Planning Commission.8 9 The applicant does intend to fully initially rent all of the 84 residential units and that intention 10 has been clear throughout this application process. The city staff has determined of course that 11 this Tentative Map is compliant with the AR plan, zoning and subdivision and other codes and 12 ordinances. All notations and information required to be on the map is provided and the findings 13 and conditions are highlighted on the Record of Land Use Action for ease of finding for the 14 Planning and Transportation Commissioners. Because the Record of Land Use Action is going 15 to council, it does include findings and conditions for the Architectural Review component of the 16 application.17 18 The Commission’s purview is identified in the staff report. Attorney Larkin may have 19 something to add to that in that regard. Another thing I thought we might find ourselves 20 discussing is: the projects that include the request for concessions under this SB1818 are not 21 automatically deferred to the Planning Commission. In this case it is an Architectural Review 22 application. The concessions were requested and reviewed and granted by the Director 23 following ARB and they aren’t considered Variances so they don’t have a track that goes to the 24 Planning and Transportation Commission. The city’s ordinances don’t provide guidelines on the 25 processing of concessions. I think basically we would just support that the findings can’t be 26 made for the map in the negative to require denial of the map, so it must be approved. Do you 27 have anything to add on there?28 29 Donald Larkin, Senior Asst. City Attorney: I think you covered it adequately.30 31 Commissioner Garber: There is information in the staff report that we don’t have any detail on 32 the history of this project and we’ll try to handle this as well but as you can tell there is an 33 extensive history on this project.34 35 Ms. French:The application team is here for any questions. 36 37 Chair Tuma: Before we go to the applicant I would ask members of the ARB if they had 38 anything they would like to add or whether their here to answer any questions. If you would like 39 to give your thoughts we’d welcome it. 40 41 Ms. Heather Young, ARB Rep.: We are here to answer questions. We are more than happy to 42 do a brief overview if that would help in addition to the presentation.43 44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 4 of 28 Chair Tuma: I think briefly that would be helpful if you don’t mind. 1 2 Heather Young, Vice Chair of ARB: Hi I’m Heather Young and I am Vice Chair of the 3 Architectural Review Board. Also here is Boardmember Alex Lew. As Amy mentioned in her 4 report this proposal has come to the ARB for 3 formal presentations in the last 2 years. The last 5 was this past July 7th and at that point it was passed 3 to 2. I was one of the 3 and Alex is one of 6 the 2 just to give you a heads up. When it came back on the 7th there were a number of items 7 that had been brought up in the previous presentation that we asked the applicant to further 8 investigate and to bring back to us. Some of them were fairly minor and rather easily addressed. 9 The ones that evolved into a larger discussion were a potential setback for the residential units 10 along Akins and if I could just point to the plans here, this is part and Page Mill and there is a 11 proposal for the 2nd and 3rd floors to have residential units along the Akins property line. There 12 was a fairly long discussion and because of the zoning under which the residential units were 13 allowed, it appeared that the 5 foot setback which is pursued in these drawings was compliant 14 with the zoning. However, some of the board members felt that that may not have been the best 15 offset proposition for residential units, to have a 5 foot setback from a property line. 16 17 There was a fairly animated discussion as to how to best address this. The board could not come 18 to a majority consensus and we looked at it in a number of different ways and at the end I believe 19 our determination and Alex should jump in here, but our determination was that we could not 20 come to a consensus to mandate anything other than what was required in the zoning and that 21 any additional setback would be addressed if an applicant were to develop the Akins property 22 adjacent such that that property would be required to provide setbacks when you were adjacent 23 to a residential property. 24 25 Another issue that had a great deal of discussion was the design of a corner tower at the corner of 26 Page Mill and Park. That item had some evolution during the presentations and actually I 27 believe that is coming back to subcommittee as a condition of approval for some final tweaks. 28 The issue there is that the tower element was not just seen from Park and from Page Mill but also 29 from the train line and from Page Mill coming this way so it really was a 3 dimensional element 30 and not just a corner element. We were requesting that all 4 elevations be developed. 31 32 An additional issue that was continued over many presentations was a color palette. There are 33 some fairly primary colors that are presented as accents in some of the setback locations along 34 Park, Page Mill and along the train line corridor. The conclusion there was that the final 35 selection would be tweaked a little bit and again brought back to subcommittee. I think those 36 were sort of the primary architectural outstanding issues. You should also know Alex and I are 37 the subcommittee so if you have any questions for either of us we would be happy to respond.38 39 Chair Tuma: Does the applicant have a presentation? 40 41 Harold C. Hohbach, Hohbach Realty Company: I’m Harold C. Hohbach of Hobach Realty 42 Company, limited partnership. I really don’t have a lot to add. Amy French did an excellent job 43 understanding what’s all gone on. You may ask why are you here. We did a certificate of 44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 5 of 28 compliance because the staff recommended that and we did that. So why are we here? The Palo 1 Alto code requires if you have any parcel, even a single parcel with 2 acres, you have to go the 2 tentative map route through the Planning Commission and City Council so that’s why we’re 3 here. We have Jim Jantz who is a real estate attorney and Richard Campbell, the architect to 4 answer any questions you may have.5 6 Mr. Richard Campbell, Hoover Associates: Richard Campbell, with Hoover Associates, the 7 architect for the project. This project has gone through an extremely long review process with 8 the city. I don’t have all the dates but it went through 3 ARB hearings several years ago and was 9 approved and then because of a lawsuit all the approvals were set aside and we started through 10 the process again and we’ve had 3 more meetings so altogether 6 times before the ARB. If I had 11 about 3 hours I would go through that whole process with you.12 13 Several things about this project, I think Heather mentioned, there are still some issues we are 14 going to take up with the ARB subcommittee. Some of the detail design of the tower, some 15 color issues and adding some sunscreens to the building. One thing that has been very unusual 16 about this project is it is a corner site. It fronts on Page Mill and Park Blvd. The other side 17 fronts against private property. The foreside fronts onto Cal Train and that really presented some 18 kind of special problems for us. There is a code issue that says that noise levels in sleeping areas 19 can’t be over 40 decibels. We’ve had studies about the bullet train that is going to generate 20 about 105 decibels of sound right next to this building within maybe 100 feet and there was no 21 way we could find any kind of glazing system that could reduce the decibels by 65, especially 22 considering the fact that some of these rooms are sleeping rooms and are on the window side. 23 That’s why the rear elevation side of this project appears to be blank. There are no windows in 24 it. There are some windows on walls that are right angles but because of this noise issue we had 25 to avoid putting windows on the back individual. That’s one thing that makes this design 26 different from other projects that are looked at here in the city.27 28 Other than that what I’d like to do is make myself available if anyone has any questions or 29 comments.30 31 Chair Tuma: With that we will go to the public. I have only one card at this point and that is 32 from Mr. Moss and you will have 3 minutes.33 34 Mr. Robert Moss, Palo Alto:Thank you. I am going to elaborate a little bit on the various letters 35 I have sent. First of all, the staff report that says that it complies with the competency plan is 36 incorrect. It does not. It allows housing in the GM zone and the City Council explicitly said we 37 don’t want housing in the GM zone. It’s a violation of the competency plan and it’s a violation 38 of common sense. What this does is it applies the GM zoning envelope to residential use which 39 is not only absolutely unprecedented, it’s absolutely idiotic. It’s not the way you build housing 40 units. Putting the housing directly on the railroad track right of way is not good policy. 41 42 Secondly, there is no reason to have mixed use in this project. The staff says it was identified for 43 housing so you have to put housing on the site but you do not have to put both housing and 44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 6 of 28 R&D, especially R&D that has hazardous materials. That is unnecessary and it is dangerous. 1 So if you want to allow housing on this site, it’s real simple. Rezone RM30 or RM40 and then 2 you put housing on it and you’ve complied with the intent of the housing element and you don’t 3 have the risks and the hazards. 4 5 As for the compliance with MND, when the court issued his ruling, Judge Nichols said by 6 August of 2008 I want the city to come back to me and tell me officially how you are going to 7 comply with CEQA and I will hold this case in my hands until the city has complied with CEQA 8 and told us how they are doing it. It hasn’t happened. So the MND cannot be approved because 9 it has to go to the court and the court has to agree it has been complied with and it has not been. 10 As I pointed out repeatedly, the fact that the Water Board has approved this ridiculous approach 11 of never testing the indoor air in the residential area does not make it valid as I have pointed out 12 repeatedly, Senator Simitian and the City Council and to the Water Board and to EPA, the Water 13 Board is not complying with general practice for public health and safety. EPA met with the 14 Water Board in June to try to get them compliant with EPA requirements and they failed. So 15 their comment to me was when the Water Board is okay with water. If this project is approved 16 as proposed, I would suggest you have a city name for it. Let’s call it Casa de Muerte. 17 18 Commissioner Keller: Mr. Moss, I understand that you have been spending a lot of time 19 studying this and I understand that there is a potential for dewatering the site when excavating 20 for the basement. Let me ask my question. I’m wondering if you are aware of a study that 21 indicates if the watering is done what effect it might have in the movement of the toxic flow.22 23 Mr. Moss: I’ve been working on this site for 22 years. BPA has had 2 EPA grants for both 640 24 and 1501 Page Mill which are the two superfund sites in Palo Alto and 640 and 601 California 25 are the sources of most of the ground water contamination which is under the site co-area. To 26 give you an example, I’ll give you several examples. The contamination in the ground water 27 directly below 640 in 1985 or 1988 was 60,000. After 20 years of pumping it has gone down to 28 6,000 and has since basically stabilized. I wrote to Papler and the Water Board and gave them 29 examples of 6 wells of COE, 2 of which are very close to 195 Page Mill where the ground water 30 contamination level had stabilized and been stable for the last 15 years even though pump and 31 treatment has been going on for 20 years. So basically what’s happened is it’s become 32 asmatotic. This is not just 195 Page Mill. This is something that happens more than a lot. As 33 you know I’m involved with the Information Advisory Board at Moffet Field and we’ve talked 34 to people all over the world about how to treat and how it works and the Navy and EPA have 35 both said that if it were up to them today they would not approve pump and treat as a way of 36 mitigating groundwater contamination. There are other systems which we could get into.37 38 So there’s almost no chance that over the next 50 years the concentration of the ground water 39 TCE is going to get significantly lower.40 41 Chair Tuma: Mr. Garber I think has a question for you.42 43 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 7 of 28 Commissioner Garber: Actually, two questions. The first is a general one so the more succinct 1 your answer the better but how does this particular project differ from the Campus for Jewish 2 walk where we also had issues of toxic material under that site?3 4 Mr. Moss: Okay, the contamination levels of what’s in the ground water and so on in Mountain 5 View is essentially identical to what it is in Palo Alto. The difference is who oversees it. In the 6 case of Mountain View its EPA and they have come out with some very strong recommendations 7 and requirements for what you do. To give you an example, MEW site is almost entirely 8 commercial. They have insisted on having those buildings tested for indoor air contamination, 9 commercial buildings. They have also had a number of residential buildings on MEW testing for 10 indoor air contamination. Some of them have been contaminated even though they were on the 11 outside of the rate. In a COE area, even though there are a number of apartment buildings 12 already there, the Water Board have still not said they are going to test. What they are doing is 13 they are saying we are looking at the ground water contamination levels and we think it’s going 14 to be safe.15 16 The soil gas contamination levels in this site as I pointed out are 23,500 to 150,000 with the 17 action of 4,000 and the highest level I’ve seen reported in the MEW site is under 10,000 and yet 18 at MEW they are making far more requirements and far more restrictions of construction. 19 Another thing you should be aware of, when you build a building over a contaminated site, this 20 is not obvious to you. What happens is the mass of the building forces the contamination up so if 21 you have contaminated ground water at lets say 15 or 20 feet the mass of the building will 22 actually raise that up so it comes closer to the subsurface of the building. That’s been repeatedly 23 proven. 24 25 Commissioner Garber: With the Chair’s permission, one other question and I apologize for the 26 pointedness of this. You are clearly far more expert on these topics than certainly I am, 27 potentially more expert than some of the others on the commission here and we rely on other 28 experts for their opinions as well and the city has not only had their own expert witness who 29 presumably has similar education on this topic as you do in addition to the Water Board which 30 presumably not only has expertise but responsibility, how do you reconcile their 31 recommendations versus yours.32 33 Mr. Moss: Well, first of all, I’m also a graduate of Napier University which Water Board people 34 are not. One of the EPA took the class with me so she’s also a graduate of Napier University and 35 I really can’t tell you why the Water Board has been so obtuse but they really have been and 36 we’ve been fighting with them for 7 years to try to get them to do a sampling. There is an old 37 saying, Tinius Olsen who was the first inventor of the modern test machine, his saying was, one 38 test is worth a thousand expert opinions. He was right. EPA has said test. They’ve tested over 39 100 buildings in MEW, the fringe of MEW and Moffett Field in the last 4 years. Not a single 40 building has been tested in Palo Alto, not one. Why? Because the Water Board isn’t paying 41 attention. Why? Your guess is as good as mine but I’m trying as hard as I can to get them off 42 Palo Alto to get the EPA or DTSE to replace them because I’ve given up on them quite frankly.43 44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 8 of 28 Commissioner Tanaka: Commissioner Garber, I’m not really an expert in this area with all the1 toxics but can you tell us, it looks like some of these will be for families with multiple kids. 2 What is the effect of this level of TCE? Can you give a quantifiable answer?3 4 Mr. Moss: It can be deadly. I sent in my letter 2 examples of people, cancer patients in 5 particular and TCE is a known carcinogen and the younger the age of exposure, the more rapid 6 that the cancer hits and there have been small areas where there have been 2 or 3 children with 7 brain cancer which is almost certainly caused by TCE. There is a town in Illinois, total 8 population is maybe 30,000 or so and in one relatively short period of time they had 11 cases of 9 brain cancer. The normal occurrence of brain cancer is 3 in 100,000. The basic concentration, 10 actually some of those sites the ground water contamination level is slightly lower than it is in 11 COE. 12 13 Commissioner Martinez: Mr. Moss, I read your letter before I read the staff report and then I 14 went back and read your letter again. I think there are some things that really are far off in terms 15 of recognition of toxic issues that may be present. I know you have also pointed to the problems 16 with the housing authority site the way that’s been handled and the issues with concessions, the 17 way in which the comp plan and zoning has been interpreted. And then some issues with the 18 Mitigated Negative Declaration. First, I just want to say that I think that all of us recognize and 19 appreciate your vigilance of these issues in this area and Palo Alto over the last 20 years. If 20 nothing else, it has kept the discussion going and kept our minds focused on the issue here and 21 moved the community to see this but having said that there is a likelihood that this project may 22 go forward and I would like to ask you if that’s a possibility what are some of the things you 23 recommend to go with to make it safer and better based on your experience in viewing this 24 problem over the last 8 years?25 26 Mr. Moss: First of all, in mitigations the only place they are planning on doing sampling is the 27 garage. If you talk to EPA people I’ve mentioned that to them and they say, oh god, what are 28 they thinking of because no one lives in the garage. In fact, I have an email from Papler at the 29 Water Board today and he mentions specifically sampling an industrial building but that was 30 inside and it was marginal for passing industrial levels which is more than 4 times worse if it had 31 been residential so the first thing you want to do is make sure they test the indoor air first in a 32 residential area where people live and second if there is a commercial R&D area you test that 33 also because right now what they can do is test in the garage and they will get 4 parts per billion 34 of TCE and say it passes but the garage is funneling the air right up into the occupied space and 4 35 is almost 5 times higher than would be allowed in a residential area and over a period of time as 36 I’ve pointed out it can be deadly. You can get cancer from that.37 38 Second, if there is an R&D space you don’t want toxic materials there. I’ve explained the issues 39 of maintaining any kind of control over it. There is no way the city is going to go in periodically 40 and see if they’ve met the requirements for what’s in there or how much. They don’t have the 41 inspectors or the time.42 43 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 9 of 28 The last thing you want, you probably got the letter from my neighbor, Richard Placone. We’ve 1 already had problems with CPI having not just people who live above it but people who live 100 2 or 200 feet away and are being exposed to toxic materials at an industrial site. That’s the second 3 thing. 4 5 The third thing moving forward is to have it not be mixed use if the idea is to have residential 6 and you’re using 65915 as an excuse for allowing things you would not normally allow and 7 residential is the only thing you have to allow you have R&D and just go to residential. If you 8 go with residential you would be recommending that it is residential use and make it a residential 9 zone. You would also accept PTOD and we both agreed that it would be a fine site for PTOD 10 but if you allow it you would have to be careful of the numbers and actual uses are. I get very 11 nervous about toxic materials especially directly below housing so if you are going to go 12 forward, require indoor air sampling in the residential space first, and this is going to be ongoing, 13 EPA says for at least 5 years because the vapor barriers fail. I gave you an example of one in 14 Whisman Park where it failed after a couple of years and the indoor air sample went from 0 to 5 15 in a matter of just days when they actually sampled so you don’t want to just sample it once, you 16 want to continue to do it for years. 17 18 Second, if there is a commercial space you do it for that space too and ideally you wouldn’t have 19 any hazardous materials onsite. Don’t allow it and hope you can keep track of it. I hope you just 20 say you’re not going to go with mixed use. One of the things I should mention is in 65915 it 21 says the applicant has to specifically say that the concessions are required in order to get BMR 22 units and the city of Palo Alto has been getting BMR units of 10, 15, up to 40% at one point for 23 35 years with no concessions. So the city can demonstrate that you don’t have to have 24 concessions to get BMR units.25 26 Chair Tuma: Thank you. So seeing no other members of the public we can move forward and 27 we will close the public comment and applicant has 2 or 3 minutes for additional comments.28 29 Mr. Hohbach: Well I do want to say we’ve gone overboard in trying to appease Mr. Moss and 30 Curtis Williams who is on the Water Board and approved a partial membrane and passing 31 ventilation for the site. I agree to do full vapor barrier and active ventilation and do what he still 32 wants, indoor air sampling. If you dry clean your clothes and bring it in you can get a sample at 33 that site. I think it’s unwarranted. What we’ve proposed is adequate and protects the public and 34 we need to go ahead. Thank you.35 36 Mr. Williams: I’d like to also add a few other comments about the project particularly in 37 response to some of Mr. Moss’s comments. From staff perspective, first of all regarding the 38 comprehensive plan, this project is within the transit oriented residential designation area and the 39 plan does indicate this is an appropriate area for residential. It is designated as a housing site on 40 the housing element. It is within, not the comp plan, but the PTOD area boundary on our zoning 41 map which implements the transit oriented residential zoning. The mixed use component of it is, 42 mixed use specifically spelled out in the housing bonus law as one area that the city needs to 43 approve if that is represented as helping support the provision of below market rate units. 44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 10 of 28 1 Mixed use also is allowed in PTOD zone so is recognized within Transit Oriented residential 2 designation and the PTOD zoning area as allowable use. Hazardous materials that we are talking 3 about are absolutely nothing nowhere like the research park or facilities in fact, restrictions that 4 are in here are in there specifically to essentially keep the level of hazardous materials down to 5 something that a typical office would have. It’s not something we will have signs up there 6 labeling as hazardous materials for the fire department to come and be inspecting, its very 7 minimum levels of supportive material so it’s not that type of uses that we’re talking about at all. 8 The Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding a contamination issue we believe is on the 9 conservative side as defined by the standards and requirements that the Regional Water Quality 10 Control Board which is the implementing and approving body, regional body sets forth. 11 12 We can’t get into a debate about whether EPA would if they looked at the site handle it 13 differently, whether the Mountain View site is roughly similar to this or not. I think that’s a very 14 separate analysis and comment in response to Commissioner Tanaka’s question about some other 15 location and TCE impacts. You’d have to do a very extensive study to start looking at what kind 16 of mitigation did they have on that site, maybe none, I don’t know but as far as this site goes, the 17 initial response from both the regional board and from our consultants was that it did not 18 necessarily require a full vapor barrier which is essentially prohibiting vapors from intruding up 19 into the garage space and active ventilation to vent the vapors away from the building. We 20 didn’t need to go to that extent however we told Mr. Hohbach that we believe that that was 21 something that he could do that would be, in our opinion, unfaultable as far as the environmental 22 protection end of it goes and so they have agreed to go to that point. 23 24 There is some sampling required in the garage. I don’t know and I did want to point out George 25 Burwasser from Atkin is here. He is our environmental consultant and he can answer these 26 various questions. I don’t know what burden it is to monitor any residential units but we do have 27 the monitoring in the garage. We do feel that that’s meaningful and the Water Board supports 28 that. We are reliant on the Water Board if there’s something wrong with the way the Water 29 Board addresses these, by their standards we are certainly not qualified to comment on that. Mr. 30 Burwasser may be but that’s what we have to go on. They are a body agency that regulates these 31 issues for us with that, again, Mr. Burlasser is here if you have questions of him.32 33 Mr. Larkin: And I would just add one more thing on the Density Bonus Loss. After the case of 34 Palmer versus the City of Los Angeles we can’t compel the arguments for a rental project to the 35 extent that this project remains a rental project we wouldn’t be able to compel any of the 36 arguments. Because this is a condo project as some point they would be sold and to be sold a 37 certain percentage of units would have to be sold below market rate and until that point as long 38 as they are a rental they would not be on the market.39 40 Commissioner Keller: So a question about if they’re condos and rentals how does it differ from 41 condos that aren’t rentals? Does making them condos change the legality of it because they are 42 turned into rentals or for sale at any time?43 44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 11 of 28 Mr. Larkin: In terms of below market rate, at the time they are sold there would be a covenant 1 that says certain units would be set aside and when they are sold it would be a below market rate 2 if they are sold but until that time we compel them because the rationale in the Palmer case was 3 that under California State Law local governments can’t set rents on local property.4 5 Commissioner Keller: In terms of the BMR that’s proposed are they rentals or will they convert 6 into for sale units if the entire complex or parts of it are sold.7 8 Mr. Larkin: In order to receive a density bonus they would have to remain below market rental 9 for 30 years. 10 11 Commissioner Keller: So is the BMR agreement if this goes through going to say that the 17 12 units are all going to be rental units. 13 14 Mr. Larkin: They would not say rental. They would be below market in certitude. They would 15 be below market for 30 years after which they could be converted to below market for sale units.16 17 Chair Tuma: And that’s what the actual BMR agreement will say?18 19 Mr. Larkin: That’s what we envision the BMR agreement to say. That would be a condition of 20 approval for the tentative map, we still haven’t written that agreement.21 22 Commissioner Garber: A couple of questions. First of all, the statement comparing the PTOD 23 which the site is within versus it being GM, that’s not really the issue, right? Because there is no 24 change of zoning being asked for here.25 26 Mr. Williams: This has not been rezoned. 27 28 Commissioner Garber: So the underlying issues are the uses allowable within GM and the uses 29 that are there now are allowable within GM. 30 31 Mr. Williams: They are given the specific circumstances of this site being on the housing side 32 which is associated… I’d rather just stay away from it. But the reason is when there is a conflict 33 in the general plan between the housing site and the zoning designation which doesn’t allow 34 housing, then the housing element designation which allows housing is going to trump that.35 36 Commissioner Garber: Which brings me to my next question: he housing designation is the 37 trump regardless of City Council policy, regardless of zoning and unless we amend the housing 38 element we will remove this.39 40 My memory is there is active venting and vapor barriers underneath the Campus for Jewish Life 41 and that was criteria there to deal with those issues. Also although concessions have been a topic 42 of conversation, I’m not seeing where they would, and please correct me here because I may not 43 be recognizing it. Are there direct impacts on those concessions relative to the findings that need 44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 12 of 28 to be made? We are not seeing where implementing concessions impacts a finding being made. 1 There isn’t a conflict being created there. So in our purview are the findings. So we may have 2 issues about the concessions but relative to our work this evening we are really focusing on 3 findings.4 5 Ms. French: And the conditions as well which does include Condition 18. The Tentative Map 6 condition in particular, number 18, it does talk about concessions and the requirement of 7 restricting 20% of the 17 units. This is on page 13 of the record of action, section 4.8 9 Commissioner Garber: So the record is there and it is finding the requirements of the project. 10 11 Commissioner Martinez: Mr. City Attorney, can you give us the ground rules of what we can 12 talk about tonight and what not like is there some litigation that we should stay clear of in our 13 discussion?14 15 Mr. Larkin: No. I think that in the purview of the Commission at this meeting is to review the 16 findings for the approval of the Tentative Map and make a recommendation on Mitigated 17 Negative Declaration within that purview I don’t think there are any limitations. The only 18 currently pending litigation is the litigation Mr. Moss mentioned which was somewhat accurately 19 stated but not completely. We have to go back to court on return on red to show that we’ve 20 complied by completing a new Mitigated Negative Declaration and that’s not completed until 21 City Council reviews and approves it so that’s the only issue that remains in litigation. 22 23 Commissioner Martinez: And then, because we are reviewing the Mitigated Negative 24 Declaration we can talk about just about anything. Is that right? Except maybe Architectural 25 Review which we don’t want to talk about anyway.26 27 Ms. French: Certainly the land use section and the aesthetics section are well within the purview 28 of the ARB in this application. Did you have something to add? 29 30 Mr. Larkin: I think anything might be a bit too broad but anything fits in the MND even if it 31 falls outside the purview its okay to ask about it and comment on it but I think the 32 recommendation ought to be focused on Planning Commission issues. Parking, the concessions. 33 The concessions are ministerial so I think you are free to comment on them but in terms of 34 making a recommendation, those are ministerial concessions that are granted provided that there 35 is some underlying basis for granting them and then its really not a Planning Commission issue 36 to discuss the concessions unless there is a concern with the concessions go way beyond what is 37 required to provide further housing so even then its still outside of what the commission has a 38 need to recommend to council. It’s outside council’s purview as well but it will have to be 39 addressed anyway.40 41 Commissioner Martinez: We have no guidelines on concessions correct?42 43 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 13 of 28 Mr. Larkin: We have state law and in state law they have to be related to affordable housing that 1 is being provided. They also specifically call out mixed use to make a housing development 2 more feasible for a developer and specifically calls out any other sort of thing that makes the 3 housing more feasible so in this case the concessions that are being requested are not that far out 4 and not out of bounds for what would be required to provide under Density Bonus Law.5 6 Commissioner Martinez: Including an FAR that’s 3 times what we would otherwise permit?7 8 Mr. Larkin: Yes, it is increased to accommodate the housing. 9 10 Commissioner Martinez: And that’s not sort of establishing a precedent for other arguments that 11 will defend their zoning laws against that? 12 13 Mr. Larkin: We acknowledge that we should and we have talked about developing a local 14 ordinance that better defines how that is handled but ultimately the state law is very clearly 15 designed to encourage more affordable housing and we’re up against that so whatever 16 regulations that we develop can’t be so restrictive that we are creating impediments to develop 17 the housing.18 19 Commissioner Martinez: Does that include the parking allowances and parking providers?20 21 Mr. Hohbach: Those are zoning determinations that we’ve made as part of the Architectural 22 Review Project. The only way you could address them is to find that there is a significant impact 23 from parking that wasn’t addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 24 25 I do want to go back to the FAR and the dense concessions so you said something about 26 defending the zoning issue and we already have that in the lawsuit that was the plaintiff did 27 allege that we overstepped our bounds on the concessions and these are exactly the same as what 28 was approved before and court did not find the city overstepped.29 30 Mr. Larkin: I should add subsequent to the prior lawsuit on this project there have been a 31 number of appellate decisions that have come out and mostly from the City of Berkeley that have 32 upheld decisions of their City Council to approve projects with concessions that are much more 33 dramatic then what we’ve been requested to approve.34 35 I did want to mention also on the parking the Density Bonus Law does create a maximum 36 parking allowance that we are able to require consistent with what our ordinance is which is 30% 37 growth. 38 39 Ms. French: This is at 22% reduction and there is not a concession requesting for the parking. It 40 is through the Director’s Adjustment process which is companion to the ARB process. 41 42 Commissioner Martinez: I am still lingering on our last item about situations where we are 43 approving projects with less than desired parking. It seems to me that we are doing it because of 44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 14 of 28 the shared parking and mixed uses and because we are providing housing near transit. Those 1 things aren’t exactly compatible because if somebody who is taking transit and leaving their car 2 at home, there is no place for shared parking for the workers or builders. It’s a crazy way of 3 thinking about it but we are allowing sort of a higher amount of reduction parking but using 4 arguments that sort of counter that. That’s my concern because of what we just talked about in 5 terms of undertaking projects. I want to see that this project, when you look at this project’s 6 scale, it doesn’t seem overwhelming so it’s almost surprising that the FAR is so high. I sort of 7 accept it. Three story buildings are not pushing our height limit or anything like that. I’m not 8 supposed to say this but architecturally I wish it were better looking but I’m not supposed to go 9 there. 10 11 One thing Planning Director, a very quick question. You mentioned that the level of toxic 12 materials that would be allowed is like household cleansers and things like that but what if an 13 R&D company has an IPS (Interrupted Power Supply) system that is considered hazardous by 14 the fire department. Is that in our consideration? 15 16 Mr. Williams: I don’t know whether that reaches the thresholds that are outlined here or not and 17 we’ve asked for participation from the fire department to be here but they have not. 18 19 Ms. French: Just briefly, I had spoken with Mr. Simpkinson during the preparation of this report 20 to question some of these things as I inherited writing this report from the planner so basically as 21 in the report the fire department has inspections, you’ll see it on page 7 of the staff report as far 22 as what I talked to him about. They have to file a registration form. If its below 10 gallons of 23 liquid or 100 lbs., those are considered normal use thresholds so that is where the applicant is 24 looking to go with what’s going to go in there. If for some reason it’s above that then there is 25 more that would have to happen but there is definitely yearly inspections and other precautions 26 that the fire department takes and has a relationship with businesses as standard practice. It’s 27 noting special with this type of proposal.28 29 Commissioner Martinez: With that we were discussing IPS which is fairly common procedure in 30 businesses. You have to have a separate building permit for it. So this is something that goes 31 beyond because of the nature of our engaging and the typical office building. I’m just wondering 32 whether we’re allowing some of these exceptions to inaudible (1 hour into 3rd topic).33 34 Commissioner Fineberg: I have questions first for the city attorney. If I’m correct that this is 35 GM zoned, and in looking in our municipal code, not the comprehensive plan, but the municipal 36 code in Section 1820040 Section C4 it says mixed use in development is prohibited in GM 37 zoning districts. I understand you said the housing element trumps underlying land use 38 designations in the comp plan but if we have something in municipal code and then in municipal 39 code it says in the first section of it 1801030 compliance with regulations no land shall be used 40 and no facility or structure building shall be erected, constructed, enlarged or used in any district 41 except in a court with regulations established by this title.42 43 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 15 of 28 On the next page, 1801080 violations and penalties, any person, firm or corporation violating 1 any provisions of this title is guilty of a misdemeanor. So how do we have a process that our 2 planning director gets to approve exceptions based on concessions from SB 1818. I don’t 3 understand that.4 5 Mr. Larkin: The government code section 61915 supersedes our local ordinance and they 6 require below market units then we have to allow mixed use provided mixed use supports the 7 development of the housing.8 9 Commissioner Fineberg: So that code trumps our municipal code not just our comprehensive 10 plan.11 12 Mr. Larkin: Right. The housing element trumps the rest of our general plan, all of it.13 14 Commissioner Fineberg: Does it require us to create land use conflicts, health hazards, or other 15 issues that potentially threaten life and safety?16 17 Mr. Larkin: No, it doesn’t trump CEQA so the housing element law and the Density Bonus Law 18 don’t trump CEQA so we still have to do an analysis and if CEQA says they are creating a 19 significant environmental impact then that would be reason to deny the application.20 21 Commissioner Fineberg: Do we know the answers to those questions you just posed from a 22 Mitigated Neg Dec if there has been no analysis. If it’s simply a checklist which is a relatively 23 low threshold of analysis?24 25 Mr. Larkin: I would defer to Mr. Burwasser. I’m not an environmental scientist, and he is. 26 27 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. 28 29 Mr. George Burwasser: My name is George Burwasser. I am with Atkins North America. We 30 were PBS&J at the time that we started this process and we’ve since merged with Atkins which 31 is why nobody recognizes our name anymore. The environmental checklist to which we refer is 32 Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines. In the past that’s been just that, a guideline, and it was 33 used initially to indicate where further investigation was needed. Through a variety of court 34 cases over the last 30 years we have come to the point where we have something we call a 35 Mitigated Negative Declaration which doesn’t actually exist under CEQA, its actually Negative 36 Declaration, mitigated was just thrown into it. 37 38 We still refer to it as an MND for just ease of identification. The analysis that goes into the 39 Mitigated Negative Declaration is pretty much the same analysis that goes into an Environmental 40 Impact Report. It is presented in a more condensed form, a much more formalized set of 41 questions and responses. I’m sure you’ve all read the Environmental Impact Reports. They 42 make very good bedtime reading sometimes. They can go into an excruciating amount of detail 43 that may or may not relate specifically to the project at hand. What’s attempted to be done with 44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 16 of 28 the Mitigated Negative Declaration is to compress all that background into half a dozen or so 1 questions for each topic and keep the expository writing to a minimum but the analysis is 2 essentially the same. We’ve had to go through months of analysis on this project. We’ve gone 3 through any number of meetings, I literally cannot guess how much email has gone back and 4 forth among the people involved, the city, the Water Board, the public, the meetings of the 5 Planning Commission. I would say the Planning Department, the ARB and so on. It’s been a 6 very long and drawn out process. I believe we are on the 4th revision of this Mitigated Negative 7 Declaration so it’s not something that was just kind of ticked off as we went down a one page 8 checklist. 9 10 If you dig into it you’d find the footnoting alone would fill a small notebook because we’ve been 11 in touch with just about everybody you can think of so all I can say is the analysis has been 12 pretty extensive.13 14 Commissioner Fineberg: Is it all paperwork and hypothetical analysis or is there any testing or 15 measurement that goes to support… For instance the soil test that no toxins were found. Was 16 there any actual testing?17 18 Mr. Burwasser; Yes. There is a great deal of testing that goes on. And we’ll stick specifically 19 with the soil and water stuff but there were four other firms involved in soil testing and water 20 testing in putting together soil mitigation plans, water monitoring plans, there were holes drilled, 21 laboratory tests were made. That is all cited in the document itself I think on the pages just 22 following the introductory material of Attachment B I believe is the initial study. 23 24 There is a list of sources of information. If you look through that list of sources of information 25 you’ll find things like Crosby and Jacobs get technical, SES which I think stands now for Stellar 26 Environmental, SECOR Environmental was involved in that, we were involved in it. The 27 Regional Water Quality Control Board was contacted any number of times with hazardous 28 materials we talked of course to the fire department, to the health officials in the county so there 29 has been both communications among those agencies plus hard testing. The plans that were 30 developed by Stellar are about that thick. For looking after the soils and the water in the 31 environment at the site we went back and forth with the consultant on the vapor barrier and the 32 venting system. We started with one that even our people were scratching their heads about it a 33 little bit until we had dug into it a bit but what was finally agreed to by the developer was a full 34 vapor barrier that is essentially a 60 mil sheet that covers the entire site underneath the garage 35 and below that is a collection system with perforated pipes set in gravel and sand that collects 36 vapor as it comes out of the ground, runs laterally and takes it up vertical pipes so its is vented 37 through pipes in the roof. There are fans on those pipes to help move these vapors out.38 39 Initially it was thought that they could simply be moved out by their own volatility but this 40 would be a much better system in that you know whether it’s running or not. There is no 41 question whether the thing is operative. I can’t go inside the Water Board’s head. I don’t know 42 why they haven’t been tested but what they are proposing here is testing at the point they feel 43 there is most likely to be an intrusion which is the base of a garage where the vapor barriers are 44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 17 of 28 closed. If the vapor barriers break or the venting system malfunctions in any way, that’s where 1 they are going to find them first, right at the source.2 3 Their logic in the past for using that approach is I think, actually perhaps I better not speculate on 4 their logic in the past. Among the statements that they’ve made is that they feel it is much more 5 important to monitor this stuff as close as they can to the possible intrusion source rather than 6 going into people’s apartments and perhaps having to deal with other issues of other toxins that 7 are coming out of the formaldehyde in the carpets and furniture, whatever. So I’ve seen that 8 statement. We can’t go any farther than that. I hope that responds a little bit to your concern and 9 if you want to read those documents they will put you to sleep.10 11 Commissioner Fineberg: I have one more quick question. 12 13 Chair Tuma: I have a follow up question. Do you have a professional opinion of whether or not 14 indoor air sampling should be done in the residential portion?15 16 Mr. Burwasser: The Water Board has decided that it is really not appropriate because as I 17 mentioned… I really would be very concerned about doing that kind of testing because there is 18 so much even in the paint on our walls that can affect this over which nobody has any control 19 except the owners of the unit. If you decide to paint your walls Paris Green there will be a fairly 20 toxic effect to it but no one can stop you from doing it. Unless there is a history available for 21 each one of those units, exactly what has gone on, the reliability of the testing would be a 22 problem. If it were done on a broad scale, as soon as the building is finished for example, once 23 it’s completed before anybody moves in, before any contractors have gone in and done anything 24 to the individual units that would be different. At that point you could do some testing but that 25 doesn’t tell you anything over time so that’s why the program is there to test on a regular basis 26 more frequently in the first few years to make certain that the system is operating and if its 27 functioning correctly then the testing continues for several years but less frequently. But I would 28 be very concerned about doing individual apartment tests without having a really solid history of 29 what went on in that unit prior to getting in there.30 31 Commissioner Tanaka; So I have a couple of questions lending to what Chair Tuma just asked 32 and also what Mr. Moss addressed. The difference between the EPA and the Water Board. Does 33 the EPA really require indoor testing? EPA in general. Do they require indoor testing versus at 34 the source testing?35 36 Mr. Burwasser: Not here. They are not working in Palo Alto. Indoor testing versus at the 37 source testing, it is all indoor testing. You mean individual units. They have a program that is 38 doing that, yes. They are interested in what is going on in those units. They are very concerned 39 about it. Again, I can’t go inside their heads but they’re approach…40 41 Commissioner Tanaka: Is it because people are living there?42 43 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 18 of 28 Mr. Burwasser: People are living in all these units. The point of testing an individual apartment 1 unit or condo really is up to the discretion of the regulatory agency and the EPA obviously feels 2 that this is an important thing to do.3 4 Commissioner Tanaka: So Mr. Moss was right then. If the EPA did regulate here there 5 wouldn’t be indoor testing of the…6 7 Mr. Burwasser: We don’t know that. We don’t know what they would require.8 9 Commissioner Tanaka: I’m just trying to understand. Mr. Moss made a statement and I don’t 10 know if it is true that EPA for similar sites to Palo Alto required indoor testing of residential 11 units and the Water Board doesn’t. Is what he said true or is it not?12 13 Mr. Burwasser: They require testing on a site by site basis. What they do at MEW is not 14 necessarily what they are going to do in Illinois or any place else?15 16 Commissioner Tanaka: So if EPA did have coverage here you are saying they wouldn’t?17 18 Mr. Burwasser: I don’t know. We can’t tell. They don’t have jurisdiction here and we can’t 19 second guess what they would do, it would be at their discretion.20 21 Commissioner Tanaka: But they don’t always require the default for this kind of thing. No. The 22 second thing you mentioned was a toxic source or venting and I guess the question is for other 23 people living around, is that an environmental impact to the surrounding area and people.24 25 Mr. Burwasser: Dilution is the solution to pollution has been the background on this. The idea 26 is that by the time they are vented there is sufficiently mixed with the atmosphere above the 27 building because these pipes stick well above the roof and the fans are on top of these things and 28 there is a sufficient dispersal and at a sufficient height so the surrounding neighborhoods will not 29 be affected by that, no more so than the stuff that is filtering out of the ground.30 31 Commissioner Keller: Just a quick follow up. In terms of the concentrations of a chemical like 32 TCE in a garage versus in an enclosed flowing unit, I’m wondering if there is a difference in the 33 garage in terms of potential air exchanges or is the potential for TCE dissipating for a particular 34 site of intrusion as contrasted with a dwelling unit where there might be fewer air changes and 35 the potential for greater accumulation. Is that possible?36 37 Mr. Burwasser: That would depend on the ventilation system in the garage and unit. 38 Presumably the garage is vented through its doorways but the accumulation would depend 39 entirely on the interior ventilation system as to whether you had a higher or lower accumulation 40 at this point. It would be significantly different depending on the air changes per hour and stuff 41 like that. It would make a difference.42 43 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 19 of 28 Commissioner Keller: So there is going to be a basement under the garage? It is below ground 1 level right? Removal of a lot of dirt is needed to build this garage. Do special precautions have 2 to be made when there is a lot of dirt removed? 3 4 Mr. Burwasser: Absolutely. That is part of the site excavation plan which is overseen by the 5 city and is to look after all of the soil that is removed, to look after the integrity of the walls. We 6 don’t know whether there is going to be dewatering necessary but the watering plant has to be 7 put in place in this project because of dust control, anything that has to do with soil, has to be 8 controlled. There are some very extensive conditions of approval from the Water Board and also 9 they are protecting the workers. 10 11 Chair Tuma: We’re just about out of time here. So we are going to take a break and come back. 12 Commissioner Fineberg will have one question and I will get my chance to make my comments 13 and then we can take final comments and some kind of action. Commissioner Fineberg has one 14 question left. Commissioner Keller has two minutes left of his time and I have my three minutes 15 left and then we will get to comments and hopefully a motion. Commissioner Fineberg.16 17 Commissioner Fineberg: Director Williams, can you help me reconcile a concept in my head 18 that I don’t know how I should frame what I’m thinking. The zoning under property is a GM. 19 Because of the concessions for mixed use and residential, the project is two-thirds residential, 20 just over 100,000 square feet and 50,000 square feet, so one-third of the project is R&D. In 21 order to minimize health hazards, land use conflicts, etc. the project is being conditioned so the 22 general manufacturing usage will be lightweight uses prohibiting what would normally go on in 23 general manufacturing. So what we’re ending up building isn’t general manufacturing in a 24 general manufacturing zone. Is that consistent with municipal code, comp plan, lest we do it? 25 Why are we doing this? Is this something we should be doing?26 27 Mr. Williams: I think what the alternative and Mr. Moss brought this up, is and we were starting 28 fresh today without the history to it, we would probably say zone it PTOD and they’d be in here 29 and mixed use allows a 1.0 FAR for residential which is what they have. It allows .25 for office 30 R&D type uses so they’d need density bonus for the concessions for an additional .25 of floor 31 area for that and otherwise they’d pretty much be there as far as complying with all our criteria. 32 However, it does have 6 years of history to it. It began under a GM zone with a GM called 33 GMD that did allow for mixed use. The D was taken away and changed. They were allowed to 34 continue through using under the way they submitted the application and then it got caught in 35 litigation and its starting over so we didn’t shift gears to PTOD zoning and seemed to be 36 somewhat pointless but that’s how I think we can justify it and that is if this were in the GM zone 37 down in South Charleston in San Antonio in that area I think that would be a very relevant point. 38 It would be difficult to justify that kind of thing happening.39 40 We are in an area where this is not a manufacturing area and as it transitions its going to get less 41 and less so. It’s got the PTOD overlay on it so given this project I think it is consistent with that. 42 It is consistent with transoriented residential, language and code in the general comp plan. 43 That’s how we feel. It does reconcile. Again, if a project came in tomorrow in this area we 44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 20 of 28 wouldn’t say do it this way, we’d say go start out with the PTOD zoning and come in and they’d 1 be very close to it then we could talk about what concessions are needed but that would be the 2 approach.3 4 Chair Tuma: I have some follow up to that. If they came in and asked for that it would not be a 5 director’s level decision. That would be rezoning. 6 7 Mr. Williams: They’d have to start through the initial Commission, Council and ARB. 8 9 Commissioner Keller: So let me make sure I understand a few things. If we had gone the PTOD 10 route because it is discretionary we can attempt to bring PTOD if not asking for concessions. I 11 think that was a question I asked once, that you can say only on a PTOD simply to say we only 12 give you PC if you don’t ask for concessions. 13 14 Mr. Williams: Rezoning is entirely discretionary.15 16 Commissioner Keller: The second question I have is, in the housing inventory according to page 17 4 of the record it says that the minimum yield for this site inventory is 120 units. I remember 18 when we were dealing with the housing inventory several months ago is that we can deny a 19 project that is a housing project on a site where they don’t provide the house units for the 20 housing inventory so if they provide 120 units we can’t deny on the basis of being in the housing 21 inventory. That’s reason to deny it because we have to provide these sites elsewhere and that’s 22 what I understand you’ve been told.23 24 Mr. Williams: 120 units includes the other Park Blvd. sites where the police building site was 25 going to be. This property itself does not have 120 units designated for it because the 120 units 26 was calculated based on 40 units per acre which is essentially what this site is providing. So if 27 that’s in there it’s more than just site. 28 29 Commissioner Keller:I’m on page 4, 3rd full paragraph. 30 31 Mr. Williams: We can amend that because it’s more than just sites among others. These 32 building sites basically were in that too.33 34 Commissioner Keller: If this was 2.5 acres it would be 100 units not 120. 35 36 Quick question, are biohazardous materials allowed on site?37 38 Mr. Williams: I don’t know.39 40 Mr. Burwasser: From my limited understanding of business codes…41 42 Commissioner Keller: That could be a good thing. The next thing is there any issues about since 43 it is adjacent to a potential identified high speed rail whether it happens or not, 105 decibels I’m 44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 21 of 28 wondering how usable the space is with the courtyard and the noise. Has anybody done any 1 calculations about how usable it is?2 3 Ms. French: We do have a noise study. Mr. Burwasser might know more on the technical4 aspects.5 6 Mr. Burwasser: In the Mitigated Negative Dec. in Section B there is a discussion there that 7 addresses what goes on in the courtyard. The courtyard is protected. There is going to be about 8 60 and that’s significant. It had to be built into the plan because when that train goes by you are 9 going to hear it. 10 11 Commissioner Keller: The last question I have is there is a mention about the Palo Alto Unified 12 School District yield and the data that is used is the Sand Hill EIR which seems to be way 13 outdated. In particular I’m wondering why the data for units, for example the arbor real, would 14 that yield light be more comfortable or the yield on the two complexes on eastern circle might be 15 used? Why are we using data from EIR? We could use the same data. Using the same data 16 from EIR seems…17 18 Mr. Burwasser: We are carrying the data from originally 2006 and it could be that that rate did 19 not change. 20 21 Commissioner Keller: It doesn’t change any mitigation or impact determination of mitigation or 22 anything associated with that but we can make that clarification and use. There are updated 23 numbers placed in the studies. 24 25 Mr. Burwasser: The reason I think that would be important to do is because people will look at 26 this for precedent in that regard going forth.27 28 Commissioner Fineberg: Lathrop Overlay does the demographic studies for the school district. 29 They calculate the student every September then every December of early January there are new 30 demographic yield forecasts based on different housing types and different projects so I can’t see 31 why we can’t take the newest projects from December and January this year and the comps are 32 much better and much more comparable understanding that it wouldn’t change the mitigation.33 34 Chair Tuma: A couple of questions. For GM zone, am I remembering correctly that normally 35 that would require a conditional use permit for housing? 36 37 Mr. Burwasser: Not housing at all. A research park zone was LA and now is LAM.38 39 Chair Tuma: I’m going to go straight to a couple of comments. I think what’s causing me some 40 consternation here and I think maybe others is that essentially under normal circumstances other 41 than 1818 this would never happen without it going through the Planning Commission, without it 42 going through full public hearings without a public level decision without 1818. For 1818 we as 43 a community and commission, council, planning department. We haven’t come up with what we 44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 22 of 28 think is useful so we’re stuck with a situation where there is a project before us that doesn’t feel 1 like its been fully vetted in the public process and that there is this, quite frankly, loophole that 2 this project is being driven through and we are to get it approved without a public process.3 4 Would the public process result in a different outcome? I don’t know but I think that’s certainly 5 what’s bugging me about it and its not we the Planning Commission but the whole public 6 process hasn’t happened on what is a considerable size project in an important location that 7 would add significant housing and so one of the things that this project highlights for me is in the 8 2 move very far up the agenda a discussion and conclusion for setting guidelines around this 9 because with all due respect and you know Mr. Williams I have a tremendous amount of respect 10 for you, I don’t think this is a decision you should be making, I really don’t. Its not a decision 11 any one person should make but that’s not the process the renters of the city are used to on a 12 project of this magnitude. I think our process isn’t working and it needs to be fixed. 13 14 Where does that leave us with respect to this project? We keep hearing how we are boxed out 15 from doing anything other than approving the tentative map and maybe there is some way 16 around that by having problems with MND but I get the sense we’re heading toward a decision 17 that you could justify either way. There is going to be a lot of discussion in the next half hour or 18 45 minutes about different points of view but it hasn’t really come to resolutions because we 19 haven’t decided on a process that’s appropriate. 20 21 I’m certainly not ready to make a motion at this point but that’s the struggle I’m going through. 22 Commissioners? Comments, and anyone who is ready to make a motion. 23 24 Commissioner Keller: I hate to ask just one more quick question before I go on and that is I 25 realized by looking at the December 3rd, 2009 ARB which is attachment A to something on page 26 3 it says that this is being considered and therefore staff has applied the regulations of RM40 to 27 this project and I believe this is before the lawsuit. If that was 2009, why today 2 years later are 28 we not applying the RM40 standard to this project.29 30 Mr. Williams: Our CEQA onsite counselor advised that now was not appropriate and we did 31 change that and not use the RM40 and this helped to some extend justify the residential but his 32 feeling was that this was the GM zone and the GM zone standard should be the basis for that and 33 that was not as defensible to all supplied RM40 standards which used to be way back when34 standards that we would use for mixed use in there so with the first application that might have 35 been appropriate but given that this was a new application it should just be fine. It didn’t alter 36 the fact that concessions could be requested. That’s basically it.37 38 Commissioner Keller: RM40 was a carryover from GMD and is not longer appropriate because 39 it is not a GM site.40 41 Mr. Williams: Thank you. We will put this on our next report on this.42 43 MOTION44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 23 of 28 1 Commissioner Keller: I agree entirely with Chair Tuma’s heartburn on this issue and I think that 2 the issue for me is that there are some nice things about the project being that we are trying to 3 encourage housing and other uses like this for near a train station but on the other hand the high 4 amount of toxins on the site, the adjacency to other uses, I think I mentioned earlier that 5 automobile uses are something we don’t want to build housing near. So it’s kind of weird 6 because we have the automobile site right next door which is an adjacency issue we are 7 introducing. I would actually like to move that we deny the projects on the basis that finding 8 number 6 is not met. And that is design or type of improvements likely to cause serious health 9 problems and I believe that the adjacency to automobile usage where these chemicals are used 10 and the issue of the high amount of toxins in the cleaning is such that… And the juxtaposition of 11 R&D uses underneath a residential use where at least some quantities of hazardous materials can 12 be used is potentially likely to cause serious public health problems for the residents of those 13 condos. 14 15 SECOND16 17 Chair Tuma: There is a motion on the floor is there a second. Motion by Commissioner Keller, 18 seconded by Commissioner Tanaka. Commissioner Keller.19 20 Commissioner Keller: I think that this site needs a little more analysis and I think the issues are 21 not well understood and I think we’ve gone long enough so I’ll let Commissioner Tanaka give 22 his comments.23 24 Commissioner Tanaka: I agree with Chair Tuma’s comments that this hasn’t gone through the 25 correct process. I believe it’s unfortunate because it’s been 6 years and I also see the applicant’s 26 perspective but it seems that there are a lot of environmental issues. They’ve been mentioned 27 but beyond that, it was kind of interesting the comment, there are no windows on the back sides 28 because of train tracks. It is kind of enforcing something that is really more appropriate for the 29 area. Anyway, the environment has never been talked about so I wanted to repeat that.30 31 AMENDMENT TO MOTION32 33 Commissioner Fineberg: I’d like to offer a friendly amendment. Also in our packet attachment 34 A page 5 finding 3. Findings not present that the site is not physically suitable for this type of 35 development because it is in a GM zone and yet what we’re building isn’t a GM building and it 36 is creating land use conflicts with adjacent and existing, not present. 37 38 Do you want to decide one at a time or I’ll give you both of them. I’m going to need some help 39 from our city attorney on the exact wording but the findings and the adequacy of the negative 40 declaration are not there. How do we word it so it specifically relates to the adequacy of the neg. 41 dec.42 43 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 24 of 28 Mr. Larkin: I think you can make that recommendation Council. You may want to support that 1 with a fair argument that the findings are inadequate but you can make that recommendation.2 3 Commissioner Fineberg: So what he just said and we’ll have to fill in the details.4 5 Commissioner Keller: I’m inclined to be supportive of that but it would be helpful to have 6 specific reasons that you don’t want to accept a Negative Declaration.7 8 Commissioner Fineberg: The findings for the Mitigated Neg. Dec. are not present because its 9 location of housing in the GM zone is injurious to the public health which echoes what you said 10 but references the Mitigated Neg Dec. It is detrimental to health and public safety because of 11 potential toxic releases, adjacency issues, unknown impacts on the spread of the underground 12 toxic plume and without conditions relating to monitoring potentially unknown future injurious 13 health hazards on occupants in the long term. 14 15 Commissioner Keller: So you’re saying there are no conditions for monitoring. For the long 16 term within occupied spaces. Second.17 18 Chair Tuma: Any additional thoughts?19 20 SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT21 22 Commissioner Garber: Thank you. I would like to make a substitute motion and see if it has any 23 traction and before I make it let me talk a little bit about why. I was tending to favor the staff’s 24 recommendations. Although I share Commissioner Tuma’s and observation about process, my 25 sense is that is equivalent to changing the goal posts for the applicant in that there is a path, as 26 rigorous as it has been which has let them to this point and I think that they in good faith had 27 been pursuing it to the best of their abilities and the best of staff’s abilities. I do not deny that I 28 believe the project should have had greater public opportunity but the public to weigh in and 29 greater opportunities for the Commission to weigh in.I was initially going to not support the 30 initial motion because we were citing specifically item number 6 but finding number 6 and not 31 number 3 is actually if you were to base it in opposition to the project I think is more powerful 32 but my substitute motion would be to support the staff’s recommendation with the corrections 33 that Commissioner Keller cited earlier on page 4, that we reword the last sentence of the third 34 paragraph to clarify this site is not housing all 120 housing units.35 36 On page 2 the Mitigated Negative Declaration that we update the school yields to the most recent 37 data. I will offer that and see if I get a second. 38 39 Chair Tuma: Okay motion by Commissioner Garber and seconded. 40 41 Commissioner Garber: I add the additional comments. This portion of town is changing rapidly 42 over the next 5 to 10 years. The uses in general are appropriate to what I would like to see in this 43 part of town and they align with the particular discussions I have had about this part of town over 44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 25 of 28 the last 5 years. Although I dislike the Wednesday night architecting of projects, I understand 1 from a planning project that the uses are appropriate and the project will operate as an extremely 2 helpful bridge between the activity that goes on on California Avenue and the activity that will 3 be going on so it occupies a very pivotal position and will help give that street identity and 4 connect those portions of the city. I have nothing further to add at this time.5 6 Chair Martinez: Yeah, you know, I started off the evening being very dubious about the project. 7 Worried about what we don’t know about the toxics that lay beneath. Reading part of the staff 8 report because the possibility exists that contaminated groundwater or soil could be encountered 9 during the construction period the impact is considered less than significant with mitigation. I 10 don’t know how you can say those things together in one sentence but you look at the mitigation 11 section that it refers to MM4 and it is the requiring of one inspection after another and it leads 12 you to believe that there is something there. There is something there that we all should be 13 concerned about. Nevertheless I believe there has been a process, not the process that we know 14 and love but a public process of reviewing this project of creating this Mitigated Negative 15 Declaration of countless ARB reviews, of a valiant effort by the planning director to hold it 16 together and a respect for the rights and efforts of the property owner to continue with the 17 project.18 19 I agree with Commissioner Garber that the project itself is not the problem, it has been the 20 process. I think with the mitigations proposed we should support the project.21 22 Chair Tuma: I agree with Commissioner Garber that changing the rules at this point would be 23 changing the goal posts and I’ve been very clear in the past that I don’t think that’s fair. I also 24 agree with Commissioner Garber that hanging your hat on Section 3, dealing with the design is 25 likely to cause serious public health problems, probably isn’t the strongest of arguments but 26 where I really struggle is with Section 3 and that is that the site is not physically suitable for this 27 type of development. I don’t think that the site is suitable for this type of development. I know 28 it may be on our housing inventory list and SB1818 allows a way around the public process. 29 30 While that is some of the stuff that gives me heartburn, what really gives me heartburn is 31 mitigation measures fail. Scrubbers fail. Toxic releases happen. I really don’t think that it’s 32 appropriate to put a bunch of housing and to create a situation where we were releasing these 33 toxins into the air although if the mitigation measures work properly they are supposed to diffuse 34 what comes out. We know that doesn’t always happen. We’ve had situations where toxins have 35 come out of sites, where scrubbers have failed and people have been ill. The same sites had 36 inspections by agencies who were supposed to do certain things. They didn’t do them. And I 37 think that by putting a bunch of housing on this site given the problems that this would be 38 unearthing and bringing to the surface is not appropriate therefore I cannot support the substitute 39 motion and if the substitute motion does not pass then I would be supporting the original motion. 40 Any additional discussion on the substitute motion?41 42 Commissioner Keller: I think we are supposed to be voting on the tentative map. I don’t see any 43 discussion about that in what I’ve heard proposing what is before us tonight.44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 26 of 28 1 Chair Tuma: If I could, this section of the record land use action that I was referring to is 2 Section 3A tentative map finding and Section 3 was the one I was just talking about.3 4 Commissioner Fineberg: In reference to Chair Martinez’s question, it is my understanding, and 5 if staff could cut me off and correct me if I state this wrong, but the tentative map is a physical 6 representation of drawing and the implementation of the project as it is consistent with the 7 Comp. Plan. Is that kind of a good way to think about it?8 9 Commissioner Garber: In this case the tentative map is simply allowing the site to be divided 10 into airspace units at some point in the future. So it’s the design of the project which means, in 11 this case the public improvements that go along with the project, the boundary lines of the lot. 12 Because it is a condo airspace they don’t have to give those details until they are ready to file. In 13 a project like this it is very simple like black lines on paper.14 15 Commissioner Fineberg: So it’s the drawing of the box regardless of the uses in the box, 16 regardless of the toxins underneath or the adjacency discussed. 17 18 Mr. Williams: That is correct and those other issues are all issues within review but in terms of 19 the actual design as it is laid out in the staff report it talks about what is meant by design and the 20 design is essentially the black lines on paper. In this case it’s not even the religious as a whole 21 because they are not delineating work toward the goal at this time.22 23 Commissioner Martinez: If I could just add, if they chose not to divide the ownership that way, 24 commission wouldn’t be reviewing that. That is what is basically before you and it is why this 25 has come to you because they chose to break this up from an ownership standpoint into 26 something that requires a map and you insert it. Our feeling was the commission was involved 27 and I think you’ve seen tonight as unlike some other cases you’ve seen with maps. We have not 28 tried to restrain your discussion on the land use and environmental issues because it is before you 29 so we want you to feel the whole packages before you. We’ll have some indication of the 30 architectural and design type of situation.31 32 Commissioner Martinez: So again, the objections I hear to the land use not the tentative one. I 33 don’t think we were here to judge the land use tonight. 34 35 Commissioner Tanaka: I do have one other comment about the actual map. So it’s been forced 36 because it is rental versus ownership versus a condo it can be sold. In general, rentals have the 37 tenants stay less time than owners although I don’t know if that’s the whole case.38 39 If it’s an ownership I could imagine if there are issues of the TCE you will be exposed for a 40 longer period of time and then it was a rental. The rental may be there for a few years, maybe 10 41 years but expels to these cumulative effects could be… I don’t know if a family with their own 42 kids knew that then they would want to live here for a long period of time. It sounds precarious. 43 44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 27 of 28 Mr. Williams: Commenting on the comments of CEQA it’s a little bit speculative because I 1 don’t know what’s going on. We are not required to speculate as to how long people might live 2 in a particular building. But, not to say something we can point, it’s just not something we 3 normally analyze in a CEQA contest.4 5 Commissioner Garber: One of the distinction between rental properties and for sale properties is 6 that rental properties. The owner of the property takes the risk of contamination. If the site 7 becomes unusable because of contamination then presumably the developer would take that risk. 8 9 On the other hand, to the extent that the properties or individual units are sold that risk then 10 transfers to the purchasers in common ways. If it turns out that there are significant health 11 hazards at the site, those purchasers at the condos would then be unable to sell their condo 12 ownership to somebody else and so the risk transfers. 13 14 To me the issue is that a key part of this risk mitigation is in some sense the condo or the fact that 15 a condo wouldn’t be appropriate and the fact that this is a site that has its materials, there is a site 16 that has adjacency issues to a lot of things, potential high speed rail and there is a Cal Train. Cal 17 Train has issues to the adjacent car, service, and location. And if its slow people may buy it and 18 be stuck so from the point of view of the remarks of Commissioner Tanaka, it is that a person 19 renting is free to leave. A person buying may be stuck. From that point of view the ownership is 20 going to be longer particularly if they are unable to sell it to someone else so to me the 21 condominium is the crux of the issue and makes this much more operative as a problem. 22 23 Notwithstanding the issues and findings that we’ve found is our tentative map findings and in 24 addition the cover of the staff report says request by Hohbach Realty Company for approval of a 25 tentative map. A tentative map for condomium purchases, 10 84 residential units and the two 26 upper floors, common area, etc. etc., ground floor research and development use so at least the 27 way it was written in the staff report, the motion that was suggested to us, does he incorporate all 28 of these things? That’s how I interpret it.29 30 SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED31 32 Chair Tuma: So we have on the floor right now a substitute motion. All those in favor of the 33 substitute motion which was in a sense to move the staff report as a recommendation with some 34 additional conditions that was presented by Commissioner Garber. Motion fails on a vote of 2 –35 4. Commissioners Garber and Martinez voting in the affirmative. Tanaka, Keller, Tuma and 36 Fineberg voting negative. Mr. Lippert is absent. So this brings us back to the underlying 37 motion. Is there any additional discussion on the underlying motion? Seeing no indication the 38 underlying motion was to deny the application for the tentative map and the Mitigated Negative 39 Declaration for the reasons stated by Commissioner Keller in this motion and as amended by 40 Vice Chair Fineberg. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. All those opposed.41 42 INITIAL MOTION PASSED43 44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 28 of 28 Motion passes on a vote of 4 to 2, Commissioners Fineberg, Tuma, Keller and Tanaka voting in 1 the affirmative and Commissioner Garber and Chair Martinez voting no.2 3 With that we will close this item. 4 Architectural Review Board Staff Report Agenda Date:July 7, 2011 To:Architectural Review Board From:Amy French, Manager of Current Planning Department:Planning and Community Environment Subject: 195 Page Mill Road [08PLN-00295]:Request by Hohbach Realty Company Limited Partnership for Architectural Review of a three storybuilding on a 2.41-acre (net) site for ground floor research and development use (50,467 sq. ft.) and 84 residential units (106,920 sq. ft.). Zone District: General Manufacturing (GM). Environmental Assessment: A revised draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public review beginning Friday May6, 2011 through Tuesday June 7, 2011. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) conduct the third and final formal hearing on this project and make a recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based plans revised to address the May 19, 2011 ARB comments and upon draft approval findings (Attachment A) and conditions (Attachment C). The two options are to recommend the Director approve the application with conditions or deny the application. The Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment B) is also to be acted upon by the Director following ARB recommendation on the Architectural Review application. The approval or denial of the Architectural Review application by the Director may be appealed to City Council. Draft conditions have been prepared to address the ARB’s most recent comments on seven items, as the applicant has not fully addressed these comments. The conditions may be modified by the ARB following the applicant’s presentation regarding these items. A separate condition regarding the setback along 3045 Park Boulevard and related findings is outlined below. BACKGROUND The ARB application is for a new three story building having 157,387 square feet of floor area with a total of 293 paved parking spaces (274 below grade spaces, 19 surface spaces) accessible from Park Boulevard with 9 landscaped spaces reserved for future conversion to parking spaces. The tentative map for condominium purposes (84 residential units plus commercial unit(s)), submitted on October 5, 2010, will be reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission (date uncertain) with final action by the City 195 Page Mill Road [11PLN-00295]Page 2 Council. Background information was provided in the May 19, 2011 and December 3, 2009 staff reports found on the City’s website.The May 19, 2011 ARB report provided a summary of the ARB comments from the December 3, 2009 meeting. Public comments on the revised draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment B) received prior to the end of comment period June 7, 2011 have been addressed by the City’s consultant in the attached letter (Attachment D). The environmental review process and summary of the revised, final document are described further later in this report. On December 3, 2009, the ARB conducted its first formal review of this project application and continued their review to a date uncertain; the second ARB formal review was held on May 19, 2011, and again continued the item. This is the third formal review and the ARB recommendation must be forwarded to the Director of Planning and Community Environment following the third ARB review of a major item. The ARB’s most recent comments on May 19, 2011 included the following items: 1)For the Akins-property-facing residential units only: Provide either a 10 foot back setback at the upper floor levels (as required per RM-40 zoning standards), or obtain an easement agreement on the Akins’ property bordering the subject property; 2)The tower at the corner “lid” needs to go all the way around the tower on all four sides. The Park Boulevard side needs more articulation. The pale section of wall next to the tower doesn’t do the tower “any justice”. The stucco portion next to the tower needs to be re-thought in terms of design; 3)Planting: Specify the vine species for rear façade trellises; Call out street tree species and relationship to Park Boulevard Tree Planting Plan; 4)Colors: Yellow on the tower is way too bright. Colors seem “spotty” and chaotic. Bring back two options for colors. Boardmember Lew suggested having a “color rule” (i.e. pattern of colors along Park versus pattern along Page Mill, courtyard, etc.); 5)Explore screening for bike lockers and either move the lockers or screen them; 6)Upper part of the accent wall parapets need returns on them to provide thickness; 7)Provide more perspectives from different views. Especially provide a perspective from the Park/Olive side. The applicant submitted revised plans (Attachment G) on June 28, 2011 for ARB consideration. Letters dated June 29, 2011 and June 13, 2011 prepared by the applicant and signed by his architect were submitted on June 29, 2011. A letter dated June 13, 2011 regarding the issue of increased setback facing the Akins Body Shop side of the project is also attached. These three letters are provided as Attachment E. Other plans were submitted June 2, 2011, which differ from the plans submitted on June 28, 2011, in that sheets were added to the applicant-preferred May 5, 2011 ARB review sets; these sheets are labeled “ALT” (indicating alternative proposal rather than the applicant preferred proposal) whereas the June 2, 2011 plan set substituted the former sheets reviewed by the ARB with a revised design to actually address ARB comments. Project sheets in the June 2, 2011 revisions are now labeled as “ALT” in the most recent plan set (sheets ALT-A2.4, ALT-A2.4AALT-A3.1, ALT-A3.2, ALT-A3.6, ALT-A3.6A). The most recent plan set also provides an alternative color scheme of orange, green, yellow and violet not shown in the same intensity as the June 2, 2011 submittal (which was muted shades of blue, yellow, orange and green and discussed with the applicant on June 23, 2011). Staff will post the muted color scheme discussed with the applicant on June 23, 2011 on the wall of the chambers. 195 Page Mill Road [11PLN-00295]Page 3 Other applicant letters were submitted June 2, 2011 and June 15, 2011 and are in the project file. While the June 15, 2011 letter is the same letter as the one submitted June 29, 2011 (except it did not include the attached San Francisco Chronicle article), the June 2, 2011 letter indicates: (a) a willingness to modify the tower appearance, (b) the wall return would be extended from 16 inches to 48 inches, and (c) the perspective drawing requested by the ARB would be submitted separately. In the end, the applicant did not support this version of the letter. The tower modification (item a) is shown on the ALT sheets in the most recent plan sets. Items b and c are not reflected in the plan set. Also, it should be noted the color schemes shown in the plan sets are using the applicant-preferred tower design rather than the ALT tower design. DISCUSSION May 19, 2011 ARB Comments This discussion relates to the seven numbered items summarized above from the May 19, 2011 ARB meeting, and the written response by the applicant’s architect to these items and other items. The applicant does not wish to implement the changes reflected in the ALT sheets, since he prefers the May 19, 2011 plan set. 1)10’ Setback at Akins:No changes have been made in plans, as explained in the applicant’s June 13, 2011 letter addressing this matter. The applicant’s focus is on the fact that the city can’t require the setback as a zoning requirement. However, the ARB may make appropriate Architectural Review findings that the setback is necessary for design reasons. Draft findings (and alternative findings in the event the ARB finds the applicant’s proposal to be unacceptable for design reasons, with regard to the building setback) are included (with the alternative language related to a design need to provide a 10 foot setback at the upper floors underlined) in Attachment A to this report. An additional condition of approval would be required to impose the additional five foot setback at the second and third floors of the project facing the Akins site. If the ARB supports the setback finding and recommends an approval condition, the applicant may either appeal this approval condition, or record a five foot easement on the Akins property in favor of 195 Page Mill Road to achieve a 10 foot building separation at the upper floors. The project plans continue to show is a zero setback at the basement parking level, a 10 foot setback at the first floor level, and a five foot setback at the second and third floor level (with periodic 6’4” setbacks along that side). If a five foot wide easement were proposed and recorded on the Akins property to benefit the 195 Page Mill Road development, a 10 building separation at the upper floors would be provided and thereby meet the intent of the RM-40 zoning standards, even though the zoning standards are no longer required per the City Attorney (as only the GM zoning regulations are applied to the project and no Variance is required from the RM-40 10 foot interior side yard building setback). The alternative condition language, if approved by ARB, would read as follows: “The proposed design of the second and third floor level facades facing the interior side property line abutting 3045 Park Boulevard shall be revised to show a 10-foot side yard consistent with ARB approval findings for this project. This may also be satisfied if the applicant obtains a 5-foot easement in perpetuity from the neighboring property owner.” 2)Corner Tower:As described in the background section, the plans submitted on June 2, 2011 (sheet A3.1) indicate modifications to the tower elevations, which are then noted as 195 Page Mill Road [11PLN-00295]Page 4 alternative plans in the June 28, 2011 plans. Staff believes the below changes now shown as ALT may address the ARB concerns so a condition of approval (also in Condition 1) notes the ALT tower design as the version recommended to address ARB concerns: a.The metal component is slimmer on the Park Boulevard side and now similarly proportioned as the metal component on the Page Mill Road side; b.The adjacent balconies are wider on Park Boulevard side, similar to Page Mill side; c.The yellow corner component is now its own entity -no longer partially hidden behind the metal component and has greater length (the bottom edge extends lower to the line of the top of the windows on the adjacent metal component) to help with the illusion of “corner tower”; it protrudes (in vertical plane) beyond the metal components at the corner and is cantilevered over the third floor wall plane; it is also scored asymmetrically including a vertical score line that was not there previously; d.The windows on the “lid” of the yellow component (serving as a mechanical screen) are not shown going all the way around the tower on all four sides as requested for technical reasons set forth in the architect’s letter; however, the “lid” windows are no longer reflecting an indent detail below the cap and above the yellow corner component, so the illusion of windows turning the corner (and then not turning) is no longer presented. 3)Planting:(A) Vines: Since vine species for rear façade trellises have not yet been identified, a condition of approval requires such specification and staff review prior to submittal of building permit application. (B) Street Trees: The species along Park Boulevard are noted London Plane Trees, which the Planning Arborist is satisfied with as a street tree species. The Public Works Arborist attended the May 19, 2011 meeting to explain the reasons for selecting the alternate tree species. The Planning Arborist will again attend the ARB hearing to answer questions regarding the Park Boulevard Tree Planting Plan and the final selection. 4)Colors:The applicant pleads that the ARB support the applicant’s color consultant’s scheme presented to the ARB on May 19, 2011, offers an explanation and news article by John King about color on a recent San Francisco development. To address the ARB’s request, the June 29, 2011 letter describes the mustard color “Gambel Gold” noted on sheet A3.1 and an option for ARB to approve a lighter gold or yellow on the same Sherwin Williams color strip, including “Overjoy” and “Solaria”, or the “Bee’s Wax” color the color consultant had originally selected. The June 28, 2011 plan set, an alternative color scheme is provided is shown on four elevations noting where the color would be provided (yellow on the tower only, muted orange-red in three locations, muted lime green in three locations, muted violet blue in four locations on the long elevations and three locations on the short elevations). The architect notes that if neither of the schemes is found acceptable, the applicant proposes using a single color, the background beige color. In any case, staff has included in Condition 1 a requirement for brush out of sample area of paint colors on the building per the approved color scheme for ARB subcommittee final review. 5)Bike Lockers:Bicycle parking facilities would be provided as part of each dwelling unit’s private storage area in the parking garage and bicycle parking would be provided at ground level adjacent to the courtyard, which the applicant has stated cannot be screened because of constraints that were not more fully described but were perhaps discussed previously. 6)Accent Wall Parapet Returns: The final applicant letter did not address this concern; 195 Page Mill Road [11PLN-00295]Page 5 therefore condition of approval #1 includes a requirement for thicker returns on the accent wall parapets (48 inches in thickness per the applicant’s earlier letter). 7)Perspective Drawings: Not provided in the most recent plans or other plans, but no condition of approval has been added regarding this issue. Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Compliance The zoning table describing how the project meets the development standards and the analysis of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan policies applicable to the project were included in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment B) that was circulated May 6, 2011 through June 7, 2011. Earlier ARB reports for this application included description of concessions requested and Zoning comparison and Comprehensive Plan tables. Green Building Requirements The applicant had previously submitted a LEED Silver proposal. The requirements as of January2011 are that the applicant must submit a Multifamily Greenpoint Rated Checklist for the residential portion of the project and the California Green Building Code form –as locally amended to require Tier 2 –for the R&D portion of the project. These forms were supposed to be included with this staff report but have not been provided to date. The City also has a LEED ND pilot program requiring submittal of checklists for information purposes only. A condition of approval #2 has been included to require submittal of green building checklists per current requirements and requesting the LEED ND checklist for data gathering purposes. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The attached draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment B) includes clarifications made to address comments made prior to June 7, 2011, the end of the circulation period for public comments, which began Friday May 6, 2011. The draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) published May 6, 2011 was the third revision and included, but was not limited to, discussion on the potential impacts of the proposed High Speed Rail project, transportation impacts assuming a vacant lot as the baseline reference, additional mitigation measures related to the proposed use of limited amounts and types of hazardous materials in the first floor R&D use, as well as the inclusion of revised and new mitigation measures related to soil and groundwater issues. Staff received public comments and forwarded them to the City’s consultant (Atkins). The response is contained as Attachment D, which has also been referenced in the IS/MND, and annotated clarifications added to the IS/MND do not need to be re- circulated since no new impacts nor mitigation measures have been introduced. TIMELINE Submittal of application:September 22, 2008 Application deemed complete:March 15, 2009 First Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration review period:April 24, 2009 –May 25, 2009 Second Revised Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration review period:November 2, 2009 –December 1, 2009 First ARB Hearing:December 3, 2009 Third Revised Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration review period:May 6, 2011 –June 7, 2011 Second ARB Hearing:May 19, 2011 195 Page Mill Road [11PLN-00295]Page 6 Third ARB Hearing:July 7, 20111 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A:Findings for ARB approval Attachment B: Revised Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment C: Draft Conditions of ARB approval Attachment D:Atkins Response to Comments by RWQCP and Mr. Moss on May 6 IS/MND Attachment E:Applicant’s responses to ARB’s comments dated June 13, 2011 (received June 13, 2011), June 13, 2011 (received June 29, 2011) and June 29, 2011 Attachment F:Development Plans, received 6/28/11 (Board Members Only) Prepared By:Amy French, AICP, Manager Current Planning/Interim Chief Planning Official Manager Review:Curtis Williams, AICP, Director of Planning and Community Environment COURTESY COPIES Harold Hohbach Hoover Associates Rod Jeung, Atkins (formerly PBS&J, Inc.) Roger Papler, RWQCB Bob Moss Don Larkin City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 1 of 26 Thursday, July 7, 20111 REGULAR MEETING –8:30 A.M.2 City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor3 250 Hamilton Avenue4 Palo Alto, California 943015 6 ROLL CALL:7 Board members:Staff Liaison:8 Clare Malone Prichard (Chair)Russ Reich, Senior Planner9 Heather Young (Vice Chair)10 Alexander Lew Staff:11 Grace Lee Diana Tamale, Administrative Associate12 Judith Wasserman Amy French, Manager of Current Planning13 Elena Lee, Senior Planner14 Curtis Williams, Director of Planning and 15 Community Environment16 17 AGENDIZED ITEMS:18 1.195 Page Mill Road [08PLN-00281]:Request by Hohbach Realty Company Limited 19 Partnership for Architectural Review of a 157,387 sq. ft. building on a 2.41-acre (net) site 20 for ground floor research and development use (50,467 sq. ft.) and 84 residential units 21 (106,920 sq. ft.). Two concessions are requested (per California Govt. Code 65915-65918) 22 to allow residential use and additional floor area to accommodate this use. Zone District: 23 General Manufacturing (GM). Environmental Assessment: A revised draft Initial 24 Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public review beginning Friday 25 May 6, 2011 through Tuesday June 7, 2011.26 27 APPROVAL OF MINUTES:Meeting of June 16, 201128 29 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda 30 with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a 31 speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and 32 Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 33 minutes.34 35 Amy French, Manager of Current Planning:Yes, I am the recently-assigned-to-myself project 36 manager since Lata left a week and a half or so ago. So I ask your patience. The first item of 37 business I would say is the paperwork management problem we have today so I am going to go 38 through that first. At places, and some of this by email several days ago, most of this yesterday 39 and today, we have items submitted by the applicant: A letter dated July 6th which starts,“Dear 40 Members”, with suggestions for amendments, architectural review, draft conditions of approval 41 and attachments by paragraph. So I would just make a comment first that I confirmed with the 42 applicant that he meant to say Drawing A3.1 for the first item one and two. It says assume facts 43 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 2 of 26 not yet decided by ARB. A mock up is provided for. A mock up note is Note 1 on Sheet A3.1. 1 It notes “provide color mock up as shown”. As you can see there are three little areas on the 2 south elevation shown as Note 1 accent color blue, Note 1 accent color red, Note 1 accent color 3 yellow. So those are the three mock ups facing Park Boulevard; staff’s condition of approval is 4 to have, once those brush outs are there, to have subcommittee review of those three brush outs. 5 That is consistent with the approval condition.6 7 Further, on this submittal that came today to you, there is a note on number 3, conditions should 8 be removed and the applicants don’t know there is any requirement that a final map has to be 9 approved before application for building permit. That is a standard condition that the city 10 enforces in all projects when there is an ARB approval. Then it gets the tentative map and then a 11 final map which has to be filed and recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. That is 12 something we do and that is the right for the applicant to protest that condition by appealing that 13 condition to council but that is the condition that is going along to this recommendation from 14 staff. It is a standard condition. 15 16 The development impact fees are being questioned. I can tell you that the fees were calculated 17 and we haven’t had a discussion with the applicant on this matter but certainly that can happen 18 prior to the director’s action on this project. I haven’t had time to digest the others on this 19 particular submittal.20 21 Next we have, from the applicant as well at places we have the green building checklists. There 22 is one for multifamily green point rated for the upper portions or the residential portion of the 23 project.You have a LEED for neighborhood development which is part of our pilot program 24 requirement and requests in this case the application came in before that requirement was made 25 but thankfully they have provided us for our information and data processing. Then we have the 26 non-residential checklist which is the Cal Green Tier 2 checklist. This came in yesterday. I have 27 not had a chance to analyze or process this with our staff for sustainability but that will happen.28 29 Along with those there was discussion in several applicant submittals about the 10 foot setback. 30 The applicant continues to maintain, as does staff, that the 10 foot setback at the upper floors 31 which is not provided is not a zoning requirement. It is simply something that the ARB is 32 discussing and evaluating whether it is needed for design reasons to have the upper floor set back 33 10 feet. It is not a zoning requirement. It was originally part of an RM40 zoning requirement 34 but we’ve ruled that out as no longer a requirement, so just to be clear on that and we do have 35 alternate findings and you would have to add a condition to require that 10 foot setback at the 36 upper floors; otherwise they do provide a 10 foot setback at the first floor and zero setback at the 37 basement level.38 39 The corner tower -it’s noted, they want to go with what was provided to you on May 19th for the 40 reasons as cited in their various letters. In the alt drawings there is showing a revised tower 41 design, so if that is the pleasure of the board to make that alt set of drawings for the tower, then 42 you would want to make that part of your motion otherwise they are requesting to stay with the 43 May 19th version of the tower. The letter also identifies that vines are jasmine, Polyanthemum 44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 3 of 26 which is the pink jasmine, as I see the drawing L2.1 and I see the V1 but it doesn’t have a 1 species next to it -but now we know what that is. It is pink jasmine for the twelve vines along 2 the rear property line where the trellis is, facing Caltrain. The colors -as I said, they would do 3 the brush outs. I don’t know what they mean about the dri-vit but basically again that is sheet 4 A3.1, not A3.5.5 6 The bike lockers, there is a CMU wall screen of those bike lockers. There are no associated vine 7 plantings on those walls, or that one wall, facing Park Blvd. That is not something we put as a 8 condition but that might be something to explore if there is a desire to put some kind of vine on 9 that CMU wall that is intended to screen the bike lockers from the Park Boulevard view. The 10 returns -it says in this letter, that they are willing to increase the wall thickness to 24 inches. 11 Staff put an approval condition that it should be increased to 48 inches because that was an 12 earlier communication from the architect but the team wishes to keep the 18 inch return but they 13 are willing to go to 24. That condition would have to be modified per whatever the ARB is 14 thinking there.15 16 Perspective drawing -we gave up on that, gave it to you without that, but in that letter it says 17 they are willing to come back with that if the ARB insists. This is the third and final ARB 18 formal hearing on this item. You are requested to provide a recommendation today. If not, the 19 Director may act upon the project without your recommendation, so I just thought I’d throw that 20 in there. That doesn’t preclude you from taking action one way or the other with a condition to 21 come back on, like we had in the conditions of approval, draft condition which said come back 22 on consent and come back for subcommittee review for brush outs, etc.23 24 Other documents, and then I’ll try to wrap this up, other documents we had at places, also from 25 the applicant. They don’t want to see those additional findings placed and again this is about the 26 10 foot setback of the upper floors so again that is the James Janz letter from Sideman and 27 Bancroft dated July 5th. Again those were add-on findings if the ARB felt that was appropriate 28 related to design concerns. Then there is, June 15th came in about Stellar Environmental, I 29 believe this is the consultant retained by the applicant team regarding Mr. Moss’ comments and 30 perhaps Mr. Papler’s comments. In any case, the city retained the city’s consultant, who I 31 believe is present in the room waving his hand, to respond to Mr. Moss’ and Mr. Papler’s 32 comments on the environmental document. So for the record, those that were included as a 33 source document or a reference document in the revised environmental document dated June 34 29th, there are some annotations there clarifying as well something we got back from Joe Teresi 35 of the Public Works Department regarding wording. Again, it’s not introducing an impact or 36 mitigation measure, just some clarifications for the record in that particular category for the 37 environmental document. So that is why we did some annotations.38 39 Chair Malone Prichard: Can I interrupt you? That one I don’t have here. Does anybody else on 40 the board have that one?41 42 Ms. French:This is June 15th response so maybe can you take that out there and… So the EIR, I 43 mean to say MND, Mitigated Negative Declaration, in there I put a note there, responses to Bob 44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 4 of 26 Moss and Roger Papler. It is a source document or a document listed as Document P but it is 1 also Attachment D to the ARB staff report so go to the back of all those attachments and you will 2 find Attachment D, it says Atkins at the top. Attachment D, Atkins in bold letter and that is 3 dated June 29th and is addressed to A. French. It is responding to Mr. Papler and Mr. Moss’ 4 comments on the revised MND. If you do not have the Stellar document which was the 5 applicant prepared responses to Mr. Moss’ comments, we can make a copy for you. The 6 applicant may want to go over that. Regarding Mr. Moss’ comments which you have at places 7 dated July 5th, he basically brings up colors, comprehensive plan policies, parking, the various 8 other items, that’s at places. This was following the responses to comments made by the city 9 consultant. I would just reassert that Mitigation Measure 1 involves aesthetics and that is what 10 you are doing here, is to implement whatever you think is needed for aesthetics to mitigate any 11 concerns or impacts there. The parking assertions, we are comfortable and that is in the 12 environmental document as well. You know that 379 spaces are required; the 30% reduction is 13 allowed because of joint use residential-commercial, it is near transit, and they would have a 14 TDM program, so they would be allowed to provide 265 with a 30% reduction -however they 15 are providing 302, including the 9 spaces in landscape reserve, so their request is a 22% request 16 at this time.17 18 Finally the other at-places documents you have are from Mr. Borock -there are two dated July 19 7th that we received yesterday. He does note there was a document provided on June 7th he 20 wishes would have been addressed by the city’s consultants on the environmental. It’s basically 21 about the below market rate concerns that he has with respect to CEQA review and the tentative 22 map. I should say I’ve hung the draft tentative map on the wall below the alternate color scheme 23 so that if anybody in the public wants to go see that map that is on file with the city and would be 24 brought to the Planning and Transportation Committee along with a resolved below market rate 25 agreement that is in process. I think that concludes all of the at-places memos. Again, with the 26 statement that the vines are now identified, we then can modify conditions. Now we know what 27 that is. The condition #26 notes that Hornbeam should be substituted for the Australian Willows 28 shown there, there are about five of them. That stands. It is resolved as far as the London Plane 29 trees along Park, that’s fine. The Shumar Oak, as proposed in the landscape drawing on sheet 30 L2.1, is fine with the Public Works staff and Planning Arborist. So let’s see, I think I’m going to 31 be deleting number 25 for the Director’s Action. I believe I’ve covered pretty much the items. 32 Again, all of the documentation and background on the details of the project has been contained 33 in the multiple staff reports on this item and available online. I know we have several folks in 34 the audience following the applicant’s presentation.35 36 Chair Malone Prichard: Okay, the applicant: if you would like to come up you have 10 minutes 37 to make a presentation.38 39 Harold C. Hohbach, Hohbach Realty Company: Hi, I’m Harold C. Hohbach from Hohbach 40 Realty Company, a limited partnership. I am going to ask Jim Janz, a real estate attorney, to first 41 come in on the project and that will be followed by Richard Campbell and then Lyn 42 Winterbotham is here to answer any questions you have on landscaping. Thank you.43 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 5 of 26 1 Jim Janz:Thank you very much. My name is James Jans and first I want to mention that you 2 have a letter from me that was mailed on July 5th and apparently didn’t make it here on time so it 3 was distributed this morning as part of your packet. I am not going to go into the letter. I have 4 represented Mr. Hohbach on the land use issues of this project since 2006 when it was first 5 approved by the city. I want today to address just the issue of the possible imposition of an 6 additional 5 foot setback on the Akins and shop side of the project. This issue seems to have 7 taken on a life of its own and so you may know the story but let me briefly give you a little of the 8 history.9 10 Initially the city tried to impose GM zoning on the ground floor and RM zoning on the second 11 and third residential floors. The city took the position that Design Enhancement Exceptions 12 could be used to avoid the RM40 zone 10 foot side yard setback which would otherwise be 13 required for the residential levels. Ironically at the first floor level, where there is a setback 14 requirement, there is a setback. The project was approved but delayed by a lawsuit. A couple of 15 years later the city says, change of policy. We can no longer use DEEs quite so easily. You’ll 16 need a variance for the second and third floor setbacks. The city staff agreed to support the 17 project and told us that the variance wouldn’t be a problem, except that then, and this was in 18 2009, the city decides it can’t think of a reason to support the variance so another year goes by 19 and the city decides, on the advice of counsel, that they can’t apply two zoning classifications to 20 the same parcel. That should be good news. GM applies throughout and no DEE or variance is 21 required however, there is this lingering little thought about a setback so at the last meeting here 22 the staff says, if you want a setback, make it a requirement. The city, unfortunately, has put the 23 applicant in a real catch 22 by eliminating the requirements of RM40 zoning, eliminating DEEs 24 and eliminating a variance requirement but then sneaking the setback in as an ARB requirement.25 26 As has been explained in previous correspondence, there are approximately 100 feet between the 27 apartments and the Akins building with only landscape parking intervening and remember that 28 Mr. Hohbach is required to pursue an agreement with the owners of the Akins parcel to provide a 29 five foot landscape screen strip along the property line on the Akins parcel. We maintain then 30 that an additional 5 foot setback would not provide any noticeable difference to the residents of 31 the apartment. In addition, which I’m sure you are very familiar with, there is no practical way 32 to provide a building setback on the property line at the 2nd and 3rd floor levels without going 33 through a whole lot of machinations, reducing the size of individual units on those levels, 34 reducing the size of balconies, moving the south wing forward or north perhaps and thereby 35 reducing the size of other wings in the building, reducing the courtyards, maybe attempting to 36 purchase some rights from the Akins side. All of these architectural efforts have substantial 37 impact on design, structural support, location of utilities, cold compliance issues, all the things 38 that you would understand. These things are time consuming and costly. Sure they can be done, 39 but none of them would be easily achievable and would it be worth it? It’s difficult to believe 40 that a resident of one of these apartments would even notice an additional 5 foot setback. Of 41 course, the concern is not the existing Akins building which is 100 feet away, but rather the 42 possibility that the owner of the Akins site could one day construct a building at the property line 43 just a little over 5 feet away from these apartment units. This is the key to what I want to address 44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 6 of 26 today. Is that likely to happen? For all the work we would have to go through, what are we 1 trying to avoid? The Akins lot is zoned GM-AD for Auto Dealership and there is no auto 2 dealership there now. GM allows a 0.5 to 1 FAR. Assuming that if an auto showroom is built 3 you get up to 0.6 FAR but auto showroom on this site appears unlikely for the future. So let’s 4 look at the GM. What’s the likelihood that an owner would build something right on the north 5 property line of the Akins property?A one story building would take up the whole lot so the 6 largest lot coverage building would only be one story and not pose a problem for the second and 7 third floor residents. A two story building of course would take up a quarter of the lot, a three 8 story a sixth of the lot, etc. You understand that and you can build higher and take up less of the 9 lot but there is no reason to assume that any developer that would do that, no matter what he 10 would build,would built it right at the north property line leaving himself with no setback and 11 leaving the rest of the lot clear. Most likely the building would be closer to the center of the 12 property of the parcel so it seems reasonable to conclude that the worst situation is very unlikely 13 to happen.14 15 In addition, I should note that the code provides a height and setback requirement for any 16 commercially zoned site within 150 feet of residential uses or adjacent to a residential zone as 17 well as a 10 foot height limit at the property line and a 50% daylight plane. It is unclear whether 18 a development on the Akins property would be subject to that requirement because this site is not 19 technically a residentially zoned site but it does establish a precedent which could be used. The 20 city could use it, the existence of the limitations and the code, could be used by the city at the 21 time of some future development on the Akins parcel, to establish a requirement for a setback on 22 that development at the time that that site is developed. So I’ve tried to address the practicalities 23 and I must point out that I have a couple of legal problems which I am obliged to point out as 24 well.25 26 First I’ve explained the catch 22 and I don’t want to go into that again. I think that is a problem 27 for the city. But secondly I don’t believe any attempts to impose setbacks not required by the 28 GM zone could be supported by legally sufficient findings of fact and evidence of that is the 29 requirement of additional 5 foot setback as added to the draft architectural review findings in 30 front of you was put in by simply plugging into four previously prepared findings and setback 31 requirement which clearly indicates the staff did not think the setback was necessary to make the 32 findings at the last go round. So in conclusion I would ask the city to accept the setbacks 33 provided in the project which is in compliance with the GM zoning. Thank you.34 35 Richard Campbell:My name is Richard Campbell. I am an architect with Hoover and 36 Associates. Good morning everyone. I would like to address the seven comments in the staff 37 report. I will take them in the same order. I will try to be brief and then make myself available 38 for questions or comments. 39 40 The first item was the setback which Mr. Janz has already addressed. The second item is the 41 tower and to explain our position on the tower I would like to ask you to turn to the first color 42 perspective. It’s way at the back of the set. This shows the tower as it has been designed from a 43 number of years ago, this project had the tower designed this way. The shape of the tower, the 44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 7 of 26 configuration, is actually set or based on the equipment which is screening and the lower part of 1 the tower, the flanking elements, the height of those is determined by what it is screening and 2 that goes around on all four sides. What extends above that, where you see the upper part of the 3 tower -that was for aesthetics only and based on a suggestion some time ago, that we wanted 4 something stronger on the corner. The way we designed it, was integrated on the side panels. 5 That was the intent, we thought it was appropriate, and it is still what we would like to do but 6 based on comments we received at the last meeting we have done an alternate design for the 7 tower to try to make it more prominent and stronger looking. If you turn to the next page, that’s 8 the alternate for the tower. What we’ve done is we’ve brought the plane of the tower out beyond 9 the plane of the flanking elements, the flanking element beside it so it’s more prominent. The 10 middle elements on either side of that are thinner than they were, the tower is deeper. That’s the 11 alternate tower design that we have prepared at the request of the ARB. 12 13 The bike screening, we have added a screen wall in front of the bike lockers. It is a 6 foot high 14 CMU wall to screen the lockers. For the returns on the roof, the best place to see that is on either 15 one of these perspectives. You can see the higher elements return back about 16 inches and the 16 suggestion was to return those 48 inches. We are suggesting 24. We think that with a short 17 return like that you won’t be able to see a return beyond that from the ground anyway. 18 19 The colors on this go way back to one of the earliest meetings we had with ARB where there was 20 a real concern about the way we were treating the back of the building, the very blank wall 21 against the Cal Train tracks. At that time the color consultant was involved. We thought we 22 would use a Mondrian art sort of motif back there and we picked a particular painting that was 23 basically black and white squares with very bright primary colors. I’m sure some of you have 24 seen that Mondrian painting. At that point, we tried to carry those primary colors on through the 25 project, red, blue and yellow. We made a number of different changes on those as we appeared 26 before the ARB on a number of occasions and at the last meeting my sense was that there was 27 not too much objection to the red and blue color but there was an objection to the yellow color. 28 So we have proposed an alternate to the yellow color. It should be in your packet, or is it being 29 passed around? That’s an alternate to the yellow color. We also went back to the office and met 30 with three of our designers and said, let’s just forget the primary colors that we worked with for a 31 number of years on this project and what would we do if we were coming with an alternate other 32 than primary colors. Those are the colors that you see on the color board. The colors we are 33 recommending are the ones to your right and to the left are the three alternate colors for the 34 accent colors. That is shown also on the color drawings, color renderings in the back of the set. 35 The brighter colors that we initially chose, we were looking for something on this project that 36 would be quite playful. Those would be used in very small areas. I remember something an 37 instructor told my class one of my first years in architectural school. He said, when you are 38 picking colors, remember one thing from nature and that is canaries are yellow and elephants are 39 grey. So we are using these accent colors in very small areas and we think the bright colors in 40 those limited areas are appropriate. We would not use those colors throughout the project. We 41 have a field color that is a pretty neutral color.I’ve gone over my time so I think I’ll conclude 42 with that and make myself available for questions.43 44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 8 of 26 Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you. I have one card for a member of the public. Is there anyone 1 else who wanted to speak? Okay so we have Mr. Robert Moss and you’ll have three minutes.2 3 Robert Moss: Thank you. A couple of comments, first of all from Hohbach, July 6th, you 4 absolutely must bear in mind that when this project was first approved in January of 2007 a 5 condition of the City Council was there must be complete approval of the ARB before a project 6 construction permit is granted. Mr. Hohbach went in across the street and applied for a 7 construction permit the day before the ARB reviewed it. Don’t allow that to happen again.8 9 Second, when this project was rejected by the court, there was a requirement that the city had to 10 respond by August 2008 how they were going to address the problems with CEQA. The city has 11 never done so and is in violation of a court order.12 13 I want to talk about this garbage letter that you got from Stellar. The first problem is that they 14 ignore the fact that 395 Page Mill is part of the official 640 Page Mill Superfund Site. Second 15 they ignore the fact that the coding area which includes this site is shown very clearly on all of 16 the drawings as being an adjacent and influenced portion of the official Superfund Site and third, 17 Moffett Field, which is across 101 from the MEW site which is a Superfund Site is being treated 18 by the EPA precisely the same way even though it is not a Superfund Site because it is owned by 19 the government. The level of toxicity in the way we mitigate it is not determined whether it is a 20 Superfund Site or just a clean up site. It is determined by the level of danger of contamination in 21 the soil, groundwater and in future buildings. EPA is requiring and the City of Mountain View 22 has required since 2003 that all buildings built in that area have barriers and active mitigation 23 and monitoring. If Mountain View can do it, why can’t Palo Alto? This project fails to comply 24 with CEQA. It fails to comply with normal procedures. It fails to protect the health and safety 25 of future residents and the request that you also be allowing them to put hazardous materials in 26 the R and D space down below will further endanger and eventually I’m sure sicken if not kill 27 some of the occupants. That certainly should be rejected. 28 29 This project should be rejected. They have repeatedly refused to comply with ARB 30 requirements. They refuse to comply with City Council requirements. They refuse to comply 31 with normal procedures required by EPA and by DTSC and they fail to comply with CEQA. If it 32 does not comply with CEQA, I shall sue. 33 34 Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you for your comments and next we have Herb Borock. 35 36 Herb Borock: Good morning and thank you staff for distributing my letters including the letter 37 that I submitted before the deadline on comments mitigating negative declaration regarding the 38 BMR agreement. I am recommending to you that at a minimum, you recommend to the director 39 that he require an environmental impact report for this project. I have said in my letter to have 40 just a revised mitigated negative declaration and have that re-circulated. The reason he would 41 need to do that is so that the entire project is reviewed for its environmental effect and that 42 includes a signed BMR agreement so that the public can see whether or not the BMR agreement 43 actually implements requirements of government code section 65915 that is required for the 44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 9 of 26 project to receive the concessions it has requested because if the applicant is unwilling to sign an 1 agreement that implements those concession standards then the project would need to be 2 rejected.3 4 However, after listening to Mr. Moss and reading the documents from the applicant’s consultants 5 and also both today and what is also in the staff report, I have to agree with him that an 6 environmental impact report is required because of the potentially significant and unmitigated 7 impacts Mr. Moss cited regarding toxics. When an environmental impact report is done, at that 8 time the Council can look at the arguments from different sides on an issue and decide which is 9 the correct one to adopt. It can even adopt the one that is worse, by making statements of 10 overriding considerations. However, at the level of the mitigated negative declaration, if as it 11 happens by Mr. Moss, a fair argument is raised that is different than the one that the applicant is 12 relying upon and it contradicts it and shows that there are potentially significant effects, must be 13 an environmental impact report. Having the consultant have ten times or a hundred times as 14 many for the applicant come in and make new arguments, that doesn’t make a difference because 15 somebody from the public has come and made a fair argument on the other side and that requires 16 an EIR. Thank you.17 18 Chair Malone Prichard:Thank you for your comments. Okay, we’ll go to board member 19 questions and comments. Heather, you start please.20 21 Vice Chair Young: Thank you for your presentation and the submittal of documents for us to 22 review. I noticed that Curtis Williams is with us this morning and I wondered if you had any 23 comments that you wanted to share with us in addition to those already presented by Ms. French.24 25 Curtis Williams, Planning Director: Thank you. I would like to make a couple of comments. 26 First of all, going to the applicant’s statement about the 10 foot setback and then a couple of 27 comments on the environmental review; so the 10 foot issue again in our mind is perfectly within 28 ARB and the planning director’s authority to apply assuming there is an architectural review 29 finding that supports doing that. It is not being applied because there is a code requirement that 30 is being applied but there is discretion to make a determination that given that the second and 31 third floors are residential, that there needs to be more separation than if this were a fully 32 commercial or industrial type of project on the adjacent side so that is certainly a 33 recommendation to us. We will take that very seriously and it is legally within your authority to 34 do that without being challenged that you’ve applied a setback so that doesn’t apply in this.35 36 As far as the environmental, a couple of issues. The first; as far as the contamination issue goes, 37 and we do have Rod Jeung of our environmental consultants here, we are relying not on the 38 number of consultant letters that the applicant has provided, we are relying on our consultant at 39 Atkins in this case who has folks working for them who are experts in this area. They’ve looked 40 at this. They are also relying on the Regional Water Quality Control Board which has authority 41 to review these types of projects and approve them. In both cases they have found that the 42 mitigation that has been proposed is adequate to address the contamination issues and the 43 potential vapor intrusion to this building. In fact, I would go so far as to say they have been very 44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 10 of 26 conservative on that issue, both our consultant and the regional board have told us that they did 1 not think that it may not be absolutely necessary to do the full vapor barrier and the active 2 ventilation system that provides continuous ventilation rather than a passive system that monitors 3 and checks to see whether additional ventilation is needed. So the applicant can originally come 4 in with something less than that. We have felt that from an administrative standpoint, at the staff 5 level, and in order so that we would address this as fully as can be at this point, that we would 6 request that the applicant agree to the full vapor barrier and the active ventilation for that system 7 and they have agreed to do that with the additional cost to them. But we think it’s appropriate 8 given the uncertainty around some of the issues and also so that staff doesn’t have to be in a 9 continual monitoring state to determine when ventilation is appropriate. 10 11 We are comfortable that this is the case and the Regional Water Quality Board which, in this 12 case is the body that rules on these and has to approve this system, said this works and that this is 13 adequate mitigation. The issue with Mountain View, I understand there is a different approach 14 there. That is a different site. All of these sites are different. I think Mr. Moss is correct when 15 he says it doesn’t matter if it is a Superfund Site or not. What matters is the contamination level 16 and how you mitigate that to meet the appropriate standards that are in place and they have done 17 that at this site, whether how that compares to the Mountain View site, I don’t know, but that’s 18 different and EPA is in charge of that, not Water Quality Control Board. I think we’re working 19 on solid basis with our consultant and the regional board. 20 21 And last about Mr. Borock’s concern about the below market rate, that is a condition of approval 22 that is not a project component that has a physical impact on the environment that would be 23 addressed as a part of a mitigated negative declaration or an environmental impact report, if one 24 were done. It is condition number 8 and requires that the BMR agreement be provided and 25 provide 20% as required by state law to support the conditions of the state law that allow for two 26 concessions and it specifically says affordable to very low income houses which the state law 27 requires. So the condition is in there. It is consistent. We have lots of projects that come 28 through and have below market rate agreements. We don’t analyze them as part of the 29 environmental review, they are condition of approval in terms of affordability levels in this case 30 and some others justifying concessions but they have to comply with that before building permits 31 are issued and construction occurs on site. I can answer anything else you have. 32 33 Vice Chair Young:Thank you very much. I’d also like to thank Mr. Moss and Mr. Borock. Our 34 city would be a different place if there were not engaged and active community members, such 35 as yourselves who took it upon yourselves to research and investigate and track and follow over 36 long periods of times these different types of issues. I’m certainly not an expert in any of these 37 and I rely heavily on the advice of the city and the city’s attorneys. That said, I again do need to 38 rely on their advice and recommendations which is probably not what you want to hear. 39 40 This is a large, complicated project. It has a large, complicated history and a large quantity of 41 paperwork to support and document its path along this process. I’ll try and be brief. I’m in 42 support of this project but I am not in support of it outright. I think there are some conditions 43 that should be applied to the project and there should be some continued involvement by staff 44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 11 of 26 and subcommittee as it continues. Regarding the environmental issue and the below grade 1 garage, as I said, I am not an expert and the recommendation from the city’s consultant that a full 2 vapor barrier and active ventilation be provided in the garage seems a reasonable approach to 3 me. I’m sure there are financial ramifications to it and I’m sure it’s not the full level of 4 protection or mitigation that might be requested by some other people but it does seem like a 5 reasonable approach that the developer and owner of this type of commercial and residential 6 project would want to provide for both his residential and commercial tenants.7 8 Regarding the setback on the southern side, it is not a zoning requirement. It is a design desire. I 9 personally think that 5 feet is too little of a setback from a property line from a residential unit 10 and the staff has crafted a response to this which says that there could either be a 10 foot setback 11 at the second and third floors or a 5 foot easement approach that was taken on the other side of 12 the property. The statement I’m sorry from Mr. Janz is correct, we don’t know what the 13 development of the site adjacent is going to be. We don’t know if it is going to be developed 14 now or a hundred years from now. We don’t know if the parcel will stay intact or that parcel 15 will be subdivided which could increase the pressure to locate a new construction adjacent to that 16 property line. We don’t know if it could be rezoned before it is developed in the future. We 17 don’t know. What we do know is this project is proposed, this project has a property line and it 18 is proposed that this project be proactive for the benefit of its occupants to have either a 10 foot 19 setback for the second and third floor or applies to the other side. Other members of the board 20 may have a different opinion.21 22 Regarding the colors, my opinion is that the proposed mock ups on Park Avenue are a very good 23 idea. I think we could stick with the red, yellow, blue palette and select from something in here. 24 I don’t know that it needs all of us trying to do that right now. That could be something that is 25 worked through in subcommittee. We could stick with that main palette, we just need to work 26 through it.27 28 Regarding the tower design, I think that the alternate proposal has some merit but I will stick 29 with the owner’s request that the original May 19th proposal be the one that is put forward with 30 the project. I believe that the address of the planting has been taken care of with the jasmine vine 31 and that there is a proposed screening for the bikes at the entry which seems like a good 32 compromise. The return walls, 24 inches again seems like a reasonable compromise and I look 33 forward to completing our discussion and moving forward with the project. Thank you very 34 much.35 36 Chair Malone Prichard: Judith.37 38 Judith Wasserman:Good day. Thank you for your presentation and this pile of paper that we’ve 39 been swimming through. Thank you also for sending the pictures. They were very instructive. I 40 have been working on this for years and I cannot make the findings. We had seven comments on 41 the last review and of the seven we got jasmine vines and six excuses. Of the findings I cannot 42 make are elements of the comprehensive plan, policy L5 it says maintain the character of the 43 city, avoid land uses that are overwhelming. I believe that this project is very large and when I 44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 12 of 26 get down to the second finding I will explain that. Policy L48 says promote high quality creative 1 design that is compatible with surrounding developments and I don’t think we’ve reached that. 2 The policy T19 says improve and add attractive secure bicycle parking. I don’t think this is 3 attractive bicycle parking. When we started this project it was rental housing. It is now for sale 4 housing. I am getting the bait and switch feeling.5 6 The finding number two that this design is compatible with the immediate environment of the 7 site is not met. I think when you have this kind of massing and height in a relatively mixed 8 neighborhood that your architectural design needs to be exceptional and I think Mr. Legorreta 9 shows us what we could have gotten and what we do not have.10 11 I don’t have an opinion about the setback except to say that if the board feels that this setback is 12 important because of the possibility of future development, that is called planning and that is the 13 name of what we do here. To say that you can’t plan because of the zoning that exists is not 14 correct. Finding number 10 says that the access to the property and circulation are safe. I have 15 long maintained that entering the site from Park Blvd. is not as safe as it would have been from 16 Page Mill and I still believe that is true. It is not clear to me that the materials, textures and 17 colors are an appropriate expression to the design. That’s it.18 19 Chair Malone Prichard: Let’s move to Grace. Thank you.20 21 Grace Lee:I want to thank the applicant for their presentation and yes, we do have a lot of 22 paper, it’s a very complex project and I may be somewhere in between just in terms of my 23 reaction. I appreciate the comment letter to address the comments that came from the last 24 gentleman. I appreciate Curtis’ staff’s comments about the community issues that have been 25 brought up. I do rely on Curtis’ explanation on that side and I understand that conversation will 26 be continued.27 28 On the setback issue I appreciate, I think it was board member Lew who brought it up last 29 meeting. I’ve actually been on this project for quite a while and did not see the potential for 30 future development and I do think it is within our purview to speak to the comfort of the users of 31 those units with the 200 foot façade basically in one plane, twelve units five feet from the 32 property line and so on my part I do have an opinion there. I think the ten foot setback is a much 33 more favorable situation. On the other side as a designer I do get how difficult that will be to 34 achieve.35 36 Corner tower -you know, I think what would have been helpful is to get a section of just how 37 much screening you really need for that mechanical equipment. In my view, I appreciate the 38 effort in the alternate tower and it’s not so dramatic. There isn’t really a new option here. It’s 39 very subtle. The bulk of my comments have been on the tower in this project in terms of its 40 scale and top heaviness. I saw something about the intention of it not being a tower however I 41 think a lot of the board’s comments over the years has been the need for a marker on this corner 42 and something that distinguishes it especially since the massing of the building is a large block 43 and also that it’s a residence, a home. So something to mark the neighborhood and also for the 44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 13 of 26 program but unfortunately I just don’t think the tower achieves it. I don’t see a solution here, an 1 adequate response to the board’s comments from last time. So from my view the corner tower 2 does not improve, it is hard for me to accept this and I think if the applicant had provided some 3 kind of section to really explain how much screening is needed for that mass to change and those 4 flanking walls adjacent to the tower, how those could be modified and a little bit of effort to how 5 the tower could be improved, so I am a little bit disappointed.6 7 The green checklist needs to come in an adequate time for the staff to approve it. This is such a 8 large building and a big proposal for the city, that it is green and in which aspects it is green, and 9 that it fulfills the requirements seems important. I think we can work with the colors. I’ve 10 always been a proponent of the original solution with the Mondrian colors. I don’t see that as a 11 deal breaker in terms of denying or moving this project along. The 24 inch returns and the same 12 thing with the bike lockers, I feel that all of this could be worked out especially with the staff and 13 the board. 14 15 I do think the issues are the 10 foot setback, how we can make that work for residents with its 16 scale and its future and the corner tower in terms of a real architectural feature that makes the 17 building, improves the pedestrian scale or just marks that corner on an urban design level. It’s 18 just always been a question mark and I feel there is no resolution at this point so I will go ahead 19 and pass it on.20 21 Chair Malone Prichard: Okay, Alex.22 23 Alexander Lew: So I am in agreement with board member Wasserman on this project. The 24 issue in this project for me is that it’s an entire city block, about 250 feet by 450 feet. The design 25 is not up to that scale. If the project were a quarter of the size or half the size I would say, fine, 26 we can get there, but it is a whole city block. I think about 800 High Street, very controversial 27 project, and that is just half a city block. That project, even though to me it has some flaws, it 28 does have sunshades and very highly developed planters and pedestrian amenities right at the 29 sidewalk. It doesn’t have a continuous façade along High Street, there is, for lack of better 30 words, a mini-courtyard that breaks up the long length of the façade that this project does not 31 have. 32 33 The other thing on this project is the blank wall along the corridor, a 450 foot long, 3 story blank 34 wall. I looked all over the aerial photos for Palo Alto and I don’t see anything in this town 35 anywhere near that. I don’t see how we can make a finding that this is compatible with the 36 neighborhood environment if there is nothing else like it. I do understand we have unusual 37 circumstances here with the high speed rail but even then, if the massing were broken down into 38 smaller buildings like Palo Alto Central on California Avenue, that does not have a lot of 39 windows on the back facing Cal Train but the massing is broken down so you actually do see 40 windows on the sides. It’s not just the straight, blank wall. It’s broken up to match the scale of 41 the town. 42 43 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 14 of 26 I think I also have issues with the sight planning. I think Judith mentioned the entrance on Park 1 Avenue. I do think we are saying that it is considered safe to make a turn into the project but yet 2 we are increasing all the left turn lanes and then the applicant is adding a big left turn lane onto 3 Page Mill Road. That seems to me fairly hazardous. There is a new project in Mountain View 4 which is about the same size project but they divided the project into two buildings but the 5 garage extends below both buildings and then there is a walkway in between and the garage goes 6 all the way underneath that and the garage entrance is on one of the side streets, not the 7 equivalent of Park Blvd. or Alma. It is on a side street so we don’t have any traffic conflicts with 8 bike lanes and stuff.9 10 To me, if you have a long left turn lane of cars trying to turn onto Page Mill Road and then you 11 have people in your proposed project trying to turn and cut into the left turn lane, they are just 12 going to dive in. They are not going to look for bicyclists or pedestrians. To me, that is a very 13 dangerous situation.14 15 In addition to that, I’ve been a critic of the sidewalk although I think I’m the only person on the 16 board who feels strongly about that one.17 18 On the issue of the setback, I think I misunderstood what the staff was getting at at the last 19 meeting. Is the applicant saying that they are required to do a 5 foot planting strip along the 20 Akins property and either I’ve forgotten or I don’t really quite understand what triggered that 21 requirement and if that’s in the conditions of approval. I read the regular condition of approval 22 but I don’t remember what trigger meant. They had that at the last meeting, the landscape plan 23 for the Akins parking lot, they showed it. We didn’t have them in our packets. I don’t 24 understand how that ties into this project legally or what the mechanism was where that 25 happened.26 27 Ms. French: I’ll try to respond to that, though I was not at the May 19th hearing so I wasn’t 28 aware that was shown at the meeting as a solution. My understanding from Lata and the notes 29 that the ARB for design reasons was believing that the second and third floor residential should 30 be approximately 10 feet back from the property line or if need be, a building separation of 10 31 feet, to where they could build on the Akins property, the next door commercial property, where 32 in the future they may build to, somehow with an easement limit, development to at least 5 feet 33 back if they are not going to provide a setback at the upper levels on the 195 Page Mill Road site. 34 That’s my understanding of it and it is rather limited.35 36 Mr. Lew: I guess I thought there was something that predated that.37 38 Ms. French: In the past we had that thinking that was the intent of the RM40 zone which had 39 previously been applicable but no longer was. It’s no longer zoning -simply a design concern.40 41 Mr. Lew: Okay, and then also one more question for staff. On the green checklists, if the staff 42 hasn’t reviewed it can we actually make a recommendation at this time because I have not 43 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 15 of 26 reviewed them either and it seems troubling that if we have to make a decision today, I would 1 say I can’t.2 3 Ms. French: The city’s green building recommendations have changed over the years and as you 4 know the California green building code is now in effect and the city has the optional Tier 2 as a 5 requirement so for the commercial portion, in order to get a building permit, must meet Cal 6 Green Tier 2. It would have been nice to have the ARB have a chance to comment on but it is a 7 regulation of the state that the city is locally recommended to require. So you don’t have to. It’s 8 more for your interest but we do have a finding that says its green, what have you. 9 10 Mr.Lew: So I guess I’ll put this on applicant. What green measures are being proposed for the 11 project?12 13 Mr. Hohbach: Ask me that again. You’re talking about the Cal Green building code?14 15 Ms. French: Basically for the residential portion, the city can either do Cal Green Tier 2 or Build 16 It Green for the residential portion, or they could do the whole thing as a LEED silver level with 17 some other things. It is really their option, we work with people on that and LEED ND is just for 18 our research.19 20 Mr. Lew: Okay, so in our findings that we have to meet and review is item 15, the design is 21 energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy elements including but not limited to the 22 city’s regulations. I was wondering what elements are proposed for this project?23 24 Mr. Hohbach: I don’t have the document in front of me but there are three documents, Build It 25 Green which is for the residential portion. A lot of that has to do with the fact that the site is near 26 transit facilities, near public facilities, the streets surrounding the project are walkable, there are 27 bike lanes, those kinds of issues. 28 29 Mr. Lew:Those are very important.30 31 Mr. Hohbach: For the green point rated checklist I think we are required either 30 or 50 points 32 we need to come up with. We have a point total of 115, having to do with services of within half 33 a mile. It’s a mixed use development, building placement, walking and bicycling facilities near 34 the project and then it gets into using the star appliance and so on which we’ve said we will so 35 it’s a three page document. 36 37 Mr. Lew:It seems to me the site issues and having a mixed use building in a pedestrian 38 downtown area, that’s the big thing so that’s fine.39 40 Mr. Hohbach: A lot of this has to do with energy star appliances, water efficient fixtures, light 41 pollution reduction, I won’t go through all of it but we’re well within compliance with this Cal 42 Green point rated checklist. That’s one of the items we were asked to provide and we did 43 provide it on May 10th. I think somewhere it got lost but it was sent in on the 10th and then sent 44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 16 of 26 in again when we got the staff report and realized it wasn’t in the file. The Cal Green checklist is 1 about 21 or 22 pages. It is an incredible document and we have filled that out as a request. That 2 is a new requirement adopted January 1st of this year.3 4 The other things we were asked to do is the LEED ND which is the neighborhood development 5 and that was required as well and we just became aware of it recently. So that’s the situation on 6 what we provided. 7 8 Mr. Lew: Thank you. So let me get back to the issues that I have with the findings. So again, I 9 think that really my main issue with the compatibility is just the length, the unbroken length of 10 the façade. I think the staff maintains that some of the recesses and trellises that you’ve done 11 mitigate that but to my eye they don’t just because of the extreme length of the building that it is 12 not enough. If it were a smaller building I would say the things that you’ve proposed are fine. In 13 my mind, if I took your building and put it on one of the downtown blocks, like on Alma, there is 14 a disconnect there, and I don’t see how that would be an approvable project. It’s just so big and 15 it’s so much of the same module. It’s going to be repeated over the outside of the building as 16 well as the courtyard.17 18 And then on finding number 5 on the design permits, transitions, scale and character in areas 19 between different land uses, and again, with regard to that additional 5 foot setback along the 20 Akins property, to me that’s key in making a transition but to me you’re proposing not to make a 21 transition between these two uses. The Akins property could easily be redeveloped into 22 something else. We have no idea what it would be in the future. We do have applicants who 23 would like to build at zero setbacks without any windows or landscape amenities so I would say 24 we should treat the Akins property as if this applicant bought that property and wanted to build 25 things at zero lot lines or just minimal setbacks or minimal landscaping. Assume that a similar 26 property owner could redevelop that as you are proposing for this site.27 28 On item number seven, planning and citing of the various functions of buildings on the site 29 create an internal sense of order and create a desirable environment for the occupants, visitors 30 and the general community. I would say that the project is starting to look really nice. There are 31 elements of this project that I do like but to me some of the confusion is like having the 32 automobile entrance to the courtyard very close to the garage entrance and so if I’m a visitor, 33 how do I know where to go? If I go into the courtyard it’s a dead end parking lot and it’s hard to 34 turn around. If I’m a visitor where am I supposed to park? The colors you are proposing, a lot 35 of times architects will use colors to inform you where you are supposed to go but in here all the 36 colors are up on those high recesses, there is nothing to orient me about which entrance I am 37 supposed to go to.38 39 We are here in City Hall and this whole city block, and it’s pretty easy where the front door is, 40 where I’m supposed to go, but in your project I really don’t know where to go. You have four 41 different stair towers and if I don’t know the site I really don’t know if I have to go to some back 42 corner staircase. There isn’t, from my eye, you are missing some sort of orientation way finding 43 in the design and I think that’s a lost opportunity and Legorreta is really a master of that. If you 44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 17 of 26 look at his Schwab Center at Stanford, the housing there, the outside of the building is all muted 1 colors but he has really bright colors in the courtyards and he uses the colors to draw you through 2 the building to different spaces. He doesn’t use it everywhere as you’re doing it and he is very 3 particular where he uses it, corridors, entrances, what not. And I think that that is missing in the 4 design. I think the design would be better for it. It seems like you are close but just not willing 5 to take it to the next level. 6 7 Again, item number eight, the amount and arrangement of open space appropriate to the design 8 and function of the structures, and again I agree with the 10 foot setback and issue on the upper 9 floors. I think another secondary concern I have is along Park Blvd. is, I mean this is a lesser 10 concern but its right along and closer to Page Mill Road, only has Crate and Myrtle trees and 11 really no street trees and to me that’s sort of an eye sore for this project. It is unfortunate 12 circumstance with the left hand turn lane but to me that’s not enough landscaping for such a 13 large building and then it begs the question of whether an additional setback or something is 14 needed to get more planting areas. 15 16 Finding number thirteen, the landscape design for the site as shown by the relationship of plant 17 masses, open space scale, plant forms, foliage textures and colors create a desirable and 18 functional environment, and whether the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the 19 various buildings on the site. At the last meeting I was a little bit critical of the courtyard 20 landscaping. I appreciate all the changes that have been made with some larger and a few 21 evergreen trees but still in my mind it is really not enough landscaping. To me, in these 22 multifamily projects, if you are in an apartment, your windows only look out one way and to me 23 in these courtyard kinds of projects they really need the trees to have privacy otherwise you are 24 in a fishbowl. It’s just not enough to provide a desirable place to live. 25 26 Again, on the planting, I do like the redwood trees that are being proposed along the backside of 27 the building along the Cal Train tracks. I am a little concerned about some staff findings saying 28 that if the lease is terminated and for whatever reason the trees are cut down then we can rely on 29 the vines but I’m a little worried. Most vines require sun. That’s just part, there are a couple that 30 grow well in shade, but we are proposing redwood trees. The combination of being on the north 31 side of the wall and redwood trees there will be full shade and the vines won’t grow. If that ever 32 happens we are left with this 450 foot long, 3 story high blank wall. 33 34 Ms. French:Can I ask again because just found out what type of vines are proposed yesterday. 35 I’m wondering if the landscape architect has comment on the species selected, perhaps it’s a 36 shade species, I don’t know.37 38 Lyn Winterbotham, Landscape Architect: That was the reason I selected the pink jasmine 39 because it will do well in fairly low light. Yes, overtime the redwood trees will become 40 extremely dense and that would make it harder to thrive but hopefully the vines can keep up with 41 the growth of the trees and always be reaching for the light.42 43 Mr. Lew:Does this require a trellis to grow on it?44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 18 of 26 1 Mr. Winterbotham: Or guide wires or something like that.2 3 Mr. Lew:The trellises that are being proposed are only shown one story high or eight feet high. 4 In my mind I was thinking of, there is a building, an old digital office building there. That was 5 nice when it was planted but I do recall the day that the whole thing fell down over the parking 6 lot so I’m really sort of worried about that situation, that you have enough support and that it is 7 long term and permanent support and that the vines somehow can get ahead of the redwood 8 trees. Because the redwood tree, that’s going to be a lot of shade so I’m going under the 9 assumption that someday something is going to happen on the Cal Train tracks and we’re not 10 going to have any trees. I don’t have a lot of faith in the 30 day lease termination aspect of the 11 landscaping.12 13 If you think the vines are suitable for that location I’m fine but I would want to see the support 14 details.15 16 Mr. Winterbotham: I think the vines are appropriate for that location.17 18 Mr. Lew:How high would they grow? Is there any indication?19 20 Mr. Winterbotham:They would get 30 feet tall.21 22 Mr. Lew: Okay, that would be good. Some of the other items that I think the applicant 23 mentioned was the lighting, that could come back, I don’t have too much of an issue with that. I 24 think at the last meeting we were talking about sunshades along the Park Blvd. façade, you and 25 Grace had mentioned that and I don’t know whatever happened to that. I think it was maybe a 26 suggestion because the building is such a long façade. That’s it. But I think if push comes to 27 shove and we have to make a decision today my recommendation would be to not recommend it.28 29 Chair Malone Prichard:Okay so I’ll just limit myself to the seven items from last time. The first 30 one is setback. I think everybody has spoken about that. I want to make it clear to the applicant 31 and future applicants that even though zoning allows a zero foot setback you are not entitled to a 32 zero foot setback. There may be other circumstances that require a larger setback than that 33 including item number 7 which speaks about the appropriateness and the experiences of people 34 who will be in the building.35 36 Having said that, however, I would actually be okay with the setback as it is shown on the 37 drawings. The reason for that is that yes, another building may be developed on the site next 38 door but it is not there yet. When it does get developed it will come to ARB for review. They do 39 try to put something right on the property line I hope ARB in the future would say wait a minute, 40 you’ve got residences right there and its not appropriate. That is what the protection is for the 41 residents of this project.42 43 The tower I don’t have a strong opinion on the original tower versus the alternate. 44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 19 of 26 1 The vines and trees look good. For color I prefer the primaries that were originally proposed 2 with a subcommittee coming out and taking a look at the brush outs. That’s the best way to get 3 those colors worked out.4 5 Bike locker screening is good. Thank you for doing that. The wall returns I would like to see 24 6 inches and the perspectives I think were beyond that point. We looked at this project enough that 7 we pretty much all understand what it is going to look like so although this is not my favorite 8 project by any means I think it is an acceptable project and I will be supporting it. 9 10 Ms.Wasserman: Could I bring up the question of the lid on the tower which has been ignored? 11 We asked that it be extended the same on all four sides and it has not been and I think it looks 12 weird. I know that making these changes we’ve asked for at this stage of the game is difficult 13 but I think the applicant dug himself this hole. I don’t think we are responsible for the fact that 14 the building goes out to the property lines on all sides and left himself no room for landscaping 15 on the street and has to rely on the joint powers to plant trees or five feet on the neighbor’s 16 property to get an acceptable screening. I don’t think we are responsible for that.17 18 Chair Malone Prichard:Does anyone want to take a try at a motion?19 20 Ms. Lee: I have a question for the applicant about extending the lid on the tower and adding 21 sunshades to the building since those things weren’t addressed in this application are they willing 22 to make those changes? I was wondering about the residential south facing?23 24 Chair Malone Prichard:Will you come up and address those questions please?25 26 Mr. Hohbach: We didn’t do it on the upper portions of Page Mill because we haven’t done it on 27 the upper portions anywhere else. I think Grace you were the only one that commented on it.28 29 Ms. Lee: What about the lids on the tower? I just want to get some consensus to move this 30 forward. 31 32 Mr. Hohbach:Extending the lid on the tower creates a practical problem for us and that is 33 because the tower has a smaller footprint than the rest of the screen it will put something above 34 the units so in terms of servicing the mechanical units, replacing them, or just servicing the units 35 in that space, its going to be more difficult if we have something above those units. Certainly it 36 can be done but it does create a problem in servicing the units. 37 38 Ms. Lee:I’m sorry Clare, were your comments that you accept the tower design as previous or 39 as revised?40 41 Chair Malone Prichard:The May design although I don’t have a strong opinion.42 43 Ms. French: The portions of the tower extension could be removable.44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 20 of 26 1 Mr. Hohbach:If you are referring to the part of the tower that just sticks up itself then yes we 2 can change proportions of that.3 4 Ms. French: No removable portions. You are saying the extension on the two rear sides makes 5 it difficult to service.6 7 Mr. Hohbach:You can’t lift equipment out. In fact, if you look at one of the drawings it is an 8 alternate roof plan shown on A2.4, it’s the alternate plan. In A2.4a you can see the plan as it’s 9 now proposed where it is completely open above the equipment and if you turn one page to the 10 alternate to show how a four sided tower would be located above the equipment that needs to be 11 serviced. Does everyone have that? A2.4a and then the drawing after that. As you can see, the 12 tower has a substantially smaller footprint than the screen that is required for the equipment and 13 the screening required for the equipment is based on the size of the units we are proposing and 14 clearance required around the units to service the units. So the main equipment screen is the 15 minimum size we need to screen that equipment.16 17 Ms. Lee: But that lid, if you look on sheet 2.4a the lid comes up the page from gridline 1 to 18 gridline 2 it could continue up the page a little bit and return back to where it is returning. It 19 would not be in the way of the equipment and it would look more balanced for example.20 21 Ms. Wasserman: I believe that’s why we asked for the perspective from the other side so we 22 could see how much of the lid was visible. This is a prominent part of the architecture and the 23 design is being driven by the HVAC. I don’t think that’s an appropriate way to approach it.24 25 Chair Malone Prichard:I am in agreement that we do need a perspective of that in order to 26 understand it. 27 28 Ms. Wasserman: We need a sideline view from the street of the tower from the south side of the 29 building, as you are walking north on Park Blvd. the tower should be visible at some point and 30 the question is whether that lid return is visible or not. 31 32 Mr. Hohbach:It will be.33 34 Ms. Wasserman:So it needs to return otherwise the tower looks silly.35 36 Mr. Hohbach:It is possible for us to make the tower four sided. It creates some problems 37 servicing the equipment but I do understand your point. I do. We can make it four sided. 38 39 Ms. French: That’s an example that potentially as we start to set it in motion could turn to a 40 subcommittee.41 42 Ms. Lee: Do you all feel that at this late date adding some type of screens to the south facing 43 windows the elevation would improve the project and it would be worth it? 44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 21 of 26 1 Chair Malone Prichard: I agree it would break up the façade and add more interest to the façade 2 and shadow and comfort to the inhabitants. However, relocating the driveway entrance at this 3 point in the game is not a reasonable subcommittee request. It has been turned down before. 4 The building was designed in this way from the beginning and no matter what anybody said it 5 has not changed and I think Alex’s description of how it works with the left turn lane is very 6 accurate. It was bad enough having the driveway into the courtyard but to have this additional 7 driveway on the busy street did not make sense to me. Do the things I am hearing the board in 8 agreement on so far in terms of moving the project forward have been we need to see sideline 9 view of the tower from the street because we have concerns about its visibility and its overhangs. 10 We need to have some kind of sun shading on the upper floor windows. The accent wall returns 11 at 24 inches. 12 13 Was there anything else we seem to be agreement on?14 15 Vice Chair Young: We all agreed that the final colors could be mocked up on site for a sub 16 committee viewing and I think we could agree that the selection of yellow to go with the primary 17 palette could be addressed in subcommittee and the alternate palette was not something we 18 wanted to proceed with.19 20 I have one follow up comment to a point you had made about the 10 foot setback. I agree in the 21 future the ARB will take into consideration the conditions of the adjacent buildings but I think it 22 is this ARBs responsibility to work with this particular or any applicant to work toward the 23 betterment of the existing project and not put an undue burden on future neighbors and 24 applicants. I think this is a responsibility they should own on their own and whether it be a 10 25 foot setback on their side of the property line or reinforcing the five foot planting area with a five 26 foot easement so that is a protected area as opposed to a nice area I think is a stronger approach. 27 28 Chair Malone Prichard:I agree it’s a stronger approach however we need to look at the 29 conditions as they currently are, there are no applications on the adjacent side. Lots of open 30 space available. As far as making any hardship to the adjacent property owner realizing a 31 building could have been built with a blank wall right on the property so this building is actually 32 providing more space for the adjacent owners than they might otherwise have chosen to do so I 33 don’t feel we are impacting the adjacent owner. Just an opinion. 34 35 Ms. Lee: How would board members draft some kind of condition of approval to address the 10 36 foot setback? Is there any way to do this?37 38 Chair Malone Prichard:It is written into the conditions as they stand. 39 40 Vice Chair Young:I think the other three members were in support of either a 10 foot setback or 41 a five foot easement. Please step in if I misspeak. 42 43 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 22 of 26 Ms. Lee: I’m just wondering how this works with a motion. Is it possible for you two to agree 1 for a motion? It sounds like the other two board members are not willing to go. Am I 2 misreading the situation?3 4 Chair Malone Prichard: The conditions as written include the 10 foot setback.5 6 Ms. Lee: I know and I’m wondering how you would change them.7 8 Ms. French: I know the shadings have that shaded area that would say upon conditioned but the 9 condition itself to require that, I don’t believe I put it in there because it was pending ARB 10 discussion.11 12 Vice Chair Young:There was a proposed piece of language.13 14 Ms. French:That would be in the findings and it says as conditioned but I didn’t actually write 15 the condition to put into the conditions of approval so if that is something the ARB wants to do, 16 make those findings, or otherwise reword those findings we do need to craft an actual condition 17 that goes along with those findings if that is the pleasure of the board.18 19 Chair Malone Prichard:Why don’t we do this? Let’s have a mini-vote on whether or not we are 20 going to impose a condition of a 10 foot setback. I want a straw pull. I will start by saying I 21 would not impose the setback.22 23 Mr. Lew: Is it either or the 5 foot or just the 10 foot?24 25 Chair Malone Prichard:Okay, two straw pulls. So the first one is how many people would 26 require a five foot easement on the Akins property in order to approve this project? I am a no. 27 Anybody else? Okay, so that is a no. The second one would be, how many people would 28 require a 10 foot setback on the applicant’s property of the upper floors as a condition of 29 approval of the project?30 31 Mr. Lew: I would say yes to that.32 33 Chair Prichard: Okay, one. Two. 34 35 Vice Chair Young: This is where I get confused because I like the either/or because it gives the 36 applicant to approach it from a design standpoint or proactively from a neighbor’s standpoint.37 38 Chair Malone Prichard:I have a hard time imposing mitigations on someone’s property. I 39 wouldn’t do the “or”. I’m unhappy with the JPB solution also for that reason. Are you a yes or 40 no on that?41 42 Vice Chair Young: I still like the either/or but I understand your point. My problem is I know of 43 other projects we have done things like that. On El Camino, I don’t remember the applicant’s 44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 23 of 26 name, but it was the two condominium units over the 5,000 square feet and the pet hospital next 1 door where they had a shared parking lot agreement and it was all part and parcel of they had to 2 have that agreement about sharing that parking lot.3 4 Ms. French:There was a historic agreement and use of that parking lot by the vet hospital. It 5 was prescriptive easement.6 7 Vice Chair Young: Don’t we have a historic open space here?8 9 Ms. French: Prescriptive easements relate to vehicular use whereas, I don’t know about a 10 prescriptive easement for light and air. 11 12 Ms. Wasserman:Prescriptive easement applies to the long term use of someone else’s property. 13 If I use your property for 10 to 15 years you can’t tell me I can’t use it but in this case nobody is 14 using this property. Its Akins property and they use it. This applicant doesn’t use it so there is 15 no easement now at all so it couldn’t be a prescriptive easement.16 17 Vice Chair Young:What was staff’s thought in presenting it as an either/or?18 19 Ms. French: My spotty recollection was there was a lot line adjustment between Akins property 20 and this property. I am not remembering it correctly at this point but there may have been an 21 agreement they came up with in some way. I wasn’t at the last hearing to hear if an agreement 22 was written. It gives the applicant the opportunity to come forward now and tell you what is a 23 possibility if there is a former or existing agreement in someway. They’ve worked something 24 out, they are paying them, I don’t know how it is with that applicant. This is kind of a vestige 25 from a former report.26 27 Chair Malone Prichard:Mr. Hohbach can you elaborate on what is going on with that five feet?28 29 Mr. Hohbach:Yes. This was entered into long ago with the Akins property. I agreed to 30 reconfigure their lots a long time ago to get this rectangle lot. In connection with that agreement 31 I agreed to provide a 5 foot landscaping strip on the Akins property line adjacent to our property 32 line. That is in writing.33 34 Vice Chair Young: Can you elaborate on that? Is it effectively an easement?35 36 Mr. Hohbach: I don’t have an easement, no. If they absolutely assist I could try and get one but 37 it is like asking a land owner in the future to give up something they might use. I don’t have to 38 use it for landscaping but…39 40 Vice Chair Young: I’m just trying to understand what the nature of this five foot planting strip 41 agreement is.42 43 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 24 of 26 Mr. Lew: Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe in exchange for realigning the lot lines it was 1 required that this applicant provide this kind of landscape buffer for future development that he 2 may do on his property to benefit the Akins property so it’s not an easement its just that he was 3 required to fund it. 4 5 Mr. Hohbach:Mr. Winterbotham is here and he did the landscape plans, he can recall too 6 probably what it shows.7 8 Mr. Winterbotham: It is a five foot strip that has trees in it and light. To understand what 9 happened here, to get the right to plant trees I had to agree to give the joint powers board a 10 10 foot right of access back to their property on our property as they have a driveway through there. 11 That’s why we have a 10 foot setback at the office level. They are very unlikely to give that up 12 because they want access to their property and if they give that up, if they take the trees away 13 they’ll have to give up access which I’m sure they will not do. 14 15 Mr. Hohbach: I don’t think anything is going to happen within 5 feet of the property. There is 16 nobody going to build right next to our property. This is an issue that we shouldn’t have to 17 address.18 19 Chair Malone Prichard:With that we will close the public hearing. I want to take a brief break 20 because there are some issues with getting cars moved before they get tickets. 10 foot setback, 21 how many people would require it? We had two who would, two who would not and one with 22 no opinion.23 24 Vice Chair Young: My opinion was to defer to the applicant. 25 26 Chair Malone Prichard:I need a yes or a no. Okay no, I have three nos and two yeses. I say we 27 craft a motion that does not include a 10 foot setback requirement. Third one would be an 28 either/or. Would anyone here support giving the applicant an option of a 10 foot setback or 29 coming to some agreement with the adjacent property owner. So we’ve got one yes, one no.30 31 Mr. Lew: Conceptually I would be agreeable to that although I don’t really understand how it 32 would happen. When would we see the drawings and how would we connect that ARB 33 applicant with this project? It seems complicated to me.34 35 Chair Malone Prichard: It is complicated but let’s assume we can make that work. 36 37 Mr. Lew:I would approve that in the conditions of approval.38 39 MOTION40 41 Chair Malone Prichard:I am a no on that and Grace is a no. So I’ve got no on the 5 foot 42 easement, 10 foot setback and no on the giving a choice.With that, I will make a motion that we 43 approve the project. We do not make any requirements regarding easements or setbacks. We 44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 25 of 26 bring back to subcommittee a view to understand the site lines of the towers from the street, both 1 streets. That shades are added at all the upper floor windows on both sides. That the accent 2 walls should be 24 inches deep and the final colors will be in the primary palette and will be 3 reviewed by the subcommittee on site. 4 5 Ms. Wasserman: The railroad side has no windows.So you are requiring sunshades on Park and 6 Page Hill. What about south side where it might be sunny? 7 8 Chair Malone Prichard:Good point. Three sides. 9 10 Ms. Lee: What about lighting? There was a request to come back with that as well. I just 11 wanted to point out this motion is basically going back to Clare’s compelling argument that in 12 the future ARB would address the setback issue on the property. 13 14 Vice Chair Young: What about the tower lid or the tower design?15 16 Chair Malone Prichard:That should be folded into the approved perspective so for review of 17 options.18 19 Ms. Wasserman:Considering the history of this project, considering options is not sufficient. 20 You need to instruct the applicant to put a lid on that thing on four sides.21 22 Chair Malone Prichard:Good point, I’ll accept that. Okay, all four sides, yes.23 24 Vice Chair Young: Again this might not be part of our purview but the whole discussion that 25 Curtis brought up about the vapor barrier and the active ventilation in the garage is not us? Very 26 good.27 28 SECOND29 30 Chair Malone Prichard:Okay, will somebody second that motion?31 32 Ms. Lee: I will.33 34 Chair Malone Prichard: All in favor? Opposed? We have a recommendation for approval from 35 the ARB. And we are adjourned.36 37 MOTION PASSED (Young,Malone Prichard, Lee voting yes; Lew and Wasserman opposed)38 39 40 41 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 26 of 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ______________________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENT H: Background Information -Timeline Timeline for 195 Page Mill Road/2865 Park Boulevard Projects 2011 Revision to Initial Study/MND to note Lapkoff Study as source and revision PTC review August 24, 2011 Revisions to Initial Study/MND not requiring new mitigation June 28, 2011 Revisions to Initial Study/MND and recirculation May 5-June 7, 2011 ARB reviews May 19, 2011 and July 7, 2011 Director’s Decision July 12, 2011 Appeal filed July 25, 2011 2010 February 8, 2010 Certificate of Compliance to merge parcels October 5, 2010 Tentative Map submittal (application 10-PLN-344) Revisions to Initial Study/MND to address High Speed Rail and Tentative Map City’s internal Counsel determined RM-40 zone development standard not applicable 2009 Initial Study/MND prepared and circulated April –May Initial Study/MND revised to address RWQCB comments and re-circulated in November December 3, 2009 ARB review 2008 September 22, 2008 new ARB application submitted (application 09-PLN-295) 2007 PTC June 13, 2007 3-3 vote on Tentative Map (noted in PTC report of August 24, 2011). Writ of Mandate Filed By Robert Moss 2006 May: On May 10, 2006, the PTC analyzed the implementation of the PTOD overlay envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. The staff report referenced a noise report prepared in April 2006 that included findings regarding techniques to ensure noise reflection is not an issue including the use of absorptive materials, articulation and avoiding sustained flat surfaces over 100 feet. The environmental review for the PTOD area was handled via an Addendum to Comp Plan EIR. The PTC report is available at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/planning-transportation- meetings/documents/PTODSRthruAttD.pdf September: On September 7, 2006, the ARB recommended conditional approval of the project after two public hearings, with regard only to project design, not zoning compliance (pursuant to GM zoning, as requested by the applicant). The project was nearly identical to the 2011 proposal -the construction of a three story mixed-use ______________________________________________________________________________________ building to include 50,467 square feet for research and development and 104,971 square feet for two floors of residential with 84 units. The difference was that a building existed on the site at the time, and the residential units were requested to be rental units with no request for condominiums at the time of Council approval. The applicant had requested one development concession under Senate Bill 1818, with 17% of the units as below market rate (BMR) units; the applicant had considered mixed-use and additional floor area as combined into one concession, whereas staff considered them as two concessions. In addition to the previous Director’s concern over concessions in his denial (then appealed to Council by the applicant), additional concerns included: (1) insufficient justification for parking reduction, and (2) unsupportable findings for Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEEs) for height, setback, daylight plane, and lot coverage). The Director had concern regarding the 451-foot long, 3-story wall facing Alma, where vertical relief and horizontal height variations were needed, as well as the lack of pedestrian-orientation along Park Boulevard. October: Council adopted the PTOD Combining District, and the PTOD regulations became effective on October 10, 2006. The PCE Director denied the mixed-use project based on noncompliance with zoning criteria and the applicant appealed the decision. Following removal from consent on October 6, 2006, the Council scheduled a public hearing for November. On October 11, 2006, the PTC reviewed the Council’s September 2006 initiation of PTOD rezoning of the project site (CMR 328:06), along with a new mixed use Comp Plan designation allowing for an FAR of up to 2.0 on the project site. The report noted that the Director had not concurred with the applicant that SB1818 concessions would allow 1.5 FAR on the project site,and that he had recently denied the AR application for the project. The report also noted that Council had removed the B district in October 2005, and that the PTOD overlay for the area was to take effect on October 11, 2006. For the project site, the staff recommended a 40 foot height limit, 40 units per acre, and 1.25 FAR but allowing for up to 1.5 FAR given a 1.0 for residential and 0.5 for commercial as long as justification per SB1818 were provided that the additional commercial space was needed to support the BMR units. The staff recommendation was for a 20% parking reduction. The report noted that 42-62 housing units would have been the minimum density under RM-40 zone development standards for the project site. The PTC report is found as follows: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/planning- transportation-meetings/documents/195PMRRezone.pdf Four members of current PTC were on PTC for the October 2006 meeting (Lippert, Keller, Tuma, Garber) as well as two Council members (Holman, Burt). Minutes note that Council had initiated rezoning of the site on September 11, 2006 to PTOD and sent it to the PTC; the PTC continued their review to a date uncertain but never resumed their hearing of the matter because the Council overturned the Director’s denial the project. ______________________________________________________________________________________ The PTC minutes of 10/11/06 are at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/planning-transportation- meetings/documents/Oct11Mins.pdf November/December: Council voted to overturn the Director’s denial on November 20, 2006. The PTC received an update on the Council’s action, reflected in the November 29, 2006 PTC meeting minutes, and no further hearing was conducted regarding PTOD rezoning that Council had initiated. An Initial Study/MND was prepared following the Council’s overturn of the Director’s decision, and circulated for Council review. On December 11, 2006, Council approved the application. The Council’s 2006 approval required the BMR units to be increased to 20%, improvement of the aesthetics and articulation of the rear wall of the building to decrease its visibility, and green building features (the approval predated green building requirements). The Council also approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) following adjustment of one of the mitigation measures; however, the adjusted MND had not been re-circulated for public comment prior to Council approval. Litigation filed by Robert Moss followed the approval and resulted in set aside the Council’s decision due to the lack of recirculation of the MND after a new mitigation measure was added. Before 2006 Background on the years leading up to the 2006 Council approval are provided in CMR 418:06. On September 27, 2004, Council denied a Planned Community (PC) application for a four-story, research and development and residential mixed use building, including 45,115 square feet of research and development space and 2,000 square feet of retail on the ground floor, three levels of residential apartments totaling 177 units, and subterranean parking (CMR 422:04). On August 11, 2004, the PTC had unanimously recommended denial of the PC, concerned the project did not comply with Comprehensive Plan Policies and that the public benefit package was not adequate. In 2005, the site was zoned GM(B) and the applicant filed a formal application in August 2005 and in October 2005, the Council approved removal of the “B” overlay from the General Manufacturing (GM) zone district and thereby prohibited all housing and mixed-use (residential and nonresidential) developments in the GM zone; however,the Council allowed this project to proceed under the GM(B) zoning since it was submitted prior to the zone change, and the site was on the Comprehensive Plan housing site inventory. In 2006, the Council initiated the rezone of the site to PTOD. July 12, 2011 Harold Hohbach Hohbach Realty Company 29 Lowery Drive Atherton, CA 94027 Subject:195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard [08-PLN-00295]: Architectural Review Application Dear Mr. Hohbach: On July 7, 2011 the Architectural Review Board recommended approval of the application referenced above and as described further below, and the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) subsequently approved the Architectural Review application on July 12, 2011. The Director’s Architectural Review approval will become effective 14 days from the postmark date of this letter, unless an appeal is filed in accordance with Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The approval was based on the Architectural Review findings in Attachment A and is subject to mitigation reporting as noted in the Mitigation Measures included with the Conditions of Approval in Attachment C and presented in the Mitigation Monitoring Program document (Attachment B). In accordance with California Government Code Section 66020, this letter includes notice of the amount of development fees and a description of the dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed by the City of Palo Alto in connection with the project, described as follows: 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard [08PLN-00295]:Request by Hohbach Realty Company Limited Partnership for Architectural Review of a three storybuilding on a 2.41-acre (net) site for ground floor research and development use (50,467 sq. ft.) and 84 residential units (106,920 sq. ft.). Zone District: General Manufacturing (GM). Environmental Assessment: A revised draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public review beginning Friday May 6, 2011 through Tuesday June 7, 2011. The fees, dedications, reservations or other exactions imposed bythe City in connection with your development project are described in your conditions of approval and previously agreed upon mitigation measures attached to this letter, including by reference the approved development plans. Government Code Section 66020 provides that project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the project. Any protest regarding the amount of the development fees or the nature of the dedications, reservations or exactions imposed in connection with your project must be initiated not later than ninety (90) calendar days following July 12, 2011. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR TO FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS DESCRIBED ABOVE. If you have any questions regarding the amount of the development fees or the nature of the dedications, reservations or exactions imposed in connection with your project, please call me at (650) 329-2336. Unless an appeal is filed, this project approval shall be effective for one year following the effective approval date, within which time construction of the project shall have commenced. An application for an extension may be made prior to the expiration date. The effective approval date is fourteen (14) days from the postmark date of this letter. The time period for a project may be extended once for an additional year by the Director of Planning and shall be open to appeal at that time. In the event the building permit is not secured for the project within the time limits specified above, the Architectural Review approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Should you have any questions regarding this action, please do not hesitate to call Planning Manager Amy French at (650) 329-2336. Sincerely, Curtis Williams Director of Planning and Community Environment Attachments: A: ARB Findings B. Mitigation Monitoring Program Document C: Conditions of Approval Cc:Dick Campbell Jim Janz Robert Moss Herb Borock ATTACHMENT B: MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Park Plaza (195 Page Mill Road/2865 Park Boulevard) July 12, 2011 Section 21081.6(a)(1) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a Lead Agency to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program whenever it approves a project for which measures have been required to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The purpose of the monitoring and reporting program is to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. On July 12, 2011, the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was approved for the Park Plaza project. The MND concluded that the implementation of the project could result in significant effects on the environment unless mitigated, and mitigation measures were incorporated into the project or are required as conditions of project approval. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program addresses these measures in terms of how and when they will be implemented. MM-1:Implementation of ARB Recommendations Any Architectural Review conditions of approval, with respect to the design of the proposed project, shall be incorporated into the final design by the applicant. Responsible Agency for mitigation MM-1monitoring: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Time frame for mitigation MM-1 monitoring: The Planning Department is responsible for ensuring that the applicant’s building permit drawings address ARB approval conditions and that the ARB subcommittee reviews final details as stated in the ARB approval conditions prior to issuance of a building permit. MM-2:Indoor Air Filtration A central HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) shall be installed that includes high efficiency filters for particulates (MERV-13 or higher). The system should operate to maintain positive pressure within the building interior to prevent infiltration of outdoor air indoors. Responsible Agency for mitigation MM-2 monitoring: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Time frame for mitigation MM-2 monitoring: The Planning Department is responsible for ensuring that this measure is met prior to issuance of final occupancy permit. MM-3:Protection of Nesting Birds The applicant shall abide by all provisions of Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game Code and Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) as published in the Federal Register (Vol.70, No.49; March 15, 2005). Although there is no vegetation on the project site that may contain nesting birds, there may be nesting birds in existing vegetation abutting the proposed project site (e.g., in the Caltrain property). To protect any nesting birds, the proposed project may avoid construction during the nesting period. Alternatively, a qualified wildlife biologist (to be hired by the applicant) shall conduct a survey for nesting birds that are covered by the MBTA and/or Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game Code in the vicinity of the project site. This survey shall cover all areas that would be disturbed as a result of construction related activities during the nesting period, and shall include a “buffer zone” (an area of potential sensitivity, beyond the bounds of the proposed project construction area) which shall be determined by the biologist based on his or her professional judgment and experience. This buffer zone may include off-site habitat. This biological survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the commencement of construction activities. The wildlife biologist shall provide a report to the City promptly, detailing the findings of the survey. No construction shall be conducted until this report has been provided to the City and the City has authorized in writing the commencement of construction activities in accord with the biologist’s findings. If nesting birds that are covered by the MBTA and/or Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game Code are discovered within the buffer zone, the report shall specify the locations of the nests and shall establish an appropriate construction buffer zone around the nest location(s). Nests containing birds that are covered by the MBTA and/or Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game Code discovered on site or at off- site locations shall not be disturbed, and construction shall not occur within the appropriate construction buffer zone until a qualified wildlife biologist determines that the young have fledged and left the nest. Responsible Agency for mitigation MM-3 monitoring: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Time frame for mitigation MM-3 monitoring: The Planning Department is responsible for ensuring that this measure is met prior to issuance of the building permit. MM-4:Protocol for Management of On-site Contamination a)A formal dewatering plan (Construction Dewatering Contingency Plan) shall be prepared, consistent with Mitigation Measure MM-6 in Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality of this Initial Study and consistent with the City’s Construction Dewatering System Plan Preparation Guidelines and Dewatering from Construction Sites and In-ground Utilities Maintenance Manual. This plan shall be prepared and submitted for final approval by the City’s Public Works Department prior to issuance of City permits. The applicant shall provide information in the plan regarding the lateral and vertical distances to existing groundwater contamination plumes and an analysis of the potential impacts to those plumes caused by construction activity on the project property, including the use of dewatering sumps or wells under the proposed underground parking structure. Prior to submission to the City, this information shall be submitted to the RWQCB for approval that the proposed work on the subject property, including any use of dewatering sumps or dewatering wells would not have an adverse impact on the current and future cleanup effort of the HP-Varian or COE plumes. The approval shall be submitted to the City’s Public Works Department with the plan and shall verify that dewatering sumps or dewatering wells, if proposed, would not alter the path of the groundwater contamination plume(s) and could not result in 1)bringing groundwater contamination to the project site or 2)a possible future exposure of the public on the project site to groundwater contaminants. The plan shall identify testing and analysis methods, and treatment, if necessary, for disposal into the storm drain system to ensure compliance with the City’s Municipal NPDES permit. Sufficient personnel and material shall be provided by the applicant to implement the plan, should groundwater be encountered by the excavation. b)The applicant shall provide ready access to the project site for the City Building Official, or a third party hired by the Building Official, at the owner's expense, that specializes in the monitoring of activities related to excavation and design features during project construction at sites with contaminated soil and groundwater, to inspect and enforce implementation of the Soil Management Plan prepared by Tucker Engineering addressing the procedures and precautions to be used for the proper containment, profiling, movement, exportation of soil, etc. during the excavation and construction period. c)The applicant shall provide ready access to the project site for the third party inspection service, which would report to the City and be financed by the applicant to inspect and enforce implementation of the Remedial Risk Management Plan (RRMP), including implementation of the Site Health and Safety Plan; contaminated soil sampling, excavation, and management; the dewatering contingency plan; reporting requirements; land use covenant and environmental restrictions; long term monitoring, inspections, contingencies, and enforcement. d)The applicant shall file documentation with the RWQCB, the third party inspection service reporting to the City and financed by the applicant, and the City for final approval of the completion of the excavation, including soil sampling results within 60 days following the completion of excavation. e)Prior to issuance of the occupancy permit the applicant shall file documentation from an independent consultant specializing in vapor mitigation system design and installation for final approval by the third party inspection service reporting to the City and financed by the applicant confirming that each component (collection pipes, transmission pipes, inlets, risers, vents, etc.) of the vapor intrusion mitigation system (VIMS) has been installed in accordance with the recommendations of the Vapor Mitigation System and Monitoring Plan, and includes the installation of a full vapor barrier, which shall be a 60-mil thick, spray-applied membrane below the elevator shafts, stairwells, pipe chases, and entire floor-slab, as part of the active vapor collection and venting system (i.e., driven by electric fans at the effluent end of the VIMS riser pipes and enhanced by outside air entering through inlet vents) to be installed in the building to mitigate potential soil vapor intrusion. f)The applicant shall file documentation with the RWQCB and the City for final approval by the third party inspection service reporting to the City and financed by the applicant of installation of the VIMS, initial garage air sampling results, and the startup sub-slab vapor-riser monitoring results, with vapor-riser monitoring reports submitted as required by the RRMP, within 60 days following the completion of building construction. g)The applicant shall comply with contingencies regarding vapor monitoring to protect against potential vapor intrusion which would involve additional remediation if the results of the first six (monthly) monitoring events indicate any cause for concern. If the VIMS is operating correctly, monitoring would continue quarterly until vapor concentrations were reduced to 50 percent of the RWQCB ESLs and annually thereafter. If the third party inspection service determines that the VIMS is not functioning adequately, the system is required to be redesigned (under the supervision of the third party inspection service) for more effective removal of VOCs. Monitoring would continue until VOC concentrations were demonstrated to be maintained below the commercial ESLs, as recommended by the RWQCB. h)The applicant shall condition the lease agreements with each R&D tenant proposing to use hazardous materials to stipulate that the storage and use of hazardous materials within their space would not exceed the limits set by Tables 2703.1.1(1), (2), and (3) Maximum Allowable Quantity Per Control Area of Hazardous Materials Posing a Physical Hazard, 2010 California Fire Code, Title 24, Part 9, Chapter 27, Section 2703.1.1. The space for each R&D tenant proposing to use hazardous materials shall be constructed as a separate compartment with one-hour rated walls, protected common openings, and separate ventilation systems. i)The applicant shall condition the lease agreements with each R&D tenant proposing to use hazardous materials to stipulate that the tenant shall comply with the City’s Hazardous Materials Reporting Requirements and shall prepare and file with the Fire Department, as appropriate, a Hazardous Materials Management Plan or a Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement providing sufficient information on how and where hazardous materials are handled by the business to allow fire, safety, health, and other appropriate personnel to prepare adequate emergency responses to potential releases of the hazardous materials. j)Monitoring wells encountered during site preparation or excavation shall be reported immediately to the RWQCB for its decision regarding proper abandonment or abandonment and replacement by the applicant. Work shall stop in proximity to the well(s) until the decision of the RWQCB is implemented. The applicant shall file documentation with the RWQCB and the City for final approval by the City Building Official, or a third party hired by the Building Official, at the owner's expense, that specializes in the monitoring of activities related to excavation and design features during project construction at sites with contaminated soil and groundwater, of proper abandonment or abandonment and replacement of any affected wells. Responsible Agency for mitigation MM-4 monitoring: City of Palo Alto Departments of Planning and Community Environment, Fire and Public Works Department Time frame for mitigation MM-4 monitoring: The Planning Department is responsible for ensuring that this measure is met as noted in each of the alphabetized items in MM-4, Management of On-Site Contamination. MM-5: Grading and Drainage Plan The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan for the proposed project, for City approval prior to the issuance of a grading, excavation, or building permit. This grading and drainage plan shall comply with Engineering Design Standards for storm drain facilities, shall be designed to convey the 10-year storm flow, and shall reflect the recommendations of the Joe Crosby and Associates Geotechnical Report, dated May 10, 2004. Responsible Agency for mitigation MM-5 monitoring: City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works Time frame for mitigation MM-5 monitoring: The Public Works Department is responsible for issuing grading and excavation permits, and responsible for ensuring that this measure is met prior to their Department approval of building permit plans, grading and excavation permits. Planning Department staff is responsible for ensuring Public Works has signed off on this measure prior to signing off on the Building Permit application. MM-6:Construction Dewatering Plan A construction dewatering plan shall be prepared consistent with Chapter 33 of the 2007 California Building Code, and shall be submitted to the City in association with all proposed sub-grade garage excavation activities prior to issuance of a grading, excavation or building permit. The applicant shall include the dewatering plan in the permit plan set submitted for approvals for any excavation activities on the project site. The plan shall provide a system that would remove silt and other pollutants from this water and place clean water into the City storm drain system. The applicant shall secure current data on the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using piezometers, or by drilling exploratory holes, if the deepest excavation would be less than four feet above the highest anticipated groundwater level. Should dewatering be necessary (i.e., if excavation would occur within four feet above the highest anticipated groundwater level and the piezometer investigation revealed the presence of free groundwater within four feet above that highest anticipated groundwater level), the applicant shall secure City permits associated with the placement of dewatering equipment or actual dewatering and excavation activities on the project site or the abutting public right-of-way prior to beginning excavation. Upon installation, the dewatering system shall reflect BMPs that ensure the water discharged would be of appropriate quality. The installation shall be approved by a City field inspector prior to the commencement of construction water discharge to the storm drain. Extracted groundwater shall be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. Testing shall be performed by an independent testing firm hired by the Building Official, at the owner's expense. Any dewatering to occur in the public right-of-way shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department. Responsible Agency for mitigation MM-6 monitoring: City of Palo Alto Departments of Planning and Community Environment and Public Works Time frame for mitigation MM-6 monitoring: The Planning and Public Works Departments are responsible for ensuring that this measure is met prior to issuance of building and excavation permits, and for ensuring the installation is inspected and testing of groundwater has occurred prior to initial discharge and at intervals during construction-water discharge (aka dewatering). MM-7:Indoor Noise Minimization The project shall include design features as specified in the project noise assessment to reduce the indoor noise levels to meet the interior noise standards prescribed by the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Policy N-39. Responsible Agency for mitigation MM-7 monitoring: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Time frame for mitigation MM-7 monitoring: The Planning Department is responsible for ensuring that this measure is met prior to issuance of final occupancy permit. MM-8:Pedestrian Warning System A vehicle exiting/pedestrian warning system shall be installed for the underground parking garage driveway to eliminate potential conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists. Responsible Agency for mitigation MM-8 monitoring: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Time frame for mitigation MM-8 monitoring: The Planning Department is responsible for ensuring that this measure is met prior to issuance of final occupancy permit. MM-9:Transportation Demand Management Plan A Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) program shall be implemented as approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The TDM shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits and shall include a shared parking analysis based on the number of assigned parking spaces, and may incorporate (but shall not be limited to) such features as: developer-sponsored subsidized transit passes for residents and employees, a transportation coordinator, convenient displays of alternative travel options, and unbundling of parking, if such features are determined to be adequately effective by the Director of Planning and Community Environment in reducing parking demand. The TDM program shall be subject to further review after building occupancy pursuant to PAMC 18.52.050(d)(3) and (4). Responsible Agency for mitigation MM-9 monitoring: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Time frame for mitigation MM-9 monitoring: The Planning Department is responsible for review and approval of the TDM program prior to issuance of building permits, and review following building occupancy. OCTOBER 3 CMR ATTACHMENT N: COUNCILMEMBER QUESTIONS AND STAFF RESPONSES A. Councilmember Scharff 9/19/11 E-mail Questions: 1. How many parking spaces would be required for a 50,467 R&D building without any reduction for any factors? Staff Response: Without any reductions, 202 parking spaces would be required for a stand-alone R&D building in the GM zone (at a ratio of 1 space per 250 square feet of R&D space). 2. How many parking spaces would be required for an 84 unit building without any reduction for any factors, assuming 60 two bedroom units, 20 one bedroom units and 4 three bedroom units? Staff Response: Without any reductions, 167 spaces would be required for a residential only product with unit breakdown as noted, comprised of 158 resident spaces (at a ratio of 1.5 parking spaces each for the 20 one bedroom units = 30 spaces, and 2 parking spaces for the 64 2 and 3 bedroom units = 128 spaces, for a total of 158 spaces for residents) and 9 guest parking spaces (one space plus 10% of total number of residential units is required). Staff note: State Housing Law provides a different parking ratio for one bedroom units in applicable project than do City parking requirements. Government Code 65915 requires not more than one parking space per each one-bedroom residential unit, whereas the City’s regulations require 1.5 parking spaces per each one-bedroom residential unit. Since there are 20 one-bedroom units proposed at 195 Page Mill, that would result in 10 fewer parking spaces required (148 total for the residential). This is not shown in the parking analyses, however. 3. The staff report refers to the Lapkoff study estimates a yield of 29 students from the project. Can we get a copy of the Lapkoff study? Staff Response: An excerpt of the Lapkoff study is attached to the CMR (Attachment O). The full study is available from the Palo Alto Unified School District. 4. The staff report also refers to a parking study that was prepared. Can we get a copy of the parking study? Is there an executive summary if it is lengthy? Staff Response: The most recent parking study is contained in a letter prepared by Fehr & Peers in 2009 entitled ‘Park Plaza Mixed-Use Project Trip Generation and Off-Street Parking Analysis’ referenced as Appendix L in the ‘Reference Studies and Documents Available for Public Review Upon Request’ on page 10 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). It is the first 12 pages of Attachment P to the October 3, 2011 City Manager’s Report (CMR). The latter portion of Attachment P is a five page document entitled “Site Access and Parking” excerpted from the 2006 Fehr and Peers Transportation Impact Assessment (Appendix J) of the MND. The reference studies and documents referred to on page 10 of the Initial Study/MND are all contained within the project files, available for public review upon request. 5. Is there an executive summary of the TDM measures to be implemented and enforced? Is a copy of the TDM program available? Staff Response: The TDM program is attached to the CMR (Attachment Q). B. Councilmember Holman’s 9/19/11 and 9/26/11 E-Mail Questions: 1. One of the ARB findings is that the project be compatible with the existing built environment. Did the ARB make that finding as it does not appear in the minutes of the ARB nor are the other findings referenced in the motion? Staff Response: The Record of Land Use Action (ROLUA), provided as Attachment A, outlines the Architectural Review Board’s (ARB’s) approval findings. These ARB approval findings were also included as an attachment to the ARB staff report provided to the ARB and are available on the City’s website. Finding #2 (page 8 of the ROLUA) addresses the issue of compatibility with the existing built environment. The findings and approval conditions (which were modified following the ARB hearing to incorporate changes) were attached to the Director’s approval. 2. Are there context drawings for the project as they are not in our packet? Staff Response: The applicant has provided a complete plan set and Tentative Map for Council consideration, which have been distributed with the October 3rd Council packet. 3. The PTC minutes are missing. Staff Response: The PTC minutes referenced in the staff report were emailed to the Council on Friday 9/16/11 and are attached to this report (Attachment E). 4. The tentative map appears to be incomplete. Staff Response: The PDF attached to the September 19, 2011 CMR printed only partially due to the agenda software limitations. The applicant has included a hard copy of the map in each Councilmember plan set. The PDF was emailed to Councilmembers on September 19, 2011, and is attached to this CMR (Attachment R). The aerial and public improvement plans that were provided to the ARB and PTC are also provided in the plan set for Council. 5. Is the City required to provide 2 zoning concessions for provision of 4.4 additional affordable housing units? Staff Response: The request for two concessions is due to the provision of 20% of the overall number of units (17 of 84 units) as below market rate units. Government Code Section 65915-18 states that condominium units must be sold (and remain subject to resale) at not-to-exceed moderate income levels to be eligible for concessions. The 20% is applied regardless of whether a City has an inclusionary zoning requirement, and courts have verified that interpretation. . 6. Where are the BMR units located in the project? Are they comparable units to the market rate units per our code? Staff Response: Yes, all 17 BMR units would be interspersed on the second and third floors, some facing the courtyard and some facing the exterior, and are required to be comparable in quality and layout to the other units. The BMR units are one and two bedroom units (there are only four three-bedroom units – none of those units will be BMR units). 7. Has the Housing Corp been involved in the creation of the BMR program and in agreement with it? Staff Response: The Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) has been a partner with the City (since the mid-1970’s) in the creation and management of the BMR program and units. The PAHC received a courtesy copy of the most recent BMR letter (dated September 6, 2011) and had been in accord with the prior (2007) similar BMR agreement with the applicant. This courtesy is to alert the PAHC that BMR units will be coming into the program so they can plan for the future sales and management of those units. 8. As the City has implemented numerous sustainable policies, what sustainability options are provided for housing units without especially on the tracks side of the project? AKA cross ventilation. Staff Response: All housing units have operable windows that are also acoustically rated to ensure Title 25 and City standards for interior noise levels are met. The front doors of the residential units on the side facing the tracks are served and buffered by an interior, community hallway adjacent to the exterior wall parallel to the JPB/Caltrain ROW, and those units have operable windows into the courtyard. There are only four fixed windows facing the JPB ROW, at the ends of the hallways, and fixed windows at 90 degrees to the JPB ROW providing additional light into the hallways. The units facing the sides of the building that are aligned at 90 degrees to the tracks also have operable windows. The design will need to demonstrate compliance with ventilation requirements of the Building Code prior to issuance of building permits. 9. Caltrain ROW questions: a. What is the precedence for no setback and landscaping provided for on the CalTrains right of way? Staff Response: Staff is not aware of the relationship of other buildings relative to the right-of- way, but it appears that most, if not all, have some buffer. b. What is the access to plant, retain, maintain plantings in this location? Staff Response: The Joint Powers Board (JPB) has an easement across the Park Plaza site parallel and adjacent to the property line adjoining the Akins site at 3045 Park Boulevard. There is a mutual agreement between the applicant and the JPB for maintenance. c. Does this require a side agreement with CalTrain? Does such exist or what communications have there been with CalTrain re this proposal? Staff Response: Yes, this requires an easement and maintenance agreement with the Joint Powers Board (CalTrain). 10. What is the purview of the Council on this item? Are we limited to the matters raised in the ARB appeal? Or can our review be broader, as there are regular constraints of ARB and particular constraints on PTC in this case for a major project? Staff Response: The Council may act fairly broadly on the Architectural Review, the Tentative Map, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, so long as the relevant findings are made and substantiated. Those findings, as currently recommended by staff, are outlined in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). 11. Air quality: what peer review will be provided for the one-time sampling in the housing floors? Have air quality and plume technology/analysis changed since the approval and construction of the projects listed on page 8 of the staff report? Staff Response: The details of the most recently proposed condition (not considered a required Mitigation Measure) for one-time sampling have not yet been worked out, but staff expects that we would seek advice to the Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding expectations for sampling and would then provide the sampling data to the Board staff for their review and input. The analysis of mitigation appropriate to prevent vapor intrusion has become considerably more rigorous since the other residential projects have been constructed (though there is no indication that there have been problems at those sites in the absence of stricter controls). 12. As this is an item of over 300 pages sans the PTC minutes, why was it not provided earlier consistent with the new provision for 2 week prior for larger projects? Staff Response: The project was appealed in July and in accordance with PAMC Chapter 18.77, the appeal report was to have appeared on Council’s agenda within 30 days of the appeal. As the Council had no meetings in August, the first meeting at which the item could appear was September 6, 2011. The applicant agreed to postpone the timeline to allow for a joint hearing on the Tentative Map, which the PTC considered on August 24, 2011. A postponement to September 19, 2011 was agreed to, but this still did not allow enough time for an early packet due to the staff report review process. Due to the postponement to October 3, 2011, the Council will now have had three weeks for review of the project. 13. Can staff please provide a comparison chart of zoning to the proposed project as is typically provided to PTC? Staff Response: Table 2 ‘GM Zoning District Development Regulations’ was provided on page 67 of the Initial Study/MND. 14. What concessions are required based on SB375? In other words, are concessions warranted when we already require by code affordable units? Does the applicant have to provide any given number of units to qualify for exceptions? Staff Response: SB375 is not a factor in the request for concessions. If the intended reference is to SB1818 (the bill introduced by Hollingsworth, now known as Government Code 65915- 65918): two concessions are requested and warranted for the provision of 20% Below Market Rate Housing units in accordance with GC 65915. The developer is entitled to two concessions if 10% of the units are very low, or 20% of the units are lower or moderate income units. In the project before Council, now an all condominium unit project, 20% of the total units (17 of the 84 units) are proposed as units affordable to moderate income buyers. Zoning Exceptions such as Design Enhancement Exceptions are not requested for this project. 15. What relevance is financial viability to this project? Additionally, the 2006 letter referenced in response to Bob Moss questions....was that not a different project? Staff Response: GC65915 states that in addition to requesting incentives and concessions, applicants may request the waiver of an unlimited number of development standards by showing the waivers are needed to make the project economically feasible. The bill defines development standards as “site or construction conditions.” The applicant had provided a statement in 2006 regarding how the R&D component would help with the financial feasibility of providing affordable housing in 2006, prior to the prior PCE Director’s decision on the application. At that time, the number of affordable units proposed was 17% of the units, warranting only one concession, the project was cited to be a rental housing and R&D project, and the number of zoning development standards not met could not be supported by the percentage of affordable housing proposed, so the applicant was requested to provide the statement. CMR 10-3 ATTACHMENT S: Response to Appellant’s Recent Email Communications Appellant Robert Moss’s 9/16/11 Email: Appellant was referring to the 9/19/11 City Manager’s Report (CMR) in the below comments; staff responses follow each comment: Moss: “Of interest is that many pertinent facts are omitted from the report. For example, the ARB minutes report the project was approved. What they fail to note is the actual vote which was 3-2. In addition a number of comments by commissioners are omitted. For example at one point when approval of the project was being discussed commissioner Wasserman referred to it as a bait and switch job. That was omitted.” Staff Response: Complete verbatim minutes of the ARB meeting of July 7, 2011 were provided as an attachment to the PTC report; an earlier unedited version was inadvertently attached to the CMR, but the updated version was emailed to Councilmembers on Friday September 16, 2011 and is included with this report. The comment made by Boardmember Wasserman was included, in context: “When we started this project it was rental housing. It is now for sale housing. I am getting the bait and switch feeling.” These comments are reflected in both the unedited and edited versions of the ARB verbatim minutes. Moss: “Neither the Planning Commission minutes nor my letter to the Planning Commission are attached to the report despite the statements on (CMR) p. 5 and p. 6.” Staff Response: The PTC minutes of August 24, 2011 and Mr. Moss’s email letter of August 21, 2011 referred to in the report were inadvertently omitted from the attachments. These were emailed to the Councilmembers on September 16, 2011 and are attached to this updated CMR. Moss: “CMR P. 6, the consultant’s view that indoor air monitoring is not the most effective means to assess impacts is at variance with EPA and members of the Moffett Field RAB and general practices.” Staff Response: Indoor air monitoring within the basement is proposed and supported by the City’s consultant and the Regional Water Quality Control Board as a part of the project. In addition, the applicant has now proposed one-time testing within the three above ground floors of the building, not required by the Regional Board. EPA does not have jurisdiction over this project and an assumption that they would require indoor air monitoring is highly speculative. Finally, Mitigation Measure MM-4 sets forth protocol for management of the on-site contamination, including third party inspections of the full vapor barrier and vapor intrusion mitigation system (VIMS). Moss: “CMR P. 6, 1st item. Although the ARB approved the overall design and appearance several ARB members expressed concern about such a massive structure and the negative impact it would have if the trees in the railroad right of way were removed. The vines on the rear wall would not cover the entire structure and in no way would soften the massive appearance from Alma and to riders on the tracks behind the building. Planning commissioners and past councilmembers strongly objected to the scale and mass of the building. Before the project was begun Mr. Hohbach asked a number of community representatives to view 4 models proposed for the site. I was one of them. All community members strongly rejected the design before you tonight and preferred 2 separate buildings with a courtyard between. The community was asked to participate and their preferences were then ignored. It is time for the Council to recapture the need for scale, quality, and compatibility in developments and reject this proposal.” Staff Response: The GM zone permits buildings 50 feet in height, whereas the Park Plaza Building is primarily 40 feet in height, with only the corner tower (an equipment screen) is greater than 40 feet tall. The applicant did modify the current project’s building facade that fronts Caltrain right of way for the current application, with additional vertical relief and horizontal height variations, in addition to the vegetation referenced by Mr. Moss (the vines were reported to grow 30 feet tall by the applicant’s landscape architect). The project’s redesigned façade was reviewed by the ARB, with 3 of the 5 members recommending approval of the redesign, and approved by the Director as having met the ARB approval findings. One of the two members recommending against project approval still noted concern about the vines. The Applicant has stated that it is very unlikely that the Joint Powers Board (JPB) would ask for removal of the trees, noting that Sprint maintains a building (valued at over 1 million dollars) in the ten-foot wide strip, from which the JPB receives substantial income. In addition, the applicant has noted the JPB would lose its access to its property through the ten-foot wide access route on Park Plaza property being provided adjacent to the Akins Body Shop site. Nevertheless, the architectural features of the project are within the purview of the Council to modify if the appropriate architectural review findings are made. Moss: “CMR P. 6 2nd item. Dependence on a TDM program to reduce parking needs assumes that residents and many of the workers will use the train. In fact less than 10% of the residents at Palo Alto Central use the train, and the total number of riders using the train at the California Ave station was 941 in 2008. If 450 of them are workers (to and from California Ave = 900 worker trips/day) that is less than 2% of the workers in Stanford Research Park. There are no penalties or corrective action if the offer of TDM passes is ineffective and few workers use them. Therefore the assumption that parking is adequate rests on fond hopes not reality.” Staff Response: The project includes a request for a 22% reduction (approximately 86 spaces) in the number of on site parking spaces. With its TDM program, shared (office and residential) uses, and location near transit, the project would be eligible for a maximum 30% reduction. Staff does not have data regarding train usage by Palo Alto Central or other nearby developments, but does note that the vehicle per household ratio in Census tracts close to the City’s two Caltrain stations are considerably less than in the City as a whole (generally without any TDM program or transit incentives). The TDM program is attached to the CMR (Attachment Q). Moss: “CMR P. 6 3rd item. The comments at the ARB meeting by staff and ARB members implied that the building permit had been both requested and issued, but then retracted when staff realized the error. Glad that actual issuance was not done, but just asking for the building permit before the ARB hearing, let alone approval, violated the explicit Council directive. As noted the chair of the ARB chastised Mr. Hohbach.” Staff Response: There is no active building permit application. Moss: “CMR P. 7 1st item. There are no other projects in Palo Alto where a residential building is directly adjacent to the railroad right of way. As noted Palo Alto Central has an open space between the building and the railroad property. Homes and apartments along Park have setbacks from the rear property line.” Staff Response: The City’s 1998 Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Housing Sites Inventory identified potential housing sites most suitable and likely to be developed for residential purposes. Included on this list is a 3.92 Acre site associated with a 120 unit minimum yield, and the site includes a 1.56 Acre portion of the Park Plaza site. Staff is not aware, however, of the proximity of all existing sites to the rail right-of-way, though it appears that most projects have some kind of buffer. Moss: “CMR P. 7 3rd item. Non-residential uses are not and never have been required to make housing a viable use of land in Palo Alto. Claiming that it reduces housing costs does not make it so. It certainly does increase traffic, parking needs, and worsens the jobs/housing imbalance. Regardless of whether the R&D exists, housing on the site will sell for market rate + 10%. Having R&D will not reduce the cost of housing to buyers by a penny. It can increase profits.” Staff Response: The applicant provided a statement to the previous Planning Director noting his need to have the requested commercial use at the ground floor to support the proposal for housing on the site. Staff believes the primary policy consideration, however, is not whether the office/R&D use is necessary financially, but whether the housing is appropriate. Moss: “CMR P. 7 item 4. Limiting the types of biological agents is better than the previous lack of limits, but allowing any hazardous materials in R&D space below housing is a very bad idea. Did anyone learn anything from the fatal explosion from a single gas cylinder in Menlo Park on Sept. 2?” Staff Response: A condition of approval was added that would allow for only Level 1 biological materials, which generally include non-contagious viruses only. If desired, Council could add a condition to restrict the R&D space to preclude any biological materials. Moss: “CMR P. 7 Item 5. The project does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Land Use Map, and established policies. ARB approval specifically excluded Comprehensive Plan and Zoning compatibility review. However the Planning Commission agrees that this proposal violates the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Land Use Map and they rejected it 4-2. I cited a number of Plan policies and Programs that the project violates. I am sure that Councilmembers Holman and Burt can use their experience on the Planning Commission to find even more violations of planning and zoning.” Staff Response: The ROLUA and ARB staff report reference eight Comprehensive Plan policies supporting ARB Approval Finding #1 (these policies are also noted in the Initial Study/MND). Following comments made by PTC members regarding the Tentative Map findings, staff modified findings #3 and #6 to better support the two findings the PTC majority noted they could not support. Moss: “The offer to test indoor air in the residential area after construction is complete is better than the past conditions, but is inadequate as continuing monitoring is required, not just a single test after construction. That is particularly necessary for this project sitting next to the railroad tracks. Over time the vibrations from 70 to140 trains/day could damage the vapor barrier and sub-slab system so ongoing testing is required.” Staff Response: The proposal includes ongoing monitoring of indoor air in the underground garage, as described in the MND. If this monitoring discloses the presence of VOCs at any time, the Water Board can then decide what, if any, additional air monitoring steps or mitigation measures are required. If proximity to the railroad tracks creates any problems this would first be noticed in the air sampling in the underground garage. The applicant’s proposal for one-time sampling of indoor air on all floors, including the two residential floors, does not appear to be beneficial, as the City’s consultant has noted that other environmental factors in a residence may affect the monitoring. Council could, however, extend the condition on an ongoing basis if desired. Moss: “CMR P. 8-9. The example of housing over a toxic plume at Campus for Jewish Life is exactly what EPA and many experts prefer for housing developments in Superfund sites. Ground floor parking with housing in a podium resolves the problems of vapor intrusion. That would be a good design for 195 Page Mill.” Staff Response: Staff believes that design with an entire-block, first level parking structure with no commercial-pedestrian activity at street level is not considered to be good pedestrian-oriented design within a PTOD area. The ARB worked toward ensuring the provision of pedestrian amenities and ground floor fenestration, particularly along Park Boulevard, to meet PTOD context based standards. Moss: “EPA has tried to get the Water Board to make its policies, positions, and corrective actions more consistent with those of EPA with very limited success. In June EPA representatives met with the Water Board in an effort to get more consistency between the two groups in addressing vapor intrusion. No agreements were reached. EPA personnel observed that apparently the Water Board does a good job with water. At the RAB meeting September 8, EPA personnel noted that the Water Board continues to act independently and not always consistent with EPA policies. Therefore the requirements and restrictions at 195 Page Mill imposed by the Water Board are not best practices nor adequately protective of occupants health. Staff has taken the approach that since the Water Board is the agency overseeing Superfund activities in Palo Alto, if they are satisfied with what is proposed, then everything must be OK, or if not OK, it’s the fault of the Water Board, not anyone on staff. Bad approach to the issues. If the government agency outside of Palo Alto that is directly responsible for protecting public health and safety is not doing an adequate job, and be assured the Water Board is not, then it falls on all of you to exercise proper controls and requirements so that future inhabitants in Palo Alto will not be at needless risk of cancer and other diseases caused by TCE. The potential for TCE vapor intrusion and the probability that public health and safety of residents will be compromised from the proposed development also is justification to deny the project.” Staff Response: There is no evidence that the EPA would require additional mitigation for this project, were the project within its jurisdiction. EPA is now working more closely with the Water Board to review Palo Alto projects, but has not indicated any additional measures necessary for this project. Staff believes that the mitigation required is more stringent than the Regional Board would have required, and that it is basically the most extensive protection available, other than simply not building the project. Moss: “I must admire the careful way staff, Mr. Hohbach, and the consultants are avoiding the Elephant in the Room –the high levels of TCE in soil gas. A consultant overseeing the toxics issues at the Grant, Sheridan and Birch project advised against building any occupied building over an area where the soil gas level for TCE was 6400 grams/cubic meter. Accordingly only the garage extends over this high TCE area. Of course with no vapor barriers TCE will go into the garage and from there unimpeded into the occupied spaces. The rear third of 195 Page Mill has soil gas test results for TCE of 23,500, 25,000 and 150,000 grams/cubic meter or 3.7 to 23.4 times the level at Birch and Grant that was considered too high to allow occupied buildings above. Every time I mention this sad fact there are evasive replies, for example the restriction at Birch Plaza doesn’t apply to 195 Page Mill because they are different locations and the Water Board had no complaints about the high level of TCE in soil gas. On the other hand EPA was surprised to hear of such high levels of TCE in the soil gas. Apparently 150,000 grams/cubic meter exceeds any levels found at MEW. The prudent approach to mitigating these high levels of soil gas TCE is to prohibit both occupied buildings and underground garages at the rear of the site so that vapor intrusion is avoided. The area can be used for landscaping and surface parking.” Staff Response: The Birch Street site does not require nearly the same level of mitigation, i.e., full vapor barrier and active ventilation, as is proposed at 195 Page Mill Road. The Regional Board has approved the different approaches to the two sites, as EPA has made site specific determinations at the Mountain View site. Moss: “CMR P. 9, Housing Density concessions will open the way to destruction of zoning and land use controls in Palo Alto and eventually the elimination of many R-1 neighborhoods, to be replaced by high density housing if the current staff interpretation of GC65915 is applied. It is not necessary to grant any concessions in order to get 20% of the units dedicated to BMR housing. For over 35 years Palo Alto has required a new housing development to include BMR units. Currently the required level is 15% BMRs. Thousands of housing units have been built here with the required percentage of BMR units, or payment in lieu of units, resulting in almost 1500 BMR units. None of these developments required a concession to provide BMRs. An increase from 15% BMRs to 20% BMRs can be obtained by applying existing Palo Alto regulations plus density bonuses without granting any concessions. Using GC 65915 to obtain BMR units can reduce, not increase the number of BMR units. For example, a concession to allow multifamily units where they normally are prohibited can be imposed by offering 10% BMRs and insisting on a concession, where under city law there is already a requirement for 15% BMRs when built in a zone that allows housing without concessions. Follow the logic of granting concessions for 20% BMRs. A developer, Howard Hightower (call him Mr. HH) decides to build a 5 unit condo project in the 800 block of Seale. One of the units will be a BMR, so Mr. HH provides 20% BMR units and insists on 2 concessions –allowing RM-30 equivalent in R-1, and increasing FAR to 1.25 from 0.43. Of course staff agrees that this is a valid request and application of GC65915. Seeing the success of HH, developer Mr. II asks for approval of his 5 unit condo with a BMR unit in the 1500 block of Madrono, followed by Mr. JJ who wants to build his 5-unit condo with a BMR unit in the 1200 block of Harriet, and MR. MM who asks for approval of a modest 5-unit condo with a BMR unit in the 4000 block of Orme, followed by Mrs. NN with plans for a 5-unit condo with a BMR unit in the 700 block of Homer and Mr. OO who proposes a 5 unit condo with a BMR in the 3400 block of Janice. Mrs. PP then requests concessions for her 5 unit condo in the 2200 block of Park. What an interesting way to meet the ABAG housing requirements. In fact concessions can be denied if they are not needed to provide for affordable housing costs per GC 65915 (d)(1)(A) since 15% BMR units already are required without concessions per PAMC. In addition the concessions can be denied if they will result in safety problems or if they do not contribute significantly to the feasibility of lower income housing per GC65917. Granting a concession for 10% BMR units undermines long-standing requirements for developers to provide 15% BMR units, so using GC 65915 to get a concession for providing 10% BMRs actually reduces BMRs because applying long-standing city laws the developer is required to provide 15% BMRs with no incentive, not 10%.” Staff Response: The claims made regarding the application of Government Code 65915 are not correct. Mr. Moss made the claim, in his 2007 lawsuit, that the City exceeded its authority in granting concessions on this project in exchange for 20% BMR units. The court specifically rejected this claim, however. Staff acknowledges that this project is not a good example of the use of the housing density law for concessions, but it has been upheld legally and, given the complexities of the changing zoning regulations for this site, appears to be an equitable approach. There are no other sites in the City that have similar circumstances regarding changes in zoning and allowable uses, that might then take advantage of these provisions. Moss: “Herb Borock pointed out that not all of the site was identified as a potential housing location. Therefore 2901 Park can and should be excluded from housing and retained in GM. That reduces the project area to 1.6 acres from 2.5 acres and reduces the number of allowable housing units accordingly.” Staff Response: The 3.92 acre Housing Sites Inventory diagram included the portion of Page Mill Road north of Park Boulevard, the parcel formerly considered for a public safety building, a portion of Caltrain right of way (ROW) adjacent to the former public safety building site, and a 1.56 Acre portion (net lot area) of the subject property. Attachment M includes a map showing this site. With development of the Park Plaza project, the Page Mill Road ROW adjacent to the site would be retained as a public street rather than converted to a housing site. The Housing Sites Inventory, however, specified an RM-40 zoning density for the site, which yields more than 84 units. Moss: As both I and Herb Borock have stated repeatedly, this project violates CEQA and cannot proceed without a full EIR. The MND is inadequate and unacceptable. Staff Response: The prior mitigated negative declaration (MND) was found by the court to be adequate, other than the procedural requirement to re-circulate the document prior to project approval. All impacts are still found to be reduced to a level of “less than significant” following implementation of the mitigation measures. The level of analysis in the EIR, particularly for the groundwater contamination and noise issues, would not have been greater than that provided in the MND. Staff also assured that the more stringent approach to groundwater contamination was required (full vapor barrier with active ventilation) for the project to reduce the potential for argument that additional measures should be required. Moss: The best approach to development of this site is to reject the current application and the ARB approval of this project. Rezone the entire site to RM-30, and require that any and all developments comply with standard zoning parameters, with the exception that no underground garage or residential space shall be placed over the 1/3 of the site that runs along the railroad right-of-way and exhibited high levels of TCE. It also is possible to rezone the site PTOD with or without restrictions on whatever is developed there. Staff Response: Comments noted. CMR 10-3 ATTACHMENT T –RESPONSES TO RESIDENTS’ PRE-9-19-11 EMAILS A.Art Liberman (751 Chimalus Drive) 9/16/11 Email Excerpt: “You should learn from the accidents at Menlo Technologies and CPI and insist that any building projects where hazardous or biohazardous materials in Palo Alto are used will be confined to buildings that are adequately separated from residential structures.Please make your decision to reject this proposal now, before the structure is built, residents move in and an accident occurs.” Staff Response:The City’s Fire Marshal Gordon Simpkinson states “the accident in Menlo Park was due to introducing gas at 2000 psi into a container designed for no more than 300 psi. There was no risk to anyone further than a few feet from the vessel.There was no release of toxic or harmful fumes mists or vapors in any significant quantity. Such an accident could have happened with nitrogen or compressed air, such as a scuba tank stored in a residential unit by a hobby scuba diver or an oxygen tank for a resident with emphysema. The pressure was too much for the container it was placed in. The violation that occurred was of OSHA’s requirement not to over-pressurize a container, not of any local restrictions on hazardous materials. Only people in direct proximity to (a few feet from) the device that failed would suffer injury or death –the victim died from impact of the object hitting him, not as a result of toxic fumes or combustion.” The CPI site in Palo Alto involves bulk storage of materials and quantities which do not correlate to the 195 Page Mill Road proposal. Additionally, as mentioned previously, staff has suggested limitations on biohazards to Level One, generally non-infectious viruses (see ROLUA Section 7, condition 2a). B.Herb Borock 9/19/11 Email Excerpt: Mr. Borock’s email’s letter and attachments submitted September 14, 2011 were contained in the September 19, 2011 packet within Attachment M. Below is an excerpt of the email sent to Council following the packet distribution. Borock: “A continuation will also give the applicant the opportunity to sign a revised Mitigated Negative Declaration that contains the correct application number, and to provide a written agreement that he will abide by the requirements of Government Code section 65915 for affordable for-sale housing units for moderate income residents.You need to find out from staff whether there are any permit streamlining deadlines that require you to act by a date certain.For example, on what date were the applications deemed complete, and on what date must the Council take action?” Staff Response: The MND (Attachment C), which clearly refers to the project in all other ways, now contains the correct application number shown in underlined text. The application meets permit streamlining requirements, since the project was modified a few times along the way, initiating new review timeframes. The City’s zoning code requires, however, that the appeal and tentative map be reviewed by Council not later than 30 days after action by staff and the PTC, respectively. Staff has, with the applicant’s concurrence, grouped the two applications so that Council could consider the totality of the project. Borock: The Environmental Assessment (9/19 Packet Page 460), the place for the applicant's acceptance of the revised mitigation measures (9/19 Packet Page 558), and the applicant's acceptance of the mitigation measures (August 24, 2011, staff report to the Planning and Transportation Commission, Attachment D, page 99) show the Architectural Review application number as 08PLN-00000-00281.08PLN- 0000-00281 is the application number for two new wall signs at 145 Addison Avenue submitted on September 8, 2008.The applicant's previous application had the application number 05PLN-00000-00281, but that doesn't mean that the current application number also ends in the number 281. Staff Response: The ROLUA has the correct application number at the top in bold; the planner had inadvertently used a different application number on the Project Title cover page of the Initial Study and on the footers. This will be corrected on the copy for filing at the County of Santa Clara. The project description and Initial Study clearly described the current application and conditions. Borock: The Record of Land Use Action on at least the first two pages (Section 1.A at the bottom of 9/19 Packet Page 406 and Section 1.B at the top of Packet Page 407) shows the application number as 08PLN-[00000]-00296.08PLN-0000000296 is the application number for a new 2,032 square foot community center at 574 Arastradero Road submitted on September 18, 2008. The correct application number for the current Architectural Review application is 08PLN-00000-00295.The Tentative Map application is correctly shown as 10PLN- 00000-00344. Staff Response: The ROLUA has been updated to ensure the correct file numbers are used throughout. Borock: I was able to use the City website search feature to readily find the entries in the Accela reports system for the two incorrect application numbers, but was unable to find either of the correct numbers in the Accela reports system using the same search feature.Maybe you will have better luck. Staff Response: Accela (the City’s permit software system) does include both the ARB application (08PLN-00295) and the Tentative Map application (10PLN-00344) when one types “195 Page Mill” without typing “Road”. Borock: The staff report is missing a copy of the page 4 of the Appellant's letter. Packet Page 455 is page 3 of the letter, and Packet Page 456 is page 5 of the letter. The missing page occurs in the middle of the Appellant's argument about the financial feasibility of the proposed residential use. Staff Response: Page 4 of the Appeal was emailed to Council on Friday, September 16, 2011 and Attachment B has now been made whole. Borock: The top of page 6 of the staff report (ID #1982) says that Attachment J is a letter to the Planning and Transportation Commission from Robert Moss. Attachment J is the Park Plaza Mitigation Monitoring Program. Staff Response: The Moss letter to the PTC is now correctly noted as within Attachment U. Borock: Attachment M includes a different letter from Robert Moss,but his letter to the Planning and Transportation Commission is not attached to the staff report. Staff Response: Appellant Moss’s letter to the Commission is now attached (included in Attachment U). Borock: Other letters to the Commission from Richard Placone and Herb Borock are also not attached to the staff report, nor are public letters to the Architectural Review Board. Staff Response: All of the letters to the Commission are now included in Attachment U. Borock: The top of page 4 of the staff report (Packet Page 307) refers to a draft Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Agreement that is not attached to the staff report, and that would not constitute substantial evidence if it were attached, because it is a draft that has not been agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: The prior agreement was not attached to the CMR by staff. However, it was attached within Attachment M for September 19, 2011 and remains there. This was the agreement the Applicant had signed for the previous (2007) project. Borock: Instead of a reference to a staff work product, the staff report should have attached the actual BMR Housing Agreement signed by the applicant to provide the Council and the public an opportunity to comment on whether the BMR Agreement uses the language in Government Code section 65915(c) for maintaining the for-sale residential units affordable for moderate income residents, and satisfies the requirement of section 65915 that all 84 units be provided for sale to the public and not kept as rentals either by the applicant or by someone who buys some or all of the units to provide financing to the applicant. Staff Response: The practice is not to attach the BMR Agreement letter to CMRs. Condition #18 requires deed restrictions of the 17 units as affordable in accordance with Government Code Section 65915 to be recorded in conjunction with the recording of the Final Map. Borock: The verbatim minutes of the August 24, 2011, Planning and Transportation Commission meeting that are referred to on Packet Page 398 are not attached to the staff report. Staff Response: The minutes were provided to the Council on Friday, September 16 and are attached to the CMR (Attachment E). Borock: The hazardous waste plume map referred to in the staff report on Packet Page 401 is not attached to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Attachment C to the staff report. The hazardous waste plume map for the MEW plume that is referred to on Packet Page 644 is not attached to Attachment K, the applicant's supplemental information regarding vapor intrusion. Staff Response: A map of the COE plume in provided within Attachment U to the CMR. Borock:A written version of the outside counsel's opinion about RM-40 zoning standards referred to on Packet Page 40 is not attached to the staff report. Staff Response: Staff did not find the reference mentioned and there was no outside Counsel’s written opinion regarding the RM-40 zoning standards. Borock: Recent case law in Palmer v. Los Angeles says that the City can compel Below Market Rate units for rental housing projects when the applicant seeks the concessions provided by Government Code 65915. The City's list of Housing Inventory Sites includes only about 1.56 acres of the project site and requires a minimum dwelling yield of 30 units per acre for the site (Housing Opportunity Site #8-11).Therefore, the Council is required to approve only 46 units to comply with State housing law as it affects the site's inclusion on the list of Housing Opportunity Sites. The Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development zone district overlay contains language that implements Government Code section 65915 by providing bonus floor area and bonus market rate housing units for a specified percentage of Below Market Rate units. Staff Response: The request for concessions under State law is only allowed because the applicant offers 20% of the units as affordable housing, whether rental or for-sale. The Housing Sites Inventory outlines the minimum number of units expected on a site, using an average density of 30 units per acre. The Inventory also notes that such sites should be zoned 40 units per acre. Thus, a greater number of units may be provided, compliant with other requirements. While the PTOD does provide greater floor area, staff understands that a local agency’s regulation may not override the Government Code in this respect. In fact, however, the achievable density and intensity for this site under PTOD zoning would allow for a total FAR of 1.2 for residential + .25 for R&D = 1.45, as compared to the 1.5 requested by the applicant. 3700 3800 300 3100 3300 4000 200 3500 100 3300 2700 3100 200 3000 400 2800 2900 2600 100 2500 500 3200 300 4 00 3000 3100 6 00 3100 3000 3200 2900 330 4 0 0 1500 1600 1600 1500 0 1800 1800 200 1800 300 1700 1900 8 00 8 0 0 2800 7 0 0 2700 2800 2900 700 800 2600 2300 1200 2200 1400 2000 2000 2200 2000 2200 2200 0 1400 1600 2000 2600 900 600 600 3200 3300 3600 3700 200 3400 1200 600 800 1900 1800 400 600 2000 2100 2000 2200 2000 2100 2000 800 2200 2000 1000 2300 2000 2000 1700 2500 400 2400 2700 500 200 2800 3400 3500 300 400 2900 3000 2800 100 3000 200 3300 3000 400 300 2400 2300 300 2200 2200 100 2300 200 2000 100 1800 2000 1900 2100 2000 200 300 1900 2600 1 0 02400 300 200 2700 100 2500 2500 2100 2100 200 2300 300 200 400 4 00 500 2 0 0 400 300 2400 2600 2400 300 500 2400 2300 500 2300 2200 600 700 28 1400 100 1700 1800 600 3400 3200 2200 500 2000 600 2500 2700 2600 2600 2700 2800 3100 3200 2200 2200 2000 2200 2000 2200 200 400 600 2900 2900 1200 2400 2200 3100 800 900 700 3000 800 1300 600 800 700 100 200 600 600 6 00 700 Curtner Avenue Ventura Avenue ne Emerson Street Ventura Court Park Boulevard Cypress Maclane E Emerson Street Loma Verde Avenue Brys o n A v e n u e Midtown Court Cowper St Gary Ct Waverley Street South Court Bryant Street Ramona Street Alma Street Coastland Dr Byron Street Middlefield Road Gaspar Ct Moreno Avenue El Carmelo Avenue Campesino Avenue Dymond Ct Martinsen Ct Ram ona Street Bryant Street Towle Way Towle Pl Wellsbury Ct Flowers Lane Mackall Way Cowper Street South Court W a v e rle y Stre et El Verano Avenue Wellsbury Way L a Middlefield Road Sa yn e Court Ellsworth PlSan Carlos Ct Wi Sutter Avenue Price Ct Stern Aven C olora d o A ve n u e Randers Ct Ross Rd. S yca m o re Driv e Sevyson Ct Ross Road Stanford Avenue Amherst Street Columbia Street Bowdoin Street Dartmouth Street Hanover Street College Avenue California Avenue Hanover Street Ramos Way (Private) Hansen Way Tippawing Whitsell Stre enue Fernando Avenue Matadero Avenue Lambert Avenue Hansen Way Margarita Avenue Matadero Avenue Wilton Avenue Oxford Avenue Harvard Street California Ave Wellesley Street Princeton Street Oberlin Street Cornell Street Cambridge Ave College AvenueWilliams Street Yale St Staunton Ct Oxford Avenue El C a mino R eal Churchill Avenue Pa r k Bo ulev a r d Park Avenue Escobita A venue Churchill Avenue S e q u oia A v e n u e Mariposa Avenue Castilleja Avenue Mira m o nte A ve nue M adro n o Avenue P ortola A venue Manzanita Avenue Coleridge Avenue Leland Avenue Stanford Avenue Birch Street Ash Street Lowell Avenue Alma Street Tennyson Avenue Grant Avenue Sheridan Ave Jacaranda Ln El Camino Real Sherman Avenue Ash St Page Mill Road Mimosa Ln Chestnut Avenue Portage Avenue Pepper Avenue Olive Avenue Acacia Avenue Emerson Street Park Boulevard Orinda Street Birch St Ash Street Page Mill Road Ash Street Park Blvd College Avenue Cambridge Ave New Mayfield Ln Birch Street California Ave Park Blvd Nogal Lane Rinconada Avenue Santa Rita Avenue Park Boulevard Seale Avenue Washington Ave Santa Rita Avenue Bryant Street High Street E merson Street C olora d o A v e S treet Ramona Street Bryant Street South Court El Dorado AvenueAlma Street Alma Street High Stre et Emerson Waverley Oaks (Private) Washington Avenue Brya nt Street South Court Waverley Street Emerson St Nevada Ave N Calif Ave Ramona St High Street North California Avenue Oregon Expwy Marion Avenue Ramona Street C olora d o A v e n u e Waverley Street Kipling Street South Court Cowper Street Anton Ct Nevada Avenue Tasso Street Tasso Street Oregon Avenue Marion Place W e b ster St Middlefield Road ad Drive C olora d o A v e n u eTennyson Avenue Street Emerson Street Alma Street Byron Street Webster Street Marion Avenue Sedro Ln Peral Lane Madeline Court Green Court Oregon Expressway Sheridan Ave CalTrain RO W CalTrain RO W Lane 66 Lane 66 Stanford AvenueEscondido Road Comstock Circle A ngell CourtCourt kins Cour t McFarland Court Olmstead Road S erra Stre et H o skins Court Thoburn Court H u l me Court Barnes C o u r t Olmstea d R o ad Ol m ste ad R o a d Olms t e a d Road Abrams Ct Dud ley Lane El Dorado Avenue Clara Drive Alma Street Webster Street d Dr Sutter Avenue Rosewood Dr Rosewood Dr S utter A v e n ue Kipling St Avalon Court Kipling Street Margarita Avenue Lambert Avenue Matadero Avenue Wilton Avenue El Camino Real Page Mill Road Alma Street Sherman Avenue Grant Avenue Sheridan Ave This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend 1320ft buffer (SCVWD) city pa (SCVWD) Plumes (SCVWD) Channel Centerline (CPA) Creeks (SCVWD) Road centerline (CPA) convertsms83 pa (SCVWD) Dc past (SCVWD) Dry cleaners (SCVWD) Wells (SCVWD) Fuelleakpa (SCVWD) 0' 720' CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2008 City of Palo Alto ktorke, 2008-02-25 08:48:25SCVWD Groundwater View 12 Apr 2004 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\EnvComp.mdb) From: Richard Placone [mailto:rcplacone@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 6:31 PM To: Planning Commission Cc: Emslie, Steve Subject: 195 Page Mill Project Dear Commission members, I am writing to you to register my opposition to the currently proposed housing/R&D project at 195 Page Mill Road. In doing so, I have read the complete report submitted to the commission by my neighbor, Bob Moss. I find Bob's analysis of the dangers that could result from this project to be compelling, and therefore the project should be rejected by the commission. I live on Chimalus Drive in Palo Alto, and am one of the neighbors of the CPI installation referred to in Bob's report. As you may or may not know, the entire Chimalus Drive neighborhood, with somewhat reluctant cooperation from the Planning Department, is fighting the CPI operations involving the storage and use of extremely toxic materials within 50 to 150 feet of our residences. I have personally experienced one of the toxic spills, which drove my close neighbor from the roof of his house where he was cleaning gutters, to seek refuge inside just before he nearly succumbed to the toxic vapors from a CPI spill. The city council is responsible for allowing CPI to move its toxic operations from a San Carlos industrial park several years ago, so that it could take advantage of lower rents in the former Varian buildings. So for the sake of money for a commercial operation, our council allowed this toxic operation to become established in our neighborhood. In spite of strong resident protest, the council then allowed CPI to increase the volume of its operations, although to a level less than CPI wanted, but totally against the residents who pleaded for no increase. The battle goes on and the final word from the city, CPI or the neighborhood has yet to be heard. Do not make the same mistake at 195 Page Mill Road. It is time the city think more seriously about the safety and well being of its residents, and this will be a good place to start. My many many thanks to Bob Moss for watching out so effectively for the city's residents. Sincerely, Richard C. Placone 601 Chimalus Drive Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Aug. 20, 2011 Subject: Meeting August 24, 195 Page Mill Rd This project and the developer, Harold Hohbach, have a very long history that some of you may not be familiar with. The site also is not like almost all others in Palo Alto and needs special attention and mitigations that are not adequately addressed in the MND. The staff report has some oddities and several errors and omissions that also need to be addressed. Therefore I am sending you my comments in advance of your meeting next Wednesday. If anyone needs clarifications or discussions of anything I will be glad to try to answer them, and provide the replies to all Commissioners and interested staff. The fact that the ARB has already reviewed and approved the project does not in any way limit or restrict your actions on the proposal. It is unreasonable to limit your review to design and improvements. This is another case where a project that should have gone to the Planning and Transportation Commission first, and to the ARB only if and when you approve the concept of the project. Now staff says you can’t perform your normal review and oversight of this project. The ARB carefully avoids consideration of consistency and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and stated policies on development. They did not delve into the MND, nor consider with any rigor potential exposure of future site to toxics at the site. You should take all of these items and issues into account when reviewing the proposed development at 195 Page Mill, and be free to reject the subdivision requested or any part of the project for whatever valid reasons you wish to cite. For example, you could say that the design does not properly take into account the dangers of placing an underground garage in an area with extremely high concentrations of TCE. Or you could say that the design will cause negative impacts on nearby buildings by blocking sunlight and views and thus is rejected. Of course you can say that mixing R&D and housing in the same site, especially when the R&D would be allowed to store and use hazardous materials directly beneath housing is an unacceptable improvement. There are some oddities in the staff report. It implies that your review of the project and proposal is limited to specific issues such as street access and …. In fact you are free to evaluate all aspects of the proposal, including consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, adequacy of the MND, traffic impacts on a future public safety building across Page Mil Rd., and area compatibility. Some statements in the Issues table are incorrect. It is stated that since the site is identified as a potential housing site, housing must be allowed even though the site is zoned GM which expressly forbids housing. In fact any housing project in the GM zone violates the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and specific policies adopted formally by the City Council. While housing can be allowed on the site under certain conditions, it must be done in compliance with actual zoning. Initiating formal rezoning of the site to PTOD or RM-30 or RM- 40 will allow housing while retaining consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Therefore rejection of this proposal is allowed and does not prevent housing from being built on the site. There is no need or reason to allow both housing and R&D facilities. Remove the R&D, eliminate the dangers of allowing hazardous materials in R&D spaces, ;limit development to housing, and inclusion of the site in the Housing Inventory is fully met. GC65915-65918 is being used to justify concessions or incentives when BMR units are offered. Hohbach Realty cites this as justification for receiving two concessions, allowing residential in a zone that explicitly prohibits residential, and a significant increase in FAR. GC65915 states the concessions need not be granted if the concession requested is not required in order to obtain BMR units. Palo Alto has a history of more than 35 years of obtaining at least 10% BMR units and normally 15% to 20% BMR units for residential developments with no need for concessions or incentives. Housing can be built on the site under normal zoning regulations if a zone change from GM to RM is applied to the site. Therefore NO concessions are required in order to obtain BMR units on this site. Density bonuses for additional BMR units have been in city codes for years, so if rezoning to RM is applied to the site, Hohbach Realty can apply for more than the normal maximum density by offering more than the required minimum number of BMR units. Again, GC65915-65918 is unnecessary to obtain BMR units for any residential development in Palo Alto that complies with long-0standing Palo Alto laws and regulations. Inclusion of R&D in the project violates the Comprehensive Plan and housing policy H-3. Over 50,400 square feet of R&D will generate at least 250 jobs. City policy is to reduce the jobs- housing imbalance. Over the past 10 years significant areas of industrial and commercial land was converted to housing, causing significant loss of tax revenues, and increasing general fund expenses, but reducing the jobs-housing imbalance. Including R&D space in a housing development at this site will encourage ABAG and MTC to require even more new housing units in their misguided efforts to force Palo Alto to make massive increases in housing. Claims that R&D is needed to make the housing affordable are demonstrably false. The only multifamily housing developments that included non-residential development have been in commercial zones where the first floor is offices or stores. There has never been a mixed use development with R&D and housing in one structure. For 35 years multifamily developments in Palo Alto have been required to provide from 10% to 40% BMR units. The current requirement under PAMC Program H-35 is 15% BMR units. Since 1975 almost 1500 BMRs were added per this requirement. Despite this firm, enforced BMR requirement, since 1980 over 4500 housing units were added in Palo Alto. This was an increase of some 19% in an already well developed city. Since 1997 3800 new housing units have been built or approved, far exceeding the 2400 goal in the Comprehensive Plan. Almost all were multifamily condos, like those proposed for 195 Page Mill Road. No concessions or incentives were required to obtain the BMR units. Housing values in Palo Alto are among the top 10 nationally for cities with both housing and commercial developments. Home sales in Palo Alto for the first 6 months of 2011 increased 25% and prices increased 8% compared to 2010. Price per square foot of homes in Palo Alto zip codes is consistently among the 5 highest in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. The past 2 months homes values per square foot in 94301 and 94306 zip codes have been no lower than 4th highest sales price per square foot. When zip code 94303 home sales are reported for Palo Alto sales, not East Palo Alto, it also is in the top 4 or 5 for value per square foot. No incentives or concessions are required to encourage housing in Palo Alto, and that housing must include BMR units as required by long-standing ordinances. It is stated that only 38 students would result from the project so impacts on schools are less than significant. The model for estimating students generated was the Sand Hill Corridor study. This old document incorrectly estimates students generated by new housing. Two years ago PAUSD formally stated that past projections of numbers of students generated by new housing radically unpredicted the actual numbers. On several occasions PAUSD has formally stated that additional housing developments will strain the capacity of existing school sites and classroom capacity. Last school year there was exactly one vacant elementary school classroom in the entire district. The low estimate of 23 elementary students from this project would fill that classroom – if it still is available. MM-4, on-site contamination mitigation is both inadequate and a violation of a court order by Judge Nichols which requires that no construction or demolition be done at the site until a full plan for CEQA compliance has been filed per the Court’s Peremptory Writ of Mandate which states “this Court will retain jurisdiction over the CITY’S proceedings by way of a return to this peremptory writ of mandate until the court has determined that the CITY has complied with the provisions of CEQA.” The City was supposed to file a statement with the Court describing how it planned to comply with CEQA by August 2008. That has never been done. The staff report claims that the court ruled that CEQA was complied with. That is incorrect. The court ruled that I did not make specific, detailed claims regarding technical adequacy of the MRD. That is correct, but in the case of this new application, I have made many detailed objections to the MND, supported by EPA policies and actions taken at the Mountain MEW Superfund and Superfund- impacted site and at Moffett Field. The only indoor air sampling required per MM-4-(g) is in the garage, not in residential areas as required by EPA and other jurisdictions such as the City of Mountain View. This is extremely important because the identified safe level for TCE in commercial spaces is 4.1 to 6 micrograms/cubic meter, while in residential spaces the limit is 1 microgram/cubic meter. EPA proposed reducing the safe level of TCE to 0.7 micrograms/cubic meter, with a decision expected this year. The indoor air sampling is inadequate and does not protect public health and safety, it severely risks it because residential areas are not tested, and testing will not be continued over an extended period. Long-time indoor air sampling in residential spaces is essential. Vapor barriers can fail. One such case was a home in the Whisman area of Mountain View built over a site previously occupied by GTE where the aquifer and soil are known to be contaminated with TCE. All homes built at this site have vapor barriers, but when several of them were tested for TCE in indoor air one home showed over 4 micrograms/cubic meter. The vapor barrier underground had failed. The MND acknowledges the high levels of TCE in soil gas but says there is no known source of such levels of TCE on the site. That only means that the site-based source is unknown, it does not mean that the source is from off-site such as the known HP or Varian TCE sources. Such high levels of TCE are certain evidence that spills occurred on site at some time. This issue has been raised before. The Orion Park area of Moffett Field has several local high concentrations of TCE. The Navy insisted that all TCE contamination at Orion Park came from migration of the MEW plume since there was no known use of TCE at Orion Park while it was under Navy control. EPA and NASA disagreed and insisted the Navy is responsible for TCE contamination and mitigation at Orion Park, and they prevailed. The fact that RWQCB (Water Board) approved the overall approach does not mean that it is adequate. We have been trying unsuccessfully for more than 7 years to get the Water Board to adopt normal testing and mitigation against TCE vapor intrusion risks. In June the EPA met with the Water Board trying to get a consistent approach to mitigation of toxics and vapor intrusion both for existing and new buildings at contaminated sites such as this. EPA was unsuccessful in getting Water Board to become more consistent with EPA mitigation requirements. An EPA comment after the meeting was maybe the Water Board does well with water issues. I have been trying to get the Water Board replaced as the oversight agency for all the toxic sites in Palo Alto and am working with Senator Simitian on this effort. Several years ago the Water Board was replaced by EPA at a contaminated site in Mountain View with lower levels of TCE in the water and soil than are present at 195 Page Mill Road. If it happened in Mountain View it can happen in Palo Alto. EPA action level for TCE in soil gas is 4,000 micrograms/cubic meter. The rear third of the site has TCE soil gas concentrations of 23,500 micrograms/cubic meter, 25,000 micrograms/cubic meter and 150,000 micrograms/cubic meter. Samples were taken at 16’, less than 9” under the bottom of the planned basement. Normally EPA discourages basements at such high concentrations of TCE. None of the commercial buildings constructed in the MEW toxic site in Mountain View in the past 10 years have basements. None of the buildings recently built or planned at Moffett Field at the contaminated sites have basements. The MND for the Birch Plaza site 2 blocks from 195 Page Mill Road recommended that no occupied structure be built over the area where TCE soil gas concentration is 6,400 micrograms/cubic meter, 4% of the highest TCE soil gas concentration at 195 Page Mill Road. EPA expressed concerns about putting a basement in an area with such high concentrations of TCE. TCE is a known carcinogen and suspected cause of several other diseases, particularly Parkinson’s. Here are some examples of the impacts of TCE exposure on health: In the Shannon class action which trial has been going on since January 10th 2011 in the superior Court of the District of Quebec, Canada, we have proven through the defendants’ admissions 489 cases of cancer fully documented as of October 31st 2010. The link between these cases of cancer and the TCE exposure was not part of these judicial admissions. We has a large scale postal strike in Canada though the month of June and at that the end of May 2011, the number of cancer cases had increased to 620 but all of those cases from 489 to 620 have not been fully documented yet. This is without talking about the noncancerous health problems suffered by citizens and former citizens of this small community. You may look at our WEB site Veilleux-juris.com which is bilingual (French and English) and which contains links to a CBC Fifth Estate program aired in February 2004 and to a program from the Radio-Canada network called Enquete which is also in both languages. Note that to access our English version of our WEB page, you need to go to the top right side of the MENU and click on ENGLISH. The delay that the EPA takes to finalize its chemical hazard assessments on TCE since its November2009 draft (and of course its 2001 draft) can only play negatively against the victims. Charles A. Veilleux, attorney at law My name is Debbie Vitez. We discovered in August 2005 that our home was contaminated with TCE . My husband passed in November 2010, prior to his passing he had been diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, reynolds phenomena and peripheral neuropathy, and then cancer. I too had peripheral neuropathy and respiratory problems. I found 2 immediate neighbours who also passed from respiratory problems. The lady who discovered the tumor on her thymus has started her own health study for this neighborhood. You can link to it here.. http://www.bishopstreetregistry.net/ Permitting hazardous materials in the R&D space under the residential spaces per MM-4 (h) and (i) is a prescription for disaster. No locations in Palo Alto have commercial or industrial spaces with hazardous materials on the same site as residential units. The Fire Department is grossly understaffed for hazardous materials oversight. There used to be 4 people on that staff, but when 2 of them retired several years ago they were not replaced. The remaining staff is stretched very thin just reviewing new applications for hazardous materials and use of hazardous materials in industrial and commercial sites. They will not be able to track and inspect actual hazardous material storage and use at the R&D sites at 195 Page Mill Road. Depending on site occupants to control types and quantities of hazardous materials on-site is a recipe for disaster. We have had nasty experiences with storage of hazardous and toxic materials at CPI next to Barron Park. On several occasions there have been spills and escape of harmful vapors, directly impacting neighbors who live 50 to 150 feet away. If use of hazardous materials is allowed on site, and if the inadequate indoor air sampling and excavation of a basement over high concentrations of TCE is allowed, this project clearly violates CEQA, protection of public health and safety, and common sense. The Barron Park Association Foundation, of which I am a Board member, has been working on and overseeing the Superfund sites at 640 Page Mil and 1501 Page Mill and the directly impacted area at COE for more than 20 years. We received 2 EPA Technical Assistance Grants to aid in active review of contamination, mitigations, and status of these contaminated areas. We are very familiar with both the site and the issues of toxicity, health and safety. This proposal violates established protocols for mitigation and monitoring at Superfund and Superfund-impacted sites. It also violates CEQA since the MND is inadequate and erroneous and no EIR has been required. This lack of an EIR is particularly odd since there has never before been an application for mixed use with R&D facilities allowed to store and use hazardous materials directly below residential units. This application should be rejected as inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and public health and safety. Any future development on this site should prohibit basements under the rear third of the property, and keep occupied buildings away from this contaminated area unless they are on open podiums so that TCE vapors can be dispersed. The rear of the site can be used for parking and landscaping. Indoor air monitoring of residential spaces must be mandatory and on-going. Yours sincerely, Bob Moss CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL October 3, 2011 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California City Clerk’s Report Certifying Sufficiency of the Petition for Three Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in Palo Alto and Direction to Staff to Prepare Resolution Calling Election in November 2012 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Accept the City Clerk's Certificate of Sufficiency of the Initiative Petition to Permit Three Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in Palo Alto (Initiative Measure) (Attachment A); 2. Direct staff to return at a later meeting with a resolution calling a Special Election for November 6, 2012 on the Initiative Measure; and 3. Provide direction to Staff on whether to pursue additional City Measure. BACKGROUND In 1996, California voters enacted Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act (CUA), now codified in California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5. The CUA permits possession and cultivation of marijuana for limited medical treatment purposes, subject to certain procedural requirements. On January 1, 2004, SB 420, entitled the Medical Marijuana Program (MMP), codified in Health and Safety Code Section 11362.7 et seq., went into effect and clarifies the scope of the CUA. The MMP specifically provides that cities may adopt and enforce laws consistent with these state laws. Proposition 215 and its progeny have been the subject of much litigation. A summary of the major legal issues associated with these provisions is contained in a 2008 Attorney General’s position paper attached as Attachment B. In 1996, the City Council adopted an ordinance prohibiting Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in Palo Alto. This uncodified ordinance is contained in Attachment C. Updated: 9/28/2011 12:33 PM by Sharon Hanks C Page 2 Most recently, on September 1, 2011, the Governor signed AB 1300, which amends Health and Safety Code Section 11362.83, to clarify that cities have the authority to regulate the location, operation, or establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries (MMD). DISCUSSION On July 25, proponents submitted to the City Clerk a signed Initiative to Permit Three Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in Palo Alto (Initiative Measure). (Attachment D.) Summary of Proposed Initiative Ordinance The proposed Initiative Measure adds three new sections to the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The most prominent is the new section 4.20, which provides the City “shall as soon as practicable following the operative date of this ordinance, issue three (3) medical marijuana dispensary permits.” Under the ordinance’s definition, such dispensaries must operate in accordance with California Health & Safety Code §§11365.5-11365.7, the Attorney General’s Instructions on Medical Marijuana Regulation, and the ordinance itself. Under State law, a dispensary must be a “collective” or “cooperative,” made up of four or more members, the purpose of which is to distribute marijuana to the members for medical purposes on a not-for-profit basis.1 A dispensary is not authorized in California to give or receive money or marijuana to non-members. Instead, the State law’s purpose is to “facilitate” the distribution of marijuana to patients with a medical need and/or their primary caregivers. The Initiative Measure sets forth several substantive operating requirements in its section 4.20.140. Among these are that dispensaries may only operate between 9:00am and 10:00pm; that no-one under 18 may be admitted unless such person is a patient and accompanied by a parent or guardian; that no marijuana may be ingested on the premises; that cultivation may occur on the premises provided it occurs in a “secure, locked and fully enclosed structure, including a ceiling, roof or top.” Additionally; no alcoholic beverages would be allowed, the facility must have adequate security, and the proprietors must clean the area around the front door every day during an operating week. All facilities would need to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Finally, all facilities would be precluded from cultivating, distributing or selling marijuana for profit. Proposed section 4.20 Updated: 9/28/2011 12:33 PM by Sharon Hanks C Page 3 also sets forth the procedural requirements for dispensaries, including permitting. Second, the Initiative Measure adds a new section 18.45 to the Zoning Code to address zoning regulations for MMD’s. This section provides that a medical marijuana dispensary as described above would be a permitted use in any commercial or industrial zone. The Initiative Measure contains the following exceptions for “sensitive uses”: · No dispensary permitted within 150 feet of any residential zone; · No dispensary permitted within 600 feet of any public or private school and · No dispensary permitted within 500 feet of any public library, public park, licensed day care center, or substance abuse rehabilitation center. These distances requirements are to be measured in a straight line, as the crow flies, from the primary entrance of the medical marijuana dispensary to the property line of the sensitive use. A dispensary may not be approved as an accessory use to any other permitted use in Palo Alto, and no more than one dispensary may occupy a single building. Finally, the ordinance adds Section 2.49 to the Municipal Code to add a new gross receipts sales tax on MMD’s. In essence, this provision would levy a 4 cent per- dollar tax on the gross receipts of all medical marijuana dispensaries, for general government purposes.2 The section also sets forth the relevant procedural steps of paying the tax, and powers of the City to collect the tax The Initiative Measure provides that it becomes operative the day following its adoption or enactment Election Requirements The Initiative Measure has been checked by the Registrar of Voters and found to contain 4,859 valid signatures. A copy of the Certificate of Sufficiency of the Initiative Petition, dated August 4, 2011, is attached as Attachment A. Accordingly, the City Council must either adopt the Initiative Measure or place it on the ballot. There are several State and local statutory schemes that govern whether the Initiative should be voted on at a Special Election or at a General Municipal Updated: 9/28/2011 12:33 PM by Sharon Hanks C Page 4 Election (i.e. November 2012). The overarching provision is the Constitutional requirement under Article XIIIC, Sec. 2(b) that general tax elections must be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election for members of the governing body of the local government (GME). Because the Initiative seeks to impose a general tax (gross receipts tax) on MMD’s, it is governed by XIIIC of the California Constitution and must be consolidated with a GME. The next Council member election is November 2012.3 Because the Initiative Measure imposes a General Tax that would go into the City’s General Fund (rather than a Special Tax earmarked for a specific purpose), to pass it requires a majority vote of the electorate (50% + 1). Council Options The Council has several options to consider: 1.The Council may adopt the Initiative Measure itself. If this option were selected, staff would come back with a staff report adopting the ordinance and no election would be required. 2.Alternatively, if Council does not adopt the Initiative Measure, it must place the measure on the ballot. Under this option, staff would come back with a Resolution calling an election on the Initiative Measure to be consolidated with the November 6, 2012 GME. Staff typically returns in May or June 2012 with a resolution calling a November election. 3.In addition, to options 1 and 2, the Council could pursue a City measure in this area. Where there are two different measures on the same topic in the same election, the general rule is that the court will first attempt to harmonize the measures. If this is not possible, the general rule is that the measure with the most votes will pass. A city measure could take many forms, including an outright ban, to more restrictive locational requirements to less restrictive locational requirements. If these requirements were consistent with the Initiative Measure, a simple majority vote would be required for the City measure to pass. On the other hand, if Council desires to override specific locational or operational provisions of the Initiative Measure itself, the City measure would need to receive more votes than the Initiative Measure. If Council wants to pursue a City measure, staff recommends that the Council direct staff to return to Council in the next couple of months with further analysis. Updated: 9/28/2011 12:33 PM by Sharon Hanks C Page 5 Further Staff Research This area of regulation is a quickly evolving field and staff will continue to monitor court cases and legislation. While the information has not been verified, Americans for Safe Access conducted a study in February 2011 of California cities and counties that have adopted ordinances regulating dispensaries and found that 48 cities and 12 counties regulate MMD’s; 81 cities and ten counties have moratoriums and 168 cities and 17 counties have bans (see Attachment E).4 Staff is in the process of researching potential secondary impacts that could flow from the permitting of MMD’s in the City. See for example impacts that could flow from the permitting of MMD’s in the City from a white paper prepared by the California Police Chief’s Association’s Task Force on Marijuana Dispensaries in April 2009 http://www.counties.org/images/users/1/Medi%20Marijuana%20CPCA%20White%20Paper.pdf. In addition, staff is mapping with the aid of its existing GIS system potential locations where an MMD would be permitted under the proposed initiative. Council may also request staff to return with additional information regarding this measure. RESOURCE IMPACT This past May, the Registrar of Voters gave the City a cost estimate of $72,000 for a measure to be included with our General Municipal Election in November of 2012. These costs do not include the costs of legal notices that would cost approximately $20,000. Generally the costs of General Municipal Elections are less than Special Elections. // // // // // // Updated: 9/28/2011 12:33 PM by Sharon Hanks C Page 6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Initiative measures are statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. ________ 1A “cooperative,” or “co-op” is a statutory entity that must abide by strict rules laid out in the California Corporations Code, § 12200, et seq. A “collective,” on the other hand, is not defined by statute. However, the idea behind both organizations is the same: they must exist as a not-for-profit “closed-circuit” for the benefit of its members. As such, they “should not purchase marijuana from, or sell to, non-members; instead, it should only provide a means for facilitating or coordinating transactions between members.” Atty. Gen’l. Instructions (2007) IV(a)(1), (2). 2The Initiative Measure defines gross receipts as “the total amount actually received or receivable from all donations, transactions and sales; the total amount or compensation actually received or receivable for performance of any act or service, of whatever nature it may be, for which a charge is made or credit allowed, whether or not such act or service is down as a part of or in connection with the sale of materials, goods, wares or merchandise; discounts rents royalties, fees, commissions, dividends and gains realized from trading in stocks and bonds, however designated. Included in “gross receipts” shall be all receipts, cash, credits and property of any kind or nature, without any deduction therefrom on account of the cost of the property sold, the cost of materials used, labor or service costs, interest paid or payable, or losses or other expenses whatsoever.” The ordinance lists 13 excluded expenses. Initiative Section 2.49.020(b)(1)-(13). 3It should be noted that while the Initiative received enough signatures to qualify for a Special Election under the Charter, the Charter also provides that no more than one Special Election shall be conducted in any twelve month period. A similar provision exists in the State Election Code and is intended to minimize election costs borne by the City. Because a Special Election is being conducted in November 2011, another Special Election cannot be conducted until at least November 2012. In addition, the California Constitutional provision trumps the charter in this area 4The survey compiled by Americans for Safe Access appears to be the most comprehensive publicly available list, although,staff has not yet verified the completeness and accuracy of all the data. At first blush there appear to be some missing information. For example, while Palo has an existing MMD ban, it is not included under the ban category. ATTACHMENTS: ·a:A: Certificate of Sufficiency of Initiative Petition (PDF) ·b:B: 2008 Attorney General Guidance Paper (PDF) ·c:C: Uncodified Ordinance Prohibiting Medical Marijuana Dispensaries (PDF) ·d:D: Medical Marijuana 2011 Ordinance Initiative (PDF) ·e:E: Moratoria-Ban-Ordinance (PDF) Department Head:Donna Grider, City Clerk Updated: 9/28/2011 12:33 PM by Sharon Hanks C Page 7 - 1 - EDMUND G. BROWN JR. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Attorney General State of California GUIDELINES FOR THE SECURITY AND NON-DIVERSION OF MARIJUANA GROWN FOR MEDICAL USE August 2008 In 1996, California voters approved an initiative that exempted certain patients and their primary caregivers from criminal liability under state law for the possession and cultivation of marijuana. In 2003, the Legislature enacted additional legislation relating to medical marijuana. One of those statutes requires the Attorney General to adopt “guidelines to ensure the security and nondiversion of marijuana grown for medical use.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.81(d).1) To fulfill this mandate, this Office is issuing the following guidelines to (1) ensure that marijuana grown for medical purposes remains secure and does not find its way to non-patients or illicit markets, (2) help law enforcement agencies perform their duties effectively and in accordance with California law, and (3) help patients and primary caregivers understand how they may cultivate, transport, possess, and use medical marijuana under California law. I. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE LAW A. California Penal Provisions Relating to Marijuana. The possession, sale, cultivation, or transportation of marijuana is ordinarily a crime under California law. (See, e.g., § 11357 [possession of marijuana is a misdemeanor]; § 11358 [cultivation of marijuana is a felony]; Veh. Code, § 23222 [possession of less than 1 oz. of marijuana while driving is a misdemeanor]; § 11359 [possession with intent to sell any amount of marijuana is a felony]; § 11360 [transporting, selling, or giving away marijuana in California is a felony; under 28.5 grams is a misdemeanor]; § 11361 [selling or distributing marijuana to minors, or using a minor to transport, sell, or give away marijuana, is a felony].) B. Proposition 215 - The Compassionate Use Act of 1996. On November 5, 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215, which decriminalized the cultivation and use of marijuana by seriously ill individuals upon a physician’s recommendation. (§ 11362.5.) Proposition 215 was enacted to “ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person’s health would benefit from the use of marijuana,” and to “ensure that patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for 1 Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to the Health & Safety Code. - 2 - medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction.” (§ 11362.5(b)(1)(A)-(B).) The Act further states that “Section 11357, relating to the possession of marijuana, and Section 11358, relating to the cultivation of marijuana, shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient’s primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or verbal recommendation or approval of a physician.” (§ 11362.5(d).) Courts have found an implied defense to the transportation of medical marijuana when the “quantity transported and the method, timing and distance of the transportation are reasonably related to the patient’s current medical needs.” (People v. Trippet (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1551.) C. Senate Bill 420 - The Medical Marijuana Program Act. On January 1, 2004, Senate Bill 420, the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMP), became law. (§§ 11362.7-11362.83.) The MMP, among other things, requires the California Department of Public Health (DPH) to establish and maintain a program for the voluntary registration of qualified medical marijuana patients and their primary caregivers through a statewide identification card system. Medical marijuana identification cards are intended to help law enforcement officers identify and verify that cardholders are able to cultivate, possess, and transport certain amounts of marijuana without being subject to arrest under specific conditions. (§§ 11362.71(e), 11362.78.) It is mandatory that all counties participate in the identification card program by (a) providing applications upon request to individuals seeking to join the identification card program; (b) processing completed applications; (c) maintaining certain records; (d) following state implementation protocols; and (e) issuing DPH identification cards to approved applicants and designated primary caregivers. (§ 11362.71(b).) Participation by patients and primary caregivers in the identification card program is voluntary. However, because identification cards offer the holder protection from arrest, are issued only after verification of the cardholder’s status as a qualified patient or primary caregiver, and are immediately verifiable online or via telephone, they represent one of the best ways to ensure the security and non-diversion of marijuana grown for medical use. In addition to establishing the identification card program, the MMP also defines certain terms, sets possession guidelines for cardholders, and recognizes a qualified right to collective and cooperative cultivation of medical marijuana. (§§ 11362.7, 11362.77, 11362.775.) D. Taxability of Medical Marijuana Transactions. In February 2007, the California State Board of Equalization (BOE) issued a Special Notice confirming its policy of taxing medical marijuana transactions, as well as its requirement that businesses engaging in such transactions hold a Seller’s Permit. (http://www.boe.ca.gov/news/pdf/medseller2007.pdf.) According to the Notice, having a Seller’s Permit does not allow individuals to make unlawful sales, but instead merely provides a way to remit any sales and use taxes due. BOE further clarified its policy in a - 3 - June 2007 Special Notice that addressed several frequently asked questions concerning taxation of medical marijuana transactions. (http://www.boe.ca.gov/news/pdf/173.pdf.) E. Medical Board of California. The Medical Board of California licenses, investigates, and disciplines California physicians. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 2000, et seq.) Although state law prohibits punishing a physician simply for recommending marijuana for treatment of a serious medical condition (§ 11362.5(c)), the Medical Board can and does take disciplinary action against physicians who fail to comply with accepted medical standards when recommending marijuana. In a May 13, 2004 press release, the Medical Board clarified that these accepted standards are the same ones that a reasonable and prudent physician would follow when recommending or approving any medication. They include the following: 1. Taking a history and conducting a good faith examination of the patient; 2. Developing a treatment plan with objectives; 3. Providing informed consent, including discussion of side effects; 4. Periodically reviewing the treatment’s efficacy; 5. Consultations, as necessary; and 6. Keeping proper records supporting the decision to recommend the use of medical marijuana. (http://www.mbc.ca.gov/board/media/releases_2004_05-13_marijuana.html.) Complaints about physicians should be addressed to the Medical Board (1-800-633-2322 or www.mbc.ca.gov), which investigates and prosecutes alleged licensing violations in conjunction with the Attorney General’s Office. F. The Federal Controlled Substances Act. Adopted in 1970, the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) established a federal regulatory system designed to combat recreational drug abuse by making it unlawful to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess any controlled substance. (21 U.S.C. § 801, et seq.; Gonzales v. Oregon (2006) 546 U.S. 243, 271-273.) The CSA reflects the federal government’s view that marijuana is a drug with “no currently accepted medical use.” (21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1).) Accordingly, the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana is a federal criminal offense. (Id. at §§ 841(a)(1), 844(a).) The incongruity between federal and state law has given rise to understandable confusion, but no legal conflict exists merely because state law and federal law treat marijuana differently. Indeed, California’s medical marijuana laws have been challenged unsuccessfully in court on the ground that they are preempted by the CSA. (County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML (July 31, 2008) --- Cal.Rptr.3d ---, 2008 WL 2930117.) Congress has provided that states are free to regulate in the area of controlled substances, including marijuana, provided that state law does not positively conflict with the CSA. (21 U.S.C. § 903.) Neither Proposition 215, nor the MMP, conflict with the CSA because, in adopting these laws, California did not “legalize” medical marijuana, but instead exercised the state’s reserved powers to not punish certain marijuana offenses under state law when a physician has recommended its use to treat a serious medical condition. (See City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court (Kha) (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 355, 371-373, 381-382.) - 4 - In light of California’s decision to remove the use and cultivation of physician- recommended marijuana from the scope of the state’s drug laws, this Office recommends that state and local law enforcement officers not arrest individuals or seize marijuana under federal law when the officer determines from the facts available that the cultivation, possession, or transportation is permitted under California’s medical marijuana laws. II. DEFINITIONS A. Physician’s Recommendation: Physicians may not prescribe marijuana because the federal Food and Drug Administration regulates prescription drugs and, under the CSA, marijuana is a Schedule I drug, meaning that it has no recognized medical use. Physicians may, however, lawfully issue a verbal or written recommendation under California law indicating that marijuana would be a beneficial treatment for a serious medical condition. (§ 11362.5(d); Conant v. Walters (9th Cir. 2002) 309 F.3d 629, 632.) B. Primary Caregiver: A primary caregiver is a person who is designated by a qualified patient and “has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety” of the patient. (§ 11362.5(e).) California courts have emphasized the consistency element of the patient-caregiver relationship. Although a “primary caregiver who consistently grows and supplies . . . medicinal marijuana for a section 11362.5 patient is serving a health need of the patient,” someone who merely maintains a source of marijuana does not automatically become the party “who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety” of that purchaser. (People ex rel. Lungren v. Peron (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1390, 1400.) A person may serve as primary caregiver to “more than one” patient, provided that the patients and caregiver all reside in the same city or county. (§ 11362.7(d)(2).) Primary caregivers also may receive certain compensation for their services. (§ 11362.765(c) [“A primary caregiver who receives compensation for actual expenses, including reasonable compensation incurred for services provided . . . to enable [a patient] to use marijuana under this article, or for payment for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in providing those services, or both, . . . shall not, on the sole basis of that fact, be subject to prosecution” for possessing or transporting marijuana].) C. Qualified Patient: A qualified patient is a person whose physician has recommended the use of marijuana to treat a serious illness, including cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief. (§ 11362.5(b)(1)(A).) D. Recommending Physician: A recommending physician is a person who (1) possesses a license in good standing to practice medicine in California; (2) has taken responsibility for some aspect of the medical care, treatment, diagnosis, counseling, or referral of a patient; and (3) has complied with accepted medical standards (as described by the Medical Board of California in its May 13, 2004 press release) that a reasonable and prudent physician would follow when recommending or approving medical marijuana for the treatment of his or her patient. - 5 - III. GUIDELINES REGARDING INDIVIDUAL QUALIFIED PATIENTS AND PRIMARY CAREGIVERS A. State Law Compliance Guidelines. 1. Physician Recommendation: Patients must have a written or verbal recommendation for medical marijuana from a licensed physician. (§ 11362.5(d).) 2. State of California Medical Marijuana Identification Card: Under the MMP, qualified patients and their primary caregivers may voluntarily apply for a card issued by DPH identifying them as a person who is authorized to use, possess, or transport marijuana grown for medical purposes. To help law enforcement officers verify the cardholder’s identity, each card bears a unique identification number, and a verification database is available online (www.calmmp.ca.gov). In addition, the cards contain the name of the county health department that approved the application, a 24-hour verification telephone number, and an expiration date. (§§ 11362.71(a); 11362.735(a)(3)-(4); 11362.745.) 3. Proof of Qualified Patient Status: Although verbal recommendations are technically permitted under Proposition 215, patients should obtain and carry written proof of their physician recommendations to help them avoid arrest. A state identification card is the best form of proof, because it is easily verifiable and provides immunity from arrest if certain conditions are met (see section III.B.4, below). The next best forms of proof are a city- or county-issued patient identification card, or a written recommendation from a physician. 4. Possession Guidelines: a) MMP:2 Qualified patients and primary caregivers who possess a state- issued identification card may possess 8 oz. of dried marijuana, and may maintain no more than 6 mature or 12 immature plants per qualified patient. (§ 11362.77(a).) But, if “a qualified patient or primary caregiver has a doctor’s recommendation that this quantity does not meet the qualified patient’s medical needs, the qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess an amount of marijuana consistent with the patient’s needs.” (§ 11362.77(b).) Only the dried mature processed flowers or buds of the female cannabis plant should be considered when determining allowable quantities of medical marijuana for purposes of the MMP. (§ 11362.77(d).) b) Local Possession Guidelines: Counties and cities may adopt regulations that allow qualified patients or primary caregivers to possess 2 On May 22, 2008, California’s Second District Court of Appeal severed Health & Safety Code § 11362.77 from the MMP on the ground that the statute’s possession guidelines were an unconstitutional amendment of Proposition 215, which does not quantify the marijuana a patient may possess. (See People v. Kelly (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 124, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 390.) The Third District Court of Appeal recently reached a similar conclusion in People v. Phomphakdy (July 31, 2008) --- Cal.Rptr.3d ---, 2008 WL 2931369. The California Supreme Court has granted review in Kelly and the Attorney General intends to seek review in Phomphakdy. - 6 - medical marijuana in amounts that exceed the MMP’s possession guidelines. (§ 11362.77(c).) c) Proposition 215: Qualified patients claiming protection under Proposition 215 may possess an amount of marijuana that is “reasonably related to [their] current medical needs.” (People v. Trippet (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1549.) B. Enforcement Guidelines. 1. Location of Use: Medical marijuana may not be smoked (a) where smoking is prohibited by law, (b) at or within 1000 feet of a school, recreation center, or youth center (unless the medical use occurs within a residence), (c) on a school bus, or (d) in a moving motor vehicle or boat. (§ 11362.79.) 2. Use of Medical Marijuana in the Workplace or at Correctional Facilities: The medical use of marijuana need not be accommodated in the workplace, during work hours, or at any jail, correctional facility, or other penal institution. (§ 11362.785(a); Ross v. RagingWire Telecomms., Inc. (2008) 42 Cal.4th 920, 933 [under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, an employer may terminate an employee who tests positive for marijuana use].) 3. Criminal Defendants, Probationers, and Parolees: Criminal defendants and probationers may request court approval to use medical marijuana while they are released on bail or probation. The court’s decision and reasoning must be stated on the record and in the minutes of the court. Likewise, parolees who are eligible to use medical marijuana may request that they be allowed to continue such use during the period of parole. The written conditions of parole must reflect whether the request was granted or denied. (§ 11362.795.) 4. State of California Medical Marijuana Identification Cardholders: When a person invokes the protections of Proposition 215 or the MMP and he or she possesses a state medical marijuana identification card, officers should: a) Review the identification card and verify its validity either by calling the telephone number printed on the card, or by accessing DPH’s card verification website (http://www.calmmp.ca.gov); and b) If the card is valid and not being used fraudulently, there are no other indicia of illegal activity (weapons, illicit drugs, or excessive amounts of cash), and the person is within the state or local possession guidelines, the individual should be released and the marijuana should not be seized. Under the MMP, “no person or designated primary caregiver in possession of a valid state medical marijuana identification card shall be subject to arrest for possession, transportation, delivery, or cultivation of medical marijuana.” (§ 11362.71(e).) Further, a “state or local law enforcement agency or officer shall not refuse to accept an identification card issued by the department unless the state or local law enforcement agency or officer - 7 - has reasonable cause to believe that the information contained in the card is false or fraudulent, or the card is being used fraudulently.” (§ 11362.78.) 5. Non-Cardholders: When a person claims protection under Proposition 215 or the MMP and only has a locally-issued (i.e., non-state) patient identification card, or a written (or verbal) recommendation from a licensed physician, officers should use their sound professional judgment to assess the validity of the person’s medical-use claim: a) Officers need not abandon their search or investigation. The standard search and seizure rules apply to the enforcement of marijuana-related violations. Reasonable suspicion is required for detention, while probable cause is required for search, seizure, and arrest. b) Officers should review any written documentation for validity. It may contain the physician’s name, telephone number, address, and license number. c) If the officer reasonably believes that the medical-use claim is valid based upon the totality of the circumstances (including the quantity of marijuana, packaging for sale, the presence of weapons, illicit drugs, or large amounts of cash), and the person is within the state or local possession guidelines or has an amount consistent with their current medical needs, the person should be released and the marijuana should not be seized. d) Alternatively, if the officer has probable cause to doubt the validity of a person’s medical marijuana claim based upon the facts and circumstances, the person may be arrested and the marijuana may be seized. It will then be up to the person to establish his or her medical marijuana defense in court. e) Officers are not obligated to accept a person’s claim of having a verbal physician’s recommendation that cannot be readily verified with the physician at the time of detention. 6. Exceeding Possession Guidelines: If a person has what appears to be valid medical marijuana documentation, but exceeds the applicable possession guidelines identified above, all marijuana may be seized. 7. Return of Seized Medical Marijuana: If a person whose marijuana is seized by law enforcement successfully establishes a medical marijuana defense in court, or the case is not prosecuted, he or she may file a motion for return of the marijuana. If a court grants the motion and orders the return of marijuana seized incident to an arrest, the individual or entity subject to the order must return the property. State law enforcement officers who handle controlled substances in the course of their official duties are immune from liability under the CSA. (21 U.S.C. § 885(d).) Once the marijuana is returned, federal authorities are free to exercise jurisdiction over it. (21 U.S.C. §§ 812(c)(10), 844(a); City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court (Kha) (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 355, 369, 386, 391.) - 8 - IV. GUIDELINES REGARDING COLLECTIVES AND COOPERATIVES Under California law, medical marijuana patients and primary caregivers may “associate within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes.” (§ 11362.775.) The following guidelines are meant to apply to qualified patients and primary caregivers who come together to collectively or cooperatively cultivate physician-recommended marijuana. A. Business Forms: Any group that is collectively or cooperatively cultivating and distributing marijuana for medical purposes should be organized and operated in a manner that ensures the security of the crop and safeguards against diversion for non-medical purposes. The following are guidelines to help cooperatives and collectives operate within the law, and to help law enforcement determine whether they are doing so. 1. Statutory Cooperatives: A cooperative must file articles of incorporation with the state and conduct its business for the mutual benefit of its members. (Corp. Code, § 12201, 12300.) No business may call itself a “cooperative” (or “co- op”) unless it is properly organized and registered as such a corporation under the Corporations or Food and Agricultural Code. (Id. at § 12311(b).) Cooperative corporations are “democratically controlled and are not organized to make a profit for themselves, as such, or for their members, as such, but primarily for their members as patrons.” (Id. at § 12201.) The earnings and savings of the business must be used for the general welfare of its members or equitably distributed to members in the form of cash, property, credits, or services. (Ibid.) Cooperatives must follow strict rules on organization, articles, elections, and distribution of earnings, and must report individual transactions from individual members each year. (See id. at § 12200, et seq.) Agricultural cooperatives are likewise nonprofit corporate entities “since they are not organized to make profit for themselves, as such, or for their members, as such, but only for their members as producers.” (Food & Agric. Code, § 54033.) Agricultural cooperatives share many characteristics with consumer cooperatives. (See, e.g., id. at § 54002, et seq.) Cooperatives should not purchase marijuana from, or sell to, non-members; instead, they should only provide a means for facilitating or coordinating transactions between members. 2. Collectives: California law does not define collectives, but the dictionary defines them as “a business, farm, etc., jointly owned and operated by the members of a group.” (Random House Unabridged Dictionary; Random House, Inc. © 2006.) Applying this definition, a collective should be an organization that merely facilitates the collaborative efforts of patient and caregiver members – including the allocation of costs and revenues. As such, a collective is not a statutory entity, but as a practical matter it might have to organize as some form of business to carry out its activities. The collective should not purchase marijuana from, or sell to, non-members; instead, it should only provide a means for facilitating or coordinating transactions between members. - 9 - B. Guidelines for the Lawful Operation of a Cooperative or Collective: Collectives and cooperatives should be organized with sufficient structure to ensure security, non-diversion of marijuana to illicit markets, and compliance with all state and local laws. The following are some suggested guidelines and practices for operating collective growing operations to help ensure lawful operation. 1. Non-Profit Operation: Nothing in Proposition 215 or the MMP authorizes collectives, cooperatives, or individuals to profit from the sale or distribution of marijuana. (See, e.g., § 11362.765(a) [“nothing in this section shall authorize . . . any individual or group to cultivate or distribute marijuana for profit”]. 2. Business Licenses, Sales Tax, and Seller’s Permits: The State Board of Equalization has determined that medical marijuana transactions are subject to sales tax, regardless of whether the individual or group makes a profit, and those engaging in transactions involving medical marijuana must obtain a Seller’s Permit. Some cities and counties also require dispensing collectives and cooperatives to obtain business licenses. 3. Membership Application and Verification: When a patient or primary caregiver wishes to join a collective or cooperative, the group can help prevent the diversion of marijuana for non-medical use by having potential members complete a written membership application. The following application guidelines should be followed to help ensure that marijuana grown for medical use is not diverted to illicit markets: a) Verify the individual’s status as a qualified patient or primary caregiver. Unless he or she has a valid state medical marijuana identification card, this should involve personal contact with the recommending physician (or his or her agent), verification of the physician’s identity, as well as his or her state licensing status. Verification of primary caregiver status should include contact with the qualified patient, as well as validation of the patient’s recommendation. Copies should be made of the physician’s recommendation or identification card, if any; b) Have the individual agree not to distribute marijuana to non-members; c) Have the individual agree not to use the marijuana for other than medical purposes; d) Maintain membership records on-site or have them reasonably available; e) Track when members’ medical marijuana recommendation and/or identification cards expire; and f) Enforce conditions of membership by excluding members whose identification card or physician recommendation are invalid or have expired, or who are caught diverting marijuana for non-medical use. - 10 - 4. Collectives Should Acquire, Possess, and Distribute Only Lawfully Cultivated Marijuana: Collectives and cooperatives should acquire marijuana only from their constituent members, because only marijuana grown by a qualified patient or his or her primary caregiver may lawfully be transported by, or distributed to, other members of a collective or cooperative. (§§ 11362.765, 11362.775.) The collective or cooperative may then allocate it to other members of the group. Nothing allows marijuana to be purchased from outside the collective or cooperative for distribution to its members. Instead, the cycle should be a closed- circuit of marijuana cultivation and consumption with no purchases or sales to or from non-members. To help prevent diversion of medical marijuana to non- medical markets, collectives and cooperatives should document each member’s contribution of labor, resources, or money to the enterprise. They also should track and record the source of their marijuana. 5. Distribution and Sales to Non-Members are Prohibited: State law allows primary caregivers to be reimbursed for certain services (including marijuana cultivation), but nothing allows individuals or groups to sell or distribute marijuana to non-members. Accordingly, a collective or cooperative may not distribute medical marijuana to any person who is not a member in good standing of the organization. A dispensing collective or cooperative may credit its members for marijuana they provide to the collective, which it may then allocate to other members. (§ 11362.765(c).) Members also may reimburse the collective or cooperative for marijuana that has been allocated to them. Any monetary reimbursement that members provide to the collective or cooperative should only be an amount necessary to cover overhead costs and operating expenses. 6. Permissible Reimbursements and Allocations: Marijuana grown at a collective or cooperative for medical purposes may be: a) Provided free to qualified patients and primary caregivers who are members of the collective or cooperative; b) Provided in exchange for services rendered to the entity; c) Allocated based on fees that are reasonably calculated to cover overhead costs and operating expenses; or d) Any combination of the above. 7. Possession and Cultivation Guidelines: If a person is acting as primary caregiver to more than one patient under section 11362.7(d)(2), he or she may aggregate the possession and cultivation limits for each patient. For example, applying the MMP’s basic possession guidelines, if a caregiver is responsible for three patients, he or she may possess up to 24 oz. of marijuana (8 oz. per patient) and may grow 18 mature or 36 immature plants. Similarly, collectives and cooperatives may cultivate and transport marijuana in aggregate amounts tied to its membership numbers. Any patient or primary caregiver exceeding individual possession guidelines should have supporting records readily available when: a) Operating a location for cultivation; b) Transporting the group’s medical marijuana; and c) Operating a location for distribution to members of the collective or cooperative. - 11 - 8. Security: Collectives and cooperatives should provide adequate security to ensure that patients are safe and that the surrounding homes or businesses are not negatively impacted by nuisance activity such as loitering or crime. Further, to maintain security, prevent fraud, and deter robberies, collectives and cooperatives should keep accurate records and follow accepted cash handling practices, including regular bank runs and cash drops, and maintain a general ledger of cash transactions. C. Enforcement Guidelines: Depending upon the facts and circumstances, deviations from the guidelines outlined above, or other indicia that marijuana is not for medical use, may give rise to probable cause for arrest and seizure. The following are additional guidelines to help identify medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives that are operating outside of state law. 1. Storefront Dispensaries: Although medical marijuana “dispensaries” have been operating in California for years, dispensaries, as such, are not recognized under the law. As noted above, the only recognized group entities are cooperatives and collectives. (§ 11362.775.) It is the opinion of this Office that a properly organized and operated collective or cooperative that dispenses medical marijuana through a storefront may be lawful under California law, but that dispensaries that do not substantially comply with the guidelines set forth in sections IV(A) and (B), above, are likely operating outside the protections of Proposition 215 and the MMP, and that the individuals operating such entities may be subject to arrest and criminal prosecution under California law. For example, dispensaries that merely require patients to complete a form summarily designating the business owner as their primary caregiver – and then offering marijuana in exchange for cash “donations” – are likely unlawful. (Peron, supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at p. 1400 [cannabis club owner was not the primary caregiver to thousands of patients where he did not consistently assume responsibility for their housing, health, or safety].) 2. Indicia of Unlawful Operation: When investigating collectives or cooperatives, law enforcement officers should be alert for signs of mass production or illegal sales, including (a) excessive amounts of marijuana, (b) excessive amounts of cash, (c) failure to follow local and state laws applicable to similar businesses, such as maintenance of any required licenses and payment of any required taxes, including sales taxes, (d) weapons, (e) illicit drugs, (f) purchases from, or sales or distribution to, non-members, or (g) distribution outside of California. City Ordinances (48) Albany Angels Camp Berkeley Citrus Heights Clearlake Cotati Diamond Bar Dunsmuir El Cajon El Centro Eureka Fairfax Fort Bragg Garden Grove Jackson La Puente Laguna Woods Long Beach Los Angeles Malibu Mammoth Lakes Martinez Napa Oakland Palm Springs Placerville Plymouth Redding Richmond Ripon Sacramento San Carlos San Francisco San Jose San Mateo Santa Barbara Santa Cruz Santa Rosa Sebastopol Selma South El Monte South Lake Tahoe Stockton Tulare Visalia West Hollywood Whittier Yucca Valley County Ordinances (12) Alameda Calaveras Lake Modoc San Diego San Luis Obispo San Mateo Santa Barbara Santa Clara Santa Cruz Sonoma Stanislaus City Moratoriums (81) Adelanto Aliso Viejo American Canyon Anderson Antioch Arcata Atwater Baldwin Park Banning Beverly Hills Blue Lake Brea Calexico Calimesa Carpinteria Carson Coachella Colton Corte Madera Daly City Danville Downey Dunsmuir Etna Fairfax Farmington Hills Fillmore Fountain Valley Galt Greenfield Half Moon Bay Ione La Habra Lafayette Laguna Beach Livingston Loomis Los Altos Marin City Mill Valley Monterey Moreno Valley Morro Bay Mount Shasta Mountain View National City Novato Oakdale Orange Orinda Orland Oroville Paradise Perris Porterville Poway Rancho Cordova Rancho Cucamonga Red Bluff Redlands Redwood City Rio Dell Rosemead Salinas San Dimas San Fernando San Juan Bautista San Ramon Sausalito Shasta Lake Signal Hill Soledad South Gate Tehachapi Temple City Victorville Walnut Creek Watsonville West Sacramento Westlake Village Yreka County Moratoriums (10) Butte Colusa Fresno Glenn Kings Santa Cruz Shasta Solano Trinity Tulare City Bans (168) Alameda Anaheim Arroyo Grande Atascadero Auburn Azusa Barstow Beaumont Benicia Blythe Brawley Brentwood Buellton Buena Park Calabasas Calistoga Camarillo Ceres Chino Chula Vista Claremont Cloverdale Clovis Colma Concord Corning Corona Costa Mesa Cypress Davis Dixon Desert Hot Springs Downey Dublin East Palo Alto El Cerrito Elk Grove Emeryville Escalon Escondido Fairfield Folsom Fontana Fortuna Fremont Fresno Fullerton Gardena Gilroy Glendale Goleta Grand Terrace Grass Valley Grover Beach Guadalupe Hawthorne Hayward Healdsburg Hemet Hercules Hermosa Beach Hesperia Highland Hollister Holtville Huntington Beach Imperial Imperial Beach Indian Wells Indio Inglewood La Canada La Mirada La Palma La Quinta Laguna Hills Laguna Niguel Lake Elsinore Lake Forest Lawndale Livermore Lincoln Lodi Loma Linda Lompoc Los Banos Los Gatos Manhattan Beach Manteca Marina Menifee Merced Millbrae Mission Viejo Modesto Montclair Monterey Park Moorpark Moraga Morgan Hill Murrieta Nevada City Newark Norco Oakdale Oakley Ontario Pacific Grove Palm Desert Palos Verdes Estates* Pasadena Paso Robles Patterson Petaluma Pico Rivera Pinole Pismo Beach Pittsburgh Placentia Pleasant Hill Pleasanton Rancho Mirage Redondo Beach Ridgecrest Rio Vista Riverbank Riverside Rocklin Rohnert Park Roseville San Bernardino San Bruno San Jacinto San Juan Capistrano San Luis Obispo San Marcos San Pablo San Rafael Santa Ana Santa Clarita Santa Maria Santee Scotts Valley Seal Beach Seaside Simi Valley Solvang Sonora South San Francisco Sunnyvale Susanville Sutter Creek Temecula Torrance Turlock Tustin Ukiah Union City Upland Vacaville Vista Wildomar Willits Windsor Woodland Yountville Yuba City Yucaipa County Bans (17) Amador Contra Costa* El Dorado Kern Lassen Los Angeles Madera Merced Nevada Orange Placer Riverside San Benito San Bernardino San Joaquin Sutter Tehama *Ban ordinance allows for one dispensary.